How to Dress for Mass: the Archdiocese of Washington Sets the Standard

According to the Archdiocese of Washington website and reported by Spirit Daily, the very Rev. Msgr. Charles Pope sets down some foundational principles. Click here for article.

Great Talk on Receiving Holy Communion on the Tongue

Click here to listen to talk (8 min.)

The Vatican's Dress Code

Visitors to the Vatican who meet with Pope Benedict XVI must follow protocol when visiting the Supreme Pontiff. According to an article, the dress code in summary reads:

For men: black or dark suit, aka business attire, with a dark tie.

For women: black skirt or dress that reaches at least the knees, black top with mid- to long-sleeves, no pants, simple jewelry, dark closed-toe shoes, and a black hat or veil is optional.

Photo: Chris Helgren/Associated Press

Looks strikingly similar to what I have observed the Faithful wearing to the Traditional Latin Mass or to masses that emphasize reverence and respect for Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. If Michelle Obama can wear a veil and her husband and other world leaders wear a dark suit with a dark tie to see the Holy Father, shouldn't all Catholics be following this dress code when we visit our Heavenly Father, the King of Kings and High Priest, Our Lord Jesus Christ when we adore and worship Him at Mass each week?

In fact, St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, the Chief Church of Catholicism, has a dress code for everybody who visits the landmark (in red below):

Location:	Piazza San Pietro, Vatican City, Rome, Italy
Phone:	06-69881662 (for information on celebrations)
Hours:	Basilica (including the sacristy and treasury) Oct-Mar daily 9am-6pm; Apr-Sept daily 9am-7pm. Grottoes daily 8am-5pm. Dome Oct-Mar daily 8am-5pm; Apr-Sept 8am-6pm
Cost:	Basilica (including grottoes) is free. Stairs to the dome €4; elevator to the dome €5. Treasury 4 €.
Dress code:	No bare shoulders or knees (for both men and women).
Photography:	Permitted throughout (except in special necropolis tour)

Kneeling for Holy Communion and Receiving on the Tongue Becomes the Norm for Papal Liturgical Ceremonies

In a CNS article Msgr. Marini, master of papal liturgical ceremonies, said:

"kneeling and receiving Communion on the tongue highlights 'the truth of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, helps the devotion of the faithful and introduces the sense of mystery more easily."

Welcome Change of Mass Texts from the Holy See

In 2002, the Holy See gave the final boot to the ICEL's revision of the Sacramentary that we had to suffer through for years with an unauthentic translation of Mass texts. In the meantime, the third edition of the Missale Romanum began and is now finally in the process of translation and review by the Vatican.

The Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC), affirmed the continued use of Latin, but only permitted limited use of vernacular languages in the liturgy:

SC 36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the Liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.

4. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the Liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.

Following the Council, the texts of the Mass and other liturgical texts, were rapidly translated into English by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL), formed during the Council for this purpose, and hastily approved for use in English-speaking countries. Simultaneously, new Scripture translations in English were produced by several different bodies - most of which we see today as inaccurate translations.

American Bishops Reject English Translation

So we're back to the drawing board thanks to those who are still stuck in the 1980's. The Vatican has asked for an authentic translation from the Latin. The Magisterium even produced Liturgicam Authenticam as our guide. But it appears we American "Roman" Catholics don't want anything to do with Rome. Excerpt from article reads:

The restructured ICEL began producing translations based on the norms set forth in the 2001 Vatican document Liturgiam Authenticam, calling for closer adherence to the Latin original.

What is so difficult about doing what the Vatican desires or has Martin Luther returned from the dead? Have we in America become such rugged individualists that we cannot see beyond our own horizons? Church's faced East for a reason. The official language of the Church is Latin for a reason. The official liturgical music is Gregorian Chant for a reason. These unifying elements of our faith are what draws the small congregations throughout the world together to sing out with one cry to the Heavenly Kingdom; with one voice from an authentically unified ROMAN Catholic Church; from the one earthly kingdom we should be united in calling Christendom.

But Americans think, nowadays, that we know better than Rome. We believe that our fathers in faith were naive and patriarchal. It appears that many still believe this nonsense and are clinging to 'inclusive' and social collectivism.

What's the big deal with inclusiveness? While we think we're acting 'progressive' we are really regressing into an attitude that doesn't improve from the past, but rather dismisses the past in favor of a novelty. The idea that hordes of humans would convert immediately to Catholicism because we began using 'inclusive' language has proven a naive idea that has failed. According to a survey, fallen away Catholics make up the largest denomination in the world thanks to the failed novelties of the 'experts' who thought they knew our faith better than our fathers.

The only thing 'inclusive' language accomplished was a fragmented Church. The saying "the law of prayer is the law of belief" applies here meaning that we believe how we pray. One observation can attribute this denial of faith to the 'inclusive' language used in the Mass, the highest form of prayer. The English translation uses 'inclusive' language while others like Spanish don't. Why are English speaking parishes seeing drastic declines in mass attendance and outright dissension from the Roman Pontiff? Why are American groups like Call to Action and Catholics for a Free Choice acting with such boldness and assertion? Their fight for women to become ordained priests was born with the 'inclusive' language movement. Inclusive language can only affirm their aspirations of undermining the masculine role in the English speaking Church.

In the Spanish Mass we see and hear the words "Y con tu espiritu" meaning "And with thy spirit" which is the word for word translation from the Latin. Whereas, the English uses "And also with you". Again we see in Spanish the repeated use of the term "Hermanos . . . " (Brethren). Whereas, in English we have been using "Brothers and sisters . . . " This division in the missal has seen its deeper division in the Church. One cannot help but observe that in Spanish masses, where 'inclusive' language is not applied like in the English language, attendance is overflowing. This is apparent in every Spanish mass I have observed. Some things are better left original.

The word progressive is defined as

1. Moving forward; advancing.

2. Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change.

3. Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods

However, in our Catholic 'progressive' movement there was never a clear goal what progressivists were moving towards, what they were advancing to or what end result they would be satisfied with. But they were certainly on their way.

Since our good Pope Benedict XVI was elected, 'progressivist' Catholics have been in a panic. When the Holy Father produced Summorum Pontificum, the 'progressivist' shuttered. They know deep down that the attempt at modernizing everything in our Church with 'progressive' novelties proved a disastrous failure as evident in our current crises. The fear that Latin mass will make a resurgence is clear. Clinging to the 1980's is their last gasp - they're desperate attempt to resist the faith of our fathers. We're seeing regularly, new parishes throughout the world reintroducing the Latin Mass which is a sore reminder that Catholics have had enough with the progressive movement.

However, more prayers and penance are required to finish off the movement since bad habits take time to unravel.

Postures for Mass and Inside Church - "Not Meant to Diminish Faith"

"In former times people used to kneel whenever they met a priest carrying the sacred Host to the sick . . . Before receiving holy communion, we ought to make an act of adoration of the Blessed Sacrament . . . All attitudes and gestures too, which are merely formal have no value . . ."(The Catechism Explained).

When do we genuflect . . when do we bow . . and when do we kneel? Even with recent changes in the General Instructions to the Roman Missal some of us are unsure what postures and gestures are acceptable during Mass and inside Church. What does the Vatican truly envision for the Universal Church?

In the First Commandment interior and exterior worship is required of us. We adore God by acknowledging both in our hearts and by our actions that He is Our Lord and we are His creatures and His servants:

1. our adoration of God manifests itself first by interior reverence then by external signs.
   
2. we pay God exterior worship because we owe him all of our being and because it serves to increase our interior devotion in that the true and full meaning is perceived.

If you are interested in teaching your children the various external signs of adoration, Fr. Cassian Folsom, a Benedictine monk in Rome, describes gestures in full here. The article goes into great detail covering how to properly walk to Communion, the 3 kinds of bows, how to properly fold the hands (some of us remember this from the older nuns in grade school), the beating of the breast at the Confiteor, and even how to properly sit during mass. Keep in mind when reading this article that we should call upon God first with the voice of the soul before the voice of the body. That is, the sentiments of interior devotion precede external signs. Or in other words, "Piety that is simply external does not last, because it is not the outcome of interior devotion" (The Catechism Explained).

For the Ordinary Rite of Mass, the General Instructions of the Roman Missal explain the meanings and uses of these gestures:

GENUFLECTIONS AND BOWS
274 A genuflection, which is made by bending the right knee to the ground, signifies adoration, and for this reason is reserved to the Most Blessed Sacrament and to the Holy Cross, from the solemn adoration in the liturgy of Good Friday until the beginning of the Easter Vigil.

275 A bow is a sign of the reverence and honor given to persons or what represents those persons.

a) An inclination of the head should be made when the three Divine Persons are named, at the name of Jesus, of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of the Saint in whose honor Mass is celebrated.

b) A bow of the body, or profound bow, is made: toward the altar if there is no tabernacle with the Blessed Sacrament; during the prayers "Almighty God, cleanse" and "with humble and contrite hearts"; with the Profession of Faith at the words "was incarnate of the Holy Spirit ... made man"; in Eucharistic Prayer I (Roman Canon) at the words "Almighty God, command that your angel". The same kind of bow is made by the deacon when he asks the blessing before proclaiming the Gospel reading. In addition, the priest bends over slightly as he says the words of the Lord at the Consecration.

The Adoremus Bulletin also provides answers to common questions concerning the new Instructions here. In regards to what gesture to use for receiving Holy Communion IGMR 160:

The faithful may communicate either standing or kneeling, as established by the Conference of Bishops. However, when they communicate standing, it is recommended that they make an appropriate gesture of reverence, to be laid down in the same norms, before receiving the Sacrament.

In the United States, IGMR 160 now reads:

The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.

When receiving Holy Communion standing, the communicant bows his or her head before the sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.

This however does not mean that one cannot genuflect or kneel to receive Holy Communion. Again, the purpose of gestures is to show an act of reverence to give God honor and for the person to perceive the true and full meaning of such an act - not to diminish the meaning. The Adoremus Bulletin explains:

The chairman of the Bishops Committee on the Liturgy (Archbishop Oscar Lipscomb) said that "norm" is a descriptive term meaning the usual or standard practice, not a legal term. With this clarification, the bishops voted to accept the BCL's wording of the adaptation.

Since then, however, some bishops and liturgists are interpreting "norm" as implying that standing is legally obligatory. This is not the case.

The post Vatican II business of showing a gesture for receiving Holy Communion while standing began in the 1967 Instruction on Eucharistic Worship (Eucharisticum Mysterium #34). It reads, in part:

b) When the faithful communicate kneeling, no other sign of reverence toward the Blessed Sacrament is required, since kneeling is itself a sign of adoration.

When they receive Communion standing, it is strongly recommended that, coming up in procession, they should make a sign of reverence before receiving the Blessed Sacrament.

However, since 1967 people began receiving Holy Communion standing in line rather than kneeling, the gesture of reverence was dropped altogether. Since most people received standing and made no sign of reverence at all, the GIRM specified that the bishops' conference decide on a minimal gesture. The bow was chosen as a simple enough gesture for everyone to make in order to make it clear that a real sign of reverence is required of all Catholics before receiving the Sacred Host without impeding Communion.

Apparently, most bishops saw specifying a minimal gesture as "restoring people's personal expression of reverence for the Sacrament they are about to receive, not to diminish it further" (Adoremus Bulletin Question and Answer March 2003). Therefore, the intent was to establish a bow of the head as a minimal requirement. Meanwhile, "other traditional expressions of reverence (genuflection and sign of the cross) were not prohibited, and could be discreetly added" (AB, March 2003). The Question and Answer session included, in part, the following exchange:

"Q. We have been told that a "simple bow of the head", amounting to a nod, is now the only gesture of reverence permitted before one receives Holy Communion. I am an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, and I can attest that no one has ever bowed their head before receiving, although some may genuflect briefly or make the sign of the cross. I have two questions.

1) Does the IGMR directive really mean that the only permissible gesture before receiving Communion is a simple bow?

2) Since most Catholics don't have the habit of making any gesture of reverence at all before receiving, how do we persuade them to do so?

A. First a clarification: This requirement for a gesture of reverence before receiving Communion is not new. This dates from the 1967 Instruction on the Eucharist (Eucharisticum Mysterium §34), and was repeated in Inaestimabile donum (1980). However, this rule has been honored in the breach when people stand to receive, thus it was repeated in the new IGMR.

If one receives kneeling, this is already a sign of adoration (Eucharisticum Mysterium §34), so no other sign is needed. But since most people receive standing and make no sign of reverence at all, the IGMR specified that the bishops' conference decide on a gesture of reverence. So they decided on the bow, which would be simple enough that everyone could make it -- in order to make it clear that a real sign of reverence is required of all Catholics just before they receive the Blessed Sacrament.

Apparently, most bishops saw specifying the bow as restoring people's personal expression of reverence for the Sacrament they are about to receive, not to diminish it further.

A bow of the head is required; however, other traditional expressions of reverence (genuflection and sign of the cross) were not prohibited, and could be discreetly added. Indeed, the IGMR itself describes the meaning of various gestures (see sidebar page 5), and it prescribes that the priest is to genuflect before he receives Communion.

Genuflection -- brief kneeling on one knee -- is the traditional gesture of reverence to the Blessed Sacrament and also at the Incarnatus during the Creed, along with the sign of the cross. (Now we are to make a profound bow at the Incarnatus except on Christmas and the Annunciation, when we kneel.) . . .

Most bishops believe it is important that all Catholics express bodily their recognition of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The minimal gesture (simple bow) is one that everyone can make and that would not impede the distribution of Communion."

Furthermore, this exchange of questions and answers (responsum ad dubium) by Cardinal Medina Estevez (who announced the election of Pope Benedict with the words "Habemus Papam"), reaffirms the appropriateness of genuflecting before Communion:

Cardinal Medina Estevez's Responsum ad dubium
(November 7, 2000: Prot. n. 2372/00/L)

Dubium 1. Is it the case that the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, by No. 43 of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, intends to prohibit the faithful from kneeling during any part of the Mass except during the Consecration, that is, to prohibit the faithful from kneeling after the Agnus Dei and following the reception of Holy Communion?

Resp.: Negative.

Dubium 2. Does the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments intend by Nos. 160-162, 244, or elsewhere in the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, that the people may no longer genuflect or bow as a sign of reverence to the Blessed Sacrament immediately before they receive Holy Communion?

Resp.: Negative.

-----------------

The Ten Most Common Abuses in Modern Mass

Catholic Answers featured an article by the author of Why Do Catholics Do That?, Kevin Orlin Johnson, Ph.D, in which he outlines the problems still plaguing our modern liturgy.

Article: Pope to purge the Vatican of modern music

Glory and Praise Songbook - your days are numbered.

Excerpt from Article:

Mgr Valentin Miserachs Grau, the director of the Pontifical Institute of Sacred Music, which trains church musicians, said that there had been serious "deviations" in the performance of sacred music.

"How far we are from the true spirit of sacred music. How can we stand it that such a wave of inconsistent, arrogant and ridiculous profanities have so easily gained a stamp of approval in our celebrations?" he said.

He added that a pontifical office could correct the abuses, and would be "opportune". He said: "Due to general ignorance, especially in sectors of the clergy, there exists music which is devoid of sanctity, true art and universality."

Mgr Grau said that Gregorian chant was the "cardinal point" of liturgical music and that traditional music "should become again the living soul of the assembly".

In a related article:

"In the Roman Catholic Church, we have the added horror of "folk Masses" . . . and now the same music is driving a new generation of young people away from church."

The question that should be asked of modernist Church musicians is how does modern music conform with the priorities prescribed in 'Chapter VI - Sacred Music' of the Second Vatican Council's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) promulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI on December 4, 1963?:

116. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman Liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.

120. In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church's ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man's mind to God and to higher things.

St. Peter's Basilica Has a Modesty Dress Code

St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, the Chief Church of Catholicism, establishes a dress code. Could America just adopt theirs?

Location:	Piazza San Pietro, Vatican City, Rome, Italy
Phone:	06-69881662 (for information on celebrations)
Hours:	Basilica (including the sacristy and treasury) Oct-Mar daily 9am-6pm; Apr-Sept daily 9am-7pm. Grottoes daily 8am-5pm. Dome Oct-Mar daily 8am-5pm; Apr-Sept 8am-6pm
Cost:	Basilica (including grottoes) is free. Stairs to the dome €4; elevator to the dome €5. Treasury 4 €.
Dress code:	No bare shoulders or knees (for both men and women).
Photography:	Permitted throughout (except in special necropolis tour)

How the Modern American Church will Dodge Saying No to Female Altar Boys

A bishop recently asked the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments whether a Diocesan Bishop would be able to obligate his priests to admit women and girls to service at the altar. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments considered it opportune to send this letter to the Bishop in question, and given its particular importance to publish it [in Notitiae].

An excerpt from the letter reads:

". . . the non-ordained faithful do not have a right to service at the altar, rather they are capable of being admitted to such service by the Sacred Pastors (cf. Circular Letter to the Presidents of the Episcopal Conferences, March 15, 1994, no. 4, cf. also can. 228, s.1, Interdicasterial Instruction Ecclesiae de mysterio, August 15, 1997, no. 4, see Notitiae 34 [1998] 9-42). Therefore, in the event that Your Excellency found it opportune to authorize service of women at the altar, it would remain important to explain clearly to the faithful the nature of this innovation, lest confusion might be introduced, thereby hampering the development of priestly vocations."

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments clearly explains the use of female altar boys as an "innovation" and further stresses concern that female altar boy programs may hamper the development of priestly vocations. Now we've touched on the heart of the matter. Beginning in March 15, 1994 there was introduced the modernist agenda and real drive behind the use of female altar boys. Its purpose was clear a decade later when priestly vocations were at their all time low. The devil hates Christ and the priesthood so it is his intent to discourage priestly vocations at a young age by turning young boys off from serving alongside girls. For young boys serving at mass no longer becomes a manly occupation together with, say being a fireman. The agenda is obvious yet some bishops (like the one addressed to above) and pastors are either too naive or too afraid to point it out and say one simple word - "no".


St. Pio of Pietrelcina once told a woman in confession that her son's soul was lost because she never said no to her children as a parent. A bishop and pastor to care for the souls in their care is no different than a parent who cares for the family in his/her care. Both need to lead their parish and family manfully through the lies, deceits, and false promises that the prince of the world throws at them. Just as Adam should have said no to Eve in the Garden so must a bishop and pastor say no to Eve in the Temple.


However, once some of the modernist bishops and pastors figure out that they must say no to girls they will simply dodge the issue. And here is how they'll do it. Since altar serving is a long standing tradition, pastors and bishops know that they just simply can't do away with it completely, so they'll devise, in vain, other methods to attempt making the issue insignificant. Here is the issue: since girls serving at the altar is fueling rebellious groups like Call to Action and We Are Church to pressure the Holy See to ordain women, the bishops and pastors will find a way to make both sides happy. However, making both sides happy is never the real outcome whenever this philosophy is attempted. The GIRM will probably be updated or pastors will probably innovate mass serving manuals that find a way to continue allowing girls to serve alongside boys, thereby pleasing outspoken feminist groups like Call to Action, while simultaneously sending a message to the Vatican and the Universal Church that they are 'doing their part' in keeping girls out of the sanctuary and disinterested in the priesthood. The new server manual could look something like this:

"Altar servers (boys and girls) will no longer sit in the sanctuary but rather in the front pew with the Congregation. They will no longer wear altar serving attire as they will now be considered the worshiping Congregation with altar serving status. They will receive training that would notify them when it is opportune to approach the sanctuary and perform their functions. They will not process in or recess out with the priest but rather take their proper position in the front pew of the Church before mass begins. They would respond to the prayers and exchange the sign of peace with the Congregation while remaining in the front pew. The front pew will be reserved for altar servers and the elderly will be placed in the rear of the Church. The front pew will have various initiation ceremonies at each altar server graduation in order to instill the sacredness of altar serving so that altar boys may still show interest in the priesthood."

So now that I've loosely predicted what the USCCB will attempt in their next GIRM revisions let's hope and pray to St. John Berchmans that we cut them off at the pass and that manhood in the Church may be preserved with service in the sanctuary reserved for males.