Crux has an article on the term "transubstantiation" and how it does or doesn't resonate with Catholics today. I don't think the problem is the word "transubstantiation" but how we explain it, even in the Baltimore Catechism.
As a child and even now, I don't like the term "accidents" to describe what remains after the consecration and transubstantiation. Accidents in English has too many definitions. Get rid of that word.
Simply say that the "substance" of the Bread and Wine become the Crucified and Risen Lord in Jesus' entirety as THE Second Divine Person of the Most Holy Trinity, with two natures, Human and Divine. But Jesus who makes the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, His one Sacrifice on the Cross at Calvary available to us in a timeless but unbloody way, the glorified way, a non-offensive way, non gory way, Jesus also gives us Himself in a palatable and delightful, glorified way under the form of Bread and wine, the externals which remain while what it is changes.
But we can explain how the Mass is the One and Same Sacrifice of the Cross and how the actual Bread and Wine become the actual Substance of the Crucified and Risen Lord until the cows come home or the Second Coming, whichever comes first, and the majority of Catholics won't hear or understand it.
Thus the manner in which the Mass is celebrated must be the sign and symbol of what it is, the One Sacrifice of Christ in an unbloody way with the Crucified and Risen Lord substantially and sacramentally truly present. This means, folks, that awe and reverence must be the first priority of each Mass in how it is celebrated and the plethora of lay ministries come last, way last. So the Mass isn't about what people are doing, which is a heresy, but what God is doing! This leads away from the dreaded horizontal to the desired vertical of worship and receiving our Lord worthily.
So, let me bang Pope Benedict XVI's drum again and again, the renewal of the Ordinary Form of the Mass in continuity with the 1962 Roman Missal, wrongly called the reform of the reform but renewal in continuity.
No one, especially those who prefer the 1962 Missal should be offended by this and it will make the 1962 Missal more approachable for those who have an antipathy for it, especially in the clergy and thus make the 1962 Missal more available if the Ordinary Form of the Missal approximates it.
And let me make this clear, what Pope Benedict envision, is made a reality in the Pope Francis' promulgated "Divine Worship, the Missal."
What is it that I am recommending? The following:
1. Maintaining the current vernacular Ordinary Form Missal with the following additions from the Ordinariate's Missal:
a. The Introit from the Roman Gradual but in the Extraordinary Form and in the chanted Mass, chanted during the Prayers and the Foot of the Altar which are restored. Of course, the Mass is celebrated Ad Orientem.
b. Next and in unity with the congregation and choir, the priest approaches the altar, kisses it, incenses it if incense is used and then joins the choir/cantor and congregation in the Kyrie and the Gloria as the priest stands at the middle of the altar.
c. After the Gloria, he kisses the altar, turns to the people and extends his hands, and chants or says "The Lord be with you." He goes to the Epistle side of the altar and chants or says "Let us Pray" and chants or says the Collect.
2. The Liturgy of the Word continues as it is currently celebrated in the Ordinary Form:
a. The priest goes to he sedalia. A reader appropriately dressed in a white alb, recalling the baptismal garment, approaches the ambo and reads or chants the first Scripture.
b. Next the cantor or choir chants the Gradual from the Roman Graudal as in the EF Form. If it is recited the reader does so.
c. Next the Second reading, the Epistle, is read by the reader.
e. The deacon, at the chair, asks for the priest's blessing and approaches the altar for the Book of the Gospel which is at the center of the altar. As he takes the Book of the Gospel, the altar servers transfer the Missal to the Gospel side of the altar.
f. The deacon then goes to the ambo to read or chant the Gospel.
3. After the homily, the Liturgy of the Eucharist begins in this fashion:
a. The priest goes to the center of the altar and intones the Credo and all either recite of chant it.
b. The priest introduces the Universal Prayer by kissing the altar and turning to the people to do so. The deacon facing the altar or the priest if there is no deacon, prays the intercessions and it is concluded by the celebrant.
c. Next the priest turns to the congregation, greets them and turns back and prepares the altar as the Offertory Antiphon is chanted.
d. There is no presentation of the offerings. The priest uses the EF's offertory prayers.
e. After the washing of the hands and the restore "Suscipe" the priest turns to the congregation and fully states the "Pray brethren" and after the laity's response, make a full circle back to the altar.
f. The celebrant then chants or says the Prayer over the Offerings"
G. The Mass continues as usual with the rubric enhancements of the Ordinariate's Mass for the Eucharistic Prayer, the Roman Canon mandated for Sundays and Solemnities and Eucharistic Prayer II allowed for weekday Masses.
4. The Rite of Holy Communion:
a. the priest invites all to pray the Our Father either by chanting or saying it.
b. the normal prayers as in the Ordinary Form follow with the Fraction Rite and Agnus Dei.
c. After the priest's private preparation prayers, the priest turns to the congregation with the chalice and the "fractured Host" above the chalice and declares "Behold the Lamb of God....", all then recited "Lord I am not worthy" three times.
e. He turns back to the altar, consumes the Holocaust to conclude the Sacrifice and the faithful come forward and kneel at the restored altar railing to receive Holy Communion. Intinction is allowed for Solemnities. The Communion antiphon is chanted and additional motets or chants.
F. After the ablutions, the priest chants the Prayer after Holy Communion from the Epistle Side of the Altar. He returns to the center, kisses the altar, turns toward the congregation and greets them, blesses them and then he or the deacon offer the dismissal and all depart. The option of the Last Gospel is restored.
10 comments:
Thanks for talking about this, Father. The word “accidents” always was a head-scratcher for me. My take has always been that I don’t think Jesus’ use of bread and wine was accidental, but rather intentional and completely Providential. “Accidental” belies this understanding.
Of course I could be totally wrong—I’m way too old to think I’m always right (-:
One explanation that seemed sensible went something like this:
A tree is made of wood. A chair is made of this wood. The tree is functionally transformed into something that is not a tree. The wood, the accident, is there but no one wood confuse a chair with a tree.
The term comes from the Aristotelian distinction between essence and accident. Anything not essential to something is one of its accidents. No one would say it is essential that a human have blonde hair, be 5'11" tall, and weigh 194 pounds (hey! that's me!), so all those characteristics are accidents. Likewise, a consecrated host is in essence the Body of Christ and its appearance as bread is (after consecration) is accidental.
I Like the way that you rearranged the Mass. I wonder if you went far enough. Might it be better if the Priest does all the readings. On occasion, with the priests blessing, the deacon also could do the first and second reading. On a more infrequent schedule, and perhaps for daily Mass, a lay person could do the readings as is done now. With that the sanctuary would be primarily the domain of the ordained Priest . It would not eliminate the lay ministry.It would eliminate their dominant presence during Mass. Also returning to the distribution of the host only,preferably by the Priest and Deacon, would also add much needed dignity. It is difficult to approach the Mass and the host with reverence when they are handled so casually.
I now regularly attend Mass at an ordinate parish after it was recommended to me by a friend. After attending Mass there the first time I walked out in stunned silence thinking to myself "THIS is what was intended by the Church Fathers of Vatican II." While I would prefer that the Roman Canon be said in Latin for various reasons, considering how this liturgy compares to the run-of-the-mill OF Mass I am extremely grateful I have an ordinate parish to attend.
Additionally, I completely agree with you that simply re-instituting the ad orientem posture of the priest and and receiving communion on the tongue while kneeling would go a long way to solve some of our issues. From my own experience, these two things had a profound effect on me when I started attending Mass at an ordinate parish. I told the friend who suggested the parish to me that these two things alone completely changed my own internal orientation in regards to what was occurring during Mass which has had very deep effects in my own spiritual life.
'Divine Worship' is not intended for the universal Church; apart from anything else it is an English-language missal, and although in a sung Mass there would be a certain amount of Latin - the Proper chants, the Kyriale (depending on which setting is used) - the celebrant would say or sing his parts from the missal in English. Many of the BCP options have no Latin texts anyway.
I would contend that its real importance lies in that it establishes the principle that texts and rubrics from the traditional Roman Rite can be inserted into the Novus Ordo legitimately since they don't involve 'mixing of rites' which is of course forbidden. And Benedict XVI's legal fiction of 'two forms of the one Roman Rite' comes in useful here.
But even without this, it was obvious from the outset that the Novus Ordo, when sung in Latin, with the Gregorian Propers and chant or polyphonic Kyriale, was to all intents and purposes authentically Catholic. The continuity was even more striking when it was celebrated ad apsidem with deacon and subdeacon (in larger parishes these roles were, and are, usually taken by priests).
Before speculating about a new hybrid Mass (which we aren't going to get and which in any case won't satisfy everyone), there is a lot that can be done which is entirely legitimate, although it does mean that priests must have the courage of their convictions.
1. Celebrate ad apsidem from the Offertory onwards.
2. Sing the parts pertaining to the priest (in Latin or English) at a sung Mass.
3. Use the Roman Canon as the default position.
4. Sing the Propers (I know that few parishes have a schola capable of delivering the Graduale Romanum, but there are easier options). In particular begin Mass with the Introit rather than a non-Scriptural metrical hymn.
5. Make kneeling for Communion the norm (if a rail is provided people will kneel and are more inclined to receive on the tongue).
6. Banish 'Extraordinary Monsters' to one of the lowest circles of hell. They didn't even exist in 1970. Communion for the laity should be in one kind only, unless in exceptional cases.
7. Service at the altar to be male-only.
8. Get rid of optional add-ons like the Offertory procession and the 'holy handshake'. Even the Bidding Prayers are not compulsory (GIRM 69).
9. Above all, get the music right. Whether it's a plainchant Gloria or a polyphonic Sanctus it's going to be in Latin unless you pointedly exclude anything written before 1965, which is an extreme form of iconoclasm and is totally against what the Council decreed.
Everything here is in total conformity with the text and rubrics of the Novus Ordo. If you want to stick your neck out you can use the traditional Offertory prayers since they not heard anyway. How many times do you see the celebrant standing at the altar waiting for the incensations to finish before he can pray the Orate Fratres? Enough time to say the Suscipe Sancta Trinitas. Who would even notice if he said the Placeat before the blessing? Or, at the start of Mass if he recited Ps 42 on the way to the sanctuary, or the Aufer a nobis and Oramus te when ascending the altar?
And since the Ite Missa est concludes the Mass, if he wants to say the St John Prologue afterwards, what's to stop him?
Similarly, if he wants to precede the Mass with the older form of the Asperges (rather than make it an optional penitential rite) why not? It's a lot better than singing a 'gathering hymn' (blech!)
Using the term "accident" is not, to my mind, necessary in order to explain clearly what we believe. When I explain transubstantiation (with or without using that word), I simply say that the "appearance" and "external qualities" of bread and wine remain, or else I am more specific and refer to taste, smell, "looks like," etc. While the outward appearance remains, the true reality (i.e., substance) changes, and what was bread and wine, no longer is. Rather, the bread and wine truly and really become Jesus.
Sometimes I add that this is surely better than if the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus actually looked, smelled and tasted like human flesh and blood, n'est pas? Is there anyone who would prefer that? No one. So out of consideration for our sensibilities, when Jesus said, "eat my flesh, drink my blood," it is not necessary to consume something outwardly flesh-like and bloody. Hence the rationale for transubstantiation: it is being considerate.
Banish Eucharistic monsters to one of the lowest circles of Hell.
Really, John?
Well, hopefully they would be a circle above Hitler or Stalin!
And communion in one kind only? I'll have to ask the local Greek Orthodox clergy at Atlanta's Greek festival next month about their view on communion....
Anon at 4:52, I actually think if the Roman church returned to intinction (as universal practise, rather than an option) for distribution of Holy Communion, this would solve both problems...
EMHC's should only be used to distribute Communion to the homebound, and those in the hospital. During Liturgy, they absolutely should be banished to the lowest circle of hell. It might be a bit cold for them there :p
The Roman Church has practised intinction at various times and in various places but it has also been reprobated by popes and councils over the centuries. The main objection is theological; it does not separate the actions of eating and drinking, explicit in Christ's words and actions. It is interesting that the post-Reformation 'churches' restored the chalice to the laity but maintained the separation.
The problem with using EMHC to take Communion to the housebound is that it deprives the recipients of the opportunity of making a sacramental Confession. It does mean that Father can spend more afternoons on the golf course.
Anonymous needs to be reminded that we are Latins, not Greeks, and our customs are different - use of unleavened bread, for instance.
Post a Comment