Catholic Metanarrative

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Wednesday Liturgy: Why the Creed Doesn't Mention the Eucharist

ROME, JUNE 27, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: Could you tell me why, in our profession of faith and creed, we don't profess our belief in the Real Presence of the body and blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist? -- D.K., Norwalk, Connecticut

A: The reasons are above all historical but also involve the purpose of the liturgy itself.

From a historical perspective the creed as we know it was first sketched out at the Councils of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381) although in its developed form it first appears in the acts of the Council of Chalcedon (451).

This creed was probably based on a baptismal profession of faith and encapsulated what were perceived as the essential tenets of the faith.

Above all it was a response to Arian and other heresies and defended the doctrine of the Trinity and Christ's true humanity and divinity. It was never intended to be an exhaustive exposition of every aspect of the faith.

Since it was necessary to defend the very foundations of the faith, such questions as the nature of the Eucharist were simply not on the theological horizon and would not be for several centuries more.

Also, during this early period, the fullness of Eucharistic doctrine was often explained only after baptism -- thus only after the new Christian had publicly recited the creed.

The practice of reciting the creed at Mass is attributed to Patriarch Timothy of Constantinople (511-517), and the initiative was copied in other churches under Byzantine influence, including that part of Spain which was under the empire at that time.

About 568, the Byzantine emperor Justinian ordered the creed recited at every Mass within his dominions. Twenty years later (589) the Visigoth king of Spain Reccared renounced the Arian heresy in favor of Catholicism and ordered the creed said at every Mass.

About two centuries later we find the practice of reciting the creed in France and the custom spread slowly to other parts of Northern Europe.

Finally, when in 1114, Emperor Henry II came to Rome for his coronation as Holy Roman Emperor, he was surprised that they did not recite the creed. He was told that since Rome had never erred in matters of faith there was no need for the Romans to proclaim it at Mass. However, it was included in deference to the emperor and has pretty much remained ever since, albeit not at every Mass but only on Sundays and on certain feasts.

Eastern and Western Christians use the same creed except that the Latin version adds the expression "filioque" (and the Son) to the article regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit, a difference that has given rise to endless and highly complex theological discussions.

In spite of this difference, there is a common understanding among all Christians that the creed should be left as it is and that neither the creed, nor indeed the Mass itself, is a suitable place to give technical expression to every tenet of the faith.

On another level, however, the entire Mass is itself a profession of faith. It is the living faith celebrated and heralded in a great and sublime act of worship that is converted into a faith that imbues every aspect of daily activity.

Even though there is no explicit mention of the real presence in the creed, Catholics proclaim their Eucharistic faith through almost every word and gesture at Mass and especially by their Amen at the end of the Eucharistic Prayer and when receiving Communion.

In a similar fashion they liturgically express their faith in other dogmas not contained in the creed. Going to Mass for the feasts of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption also proclaims our faith in these doctrines.

Going to confession or receiving the sacrament of the sick affirms our faith in the sacramental system itself and our belief that Christ has granted the Church power to forgive sins.

In short, every act of liturgical worship is, by its very nature, also a proclamation of faith.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Use of Mustum at Mass

ROME, JUNE 27, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Some readers expressed some perplexity regarding my remarks that the sacrifice of the Mass is completed with the priest's communion (see June 13).

One correspondent asked "how 'incompletely' did people participate and did they or did they not 'fully' participate in the Eucharistic banquet with all the graces and merits one gains from such participation?" when the celebrant forgot to consume at a concelebration.

Another, a layman from Canada, asked: "I thought the Sacrifice of Calvary is offered during and immediately following the words of consecration. […] Doesn't the priest receive Communion, strictly speaking, in the same manner and purpose as we laymen do, as Christ abiding physically in us, effectual to life everlasting?"

While Christ's action in the Mass would not be affected by the priest's failure to receive Communion, it would impinge on the integrity of the celebration as an act of the Church.

The question of the priest's obligation to receive Communion under both species before distributing Communion, receives less attention today than in former times when only the priest received from the chalice and concelebration was almost nonexistent.

In earlier times, however, the ramifications of the question were explored. St. Thomas Aquinas addressed this point in the Summa Theologiae (III part q. 82 art. 4). Responding to the question, "Whether the priest who consecrates is bound to receive this sacrament?" he states:

"I answer that, as stated above (Q79, AA 5,7), the Eucharist is not only a sacrament, but also a sacrifice. Now whoever offers sacrifice must be a sharer in the sacrifice, because the outward sacrifice he offers is a sign of the inner sacrifice whereby he offers himself to God, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x).

"Hence by partaking of the sacrifice he shows that the inner one is likewise his. In the same way also, by dispensing the sacrifice to the people he shows that he is the dispenser of divine gifts, of which he ought himself to be the first to partake, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii).

"Consequently, he ought to receive before dispensing it to the people. Accordingly we read in the chapter mentioned above (Twelfth Council of Toledo, Can. v): 'What kind of sacrifice is that wherein not even the sacrificer is known to have a share?' But it is by partaking of the sacrifice that he has a share in it, as the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 10:18): 'Are not they that eat of the sacrifices, partakers of the altar?' Therefore it is necessary for the priest, as often as he consecrates, to receive this sacrament in its integrity."

Several readers asked questions regarding the validity of mustum (natural unfermented grape juice) for consecration.

In the letter quoted in previous treatments of this theme, signed by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, it is specifically stated that the questions regarding the validity of mustum have been resolved by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Mustum is therefore valid matter for transubstantiation even though the studies and minutes of the debate that led to the decision are not matter of public record.

In order for mustum to be valid the process used for the suspension of fermentation must not alter the nature of the juice in any way. For this reason, pasteurized grape juice in which all alcohol has been evaporated through high-temperature preparations is invalid matter for Mass.

We can be sure that the Church would never in any way approve the use of mustum if any doubt remained regarding its validity.

According to traditional Catholic moral reasoning it is necessary to use the strictest interpretations when dealing with the validity of the sacraments. Certainty is required and it is never permitted to proceed to celebrate a sacrament on the basis of probable validity.

Since mustum is barely within the range of legitimate matter and is certainly far from the fullness of the sign desired by the Lord, its use is licit only for those who have received proper authorization due to special needs.

The situation is similar for priests and faithful who are only able to ingest special low-gluten bread. Thus if a priest who has received authorization from his bishop to use low-gluten bread presides at a concelebration, then ordinary hosts must be prepared for the other priests and the faithful.

Since the priest must always receive under both species, those who cannot take even low-gluten bread may no longer celebrate individually but may receive permission to concelebrate and receive under one species. The rule would be similar if a priest were also intolerant of any grape product including mustum.

Finally, a reader asked if Church law required red wine alone. No such law exists. We have addressed this question in the follow-up of July 13, 2004.

Sunday, June 25, 2006

Father Cantalamessa on Calming the Storm

ROME, JUNE 23, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of a commentary by Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, preacher to the Pontifical Household, on this Sunday's liturgical readings.

* * *

A Great Storm Arose

The Gospel of this Sunday is the calming of the storm. In the evening, after a day of intense work, Jesus got into a boat and told the apostles to go the other side. Exhausted, he fell asleep in the stern.

Meanwhile, a great storm arose which threatened to destroy the boat.

Frightened, the apostles woke Jesus, saying to him: "Teacher, do you not care if we perish?" After rising, Jesus ordered the sea to be calm: "Peace! Be still!" The wind ceased and there was a great calm. Then he said to them: "Why are you afraid? Have you no faith?"

We are going to try to understand the message addressed to us today in this page of the Gospel.

The crossing of the Sea of Galilee indicates the voyage of life. The sea is my family, my community, my heart itself. In small seas, as we know, great and unforeseen storms can be unleashed.

Who has not known some of these storms, when all is darkened and the little boat of our life begins to fill with water on all sides, while God seems to be absent or asleep. An alarming diagnosis from the doctor, and all of a sudden we are at the height of the storm.

What to do? What can we hold fast to and on what side must we lower the anchor? Jesus does not give us the magic recipe to escape all storms. He has not promised us that we will avoid all difficulties. He has promised us, however, the strength to surmount them if we ask him for it.

St. Paul tells us about a serious problem he had to face in his life, which he calls "a thorn in my flesh." "Three times" -- that is, countless times -- he says he prayed to the Lord to free him from it, and what did the Lord answer him?

Let us read it together: "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness."

From that day, he tells us, he even began to glory in his weaknesses, persecutions and anxieties, to the point of being able to say: "When I am weak, then I am strong" (2 Corinthians 12:7-10).

Trust in God: This is the message of the Gospel. On that day, what saved the disciples from shipwreck was the fact of taking Jesus in the boat, before beginning the crossing.

This is also for us the best guarantee against the storms of life: to take Jesus with us. The means to take Jesus in the boat of one's life and of one's family is faith, prayer and observance of the commandments.

When a storm is unleashed in the sea, at least in the past, seamen used to pour oil on the waves to calm them. On the waves of fear and anxiety we must pour trust in God.

St. Peter exhorted the early Christians to trust in God in persecutions, saying: "Cast all your anxieties on him, for he cares about you" (1 Peter 5:7). The lack of faith of the disciples that Jesus reproached on that occasion was due to the fact that they doubted that he was "concerned" about their lives and safety: "Do you not care if we perish?"

God takes care of us, he is concerned about our lives! A frequently cited anecdote speaks of a man who had a dream. He saw two pairs of footprints that had been imprinted in the desert sand and understood that one pair of footprints was his and the other pair was that of Jesus, who was walking by his side.

At a certain moment, one pair of footprints disappeared, and he understood that this happened exactly at a difficult moment of his life.

Then he complained to Christ, who left him alone in the moment of trial. "But, I was with you!" replied Jesus.

"How is it possible that you were with me, when there was only one pair of footprints in the sand?" the man said.

"They were mine," replied Jesus. "In those moments, I carried you on my shoulders."

Let us remember this when we feel the temptation to complain to the Lord that he leaves us alone.

[Translation by ZENIT]

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Focused Link: The Magic of the Family Meal

The statistics are clear: kids who dine with the folks are healthier, happier and better students, which is why a dying tradition is coming back.

The full article:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1200760,00.html

Focused Link: It helps to be holier

Angela Shanahan is impressed by the dedication of members of the sometimes maligned Opus Dei.

The full article:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19341986-28737,00.html

Focused Link: The Gift of Fear

To sweeten the harder points of the Gospel might appear more positive and inviting, but such theology is dangerous and negligent.

The full article:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0081.htm

Focused Link: Sacrilege and Sacrament

Roger Scruton’s argument in “Sacrilege and Sacrament” is exemplary of the sharp reasoning to be found throughout The Meaning of Marriage: Family, State, Market, and Morals. As Scruton observes, the institution of marriage — which began as a sacred, eternal vow and covenant — has today been reduced to a mere civil contract. The challenge this and other changes to the institution poses for relations between the sexes and for the future of society and culture in general is compellingly and brilliantly explored.

The full article:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/marriage/mf0081.htm

Wednesday Liturgy: The Chair of the Priest Celebrant

ROME, JUNE 20, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: Could you tell me the correct position for the presidential chair in a normal, albeit small, sanctuary? Our sanctuary is about to be reordered (long overdue!), but there is a difference of opinion as to the correct position -- and I cannot find an authoritative source for the answer. -- R.E., Southwark, England

A: The precise location of the chair is not definitively determined in any official document. It also will depend on other factors such as the location of the tabernacle.

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal, No. 310, regarding "The Chair for the Priest Celebrant and Other Seats," states:

"The chair of the priest celebrant must signify his office of presiding over the gathering and of directing the prayer. Thus the best place for the chair is in a position facing the people at the head of the sanctuary, unless the design of the building or other circumstances impede this: for example, if the great distance would interfere with communication between the priest and the gathered assembly, or if the tabernacle is in the center behind the altar. Any appearance of a throne, however, is to be avoided. It is appropriate that, before being put into liturgical use, the chair be blessed according to the rite described in the Roman Ritual.

"Likewise, seats should be arranged in the sanctuary for concelebrating priests as well as for priests who are present for the celebration in choir dress but who are not concelebrating.

"The seat for the deacon should be placed near that of the celebrant. Seats for the other ministers are to be arranged so that they are clearly distinguishable from those for the clergy and so that the ministers are easily able to fulfill the function entrusted to them."

The U.S. bishops also touch on this subject in their official guidelines, "Built of Living Stones," Nos. 63-65. Apart from repeating the norms contained in the Missal, it adds some further considerations:

"� 63 The chair of the priest celebrant stands 'as a symbol of his office of presiding over the assembly and of directing prayer.' An appropriate placement of the chair allows the priest celebrant to be visible to all in the congregation. The chair reflects the dignity of the one who leads the community in the person of Christ, but is never intended to be remote or grandiose. The priest celebrant's chair is distinguished from the seating for other ministers by its design and placement. 'The seat for the deacon should be placed near that of the celebrant.' In the cathedral, in addition to the bishop's chair or 'cathedra,' which is permanent, an additional chair will be needed for use by the rector or priest celebrant.

"� 64 �The [chair] is not used by a lay person who presides at a service of the word with Communion or a Sunday celebration in the absence of a priest. (Cf. Congregation for Divine Worship, Directory for Sunday Celebrations in the Absence of a Priest [1988], no. 40.)"

From these indications it should be possible to decide the most appropriate location of the chair in accordance with the concrete situation of the sanctuary.

In theory the most appropriate position, as the documents state, is behind the altar facing the people. There are certainly some fine examples of this distribution, especially in some newer churches as well as some venerable ancient ones.

In practice, however, the position at the head of the sanctuary is often impracticable. It can easily impede effective communication because of distance, or because it becomes necessary to raise the chair above the altar level to assure visibility and thus assume a throne like aura. It is also not possible whenever the tabernacle remains in the center of the sanctuary.

Thus, many places also opt to locate the chair on the side opposite the ambo. According to the size and shape of the sanctuary and in relationship to the seating pattern of the faithful, the chair may be slightly behind, on an axis with, or slightly before, the position of the altar.

Stylistically the chair may recall the design of ambo and altar although this is not a strict necessity. Unlike the altar and ambo, the chair is not a place within the sanctuary and, while it should have a stable position, it is not necessarily fixed or immovable.

Indeed, pastoral experience shows that occasions do arise when being able to move the chair a few feet can ease complex liturgical logistics.

Only in exceptional circumstances such as priestly ordinations, and only if no other practical solution is available, should the chair be placed in front of the altar. This position tends to detract from the centrality of the altar of sacrifice during the celebration.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Incensing the Host, Altars, Etc.

ROME, JUNE 20, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

After our exposition regarding the use of incense (June 6) a priest reader asked for a clarification regarding the use of the expression "double swing."

He writes: "You quoted Monsignor's instruction to use a double swing, etc. ... As I understand it, the Church documents call for swings, not double swings, or triple swings, or loops, etc. Yet one might think you were suggesting a liturgical practice that is not presented to us in the Church's documents. Thus the confusion. You are not suggesting we add or change something in the liturgy, are you? I realize this is not a big matter, but I am surprised that you would suggest we do something other than what the Church has given us as part of the liturgy. Now if there is some commentary that explains why, in the Latin, we can understand the swings ('ductus') to give latitude to one or two swings, great, I'd love to hear that. But it does not seem, from what you quoted from the documents or from Monsignor's work that this is an explanation, and therefore why it is OK to do it. If you are able to clarify, I would be grateful."

With the expression "double swing," Monsignor Peter Elliott describes the mode of incensing which is practically universal custom, in which each "ductus" consists of two "ictus," or swings. Hence the thurible is raised, swung twice toward the object or person incensed, and then lowered.

If we may use the somewhat less technical expression of another correspondent, the thurible is "clicked" twice during each "ductus."

The difficulty arises because the present liturgical books do not distinguish between the simple swing and double swing (or "double click") during the "ductus," but only the number of "ductus" in each circumstance or how many times the thurible is raised and lowered for swinging.

Previous legislation, however, did make this distinction, and prescribed the double swing for practically the same persons and objects as the present legislation. There is no reason to suppose that the practice has been abrogated.

Likewise, as authentic custom is also a source of law, the use of the double swing as described by Monsignor Elliott is used practically everywhere -- including at the Masses of the Supreme Pontiff.

For the sake of completeness I will offer the description of the double swing found in the Fortescue-O'Connell pre-Vatican II ceremonies book: "The double swing ('ductus duplex') is made by raising the thurible to the level of the face, then swinging it out towards the object or person to be incensed, repeating this outward swing, and then lowering the thurible."

A Washington, D.C., reader asked: "I recently saw a papal Mass in Rome and noticed six ministers holding candles and standing in front of the altar at the Celebration of the Eucharist. In the middle was the thurifer. Is it legal to practice this same aspect of Mass, having servers hold candles in front of the altar at the consecration? If so, are there rules as to how many candles should be used?"

This way of incensing the Blessed Sacrament during the Eucharistic prayer is common at solemn Masses. The ministers process and take their places before the altar during the singing of the "Sanctus" and leave after the final doxology ("Through him, with him �"). They kneel during the consecration.

The thurifer (or a deacon) places incense in the thurible before the procession and incenses the Blessed Sacrament with three double swings when the host, and then the chalice, are shown after the consecration.

Six torchbearers plus thurifer (and a deacon) usually carry out this function. The rite can be adapted according to the number of ministers available, the size of the sanctuary and other similar factors. If necessary the number may be reduced to only two torchbearers and thurifer, or even just the thurifer alone.

It is permitted at any Mass, but is especially suited to Sundays and festivities.

Sunday, June 18, 2006

Father Cantalamessa on Corpus Christi

ROME, JUNE 16, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of a commentary by Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, preacher to the Pontifical Household, on the Gospel reading of the liturgy of the feast Corpus Christi.

* * *

In Your Midst Stands One Whom You Do Not Know!

I believe that the most necessary thing to do on the feast of Corpus Christi is not to explain some aspect of the Eucharist, but to revive wonder and marvel before the mystery.

The feast was born in Belgium, in the early 13th century; Benedictine monasteries were the first to adopt it. Urban IV extended it to the whole Church in 1264; it seems that he was also influenced by the Eucharistic miracle of Bolsena, venerated today in Orvieto.

Why was it necessary to institute a new feast? Doesn't the Church recall the institution of the Eucharist on Holy Thursday? Doesn't she celebrate it every Sunday and, more than that, every day of the year?

In fact, Corpus Christi is the first feast whose object is not an event of the life of Christ, but a truth of faith: His real presence in the Eucharist. It responds to a need: to solemnly proclaim such faith.

It is needed to avoid the danger of getting used to such a presence and no longer pay attention to it, thus meriting the reproach that St. John the Baptist made to his contemporaries: "In your midst stands one whom you do not know!"

This explains the extraordinary solemnity and visibility that this feast acquired in the Catholic Church. For a long time, the Corpus Christi procession was the only procession in the whole of Christendom, and also the most solemn.

Today processions have given way to manifestations and sit-ins (generally of protest); but although the exterior form has declined, the profound sense of celebration and the motive that inspired it remain intact: to keep alive the wonder before the greatest and most beautiful of the mysteries of the faith.

The liturgy of the feast faithfully reflects this characteristic. All its texts (readings, antiphons, songs, prayers) are suffused with a sense of wonder.

Many of them end with an exclamation: "O sacred banquet in which Christ is received!" (O sacrum convivium). "O victim of salvation!" (O salutaris hostia).

If the feast of Corpus Christi did not exist, it would have to be invented. If there is a danger that believers face at present in regard to the Eucharist, it is to trivialize it.

There was a time when it was not received so frequently, and fasting and confession had to precede it. Today virtually everyone approaches it. Let us understand one another. It is progress; it is normal that participation in Mass also implies Communion; that is why it exists. But all this entails a mortal risk.

St. Paul says: Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, will be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. Let each one examine himself and then eat the bread and drink the cup, because he who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment unto himself.

I believe it is a salutary grace for a Christian to go through a period in which he fears to approach Communion, that he tremble before the thought of what is about to occur and not cease to repeat, as John the Baptist: "And you come to me?" (Matthew 3:14).

We cannot receive God except as "God," that is, respecting all his holiness and majesty. We cannot domesticate God!

The preaching of the Church should not fear -- now that communion has become something so habitual and "easy" -- to use every now and then the language of the letter to the Hebrews and to tell the faithful: "But you have come ... to a judge who is God of all ... and to Jesus, the mediator of the new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks more graciously than the blood of Abel" (Hebrews 12:22-24).

In the early times of the Church, at the moment of communion a cry resounded in the assembly: "Let him who is holy approach, let him who is not repent!"

One who did not get used to the Eucharist and spoke of it with overwhelming wonder was St. Francis of Assisi. "Let humanity fear, let the entire universe tremble, and the heavens exult, when on the altar, in the hands of the priest, is Christ, son of the living God. ... O admirable rapture and amazing designation! O sublime humility! O humble sublimity, that the Lord of the universe, God and son of God, so humbles himself as to hide under the small appearance of bread!"

However, it must not be so much the grandeur and majesty of God which causes wonder before the Eucharistic mystery, but rather his condescension and love. The Eucharist above all is this: memorial of the love of which there is no greater: to give one's life for ones' friends.

[Translation by ZENIT]

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Wednesday Liturgy: Use of Mustum at Mass

ROME, JUNE 13, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: I am a priest in a religious community. One of our confreres is an alcoholic and for many years has abstained from alcohol, even if there is just a little bit in pastry. He is really faithful to his promise and I admire him for that. When he presides over our Eucharist, he uses mustum and, of course, all the participants communicate with it. Some have doubts about that way of doing things and think it may be illicit for them. (When he concelebrates, he takes only the consecrated host.) What do you think? Perhaps might it be better to have a second chalice with wine, as it is done when there is a larger number of concelebrants. We are usually about five. -- R.T., Quebec province

A: 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 then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. Among other things 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."

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.

The precise question in hand is addressed in points A and D. The priest in question should therefore not normally preside at a concelebration except for very special occasions. When such a situation arises, two chalices must be provided: one with mustum and another with ordinary wine.

Likewise, if the priest presides alone at a religious community Mass where Communion under both kinds is habitual for religious seminarians, then a second chalice with ordinary wine should also be provided. A deacon or at least an instituted acolyte should also be present to assure that the Precious Blood is fully consumed after Communion.

The reason why the principal celebrant in a concelebration may not avail of the permission to receive only under the species of bread probably derives from the necessity to assure that the sacrifice is completed before Communion begins. The sacrifice is completed only after the presiding celebrant has consumed both species.

This is also why the individual priest must also consume both species before Communion begins. The faithful's exercise of their baptismal priesthood is carried out with and through the priest. Thus, their full participation in the holy sacrifice of the Mass through Communion would be incomplete if the priest fails to first complete the sacrifice by consuming both species.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Episcopalian Eucharist

ROME, JUNE 13, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Some readers of our May 30 column, on communion at an Episcopalian ordination, asked why I did not simply affirm that the ordination was invalid.

A specific mention of this fact would have been moot as I assumed that both the original questioner, and ZENIT readers in general, are sufficiently well formed to know that the Church could never recognize the sacramental validity of the ordination of a woman to Anglican orders.

The question, therefore, had to do with why it was not correct to receive communion at such a service. Since Pope John Paul II had authoritatively answered this precise question, I considered it best to use his very words in reply.

Another reader, a priest from Winnipeg, Manitoba, broached another point: "You mentioned recently that 'one may attend a relative's ordination as an Episcopal minister.' I've always appreciated the old practice of not attending an invalid marriage because of the witness value of attending. Since an Episcopal ordination does not produce a valid priest, would the attendance of a Catholic imply an approval of some sort? And if not, perhaps if the person submitting to the rite is a lapsed Catholic, it would be better if the Catholic did not attend."

I do not believe the two situations are perfectly parallel. Attending a ceremony involving an invalid marriage can signify approval for a couple entering into an objectively sinful state.

Attending, for a just cause, an Episcopalian ordination or analogous installation ceremonies for Protestant ministers does not imply any recognition of their sacramental validity and is simply a gesture of friendship or family ties.

I agree, however, that some particular circumstances, such as the ordination of a lapsed Catholic, would make it inadvisable for a Catholic to attend such a ceremony. No matter how much respect we may have for the sincere faith of other Christians, no Catholic could approve or view positively a person's publicly abandoning the Catholic faith, which we believe to be the fullness of Christ's Church, by becoming a minister in another Christian community.

Finally, a reader from Paris asked: "I'd like to know whether a Protestant can receive Catholic Communion or not, especially if he/she accepts the Catholic meaning of Eucharistic Communion."

We have addressed this issue in our column of Dec. 2 and 16, 2003.

Sunday, June 11, 2006

Father Cantalamessa on Trinity Sunday

ROME, JUNE 9, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of a commentary by Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, preacher to the Pontifical Household, on this Sunday's Gospel reading on the solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity.

* * *

A Close Mystery
Trinity Sunday

Christian life develops completely in the sign and presence of the Trinity. At the dawn of life, we were baptized "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," and at the end, at our bedside, the words are recited: "Go forth from this world, O Christian soul, in the name of God, the Almighty Father who created you, in the name of Jesus Christ who redeemed you, and in the name of the Holy Spirit who sanctifies you."

Between these two extreme moments, there are others called of "transition" that, for a Christian, are marked by the invocation of the Trinity. In the name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, spouses are united in marriage and priests are consecrated by a bishop. In the past, contracts, sentences and all important acts of civil and religious life began in the name of the Trinity.

It is not true, therefore, that the Trinity is a remote mystery, irrelevant to everyday life. On the contrary, they are the three most "intimate" persons in life: They are not outside of us, as a wife or husband is, but within us. "They make their home in us" (John 14:23); we are their "temple."

But, why do Christians believe in the Trinity? Isn't it already difficult enough to believe that God exists, and then we add that he is "one and triune"? Christians believe that God is one and triune because they believe that God is love! The revelation of God as love, made by Jesus, has "obliged" one to admit the Trinity. It is not a human invention.

If God is love, he has to love someone. There is no love "in the void," without an object. But, whom does God love to be defined love. Men? But men have existed only for thousands of years, no more. The cosmos? The universe? The universe has existed only for billions of years. Before, whom did God love, to be able to define himself love? We cannot say that he loved himself, because this would not be love but egoism and narcissism.

This is the answer of Christian revelation: God is love because from eternity he has "in his bosom" a son, the Word, the one he loves with an infinite love, that is, with the Holy Spirit. In every love there are always three realities or subjects: one who loves, one who is loved, and the love that unites them.

The Christian God is one and triune because he is communion of love. In love, unity and plurality are reconciled; love creates unity in diversity: unity of intentions, of thought, of will; diversity of subjects, of characteristics and, in the human realm, of sex. In this connection, the family is the least imperfect image of the Trinity. It was no accident that when creating the first human couple God said: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" (Genesis 1:26-27).

According to modern atheists, God is no more than a projection that man makes of himself, as one who confuses with another person his own image reflected in a stream. This might be true in regard to any other idea of God, but not in regard to the Christian God. What need would man have to divide himself in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, if God is really no more than the projection that man makes of his own image? The doctrine of the Trinity is, on its own, the best antidote to modern atheism.

Do you find all this too difficult? Have you understood little? I will tell you not to worry. When one is on the shore of a lake or a sea, and wishes to know what is on the other side, what is most important is not to sharpen one's sight and try to scan the horizon, but to get into the boat that takes one to that shore.

With the Trinity, what is most important is not to ruminate on the mystery, but to remain in the faith of the Church, which is the boat that takes one to the Trinity.

[Translation and adaptation from the Italian by ZENIT]

Saturday, June 10, 2006

Focused Link: To Inspire Love: A Return to Modesty

In our post-sexual-revolution world, skimpy dresses, mini-skirts, tiny bikinis, low -rise pants, and low-cut shirts have become part of the mainstream attire for women today. And anyone who might raise questions about the appropriateness of such dress is viewed as “rigid,” “old fashioned,” or “out of touch” with modern style. Modesty is no longer a part of our culture’s vocabulary. Though most people sense they wouldn’t want their own daughters dressing like Madonna and Britney Spears, few have the courage to bring up the topic of modesty, and even fewer know what to say if they did.

The full article: http://catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0130.htm

Focused Link: Love and Responsibility: Avoiding Fatal Attractions

A man eating lunch at a restaurant notices an attractive woman at another table, and is immediately drawn to her beauty. His heart stirs, and he finds himself wanting to see her again.

The full article: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/marriage/mf0077.html

Focused Link: A Clarification on the Meaning of "Conscience"

One such misconception that seems to never go away is the idea that conscience is the final arbiter of what is morally right — a misconception often designated under the expression “primacy of conscience”.

But to put it bluntly, conscience is not the final arbiter of what is morally right, nor has the Church ever taught that it is. In its truest sense, conscience is the intellectual apprehension of the Divine Law. For this reason, Divine Law is primary.

The full article: http://catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0080.htm

Focused Link: What Is Chastity & How Can I Be Chaste?

This article gives a practical view of chastity and sexuality.

The full article: http://catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0128.htm

Wednesday, June 07, 2006

Wednesday Liturgy: Incensing the Host, Altars, Etc.

ROME, JUNE 6, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: Are they any indications concerning the movement of the thurible when incensing the Host; the altar at the beginning of the Mass; at the preparations of the offerings; bishops, priests and the people? In various churches there are different styles concerning the times the thurible is raised or turned around the offerings. -- J.M., Seville, Spain

A: Most indications regarding how to incense are contained in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal and in the Ceremonial of Bishops. The GIRM specifies:

"276. Thurification or incensation is an expression of reverence and of prayer, as is signified in Sacred Scripture (cf. Ps 141 [140]:2, Rev 8:3). Incense may be used if desired in any form of Mass:

"a. During the Entrance procession;
"b. At the beginning of Mass, to incense the cross and the altar;
"c. At the Gospel procession and the proclamation of the Gospel itself;
"d. After the bread and the chalice have been placed upon the altar, to incense the offerings, the cross, and the altar, as well as the priest and the people;
"e. At the showing of the host and the chalice after the consecration.

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

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

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

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

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

"a. If the altar is freestanding with respect to the wall, the priest incenses walking around it;
"b. If the altar is not freestanding, the priest incenses it while walking first to the right-hand side, then to the left. The cross, if situated on or near the altar, is incensed by the priest before he incenses the altar; otherwise, he incenses it when he passes in front of it.

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

To these general indications for Mass, the Ceremonial of Bishops (Nos. 84-98) adds further details. Incense is used:

-- for the rite of the dedication of a church or altar.

-- in the rite of blessing of oils and consecrating the chrism as the blessed oils and consecrated chrism are being taken away.

-- at exposition of the Blessed Sacrament when the monstrance is used.

-- at funerals.

-- during solemn processions such as the feast of the Presentation, Palm Sunday and Corpus Christi.

-- during the singing of the Gospel canticle at solemn Morning or Evening Prayers.

The ceremonial further notes that only the bishop may put incense into the thurible while seated and that the Blessed Sacrament is incensed from a kneeling position.

All those who receive the incensation do so from a standing position. Concelebrants are incensed as a body followed by the people. Bishops and canons who are not concelebrating are incensed along with the people. But in those cases where a bishop presides but does not concelebrate, he is incensed after the concelebrants.

Where customary a head of state in official attendance at a liturgical celebration is incensed after the bishop.

The celebrant should not begin any prayer or commentary until after the incensation has been completed. During the divine office the antiphon for Benedictus or Magnificat should not be repeated until the completion of the incensation.

It also adds several footnotes taken from the 1886 edition of the ceremonial regarding the manner of approaching the bishop, recommending placing three spoonfuls of incense into the thurible, and describing the manner of holding the thurible. For example, footnote 75 states:

"The one incensing holds the top of the censer chain in the left hand, the bottom near the censer in the right hand, so that the censer can be swung back and forth easily. The one incensing should take care to carry out this function with grave and graceful mien, not moving head or body while swinging the censer, holding the left hand with the top of the chains near the chest and moving the right arm back and forth with a measured beat."

To these official documents we may add the indications offered by Monsignor Peter Elliott in his excellent ceremonies book:

"216. The grace and skill of using the thurible depends first of all on how the chains are held when incensing a person or thing. Each person should work out what is most convenient by practice, but an easy method may be proposed. (a) Take the disc and the upper part of the chains in the left hand, letting it rest against the breast. With the right hand, let the chains pass between the index and middle finger. Secure them by the thumb, so that the swinging bowl of the thurible may be directed and controlled easily. (b) With the right hand, bring the bowl in front of the breast. Then raise the right hand to eye level (lower when censing an altar) and move the bowl backwards and forwards towards the person or object, swinging it steadily and smoothly without haste by manipulating the chain. (c) Having completed the required number of swings, lower the bowl once more. Then bring it to your side or return it to the thurifer or deacon.

"217. There are two kinds of swing or "ductus." To make a double swing, the thurible is swung twice at the person or object to be incensed, and then lowered. To make a single swing, it is swung once and then lowered, except when incensing the altar, when these single swings are made continuously as the celebrant walks around it.

"218. The customary rules governing these different forms of incensation are as follow: (a) three double swings are made to incense the Blessed Sacrament, a relic of the Cross, images of Our Lord set up for veneration, the gifts on the altar, the altar cross, the Book of the Gospels, the Easter candle, the celebrant (bishop or priest), a representative of the civil authority officially present at a celebration, the choir, the people and the body of a deceased person; (b) two double swings are made to incense relics or images of Our Lady and the saints set up for veneration. The altar is incensed by single swings. In procession, the thurifer swings the thurible at full length from his right hand. In his left hand he carries the boat against his breast, but his left hand rests flat on the breast if there is a boat bearer.

"219. It is not necessary to let the bowl strike the chains. When incensing a person or the gifts on the altar, the chains should be held about 20 cm. (8 inches) from the bowl; about 30 cm. (12 inches) when incensing the altar and cross. Before and after an incensation, a profound bow is made to the person who is being incensed. While bowing before and after incensing a person, the thurifer lets go of the thurible with the right hand, which is placed on the breast.

"220. In placing incense in the thurible, the amount used ought to be governed by such factors as the size of the church. However, the sign of incense rising is achieved only if the grain or powder is evenly arranged on burning coals. Striking or breaking the coals with the spoon does nothing but dislodge the grains and swinging a thurible which does not produce smoke is ridiculous."

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Enthronement of Gospel

ROME, JUNE 6, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Our column on enthronement of the Gospel (May 23) brings to mind a Nigerian reader who inquired about a practice that is anything but enthronement.

"At weekday Masses in the village I come from, the Readings and the Gospel are taken from pamphlets and leaflets of all shades and sizes that had been used as Sunday bulletins or for some liturgical celebration or the other. At the conclusion of the Gospel reading the officiating priest would normally raise this pamphlet/leaflet with one hand and declare 'The Gospel of the Lord,' and kiss it. I do not think this is right, i.e. the Gospel should not be read from scraps of paper."

Although the use of a decorated Book of the Gospels is usually reserved for Sundays and feasts, except for emergencies, the readings should always be read from a proper lectionary containing all of the readings.

According to No. 37 of the Introduction to the Lectionary: "Because of the dignity of the word of God, the books of readings used in the celebration are not to be replaced by other pastoral aids, for example, by leaflets printed for the preparation of the readings by the faithful or for their personal meditation."

Another error, a very common one, is that of raising the book while saying, "The Gospel of the Lord." The expression "Gospel of the Lord" refers primarily to the text just read, not to the book that contains the text.

The correct procedure is to first say "The Gospel of the Lord" then to kiss the Lectionary or Book of the Gospels as the case may be, saying quietly, "May the words of the Gospel wipe away our sins." No elevation is foreseen at this moment, although the minister may slightly raise the book in order to kiss it.

At a bishop's Mass the minister may bring the Book of the Gospels to him so that he may kiss it. On solemn occasions he may also bless the people with the book.

A reader from Mumbai (Bombay), India, asked: "According to the new Liturgical norms: On which side should the lectern for the readings be? And on which side should the lectern for the Gospel be? Is there a hard and fast rule?"

Present norms foresee only one ambo for all readings. Although there is no absolute rule regarding location, there is a strong tendency toward placing it on the left-hand side of the sanctuary as observed by the people.

The guidelines published by the U.S. bishops summarize the principal norms found in several books. No. 61 says:

"The central focus of the area in which the word of God is proclaimed during the liturgy is the ambo. The design of the ambo and its prominent placement reflects the dignity and nobility of that saving word and draws the attention of those present to the proclamation of the word.

"Here the Christian community encounters the living Lord in the word of God and prepares itself for the 'breaking of the bread' and the mission to live the word that will be proclaimed. An ample area around the ambo is needed to allow a Gospel procession with a full complement of ministers bearing candles and incense.

"The Introduction to the Lectionary recommends that the design of altar and ambo bear an 'harmonious and close relationship' to one another in order to emphasize the close relationship between word and Eucharist. Since many people share in the ministry of the word, the ambo should be accessible to everyone, including those with physical disabilities."

Finally, a priest from Scotland commented: "If the parish had a permanent place for veneration of the Book of the Gospels, would it be proper after the Gospel, if it was easy enough to do, to place the Book of the Gospels back in this permanent place? […] I have always had a problem with priests and deacons who place the Book of the Gospels under the lectern to preach or […] to place it on the credence table -- it is almost as if we are saying, "We have done with that; now on to the important stuff." I know it is not much different but I think it is much better to leave it on the ambo, open or closed."

The guidelines published by the U.S. bishops mentioned in our earlier reply specifically state that the Gospels or sacred Scriptures are set up outside the liturgy. While by no means universal law, it does represent the thinking of a large body of pastors and is in line with overall Church customs.

A further consideration is that very often the liturgical Book of the Gospels is arranged for practical use as separate texts for reading according to the Sunday and festive cycles. It is probably preferable that a permanent place of veneration display the usual Gospel narratives or a complete Bible.

While our reader is probably correct in preferring to leave the book of the Gospels on the ambo rather than some other worthy place, it is not always practical due to its bulk.

Also, if one has performed the usual liturgical honors and incensing of the book I do not believe that placing it on the credence diminishes its importance, especially if placed in a dignified manner such as upon a small bookstand.

Not having any special enthronement is basically a way of distinguishing, without separating, two moments of the Mass. In a certain way we continue the experience of the two disciples whose hearts burned while hearing Christ's word on the road to Emmaus but who only fully recognize him at the breaking of bread.