Category: Liturgy

A reader writes:

What do you think of women wearing head coverings (or
mantillas/chapel veils) at Mass, or whenever we come
into the presence of the Blessed Sacrament?  I’m not a
"traditionalist," but I am a convert, I adore the
Blessed Sacrament, and I want to render the proper
courtesy to our Lord.

There is a piece written on this subject available on
the Web (search for A Mother’s Point of View– Modesty
in Headcoverings, published in Catholic News &
Commentary, 2003).  I found the following passage
particularly persuasive:

"At the moment of conception, when God creates a soul
and it joins its body in the womb of its mother, God’s
creative hands work within her, and since whatever God
touches becomes sacred, we veil it.  and since a
woman’s hair is her glory (I Cor. 11:15), we veil what
is her dignity.  We do the same thing in our church,
for the glory of the Tabernacle is veiled because of
the sacredness inside…"

I
like the idea of the evangelization potential here,
but don’t want to become a distraction.  I truly just
want to respect our Lord and follow His Church.

Your desire to show respect for our Lord and to follow his Church pleases God and is something he will reward.

The Church does not judge it necessary for you to wear a head covering in the presence of the Eucharist, however. This was required under the 1917 Code of Canon Law, but when the 1983 Code was released, the requirement was abolished.

The Church thus does not require you to wear one.

Personally, I support the idea of women wearing head coverings in church. It is a beautiful and traditional way of expressing reverence in church, but it is not to be portrayed as something that the Church requires.

I do not find the argument about veiling what is sacred to be persuasive. By that reasoning, babies would be less sacred after they are born because they are no longer "veiled" by the womb. The reason for wombs is because of the pre-born baby’s greater vulnerability, not his greater sacredness.

I also don’t find the argument about the Tabernacle persuasive, for then we should prohibit Eucharistic exposition in order to signify the holiness of the Eucharist by keeping it continually "veiled" in the Tabernacle and we should never, ever have Eucharistic processions.

Sacredness does not always mean veiling. If it did then priests–as consecrated men functioning in persona Christi–might ought to say Mass wearing not just veils but burqas.

The most persuasive argument is the reference to 1 Corinthians 11 (though not specifically verse 15), where Paul does indeed endorse head coverings.

At another time we can discuss his reasoning in detail, but for now I would note that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has judged that the passage concerns a disciplinary norm from the first century that is not binding today:

Another objection [to a male-only priesthood] is based upon the transitory character that one claims to see today in some of the prescriptions of Saint Paul concerning women, and upon the difficulties that some aspects of his teaching raise in this regard. But it must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on the head (1 Cor 11:2-6); such requirements no longer have a normative value. However, the Apostle’s forbidding of women "to speak" in the assemblies (cf. 1 Cor 14:34-35; 1 Tim 2: 12) is of a different nature, and exegetes define its meaning in this way: Paul in no way opposes the right, which he elsewhere recognizes as possessed by women, to prophesy in the assembly (cf. 1 Cor 11:5); the prohibition solely concerns the official function of teaching in the Christian assembly. For Saint Paul this prescription is bound up with the divine plan of creation (cf. 1 Cor 11:7; Gen 2:18-24): it would be difficult to see in it the expression of a cultural fact [Inter insignores 4].

If you wish to wear a head covering, I therefore would entirely support you, and you should not think of it as a distraction to others. It is a beautiful and traditional way to show your devotion, so by all means feel free to wear one–just be sure to recognize that the Church does not require it and that those women who choose differently in this matter are not thereby being disrespectful or less devout.

From the current (July 2006) edition of the Bishops’ Committee on Liturgy Newsletter:

Among the most important recommendations offered to the Bishops is important advice which applies to all circumstances where the potential for the transmission of pathogens is a significant risk:

All parishioners should be encouraged to remain home at the first sign of illness, out of respect
for their brothers and sisters. During the time of the pandemic, even if schools and public
institutions are not closed, parishioners should be reminded of the importance of basic health
measures.

Hand-washing is a necessary and effective means of preventing the delivery of infectious material
(e.g., nasal secretions, saliva or other body fluids that may contain viruses) from soiled hands to
the mouth, nose or eyes, where it can enter the body. Cleaning one’s hands with soap and water
removes potentially infectious material from one’s skin. Hands should be cleaned before
preparing food, eating, or touching one’s face and after handling soiled material (e.g., used
tissues, lavatory surfaces, and door knobs), shaking hands, coughing or sneezing, and using the
toilet. Waterless alcohol-based hand gels may be used when soap is not available and hands are
not visibly soiled.

TOLD YA.

At their meeting last week, the U.S. bishops approved the new draft translation of the Order of the Mass (that’s the prayers you hear every week, not the ones that change based on what liturgical day it is).

The translation now goes to Rome to receive Rome’s approval.

Apparently there were a few changes that the bishops asked to make, but these are characterized as minor (e.g., optional alternative prayers that we already have in the U.S. that are being proposed for inclusion in the new Order of Mass, e.g., using certain memorial acclamations at the Mystery of Faith that are in the U.S. Sacramentary but aren’t in the Latin original).

GET THE STORY.

MORE HERE.

AND HERE.

A reader writes:

I’ve been looking for canonical or magisterial information on the practice of some priests (who are not presiding) who exit the sanctuary once they’re finished with the homily only to pop-in later to give communion to the faithful.

I argue that it shouldn’t be done because of the unity and continuity between the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Bread.

They started this practice so they could have a single priest give the
homily for all the weekend Masses (5 in total at our parish).

You’ve got at least some traction here in the law, if they’re doing it on a weekly basis. According to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal:

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.

The phrase "in particular cases" indicates that this should not be a habitual thing.

The reader also writes:

Related to this question, is a "fireman" priest who comes in to distribute communion always preferable to an extraordinary minister of communion?

Rome would have much less problem with this, because they really, really, really do not want extraordinary ministers being used unless they have to be.

This is indicated by the tenor of the way the issue is handled in the instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum:

[157.] If there is usually present a sufficient number of sacred ministers for the distribution of Holy Communion, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not be appointed. Indeed, in such circumstances, those who may have already been appointed to this ministry should not exercise it. The practice of those Priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distributing Communion and hand this function over to laypersons.

[158.] Indeed, the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may administer Communion only when the Priest and Deacon are lacking, when the Priest is prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged. This, however, is to be understood in such a way that a brief prolongation, considering the circumstances and culture of the place, is not at all a sufficient reason.

While this doesn’t explicitly say "priests who aren’t present can come in to distribute Communion," it establishes such a strong preference for ordinary ministers over extraordinary ones that Rome not only wouldn’t have a problem with this but might regard it as preferable.

A reader writes:

What happens when a priest does not consume the body and blood of Christ at Mass.  I was at a mass where when it came time for the priest to take communion, he told us that he could not because he had to fast for a medical procedure the following day.

What happens is that the priest commits a grave violation of liturgical and divine law.

The Church has acknowledged that the laity are not required by divine law to receive Communion under both or either species at Mass, any priest who is celebrating Mass is required by divine law to do both. Jesus statements to "take and eat" and "drink this" were directed to the apostles, who are represented at Mass by the celebrating priest(s). Priests do not have the option of celebrating Mass but refraining from Communion under either species.

As a result, if a priest is not able at the moment to receive Communion (for whatever reason) then he is not qualified at the moment to celebrate Mass.

Also, I’d add that that’s a pretty dang sensitive medical test if it would pick up the tiny amount of nourishment represented by the post-Real-Presence elements that the priest would typically consume.

All of this pertains to the actions of the priest, though, and does not affect the lay faithful. Transubstantiation and the eucharistic sacrifice both take place since these are accomplished with the words of institution.

John Allen has an interview with Australian Cardinal Pell about the new translation of the Mass that the U.S. bishops will be voting on later this month.

EXCERPTS:

Where do things stand on the new Order of the Mass?
Basically pretty healthy. It’s been approved in Australia, it’s been approved in England.

There’s a big vote coming up in June in the United States. Do you have any sense of what you think will happen?
I think it’ll get through.

When do you expect the Order of Mass will be in use?
I’m not sure. I think that we’ll probably proceed together. I don’t think it will be approved country-by-country piecemeal, because the ambition is to have one Roman Missal for the English-speaking world, with possibly a few local variants. I think that’s a very worthy ambition.

What if the American bishops vote to request significant changes? Would the Australians and the English take another look?
I’m not exactly sure. I suspect that there would be informal consultations, and very possibly if the changes weren’t too radical the Congregation for Divine Worship would either rule or suggest some compromise. But we’re talking hypothetically, because I don’t know.

If this text is eventually approved, are the liturgy wars over?
I’m tempted to say that it would enormously change the balance of things, but I have no doubt there would be isolated and sporadic resistance. We have a big challenge to make the English [texts] powerful modern, appropriate and strong. We don’t want to just achieve doctrinal fidelity but have clumsy English. We’ve got the doctrinal fidelity now. The ICEL translations are coming through beautifully on that score. But I think with some of them, a few of them, the quality is quite uneven.

Including the Order of the Mass?
No, I think the Order of the Mass is OK. I’m looking at other texts that are at a much earlier stage.

GET THE STORY.

The Diocese of Orange has issued a clarification regarding Fr. Martin Tran’s apparent statement that kneeling after the Agnus Dei contrary to the norm in his diocese constitutes a "mortal sin."

HERE’S THE DOCUMENT ON THE DIOCESAN WEB SITE.
(CHT to the reader who emailed.)

And here’s the money quote:

Fr. Tran regrets any concern or hurt caused by the misuse of the term "mortal sin" in this context. The Diocese concurs with Fr. Tran’s clarification.

The context in question is the passage from the parish bulletin where Fr. Tran threatened with mortal sin those parishioners "disregarding the permission of the local Bishop or despising the authority of the local Bishop" by "setting their own norms" in the liturgy.

So Fr. Tran and the diocese are refusing to endorse the claim that kneeling after the Agnus Dei is a mortal sin, which is a good thing, because as I pointed out before, that claim is totally absolutely 100% crazy.

So the clarification is good.

Unfortunately, the statement on the diocesan web site (which is unsigned) appears to have a couple of notable drafting problems.

Immediately after the above quotation, the statement goes on to say:

The bulletin article by Fr. Tran was never about "kneeling" or "standing" during Mass, it was about respect for the liturgical practices of the Church as approved by the Pope.

This is not plausible, for reasons discussed before. To those reasons might be added the fact that Fr. Tran explicitly referred to the authority and the permissions granted or not granted by the diocesan bishop, which focuses attention on the actions of the diocesan bishop, and the only norm established by the diocesan bishop that the parishioners seem to have been accused of violating was the norm of standing after the Agnus Dei (which, it must be pointed out, is within the competence of the local bishop according to the U.S. edition of the GIRM).

Still, the key point–that it is  not a mortal sin to kneel after the Agnus Dei in those places where standing is the norm–has been acknowledged, so this difficulty need not detain us further.

A second drafting problem with the statement is found in its first sentence:

The LA TIMES, Sunday, May 28, 2006, story about the liturgical practices at St. Mary’s by the Sea stated that the determination of some parishioners to kneel during the Agnus Dei at Mass was a ‘mortal sin’ because it violated the liturgical norm (to stand) of the province of the USCCB Region XI (CA, Hawaii and Nevada)

Although Region XI does not seem to have its own web site, and although there is precious little about Region XI on the web, I happen to live in Region XI, and it is not the practice in my diocese to stand after the Agnus Dei.

Further, the American GIRM does not empower a region to establish a norm on this question. It is the local bishop that is empowered to do so.

Unless there is a norm that I am not aware of, there is no Region XI norm for standing after the Agnus Dei.

Hopefully this statement will not cause needless consternation or confusion on the part of others in Region XI whose dioceses follow the practice of kneeling after the Agnus Dei.

THE L.A. TIMES ALSO HAS A GOOD EDITORIAL PIECE ON THIS CONTROVERSY.

A reader writes:

Would you please comment on the following article in yesterday’s LA Times?

GET THE STORY.

The story in question is about a parish in the Diocese of Orange where the new priest has–among other things–forbidden people to kneel following the Agnus Dei, and a huge controversy has errupted.

IT’S A STORY THAT I’VE COMMENTED ON BEFORE.

But I’ve only commented on certain aspects of it, and the L.A. Times piece gives me the confirmation I need to go further into the issue.

First, though, I’d mention that there are notable flaws in the L.A. Times piece. They don’t get their history of recent liturgical law right, there is a bizarro attempt to link the kneeling issue to The Da Vinci Code (I’m not making that up), and they notably fail to document other aspects of the story that are important, such as the fact that the parishioners weren’t just disinvited from attending Mass because they insisted on kneeling after the Agnus Dei. They are also accused of handing out literature making false allegations against the diocese and the priest, which is a much more serious and canonically actionable offense than refusing to stand at the Agnus Dei. See my prior commentary for more info on this.

They also talk to an expert at the Georgetown liturgy center who is off in liturgical la-la land, but I can’t hold the stupid things he says against the Times. (At least not in a direct way.)

What I find particularly interesting here is a particular assertion that was made by the priest of the parish (he apparently hasn’t been appointed its pastor, just its administrator) in a bulletin. I had seen this statement reported before in material from the distressed parishioners, but I didn’t have confirmation of it. Now the L.A. Times confirms it:

Kneeling "is clearly rebellion, grave disobedience and mortal sin," Father Martin Tran, pastor at St. Mary’s by the Sea, told his flock in a recent church bulletin. The Diocese of Orange backs Tran’s anti-kneeling edict.

Actually, the L.A. Times again has it slightly wrong. You’ll notice that the word "kneeling" isn’t included in the quotation. Here’s what Fr. Tran actually said in context:

As I said before, Liturgy is the "public worship" of the Church whose authority belongs only to Rome, the National Conference of the Catholic Bishops and the local Bishop, and not a private worship or business which belongs to any person(s) or group that can take it into their own hands by intentionally setting their own norms, disregarding the permission from the local Bishop or despising the authority of the local Bishop, the National Conference of one’s country. That is clearly rebellion, grave disobedience and mortal sin, separating oneself from the Church.

The highlighted part is the apparent antecedent for "that," which is what Fr. Tran says is mortally sinful.

And there’s an element of truth in what he says. There are things that one can do in violation of the Church’s norms that would be mortally sinful–for example, if one decided that something other than wheat bread is to be used for confecting the host. That kind of violation of the Church’s norms would be mortally sinful if done with adequate knowledge and intent.

But not all violations of the Church’s norms are created equal. This is a fact that is expressly recognized in the instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, which recognizes at least three different levels of gravity in liturgical offenses, one of which is clearly non-grave matter.

This means that it is pastorally irresponsible in the extreme to wave the threat of mortal sin in parishioners’ faces unless an actually grave offense is in question, and that does not appear to be the case here. Fr. Tran goes on–immediately after the paragraph quoted above–to state:

The reason for this is that all the current liturgical norms of the Diocese and of the U.S. are officially recognized and allowed by Rome. Furthermore, Fr. Johnson was allowed only to have the Tridentine Mass here at St. Mary’s with its own norms: communion by tongue, with one species, no sign of peace, kneeling after "Agnus Det’l Lamb of God… that some parishioners here name that "traditions" of St. Mary’s. Besides, Fr. Johnson allowed other liturgical practice/norms belonging to the Tridentine Mass to be applied to other Masses of Vatican II, including the Novus Ordo Mass: that is not correct. For it was out of line with the current liturgical norms of the Diocese. These have to be changed. Fr. Sy and I were appointed by the Bishop, working together with the Bishop to re-establish the liturgical norms at St. Mary’s to be in line with the current liturgical norms of the Church in America and of the Diocese (allowed by Rome). And this binds all with total obedience.

As one family, all of us have the responsibility to correct our disobedient brothers and sisters. If they do not listen, that is their serious problem!

Now, it is apparent that Fr. Tran is not the clearest writer in the world. It is also clear that he is not the most pastoral priest in the world. In fact, he comes across as a Grade-A Jerk in this text (particularly toward the end), although allowance must be made for the previous history of the situation, which may have caused tempers to flare on both sides.

Still, it seems that the nut of the issue is that Fr. Tran is trying to bring the parish into line with the Diocese of Orange’s liturgical norms for the current rite of Mass after his predecessor allowed practices from the Tridentine Mass to be applied to the current rite of Mass. What these are, Fr. Tran isn’t clear on, but the most likely friction points are the ones he names as aspects of the Tridentine rite of Mass: Communion on the tongue, Communion under one species, not having an individual exchange of peace, and kneeling after the Agnus Dei.

Communion on the tongue is a protected right of the faithful, so he can’t (validly) accuse parishioners of being disobedient to liturgical law if they want to receive on the tongue. Neither is there any requirement for people to receive under both species if both are being offered to the faithful, so there’s no grounds for valid charges of disobedience there, either. If he’s calling for an individual exchange of the sign of peace and parishioners are utterly refusing to do it (e.g., not even nodding and smiling at those around them) then he’d have some grounds for criticism, but that doesn’t seem to be the big issue here. The L.A. Times–and those on the other side of the issue–seem to understand kneeling after the Agnus Dei to be what’s causing all the ruckus.

So (in the absence of further evidence) let’s go with that: Fr. Tran seems to be threatening people who are kneeling after the Lamb of God with mortal sin. That’s certainly what they’re understanding him to be doing, and–despite the lack of precision with which he writes–he’s definitely waving charges of mortal sin in their faces over lack of compliance with the norms of the diocese, and kneeling seems to be what is at issue.

If that is what he’s doing then he is totally, absolutely, 100% crazy . . . speaking from the point of view of liturgical law.

The Church simply has not invested the question of the posture of the laity with the gravity needed to result in mortal sin. Indeed, Rome has shown significant sympathy and indulgence toward those who wish to kneel at traditional moments.

Here’s a nice test case: Kneeling for Communion. The current norms for the United States establish a posture of standing to receive Communion and–because of the gravity of the moment itself (you’re receiving God Incarnate in Holy Communion) and because of the public nature of the moment (you’re up in front of everybody where you can be easily seen)–kneeling at this moment would be more disruptive by way of example to others than at any other moment in the Mass. So if any moment of kneeling praeter legem would be a grave offense, this one would.

So what does liturgical law say regarding people who insist on kneeling for Communion?

Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm [GIRM (2002, U.S. ed.) 160].

Now, canon law requires ministers of the Eucharist to deny Communion to anyone who is "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin" (can. 915), so if a person insisted on kneeling in spite of admonitions then you’d have to deny him Holy Communion if this were a grave sin (since it’s obviously manifest). Since the text says that Communicants are not to be denied Holy Communion, the only conclusion is that kneeling for Communion is not a grave sin and thus not capable of being a mortal sin.

And if kneeling for Communion is not a mortal sin then–a fortiori–kneeling after the Agnus Dei is not a mortal sin.

The claim that it would be is just crazy and shows a profound lack of awareness of the mechanics of liturgical law and the way Rome handles these things.

Indeed, the actions of Posture Nazis (of liberal or conservative bent–and there are conservative Posture Nazis) are simply not consonant with the attitude Rome takes toward the regulation of posture at Mass. That attitude is expressed in a recent Responsum issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments regarding kneeling after Communion:

Dubium: In many places, the faithful are accustomed to kneeling or sitting in personal prayer upon returning to their places after having individually received Holy Communion during Mass. Is it the intention of the Missale Romanum, editio typica tertia, to forbid this practice?

Responsum: Negative, et ad mensum [and for this reason]. The mens [reasoning] is that the prescription of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, no. 43 [i.e., the main section dealing with posture], is intended, on the one hand, to ensure within broad limits a certain uniformity of posture within the congregation for the various parts of the celebration of Holy Mass, and on the other, to not regulate posture rigidly in such a way that those who wish to kneel or sit would no longer be free [June 5, 2003 (Prot. N. 855/03/L); printed in BCL Newsletter, July 2003].

So whether one would insist that it is mortally sinful to kneel or not to kneel at particular points in Mass, one would be misreading liturgical law. The Church simply has not invested the regulation of posture with grave matter and it intends only to establish "a certain uniformity" that has "broad limits" and it does not intend to "regulate posture rigidly."

This makes troubling a reported comment by a diocesan spokesman. According to the L.A. Times:

Father Joe Fenton, spokesman for the Diocese of Orange, said the diocese supports Tran’s view that disobeying the anti-kneeling edict is a mortal sin. "That’s Father Tran’s interpretation, and he’s the pastor," he said. "We stand behind Father Tran."

You’ll note that once again the L.A. Times has not gotten the word "kneeling" into the quote, so we’re not entirely sure what Fr. Fenton said (assuming he was even quoted accurately). Given the number of other sloppy, problematic points in the article, I can’t be sure if he was quoted accurately or if the question he was responding to involved the issue the Times represents or, if he was and if it did, whether he was speaking after mature deliberation or just reflexively trying to support a diocesan priest in the face of criticism.

But I can tell you this: If this matter goes up to Rome the mortal sin interpretation of the parishioners’ actions will not be sustained.

Instead, we’re likely to get back something that sounds very much like the Responsum on the question of whether you can kneel after Communion.

The Vatican’s standing pat on the requirement to do accurate Mass translations!

Some time ago the Holy See issued an instruction called Liturgiam Authenticam, which ordered and end to the hippy-dippy-squishy translations that ICEL has been ramming down the throats of English-speaking Catholics for the last 40 years.

WOO-HOO!!!

So a new translation of the Mass has been in the works–and it’s quite good! (I’ve seen drafts, and it’s worlds better than the inaccurate, tin-eared one we hear every Sunday.)

BUT NOT EVERYONE IS HAPPY WITH THE NEW TRANSLATION.

Yet time is growing short, because the Holy See has made it clear it wants these translations done without unnecessary delays, and a vote on the new translation is scheduled for the USCCB’s meeting next month.

This apparently led some bishops to have a meeting with Cardinal Arinze in whic they apparently felt him out about the possibility of just sticking with the current translation of the Mass instead of using the new and improved one.

His response, leaked to Catholic World News (CHT to the readre who e-mailed), is found in the following letter:

2 May 2006

The Most Reverend William Skylstad
Bishop of Spokane
President, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Prot. n. 499/06/L

Your Excellency,

With reference to the conversation between yourself, the Vice President and General Secretary of the Conference of Bishops of which you are President, together with me and other Superiors and Officials when you kindly visited our Congregation on 27 April 2006, I wish to recall the following:

The Instruction Liturgiam authenticam is the latest document of the Holy See which guides translations from the original-language liturgical texts into the various modern languages in the Latin Church. Both this Congregation and the Bishops’ Conferences are bound to follow its directives. This Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments is therefore not competent to grant the recognitio for translations that do not conform to the directives of Liturgiam authenticam. If, however, there are difficulties regarding the translation of a particular part of a text, then this Congregation is always open to dialogue in view of some mutually agreeable solution, still keeping in mind, however, that Liturgiam authenticam remains the guiding norm.

The attention of your Bishops’ Conference was also recalled to the fact that Liturgiam authenticam was issued at the directive of the Holy Father at the time, Pope John Paul II, to guide new translations as well as the revision of all translations done in the last forty years, to bring them into greater fidelity to the original-language official liturgical texts. For this reason it is not acceptable to maintain that people have become accustomed to a certain translation for the past thirty or forty years, and therefore that it is pastorally advisable to make no changes. Where there are good and strong reasons for a change, as has been determined by this Dicastery in regard to the entire translation of the Missale Romanum as well as other important texts, then the revised text should make the needed changes. The attitudes of Bishops and Priests will certainly influence the acceptance of the texts by the lay faithful as well.

Requesting Your Excellency to share these reflections with the Bishops of your Conference I assure you of the continued collaboration of this Congregation and express my religious esteem,

Devotedly yours in Christ,

+Francis Card. Arinze
Prefect,
Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments

CHT to the commenter yesterday who pointed to the excellent analysis over at Rorate Caeli on the idea the B16 is likely to be deterred from giving broader permission for celebrating Mass according to the Tridentine Rite due to a lack of consensus.

New Catholic–the author of the post–provides an excellent look at the evidence and concludes that the bottom line is (in my words), "Yes, the there is no consensus in favor of broadening permission. In fact, the evidence is that there is a widespread consensus against broadening permission. Nevertheless, the evidence is also that this is what B16 intends to do, and his actions to date fit the a pattern one would expect of a shrewd manager warming up his apparatus for the change."

It’s an excellent piece, including a chronology of how events have played out, and I wanted to bring it broader attention than the combox would allow.

GET THE STORY.