(ZENIT News / Vatican City, 12.20.2024).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy and sacramental theology and director of the Sacerdos Institute at the Pontifical Regina Apostolorum university.

***

Q: Could you please clarify whether water must touch the skin of the head or face for a baptism to be valid? At the Easter Vigil and more lately, I have witnessed baptisms conferred by my diocesan bishops and priests on candidates whose head are bowed, and their hair is flipped directly forward so that the baptismal water clearly flows only down the back of the hair and does not touch the scalp or face. In researching this issue, I came across a website which cites moral theologians, among others, who state that it is necessary for the water to flow over the skin. Could you please explain what is the difference between a doubtful and valid sacrament? How can a sacrament be doubtful but valid? Wouldn’t the doubt call into question the validity? Also, concerning the sacrament of baptism, my sibling and her husband, who are baptized Catholics but who do not practice the faith or uphold the faith’s teachings on important issues like marriage, abortion, in vitro, etc., intend to have their children baptized in the Church. They have chosen godparents who, likewise, are baptized Catholic but not practicing. I am doubtful about attending the baptism because it would entail witnessing the parents and the godparents lie before God about their intention to raise the child in the faith. Also, I am unsure if I should inform the pastor of the parish where the baptism will take place about the truth about the parents’ and godparents’ lack of intention to practice the faith, since this is being withheld from him and the individual who is vetting the candidates to ensure that the baptism can proceed. Would you have any advice regarding how to proceed? — E.R., San Clemente, California

A: Here we have two very different, and difficult, questions.

With respect to the second question regarding the non-practicing parents and godparents, it is very hard to make a judgment. The very fact that the parents are seeking baptism for their child is at least a sign that some seed of faith remains, and there is hope that it will germinate once more.

Likewise, while the parents may not be practicing nor firm in their faith, unless they have expressly declared that they do not intend to raise the child in the faith, one cannot deduce their inner intention from these external factors. They may well intend to raise the child in the faith as they see it. It may not be an ideal situation but would probably be sufficient to not deprive the child of the gift of baptism.

The pastor, in vetting the situation, should have some assurance that there will be somebody who can take an interest in the child’s Christian upbringing; this could be a relative if the parents and godparents are unable to. Therefore, our reader could confide in the pastor, while stiving to be as objective as possible and leave the final decision to him.

Attending the baptism is a personal decision weighing all the possible consequences, including the danger of creating a family rift that might limit one’s possibility to influence the child’s upbringing, at least, by good example.

Let’s turn now to the first, more technical, part of the question on the validity of a baptism if only the hair is touched without skin contact.

The opinions of the venerable authors cited on the website should be interpreted in the light of the laws of the time. The 1917 Code of Canon Law organized disparate codes and legal opinions from earlier times. The one closest to our topic, and that was expressly cited by some of the sources on the website, was Canon 746, especially §2. To wit:

“Canon 746

“§ 1. No one should be baptized in the mother’s womb so long as there is a hope that he can be baptized correctly outside of it.

Ҥ 2. If the head of an infant is exposed and there is imminent danger of death, let him be baptized on the head; later, if he is delivered alive, he should be baptized again under condition.

Ҥ 3. If another part of the body is exposed, and if danger [of death] is imminent, let him be baptized under condition thereupon, and then, if he survives birth, he should be once again baptized under condition.

Ҥ 4. If a pregnant mother dies, and if the fetus is delivered by those who do such things, and if he is certainly alive, he should be baptized absolutely; if there is doubt, [he should be baptized] under condition.

“§ 5. A fetus baptized in the womb should be baptized again under condition after [being born].”

It should be noted that the above canons are not dogma but prudential practices that respond to concrete pastoral situations of imminent danger of death. Likewise, it should also be noted that they do not directly say that water should touch the skin.

Some of the theological manuals cited on the website were: A Manual of Moral Theology for English-speaking Countries, Volume II, 1925; Moral Theology, The Newman Press 1962; The Administration of the Sacraments, Alba House, 1964; and Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described, Burns and Oates Ltd London, 1919.

These manuals were mostly concerned to form and inform priests as to the correct procedure for celebrating the sacraments and insure the validity of baptisms.

This legitimate concern may have led some authors to be overly strict in interpreting the rites, and they may have extended too much to ordinary circumstances the application of rites reserved for emergency measures.

Current canon law is far briefer and completely omits 1917 Canon 746 along with several other similar canons that give specific instructions on emergency situations. Thus, Canon 854 in the 1983 Code says:

“Baptism is to be conferred either by immersion or by pouring; the prescripts of the conference of bishops are to be observed.”

This canon makes no mention of the possibility of sprinkling as a means of baptism and would seem to give preference to some form of immersion.

Since current law prefers some form of immersion or pouring, it would presuppose that the water would touch the skin as well as the hair. Nevertheless, there would not seem to be anything in the text of current law that would expressly require the water to touch the skin for a valid baptism if water is poured on the head. Nor was there in the former law even though this was the opinion of several respected theologians.

A well-known priest-canonist mentioned in a blog that he had made a private consultation with an official of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who responded that “water must flow on or touch the head, at least the hair of the head.”

While not an official response, I think that it reflects current thinking and that there is no doubt that a baptism in which water flows on the hair and not on the head is a valid baptism.

That said, the practical recommendations offered by these authors remain sound pastoral guidance for celebrating the sacrament.

Finally, a doubtful baptism is one in which there is some defect about the circumstances of the baptism that makes it unsure if a valid baptism took place.

Some of the situations given above in Canon 746 in the 1917 Code would be examples. This is why the canons mandate that if the child lives, he or she should be baptized conditionally using a formula such as “If you are not baptized, I baptize you ….”

Such conditional baptism is also occasionally applied to converts from some Christian denominations when there is doubt as to whether the rites used were sufficient to obtain a valid baptism in the Catholic sense.

* * *

Readers may send questions to zenit.liturgy@gmail.com. Please put the word «Liturgy» in the subject field. The text should include your initials, your city and your state, province or country. Father McNamara can only answer a small selection of the questions that arrive.

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post Questions about liturgy: Baptism, doubts and validity. Two burning and difficult questions appeared first on ZENIT - English.

A Return to Disputed Traditions

Cardinal Ranjith justifies his decision arguing that service at the altar is one of the main sources of vocations to the priesthood, a vocation reserved strictly for men in the Catholic Church. According to Cardinal Ranjith, to allow girls to serve at the altar could “affect the number of candidates that enter the Seminaries, a risk we cannot run.”

With this position, the Cardinal reinforces a historical tradition that, until the end of the 20th century, had excluded women from liturgical service. This exclusion, supported for centuries by Popes such as Benedict XIV and other ecclesiastical leaders, was modified in the decade of the 1990s under the pontificate of Saint John Paul II who allowed the inclusion of women as Ministers of the Altar.

Vocations and Exclusion: Necessity or Setback?

The Cardinal’s measure has unleashed questions on the relationship between masculine exclusivity in certain liturgical roles and the fostering of vocations. Although the Cardinal’s argument emphasizes the importance of protecting a source of candidates to the priesthood, it also poses questions about inclusion and women’s role in the Church.

For some sectors, limiting liturgical service to young men reinforces a hierarchical and excluding vision that could alienate women from a more active participation in the life of the Church. For others, it’s about a pragmatic decision in a context where priestly vocations are in decline, particularly in countries such as Sri Lanka.

Weight of The Historical Precedent

Although the tradition of excluding women from the altar has deep roots, its opening during Saint John Paul II’s pontificate was seen as a significant step to greater inclusion. The Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts also interpreted canon 230 paragraph 2 of the Code of Canon Law to allow this practice, marking an important change in liturgical norms.

However, Cardinal Ranjith’s decision seems to go in the opposite sense, prioritizing the local need of vocations over a global vision of equality of participation.

Implications for the Church and the Laity

Beyond the immediate impact on Colombo’s parishes, this measure highlights the persistent tensions in the Catholic Church regarding women’s role in its structures. The exclusion of girls as altar servers not only affects their participation in the liturgy, but also transmits a message on their place in ecclesial life.

At a time when Pope Francis and others leaders have advocated for a greater inclusion of women in leadership roles and consultation inside the Church, this decision poses a striking contrast.

The post Cardinal Ranjith Excludes Girls from Serving as Altar Servers in Sri Lanka appeared first on ZENIT - English.

 A Call to Embrace the Collective Spirit

Cardinal Cupich’s message revisits the foundational principles of the Second Vatican Council, which called for the “full, conscious, and active participation” of all baptized Catholics in the liturgy. He highlighted the Eucharist as a deeply communal act, reminding the faithful that the term «communion» itself underscores unity, not personal piety.

“Our ritual for receiving Holy Communion holds profound meaning,” Cupich wrote. “It reminds us that receiving the Eucharist is not a private act but a communal one. As such, the established norm—approved by the Holy See and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops—is for the faithful to process together and receive the Sacred Host standing.”

Reverence Without Disruption

While acknowledging the importance of reverence during the Eucharist, the cardinal encouraged gestures such as a respectful bow before receiving Communion, discouraging actions that might disrupt the flow of the procession or draw undue attention. “No one should engage in gestures that disrupt the communal act or highlight themselves in a way contrary to Church norms and tradition,” he emphasized.

His comments specifically address the practice of kneeling for Communion, which, while permitted in some circumstances, can contrast with the standard practice of standing—a posture meant to symbolize unity and readiness within the liturgy.

Balancing Tradition and Modern Practice

The cardinal’s guidance comes amidst ongoing discussions in the Church about balancing centuries-old traditions with the liturgical reforms initiated by Vatican II. While some Catholics view kneeling as a more profound expression of reverence, others see standing as an equally meaningful and theologically sound posture, reflecting the Resurrection and the collective identity of the Body of Christ.

Cupich’s remarks are not a prohibition but rather an invitation to reflect on the communal dimension of the Mass. By encouraging conformity to the established norms, he hopes to reinforce a sense of unity during the celebration of the Eucharist.

A Broader Reflection on the Church’s Unity

This focus on uniformity in liturgical practices is part of a larger conversation about unity in the Church, particularly as it navigates the diverse preferences and spiritual expressions of its global members. By encouraging a shared approach to receiving Communion, Cardinal Cupich seeks to draw attention to the profound theological and communal significance of the Eucharist—a moment when the faithful, together, become the Body of Christ.

“Respecting these norms,” the cardinal concluded, “is not merely about liturgical order. It’s about honoring the deeper truth that, in the sacred liturgy, we are one body, united in Christ.”

The following is the full text of the letter:

***

As we pray …

December 11, 2024

We all have benefited from the renewal of the church ushered in by the Second Vatican Council. This gathering of the world’s Catholic bishops and heads of religious orders of men took place in four sessions from 1962 to 1965.

Sixteen documents related to church renewal were eventually issued, but it is significant that the council fathers decided that their first document should take up the topic of restoring the way we worship. They took seriously the ancient maxim “lex orandi, lex credenda,” a phrase often associated with Prosper of Aquitaine, a fifth-century Christian writer. It simply means that the law of praying establishes the law of believing.

By recognizing this relationship between how we worship and what we believe, the bishops at the council made clear that the renewal of the liturgy in the life of the church is central to the mission of proclaiming the Gospel. It would be a mistake to reduce the renewal to a mere updating of our liturgy to fit the times we live in, as if it were a kind of liturgical facelift. We need the restoration of the liturgy because it gives us the capacity to proclaim Christ to the world.

Thus, for instance, the council called for the full, active and conscious participation of all the baptized in the celebration of the Eucharist to reflect our belief that in the sacred liturgy the faithful become the Body of Christ that they receive.

Our ritual for receiving of Holy Communion has special significance in this regard. It reminds us that receiving the Eucharist is not a private action but rather a communal one, as the very word “communion” implies. For that reason, the norm established by Holy See for the universal church and approved by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is for the faithful to process together as an expression of their coming forward as the Body of Christ and to receive Holy Communion standing.

It is important to recall that processions have been part of the liturgy from the earliest days of Christian practice. They give us a sensible experience of what it means to be a pilgrim people, helping us keep in mind that we are making our way together to the fullness of the heavenly banquet Christ has prepared for us. This is why we process into the church, process up to bring the gifts, process to receive Holy Communion and process out at the end of Mass to carry the Lord into the world.

Nothing should be done to impede any of these processions, particularly the one that takes place during the sacred Communion ritual. Disrupting this moment only diminishes this powerful symbolic expression, by which the faithful in processing together express their faith that they are called to become the very Body of Christ they receive. Certainly reverence can and should be expressed by bowing before the reception of Holy Communion, but no one should engage in a gesture that calls attention to oneself or disrupts the flow of the procession. That would be contrary to the norms and tradition of the church, which all the faithful are urged to respect and observe.

The law of praying establishes the law of believing is our tradition. When the bishops took up the task of restoring the liturgy six decades ago, they reminded us that this ancient principle enjoys a privileged place in the church’s tradition. It should continue to guide us in every age.

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post Cardinal of Chicago asks not to kneel at communion: these are “his” reasons appeared first on ZENIT - English.

The initiative aims to incorporate the Revised New Jerusalem Bible (RNJB) as the foundation for the new Lectionary. This translation balances fidelity to the original biblical texts, the demands of oral proclamation, and a commitment to inclusive language—a reflection of the evolving nuances of contemporary English and advancements in biblical scholarship.

Why a New Lectionary?

The current Lectionaries, though cherished for their long-standing service, no longer meet the demands of modern liturgical needs. The revised texts aim to:

1. Enhance Accessibility: The RNJB’s clear and contemporary style ensures that the readings resonate more deeply with today’s congregations.
2. Preserve Scriptural Integrity: Staying true to the original texts while adapting for liturgical proclamation.
3. Foster Inclusivity: Addressing the shifting expectations of language inclusivity in worship settings.

Collaboration Across Continents

The Joint Lectionary Project unites the episcopal conferences of Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand in a rare partnership, pooling expertise and resources to ensure the success of this initiative. Martin Foster, a seasoned editor with extensive experience in preparing liturgical texts, has been appointed as the project’s editorial lead. Foster’s stewardship is expected to uphold rigorous standards of quality and liturgical appropriateness, aided by a team of biblical scholars and liturgists from the three nations.

In addition to the RNJB, the revised Grail Psalter—known as the Abbey Psalms and Canticles—will be adopted for psalmody. This modernized version has already been embraced by several English-speaking countries, underscoring its suitability for worship.

Timeline and Milestones

The project’s initial focus will be on preparing drafts of the Advent and Christmas Sunday readings, which will be sent to bishops for review by early 2025. Subsequent phases will address the remaining liturgical calendar over the coming years, ensuring thoroughness and precision in the development process.

A New Chapter for Worship

This ambitious collaboration represents more than just a technical update to liturgical books. It’s an opportunity to deepen the spiritual engagement of congregations, enriching their experience of the Word of God. The shared commitment of three episcopal conferences underscores the universal nature of the Church’s mission and its dedication to excellence in worship.

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post New lectionary announced for Mass in Australia, Ireland and New Zealand appeared first on ZENIT - English.

(ZENIT News / Rome, 12.12.2024).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy and sacramental theology and director of the Sacerdos Institute at the Pontifical Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: I would like to know if the Liturgy of the Hours can be combined with Mass. In the instance that they are combined, is the penitential rite replaced by the recitation of the psalms and canticle? In other words, what’s the formula of celebrating Mass combined with the office? — E.M.I., Kachebere, Malawi

A: The norms regarding this are contained in the General Instruction of the Divine Office, Nos. 93-99:

“93. In particular cases, if circumstances require it, it is possible to link an Hour more closely with Mass when there is a celebration of the Liturgy of the Hours in public or in common, according to the following norms, provided that the Mass and the Hour belong to one and the same Office. Care must be taken, however, that this does not result in harm to pastoral work, especially on Sundays.

“94. When Morning Prayer, celebrated in choir or in common, comes immediately before Mass, the whole celebration may begin either with the introductory verse and hymn of Morning Prayer, especially on weekdays, or with the entrance song, procession and celebrant’s greeting (especially on feast days), one or other of the introductory rites being thus omitted.

“The psalmody of Morning Prayer follows as usual, up to, but excluding, the reading. After the psalmody the penitential rite is omitted and at choice the Kyrie; then the Glory to God in the highest is said, if required by the rubrics, and the celebrant says the opening prayer of the Mass. The liturgy of the word follows as usual.

“The general intercessions are made in the place and form customary at Mass. On weekdays, at Mass in the morning, the intercessions of Morning Prayer may replace the daily form of the intercessions at Mass.

“After the communion with its communion song the Canticle of Zechariah Blessed be the Lord with its antiphon, from Morning Prayer, is sung. Then follows the prayer after communion; the rest is as usual.

“95. If one of the daytime Hours, celebrated in public at the appropriate time of day, is immediately followed by Mass, the whole celebration may begin in the same way, either with the introductory verse and hymn from the Hour, especially on weekdays, or with the entrance song, procession and celebrant’s greeting, especially on feast days, one or other of the introductory rites being thus omitted.

“The psalmody of the Hour follows as usual, up to, but excluding, the reading. After the psalmody the penitential rite is omitted and at choice the Kyrie; then the Glory to God in the highest is said, if required by the rubrics, and the celebrant says the opening prayer of the Mass.

“96. Evening Prayer, celebrated immediately before Mass, is joined to it in the same way as Morning Prayer. Evening Prayer I of solemnities, Sundays or feasts of the Lord falling on Sundays may not be celebrated until after Mass of the preceding day or Saturday.

“97. When a daytime Hour or Evening Prayer follows Mass, the Mass is celebrated in the usual way up to, and including, the prayer after communion. When the prayer after communion has been said, the psalmody of the Hour begins without introduction. At a daytime Hour, after the psalmody the prayer is said (omitting the reading), and the dismissal takes place as at Mass. At Evening Prayer, after the psalmody and omitting the reading, the Canticle of Mary with its antiphon follows immediately. The intercessions and the Lord’s Prayer are omitted, the concluding prayer is said and the blessing given to the people.

“98. Except for the night of Christmas, the combining of Mass with the Office of Readings is normally excluded, since the Mass already has its own cycle of readings, to be kept distinct from any other. If, however, by way of exception, it should be necessary to join the two, then immediately after the second reading from the Office, with its responsorial, the rest is omitted, and the Mass begins with the hymn Glory to God in the highest, if it is to be said; otherwise, the Mass begins with the opening prayer.

“99. If the Office of Readings is said immediately before another Hour of the Office, then the appropriate hymn for that Hour may be sung at the beginning of the Office of Readings. At the end of the Office of Readings the prayer and conclusion are omitted, and in the Hour following the introductory verse with the Glory to the Father is omitted.”

When an office (usually Morning Prayer or Prayer during the Day, more rarely Evening Prayer and Readings, but never Night Prayer) is thus joined to Mass, No. 94 of the norms foresees that the penitential rite is omitted as also the Lord have Mercy if so desired. Mass would then continue with the Gloria or the Collect as the case may be.

Since No. 93 specifically states that this practice is «in particular cases,» it would probably not be justified to do so daily in a seminary or a parish Mass.

Since the joining together of Mass and an hour of the Divine Office can only be done when the office and Mass are the same, and the number of votive offices is quite limited; the daily joining of office and Mass would restrict somewhat the use of the many opportunities that the missal offers to celebrate votive Masses and Masses for various needs and occasions.

Likewise, the daily omission of the penitential rite would deprive the faithful and the celebrant of important graces that often come during this moment of Mass as well as the experience of the full use of the various formulas for this rite provided in the Roman Missal.

In conclusion, it would be better, from both the pastoral stance and in the context of both spiritual and liturgical formation, to habitually separate the Mass and the Office while occasionally using the option of joining them on special occasions such as the celebration of a popular local saint or patron.

* * *

Readers may send questions to zenit.liturgy@gmail.com. Please put the word «Liturgy» in the subject field. The text should include your initials, your city and your state, province or country. Father McNamara can only answer a small selection of the great number of questions that arrive.

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post Questions about liturgy: Combining Mass and the Liturgy of the Hours appeared first on ZENIT - English.

(ZENIT News / Rome, 12.04.2024).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy and sacramental theology and director of the Sacerdos Institute at the Pontifical Regina Apostolorum university.

***

Q: Why do surplices look like shortened albs? Were they always this way? I have seen some with a round top instead of a square one. I have also seen albs and surplices with the top front area (near the neck) that are to be tied together with strings or a small chain, like a cope. Is there any sort of norm for how surplices and albs are to be styled in the U.S.? — K.K., Austin, Texas

A: The surplice, which is a modification of the alb, stems from about the 11th century being first mentioned in a canon of Coyaca, Spain, in 1050, and in an ordinance of Edward the Confessor (1042–66).

It probably originated in medieval France where, during the harsh winter, those singing in choir would prepare for the cold by wearing animal skins. Since this was less than elegant, a wide vesture was developed that was worn over the skin (Old French sourpelis, from medieval Latin superpellicium, from super –– «above» and pellicia — «fur garment»), eventually becoming our English surplice.

Early surplices were made of white linen or cotton, and reached to the feet like the alb. The sleeves, however, were wider and longer to cover the fur garments, and extended at least 10 inches beyond the fingertips, so producing folds along the arms. The neck-opening was circular for the head to pass through, although sometimes it was open at the front and was fastened with buttons and loops.

As time passed it ceased being reserved for the choir and, worn over the cassock, was permitted to substitute the alb in those ceremonies that did not require wearing a chasuble or dalmatic.

Thus, it became quite common for the administration of the sacraments and at other priestly functions such as baptisms, Benediction with the Blessed Sacrament, for choir and in processions. Indeed, it was used almost everywhere except as a Eucharistic vestment for Mass.

From the 16th century onward, this vestment became shorter. It usually reached the knees but, in some places, it became so short that it reached only to the thigh.

Since it substituted the alb, the surplice has always been white. There have been many changes of style over the centuries and, while remaining white or off-white in color, both alb and surplice have been decorated with different forms of laces and embroideries.

The surplice has also been used by non-clerics, for example, adults and children who serve at the altar. With respect to altar servers, especially children, the customs regarding servers’ albs or cassocks have been flexible and allow for several colors and forms while the surplice has remained basically white.

Also, in some northern European countries, such as Poland and the Baltic nations, the white surplice, worn over street clothes without the cassock, is often considered as an appropriate vesture for adult and child altar servers.

The surplice should be distinguished from the rochet, which is a similar garment used by bishops and other prelates. The rochet is worn under the mozzetta and over the cassock. It is a white linen vestment resembling a surplice except that it has close fitting sleeves rather than the wide ones of the surplice.

Current liturgical law regarding the use of the surplice is found in several liturgical books.

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal says the following regarding sacred vesture of ministers at Mass:

«114. For it is preferable that priests who are present at a Eucharistic Celebration, unless excused for a good reason, should as a rule exercise the office proper to their Order and hence take part as concelebrants, wearing the sacred vestments. Otherwise, they wear their proper choir dress or a surplice over a cassock.»

“336. The sacred garment common to ordained and instituted ministers of any rank is the alb, to be tied at the waist with a cincture unless it is made so as to fit even without such. Before the alb is put on, should this not completely cover the ordinary clothing at the neck, an amice should be put on. The alb may not be replaced by a surplice, not even over a cassock, on occasions when a chasuble or dalmatic is to be worn or when, according to the norms, only a stole is worn without a chasuble or dalmatic.

“339. Acolytes, lectors, and other lay ministers may wear the alb or other suitable vesture that is lawfully approved by the Conference of Bishops (cf. no. 390).”

Other documents, such as the Ceremonial of Bishops, indicate that the master of ceremonies usually uses a surplice over his cassock, and the other ritual books mostly allow for the use of surplice and cassock as an alternative to the alb.

Although there may be some local diocesan norms regarding the style and cut of surplices and other liturgical vestments, there are no actual universal rules. It is basically up to the personal choice of the minister which kind of surplice he uses.

Pope Francis has been critical of some priests who seem to be attached to what he termed “grandmother’s laces,” probably referring to almost transparent albs and surplices common in earlier times. With this he recommended the use of the plainer styles more common today, but he didn’t establish any legal prohibitions.

* * *

Readers may send questions to zenit.liturgy@gmail.com. Please put the word «Liturgy» in the subject field. The text should include your initials, your city and your state, province or country. Father McNamara can only answer a small selection of the great number of questions that arrive.

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post Questions about liturgy: Surplices and Albs appeared first on ZENIT - English.

(ZENIT News / Roma, 11.28.2024).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy and sacramental theology and director of the Sacerdos Institute at the Pontifical Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: Inside our church there are three crucifixes: one hung right above the tabernacle, a second which is placed on the altar, and the third is the processional cross. Is it all right if we have all these three crucifixes inside the church during the Mass? — A.R., Montgomery, Alabama

A: The question refers to the number of crucifixes used in the church during Mass. In other words, can there be more than one cross that serves as the altar cross?

This is distinct from the question as to how many crucifixes may be in a church building. With respect to the latter case, while current tastes and norms tend to be minimalistic and austere, there is no set number, and many older churches, and some newer ones, have several.

This is also different from the recommendation of not multiplying images of Our Lady or of a saint set up for the devotion of the faithful.

This would mean that there would normally be only one devotional image of Mary, St. Joseph and the parish patron even though there may be several artistic representations of the mysteries of salvation history or illustrating the holy lives of the patronal saints in mosaics, stained glass windows or other mediums.

Regarding the altar cross, the primary applicable norms are those found in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM).

«117. The altar is to be covered with at least one white cloth. In addition, on or next to the altar are to be placed candlesticks with lighted candles: at least two in any celebration, or even four or six, especially for a Sunday Mass or a holy day of obligation. If the Diocesan Bishop celebrates, then seven candles should be used. Also on or close to the altar, there is to be a cross with a figure of Christ crucified. The candles and the cross adorned with a figure of Christ crucified may also be carried in the Entrance Procession. On the altar itself may be placed the Book of the Gospels, distinct from the book of other readings, unless it is carried in the Entrance Procession.

«122. On reaching the altar, the priest and ministers make a profound bow. The cross adorned with a figure of Christ crucified and perhaps carried in procession may be placed next to the altar to serve as the altar cross, in which case it ought to be the only cross used; otherwise, it is put away in a dignified place. In addition, the candlesticks are placed on the altar or near it. It is a praiseworthy practice that the Book of the Gospels be placed upon the altar.

«188. In the procession to the altar, the acolyte may carry the cross, walking between two ministers with lighted candles. Upon reaching the altar, the acolyte places the cross upright near the altar so that it may serve as the altar cross; otherwise, he puts it in a worthy place. Then he takes his place in the sanctuary.

“277. «The altar is incensed with single swings of the thurible in this way:

«a. If the altar is freestanding with respect to the wall, the priest incenses walking around it;

«b. If the altar is not freestanding, the priest incenses it while walking first to the right-hand side, then to the left. The cross, if situated on or near the altar, is incensed by the priest before he incenses the altar; otherwise, he incenses it when he passes in front of it.

«350. Furthermore, great attention is to be paid whatever is directly associated with the altar and the eucharistic celebration, e.g., the altar cross and the cross carried in procession.»

It is worth noting that the text does not actually use the term «crucifix,» although this is clearly meant in Nos. 117 and 122.

The document also allows this cross to be placed on or near the altar. There is no requirement that it be placed directly upon the altar itself.

This is also understood in the U.S. bishops’ document «Built of Living Stones» regarding church furnishings:

«The Cross

“§91. The cross with the image of Christ crucified is a reminder of Christ’s paschal mystery. It draws us into the mystery of suffering and makes tangible our belief that our suffering when united with the passion and death of Christ leads to redemption. There should be a crucifix ‘positioned either on the altar or near it, and … clearly visible to the people gathered there.’ Since a crucifix placed on the altar and large enough to be seen by the congregation might well obstruct the view of the action taking place on the altar, other alternatives may be more appropriate. The crucifix may be suspended over the altar or affixed to the sanctuary wall. A processional cross of sufficient size, placed in a stand visible to the people following the entrance procession, is another option. If the processional cross is to be used for this purpose, the size and weight of the cross should not preclude its being carried in procession. If there is already a cross in the sanctuary, the processional cross is placed out of view of the congregation following the procession.»

Liturgical law, therefore, clearly underlines that there should be only one altar cross. This is in line with the Church’s longstanding practice, although, before the generalized introduction of free-standing altars, the whole assembly, priest and people, faced both altar and crucifix in the same direction. The rubrics at times directed the priest to look at the crucifix.

The longstanding custom that there should only be a single altar cross can also be seen from a decree of Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758), which established that another cross was not necessary if a large crucifix was painted or sculptured as part of an altarpiece (Const. Accepimus, decr. 1270).

Although this decree is no longer operative, its principles could be applied to current situations such as that of a large crucifix, suspended from the ceiling or placed on the wall of the apse behind the altar.

It is known that before becoming pope, Benedict XVI advocated the use of a sizable crucifix upon the altar itself as a means of establishing what he called a liturgical east or a means of focusing priest and faithful on the central mystery of redemption made present at Mass and symbolized by the crucifix.

During his pontificate, the presence of such a crucifix upon the altar became habitual at papal Masses, although it was usually the only cross present on or near the altar. The practice has mostly continued under Pope Francis, although occasionally a different altar cross was used near the altar rather than upon it.

Occasionally there have been two crosses present near the altar at some papal Masses, especially outside of Rome, but thus far no decree or other legal document has been promulgated instituting a change in legislation. Therefore, the norms of the GIRM that there should be only one altar cross retain their validity and legal force.

Consequentially, while respecting the unicity of the cross there are several legitimate options offered with respect to the location of the altar cross, and present legislation does not prefer one solution over another. Hence, the crucifix may be located on, next to, immediately behind or suspended above the altar. It should be visibly related to the altar as viewed by the people.

As Bishop Peter J. Elliott comments in his liturgy handbook, «The liturgical crucifix is not primarily for the private devotion of the celebrant but is a sign in the midst of the Eucharistic assembly proclaiming that the Mass is the same Sacrifice as Calvary.» Thus, strictly speaking, the altar crucifix is in relationship to the altar, and not just to the priest.

Finally, with respect to the position of the altar cross, we can say that, since it is specifically related to the altar, the corpus is usually turned toward the altar during Mass.

The rubrics of the Ceremonial of Bishops in use before the conciliar reforms already foresaw the possibility of the altar versus populum. This book, while mandating that the cross be visible to all, also prescribed that the corpus be placed toward the altar («cum imagine sanctissimi Crucifixi versa ad interiorem altaris faciem»).

In 1966 Notitiae issued a response to a query on this point given the novelty of the freestanding altars and the precise doubt as to what direction the corpus should face.

First, it recognizes the new situation that the former law no longer applies. Second, it says that it does not seem opportune to have either an altar cross so small as to be invisible nor one so large that it impedes the visibility of the rites.

Finally, it addresses the question of an altar cross not placed upon the altar.

It says: “Separate from the altar there are three possibilities: placing the processional cross before the altar with the corpus facing the celebrant, although this does not always combine well with other elements of the sanctuary; a large cross hanging from the ceiling; or one placed upon the wall of the apse. In these latter examples of a cross hanging from the ceiling or in the apse, another cross upon the altar is not necessary. In celebrations facing the people, this single large cross is not incensed first [as is the cross upon the altar] but rather when the priest, as he moves around the altar, faces both the cross and the altar” Notitiae 2 (1966): 290-291, n.101. [unofficial translation].

Returning to our reader’s original question, it is not correct for three crosses to be present in relationship with the altar during the celebration of Mass. In the situation described by our reader the large crucifix behind the altar would normally be the altar cross unless it were too distant to serve that purpose.

Should that be the case, the altar cross could be the crucifix upon the altar with the corpus facing the celebrant.

If there is no other crucifix on or near the altar, then the processional cross may serve as the altar cross, placed on a stand in front of the altar with the corpus turned toward the altar. This stand could be at the center or to one side near the corner of the altar. It might even be possible for it to be behind the altar, but this would probably impede its visibility.

In all cases where there is a stable altar cross, the processional cross should be placed off to one side out of view after arriving at the altar until the end of Mass.

* * *

Readers may send questions to zenit.liturgy@gmail.com. Please put the word «Liturgy» in the subject field. The text should include your initials, your city and your state, province or country. Father McNamara can only answer a small selection of the great number of questions that arrive.

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post Questions about liturgy: Multiple Crucifixes in a Church appeared first on ZENIT - English.

A Simpler, More Pastoral Vision

Archbishop Diego Ravelli, Master of Pontifical Liturgical Celebrations, explained that the revisions aim to simplify and modernize the liturgy to better express the Church’s faith in Christ’s resurrection. “The funeral of the Roman Pontiff should highlight his role as a shepherd and disciple of Christ, not as a figure of worldly power,” he stated.

Notable changes include the removal of the traditional three-coffin system—previously composed of cypress, lead, and oak—and the immediate placement of the Pope’s body into a single coffin. The deceased Pope will now lie in repose for veneration within this coffin, rather than atop a bier.

Further, the confirmation of death, a ritual once performed in the Pope’s private chamber, will now take place in his chapel. The updated rites emphasize the spiritual nature of the occasion, moving away from overly ceremonial elements toward a focus on the Pope’s pastoral and apostolic mission.

Streamlining the “Three Stations”

The funeral rites retain their traditional structure of three stations: the Pope’s residence, St. Peter’s Basilica, and the burial site. However, each has been refined:

1. First Station (Residence): The body is placed directly into a coffin at the chapel following the confirmation of death, eliminating a previous intermediary step at the Apostolic Palace.
2. Second Station (Basilica): The coffin is closed the evening before the funeral Mass, which takes place in St. Peter’s Basilica. During public veneration, the body will be displayed within the open coffin, aligning with practices for diocesan bishops as outlined in the Caeremoniale Episcoporum.
3. Third Station (Burial): A single-coffin burial simplifies this stage, eschewing the traditional layering of coffins. Additionally, the rites now accommodate burial sites outside the Vatican Basilica.

A Refined Liturgical Text

The updated Ordo underwent a comprehensive revision of its biblical, liturgical, and rubrical texts. Latin prayers were harmonized with the Missale Romanum (2008) and the Nova Vulgata translation, while the Italian version aligns with the Missale Romanum (2020).

Musical annotations were removed to allow greater flexibility, though references to the Graduale Romanum guide the selection of Gregorian chants. Adjustments were also made to the Litany of Saints, sung during two key moments: the body’s transfer to the basilica and the conclusion of the funeral Mass. The revised Litany includes all saints celebrated in the Church’s General Calendar, with a particular focus on saintly Popes.

The Novendiales: Nine Days of Mourning

A dedicated chapter addresses the Novendiales, the nine days of Masses for the deceased Pope that follow the funeral. This edition expands the number of liturgical formularies from three to four, drawing on prayers for deceased Popes and bishops found in the Missale Romanum.

Unlike its predecessor, the new edition excludes lectionary texts, providing only scriptural references. The omission of supplementary materials, such as Gregorian chant notations, reflects the Vatican’s intent to create a more focused, user-friendly volume.

A Bridge Between Tradition and Renewal

The new edition reflects the Vatican’s commitment to adapting the papal funeral liturgy to contemporary needs while preserving its rich historical roots. By emphasizing the Pope’s role as a servant of Christ and simplifying complex rituals, the Church seeks to present a more accessible and spiritually resonant celebration.

As Archbishop Ravelli noted, “This is not merely a liturgical book but an essential tool to prepare and celebrate the funeral of the disciple of Christ chosen as Peter’s successor.”

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post Pope Francis’ funerals will be like this: reformed funeral ritual for Pope Francis appeared first on ZENIT - English.

(ZENIT News / Rome, 11.19.2024).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy and sacramental theology and director of the Sacerdos Institute at the Pontifical Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: Is a deacon at Mass allowed to participate in reading part of the Eucharistic Prayer? — C.M., Mexico City 

A: The short answer is quite simple: no.

This theme is addressed very well in the 2004 instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, on abuses in the liturgy. To wit:

“52. The proclamation of the Eucharistic Prayer, which by its very nature is the climax of the whole celebration, is proper to the Priest by virtue of his Ordination. It is therefore an abuse to proffer it in such a way that some parts of the Eucharistic Prayer are recited by a Deacon, a lay minister, or by an individual member of the faithful, or by all members of the faithful together. The Eucharistic Prayer, then, is to be recited by the Priest alone in full.

“53. While the Priest proclaims the Eucharistic Prayer ‘there should be no other prayers or singing, and the organ or other musical instruments should be silent,’ except for the people’s acclamations that have been duly approved, as described below.

“54. The people, however, are always involved actively and never merely passively: for they ‘silently join themselves with the Priest in faith, as well as in their interventions during the course of the Eucharistic Prayer as prescribed, namely in the responses in the Preface dialogue, the Sanctus, the acclamation after the consecration and the ‘Amen’ after the final doxology, and in other acclamations approved by the Conference of Bishops with the recognitio of the Holy See.’”

Therefore, from what has been seen above, only a priest may proclaim any part of the Eucharistic Prayer.

The acclamation after the consecration, proclaimed by the people, does not violate this rule. This is because this acclamation is not, strictly speaking, a part of the Eucharistic Prayer.

Indeed, if a priest celebrates alone, or concelebrate only with other priests, both the “mystery of faith” and the acclamation are omitted, and the priest passes immediately from “Do this in memory of me” to “Therefore O Lord …” or “Therefore as we celebrate …” depending on which Eucharistic Prayer is used.

This same rule would apply for when other acclamations of the people have been inserted into the Eucharistic Prayer with the approval of the bishops’ conference and the Holy See. This is the case, for example, in the Portuguese version of the missal used in Brazil.

Another particularity is Germany in which the missal foresees that the deacon may intone the “Mystery of faith.” This possibility is not foreseen in the Latin missal or in any other missal that I know, but it seems to have been approved for Germany.

As we saw above, it would not contradict the overall principles as this invitation is not part of the Eucharistic Prayer as such.

* * *

Readers may send questions to zenit.liturgy@gmail.com. Please put the word «Liturgy» in the subject field. The text should include your initials, your city and your state, province or country. Father McNamara can only answer a small selection of the great number of questions that arrive.

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post Questions about liturgy: Deacons and the Eucharistic Prayer appeared first on ZENIT - English.

Rather than dismissing these traditions as mere folklore or customs, the Vatican’s recognitio elevates them to the status of “liturgical expressions,” fostering a deeper sense of inclusion and respect for the faith traditions of the Tseltal, Tsotsil, Ch’ol, Tojolabal, and Zoque peoples.  

Liturgical Innovations: Faith Through Indigenous Lenses

Key among the approved adaptations are ritual dances integrated into various parts of the Mass, such as the offertory and thanksgiving after communion. Cardinal Arizmendi emphasized that these are not decorative acts but meditative movements reflective of indigenous spirituality. Accompanied by traditional music, these dances serve as contemplative expressions aligned with the essence of the Roman rite but through a distinctly local cultural lens.

Additionally, women from these communities will now take on the ministry of incensing during Mass. Using culturally significant sahumerios instead of traditional censers, they will incense the altar, sacred images, and the congregation. Cardinal Arizmendi clarified that this inclusion is not a statement of gender equality but a faithful reflection of indigenous customs, where women traditionally hold this role in community prayers.  

Expanded Lay Participation

Another notable change is the introduction of a greater role for lay leaders of moral standing. These individuals may now guide certain communal prayers, such as the opening prayer, intentions, and moments of thanksgiving, under the supervision and authorization of the priest. Cardinal Arizmendi stressed that these adaptations aim to deepen communal participation without diminishing the priest’s role as the celebrant.

Cultural Context Meets Catholic Doctrine

Cardinal Arizmendi described the changes as a step toward the “incarnation of faith” within indigenous cultures. He underscored that the core content of the Roman rite remains untouched, with only its cultural expression adapted. This approach seeks to bridge the gap between universal Catholic traditions and local indigenous practices, offering a way for these communities to worship authentically within their cultural frameworks.

“These adaptations are not a dilution of the faith but an enrichment,” he explained, highlighting how the Church can guide indigenous customs toward fulfillment in Christ without dismissing their value.

A Model for Broader Inclusion

The decision could set a precedent for other indigenous groups around the world, encouraging bishops and pastoral leaders to explore similar adaptations. Cardinal Arizmendi called on Church leaders to embrace the liturgical potential of indigenous expressions, urging them not to reduce these practices to mere folklore.

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post Vatican approves “Mayan Mass”: it does not change the content of the Mass, but the way of expressing it appeared first on ZENIT - English.