QUESTION 3. Lack of Rubrics and Mutual Enrichment

When I began celebrating the usus antiquior daily, and only occasionally the usus recentior, it became more and more apparent to me that the usus antiquior corresponded much better to the reality taking place in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It became increasingly painful for me to celebrate the usus recentior, even when celebrated ad orientem and reverently. For example, I recall feeling particularly poignantly at the moment of the consecration that those words should be uttered sotto voce rather than out loud. Because I felt an increasing need to celebrate exclusively the usus antiquior, which I eventually did, I did not give much thought to how to adapt customs from the usus antiquior for use in the usus recentior. I would occasionally, instinctively, keep the thumb and forefinger together in the usus recentior, as it certainly seemed the more fitting gesture for the Holy Sacrifice. But on the whole I was simply trying to move away from its celebration altogether. 

Answered already in no. 1 above.

I generally do not maintain custody of the digits in the usus recentior, for practical reasons: often, in most celebrations, there is a plethora of “stuff” to be handled, such as the array of “communion cups” to be handed out to Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. With the way these “cups” are shaped and the necessity to be careful in handing off the Precious Blood to another person, maintaining the digits is really not advisable. Therefore, I have gotten into the habit of thoroughly rubbing my fingers together over the chalice each time I have handled the Eucharist, and then visibly inspecting them afterward, before going on to handle some other item. It still does not feel right, but it is the only practical solution, until such time as we can do away with distribution under both kinds. That is the topic of another discourse, but suffice to say: many priests (myself included, at times) have judged that it is not worth “dying on that hill”—so hysterically do people react to the idea of “the wine” not being available; many Catholics are materially utraquists. Faith in the Eucharist is so weak and so uninformed. There is little to no episcopal leadership in this area (as in many others). Individual priests must fall on a sword and then watch all that they have done be destroyed a few years later when they are moved to a new parish and their successor restores everything they “took away”. In short, it’s a messy situation. While it persists, maintaining custody of the digits in common parish Novus Ordo celebrations is often difficult.
       (Aside: I was intrigued to notice that Cardinal Burke, while importing some things into the Novus Ordo such as the prayers at incensation, does not maintain “the digits”—something he clearly does do when celebrating the usus antiquior. It has never seemed appropriate for me to query him on this. I do wonder if it is a conscious decision on his part. It seems to me that the ethos of the Novus Ordo is so different and that one might not intuitively think to “import” this practice into it.) 

I have adopted this, even before offering the Extraordinary Form. I believe, even though there is no rubric calling for it, that it is in total continuity with tradition. To me, when there is a lack of rubrics regarding something, the best practice is to adopt the posture, action, etc. from tradition. To me that is the Catholic position.

It has been a struggle for many priests in the years since Summorum Pontificum to decide what steps toward “mutual enrichment” can be taken by the priest, himself, without direction from above. The rubrical silence of the Ordinary Form on many matters leaves leeway on the one hand, but the status quo of parish life and among presbyterates exerts pressure on the other. In my mind, holding the fingers closed would be an acceptable step to take in the Ordinary Form.
       Thus, on the occasions when I offer the Ordinary Form alone, I hold my fingers together. When I celebrate the Ordinary Form for a congregation, however, I do not. The reason for this is the (sadly very justified) concern of being written off by my diocese and/or brother priests as extreme or “too traditional.” In every Mass, however, I maintain the closed fingers in certain actions: turning the pages of the missal, the manner of holding the chalice, striking the breast at the Nobis quoque, turning the tabernacle key, removing ciborium lids, etc.
       Holding one’s fingers together becomes particularly difficult during the Pax as it is commonly observed in parish life. 

See above answer [to question 2].

I now usually adopt this practice in the new rite. Except when I am celebrating the conventual Mass in the monastery, for fear that it would annoy and distract certain of my confreres. However, even then I adopt a modified version of it: I join my fingers whenever I have to touch something—e.g., turn a page, or lift the pall, etc.

I do indeed keep to this practice even when celebrating the “ordinary form” of the Mass.

I adopted this position in the Novus Ordo within six months of celebrating the Traditional Roman Rite. It was difficult at first because I didn’t want to draw attention to myself. I use it at all times and wherever I celebrate Mass. The only times I felt uncomfortable has been in the presence of other priests. But, respect for the Blessed Sacrament is more important than human respect.

When I celebrate Mass in the Ordinary Form, my preference is to use many elements that I have learned from the Extraordinary Form, especially because the rubrics are absent in the Ordinary Form. This includes the act of holding together thumb and forefinger from the consecration until the ablutions. This also includes the use of an amice with the alb, crossing the stole, wearing the maniple and using the biretta.

I have adopted it, but then again, I like to joke I'm a liturgical liberal, not a rubricist. In my mind liturgical freedom ends where abuse begins. Abuse is not simply something done besides certain rubrics but something that is contrary to the liturgical end. Bearing in mind that the liturgy is the action of the Church not the act of an individual, I as an individual priest do not get to decide what befits the liturgical end. It is decided by the competent authority gaining the force of tradition at some point. But this competent authority not only exists in the present but has also existed in the past. So I think it is legitimate for the priest to select from those things that have been approved by the competent authority and that have gained the force of tradition at some point in time, AS LONG as those things were at no later point in time recognized or abolished as an abuse by the competent authority or were thus dropped as less fitting in the furthering of the liturgical end (e.g. due to excessive length, such as was the case of numerous personal priestly prayers that were interjected in the canon in the gothic era and later abolished by Trent).
       Following this rule, the priest would never get to invent anything according to private taste (barring therefore arbitrary innovation by someone lacking authority—which takes care of most modern liturgical abuse). Rather a priest who adopts a compatible element (one that is adaptable to current use) can be said to be reviving something from the past and "enriching" what is present. If his enrichment" catches on you get what is essentially liturgical development (sanctioned in virtue of previous authority/tradition and possibly re-approved by furture church authority).
       In my mind, on account of the nature of the liturgical reform in 1970 (in which much was changed but none of the old was forbidden as abuse) the priest can in principle adapt and enrich the NOM with virtually anything from the usus antiquior that lends itself to adaptation without contradiction (something would be contradictory if it has a "surplanting" character: for example changes in the liturgical calender or the actual missal texts and readings—which is the reason why for now in the German NOM we still have to say "for all" instead of "for many"—as confirmed by my bishop).
       This is basically my justification why I, as a liberal, celebrate the NOM—when I celebrate it (which I very rarely do anymore as a part time hermit)—as close to the old as is possible while keeping all the forms that are positively prescribed by the NOM.
       Possible objections to my reasoning: firstly, a greater "dis-unity" is the undesirably result if my liberal ways are followed. Respondeo, this objection is mute given the concrete and very mad reality in which we find ourselves. And a certain type of liturgical plurality was never a problem in the Church for the first 1500 years as long as it did not include abuse (i.e., that what is contrary to the liturgical end and that which has the force of competent authority/tradition). Pastoral concerns need to be weighted—and I believe pastoral concern may be in fact a very good reason to enrich the NOM with elements from the usus antiquior.       Secondly, if what was claimed above was true then priests could just go and try to recreate old liturgies from past centuries that were approved then. Respondeo, this objection does not hold, because I'm not advocating the (re)creation of a liturgy by the priest on account of its elements having existed at some point in time—which only the competent authority (however unwisely) could do (and in fact is somewhat what it tried to do in the last reform). Rather the priest may only incorporate fitting elements from the past to the current order of the Mass inasmuch as they are adaptable thereto. So he does not get to make up a new Eucharistic prayer based on ancient texts or replace this or that element with an ancient one. But he may hold his fingers together and sneak in a double genuflection, for example. Such latter changes would be sanctioned by tradition (previous authority) without destroying the integrity of the NOM, but rather enriching it.
       I don't know if this exposition is air tight. I never spent too much time rationalizing it. I virtually only celebrate vetus now and in the time before abided by the very traditional mode of celebration that was requested by my boss (parish priest) with toleration from my bigger boss (bishop). So as a simple vicar I more or less had to do things in a hybrid "new as the old" way (causing me little pain, as should be clear!).

See above. The lack of this rubric leads to other lacunae in the NO, especially concerning De Defectibus. It all adds up to an undermining of what Aquinas would call a practical intellectual grasp of the truth of the Real Presence, even if the NO still has a valid theoretical intellectual adherence to the truth. But we are not pure intellect! We are also corporeal beings. And without a greater scope for prayer and worship to be expressed through gesture and for sacred objects such as the sacramental species to be recognised for what they are through how they are handled, then the modern liturgy will not be as fruitful in generating and sustaining faith as its traditional counterpart.

As I can’t place myself into a situation where I don’t know the traditional rubric, I don’t know for sure, but probably if I didn’t know of the traditional rubric and practice, the lack of such a rubric in the usus recentior wouldn’t strike me particularly at all. I have considered following the traditional practice, and in some cases have, in celebrating according to the modern Missal, but do not generally in my current parishes. While there are various and to some extent complicated considerations for and against, one main reason why I do not is that in the countryside parishes where I am, the Mass tends to be seen as a mere tradition and ritual, and as merely “what the priest does,” and I believe more important developments need to be made in fostering interior and authentic participatio actuosa before my adopting this practice would be fruitful rather than counter-productive.

I almost never celebrate the modern rite. Family funerals would be the rare exception. Then I do just as I do in the traditional rite because I cannot squeeze myself into another paradigm on command. It does violence to my soul.

See response to #2.

I have adopted the practice in the modern rite and I believe that there are three ways to read the rubrics of the ordinary form: (1) fill in the lacking rubrics from the extraordinary form on the assumption that the authors of the new rubrics had the old rubrics in mind; (2) the lack of information on things (like canonical digits, manipole, crossing the stole, etc.) is interpreted neutrally, meaning one is free to do or not do these things; (3) the lack of rubrics means one may not do things not mentioned. I follow options 1 and 2, believing that unless there is mention in rubrics of not doing something, the celebrant is free to do it if it was in the rubrics of the usus antiquior.

I find myself, with the Ordinary Form of the Mass, holding my fingers and thumbs together, after the consecration until after the elevation of the Chalice, after which point I thoroughly wipe together my thumbs and fingers over the chalice. After I elevate the host over the chalice with the Ecce Agnus Dei and then consume the Host, I wipe my fingers and thumbs again over the chalice before consumption of the Precious Blood.  I hold my finger and thumb together after distribution of holy Communion until the ablution.

I haven’t given much thought to the lack of said rubric in the postconciliar Missal. Sometimes I adopt the practice, and sometimes I don’t. If I’m celebrating Mass with a congregation that is accustomed to seeing it (such as when I provide coverage for my traditionally minded confreres), then I do it; otherwise I generally do not.
       The inconsistency reflects my divided mind about the use of elements particular to the 1962 Missal when celebrating the modern rite. On the one hand, rubrics exist to instruct the priest in what to do, not what not to do. If I do something the Missal does not call for, then I have no business complaining about other priests who do their own thing. Also, I think it’s important to avoid whatever could confuse the faithful or be construed as idiosyncratic.
       On the other hand, the practice in question, like other traditional practices (e.g., the priest genuflecting before as well as after elevating the Host and the chalice, and crossing himself with the Host and chalice before consuming the Body and Blood of Christ), are, as Fr. Timothy Finigan has argued (quoting Summorum Pontificum), part of what is “sacred and great” both for previous generations and for us; their use, even though technically unauthorized in the modern rite, is not on a par with liturgical abuses and novelties.
       Moreover, I can hardly imagine what “mutual enrichment” (which is supposed to be taking place already) looks like without the adoption of “Tridentine” elements in the usus recentior.

Yes, I use the practice in the Novus Ordo out of sheer coherence—the gesture is not aesthetic but practical, in order to avoid particles falling.

Cardinal Brandmueller

QUESTION 4. The “Ethos” or Spirit of the Liturgy

The classical Roman liturgy constantly emphasizes that one is taking part in the holiest act on earth: the renewal of the Holy Sacrifice of Calvary in an un-bloody fashion upon the altar. As such, this practice serves as a reminder and sign that my other movements, and the movements of my heart, should be particularly reverent from the consecration until the ablutions.

I see it as one more example of greater reverence for and emphasis on the Real Presence in the traditional rite. But for me it is less important than other gestures like the double genuflections for the consecrations, facing 'East', the silent canon, and more signs of the cross and kissings of the altar.

Because of the care I take in purifying sacred vessels, I have been accused many times of being “scrupulous” in how I “do the dishes” (this level of flippancy from the mouths of people in the pews is a sad commentary on where we are at today). Yet I would maintain that the detailed instructions and received tradition for purification in the usus antiquior are a safeguard against scrupulosity: if you have followed the instructions, you know that you have purified the vessels according to the mind of the Church, which is to say, in a way that reflects Church teaching concerning the Real Presence. Whereas for a priest whose only experience is with the usus recentior, the total lack of serious guidance about how to handle purification opens him to a wide range of possibilities, from a total lack of scrupulosity (and therefore sloppiness) to a scrupulosity fed by the fact that his faith tells him one thing but he must figure out on his own how to accomplish it and wonder if he has done it right. (The highly imprudent instruction in the GIRM about how one is to use the purificator to wipe the particles from the paten would only feed this sense of scrupulosity, since the sincere priest would then fret about particles that might get stuck on the purificator and then possibly fall to the floor afterwards when transporting it to the sacristy. How this instruction made it into the GIRM is beyond me, considering that the usus antiquior requires the thumb to be used, since the thumb can then be rinsed in the ablutions.) I really could launch into a separate “storytime” on this topic from here, but will curtail this and conclude by saying that the practice of maintaining custody of the canonical digits between the consecration and the purification is perfectly harmonious with the overall ethos of the classical liturgy.

This practice perfectly fits into the overall “ethos” of the classical Roman Liturgy in that it is what we have done for centuries. Not only that, but it speaks to the utter awesomeness of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It also speaks to our doctrine regarding the Eucharist in that if we really believe that Jesus is indeed present in every particle of the Sacred Species, then we will go to great lengths to protect every particle of the Sacred Species. Celebrating Mass, and distributing Holy Communion using communion patens, it is clear to me that many, many particles fall from the Sacred Hosts, and also cling to my fingers. These particles, if we believe that they are actually Jesus Himself, must be protected from profanation or indifference. Keeping “canonical digits” is one way of protecting the Sacred Species. An anecdote could be helpful here: one time a priest who I would not describe as “traditional” visited my parish and helped distribute Holy Communion. We use communion patens and after Mass he shared how surprised he was to see so many particles of the Eucharist on the paten. He went home, and instituted the use of communion patens. This illustrates just how important things like keeping ones fingers together after touching the Sacred Host are. If so many particles fall from the Sacred Host at Holy Communion, they also, no doubt, stick to our fingers. To keep those particles that stick to our fingers from falling to the ground, being walked on, or vacuumed up by the cleaning lady, we should keep “canonical digits.”

There is some truth to the description of the Roman liturgy as “practical.” In this sense, the practice of the priest holding his fingers closed is quite fitting, as it is a very practical conclusion of the Church’s belief in the Real Presence. 

Liturgical digits gel with the ethos of the Roman Liturgy because everything is well-ordered. There is no need for creativity to reverence the body of Christ, to effect a sacrifice, to even know which foot to step up the altar first with (the right foot, of course). I once read a priest on an online forum write how unnatural all of this sounded to him. Within my first year of switching from the new Mass to the old Mass, however, I was astonished to find how natural all of this was. In other words, the Traditional Latin Mass is one single movement of reverence to God with no real breaks. The holding of the fingers is so clearly a part of this worship and reverence.

It fits with an ethos that shows reverence for the awesome mystery of the Real Presence through formalization.

Someone has written that he attributes the loss of priestly discipline of life to negligence in the observance of the rubrics of the missal. Our Lord’s authority for caring about such “little” things may be invoked: “He who is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much” (Lk. 16:10).
       There is an act prior to the Consecration that merits mention, too: the wiping of the two fingers of each hand on the corporal. This is a miniature cleansing rite (if that’s not too strong an expression) which, along with the washing of hands before Mass and then again at the Lavabo, is expressive of the purity to be sought by the priest before he will hold the Lord’s Body in his fingers.
       The ablution in the chalice of the fingers following Communion should also be noted. There is a rubric somewhere (or perhaps just a comment by a rubricist) to the effect that in the ablution of the fingers after Communion any other part of the hand that may inadvertently have touched the Host should also be purified.

It is part and parcel of the the Traditional Rite and should be mandated in the Modern Rite. Too many priests treat the sacred particles as if they were bread crumbs. The practice of the canonical fingers ties in with the whole celebration of Mass. If a priest incorporates this practice into the new Mass, it can’t be stand alone. It must be part of a greater “cross pollination” of both forms of the Roman Rite.

The act of holding together thumb and forefinger from the consecration until the ablutions is just one action among many in the traditional Roman rite. But the more I can conform myself to the rite, the more I pray I may conform myself to Christ. I believe that the more reverence that I can show in the ars celebrandi, the more reverence might be called forth from the congregation. In my experience, this has been the case. Some loved it, some hated it, and some did not even notice it.

It is consonant with it.

By expressing greater awe and reverence for sacred realities it is quintessentially Roman. The high and fearsome reverence of the words of the Roman Canon are mirrored in corresponding rubrics such as the canonical digits.

The practice fits in well with, and can support the overall atmosphere of worship of the awesome mystery, the “one thing necessary,” that pervades the traditional Roman rite.

It is wholly expressive of it.

It is a strong sign of reverence for the precious species of the Eucharist, and in this way it fits perfectly with all the other ritual actions in the forma extraordinaria. I’m wondering why all priests do not do it this way spontaneously.

It fits in very well since the liturgy should instruct on the nature of the Eucharist and protect the Eucharist from falling on the floor and the like.

The action most definitely speaks our appreciation of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist.

The practice is of a piece with the reverential and devotional spirit of the classical Roman liturgy, which takes the greatest care to safeguard the Blessed Sacrament from profanation.

Yes, the ancient rite is coherently logical, from the principles of divine revelation to the minutiae of gestures.

Archbishop Alexander K. Sample offers the usus antiquior

Joseph’s dreams of the heavenly bodies and the sheaves of wheat (Genesis 37, 6-11); Florence Baptistery, ca. 1225. (Image from Wikimedia Commons by Sailko; CC BY 3.0. At this link, you can find high quality images, in high enough resolution to see the individual tiles, of this extremely beautiful and complex mosaic ceiling.)

Joseph himself was also a figure of Christ, on this point alone … that he suffered persecution at the hands of his brethren, and was sold into Egypt, on account of the favor of God, just as Christ was sold by Israel, by his brothers, when He was betrayed by Judas. (Adversus Judaeos 10)

My son, he says, is younger. Truly younger, because he was the last born. And the Scripture says “Jacob loved him, because he was the son of his old age. (Gen. 37, 3). This also refers to Christ; for the son of God, through the child-bearing of the Virgin Mary, came late, shining upon a world grown old and already failing, and as the son of old age according to the mystery took a body, even He that before the ages was always with the Father. (Ambrose’s citation of Genesis 49, 22, “filius meus adolescentior”, derives from the Septuagint reading of a famously difficult passage.)

Jacob Receiving the Bloodied Tunic of Joseph, by Jan Lievens (1607-74); (public domainimage from Wikimedia Commons.)

“Joseph” is translated as “increase.” You remember, you know that Joseph was sold into Egypt: (this is) Christ passing to the nations. … Joseph pertains more to the nations, and therefore (is called) “increase”, because “many are the sons of the desert, more than of her than hath a husband.” (Isaiah 54, 1; Augustine understand the “sons of the desert’ to be the gentiles, and the sons “of her that hath a husband” as the sons of Israel.) … When Joseph went out from the land of Egypt, which is to say, the people multiplied from Joseph, he was sent through the Red Sea… The passing of the people through the sea foretold in a figure exactly this, the passage of the faithful through Baptism. The Apostle is my witness; he says “For I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea. And all in Moses were baptized, in the cloud, and in the sea.” (1 Cor. 10, 1-2) Therefore, the passage though the sea signified nothing else than the Sacrament of the baptized. (Exposition of Psalm 80)

The Crossing of the Red Sea, depicted on a paleo-Christian sarcophagus, the front of which was been sawed off and used as the front of an altar in the Cathedral of Arles, France.

Finally, in the boy the divine grace showed forth, since indeed he dreamed, when he had bound sheaves with his brothers, that it might appear to him in a vision, his sheaf arose, and stood upright; and those of his brothers turned and worshipped his. In which assuredly the future resurrection of the Lord Jesus was revealed, whom the eleven disciples worshiped when they had seen him in Jerusalem… (De Joseph Patriarcha, cap. 2, 7)

Joseph Placed in the Cistern, and Sold to the Midianites; icon by Theodoros Poulakis, 1677-82. modelled on an engraving by the Flemish artist Jan Sadeler. From the Museum of Byzantine Culture in Thessaloniki, Greece.

Young people notice things...

QUESTION 5. Lay Observation and Piety

I don’t recall anyone commenting on it. But all of the gestures in the usus antiquior are noticed by the laity, particularly children. This gesture, and the many other prescribed gestures, help the laity to foster reverence and devotion in their own bearing and prayers at Mass.

I can’t remember lay people commenting on it one way or the other. But I do remember a liberal priest retreat master at a retreat for other priests some 25 years ago who ridiculed and excoriated the practice! He said (in these or similar words), ”Thank goodness we’ve now gotten rid of that artificial, prissy, unnatural-looking practice of holding our fingers together after the consecration!”  He was very big on insisting that the priest’s gestures manner of celebrating should look “natural” and “spontaneous” to the congregation.

       On the occasions when I have been able to maintain custody of the digits in the Novus Ordo (e.g., because I did not have to handle several other vessels besides, before purification), no one has commented to me specifically on that. However, for all of the negative feedback I have gotten at times about how I “do the dishes,” I have also gotten some very beautiful feedback from lay people who have noticed the care that I take in the purification of the sacred vessels. There ARE people in the pew, even at your garden-variety Novus Ordo, who “get it,” and they ARE edified when things are done right.
       I have been intending for some time to produce a series of YouTube videos with principles of purification for the Novus Ordo (taking into account the different shapes of modern vessels, such as the “communion cups,” how to handle purificators, how to handle multiple vessels, etc.), but I have not had the time to act on this desire. It is sorely needed and I have a lot of ideas about what needs to be communicated. Maintaining custody of the digits is just the tip of the iceberg. Reception of communion in the hand is also sort of a symptom of a larger problem. Systemic disrespect for the Holy Eucharist is very widespread and extends from Bishops who absolutely should know better (but apparently do not) to very well-meaning Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, and it is a great mystery to me how our Lord tolerates such grievous outrages for so long—with really only two or three Bishops (Schneider, Laisé, and to a certain extent, Morlino) ever speaking publicly about any of it! Lord have mercy!

A few pious people have commented on it, saying they noticed it and were happy to see it.  Some youth have asked me about it “question and answer sessions” during Religious Education, which provides a great opportunity for catechesis about the Real Presence.  Not a single person has ever complained. 

As I noted in response to Question 3, I do not ordinarily hold my fingers together during public celebrations of the Ordinary Form. Nevertheless, my answer to this question is yes. On several occasions (between five and ten), a layman has mentioned to me that he has noticed the way I hold my fingers together when turning pages, holding the chalice, etc. Sometimes, the person has raised the matter in the form of a question, curious as to why I do this. Most of the time, however, it has been mentioned in a spirit of gratitude, thanking me for a reverent ars celebrandi. I have not yet experienced anyone making reference to my practice in a pejorative fashion.

When I was doing the Novus Ordo with liturgical digits, I got questions, but I don’t think the answers made any sense to the laity, considering crumbs of Our Lord’s body would be all over the place anyway. Hence, when I finally realized my answers to them were not in harmony with systematic protection of Our Lord’s body, I decided that I could only do the TLM. This is what I have done for the past four years, even as a priest in good standing with two dioceses.

Occasionally, laypersons have asked me about the practice when I have used it in the more recent use. I can say from my own experience that seeing a certain priest for whom I served as altar-boy in my youth follow this practice in the usus recentior helped to foster wonder at the Real Presence in my soul.

It has been noticed by others (even though I am rightly oriented at the altar) and has aroused curiosity, leading me to explain the purpose of it. The reaction to this explanation was always one of wonder at the great reverence for the holy Sacrament the Church expected to be shown by her priests. In the early days of my priesthood when sharing the sign of peace was expected of me (or so I thought), I would first wipe my fingers on the corporal (as is the practice for the TLM before the Consecration) in order to avoid any desecration of the Lord’s Body.

I have never had a layman ask me about the practice, but I have talked about it in homilies trying to instill a greater awareness of the Real Presence.

No one has ever commented on the way I hold my hands after the consecration. There have been many comments on the increased reverence in the celebration of the Mass, however. I have even heard some liberals comment that there is increased reverence and silence because of some of the initiatives I have offered at the Mass. These initiatives in the liturgy also were accompanied by preaching on the Mass as well as preaching on contraception, same-sex “marriage” and abortion. It is the combination of all of the above which caused the visceral anger among the liberal, heterodox crowd that caused my removal from my previous parish.

Yes and yes. But for a full effect on the piety of the laity it is necessary to adapt a form of administering communion that is consonant with the finger-holding-action of the priest. So: communion on the tongue—preferably while kneeling. Otherwise it is a nice talking point from which to develop catechesis, but no more and not very effectively so because the reverence thereby shown by the priest is somewhat subverted by him distributing communion in the hand. This discrepancy I know from pastoral experience.

No to the first part. The more observant will have noticed, but I’m afraid nowadays with such a range of shenanigans commonplace in liturgy worldwide and most priests making their own adaptations to the rubrics of the NO, I think a priest would have to dance on the actual altar (not just in the sanctuary) before people would think something odd is happening here!

Not that I can distinctly recall. However, I have mostly done it in contexts where it is at least an already-known practice. My feeling, at least in my area of Austria, is that to the extent it is noticed, it may confirm laity in their eucharistic piety, but taken as an individual practice, doesn’t have much force to alter this piety; e.g., few who habitually receive in the hand (and with little reverence) would rethink their own practice or show greater reverence as a result of this practice by the priest. However, I believe that, as part of an overall renewal of liturgical practice accompanied by catechesis, it does play a role.
       Though I have limited experience as a priest in the USA, I suspect this observation of mine would generally apply much more to traditionally Catholic regions, as Austria and Italy, than to the USA.

I suppose that ‘clerical’ religious women of a certain age will notice it and harrumph. Ordinary layfolk take it in stride as something quite normal and seemly.

Of course. People regularly ask what we are doing there. And they understand the reasons for doing this. Some faithful even intuitively understand the reasons. Or more exactly: They ask why we are doing so, but then comment that they already felt “something different” in the priest's attitude towards celebrating the Mass.

Many people have asked me why I hold thumb and forefinger together and I explain the general thinking of the practice.  I am unsure if it has any real bearing on the piety of the laity attending Mass.

To date, no one has said anything to me regarding my fingers and thumbs together during part of the Eucharistic Prayer. But I must say this: this action has most definitely been recognized inasmuch as those who serve as Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion now have mimicked me, even handing me the ciborium at the altar with thumb and finger together and returning to the Credence table for their ablution. Without my ever having said anything, they now have a heightened awareness that their hands should touch nothing until after they have been purified!

A layman, no, but a religious Sister once asked me the reason for the practice. It is noticed, to be sure, but I cannot say whether it has deepened the Eucharistic piety of the faithful.

An old nun, who had not attended the Mass of Tradition since her childhood, remarked approvingly on the gesture, stating that she remembered being puzzled by it as a child.

I would like to offer my own thoughts about the use of canonical digits. My father was an Episcopal priest and he always observed this custom since his understanding of the Eucharist was clearly Catholic. I grew up seeing him up close, and how carefully and lovingly he handled the "elements." He once told me that there were two things which could provide the measure of how good a priest was: first how carefully he did the ablutions, and second, how available he was to shut-ins and the dying for the sacraments. He used to say that the most devout of his parishioners were those who came to the spoken Eucharist early each Sunday (which had no sermon in those days! Imagine: Protestants who went to church just for the Eucharist and not for a sermon: that is how strong the Catholic sense remained in some people, even after centuries).
       When I was ordained, it never occurred to me to celebrate the new Mass without observing the digitis clausis tradition. It was natural and instinctive. And when my abbot asked me about it I explained that it was because of what I had seen my father do. The abbot said that he had been intending to tell me to stop, since this gesture is not prescribed in the new missal, but that given my reason, he would let me continue! Later I noticed that Paul VI, even when celebrating the new Mass, always kept his index and thumb together after the consecration. It is practically impossible to find images of this on the internet, but it would be great to find some, so that everyone may know that even in the practice of the legislator who promulgated the new Missal this ancient practice was perfectly fine.
       If we had all done what we had seen our fathers in the faith do, everything would be fine!

I agree that the work of Fr Norris Clarke (which we cover at the end of the course, as a kind of summary and integration of everything we have learned) is likely to provide a helpful framework. Here are some of the points that Fr Clarke distills from St Thomas’ metaphysics (and to which he adds insights from modern “personalist” philosophy):

The universe is an immense family of real beings, and all real beings—from the simplest drop of water to the human person—have something in common: They all exist! In technical terms, all real beings share in the act of existence. What’s more, we are all intimately connected with the source of our existence, God, who is existent in Himself (“I am who am”)

Although all created beings share in the act of existence, each being is limited by an essence: A dog is a share of existence possessed—and limited by—the essence of “dogginess” and an oak tree is a share of existence possessed and limited by the essence of “oakiness.” God, of course, is unlimited, infinite being. According to St Thomas, His essence is existence.

Because created being are all finite and limited by essence, we each have something to receive from the rest of the family of beings, but we each also have something to contribute to other beings. All beings are constantly communicating of themselves to others and receiving from others to complete and perfect themselves.

For example, even a simple pebble communicates its own existence to the rest of the world. Modern science acknowledges that: For one thing, by its existence, the pebble contributes materially to the gravitational field of the planet—even if in a most modest way. Without that gravitational field, we would all be floating about in the ether, getting evermore separated from one another!

Because to be real is to be giving and to be receiving, we are all substances in relation. This is particularly true in the higher beings, like animals and humans who are constantly giving and receiving from one another, but it is even true at the lowest level. Water, for example, is molecular beings that are in relation with one another. Each molecule of H2O gives of itself to its neighbor and receives the actions of its neighboring molecules. The consequence this mutual interaction is a community of molecular beings that has the property of being clear, liquid, and life-sustaining for all living organisms!

Clarke’s rendition of Thomistic metaphysics describes a wonderful community of beings, each of which, in its own way, reflects, refracts, and radiates the light of the Creator to all other beings.

Man, of course, occupies a special place in the universe. Being at once a spirit united to a material body, he is an “amphibian” straddling the world of angels and that of earthly creatures. Because he possesses and intellectual nature that allows him to form civilizations, he leads creation on its journey back to the Creator. And, as spirit, man is also person: individually distinct and self-possessing and capable of living in self-conscious and self-determining community with others, in the image of the community of Divine Persons.

The Forty Hours, church of Bottanuco

The Forty Hours at Arrone in Italy

The Forty Hours Machine at the church of Bienno, Italy

The Forty Hours machine of the parish of Colere in Italy

1. For the salvation of the Kingdom of France, at that time rent by the succession of Henry III,
2. for the victory of Christianity against the Turks,
3. for the unity of the Church.

Neapolitan machine

Notice of Cardinal Noailles for the Forty Hours at Paris (1725 - download)

1956- Forty Hours in the sanctuary of San Francesco de Gironimo

• The first bears a manuscript note indicating that the machine held 140 candles.
• The second is a plan for the decoration of a Forty Hours. Rome, end of the 17th century. Source: Galerie Tarantino.
• The third is a decoration project for the Forty Hours showing the “Return of the explorers from the land of Canaan” by Giacinto Calandrucci (a student of Maratta), sold to the National Gallery in Washington (the explorers had taken 40 days to explore Canaan).
• Beneduci di Orzinuovi—design for a machine for the Forty Hours.

• The rain of the Deluge lasted 40 days and 40 nights (Genesis 7:4, 12, 17). At the end of 10 months of the Deluge, the waters began to recede and after 40 days Noah opened the window he had made in the ark (Genesis 8:6).
• Isaac (Genesis 25:20) and Esau (Genesis 26:34) were married at the age of 40.
• Moses stayed 40 days and 40 nights on Mount Sinai in the presence of God without food or drink, and at the end of this period he received the tables of the Law (Exodus 24:18; 34:28; Deuteronomy 9:9,11, 18, 25; 10:10).
• Moses’ messengers explored the land of Canaan in 40 days (Numbers 13:26), then Israel was condemned to wander in the desert for 40 years (Numbers 14:33-34; 32:13; Exodus 16:35; Deuteronomy 8:2–4; Joshua 5:6).
• In the Mosaic Law the number of stripes given to punish a criminal could not exceed 40 (Deuteronomy 25:3; II Corinthians 11:24).
• The reigns at the apogee of the Jewish kingdom, that of David (I Samuel 29:27) and that of his son Solomon (1 Kings 11:42), both lasted 40 years.
• The prophet Elijah crossed the desert during 40 days to meet God on Mt. Horeb (1 Kings 19:8).
• The prophet Jonah calls Nineveh to repent under pain of destruction at the end of 40 days (Jonah 3:4).
• Our Lord Jesus Christ was presented in the Temple of Jerusalem, in conformity with the Law of Moses, 40 days after his birth (the feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin on the 2nd of February – Luke 2:22; Exodus 13:2, 11-16; Leviticus 12:2-4, 6-8).
• Christ began His public ministry with a fast of 40 days and nights (Matthew 4:1-2; Mark 1:12-13; Luke 4:1-2), and His Ascension took place 40 days after the Resurrection (Acts 1:3), which, according to a tradition recorded by St. Augustine (cf. supra De Trinitate 46), took place after he passed 40 hours in death.

• A Latin translation of the Italian
• An Italian version with learned commentary in Latin by the liturgist Luigi Gardellini (1757 † 1829).

Forty Hours at the London Oratory

• An external sign (a shield or a banner) must be hung on the main door of the church where the Blessed Sacrament is solemnly exposed. This sign must include a symbol of the Blessed Sacrament, in order that the people may know that the Forty Hours are being carried out in this church.
• The altar or place of exposition must not display any relics of saints or funeral symbols. It is usually the high altar of the church. If there is a painting on the reredos of the high altar, it must be covered up with a white or red sheet. Likewise for the statues of saints that decorate the altar (but not those of angels holding candelabra).
• An elevated throne must be placed atop the altar where the monstrance that holds the Blessed Sacrament will be placed. White curtains (with golden trims, Barbier de Montault adds) forming a canopy may be used, especially is the throne is not covered.
• The frontal and decorations of the altar must be white, and must never conceal the monstrance.
• Flowers must never be placed before the tabernacle. Flowers are not prohibited, but must be arranged discreetly. They are not used in Rome.
• It is appropriate that a minimum of 20 candles burn permanently at this altar, both by day and by night.
• No lights may be placed behind the Host to try to make it shine.
• The windows of the church near the altar can be covered, the ideal being that the altar candles shine amidst the shadows, in order to inspire concentration and prayer.
• A kneeling-bench is to be prepared and placed for the adoration of the clergy at the bottom of the steps of the altar of exposition after the Mass of exposition and the procession are finished. This bench can be covered in red or green.
• Reservation of the Eucharist—if It is usually reserved at the altar of exposition—must take place at another altar. In any case, communion cannot be received at the altar of exposition.
• The church bells must ring solemnly the evening before the start of the exposition at the Angelus, then a half-hour before sundown, and one hour thereafter. During exposition, the church bells must ring every hour, during the night as well as the day.
• The Blessed Sacrament must not be visible from the street during Adoration (to avoid blasphemy, especially during Carnival time). A sheet is to be hung before the entry if necessary, in order to hide the view to the exposition altar from the street.
• Although the Forty Hours are held by custom beginning on Quinquagesima Sunday, one may also celebrate them at any time of the year except during the Paschal Triduum, when they are, of course, prohibited. Nevertheless, if while the Forty Hours are taking place, one is to hold the blessing of candles and procession of Candlemas, the distribution of ashes and procession of Ash Wednesday, or the blessing and procession of Palm Sunday, the exposition of the Blessed Sacrament must be interrupted throughout the length of these ceremonies and resumed thereafter. Specific rules also exist in the case where the Forty Hours are held during the 2nd of November.

• Two members of the clergy must always be present in adoration before the Blessed Sacrament.
• They may not use the stole whilst they adore.
• The clerics that look after the lighting must always be in surplice. Laymen may supply for these clerics, in the condition of donning a cassock and surplice while they care for the candles.
• One must genuflect on both knees every time one enters or leaves the sanctuary where the Blessed Sacrament is exposed, and each time one passes before It.

• Mass shall not be celebrated at the altar of exposition, except on the first day for the Mass of Exposition (even though exposition does not “technically” begin until after the procession that follows this Mass) and on the third day for the Deposition.
• The Masses of Exposition (on the first day) and of Deposition (on the third day) shall be solemn votive Masses of the Blessed Sacrament (with Gloria and Credo), sung with sacred ministers (deacon and subdeacon), unless these votive Masses are impeded by the Mass of the day. On impeded days, the Mass of the day shall be said with a commemoration of the Blessed Sacrament under one conclusion. Nevertheless, the frontal of the altar of exposition and the humeral veil shall always be white, whatever the colour of the Mass being celebrated.
• On the second day a solemn votive Mass with sacred ministers shall be celebrated, for peace or some other necessity (with Gloria unless the Mass is in violet vestments), following the bishop’s instructions.
• This Mass of the second day shall not be celebrated at the altar of exposition or at the altar where the rest of the hosts are reserved.
• During the exposition, no Requiem Mass may be said.
• The frontal of the altar of exposition shall always be white, whatever the colour of the Mass or Office of the day.
• When the Blessed Sacrament is exposed, the use of a bell during low Masses is prohibited. It is appropriate that its use be also prohibited during solemn Masses.
• It is likewise prohibited to take any collection in the church whilst the Blessed Sacrament is exposed, or to set up special collection boxes.
• Sermons during the Forty Hours are not encouraged, but if they nevertheless take place, they must be brief and may only be about the Eucharist; the preacher is not permitted to use a biretta or stole. The preacher must stand sideways by the altar of exposition in such a way that none of the faithful need turn his back to this altar.

• The altar is prepared before Mass for Exposition, but only the usual six candles are to be lighted at the beginning of the Mass. The altar cross remains at its place. A corporal may be placed at the throne of exposition if the latter is in a different place from the altar cross. The montrance is to be prepared, covered by a white veil, as well as the book used for the final prayers after the procession (they are found in the Rituale Romanum, for example). The canopy, two candles to be borne during the procession, and two thurifers for the same shall also be prepared.
• During this Mass of the first day, the celebrant consecrates two large hosts, one of which will be exposed.
• The monstrance is placed over the corporal after communion.
• From the moment when the second large host is placed in the monstrance by the deacon, the rest of the Mass is celebrated following the rubrics for a Missa coram Sanctissimo:
  • The celebrant and ministers genuflect before the Blessed Sacrament each time they approach It or leave the area of the altar.
  • When the celebrate or deacon address the people (for the Dominus vobiscum, Ite Missa est, and the final blessing), they stand sideways at the gospel corner in order to avoid giving their backs to the Most Holy Sacrament.
  • During the course of the Last Gospel, the celebrant genuflects at the Et Verbum caro factum est turning towards the Body of the Lord.
• After the Last Gospel, the celebrant and his ministers genuflect with both knees at the bottom of the altar steps and then go to the sedilia where they put down their maniples and the celebrant takes of the chasuble in order to put on the cope, always making sure never to turn their backs towards the Blessed Sacrament. The two thurifers come from the sacristy with the candle-bearers. The celebrant imposes the incense, without blessing it, on both thuribles, at the sedilia (the only time the liturgy allows this), assisted by the deacon while the subdeacon lifts the cope. The celebrant and his ministers go to kneel at the foot of the altar and he incenses (with the first thurible) the Blessed Sacrament (like during Benediction), and then takes the humeral veil from the Master of Ceremonies, which the subdeacon fastens. The celebrant goes up the steps with the ministers and kneels. The deacon, having genuflected on the footpace, takes the monstrance and gives it to the kneeling celebrant. Whilst this is happening, the procession is formed.

• The singers intone the hymn Pange lingua and the procession sets out.
• The confraternities must walk before the cross and clergy.
• The cross-bearer wears a surplice (and not a tunicle) and is accompanied by two acolytes followed by the singers.
• Eight priests or clerics must walk before the canopy. All have their heads uncovered and they may not wear a skull cap for health reasons.
• Everyone (clergy and laity) carry candles in honour of the Blessed Sacrament, which they hold with their external hand.
• The clerics who are parati may only use white vestments.
• During the course of the procession, boys and girls are not allowed to perform tableaux vivants about the saints (this was done a lot in France during the 17th century).
• The clergy carry the canopy. Nevertheless, most honourable magistrates can take over from them by carrying the poles of the canopy, but only outside the church.
• The two thurifers ahead of the canopy must continually incense the Blessed Sacrament without turning themselves.
• The celebrant, even a bishop, must walk and carry the monstrance in his hands, and not with the aid of a machine.
• All bells must ring during the procession, not only those of the church, but also those near which the procession shall pass. The procession may also be done inside the church (in which case it will turn right when leaving the choir to take the side aisle, and then take the central aisle).
• If the route is to be long, one or two altars of repose can be set up.
• When returning to the altar when the exposition shall take place, the deacon takes the monstrance from the celebrant and places it on the throne of exposition. The two last stanzas of the hymn Pange lingua are then sung: Tantum ergo and Genitori Genitoque.
• The officiant imposes the incense and thurifies the Blessed Sacrament as usual.
• Two singers then come to kneel in the middle of the choir and begin the Litany of the Saints. Everyone remains kneeling. After the Litany, the celebrant, who remains kneeling, entones the Pater noster which is continued in silence. The singers then intone psalm 69, Deus in adjutorium meum intende, which the choir takes up antiphonally. Then the celebrant sings the versicles Salvos fac servos tuos and the rest. He rises for the Dominus vobiscum and sings the five collects of the Forty Hours in the ferial tone. After these collects, the celebrants sings the versicle Domine exaudi orationem meam, the singers chant the versicle Exaudiat nos omnipotens et misericors Dominus and the celebrant finishes recto tono on a low note: Fidelium animæ per misericordiam Dei requiescant in pace. Then the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament begins.

Forty Hours reposition Mass, celebrated with the Blessed Sacrament exposed at Holy Innocents in New York City

• The Mass of Deposition must be chanted at the altar of exposition, before the exposed Sacrament, and must, consequently, follow the rubrics for Missa coram Sanctissimo.
• At the end of the Mass, as at the Mass of Exposition, the celebrant and ministers go to the sedilia to remove their maniples and chasuble; the celebrant puts on the cope. The altar cross (if one was used), the altar cards, and the missal are removed from the altar, a corporal is put out at the center of the same, and the tabernacle key and a white humeral veil are prepared.
• The sacred ministers and the celebrant kneel on the first step at the bottom of the altar. Two singers, kneeling before the middle of the altar, sing the Litany of the Saints followed by psalm 69. The celebrant sings the versicle up to the versicle Domine exaudi orationem meam with its response.
• Towards the end of the Litany of the Saints, two thurifers go to prepare their thuribles, the procession forms up and candles are distributed to all.
• When the versicle Domine exaudi orationem meam with its response have been sung, the celebrant stands and imposes incense into the two thuribles, without blessing it. He receives the humeral veil and goes up the steps with the ministers. There, the deacon gives the kneeling celebrant the monstrance, as on the first day, and the procession sets out.
• During the procession, the Pangua lingua is sung, as on the first day of the Forty Hours, and then it returns to the altar. The deacon puts the monstrance atop the corporal at the centre of the altar. The two last stanzas of the Pange lingua (Tantum ergo and Genitori Genitoque) are then sung, and the Blessed Sacrament is incensed as usual during the last stanza.
• As during Benediction, the singers chant the versicle Panem de cœlo, the celebrant stands to sing the collect of the Blessed Sacrament Deus qui nobis sub sacramento mirabili (without Dominus vobiscum, as usual) and adds the four other prayers of the Forty Hours, as on the first day.
• As on the first day, after these collects, the celebrant sings the versicle Domine exaudi orationem meam, the singers sing the versicle Exaudiat nos omnipotens et misericors Dominus, and the celebrant finishes recto tono on a low note: Fidelium animæ per misericordiam Dei requiescant in pace.
• The celebrant then gives the blessing with the Blessed Sacrament, as usual. The deacon returns the Most Holy Sacrament to the tabernacle, everyone extinguishes their candles, and the clerics return to the sacristy after having genuflected before the altar.