Must priest touch host during consecration?

[mrterryc]

Our pastor, for reasons never explained, recites the words of consecration while holding the paten in his hands, and then modestly elevates the paten. He doesn’t physically touch the host until the “Behold the Lamb of God.”

I realize that physical contact with the hosts is not necessary for validity (the hundreds consecrated at a typical Mass do not require the priest to physically touch all of them), but I don’t know whether it’s in the rubrics that the priest hold the “primary host” (or ANY host) in his hands at the consecration.

It “feels” strange. Is this “liturgically correct”? I know that in the past it was an impediment to ordination if a man were missing his thumb or index finger, and that these digits were specifically anointed and honored (remember the priest holding his fingers together after the consecration until distribution of communion, and then the purification of his fingers over the chalice after communion?). I know this is not an impediment today, but shouldn’t the priest at least touch the host he is consecrating?

Thank you for any insight.

 

[LSK]

I was under the impression that, unless a priest has been given a special dispensation of some sort, he must hold the Host in his hands. Why not submit this one to the apologists?

oh - and you know why I think this? I know there was a Jesuit Martyr who was, before he died, horribly mutilated by the indigenious people he was evangelizing. He went back to France to heal and, because his fingers had been either cut off or burned off, he needed special dispensation in order to celebrate Mass.

So, I am not really sure if I am right or not…let’s ask one of the apologists and see what the right answer is! Let us know…

 

[mrterryc]

Thanks.

Since you are a Senior Member with more than a few posts , I’ll submit to your experience and post my question there.

As I said above, I’m not concerned about whether following this particular rubric (if there is one) makes a Mass valid or not. Nor does this constitute one of the more egregious “liturgical abuses” many of us have experienced. It just seems that if it is a prescribed rubric, it’s certainly easy to follow, and why would any priest indulge in an act of simple disobedience in such a sacred matter?

Our pastor also never wears a chasuble except at Sunday Mass. But that’s another question, one to which I already know the answer. And his answer to questions such as mine is invariably “I don’t have time for this,” which is why I haven’t approached him directly. I intensely dislike feeling like I have to play “liturgy cop.”

There’s so much room for flexibility within the Novus Ordo that it should be possible to accommodate most any priest’s or congregation’s desires for variety or favorite devotions. It just doesn’t seem necessary to be disobedient over so many really small things.

 

[japhy]

Our pastor, for reasons never explained, recites the words of consecration while holding the paten in his hands, and then modestly elevates the paten. He doesn’t physically touch the host until the “Behold the Lamb of God.”

I realize that physical contact with the hosts is not necessary for validity (the hundreds consecrated at a typical Mass do not require the priest to physically touch all of them), but I don’t know whether it’s in the rubrics that the priest hold the “primary host” (or ANY host) in his hands at the consecration.

I’ll check the Sacramentary for you at my next convenience. The priest is required to show the Host during its elevation, so you should be able to see it (not just the paten).

 

[sphilomena]

Thanks.

Since you are a Senior Member with more than a few posts , I’ll submit to your experience and post my question there.

As I said above, I’m not concerned about whether following this particular rubric (if there is one) makes a Mass valid or not. Nor does this constitute one of the more egregious “liturgical abuses” many of us have experienced. It just seems that if it is a prescribed rubric, it’s certainly easy to follow, and why would any priest indulge in an act of simple disobedience in such a sacred matter?

Our pastor also never wears a chasuble except at Sunday Mass. But that’s another question, one to which I already know the answer. And his answer to questions such as mine is invariably “I don’t have time for this,” which is why I haven’t approached him directly. I intensely dislike feeling like I have to play “liturgy cop.”

There’s so much room for flexibility within the Novus Ordo that it should be possible to accommodate most any priest’s or congregation’s desires for variety or favorite devotions. It just doesn’t seem necessary to be disobedient over so many really small things.

Sounds like your pastor needs some help “from above”. Better pray for him cause the Lord takes obedience very seriously. Just read what the Saints and mystics reveal about their conversations with Jesus and what He expects especially from His consecrated souls. As to your last paragraph, their really isn’t a LOT of flexibility in the NO itself, some just make it seem so.

 

[John_Lilburne]

… but I don’t know whether it’s in the rubrics that the priest hold the “primary host” (or ANY host) in his hands at the consecration. …

Certainly a host should be removed from the paten during the consecration. From the Roman Missal’s rubrics, for Eucharistic Prayer II:
“He joins his hands.
The words of the Lord in the following fomulas should be spoken clearly and distinctly, as their meaning demands.
Before he was given up to death,
a death he freely accepted,
He takes the bread and, raising it a little above the altar, continues:
he took bread and gave you thanks.
He broke the bread,
gave it to his disciples, and said:
He bows slightly.
Take this, all of you, and eat it:
this is may body which will be given up for you.
He shows the consecrated host to the people, places it on the paten, and genuflects in adoration.”
(Roman Missal, Catholic Book Publishing Co., New York, 1985, page 549).

The 2002 Missale Romanum has the same, but in Latin. The rubric at the end: “Hostiam consecratam ostendit populo, reponit super patenam, et genuflexus adorat.” (Missale Romanum, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2002, ISBN: 8820972719, page 581.)

After showing the host to the people it is to be replaced on the paten.

 

[japhy]

Certainly a host should be removed from the paten during the consecration.

The 2002 Missale Romanum has the same, but in Latin. The rubric at the end: “Hostiam consecratam ostendit populo, reponit super patenam, et genuflexus adorat.” (Missale Romanum, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2002, ISBN: 8820972719, page 581.)

After showing the host to the people it is to be replaced on the paten.

Thanks for checking the Sacramentary (so I don’t have to!). As I suspected, the rubrics clearly mention the operation on the host, not on the paten.

 

[mrterryc]

Thank you all for your very helpful responses. Now I have to decide what, if anything, I must do.

My comments about the “variety” available within the Novus Ordo were, I realize, a bit broad. I was thinking of the options legitimately available to the presider for the opening penitential rite, the multiple responses to “Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith,” the multiple “dismissals,” the right to choose the readings of the day from “feast” or the “lectionary” on typical weekdays, etc. Obviously the primary structure and content of the Mass itself does not allow for much “variety” (but that doesn’t mean we don’t see a lot of it, as in the use of freely chosen translations of the Canon, Creed, etc. The chaplain at the University of Dallas, for example, does everything he can to avoid using the word “Father” in reference to God except in the “Our Father” – he even says “Holy One” wherever “Father” would otherwise be expected, in both the Canon and Final Doxology).

I will continue to pray for our pastor, of course, but I’m inclined to think that “speaking the truth in charity” may be what is required. I really dislike being a “liturgy cop,” but to me we are dealing with the most sacred of mysteries at Mass and there, if anywhere, we should be reverent and obedient. I don’t believe our pastor is being deliberately disobedient but, at his age (nearing 70), he should know better. Please pray for me that I do the right thing in the right way.

 

[japhy]

My comments about the “variety” available within the Novus Ordo were, I realize, a bit broad.

In theory, yes. In practice, no. In practice, many priests (and bishops) take numerous liberties with the liturgy, as if it were their right to change whatever they want to suit their fancy.

The chaplain at the University of Dallas, for example, does everything he can to avoid using the word “Father” in reference to God except in the “Our Father” – he even says “Holy One” wherever “Father” would otherwise be expected, in both the Canon and Final Doxology).

Perhaps, in trying not to offend anyone, he’s offending God? Just a possibility.

I will continue to pray for our pastor, of course, but I’m inclined to think that “speaking the truth in charity” may be what is required. I really dislike being a “liturgy cop,” but to me we are dealing with the most sacred of mysteries at Mass and there, if anywhere, we should be reverent and obedient. I don’t believe our pastor is being deliberately disobedient but, at his age (nearing 70), he should know better. Please pray for me that I do the right thing in the right way.

You have the right to a proper liturgy (Redemptionis Sacramentum, 12). Your pastor does not have the right to ignore rubrics or alter the texts of the Mass (Redemptionis Sacramentum, 59). Accidental mistakes are certainly understandable, but they can be avoided (on the part of the priest) by simply following the Sacramentary instead of presuming memorization of the words and actions; willful disobedience is forgivable (of course) but must be corrected. Please do remember to act with charity; I will pray for you and your pastor.