Catholic Metanarrative

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Wednesday Liturgy: Efficacy of the Penitential Rite

ROME, JUNE 28, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

Q: What is the efficacy of the penitential rite in the Mass as far as the forgiveness of sins are concerned? One prominent priest in our area advanced the reason for the reduction in Catholics going to confession is because of the penitential rite. -- J.W., Buffalo, New York

A: This subject is clearly addressed in No. 51 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal:
"Then the priest invites those present to take part in the Act of Penitence, which, after a brief pause for silence, the entire community carries out through a formula of general confession. The rite concludes with the priest's absolution, which, however, lacks the efficacy of the Sacrament of Penance."

Thus it is clear that the absolution formula that concludes the act of penance is not sacramental absolution and in no way dispenses from the obligation of confessing grave sins before receiving Communion.

Only recently have some people purported the theory that this rite absolves sins and could substitute confession. It is certainly possible that such a defective catechesis regarding the sacramental nature of this rite could contribute to a falling away from the sacrament of reconciliation.

However, I do not believe that the fault can be laid at the door of the rite itself. Some form of general admission of sin and unworthiness has formed part of the Mass since earliest times. It has always been seen as a positive element of confession, petition of forgiveness, and interior purification before entering into the celebration of the sacred mysteries.

The non-absolutory nature of the penitential rite does not mean that venial sins are not forgiven during this rite; they are also forgiven by receiving Communion and by the other intercessory prayers of Mass.

This forgiveness is due to the general reparatory nature of all positive acts of prayer, sacrifice, devotion and worship which in some way create a positive counterbalance to those common sins, defects and imperfections which plague our daily lives.

Since participation in Mass is infinitely the greatest form of reparatory and intercessory prayer that a human being can undertake, it is clear that his or her venial sins are likewise forgiven during Mass.

This is not true of mortal sins because the state of grace is necessary in order to receive Communion and fully benefit from the other blessings of the Mass. These sins ordinarily require sacramental confession and absolution to be forgiven.

Moreover, even a person in a state of mortal sin is not deprived of all graces while attending Mass.

Such a person may still, for example, receive the grace of being moved by God's Word, by the homily, or by one of the prayers and hence gain a deeper knowledge of the state of his soul, of God's great mercy, and thus find courage to seek forgiveness.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Dramatic Readings at Mass

ROME, JUNE 28, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

Our piece on dramatizing the readings (June 14) brought in some interesting annotations.
An English-speaking priest writing from Belgium offered the following valuable suggestion based on experience:

"When teaching lectors and seminarians, I have found it useful to tell them to think of themselves as 'being on the radio' rather than 'performing on TV.' This causes them to think how best to use their voice to proclaim the Word of the Lord, undistracted by 'looking at the congregation, facial movements, gestures, etc. This approach allows the reader to take account of the listeners, making as clear as possible the sense of the text in front of them -- when God is speaking via their mouth. It also allows them to realize that the 'spoken Word' they speak is God's Word alive and so the most important thing. It also avoids the temptation to 'dramatize the text.'"

Another priest, hailing from Australia, asked: "Is there a special case for the reading of the Passion on Palm/Passion Sunday and on Good Friday? The lectionary approved for use in Australia has the parts marked for various readers. Is this not dramatic reading? Is it permissible?"

In a sense the reading of the Passion on Palm Sunday and Good Friday are exceptions that allow for certain dramatic elements while still falling far short of acting. The readers or cantors retain the traditional sobriety of the rite and avoid facial expressions and gestures.

These readings may be rendered using three readers, or cantors, each taking the part of specific characters. One reader takes the role of narrator, another, usually the priest, speaks the words of Our Lord, and another all of the other characters.

In some cases a choir or even the assembly may be added to undertake the part of the multitude or when several Gospel characters speak at once.

The "dramatic" and spiritual effect on the assembly when it is they, and not just a reader, who cry out "Crucify him" can be quite moving and might bring out more clearly the responsibility of each one's personal sinfulness for our Lord's Passion.

At the Vatican, the Passion on Palm Sunday has been sung, for several years now, in Italian, by three deacons and a choir. The deacons maintain a sober tone although with slight variations for each personage. The choir sings the part of the multitude in polyphony.

On Good Friday the same process is followed but using the traditional Latin chants with the Sistine Choir doing the solemn polyphony. In both cases the Passion lasts about 50 minutes.
This system of dividing up the readings into parts is also sometimes allowed for Masses with children if such a process facilitates comprehension (see No. 47 of the Directory for Masses with Children).

Wednesday, June 22, 2005

Focused Link: Friendship: The Key to the Evangelization of Men

Here's an article from Fr. McCloskey on friendship and how this can be used to spread the faith. I find the article quite natural and practical in today's social conditions.

The entire article can be viewed here:
http://www.catholicity.com/mccloskey/articles/friendship.html

Below is an excerpt from that article.

*~*~*~*~*

Friendship and evangelization

Friendship, for a Christian, can be an effective form of evangelization. In this context, evangelization means simply sharing our relationship with Christ--cultivated through prayer, meditation on Holy Scripture, and the sacraments--with our friends. This entails a friendship that is sincere and authentic, and certainly does not look upon friendship as a tool. Friendship is, and in a natural way must be recognized as, an end in itself. There are many examples in history and in literature of admirable friendships, and these examples do not necessarily involve religious faith. However friendship can be can be uplifted and supernaturalized when it reaches its highest level in sharing the ultimate good: God himself. To introduce or re-introduce Jesus Christ to another man is the greatest good of human friendship.

Throughout the history of the Church, starting with our Lord Himself, Christianity has been spread principally through the one-on-one encounters that (along with procreation) have caused the Church to grow, so that early Church of the 12 apostles now embraces 1 billion Catholics today. But we cannot rest. There are still billions more people waiting to hear the good news of Jesus Christ and his Church.

I hope that this article will help readers to understand the Friendship Deficit Syndrome and how damaging it can be for the human and supernatural development of men's personalities. With time, self-knowledge and God's help, if need be, men can be cured of it. They will be holier, happier, and more apostolic.

As you can see, I am addressing men, particularly Catholic men. But women who care about men--mothers, sisters, wives, and prospective wives--are encouraged to take a peek. After all, they should take strong interest in the true Christian manliness of the males in their lives. Their own livelihood and happiness, and that of their children, may depend on the ability of the men they love to cope with the increasingly perilous culture in which we find ourselves.

Women must remember that before the Christian faith exerted its influence on the laws and morals in the ancient world of the Mediterranean, wives and children were often viewed as mere chattel at the absolute disposal of the paterfamilias--to the point that the man often assumed the right to put unsatisfactory women and children to death. Those ancient attitudes are not completely dead, even today; there is similar treatment of women and children still on display in some cultures. This sort of tyranny could repeat itself even in Western cultures, or we might see the development of new forms of what Pope John Paul II has called the "new totalitarianism" which increasingly envelops us in the West. The witness of strong men, willing to be confessors and martyrs for their faith, may be best possible protection for marriage and the family.

Moreover, in coping with the Friendship Deficit Syndrome, wives can play an important role by encouraging their husbands to spend more time with their friends. In today's society there always will be tensions in balancing work, family, and social life. Those women who work outside the home and still have to take care of the domestic chores understandably want their husbands home as much as possible in the evenings and on weekends. However, if a wife insists that the husband always be at home when he is not at work, she may be denying him the opportunity to make himself a better husband and father--and at the same depriving other men of the good example and influence her husband could provide. Although friendship is always personal, a wife should desire that her husband has the opportunity to make as many friends as she has.

Wednesday Liturgy: Genuflections by Concelebrants

ROME, JUNE 21, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

Q: No. 242 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal states that at Communion time at a concelebrated Mass, the concelebrants, one after another, come to the middle of the altar, genuflect and reverently take the Body of Christ from the altar and return to their places. This number concludes by saying that concelebrants may also remain in their places and take the Body of Christ from the paten presented to them by the principal celebrant or by one or more of the concelebrants, or by passing the paten one to another. These last two options apply similarly to receiving the Blood of the Lord. These last two options, however, do not make any mention of a reverence (genuflection) to be given by the concelebrants before receiving. Is the genuflection by concelebrants omitted when the last two options are employed, or is the genuflection made with the celebrant when he has finished the prayer before Communion? This would seem to be appropriate, but there is no mention that it should be done. -- B.C., New York

A: The reason why no mention is made of reverence or genuflections is probably due to the practical nature of the question at hand.

While all of the options are legitimate modes for concelebrants to partake of Communion, the first form -- approaching the altar and making a genuflection -- is the most common, liturgically preferable, and most dignified manner of doing so.

The other forms are usually adopted in particular situations such as a large number of concelebrants, constricted space, complex logistics or for some other practical reason.

The motivations that suggest opting for the other forms of Communion oftentimes involve a simultaneous impediment in performing gestures such as genuflections or else doing so would unduly prolong the Communion rite.

They seemingly also impede the possibility of all the concelebrants making the genuflection together. This is an option not considered in the norms as they almost invariably connect the genuflection with the immediate taking of Communion on the part of the priest -- and this would not be the case here.

Thus, in writing the norms, the competent authority probably thought best to omit the genuflections from this form of the rite so that it would be as widely applicable as possible and not give rise to endless discussions based on the particular feasibility in each circumstance.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Leavened vs. Unleavened Bread

ROME, JUNE 21, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

Among the readers who responded to our piece on the proper matter for the Eucharistic species and the danger of making it invalid through untoward additions (see June 7) a seminarian from Iowa asked the following:

"What would cause the real presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament to no longer be? You indicated that a host saturated with water would no longer contain the True Presence. However, a while back we had the gluten-free battles, which seemed to indicate even if there is any quantity of gluten in the host the True Presence would exist. How would saturation of the host change this? Furthermore, would there be a similar situation present somehow with the species of wine? It is necessary to add water to wine, but why would too much wine invalidate consecration, and what would be the factor for judging what is too much?"

Although similar, the two situations are not quite the same. The question regarding gluten refers to the minimum requirements necessary for bread to be considered as valid matter for effecting the consecration. The question regarding soaking a host in water or the addition of copious quantities of water to the Precious Blood refer to the integrity of the already consecrated species.

Christ's presence is tied to the integrity of the species. Once this integrity is gone, then Christ's real presence also disappears. Thus, although a host soaked in water may retain for a while some of the accidents of bread, it has undergone such a change that removes the presence.

Likewise, if the quantity of water added exceeds that of the Precious Blood, although similar in appearance, it is no longer integrally what it once was.

Although adding unconsecrated wine to the Precious Blood does not change the accidents in any way, I believe the effect is the same in destroying the integrity of the species as after the consecration we are no longer dealing with wine but with the Lord's Blood.

For precision's sake I would note that if altar bread were soaked or altar wine severely diluted before the consecration, they would no longer be valid material for confecting the Eucharist. However, if done after the consecration they would not, technically speaking, invalidate the consecration, but rather corrupt the species so that it no longer contains the Real Presence. The holy sacrifice of the Mass would still have been validly celebrated.

This could throw light on a related topic regarding the duration of Christ's presence in the communicant. It is important to remember that the graces received in Communion derive from the participation in the sacrifice and the act of receiving holy Communion.

The consideration of the actual physical duration of the Real Presence after Communion, while beneficial for personal devotion, makes practically no difference as to the grace received in the act of Communion itself. Thus even if it were true, as some experts sustain, that the disintegration of the host is almost immediate, there would still be multiple motives for remaining in thanksgiving after Communion.

An Arizona reader asked about a practice in her parish. She tells of "extra ciboria (there may be two or more) taken by the server and brought to the far side of the altar and left on the end of the altar. The priest during the time of consecration does not even acknowledge that they are there, and they are not moved to the middle of the altar on top of the corporal for consecration. They are not picked up until Communion by the priest, who then hands the ciboria to the extraordinary ministers of Communion."

Certainly all hosts to be consecrated should be placed on a corporal, preferably in front of the priest. If the space before the priest is insufficient, then another corporal may be placed on the altar to receive the ciboria. It might be that there is a corporal on the altar not visible from the pews. If there is no corporal, then the practice is liturgically deficient -- but it would not necessarily affect the consecration.

For a valid consecration it is sufficient that the priest be aware of the presence of the ciboria and have the intention of consecrating them or has a general intention of consecrating all that has been placed upon the altar for that purpose.

Another reader asked regarding the omission of the rite of adding water to the wine at the presentation of gifts. We have addressed this topic June 29 and July 13 of last year.

Sunday, June 19, 2005

Focused Link: What is God's Answer to Human Suffering?

This is an article by Peter Kreeft, which was excerpted from his book Making Sense Out of Suffering.

The full article can be viewed in this URL:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0189.html

*~*~*~*~*

For the problem (suffering) is about someone (God — why does he... why doesn't he ...?) rather than just something. To question God's goodness is not just an intellectual experiment. It is rebellion or tears. It is a little child with tears in its eyes looking up at Daddy and weeping, "Why?" This is not merely the philosophers' "why?" Not only does it add the emotion of tears but also it is asked in the context of relationship. It is a question put to the Father, not a question asked in a vacuum.

The hurt child needs not so much explanations as reassurances. And that is what we get: the reassurance of the Father in the person of Jesus, "he who has seen me has seen the Father" (Jn 14:9).

The answer is not just a word but the Word; not an idea but a person. Clues are abstract, persons are concrete. Clues are signs; they signify something beyond themselves, something real. Our solution cannot be a mere idea, however true, profound, or useful, because that would be only another sign, another finger, another clue — like fingers pointing to other fingers, like having faith in faith, or hope in hope, or being in love with love. A hall of mirrors.

Focused Link: Generation to Generation: Nurturing the Faith in Our Homes

This is an article by Kimberly Hahn, a convert to the Catholic faith and author of books such as Rome Sweet Home: Our Journey to Catholicism and Life-Giving Love: Embracing God's Beautiful Design for Marriage.

The full article can be viewed in this URL:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/parenting/pa0108.html

*~*~*~*~*

"If I become a Catholic, will my children be believers?" That may sound like a strange question, but it was the agony of my heart as I considered accompanying Scott on his faith journey into the Catholic Church. I knew how to communicate my faith as a Protestant, but could I learn to share my faith as a Catholic with my children and would I be supported by Catholics around me?

The answer is a resounding YES!

Friday, June 17, 2005

Speech: Benedict XVI on Anthropological Foundation of the Family

Dear Brothers and Sisters:

I was very pleased to accept the invitation to open this diocesan congress with a reflection, above all because it gives me the possibility to meet with you, to have direct contact, and also because it enables me to help you reflect further on the meaning and objective of the pastoral program being followed by the Church of Rome.

I affectionately greet each of you bishops, priests, men and women religious, and in particular you, the laity and families, who consciously assume these tasks of Christian commitment and testimony which have their roots in the sacrament of baptism and, for those who are married, in that of marriage. My heartfelt thanks to the cardinal vicar and to the spouses Luca and Adriana Pasquale, for the words they addressed to me in your name.

This congress, and the pastoral year to which it will offer guidelines, constitute a new stage in the endeavor the Church has begun, based on the diocesan synod, with the citizen mission so cherished by our beloved Pope John Paul II, in preparation for the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000. In that mission all the realities of our dioceses -- parishes, religious communities, associations and movements -- mobilized not only on the occasion of a mission to the people of Rome, but to be themselves "people of God on mission," putting into practice the wise expression of John Paul II: "Parish, look for yourself and find yourself outside yourself"; that is, in places where people live. In this way, in the course of the citizen mission, many thousands of Christians of Rome, in the main laymen, became missionaries and took the word of faith in the first place to families of the diverse neighborhoods of the city and later to various workplaces, hospitals, schools and universities, and realms of culture and free time.

After the Holy Year, my beloved predecessor requested that you not interrupt this endeavor, and that you not disperse the apostolic energies awakened and the fruits of grace that were gathered. Because of this, since the year 2001, the fundamental pastoral orientation of the diocese has been to establish the mission permanently, characterizing in a more-determined missionary way the life and activities of the parishes and of each of the other ecclesial realities. First of all I want to tell you that I wish to confirm this option fully: It is ever more necessary and has no alternatives, in a social and cultural context in which multiple forces act that tend to distance us from the faith and Christian life.

For two years now, the missionary commitment of the Church of Rome has concentrated above all on the family, not only because this fundamental human reality is subjected today to multiple difficulties and threats, and therefore is in particular need of being evangelized and supported concretely, but also because Christian families constitute a decisive resource for education in the faith, the building of the Church as communion and its capacity of missionary presence in the most varied situations of life, as well as to leaven in a Christian sense the culture and social structures.

We will also continue with these guidelines in the forthcoming pastoral year and for this reason the theme of our congress is "Family and Christian Community: Formation of the Person and Transmission of the Faith." The assumption with which one must begin to understand the mission of the family in the Christian community and its endeavors of formation of the person and transmission of the faith, continues to be always the meaning that marriage and the family have in the plan of God, Creator and Savior. This will be therefore the essence of my reflection this afternoon, referring to the teaching of the apostolic exhortation "Familiaris Consortio" (Part 2, Nos. 12-16).

Anthropological foundation of the family

Marriage and the family are not a casual sociological construct, fruit of particular historical and economic situations. On the contrary, the question of the right relationship between man and woman sinks its roots in the most profound essence of the human being, and can only find its answer in the latter. It cannot be separated from the always ancient and always new question of man about himself: Who am I? And this question, in turn, cannot be separated from the question about God: Does God exist? And, who is God? What is his face really like? The Bible's answer to these two questions is unitary and consequential: Man is created in the image of God, and God himself is love. For this reason, the vocation to love is what makes man the authentic image of God: He becomes like God in the measure that he becomes someone who loves.

From this fundamental bond between God and man another is derived: The indissoluble bond between spirit and body. Man is, in fact, soul that expresses itself in the body and [the] body that is vivified by an immortal spirit. Also, the body of man and of woman has, therefore, so to speak, a theological character, it is not simply body, and what is biological in man is not only biological, but an expression and fulfillment of our humanity. In this way, human sexuality is not next to our being person, but belongs to it. Only when sexuality is integrated in the person does it succeed in giving itself meaning.

In this way, from the two bonds, that of man with God and -- in man -- that of the body with the spirit, arises a third bond: the one that exists between person and institution. The totality of man includes the dimension of time, and man's "yes" goes beyond the present moment: In his totality, the "yes" means "always," it constitutes the area of fidelity. Only in his interior can this faith grow which gives a future and allows the children, fruit of love, to believe in man and in his future in difficult times.

The freedom of the "yes" appears therefore as freedom capable of assuming what is definitive: The highest expression of freedom is not therefore the pursuit of pleasure, without ever arriving at a genuine decision. Seemingly this permanent openness appears to be the realization of freedom, but it is not true: The true expression of freedom is, on the contrary, the capacity to decide for a definitive gift, in which freedom, by surrendering itself, finds itself fully again.

Concretely, the personal and reciprocal "yes" of man and woman opens space for the future, for the authentic humanity of each one, and at the same time is destined to the gift of a new life. For this reason, this personal "yes" must necessarily be a "yes" that is also publicly responsible, with which the spouses assume the public responsibility of faithfulness, which also guarantees the future for the community. None of us belongs exclusively to himself: Therefore, each one is called to assume in his deepest self his own public responsibility. Marriage, as an institution, is not therefore an undue interference of society or of the authorities, an imposition from outside in the most private reality of life; it is on the contrary an intrinsic exigency of the pact of conjugal love and of the depth of the human person.

The different present forms of the dissolution of marriage, as well as free unions and "trial marriage," including the pseudo-marriage between persons of the same sex, are on the contrary expressions of an anarchic freedom that appears erroneously as man's authentic liberation. A pseudo-freedom like this is based on a trivialization of the body, which inevitably includes the trivialization of man.

Its assumption is that man can make of himself what he likes: Thus his body becomes something secondary, which can be manipulated from the human point of view, which can be used as one pleases. Libertinism, which appears as discovery of the body and its value, is in reality a dualism that makes the body contemptible, leaving it so to speak outside the authentic being and dignity of the person.

Marriage and Family in the History of Salvation

The truth of marriage and the family, which sinks its roots in the truth of man, has found its application in the history of salvation, at whose center is the word: "God loves his people." In fact, biblical revelation is above all the expression of a history of love, the history of God's covenant with men. For this reason, God has been able to assume the history of love and of the union of a man and a woman in the covenant of marriage, as symbol of the history of salvation. The ineffable fact, the mystery of God's love for men, takes its linguistic form from the vocabulary of marriage and the family, both positive and negative: God's approach to his people is presented with the language of conjugal love, while Israel's infidelity, its idolatry, is designated as adultery and prostitution.

In the New Testament, God radicalizes his love until he becomes himself, through his Son, flesh of our flesh, authentic man. Thus, God's union with man has assumed its supreme, irreversible and definitive form. And in this way, the definitive form of human love is also drawn, that reciprocal "yes" that cannot be revoked. It does not alienate man, but liberates him from the alienations of history to return him to the truth of creation. The sacramental character that marriage assumes in Christ means, therefore, that the gift of creation has been raised to the grace of redemption. Christ's grace is not superimposed from outside of man's nature, it does not violate it, but liberates and restores it, by raising it beyond its frontiers. And just as the Incarnation of the Son of God reveals its true meaning in the cross, so also authentic human love is surrender of oneself; it cannot exist if it avoids the cross.

Dear Brothers and Sisters, this profound bond between God and man, between the love of God and human love, is also confirmed by some negative tendencies and developments, whose weight we all experience. The degradation of human love, the suppression of the authentic capacity to love appears in our time as the most effective weapon for man to crush God, to remove God from man's sight and heart. However, the desire to "liberate" God's nature makes one lose sight of the very reality of nature, including man's nature, reducing it to an ensemble of functions, which can be disposed of according to one's pleasure to build a so-called better world and a happier humanity. But on the contrary, the plan of the Creator is destroyed as is the truth of our nature.

Children

Also in the procreation of children, marriage reflects its divine model, the love of God for man. In man and woman, paternity and maternity, as happens with the body and with love, the biological aspect is not circumscribed: life is only given totally when with birth, love and meaning are also given, which make it possible to say yes to this life. Precisely because of this, it is clear to what point the systematic closing of the union itself to the gift of life and, even more, the suppression or manipulation of unborn life is contrary to human love, to the profound vocation of man and woman.

However, no man and no woman, on their own and by their own strength, can give love and the meaning of life adequately to their children. To be able to say to someone: "your life is good, even if I don't know your future," needs a superior authority and credibility which the individual cannot give himself on his own. The Christian knows that that authority is conferred to that larger family that God, through his Son, Jesus Christ, and the gift of the Holy Spirit, has created in the history of men, namely, to the Church. It acknowledges the action of that eternal and indestructible love that assures to the life of each one of us a permanent meaning, even if we do not know the future.

For this reason, the building of each of the Christian families is framed in the context of the great family of the Church, which supports and accompanies it, and guarantees that there is a meaning and that in the future there will be the "yes" of the Creator. And, reciprocally, the Church is built by families, "small domestic Churches," as Vatican Council II called them ("Lumen Gentium," 11; "Apostolicam Actuositatem," 11), rediscovering an ancient patristic expression (St. John Chrysostom, "In Genesim serm," VI,2; VII,1). In this connection, "Familiaris Consortio" affirms that "Christian marriage ... constitutes the natural place within which is carried out the insertion of the human person in the great family of the Church" (No. 15).

Family and Church

An obvious consequence derives from all of this: the family and the Church, specifically the parishes and the other forms of ecclesial community, are called to the most profound collaboration in that fundamental task that is constituted, inseparably, by the formation of the person and the transmission of the faith. We know well that for an authentic educational endeavor to take place, it is not enough to communicate a correct theory or doctrine. Something far greater and more human is needed -- that closeness, lived daily, which is proper to love and that finds its most propitious space above all in the family community, and afterwards in a parish or movement or ecclesial association, in which people are found who pay attention to their brothers, in particular, to children and youths, as well as to adults, the elderly, the sick, and families themselves because, in Christ, they love them. The great patron of educators, St. John Bosco, reminded his spiritual sons that "education is something of the heart and that God alone is its proprietor" ("Epistolario," 4, 209). The figure of the witness is central in the educational endeavor, and especially in education in the faith, which is the summit of the person's formation and his most appropriate horizon: the witness becomes a point of reference precisely in the measure in which he is able to defend the hope that is the basis of his life (see 1 Peter 3:15), and in the measure that the witness is personally involved with the truth he proposes. The witness, moreover, does not point to himself, but points to something, or rather to someone greater, whom he has encountered and experienced as trustworthy goodness. Thus, every educator and witness finds an unsurpassable model in Jesus Christ, the great witness of the Father, who said nothing on his own, but spoke exactly as the Father had taught him (see John 8:28).

This is the reason why at the basis of the Christian person's formation and of the transmission of the faith is necessarily prayer, personal friendship with Christ and contemplation in him of the Father's face. And the same may be said of all our missionary commitment, in particular, our family pastoral program: may the Family of Nazareth be, therefore, for our families and communities the object of constant and confident prayer, as well as model of life.

Dear Brothers and Sisters, and especially you, dear priests: I am aware of the generosity and selflessness with which you serve the Lord and his Church. Your daily work for the formation in the faith of new generations, in profound union with the sacraments of Christian initiation, as well as by preparation for marriage and support of families on their journey, which is often not easy, in particular the great task of the education of children, is the fundamental way to always regenerate the Church again and also to vivify the social fabric of our beloved city of Rome.

Threat of relativism

Continue, therefore, without allowing yourselves to be discouraged by the difficulties you meet. The educational relationship is, by its very nature, something delicate: it implies the other's freedom who, even with gentleness, is forced to make a decision. Neither parents, nor priests, nor catechists, nor other educators can substitute the freedom of the child, the boy, the youth whom they direct. And the Christian proposal interpolates freedom very profoundly, calling it to faith and conversion. A particularly insidious obstacle in the educational endeavor today is the massive presence in our society and culture of a relativism that, by not acknowledging anything as definitive, only has as its ultimate measure the "I" itself, with its tastes and which, with the appearance of freedom, becomes for each one a prison, as it separates from others, making each one find himself shut in within his own "I." In such a relativist horizon, therefore, an authentic education is not possible. Without the light of truth, sooner or later every person is condemned to doubt the goodness of his own life and the relationships that constitute it, the validity of his commitment to build with others something in common.

It is clear, therefore, that not only must we try to surmount the relativism in our work of formation of persons, but we are also called to confront its destructive dominance in society and culture. For this reason, it is very important that, in addition to the word of the Church, the testimony and public commitment of Christian families is given, in particular, to reaffirm the inviolability of human life from conception to its natural end, the unique and irreplaceable value of the family based on marriage and the need for legislative and administrative measures that support families in the task of begetting and educating children, essential task for our common future. For this commitment of yours I also give you my heartfelt thanks.

Priesthood and consecrated life

The last message I would like to leave with you concerns attention to vocations to the priesthood and to consecrated life. We all know the need the Church has! For these vocations to be born and to mature, for the persons called to keep themselves always worthy of their vocation, prayer is, above all, decisive; it must never be lacking in each of the families and in the Christian community. But also fundamental is the testimony of life of priests, men and women religious, the joy they express for having been called by the Lord. And, essential likewise is the example that children receive within their own family and the families' conviction that the children's vocations are also for them a great gift of the Lord. The option for virginity for love of God and of brothers, which is required for the priesthood and consecrated life, is accompanied by the appreciation of Christian marriage: one and the other, with two different and complementary forms, make visible in a certain sense the mystery of the covenant between God and his people.

Dear Brothers and Sisters, I commend these reflections to you as a contribution to your work in the evenings of the congress and later during the next pastoral year. I pray that the Lord will give you courage and enthusiasm so that our Church of Rome, every parish, every religious community, association or movement will participate intensely in the joy and effort of the mission and in this way every family and the whole Christian community will rediscover in the love of the Lord the key that opens the door of hearts and that makes possible an authentic education in the faith and in the formation of persons. My affection and blessing accompany you today and in the future.

Wednesday, June 15, 2005

Wednesday Liturgy: Dramatic Readings at Mass

ROME, JUNE 14, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

Q: If a reader at the Mass proclaims the passage with appropriate facial expressions, sufficient gestures of hands and right modulation of voice, only to bring out different characters and emotions concealed in the passage, would it go against the spirit of liturgy? -- M.G., Bangalore, India

A: The General Instruction of the Roman Missal touches upon this subject in No. 38 regarding "The Vocal Expression of the Different Texts":

"In texts that are to be spoken in a loud and clear voice, whether by the priest or the deacon, or by the lector, or by all, the tone of voice should correspond to the genre of the text itself, that is, depending upon whether it is a reading, a prayer, a commentary, an acclamation, or a sung text; the tone should also be suited to the form of celebration and to the solemnity of the gathering. Consideration should also be given to the idiom of different languages and the culture of different peoples.

"In the rubrics and in the norms that follow, words such as 'say' and 'proclaim' are to be understood of both singing and reciting, according to the principles just stated above."

Thus the text refers above all to tone of voice and makes no mention of accompanying a reading with facial expressions or gestures.

This would be in conformity with the traditional sobriety of the Roman Rite and with the ministerial nature of such services as reading.

The fundamental criterion is, I believe, that of service to God's Word. The task of the lector is to bring out and proclaim the sense of the divine message to the best of his or her ability while avoiding drawing attention to the person doing the reading either by dress or manner.

There is also perhaps some danger of a reader imposing his or her interpretation of the emotions concealed in the passage rather than allowing God's word to speak heart-to-heart to each member of the assembly.

Hence some variation in intonation is desirable in order to clarify the sense of the text, distinguish a question from an admonition, a cry for mercy from its granting, etc.

Using an unvarying deadpan tone, or monotonous drawl for every passage is a disservice to God's Word and to the assembly. But any hint of acting, whether by facial expressions, gestures, changing intonation or voices for different characters, should be avoided as they tend to draw attention away from the text and toward the reader.

The traditional Latin tones for singing the readings could suggest a model for reading the sacred texts, or even compose new vernacular tones for singing the Scripture as has been successfully achieved in some languages.

Singing the texts, at least on solemn occasions, reminds us that this is no ordinary text but God's Word to us. It also fixes the attention very much on the Word itself.

The traditional tones come in several variations. There are slightly different tones used for the Old Testament, the epistles and for the Gospels. Within the reading, slight variations of rhythm and intonation bring out questions and different characters so as to highlight the meaning of the text.

At the same time, the need to submit oneself to singing a simple but common tone eliminates most of the reader/cantor's personal traits while emphasizing the attitude of service to something greater than oneself.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Who's First in a Procession

ROME, JUNE 14, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

An Ohio reader has made an interesting point with respect to my interpretation of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal regarding the possibility of non-instituted lectors carrying the Gospel in the entrance processions (see May 31).

He asserts that sometimes the word "lector" is used in an expanded sense to include the commissioned reader as in GIRM, No. 135: "If no lector is present, the priest himself proclaims all the readings and the Psalm, standing at the ambo."

If this were the case it would remove all doubt as to the legitimacy of having readers who were not instituted lectors from carrying the Gospel. I think our reader's close reading of the GIRM has a high degree of probability but, even if this were not so, I still believe that it would be allowable as a custom interpretative of law.

I may be beyond my ken in venturing into canonical epistemology but, as mentioned before in our final follow-up on blessings, that is how I see the interpretation of this kind of law.

A Canadian correspondent asked about the following directive given, in the name of a bishop, by a pastor in the United States: "Ordinarily, lectors (readers), unless carrying the Book of the Gospels, and extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, whose ministries are limited to specific moments, do not process, nor are they seated in the sanctuary." The correspondent asked for a possible reference to this directive.

The GIRM simply mentions "other ministers" who may participate in the procession without specifying who they are or any degree of obligation as to their participation.

No. 294 of the GIRM does indicate that, if possible, lectors should have a place in the presbytery. But that does not necessarily mean participation in the procession.

I believe that this is a prudential decision to be made at the local level in accordance with the demands of space, logistics and pastoral needs.

A bishop would be perfectly within his rights to determine which of these "other ministers" enter in procession so as to ensure a broad uniformity of practice within the diocese.

Likewise, it falls within the range of responsibilities of a pastor, in organizing the liturgy in his parish, to decide how to apply the liturgical norms to the concrete situation of his church, especially with regard to aspects where the law allows for various possibilities.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: 2nd Batch of Hosts, Continued

ROME, JUNE 14, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

Thanks be to God for our careful readers who manage to keep me orthodox in spite of myself.

In our follow-up regarding adding water to the chalice after the consecration (see May 31) I said that the corruption of the species of wine "would be practically certain to have happened if the quantity of water were more than half. In such a case, those who received this mixture would have received only Christ's Body during Communion."

The point I, maladroitly, tried to make was that the mixture no longer contained Christ's real presence. However, the phrasing could easily be understood that one did not receive the whole Christ: body, blood, soul and divinity, under the species of bread alone. Likewise, in those special cases where, for medical reasons, a person receives only the Precious Blood, he also receives the whole Christ. I apologize for any confusion or distress I may have caused.

Although receiving Communion under both species is more perfect from the point of view of the sign, and Church law now gives fairly wide leeway to bishops to grant this permission, the distribution of the Eucharist under the species of bread alone remains the ordinary mode of Communion in the Church.

I will take the opportunity to answer some other questions that arose in this context.
A Virginia reader asks: "Regarding 'homemade' bread with additional matter (other than flour and water), it is my understanding that because it is invalid matter it cannot be transubstantiated into Jesus' Body and Blood. I assume the Mass is also invalid. Is this correct?"
While there is no absolute prohibition on using homemade bread that respects the conditions for valid matter, it is usually not very practical. The making of hosts is something of an art and homemade hosts are often flaky and brittle.

If, in addition, other elements are added (for example, sugar, molasses or honey), the probability that it is no longer valid matter is very high although one would have to examine each case on its merits. As "Redemptionis Sacramentum," No. 48, says:

"The bread used in the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice must be unleavened, purely of wheat, and recently made so that there is no danger of decomposition. It follows therefore that bread made from another substance, even if it is grain, or if it is mixed with another substance different from wheat to such an extent that it would not commonly be considered wheat bread, does not constitute valid matter for confecting the Sacrifice and the Eucharistic Sacrament. It is a grave abuse to introduce other substances, such as fruit or sugar or honey, into the bread for confecting the Eucharist. Hosts should obviously be made by those who are not only distinguished by their integrity, but also skilled in making them and furnished with suitable tools."

The Church requires certainty and not probability as to the validity of the sacraments. Thus, doubtful matter may never be used in any circumstances whatsoever. A priest who finds himself in such a situation should not proceed with the celebration until all doubt has been removed.

A Scottish priest asks: "Is reception under both kinds necessary for validity for clergy to have said Mass at a concelebration? Linked to that, if a priest has not received under both kinds at a Mass at which he is a concelebrant, may he still take a stipend?"

Strictly speaking, except in the case of a priest who, due to illness, has been granted special permission from the bishop to receive under one species, reception of Communion under both kinds is necessary for all concelebrants for a licit celebration. But it would not normally be required for validity as the Mass -- that is, the full consecration -- was celebrated and at least the main celebrant consumed both under both species.

Thus, if due to some accident, a concelebrant was unable to receive from the chalice, he may receive a regular stipend if this is his only Mass that day. A priest may never receive a stipend for a concelebrated Mass if he celebrates another Mass on the same day -- for example, at his parish and at a funeral. He may offer the concelebrated Mass for any intention he wishes but without receiving a stipend.

The situation of an invalid participation in a concelebration might arise if a priest where to join in, so to speak, as an uninvited guest, and where from the beginning there is no possibility of full and licit participation.

I have unfortunately seen this happen at papal Masses where attending priests pull a stole out of the pocket and pronounce the words of consecration. There are several liturgical and theological reasons to doubt the validity of this procedure although the question has not yet been addressed officially.

Sunday, June 12, 2005

Metanarrative: My Bleach character

Nothing. Just to balance out this blog. Here's my character after taking a personality quiz.


The Pope's Angelus: On the Importance of Sunday Mass (June 12)

Dear Brothers and Sisters!

The Year of the Eucharist continues, called by our beloved Pope John Paul II, to reawaken ever more, in the consciences of believers, wonder toward this great Sacrament. In this singular Eucharistic time, one of the recurring topics is Sunday, the Day of the Lord, a topic that was also at the center of the recent Italian Eucharistic Congress, held in Bari. During the conclusive celebration, I also underlined how participation at Sunday Mass must be seen by a Catholic not as an imposition or a weight, but as a need and joy. To meet with brothers, to listen to the Word of God and to be nourished of Christ, immolated for us, is an experience that gives meaning to life, which infuses peace in the heart. Without Sunday, we Catholics cannot live.

For this reason parents are called to make their children discover the value and importance of the response to Christ's invitation, who calls the whole Christian family to Sunday Mass. In this educational endeavor, a particularly significant stage is the first Communion, a real celebration for the parish community, which receives for the first time its smallest children at the Lord's Table.

To underline the importance of this event for the family and the parish, next October 15, God willing, I will have in the Vatican a special meeting of catechesis for children, in particular of Rome and Latium, who during this year have received their first Communion. This festive gathering will fall almost at the end of the Year of the Eucharist, while the Ordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops is under way, centered on the Eucharistic mystery. It will be an opportune and beautiful circumstance to confirm the essential role that the sacrament of the Eucharist has in the formation and spiritual growth of children.

From now on I entrust this meeting to the Virgin Mary, that she may teach us to love Jesus ever more, in constant meditation of his Word and adoration of his Eucharistic presence, and help us to make young generations discover the "precious pearl" of the Eucharist, which gives true and full meaning to life.

Thursday, June 09, 2005

Article: Family as the Seedbed of Vocations

This article was written by Fr. C.J. McCloskey back in 1999. It's about the intrinsic role of the family in facilitating the specific vocation of each of its members.

*~*~*~*~*

We know that the core teaching of the Second Vatican Council is the radical call of all to holiness. However, we also know that God calls a chosen few, that should be many, to follow him even more closely in a life of apostolic celibacy for the kingdom of God, whether it be as a priest, religious, or layperson. The founder of Opus Dei once remarked that those called by God owe ninety percent of their vocation to their parents. The family is the seedbed of vocations.

Saint John Bosco was reported as saying that one out of every ten Catholic men has a vocation to the priesthood. We could say that he employed the word men in the inclusive sense and say that one out of every ten persons has a specific supernatural calling from God. Perhaps this is the Lord’s way of assuring a total tithing of his children. He has no interest in money but has a total commitment to his children as a loving Father.

One of the greatest hopes of any Catholic family should be to have one, or more, of their children to be chosen in a special way by God for his service. Traditionally, this has meant a vocation to the diocesan priesthood or one of the religious congregations. In a specific sense we are referring to the priesthood, the religious life, or to one of the various movements and institutions for laypeople that enable them to dedicate themselves totally to God in the middle of the world. These new institutions are highly favored by the Church as a means of complete dedication to the apostolate as we approach the millennium.

Nowadays, it is more and more recognized that the vocation to apostolic celibacy for the kingdom of God is also a viable choice for the layperson. Indeed, the Church has made it quite clear through its enthusiastic endorsement of the need and efficacy of specific vocations to the various movements and institutions of the Church that are lay-oriented.

However, it is no secret that generally, with some few notable exceptions in some few dioceses and religious congregations, vocations have been in sharp decline in Europe and North America over the last forty years while on a steady but unspectacular rise throughout the rest of the world during the pontificate of John Paul II. There are a variety of reasons for this decline in the West. We could cite contraception producing smaller families, general affluence resulting in the bourgeois spirit producing a consequent lack of generosity, lack of catechesis, the general confusion in the Church, the sexual revolution and the consequent lost of innocence resulting in cynicism and hedonism among young people where ideals should be high, the sad example of tens of thousands of married couples and priests and religious who have not been faithful to their commitments to God and the Church, and each other. However, the example of holiness is a much more powerful influence on young people if they are brought up in such a way as to appreciate it. Witness the impact of John Paul II, Mother Teresa, the new Doctor of the Church Saint Therese of Lisieux, Blessed Josemaria Escriva, the founder of Opus Dei and so many others. Look at the World Youth Days in Czestochowa, Denver, and Paris with their millions of young people united in prayer and sacrifice, and apostolic zeal with the Holy Father and the Church.

The family atmosphere in which vocations are bred, nourished, and readied for fruition really is no different than what any serious Catholic parents would want to create for their children in order to prepare them for holy marriages and to give a Christian witness in the world. As the noted family expert Jim Stenson has remarked, parents should form their children with their vision pointed into the not too-distant future when their children will marry and have children of their own. They are preparing their children to be responsible, faithful adult Catholics and family persons who will build up the Church, society, and culture.

Catholic parents who want to produce vocations for the Church have to be ready to be heroically counter cultural. As the old Beatles song put it, "It don’t come easy." Putting it mildly, the world appears designed at the moment to thwart people, particularly young people, from even entertaining the thought of complete dedication to God. I like to speak of three particularly strong influences on young people today. One, the general culture; two, the educationally system; three, the family environment. Hopefully, at least two out of three would be positive influences to create a favorable environment for young men and women to commit themselves totally to God. Unfortunately this is not the case. The secular educational system, from top to bottom, as presently constituted, represents the ideology of secular humanism as the norm; the general culture appears designed by a demonic Intelligence to destroy any notion of beauty or truth in any young mind or heart. This leaves the family which is under unprecedented attack by the aforementioned forces and others apparently left alone to fend for itself. However, the reigning Pontiff John Paul II tells us that us the future passes through the family. I, with him, bet on the family. It has a long track record of survival. Be sure to read his Letter to Families for some hopeful and helpful advice.

What can parents to do to create an environment where one or some of their children will discern a specific call from God to follow him completely? They should want to foster a family life where it is natural to be generous, to make a sincere gift of oneself to others. Here a few ideas:

Parents must be their children’s best friends. To win and keep children’s friendship is a daunting but joyful task. You must show your trust for them and respect for their freedom from an early age trusting that the Holy Spirit is already at work in their soul from Baptism. You may sometimes be disappointed but your children will realize that your love is unconditional. Speak often positively about the Church and the greatness of being called to a life of dedication in it. Never speak negatively about persons who have dedicated their lives to God no matter what their human failings might be. Your children should know that you pray for them every day, that they be holy and happy and generous to whatever God calls them. They must know that while you are concerned with their education, health, achievements, career prospects, these are all secondary to their being virtuous and happy in this life and saved in the next.

Foster a simple life of piety in the home adjusted to the condition and ages of the children. It should leave the children asking for more, not begging for less. The Cure of Ars was once asked by parents what they could best do for their children. He said simply to bring them frequently to Jesus in the Eucharist and in the Sacrament of Penance. Figure out how you can do this respecting their freedom yet making it attractive.

What is most important is their seeing you lead a more devout life than they. They will watch you pray, go to Mass, go to confession, read the Sacred Scripture, pray the Rosary, and so on. They will see that the liturgical calendar is the most important one for their family and that you celebrate accordingly. They will also see you make sacrifices in order to do so. Pleasing God, not men, will thus become the priority in their life also.

Teach them to value poverty and detachment. Keep them short on money. Do not let them indiscriminately acquire things or to measure people by the amount of their possessions. Teach them to make things last and how to go without happily. Teach them how to share cheerfully. Make sure they spend their summers productively. That often times will mean they work and/or spend time in generously serving others less fortunate than themselves.

Expose them according to their age and ability to "take it," to misery. Soup kitchens, nursing homes, and hospital for incurables including for children should be places where, over time, they feel comfortable. One of the most effective ways to assure this quality of generosity is simply to have a large family and to treasure the children God has sent to you. This will help them to place the person and not the pleasure or object at the heart of their moral universe. The greatest gift you can give to your children is more brothers and sisters. Persons are not things. Thus too they will never see another person as a means or an object but rather as another Christ whom it is their privilege to serve.

Instill an appreciation of beauty, whether it be in nature, literature, music, or art. The books, magazines, compact disks, videos, musical instruments, and art that you have in your house, the television shows that you watch together, and the family excursions that you take will prepare them to appreciate the goodness of the material world that God has created and redeemed. They will also understand and despise by contrast the culture of death, which kills both the body and the soul. Beware of leaving your children alone with the television or computer, particularly as regards games and the Internet. They should be considered as dangerous substances easily subject to abuse and thus closely supervised and controlled. All of this will prepare them, as they mature, to be more reflective, and contemplative thus more able to wisely discern and answer God’s call.

Take special care with their formation outside the house. Encourage them to have a wide variety of friends with whom they can share the joy of your own family life. By the time they graduate from high school they simply must have an excellent grasp of Catholic teaching in its doctrine and morality and be able to give an account to others of the hope that is within them. This is your primary responsibility. Every family has different financial circumstances and choices. It may be home schooling, the parochial or private school, or even the public school. It is not simply a question of choice, however. Christian parents have a serious responsibility to improve all varieties of education, always insisting on the primary responsibility of parents for their children’s education.

If need be, you may have to teach them the Faith yourselves but in any case you must not send them off to college as innocent lambs ready for the slaughter. Believe me, there are plenty of wolves out there. Introduce them to the saints as their role models while also encouraging them to imitate the virtues of the great men and women of history. Remember you are preparing them for a life of service and dedication to God and not necessarily in the convent, monastery, or rectory. You may also want to encourage them, gently, to participate in Catholic programs for youth that are sound, demanding, and fun. It may be there that they first come in contact with those other mentors and new friends who will introduce them more concretely to the possibility of a life of total dedication.

These are just a few ideas. You yourselves will have others. Nobody knows your children better than you do or loves them more save God Himself. Vocations are a supply-side phenomenon. Supply creates demand. If you supply (offer) your children to God through your prayer and careful preparation, He will match you by taking them and through His grace and their collaboration. Don’t forget the shortcut of entrusting them to Mary, the Mother of God. If our Lady takes a special liking to them, her Son will form them into the new evangelizers of the third millennium. You will lift a hymn of thanksgiving to God for rewarding your generosity by calling one of yours to be a special one of His. And if your children don’t receive a divine vocation which is unlikely if you follow the advice given above? Don’t worry, your grandchildren will. You cannot outdo God in generosity.

Wednesday, June 08, 2005

Wednesday Liturgy: Leavened vs. Unleavened Bread

ROME, JUNE 7, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

Q: Is the use of "real bread" with yeast, and other ingredients valid matter for consecration? If it is not, why is it valid matter in Byzantine Churches in union with Rome? I've seen priests "consecrate" rolls, etc., and break it for distribution; while it is not licit, does it affect the validity of the consecration? Speaking of matter for validity: Is the use of pure grape juice by an alcoholic priest who is in recovery still considered valid matter? I know an indult was available for these priests in the '70s and '80s but I thought it had been withdrawn -- which could endanger the sobriety of some of our priests. -- J.L., Sydney, Nova Scotia

A: This topic is dealt with most recently in the instruction "Redemptionis Sacramentum," Nos. 48-50, which states:

"[48] The bread used in the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice must be unleavened, purely of wheat, and recently made so that there is no danger of decomposition. It follows therefore that bread made from another substance, even if it is grain, or if it is mixed with another substance different from wheat to such an extent that it would not commonly be considered wheat bread, does not constitute valid matter for confecting the Sacrifice and the Eucharistic Sacrament. It is a grave abuse to introduce other substances, such as fruit or sugar or honey, into the bread for confecting the Eucharist. Hosts should obviously be made by those who are not only distinguished by their integrity, but also skilled in making them and furnished with suitable tools.

"[49] By reason of the sign, it is appropriate that at least some parts of the Eucharistic Bread coming from the fraction should be distributed to at least some of the faithful in Communion. 'Small hosts are, however, in no way ruled out when the number of those receiving Holy Communion or other pastoral needs require it,' and indeed small hosts requiring no further fraction ought customarily to be used for the most part.

"[50] The wine that is used in the most sacred celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice must be natural, from the fruit of the grape, pure and incorrupt, not mixed with other substances. During the celebration itself, a small quantity of water is to be mixed with it. Great care should be taken so that the wine intended for the celebration of the Eucharist is well conserved and has not soured. It is altogether forbidden to use wine of doubtful authenticity or provenance, for the Church requires certainty regarding the conditions necessary for the validity of the sacraments. Nor are other drinks of any kind to be admitted for any reason, as they do not constitute valid matter."

Although this document is written primarily for the Latin Church, what it says about the requirements for the validity of Eucharistic species also serves for the Eastern Churches, but not necessarily what refers to licit matter which may vary among Churches.

The use or omission of leaven in baking bread does not affect the reality of the end product as true bread. And so both leavened and unleavened bread are valid matter for the Eucharist.
The traditional use of unleavened bread in the Latin Church is a requirement for the Eucharist's licit celebration. A priest who consecrates a roll, bun or some other form of true wheat bread containing leaven performs a valid but illicit act.

Most Eastern Churches traditionally use leavened bread for the Eucharist and this would be a requirement for the licit celebration of the Eucharist in those Churches.

It must be observed, however, that one or two movements or associations of faithful within the Latin Church have received permission to use leavened bread within the context of Mass celebrated exclusively for members of the group or association.

The question of the validity of the use of "mustum," or grape juice, for priests suffering from alcoholism or for some other medical reason was finally resolved by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1994 in a letter signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger which also dealt with the question of low-gluten bread.

This letter stated:

"A. The preferred solution continues to be communion 'per intinctionem,' or in concelebration under the species of bread alone.

"B. Nevertheless, the permission to use 'mustum' can be granted by ordinaries to priests affected by alcoholism or other conditions which prevent the ingestion of even the smallest quantity of alcohol, after presentation of a medical certificate.

"C. By 'mustum' is understood fresh juice from grapes or juice preserved by suspending its fermentation (by means of freezing or other methods which do not alter its nature).

"D. In general, those who have received permission to use 'mustum' are prohibited from presiding at concelebrated Masses. There may be some exceptions however: in the case of a bishop or superior general; or, with prior approval of the ordinary, at the celebration of the anniversary of priestly ordination or other similar occasions. In these cases the one who presides is to communicate under both the species of bread and that of 'mustum,' while for the other concelebrants a chalice shall be provided in which normal wine is to be consecrated.

"E. In the very rare instances of laypersons requesting this permission, recourse must be made to the Holy See."

The document required furthermore that the ordinary must ascertain that the matter used conforms to the above requirements; that he grant permission only for as long as the situation continues which motivated the request; and that scandal be avoided.

Finally, it disposed that due to the centrality of the celebration of the Eucharist in the life of the priest, those who suffer from a condition that would impede the normal reception of the Eucharistic species may not be admitted to holy orders.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Blessings for Non-communicants, Continued

ROME, JUNE 7, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

*~*~*~*~*

The theme of blessings for non-communicants (see May 10 and 24) has struck a chord, albeit a sometimes dissonant one, in many readers. For this reason I will revisit the theme once more.

(Before embarking, however, I would like to thank the kind reader who made me realize that I pertain to the ranks of the grammatically challenged by confusing the first and third person plural in my previous follow-up.)

One reader proposed that accepting the possibility of this blessing of non-communicants went against the principle that "liturgical documents are prohibitive of all that they do not prescribe."
While in no means in favor of liturgical inventiveness, I do not believe this to be a valid principle in interpreting liturgical law.

Liturgical norms have several levels ranging from the Divine decree (such as the essential elements of the sacraments) to precepts descriptive of prevalent customs, the latter constituting the vast majority of liturgical norms.

The different levels do not lessen their value as true laws, which require obedience. But they are usually content to set out a general scheme with no desire to rigidly set every gesture to the exclusion of all others.

For example, in a recent controversy regarding some bishop's forbidding the faithful to kneel after Communion until everybody had received, the Holy See stated: "The … prescription of the 'Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani,' no. 43, 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."

The same could be said about other acts of private fervor such as making a sign of the cross after receiving Communion.

Since much liturgical law is grounded in custom, canonists generally admit that, according to canons 23-28, some ecclesial communities have the capacity to introduce customs that either interpret the law, or fill a vacuum or silence regarding the law.

Many, but not all, liturgical canonists deny that a community may establish a custom contrary to the law. They also discuss the relative capacity of the diocese or the bishops' conference to introduce customs in liturgical matters.

Even admitting the ability of these entities to introduce customs, since Church law already has official mechanisms for adapting the liturgy to local needs, these should be respected so as to avoid any cause of doubt or unnecessary conflict.

Historically, the use of customs that either interpret the law or establish practices to adapt to situations or conditions not expressly covered by the law, are frequent.

Even in the far more minutely regulated liturgy before the Second Vatican Council there where many particular customs that responded to concrete pastoral needs. For example, in the Baltic country of Latvia, the Catholic minority -- hemmed in on one side by a branch of Lutheranism that conserved many Catholic trappings and on the other by the Russian Orthodox -- developed a strong tradition of congregational singing not foreseen in the rubrics and quite different from the liturgical practice of neighboring Lithuania, where Catholics constituted the majority.

On the other hand, several other readers did express a fear that the introduction of the blessing for those not receiving Communion breached the general liturgical norm that "Therefore, absolutely no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority" ("Sacrosanctum Concilium," No. 22).

Here we are on different terrain. Even if we were to accept that the blessing offered to non-communicants could be established as a legitimate custom that responds to new pastoral demands, not foreseen in the law itself, it is clear that it is not incumbent on the individual priest to introduce a novel rite into the Communion procession.

Finally, even if we were to accept the (still hypothetical) legitimacy of this custom, I would be personally hesitant to generalize its use beyond those areas where it has proved a useful pastoral solution to specific problems for relatively small groups.

I also see no pastoral advantage in using it for children before their first Communion. A child who observes parents and siblings approaching the altar should have a greater sense of hope and desire to be able to participate just as they do.

As we mentioned before, a blessing in this case could even weaken the awareness of the greatness and uniqueness of holy Communion. It can also cause pastoral problems insofar as it is an easy custom to introduce but, once in, very difficult to renege upon, due to parental sensitivity.

Wednesday, June 01, 2005

Wednesday Liturgy: Who Goes First in a Procession

ROME, MAY 31, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

Q: I am an extraordinary minister of holy Communion, which in the Archdiocese of Manila is limited to men. My question involves the order in which the servers enter during the processional. There is confusion on who would enter first -- the reader carrying the lectionary, or the extraordinary minister of holy Communion. The woman who carries the lectionary is under the impression that she should enter before the priest because she carries the Word of God, and therefore is more important than someone whose role is merely to dispense the holy Communion. Is she correct? -- A.P., Manila, Philippines

A: There are really several questions involved. One regards whether the reader should carry in the lectionary; the other, concerns the order of procession.

Regarding these questions the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM), No. 120, states:

"Once the people have gathered, the priest and ministers, clad in the sacred vestments, go in procession to the altar in this order:

"The thurifer carrying a thurible with burning incense, if incense is used;

"The ministers who carry lighted candles, and between them an acolyte or other minister with the cross;

"The acolytes and the other ministers;

"A lector, who may carry the Book of the Gospels (though not the Lectionary), which should be slightly elevated;

"The priest who is to celebrate the Mass.

"If incense is used, before the procession begins, the priest puts some in the thurible and blesses it with the Sign of the Cross without saying anything."

This would be the plan in a parish Mass without a deacon. If a deacon is present he should carry the Book of the Gospels.

Note that the norm above is quite clear: Only the Book of the Gospels is carried in procession, not the lectionary.

The Book of the Gospels is either an elegant book containing the official liturgical text of the Gospels, or a book in which the Gospel texts used in the liturgy are already divided up and ordered according to the times and seasons of the year.

These books are also frequently decorated with elaborate covers in metal, cloth or leather. They are usually quite expensive and not all parishes have them. Indeed, some countries have yet to print them in the local tongue and have recourse to Gospels in Latin or another language into which they insert a copy of the Gospel of the day.

Although the whole Bible is God's word, all liturgical traditions accord special treatment to the Gospels --it is placed upon the altar before use, carried between candles, its reading or singing is reserved to the ordained, and all stand while it is being read.

If the parish uses only the lectionary (the book containing all of the readings) then it is placed at the ambo before Mass and no book is carried during the entrance procession.

As mentioned above, the Gospels are usually carried by the deacon or, if lacking, an instituted lector.

It does not appear that the liturgical norms, as written, foresee that the Book of the Gospels be carried by a lay person, male or female, who acts as a substitute reader for an instituted lector as the norms mention only that the lector may be substituted for the readings and omit any mention of carrying the Gospels.

However, since this practice is in fact quite widespread and has not been expressly forbidden, perhaps a fairly good case could be made that it has gained the force of custom.

Therefore if the lector, or on the presupposition that it is permitted, the substitute reader, carries the Gospels, his or her position is right in front of the priest.

If the Gospels are not used, then the reader(s) may follow after the acolytes and other ministers (including extraordinary ministers of holy Communion) mentioned above.

However, there is no obligation for extraordinary ministers of Communion (or readers for that matter) to take part in the entrance procession at all. They may be in their places from before Mass if the logistics of the church building and the sanctuary space augur against complicated processions.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: 2nd Batch of Hosts

ROME, MAY 31, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

Several questions have matured from our discussion on the consecration of a second batch of hosts during Mass (see May 17).

Priests from India and Indonesia suggested that a possible solution to a shortage of consecrated hosts would be to dip unconsecrated hosts in the chalice as a means of distributing Communion only under the species of Blood.

While this suggestion was made in obvious good faith, it is not viable as this practice has been explicitly rejected in No. 104 of the instruction "Redemptionis Sacramentum":

"The communicant must not be permitted to intinct the host himself in the chalice, nor to receive the intincted host in the hand. As for the host to be used for the intinction, it should be made of valid matter, also consecrated; it is altogether forbidden to use non-consecrated bread or other matter."

A seminarian from Manila asked for a clarification regarding the principle to be applied if a priest is informed after Mass that he forgot to consecrate the chalice.

The principle was that of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, No. 324, in which the priest should place wine and water in the chalice and, in order to complete the sacrifice, reverently recite only that part of the consecration pertaining to the chalice, and immediately consume it. If necessary, he may perform this act privately, but should do so without any delay whatsoever.

This situation is different from one illustrated by a reader from the United Kingdom in which a priest forgot to receive from the chalice before distributing Communion and remembered only after the chalice had been emptied.

Technically this would be called an irregularity, as the priest is obliged to receive under both kinds. This error also occurs sometimes at large concelebrations at which, due to lack of careful planning, some priests are left by the wayside in the distribution of the chalice.

While it should not happen, it does not affect the validity of the Mass for either priest or faithful. The only thing to be done about it is to learn the lesson the hard way, ask forgiveness for any culpable negligence, and be more careful and attentive the next time.

A Hartford, Connecticut, reader asked about the following situation: "Before distribution of the consecrated elements, the celebrant requested a server to bring a large pitcher of water to the altar, and added more water to the already consecrated wine, presumably to ensure that there would be enough for the more than 300 people in attendance. This was quite surprising to me, and would seem to possibly compromise the integrity of the species of the Precious Blood of Christ. Was this Mass invalid because of the addition of water to the Precious Blood?"

Once more, this action, while very illicit, would not affect the validity of the Mass as such. It could however, depending on the quantity of water added to the Precious Blood, corrupt the integrity of the species so that it no longer contained the real presence of Christ.

This would be practically certain to have happened if the quantity of water were more than half. In such a case, those who received this mixture would have received only Christ's Body during Communion. The priest would be gravely responsible for having induced them into unknowingly committing a material act of idolatry in receiving a mixture that was not Christ's Precious Blood.

The corruption of the species would be more doubtful in the case of a lesser quantity of water. But this would never justify the lack of respect shown toward Our Lord by ever adding a non-consecrated substance (whether water or even more wine) to the Precious Blood out of utilitarian motives.

Besides, this process is never necessary, even if the amount of Precious Blood be deemed insufficient for those present. The option of administrating both species by intinction always remains open. And should even this be impracticable, there is never an obligation to distribute under both kinds.

As in the previous case of a shortage of hosts, a priestly apology is simply the best solution.

Another reader asked about the precise moment of the transformation of the bread and wine into Christ's Body and Blood. We have already touched upon this theme in our answer and corresponding follow-up of Nov. 25 and Dec. 9, 2003.