Arranging Exposition

5/19/2021

Duccio, "Andrew"

RS 136 speaks of the Ordinary’s duty to promote Eucharistic adoration with the people participating. It mentions two types of places: one where such devotion is already strong and another where there is almost a total lack of regard for the MBS.

RS 137 indicates the norms of the liturgical books as prescriptive of how Exposition is to be carried out. We have looked at these. It recommends the praying of the Holy Rosary before the MBS either reserved or exposed, indicating that it is “not to be excluded.” In further describing the prayer before the MBS it recommends contemplative prayer and that prayer which is aided by the reading of Scripture.

RS 138 speaks of the urgency of arranging at fixed times the presence always of at least some of the faithful. This is to avoid even for the briefest space of time the MBS exposed ever being left unattended. RS later indicates that any action to the contrary whereby the MBS exposed is left unattended constitutes a grave abuse.

This, I’ve found, is a problem where there are prolonged periods of exposition in parishes. It gives rise to the faithful reposing the MBS by themselves, contrary to the norms of the liturgical books, to say nothing of the devastating effect such abandonment of the safeguarding of the MBS has on pastor and the parish. It’s staggering to consider, when the MBS exposed is left unattended, what abuse it is subject to, entirely beneath the consideration of precisely the one who is entrusted with its safekeeping.

Image: Duccio, "Andrew"

Spiritual Communion, Visits

5/18/2021

Duccio, "Anunciation"

I commented that the English translation weakened the editio typica’s strong Latin phrase “etiam vitae suae testificatione” when it read “also by their personal witness.” I was not the only one who thought it was weak. The English translation of RS 134, citing verbatim JPII’s EE quotation preferred in its English translation to go with “even by the witness of their life.” Interesting.

There’s a difference between giving a personal witness and giving a witness with “your life.” The latter is stronger because it can easily imply witnessing with one’s life by laying it down. Saint Tarcisius comes to mind, the Third Century Roman Martyr who was killed by a mob while guarding the MBS.

I had noticed Google Translate algorithmically included “personal witness” as the preferred option for “suae testificatione.” But that’s Google and that’s an algorithm. Perhaps the algorithm is even preferring “personal” because of the existence of EE’s English. Whatever the case may be, just as I noticed RS also prefer the more direct “their lives,” I was rescued from thinking myself some stringent literalist.

Moving on.

RS 135 Oh, boy. This one’s on making visits to the MBS. Here we go. It describes the responsibility of the faithful to make visits during the day to the MBS. It indicates three purposes for these visits: 1) proof of gratitude; 2) pledge of love; 3) debt of adoration. Paul VI’s “Mysterium Fidei” is cited here which encourages visits to the MBS for the same reasons.

RS 135 indicates “communion of desire,” perhaps more commonly known as spiritual communion. Communion of desire more accurately describes it, however. It’s properly distinguished from Full Sacramental Communion which involved the direct consuming of the MBS. Communion of desire both anticipates and follows from Sacramental Communion and is a grace available to the faithful anytime, even apart from receiving Holy Communion. This communion is what is encouraged by visiting the MBS. It is why the law of the Church, which RS 135 mentions in conclusion, obliges pastors to leave open their churches where the MBS is reserved. We’ve discussed this law already.

Image: Duccio, "Anunciation"

Tangent: Order, Character

5/17/2021

Duccio,
"Annunciation"(Fragment)

Excursus on the Sacramental character of Order.

Does everything have to be juridical? Is it the priest’s personal ontological configuration that causes his ecclesiastical distinction. Or is it the mind of the lawgiver that causes ecclesiastical distinction?

The law certainly distinguishes between layman and cleric.

This may be related to whether there is a sacramental character of the diaconate. Deacons are clerics, ecclesiastics, churchmen. The question is debated (to my knowledge) whether their ordination into the diaconate causes in the man an ontological configuration.

Can a secular, diocesan priest consider himself a layman in all things save ontological configuration and church stuff?

There is one priest, Jesus Christ. Ministerial priesthood, baptismal priesthood, all priesthood is a participated priesthood in the priesthood of Jesus Christ. It is participated to a greater or lesser degree. Ministerial priesthood differs from the common priesthood in more than just degree. It also differs in essence. It’s still participated. But it’s a participation in the high priesthood of Christ the head of the Church. This headship, this standing at the front of the people has got to be where this essential difference resides, perhaps.

In what sense does the head differ from all other parts of the rest of the body? In this sense does the participation of those men in the ministerial priesthood differ from the participation of the rest of their brothers and sisters in the common priesthood.

In Mediator Dei, paragraph 20, Pius XII does number on this. Christ the priest. Worth a deeper dive, another time.

Image: Duccio, "Annunciation" (Fragment)

Back to RS, '04: Witnessing with Your Life

5/16/2021

Duccio, "Magi"

We spent most of this past week on a couple of different tangents. Let’s see if we can get back on track with working through these documents. We may next go to PCLT’s 2000 Declaration, but first let’s make sure we’re not leaving any loose ends lying around.

How did you get on the EM tangent to begin with? We were looking previously at EOM. When it began to describe Lengthy Exposition it referred to EM. EM refers several times to the number of the faithful who come together for lengthy exposition.

EOM’s section on exposition refers constantly to EM. EOM, in 1973, essentially converts the 1967 Instruction (EM) into the new, current, liturgical ritual for Eucharistic Worship Outside of Mass.

But before all of this we were working through RS which, after dealing with the reservation of the MBS moves to worship. Let’s go back there. That’s where the tangents began.

RS 134 begins by quoting JPII’s EE, paragraph 25, which speaks of the great value and of worshiping the MBS outside of Mass and its close link to the celebration of the Mass itself. RS 134 indicates that devotion, both public and private, to the MBS outside of Mass should be “vigorously promoted.” RS 134 concludes by reminding pastors of their duty to give their lives witnessing to the cult of the Eucharist, especially the MBS exposed.

I pause. I notice a weak English translation compared with the editio typica of JPII’s EE. I hope the consequence of this weakening isn’t a diminution of Eucharistic piety. For example, where EE’s Latin describes the sacred duty of pastors to sustain the Eucharistic cult “etiam vitae suae testificatione” that is “even with the witness of their lives,” the English reads, “also by their personal witness.” The Latin is stronger.

Image: Duccio, "Magi"

Do No Harm

5/15/2021

Duccio, "Agony"

Another common reason to refuse to administer Holy Communion to someone is that it may cause harm. Let’s set aside the real and serious spiritual harm caused by receiving unworthily and focus for the moment, rather, on physical harm. Two instances come to mind: NPO orders and quarantine.

Priests often arrive at the hospital or to the sick bed after a doctor has already given the order that the patient is to take nothing by mouth (NPO is short for the Latin nil per os). Attempting, repugnant as it is even to consider, force-feeding the host to a sick person who can hardly swallow is not only not advised, but will likely result in the profanation of the Blessed Sacrament. Such a person is not in that moment to be admitted to Holy Communion, their most recent, previous Communion sufficing for their Viaticum.

Similarly, someone quarantined due to an infectious disease might be inaccessible to the priest. Or, likewise, the priest may find himself needing to quarantine thereby excluding everyone from Sacramental Communion.

Avoiding doing harm in these two instances is the perfectly reasonable and even necessary decision on the part of the minister. These are cases where the minister must refuse to give it due to the unhealthiness of the participants. No one would fault the minister for a second for his discernment in such a situation.

This past year, pastors all across the country made exactly this very discernment lasting for a period of months at a time, and in some places even longer. The minister of communion must refuse to distribute it to those who are physically unable to receive it.

Is it possible to consider that these pastors were using the administration of the sacraments to cudgel the faithful into behaving a certain way? While there were some pastors who were criticized for refusing access to confession for anyone not yet vaccinated, those pastors were corrected. Even so, it’s hard to imagine, as mistaken as those pastors were, that they were trying to weaponize or instrumentalize the sacrament for the sake of some other purpose. Rather, on the face of it, it’s simpler to understand that there are some practical circumstances involving the physical health of the faithful that call for the refusal of the administration of the sacrament.

By now it should be clear, there are times for the priest to administer the sacrament and times for him not to administer it. The timing and presentation of these circumstances is made clear by the circumstances themselves. The circumstances, while they are not intended by the minister of the sacraments, do affect whether or not he proceeds with their administration.

The choice to exclude millions of the faithful from Holy Communion through the order to suspend the celebration of Mass for the faithful was a serious one. It was done, obviously for the sake of protecting them from the harm caused by the spread of a deadly virus. But can those same pastors who so protect their faithful from harm by excluding them from Holy Communion also promise Holy Communion at the same time to the promoters of the slaughter of the innocent unborn?

Image: Duccio, "Agony"

To Administer or Not to Administer?

5/14/2021

Duccio, "Agony"

Pastors benefit from Ed Peters's work on hard Holy Communion cases

The matter of the administration of Holy Communion requires pastors to have their act together. The Canon Lawyer, Ed Peters, has done excellent work over many years explaining Canon 915 and its application. His 2019 post, “Canon 915’s moment has arrived” on his blog together with his 2011 essay called “The Cuomo-Communion Controversy” in CWR both investigate the supposed contrast between the Church’s law and her pastoral practice. They can be helpful to us.

Harsh Penalty or Good Practice?

One point Peters makes is the difference between sacramental discipline and penal sanctions. The norms which govern sacramental discipline are distinct from the norms establishing penalties. Rather than being norms that contrast with each other, they operate in altogether distinct ways. Sacramental Discipline governs the Church’s responsibility to administer the Sacraments, its norms being found in Book IV of the Code. Penal Sanctions govern the Church’s responsibility to use coercive power against its offending members, with its norms in Book VI. Sacramental Discipline requires the prudent execution of the minister’s sacramental responsibility according to a pre-determined set of commonly occurring circumstances, even those circumstances that may happen rather infrequently. Penalties require strict interpretation of carefully defined crimes and involve due process.

Peters also explains that excommunication is a penalty sanctioned by the Church in accord with the law. Required for its execution are laws prohibiting certain crimes, the procedure against an alleged perpetrator and the adjudication of the case by the competent authority. One of the most obvious effects of the penalty of excommunication is the exclusion from participation in Sacramental Communion.

Exclusion from Holy Communion

The effect of exclusion from Holy Communion, however, also has other causes which are themselves not penalties at all. Non-Catholics are excluded from Holy Communion as are young people who are not yet prepared. So too are the faithful who have not fasted from the previous hour or who know themselves first to require absolution before approaching. In short, anyone lacking proper preparation can find themselves indisposed and thus warranting exclusion from participating in Holy Communion at any given time. The Church’s sacramental discipline guides both the faithful and the Sacrament’s ministers in discerning individual cases.

While the effect, the exclusion from Holy Communion, is the same for someone obstinately persisting in manifest serious sin as it is for an excommunicate, it is an effect that is nevertheless arrived at from two very different paths. In the case of excommunication, exclusion is the result of the lengthy and carefully adjudicated penal process. In the case of someone publicly unworthy due to their obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin, exclusion is the spontaneous reaction of a discerning minister executing his responsibility simultaneously to safeguard the individual presenting himself, the surrounding community and most importantly, the Most Blessed Sacrament.

Pastors are ‘on it’

In the parish, the discernment of cases of exclusion from Holy Communion involving any of the faithful who are obstinately persisting in manifest serious sin is the responsibility of the pastor. The Church has clarified this with its 2000 Declaration concerning the question of Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried (cf. paragraph no. 3). At any given Mass where, say, the pastor is not present, it would be the priest responsible for the community, that is, the priest celebrating the Mass.

A less serious, but no less real example of a minister spontaneously excluding someone from Holy Communion would be the case of an absentminded gum-chewing six year-old who somehow ends up at the altar rail at communion time. No one would accuse the minister of usurping to himself some sudden, unsanctioned authority of meting out the penalty of excommunication as he passed over the six year-old and moved on to the next person in line. Ministers are well-practiced at executing this momentary discernment, even if they get a couple difficult cases wrong due to a lack of clarity or the fog of the moment. The Sacramental Discipline guides ministers in the common cases, even the increasingly common case of the publicly unworthy.

There’s no need for pastor’s to feel in the dark on this question. Peters’s explanations, with characteristic frankness, favor the dispelling of ignorance that can often surround the Church’s norms. While difficult situations do require study, Peters encourages us that “none of this is canonical rocket science.” Christ’s desire for our participation in his Body and Blood favors our diligence in discerning how best to administer so great a mystery as effectively as possible. Our deeper understanding of the differences between the penalty of excommunication and the minister’s spontaneous reaction to an immediate set of circumstances will serve to build up the Communion of Saints.

[I posted this to "The Rectory" Substack, also.]

Image: Duccio "Last Supper"

Holy Communion: Must Refuse?

5/13/2021

Guariento, "Ascension"

“The minister of Communion must refuse to distribute it to those who are publicly unworthy.” -Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration Concerning the Admission to Holy Communion of Faithful Who are Divorced and Remarried (24 June 2000).

“The discernment of cases in which the faithful who find themselves in the described condition are to be excluded from Eucharistic Communion is the responsibility of the Priest who is responsible for the community.” -(Ibid.)

“No ecclesiastical authority may dispense the minister of Holy Communion from this obligation in any case, nor may he emanate directives that contradict it.” -(Ibid.)

“I shall follow what…those who govern the Church establish…So help me God, and God’s Holy Gospels on which I place my hand.” -Oath of Fidelity.

Bishop Strickland observed how current discussion related to Holy Communion for pro-abortion politicians seems to have lost reference to the principle of subsidiarity. I caught up with him a couple of nights ago at a local rectory before Confirmation and the topic came up of the pastor’s responsibility in the matter. He wondered how desirable it really is for national bishops conferences to be weighing in on how a priest should be exercising his role of determining whether or not to administer Holy Communion.

What can a national or regional bishop committees add to what the Church already provides? They cannot pronounce any binding regional policy that contradicts the universal law of the church to provide diligent protection for the Eucharist, as well as for the rights of the faithful to participate in the sacraments according to the norm of law. Are regional or national committees in a better position than pastors to respond to the circumstances surrounding individuals seeking to participate in the sacraments at any given moment?

Stay tuned for a slow read through PCLT’s 2000 Declaration on Holy Communion to the Divorced & Remarried (it’s not that long, only a few paragraphs). It’ll be healthy for us to take our time with it since we, as pastors can sometimes be left with the sense that the solution to our problems is out of our hands. PCLT makes it very clear that the case is really the opposite. The solution has been placed exactly in our anointed hands, entrusted to us as a sacred responsibility. Will we have the faith enough to “discern the Body”?

Image: Guariento, "Ascension"

Exposition of the MBS Ad Libitum for Private Devotion

5/12/2021

Duccio, "Triptych," c. 1308

On July 17, 1894 the SRC resolved Nine doubts that had been asked on various matters pertaining to the liturgical rites. The second of the nine dubita dealt with the private Eucharistic devotion of a priest: specifically, whether it is permissible that he should open the tabernacle for his private devotion and, once he’s done with his prayers as he sees fit, then to close it. The answer came back “negative.”

Looking back at this dubitum based on the mind of the Church expressed in the subsequent magisterium it’s possible to identify some reasons why the response was negative.

Too few people.

In one sense, the instructions have been clear about avoiding Exposition when there are too few people. A single person, even if he be a priest, does not constitute a “suitable” number of the faithful, let alone a “large” number or even “some.”

Public or private devotion.

The principle reason for reserving the MBS is the communion of the sick. Yet, the practice of worshiping the MBS reserved for this purpose gives rise immediately to both the public and private devotion of the faithful which the Church should also vigorously promote. There are liturgical books for the carrying out of exposition. The prescriptions laid down there for worshiping the MBS outside of Mass must always be followed. Obedience to such norms, far from taxing or burdening even one’s private devotion, strengthens and forms it correctly.

More reasons…?

Image: Duccio, "Triptych," c. 1308"

How Many Present for Exposition?

5/11/2021

Duccio, "The Crucifixion"

One of the main concerns that I currently see regarding exposition of the MBS has to do with the number of the faithful present at any given time. How frequently does it happen that the MBS is left entirely alone? How frequently does it happen that there are only one or two people present? It’s my impression that this happens so frequently, there being so few people present, that it has become the norm. And Father, who is in charge of safeguarding the MBS not only permits it but accommodates it by modifying his own expectations. As long as there’s a signup sheet with a couple of names on it at any given time, that seems to be sufficient for him. But is it? If the signup sheet had forty or fifty names on it for a given time, or twenty or thirty, or even ten or twelve, then perhaps the case could be made there there are sufficient people wishing to participate. But none or one or two? What if someone’s sick, or can’t make it, or running late? Or has to leave early? Or use the bathroom? Or is tired and falls asleep in the middle of their time before the MBS exposed? Should Father then further burden them with the responsibility of finding themselves a replacement at the last minute? All of these contingencies are obviated by Father following the prescriptions laid down and only exposing the MBS for public veneration when there is present a sufficiently adequate if not large number of the faithful.

This may mean that periods of exposition need to occur less frequently or to be abbreviated somewhat. But this is in order to avoid the abuse of public exposition before too few of the faithful.

I don’t want this to sound like I’m anti-Eucharistic Adoration. To the contrary. I’m Pro Exposition, as long as it’s done according to the mind of the Church. Healthy, robust promotion of the Lord’s Real Presence and our obligation to adore him there is the mark of a healthy local church. Anemic attendance, frequently very few people there on the other hand is a sign there is little honoring of the MBS going on in the place. This may already be evident, but is there really need to highlight it by turning out only too few people for the public veneration of the MBS. This is a responsibility that rests squarely on the shoulders of the pastors, promote Eucharistic piety or lose it.

We’ll next treat the question whether it’s permissible for Father to expose the MBS for his own private devotion. That’s been asked to the SRC and answered.

Image: Duccio, "The Crucifixion"

EM 62-66: How to Carry Out Exposition

5/10/2021

Duccio, "Scenes from the Passion"

EM 62 deals with how to carry out the Rite of Exposition. It first considers the length of time and the place where the MBS is to be positioned and the vessel which contains the MBS for the exposition. For a briefer time, either the monstrance or the ciborium itself may be used and the MBS is exposed on the mensa of the altar. For longer periods of exposition the monstrance should be used and a throne is also recommended.

Arrangements within the church and surrounding the place of exposition should favor the attentive prayer of adoration.

There may be readings and a homily during this time elucidating the mystery of the MBS and for the sake of fostering personal prayer. Song and silence, too, are suitable.

The benediction with the MBS is given at the end of the time of exposition.

EM 63 deals with Solemn Annual Exposition which we have already mentioned.

EM 64 mentions Prolonged Exposition. It entrusts this to the Local ordinary. It also mentions the presence of large numbers of the faithful.

EM 65 concerns interrupting the period of exposition. The first reason it mentions for interrupting exposition is there not being a suitable number of the faithful for adoration, rendering a continuous exposition impossible. Reposition of the MBS, then, is to be so anticipated that it is pre-arranged and publicized. It is not to be done more than twice in a day. It recommends by way of example, a midday and an evening reposition.

Reposition interrupting longer periods of exposition may be carried out more simply. It indicates it may be done without singing, with the priest vested in surplice and stole and having adored the MBS for a short time. Re-commencing the time of exposition may similarly take place in a simple manner, the time being anticipated and set.

EM 66 deals with short periods of exposition. The time should so provide for hymns, readings and silent adoration as circumstances permit. Ensuring these periods of brief exposition are carried out with due reverence is given to the local Ordinary.

EM 66, finally, forbids the celebration of Mass simply for the purpose of giving the Benediction with the MBS.

Image: Duccio, "Scenes from the Passion"

EM 60 & 61: No Exposition During Mass

5/9/2021

Duccio, "Madonna & Child w.
Ss. Augustine, Paul, Peter & Dominic"

Today is the anniversary of my First Holy Communion. Eternal rest grant unto Msgr. William O’Donnell, O Lord. May he rest in peace.

Let’s get back to EM 60 which ended with a reference to Pius X. It’s reference was within the context of ensuring the proper understanding of why Jesus instituted the MBS. Specifically, the importance of avoiding what could obscure the nourishing, healing and sustaining purpose of the MBS. This, I suppose, is the result of promoting the MBS in such a way as to make it unapproachable, distasteful, only rarely ever to be experienced. EM 60 particularly refers in this regard to the decoration of the altar where exposition takes place.

In EM 61, exposition and the celebration of Holy Mass in the same area of the Church at the same time is forbidden. It explains that the spiritual communion to which exposition leads the faithful is already more perfectly present in the celebration of Holy Mass, further help towards this spiritual communion being unnecessary.

During more lengthy periods of exposition that extend throughout the day or over several days, the period is to be interrupted in favor of the celebration of Mass.

It addresses that there may be customs or concessions that have been made previously that are contrary to this norm. Particularly, for those faithful for whom the application of this norm may be upsetting, the Instruction encourages, at the direction of the local Ordinary, a time of catechesis in favor of the norm, as long as the time is not too long.

Image: Duccio, "Madonna & Child w. Ss. Augustine, Paul, Peter & Dominic"

Pius X plus Pius XI equals a good start

5/8/2021

Duccio,
"Madonna w. Angels," c. 1305

It’s going to be helpful to combine Pius X’s estimation of the MBS as daily nourishment & preservative from sin with Pius XI’s notion of proper guardianship. This, in fact, is part of a groundworks for a strong eucharistic piety. And when you combine the two your get this neat third thing, I don’t know yet what to call it. But it’s that thing were in participating at Mass and in Holy Communion you realize that your immediately—[perhaps we need to break down this adverb]—present at the single most important moment in the existence of time, space, you, the universe, your family, your Church, God’s relationship with his people, all prayer, etc. Moreover, you’ve got breakfast to make and appointments in about an hour and a finance council meeting to prepare for, and an offer to purchase the building to consider, etc. In other words, while not exactly contrasting the sublime with the ridiculous, it’s actually probably closer to that than to any other mash-up that comes presently to mind. Neat how He envisioned exactly this, did it anyway, and uses it [this mash-up of contrasts] as the place where he’s going either to rescue me and my parish, or not. My eternity hangs in the balance and meanwhile I’m trying not to say mass too fast, or not to start too late, or not to rush the prep. He trusts us, again, with determining our eternity. Staggering. Staggered. There, now pick yourself up, post this to your silly blog, and go get ready for Mass.

EM & Pius X

5/7/2021

Duccio,
"Madonna & Child with Angels"

Let’s stick with EM, but back up to EM 60 and cover its whole section on exposition of the MBS. It has six sections.

—No Mass before the MBS exposed

—How to Expose the MBS

—Solemn Annual Exposition

—Prolonged Exposition

—Interrupting Exposition

—Shorter Periods of Exposition

This section, in EM 60, opens with a description of Exposition, indicating its purpose and recommending its use. It indicates that Exposition stimulates the awareness on the part of the faithful of the Real Presence. It describes Exposition also as an invitation to Communion with Him that encourages due worship to the Lord. It cautions that care should be taken of the relation between Exposition and the Mass. It describes how a time of exposition can begin with the ending of Mass. It also refers to “the desire of Christ in instituting the Eucharist,” citing Pius X’s “Decree on Frequent & Daily Reception of Holy Communion.”

Let’s look at that for a moment (making this excursus #4—#3 being going to EM 60-66, #2 being EM 63, #1 being EOM, then we’ll get back to RS).

Pius X, in 1905, promoted Daily Communion with “Sacrosancta Tridentina Synodus.” We can examine that whole document later. For now, EM refers to the part of it which describes the desire of Christ in instituting the Eucharist. Pius X, describes what Christ was getting at with leaving us the MBS: 1) daily nourishment; 2) resistance, cleansing, avoidance of sin.

More on this…

Image: Duccio, “Madonna & Child with Angels”

Why not just call it "Forty Hours"?

5/6/2021

Duccio, c. 1305,
"Madonna and Child."

Continuing with EOM 86:

This paragraph gives instructions on the lengthy exposition of the MBS. It is contrasted with brief exposition which it will describe in the next section. It is recommended, not obligatory, for churches where the MBS is reserved. Those Churches where the MBS is to be reserved by law are described in Nullo, i.e. parishes, etc. Such a period of lengthy exposition is to take place once a year. It does not specify how long this lengthy period of time is to continue. Strict continuity of this length of time is not required. The purpose of this exposition is for the local community to reflect more profoundly upon the mystery of the MBS and adore the Real Presence of Our Lord. EOM 86 concludes by referring to Eucharisticum Mysterium from 1967, specifically its instruction on Solemn Annual Exposition.

Excursus #2, Eucharisticum Mysterium 63 (Excursus #1 being EOM, the main treatment being RS on Worship outside of Mass).

EM 63 describes Solemn Annual Exposition.

There are no substantive distinctions between EM 63 and its presentation in EOM 86. However, EM 63 does seem to present more clearly that this Solemn Annual Exposition may take place if there are three conditions present: 1) the presence of a reasonable number of the faithful; 2) the consent of the local Ordinary; 3) the observation of the law.

What constitutes a reasonable number? It is not specified. RS will refer to the abuse of leaving the MBS unattended. But does that mean that one or two people suffices for a reasonable number? This will need to be investigated elsewhere as it is not defined here.

Also, not mentioned by name here is the Forty Hours Devotion. EOM’s and EM’s reticence on this devotion will also have to be investigated elsewhere.

Image: Duccio, c. 1305, "Madonna and Child."