Celebrant's fingers joined at Ordinary Form Mass

[Ahlman]

I have experienced a few priests that keep their thumbs and index fingers joined after the consecration while celebrating the Ordinary Form of the Mass, in the same way it is demanded in the Extraordinary Form. Should this be considered as a pious practice that helps increasing the reverence for the Sacrament, or an illicit addition to the rubrics of the Ordinary Form of the Mass?

 

[Fergal]

The norm to join the fingers after the Consecration in the Mass was replaced by Norm 12 of the Instruction on the orderly carrying out of the Constitution on the Liturgy, Sacred Congregation of Rites, 14 May, 1967.

“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.” [DOL, 39, pg. 137 also see footnote R23 about there being no need to have the ablution of the fingers over the chalice after Holy Communion.]

In my opinion, and it is only that, the Norm says that the Priest need not join thumb and forefinger. It does not say that he should not, so it is obviously up the the Priest whether he wants to do it or not.

If he joins them it is not an abuse.

 

[japhy]

priests that keep their thumbs and index fingers joined … a pious practice … or an illicit addition to the rubrics?

speakingStrictly technically, a priest, celebrating the Ordinary Form of Mass, should put his alb on backwards. (What does that have to do with your question? Well, read the link to find out. It’s a bit funny…)

But to answer your question: when the rubrics are silent on something (and do not expressly forbid it) it seems, generally, a prudent thing to retain a former practice (assuming that former practice is beneficial in some way). For example, then, keeping the forefinger and thumb together is a sign of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament (to avoid losing its fragments), and anyone who notices this practice might ask the priest why he does it, and then learn something about how serious the Church is about this “Real Presence” business! Another practice would be the priest keeping his eyes intently on the Precious Body and Blood on the altar when he says the “Lord Jesus Christ, you said to your Apostles: I leave you peace…” prayer during the Liturgy of the Eucharist, as was directed in the earlier missal; instead of looking around the congregation (as though he were speaking to them), he gazes at the Lord made present in the Blessed Sacrament on the altar.

 

[Pro_Domina]

The thing is that you won’t do much to prevent any lost after rubbing your fingers other than using water to denature.

What is correct though is to use the other fingers for moving the missal or opening the tabarnacle as to prevent a transference.

That does more to prevent loss of particles.

 

[Ahlman]

But to answer your question: when the rubrics are silent on something (and do not expressly forbid it) it seems, generally, a prudent thing to retain a former practice (assuming that former practice is beneficial in some way).

I did some quick research and found something that implies the complete opposite:

The norm to join the fingers after the Consecration in the Mass was replaced by Norm 12 of the Instruction on the orderly carrying out of the Constitution on the Liturgy, Sacred Congregation of Rites, 14 May, 1967.

“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.” [DOL, 39, pg. 137 also see footnote R23 about there being no need to have the ablution of the fingers over the chalice after Holy Communion.

In answer to questions about the use of abrogated ceremonies, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal promulgated in March 1975 [DROOL 208] states in a footnote reply ": “It must never be forgotten that the Missal of Pope Paul VI has, since 1970, supplanted the one called improperly ‘the Missal of St. Pius V,’ and completely so, in both texts and rubrics. When the rubrics of the Missal of Paul VI say nothing or little on particulars in some places, it is not to be inferred that the former rite should be observed. Therefore the multiple and complex gestures for incensation as prescribed in the former Missal are not to be observed.”[DOL, pg.481, footnote R11].

Source: klux.org/ask/askpadre_past.htm

And:

As noted in the Reply no. 2 of the comments in Not 14 (1978) 301, when the rubrics of the Missal of Paul VI say nothing, it is not to be thereby inferred that the former rubrics must be followed (see no. 51 above). The reformed Missal does not supplement but supplants the former Missal.

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

What are we to think of this?
[/quote]

 

[Ahlman]

I would say that the Missal of Paul VI must be able to be used by itself, and not as a complement to the older missal. If the rubrics are not as detailed as the older missal, you shouldn’t need to depend on the older rubrics in order to figure out how to do it, but rather do it in the simplest, most logical way. I guess the simplest way of putting on an alb would be putting it on the right way, but the simplest way of holding your fingers would not be with the thumb and index fingers joined.

 

[mullenpm]

This question might not be on thread and, if not, I am sorry.

Can anyone tell me where I can find some reading somewhere that will explain to me in detail the differences between the different forms of the Mass: TLM; EF; OF; NO.

I know what the intials mean and that seems to be all that most of the posters on this form seem to know when I ask to know what are the differences, and why such outrage at the NO.

I watch the Daily Mass on EWTN; what form do they use?

 

[SenorSalsa]

This question might not be on thread and, if not, I am sorry.

Can anyone tell me where I can find some reading somewhere that will explain to me in detail the differences between the different forms of the Mass: TLM; EF; OF; NO.

I know what the intials mean and that seems to be all that most of the posters on this form seem to know when I ask to know what are the differences, and why such outrage at the NO.

I watch the Daily Mass on EWTN; what form do they use?

EWTN uses the OF/NO, which both refer to the same Form of the Mass.

The EF/TLM is the kind you would see in Pre-VII years.

On topic, I know that the rubrics are meant to be so called “postive laws” meaning it only says what you can do, and everything else is not to be done, but the phrase “need not” to me sounds like it leaves the option open to the Priest whether or not to keep his fingers joined(a practice I had never heard of, but am already sort of fond of), the same of the ablution after Communion

 

[Cristiano]

EWTN uses the OF/NO, which both refer to the same Form of the Mass.

The EF/TLM is the kind you would see in Pre-VII years.

On topic, I know that the rubrics are meant to be so called “postive laws” meaning it only says what you can do, and everything else is not to be done, but the phrase “need not” to me sounds like it leaves the option open to the Priest whether or not to keep his fingers joined(a practice I had never heard of, but am already sort of fond of), the same of the ablution after Communion

The usual (ordinary) Mass shown on EWTN is the OF/NO mass. Sometimes (extraordinary) on EWTN they have shown the EF/TLM Mass.

It is important to see that the priest during the OF Mass on EWTN keeps his fingers together after consecration.

 

[Digitonomy]

I did some quick research and found something that implies the complete opposite…I would say that the Missal of Paul VI must be able to be used by itself, and not as a complement to the older missal. If the rubrics are not as detailed as the older missal, you shouldn’t need to depend on the older rubrics in order to figure out how to do it, but rather do it in the simplest, most logical way.

The cites you quoted instruct against the notion that former practices are required unless otherwise noted. japhy said it was a prudent choice, not a required one, to retain a former practice. These approaches are not in conflict.

Neither does your approach to do things in the simplest way conflict with the citations you quoted. The two of you conflict with each other as to the most prudent approach, but the documents don’t seem to speak to this dispute.

 

[Rickwood]

I have experienced a few priests that keep their thumbs and index fingers joined after the consecration while celebrating the Ordinary Form of the Mass, in the same way it is demanded in the Extraordinary Form. Should this be considered as a pious practice that helps increasing the reverence for the Sacrament, or an illicit addition to the rubrics of the Ordinary Form of the Mass?

Are you serious? :hypno:

 

[twf]

I’m sure the Holy Father would not object to this practice. At my parish our priest keeps his fingers together for OF masses. (We also receive kneeling at the altar rail ). Considering the fact that the Holy Father is encouraging and promoting the Tridentine Mass (EF), continuity with our Latin tradition, and requiring the faithful to receive (for example) in the traditional way from him (kneeling and on the tongue…see Sydney the other week), I can not imagine him having a problem with this at all.

 

[Rickwood]

Who the heck cares? As long as the celebrant is doing everything he is supposed to be doing who cares if he also keeps his thumb and forefinger joined while celebrating the OF Mass? 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.

 

[Cristiano]

…For anyone to suggest it’s actually “better” that he does keep them joined is clearly wrong…

Can you please explain the thought behind this statement.

 

[Rickwood]

The thing is that you won’t do much to prevent any lost after rubbing your fingers other than using water to denature.

What is correct though is to use the other fingers for moving the missal or opening the tabarnacle as to prevent a transference.

That does more to prevent loss of particles.

Denature?

 

[Rickwood]

Can you please explain the thought behind this statement.

Sure.

Some will suggest that it’s inherently “better” for a priest to keep his fingers joined in the manner we have been discussing while celebrating the OF and that’s simply not true. There is nothing wrong with the practice but it’s not inherently “better” within that context.

Such a comment would just as erroneous as someone equating the practice as an unauthorized addition to the OF Mass.

 

[Pro_Domina]

thefreedictionary.com/denature

To sum up, when the priest purifies his fingers with water, the Body of Christ is no longer there because water changes the form of bread.

 

[Rickwood]

thefreedictionary.com/denature

To sum up, when the priest purifies his fingers with water, the Body of Christ is no longer there because water changes the form of bread.

No.

The water or unconsecrated wine used by the celebrant for the ablution is still consumed by the celebrant or someone else because it contains remnants of the Blessed Sacrament.

 

[Pro_Domina]

No.

The water or unconsecrated wine used by the celebrant for the ablution is still consumed by the celebrant or someone else because it contains remnants of the Blessed Sacrament.

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.

 

[Cristiano]

Sure.

Some will suggest that it’s inherently “better” for a priest to keep his fingers joined in the manner we have been discussing while celebrating the OF and that’s simply not true. There is nothing wrong with the practice but it’s not inherently “better” within that context.

Such a comment would just as erroneous as someone equating the practice as an unauthorized addition to the OF Mass.

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.