Over lunch one day, I had a conversation in which we concluded that the language of the New Theology acted like a “fuzz machine.” The sole function of this machine is to make everything fuzzy and spread confusion and ambiguity. Such a device, it was necessarily agreed, would be made only by Apple, hence the iFuzz. Enjoy.
I have been trying to articulate this experience for some time; this is the best I’ve done.
There are a few times each year–most often in the fall–when a man can actually smell the season. It is a fascinating and peculiar moment. Each recurrence bears me back more than a decade, when I played around a white house with blue shutters, sleeping in the same, having dutifully handled a dozen words for vocabulary, sentences for grammar, or numbers for arithmetic from that day’s hand-out, knowing on the deepest of levels, in a way only a precious few truths are known, that I was created from, and could ever return to, the love of the my father and mother in the next room. The smell is the same as those autumn mornings, as the blue and red lines of the light-brown pillowcase poured into my eyes, spraying as the white walls spanned only to be flooded by the steady blue bookcase which displayed my seven-year-old literacy and the one various project I had given up only just before falling asleep. Or, I would arrive only a few years later, before the swing-set was built, and our backyard grew as far as the eye could see. I would drink in the richness, the mundane, yet marvelous beauty of my entire life, made temporally sensible in that moment and that smell. The pressing worries on my soul were whether we would have snow by December and deciding which hill would be most fit for the maiden voyage for my brand new flyer that would certainly come under this year’s tree.
Such words, I suppose, could lead to speculations about the region or vicinity in which I grew up or the proximity of a factory or plant of one or another type. I assure you that the scent was nothing made on this earth. ‘Cool’ is the only word I am able to assign to it.
I’m not sure what happened, but I seem to have lost the original post. Here she is again, for your enjoyment. Taken from the movie title “V for Vendetta,” B for Biretta
As July is drawing to a close, so it my time here in Omaha. I am about to enter the final week of the ten week spirituality program called the Institute for Priestly Formation. I must confess that it has been a pretty posh setup. We were put up in a fairly newly-remodeled Swanson Hall at Creighton. Here are a few images from my summer room. The album can be found here=
There was no reading chair, so I used Creighton greastest man-made resource, hot air, to sit on=
The rooms are made as doubles, so I had two desks=
ep
For those of you who have stumbled upon this site, and even for those who came here intentionally, I must apologize for the craziness of the presentation. I am currently tweaking it to produce a replicia of a Western Union telegram. I’ve came a long way, and while I am very close to getting to look right, there is still more ‘under the hood’ cleaning up to do. I will plan to continue to post, but much of the time that I devote to the site will, for the time being, be invested in this project. You can take a look below at what I’m going for (photograph taken from Texas State Library. Thanks=
ep
From Rev. Henry McCloud’s Clerical Dress and Insignia of the Roman Catholic Church, pages sixty-six through seventy-two: How the Biretta is worn and removed
The biretta is worn squarely upon the head, neither tilted over the right or left ear. The peakless side is worn over the left ear. The biretta may be worn only when sitting, or when walking outside the church. The biretta is of obligation for those dressed in sacred vestments, and they alone may wear it when walking within the church.The biretta is put on after the cleric is seated and removed before he rises. In putting on or removing the biretta from the head the middle peak, never the front peak, is taken between the index and the middle fingers of the right hand.When seated if the biretta is removed for a few moments it is held in the right ahnd and rested upon the right knee.
Carrying and presenting the biretta
In procession or while standing the biretta is held in front of the breast, having both thumbs inside at the bottom of the biretta and the hand joined beneath.The biretta is presented to the celebrant by holding it so that the middle peak is nearest to him and the peakless side the furthest from him.
Liturgical Uses
The biretta is prescribed to be worn by the celebrant, and in solemn Masses by the deacon and the subdeacon in going to the altar and returning to the sacristy.When the celebrant and the sacred ministers, and also the clergy sit during the Mass they wear their biretta unless the Blessed Sacrament is exposed. They remove their birettas at the parts of the Gloria and Credo and at the other times prescribed by the rubrics.The wearing of the biretta in choir is not of strict obligation. But for uniformit where it is the local custom to wear the biretta in choir then everyone should wear it during the recitation of the psalms and canticles.Seminarians often, from custom, wear their biretta while at meals.
Biretta may be used
The biretta may be used while preaching, hearing confessions, and at the exorcisms at baptism.
Biretta is not used
The biretta may not be used when the Blessed Sacrament is exposed or veiled during a sermon; in processions of the Blessed Sacrament or of the true cross; in other processions while within the church exceot by those in sacred vestments; in church outside of the sacred functions; while kneeling or standing, excet while preaching or at the exorcisms baptism; by a bishop while wasking his hands for private Mass; by a bishop when wears sacred vestments, but if the bishop vests in the sacristy it seems permissible for him to wear the biretta in going to the altar and returning to the sacristy; by the master of ceremonies, nor by the cross bearer even when in the vestments of a subdeacon, acolytes, and canopy bearers.
Other occasions
The biretta may be worn with the cassock outside of sacred functions. In this case it is removed to greet a superior or to an equal whom the wearer wishes to honor, but never to an inferior.
This isn’t a ground-breaking story, but I thought this was very interesting and very telling. In Missouri, voters are faced with Amendment 2, which is worded so that it sounds like it opposes human cloning when it actually espouses it in a complete attack on human life. This is obviously a big deal and as Catholics, we need to be dedicated to a clear articulation of the Church’s position on this, clear about the articulation of the truth. A family I know in Missouri recently had their “Vote No on 2″ sign stolen from their yard. They went on to explain that this household was not an isolated incident. Within a day or two, families metro-wide reported stolen “Vote No” signs. How low will these people go? (Limbo lower now!)
To answer the second part of my friend’s question, I, again, looked to Redemptionis Sacramentum. No 154 explains that the priest and deacon are the proper ministers of Holy Communion.
As has already been recalled, “the only minister who can confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist in persona Christi is a validly ordained Priest”. Hence the name “minister of the Eucharist” belongs properly to the Priest alone. Moreover, also by reason of their sacred Ordination, the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are the Bishop, the Priest and the Deacon, to whom it belongs therefore to administer Holy Communion to the lay members of Christ’s faithful during the celebration of Mass. In this way their ministerial office in the Church is fully and accurately brought to light, and the sign value of the Sacrament is made complete.
The last sentence is very important: The sign of Sacrament is only complete when the priest or deacon administer Communion. Then the instruction goes on to name the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion in 155,
In addition to the ordinary ministers there is the formally instituted acolyte, who by virtue of his institution is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion even outside the celebration of Mass.
This instituted acolyte, called for by Paul VI In Ministeria quaedam (English available here), is a minister with an intergal function in the liturgy described in the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani. It has currently become popular in the United States to simply neglect this usage.
However, there is permission for other extraordinary ministers for an even more extreme case, 155,
If, moreover, reasons of real necessity prompt it, another lay member of Christ’s faithful may also be delegated by the diocesan Bishop, in accordance with the norm of law,[256] for one occasion or for a specified time, and an appropriate formula of blessing may be used for the occasion. This act of appointment, however, does not necessarily take a liturgical form, nor, if it does take a liturgical form, should it resemble sacred Ordination in any way. Finally, in special cases of an unforeseen nature, permission can be given for a single occasion by the Priest who presides at the celebration of the Eucharist.
So, the diocesan bishop may ask any laymen for a “specified time” or “one occasion.” The priest can also do so, but only in “special cases” which have an “unforeseen nature.” Therefore, we must go the diocesan bishop for the answer in our local church. Again, the pastor should have this permission in written form, or it will be available at the chancery office. Redemptionis Sacramentum tells us what to call these ministers in No 156,
This function is to be understood strictly according to the name by which it is known, that is to say, that of extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, and not “special minister of Holy Communion” nor “extraordinary minister of the Eucharist” nor “special minister of the Eucharist”, by which names the meaning of this function is unnecessarily and improperly broadened.
Now that we know how these extraordinary ministers are to be appointed and what they are called, what is the proper use of them? Redemptionis Sacramentum states in No 157,
Indeed, the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may administer Communion only when the Priest and Deacon are lacking, when the Priest is prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged. This, however, is to be understood in such a way that a brief prolongation, considering the circumstances and culture of the place, is not at all a sufficient reason. (Emphasis mine)
The use of extraordinary ministers, is therefore extraordinary, hence the name. The Vatican’s instruction “On certain questions regarding the collaboration of the non-ordained faithful in the sacred ministry of the priest”, Ecclesiae de mysterio states, in article eight,
This function is supplementary and extraordinary and must be exercised in accordance with the norm of law.
It then addresses specific abuses at the bottom of that same article,
To avoid creating confusion, certain practices are to be avoided and eliminated where such have emerged in particular Churches:
- extraordinary ministers receiving Holy Communion apart from the other faithful as though concelebrants;
- association with the renewal of promises made by priests at the Chrism Mass on Holy Thursday, as well as other categories of faithful who renew religious vows or receive a mandate as extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion;
- the habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass thus arbitrarily extending the concept of “a great number of the faithful”.
Notice the last abuse listed. Many would have you believe the ordinary use of extraordinary ministers is what the Church is encouraging us to do. In reality, she is telling to avoid exactly that. Then, in the conclusion of this instruction, all contrary customs are rejected,
All particular laws, customs and faculties conceded by the Holy See ad experimentum or other ecclesiastical authorities which are contrary to the foregoing norms are hereby revoked.
In Brief
Now we’ve covered the Church’s law on the matter; my commentary will come in the post to follow.
So, how did we get to the current situation? The simple answer: confusion. Since the days of the Second Vatican Council, many ideas and many documents have come out. It is a struggle to sift through it all. Satan was certainly thrilled with this opportunity and raised up agents who, though fully well-intending, propagated a false understanding of the Council, the Church and the Liturgy. These ideas have had the convenience and ease of transmission of modern media, proclaiming lies and infidelity faster and louder than documents of law from the pillar of truth, the Church.
So we’re not doing exactly what we should be, what’s the big deal? Well, quite honestly, the Only big deal is the big deal. We profess that the object of our worship, the summit of the universe, God himself, is present in the Sacred Species. If we are not vigilant and dutifully careful in regard to the Blessed Sacrament, what will we be attentive to? The Eucharist is the greatest gift we have, Christ our Savior. It is justice for us to ensure that every precaution is taken to avoid profanation and irreverence, risks to which distributing Communion under both kinds, unfortunately, lends itself. Therefore, the Church has stated that the advantages and risks must be judged to determine fitting cases for “taking the risks.” The Church says that this judge is the diocesan bishop. This is why Sacramentali Communione and Liturgicae Instaurationes define that the permission he grants is to be “Specfic.”
The presumption here is an important distinction. The ‘communion’ we share is with Christ and, through Him, the Church. However, it is only through Him that true communion is reached. One of symbols of the Communion procession is the unity of the people gathered together, however, the purpose and reality of the procession is union with Christ. We must never over-emphasize a symbol to the detriment of the reality. In the Sacraments, Christ choose material symbols to convey supernatural reality. These symbols point to the true reality; they are not ends in themselves. I get the impression from many lay people that they feel ‘entitled’ to received Communion under both species and would be very upset (if not sinfully angry) if they did not get the ‘full’ deal. These reflects a lack of catechesis and an over-emphasis on the symbol, an over-emphasis which has crippled their understanding of the reality.
There is also a great need for clarity about the missions of the laity and clergy. More than a few are confused about their mission in the world. The Church, entrust with teaching, has no alternative but to shed her light on the subject. Our Lord’s commands to “Take and eat” and “Take and drink” and “Do this in memory of me” were spoken to the first bishops of the Church. The bishops and the priests they have ordained are bound to receive both kinds to complete the sacrifice Christ instituted. As the Catechism says in No 1341,
The command of Jesus to repeat his actions and words “until he comes” does not only ask us to remember Jesus and what he did. It is directed at the liturgical celebration, by the apostles and their successors, of the memorial of Christ, of his life, of his death, of his Resurrection, and of his intercession in the presence of the Father.
The laity have no such requirement. Their participation is not as a priest. The Catechism explains the laity’s side in 1384,
The Lord addressess an invitation to us, urging us to receive him in the sacrament of the Eucharist: “Truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”
This is an invitation to be nourished by the Sacrament, not “to repeat his actions and words” (CCC 1341). Christ is fully present under one species, as the Compendium states:
284. Does the breaking of the bread divide Christ?
The breaking of the bread does not divide Christ. He is present whole and entire in each of the eucharistic species and in each of their parts.
Therefore, our Lord’s invitation in John is not a mandate to receive both kinds, for in receiving Him under one form is to receive Him “whole and entire” “Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.” The Council of Trent makes this very clear in Chapter One of Section XXI
For although Christ, the Lord, in the Last Supper, institued and delivered to the Apostles this venerable sacrament in the species of bread and wine, not therefore do that institution and delivery tend thereunto, that all the faithful of Christ be bound, by the institution of the Lord, to receive both species.
And the first Canon from “On Communion Under Both Species and On the Communion of Infants”
If anyone saith that by the precept of God, or by necessity of salvation, all and each of the faithful of Christ ought to receive both species of the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist; let him be anathema.
Lest anyone doubt the authorty or relevance of these quotations, the Second Vatican Council, in Sacrosanctum Concilium declared that they still “remain intact” in No 55. For while the priest has been called to offer the Body and Blood of our Lord to the Father for us, the laity have the mission to offer the body of the Christ, the Church, to the world. Our faith and the mission of the laity is not something the pertains to one hour of our lives a week, but encompasses our whole life. It is this over-emphasis on the details that leads us away from the true meaning of the Sacrament and begins to affect the way we encounter God and live our faith. That is why the Church regulates the details.
(If you’re in a rush, jump down to the “In brief” section)
To answer my friend’s question, I went first to Redemptionis Sacramentum. There we find expansion for the use of Communion under both species in No 100,
So that the fullness of the sign may be made more clearly evident to the faithful in the course of the Eucharistic banquet, lay members of Christ’s faithful, too, are admitted to Communion under both kinds, in the cases set forth in the liturgical books, preceded and continually accompanied by proper catechesis regarding the dogmatic principles on this matter laid down by the Ecumenical Council of Trent.
Thus the use of both kinds is available, “in the cases set forth.” The Church then expresses the primacy of reverence for the Sacred Species as she continues in 101,
In order for Holy Communion under both kinds to be administered to the lay members of Christ’s faithful, due consideration should be given to the circumstances, as judged first of all by the diocesan Bishop. It is to be completely excluded where even a small danger exists of the sacred species being profaned. With a view to wider co-ordination, the Bishops’ Conferences should issue norms, once their decisions have received the recognitio of the Apostolic See through the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, especially as regards “the manner of distributing Holy Communion to the faithful under both kinds, and the faculty for its extension”. (Emphasis mine)
“Even a small danger” These words make it abundantly clear that avoiding profanation is a great concern. Then I read the key passage to answer my question in 102,
The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger that “more than a reasonable quantity of the Blood of Christ remain to be consumed at the end of the celebration”. The same is true wherever access to the chalice would be difficult to arrange, or where such a large amount of wine would be required that its certain provenance and quality could only be known with difficulty, or wherever there is not an adequate number of sacred ministers or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion with proper formation, or where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated.
This paragraph is key because it gives a practical limit for using Communion under both species. Therefore, if there is a Mass which conforms to a “case set forth in liturgical books” and there are a large numbers of communicants, it is not permissable to distribute Communion under both species.
So what are the case “Set forth in the litugrical books”? The various ritual books (books containing the rites for the sacraments and particular celebrations of the Church) indicate usage for both species at their specific celebrations. For instance, in the circular letter, Paschale Solemnitatis , from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, the usage of both kinds is recommended for the Easter Vigil. No 92,
It is fitting that in the communion of the Easter Vigil, full expression be given to the symbolism of the Eucharist, namely, by consuming the Eucharist under the species of both bread and wine. The local ordinaries will consider the appropriateness of such a concession and its ramifications.
However, we are mainly concerned here with the ordinary Sunday Mass. On these days, when no particular rituals are celebrated, we have specific allowance for the use of both species. The Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani (General Instruction of the Roman Missal), No 283 states:
In addition to those cases given in the ritual books, Communion under both kinds is permitted for
- Priests who are not able to celebrate or concelebrate Mass;
- The deacon and others who perform some duty at the Mass;
- Members of communities at the conventual Mass or “community” Mass, along with seminarians, and all who are engaged in a retreat or are taking part in a spiritual or pastoral gathering.
Now, the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani and Redemptionis Sacramentum have not given an allowance for the use of Communion under both species for an ordinary Sunday or weekday Mass. Where, then, do we look for such permission? The Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani points us in the right direction in the very next paragraph of No 283,
The Diocesan Bishop may establish norms for Communion under both kinds for his own diocese, which are also to be observed in churches of religious and at celebrations with small groups. The Diocesan Bishop is also given the faculty to permit Communion under both kinds whenever it may seem appropriate to the priest to whom, as its own shepherd, a community has been entrusted, provided that the faithful have been well instructed and there is no danger of profanation of the Sacrament or of the rite’s becoming difficult because of the large number of participants or some other reason.
The only place that such a permission could be given would be ‘norms’ of the Bishops’ Conference. So what do the bishops of the United States have to say on the matter. They published a document called the Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America. This document simply restates the directives of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani. Under the heading of “When Communion Under Both Kinds May Be Given,” it cites the above quote, No 283. Then it goes on, in No 24,
In practice, the need to avoid obscuring the role of the priest and the deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion by an excessive use of extraordinary minister might in some circumstances constitute a reason either for limiting the distribution of Holy Communion under both species or for using intinction instead of distributing the Precious Blood from the chalice.
This is a very important point. Given the rampant use of extraordinary ministers in this country, the use of both species should be greatly limited if not ruled out for the majority of American parishes. So, the Bishops’ Conference has not specified any new instances to allow the use of both species. Our last stop for the answer is the individual diocesan bishop. I have not heard of any bishop publishing any additional permission for the use of this form of distribution. The pastor would have any written permission issued by the bishop or you can go to the chancery of your local diocese for such documentation. However, there is one last point. The Church qualifies the permission the bishops are allowed to grant. Sacramentali Communione from the Congregation for Divine Worship explains in No 3,
Within such limits, Ordinaries may designate the particular instances, but on condition that they grant permission not indiscriminately but for clearly defined celebrations and that they point out matters for caution. They are also to exclude occasions when there will be a large number of communicants. The groups receiving this permission must also be specific, well ordered, and homogeneous.
Therefore, the Church explains that bishops do not have the authority to grant indiscriminate permission, cannot sanction everyone all the time. This mandate is reiterated in another document from the Congregation for Divine Worship, Liturgicae instaurationes in No 6,
In its sacramental sign value communion under both kinds expresses a more complete sharing by the faithful [27]. Its concession has as limits the determinations of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (no. 242) and the norm of the Instruction of the Congregation for Divine Worship, Sacramentali Communione, on the extension of the faculty for administering communion under both kinds, June 29, 1970. b
- a. Ordinaries are not to grant blanket permission but, within the limits set by the conference of bishops, are to specify the instances and celebrations for this form of communion. To be excluded are occasions when the number of communicants is great. The permission should be for specific, structured, and homogeneous assemblies.
The situation in our country (everyone, all the time) is therefore illegitimate, but not only that, it specifically contradicts the law of the Church.
In Brief
Please stay tuned for my next post: Communion under both kinds - How did we get where we are? and What’s the big deal?