Category: Liturgy

A reader writes:

Under what circumstances outside of imminent death (or equally

concerning situations) can/should a priest invite Protestants to come

to receive Communion (or, in my particular instance, to "come as the

Lord calls you")? 

The Code says the following:

Can. 844 §4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the

judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave

necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly

also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church [in context, this is other than Eastern non-Catholic Christians and thus means Protestants],

who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on

their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to

these sacraments and are properly disposed.

The other conditions are thus those that would involve a grave necessity in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops, not the individual priest.

Also it is right out for the priest to issue a general invitation for them to come since in that case they are not "seek[ing] such on their own accord" but being prompted by the priest.

Would a Catholic silent retreat be such acceptable?

Definitely not.

Is it appropriate for me, as among the laity, to confront the priest

and hope to change his mind about such an invitation? 

Appropriate? Yes. Obligatory? Not necessarily.

Is it

appropriate for me to approach the Protestants directly to correct any

mistakes the priest has made? 

Appropriate? Yes. Obligatory? Not necessarily.

Would it be appropriate to approach the

Protestants directly only after the Priest made it clear he thought he

was right (because, regardless of Church teaching, he thinks it

wrong)?

Appropriate? Yes. Obligatory? Not necessarily.

Do I have any other obligations? 

It depends on your relationship with the parties involved (the priest and the Protestants) and on the circumstances. If you have a close relationship with any of them then you may have a stronger obligation to do something about the situation than if you have a more distant relation. (E.g., if you are married to or close friends with one of the Protestants then you have a stronger obligation to correct the person than if you don’t know him at all.)

Such obligations are also defeasible, which is where circumstance comes in. For example, if the only way you could effectively deal with the situation were to jump up during the silent retreat and yell "What that priest just said is FALSE! DO NOT LISTEN TO HIM! BEWARE! BEWARE!" then this would cause problems great enough that it would defeat any obligation you were likely to have in this regard. The act of doing something that disruptive could scandalize the audience you are trying to help and push them away from the Church.

Tell my pastor and/or bishop?  Write

the priest’s bishop or ordinary?  Continue talking with this priest?

If you’ve talked to the priest already then you might continue to talk to him if you perceive that it has a significant likelihood of bearing fruit. However, if you do not foresee that then the thing to do would be to escalate to the next higher level (the pastor, the bishop, the priest’s religious superior, etc.). If that doesn’t work, contacting the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments would be the final recourse.

This is a very serious matter that the Church takes very seriously. The CDWDS does get complaints of this nature and it does act on them (though not always in a way visible to the public; for example, I’ve seen copies of letters that were privately sent to bishops telling them to straighten a priest out on matters such as this).

My own inclination would be very strongly to pursue the matter further, but working up the chain of command one step at a time so that the problem can be solved on the lowest level possible (which might still be the priest himself).

If you do take it to the next level, be specific, giving names, dates, and exact quotations to the extent possible.

A reader writes:

Under what circumstances outside of imminent death (or equally
concerning situations) can/should a priest invite Protestants to come
to receive Communion (or, in my particular instance, to "come as the
Lord calls you")? 

The Code says the following:

Can. 844 §4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the
judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave
necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly
also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church [in context, this is other than Eastern non-Catholic Christians and thus means Protestants],
who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on
their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to
these sacraments and are properly disposed.

The other conditions are thus those that would involve a grave necessity in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops, not the individual priest.

Also it is right out for the priest to issue a general invitation for them to come since in that case they are not "seek[ing] such on their own accord" but being prompted by the priest.

Would a Catholic silent retreat be such acceptable?

Definitely not.

Is it appropriate for me, as among the laity, to confront the priest
and hope to change his mind about such an invitation? 

Appropriate? Yes. Obligatory? Not necessarily.

Is it
appropriate for me to approach the Protestants directly to correct any
mistakes the priest has made? 

Appropriate? Yes. Obligatory? Not necessarily.

Would it be appropriate to approach the
Protestants directly only after the Priest made it clear he thought he
was right (because, regardless of Church teaching, he thinks it
wrong)?

Appropriate? Yes. Obligatory? Not necessarily.

Do I have any other obligations? 

It depends on your relationship with the parties involved (the priest and the Protestants) and on the circumstances. If you have a close relationship with any of them then you may have a stronger obligation to do something about the situation than if you have a more distant relation. (E.g., if you are married to or close friends with one of the Protestants then you have a stronger obligation to correct the person than if you don’t know him at all.)

Such obligations are also defeasible, which is where circumstance comes in. For example, if the only way you could effectively deal with the situation were to jump up during the silent retreat and yell "What that priest just said is FALSE! DO NOT LISTEN TO HIM! BEWARE! BEWARE!" then this would cause problems great enough that it would defeat any obligation you were likely to have in this regard. The act of doing something that disruptive could scandalize the audience you are trying to help and push them away from the Church.

Tell my pastor and/or bishop?  Write
the priest’s bishop or ordinary?  Continue talking with this priest?

If you’ve talked to the priest already then you might continue to talk to him if you perceive that it has a significant likelihood of bearing fruit. However, if you do not foresee that then the thing to do would be to escalate to the next higher level (the pastor, the bishop, the priest’s religious superior, etc.). If that doesn’t work, contacting the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments would be the final recourse.

This is a very serious matter that the Church takes very seriously. The CDWDS does get complaints of this nature and it does act on them (though not always in a way visible to the public; for example, I’ve seen copies of letters that were privately sent to bishops telling them to straighten a priest out on matters such as this).

My own inclination would be very strongly to pursue the matter further, but working up the chain of command one step at a time so that the problem can be solved on the lowest level possible (which might still be the priest himself).

If you do take it to the next level, be specific, giving names, dates, and exact quotations to the extent possible.

A reader writes:

Prof. Dr. Jimmy:

If you’ve addressed this before, then my profuse apologies.

Question, Short Form:  Is the NAB the only Bible from which readings at Mass may be used?

Answer, Short Form: Technically, no, but you’re not going to have much of a chance of getting another used, at least in the U.S.

Question, Longer Form:  As we all (that is, we being, well, we) recognize, the NAB is, to put it nicely, just somewhat lacking when it comes to translational accuracy; or, as Butthead once said, "This sucks more than anything that has ever sucked before."  Given either premise, is substitution allowed?  Specifically for the Torah, I have in mind Everett Fox’s ‘The Schocken Bible, Vol. I.’  While I am aware that it, too, has some problems, at least it seems to attempt to adhere to the poetic nature and intent of the early Hebrew writers.

Answer, Longer Form: Technically, the lectionary promoted by the USCCB is not simply based on the NAB. Parts of it are based on the NAB, but parts are based on an edited form of the Revised NAB, so what we have is a kind of patchwork lectioary composed from different sources. As has been pointed out, you cannot buy a Bible that has in it what the lectionary has in it. This is because of the unique redactional history of the current lectionary.

That being said, I would agree that the lectionary leaves much to be desired in the translational accuracy department and in the literary style department. Though the phrase is cute, I wouldn’t go so far as to agree with the literary character you mention who described it as "sucking more than anything has sucked before." I would apply that term to the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World "Translation," which is truly skin-peelingly bad.

Years ago there were permissions given for lectionaries based on other Scripture translations–the Jerusalem Bible and the Revised Standard Version (not the NRSV), as I recall correctly–and it was suggested that when the current lectionary came out that these permissions would get yanked, but as far as I know, they haven’t been, and so these lectionaries would technically still be permitted. There’s also a Lectionary for Masses with Children based on the Contemporary English Version.

The Shocken Bible’s version of the Torah, however, was never one of those approved versions.

The odds of getting an approved lectionary that isn’t the standard one used in a typical parish setting in the U.S. are very, very low. The current Lectionary for Mass published by the USCCB is the only one being promoted and the only approved one likely to be used.

If you’re interested in seeing how other English-speaking countries do things in this regard

LOOK HERE.

A reader writes:

At our Church the pastor says the Eucharistic prayers and also has the organist accompany him during this time.  This is very distracting and I have expressed this concern both with the music director and the pastor.  The music director told me that the pastor wants this because it "helps him know what to say next."  The pastor did not reply to my letter of concern and has continued this practice.

Is this a situation that I should take further to try to stop?  We have many problems at our church including inclusive language and we don’t know what to stand up for and what to just offer up for the Church.  Like I said, the music during Consecration is very distracting to me and others and I believe the Church has given us a gift in calling for silence during this time.

As to whether you should take further action to help deal with the situation, that is something that will have to be up to your best judgment. The practice is certainly contrary to the Church’s liturgical law and in itself worthy of action, but there may be "bigger fish to fry" in your parish (i.e., other problems that need more urgently to be solved). Make your best guess after reflecting on the situation and then act accordingly.

If you do conclude that the matter does need to be pursue further, I would talk to the priest directly about it rather than starting by going over his head. Work the steps that Jesus outlines in Matthew 18 to the extent that this is possible: talk to him privately, talk to him with a group, etc.

So that you know you’re on safe ground her legally, here is what the current (2002) General Instruction of the Roman Missal has to say on the matter:

 

30. Among the parts assigned to the priest, the foremost is the Eucharistic Prayer, which is the high point of the entire celebration. Next are the orations: that is to say, the collect, the prayer over the offerings, and the prayer after Communion. These prayers are addressed to God in the name of the entire holy people and all present, by the priest who presides over the assembly in the person of Christ. It is with good reason, therefore, that they are called the “presidential prayers.”

32. The nature of the “presidential” texts demands that they be spoken in a loud and clear voice and that everyone listen with attention. Thus, while the priest is speaking these texts, there should be no other prayers or singing, and the organ or other musical instruments should be silent.

A reader writes:

My wife and I came home to the
Church a couple of vigils ago, much to the chagrin of my in-laws, who
are a different breed of Protestant than I am used to.  Of late, they
have started being really active in the "home church" movement, in
their search for the simplicity of the early church.

This is where my question comes in.  As far as I have been able to
deduce so far, one of the biggest verses they use to support how their
"home church" meetings go is 1 Cor. 14:26, which seems to be describing
some type of church service.  How do Catholics reconcile this verse
(and following) with the current order of the Mass? 

Okay, well, let’s look at the verse:

1 Cor. 14:26: What then, brethren? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a
lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be
done for edification.

Paul is not here attempting to give an exhaustive description of what happens at each and every Christian worship service. He notes that these things do happen at Christian worship services, but he does not say (or imply) that these things must occur at the service. Nor does he say that the service consists of them. He does not even say that they form the provide the principle structure of the service. They are simply things that happen at some services.

Lemme give you a comparison. Suppose the pope was writing to a mixed audience of priests, deacons, and laity (as was Paul) only about a contempoary Catholic Mass and said:

What then, brethren? When you come together at Mass, some sing hymns, others read the readings, some play instruments, some distribute Communion, some preach the homily. Let all things be
done for in accord with the rubrics.

These are all things that happen at Mass, but you can’t use them to read off an order of worship for Mass. Nor can you even infer that they all must occur in each Mass. Some Masses don’t have singing or instruments, for example. Nor can you infer that any person in attendance can do any of these functions. Only priests and deacons can preach the homily. The list simply isn’t suited to developing an order of worship.

The point Paul is making is that the service is not just taken up with a single thing (like tongues, which he’s correcting a faction in the Corinthian church about). Different people play different roles and have different contributions to make. An ad hoc list of some of those contributions does not allow you to reconstruct an order of worship.

It may not even allow you to identify the single most important thing at the service. That’s true of both Paul’s list and mine. Neither mention the consecration of the Eucharist. In fact, if you are writing more for the people than for the clergy, you’ll tend to emphasize the things that the laity can do and omit more of what the clergy can do. In my list, I included a few clergy-oriented items (the homily and the distribution of Communion, even though some laity can also help with the latter). Paul was probably writing even more for the laity than I was and so didn’t mention the Eucharistic elements of the service.

And that’s assuming that Paul had a distinctly Eucharistic service in mind. He may well have been thinking of everything Christians do when they get together. The modern analog for that would be writing a list that not only named things Christians do at Mass but also at bible studies, CCD classes, choral services, the liturgy of the hours, etc., etc., etc. If that’s what Paul was thinking of then there is absolutely no way to derive a standard order of worship from what he wrote.

But then there isn’t such a way in any event, because his purpose is not to give an order of worship but to make the point that different people get to contribute different things "when you come together"–not necessarily "when you come together for the main Sunday worship service."

The reader continues:

Also, this verse
seems claim that the ideal service should be something in which various
people come together, each person playing an active role in the
"planning" and carrying out of the service. 

Paul doesn’t say that at all. We don’t know that he’s envisioning all these things happening at a single, standard service, and he doesn’t any anything at all about who plans such services. It could well be that the pastor plans the whole thing and assigns different tasks to those who are able to do them (e.g., singing to those who can sing).

Nor can it be inferred that Paul literally means that every single person should be playing some kind of "solo" role in the service. While all may take part in the prayers (just as we do today at Mass), there are only so many opportunities to "solo" that can exist in a single service, and it cannot be legitimately inferred that Paul would expect the congregation to break itself down into smaller units so everyone can have a chance to "shine" and be the center of attention at the service.

Indeed, in Paul’s day as now, there were numerous people who did not feel comfortable "taking the spotlight" and who would refuse to push themselves forward in front of everybody in this way. Paul’s point is just that God has given different gifts to different people and that they all have a place in Christian worship. Going beyond that is going beyond what can be legitimately inferred from the text.

Is it that this verse is
making reference to a "disciplinary" thing and that we simply say that
the order of service has changed (I know St. Justin Martyr bears
witness to the Mass ca. AD 150)?  Or that this verse simply doesn’t
*necessarily* refer to the weekly gathering?  Or something else?

There is a disciplinary aspect to the matter. While the fundamental framework of the Mass was there from St. Paul’s time, there has been considerable development in the details over time. We also should recognize that not all services, even in the first century, were necessarily Euchairstic services. We simply can’t infer very much from what Paul wrote about what each and every worship service today ought to look like.

Certainly, I know that the New Testament speaks of bishops, presbyters,
and deacons… and I don’t think they have any…at least not in their
house.  Which I suppose is a question for *them*. 

Actually, don’t assume too quickly that they won’t have folks that they call "bishops" (or "overseers"), "presbyters" (or "elder"), or "deacons." They may well have such individuals; they just won’t be validly ordained (or it will be a shock if they are).

But if their
response circles around 1 Cor. 14:26, I would love to have something
semi-intelligent to say.  I hope this hasn’t been too confusing.

Not at all! Hope this gives you a starting point!

A reader writes:

My wife and I came home to the

Church a couple of vigils ago, much to the chagrin of my in-laws, who

are a different breed of Protestant than I am used to.  Of late, they

have started being really active in the "home church" movement, in

their search for the simplicity of the early church.

This is where my question comes in.  As far as I have been able to

deduce so far, one of the biggest verses they use to support how their

"home church" meetings go is 1 Cor. 14:26, which seems to be describing

some type of church service.  How do Catholics reconcile this verse

(and following) with the current order of the Mass? 

Okay, well, let’s look at the verse:

1 Cor. 14:26: What then, brethren? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a

lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be

done for edification.

Paul is not here attempting to give an exhaustive description of what happens at each and every Christian worship service. He notes that these things do happen at Christian worship services, but he does not say (or imply) that these things must occur at the service. Nor does he say that the service consists of them. He does not even say that they form the provide the principle structure of the service. They are simply things that happen at some services.

Lemme give you a comparison. Suppose the pope was writing to a mixed audience of priests, deacons, and laity (as was Paul) only about a contempoary Catholic Mass and said:

What then, brethren? When you come together at Mass, some sing hymns, others read the readings, some play instruments, some distribute Communion, some preach the homily. Let all things be

done for in accord with the rubrics.

These are all things that happen at Mass, but you can’t use them to read off an order of worship for Mass. Nor can you even infer that they all must occur in each Mass. Some Masses don’t have singing or instruments, for example. Nor can you infer that any person in attendance can do any of these functions. Only priests and deacons can preach the homily. The list simply isn’t suited to developing an order of worship.

The point Paul is making is that the service is not just taken up with a single thing (like tongues, which he’s correcting a faction in the Corinthian church about). Different people play different roles and have different contributions to make. An ad hoc list of some of those contributions does not allow you to reconstruct an order of worship.

It may not even allow you to identify the single most important thing at the service. That’s true of both Paul’s list and mine. Neither mention the consecration of the Eucharist. In fact, if you are writing more for the people than for the clergy, you’ll tend to emphasize the things that the laity can do and omit more of what the clergy can do. In my list, I included a few clergy-oriented items (the homily and the distribution of Communion, even though some laity can also help with the latter). Paul was probably writing even more for the laity than I was and so didn’t mention the Eucharistic elements of the service.

And that’s assuming that Paul had a distinctly Eucharistic service in mind. He may well have been thinking of everything Christians do when they get together. The modern analog for that would be writing a list that not only named things Christians do at Mass but also at bible studies, CCD classes, choral services, the liturgy of the hours, etc., etc., etc. If that’s what Paul was thinking of then there is absolutely no way to derive a standard order of worship from what he wrote.

But then there isn’t such a way in any event, because his purpose is not to give an order of worship but to make the point that different people get to contribute different things "when you come together"–not necessarily "when you come together for the main Sunday worship service."

The reader continues:

Also, this verse

seems claim that the ideal service should be something in which various

people come together, each person playing an active role in the

"planning" and carrying out of the service. 

Paul doesn’t say that at all. We don’t know that he’s envisioning all these things happening at a single, standard service, and he doesn’t any anything at all about who plans such services. It could well be that the pastor plans the whole thing and assigns different tasks to those who are able to do them (e.g., singing to those who can sing).

Nor can it be inferred that Paul literally means that every single person should be playing some kind of "solo" role in the service. While all may take part in the prayers (just as we do today at Mass), there are only so many opportunities to "solo" that can exist in a single service, and it cannot be legitimately inferred that Paul would expect the congregation to break itself down into smaller units so everyone can have a chance to "shine" and be the center of attention at the service.

Indeed, in Paul’s day as now, there were numerous people who did not feel comfortable "taking the spotlight" and who would refuse to push themselves forward in front of everybody in this way. Paul’s point is just that God has given different gifts to different people and that they all have a place in Christian worship. Going beyond that is going beyond what can be legitimately inferred from the text.

Is it that this verse is

making reference to a "disciplinary" thing and that we simply say that

the order of service has changed (I know St. Justin Martyr bears

witness to the Mass ca. AD 150)?  Or that this verse simply doesn’t

*necessarily* refer to the weekly gathering?  Or something else?

There is a disciplinary aspect to the matter. While the fundamental framework of the Mass was there from St. Paul’s time, there has been considerable development in the details over time. We also should recognize that not all services, even in the first century, were necessarily Euchairstic services. We simply can’t infer very much from what Paul wrote about what each and every worship service today ought to look like.

Certainly, I know that the New Testament speaks of bishops, presbyters,

and deacons… and I don’t think they have any…at least not in their

house.  Which I suppose is a question for *them*. 

Actually, don’t assume too quickly that they won’t have folks that they call "bishops" (or "overseers"), "presbyters" (or "elder"), or "deacons." They may well have such individuals; they just won’t be validly ordained (or it will be a shock if they are).

But if their

response circles around 1 Cor. 14:26, I would love to have something

semi-intelligent to say.  I hope this hasn’t been too confusing.

Not at all! Hope this gives you a starting point!

A reader writes:

I have heard it mentioned that in the Latin Mass the
response to the priest’s statement "The Lord be with
you" was actually "and with your spirit". It seems to
me that "and also with you" makes more sense, but I
think I’m missing something. What does "and with your
spirit" really mean?

Not only does it say "And with your spirit" (Latin, Et cum spiritu tuo) in the Latin version of the Mass, it’s going to say this in the forthcoming new English translation of the Mass as well, if things go as currently planned. This was one of the items that the Vatican wanted fixed in the new translation.

To answer your question, the meaning of "And with your spirit" would depend on the context in which its used. Since there is no express subject for the phrase, that has to be filled in by context. In the liturgy (the only place one encounters this phrase typically) the context is, as you note, as response to "The Lord be with you." "And with your spirit" is thus an abbreviated way of saying "And [the Lord be] with your spirit." It’s a way of wishing the priest the same thing that he just wished us: that the Lord would be with us.

If one were to give a dynamic equivalence rendering of this–one that seeks to preserve meaning without worrying about giving a literal translation–"And also with you"would be an acceptable rendering of the phrase. They mean the same thing.

The problem is that the translators of the current rite of Mass went crazy with dynamic equivalence and totally steamrollered the sacred style of the Mass, making it seem far more banal and blasé than it is in the original Latin. Even if it requires a bit of education to help folks understand what is being said when the Mass is translated in a way that better reflects what the original says, the Holy See has judged that this will be offset by the gain in reverence and appreciation of the richness of the language of the Mass–it’s poetry and art, if you will.

What the previous translators did was the equivalent of taking Shakespeare and paraphrasing it so that ten year olds can understand it without effort. That flattens the art and dignity of the text.

Ultimately, it’s better to teach people to understand and appreciate the elevated style rather than dumbing down the text so they don’t have to learn anything new. The former, educational strategy ennobles the people; the latter, style-squashing strategy dishonors the text.

A reader writes:

I have heard it mentioned that in the Latin Mass the

response to the priest’s statement "The Lord be with

you" was actually "and with your spirit". It seems to

me that "and also with you" makes more sense, but I

think I’m missing something. What does "and with your

spirit" really mean?

Not only does it say "And with your spirit" (Latin, Et cum spiritu tuo) in the Latin version of the Mass, it’s going to say this in the forthcoming new English translation of the Mass as well, if things go as currently planned. This was one of the items that the Vatican wanted fixed in the new translation.

To answer your question, the meaning of "And with your spirit" would depend on the context in which its used. Since there is no express subject for the phrase, that has to be filled in by context. In the liturgy (the only place one encounters this phrase typically) the context is, as you note, as response to "The Lord be with you." "And with your spirit" is thus an abbreviated way of saying "And [the Lord be] with your spirit." It’s a way of wishing the priest the same thing that he just wished us: that the Lord would be with us.

If one were to give a dynamic equivalence rendering of this–one that seeks to preserve meaning without worrying about giving a literal translation–"And also with you"would be an acceptable rendering of the phrase. They mean the same thing.

The problem is that the translators of the current rite of Mass went crazy with dynamic equivalence and totally steamrollered the sacred style of the Mass, making it seem far more banal and blasé than it is in the original Latin. Even if it requires a bit of education to help folks understand what is being said when the Mass is translated in a way that better reflects what the original says, the Holy See has judged that this will be offset by the gain in reverence and appreciation of the richness of the language of the Mass–it’s poetry and art, if you will.

What the previous translators did was the equivalent of taking Shakespeare and paraphrasing it so that ten year olds can understand it without effort. That flattens the art and dignity of the text.

Ultimately, it’s better to teach people to understand and appreciate the elevated style rather than dumbing down the text so they don’t have to learn anything new. The former, educational strategy ennobles the people; the latter, style-squashing strategy dishonors the text.

Dale Price of Dyspeptic Mutterings waxes indignant on the expectations of the Choir-Robed Masters in the Church Loft that thou shalt sing:

CRM: "Many Catholics still find singing in church a problem, probably because of the rather individualistic piety that they inherited. Yet singing has been a tradition of both the Old and the New Testament. It is an excellent way of expressing and creating a community spirit of unity as well as joy. Ephrem’s hymns, an ancient historian testifies, ‘lent luster to the Christian assemblies.’ We need some modern Ephrems — and cooperating singers — to do the same for our Christian assemblies today."

DP: "Ah, yes — one of the great evils of our time — individualistic piety! I suppose I should be thankful that the commenter didn’t mention fish on Fridays, too. The Borg Collective approach to liturgical reform is bent on stamping that out. You see it in the diktats from the liturgy offices demanding that the faithful Keep Standing and Singing, Dammit! after receiving the Eucharist. Resistance is futile — you will experience renewal. Thou shalt not engage in private prayer in the liturgy.

"Nope — no can do. I need time alone with God, and I’ll take that time, thank you. After that, you can hit the spinner and try to tell me where my hands and feet go next (red dot, blue dot) in the remarkably creative interpretation of the rubrics, thanks."

Personally, I rather like singing — whether pew mates like to hear me sing is another question — but I can completely understand why not many join me from the congregation in doing so. The melodies are difficult to learn within the first verse or so, and sometimes the lyrics are downright embarrassing. For example, I absolutely refuse to sing about consubstantiation (e.g., "Supper of the Lord"). However, the upside to knowing well the lyrics to popular contemporary hymns is the ability to play the Catholic version of annoying your friends with rounds of "It’s A Small World." One round of "Table of Plenty" is plentiful enough to stick in a friend’s head for the rest of the day. So, if you get a banal hymn stuck in your head, share the misery:

"Come to the feast of heaven and earth,
Come to the table of plenty!
God will provide for all that we need,
Here at the table of pleeeennteeeee!"

You’re welcome.

A reader writes:

At a meeting last week, a friend from my parish informed me that her Methodist husband (who attends Mass with his wife) has been asked by our parish priest to say the readings at Mass on a Saturday evenings (I attend Sunday morning Mass, so I wasn’t aware of this and I was a little suprised by it).

I want to know if it is in accordance with the Teaching’s of the Church, that a non Catholic can say the readings at Mass, or not.  My friends husband does a great deal of work for the parish in other areas,  playing the organ at Mass and making the parish web site accessable , which I’ve never thought to question…but when I was told that he is saying the readings, I wondered if this might be in error. Maybe I just ask too many questions, hope you don’t think this is a silly question.

Okay several things here:

First, who can do the readings at Mass isn’t a matter of Church teaching but of Church discipline. There is certainly a theological appropriateness for it to be a member of the faithful doing the readings, but the Magisterium hasn’t distinctly articulated that fact in a doctrinal statement to my knowledge.

It has, however, written its law in such a way that this is going to be indicated in the great majority of cases. The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism states:

133. The reading of Scripture during a Eucharistic celebration in the Catholic Church is to be done by members of that Church. On exceptional occasions and for a just cause, the Bishop of the diocese may permit a member of another Church or ecclesial Community to take on the task of reader.

Your bishop, therefore, could authorize the gentleman to read "on exceptional occasions and for a just cause" (e.g., in an ecumenical service of some kind), but not on a regular basis in a typical parish Mass.

One other note: If the gentleman has been involved at your parish as you say (attending Mass, doing other things), it might well be that the priest who asked him to read has simply forgotten that he isn’t Catholic (if he knew that to begin with, that is). I’ll never forget years ago when my wife was dying and our parish priest came to give her the anointing of the sick. While there he gave her Communion and started to administer Communion to me as well until I stopped him. I was not yet Catholic at this time, but I had been hanging around the parish so much (attending Mass, etc.), that even though the priest and I had had a tense confrontation at Easter Vigil when he refused to admit me to the Church, by this point a few months later he’d already forgotten that I wasn’t yet Catholic.

Something similar might well be happening in this case. If you show up, they tend to assume that you’re Catholic unless you’re constantly reminding them that you’re not.