The new issue of Canon Law Abstracts arrived in the post this week. I don`t think I`m a natural canon lawyer but I do give a quick browse to see if there is anything that interests me and as always I went first for the section on the Eucharist to see what there was.
There were three responses by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments from 2009 two of which I don`t remember seeing before.
The first regards a priest either choosing to receive Holy Communion after all the congregation have received or distributing the host so that he can receive simultaneously with the congregation. Both these practices are reprobated and the comment is made:" It is not a question of human dignity but expressing his role as presiding minister acting in the person of Christ."
The next considers whether it is correct for a bishop to act as a concelebrant at a priest`s jubilee Mass so that the jubilarian can be main celebrant. I must admit I`ve always been uneasy with bishops concelebrating at a Mass where the main celebrant is a priest. The comment is made: " Theologically the bishop must always preside, even if he does so in choir dress and presides over the Liturgy of the Word but does not concelebrate. This is provided in Caerimoniale Episcoporum no.18."
This was new to me. I looked up the Caerimoniale no. 18 which says:
When a bishop presides at the eucharist but is not the celebrant, he does everything in the liturgy of the word that belongs to the celebrant and he concludes the Mass with the rite of dismissal, following the provisions given in nos 176-185.
176-185 say the bishop is to vest in alb, stole, cope and mitre so this seems to extend the possibility to him presiding over the liturgy of the Word in choir dress.
The third response concerns whether it is correct for concelebrants to elevate chalices at the end of the Eucharistic prayer. This too is reprobated. The comment is : "The purpose of this elevation is not to show the consecrated elements to the people but to express the giving of glory to God. Only the celebrant with the assistance of a deacon for the chalice should do this."
I was under the impression that this`little` elevation in the OF was meant to show the elements to the people and so wondered why very often the ciborium bowl is elevated without the people being able to see the host. However I shall adjust things accordingly. Concelebrants nearest the celebrant are normally invited to elevate the chalice but this is no longer to be done.
Small points of liturgical law for the OF but I thought they might be of interest.
16 comments:
"The purpose of this elevation is not to show the consecrated elements to the people but to express the giving of glory to God."
This is no different to the end of the canon in the EF. At the words 'omnis honor et gloria' the priest does the little elevation to signify honour and glory that ascends from the altar to the Most Holy Trinity; not to show the sacred species to the people (not really possible to see during the EF). The true meaning is completely different to that which most people assume, and which is completely misrepresented in the new form of Mass (as are many other aspects of the Mass misrepresented). Most people now think that every action is done for them to see what is happening. This is the real tragedy of the new Mass in that most people in church assume that every action on the sanctuary is done for THEIR benefit and have no comprehension of the true meaning of the Mass being the Sacrifice of Calvary. I cannot understand why some servers are told to ring the bell at this little elevation because it serves no liturgical purpose and is not mentioned in any servers instruction books that I have seen. Perhaps someone could explain why it is done?
Well I have to confess, I like a bell at the little elevation. I first came across the practice at Gricigliano. If the purpose of the little elevation is to give glory to God then why not ring a bell to celebrate this?
In Belgium, France, and some other places, the bell is rung also at the "little elevation" before the Pater Noster.
Ah, Father, if we did everything we liked at Mass then we would be attending the NOM.
The rubrics are there for a specific purpose to ensure that the Mass is celebrated according to the great mind of the Church - and not for imposing our own likes or dislikes (NOM?)on the congregation.
The entire Mass is to give glory to God so we could be ringing bells from the moment the priest leaves the sacristy until he returns. Bells are there for a specific purpose. At the Sanctus to warn the people that that the great canon of the Mass is about to start. At the Hanc igitur to warn everyone to prepare for the great moment of consecration. At the Consecration to alert the people during the silent Canon that the Consecration is taking place and to raise their eyes in adoration. At the priest's Communion to alert the people to approach the altar rails for their own Communion.
Everything else becomes personal preference unless there is a good reason for local custom. Personal preference is built into the NOM but not in the Missal and rubrics of 1962.
NBP, I think if you look more closely at the 1962 rubrics you will find that there is space for personal preference. For example, the biretta is optional as are the Leonine prayers. As for bell ringing, the ringing of the bell at the little elevation serves the function of alerting the faithful to the end of the canon if they have been deep in prayer. It may also have alerted the organist at a sung Mass who may have been improvising during the canon after the Benedictus ( something the 1962 rubrics aren`t keen on ) to draw to a close.
As for other personal preferences, how many Masses have you attended where the consecration candle is used? There is even personal preference expressed in the use of Gothic or Roman vestments. Or whether a missal stand or cushion is used. Or how about whether the scruple spoon is used for the offertory? Or kissing the cruets before presenting them to the priest? Have you seen the server carrying the missal to the altar, as the rubrics prescribe? It is optional whether the server gives holy water to the priest at the door of the church. As for bell-ringing, my recent Fortescue says nothing about ringing for each of the times Domine, non sum dignus is said ( which is often done) but simply that it is rung once after the Agnus Dei and then once after the priest`s Communion, which I`ve never seen done.
As Ken has noted ringing the bell at the little elevation is a custom in many places which to my knowledge has not been reprobated.
Father,
The priest in our parish distributes the body of Christ to the extraordinary ministers and consumes the host simultaneously with them. Would this practice fall under the reprobation that you mention?
Anonymous, I would certainly say so. However your priest probably doesn`t know that this custom has been reprobated.
Father,
do you know of any reference to definitively prohibit the illicit practice of Extraordinary Ministers purifying the chalice and paten after the Communion that I can show to my Parish Priest? This seems to be a very common practice in the diocese where I generally worship.
motuproprio you can read about cleansing of vessels by the laity here
This concerns the situation in America. In the Uk so far as I know no indult has ever been sought to allow the laity to do this. Section 119 of Redemptionis Sacramentum confirms the GIRM on this.
Regarding the elevation, would a concelebrant holding the chalice be illicit at a Mass where there are no deacons present?
Carl, that`s how I would read it.
In Southwark Diocese purification as a 'job' for Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion appears common. Random visits to many churches have confirmed this.
Southwark Anonymous, I suppose the problem is that where a Mass is said by one priest and he his helped by a host of Extraordinary ministers it would take too long for him to purify maybe six chalices and a few ciboria. The answer wuold be to restrict the use of Extraordinary Ministers. Then a decision has to be made over which is the more important, the facility for people to receive Holy Communion under both kinds or the purification of the sacred vessels by the priest himself. It also takes a brave priest to announce that he is abolishing Communion under both kinds as that means Extraordinary ministers are not needed and that could cuase a riot in the parish. I have to confess I haven`t found a solution to this myself except that during the week although we have Communion under both kinds, I always do the purifying myself. On a Sunday this doesn`t happen and I feel bad about it. So far as I know there is no indult in England for it to be done by Extraordinary Ministers. Someone somewhere must have given a green light for ministers to purify. One would hope that the CDW might have raised this at the ad limina but maybe they had other things on their minds.
Regarding the elevation, would a concelebrant holding the chalice be illicit at a Mass where there are no deacons present?
A concelebrant is designated to read the Gospel and fulfill any specifically deaconal role in the absence of a deacon. This includes elevating the chalice.
Thanks' Friend, I understand the logic of your line of thought but how do you reconcile that with this instruction?
Friend, if the deacon`s functions are taken over by the concelebrant (s) why is the dismissal never said by a concelebrant? I`m not trying to make a point but am just curious.
Post a Comment