tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post4265223199481665936..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: Not validFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-69638028216155909962010-04-11T20:31:36.713-04:002010-04-11T20:31:36.713-04:00I am not a Lutheran nor do I play one on TV, but J...<i>I am not a Lutheran nor do I play one on TV, but Jack is right in pointing out that the Divine initiative is as important in Eucharistic theology as it is anywhere else.</i><br /><br />Thank you Fr. Wells. That is my point.Jack Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18281378425270530573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-2443169489489120492010-04-11T11:26:59.727-04:002010-04-11T11:26:59.727-04:00More Fr. Hart on the Lord's Supper:
Fr. Rober...More Fr. Hart on the Lord's Supper:<br /><br /><i>Fr. Robert Hart said...<br /><br />By the time we get to the Communion of Christ's Body and Blood we have been baptized, and (if taken rightly) have been absolved of our sins. By the time we get to the truth of the sacrament, we have believed in the Incarnation, His death for our sins and his rising for our justification. So, having opportunity, we are taking the sacrament within the whole context of our faith and his finished work, with the guarantee of what is to come.<br /><br />But, as to how it works-it is enough to know that those who have no such faith receive none of the benefits even if they eat and drink, but only add sin to sin and further the judgment on themselves. How it is, for believers, a means of grace remains a mysterious article of faith</i><br /><br />Amen.Jack Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18281378425270530573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-42478000948797966742010-04-10T22:08:32.125-04:002010-04-10T22:08:32.125-04:00"Responds" to each specific celebration ..."Responds" to each specific celebration of the sacrament. We may have certain faith that when we act in obedience with right Form, Matter and Intention, he does not ignore us. He fulfills his promise.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-10204417304199259942010-04-10T21:33:25.424-04:002010-04-10T21:33:25.424-04:00"the Divine Initiative was Christ both establ..."the Divine Initiative was Christ both establishing the sacrament, and commanding "do this..."<br /><br />Quite right. Where I wish to split a hair is in the expression "Christ responds..." We would surely agree:<br />1. Christ established the sacrament,<br />2. Christ Himself is the "great high priest" who continues to offer His body and blood as our spiritual food,<br />3. The Church in her anamnesis pleads for the benefits of His sacrifice, and<br />4. Offers praise and thanksgiving as she receives her heavenly food.<br /><br />But as I said, I am only splitting a hair. And I still do not grasp why Jack Miller's statement (with a slightly different nuance) is un-Patristic.<br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-66165003997479131302010-04-10T15:20:09.641-04:002010-04-10T15:20:09.641-04:00We could say that the Divine Initiative was Christ...We could say that the Divine Initiative was Christ both establishing the sacrament, and commanding "do this..."Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-87442762237832580172010-04-10T13:13:40.237-04:002010-04-10T13:13:40.237-04:00Dr Tighe: After noting your response to Jack Mil...Dr Tighe: After noting your response to Jack Miller, I re-read his comment carefully. What do you find in it that would be objectionable to Athanasius, Irenaeus, or any any orthodox writer of the early centuries?<br /><br />I am not a Lutheran nor do I play one on TV, but Jack is right in pointing out that the Divine initiative is as important in Eucharistic theology as it is anywhere else.<br /><br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-14596211161543006462010-04-09T13:59:06.426-04:002010-04-09T13:59:06.426-04:00Fr. Hart wrote:
"... when we employ rightly ...Fr. Hart wrote:<br /><br />"... when we employ rightly Form, Matter and Intention in accord with these Biblical Mysteries, we may be sure that God will fulfill His promise."<br /><br />Yes, that helps clarify the intention of your sentence, and I would agree entirely with the above. Thanks for wading through my written thoughts/question and "hearing" my question.<br /><br />Mr. Tighe wrote:<br /><br />"Jack Miller's eucharistic theology is good Lutheran theology, but neither Catholic, nor Orthodox nor Patristic."<br /><br />Although my post was not an attempt to give any close to a comprehensive understanding, as an Anglican who embraces the English reformation of the medieval church innovations, I would be content to hang my hat (among other writings) on Cranmer's Defence of the True and Catholic Doctrine and Article XXVIII-Of The Lord's Supper, the main doctrinal teaching for which he was martyred by the Roman Catholic Church.<br /><br />"The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.<br /><br />"Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.<br /><br />"The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.<br /><br />"The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped."<br /><br />Me: It is a supernatural mystery that we partake of and participate in. <br /><br />To quote my favorite Anglo-Catholic teacher, Fr. Hart:<br />"No one can fully and adequately explain "Real Presence" in the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper, thus making it a perfect fit for one of the "mysteries" or the term sacrament."Jack Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18281378425270530573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-84179828480011536222010-04-09T12:05:08.942-04:002010-04-09T12:05:08.942-04:00In answer to Fr. Wells' question about the sta...In answer to Fr. Wells' question about the status of non-communicating masses in the RCC, I've never seen one...not from a single priest throughout the entire spectrum, no matter how you measure or label them. I've just never in the thousands of masses attended or served seen a non-communicating mass.<br /><br />Having said that, I think it's a stretch to call a non-communicating mass invalid, but I would call the practice unsound.<br /><br />Also, private masses are not necessarily the priest alone; they are simply ones not scheduled for the public. This is one way priests have been able to say the 1962 Mass without getting into trouble. Only a few people who are interested know that Fr. X offers the TLM on Tuesday mornings at 8 and they assemble at a side altar for a surreptitious low mass. They all communicate because Fr. X was also secretly in the confessional at 7:30 even though the bishop told him not to put too much emphasis on sin because it makes people feel bad. I used to enjoy serving these private masses. There were no codewords or secret handshakes, but the idea of having to sneak around to have a Mass that was perfectly acceptable for hundreds of years gave us a very James Bond-ish feeling, minus the hot chicks...and guns...and gambling...and...well, I guess it wasn't very James Bond-ish after all.RC Colanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-23644418694065851252010-04-09T10:51:15.460-04:002010-04-09T10:51:15.460-04:00Fr. Hart wrote,
"Actually, private Masses ar...Fr. Hart wrote,<br /><br />"Actually, private Masses are a completely different subject from non-communicating Masses. However, I cannot defend them except under very special circumstances, in which case the priest is the only member of the Church present anyway."<br /><br />But this isn't so, really. The Church Triumphant is <i>always</i> present, and so a private mass isn't, in my mind, actually a possible event.RSC+https://www.blogger.com/profile/00639369749327986414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-85608742637996735782010-04-09T01:03:06.998-04:002010-04-09T01:03:06.998-04:00William Tighe wrote:
Those whom this topic intere...William Tighe wrote:<br /><br /><i>Those whom this topic interests might wish to ponder, and engage with, the late E. L. Mascall's strong defence, and even encouragement, of "private Masses" in his book *Corpus Christi...</i><br /><br />Actually, private Masses are a completely different subject from non-communicating Masses. However, I cannot defend them except under very special circumstances, in which case the priest is the only member of the Church present anyway.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-92005457618543071872010-04-09T00:58:03.879-04:002010-04-09T00:58:03.879-04:00Wm. Tighe wrote:
Jack Miller's eucharistic th...Wm. Tighe wrote:<br /><br /><i>Jack Miller's eucharistic theology is good Lutheran theology, but neither Catholic, nor Orthodox nor Patristic.</i><br /><br />We could debate that entire subject endlessly, I am sure.<br /><br />Jack Miller:<br /><br />If your difficulty with my words has to do with my placing the human actions of liturgy first in sequence, I have a reason. The sacraments are predictable, which is why we have faith concerning them. In other words, when we employ rightly Form, Matter and Intention in accord with these Biblical Mysteries, we may be sure that God will fulfill His promise.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-32545854760346342612010-04-08T20:46:17.166-04:002010-04-08T20:46:17.166-04:00Jack Miller's eucharistic theology is good Lut...Jack Miller's eucharistic theology is good Lutheran theology, but neither Catholic, nor Orthodox nor Patristic.William Tighehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16634494183165592707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-91796165759187425942010-04-08T17:50:31.898-04:002010-04-08T17:50:31.898-04:00Just a thought/question regarding the first senten...Just a thought/question regarding the first sentence of Fr. Hart's closing paragraph,<br /><br />"The Eucharist is the sacrifice of the Church as the people worship in true faith, and as Christ responds by giving us the grace of the sacrament."<br /><br />To me this seems to be in reverse. Shouldn't it be more like... <br /><br />The Eucharist is the sacramental grace given through the consecrated bread and wine offered to repentant believer's as they come in faith and gratitude. As they eat, they receive the sacramental grace of Christ's body and blood. The Church as the people then responds with the sacrifice of thanksgiving, laud, and praise? <br /><br />Thus the Eucharist is in the first about what Christ has done on our behalf and freely given to us unworthy sinners who bring nothing but believing hearts and open hands. This seems to be the meaning of the order in the 1662 BCP, and I don't know that the 1928 order meant to change that... or did it? <br /><br />Fr. Hart's sentence might be taken to imply that Christ's giving of the sacramental grace is somehow a response to or dependent upon some merit of sacrificial worshipful on our part. I'm not trying to be picky nor suggest that's his intention; only that it is ambiguous to my reading. <br /><br />Am I reading too much into this (or not enough)? If so, my apology as there is enough "taking issue" without it happening unnecessarily. I'm only trying to be clear in my own thinking.Jack Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18281378425270530573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-19024025295772713622010-04-08T17:36:53.142-04:002010-04-08T17:36:53.142-04:00Since 1955, the Roman Catholic Church has practice...<i> Since 1955, the Roman Catholic Church has practiced giving Reserve Sacrament to all communicants who are present, bringing them back into conformity with the Eastern Orthodox and others who allow the sacrament to be received, but not celebrated, on that day.</i><br /><br />Just for the sake of accuracy, in an important discussion, the Eastern Orthodox do not celebrate the Eucharistic Liturgy on weekdays in Lent - with the exception of the Annunciation - but instead allow for Communion to be received after Vespers on these weekdays in a service called the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts (= Lenten Vespers plus Communion), these Holy Gifts having been sanctified at the previous Divine Liturgy (normally Sunday). Although there is precedent for Communion from the Presanctified Gifts on every Lenten weekday, the practice is fairly established in parishes of serving the Presanctified Liturgy only on Wednesdays and / or Fridays.<br /><br />In Holy Week the Presanctified many be celebrated on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. On Thursday the Liturgy of St Basil the Great is celebrated, as on Holy Saturday. But Holy Friday is without either a Liturgy or a Presanctified Liturgy.<br /><br />AA in MСвященник селаhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08182325210748920363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-67215688905603874322010-04-08T17:00:52.806-04:002010-04-08T17:00:52.806-04:00For any who might accept Sean Reed's presentat...For any who might accept Sean Reed's presentation of RC doctrine as either correct or well-informed, I would simply point out that modern RC liturgical scholarship has tended to discourage the mediaeval notion that "more Masses are better than just a few," or if one is good, two is better.<br /><br />It was not from any Anglican author that I learned that the multiplication of Masses (with numerous side-altars, chantry chapels, etc) was a result of Nominalism. If Mr Reed will read such scholars as Jungmann, Tavard, Bouyer, etc, he will recognize the point as rooted in the best RC thought of the last century.<br /><br />Sound RC liturgics has re-asserted the importance of the Community Mass even if this has to be achieved with the questionable practice of concelebration.<br /><br />It would be good if the "Former Anglicans" would get on the other side of the Tiber ASAP. As things stand right now, they seem to live in a world somewhere between Fr Feeney and Bp Williamson, a world practically all RC's are anxious to repudiate and are hardly eager to see replenished.<br /><br />Perhaps our learned RC participants might give us some insight into the status of non-communicating Masses in the mainstream RC Church today. I suspect it is largely considered an Anglo-Catholic eccentricity.<br /><br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-50187666049073212582010-04-08T16:34:28.951-04:002010-04-08T16:34:28.951-04:00"[In] The terms of the teaching of the Roman ..."[In] The terms of the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church are you manifestly wrong."<br /><br />Would you care to cite a paragraph from CCC or from Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum? Or are you speaking Ex cathedra?<br /><br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-81625267601569572432010-04-08T15:55:38.276-04:002010-04-08T15:55:38.276-04:00Shaugn wrote:
It was also true, however, that in ...Shaugn wrote:<br /><br /><i>It was also true, however, that in the Jewish Temple, sacrifices frequently became a source of food only for the priests.</i><br /><br />So did the people who brought the offerings, but only after the priests share was removed. Read the early chapters of I Samuel about how the sons of Eli abused their position in this regard. The main offering that applies, however, by New Testament commentary, is the Passover. The people all ate the Passover Lamb.<br /><br /><i>It's quite possible that those celebrating a "non-communicating Mass," as you say, are simply interpreting the "all of you" as "the disciples," who are eventually those in Apostolic Succession, rather than a more universal "all of you. I think it's a poor interpretation, for what it's worth...</i><br /><br />And, impossible to reconcile with the rest of the New Testament, especially I Cor. 11.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-10772978936942264662010-04-08T15:49:23.250-04:002010-04-08T15:49:23.250-04:00Sean Reed wrote:
If you believe the merit and eff...Sean Reed wrote:<br /><br /><i>If you believe the merit and efficacy of the mass is infinite and is not dependent upon how many commune, but rather upon the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass being offered for four ends: Thanksgiving, Adoration, Petition, and Atonement, it is not an issue.</i><br /><br />Four ends. Let's see:<br /><br />1 & 2.Thanksgiving, Adoration. <br />Good, if you mean that we give thanks to and worship God, and in a different sense, when devotions are aided by the presence of Reserve Sacrament.<br /><br />2. Petition.<br />Ever heard of a thing called prayer?<br /><br />4. Atonement.<br />Really? Ever read the Epistle to the Hebrews? <br /><br />"For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was <b>once offered</b> to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation." Heb. 9:24-28<br /><br />The Eucharistic Sacrifice is joined to this one offering, the only atonement. But "sacrifices of Masses" with the double plural, making each celebration an "atonement" is just plain wrong, and very bad theology. I assume you cannot mean such a thing as that.<br /><br /><i>I have always marveled at the "classic Anglican" innovation about requiring people to be present.</i><br /><br />Once again, our return to the practice of Antiquity is deemed an "innovation." Typical RC mistake.<br /><br /><i>[By] The terms of the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church are you manifestly wrong.</i><br /><br />Ask us if we care.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-81327900219678922852010-04-08T15:15:35.874-04:002010-04-08T15:15:35.874-04:00Father Hollister wrote:
"...Leaving question...Father Hollister wrote:<br /><br />"...Leaving questions of validity per se completely out of the discussion, it still presents a slightly bizarre and perhaps even unseemly appearance to have a community gathered for its re-presentation of the Sacrifice where no members of that community partake thereof."<br /><br />If you believe the merit and efficacy of the mass is infinite and is not dependent upon how many commune, but rather upon the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass being offered for four ends: Thanksgiving, Adoration, Petition, and Atonement, it is not an issue.<br /><br />I have always marveled at the "classic Anglican" innovation about requiring people to be present. <br /><br />Can anyone here actually say they honestly think God is more pleased for them to stop after the Antecommunion than for them to finish the Mass having begun with the expecation of others being in attendance (announced in advance etc?)<br /><br /><br />LKW wrote:<br /><br />"...Sean: praying for the souls of the faithful departed within the daily community Mass is a sound Catholic/Biblical practice. But a second special "Requiem" is a liturgical redundancy based on philosophical nominalism and erroneous notions of merit..."<br /><br />That is your opinion. In your "classic anglican" sense you may be right. The terms of the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church are you manifestly wrong.<br /><br /><br />SWRSean W. Reedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02782194974794706695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-6833227402366468432010-04-08T10:16:08.189-04:002010-04-08T10:16:08.189-04:00Sean Reed wrote, regarding the annual Anglican Bre...Sean Reed wrote, regarding the annual Anglican Breviary Gathering: "We have the Mass of the Day each morning. All those attending the Gathering, assist at that Mass and make their communions. <br /><br />"On the afternoon of day two, we have a requiem mass for the repose of the souls of those listed in the front of the Breviary, including Father Frank Gavin. That is the second Mass for the group, and usually the third Mass of the day in the parish Church (and yes, with multiple priests)."<br /><br />The Anglican tradition is that, aside from very peculiar circumstances that are specially licensed by the cognizant Bishop, no Mass is celebrated unless there are at least three persons present who will communicate with the celebrant. Thus the Rubrics from the 1662 BCP:<br /><br />"And there shall be no celebration of the Lord's Supper, except there be a convenient number to communicate with the Priest, according to his discretion.<br /><br />"And if there be not above twenty persons in the Parish of discretion to receive the Communion; yet there shall be no communion, except four (or three at the least) communicate with the Priest."<br /><br />The Canadian BCP of 1962 is even less stringent: "There shall be no Celebration of the Lord's Supper, except there be at least one person present to communicate with the Priest."<br /><br />In light of this history, perhaps it would make more sense for this particular group, on the second day of its annual meeting, to leave the Mass of the Day to the second, Parish celebration and, at its own particular celebration, make that the desired Requiem.<br /><br />Leaving questions of validity per se completely out of the discussion, it still presents a slightly bizarre and perhaps even unseemly appearance to have a community gathered for its re-presentation of the Sacrifice where no members of that community partake thereof.<br /><br />John A. Hollister+<br />"untawle"John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-68371211083156848662010-04-08T10:06:00.573-04:002010-04-08T10:06:00.573-04:00Sean: praying for the souls of the faithful depar...Sean: praying for the souls of the faithful departed within the daily community Mass is a sound Catholic/Biblical practice. But a second special "Requiem" is a liturgical redundancy based on philosophical nominalism and erroneous notions of merit.<br /><br />My Dominican friends used to tell me of the days when they had (every day!) a Solemn Mass at which nobody communicated save the celebrant, a low Mass at which they were allowed to partake, and yet a third "meditation mass" as background to personal devotions. Such ridiculous games give point to the EO rule of one Liturgy per day in a given church.<br />God does not find this amusing.<br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-73223608521006300152010-04-08T09:09:14.442-04:002010-04-08T09:09:14.442-04:00"Antiquity is chiefly Scripture, in a Church ..."Antiquity is chiefly Scripture, in a Church that recognized and heard the Master's voice...."<br /><br />Right. So we are right back to "Scriptura sola" in the sense the Reformers taught that doctrine (as quite distinct from Baptistic Protestantism which changed Scriptura sola into Scriptura SOLO--a very different notion).<br /><br />But not to nibble around the edges of a good article by bringing up a peripheral issue, I totally and heartily agree with Fr Hart's major contention. He is not presupposing a "bad intention" (a mean-spirited objection!) but the lack of intention. If a priest does not intend to give the Lord's body and blood to His people, being present, plainly he does not intend to to what the Lord commanded. Invalid rite, pure and simple.<br /><br />As for Colin Chattan's picture of the priest in isolation, well, maybe, a case can be made for those in Patmos like situations. I have read stories of Lutheran pastors in Nazi prison camps. But the question which must be raised, in all charity, is exactly why is the priest isolated? Unless he is in dire circumstances, is there no Gospel to preach, no souls to win, no converts to make, no congregation to build? A priest is primarily a herald of the Cross, not a sacramental machine or magician. His priesthood is for the edification of the Body, not for his own private devotions.<br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-17580648351459326252010-04-08T08:24:04.616-04:002010-04-08T08:24:04.616-04:00CORRECTION:
The copy on offer through Amazon.com ...CORRECTION:<br /><br />The copy on offer through Amazon.com for $6.00 is a copy of the 1965 second edition. I would urge anyone interested in it to "grab" it before I weaken and buy it myself -- despite already owning a copy!William Tighehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16634494183165592707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-47663045336324377692010-04-08T08:20:10.310-04:002010-04-08T08:20:10.310-04:00POSTSCRIPT
Old Mascall books must be experiencing...POSTSCRIPT<br /><br />Old Mascall books must be experiencing a "growth surge." I just checked Abebooks.com, Alibris.com and Amazon.com for his *Corpus Christi* and was surprised to discover how few and how generally costly copies are. There is a copy of the first edition (1953) at Amazon.com for $6.00 (plus $3.99 postage) from the UK, but the rest are all above $20.00 exclusive of postage costs -- and the only copy of the expanded second edition, on Abebooks.com from a North Carolina bookseller, goes for $59.95.William Tighehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16634494183165592707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-60823582500099071542010-04-08T08:04:54.728-04:002010-04-08T08:04:54.728-04:00Those whom this topic interests might wish to pond...Those whom this topic interests might wish to ponder, and engage with, the late E. L. Mascall's strong defence, and even encouragement, of "private Masses" in his book *Corpus Christi: Essays on the Church and the Eucharist.* in the 1965 second edition, which I own, it is in ch. 10, "Private Masses."William Tighehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16634494183165592707noreply@blogger.com