Priest turns and shows the host during consecration?

[Don_Ruggero]

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.

Thank you!

 

[Wendy1989]

This is hardly “against liturgical law.”

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.)

Thank you, Don Ruggero! I’ve been to a couple Masses where the celebrant did just as stated. It reminded me of the same action that is done at the Benediction. The Monstrance is shown to all. I see the priest doing the same exact motion and it’s beautiful!

 

[ProVobis]

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.

Indeed. That plus submissa voce (in low tones).

That he’s talking to God seems to be lost when the whole EP is amplified and facing the people.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Indeed. That plus submissa voce (in low tones).

That he’s talking to God seems to be lost when the whole EP is amplified and facing the people.

If the priest is celebrating in the extraordinary form, those rubrics are to be followed. For those of us who offer Mass in the ordinary form, the rubrics for the words of consecration should not be done in a low tone at all. “In the formulas that follow, the words of the Lord should be pronounced clearly and distinctly, as the nature of these words requires.” (In formulis quae sequuntur, verbo Domini proferantur distincte et aperte, prouti natura eorundum verborum requirit.)

It has never been lost to me, as I preside, whom I addressing and when.

 

[ProVobis]

If the priest is celebrating in the extraordinary form, those rubrics are to be followed.

Actually submissa voce was a term used by the Council of Trent in its Session 22 Mass doctrine.

It is true that the anathema against those who violated submissa voce has been removed but did Vatican II change or undermine the underlying doctrine? Seems like a rupture if this is true. But I’m no expert on this.

.

 

[Curts33]

It appears some of you think I am referring to the part when the priest raises the Host in the air, but I am referring to when he says the words “take this, all of you and eat of it, for this is my body…”

 

[catholictiger]

If the priest is celebrating in the extraordinary form, those rubrics are to be followed. For those of us who offer Mass in the ordinary form, the rubrics for the words of consecration should not be done in a low tone at all. “In the formulas that follow, the words of the Lord should be pronounced clearly and distinctly, as the nature of these words requires.” (In formulis quae sequuntur, verbo Domini proferantur distincte et aperte, prouti natura eorundum verborum requirit.)

102.      In the formulas that follow, the words of the Lord should be pronounced clearly and distinctly, as the nature of these words requires.
     At the time he was betrayed
     and entered willingly into his Passion,

 

[catholictiger]

It appears some of you think I am referring to the part when the priest raises the Host in the air, but I am referring to when he says the words “take this, all of you and eat of it, for this is my body…”

The rubrics tell’s the priest what to there, it is open to interpretation but not so much interpretation that a priest can show the host to the people as he does during benediction during adoration.

The rubrics are more than just suggestions they are rules on how to celebrate the Mass. Now many things are left open to interpretation, but there are some things explicitly stated. Some priests think the rubrics make more suggestions than strict rules.

 

[FrDavid96]

It appears some of you think I am referring to the part when the priest raises the Host in the air, but I am referring to when he says the words “take this, all of you and eat of it, for this is my body…”

Thank you for clarifying the question.

At that point, the priest should be bowing. Therefore, he should not be doing any kind of showing the host (which at that moment is not yet consecrated).

I’ve also seen that—the back and forth gesture at the words “take this all of you…”

It’s clearly a violation of the rubrics.

Showing the Host after the consecration is a different matter.

 

[rondirect]

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.

I agree. I would think that at the Last Supper, Jesus did exactly the same thing and looked at each one of his disciples when speaking about the bread/body and wine/blood. It makes sense. Most of our priests do it and I like it.

 

[Phemie]

I agree. I would think that at the Last Supper, Jesus did exactly the same thing and looked at each one of his disciples when speaking about the bread/body and wine/blood. It makes sense. Most of our priests do it and I like it.

As was said above, if the priest is simply making sure that everybody has a chance to see the Host and the Chalice at the Elevation that’s within the rubrics. If he shows the bread and the chalice as he is speaking the words of Consecration, he is not following the rubrics. While he is supposed to speak the Eucharistic Prayer so that we can hear it clearly, he is not speaking to us but to the Father. I’ve seen some priests be overly dramatic at this point and at ‘gave it to his disciples’ they make a gesture of presenting it to the people. Sometimes I just find it much easier to keep my eyes closed through most of the Mass. Then I don’t have to see any of that stuff.

 

[ProVobis]

I’ve seen some priests be overly dramatic at this point

This brings up an interesting point, however. It seems a little dramatization may not be such a bad idea as otherwise the consecration may read like a narrative. Maybe more with the voice though and not so much with the actions of the hands. I don’t think a narrative was what was intended. As a server in the old rite, I could only hear the “Hoc est enim Corpus Meum” and knew that there was the Transubstantiation.

 

[exnihilo]

As was said above, if the priest is simply making sure that everybody has a chance to see the Host and the Chalice at the Elevation that’s within the rubrics. If he shows the bread and the chalice as he is speaking the words of Consecration, he is not following the rubrics. While he is supposed to speak the Eucharistic Prayer so that we can hear it clearly, he is not speaking to us but to the Father. I’ve seen some priests be overly dramatic at this point and at ‘gave it to his disciples’ they make a gesture of presenting it to the people. Sometimes I just find it much easier to keep my eyes closed through most of the Mass. Then I don’t have to see any of that stuff.

We frequently have a priest who shows the bread and wine this way during the consecration. He begins to speak in a staccato manner presenting the items while turning slightly to face different directions. This is interesting since the church itself is a very traditional design and not the modern amphitheater semi-circle. It seems to me this action emphasizes communion when we aren’t yet to communion. It seems to me to take away from the sacrificial nature of the Mass and turn the Mass back on us. But we also never hear the Roman Canon.

I’m with you. I find keeping my eyes closed helps me to focus my mind and avoid annoyance.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Though the question has been clarified as relating to a different moment (when it is not appropriate to be turning about with the host, Don Ruggero raises two points I thought worthy of further comment.

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 practice of turning in four directions is specific to the solemn papal Mass (whose distinctive features are summarized here).
You can see John XXIII performing this elevation here. Unfortunately, the video of John Paul II doing the same is no longer available there.

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.

Since some here seem to think it only natural for a priest to turn about in compliance with the rubrical command to “show” the Eucharist, going so far as to assume one must turn to show the elements if celebrating ad orientem, we must remember that the EF rubrics use the exact same verb. Those rubrics, however, specifically much more closely how that showing is to be accomplished, which is by elevating the Eucharist as high as possible (thus allowing the congregation behind the priest to see because the Sacrament is now above the obstruction presented by his body). While it is true, then, that the OF was constructed in intentionally less-specific manner in order to accord greater freedom to celebrants, we shouldn’t go so far as to say that all choices that don’t outright violate the rubrics are ipso facto of equal weight/value. The creators of the OF did not set out to create perfect continuity, but neither is it sensible to presume total rupture, and the previous, more-specific rubrics are an important interpretive guide to the new.

 

[rondirect]

I think we have wasted enough time on this subject. Elevation of host and chalice straight up and down or priest turning and “presenting” same to all, especially when the church is in a semicircle, is all the same to me. It is a mute point. Whatever, as long as the priest follows the rubrics during this time, it is all good.

 

[ProVobis]

This is interesting since the church itself is a very traditional design and not the modern amphitheater semi-circle.

FWIW, I attend Mass at one Church which has a 360 (ENWS) configuration where they do both the OF and EF. Having the priest do a full circle would be most interesting.

 

[rondirect]

FWIW, I attend Mass at one Church which has a 360 (ENWS) configuration where they do both the OF and EF. Having the priest do a full circle would be most interesting.

LOL! Well, although I said enough now, I must agree! Perhaps a 180 would be sufficient otherwise laughter would most likely ensue. Thanks, even though our church is 180 around the Sanctuary, I will be thinking about this at this high point in the mass for many weeks trying to keep the smirk off my face!

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Though the question has been clarified as relating to a different moment (when it is not appropriate to be turning about with the host, Don Ruggero raises two points I thought worthy of further comment.

The practice of turning in four directions is specific to the solemn papal Mass (whose distinctive features are summarized here).
You can see John XXIII performing this elevation here. Unfortunately, the video of John Paul II doing the same is no longer available there.

Since some here seem to think it only natural for a priest to turn about in compliance with the rubrical command to “show” the Eucharist, going so far as to assume one must turn to show the elements if celebrating ad orientem, we must remember that the EF rubrics use the exact same verb. Those rubrics, however, specifically much more closely how that showing is to be accomplished, which is by elevating the Eucharist as high as possible (thus allowing the congregation behind the priest to see because the Sacrament is now above the obstruction presented by his body). While it is true, then, that the OF was constructed in intentionally less-specific manner in order to accord greater freedom to celebrants, we shouldn’t go so far as to say that all choices that don’t outright violate the rubrics are ipso facto of equal weight/value. The creators of the OF did not set out to create perfect continuity, but neither is it sensible to presume total rupture, and the previous, more-specific rubrics are an important interpretive guide to the new.

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.

Offering Mass according to the Missal of Saint John XXIII, excepting singularly unique circumstances of church design, presumes that architecturally I am in a position where my ability to show the just consecrated elements is extremely limited other than by simply raising them over my head for whoever behind me may be able to see them. Thus, even if the rubrics of the Vetus Ordo provided for something beyond what it does, it would be to no real significant purpose. There should only rarely be a significant number of people looking at me in profile.

On the other hand, when I am offering the Novus Ordo in a remodeled sanctuary with a congregation on three (not to say four) sides of the altar, merely raising, notably the Host, does not succeed in showing it to all those participating.

I do not think it is “natural” for the presider to turn. It is, actually, a gesture I have used in perhaps a dozen churches across decades. In the circumstances in which I did it, however, it was because I, as the presider, determined that gesture was needed in order to have complied with what the rubric directed me – and I would not in any way consider myself limited by the rubrics of the Vetus Ordo in making that interpretation.

In short, I would never take the position that “the closer to what would have been done in the Vetus Ordo” is in any way a more laudable way of reading the rubrics of the Novus Ordo.

I am grateful that the rubrics of the Mass of Blessed Paul VI give to presiders the latitude to have more natural and less regimented postures as well as the latitude to determine what one must do to fulfill the charge of the rubrics, as in this case to “show” the Eucharist.

Several of the comments have left me, frankly, nonplussed. The concept of (supposed) members of the lay faithful laughing and smirking during the elevation of the consecrated elements is so alien to my experience as a priest and the behaviour of my own parishioners over the years that I find the comments bizarre in the extreme, to say the least.

Moreover, were I actually aware that someone attending a Mass I offered was keeping his eyes shut for most of the Mass, I would be the first one to suggest that perhaps he should find a place where he could participate in Mass with his eyes open so as to have the full, active, and conscious participation that should mark being present at Mass, in either the Ordinary Form or the Extraordinary Form.

 

[Phemie]

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.

I am grateful that the rubrics of the Mass of Blessed Paul VI give to presiders the latitude to have more natural and less regimented postures as well as the latitude to determine what one must do to fulfill the charge of the rubrics, as in this case to “show” the Eucharist.

Moreover, were I actually aware that someone attending a Mass I offered was keeping his eyes shut for most of the Mass, I would be the first one to suggest that perhaps he should find a place where he could participate in Mass with his eyes open so as to have the full, active, and conscious participation that should mark being present at Mass, in either the Ordinary Form or the Extraordinary Form.

Father, if you had attended the Masses I’ve attended over the last 18 years, most of them because my parish is the only one within 325 miles or they were the only ones I could avail of while traveling, you would understand that closing my eyes is the easiest way to participate in Mass without having a stroke.

I’ve experienced Fr. passing the Ciborium around for the extraordinary ministers of the Holy Eucharist and the altar servers to help themselves to Communion, or leaving the Chalice on the altar for everyone to help themselves, a Bishop and several different priests in various parishes fracturing the Host at the word “broke it and gave it to his disciples” and this past summer I was treated to a priest who stopped speaking and allowed the congregation to recite the last paragraph and the doxology of the Eucharistic Prayer.

Oh, my favourite? My Pastor receiving “communion” at an Anglican “mass” when what was supposed to be an ecumenical service turned out to be a “mass” because the Anglican Primate was in town for a visit and in turn giving Communion to the various Protestant ministers when they presented themselves to receive at funerals. It’s enough to make one cry.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Father, if you had attended the Masses I’ve attended over the last 18 years, most of them because my parish is the only one within 325 miles or they were the only ones I could avail of while traveling, you would understand that closing my eyes is the easiest way to participate in Mass without having a stroke.

I’ve experienced Fr. passing the Ciborium around for the extraordinary ministers of the Holy Eucharist and the altar servers to help themselves to Communion, or leaving the Chalice on the altar for everyone to help themselves, a Bishop and several different priests in various parishes fracturing the Host at the word “broke it and gave it to his disciples” and this past summer I was treated to a priest who stopped speaking and allowed the congregation to recite the last paragraph and the doxology of the Eucharistic Prayer.

Oh, my favourite? My Pastor receiving “communion” at an Anglican “mass” when what was supposed to be an ecumenical service turned out to be a “mass” because the Anglican Primate was in town for a visit and in turn giving Communion to the various Protestant ministers when they presented themselves to receive at funerals. It’s enough to make one cry.

You have my sympathy and I pray your circumstance finds improvement, for your own equanimity.

Actually, I have quite breadth of liturgical experiences across decades involving East as well as West and what we know today as the ordinary form and the extraordinary form. I suppose I can only say that my reactions to liturgical situations gone awry tend to be more dispassionate. Neither in youth nor in advancing years have I been provoked to feelings of being on the verge of a stroke or tears by something amiss at a liturgical celebration.

Happily, by and large, the liturgical celebrations of my experience have been well conceived, well executed, thoroughly edifying, and in every way a wonderful occasion. That said, there have been occasions when I have been displeased by a thing or things done at liturgies that I have concelebrated or otherwise participated in.

I have also found myself, directly or indirectly (because of being consulted by a brother priest), having to weigh in on liturgical actions that were ill-considered in their conception and execution, problematic for what they included or failed to include, or even disturbing – such that, at times, higher authorities had to be alerted when the issues were truly grave, and/or harmful, and needed redress so as not to be repeated…things more problematic than extraordinary ministers self-communicating or presiding celebrants choosing to break the host at the wrong moment. These do not rise to a level of theological significance for me to cause me to do more than to say, at an opportune moment and to an opportune cleric, “you know, they don’t seem to be aware of the liturgical norm that clarifies the proper procedure for X.” It certainly would not provoke distress or agitation from me.

I studiously avoid the ascription of ill-will. And one must cautiously distinguish about things which touch upon liceity, and even then the relative seriousness of the illicitness, and those which actually touch upon validity. The latter are matters of the gravest import for a theologian and strictly demand intervention.

For example, I remember when the norm changed and the reserved sacrament at Mass was to be retrieved only by an ordinary minister…which was problematic in instances where the tabernacle was relatively remote and I, as the presider, was also the only ordinary minister present. In instances where I was visiting to provide assistance and an extraordinary minister continued to go to the tabernacle before me, I would not react but remind them, apart, to keep in mind that, whatever else, as the presider I preferred to go myself, so that I was in compliance with the new norm. No matter how many times it happened, I simply repeated the request since I was a visitor to that place – and in very short order, my request was honored without anxiety on the part of anyone. This concerned, after all, a matter that had been licit but became illicit with the expiration of a permission once conceded. Of course, in the intervening instances, a member of the congregation who was present, and actually knew of the new norm, would only have seen that the new norm had not been complied with and something illicit had occurred.

Obviously, it would be better for the norms always and everywhere to be complied with in all aspects, as the norms exist for specific purposes and to underscore specific points of theology; they are not arbitrary impositions, after all, even if what the norms prescribe address issues of varying theological weight and significance. Still, the purpose is not served when the praxis does not conform to the Church’s prescriptions – which are based on her solicitous care for the sacraments entrusted to her. These prescriptions should not be short-circuited to advance another agenda or principle, even when it may be based on trying to advance a perceived good.

My more exceptional experiences across my decades involved with liturgical celebrations at least made for the most interesting stories when I taught liturgy and sacraments…especially as cautionary tales to my students of what they should – and should not – do when, one day, they would themselves confect the sacraments and celebrate the sacred liturgy.