Priest turns and shows the host during consecration?

[Curts33]

So one of our priests turns in a half circle showing the host to everyone in the sanctuary, and I was wondering if this is acceptable? Obviously priests all have their own way of doing things but this one is very popular at our parish and I was wondering if he is allowed to do what he does, or at least what your guys’ thoughts are.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Yes,happens at my parish church tout church is in the round,so I always assumed this was done for the benefit of laity sitting at the side of the sanctuary

 

[Bonnie]

We used to have a priest who did that. At first I thought he was being theatrical, but I came to appreciate it. I was sorry when he was transferred.

 

[Curts33]

Yes,happens at my parish church tout church is in the round,so I always assumed this was done for the benefit of laity sitting at the side of the sanctuary

I see. I go to a larger than normal parish and the sanctuary is pretty big so by that logic it makes sense.

 

[DaveBj]

Our priest does that with both the Host and the Chalice at the line “. . . and gave it to His disciples.”

 

[Mary_Estelle]

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 sill miss the communion rails.

 

[Fidelis]

:tiphat:

 

[Crusaderbear]

Yup, every one gets to see, it’s a very inclusive gesture. It seems most people in our church still sit front and center though…

 

[wmw]

A link to a wonderful Blog entry on these little “deviations” that people get much too worried about:

catholic.com/blog/michelle-arnold/a-mess-at-mass

Choice pieces:
…many Catholics seem to think that the eucharistic liturgy must be presented perfectly, as if it was a Broadway show, or even as if it was a military drill. Anything that appears to deviate in the slightest from the rubrics of the Mass is considered schmaltzy at best, and sinful at worst.
…So, the rubrics are indeed important and serve a necessary purpose. But they are not an end in themselves. The rubrics of the Mass were made for man, not man for the rubrics.

The dangers of rubricism:
Judgmentalism…Isolation…Passivity…
…interesting habits of parishioners during the liturgy. More women are wearing veils and other headcoverings—with slacks, even sometimes with jeans, and while serving as lectors or EMHCs. Some parishioners kneel down to receive the host—and then receive the precious blood from the chalice while standing. There is a lot of chatter that goes on after Mass, but some congregants will gather for a rosary in front of the statue of the Virgin and others will make “pilgrimages” from statue to statue to visit with their favorite saints.

In other words, there is genuine concern for a proper celebration of the Mass, there is desire to return to ancient customs of the faith—but without any expectation that all must conform to an ironclad vision of how everyone “must” conduct themselves at Mass. There is a certain amount of “mess,” with old customs and modern practices side by side, but I can honestly say that I have not seen a single incident of true irreverence…

 

[Crusaderbear]

Re: Rubrics - it’s not a gotcha game. Sincerity and devotion are what matters.

 

[Corki]

Re: Rubrics - it’s not a gotcha game. Sincerity and devotion are what matters.

Yes, but they aren’t ALL that matters.

 

[powerofk]

Yes, but they aren’t ALL that matters.

Still, though the priests are asked to “Do the red and say the black”, it seems as if there’s a bit of leeway at times, especially with regard to the “Red”. At the moments of consecration, the priest is to raise the host and the cup so that the congregation can see them. I would guess that turning in such a way that the entire congregation can see the consecrated species would be permitted, though it may be something that requires an answer from the Vatican.

 

[mdgspencer]

It is possible that this is against liturgical law, for all know. But if it is, this is an unimportant infraction, so I wouldn’t worry about it.
Priests at the elevation of the host often say something besides the prescribed “Behold, the lamb of God,” and this seems to me a similar unimportant infraction, if what the priest in your parish does is an infraction at all.

 

[Phemie]

Yup, every one gets to see, it’s a very inclusive gesture. It seems most people in our church still sit front and center though…

In a Catholic church? In ours they seem to all try to fit in the last two pews.

 

[Corki]

Still, though the priests are asked to “Do the red and say the black”, it seems as if there’s a bit of leeway at times, especially with regard to the “Red”. At the moments of consecration, the priest is to raise the host and the cup so that the congregation can see them. I would guess that turning in such a way that the entire congregation can see the consecrated species would be permitted, though it may be something that requires an answer from the Vatican.

Actually, I am pretty sure the rubrics **require **him to show the host and the cup to the congregation. As noted above, if the Mass is being said ad orientum, he would turn around to do so. Other turns might be prudent to make sure the host and cup are shown (e.g. church in the round).

IOW, I am almost positive it is not only permitted but appropriate.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

This is hardly “against liturgical law.”

I remember vividly when John Paul II would do precisely this gesture when celebrating Mass at the Papal Altar of St. Peter’s Basilica. He had people on all four sides facing him and he would hold the consecrated host and the chalice aloft, turning so that all could see it. As a result of his splendid example, I do the same when the design of the church demands it. It is really thanks to the Saint’s personal example, though, that I have it in mind to do this.

The rubrics in the Eucharistic prayer specify to the celebrant, after the words of consecration are said respectively that, “He shows the consecrated host to the people, places it again on the paten, and genuflects in adoration.”
(Hostiam consecratam ostendit populo, deponit super patenem, et genuflexus adorat.)

“He shows the chalice to the people, places it on the corporal, and genuflects in adoration.”
(Calicem ostendit populo, deponit super corporale, et genuflexus adorat.)

The rubrics then leave it to the celebrant to do what he determines he needs to do in order to fulfill this directive, without further specificity, and different celebrants very well may come to different conclusions of what they should do to have complied with what the rubric directs. Some, it should be said, may also not feel comfortable attempting to make the gesture of turning if they have issues with balance or dizziness.

Since I myself taught Liturgy and Sacraments, I am always especially conscious of the rubrics as I offer Mass – but never in such a way as for the celebration of Holy Mass to have, even remotely, a mechanistic manner to it. Mass should not look like it is some sort of precision military drill but should be suffused by calmness and prayerfulness.

I would never be disturbed if someone were to ask me about a gesture at Mass or why I did something the way I did since it is a teaching moment. I would be nonplussed, however, if the underlying statement were an insinuation that I was somehow violating a rubric, when I have actually been offering Mass for decades.

 

[Phemie]

Our priest does that with both the Host and the Chalice at the line “. . . and gave it to His disciples.”

See, that I don’t get. There is no reason to do at at that point. He’s talking to God then, not to the congregation. He wouldn’t do that if he was celebrating ad orientum.

 

[catholictiger]

A link to a wonderful Blog entry on these little “deviations” that people get much too worried about:

catholic.com/blog/michelle-arnold/a-mess-at-mass

Choice pieces:
…many Catholics seem to think that the eucharistic liturgy must be presented perfectly, as if it was a Broadway show, or even as if it was a military drill. Anything that appears to deviate in the slightest from the rubrics of the Mass is considered schmaltzy at best, and sinful at worst.
…So, the rubrics are indeed important and serve a necessary purpose. But they are not an end in themselves. The rubrics of the Mass were made for man, not man for the rubrics.

The dangers of rubricism:
Judgmentalism…Isolation…Passivity…
…interesting habits of parishioners during the liturgy. More women are wearing veils and other headcoverings—with slacks, even sometimes with jeans, and while serving as lectors or EMHCs. Some parishioners kneel down to receive the host—and then receive the precious blood from the chalice while standing. There is a lot of chatter that goes on after Mass, but some congregants will gather for a rosary in front of the statue of the Virgin and others will make “pilgrimages” from statue to statue to visit with their favorite saints.

In other words, there is genuine concern for a proper celebration of the Mass, there is desire to return to ancient customs of the faith—but without any expectation that all must conform to an ironclad vision of how everyone “must” conduct themselves at Mass. There is a certain amount of “mess,” with old customs and modern practices side by side, but I can honestly say that I have not seen a single incident of true irreverence…

The rubrics are important because they are the ritual laws of the Church. Any time a priest breaks a rubric it is kinda like saying, “I know better than the Church so I’m going to do it my own way.” This is a dangerous mindset. BUT what can’t be done on the other extreme is doing the rubrics for the sake of the rubrics. What I mean by this is to say oh the Church tells me to do this so I will do it just because she tells me to do that. How much joy is there in that? Would you treat your relationship with God in that way? God tells me I can’t do x so I’m not going to do x. Rather, you think God wants my good, x moves me away from my good and offends God, so for the sake of my holiness and love of God I will avoid X. The same goes with the Liturgy and the rubrics, there is a reason the Church has set the rubrics in a certain way, learn that reason embrace it and bring it into your prayer. (this can go from anyone, lay faithful to deacons to priests.) IF you kneel just because I’m told to than what are you getting out of the liturgy, but if I realize I kneel because of humility, my own need for God, etc. Than you will grow in holiness. God willing as a priest I will follow the rubrics as closely as I can not because I’m a rubricist but because I believe that the Church knows what she is doing and I should follow her. I also want to know why they Church makes the rules and suggestions she makes, so I’m not just blindly saying the black and doing the red, but I know why I’m doing it this way.

Another danger is that the lay faithful can become rubrisist police, they see the mistakes of a priest and they want to call him out on it. Don’t fall into this temptation, sometimes people actually don’t understand what the rubrics say and mistakenly see a correct action as a mistake. If you see a priest make a mistake go up to him and ask him. “Fr. Why did you do x, I always thought you had to do y?” This is a polite way to ask him without coming off as I’m telling you what to do. Maybe he will realize his mistake and say you are correct, maybe he show you why you are wrong and the way he is doing it is actually correct, or maybe he will ignore you and continue doing what you are doing. But if you go up and say. “Father your not supposed to do x.” he will likely reject you.

 

[wmw]

We are not talking about a case of breaking the rubrics, but in making different gestures in fulfilling them. It’s far too much nitpicking about an honest way to do the rubric.

 

[JM3]

Have we forgotten how to adore the Eucharist?

vatican.va/news_services/press/sinodo/documents/bollettino_21_xi-ordinaria-2005/02_inglese/b19_02.html

• H.E. Most. Rev. Joseph MERCIECA, Archbishop of Malta, President of the Episcopal Conference (MALTA)

Reference is made to number 65 of the Instrumentum Laboris “From Celebration to Adoration”: reflections and consequences that the Eucharist worship/worship had on the Eucharistic life of the Church before and after the liturgical Reform of the Second Vatican Council.
The expression “Eucharistic worship” includes acts of worship offered to the Eucharist outside of Mass, like the Eucharistic adoration, the forty hours and the Corpus Domini feast, with which one professes his own faith in Jesus’ divinity, God and man, in the consecrated bread and wine that remains after the communion and the adoration.
At first, the Eucharist was not always received during the Eucharistic ceremony. It was conserved after the celebration in order to give it as Viaticum to sick people; others received Eucharist and brought it to their homes. It regarded, in these cases, communion out of the Mass but maintaining an intimate bond with it.
Afterwards, the Eucharistic worship developed separating itself from the Eucharistic celebration and had its own identity and autonomy. People did not participate to the Mass, but were more interested in the elevation, the highest possible, of the Host in the secretarium and to stay in silent adoration. Thus occurred the passage from celebration to adoration.
The Council of Trent, that had asserted against the Reformers that in the consecrated Host, that remained after Mass, remained the Body of the Lord that was to be proposed for adoration by the people, gave a major separation to the Eucharistic celebration.
The principal attention was the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist and therefore adoration, while the Eucharistic celebration was considered on a secondary level. This is how an absolutization of an aspect occurred, which though it is essential to the ministry of Christ as is His real presence and the Eucharistic adoration, it does not reap the totality that is expressed in the Eucharistic celebration. This, in fact, has the community who listens to the Word of God, the conversion of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, the offering to the Father of the sacrifice of the Cross on the altar and the communion to the Body of Jesus who makes the Church one and holy.
This vague was illuminated by the Constitution “Sacrosanctum Concilium” of the Second Vatican Council and by other pontifical documents like the document “Eucaristiae Sacramentum” et “Inestimabile donum”. Here it is affirmed that the celebration of the Eucharist is the center of the entire Christian life and that in the Church all derives, as from a source, from the celebrations of the Eucharist and all leads to and must lead to it, as its last aim.
The assertions of these documents do not want to create doubts on the validity of the Eucharistic worship which was, for many, one of the principal resources of their sanctification. The truth is that the liturgical Reform intends to place Eucharistic worship in its own perspective: recognize the central place that it must have in the Church’s life as a necessary mean of sanctification. Its place is inside the Eucharistic celebration and not parallel to Mass. The Eucharistic worship is not autonomous and independent from the Mass, it does not substitute it, but it is relative to it.
Far be it from canceling the validity of the Eucharistic worship, the liturgical Reform strongly recommends the worship of the Eucharistic adoration for the spiritual fruits that it has.

(bold is mine)