From a reader…
QUAERITUR:
Our pastor had a rare situation with the election of the Pope. The white smoke went up, indicating that we had a new Pope, but before who the new Pope was announced, he had to go say Mass, thus not having a name for the Eucharistic prayer.
He handled it, but just curious if there is anything official that covers this unique situation.
Just when you think you’ve heard it all.
This is only possible in today’s world of instantaneous, real time information. Right?
Back in the day, before everything was live on the little screen in your hand, this wouldn’t have been a problem. Father would have simply said Mass as if it were still sede vacante … ’cause it was as far as he was concerned… and changed his way of saying the Canon when he finally got the news.
Hence, there isn’t anything “official” – that I know of – for this scenario.
Back in, say, the 16th century, some old guy in a village somewhere might be blithely saying Sixtus V in the Canon. After a while he gets the news that Gregory XIV is Pope. He changes from Sixtus to Gregory, not even knowing that between Sixtus and Gregory was Urban VII… for 12 days.
I can think of a couple solutions to this problem.
First, there is the idea of delaying Mass a little and wait for the news, though you never know how long it’ll take to get that announcement going. And people have to get home and make supper for their children, etc.
Second, I would just say:
… una cum fámulo tuo Papa nostro et Antístite nostro Uhtredo et ómnibus orthodóxis, atque cathólicæ et apostólicæ fídei cultóribus. …
… together with Thy servant our Pope, and our Bishop Uhtred, and all orthodox believers and professors of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith.
In that way you pray for the Pope, whose name you don’t know.
This might be a solution in the case of a genuine antipope!
Say that, in some scenario, there is doubt about a Pope’s resignation or there is a split in the College of Cardinals after the death or resignation of a Pope and the two differing groups of Cardinals stage their own conclaves, each producing a “Pope”. All things being equal, one might be hard pressed to know what name to say in the Canon. Therefore, just saying “for Your servant our Pope” without a specific name could work.
Loading ...
thanks for making me chuckle at Uhtred! i’m in the middle of the excellent novel Kristin Lavransdatter (set in XIV century Norway for those not familiar) and that name would fit in quite well.
Spare a thought for the priests of the Archdiocese of St Andrews & Edinburgh, who now pray for “Leo, our Pope, and Leo, our Bishop…”
When my wife is talking about someone and does not remember the person’s name, she substitutes with the word diddle. So once, about 40 years ago, she asked while we were going to lunch, “ what’s diddle been up to lately?” Of course I had no idea whom she was asking about. However I got a chuckle about your post thinking that maybe the priest could say, “una cum famulo tuo papa nostro diddle . . .”
Talk about a “corner case” (only potentially applicable for up to an hour every 5-30 years) – but a good solution all the same!
I have to wonder – what would you consider to be a situation of a “genuine antipope” (since the last such bona fide situation was several centuries ago)? Some serious disruption of or interference with a Conclave?
Pingback: MONDAY LATE AFTERNOON EDITION | BIG PULPIT
I was hearing Mass in Westminster Cathedral on 26 August 1978 when during the Canon a sacristan came gliding across to lay a piece of paper beside the priest. When he came to the moment, the priest peered at the note, looked again, and pronounced the name “er .. John ..(double check) er Paul”