JIMMY AKIN.ORG

October 25, 2007

Arriving Late & Communion

(Jimmy Akin)

Fr. Edward McNamara, LC, regularly answers liturgical questions for the Zenit news service. Unfortunately, his answer this week is seriously flawed.

Here's the question as it was posed to him:

Q: My parish priest made a regulation that anyone who arrives in Mass after the Gospel is not allowed to take Communion. According to him, the reason is that Jesus is "the Word made flesh." Therefore we must recognize Jesus in the Word before we recognize him in holy Communion. Another priest, who is a professor of liturgy, has another opinion. He said that people who arrive late in Mass with a valid reason (for example, an unusual traffic jam, attending sick children, etc.) should not be denied Communion. Could you please give a clarification on this matter? -- B.E., Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

His answer begins as follows:

A: We dealt with the question of late arrivals at Mass in one of our first columns, on Nov. 4 and Nov. 18, in 2003.

Then as now, I would agree more with the second priest: that someone who arrives late out of no fault of their own should not be denied Communion.

His answer goes wrong right there--not in stating that the person should not be denied Communion but by introducing the condition that the person was late through no fault of their own. The remainder of his column is seriously flawed as a result of this flawed point of departure.

READ THE WHOLE THING.

Fr. McNamara's thought on this point appears to go wrong because he conflates two separate issues: (1) what is required to fulfill one's Sunday obligation and (2) what is required to receive Communion.

Fr. McNamara rightly points out that one is obliged to attend the whole of a Sunday Mass unless one has a valid excuse for missing all or part of it (e.g., arriving late through no fault of one's own, needing to leave early because you're in serious back pain, etc.). He also counsels against drawing arbitrary lines in the Mass about what's "okay" to miss, which is prudent given the current state of liturgical law on this point. If, for whatever reason, you have missed the substance of the Mass without a legitimate excuse and you can attend another one then you should do so. All that's fine.

But it has nothing to do with the question of whether you can receive Communion if you show up late.

The controlling legal document governing who can receive Communion and when is the Code of Canon Law. It provides the following:

Can.  843 §1. Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.

This provision lists three criteria that, if they are fulfilled, prevent the sacred ministers from denying the sacraments--including Holy Communion--to the faithful.

The first condition is that the faithful "seek them at appropriate times." This is to prevent the faithful from seeking the sacraments at bizarre times without a sufficient reason. For example, the faithful do not have a right to demand the sacraments at any time of the day or night, irrespective of what the priest is doing, unless they have a counterbalancing reason. You cannot, for example, demand that a priest hear your confession right this minute if it's 3 a.m. in the morning and he's asleep and you're not in danger of dying or about to ship out to Afghanistan and won't have the opportunity of confession for months, for example.

But receiving Communion during Mass--when Communion is already being offered--is plainly an appropriate time to seek it within the meaning of this canon.

The second condition is that the faithul are properly disposed. This means things like they aren't in an unconfessed state of mortal sin, they've observed the Eucharistic fast, etc. The Code doesn't go the needed dispositions in detail, but the Catechism does, saying:

1384 The Lord addresses an invitation to us, urging us to receive him in the sacrament of the Eucharist: "Truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."

1385 To respond to this invitation we must prepare ourselves for so great and so holy a moment. St. Paul urges us to examine our conscience: "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself." Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion.

1386 Before so great a sacrament, the faithful can only echo humbly and with ardent faith the words of the Centurion: "Domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum, sed tantum dic verbo, et sanabitur anima mea" ("Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul will be healed."). and in the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom the faithful pray in the same spirit:

O Son of God, bring me into communion today with your mystical supper. I shall not tell your enemies the secret, nor kiss you with Judas' kiss. But like the good thief I cry, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."

1387 To prepare for worthy reception of this sacrament, the faithful should observe the fast required in their Church. Bodily demeanor (gestures, clothing) ought to convey the respect, solemnity, and joy of this moment when Christ becomes our guest.

You'll notice that there's nothing in there about having to attend a certain portion of Mass--or even being in Mass at all (since one can receive Communion outside of Mass). So if someone has the proper dispositions (listed above), this condition is fulfilled.

The third condition is that the faithful not be prohibited by law from receiving Communion. If, therefore, one were to find a way to deny them Communion based on how late they arrived at Mass, it would have to be in this category.

But one can't do that, because there simply is no legal prohibition on people receiving Communion if they have come to Mass late.

It is desirable, of course, that people have a substantial participation in the rite within which Communion is being distributed, but--and this is the point--it is not required.

Now, perhaps one would want to say that it is kinda crypto-required, that it's understood but not stated expressly anywhere that you have to attend a certain part of Mass, or even all of it if you don't have an excuse, to go to Communion. Perhaps we could fudge that in under the "appropriate times" or "properly disposed" requirements--contrary to the obvious purpose of these provisions in the canon.

Nope.

The Code further provides:

Can.  912 Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to Holy Communion.

Even though the Code has already said that sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them under the above three conditions, just to make sure that we understand the point in the case of Holy Communion, it singles this sacrament out specially to stress that, if you're baptized, you cannot be denied Communion unless you are prohibited by law.

And there's no prohibition in the law regarding how much of a Mass (or Communion service) you must attend.

But what if we really, really want to shoehorn such a requirement into the law at this point? Is there any way to do that?

No, sorry.

The Code also provides:

Can. 18 Laws which establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation.

And it provides:

Can. 213 The Christian faithful have the right to receive assistance from the sacred pastors out of the spiritual goods of the Church, especially the word of God and the sacraments.

If you want to restrict someone's right to receive the sacraments then you're going to have to have a law allowing you to do that and you're going to have to subject it to strict interpretation.

This is particularly the case with Holy Communion, which uniquely among all the sacraments has its own canon singling out the fact that it can't be denied unless there is a prohibition by law.

And there just is no law requiring the faithful to attend all or any of a Mass in order to receive Communion. You can be literally walking through a church at Communion time and, if you are properly disposed, you can receive.

Now, if you do that and it's a Sunday or a holy day of obligation then you'll need to attend a different Mass in order to fulfill your obligation to attend Mass, but that's a separate question from whether you can receive Communion.

It is to be understood that Fr. McNamara is a liturgist and thus that his primary expertise would be in the Church's liturgical documents, but as a liturgist he should be familiar with at least those parts of canon law touching on the liturgy and the faithful's access to the sacraments--particularly the Eucharist.

His columns for Zenit regularly include an addendum clarifying confusion resulting from previous columns. Hopefully a future column will clarify this issue and properly separate the two subjects.

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Liturgy | Permalink | Comments (130)

August 01, 2007

Old Mass, New Appeal

(Jimmy Akin)

WaPo has a nice article on the demand that seems to be out there for celebrating the Mass according to the Tridentine form. (CHT to the reader who e-mailed!)

EXCERPT:

Maureen Williamson, a manager at the Fort Collins, Colo.-based Roman Catholic Books, said 200 copies of its $155 deluxe edition priest's altar missal sold within two weeks of the papal announcement. She typically sells 20 to 35 a month.

"We're projecting we are going to sell more than 700 by the end of the year," she said. "Now that this Mass is able to be said by anyone at any time, priests and parishes have been ordering it."

And then there's this bit:

In the older rite, worshippers must kneel to receive Communion on their tongues;

True.

the priest always leads the parishioners in facing east, rather than facing them;

No. He faces east at certain points, but not always. (He certainly doesn't preach the homily or distribute Holy Communion with his back to them, c'mon!)

and the rite is always in Latin.

True.

There are other differences in terms of liturgy, priestly vestments and the manner in which laity take part in the service.

True.

Women communicants of the Tridentine mass customarily cover their heads, although it is not mandated.

That may be true. I don't know of any references in the rite itself to women having their heads covered (though I can't say for certain since I haven't read or translated all of the introductory documents yet). It was the 1917 Code of Canon Law--which has been abrogated--that contained the head covering requirement. Pending a find of a mandate in the liturgical texts themselves, this statement would be accurate.

GET THE STORY.

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Liturgy | Permalink | Comments (105)

July 24, 2007

Summorum Pontificum Contact Database

(Jimmy Akin)

Long-time readers know that I'm interested in how technology is changing society, including the role it will play in the religious world.

I'm therefore pleased to point to the Summoroum Pontificum Contact Database, which is designed to help make connections between people interested in having the extraordinary form of the Latin rite liturgy celebrated in their area (i.e., the "Tridentine Mass").

It's only been out (so far as I know) since the motu proprio was released, and it's already got 1400 contacts listed. The interface even allows you to specify possible ways that you might be able to help out (e.g., if you are a priest willing to say the Tridentine liturgy, if you're willing to sing in a schola, if you're able to help train altar servers).

If you have an interest in having the Tridentine form Mass in your area--whether you can help out in a special way or just help by your attendance--I'd encourage you to check it out.

ACCESS THE DATABASE.

(CHT to the reader who e-mailed!)

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Liturgy | Permalink | Comments (14)

July 11, 2007

Episcopal Reaction to the Motu Proprio

(Jimmy Akin)

Catholic News Service has an interesting roundup of comments from U.S. bishops concerning their reaction to Summorum Pontificum and its implementation in their dioceses.

GET THE STORY.

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Liturgy | Permalink | Comments (18)

July 08, 2007

Commentary on Summorum Pontificum

(Jimmy Akin)

This will be lengthy, so I'm putting the commentary below the fold so that it doesn't clog up the front page of the blog (a clogged blog is no fun at all).

I'll do a separate commentary on the accompanying apostolic letter so that we can keep what's in the motu proprio and what's in the apostolic letter separate (which is important for an element's juridical status).

BTW, this commentary will be on the unofficial English translation. I may revise it when we get an official one or if mistranslations are discovered. This commentary may also be revised as I have the chance to look up points regarding the celebration of the Tridentine use of the liturgy. (I'm doing this on the fly, the same day as the release, so forgive me if I don't have everything at the tips of my fingers.)

This will also be the first full-scale commentary on the motu proprio that I am aware of, so it may be of interest to other bloggers.

Click the link to read the full commentary.

Motu Proprio

Summorum Pontificum

Pope Benedict begins with a general pastoral statement that touches on the role of the pope in promoting the Church's worship of God and the needed unity and continuity in this area.

It has always been the care of the supreme pontiffs until the present time that the church of Christ offer worthy worship to the divine majesty "for the praise and glory of his name" and "for the good of all his holy church."

As from time immemorial so in the future the principle shall be respected "according to which each particular church must be in accord with the universal church not only regarding the doctrine of the faith and sacramental signs, but also as to the usages universally handed down by apostolic and unbroken tradition. These are to be maintained not only so that errors may be avoided, but also so that the faith may be passed on in its integrity, since the church's rule of prayer ("lex orandi") corresponds to her rule of belief ("lex credendi")."

Then begins a nice summary of how the Tridentine use developed:

Among pontiffs who have displayed such care there excels the name of St. Gregory the Great [who lived in the 500s; INFO HERE], who saw to the transmission to the new peoples of Europe both of the Catholic faith and of the treasures of worship and culture accumulated by the Romans in preceding centuries. He gave instructions for the form of the sacred liturgy of both the sacrifice of the Mass and of the Divine Office as was celebrated in the city. He made the greatest efforts to foster monks and nuns, who militating [note the masculine metaphor here] under the Rule of St. Benedict, in every place along with the proclamation of the Gospel by their life likewise exemplified that most salutary expression of the rule, "Let nothing be given precedence over the work of God" (ch. 43). In this way the sacred liturgy according to the Roman manner made fertile not only the faith and piety but also the culture of many peoples. Moreover it is evident that the Latin liturgy in its various forms has stimulated in the spiritual life very many saints in every century of the Christian age and strengthened in the virtue of religion so many peoples and made fertile their piety.

Now we get to the reform of the Roman liturgy, and in particular the event that gave it the stamp "Tridentine" (related to the Council of Trent). BTW, I'm adding links for the popes he mentions so that you can see when they lived or otherwise read more about them. I haven't read all these articles, but most of them should contain more detail on what the pontiffs did regarding the liturgy:

However, in order that the sacred liturgy might more efficaciously absolve its task, several others among the Roman pontiffs in the course of the centuries have brought to bear particular concern, among whom St. Pius V is eminent, who with great pastoral zeal, at the exhortation of the Council of Trent, renewed the worship of the whole church, ensuring the publishing of liturgical books amended and "restored according to the norm of the fathers" and put them into use in the Latin church.

It is clear that among the liturgical books of the Roman rite the Roman Missal is eminent. It grew in the city of Rome and gradually down through the centuries took on forms which are very similar to those in vigor in recent generations.

Note that he doesn't say "the same as those in vigor in recent centuries." This is an ackowledgement that the original edition of the Missal of Pius V is not the same as that established by recent popes (differences between these edition are not to be glossed over).

Now we get to more recent history:

"It was this same goal that as time passed the Roman pontiffs pursued, adapting or establishing liturgical rites and books to new ages and then at the start of the present century undertaking a more ample restoration." It was in this manner that our predecessors Clement VIII, Urban VIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XII and Blessed John XXIII acted.

Two notes about Bl. John XXIII's reform of the liturgy:

First, this was the Missal of 1962, which is the one that permission is being given to use.

Second, this edition of the Roman Missal removed elements deemed offensive to Jewish people (e.g., the Good Friday prayer for "the perfidious Jews"). Because this edition does not contain these elements, the motu proprio does not restore them to use in the liturgy. MORE HERE.

Now we get to the development of the use of the Roman liturgy that succeeded the Tridentine use as its ordinary expression:

In more recent time, however, the Second Vatican Council expressed the desire that with due respect and reverence for divine worship it be restored and adapted to the needs of our age. Prompted by this desire, our predecessor Pope Paul VI in 1970 approved for the Latin church liturgical books restored and partly renewed, and that throughout the world translated into many vernacular languages, have been welcomed by the bishops and by the priests and faithful. John Paul II revised the third typical edition of the Roman Missal. Thus the Roman pontiffs have acted so that "this liturgical edifice, so to speak, ... might once again appear splendid in its dignity and harmony."

The first typical edition of the Roman Missal is the one put into effect in 1970. The second, not mentioned here, was that of 1975.

The third typical edition of the Roman Missal is the one that came out in 2000 and is currently being translated. Expect the new translation to go into use in a couple of years. B16 also made his mark on the new translation by insisting that "pro multis" be rendered literally in the vernacular langauges as "for many/the many/the multitude" (exact rendering still to be announced) rather than "for all."

Now we get the history of the Tridentine use subsequent to 1970:

However, in some regions not a small number of the faithful have been and remain attached with such great love and affection to the previous liturgical forms, which had profoundly imbued their culture and spirit, that Pope John Paul II, prompted by pastoral concern for these faithful, in 1984 by means of a special indult "Quattuor abhinc annos," drawn up by the Congregation for Divine Worship, granted the faculty to use the Roman Missal published by John XXIII in 1962; while in 1988 John Paul II once again, by means of the "motu proprio" "Ecclesia Dei," exhorted the bishops to make wide and generous use of this faculty in favor of all the faithful requesting it.

The use of the phrase "a special indult" is noteworthy here. The establishment of so-called "indult" Masses suggested to many that the former use of Mass had been prohibited and that it could now only be celebrated by indult (concession), requiring permission. Yet there does not seem to have been a document abrogating the Tridentine use, creating the impression that it could still be used without a special concession. This confusing situation is one that B16 clarifies, both later in the motu proprio and especially in the accompanying apostolic letter. See subsequent commentary for more.

The pontiff now explains the history leading up to the present motu proprio:

Having pondered at length the pressing requests of these faithful to our predecessor John Paul II, having also heard the fathers of the consistory of cardinals held March 23, 2006, having pondered all things, [having] invoked the Holy Spirit, and [having] placed our confidence in the help of God, by this present apostolic letter we decree the following.

The consistory of cardinals that the pope refers to involved the elevation of B16's first group of cardinals (including, e.g., Cardinals Levada, Dziwisz, and Zen). The records I have access to indicate that the consistory itself was March 24. There was, however, a private meeting on the 23rd, before the consistory, and this seems to be what Pope Benedict is referring to. It was widely speculated that the issue of the Tridentine use would be discussed at this meeting, and here he indicates that it was. I can't recall off the top of my head if the discussion of the Tridentine use was made public after the consistory, though it may have been.

Now the motu proprio shifts gears. What follows are the norms that will henceforth govern the role of the Tridentine use. All of what is past is prologue. This is the legally binding stuff:

Art. 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is to be regarded as the ordinary expression of the law of prayer ("lex orandi") of the Catholic Church of Latin rite, while the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and published again by Blessed John XXIII as the extraordinary expression of the law of prayer ("lex orandi") and on account of its venerable and ancient use let it enjoy due honor. These two expressions of the law of prayer ("lex orandi") of the church in no way lead to a division in the law of prayer ("lex orandi") of the church, for they are two uses of the one Roman rite.

There are several things of interest here. First and most importantly, Pope Benedict establishes the long talked-about distinction between the Missal of Paul VI (currently in its 3rd typical edition) and the Missal of Pius VI (in the edition published by Bl. John XXIII) as the ordinary and extraordinary expressions of the Roman rite.

He also stresses that the latter missal is to be treated with "due honor," which is an effort to tell people not to diss it, but the inclusion of the word "due" is a subjective term that creates "diss" room. ("Oh, yeah. We're giving it all the honor that it's due . . . which happens to be not much.") This would have been stronger if the word "due" had been omitted.

The pope also includes a statement stressing that these two uses of the Roman rite do not bring about--or rather, are not to be interpreted as bringing about--a fundamental division in the prayer life of the Church. Which is as it should be. The Latin rite also includes other uses (e.g., the Anglican use), and the Church contains whole other rites (Alexandrian, Antiochene, Armenian, Chaldean, and Constantinopolitan). If the Catholic Church can contain these rites, nobody needs to throw a hissy fit about the Tridentine use or suggest that greater employment of it will be an unacceptable breach in the unity of the Church's prayer life. The Church already has far greater diversity in its prayer life than is found in comparing the Tridentine use and the current ordinary use.

Hence it is licit to celebrate the sacrifice of the Mass in accordance with the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as the extraordinary form of the liturgy of the church.

The rubber meets the road here, with Pope Benedict saying that it is licit to celebrate Mass in accord with the 1962 Missal (as governed by the norms which follow). What is noteworthy here is that he states that the 1962 Missal was never abrogated. Okay, so now we have an authentic interpretation of liturgical law from the legislator on this point. How this squares with the previous impression to the contrary is something the pope explores more in the accompanying apostolic letter, which I'll do a commentary on soon.

I haven't checked the Latin on this, but note that in the English there is an ambiguity about what the expression "as the extraordinary form of the liturgy of the church" is modifying. Is it modifyingthe verb "celebrate" (i.e., it's okay to celebrate it as the extraordinary form of the liturgy) or is it modifying "never abrogated" (i.e., it was never abrogated as the extraordinary form of the liturgy, but it was abrogated as the ordinary form). I'll let you know if this can be resolved.

Either way, the interpretation of the term "extraordinary" is going to be the fulcrum on which a lot of future discussion turns. Heretofore liturgical progressives have taken "extraordinary" to mean "not the norm, but not necessarily uncommon" (hence the extensive use of "extraordinary" ministers of holy Communion in the United States), but now they may be tempted to read it as "rare," which is not the pope's intention (the whole point of this document is to allow broader employment of the Tridentine use, not to stress that it is to be rare). The politics of what "extraordinary" means, and what situations its reading of "rare" gets applied to (EMHC vs. Tridentine use), will be interesting to watch.

The conditions laid down by the previous documents "Quattuor abhinc annos" and "Ecclesia Dei" for the use of this missal are replaced by what follows:

Okay, so those documents are no longer binding. The following norms are the ones that will henceforth govern the Tridentine use.

Art. 2. In Masses celebrated without the people, any priest of Latin rite, whether secular or religious, can use the Roman Missal published by Pope Blessed John XXIII in 1962 or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, on any day except in the sacred triduum. For celebration in accordance with one or the other missal, a priest does not require any permission, neither from the Apostolic See nor his own ordinary.

This makes it clear that in private Masses the priest has discretion about which missal he is going to use. He doesn't need permission from anybody. Now watch the two blue clauses in the following sentence, because they're important: The only time he can't use the Tridentine missal without permission at private Masses is during Triduum. This doesn't say that he can't get permission to use the Tridentine missal at a private Mass during Triduum. It also doesn't say that the Tridentine missal can't be used at public or conventual masses during Triduum. As the norm is written, it's addressing the situation of private Masses during Triduum, presumably to keep priests from sneaking off to celebrate in this way privately and not participating in the public and conventual Masses that are offered then.

Now, this might be interpreted another way (and probably will be), but this is what the law indicates as written (insert the usual disclaimers about the way Rome writes law).

Art. 3. If communities or institutes of consecrated life or societies of apostolic life of either pontifical or diocesan rite desire to have a celebration of holy Mass in accordance with the edition of the Roman Missal promulgated in 1962 in the conventual or "community" celebration in their own oratories, this is allowed.

From the private Masses discussed in the previous norm, we turn to what you might call semi-private Masses--i.e., those celebrated for a particular community but not for the general public. The pope here allows such communities to have Masses celebrated on an occasional basis without permission, but when it comes to having them more hyabitually than that, the situation is different:

If an individual community or the entire institute or society wants to have such celebrations often or habitually or permanently, the matter is to be decided by the major superiors according to the norm of law and the particular laws and statutes.

So if a community wants to have such Masses regularly or permanently, it needs the permission of their major superior, the decision to be made according to their own particular laws and statutes (some may have particular laws requiring such Tridentine Masses, for example). They don't, however, need Rome's permission or the local bishop's permission unless these are called for in their particular laws and statutes..

Art. 4. With due observance of law, even Christ's faithful who spontaneously request it, may be admitted to celebrations of holy Mass mentioned in Art. 2 above.

In other words, any other law not impeding, the faithful (that's plural, too--not an individual member of the faithful, but more than one the way the law reads) can be admitted to the private Masses celebrated by an individual priest in the Tridentine use. So if Fr. X is saying a private Mass in the Tridentine use, you can ask him if you can attend it, and he can say yes if no other law obstructs. Thus bishops are not to tell their priests "Okay, you can say the Tridentine use Mass in private, but you can't let anybody else be there with you."

Note that this is not stated regarding conventual Masses--a fact that may or may not be intentional (usual caveats regarding the way Rome writes law).

Now we turn from private and semi-private Masses to public ones:

Art. 5.1. In parishes where a group of faithful attached to the previous liturgical tradition exists stably, let the pastor willingly accede to their requests for the celebration of the holy Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962.

Here we have something interesting. The pre-release scuttlebutt for the motu proprio indicated that there had been a clause inserted regarding the size of the group of faithful (e.g., you needed 30 or 50 people--or something--in order to trigger this clause). This was reported frequently enough--with the question at issue being not whether the clause existed but what the number in the current draft of the document was--that I'm fairly sure it was in there at one time. However, it's not here now, and I can only conclude that either those responsible for preparing the document decided, as a group, to strike it or that Pope Benedict himself decided to strike it.

The result of that is that the passage is ambiguous. On the one hand, nobody can draw a line in the sand and say "You've got to get this many people to trigger this norm, and you don't got them, ha-ha-ha!" On the other hand, what constitutes "a group of faithful . . . [that] exists stably" is open to interpretation. This ambiguity is likely to become the focus of future discussions. On the face of it, the determination of whether such a group exists would seem to be in the hands, first, of the group itself, second, of the pastor, and third, of the bishop, each subsequent determiner being able to trump the judgment of the previous one.

Expect friction on this point.

That friction, however, is to be governed by the exhortation to the pastor of the parish to "willingly acceed to their requests."

Let him [the pastor of the parish] see to it that the good of these faithful be harmoniously reconciled with ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the governance of the bishop according to Canon 392 [NOTE THE LINK], avoiding discord and fostering the unity of the whole church.

This is a two-edged sword.

Its purpose is to foster the unity of the local church, but that can be read two ways: (1) Allowing the Tridentine use to be celebrated would foster unity by "willingly acceding" to the desire of a group of the faithful or (2) this is a case where acceding to this desire would create discord rather than unity.

Expect fireworks on this point in individual cases, too.

Basically, what B16 is doing here is punting to the local level to sort out such situations since either (1) or (2) may obtain in individual cases, and he doesn't want to establish a universal rule governing which is to be occur He is thus conceding a measure of determinative power to the pastor and the bishop, the exercise of this power to be governed (hopefully!) by the overall intent of the motu proprio (to allow for greater employment of the Tridentine use) and the norm's specific direction to "willinly accede" to the request.

It's still a net gain for those who would like the Tridentine use to be employed in their parish, but not a slam-dunk for them.

5.2. Celebration according to the missal of Blessed John XXIII can take place on weekdays, while on Sundays and on feast days there may be one such celebration.

In other words, you can have more than one parish celebration according to the Tridentine use on weekdays, though on Sundays and feast days there is to be only one such Mass in a normal parish (i.e., one not specially devoted to the Tridentine use--see below).

5.3. Let the pastor permit celebrations in this extraordinary form for faithful or priests who request it, even in particular circumstances such as weddings, funerals or occasional celebrations, for example pilgrimages.

This norm confirms the pastor (not the bishop, though he could intervene) as the one who decides when and on what occasions such public Tridentine use Masses will occur in the parish (it doesn't treat private Masses celebrated by assistant pastors at all). It exhorts the pastor to permit these celebrations at the request of either groups of the faithful or at the request of his associate pastors. It also exhorts this to be allowed not just for "daily Masses" but also for Masses celebrated for special occasions, such as weddings, funerals, and pilgrimages.

5.4. Priests using the missal of Blessed John XXIII must be worthy and not impeded by law.

So you can't get a suspended or schismatic priest to say your Tridentine Mass for you.

5.5. In churches that are neither parochial nor conventual, it is the rector of the church who grants the above-mentioned permission.

This covers the case of churches that are neither parochial nor conventual, and it establishes the rector as the decision maker.

Art. 6. In Masses celebrated with the people according to the missal of Blessed John XXIII, the readings can be proclaimed even in the vernacular, using editions that have received the "recognitio" of the Apostolic See.

This says that at non-private Masses the readings can be said in the vernacular (e.g., English, Spanish), though for these one must use an edition that has receive the recognition of the Holy See. This is not the same as an ordinary Catholic Bible translation, since the latter are normally approved only by the national conference. It is usually the translations contained in lectionaries that have gone to Rome for its recognitio.

Also note that it doesn't say that the readings have to be proclaimed in the vernacular, just that they can be.

We now turn to what happens when the pastor of a parish (or the bishop above him) do not "willingly accede" to the request of a group of the faithful:

Art. 7. Where some group of lay faithful, mentioned in Art. 5.1 does not obtain what it requests from the pastor, it should inform the diocesan bishop of the fact. The bishop is earnestly requested to grant their desire. If he cannot provide for this kind of celebration, let the matter be referred to the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei."

This basically reaffirms the now-established chain of decision making for whether the Tridentine use is to be employed in a particular parish: pastor > bishop > PCED. If satisfaction is not obtained at one level, the next is to be appealed to. The bishop is strongly exhorted to allow for the celebration. Note also that the norm does not state who refers it to the PCED if the bishop denies the request. As the law is phrased, the faithful could elevate the matter to the PCED.

This norm is consistent with a strong desire on B16's part to allow for the desire of the faithful to be granted, while still allowing local bishops to have their say in the matter.

In practical terms, the PCED is likely to uphold the bishop's judgment if the group of the faithful is small or a Tridentine-rite-capable priest is not available. However, this norm contains the flip side of the fact that there is no minimum number of the faithful that is required for a group: As the law is written, a group of any number of the faithful can appeal to the PCED.

Art. 8. A bishop who desires to make provision for requests of lay faithful of this kind, but is for various reasons prevented from doing so, may refer the matter to the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei," which should give him advice and help.

The meaning of this norm is not entirely clear to me. It presumably refers to the case of bishops who would like to grant the request of the faithful in situations in which there is no priest who feels able to celebrate the Tridentine use of the Roman Missal. The advice and help referred to would then presumably refer to how to obtain or train such a priest--or how to deal with such a group in the interim.

Art. 9.1. Likewise a pastor may, all things duly considered, grant permission to use the older ritual in administering the sacraments of baptism, matrimony, penance and the anointing of the sick, as the good of souls may suggest.

We now snap back to the situation in an individual parish, but with the scope of the discussion broadened to beyond that of the celebration of Mass. In addition to allowing the celebration of the Eucharist according to the Tridentine use the pastor may also allow it to be used for four other sacraments (baptism, matrimony, penance, and extreme unction)--the exceptions not dealt with by this norm being confirmation and ordination.

This norm does not deal with what happens if there is a dispute about the celebration of these last two sacraments according to the Tridentine use, but the foregoing norms mutatis mutandis would likely apply.

9.2. Ordinaries are granted the faculty to celebrate the sacrament of confirmation using the former "Roman Pontifical," as the good of souls may suggest.

This deals with the celebration of confirmation according to the Tridentine use. It locates the decision-making power in the ordinary. The presumptive reason for this is that, in the Latin rite, the bishop is the one who is the ordinary celebrant of confirmation, not a priest (and thus not the pastor of a parish).

It is notable that, though six of the seven sacraments have been dealt with, the final sacrament--holy orders--has not been discussed. When and whether and by whom the sacrament of holy orders (ordination to the deaconate, priesthood, or episcopate) may be celebrated according to the Tridentine use remains a lacuna (hole) in the law as established by this motu proprio.

9.3. It is lawful for clerics in holy orders to use even the Roman Breviary promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962.

Besides the seven sacraments, the liturgy of the hours (as found in the Roman Breviary) is the other official liturgical action of the Church. This norm allows for its celebration according to the 1962 edition. No permission from the pastor or bishop is needed. It can be done by any priest--as the law is written (usual caveats appying).

Art. 10. It is lawful for the local ordinary, if he judges it opportune, to erect a personal parish according to the norm of Canon 518 for celebrations according to the older form of the Roman rite or appoint a rector or chaplain, with due observance of the requirements of law.

We finally get to the situation of parishes established specifically for the celebration of the Tridentine use of the Roman liturgy. The canon governing such parishes--518--allows the local ordinary to establish parishes, when it is opportune, for persons determined by a particular condition--in this case attachment to the Tridentine use of the liturgy.

The particulars of the law not obstructing, none of the foregoing norms touch the implementation of the Tridentine use in such a parish. Thus, for example, priests attached to this parish could celebrate the Tridentine use Mass in the parish and in public and during Triduum and more than once (if this is allowed). In other words, the law not obstructing, such parishes can celebrate the whole of the liturgical life according to the Tridentine use.

Art. 11. The Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei," erected in 1988 by John Paul II continues to carry out its function. This commission is to have the form, duties and norm for action that the Roman pontiff may wish to assign to it.

This reaffirms the role of the PCED in regulating the employment of the Tridentine use of the Roman liturgy. It also establishes that the PCED has whatever authority over whatever tasks that the Roman pontiff gives it, preventing potential conflicts with other bodies, such as the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (which has jurisdiction over the ordinary use of the sacraments of the Roman rite) and possibly the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts (which would ordinarily have jurisdiction over the provisions in the Code of Canon Law that the motu proprio touches on).

As a result of this motu proprio, the PCED seems to be established as the dicastery (department) of recourse for anyone dealing with matters touching on the Tridentine use of the Roman rite.

Art. 12. The same commission, in addition to the faculties it already enjoys, will exercise the authority of the Holy See by maintaining vigilance over the observance and application of these dispositions.

And so it's the PCED that is the watchdog for whether the motu proprio is being correctly implemented.

It's the key.

Whatever is decreed by us by means of this "motu proprio," we order to be firm and ratified and to be observed as of Sept. 14 this year, the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, all things to the contrary notwithstanding.

Given at Rome, at St. Peter's, July 7, in the year of Our Lord 2007, the third of our pontificate.

Benedict XVI

Let us all pray that Pope Benedict lives to September 14 so that any lingering doubts about whether this is a "dead letter" will be squashed.

Ad Jesu per Mariam,

Ora pro nobis.

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Liturgy | Permalink | Comments (156)

June 06, 2007

Motu Proprio Update

(Jimmy Akin)

I've been waylaid by recent events (like the trip to Europe) that have kept me from blogging about the forthcoming motu proprio on the liturgy in a timely manner (by my standards, at least).

We've had confirmation from more than one source that it is, indeed, coming.

MOST RECENTLY BY (#2 THE VATICAN MAN) SECRETARY OF STATE CARDINARL BERTONE.

Who says it'll be coming "soon" (which in Vatican-speak could mean weeks or months, but means it's coming).

A couple of thoughts:

1) Cardinal Bertone indicates that the motu proprio will be accompanied by a letter from B16 explaining the reasons for the change and hoping for a "serene reception" from the Church on the issue.

This is unusual.

I can't remember the last time a motu proprio was accompanied by a letter from the pope himself. There may have been one, but I can't remember it. In any event, it's significant that the pope would write a letter to cushion the force of a motu proprio.

This signifies the sensitivity of the issue.

Why is it so sensitive?

Because the use of the Tridentine Rite of Mass is an identity marker.

Apart from the identity issue, nobody would get greatlly overworked about the fact that a certain (and relatively small) group of Christians are being allowed to celebrate the Mass according to their preferred rite. "Big deal," some might say. But when the preferred rite happens to be the majority rite of the by-far-the-largest ritual church, different stakes are in play.

People will look at this as if it is a symbol of approval or disapproval not just of the rite of Mass but of the whole set of changes that have affected the Latin Church in the last forty years, which is a much greater matter.

2) I've also read reports that the motu proprio will establish rights for Catholics who want to celebrate the other sacraments--not just the Eucharist--according to the old rites.

Normally the rites that govern the ways the sacraments are celebrated are handled through the Congregation for the Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, but I'm picking up vibes that the Ecclesical Commission Ecclesia Dei will have an expanded portfolio in the wake of the motu proprio, meaning that we may have two dicasteries that deal with liturgy--the CDW and the ECED.

Time will tell.

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Liturgy | Permalink | Comments (186)

May 02, 2007

Cognitive Dissonance and the New Mass

(Tim Jones)

Hey, Tim Jones, here (not Jimmy Akin). I became a Catholic in 1993. In looking at the history of Christianity (with a lot of help) I became convinced that the Catholic Church constituted the authentic Church that Christ founded. On any reasonable, unbiased view of the evidence, it emerged as the great trunk from which every branch of Christianity sprung, if any Church could make that claim.

I think that my joining the ancient Church has only deepened my appreciation for old things in general. I've always been fascinated with old things, and found great satisfaction in working for a couple of historical museums and even illustrating an archaeological textbook. I have been privileged to handle and examine many man-made artifacts thousands of years old. One of the most damning marks of our present culture, from where I sit, is the tendency - or the reckless mania - for tossing out things of great (or at least unknown) value, simply because they are old. I'm all for looking at both tools and traditions to see whether they are still truly helpful or could be improved on, but our Western culture discards old ideas and structures with all the thoughtful consideration of a drunk tossing empty beer cans out the car window.

In short, I'm a traditionalist by nature and temperament, and it troubles me to see - in the Church or in the secular world - people so giddily enamored of novelty and "progress" that they lose almost completely the capacity to see the value of old things. For this reason, I have a great deal of natural sympathy for those who lived through the liturgical changes after Vatican II and found them deeply disturbing. I often hear in their communications a deep sense of mourning, pain and bewilderment behind all the anger and bitterness.

Imagine, having been raised with the old Latin Mass, going to your parish church one day and - with very little explanation - experiencing the equivalent of the average modern teen mass. For many people, this would be like entering a parallel universe, or some kind of Twilight Zone episode..."Where are the old Latin prayers and responses? Why is the priest facing the wrong way? Where are the hymns? Why is that guitar-strumming folk singer wailing at us? How did those drums get in here? Make them stop! I can't breathe!! What's going on?!?"

Then, imagine your response when you hear, "You're at Mass. This is the Mass... the NEW Mass. This will be how we do Mass from now on, for ever and ever..."

"But," you might ask,  "what about the Old Mass? Can't I go to the Old Mass?".

And that's the kicker. I doubt, really, that most of these "Rad-Trad" folks would have had that big a problem with the mere existence of the Novus Ordo mass, had the Old Mass been allowed to continue alongside it. The problem - perhaps - wasn't so much the introduction of the New Mass as the fact that the beloved Old Mass was, for all practical purposes, swept away to make room for it. If those strongly attached to the TLM still had access to such a mass in their own parish (or nearby) I doubt we would see the level of anger and the veiled - or explicit - charges that the Novus Ordo is invalid and a tool of the devil.

There is a good, short Wikipedia article on the subject of Cognitive Dissonance that I think might help shed some light on the stridency and outrage of the Rad-Trads. The article begins with this short definition;

Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term which describes the uncomfortable tension that comes from holding two conflicting thoughts at the same time, or from engaging in behavior that conflicts with one's beliefs. More precisely, it is the perception of incompatibility between two cognitions, where "cognition" is defined as any element of knowledge, including attitude, emotion, belief, or behavior.

On the one hand, you have the thought (based on your own experience), "This is not the Mass", and on the other hand, you have the Church telling you "This is the Mass". But, the thought is too much, and just won't fit into your mind.

You think, "No, that can't be right", but there is the conflicting thought, "The Church - the Pope - speaks for Christ". While some are able - with time - to sort through these seeming contradictions, others are overwhelmed and something has to give. People just can't go on thinking in one way and acting in another.

I've never experienced this uncomfortable dissonance, because I didn't grow up attached to a particular kind of Mass. I became a Catholic for doctrinal and philosophical reasons and decided to convert before I had ever been to a Catholic mass. I was absolutely convinced of the authority of the Church, and for me it was a slam-dunk that The Mass was whatever the Church said it was. As Mark Shea put it recently, "Just give me my lines and my blocking". I don't know exactly who gets to decide what goes into the liturgy and what doesn't, I only know it isn't me.  All the same, it's my understanding that Benedict XVI may be of the opinion that the liturgical changes that took place after Second Vatican Council were too much, too soon. This does not mean the Church has gone apostate, or even that the Novus Ordo was a bad idea, only that as a matter of prudence, there may have been too many changes and that these changes could have been implemented in a less ham-fisted way.

I understand the feelings of the liturgical purists, but they make enemies when they go around hinting, or flatly stating, that the Novus Ordo is invalid and that the Pope and the Church are in apostasy (except for their little corner of it, where the True Faith is preserved).  What is needed is a bit of humility and charity on both ends. We need to try and understand the deep feelings of loss and disorientation that some experienced after the New Mass was so abruptly introduced, and they need to understand that the Latin Mass was no more immune to abuse than is the Novus Ordo. There were slovenly, irreverent Masses long before Vatican II.

Hopefully, some day soon, we will get to see the Latin Mass made available to a much greater degree, and maybe then we can leave behind some of this territorial chest-pounding and controversies over the How of the mass and focus instead on Who it is we encounter there.

Just a note; I will assertively implement Jimmy's combox rules on this thread. Diatribes, harangues and tub-thumping of any kind will be mercilessly excised. I will suffer no attacks on the Holy Father, nor any laundry lists of perceived evidence that Vatican II was the work of Satan. The same goes for those who accuse all TLM enthusiasts of being schismatics. For once, let's try to talk about this without consigning to the pits of heck those who hold a different view.

Posted by Tim Jones in Liturgy | Permalink | Comments (268)

March 07, 2007

Apostolic Exhortation Next Tuesday?

(Jimmy Akin)

Catholic News Agency is reporting:

After over a year of work, the Holy See will release the post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation on the Eucharist, titled “Sacramentum Caritatis,” on Tuesday, March 13th.  The document, which flows from the 11th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, held in October of 2005, has been highly anticipated in ecclesiastical circles.

A press conference for the document’s release will be held in the Press Office of the Holy See, led by Cardinal Angelo Scola, patriarch of Venice and relator general of the 11th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, and Archbishop Nikola Eterovic, secretary general of the Synod of Bishops.

The document is rumored to be a profound reflection on the Sacrament of the Eucharist and may call for a proposal and plan for liturgical reforms, including a greater use of the Latin language, Gregorian chant, classical polyphonic music.  According to one source, the document may also call for “more decorum and liturgical sobriety in the celebration of the Eucharist, excluding dance and, as much as possible, applause.”

SOURCE.

All I can say is, "It's about time! The apostolic exhortation from the Synod on the Eucharist has been inexcusably delayed." (And not through B16's fault; the holdup has been on the part of others, and even B16 has obliquely complained about it.)

Actually, that's not all I can say. I can also say that I'll be very interested to read it, and I would not be at all surprised if the items highlighted in blue turn out to be in the document, though we'll have to see.

Also note that, if the title dof the document is correct, Pope Benedict is continuing his theme of love. The title translates as "The Sacrament of Love" or "The Sacrament of Charity."

UPDATE: Catholic News Service is reporting:

Meeting pastors from the Diocese of Rome Feb. 22, Pope Benedict said he was about to sign the document, which he hoped would "help in liturgical celebrations, in personal reflection, in preparing homilies and in the celebration of the Eucharist."

He also said he hoped it would "serve to guide, enlighten and revitalize popular piety," especially eucharistic adoration.

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Liturgy | Permalink | Comments (27)

February 02, 2007

Sisters Preaching The Homily

(Jimmy Akin)

A reader writes:

I found you in the search engine looking for information on preaching by the laity.

Our Congregation of Sisters is having a general assembly. A few Sisters are upset by the fact that we have asked Sisters to give the homily each day after the Gospel. Each of the members of the Steering committee and liturgy committee received a scathing letter today,  flaunting Canon law codes that specifically forbid this practice.

Do you know of any loophole "allowing" Sisters to preach at liturgies during their "closed" liturgies which take place in their own motherhouse or conference centers?

Thanks so much for any help you can give us.

I assume that the passage from the Code of Canon Law which appeared in the letter that your steering and liturgy committees received was this one:

Can. 767 §1. Among the forms of preaching, the homily, which is part of the liturgy itself and is reserved to a priest or deacon, is preeminent; in the homily the mysteries of faith and the norms of Christian life are to be explained from the sacred text during the course of the liturgical year. [SOURCE]

In citing this, the authors of the letter are correct. The homily is reserved to the priest or deacon, and lay people--including sisters--are not permitted to preach it. This is a norm that, prior to the 1983 Code of Canon Law, had certain exceptions, but these were eliminated with the release of the 1983 Code.

Not even a bishop has the ability to dispense from this norm, as was established by the Pontifical Commission for the Interpretation of Legislative texts when it issued the following authentic interpretation:

The doubt: Whether the diocesan bishop is able to dispense from the prescription of c. 767.1, by which the homily is reserved to priests and deacons.

The response: Negative. [SOURCE]

The 2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal (American edition) also stresses the reservation of the homily to the priest or deacon:

66. The Homily should ordinarily be given by the priest celebrant himself. He may entrust it to a concelebrating priest or occasionally, according to circumstances, to the deacon, but never to a lay person. In particular cases and for a just cause, the homily may even be given by a Bishop or a priest who is present at the celebration but cannot concelebrate. [SOURCE]

And the Holy See has expressed the same thing in Ecclesiae de Mysterio and Redemptionis Sacramentum. The former states:

The homily . . . also forms part of the liturgy.

The homily, therefore, during the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, must be reserved to the sacred minister, Priest or Deacon to the exclusion of the non-ordained faithful, even if these should have responsibilities as "pastoral assistants" or catechists in whatever type of community or group. This exclusion is not based on the preaching ability of sacred ministers nor their theological preparation, but on that function which is reserved to them in virtue of having received the Sacrament of Holy Orders. For the same reason the diocesan Bishop cannot validly dispense from the canonical norm since this is not merely a disciplinary law but one which touches upon the closely connected functions of teaching and sanctifying.

For the same reason, the practice, on some occasions, of entrusting the preaching of the homily to seminarians or theology students who are not clerics is not permitted. Indeed, the homily should not be regarded as a training for some future ministry.

All previous norms which may have admitted the non-ordained faithful to preaching the homily during the Holy Eucharist are to be considered abrogated by canon 767, 1. [section 3:1; SOURCE]

And the latter states:

[64.] The homily, which is given in the course of the celebration of Holy Mass and is a part of the Liturgy itself, “should ordinarily be given by the Priest celebrant himself. He may entrust it to a concelebrating Priest or occasionally, according to circumstances, to a Deacon, but never to a layperson. In particular cases and for a just cause, the homily may even be given by a Bishop or a Priest who is present at the celebration but cannot concelebrate”.

[65.] It should be borne in mind that any previous norm that may have admitted non-ordained faithful to give the homily during the eucharistic celebration is to be considered abrogated by the norm of canon 767 §1. This practice is reprobated, so that it cannot be permitted to attain the force of custom.

[66.] The prohibition of the admission of laypersons to preach within the Mass applies also to seminarians, students of theological disciplines, and those who have assumed the function of those known as “pastoral assistants”; nor is there to be any exception for any other kind of layperson, or group, or community, or association. [SOURCE]

In light of these, I cannot offer you a loophole allowing sisters to preach the homily at liturgies that are not open to the public, for no such loophole exists. The Holy See is really serious about this. Not even the local bishop can dispense from this norm, and one certainly cannot depart from it on one's own personal initiative. The Code of Canon Law also provides:

Can.  846 §1. In celebrating the sacraments the liturgical books approved by competent authority are to be observed faithfully; accordingly, no one is to add, omit, or alter anything in them on one’s own authority. [SOURCE]

Although the laity cannot preach the homily, there are instances in which they can preach. The Code of Canon Law provides:

Can. 765 Preaching to religious in their churches or oratories requires the permission of the superior competent according to the norm of the constitutions.

Can. 766 Lay persons can be permitted to preach in a church or oratory, if necessity requires it in certain circumstances or it seems advantageous in particular cases, according to the prescripts of the conference of bishops and without prejudice to can. 767, §1. [SOURCE]

The American conference of bishops has established the following complementary norm regarding lay preaching:

Preaching the Word of God is among the principal duties of those who have received the sacrament of orders (cc. 762-764). The lay faithful can be called to cooperate in the exercise of the Ministry of the Word (c. 759). In accord with canon 766 the National Conference of Catholic Bishops hereby decrees that the lay faithful may be permitted to exercise this ministry in churches and oratories, with due regard for the following provisions:

If necessity requires it in certain circumstances or it seems useful in particular cases, the diocesan bishop can admit lay faithful to preach, to offer spiritual conferences or give instructions in churches, oratories or other sacred places within his diocese, when he judges it to be to the spiritual advantage of the faithful.

In order to assist the diocesan bishop in making an appropriate pastoral decision (Interdicasterial Instruction, Ecclesiae de Mysterio, Article 2 §3), the following circumstances and cases are illustrative: the absence or shortage of clergy, particular language requirements, or the demonstrated expertise or experience of the lay faithful concerned.

The lay faithful who are to be admitted to preach in a church or oratory must be orthodox in faith, and well-qualified, both by the witness of their lives as Christians and by a preparation for preaching appropriate to the circumstances.

The diocesan bishop will determine the appropriate situations in accord with canon 772§1. In providing for preaching by the lay faithful the diocesan bishop may never dispense from the norm which reserves the homily to the sacred ministers (c. 767§1; cfr. Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of the Code of Canon Law, 26 May 1987, in AAS 79 [1987], 1249). Preaching by the lay faithful may not take place within the Celebration of the Eucharist at the moment reserved for the homily. [SOURCE]

Ecclesiae de Mysterio also provides:

2. A form of instruction designed to promote a greater understanding of the liturgy, including personal testimonies, or the celebration of eucharistic liturgies on special occasions (e.g. day of the Seminary, day of the sick etc.) is lawful, if in harmony with liturgical norms, should such be considered objectively opportune as a means of explicating the regular homily preached by the celebrant priest. Nonetheless, these testimonies or explanations may not be such so as to assume a character which could be confused with the homily.

3. As an expositional aide and providing it does not delegate the duty of preaching to others, the celebrant minister may make prudent use of "dialogue" in the homily, in accord with the liturgical norms.

4. Homilies in non-eucharistic liturgies may be preached by the non-ordained faithful only when expressly permitted by law and when its prescriptions for doing so are observed. [section 3; SOURCE]

While the law does not permit your sisters to preach the homily at Mass, or to preach something else at the time reserved for the homily during Mass, the law does allow for the possibility of their preaching in other contexts and--provided the requirements of the passages quoted above in this post are met--it would permit them to preach in some form at your upcoming general assembly.

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Liturgy | Permalink | Comments (84)

January 22, 2007

"Lord, Hear Our Prayer"

(Jimmy Akin)

This is just a liturgical pet peeve of mine, but you know how, during certain times of the year, some parishes decide to get "creative" with the response that is used in the prayers of the faithful?

You know, instead of having the faithful say "Lord, hear our prayer" at the end of every petition, they'll want you to say something else, typically based on the liturgical day or season, like "Come, Lord Jesus" at Christmas or "Come, Holy Spirit" at Pentecost?

I really hate that.

The reasons I hate it are five:

1) It just feels unnatural. I'm used to saying "Lord, hear our prayer," which is a perfectly good response that everyone is comfortable with and that makes sense when it comes at the end of any petition that may be offered.

2) It's too distracting. Since I'm not used to saying the alternate petitions, they're distracting, and I find myself thinking more about the response than about the petition, which is what my mind is supposed to be focusing on. Worshipping with unfamiliar responses is like dancing with unfamiliar footwork. You're thinking too much about the mechanics of what you're doing and not enough about the flow of the dance.

3) The alternate response is invariably inappropriate for some petitions--or at least it sounds awful odd ("That the Holy Spirit may give us a greater awareness of God's love for us . . . " ---> " . . . Come, Lord Jesus"? That sounds like the Third Person of the Trinity is being identified with the Second). Or even if it doesn't, I have to devote mental processing time to the question of whether it is appropriate for the petitions.

4) The alternate response may be inappropriate to the day or season in which it is being used. "Come, Lord Jesus" just doesn't fit for the Christmas season. Once it's Christmas, Jesus has already come! That response would be more appropriate for Advent.

5) Some people find the force of habit too strong and end up saying "Lord, hear our prayer" anyway, then feeling clumsy about it.

When this kind of response substitution occurs, I personally tend to just give silent assent to the petitions rather than using an oral response.

I thought of all this because this weekend I noticed that my parish was (refreshingly) back to "Lord, hear our prayer" after having dabbled with others during the recent holidays.

Would that it had never been otherwise.

Those are my thoughts. What do you think? Have you heard particularly "creative" responses? Any particularly odd juxtapositions with the petitions?

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Liturgy | Permalink | Comments (114)

November 21, 2006

Apology For The Halloween Mass

(Jimmy Akin)

A lot of people have e-mailed me links to the video of the Halloween Mass. As soon as I saw it, I thought, "Okay, this is never going to stand. One way or another, action is going to be taken to rectify this situation."

I also thought, "It's going to be a lot harder for people to get away with extreme liturgical abuses from now on. YouTube brings a whole new level of accountability, as it is now possible for the local bishop and the Vatican to see the abuse being committed and not just rely on verbal reports of it."

This led to the thought, "I'm sad about the idea of people doing hidden camera videos of the Masses in their parishes, but it's going to happen now and will play a role in cleaning up the liturgy."

We'll have to see how my latter two thoughts play out, but the first has already happened. The priest in question has written a letter of apology to his bishop, Tod Brown. Here's the text of it:

November 8, 2006

Dear Bishop Brown:

Since 1998, when we first began celebrating liturgies here in Aliso Viejo, a particular dynamic has always been the youthfulness of our community with an obvious abundance of children. With this in mind, many of our programs have been developed to be of service to them and it was in this spirit that we began inviting children to wear their Halloween costumes to the Masses on the weekend prior to Halloween. Many parents inquired if they too could wear costumes so as to make it a family event, and thus, a Halloween tradition of having parishioners in costume at Mass was born. Based on our Catholic-Christian grounding of faith in Jesus Christ, we know that the assorted costumes of Halloween are a manner of poking fun and holding up to the light of Christ’s Resurrection the things that may have
once frightened us. 

I am aware that my enthusiasm for our family celebration of Halloween has caused me to neglect my pastoral duties of providing appropriate direction and instruction to our people regarding appropriate/inappropriate costumes. Prior to the weekend of October 28-29 I failed to adequately instruct our assorted liturgical ministers as to what might be appropriate apparel for their ministry. Because of this oversight on my part, we had some lay ministers of communion attired in devil horns and assorted other costumes that, in hindsight, I could easily have prevented if I had been more attentive to my pastoral duties. Bishop Brown, I stress to you the goodness and faith-filled integrity of the ministers who were so attired, they are some of our most involved and faithful members. They accepted me at my word in regards to their costume making fun of fearful things, and would be mortified to think that they gave offense to people of good faith. The lay ministers are innocent of any wrongdoing, the offense is mine and I take full responsibility.

I realize that my pastoral neglect and lack of prudent judgment has caused great concern and offense to many in the Church. I have given my life as a priest to the Church of the Diocese of Orange and it causes me great pain to realize that my lapse in judgment could so easily transform a wonderful family tradition into something questionable and repugnant to people of good faith. From my heart I apologize to you and to the larger community of the faithful for my pastoral neglect.

I await your counsel and assistance in  determining an appropriate manner of  making amends for this matter.

Sincerely, Reverend Fred K. Bailey

MORE FROM ROMAN CATHOLIC BLOG.

You'll note that Fr. Bailey in a praiseworthy fashion accepts full responsibility for the abuse, but this does not change the reality that the parishioners who dressed up in devil costumes to attend Mass and hand out Holy Communion were doing something extraordinarily boneheaded. They have a jaw-droppingly astonishing sense of what is appropriate at sacred liturgies. Setting aside the question of whether a costume is even appropriate at sacred liturgies, devil costumes are undeniably and obviously inappropriate, and these parishioners failed to discern that.

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Liturgy | Permalink | Comments (106)

November 20, 2006

Pro Multis = "For Many"

(Jimmy Akin)

CHT to the reader who pointed out the location of the letter from Cardinal Arinze. Diogenes had already posted it over at CWNews. Here 'tis:

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Liturgy | Permalink | Comments (120)

Hallelujah!

(Jimmy Akin)

This is something I've really been hoping and praying for. I've even thought about writing Cardinal Arinze and imploring him to do this, because the release of the new translation of the Mass is the perfect opportunity to do this, and with B16 in office, the pope would have the sensitivity to the issue to realize how much benefit this change would be.

I was therefore DEE-lighted when a reader e-mailed this story from Catholic World News:

Pro multis means "for many," Vatican rules

Vatican, Nov. 18 (CWNews.com) - The Vatican has ruled that the phrase pro multis should be rendered as "for many" in all new English-language translations of the Eucharistic Prayer, CWN has learned.

Although "for many" is the literal translation of the Latin phrase, the translations currently in use render the phrase as "for all." All new English-language translations will use "for many" when they appear.

Cardinal Francis Arinze, the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, has written to the heads of episcopal conferences of the English-speaking world, informing them of the Vatican decision.

The translation of pro multis has been the subject of considerable debate because of the serious theological issues involved. The phrase occurs when the priest consecrates the wine, saying (in the current translation):

...It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.

The Latin version of the Missal, which sets the norm for the Roman liturgy, says:

...qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.

Critics of the current translation have argued, since it first appeared, that rendering pro multis as "for all" not only distorts the meaning of the Latin original, but also conveys the impression that all men are saved, regardless of their relationship with Christ and his Church. The more natural translation, "for many," more accurately suggests that while Christ's redemptive suffering makes salvation available to all, it does not follow that all men are saved.

YEE-HAW!!!

BIG CHT to the reader!

Now, since we don't have the letter from Cardinal Arinze in hand, this is still officially only a rumor. However, it feels like a substantive one. The rumor doesn't say that they're going to do this. It says Arinze has already written the bishops' conference heads. This is precisely the way the Vatican would make a change of this nature (note the recent letter of Cardinal Arinze I published regarding the change on purification of vessels), and the story has the ring of truth to me. My guess is that one of Phil Lawler's sources in the Congregation for Divine Worship or the curia of a bishop who has seen the letter leaked it to Phil.

If it's true, the letter should be appearing in the BCL Newsletter soon, and I'll keep y'all informed.

Even if it's not true, a flurry of coverageon this could raise the profile of the issue and result int the CDW taking action. In other words, this could turn into a self-fulfilling rumor.

Either way, I'm very heartened by this news and really hope that it's true.

A substantial part of the "Novus Ordo is invalid" hoo-hah stems precisely from the mistranslation of pro multis as "for all."

And it is really embarassing to have a boneheaded mistranslation right there in the consecration. The Holy See should never have approved that. Pro multis clearly means "for many" or "for the many" or "for the multitude" and not "for all."

Admittedly, Jesus did shed his blood for all, and the mistranslation is not one that would affect the validity of the consecration since it deals with why Jesus did what he did (and he did truly do it) and not what the elements have become.

But we shouldn't even have to argue this point! The mistranslation shouldn't be there and raise needless doubts in the minds of the faithful, who then need to be talked through why this isn't invalidating.

The simple step of getting rid of the mistranslation will help enormously with anti-rad trad apologetics.

What will be interesting to see is if the Holy See proceeds to mandate the same change in the texts of other languages that have the same mistranslation . . . like Italian.

Kudos to His Awesomeness Cardinal Arinze and His Most Awesomeness B16. Y'all're aces!

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Liturgy | Permalink | Comments (44)

November 06, 2006

Quo Primum Smackdownum

(Jimmy Akin)

Fr. Edward McNamara's answers to liturgy questions on Zenit can be uneven, but when he recently addressed the rad trad argument that the 16th century bull Quo Primum irrevocably defined the "Mass of Pius V"  as the only one that can be validly or licitly used, he delivered a real smackdown.

Here's a taste:

[L]egal expressions such as "which shall have the force of law in perpetuity, We order and enjoin under pain of Our displeasure that nothing be added to Our newly published Missal, nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered therein" cannot be literally interpreted as binding on possible later actions of Pope St. Pius V or upon his successors. The strictures fall only upon those who act without due authority.

If it were otherwise, then Pope St. Pius V would have excommunicated himself a couple of years after publishing "Quo Primum" when he added the feast of Our Lady of the Rosary to the missal following the Battle of Lepanto in 1571, not to mention Pope Clement XI who canonized Pius V in 1712, thus altering the missal.

Among the many other Popes who would have thus incurred "the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul" would have been St. Pius X for reforming the calendar, Pius XI who added the first new preface in centuries for the feast of Christ the King, Pius XII for completely revamping the rites of Holy Week as well as simplifying the rubrics, and Blessed John XXIII for adding St. Joseph's name to the Roman Canon.

GET THE STORY.

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Liturgy | Permalink | Comments (117)

November 03, 2006

Litany Of The Saints . . . And Then Some

(Jimmy Akin)

A reader writes:

When I went to church for All Saint's Day,  I was happy to hear the Litany of the Saints announced.  But then I started hearing saints I had never heard of ...well, there are some of those.  But I saw the people in the choir looking significantly at each other as they said these names, and some of them sounded like common names in our area...so I asked afterwards.   It turns out that this "worship site " of my territorial parish has a custom of including the names of all the people in the parish who died in the previous year, in the litany of the saints.

I expressed some reservations about this to the priest....we don't know that these people are in heaven, we don't know their eternal fate, some might be damned although we hope not,  most probably had some "time" in Purgatory during which they would need our prayers.  He seemed to be upset by my statement that it was conceivable that some of these people were damned and that probably most would be in Purgatory.

What do you think of this practice?

Two things:

First, it's prohibited by law. According to the Code of Canon Law,

Can.  1187 It is permitted to reverence through public veneration only those servants of God whom the authority of the Church has recorded in the list of the saints or the blessed.

Since the people who have died in your parish in the last year have not been recorded in the list of saints and blesseds by the authority of the Church (either of which listings requires the approval of the pope), they cannot be given reverence through public veneration. You can pray to them privately if you want, but not under church auspices. As the litany of the saints is a form of public veneration, including non-saints/non-blesseds in the litany of the saints is prohibited by law.

Second, doing this on All Saints Day undermines the purpose of the following day, All Souls Day. The whole point of All Souls Day is to encourage us to pray for those souls who have not been declared saints. That's why they have their own separate day. If you go and quasi-canonize them by venerating them the previous day, it works againt the purpose of the day that is devoted to them on the liturgical calendar.

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Liturgy | Permalink | Comments (43)

October 31, 2006

CDW On Purification Of Vessels

(Jimmy Akin)

The following is the text of the letter sent by Francis Cardinal Arinze to Bishop William Skylstad, president of the USCCB, concerning the liturgical change in America such that extraordinary ministers will no longer be permitted to purify the vessels used at Mass.

CONGREGATIO CULTO DIVINO ET DISCIPLINA SACRAMENTORUM

Prot. n. 468/05/L

Rome, 12 October 2006

Your Excellency,

I refer to your letters of 9 March 2005 and 7 March 2006, in which, in the name of the Conference of Bishops of which you are President, you requested a renewal of the indult for extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion to purify the sacred vessels after Mass, where there are not enough priests or deacons to purify a large number of chalices that might be used at Mass.

I have put the whole matter before the Holy Father in an audience which he granted me on 9 June 2006, and received instructions to reply as follows:

1. There is no doubt that "the sign of Communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly" (General Instruction of the Roman Missal, no. 240; Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 390).

2. Sometimes, however, the high number of communicants may render it inadvisable for everyone to drink from the chalice (cf. Redemptionis Sacramentum, no. 102). intinction with reception on the tongue always and everywhere remains a legitimate option, by virtue of the general liturgical law of the Roman Rite.

3. Catechesis of the people is important regarding the teaching of the Council of Trent that Christ is fully present under each of the species. Communion under the species of the bread alone, as a consequence, makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace (cf. Denzinger-Schônmetzer, no. 1729; General Instruction of the Roman Missal, nos. 11, 282). "For pastoral reasons", therefore, "this manner of receiving Communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 390).

4. Paragraph 279 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal directs that the sacred vessels are to be purified by the priest, the deacon or an instituted acolyte. The status of this text as legislation has recently been clarified by the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. It does not seem feasible, therefore, for the Congregation to grant the requested indult from this directive in the general law of the Latin Church.

5. This letter is therefore a request to the members of the Bishops' Conference of the United Status of America to prepare the necessary explanations and catechetical materials for your clergy and people so that henceforth the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, no. 279, as found in the editio typicatia of the Roman Missal, will be observed throughout its territories.

With the expression of my esteem and fraternal greetings, I remain, Your Excellency,

Devotedly yours in Christ,

+Francis Cardinal Arinze
Prefect

Monsignor Mario Marini
Under-Secretary

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Liturgy | Permalink | Comments (42)

October 27, 2006

Tridentine Mass Update

(Jimmy Akin)

John Allen has written a number of pieces recently regarding what he is hearing concerning the rumored document on the Tridentine Mass that Pope Benedict is reportedly preparing.

HERE'S THE FIRST PIECE,

in which Allen discusses the possible scope of the document and how it might be a significant redefinition of the state of play on the topic of the Tridentine Mass, yet fall short of the "universal indult" that is hoped for by many.

HERE IS THE SECOND PIECE,

in which Allen reports on French bishops who are distinctly cool toward the celebration of the Tridentine order of Mass.

AND HERE IS THE THIRD PIECE,

in which Allen talks with the head of the English-language International Commission on English in Liturgy, who sees the forthcoming (and much better!) English translation of the current order of Mass as potentially diminishing demand for the former order.

I don't know what the document B16 is preparing (if any) may contain, but y'all know where I stand: I favor a generous celebration of the former order of Mass, I think that there are practical barriers that--even in the event of a universal indult--will significantly hamper even a universal indult in resulting in the Tridentine order being widely celebrated, and--to introduce an element I haven't commented on before--I think that a better translation of the current order of Mass could indeed result in a more reverent celebration of the Mass and thus a less sharp choice between the former and present order on the part of the faithful.

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Liturgy | Permalink | Comments (116)

October 25, 2006

Post-Synodal Exhortation Near?

(Jimmy Akin)

B16's promised post-synodal exhortation following the Synod on the Eucharist last fall is expected out soon, with November being a commonly speculated timeframe. There was some worry that it might take longer because it took the drafting committee that prepared the first version of the document for the pope a long time to complete its work--to the point that the pontiff himself publicly commented on the delay (ouch).

Now news sources are reporting that the release of the document is "imminent."

EXCERPTS:

Citing informed sources at the Vatican, I Media reports that Pope Benedict XVI will soon release his apostolic exhortation on the Eucharist. The Holy Father reportedly was reviewing a final draft of the document late in August.

The imminent release of a papal document on the Eucharist would be noteworthy under any circumstances. But in light of the reports that Pope Benedict is preparing another document on the use of the Latin Mass, the document will be even more anxiously awaited. Some Vatican-watchers have surmised that the Pontiff will release his motu proprio on the Latin Mass in conjunction with the apostolic exhortation on the Synod.

The informed Vatican sources cited by I Media say that the papal document will be quite similar to the list of final propositions endorsed by the Synod fathers after concluding their discussions in Rome last October. In a break from ordinary Vatican practice, the Synod released that list of 50 propositions in an "unofficial" Italian-language statement last October 22. The "official" Synod conclusions, in Latin, were given to the Holy Father.

Pope Benedict, respectful of the collegial authority of the Synod, has made relatively few changes to the text approved by the Synod fathers, sources report.

That would not surprise me at all. Not only does B16 wish to emphasize collegiality in his pontificate but if he were not already in substantial agreement with the 50 propositions that the synod wrote, he would not have taken the unusual step of publishing in the first place.

If you'd like to read my own commentary on the 50 propositions,

LOOK HERE.

(They're in reverse numerical order, in keeping with the way they were blogged. My apologies for failing to do the last five propositions; my memory is that I had to go out of town.)

The next synod of bishops is going to be devoted to the Word of God, and I've seen early reports on it. It's one I hope folks'll keep in prayer for it could do significant good . . . or not.

EXCERPT:

Meanwhile the ordinary council for the Synod met in Rome earlier in October to prepare a working document for the next full meeting of the synod, scheduled to take place in Rome in October 2008. The subject will be "the Word of God in the life and mission of the Church."

The Synod council is now working on the lineamenta, the first working document for the Synod discussions. Once that is complete-- with a final document expected to be approved by the Synod council in January 2007-- the lineamenta is circulated among the world's bishops for their comments. On the basis of their suggestions a new document, the instrumentum laboris, is drawn up to serve as the basis for the Synod discussions.

GET THE STORY.
(CHT to the reader who e-mailed!)

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Liturgy | Permalink | Comments (4)

Liturgical Change In The USA

(Jimmy Akin)

Up till now the diocese of the Untied States have had permission from the Holy See to allow extraordinary ministers to assist priests in the purification of the vessels at Mass if there are not enough priests on hand to do so (e.g., if there were many cups with the Precious Blood that needs to be consumed).

This indult was granted in 2002 and extended the prior practice in the United States.

The U.S. bishops asked for the indult to be extended when it expired, but B16 has declined.

In an Oct. 23 letter, Bishop William S. Skylstad, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, asked his fellow bishops to inform all pastors of the change, which was prompted by a letter from Cardinal Francis Arinze, prefect of the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments.

Bishop Skylstad, who heads the Diocese of Spokane, Wash., said Cardinal Arinze asked Pope Benedict about the matter during a June 9 audience, "and received a response in the negative."

Henceforth if Communion is being offered under both kinds the extraordinary ministers being used to distribute it (if any) could consume what is in the cup that they are holding but could not afterwards purify the vessels.

The letter (which I hope to obtain a copy of) also stresses the option of administering Communion under both kinds using intinction--which to my mind is a good thing. I very much approve of intinction, and recent liturgical documents have made it harder rather than easier to distribute Communion in this fashion.

I'll keep y'all updated as I get more info. I expect either Bishop Skylstad's letter, or Cardinal Arinze's, or both, will be in the next edition of the BCL Newsletter. In the meantime,

GET THE STORY.

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Liturgy | Permalink | Comments (64)

September 22, 2006

Not Leaving The Blessed Sacrament Alone During Exposition

(Jimmy Akin)

A reader writes:

I was wondering about the origin on the custom of not leaving the Exposed Eucharist alone during Adoration? Is it canonical law or what?

First, kudos for recognizing the distinction between adoration and exposition. One can adore the Eucharist whether exposition is taking place or not. Many folks get these two mixed up.

In inquiring about the origin of the rule, I take it that you are asking what is the basis for this in current ecclesiastical law, rather than its historical origin. If you are looking for information on that, you might try here.

The Code of Canon Law only deals briefly with the subject of Eucharistic exposition. Those canons are part of the general section on the reservation of the Eucharist, which are online here.

The actual basis for the requirement is found in the Church's liturgical documents. Specifically, it is found in a document known as Holy Communion and the Worship of the Eucharist Outside of Mass, which is published in The Rites, volume 1.

The section on the exposition of the Blessed Sacrament explains:

85. If exposition of the blessed sacrament goes on for a day or for several successive days, it should be interrupted during the celebration of Mass, unless it is celebrated in a chapel separate from the area of exposition and at least some of the faithful remain in adoration.

86. In churches and oratories where the eucharist is reserved, it is recommended that solemn exposition of the blessed sacrament for an extended period of time should take place once a year, even though this period is not strictly continuous. In this way the local community may meditate on this mystery more deeply and adore.

This kind of exposition, however, may take place only if there is assurance of the participation of a reasonable number of the faithful.

88. Where there cannot be uninterrupted exposition because there is not a sufficient number of worshipers, it is permissible to replace the blessed sacrament in the tabernacle at fixed hours that are announced ahead of time. But this may not be done more than twice a day, for example, at

midday

and at night.

From what I can tell, there is not an explicit statement to the effect that "There must always be at least one of the faithful present in adoration during the exposition of the Eucharist" in either of the main legal documents that are relevant (i.e., the Code and the one I just quoted), but it seems implicit in Holy Communion and the Worship of the Eucharist Outside of Mass that there are to be people present in adoration during exposition. Otherwise there would be no point to talking about needing a sufficient number of people to allow for a lengthy exposition.

Still, one could read this and say, "Okay, so you need people there generally, but not necessarily every single moment. If someone needs to step out of the room for a few minutes for some important reason, that would be okay."

Given the way HCWEOM is written, you could take that interpretation if you were of a mind to.

Which is why God created instructions issued by Vatican dicasteries.

According to the instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments,

[138.] Still, the Most Holy Sacrament, when exposed, must never be left unattended even for the briefest space of time. It should therefore be arranged that at least some of the faithful always be present at fixed times, even if they take alternating turns.

The instruction thus clarifies the ambiguity that one could see in the primary le