In many parishes it has been common for the cantor or choir to extend the Lamb of God by adding additional statements, known as tropes, to it.
The Holy See has been taking an increasingly firm line against this, and now they’ve issued a clear mandate that it stop.
Here’s the story . . .
What’s Supposed to Happen
According to the Order of Mass, after the sign of peace,
129. Then [the priest] takes the host, breaks it over the paten, and places a small piece in the chalice, saying quietly:
May this mingling of the Body and Blood
of our Lord Jesus Christ
bring eternal life to us who receive it.
130. Meanwhile the following is sung or said:
Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world,
have mercy on us.
Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world,
have mercy on us.
Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world,
grant us peace.
Or: The invocation may even be repeated several times if the fraction is prolonged. Only the final time, however, is grant us peace said.
Got that?
If they need to extend the Lamb of God, they’re supposed to keep repeating “Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us” until they’re ready to finish it with a “Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world, grant us peace.”
And extended versions of the Lamb of God have been more common because in many parishes Communion is being distributed to a large number of the faithful under both kinds, and it takes longer to divide it up for the different people who will be distributing it.
But they haven’t been extending the prayer in the way that’s indicated in the text.
What’s Been Happening Instead
In many parishes they’ve been using musical settings by Catholic publishers that have a bunch of different tropes beyond “Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world.”
For example:
Jesus, Bread of Life, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.
Jesus, Prince of Peace, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.
Jesus, Son of God, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.
Jesus, Word of God, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.
Jesus, Tree of Life, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.
Jesus, Fire of Love, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.
Jesus, Bread of Peace, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.
Jesus, Hope of All, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.
If Moses and Elijah were present in the Transfiguration, why don't we call them saints?
Recently I received the question: “Why don’t we call Moses and Elijah ‘Saint'”?
In other words: Why aren’t they referred to as St. Moses and St. Elijah?
Evidence for Sainthood
After all, we have it on pretty good authority that they are holy and in heaven.
Both Old and New Testament attest to the holiness of both individuals. We have a clear indication that Elijah was taken directly into heaven, without dying, and while Moses did die, there’s no serious doubt about his making it to heaven (at least after heaven was generally opened to the righteous of the Old Testament).
Most impressively, both Moses and Elijah get to appear with Jesus in the Transfiguration.
That’s kind of a giveaway.
So why don’t we call them saints?
Old Testament Saints in General
A basic answer would be that we tend not to use the honorific “Saint” for human beings who lived in the Old Testament period.
We do use it for angels we read about in the Old Testament–St. Michael, St. Gabriel, St. Raphael–but not human beings.
That is probably just an artifact of how the term “Saint” evolved. Originally it was an adjective, meaning “holy” (Latin, sanctus). People started prefixing it to the names of notably holy individuals (holy Peter, holy Paul), and eventually it came to be used as an honorific–like “Mister” or “Doctor” (thus St. Peter, St. Paul).
But for whatever reason, people tended not to do this for Old Testament figures.
Perhaps this was because holy figures of the Old Testament were thought to already be sufficiently hallowed by their inclusion in Scripture–although that would not explain why the apostles and other New Testament figures got the title “Saint.”
More likely, Old Testament figures were seen as less directly relevant as examples to Christians, because they lived before the Christian age. Those living in the Christian age, like the apostles and later saints, are more like us and thus more direct examples for us in a certain sense.
However that may be, Old Testament figures were generally not called “Saint.”
But sometimes they were. . . .
Meet St. Moses and St. Elijah
The Latin Church maintains an official list of saints and blesseds known as the Roman Martyrology, and it actually lists some humans from the Old Testament, including Moses and Elijah.
On Mount Carmel, [was the departure of] the holy prophet Elijah.
Latin or English?
The Roman Martyrology, of course, is in Latin, and the translation offered above is accomodated to standard English usage, which avoids using “Saint” for Moses and Elijah. The Latin original is a bit different.
Here is the Latin for these two entries, along with a more word-for-word translation:
In monte Nebo, terræ Moab, sancti Móysis, legislatóris et Prophétæ.
On Mt. Nebo, of the land of Moab, [was the death] of saint Moses, lawgiver and Prophet.
In monte Carmélo sancti Elíæ Prophétæ.
On Mt. Carmel [was the departure] of saint Elijah the Prophet.
This is the same construction that is used to report the deaths of other saints in the Matyrology. For example, a bit later on September 4th, we read:
Tréviris sancti Marcélli, Epíscopi et Mártyris.
Which would be:
At Treves [was the death] of saint Marcellus, Bishop and Martyr.
You might note that the term “saint” is lower-case in the Latin, and you might argue from that that it should be translated as an adjective–“holy”–but the point is that the Martyrology is applying to Moses and Elijah the same terminology that it applies to other saints.
It’s listing them in the same way, despite the fact that they’re Old Testament figures.
And then there’s this . . .
Meet Mar Musa and Mar Elia
English and Latin aren’t the only two languages in the Church, and the Latin Church isn’t the only body in union with the pope. Consider, for example, the Chaldean Church, which is one of the Eastern Catholic churches.
It uses a dialect of Aramaic as its liturgical language, and it refers to Moses and Elijah as saints, using the standard Aramatic term fors “saint”–“mar”–as a title for both of them.
They are referred to as “Mar Musa” (St. Moses) and “Mar Elia” (St. Elijah).
You will find various Chaldean institutions, like churches and monasteries, named after them the same way you find them named after other saints.
And Mar Musa and Mar Elia don’t just have particular days celebrating them on the Chaldean liturgical calendar. They actually have liturgical seasonsdevoted to them.
I should note that the term “mar” also has other meanings. Its root meaning is “lord.” And you can see it in the term “maranatha” (Marana tha = “Our Lord, come!”).
By extension it also is used as a title for saints, as with Mar Musa, Mar Elia, and all the other saints honored in the Chaldean Church.
Finally, it is also used as a title for bishops, but nobody is under the impression that Moses and Elijah were bishops.
We thus have to be a bit careful about who the “we” is when we ask why we don’t refer to Moses and Elijah as saints.
Some of us do, because the practice can vary from one language to another and from one Catholic rite to another.
The question of whether women need to wear head coverings (mantillas, chapel veils, etc.) at Mass keeps coming up.
With the greater freedom to celebrate the Extraordinary Form of the liturgy, it poses the question anew, since prior to the current rite of Mass head coverings were required for women.
If a woman is going to an Extraordinary Form Mass, does she have an obligation to wear one, in keeping with the law at the time?
But the question keeps coming up, and with the new twist based on the broadened permission to celebrate the Extraordinary Form, it’s worth looking into again.
So what’s the answer?
Head Coverings at Mass in Canon Law
The requirement that women wear head coverings at Mass was part of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which provided:
Canon 1262
§2. Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bare-headed, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise; women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord.
Notice that this didn’t establish a requirement for any particular form of head covering. It could be a mantilla, a veil, a hat, a scarf, etc.
But when the 1983 Code of Canon Law was released, it provided:
Canon 6
§1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:
1° the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;
Laws which had been part of the 1917 Code, including canon 1262, thus lost their force and the legal requirement was officially ended. (The custom had already fallen into disuse in many places.)
Since it was the 1917 Code and not the Church’s liturgical documents that established the requirement, it would seem that when the 1917 Code lost its force, the obligation ceased for Latin Rite liturgies in general, regardless of whether they were celebrated according to the Ordinary or Extraordinary Form.
But wait . . . what about St. Paul’s mention of them in 1 Corinthians?
Head Coverings in the Bible
If St. Paul’s directive that women wear head coverings were binding today then it would apply to both the Ordinary and the Extraordinary Forms (as well as non-Latin Rite liturgies).
However, in 1976 the Congregation for the Faith dealt with the issue and judged that St. Paul’s directive on this point is not binding. In its declaration on the inadmissibility of women to the ministerial priesthood (Inter Insigniores), the CDF stated:
Another objection 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 their head (1 Cor 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value.
So it would appear that neither canon law nor the Church’s liturgical books nor Scripture establish a requirement that women today must wear head coverings, at either Ordinary or the Extraordinary Form Masses.
Of course, women are still absolutely free to do so, and doing so can be a beautiful expression of devotion.
Common Sense & the Extraordinary Form
Given the natural expectations of many people at Extraordinary Form Masses, one can see a certain appropriateness to wearing them in that context.
People there would commonly expect the use of head coverings–precisely because there was an obligation in 1962–and not using them could cause puzzlement or consternation.
Still, it would be nice to have some additional insight on Rome’s thinking into this question, which leads us to . . .
Cardinal Burke on Head Coverings & the Extraordinary Form
I was pleased recently when I discovered that Cardinal Burke had addressed this question in a private letter that is now available on the EWTN web site.
This letter does not represent an official ruling, but since Cardinal Burke is head of the Holy See’s highest court, the Apostolic Signatura, his opinion carries weight and certainly gives insight on the kind of thinking that Rome applies to these issues. So here is what he said on the subject:
The wearing of a chapel veil for women is not required when women assist at the Holy Mass according to the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. It is, however, the expectation that women who assist at the Mass according to the Extraordinary Form cover their heads, as was the practice at the time that the 1962 Missale Romanum was in force. It is not, however, a sin to participate in the Holy Mass according to the Extraordinary Form without a veil.
Cardinal Burke thus seems to envision a middle category of “expectation.” Not a legal requirement. And not something that must be fulfilled on pain of sin. But not a matter of complete indifference, either.
That corresponds to my sense as well. At the Ordinary Form there is neither a requirement nor an expectation that head coverings be used, though women are totally free to do so. And at the Extraordinary Form there is and expectation but not a requirement, certainly not one binding on pain of sin, that they be used.
What do you think?
Learning More
By the way, if you’re interested in liturgical matters like this, they are one of the topics I cover in my mailings to the Secret Information Club. If you’re interested, you should click here to learn more or sign up using this form:
When the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ at Mass, the change is permanent. It remains so long as the appearances of bread and wine do.
This has implications for how we treat the consecrated elements after Mass is over. Hosts that remain are stored in a Tabernacle, but what about the Precious Blood?
It cannot normally be reserved (the only exception being when it will be taken to the sick, and then special precautions have to be taken to keep it from spilling).
If there is a quantity of the Precious Blood left and it cannot be reserved, what are you supposed to do?
Pouring the Precious Blood into a Sacrarium?
Some have suggested pouring it out–not out on the ground or down an ordinary drain but down a special kind of sink known as a sacrarium.
Sacraria are typically found in the sacristy of a church, and they differ from an ordinary sink in a crucial respect: Instead of draining into the local sewer system, they drain down into the earth.
Sacraria are used for a variety of purposes, including these:
To dispose of ashes from objects that have been blessed and then destroyed by fire
To dispose of the water that has been used to wash the altar linens
To dispose of water that has been used to dissolve small particles of the host
To dispose of water that has been used to clean up places where the Precious Blood has spilled
Except for the first example, which deals with the ashes of former blessed objects, the other examples cited deal with water that is known to have or may have come into contact with the consecrated elements (since small particles of the host might be on the altar linens).
Given that, can you use the sacrarium to dispose of the Precious Blood itself? After all, it’s not like you’re pouring it into the sewer. You would be pouring it into something specially intended to deal with the remains of sacred things, right? So can you do this?
No. You can’t.
Throwing Away the Consecrated Species
It’s one thing to pour water into the sacrarium, even if that water has been used to dissolve the consecrated species. In that case, the appearances of bread and wine no longer remain, and so the Real Presence does not remain, either. It is another thing entirely to use it to throw away the consecrated species themselves.
According to the Code of Canon Law,
Canon 1367 A person who throws away the consecrated species or who takes them or retains them for a sacrilegious purpose incurs an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; if a cleric, he can be punished with another penalty including dismissal from the clerical state.
This offense is one of those graviora delicta (graver offenses) that is reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as noted in the instruction Redemptoinis Sacramentum, which provides:
[172.] Graviora delicta against the sanctity of the Most August Sacrifice and Sacrament of the Eucharist are to be handled in accordance with the ‘Norms concerning graviora delicta reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’, namely:
a) taking away or retaining the consecrated species for sacrilegious ends, or the throwing them away;
Pouring the Precious Blood into a sacrarium counts as throwing away the consecrated species, and so it cannot be done.
It Is Explicitly Forbidden
Recently I was questioned on this point by a member of the Secret Information Club, who had gotten the communique I send to members on the worst liturgical abuses (the graviora delicta). Citing the section where I said one can’t pour the Precious Blood into a sacrarium, the member wrote:
I believe you may have an error regarding the pouring of the Precious Blood. It’s forbidden to pour it down the sewer system, not the other way around.
I understand that people have been given incorrect information on this in some parishes, and there is a difference between a sacrarium and a sink that drains into the sewer system, but the point remains. In fact, pouring the Precious Blood into a sacrarium is explicitly forbidden in Remptionis Sacramentum, which provides:
[107.] In accordance with what is laid down by the canons, “one who throws away the consecrated species or takes them away or keeps them for a sacrilegious purpose, incurs a latae sententiae [automatic] excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; a cleric, moreover, may be punished by another penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state”.
To be regarded as pertaining to this case is any action that is voluntarily and gravely disrespectful of the sacred species.
Anyone, therefore, who acts contrary to these norms, for example casting the sacred species into the sacrarium or in an unworthy place or on the ground, incurs the penalties laid down.
The good news, for anyone who has done this innocently not knowing that they shouldn’t, is that the excommunication does not apply to them (CIC 1323, no. 2).
But the rule remains: No pouring the Precious Blood down a sacrarium.
What You Are Supposed to Do
The actual answer is that any remaining amount of the Precious Blood should be consumed. Section 107 of Redemptionis Sacramentum continues:
Furthermore all will remember that once the distribution of Holy Communion during the celebration of Mass has been completed, the prescriptions of the Roman Missal are to be observed, and in particular, whatever may remain of the Blood of Christ must be entirely and immediately consumed by the Priest or by another minister, according to the norms, while the consecrated hosts that are left are to be consumed by the Priest at the altar or carried to the place for the reservation of the Eucharist.
Want to Learn More?
This is precisely the kind of thing I cover in my Secret Information Club mailings. If you’re not already a member, you can learn more at www.SecretInfoClub.com or sign up using this form:
Many of us grew up saying prayers and, in imitation of the adults around us, we learned to end them by saying “amen.”
But this is a word most of us never used in any other context, and for many of us, we had no idea what it meant. It was just that think you say at the end of prayers.
I confess that when I was growing up, I thought it meant something like “over and out.”
The Catechism of the Catholic Church offers a brief explanation of the meaning of the word at the end of its section on the Lord’s Prayer, where it quotes Cyril of Jerusalem:
“Then, after the prayer is over you say ‘Amen,’ which means ‘So be it,’ thus ratifying with our ‘Amen’ what is contained in the prayer that God has taught us” [CCC 2856].
It also says:
By the final “Amen,” we express our “fiat” [Latin, “so be it” or “may it be”] concerning the seven petitions: “So be it” [CCC 2865].
1062 In Hebrew, amen comes from the same root as the word “believe.” This root expresses solidity, trustworthiness, faithfulness. and so we can understand why “Amen” may express both God’s faithfulness towards us and our trust in him.
1063 In the book of the prophet Isaiah, we find the expression “God of truth” (literally “God of the Amen”), that is, the God who is faithful to his promises: “He who blesses himself in the land shall bless himself by the God of truth [amen].” Our Lord often used the word “Amen,” sometimes repeated, to emphasize the trustworthiness of his teaching, his authority founded on God’s truth.
1064 Thus the Creed’s final “Amen” repeats and confirms its first words: “I believe.” To believe is to say “Amen” to God’s words, promises and commandments; to entrust oneself completely to him who is the “Amen” of infinite love and perfect faithfulness. the Christian’s everyday life will then be the “Amen” to the “I believe” of our baptismal profession of faith:
May your Creed be for you as a mirror. Look at yourself in it, to see if you believe everything you say you believe. and rejoice in your faith each day.
1065 Jesus Christ himself is the “Amen.” He is the definitive “Amen” of the Father’s love for us. He takes up and completes our “Amen” to the Father: “For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why we utter the Amen through him, to the glory of God”:
Through him, with him, in him,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
all glory and honor is yours,
almighty Father,
God, for ever and ever.
AMEN.
One of the things the Catechism mentions is that Our Lord sometimes repeated the word “Amen.” In some versions of the Bible this is translated “Verily, verily” or “Truly, truly,” but what he actually said was “Amen, amen.”
This was something characteristic of Jesus’ own personal manner of speech.
In any event, the word means more than just “over and out.”
Sebastian Errazuriz has used art to take on an array of issues: New York’s death rate, the Occupy movement, military suicide, children with disabilities, the brutal reign of Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. Now, the Brooklyn-based artist is taking aim at what he sees as religious extremism.
At a party this weekend celebrating New York Design Week, which begins today, the Chilean-born artist plans to hand out 100 “Christian Popsicles” made of “frozen holy wine transformed into the blood of Christ” and featuring a crucifix instead the tongue depressor that typically hosts the frozen treats, he said.
“It’s not that I purposely want to get in trouble. I just believe if you are not doing work that can make people stop, think and discuss, then it’s better not to make any work at all,” he said.
Raised in a Catholic household, Errazuriz is now a “practicing atheist,” but he has many friends and family members who are religious, and he respects their beliefs. He has always been vexed by religion, however, particularly the practitioners who wish to force their beliefs on others.
He’s not Catholic, but Tim Tebow has generated a lot of controversy by publicly praying at sporting events. Even I know that, and I know nothing about sports.
Praying at sporting events has been around for a long time. I remember being incredulous when I first heard about it, years and years ago (possibly even before I was Christian). I was assuming, as do many people, that the athletes were praying for victory, asking God to take the side of their sports team, which is preposterous.
But a new light was cast on it when I learned that many of those praying were not asking for victory but that all would play well and safely, that nobody would get hurt.
As Emily Litella would say, “Well! That’s different!”
I don’t know whether Tim Tebow has shared what he prays for at sporting events. Sorry; it’s that whole “I don’t know about sports” thing. But I do happen to know a good bit about the Church, and I happen to know something that sheds a good bit of light on what a Catholic might want to think regarding praying at sporting events.
It is this: The Church has an official blessing for athletic events.
Really!
It’s found in the Roman Ritual (an official book of Church rituals, as the name suggests), and it is published in English in the Book of Blessings (you can find it on pages 437-438 of the current edition).
The introduction to it explains:
1024 This blessing is intended for those who participate in an athletic event. The blessing asks that God may protect the athletes from injury and that throughout the event they may show respect for one another.
1025 The blessing may be given by a priest, deacon, or lay minister.
The blessing includes an athletically-themed Scripture reading (2 Timothy 4:6-8) and a prayer over the athletes.
According to the text:
1029 A minister who is a priest or deacon says the prayer of blessing with hands outstretched over the athletes; a lay minister says the prayer with hands joined.
Here is the actual text of the prayer:
Strong and faithful God,
as we come together for this contest,
we ask you to bless these athletes.
Keep them safe from injury and harm,
instill in them respect for each other,
and reward them for their perseverance.
Lead us all to the rewards of your kingdom
where you live and reign for ever and ever.
Response: Amen.
Non-sports fan though I am, I could imagine the prayer going even further, by asking God to help the athletes glorify him by doing their best in the contest, but this still sheds light on what a Catholic might think about praying at sporting events. It acknowledges that prayer at such events is legitimate, and it gives an example of the kind of prayer that is appropriate.
As always, official prayers of blessing do not preclude individual, private prayers like those Tim Tebow is conducting. They are fine, too, provided their content is worthy.
Regardless of whether you personally are a sports fan or not . . .
20. The rhythm associated with the change from day to night, from one month to another, or of the seasons is often associated with various forms of popular piety. Such can also be true of particular days recalling joyous or tragic personal or community events. Above all, the “the feast days”, withe their preparations for various religious manifestations, have contributed much in forging the traditions peculiar to a given community.
20. The rhythm associated with the change from day to night, from one month to another, or of the seasons is often associated with various forms of popular piety. Such can also be true of particular days recalling joyous or tragic personal or community events. Above all, the "the feast days", withe their preparations for various religious manifestations, have contributed much in forging the traditions peculiar to a given community.
He’s not Catholic, but Tim Tebow has generated a lot of controversy by publicly praying at sporting events. Even I know that, and I know nothing about sports.
