FRIDAY POTPOURRI: IT IS MY GREAT HONOR TO INTRODUCE TO YOU FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME

Except for some clean up, we’ve pretty much married our couple now.  There is not much official left save for the consummatum est.  (Terrible pun there.  I apologize.)  There is one rubric, however, that confounds me and I’ve not heard it addressed.  If there is a liturgist out there I would love to hear from you.

Everything about a rubric is there on purpose; the order of the wording, the inclusion, the detail of the word chosen (may vs must etc.)  So why does it state that, at a matrimonial Mass, “The bride and bridegroom, their parents, witnesses, and relatives may receive Communion under both kinds”?  Why not say all Catholics present may receive Communion under both kinds?  Is it truly limited (I bet not - or at least nobody is saying that.)  I doubt we will have people check their category against the program to make sure they fit into one of the privileged ranks.  Curious.

Thus we bring to an end this series on Friday Potpourri.  Nothing has come across my radar screen to start new as of yet.  Perhaps by next Friday God will provide something - but just in case, if you have an idea . . . pass it along!

FRIDAY POTPOURRI: THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH WORDS TO SAY I LOVE YOU. OH WAIT. THERE ARE.

Let’s say that it is your vacation.  It is one thing to interrupt your vacation to answer a short text, it is another to be interrupted by a three hour video conference call.  Secretly you are dying a slow and terrible death.

So it is one thing to have little ceremonies added to the nuptial Mass.  But the part of the Catholic brain that has not shut down at Mass, that is at least aware of the flow that should be happening, and that is looking forward to Communion, is suddenly thrown off track by a long, long nuptial blessing.  You know who loves this prayer?  The moms and the priest.  Everyone else has just run into a brick wall and is too concerned about why they are no longer moving forward.  

Well, I am exaggerating.  Maybe I just don’t know how to do it well.  And often I have a couple looking at me with dreamy looks in their eyes over what is being said about them.  Maybe it is my attitude.  About half way through I am thinking, “Gads, am I still talking?”

But it is a beautiful prayer.  And though now it is better translated, even ICEL did not strip it down in length during the post Vatican II translation and they were not adverse to slashing and burning.  AND AS IS OFTEN THE MISTAKE it should be remembered (even by me!) that the people present are not the ones being addressed at this point - it is our Father.  We are going to our Father and asking for a very specific blessing on two of His children who are being united.  Other than to remind us of what is going on and to agree, the job of those who are there is to offer with the celebrant the words being spoken to our common Father.  He is certainly the cause of the day in so many ways, the King present and begged for a blessing, the eternal Father Who loves and blesses His children.

FRIDAY POTPOURRI: THE AWFUL CONSEQUENCE OF CONSISTENCY

So I made the mistake of saying that I would talk about presenting a flower to Mary during a wedding ceremony.  Probably should not have.  But here we go . . . 

For those who do not know what I am talking about, (I thought everybody knew what this was since it has been such a common experience in my Catholic life,) during the wedding ceremony, a bride, with a particular devotion to the Blessed Virgin, will process to the shrine (statue) of Mary at some point during the nuptial Mass, offer a prayer of petition, and as a devotion, leave a flower (usually a single, white rose) which would be much the same thing as lighting a candle.  The only more recent change that I have noticed is that almost without fail, the groom now attends to this devotion also.  (When I was a kid, it seemed that only the bride went.)

There does not seem to be an allowance for this practice in either the new or the old rubrics for the nuptial ceremonies.  This is a private devotion being done in a public forum and as such is “stuck on” to the Mass. 

99.99% of the time I am adamantly opposed to sticking things on to the Mass.  The requests received for private things to be done at Mass come in often.  Private devotions, talks, presentations, other ceremonies, blessings, many of which are not not only not mentioned but expressly forbidden by the rubrics are often presented as something needed to be done at Mass.  The two most pressing reasons given for the necessity of doing such a thing is 1) it would be beneficial/meaningful to everybody and 2) it concerns the whole community and this is when the whole community is gathered.  As for the first concern, having it Mass often makes more people angry than happy and the second is a bait and switch.  The people are there for the Mass.  If whatever else is going on is really important, then you don’t win them over by forcing them to sit through it.  (How happy are you to turn on Public Radio during a fund drive?)

ALL THAT BEING SAID, my liturgical heart says that this devotional as it is often practiced during the Mass should go the same way as the unity candle - that is - snuffed out!  But I am weak where Mary is concerned and unlike a unity candle ceremony, this devotion to Mary is something that the bride and groom can (and should if they are going to subject the congregation to this private devotion at their wedding) continue throughout their lives.  It is also something in which the congregation can at least tangentially participate.  

Further, it can take place in a way that doesn’t really interfere with the rubrics of the Mass.  For example, while the music continues after the reception of Communion, what is to stop the bride and her groom from walking over to Mary, placing a rose, and asking for her intercession in their married lives?  

What do you think?

FRIDAY POTPOURRI: LET ME MAKE THIS PERFECTLY CLEAR . . . AGAIN.

If you have been reading this blog for awhile, you know I have difficulties with the unity candle.  (We do not use it at St. Sebastian.)  Among other things, as we have been discovering over these few months, we have spent so much time and care making sure that everybody is aware, informed, and is consenting to what is taking place.  To whit:

1. Before the ceremony, the couple is catechized and asked both verbally and through written statement that they are knowledgable about what is going on and that they freely choose to do it.
2. Banns are published to the community for three weeks informing them of what is about to happen (and giving them a chance to weigh in if they feel so inclined.)
3. The wedding bells are rung.
4. It is announced that this couple is about to marry.
5. They publicly state their intentions to get married with knowledge and freedom.
6. They exchange their vows.
7. It is announced that they exchanged their vows.
8. If people still don’t get it they exchange rings.
9. Often they kiss now as a further sign.

Then, for some inexplicable reason, some people feel a need to put on a piece of theater whereby, just incase somebody didn’t quite get what was going on, they take two candles, light one candle together with them, and then obliterate the light from the original candles.  (I have lots of problems with the symbolism, particularly at the Mass, with this.)

NOW, isn’t interesting that the new rite for marriage has new options for those entering into matrimony, but the unity candle is conspicuously absent?  Actually, I am so happy that they Church did not make it an official rite.  There would just be a ton of verbiage added to it.  “Now, bride and groom take the candle of their single selves, a light that has burned since their baptism, symbolizing the life of BLAH BLAH BLAH. . .

Read more HERE.

But there are some newly codified options but I doubt, unless our neighborhood changes dramatically, they will be of much use at this parish.  The first option takes the place of the exchange of rings.  It is the rite of the blessing and exchange of arras or coins.  These are used primarily with those of a heritage and practice from Spain, Latin American countries, and the Philippines.

Another addition is the blessing of the wedding veil or the lazo.  The lazo is a decorative chain placed around the bride and groom’s shoulder.  The veil would be placed on the bride’s head with part of it placed on the groom’s shoulder.  This would take place just prior to the nuptial blessing in those places where this is custom.

"Of course," some of my liturgist friends would say, "what does this say about taking a rose to Mary?"  

*sigh*  More on that in two weeks.

FRIDAY POTPOURRI: AND NOW, IN THE CENTER RING

At one time it was against Canon Law for a lowly parish priest to wear any jewelry whatsoever.  That rule has been greatly relaxed.  I wear what looks like a wedding ring.  When I was ordained, one of my best friends, Cathy Paparella, gave me a ring and said, “Here.  Wear this.  I like my priests to wear rings.”  So I did and do.

They are pretty handy little trinkets.  One cannot always wear one’s clerics.  You don’t want to wear them while biking for example. They are impractical for such uses as well as being WAY too expensive.  So let’s say you are a Catholic priest and you are going swimming.  A ring on your finger helps unwanted attention if you understand what I am saying . . . 

Most of the time.

(Allow me to digress for a moment.)  Going to the beach with some priest friends, we were detained from going to water and so sat at the “soda bar” for a little while.  A lady started hitting on one of my friends.  She asked all kinds of probing questions, discovered that we were all together and finally that we were all priests.  Her disposition changed immediately.  “Oh.  You’re the boys who can’t have sex,” she slurred.

My friend, with all the dignity he could muster, replied, “Oh, but we can.  We choose not to.”

ANYWAY

Now that all the matrimonial clarifications have been made and the vows exchanged, and announcement that the vows have been exchanged, now bride and groom exchange rings to be placed on their fingers FURTHER signifying what amazing even has just taken place.  Is it not interesting that these rings are blessed?  They are a symbol of a covenant, a mark of a change of status, a public indication of behavior, a sign of something created in cooperation with God.  Rings are AMAZING and powerful.  The last thing you want around if you are going to cheat on your spouse is a ring (or its tan line.)  It kind of throws a damper on things.

Can you see all the fuss that is going on?  How much of a public witness this all is?  There is a rash of young people not wanting to get married.  Maybe it isn’t so much a sign that they don’t care, maybe they are a bit overwhelmed by what a gigantic, public, important institution that it is.  You can’t take this lightly.  And you will be marked by a band on your finger for the rest of your married life and that assumes certain public and private behavior - not unlike a habit or a priest’s collar.  

But it is not a sign so much of your vows, but of the vows of the person who married you, for that person says, “Receive this ring as a sign of MY love and fidelity.”  It is a sign that someone loves you.

FRIDAY POTPOURRI: MARRIAGE SAVES THE WORD ASUNDER. WHEN ELSE DO YOU HEAR IT?

Someone asked me the other day if one can accidentally marry someone: that is, say the wedding vows as part of a play, or the rehearsal, or joking around.  The question had to do with, if a sacrament has an outward sign that is efficacious, that is, it does what it says it does, then does the act of saying it make it come true?

Clever question - no.

Knowledge and consent are required.  

So is what you are seeing the real deal?  Just to clarify, the official witness of the Church will, following the vows, announce that you have declared your consent before the Church (using one of the formulas) and announcing the grand reminder, “What God has joined, let no one put asunder.”  One can almost hear the universe shifting.  A new, unbreakable reality has been created.  The course of history has changed. 

In Genesis, poor little Adam is all alone in the garden.  Adam, at this point, is not a guy by himself, he is what humanity was at that point: complete in this one person.  Then after being surrounded by all this life and beauty, he discovers that he lonesome.  St. John Paul II calls this the “original solitude.”  And it wasn’t good.  So God took from Adam, who was one, and created Eve.  Now man, who was one, is now two and incapable of doing everything that a human being is capable of doing until meeting up with a complimentary partner.  (It is only then that all of the equipment is united again if you will.)  That is why they become one in marriage.  They complete each other.  And once joined, they are never to be separated again.  

How amazing is this?  The entire face of the world is about to change.  If your parents had never met, you and your siblings would never have been born.  If your grandparents had not married, your parents, aunts, uncles, nephews and nieces would never have been born.  One generation before the number is already become so great as to be difficult to comprehend.  Go back far enough (and probably less far than you think) and entire nations begin to change.  Marriage is powerful.  This service to which you attend at which someone with you has asked, “Do we have to go?” and then huff through it is altering the course of the world.  

So after the declaration is something that I like but find difficult to do in practice.  This is new.  Immediately after this the celebrant sings (or says) “Let us bless the Lord!” to which ALL present are to respond, “Thanks be to God!”  This makes absolute sense.  We have just witnessed something awesome and we should sing an acclamation.  The problem is nobody is ready for it, has practiced it, or is looking at a program.  Even die hard Catholics who come to Mass every day are often have brains that shut down during a wedding and have to be reminded, “Let us stand now . . .”  And it kind of takes the punch out of it if you have to explain too much.  “I am about to say, ‘Let us bless the Lord’ and your are going to respond . . .”

Our Cathedral has a decent way of handling such things.  We will have to find our own way.  I sometimes poo poo such things with, “Well, THAT will never work.”  But I’ve also been wrong about that plenty of times.  Maybe this will become so common that it will even be used in movies as readily as “speak now or forever hold your peace.”

God is ironic.  It could happen.

FRIDAY POTPOURRI: THE MOMENT WE HAVE ALL BEEN WAITING (AND WAITING) FOR

“Fifi, I think that you are the grooviest girl ever.  You make me so happy that I have decided that every day I want to wake up and see your beautiful face.  So I ask you to be my wife, like, unto forever.”  

These are vows that you wont hear at a Catholic wedding.  We would consider these better for a toast at the reception perhaps.  There are some specific things that constitute a marriage in the Catholic Church that would vary from the state requirements or that of other faiths or even the intentions of the couple.  That is why we had all this brouhaha making absolutely sure (as much as possible) that this couple knows what they are getting into.  Let’s take a quick look at the vows:

There are two sets of vows put forward in the wedding ceremony.  Each of these two sets of vows can be exchanged four different ways:  1) They may repeat them after the priest. 2) They may give consent through questions (the priest asks, “Do you take . . .” to which they respond, “I do.”)  3) They may memorize them (I have had only 2 couples do this in 18 years) or 4) Read them from a prompter.

The first set of vows is the “all the days of my life.”  Two minor changes were made.  The first is “I will be true to you” has been changed to, “I will faithful to you”.  The second is making the vow a single sentence instead of two sentences. 

The second set of vows is the “till death do us part.”  I like these ones better but the vast majority of couples do not.  There is one added, clarifying phrase.  Just before death doing them part was added, “”to love and to cherish.” 

There are a couple of interesting things to note about these vows.  (Probably a lot more - but these two will do.)  The first is that the priest in the Roman Rite is not the celebrant of the sacrament of matrimony, the couples are the ministers.  The priest is the official witness of the Church.  Way, way back in history one didn’t need the priest to get married.  (There are some extremely rare exceptions to this day that this are still possible - but none of you will qualify I dare say.)  Almost everything the Church does is because at some point there were abuses.  So now we just say that you must have a priest as a witness to the exchange of vows.

Secondly, there is nothing contained in the vows stating what it is that you expect from the other person.  That would steer us toward a contractual marriage and an exchange of services (such as one receives from the state) rather than an exchange of persons making it a covenantal marriage.  You can demand services from someone (a contract) but you can’t demand that the other person give themselves to you (a covenant.)  We enter in to marriage to serve.  If both persons are true to the covenant, then, of course you will be loved in return.  And our goal is to have two persons radically engaged in ministering to and loving each other (not trying to draw love out of the other person.)  It is our model for civility in general: That we be 1.2 billion people engaged in being of service to each other rather than being 1.2 billion people demanding to be served by everybody else.

Note that about marriage - that it serves as a model for the community.  It is also why marriage belongs to the whole community, not just the couple getting married (and why it is important for you to celebrate your 25th, 50th, 60th anniversaries publicly.  Your witness is needed!)  It is why we ring the steeple bells before a nuptial ceremony:  It is a public event.  And as the couple is to be a witness to love in the world, the community is to be a support to those engaged in living out their vows.

FRIDAY POTPOURRI: RIGHTS

Enough with all of the preparations, clarifying of conditions and examination of intentions.  Let’s get on with the actual wedding already.

The priest says, “Since it is your intention to enter the covenant of Holy Matrimony (almost asking the question one more time this is your intention isn’t it?) join your right hands and declare your consent before God and His Church.”

Did you ever ask yourself, “Self, what’s up with the joining of right hands?”  Well I have.  Why not join both hands?  Why not left in right as they stand next to each other?  Why not join left hands since that is the hand on which you will wear your wedding ring?  (More on that later.)  Why join hands at all?  Why not just stare at each other?  

So I tried to do a little research for you.  (This first part is my opinion - nothing that I discovered about Catholic symbolism.)  I suppose some of it is that it is further and intense clarification.  It seems more than with any other sacrament, we have a desire to be extremely precise with matrimony.  “Who is this person going to marry?  Why the one whose right hand is held.  Can’t mistake that one.  That guy is definitely not accidentally getting married to the lady in the front row.”

There is a lawyer in the parish who joshes me about being so precise about things.  Even with the Eucharistic Prayer, I am very conscious about making eye contact with the species that is about to be consecrated.  (This is not in the rubrics.)  So when consecrating the wine, at some point I will glance at all of the chalices on the alter.  I just find this mindful.  I am not intending to consecrate the loaf bread you happened to bring in on your stop at Acme No. 1 before coming to Mass.  So could this holding of right hands have this precision in mind?  Everything the Church does seems to always clarify something that someone in the past has misunderstood.

The little bit that I could find is that it could possibly have pagan origins.  This will send some people over the edge.  “See that?!?!  The Catholics are doing something that pagans used to do!  That proves they are following Satan!”  As if a pagan cannot be baptized for the glory of God.  Not everything pagan was evil or bad.  They had some awesome ideas.  I mean, ancient paganism (not the knock off excuse for paganism modern forms are) gave way to Christianity.  These guys were not completely off track.  

But I digress.

It was part of more ancient ceremonies that hands were bound.  The hand clasp is an ancient sign that an oath is being engaged between two parties - marriage being one of them.  This is the serious moment.  We are done talking and negotiating.  It is obvious that the couple is aware of what is about to take place with this formal gesture in front of these witnesses.  Even if you cannot hear it, you know that this is the moment of truth.  It is the right hand that grasps the hand of the other, not a weapon or any other such thing.  You are the one to whom I am about to give myself - in a way that has been done since even before Christianity though now the gesture is baptized for us.  This seemingly inconsequential action is so ancient, so recognizable, so ingrained into our culture and humanity, is so heavy with tradition, that it is even announced, “Join your right hands and declare your consent before God and His Church.”  

FRIDAY POTPOURRI: DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING AND STILL WANT TO DO IT?

The evil prince absconds with a fair maiden from the village and forces her, against her will to marry him.  Is this a valid and licit marriage in the Catholic Church?

No.

Marriage is true when the couple, knowing what they are getting themselves into, freely chooses to do it just the same.  So at their first meeting with me, I ask them if they are here freely and without reservation.  At their last meeting with me I am required to read to them a statement that asks much the same question, invite them to discuss it, and then have them sign it.  THEN, just before they exchange their vows, they are asked once again, publicly, “Have you come here to enter into Marriage without coercion, freely and wholeheartedly?” to which they must answer, “I have,” before we can move on to the binding stuff.

This is another section that has been slightly rewritten.  “Have you come here freely and without reservation to give yourselves to each other in holy matrimony?”  It seems there has been an emphasis on the free will aspect in the new question.

The next pre-vow question has been re-written also.  The original way really ticked off my sister.  She did not approve of the way it was stated.  Here we go:  “Will you love each other as man and wife for the rest of your lives?”  She though “man” should be “husband.”  That is no longer an issue.  “Are you prepared, as you follow the path of Marriage, to love and honor each other for as long as you both shall live?”  Notice the little change of clause?  This was re-written by lawyers.  (Joking)  The first part makes no mention of being married whilst loving each other as “man and wife.”  I guess we want to be very clear.

The last pre-vow question is changed the least.

“Will you accept children loving from God and bring them up according the law of Christ and His Church?” vs. “Are you prepared to accept children lovingly from God and bring them up according to the law of Chris and His Church?”  The first is kind of theoretical.  “Sure.  I suppose.  One day I’d be willing.”  The second is slightly more pressing.  “Are you prepared?  Because that is part of what Christian marriage is and it may happen more quickly than you anticipated.”

FRIDAY POTPOURRI: WARNING: TRAFFIC PATTERNS HAVE CHANGED

The other day I was walking Sebastian.  He is getting older and a bit more docile and also seemingly more obedient.  For a couple of years now he has been this way.  People comment how wonderful he is in that he just seems to walk by my side.  I was lulled into a false sense of security.

It’s “spring like” outside.  He’s getting a little randy and I should have picked up on that.  A couple of days ago while he was off of his leash he decided that he wanted to go say hello to somebody and no amount of me calling him back would do the trick.

Grrrrr.

So it is with this Rite of Matrimony we have been following.  Since last we posted, nothing has really changed.  We enter into the Liturgy of the Word per usual and then slip into the homily just as we always have.  Then we hit the actual marriage rite.  Like most priests, I think, after awhile you pretty much have the wording of the rites memorized.  This is nice since, although you have the book in front of you for reference if you get distracted (I’ve seen it happen with disastrous results when a guy would completely rely on his memory and then blank) you can make eye contact with the blushing couple.

But the wording has changed now.  And it isn’t completely re-written, it is re-focused; a reconstructed sentence, a clarifying word used - all to make it better understood exactly what is going on.  Because it is just “sort of” different, one cannot be lulled into thinking they know the rite.  One must pay close attention for fear of slipping into old verbiage.

FOR EXAMPLE

OLD:  You have come together in this church . . .

NEW: You have come together in the house of the church . . . 

I suppose that is to emphasize that, in general, Catholics don’t get married at ball games or on the beach.

OLD:  He has already consecrated in baptism and now He enriches and strengthens you by a special sacrament so that you may assume the duties of marriage in mutual and lasting fidelity.

NEW: Through a special Sacrament, He enriches and strengthens those He has already consecrated by Holy Baptism, that they may be faithful to each other for ever and assume all the responsibilities of married life.

The first somewhat sounds like a manual I suppose.  “When this screen pops up, click on the button at the bottom of the screen.”  And in our modern era, responsibilities are a little easier to swallow that duties.  (And how is special?  Is it just more focused for this particular lifestyle like a special wrench meant only for plumbing?)

This changes will continue next week . . .  Stay tuned.

FRIDAY POTPOURRI: A STEP (DOWN THE AISLE) IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION

“How long is this going to take?”

I try to take that question in the best possible light whenever a wedding couple poses this question concerning their up and coming nuptial ceremony  “Well, that highly depends if you want every option in the book or not,” is my usual answer.  “I can marry you in about 15 minutes in a simple ceremony if you want.”

They usually don’t.

In a shocking development, one of the options for celebrating matrimony was actually shortened.  Long time readers of Adam’s Ale know that I think that there is just WAY too much exposition on the part of the priest in our matrimonial ceremonies.  But that is what we have so there you go.  But in the case of a wedding being celebrated outside of Mass, there is neither a Gloria nor a Penitential Rite called for.  There is an opening exposition, which may be one of two options or “in similar words” and then right into the collect (opening prayer - with the “Let us pray.”)

FRIDAY POTPOURRI: IF YOU DON'T KNOW, PRETEND LIKE YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING

A few Advents ago the new Missal came out.  Prior to that point, a typical wedding would begin with the Penitential Rite, which, quite honestly, though probably a good thing to do, was always a bit awkward especially when there were a lot of non-Catholics present.  (Personal opinion.)  In its stead, when there is a nuptial Mass, we begin with the Gloria - which I like better, but is difficult when there are few (practicing) Catholics in the congregation and it is just me and soloist belting out God’s praises.  But it is amazing when it is a bunch of Catholics.

So think back to that first advent of the new Missal.  I’m about to concelebrate a wedding at our cathedral and the question comes up, “Do we sing the Gloria?”  After all, it is not prayed all during the Advent season.  Right?  But the new rite calls for it.  This was not one of the topics covered when we went to all of the workshops on the new Missal.  So, the other clergy, the musicians and I huddled together to make a decision.  Although it went against our instincts, it seemed that that the rubrics clearly called for the Gloria to be sung.  So we did.

When I got home I called the liturgy office for a response.  Nobody was in so the person who was the liturgist for the diocese at the time called back a few days later.  We had a pleasant conversation and then got down to discussing the wedding Gloria.  The person was very honest and said, “I am not entirely positive but I can tell you this:  There was a wedding at the cathedral earlier this week and they sang the Gloria so I would use that as your example until we can confirm so.”

HA!

As it turns out, singing the Gloria is the correct thing to do.  It is part of the ritual for this particular type of liturgy and therefor when a nuptial Mass is said, the Gloria is always prayed even when otherwise it would not be.

And that is why we now sing the Gloria at nuptial Masses.

FRIDAY POTPOURRI: HOW FAR IS TOO FAR?

Is a priest who wears oxford shoes and uses a thurible a conservative?  Is a priest who wears sandals and uses an incense bowl a liberal?  If both options are on the Catholic playing field, does it matter?  Does it matter any differently if you are St. Patrick Cathedral or in a mud and thatch church in the missions?  Does it matter if one is a Jesuit and one is a Franciscan?  

The last paragraph that we are going to look at in this particular section (111) of the GIRM (we start something new next week) is really trying to get everybody on the same page.  It tells us that great care should be taken that the Mass is coordinated among all of the ministers as well as having some input from the parishioners with final say coming from the “rector.”  This is so that the choir director doesn’t prepare for the usual weekend Mass, the celebrant decides to move the patronal feast to the weekend, and the lector not knowing which readings to prepare.  That is why the “rector” sets the calendar, tone, and is responsible for communicating it.  

It is interesting that they use the world “rector.”  I had to research this a little bit.  It is not a term often used in the Catholic Church.  It comes from the Latin meaning “ruler.”  I think they use this term because not every parish has a pastor.  A seminary has a rector, not a pastor.  The bishop’s church (cathedral) may need a person to see to the day to day running of it as the bishop is out and about so much.  So you might have the rector of the cathedral . . .

So now, the rector has coordinated the Mass, communicated what will be happening, but another priest is going to celebrate.  Things may not go as smoothly as one might hope because the very last sentence of this last paragraph of this last section states, “However, the priest who presides at the celebration always retains the right of arranging those things that pertain to him.”

So that is terribly interesting.  What exactly does that mean?  I think that is what allowed my first parish to run both smoothly and somewhat diversely.  Mass was essentially the same from celebration to celebration though the celebrant changed.  Along with him however there may be oxfords or sandals, the Missal at the top of the corporal or off to the left, thurible or incense bowl.  Does the rector have the right to say to a celebrant, “No cassock,” or “No jeans” at Mass?  I would argue that this right does not exist (though it is possible for said rector to make said celebrant’s life miserable - and a good parochial vicar tries his best to bring about the vision a particular rector is trying to establish - but I’m just saying - and I admit to having strong preferences)  though a rector (and indeed anybody) has not only the right but the obligation to point out something that a priest is doing that is illicit or invalid.  

So if a presider likes to wear a fiddleback or a properly colored tie dye chasuble you might say to him, “I really don’t like that,” but in the long run it really doesn’t matter.  It is both valid and licit and Jesus is still fully present at the Mass.  But if he celebrates not wearing a chasuble at all or changing the words of consecration because he thinks it is truer to the Latin, then something needs to be said.

FRIDAY POTPOURRI: HELP WANTED

GIRM 107 - 110

My father was a difficult man with whom to play volley ball.  He was that guy that liked to play everybody’s position for them.  I could stand through an entire game and not have to to

uch the ball. 

In the same way, liturgists will tell us that ministries should not be all done by one person: lecturing, serving, and distributing communion all at one Mass.  Neither should they be artificially divided up in order to give as many people as possible a chance to “do a ministry.” So, for example, a reading should not be divided up between lectors, one starting, one reading the middle, one reading the end of any given reading.  The noted exception noted being the Passion.

The priests, save for those parts that are explicitly allowed, are not permitted to divide their roles up such as, “I’ll take the Liturgy of the World and you take the Liturgy of the Eucharist.”  Deacons can do that however such as the above example or one takes the singing parts and one does the working parts . . . 

Different ministries can be done by one person if there is a lack of ministers.  So if you were serving and there was nobody else available, you could also do the readings but this is clearly a permit-able but none-the-less exception to the rule.

Remembering Pope Emeritus’s writings however, the MOST IMPORTANT JOB for the lay faithful at the Mass is to PRAY THE MASS.  This is essential.  Those doing the readings or ushering or serving are not “getting to do more,” they are in some ways being distracted from doing the most important job: that of giving glory and praise to God - offering themselves for all that their Father has given them.