What Does The Prayer Really Say?
W D T P R S

From a reader:

Friday is the Solemnity of St. Joseph. I know that according to canon law, solemnities take precedence over any day of penance, at least in ordinary time. Are we still bound to abstinence from meat on March 19?

 

This sort of question comes up almost every year.  At least we won’t have the irritating problem of the Feast of St. Patrick this year.

The 1983 Code of Canon Law states:

Canon 1251: "Abstinence from eating meat or another food according to the prescriptions of the conference of bishops is to be observed on Fridays throughout the year unless (nisi) they are solemnities; abstinence and fast are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and on the Friday of the Passion and Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ."

Friday 19 March is the Solemnity of St. Joseph.  Therefore, because of the solemnity, Friday Lenten abstinence is not required.

Of course you are not obliged not to abstain either.  You can voluntarily abstain from meat on a solemnity if you choose.

We should take into consideration that in some places where there are people of Italian origin there is custom of preparing a free and open "table" dedicated especially for the poor.  Such initiatives will often include dishes with meat.  The Church’s law should put people at their ease that, were they to eat meat on the Solemnity of St. Joseph, they would not be breaking the Church’s law on abstinence on Fridays of Lent.

That said, on a personal note I will for at least part of Friday not eat an meat in public.  I will be traveling during the day and if in the airport or on the plane I have the opportunity to grab a bite to eat, it will not include meat.  I don’t want to have people looking at a priest eating a cheeseburger on a Friday of Lent (which is, coincidentally, when I usually crave a cheeseburger), even though it is a solemnity. 

Remember: If you are in doubt, you can call your local chancery.

UPDATE:

Canonist Ed Peters, who comments below, has an entry on his blog about this issue.

From a reader:

At a Mass in our Diocese this past Sunday, the priest was running very low on consecrated hosts.  Even after breaking some of the hosts in order to distribute more, it was clear that there would not be near enough to accommodate everyone.  When the hosts ran out, the priest returned to the altar and said the words of consecration over additional unconsecrated hosts.  He then used these to distribute to those who did not receive from the first set.  Are these hosts validly consecrated?  What should a priest do in a situation where it becomes clear that a substantial portion of the congregation will not be able to receive?

The consecration was valid.  When a priest says the words of consecration over valid matter and with the proper intention, the Eucharist is confected.

However, while breaking Hosts during Communion is one thing, consecrating more during Communion is another.

It is permissible to break Hosts in great need.  But the Eucharist should not be consecrated apart from its proper moment, in the Canon or Eucharistic Prayer of Holy Mass. 

An exception is when, for example, it is discovered that a chalice full of water with a couple drops of wine was "consecrated" by mistake. Also, if the priest is pretty sure that he didn’t say the form of consecration properly, he could repeat it later, even conditionally.  The point is that the priest must consume both kinds, therefore he must have both kinds.  It is not necessary for Mass to be valid that anyone else consume the Eucharist.  Even if people don’t receive, they have been to Mass. 

Another situation where the priest would need to consecrate outside of the normal moment would be if he finds that the Host has disappeared somehow.  Perhaps wind took it.  Imagine Mass in a war zone on the hood of a jeep.

In the old tract on "defects" of Mass at the beginning of the pre-Conciliar, Extraordinary Form of the Roman Missal, provision is made for a "missing" Host.  Not only does De Defectibus speak about wind, but perhaps some animal got the Host.  I can certainly imagine a bird swooping down, or a big rat, etc.  There is a funny story about that last one, as a matter of fact, but I will save it.  Another situation for the disappearance of the Host during Mass, thus requiring the priest to consecrate again, would be – as described in De Defectibus – and I love this – is that it disappears because of a miracle. 

Yes, miracles happen. 

I don’t recommend that you kneel in the pews asking God to "disappear" the Host.  The priest, on the other hand….

But to consecrate not so as to assure the validity of Mass, but that more people can have Communion… no.  Not right.

The best thing to do, IMO, is simply to explain the situation and urge people to make a spiritual Communion, perhaps offering to say Mass again (if it is permitted to binate etc. for pastoral reasons, etc.) immediately after.

I have had to do this, as a matter of fact, at a parish where I was visiting.  I was told that there should be a full ciborium in the tabernacle: there wasn’t.  I explained.  No one threw a nutty.  It was a "teachable moment".  I took a couple minutes after Mass to run through the points and everyone was fine.

From a reader:

The time for the annual Chrism Mass is nearing and I would like to ask you and your readers a question about the various essences added to the olive oil during the sacred rites. 
 
Inquiry.  I am interested in knowing what mixtures various diocesan liturgists use in preparing the sacred chrism for the Holy Thursday Mass.  Over the years we have used the Holy Rood mixture which is very popular here in America.  I also remember a fine mixture from Steffen Arctander in the distant past which is no longer available.  I am interested in hearing and learning what other products are used in other parts of the world.  What essence is used in the papal Chrism Mass?

 

I have no idea.

Readers?

I have been getting more and more news of parishes implementing some form of the Office or Liturgy of Hours for the people to sing.

I want to put this out there for informed readers with some knowledge to comment on (I am swamped with work at the moment):

Some friends and I (all laymen who pray the traditional Breviary privately) have discussed the idea of doing Vespers or Compline together some days during the week, since we’re all saying the Office anyway.

However, rather than just doing "group private recitation"...we were wondering about actual Public celebration of the Office (solemn or spoken).

Our pastor has expressed total willingness to let us use the church during those times, since nothing else is going on, and even to alert people in the bulletin, but he himself is not comfortable leading it. (One of the deacons may be, however…)

We’re working on memorizing the "Ordinary" chant parts, especially for Compline.

So, basically, my question is, what ministers are actually required for public celebration of the Office (solemn or otherwise)? Must the celebrant be a priest? Must the celebrant be a cleric? According to the internal rubrics of the Old Rite, must it be a cleric in major orders? Can the roles of hebdomadary and cantor be filled by lay substitutes (as the role of acolyte/altar server can)?

Since celebration of the Divine Office requires no particular sacramental powers, it would be nice if lay volunteers could actually lead it (in cassock-and-surplice like an altar server, at least). But I’m not sure if anything more than spoken "group private recitation" is possible…

From a reader:

I had a question about the rubrics of the ordinary form that I can’t seem to find an answer to. Before the consecration, it is the practice of the sacred ministers to bow to the altar rather than genuflect to a tabernacle in the sanctuary. But what about after the consecration? As an acolyte (I would assume the priest and deacon are more-or-less stationary at the altar), I have to sometimes cross the sanctuary during Mass after the Agnus Dei and don’t know if I should bow or genuflect to the altar when the Blessed Sacrament is present.

The Ordinary Form prescribes that sacred ministers genuflect at the beginning of Mass when coming to the altar and at the end.  Also, the priest genuflects at the moment prescribed after the elevation of each of the Eucharistic species after their consecrations, and also before taking up the Host atbefore Communion.  Otherwise everyone is supposed to bow to the altar – even if the Blessed Sacrament is present there in a tabernacle – or bow to the tabernacle if it is elsewhere around the sanctuary and you walk before it.

The idea here is that we, as a Eucharistic gathering, ideally all of us seething with meaningful awareness of the ancient Christians who didn’t reserve the Eucharist as later Christians did, all of us ideally focusing our seething awareness and mutual affirmation on how the altar is a sign of the presence of Christ (as are the words Scripture and the congregation itself gathered in His Name, etc.) are to give honor to the altar of sacrifice, blah blah, all of us seething in mutually affirming anticipation as an Alleluia people who stand rather than kneel that sometime during the institution narrative …. 

You get my drift.  This is all very heady stuff.

I am a Say The Black – Do The Red sort of guy, so I am not, I repeat not going to tell people to ignore rubrics… but…. 

Frankly, I think that whole thing should be done away with.  To my mind it is just plain wrong to "ignore" -  to use a contentious word – the Blessed Sacrament in favor of some other thing which at that moment also is a sign of the presence of the Lord, namely the altar.  And yes we all know that Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox bow rather than genuflect and that their bowing is in no way lacking in reverence, etc.

But lets just talk among our Latin Church Catholic selves for a while here.

This is one of those modern liturgical reform oddities of the Novus Ordo, the Ordinary Form, which I just can’t get my old-fashioned Catholic head around.  If someone were to show up in my confessional saying that he genuflected during Mass when walking in front of the Blessed Sacrament I am not sure I would think he sinned, even venially.

"But Father! But Father!", the liturgically-aware will expostulate, perhaps with a little sneer.  They have been waving their arms around for a couple paragraphs by now, saying, "We are not ignoring the reserved Eucharist!  We are rather affirming the Eucharistic presence which is going to be consecrated in the context of this present sacred synaxsis. [They always have to get words like "synaxsis" in there.]  Perhaps the unnuanced find this disconcerting but in time the liturgically more mature come to be able to balance interrelations and seeeemingly challenging phenomena which diachronically …. "  yadda yadda…. yawn yawn. 

I respond: Oh yah? 

That’s all very fancy, but what real people are liturgically aware of, pal, is that you are blowing off the Blessed Sacrament which they can SEE  – RIGHT THERE.  You are walking by the tabernacle where they KNOW or OUGHT TO KNOW the Eucharistic Lord is really and truly present. 

After a while that will take its toll on what people believe and how they themselves give reverence to the Blessed Sacrament.

So… seethe away with liturgical awareness, juxtaposing and balancing your interrelated phenomena. 

I think this should be simple for Latin Church Catholics: 

Are you walking in front of the tabernacle? Hit the deck! 

Unless you are carrying something big or precarious, whether it is during Mass or simply heading across the sanctuary after Mass to scrape some wax off the floor, in my opinion we should genuflect when we walk before the Lord, truly present.

The Goa’uld in Stargate got one thing right, and I wish I could make my eyes flash: Bend your knee to your GOD!

And I will remind everyone that in the older, traditional form of Mass this isn’t a problem.

I am a Say The Black – Do The Red sort of guy, so I am not, I repeat not going to tell people to ignore rubrics… but….  

From a reader:

I trust your judgment and I would like to know if it is ok to own a miniature monstrance.  Sites online sell them. [Image attached for reference.]  It’s a miniature monstrance which is not the same as one used in Mass.

Most of these small "monstrances" are really reliquaries.  They are "monstrances" insofar as they "show" relics, but they are not monstrances for display and adoration of the Sacred Host, more technically an ostensorium.  The terms for these sacred vessels come from words "to show".

Nevertheless, it would not be "bad" to own a large monstrance for a Host.   Of course you could not use it privately for displaying a Host for adoration except with the permission of the local bishop, who could authorize a private chapel with reservation of the Blessed Sacrament.

There is also the question of the consecrated nature of this sacred vessel.  A monstrance is a sacred vessel.  The traditional view of sacred vessels is that they should be touched only by hands which have also been consecrated to handle sacred things, such as the Host Itself and the vessels which contain the Eucharist.  The implication is, of course, if your hands are not consecrated, as those of a priest, then you should not handle a monstrance except in great need.  However, were a sacred vessel to be sold it would lose its consecrated character.  It would be "desecrated".  It would need to be re-blessed.

So, it is not "bad" for people to own these vessels, but great care must be exercised in their regard that they be treated with due reverence.

From a priest reader:

I’ve been a priest since 1984 and when I was ordained my bishop did not look favorably on the traditional Latin Mass.  Therefore my seminary training at St. Meinrad did not include any mention of the Tridentine Mass, other than the occasional joke about it.  I love to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass in English because I know what I am saying, but continue to be drawn to the traditional Latin Mass because of its solemnity, history and beauty.  My question to you is, how hard is it to learn to celebrate the Tridentine Mass?  I earned a "D" in Latin back in college, and have been told by a former Latin teacher to stick with English.  I don’t have a gift for languages.  For the past three years, during Lent in my parish, we have chanted the Pater Noster at Mass, and I still have to have the words in front of me.  I am not good at memorization.   I’ve seen two different workshops available, one offered by the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius and the other by the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter.  Any recommendations?  Comments?

 

Thanks.  I am sure there are many priests who hesitate even to start because they think it must be really hard.

That said, it is sure going to be hard for some priests, but not impossible.

Think about it this way: there were many generations of men who learned how to say Mass who weren’t exactly rocket scientists.  Right?  If they did it, anyone can do it.

It helps a great deal to have strong Latin.  But a priest is to be idoneus, suitable, to say Mass.  He must have the minimum tools for Mass.  He must be able to pronounce the words properly, at the very least.  He doesn’t have to be a Latin expert. 

The workshops mentioned above are very good.  They will be able to steer you toward good tools.

Memorization is important, but not an absolute obstacle: that’s why we have books and altar cards on the altar!

It can be done.

Finally, you would also need to make it clear to any overly zealous trad lay people that if they decide to snipe at you from the pews because they think you didn’t wiggle your pinky finger the right way at the third comma according to the final authority in all things rubrical – their own recollection of how old Msgr. Guido O’Leary did that at St. Ipsidipsy in Tall Tree Circle when they were ten and following their authoritative St. Joseph Daily Missal – then they can just wait… and wait…. and wait … until the good is no longer the enemy of the perfect.

I think, dear Father, the best thing to do is just to start. 

Build it up, brick by brick, and you will find that it isn’t so hard as all that once you get used to it.

That said, I invite PRIESTS to chime in with their comments about learning to say the TLM.

From a priest reader:

I had occasion to witness an Ash Wednesday liturgy at [a boy’s school] in [___].  As there was no priest planning to be available, the liturgy was conducted by teachers and students.  After some readings, the students were invited to extend their hands and to pray a prayer of blessing over the ashes which were then put on the foreheads of the students by other students.

Am I wrong in thinking that there is nothing in Catholic theology to justify a blessing of ashes on Ash Wednesday by  a group of laypersons?

No, Father, I do not think you are wrong.  Lay people can’t bless in that manner and it was abusive to give them the impression that they could. 

I suppose that in the absence of a priest if the students were going to do things with ashes, careful explanations should have been given about what sacramentals are, what priests do, the difference between the priesthood of priests and of the baptized, etc.

From a seminarian:

A priest at the seminary has been blessing saying "May almighty God bless you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

Another priest mentioned this was wrong and even heretical for a priest to bless at this part of the Mass "in the name".

Do you know anything about this?

I don’t know about heresy, but I do I know this:

Priests should Say The Black and Do The Red. 

I believe the missal has a form to be used by the priest at the end of Holy Mass: Benedicat vos omnipotentis Deus, Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus… May Almighty God bless you, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.  

I would therefore wonder if the priest just didn’t pay adequate attention to the book and never really double-checked the proper form,... which is likely… or whether on his own initiative he decided that he knew better what the Church should do and changed it.   

Surely once he finds that he has been doing something wrong he will make a change.

Back to the question of heresy.   I am not sure in what the heresy would be found. 

There are other blessing forms, but I cannot call to mind one whereby the priest blesses "in the name" of the Trinity.  Priests call down invocative blessings but seemingly in their own name.  Either way, God is doing the blessing at the invocation of the priest.

Perhaps a reader or two might have something useful to contribute on this point.

From a reader:

An unhappy and scandalous situation has just occurred in my family. My aunt passed away last week. I live in a different state, and am not sure at what level she was still engaged in her Catholic faith, but she certainly did practice when I was in closer proximity to her, and I know that a few years ago when her husband died she provided for him a normal funeral, with wake the night before and a funeral mass the next day. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem that she will receive the same treatment.

Her surviving children, neither of whom practices their faith anymore, decided NOT to arrange for any funeral mass. They had my aunt cremated and are having a “remembrance” luncheon instead.

So, Father, my quandary: if a person’s own children do not arrange for a funeral mass such as in a situation as this, can another more distant family member arrange for a funeral mass at the deceased person’s parish, even though the remains are not present?

This is going to happen more and more frequently, I’m afraid.

So many of the generation following the Council, so many aging children of the now elderly devout, are either unchurched or, having seen so much of the unworthy in their churches during their youth, simply drifted off into the warm embrace of the world, the flesh and the devil.

We cannot impose our will on the deceased’s immediate family. We can, however, on our own initiative arrange for Masses to be said for the one who died.

It would be a fine spiritual work of mercy.

[From my iPhone… broadband not to be had right now]

From a priest reader:

I have recently been appointed Parish Priest (Pastor) of what are at present two canonical parishes. (The two parishes will eventually amalgamate to form one new parish with 2 churches).  As the season of Lent approaches my mind is moving forward to the celebration of the Easter Triduum. 
 
Obviously I cannot celebrate the entire Triduum in both parishes.  I am currently thinking of celebrating Holy Thursday and Good Friday in one parish and the Easter vigil in the other and then alternating the following year.  At the Easter Vigil I would bless 2 paschal candles but only light the second at the end of the Mass to carry it out in procession ready for use in the other church the next day.
 
I would be interested to hear your views and that of your readership about my proposed idea.

Any thoughts?

From a reader:

I am wondering what the rule is concerning mixing both wine and water for chalices that will be used for communion under both species.  I have seen some priests only add the water to their own chalice, and other priests who add a drop of water to each individual chalice to be used for communion.  Is there a certain way to do this?

Since I pretty much never am involved with concelebration with multiple chalices, I need to open the floor up to priests who do this sort of thing more often.   On the rare occasion when I have been, I have this to attending deacons, etc.

That said, I think the GIRM only requires that the main chalice (singular), i.e., of the celebrant, must receive a small portion of water in the wine.   Nothing is said about other chalices one way or another. 

It strikes me as appropriate for water to be added to all the chalices at the time of the preparation of the celebrant’s chalice, but I don’t think that is prescribed.

Also, we must not after the consecration pour the Precious Blood from a container into chalices.  Chalices should be prepared ahead of time (cf. Redemptionis Sacramentum). 

From a reader:

Hey Father Zed.  I’ve got a question about using the vernacular in the TLM…  Last night my fiancee and I went to a TLM and the priest, who had a wonderful voice, sang the mass very well…. Except when it came to the Epistle and Gospel, he sang them in English.....  What’s the deal with that? Is that allowed?  Does it invalidate/illicit-ate the Mass? Or is it all cool?  I know that S.M. says that the readings can be read in the vernacular, but I always took that to be an affirmation of reading them before the Homily.

 

Yes, that is allowed under Summorum Pontificum.  No it does not invalidate the Mass.

Whether it is a good idea… or cool… or not is another matter.

I think most people will agree that the Council Fathers at Vatican II intended that the use of the vernacular was intended for the liturgy of the word part of the older, traditional form of Holy Mass.   What we actually got went way beyond the intention of the document on liturgy.  From that point of view, it could be taken as a good idea. 

Also, that would eliminate the need to repeat the readings.

However, I am not sure how many congregations of TLM goers would take to this.  From that point of view, such a practice could simply wind up producing more heat that light.

From that point of view, I think it is probably not the best practice… yet.  Perhaps someday it will be, depending on the community.

TLM purists will absolutely HATE that suggestion, I know.  So, spare us, please.

From a reader:

Father and the deacons at my parish know that I study chant, and it has been suggested that I sing the Exultet this year. This is one of the first chants I started learning (in Latin of course) and I am very excited to do it. I have listened to your podcast and your recording (many times throughout the liturgical year), and am very familiar with it. Father mentioned he had heard of an Exultet in Latin and English, and I said I would look into it for him. I suppose he could mean the majority of the chant in one language and the exchange between deacon/priest and people in the other. Have you heard of such a thing? I pulling for it in Latin (whether I sing or not), with an English translation in a flyer/bulletin/program.

 

Exultet in two languages?  Awful idea, in my opinion.

If you are going to have some Latin, do the whole thing in Latin. 

People aren’t stupid.  They will follow in the book perfectly and pay more attention that way.

And I don’t see why the music director should be able to tell the priest what music they should use.  Who signs the paycheck?

I has placed a question on the blog about the priests who concelebrate not consuming both species.  Because I was probably traveling and didn’t have the chance to dig, I opened things up for answers.

Well…!

Today, while sitting on another airplane about to take off, I picked up an e-mail from a priest friend who faced the situation while recovering from surgery of being told not to consume even the least amount of alcohol because of the post-op medication he was on.  He asked about concelebrants being able to consume under one kind alone.

SKADOOSH! 

After a twitch of my pinky finger, I was able to call him back between flights… right now, that is… and give him an explanation and concrete reference which answered his question and situation perfectly.

It is a great part due to the contribution of readers that this was possible.

First, because there are so many of you, I keep this going.

Second, because so many of you are well-informed, I keep this going.

Third, because so many of you think before posting, I keep this going.

Fourth, because I too learn so much, I keep this going.

Thanks to you all.  You helped me help a friend in a particular and important circumstance.