Holding One Host Up

[SHAKA_MAKA1]

Does anyone know if a priest has to hold just one host up when the altar server is ringing the bells, or can he hold the whole patten full of host up. Thanks.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Does anyone know if a priest has to hold just one host up when the altar server is ringing the bells, or can he hold the whole patten full of host up. Thanks.

Usually it is one host (size varies), but I do not see anything wrong with raising the entire patten full of them, it is accomplishing the same thing.

 

[japhy]

Does anyone know if a priest has to hold just one host up when the altar server is ringing the bells, or can he hold the whole patten full of host up. Thanks.

Let’s see what the rubrics of the 2002 Missale Romanum say.
Hostiam consecratam ostendit populo, reponit super patenam, et genuflexus adorat.
That says: “He [the priest] shows the consecrated Host to the people, places [it] back on the paten, and, having genuflected, adores [it].”

During the Institution Narrative, the priest is holding a Host in his hands. Then, after having said the words of consecration, he is not to place it back onto the paten until he has shown it to the people; thus, he can’t be merely showing the paten to the people, he must be showing the single Host he was holding as he said the words of consecration.

 

[John_Lilburne]

Showing the host is an important part of the ceremony. It is wrong for the priest to omit this, by just raising the paten with the hosts.

From the 2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) approved for the USA, which can be accessed from romanrite.com/girm.html :
“150. A little before the consecration, when appropriate, a server rings a bell as a signal to the faithful. According to local custom, the server also rings the bell as the priest shows the host and then the chalice.
If incense is used, a server incenses the host and the chalice when each is shown to the people after the consecration.”

Here are some example of rubrics I have checked:
“He shows the consecrated host to the people, places it on the paten, and genuflects in adoration.”
(Eucharistic Prayer for Masses with Children I, Eucharistic Prayer IV, from Roman Missal, Catholic Book Publishing Co., New York, 1985, pages, 558 and 1104).

 

[bpbasilphx]

Does anyone know if a priest has to hold just one host up when the altar server is ringing the bells, or can he hold the whole patten full of host up. Thanks.

**The server is ringing the bell to draw the congregation’s attention to the HOST that is being elevated for adoration.

The bells are not rung simply to embellish the Words of Institution.**

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Usually it is one host (size varies), but I do not see anything wrong with raising the entire patten full of them, it is accomplishing the same thing.

The people must be able to see the Host. Tipping the paten or ciborium so that the Hosts could be seen would risk spilling them out. It is most correct for him to hold one host (usually the main Host which is larger) above and over the paten or ciborium and raise both the Host and Patten or ciborium together.

 

[Digitonomy]

It is most correct for him to hold one host (usually the main Host which is larger) above and over the paten or ciborium and raise both the Host and Patten or ciborium together.

Would it be correct to say raising the patten or ciborium is just common sense to prevent a fragment from falling astray, rather than a requirement?

 

[japhy]

Would it be correct to say raising the patten or ciborium is just common sense to prevent a fragment from falling astray, rather than a requirement?

It seems unlikely that a fragment would fall off just like that, since the priest is not holding a fractioned host, but a whole one, securely between his fingers, and should make the motion calmly, not brusquely.

I mean, if priests were worried about this, wouldn’t they have done this in the older form of the Mass? But they didn’t.

 

[Digitonomy]

I mean, if priests were worried about this, wouldn’t they have done this in the older form of the Mass? But they didn’t.

I’m just trying to figure out the source of Br. Rich’s “most correct” way, and speculating on the reasoning behind it.

I was actually thinking of what a one-armed priest would do. Presumably he would only hoist the host, as it were, not the ciborium. In doing so, would he be dispensing with a binding requirement out of necessity, or would he simply be exercising a legitimate option in the manner of elevation?

 

[LilyM]

It seems unlikely that a fragment would fall off just like that, since the priest is not holding a fractioned host, but a whole one, securely between his fingers, and should make the motion calmly, not brusquely.

I mean, if priests were worried about this, wouldn’t they have done this in the older form of the Mass? But they didn’t.

Besides which, the priest can presumably either hold the Host directly over the paten or even lift the paten up securely underneath it with the other hand.

 

[japhy]

I’m just trying to figure out the source of Br. Rich’s “most correct” way, and speculating on the reasoning behind it.

I was actually thinking of what a one-armed priest would do. Presumably he would only hoist the host, as it were, not the ciborium. In doing so, would he be dispensing with a binding requirement out of necessity, or would he simply be exercising a legitimate option in the manner of elevation?

Holding up the ciborium isn’t mentioned in the rubrics, although if the priest is genuinely concerned for the particles, I see no reason to disallow it… although the priest might want to keep his thumb and forefinger together still!

But I would expect if a particle did fall, it would fall onto the corporal… that’s one function of the corporal, after all: to catch fragments of the Host. In the old rite, the Host was placed DIRECTLY ONTO the corporal!

 

[Digitonomy]

Besides which, the priest can presumably either hold the Host directly over the paten or even lift the paten up securely underneath it with the other hand.

Yes, I assume that would be the way to do it depending on whether the paten was elevated at the same time. But the question is whether the paten or ciborium must as a rule be lifted, and if so why? My guess as to why is that the further from the paten or ciborium underneath, the greater likelihood that a fragment (or even the host if the priest is butterfingers that day) would fall beyond the edge, even if it starts directly over the center.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Would it be correct to say raising the patten or ciborium is just common sense to prevent a fragment from falling astray, rather than a requirement?

Yes, that would be the reason.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I’m just trying to figure out the source of Br. Rich’s “most correct” way, and speculating on the reasoning behind it.

I was actually thinking of what a one-armed priest would do. Presumably he would only hoist the host, as it were, not the ciborium. In doing so, would he be dispensing with a binding requirement out of necessity, or would he simply be exercising a legitimate option in the manner of elevation?

I should say the “most correct” way in my opinion. A one armed priest can actually raise a patten and host with one hand, I have seen it done by a priest with a cast on his other arm.

The other thing that drives me nuts is when I see a priest raise the host 3 feet in the air and then break it during the Fraction Rite. I can just see (in my mind) particles of the host going everywhere.

 

[Phemie]

The other thing that drives me nuts is when I see a priest raise the host 3 feet in the air and then break it during the Fraction Rite. I can just see (in my mind) particles of the host going everywhere.

Luckily, I can say that I’ve never seen that.

What I was surprised to see, for the first time, in a parish I attended while on holidays, was the priest fractioning at the words “broke it and gave it to his disciples”. I remember being surprised to see that reprobated in Redemptionis Sacramentum since I’d never seen it happen in my decades of attending Mass. Very strange to see it happen now.