Organizing Pontifical Masses: A Call for Help

One of the most beautiful and unforgettable ways to introduce Catholics to the riches of the Latin liturgical heritage is through the crown jewel of the Roman Rite: the Solemn Pontifical Mass. Its splendor and pageantry, intricacy and symbolic richness are an unforgettable immersion in the spirit of the sacred liturgy at its summit, gathered around the bishop and reflecting the prismatic hierarchy of the Church.

Often laity who attend such a Mass consider it a turning point in their appreciation for the Church’s bimillenial patrimony of prayer. Bishops themselves are often deeply moved by the opportunity to pontificate in the fullest sense of the term; it gives them new insights into the liturgy, their own role, and the reasons why Catholics are increasingly drawn to traditional expressions of the Faith.

All in all, it is nothing but a win on all sides.

At this time, with a friendlier climate from Rome in the pontificate of Leo XIV, there is every reason to organize pontifical Masses with sympathetic and open-minded bishops, and to do so on a broad and regular basis.

But in order for pontifical ceremonies to be conducted, there must be a point person, a key organizer who knows how to contact and coordinate the forces required for the event. This organizer can be (and often is) a trained MC who can serve in that capacity at the Mass itself, but it can also be someone who knows the right people—above all, a knowledgeable MC and a choir director with the requisite skills.

This article is a general appeal to our readers. If any reader of New Liturgical Movement either considers himself or herself to be that contact person, or knows someone who could serve in that capacity in a given diocese, we would be deeply grateful to hear from you. Please write to pontifical@newliturgicalmovement.org for further information.

Do Bishops Have Rights vis-à-vis the Pope? Does the Pope Have Duties vis-à-vis the Bishops?

We have all certainly heard about the rights of the pope, who enjoys supreme jurisdiction in the Church; and we have certainly heard about the duties of bishops toward the Chair of Peter. But what about the pope’s duties to the bishops (and, indeed, to the Church as a whole, and to Christ its eternal Head?) And what of the bishops’ rights over against papal overreach? Os Justi Press has just released a new book that will be of interest to many readers of this blog: Unresolved Tensions in Papal-Episcopal Relations: Essays Occasioned by the Deposition of Bishop Joseph Strickland. This book brings together essays and articles by 14 authors who wrestle with ecclesiological and canonical questions prompted by acts of Pope Francis, using this as a springboard for a broader consideration of the rights and duties of a bishop according to traditional theological sources. The liturgy, naturally, comes up repeatedly as an arena in which bishops are not only entitled but obliged to defend perennial tradition against arbitrary impositions of novelty, even as the pope is obliged to defend liturgical integrity against centrifugal tendencies of disorder. The centerpiece of the book is the respectful but intense debate between José Ureta and John Lamont concerning whether a bishop unjustly deposed should accept his deposition as a valid act of papal jurisdictional primacy (even if it be an illicit or sinful one), or should rather refuse to acknowledge it and remain in his see. Ureta argues for the former position, calling it “traditional”; Lamont for the latter, showing that it is the only one in harmony with divine and natural law. Each marshals quotes from classic authors on behalf of his side. It’s one of the best high-level debates I’ve seen in years. (While I agree with Lamont’s position, I do recognize that Ureta’s counterpoints deserve the serious consideration of any Catholic thinker who seeks the truth in these difficult and subtle topics.) Stepping back to look at the anthology as a whole, I will simply say, as one who reads widely and voraciously, that there is nothing like this book in print. I’m not even sure there’s ever been anything like it in modern times. The spirit of ultramontanism, dominant for over 150 years, has blocked earnest inquiry into the inherent and (to a degree) independent authority of bishops by crying “conciliarism!” or “Gallicanism!” the moment someone dares to suggest that the papacy may not be an absolute monarchy from which all ecclesial power flows. Some progressives around the time of Vatican II were keen to cut the liberal bishops loose from Rome, but their motivations were evil and their arguments puerile. This book is different, as it delves into Church history, theology, and canon law to understand the mutual relations, rights, and responsibilities of the pope and the bishops toward each other and toward the Mystical Body of Christ, which is prior to and determinative of their offices. In particular, serious attention is given to the Bishop Strickland case; theologians and canonists demonstrate the injustice and irregularity of his removal. “What good is that?,” you may be tempted to think, “it will make no difference, since the ones in power call all the shots.” But surely, a Catholic thinks first and foremost about the truth? If the truth sets us free, then the truth needs to be told, known, and internalized. That is reason enough to argue about justice and injustice, truth and error.

Unresolved Tensions features an incisive Foreword by Dr. Joseph Shaw, which appears for the first time in the book; a preface; 17 chapters; an epilogue; 4 appendices; a bibliography; and an index. It is available in paperback, hardcover, or ebook.

Here is the Table of Contents: 

To peek inside, and to order, go to Os Justi Press, or to Amazon (the paperback and hardcover listings aren't yet linked). Of course, the book can be found on any Amazon site across the world. It is high time these questions are debated with the care and depth they require, for much is at stake in knowing, and following, the truth of the matter.

Devotion to St. Nicholas among the Dominicans and in the Life of St. Thomas Aquinas

Fra Angelico: detail of St. Thomas among the saints

Last year in my article “St. Nicholas, Beloved Bishop and Wonderworker,” I offered a brief sketch of the life and influence of St. Nicholas of Myra. This year, in honor of his feast, I will collate and comment on the appearances of St. Nicholas in the writings of St. Thomas.

Early Dominican history displays a more than passing connection with the cultus of St. Nicholas. Two illustrations may be given. The Order’s second and permanent priory in Bologna was located at the church of San Nicolò delle Vigne, where the Basilica di San Domenico now stands, enshrining the relics of the Order’s founder. It was in this church that Diana d’Andalo, through whose good offices the property at the vineyards had been donated to the Friars, made her profession, at the high altar of St. Nicholas. [1]

When Dominic decided shortly thereafter to go ahead with the founding of a convent of nuns in Bologna, he entrusted the affair to four brethren, one of whom was Master Paul of Hungary. A lecturer in canon law who later established a missionary province of the Order in Hungary, Paul wrote a manual for confessors, the Summa de penitentia, which he expressly dedicated ad honorem Dei sanctique Nicholai. [2] The evidence suggests that Dominicans, like everyone else, held St. Nicholas in high regard.

One may reasonably assume that St. Thomas would have celebrated his feast and called upon his intercession with that habitual fervor of spirit to which all the early witnesses testify. It would not matter which liturgical books Thomas was accustomed to reading, as there was no missal or breviary that lacked prayers and propers for the feast of St. Nicholas. The Dominican Missal, definitively established by Bd. Humbert of Romans in 1255/56 and papally approved in 1267, mandates, as do Western rites in general, the celebration of the feast of St. Nicholas on December 6. The Epistle and Gospel appointed for the day are the same in the Dominican Missal as in the Missale Romanum: Hebrews 13,7-17 and Matthew 25,14-23. [3]

The Charity of St Nicholas by G. Macchietti, 1570

Mentions of St. Nicholas in the works of Aquinas

1. Summa theologiae, II-II. A touching remark comes in a discussion of whether a benefactor is permitted to hide his benefaction, even though doing so will make it impossible for the recipient to show his gratitude, and hence leave him no choice, as it seems, but to be ungrateful. Thomas responds to the objection:

He that is unaware of a favor conferred on him is not ungrateful if he fails to repay it, as long as he is ready to repay it should he come to know it. Nevertheless, it is sometimes praiseworthy that the recipient of a favor should remain in ignorance of it, both in order to avoid vainglory, as when blessed Nicholas threw gold into a house secretly, wishing to avoid human applause; and because the favor is all the more ample when the benefactor takes into account the shame of him who receives the favor. [4]

2. Conferences on the Angelic Salutation. Thomas has in mind the same deed of almsgiving when he notes that the Mother of God

exercised the works of all the virtues, whereas the saints were conspicuous in the exercise of specific virtues: one was especially humble, another chaste, another merciful, and so in them is given a model of that specific virtue, as for instance blessed Nicholas as a model of mercy. [5]

3. Commentary on John. Meditating on the mystery of predestination in his comments on John 5:44, “No one can come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws him,” Thomas underlines that all blessings we receive originate simply in God’s will. To illustrate the point, he mentions three saints and their God-given roles:

The reason why in His Church he made some apostles, some confessors, and others martyrs, is for the beauty and completion of the Church. But why He made Peter an apostle, Stephen a martyr, and Nicholas a confessor, there is no reason other than His will. In this way is laid bare the weakness of our human powers and the assistance granted us by divine help.[6]

4. Commentary on the Sentences. The most astonishing instance of God’s help aiding our weakness is baptism, which transforms a child of wrath into an adopted child of the Father. At one point in the Scriptum super Sententiis, Thomas, using the Greek baptismal formula as an objection against the Latin, has to think up a sample name for his argument. “The Greeks have this form of baptizing: ‘The servant of Christ, Nicholas, is baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.’” [7]

The hypothetical name is not mentioned again in the context; one may wonder why it occurred to Thomas to choose it in the first place. He might, of course, have read the example in another text and just reproduced it without further thought. But if it was his own choice, the possibilities are more intriguing. Did he associate the name in a special way with the Greeks, the Eastern Church? Did he have a reason for associating this Christian name with the sacrament of baptism? Could it simply be that he had St. Nicholas in the back of his mind, or in his heart, and so the name emerged spontaneously when he reached for an example?

5. Commentary on First Timothy. On the passage where the Apostle is exhorting Timothy to cherish the grace of his calling (1 Tim. 4:14), Thomas comments that “in the primitive Church, where elections [of bishops] took place for God’s sake and without corruption, no one was drawn up to the episcopal rank except by a divine election, as Ambrose and Nicholas were elected.” [8]

The story of the miraculous elevation of Nicholas was widely known, though tellings differ in matters of detail. The elderly bishop of Myra had died, and no one could agree on who the new bishop should be. Several priests had the same dream: they were to select as bishop the first man who walked through the cathedral doors for morning prayer the next day. This man turned out to be Nicholas, already a priest, but still young and a stranger in Myra. He was more than a little surprised when informed of his impending consecration, and though he resisted at first, he recognized in the dreams a divine decision, and submitted.

6. Commentary on Hebrews. Thomas alludes to the same incident in support of his contention that God may be trusted to single out worthy candidates.

It is contrary to nature that something lead itself to a state higher than its own nature, just as air does not make itself fire, but this is done by something higher than it. Hence, he does not have the discipline of God who takes to himself any honor by way of favor, money, or power. “In our strength we have taken up our horns” (Amos 6:14); “They have reigned, but not from me” (Hos. 8:4). He ought rather to be called by God, as was Aaron: “Take unto thee Aaron” (Ex. 28:1). And therefore the Lord confirmed Aaron’s priesthood by the rod which blossomed, as is clear from Numbers 17:5. Such therefore ought to be taken up [into the priesthood or episcopate], who do not thrust themselves forward. Whence in former times such men were pointed out by a visible sign, as occurred with blessed Nicholas and many others.[9]

7. Sermon for the Feast of St. Nicholas. Far outstripping the foregoing examples in length and detail, we find, among those rare echoes transmitted to us of Master Thomas the university preacher, an entire sermon devoted to the praise of St. Nicholas (a translation of this sermon in its entirety may be found here or here).

An offhand reference to the crowded “Little Bridge” over the Seine places the sermon in Paris. Thomas is likely to have preached it there during his second period as Regent Master — that is, on the sixth of December in 1269, 1270, or 1271 [10]—before returning to Naples where he was to suffer a shattering ecstasy on the same date in 1273.

The fact that Nicholas, though beloved to all, was invoked also as a special patron of scholars suggests an added importance his feastday may have enjoyed in Paris. It bears noting, too, that many of Thomas’s students, the “cream of the crop” among clerics, were destined for high office in the Church, often episcopal honors. This would make the example of the holy Bishop of Myra all the more relevant to a Parisian audience — a point not lost on Thomas, who, using the second person singular, forcefully warns his listeners:

If you are doing good in order to get prebends, you are serving yourself, not God. A good bishop ought not to be like these sorts of people, but rather he ought to be upright [innocens] in his own person, devout before God, merciful to his neighbor, faithful in all things in respect to everyone.

St Nicholas consecrated bishop: medieval reredos in Burgos

The Sermon for St. Nicholas: Inueni Dauid

The sermon is structured around two verses applied to sainted bishops and therefore regularly preached upon: “I have discovered David, my servant; with my holy oil I have anointed him; my hand will help him, and my arm will strengthen him” (Ps. 88, 21–22).

Many Parisian preachers took this text for their sermons in honor of Nicholas on December 6. With the aid of Johannes Baptist Schneyer’s Repertorium, [11] a fair number can be identified, with the probable year of delivery stated when known: Guidardus de Laon (Master and canon at Paris, cancellarius in 1236) between 1226 and 1229, [12] Jacobus de Vitry, [13] Nicholaus de Aquaevilla, [14] Odo de Châteauroux (Paris Master) in 1228, [15] Petrus Aureoli (Paris Master) between 1318 and 1320. [16]

The text is particularly well-suited for the feast of St. Nicholas, since his relics were known to exude a sweet-smelling oil possessed of healing power, a fact to which Thomas refers near the end of his sermon. After his introductory remarks (among which we find the statement: “we are not able to scrutinize these wonders that God accomplishes in his saints unless he who searches the mind and heart should instruct us”), the Angelic Doctor divides his sermon into four parts, the “four commendable things about this holy bishop: first, his wondrous election; second, his singular consecration; third, his effective execution of office; and fourth, his unshakable and steadfast stability.”

One cannot do justice to this admirable sermon without going through it line by line, but for our purposes it will be enough to consider a few lines that, while paying homage to the saint of the day, make transparent the hidden, interior life of the preacher who was soon to join him in heaven. The Lord, says Thomas, discovers in Nicholas “something very rare, namely, virtue in the prime of his youth”; “he was not subject to vanity” and had “preserved his holiness from childhood . . . Fish and fruit in season are very much desired; so, too, very desirable to God is the man who carries the Lord’s yoke from his youth.” The preacher asks: “What does the Lord seek?,” and answers:

Surely, he seeks a faithful soul, hence [we read] in John (4:24): God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. And why does God seek out the man with a faithful soul? I say: whoever takes delight in dwelling with another person seeks out that person. So it is with God, because it gives Him delight to dwell with a faithful soul. Hence he says: My delights are to be with the children of men (Prov. 8:31). And God discovered in blessed Nicholas a faithful soul, because he was frequently in church, faithfully at his prayers; so, what is said in Hosea (12:4) is suitably said of him: He wept and made supplication to him . . .

Shortly thereafter Thomas poses another question: “What makes a person stand out? I say that nothing makes a person so outstanding as piety and a ready will to do good for others.” As in the contemporaneous Secunda secundae, the example cited is that of Nicholas’s gift of gold to relieve the poverty of the virgins. “A servant is one who carries out his lord’s work; and the principal work of the Lord is mercy.” Then, concerning Nicholas’s faithfulness, Thomas makes a remark that could be taken as a theologian’s fundamental rule of life no less than a bishop’s: “A faithful man must be a servant, so that he refers all that is his to God” (or “offers everything of his own back to God”): fidelis debet esse seruus ut omnia sua in Deum referat.

We are told how oil in its varied uses can serve as metaphor of spiritual realities: oil heals wounds, as does healing grace; it fuels light, symbol of the desire for wisdom; it flavors food, as spiritual joy seasons good works; it softens, “and this signifies mercy and kindness of heart, both of which blessed Nicholas possessed, since he was utterly filled with mercy and devotion.” (At this point Thomas gives a twist to the familiar Neoplatonic axiom bonum est diffusivum sui: “Oil is diffusive of itself; mercy is the same way.”) A few lines later he asserts that the glorified bodies of the saints will bear the evidence of their due rewards, “and even in this life the signs of their affection appear”: thus the body of blessed Francis showed “the signs of the passion of Christ, so vehemently was he affected” by this Passion. It is at this point that Thomas mentions how the tomb of Nicholas sweats oil, “indicating that he was a man of great mercy.” As with question 21 of the Prima Pars, so here, too, one cannot help noticing the tremendous weight Thomas gives to the theme of misericordia; in this short sermon, the word or one of its variants is used fifteen times, and the notion is hinted at in a dozen other ways. [17]

At the sermon’s close, Friar Thomas lauds Nicholas as “filled with the power to perform miracles” wrought by the hand of the Lord:

Who is there that has ever sought the glory of the world and obtained it as did blessed Nicholas, who was but a poor bishop in Greece? The Lord adorned him with miracles because he showed the greatest mercy. Know that the Lord has made wonderful his holy one (Ps. 4:4). It was mercy that made blessed Nicholas an extraordinary man, and the Lord [Jesus Christ] strengthened him even unto everlasting life. May He lead us there, who lives [and reigns] with the Father and the Holy Spirit, [God, for ever and ever, Amen.]

All the virtues, all the good works of Nicholas that Thomas had praised briefly and singly in earlier writings, he here combines and amplifies in a discourse whose plain language, heartfelt appeals to listeners, and evident spirit of devotion give us a vivid glimpse of daily university life in medieval Paris, as well as a window into the personality of Friar Thomas.

St Nicholas, Jacques de Poindre, 1563

NOTES 

[1] See the account from the Chronicle of St. Agnes’ Monastery in S. Tugwell, op, trans., Early Dominicans. Mahwah, Paulist Press, 1982, 395.

[2] I have this detail from Mark Johnson, who is working on a critical edition of Paul’s Summa. On Paul of Hungary, see Tugwell, Early Dominicans, 396, 426.

[3] The Introit (Statuit ei Dominus testamentum pacis), Collect (Deus, qui beatum Nicolaum Pontificem), Secret (Sanctifica, quaesumus Domine Deus, haec munera), and Postcommunion (Sacrificia, quae sumpsimus, Domine) also concur, but the Gradual, Alleluia, Offertory antiphon, and Communion antiphon differ. The Roman Missal has for its Gradual, Inveni David; for the Alleluia, Justus ut palma; for the Offertory, Veritas mea; for the Communion, Semel juravi. The Dominican Missal, on the other hand, has for its Gradual, Ecce sacerdos magnus; for the Alleluia, Justus germinabit; for the Offertory, Justus ut palma; for the Communion, Beatus servus. All eight of these chants are very ancient and appear frequently in the common Masses for martyrs, bishops, confessors, and doctors.

[4] Summa theologiae [ST] II-II, q. 107, a. 3, ad 4. The editors of the one-volume Editiones Paulinae Summa theologiae (Milan, 1988) cite three sources here: Jacobus de Voragine, Legenda Aurea; Mombritius, Sanctuarium, Vita B. Nicolai Episcopi; the Dominican Breviary, fourth reading for the Matins of December 6.

[5] In salutationem angelicam expositio, art. 1, n. 1116.

[6] Super Evangelium S. Ioannis lectura, cap. 6, lec. 5, n. 938.

[7] Scriptum super libros Sententiarum [=Sent.] IV, d. 3, q. 1, a. 2, qa. 2, arg. 1.

[8] Super I ad Timotheum 4, lec. 3, n. 173.

[9] Super ad Hebraeos 5, lec. 1, n. 249.

[10] In 1271, the feast of St. Nicholas fell on a Sunday, and hence if Thomas preached the university sermon at Saint Jacques on that day he could reasonably have taken Nicholas as his theme. However, St. Thomas also makes reference to the stigmata of St. Francis, suggesting that it might have been a weekday sermon delivered to the Franciscans.

[11] J. B. Schneyer, Repertorium der lateinischen Sermones des Mittelalters für die Zeit von 1150–1350 [RLSM], Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters, vol. 43.1–11. Münster, Aschendorff, 1969–1990.

[12] RLSM 2:266–67, nn. 192, 195–197, 199.

[13] RLSM 3:205, n. 287.

[14] RLSM 4:195, n. 63.

[15] RLSM 4:436, n. 525.

[16] RLSM 4:588, n. 74. This same incipit was also used for the feast of Saint Martin of Tours by Bartholomaeus de Tours, op, Paris Master, 1258–59 (cf. RLSM 1:438, n. 26) and Bartholomaeus de Bonnia, om, Paris Master (cf. RLSM 1:388, n. 17).

[17] See J. Saward, “‘Love’s Second Name’: Saint Thomas on Mercy,” in The Canadian Catholic Review 8.3 (1990), 87–97.

Bishop Basil Meeking (1929-2020): Requiescat in Pace

NLM has learned of the death of the Most Rev. Basil Meeking, Emeritus Bishop of Christchurch, New Zealand, who was for many years a staunch supporter of the usus antiquior, which he celebrated frequently. Although nowadays pontifical ceremonies are becoming (relatively) common, Bishop Meeking was well ahead of the curve in that regard. For example, he did pontifical Holy Week ceremonies in Melbourne for many, many years (the photo to the left is from 2010).

He actively supported the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer (Transalpine Redemptorists), the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, and the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, among others. The traditional movement in New Zealand stands greatly in his debt.

On one occasion, Bishop Meeking wrote a kind note to me about an NLM article; his comments indicated that this was a blog he read with some regularity, which is gratifying to know. It edified me that the particular article he wanted to have as a Word document was the Examination of Conscience based on the Rule of St. Benedict (here). He also expressed his agreement with the content of “Cantate Domino Canticum Novum: A Statement on the Current Situation of Sacred Music,” published in nine languages in 2017.

Meeking was ordained a priest in 1953. From 1963 to 1966, he studied at the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas in Rome, following which he was appointed to the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity in Rome, where he served for eighteen years. He was appointed as Bishop of Christchurch by Pope John Paul II on 30 March 1987 and resigned the see on 15 December 1995. Meeking died in Christchurch on 11 June 2020, aged 90, after what was reported as a recent period of ill-health. (Information culled from Wikipedia; to read more and see a number of photographs, visit the diocesan archives.)

It is heartening to read that, in addition to the usual funeral Mass on Wednesday 17 June at 11am at St Mary’s Pro-Cathedral, 373 Manchester Street, the diocese is also announcing on its website a 7:00pm “Vigil Requiem Mass in the Extraordinary Form” on Tuesday 16 June at the same cathedral.

Given his great devotion to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, it is highly fitting that His Excellency passed to his eternal reward on the feast of Corpus Christi. The Church needs many more humble and generous servants like Bishop Meeking. May it please Our Lord to grant him eternal rest, and to raise up more shepherds with a heart for Catholic tradition.

From FSSP New Zealand

From diocesan archives

At a priestly ordination for the Transalpine Redemptorists

Receiving the first blessing of the priest

Continue Reading this Article. . .

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. . .

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.

Special FSSP Masses, Adoration, Confessions in Baltimore during USCCB Meeting (Nov 12-15)

In a most timely and appropriate initiative, the Priestly Fraternity of St Peter has made a special schedule of Masses, Confessions, and Eucharistic Adoration at St Alphonsus in Baltimore for the plenary meeting this week of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Information in the poster and card below. Please help spread the word!

St Alphonsus has one of the most beautiful sanctuaries of any church in the greater metropolitan area around the nation’s capital.

Whether you are able to go to St Alphonsus or not, please pray earnestly for the bishops of the United States this week, as they face not only massive problems in the Church at large but the more insidious problem of deep rifts, heterodoxy, and cover-up within their own ranks. May the Immaculate Conception intercede for them and for all who invoke Her as patroness!