Why Is the Penitential Rite Sometimes Omitted?

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnmann
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

johnmann

Guest
Conferral of Baptism
Presentation
Ash Wednesday
Palm Sunday
Wedding
Funeral

That seems like a list of random Masses but those are the Masses during which the Penitential Rite is omitted. They seem to have absolutely nothing in common. I’m unable to find why this was decided. Anybody?
 
Conferral of Baptism
Presentation
Ash Wednesday
Palm Sunday
Wedding
Funeral

That seems like a list of random Masses but those are the Masses during which the Penitential Rite is omitted. They seem to have absolutely nothing in common. I’m unable to find why this was decided. Anybody?
Off the top of my head I can’t say why other than for those Masses where there is a sprinkling rite.

But the general answer is that there is another rite (such as the sprinkling rite) which serves the same purpose as the the Penitential Rite.
 
Penitential Rite is never omitted in Mass. The Church has different verses to use and they are all good. The priest can choose to say “I confess to almighty God and to you my brothers and sisters…”, or to say “You are sent to heal the contrite, Lord have mercy”, and we respond “Lord have mercy”…

Penitential Rite is part of the Mass, it is never omitted.
 
Penitential Rite is never omitted in Mass. The Church has different verses to use and they are all good. The priest can choose to say “I confess to almighty God and to you my brothers and sisters…”, or to say “You are sent to heal the contrite, Lord have mercy”, and we respond “Lord have mercy”…

Penitential Rite is part of the Mass, it is never omitted.
It is omitted in certain special cases such as Ash Wednesday.
 
Conferral of Baptism
Presentation
Ash Wednesday
Palm Sunday
Wedding
Funeral

That seems like a list of random Masses but those are the Masses during which the Penitential Rite is omitted. They seem to have absolutely nothing in common. I’m unable to find why this was decided. Anybody?
The rationale behind it is supposedly that if there is some other rite within that Mass that “takes the place” of the penitential rite, then it is “omitted.”

Personally, I think it’s a poor choice of words to say it’s “omitted” but it says what it says.

It’s an odd quark, really. The procession with palms (only the solemn form though) somehow takes the place of the penitential rite (don’t ask me how).

The greeting the casket at the door and sprinkling with holy water is likewise supposed to somehow be a penitential rite.

I can understand Ash Wednesday (just a little bit).

I think this is one of those things that truly -]calls/-] for a reform of the reform. No, make that “screams out.”
 
The rationale behind it is supposedly that if there is some other rite within that Mass that “takes the place” of the penitential rite, then it is “omitted.”

Personally, I think it’s a poor choice of words to say it’s “omitted” but it says what it says.

It’s an odd quark, really. The procession with palms (only the solemn form though) somehow takes the place of the penitential rite (don’t ask me how).

The greeting the casket at the door and sprinkling with holy water is likewise supposed to somehow be a penitential rite.

I can understand Ash Wednesday (just a little bit).

I think this is one of those things that truly -]calls/-] for a reform of the reform. No, make that “screams out.”
Father, what would you do if in your parish there was NEVER a penitential rite (or the Creed)?
 
The rationale behind it is supposedly that if there is some other rite within that Mass that “takes the place” of the penitential rite, then it is “omitted.”

Personally, I think it’s a poor choice of words to say it’s “omitted” but it says what it says.

It’s an odd quark, really. The procession with palms (only the solemn form though) somehow takes the place of the penitential rite (don’t ask me how).

The greeting the casket at the door and sprinkling with holy water is likewise supposed to somehow be a penitential rite.

I can understand Ash Wednesday (just a little bit).

I think this is one of those things that truly -]calls/-] for a reform of the reform. No, make that “screams out.”
Right. As for conferal of baptism, the “renunciation of Satan” stated before the affirmation of faith takes the place of the penitential rite, though I don’t understand why only the ones preparing to be baptized (or their parents on their behalf, if done before the age of reason) are required to answer the questions renouncing Satan. Maybe the procession of palms for Palm Sunday and the exchange of vows for the wedding ceremony take the place of the penitential rite in these cases primarily due to length?
 
My own Parish Priest says he “doesn’t like” the Confiteor, so the only time we have it is when we have a visiting priest. Fortunately, (for all of us) he’s taking a month off to finish a doctoral degree this summer, and the Priest who is coming for a month is an elderly, retired Priest whom we have known & loved for years, and who ALWAYS has the Confiteor. Our Priest says Mass “cannot last more than an hour”, so he eliminated the Confiteor, when a ceremony of sprinkling is called for, he uses a plastic bottle and sort of sprays it around. Then he spends 10 minutes on either 1) announcements 2) advertising a new book he wants us all to buy at the Catholic Gift Shop at the Church or 3) tells us (for the 1000th time) how many years he’s been a priest or repeats a story of his childhood as one of 13 children, finally he starts his homily, which is another 20 minutes, and almost never is about the Gospel reading or other readings for the day, but is on an unrelated subject which caught his interest that week. Finally, he will then continue with the Mass, at a “gallop”, and insists the Gifts be brought immediately after the end of the Homily, so he can get everything ready for Communion while the Ushers pass the baskets for the offerings. It all seems a bit skewed to us. Oh, yes, he also has the Monstrance on the Altar, as in Adoration, for 20 minutes prior to Mass “to prevent talking”. (No incense at any time, nor Adoration prayers) We also cannot have a hymn or a solo sung during Communion as that’s also supposed to be a “silent time”, the same as before Mass. Odd. He’s from another country, but these things don’t seem to be their customs either, since none of the other priests from his country in our Diocese do these things. He’s just a bit different. Has resulted in about 1/2 the long-time members (who have been here 20, 30 or 40 years) in leaving and driving 1 1/2 hours to another Parish every week! Does keep it quiet, which he likes!
 
Well our abbey uses the confiteor during the week and and the one that’s starts “Lord we have sinned against you…” on Sundays (Might not be exact translation, it’s in French at the abbey). The Kyrie is always chanted in Greek immediately after no matter which rite is used except on those occasions where the rite of sprinkling is used, in which case the Asperges me or Vidi aquam (Easter season) is used.

I doubt it’s to save time, Mass is nearly an hour and 20 min anyway, everything chanted. 😛
 
Father, what would you do if in your parish there was NEVER a penitential rite (or the Creed)?
I don’t understand the question.

What would I do if the Church removed the penitential rite and/or Creed from the Mass?

I don’t understand what you’re asking.
 
Father, what would you do if in your parish there was NEVER a penitential rite (or the Creed)?
He would say, “Brethren, let us acknowledge our sins, and so prepare ourselves to celebrate these sacred mysteries” and so forth. Then the NEVER would become ALWAYS and thus, a non-issue.

😉

-Tim-
 
I don’t understand the question.

What would I do if the Church removed the penitential rite and/or Creed from the Mass?

I don’t understand what you’re asking.
I’m sorry I wasn’t clear, Father.

I mean, what if you were in a parish where neither the penitential rite or the Creed were ever used? Would this be all right if it was in order to have the congregation be active participants instead of just following along using ‘rote words?’
 
I’m sorry I wasn’t clear, Father.

I mean, what if you were in a parish where neither the penitential rite or the Creed were ever used? Would this be all right if it was in order to have the congregation be active participants instead of just following along using ‘rote words?’
I still don’t understand. The Penitential Rite and the Creed are both parts of the ordinary of the Mass. I don’t understand how any priest could be assigned to a Catholic parish where these parts are not already included in the Mass.

At best, all I can imagine is a scenario where the previous pastor consistently omitted them.

If that’s what you mean, the answer is rather straightforward. I would include those parts of the Mass from day one (at least the first Sunday as far as the Creed is concerned).

I don’t see any other possible answer to the question, that’s why I’m confused by it.
 
I still don’t understand. The Penitential Rite and the Creed are both parts of the ordinary of the Mass. I don’t understand how any priest could be assigned to a Catholic parish where these parts are not already included in the Mass.

At best, all I can imagine is a scenario where the previous pastor consistently omitted them.

If that’s what you mean, the answer is rather straightforward. I would include those parts of the Mass from day one (at least the first Sunday as far as the Creed is concerned).

I don’t see any other possible answer to the question, that’s why I’m confused by it.
I think I understand it. I think Tantum ergo is actually asking from the point of a layperson asking what should be done if the priests at the parish that one attends consitently omit the penitential rite and the creed. I don’t know if it’s hypothetical or an actual occurence at Tantum ergo’s parish, as I’ve never seen an abuse to this degree, but judynurse put forth a scenario where her pastor continually makes abuses dealing with the penitential rite. As a priest, what would you suggest that a layperson do if the pastor continually made abuses to this extent, especially if moving to a different parish is logistically out of the question (as is usually the case in rural parishes)?
 
I think I understand it. I think Tantum ergo is actually asking from the point of a layperson asking what should be done if the priests at the parish that one attends consitently omit the penitential rite and the creed. I don’t know if it’s hypothetical or an actual occurence at Tantum ergo’s parish, as I’ve never seen an abuse to this degree, but judynurse put forth a scenario where her pastor continually makes abuses dealing with the penitential rite. As a priest, what would you suggest that a layperson do if the pastor continually made abuses to this extent, especially if moving to a different parish is logistically out of the question (as is usually the case in rural parishes)?
Yes, that’s the question for the scenario (and the logistics). Thank you, that is so much clearer.
 
I think I understand it. I think Tantum ergo is actually asking from the point of a layperson asking what should be done if the priests at the parish that one attends consitently omit the penitential rite and the creed. I don’t know if it’s hypothetical or an actual occurence at Tantum ergo’s parish, as I’ve never seen an abuse to this degree, but judynurse put forth a scenario where her pastor continually makes abuses dealing with the penitential rite. As a priest, what would you suggest that a layperson do if the pastor continually made abuses to this extent, especially if moving to a different parish is logistically out of the question (as is usually the case in rural parishes)?
OK. Now I get it. I took the “you” form to mean that the question was being addressed to me directly. That’s why I just could not understand the meaning.

Even though I understand the question now, I don’t think I can really suggest anything of substance because it the Church’s norms are not very specific on this.

Using the forms of the Mass that replace/omit the Penitential Rite and the Creed (though not always both) are meant to be occasional choices, and are not supposed to be done every Sunday. In fact, I’ll even re-phrase that to read “they must not be done every Sunday.”

Since doing this is a licit option, it’s not a liturgical abuse per se, but doing it every Sunday is inconsistent with the rubrics.

I can imagine the Penitential Rite being omitted every Sunday in favor of the Sprinkling (not supposed to be done but I can imagine it), but the only way I can imagine skipping the Creed would be if there’s a baptism at every Sunday Mass. Again, not supposed to be done that way.

I would say that one should contact the pastor and express discomfort (I’m searching for an appropriate word) that this is happening every Sunday. The person expressing this is on solid ground because it’s not supposed to be happening every Sunday. If verbally doesn’t work, then send something in writing. If that doesn’t work, appeal to the bishop. I say “appeal” not “complain.”

While the Church says that these should only be done on occasion, and not every Sunday, that’s not quantified. There is no rule that says “Baptisms at Sunday Mass only once a month” or anything like that. However, the particular law for the diocese might have such a clause, “no more than once a month” (or might not).

Having said that though. Realize that I’m answering the question as it was posed “every Sunday.” If it’s happening often, but not every Sunday, it comes down to a matter of opinion. If someone thinks that it’s happening too often, the only thing to do is make that opinion known to the pastor. There is simply is no rule on “how much is too much.”

Sorry I can’t give more definitive answers. The rules just don’t exist.
 
OK. Now I get it. I took the “you” form to mean that the question was being addressed to me directly. That’s why I just could not understand the meaning.

Even though I understand the question now, I don’t think I can really suggest anything of substance because it the Church’s norms are not very specific on this.

Using the forms of the Mass that replace/omit the Penitential Rite and the Creed (though not always both) are meant to be occasional choices, and are not supposed to be done every Sunday. In fact, I’ll even re-phrase that to read “they must not be done every Sunday.”

Since doing this is a licit option, it’s not a liturgical abuse per se, but doing it every Sunday is inconsistent with the rubrics.

I can imagine the Penitential Rite being omitted every Sunday in favor of the Sprinkling (not supposed to be done but I can imagine it), but the only way I can imagine skipping the Creed would be if there’s a baptism at every Sunday Mass. Again, not supposed to be done that way.

I would say that one should contact the pastor and express discomfort (I’m searching for an appropriate word) that this is happening every Sunday. The person expressing this is on solid ground because it’s not supposed to be happening every Sunday. If verbally doesn’t work, then send something in writing. If that doesn’t work, appeal to the bishop. I say “appeal” not “complain.”

While the Church says that these should only be done on occasion, and not every Sunday, that’s not quantified. There is no rule that says “Baptisms at Sunday Mass only once a month” or anything like that. However, the particular law for the diocese might have such a clause, “no more than once a month” (or might not).

Having said that though. Realize that I’m answering the question as it was posed “every Sunday.” If it’s happening often, but not every Sunday, it comes down to a matter of opinion. If someone thinks that it’s happening too often, the only thing to do is make that opinion known to the pastor. There is simply is no rule on “how much is too much.”

Sorry I can’t give more definitive answers. The rules just don’t exist.
Thank you, Father.
Problem is, there is nothing replacing those items and the rationale given (in writing) was that this (along with other things such as ad libbed Eucharistic prayers) was so that the congregation would be ‘active participants’ instead of simply 'following along with the 'prayer part of the songbook." Me, I always thought that I was being an active participant BECAUSE I was uniting myself in prayer with the whole Church. But I absolutely totally want to be sure that if I address (not complain to) the bishop, I’m doing so for legitimate reasons. If these things are permitted, I certainly do not want to raise a fuss. Thank you.
 
Thank you, Father.
Problem is, there is nothing replacing those items and the rationale given (in writing) was that this (along with other things such as ad libbed Eucharistic prayers) was so that the congregation would be ‘active participants’ instead of simply 'following along with the 'prayer part of the songbook." Me, I always thought that I was being an active participant BECAUSE I was uniting myself in prayer with the whole Church. But I absolutely totally want to be sure that if I address (not complain to) the bishop, I’m doing so for legitimate reasons. If these things are permitted, I certainly do not want to raise a fuss. Thank you.
I know what you should do, but I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to spell it out on a forum like this.

See Redemptionis Sacramentum 184
 
The rationale behind it is supposedly that if there is some other rite within that Mass that “takes the place” of the penitential rite, then it is “omitted.”

Personally, I think it’s a poor choice of words to say it’s “omitted” but it says what it says.

It’s an odd quark, really. The procession with palms (only the solemn form though) somehow takes the place of the penitential rite (don’t ask me how).

The greeting the casket at the door and sprinkling with holy water is likewise supposed to somehow be a penitential rite.

I can understand Ash Wednesday (just a little bit).

I think this is one of those things that truly -]calls/-] for a reform of the reform. No, make that “screams out.”
The common theme seems to be sprinkling of anything. People, palms, candles, coffins… Why that negates the need for separate penitence is beyond me. Maybe the logic is that Masses with sprinkling aren’t supposed to be penitential at all but that begs the question, “What’s wrong with a profession of penitence at any Mass?” At any rate, it’s a very odd rubric and nobody seems to be able to articulate why this innovation was made, much less why it’s beneficial or necessary. Unlike many traditionalists, I’m a fan of simplification, but this is the opposite of simplification.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top