Second collection?
#1
At my church, there's a second collection after the faithful have received communion.  A friend of mine says that this is sacrilegious and shouldn't be happening (he's been in trouble with the pastor over this before I believe, telling the ushers to stop when it wasn't his place).  Though it may not be in my church that this happened, but rather at the one across the city, but regardless it's one of the reasons he dislikes attending my church.

So, is he right?  Is there not meant to be a second collection etc?
Reply
#2
How soon after?  We have a second collection right before the last gospel.

I don't see how it could be sacrilegious.  It's not like the ushers are going up to each person saying "k, get off your knees and lets see some green."

I think your friend, while good-intentioned, is way off base.  Christ is no more or less present in you 1 minute or one week after Communion.  there's not half-life on it and you don't have to wait an hour to swim after receiving communion either.
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#3
(08-24-2011, 10:14 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: How soon after?  We have a second collection right before the last gospel.

During the ablutions.

Quote:Christ is no more or less present in you 1 minute or one week after Communion.

But He is only Sacramentally present for around fifteen minutes though?
Reply
#4
It's a common practice.  They've done it at the two parishes that I've worked at. 
Reply
#5
(08-24-2011, 09:29 PM)City Smurf Wrote: At my church, there's a second collection after the faithful have received communion.  A friend of mine says that this is sacrilegious and shouldn't be happening (he's been in trouble with the pastor over this before I believe, telling the ushers to stop when it wasn't his place).  Though it may not be in my church that this happened, but rather at the one across the city, but regardless it's one of the reasons he dislikes attending my church.

So, is he right?  Is there not meant to be a second collection etc?

I was born in 1951 and I can personally testify that the “second collection” is a venerable pre Vatican II tradition in the Church.  If someone wants to argue that this is sacrilegious I suppose they would have to argue that the pre VII Church was sacrilegious.

Typically the collection before the Offertory is for the day to day support of the parish (or chapel) and a second collection after the Communion, if there is one, is for a special project or cause.  For example my parish (a diocesan parish that uses the 1969 missal) on the second Sunday of every month has a second collection for the support of the local St. Vincent DePaul Society and their charitable works.

There have been several threads here on the topic of the “second collection” (not popular with many, it seems, and I suppose there are some who are opposed to any collection at all  ;D ).  

Still, “church” doesn’t just happen.  Somebody provide funds to build the church; Somebody pays the utility bills, arranges for the place to get painted, or for the brick mortar to be pointed or the stained glass to be re-leaded when needed.  Somebody provides funding for the seminaries and scholarships for seminarians.

There may be better ways to fund these and other needs than a “second collection” but it is certainly a traditional pre VII way of doing it and when I see a complaint it is almost always that, just a “complaint” with out an suggestion for a more appropriate approach.

Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter 9:
Quote:[6] Now this I say: He who soweth sparingly, shall also reap sparingly: and he who soweth in blessings, shall also reap blessings. [7] Every one as he hath determined in his heart, not with sadness, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver. [8] And God is able to make all grace abound in you; that ye always, having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work, [9] As it is written: He hath dispersed abroad, he hath given to the poor: his justice remaineth for ever. [10] And he that ministereth seed to the sower, will both give you bread to eat, and will multiply your seed, and increase the growth of the fruits of your justice:

Reply
#6
If you cant afford just dont give.  Remember in the gospel the widow's mite?
Reply
#7
It has anything to do with the money its self.  Just about when the second collection takes place.
Reply
#8
(08-24-2011, 11:19 PM)City Smurf Wrote: It has anything [nothing, I presume you meant] to do with the money its self.  Just about when the second collection takes place.

Reading your posts again I could see where taking the collection during the ablutions, while not sacraligious in itself (in my opinion) could be disruptive to one's personal prayers of thanksgiving after Holy Communion.  At every 1969 missal Mass where I've seen a second collection it has always been after the Post Communion prayer (when announcements are given in the Novus Ordo Mass), before the Blessing and dismissal.  At a TLM I could see it fitting between the Blessing and the Last Gospel.

Still, rather than jumping up and interfering with the ushers performing their appointed task (or refusing to go to Mass over the issue) a better approach would be to make an appointment with the pastor and discuss the point in a cordial manner with him.
Reply
#9
At my parish, there's sometimes a second collection.  Once, maybe twice a month.
Reply
#10
(08-24-2011, 09:29 PM)City Smurf Wrote: At my church, there's a second collection after the faithful have received communion.  A friend of mine says that this is sacrilegious and shouldn't be happening (he's been in trouble with the pastor over this before I believe, telling the ushers to stop when it wasn't his place).  Though it may not be in my church that this happened, but rather at the one across the city, but regardless it's one of the reasons he dislikes attending my church.

So, is he right?  Is there not meant to be a second collection etc?

No he is not right. He is an armchair theologian. Let the pastor do his job and he should mind his own business!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)