Liturgy: Dog in the Recessional

There's a YouTube video making the rounds (rather quickly) that shows a dog joining in the recessional at the end of Mass, carrying the priest's hymnal in its mouth.  The story circulating with the video is that the dog belongs to the priest, and that before Mass began the priest gave a brief plug for the dog shampoo he uses (treating the altar as a stand for the product).

While there are blessings for animals in both the Roman Ritual and the modern Book of Blessings, and there is a rite of blessing of animals for use on the Feast of St. Francis, the general presence of animals at Mass seems like a poor prudential decision.  The dog carrying the priest's hymnal in the recessional seems more like a secular spectacle (a circus act) than a sacred action (a liturgical act).

Liturgy: Blessing with holy water... and a Super-Soaker

Sigh. File this under "liturgical abuse". The Rite of Sprinkling (which can replace the Penitential Rite) is not to be performed with a Super-Soaker.

[H/T: the Curt Jester]

Liturgy: Archbishop Ranjith on the need for a "reform of the reform"

This is big news, partly because of the people involved, and partly because of the impact of the matter.

A key Vatican official has called for "bold and courageous" decisions to address liturgical abuses that have arisen since the reforms of Vatican II. Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, the secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship, cites a flawed understanding of Vatican II teachings and the influence of secular ideologies are reasons to conclude that — as then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger said in 1985 — "the true time of Vatican II has not yet come." Particularly in the realm of the liturgy, Archbishop Ranjith says, "The reform has to go on." ...

Specifically, Archbishop Ranjith writes: "Some practices which Sacrosanctum Concilium had never even contemplated were allowed into the Liturgy, like Mass versus populum, Holy Communion in the hand, altogether giving up on the Latin and Gregorian Chant in favor of the vernacular and songs and hymns without much space for God, and extension beyond any reasonable limits of the faculty to concelebrate at Holy Mass. There was also the gross misinterpretation of the principle of 'active participation'." ...

Today, Archbishop Ranjith writes, the Church can look back and recognize the influences that distorted the original intent of the Council. That recognition, he says, should "help us to be courageous in improving or changing that which was erroneously introduced and which appears to be incompatible with the true dignity of the Liturgy." A much-needed "reform of the reform," he argues, should be inspired by "not merely a desire to correct past mistakes but much more the need to be true to what the Liturgy in fact is and means to us and what the Council itself defined it to be."

Read the complete article. I'm adding True Development of the Liturgy by Msgr. Nicola Giampietro (a member of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) — with foreword by Archbishop Ranjith — to my wish-list!

[H/T: Catholic World News]

Making a mockery of Christ the King

The Church of England is hijacking November 23rd, the Solemnity of Christ the King, with their National Youth Sunday which is obsessing itself with "social sins" (like failing to recycle, not turning off light switches, and littering).

Oh, wait. Not the Church of England. The Church in England. The Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales is promoting this travesty. "Reclaim the Future" has a liturgy plan which involves numerous modifications to the liturgy -- such as choreographed skits/dances during the First Reading and during/after the Gospel; paraphrasing (poorly) the Responsorial Psalm; an ad hoc Penitential Rite; distribution of chocolate after Communion; an entrance procession involving light bulbs, recycling bins, etc. -- and which completely takes the focus of Christ as King and places the focus squarely on people. Everything their liturgy plan advocates is distracting from the actual liturgy itself; much of it is objectively abusive to the liturgy as the Church calls us to celebrate it.

Look, I just bought a hybrid car. I'm all for energy reduction, recycling, not littering (I cannot stand to see people throw cigarette butts on the ground!), etc. But to hijack the Mass for this? Utterly atrocious.

Liturgy: Summary of Redemptionis Sacramentum by Colin B. Donovan, STL

I found this helpful link today. It summarizes Redemptionis Sacramentum, provides a list of the graviora delicta and "grave matters", and what the document says about reporting abuse.

Consecrated Hosts on Ebay? Again?

So disappointing what some people will do for shock value, for money, or because they simply do not care.

"Jenga" Mass, part three: The priest's reply

This is the reply from Fr. X. to my letter from November. I copied the content of the letter exactly, except in the following cases: brackets [...] were turned to parentheses (...) so as not to be confused with my comments; a person's name was abbreviated; I left out the priest's name and his carbon-copy attribution to a third party; bolding and [comments] are my own.

---

Dear Jeff,

Thank you for taking the time to express your thoughts about the Liturgy we shared a while back. I have been thinking about your letter and whether I should respond, and if so, how. As you can see, I have thought it best to respond, mostly because I feel some responsibility for the fact that you spent so much time at that Liturgy counting my faults, [I won't deny that I was paying attention to what the priest was doing during Mass, nor that I noticed many things I considered abnormal (based on my knowledge of the liturgy). I was uneasy from the get-go: the priest asked out loud whether he should put on vestments.] which must have been a distraction from your full, active and conscious participation. [It certainly was.] Being the kind of person I am, I have organized my response and will present it rather formally, but I think it is important that I make myself clear and understandable. So please forgive the formal presentation.

THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETING CHURCH LAW

• One of the things that one learns when studying Church documents, which I am sure you already know, is that they are written as Roman law, not English-based law. When I say "Roman" I mean that these laws are written from the point of view accepted as the one which the official Church in the Vatican has as its stance, not based on the old English form of common law. Roman law is seen as a goal to be achieved (and not always realized); English law express what is expected at the moment. Americans, in the English tradition, think that the law should be observed to its particulars. One most interpret Roman law as Roman law, recognizing that the English attitude is somewhat inappropriate, and may even be misleading. [Does this mean the Church puts forth laws without expecting them to be followed? That's probably an over-simplification, but seriously: if the Church puts forth a liturgical law, what's stopping a priest or bishop from carrying it out in a pastorally-sensitive manner?]
  
• Of course, you have taken into account the principles of interpretation of law of Pope Urban VIII. [No, I haven't. I don't know what these are, and my initial research online has not yielded any results.]
  
• The praxis ecclesiae is another factor that must be included in any serious thought about Liturgy, as you know. That praxis involves an awareness of what the Pope and the Bishops do at Liturgy, a point to which I will return later, as well as the praxis of the people. [But sometimes they also do things they aren't supposed to, although it's not always their decision.]
  
• I am also aware of my role in the Eucharist. It is my responsibility, when I am the principle celebrant, to create an atmosphere in which people can come together in their worship of the Father. It is the task of the Assembly to enter into the Liturgy in a spirit of openness to the even as it unfolds within them and around them. All of us need the kind of humility that supports us in letting go of our own individual preferences [a point to which I will return later] so that we may enter into the pattern left us by Jesus and shaped by the Church.
• Of course, liturgical law, like all other law, exists in a hierarchy of importance. The law against murder is more significant than the law of Stop signs. [Unless running a stop sign results in vehicular manslaughter.] The use of bread and wine is much more important than a manual gesture. One needs to see the elements of the Liturgy, like the parts of life, in perspective.

NEGATIVE ATTITUDES IN LITURGY

• Before Vatican Council II Liturgical law was the province of canon lawyers. The books of Liturgy for Mass stated up front that the Liturgy was in accord with the decisions of the canonists. The Vatican Council II made a very profound and fundamental change in things when it took the Liturgy away from the canonists and made liturgists responsible for the process of changing the Liturgy. [What does he mean by this? Is he referring to the Consilium that implemented the Constitution on the Liturgy? Or is he saying that even today liturgists are in the process of changing the liturgy as they see fit? Who are these liturgists? Do they adhere to the "hermeneutic of discontinuity" or the "hermeneutic of reform" as Pope Benedict calls them?] There are some who have not realized this shift made by the official Church in her most solemn teaching (the documents of an ecumenical council) and are still working at Liturgy as if it were simply a matter of doing ritual according to some precise legal standard. [Does that include the people in the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments? They publish documents on the proper carrying-out of the liturgy and their official interpretations of the regulations of the liturgy.] The Liturgy, like our God, is a living thing. It exists in different communities, in different cultures and societies, in different kinds of buildings, in differing levels of awareness, in different Assemblies. Liturgy is the worship of real people, expressing their real self gift to the Father in union with Jesus the Lord in the power of the Spirit.
• This kind of legal approach becomes extreme in what I will call Neo-Phariseeism. [I am not surprised this came up. I agree with what he says here, but I don't think my attitude in this case is the one he describes.] Such a person would see Liturgy as a set of rules and regulations to be accomplished with mechanical accuracy. [I see the liturgy of the Mass as the public corporate worship of the Father by the Church. As such, it does have rules and regulations, but they are there to guide us in orthopraxis and to prevent aberrations and falsities from entering into our worship.] They would pay lip service to the values and meaning of Liturgy, but would evaluate it only in terms of rubrics. [I don't do this, but I do acknowledge that a poorly celebrated Mass can diminish its perceived meaning and even foster incorrect attitudes.] Such people, as their scriptural ancestors were accused by the Lord, would tie up burdens of exactitude and do nothing to help others bear these man-made burdens. [I don't think I am requesting anything more than the Church requests (or demands, rather) of its priests. I am also more than willing to help!] I would imagine that the Lord Jesus feels the same about the Neo-Pharisees as he did about the originals.
• I find another particularly subtle but equally dangerous dimension in the comments of some people who criticize the present Liturgy. A danger of being excessive about the details of liturgical law is that it suggests a kind of magic to me. Magic is a way of gaining power over a supernatural being (God included) by a ritually repeated action accompanied by the repetition of the proper incantation. The living Liturgy can never fall into this foolishness, since it responds to the people, the place, the occasion, and doesn't slavishly repeat the ritual action and speak the prayers with the exactitude that is akin to magic, to gain power over God. True worshipers believe that God is present among us because of God's choice to love us unconditionally, not because we have "forced" God into compliance with our wishes by accurate repetition of ritual and precise repetition of words. [But at the same time, the Church recognizes that the Sacraments have a proper form: e.g. baptism "in the name of the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Sanctifier" is not valid. In place of the point of view whereby adherence to rubrics gives rise to magic, I see it as lex orandi lex credendi.]
  

SOURCES OF THE LITURGY
As you know, and as I am sure you have done, there are a variety of source that you must be aware of when thinking about what happens at Liturgy. I repeat them here for my own sake, so I can be clear about what I think about when I make decisions about the Liturgy.

• The document of the Vatican Council II on Liturgy. [That's Sacrosanctum Concilium.]
  
• All the documents [including some of the ones I quoted in my letter] of the Church, both Roman and of the American Bishops, consequent to the Council. [What of the documents that preceded the Council?]
  
• The documents in the front of the Sacramentary [such as the GIRM] and the Lectionary [I don't have a personal copy of the Lectionary, but I looked at one and noted it has documents pertaining to the meaning of the Liturgy of the Word, its proper carrying-out, etc. They mention the priest or deacon reading the Gospel, and the things done before and after the Gospel is read.].
• The history of the Liturgy from the Early Church thru the ages, the history of the various books used in the Liturgy, perhaps with a special eye on the relevant documents of the XX Century (including those of the people who were studying the Liturgy with Roman approval and working on and experimenting with permission on changes in praxis) that helped shape the mind of the Church that prepared for the Council.
• Following Urban VIII's principles, I had the opportunity in the past to speak viva voce with Bishops who were at the Council, including a member of the Committee that actually wrote the document. I am sure you have read enough of the work of such people to have the sense of their mind when they did the writing of the document.
• It is very important to include the writings of recognized commentators on Liturgy, people whose opinions and suggestions are accepted in the living out of the Liturgy of the Church. Of course, that doesn't include every unqualified individual or axe grinder who opposes the Liturgy that is the living expression of the faith of the Church.
• The praxis of the Pope, the Bishops, and the Church celebrating Liturgy. For example, blue is not one of the liturgical colors. But there are photos of John Paul II in America celebrating in blue vestments. [Yes, but was it his decision? There are pictures of Pope Benedict XVI in very tacky blue and yellow vestments as well. Then again, now that Archbishop Piero Marini is no longer the Master of Papal Ceremonies, we'll see things more in line with the constant praxis of the Church, not someone's innovation.]
  

With all this in the active background, let me comment on your specific observations.

• Since the Mass was informal, and not a parochial Mass with an assorted Assembly in attendance, I felt free to adapt the Mass to the situation. You do not know whether I started with a kiss to the altar, hardly an essential element to the celebration of the Eucharist, which we need to see in perspective. [Kissing the altar is a sign of reverence to that which represents Christ, the altar on which he becomes present in the Most Blessed Sacrament. While it may not be "an essential element", I don't see the justification for its omission... perhaps the sake of informality?] You will also find [where?] that there is such a thing as the Rite of Welcome which can replace the Penitential Rite. And again, we were in an informal setting. As for C. [a layman] reading the Gospel, that is something I would not do at a regular Mass. [Because it's not permitted.] However, following the principle of ¶ 14 [I'll replicate this later] of the Council document on the Liturgy, I think it is a matter of freedom in some limited situations. [Whence in ¶ 14 does he derive that "freedom"?] I also know it is a practice [that doesn't make it licit!] in such informal Liturgies [Why must they be informal? What is the harm in a "formal" Mass? Doesn't a "formal" Mass allow for "active participation" without a layman reading the Gospel?], for the reason given in ¶ 14. [What reason is that?] The purpose of the Liturgy that night was not to set up situations in which people could ask questions. That would be totally improper. The Liturgy is for the worship of God the Father by the self-gift of those who are there. If questions come, fine. But Liturgy is not supposed to have other purposes.
• As for standing around the altar [nevermind the Notitiae from the Congregation for Divine Worship], if you check the text of the Second Eucharistic Prayer in the Sacramentary, which was written by Pope Hippolytus [not exactly: EP II is based on the anaphora found in the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus] in the second century [my research says the third century (AD 215), but whatever] and has been a treasure of the Church thru the ages [although since replaced in the Roman Rite (and probably every other Rite as well), until it was resurrected and revamped after Vatican II], it says clearly, and I quote, "We thank you for counting us worthy to STAND in your presence and serve." (p. 550 of the Sacramentary, emphasis mine) [The context from the original prayer is missing from EP II. More on that later.] As you know, standing at prayer is an act of profession of faith [yes, but in the Roman Rite, the proper posture of the faithful during the EP is to kneel] in the ANASTASIS. In so large a chapel, it seems better to have a small number of people close to the altar to enhance their participation (¶ 14 again) [How does he derive that from ¶ 14? than to keep them at a distance [of 15 feet, which is where we had been seated]. And there is a second point here. It is the official teaching, and the advice of commentators, that the unity which the Eucharist sacramentalizes is shown by the words and postures of the Assembly. This is specifically cited in reference to the posture and actions at the reception of Communion, but is a value thruout the Liturgy. Therefore, as a sign of unity, everyone should be standing when the group is standing, otherwise the experience of unity is lessened. [I think he is referring to two things here: 1) that since the priest was standing, it was proper for all of us to be standing, and 2) that I should not have knelt during the EP and after the Agnus Dei since no one else did. Point 1 is irrelevant; to point 2, the priest did not ask or tell us to remain standing throughout the EP, so I don't know why the others did not kneel. If he had asked us, I suppose I would have uneasily stayed standing, though he has no place asking people to stand for the EP.]
  
• You're correct that you wouldn't be asked to hold the paten and offer yourself as part of the gift at a regular parish Mass. So? [So it was an illicit addition that he decided to introduce.]
  
• I would never agree that the people join their prayer to mine in the Liturgy. [Maybe the priest didn't understand my point (from Mediator Dei). The presidential prayers belong to the priest to pray; the EP is one such prayer. We join our personal prayers of self-offering to the prayer of the priest (the EP).] The Liturgy does not belong to the priest, but to the Church. The Assembly is not a group of spectators, but the Body of Christ, the Church! I am a minister, a servant of the Assembly, with my role to play. But the faithful play a very important active part of the Liturgy.
• I am sure you know that the basic word musterios is not best translated by "mystery" (in the usual American sense of something unknown) but rather the opposite, a revelation of divine truth. The word in Latin to translate it is sacramentum [Except when it is translated as mysterium, such as in "mysterium fidei". I see in the writing of Pope St. Leo the Great, the two words are interchangeable at times (here and here); there's also Trent XXII where sacramentum is translated as "mystery". But that's besides the point, as I mention below.]. I do not use the word "mystery" because I think it is misleading. [What about "the kind of humility that supports us in letting go of our own individual preferences"? I'll talk about mysterium fidei below.] There is nothing hidden or unknown about our salvation [but we celebrate the "sacred mysteries" (Sacramentary, Penitential Rite: p. 360, option C -- which happens to be the first/only option in the Latin) at Mass] - it has been lovingly and unconditionally given by God to us all in response to the self-gift of Jesus in his passion, death, and Resurrection. (I suggest Ephesians 1:3-14 as an interesting text on the word musterios.) Nor do I suffer the belief that the words of the Sacramentary have to be reproduced exactly. [What a relief!] Twice in my life I have been in situation in which someone complained that a priest (and it wasn't me) had changed the words of the Eucharistic Prayer. In both situations, the person that was called in to comment on the case was the diocesan head of the Liturgy Committee. In both cases, these officials approved of the changes in words and found no fault in the reasonable flexibility of the celebrants. There is another principle operative in the mind of this celebrant, called the principle of proportion. A daily Mass should not be celebrated with exactly the same solemnity as a Sunday Eucharist, nor are the Ordinary Sundays of the year supposed to be celebrated as we do Easter or Christmas. This is an application of our awareness of hierarchy - some days are more solemnly celebrated than others. The celebrant, musicians, and other ministers, should show this variability in their ministry. Small group Liturgies aren't the same as Sunday Liturgies in a large church. [Well, I'm not sure I follow this. Certainly, there are degrees of solemnity in the liturgy: solemnities, feasts, memorials, and ferials. But I don't see why fewer people present should mean that we render our worship to the Father with less solemnity and reverent gusto.]
• Your footnote 7 (interesting in a "letter") is not to the point. [That was the footnote that explains that it is not appropriate for priests to use non-approved Eucharist Prayers, nor to change the approved texts. It was to the point, I thought.]
• Your final accusations that I am "care-free" in my attitude to Liturgy and "disobedient" is, if I may be honest, very offensive. [I apologize for using those terms. I was giving my perspective on the situation.] Be careful when you become judgmental - the Lord Jesus says that you will be judged as you judge others.

May the Lord Jesus draw us ever deeper into the humble gift of self that makes us one with him in worship of the Father.

---

This is n. 14 of Sacrosanctum Concilium:

Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. 2:4-5), is their right and duty by reason of their baptism.

In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else; for it is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit; and therefore pastors of souls must zealously strive to achieve it, by means of the necessary instruction, in all their pastoral work.

Yet it would be futile to entertain any hopes of realizing this unless the pastors themselves, in the first place, become thoroughly imbued with the spirit and power of the liturgy, and undertake to give instruction about it. A prime need, therefore, is that attention be directed, first of all, to the liturgical instruction of the clergy. Wherefore the sacred Council has decided to enact as follows:

So that's what the Church said: the means to achieving the "full and active participation" of the people is "the necessary instruction in all ... pastoral work". Not "letting them read the Gospel".

I have a post I'm working on for this blog about the Second Eucharistic Prayer (the shortest one, and the one the average parishioner hears most, I'd bet) and the anaphora found in the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus. Let me spill the beans here. The anaphora (which Hippolytus said was a model) was not used in the Roman Rite (at the latest) since the adoption of the "Roman Canon" (which was, at the latest, during the reign of Pope St. Gregory the Great at the end of the 6th century)... until it was modified and injected into the new order of Mass in 1969 (even though Vatican II did not call for more Eucharistic Prayers to be rediscovered and polished -- like EP II and IV -- or created -- like EP III). In the context of the Apostolic Tradition, the anaphora is used by a bishop at the Mass of his ordination, not by a priest every day of the week. The part about being worthy to stand in the presence of the Lord and serve Him demands some attention. Here is a translation of that part of the anaphora:

Therefore, remembering his death and resurrection,
we offer to you the bread and the chalice,
giving thanks to you, who has made us worthy
to stand before you and to serve as your priests.

Compare that with the corresponding section of EP II:

In memory of his death and resurrection,
we offer you, Father, this life-giving bread, this saving cup.
We thank you for counting us worthy
to stand in your presence and serve you.

See the difference? It is my understanding that the anaphora spoke of the bishops and priests serving in the ministeral priesthood and standing at the altar, not of the entire assembly in the royal priesthood of all baptized believers.

As for mysterium fidei, the context of these words in the Extraordinary Form of the Mass is during the consecration of the wine, becoming the Precious Blood: Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti: mysterium fidei: qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. That is: "This is the chalice of my blood, the new and eternal covenant: the mystery of faith: which is shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins."

Pope Paul VI wrote this in the opening of his 1965 encyclical Mysterium Fidei: "The Mystery of Faith, that is, the ineffable gift of the Eucharist that the Catholic Church received from Christ, her Spouse, as a pledge of His immense love, is something that she has always devoutly guarded as her most precious treasure, and during the Second Vatican Council she professed her faith and veneration in a new and solemn declaration."

No matter what the theological interpretation of what the "mystery of faith" is in the Eucharistic Prayer, the fact remains that the Church translates mysterium as "mystery" in this instance, and so "mystery" must be said.

Liturgy: Things to avoid this Lent...

Does your parish remove the Holy Water from the fonts during Lent? If so, what rationale do they give?

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments said back in 2000 that this practice, "the removing of Holy Water from the fonts during the season of Lent is not permitted".

This Congregation for Divine Worship has received your letter sent by fax in which you ask whether it is in accord with liturgical law to remove the Holy Water from the fonts for the duration of the season of Lent.

This Dicastery is able to respond that the removing of Holy Water from the fonts during the season of Lent is not permitted, in particular, for two reasons:

1. The liturgical legislation in force does not foresee this innovation, which in addition to being praeter legem is contrary to a balanced understanding of the season of Lent, which though truly being a season of penance, is also a season rich in the symbolism of water and baptism, constantly evoked in liturgical texts.
2. The encouragement of the Church that the faithful avail themselves frequently [of her] sacraments and sacramentals is to be understood to apply also to the season of Lent. The "fast" and "abstinence" which the faithful embrace in this season does not extend to abstaining from the sacraments or sacramentals of the Church. The practice of the Church has been to empty the Holy Water fonts on the days of the Sacred Triduum in preparation of the blessing of the water at the Easter Vigil, and it corresponds to those days on which the Eucharist is not celebrated (i.e., Good Friday and Holy Saturday).

So don't do it. And if your parish does it, politely request of your pastor that the practice be avoided and the abuse corrected.

LAMP: Liturgical Abuse Mending Package

And Judas said, "Gird yourselves and be valiant. Be ready early in the morning to fight with these Gentiles who have assembled against us to destroy us and our sanctuary. It is better for us to die in battle than to see the misfortunes of our nation and of the sanctuary." (1 Macc 3:58-59)

When did Judas say that, you ask? Different Judas. This is Judas Maccabeus. And he spoke important words to the Jews of his time, and they still ring true today.

"In order that a remedy may be applied to such abuses, 'there is a pressing need for the biblical and liturgical formation of the people of God, both pastors and faithful', so that the Church’s faith and discipline concerning the sacred Liturgy may be accurately presented and understood." (Redemptionis Sacramentum, n. 170) For this reason, I am assembling LAMP, the "Liturgical Abuse Mending Package". It is a group of documents that will assist you in identifying and correcting liturgical abuses at Mass. The documents are listed in order of necessity. MS Word documents are from my blog's Vox Ecclesiae page unless otherwise noted.

1. Sacramentary - This is the book that contains the Ordinary, Propers, and rubrics for the Mass. It is indispensable! I bought a chapel-sized Sacramentary for $55.
   
2. General Instruction of the Roman Missal (HTML) - The Sacramentary has its own copy of the GIRM inside, but it will be an older edition (unless you have the 2002 Sacramentary, in which case you are truly blessed). Get the most up-to-date edition from March of 2002. EWTN has the original Latin version online, since in most countries, the GIRM is not only translated but also amended with the particular customs and practices of the country.
   
3. Redemptionis Sacramentum (MS Word) (HTML) - This is the 2004 Instruction from the Congregatio de Cultu Divino et Disciplina Sacramentorum "On Certain Matters to be Observed or Avoided Regarding the Most Holy Eucharist". It is not exhaustive, but it covers a lot of ground. You can find this in on this blog as well.
4. Ecclesia de mysterio (MS Word) (HTML) - This is an Instruction from 1997, co-authored by six Congregations and two Pontifical Councils, which lays out guidelines for the collaboration of non-ordained faithful with the ministerial priesthood. This document sets forth, among other things, the term "Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion", which is the official and proper name for those laypersons who are entrusted with the duty of assisting the Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, during the distribution of Communion.
5. Norms for the Distribution of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds (MS Word) (HTML) - This is a USCCB document from 2001 (and subsequently updated in regard to the purification of the sacred vessels) which explains the norms and procedures for administering Communion to the faithful under both species of bread and wine. It makes copious references to the Sacramentary and GIRM, so it's really a summary document (but a rather thorough one).
   
6. Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion at Mass (HTML) - This is a USCCB document that briefly summarizes the responsibilities and limitations of EMHCs. It is a condensed version of the NDHC document listed above.
7. Sacrosanctum Concilium (MS Word) (HTML) - This is the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy from the Second Vatican Council. Read it yourself! See what the Council actually wrote on the need for liturgical reform.
8. Sacerdotium ministeriale (MS Word) - This is a Curial Letter (sent to Bishops) from 1983, authored by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (whose prefect at the time was none other than Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger). It is a brief letter about the importance and necessity of the ministerial priesthood. It describes a few erroneous opinions about the priesthood and the Eucharist, and then explains the Church's traditional teaching on the matter, and exhorts the bishops to root out false teaching in their dioceses. Its primary use for LAMP is for the reinforcement of true teaching regarding the priesthood.
   
9. Memoriale Domini and En réponse à la demande (MS Word) (HTML 1, 2) - These two documents, from the Congregation for Divine Worship from 1969, outline the granting of permission (by indult) for the reception of Communion in the hand by laity. The first document explains the traditional practice of receiving on the tongue, and reminds that it will remain the universal norm; it then goes on to explain the polling results from the Bishops on the question of receiving in the hand, and finally what Pope Paul VI decided to do about the situation. The second document is the first form of the "norms" for receiving in the hand. Note that n. 4 of En réponse suggests the possibility of "allowing the faithful themselves to take the host from the ciborium or paten", a practice which has since been reprobated and forbidden.
10. Immensae Caritatis (MS Word) (HTML) - This Instruction from the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments from 1973 permitted for the first time "Special Ministers of the Eucharist" (in Part 1). It explains why they were permitted, for what purpose, and who should be admitted to such service; note that it does not mention "active participation" as a reason. Parts 2 and 3 are of less interest to LAMP. Part 4 is entitled "Devotion and Reverence Toward the Eucharist in the Case of Communion in the Hand"; it is a reminder of the catechesis that must accompany this permission, and that the practice must be done with extreme caution.
    

So "gird yourselves and be valiant"! Equip yourselves with knowledge of the liturgy and help inform your priests (and bishops). Be charitable but firm. Do not stand idly by as the sanctuary of the Lord is profaned by abuses. Light the way for yourself and others with this LAMP.

As I discover more and more helpful resources, I will add them to this list. I am considering books such as Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite and Ceremonies of the Liturgical Year, but I'll only know for sure once I've read them through. Please suggest resources that I've missed!

"Jenga" Mass, part two: My letter to the priest

[Update: As of Thanksgiving weekend, Fr. X has received the letter. I received confirmation from a mutual friend. "I did see Fr. X and I know he received your letter. I am not sure what he intends to do with it."]

What follows is the letter I sent to Father "Bill" about the "Jenga" Mass (although I most certainly did not use that term in this letter):

---

Dear Father X,

Greetings to you in Christ Jesus. I am writing this letter to you in an effort to explain my attitude (which I would describe as uneasy or anxious) at the Mass you celebrated for our group. I do thank you for taking the time to celebrate Mass at our request, but I have some real concerns about the manner in which Mass was said: certain parts (including gestures and postures) of the Mass were omitted, certain actions were added, and certain roles proper to an ordained minister were relegated (in whole or in part) to laymen. While I have no desire to present a list of “offenses”, I do think it is important to explain why I think that particular celebration of the Mass was detrimental to the individual spiritual growth of the members of the group and how it actually served against your purpose of seeking to make the Mass “open” to us by answering questions and explaining the elements of the liturgy. I hope that a dialog can follow this letter (if you wish it).

Let me first explain my background. Yes, I was an altar boy when I was growing up; I probably served for around 7 years or so, and my training is still with me. My oldest brother is a priest and pastor. When I moved to Plainsboro two-and-a-half years ago, it was after a spiritual wasteland of sorts: I was not a practicing Catholic at college. I was determined to find a parish (Queenship of Mary), get involved, and get back to being Catholic: now I am a reader (a non-instituted lector) and I serve on the Parish Pastoral Council. During Lent of 2007, I attended a series of lectures on Deus Caritas Est at a nearby parish. This got me interested in the writings coming out of the Church, so I read the encyclical, then I read Sacramentum Caritatis, and then I spent a lot of time searching out and reading the Church’s documents and teachings on the Holy Eucharist as well as the Mass. I own a copy of the General Instruction for the Roman Missal, a chapel-sized copy of the Sacramentary, and I printed out a booklet version of Redemptionis Sacramentum. I’m not formally trained in the liturgy nor a seminarian, but I love the Mass and wish to see it celebrated with the reverence and solemnity it is owed, regardless of the right which every Catholic has “that the Liturgy, and in particular the celebration of Holy Mass, should truly be as the Church wishes, according to her stipulations as prescribed in the liturgical books and in the other laws and norms”.[1] With my knowledge about the liturgy, though, I have found that I grow increasingly uneasy when I notice incorrect practices – even abuses – during the celebration of Mass. I want you to know, before I continue, that I do not attend any Mass seeking out liturgical abuses, but because I pay attention to the Mass and have knowledge of the order of the liturgy, I recognize abuses when I see them. I am sure some things that happen are mistakes, but some things are deliberate and calculated.

Before you began Mass on Thursday, you stated that you would welcome any questions about what was being said and done, and provide explanations. This is truly a noble task, because “there is a pressing need for the biblical and liturgical formation of the people of God, both pastors and faithful”.[2] I do not know the level of liturgical formation of the other members of our group, but I expect we all would have welcomed explanations of certain parts of the Mass (especially those parts which are said silently or in a low voice by the priest). However, I believe you worked against that purpose by not celebrating the Mass as we would expect to see it celebrated under other circumstances; the changes served to hinder a more complete understanding of the Mass. As a result, the questions I wanted to ask (but held back due to charity) had to do with why we weren’t doing things properly. I do not know entirely what your intentions that evening were.

Because we started Mass sitting down together, I don’t think you ever approached the altar and kissed it; and since we were sitting, we did not stand for prayer or the Gospel. There was no Act of Penitence – the Kyrie, yes, but nothing before it. You had Chris read the Gospel (and invited laity to comment on or add to the Homily) – which, according to Redemptionis Sacramentum, is a “grave matter”.[3] Because you did not read it, I do not know if the sign of the cross was traced on it, nor if the prayers before and after its proclamation were prayed. If you had done these things (specifically, had you prayed the silent prayers in a low voice which we would hear), it may have evoked a question from the group; but many things were omitted which would have done well to be explained!

When you invited us to gather around the altar for the Eucharistic Prayer,[4] you gave us the opportunity to hold the paten and pray over the bread, asking God to make us part of the Sacrament we were about to receive. Here I think a prime opportunity for explaining the “actual participation” of the assembly of the faithful in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was lost; it was replaced with an illicit addition to the liturgy designed to give us more “active participation” which we will simply not find outside the small-group Mass we attended. You could have spoken about how the faithful of Christ offer themselves up as the priest (in persona Christi) offers the Body and Blood of God the Son to God the Father; Pope Pius XII wrote beautifully about this joining of ourselves to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass:

[T]here is also a more profound reason why all Christians, especially those who are present at Mass, are said to offer the sacrifice. … Now the faithful participate in the oblation, understood in this limited sense, after their own fashion and in a twofold manner, namely, because they not only offer the sacrifice by the hands of the priest, but also, to a certain extent, in union with him. … [T]he conclusion that the people offer the sacrifice with the priest himself is not based on the fact that, being members of the Church no less than the priest himself, they perform a visible liturgical rite; … rather it is based on the fact that the people unite their hearts in praise, impetration, expiation and thanksgiving with prayers or intention of the priest, even of the High Priest himself, so that in the one and same offering of the victim and according to a visible sacerdotal rite, they may be presented to God the Father. … In order that the oblation by which the faithful offer the divine Victim in this sacrifice to the heavenly Father may have its full effect, it is necessary that the people add something else, namely, the offering of themselves as a victim. … But at that time especially when the faithful take part in the liturgical service with such piety and recollection that it can truly be said of them: “whose faith and devotion is known to Thee,” it is then, with the High Priest and through Him they offer themselves as a spiritual sacrifice, that each one's faith ought to become more ready to work through charity, his piety more real and fervent, and each one should consecrate himself to the furthering of the divine glory, desiring to become as like as possible to Christ in His most grievous sufferings.[5]

Instead of making up a “visible liturgical rite” for us to perform, you could have explained the sense in which we join our prayers with yours (the Eucharistic Prayer) to the Father, and join ourselves with the oblation on the altar as “a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God”.[6] The other problem encountered by having us around the altar for the Eucharistic Prayer is that kneeling there is quite uncomfortable – I know that from experience now – although kneeling is the prescribed universal posture for the consecration.

Among the changes to the words of the Mass, the one that caused me the most grief was “Let us proclaim our faith”, spoken immediately before the Memorial Acclamation. Now, I am not a fan of the current ICEL translation of “mysterium fidei” (“Let us proclaim the mystery of faith”), but at least it retains the words “mystery of faith” which are the direct translation of the Latin words in the official Missal. While I expect the Eucharistic Prayer you prayed was one with the approval of the Holy See, I cannot believe it would have rendered “mysterium fidei” as “Let us proclaim our faith” and have received that same approval! The Eucharistic Prayer is the climax of the celebration of the Mass, and so to alter the words is wholly inappropriate.[7] At least one prayer after the Our Father was truncated somewhat; to what end, I do not know.

Your remark after Mass had concluded – “Do you know what we forgot?” – made me wonder what might have been omitted that I had failed to notice. That was the state of mind I was in by the time you gave us the blessing, and it upset me to be so on edge during the Mass. However, I cannot help but feel your answer – “A collection. I’ll have to check the book to see if this was a valid Mass.” – was directed particularly at me. Father X, I take the Mass seriously. Not without joy or elation, but seriously, without frivolity and recklessness. What you may have intended as a jest, I took as an implicit admission to altering the Mass just enough so as not to render it invalid. The Mass we attended is not one we should expect (or hope) to see often, and I hope it does not make people lose interest in “normal” Mass (e.g. “Why don’t I get to hold and pray over the bread all the time?”). Furthermore, if we see this kind of care-free attitude – which in the end can be described as “disobedience” – from a priest, how long will it be before priests start seeing the same care-free, disobedient attitude from the faithful (if they haven’t already)? If we must accept disorder from the celebrant of the Mass, will the celebrants accept such disorder from the congregation?

I sincerely hope you take this letter to heart. I am praying for you, and I ask that you pray for me as well. The Lord be with you.

In Him,

Jeffrey Pinyan

---

[1] Redemptionis Sacramentum [RS], n. 12

[2] Ibid., n. 170

[3] Ibid., n. 173, cf. n. 153

[4] “During the liturgy of the eucharist, only the presiding celebrant remains at the altar. The assembly of the faithful take their place in the Church outside the ‘presbyterium,’ which is reserved for the celebrant or concelebrants and altar ministers.” (Notitiae 17 (1981) 61)

[5] Mediator Dei, nn. 91-99

[6] Ibid., n. 99; cf. Romans 12:1

[7] “Only those Eucharistic Prayers are to be used which are found in the Roman Missal or are legitimately approved by the Apostolic See, and according to the manner and the terms set forth by it. ‘It is not to be tolerated that some Priests take upon themselves the right to compose their own Eucharistic Prayers’ or to change the same texts approved by the Church, or to introduce others composed by private individuals.” (RS, n. 51)

"Jenga" Mass

Update: See "Jenga" Mass, part 2 for the letter I wrote to the priest who celebrated Mass for us.

You know the game Jenga. You pull out a wooden brick from the tower and place it on the top, trying to prevent the tower from crashing (either during the removal or addition of the block).

If the tower doesn't fall, you've still got a problem. You've got a tower with bricks missing in the middle and extra bricks teetering precariously on the top; that would be an "illicit" building: it's still a tower, but you can tell something's not right about it. It would probably generate scandal (over the construction of such a tower), confusion (as to what is a tower), and uncertainty (over whether the tower can actually be lived in). If the tower falls, crashing down in a pile of confusion, you could say it was rendered "invalid": it would no longer be a tower, it would be a pile of rubble. It would not serve the purpose for which it was intended (because it has changed so drastically).

Well, now imagine that tower is the Liturgy of the Mass, and the individual wooden bricks are red... they're red-bricks, ruber-bricks, rubr-icks... rubrics!

Now imagine that a priest celebrates the Mass by seeing how many rubrics he can remove from the liturgy, and how many rubrics of his own invention he can add to the liturgy, without making the liturgy crumble apart into a pile of rubric-rubble. We could call that the "Jenga" Mass: how much can you abuse the liturgy, how far can you reconstruct the liturgy to your own liking, never overstepping the fine line between illicit and invalid?

Well, I attended one such Mass very recently. Before I go on, I'd like to state, for the record, that I do not attend any Mass expecting -- or, God forbid, hoping -- to find, nor looking for, liturgical abuses, but, because I have read the GIRM and other documents on the liturgy, I recognize abuses when I see them, because I pay attention to the Mass. What follows is my blunt account of what happened. I basically point out each of the changes to the proper liturgy that I recognized. Trust me, they weren't veiled or hidden, they were blunt. The priest didn't "forget", he did things deliberately in his way.

Has anyone here read "Why Catholics Can't Sing" by Thomas Day? Chapter 5 is entitled "Ego Renewal", and it talks (among other things) about the increase in priest-performers, who interject themselves and their whole personality into their "performance" of the Mass. Keep that in mind.

I attended Mass last night with a small group of young adults (Catholics in our mid-20's to early 30's). It took place at a chapel (dedicated to the Miraculous Medal) at a seminary, so one of the priests in residence said Mass for us. The chapel is old enough that the seating is antiphonal -- that is, the pews are arranged along the sides of the church facing each other. (Examples: here and here) There were only five of us (plus the priest), so we all (including the priest) sat in a group, in the pews up on the level of the sanctuary.

I was to read the First Reading (from Romans 14), and I was curious where I would read from -- there was a podium at the opposite end of the chapel, and I had suggested moving it up near the sanctuary. This wouldn't be necessary, I was told by "Bill" (name changed). Bill -- that is, Fr. Bill -- said I could read it from where I was. Bill had asked, before Mass, whether he should put on his vestments. Thankfully, he did. Before Mass, he told us that since we were such a small group, we should feel free to relax, and to interrupt him to ask questions at any point, and that he would probably be interjecting at times to explain what he was doing (I suppose as the "commentator" of GIRM 105b). Throughout the rest of this post, [bracketed text in bold red] are things I wanted to ask, but held back because of charity.

Mass began seated, not standing [GIRM 43, 124], in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. [Why don't we stand, Fr. Bill?] The altar was not kissed [GIRM 123] -- Bill hadn't approached it. [Why didn't you kiss the altar, Fr. Bill?] Bill told us about the readings we would hear (which is acceptable, since it's following GIRM 31). The Act of Penitence [GIRM 51, 125] was skipped (we went directly to the Kyrie, without doing A, B, or C of the Act of Penitence). Then the opening prayer. Then I read the First Reading, sitting in my chair (rather than (standing?) at the ambo [GIRM 58]). Then I passed the Lectionary behind me to the woman who read the Responsorial Psalm from her chair (not the ambo, nor would I consider where we were a "suitable place" [GIRM 61])... she wasn't very comfortable with the whole thing either, I might add.

When she finished, I turned around to receive the Lectionary back from her and hand it to Bill who was sitting next to me. Instead, he told her to give it to whomever she wished (such as the man sitting on the other side of Bill) to read the Gospel. [Why don't you read the Gospel, Fr. Bill?] So a layman [GIRM 58], sitting (as we all were) [GIRM 60, 131], read the Gospel. [Why don't we stand, Fr. Bill?] The Lectionary was not blessed with the sign of the cross [GIRM 134], it was not kissed [GIRM 134], and I highly doubt the layman (or Bill, for that matter) said the prescribed prayers before [GIRM 132, 175] and after [GIRM 134] reading it.

At this point, after the Gospel, I really wanted to turn to Bill and ask So who shall we choose to give the homily? But he gave it (or did he give in?). And when he was done, he asked for our input to add. Only one person offered. Then we prayed the general intercessions.

And then Bill invited us up to stand at the altar [Notitiae 17:61]. [Why are we standing at the altar, Fr. Bill?] He asked me to bring the paten with the bread to the altar, and I did; he then started talking about what would we would be doing, how Jesus is present in the Eucharist, and that we acting communally make him present. I'm not sure exactly what he said. I was bringing the chalice to the altar, and then I stood to the side with the water and wine. Bill said, "Oh, an altar boy", and told me I could leave them on the altar, because we were about to do something.

He explained he would pass the bread around to each one of us so we could pray quietly over it to ask God to let us partake of it and be part of it. [Why... just, why, Fr. Bill?] He handed me the paten, and I prayed privately "For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world" three times (from the Chaplet of Divine Mercy, for reparation for sins committed against the Most Blessed Sacrament), and passed the paten to the woman who read the Psalm. (She told me later that she didn't do anything, because she was so uncomfortable.) After Bill said (silently, which is fine) the prescribed prayers ("Blessed are you...") over the bread, he noticed there was no purificator. After one was finally found, he prayed over the wine, and then asked me to help him wash his hands, which I did.

When it came time for the Orate, fratres ("Pray, brethren, that our sacrifice..."), I seem to recall him changing the words slightly, and speaking the response with us. Now, I'm pretty sure the response is proper to the assembly, not to the priest (since we say "May the Lord accept this sacrifice at your hands..."); I know he said it, though, because he introduced inclusive language by replacing the word "His" with "God's". This leads me to think the change I noticed earlier to be something like "... to Almighty God", instead of the words "... to God, the Almighty Father".

So there we were, standing around the altar. After "Holy Holy Holy", I knelt. I grimaced when he said "Let us proclaim our faith" after the consecration of the wine -- changing the words of the liturgy is strictly forbidden, and I wonder if his failure to say "mystery" is the gravest abuse of all that happened at that Mass. [Why did you say it that way, Fr. Bill?] I stood up again for the "Our Father". He truncated the "Deliver us, Lord..." prayer. [Why didn't you say all of the Libera nos, Fr. Bill?] I was pleasantly surprised to see him looking down at the Host and Chalice when he prayed the "Lord Jesus Christ, you said to your Apostles...". I knelt again after the "Lamb of God". Bill said his own preface at this point, instead of "This is the Lamb of God...", so of course (as is always the case when these words get changed), he had to let us know when he was done by "intoning" the response: "Lord..." after which we completed: "I am not worthy..." He communicated, then we did (with an EMHC for the Chalice). (I was very grateful he did not have us receive at the same time as he did, as concelebrants would. I would have absolutely lost it.) He waited until after Mass to purify the vessels, which is ok, but I really don't understand why priests wait (or why some priests have other people do it). [Why not purify the vessels now, Fr. Bill?] Then we all sat down again, and he said the closing prayer (seated, like us [GIRM 43]), the blessing, and dismissal. No one had interrupted him to ask him questions.

Then he said, "Oh, you know what we forgot?" I was thinking, "What else could he possibly have omitted?" He said, "We didn't have a collection! I'll need to check the books, to make sure this was still a valid Mass." [Why on earth would you wonder that, Fr. Bill?] I could not help but think that was directed at me. See, I was visibly anxious throughout the Mass; I'd been curious about where the readings would happen, I was formal with Fr. Bill (calling him "Father"), I had my hands folded, my head bowed most of the time, I was the only one who knelt at the Eucharistic Prayer, etc.

Please pray for Fr. Bill (God will know who you're talking about) and the other priests of his order (we'd already had one Mass with another... the tattered cuffs of his jeans peaking out beneath his alb and stole (sans chasuble), seated prayer, "communal" homily, etc.). Also pray for me, if you could, because my charity's at an all-time low right now.

Now, here is what Redemptionis Sacramentum (henceforth RS) has to say about abuses to the liturgy (emphases in bold red):

Chapter VIII: REMEDIES

[169.] Whenever an abuse is committed in the celebration of the sacred Liturgy, it is to be seen as a real falsification of Catholic Liturgy. St Thomas wrote, “the vice of falsehood is perpetrated by anyone who offers worship to God on behalf of the Church in a manner contrary to that which is established by the Church with divine authority, and to which the Church is accustomed”.

[170.] In order that a remedy may be applied to such abuses, “there is a pressing need for the biblical and liturgical formation of the people of God, both pastors and faithful”, so that the Church’s faith and discipline concerning the sacred Liturgy may be accurately presented and understood. Where abuses persist, however, proceedings should be undertaken for safeguarding the spiritual patrimony and rights of the Church in accordance with the law, employing all legitimate means.

[171.] Among the various abuses there are some which are objectively graviora delicta or otherwise constitute grave matters, as well as others which are nonetheless to be carefully avoided and corrected. Bearing in mind everything that is treated especially in Chapter I of this Instruction, attention should be paid to what follows.

1. Graviora delicta

[172.] Graviora delicta against the sanctity of the Most August Sacrifice and Sacrament of the Eucharist are to be handled in accordance with the ‘Norms concerning graviora delicta reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’, namely:

a) taking away or retaining the consecrated species for sacrilegious ends, or the throwing them away;

b) the attempted celebration of the liturgical action of the Eucharistic Sacrifice or the simulation of the same;

c) the forbidden concelebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice with ministers of Ecclesial Communities that do not have the apostolic succession nor acknowledge the sacramental dignity of priestly Ordination;

d) the consecration for sacrilegious ends of one matter without the other in the celebration of the Eucharist or even of both outside the celebration of the Eucharist.

2. Grave Matters

[173.] Although the gravity of a matter is to be judged in accordance with the common teaching of the Church and the norms established by her, objectively to be considered among grave matters is anything that puts at risk the validity and dignity of the Most Holy Eucharist: namely, anything that contravenes what is set out above in nn. 48-52, 56, 76-77, 79, 91-92, 94, 96, 101-102, 104, 106, 109, 111, 115, 117, 126, 131-133, 138, 153 and 168. Moreover, attention should be given to the other prescriptions of the Code of Canon Law, and especially what is laid down by canons 1364, 1369, 1373, 1376, 1380, 1384, 1385, 1386, and 1398.

3. Other Abuses

[174.] Furthermore, those actions that are brought about which are contrary to the other matters treated elsewhere in this Instruction or in the norms established by law are not to be considered of little account, but are to be numbered among the other abuses to be carefully avoided and corrected.

[175.] The things set forth in this Instruction obviously do not encompass all the violations against the Church and its discipline that are defined in the canons, in the liturgical laws and in other norms of the Church for the sake of the teaching of the Magisterium or sound tradition. Where something wrong has been committed, it is to be corrected according to the norm of law.

4. The Diocesan Bishop

[176.] The diocesan Bishop, “since he is the principal dispenser of the mysteries of God, is to strive constantly so that Christ’s faithful entrusted to his care may grow in grace through the celebration of the sacraments, and that they may know and live the Paschal Mystery”. It is his responsibility, “within the limits of his competence, to issue norms on liturgical matters by which all are bound”.

[177.] “Since he must safeguard the unity of the universal Church, the Bishop is bound to promote the discipline common to the entire Church and therefore to insist upon the observance of all ecclesiastical laws. He is to be watchful lest abuses encroach upon ecclesiastical discipline, especially as regards the ministry of the Word, the celebration of the Sacraments and sacramentals, the worship of God and the veneration of the Saints”.

[178.] Hence whenever a local Ordinary or the Ordinary of a religious Institute or of a Society of apostolic life receives at least a plausible notice of a delict or abuse concerning the Most Holy Eucharist, let him carefully investigate, either personally or by means of another worthy cleric, concerning the facts and the circumstances as well as the imputability.

[179.] Delicts against the faith as well as graviora delicta committed in the celebration of the Eucharist and the other Sacraments are to be referred without delay to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which “examines [them] and, if necessary, proceeds to the declaration or imposition of canonical sanctions according to the norm of common or proper law”.

[180.] Otherwise the Ordinary should proceed according the norms of the sacred canons, imposing canonical penalties if necessary, and bearing in mind in particular that which is laid down by canon 1326. If the matter is serious, let him inform the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

5. The Apostolic See

[181.] Whenever the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments receives at least a plausible notice of a delict or an abuse concerning the Most Holy Eucharist, it informs the Ordinary so that he may investigate the matter. When the matter turns out to be serious, the Ordinary should send to the same Dicastery as quickly as possible a copy of the acts of the inquiry that has been undertaken, and where necessary, the penalty imposed.

[182.] In more difficult cases the Ordinary, for the sake of the good of the universal Church in the care for which he too has a part by virtue of his sacred Ordination, should not fail to handle the matter, having previously taken advice from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. For its part, this Congregation, on the strength of the faculties given to it by the Roman Pontiff, according to the nature of the case, will assist the Ordinary, granting him the necessary dispensations or giving him instructions or prescriptions, which he is to follow diligently.

6. Complaints Regarding Abuses in Liturgical Matters

[183.] In an altogether particular manner, let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favouritism.

[184.] Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.

It also says I have certain rights, including these four (found in nos. 11-12):

1. The right "to a liturgical celebration that is an expression of the Church’s life in accordance with her tradition and discipline"
2. The right "that the Liturgy, and in particular the celebration of Holy Mass, should truly be as the Church wishes, according to her stipulations as prescribed in the liturgical books and in the other laws and norms"
3. The right "that the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass should be celebrated for them in an integral manner, according to the entire doctrine of the Church’s Magisterium", and
4. The right "that the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharist should be carried out for it in such a manner that it truly stands out as a sacrament of unity, to the exclusion of all blemishes and actions that might engender divisions and factions in the Church"

So then, where do we stand?

I know the priest used a different Eucharistic Prayer, although I believe it is "legitimately approved by the Apostolic see" (RS 51), but because I believe it to be approved, I cannot believe its translation of mysterium fidei is "let us proclaim our faith", which is what the priest said. (I am really unsure about the validity of the Mass because of his failure to say the approved translation of mysterium fidei, although I understand they are not technically words of consecration. I'm not a big fan of "Let us proclaim the mystery of faith" either, but that's what the Rome-approved translation from the ICEL says.)

He considering saying Mass without vestments on (RS 126)... but decided against it, thank God.

He placed a layman (or two, if you count the comments by a layman after the homily) in a difficult situation by having him read the Gospel, which I believe constitutes "assum[ing] the role ... of a Priest" (RS 153) since the Gospel and homily are to be proclaimed and given by a Priest or Deacon only, never a layperson (excluding the reading of the Passion of Our Lord).

I bring these three items up because they fall into the category of "grave abuses" mentioned above (RS 173). The first (RS 51) might simply be relegated to RS 59, which reads (emphasis mine): "The reprobated practice by which Priests, Deacons or the faithful here and there alter or vary at will the texts of the Sacred Liturgy that they are charged to pronounce, must cease. For in doing thus, they render the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy unstable, and not infrequently distort the authentic meaning of the Liturgy." The second (RS 126) was avoided, but considered (seriously, as far as I can tell). The third (RS 153), if I have interpreted it correctly, certainly occurred; although no priestly vestments were worn by anyone apart from the priest, one or two laymen fulfilled roles designated for the priest.

I will certainly figure out the most charitable way to handle the reporting of these abuses; I will not be hasty or vindictive, but I want to make sure that no one is put in such a position again.

One last note... before Mass, the priest asked the five of us that were at the Mass what our jobs were. This was after I had already come across (I think) as a liturgically-minded person. I wonder, should I have said: "Why, I'm an intern at the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments!"