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

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.

From a reader:

My pastor "canceled" Sunday Mass this morning due to an icy parking lot from a recent snow/ice storm. Needless to say, I live in a part of the country where we rarely have such weather. However, while protestant churches all over the city canceled their services, ours was the only Catholic Church in town that where Masses were "cancelled."

If you were in my neck of the woods, where I grew up in Minnesota, that would not fly.

But while we know there is an obligation for Mass in Sundays, when people face a significant burden … such as truly inclement weather… their obligation is mitigated.

People are not bound to the impossible, or the truly burdensome when it comes to this obligation. Many people are sincerely afraid to out when weather is like that.

In places where winter weather is not normal inexperience with driving conditions and, frankly, fear of incompetent drivers, seems to me a sufficient reason to attenuate the obligation.

The pastor, by canceling Mass, could have been trying to put people ease about their obligation. Of course I hope he said Mass anyway at the times scheduled for those who showed up all the same.

From a reader:

This Sunday my family and I attended a OF mass, [or "Ordinary Form" or Novus Ordo] at the homily, ironically the reading was Christ’s first homily; the priest informed us “This was the Deacons week to preach, do you see a Deacon? No? Therefore no homily” and then proceeded onto the Profession of Faith. I was under the impression that a homily was a must on Sundays and holydays of obligation. Is this correct?

No, this is not correct.  This is actually rather shabby.  Unless….

Unless the priest was suffering from laryngitis or some other malady which made it difficult for him to talk.

Not being prepared just isn’t a good enough reason. 

A priest ought to be able, must be able, to stand up in front of a congregation and at least say something.

Is that to much to ask?

Even if Father just picks a phrase from the Creed … makes a point about the importance of going to confession … gives a fervorino about loving God or some edifying experience he has had as a priest. 

Anything. 

He doesn’t have to be erudite or prolix or dynamic.

He just has to be faithful, direct and brief.

In a pinch a sermon doesn’t have to be polished or scholarly or pertain to the readings. 

Sooooo many problems for preaching … as well as some advantages … have come from the nearly iron-clad conviction impressed on clergy that they must must must stick to the day’s readings… but I digress….

In any event, unless there is a very good reason, a very good reason, priests are to preach at public Masses on Sundays or see to it that there is a sermon by someone authorized.

So, my reaction to that priest – if that happened as you described, with that rather brutal dismissal of his obligation to preach is…

"Father, shut up and preach."

UPDATE 22 Jan 1553 GMT:

I received this from the original questioner:

Thanks for the tip, Father.

Between you and me, we ordered the mustum, put it in the sacristy fridge, and Father used it without saying a single word.

Back to validity again, Deo gratias. 

____

ORIGINAL POST

From a reader:

What is the status of a Mass at which grape juice is used in the chalice?

Not mustum, not wine resembling anything close to the definition thereof,  only pure, 100% Walgreen’s brand grape juice mixed with a drop or two of water.

Does this fall under the category of one element being consecrated without the other (i.e., the bread), or is the entire Mass invalid?

No other wine is consecrated, e.g., for communion of the people under both species.

We have a real, ongoing problem here with this.

So far, only the sacristan and I are aware…

Oh dear.

Grape juice which has not undergone any fermentation at all, which is not thus at least mustum, is not valid matter for the sacrifice of the Mass. 

For there to be a valid consecration you must use juice of the grape which, without additives, has undergone some fermentation (even if halted at a very early stage by, for example, freezing, thus called "mustum" – even with less than 1.0% alcohol in some cases, or – normally – having undergone more fermentation to become "vinum"). 

If you have expressed your concerns to the priest and get nowhere with him, then you must contact the local bishop IMMEDIATELY and explain what is taking place. 

If that doesn’t produce results or any satisfactory explanation you need to contact Rome.  Write to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which has competence in matters of concrete instances of validity of sacraments.  The same CDF also was the dicastery which issued the directives about the use of low-gluten hosts and mustum.

Remember: Some sort of proof needs to be supplied, so keep copies of what you very respectfully wrote to the priest and/or bishop and what they responded.

 

From a reader (emphasis in the original):

Do you want all English Masses eliminated, or a weekly Latin Mass at each parish, or what?  Our priest has said that everything that has happened in the last forty years has been  bad.  He has a Latin Mass in the chapel about every two months.  I assume he would have more, or say them in the main church,  if there was a request from enough people.

 

Do I want all English Masses eliminated?

Where is Mass celebrated in English?

Ask me again when Masses can be said in an English that both translates the original and doesn’t offend the intellect.

If people want Holy Mass in the Novus Ordo in the Latin language (the actual language of our Latin Church), I suggest they start asking for it.

If people want Holy Mass in the traditional, Extraordinary Form, I suggest they ask for it.

Don’t grouse if you have done nothing.

From a reader:

I have often wondered if there was any specially approved liturgy for profoundly/ severely  deaf people prior to the liturgical reforms of the ‘60s? Surely, there must have been some adaptations of the Tridentine Mass to accomadate their needs? For instance, a Tridentine facing the people, or even it being said in sign langauge or something?

 

I have absolutely no idea.   We will need the help of others on this.

My first impulse is to say that there were no special provisions.

 

From a seminarian:

I understand that in a rescript issued from the Holy See, on November 5, 1964, Paul VI granted the newly-ordained priest the privilege of offering a papal blessing on the occasion of his first Masses.

Is this still in force?

Can such a blessing still be granted at first Masses?

 

Good question. 

I am not sure.

My first impulse is to say that this probably shouldn’t be done because of the changes made to indulgences found in the Enchiridion Indulgentiarum.  The new norms replace the old norms and privileges.  In the new Enchiridion people who participate in a first Mass of a new priest can receive a plenary indulgence… which was the point of the old papal blessing.  

Yes, this is a lot more vague and far less interesting, but it is on the books now.

Perhaps someone else has found a clarification on this and can share it.

From a reader:

Does a Mass heard in a SSPX chapel fulfill the Sunday Mass obligation?

Perhaps you have answered this question before. If so, I missed it.

The 1983 Code of Canon Law, can. 1248 says:

1. "The precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening of the preceding day." 

The Holy See has said repeatedly that attending Masses of the SSPX fulfills the obligation according to can 1248.

However, I will add that – while this strictly fulfills your obligation, I do not recommend that this be your normal way of fulfilling your obligation.  The SSPX is not yet in manifest unity with the Roman Pontiff.  The SSPX priests are suspended and have no permission from the Church to administer the sacraments.  It can happen that people who frequent their chapels can undermine their union with the local bishop and the Vicar of Christ.

I am fully aware that in many cases what is going on at your local normal parish may seem like the childish or pagan rites of a strange cult, and that what goes on at the SSPX chapel seems entirely reasonable Catholic, our sense of ecclesial unity remains important.  With very few exceptions the SSPX priests I have met have been fine men and zealous, while many liberal/heterodox priests in good standing I have known have been ignorant, arrogant, and petty.

This should spur us to earnest and frequent prayer for the success of the theological talks going on between the Holy See and SSPX and be ready to extend a welcoming hand…. especially in this Week of Christian Unity.

From a reader:

Our parish priest, who says the NO in the parish church and the EF in
another church in the parish , came up with this idea.   For the Mass in
English he places a crucifix on the altar with a corpus on each side –
so both he and we are facing the Lord.   What do you think?

I think he should, after a period of catechesis, simply shift to ad orientem worship. 

That would solve the dilemma without involving a confusing symbol.

I think a two-sided crucifix is theologically … odd.

As I read this, at the same time as I had admiration for the priest – who is clearly trying to do good things for his people, I had the image of a man who has a pebble in his shoe but decides to walk on his hands rather than apply the more obvious solution. 

"But Father! But Father!", you will object.  "It is probable that the priest would get into trouble if he tried to change to ad orientem worship.  What if he can’t make that bold move?"

Fine, I respond.  Build brick by brick, patiently.

I still think a two-sided Crucifix is … odd.

Go with the regular Crucifix with the corpus toward the priest… and then start the catechesis including the point that ad orientem worship would allow them all to face the Lord together.

From a reader:

I just had a quick question: If a seminarian or anyone for that matter wears an an alb at Mass is it proper to wear an amice under it? I have a cassock and surplice but the "tradition" in my diocese has been that seminarians wear albs when sitting in choir at Mass or serving or whatever.

 

For the Novus Ordo, the general rule is that street clothes should be covered.  For clerics, for sacred ministers, that sometimes requires the amice if the alb is not constructed so as to cover the collar.

If you priests or deacons in Mass vestments with their Roman collars showing, they are under-dressed.

As far as lay people are concerned, I think the rule would still apply.

But I wouldn’t want the use of an amice to lead to any sense of "clericalization" of the lay people who use them.  If there must be servers in albs, perhaps it would be better to have those albs that entirely cover the next, thus eliminating the need for an amice.

Seminarians should use proper choir dress.   But if they are forced to use albs, then use the amice if necessary to cover street clothes.

For the Usus antiquior, priests must use an amice.  Servers would be in cassock and surplice.

His omnibus scriptis: If you don’t have an amice and one isn’t available, you go ahead as best you can without it.  You are not held to the impossible.   But be responsible beforehand and make sure you have what you need.   Don’t assume these days that parishes have amices unless they also have more traditional liturgical worship.

From a reader:

In our large parish, I serve as an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. Yes, I know, there are preferred ways of approaching the distribution of the Eucharist, and this is not ideal. However, I feel as long as our parish is going to have them, I can do the service of treating the role as respectfully and reverently as possible. As you know, in many parishes it is not unusual for someone to approach with their arms folded, apparently seeking a blessing. I clearly do not feel it is my lay role to administer a blessing in this situation, and after prayer and consultation with informed experts, decided the best I could do would be to quietly say, "May the Lord bless us, protect us from evil, and bring us to everlasting life." This is the same prayer I close with when praying the Liturgy of the Hours, and it is satisfying while not crossing the line of me offering a blessing. I do not touch them, I do not extend a hand over them, I do not make the sign of the cross over them. I view the blessing and those actions as the role of the priest. Well this weekend, a woman approached with her arms folded and the most hopeful, expectant look one could imagine seeing. I proceeded as I normally do and still she stood in front of me, with this expectant look on her face. Staring back, my hand suddenly went out to her shoulder, and once I removed it she went on her way. I didn’t say anything else or even pray anything else at that time; in fact, it almost felt involuntary. So the question is, what should I have done? By no means do I think I need to go to the confessional with this, and yet I feel somehow…perhaps as if I betrayed her. As if she thinks I offered her something I did not offer. If we are to serve as Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, how do you suggest we deal with the case of the arm-folded un-communicant? And how do we respond to the persistent ones like I faced?

It sounds as if you handled this well. You clearly recognize your role in the distribution of Holy Communion as an extraordinary lay minister.

What can you do? Ask your priests to preach about blessings, the differences between ordained ministry, and who EMCHs are.

This could be a good opportunity to do some catechesis. If the priest won’t do it, be prepared to talk about it with others when the topics come up.

I am sure this comes up in parishes. This gets into the question of blessings at Communion time, of course. I think that practice ought to be phased out through instruction.

 

UPDATE 2231 GMT:

Someone posted in a comment below that there is a letter from the CDW which deals with the issue of hands.  This might not be an official response of the Congregation, but it is a guideline:

 

[Protocol 930/08/L] 3. Furthermore, the laying on of a hand or hands — which has its own sacramental significance, inappropriate here — by those distributing Holy Communion, in substitution for its reception, is to be explicitly discouraged.

 

I added this because the questioner mentions putting a hand on someone’s shoulder.  Note: shoulder, not head.

 

From a reader:

One question:  does any document specifically state one must remove gloves prior to receiving on the hand?  I have always taught this to be the case as I was taught, but presently cannot find a citation to rest the case with those who disagree. 

I don’t think there is a document that states that you must remove gum from your mouth before receiving either.

If you are wearing gloves, for the love of God, receive on the tongue!  Or take them off?

Is this hard?

From a reader:

My brother-in-law (to-be), her CATHOLIC brother, is having a baby in a few months and is planning to have the child baptized in a Presbyterian service.  I was told at one point that it might be a cooperation in Moral evil (schism) to attend services of another denomination.  I was also told at another time that in support of a family member, this would possibly be permissible.  So I ask you Father, ought we go to the baptism?  Assuming that the "Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier" mumbo-junko doesn’t make an appearance?

What about attending a CATHOLIC cousin’s protestant wedding?  Would that be recommended?  I assume that there’s no hard and fast rule here… But as your spiritual children, what would you advise us?

I forgot to mention Father, that her brother has asked us to be the godparents…  What do you think about that?

 

There is information lacking here, of course.  First, we can only guess at the dynamics of the family ties here.  Also, we don’t know the religious affiliation of the wife of the Catholic brother in law to be.

Still, you cannot be godparents to a child of a Catholic who is choosing to have the child baptized in a non-Catholic denomination.   He is demonstrating that he doesn’t have the will to raise the child in the Catholic faith. 

Second, your closest spiritual father is really your pastor at your parish.  You should ask him what to do about this.  In the meantime, I repeat that I don’t know the circumstances well enough to counsel on what you should do.   It may be that the Catholics involved in making these fairly bad decisions might have had such a bad formation that they truly have no idea that what they are doing is wrong.  Your reactions will therefore leave them puzzled.

My general view is that you should not attend the weddings of Catholics who have chosen not to marry in the Church, particularly when they know that it is wrong to do so.  You have to make some allowances for the possibility that your not going would truly harm your possible good influence in the future.  But for the most part, when people attend such services they give the impression that they are okay with what is going on.

Again, I cannot give you an iron-clad rule in this.  I urge you to seek your pastor at your parish and ask his advice after explaining all the different angles.

Folks, be a little careful about these situations.  They are very delicate.  Consider what is truly for the good of the people involved, in charity and truth, and not only what will make you feel proud of yourself at the moment.