(DOL 252) Quo actuosius - changing the formulary for distribution of Holy Communion

  • Thread starter Thread starter japhy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

japhy

Guest
This post is about a 1964 decree, Quo actuosius (DOL 252), which changed the formulary for the distribution of Holy Communion to simply “Corpus Christi. / Amen.”. I’d like to know what you folks think about it.
252. SC RITES, Decree Quo actuosius, promulgating a new formulary for the distribution of communion, 25 April 1964: AAS 56 (1964) 337-338.

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: 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.
The previous formulary for receiving Communion had been the following:

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

The communicant did not make a reply.

The formula which replaced it was:

Priest: Corpus Christi.
Communicant: Amen.

The previous 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.”

From my point of view, the previous form could have been adjusted only slightly to facilitate the active participation of the faithful:

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.
 
Corpus Christ/Amen used to be the form of distributing communion from a Bishop to a newly ordained priest.

I refer the old formula- although it is admittedly long. I went to one TLM where the priest solved this “problem” by simply distributing communion at a NO-esque rate while saying “Corpus Domini…” over and over again with no relation to when he was giving communion.

I wonder if a priest could choose to use the old formula in the NO?
 
JuanCarlos said:
I went to one TLM where the priest solved this “problem” by simply distributing communion at a NO-esque rate while saying “Corpus Domini…” over and over again with no relation to when he was giving communion.
Click to expand...
See, that is a good example of a liturgical abuse in the TLM; it’s a rather unpastoral solution to a “problem”.
JuanCarlos said:
I wonder if a priest could choose to use the old formula in the NO?
Click to expand...
I would very much like to see the Holy Father (or the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei) release a document describing the ways in which the two forms of the Roman Rite may enrich one another. However, that’s a very complicated matter! But there are small things that could be made a matter of priestly/pastorly decision-making, things like the formulary for distributing Communion.

Maybe I’m tooting my own horn, but I think my suggested formulary is a good example of the type of “innovation” or “reform” that Sacrosanctum Concilium really called for. Instead of throwing out the formulary which had been in use for several centuries (and for good reason, I would imagine), it could be easily adapted and rendered more suitable for the “active participation” of the faithful.
 
Now that you brought it up, maybe the formula should have been changed to include Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity in both forms.
 
JuanCarlos said:
. . .

I refer the old formula- although it is admittedly long. I went to one TLM where the priest solved this “problem” by simply distributing communion at a NO-esque rate while saying “Corpus Domini…” over and over again with no relation to when he was giving communion. . . ?
Click to expand...
That was the standard way of giving Communion in the 40’s & 50’s. The entire phrase got said for every two or three communicants. **
 
ProVobis said:
Now that you brought it up, maybe the formula should have been changed to include Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity in both forms.
Click to expand...
That would be against ancient (even apostolic) practice and also not very theological. The Blood, Soul and Divinity are only present by concommitance, not vi verborum as is the Body. As you know, the scholastic explanation says that the Blood, Soul and Divinity are not present by the power of the Words of Consecration - rather the host becomes the Body, and because it is the glorified Body, concomitantly the Blood, Soul and Divinity.
 
AJV said:
That would be against ancient (even apostolic) practice and also not very theological. The Blood, Soul and Divinity are only present by concommitance, not vi verborum as is the Body. As you know, the scholastic explanation says that the Blood, Soul and Divinity are not present by the power of the Words of Consecration - rather the host becomes the Body, and because it is the glorified Body, concomitantly the Blood, Soul and Divinity.
Click to expand...
Generally speaking, could one say then that the consecrated Host is a “sign” of Christ’s Body, while also being, in reality, the whole Christ (Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity)?
 
AJV said:
That would be against ancient (even apostolic) practice and also not very theological. The Blood, Soul and Divinity are only present by concommitance, not vi verborum as is the Body. As you know, the scholastic explanation says that the Blood, Soul and Divinity are not present by the power of the Words of Consecration - rather the host becomes the Body, and because it is the glorified Body, concomitantly the Blood, Soul and Divinity.
Click to expand...
Maybe it’s a play with words but I’ve heard once or twice that the entire Church is the Body of Christ and that’s what we’re receiving.
 
ProVobis said:
Maybe true. But then the communicant’s Amen doesn’t exactly speed things up either. 🙂
Click to expand...
Unless you introduce Communion in the hand. Then, Communion can be distributed as “Corpus Christi” is said, not waiting for the “Amen” response. All in good time, so to speak.

I’m not trying to be cynical… this is coming naturally right now. 😉

(But honestly, “Corpus Christi / Amen” is much faster than the older formulary.)
 
japhy said:
(But honestly, “Corpus Christi / Amen” is much faster than the older formulary.)
Click to expand...
And communion will proceed at the speed of sound if we all learn to say “Ah-men” instead of “Ayyyy-man” while holding out the tongue. 🙂 Try it out.
 
I remember when they introduced the Corpus Christi phrase in ;the 60’s. Someone responded Texas. 😃
 
Joe_Kelley said:
That was the standard way of giving Communion in the 40’s & 50’s. The entire phrase got said for every two or three communicants. **

There were some abuses like that then. And some of the priests spoke Latin so fast I think the old Romans would have had a hard time understanding what they were saying. They have to go slower and concentrate a little more when they are praying in the vernacular.
Click to expand...
 
Claire_from_DE said:
They have to go slower and concentrate a little more when they are praying in the vernacular.
Click to expand...
Not true at all. If anything people are little more aware of the Latin grammar and spellings and pronounciations than the English.
 
I was under the impression in the Extraordinary Form that the communicant wasn’t supposed to say anything when receiving communion, not like in the Ordinary Form.

Was I mistaken?
 
LRThunder said:
I was under the impression in the Extraordinary Form that the communicant wasn’t supposed to say anything when receiving communion, not like in the Ordinary Form.

Was I mistaken?
Click to expand...
You are not mistaken. No response is required in the EF.
 
ProVobis said:
You are not mistaken. No response is required in the EF.
Click to expand...
As an trad altar server, I can attest to the fact that at least a quarter of communicants still say “Amen”. There’s always one or two people who try to receive on the hand as well.
 
JuanCarlos said:
As an trad altar server, I can attest to the fact that at least a quarter of communicants still say “Amen”. There’s always one or two people who try to receive on the hand as well.
Click to expand...
Old habits are hard to break. That’s why I don’t think the new translations will be accepted as well as the Vatican thinks they will.
 
LRThunder said:
I was under the impression in the Extraordinary Form that the communicant wasn’t supposed to say anything when receiving communion, not like in the Ordinary Form.

Was I mistaken?
Click to expand...
If the new formulary was brought in in 1964 and the new Mass was brought in in 1970 then they must have for a short while.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top