As my readers know, some in the Church prefer to over emphasize the “meal” aspect of the Mass to the neglect of the Sacrifice. Others emphasize the Sacrifice, see the necessity of the priest to complete it by his consumption of the Holocaust. However, the laity’s communion while allowed isn’t necessary.
This has to do with validity, not of the sacrifice, which it isn’t, but of the “Meal” aspect. Of course this is theoretical, but is it?
A priest who doesn’t think the Mass is a sacrifice celebrates the Mass this way: It is the Latin Rite up through the consecrations. But immediately following the consecration of the Precious Blood, all respond Amen and the priest distributes Holy Communion to all but does not receive himself until everyone else has received. But by the time it is his turn, all the “Species” of Holy Communion are consumed and drunk by the laity. So he receives from the tabernacle.
At the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Church teaches that the bread becomes the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ once the bread is consecrated. Thus the priest elevates the Host for all to adore. The same with the Precious Blood. So the Real Presence of Christ is present in both Species. If the priest does not conclude the Canon, the Presence of Christ is there but not the Sacrifice. Thus those who receive the consecrated Species at a Mass that has a Canon concluding with the Consecrations is validly consecrated, though illicitly and Sacrilegiously. There is no Sacrifice but there is a “Meal.”
16 comments:
As you readers should know, the Mass is both sacrtifice and meal.
It cannot be one without the other - it must be both at one and the same time.
If the laity are excluded for whatever reason from receiving communion, it is a meal for one.
If the priest is excluded for whatever reason from receiving communion but others receive, it is a sacrifice.
The validity of the Mass as a sacrament presumes the entire Canon, no matter which one, is prayed because it is after the consecration, with our Lord's real Presence, present, the priest offers Him to the Father. If that is not present, there is no Sacrifice and your last part is heretical. The celebrant must consume the Holocaust to complete the Sacrifice. It is incomplete if he does not. And it must, must, must be the Holocaust consecrated at the Mass he is celebrating, not from a Host in the tabernacle. An incomplete sacrifice is not a sacrifice.
Should have written, "the validity of the Mass as a sacrifice..."
If the victim is consumed, the sacrifice is complete.
Only if the portion of the canon, no matter which one, is prayed which takes place after the consecration. It that isn't prayed, which explicitly is the sacrificial offering of Jesus, the consecration is valid but the sacrifice is null even if the celebrant consumes what he has consecrated.
But my scenario was the priest did not consume what he had consecrated because the laity consumed it all and thus he went to the tabernacle after everyone else has receive since he was being so hospitable and magnanimous.
Your brief sentence could imply that if a priest only had a communion service from hosts in the tabernacle, a liturgy a lay person could do, that when he consumes his Holy Communion the sacrifice is complete. How wrong you are!
"Your brief sentence could imply that if a priest only had a communion service from hosts in the tabernacle, a liturgy a lay person could do, that when he consumes his Holy Communion the sacrifice is complete.
There is ZERO impliocation of that in what I wrote.
This enire converation is a discussion of the Mass - not a communion saervice, not what a lay person could do - the Mass.
You say the priest must “consume” the Holocaust. I have seen priests break a tiny fragment of the host they concentrated and nibble on it. Is that consuming the Holocaust? Another variation is when they break up the host they consecrated, place it in the ciborium, and then take one of the hosts that are normally given to the parishioners for consumption. The meal aspect is highlighted by the multitude of chalices, ciboriums, and purificaors placed on the TOTL.
My post if you read and then respond properly and unambiguously is that the priest distributes communion without completely the Eucharistic Prayer. He only consecrates the Host and Precious Blood. And then all pray the Our Father and then there is communion to the laity first, because Father is so magnanimous, hospitable and good mannered. All that he consecrated is gone so he goes to the tabernacle for his communion. So what i described is a Communion Service where the priest merely consecrates the bread and wine for the Sacred Meal.
Comment on that not what you think I wrote.
Finally, no matter how small the particle of Holy Communion and if only a drop of the Precious Blood, the priest still consumes the Holocaust.
In other words, in the anamnesis that follows the consecration, the Church calls to mind the Passion, resurrection, and glorious return of Christ Jesus; she presents to the Father the sacrificial offering of the Son which reconciles us with him.
It is usually the first paragraph after the Mystery of Faith although in the Roman Canon it is longer. But it isn't the entire prayer following the Mystery of Faith, only that immediate portion. If the anamenesis is missing from the priest's recitation of the Eucharistic Prayer, there ain't no sacrifice although the Lord is present in the consecrated species.
https://www.gloria.tv/post/sc6CZqGKYnVX3JY3gYVkWEdrB
Funny you mention this today since I pointed out that the Mason Bugnini wrote the 2nd Eucharistic while sitting in a trattoria. Now there’s a meal or was it a sacrifice?
The floor of hell is lined with the skulls of Bishop’s and boy that floor must be getting deep.
I have never seen a priest not consume a host consecrated at the particular Mass he has celebrated. I have seen the priest try and disguise his role in consuming the body and blood so that it seems like his role is the same as the parishioners. The priests intent is to turn the Mass into a Sacred meal. His Mass is still valid, but deceptive.The priest is supposed to "say the black, do the red." Unfortunately I don't know the precise words that tell the priest how to consume the body and blood.
While not denying the importance of the anamnesis, or the priest's Communion from what was consecrated at that very Mass, I would highlight the relevance of the following passage from Pius XII's encyclical 'Mediator Dei', which I understand as affirming that the Sacrifice of Calvary is already 'commemoratively re-presented' at the moment the double consecration is completed, since Christ is thereby already 'symbolically shown by separate symbols to be in a state of victimhood'. The anamnesis spells out what has already taken place, in its essence, when the bread and wine are transubstantiated into Christ's body and blood. So the Sacrifice and the transubstantiation are not separated in time:
'...the victim is the same, namely, our divine Redeemer in His human nature with His true body and blood. The manner, however, in which Christ is offered is different...according to the plan of divine wisdom, the sacrifice of our Redeemer is shown forth in an admirable manner by external signs which are the symbols of His death. For by the "transubstantiation" of bread into the body of Christ and of wine into His blood, His body and blood are both really present: now the eucharistic species under which He is present symbolize the actual separation of His body and blood. Thus the commemorative representation of His death, which actually took place on Calvary, is repeated in every sacrifice of the altar, seeing that Jesus Christ is symbolically shown by separate symbols to be in a state of victimhood.' (Mediator Dei 70)
Excellent points. While not directly related to this post, but maybe, the Vatican ruled years ago that an Eastern Church’s Eucharistic prayer without the words of institution was valid. Also Eastern Churches have the epiclesis after the consecration.
That ruling about the Eucharistic Prayer without the words of institution raises some interesting questions. I would assume it nonetheless needs to be the case that the transubstantiation, whenever it occurs during that Eucharistic Prayer, must still be instantaneous (which St Thomas Aquinas seems to view as a metaphysical necessity - ST III, 75, 7). Maybe it is simply at the divine pleasure at which precise moment during the Prayer this occurs; or maybe there is still some specific decisive element in the words spoken, albeit not the explicit words of institution, at which time the change is effected.
But either way, we can nevertheless say - whenever that moment might be, still, once both the bread and the wine are transubstantiated then the commemorative re-presentation of Calvary has also occurred, by that very fact of the transubstantiation of the two separate elements, symbolically showing Christ in the state of victimhood.
Are we going out of our way to make problems? Are priests not completing the Canon? Are they not receiving till after the people? A few night and the should be corrected and it removed.
Is this simply arguing to argue? Looks looks it to me.
Tsk, Tsk, or is it, tisk, tisk Fr. Khouri. It isn’t arguing, it is discussing and making a good argument for your point. Are you not able to distinguish that? Perhaps English is your second language as it is mine????
Post a Comment