We all know the server's frequent response during the Mass:
Et cum spiritu tuo.
Just as you read these Latin words, you likely have pronounced them incorrectly. It's almost a disease among altar servers. Most likely you pronounced them with:
SPEER-ee-tutu-OH
Those who train altar servers, and those who may have a son or nephew who serves Mass should see to it that this bad habit is broken. The correct pronunciation should be:
SPEE-ree-tu (space) TU-oh
My theory as to why this mistake is so common is beacause, when a choir chants or sings this in response, the stress is put on the last OH, which is not the way it is when speaking.
When a diocesan church is trying to get a Latin Mass started, out of all the things we need to think about, this would be at the bottom of the list.
The things we should probably think about are: "How is our liberal bishop going to react? Are Cafeteria Catholics going to try to sabotage this Mass? Are a bunch of feminists going to march into the church in the middle of the Mass protesting? How can we obtain the money for the items required for a Latin Mass?"
After someone with no prior knowledge of Latin goes through the great difficulty of memorizing the responses, then we can teach them how to correctly pronounce the words.
Hmm.... I've seen an awful lot of sloppy TLM's, but not this particular issue.
I've only heard the later pronunciation in the diocesan tlms ive attended haven't been to many low masses though
I do not recall ever hearing that mistake.
Yes, that is the common, albeit incorrect, pronunciation. Personal opinion, I believe the obvious reason is that "spiritu" is the Latin for "spirit" so we English-speakers naturally tend to pronounce it as either spirit with the u tacked on the end or, if we're lucky, as spear-ee-tu. At least the latter is the correct sound of the letter "I" even if the full words are misspoken. That said, I agree that this is at or near the bottom of any list of concerns regarding the TLM.
Either way, yet another argument for why we should employ older teenagers or, even better, adult men to serve the altar, rather than young boys.
When I was a kid in the early 1960s, my cousins thought that "et cum spiri 220" was God's telephone number.
Quote from: The Harlequin King on August 22, 2014, 10:39:18 AM
Either way, yet another argument for why we should employ older teenagers or, even better, adult men to serve the altar, rather than young boys.
My son started serving the TLM when he was 12 and it seems to have been really good for him. I'm noticing that being a server really makes a lot of sense if understood as analogous to apprenticeship. I can see how it fosters vocations to the priesthood.
I'd have to hearken to HK's suggestion. I also think it's a good way to increase the gravitas in the church...
At our church, most of the servers are older teens, possibly older, but there are a couple of young teens in training.
Believe it or not, the mind of the Church is to prefer younger boys. The rules should be strict so it doesn't look childish. Proper fitting cassock and surplice. Ironed. Good haircut. White-shirted collar. Dark shoes. Proper latin. No fidgeting. Proper demeanor, etc. It fosters vocations, too.
The Church also prefers only males in a choir, and at that prefers boys. Women are only supposed to be tolerated with a view always of being tentative until males can be found. The liturgy is supposed to be masculine.
Quote from: RobertJS on August 23, 2014, 12:27:56 PM
Believe it or not, the mind of the Church is to prefer younger boys. The rules should be strict so it doesn't look childish. Proper fitting cassock and surplice. Ironed. Good haircut. White-shirted collar. Dark shoes. Proper latin. No fidgeting. Proper demeanor, etc. It fosters vocations, too.
The Church also prefers only males in a choir, and at that prefers boys. Women are only supposed to be tolerated with a view always of being tentative until males can be found. The liturgy is supposed to be masculine.
"Prefers" younger boys?
Can you back this up at all? Aren't all the assistants in the sanctuary, down to the altar server, ideally clerics of some form?
Quote from: RobertJS on August 23, 2014, 12:27:56 PM
Believe it or not, the mind of the Church is to prefer younger boys.
I emphatically denounce this concept as wrong in every way whatsoever. The use of boys is a relatively modern fixation. Altar servers are more properly called straw acolytes, as they stand in for the highest of the four minor orders. The Council of Trent decreed that the minor orders be restored to the parishes, and it is implied that rhese be conferred on men, even married if necessary; certainly not boys under theage of fourteen.
Quote from: Council of Trent, 23rd session
CHAPTER XVII.
In what manner the exercise of the minor orders is to be restored.
That the functions of holy orders, from the deacon to the janitor,-which functions have been laudably received in the Church from the times of the apostles, and which have been for some time interrupted in very many places,-may be again brought into use in accordance with the sacred canons; and that they may not be traduced by heretics as useless; the holy Synod, burning with the desire of restoring the pristine usage, ordains that, for the future, such functions shall not be exercised but by those who are actually in the said orders; and It exhorts in the Lord all and each of the prelates of the churches, and commands them, that it be their care to restore the said [Page 187] functions, as far as it can be conveniently done, in the cathedral, collegiate, and parochial churches of their dioceses, where the number of the people and the revenues of the church can support it; and, to those who exercise those functions, they shall assign salaries out of some part of the revenues of any simple benefices, or those of the fabric of the church,-if the funds allow of it,-or out of the revenues of both together, of which stipends they may, if negligent, be mulcted in a part, or be wholly deprived thereof, according to the judgment of the Ordinary. And if there should not be unmarried clerics at hand to exercise the functions of the four minor orders, their place may be supplied by married clerics of approved life; provided they have not been twice married, be competent to discharge the said duties, and wear the tonsure and the clerical dress in church.
There is an amusing chapter in Peregrinus Gasolinus: Peregrinus Goes Abroad, a series of stories written by a liturgical scholar in the late 1920's about two liturgically minded priests, the Antiquary and the Liturgiologist, arguing with one another during road trips across the country.
Quote from: Peregrinus Goes Abroad, "Why Altar Boys?"
"Of course," interrupted the Antiquary. "That's one of the few nice things about that Pastor. He keeps his boys 'on the Altar' for years and years, till they're married, in fact, and some of them after."
"Has he no children in his school, then?" asked Father Maduro.
"About five hundred, fully one half of which are males, and at least one-third of them can 'answer Mass' as our friend here calls it," said the Liturgiologist. "But why, in the name of Martinucci, must a Mass Server always be a sniveling little brat with his wrists bursting out of his cassock far too short for him, a very imperfect knowledge of the responses he has to say, and a generally rowdy and unedifying appearance—"
"Pere, Pere," remonstrated the Antiquary.
"Well, maybe not so bad as that. We have some good pious kids, I'll admit. But the older lads are really edifying, at least not distracting. Years of experience have taught them their business, they serve well, answer promptly and intelligibly, and at High Mass they put things through in a really distinguished and thoroughly correct manner which is a joy to behold."
"After all," remarked the Antiquary, "the Altar Boy, qua boy,[5] is a modern institution. And in quantities, almost, one might say, an American institution."[6]
"Imported from France," cut in the Liturgiologist.
"Like most of our ceremonial practice," went on the Antiquary. "But even in France, the serving of Mass is not restricted to children. One sees grown men, often stepping up from the congregation, serving at Low Mass constantly, and so everywhere on the continent. For more elaborate ceremonies the younger lads are used, but the important positions in the ceremonies are usually taken by older boys who have been carefully drilled. It seems only to be here in America that a positive prejudice exists against the presence of older boys and young men in the sanctuary. Quid de casu, Pere?"[7] turning to the Liturgiologist.
"There is no case," replied that worthy. "Nowhere in the liturgical books or Approved Authors is there any ruling about the age of those who assume the parts of Clerics in the Sacred Functions. They are supposed to know their business, to be able to make the proper responses, and, in short, to take the parts assigned by the Liturgy to Clerics. Altar Boys as such are not contemplated, they are merely permitted in the absence of Clerics. And since, under the new Code[of 1917], Clerics can only be adults of some years, already admitted to the Major Seminary in fact, the analogy seems to hold that the Church not only approves but expects the assistance of young men in her sacred ceremonies rather than immature children who can hardly be expected, save under most unusual conditions, to be able to edify the Priests and people in the performance of liturgical duties."
Quote from: The Harlequin King on August 23, 2014, 01:44:13 PM
Quote from: RobertJS on August 23, 2014, 12:27:56 PM
Believe it or not, the mind of the Church is to prefer younger boys.
I emphatically denounce this concept as wrong in every way whatsoever. The use of boys is a relatively modern fixation. Altar servers are more properly called straw acolytes, as they stand in for the highest of the four minor orders. The Council of Trent decreed that the minor orders be restored to the parishes, and it is implied that rhese be conferred on men, even married if necessary; certainly not boys under theage of fourteen.
I had in mind the simple servers at low Masses. I know the Church prefers clerics and older males for high Masses.
What does
relatively modern mean? Can you give some year/reason?
Quote from: RobertJS on August 23, 2014, 01:48:26 PM
I had in mind the simple servers at low Masses. I know the Church prefers clerics and older males for high Masses.
On the contrary, the acolytes of low Mass assume many more duties than at (solemn) high Mass, because they take over in the absence of the deacon and subdeacon. For example, if an altar server learned solemn Mass first, he wouldn't have to memorize the prayers at the foot of the altar, because they belong more properly to the deacon and subdeacon. They are his "fratres" whom the priest addresses in the Confiteor, not a 7-year old boy. I'm of the opinion that it is better for boys, if they must serve, to first learn how to attend and sing Mass in choir, then begin solemn Mass as torchbearers. Serving low Mass is quite complicated by comparison.
Quote
What does relatively modern mean? Can you give some year/reason?
I can't pinpoint exactly when boys became more fashionable than older teens or men for altar service, but "relatively" means in the past 300 years.
Quote from: Jayne on August 23, 2014, 02:43:00 AM
Quote from: The Harlequin King on August 22, 2014, 10:39:18 AM
Either way, yet another argument for why we should employ older teenagers or, even better, adult men to serve the altar, rather than young boys.
My son started serving the TLM when he was 12 and it seems to have been really good for him. I'm noticing that being a server really makes a lot of sense if understood as analogous to apprenticeship. I can see how it fosters vocations to the priesthood.
If he served Mass well at age 12, that's good to hear. But altar service should not be understood primarily as training for priesthood. That is merely incidental. The order of acolyte, as well as deacon, subdeacon, and lector (for sung Mass and certain Masses of the year when there are additional lessons from the Old Testament) ought to stand in their own merits.
Quote from: The Harlequin King on August 23, 2014, 02:15:15 PM
Quote from: Jayne on August 23, 2014, 02:43:00 AM
My son started serving the TLM when he was 12 and it seems to have been really good for him. I'm noticing that being a server really makes a lot of sense if understood as analogous to apprenticeship. I can see how it fosters vocations to the priesthood.
If he served Mass well at age 12, that's good to hear. But altar service should not be understood primarily as training for priesthood. That is merely incidental. The order of acolyte, as well as deacon, subdeacon, and lector (for sung Mass and certain Masses of the year when there are additional lessons from the Old Testament) ought to stand in their own merits.
The younger boys do not do all the tasks of an altar server. At first, all they do is process up and get used to being at the front, sitting still, etc. Then they are taught one or two tasks and keep doing those until they have mastered them. Then they are taught a bit more. And so on. My son has been doing this for over a year and there are still a lot of things he needs to learn. By the time he is fully trained and able to serve on his own, he will be over 14.
I know that it is not primarily training for priesthood. That is my wishful thinking. I would be thrilled if my son were to become a priest. I think of most things in his life in terms of how it might help him with priesthood in the future.
In after the King.
Knew he'd be here to denounce the errors. HK reminds me of Clive from the bodybuilding forums. He hardly shows up to other threads but if you mention bicep work he will no doubt make an appearance.
Quote from: Jayne on August 23, 2014, 02:41:52 PM
The younger boys do not do all the tasks of an altar server. At first, all they do is process up and get used to being at the front, sitting still, etc. Then they are taught one or two tasks and keep doing those until they have mastered them. Then they are taught a bit more. And so on. My son has been doing this for over a year and there are still a lot of things he needs to learn. By the time he is fully trained and able to serve on his own, he will be over 14.
That sounds like a reasonable plan of action. My one objection is that, if rhe principles of Romanitas are to be observed, wherein there are never more servers than are really needed, we would never see servers merely sitting "in choir" (which is what it sounds like from your description), performing no real service at all. At a minimum, they would be chanting the Ordinary of the Mass, thus being truly a liturgical choir. But there is not really a place in the Roman Mass for lay servers who neither sing nor perform any other action. Just saying. Of course, I'm not criticizing your son in any whatsoever.
Quote from: Basilios on August 23, 2014, 02:54:18 PM
In after the King.
Knew he'd be here to denounce the errors. HK reminds me of Clive from the bodybuilding forums. He hardly shows up to other threads but if you mention bicep work he will no doubt make an appearance.
Lol.
Quote from: The Harlequin King on August 23, 2014, 03:42:39 PM
Quote from: Jayne on August 23, 2014, 02:41:52 PM
The younger boys do not do all the tasks of an altar server. At first, all they do is process up and get used to being at the front, sitting still, etc. Then they are taught one or two tasks and keep doing those until they have mastered them. Then they are taught a bit more. And so on. My son has been doing this for over a year and there are still a lot of things he needs to learn. By the time he is fully trained and able to serve on his own, he will be over 14.
That sounds like a reasonable plan of action. My one objection is that, if rhe principles of Romanitas are to be observed, wherein there are never more servers than are really needed, we would never see servers merely sitting "in choir" (which is what it sounds like from your description), performing no real service at all. At a minimum, they would be chanting the Ordinary of the Mass, thus being truly a liturgical choir. But there is not really a place in the Roman Mass for lay servers who neither sing nor perform any other action. Just saying. Of course, I'm not criticizing your son in any whatsoever.
When you are being so careful not to offend me, it makes me feel like I must be a big meanie. ;D
Quote from: The Harlequin King on August 23, 2014, 02:12:10 PM
Quote from: RobertJS on August 23, 2014, 01:48:26 PM
I had in mind the simple servers at low Masses. I know the Church prefers clerics and older males for high Masses.
On the contrary, the acolytes of low Mass assume many more duties than at (solemn) high Mass, because they take over in the absence of the deacon and subdeacon. For example, if an altar server learned solemn Mass first, he wouldn't have to memorize the prayers at the foot of the altar, because they belong more properly to the deacon and subdeacon. They are his "fratres" whom the priest addresses in the Confiteor, not a 7-year old boy. I'm of the opinion that it is better for boys, if they must serve, to first learn how to attend and sing Mass in choir, then begin solemn Mass as torchbearers. Serving low Mass is quite complicated by comparison.
Quote
What does relatively modern mean? Can you give some year/reason?
I can't pinpoint exactly when boys became more fashionable than older teens or men for altar service, but "relatively" means in the past 300 years.
Holy cow! in the past 300 years??! Such a response immediately tells me
you are wrong. Such a length of time within the true Church could never be
silent and wrong. Which tells me you are wrong.
Quote from: RobertJS on August 23, 2014, 05:04:43 PM
Holy cow! in the past 300 years??! Such a response immediately tells me you are wrong. Such a length of time within the true Church could never be silent and wrong. Which tells me you are wrong.
Two items:
1.) We are speaking only of a quirk in the American, and perhaps, the French church. Elsewhere, adult servers have always been common.
2.) Gregorian chant was a dead art for centuries when the abbey of Solesmes set upon its revival. Even if bad music had reigned in the Church for a thousand years, it would not make it good. Same goes for any other discipline or custom. Solemn Mass on Sunday has never been part of the vast majority of the American church's historical tradition. Does that mean low Mass on Sundays is superior to solemn Mass? Obviously not. Likewise, if the greater part of American Catholics have never known Sunday Vespers, is introducing it a bad thing? Of course not.
This photo below of the Rev. Adrian Fortescue, who wrote
Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described, a liturgical manual found in every traditional seminary on earth, features the altar servers of his parish church in England, who are mostly adults or older teenagers.
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F9%2F98%2FSt_Hugh_Letchworth.jpg&hash=206baab6b2d375dc8545cc358873510e8fae90b8)
Quote from: Jayne on August 23, 2014, 04:30:19 PM
When you are being so careful not to offend me, it makes me feel like I must be a big meanie. ;D
Ha. When playing the armchair liturgist, one should take care to emphasize the liturgical ideal while realizing that many people at their churches are doing the best with what they know. I'm not even suggesting that any individual withdraw their young sons from serving Mass just because someone on the Internet said it was "bad". Rather, I'd ask everyone to remember that serving Mass is a privilege, not a right or even a rite of passage for boys who happen to be born to devout Catholic families. The liturgy is serious business.
Still, learning to sing the chant at Mass really ought to be the first step for all boys who are interested in serving the liturgy.
Quote from: RobertJS on August 23, 2014, 05:04:43 PMHoly cow! in the past 300 years??!
Additional thoughts: perhaps much shorter than that. I said 300 years to be generous. The domination of young boys in the sanctuary is not a topic that I've yet researched intensively, and I'm not sure it's even possible to. But, let's look at a couple of representations of the liturgy in art over time...
Adult server (even though it's low Mass):
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hung-art.hu%2Fkep%2Fzmisc%2Foltar%2F15_sz%2F4%2Fmartmik3.jpg&hash=db10e53d26cb65fb5f9e406e07731948432c145b)
All adult servers:
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcatholicroad.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F06%2Flatin-mass-painting-620x320.jpg&hash=d7d132e65f24a1da48af8492f9afbede19ce4318)
Quote from: The Harlequin King on August 23, 2014, 06:25:13 PM
Quote from: Jayne on August 23, 2014, 04:30:19 PM
When you are being so careful not to offend me, it makes me feel like I must be a big meanie. ;D
Ha. When playing the armchair liturgist, one should take care to emphasize the liturgical ideal while realizing that many people at their churches are doing the best with what they know. I'm not even suggesting that any individual withdraw their young sons from serving Mass just because someone on the Internet said it was "bad". Rather, I'd ask everyone to remember that serving Mass is a privilege, not a right or even a rite of passage for boys who happen to be born to devout Catholic families. The liturgy is serious business.
Still, learning to sing the chant at Mass really ought to be the first step for all boys who are interested in serving the liturgy.
I appreciate that you try to be clear these matters.
What could I do to help my son learn about singing chant at Mass? Should I teach him chant notation?
Quote from: Jayne on August 23, 2014, 06:58:57 PM
Quote from: The Harlequin King on August 23, 2014, 06:25:13 PM
Quote from: Jayne on August 23, 2014, 04:30:19 PM
When you are being so careful not to offend me, it makes me feel like I must be a big meanie. ;D
Ha. When playing the armchair liturgist, one should take care to emphasize the liturgical ideal while realizing that many people at their churches are doing the best with what they know. I'm not even suggesting that any individual withdraw their young sons from serving Mass just because someone on the Internet said it was "bad". Rather, I'd ask everyone to remember that serving Mass is a privilege, not a right or even a rite of passage for boys who happen to be born to devout Catholic families. The liturgy is serious business.
Still, learning to sing the chant at Mass really ought to be the first step for all boys who are interested in serving the liturgy.
I appreciate that you try to be clear these matters.
What could I do to help my son learn about singing chant at Mass? Should I teach him chant notation?
how can you teach chant ywitoust teachingchant notation
my son is 4 and keeps asking me when he can be an altar boy. usually the young altar servers just hold the candles though,
i told him 'when i trust you to carry around FIRE i.e. not anytime soon"
Quote from: Jayne on August 23, 2014, 06:58:57 PM
What could I do to help my son learn about singing chant at Mass? Should I teach him chant notation?
Absolutely. In fact, you could even think of it as part of training for priesthood, if you wish; the altar missal which the priest must read from has chant notation for various sections, such as the prefaces and the Lord's prayer. It's a necessary skill for traditional priests. There was a time (a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, it seems) when being unable to sing would preclude one from ordination to major orders, including the priesthood. Those were the days in which Mass was always sung, and the idea of privately reciting the Divine Office hadn't occurred yet.
I started with the Idiot's Guide to Square Notes: http://ceciliaschola.org/pdf/squarenotes.pdf
You can try to learn square notation by singing along to videos, such as the ones posted by Corpus Christi Watershed, for the chants from the Kyriale for the Ordinary of the Mass. For example:
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rB5HAywTyyQ[/yt]
But nothing can replace professional instruction. Perhaps your son can ask to join the church's chant schola, if there is one.
ive known some wonderful priests who couldn't carry a t use
Quote from: The Harlequin King on August 24, 2014, 12:26:56 AM
But nothing can replace professional instruction. Perhaps your son can ask to join the church's chant schola, if there is one.
Thanks for all the good information.
There is a small schola but it is all adult men. My son's voice has not changed yet so he would be the only soprano. Wouldn't that be a problem? I had been planning to suggest he join the schola when his voice changes.
My son does read music and play the piano. He used to be in a choir some years ago.
Quote from: Chestertonian on August 24, 2014, 12:44:33 AM
ive known some wonderful priests who couldn't carry a t use
No doubt there are, have been, and will always be great priests who can't read Latin, were born out of wedlock, or are missing their right hands. All the above excluded men from priesthood at some point or another in the history of the Church. I've heard the Society of Saint Pius X still doesn't ordain bastards. Unlike with singing or reading Latin, being born illegitimate is something a man has absolutely no power to correct whatsoever.
Quote from: The Harlequin King on August 24, 2014, 02:42:26 PM
Quote from: Chestertonian on August 24, 2014, 12:44:33 AM
ive known some wonderful priests who couldn't carry a t use
No doubt there are, have been, and will always be great priests who can't read Latin, were born out of wedlock, or are missing their right hands. All the above excluded men from priesthood at some point or another in the history of the Church. I've heard the Society of Saint Pius X still doesn't ordain bastards. Unlike with singing or reading Latin, being born illegitimate is something a man has absolutely no power to correct whatsoever.
I think that's sad. People can overcome difficult circumstances, and are often stronger for it.
Quote from: Jayne on August 24, 2014, 06:17:44 AM
There is a small schola but it is all adult men. My son's voice has not changed yet so he would be the only soprano. Wouldn't that be a problem? I had been planning to suggest he join the schola when his voice changes.
My son does read music and play the piano. He used to be in a choir some years ago.
That may be a problem if he's the only boy there. I wish I could simply propose that your schola create an auxiliary group for boys, but people keep telling me that boys don't want to sing. I don't know why, other than that perhaps it's now seen as a feminine activity. This is a highly anti-traditional mentality, but I can't do much about it.
Consider this sobering thought, though: the Masses and many other Latin choral works composed by William Byrd were never originally sung in the great cathedrals of England, but in private chapels and homes during the days of recusancy in Elizabeth's reign. Imagine, the Byrd Ave Verum Corpus in its first days was sung only by the boys and men of congregations no larger than the tiniest sedevacantist chapels, under conditions far more severe than any of us on this forum have ever seen.
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFZZMF7SRRo[/yt]
And we complain that we don't have the resources to sing such music in our churches today!
+1 HK. +1 for sure.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
when i was young i always did choir but they had so much trouble getting boys to stay. I was always one of a handful
many i think lose confidence when the voice stars to change
Quote from: The Harlequin King on August 24, 2014, 02:42:26 PM
Quote from: Chestertonian link=topic=don't thi.msg179372#msg179372 date=1408862673
ive known some wonderful priests who couldn't carry a t use
No doubt there are, have been, and will always be great priests who can't read Latin, were born out of wedlock, or are missing their right hands. All the above excluded men from priesthood at some point or another in the history of the Church. I've heard the Society of Saint Pius X still doesn't ordain bastards. Unlike with singing or reading Latin, being born illegitimate is something a man has absolutely no power to correct whatsoever.
I don't know if that's the case about the SSPX at all...someone I knew was illegitimate and was going to the seminary?
Quote from: Rose on August 26, 2014, 03:22:50 PM
Quote from: The Harlequin King on August 24, 2014, 02:42:26 PM
Quote from: Chestertonian link=topic=don't thi.msg179372#msg179372 date=1408862673
ive known some wonderful priests who couldn't carry a t use
No doubt there are, have been, and will always be great priests who can't read Latin, were born out of wedlock, or are missing their right hands. All the above excluded men from priesthood at some point or another in the history of the Church. I've heard the Society of Saint Pius X still doesn't ordain bastards. Unlike with singing or reading Latin, being born illegitimate is something a man has absolutely no power to correct whatsoever.
I don't know if that's the case about the SSPX at all...someone I knew was illegitimate and was going to the seminary?
Well - they pick and choose as they deem fit. Fact is, the 1917 Code prohibits the ordination of bastards, though it does allow for dispensations. I do not know whether that could happen with a local Bishop, or whether it had to go higher, whether Metropolitan Archbishop or to Rome.