Category: Liturgy

Pre-16 was long interested in liturgy and his book on the liturgy titled The Spirit of the Liturgy by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger is chock-full of his great insights on the liturgy. Now as B16, Pope Benedict has recently stated that papal liturgies must set the liturgical gold standard for other liturgies to emulate.

"Pope Benedict XVI today said that papal ceremonies ‘must be exemplary liturgy for the entire world.’

"The Pope was speaking to choir of the pontifical chapel, led by director Giuseppe Liberto, after a concert in the Sistine Chapel. Speaking extemporaneously, the Pope spoke about the importance of liturgical music.

"The importance of pontifical liturgy has become more pronounced, the Pope said. He noted that ‘today, with television and radio, many people, from all parts of the world, follow the liturgy.’ Those who follow the papal ceremonies are likely to use them as a yardstick against which liturgy should be measured, the Pope said. Thus the liturgy becomes a way in which the Pope teaches the Catholic faithful, giving them a proper idea of what they should expect."

GET THE STORY.

A reader writes:

I just had a friend of mine inform me of something that I found troublesome.  He is a Lutheran and married a Catholic woman.  He told me that they are registered parishioners of a Catholic church and that he receives Communion there.  He claims that his wife explained the situation to the pastor and he said it would be alright for him to receive communion.  Of course I asked if there was any way that this could have been misinterpreted by his wife to which he claims not.  In a brief questioning of my friend he does not have a full Catholic undertanding of the Eucharist is and that this is “no big deal”, and that this priest is “very liberal” and accommodating.

I have e-mailed this priest to see if there was a misunderstanding.  I am all for my friend to receive the wonderful gift of the Holy Eucharist but he must go through the Church procedures for all the sacraments.  Please give me information to help with this situation.  It seems to me if this is indeed correct that this priest is handing Communion out like crackers…..

If the priest’s attitude is as reported then there is indeed a problem.

The Church’s law regarding this matter is found in Canon 844 §4 of the Code of Canon Law, which provides:

If the danger of death is present or if, in the
judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave
necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments [Communion, confession, anointing of the sick] licitly
also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church [e.g., Protestants],
who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on
their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to
these sacraments and are properly disposed [SOURCE].

This law is given pastoral expression by the bishops of the United States in their document on the reception of Communion, which states:

For our fellow Christians

We welcome our fellow Christians to this celebration of the Eucharist as our brothers and sisters. We pray that our common baptism and the action of the Holy Spirit in this Eucharist will draw us closer to one another and begin to dispel the sad divisions which separate us. We pray that these will lessen and finally disappear, in keeping with Christ’s prayer for us “that they may all be one” (Jn 17:21).

Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Holy Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law (canon 844 § 4). . . .

For those not receiving Holy Communion

All who are not receiving Holy Communion are encouraged to express in their hearts a prayerful desire for unity with the Lord Jesus and with one another [SOURCE].

Given the above, if your Lutheran friend wishes to receive Communion on a regular basis in a Catholic church then he will need to embrace the Catholic faith and become a Catholic. (Which he should do anyway, for the sake of his soul.) Otherwise, he will need to abide by Church law and practice, as compassionately set out above.

Hope this helps!

I got back from my trip to the Grand Canyon Sunday and I was DOG TIRED. I mean, I was PLUM TUCKERED OUT.

I’d driven 1200 miles in 48 hours (make that 1500 in 72 hours if you count the trip to the mud volcanoes), slept little and fitfully on hard hotel beds, and gone hiking in almost-freezing-cold weather at an altitude of 6000 feet (in a body acclimatized to 500 feet).

It was EXHAUSTING.

So when I got back, I was exhausted. But I had a problem: I still needed to go to Mass. With an hour to go before the last Mass of the day, I was falling asleep. So I set my alarm clock to give me 20 minutes to get up and get to Mass and then took a catnap.

I awoke debating with myself whether I was sufficiently tired to be excused from my Sunday obligation, but decided to go to Mass anyway.

If the priest celebrating Mass would have turned out to be the pastor, I seriously considered asking him if I could be excused from my Sunday obligation if I’d go to a daily Mass later in the week (pastors have the authority to excuse you), but it wasn’t the pastor. Instead, it was Fr. "Deep Voice," who was being assisted by a deacon.

I really dread going to the last Mass of the day on Sundays, because it’s the "youth Mass" at my parish, with its "youth choir" and "youth band" and "youth readers" and is designed to appeal to "youth." As a result, I find the music horrible, and so it was no surpise when they started Mass with a song whose opening melody line was (I am NOT kidding) "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star" played in a minor key. (The song is called "Sing Out Earth And Sky." Pray that this sanity-shattering liturgical horror is never inflicted on your parish.)

The homily was done by the deacon.

I ended up being glad that the pastor wasn’t the priest in attendance, because as a result of not being excused from my Sunday obligation, I got to hear one of the best homilies I’ve heard in a long time (not counting Fr. "You Decide!"’s recent memorable homily).

It started off as a standard "Let’s diss the commercialization of Christmas without offending anyone" homily–you know, the one in which the homilist talks about how much he enjoys Christmas celebrations and buying presents and such, thus providing himself heat shield for the deplorations of commercialization that he’s about to give. As formulaic as this type of homily tends to be, I appreciate them to a significant degree because at least people are being reminded that they need to resist the commercialization of Christmas and remember its spiritual significance.

But then the deacon’s homily really TOOK OFF!

After inoffensively dissing the commercialization of Christmas, he then asked (forcefully) "But who’s  birthday  is it, anyway!?"

He then asked (again, forcefully): "Is Jesus on your Christmas list?–And is he at THE TOP of that list?"

He then said that he wanted to give us some "shopping ideas–like the commercials do on television–for things that you might want to buy as presents for Christmas. I’m not talking about a CHEAP GIFT that is gone the next day. I’m talking about a GOOD GIFT."

He then went on to name things that we might give (to Jesus) as gifts for Christmas, such as:

• Donating to or volunteering our time at homes for unwed mothers.
• Resolving to go to Mass every Sunday next year if we aren’t already going to Mass regularly.
• Resolving to go to Mass an ADDITIONAL day each week if we are going to Mass on Sundays. ("I didn’t say it would be easy," he added.)
• Signing up to do an hour of Eucharistic adoration each week (possibly following his own example of signing up for a hard-to-fill hour; he mentioned that his is 1 a.m. Sunday  morning, and he added that, although he often wakes up for it thinking "Why did I ever volunteer for this?" that he NEVER regrets it once he is there and sitting in Jesus’ presence).

I mean, his homily totally ROCKED!

It wasn’t standard Christmas holiday sentiments and vague generalities about what to do in our lives. It was loaded with SPECIFICS and CHALLENGING BUT ACHIEVABLE SPECIFICS that can help DRIVE HOME to people the significance of Christmas if they make and follow-up on these resolutions.

YEE-HAW!!!

Now: I had been thinking early on of excusing myself for the concluding rites, in view of how tired I was, but after the deacon’s homily zoomed up into the stratosphere, I knew I had to hang around and thank him after Mass.

Credit where credit is due.

Since I knew I’d be visiting the mud volcanoes on Dec. 8, I went to the vigil Mass for the Immaculate Conception on Dec. 7th.

The priest was Fr. "You Decide!"–so named because his homilies ALWAYS follow a set formula of opening with a joke and then concluding with him posing a rhetorical question about whether you should do A (an obviously bad thing) or B (an obviously good thing), at which point he says "You decide!" and goes and sits down again.

Only that’s NOT what he did for the Immaculate Conception!!!

Instead he opened by explaining, in simple terms, what the Immaculate Conception is. (I.e., no opening joke–and actually EXPLAINING CHURCH TEACHING yet!)

Then he talked about the meaning of the doctrine and about history and how we should pray more. And he gave a specific recommendation of praying the Angelus as an example of a traditional prayer.

And then he finished and didn’t say "You decide!" It was an honest, straightforward homily without artificial encumbrances that explained Church teaching and sought to apply it to the congregation’s lives in a way that involved specific suggestions instead of vague generalities. In short: It was what a homily is SUPPOSED to be.

It was GREAT!

Now, Fr. "You Decide!" always makes a bee-line for the sacristy after Mass, so I followed him into the sacristy and said:

<great sincerity>Excuse me, Father, but I just wanted to say that I thought that was the best homily I’ve ever heard you preach. It was simple, direct, and explained Church teaching without any artificiality and with specific suggestions for what we could do, and I wanted to thank you for it.</great sincerity>

Just wanted to give credit where credit was due–and hopefully reinforce this kind of homily.

Who knows? Perhaps soon he’ll be known as "The Priest Formerly Known As ‘Fr. You Decide!’"

A reader writes:

OK, so tell me where it says that this priest who says the whole Eucharistic part of the mass under his breath is wrong.  The only parts you can hear are where you need to have a response from the people. Other than that, he is whispering to himself.  Its very annoying.  The kids are like, "Mom — what is he doing up there??".

The priest might be imitating the way it was done under the former rite of Mass (prior to 1970), when there was much more of the liturgy said in a low tone, but in the current rite of Mass these prayers are supposed to be said loudly enough that they can be easily heard.

From the current edition of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal:

30. Among the parts assigned to the priest, the foremost is the Eucharistic Prayer, which is the high point of the entire celebration. Next are the orations: that is to say, the collect, the prayer over the offerings, and the prayer after Communion. These prayers are addressed to God in the name of the entire holy people and all present, by the priest who presides over the assembly in the person of Christ.   It is with good reason, therefore, that they are called the "presidential prayers."

32. The nature of the "presidential" texts demands that they be spoken in a loud and clear voice and that everyone listen with attention.   Thus, while the priest is speaking these texts, there should be no other prayers or singing, and the organ or other musical instruments should be silent.

Hokay.

So last night I’m going to the 5:30 p.m. vigil Mass for All Saints Day at my parish.

Afterward, I decide to go back into the Eucharistic adoration chapel to pay a visit to the Blessed Sacrament.

My parish (despite its flaws) has 24-hour Eucharistic exposition, except during Mass (when by law it isn’t allowed). After Mass, they expose the Blessed Sacrament again.

So I’m kneeling at the rail around the Tabernacle, waiting for the pastor to come and expose the Blessed Sacrament and this woman comes and kneels next to me, kitty-corner at a bend in the rail.

She’s probably 55+ years old and is wearing a dark sweater and pants and is entirely normal in her attire except for one item.

She has the most bizarre piece of headgear on that I’ve ever seen.

The base of it was a thin headband that anchored it on her head. Coming up from this were two white coathanger-looking wires, bowed inward toward each other concavely. Sitting atop the white coathangers was a SMALL CIRCLE OF WHITE FUZZ–looked to be made of down plucked off baby birds or something and bleached white.

The filaments of fuzz bounce and float about in response to air currents.

The overall effect was like she had a FUZZY miniature version of the Seattle Space Needle sitting on her head.

Now, it flashed through my mind for a second that this might be meant to represent an angel’s halo, but it wasn’t like typical costume angel halos (which classically only have a single wire, which isn’t colored white so as to make it obtrusively visible, and the halo itself isn’t FUZZY AND WHITE but solid and gold).

Frankly, the woman looked like a creation of Dr. Seuss–most likely an inhabitant of Whoville.

Now, I’m fairly relaxed about the attire people wear in church. I don’t get upset if they’re in shorts or bluejeans or sneakers or what have you. (Otherwise I’d be mad all the time. California is really relaxed culturally when it comes ot dress. People on the East Coast who have to wear suits all the time have no idea.)

I also recognize that God is concerned about our hearts and not our attire, but we are supposed to maintain a proper and reverent attitude in church and fuzzy floaty pieces of Whoville headware seem to me to be inconsistent with that–as well as highly distracting to the other people in the adoration chapel.

I mean, you can pray to God buck naked if you want–but do it in the shower and not in the adoration chapel.

Different kinds of clothing are culturally appropriate for different venues in public (Matt. 22:11-12), and this woman was not dressed appropriately for this venue according to the standards of the local culture. (Whoville adoration chapels may be different.)

So I thought, in the moments before the solemn exposition of Our Lord and God Jesus Christ for the adoration of the faithful, that I might do something ever so slight to help out in this regard.

To allow her to save face, I silently got her attention and pointed to her headdress and to the empty monstrance that was about to receive Our Lord, as if to signal to the woman that she may have forgotten that she had this FUZZY MONSTROSITY sitting on top of her head.

The woman stared at me blankly, with a look of false incomprehension as to what I was trying to tell her.

So I started to whisper to her, but I was hampered by the fact that I didn’t know what to call the thing she was wearing. I think I initially referred to it as "headgear."

Then this exchange occurred, all in gentle whispers:

CINDY LOU WHO’S GRANDMOTHER: I can’t hear you.
ME (leaning closer and pointing for clarity): Ma’am, you’re wearing a costume element and Jesus is about to be exposed.
SPACE NEEDLE WOMAN: He loves angels.

She then proceeded to look at me blankly again and, not wanting to make a bigger spectacle than her headwear was already creating, I turned back to looking at the monstrace–where the priest was just solemnly exposing the Infinite Lord Of The Universe Incarnate–said my prayers (including a sympathetic one for the woman next to me), and left.

Y’know those "From the pastor’s desk" items that they run in Sunday bulletins? Whether in Protestant churches or Catholic churches, I’ve always found those to be largely . . . what’s the right term? "A waste of space"? No, that’s probably too strong. "Useless"? No, sounds too negative. How about: "Of rather limited value." Yeah, that’ll do.

We’ll, here’s one that’s actually GOOD!

It appeared in this last Sunday’s bulletin at the parish I live in:

FROM THE PASTOR’S DESK The word is out–this is supposed to be a really nasty FLU SEASON. I prefer to have healthy parishioners, and as such, support any of you who prefer to shy away from the handshake/hug as a sign of peace, as well as holding hands during the Our Father. As a courtes to your fellow parishioners, I do encorage you to offer a gentle nod, a friendly smile and the words "Peace be with you" at the appropriate time. Laurie has suggested also that we catch sneezes or coughs in the crooks of our elbows rather than in our hands, helping to contain any germs on our own clothing–the less airborne, shared actvity the better!

YES!

A voice of sanity!

Only thing I’d tweak is that people who are contagious SHOULD NOT BE AT MASS AT ALL.

A reader writes:

My unborn child was never born. We tried our best, and went to the best doctors available to us, but this is something that’s natural and happens, unfortunately. My child could never be baptized.

This episode has been truly devastating to us.

As a parent, what should I do? I know I can pray for my child’s soul. But I wanted to have the tradition masses celebrated, like 7 day, 1 month, 1 year, and yet I have no name of baptism to ask the mass to celebrate for. In whose name should I ask the mass to be celebrated? I don’t even know the gender. I don’t know of any way the church deals with this subject. People deal as if children lost during pregnancy never existed, and yet we maintain they have souls. This seems like a paradox to me. I don’t want the soul of my child to be left without a funeral, and without a mass. This seems cruel. I want to do something, and I don’t know what. I prayed in the mass and light some candles, but somehow this doesn’t seem enough.

I was wondering if I could choose a gender-neutral name and pray and hope for a special baptism of sorts, one done by the will and prayer of the parents. Would that be right? Could I ask a mass to be celebrated in this name?

First, let me say that my heart goes out to you two. I will be praying for both of you and the child, and I encourage my readers to do so as well–as well as all those in situations like yours. Miscarriages are very tragic events, and we need to keep those who experience them in prayer.

In regard to what you can do for your departed child, you are already thinking along constructive lines. You can ask God to bring your child’s soul to be with him, either through your own desire for the child’s baptism or through whatever other means God might choose.

The Church does not have a special baptism or baptism-like ceremony that is performed in situations like this, but it does have a ceremony for blessing the parents of a child after a miscarriage. In America this is printed in a book known as The Book of Blessings. I’m not sure about equivalents in other countries, but

HERE IS A LINK TO THE TEXT OF THE BLESSING.

As far as a funeral goes, the Order of Christian Funerals (that’s the Church’s official set of rites for conducting funerals) includes a Rite of Final Commentaion of an Infant that can be used for children who are stillborn or who die shortly after birth. It may be possible to use this rite to have a funeral for your child, though consult with your local parish for help in determining whether this is the case.

As far as having Masses said and doing other devotions on behalf of the child, there are a number of options. You could give the child a gender-neutral name, as you mention. You could also have Masses said for "Baby ___________________" where the blank is filled in with the child’s last name. Or you could have the Mass said "For the Child of ______________ and _______________," giving the names of the parents. Those would be a few possibilities, anyway.

I hope these suggestions help, and my prayers are with you at this difficult time.

20

A reader writes:

Please, please clarify for me. There is a priest who celebrates mass in our area who has been known to stop saying the mass until small children have been quietened down. Is this correct to do so?

It depends. If the kids are screaming bloody murder so that nobody in the congregation can hear him then a brief pause would be in order. On the other hand, if they aren’t being that loud then he should do the best he can to carry on until the children can be quieted down or taken outside or to the cry room. He should not dramatically halt the Mass at the first sign of a child outburst, as if to shame the parents. But if the kids are carrying on so loudly that he can’t be heard then it would not be out of place to pause.

I was always under the impression that once the liturgical act of the mass had begun the priest was obliged to continue, regardless of the interruption.

No, the priest can pause the celebration for a reasonable cause (e.g., an airplane going over) or even stop it entirely in cases of grave necessity (e.g., an earthquake causes the church to nearly collapse; gunmen burst into the sanctuary, as happened over at a parish in Pakistan a few years ago).

This same priest has also used the pulpit for a personal rant at certain people in the congregation on a subject that is completely irrelevant to the gospel and epistle – is this also acceptable?

Not as you’ve describe it. Priests shouldn’t be doing personal rants at all from the pulpit. The homily is not the priest’s personal rant time.

However, if the pastor is aware of important pastoral situations that the congregation as a whole needs to be warned about then it is legitimate for him to address them from the pulpit even if the pastoral problem does not occur at a time that makes it possible to link it to the readings. In doing such things, however, he should phrase himself so as to minimize embarrassment to particular members of the congregation to the greatest extent possible.

I would really appreciate your advice on this.

Beyond the above, I don’t know how much advice I have to give. If you’re one of the priest’s best buds (which it doesn’t sound like) then you could more easily and gently offer him advice or constructive criticism than if you only know him more distantly.

If you aren’t close to him, the best thing is likely to be to grit your teeth and bear it, praying for him when he acts up or you get annoyed at the thought of him doing so.

If you do talk to him, putting things to him–as gently as humanly possible–in terms of how his behavior makes you and others feel is probably the best way to go.

After all, you don’t want a rant directed against you next Sunday. (Though if there is one, it’s time to talk to the bishop.)

A reader writes:

Jimmy, over at Amy Welborne’s blog there is a discussion in the comments about the licit-ness of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion [EMHCs]giving those who can not receive Eucharist a blessing.  This is a common practice in my parish and as an EMHC, I’ve frequently given these blessings.  Is this acceptable?

I haven’t read what Amy or others have said on this subject, so I can’t comment on that directly, but I can give you my take on the question.

The problem is that the law is unclear in this area and seems to be in flux.

Here’s the starting point.

Canon law provides that:

Can.  846 §1. In celebrating the sacraments the
liturgical books approved by competent authority are to be observed faithfully;
accordingly, no one is to add, omit, or alter anything in them on one’s own
authority.

To create a new sub-ritual within the rite of Mass of going up in the Communion line to receive a blessing would seem to be adding something to what is provided for in the liturgical books. Therefore it would not ordinarily be permitted under canon 846 §1.

That being said, I think that a good case can be made that a priest can do it. Priests are clearly authorized to give blessings and they can, for an adequate reason, pause the celebration of Mass as it is prescribed in the liturgical books. For example, if a plane flies overhead, the priest can stop talking until he can again be heard. Similarly, if there is an earthquake, he can wait until it passes. If gunmen break into the church, he can duck under the altar (or push other ministers at the altar to safety, or give the congregation an emergency general absolution in case any of them are fatally shot, etc.).

Those two principles being established, it seems to me that if someone approaches a priest for a blessing then, rather than turning the person away (and possibly crushing them with embarrassment and maybe even alienating them from the Church, especially if they are a non-Catholic) that he would be within his rights to pause his distribution of Communion in order to give the person a blessing.

I would not, however, say that he is (yet) within his rights to encourage people to come up and do this, per canon 846. It’s one thing to respond to a pastoral situation that is forced on one; it is another thing to encourage that pastoral situation to arise.

The same reasoning likely applies to deacons.

The problem is that in this country EMHCs are massively over-used, and thus many laypeople find themselves in precisely the situation that you mention. Laity generally are not allowed to give blessings in church settings, but they are allowed to do so in some circumstances (the Book of Blessings indicates most of those). Laity are not expressly permitted to give blessings at Communion time, and so by the letter of the law they shouldn’t be doing it. The problem is that the way Italians write law, they frequently will countenance unwritten exceptions to the law for pastoral reasons, and a person serving as an EMHC who is approached by someone wanting a blessing is arguably in such a pastorally exceptional circumstance.

The phenomenon has become so widespread that we really need Rome to give us some guidance on it, and until then I can’t fault EMHCs who go ahead and give blessings unless the pastor of the parish has told them not to. (He presumably knows that they are doing this and if he says nothing to the contrary about it, it’s a form of tacit concent. As the man in charge of the liturgy in his parish, he’s the one who’s responsible for regulating situations in which the laity aren’t expressly forbidden by law to do something.)

If an EMHC does give such blessings, I would keep two things in mind:

1. I would keep the blessing as simple as possible (e.g., just saying "God bless you" and not doing anything with my hands), and
2. I would definitely refrain from making the sign of the cross over the person with the Eucharist (this would constitute Eucharistic benediction, which is expressly forbidden to the laity by law).

I suspect that we will be hearing from Rome on this subject before too long, and I suspect that the answer will be that the giving of blessings at Communion time is approved.

This is one of the topics that’s scheduled for discussion at the Synod on the Eucharist next month, and the vibe I’m getting is that the folks over in Rome (and elsewhere) are thinking of such blessings as a pretty good way of addressing the problem of people who are not qualified to receive Communion being able to participate without feeling like they need to receive when they shouldn’t be receiving.

This is not a case of liberals doing something until conservatives finally capitulate and allow it (as was the case with altar girls). It’s a case of the folks in Rome hearing about an unauthorized practice and going, "Hey! That sounds like a good idea!"

For Rome, it would be an attempt to find a solution to a real pastoral problem (people who aren’t qualified to receive Communion either feeling pressured to receive or feeling totally left out) and the folks in Rome seeing this as a potential way to cut the Gordian knot. They really want to cut down on the number of people making unworthy Communions (including non-Catholics who are in attendance), but they also want to make that as easy on the people as they can, and they’re seeing this as a promising possibility.

I therefore suspect that there will be some kind of general approval of the practice in the future.

This does not mean that they will say that it’s okay for laity to do. They may approve the action only for priests, or they may approve it without saying who can do it, or they may even expressly forbid the laity to do it, but if they approve it for priests then it will be inevitable that laity end up doing it, too, and eventually that’ll get approve just to end the confusion.

So, while the liturgical policeman in me wants to 846 this practice, I can see that the writing is probably on the wall.