Celebrant's fingers joined at Ordinary Form Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ahlman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cristiano said:
I am thick but I do not get your point. How can you say that it is not inherently better. You have to demonstrate that by an independent justification (proving that they are not different) or by arguing to the contrary of someone else reasoning.

I am not saying that it is better or not. I just do not see any reasoning behind the statement itself.
Click to expand...
It’s not inherently “better” within the context of the OF of the Mass. That’s one way people are led astray, they begin to feel they know better than the Church and it causes problems.

How do I know that it’s not inherently “better” within the context of the OF of the Mass? Because the Church does not demand it, that’s why. If something so simple was actually “better”, I have absolute confidence that the Church would require it.

I can also look at it from a technical standpoint. Once the celebrant rubs his fingers together over the chalice there is materially no trace of the Blessed Sacrament left on his fingers. In essence, there is no reason to keep his fingers joined – although there would be no harm in doing so.
 
That the Church always requires the better is not always true.

The Church has humans in it, and they are not all saints.

It is better to wear a cassock than a clergyman, yet it is not required is it?
 
Pro_Domina said:
Obviously the particles do not denature so quickly.

Anyhow, what ever is left on his fingers is most probably denatured.

Plus when you give HC outside of mass you use a little glass filled with water that you don’t consume.
Click to expand...
No.

The pouring of the water or wine is for the ablution of the priests’ fingers (and often to assist with the purification of the chalice) and not to “denature” the remnants of the Blessed Sacrament coming from either his fingers or from the chalice (if done over a chalice.)

Even if an separate ablution cup is used (at Mass or in someone’s home), the water should still be consumed or at the very lest poured down a sacrarium or onto the ground where no one walks. It should never be poured down the sewer.

I have an old home visit kit and the instructions for disposing of the ablution water is to give it to the person receiving communion or to pour it over a fire.
 
Pro_Domina said:
That the Church always requires the better is not always true.

The Church has humans in it, and they are not all saints.

It is better to wear a cassock than a clergyman, yet it is not required is it?
Click to expand...
The Church would never require something lessor if it was that easy (keeping fingers joined) to do something that was actually “better.” No way.

You’re wrong to suggest “It is better to wear a cassock than a clergyman.” While you might personally prefer a cassock, a black clerical suit with Roman collar, a religious habit, a shirt with a Roman collar or even a sweatshirt and jeans might well be better based on the setting/situation.
 
Ahlman said:
I did some quick research and found something that implies the complete opposite:

Source: klux.org/ask/askpadre_past.htm

And: papist-nonsense.blogspot.com/2008/02/my-beef-with-rubrics-of-ordinary-form.html

What are we to think of this?
Click to expand...
I know the ask the padre from klux. He is a liturgical expert and quite an accomplished organist, and, a great homilist…

…which is why I find his commentary rather interesting, since a mutual friend of mine celebrates Mass in a manner similar to what is described in the OP, to the point that he puts his fingers over the chalice when he is purifying it. My friend, the celebrant, is also very devout and faithful to a fault, to the point that he has been celebrating ad orientsum for over a year.
 
In my opinion I believe what SACRED tradition has passed down should be kept unless ofcourse it is clearly forbiden in the rubrics.
 
sancte_joseph said:
In my opinion I believe what SACRED tradition has passed down should be kept unless ofcourse it is clearly forbiden in the rubrics.
Click to expand...
Sacred Tradition has not passed down the joining of the celebrant’s two fingers…
 
Rickwood said:
For anyone to suggest it’s actually “better” that he does keep them joined is clearly wrong but to even ask if it’s an “illicit addition to the rubrics of the Ordinary Form of the Mass?” is mind-blowing.
Click to expand...
Well, it’s not that I agree myself with the fact that it could be regarded as an illicit addition, but what is then the big difference with this addition and other additions like holding hands during the Our Father (something which I resist to do even if the priest tell us to)? Is it only allowed to add things to the rubrics if they were included in the older missal?

The only problem I have is if someone actually believes adhereing to this practice to be objetively better and more reverent than not doing it, which would imply that in order to celebrate the Mass according to the 1969 Missal in the most perfect way, you have to look up details from the 1962 Missal, and thus implying that the new Missal still depends on the old.

But if it is just a matter of personal preference, I guess there is no big deal.
 
Ahlman said:
Well, it’s not that I agree myself with the fact that it could be regarded as an illicit addition, but what is then the big difference with this addition and other additions like holding hands during the Our Father (something which I resist to do even if the priest tell us to)? Is it only allowed to add things to the rubrics if they were included in the older missal?

The only problem I have is if someone actually believes adhereing to this practice to be objetively better and more reverent than not doing it, which would imply that in order to celebrate the Mass according to the 1969 Missal in the most perfect way, you have to look up details from the 1962 Missal, and thus implying that the new Missal still depends on the old.

But if it is just a matter of personal preference, I guess there is no big deal.
Click to expand...
A great deal has to do with the genesis of the matter under review and the impact it has to the Mass and the faithful.

If the celebrant kept two fingers joined it’s not only based on something from the Church, it in no way negatively impacts the Mass or the faithful. I fully agree with your second comment! Far too many seem to think they can pick and choose what to adhere to and what is objectively better and more reverent and they are wrong.

[Edited]
 
Rickwood said:
A great deal has to do with the genesis of the matter under review and the impact it has to the Mass and the faithful.

If the celebrant kept two fingers joined it’s not only based on something from the Church, it in no way negatively impacts the Mass or the faithful. I fully agree with your second comment! Far too many seem to think they can pick and choose what to adhere to and what is objectively better and more reverent and they are wrong.
**
If my wife, daughter and I like to hold hands during the Our Father then it’s our business. If we try to foist our preference on others then there is a problem, as just one example**.
Click to expand...
To proselytize you don’t need to say what you think.
An example does enough.

Plus you got your family to do it.

That is precisely why the inquisition went against heretics.

Not because they believed in heresy, but because they would bring it to others.
 
Pro_Domina said:
Obviously the particles do not denature so quickly.

Anyhow, what ever is left on his fingers is most probably denatured.

Plus when you give HC outside of mass you use a little glass filled with water that you don’t consume.
Click to expand...
And is supposed to be passed down the sacrarium, to denature over time.
 
Rickwood said:
Sacred Tradition has not passed down the joining of the celebrant’s two fingers…
Click to expand...
what do you mean sacred tradition hasn’t passed it down?
Priest were required to do it even after the bread used for consecration wasn’t that “crumbly” if thats a word.

Even the smallest crumb of the host is the whole body blood soul and divinity of Christ?

Why take even a small chance that it may fall and be forgotten.

Thats why it was required to have 3 altar clothes so if by a small chance the sacred blood spilled it wouldn’t touch the altar stone and the cloth could be properly washed.
 
sancte_joseph said:
what do you mean sacred tradition hasn’t passed it down?
Priest were required to do it even after the bread used for consecration wasn’t that “crumbly” if thats a word.

Even the smallest crumb of the host is the whole body blood soul and divinity of Christ?

Why take even a small chance that it may fall and be forgotten.

Thats why it was required to have 3 altar clothes so if by a small chance the sacred blood spilled it wouldn’t touch the altar stone and the cloth could be properly washed.
Click to expand...
3?

Are you refering to the purifier?
 
sancte_joseph said:
what do you mean sacred tradition hasn’t passed it down?
Priest were required to do it even after the bread used for consecration wasn’t that “crumbly” if thats a word.

Even the smallest crumb of the host is the whole body blood soul and divinity of Christ?

Why take even a small chance that it may fall and be forgotten.

Thats why it was required to have 3 altar clothes so if by a small chance the sacred blood spilled it wouldn’t touch the altar stone and the cloth could be properly washed.
Click to expand...
Go find out exactly what Sacred Tradition (and not “sacred tradition”) is, and we’ll talk about it. The joining of two fingers was a Mass rubric. It was never a part of the Church’s dogmatic deposit of faith.

Also, how about presenting an official Church document that defines the 3+ altar clothes under the old rubrics as a safety precaution in case the Precious Blood was spilled?

You cannot…
 
Rickwood said:
Go find out exactly what Sacred Tradition (and not “sacred tradition”) is, and we’ll talk about it. The joining of two fingers was a Mass rubric. It was never a part of the Church’s dogmatic deposit of faith.

Also, how about presenting an official Church document that defines the 3+ altar clothes under the old rubrics as a safety precaution in case the Precious Blood was spilled?

You cannot…
Click to expand...
😃 😃 😃

I don’t get what you mean by (and not “sacred tradition”)
I didn’t mean anything by Capitalizing it.

and…why can’t you google the reason why there were 3 altar clothes i’m sure something will come up
unless you don’t want to :rolleyes:

when i mean sacred tradition i mean just that tradition…why did it become part of the rubrics because like i said when the bread was more “crumbly” there was a chance it got stuck on the priests fingers

anyway…i don’t really care how the priest does it as long as he is extremely sure nothing is left on his fingers
 
You clearly have no idea what Sacred Tradition is. You also clearly have no idea why 3 (or more) altar cloths were required in the past.

All you did was try to dodge my questions…
sancte_joseph said:
😃 😃 😃

I don’t get what you mean by (and not “sacred tradition”)
I didn’t mean anything by Capitalizing it.

and…why can’t you google the reason why there were 3 altar clothes i’m sure something will come up
unless you don’t want to :rolleyes:

when i mean sacred tradition i mean just that tradition…why did it become part of the rubrics because like i said when the bread was more “crumbly” there was a chance it got stuck on the priests fingers

anyway…i don’t really care how the priest does it as long as he is extremely sure nothing is left on his fingers
Click to expand...
 
Rickwood said:
You clearly have no idea what Sacred Tradition is. You also clearly have no idea why 3 (or more) altar cloths were required in the past.

All you did was try to dodge my questions…
Click to expand...
I just realized that I have set up two altar cloths.
The nice one and then the simpler one on top.

Not including the corporal.
 
Rickwood said:
Also, how about presenting an official Church document that defines the 3+ altar clothes under the old rubrics as a safety precaution in case the Precious Blood was spilled? You cannot…
Click to expand...
Why must it be an “official Church document”? How many “official Church documents” explain the Christological significance of all the signs and symbols of the liturgy?

Anyway, the Catholic Encyclopedia verifies the other poster’s remark: “The custom of using three altar-cloths began probably in the ninth century, but at present it is of strict obligation for the licit celebration of Mass (Rubr. Gen. Miss., tit. xx: De Defectibus, tit. x, 1). The reason of this prescription of the Church is that if the Precious Blood should by accident be spilt it might be absorbed by the altar-cloths before it reached the altar-stone.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top