Catholic Replies
Q. The pastor of my church omits “like the dewfall” in the Second Eucharistic Prayer because he says there is “a theological problem” with the phrase. Would you please tell us what the expression means, why it was inserted into the Mass, and whether any priest has the authority to omit these words? — P.A., New York.
A. First of all, no priest has the authority to make such a change. In the words of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (n. 24): “The priest will remember that he is the servant of the Sacred Liturgy and that he himself is not permitted, on his own initiative, to add, to remove, or to change anything in the celebration of Mass” [cf. Vatican II, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, n. 22].
Second, to establish the context, the Second Eucharistic Prayer says that the priest prays over the bread and wine and asks the Father to “make holy, therefore, these gifts, we pray, by sending down your Spirit upon them like the dewfall, so that they may become for us the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.” This phrase was actually included in the Roman Missal proclaimed by Pope Paul VI in 1969, but it was omitted for some reason in the English translation released in 1973. However, it was restored in the 2011 English translation.
According to the website catholicstraightanswers.com, this expression can be found throughout Holy Scripture and is a powerful image of God’s gentle and mysterious activity in our lives.
For example, in the Book of Exodus, “we read how the people complained that they were hungry. God said to Moses, ‘I will rain down bread from heaven’ (Exodus 14:4), and instructed him to tell the people, ‘In the morning, you shall have your fill of bread, so that you may know that I, the Lord, am your God’ (Exodus 14:12). The next morning, ‘when the dew evaporated,’ the people awoke and found the manna, ‘the bread which the Lord has given you to eat’ (Exodus 14:13-15). So God performed this miracle, feeding His people with manna. The action of ‘like the dewfall’ is quiet, unseen, mysterious, and gentle. It is a life-giving action.”
Q. It is my understanding that in order to have a funeral Mass a body must be present. If one is cremated, then a Memorial Mass is done with the cremains. I have been told recently that the Church has changed the law on whether a body has to be present for a funeral Mass. Please enlighten me. — J.W., Georgia.
A. You are correct that at one time, even when a person was to be cremated, the body would have to be present at the funeral Mass, and the cremation would take place after the Mass. Since 1996, however, the U.S. Bishops have permitted a funeral Mass to be celebrated in the presence of cremated remains. The Church still requires that the ashes of the departed be entombed in “a sacred place, that is, in a cemetery or, in certain cases, in a church or an area which has been set aside for this purpose.” The ashes are never to be scattered on land or sea, divided among family members, kept on one’s mantelpiece, or preserved in a piece of jewelry.
Q. There was a lot of controversy over the presence of pro-abortion Hillary Clinton at the Al Smith Dinner last fall, sitting next to Timothy Cardinal Dolan at the Catholic fund-raising event. When I told a friend that it was scandalous to give such prominence to Mrs. Clinton, he said that Jesus ate with sinners. How can I respond? — R.C., North Carolina.
A. By passing on the following comments from Msgr. Charles Pope:
“It is true that Jesus ate with sinners. But of course, He was not easily compromised. Most of us (if not all of us) have nothing near the moral rectitude and integrity of Jesus. He had a perfect humanity and even His opponents had to say of Him: Teacher, we know that You are honest and are swayed by no one. Indeed, You are impartial and teach the way of God in accordance with the truth (Luke 12:14). Yes, He did. He never compromised the truth to gain admittance or any worldly accolades. But most of us do.
“It is one thing for Jesus to dine with sinners. It is another thing for us to do so. Compromise was impossible for Jesus — but it’s possible, even likely, for us. I am dubious that most any of us could possess the kind of integrity that Jesus had. So telling me that Jesus ate with sinners, so we can too, is to presume an equality and an integrity that too many of us lack.
“Secondly, and by way of illustration of the first point, at none of the dinners with sinners is it attested that Jesus just politely affirmed sinners and overlooked (or remained silent to) faults and outright evil views and acts — as do many of our modern dinners, parades, and bestowals of honor. No, indeed, Jesus confronted sinners and, by parable and admonition, summoned sinners to repentance. And while we do not have the full discussions that took place at every meal, we do have a lot preserved of the discussions.”
Msgr. Pope gave as examples the dinner where Jesus forgave the sinful woman who bathed His feet with her tears, dried them with her hair, and anointed them with ointment (cf. Luke 7:36-50); the dinner at the house of Matthew the tax collector where He answered the question about eating with sinners by saying that “those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do” (Matt. 9:12); and the meal where Jesus denounced the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, saying that while they made a big deal of ritual exterior washings, “inside you are filled with plunder and evil” (Luke 11:39).
These are just “a few examples of the vigorous teaching and admonition that Jesus demonstrated at these meals with sinners,” said Msgr. Pope. “None of these meals is without instruction, admonition, and outright rebuke. So whatever table fellowship Jesus had with sinners, it was not to affirm them or seek their favor. It was not to ignore their sin and leave them unchanged — or worse, to affirm them in their sin.”
He said that “if our dinners, parades, fundraisers, ribbon-cuttings, and bestowing of honors had this quality, no objections should be raised. But I have seldom if ever observed this stance. More often there is no rebuke or even mention that many present at these functions are guilty of the most egregious views that have resulted in the death of tens of millions of infants, immorally redefined marriage, and now seek to usher in more deaths through euthanasia. This is not evangelization. It is a countersign. It sends a signal that we are not all that serious about what we call our most cherished teachings and views.”
Q. The Diocese of Peoria has been thwarted in its attempt to proceed with the canonization of Archbishop Fulton Sheen by the refusal of the Archdiocese of New York to release the remains of Archbishop Sheen. His relatives have sued to have his body removed to Peoria, and a court recently ordered the Archdiocese of New York to do just that. Incredibly, the archbishop of New York, Timothy Cardinal Dolan, is appealing the court decision. Why is it necessary that Archbishop Sheen’s remains be physically present in Peoria in order for that diocese to continue the process? — S.J.S., via e-mail.
A. The reason for returning the remains of Archbishop Sheen to Peoria, Ill., where he grew up and was ordained to the priesthood in 1919, is to permit close examination of the body and the taking of first-class relics. Also, the presence of Sheen’s body would make St. Mary’s Cathedral a pilgrimage site, and a shrine is already under construction next to the altar in St. Mary’s where the marble crypt is to be located.
The cause for Fulton J. Sheen, who died in 1984 and is buried in St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City, was opened in 2002 by Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria reportedly because the Archdiocese of New York was not interested in pursuing the cause. Considerable progress had been made, including positive signs from the Vatican’s Congregation for the Causes of Saints and a potential miracle involving the survival of a newborn baby with no detectable pulse after his parents invoked the intercession of Archbishop Sheen, when Bishop Jenky suspended the cause in 2014 because of failure to have Sheen’s remains sent to Peoria.
A judge in New York ruled favorably in November 2016 on a petition by a relative of the archbishop to release the remains, and a spokesman for the Archdiocese of New York has said that it is considering sending the remains to Peoria for the beatification ceremony and then having them returned to New York afterward. Stay tuned for further developments.
