Eucharistic prayer

[SJE]

I have seen this practice more than once in some churches. During the Eucharistic prayer --the celebrant does not elevate the host at all and does not genuflect at the appropriate times. It is more of a “recitation” of the prayer than a solemn act of transbustantiation. One explanation I have heard is that transubstantiation is the result of the enitre eucharstic prayer and not the specific elevations of the host and chalice, hence, I guess they feel this is a more holisitc approach (if you buy the argument that the whole prayer should be emphasized over the rubrics). To me, it seems to be another way of watering down the importance of the eucharistic celebration. The church I attend regularly is luckily very traditional and sacred --we kneel, sanctus bells are still rung, etc. Perhaps that is why this is such a stark contrast to me. Is there any justification for this practice? Since I have seen it more than once, there appears to me a faction that is pushing this approach.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Genuflecting and elevation have nothing to do with valid consecration. This is not an interpretation but the teaching of the Church. While failure to follow proper rubrics would be illicit it would in no way invalidate the sacrament.

As to why a priest might not genuflect or elevate the sacred species there could be a valid reason of physical health. However outside of physical issues there’s no licit reason to not follow proper rubrics.

 

[bpbasilphx]

\One explanation I have heard is that transubstantiation is the result of the enitre eucharstic prayer and not the specific elevations of the host and chalice\

**You don’t actually think that it’s the elevation that accomplishes the change into the Body and Blood of Christ, do you? Or that the Church ever taught that the elevation did this?

They are elevated BECAUSE they have been changed–in the Latin rite, anyway.**

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Genuflecting and elevation have nothing to do with valid consecration. This is not an interpretation but the teaching of the Church. While failure to follow proper rubrics would be illicit it would in no way invalidate the sacrament.

As to why a priest might not genuflect or elevate the sacred species there could be a valid reason of physical health. However outside of physical issues there’s no licit reason to not follow proper rubrics.

This is what I would assume in all charity–that the priest has a physical infirmity. I will pray for these priests, that they would be healed if there is a physical issue, or that they will become more reverant toward the celebration of the Mass.

 

[SJE]

To answer to bbbasilphx, I was responding with a hyptothesis (that the priest is trying to counter a focus on one part of the EP and emphasize that it is the entire prayer). I understand that elevation is not the transformation.

To the other responders, sadly and unfortunately, these are relatively young and physically able priests. It is a trend I have seen now and then and I asked a friend who is a priest about it (and who follows the rubrics correctly). He said he had heard the above hypothesis and it became popular at the height of the more liberal changes (like standing during the EP).

 

[Phemie]

To answer to bbbasilphx, I was responding with a hyptothesis (that the priest is trying to counter a focus on one part of the EP and emphasize that it is the entire prayer). I understand that elevation is not the transformation.

To the other responders, sadly and unfortunately, these are relatively young and physically able priests. It is a trend I have seen now and then and I asked a friend who is a priest about it (and who follows the rubrics correctly). He said he had heard the above hypothesis and it became popular at the height of the more liberal changes (like standing during the EP).

There are certainly those priests who teach that it is the entire Eucharistic Prayer that consecrates, not simply the ‘institution narrative’ as they call it. One such in a class was asked, “That’s your opinion but what does the Church teach?” to which he replied, “You’re asking the wrong question.”

In that same classroom context another priest proclaimed that the posture for the Eucharistic Prayer should be the same throughout, since no one part is more important than another. He opined that the posture should be standing but that if we were called to kneel for the Consecration then we should do so for the entire prayer.

Neither my pastor nor the other priest who occasionally celebrates Mass in my parish are elderly. Neither genuflects. The 2 oldests priests we’ve had, both in their 70s, did genuflect.

 

[bpbasilphx]

\To answer to bbbasilphx, I was responding with a hyptothesis (that the priest is trying to counter a focus on one part of the EP and emphasize that it is the entire prayer). I understand that elevation is not the transformation.\

**But this is what you said implies: <<One explanation I have heard is that transubstantiation is the result of the enitre eucharstic prayer and not the specific elevations of the host and chalice,>>

In any case, while the Latin liturgical tradition has said that the Words of Institution are consecratory, the Catholic Church is bigger than the Latin Church.

Eastern Catholic Churches require the Epiclesis as well.

To me, it’s like arguing about which is the essential clause of the Lord’s Prayer.

Remember that the classical form of the Liturgy of Ss Addai and Mari used by the Assyrian Church of the East lacks the Words of Institution, and CDF said that it is indeed a valid anaphora that confects the Eucharist.**

 

[SJE]

bpbasilphx, you need to tone it down a little bit. I have noticed that your replies always contain a dose of sarcasm or an attempt to correct others and/or put them on the defensive.

I was stating that I had noticed a dilberate action by some priests to water down the eucharistic prayer and you respond with comments like:
xxxxxxxxx
"You don’t actually think that it’s the elevation that accomplishes the change into the Body and Blood of Christ, do you? Or that the Church ever taught that the elevation did this?

They are elevated BECAUSE they have been changed–in the Latin rite, anyway. "
xxxxxxxxxxx
“To me, it’s like arguing about which is the essential clause of the Lord’s Prayer.”
xxxxxxxxxxx
I took the liberty of reviewing some of your comments to others and it seems I am not the only person you seem to think you are smarter than. Follow the golden rule. Would you like people to use this tone with you?

 

[diggerdomer]

To answer to bbbasilphx, I was responding with a hyptothesis (that the priest is trying to counter a focus on one part of the EP and emphasize that it is the entire prayer). I understand that elevation is not the transformation.

To the other responders, sadly and unfortunately, these are relatively young and physically able priests. It is a trend I have seen now and then and I asked a friend who is a priest about it (and who follows the rubrics correctly). He said he had heard the above hypothesis and it became popular at the height of the more liberal changes (like standing during the EP).

Standing during the EP is every bit a part of Tradition as kneeling is.

 

[diggerdomer]

bpbasilphx, you need to tone it down a little bit. I have noticed that your replies always contain a dose of sarcasm or an attempt to correct others and/or put them on the defensive.

I was stating that I had noticed a dilberate action by some priests to water down the eucharistic prayer and you respond with comments like:
xxxxxxxxx
"You don’t actually think that it’s the elevation that accomplishes the change into the Body and Blood of Christ, do you? Or that the Church ever taught that the elevation did this?

They are elevated BECAUSE they have been changed–in the Latin rite, anyway. "
xxxxxxxxxxx
“To me, it’s like arguing about which is the essential clause of the Lord’s Prayer.”
xxxxxxxxxxx
I took the liberty of reviewing some of your comments to others and it seems I am not the only person you seem to think you are smarter than. Follow the golden rule. Would you like people to use this tone with you?

No need for personal attacks. Let’s stick to the substance of the issues raised in the thread.

 

[John_Lilburne]

…the celebrant does not elevate the host at all and does not genuflect at the appropriate times. …

The rubrics are: “He shows the consecrated host to the people” and “He shows the chalice to the people”. At the end, for “Through him, with him, in him …” the rubric is: “He takes the chalice and the paten with the host and, lifting them up, …”. (Roman Missal, Catholic Book Publishing Co., New York, 1985, page 545 and 547).

In the Latin edition, different words are used. “Show” is “ostendit” and “lifting them up” is “elevans”. (Missale Romanum, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2002, ISBN: 8820972719, pages 575 and 578.