Paul Turner’s Catholic Liturgy Blog

Sacristans pouring wine

Q:  Our sacristans pour the unconsecrated wine into the communal chalices at the altar after the priest pours the wine into his chalice. Is this okay for the sacristan to do? Since wine can be poured in to the communal chalices before Mass—I would presume that a lay person could do this during Mass as well—wrong?
A:  I think that your practice does not conflict with the US Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion under both Kinds. See #36 here: http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/norms-for-holy-communion-under-both-kinds/. It allows “servers” to help deacons prepare the altar, and your sacristans are basically acting like servers at that point. However, it does say that chalices “filled with wine” may be placed on the altar, which seems to imply that the pouring has taken place elsewhere. Personally, I don’t see a problem with your practice, but it may become a judgment call by the presider.

 

Exposition

Q: In our parish, there is Exposition Tues, Wed and Thursday from early morning till late evening.  We have many people that are regulars and have specific hours that they pray during those days.  However, there are some hours that are “open” because the person cannot be there that day or week; or we just don’t have enough people to fill all the time slots.  

When there is an open hour or if the next person after you doesn’t show up as scheduled, the adorer reposes the Blessed Sacrament without ceremony.  Then an hour or two later, when the next adorer comes, the adorer exposes the Blessed Sacrament, again without ceremony.  
As an example, this happened once on Tuesday, twice on Wednesday and 3 times this Thursday.  Of course, the Eucharist is never left exposed with no one present.   It is the practice here to just “put it away” rather than actively pursue more people or ask someone to take your hour.  We do ask for volunteers through the weekly bulletin, but there is no one who actively tries to fill ‘spots’ as they open up.
My question is:  is this acceptable practice to exposed/repose the Blessed Sacrament throughout the day?   All of our lay people are reverent towards the Blessed Sacrament when they expose/repose but it seems irreverent to take Jesus “in and out” at will.
A:  This practice you describe is not in keeping with the vision of this liturgy. The document I’m quoting is “Holy Communion and Worship of the Eucharist Outside Mass” from the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship. The regulations have been in place since 1973, and there has been no further revision.

The third chapter describes eucharistic worship outside mass, which envisions that a lengthy exposition should be done “only if there is assurance of the participation of a reasonable number of the faithful” (86). Reposition may take place twice a day. I think that this is to ensure the integrity of a single liturgical ceremony. It also envisions that the times for exposition be at “fixed hours that are announced ahead of time” (88).
In my view, your situation deserves a review. Another solution is to limit exposition to one hour when the largest number of people can be present, and then encourage individual prayer before the tabernacle (not exposition of the Blessed Sacrament) at other hours of the day.

Eucharistic benediction

Q: Is there a limit to the number of times a parish can have the Eucharistic benediction in a day.

A:  Yes. Twice.

According to the instruction Eucharistiæ saramentum (Congregation for Divine Worship, 1973), “Where there cannot be uninterrupted exposition because there is not a sufficient number of worshipers, it is permissible to replace the blessed sacrament in the tabernacle at fixed hours that are announced ahead of time. But this may not be done more than twice a day, for example, at midday and at night.”

Confiteor at night prayer

Q:  Following the Examination of Conscience at night prayer, and when using the Confiteor is it required or even permissible to use the ” May almighty God have mercy on us …” formula when a priest is not present?  Thanks.

A:  The penitential act is to be done as at mass, and it should include the formula you cite. In the preconciliar liturgy both the priest and the servers recited the formula to each other. It’s called “absolution” but it is not sacramental.

Q:  Thanks for the response, but can this non-sacramental “absolution” be used at Night Prayer?  Must it be used in conjunction with the Confiteor at Night Prayer?  Thanks.

A:  In the editio typica, the Latin rubric in the Ordinarium says that the penitential act according to the formulas for mass “may be included.” Then it refers to an appendix where the formulas can be found. The three formulas from the missal each conclude with the absolution, and it says that it is given by “the presider.” This is different from the missal, which says that the absolution is given by “the priest.” So, a penitential act is not required, but if it is done, then the presider – even a lay person – must conclude it with the absolution.

Alleluia at the end of the Gospel

Q:  Do you support the singing of the Alleluia as the people’s response at the end of the proclaimed Gospel?

A:  In general, no. I think that the acclamation concluding the gospel is especially rich: “Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ,” because Christ continues to speak today in the proclamation of the gospel.

However, some people like the alleluia after the gospel especially if the procession is lengthy. At papal masses, for example, it’s somewhat common.

In general, though, the liturgy does not draw attention to any procession after the gospel. It isn’t as important as the procession before it.

Who is the presider?

Q:  What, if anything, is incorrect with this statement?
“Our celebrant (presider) at this liturgy is Jesus Christ.”
A:  Well, sign me up for that parish!

No, the celebrant/presider is always a human priest, and one should not confuse him with Jesus Christ.
GIRM 2 quotes SC 47: “At the Last Supper, Our Savior instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his Body and Blood, by which the Sacrifice of his Cross is perpetuated until he comes again; and till then he entrusts the memorial of his Death and Resurrection to his beloved spouse, the Church.”

Jesus died on the cross. He oversaw the Last Supper. He entrusted the memorial of his sacrifice to the Church. With a priest, we participate again and again in his one sacrifice.

Who holds the lazo?

Q:  Quería saber si las personas que nos pongan el lazo puede ser 2 mujeres? Mi mama y la abuela de mi novio? O mi mama y mi tío??

I’d like to know if the persons who place the lazo on us may be 2 women? My mother and my fiance’s grandmother? Or my mother and my uncle?

A:  El Rito de Matrimonio dice, “El lazo (o el velo) lo sostienen dos familiares o amigos…” Se permiten dos mujeres.

The Order of Matrimony says, “Two members of the family or friends hold the lazo (or veil)…” Two women are allowed.

Facing the people

Q:  Cardinal Robert Sarah recently encouraged priests to use the ad orientem Mass.  I think this was a mistake and will end up confusing lots of folks.

What’s your take on (a) the Mass itself; and (b) the cardinal’s statement?
I think the idea of facing away from the congregation violates the very spirit, if not the rule and intent, of Vatican II.  My case is severely weakened by the confusing rubrics in the Roman Missal which certainly seem to suggest facing away from the congregation, why else would there be a direction “facing the people” if the priest weren’t already doing so?
If you have the moment for a brief response, I would like to hear your thoughts.  I’m considering writing my bishop about this issue.
A:  The Order of Mass does indicate places when the priest should face the people, but it never asks him to turn away as the preconciliar missal did.  The GIRM presumes that the priest is celebrating mass at a freestanding altar. It was clearly the mind of the council that the priest should be facing the people.

There are priests who prefer ad orientem. I am convinced that they mean well and find it a devout way to pray. But the overwhelming experience worldwide after Vatican II is that the priest faces the people for the mass, and this has contributed to the sanctification of the people.
There are some historical churches with fixed altars where the priest does not have the option of facing the people. I think the rubrics in the Order of Mass are for those situations, where he needs to be told when, at least, he should face the people.
For what it’s worth, the nuptial blessing even before the council was always said facing the couple, not facing the altar. God can be addressed when facing people.
The cardinal’s remarks were made during an interview with a French journal. They reflect his opinions and preferences, but they are not a well thought-out statement of the congregation or of the Church.
By all means, let the archbishop know your concerns. He is in a position to relay them.

Translation of the Glory to God

Q:  Can you help me with a critical commentary on the translation of the Glory to God (in the Introductory Rites of the Mass) from the Greek NT and the Latin in RM (2010).

A colleague here is interested in the translation “Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to people of good will”  The late Rev. Dr Evan Burge (Trinity College, Univ. of Melbourne) apparently wrote a commentary as part of the ELLC Praying Together/Prayers we Have in Common which is one useful source.    Are there any others that could shed light on the most recent translation?

Thanks in anticipation for  any advice.

A:  I don’t know of another critical commentary. I’ve made a few remarks in my book At the Supper of the Lamb, which refers to the Apostolic Constitutions 7:47 as the earliest source of the hymn (4th c.). I don’t have the Greek in front of me, but I suspect that even there the first line of the hymn in AC differs from Luke 2:14. It’s important to check that out.

The current English translation faithfully renders what the Latin has said for many, many centuries. It is not the same as Luke 2:14. The revised translation has brought some questions to light, and I’m happy to know that your colleague is looking into them. I just would just caution that the translation we have now is faithful to the centuries-old hymn. It was not trying to rework the traditional hymn to make some political point.

I have never been too concerned about the discrepancy between the first line of the Gloria and the biblical text, but maybe I should be. I just know that many of the popular hymns we sing – “I am the Bread of Life” is only one example – take liberties with the biblical text, and nobody seems to care. Hymnody is not the same as biblical proclamation. That’s why the biblical proclamation is so important during the Liturgy of the Word, and why the freedoms surrounding hymnody help people express the faith in different terms.