Changing the Words at Distribution of Communion

  • Thread starter Thread starter smndtupidisaftr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

smndtupidisaftr

Guest
Why were the words of the priest during distribution changed from CORPUS DOMINI NOSTRI IESU CHRISTI CUSTODIAT ANIMAM TUAM IN VITAM AETARNAM to the simple CORPUS CHRISTI? What was the rationale behind such a drastic change?
 
I would suspect that a rationale has been made of each and every change that was made between the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form. However, I ahve yet to find any one work which contains all of them, and know of no work that answers this question.

It is, however, within the authority of the Church to change it.
 
smndtupidisaftr said:
Why were the words of the priest during distribution changed from CORPUS DOMINI NOSTRI IESU CHRISTI CUSTODIAT ANIMAM TUAM IN VITAM AETARNAM to the simple CORPUS CHRISTI? What was the rationale behind such a drastic change?
Click to expand...
One can answer this question in two ways, both of which would be the truth.
  1. The pope felt this was better than the long form. He has the right to change it. So he did it.
  2. The other answer was published in the original GIRM when the mass was revised. That GIRM is no longer around. The intent was to get the communicant to zero in or focus on the real presence. The longer form is really a prayer, not a statement of a fact.
“May the body of Christ guard your soul for eternal life.” is a really a prayer.

“[This is] the Body of Christ” is a statement of faith.

PS. It would be good if people posted translations when they use Latin. Not everyone reads Latin. I for one always feel badly when this happens. I can read, write and speak Latin fluently, but I had four years of it. The person who can’t is left out. Sometimes, I get PMs from people asking me, “Brother, what does this mean?” They are too embarrassed to ask on the forum.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, OSF 🙂
 
I cannot explain all the ramifications and theological implications of one way or the other. But I can say personally, I like the old way better. A prayer seems more reverent than a blunt statement that is not even a complete sentence. And now with no kneeling, no communion rail, we stand in line and with this shorter version, the priest goes quite fast. It feels like we’re in line at McDonald’s and when I get to the front, I almost expect to hear “Want fries with that?” instead of “Body of Christ.”

I don’t see the rationale of the argument above that the short form somehow makes us more aware this is the Eucharist. The prayer does that even more effectively by lifting our thoughts to everlasting life as inextricably linked to the Body of Christ.
 
Ancient1 said:
I cannot explain all the ramifications and theological implications of one way or the other. But I can say personally, I like the old way better. A prayer seems more reverent than a blunt statement that is not even a complete sentence. And now with no kneeling, no communion rail, we stand in line and with this shorter version, the priest goes quite fast. It feels like we’re in line at McDonald’s and when I get to the front, I almost expect to hear “Want fries with that?” instead of “Body of Christ.”

I don’t see the rationale of the argument above that the short form somehow makes us more aware this is the Eucharist. The prayer does that even more effectively by lifting our thoughts to everlasting life as inextricably linked to the Body of Christ.
Click to expand...
What your expressing is a personal preference. Which is perfectly fine. Everyone is entitled to have them, as long as they don’t impose them as a rule on others. Personally, I don’t care if we use one or the other. I find them both very meaningful. I think it’s important to remember that we must think with the Church and speak for ourselves. That which we find meaningful, may not have any effect on another person. As to what is done, that’s a matter of Church discipline. If we think with the Church, then we accept those disciplines, even if our preference is different.

The other points that you mentioned: communion rails, standing, etc don’t really take away from the sacredness of the moment. What distracts from the sacredness of the moment is the behavior of everyone involved. Whether you’re kneeling or standing, if you have the right crowd and the right celebrant you can have a very reverent rite of communion.

Yesterday, I attended mass celebrated by Archbishop Wenski. Three of us went to Miami for the Nascent Mass. It was one of the most beautiful public masses in which we have ever participated. It was the Ordinary Form. Communion was standing. However, the Archbishop did everything by the book. There was nothing in the mass that did not belong there. Everything that should have been there, was there. The music was beautiful, even though it was not Gregorian chant. It was the Catholic classics. The parts of the mass were done in plainchant and most were in Latin. Every movement on the sanctuary was slow and deliberate, not jerky and random.

The people at that mass are obviously practicing Catholics who are very involved with the faith. Think about it, The Nascent Mass. What’s the crowd that it’s going to attract? It attracted people from out of town and many locals were not there. They didn’t sell tickets. It just happened that the congregation was made up of the cream of the crop of Catholic society. Of course the congregation was knowledgeable of what was happening and how to reverently participate in a mass.

Other than religious houses, I normally don’t see a mass like this. But religious houses are not the norm either. Again, it’s a select group of people who know exactly what’s what and know the difference between a mass and a secular function. This is the same thing at EF masses. It’s a select group. Most parishes have a broad spectrum of Catholic society. In that spectrum, you’re going to have many more people that don’t have a clue than people who do.

Whether you say the prayer or the statement of faith in the communion rite, if the person receiving communion has no clue, he’s not going to be moved by either form. On the flip side, if the person receiving communion knows and believes, either form is going to be right for him, because they both have meaning to him.

It always takes us back to the same point. We have to do better catechesis, especially on the mass. We’ve dropped the ball on that one.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Ancient1 said:
I cannot explain all the ramifications and theological implications of one way or the other. But I can say personally, I like the old way better. A prayer seems more reverent than a blunt statement that is not even a complete sentence. And now with no kneeling, no communion rail, we stand in line and with this shorter version, the priest goes quite fast. It feels like we’re in line at McDonald’s and when I get to the front, I almost expect to hear “Want fries with that?” instead of “Body of Christ.”

I don’t see the rationale of the argument above that the short form somehow makes us more aware this is the Eucharist. The prayer does that even more effectively by lifting our thoughts to everlasting life as inextricably linked to the Body of Christ.
Click to expand...
Having received Communion for several years before Vatican II I can state that the prayer the priest said was murmured as he went up and down the row of communicants kneeling at the rail and we would have been hard pressed to tell anyone what he was murmuring. Even if we’d understood the words, most of us wouldn’t have had a clue what the prayer meant because we were never taught Latin.

Now we are asked to proclaim our belief before we receive. When we respond AMEN to “Body of Christ” or “Corpus Christi” we are proclaiming our belief that this which we are receiving is indeed the Body of Christ.

That’s not to say that one way is better than the other, all things being equal, but equal they rarely were.
 
That prayer is in the Novus Ordo missal - it’s just that the priest says it once for everybody, instead of each time, individually.

If you think about it, saying “Amen” is also pretty cool, since it involves a person publicly proclaiming their belief in the Real Presence.

Also, please remember that lining up for communion in the hand is not something mandated by the Novus Ordo, but by custom in (at least) this country.

At some parishes in the U.S., the communion rail is used, and communion on the tongue is the norm. There’s nothing in the Novus Ordo contrary to doing that at all.
 
otjm said:
I would suspect that a rationale has been made of each and every change that was made between the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form.
Click to expand...
The formula was changed in 1964, at the same time Psalm 42 and the Last Gospel were removed from the Mass. The old Mass had been under reform since the 50’s, if not before. The Ordinary Form (defined as such later) didn’t exist until 1969/1970.
 
JReducation said:
“[This is] the Body of Christ” is a statement of faith.
Click to expand...
True, except I think “This is the Body of Christ” removes some of the ambiguity surrounding “Body of Christ” in the English.

But then that really isn’t complete either, because if we are receiving only one species, it really is “The Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity” of Christ.
 
ProVobis said:
True, except I think “This is the Body of Christ” removes some of the ambiguity surrounding “Body of Christ” in the English.
Click to expand...
The statement is Corpus Christi. In my opinion saying “This is the Body of Christ” is almost as bad as the “Thanks be to God” translation for Deo Gratias. 😉
 
JReducation said:
“[This is] the Body of Christ” is a statement of faith.
Click to expand...
True, except I think “This is the Body of Christ” removes some of the ambiguity surrounding “Body of Christ” in the English.

But then that really isn’t complete either, because if we are receiving only one species, it really is “The Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity” of Christ.
 
smndtupidisaftr said:
Why were the words of the priest during distribution changed from CORPUS DOMINI NOSTRI IESU CHRISTI CUSTODIAT ANIMAM TUAM IN VITAM AETARNAM to the simple CORPUS CHRISTI? What was the rationale behind such a drastic change?
Click to expand...
For what it’s worth, this is nothing new in the Mass. The Apostolic Constitutions (VIII.xiii), written ca. 380, tell us:
And after that, let the bishop partake, then the presbyters, and deacons, and sub-deacons, and the readers, and the singers, and the ascetics; and then of the women, the deaconesses, and the virgins, and the widows; then the children; and then all the people in order, with reverence and godly fear, without tumult. And let the bishop give the oblation, saying, The body of Christ; and let him that receiveth say, Amen. And let the deacon take the cup; and when he gives it, say, The blood of Christ, the cup of life; and let him that drinketh say, Amen.
So you see the existence of the separate statements for each species and the response from the individual communicant, just as now.
 
Did you cancel your post and then posted it again after my post to give the impression that I can read your mind before you post something?😃
 
ProVobis said:
True, except I think “This is the Body of Christ” removes some of the ambiguity surrounding “Body of Christ” in the English.

But then that really isn’t complete either, because if we are receiving only one species, it really is “The Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity” of Christ.
Click to expand...
Did you cancel your post and then posted it again after my post to give the impression that I can read your mind ahead of time?😃
 
Cristiano said:
The statement is Corpus Christi. In my opinion saying “This is the Body of Christ” is almost as bad as the “Thanks be to God” translation for Deo Gratias. 😉
Click to expand...
C, interesting analogy. That’s why it’s tough to translate Latin into English, just like “Dominus vobiscum.” In Polish it’s Pan z wami ("IS with you), not the subjunctive “BE with you” as we’re used to hearing in the English. Yet we go without any verb in the “Glory to God in the Highest.” Go figure on that one.

But I was referring to the BODY, which could mean more than “Flesh.” (see 3b, for example)

bod·y (bd)
n. pl. bod·ies
1.
a. The entire material or physical structure of an organism, especially of a human or animal.
b. The physical part of a person.
c. A corpse or carcass.
2.
a. The trunk or torso of a human or animal.
b. The part of a garment covering the torso.
3.
a. A human; a person.
b. A group of individuals regarded as an entity; a corporation.
4. A number of persons, concepts, or things regarded as a group: We walked out in a body.
5. The main or central part, as:
a. Anatomy The largest or principal part of an organ; corpus.
b. The nave of a church.
c. The content of a book or document exclusive of prefatory matter, codicils, indexes, or appendixes.
d. The passenger- and cargo-carrying part of an aircraft, ship, or other vehicle.
e. Music The sound box of an instrument.
6. A mass of matter that is distinct from other masses: a body of water; a celestial body.
7. A collection or quantity, as of material or information: the body of evidence.
8. Consistency of substance, as in paint, textiles, or wine: a sauce with body.
9. Printing The part of a block of type underlying the impression surface.
Did you cancel your post and then posted it again after my post to give the impression that I can read your mind ahead of time?
Click to expand...
No, I deleted it because I wanted to add something else to the post and didn’t want to risk exceeding the 20 minutes allowed to change it.
 
JReducation said:
Every movement on the sanctuary was slow and deliberate, not jerky and random.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if people realize how difficult it is to do this, to move slowly and deliberately.

This tells me that everyone in the sanctuary had their minds and spirits united with the Archbishop, and were concentrated on serving him properly, instead of being distracted by the crowd or the choir or unfamiliar surroundings. It is so imporant to unite yourself to the celebrant, to focus on him alone, and taking every burden away from him so that he can concentrate on praying the Mass.

Even when things go wrong in the sanctuary, if everyone moves slowly and deliberately then it still looks reverent. When the priest starts looking back and forth for something, when the deacon overreacts because something is not in his hand at the exact moment or when an altar server suddenly does a 180 degree turn, that’s when it starts to look undignified.

The fact that you mentioned this specifically Brother, indicates to me that those who were serving the Archbiship were experienced and truly had the hearts of a servant. It adds so much to the dignity and reverence of the Mass.

-Tim-
 
ProVobis said:
C, interesting analogy. That’s why it’s tough to translate Latin into English, just like “Dominus vobiscum.” In Polish it’s Pan z wami ("IS with you), not the subjunctive “BE with you” as we’re used to hearing in the English. …
Click to expand...
Dang! I ruined my tease by using Deo Gratias. I was thinking of the comment that you often make on CAF about Domine Vobiscum but I confused it with Deo Gratias. :banghead:

I am not even able to pick on people any more.:doh2:
 
Cristiano said:
Dang! I ruined my tease by using Deo Gratias. I was thinking of the comment that you often make on CAF about Domine Vobiscum but I confused it with Deo Gratias. :banghead:
Click to expand...
That’s why we have the :o smiley. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top