One of the things that really confounded me (and makes those who hate the EF Mass already, blazing mad) is that the 1962 missal nor any other missal preceding it does not have in the missal the "Rite of Holy Communion" for the laity!
I thought to myself, certainly the laity have been receiving Holy Communion since the time after the Last Supper when laity actually participated in the early home Eucharistic celebrations. Keep in mind by the time the 12 Apostles receive Holy Communion, they are priest since Jesus not only establishes the sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist at the Last Supper but the ordained ministry (Holy Orders) by which it is perpetuated until the Lord returns. Obviously both of these sacraments develop after Pentecost and by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
So why does not 1962 missal not have the Rite of Holy Communion explicitly in the missal (although the Tridentine revision of the 1965 missal does)?
Because of the exclusive emphasis of the Sacrificial aspect of what the Mass "memorializes" to the exclusion of the Paschal Meal as a sign of the "eternal feast or "wedding banquet" of heaven" which is the "resurrection" component of the Mass when both are emphasized.
It is clearer though in the 1962 missal that in order to complete the sacrifice (as in the Old Testament priesthood and sacrifices) that the priest must consume the "holocaust" or what is sacrificed in the "temple" where the sacrifice takes place (the holy of holies). He does so on behalf of the people who "wait outside" and benefit from the priest who represents them before God in these sacrificial offerings and consumption.
Thus in the pre-Vatican II configuration of Churches which is a modification of the Eastern Rite (Orthodox) configuration of churches, there is an altar railing or rood screen (similar in intent to the Iconostasis in the East) that creates a separate "holy of holies" for the priest as he offers the sacrifice and consumes it to complete the sacrificial worship on behalf of the people whom he represents before God.
In the post-Vatican II bid to show forth that all baptized beleivers share in the one priesthood of Christ but in different degrees (clergy and laity) the taking away of altar railings and the oemphasis on the "communion of the laity" sharing in the priestly role of the ordained priest become clearer.
But there is a danger in this also. That there is a blurring of the roles of clergy and laity in the "sacrificial" aspect of the Catholic Mass. And in fact this law of prayer in post-Vatican II praxis as led to a new and perhpas dangerous "law of belief" the "clericalization" of the laity in the life of the Church and the "laiziation" of the clergy in the life of the Church. This has serious consequences for Catholic orthodoxy at Mass and in the general life of the Church.
The 1962 missal while not having an official ceremony for the laity's communion was corrected in the 1965 missal and subsequent missals and needed to be.
But keep in mind in the Old Testament time of sacrificial worship, after the priest consumed some of the holocaust, what remained was brought to the "laity" outside of the temple in a joyous sacrificial meal!
This occurred beyond the altar railing in the 1962 missal and still occurs beyond the iconostasis in Orthodox divine liturgy.
The point is that the sacrificial aspect and the Communion aspect need not be diminished but should be seen in proper context of the ordained priesthood and his role in the completing the sacrifice and how the laity share in that!
It has implications too for style of worship and music that is selected for these two very different aspects of the one Mass which needs to be recovered in the revised Roman Missal.
31 comments:
Father, I think we need all three phrases: lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi.
Excellent! Daily Mass currently has the first reading from St. James--what a great letter for what you suggest.
Seconded. I had a person get unexpectedly emotional back when we were discussing the advent of the new translation. He and his wife are EMHC and really like that job. They are also hard over that they are owed communion in both species. They even threatened to leave the Church if that is ever 'denied' them. There is an awful lot of 'me' in the laity these days and, frankly, my patience with that is exhausted.
rcg
If any one saith, that Masses, wherein the priest alone communicates sacramentally, are unlawful, and are, therefore, to be abrogated; let him be anathema.
There would have been no need in any Missal prior to the Second Vatican Council for there to be instruction regarding the Communion of the Laity because the laity did not use the Missal. Hand missals only became popular in the early to mid-1900's.
Holy Communion for the laity is not an integral part of the Mass, if you are using integral to mean "necessary" as it has never been necessary for the laity to receive Communion during Mass. I actually think that the suggestion underminds Holy Communion because it has resulted in a situation wherein it is quite difficult to receive Holy Communion outside of Mass, which would have been more frequent in days past - If I happened to be at Church and there was a priest there, I could simply ask to receive Holy Communion.
Tying the two together has changed how Catholics view Holy Communion. We could debate whether the change has been for the better or not...
Marc, there is clearly a "rigid" ceremony and set of rubrics for the Communion of the people, it simply isn't in the 1962 missal. What I might be missing since it is written in Latin, would be instructions for such in the General Instructions of the Roman Missal of 1962. Does anyone know?
But if there isn't it is odd to be that there is consistency in how to do in the 1962 Roman Missal. That this was changed and during the council, not afterward in the printing of the 1965 missal that actually came out in 1964 is very telling.
I'm afraid that vague and ambiguous mention of different "aspects" of the Mass may reinforce the prevalent misunderstanding of the Mass as some sort of shared religious meal, if not as a reenactment of the Last Supper.
Prior to the post-Vatican II collapse of seminary education, all priests understood clearly that the Mass does not merely have a "sacrificial aspect", the Sacrifice of the Mass is the Sacrifice of the Cross re-presented and perpetuated throughout time.
Throughout history, Jewish and even pagan sacrifices have culminated in a holy meal in which the sacrificial victim is consumed. But--although every pre-1962 missal in my collection includes a rite of communion of the laity (beginning with the so-called 2nd confiteor, then the Ecce Agnus Dei, and prescribing the formula for the offering of the Host to the individual communicant))--this "communion rite" (the sacrificial banquet) was understood as a separate rite that could be inserted in the Mass after the priest consummates the sacrifice (as familiar in modern times), or administered at the conclusion of Mass (as sometimes in more ancient times), or entirely apart from Mass (as is still done in "communion services").
Although Holy Communion is absolutely vital as our sharing in the "resurrection fruit" of the Sacrifice of the Mass, I sometimes wonder if it might not restore some clarity of thought among both priests and laity if--at least for an instructive period of time--the rite of lay communion were again extracted from within the Mass proper. (At least, I enjoy suggesting this in more progressive contexts where such correction is most needed.)
In answer to your specific question, Fr. McDonald, it is not true that the rite of communion of the laity is entirely omitted from the 1962 and earlier missals. Actually it was more explicit in pre-1962 missals than in the 1962 missal itself, prescribing the 2nd confiteor followed by absolution of the people, the the Ecce Agnus Dei and the peoples triple Non dum dignus, and then communion by the people.
This was all specified in the Rubrics printed in Latin (like the whole Roman Missal) at the front. In the 1962 RM, Rubrics 502 and 503 specify the rite of communion of the laity. In English:
502. The proper time for distributing holy communion to the faithful is within the Mass, after the communion of the celebrating priest, who himself distributes it to those who seek it . . . . . On the other hand, it is permissible for a good reason to distribute holy communion immediately before or after Mass, or even outside of the time of Mass. In such cases the form prescribed in the Roman Ritual , title V, chapter II, nos. 1-10, is used.
So the uniformity of the form of the communion rite is hardly a "coincidence"--it is specified down to the last word and gesture in the Roman Ritual (rather than in the Roman Missal itself, just as the 1970-2003-2010 RM itself omits much that is specified elsewhere, e.g., the GIRM).
One wonders if the ecclesiology underlying the exclusion of any mention of the communion by the laity was in need of correction.
An ecclesiology that ignores the laity is an ecclesiology that is incomplete.
Ignotus, how is exclusion of Communion from the Mass proper "ignoring the laity?"
Correct my recollection if it's wrong, but the concept of the Laity receiving Communion every Sunday like a "right" is a relatively new idea (past couple centuries maybe). Before that most laity didn't even necessarily have Clergy available to them and would be served by visiting Clergy, unless they were in at least a decent sized village. Isn't part of a Catholic's "duty" to insure they Confess and Receive AT LEAST once a year, preferably around Easter time if possible?
It would seem to me that regardless of how the MR is written, the removal of the Altar rails, especially the Gates that communicated visually the reality to the laity that what was happening on the Altar was happening in a different time and space as it were, has been a disaster. Now Communion is just anotehr part of the Mass at best, or at worst, the reason for the Mass, the toy in the Happy Meal part, and most laity are as passionate about it as standing in line at the DMV.
We have to keep in mind that many corrupt practices evolved in the Tridentine experience of the Mass one of which was the possibility that Holy Communion would not be offered to the laity even though the laity present had no impediment, such as breaking the fast or mortal sin. So, for example at a Nuptial Mass sometimes only the bride and groom were allowed to receive Holy Communion. Make no mistake, this was an aberration.
Apart from the possibility of someone being in a state of mortal sin, the major reason why so few Catholics actually received Holy Communion was the fact that they had broken the fast which was from midnight to the time of Mass and also included liquids, like water! So you might have a packed Church for the 11:00 AM High Mass, but only 20 people might go to Holy Communion not because of mortal sin but because they did not want to keep the fast and this was perfectly acceptable.
Now, how many people are actually in a state of mortal sin when because of the fast being reduced to only one hour before Holy Communion we now have more people going to Holy Communion, some of whom might well be in mortal sin and thus jeopardizing their salvation? Only God knows.
Father, I believe you will agree that the one hour fast rule is so lax as to be irrelevant. You can eat a sandwich on the steps of the Church and still receive Communion an hour later unless your Priest is a hard and fast 10 minute Sermon kinda' guy.
So, based on your post I feel compelled to ask, what was the original intent of the fast, and what was the intent of reducing it to the current meaningless amount of time?
I wouldn't call not giving Holy Communion to any Joe Blow who walks up a "corrupt practice of the Tridentine Mass." I would call it protecting what is Holy.
You could question whether it is better for many people to receive Holy Communion with no preparation and little fasting or better for no one to receive at all...
I believe the more longstanding practice is for people to communicate very infrequently. I hate to resort to the very archaeologism that I despise, but there it is. In this case it applies because the Modernists would love for everyone to receive Communion because they want open communion because they do not want people to believe in the Real Presence because it undermines their dogma of subjectivism and immanentism.
"...many corrupt practices evolved in the Tridentine experience of the Mass..." Good Father, you are on to something here.
And underlying some of them might have been an inadequate ecclesiology (which was translated into an inadequate liturgical practice) in which the laity were basically ignored.
I don't have time to do a history of the fast except that it more than likely evolved in strict monastic settings where fasting and other forms of asceticism were practiced to the nth degree.
However, keep in mind that these monasteries, many of them only allowing for a vegetarian diet had Mass very early in the morning, like at 5:00 AM, so their fast was not as stringent as you might think.
But for the poor souls who were diocesan priests or worked in parishes and had missions all over the place the lack of food and water often compromised their health and ability to celebrate the Sacred Mysteries properly. The poor laity who might have wanted to go to Mass at 11:00 AM on Sunday (I don't think it was allowed much later than that) had the peculiar situation of having the ability to break the fast but not receive Holy Communion and thus putting food above Jesus and this being perfectly acceptable!
The law of fast is the law of belief.
At the same time I think part of the reason for the fast was to make you hungry in the physical sense so that you would hunger and thirst for Christ in the spiritual sense--not a bad "feeling" even for those who are touchy-feely! A truncated fast of only 3 hours which came into play even prior to Vatican II helped but was entirely too long for small children many of whom were deprived of Holy Communion because they simply wanted breakfast--that happened to me too! I think a good compromise would be a fast of one hour before Mass, not before Holy Communion.
Pater what you say is very true and corrected by Vatican II in all of its documents. You might note that in most Orthodox and Eastern Rite churches, while they have maintained a more traditional understanding of the "holy of holies" and the priest going behind the iconostasis to celebrate the Eucharist, that they still have/had active participation of the laity and the role of the lay cantor was extremely important as also the deacon and sub-deacon. I believe also that the Liturgy of the word took place outside of the enclosure of the iconostasis which has a remnant of that in the Latin Rite of having the pulpit outside of the sanctuary.
I think we must recover what we had in terms of the holy of holies and along the lines of the Orthodox and recover the liturgy of the word outside the sanctuary--
The laity need not be ignored in a Tridentine Order of Mass with a liturgy of the word that allows for lay lectors and active participation of the laity in all the sung parts that belong to them in our current experience of Mass.
Ignotus said: ""...many corrupt practices evolved in the Tridentine experience of the Mass..." Good Father, you are on to something here."
Give it a rest, will ya'.
There have been more abuses in 40 years years of the OF than in the 400 years of the codified Tridentine Rite and you damn well know it. Unless, as many here suspect, you don't view the abuses in the OF as abuses at all, but simply the way things were meant to be.
Peace, Love and Groovy Feelings Father.
Templar posts above this one show how abuse of the post Vatican II Church with a spirit of Vatican II theology of rupture has had a deleterious effect upon Catholics, laity and clergy and that abuses abound not only liturgically but otherwise. There are some institutionalized reforms that open themselves to abuse also in the post-Vatican II Mass.
However, you do not do yourself a favor when you deny that there were abuses prior to Vatican II and some of these institutionalized.
A recovery of what was good and holy and unifying cannot be done at the expense of the legimiate authority of Vatican II and its documents, the living Magisterium of the Church and the authority of the Holy Father and the bishops in union with him. We cannot become like the Orthodox who are frozen in time because they accept no Councils of the Church that occurred after the Great Schism in 1054 or whenever. We are a living and breathing Church in the Roman Catholic Church.
The Communion of the laity and lay participation in the Mass are fully possible even with the 1962 missal. I would have no problem with lay lectors either, male or female. Eucharistic ministers is open for debate as the Orthodox do not allow for this and I don't believe the Episcopalians allow it for the Host, but for the chalice, but I might be wrong.
Father, I am sure there were abuses prior to Vatican II. In particular, there were versus populum experiments in Collegeville, and I have little doubt that there may have been other issues.
On the other hand, in the early sixties, when I was following the Mass in my St. Joseph's Sunday Missal, I do not recall that I ever observed the sort of variations which I have lately noted as I follow in my new Missal from MTF. And I am not talking of small things, but of significant chunks of text inserted or deleted.
The Mass, by definition and in its very essence, includes the laity in the most sublime and complete way, with or without Communion. The Mass, remember, is primarily about obecience and worship to God the Father and the prayer before the Holy Sacrifice. Given that Christ's death and Resurrection was indeed for us and our salvation, how could the Mass possibly "ignore the laity..." Unless, of course, you mean by introducing all sorts of extraneous distractions from worship, personal preferences and biases of the Priest, or concessions to Protestant theology and worship...er, but those things aren't what you are talking about, are they, Ignotus?
Father, I do not deny that there were abuses prior to Vatican II. My statement was, and I stand by it, that there have been more abuses in the 40 years of the OF than there were in the 400 years of the codified Tridentine Rite.
Nor do I deny the legitimacy of the Second Vatican Council, but reserve the right to question the way in which many of the Councils recommendations have been implemented; primary among them is the twisting of the words "active participation" to imply that if the Laity aren't acting like Clergy they aren't participating. I have always felt more than a little bit insulted by the form of Clericalism that seems to imply to me that what the Laity do during Mass isn't good enough to merit Salvation on the basis of my vocation. I was not Blssed to a calling to the Priesthood, and do not believe I need act in the manner of Clergy during Mass. What I do when I serve Mass in my Lay capacity should be good enough to merit salvation (all other considerations not being addressed here) without The Second Vatican Council, or someone's interpretation of it, implying that if I am not speaking from the Ambo, or handing out Communion, or even singing robustly enough, then I am some how not participating actively in joining myself to the sacrifice.
"In the Mass, therefore, the sacrifice and the sacred meal belong to the same mystery—so much so that they are linked by the closest bond." Pope Paul VI, 1965, The Mystery of Faith
My last post should have read "obedience and worship." I mi-typed.
"We have to keep in mind that many corrupt practices evolved in the Tridentine experience of the Mass one of which was the possibility that Holy Communion would not be offered to the laity even though the laity present had no impediment, such as breaking the fast or mortal sin."
"But if there isn't it is odd to be that there is consistency in how to do in the 1962 Roman Missal. That this was changed and during the council, not afterward in the printing of the 1965 missal that actually came out in 1964 is very telling."
Once again, for any who have missed my previous two comments, these perceptions are simply NOT ACCURATE regarding pre-Vatican II Catholic practice. NOTHING in this regard was changed during the Council. For instance:
(1) I attended Masses (Sunday and daily, private and public) in numerous parishes in different dioceses in different areas of the U.S. in the 1950s before Vatican II, and never saw a single Mass where the faithful did not receive Holy Communion. I never knew a Catholic who indicated ever having seen such a Mass without communion.
(2) I have a collection of pre-1962 (e.g. circa 1945) hand missals, every one of which contains the same communion rite for the laity that is specified in the general rubrics for the Latin Roman Missal and the Roman Ritual.
So the assertion of a pre-Vatican II ecclesiology that ignored the laity is simply a canard.
Henry, I don't disagree with the praxis you describe. My point in the original post is that the 1962 missal does not have the order of how the laity receive Communion within the Order of the Mass in the Missal--it simply stops with the communion of the priest and then goes to abultions, Prayer after Holy Communion and blessing and dismissal.
Those who hate this missal point this out any chance they get as a "flawed ecclesiology."
However, I have heard of certain Masses in the past where the priest only received Holy Communion; I doubt this was ever on a Sunday but may have occurred at Requiems or funerals, but I'm not certain, others your age, priests in particular would have to respond.
One of the most impressive cinematic renderings of the Mass I've ever seen was in a recent movie about the Christmas Truce of 1914, when entire regiments of English and German soldiers spontaneously met and fraternized in no-man's-land on Christmas Eve. This movie showed a Mass celebrated by a German priest, I believe, and (perhaps taking some historical liberties) had music provided by a female opera singer who happened to be touring the front. At any rate, it was not only very reverent, being Tridentine, but also strongly reflected the horizontal, communal aspect of the Mass that Pater and many VII theologians treasure. This despite the fact that the laity wasn't offered communion (because neither the priest nor anyone else had expected this Mass would even happen, thus no Hosts were available except for the priest). Modernists who insist upon reception for everybody might learn something from watching this film.
Fr. McDonald, the only past Masses I know of--where no one but the celebrant received--were conventual mid-morning Masses in monasteries where everyone else had received at an early morning private Mass, and then eaten breakfast, and moreover only one holy communion per day was allowed in those days. Though I don't doubt that this could have occurred also at late morning funeral Masses on workdays where it would have assumed that everyone present would have broken their fast--in general practice, people either received communion at an early-morning weekday Mass, or only on Sunday maintained their fast until late morning, which was the case with people who wished to attend the parish high Mass, ordinarily the last Mass on Sunday morning.
Hmm, it occurs to me to wonder how many of our good southern Protestant brethren know that the very word, which they themselves use for their first meal of the day, refers to the BREAKing of the eucharistic FAST.
Anon 5: Do you refer to Joyeux Noel? If so the priest was a Scotsman, who incidentally is dismissed from service after the incident and returned home in disgrace for fraternization.
The movie is wonderful on many levels. A foreign film of course, made for the cost that Hollywood would pay one A list actor.
Answering my own question, and taking Father's advice to do a little research:
The discipline of fasting before communion has a long history, as Pope Pius XII states in his 1953 apostolic constitution, "Christus Dominus":
"From the very earliest time the custom was observed of administering the Eucharist to the faithful who were fasting. Toward the end of the fourth century fasting was prescribed by many Councils for those who were going to celebrate the Eucharistic Sacrifice. So it was that the Council of Hippo in the year 393 issued this decree: 'The Sacrament of the altar shall be offered only by those who are fasting.' Shortly afterward, in the year 397, the Third Council of Carthage issued this same command, using the very same words. At the beginning of the fifth century this custom can be called quite common and immemorial. Hence St. Augustine affirms that the Holy Eucharist is always received by people who are fasting and likewise that this custom is observed throughout the entire world.
"Doubtless this way of doing things was based upon very serious reasons, among which there can be mentioned first of all the one the Apostle of the Gentiles deplores when he is dealing with the brotherly love-feast of the Christians. Abstinence from food and drink is in accord with that supreme reverence we owe to the supreme majesty of Jesus Christ when we are going to receive Him hidden under the veils of the Eucharist. And moreover, when we receive His precious Body and Blood before we take any food, we show clearly that this is the first and loftiest nourishment by which our soul is fed and its holiness increased. Hence the same St. Augustine gives this warning: 'It has pleased the Holy Ghost that, to honor so great a Sacrament, the Lord's Body should enter the mouth of the Christian before other food.'
"Not only does the Eucharistic fast pay due honor to our Divine Redeemer, it fosters piety also; and hence it can help to increase in us those most salutary fruits of holiness which Christ, the Source and Author of all good, wishes us who are enriched by His Grace to bring forth."
Before the time of Pius XII the Eucharistic fast was from midnight onward and included water. This also meant that Masses were only celebrated in the morning.
In the above-mentioned constitution the Pope, while stressing the importance of the fast, affirmed: "It should nevertheless be noted that the times in which we live and their peculiar conditions have brought many modifications in the habits of society and in the activities of common life. Out of these there may arise serious difficulties which could keep men from partaking of the divine mysteries if the law of the Eucharistic fast is to be observed in the way in which it had to be observed up to the present time."
Pius XII mentions some of the difficulties preventing many from receiving Communion. Among them are the shortage of clergy, especially in mission lands, and the pace of modern life in factories and offices which include night shifts. He also desired to open up the possibility of celebrating Mass in the evening on important feasts so that more people could attend.
Thus, among other things he established that water and medicine would no longer break the fast. He also mitigated the fast under certain circumstances. In 1957, with the document "Sacram Communionem," he changed the law again, to require only a three-hour fast.
Pope Paul VI brought in the present discipline in November 1964, and this forms the basis of Canon No. 919.
Templar,
Yes, that sounds right. I've always thought it worth pondering about how strongly the governments came down on the troops for daring to do that, complete with dire warnings when Christmas 1915 came around. Brings up that groovy old line "What if they gave a war and nobody came?"
Post a Comment