Can the Mass be Simple?

[Volodymyr_988]

Does the Mass need to have all the collects, the Psalms, the readings, the candles, the vestments, etc…

I’m not asking whether or not the consecration took place or not. This I am assuming happened because the priest (a hypothetical one) did the right things for that. Priests consecrate the host all the time without all the other stuff. Is all that necessary? Is it just showy or does it make the Mass?

What do you think? I was always told that as long as the priest did the institution narrative and intended to do what the Church supposes a priest does during a Mass that the Mass happened.

 

[malphono]

Hmmm … well, yeah, it needs the collects, psalms, vestments, etc, just as the Byzantine DL needs all its parts, both for liceity and validity.

Doing it licitly and validly with only the Institution Narrative is something that can be done in extremis only, i.e., in case of emergency. That’s very rare and would apply, e.g., in the midst of a war battle (not simply “in time of war”) or in case of immanent physical danger where there is not enough time to offer Mass properly. (I believe there is something in Canon Law about it, but I’m not a lawyer and don’t have either the Western or Eastern Code, so I cannot quote chapter and verse.)

In other circumstances, it would be a real stretch to say a “priest intends what the Church intends” since the Church has prescribed a liturgy which expresses her intention.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Priests consecrate the host all the time without all the other stuff.

**Can you give any specific examples of this?

Seems to me that the Pauline Missal is about as simple as you can get.

The Mass is NOT just about consecration and communion.**

 

[FrRJBoyd]

Does the Mass need to have all the collects, the Psalms, the readings, the candles, the vestments, etc…

I’m not asking whether or not the consecration took place or not. This I am assuming happened because the priest (a hypothetical one) did the right things for that. Priests consecrate the host all the time without all the other stuff. Is all that necessary? Is it just showy or does it make the Mass?

What do you think? I was always told that as long as the priest did the institution narrative and intended to do what the Church supposes a priest does during a Mass that the Mass happened.

When a priest is ordained, he is told under obedience to offer the Mass and the sacraments as received from Holy Mother Church. It is always gravely sinful for a priest to consecrate outside of Mass. There are no exceptions. Holy Mother Church desires that the Scriptures, vestments, candles, etc. be employed so that the Eucharistic Sacrifice is separated from the ordinary and the profane, in order that its fruits are not lost or at least greatly diminished. It is no small gift that the Lord gives in re-presenting His sacrifice and allowing us to receive Him in the Eucharist. There needs to be a clear separation of the holy from the profane, and we need the preparatory prayers and Scripture, the visible and audible reminders, to be properly prepared for the Mass.

God bless,

Fr. Boyd

 

[Volodymyr_988]

I meant that priests do go and consecrate hosts when they run out during Mass, I have read that in the Eastern Churches they do the same.

Please don’t assume that I’m for Liturgical Tomfoolery, in fact it’s the opposite.

I’m also wondering if there differing opinions between the Eastern posters and the Western posters here. And I’m wondering if the Protestants have a different opinion (High Anglicans.)

 

[malphono]

I meant that priests do go and consecrate hosts when they run out during Mass, I have read that in the Eastern Churches they do the same.

I suppose that does happen, although I’ve only seen it once in my life. In the East, though, I daresay it would be a bit more complicated, but I won’t go into that here. Note, though, that’s not the way you put it in the original post: for that, I stick by what I said earlier.
Volodymyr 988:

Please don’t assume that I’m for Liturgical Tomfoolery, in fact it’s the opposite.

Yes, I know
Volodymyr 988:

I’m also wondering if there differing opinions between the Eastern posters and the Western posters here. And I’m wondering if the Protestants have a different opinion (High Anglicans.)

Without considering the matters that would probably make the matter a bit more complicated in the East, I think it should be pretty much the same. OTOH, I have no idea what a High Anglican might have to say.

 

[bpbasilphx]

**
I meant that priests do go and consecrate hosts when they run out during Mass, I have read that in the Eastern Churches they do the same. **

**The way you phrased it, it sounded like you knew of priests who just said “This is My Body…” etc over bread and wine for mass–and that was it.

There has always been provision for a second consecration WITHIN mass, even in the Tridentine Missal in the section De Defictibus. This provided the example by which Slavic Liturgika gave comparable directions.**

 

[Volodymyr_988]

**
I meant that priests do go and consecrate hosts when they run out during Mass, I have read that in the Eastern Churches they do the same. **

**The way you phrased it, it sounded like you knew of priests who just said “This is My Body…” etc over bread and wine for mass–and that was it.

There has always been provision for a second consecration WITHIN mass, even in the Tridentine Missal in the section De Defictibus. This provided the example by which Slavic Liturgika gave comparable directions.**

Sorry Your Grace, I am a bit sleep deprived today. It sounded much better in my head.

 

[FrRJBoyd]

**
I meant that priests do go and consecrate hosts when they run out during Mass, I have read that in the Eastern Churches they do the same. **

**The way you phrased it, it sounded like you knew of priests who just said “This is My Body…” etc over bread and wine for mass–and that was it.

There has always been provision for a second consecration WITHIN mass, even in the Tridentine Missal in the section De Defictibus. This provided the example by which Slavic Liturgika gave comparable directions.**

If the priest runs out of hosts in Mass, he may not consecrate more. He may offer to say another Mass for those who could not receive because of the lack of hosts, but that is all. The instruction in the Missal De Defectibus only allows a “second” consecration if the original host that was consecrated is lost, found to be corrupt, or contaminated with something poisonous or putrid. In this case, the “second” consecration is necessary to complete the Sacrifice, for the priest must consume the Eucharist consecrated at that Mass under both kinds for the Sacrifice to be complete. If the priest merely runs out of hosts, but consecrates more, it is mortally sinful.

 

[RobbyS]

When a priest is ordained, he is told under obedience to offer the Mass and the sacraments as received from Holy Mother Church. It is always gravely sinful for a priest to consecrate outside of Mass. There are no exceptions. Holy Mother Church desires that the Scriptures, vestments, candles, etc. be employed so that the Eucharistic Sacrifice is separated from the ordinary and the profane, in order that its fruits are not lost or at least greatly diminished. It is no small gift that the Lord gives in re-presenting His sacrifice and allowing us to receive Him in the Eucharist. There needs to be a clear separation of the holy from the profane, and we need the preparatory prayers and Scripture, the visible and audible reminders, to be properly prepared for the Mass.

God bless,

Fr. Boyd

And it, would seem, that this treats the mass as a mechanical action, not much different from an incantation to produce a magical effect. The mass is something done WITH the Church, and in communion not only with other people present but with the whole Church living and dead.

 

[lizaanne]

When a priest is ordained, he is told under obedience to offer the Mass and the sacraments as received from Holy Mother Church. It is always gravely sinful for a priest to consecrate outside of Mass. There are no exceptions. Holy Mother Church desires that the Scriptures, vestments, candles, etc. be employed so that the Eucharistic Sacrifice is separated from the ordinary and the profane, in order that its fruits are not lost or at least greatly diminished. It is no small gift that the Lord gives in re-presenting His sacrifice and allowing us to receive Him in the Eucharist. There needs to be a clear separation of the holy from the profane, and we need the preparatory prayers and Scripture, the visible and audible reminders, to be properly prepared for the Mass.

God bless,

Fr. Boyd

What about a situation such as St. Maximilian Kolbe, saying Mass with next to nothing in secret in a concentration camp? Was this not valid?

~Liza

 

[FrRJBoyd]

What about a situation such as St. Maximilian Kolbe, saying Mass with next to nothing in secret in a concentration camp? Was this not valid?

~Liza

It was most definitely valid. Many priests memorized at least one Mass (a Mass in honor of Our Lady that could be said on any day if a priest became blind), and it would not surprise me if St. Maximillian Kolbe had the Mass in honor of Our Lady memorized. The vestments and sacred vessels were dispensed because of the extreme circumstances --he used what he had, for necessity needs no law. But the exception of a priest in a concentration camp should never be used as the norm under quite ordinary circumstances.

 

[bpbasilphx]

And it, would seem, that this treats the mass as a mechanical action, not much different from an incantation to produce a magical effect. The mass is something done WITH the Church, and in communion not only with other people present but with the whole Church living and dead.

Reducing the Mass to the Institution is what treats the mass as a mechanical action.

 

[palmas85]

What about a situation such as St. Maximilian Kolbe, saying Mass with next to nothing in secret in a concentration camp? Was this not valid?

~Liza

That would certainly classify as an extreme situation don’t you think? using that example as some sort of justification for everyday minimalist masses really doesn’t hold a lot of water.

 

[Fox]

Mass needs to be and should be a beautiful simple thing.

 

[lizaanne]

The vestments and sacred vessels were dispensed because of the extreme circumstances --he used what he had, for necessity needs no law. But the exception of a priest in a concentration camp should never be used as the norm under quite ordinary circumstances.

Thank you, this is what I was hoping to clarify.

That would certainly classify as an extreme situation don’t you think? using that example as some sort of justification for everyday minimalist masses really doesn’t hold a lot of water.

DID I SAY THAT? Did I even SUGGEST that this example should EVER be used as some sort of justification for ANYTHING in this discussion?

NO.

Please do not attribute words and intentions to my statements where they do not exist. I was imply asking for a bit of clarification to a previous post. That’s all.

~Liza

 

[Volodymyr_988]

Now that it is obvious that the Mass cannot be reduced to only the Consecration and Epiclesis, what are the other parts that constitute the Mass/Divine Liturgy/Qurbono/etc…?

 

[FrRJBoyd]

And it, would seem, that this treats the mass as a mechanical action, not much different from an incantation to produce a magical effect. The mass is something done WITH the Church, and in communion not only with other people present but with the whole Church living and dead.

???

Could you please describe the “this” in your statement? There is a certain unfaithful element that sees the Mass as magic and not mystery. This is why we have the expression, “hocus pocus”; it is an unflattering corruption of hoc est enim corpus meum, the words of Institution pronounced by the priest over the host. Magic is a trick; nothing happens but a deception to entertain; incantation is the calling upon of unknown forces to produce a desired effect (i.e., a spell). But Sacraments are a mystery; God is doing something hidden that, while we may understand it on various levels, we will never fully comprehend it or exhaust its riches.

Merely saying the words of Institution apart from the Mass would be a mechanical action that is gravely sinful for the priest. Indeed we do need to offer the Mass WITH the Church, but these means following ALL of the rubrics and ritual to the best of our ability.