Priest turns and shows the host during consecration?

[Andreas_Hofer]

I do not agree with the thesis here advanced – and since I was quoted in its context, I wish to clarify the fact that I very much disagree.

When I used to offer Mass according to the Vetus Ordo, I did so in careful compliance with its rubrics – just as I am conscientious about complying with the rubrics when I offer Mass in the Novus Ordo. When I offer Mass according to the Novus Ordo, while I am not unaware of the rubrics governing the Missal of Saint John XXIII, I would not consider the former rubrics as any sort of an “interpretive guide”.

Certainly, as one common example, the orans posture I adopt as I celebrate the Novus Ordo does not replicate the posture I would use in the Vetus Ordo.

So also for the showing of the consecrated host and chalice. Yes, the verb is the same in the Vetus Ordo and the Novus Ordo but the circumstances are normally quite distinct. I am certainly not interpreting how to comply with the rubric in one by how I comply with the rubric in the other. What was prescribed for showing in the Vetus Ordo (and which I have also seen done in an exaggerated fashion that is not particularly aesthetically pleasing) would be a gesture I would not replicate in the Novus Ordo since it is not normally necessary for the congregation to see beyond my body in order to see the Eucharist being held aloft…so the elements are held just above my eye level rather than above my head.

Can. 27 - Custom is the best interpreter of law.

Canonists disagree as to which classes of custom (secundum, praeter, contra legem; optional, factual, legal) this canon actually refers, but the general rule is ancient and clear: when in doubt, see if there is a (historic and/or widespread) consensus of practice that could shed light. You’ve amplified my more limited assertion of the old Missal as an “important interpretive guide” into a much stronger norm for replication than I presented, and of course if the assertion were that one must comply as closely as possible with EF rubrics in order to say the OF properly I would join you in rejecting it. But by rejecting the former law as *any * sort of interpretive guide you reject the custom ‘according to the law’ that should be a resource, indeed, canonically among the best of resources, for interpreting similar language across alterations in discipline.

In this particular case I was not attempting to assert that one must show the Eucharist in exactly the same manner as in the EF, merely that to demonstrate that turning from side to side is hardly the only way in which showing might be accomplished (especially when one considers that the OF rubrics continue to presume ad orientem celebration and make no mention of turning to execute this showing). Custom according to the law would also reveal to us that when the popes turn in all directions at the elevation we ought not to *presume *that this is meant to be replicated by other priests and bishops (if they consider it appropriate) because it alerts us to the fact that by turning the popes are upholding a norm that was exclusive to their solemn Masses and thus, historically, intentionally different from other occasions.

But granted that we are working within the new flexibility created by the OF rubrics, I still stand by my assertion that not all licit options are of equal value, and this because of the role of factual custom. Beyond simply not committing outright liturgical abuses, and thus the creation of scandal, our liturgical tradition also used to warn priests against creating *admiratio * (surprise or astonishment) among the faithful. Thus factual custom - that which is not considered legally binding but still thoroughly expected - also shows its head. There are certain things which were once prescribed and no longer are, yet due to the near universal continuity that was brought about by an at least implicit or unconscious deference to previous rubrics the faithful now have certain expectations of how things are supposed to be done and they get upset and/or suspicious if a priest licitly departs from this customary practice. The OF does not say the priest must hold the Eucharist in both hands (or, for that matter, between thumb and index finger of those hands), but this came over so resolutely form the EF that some people are “astonished” when they witness a priest hold up the host with just one hand. The priest was within the letter of the law to do so, but if he has avoidably elicited that astonishment through inattention to factual custom (that arose, in turn, due to custom ‘according to the [previous] law’) he has used his freedom poorly.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Can. 27 - Custom is the best interpreter of law.

Canonists disagree as to which classes of custom (secundum, praeter, contra legem; optional, factual, legal) this canon actually refers, but the general rule is ancient and clear: when in doubt, see if there is a (historic and/or widespread) consensus of practice that could shed light. You’ve amplified my more limited assertion of the old Missal as an “important interpretive guide” into a much stronger norm for replication than I presented, and of course if the assertion were that one must comply as closely as possible with EF rubrics in order to say the OF properly I would join you in rejecting it. But by rejecting the former law as *any * sort of interpretive guide you reject the custom ‘according to the law’ that should be a resource, indeed, canonically among the best of resources, for interpreting similar language across alterations in discipline.

In this particular case I was not attempting to assert that one must show the Eucharist in exactly the same manner as in the EF, merely that to demonstrate that turning from side to side is hardly the only way in which showing might be accomplished (especially when one considers that the OF rubrics continue to presume ad orientem celebration and make no mention of turning to execute this showing). Custom according to the law would also reveal to us that when the popes turn in all directions at the elevation we ought not to *presume *that this is meant to be replicated by other priests and bishops (if they consider it appropriate) because it alerts us to the fact that by turning the popes are upholding a norm that was exclusive to their solemn Masses and thus, historically, intentionally different from other occasions.

But granted that we are working within the new flexibility created by the OF rubrics, I still stand by my assertion that not all licit options are of equal value, and this because of the role of factual custom. Beyond simply not committing outright liturgical abuses, and thus the creation of scandal, our liturgical tradition also used to warn priests against creating *admiratio * (surprise or astonishment) among the faithful. Thus factual custom - that which is not considered legally binding but still thoroughly expected - also shows its head. There are certain things which were once prescribed and no longer are, yet due to the near universal continuity that was brought about by an at least implicit or unconscious deference to previous rubrics the faithful now have certain expectations of how things are supposed to be done and they get upset and/or suspicious if a priest licitly departs from this customary practice. The OF does not say the priest must hold the Eucharist in both hands (or, for that matter, between thumb and index finger of those hands), but this came over so resolutely form the EF that some people are “astonished” when they witness a priest hold up the host with just one hand. The priest was within the letter of the law to do so, but if he has avoidably elicited that astonishment through inattention to factual custom (that arose, in turn, due to custom ‘according to the [previous] law’) he has used his freedom poorly.

I am actually quite familiar with the norms governing liturgical celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff.

As for the people you reference in the portion of your text I underlined, I would counsel them to be less rigid in their expectations – and certainly not react to a priest with “upset” and “suspicion” when what he did was something perfectly licit and legitimate yet merely outside their “expectation.” I certainly would never conform how I comply with the rubrics to such an inconsequential criteria as what they expect. In my experience, such attitudes are remarkably off-putting – and yet these people who behave in such a fashion then wonder that the priest does not give them an open armed reception they wish to experience. Good day.

 

[Padres1969]

If the priest has his back to the people as was the custom when mass was celebrated 50 years ago, then now he turns to the people that they may see the host. Maybe your church is old and still has the older alter. Watch EWTN. The priest hold up the host for all to see. I still miss the communion rails.

I grew up post Vatican II attending a parish that had been designed and built in the years between the end of Vatican II and the release of the 1970 Roman Missal. As such it had been designed with and built with an altar rail that was actually never used as I understand it. That said I still missed it after they removed it during an early 90’s remodel of the church. It did provide a nice separation from the altar and sanctuary and the rest of the church. Though that division was part of the reason that they were removed. They supposedly impeded flow of the communicants receiving (that and it apparently left no room for the offering of the blood of Christ which wasn’t re instituted until after the rail had been removed. It also supposedly inhibited access to the altar for things like the parish school’s Christmas program.

 

[ProVobis]

I grew up post Vatican II attending a parish that had been designed and built in the years between the end of Vatican II and the release of the 1970 Roman Missal. As such it had been designed with and built with an altar rail that was actually never used as I understand it. That said I still missed it after they removed it during an early 90’s remodel of the church.** It did provide a nice separation from the altar and sanctuary and the rest of the church.** Though that division was part of the reason that they were removed. They supposedly impeded flow of the communicants receiving (that and it apparently left no room for the offering of the blood of Christ which wasn’t re instituted until after the rail had been removed. It also supposedly inhibited access to the altar for things like the parish school’s Christmas program.

It seems as if we have various interpretation of its functionality. Rather than a separation, perhaps it might be better referred to as a communion table where we are physically united with the Sacrifice?

 

[Padres1969]

It seems as if we have various interpretation of its functionality. Rather than a separation, perhaps it might be better referred to as a communion table where we are physically united with the Sacrifice?

Well in a perfect world yes. Obviously I’m not Catholic today, but my Episcopal church does have a communion rail and it is functionally a table of sorts where we receive and are unified with the bread/body and wine/blood. And I agree I like to think of it as that in addition to acting as a natural separation between the masses and the sanctuary.

But as I mentioned, at that particular Catholic parish I was referring to, the altar rail had never been utilized as such. It was more a quirk of timing as the church building was designed before the changes the the mass in the 60’s had been fully promulgated but opened after today’s Ordinary Form had taken full effect. No one ever utilized it as communion table, the only function it ever served in practice was to act as a demarcation of sorts between the sanctuary and the rest of the church. That may sound like it has a negative connotation, but in this particular 60’s designed church it was actually a welcome thing in my opinion as the design of this particular church didn’t lend itself very well to an accurate demarcation of where the sanctuary began absent the rail.

Best picture I can present to convey this (don’t ask me why the party who took this was taking a picture during mass as I’ve no idea). But the old rail would have been about where the priest is standing in this photo. This is a further renovation of the particular church from the 90’s renovation I mentioned. Since I last attended and it seems they’ve removed even more of the ornamentation from the altar just in the limited scope of this photo including the high lectern and have removed the kneelers for at least the first row (which acted as an additional demarcation between the people and the sanctuary absent the old rail.

 

[ProVobis]

No one ever utilized it as communion table, the only function it ever served in practice was to act as a demarcation of sorts between the sanctuary and the rest of the church.

I understand what you mean here but those who used this “barrier” function were able to justify removing the altar rails altogether, apparently furthering the rupture created after Vatican II.

 

[rondirect]

It seems as if we have various interpretation of its functionality. Rather than a separation, perhaps it might be better referred to as a communion table where we are physically united with the Sacrifice?

Are you saying that we are not “physically united with the Sacrifice” when their is no “communion table” rail?

 

[Modern_Revert]

Our pastor does this at our church as well.

 

[ProVobis]

Are you saying that we are not “physically united with the Sacrifice” when their is no “communion table” rail?

I tried not to use negatives.

What do they call it? Inverse, converse, contrapositive? Which one is true if the statement is true? I forget.

In any case, that’s not what I said. But Christ did eat at a table, no?

 

[rondirect]

I tried not to use negatives.

“…apparently furthering the rupture created after Vatican II.” Negative? Maybe questionable.

What do they call it? Inverse, converse, contrapositive? Which one is true if the statement is true? I forget.

*Well, if the contrapositive is inverse of the converse, then it is false, rendering the statement false, then results with two negatives equal the positive or true in this case. However, if the converse (not the sneaker of course), is contrapositve of the inverse, then the statement is false, but what you say is true. Moreover, if the inverse is false, then the converse is not contrapositive, rendering the statement true. What? I forget too! *

In any case, that’s not what I said. But Christ did eat at a table, no?

Well, as far as the Word states and the pictures show and since I was not there, Christ did recline at table, but their is no mention of Him reclining at fence