New Page 1

The Liturgical Institute is happy to answer liturgical questions as a public service. Please e-mail your questions about the liturgy to us, and answers written by Liturgical Institute faculty members will be posted below. Due to the volume of questions, not all inquiries can be answered.

Click here to e-mail a question.

Important note: The answers provided here are the informed opinions of the Liturgical Institute faculty. As such, they do not replace the particular instructions of local ordinaries, pastors and worship offices. Please consult your diocesan officials to discover how these principles are to be applied in your local situation.

Q: I recently read in the GIRM that there should only be one cross in the sanctuary either on the Altar or next to it but I noticed that some churches have two during Mass (one on the altar as well as the processional cross). Can you explain why for me please? In addition, how does this instruction in the missal affect the huge cross on the wall of the sanctuary?

A: The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) says at number 122 that “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” (see also n.188). Why a single cross? The cross—or crucifix—is not the only liturgical appointment that is limited in its number to one. In new churches, for example, “it is preferable to erect a single altar which in the gathering of the faithful will signify the one Christ and the one Eucharist of the Church” (GIRM, n.303). The Blessed Sacrament is also to be reserved in only one tabernacle in a church (Code of Canon Law, Can. 938§1; GIRM, n.314). The GIRM speaks of the chair for the priest celebrant as a unique chair (n.310), as it does of the ambo or place for proclaiming the readings (n.309). In each of these instances, the liturgical object is leading us to “the one Christ.” These are good examples of the sacramental principle inherent in every liturgy: that is, it is by means of sacramental signs and symbols that the unseen reality of the liturgy—Christ and the saving grace of his Paschal Mystery—is made present. The one Christ is presented to us by his one cross; he speaks to us in his one gospel; his once and for all sacrifice is made present to us again at his one altar; and his most excellent presence remains with us in the church’s one tabernacle.
So, when the GIRM 122 says that the cross placed near the altar “be the only cross used,” it means that one need not be present on the altar. Does this also mean that if a large crucifix is placed above or behind the altar on the wall of the apse, as is often the case, that it would be “the only cross used,” and that on or near the altar there would be no cross? While the GIRM is less clear about this question, most interpreters believe this to be the case. See, for example, the USCCB document Built of Living Stones, n.91. (Answered by Christopher Carstens).

Q: At our pastor Council meeting, our pastor announced that we will continue to sing, "Spirit of the Living God" after the reading of the Gospel and prior to any homily. What, if any, is the definitive answer as to whether this practice is permitted. I was told there is no specific prohibition and no specific permission in the GIRM and in the absence of such, the pastor can make this decision.

A: When the proclamation of the Gospel is complete, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) directs that the homily begin (n.136). Is there to be some kind of sung acclamation following the Gospel? Not, at least, according to the GIRM or any other liturgical document. In Masses at which a Bishop presides, both the GIRM and the Ceremonial for Bishops indicate that “the deacon may carry the Book of the Gospels to the credence table or to another appropriate and dignified place” (n.175 and n.141, respectively). This practice, perhaps, is the origin of some kind of accompanying music following the Gospel and before the homily. In any case, neither the present norms nor the liturgical tradition (that I am aware of) is the origin of singing anything after the Gospel.

But because there exists no norm or rubric prohibiting the practice, is singing “Spirit of the Living God” or another acclamation therefore permitted? The answer in this case, and in almost every similar case, is no. Liturgical law, almost always, is written to direct us toward what is to be done and not, at least not primarily, to keep us from doing what is not allowed; liturgical law is positive and proscriptive, rather than negative and prohibitive. What we may be most accustomed to in the secular sphere is law that limits our actions: don’t speed, don’t litter, don’t shoplift. Such “common law” does prohibit us from doing certain things. Liturgical law, on the other hand, like Canon Law, tells us what we should do, rather than what we should not. For example: “The priest says: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The people answer, Amen” (GIRM, nl.124). Note that the instruction is about what the priest does say and how the people are to respond. There are a great many things that the priest could say, such as “Hello,” or “Good morning.” Likewise, there are any number of responses the people could give after invoking the Trinity, like “I believe,” or “Hooray!” Liturgical law, though, does not envision every possibility and then offer a specific prohibition against them (that would make for a very long General Instruction!). Thinking, then, that because the GIRM “doesn’t say we can’t” allows for a particular practice to take place is not in keeping within the intent of the liturgical law, even though such thinking may be accurate according to modern, common law. Perhaps the “bottom line” is that given by the Second Vatican Council in its Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. Its very first norm on the reform on the liturgy states: “[N]o other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority” (n.22). (Answered by Christopher Carstens).

Q: Can 1 person perform multiple roles at Mass? That is, can the same person, sing in choir and be an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist or lector at the Mass?

A: It is the desire of the Church that the many actions taking place in the liturgy be performed by various ministers. “In liturgical celebrations,” the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (CSL) says, “each person, minister or layman, who has an office to perform, should do all of, but only, those parts which pertain to his [or her] office by the nature of the rite and the principles of the liturgy” (n.28). The “principle of the liturgy” that is relevant here is that the nature of the Church appears most clearly when she is celebrating the liturgy, particularly the Mass. This “pre-eminent manifestation” of the Church, as the CSL calls the liturgy, finds the diocesan bishop surrounded by his priests, deacons, ministers, and laity around the single altar of the church building, each actively participating as his or her office dictates. When this happens, the “organically structured priestly community” (Constitution on the Church, n.11) which is the Church becomes present. Pope John Paul II put it this way: “The liturgy, like the Church, is intended to be hierarchical and polyphonic, respecting the different roles assigned by Christ and allowing all the different voices to blend in one great hymn of praise” (Ad limina address of 10/9/98). So, while one minister may perform multiple tasks during the liturgy, it is desirable for each to do “all of, but only, those parts which pertain” to him or her, for such a practice shows the Church to be what she really is. Now, if ministers or resources are lacking, or other practical concerns determine otherwise, one person can and should perform more than one task; but such is less than ideal. (Answered by Christopher Carstens).

Q: Our parish often sings the incorrect Responsorial Psalm at Sunday Masses. The community is not aware of this since missals are not provided and the psalm is omitted from the list of upcoming readings in the weekly bulletin. (My family brings our own missals that we purchased ourselves.)

A: The Lectionary provides a responsorial Psalm for each celebration of the Mass. This Psalm, according to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM), “should correspond to each reading and should, as a rule, be taken from the Lectionary” (n.61). These are the Psalms, as found in the Lectionary and related especially to the first reading, that are printed in hand missals, worship aids, and hymnals.

There exists another set of Psalms in the Lectionary that may be used in place of the responsorial Psalm for certain days without special celebrations. These “common texts” are meant to facilitate the people’s participation in song: rather than learning a new and unfamiliar Psalm each week, the common texts set to music foster a sense of familiarity and consequent ease in singing. As the GIRM itself describes, “In order that the people may be able to sing the Psalm response more readily, texts of some responses and Psalms have been chosen for the various seasons of the year or for the various categories of Saints. These may be used in place of the text corresponding to the reading whenever the Psalm is sung” (n.61). The use of the Lectionary’s “common texts” may explain the discrepancy between a hand missal and what is used at the celebration of the Mass. Other possible reasons why a pastor might change readings can be found in the GIRM section on the choice of Mass texts, nos. 357-362. (Answered by Christopher Carstens).

Q: I just got a new pastor, and I found out this morning that he has instructed the deacons to add a small amount of water to the cups as well as to the chalice. I have never seen this done before. I can't find any reference in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal to this practice or in fact to cups--just to the preparation of the chalice. Nor can I find any reference to this practice in either Redemptionis Sacramentum or Sacramentum Caritatis. Is it permissible/proper/optional to add water to the cups as well as the chalice?

A: There has been some confusion about the issue for some time, largely because most people do not have a good grounding in sacramental theology. In terms of sacramental theology: The matter in the sacrament of the Eucharist is bread and wine. (De fide). Although the ritual requires the addition of a small amount of water in the chalice for liceity, “the validity of the Sacrament does not depend on this.” (cf. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 391-392.

Liturgically speaking: the ritual itself is clear the the mixture is takes place in the chalice, not in the cruet or carafe. (infundit vinum et parum aquæ in calicem). If the Church meant for all of the communion chalices to be prepared in the same way, that would have been made explicit. Perhaps the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments will in the future give more clear direction. On the other hand, what is clear is that not even a priest has the right to change the liturgy on his own authority. (cf. IGMR 24, see also Sacrosanctum concilium 22).

How to understand this: the symbolism of mixing the water and wine is meant to remind us of the water and blood that flowed from the side of Christ as he hung on the cross. It turns our attention to the source of sacramental grace, the Paschal Mystery as well as to the birth of the Church, the New Eve taken from the side of the New Adam. I would suspect that the addition of water to all of the chalices in American culture is motivated by the idea of treating all of them the same (so that the people won’t feel like they are being slighted by not having water mixed in their chalices like the priest’s.) We need to look at this through the eyes of sacramental theology, though, rather than the rules of hospitality and courtesy. The Body of Christ is One, even though there are many different hosts in the ciboria. It is the same Body of Christ even though the wafer given to the people may be round, while the priest consumes a piece which is triangular or demi-lune. We speak theologically of One Bread, even though we see many pieces. In the same way, theologically the Precious Blood in the so-called priest’s chalice is the same as the Precious Blood in the other chalices and the water mixed with the wine in the Celebrant’s chalice is theologically mixed with the wine in all of the others.

In conclusion: it is not necessary to mix water in all of the communion cups. If you will indulge a pun, it dilutes the symbolism of the one cup since it treats the sacrament as if there were four or six individual cups. The mingling of water and wine is required in the celebrant’s chalice, but redundant in the others. (Answered by Fr. Douglas Martis).

Q: At our parish, extraordinary ministers are instructed to add water to the left over Blood of Christ and pour it down the sacrarium. My understanding is that any consecrated wine should be consumed not discarded. Others have told me I was incorrect, that by adding the water- the species of the Blood of Christ is 'changed' so it was permitted to discard down the sacrarium. I look for documentation regarding this practice but have found none to support this. Please clarify.

A: The practice you describe is clearly not permitted by the Church. The first thing to note is that purifying the chalices is reserved to a priest, deacon or instituted acolyte and not to extraordinary ministers. Secondly, the most recent norms given by the Church indicate that any remaining Precious Blood at the end of Communion must be consumed immediately at the altar, normally by the priest celebrant or deacon. It is best not to assume ill will on anyone's part in your own parish, though. There is an old maxim on sacramental realities: if a sacramental thing is so diluted that it no longer resembles its sacramental reality, it is in fact no longer recognized as a sacrament. For instance, if some Precious Blood spills on an altar linen, it is to be washed in water, then that water is to be poured in the sacrarium. If all visible traces of the Precious Blood are removed, it may then be washed in a normal way without fear of sacrilege even if invisible, microscopic amounts are present. Perhaps the instructions you received were made on this foundation. However, intentionally diluting the remaining Precious Blood after Mass would not fall into this category. Below are the citations from the Church's documents on the matter:

From The General Instruction of the Roman Missal:

279. Care must be taken that whatever may remain of the Blood of Christ after the distribution of Communion is consumed immediately and completely at the altar.

From Redemptions Sacramentum:

107. In accordance with what is laid down by the canons, “one who throws away the consecrated species or takes them away or keeps them for a sacrilegious purpose, incurs a late sentential excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; a cleric, moreover, may be punished by another penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state”.To be regarded as pertaining to this case is any action that is voluntarily and gravely disrespectful of the sacred species. Anyone, therefore, who acts contrary to these norms, for example casting the sacred species into the aquarium or in an unworthy place or on the ground, incurs the penalties laid down. Furthermore all will remember that once the distribution of Holy Communion during the celebration of Mass has been completed, the prescriptions of the Roman Missal are to be observed, and in particular, whatever may remain of the Blood of Christ must be entirely and immediately consumed by the Priest or by another minister, according to the norms, while the consecrated hosts that are left are to be consumed by the Priest at the altar or carried to the place for the reservation of the Eucharist

From the Bishops Committee on the Liturgy Newsletter, October 2006, "Seven Questions on the Distribution of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds":4. When Holy Communion is distributed under both kinds, what happens to what remains of the Precious Blood?
“When more of the Precious Blood remains than was necessary for Communion, and if not consumed by the bishop or priest celebrant, the deacon immediately and reverently consumes at the altar all of the Blood of Christ which remains; he may be assisted, if needs dictate, by other deacons and priests. When there are extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, they may consume what remains of the Precious Blood from their chalice of distribution with permission of the diocesan bishop.

Q: Is the Exsultet a diaconal function? If the deacon's voice is not suitable for chanting the Exsultet, may it be sung as a duet by two cantors?

The norms for the Easter Vigil indicate that the Exsultet be sung normally by the deacon, secondly, by the priest or a concelebrant, or, lastly, by a lay cantor. The Congregation for Divine Worship’s 1988 document on “The Preparation and Celebration of the Easter Feasts” (Paschales solemnitatis) explains: “The deacon makes the Easter Proclamation which tells, by means of a great poetic text, the whole Easter mystery placed in the context of the economy of salvation. In case of necessity, where there is no deacon, and the celebrating priest is unable to sing it, a cantor may do so” (n.84). The rubric in the current English-language Sacramentary (and the third typical edition of the Missale Romanum) says substantially the same. So, can it be sung my a cantor? Yes, if the above circumstances are present.

May it be sung as a duet? The norms, as far as I am aware, do not give much detail about the manner in which the Exsultet is to be sung (compared, for example, to the norms governing the singing of the opening chant for Mass, as found in the GIRM, n.48). Does this mean that the norm, despite indicating a single singer only, may be interpreted to mean more than one voice? Generally speaking, it is helpful to recall that liturgical norms are positive in nature, that is, indicating in a proscriptive way what ought or must be done, rather than excluding the many other possibilities. So, just because the norm doesn’t explicitly prohibit a duet, or quartet, or choir, or congregation from singing it, does that mean that these options are permissible? Not necessarily. It may seem that too much is being made on this seemingly small point of limiting the Exsultet to one voice; and maybe this is so. But deviating from the norms should not be done lightly, for, although we may believe we have good reasons for doing so, we may also be unaware of the many reasons and ritual traditions and pastoral practices that have informed the norm.

If the Exsultet is meant to express the “whole Easter mystery placed in the context of the economy of salvation,” what better way to express this one, integral, and coherent mystery than with a single voice? The norm above describes the Easter Proclamation as “a great poetic text.” Unlike much music (which, of course, can also be poetic), are not poems usually recited by a single person? The Exsultet is also described as a “proclamation,” where, typically, some message is give by a single person to a larger group. And the fact that neither additional voices nor accompaniment are called for emphasizes the text and its importance rather than the musicality of the Proclamation (similar to the proclamation of the Gospel). These reasons may in fact not be the ones the legislator had in mind when indicating a single singer, but they do, I hope, suggest there be more than meets the eye when interpreting this particular norm. (Answered by Christopher Carstens)

Q: In our parish, priests, deacons and laypeople acting as Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist routinely give blessings to people who come up the communion line and cannot receive for various reasons. Is this allowed?

A: This question was recently put to the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and the response from the CDW was in the form of a letter (Protocol No. 930/08/L), dated November 22, 2008, signed by Father Anthony Ward, SM, Under-secretary of the Congregation. According to an article recently published in the Adoremus Bulletin, the letter said that “this matter is presently under the attentive study of the Congregation”, so “for the present, this dicastery wishes to limit itself to the following observations”:

1. The liturgical blessing of the Holy Mass is properly given to each and to all at the conclusion of the Mass, just a few moments subsequent to the distribution of Holy Communion.
2. Lay people, within the context of Holy Mass, are unable to confer blessings. These blessings, rather, are the competence of the priest (cf. Ecclesia de Mysterio, Notitiae 34 (15 Aug. 1997), art. 6, § 2; Canon 1169, § 2; and Roman Ritual De Benedictionibus (1985), n. 18).
3. Furthermore, the laying on of a hand or hands — which has its own sacramental significance, inappropriate here — by those distributing Holy Communion, in substitution for its reception, is to be explicitly discouraged.
4. The Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio n. 84, “forbids any pastor, for whatever reason to pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry”. To be feared is that any form of blessing in substitution for communion would give the impression that the divorced and remarried have been returned, in some sense, to the status of Catholics in good standing.
5. In a similar way, for others who are not to be admitted to Holy Communion in accord with the norm of law, the Church’s discipline has already made clear that they should not approach Holy Communion nor receive a blessing. This would include non-Catholics and those envisaged in can. 915 (i.e., those under the penalty of excommunication or interdict, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin).

Q: Could you please explain what the guidelines are regarding communal worship/activities during exposition of the Blessed Sacrament. Are vocal Christ-centered devotions such as all kinds of prayer including the Rosary and Scripture readings, readings from other religious books (such as St Faustina's diary on Divine Mercy Sunday), hymns/praise songs (interspersed with periods of silent adoration) acceptable? What about personal testimonies (conversion stories), talks and individual 'laying on of hands' during prayer meetings or following 'healing Masses'? I have at different times encountered all of the above in various parishes and prayer groups. As I feel uncertain as to which of these activities are appropriate during exposition (and feel somewhat uneasy about some of them), I would really appreciate your clarification on the matter.

A: The ritual book that governs the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament is called “Holy Communion and Worship of the Eucharist Outside Mass.” The section relevant to adoration itself does not provide details about what should or should not be done but gives, instead, some broader theological considerations. “Exposition of the Holy Eucharist,” it says, “is intended to acknowledge Christ’s marvelous presence in the sacrament. Exposition invites us to the spiritual union with him that culminates in sacramental communion. Thus it fosters very well the worship which is due to Christ in spirit and in truth. This kind of exposition must clearly express the cult of the blessed sacrament in its relationship to the Mass. The plan of the exposition should carefully avoid anything which might somehow obscure the principal desire of Christ in instituting the Eucharist, namely, to be with us as food, medicine, and comfort” (n.82). Any activities, devotions, songs, prayers, etc., ought to be consistent with what is given here. For example, does a particular “conversion story” help us to “worship Christ in spirit and in truth” or invite us to spiritual communion with Christ at Mass?
A later document from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, the “Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy: Principles and Guidelines,” does offer examples of what is consistent with the purposes of Eucharistic adoration. “The faithful should be encouraged to read the Scriptures during these periods of adoration, since they afford an unrivalled source of prayer. Suitable hymns and canticles based on those of the Liturgy of the Hours and the liturgical seasons could also be encouraged, as well as periods of silent prayer and reflection. Gradually, the faithful should be encouraged not to do other devotional exercises during exposition of the Blessed Sacrament. Given the close relationship between Christ and Our Lady, the rosary can always be of assistance in giving prayer a Christological orientation, since it contains meditation of the Incarnation and the Redemption” (n.165). While this list of practices is not exhaustive, it is useful insofar as other devotional practices may be judged in light of those given here. (Answered by Christopher Carstens).

Q: We are building a new church and are trying to figure out if we need to design a place to put the Book of the Gospels after it has been proclaimed. Some people have begun "enthroning" the Gospels. Is this allowed? If not, where should the Book of the Gospels go?

A: The importance of the Gospel of Jesus in the life of the Church and her liturgy is signified in many ways, one of which is the use of the Book of the Gospels. A book set apart from all others, the Book of the Gospels is “a sign of the presence of Christ in his word proclaimed,” and “is always accorded a place of honor in the Church’s liturgy.” As the Introduction to the Book of the Gospels reminds us, “It is borne by the deacon in solemn procession for the veneration of the entire congregation and accompanied by candles and incense at Mass. The imposition and presentation of the Book of the Gospels to a newly ordained Bishop illustrate that the faithful preaching of the word of God is among his principal duties. The presentation of the Book of the Gospels to the newly ordained deacon ‘symbolizes the office of the deacon to proclaim the Gospel in liturgical celebrations and to preach the faith of the Church in word and deed.’ Finally, the enshrinement of the Book of the Gospels whenever the Church gathers in a council or synod is a sign of the presence of Christ himself as teacher and guide” (n.7).
That having been said, there are no specific instructions about what should be done with the Book of the Gospels after the Gospel’s proclamation at Mass. After it is kissed by the deacon, priest, or bishop (or after the bishop blesses the people with the Book of the Gospels, if the occasion is a solemn one (GIRM, n.175)), the Book of the Gospels is then “taken reverently to some other suitable place” (Introduction to the Book of the Gospels, n.21; see also Ceremonial of Bishops, n.141). Can or should this “suitable place” be a place of “enthronement”? It does seem that such a pastoral determination is in keeping with these rubrics. The USCCB document, Built of Living Stones, suggests as much: “The ambo can be designed not only for reading and preaching, but also for displaying the open Book of the Gospels or a copy of the Scriptures before and after the liturgical celebration” (n.62). If the Book of the Gospels is not to be so placed, it should nevertheless be treated reverently and, as that rather vague instruction says, put in some other “suitable place” until the conclusion of Mass. (Answered by Christopher Carstens).

Q: On Friday evenings we have a small Mass at our local church. Our priest brings us up on to the sanctuary. He stands at the other side of the altar and we stand where the priest usually does. He distributes the consecrated hosts to us all so that we can all consume it together. I was in a discussion with another parishioner and I stated that this was liturgical abuse and to take part in it is sinful. I wanted to double check with some experts in the field so any info will be graciously received.

A: Are laypersons to be invited into the sanctuary or around the altar, presuming they are not functioning as an acolyte, server, or extraordinary minister of holy Communion? Under normal circumstances, no; the place for the faithful is in the nave of the church building.

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM), the document governing the celebration of Mass, identifies the sanctuary as "the place where the altar stands, where the word of God is proclaimed, and where the priest, the deacon, and the other ministers exercise their offices" (n.295; see also n.294). The faithful, since they participate in the Mass in a way different from that of the priest and ministers, have a different place in the church building (see GIRM, n.294). Together, the locations of the priest, ministers, and faithful symbolize the Church herself: the "coherent and hierarchical structure" (ibid.) of the People of God gathered for Mass in the church building "looks like" the "coherent and hierarchical" Body of Christ.

If these brief citations and theological explanation is not sufficient, consider the newly-adapted practice of one of the Church's significant youth ministry apostolates. Where is had been the practice for teens to enter the sanctuary at a point during the Liturgy of the Eucharist, this group was advised by Cardinal Francis Arinze, then-Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments in Rome to cease the practice in accordance with the GIRM. In fact, not even extraordinary ministers of holy Communion are "to approach the altar before the priest has received Communion" (n.162).

About the reception of Communion, the faithful, who "as a rule, approach in procession" (GIRM, n.160), "should normally receive sacramental Communion of the Eucharist during Mass itself, at the moment laid down by the Rite of celebration, that is to say, just after the Priest celebrant's Communion" (Redemptionis Sacramentum, n.88; see also n.97). (Answered by Christopher Carstens).

Q: This past weekend in preparation for a Mass, the Sacristan noticed that there were two ciboria in our tabernacle, one with only a few hosts in it. After the consecration, just before communion, the ciboria from the tabernacle were brought to the Altar. When the Celebrant noticed that the one ciborium was so empty he asked the Sacristan to go and get more unconsecrated hosts, he said something over them and distributed them during communion. Is it allowed to consecrate additional hosts after the consecration has already taken place during the Mass? Quite a few people were upset about this as you can well imagine.

A: Is it allowed to consecrate additional hosts after the consecration has taken place during the Mass? Canon 927 provides the answer: “It is absolutely forbidden, even in extreme urgent necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other or even both outside the eucharistic celebration.” The Canon Law Society of America commentary on this Canon goes on to explain that the phrase “‘it is absolutely forbidden’ (nefas est) most strongly conveys the Church’s desire to maintain the integrity of the eucharistic celebration and the two signs of bread and wine. Excluded are even cases of extreme necessity, such as lack of time to celebrate an entire Eucharist in the case of a person in danger of death or lack of bread and wine due to war or persecution.”
There may appear, at least on the surface, an exception to this rule in the General Instruction on the Roman Missal: “If the priest notices after the consecration or as he receives Communion that not wine but only water was poured into the chalice, he pours the water into some container, then pours wine with water into the chalice and consecrates it. He says only the part of the institution narrative related to the consecration of the chalice, without being obliged to consecrate the bread again” (n.324). This circumstance, however, does not allow for the consecration of extra wine, but wine that needed to have been consecrated in the first place.

Q: I'm a bit confused.   I learned this past June that the Pope called the time from June 2009-June 2010 the Year of the Priest. However, the liturgical calendar I use for my CCE students has it emblazoned "Year of Grace." Our RE Director informed us at our CCE In-Service that this is the Year of The Bible. Which is correct?   Are they all correct? I'm so confused. I want to teach my students accurately and emphasize what needs to be the focus this year. I've tried to search this information and can only locate corroborating information re Year of Priests. Thank you for any explanation.

A: In an address to the Congregation for the Clergy, Pope Benedict XVI had suggested a “Year for Priests” be celebrated from June 19, 2009—the Solemnity of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, as well as the 150^th anniversary of the death of St. John Vianney, patron of priests—until June 19, 2010. This year is meant “to deepen the commitment of all priests to interior renewal for the sake of a more forceful and incisive witness to the Gospel in today’s world” (Pope Benedict in his Letter to Clergy for the Year for Priests). It is also hoped that this year will permit all to perceive more clearly “the priest’s role and mission in the Church and contemporary society” (Pope Benedict in his address to the Congregation for Clergy). The Year for Priests will see many liturgical celebrations and ecclesial gatherings on both the universal and local levels. There is also a special indulgence established for the Year.
      There are liturgical calendars available that include the title “Year of Grace.” This expression should be understood in a different way than “Year for Priests.” Each liturgical year, with its seasons and special liturgical observations, is meant to be a “year of grace” for the People of God. As the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy explains, “Recalling thus the mysteries of the redemption [in the cycle of the liturgical year], she [the Church] opens up to the faithful the riches of her Lord’s powers and merits, so that these are in some way made present in every age; the faithful lay hold of them and are filled with saving grace.” This may be akin to saying “The Year of our Lord, 2009”: this is a “year of our Lord,” but then again, so is every other year.
      As for the “Year of the Bible”: the “Year of St. Paul” just ended was a period to study, among other things, the writings of St. Paul in the Bible. A Synod of Bishops (XII) devoted itself to the topic of “The Word of God in the Life and Mission of the Church.” The “Year of the Bible”, then, could be in reference to the Year of St. Paul that commemorated the 2000^th anniversary of his birth. (Incidentally, it appears also that a United States Congressman from Georgia has suggested 2010 be designated a “Year of the Bible” to recall the place the Bible has held in the formation of the United States.) (Answered by Christopher Carstens).

Q: Is it liturgically appropriate for the director of the choir to also be the soloist at the mass? It seems to me he should have only one function. Thank you for you help in this matter.

A: Whether ordained or lay, each participant in the liturgy having an office to perform “should do all of, but only, those parts which pertain to his office by the nature of the rite and the principles of liturgy” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, n. 28). The “principle of the liturgy” that is relevant here is that it is the whole Church, under the headship of Christ, that celebrates the liturgy. Further, it is at a liturgical celebration, especially a Eucharistic celebration, that the Church is most herself, most clearly manifesting her reality as the Mystical Body of Christ. Since in Mystical Body of Christ not all members have the same function (see Rom. 12:4), so, too, in a liturgical celebration each participant has his or her own function. When the various offices and roles are distributed appropriately in the liturgy, the effect is that the reality of the Church as Christ’s Body is able to shine forth. Were the many parts or roles to be carried out by only a few, the reality of the Church would become obscure.
What this means in this particular circumstance is that, if possible, the choir director should not also be the cantor. In the realities of parish life, however, a sufficient number of qualified ministers is often lacking, so some ministers may have to perform more than one role (such as serving as cantor and choir director). But this is not, sacramentally and liturgically speaking, ideal. Within the choir itself, it may also be the case that practical necessity determines who does what when: for example, when the cantor is also the lead alto, or the director serves also as organist or soloist. (Answered by Christopher Carstens).

Q: I am the DRE at a parish and at our recent Easter Vigil, the other catechetical staff obliged my catechists (and myself) to do a laying on of hands during the conferral of Confirmation upon the candidates. Can we as laypersons imitate this action that the bishop or priest does in the conferral of Confirmation? Those involved were looking for specific official quotes that render this practice illicit.

A: At the celebration of the Rite of Confirmation, the laying on of the hands by the bishop or priest (often taking the form of extending the hands) signifies the “gift of the Holy Spirit” (CCC, 1299). Although not an essential part of the rite, “it is nevertheless to be held in high esteem, in that it contributes to the integral perfection of that rite and to a clearer understanding of the sacrament” (Paul VI, Apostolic Constitution on the Sacrament of Confirmation). This gesture of the laying on of hands and its connection to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit is traceable to the actions of the Apostles Peter and John as recounted in Acts 8:15-17. The constant practice of the Church, then, associates the laying on of the hands by a priest or bishop with the conferral of the Holy Spirit.
The laying on of the hands by a layperson does not have the same meaning, the same sign value, nor the same reality. While the touch of another person in this manner may, on the natural level, convey a sense of unity, support, or some other meaning, it confuses the reality of the Sacrament of Confirmation and the gift of the Holy Spirit. And since—as Pope Paul VI, following the intentions of the Second Vatican Council, sought—the celebration of the rite is to convey “a clearer understanding of the sacrament” (see above quote), the practice you describe should be discontinued.
It is also important to recall that liturgical law is more “proscriptive” in nature and “prohibitive”: that is, it usually says “do this” rather than “don’t do that.” Consequently, it is difficult to find in the Rite of Confirmation (or any other ritual) a list of illicit practices. There are conceivably a great number of things that could be introduced to the rite, and many of them could make a great deal of liturgical sense. But liturgical law does not try to anticipate what all of them could be (that would be impossible) and then officially prohibit them and render them illicit. (Answered by Christopher Carstens).

Q: I was ordained a Catholic priest 3 years ago, i have a question about the Sacrament of Confession. What part of the prayer of absolution is necessary for the Sacrament to be valid. Is the whole prayer essential "God the Father of mercies etc." or just the last part "I absolve you etc." I always go to the same confessor now, but as a seminarian and before that as a layman, i noticed priests would change parts of the prayer, or add things about Mary and the Saints, or only recite "I absolve you etc." Any clarity about what is essential for the Sacrament to be valid (in regards to the prayer of absolution) would be appreciated. Thanks.

A: The Introduction to the Rite of Penance identifies the essential words of absolution thus: “Following the penitent’s prayer, the priest extends his hands, or at least his right hand, over the head of the penitent and pronounces the formulary of absolution, in which the essential words are: ‘I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’” (n.19). Similarly, in describing the Shorter Rite of the Sacrament, it states that “In imminent danger of death, it is sufficient for the priest to say the essential words of the form of absolution, namely: ‘I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit’” (n.21). (italics added) (Answered by Christopher Carstens).

Q: Our parish will have a meditation on the Seventh Last Word on Saturday before Palm Sunday during mass. Would it be permissible to substitute the Gospel reading for that day to the one that has the text that we are meditating on in the Gospel?

A: Can the gospel reading for Saturday of the Fifth Week of Lent be replaced by another? Yes. But should the gospel be replaced? Maybe not.
      Concerning the choice of texts for the celebration of Mass on weekdays, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal says, “In the Lectionary for weekdays, readings are provided for each day of every week throughout the entire year; as a result, these readings are for the most part to be used on the days to which they are assigned…” (n.358). The Introduction to the Lectionary for Mass gives more detail: “Throughout the liturgical year, but above all during the seasons of Easter, Lent, and Advent, the choice and sequence of readings are aimed at giving Christ's faithful an ever-deepening perception of the faith they profess and of the history of salvation. Accordingly, the Order of Readings corresponds to the requirements and interests of the Christian people…. The readings from the Gospels and the Old Testament were selected because they are related to each other. They treat various themes of the Lenten catechesis that are suited to the spiritual significance of this season. Beginning with Monday of the Fourth Week of Lent, there is a semicontinuous reading of the Gospel of John, made up of texts that correspond more closely to the themes proper to Lent” (nos. 60, 98). The gospel text for this Saturday from John (11:45-56) is in fact quite closely related to the first reading from Ezekiel, both speaking of the unity of the children of God. Also, the end of this Saturday’s gospel has those seeking Jesus ask one another: “What do you think? That he will not come to the [Passover] feast?” When we gather the next day, on Palm Sunday, the gospel before the procession recounts Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem for the celebration of this very Passover Feast; so the gospel for the Fifth Saturday of Lent is also related to Palm Sunday, as well.
       Nevertheless, the letter of the law would seem to permit other readings to be substituted on this Saturday of Lent. “Masses for Various Needs and Occasions,” for example, are allowed on this day, and these could include readings other than those assigned to Saturday of the Fifth Week of Lent. The GIRM also states that “In Masses with special groups, the priest is allowed to choose texts more suited to the particular celebration, provided they are taken from the texts of an approved lectionary” (n.358).
       So, is it permissible or not? While substituting the gospel reading on this day does seem permissible, at the same time, the documents—and the theology that informs them—appear to encourage us to use the readings provided. To be sure, meditating on the Last Words of Christ is good and holy practice, yet, liturgically speaking, it is one that more appropriately takes place during Holy Week itself. (Answered by Christopher Carstens).