Novel Catholic Practices

[japhy]

What about the Last Supper? Jesus (as a Jewish lay man, not a priest) did something completely revolutionary and new in the context of a traditional Jewish ritual/liturgy.

A few points:

1. The timing of the Last Supper might actually have been one day prior to the Passover. If that is the case, then Jesus wasn’t breaking any rules.
2. Jesus is the “merciful and faithful high priest … the apostle and high priest of our confession … a great high priest who has passed through the heavens” (Heb. 3-5, etc.)
3. Jesus was initiating a new covenant, not changing an old covenant, so it seems reasonable that there would be a change of ritual.
4. Jesus is God, so He can make such changes.

 

[japhy]

In the Bible, the Last Supper is not an ordination liturgy.

Perhaps in your interpretation of the Bible, but the Catholic Church interprets it, in particular the words “do this as a commemoration of me,” as the institution of the Eucharist and the ministerial priesthood.

From the Council of Trent, Session XXII:
Chapter 1

… [Jesus], therefore, our God and Lord, though He was by His death about to offer Himself once upon the altar of the cross to God the Father that He might there accomplish an eternal redemption, nevertheless, that His priesthood might not come to an end with His death, at the last supper, on the night He was betrayed, that He might leave to His beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice, such as the nature of man requires, whereby that bloody sacrifice once to be accomplished on the cross might be represented, the memory thereof remain even to the end of the world, and its salutary effects applied to the remission of those sins which we daily commit, declaring Himself constituted a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech, offered up to God the Father His own body and blood under the form of bread and wine, and under the forms of those same things gave to the Apostles, whom He then made priests of the New Testament, that they might partake, commanding them and their successors in the priesthood by these words to do likewise: Do this in commemoration of me, as the Catholic Church has always understood and taught. …

Canon 2. If anyone says that by those words, Do this for a commemoration of me (Luke 22:19; I Cor. 11:25), Christ did not institute the Apostles priests; or did not ordain that they and other priests should offer His own body and blood, let him be anathema.

 

[japhy]

… the withholding of Chalice from the laity. That has no precedent in the apostolic Church, and it violates Christ’s command to “Eat… drink, all of you”

I would recommend you read the 21st Session of Trent, which explains (among other things) the discipline of Communion under one kind.

 

[diggerdomer]

A few points:

1. The timing of the Last Supper might actually have been one day prior to the Passover. If that is the case, then Jesus wasn’t breaking any rules.
2. Jesus is the “merciful and faithful high priest … the apostle and high priest of our confession … a great high priest who has passed through the heavens” (Heb. 3-5, etc.)
3. Jesus was initiating a new covenant, not changing an old covenant, so it seems reasonable that there would be a change of ritual.
4. Jesus is God, so He can make such changes.

I never said Jesus broke any rules. Of course the Last Supper could have been the Passover meal or a ritual meal the day before. So? Either way, Jesus did something new and unexpected and unprecedented.

Exactly my point…Jesus was free to change rules.

 

[diggerdomer]

Perhaps in your interpretation of the Bible, but the Catholic Church interprets it, in particular the words “do this as a commemoration of me,” as the institution of the Eucharist and the ministerial priesthood.

From the Council of Trent, Session XXII:
Chapter 1

… [Jesus], therefore, our God and Lord, though He was by His death about to offer Himself once upon the altar of the cross to God the Father that He might there accomplish an eternal redemption, nevertheless, that His priesthood might not come to an end with His death, at the last supper, on the night He was betrayed, that He might leave to His beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice, such as the nature of man requires, whereby that bloody sacrifice once to be accomplished on the cross might be represented, the memory thereof remain even to the end of the world, and its salutary effects applied to the remission of those sins which we daily commit, declaring Himself constituted a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech, offered up to God the Father His own body and blood under the form of bread and wine, and under the forms of those same things gave to the Apostles, whom He then made priests of the New Testament, that they might partake, commanding them and their successors in the priesthood by these words to do likewise: Do this in commemoration of me, as the Catholic Church has always understood and taught. …

Canon 2. If anyone says that by those words, Do this for a commemoration of me (Luke 22:19; I Cor. 11:25), Christ did not institute the Apostles priests; or did not ordain that they and other priests should offer His own body and blood, let him be anathema.

I am not disagreeing with any Catholic teaching. I was only noting that if one reads the Bible, in itself the account of the Last Supper is hardly an “ordination ritual.” There’s no basis to claim otherwise, is there?

That is completely distinct from the teaching that Christ instituted the ministerial priesthood at the Last Supper.

 

[benedictgal]

I am not disagreeing with any Catholic teaching. I was only noting that if one reads the Bible, in itself the account of the Last Supper is hardly an “ordination ritual.” There’s no basis to claim otherwise, is there?

That is completely distinct from the teaching that Christ instituted the ministerial priesthood at the Last Supper.

Jesus specifically states “Do this in memory of me”. The only ones who can “do this” in HIs memory are priests. Thus, the ministerial priesthoodl was conferred that night. Furthermore, Holy Thursday was when the Venerable Pope John Paul II sent out his letter to the priests because the Church holds that on Holy Thursday, the ministerial priesthood was instituted. That is why the Chrism Mass is typicaly held on the morning of Holy Thursday and that is why the priests renew their priestly vows on that day.

 

[diggerdomer]

Jesus specifically states “Do this in memory of me”. The only ones who can “do this” in HIs memory are priests. Thus, the ministerial priesthoodl was conferred that night. Furthermore, Holy Thursday was when the Venerable Pope John Paul II sent out his letter to the priests because the Church holds that on Holy Thursday, the ministerial priesthood was instituted. That is why the Chrism Mass is typicaly held on the morning of Holy Thursday and that is why the priests renew their priestly vows on that day.

Nonsense. Everyone at the Eucharist fully participates. We all “do this in memory of Him” in our own appropriate way. No one is a spectator.

 

[Matariel]

1. switching from levened bread to unleavened bread (for Communion) around the 7th century.

Christ used unleavened bread at the Mystical Supper, and that’s why Latin-Rite Catholics used it. Eastern-Rite Catholics use leavened bread, as that is a part of their liturgical tradition. Both Eastern-Rite and Latin-Rite Catholics are a part of the one holy Catholic Church. The divided Eastern churches broke from the one true Catholic Church when they forsook the Chair of St. Peter the Apostle, from which, the early Church father St. Cyprian says, “sacerdotal unity has its source” and, further, that “If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he should desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”

The answer to St. Cyprian’s rhetorical question is no.

Even if we imagine that the Eastern schismatics have such and such antiquated liturgical tradition, how does that compare to our faith which has maintained the true and God-ordained succession of St. Peter and his primacy? They have abandoned the source of the unity of the Church and are no longer within Christ’s holy Catholic Church. I pray for the reunion of the schismatics, but first they must be open to acknowledge their wrongdoing in abandoning the Chair of the Prince of the holy Apostles.

 

[benedictgal]

Nonsense. Everyone at the Eucharist fully participates. We all “do this in memory of Him” in our own appropriate way. No one is a spectator.

But, with all due respect, what you fail to understand is that we are not the ones who consecrate. The celebrant does. We join in the Sacrifice through our prayers, but, the actual consecration is done by the ministerial priesthood. I never said that we do not paraticipate. Please do not put words into my post.

Before you begin discounting people, I would suggest that you read the authoritative documents of the Church, including the papal letters, as well as bona fide Catholic literature, rather than making contrary remarks that are not helpful to the discussion.

 

[Matariel]

Nonsense. Everyone at the Eucharist fully participates. We all “do this in memory of Him” in our own appropriate way. No one is a spectator.

Nonsense. The priests are the only ones who act *In Persona Christi *and offer Christ’s Body and Blood on the holy altar. No layperson can do that.

 

[japhy]

Everyone at the Eucharist fully participates. We all “do this in memory of Him” in our own appropriate way.

we are not the ones who consecrate. The celebrant does. We join in the Sacrifice through our prayers, but, the actual consecration is done by the ministerial priesthood.

The priests are the only ones who act *In Persona Christi *and offer Christ’s Body and Blood on the holy altar.

diggerdomer did not say (and I argue he did not imply) that the whole congregation consecrates; he is not saying the whole assembly “concelebrates” the Mass. (cf. Mediator Dei 83) Perhaps you were confused when he said everyone “fully participates”, as if that were to mean that everyone participates “completely”, that is, in the same way and to the same degree. But I do not think he meant that. Two glasses of vastly different size that are both filled to their brim are both “fully filled”, yet they hold different amounts of liquid.

diggerdomer said that we each participate “in our own appropriate way”. This is true: “all the faithful should be aware that to participate in the eucharistic sacrifice is their chief duty and supreme dignity, and that not in an inert and negligent fashion” (MD 80), “that the faithful participate in the eucharistic sacrifice” (MD 82), “they participate, according to their condition, in the priesthood of Christ” (MD 88).

 

[pnewton]

What is the question of whether the bread was leavened or not. Of course it was not leavened originally. That is because our Eucharist was celebrated at the Passover, also known as the Feast of Unleavened bread.

The separation of the Sacraments? That is a cart before the horse question. One must first answer the question of whether the Catholic Church through its Petrine authority can administer control over the method the Sacraments are administered. If one is Catholic, the answer is “yes”. Then everything else becomes rather academic.

 

[Matariel]

diggerdomer did not say (and I argue he did not imply) that the whole congregation consecrates; he is not saying the whole assembly “concelebrates” the Mass. (cf. Mediator Dei 83) Perhaps you were confused when he said everyone “fully participates”, as if that were to mean that everyone participates “completely”…

The congregation only participates inasmuch as they are vicariously represented by the priest as he offers the bread and wine on the altar, after which God, in turn, offers Himself to use in the Eucharist. The congregation cannot be said “to fully participate” but only participates by the priest’s vicarious presence.

diggerdomer said that we each participate “in our own appropriate way”.

The only way we should appropriately participate at this moment in the Eucharist is to worship and adore God present in the Sacrament. We can only participate in the offering of the elements vicariously through the priest. We cannot participate in the consecration at all, because only the priest can consecrate it* In Persona Christi*.

 

[Joannm]

The congregation only participates inasmuch as they are vicariously represented by the priest as he offers the bread and wine on the altar, after which God, in turn, offers Himself to use in the Eucharist. The congregation cannot be said “to fully participate” but only participates by the priest’s vicarious presence.

The only way we should appropriately participate at this moment in the Eucharist is to worship and adore God present in the Sacrament. We can only participate in the offering of the elements vicariously through the priest. We cannot participate in the consecration at all, because only the priest can consecrate it* In Persona Christi*.

Could you please show me someplace where it states we “vicariously” participate? In the liturgy, the entire Body caput et membra prays and offers itself. Yes it is through the action of the priest who stands in persona Christi capitas, as “Christ the Head” of the Body, but we, as the gathered Body of Christ, certainly take part in the offering. As St Augustine wrote, “You, however, are the Body of Christ and His members.’ If, therefore, you are the Body of Christ and His members, your mystery is presented at the table of the Lord, you receive your mystery. To that which you are, you answer: Amen'; and by answering, you subscribe to it. For you hear: The Body of Christ!’ and you answer: Amen!' Be a member of Christ's Body, so that your Amen’ may be the truth.” He continued, “Behold what you are, become what you receive.” In the liturgy we are NOT just passive spectators but we offer ourselves as the Body of Christ to BECOME the Body of Christ. Through our baptism we are joined in the common priesthood of Christ so that through the actions of the ordained priest, we too can offer our “sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.” It is a true offering not just a vicarious one.

 

[benedictgal]

Could you please show me someplace where it states we “vicariously” participate? In the liturgy, the entire Body caput et membra prays and offers itself. Yes it is through the action of the priest who stands in persona Christi capitas, as “Christ the Head” of the Body, but we, as the gathered Body of Christ, certainly take part in the offering. As St Augustine wrote, “You, however, are the Body of Christ and His members.’ If, therefore, you are the Body of Christ and His members, your mystery is presented at the table of the Lord, you receive your mystery. To that which you are, you answer: Amen'; and by answering, you subscribe to it. For you hear: The Body of Christ!’ and you answer: Amen!' Be a member of Christ's Body, so that your Amen’ may be the truth.” He continued, “Behold what you are, become what you receive.” In the liturgy we are NOT just passive spectators but we offer ourselves as the Body of Christ to BECOME the Body of Christ. Through our baptism we are joined in the common priesthood of Christ so that through the actions of the ordained priest, we too can offer our “sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.” It is a true offering not just a vicarious one.

However, I think that there might have been a shade of clericalism, not necessarily from you, but from others.

I like how Archbishop Ranjinth defined Active Participation:

Actuosa Participatio
The pope, in his book The Spirit of the Liturgy, defines actuosa participatio as a call to a total assimilation in the very action of Christ the High Priest. It is in no way a call to activism, a misunderstanding that spread widely in the aftermath of Sacrosanctum Concilium. Stated Cardinal Ratzinger: “what does it [active participation] mean…? Unfortunately the word was very quickly misunderstood to mean something external, entailing a need for general activity, as if as many people as possible, as often as possible, should be visibly engaged in action” (The Spirit of the Liturgy, 2000, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, p. 171).

We know that in many places this led to the amalgamation of the sanctuary with the assembly, the clericalization of the laity and the filling up of the sanctuary with the noisy and distracting presence of a large number of people. One could say that virtually Wall Street moved into the sanctuary. But was that really what the Council Fathers advocated? Cardinal Ratzinger does not think so. For him, “the real ‘action’ in the liturgy in which we are all supposed to participate is the action of God Himself. This is what is new and distinctive about Christian liturgy: God Himself acts and does what is essential” (ibid, p. 173).

This kind of participation in the very action of Christ, the High Priest, requires from us nothing less than an attitude of being totally absorbed in Him. Says the cardinal “the point is that, ultimately, the difference between the actio Christi and our own action is done away with. There is only one action, which is at the same time His and ours — ours because we have become ‘one body and one spirit ‘with Him” (ibid p. 174).

Active participation, thus, is not a giving way to any activism but an integral and total assimilation into the person of Christ who is truly the High Priest of that eternal and uninterrupted celebration of the heavenly liturgy.

The Council’s Constitution on the Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, too, as we know, spoke of this when it defined liturgy further as a foretaste of the “heavenly liturgy which is celebrated in the Holy City of Jerusalem towards which we journey as pilgrims, and in which Christ is sitting at the right hand of God, a minister of the sanctuary and of the true Tabernacle” (cf. Rev. 21:2; Col. 3:1; Heb. 8:2)-(SC 8).

Hence, everything we do should help us to achieve that and that alone is the true meaning of the “participatio”: a taking part in a bigger actio. Participatio itself is, I would say, in this sense, an ars [art] where we ourselves are not the artists; neither do we follow an art taught or handed down to us by others, but allow the Lord to be the artist through us, becoming part of what He does. As far as we are concerned, it is participatio in the order of “esse” — being. All that we do in liturgy makes us achieve that union with the eternal high priest, Christ and His sanctifying offering. The more we become part of the oratio of Christ, His eternal self-offering to God as the expiatory Sacrificial Lamb (Rev. 14:1-5), so much more would it be able to transform us into the Logos and make us experience the redeeming effects of such a transformation. Without that, as Cardinal Ratzinger wrote, we would radically misunderstand the “theo-drama” of the liturgy, lapsing into mere parody (cf. ibid p. 175).

We actively participate by joining our prayers to that of the celebrant, be he priest, bishop or pope. Even if, as in my case today, I can’t say much because I am losing my voice, I am still participating because I am silently (read hoarsely) praying.

 

[japhy]

The congregation only participates inasmuch as they are vicariously represented by the priest as he offers the bread and wine on the altar, after which God, in turn, offers Himself to use in the Eucharist. The congregation cannot be said “to fully participate” but only participates by the priest’s vicarious presence. The only way we should appropriately participate at this moment in the Eucharist is to worship and adore God present in the Sacrament. We can only participate in the offering of the elements vicariously through the priest.

I will let Pope Pius XII, in Mediator Dei, respond:
80. It is, therefore, desirable, Venerable Brethren, that all the faithful should be aware that to participate in the eucharistic sacrifice is their chief duty and supreme dignity, and that not in an inert and negligent fashion, giving way to distractions and day-dreaming, but with such earnestness and concentration that they may be united as closely as possible with the High Priest, according to the Apostle, “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus.” And together with Him and through Him let them make their oblation, and in union with Him let them offer up themselves. …]

1. …] the faithful do offer the divine Victim, though in a different sense.
2. This has already been stated in the clearest terms by some of Our predecessors and some Doctors of the Church. “Not only,” says Innocent III of immortal memory, “do the priests offer the sacrifice, but also all the faithful: for what the priest does personally by virtue of his ministry, the faithful do collectively by virtue of their intention.” We are happy to recall one of St. Robert Bellarmine’s many statements on this subject. “The sacrifice,” he says “is principally offered in the person of Christ. Thus the oblation that follows the consecration is a sort of attestation that the whole Church consents in the oblation made by Christ, and offers it along with Him.” …]
3. But there is also a more profound reason why all Christians, especially those who are present at Mass, are said to offer the sacrifice.
4. In this most important subject it is necessary, in order to avoid giving rise to a dangerous error, that we define the exact meaning of the word “offer.” The unbloody immolation at the words of consecration, when Christ is made present upon the altar in the state of a victim, is performed by the priest and by him alone, as the representative of Christ and not as the representative of the faithful. But it is because the priest places the divine victim upon the altar that he offers it to God the Father as an oblation for the glory of the Blessed Trinity and for the good of the whole Church. Now the faithful participate in the oblation, understood in this limited sense, after their own fashion and in a twofold manner, namely, because they not only offer the sacrifice by the hands of the priest, but also, to a certain extent, in union with him. It is by reason of this participation that the offering made by the people is also included in liturgical worship.
5. Now it is clear that the faithful offer the sacrifice by the hands of the priest from the fact that the minister at the altar, in offering a sacrifice in the name of all His members, represents Christ, the Head of the Mystical Body. Hence the whole Church can rightly be said to offer up the victim through Christ. But the conclusion that the people offer the sacrifice with the priest himself is not based on the fact that, being members of the Church no less than the priest himself, they perform a visible liturgical rite; for this is the privilege only of the minister who has been divinely appointed to this office: rather it is based on the fact that the people unite their hearts in praise, impetration, expiation and thanksgiving with prayers or intention of the priest, even of the High Priest himself, so that in the one and same offering of the victim and according to a visible sacerdotal rite, they may be presented to God the Father. It is obviously necessary that the external sacrificial rite should, of its very nature, signify the internal worship of the heart. Now the sacrifice of the New Law signifies that supreme worship by which the principal Offerer himself, who is Christ, and, in union with Him and through Him, all the members of the Mystical Body pay God the honor and reverence that are due to Him. …]
6. In order that the oblation by which the faithful offer the divine Victim in this sacrifice to the heavenly Father may have its full effect, it is necessary that the people add something else, namely, the offering of themselves as a victim.
7. This offering in fact is not confined merely to the liturgical sacrifice. For the Prince of the Apostles wishes us, as living stones built upon Christ, the cornerstone, to be able as “a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.” St. Paul the Apostle addresses the following words of exhortation to Christians, without distinction of time, “I beseech you therefore, . . . that you present your bodies, a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God, your reasonable service.” But at that time especially when the faithful take part in the liturgical service with such piety and recollection that it can truly be said of them: “whose faith and devotion is known to Thee,” it is then, with the High Priest and through Him they offer themselves as a spiritual sacrifice, that each one’s faith ought to become more ready to work through charity, his piety more real and fervent, and each one should consecrate himself to the furthering of the divine glory, desiring to become as like as possible to Christ in His most grievous sufferings.

We cannot participate in the consecration at all, because only the priest can consecrate it* In Persona Christi*.

Of course we do not effect the consecration of the elements. That is not my point, and I don’t think that’s diggerdomer’s point either. But the laity DO participate in the offering of the Eucharist to the Father.

 

[Joannm]

I will let Pope Pius XII, in Mediator Dei, respond:
80. It is, therefore, desirable, Venerable Brethren, that all the faithful should be aware that to participate in the eucharistic sacrifice is their chief duty and supreme dignity, and that not in an inert and negligent fashion, giving way to distractions and day-dreaming, but with such earnestness and concentration that they may be united as closely as possible with the High Priest, according to the Apostle, “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus.” And together with Him and through Him let them make their oblation, and in union with Him let them offer up themselves. …]

1. …] the faithful do offer the divine Victim, though in a different sense.
2. This has already been stated in the clearest terms by some of Our predecessors and some Doctors of the Church. “Not only,” says Innocent III of immortal memory, “do the priests offer the sacrifice, but also all the faithful: for what the priest does personally by virtue of his ministry, the faithful do collectively by virtue of their intention.” We are happy to recall one of St. Robert Bellarmine’s many statements on this subject. “The sacrifice,” he says “is principally offered in the person of Christ. Thus the oblation that follows the consecration is a sort of attestation that the whole Church consents in the oblation made by Christ, and offers it along with Him.” …]
3. But there is also a more profound reason why all Christians, especially those who are present at Mass, are said to offer the sacrifice.
4. In this most important subject it is necessary, in order to avoid giving rise to a dangerous error, that we define the exact meaning of the word “offer.” The unbloody immolation at the words of consecration, when Christ is made present upon the altar in the state of a victim, is performed by the priest and by him alone, as the representative of Christ and not as the representative of the faithful. But it is because the priest places the divine victim upon the altar that he offers it to God the Father as an oblation for the glory of the Blessed Trinity and for the good of the whole Church. Now the faithful participate in the oblation, understood in this limited sense, after their own fashion and in a twofold manner, namely, because they not only offer the sacrifice by the hands of the priest, but also, to a certain extent, in union with him. It is by reason of this participation that the offering made by the people is also included in liturgical worship.
5. Now it is clear that the faithful offer the sacrifice by the hands of the priest from the fact that the minister at the altar, in offering a sacrifice in the name of all His members, represents Christ, the Head of the Mystical Body. Hence the whole Church can rightly be said to offer up the victim through Christ. But the conclusion that the people offer the sacrifice with the priest himself is not based on the fact that, being members of the Church no less than the priest himself, they perform a visible liturgical rite; for this is the privilege only of the minister who has been divinely appointed to this office: rather it is based on the fact that the people unite their hearts in praise, impetration, expiation and thanksgiving with prayers or intention of the priest, even of the High Priest himself, so that in the one and same offering of the victim and according to a visible sacerdotal rite, they may be presented to God the Father. It is obviously necessary that the external sacrificial rite should, of its very nature, signify the internal worship of the heart. Now the sacrifice of the New Law signifies that supreme worship by which the principal Offerer himself, who is Christ, and, in union with Him and through Him, all the members of the Mystical Body pay God the honor and reverence that are due to Him. …]
6. In order that the oblation by which the faithful offer the divine Victim in this sacrifice to the heavenly Father may have its full effect, it is necessary that the people add something else, namely, the offering of themselves as a victim.
7. This offering in fact is not confined merely to the liturgical sacrifice. For the Prince of the Apostles wishes us, as living stones built upon Christ, the cornerstone, to be able as “a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.” St. Paul the Apostle addresses the following words of exhortation to Christians, without distinction of time, “I beseech you therefore, . . . that you present your bodies, a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God, your reasonable service.” But at that time especially when the faithful take part in the liturgical service with such piety and recollection that it can truly be said of them: “whose faith and devotion is known to Thee,” it is then, with the High Priest and through Him they offer themselves as a spiritual sacrifice, that each one’s faith ought to become more ready to work through charity, his piety more real and fervent, and each one should consecrate himself to the furthering of the divine glory, desiring to become as like as possible to Christ in His most grievous sufferings.

Of course we do not effect the consecration of the elements. That is not my point, and I don’t think that’s diggerdomer’s point either. But the laity DO participate in the offering of the Eucharist to the Father.

Thank you for that reference. Next month I am teaching a course on ministries in the liturgy and I know this topic is going to come up. I can add it to the references I already have.

 

[japhy]

Thank you for that reference. Next month I am teaching a course on ministries in the liturgy and I know this topic is going to come up. I can add it to the references I already have.

You’re welcome. Paragraphs 80-104 of Mediator Dei are key to understanding accurately how the faithful are called to participate in the Liturgy of the Eucharist at Mass. What was said by the Ven. Pope Pius XII then is still true now. It’s so important that I included the excerpt above (and a little bit more) in the appendix of my book on the Ordinary Form of the Mass.

Here are quotes from three documents of Vatican II which affirm this teaching:
**y offering the Immaculate Victim, not only through the hands of the priest, but also with him, they should learn also to offer themselves. (Sacrosanctum Concilium 48)

Taking part in the Eucharistic sacrifice, which is the fount and apex of the whole Christian life, they offer the Divine Victim to God, and offer themselves along with It. (Lumen Gentium 11)

[P]riests must instruct their people to offer to God the Father the Divine Victim in the Sacrifice of the Mass, and to join to it the offering of their own lives. (Presbyterorum Ordinis 5)**

 

[Matariel]

Could you please show me someplace where it states we “vicariously” participate? In the liturgy, the entire Body caput et membra prays and offers itself. Yes it is through the action of the priest who stands in persona Christi capitas, as “Christ the Head” of the Body, but we, as the gathered Body of Christ, certainly take part in the offering. As St Augustine wrote, “You, however, are the Body of Christ and His members.’ If, therefore, you are the Body of Christ and His members, your mystery is presented at the table of the Lord, you receive your mystery. To that which you are, you answer: Amen'; and by answering, you subscribe to it. For you hear: The Body of Christ!’ and you answer: Amen!' Be a member of Christ's Body, so that your Amen’ may be the truth.”

Yes, but the priest offers the bread and wine, which is symbolic of the entire congregation’s offering. The people do not offer it themselves. This is why the words in the liturgy relating to offering and sacrifice are said by the priest, not the entire congregation.

Also, it sounded like the other poster was dangerously close to the idea that when the priest celebrates the Eucharist he needs a congregation to do so for it to be valid (believe it or not, I heard this bizarre heresy from a layman in my local parish).

He continued, “Behold what you are, become what you receive.” In the liturgy we are NOT just passive spectators but we offer ourselves as the Body of Christ to BECOME the Body of Christ.

It’s agreed that in the liturgy as a whole we are not to be passive spectators. But when it comes to offering and sacrifice, that is the duty of the priest alone. We can only be said to participate inasmuch as the priest represents the whole congregation (indeed the whole Church) while he is making the offering to God.

Through our baptism we are joined in the common priesthood of Christ so that through the actions of the ordained priest, we too can offer our “sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.” It is a true offering not just a vicarious one.

I don’t know about that. It seems wrong to suggest that we somehow participate in what the priest is doing on the altar. I still think we only participate as represented by the priest.

 

[Matariel]

Okay, Japhy you win.

But the only reason I objected before was because I’ve seen a tendency for some people to think that a congregation is needed for the Eucharist to be valid, as if they participated in the same manner as the priest.

I had one parishioner tell me that “we don’t offer private Masses anymore, because Vatican II said that a congregation is necessary for the Sacrament to take place.” Which is. of course, completely false.