Any difference in the Mass of a Bishop or Priest?

[Roseeurekacross]

Sometimes at the place I volunteer with, the Bishop Emeritus comes in to celebrate the weekday masses. Everyone gets pretty excited to have Mass and communion with Him. There is no more ceremony then with our regular priest. The talk (homily?) after the Gospel reading is more in depth from the Bishop Emeritus.

So this may be a strange question, but does Mass and Communion become more Holy or stronger with a Bishop or Bishop Emeritus?

God Bless us on our journey home.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Every Mass is a miracle, with Christ present on the Altar. That being said, a bishop has the fullness of Holy Orders, he is truly a Successor to the Apostles. He deserves the highest respect.

 

[Reuben_J]

Except for the number of candles on the altar, to me every mass is the same. I just hope it is the same for me every time I attend mass, not discriminating about who is celebrating it, being able to appreciate it and thankful for God’s ordained ministers for celebrating it.

But it us just me though.

 

[Brendan_64]

Mass is Mass. When we consider what is happenning during Mass the clerical rank of the celebrant pales into vast insignificance. Mass is Mass whether it is celebrated by a newly ordained priest or by tbe Pope himself.

The host we recieve is God, the creator of all things, in tjst tiny little host. How can bishop make God holier than He already is? In the Holy Sacrifice on Calvary that takes place at Mass, how can the magnitude of this event be improved upon by a bishop?

 

[paperwight66]

Similarly some people make a great deal of receiving Holy Communion from the hands of a Pope.

Not something I can relate to, personally. Well, I’m sure I’d get nervous in those circumstance, because I’d be so worried about cameras and so on.

But would I consider the Host to be more holy? No, how can It be?

 

[twf]

A pontifical Mass (Mass celebrated by a bishop) certainly can have greater solemnity. A weekday Mass celebrated by a bishop emeritus likely doesn’t take advantage of those options.
When the Archbishop celebrates Mass at our cathedral, His Grace is usually assisted by several priests, a master of ceremonies, additional altar servers…incense, chant, and some Latin are much more likely than at other Masses. Of course the presider’s vestments stand out as well…mitre, crossier, and in the case of a metropolitan the pallium.
I know there are specific options unique to pontifical Masses, but I’m not sure what they are off hand. Certainly in the older Extraordinary Form, a Pontifical High Mass has layers upon layers of additional ceremony and solemnity
Mass celebrated by the local bishop with his presbyters and deacons, together with the local faithful, is the ideal celebration of the Eucharist…the most perfect expression of the heavenly mysteries on this earth.

 

[Kaliaa]

They are beautiful and uplifting and a feast for the senses to be sure. But, it is the mass and you receive the same Jesus as you would in a mud hut church. It may be grander with the Bishop but not greater. Spiritually, there is no difference.

 

[paduard]

Mass is Mass. When we consider what is happenning during Mass the clerical rank of the celebrant pales into vast insignificance. Mass is Mass whether it is celebrated by a newly ordained priest or by tbe Pope himself.

The host we recieve is God, the creator of all things, in tjst tiny little host. How can bishop make God holier than He already is? In the Holy Sacrifice on Calvary that takes place at Mass, how can the magnitude of this event be improved upon by a bishop?

I agree; no difference.
paduard.

 

[twf]

I agree; no difference.
paduard.

The Eucharist is the Eucharist, yes, but the solemnity of the celebration here on earth does vary and the Church signifies this through various external signs. Priests celebrate Mass because they have been empowered by their bishop to do so…but Mass celebrated by the bishop is the liturgical ideal. This is already articulated by St. Ignatius of Antioch in the early 2nd century.

 

[Tim_D]

Similarly some people make a great deal of receiving Holy Communion from the hands of a Pope.

Not something I can relate to, personally. Well, I’m sure I’d get nervous in those circumstance, because I’d be so worried about cameras and so on.

But would I consider the Host to be more holy? No, how can It be?

The same can be said for those who will only receive communion from a priest and not a deacon or extraordinary minister.

 

[FrDavid96]

Sometimes at the place I volunteer with, the Bishop Emeritus comes in to celebrate the weekday masses. Everyone gets pretty excited to have Mass and communion with Him. There is no more ceremony then with our regular priest. The talk (homily?) after the Gospel reading is more in depth from the Bishop Emeritus.

So this may be a strange question, but does Mass and Communion become more Holy or stronger with a Bishop or Bishop Emeritus?

God Bless us on our journey home.

Actually, this is a “both yes and no” question.

First the “no.” The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the same whether celebrated by a bishop or a priest. It is not more holy, nor is Christ more present.

Then the “yes.” A presbyter (priest) is one who represents the bishop, who is the successor to the Apostles. In that sense, when the celebrant is a bishop, especially the diocesan bishop, the Mass is more special because it expresses the apostolicity and unity of the Church; it is a better expression of the Church Catholic.

Here is a quote from the Vatican II Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium

Please note that when these particular paragraphs read “the bishop” they refer to the bishop of the diocese (ie the Ordinary); still a bishop (auxiliary or emeritus etc.) is a successor to the Apostles in a way that a presbyter is not.

1. The bishop is to be considered as the high priest of his flock, from whom the life in Christ of his faithful is in some way derived and dependent.

Therefore all should hold in great esteem the liturgical life of the diocese centered around the bishop, especially in his cathedral church; they must be convinced that the pre-eminent manifestation of the Church consists in the full active participation of all God’s holy people in these liturgical celebrations, especially in the same eucharist, **in a single prayer, at one altar, at which there presides the bishop surrounded by his college of priests **and by his ministers [35].

1. But because it is impossible for the bishop always and everywhere to preside over the whole flock in his Church, he cannot do other than establish lesser groupings of the faithful. Among these the parishes, set up locally under a pastor who takes the place of the bishop, are the most important: for in some manner they represent the visible Church constituted throughout the world.

And therefore the liturgical life of the parish and its relationship to the bishop must be fostered theoretically and practically among the faithful and clergy; efforts also must be made to encourage a sense of community within the parish, above all in the common celebration of the Sunday Mass.

Here is the important point: We should remember that when the bishop (indeed any bishop) presides, the Mass is not more special because of his celebrity status (yes, bishops are more rare than priests, bishops wear mitres and pectoral crosses) but is more special because of his status as Successor to the Apostles.

 

[twf]

Actually, this is a “both yes and no” question.

First the “no.” The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the same whether celebrated by a bishop or a priest. It is not more holy, nor is Christ more present.

Then the “yes.” A presbyter (priest) is one who represents the bishop, who is the successor to the Apostles. In that sense, when the celebrant is a bishop, especially the diocesan bishop, the Mass is more special because it expresses the apostolicity and unity of the Church; it is a better expression of the Church Catholic.

Here is a quote from the Vatican II Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium

Please note that when these particular paragraphs read “the bishop” they refer to the bishop of the diocese (ie the Ordinary); still a bishop (auxiliary or emeritus etc.) is a successor to the Apostles in a way that a presbyter is not.

1. The bishop is to be considered as the high priest of his flock, from whom the life in Christ of his faithful is in some way derived and dependent.

Therefore all should hold in great esteem the liturgical life of the diocese centered around the bishop, especially in his cathedral church; they must be convinced that the pre-eminent manifestation of the Church consists in the full active participation of all God’s holy people in these liturgical celebrations, especially in the same eucharist, **in a single prayer, at one altar, at which there presides the bishop surrounded by his college of priests **and by his ministers [35].

1. But because it is impossible for the bishop always and everywhere to preside over the whole flock in his Church, he cannot do other than establish lesser groupings of the faithful. Among these the parishes, set up locally under a pastor who takes the place of the bishop, are the most important: for in some manner they represent the visible Church constituted throughout the world.

And therefore the liturgical life of the parish and its relationship to the bishop must be fostered theoretically and practically among the faithful and clergy; efforts also must be made to encourage a sense of community within the parish, above all in the common celebration of the Sunday Mass.

Here is the important point: We should remember that when the bishop (indeed any bishop) presides, the Mass is not more special because of his celebrity status (yes, bishops are more rare than priests, bishops wear mitres and pectoral crosses) but is more special because of his status as Successor to the Apostles.

Thank you Father. I was received into the Church when I was 18 in a small town. The bishop came to our parish specifically to receive me - I was the only convert that year. I remember walking with him to the church and being struck with an overwhelming sense of awe and wonder that I was walking beside a true successor of the Apostles. Even as a small child, in an Evangelical home, I remember asking my mom why, if the early Church had apostles, God left us to fend for ourselves in later generations. My first confession was to the bishop and my first time receiving Holy Communion was at a Mass celebrated by the bishop. Special memories.

 

[Brendan_64]

The same can be said for those who will only receive communion from a priest and not a deacon or extraordinary minister.

Not quite, that is a different argument. The priest is consecrated, the layperson is not. The argument here is not about whether the Eucharist is more efficacious when received from a priest as opposed from a layperson, but whether unconsecrated hands should be touching the Eucharist.

The difference between layperson and priest in this regard is a difference in essence, the difference between priest, bishop or pope, in this regard, is insignificant.

 

[Jamie_Burns]

Priest don’t wear a hat, so he doesn’t have to take it on and off and no one has to hold it. Priest does not carry a crozier, so no one has to mind it. Otherwise the Holy Sacrifice of theMass is the same.

 

[Brendan_64]

Priest don’t wear a hat, so he doesn’t have to take it on and off and no one has to hold it. Priest does not carry a crozier, so no one has to mind it. Otherwise the Holy Sacrifice of theMass is the same.

In the Traditional Latin Mass, priests do indeed wear hats, birettas and the server will hold it.

 

[ProVobis]

The Eucharist is the Eucharist, yes, but the solemnity of the celebration here on earth does vary and the Church signifies this through various external signs. Priests celebrate Mass because they have been empowered by their bishop to do so…but Mass celebrated by the bishop is the liturgical ideal. This is already articulated by St. Ignatius of Antioch in the early 2nd century.

Also by Archbishop Sample

youtube.com/watch?v=3K-x6odm8Sc

 

[Reuben_J]

The Eucharist is the Eucharist, yes, but the solemnity of the celebration here on earth does vary and the Church signifies this through various external signs. Priests celebrate Mass because they have been empowered by their bishop to do so…but Mass celebrated by the bishop is the liturgical ideal. This is already articulated by St. Ignatius of Antioch in the early 2nd century.

Five candles for the archbishop and two for a priest. I can understand what you meant when you mentioned about the solemnity of it.

It depends on what question one answers. The OP is asking if the Communion in a mass celebrated by a Bishop is much holier and stronger, for whatever that means.

If you say yes, then it implies all the mass said by the priests to be less holy and less ‘strong’, using the OP’s term.

I think it is good to answer this question and perhaps for the OP to take home. Next time he/she attends a mass presided by his/her parish priest he/she knows what to expect.

I have my own position for that as mentioned in the earlier post; it is how I perceive the mass more than who/what celebrates it. Of course, if is according to my whim, I would rather attend a mass presided by the Pope himself. I love the solemnity but If we differentiate the strength and the holiness of Communion as dependent on who the celebrant is, probably ninety percent of the times we would get a second class Communion, and more for those in small parishes where there would be just an occasional visits of their Bishop.

 

[peter26]

Let’s face it, attending a Mass celebrated by a bishop is a little bit special regardless of the reason. I remember when our Ordinary visited in the Summer. The Mass was basically done as it always is, only different in practice was an extra priest on the altar who was dressed a little differently. But it was still a bit special because that extra priest has an extra authority.

 

[Tim_D]

Not quite, that is a different argument. The priest is consecrated, the layperson is not. .

Not true. A priest is consecrated to God to offer the Mass; he is not consecrated to distribute communion. In fact, deacons are the ordinary ministers of communion and they certainly aren’t of a higher calibre or degree than a priest. By the way, the Church allows the use of extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist, so the argument of needing to be consecrated to distribute communion falls flat.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Thanks

The Bishop Emeritus is a very humble man. His weekday masses , he walks around the small Chapel giving Communion, as thr residents arent able to line up and go to him, gently waking sleeping mass attendees if needed.

Occassionally he attends the weekday cathedral masses celebrated by the newer priests. Then he sits with the congregation in the pews, anywhere, lines up with us to receive Communion. And wears no formalities. If I had not been told the older gentleman sitting quietly in the crowd was the Bishop Emeritus, I would imagine him as anyone else. He is well loved in the Diocese.

Its as I would now imagine an Apostle

I am a she, just recently returned to the church, and really wanted to know what, if any, differences there might be. I was not that aware of being a succesor of the Apostles, but having watched the ceremony of the sitting Bishop when the Holy Door was closed, during the Carols night, and one other Mass, I wondered.