Our Christian Duty to Each Other

A long-time friend and person I respect told me a few days ago that he has not been to Mass since March. This is not for lack of desire. He has been a faithful Mass attendee and has passed this act on to his children. He has also been active in teaching children in the parish. His reason for not attending is that other people in his parish do not take COVID seriously. He attends a traditional parish where they eschew masks and treat the virus with indifference. Because of their flippant attitude, he has chosen to protect himself and his family by not attending Mass.

There are some who might question this decision. They may say that it is inconceivable to not attend Mass. But does a father and husband not have the right to protect his family where the actions of other people put them at risk? We, as Christians, do not live in a vacuum. We are "our brother's keeper" as exemplified in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Just as we care called to care for our brethren bodily, it is our duty to encourage our brethren in their faith. We must "encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing" (Thess. 5:11). 

We cannot encourage each other in faith if one of us is concerned about their risk of attending Mass. I realize that this virus has somehow become politicized, and that the talking heads love to argue about the mortality rate of COVID-19. But that is irrelevant. Just as I would not attend Mass if I had another contagious illness, of whatever potency, means that if I am asymptomatic in carrying this illness I will ultimately protect others by preventing its spread. 

Ultimately, I think COVID will be devastating for churches. I believe that many people will become used to not attending church on Sunday or attending virtually. Some people will not miss it and will replace their Sunday obligation with something else. This is all the more reason to get churches open again and safe. There have been numerous examples of safe gatherings occurring with masks--school children in class with masks, flights with zero transmission even when infected people are aboard, no transmission when masks were worn by infected hair dressers and their clients, etc. Let us not become a stumbling block to our brethren who want to attend the liturgy by a small act which can encourage and strengthen them

As long as any one has the means of doing good to his neighbours, and does not do so, he shall be reckoned a stranger to the love of the Lord. - St. Irenaeus of Lyons

Missa Privata

The Mass without people (a.k.a. Missa Privata or In Missis sine populo celebratis) is getting a lot of attention because of the Coronvirus or Covid-19. Unfortunately, many dioceses and ecclesiastical entities have had to restrict public Masses because of the risk to the faithful. For now, priests and bishops are offering Mass privately or behind closed doors. Typically this includes at least one person but it may not (depending on who is available and the risk of infection). These certainly are unprecedented times and there is much to be said for the theological concept of economy right now.

There have long been many opinions about Private Masses. In the Eastern Church it is discouraged, although there are individual examples like St. Theophan the Recluse.1 In the Roman Catholic Church it was also discouraged, as documented in the 1917 Code of Canon Law: "A priest should not celebrate Mass without a minister who assists him and response."2 This was somewhat relaxed in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which states "A priest may not celebrate without the participation of at least some member of the faithful, except for a just and reasonable cause."3

In the West, in particular, this concept has been discussed extensively. There are many different perspectives on this issue and they usually fall where people identify liturgically or theologically. Traditionalists argue in favor of the Missa Privata because of the intrinsic value of each Mass. Modern or contemporary scholars argue against it because of the limitation of lay participation.4 The contemporary argument is that it is against the concepts presented by Vatican II and that the Mass is not under the ownership of the Priest.

I take the traditionalist approach. I am certainly sympathetic to the idea that the Liturgy should happen for the benefit of as many people as possible. That is always the ideal, that both clergy and laity will participate for their spiritual benefit. However, when that is not possible there are still benefits to solo celebration. First, it benefits the priest. Priests are human beings who need spiritual succor like everyone else. The ultimate reason many of us became priests is to offer the Holy Sacrifice for ourselves and the People of God. There are intrinsic benefits to our having access to offering the Holy Mass frequently.

Similarly there are benefits to the Holy Mass being offered frequently even without a congregation. This topic is more nuanced because of the historical complexities related to it. First, there can be a hesitation to discuss the graces flowing from the Mass because of comparisons to magical or esoteric Christianity. Similarly, there is also hesitation among those who support concelebration because of the association that concelebration was limited in favor of Private Masses. Yet this was a later development and often done because of the need for numerous Requiem Masses or the need for priests to celebrate in monasteries. Finally, there is also the concern that this can be taken to its most extreme where Masses are offered again and again stripped down to little more than the Words of Institution. This is the case in Palmar de Troya (in the Palmarian Catholic Church).5

Yet we are faced with the understanding that there is benefit to the Sacrifice of the Mass itself. In the Roman Catholic West, the Mass is regarded thusly: "The intrinsic value of the Sacrifice of the Mass, that is, its peculiar dignity and efficacious power in itself (in actu primo), is infinite, on account of the infinite dignity of the Sacrificial Gift, and of the Primary Sacrificial Priest."6 Also, "As a Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving the sacrifice of the Mass is infinite as to its external value also, that is, as to its actual operation (in actu secondo) since the operations of adoration and thanksgiving refer immediately to God, who as the Infinite Being can receive an infinite act."7

Therefore the Mass is the summit of all Christian worship because it is "the same in the Sacrifice of the Mass as in the Sacrifice of the Cross; primarily the glorification of God, secondarily atonement, thanksgiving, and appeal" and is "a sacrifice for the Church."8 The benefit of offering Mass (even for those who do not receive Communion at the Mass) is echoed by St. Thomas Aquinas who says: " But to others who do not receive it, it is beneficial by way of sacrifice, inasmuch as it is offered for their salvation."9

This demonstrates that there is a clear theological reasoning to Private Masses. The Mass is participation in the Sacrifice of the Cross and there are benefits for those commemorated therein (both the living and the dead). There are also advantages for the priest spiritually to join himself to such a Holy Sacrifice.

This is an area where Autocephalous or Independent Catholics are condemned by other members of the Church Catholic. We are often derided that we offer Mass by ourselves in our garage with no congregation. Yet the Church is waking up to a very different world than existed even two weeks ago. I believe that the larger church has something they can learn from us. While condemnation has been heaped on us, there is a rationale to our offering the Holy Mass (even solo). While it is ideal to have a congregation, those who cannot are still participating in offering the Holy Sacrifice and participating in its benefits.

What is even more unique about the Autocephalous Catholic Movement is that ordination is more fluid. So there are many more opportunities for people to be ordained to offer the Holy Mass and participate in the Sacrifice of the Cross. Again, ideally this is in the context of a congregation but if it is not there is still benefit. Even if it is in the silence of their garage, the celebrant benefits from the Holy Mass. How fortunate we are to be able to celebrate it and what a blessing it is to allow more fluidity for others to celebrate as well. Solo celebrations have brought me great joys and allowed me to offer petitions for those who need it most.

Unfortunately we do not know how long this pandemic will last. But, for priests, we are infinitely blessed that we can offer the Holy Sacrifice ourselves any time we desire. We (and the Church) derive benefit from the offering regardless of who is present. May God bless our humble work and those for whom we pray.

“The Mass is a compendium of all God's love, of all His benefits to men, and each Mass bestows on the world a benefit not less than what was conferred on it by the Incarnation." - St Bonaventure

1. https://www.stbasil.com/new-events/2020/1/10/divine-liturgy-gregory-of-nyssa-amp-theophan-the-recluse
2. Canon 813.1. Peters, Edward. The 1917 or Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law.
3. Canon 906. http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P37.HTM
4. https://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2020/03/18/private-masses-do-not-fit-with-a-contemporary-understanding-of-eucharist/
5. https://magnuslundberg.net/2017/08/29/the-palmarian-order-of-the-mass/
6. Ott, Ludwig. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae. Tertia Pars. Q. 79.

The Mass as Sacrifice

"When you see the Lord immolated and lying upon the altar, and the priest bent over that sacrifice praying, and all the people empurpled by that precious blood, can you think that you are still among men and on earth? Or are you not lifted up to heaven?” (The Priesthood 3:4:177 [A.D. 387])." - St John Chrysostom 

I opened this post with a quote from St. John Chrysostom because it is, for me, a perfect summary of what we believe about the Holy Mass. Unfortunately, in some quarters, it has become more common to emphasize the Mass as meal and the altar as table. While these terms are accurate--the Mass is a "Heavenly Meal" on the "Table of the Lord" overuse of them can lead to a de-emphasis of the Mass as sacrifice.

Ultimately, if the Mass is not a sacrifice then we are not emulating the commandment at the Last Supper to "do this in memory of me." True, there was in the Early Church (and still today in the beautiful custom of the Eastern Church with the antidoron) the offerings of agape feasts both closely related to the Eucharist and, later, separated from it. Yet these remained distinct from the sacrificial action which was limited to the Body of Christ (excluding, for example, catechumens) and which required baptism, penance, and other expectations.

How, then, did we get here? The reformers had some effect by their denial of the sacrificial nature of the Mass. Still, too, did the liturgical reformers who utilized non-sacrificial terminology in liturgical revisions. This created a de-emphasis on the sacrificial nature of the Mass. While I prefer an ad orientem celebration of the Mass I don't think our problems hinge on that single issue. There are numerous ones which have gotten us to our current level of informality. 

So, then, what is the solution? 

1. Proper catechesis. Emphasize in homilies, writings, and other venues the importance of the Holy Mass as sacrifice. Train those entering the Church that the Mass is a sacrificial act. I was recently told be a Catholic convert "I became Catholic but I still don't believe it's really the Body of Christ." That is the wrong attitude, obviously.

2. Appropriate liturgical atmosphere. Even if you're renting space or meeting in a non-liturgical location you can still take steps to ensure the Mass is reverently celebrated. 1. Create an atmosphere of holiness that is separate from peoples' ordinary lives, unique, and reflective. 2. Use the best resources possible when celebrating the liturgy. This means dignified vestments, reverent materials, and proper respect for holy vessels and objects. ABSOLUTELY NO SCARF STOLES (I'm looking at you RCWP). 3. Choose music and other supportive material that emphasizes the holiness of the Mass. If I have to hear "Gather Us In" one more time... 

3. Use clergy appropriately and generously. The beauty of the autocephalous Catholic movement is that we can ordain people more easily. Find appropriate people in your community to act as deacons and priests and encourage their vocation. We don't have to utilize "eucharistic ministers" because we can foster people's vocations without the rigid strictures of the mainstream. This is not only beneficial for the liturgical setting, but the faithful have access to spiritual benefits not available from the laity (like blessing children or catechumens who can't receive the Eucharist--which can't be done by "eucharistic ministers.")

4. Emphasize the holiness of the Eucharist. It has become fashionable to receive Holy Communion in the hand. However, this, too, can do much to de-emphasize the sacrifice of the Mass by promoting familiarity. And familiarity, as we know, can breed contempt. If the Eucharist is received it can be received on the tongue with great reverence. There is less discussion about the method of receiving the Eucharist. While I prefer kneeling, standing has long been the tradition in the Eastern Church. Encouraging a bow, genuflection, or reverence before receiving Holy Communion is laudable.

5. Create a setting of prayer. In all community gatherings or other events, ensure that prayer is offered and that prayer is at the heart of the event (as it is ideally within our lives). Whether it is a parish picnic, retreat, or any other setting use it as a chance to provide reverent prayer. Also use time-honored liturgies, not those created on the fly. As I've previously mentioned--there is a reason why we use liturgies which were created and prayed by saints and within the tradition of the Church.

There are always steps that can be taken to ensure that the sacrificial nature of Mass is honored. These can be done regardless of the Mass rite itself (whether Novus Ordo, Tridentine, etc.). To some, these items may not be important. "People are starving" is a refrain heard whenever one talks about liturgy. They are starving... spiritually starving. And they are starving because of our mediocre liturgies and lack of prayerful atmospheres.

"O Priest of God, say this Mass as though it were your first Mass, your last Mass, your only Mass."

Caption: Rev. George. H. Clements giving Holy Communion, Chicago, 1973. Original caption: Holy Angel Catholic Church on Chicago's South side, 1973.

Caption: Outdoor Mass, reverently celebrated. Source unknown.

A Brief Mass for Meditation

From Jesus, King of Love by Fr. Mateo Crawley-Boevey, SS.CC.

Now, I am going to let you in on a secret – the secret of my spiritual life. When I travel on the train, I say, ten, twenty ‘Masses of St. John’ – Masses in honor of the Blessed Trinity. There is no prayer like that. I have but three devotions: My Mass, my breviary, my rosary. The breviary is beautiful, but you cannot compare it with the Mass. There is no prayer like the Mass. As I travel, I offer my Mass on the altar of the holy Will of God, offering it in union with the thousands of priests saying Mass continuously, perpetually. I am tired, I cannot prepare conferences – I offer Mass instead. I said four or five Masses this morning. I do it the whole day. It unites my heart, my will with priests at the altar. When I awake during the night, the first thing I do is unite myself with the Mass being celebrated at that moment. I say the Offertory, Consecration, and Communion prayers. I call this the "Mass of St John." I hope to die saying Mass – between two consecrations.

Now you might ask, "What do you mean by the 'Mass of St John?'" I call this practice
"The Mass of St. John" only to give it a title. It is really Jesus' Mass. What was the Mass offered by Jesus? The Mass offered by Jesus at the Last Supper was the most simple of Masses, the shortest of Masses, lasting but a few minutes. St. John's Mass, as He offered it for Our Lady, was the same--short, simple, consisting however of the same three elements, the same three prayers: Offertory, Consecration, and Communion.... That is Mass. All the rest is frame. If at the altar I said only those prayers, my Mass would be a valid Mass. I can't do that because it is forbidden. But it would be a genuine Mass.

Learn these prayers by heart and then during the day you can live the wonderful grace of your Mass. You have a few moments free –say a Mass of St. John. You wake up at night – say a Mass. You come into church for a visit or to make your adoration - begin with a Mass... At the end of the day offer a perfect act of thanksgiving, Holy Mass.

... I remember preaching in a big community in California. The Mother Superior said to me one day, “Father, I want to thank you. Yesterday after your conference about Holy Mass I went to the infirmary to see a poor sister who suffers terribly and who cannot sleep at all, especially during the night. She was smiling. Mother, I have learned the secret of how to pass the night – the Mass of St. John. Thank Father for me for having told us about it.”

Fr. Mateo's Mass of St. John:

Offering of the Host

Accept, O Holy father, Almighty and Eternal God, this spotless host, which I, Your unworthy servant, offer to You, my living and true God, to atone for my numberless sins, offences, and negligences; on behalf of all here present and likewise for all faithful Christians living and dead, that it may profit me and them as a means of salvation to life everlasting. Amen.

Offering of the Chalice

We offer unto Thee, O Lord, the chalice of salvation, entreating Thy mercy that our offering may ascend with a sweet fragrance in the sight of Thy divine Majesty, for our own salvation, and for that of the whole world. Amen.

The Consecration

“For this is my Body.”

“For this is the chalice of my Blood of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith; which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.”

Domine, Non Sum Dignus

Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldst enter under my roof; but only say the word, and my soul shall be healed.

The Communion Prayers

The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve my soul unto life everlasting. Amen.

The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve my soul unto life everlasting. Amen.

Liturgical Wars

Well, I have a feeling people are going to love this post... Not. Today's topic is the liturgy. I have a preference for traditional liturgy, preferably in the Tridentine Rite. However, I can say this without condemning other people's liturgical practices. Why? Well, I personally only care about one thing: REVERENCE. 

I tend to believe that many people believe liturgy is created in a vacuum. That is can never change. I personally do not believe Our Lord was celebrating a Pontifical High Mass at the Last Supper. However, I also don't think that the God of the Universe is best worshiped by showing off your dance moves. For me, the liturgy should be shaped by 1) a lack of focus on the celebrant (this isn't the Fr. Bob show), 2) deep reverence towards the liturgical act (which is often expressed by following the rubrics), and 3) historic rites which are theologically orthodox while spiritually edifying.

The challenge is how to incorporate this into the Church. It should be noted that these are all my personal opinions. They do not shape the order of worship for my church or anyone else. However, as I noted I prefer the traditional liturgy. I do not begrudge changes in that liturgy, however, such as the Holy Week, calendar, etc. For me the key is to look at the intent of the changes. Are they to restore a more ancient practice? Perhaps. But that is a slippery slope. Because many of the medieval practices we have come to love (benediction) could be considered liturgical innovations. Is it, then, to truncate the liturgy? This is not bad in and of itself in the West, as shorter forms have long been used (in emergency forms of sacramental rites, the Low Mass, etc.). We all perhaps wish we had the stamina to engage in the liturgy 24/7 but this may not be practical. So why is that that someone uses the rite they have adopted?

Then there is the Novus Ordo Missae. I do think that its introduction was endemic of the hermeneutic of rupture. Because it is radically different from its predecessor missal--that can't be denied. I think, as well, it has been introduced in a way to make the liturgy less reverent. Familiarity breeds contempt and I think it has been made so common in many areas as to not be given due reverence. The attempt was made to revert back to the believed customs of the Early Church. In doing so, I think the slippery slope mentioned above is pertinent. However, I do not think the rite is bad in and of itself. I firmly realize, as Dix notes, that the liturgical practices of the Early Church were much different. Many of our propers were impromptu because texts and literacy were problematic. Christendom has utilized many different texts to celebrate the liturgy. My concern is how it was implemented which seemed to rupture from the previous rite without a clear continuity.

This is especially pertinent for the 1970 liturgy. We now have, among Autocephalous Catholics, those who would seek to elevate this liturgy as the supreme example of liturgical beauty (like a liberal SSPX). In spite of its simplistic language and the abhorrent additions like the Eucharistic Prayers for children. I do think the revised Third Edition of the Roman Missal is an improvement, despite the fact that it is clearly not perfect. For me, the 1965 liturgy was a much better option of dignified translation and reverent liturgy. However, in general wherever possible I am in favor of hieratic language and separating the liturgy from the ordinary.

Where does that leave us? Well, it seems to all come down to preference anyway. Various groups will gauge orthodoxy based on if there is a second confiteor, the Holy Week rite used, etc. Some groups wear red or purple on Palm Sunday. Within the Novus Ordo some have become attached to the Mass of 1970. Others have adopted the Third Edition. Sometimes ad orientem, with communion on the tongue, etc., etc. I don't think we have to be scared of liturgical innovation. It has clearly happened frequently in the Church's long history. For me, again, the important thing is that it is shaped by the above principles in bold. 

AND, I should add, that just because people think they can write the world's best liturgy doesn't mean it will be the world's best liturgy. We have so many examples of historic liturgies that are beautiful and reverent and written by people much smarter than most of us. Why not just use that? That doesn't mean liturgies can't be tweaked for their place and purpose. But starting from scratch seems a bit much.

I realize that none of this solves any of liturgical issues. And it's enough to make perhaps everyone who reads it unhappy. But it is a stream of consciousness.

“Novelty may fix our attention not even on the service but on the celebrant. You know what I mean. Try as one may to exclude it, the question "What on earth is he up to now?" will intrude. It lays one's devotion waste. There is really some excuse for the man who said, "I wish they'd remember that the charge to Peter was Feed my sheep; not Try experiments on my rats, or even, Teach my performing dogs new tricks.” - C.S. Lewis