I think that it is the double communion rite of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass that makes it abundantly clear that the Sacrifice of the Mass isn't completed until the priest himself consumes the holocaust. In fact, while it is desirable for the laity to receive, it is not obligatory in the EF Mass. And of course the EF Mass has a separate communion rite for the laity, but after the priest has received. This separate rite is not to be found in the Roman Missal of 1962. It is found in the revised Tridentine Mass's missal of 1965.
So my question is, does the OF Mass obfuscate the importance of the priest completing the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass by his consumption of the Holocaust now that his Communion is really a part of the laity's communion, although he is to receive first?
In fact, though, and sadly though, there was a trend in the 1970's and still found in some throw-back parishes of that period today of the priest out of a false sense of hospitality waiting until everyone else in the Church had received Holy Communion for him to do so himself. What about that?
So is it necessary for the celebrant to complete the sacrifice by consumption of the Holocaust. And would it be okay for the priest to consume a host from the tabernacle in place of the host he consecrated during that Mass so that the laity might partake of his host consecrated during that Mass?????? (I know the answer to that and I think it answers the other questions but I'm not sure how it affects the validity of the sacrifice).
5 comments:
I don't know enough to answer your question about the priest's communion, but one thing I have observed both as a boy and as an adult 30 years later: At the EF, not everyone comes forward for Communion. I don't want to sound like a Jansenist, but I think we've lost a sense of the gravity of receiving Communion. I can remember my second and third grade teachers (one was a nun) who made it VERY clear that if we were not in a state of grace, we were not to come forward for Communion. We also made our first Confessions the day before receiving Holy Communion.
I can't give you any scientific proof that this has been lost, but the signs of our time all point to it. I can actually remember going to Confession on Saturdays and seeing lines on both sides of the church where there were confessionals. Today, you're lucky if you see any line in most parishes. Today, EVERYONE comes forward for Communion. Now if the world was a better place than it was 30 or 40 years ago, I might believe that the congregation of any given parish was holy enough to shun Confession and come forward for Communion, but I think it's fair to say that we're not a better society now than we were 30 or 40 years ago. We've lost a sensitivity to sin and we live in a culture that glorifies and normalizes sin.
Communion in the hand hasn't helped either. Besides the "casualness" that it has brought to the sacrament, it has made desecration much easier for those with evil intentions towards the Church. The saddest thing I've witnessed at Mass was only a few months ago when a little girl was receiving her First Communion at a Sunday Mass. She practically snatched the Host from the priest's hands. I don't know who catechized her, but she deserved better than what she got.
No, a priest does not complete the sacrifice by receiving from the tabernacle. The sacrifice is not complete unless the victim, made present under the form of bread/wine in the present sacrifice of the mass, is consumed by the priest.
No, the OF does not obfuscate the importance of the priest completing the sacrifice. This would be the case if the communion of the priest was the only one that mattered, of if the communion of the laity was of no importance.
Since the priest's communion is NOT the only one that matters, and since communion by the laity IS important, no obfuscation results.
That false humility of a priest is still active..
saw this recently with my own eyes in Orlando..
The priest administered Holy communion to the cadre of EMHC before consuming it himself.
Then one of the EMHC seems to be breathing down his back to hurry u, and the priest rushed unreverently so that the EMHCs could get the show going.
From what I observed throughout that Mass, he was a sincere a holy priest who was being pressured and influenced by the laity and various V2 practices to misplace his holy humility, even so far as to applaud the choir and the EMHCs just before the Final Blessing.
Sigh.
Should I write that priest?
~SL
a nice letter commending him and then pointing out how some things came across to the congregation, that would be good.
This doesn't answer your questions, Father, but let me say that the photo posted is quite beautiful. I've always loved the deep bow at the Consecration in the EF and am happy to say that more and more priests seem to do it when offering the OF.
Post a Comment