Cf. CCC 1142, 1566. The concept of the Eucharistic Assembly at which the priest presides, both in persona Christi, if I have that right, and as representative of the Bishop, is quite ancient. However, using it to lower the dignity of the priest, or the Mass itself, is of course quite wrong.
In general in the practical instructions refer to "congregation," for example:
"the acclamation, by which the whole congregation, joining with the heavenly powers, sings the Sanctus (Holy, Holy, Holy). this acclamation, which constitutes part of the eucharistic prayer itself, is pronounced by all the people with the priest."
"The supplication Agnus Dei (Lamb of God) is usually sung by the choir or cantor with the congregation replying."
"If desired, a psalm or other canticle of praise or a hymn may also be sung by the whole congregation."
All the above, plus 'digital "organ"' And, did anyone mention 'presider' and 'president of the assembly'? Plus, 'community' when one means 'parish'. Plus 'St Helen Catholic Church' when one means 'St Helen's Catholic Church'.
minister of X (hospitality, stewardship, movement, etc.) Eucharistic minister Bishop/Father/Deacon [insert first name here] (full disclosure: our current parish administrator is one of these)
ohh, I particularly dislike that one. Why is everyone automatically a minister? Why not just go all the way, and call all the non-ministers pew-warming ministers?!?! ;)
Bishops and priests who use nicknames seem silly, but I'll stick up for the practice of using a first name. We name the Pope and the Bishop in every Mass by their "first" names: the "Christian" name is the identity we get in baptism, and it's how we express ecclesial communion.
I also think of the Eastern-Church practice of bishops using the first name almost always, and rarely using the last name.
No wonder: "last" names are a relatively recent innovation in history: a product of the late Middle Ages and even later.
When clergy present their last names in public but not their Christian names, it gives me an impression of stiffness, as if they wanted to be treated with Victorian manners and keep their distance.
I know Chris Allen mentioned the last in his general statement, but that music minister particularly annoys me considering that's what people in my position have been referred to at times. Too many times.
I suppose "praise music" would be OK if we had a genre of church music that was NOT intended as praise. We could call it "curse music" or "condemnation music". It would need to be atonal and arhythmic. And we'd need to make it clear that the presence of curse music does not cancel your Sunday obligation, so offer it up.
You're comment reminded me of the time one of the choir members told my pastor that she was tired from climbing up and down the stairs to the loft and he responded that she should lose some weight so she doesn't get out of breath. Failure of tact there, but I guess if you're pastor you can get away with it.
Tambourines and maracas as liturgical instruments.
Re: the possessive, this is actually a pretty interesting question. In Middle English, you see things like "the parysche of Seynte Mary". But if you don't want to spiel it out like that, the obvious thing to do is to switch to English's other possessive form, "St. Mary's parish"; and eventually that's what people do. The alternate path is to eliminate the possessive (and potentially disrespect the patron saint) by just treating the whole thing as an ordinary proper name, like "St. Mary Parish." This works better with a long title or doctrinal name (St. Mary on the Hill Parish, Trinity Parish, Our Lady of the Rosary Parish) than with a more personal name. ("St. Charles Borromeo's" trips sweetly off the tongue, for example.)
Though some churches are named for a biblical event or a doctrine, such as Transfiguration or Immaculate Conception, most bear the names of a saint, who is, then, the patron saint of that parish. Hence, it is St Jerome's Church; it is not just 'named after' him and called rather sillily, St Jerome church, but St J is the parish patron and it is therefore St Jerome's church under his protection. Even Methodists and certainly Anglicans get this right while Catholics seem rather purposefully to get it wrong; probably at the instigation of certain types who look for all those little things and little ways to undermine Catholic culture. Frankly, not using the possessive form sounds dumb and betrays an ignorance of this aspect of Catholic culture. A related loss is the patronal festival, which takes place on the patron's feast day. This should be a major feast in the life of every Catholic parish, marked by a terribly high mass and a banquet in the parish hall. Again, you would be right if you guessed that this custom lives in Anglican churches but is almost unheard of in Catholic churches any more
Dropping the possessive form does seem to step away from a lively relationship with the patron saint, turning the parish name into a mere memorial, in the way that museums and even certain Protestant churches are named after deceased worthies.
The first time I heard the issue come up, though, was from certain anti-Catholic persons who would ask a stranger which church they belonged to, and then opine that -- well, maybe you belong to St. Jerome's Church, but I belong to Christ's! Maybe they were trying to win souls, but it just seemed like pointless sarcasm to me.
Eucharistic Prayer #2: "We thank you for counting us worthy to stand in your presence and serve you."
Pitches involving the theme of "Share your time, talent, treasure. Money is the root of all evil. If the parish collections don't pick up, we may be forced to close the other church in our newly formed parish cluster." (Actually heard in Mass a couple weeks ago).
Indeed chonak, when I was attending the FSSP Mater Dei community in Harrisburg, PA and a fellow lay person heard me call the Superior general by his first name of Fr. Eric instead of "Fr. Flood" . This lay person nearly started a fight with me out for calling him by his "christian name". You know, these are the type of people who are always talking about women not supposed to be "wearing pants". People whom every little detail matters to!
For me, it it a bizarre ridiculous practice to "insist" that a cleric by called only by their surname instead of christian name. To this day I avoid it as much as possible.
By the way, for the record, I also don't think that women should wear pants to church, so long the weather and health dont prevent dresses. And I also agree that EVERY detail of the liturgy is VERY important. But they are not issues I am as focused on as some.
I prefer to call a priest by his Christian name rather than by his surname, and I believe that there is far greater antiquity behind the former than the latter practice. Some priests, though, are visibly uncomfortable or taken aback (or threatened?) by this; some actually act as though one had committed lese majeste. So, I accomodate them. And, in doing so, I feel that they, likewise, should not presume to call me by my Christian name without an invitation to do so. This should be a two-way street. Now that the Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter is a reality, I asked Fr Steenson today after the ceremonies what we should call him. He who is now the highest rank of Monsignor and was standing there in a bishop's choir habit. He said quite sincerely to call him Fr Jeffrey. He is a very brilliant but humble man with a rather characteristic Anglican kindness and a PhD in Patristics from Oxford who is now a Catholic ordinary. Call him Fr Jeffrey. Still... I can hardly resist calling him Your Grace.
Pitches involving the theme of "Share your time, talent, treasure. Money is the root of all evil. If the parish collections don't pick up, we may be forced to close the other church in our newly formed parish cluster." (Actually heard in Mass a couple weeks ago).
Some Catholic churches have "Time and Talent Fairs".
To participate in the discussions on Catholic church music, sign in or register as a forum member, The forum is a project of the Church Music Association of America.