SRC '29, Prescriptions

4/13/2021

Giotto, "Pentecost"

This third section concludes by appealing to the prudent “discretion of the bishops” in difficult cases. They are to decide what are the more suitable places for reserving the MBS when its observance the prescriptions becomes difficult. They are also to see to that the abuses which can creep in are “done away with.”

This ’29 SRC Instruction indicates the the date of the plenary session wherein it decided, in summary, on the following nine prescriptions:

1. The Ordinaries are enjoined by the present instruction to safeguard the MBS from the danger of nullity and every occasion of irreverence.
2. Ordinaries are to see to it that the preparation matter used for the MBS can be entrusted to persons above suspicion.
3. Rectors (i.e. parish priests) are to take care lest the matter of the hosts prepared for the MBS have adhering to them tiny particles that could be easily lost.
4. Rectors should provide for the freshness of the consecrated hosts with the utmost vigilance protecting the tabernacle from dampness or from extreme cold.
5. It recommends the use of a silver or gilded paten under the chins of the faithful at Holy Communion.
6. The faithful are to be carefully instructed in how to use the paten.
7. Fragments of the host are to be carefully kept and brushed into the chalice or ciborium.
8. Ordinaries are to see that altars are kept “scrupulously clean,” and these prescriptions bind their consciences as “a grave burden.”
9. Regarding the last three days of Holy Week, the observation of the Rubrics and of SRC’s decrees are to observed bearing in mind to prohibitions against public veneration of the MBS during these days, the tribute of due honor in the place where the MBS is kept notwithstanding.

SRC gave Ordinaries one year to report back on the implementation of the Instruction, how they have pursued its prescriptions and corrected confirmed abuses.

SRC’s plenary session of 23 March, 1929 and Pius XI confirmed the Instruction two days later on 25 March, 1929.

For the Sick, during the Triduum

4/12/2021

Giotto, "Miracle of the Crucifix"

Reservation of the Ciborium for Holy Communion for the Sick During the last three days of the Triduum:

This reservation is for the sole purpose of giving Holy Communion to the Sick. Pastoral experience teaches that such visitations are necessary since people’s illnesses do not observe the liturgical calendar. SRC explains that it is the mind of the Rubrics that the place be fitting, convenient, kept with becoming reverence, and not exposed for the adoration of the faithful.

SRC names three fitting places for this reservation: another chapel near the Church; the sacrarium; and a suitable place within the rectory “which is separated from domestic and profane uses” as well as “from all danger of irreverence.” The tabernacle there should have a lock and key as well as a lamp burning before it. Reposition there should take place on Holy Thursday.

SRC provides, in the event of there being no other place, for the reservation of the ciborium to take place in the repository—also called the “sepulcher.” SRC indicates the ciborium is to be placed behind the chalice. This juxtaposition of vessels may require some interpretation since it is only mentioned once. It may even require some familiarity with the Rubrics for Holy Thursday evening.

This reservation in the sepulcher takes place from the Mass of Holy Thursday until the Mass of the Presanctified the next day. This implies the normal use of the the sepulcher during this time.

The next day, however, that is from the Mass of the Presanctified on Good Friday until Holy Saturday, SRC indicates initially that the sepulcher not be the place of reservation, but rather “some more remote and secret chapel of the church, where a lamp should be kept burning.” If there is no other available place for reserving the ciborium then it may continue to take place in the sepulcher until Holy Saturday. In this case, a lamp is to burn before it, all other lights being extinguished.

Should there be no such setup for a “sepulcher,” the ciborium may stay in its tabernacle as normal. But form sunset on Holy Thursday until Holy Saturday the ciborium is to be relocated to one of the above mentioned separate locations.

'29 Holy Thursday

4/11/2021

Giotto,
"Exorcism of the Demons at Arezzo"

Reserving the MBS for the Mass of the Presanctified:

The reservation takes place “in a chapel in the church.” This chapel is to be decorated “As beautifully as possible.” The decoration specifically includes candles, draperies and flowers. It further specifies that the draperies should not be “black or mournful.” It also excludes relics and artistic representations of the Saints, including of Our Lady or John the evangelist, and also of scenes of the Passion.

It next indicates that the tabernacle in this chapel should be such that the chalice (or ciborium) should be built in such a way that it is not seen by those adoring. This tabernacle should be locked and its key kept by the priest who is to celebrate the Mass of the Presanctified the next day. There should be no seals placed over the door of the tabernacle.

Lastly, it indicates, no less than ten specific SRC Decrees “to the same effect.” That is, the above instructions regarding the Holy Thursday reservation consist of the input of ten SRC Decrees.

Next, this part of the instruction addresses bringing Holy Communion to the sick during these days of Holy Week.

The ciborium with the hosts reserved for this purpose should be kept outside the Church. This, therefore means it is distinct from that which is reserved inside the church for the Mass of the Presanctified. 

'29 on Fragments & Holy Week

4/10/2021

Giotto, "Dream of the Palace"

The Instruction next recommends the use of the paten to be placed under the chin of the communicant. It mentions that the use had arisen only within the previous fifty years. It indicates that particles are more easily seen and recovered using the paten than using simply the communion cloth.

In 1876, when the question of the use of the paten came before the SRC, it “gave no adverse judgment,” leading to the practice of using the paten at Holy Communion becoming more popular.

This section lastly considers outdoor masses. It recommends the protection of the particles from being blown away by the wind. It suggests the construction of the outdoor altar to be arranged that it is guarded from such gusts of wind by protective panels on three sides of the altar. It also suggests an awning in the front, all for the sake of the reverence due to the MBS.

Moving to the third consideration of the ’29 Instruction, SRC addresses the issue of the custody of the MBS on the last three days of Holy Week.

It identifies a twofold purpose of the reservation of the MBS on these days: the celebration of the Mass of the Presanctified and giving Communion to the sick. SRC divides this section of the instruction into two parts, each of the two dealing with the two purposes for reserving the MBS during these days.

Fragments of the MBS

4/9/2021

Giotto, "Confirmation of the Rule"

Priestly vigilance excludes using adulterated substances as the matter for the MBS.

The priest, in selecting the matter for the MBS should either use recourse to experts above suspicion or make them himself at home. The bread is from wheat alone; the wine pressed from grapes, alone.

The ’29 SRC instruction next addresses the particular care taken lest fragments of the MBS be lost.

It repeats the doctrine that the entire Body of Christ is present in each fragment. It indicates that fragments which fall to the ground are “alas…mixed with dirt and trodden under foot!”

This part of the instruction clearly reflects faith in the Real Presence.

It urges prevention of such accidents by attention to how and by whom the hosts are made. That the makers be of “irreproachable honesty” and experienced. It commends the use of houses of religious for this purpose.

It next urges the observance of the Rubrics of the Missal which provide for the removal from the hosts of “any fragments that may be adhering” to it. It cautions the nice placement of the hosts into the ciborium rather than being thrown in a heap.

It draws the priest’s attention to the corporal which it says must be free from little pieces of wax which “can sometimes be hardly distinguished” from the fragments which are collected on the corporal. Likewise, for the purpose of easily collecting any fragments it urges the corporal “be kept always white, and free from stain.”

Again all of these reflect belief in the Real Presence.

'29: Adulterated Wine

4/8/2021

Giotto, "Francis' Trial by Fire"

Adulterated Wine:

When wine has been diluted by too much water, SRC’s 1887 decree indicates boiling the wine as opposed to adulterating the wine by an admixture of alcohol.

A Chinese Bishop asked the SRC questions concerning adding a certain amount of sugar cane to the fermentation process of the wine when the grapes themselves produced only a weak alcohol. The SRC responded that the wine is to come from grapes. The addition of any spirits or alcohol should be “made from grapes” and not in excess of 12 percent of the quantity to which it is being added. It also suggested the addition of raisins to the mass being fermented, if need be.

Suitable matter for the sacrament cannot be bread or wine that has been substantially corrupted or changed. SRC advises caring for the wine lest it either turn sour or “be furtively drawn off and water substituted for it.”

SRC recalls the doctrine of the Real Presence and of Concomitance. It indicates both how carefully the priest must handle even small particles of the host should they be dropped and how gravely the Church penalized priests for his negligence in spilling even a drop of the Precious Blood.

'29: The Matter of Bread & Wine

4/5/2021

Giotto, "Essau"

’29’s first concern: Bread and wine

It begins by addressing the concern that what constitutes the matter of the Sacrament, that is the bread and the wine, “be most carefully preserved in its substance.”

It refers to Canon 815 of the ’17 CIC that excludes the “danger of corruption” in the substance of matter used, and that the bread and wine used be “pure wheat bread” and “natural wine of the grape.”

If the bread or wine cannot “according to common estimation” be said to be pure wheat or natural wine of the great because of the addition, admixture or replacement of other substances, then it cannot be valid matter.

The use of dubiously constituted matter is excluded as “criminal” since the addition of any notable quantity of any other substance to the wheat or wine exposes the MBS to the danger of nullity.

It indicates the thorough acquaintance with five particular recently-issued SRC decrees related to question of the integrity of the matter. It goes on to cite the parts of two of the those decrees that more closely concern the matter at hand:

In 1887, SRC addressed a question concerning the use of remedies for diluted wine or wine that had changed so as to become very weak or in danger or corruption.

'29 Intro, "Creeping abuses" in '83 & '04

4/4/2021

Duccio, "Three Marys"

Easter Sunday

This reference which ’29 makes to preventing abuses, specifically its attesting to how the Church “has always used the greatest care to prevent abuses from creeping in,” points to similar language subsequently used by the Church in the ’83 CIC and in its 2004 decree on norms concerning the MBS.

In ’83, when describing the parish priest’s responsibility for directing the liturgy in his parish, the CIC binds him “to be on guard against abuses.” It also refers to the “creeping” nature of abuse twice in referring to the local ordinary’s responsibility to maintain ecclesiastical discipline.

Okay. Enough about the acknowledgment of the creeping nature of abuse. For now.

Although, I did notice, that while referring to the reservation of the MBS, the GIRM refers to Nullo, while describing the matter of the Eucharist and the care for the bread used, the GIRM makes no reference here to ’29. RS does in 2004. Why the silence? Can’t say. Moving on.

The concluding thought about this intro is that it’s straightforward. It says, in essence: care for the MBS is the summit of the Church’s concern; these three matters pertaining to it have come to our attention; we’re going to address them here.

'29, for context

4/3/2021

Duccio, "Harrowing"

’29 doesn’t really go into the injuries and profanations concerning the MBS, at all. Or does it? Prevention and safe-keeping is certainly the focus of ’38. Is this because the specifics of this matter were merely alluded to, insufficiently addressed, or otherwise left as un-dealt with in ’29?

I think so. There is, off the top of my head, reference to proper veneration during the time the MBS is in the sepulcher. There’s the express direction of keeping linens scrupulously clean so as not to mistake small fragments of particles for wax, there’s mention of the three-sided outdoor altar setup so as to avoid particles being blown away by the wind. While these are not direct acts of intentional profanation, they do regard safe-keeping. They do invite the question of safe-keeping in general. ’29, then, serves as a helpful prelude to the discussion. Perhaps a closer look at it will help us appreciate ’38 more fully.

’29.

A brief overview before a closer look.

We’re looking, in ’29, at: an intro; three main questions; nine resulting prescriptions; a simple conclusion.

The intro opens with affirmations promoting Eucharistic faith and piety. These are from Scripture, Tradition and the recent Magisterium.

Next, it states how the Church has always safeguarded the consecration, reception and reservation of the MBS by preventing abuses with “the greatest care.”

By way of contrast, already we can identify consecration and reception as themes which ’38 did not deal with. Of course, it dealt with reservation thoroughly.

Pin-pointing the focus of the 38' Instruction

4/2/2021

Cimabue, 1288

In ’29, we instructed you on the particular aspects of the reservation of the MBS pertaining to the last three days of Holy Week.

In ’38, we want to go a step further and instruct you on what constitutes the safest possible keeping of and preservation from injury of any kind to the MBS, that is, year-round and not just during Holy Week.

This mission statement, or thesis of the instruction is expressed in both its first and second paragraphs. In the first paragraph—the instruction’s opening sentence—it speaks of its purpose as addressing the safeguards and cautions whereby the MBS is “diligently guarded and kept safe from all profanation.”

The two principle means we will use to achieve this end will be: 1) reminding everyone of the relative canonical prescriptions, briefly explaining them; 2) laying down other safeguards, better adapted to the current times.

Is it fair to distinguish SRC’s purpose as having two aspects? Guarding and safe-keeping? This seems like the same thing. It’s not like we’re differentiating between reservation and safe-keeping. Guarding and safe-keeping are the same thing. They both have in view protection from injury. What injuries could those be? It’s worth naming them: profanation, theft, sacrilege.... 

Should we go to '29?

4/1/2021

Cimabue, "Kristi gripande"

Let’s return, then, to Nullo’s citation of SRC’s ’29 Instruction. What does Nullo say about it? Does it recommend it? Should we study it and summarize it, too?

Nullo’s opening words, “Never at any time has the Apostolic See omitted safeguards” for the safekeeping of the MBS. It next recites in full the pertinent canons from the ’17 CIC. It is here, after citing these canons that it expressly mentions its ’29 Instruction.

The way it mentions the ’29 Instruction is helpful for the present context. For one thing, there’s the Instruction’s title itself. It indicates various concerns while at the same time limiting itself from being understood as comprehensive in its treatment of the MBS: “on some things to be avoided and observed in the celebration of the Sacrifice of the Mass and in the distribution and reservation of the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist.”

Nullo says “Since we already issued the ’29 Instruction, we now address the present concern: keeping & preserving MBS from injury of any kind. In other words, it would be false and baseless to the answer to deny there being any direct or immediate connection or relationship between Nullo and the ’29 Instruction. So what then is the connection? And how deeply into ’29 do we need to go?

Concluding Nullo, round one

3/30/21

Cimabue, "Christ's Flagellation"

Conclusion

Next the SRC affirms the zeal and industry of the Bishops to advance the same purpose of rooting out and guarding against any abuses which may require additional regulations better suited to particular circumstances.

SRC, with its final word before adding concluding quotation from the Ritual on the Eucharist, begs the bishops “leave nothing undone”—again restating the purpose of the instruction, even more succinctly—“to safeguard the Most Holy Eucharist from the impious attempts of wicked men.”

Its final quotation is from the beginning of the Ritual’s Fourth chapter, and recalls the how the Church has nothing more supremely holy, worthy and wonderful than the MBS, as this mystery contains Christ himself.

The Instruction appends the dates of the document’s approval and ratification and, lastly, it’s own date, the Feast of the Ascension, May 26, 1938.

That’s it for a once-over summary of Nullo, line-by-line. Now, a review of this summary would bring out more prominently the themes and purposes of the instruction. For instance, I can already tell, as a consequence of this review that the purpose ends up being very specific: safeguard the MBS from harm. This theme I will emphasize and for it’s sake distinguish it from other related themes such as: reservation, veneration, church arrangement, administration of Holy Communion.

This is to punctuate particularly the extreme wickedness of the offenses in order, by contrast, to emphasize the gravity of the priest’s responsibility. I’ll need also, to observe no exaggeration for the same reason. Inasmuch as excessive preoccupation detracts from real Eucharistic piety, it too is to be avoided. Rather, I’ll strive for the mean, the goal “to Safeguard the MBS.” Yes, safeguarding does take place within a constellation of dispositions which we are to have towards the MBS, as those just mentioned above. But I’ll emphasize what makes right-custody unique and essential among those dispositions.

Nullo 10 & its Conclusion

3/29/21

Cimabue, "Virgin & Child"

Removing the MBS

These remote churches also include those on “desert mountains and wide country spaces.” There are churches, then, where it is impossible to reserve the MBS.

SRC adds a helpful clarification regarding which would be more tolerable: deprivation of the means of Eucharistic adoration or its exposure to probable profanation. “Sometimes even if a notable part of the faithful” be without the privilege of access to this particular expression of Eucharistic piety, still deprivation of the means of adoration is to be preferred to the risk of probable profanation.

SRC authorizes by means of the instruction the Bishops to revoke the faculty of reserving the MBS from those churches when they perceive grave abuses or inadequate safeguarding of the MBS.

Conclusion

There are three paragraphs is conclusion. These include: 1) a recapitulation of the purpose of the instriction; 2) a citation of the approval of the SRC and the Pope’s subsequent ratification and confirmation; 3) the date of the instruction—the Feast of the Ascension, 1938.

SRC’s summary mentions ordinaries and parish priests particularly as guardians of the MBS. In less than twenty-five words the purpose of SRC’s regulation and cautions concerning reservation of the MBS is: “To root out abuses, if any such have crept in, or to guard against them, if they have not.”

Nullo 10: Violations & Losing the Privilege

3/28/21

A. Lorenzetti, "St. Michael"

Violations:

SRC continues describing the penalties to be used against negligent priests.

SRC dismisses the excuse of trying to “pass the buck.” It reminds who it is exactly who bears the responsibility. It next provides a pithy description of that responsibility that is their personal office: when the sacred offices are over, the tabernacle is not exposed to violation of sacred robbery.  As for passing the buck to some other priest who was had occasioned the crime by his immediate negligence—even though he may not have been the rector or the parish priest himself—both are to be penalized.

SRC authorizes and gives faculties to the local ordinaries to inflict these penalties against the superiors of religious houses within their territories. The bishop himself is authorized to file the process.

Removing the MBS

The bishop is responsible for inquiring where the MBS is reserved outside of the ordinary places and whether their reservation is lawful, that is whether they can demonstrate the written permission granting them the privilege of reserving the MBS. When the privilege cannot be proven, the MBS is to be removed—it’s reservation without permission being an abuse.

SRC cautions bishops against being too easy in receiving and commending requests for the faculty of the extraordinary reservation of the MBS. Instead it encourages bishops to abstain from granting these requests unless for “very grave reasons.” It particularly mentions the case of churches or oratories that are “too far removed from the houses of the faithful,” where safe-keeping is impossible.

Nullo 10: Penalties

3/26/2021

A. Lorenzetti, "Nicholas"

Nullo 10b: Violations

The bishop should propose to the SRC, as part of his investigation, what canonical penalties he intends to impose on the priest in the case of guilt. The bishop, lastly, having sent the file to the SRC will wait for the mandates of the SRC in response.

Nullo 10c: Penalties

The SRC urges bishops particularly to consider “deeply” the canonical penalties against the parish priest who is guilty of neglecting the guarding of the MBS “even though his fault fall short of the actual violation of the MBS.”

Let’s go slowly here. This “even though” clause makes sense because the law itself provides for the case of actual violation of the MBS with the strictest penalties. SRC is asking bishops to consider “neglect” not “actual violation.”

SRC instructs bishops firstly to consider “the end of the law”—the salvation of souls. SRC gives the necessary faculties to the bishops, insofar as it may be necessary to impose the canonical penalties.

SRC preempts as insufficient the allegation in defense of the priest himself, that some other priest was to blame for the carelessness. The burden of the care of the MBS falls squarely on the Pastors and Rectors themselves.

Nullo 10: Secure Ocular Knowledge

3/25/2021

A. Lorenzetti, "St. Nick"

Nullo 10a: “Secure Ocular Knowledge”

SRC instructs the bishops first to “secure ocular knowledge” as to how the MBS is secured in every location subject to him. His inquiry into the visible evidence of its safe-keeping is to be made with diligence and not limited only to the times of his visitations. He can see to it personally or through another prudent ecclesiastic.

Should they find something amiss concerning the necessary safeguards, SRC requires bishops to have the situation rectified in short order. It authorizes bishops to use penal sanctions in favor of the prompt securing of the MBS ranging, depending on the gravity of the negligence from pecuniary fines to the removal of the priest.

SRC instructs no relief from this obligation in favor of the plea that nothing has happened heretofore against the MBS.

This section of Nullo 10 concludes with the admonition that the malice of men may yet be done in the course of time and so it needs be guarded against.

Nullo 10b: Violations

Next SRC instruction how to proceed in the case—which God forbid, of violations. The Bishop should always proceed against the priest responsible by filing a summary of the details of the violation. The acts of the process should be sent to SRC in Rome with the bishops vote in the matter. The details of the summary are to include: the description of the theft, its place & time; a statement assigning guilt to the responsible person, via negligence or positive fault, based on the acts of the process.

Nullo 9, 10: Approaching anniversary of approval

3/24/2021

Lorenzetti, "Nursing"

Nullo 9: Private oratories

The paragraph concludes by urging that all who have charge of the key “must religiously consider” the gravity of their obligation. Particularly, that the key “not come into the hands of anyone,” even of family or family attendants.

The emphasis on the importance of the religious consideration of the gravity of the obligation is noteworthy, here. How often do we ponder our stewardship. Perhaps we too easily find ourselves in the position of the servant to whom his master assigned a single coin. We figure, through our laziness or wickedness that our master is harsh and unfair. So, instead of attending to the one responsibility for which we must give an account, we rather conceal it underneath a heap of the concerns of this world—that is, we bury it in the earth.

We are stewards of of the mysteries. And what greater mystery is there than Flesh and Blood of Christ? How do we care for the key to the tabernacle?

Nullo 10:

The tenth and final paragraph deals with the enforcement of the regulations. It concerns directly the way the bishops are to see that the prescriptions are carried out within their territories. It elaborates on four particular aspects of enforcement: 1) visitations; 2) reporting violations; 3) punishing crimes; 4) removing privileges. The paragraph offers a concluding statement. It indicates March 30, 1938 as the date the SRC’s plenary session approving the instruction. Pope Pius IX confirmed and ratified it on May 7, 1938.

Nullo 7, 8, 9: Non-parochial reservation

3/23/2021

Lorenzetti, "Madonna with angels"

Nullo 7: Religious Houses of Women

Why urge a particularly rigid insistence on the matter of the keeping of the tabernacle key in religious houses of women? Nullo 7 states its reason clearly, “so that abuses and irreverences be avoided which redound on the Blessed Eucharist.”  But what particular abuses could redound in a convent that would not be avoided by the general precautions already mentioned for Churches? The explicit requirement of the presence of both the Mother superior and some other nun indicates the propriety associated precisely with modesty and chastity as it excludes the circumstance of private communication between male and a female. It preserves diligent solicitude for the MBS from itself becoming an occasion of sin or scandal.

Nullo 8: Other (non-parochial) Oratories

The priest who is the rector or moderator of the oratory where the MBS is kept is entrusted with the tabernacle key and urged to guard it carefully. This admonition covers for every other conceivable instance of public MBS reservation beyond the two previously mentioned (parish, religious house). Hospital chapels, nursing homes, seminaries, colleges, schools are mentioned by name.  For all of these instances, the same previously-mentioned precautions apply.

Nullo 9: Private oratories

There are certain private oratories that have obtained an Apostolic Indult to reserve the MBS. Nullo 9 acknowledges the usual circumstance of the private family itself, rather than the chaplain, being in charge of keeping the key in the sacristy. However, it leaves it to the bishop to determine the preferability whether the priest who celebrates Mass there should keep it, or even the local parish priest.