EXTRA CREDIT

Diogenes observes that many have failed the thought problems and the final examination questions. The Dog, therefore, sets the following problem (from an eyewitness report) to afford the slow ones an opportunity to recover some self-esteem:

A seminary instructor recounted to his class (seemingly as a practical example of some sort) how he ran short of Sacred Chrism at a place where he unexpectedly had to confirm some people. In the manner of a pantomime, he demonstrated to the seminarians how one can add unconsecrated oil in one movement without invalidating the matter, as long as the added amount does not exceed the quantity of the available Holy Oil. Generous churchman that the instructor is, he mimicked extending the Sacred Chrism by performing multiple actions: i.e., he simulated pouring in the unblessed oil, set down the vessel of unblessed oil, and then lifted it and pretended to pour it in again, etc. 

Which of the following best describe(s) the demonstrator's behavior:

A. The demonstrator does not understand that an instructor must practice what he teaches, even when it's make-believe.

B. The demonstrator does not understand the Latin of Pope Pius VI who ruled that unblessed oil could be added to blessed oil "pluribus vicibus."

C. The demonstrator does not understand authors like De Herdt who advise that the oil be poured in "guttatim."

D. The demonstrator does not understand the great sanctity of Holy Chrism, otherwise he would not have modeled irreverent praxis.

E. All of the above.

FINAL EXAMINATION

The CMRI apparatchiki ceaselessly claim they scrupulously follow the laws and teachings of the Church. In fact, whenever gainsaid, as in the case of NFP, their default answer usually implies that the questioner is out of touch and does not know what the Church really requires or teaches.


With his lamp ablaze, Diogenes, then, will put their assertion to the test. He will do so by selecting a relatively simple example: If the CMRI be the exquisite observer of law, doctrine, and praxis that it insists it is, one may consequently presume that the CMRI will observe the Church's precepts in all things Catholic.


Consider, therefore, this final problem.


Throughout sacred art, in film clips and still photos of papal Urbi et Orbi blessings, and in portraits of popes and prelates past and present, we often see the gesture known as the Latin sign of benediction: the thumb and first two fingers are open, representing the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; the third and fourth fingers remain closed, symbolizing the two natures of our Lord.


So well known is the gesture that the medical disorder of the hand called Depuytren's contracture (the thickening and shrinking of the layer of flesh just under the skin of the palm) is commonly called "the hand of benediction."


Diogenes stipulates that the Latin sign of benediction is an elegant attitude. Diogenes also grants that there is ample photographic documentation on the Internet to attest to its frequent usage in the pre-Vatican II Church.


But the examination question Diogenes sets is this: Is the gesture correct in the strict sense of the Church's ceremonial law?


Let us discover the answer:


The Cæremoniale Episcoporum ("The Ceremonial of Bishops") is one of the officially issued liturgical books of the Latin rite, ranking side by side with the Missal, the Breviary, the Pontificale, the Rituale, the Martyrology, and the Memoriale.


In book I, chapter IV.1, the Cæremoniale directs:

When a Bishop walks, or rides through his city, or Diocese, he blesses everyone (lit. 'each one') with an open hand. (Quando Episcopus ambulat, vel equitat per suam civitatem, vel Diœcesim, manu aperta singulis benedicit.)

Now, for our Final Exam (select A or B):


Which prelate below is observing the Church's law? Is it...

Prelate A

Or is it...

Prelate B

????


The shameless Dog knows good breeding -- and correct stacking and gaiting -- when he sees it.


He knows you do, too.