Rite of Baptism within Mass

[docmattc]

I am right in thinking that the penitential Rite is omitted if there is a baptism within the Mass aren't I?

We have a baptism on Sunday and otherwise would be singing the penitential rite.

[Ros Wood]

Not in my experience.

Baptismal vows replace the creed though.

[keitha]

The position is that the Rite of Receiving the Child(ren) replaces the Greeting and Penitential Rite of the Mass - see http://www.liturgyoffice.org.uk/Resourc ... ildren.pdf

[docmattc]

Thanks Keith. Its not been my experience either, but I was fairly sure it was being done incorrectly at my place.

[HallamPhil]

You might consider a suitable chant to get the procession down to the back of church where the baptismal party are greeted at the door and then launch into the Gloria (presuming that baptisms do not occur during Lent!) as a processional song to the altar.

[docmattc]

You might consider a suitable chant to get the procession down to the back of church where the baptismal party are greeted at the door and then launch into the Gloria (presuming that baptisms do not occur during Lent!) as a processional song to the altar.

I've considered it, and suggested it, but had it rejected (well singing something other than the Gloria as its next week). The baptismal party aren't greeted at the door, on the grounds that the congregation can't see what's going on there. (I'm not sure what there is to see, but there we go)

[Southern Comfort]

People seem to assume that there's always a Penitential Rite at the beginning of a Mass. But there ain't.

Apart from Baptism, there isn't one at weddings within Mass (though the Redemptorists insist on putting one in their congregation book ─ Grrr!), and not at funerals within Mass (replaced by the sprinkling of the coffin, etc, at the back). And then there are things like Palm Sunday, and any Sunday when the blessing and sprinkling of water (which isn't a penitential rite, but merely replaces it) is used.

Penitential Rites in Mass take place far less frequently than people think. Teachers who tell their children that Mass always begins with "Sorry Prayers", please note!

And now back to the topic.

[HallamPhil]

Yes ... and Presentation of the Lord

[presbyter]

Teachers who tell their children that Mass always begins with "Sorry Prayers", please note!

And now back to the topic.

None of my Masses with Children ever contain a Penitential Rite - even in Lent (which is a time of preparation for Baptism within Mass - to put myself almost on topic)

[FrGareth]

Our parish has a curious custom of a lay reader using an "Introduction" script before inviting everyone to sing the first hymn.

If there's a baptism-at-Sunday-Mass, instead of introducing the hymn, the introducer then invites people to face the back where I do the greeting at the door. Then servers, ministers, family with child and myself process in to the Gloria, or - if it's Lent or Advent - to the "Opening Hymn". At the sanctuary I then immediately conclude the introductory rites with the Opening Prayer.

Now, I tend to say "In the Name of the Father..." first because "What name have you given your child" as the very first words from the presiders' lips seems quite bald. But there's no sign of the Cross in the "Rite of Baptism for Children" Ritual Book. Is it ASSUMED because it's in the Missal? Or have I been taken in by the Rdemptorists!!??

And a plea to the compilers of the new missal... if they want us to use the embolisms for baptism (and other rites) in the Eucharistic Prayer could we pretty please have them on the page following the standard text of each EP, and followed by the remainder of the prayer, rather than a little 3-line embolism which is a 1.5-inch thick page turn away? (orans - page turn - orans pager turn - orans... what is that in sempahore?)

FrGareth

[Southern Comfort]

Now, I tend to say "In the Name of the Father..." first because "What name have you given your child" as the very first words from the presiders' lips seems quite bald. But there's no sign of the Cross in the "Rite of Baptism for Children" Ritual Book. Is it ASSUMED because it's in the Missal? Or have I been taken in by the Rdemptorists!!?

I thought this might come up. None of the sacramental rites outside Mass has a Sign of the Cross at the beginning; they all begin straight away with a greeting. (NB: This is also true of the Anglican sacramental rites.) In the Roman Rite, only the Mass starts with one (if you exclude the sign of the cross at the beginning of the office hours, which isn't accompanied by the same formula), but because of this priests tend to go onto autopilot, just as layfolk do when starting any kind of prayer. But if you're within Mass, as in your case, I think a Sign of the Cross is OK.

I've often thought of mounting a campaign to use the Sign of the Cross and accompanying formula only when it's stipulated in the rites, because I think there's a danger that it can become something automatic that we take for granted.

[John Ainslie]

I would like to raise the whole question of the place of the Sign of the Cross in the Order of Mass. If it is supposed to mark the beginning of the rite, it is too late, because the Entrance Song has already been sung, or even said. GIRM gives no explanation of its purpose: it is the Greeting that is significant as drawing together the assembly for worship. So why is it there?

In High Mass according to the Pius V Missal, the Sign of the Cross is said by the priest with the ministers while the choir is singing the Introit, not before or after. Historically it is part of his personal preparation which originally was said on his way to the altar.

[Southern Comfort]

I would like to raise the whole question of the place of the Sign of the Cross in the Order of Mass. If it is supposed to mark the beginning of the rite, it is too late, because the Entrance Song has already been sung, or even said. GIRM gives no explanation of its purpose: it is the Greeting that is significant as drawing together the assembly for worship. So why is it there?

I think this is a good question, and serves to point to the fact that the revision of the rites post-V II was only one stage on the path of future development. Much still remains to be done. The myth of the 'integrity of the Roman Rite' has tended to stop us from asking these sorts of important questions.

I wrote an article many years ago in what was then the Clergy Review entitled "Whatever happened to the Offertory?" The point of this was that, although Sacrosanctum Concilium [SC ─ anyone ever wondered why I picked my username?] talked about removing useless repetitions from the rites (para 34), the revised Order of Mass has still not finished its task in this part of the rite. If you take a good look at it, including the Orate Fratres dialogue and the Prayer over the Gifts, you'll see that in effect we ask God three times in different ways "Please accept these gifts". Two of these now need to go.

John Ainslie's point about the Sign of the Cross is similar. Our liturgical theology has moved on in 36 years, and we now see that the rite is no longer quite as suitable as we thought. This is why it is certainly in order to question the purpose of each 'area' of the rite and ask whether the current form of the rite is the best for fulfilling its purpose. ICEL attempted to do this in the 1998 Order of Mass that Rome sidelined.