A REQUIEM FIT FOR A KING!

This Requiem Mass at St. Olav’s Cathedral in Norway, is a splendid Bugnini Requiem and the way that a modern Requiem should be celebrated. Please note that the Propers are chanted in Latin, the Kyrie the 9-fold Greek version and the Sanctus, Mysterium Fidei and Agnus Dei in Latin. Everything else is in Norway’s native language.

The Priest-Celebrant chants the Eucharistic Prayer, Communicants kneel at the altar railing to receive Holy Communion.

There is no way to deny that Pope Benedict XVI’s liturgical magisterium about the solemn celebration of the Mass of Paul VI has had a world-wide influence. 

Let us pray that more parishes worldwide follow the genius of Pope Benedict XVI as it concerns the Mass of Paul VI!

  

A Requiem Mass for King Harald V at St. Olav’s Cathedral in Trondheim, courtesy of EWTN Norway. Note the use of purple antepedium and lectern cloths, unbleached candles, and black chasubles.

CASTEL GANDOLFO MUST REALLY LOVE POPE LEO XIV!

Pope Francis showing forth in the most visible way his humility, refused the lavish accommodations that popes have enjoyed for centuries at Castel Gandolfo. 

He never went there.

Tourism, a mainstay of the livelihoods of the residents of that wonderful place suffered greatly. Many businesses that catered to the tourism associated with papal stays there suffered and closed. 

Thanks be to God that Pope Leo has reversed so many humble traits of Pope Francis the outlier of popes, and receives in the most humble way the perks of the papacy unabashedly. 

Castel Gandolfo residents rejoice at the recovered visibility of their town returned to them by Pope Leo!

This is the Mass and Procession on the lake of Castel Gandolfo that Pope Leo celebrated today. If every Bugnini Mass were celebrated in this fashion, I don’t think we’d have all the liturgical polarization we have had, but not many celebrate the Bugnini Mass with this kind of care and reverence. Thus…

I DON’T OFTEN AGREE WITH MIKE LEWIS’ WAY TOO LENGTHY COMMENTARIES, BUT WITH THIS ONE I THINK HE GETS RIGHT, BUT AS ANOTHER BLOG INDICATES, POPE LEO IS THE POPE OF “LET’S SEE”…

Mike Lewis has a well thought out commentary on the liturgical affinity that Pope Leo has and it isn’t in continuity with Pope Benedict’s vision.

But as another blog says about Pope Leo, we’ll have to see.

What is very clear now and after 60 years after Vatican II, the only thing that we can count on with post-Vatican II popes, bishops and priests is that once they are gone, we can’t count on anything they accomplished as the next guy is going to reverse it, change it or ignore it. 

That, in a nutshell, is Vatican II—it reversed, changed and ignored every other council that preceded it, what Pope Benedict XVI clearly diagnosed as the spirit of rupture not continuity.

That spirit of rupture continues with each Vatican II and post Vatican II pope, bishop and priest. 

You just can’t count on continuity and stability any longer. In the most clericalism way possible, the laity, to include the lower clergy, are at the mercy of those in charge.

And if the laity get to be in charge, you can bet that there will be clericalism on steroids. We’ve already experienced that for decades now with “lay pastoral ministers.” Synodality, al la Pope Francis”, will put that lay clericalism on steroids. 

Press the titles for two rather good commentaries:

COMMENTARY

AUGUST 28, 2026

 BY MIKE LEWIS

Benedict Was the Outlier on Liturgy

Pope Leo XIV’s general audience on Wednesday clarified something that many conservative and traditionalist Catholics have been unwilling to face: the pope believes both that the liturgical reform is a good thing and that the reforms carried out following the Second Vatican Council are “firmly rooted in the living tradition of theChurch.”

And from Infovaticana: 

The pontificate of we'll see

Pope Leo XIV has been in his pontificate for over fifteen months, and it is now possible to describe his method of governance with notarial precision: it consists of not governing conflicts. He governs everything else. He appoints substitutes,…

THE GERMAN SCHISMATIC SYNODAL WAY—AS BARNEY FIFE WOULD SAY, NIP IT IN THE BUD, POPE LEO SEEMS TO BE DOING!

 I hope Pope Leo will be even-handed in trying to prevent schism. But I fear, like the FSSPX, the German bishops will eventually have to be declared in schism and experience excommunication along with the Faithful who follow them.

But this is good news as reported by The Pillar:

Inaugural meeting of German Synodal Conference postponed indefinitelyThe Vatican has not yet approved the statutes establishing the new body.

LEST WE FORGET, THE ORIGINAL LITURGY WARS HAD ORTHODOX CATHOLICS RALING AGAINST LITURGICAL ABUSES IN THE SO-CALLED NEW MASS,!

I recognize that for many Catholics, but a small minority, the problems they experienced after the 1970 Roman Missal was promulgated wasn’t so much with the verncular Mass or its order—most orthodox Catholics, even if they preferred the Ancient Form of the Mass, obediently accepted the new.

Within the first couple of years, 1969 to about 1972, the new Mass was celebrated reverently, even with modern music, mostly of the folk music style.

But things quickly went south with priests experimenting with the new Mass and making changes in its rubrics and wording.

So, let me be clear, the first liturgical war wasn’t about the 1970 Roman Missal, but about how it was deformed by “spirit of Vatican II liturgists and priests.”

These were the issues and it wasn’t about returning to the 1962 Roman Missal:

1. Music applied to the Mass with the choir or ensemble next to the altar leading the congregation or performing seemed nonsensical and entertainment oriented in style—distracting. 

2. Bells were removed from the Mass and incense as well and these were derided and pre-Vatican II and no longer needed and those who wanted these were derided as “bells and smells” Catholics!

3. With the bells gone, so to were the elevations at the Mass and any genuflections by the priest during the consecrations. 

4. Girls were illicitly trained as altar boys, prior to approval

5. Eucharistic Ministers were employed, even prior to approval

6. Kneeling for Holy Communion was forbidden and those kneeling denied Holy Communion

7. Real bread was used with flaky crusts and debris from these scattered on carpets and floors and carelessly neglected. Those who complained were derided as “Crumb theology” Catholics. 

8. The tabernacle was moved either to a side altar or outside the main part of the Church,often in a closet setting

9. Talking in the church before and after Mass was encouraged

10. Communion in the hand as well as the common chalice were done prior to these being approved.

11. Laity were self-communicating as Eucharistic Ministers simply held the ciborium and allowed the laity to take the Host from it with their own hands. 

12. When too much Precious Blood was consecrated in large pitchers, what was left over was poured down the sacrarium. 

13. Transubstantiation was considered an outdated terms as well as the sacrificial aspect of the Mass—a sacred meal was emphasized instead, a convivial get-liturgical meal get-together. 

14. The priest was changing the words of the Mass including making up the Eucharistic Prayer. 

16. Churches were stripped, reconfigured and made to look like Presbyterian churches and sanctuaries 

17. Mass was celebrated casually, without proper vestments and in settings outside of the church, like outside, on the beach, on floors, no altar and improper elements, like coke and crackers, instead of bread and wine. Relevancy was the new battle cry.

18. Priest celebrants received Holy Communion last, after everyone else in the Church received, often did not distribute Holy Communion allowing only the laity to do so.

19. Communion Ministers came to the altar prior to the priest’s Communion and  then all were given the Host at the same time and consumed together with the priest.

20. Since the sacrificial aspect of the Mass was not emphasized, the priest’s communion was not seen as completing the sacrifice, thus his communion was no different than anyone else’s.

Traditional Catholics were not pleading for the Ancient Mass, they were pleading for the 1970 Roman Missal properly celebrated. They were pleading for reverence and formality during Mass.

Their pleading was in vain and today we have those who prefer the  Ancient Mass because they know what  they will get and their religious beliefs and need for reverence won’t be offended there. 

IS IT THE OFFERTORY OR THE PREPARATORY RITE? ARE LITURGICAL NERDS THE ONLY ONES WHO CARE?

 One of the major changes in the Bugnini Mass was the elimination of the traditional offertory prayers and inserting an entirely new rite, not called the Offertory, although many still do to this very day. 

I can remember as a young priest insisting that we no longer refer to that part of the Mass as the Offertory but as the Preparatory! So there! 

I wonder how many of my parishioners in the 1980’s gave a flip, not many, I don’t think now. 

I was going to write something on the change in this part of the Mass, to find on line a commentary that Deacon Fritz Bauerschmidt wrote for Praytell in 2012. And guess what, when I looked at the comments I was the first to comment! How cool is that and my comment then is better than anything I can write today.

What’s also interesting is that Pope Francis, only a couple of years later, approved the Anglcian Ordinariate’s new Missal, Divine Worship, which adds as an option, the older offertory prayers! And of course it added, as an option, the PATFOTA, the Gradual, Tripple Non sum dignus, and Last Gospel. 

You can read it by pressing the title:

Putting back what’s missing in the new Mass, part III: the offertory prayers

Among the suggestions for “mutual enrichment” of the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms  is the suggestion that the Offertory prayers of the 1962 Missal either replace or be allowed as an alternative to the prayers at the Preparation of the Gifts in the Ordinary Form.

CHANGE OF HABIT AND IN MORE THAN NUNS’ DRESS

 Elvis Presley’s movie, Change of Habit, was filmed in Los Angeles in March and April of 1969, just months before the new 1970 Roman Missal was mandated the First Sunday of Advent, 1969.

The style of Mass celebrated at the end of the movie is the 1965 Roman Missal. But already, just four years after the Council and with the so-called Tridentine Mass, music was applied to it that would not have been applied to it prior to Vatican II.

This was the beginning of the collapse of traditional Catholic piety and reverence that was experienced even after the 1970 Missal was issued.

One has to question why so many Catholics (not all of course) embraced the flip-flop from a more rigid style of Catholic piety to a more free-wheeling style.

Keep in mind too, that by 1966 or ‘67, the charismatic movement was in full swing too, with Masses celebrated in a Pentecostal way. These Catholics would have been pious and reverent Catholics and very conservative politically and religiously, but embraced quickly, very quickly, a free-wheeling, emotional based expression of prayer and worship. 

Here’s the final scene of Elvis Presley’s “Change of Habit” filmed in 1969. Sister Mary Tyler Moore, MTM and her companion sister are entering the church for Mass at the Offertory Procession, well after the Gospel and homily, thus, did they actually fulfill their Sunday obligation??????

What time capsule:

I SAY THAT HATRED FOR THE EXTRAORDINARY FORM OF THE MASS OR THE ORDINARY FORM OF THE MASS BY THE BOOK MUST DIE OUT WHEN THOSE GENERATIONS WHO CREATED THIS HATRED DIE OUT!

 I have always appreciated Cardinal Sarah’s transparency and common sense. He has maintained that in a very respectful way. God bless Cardinal Sarah.

You can read his must-read interview at Diana Montagna’s Substack. Press the title of her article and of his interview:

Cardinal Sarah: Opposition to the Traditional Latin Mass Will Die Out with the ’68 Generation

In a new interview, the Cardinal calls Pope Francis’ restrictions on the old rite “neither wise nor respectful” toward Benedict XVI
DIANE MONTAGNA
AUG 27, 2026

DID WHOEVER HELP DRAFT THE FINAL ELOCUTION OF POPE LEO’S DISCOURSE ON SACROSANCTUM CONCIILIUM DO HIM A GRAVE AND EMBARRASSING DISSERVICE? THE SHORT ANSWER IS A RESOUNDING YES!

My post below this one was my simple way of saying what Dom Alcuin Reid eloquently writes. That he wrote this so quickly will capture Pope Leo’s attention. It’s time to clean house at the Dicastery of Divine Worship.

It is embarrassing to say the least! 

Press the title for his commentary by way of Diane Montagna’s Substack:

Liturgy Wars—The Latest Volley: A Papal “Thus”  Dom Alcuin Reid

POPE LEO, PLEASE REMIND THE CHURCH THAT LITURGICAL THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT DID NOT END IN 1965 WITH SAINTS POPES JOHN XXIII AND PAUL VI—THERE WAS LITURGICAL THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT WITH THE PAPACIES OF SAINT POPE JOHN PAUL II AND ESPECIALLY WITH POPE BENEDICT XVI

Pope Leo gave his final elocution on Sacrosanctum Concilium today at His Holiness’ Wednesday audience. You can read it HERE.

He gives the rational for the requests to renew the liturgy, encourage actual participation, and simplify the rites and make the Mass more intelligible. 

The transitional 1965 Roman Missal accomplished all of this while maintaining its reform within continuity with the 1962 Roman Missal used at Vatican II. 

BUT, BUT, BUT, Holy Father, it is appropriate also to focus on Pope Paul VI’s Consilium headed by Bishop Bugnini and if that committee went way beyond what the Council Fathers foresaw. That committee is the elephant in the room and Pope Benedict XVI rightly said they manufactured a new Mass which did not develop organically—it was created. 

In your elocution, we thank you for highlighting the liturgical abuses that developed almost overnight around 1966 regarding the Mass which continue unabated to this very day.

The first liturgical war wasn’t about the old and the new. Catholics obedient to Vatican II and the Mass that Pope Paul VI promulgated wanted it celebrated by the book. They were then accused by abusers of the liturgy as being the liturgy police or gestapo! 

Pope Benedict XVI, the most liturgical pope we have had in centuries, also developed the theology of VAtican II’s request for a renewal of the liturgies of the Church by indicating that what was considered sacred and for centuries could not be said to be a problem for the Church after the new was promulgated. 

We must not neglect the great theological developments on the liturgy approved by Pope Benedict XVI’s magisterium. Pope Benedict’s letter to bishops concerning Summorum Pontificum highlights this liturgical theological development. You can read it HERE. 

These include Summorum Pontificum but more importantly, the manner in which Pope Benedict celebrated the Mass of Paul VI:

1. He modeled ad orientem and encouraged it!

2. He modeled distributing Holy Communion to kneeling communicants and encouraged it.

3. He encouraged maintaining some Latin especially for the Eucharistic Prayer, but also for the Pater Noster and Agnus Dei and maintaining the Greek Kyrie.

As pope, Pope Benedict XVI never publicly celebrated the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, but might have privately. His focus was the reform of the reform in continuity with the older form of the liturgies.

That’s theological development that should not be canceled. 

I WILL BE A MARINE FOR SIX SUNDAYS IN SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER…

 The last two Sundays of September and all the Sundays of October I will be celebrating two Sunday Masses at the Parris Island Marine Base, about 45 miles from Hilton Head Island. The first Mass will be in a large, very large, hall to accommodate the nearly 1,000 recruits who will attend Mass, most going through Marine Boot Camp.  The photo is how the big hall is set up for Mass—kind of like putting lipstick on a pig, but it works!

The second Mass is at the Marine Base Chapel, a very nice chapel. If you look at the altar in the chapel, you will see that it is on a turn table, the entire wall with the crucifix and altar, actually turns around into the room behind it and what appears is the Protestant Chapel look with empty cross and pulpit. You can see that in the room on the other side. I’ve never seen that configuration before, but the chapel is used for both Catholic Mass and Protestant services. 

SHOCKING DESECRATION OF THE MOST HOLY EUCHARIST, UNDER THE FORM OF THE PRECIOUS BLOOD; WAS IT A MENTALLY ILL PERSON OR AN IDEOLOGUE MAKING A PROTEST? IS IT A HATE CRIME?

 I’ve been assigned to downtown parishes from 1985 to 2016, thus I am aware of the variety of downtown people with mental issues that enter our downtown churches. Most are respectful and we never turned anyone away who appeared to be a street person, but we did not allow them to disrupt the Mass either. We were prepared for disrupters but they were few and far in between.

I am not sure what the situation of the woman in this video—clearly there is some issue, either psychological or ideological or both—she’s been radicalized against the Catholic Church and it seem as though, to me, it is a hate crime against our Lord and His Church. 

I will cut her some slack if it was a psychotic moment for her. 

But apart from the desecration, please note that this is a Modern Bugnin Mass celebrated as I pray that it should be, especially the Holy Communion Rite. 

Please note that the Mass at the altar is celebrated facing the congregation, but with the Benedictine Altar arrangement that makes it ad orientem, yes, ad orientem facing the people.

But also note that the laity receive Holy Communion kneeling at the Communion Rail and they are blessed to receive under both forms of our One Lord by way of intinction which I have advocated for decades, decades I say!

Here is Fr. Z’s description of what you will witness toward the end of this clip—but also notice the care the priest-celebrant takes to clean-up the spilled Precious Blood before he concludes the Mass—kudos!

From Fr. Z:

At Holy Family Church in St. Louis Park, MN…an appalling profanation took place.  The pastor clearly has implemented intinction…(to allow the laity to receive both forms of our Lord together).

However, it seems that there is nevertheless danger of profanation when some agitator screwball shows up.   Note the falsity of the person, who first chose to go up near the end of Communion time for greater visibility and who at first knelt as others did.

About 1:05:10 a woman grabs the intinction cup from the ciborium. Shoots it. Holds it up, drops it on the floor, and saunters (with escort) out.  Father quickly moves to clean up whatever of the Precious Blood was on the floor.

planned.

Perhaps in your goodness, you will perform some act of reparation for this nasty, pre-meditated sacrilege.

A FUNERAL MASS FOR A “RETIRED” PRIEST WHICH WAS NOT A CELEBRATION OF HIS LIFE—BY HIS REQUEST

On Saturday, the Feast of the Queenship of Mary, concluding the Octave of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, I concelebrated a funeral Mass at Saint Gregory the Great Church in Bluffton, SC for Father Robert Spriggs, whose obituary I print below these comments.

As per his request, he asked that the homily not be a eulogy for him or about him at all. He asked the preacher to focus in on the Paschal Mystery—which is what the General Instruction of the Roman Missal states is the purpose of the Funeral homily.

The pastor of St. Gregory’s followed Fr. Spriggs’ request and gave a beautiful homily on the paschal mystery and a model of what a funeral homily should entail. 

Father Spriggs was very active in his retirement helping in all the parishes in the Bluffton/Beaufort/Hilton Head/Hardeeville area. The Church was full for his Requiem Mass.

And yes, this is his full obituary:

Robert W. Spriggs

Jul 15, 1938 — Aug 16, 2026

Hilton Head Island

Robert W. Spriggs, born July 15, 1938 and died August 16, 2026. Father Spriggs was ordained for the Diocese of Springfield-in-Illinois and served actively at a number of jobs and in a number of parishes in the Diocese for over 60 years.

Funeral mass for Father Spriggs will be celebrated at 11:00 am, Saturday, August 22, 2026 at Saint Gregory the Great Catholic Church, Bluffton, SC.

In lieu of flowers, anyone wishing to do so may make donations for Masses for Father Spriggs.

IN THE 1980’S MY SOMEWHAT PROGRESSIVE BISHOP OF SAVANNAH WAS QUESTIONING THE CHURCHIFYING OF THE LAITY AND THUS NOT FOLLOWING WHAT VATICAN II TAUGHT ABOUT THE LAITY’S ROLE IN THE CHURCH—WHICH ISN’T CHURCHY BY THE WAY!

Even Pope Francis warned about clericalizing the laity, especially women, but then that’s what happened when he opened the ministries of lector and acolyte to laymen and women. Prior to that, these formal ministries were a part of the clerical process of ministries to the ordained life of the diaconate and priesthood. 

Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI also warned against the clericalizing of the laity while laicizing the clergy. 

Back in the mid and late 1980’s when I was living with Bishop Raymond Lessard at our Cathedral in historic downtown Savannah, he mused out-loud that we were clericalizing the laity by emphasizing all the church jobs or ministries they could have and were doing to the detriment of what the laity’s role should be as described by Vatican II—in the world, to make Christ known there and what the Catholic Church teaches about that.

Bishop Lessard was no academic lightweight. He had been the chairbishop of the USCCB’s Doctrine Committee. 

The Church’s focus for the laity is to empower them to bring their Catholicism to home, work, play and the public square as well as politics.

Has that happened? I suspect so in some cases, but we have so many Catholic politicicaians who have not and in fact fail miserably in this regard in terms of Vatican II’s vision for the laity. Just think of the last Catholic president or the current governor of Massachusetts!

Finally, someone in 2026 is saying what my bishop was saying way back in the 1980’s. 

I copy this from Fr. Z’s blog:

The increasingly valuable Infovaticana has a piece by Martin Grichting (Swiss canonist of the Diocese of Chur) argues that Vatican synodality is anachronistic because it draws laypeople into ecclesiastical structures rather than sending them into civil society.

Vatican II envisioned the laity transforming politics, culture, and social life from within. Synodality (“walking together”) instead risks clericalizing the laity, confusing ecclesial roles, and weakening their proper secular apostolate.

Excerpt (READ the whole thing at Infovaticana!):

Synodality suggests to the laity that, when it comes to ecclesiastical and apostolic action in secular reality, only—or primarily—the institutional Church matters. Thus, they wait for the synodal assembly to tell them what they should do. In this way, they fail to realize what their task already is today: to make Jesus Christ—prophet, priest, and king—present in the midst of the fragmented and confusing reality of civil society. And because the current Church leadership is unable to transmit to the laity an appropriate spirituality for this, one that corresponds to their nature, they are drawn into the activity of the hierarchy. From there, they are supposed to collaborate—supposedly—in the Church’s mission. The laity are indiscriminately mixed with the successors of the apostles in the so-called synodal bodies, just as once happened in the Synod of Bishops. This once again ignores the Second Vatican Council. For in LG 10 it had still taught that there is an essential difference between the hierarchical priesthood and the common priesthood. Vatican synodal activists have for years been trying to push for the equalization of clergy and laity also in the particular Churches. The most recent example is the “Notes for the use of Bishops and synodal teams” published at the end of July 2026 by the Apostolic See. This is done with ever more verbiage and greater desperation. And it does not take root, because it does not help the faithful to live their Christianity in today’s world.

I NEVER LIKED THIS KIND OF ART AND ALWAYS WONDERED WHY THOSE IN THE VATICAN CHOSE SUCH THRASH FOR THE LATIN EDITION OF THE 2002 ROMAN MISSAL

 Usually what art critics like, I don’t. My tastes in art is a gut sort of thing or maybe intuitive. I know what I like and what I don’t regardless of what the experts think.

Around 2010 I acquired the Latin Edition of the 2002 Roman Missal—the “reform of the reform” Bugnini Mass approved by Saint Pope John Paul II.

The art used in the missal looked childish to me, maybe from an art contest of high school art students. And the Vatican chose the winner.

Only today, when I was looking at Fr. Z’s blog, did I realize that it is Rupnick art! Lord have mercy on his soul!

This is what I read at Fr. Z’s blog and no, I didn’t know until now!:

And did you know that the current, official, 2002 3rd editio typica of the Novus Ordo Missale Romanum contains throughout artwork by Rupnik?

And I took this photo in 2013 at San Giovanni Rotondo, Italy, Saint Padre Pio’s Shrine: I didn’t know at the time that all the Mosaics there are disgraced Rupnick’s mosaics. I knew, though, at the time, that I like the colors but I did not like the images. And his mosaics are plastered all over the place. And his mosaics are all over the Vatican and even in Lourdes and in Poland at St. John Paul II’s shrine! 

What a mess artistically and financially for the Church as decisions are made to hide or remove these expensive works of art.

Is it best just to cover them and in 100 years uncover them again? What if we had direct evidence that Michelangelo and Davinci had similar or worse immoral backgrounds, should their art be hidden or removed?

DO CATHOLICS HAVE TO, MEANING THEY ARE COMMANDED TO DO SO AND HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO DO SO UNDER THE PENALTY OF MORTAL SIN, TO SING AT COMMUNION TIME TO EMPHASIZE THE COMMUNAL NATURE OF RECEIVING HOLY COMMUNION?

 I recently saw a brief video of a Franciscan priest, and a young one at that, saying that Catholics must sing at Holy Communion time from the moment the priest receives until the last person has received.

He was rather dogmatic about that and based his dogmatism on the fact that receiving Holy Communion is not a private act between the person and God whom they receive. No-it is communal and singing at Holy Communion time by everyone emphasizes the communal nature of Holy Communion. 

He then shows what the General Instruction of the Roman Missal says about the communal nature of receiving Holy Communion during Mass but he omits what I highlight in large letters in red!

The Modern Mass allows for just about anything you want to do as the options are numerous. You can sing or say the Introit, Offertory and Communion Antiphons, or omit them and sing something else, or don’t sing any of them at all. 

At any rate, this is what the General Instruction of the Roman Missal says and reading the entire thing, tells me and should tell that Franciscan priest there is nothing dogmatic about this nor is it required under the penalty of venial or mortal sin:

86. While the priest is receiving the Sacrament, the Communion chant is begun. Its purpose is to express the communicants’ union in spirit by means of the unity of their voices, to show joy of heart, and to highlight more clearly the “communitarian” nature of the procession to receive Communion. The singing is continued for as long as the Sacrament is being administered to the faithful.[74] If, however, there is to be a hymn after Communion, the Communion chant should be ended in a timely manner. 

Care should be taken that singers, too, can receive Communion with ease.

87. In the dioceses of the United States of America there are four options for the Communion chant: (1) the antiphon from The Roman Missal or the Psalm from the Roman Gradual as set to music there or in another musical setting; (2) the seasonal antiphon and Psalm of the Simple Gradual; (3) a song from another collection of psalms and antiphons, approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops or the diocesan Bishop, including psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms; (4) a suitable liturgical song chosen in accordance with no. 86. This is sung either by the choir alone or by the choir or cantor with the people.

If there is no singing, however, the Communion antiphon found in the Missal may be recited either by the faithful, or by some of them, or by a lector. Otherwise the priest himself says it after he has received Communion and before he distributes Communion to the faithful.

88. When the distribution of Communion is finished, as circumstances suggest, the priest and faithful spend some time praying privately. If desired, a psalm or other canticle of praise or a hymn may also be sung by the entire congregation.

A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS

I don’t know what is in the heart of anyone who receives Holy Communion. The most pious person, kneeling reverently and solemnly to receive Holy Communion could be the most corrupt person ever to have lived.

The same is true for a person who on the run, receives Holy Communion in the hand and is laughing as she departs and prior to placing the Sacred Host in her mouth. She might be the most faithful, saintly Catholic ever to have walked the face of the earth. 

But, but, but…

Isn’t the law of prayer, the law of belief?

A corrupt, non believing person, who nonetheless receives Holy Communion in a pious, reverent, solemn way, while kneeling, at least is doing something good—modeling for others the outward reverence due Christ the King—even if the person receiving Christ the King is a whited sepulcher! 

Casual, irreverent ways of receiving Holy Communion undermines the faith of others who see it and wonder, is Christ the King being received or not, even if the one receiving is the holiest person in the Church receiving Christ the King—the image or outward manner in which Christ the King is received tears down belief in the real presence of others who witness it and may be wondering if Christ the King is truly present in Holy Communnion. 

Without making any judgements on this person, what does it say about the liturgical renewal of the manner in which Holy Communion is distributed and has been distributed going on more than 50 years now? 

What does it say about reverence? And might this be a poster for the young who want a return to traditional practices during Mass, like ad orientem and kneeling for Holy Communion and only priests, deacons and officially installed acolytes distributing Holy Communion.

AI Overview

The phrase "the law of prayer; the law of belief" translates the ancient Latin maxim lex orandi, lex credendi. It means that how people worship and pray shapes and reflects what they believe, establishing a deep link between liturgy (practice) and theology (doctrine). [1, 2, 3]

Core Meaning

Lex Orandi: The law of prayer or worship (the way we pray, sing, and act in liturgy).
Lex Credendi: The law of belief (the core doctrines and faith of the church).
The Connection: Actions in worship come first to express faith, meaning our rituals teach and form our internal beliefs over time rather than just dry rules. [1, 2, 3]