The Recovering Choir Director

Hello…

It’s been a while since I’ve last posted (Aris, how’d you like the book “Worship Evangelism” that I had lent you?). Anyway, this past Sunday I did the music for mass, and used a relatively new Marian hymn that was absolutely (1) beautiful (2) reverent (3) appropriate-for-liturgy, (4) poetic, and (5) congregational-friendly. Lest folks think that a modern hymn could not possibly fit this description, please refer to #699 in your 2004 Breaking Bread (OCP). The song, “Me Maria/As Lovely As the Dawn” was actually copyrighted some forty years ago, in Korea, but it finally made the book this past year, with a tremendously beautiful and orthodox translation. Search for it.

Nick

“I really don’t understand all the concern over consecrating wine in the flagon over lots and lots of little cups.”

I believe the reasoning is that the pouring and (potentially) sloshing from one vessel to another should be done while it is still wine, rather than after the liquid in question is the Body and Blood of Christ.

I have never seen it sloshed, and didn’t think it was much of an issue, myself.

However, one of our priests was complaining abut the ruling in early summer when he first read the letter, “Who ever spills anything duirng communion? It’s not like we have accidents around here.” But a few weeks ago (our parish has not yet implemented any changes,) the sacristan was away and this priest was in charge of the “laundry” and he was appalled by how much Precious Blood was on some of the vestments (not linens or altar cloths,) he had to wash (not to mention appalled at how difficult it is to get red wine stains out of white polyester.)
Since there had been no “accidents” at that days liturgies, this could only have happned when the Precious blood was being tranferred, that is poured, from the decanter to the individual chalices by the priests at the fraction rite.
He is rethinking how he feels about the rules.

Since when is “presider improvisation” “permitted” or “encouraged”?? There are only 3-4 times during the Mass in which the priest is free to make extraneous comments, and those are always supposed to be “brief” and introductory in theme.

Secondly, the 2002 IGRM is superseded by the provisions of Redemptionis Sacramentum.

And I wonder what RP is talking about with the “Angelicaists” wanting things “back to the way they used to be”. Communion wasn’t received under both species back “in the way it used to be”, so such a silly reference is spurious.

From “Redemptionis Sacramentum”

106. However, the pouring of the Blood of Christ after the consecration from one vessel to another is completely to be avoided, lest anything should happen that would be to the
detriment of so great a mystery. Never to be used for containing the Blood of the Lord are
flagons, bowls, or other vessels that are not fully in accord with the established norms.

Peace, Tim.

You’re not watching the Roman Missal and the various rites closely enough. It’s more than three or four. Second, eventually “Re-dump-it-on-us” will get integrated into the IGRM, I suppose. But consider in the meantime, we don’t even have a Roman Missal translation in print (nor does it look like we’re going to get the whole deal very soon). On top of that, there would be the explanatory extras of RS 106 which leaves the door open to this possibility: what if using flagons and carafes is more reverent than multiple chalices? RS 106 might be seen as neo-liturgical law in some places, but it remains a pretty pee-poor example of practical liturgy. Besides, what are they going to do, defrock a priest for unauthorized use of a flagon? Frankly, I think there are bigger and better liturgical fish to fry.

“…common practice of the average parish offering the more complete sign of communion under both species”

What does “more” complete mean? I always see this term used in conjunction with communion under both species. Does it imply that communion under one kind is not complete? What about the V2 goal of unity in worship? Less than half of communicants at my parish choose to receive from the cup.

There are at least two competing issues involved in these matters; practical considerations regarding distributing communion to a large group (although not as large as before EMEs were introduced) and showing reverence for the Blessed Sacrament. I have no objection to distributing the Precious Blood, if it can be done in a way that preserves the sense of the sacred around communion. (e.g. doubling the number of EMEs. Intinction anyone?)

” eventually “Re-dump-it-on-us” will get integrated into the IGRM”

Are there items in RS that aren’t already part of the GI? My reading of it indicates it is all either reiteration of what is already there, or calling attention to what is NOT there.

And I think the next time you feign a love of charity when someone disagrees with some goofy notion you espouse by mocking it and those who believe it, it’s going to ring a little hollow.

“Frankly, I think there are bigger and better liturgical fish to fry.”

I agree.
For instance, make-it-up-as-they-go-along liturgists who don’t think the authoratative expression of the Church’s mind is nearly as important as their own whims — they could be fried.

However the quote is remembered, whether you think it is God or the devil “in the details,” details do count.
The attitude that anything that pertains to the reverent and licit celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is unimportant is how those of your ilk brought about “the 30% Sunday attendance for Catholics, the generally weak state of church music and art in many, if not most parishes, the lack of clergy to anoint the sick and serve otherwise viable rural parishes, poor homiletics.”

I hope they’re proud of themselves.

Speaking of charity, someone suggested those who were upset by abuses in parishes they visited should just stay home. Should those whose parishes are unstaffed just move?

Peace, Marge.

You make some good and valid points: and except fot the “goofy” comment, thank you.

“Are there items in RS that aren’t already part of the GI?”

Yes. And the detailed procedures for not using flagons would be one set of them.

“And I think the next time you feign a love of charity when someone disagrees with some goofy notion you espouse by mocking it and those who believe it, it’s going to ring a little hollow.”

I hardly think I mocked our blog host. I agreed with RP on what I would see as the needless fussiness of legislating where there has been no problem or abuse. I hope I wasn’t overly sarcastic with Tim, but I think the point is valid: If the concern is a better celebration of liturgy, are small details really the best starting point? I agree with your sense that details are vital, but it seems to me that the method of pouring wine or the Precious Blood is best left to the local pastor’s discretion.

You are correct that poor liturgists could be fired. The Church has more control in that area than clergy or volunteers, to be sure. However, I don’t believe you have ever been a parishioner of mine, so you are hardly in a position to judge just what exactly my “ilk” is. I’ve worked for the Church for over sixteen years, and I wouldn’t be boasting to say there are hundreds of people in a number of parishes who would dispute your contention.

Tim, the fact that my opinion carries weight is (for better or worse) independent of my competence, or lack of it. I work for a pastor and parishioners who trust me and respect my abilities. For the record, my degree is not from any of those places.

Peace, Marge.

On the communicating of the Precious Blood, you’re not quite correct. The Orthodox use spoons and straws, and both practices have some historical pedigree in the West, though it’s been about 18 years since I’ve seen either attempted in practice. Fried, fired, or florid: lots of good words sort of work in that context.

Bernard:

Thank you for providing the image I have preferred for communion for a long time: one community, one altar, one up. That’s why I prefer a single place for communion (for at least the able) for everyone to receive, from the same minister or pair of ministers (celebrant and deacon, eg). Everyone being fed from the same hand is a profound ritual symbol.

Thank you, Bernard, I was trying to figure out what the use of the spoon had to do with “pouring” the Precious Blood.
I have never seen the straw used, at numerous Eastern Rite churches around the US.
Todd, were you guessing that it was used like a pipette? I would have as well.
I’m trying to remember from my (remote) childhood, obviously we did not receive under both species, but there were often multiple priests and ministers distributing the Body of Christ — when were hosts apportioned out into multiple ciboria?
The Fraction Rite (and what vaguely looks like family-style casual supper serving amongst the EMs — “Ya got enough there? here, take some of mine”,) seems to take forever now, at every church I go to.
I seem to recall the celebrant often waiting for the Lamb of God to be finished.
My vague impression is that EMs TAKE more time then the SAVE, although the undue length of the Communion processions if they are not used is often advanced as the very reason for their existence (and this from someone who has notobjection to Extraordinary Ministers, not an “Angelicaist.”)
Liam, the only venues, other than the Byzantine church I used to attend, where all the communicants receive from a single minister as a matter of course, are monasteries. At most parishes it seems, even at a weekday morning Mass with 50 or 60 in attendance, that there are two or three pairs of ministers.

Dear Todd (and all):

Regarding the use of the spoon in Orthodox eucharistic practice, perhaps I did not make myself (or it) clear enough. The practice is, before the Liturgy (in the rite of Preparation) for the priest to cut the (leavened) eucharistic bread (called “the Lamb”, for obvious reasons) into small squares for each member who is going to communicate. At that time, the cup of wine is also prepared, and the pieces of bread lie on a paten placed above the cup. In Russian practice, after the consecration, the bread is poured into the wine, and what is spooned into the communicant’s mouth is basically a sop of what was once bread and wine. Thus, the proper verb would not be “poured”, but rather, “fed” or “spooned”.

Melkite practice (that is, the Eastern Catholic Arab Christian practice) is for the priest or bishop to hold both the cup in one hand, for the deacon to hold the paten, and for the priest or bishop to dip the Sacred Body into the Sacred Blood, and to give the Body and Blood to the communicant directly in that way. I have found this also to be a beautiful and moving practice.

From what I am able to see of GIRM and the recent liturgical instruction, this is apparently also a legitimate way for a Roman priest to distribute the Eucharist.

Peace, Simon.

“The whole point of RS’s prohibition of pouring of the Precious Blood into separate chalices …”

That’s one interpretation, but one I would not hold. And since the CDWS didn’t provide commentary, we really don’t know the whole truth. I hope I don’t really harp on rigidity; I intend to criticize it, then move on.

“My experience with “pouring the wine” is that it’s a very messy business …”

Okay. I’ve seen more instances of spilled hosts than the Precious Blood, but I think I’ve trained EM’s to take reverent care as they handle vessels.

“Perhaps your parish might want to consider hiring another liturgist to help you out.”

Perhaps. But my goal, and I hope theirs would be to train the laity in the parish to take over that role. I’m not convinced a professional class in the Church is a totally good thing for everyone.

“While that may be true, nowhere in our tradition allows priests or others to alter or improvise the orations …”

True, but there are options in other places. I was curious about which improvisations were observed.

Peace, Mark.

The only problem with this reasoning is the likelihood a sacristan would pour them before Mass and put them on a tray so the priest wouldn’t complain about taking more time during Mass. I’m not sure there’s anything in the IGRM about that. Except for our elderly priest who specifically requested lay people help him pour, our parish implemented quickly on this point.

Greetings Todd,

“That’s one interpretation, but one I would not hold.”

RS 106: However, the pouring of the Blood of Christ after the consecration from one vessel to another is completely to be avoided, **lest anything should happen that would be to the detriment of so great a mystery**.

I wondered why RS broke custom with the rest of the document in providing a rationale for this instruction. Now, I’ve figured out why. Though I suspect the sceptical would still dig for the “real” reason.

“I hope I don’t really harp on rigidity; I intend to criticize it, then move on.”

I observe that you skillfully avoided the obedience bit in the sentence. While one may feel that some regulation is unnecessary, but if it may be of benefit to at least some of my sisters/brothers, charity would suggest that I observe the regulation lest I bring scandal to others.

“But my goal, and I hope theirs would be to train the laity in the parish to take over that role… ”

Professional courses may be useful or not, but I believe that the person’s faith and how he relates that with the liturgy is what separates a good liturgist from another. In that sense, every member of the liturgical assembly can and should be a liturgist. But how will that be achieved as long as we perpetuate a false sense that the laity are actively participating only if they have some ministerial role in the liturgy, as extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, Readers, servers or, God-forbid, parish liturgical directors?

Bernard beautifully reminded us that “liturgia” is a public duty before God. Our Latin tradition calls the liturgy the “opus Dei”. Perhaps if we see our liturgies as primarily the work of God, we may appreciate the beauty behind RS, including any of its cryptic regulations that may not be to our liking.

Peace, Simon.

“RS 106: However, the pouring of the Blood of Christ after the consecration from one vessel to another is completely to be avoided, **lest anything should happen that would be to the detriment of so great a mystery**.”

And in the past, we have seen this as a caution to pouring from a vessel unsuitable for pouring. I think the suggestion that the act of pouring is somehow a detriment to mystery to be a real stretch.

“I observe that you skillfully avoided the obedience bit in the sentence.”

Conceded, my friend.

“While one may feel that some regulation is unnecessary, but if it may be of benefit to at least some of my sisters/brothers, charity would suggest that I observe the regulation lest I bring scandal to others.”

Some of my brothers and sisters are scandalized by it. If that were my only motivation, I’d be spurred to total inaction.

“Professional courses may be useful or not, … should be a liturgist.”

Amen, brother.

“But how will that be achieved as long as we perpetuate a false sense that the laity are actively participating only if they have some ministerial role in the liturgy, as extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, Readers, servers or, God-forbid, parish liturgical directors?”

Um. I don’t think this is what we were discussing at all. My point was with my own role as a lay ecclesial minister. Taking your point to a logical end, we could ask the same of clergy.

“Perhaps if we see our liturgies as primarily the work of God …”

“Primarily” can be a difficult descriptor. The danger is to engender passivity in the laity, rather than real “work.” No question, the life of faith is primarily about God’s offer of salvation. God’s side doesn’t worry me. It’s getting the people to respond to God’s call that’s the challenge.

Peace, Gere.

Okay. Something bad might happen, according to the document. You can say that about a lot of things. The question: do you trust (or does the CDWS) trust pastors to keep things under control? Why bother with things such as responsibility when pretty soon we can computerize everything? And yes, I’ve seen priests and ministers do some silly things, too. I’m not sure these are convicting points, except maybe not to distribute Communion at all, but just keep an eye on it.

Peace, Gere.

Points taken. I might quibble about the “liberal liturgical establishment.” From diocese to diocese that’s hard to pin down, and even among publishers, it’s hard to find a clear single voice. So like any other category, I think some liberal liturgists (whatever that means) are trustworthy (whatever that means) and some aren’t.

I think the CDWS is getting a skewed picture by listening to complaints only. It’s dangerous to legislate based on crimes alone without consideration of the good work people do. I think they harm themselves and the Church by not attending to the full plate of details in favor of the loudest voices of protest. I wouldn’t say the CDWS is being manipulated, but on some points, it sure does look that way. Even as a person who distrusts authority from time to time, I can see that’s a bad way to go.

Dear Geri:

Personally, I would not wish to disturb a dove that was attracted by a painting of the Holy Spirit in a church, or that dwelt in the nave or sanctuary of that church. For me, it would be like trying to “shoo” the Holy Spirit itself out of that church.