Canon of the Mass--explanation, please?

[ProVobis]

Eucharistic Prayer I is nearly the same today as it was in 1962, with the following changes: 1) the words over the bread have been embellished, 2) the words over the chalice have been slightly edited: “mysterium fidei” has been moved to after the consecration, 3) “whenever you do this…” (said after the elevation of the chalice) has become “do this…” (said before the elevation of the chalice), and 4) the full lists of saints and the "through Christ our Lord"s have been made optional.

It’s also said without the non-verbal prayers: bows, kisses of the altar, signs of cross, holding the thumb with the index finger, the low-tone, and number of genuflections reduced.

 

[YoungTradCath]

It’s also said without the non-verbal prayers: bows, kisses of the altar, signs of cross, holding the thumb with the index finger, the low-tone, and number of genuflections reduced.

Well, the holding the thumbs and fingers together isn’t exactly a prayer. It was done so as to prevent profanation of the fingers that touch the hosts and to prevent any small particulates that break off from falling to the floor, and I think it is a real pity that this action has been lost in the OF.

 

[Skeptic92]

It’s also said without the non-verbal prayers: bows, kisses of the altar, signs of cross,** holding the thumb with the index finger,** the low-tone, and number of genuflections reduced.

This is no longer required ? My Priest holds his thumb and index finger together until the ablutions, where his fingers are washed into the Chalice, so as to not risk profanation of any particles of the host that may drop to the floor?

 

[TheMc]

Well, the holding the thumbs and fingers together isn’t exactly a prayer. It was done so as to prevent profanation of the fingers that touch the hosts and to prevent any small particulates that break off from falling to the floor, and I think it is a real pity that this action has been lost in the OF.

Indeed. I’d love to hear one good reason why it was taken out.

 

[YoungTradCath]

This is no longer required ? My Priest holds his thumb and index finger together until the ablutions, where his fingers are washed into the Chalice, so as to not risk profanation of any particles of the host that may drop to the floor?

It’s only required in the EF. You must be going to the EF because there is no ablutions in the OF.

 

[TheMc]

It’s only required in the EF. You must be going to the EF because there is no ablutions in the OF.

Isn’t the ablution when the priest washes his fingers over the chalice? I thought their was part of the OF.

 

[FrancisB]

Indeed. I’d love to hear one good reason why it was taken out.

While I am not certain, I would guess that this was an example of oversight and not intentional removal. Many of the rubrics were not carried over, and I’m not sure how much of this was intentional and how much was just assumed to be understood. Certainly reducing the number of genuflections was an intentional simplification, intended to bring the mass closer in keeping with an older practice. The practical reasons behind keeping the fingers together, however, seems to suggest to me that there was an assumption that this practice would be continued by necessity, even without writing it into the red text. That’s pure speculation, though, in the interest of charity.

 

[japhy]

The practical reasons behind keeping the fingers together, however, seems to suggest to me that there was an assumption that this practice would be continued by necessity, even without writing it into the red text.

From 1967, Tres abhinc annos n. 12: “After the Consecration, the celebrant need not join thumb and forefinger; should any particle of the host have remained on his fingers, he rubs his fingers together over the paten.”

From the GIRM, n. 278: “Whenever a fragment of the host adheres to his fingers, especially after the fraction or the Communion of the faithful, the priest is to wipe his fingers over the paten or, if necessary, wash them. Likewise, he should also gather any fragments that may have fallen outside the paten.”

That being said, there’s no reason the priest can’t keep his fingers together.

 

[YoungTradCath]

From 1967, Tres abhinc annos n. 12: “After the Consecration, the celebrant need not join thumb and forefinger; should any particle of the host have remained on his fingers, he rubs his fingers together over the paten.”

From the GIRM, n. 278: “Whenever a fragment of the host adheres to his fingers, especially after the fraction or the Communion of the faithful, the priest is to wipe his fingers over the paten or, if necessary, wash them. Likewise, he should also gather any fragments that may have fallen outside the paten.”

That being said, there’s no reason the priest can’t keep his fingers together.

I find that single quote to be the most destructive thing I have ever read regarding the Eucharist. The holding of fingers is completely practical and was never just a mere ceremony.

The only priest I’ve seen do this in the OF was a bishop in an EWTN mass, where he also made a cross with the chalice on the altar as in the EF. That was a wonderful OF mass. This finger practice will never return to common use unless it is required.

 

[Skeptic92]

It’s only required in the EF. You must be going to the EF because there is no ablutions in the OF.

I attend both the Ordinary Form, and Extraordinary Form, I see the same thing done in relation to the Celebrant holding his Thumb and Index finger together.

 

[ProVobis]

I find that single quote to be the most destructive thing I have ever read regarding the Eucharist. The holding of fingers is completely practical and was never just a mere ceremony.

The only priest I’ve seen do this in the OF was a bishop in an EWTN mass, where he also made a cross with the chalice on the altar as in the EF.

I counted 24 signs of the cross in the 1962 Canon. (Most of them are grouped, however.)

Outside of the canon, the cross was also made by the priest before each communion. I think this was also dropped with the new communion formula in 1964.

 

[japhy]

It’s also said without the non-verbal prayers: bows, kisses of the altar, signs of cross, holding the thumb with the index finger, the low-tone, and number of genuflections reduced.

Nearly none of which existed at the time of Gregory the Great.

The multiplication of bows, kisses, signs of the cross, and genuflections was a Gallican influence on the Roman Rite. Most of the signs of the cross in the Roman Canon are believed by some liturgical scholars to have developed from simple pointing gestures; the signs of the cross are not to be found in the Canon during, say, the Ordo Romanus I (although there are signs of the cross during the Offertory and the Commingling rites).

The low voice may have been around, although it was certainly the practice by the ninth century, as noted in the Ordo Romanus V, n. 58 “et tacito intrat in canonem”. The words “Nobis quoque peccatoribus” from one of the last parts of the Canon are said aloud, and they were directed to be said aloud in the ninth century as well, which implies that at least some of the Canon was prayed quietly. Other Rites also adopted the practice of a silent (or mostly silent) anaphora; in the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, for example, much of the anaphora is said quietly, while the words of Christ over the bread and wine are said aloud, with a response by the congregation.

The genuflections surrounding the consecration came into being well after the elevation of the Host became rubrical. (In some places, the practice of genuflection came about before the practice of elevating the Chalice, which was a separate development from the elevation of the Host). At the beginning of the 13th century the bishop of Paris legislated the ways in which the Host should be elevated (breast-high before consecration, much higher afterward). The elevation of the Chalice was found in some places, although this is rare, as early as the 13th century, but it was not known in Rome even as late as 1526.

Before the genuflections were made, a bow was sufficient; in 1219, Pope Honorius III decreed that priests should teach their faithful to bow when the Host is elevated: “Sacerdos quilibet frequenter doceat plebem suam ut cum in celebratione missarum elevatur hostia salutaris quilibet [se] reverenter inclinet” (“A priest should frequently teach his people that when, in the celebration of Masses, the saving Victim is elevated, they should reverently bow”). While deacons would be required to kneel, priests were not required to genuflect until the Missal of Pius V in 1570, although there are some locales were genuflections were made near the end of the 14th century. In Rome, genuflections are recorded at the end of the 15th century.

Pius V imposed a great degree of uniformity on the Roman Rite; remember, he was essentially codifying for the whole Latin Church the Latin Rite as celebrated in Rome. There was plenty of variation in local practices before then, as is evidenced by the venerable rites which had existed for 200 years or more, which Pius V permitted to be retained (e.g. the Dominican Rite, the Carthusian Rite, the Mozarabic Rite).

 

[YoungTradCath]

I attend both the Ordinary Form, and Extraordinary Form, I see the same thing done in relation to the Celebrant holding his Thumb and Index finger together.

Then that is on the personal desire of the priest (an act which I say “bravo!” to, to be sure), as it is not rubrical law. It is certainly not forbidden, but it is not in the OF missal.

 

[ProVobis]

Nearly none of which existed at the time of Gregory the Great.

The multiplication of bows, kisses, signs of the cross, and genuflections was a Gallican influence on the Roman Rite. Most of the signs of the cross in the Roman Canon are believed by some liturgical scholars to have developed from simple pointing gestures; the signs of the cross are not to be found in the Canon during, say, the Ordo Romanus I (although there are signs of the cross during the Offertory and the Commingling rites).

The low voice may have been around, although it was certainly the practice by the ninth century, as noted in the Ordo Romanus V, n. 58 “et tacito intrat in canonem”. The words “Nobis quoque peccatoribus” from one of the last parts of the Canon are said aloud, and they were directed to be said aloud in the ninth century as well, which implies that at least some of the Canon was prayed quietly. Other Rites also adopted the practice of a silent (or mostly silent) anaphora; in the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, for example, much of the anaphora is said quietly, while the words of Christ over the bread and wine are said aloud, with a response by the congregation.

The genuflections surrounding the consecration came into being well after the elevation of the Host became rubrical. (In some places, the practice of genuflection came about before the practice of elevating the Chalice, which was a separate development from the elevation of the Host). At the beginning of the 13th century the bishop of Paris legislated the ways in which the Host should be elevated (breast-high before consecration, much higher afterward). The elevation of the Chalice was found in some places, although this is rare, as early as the 13th century, but it was not known in Rome even as late as 1526.

Before the genuflections were made, a bow was sufficient; in 1219, Pope Honorius III decreed that priests should teach their faithful to bow when the Host is elevated: “Sacerdos quilibet frequenter doceat plebem suam ut cum in celebratione missarum elevatur hostia salutaris quilibet [se] reverenter inclinet” (“A priest should frequently teach his people that when, in the celebration of Masses, the saving Victim is elevated, they should reverently bow”). While deacons would be required to kneel, priests were not required to genuflect until the Missal of Pius V in 1570, although there are some locales were genuflections were made near the end of the 14th century. In Rome, genuflections are recorded at the end of the 15th century.

Pius V imposed a great degree of uniformity on the Roman Rite; remember, he was essentially codifying for the whole Latin Church the Latin Rite as celebrated in Rome. There was plenty of variation in local practices before then, as is evidenced by the venerable rites which had existed for 200 years or more, which Pius V permitted to be retained (e.g. the Dominican Rite, the Carthusian Rite, the Mozarabic Rite).

Thank you. Good research.

 

[japhy]

Outside of the canon, the cross was also made by the priest before each communion. I think this was also dropped with the new communion formula in 1964.

Yes, when the formula for distribution of Communion was changed from a prayer of blessing to a simple (but ancient) statement, “Corpus Christi”. This statement is of course a profession of faith, and the recipient (presumably) affirms it by saying “Amen.”

The formulas gradually become more embellished, even at an early date. For example, “The bread of heaven in Christ Jesus” in the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome, or “This is the body of Christ that He offered for our sins” in the Canons of Basil. (I must say that the distribution formulas appear to emphasize the Real Presence very strongly!)

In the Byzantine Rite, “… for the forgiveness of [your] sins and unto eternal life” was said as Communion was distributed. The Coptic Rite used the formula, “This is in truth the Body and Blood of Emmanuel, our Lord.”

Rome, under the Frankish influence, replaced its previous formulae (probably like those above) with a blessing by the priest, dating to the 8th century: “Corpus et sanguis D.n.J.C. custodiat te in vitam aeternam.” Various missals since that time had variations on that theme, with the Missal of Troyes (c. 1050) having three different formulae, one for reception of the Host, one for reception from the Chalice, and one for a commingled reception.

In 1964, Pope Paul VI changed the Communion formula:
SC RITES, Decree Quo actuosius, promulgating a new formulary for the distribution of communion, 25 April 1964: AAS 56 (1964) 337-338.

{DOL 2034} In order that the people may more actively and beneficially take part in the sacrifice of the Mass and profess their faith in the eucharistic mystery in the very act of receiving communion, numerous requests have been submitted to Pope Paul VI for a more appropriate formulary for the distribution of communion.

Graciously welcoming such requests, the Pope has established that in the distribution of communion, in place of the formulary now in use, the priest simply to say: Corpus Christi [The body of Christ] and the people are to answer: Amen, then receive communion. This is to be followed whenever communion is distributed, both within and outside Mass.

All things to the contrary notwithstanding, even those worthy of special mention.
My commentary on this is as follows:
The previous formulary for receiving Communion had been the following, said by the priest:

Corpus Dómini nostri Jesu Christi custódiat ánimam tuam in vitam aetérnam. Amen.

The communicant did not make a reply. This form was a blessing said by the priest to each one receiving Communion: “May the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ preserve your soul unto life everlasting. Amen.”

I think the previous form could have been adjusted only slightly to enable the faithful to “more actively and beneficially take part in the sacrifice of the Mass and profess their faith in the eucharistic mystery in the very act of receiving communion” as follows:

Priest: Hoc Corpus Dómini nostri Jesu Christi custódiat ánimam tuam in vitam aetérnam.
Communicant: Amen.

The priest is now saying, in effect, "May *this*, the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, preserve your soul unto life everlasting" to which the communicant responds "Amen". It is still a blessing, yet it incorporates a profession of faith from the communicants: no longer is "some" Body of our Lord Jesus Christ (which is not identified with the Host being received) preserving their soul, but *this* which is the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ

(This post was made possible by J. Jungmann’s The Mass of the Roman Rite, vol. II, pages 388-391.)

 

[japhy]

Thank you. Good research.

Most of this will be included in my book on the Eucharistic Prayers, due out sometime in 2012, when I stop spending so much time on the internet and get back to organizing my notes and converting them to prose!

 

[YoungTradCath]

Most of this will be included in my book on the Eucharistic Prayers, due out sometime in 2012, when I stop spending so much time on the internet and get back to organizing my notes and converting them to prose!

Free CAF member copies, right?

 

[japhy]

Free CAF member copies, right?

Hey, I’ll at least send free Word / PDF copies to people who volunteer to proofread. And those who actually DO proofread do get a complimentary copy of the finished product.

 

[LiveCatholic]

Thank you, all, for the tremendously thorough explanations! This thread could replace some of the encyclopedia articles I’ve read, as it completely outshines them in terms of clarity.

Oh, and I volunteer to proofread your book, Japhy!

 

[YoungTradCath]

Hey, I’ll at least send free Word / PDF copies to people who volunteer to proofread. And those who actually DO proofread do get a complimentary copy of the finished product.

I volunteer! I am an excellent proofreader. I am a self-avowed Grammar Nazi (in formal situations anyways) and my greatest gift is that I can spell amazingly well.