Today at Vespers marks the beginning of the O Antiphons.

First up is O Sapientia (Liturgia horarum, vol I, p. 284):

O Sapientia, quae ex ore Altissimi prodisti, attingens a fine usque ad finem, fortiter suaviterque disponens omnia: veni ad docendum nos viam prudentiae.

My translation:

O Wisdom, which has proceeded from the mouth of the Most High, stretching from end to end, mightily and sweetly governing all things: Come to teach us the way of prudence.

You may recognize this from Wisdom 8:1.

On a side note, you may have noticed this morning that the reading at Lauds was missing “Piety” from the Isaiah 11 passage listing the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Here’s the passage as found in the LH (p. 281) taken from Isaiah 11:1-3a of Nova Vulgata:

Egredietur virga de stirpe Iesse, et flos de radice eius ascendet; et requiescet super eum spiritus Domini: spiritus sapientiae et intellectus, spiritus consilii et fortitudinis, spiritus scientiae et timoris Domini; et deliciae eius in timore Domini.

Compare that with the Vulgate version:

et egredietur virga de radice Iesse et flos de radice eius ascendet et requiescet super eum spiritus Domini spiritus sapientiae et intellectus spiritus consilii et fortitudinis spiritus scientiae et pietatis et replebit eum spiritus timoris Domini

I can’t believe they cut it from the New Vulgate. This is a crime.

I just offered my first practice extraordinary form low Mass in our chapel this afternoon. It will take me some time to be graceful with all the gestures and to associate the gestures closely with the prayers. I’ve also got some memorizing to do!

When I’m in Mexico, I’ll probably practice the ordinary form of the Roman Rite Mass in Spanish. This year, it would be great to learn the roles of Subdeacon and Deacon at solemn high Mass as well.

I noticed in reading the Rite of Initiation of a Person in Danger of Death that Baptism is conferred followed immediately by Confirmation followed immediately by Viaticum. My first thought was that Anointing of the Sick would be unnecessary because of the lack of sin and temporal punishment due to sin as well as the fact that Anointing is the completion of the Christian life of penance. I was also mindful, however, of the effect of Anointing in strengthening against temptation.

However, in the context of a discussion on whether only a person with actual sins is capax to receive the sacrament of Anointing, Felix Cappello says (Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis, Vol III, editio altera, 1941, No. 222):

2. Ex communi certaque sententia, si quis in fine vitae gravi morbo correptus baptizetur, potest et debet ei sacramentum hoc ministrari, etiamsi nullius peccati conscientiam post baptismum habeat. Quod confirmatum est responso S. Congreg. de Prop. Fide diei 26 sept. 1821, quo declaratum fuit, ungendum esse paganum adultum graviter decumbentem immediate post baptismum (cfr. Collect. I, n. 768).

My translation:

2. From the common and certain opinion, if someone in the throes of grave illness at the end of life were baptized, this sacrament can and should be administered to him, even if he has consciousness of no sin after baptism. This was confirmed by the response of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith on 26 Sept., 1821, by which it was declared, that a pagan adult lying gravely ill should be anointed immediately after baptism (cf. Collect. I, n. 768).

So, what should be the current practice? Should Anointing be administered to someone just baptized who is in danger of death? Should it be conferred before Viaticum?

Perhaps I spoke too soon on the question of sacramental form.

Cappello says on the sacrament of Penance (Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis, Editio 4a, Vol. II, p. 65):

67. I. Sacramentalis absolutio verbis proferenda est.

Sane:

1. Omnes libri rituales continent formam absolutionis oralem seu vocalem, quatenus semper exhibent ministrum proferentem ore absolutionem, et nunquam aliter.

2. Concilia Florentinum et Tridentinum docent formam huius sacramenti esse verba: Ego te absolvo etc.; immo non solum indicant huiusmodi verba formam exprimentia, sed etiam doctrinam generalem tradunt, praesertim Florentinum, quod << omnia sacramenta perficiuntur verbis tamquam forma >>.
<< A qua generali regula, scite monet Suarez, non est facienda exceptio neque improprie vel secundum analogiam de aliquo sacramento interpretanda, nisi ubi ex traditione Ecclesiae et consensu antiquorum Doctorum id constiterit >>.

3. Accedit communis doctrina theologorum qui docent absolutionem esse ore proferendam.
<< Solus Deus per auctoritatem et a peccato absolvit, et peccatum remittit; sacerdotes tamen utrumque faciunt per ministerium, in quantum scilicet verba sacerdotis in hoc sacramento instrumentaliter operantur in virtute divina… Unde sicut in Eucharistia sacerdos sola prolatione verborum super materiam perficit sacramentum, ita etiam sola verba sacerdotis absolveventis super poenitentem perficiunt absolutionis sacramentum >>.
Ita S. Thomas.

Quare absolutio scripto vel signo aut nutu dari nequit, etiam in gravissima necessitate. Proinde sacerdos mutus potest absolvere. Hinc apparet distinctio in hac re inter sacramentum poenitentiae et sacramentum matrimonii, in quo forma, nempe consensus, valide exprimi potest etiam signis seu nutu.

68. Non solum ad liceitatem, verum etiam ad valorem absolutionis sacramentalis requiritur, ut ore proferatur.
Verum quidem est, hanc doctrinam probari non posse ex natura rei, scil. ex natura iudicii, cum sententiae iudiciali minime repugnet eam scripto ferri. At sacramentum poenitentiae est positivae institutionis, secundum voluntatem Christi, et non aliter, administrandum; atqui ex Traditione constat voluntatem Christi fuisse, ut absolutio voce humana detur; ergo.

Quidam veteres theologi docebant verba non requiri ad valorem absolutionis, atque idcirco censebant valide confessarium absolvere signo aut scripto, itemque valide tum confessionem tum absolutionem inter absentes peragi posse per litteras. Haec opinio falsa est, ut patet ex dictis ac statem dicendis. Utrum in extrema necessitate confessarius praesans, destitutus omnino usu linguae, valeat poenitenti praesenti impertire absolutionem scripto vel signo, disputatur.

My Translation:

67. I. Sacramental absolution must be given with words.
For:

1. All ritual books contain an oral or vocal form of absolution, insofar as they always present the minister as giving absolution orally, and in no other way.

2. The Florentine and Tridentine Councils teach that the form of this sacrament is the words: I absolve you etc.; indeed they indicate not only the words expressing the form in this way, but they also hand on a general doctrine, especially the Florentine, which states “all sacraments are completed by words as the form.”
“From this general rule, carefully warns Suarez, we must not make an exception nor interpret it regarding some sacrament either improperly or by analogy, except where it is considered as being from the tradition of the Church and the consensus of the ancient Doctors.”

3. The common doctrine of theologians agrees who teach that absolution is to be given orally.
“Only God through his authority absolves from sin and remits sin; nevertheless priests do both through their ministry, inasmuch as the words of the priest are clearly working instrumentally in this sacrament with divine force… Wherefore as in the Eucharist the priest completes the sacrament only by the offering of the words over the matter, so also the words alone of the priest absolving [over] the penitent complete the sacrament of absolution.”
So also St. Thomas.

Wherefore absolution cannot be given by writing or sign or a nod, even in grave necessity. No more can a mute priest absolve. In this matter there appears a distinction between the sacrament of penance and the sacrament of matrimony, in which the form, namely consent, can be validly expressed even by signs or a nod.

68. It is required not only for liceity, but also for the validity of sacramental absolution, that it be given orally.
This is true however, that this doctrine cannot be proven from the nature of the matter, namely from the nature of judgment, since it is not repugnant in the least to a judicial sentence that it be given in writing. But the sacrament of penance is of positive institution, according to the will of Christ, and in no other way, is it to be administered; moreover there is an agreement from the Tradition that it was the will of Christ that absolution be given with the human voice; therefore.
Certain older theologians used to teach that the words are not required for the validity of absolution; and therefore they reckoned that a confessor validly absolved by sign or writing, and moreover that confession and absolution could be validly given through a letter. This opinion is false, as is manifest from the things said and to be said shortly. Whether in extreme necessity a present confessor, absolutely deprived of any use whatsoever of the tongue, would be able to impart absolution to a present penitent by writing or sign is disputed.

Can American Sign Language be used to supply the essential sacramental form of the sacraments? For example, can a priest sign “I absolve you” or “This is my body” or “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” and validly administer/confect the sacraments of Penance, Eucharist, and Baptism?

This question is not new.

Dr. Ed Peters writes: “Rather, the ASL liturgical language question really comes down to whether a celebrant could offer Mass solely in sign language, without using an approved oral language (here, English) at the same time, even inaudibly.”

Dr. Ed Peters also writes:

Thanks for your kind words, as always, Jimmy. About your question on sacramental form and orality, I have (what I think is) an exhaustive analysis of that topic already finished. It is being juried for the professional journals now. In short, I think what we see is an example of, how to put it, Ecclesiae praxis aliquando docet doctrinam Ecclesiae. It really wasn’t hard to work it all out; St. Thomas, Regatillo, and Cappello provided the necessary tools.

Sacramental Form

Cappello, in the context of the history of the usage of the terms “matter” and “form” as applied analogously to the sacraments, writes (Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis, Editio 4a, Vol. I, p. 12):

Materia est pars determinabilis; forma est pars determinans, ea nempe quae determinat materiam ad rem individuam. Ita pariter in sacramentis: res sensibilis, v. g. aqua, est indeterminata; forma, v. g. verba, materiae applicata specialem significationem ipsi tribuit.

My translation:

Matter is the determinable part; form is the determining part, it is certainly that which determines the matter toward an individual thing. Thus likewise in the sacraments: the sensible thing, e.g. water, is undetermined; the form, e.g., the words, when applied to the matter gives it a special significance.

Cappello says on sacramental form (Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis, Editio 4a, Vol. I, p. 13):

Forma Est pars sacramenti, quae materiam determinat ad effectum sacramentalem producendum; et consistit generatim in verbis a ministro prolatis, vel, pro Matrimonii sacramento, etiam in signis, nutibus, facto, quae verborum locum tenere possunt.

My translation:

Form Is the part of the sacrament, which determines the matter in order to produce the sacramental effect; and it consists generally in the words offered by the minister, or, for the sacrament of Matrimony, even in signs, in nods, or in deed, which can take the place of words.

Regarding the form of Matrimony, Cappello further writes (Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis iuxta Codicem Iuris Canonici, Vol. III, #31):

Diximus verior certissime est, et vix non certa nobis videtur, quia verba Benedicti XIV in Const. << Paucis >>, 19 mart. 1758, sunt clara atque explicita: << Legitimus contractus materia insimul et forma est sacramenti matrimonii, mutua nempe ac legitima corporum traditio verbis ac nutibus interiorem animi sensum exprimentibus materia, et mutua pariter ac legitima corporum acceptatio, forma >> .

My translation:

We have said this is most certainly more true, and it seems scarcely uncertain to us, because the words of Benedict XI in the Constitution “Paucis“, 19 March 1758, are clear and explicit: “The legitimate contract is at once the matter and form of the sacrament of matrimony, indeed the mutual and legitimate giving of bodies by words or nods expressing the interior thought of the mind is the matter, and likewise the mutual and legitimate acceptance of bodies, the form.”

Aquinas says (STh. III, q. 60, a. 6, resp.):

Thirdly, a sacrament may be considered on the part of the sacramental signification. Now Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. ii) that “words are the principal signs used by men”; because words can be formed in various ways for the purpose of signifying various mental concepts, so that we are able to express our thoughts with greater distinctness by means of words. And therefore in order to insure the perfection of sacramental signification it was necessary to determine the signification of the sensible things by means of certain words.

He adds (STh. III, q. 60, a. 6, ad 2um):

And under words are comprised also sensible actions, such as cleansing and anointing and such like: because they have a like signification with the things.

In Latin (according to Corpus Thomisticum) this is:

Sub rebus autem comprehenduntur etiam ipsi actus sensibiles, puta ablutio et unctio et alia huiusmodi, quia in his est eadem ratio significandi et in rebus.

My translation:

Under things, however, are contained even sensible acts themselves, for example washing and anointing and other things of this kind, in these is the same principle of signifying [ratio significandi] as in the things.

My Thoughts

It seems to me, then, that the essence of the concept of form (as applied analogously to the sacraments) is that it determines the proper significance of the matter, that is, it expresses what is to be brought about whereas the matter on its own would be ambiguous in this regard. The notion of expressing the significance of the matter is taken to be objective, that is, even if the recipient of the sacrament does not understand what the words mean or even if the minister (with the proper intention) does not literally understand what the words mean the form is valid. Thus, the words of the form have a certain stable meaning. This is one reason why the Church is so keen on Latin; it guarantees that the meaning of the words does not change.

The issue, then, as regards the concept of what is essentially a “word” seems to me to be whether it is capable of signifying a meaning according to the mode of language. It seems a safe bet to me that older documents from ecclesiastical sources which use the term “word” regarding the form of the sacraments, even if they insist on the spoken character of the word, are presuming that all languages are spoken. Therefore, it does not seem to me to be contrary to these definitions of form to say that signs as employed in American Sign Language are “words.”

American Sign Language is a true, natural language with its own vocabulary and grammar. Thus, it is sufficiently complex to determine properly the significance of the matter of the sacraments.

I served Low Mass according to the Missal of John XXIII last Friday. I was what we call Acolyte 1, that is, the Epistle side acolyte.

Everything went well except in preparation for the Lavabo when I was at the credence table. I couldn’t find the towel, and so I went to the sacristy, hoping that a sacristan would meet me there with a towel (I was in the sacristy that does not have such things in it). However, I gave up, and when I got back to the sanctuary, the other server had the towel. Apparently, it was on the table right in front of me, but I didn’t see it!

I remembered all the prayers as well, even the Confiteor, which I was worried about because it has changed in the newer Missals, so it’s easy for me to get tripped up. I thankfully remembered to omit omissione.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith recently issued a response to two questions about whether baptism conferred “in the name of the Creator and of the Redeemer and of the Sanctifier” is valid. The answer is an unsurprising “No.”

Cappello doesn’t address this particular question–probably because the answer is obvious–but he does list as doubtful baptism “in nomine Genitoris et Geniti et Procedentis ab Utroque.” This formula, however, uses names which actually signify the divine Persons in their relations to one another whereas the invalid formula does not.

The collect for Ash Wednesday was this:

Concede nobis, Domine, praesidia militiae christianae sanctis inchoare ieiuniis, ut, contra spiritales nequitias pugnaturi, continentiae muniamur auxiliis. Per Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum Filium tuum, qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitate Spiritus Sancti Deus per omnia saecula saeculorum.

If you went to Mass in English, you heard:

Lord, protect us in our struggle against evil. As we begin the discipline of Lent, make this day holy by our self-denial. Grant this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God forever and ever.

The English–like many of the collects–is completely different. Now, I’ll admit that the Latin is hard to translate for a number of reasons. Like all collects, it is one sentence containing several clauses. Also, this particular prayer uses extensive military imagery, which really sets the tone for Lent.

A more reasonable English translation might be (though it sounds clumsy):

Grant, O Lord, that we might begin the defense of the Christian army by holy fasting, so that, we who will fight against spiritual evils, might be safeguarded by the reinforcements of continence. Through our Lord Jesus Christ your Son, who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God forever and ever.

Let’s look at the Latin again, with the military terms bolded:

Concede nobis, Domine, praesidia militiae christianae sanctis inchoare ieiuniis, ut, contra spiritales nequitias pugnaturi, continentiae muniamur auxiliis. Per Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum Filium tuum, qui Tecum vivit et regnat in unitate Spiritus Sancti Deus per omnia saecula saeculorum.

praesidium = defense, protection, garrison, detachment, support
militia = army, host, campaign
pugnaturus = about to fight
munire = to fortify, to strengthen, to defend (with a wall)
auxilia = auxiliary troops

In part of a collection of religious and liturgical images from Musica Sacra, I found this image containing the opening words and symbols of each of the four Gospels surrounding the Lamb of God as well as various figures which signify Christ.

It even contains explanations of the Christological symbols:

“The monoceros (The Greek word for “unicorn”) figures the form of the birth of Christ of the Most Holy Virgin.”

“The eagle figures the form of the ascent of Christ into Heaven to the Father.”

“The pelican figures the form of the suffering of Christ for the salvation of men.”

“The lion figures the form of the raising of Christ from the dead on the third day.”

In the Office of Readings this morning, we read (From Malachi):

Ab ortu enim solis usque ad occasum magnum est nomen meum in gentibus, et in omni loco sacrificatur et offertur nomini meo oblatio munda …

My translation:

For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place a pure offering is sacrificed and offered to my name …

Eucharistic Prayer III has this line:

[...] ut a solis ortu usque ad occasum oblatio munda offeratur nomini tuo.

My translation:¹

[...] so that from the rising of the sun to its setting, a pure offering may be offered to your name.

Usually, I think of Eucharistic Prayer III as referencing Psalm 113 (”a solis ortu usque ad occasum laudabile nomen Domini“), but this reading from Malachi seems quite apt as well, especially since it mentions the “pure oblation” (oblatio munda), which is a clear type of Christ. It even mentions how this sacrifice is offered (or re-presented) throughout the world and at every time.

---

1The currrent ICEL translation says “so that from East to West a perfect offering may be made to the glory of your name.” This translation is incorrect, and much has been said about it. Thankfully, it will be corrected.