Thank you for the “what.” Can anyone give me any insight on the “why” after the sign of peace instead of before the Consecration?
The fraction of the Sacred Host is to be done over the chalice at the time of the Sign of Peace; this is because it shows the moment of Christ’s death, which accomplished our peace with God.
The thing is, Linnyo, the priest isn’t “doing his job” if he does it in a manner not approved by the Church. The symbolism of the Liturgy is very meaningful and is not the plaything of a priest to do with as he likes. The laity have the right to the authentic Liturgy, not what a lone priest thinks is the way it should be done.Surely to Goodness you can just let the priest do his job. As long as he is reverent and it is done round about the right time then this is what is known as ‘a little thing’. I can’t believe you really expect him to justify himself to you. Do you really have so little to worry about in life? It must be nice!
Here is a link to the entire document, Redemptionis Sacramentum, on the Vatican web site. Consider printing it and giving the entire thing to your priest. Have it handy when you talk to him.
I would generally agree with you. However, this is one of the most significant actions during the Mass. And it is done nowhere near the correct time. Finally the Church herself has said this abuse should be “corrected with haste” (emphasis mine).Surely to Goodness you can just let the priest do his job. As long as he is reverent and it is done round about the right time then this is what is known as ‘a little thing’. I can’t believe you really expect him to justify himself to you. Do you really have so little to worry about in life? It must be nice!
He is doing his job. Ok he may be 10 seconds out with part of it. Big deal! My point is that people who niggle cause far more harm than the poor priests who spend their lives being criticised for every single little thing that isn’t precise. He is probably unaware of his ‘grave error’ and may feel inadequate when ‘unqualified’ parishioners seem to think they know his job better than him. Maybe the church had it right when they did everything in Latin. At least then there would be less complainants because the paople didn’t understand. Maybe that was the reason they discouraged people from owning and reading Bibles.
I am sorry, but it is not 10 seconds. He is breaking the bread while it is still bread, before the consecration. The bread is to be broken much later, many pages later in a typical missal.He is doing his job. Ok he may be 10 seconds out with part of it. Big deal! My point is that people who niggle cause far more harm than the poor priests who spend their lives being criticised for every single little thing that isn’t precise. He is probably unaware of his ‘grave error’ and may feel inadequate when ‘unqualified’ parishioners seem to think they know his job better than him. Maybe the church had it right when they did everything in Latin. At least then there would be less complainants because the paople didn’t understand. Maybe that was the reason they discouraged people from owning and reading Bibles.
Grrr it makes me angry. I am a teacher and when parent’s with no teaching qualifications try to tell me they know my job better than I do it can be very soul destroying. Especially when I go over and above the call of duty to provide the best for their children.
I can only imagine how the poor priests must feel when they are having every single word they utter and every single deed they do scrutinised by lay people who think they know it all better than the priests.
If you aren’t happy with the way things are done, then you go and do a better job of it yourself. Otherwise, give the poor man a break!
There is actually a utilitarian reason for this. In the early Middle Ages it was common to break the host at the consecration because, as many have said, the fraction is intimately tied to signifying Christ’s passion and death. As Eucharistic piety developed, though, and an elevation was added to allow the congregation to gaze at the Eucharistic Lord, it was felt that a broken host was either not easy enough to see or just not as good for the purpose (I can’t remember what the reasoning was), and the fraction was postponed until later in the Mass. Some of the rites of religious orders retained the memory of this earlier fraction by instructing the priest to press the host at the consecration, simulating what would have broken it before but falling short of actually breaking the host until the now-later fraction rite.
This historical description of the liturgy is quite interesting. Where did you learn this. Can you cite the source or provide a link. I would like to learn more about the development of liturgy over the millenia.
The pastor at my parish breaks the bread before the Consecration. In order to be “intimately tied” to Christ, the fraction needs to take place after the Consecration.
Archdale King’s Liturgies of the Relgious Orders has a nice section on the pressing of the host to simulate the older custom of breaking it. As to the general development out of utilitarian concerns, most any history of the early liturgy will probably contain this principle in it. Since I’m now onto my masters in theology, I’ve had enough liturgy to imbibe this without remembering a specific source to point you to. In general, though, liturgical historians tend to see many elements to have grown out of practical concerns and then been overlayed by symbolism.
Well, I really was trying to speak to the symbolism that has come to be invested in the rite over the millenia, and can’t really speak to what your priest thinks he’s doing He’s clearly out of line at any rate, so it doesn’t much matter if he thinks he’s got a better explanation. No one should be changing the liturgy, even if he thinks he’s going back to the way it used to be done (which I hardly think he’s doing).
That is logical, but it does not give any insight into why the bread is to be broken after the Consecration.
Otherwise, what rpp said. 