QUAERITUR: Do priests consecrate everything on altar? Wherein Fr. Z rants.

From a reader:

Prior to the consecration, the altar servers are negligent in removing everything extraneous from the altar.  They have left the cruet of water on the altar, and more importantly, the carafe from which the wine was poured.  The priest continues on with the Mass (and consecration), all the while with the carafe and its remnants of wine on the altar.  My question is, has the wine in the carafe now been consecrated? 

I have asked two priests about this.  One says only that which the priest intends to be consecrated is consecrated, and even if the bread or wine were not on the altar but the priest intended them to be consecrated they would be.  The other said all bread and wine on the altar is consecrated, period.  I have searched online for definitive guidance from the Church, and while I am finding lots of non-specific stuff from folks who may or may not know, I have not found anything official.

Priests are to have the intention to consecrated the matter they know they want to consecrate.  The usual way to help with this intention, to help make it explicit, is to place the matter to be consecrated on the corporal which is spread on the altar.

The corporal is a square linen cloth placed on the altar upon the altar linens.  It is often treated with starch or other substances to make the surface smooth.  It is intended to delineate the place where the sacred vessels are placed and also, importantly, to catch any particles of the sacred Host that might fall, lest they be lost.  To that end, the corporal was always scraped with the paten at the time of the purification of vessels.  Also, it is folded into a smaller square "envelope", to hold within its folds any particles that weren’t caught up by the celebrant, lest they be lost… ne pereant.

That said, a priest can also have the moral intention to consecrate.  He knows beforehand what needs to be consecrated and then, even if it isn’t right in front of his face, when he consecrates, it is consecrated. 

But the corporal is the best way to keep this clear.  Priests should use corporals.

And corporals should not be left on altars between Masses, unless they are under a monstrance.

In Redemptionis Sacramentum 199 we also see the importance of using the corporal.  If vessels are to be purified even at the credence table (i.e., not on the altar) a corporal is to be used.

That said, a priest can have the intention to consecrate something not on the altar or not on the corporal.  We see this in these mega-Masses during, for example, Papal trips.   I don’t know what the effective range of a consecration, but to my mind… well… it would be better not to …. well… let’s just leave that alone.

The priest who made the comment about the intention (above) put it best.   The priest who said everything on the altar is consecrated, period, express the reality badly.  It may be that he personally has the intention to consecrated everything on the altar.  I don’t.  Nor to 99.99% of priests in the world, I think.  I consider it very imprudent to that that moral intention when saying Mass, precisely because containers which shouldn’t be consecrated may inadvertently be left on the altar.  Before launching into the consecratory section of the Eucharistic Prayer, the priest really ought to make a rapid check of what vessels are where so that he knows what needs to be consecrated and, in that moment, intend to consecrate them and them alone.

The old De defectibus, section on defects, which was part and parcel of the Roman priest’s knowledge for centuries is helpful in this regard.  There is a description of defects of intention.  My emphases and comments.

VII – Defect of intention

23. The intention of consecrating is required. Therefore there is no consecration in the following cases: when a priest does not intend to consecrate but only to make a pretense; when some hosts remain on the altar forgotten by the priest, or when some part of the wine or some host is hidden, since the priest intends to consecrate only what is on the corporal; [See what I mean?] when a priest has eleven hosts before him and intends to consecrate only ten, without determining which ten he means to consecrate. On the other hand, if he thinks there are ten, but intends to consecrate all that he has before him, then all will be consecrated. For that reason every priest should always have such an intention, namely the intention of consecrating all the hosts that have been Placed on the corporal before him for consecration.
24. If the priest thinks that he is holding one host but discovers after the Consecration that there were two hosts stuck together, he is to consume both when the time comes. If after receiving the Body and Blood, or even after the ablution, he finds other consecrated pieces, large or small, he is to consume them, because they belong to the same sacrifice.
25. If, however, a whole consecrated host is left, he is to put it into the tabernacle with the others that are there; if this cannot be done, he is to consume it.
26. It may be that the intention is not actual at the time of the Consecration because the priest lets his mind wander, yet is still virtual, [this is what I meant but a moral intention, above.  Here it is described as a "virtual" intention.] since he has come to the altar intending to do what the Church does. In this case the Sacrament is valid. A priest should be careful, however, to make his intention actual also. [That is what I meant about the priest, just before the consecration, making a quick review of what is to be consecrated.]

Since this is the most important this a priest does, and since it deals with the most important thing we have, perhaps deserves the most care and attention.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, SESSIUNCULA, Wherein Fr. Z Rants | Tagged , ,
29 Comments

Overcome idolatry in life by kneeling at during Mass

cosmatesqueFrom the gentlemanly Sandro Magister.

I love the opening salvo.

This splendid article reminds me of a story told by a priest friend about a very high American prelate.  On visiting his seminary, the prelate noted that no one was kneeling at the appropriate times.  He told the rector that he wanted the seminarians to kneel.  The rector expostulated that they had just spent a whole bunch of money to redo the chapel.  Putting kneelers in would be very expensive.   The prelate replied: "Who said anything about kneelers?"

My emphases and comments:

Why Kneel for Communion

Benedict XVI wants it that way, at the Masses he celebrates. But very few bishops and priests are imitating him. Yet this is one reason why churches were given ornate floors. [Interesting.] A guide to the discovery of their significance

by Sandro Magister

ROME, September 13, 2010 – The image [right] is a partial panorama of the immense mosaic that covers the floor of the cathedral of Otranto, on the southeast coast of Italy.

Walking across it from the entrance to the sanctuary, the faithful have as a guide the tree of salvation history, a history that is sacred and profane at once, with episodes from the Old Testament, from the Gospels, from the chronicle of Alexander the Great and the cycle of King Arthur.

The mosaic is from the twelfth century, an era in which the churches had no chairs or pews, and the faithful were able to see the entire floor. Even when they were not adorned with figurative art, the floors of churches incorporated expensive materials and elaborate designs. They were walked upon. Prayed upon. Knelt upon in adoration.

Today kneeling – especially on a bare floor – has fallen into disuse. So much so that Benedict XVI’s desire to give communion to the faithful on the tongue, and kneeling, is cause for amazement. [horribile dictu]

Kneeling for communion is one of the innovations that pope Joseph Ratzinger has introduced when he celebrates the Eucharist.

But rather than an innovation, this is a return to tradition. The others are placing the crucifix at the center of the altar, "so that at the Mass we are all looking at Christ, and not at each other," and the frequent use of Latin "to emphasize the universality of the faith and the continuity of the Church."

In an interview with the English weekly "The Catholic Herald," master of pontifical ceremonies Guido Marini has confirmed that the pope will stick with this style of celebration during his upcoming trip to the United Kingdom.

In particular, Marini has announced that Benedict XVI will recite the entire preface and canon in Latin, while for the other texts of the Mass he will adopt the new English translation that will enter into use in the entire English-speaking world on the first Sunday of Advent in 2011: this because the new translation "is more faithful to the original Latin and of a more elevated style" compared with the current one.

The attraction that the Church of Rome exercised over many illustrious English converts of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries – from Newman to Chesterton to Benson – was in part the universalism of the Latin liturgy. An attraction to a solid and ancient faith that today is moving many Anglican communities to ask for admission to Catholicism.

The "reform of the reform" attributed to pope Ratzinger in the liturgical field is taking place partly in this way: simply, and with the example given by him when he celebrates.

But among the standard-setting practices of Benedict XVI, the one least understood – so far – is perhaps that of having the faithful kneel for communion.

This is almost never done, in any of the churches all over the world. In part because the communion rails at which one knelt to receive communion have been abandoned or dismantled almost everywhere.

But the sense of church flooring has also been lost. Traditionally, the floors were very ornate precisely in order to act as a foundation and guide to the greatness and profundity of the mysteries celebrated.  [Every element of a church should be considered for its potential content.  We must avoid merely utilitarian choices.]

Few today realize that these beautiful and expensive floors were also made for the knees of the faithful: a carpet of stones on which to prostrate oneself before the splendor of the divine epiphany.

The following text was written precisely to reawaken this sensibility.

Its author is Monsignor Marco Agostini, an official in the second section of the secretariat of state, assistant master of pontifical ceremonies and a scholar of liturgy and sacred art, already known to the readers of www.chiesa for his enlightening commentary on the "Transfiguration" by Raphael.

The article was published in "L’Osservatore Romano" on August 20, 2010.

__________________

KNEELERS OF STONE

by Marco Agostini

It is striking how much care ancient and modern architecture, until the middle of the twentieth century, devoted to the floors in churches. Not only mosaics and frescoes for the walls, but painting in stone, inlaid, marble tapestries for the floors as well.

I am reminded of the variegated "tessellatum" of the basilica of Saint Zeno, or of the floor of Santa Maria in Stelle in Verona, or of the vast, elaborate floors of the basilica of Theodorus in Aquileia, of Saint Mary in Grado, of Saint Mark in Venice, or the mysterious floor in the cathedral of Otranto. The shining, golden cosmatesque "opus tessulare" in the Roman basilicas of Saint Mary Major, Saint John Lateran, Saint Clement, Saint Lawrence Outside the Walls, of Santa Maria in Aracoeli, in Cosmedin, in Trastevere, or of the episcopal complex of Tuscania or of the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican.

And then there is the inlaid marble in Santo Stefano Rotondo, San Giorgio al Velabro, Santa Costanza, and Saint Agnes in Rome, and of the basilica of Saint Mark in Venice, of the baptistry of Saint John and of the church of San Miniato al Monte in Florence, or the incomparable "opus sectile" of the cathedral in Siena, or the white, black, and red shield designs in Sant’Anastasia in Verona, or the floor of the grand chapel of Bishop Giberti or of the eighteenth-century chapels of the Madonna del Popolo and of the Sacrament, also in the cathedral of Verona, and, above all, the astonishing and sumptuous stone carpet of the Vatican basilica of Saint Peter.

[Does your church have carpet?]

In reality, careful attention to the floor is not only a Christian concern: there are striking mosaic pavements in the Greek villas of Olynthus or Pella in Macedonia, or in the imperial Villa Romana del Casale in Piazza Armerina in Sicily, or those of the villas of Ostia or of the Casa del Fauno in Pompei, or the ornate Nile mosaic of the shrine of Fortuna Primigenia in Palestrina. But also the pavement in "opus sectile" of the senatorial curia in the Roman Forum, the fragments from the basilica of Giunio Basso, also in Rome, or the marble inlays of the "domus" of Cupid and Psyche in Ostia.

Greek and Roman attention to flooring was not evident in the temples, but in the villas, the baths, and the other public places where the family or civil society gathered. The mosaic of Palestrina was also not in a place of worship in the strict sense. The cell of the pagan temple was inhabited only by the statue of the god, and worship took place outside, in front of the temple, around the sacrificial altar. For this reason, the interiors were almost never decorated.

Christian worship is, on the other hand, an interior worship. Instituted in the upper room of the cenacle, decorated with rugs on the second floor of the home of friends, and propagated at first in the intimacy of the domestic hearth, in the "domus ecclesiae," when Christian worship took on a public dimension it turned the home into a church. The basilica of San Martino ai Monti was built on top of a "domus ecclesiae," and it’s not the only one. The churches were never the place of a simulacrum, but the house of God among men, the tabernacle of the real presence of Christ in the Most Holy Sacrament, the common home of the Christian family. Even the most humble of Christians, the most poor, as member of the mystical body of Christ which is the Church, in church was at home and was master: he walked on sumptuous flooring, enjoyed the mosaics and frescoes on the walls, the paintings around the altars, smelled the perfume of the incense, heard the joyful music and singing, saw the splendor of the vestments worn for the glory of God, savored the ineffable gift of the Eucharist that was administered to him from golden vessels, moved in procession and felt part of the order that is the soul of the world[Ineffable!]

The floors of the churches, far from being an ostentatious luxury, in addition to constituting the walking surface had other functions as well. They were certainly not made to be covered up by pews, which were introduced relatively recently with the intention of making the naves of the churches suitable for listening comfortably to long sermons. The floors of the churches were supposed to be fully visible: in their depictions, their geometrical designs, the symbolism of their colors they preserve Christian mystagogy, the processional directions of the liturgy. They are a monument to the foundation, to the roots.

These floors are primarily for those who live and move in the liturgy, they are for those who kneel before the epiphany of Christ. Kneeling is the response to the epiphany given by grace to a single person. The one who has been struck by the brilliance of the vision falls prostrate to the ground, and from there sees more than all around him who have remained standing. They, worshiping, or acknowledging that they are sinners, see reflected in the precious stones, in the golden tiles that were sometimes used in ancient floors, the light of the mystery that shines from the altar, and the greatness of the divine mercy.

To consider that those beautiful floors were made for the knees of the faithful is emotionally moving: a perennial carpet of stones for Christian prayer, for humility; a carpet for rich and poor without distinction, a carpet for pharisees and publicans, but which the latter can appreciate above all.

Today the kneelers have disappeared from many churches, and there is a tendency to remove the communion rails at which one could receive communion while kneeling. And yet in the New Testament, the act of kneeling is present every time the divinity of Christ appears to a man: one thinks of the Magi, of the man born blind, of the anointing in Bethany, of the Magdalene in the garden on the morning of Easter[Do I hear an "Amen!"?]

Jesus himself said to Satan, who wanted to make him kneel wrongfully, that it is only to God that one’s knees must bend. Satan is still forcing the choice between God and power, God and wealth, and is tempting even more profoundly. But in this way glory will not be given to God at all; knees will bend to those whom power has favored, to those to whom the heart has been bound through an act.

A good training exercise to overcome idolatry in life is to return to kneeling at Mass, [OORAH!] which is moreover one of the ways of "actuosa participatio" spoken of by the last council. The practice is also useful to realize the beauty of the floors (at least the older ones) in our churches. Some of them might even bring the urge to remove one’s shoes, as Moses did before God when he spoke to him from the burning bush.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity, The Drill | Tagged ,
36 Comments

QUAERITUR: Can the pastor tell the assistant what to preach?

From a reader:

I am newly ordained.  An issue has arisen between myself and my Pastor, and you could say, a small number of vocal parishioners. [Imagine my surprise.] It appears as though I am too orthodox for them and one of them [It’s almost always one.] has written a letter of complaint to my Pastor who might require that I give him advance copies of my homilies for his approval.  He has not required this YET.  My question is, does he, as the Pastor, have the right to dictate what I preach about or to approve ahead of time what I preach about?

This was not discussed in the seminary, and I always understood that my faculty to preach came from my Bishop and that he could do this, but nobody else.  Would you kindly offer your advice on this matter?

First, you cannot be too orthodox.   You can be too orthodox for someone else, perhaps.  But you cannot be too orthodox.

Ad rem: I think the pastor does have a certain measure of control over what you preach.  He is the pastor, even if he is an heterodox jackass.  The pastor, parish priest, parochus, is responsible for preaching in the parish.

For example, the pastor can determine that you are going to preach about topic X on Sunday Y.  As a young priest I went back to my home parish in the USA for the summer.  Sometimes the pastor had a project for preaching.  For example, he divided up the Cathechism of the Catholic Church and every Sunday all the priests had to integrate the designated paragraphs.  There are times when the bishop will designate a topic for preaching.

Also, turn the question around and look at it from the other point of view. 

Consider your question in the light of a solid orthodox pastor who has an assistant who is a heretic or an idiot.  After hearing a few bizarre and doctrinally questionable sermons, the pastor reasonably would have to exercise oversight.  I know a case where a priest in residence was absolutely going to the zoo when in the pulpit, not because he was heterodox, but because he wasn’t especially bright.  The pastor wanted to check his sermons for content before he preached so as to save everyone some problems.

That said, no one can require you to say anything that is demonstrably contrary to defined teachings of our Faith.  Use the Catechism of the Catholic Church as a reference.

You might want to contact the bishop or the personnel board for a transfer if the pastor wants you to say something that is contrary to the Catholic Faith.  Document everything.

These are personality issues as much as anything else.  I take the view no pastor should impose too much on the preaching of the assistants or guest, unless there as, as mentioned above, some ongoing project or, as mentioned above, the sermons are unacceptable.  The pastor should try to express concerns while leaving the priest’s freedom to preach intact, if possible. 

Approve a text in advance?  If it would come to that, I would say that he should only check for errors of doctrine, much in the way that a censor librorum would.  A censor librorum checks for errors against doctrine.  They do not pass judgments on style or quality of arguments, etc.

Don’t worry about this too much until it actually happens. 

I am guessing that you have a couple priest friends who are themselves pastors.  You might discreetly sound them out for advice.

If you are in a diocese where the local dean is strong (deans are not strong in all dioceses), and he is sound, you might ask his advice on this point of the pastor approving the actual text.

Lastly, remember that you are not the pastor.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box | Tagged
18 Comments

Bp. Hubbard attends Solemn TLM

I received note of this from a reader.

This is for your brick by brick file.

Bishop Howard J. Hubbard Visits St. Joseph’s Parish, Troy, NY

Summorum PontificumSeptember 2010 marked the third anniversary of the promulgation of the Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum. In the letter to the bishops of the world accompanying the document Pope Benedict writes, "…I invite you, dear Brothers, to send to the Holy See an account of your experiences, three years after this Motu Proprio has taken effect."

To acknowledge this benchmark in the celebration of the ancient liturgy in the life of the Church, the Bishop of Albany Howard J. Hubbard presided over our Sunday Mass on September 12, 2010. The Extraordinary Form liturgy (offered by Father Romaeus Cooney) followed the rite of Mass in the Presence of the Local Ordinary. Bishop Hubbard delivered the Homily.

A positive event in the life of our parish, and specifically the community gathered around the ancient liturgy, this event demonstrated our relationship with the local Church. It also indicates the Bishop’s support for our place in the diocese. This liturgy also invites us to be "the light of the world; a city set on a hill that cannot be hid!" At St. Joseph’s we have a unique gift and a treasure to offer our parish, the diocese, and the larger community.  We also have reason to be thankful.  We have the resources to celebrate the fullest forms of the ancient liturgy by using the gifts, talents, and dedication of those who are indigenous to our community.

Posted in Brick by Brick, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM | Tagged
18 Comments

Your good news

Do you have some good news to report?

I, for one, had a great weekend with the company of good friends.  Sunday’s Mass at Manhattan’s Holy Innocents (37th near Broadway) was splendid: Missa Cantata with music by Ockegham.  Met some nice folks after Mass.  That community also started sung Vespers on Sunday afternoons.  That went very well, too.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
44 Comments

Wherein I respond to a non-concern, and support Fr. Longenecker

coffee mugsI have had more than one emails from readers who are all excited about the possibility that Fr. Dwight Longenecker took a shot at me in one of his posts on his good blog Standing On My Head.

People see some phrase I use quoted and they rush to think the worst.  Sometimes people don’t read very carefully.

Here is what I am guessing is Fr. Longenecker’s reference to what I have written.  Context: Someone opined that the Extraordinary Form is “objectively reverent”.

Fr. L responds:

Those who would argue that the priest should just “say the black and do the red” have a good point and I agree with it. A priest should certainly not deviate from the words printed and the rubrics given. However, even when the priest does just this it doesn’t make the Mass reverent necessarily. Terrible music can intrude, poorly drilled servers can distract, bad vestments and awful architecture can distract, or the priest might ‘say the black and do the red’ with total faithfulness to the rubrics, but say the words either in hip hop– ‘look at me aren’t I making the Mass meaningful’ kind of way, or say the black and do the red in a casual and bored way and both would affect the perception of reverence. […]  What is ‘reverence’ at Mass anyway? Some traditionalists think it can be packaged and performed and if it is all done ‘just so’ then it will be reverent. …

I respond: I agree.

I think that saying the black and doing the red is a necessary component of reverence.  But it is not a guarantee of reverence.  Myriad elements contribute to reverence.

Our Holy Father Pope Benedict wrote in his post-Synodal Exhortation Sacramentum caritatis 38 ff. about the ars celebrandi.  The Holy Father writes:

The ars celebrandi is the fruit of faithful adherence to the liturgical norms in all their richness…

Norms are the starting point of a proper liturgical approach.  Fidelity to the norms is a sine qua non, but not the only thing necessary.

Benedict goes on to explain something that Fr. L alludes to as well:

The ars celebrandi should foster a sense of the sacred and the use of outward signs which help to cultivate this sense, such as, for example, the harmony of the rite, the liturgical vestments, the furnishings and the sacred space.

Liturgical worship is a whole, more than the sum of its parts.  It cannot be reduced to mere observance of the rubrics.

Fr. Longenecker is right and I perceive no shot at me in what he is saying except at those who think that liturgy is theurgy.  On the contrary.  I think we are on the same page.

That said, I think someone should send some Mystic Monk Coffee to Fr. L for use in his “Say The Black – Do The Redcoffee mug to refresh his spirits as he works!

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged
14 Comments

Hard to imagine this is not a joke

I thought my friend Fr. Ray Blake, the illustrious P.P. of St. Mary Magdalen in Brighton, was having us on.

Then, to my horror, I realized he was in earnest.

The English bishops issued a species of chart, attempting to get equivalent terms one might hear in relation to the upcoming Papal Visit with some other sort of secular jamboree, perhaps involving, U2 and Lady Gaga.

I really thought this was a joke.

But then I followed the links to this story in The Telegraph and The Mail.

Back to Fr. Blake for his pointed comments:

I thought Papal Visit Office could only go up after producing Heart Speaks Unto Heart but I was wrong look at this little piece of nonsense produced for policemen, technicians etc who are assumed, not only not to be Catholic but also stupid.

I agree with Andrew Brown there is a frightening waste of money by Eccleston Square, our bishops must realise money is not there to wasted. I spend my time making as many economies as possible and my people have to work damned hard for every penny they give to the Church and those people produce this tripe. And more, some committee of our bishops have approved it. Anyone know who? Or is that another bit Eccleston Square bureaucratic cover-up?

It makes me so angry!

You know… now that I look at this chart… could it be that they have missed a few terms?

 

 

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged
23 Comments

The Holy Father’s special Popemobile for the upcoming visit to England

My good friend His Hermeueticalness, Fr. Tim Finigan, the parish priest of mighty Blackfen, has alerted me to this entry of great importance.

A special Popemobile has been developed for the Holy Father’s visit to England.  It seems it will reflect the recent identification of England as being the "geopolitical epicentre of the culture of death".

Thank you, Your Hermeneuticalness, for the heads up!

Please visit his site and greet him in his combox from WDTPRS!

Posted in Lighter fare, Mail from priests |
Comments Off on The Holy Father’s special Popemobile for the upcoming visit to England

100 diverse Sacramentans bless the Quran with roses of love

A reader alerted me to this story from the Sacramento Bee.

Peace doves fly over Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament

By Stephen Magagnini
smagagnini@sacbee.com

Published: Sunday, Sep. 12, 2010 – 12:00

As 18 doves flew into the skies over the Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament Saturday night, more than 100 diverse Sacramentans blessed copies of the Quran with roses of love. [“diverse Sacramentans”  … I … I … umm… ]

Again and again they uttered the refrain, “Let there be peace on earth and let it begin with me” at the entrance to the downtown church framed by white statues of Jesus, Mary and Joseph. A musician with a white guitar accompanied them.

Representatives of Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, B’hai, Mormon, Sikh, Vedic Druid and Muslim beliefs read scriptures from the great religious texts – including six verses from the Quran calling for all faiths to live in harmony.

Sacramento’s interfaith community organized the peace rally.

 

There is no way I will leave the combox open for this.

Instead,

[CUE MUSIC]

If you sense that your blood pressure might be rising – out of pure coincidence – after reading this story, don’t blow your stack!

Try chilling out with a mug of freshly brewed…

Myyyyystic Monk Coffeeeeee!

Yes, Mystic Monk Coffee will help you wash away the very thought of white guitars.

Mystic Monk!

It’s groooovy.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
Comments Off on 100 diverse Sacramentans bless the Quran with roses of love

QUAERITUR: Non-Catholic choir singing at St. Peter’s Basilica

From a reader:

In your valued opinion, and those of your readers, is it permissible/proper/desirable/good for a Protestant choir to sing at Mass in St Peter’s Basilica? Certainly the controversy over bad Catholic choirs being allowed to sing for Mass was addressed by the directives of the Prefect of the Musical Chapel  issued in December of 2006 (cf. http://musicasacra.com/pdf/vaticannorms.pdf). But do the norms assume that non-Catholic choirs that meet the criteria are eligible to sing? I ask because the choir at our Lutheran affiliated institution is advertizing that they will be "participating" in Mass at St Peter’s next January. I have two doubts: 1. that the choir has been in touch with the proper authorities at the Vatican and 2. that  Protestant choirs are allowed to sing at all in the Basilica.

 

I don’t have a problem with a non-Catholic choir singing in St. Peter’s or any other church.

So long as they sing what needs to be sung and sing well, what’s the problem?

Professional musicians are often non Catholic.

Musics sometimes are moved to want to know more about the Church.

And non-Catholics who are at Mass do participate to a degree, particularly if validly baptized.  Their participation may not perhaps be the fullest they could have, but if they are there with good will and tuned in and reverent… that’s a start. 

That’s good, right?

What’s not to like?

Posted in ASK FATHER Question Box, New Evangelization, Pope of Christian Unity | Tagged ,
52 Comments