Notes from Notitiae

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarkThompson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Here is 38 (2002), 491Notitiae, holding that it is not permitted to celebrate First Communion in the Mass on Holy Thursday:
Utrum deceat primam Communionem celebrare Quinta feria Hebdomadae Sanctae intra Missam « In Cena Domini »?

R. Negative.

Sane quidem a Sacramento Baptismatis et Confirmationis seiuncta, prima plena participatio Eucharistiae cum sacrae Communionis receptione est Sacramentum quoddam initiationis christianae, theologice cum Pascha sociatum et sub specie celebrationis intra Vigiliam Paschalem constitutum (cf. Ordo initiationis christianae adultorum, Praenotanda, nn. 49, 58), alveus naturalis trium sacramentorum, quae, inter se intime coniuncta, « ad plenam staturam perducant christifideles, qui missionem totius populi christiani in Ecclesia et in mundo exercent » (Ordo baptismi parvulorum, De initiatione christiana, Praenotanda generalia, n. 2). Cum vero radix et nucleus omnium celebrationum diei dominici per circulum anni liturgici sit Vigilia Paschalis, statuitur, ut, quantum potest, sacramenta initiationis christianae celebrentur, nisi per Vigiliam, nempe « die dominico » (cf. Ordo initiationis christianae adultorum, Praenotanda, n. 59).

Non decet, igitur, primam plena participatio Eucharistiae, seu « prima Communio », in Missa « In Cena Domini » celebrare, non modo ratione mere theologica habita, sed etiam pastorali, cum populum a medio evento historico-salvifico celebratio haec distrahat eo tridui sacri die commemorato: « Tota animi attentio verti debet ad mysteria quae in Missa potissimum recoluntur: scilicet institutio Eucharistiae, Ordinis sacerdotalis institutio et mandatum Domini de caritate fraterna: quae quidem in homilia illustrentur » (Congregatio de Cultu Divino et Disciplina Sacramentorum, Litt. Circ. De festis paschalibus praeparandis et celebrandis, n. 45).

Progrediente evolutione anni liturgici, exorta est autem celebratio quae, licet propriis peculiaritatibus, elementa tamen quaedam Missae « In Cena Domini » reduplicat, scilicet sollemnitas SS.mi Corporis et Sanguinis Christi. Haec sollemnitas, sicut et Dominicarum Paschae et Temporis « per annum » celebrationes, aptiora praeberent adiuncta celebrationi primae participationis Eucharistiae.
My translation:
Whether it is fitting to celebrate First Communion on the Thursday of Holy Week within the Mass of “The Lord’s Supper”?

R. Negative.

Sensibly indeed separated from the Sacrament of Baptism and Conformation, the first full participation in the Eucharist with reception of Holy Communion is a Sacrament of Christian initiation, related theologically to Easter and established, in the outward manner of its celebration, within the Easter Vigil (cf. Ordo initiationis christianae adultorum, Praenotanda, nos. 49, 58), a natural receptacle for the three sacraments which, intimately connected to each other, “are to bring the Christian faithful to full stature, that they might exercise the mission of the entire Christian people in the Church and in the world” (Ordo baptismi parvulorum, De initiatione christiana, Praenotanda generalia, no. 2). Since, surely, the root and kernel of all the celebrations of the Lord’s day throughout the cycle of the liturgical year is the Easter Vigil, it is decreed that, as much as possible, the sacraments of Christian initiation be celebrated, if not on the Vigil, then definitely on “the Lord’s day” (cf. Ordo initiationis christianae adultorum, Praenotanda, n. 59).

It is inappropriate, therefore, to celebrate the first full participation in the Eucharist, or “First Communion”, at the Mass of “The Lord’s Supper”, not only for reasons merely theological, but also pastoral, since this celebration distracts the people from the central historico-salvific event commemorated on that say of the sacred triduum: “The whole attention of the soul ought to be turned to the mysteries which are preeminently celebrated in the Mass: namely the institution of the Eucharist, the institution of the priestly Order, and the mandate of the Lord concerning brotherly love: which indeed are to be illustrated in the homily” (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Disciple of the Sacraments, Circular Letter De festis paschalibus praeparandis et celebrandis, no. 45).

In the continuing evolution of the liturgical year, however, a celebration has arisen which, permitted in its own peculiarities, nevertheless reduplicates certain elements of the Mass of “the Lord’s Supper”, namely the solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ. This solemnity, and likewise the celebrations of the Sundays of Easter and of Ordinary Time, offer more appropriate adjuncts for the celebration of first participation in the Eucharist.
 
Here is Notitiae 37 (2001), 18–19, holding that it is not permitted to make a glass tabernacle for keeping the Blessed Sacrament. I’ve transcribed it for the first time from this pdf, and due to length the translation will follow in my next post!
An non liceat tabernaculum, quo Ss.mum Sacramentum asservatur, e vitro conficere

R. Negative

Vitrum ex natura sua simul transparens et fragile, immo comminuibile est. Attamen, normae vigentes de tabernaculo statuuntur, non solum ut idem collocteur pro « cuiusque ecclesiae structura et iuxta legitimas locorum consuetudines, . . .] in parte ecclesiae pernobili, insigni, conspicua, decore ornata, et ad orationem apta » (Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani [2000], n. 314; cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 938 § 2; cf. S. Congr. Rituum, Instr. Eucharisticum mysterium, n. 54; Instr. Inter Oecumenici, n. 95), sed etiam ut « sit inamovibile, materia solida atque inviolabili, non transparenti confectum » (Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani [2000], n. 315; cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 938 § 3; cf. S. Congr. Pro Sacram. et Cult. Div; Instr. Inaestimabile donum, n. 25; Instr. Eucharisticum mysterium, n. 52; Instr. Inter Oecumenici, n. 95; S. Congr. De Sacramentis, Instr. Nullo umquam tempore, diei 28 maii 1938, n. 4: A.A.S. 30 [1938] pp. 199-200; Rituale Romanum, De Sacra Communione et de cultu mysterii eucharistici extra Missam, editio typica 1973, nn. 10-11).

Necessaria haec inviolabilitas e fide chistiana exoritur, quemadmodum reverentia erga Corpus Domini habenda requirit, ut « quam maxime periculum profanationis » sacrarum specierum eucharisticarum vitetur (ibidem). Quapropter Concilium Vaticanum II decrevit, ut leges ecclesiasticae de tabernaculi securitate perinde ac de nobilitate et dispositione eius tractantes recognoscerentur (Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 128). Nostris vero diebus, non raro, quod valde dolendum, tabernacula violantur, ita ut « optimum sane consilium foret si tabernaculum sit vera arca ferrea, quam vocant vulgo cassaforte, coffre-fort cum clave » (Instr. Nullo umquam tempore, n. 4).

Tum ex natura liturgicae celebrationis tum ex nexu asservationis Ss.mae Eucharistiae cum Missae celebratione, ne materia transparens in tabernaculo conficiendo sit sumenda, consequitur. « Ratione » enim « signi magis congruit », ut in Missae celebratione « praesentia eucharistica Christi, quae fructus est consecrationis et ut talis apparere debet », ita adsit, ut a fidelibus videri nequeat (cf. S. Congr. Rituum, Instr. Eucharisticum mysterium, n. 55; cf. etiam Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani [2000], n. 315). Igitur, etiam prohibetur « celebratio Missae perdurante expositione Ss.mi Sacramenti, in eadem aula ecclesiae ». Nam « celebratio mysterii eucharistici modo perfectiore includit illam communionem internam ad quam expositio intendit fideles adducere, et ideo tali subsidio non indiget » (ibidem, n. 61). Insuper, attendendum est Ecclesiae traditionem requirere, ut, praeterquam in celebratione Missae et in sacra Communione infirmis extra Missam distribuenda, sacra species eucharistica oculis hominum in illis tantum temproibus exponatur, quibus ei pecularis honor et cultus adorationis tribui potest.
 
Notitiae 37 (2001), 18–19, my translation:
If it be not permitted to construct a tabernacle, in which the Blessed Sacrament is kept, of glass

R. Negative

Glass is by nature at once transparent and fragile, indeed breakable. Nevertheless, the norms in force concerning the tabernacle establish, not only that it be positioned “in accordance with the structure of each church and legitimate local customs, . . .] in a part of the church that is truly noble, prominent, readily visible, beautifully decorated, and suitable for prayer” (General Instruction of the Roman Missal [2000], no. 314; cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 938 § 2; cf. Sacred Congregation of Rites, Instr. Eucharisticum mysterium, no. 54; Instr. Inter Oecumenici, no. 95), but also that it “be immovable, be made of solid and inviolable material that is not transparent” (General Instruction of the Roman Missal [2000], no. 315; cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 938 § 3; cf. Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship; Instr. Inaestimabile donum, no. 25; Instr. Eucharisticum mysterium, no. 52; Instr. Inter Oecumenici, no. 95; Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments, Instr. Nullo umquam tempore, 28 May 1938, no. 4: A.A.S. 30 [1938] pp. 199-200; Roman Ritual, De Sacra Communione et de cultu mysterii eucharistici extra Missam, typical edition 1973, nos. 10-11).

This necessary inviolability arises out of the Christian faith, and likewise the reverence to be held toward the Body of the Lord requires it, so that “to the greatest extent possible the danger of profanation” of the sacred Eucharistic species may be avoided (ibid.). For this reason the Second Vatican Council decreed that the ecclesiastical laws concerning the security of the tabernacle be revised, just as with those treating of its nobility and placement (Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 128). In our days indeed, not rarely, which is greatly to be grieved, tabernacles are violated, such that “the best and most suitable plan will be if the tabernacle be truly an iron chest, what they commonly call a ‘safe’ or ‘strongbox’ with a key” (Instr. Nullo umquam tempore, no. 4).

Hence it follows, from the nature of the liturgical celebration and the obligation of the reservation of the Most Holy Eucharist with the celebration of the Mass, that transparent material is not to be used in making a tabernacle. For “by reason of the sign, it is more in keeping”, that in the celebration of the Mass “the Eucharistic presence of Christ, which is the fruit of the consecration and ought to appear as such”, should be present in such a way that it cannot be seen by the faithful (cf. Sacred Congregation of Rites, Instr. Eucharisticum mysterium, no. 55; cf. also General Instruction of the Roman Missal [2000], no. 315). Therefore, also forbidden is “the celebration of Mass during exposition of the Blessed Sacrament in the same space of the church”. For “the celebration of the Eucharistic mystery includes in a more perfect manner that internal communion to which exposition intends to draw the faithful, and consequently it has no want for such assistance” (ibid., no. 61). Moreover, the Church’s tradition must be kept to, that, except in the celebration of Mass and in distributing Holy Communion to the sick outside Mass, the sacred Eucharistic species is to be exposed to the eyes of men at those times only, when the special honor and worship of adoration can be rendered to it.
 
Could you translate the following into English?

Notitiae 1 (1965): 185-186 n. 42.
  1. Quaeritur utrum religiosi itinerantes, recitatione chorali divini Officii onerati, teneantur (etiam ut hospites in domo, quae non ad Officium divinum in choro recitandum obligatur) omnes Horas Canonicas privatim recitare?
Resp.: Affirmative. Hi religiosi non eximuntur, ratione can. 14, § 1 et 3, ab observatione legum personalium. Lex vero divini Officii, vi Constitutionum religiosarum seu professionis sollemnis ac vi Ordinis sacri, est personalis.

Notitiae 1 (1965): 190 n. 57
  1. Exstant in hac diocesi plura monasteria monialium. Pro nonnullis, superiores maiores statuerunt, ut dum celebratur Missa, crates aperiantur, quo moniales sacros ritus melius participare possint. Quaeritur utrum fas sit hanc normam extendere ad omnia monasteria, sive iuris dioecesani, sive iuris Pontificii.
Resp.: Res pertinet ad Sacram Congregationem de Religiosis, cui transmittenda est quaevis petitio ad indulta petenda.

Constat tamen Sacram Congregationem de Religiosis, his in casibus, de more, suggerere ut ad participationem liturgicam faciliorem reddendam, moniales ita disponantur ut omnes sacros ritus conspicere possint, qui ad altare peraguntur, fenestellis, si quae sint, apertis, vel velariis e cratibus demptis; velis quoque e vulto [sic] sibi sublatis, si a populo non videntur.

Notitiae 1 (1965): 250 n. 61
  1. Utrum Religiosi « choro adstricti » adhuc obligentur ad recitationem Horae Primae?
Resp.: Ex recenti consessione [sic] (2 iunii 1965) Apostolica Sedes remisit Superioribus Maioribus religiosis, ut secundum prudens eorum iudicium, statuant Horam Primam retinere aut facultativam declarare pro suis subditis.
 
Matthew_Holford said:
Could you translate the following into English?

Notitiae 1 (1965): 185-186 n. 42.
  1. Quaeritur utrum religiosi itinerantes, recitatione chorali divini Officii onerati, teneantur (etiam ut hospites in domo, quae non ad Officium divinum in choro recitandum obligatur) omnes Horas Canonicas privatim recitare?
Resp.: Affirmative. Hi religiosi non eximuntur, ratione can. 14, § 1 et 3, ab observatione legum personalium. Lex vero divini Officii, vi Constitutionum religiosarum seu professionis sollemnis ac vi Ordinis sacri, est personalis.
Click to expand...
  1. It is asked whether itinerant religious, burdened with the choral recitation of the Divine Office, be held (even as guests in a home which is not bound to recite the Divine Office in choir) to recite all the canonical Hours privately?
Resp. Affirmative. These religious, by reason of can. 14, § 1 and 3, are not exempted from the observation of personal laws. Indeed the law of the Divine Office, by force of the religious Constitutions or of solemn profession and by force of the holy Order, is personal.
 
If you lot keep this up enough, you could start a little wiki page, and get a community effort going to get a significant amount of it into unofficial English.

Just a thought.

Though actually I’d rather see some saints’ books translated from the Latin, personally. Get more out of it. There are some pretty significant works not ever done in English, like St. Peter Canisius’s catechism. 😃
 
Matthew_Holford said:
Notitiae 1 (1965): 250 n. 61
  1. Utrum Religiosi « choro adstricti » adhuc obligentur ad recitationem Horae Primae?
Resp.: Ex recenti consessione [sic] (2 iunii 1965) Apostolica Sedes remisit Superioribus Maioribus religiosis, ut secundum prudens eorum iudicium, statuant Horam Primam retinere aut facultativam declarare pro suis subditis.
Click to expand...
  1. Whether Religious “bound by choir” still be obligated to recite the Hour of Prime?
Resp.: By recent concession (2 June 1965), the Apostolic See remanded to religious Major Superiors [the prerogative] that according to their prudent judgment they may determine to retain the Hour of Prime or declare it optional for their subjects.
I admit that, without knowing a whole lot of the terminology related to religious life, I’m may not be phrasing some of these things in the best possible way. That applies likewise to the remaining one I haven’t done yet, which has to do with cloistered nuns.

What’s your particular interest in these entries?
 
Shin said:
If you lot keep this up enough, you could start a little wiki page, and get a community effort going to get a significant amount of it into unofficial English.

Just a thought.

Though actually I’d rather see some saints’ books translated from the Latin, personally. Get more out of it. There are some pretty significant works not ever done in English, like St. Peter Canisius’s catechism. 😃
Click to expand...
Haha, well, there’s a big difference between translating a couple of paragraphs and translating twenty pages. And you know what, I’d kind of forgotten what a difference there is between reading in a foreign language and translating between two languages.

That’s especially true when people are going to turn a really critical eye to the accuracy of your translation. I wondered to myself whether I ought to translate, e.g., “Utrum liceat” in the most literal sense with the subjunctive (“Whether it be permitted”), or without the subjunctive which is now unusual in English (“Whether it is permitted”), or the way we would normally ask an English question (“Is it permitted . . . ?”), since after all “Utrum liceat” is a fairly normal way of asking a Latin question. Is one of those a “more faithful” translation than the others? Would people be griping about it on the internet if a Collect were translated that way?

Not easy questions, really.
 
Matthew_Holford said:
Notitiae 1 (1965): 190 n. 57
  1. Exstant in hac diocesi plura monasteria monialium. Pro nonnullis, superiores maiores statuerunt, ut dum celebratur Missa, crates aperiantur, quo moniales sacros ritus melius participare possint. Quaeritur utrum fas sit hanc normam extendere ad omnia monasteria, sive iuris dioecesani, sive iuris Pontificii.
Resp.: Res pertinet ad Sacram Congregationem de Religiosis, cui transmittenda est quaevis petitio ad indulta petenda.

Constat tamen Sacram Congregationem de Religiosis, his in casibus, de more, suggerere ut ad participationem liturgicam faciliorem reddendam, moniales ita disponantur ut omnes sacros ritus conspicere possint, qui ad altare peraguntur, fenestellis, si quae sint, apertis, vel velariis e cratibus demptis; velis quoque e vulto [sic] sibi sublatis, si a populo non videntur.
Click to expand...
Here’s the remaining one you asked about, Matthew:
There exist in this diocese many monasteries of nuns. For a few, the major superiors have determined that while Mass is celebrated the grillwork should be opened, whereby the nuns might better be able to participate in the sacred rites. It is asked whether it be lawful to extend this norm to all monasteries, whether of diocesan right or of Pontifical right.

Resp.: The matter pertains to the Sacred Congregation for Religious, to whom any petition for requesting an indult is to be sent.

It nevertheless accords with the Sacred Congregation of Religious, in these cases, by custom, to suggest that for restoring easier liturgical participation, nuns be so positioned that they may watch all the sacred rites which are carried out at the altar, with the windows, if there be any, open, or screens or grillwork removed; with veils also lifted from their face, if they are not seen by the people.
 
Here is 1 (1965), 251, n. 32Notitiae, another of the 1965 clarifying responses from the Consilium:
62. Utrum stabiliter extrui liceat altare portatile ante altare maius ad celebrandam Missam versus populum?

Resp.: Per se licet, sed non consulitur. Nam Missa ad normam novi Ordinis celebrata, optime participatur a fidelibus etiam si altare ita extruitur ut celebrans terga ad populum vertat. Tota enim liturgia verbi celebratur versus populum, ad sedem vel ad ambonem.

Si autem, his non obstantibus, ecclesiae rector aestimaverit aliud altare, partatile, sic] collocare ante altare maius, hoc ponatur ad tempus, et inter utrumque altare intervallum vere notabile intercedat, et altare portatile circa se habeat satis magnum spatium ad modum presbyterii.
My translation:
62. Whether it be permitted to erect permanently a portable altar before the high altar for celebrating the Mass versus populum?

Resp.: It is permitted as such, but not advised. For the Mass, celebrated to the norms of the new Ordo, is best joined by the faithful even if the altar is so constructed that the celebrant turns his back to the people. For the whole liturgy of the word is celebrated versus populum, at the sear or at the ambo.

If, however, notwithstanding these things, the rector of the church decides to place another, portable altar before the high altar, it is put there ad tempus [for the time being], and a truly noticeable space is to be left between the altars, and the portable altar is to have around itself an area large enough to be like a presbytery.
 
And, to accompany it, here is 1 (1965), 251, n. 63Notitiae.
63. Utrum, si altare maius versus populum exstruitur, ad mentem Constitutionis et n. 95 Instructionis SS.ma Eucharistia asservari conveniat in altari minori ab altari principali distincto?

Resp.: Affirmative.
My translation:
63. Whether, if the high altar is erected versus populum, it is in agreement with the intention of the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium] and no. 95 of the Instruction Inter Oecumenici] to reserve the Most Holy Eucharist at a minor altar distinct from the principal altar?

Resp.: Affirmative.
 
Here’s a special entry, from the Decreta Authentica Congregationis Sacrorum Rituum (Authentic Decretals of the Sacred Congregation of Rites), which is a compendium of responses and decrees of the predecessor of the CDWDS, starting in 1588. This one deals with priests disabled in one arm – suffice it to say, the SRC was not winning any awards from handicap-advocacy groups. Here is the entry on Mass, § 1, no 2:
2. Sacerdos Franciscus Cerata, non valens sumere hostiam consecratam manu dextera, supplicavit pro licentia sumendi cum sinistra.

Resp.: Lectum. Die 28 martii 1654 in Calaguritana. (1551.)

Pro parte F. Gagliardi curati in dioecesi Bononiensi, supplicatum fuit pro dispensatione et concessione facultatis celebrandi, et elevandi Hostiam consecratam, et dandi benedictionem et faciendi alias functiones cum manu sinistra, attento quod manus ejus dextera sit impedita ab appoplexia.

Et S.R.C. respondit: Abstineat. Et ita decrevit et servari mandavit. Die 26 sept. 1682 in Bononien. (2849.)

Quaesitum fuit nomine Episcopi Pisauriensis, quid agendum casu, quo sacerdos habens curam animarum, et impeditus uno brachio, non possit utraque manu elevare Sanctissimum Sacramentum in Missa, nisi usque ad os, attamen una tantum manu possit idem elevare supra caput, ita ut videri et adorari valeat ab adstantibus?

S.C. mandavit: Moneri Episcopum ut curet, ne sacerdos praedictus absque dispensatione apostolica celebret, interim vero per alium sacerdotem suppleri, ne parochialis Ecclesia sibi debito destituatur auxilio. Die 2 julii 1661 in Pisauren. (1969.)
My translation:
2. The priest Franciscus Cerata, not being strong enough to raise up the consecrated Host with his right hand, begged permission for raising it with his left.

Resp.: Read. March 28, 1654 in Calahorra, Spain]. (1551.)

On behalf of F. Gagliardi, curate, in the Diocese of Bologna, was begged a dispensation and concession of the faculty of celebrating, and elevating the consecrated Host, and giving benediction and doing other functions, with his left hand, sought because his right is disabled by apoplexy *.

And the Sacred Congregation of Rites responded: He is to abstain. And it so decreed and ordered to be heeded. September 26, 1682 in Bologna. (2849.)

It was asked in the name of the Bishop of Pesaro, Italy], what is to be done in a case in which a priest having cura animarum [care of souls], and disabled in one arm, cannot with either hand elevate the Blessed Sacrament at Mass, except up to his mouth, can he nevertheless elevate it with one hand only above his head, such that it can be seen and adored by those present?

The Sacred Congregation ordered: The bishop is advised to take care, lest the aforesaid priest celebrate absent apostolic dispensation, and meanwhile another priest is to be supplied, lest the parish church belonging to him [the disabled priest] be left destitute of help. July 2, 1661 in Pesaro. (1969.)*
 
Also from the Decreta Authentica, here’s a set of rulings about putting things on the tabernacle or the altar. I’ve transcribed and translated this as it appears in this alphabetical compilation. It’s worth noting that the parenthetical four-digit numbers are a sort of serial number or protocol number, but two of them are wrong (or numbered on some strange other scheme), so I’ve given the correct numbers in brackets with appropriate links to the originals. Truly inexplicable seems to be pridie calendas aprilis 1821 in the third dubium, when obviously the decision referred to was given a.d. III nonas aprilis.
5. 6º An toleranda, vel eliminanda sit consuetudo, quae in dies invalescit, superimponendi sacras reliquias, pictasque imagines tabernaculo, in quo Augustissimum Sacramentum asservatur, ita ut idem tabernaculum pro basi inserviat? 7º An permitti possit, ut ante praefatas imagines in medio altari positas, apponantur lumina ex oleo, quae immineant mensae, et ardeant etiam tempore sacrosancti Missae sacrificii?

Et S.R.C. respondit: Ad 6. Assertam consuetudinem tanquam abusum eliminandam omnino esse. — Ad 7. Negative in omnibus, nec lumina, nisi cerea, vel supra mensam altaris, vel eidem quomodocumque imminentia, adhibeantur. Die 3 aprilis 1821 in Decretum generale ad 6 et 7. (4428.)

An ante ostiolum tabernaculi SSmi. Sacramenti, retineri possit vas florum, vel quid simile, quod praedictum occupet ostiolum imagine Dni. N. in eodem insculpta?

Resp.: Negative. Posse tamen in humiliori, et decentiori loco. Die 22 januarii 1701 in una Cong. Montis Coron. ad 10. (3426. 3575])

Cum juxta decretum S.R.C. pridie calendas aprilis 1821, eliminanda sit consuetudo apponendi SS. Reliquias, pictasque imagines super tabernaculo, in quo SSmum. Eucharistiae Sacramentum asservatur, adeo ut ipsum tabernaculum inserviat pro basi, quaeritur an hoc decretum valeat etiam pro reliquiis SSmae. Crucis, vel alterius instrumenti Dominicae Passionis publicae venerationi expositi?

Resp.: Affirmative. Die 12 martii 1836 in Tridentina ad 1. (4628. 4777])
My translation:
5. 6th: Is the custom, which today is growing, to be tolerated or eliminated, of placing holy relics and painted images upon the tabernacle, in which the Most August Sacrament is reserved, such that the tabernacle serves as a pedestal? 7th: Can it be permitted, that in front of the aforesaid images placed in the middle of the altar, oil lamps be set, which overhang the mensa, and burn even during the holy sacrifice of the Mass?

And the Holy Congregation of Rites responded: To 6. The asserted custom is such an abuse that it is to be eliminated altogether. — To 7. Negative in all respects; neither lamps nor candles, either upon the mensa of the altar or overhanging it in whatsoever way, are to be employed. April 3, 1821 in general Decretal to 6 and 7. (4428.)

In front of the door of the tabernacle of the Blessed Sacrament, can a vase of flowers be kept, or something similar, that covers the said door with an image of Our Lord graven on the thing?

Resp.: Negative. It can however [be put] in a lower and more appropriate place. January 22, 1701 in one [Camaldolese] Congregation of Mount Corona to 10. (3426. 3575])

Since under the decretal of the S.R.C. of March 31 [sic] 1821, the custom is to be eliminated of placing holy relics and painted images upon a tabernacle in which the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist is reserved, such that the tabernacle itself serves as a pedestal, it is asked if this decretal applies even to relics of the Holy Cross, or of other instruments of the Lord’s Passion, exposed for public veneration?

Resp.: Affirmative. March 12, 1836 in Trent to 1. (4628. 4777]).
 
What do you think the Vatican would have answered – before Vatican II – if you asked whether it was okay to revive an old custom of sticking verses of some other song into the Sanctus, and in fact to sing those verses aloud but only whisper the real Sanctus quietly, and have some instruments playing at the same time?

No one during the great glory days of the Church would would ever have thought to monkey around with the sacred liturgy, would they? To meddle with the glorious Sanctus, which all the Thrones and Dominations sing with us?! My heart breaks at the notion. Boo, down with tinkering priests who think they can improve on the liturgy that St. Pius V handed on to us! At least back when the Vatican had some spine and a commitment to making the Mass exactly the same in every church around the world, they would have come down like a ton of bricks on a local abuse like this . . . right?

As it turns out, the answer would be a big, fat “Go for it!”

Here’s the 1838 decision of the Sacred Congregation of Rites from their Decreta Authentica:
19. In Cathedrali, et aliis Ecclesiis Aretinae dioecesis, plurimis ab hinc annis obtinuit consuetudo, ut per totam octavam Corporis Christi, dum agitur Missa de Sanctissimo Sacramento, hymnus triumphalis Sanctus post praefationem, interpoletur versibus cantici rythmici: Divinum mysterium; immo rhythmus canitur elata voce, et hymnus triumphalis dicitur voce submissa dum pulsantur organa, ac proinde quaeritur 1. An hujusmodi consuetude laudanda sit, et retinenda; et quatenus negative, quaeritur 2. An rhythmus Divinum mysterium cani saltem possit extra Missam?

Resp.: Permitti posse, dummodo non omittatur solemne trisagium. Die 1 septembris 1838 in Aretina ad 2. (4690. 4836])
My translation:
19. In the Cathedral, and in other churches of the Diocese of Arezzo, very many years ago a custom existed, that through the whole octave of Corpus Christi, when the Mass of the Blessed Sacrament is done, verses of the rhythmic song Divinum mysterium are interpolated into the triumphal hymn Sanctus after the preface; indeed the rhythmic parts are sung with raised voice, and the triumphal hymn is spoken in a lowered voice while instruments are played, and accordingly it is asked 1. If a custom of this sort is praiseworthy, and to be retained; and to the extent it is not, it is asked 2. If the song Divinum mysterium can at least be sung outside of Mass?

Resp.: It can be allowed, as long as the solemn thrice-holy **] is not omitted. September 1, 1838 in Arezzo to 2. (4690. 4836])
 
Ach! And it was all downhill from there…

I am kinda known as the ‘go-to’ person for liturgical question among my friends. I really hate it when I find answers that don’t agree with me!

But I always tell the truth…even if I cringe while doing it.

I am finding this forum very interesting. Thanks for doing this!
 
Hi Mark

Have you ever come across anything regarding the placing of non-liturgical ‘stuff’ on the altar?

I know there is something in the GIRM about not placing anything on the mensa, but what about pinning things to the altar cloth?
 
uxordepp said:
Hi Mark

Have you ever come across anything regarding the placing of non-liturgical ‘stuff’ on the altar?

I know there is something in the GIRM about not placing anything on the mensa, but what about pinning things to the altar cloth?
Click to expand...
I haven’t seen anything on that issue. I skimmed, I think, over an item in the Decreta that forbade oil lamps on the altar during Mass, but I haven’t noticed anything else.

And I’m glad people are finding this little project interesting!
 
  1. Utrum liceat, donec ecclesia opportune reficiatur, collocare altare portatile, forma simplicis mensae, ante altare [sic] maius fixum ex marmore pretioso confectum, ut adhibeatur pro celebratione Missae versus populum?
    …
    Looks like altare ought to be altarem.
Click to expand...
N.B., altare is neuter, so it is the form both of the nominative and accusative cases in the singular, e.g., Introibo ad altare Dei. Altarem is not a Latin word.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top