Father Cantalamessa Says to Waste Not

ROME, JULY 28, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of a commentary on the Gospel passage of this Sunday's liturgy, by Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, preacher to the Pontifical Household.

* * *

Gather Up the Fragments Left Over

For several Sundays, the Gospel has been taken from Jesus' discourse on the bread of life in the synagogue of Capernaum, to which the Evangelist John refers. This Sunday's passage comes from the multiplication of loaves and fishes, which is an introduction to the Eucharistic discourse.

It is no accident that the presentation of the Eucharist begins with the account of the multiplication of loaves. What is stated with it is that, in man, the religious dimension cannot be separated from the material dimension. Provision cannot be made for man's spiritual and eternal needs without being concerned, at the same time, about his earthly and material needs.

It was precisely the latter which for an instant was the temptation of the apostles. In another passage of the Gospel one reads that they suggested to Jesus that he dismiss the crowd so that it would find something to eat in neighboring villages.

But Jesus answered: "You give them something to eat!" (Matthew 14:16). With this, Jesus is not asking his disciples to perform miracles. He is asking that they do what they can. To place in common and share what each one has. In arithmetic, multiplication and division are two opposite operations, but in this case they are the same. There is no "multiplication" without "partition" (or sharing)!

This connection between the material and spiritual bread was visible in the way the Eucharist was celebrated in the early days of the Church. The Lord's Supper, then called "agape," took place in the context of a fraternal meal, in which both ordinary bread and Eucharistic bread was shared.

That is why differences between some one who had nothing to eat and some one who became "inebriated" were perceived as scandalous and intolerable (1 Corinthians 11:20-22). Today the Eucharist is no longer celebrated in the context of an ordinary meal, but the contrast between those who have what is superfluous and those who lack what is necessary has not diminished, what is more, it has assumed global dimensions.

On this point, the end of the account also has something to say to us. When all were satiated, Jesus ordered: "Gather up the fragments left over, that nothing may be lost."

We live in a society where waste is habitual. In 50 years, we have gone from a situation in which one went to school or Sunday Mass carrying one's shoes to the threshold, so as not to wear them out, to a situation in which virtually new shoes are discarded so as to adapt oneself to the changing fashion.

The most scandalous waste occurs in the food sector. Research carried out by the United States Department of Agriculture reveals that one-fourth of food products end up every day in the garbage, not to speak of what is deliberately destroyed before it reaches the market.

Jesus did not say that day: "Destroy the left-over fragments so that the price of bread and fish will not fall in the market." But it is exactly what is done today.

Under the influence of repetitive advertising, "Spend, don't save!" is at present the codeword in the economy.

Of course, it is not enough to save. Prudence must enable individuals and societies of rich countries to be more generous in their aid to poor countries, otherwise it is more like avarice than prudence.

[Translation by ZENIT]

Wednesday Liturgy: Starting Mass Without a Priest

ROME, JULY 25, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: I am a priest working in an area of primary evangelization where people are still trying to grasp the meaning of the Gospel. I have several questions about the liturgy: 1) When is a priest considered to be concelebrating? Is it when he is vested or just a mere presence in the people, or both? 2) Sometimes when we arrive late in the outstations, we find that the catechist has already started the Liturgy of the Word. Is it right to continue with the Mass from where the catechist had reached? For example, if the catechist has read the Gospel, can the priest vest himself and go on with the homily? -- C.N., Kontagora, Nigeria

A: In order to concelebrate a priest must be present from the beginning of Mass, vested at least in alb and stole and preferably also with chasuble.

During Mass he should normally sit and stand within the sanctuary. If a deacon is not present a concelebrating priest should usually help the main celebrant in such functions as reading the Gospel, preparing the chalice and raising the chalice for the final doxology.

He must pronounce along with the main celebrant, albeit in a lower voice, the words that correspond to all concelebrants according to the structure of each Eucharistic Prayer (usually the epiclesis, the consecration, the anamnesis and the final doxology), and may say one or more of the parts assigned to a single concelebrant.

He also extends his hands during the recitation of the Our Father. He must take the Eucharist under both species and if necessary assist the other priest in distributing Communion and purifying the sacred vessels.

Under no circumstances should a priest attempt to concelebrate from among the people in the pews by simply pronouncing the words of consecration along with the celebrant. There are serious reasons to even doubt the validity of such a procedure, which in all cases is a serious abuse and lack of respect toward the holy sacrifice of the Mass.

Regarding the other question: The Mass is a single action comprehending the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The priest's presence is required throughout the sacred rite in order to maintain its intrinsic unity. It is through his ministry that the faithful are constituted as a liturgical assembly in communion with the bishop and the universal Church.

Likewise, although the priest presides over the assembly, he is also a member of the assembly and must participate in the entire celebration.

He, like everybody else and indeed even more so, is bound to acknowledge his sinfulness at the beginning of the celebration. Likewise, the liturgical reading of God's Word is also for his benefit and God speaks to him through the Scripture with a more intense presence than that found while reflecting on the texts to prepare the homily.

Although there are few official texts regarding this subject, the instruction "Redemptionis Sacramentum" touched upon the importance of the unity of the celebration when it stated in No. 60:

"In the celebration of Mass, the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist are intimately connected to one another, and form one single act of worship. For this reason it is not licit to separate one of these parts from the other and celebrate them at different times or places. Nor is it licit to carry out the individual parts of Holy Mass at different times of the same day."

In order to handle the real practical difficulty of a priest's being unable to be sure of arriving on time, one possibility is for the priests, together with the catechists, to develop a fallback plan in which the catechist has a series of resources that combine prayers, hymns, devotions, as well as brief talks that prepare the people for Mass, for example by explaining the different parts of the Mass, of the Creed, common prayers, etc.

This solution might not always be practical and it really depends on such factors as location, town size and local custom.

In some Latin American countries, for example, isolated villages with no resident priest have no set time for Mass. The priest announces his arrival by ringing the church bells or even by megaphone. Those assisting at Mass go to the church and start the rosary or other prayers until the celebration begins.

What is important is to find a solution that responds to the demands of evangelization while respecting the integrity of the liturgy.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Sign of Peace

ROME, JULY 25, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Our column on the sign of peace (July 11) brings to mind a question from a priest in the Marshall Islands regarding this sign at funeral Masses.

He writes: "There was a time in the past that in funeral Masses, the 'Exchange of Peace' (before the Lamb of God) is omitted. The reason for it is that the exchange of peace is a joyful expression of greeting one another but somehow discordant in the time of death, the loss of someone so dear to the family."

This rule no longer applies, indeed as quoted in the earlier column, the U.S. adaptations of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal specifically cite funerals as being among the rare occasions when the priest is permitted to leave the sanctuary for the exchange of peace.

I believe that the omission at funerals may have stemmed from reducing the rite to a mere joyful exchange of greetings and forgetting that it is the peace of Christ, flowing from the holy sacrifice upon the altar and the source of our mutual peace and charity.

If understood in this way, not only will the rite of peace be habitually carried out with proper moderation, but its inclusion at funerals adds a note of spiritual solidarity and comfort that pales mere human sentiments.

Father Cantalamessa on How to Live Vacation

ROME, JULY 21, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of a commentary on the Gospel passage of this Sunday's liturgy, by Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, preacher to the Pontifical Household.

* * *

Come Away to Rest a While

In the Gospel passage Jesus invites his disciples to separate themselves from the crowd and their work and to go away with him to a "lonely place."

He taught them to do what he did: to balance action and contemplation, to go from contact with people to secret and regenerating dialogue with oneself and with God.

The theme is of great importance and timeliness. The rhythm of life has acquired a speed that surpasses our capacity to adapt.

The scene in "Modern Times" of Charlie Chaplain absorbed in the assembly line is the exact image of this situation. In this way one loses the capacity for critical separation which allows one to exercise dominion over the flow, often chaotic and disordered, of circumstances and daily experiences.

Jesus, in the Gospel, never gives the impression of being agitated by hurry. Sometimes he even wastes time: All look for him and he does not let himself be found, absorbed as he is in prayer. Sometimes, as in our Gospel passage, he even invites his disciples to lose time with him: "Come away by yourselves to a lonely place, and rest a while." He often recommends that one not be harassed. Our bodies benefit so much from such "respites."

Among these "pauses" are precisely the summer vacations which we are living. For the majority of people, they are the only occasion to rest a while, to converse in a relaxed manner with their own spouse, to play with the children, to read a good book or to contemplate nature in silence; in short, to relax. To make of holidays a more frenetic time than in the rest of the year would be to ruin them.

To the commandment: "Remember to keep the Sabbath holy," one should add: "Remember to keep vacations holy." "Stop (literally: vacate, take a vacation!) Know that I am God," says God in the Psalms.

A simple thing to do might be to enter a mountain church or chapel at a time when it is empty, and to spend some time there "apart," alone with ourselves, before God.

This need for times of solitude and listening is posed in a special way to those who proclaim the Gospel and to animators of the Christian community, who must stay constantly in contact with the source of the Word that they must transmit to their brothers. The laity should rejoice, not feel neglected, every time that their priest leaves for a time for intellectual and spiritual recharging.

It must be said that Jesus' vacation with the apostles was of brief duration, because the people, seeing him going away, went ahead of him on foot to the place of disembarkation. But Jesus does not get irritated with the people who give him no peace, but is "moved," seeing them abandoned to themselves, as sheep without a shepherd," and he begins to "teach them many things."

This shows us that one must be ready to interrupt even one's deserved rest in face of a situation of grave need of one's neighbor.

One cannot, for example, abandon to his fate, or leave in a hospital, an elderly person one is in charge of, to enjoy one's vacation without disturbances. We cannot forget the many persons whose loneliness they have not chosen, but suffer, and not for a week or a month, but for years, perhaps throughout their lives.

Also here there is room for a small practical suggestion: To look around and see if there is some one to help feel less alone in life, with a visit, a call, an invitation to see them one day in the place of vacation -- whatever the heart and circumstances suggest.

[Translation and adaptation from the Italian by ZENIT]

Wednesday Liturgy: Indulgences on Sold Items

ROME, JULY 18, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: Reading the "Handbook of Indulgences" I learned that an indulgence attached to an object, such as a crucifix blessed by a bishop, is lost when the object is sold. I was at a convention and a vendor had St. Benedict medal crucifixes blessed by Pope Benedict XVI at World Youth Day 2005 for which she asked a $10 donation, which I paid. Is a donation simply a disguised sale, meaning no indulgence now applies? -- D.G., Santa Barbara, California

A: Our reader refers to norm 19.2. This norm simply states that the indulgence attached to the use of devotional object ceases only when the object is destroyed or sold.

The interpretation of this norm may be guided in part by general canonical norms such as canons 1171 and 1212, although these canons treat more precisely of sacred places and objects such as churches and blessed liturgical items rather than devotional items.

When dealing with the loss of blessing, the aforementioned canons mention that a sacred place or object loses its blessing when either destroyed in large part or when turned over to profane use.

These canons are only partially of use regarding the question of devotional objects such as rosaries and medals, which are far more common than churches and chalices. It is also reasonably certain that the mind of the legislator is to avoid all hint of commerce in indulgenced objects, which would result in a broader restriction than that of the canons.

However, the canonical notion of reduction to profane use can enlighten our problem.

The sale of a blessed object for personal gain, for all intents and purposes, reduces the object to the realm of the profane as an object of commerce, even if the buyer obtains it for a religious purpose. In such a case the indulgence would be lost.

On the other hand, if the object is exchanged for a set donation, offered for some religious or charitable purpose then, strictly speaking, we would not be speaking of a sale and the indulgence would be conserved.

Thus the question hinges on the intent of the distributor. If the purpose is personal gain, then it makes no difference whether it is called a price or a donation: We are dealing with a sale. If the intention is charity, then we are dealing with a donation.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Anointing of the Sick

ROME, JULY 18, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Our piece on the anointing of the sick July 4 brought to mind a couple of related questions. A California reader asked:

"As my father was dying a year ago, the priest came to the house for the last rites. My father was prepared and expected to go to confession but the priest said it was not necessary. I pointed out to the priest that it had been at least 40 years since my father's last confession, but the priest still declared it unnecessary and proceeded to anoint my father and give him holy Communion.

"Is anointing of the sick a sacrament of the living -- where one needs to be in the state of sanctifying grace to receive it -- or of the dead -- such as baptism and penance, where one need not be in the state of grace to receive it?"

Although many sacramental theologians have moved away from the distinction between sacraments of the living and of the dead, this distinction does express a reality regarding the necessity of being in the state of grace in order to fruitfully receive most sacraments.

The, sacrament of anointing of the sick does forgive sins but this is not its principal effect. The Catechism, summarizing the effects of this sacrament, says in No. 1532:

"The special grace of the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick has as its effects:

"-- the uniting of the sick person to the passion of Christ, for his own good and that of the whole Church;

"-- the strengthening, peace, and courage to endure in a Christian manner the sufferings of illness or old age;

"-- the forgiveness of sins, if the sick person was not able to obtain it through the sacrament of Penance;

"-- the restoration of health, if it is conducive to the salvation of his soul;

"-- the preparation for passing over to eternal life."

Thus, a person who is able and willing, should always be offered the opportunity to confess before receiving the anointing of the sick as this usually provides an added consolation and grace in the face of the difficulties of illness. The sacrament's power to forgive sins is usually tied to the person's being unable to go to confession.

In the precise case at hand, the priest, perhaps because of an erroneous idea regarding the effects of the sacrament, did not act according to the mind of the Church when he refused to hear the person's confession.

This ignorance, coupled with the fact that the person was prepared and repentant, certainly meant that in this case he was "unable to receive forgiveness through the sacrament of penance" and so the anointing supplied the effect of forgiveness and the dying man received viaticum in the state of grace.

Another Californian asks: "Is the sacrament of the anointing of the sick reserved solely for those suffering a terminal illness or for those preparing to undergo surgery? May persons suffering from chronic illness, mental illness, spiritual illness and drug addiction receive this sacrament?"

As mentioned in our previous column the sacrament is for grave (but not necessarily terminal) physical illness. The sacrament may thus be given to people who have a grave chronic illness if this malady somehow places them in danger of death.

At least up till now, Catholic doctrine has not seen this sacrament as necessary for non life-threatening chronic illnesses, mental illnesses and conditions such as drug addiction and alcoholism. It could be given however, in the case of a dangerous situation that results from such conditions as a drug overdose.

For these ailments the usual means of grace are more often than not sufficient in helping us to overcome these burdens or at least bear patiently the trials permitted by God.

Among these means are frequent recourse to the sacraments of reconciliation and Eucharist, closeness to the Blessed Mother, as well as prayer and seeking spiritual guidance.

Father Cantalamessa on the Apostolic Mission

ROME, JULY 14, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of a commentary by Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, preacher to the Pontifical Household, on this Sunday's liturgy.

* * *

He sent them out two by two

15th Sunday of Ordinary Time (B)
(Amos 7:12-15; Ephesians 1:3-14; Mark 6:7-13)

"And he called to him the Twelve, and began to send them out two by two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits. He charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff; no bread, no bag, no money in their belts; but to wear sandals and not put on two tunics."

Bible scholars explain that, as usual, Mark, on referring to Christ's deeds and words, takes into account the situation and needs of the Church at the time he is writing the Gospel, that is, after the resurrection of Christ. But the main event and the instructions that Christ gives to the apostles in this passage refer to the earthly Jesus.

It is the beginning and like the general trials of the apostolic mission. For the moment it is a limited mission to the neighboring peoples, that is, to Jewish fellow countrymen. After Easter, this mission will be extended to the whole world, also to pagans: "Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to the whole creation" [Mark 16:15].

This fact is of decisive importance to understand the life and mission of Christ. He did not come to realize some personal prowess. He did not want to be a meteorite that goes across the sky only to disappear later into nothingness. He did not come, in other words, only for those few thousands of people who had the possibility to see and hear him in person during his life. He thought his mission should continue, be permanent, so that each person, in all times and places of history, would have the possibility to hear the Good News of God's love and be saved.

That is why he chose collaborators and began to send them ahead to preach the Kingdom and cure the sick. He did with his disciples what a good rector does today with his seminarians, who, on the weekends, sends his young men to parishes so that they will begin to have pastoral experience, or sends them to charitable institutions to help those who look after the poor, those outside the European community, to prepare for what one day will be their mission.

Jesus' invitation "Go!" is addressed first to the apostles, and today to their successors: the Pope, bishops and priests, but not only to them. The latter must be the guides, animators of the others in the common mission. To think otherwise would be as if saying that war can be waged only with generals and captains, without soldiers; or that a soccer team can be established only with one trainer and referee, without players.

After this sending of the apostles, the Gospel of Luke reads, Jesus "appointed seventy-two others, and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to come" (Luke 10:1). These seventy-two disciples were probably all those he had gathered up to that moment, or at least all those who followed him with a certain continuity. Jesus, therefore, sent all his disciples, also laymen.

The post-Conciliar Church has witnessed a flowering of this awareness. The laity of ecclesial movements are the successors of these seventy-two disciples. The Vigil of Pentecost gave an idea of the dimensions of this phenomenon with those hundreds of thousands of young people who arrived in St. Peter's Square to celebrate Vespers of the Solemnity with the Pope. What was most impressive was the joy and enthusiasm of those present. Clearly, for those youths to live and proclaim the Gospel is not a burden to be accepted out of duty, but a joy, a privilege, something that makes the living of life more beautiful.

The Gospel uses only one word to say what the apostles should preach to the people ("that they repent,") whereas it describes at length how they must preach. In this regard, there is an important teaching in the fact that Jesus sent them two by two. Going two by two was customary in those times, but with Jesus it assumes a new meaning, no longer only practical. Jesus sent them two by two -- explained Saint Gregory the Great -- to inculcate charity, because with less than two persons there can be no charity. The first testimony to give of Jesus is that of mutual love: "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35).

We must be careful not to misinterpret Jesus' phrase about shaking the dust off their feet when they were not received. In Christ's intention, this was meant to be a testimony "for" them, not against them. It should serve to make them understand that the missionaries had not gone for selfish reasons, to take money or other things from them; more than that, they did not even want to take away their dust. They had gone for their salvation and, rejecting them, deprived themselves of the greatest good of the world.

It is something that must also be stressed today. The Church does not proclaim the Gospel to increase her power or the number of her members. If she acted like this, she would be the first to betray the Gospel. She does so because she wants to share the gift received, because she has received from Christ the mandate: "Freely you received, freely you must give."

[Translation and adaptation from the Italian by ZENIT]

Wednesday Liturgy: Sign of Peace

ROME, JULY 11, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: Does the rubric "The priest or deacon may say, 'Let us offer the sign of peace'" still mean the exchange between the people, rather than that between priest and people? I am informed that the people may never omit this exchange between themselves, even if the invitation to do so is not given. -- G.D., Thornley, England

A: The theme of the rite of peace (or "kiss of peace") is dealt with in several places in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal. While giving an overall description of the rites of Mass, it says in No. 82:

"The Rite of Peace follows, by which the Church asks for peace and unity for herself and for the whole human family, and the faithful express to each other their ecclesial communion and mutual charity before communicating in the Sacrament.

"As for the sign of peace to be given, the manner is to be established by Conferences of Bishops in accordance with the culture and customs of the peoples. It is, however, appropriate that each person offer the sign of peace only to those who are nearest and in a sober manner."

Later, when describing the various forms of rite, it adds more details. Describing Mass with a priest, it says in No. 154:

"Then the priest, with hands extended, says aloud the prayer, 'Domine Iesu Christe, qui dixisti' (Lord Jesus Christ, you said). After this prayer is concluded, extending and then joining his hands, he gives the greeting of peace while facing the people and saying, 'Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum' (The peace of the Lord be with you always). The people answer, 'Et cum spiritu tuo' (And also with you). Afterwards, when appropriate, the priest adds, 'Offerte vobis pacem' (Let us offer each other the sign of peace).

"The priest may give the sign of peace to the ministers but always remains within the sanctuary, so as not to disturb the celebration. In the dioceses of the United States of America, for a good reason, on special occasions (for example, in the case of a funeral, a wedding, or when civic leaders are present) the priest may offer the sign of peace to a few of the faithful near the sanctuary. At the same time, in accord with the decisions of the Conference of Bishops, all offer one another a sign that expresses peace, communion, and charity. While the sign of peace is being given, one may say, 'Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum' (The peace of the Lord be with you always), to which the response is Amen."

No. 181 covers the situation when a deacon is present and No. 239 describes concelebrations:

"181: After the priest has said the prayer at the Rite of Peace and the greeting 'Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum' (The peace of the Lord be with you always) and the people have responded, 'Et cum spiritu tuo' (And also with you), the deacon, if it is appropriate, invites all to exchange the sign of peace. He faces the people and, with hands joined, says, 'Offerte vobis pacem pacem' (Let us offer each other the sign of peace). Then he himself receives the sign of peace from the priest and may offer it to those other ministers who are closer to him.

"239: After the deacon or, when no deacon is present, one of the concelebrants has said the invitation 'Offerte vobis pacem pacem' (Let us offer each other the sign of peace), all exchange the sign of peace with one another. The concelebrants who are nearer the principal celebrant receive the sign of peace from him before the deacon does."

Finally, "Redemptionis Sacramentum," No. 71, adds a further note: "The practice of the Roman Rite is to be maintained according to which the peace is extended shortly before Holy Communion. For according to the tradition of the Roman Rite, this practice does not have the connotation either of reconciliation or of a remission of sins, but instead signifies peace, communion and charity before the reception of the Most Holy Eucharist. It is rather the Penitential Act to be carried out at the beginning of Mass (especially in its first form) which has the character of reconciliation among brothers and sisters."

These documents show that both the invitation and actual exchange of peace form part of a single act and are done "if it is appropriate." If for some good reason the celebrant decides to omit the invitation, then the faithful are not required to exchange the sign of peace among themselves.

"Redemptionis Sacramentum" highlights another reason. The peace exchanged is the Lord's peace coming from the sacrifice of the altar. An exchange of the sign of peace without an invitation from the altar in a way changes the symbolic value of the rite and could reduce it to signify merely human benevolence.

All the same, pastorally speaking, it is preferable to have some stability in using or omitting the invitation to the sign of peace. If a priest occasionally or irregularly omits the rite he will probably find that the faithful start shaking hands anyway from force of habit. This can lead to confusion.

Some priests omit it for weekday Masses, others include it always. There is no absolute criterion for all cases.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: The Creed

ROME, JULY 11, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

After our column on the Profession of Faith (June 27) some readers asked if it was permitted to omit the creed on Sundays and solemnities.

According to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal:

"67. The purpose of the Symbolum or Profession of Faith, or Creed, is that the whole gathered people may respond to the word of God proclaimed in the readings taken from Sacred Scripture and explained in the homily and that they may also call to mind and confess the great mysteries of the faith by reciting the rule of faith in a formula approved for liturgical use, before these mysteries are celebrated in the Eucharist.

"68. The Creed is to be sung or said by the priest together with the people on Sundays and Solemnities. It may be said also at particular celebrations of a more solemn character.

"If it is sung, it is begun by the priest or, if this is appropriate, by a cantor or by the choir. It is sung, however, either by all together or by the people alternating with the choir.

"If not sung, it is to be recited by all together or by two parts of the assembly responding one to the other."

There is thus no provision for omitting the creed when prescribed and no priest has the authority to do so.

There are times, however, when the liturgical books indicate that the creed may be omitted such as a Mass in which baptism, ordination or religious profession are celebrated.

Other readers asked if other texts may be omitted or added, such as saying "for us" instead of "for us men."

"Redemptionis Sacramentum," No. 69, states: "In Holy Mass as well as in other celebrations of the Sacred Liturgy, no Creed or Profession of Faith is to be introduced which is not found in the duly approved liturgical books."

Thus, nobody should presume to second-guess the Church regarding the proper formulas to be used at Mass even though the Church may always improve a given translation. Apart from the lack of confidence and obedience expressed by such omissions, there is also the danger of inculcating erroneous ideas in the faithful.

As one New York reader cogently points out: "'Us' is a relative term. It can mean us present in the church; us, members of the parish, diocese, country; us Catholics; us the elected -- use your imagination. It could be interpreted as representing the Jansenist heresy."

Even apparently innocuous changes can have far-reaching consequences and it falls upon priests, and especially bishops, to be firm and vigilant in safeguarding the faith.

Several readers asked what creed is prescribed.

In general the Nicene Creed should be used. The new Roman Missal also gives the option of occasionally substituting the Nicene Creed for the Symbol of the Apostles, especially during seasons such as Lent and Easter.

Some countries have received permission to always use the Apostles' Creed. Several bishops have since lamented this choice as it deprives the faithful of one of the Church's treasures; they have recommended a return to the use of both texts.

On Easter Sunday the creed is usually replaced with the renewal of baptismal promises.

Father Cantalamessa on a Prophet Without Honor

ROME, JULY 7, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of a commentary by Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, preacher to the Pontifical Household, on the liturgical readings for this Sunday, the 14th of Ordinary Time.

* * *

And they took offense at him

When Jesus was already popular and famous because of his miracles and teaching, he returned one day to his place of origin, Nazareth, and as usual, he began to teach in the synagogue. However, this time there was no enthusiasm, no Hosanna!

More than listening to what he was saying and judging him accordingly, the people began to engage in inappropriate considerations. "Whence did he get this wisdom? He has not studied; we know him well; he is the carpenter, the son of Mary!" "And they took offense at him," that is, they had a problem in believing him because they knew him well.

Jesus commented bitterly: "A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house." This phrase has become proverbial in the abbreviated form: Nemo propheta in patria, no one is a prophet in his country. But this in only a curiosity. The evangelical passage also gives us an implicit warning which we can summarize thus: be careful not to commit the same mistake as the Nazarenes! In a certain sense, Jesus returns to his country every time his Gospel is proclaimed in the countries which were, at one time, the cradle of Christianity.

Our Italy, and Europe in general, are, for Christianity, what Nazareth was for Jesus: "the place where he was raised" (Christianity was born in Asia, but grew up in Europe, a bit like Jesus who was born in Bethlehem but was raised in Nazareth!) Today they run the same risk as the Nazarenes: not to recognize Jesus. The Constitutional Charter of the new united Europe is not the only place from which he is "expelled" at present.

The episode of the Gospel teaches us something important. Jesus leaves us free; he proposes his gifts, he does not impose them. That day, in face of the rejection of his fellow countrymen, Jesus did not give way to threats and invectives. He did not say, indignant, as it is said the African Publius Scipio did, when leaving Rome: "Ungrateful country, you will not have my bones!" He simply went to another place.

Once he was not received in a certain village. The indignant disciples suggested that fire be brought down from heaven, but Jesus turned and rebuked them (Luke 9:54).

That is how he acts also today. "God is timid." He has far more respect for our freedom than we ourselves have for one another's. This creates a great responsibility. St. Augustine said: "I am afraid of Jesus passing" (Timeo Jesum transeuntem). He might, in fact, pass without my realizing it, pass without my being ready to receive him.

His passing is always a passing of grace. Mark says succinctly that, having arrived in Nazareth on the Sabbath, Jesus "began to teach in the synagogue." However, the Gospel of Luke specifies also what he taught and said that Sabbath. He said he had come "to preach good news to the poor, to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord" (Luke 4:18-19).

What Jesus proclaimed in the synagogue of Nazareth was, therefore, the first Christian jubilee of history, the first great "year of grace," of which all jubilees and "holy years" are a commemoration.

[Translation by ZENIT]

Wednesday Liturgy: Anointing of the Sick

ROME, JULY 4, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: My wife and I go to Mass on first Saturdays to this church where the normal priest offers confession, Mass and anointing of the sick. Now, the normal priest was not there, but our new priest stood in for the normal priest. When the Mass was over the priest said: "Before, I give the anointing of the sick, I want it to be known that I will give it only to those who are: sick, dying, have a serious illness, or in danger of losing their life. Too many people abuse this sacrament." Was he right in making that statement? -- J.C., Corpus Christi, Texas

A: I have no idea if the manner or tone of the priest's statement was done with due pastoral tact. But he is correct as to the substance of the norms for administering the anointing of the sick.

Under present norms the sacrament may be administered "as soon as any one of the faithful begins to be in danger of death from sickness or old age, the fitting time for him to receive this sacrament has certainly already arrived" (Code of Canon Law 1004 §1).

The provisions of the ritual "for the anointing of the sick and their pastoral care," issued by the Holy See, clarifies the conditions under which the sacrament may be received.

Regarding the judgment as to the seriousness of the illness the document states that: "It is sufficient to have a prudent or probable judgment about its seriousness. All anxiety about the matter should be put aside and, if necessary, the physician might be consulted."

Also: "This sacrament can be repeated if the sick person had recovered after his previous reception of anointing. It can also be conferred again if, during the same illness, his dangerous condition becomes more serious."

Major surgery is also a sufficient motivation for receiving the sacrament even if the condition is not in itself immediately life-threatening: "Before a surgical section (popularly 'operation'), holy anointing can be given to the sick person as often as the dangerous illness is the cause of this surgery."

Here the Church distinguishes between an illness that might not of itself warrant reception of the sacrament, and the same illness preceding surgery. In the latter case, anointing becomes warranted.

With reference to the elderly: "Anointing can be conferred on the aged who are greatly weakened in strength, even though there is no sign of a dangerous illness." In this case the anointing may be repeated periodically as old age progresses.

The sacrament can also be administered to sick children: "from the time they have reached the use of reason, so that they can be strengthened by this sacrament." Consequently the motive for conferring the sacrament is not (though it may include) remission of their personal sins, but to obtain the strength they may need either for bearing their sufferings, or to overcome discouragement or, if it is God's will, to be restored to health.

The sacrament may also be conferred on the unconscious if "as believers they would likely have asked for the holy anointing while they were in possession of their faculties." Likewise, if a person is apparently dead but the priest "is in doubt whether the sick person is really dead, he can give him the sacrament conditionally."

Therefore, although the Church's dispositions allow for a generous administration of the anointing of the sick, the sacrament is ordered toward the gravely ill from a physical condition. It should not be administered generally and indiscriminately.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: The Chair of the Priest Celebrant

ROME, JULY 4, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Several readers asked for clarifications on the location of the priest's chair (June 20).

A South African reader enquired if "the best position should be where the presider can sit and preach from, in case he is to preach from his chair."

Another priest, an associate pastor from New York, asked: "I am wondering if comment could be offered on the location of the seating for altar servers (acolytes) when serving Mass? In my parish, they are seated on either side of the presider. I believe this is inappropriate."

If I may begin with a brief terminological comment. The word "presider" has gained some currency among liturgists, but I usually refrain from using it in the context of the Mass as it does not appear in the official liturgical books.

The official translation of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) does speak of presidential prayers, texts, office or presidential chair, but the person who presides is referred to most often as "priest celebrant."

Returning to our main theme, GIRM No. 136 states: "The priest, standing at the chair or at the ambo itself or, when appropriate, in another suitable place, gives the homily. When the homily is completed, a period of silence may be observed."

Thus the possibility of preaching from the chair is a factor in deciding where to locate it, but hardly the most important one as other locations are available. In most cases the basic criteria given last time for the chair's location would also make it a suitable place for preaching.

I would also observe that only the bishop preaches while seated. Even if a priest delivers the homily from the chair he does so standing.

The text of the GIRM quoted in the previous column clarified that only the deacon's chair, or that of eventual concelebrants, may be placed near the presidential chair.

The earlier custom of placing the acolytes on either side of the priest should therefore be discontinued and another suitable place be found for seating the servers from where they can exercise their ministry.

Churches that have installed fixed seats or benches beside the priest's chair might have to continue the previous custom for lack of viable alternatives. In such cases the norm might sometimes be fulfilled by leaving a suitable space on either side between the servers and the priest celebrant.

Father Cantalamessa on Revitalizing Youth

ROME, JUNE 30, 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 passage.

* * *

Little girl, arise!

The passage of this Sunday's Gospel is made up of scenes that occur rapidly in different places.

First of all is the scene on the lakeshore. Jesus is surrounded by a crowd when a man falls down at his feet and begs him: "My daughter is at the point of death. Please, come lay your hands on her that she may get well and live." Jesus leaves his half-finished address and goes to the man's home.

The second scene takes place on the road. A woman who suffered from hemorrhage, went up behind Jesus to touch his garment and felt she is cured.

While Jesus was speaking with her, someone arrived from Jairus' house to tell him: "Your daughter has died; why trouble the teacher any longer?" Jesus, who heard everything, said to the ruler of the synagogue: "Do not be afraid; just have faith."

And next comes the crucial scene, in Jairus' house.

There was great confusion, people weeping and shouting, which is understandable given the death of the adolescent which had just occurred.

"So he went in and said to them, 'Why this commotion and weeping? The child is not dead but asleep.' ... Then he put them all out. He took along the child's father and mother and those who were with him and entered the room where the child was.

"He took the child by the hand and said to her, 'Talitha koum,' which means, 'Little girl, I say to you, arise!'

"The girl, a child of twelve, arose immediately and walked around. ... He gave strict orders that no one should know this and said that she should be given something to eat" (Mark 5:39-43).

The Gospel passage suggests an observation. The degree of historicity and reliability of the Gospels is again continually discussed. We recently witnessed the attempt to put at the same level, as if it had the same authority, the four canonical Gospels and the apocryphal gospels of the second and third centuries.

However, this attempt is simply absurd, and it also shows a good deal of bad faith. The apocryphal gospels, especially those of Gnostic origin, were written several generations later by persons who had lost all contact with the events, and who, moreover, were not in the least interested in making history, but in putting on Christ's lips the teachings of their own schools.

The canonical Gospels, on the contrary, were written by eyewitnesses of the events or persons who had been in contact with eyewitnesses.

Mark, whose Gospel we are reading this year, was in close relationship with the Apostle Peter, of whom he refers many episodes that had him as protagonist.

This Sunday's passage gives us an example of that historical character of the Gospels. The clear portrait of Jairus and his anguished request for help; the episode of the woman they meet on the way to her home; the messengers' skeptical attitude toward Jesus; Christ's tenacity; the atmosphere of the people mourning for the dead girl; Jesus' command mentioned in the original Aramaic language; Jesus' moving concern that the resurrected girl be given something to eat. All makes one think of an eyewitness' account of the event.

Now, a brief application of Sunday's Gospel to life: There is not only the death of the body but also the death of the heart.

Death of the heart exists when one lives in anxiety, discouragement and chronic sadness. Jesus' words "Talitha koum," Little girl, arise, are not addressed only to dead boys and girls, but also to living boys and girls.

How sad it is to see young people … sad. And there are very many around us. Sadness, pessimism, the desire not to live, are always bad things, but when one sees or hears young people express them, the heart is even more oppressed.

In this connection, Jesus also continues today to resurrect dead boys and girls. He does so with his word, and also by sending them his disciples who, in his name, and with his very love, repeat to today's young people that cry of his: "Talitha koum," youth, arise! Live again!

[Translation by ZENIT]