Category: Liturgy

(First, count to ten.)

A reader writes:

When the priest walks around the church incensing, do the people in the congregation make the Sign of the Cross when he gets to their area (they way they do when he sprinkles holy water)? I am unsure whether I should bow, make the Sign of the Cross, or what.

A check of the (current and previous) GIRM reveals little on this question. Here is the most significant discussion of what actually happens when things and people are incensed:

277. The priest, having put incense into the thurible, blesses it with the sign of the Cross, without saying anything.

Before and after an incensation, a profound bow is made to the person or object that is incensed, except for the incensation of the altar and the offerings for the Sacrifice of the Mass.

The following are incensed with three swings of the thurible: the Most Blessed Sacrament, a relic of the Holy Cross and images of the Lord exposed for public veneration, the offerings for the sacrifice of the Mass, the altar cross, the Book of the Gospels, the Paschal Candle, the priest, and the people.

The following are incensed with two swings of the thurible: relics and images of the Saints exposed for public veneration. This should be done, however, only at the beginning of the celebration, after the incensation of the altar.

The altar is incensed with single swings of the thurible in this way:

a. If the altar is freestanding with respect to the wall, the priest incenses walking around it;

b. If the altar is not freestanding, the priest incenses it while walking first to the righthand side, then to the left.

The cross, if situated on or near the altar, is incensed by the priest before he incenses the altar; otherwise, he incenses it when he passes in front of it.

The priest incenses the offerings with three swings of the thurible or by making the sign of the cross over the offerings with the thurible, then going on to incense the cross and the altar.

That’s it. It just says that the priest incenses the people with three swings of the censer. It doesn’t say for the people to do anything.

Neither does a check of the rubrics (so far as I could see) direct the people to do anything when they’re incensed. Checks of the BCL Newsletter and the Documents on the Liturgy (a standard collection) also turned up bupkis.

Thus, unless someone can show a binding document that says otherwise, it seems to me that the default option is for the people to do nothing.

That is definitely not the custom in some rites, however. In some Eastern rite services I’ve been to, it’s clearly the custom for folks to cross themselves.

Also, since the above text directs the incensor to make a profound bow (a bow of the body) before he incenses, it seems natural for folks to want to bow back to him. That’s a human politeness impulse, though. One might argue that in the act of incensing the people the incensor is being directed to show reverence to them on account of their sacredness to God (being made in the image of God). Since they are the recipient of this reverence and are not directed to reciprocate, one could argue that they ought not reciprocate at this point.

It seems to me that, although the default option seems to be to do nothing, Rome generally allows the laity a considerable amount of leeway in terms of their own gesture and posture (after all, we laity are peasants just in from slopping the pigs in the grand scheme of things; you can’t expect too much from us) and so (unless a binding document says otherwise) I don’t think Rome would mind if the faithful wanted to express their own piety by crossing themselves or bowing when they’re incensed.

It’s certainly better than forming a mob with pitchforks and torches.

(First, count to ten.)

A reader writes:

When the priest walks around the church incensing, do the people in the congregation make the Sign of the Cross when he gets to their area (they way they do when he sprinkles holy water)? I am unsure whether I should bow, make the Sign of the Cross, or what.

A check of the (current and previous) GIRM reveals little on this question. Here is the most significant discussion of what actually happens when things and people are incensed:

277. The priest, having put incense into the thurible, blesses it with the sign of the Cross, without saying anything.

Before and after an incensation, a profound bow is made to the person or object that is incensed, except for the incensation of the altar and the offerings for the Sacrifice of the Mass.

The following are incensed with three swings of the thurible: the Most Blessed Sacrament, a relic of the Holy Cross and images of the Lord exposed for public veneration, the offerings for the sacrifice of the Mass, the altar cross, the Book of the Gospels, the Paschal Candle, the priest, and the people.

The following are incensed with two swings of the thurible: relics and images of the Saints exposed for public veneration. This should be done, however, only at the beginning of the celebration, after the incensation of the altar.

The altar is incensed with single swings of the thurible in this way:

a. If the altar is freestanding with respect to the wall, the priest incenses walking around it;

b. If the altar is not freestanding, the priest incenses it while walking first to the righthand side, then to the left.

The cross, if situated on or near the altar, is incensed by the priest before he incenses the altar; otherwise, he incenses it when he passes in front of it.

The priest incenses the offerings with three swings of the thurible or by making the sign of the cross over the offerings with the thurible, then going on to incense the cross and the altar.

That’s it. It just says that the priest incenses the people with three swings of the censer. It doesn’t say for the people to do anything.

Neither does a check of the rubrics (so far as I could see) direct the people to do anything when they’re incensed. Checks of the BCL Newsletter and the Documents on the Liturgy (a standard collection) also turned up bupkis.

Thus, unless someone can show a binding document that says otherwise, it seems to me that the default option is for the people to do nothing.

That is definitely not the custom in some rites, however. In some Eastern rite services I’ve been to, it’s clearly the custom for folks to cross themselves.

Also, since the above text directs the incensor to make a profound bow (a bow of the body) before he incenses, it seems natural for folks to want to bow back to him. That’s a human politeness impulse, though. One might argue that in the act of incensing the people the incensor is being directed to show reverence to them on account of their sacredness to God (being made in the image of God). Since they are the recipient of this reverence and are not directed to reciprocate, one could argue that they ought not reciprocate at this point.

It seems to me that, although the default option seems to be to do nothing, Rome generally allows the laity a considerable amount of leeway in terms of their own gesture and posture (after all, we laity are peasants just in from slopping the pigs in the grand scheme of things; you can’t expect too much from us) and so (unless a binding document says otherwise) I don’t think Rome would mind if the faithful wanted to express their own piety by crossing themselves or bowing when they’re incensed.

It’s certainly better than forming a mob with pitchforks and torches.

A reader writes:

I was not raised as a Christian; I came to faith as a teenager and was baptized in an evangelical Presbyterian congregation. Recently, I began worshiping at an Orthodox mission church near me, and I have entered the catechumenate there. I have been told recently that to formally enter the Orthodox Church I may have to be baptized again, and this situation is the subject of my question.

The logic behind this (possible) requirement is that in many Protestant denominations these days the traditional Baptismal formula is often not followed and "Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer" (or some such wording) is used in place of "Father, Son and Holy Spirit." Apparently there is a list of denominations detailing which can be trusted to have administered valid baptisms and which not. I have not yet seen that document, but as the denomination I in which I was baptized was quite liberal, I’m very much afraid that it will be on the "black list."

The problem is that, since I was an adult when I was baptized, I know what was done and said and that the traditional formula was used. Furthermore, the minister who baptized me was very conservative and would never have gone in for that sort of thing.

I don’t know how those objections would be received in the event that my old denomination is on the "do not trust" list. I’m trying to work out to myself what my response should be in the event that I am required to undergo another baptism. As I know that my baptism at age 18 was valid, should I dig in my heels over this? Or would submitting myself to the Church’s judgment be the right thing to do?

I know that you cannot answer this question from the perspective of Orthodox Church law or tradition. I know also that the bottom line answer for you would most likely be "you should be becoming Catholic, not Orthodox," and that might make the whole question moot in your mind.

Well, yes, you should become Catholic rather than Orthodox, but no that does not make the question moot.

You know that the correct formula was used in your baptism your first baptism was valid, and it would be an insult to the work that the Holy Spirit did in your baptism to rebaptize you. If they insist on an unconditional rebaptism then you would be morally obliged to refuse on the grounds that it would be a sacrilege.

That being said, it seems to me that you could explore two options (besides becoming Catholic):

1. Explain to them that you have a memory of the baptism and that you know the correct formula was used (possibly supplemented by a written statement from the pastor who did it or anothr eye-witness) and see if that will either nix the proposal or get it modified into the section option:
2. Get them to administer a conditional baptism (for example, one using the formula "If you are not baptized, I baptize you . . . "). Conditional baptisms are not sacrilege because they are only baptisms if the person is not already baptized. They show the willingness of all involved to make sure that the person is validly baptized and they confess our own limitations in determining prior validity together with our will to do what God wants done.

Hope this helps!

20

A reader writes:

I was not raised as a Christian; I came to faith as a teenager and was baptized in an evangelical Presbyterian congregation. Recently, I began worshiping at an Orthodox mission church near me, and I have entered the catechumenate there. I have been told recently that to formally enter the Orthodox Church I may have to be baptized again, and this situation is the subject of my question.

The logic behind this (possible) requirement is that in many Protestant denominations these days the traditional Baptismal formula is often not followed and "Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer" (or some such wording) is used in place of "Father, Son and Holy Spirit." Apparently there is a list of denominations detailing which can be trusted to have administered valid baptisms and which not. I have not yet seen that document, but as the denomination I in which I was baptized was quite liberal, I’m very much afraid that it will be on the "black list."

The problem is that, since I was an adult when I was baptized, I know what was done and said and that the traditional formula was used. Furthermore, the minister who baptized me was very conservative and would never have gone in for that sort of thing.

I don’t know how those objections would be received in the event that my old denomination is on the "do not trust" list. I’m trying to work out to myself what my response should be in the event that I am required to undergo another baptism. As I know that my baptism at age 18 was valid, should I dig in my heels over this? Or would submitting myself to the Church’s judgment be the right thing to do?

I know that you cannot answer this question from the perspective of Orthodox Church law or tradition. I know also that the bottom line answer for you would most likely be "you should be becoming Catholic, not Orthodox," and that might make the whole question moot in your mind.

Well, yes, you should become Catholic rather than Orthodox, but no that does not make the question moot.

You know that the correct formula was used in your baptism your first baptism was valid, and it would be an insult to the work that the Holy Spirit did in your baptism to rebaptize you. If they insist on an unconditional rebaptism then you would be morally obliged to refuse on the grounds that it would be a sacrilege.

That being said, it seems to me that you could explore two options (besides becoming Catholic):

1. Explain to them that you have a memory of the baptism and that you know the correct formula was used (possibly supplemented by a written statement from the pastor who did it or anothr eye-witness) and see if that will either nix the proposal or get it modified into the section option:
2. Get them to administer a conditional baptism (for example, one using the formula "If you are not baptized, I baptize you . . . "). Conditional baptisms are not sacrilege because they are only baptisms if the person is not already baptized. They show the willingness of all involved to make sure that the person is validly baptized and they confess our own limitations in determining prior validity together with our will to do what God wants done.

Hope this helps!

20

A reader writes:

In the Tridentine missal it says "Hoc est enim corpus meum," which I understand to mean "This is truly/ in fact/ indeed my body."

The Vulgate says: "Hoc est corpus meum/ This is my body."

The Greek I’ve found says: "Touto esti mou somaTouto estin to sOma mou [at least in St. Matthew’s version]/ This is my body."

The Novus Ordocurrent rite of Mass says: "This is my body."

My question is, how did the enim get put in, since as far as I can tell, Jesus did not use the word? I assume it was taken out of the Novus Ordocurrent rite of Mass for that reason.

Also, what does the Novus Ordocurrent rite of Mass in Latin Mass say?

Let’s answer the second question first: In the current rite of Mass in Latin it says "Hoc est enim corpus meum" (It also says "Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei").

Here’s the deal about enim: The Romans threw it in a lot. It’s just part of Latin style in some ages to use this word when it isn’t strictly necessary, the way some British folks throw in "indeed" to kind of tweak the emphasis: "He is indeed a fine grammarian." As a result, when Jesus’ words were being translated into Latin, they conformed it more to Latin style by throwing in an enim.

The force and meaning of enim varies and gets weaker over time. In some cases it is used pleonastically. In these and certain other cases, it is often simply not translated into English. For example, the word can serve to signal an illustration or explanation, kind of the way a colon does in English. But there is already a colon there in Latin ("Accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes: . . ."), so they may have judged enim to be redundant.

The word order might fool you on this since enim occurs third in the sentence, but that’s due to another quirk of enim: It’s postpositive (meaning that it never occurs first in a sentence), and when there is an est coming after the first word it can force enim into third place. Putting things in English word order, one might take this as "Enim hoc est corpus meum" and then identify enim as performing its colon-like function.

(Other languages often use spoken words to accomplish effects that we do in English with punctuation. For example, Japanese uses ka at the end of sentences as a kind of spoken question mark. Chinese uses ma the same way. Greek often uses hoti to signal the beginning of a quotation, the way we use quotation marks.)

In any event, the word (or an equivalent) isn’t there in the original Greek (or Aramaic in all likelihood). That may be why it’s omitted in the English translation or it may be that the translators were taking it as performing a colon-like function or otherwise judged it redundant and out of accord with English style.

You may be interested to know that in the current (and much better!) draft translation of the Mass that is still being revised the words of consecration are translated in an ever-so-slightly different manner, but the enim still doesn’t show up as a word. Here’s the Latin and the current draft translation:

Accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes: hoc est enim corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur.

Take this, all of you, and eat of it: this is my Body which will be given up for you.

The "of," of course, is reflecting the ex in the Latin. We’ll have to wait and see if they stick with this translation.

A reader writes:

Our church had a penance service with roughly 12 or so priests on hand to hear individual confessions. Prior to my confession, I believe I did a pretty thorough examination of conscience. And I felt that I had identified at least most of things I needed to confess.

When it was my turn, the priest I was with "led" me in my confession. By that I mean, instead of letting me name all my sins, he asked me direct questions (“Did you have these types of sins?”). I answered truthfully to his questions, but after going through a few of them and the applicable sins, he started to wrap things up.

I didn’t feel it was appropriate to stop him and say, “Hey, I’ve got a lot more to confess here.” But as a result, I doubted for a time if I was absolved of all my sins. So, was I absolved of all my sins, or just the ones I managed to name during confession?

Absolution is an all-or-nothing thing when it comes to one’s mortal sins. Either you were absolved of all of them or you were absolved of none.

In order to be absolved of all of them, you need to make a formally integral (i.e., formally complete) confession. This means that you have to make a good faith effort to confess everything that God wants you to confess. You can’t knowingly and deliberately hold something back that you know you need to confess.

Under ideal circumstances, for a formally integral confession also needs to be materially integral (i.e., materially complete), meaning that you confess each of your grave sins by kind and number, along with important mitigating and exacerbating circumstances.

Very commonly, however, circumstances are not ideal. People forget what they did, or how many times they did it, they have conditions like OCD or scrupulosity that will be exacerbated if they give an exhaustive catalogue in minute detail, etc. As a result, there are often excusing causes that allow a person to make a formally integral confession even though it is not materially integral.

You found yourself in a disorienting situation in which you felt pressured by the priest not to break the flow of what he was doing to add additional sins that needed to be confessed. That psychological pressure was a cause excusing you from a materially integral confession. It sounds like you didn’t know what to do in the circumstance, so you made the best judgment that you could at the time and acted accordingly. If so, your confession was formally integral and the absolution was valid. You were forgiven for all your sins, even those you had not been able to confess.

That being said, you still have an obligation to confess those sins you weren’t able to confess. These should be confessed in your next confession–to the best of your ability, recognizing that your memory on them may be fuzzy at this point. If nothing else, be sure to include something like, "I am sorry for all my sins, including those I previously meant to confess but have forgotten."

I’d also make up my mind to summon up the courage to interrupt the priest if this happens again and tell him "I need to add the following sins . . . " and list them.

The readr also writes:

Here’s a part two to my question, if you have time to address it. During the absolution (as I wondered whether or not this would “count”), I “felt” a hand on my shoulder. My head was down and eyes were closed, and I assumed it was the priest. As I opened my eyes during the blessing, I thought that there was no way it could have been him. (We sat facing each other, but he would have had to lean way over to put his hand on my shoulder). As I knelt in church afterwards, I spent at least 5 minutes trying to duplicate the sensation. (I thought that it may have been from shifting my body a certain way.)

As I prayed, it seemed that it had to be the Holy Spirit (which made me feel a lot better about my confession). If that’s true, it’s the second time that I have felt a physical manifestation of the Holy Spirit. The first was during my Confirmation when I felt a “wave” rush over me as I was being anointed. Am I imagining things? Is this a more common occurrence than I think? Has something like this ever happened to you or someone you know?

It’s harder to comment on this. God is omnipotent and can do whatever he wants. If he wants to give you sensations like this as you receive the sacraments, he can. Many people report that they occasionally have such sensations. On the other hand, it could be psychological or maybe the priest just did lean over really far (I’ve had a priest plop his hand down on my head before during absolution, which I very much Do Not Like; the text says he should raise his hand over my head but not impose his hand on me).

I would say to take the experience as a possible though not certain confirming and consoling sign from God. I’d be open to such sensations if they happen in the future, but I wouldn’t seek them out or feel disappointed if they don’t come. Such supernatural experiences are the exception in the Christian walk rather than the rule.

20

A reader writes:

Last night, we had a guest priest at Mass who accidentally messed up the words of consecration–he spoke the words for the wine over the bread, and then again over the wine; so he forgot to say the actual "This is my body." So I was left wondering if either or both forms were invalid. Now, I’m wondering if I was wrong to go forward at all since I was in doubt–is this idolatry? What they did was bring ciboria out of the tabernacle with what I assume are pre-consecrated hosts. So…should I have skipped the cup? Or was it all invalid?

This is particularly disturbing to me because I’m an adult convert, and the Real Presence of our Lord in the Mass is the one thing that keeps me Catholic sometimes….and now, I’ll never know for sure if the host at adoration or Mass has been properly consecrated. What are we supposed to do now? Am I making too much of this?

You’re certainly right to be quite concerned. Any time something like this happens it is very disturbing to the faithful, and understandably so. Here’s what I can tell you on the subject of validity:

1) The consecration of the cup is presumed valid. While it is totally forbidden under canon law to consecrate one of the species without the other (Can. 927), the praxis of the Church indicates that the consecration of each species occurs after the proper formula is said over the individual species. This is illustrated by the fact that we adore the host and the Precious Blood separately, as they are consecrated individually. Therefore, the saying of "This is the cup of my blood" over the wine should be a valid consecration.

2) The consecration of the hosts in this case is doubtful. While the proper words ("This is my body") were not said, the words that were said ("This is . . . my blood") express a theological truth since Christ is present under both forms in his body, blood, soul, and divinity. On the other hand, God may just want "This is my body" said over the hosts. (By comparison, he might not allow "This is my soul" or "This is my divinity" as valid formulas over either species, even though those are also theologically true.) Further, the hosts may not have been in a cup, in which case an element of falsehood was introduced into the formula. The validity of the the consecration of the host therefore seems to me to be quite doubtful.

As far as going forward to receive, while it would be wrong to receive an element that one knew with certainty had been invalidly consecrated, the psychological reality of the situation is such that when things like this happen that the faithful are so rattled that they don’t know what to do and just have to make their best guess. In such circumstances, they are likely acting in conformity with their conscience in difficult circumstances are are not culpable if they make the objectively wrong choice.

As far as your worries for the future, I think you may be making too much of this. Such accidents are rare, and it is overwhelmingly likely that hosts you encounter in the future are validly consecrated. Certainly, you should presume that they are and act accordingly.

What I don’t know is all of the dubiously-consecrated hosts were consumed at the Mass. If not, what the parish should do is have someone consume them conditionally as Communion. Whether they’d do that if asked, I don’t know.

Also, you should recognize that, while Jesus is present in the Eucharist, you need to be Catholic not only because of this but because the Catholic Church is Jesus’ Church, regardless of the problems it has in any given age.

Hope this helps!

20

A reader writes:

Before the first reading our parish asks for children between kindergarten and 4th grade to leave the church for the Childrens’ Liturgy of the Word. They return during the Nicene Creed.

A couple of things bother me about this. I can understand the attempt to make the liturgy more understandable to children and if it were a priest conducting it I wouldn’t have a problem. But a layperson does the readings behind a makeshift altar – lectern, candles, etc. – and, basically, does what could be construed as a homily. I know a layperson can not read the Gospel or give a homily so it doesn’t seem proper to me for children as old as ten to be leaving Mass for a substitute liturgy.

The other problem is the disruption it causes in the church with 60 or so kids filing out of the church during the first reading and returning during the Creed.

Am I making too much of this or would you consider it a liturgical abuse? It seems to me that at least those that have received their First Communion should be expected to remain in church.

I’m not a big fan of such alternative liturgies of the word, myself. One parish I know has a particularly inept way of doing them: They have all the kids gather together and be escorted out while the choir sings "Let the children come to me. . . . Do not block the way," which is unfortunate for a couple of reasons:

1. The children are being led away from Jesus’ Real Presence while the choir is singing about their being brought to him, and
2. The musical setting has an eerie resemblance to the tune "Camptown Races," so whenever I hear it, I want to go "Let the children come to me. . . . Doo-DAH! Doo-DAH!"

That being said, such liturgies are currently permitted under Church law. There is a document (printed in the Sacramentary) called the Directory for Masses with Children that came out in 1973. Regarding these liturgies, it says:

Sometimes, moreover, if the place itself and the nature of the community permit, it will be appropriate to celebrate the liturgy of the word, including a homily, with the children in a separate, but not too distant, room. Then, before the eucharistic liturgy begins, the children are led to the place where the adults have meanwhile celebrated their own liturgy of the word [DMC 18].

Now, I’ve highlighted "and the nature of the community permit" because it indicates that the composition of some communities do not permit the separate celebration of the liturgy of the word for children. In my estimation, what they’re referring to is having enough qualified people available to lead a second liturgy of the word for the kids. That would include an extra priest or deacon to do the gospel and the homily. The DMC does not waive the requirement of an ordained person to perform these tasks, and so parishes where an extra priest or deacon is not available to do these liturgies do not have a composition permitting their celebration.

Thus as far as I can tell, it is a liturgical abuse to have a separate liturgy of the word for the kids unless a priest or deacon does the gospel and the homily.

You may also note that I italicized "currently" in saying that such liturgies are currently permitted. I did that because the Directory for Masses with Children is waaaay too loosey-goosey for the kind of liturgy documents that the Holy See is cranking out these days. Among other things, it gives virtual carte blanche for further, unnamed "adaptations"–all in the interests of the children, of course!

There is no way the current administration in the Congregation for Divine Worship would approve such sweeping permissions for chaos and stupidity in childrens’ liturgies. As a result, the DMC is ripe for revision, and I suspect that its current iteration won’t be with us much longer. If Arinze et al., continue in office for a while, I suspect that it will end up getting revised as part of the current revamp of the Roman Missal.

One last note: Lest someone try to justify the gospel and homily reading as a further approved "adaption," that won’t work. There are limits to what that clause can bear, and one of the limits is what Rome would be willing to sign-off on if asked. There is no way Arinze would sign off on laity reading the gospel and preaching homilies in front of children, so that dog won’t hunt.

A reader writes:

We went to a church where the priest has the entire congregation say the eucharistic prayer along with him.

We know that this is not right but not sure if we should do anything about it other than not attend that church.

One other thing is -Can a non-catholic receive Communion if they believe that it is the body and blood of Christ?  This happens often in the same church.

Canon 844

§4. 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 licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, 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.

[85.] Catholic ministers licitly administer the Sacraments only to the Catholic faithful, who likewise receive them licitly only from Catholic ministers, except for those situations for which provision is made in can. 844 §§ 2,3, and 4, and can. 861 § 2. In addition, the conditions comprising can. 844 § 4, from which no dispensation can be given, cannot be separated; thus, it is necessary that all of these conditions be present together.

[83.] It is certainly best that all who are participating in the celebration of Holy Mass with the necessary dispositions should receive Communion. Nevertheless, it sometimes happens that Christ’s faithful approach the altar as a group indiscriminately. It pertains to the Pastors prudently and firmly to correct such an abuse.

[52.] The proclamation of the Eucharistic Prayer, which by its very nature is the climax of the whole celebration, is proper to the Priest by virtue of his Ordination. It is therefore an abuse to proffer it in such a way that some parts of the Eucharistic Prayer are recited by a Deacon, a lay minister, or by an individual member of the faithful, or by all members of the faithful together. The Eucharistic Prayer, then, is to be recited by the Priest alone in full.

As to what to do regarding the abuses you witnessed, it is a judgment call. It depends on your relationship to the parish and your ability to bring about change in it. As a general rule, one would want to start with the individual responsible for these abuses (principally the pastor of the parish) and work one’s way up the chain of command from him to the bishop to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. The latter, should appeal to them be necessary, is inclined these days not only to take a very dim view of such actions but to actually take steps to correct them.

If you do take action, be sure to build a paper trail with dates and times and, to the extent possible, names: Who did what, where, and when. Specific reports get action taken on them more than vague allegations.

For detailed practical information on how to deal with liturgical abuses and to discern whether action should be taken, see chapter 12 of my book MASS CONFUSION.

A reader writes:

Help Jimmy! In this Sunday’s bulletin was a splashy announcement, "At next Saturday’s 11:30 am Mass Fr.——- will be conducting a teaching Mass, stopping throughout to explain the history and significance of each part." Is this allowed? Where do I find data or info to back up a complaint letter that is soon to be written by moi. When will this maddness end!!

Probably not by this weekend.

Let’s take this piece by piece:

First, there is no such thing as a "teaching Mass" in the Church’s liturgical books. The category does not exist.

Second, it would be perfectly legitimate to do something that is not a Mass but otherwise looks like one for teaching the significance of the various parts of the Mass. This would be like having a stage-play of a Mass with detailed commentary. Such things should not, however, be advertised as Masses, and it does not appear that this is what is going to happen in your parish.

Third, the Church’s liturgical law does provide a role for the priest to make certain explanatory comments about the Mass, but they may or may not be as extensive as what is being envisioned in your parish’s case. Here is what the current General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) says about the priest’s commenting role:

31. It is also up to the priest, in the exercise of his office of presiding over the gathered assembly, to offer certain explanations that are foreseen in the rite itself. Where it is indicated in the rubrics, the celebrant is permitted to adapt them [i.e., the explanations] somewhat in order that they respond to the understanding of those participating. However, he should always take care to keep to the sense of the text given in the Missal and to express them succinctly. The presiding priest is also to direct the word of God and to impart the final blessing. In addition, he may give the faithful a very brief introduction to the Mass of the day (after the initial Greeting and before the Act of Penitence), to the Liturgy of the Word (before the readings), and to the Eucharistic Prayer (before the Preface), though never during the Eucharistic Prayer itself; he may also make concluding comments to the entire sacred action before the dismissal [GIRM 31].

If Fr.——- (Thanks for the dashes! Saves me having to put them in!) confines himself to these things, he’s home free. If he does more than this, he starts to exceed wha the law provides.