Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub

Answers to Questions

A CHOIR OF THREE DENOMINATIONS

Question: What is to be said of a concert in which three choirs -Catholic, Protestant and Jewish respectively-take part?

Answer: A categorical answer to this question is impossible, since many different circumstances must be taken into consideration. For example, the concert might be conducted under secular auspices and each choir might be asked to sing separately some secular piece of music. Certainly, there would be no objection to such a procedure. Indeed, if all three choirs sang together under such conditions, Catholics need have no qualms of conscience in participating either as singers or as members of the audience.

It would be more difficult to justify this three-choir concert if it were held under Catholic auspices-for example, in the auditorium of a Catholic school or college-although even then I believe it would be permissible for the choirs to sing, either separately or in a group, if the songs were of a non-religious character. But what if the music were of a religious nature, expressing the divergent beliefs of the participants? Of course, Catholics could not join in the singing of any musical selections that would be of a specifically Protestant or Jewish nature, expressing, implicitly or explicitly, non-Catholic beliefs. Would it be allowed to permit the Protestant and Jewish choirs individually to render music proper to their particular beliefs? I cannot see how this can be done in a hall or auditorium under the jurisdiction of the Catholic Church. Although the question concerns only a concertpresumably outside the church or synagogue-it is well to note that under no circumstances may Catholics sing for any nonCatholic religious service.

Evidently the procedure described by our correspondent is an example of the trend toward ecumenism, the promotion of friendship between Catholics and non-Catholics. Surely this is an admirable goal, so ardently desired by our late Holy Father, Pope John XXIII. But in our quest for this goal we may never do anything that will compromise or weaken the article of Catholic faith, that there is only one true religion and one true Church, and that

consequently all other religions are erroneous and opposed to the will of God.

COERCED CONFESSION AND HOLY COMMUNION

Question: Isn't it true that too much coercion is exerted on our parochial school children to get them to go to confession and to receive Holy Communion at certain times, such as the first Thursday and the first Friday of each month? In some schools the children are brought, class by class, to the church for confession on Thursday, and at Mass the following day go to the altar rail, row by row, to receive Holy Communion. This certainly does not seem to be the proper approach, especially since in vacation time most of these children stay away from the sacraments and do not receive them again until school begins. Apparently we are not inculcating in our boys and girls the habit of receiving the sacraments frequently of their own volition.

Answer: I believe that our correspondent has just reason for complaining. It is difficult to refute his objection that, because of the type of coercion he describes, many, if not most, of our parochial school children who receive the sacraments frequently in the course of the school year seem to conclude that when school is out, the reception of the sacraments is also out. Can we hope that when these children have finished their Catholic schooling they will be regular and frequent communicants? I fear not. Hence, I suggest that after our Catholic school pupils have received their First Communion (there must be some manner of regimentation and order for this) they are not to be forced into the reception of Penance and Holy Communion by their priests or by their teachers. The opportunity of going to confession easily and conveniently should be given them, in the sense that the priests will be in the confessionals when classes end on the Thursday before the First Friday and on other days, such as the vigils of great feasts, and perhaps every Friday afternoon. It might even be desirable to have confessions heard in school hours for separate classes, but the children should be told that if they prefer to go to the playground at this time, they will not be hindered. Similarly, I suggest that when the children receive Holy Communion on Sundays or First Fridays, they should be allowed to approach the altar rail, not in regular files, but indiscriminately,

as each wills. This might cause some confusion, but it is the method called for by the Holy Office in its instruction of December 8, 1938. If some manner of regularity, pew by pew, be considered really necessary, in order to prevent crowding and pushing, the children should know, at least, that if a boy or girl remains away from Holy Communion there will be no questions asked and no sour glances given by priests or sisters.

Beyond doubt, such a method will not result in as many confessions and communions as can be had when some measure of coercion is employed. But I believe it will produce more Catholic boys and girls who will receive the sacraments as frequently in vacation time as in the course of the school year, and who will bring with them into life a sense of personal responsibility for the regular approach to the communion rail.

It should be noted that we are here concerned with the attitude of the authorities of the parochial school toward the sacramental habits of the pupils. The attitude which the parents should take is something else. They have the first responsibility for the spiritual welfare of their children, and are entitled to supervise and admonish them in the matter of the reception of confession and communion. I believe it would be desirable for priests to bring out this point occasionally in their sermons and instructions.

FRANCIS J. CONNELL, C.SS.R.

ST. JOSEPH IN THE CANON

Question: Having occasion to offer Mass in a strange church while traveling, I found the following form inserted in the Communicantes: ". nec non et eiusdem Virginis castissimi sponsi Ioseph." Is there any support for this wording?

Answer: Obviously, the one who formulated this insertion was somehow unaware that, when the late Holy Father decreed the addition of St. Joseph's name to the Canon, the wording of this addition was very carefully specified. The Communicantes now begins: Communicantes, et memoriam venerantes, in primis gloriosae Virginis Mariae, Genetricis Dei et Domini nostri Iesu Christi sed et beati Ioseph eiusdem Virginis Sponsi et beatorum Apostolorum, etc. (italics indicate the new insertion).

CHALICE SPOON

Question: In Europe I once saw a gold spoon with a chalice. What is the purpose of such a spoon?

Answer: Several decades ago these small spoons were not uncommon and even today some European manufacturers occasionally provide them. The purpose of the spoon was to help the celebrant avoid pouring in too much water at the "Deus, qui humanae." He could scoop a few drops out of the neck of the cruet with the spoon and deposit the "paululum aquae" in the chalice. Such a spoon was and could again be a great boon to priests who suffer from extreme scrupulosity as they perform this action in the Mass.

PECTORAL CROSS

Question: Recently at a Mass celebrated to mark a notable occasion and attended by a large number of Bishops and Abbots, I noticed that some of these prelates had their pectoral crosses suspended from gold chains while others wore a green cord for the purpose. Is this optional?

Answer: There is a distinction between the ordinary pectoral cross and the pontifical cross, although the distinction at times is based only on the use and not on the cross itself. The ordinary pectoral cross is worn in ordinary daily life. "It is now the universal practice to wear the ordinary pectoral cross suspended at the neck with a gold chain. It should be simple, without precious stones, and it is not necessary that it contain relics of martyrs. It must be of Latin form, that is the upper part and the arms of equal length, and the lower part longer. . . . The ordinary pectoral cross may be worn over the civilian dress and over the cassock and simar; it is also tolerated over the mantelletta and mozzetta; but, in spite of a very general practice, no pectoral cross is permitted to be worn over the cappa magna. . . . The pontifical cross is reserved for church ceremonies and especially for the celebration of Pontifical High Mass. ... (It) is suspended from a rather heavy cord, which may be fitted around the neck with a slide, and from the end of which hangs a tassel over the back. This cord is of gold for the Pope, Cardinals and Patriarchs; of green

...

silk, entwined with gold for Archbishops, Bishops, Prelates nullius and Abbots General. . . . For the pontifical cross of simple mitred Abbots, the color of the cord is determined by the traditions of the Order" (J. A. Nainfa, Costume of Prelates, Baltimore, 1909, pp. 100-103). The prelates whom you saw wearing gold chains were availing themselves of the tolerated use of the ordinary pectoral cross over the mantelletta. It is not uncommon for a Bishop, when he changes from civilian dress or house cassock into choir dress (mantelletta or mozzetta, etc.) to disconnect the cross he has been wearing on a gold chain and attach it to the green and gold silk cord for ceremonial purposes. An interesting point brought out by Nainfa in his discussion of the Bishop's wearing of the cross with Mass vestments (p. 104) is that “It is precisely on account of the pectoral cross that the Prelate does not cross the stole over his breast. If he had to say Mass and had not at hand his pectoral cross, he should wear the stole crossed, as simple priests do."

FORMAL CLERICAL ATTIRE

Question: Is there such a thing as formal clerical attire? Is it ever worn by priests today?

Answer: Although the books or editions of books which are available to me at the present writing furnish no information on this point, I recall a formal coat which was worn some decades ago by some clergymen who were especially meticulous about clerical etiquette. Rare even in those days, it has apparently fallen into disuse. It was a tight coat, fitted at the waist and falling a little below the knees. At the neck it was indistinguishable from a cassock, with its collar band tightly surrounding the Roman collar except for the opening in front; there were no lapels. A more common formal attire for clergy in general was the Prince Albert, an infra genua coat, less form-fitting than the coat described above and having the usual open neck and satin lapels. Although this type of coat is now rarely seen on simple priests, many Bishops wear it on formal occasions; up until not so long ago, it was customary episcopal dress and it is still retained by

some.

JOHN P. MCCORMICK, S.S.

« PredošláPokračovať »