USCCB Transmits Liturgy of the Hours, Second Edition to Holy See By the USCCB Secretariat of Divine Worship
Six months after the final vote on its elements by the body of bishops, the manuscript and accompanying documentation of the Liturgy of the Hours, Second Edition was transmitted to the Holy See’s Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments on May 29, 2025, the memorial of Pope St. Paul VI. The Committee on Divine Worship, meanwhile, continues to plan for the implementation of the new translation of the Divine Office once it is confirmed.
Previous updates on the progress of the breviary were given in the March 2015 and January 2022 issues of the Newsletter. The Secretariat of Divine Worship now provides this latest update as excitement continues to build for this important ritual text.
Story continued on page 2
Fundamentals of Sacramental Validity— and a Deep Plunge into the Form and Matter of Baptism (Part I)
By Aaron Sanders
Editor’s note: The Church continues to revise and finalize translations of her liturgical books. While it is a great grace to celebrate the sacraments with worthy texts, keeping up with the changes creates confusion among pastors and faithful alike. Likewise, it is still an all-too-common occurrence that the sacraments are celebrated illicitly or even invalidly, wounding the Church and bringing sorrow to the faithful. The Holy See agrees—and in February 2024, issued the note Gestis Verbisque, “On the Validity of the Sacraments,” a resource meant to help bishops assess questions of sacramental validity. In this light, Dr. Aaron Sanders begins a seven-part series on the sacramental matter and form for each of the sacraments, hoping to clarify the Church’s norms on the proper celebration of these great gifts.
Certain elements are absolutely essential for any sacrament. Without them the rite is invalid. Null. Void. One essential, the minister, is relatively easy to identify and, once identified, hard to get wrong. Even the minister’s intention when celebrating the sacraments, as the Council of Florence decreed, requires only “the intention of doing what the church does.”1 The other essentials, however, “things as the matter” and “words as the form,”2 occasion more doubts about proper celebration and thus grace conferred.
In a perfect world, precise identification of matter and form would be unnecessary, as every minister would strictly obey his Church’s rites. Even in this fallen world, some have advised we not devote too detailed attention to matter and form, lest we indirectly discount non-essential liturgical signs and, in consequence, impoverish the Church’s experience of
the Paschal Mystery. Yet emergencies, accidents, and honest mistakes all happen, and whether a sacrament was celebrated or not is not an indifferent matter. Moreover, eschewing precision can suggest that no ritual detail lies beyond our power to adapt. In fact, the number of doubts arising from celebrations “where the liturgical norms were disregarded” has grown so large that in 2024 the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a note assisting bishops in discerning sacramental validity.3 It seems timely, therefore, to review the sacramental requirements of matter and form, both generally and for each sacrament.
Sacraments 101
Sacraments are, by definition, signs. Whether in Aquinas’s brief formulation of a sacrament, “A sign of a holy thing inasmuch as it (the holy thing) makes men holy,”4 or in the modern definition provided by the Catechism of the Catholic Church as “efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us,”5 determinations of validity hinge upon whether matter and form combine to truly signify and symbolize, and consequently cause ex opere operato (by the action of Christ) the grace Christ intended.
The tradition of liturgical and sacramental manuals anticipated the Second Vatican Council in underscoring that Christ chooses to heal and elevate us through “sensible signs,”6 matching the means of our salvation to our composite nature: we encounter spiritual realities through physical senses. Each sacrament, then, takes a perceptible action and imparts specific meaning through added words that determine it as the act
Please see SACRAMENTS on page 4
What’s the Matter with Form? It depends on the sacrament, of course, but the short answer is everything—and Aaron Sanders goes to the heart of the matter (and form) in this first of a seven-part series on the sacraments 1
Gold Testament
One of the three altars in the Jewish Temple to prefigure the Catholic altar, the Golden Table, received bread and wine for sacrifice. Sound familiar? Brant Pitre explains it all 6 Canon Aid
Msgr. Robert J. Dempsey studies the sacrament of marriage’s canonical development—including why the Church’s public witness is necessary whenever bride and groom say, “I do.” 8
We Do
When two become one, so should their prayer life. Caroline Smyczek provides three important steps all Catholic newlyweds should take to place prayer at the heart of their marriage
Human Mass
In a review of The Mass Explained by Dan Gonzalez, Stephen Joseph Hill shows how the author leads readers to see the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as the fullness of their humanity
The sacraments may be likened to seven streams flowing from the open heart of Christ that, in turn, allow us access into his heart and, through it, the very heart of the Blessed Trinity. Sacramental celebrations, therefore, are of utmost importance to the life of the believer.
USCCB Approvals since 2022
Most non-Scriptural elements of the Liturgy of the Hours were translated by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL). Its translation of the Ordinary—principal rubrics for celebrating the Hours—was approved by the USCCB in June 2023. From 2023 to 2024, ICEL also provided two large fascicles of extra materials not originally foreseen by the USCCB scope of work approved in 2012. These materials included new translations of the General Instruction of the Liturgy of the Hours, antiphons, hagiographical introductions of the saints, introductions to the Lord’s Prayer, long and short responsories, psalm titles and headings, rubrics, and versicles. The goal was to provide translations that were harmonious with the elements already prepared and approved, as well as consistent with existing liturgical translations. These fascicles, entitled “Supplementary Texts” and “Additional Texts,” were thoroughly reviewed by the Committee and Secretariat prior to final modification and approval by the USCCB at their June 2024 plenary meeting.
Meanwhile, work progressed on elements proper to the dioceses of the United States. Texts related to U.S. saints and blesseds—mostly Second Readings for the Office of Readings—were researched and consolidated into a fascicle, and additional textual and ritual adaptations for use in this country were developed into a second fascicle. These texts were approved in June and November 2023, respectively.
Finally, the Doctrine Subcommittee on the Translation of Scripture Text completed its work on revisions to the New American Bible, Revised Edition. A biblical text consisting of the 2010 Old Testament, 2018 Abbey Psalms and Canticles, and 2024 New Testament was approved by the USCCB Administrative Committee for devotional use of the faithful in September 2024, and the body of bishops approved it two months later to serve as the liturgical Bible for the United States. As reported in the April 2025 Newsletter, the liturgical Bible was confirmed by the Holy See on April 13, and work is proceeding on the Bible’s publication. Readings from the liturgical Bible were incorporated into the manuscript of the breviary, and they will also form the core of the future Lectionary for Mass. […]
Preparing the Final Manuscript
A preliminary submission containing a large tranche of material and documentation was transmitted to the Dicastery in January 2024 for its officials to begin reviewing the modifications and general indications proposed by the USCCB. The final submission sent this month included amendments and documentation for the ICEL Supplementary and Additional Texts, plus the complete manuscripts of the four volumes of the Liturgy of the Hours. Preparing manuscripts of this magnitude—while maintaining the usual high level of thorough editorial review to ensure that the bishops’ amendments and other decisions were accurately included—was a great challenge for the Secretariat of Divine Worship.
The unique structure of the Liturgy of the Hours, compared to the other books of the Roman Rite liturgy, resulted in an equally unique process of translation by ICEL and review by the USCCB. Like the Roman Missal, Third Edition, the text was translated, reviewed, and approved in parts over a long period of time. Because individual elements of the text are often repeated and reused, even between volumes, ICEL provided its translations grouped by type: hymns, antiphons, responsories, prayers, etc., rather than producing one manuscript translation of the editio typica. This grouping of translations by type allowed these individual elements of the breviary to be organized into tables where they could be sorted and compared to one another as part of the review process to ensure consistency, eliminate duplicates, and correct variant translations of the same Latin text.
Texts not translated by ICEL, namely the Abbey Psalms and Canticles, readings from Sacred Scripture, miscellaneous headings, and U.S. proper texts and adaptations were also put into tables to simplify review.
NEWS & VIEWS
Scripture readings were pulled automatically from a draft digital format of the liturgical Bible prepared to aid the bishops in their own review of the text for approval.
Not counting duplicates, these tables contain:
• 2,252 antiphons,
• 1,171 responsories,
• 974 Scripture readings, not including psalms and canticles,
• 646 Second Readings for the Office of Readings,
• 585 prayers (511 drawn from the Roman Missal and 74 unique to the Divine Office),
• 308 versicles,
• 297 hymns,
• 279 sets of intercessions, and
• 206 hagiographical introductions of the saints, along with well over a thousand individual rubrics and headings scattered across the four volumes.
Because of this unique process, the final vote of the bishops in November 2024 did not immediately result in a completed manuscript as with other liturgical books. Over the months that followed, the Secretariat was tasked with assembling a complete, four-volume book to be submitted to the Holy See for confirmation. To accomplish this, the tables used for organizing the texts as part of the original review and modification process were compiled into a database with every single piece of text in Latin and English given a unique identification code, and a series of spreadsheets were drawn up to specify the order in which every text should be placed in the breviary. A program was then created to “pull” texts from the database, format them, and place them into a completed manuscript. This process ensured that during the Secretariat’s editorial review, all corrections could be made in the database of texts, with those changes then propagating to all instances
Pope Leo XIV: Catholic Church Open to Universal Easter Date
By Daniel Payne
CNA—Pope Leo XIV on June 7 said the Catholic Church is open to establishing a common date of Easter among all Christian churches, echoing one of the aims of the Council of Nicaea that met 1,700 years ago.
The pope spoke to participants of the symposium “Nicaea and the Church of the Third Millennium: Towards Catholic-Orthodox Unity,” which took place at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome.
The Holy Father called the 325 Council of Nicaea “foundational for the common journey that Catholics
Adoremus Bulletin
of that element across all four volumes.
The Secretariat expects that the program it developed will continue to prove useful in future projects. When the Holy See grants confirmation to the Liturgy of the Hours, Second Edition, any changes required by the Dicastery can be quickly implemented, reducing any delay to this already long-promised project. The spreadsheets that provide the layout information can be filtered by day and hour, and can greatly simplify the production of manuscripts for popular extracts such as Christian Prayer that are accurate and consistent with the text of the full fourvolume set. Preliminary work has already begun to adapt this process for the forthcoming Lectionary for Mass in English and Spanish so as to reduce the time needed to produce final manuscripts for those works.
Conclusion
The Committee on Divine Worship and its Secretariat continue to make publication plans for the Liturgy of the Hours, Second Edition, including drawing up timelines and approving the publishers of the fourvolume edition. The final publication phase, however, can only begin after confirmation by the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. One possible timeline that projects confirmation by the end of this year could result in printed books in 2027 and 2028. A longer wait for confirmation will necessarily mean that volumes are printed later. Nevertheless, the USCCB is actively preparing for a fruitful implementation of the Divine Office for both clergy and lay faithful, so that the praise of God may continue without ceasing among all his people.
and Orthodox have undertaken together since the Second Vatican Council.”
The symposium focused on the themes of faith, synodality, and “the date of Easter,” Pope Leo said. The lattermost issue was “one of the objectives” of the ancient council.
“Sadly, differences in their calendars no longer allow Christians to celebrate together the most important feast of the liturgical year, causing pastoral problems within communities, dividing families, and weakening the credibility of our witness to the Gospel,” the pope said.
“Several concrete solutions have been proposed that, while respecting the principle of Nicaea, would allow Christians to celebrate together the ‘feast of feasts,’” the Holy Father said.
“In this year, when all Christians have celebrated Easter on the same day, I would reaffirm the openness of the Catholic Church to the pursuit of an ecumenical solution favoring a common celebration of the Lord’s resurrection,” the pope said.
On April 20, Easter landed on the same day for both the East and the West. Easter will fall again for both the East and the West on April 16, 2028, April 13, 2031, and April 9, 2034.
Pope Leo on Saturday said that Christian unity, when it is ultimately achieved, “will not be primarily the fruit of our own efforts, nor will it be realized through any preconceived model or blueprint.”
“Rather, unity will be a gift received ‘as Christ wills and by the means that he wills,’” he said.
EDITOR - PUBLISHER: Christopher Carstens
MANAGING EDITOR: Joseph O’Brien
CONTENT MANAGER: Jeremy Priest
GRAPHIC DESIGNER: Danelle Bjornson
OFFICE MANAGER: Elizabeth Gallagher
MARKETING AND FUNDRAISING: Eugene Diamond
TECHNOLOGY: Zach Tudahl
EXECUTIVE
AB/CNA
Habemus Papam—and a New Editor!
By Christopher Carstens, Editor
I will raise up for myself a faithful priest, who shall do according to my heart and mind; I will establish a lasting house for him and he shall walk before me all his days.
—Entrance Antiphon for the Election of a Pope
The white smoke announcing the election of Pope Leo XIV has long dissipated, but excitement still fills the air for our newest pope now taking his place not only as the 267th Supreme Pontiff but also as the next “Lion” in a long and distinguished line of Leos. Who is he? Where has he come from? Where will he take the Church? Will he help the Chicago Bears finally secure a winning quarterback? Only God himself knows the fullest answers to these questions. But for those of us with less than divine hindsight or foreknowledge, we can rest assured on the rock of our first and oldest pope, the Apostle Peter, that we are in God’s hands.
Indeed, “old and new” remains a theme today as it has for centuries. How should Pope Leo be seen relative to Pope Peter? What are we to make of the latest pope to take the name Leo in light of Pope Leo the Great (440-461) or the Leo who left behind a legacy of writings on the changes the turn of the century witnessed—Leo XIII (1878-1903)? And—especially significant to liturgy lovers—how does Leo XIV view the new order of Mass (Novus Ordo) and the ancient liturgical tradition from which it grew?
Many observers have already commented on some of the traditional elements surrounding our new Pope: the red mozzetta at his announcement; “P.P.”—the abbreviation of “Pastor Pastorum”—before his signature; the use of the papal farula, or pastoral staff with a cross; his residence in the traditional papal apartment; or his singing of the Mass or even the Regina Caeli during his Sunday addresses. As Catholics know, signs and symbols communicate matters of faith and truth.
But Pope Leo XIV’s words, too, bespeak a coming together of the old and the new in these first days of his papacy. While not saying a great deal yet about the sacred liturgy, his words to the Eastern Catholic Churches on the occasion of their meeting during the Jubilee Year warrant reflection. “The Church needs you,” Pope Leo said. “The contribution that the Christian East can offer us today is immense! We have great need to recover the sense of mystery that remains alive in your liturgies, liturgies that engage the human person in his or her entirety, that sing of the beauty of salvation and evoke a sense of wonder at how God’s majesty embraces our human frailty! It is likewise important to rediscover, especially in the Christian West, a sense of the primacy of God, the importance of mystagogy and the values so typical of Eastern spirituality: constant intercession, penance, fasting, and weeping for one’s own sins and for those of all humanity! It is vital, then, that you preserve your traditions without attenuating them” (Address on May 14, 2025; emphases added). This last line, in fact, echoes that of another papal predecessor, Pope John XXIII, when he opened the Second Vatican Council: “the Twentyfirst Ecumenical Council…wishes to transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion….”
May the saints and the successors of St. Peter bless today’s new Holy Father, so that he may lead each of us in the years to come to participate in the life of the eternal city!
Although on a much smaller scale—but one that we in the Adoremus family will find important—I am grateful to announce that after serving as editor for Adoremus Bulletin for the last 10 years, our 30-year-old Bulletin will have a new editor. Dr. Michael Brummond is a husband and father, instructor of theology at Sacred Heart Seminary and School of Theology in Hales Corners, WI, a regular Adoremus contributor—and a man with the mind of the Church. He will carry on the duties of editor of Adoremus Bulletin with the same deep appreciation of tradition, with fidelity to the Church and her liturgical books, and in service to priests and faithful today.
The liturgical apostolate begun 30 years ago by Helen Hull Hitchcock, Father Jerry Pokorsky, and Jesuit Father Joseph Fessio has taken many forms and worked in many ways: reporting on United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (then National Conference of Catholic Bishops/ United States Catholic Conference) meetings, publishing the Adoremus Hymnal, working for worthy translations of liturgical texts, publishing Magisterial documents when the World Wide Web was just coming online, and—most especially—publishing the Adoremus Bulletin. The present issue is the first of Adoremus’s 31st year in service, and the Bulletin will continue to anchor all our current and future endeavors.
For my part, I will remain an integral part of Adoremus. In relinquishing my editor’s chair to Dr. Brummond, I will be free to give more time and attention to Adoremus’s other new initiatives—both those already on the books and those in development. As many know, God has blessed Adoremus with many new ways to impact the liturgical life of the Church. In addition to the regular means now at everyone’s disposal over the past 30 years—websites, social media, podcasts—Adoremus currently offers live, online courses in conjunction with the Avila Institute for Spiritual Formation; is collaborating with the Josephinum Diaconate Institute, Columbus, OH, to provide ongoing liturgical formation for permanent deacons; has supported Christendom College in Front Royal, VA, in founding its Institute for Liturgical Formation; and has spawned numerous published books on topics from Romano Guardini to silence in the Mass to ceremonial actions of the clergy at Mass. And there is more on the horizon: we are beginning works on resources for parish-level liturgical formation, developing a program to implement the Second Edition of the Liturgy of the Hours, and looking at ways of expanding book publishing. With Michael Brummond
joining Adoremus Bulletin’s editorial and production team, we are excited and grateful to expand our current apostolate.
So, for the papacy and for Adoremus, there’s something old, something new at this time. May our collective service to the Church and her liturgy make that Wedding Feast of the Lamb, which the Mass and sacraments reveal today, shine out more radiantly in our midst.
O God, who in your providential design willed that your Church be built upon blessed Peter, whom you set over the other Apostles, look with favor, we pray, on Leo our Pope and grant that he, whom you have made Peter’s successor, may be for your people a visible source and foundation of unity in faith and of communion.
Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, for ever and ever.
Amen.
—Collect for Mass for the Pope
Pray Better During Your Eucharistic Holy Hour
“But what do I actually do there for an hour?”
With this concise and readable pamphlet, Father Connor Danstrom, Adoremus contributor and priest of the Archdiocese of Chicago, offers five basic steps both for beginners who want to learn the practice of the Eucharistic holy hour, and for experienced faithful who want to go deeper in their prayer before the Blessed Sacrament.
To learn more and to order print copies of the pamphlet for individuals, parishes, and dioceses, please visit adoremus.org or contact Adoremus directly.
608-521-0385 info@adoremus.org
For the papacy and for Adoremus, there’s something old, something new at this time. May our collective service to the Church and her liturgy make that Wedding Feast of the Lamb, which the Mass and sacraments reveal today, shine out more radiantly in our midst.
or use of the remote matter in the sacramental action” is called the proximate matter—such as water being poured at Baptism.
Continued from SACRAMENTS, page 1
Christ instituted. Variations in practice across ritual families (e.g., Roman Rite compared to Byzantine Rite) prove “the Church has not always univocally indicated the actions and words that constitute the divinely instituted substance.”7 Nonetheless, while the Church stewards the sacraments, “she does not own them,”8 and cannot license completely new praxis. She can only adjudicate whether an act in question substantially preserves the sign instituted by Christ.
Concerning sacramental matter, the sign must be preserved on two levels. If matter is “the element determinable by something else in order to effect the sacramental rite,”9 we might examine it abstracted from ritual action. This remote matter is the thing used, considered in itself, such as water in Baptism. Yet while things may naturally suggest certain realities, mere material presence does not constitute a sign until the remote matter is applied. This “application or use of the remote matter in the sacramental action” is called the proximate matter. Olive oil has quite different meaning when being used in cooking than when it is applied to a sick person’s body.
Mere application still falls short of a sacrament, moreover, as the same remote matter (oil) and proximate matter (anointing) produce multiple meanings. Combined with prayer for catechumens, anointing is a sacramental; a different prayer confers Anointing of the Sick; yet another effects Confirmation. Accordingly, matter always requires some form, “the words or some other equivalent signs (as a nod expressing consent in Matrimony) which determine the matter more particularly.”10 This form must be expressed sensibly (i.e., not merely mentally but outwardly), without interruption (that might alter the sense of the form), and in a consecratory mode (not announcing a past or future act but expressing present execution by the minister).11
Because sacraments arise from union of matter and form, these must be applied by the same minister, to the same subject, at the same time.12 Separation among multiple ministers would belie the nature of a single action in the name of Christ; speaking toward one subject and acting upon another would falsify the words; separating matter and form in time imperils their ability to signify. Still, temporal union of matter and form need not always be physical, i.e., simultaneous. Often it is enough to have a moral union, meaning that matter and form succeed one another
across some interval of time, yet the common judgment of witnesses would be that “the words in fact affect the matter and, together with it, make one sign.”13 The nature of some sacramental signs permits only a short interval before this moral union is ruptured, whereas others can tolerate lengthy pause. A matrimonial contract admits years of delay from start to finish! That said, even when some small interval between matter and form might not break their symbolic cooperation and thereby invalidate the sign, simultaneity is recommended to remove all doubt.14
Although not even superficial change may be introduced for less than grave reasons,15 good faith error or necessity may also require post hoc (after-thefact) determination of whether altered matter or form “Sacraments are, by definition, signs.”
was valid. Matter might change in merely accidental ways, as wheat bread is valid with or without yeast, whereas substantial (and thus invalidating) change exists if the matter is imperfect, corrupted, or altered through admixture (as when grape juice is altogether unfermented, wine sours into vinegar, or is diluted by another liquid in greater volume).
Sacramental form, for its part, may change through addition, removal, corruption, transposition, or interruption of words, which may all substantially alter the sense. Transmutation (use of synonyms) is, however, only accidental.16 Substantial change may have a clear physical or grammatical criterion, but ambiguity must otherwise be resolved by the “common usage and estimation of prudent men.”17 While the Roman Curia does occasionally offer authoritative decisions on doubts referred for judgment, not every question can be answered by a clear rule. “Bishops in their role as promoters and guardians of the liturgical life” of their dioceses will employ the “aid”18 of the Magisterium and the broader theological tradition to make their own prudent conclusions about the validity of a particular case.
The Sacrament of Baptism With these generalities in mind, let us turn to the specific requirements of Baptism. Although the Catechism of the Catholic Church rests content to say “to baptize (Greek baptizein) means to ‘plunge’ or ‘immerse,’”19 the further senses of “bathe” or “wash,”20
must influence the type of sign needed to confer baptismal grace. Not any interaction with water will do, but only one that communicates “washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit.”21
The General Introduction to the initiation rites blends doctrinal and disciplinary concerns in prescribing, “Water used in Baptism should be natural and clean, so that the truth of the sign may be
“ While the Church stewards the sacraments, she does not own them.”
apparent,”22 but this hearkens to Trent’s definition of valid matter as “true and natural water.”23 Traditionally, those adjectives are not synonymous. Rather, true water refers to proper elemental composition (H2O), whereas natural refers to the common estimation and use of a substance as water (despite potential impurities or artificial production).24 Thus, all liquid water “found in rivers, the sea, wells, springs […] cisterns, baths, swamps” and other sources is certainly valid remote matter, even when slightly muddy or putrid provided it “remains true water in common estimation.”25 Other liquids that would never be described as water, such as bodily fluids, other beverages and comestibles (wine, beer, thick soup), or inedible products like grease and ink, are just as certainly invalid.26 While manuals sometimes concede that certain materials could be sufficiently watered down to acquire doubtful validity (light beer, thin ink),27 the very fact that they retain those other names (watery beer rather than beery water) tends to undermine their dubious potential. Baptism’s remote matter of true, natural water, must also be used as proximate matter, which is “ablution of the body by water, or such application of water as […] to call a man truly washed.”28 For certain validity, the water must directly touch and flow across the body, and in particular the head, of the one to be baptized.29 Requiring contact with the head, unmentioned in rubrics for infant baptism, may seem scrupulous, but all options for adult baptism necessarily wash the head: either “immersion of the whole body or of the head only,” or “pouring [water] three times on the person’s bowed head.”30 This practice comports with the notion, “The head is the principle part where life integrally resides,”31 and thus stands for the whole person in a way other body parts do not. When only an extremity can be contacted by water, the doubtful baptism should be repeated, though ablution of a more central part of the body, as the chest or back, may occasion so little doubt that, although the rite could be repeated conditionally, it need not be.32 Furthermore, while all understand “head” to include the forehead, crown, and face,33 opinions differ about whether the hair is sufficiently part of the head, or even of the body. Thus, some hold, “Baptism is at least doubtful if the water touches only the hair,”34 whereas others believe hair so obviously a body part that doubt on this basis “altogether lacks real probability; whence it ought to be paid no mind.”35
As it can also wash the head, why would aspersion (sprinkling) not be permitted alongside immersion and infusion (i.e., pouring)? Despite ample aspersion’s certain validity, the less water cast toward the subject, the greater risk that what few drops contact the recipient will not flow (if they make contact at all). It is not worth risking that the water’s contact will not be successive, i.e., comprise a true flow across the body, thus failing to signify spiritual washing and rendering the sacrament null. For similar reasons, anointing with a moistened thumb36 or touching with a damp cloth37 are at best doubtful methods unless they cause drops to flow over the skin or a sufficiently wet hand or cloth is drawn across the forehead.38 In contrast and in a pinch, if, while pronouncing the form, “someone throws an infant into a well or river”39 or holds the baptizand under water flowing off a roof40 or even redirects onto him a flow originally poured by someone else,41 such baptism is valid.
And the form pronounced in these cases would, for the Latin Church, be “Ego te baptizo in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti” (I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit).42 “Amen” is not included and hence should not be added. Studying this form alongside Eastern praxis, we might say every valid form must express “the action of baptizing performed by the minister” and “the authority of the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity in whose name Baptism is conferred.” 43 These criteria
Concerning sacramental matter, the sign can be considered on two levels. Remote matter is the thing used, considered in itself, such as water in Baptism. Yet while things may naturally suggest certain realities, mere material presence does not constitute a sign until the remote matter is applied. This “application
AB/PIXABAY
might be expanded into:
1) the baptizer (implicit in passive formulae)
2) the baptized
3) the act of baptizing
4) the unity of the divine nature (“in the name”) and 5) distinction of Divine Persons, which ought to be expressed with their proper names.44
One wishes that “from what has been said it would be easy to recognize which forms would be invalid and which valid.”45 Yet recent controversies disprove that supposition, and manuals have commonly evaluated illustrative changes to baptismal form.
Pour Form
Some changes do not alter meaning and the sacrament remains certainly valid, as when faithfully translated into another language or omitting unnecessary words (if verbs also express person and number or the first “and” is skipped). Likewise, slight alterations maintaining the sense do not impede validity, e.g., replacing “baptize” with a synonym like “wash” or “cleanse,” omitting “Holy” from the name of the Spirit, or adding information beyond the required form (“in the name of the Father Almighty”).46 As the recipient’s name is not required for validity, error concerning the name or even the sex of the baptized does not nullify.47
Some changes will, on the other hand, substantially change the form’s sense. Apart from omitting alreadynoted constitutive elements (such as “you,” or one or more Divine Persons), we might note changes that fail to convey a true Trinity. False additions might fundamentally alter relations among the names (e.g., “in the name of the Father, who is greater, and of the Son, who is lesser”).48 But of far more current relevance has been substitution of appropriated titles for proper names. Baptisms in the name “of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier” or “of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer” were declared null49 because, while creating and sanctifying may be most associated with one Person, each Person cooperates in all divine activity, creating ambiguity as to whether separate Persons are even named. “We baptize you,” on the other hand, was even more recently declared invalid by Roman authorities,50 who agreed with Aquinas’s reasoning that this formula falsifies the identity of the minister, a single agent acting in the person of Christ.
Between certain validity and invalidity lie a number of dubious forms that should be remedied through
While manuals sometimes concede that certain materials could be sufficiently watered down to acquire doubtful validity, such as light beer, the very fact that they retain those other names (“watery beer” rather than “beery water”) tends to undermine their dubious potential.
another conditional, rather than absolute, baptism.51 Some doubts arise from naming Divine Persons with alternatives that nonetheless do adequately distinguish them, such as Begetter, Begotten, and Proceeding.52 Others might arise from grammatical irregularity, like omission of “in” or both instances of “and.”53 Nonetheless, historically, decisions have favored the validity of mispronunciations and grammatical blunders, provided that witnesses could discern the required meaning. Thus, “Ego te baptigho in nomine Patri et Firii et Firitui Sancti” (imagine The Hobbit character Bilbo Baggins’s “Thag you very buch” transposed into a Latin baptism) was upheld without need for conditional remedy, and even mistaken word endings transforming two Persons into “the Fatherland and the Daughter” (“in nomine Patria et Filia et Spiritu Sancta”) would be valid given proper ministerial intent.54 Consequently, while ministers must punctiliously follow liturgical law so as to avoid all doubt, evaluation of illicit formulae affords significant mercy to unintended error when common estimation of the words can construe the required sense within them.
While many more examples could be discussed in detail, the above considerations of matter and form should provide sufficient guidance to determine the validity of baptism in the vast majority of cases encountered in pastoral ministry. Where doubt cannot be resolved, however, recourse should be had to one’s local ordinary. In my next entry, I will address the matter and form—which together constitute the sign—of the Sacrament of Confirmation.
Aaron Sanders is Director of the Office for Worship in the Diocese of Grand Rapids, MI. He holds a Ph.D. in Theology from the University of Notre Dame and lives in Grand Rapids with his wife and nine children.
1. Decree for the Armenians.
2. Decree for the Armenians.
3. Gestis verbisque 2. 4. ST III.60.2. 5. CCC 1131.
6. SC 7. 7. Gestis verbisque 12.
8. Gestis verbisque 11.
9. Eduardo F. Regatillo, SJ. Ius Sacramentarium vol. 1 (Santander: Sal Terrae, 1945), 4.
10. Nicholas Halligan, OP. The Administration of the Sacraments (Staten Island: Alba House, 1963), 6. Halligan notes that this sensible sign must normally be pronounced “vocally,” though it is possible for matrimonial consent to be expressed by other means; see also Capello, 13.
11. Felix M. Capello, SJ. Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis, 5th ed., vol. 1 (Rome: Marietti, 1947), 17. 12. Regatillo 6; Dominic M. Prümmer, OP. Handbook of Moral Theology (Cork: Mercier, 1956), 242, points out that Penance forms an exception in which the matter is supplied by the penitent.
13. Capello, 14.
14. Regatillo, 6. 15. Prümmer, 241.
16. Regatillo, 5. The example provided by both Regatillo and Capello (17) is that “I absolve (absolvo) you from your sins” could be replaced by “I cleanse (mundo)you from your sins.”
20. Halligan, 31. 21. CCC 1215. 22. Christian Initiation: General Introduction 18. 23. Council of Trent, Sess. VII, can. 2 de Baptismo
24. Capello, 101.
25. Halligan, 32.
26. Regatillo, 28; Halligan, 32.
27. Halligan, 32.
28. Capello, 104.
29. Capello, 104.
30. OCIA 226A-B.
31. Halligan, 33.
32. Regatillo, 29-30.
33. Capello, 104.
34. Halligan, 34.
35. Capello, 105.
36. Regatillo, 29.
37. Capello, 105.
38. Capello, 105.
39. Capello, 107.
40. Regatillo, 31.
41. Halligan, 34.
42. Christian Initiation, General Introduction 23.
43. Prümmer, 254.
44. Regatillo, 30; Capello, 109.
45. Prümmer, 254.
46. Capello, 109-110.
47. Regatillo, 31.
48. Capello, 110.
49. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. “Responsa ad Proposita Dubia de validitate baptismatis,” February 1, 2008.
50. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Responses to questions proposed on the validity of Baptism conferred with the formula “We baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” June 24, 2020: “When the minister says ‘I baptize you…’ he does not speak as a functionary who carries out a role entrusted to him, but he enacts ministerially the sign-presence of Christ, who acts in his Body to give his grace.”
51. Proper practice for repeating the rite in case of a previously doubtful baptism remains what was previously specified in the older Rituale Romanum (tit. II, c. 4, n. 40), namely, that the condition added to the form is “If you are not baptized (si no es baptizatus/-a), I baptize you….”
52. Capello, 111.
53. Regatillo, 30.
54. Regatillo, 30.
The Jewish Roots of the Catholic Altar: The Golden Table (Part II)
By Brant Pitre
The second altar from Jewish Scripture that prefigures the Catholic altar is probably less familiar to most people than the bronze altar we examined in Part 1 of this series. Here in Part 2, we will focus on the “golden table” of the “Bread of the Presence.”1 Like the bronze altar of sacrifice, this golden table was located in the Tabernacle of Moses. Unlike the bronze altar, the “Table of Showbread” (as it is sometimes called) was not in the outer courtyard, but in the inner sanctuary of the Holy Place. If we examine the golden table on which this bread was placed in light of Jewish Scripture and tradition, we discover that the Bread of the Presence not only prefigures the Eucharist: even more, the golden table on which it was offered prefigures the sacred table of the Catholic altar, on which is offered the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Table and Tabernacle
As with the bronze altar, the golden table of the Bread of Presence is first mentioned in the book of Exodus, in the description of the Tabernacle of Moses (cf. Exodus 25-27). In the midst of various instructions for worship, God commands Moses to construct a golden table on which to place this mysterious bread: “You shall make a table of acacia wood, two cubits long, one cubit wide, and a cubit and a half high. You shall overlay it with pure gold, and make a molding of gold around it.... You shall make…its flagons and bowls with which to pour drink offerings; you shall make them of pure gold. And you shall set the bread of the Presence on the table before me always” (Exodus 25:23-24, 29-30).
“The Church fathers have recognized that the bread and wine that were placed on the Golden Table in the Tabernacle of Moses
have been fulfilled in the Holy Eucharist.”
Three key points need to be highlighted here.
First, notice that the golden table is actually made of acacia wood, covered in gold. The gold reveals the table’s sacred character; the wood implies it is an altar. Indeed, Jewish Scripture elsewhere explicitly identifies “the table” of the Bread of the Presence as an “altar of wood” (RSVCE) or, more literally, just an “altar” (Hebrew mizbeach) (Ezekiel 41:22).2
Second, whereas the bronze altar is a place of bloody sacrifice, the golden table is for the unbloody sacrifice of bread and wine. You can see this very clearly in Leviticus, which tells us that the Bread of the Presence consisted of “twelve cakes” that were offered on behalf of the Twelve Tribes of Israel (cf. Leviticus 24:16). You can also see it here in Exodus’s reference to “flagons” with which to pour “drink offerings” (Exodus 25:29). Though it is often overlooked, the Bread of the Presence is accompanied by a liquid sacrifice of wine.3 Seen in this light, one can legitimately speak of sacrificial bread and wine that were offered to God on and eaten at the golden table.
Third, the “Bread of the Presence” (Hebrew lechem happanim), as its name implies, is a visible symbol of the presence of God 4 Though some English versions of the Bible obscure this point by translating it with the archaic “showbread” (KJV, NABRE), the most accurate translation is indeed “Bread of the Presence” (RSVCE, NRSV). Indeed, because the word for “presence” also means “face” (Hebrew panim), some scholars suggest that this expression could also be translated as “the bread of the face (of God).”5
In sum, according to Jewish Scripture, the Golden Table of the Bread of the Presence located in the Tabernacle of Moses functioned both as a table for a sacred meal of the bread and wine eaten in God’s presence and as an altar of unbloody sacrifice. So much for Jewish Scripture. What about Jewish tradition? In this case, it is fascinating to note that the famous compilation of ancient Jewish traditions known as the Babylonian Talmud tells us that before the Jerusalem Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, the priests had a custom of bringing the golden table out of
The original Tabernacle (or Tent) in the wilderness was constructed by Moses according to God’s design. The “Table of Shewbread”—the second of the Temple’s altars—stood in the Holy Place.
the Holy Place so that the Jewish pilgrims at Passover could see the Bread of the Presence. Here is what it says: “They [the priests] used to lift [the Golden Table] up and exhibit the Bread of the Presence on it to those who came up for the festivals, saying to them, ‘Behold, God’s love for you!’” (Babylonian Talmud, Menahoth 29a).6
If this tradition weren’t so well documented, it would be almost unbelievable.7 Yet here we see ancient Jewish tradition itself testifying to the belief that the Golden Table and the Bread were visible signs, not only of God’s presence, but of his “love” for his people.
Last Supper and New Bread
With all of this in mind, we can now turn to the life of Jesus. Though the point is often overlooked, when Jesus celebrates the Last Supper with his disciples, he not only uses the rituals of the Jewish Passover meal; he also uses language and imagery that is evocative of the Old Testament Bread of the Presence.8 Consider, for example, the following parallels:
Bread of the Presence
1. Twelve Cakes for Twelve Tribes
2. Bread and wine of God’s presence.
3. Sign of “everlasting covenant”
4. A “remembrance” (Greek anamnesis)
5. Offered and eaten by priests
6. Golden “table” in Temple (Exodus 25:23-30; Leviticus 24:5-9)
The Last Supper
1. Twelve Disciples for Twelve Tribes
2. Bread and wine of Jesus’ presence.
3. Sign of a “new covenant.”
4. “Remembrance” (Greek anamnesis) of Jesus
5. Offered and eaten by Jesus and apostles
6. Jesus’ “table” in the kingdom (Luke 22:19-20)
Given that the Bread of the Presence was offered and eaten at the golden “table” (Greek trapeza) (Exodus 25:30 [Greek Septuagint]), Jesus’ association of the Last Supper with a heavenly “table” (Greek trapeza) is especially noteworthy (Luke 22:20). Indeed, taken together, these parallels reveal that when Jesus institutes the Eucharist at the Last Supper, he is not only fulfilling the ancient Jewish Passover. He is also fulfilling the ancient Bread (and wine) of the Presence, once offered by Jewish priests on the “altar” (Ezekiel 41:22) of the golden “table” (Exodus 25:30). Seen through ancient Jewish eyes, the case can be made that the Eucharist is truly the new bread and wine of Jesus’ presence.
The Golden Table in Sacred Tradition Should there be any doubt about these connections between the golden table and the Catholic altar, we need only turn to the Church’s living tradition, as witnessed in the works of ancient and medieval Catholic saints and ecclesiastical writers. For example, since ancient times, the Church fathers have recognized that the bread and wine that were placed on the Golden Table in the Tabernacle
If we examine the golden table on which this bread was placed in light of Jewish Scripture and tradition, we discover that the Bread of the Presence not only prefigures the Eucharist; even more, the golden table on which it was offered prefigures the sacred table of the Catholic altar, on which is offered the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
of Moses have been fulfilled in the Holy Eucharist. The difference, however, is that the consecrated bread and wine are not just symbols of Christ’s presence. In them, Christ is really and truly present—body, blood, soul, and divinity. Consider, for example, the words of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (4th century): “In the Old Covenant there were loaves of the Presence [Exodus 25.30; cf. Matthew 12.4]. Those, being part of the Old Covenant, however, have come to an end. But in the New Covenant are the bread of heaven and the cup of salvation Do not, therefore, consider the bread and wine to be ordinary, for they are Body and Blood What appears to be bread is not bread—even if that is suggested by taste—but it is the Body of Christ, and… that which appears to be wine is not wine—even if this is suggested by taste—but it is the Blood of Christ” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogical Catecheses 4.5-6, 9).9
This observation by St. Cyril is one of the most explicit teachings on the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist anywhere the Church Fathers.10 One can make a strong case that St. Cyril sees the truth of the real presence so clearly precisely because he understands that the bread and wine of the Christian liturgy are not part of any ordinary meal, but rather the new covenant fulfillment of the old covenant bread and wine of the Presence. A profoundly biblical typology leads St. Cyril to a profoundly biblical theology of the Eucharist.
But it is not just ancient Christian writers who recognized this link between the golden table and the Eucharist. Medieval writers did as well.
For example, in his massive medieval study of the Mass, Bishop William of Durand (13th century) states quite clearly that a Catholic altar is not only a symbol of the altar of Calvary. It is also a symbol of the “table” on which Christ dined with the apostles at the Last Supper: “[The altar] signifies the table on which Christ ate and drank with His disciples” (William Durand, On the Mass 1.2).11 This quotation is important because it shows that, from a medieval perspective, the Catholic altar is both an altar (a place of sacrifice) and a table (a place where a sacred meal is consumed). Seen in this light, there is no reason to pit table against altar, or
vice versa. Both aspects of the mystery of the Eucharist are important for grasping what is happening at every celebration of the Mass.
The New Bread of the Presence
With all of this background in mind, we can now ask: What light does the golden table of the Bread of the Presence shed on the mystery of the Eucharist today? Once we understand that the Eucharist not only fulfills the bloody sacrifices of the bronze altar but also the unbloody sacrifice of the Bread of the Presence, we can see more clearly how the Catholic altar is not just a place of sacrifice, but also a sacred table.
For one thing, the Apostle Paul himself speaks of receiving the “body of Christ” and the “blood of Christ” from “the table of the Lord” (Greek trapezēs kyriou; Latin mensae Domini) (1 Corinthians 10:21; cf. Latin Vulgate). Moreover, official Catholic teaching is unequivocal in asserting that the altar is also a table: “The altar, around which the Church is gathered in the celebration of the Eucharist, represents the two aspects of the same mystery: the altar of the sacrifice and the table of the Lord” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1383). Likewise, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal notes, “The altar, on which is effected the Sacrifice of the Cross made present under sacramental signs, is also the table of the Lord to which the People of God is convoked to participate in the Mass” (296). Ever since the time of the Protestant Reformation (16th century), a growing number of Christians have rejected the idea of the Mass as a sacrifice. Martin Luther even went so far as to declare that the idea of the Mass as a “sacrifice” was “such an abomination” that he did not “believe it could be sufficiently punished on earth if it rained pure fire from heaven”!12 As a result of such views, many Protestant Christians to this day are reluctant to consider the Lord’s Supper anything more than a meal—however sacred. In reaction to this, many Catholics have rightly emphasized that the Mass is indeed a sacrifice. In the 16th century, the Council of Trent taught with magisterial authority, “In this divine sacrifice that is celebrated in the mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the Cross is contained and offered in an unbloody manner.”13
Just as the Jewish priests used to lift up the Bread of the Presence in the Temple and say to the Jewish people, “Behold, God’s love for you!", so now, in the Mass, the Catholic priest lifts up the new Bread of the Presence and declares to the Bride of Christ: “Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sins of the world.”
With that said, the fact that the Mass is a sacrifice offered on an altar does not mean that it is not also a meal eaten on a sacred table. On the contrary, just as the Old Testament Bread of the Presence was both a meal and a sacrifice, so too the Eucharist—the new Bread of the Presence—is both a sacrifice and a meal Indeed, the Catholic altar is both a symbol of Calvary (where Jesus offered the bloody sacrifice of his life) and a symbol of the table of the Last Supper (where Jesus gave us the true Bread of the Presence). Thus, when the Eucharist is viewed in light of the Old Testament, to dispense entirely with referring to the Mass as a meal
eaten at a table would risk losing the precious insight into the mystery given to us by the typology of the golden table of the Bread of the Presence.
Should there be any doubt about these two aspects of the mystery of the altar, we need only turn once again to the prayers of the official Mass for the Dedication of an Altar in the Roman Rite. In the words of the Preface for this special ritual Mass we find it beautifully expressed:
It is truly right and just, our duty and our salvation, always and everywhere to give you thanks, Lord, holy Father, almighty and eternal God, through Christ our Lord…
Therefore, Lord, your people have raised this altar, which we dedicate to you with joyful praise Truly this is an exalted place, where the Sacrifice of Christ is ever offered in mystery, where perfect praise is rendered to you and redemption flows forth for us.
Here is prepared the table of the Lord, where your children, fed by the Body of Christ, are gathered into the one, the holy Church…
And so, Lord, with all the Angels and Saints, we, too, give you thanks, as in exultation we acclaim: Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of hosts…14
With these words, we can see how the Roman liturgy itself teaches us that the Catholic altar is not just a place of sacrifice but also the sacred table from which the people of God will be fed by the Body of Christ, the true Bread and wine of the Presence. Indeed, just as the Jewish priests used to lift up the Bread of the Presence in the Temple and say to the Jewish people, “Behold, God’s love for you!”, so now, in the Mass, the Catholic priest lifts up the new Bread of the Presence and declares to the Bride of Christ: “Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sins of the world. Blessed are those called to the supper of the Lamb.”15
In my next installment, we will take a closer look at a third Jewish altar that sheds further light on the mystery of the Catholic altar: the golden “altar of incense.”
To read Dr. Pitre’s first installment, On the Bronze Altar, see the May 2025 issue.
Dr. Brant Pitre is Distinguished Research Professor of Scripture at the Augustine Institute, Graduate School of Theology, Florissant, MO. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Notre Dame, where he specialized in the study of Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity. He is the author of several books, including Jesus and the Last Supper (Eerdmans, 2015) and Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist (Doubleday, 2011). Dr. Pitre has also produced multiple video and audio Bible studies, including The Mass Readings Explained, an exposition of the three-year Roman Lectionary (available at BrantPitre.com). He and his family live in Louisiana.
1. See P. V. M. Flesher, “Bread of the Presence,” in Anchor Bible Dictionary (6 vols.; ed. David Noel Freedman; New York, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1992), 1:780-81, for a full discussion.
2. Stephen L. Cook, Ezekiel 38-48 (Anchor Yale Bible Commentary 22B; New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2018), 163: When Ezekiel speaks of the “altar table,” he “is describing the table for the ‘bread of the Presence,’ referencing Lev 24:6.”
3. See Menahem Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1978), 216-17.
4. See William H. C. Propp, Exodus 19-40 (Anchor Yale Bible 2A; New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2006), 397: “In Hebrew, pānîm ‘face’ also has the connotations of ‘presence’ and ‘self.’ (e.g., 2 Sam 17:11; Prov 7:15).”
5. The great Dominican scholar, Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (repr.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1997), 422, speaks of the bread “called in Hebrew lehem happanim [‘the bread of the face’ (of God)], or ‘the bread of the Presence.’”
6. All translations of the Babylonian Talmud are from The Hebrew-English Talmud (35 vols.; ed. Isidore Epstein; London: Soncino, 1935-52), loc. cit.
7. See also Babylonian Talmud, Hagigah 26b: “They [the priests] used to lift it [the golden table] and show thereon to the Festival pilgrims the showbread, and say to them, ‘Behold the love in which you are held by the Omnipresent.’”
8. See Brant Pitre, Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist (New York, N.Y.: Doubleday, 2011), 114-46.
9. In St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Lectures on the Christian Sacraments: Greek Original and English Translation (trans. Maxwell E. Johnson; Popular Patristics 57; Yonkers, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2017), 115, 119. I have slightly adapted the English translation.
10. See James T. O’Connor, The Hidden Manna: A Theology of the Eucharist (2nd ed.; San Francisco, Calif.: Ignatius Press, 2005), 27-30.
11. William Durand, Rationale Divinorum Officiorum 1.2. In The Rationale Divinorum Officiorum of William Durand of Mende (trans. Timothy M. Thibodeau; New York: Columbia University Press, 2007), 26.
12. Martin Luther, The Abomination of the Secret Mass. In O’Connor, The Hidden Manna, 141.
13. Council of Trent, Session 22, Doctrine and Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass (Sept 17, 1562). In Heinrich Denzinger, Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations on Matters of Faith and Morals (43rd ed.; ed. Peter Hünermann; San Francisco, Calif.: Ignatius, 2012), 418 (no. 1743).
14. In The Roman Missal: Renewed by Decree of the Most Holy Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, Promulgated by the Authority of Pope Paul VI and Revised at the Direction of Pope John Paul II (3rd typical ed.; New Jersey: Catholic Book Publishing, 2021), 1077.
15. Roman Missal, The Order of Mass, no. 132.
When Jesus institutes the Eucharist at the Last Supper, he is not only fulfilling the ancient Jewish Passover. He is also fulfilling the ancient Bread (and wine) of the Presence, once offered by Jewish priests on the “altar” of the golden “table.”
AB/CATHOLIC CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND WALES ON FLICKR
The Canonical Form of Marriage: Pastoral Aid to the Marital Vocation
By Msgr. Robert J. Dempsey
Since the Catholic faith teaches us that Jesus raised the natural institution of matrimony to the dignity of a sacrament, his Church has always been concerned that the marriages of Christian believers be celebrated in a way that promotes and safeguards that dignity. We find evidence of this pastoral concern from early on among Christian authors. For example, St. Ignatius of Antioch recommends that Christian couples consult with their bishop before entering holy wedlock. A hundred years later, Tertullian would describe the beauty of Christian marriage and give us some hints of how believers ritually solemnized their nuptials.1 Although no ritual texts from the earliest period have come down to us, it is clear that by the fourth century Christians celebrated their marriage in a religious way with the blessing of the Church’s minister.
Marriage, West and East
There is no indication, though, that the Church’s ritual, varied as it was from place to place, was considered a necessary condition for the marital bond to be established. As the theology of marriage developed in Western Catholicism under the influence of Roman law, it was gradually asserted that what created the spousal union was the consent of the parties. Hence the maxim consensus facit nuptias (“Consent makes the marriage”) Since it was the bride and groom themselves who gave and received each other’s marital consent, they were seen as the true ministers of the sacrament, but at the time no set formula was required to express that consent. The Church’s rites and the priest’s blessing were considered a great spiritual benefit, but they were not necessary for the sacramental bond to be realized.
The situation was different in the Christian East, where the priest’s crowning and blessing of the couple were considered essential for validity—as it is to this day. Emperor Leo VI made the observance of the liturgical rite obligatory. In the West, however, if a baptized couple chose to be married secretly, without any public celebration, ecclesiastical or otherwise, they would be considered truly married, but there was no way of proving or disproving the fact of marriage. It is not too hard to see the many problems that could result from these so-called clandestine marriages. The most authoritative attempt to suppress secret marriages was made in 1215 by the Fourth Lateran Council, which prohibited priests from being involved in any clandestine marriage and decreed that before a marriage was contracted it should be publicly announced in the church (DS 817). Nevertheless, “many folk simply lived together and did not think it necessary to come to church.”2
Over three centuries later the Fathers of the Council of Trent addressed this issue at their 24th session (November 11, 1563). After asserting the Church’s authority to establish and dispense from diriment (i.e., nullifying) impediments to marriage (DS 1803-04), they issued a decree on the reform of matrimonial practice known by its opening Latin word Tametsi. The decree stated that before a given marriage was celebrated, the pastor of the contracting parties had to announce at Mass on three successive feast days their intention to marry. These announcements became known as the “banns of marriage.” Afterwards, the celebration of marriage was to be held publicly in the church (in facie Ecclesiae), during which the pastor questioned the man and woman regarding their consent before joining them in marriage (DS 1814). On the other hand, a couple would attempt marriage invalidly if they did not celebrate marriage in the presence of the pastor (or another priest with the permission of the pastor or the Ordinary) and at least two witnesses (DS 1816). The requirement that marriage could be contracted validly only in the presence of the parish priest and two witnesses became known as the “canonical form of marriage.”
Although Tametsi was a great advance, it did not solve every problem because the decree was binding only in those territories where it was promulgated, nor did it adequately spell out the priest’s role as the Church’s “qualified witness” to the parties’ consent. These difficulties were remedied in 1907 by the decree Ne temere, which required the canonical form for all Catholics or those who wished to marry a Catholic and stipulated that the priest must ask for and
The Council of Trent’s 1563 document on matrimonial practice, known by its opening Latin word Tametsi, stated that before a given marriage was celebrated, the pastor of the contracting parties had to announce at Mass on three successive feast days their intention to marry. These announcements became known as the “banns of marriage.” Afterwards, the celebration of marriage was to be held publicly in the church, during which the pastor questioned the man and woman regarding their consent before joining them in marriage. A couple would attempt marriage invalidly if they did not celebrate marriage in the presence of the pastor and at least two witnesses. The requirement that marriage could be contracted validly only in the presence of the parish priest and two witnesses became known as the “canonical form of marriage.”
receive the consent of the parties. His mere presence at the wedding was not sufficient for validity. The requirement that this canonical form be observed for the validity of any marriage attempted by a Catholic became part of regular catechetical instruction. Thus, the Baltimore Catechism stated: “The ordinary law of the Church to be observed at the wedding of a Catholic is this: A Catholic can contract a true marriage only in the presence of an authorized priest and two witnesses” (Q. 298). A similar statement is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Nos. 1630-31).
Current Law
The current law of the Church (1983 Code of Canon Law) lays down several general principles for the sacraments:
• The ordering and guidance of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church (can. 838, §1).
• Since the sacraments are the same throughout the universal Church and belong to the deposit of faith, only the supreme authority of the Church can approve and define what is needed for their validity (can. 841).
• The marriage of Catholics, even if only one party is a Catholic, is governed not only by divine law but also by canon law (can. 1059).
Everything that Church law stipulates concerning the necessary requirements for the valid and lawful celebration of Catholic marriage is based on these underlying principles.
Given the effect that matrimony has on the spouses themselves, their future children, and the wider ecclesial community, and in order to safeguard its sacramental nature, the Church has decreed the following based on her centuries-old experience: “Only those marriages are valid which are contracted in the presence of the local Ordinary, or pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who, in the presence of two witnesses, assists in accordance with the rules set out in the following canons” (can. 1108, §1; the canon also mentions several exceptions, which will be considered later). This canonical form of marriage “must be observed if at least one of the parties contracting the marriage was baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it” (can. 1117).
The first point to be noted is that we are dealing with a condition for validity. In other words, if the requirements of the canon are not met, then a marital bond is not considered to exist. Secondly, two categories of witnesses are required to be present. There must be a “qualified witness,” that is, an authorized
“The priest must ask for and receive the consent of the parties. His mere presence at the wedding is not sufficient for validity.”
minister, who is either the local Ordinary (e.g., diocesan bishop, vicar general), or the pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either the Ordinary or the pastor. Only the local Ordinary or the pastor of the place where the wedding takes place assists ex officio at the marriage. Any other minister must be delegated (i.e., authorized) by either of the above. Otherwise, he assists invalidly at the marriage.3 This authorized minister cannot be merely present but must “assist” in the way described in the next section of the canon. In addition, there must be two other witnesses capable of attesting to what has taken place.
The next section of the canon defines what the qualified witness must to do to assist validly: “Only that person who, being present, asks the contracting parties to manifest their consent and in the name of the Church receives it, is understood to assist at a marriage” (can. 1108, §2). The authorized minister must not be only physically present, he also has an active role to play: he must ask for and receive the consent of the couple in the name of the Church. In the current Order of Celebrating Matrimony (OCM), the minister asks the couple three questions and then says: “Since it is your intention to enter the covenant of Holy Matrimony, join your right hands and declare your consent before God and his Church” (OCM, 61, 95, 126). After they have expressed their consent, the minister accepts their consent in one of two forms which end, “what God joins together, let no one [may no one] put asunder” (OCM, 64, 98, 129; cf. Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9). If the minister does not ask for and receive the parties’ consent, the marriage is invalid.
Pope Francis’s motu proprio De Concordia inter Codices (May 31, 2016) adds a third section to this canon, which states: “Only the priest assists validly at the marriage between two Eastern parties or between a Latin party and Eastern Catholic or non-Catholic party” (can. 1108, §3). In Eastern theology and canon law, both Catholic and non-Catholic (i.e., Orthodox), the priest’s blessing of the couple is necessary for the validity of the sacrament. Therefore, an Eastern-rite wedding can never be celebrated by a deacon, and a Latin-rite marriage must be solemnized by a priest ad validitatem if one of the parties is an Eastern Christian.
The requirement that “canonical form” be observed for the validity of any marriage attempted by a Catholic became part of regular catechetical instruction. Thus, the Baltimore Catechism stated: “The ordinary law of the Church to be observed at the wedding of a Catholic is this: A Catholic can contract a true marriage only in the presence of an authorized priest and two witnesses” (Q. 298). A similar statement is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Some Exceptions
We should now consider some exceptions or variations to the canonical form described above. Ordinarily, the canonical form must be observed for the validity of a marriage between a Catholic and non-Catholic. However, if a Catholic marries an Eastern non-Catholic in an Eastern rite, the canonical form is required solely for lawfulness (ad liceitatem) not validity, provided that the ceremony is conducted by a priest and the other requirements of law are observed (can. 1127, §1).
In a mixed marriage between a Catholic and non-Catholic, sometimes a serious problem can arise in celebrating the wedding according to the canonical form. For instance, family members of the non-Catholic party may be so opposed to the Catholic faith that they would refuse to attend the wedding if it took place in a Catholic church or was celebrated by a Catholic priest. In these situations, “the local Ordinary of the Catholic party has the right to dispense from [the canonical form] in individual cases, having however consulted the Ordinary of the place of the celebration; for validity, some public form of celebration is required” (can. 1127, §2).4 In any mixed marriage, however, it is forbidden to have more than one religious celebration, or for the Catholic and non-Catholic minister to jointly ask for the couple’s consent: “It is forbidden to have, either before or after the canonical celebration in accordance with §1, another religious celebration of the same marriage for the purpose of giving consent. Likewise, there is not to be a religious celebration in which the Catholic assistant and non-Catholic minister, each performing their own rite, together ask for the consent of the parties” (can. 1127, §3). Since it is the mutual consent of the parties that creates the marriage bond, once that consent has been given the couple is married. Giving consent a second time would be simulating the sacrament.
Another exception to the usual canonical form can occur where there are neither priests nor deacons who can assist at marriage. In that case, “the diocesan Bishop can delegate lay persons to assist at marriages, if the Bishops’ Conference has given its prior approval and the permission of the Holy See has been obtained” (can. 1112, §1). These lay people should be “capable of giving instruction to those who are getting married, and able to conduct the marriage liturgy properly” (can. 1112, §2). The Canadian Bishops’ Conference has allowed lay people to witness marriages in all the dioceses of Canada. In the United States, the Bishops’ Conference has given its approval and the Holy See’s permission has been obtained. However, to the best of this author’s knowledge, the practice has been implemented solely in the Ecclesiastical Province of Anchorage-Juneau (i.e., the Archdiocese of Anchorage-Juneau and the
In the Catholic West, if a baptized couple chose to be married secretly, without any public celebration, ecclesiastical or otherwise, they would be considered truly married, but there was no way of proving or disproving the fact of marriage. It is not too hard to see the many problems that could result from these so-called clandestine marriages.
Diocese of Fairbanks, AK). It must be remembered that this permission does not apply if one of the parties is an Eastern Christian, either Catholic or non-Catholic. In that case, the priestly blessing is always required ad validitatem.
The last exception is the so-called “extraordinary form of marriage.” If a couple intends to enter into a true marriage, and a person who is competent to assist according to law cannot be present or cannot be reached without grave inconvenience, that couple can contract marriage in the presence of witnesses alone: 1) in danger of death; or 2) if it is prudently foreseen that the absence of a competent minister will continue for a month (can. 1116, §1). However, if a sacred minister, although lacking the proper faculty, can be present, he should be called upon to witness the marriage along with the other witnesses (can.1116, §2). Nevertheless, the marriage is still valid even if he is not present. This “extraordinary form” for certain urgent circumstances “attempts to honor the natural right to marry while preserving the public character of marriage.”5
Reasons—Law and Liturgy
To conclude this summary treatment of the necessary form of Catholic marriage, it would be good to consider the reasons for this law given in the Catechism of the Catholic Church Although the scourge of clandestine marriages was the original motive for requiring a canonical form, the greater reason is that the “presence of Church’s minister (and also of the witnesses) visibly expresses the fact that marriage is an ecclesial reality” (No. 1630). More particularly:
• Sacramental marriage is a liturgical act. It is therefore appropriate that it should be celebrated in the public liturgy of the Church;
• Marriage introduces one into an ecclesial order, and creates rights and duties in the Church between the spouses and towards their children;
• Since marriage is a state of life in the Church, cer-
tainty about it is necessary (hence the obligation to have witnesses);
• The public character of the consent protects the “I do” once given and helps the spouses remain faithful to it. (No. 1631)
Since her earliest days, the Church has accompanied couples who wish to enter the sacred covenant of Matrimony. The canonical form of marriage is an essential element of the Church’s pastoral care for those who seek to live this holy vocation.
Msgr. Robert J. Dempsey, a native Chicagoan, holds an M.A. in philosophy from Loyola University in Chicago, an S.T.B. from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, an S.T.L. from the University of St. Mary of the Lake in Mundelein, IL, and an S.T.D. from the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in Rome. Ordained a priest by St. John Paul II in 1980, he worked as an associate pastor in three parishes. From 1991 to 2001 he was editor of the English edition of L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican’s newspaper. He was pastor of St. Philip the Apostle Parish in Northfield, IL from 2003 to 2017, and pastor of St. Patrick Parish in Lake Forest, IL from 2017 until his retirement in 2024. He continues to serve as a visiting lecturer at the University of St. Mary of the Lake.
1. See the discussion in Kenneth Stevenson, Nuptial Blessing: A Study of Christian Marriage Rites (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), 13-19.
2. Kenneth W. Stevenson, To Join Together: The Rite of Marriage (New York: Pueblo Publishing, 1987), 28.
3. Canon 1111 stipulates to whom the Ordinary or pastor may grant this delegation and how the delegating is to be done. It should be kept in mind that a deacon may never be delegated to assist at a marriage in which one of the parties is an Eastern Catholic or an Eastern non-Catholic. Moreover, canon 144 makes provision for situations in which there may be error or doubt about the minister’s authorization. Space does not allow us to consider those situations here.
4. The local Ordinary can dispense from the canonical form only if one of the parties is non-Catholic. The one exception is danger of death. In that case the local Ordinary, or the sacred minister authorized to celebrate the marriage if the Ordinary cannot be reached, may dispense two Catholics from observing the canonical form (can. 1079, §§1, 2).
5. John P. Beal et al., New Commentary of the Code of Canon Law (New York: Paulist Press, 2000), 1334.
AB/AMAZON
A Familiar Conversation: How to Find a Home for Prayer in Marriage
By Caroline Smyczek
After Mass one Sunday afternoon, my twoyear-old was running around the living room saying, “Stantial with the Father! God from God; light from light!” She was very emphatic about it, albeit clueless to the meaning of the words. For something that she only hears briefly once a week, I was impressed she remembered those phrases and could somewhat say them. Her stumbling over the phrase reminded me of when the revised translation began to be used at Mass in 2011. At the time, consubstantial with the Father did not roll off the tongue and it was difficult to get used to. Now, I have a hard time remembering what the phrase used to be.
Learning a language is a process of connecting our inner selves to the world and people around us; it requires patience, practice, and understanding. Over time, words that were foreign and incomprehensible slowly become the path to community, connection, and meaning. Living our Catholic faith is no different; the practice of the faith is a constant dialogue we are learning to have with God. In a 2012 address, Pope Benedict XVI says: “We can speak to God because God has spoken to us—because he has come to us as a Word and because in his inmost life in the Trinity he is a relationship. The prayer of Jesus reveals that the heart of the Trinity is a familial, filial relationship of love. God in his inner essence is a dialogue of love, and our prayer, both corporately in the liturgy and privately, is a participation in this filial and familial dialogue.”
If this dialogue of love is filial and familial, then what better place to learn the phrases and practice our pronunciation of God’s language, so to speak, than in our own families? Each domestic church, with all the uniqueness and character of family life, provides a true immersion experience into this dialogue of love. When two people marry, they bring with them a certain spiritual dialect—how they have learned to hear and speak with God. As with all things in marriage, it takes time for the couple to merge these experiences and produce something uniquely their own.
My husband and I married three years ago and we certainly experienced—and are still experiencing— that learning curve. The impetus for most of our conversations and decisions about our prayer life at home was our children. We were blessed very quickly with children, so it was not long into our newlywed life that we were thinking about which traditions and habits of prayer we would most like to pass on. While we continue to grow and learn, there are three aspects in our journey together that have helped us build our domestic church.
The first, and perhaps the simplest, is intentionality with our time and space. My husband, Alec, and I discussed what we wanted our prayer life to look like as a couple and individually—daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly. We tried to be as specific as possible. For example, we decided to pray together as a family every evening by sharing our prayer intentions and praying the rosary, and by going to confession once a month. Alec and I also found it helpful to take a year and observe the practices and traditions we held growing up and then decide which ones we would like to continue or add for our new family. A small tradition we have added is celebrating our children’s baptismal anniversaries with their godparents.
Making time for prayer as a couple and a family is imperative, and it can be aided by special places or reminders in the home for prayer. Religious artwork and prayer corners help cue the mind and body that it is time for prayer. In our home, we have a special prayer nook, complete with children’s picture bibles, rosaries, and icons. These small reminders help us to make time individually and as a family to pray. Seasonal decorations and changes in prayer habits that reflect the Church calendar also help establish a meaningful rhythm. For example, in our neighborhood, most homes put up their Christmas decorations after Thanksgiving. We keep the lights and tree down for as long as possible before Christmas, helping us to more fully enter the season of Advent.
The second aspect in our journey was learning
how to pray through acts of service. The Mass is a sacrifice, and we are called to bring our own spiritual offerings to each Mass. The sacrifices of our vocations and daily living are part of these offerings. When I was a child, the phrase I heard most often to quell any sort of complaint on my part was “Offer it up.” I misunderstood this to mean “Don’t complain,” and I see now how wrong this was. To offer something up means saying, “Thank you, Lord, for this opportunity to love you in this way.” Whatever we offer to God has first been offered by him to us. While we certainly have preferences for what we would like to offer God, we cannot let these preferences blind us to a full and abundant offering.
For me, transitioning from a single woman to a wife and mother radically changed my prayer life. In this current season of life, the duties of my vocation do not currently afford me a lot of time for solitude and silence, two things I greatly enjoyed about my prayer life as a single person. However, I find solace in offering God acts of service— caring for children, folding laundry, cooking a meal— knowing even these moments can glorify him.
Seasonal decorations and changes in prayer habits that reflect the Church calendar also help establish a meaningful rhythm. For example, in our neighborhood, most homes put up their Christmas decorations after Thanksgiving. We keep the lights and tree down for as long as possible before Christmas, helping us to more fully enter the season of Advent.
The third aspect was recognizing how important it was for us to have mentors in the faith. We are blessed to know couples who are transitioning out of their child-rearing years who have wisdom to share with those just starting out. Talking with them, receiving their encouragement and support, and simply observing how they parent has been an immense blessing. Parish life has naturally brought these friendships forward for us and is a great place to start when looking to build those relationships. Introducing yourself to the people you regularly sit next to at Mass, inviting them to coffee, volunteering on a parish committee, or attending a parish event are all great ways to start growing your faith community.
In the end, building a domestic church is not about achieving perfection in prayer or flawlessly living out the liturgical seasons; rather, it’s about committing, day by day, to love God and each other
more fully through intentional rhythms, sacrificial service, and faithful community. Just as a child slowly learns to speak by listening and repeating, our families learn to speak the language of faith through practice, patience, and grace. In this sacred, everyday work, we are drawn deeper into the familial dialogue of love at the heart of the Trinity—a conversation that begins in our homes and echoes into eternity.
Caroline Smyczek has worked at the parish and diocesan level, focusing her efforts on discipleship and sacramental catechesis. She holds a doctor of ministry degree in liturgical catechesis from The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C., and a masters degree in biblical theology from John Paul the Great Catholic University, Escondido, CA.
Alec and I found it helpful to take a year and observe the practices and traditions we held growing up and then decide which ones we would like to continue or add for our new family. A small tradition we have added is celebrating our children’s baptismal anniversaries with their godparents.
Q: Should a paten be used during the distribution of Holy Communion?
A: It is often assumed that the use of the paten for the distribution of Holy Communion during the post-Vatican II liturgy is an optional anachronism. Some argue that this seemingly pre-Vatican II custom should be avoided, as it may foster excessive scrupulosity among the faithful. However, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM), 118, explicitly includes the paten among the items to be prepared for Mass, stating that it should be placed on the credence table (“in abico:…patina pro Communione fidelium”). While certain items are optional—e.g. the pall (“pro opportunitate, palla”) and the chalice veil (“Calix laudabiliter cooperiatur velo”)—the “paten for the Communion of the faithful” should be placed on the credence table before every Mass.
The prescription to set out a paten on the credence table should not be misinterpreted to merely refer to the paten which is placed on the chalice. In GIRM 118, the paten is mentioned twice; the second reference clearly indicates a distinct paten intended for the distribution of Communion to the faithful.
This prescription in the GIRM is not an isolated law but is reaffirmed and clarified in the 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, “On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist,” issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments This instruction not only affirms the GIRM’s directive to use the paten, but it also clarifies the reason why the paten is to be used: “The Communion-plate for the Communion of the faithful should be retained, so as to avoid the danger of the sacred host or some fragment of it falling” (93). This suffices to make the Church’s judgement clear that the risk of profanation of the Blessed Sacrament, even of a particle of a host, outweighs other concerns.
When the paten is used, a practical concern arises if Holy Communion is distributed in the hand. In 2018, the Bishop’s Committee on Divine Worship noted that while the GIRM and Redemptionis Sacramentum presume the use of the paten, “Neither document stipulates that it is to be used specifically or only when Holy Communion is received on the tongue” (Newsletter, Vol. 54, 16). Thus, the paten should be used even when Communion is distributed on the hand.
Though frequently dismissed as a vestige of preVatican II liturgy, the paten is not merely an option, nor simply laudable, but explicitly prescribed by the General Instruction of the Roman Missal. Its use is thus confirmed not merely as a liturgical option or preference, but as a practical safeguard against the loss or profanation of the Eucharist.
—Answered by Jacob Zepp Diocese of La Crosse
Q: Why should a priest be familiar with the Ceremonial of Bishops?
A: As the diocesan director of worship and my eighth year as Episcopal Master of Ceremonies, I’ve personally witnessed how understanding the Ceremonial of Bishops can elevate a priest’s celebration of the Mass. The Ceremonial of Bishops is not exclusively reserved for bishops, masters of ceremonies, and those involved in planning episcopal liturgies. In fact, it offers immense benefits to all priests. By studying it, priests gain a deeper understanding of the liturgy’s theological underpinnings and the rubrics, leading to a solemn, reverent, and transcendent celebration of the Mass. This heightened understanding fosters a stronger sense of their priestly identity in connection with their bishop, resulting in more solemn and unified parish celebrations.
The Ceremonial of Bishops (CB) expresses a theological perspective on the Church’s liturgy, emphasizing the diocesan bishop’s role as the high priest and principal liturgist of the local Church. Vatican II decreed that “the bishop is
RITE QUESTIONS
to be considered as the high priest of his flock, from whom the life in Christ of his faithful is in some way derived and dependent” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 41). As the high priest, the bishop is the primary steward of the Sacred Mysteries and the chief shepherd guiding his flock in offering proper worship to God the Father, through the Son, in the unity of the Holy Spirit. This role is particularly evident during the celebration of the Stational Mass, where the bishop is “surrounded by his college of presbyters and by his ministers, and with the full, active participation of all God’s Holy People” (CB, 11). In these liturgical celebrations, the bishop’s roles as teacher, sanctifier, and pastor of his Church are illuminated. “These celebrations should also serve as a model for the entire diocese and be shining examples of active participation by the people” (CB, 12). The entire liturgical life of the diocese should be made manifest in the liturgical celebrations of the bishop.
Additionally, the Ceremonial of Bishops provides deeper insight into rubrical gaps or silences that may be found in other liturgical books frequently used by priests. With respect to the celebration of the Liturgy of the Hours, for example, the Ceremonial of Bishops provides insight on two aspects: how a priest holds his hands during the Our Father and the use of psalm-prayers. The General Instruction of the Liturgy of the Hours lacks a rubric for the position of the hands while praying the Our Father. But the Ceremonial of Bishops states, “Customarily in the Church a bishop or presbyter address prayers to God while standing with hands slightly raised and outstretched” (CB, 104). Since the Our Father is addressed to God the Father, it is appropriate for a priest to have hands outstretched during the Our Father at Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer. This same principle could also be applied in the Order of the Baptism of Children which does not provide a rubric for the posture of a priest’s hands during the Blessing of Water.
The General Instruction of the Liturgy of the Hours also mentions the use of psalm prayers “to help in understanding [the Psalms] in a predominantly Christian Way;” but it does not specify how they should be used. The Ceremonial of Bishops, however, provides precise instructions on how a bishop uses the psalm prayers stating: “When the psalm prayers are used, after the repetition of the antiphon, the bishop puts aside the miter, rises, and once everyone else has stood says, Let us pray After a brief pause for silent prayer by all, he says the prayer corresponding to the psalm or canticle” (CB, 198). A priest would follow the same rubric omitting the bishop-specific rubrics. These two clarifications given in the Ceremonial of Bishops are examples of valuable guidance to fill in these rubrical gaps in the Liturgy of the Hours.
Similarly, the Ceremonial of Bishops helps provide clarification on unclear or missing liturgical instructions in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal. The latter text does provide clear instructions on the placement of the priest’s left hand during a blessing (GIRM, 167); however, it does not state how a priest should hold his right hand. Paragraph 108 of the Ceremonial of Bishops gives the posture for a bishop’s left hand when he makes the sign of the cross or when he gives a blessing, including a footnote that clarifies how the bishop—and, by extension, a priest or deacon— should hold his right hand: “If he blesses others or some object, he points the little finger at the person or thing to be blessed and in blessing extends the whole right hand with all the fingers joined and fully extended” (footnote 81: Missale Romanum, ed. 1962, Ritus seroandus in celebratione Missae, III, 5). Still another instance of rubrical clarification is when a priest should join his hands during the recitation of the Collect, Prayer over the Offering, and Prayer after Communion. Both the Ceremonial of Bishops and the General Instruction of the Roman Missal are clear that when a bishop or priest says “Let us pray” his hands are joined, and when he says the prayer his hands are outstretched. But only the Ceremonial of Bishops further states, “for the
conclusion of the prayer the bishop joins his hands, saying, We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ or other relevant words” (CB, 136). And again, after the chalice has been prepared and the bishop places it on the corporal, the chalice may be covered with a pall. This is clearly stated in both the Ceremonial of Bishops and the General Instruction of the Roman Missal; however, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal is silent on when the pall should be removed. The Ceremonial of Bishop explains, “If the cup and ciborium are covered, a deacon uncovers them before the epiclesis” (CB, 155). These norms found in the Ceremonial of Bishops ensure that liturgical practices are carried out with consistency, reverence, and fidelity to the Church’s traditions.
The Ceremonial of Bishops is a rich resource for elevating the liturgy celebrated by parish priests. It can assist the priest in having a greater theological understanding of the liturgy to avoid a merely routine approach to the liturgy and it can provide insight to rubrical indeterminacies. Since the bishop’s liturgies are meant to serve as a model for the entire diocese, understanding the Ceremonial of Bishops provides the opportunity for each parish to celebrate a liturgy that is solemn, reverent, and transcendent. As Presbyterorum Ordinis urges, “Let priests take care so to foster a knowledge of and facility in the liturgy, that by their own liturgical ministry Christian communities entrusted to their care may ever more perfectly give praise to God, the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit” (5). Studying the Ceremonial of Bishops can help priests better understand that the liturgy is for the Glory of God and for the sanctification of his people.
—Answered by Father Gabriel Greer Diocese of Wichita
MEMORIAL FOR
Benjamin & Margaret Baldiga
Stephen & Rose Baldiga
Roland & Eileen Desmarais
Dorothy Long
Ione McCoy from Richard Baldiga
William Cardinal Baum from Rev. Msgr. Patrick Dempsey (10 years since his death on July 23, 2015)
George & Ruth Brudos from Ken & Emily Brudos
Father John D. Crowley from his brother
Father Robert Skeris from David Sullivan
IN THANKSGIVING
For our family from Mr. & Mrs. John Hartmann
New Book Offers
Encyclopedic Trove of Information on Mass
By Stephen Joseph Hill
The Mass Explained: Fostering a Deeper Understanding and Appreciation for the Roman Catholic Mass by Dan Gonzalez. Miami, FL: Agnus Press, 2024. 568 pp. ISBN: 979-8-9887144-0-8. $59.99 Paperback.
The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the pinnacle of the Catholic spiritual life. Even the most rudimentarily catechized Catholic is aware of its importance, our obligation to participate, and its distinguishing character in relation to other denominations. Naturally, it has been the subject of many books, essays, lectures, podcasts, etc. From ancient works (On the Sacraments by St. Ambrose) to early modern (The Holy Mass by Dom Gueranger) to contemporary (The Mass: The Glory, the Mystery, the Tradition by Mike Aquila and Cardinal Wuerl), a considerable amount of time and money has been spent on explaining the Mass. In such a world, especially given that so much of that material is in the public domain, it can be difficult to distinguish one’s own work and justify its place in the discussion. The Mass Explained: Fostering a Deeper Understanding and Appreciation for the Roman Catholic Mass by Dan Gonzalez has earned a justified place in this multi-generational discussion.
One of Gonzalez’s main themes is that the Mass and liturgical history of the Church express the fullness of human experience. The Mass and Eucharist, as the source and summit of the faith, incorporate and utilize every human sense. In addition, many of the world’s greatest pieces of art (statutes, paintings, music, etc.) were created to demonstrate the work of Redemption expressed within the Mass and augment our experience of it.
Gonzalez, therefore, organizes his book as a walk through the Mass. He begins with the historical and spiritual precursors to the Catholic Mass and then proceeds from the Introductory Rites through the Concluding Rites. His work is thorough and addresses even the most minute actions within the Mass. His main contribution to the discourse is twofold. First, this book is more thorough than many other single volume, non-academic works on the Mass. One can consult it regarding almost any question that the average Catholic may have regarding the history and meaning of the various acts within the Mass. Second, his walk through the Mass is enhanced by including the rich, artistic patrimony of the Church at every stage. As a good academic provides footnotes and citations for each claim asserted, Gonzalez provides artistic citations for each part of the Mass, thus demonstrating how the Church has historically incorporated the fullness of human experience within the liturgy.
Thorough Look at Liturgy
As I said above, Gonzalez’s key contribution is not a new insight or historical discovery about the liturgy. Rather, his contribution regarding the history and meaning of the Mass is how thoroughly he treats it in a single, easily accessible text. The book is well over 500 pages, but each page contains text, reasonable footnotes, and images from the Church’s patrimony and the historical record. He does not assert a specific thesis which he is aiming to prove. This is a quasi-encyclopedic work which aims to educate and summarize the Mass in a thorough and accessible way for the average person.
No movement is left unaddressed. Gonzalez’s work stands out, in part, by the attention he gives to less frequently treated moments in the Mass. For example, chapter two discusses why we stand and sing when the priest processes to the altar. While these gestures seem so simple and intuitive, Gonzalez encourages us to dive in and examine: Why do we stand as humans? What does that mean? What message does it send to us and other observers? Why do we sing? What does that communicate compared to speaking or shouting? He draws from historical and contemporary examples to show us how to probe the why behind what we do at Mass. Everything from standing up when the Notre Dame Fighting Irish score a touchdown (Gonzalez does not mention the Fighting Irish but my own bias forces me to do so) to standing for a judge in the courtroom to singing happy birthday is put forward so that we can explore the meaning behind such customs.
Additionally, Gonzalez discusses the significance of the Sign of the Cross. While the Sign of the Cross feels
as natural as breathing to most Catholics, many of us also tend to think about it as much as we think about breathing—which is to say, never. It’s part of our nature which also means it tends to be as forgotten as many of our natural rhythms are. Gonzalez, therefore, calls our attention to the significance of this action which bookends virtually every prayer a Catholic utters. From the history of the Sign of the Cross to the horrific reality of the Crucifixion to the Biblical revelation of the Trinity, Gonzalez expounds upon the meaning and purpose of this sign which permeates and repeatedly occurs within the Mass.
Artistic Witness to the Mass
Another defining feature of Gonzalez’s text is the extensive, artistic catalogue and representation of the Mass throughout. Although over 500 pages, once opening the book, one does not feel overwhelmed by its length due to the extensive artistic depictions found on each page. Far from being a dense, intimidating book, Gonzalez presents it as eminently approachable.
In his discussion of the ancient roots of the Mass, he provides images from Jewish synagogues and the early Christian catacombs. In his discussion of the Liturgical Cycle (seasons), he provides paintings and images of historical, pre-Lenten artifacts/traditions. In his discussion of the “elements of sacrifice,” he provides images to demonstrate the historical importance of wheat and bread and why we should appreciate the significance of Christ as the “Bread of Life.” In his discussion of the “Offering the Bread and Wine,” he provides artistic representation of incense and its historical use to engage our olfactory sense in liturgical worship.
Each chapter also includes historical analogues for why we do what we do at Mass. Beyond Jewish or ancient Christian precedents, he also discusses secular, historical examples of similar conduct with corresponding art. The chapter on processions includes a discussion of military and processional standards (fulfilled within the Catholic liturgical context by the processional crucifix). The chapter on the Liturgy of the Word includes photos of the Gutenberg Printing Press which revolutionized publication of books and made the Bible much more widespread and accessible. Thus, each topic and each assertion is brought to life via artistic representations and expressions throughout history.
Thoroughly Approachable
Overall, Gonzalez’s book is a tremendous addition to the corpus of literature on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. While he did not set out to introduce a unique or original notion about the Mass historically or theologically, he certainly achieved his goal to “help readers understand that the Mass is divinely instituted, rooted in Scripture, and tempered by tradition. It’s the holiest thing man can do on earth, the greatest mystery, the most perfect form of prayer, and a most inconceivable act of love!”
This book is one of the most thorough and approachable single-volume books on the Mass I have encountered. In addition to everything discussed above that he does well, each chapter concludes with bullet-point summaries, review questions, and reflection questions to further integrate what the book discusses into our daily lives. This is a nice touch to ensure that the content moves beyond a superficial discussion to a deep, transformative force in our spiritual lives. The questions help reaffirm what was discussed and encourage us to use what was learned when we attend and participate in Holy Mass.
Furthermore, Gonzalez does a nice job addressing the more controversial waters regarding the liturgy. He
is able to intelligently discuss some distinctions between the Roman Missal of Pope St. Paul VI and the Roman Missal of Pope St. John XXIII (i.e., the Traditional Latin Mass) in a thoughtful and charitable way without falling prey to antagonistic rhetoric on either side of a sometimes contentious issue. For instance, in his discussion on the Confiteor, he aptly compares the different versions found in these respective Missals in a manner most edifying to the reader, without disdain for either Missal, and in the spirit of figures who have preceded him such as Benedict XVI and Jesuit Father Joseph Fessio, founder of Ignatius Press and one of the co-founders of Adoremus.
Burden of Scholarship
Virtually no work is without some weaknesses. In The Mass Explained, one weakness seems to be an over-reliance on “scholars” including several outdated, likely incorrect theories.
For example, in his discussion of the foundation of the liturgy (chapters one and two) and the offertory prayers (chapter 27), he asserts a scholarly consensus about the significant evidence for the Jewish influence upon the early liturgy. This was a very popular view throughout the mid-20th century, but it is considerably less certain today. Recent scholarship suggests that any influence, rather than directly from Jewish liturgy upon Christian liturgy, was more a mutual, co-developmental influence between each. Robert Taft, Paul Bradshaw, and Maxwell Johnson—all authoritative scholars on the historical development of the liturgy—each suggest that the trend of the past few decades has been to reevaluate the direct, uni-directional influence that was taken for granted and assumed in the mid-20th century.1
Additionally, Gonzalez references the “Apostolic Tradition” document as an early source of information concerning ancient Christian worship. Like the view of a uni-directional liturgical influence of Jewish upon Christian worship, this view is hotly debated and the document is likely much older than originally believed.2 Regarding both of these issues, it would have been helpful and informative if Gonzalez at least acknowledged these important developments and the implication they have for understanding the development and origin of various prayers.
Finally, in chapter two, Gonzalez discusses St. Luke’s use of the term “vanished” in the Road to Emmaus story. While liturgical and Biblical scholars have provided insights into the liturgy, it is important to remember that scholars do not provide authoritative interpretation of the Scriptures and the liturgy: the Church and her saints and doctors do. There are many faithful Biblical scholars, but it is a wellknown problem in the field that many Biblical scholars are atheists or otherwise heterodox regarding defined ecclesial interpretations of Scripture. Rather than focusing on how scholars do not agree on the meaning of a term, it might have been more fruitful to dig into what the Fathers of the Church say about the story and the use of the term. Ultimately, this work is a wonderful addition to the literature on the Mass. Despite a few instances of over-reliance upon the work of certain scholars and likely erroneous historical assertions, the content and organization of The Mass Explained would be a welcome and fruitful addition to any Catholic family’s home. Addressing every movement of the Mass with its historical, sociological, and theological background combined with artistic representations of the realities at hand, Gonzalez helps bring the Mass alive to his reader in a manner that demonstrates the Mass as the truest and fullest expression of human experience in adoration of the Divine.
Stephen Hill is a rising second-year law student. Prior to law school he completed an MTS in Liturgical Studies from the University of Notre Dame, focusing on the psychological benefits of liturgical worship from a Thomistic and Patristic perspective. He currently lives in Oklahoma with his wife and four daughters.
1. See generally: Robert Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West; Paul Bradshaw, The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship; and Maxwell Johnson, Sacraments and Worship: The Sources of Christian Theology
2. See generally: Bradshaw, The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship and Johnson, The Apostolic Tradition: Its Origins, Development, and Liturgical Practices. While the latter title was published after The Mass Explained, it is a synthesis of historical research which Johnson has been involved with for much longer.
