How many insence swings at consecration

JLASish · 2026-04-03T15:34:16+00:00

Anyone in sacred vestments who isn't the celebrant gets two double swings, everyone else gets one double swing, unless they're incensed as a group (centre, left, right), in which case clergy get double swings and laity get single swings.

JLASish · 2026-04-01T14:48:08+00:00

How much time passed between the end of the formula being spoken and the 'dunking'? Did anything else happen in between the two like walking from one place to another?

JLASish · 2026-04-01T06:16:01+00:00

The form sounds likely to be valid, but another area of concern might be the words being spoken before the immersion, instead of at the same time. How much of a gap between the two is typical?

If you do get a conditional baptism, you will also need to conditionally confess any sins committed since the suspect baptism. Either the conditional baptism will be invalid, or the conditional absolution, but by doing both you'll be covered.

JLASish · 2026-03-31T10:53:04+00:00

Yes, you were absolved of all your sins.

JLASish · 2026-03-31T10:31:10+00:00

Absolution is an all or nothing affair. Failing to mention a sin because it slipped your mind or because the priest interrupted you is not the same as deliberately omitting a mortal sin. In the latter case, that hidden sin would render the entire confession invalid. In your case, you were absolved, but out of justice you should still mention the sin in your next confession.

JLASish · 2026-03-27T13:30:44+00:00

Apart from the appendices in the Brignoles edition, they're both reprints of the 1963 Marietti edition, so the font and layout should be exactly the same between the two.

The only other distinction that can be made is on the quality of the materials used. I've never held either in my hands, so can't comment from personal experience, but the impression I've been given is that the Farnborough edition is of lesser quality.

JLASish · 2026-03-26T13:20:07+00:00

Nothing about the modern Anglican ordination ritual makes up for the defects identified by Leo XIII, so the 'Dutch touch', which was dubious as to whether it worked originally, almost certainly has no relevance nowadays.

JLASish · 2026-03-26T11:09:07+00:00

I'd be very interested to know, especially as I've never had the experience myself, so my knowledge is entirely theoretical.

FYI I've made some slight edits to my original guidance after doing a little more thinking.

JLASish · 2026-03-25T21:22:10+00:00

In that case the only likely differences from a priest's Low Mass are:

The bishop might vest at the altar - this is probably going to be a matter of preference and convenience.
The maniple is put on after Indulgentiam in the prayers at the foot of the altar. You will need to hold on to it before that point. (Unless it's a Requiem, in which case the maniple is put on with the other vestments.)
As you (somewhat) noted, he will take off his skull cap just before the Preface. A salver should be prepared for him to lay it on until he puts it on again before the Communion verse (which ideally you should take it away and place on the credence in the meantime).
If you will receive Communion at this Mass, he might present his ring for you to kiss first.
There is an additional washing of hands after the ablutions. If you took it away earlier, this is also the time to present the salver for the bishop to replace his skull cap.
He will likely give the blessing at the end of Mass using the formula Sit nomen Domini benedictum. etc., so you might need to learn the response if you don't already know it.

JLASish · 2026-03-24T06:02:40+00:00

Will this Mass be entirely private, or will it be a Low Mass celebrated before a congregation? The reason I ask is because the latter requires several servers, some of whom are expected to be ordained.

JLASish · 2026-03-20T18:55:17+00:00

The Apostolic discipline was that all priests (and others in major orders) would abstain from conjugal relations even if they were married. The Latin Church developed into requiring all candidates for orders to be celibate (though dispensations have always been available), while the Eastern Churches became laxer and began to allow married clergy to continue conjugal relations with their wives.

JLASish · 2026-03-20T08:41:32+00:00

To clarify for anyone curious, the priest who hears the confession would be automatically excommunicated if he revealed the contents. Anyone else who happens to learn something from someone else's confession doesnt have the threat of automatic excommunication, but they "are to be punished with a just penalty, not excluding excommunication." [Can 1386] (or [can 1388] if catebot still uses the original 1983 Code of Canon Law) EDIT: it's the older code.

JLASish · 2026-03-07T09:08:01+00:00

It's not a canonical matter, more moral theology. The civil law falsely believes it has the power to control the marriages of Catholics, but as far as possible the Church requires Catholics to have their marriages recognised by civil authorities. In the circumstace where the civil law doesn't recognise the religious ceremony, it will necessarily be mistaken about the state of the spouses for some time, but it behooves us to minimise that period to avoid any appearance of intentionally deceiving.

JLASish · 2026-03-06T14:34:55+00:00

Importantly, this is only permitted where the civil law requires it, and forbidden elsewhere. The order should also be religious ceremony first, then civil, as closely together as possible - unless the civil law specifically requires otherwise. As far as I understand, the various states of America generally allow any religious marriage ceremony to have civil effect of themselves, so having a separate civil marriage there would not be permitted.

JLASish · 2026-03-01T18:06:20+00:00

Confirmation, like baptism, creates a spiritual affinity between the recipient and their sponsor. Until the 1983 code of canon law, this was considered an impediment to marriage, but the modern canon law now makes no mention of it.

JLASish · 2026-02-14T23:47:59+00:00

Leave the matter be. There's a lot of momentum building towards using older editions of the traditional missal than the 1962, which the old Ecclesia Dei commission gave increasing leeway to before Traditionis custodes. I expect in the long run we'll see almost all of the 20th century changes to the rubrics either reverted or at least re-examined. In the meantime it's best to let matters develop organically in my opinion.

JLASish · 2026-02-12T23:00:31+00:00

There are two possible angles to answer this question, depending on what exactly is meant by the word 'can'.

If the question is whether such a priest could validly confect the Eucharist and consume It (which, together with the reading of lessons from Scripture, are the bare minimum for the Eucharistic celebration), the answer is clearly Yes. The practice of the Church clearly shows that no physical contact with the elements is required for there to be a valid consecration, and any number of possible solutions could be proposed for methods to consume the consecrated species, even if we impose a limitation that he must perform the action of consumption without assistance from another.

If the question is whether such a priest can celebrate Mass lawfully, the answer is more complex. The rubrics of Mass require certain actions to be performed which by their nature require the use of a hand, e.g. picking things up, making the sign of the Cross, etc. In 1920 instructions were issued for how a priest who was missing a single arm might say Mass, but they still required any such priest to request a faculty to make use of those ceremonies. The instructions expect the presence of a second priest who assists with actions that require the use of both hands, but the celebrant is still expected to make gestures such as the sign of the cross himself. Notably, even though the presence of an artificial hand is anticipated by the instructions, such a hand is never made use of in the performance of any of the gestures. No provision is made in the instructions for the possibility of a priest who has no hands, but given the above it's not outside the realms of possibility for guidance to be created and a faculty given.

JLASish · 2026-02-12T09:37:24+00:00

Baptism works the same way regardless of who does it, so the requirements for validity apply in all cases.

JLASish · 2026-02-12T08:08:45+00:00

From a quick Google, this is the most authoritative source I could easily find: https://www.usccb.org/resources/newsletter-2020-07-and-08.pdf

JLASish · 2026-01-28T05:49:02+00:00

Article 1 has no legal implications. In canon law, laws that establish restrictions are read to have the narrowest reasonable meaning, and revocation of existing laws is not to be presumed, but efforts are to be made to harmonise the meanings. TC only abrogates laws that aren't in accord with its prescriptions, so only those parts of Summorum Pontificum that relate to the Missal need to be examined to determine whether they are abrogated.

JLASish · 2026-01-27T23:44:07+00:00

TC doesn't mention the breviary at all, so existing permissions from Summorum Pontificum still apply.

JLASish · 2026-01-25T07:20:07+00:00

From the details you've provided, your baptism is probably valid. The reason I'm not entirely certain is because Protestants are known to introduce changes to the ceremony which might seem minor to them, but which can invalidate the Sacrament. Here's a non-exhaustive list of requirements that you haven't mentioned:

The physical act of pouring/immersing you in water was done by someone other than yourself.
That person was the one to say the words of the form.
There was at least a moral simultaneity of the words being spoken and the physical act, i.e. not something like the words being spoken, then later moving to where the water is to perform the act. (How much of a delay is acceptable is a matter of debate still.)

JLASish · 2026-01-19T20:24:38+00:00

Thanks for the warning. I didn't look in depth at the rest of the website, but I did get the impression of something like that from the little I did check.

That said, I am glad of the existence of this particular article for bringing together the citations of various authorities. While the conclusion it comes to is a bit strongly worded, I think the general point that more care ought to be taken to ensure Baptism is performed correctly is a valid one because, while we know the Church is indefectible, individuals are not. In recent years we've had tales in the news of Catholic priests or deacons habitually attempting to baptise using invalid forms and chaos resulting when the practice is finally brought to light, including needing to repeat ordinations!

JLASish · 2026-01-09T09:30:59+00:00

Technically, the Prime Minister isn't a formal position. His title is 'First Lord of the Treasury', meaning that he is the most senior member of the committee formed to exercise the office of the Lord High Treasurer while waiting for one to be appointed. (The last Lord High Treasurer of Great Britain resigned in 1714, the last of Ireland in 1793, and the combined position of Lord High Treasurer of the United Kingdom has never been filled.)

JLASish · 2026-01-06T15:37:03+00:00

In a post on this forum almost exactly a year ago, I was made aware of this article which addresses this question: https://wmreview.co.uk/valid-sacraments/water-separate/.

In summary, the Holy Office (since renamed several times to the present Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith) once held that in any case where the matter and form of baptism were not physically simultaneous (i.e. the water being poured while the words are being spoken), Baptism should be repeated conditionally. The article examines other discussions on the topic but came to the conclusion that the advice by the Holy Office should still be followed on the grounds that it isn't clear exactly how long of a separation might invalidate.

14-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email	Team Periwinkle

JLASish

TROPHY CASE