The Sunday Asperges: Holy Water in a Time of Drought

“…My flesh faints for thee, as in a dry and weary land where no water is…”

It is not difficult to understand why it has been thought best to remove holy water from the stoups in our churches. Having lots of people dip their fingers into a common bowl at a time when germs are a bigger problem than usual is not a great idea. The same line of reasoning should also have led to a suspension of giving Communion from hand to hand, but logical consistency has never been a strength of the postconciliar Church. I cannot refrain from adding that those who maintain that if we just have “enough faith” (however this is to be measured), no amount of germs can ever get us sick, need a crash course on the concept of superstition in St. Thomas. Our baptism equipped us with marvelous supernatural powers, not Marvel superpowers.

All the same, the flip side is true: holy water has been and should be such an important sacramental in Catholic life that its removal ought to strike us as extremely regrettable, and steps should be taken to remedy its absence from churches. I’ve seen almost no indications that this is a feeling shared by most pastors and people, and I’m afraid that the explanation is obvious: holy water just ain’t what it used to be. Or to put it more simply, the only way you can get holy water is to use the old rite of blessing it, which really blesses it; the new rite doesn’t, as we learned at the last Sacred Liturgy Conference in a challenging talk given by Archbishop Cordileone, contrasting the old and new rites for the blessing of water (text; video). Fr. Zuhlsdorf presents the two rites side by side, where the difference becomes painfully, even scandalously, evident. (Here's a more recent article that does the same.)

Excerpts from the old prayer of exorcising and blessing holy water:

O water, creature of God, I exorcise you in the name of God the Father + Almighty, and in the name of Jesus + Christ His Son, our Lord, and in the power of the Holy + Spirit. I exorcise you so that you may put to flight all the power of the enemy, and be able to root out and supplant that enemy with his apostate angels, through the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will come to judge the living and the dead and the world by fire…. May this, your creature, become an agent of divine grace in the service of your mysteries, to drive away evil spirits and dispel sickness… May the wiles of the lurking enemy prove of no avail. Let whatever might menace the safety and peace of those who live here be put to flight by the sprinkling of this water, so that the health obtained by calling upon your holy name, may be made secure against all attack…. Humbly and fearfully do we pray to you, O Lord, and we ask you to look with favor on this salt and water which you created. Shine on it with the light of your kindness. Sanctify it by the dew of your love, so that, through the invocation of your holy name, wherever this water and salt is sprinkled, it may turn aside every attack of the unclean spirit, and dispel the terrors of the poisonous serpent.

Now that’s how the Catholic Church used to pray — and still does, where the Faith survives.

The new rite reads like this:

Blessed are you, Lord, all-powerful God, who in Christ, the living water of salvation, blessed and transformed us. Grant that, when we are sprinkled with this water or make use of it, we will be refreshed inwardly by the power of the Holy Spirit… (etc.)

But nowhere an actual blessing of the water. Consequently, most Catholic churches for the past fifty years have had the equivalent of birdbaths, which has not allowed the demon-dispelling and passion-quelling power of this potent sacramental to impress itself on us. The replacement of this water with sand during Lent or with nothing at the present moment is not likely to cause a furor.

Have a squirt!

However, there is still a deep association for many between going to church and taking holy water. We want to do something when we enter a church to show that we are preparing ourselves for our purpose there. The water does remind us of our baptism and, if it is actually blessed water, it is an occasion of grace and the remission of venial sins, as St. Thomas argues. It seems most fitting that we make the sign of the Cross with water that is reminiscent of the water flowing, with blood, from the side of Christ. If our spirits are troubled from within or vexed from without, real holy water puts demons to flight, as St Teresa of Jesus says in her Autobiography: “From long experience I have learned that there is nothing like holy water to put devils to flight and prevent them from coming back again. They also flee from the Cross, but return; so holy water must have great virtue.” The language of the old prayer cited above perfectly explains why it has such power.

There are, then, multiple causes of regret. First, that the blessing of holy water was effectively abandoned. Second, that holy water is so readily and unobjectionably removed from churches. Third, that the habit of using holy water has diminished among Catholics to such an extent that most would not think of keeping a bottle of it on hand at home to sprinkle regularly in the home and on one another. Fourth, that the glorious ceremony of the Asperges, a regular feature before Sunday High Mass in the usus antiquior, has become a rarely-used and much-altered feature of the Novus Ordo Missae (bizarrely enough supplanting its penitential rite, because, after all, one can never pray too little for mercy).

Now is a good time to reverse all this.

• Ghostly fathers, use the real rite of blessing of holy water from the Rituale Romanum. Fr. Jerabek has conveniently formatted it on a single sheet of paper. You are allowed to do so by Summorum Pontificum; indeed, you are allowed to do so because what was sacred in ages past is and remains sacred and great for us and can never be considered harmful or be prohibited. 
• Put the Book of Blessings in a safe place, where no one will ever find it again.
• Use the Asperges with the High Mass whenever you can, and give the people a good dousing, with the follow-through of a tennis arm.
• Teach about the value of holy water and make small containers of it available at the back of the church for free.
• Fathers of families, get hold of real holy water and sprinkle it before bedtime, perhaps right after the evening rosary, on your wife and children. Or before the rosary, if it looks like some are too sleepy!

The faster we got rid of our distinctively Catholic items and practices during Covidtide, the more obvious it is that we no longer believe in their efficacy (this holds as much for sacraments as for sacramentals); the sooner we take them up again, or find ways to keep using them, the more evident it is that we are profiting from the trials willed by Divine Providence.

Huh?

“...until the Eschaton, Parousia, or whatever the government decides.”

This, at least, is better: the faithful are offered alternative access

“Catholicism in a Covid-19 World”: Latin Mass Society Online Conference, Saturday, July 18th

An online conference “Catholicism in a Covid-19 World” will be hosted by the Latin Mass Society this Saturday, 18th July, from 12 noon (GMT +1) until 4.45 pm (GMT +1), featuring speakers Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Fr Tim Finigan, Fr John Zuhlsdorf, Dr Joseph Shaw, Archbishop Thomas Gullickson and Mgr Gordon Read. The event will be hosted by Dr Shaw and Sebastian Morello and will begin with High Mass in the Traditional Rite from St Mary’s Warrington.

Joseph Shaw writes “I am delighted to be taking part in the Latin Mass Society’s first online conference with a wonderful selection of speakers. I hope that many people will be able to join us on the day.”

This event is being held online for free and can be viewed on the Latin Mass Society’s new YouTube channel. To bookmark the LMS YouTube channel go HERE.

The direct link for the Conference is HERE.

No registration is necessary, although to sign up for updates before and during the event, go to HERE.

A recording of the day will remain on our YouTube channel.

Programme (Subject to change)

12 noon Introduction from Dr Joseph Shaw, Chairman of the Latin Mass Society and Sebastian Morello, Formation Adviser for the Archdiocese of Southwark.

12.10pm High Mass Live from St Mary’s Warrington. Celebrant Fr Armand de Malleray FSSP

13.25 Archbishop Gullickson, Apostolic Nuncio to Switzerland and Liechtenstein and Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of Astana, Kazakhstan

13.45 Fr Tim Finigan, Priest of the Archdiocese of Southwark

14.15 Mgr Gordon Read, National Chaplain to the LMS

14.45 Fr John Zuhlsdorf, President of the Tridentine Mass Society of Madison and Blogger: Covid-19: What are the implications for Tradition?

15.45 Dr Joseph Shaw, Chairman of the LMS: After the Plague

16.15 Live Q & A with Dr Shaw, Fr Tim Finigan and Sebastian Morello

16.45 End

Communion on the Tongue: Episcopal Oversight, the Common Good, and Useful Lessons from Tradition

A number of people online have been promoting the idea that Canon 223 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law gives bishops the authority to deny the Catholic faithful communion on the tongue and to require communion in the hand for anyone receiving.

Let’s have a look at the canon.

Can. 223 §1. In exercising their rights, the Christian faithful, both as individuals and gathered together in associations, must take into account the common good of the Church, the rights of others, and their own duties toward others.
§2. In view of the common good, ecclesiastical authority can direct the exercise of rights which are proper to the Christian faithful.

As I mentioned in my last article, “Contempt for Communion and the Mechanization of Mass,” the notion of “the common good” can be too breezily invoked to cover a multitude of sins.

The first thing we need to consider is a theological fact that has more authority than any canon law or any interpretation thereof: that, as St. Thomas Aquinas teaches [1], the common good of the entire universe is found in Christ, and Christ is really present in the Holy Eucharist, as the same saint memorably conveys in the Magnificat antiphon for Vespers of Corpus Christi:

O sacrum convivium, in quo Christus sumitur: recolitur memoria passionis eius: mens impletur gratia: et futurae gloriae nobis pignus datur. Alleluia. (O sacred banquet, in which Christ is received, the memory of his Passion is renewed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us. Alleluia.)

This means the Holy Eucharist IS the common good of the entire universe. Therefore, when we are considering how Communion ought to be distributed, the first and last consideration must be what we owe to God in loving Him above all others; we owe Him fitting reverence in all that we do and say. The Blessed Sacrament is not just “one more thing” over which a bishop has control, even if there is a limited sense in which he may establish norms for his diocese not contrary to universal norms (unless expressly permitted to do so; and even then, we should recall the statement of the Apostle: “all things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient,” 1 Cor. 6, 12).

If we take seriously the truth of which Aquinas reminds us, we will see that Can. 223 §1 is obliging us to “take into account the common good of the Church” — above all, Christ Himself in the Eucharist — and, in that light, “the rights of others, and their own duties toward others.” The faithful have the right to see the Eucharist properly treated by all; our duties include building up the Body of Christ in holiness, which is incompatible with any kind of irreverence or unworthy experimentation, such as the German methods of Coronacommunion depicted in my last article.

Inevitably, the question arises: What is and what is not reverent? It seems to me very dangerous to say that bishops, all by themselves, get to determine the answer to this question, in a positivist vacuum. That is an anti-traditional nominalism that Catholics should not abide. Meanwhile, it is clear that the current situation will show which bishops have a supernatural perspective and which ones have a merely natural perspective.

More interesting is Can. 223 §2: “In view of the common good, ecclesiastical authority can direct the exercise of rights which are proper to the Christian faithful.” This canon suffers more than usually from the vagueness that is a necessary fault (as it were) of any code of law, but it is clear that it must be interpreted in light of the general norms of the law. Thus, for instance, Can. 135 §2 states, in part: “A lower legislator cannot validly issue a law contrary to higher law.” Given no provision for overruling the liturgical norms in force — which norms are extremely clear, repeated numerous times, as I and others have demonstrated (most recently in this article) — any bishop’s attempt to deny the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue is unlawful on its face. [2]

Beyond this more theoretical consideration, we may note — as countless bloggers and online commenters have already done — that the USCCB has quasi-adopted a set of guidelines from the Thomistic Institute that state: “We believe that, with the precautions listed here, it is possible to distribute on the tongue without unreasonable risk.” [3] Although I do not agree with many of the Thomistic Institute’s precautions (for the reasons given in my last article), they at least recognize, as have various dioceses here and there (Portland being the best known), that there is no unreasonable risk in proceeding with the method that is still the Church’s universal norm.

Archbishop Chaput giving Holy Communion:
note optimal height relationship

Practical Issues with Communion on the Tongue

However, here I must speak plainly, and cut through the rigmarole. It is time for the hierarchy of the Church to recognize that the bishops themselves have caused the problem with sanitary communion on the tongue precisely by abolishing (or, at any rate, discouraging for decades) the traditional manner of receiving — namely, kneeling shoulder-to-shoulder along an altar rail, with a server holding a chin paten. [4] This method became universal for good reason. Quite apart from its superior reverence,[5] it is highly practical, for three reasons:

First, it was normally done only by a priest, who had gained expertise from daily experience, as opposed to the rotating schedules of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion who may or may not know how to place the host properly on the tongue, and who often come across as hesitant, embarrassed, perplexed, or irritated at having to do so.

Second, the priest walking along the communion rail stands at an optimal height at which to place the host easily on the communicant’s tongue. It is vastly more awkward to try to give communion on the tongue to someone standing in front of you, especially if he or she is taller. The traditional method makes it far more likely that a priest will not have any immediate physical contact with the faithful, as opposed to communion in the hand where he will touch many, many germy hands — unless he follows the proposal to drop the host into the hand like a payload from a bomber, which brings with it problems of its own.

Third, because the faithful come up to the altar rail in waves, they have a chance to settle themselves on their knees and can calmly prepare for the priest coming to them. By the time he arrives, the communicant can have his or her head tilted back and be ready. There’s no unseemly rushing. (In the traditional form of communion, the priest says the prayer: “Corpus Domini nostri…” and concludes with the “Amen”; the recipient does not have to move his lips and risk either discharging saliva or accidentally touching the priest’s hand. In other words, it works perfectly in a time of epidemic.)

Bishop Ronald Gainer distributing Holy Communion in the traditional manner

All Catholics should be aware that if they wish to receive on the tongue, they should kneel — regardless of which form of the Mass they are attending or whom they are receiving from. They should kneel, first, because it is the Lord God before whom the angels fall on their faces; and second, because, when they kneel, tilt back their head, and protrude their tongue, it will be very easy for the host to be placed on it.

A seasoned priest who celebrates both forms of the Mass, Fr. Allan J. McDonald, shares some excellent thoughts at his blog Southern Orders [6]:

I know because I celebrate both forms of the one Roman Rite that kneeling for Holy Communion makes it easier for me not to touch the tongue of the communicant in the EF Mass if the communicant does what I was taught about receiving Holy Communion as a second grader. You tilt your head slightly back, stick out your tongue in a natural not exaggerated way and wait for the priest to withdraw his hand prior to retracting one’s tongue or moving one’s head forward.
       In the EF Mass the priest responds amen for the communicant thus neutralizing any spittle from becoming aerosolized and attaching to the priest’s fingers while these are close to the communicant’s mouth.
       Other temporal life-saving aspects of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass are these, which the Ordinary Form is recovering for the temporal health of the laity and priest(s):
       1. Ad orientem, the priest’s aerosolized words go toward the wall not the congregation.
       2. Hymn books are now deemed a deadly device if Coronavirus attaches to them and are being removed from pews. Thus the choir or cantor needs to chant the entrance chant, hopefully the official Introit and the laity actually participate by meditating on what is chanted rather than joining in and aerosolizing the air with their viruses.
       3. The offertory gifts are not touched by anyone, similar to the EF Mass where only the priest touches the sacred vessels — except in the EF it is out of reverence, [while] in the OF it will be out of fear of contagion or viruses attaching to the vessels carried by the laity.
       4. Kneeling for Holy Communion will finally be seen by bishops as the only healthy way to receive Holy Communion without hand-to-hand contact or hand-to-tongue contact, unfortunately not because it is more reverent to receive in the EF manner.
       5. The Common Chalice will never return to the laity out an abundance of fear that Coronavirus will live on and in the chalice and the Precious Blood diluted with copious amounts of numerous communicants’ saliva. Unfortunately the concerning of profanation of the Precious Blood by contaminants or spilling it is not the major concern as it should be.
       6. Priests will no longer be glad-handing the laity before and after Mass; although unlikely, this may lead to priests praying privately to God before and after Mass, which is a custom of the EF Mass.
       7. To prevent aerosolizing of speech with Coronavirus in the floating spittle, silence will be demanded in the church before and after Mass and physical distancing amidst the silence not because the Blessed Sacrament is there and demands silent adoration, but out of a concern for temporal health.
       8. Of course the handshake/hug of peace will disappear out of fear of offending social distancing civil law — not because it is a horrible distraction during the Communion Rite.

Bishop Joseph Perry gives Holy Communion at St. John Cantius

As Fr. McDonald frequently points out on his blog, the Extraordinary Form in fact has better customs in everything that concerns the Blessed Sacrament: its preparation, its consecration, its distribution, its reservation. Many of these will end up being adopted again in Coronatide, not (alas) because Catholics are awakening to the Real Presence and what is most fitting for our approach to the Lord, but out of fear of contamination or sickness. Sadly, this motive is even less noble than imperfect contrition — fear of hell — as a motivation for going to Confession. That, at least, is a concern for one’s immortal destiny after this life, rather than a fixation on this fleeting mortal life that we will all one day have to give up, whether from a virus or from one of ten thousand other natural or violent causes that threaten the poor, banished children of Eve.

It is appropriate for us to ask how we can mitigate risks, but not with the secular mentality of agnostic utilitarians who do not remember and do not take to heart the Lord with Whom we are dealing in the Most Blessed Sacrament. Ironically, it is Catholic tradition, not postconciliar praxis, that holds an array of useful approaches in a time of epidemic. These are ready to be implemented — if anyone cares about the common good of the entire universe and our sacramental participation in it.

NOTES

[1] See Super I ad Cor., cap. 12, lec. 3.

[2] As a side-note: since we know that canon law can, at times, be poorly formulated — criticisms have been freely made by canonists on certain points of both the 1917 and the 1983 codes — I will take this occasion to state that the formulation of Can. 223 §2 is disturbing. How far can it be taken? “Direct the exercise of rights which are proper to the Christian faithful.” All such rights? For example, could a bishop say “I direct you not to get married” or “I direct you to enter religious life”? After all, those are rights proper to the faithful… Without a layman having committed a serious public fault, it is difficult to see how any such directive could be legitimate.

[3] The Thomistic Institute states: “Opinions on this point are varied within the medical and scientific community: some believe Communion on the tongue involves an elevated and, in the light of all the circumstances, an unreasonable risk; others disagree. If Communion on the tongue is provided, one could consider using hand sanitizer after each communicant who receives on the tongue.” This last is a deplorable suggestion, deservedly ridiculed by Fr. Zuhlsdorf.

[4] As demonstrated in “Why We Should Retain or Reintroduce the Communion Plate (‘Chin Paten’),” this practice is called for even by the General Instruction of the Roman Missal that governs the Ordinary Form.

[5] See the article “‘Eat That Which I Will Give You’: Why We Receive Communion in the Mouth.”

[6] I have edited the text slightly.

Visit Dr. Kwasniewski’s website, SoundCloud page, and YouTube channel.

Contempt for Communion and the Mechanization of Mass

Rube Goldberg, Professor Butts and the Self-Operating Napkin (1931)

On May 6, I published at OnePeterFive an article entitled “Bishops Cannot Mandate Communion on the Hand or Forbid Communion on the Tongue.” Taking up and augmenting material first published at NLM on February 29 and March 2, my goal was to compile in one convenient place testimonies to the universal law of the Church about the right of the (properly disposed) faithful to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, which is and remains the norm.

To this article, some have responded: “That’s all well and good, but we know that the bishops will go ahead and do this anyway, whether they have the authority to do so or not.” Indeed, contrary to the policy of the Thomistic Institute recommended by the USCCB, many dioceses have already published such illegal policies that are being forced on clergy and laity in the name of “obedience.” (Our situation is bringing home ever more clearly the utter lack of clear and sound thinking about what the virtue of obedience is and what it is not. I recommended this superlative article on the subject, as well as this shorter piece.)

My reply here would be that there is a benefit to knowing that certain policies are illegal: as the Catholic Church has always taught, an unjust law does not bind in conscience. That all too many bishops have grown accustomed to a “lawless” mode of operation — one in which they simply do not care what the Vatican says, or Canon Law for that matter — is not exactly breaking news. Tradition-loving Catholics have been dealing with it for a good half-century now, especially after 1984 (Quattuor Abhinc Annos), 1988 (Ecclesia Dei Adflicta), 2007 (Summorum Pontificum and Con Grande Fiducia), and 2011 (Universae Ecclesiae).

A video has been making the rounds of a young canon lawyer attempting to argue that bishops do have the right, in emergencies, to suspend universal law. Typically such justifications will breezily invoke “the common good” in order to wipe out anything and everything that stands in the way. It is precisely this kind of behavior that has made the expression “the common good” sound fascist, as if we’re ants in an anthill, lining up to be sacrificed for the good of the colony. Fr. Zuhlsdorf refutes the canonist tidily, and then moves into larger questions.

I was not surprised to hear from a German friend that the bishops of Germany have already moved to prohibit communion on the tongue in every diocese of their country. She speculates that if it is not possible for believers to receive on the tongue at traditional Latin Masses, they will peel off in large numbers to the SSPX if things are handled differently there. She then shared with me stunning photos of different “safe methods” proposed for distributing communion that indicate massive disrespect for Our Lord and for His people, a complete loss of the sense of the sacred, no awareness of fittingness, an utter lack of common sense or supernatural faith.

The “Alice Through the Plexiglass” Method

The “Stop and Drop” Method

The “Stretch and Catch” Method

Continue Reading this Article. . .

Sanctifying Time - Guest Post by Fr. Jon Tveit

NLM is happy to bring to you this piece by guest columist Fr. Jon Tveit. 

Sanctifying Time

The crisis in which we find ourselves has changed the structure of our lives dramatically. It has stripped away many of the things which normally occupy our time. Even worse, it has made it impossible for many Catholics to participate in what is the central act of our religion, the sacrifice of the Mass. Perhaps some even feel they have too much time on their hands these days. Because of this we have to ask, how can we remain united to the Lord and to His Church during these days? What can we do to sanctify our time?

Lucky for us the Church has a ready-made answer to these questions. Even without the Mass, the Church has a part of her public liturgy in which anyone anywhere can participate. There’s a way for us to enter into the prayer of the Church, to keep us united to the Lord and to sanctify our time. It is, of course, the Divine Office or the Liturgy of the Hours. That liturgy centered upon the Book of Psalms which the Church has been praying throughout the day every day practically since the beginning.

The Divine Office is not private prayer. As one of our seminary professors liked to tell us, “Even if you’re praying night prayer in pajamas in bed, it’s still the public prayer of the Church!” The Office is not a private devotion, even when prayed privately. It is part of the liturgy of the Church, the public worship given to God the Father by Christ the Head and Christ in His members. As Fr. Eugene Boylan put it, “It is the prayer of Christ said by Christ to the Father of Christ.” [1] When we pray the Office, the Holy Spirit unites us to the whole Mystical Body of Christ in this sublime act of worship of the Father.

In order for our time truly to be sanctified, we would need to be in touch with the Lord always. We would have to “pray without ceasing” as St. Paul tells us, living always in the Divine Presence, always adverting to God with us. This will, of course, be the life of heaven. But here below “we do not know how to pray as we ought.” For reasons both practical and spiritual, most of us cannot live perpetually adverting to the presence of God. The Divine Office with its seven ‘hours’ or times of prayer fills our day with prayer, gradually accustoming us to living always in the Divine Presence, preparing us for the life of heaven.

The Psalmist tells the Lord, “seven times a day I praise thee” (Ps 118/119:164). This is literally true in the Christian tradition with the seven canonical hours of the Office. But there is a more mystical meaning to the number seven here. Commenting on this psalm, St. Augustine tells us, “The words ‘seven times a day’, signify ‘evermore’. For this number is wont to be a symbol of universality; because after six days of the divine work of creation, a seventh of rest was added (Gen 2:2); and all times roll on through a revolving cycle of seven days.” [2] Seven stands for fullness in Sacred Scripture. Praising the Lord seven times a day means praising the Lord always. As the just man sins ‘seven’ times a day (Prov 24:16), meaning quite a lot, so too should the righteous praise God ‘seven’ times a day. The seven hours of the Church’s prayer thus allow us to pray always and lift our time up into the timelessness of heaven.

The traditional hymns for the daytime hours of the Office point toward the liturgy’s function of the sanctification of time. In midmorning we ask the Holy Spirit to fill us and direct our thoughts, words, and actions in line with charity:

Terce [3]

Nunc Sancte nobis Spiritus, Unum Patri cum Filio, Dignare promptus ingeri, Nostro refusus pectori.	Now for us, o Holy Spirit, One with the Father and the Son, Deign readily to be present, Diffused within our breast.
Os, lingua, mens, sensus, vigor, Confessionem personent, Flammescat igne caritas Accendat ardor proximos.	May the mouth, tongue, mind,    sense, vigor, Resound with Your praise; May charity be inflammed   with fire, May its ardor enkindle    that of our neighbors.
Praesta, Pater piissime, Patri compar Unice, Cum Spiritu Paraclito Regnans per omne saeculum.   Amen.	Grant this, most holy Father, And Only Son equal to the Father, With the Spirit, the Paraclete, Reigning through every age.   Amen.

At midday we address the Ruler of the universe, the Regulator of the times and changes of the day, from the beauty of the morning sunrise to the heat of noon. We ask Him to calm the fires of our hearts, that concupiscence which inclines us to sin, and to give us health of body and peace of mind. We see here that our right living entails our lives being brought under the rule of the One who governs all of creation:

Sext

Rector potens, verax Deus, Qui temperas rerum vices, Splendore mane instruis, Et ignibus meridiem.	O ruler potent, o truthful God, You who temper the alterations   of creation. Your furnish the morning with   splendor, And with fires the midday.
Extingue flammas litium, Aufer calorem noxium, Confer salutem corporum, Veramque pacem cordium.	Quench the flames of quarrels, Remove the harmful heat, Grant the health of bodies, And the true peace of hearts.
Praesta Pater...	Grant this, most holy Father...

As the afternoon draws on and we look toward the failing of the daylight, we beseech the Lord to give us that light of divine life which never fails. We pray that we may persevere in His grace, so that His glory may uphold us when the evening of life is upon us:

None

Rerum, Deus, tenax vigor, Immotus in te permanens, Lucis diurnae tempora Successibus determinans.	O God, the vigor upholding   creation, Remaining in Yourself unmoved, The hours of daylight Determining by successions.
Largire clarum vespere, Quo vita nusquam decidat, Sed praemium mortis sacrae Perennis instet gloria.	Lavish brightness in the evening, By which life may nowhere fail, But as the reward of a holy death, May perennial glory be near.
Praesta Pater...	Grant this, most holy Father...

The daily recitation of these prayers sets a pattern for our life. It brings our lives into the order of the Creator whose rule sanctifies our time as much as it governs earthly time.

For priests, this time of quarantine should remind us that apart from the sacraments, our praying of the Divine Office is more important, more powerful than any other work we do. Fr. Boylan, although a Benedictine, wrote profoundly on the spiritual life of secular priests. In one book he says, “A priest seldom does so much for his flock as when he prays for them, and he seldom prays for them so effectively as when he recites the Divine Office.” [4] The Office is the second most important thing the priest does every day after celebrating the Mass. “There is no other vocal prayer in which the ‘priestly’ function is so well exercised,” Boylan says. “After the sacrifice of the Mass, there is nothing a priest can do for the souls in his charge so effectively as to recite the Divine Office in their name.” [5] Do we truly recognize that praying the Church’s Liturgy of the Hours is even more important, even more priestly, than our active apostolate? Now is the time for us to embrace this aspect of our priestly ministry and sanctify our time for the good of the Church.

This semi-monastic time of quarantine reminds all of us of our need for time itself to be sanctified. How can people do so better than by entering into the Church’s own liturgy of the Divine Office? There are a number of resources today to help the faithful to participate in this liturgy of the Church. The newer form of the Office can be prayed on certain apps such as iBreviary, the older form on the app Breviarium Meum or at divinumofficium.com. The liturgy of the Divine Office is not just for priests and those consecrated to the service of God. It is the liturgy of the whole Body of Christ which can and should be prayed by the laity as well for the sanctification of their lives and of the world.

[1] Boylan, The Priest’s Way to God (Newman Press, 1962), 136.
[2] http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1801119.htm
[3] I use here the traditional form of these hymns as found, among other places, in the Liturgia Horarum and in the traditional Roman Office before the reforms of Pope Urban VIII. The very literal translations are my own.
[4] Boylan, The Priest’s Way to God, 134.
[5] Boylan, The Spiritual Life of the Priest (Newman Press, 1949), 40.

Communion and Coronavirus: Pertinent Law for the Ordinary Form [UPDATED]

A reader wrote to me:

I saw your article about how Holy Communion cannot be given in the hand at the Extraordinary Form. However, in a church I attend for daily Ordinary Form Mass, an announcement has just been posted that the pastor requires us to receive now in the hand because of the coronavirus. My understanding is that we can receive in the hand by permission but reception on the tongue cannot be taken away, though searching for a document stating as much has been difficult. Can you point me in the right direction?

Here are four pertinent texts:

Letter of April 3, 1985, from the Congregation for Divine Worship to the National Conference of Catholic Bishops [Prot. 720/85]:

The Holy See, since 1969, while maintaining the traditional manner of distributing communion, has granted to those Episcopal Conferences that have requested it, the faculty of distributing communion by placing the host in the hands of the faithful…  The faithful are not to be obliged to adopt the practice of communion in the hand. Each one is free to communicate in one way or the other.

Response by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Notitiae (April 1999):

Query: Whether in dioceses where it is allowed to distribute Communion in the hands of the faithful, a priest or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may restrict communicants to receive Communion only in their hands, not on the tongue.
Response: Certainly it is clear from the very documents of the Holy See that in dioceses where the Eucharistic bread is put in the hands of the faithful, the right to receive the Eucharistic bread on the tongue still remains intact to the faithful. Therefore, those who restrict communicants to receive Holy Communion only on in the hands are acting against the norms, as are those who refuse to Christ’s faithful [the right] to receive Communion in the hand in dioceses that enjoy this indult.

General Instruction of the Roman Missal. Issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, November 12, 2002; US edition 2011, n. 161:

If Communion is given only under the species of bread, the Priest raises the host slightly and shows it to each, saying, The Body of Christ. The communicant replies, Amen, and receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or, where this is allowed, in the hand, the choice lying with the communicant.

Redemptionis Sacramentum—Instruction On Certain Matters to be Observed or to be Avoided Regarding the Most Holy Eucharist, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, March 25, 2004, art. 92:

Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice, if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. 

(Again, to avoid all possible confusion, all of the above legislation applies only to the Ordinary Form or Novus Ordo Missae.)

I will repeat what one canon lawyer wrote to me on February 29:

From my perspective, a bishop cannot require anyone to receive in the hand. Even in the Ordinary Form, the prescription is communion on the tongue, with the right to approach and receive in the hand. The norm is the norm, and it is based on the right of the faithful to choose how to worship God at a moment in the Mass that is deeply personal and not communal in nature. My opinion is based on the repeated jurisprudence from the Holy See upholding the rights of a Catholic to receive communion on the tongue while kneeling during an OF Mass, even if his or her bishop has issued a particular law to the contrary. Such laws are considered suggestive in nature and in no way binding.

If this is true for a bishop’s law, a fortiori it is true of a pastor of a parish. A layman may not be denied the Blessed Sacrament unless he is a notorious public sinner. A priest who, on his own initiative, told the people they must receive in the hand would be violating the law and leading the people into the violation of it.

A second canon lawyer agreed:

In a medical emergency the bishop has a right to take reasonable steps to protect the health of parishioners. That being said, the faithful should do what they want and feel no obligation to receive Holy Communion in the hand. They cannot be required to do that in either the OF or (theoretically) the EF in emergency circumstances.

On a practical note, many have pointed out that germs are spread as easily by frequent hand contact as by placing the host in the mouth (which, if the priest knows what he’s doing, should not involve any transfer of saliva), as Bishop Athanasius Schneider has recently explained.

UPDATE:

A kindly reader send me the following letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, dated 24 July 2009, written at the time of an earlier flu outbreak. This letter confirms all of the foregoing.

Can a Bishop Require Communion in the Hand to Prevent the Spread of the Coronavirus? (And Would This Apply to the EF?)

A friend posed this question to me: “Our bishop sent out a notice suspending communion on the tongue temporarily in response to the coronavirus, and our pastor thinks that this applies to our Latin Mass. Do you know of any legislation or magisterial statement clarifying that not even a bishop has the authority to do this?”

I’ve been hearing a lot about this lately, and I suspect we will hear more and more as the virus continues to spread. A canon lawyer whom I consulted made the following response:

From my perspective, a bishop cannot require anyone to receive in the hand. Even in the Ordinary Form, the prescription is communion on the tongue, with the right to approach and receive in the hand. The norm is the norm, and it is based on the right of the faithful to choose how to worship God at a moment in the Mass that is deeply personal and not communal in nature. My opinion is based on the repeated jurisprudence from the Holy See upholding the rights of a Catholic to receive communion on the tongue while kneeling during an OF Mass, even if his or her bishop has issued a particular law to the contrary. Such laws are considered suggestive in nature and in no way binding.

Whatever may be the case with the Ordinary Form of the Mass, it must be understood that bishops have no authority whatsoever to modify the rubrics for the Extraordinary Form, which is governed by the rubrics and laws in force in 1962 (as Cardinal Burke also had to remind people in connection with the similar issue of whether girls may act as altar servers). The pertinent legislative document, the Instruction Universae Ecclesiae, determines as follows:

24. The liturgical books of the forma extraordinaria are to be used as they stand. All who choose to celebrate according to the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite are required to know the pertinent rubrics and to follow them correctly in celebrations.

28. Furthermore, since it is of course dealt with by special law, in respect of its own subject matter, the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum derogates from all liturgical laws that belong to the sacred rites, promulgated from the year 1962 onwards, and not coinciding with the rubrics of the liturgical books of the year 1962.

At the Extraordinary Form, the laity must receive Communion on the tongue; there is no other way envisioned or allowed by law. To have a new custom established (quod Deus avertat), a bishop or episcopal conference would have to request a rescript from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, just as the bishops of different countries had to ask Rome for a rescript to permit communion in the hand decades ago. And even if a bishop obtained this rescript, it would remain at the option of the layman, who cannot be denied the Blessed Sacrament unless he is a notorious public sinner. A priest who, on his own initiative, told the people they had to receive in the hand would be violating the law and leading the people into the violation of it.

Psychologically, it would be abusive to tell Catholics who love the TLM for its massive Eucharistic reverence to contradict every instinct and rubric of this form of the Roman Rite by putting their hands out and taking the host in a way that (in the traditional understanding) only the sacred minister is set apart to do on Christ’s behalf.

Another canon lawyer I consulted agreed with me about the rescript, and further opined:

I do not think he could require in ordinary circumstances that Holy Communion only be given in the hand at the EF, as the Holy See does not allow that even in the OF. In a medical emergency the bishop has a right to take reasonable steps to protect the health of parishioners. That being said, the faithful should do that they want and feel no obligation to receive Holy Communion in the hand. They cannot be required to do that in either the OF or (theoretically) the EF in emergency circumstances.

On a practical note, many have pointed out that germs are spread as easily by frequent hand contact as by placing the host in the mouth (which, if the priest knows what he’s doing, should not involve any transfer of saliva). As Bishop Athanasius Schneider has recently explained:

Communion in the hand is no more hygienic than Communion in the mouth. Indeed, it can be dangerous for contagion. From a hygienic point of view, the hand carries a huge amount of bacteria. Many pathogens are transmitted through the hands. Whether by shaking other people’s hands or frequently touching objects, such as door handles or handrails and grab bars in public transport, germs can quickly pass from hand to hand; and with these unhygienic hands and fingers people then touch often their nose and mouth. Also, germs can sometimes survive on the surface of the touched objects for days. According to a 2006 study, published in the journal “BMC Infectious Diseases”, influenza viruses and similar viruses can persist on inanimate surfaces, such as e.g. door handles or handrails and handles in transport and public buildings for a few days.
       Many people who come to church and then receive Holy Communion in their hands have first touched door handles or handrails and grab bars in public transport or other buildings. Thus, viruses are imprinted on the palm and fingers of their hands. And then during Holy Mass with these hands and fingers they are sometimes touching their nose or mouth. With these hands and fingers they touch the consecrated host, thus impressing the virus also on the host, thus transporting the viruses through the host into their mouth.

A priest who believed in conscience that the risk of contagion was too great should be prepared to offer a Mass at which he alone communicates. This is not the end of the world; the Mass has its own intrinsic purposes and should not be reduced to a communion service.

In conclusion, any affected TLM communities should continue to follow the rubrics (as indeed they must), and any faithful who are afraid of infection or fear they may be carrying the virus should refrain from approaching communion and make instead a spiritual communion, which so many saints have recommended.

Bishop Schneider suggests a prayer like the following:

At Thy feet, O my Jesus, I prostrate myself, and I offer Thee the repentance of my contrite heart, which is humbled in its nothingness and in Thy holy presence. I adore Thee in the Sacrament of Thy love, the ineffable Eucharist. I desire to receive Thee into the poor dwelling that my heart offers Thee. While waiting for the happiness of sacramental Communion, I wish to possess Thee in spirit. Come to me, O my Jesus, since I, for my part, am coming to Thee! The love embrace my whole being in life and in death. I believe in Thee, I hope in Thee, I love Thee. Amen.

We have the tools we need to deal with this situation, without rushing to novelties. Ultimately, as Bishop Schneider says, the Western Church stands condemned of worldliness if it is willing to make compromises about the appropriate treatment of the Body of Christ in order to preserve this mortal and perishable life of ours. We would be justly condemned for seeking first ourselves and not the Kingdom of God:

If the Church in our day does not endeavor again with the utmost zeal to increase the faith, reverence and security measures for the Body of Christ, all security measures for humans will be in vain. If the Church in our day will not convert and turn to Christ, giving primacy to Jesus, and namely to Eucharistic Jesus, God will show the truth of His Word which says: “Unless the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it. Unless the Lord keep the city, he watches in vain that keeps it” (Psalm 126:1-2).

Postscript

To any readers who may be wondering (or who would like to have the wherewithal to respond to those who may be wondering): “What’s the big deal with receiving in the hand (or, more broadly, laity handling the host)?,” I recommend the following three articles:

• “‘Eat That Which I Will Give You’: Why We Receive Communion in the Mouth”
• “Debunking the myth that today’s Communion in the hand revives an ancient custom”
• “Why the ordinary use of ‘extraordinary ministers’ has to go away”

Second Postscript

Those who, attending the Ordinary Form, prefer to receive on the tongue but do so standing instead of kneeling are part of the problem, not part of the solution. It is extremely awkward for a minister to place the host in the mouth of a standing person who is as tall as or taller than the minister. There is a common sense connection between kneeling and receiving on the tongue: the recipient can tilt his head back a little and stick out his tongue, and the standing distributor has a very easy time of it. (In the Byzantine rite, the communicant usually bends somewhat at the knee, tilts his head back, and opens his mouth wide so that the content of the spoon can be readily deposited. It is the same principle.) In short: if you want to follow the tradition of receiving on the tongue, then please do everyone a favor by also following the tradition of receiving while kneeling. It is completely permissible in the Ordinary Form, as this article demonstrates.

UPDATE (3/4/20):
A kindly reader send me the following letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, dated 24 July 2009, and responding to the same issue during an earlier flu outbreak. It simply reiterates the consistent law of the Church.