This is from the minutes of a Pastoral Council Meeting at St. Noel Church in Ohio in a discussion on the GIRM.
Fraction Rite – The GIRM mandates that the priest is the only minister to break the bread and that the priest or deacon pour the wine. The American bishops are asking for an indult with regard to the pouring of the wine, which would allow Eucharistic ministers to pour. It is felt that if the priest were the one to pour, in larger parishes this would slow down the Communion Rite.
The staff recommended that we continue to have a Eucharistic minister pour the wine until we get an answer from Rome on whether the indult will be granted.
This makes no sense to me. If you have a practice that is explicitly against the GIRM do you keep on doing it till a possible indult is given? Maybe it is just me, but I would think that you would immediately stop the practice until such a time as an indult is given, if ever. If the Bishops really are asking for an indult on this I would like to know a sane reason why. We need to get away from the concept that active-participation in the Mass means everybody physically doing something at the altar.
Communion For Ministers – Our present policy of having the presider and ministers receive after the assembly was implemented in 1995 after consultation with the parish and a group of about 50 parishioners over a period of four to five months. The decision was made, as a parish, that the presider and ministers would receive last as a sign of hospitality.
The Rite is very clear that ministers receive from the priest and the priest receives first. Because the Rite is so strong on this issue, the staff recommended that we follow this mandate.
Wasn’t that so nice of the staff for them to recommend going along with the GIRM? It always amazes me the argumentation on these issues. Such as worrying about the ministers receiving first will be seen as inhospitable. Did you ever see anybody get up in a huff and leave after witnessing a EEM receive the Eucharist first?
Position of the Assembly During Communion – This was the recommendation that the staff had the most debate and discussion among themselves. There is a clear directive by the Diocese that the assembly should stand until everyone has received Communion, because that was the position in the early Church. The staff felt that there would be elderly and disabled people who would not be able to stand this long, and, therefore, you would have people standing and
sitting.
Oh No!!!!!!! You would have people standing and sitting, what a scandal. I will not stand for it.
Since we presently all sit, showing unity, staff recommended that we continue to do so.
Debate and discuss among yourselves all you want, but please follow the plain instructions in the GIRM. They fail to understand that the sign of unity is not just among members of their parish church but among the whole Church universal. They are out of unity with those churches faithfully following the GIRM. Those who are physically unable to stand, kneel, etc are already excused from those actions according to the GIRM.
This just goes to show that for the most part it doesn’t matter how many documents the Vatican issues and how clear they are. There will still be many that just pick and choose what to implement based on their tastes. This church’s council is probably representative of what goes on in the United States and elsewhere. Well-meaning people who decide what is best for their parish based on their preferences and understanding. The GIRM is meant to be implemented not interpreted. We send our dogs to obedience school. I think it is time that American Catholics also attended.
Summarizing their plans on the vocation practice they planned to have a dialog, panel discussion, focus group, and asking how do vocational statistics make you feel? During focus groups council members would be there in a listening capacity. Typical meeting-speak that says nothing and ends up doing nothing. Those churches who are fully orthodox are not having a vocation problem, and I am sure they did it without focus groups.
10 comments
They recommended these changes; I wonder what the pastor *decided*? Parish/Pastoral Councils can’t make decisions but only recommendations (much to my personal dismay, but that’s a different discussion). Some councils work well, others don’t. Some pastors know how to get value out of a council, and some don’t…
FYI,
Deacons can also assist the priest in the breaking of the bread or do it entirely themselves. My feeling on the new GIRM is that is does take a while longer for the priest and or deacon to pour the precious blood and break the bread but if you break it down it only add’s about a minute to the liturgy.
Love your blog
DPW
Steve,
From what I read, their priest was at the meetings and from my experience few priests override their councils.
I think that it is a good thing that councils can only recommend actions. The Pastor is ultimately the one responsible for the parish and the souls within it. The councils can help him out when they make decision in conformance with the church and when that is done their recommendation can easily be ratified by the pastor. The lack of good cathechisis over the last forty years has not helped out the people on the councils. It amazes me sometimes to see the lack of understanding of the church and the reason for her doctrines in people who are in positions such as these.
I am all for lay involvement at the parish. But this involvement needs to be obedient to the Church and not a matter of people setting their agendas.
Heaven forbid anything should slow down Communion….
Is there is sign (a la McDonald’s) in the sacristy boasting of the seconds it takes to ‘serve’ each communicant?
Let poeple not forget that the fraction rite was NEVER supposed to be done by anyone but and ordained minister.
If there is not enough time for the proper ministers to pour the wine and break the bread, I suggest that communion be offered to the faithful under the species of bread only and that the old-fashioned little round hosts be used.
I noticed this was a Catholic “Community” in which Our Lord has been moved to his own closet, er, little chapel.
It’s called a slippery slope, folks, and too many “American” Catholic churches are singing “we-we-we-weeeeeeeeeeeeeee” all the way down.
They said:
“The staff recommended that we continue to have a Eucharistic minister pour the wine until we get an answer from Rome on whether the indult will be granted.”
First, there is a major problem and defective theology in referring to the Precious Blood as wine.
Second, Rome has already answered the question about an indult. This was previously requested by the US Bishops and was denied by the Holy See. This was also reiterated on the USCCB website when the 2 other indults were granted.
Goofballs!
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I bet the parish is leaving the “pouring of the wine” as it is so they can add that it is already an existing practice and it would confuse the laity if abrogated at this juncture. This is exactly how altar girls and Communion on the hand were introduced.
Like little kids… finding any which way to get around a situation and be the boss. Sad.
I noticed they said this regarding Pater Noster:
Lord’s Prayer & Sign of Peace – The GIRM suggests using the Orans position when praying the Lord’s Prayer and an embrace during the Sign of Peace.
Since this is something that we have always done at St. Noel from the beginning and expresses our unity, the staff recommends that we continue using the position of holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer and using an embrace, kiss, or handshake during the Sign of Peace.
—
Last I knew, the Orans position was not holding hands. Indeed, I understood it to be anything but holding hands, unless, of course, I hold my own hands. To me, holding hands “for unity” is not the best of theology. I would imagine a better time to do such would be the Creed, but please don’t start doing so because I have suggested so. Keep being obedient, please.