Post intelligent and civil comments. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the NLM
St. Josemaria Escriva did exactly what is being proposed here. Where the revised form was silent, he continued doing what the prior form required (e.g., holding the thumb and third finger after the consecration). At his beatification in 1992, Augustin Cardinal Mayer commented that he had implemented the liturgical changes as the Church had intended.
It should be noted that Pope Benedict himself has been known to elevate the host with one hand only. This can be seen on many of the televised Masses during his pontificate.
Robert,
I don't know which Mass you have in mind, but generally this is not true. Look, e.g., at the first Mass I have found searching the NLM archives: http://
www.newliturgicalmovement...washington.html
Although I have been to several Masses celebrated by the Holy Father and watched him celebrate Mass on television, I have never seen him do the elevations other than with both hands, either during his pontificate or prior. However, Pope Benedict is an old man, and would surely be permitted to elevate the Host with one hand if he felt unable to use both hands, so I'm not sure why Robert thinks that this should be noted.
Is there a norm in the older form for how high the priest should elevate the Host and the Chalice?
Robert must be thinking of Pope John Paul II, who in his later years (due to Parkinson's forcing his left hand to shake) often raised the Host with his right hand alone. Sometimes he would raise his left hand (with obvious effort) but he simply couldn't make it reach the Host.
However, just this morning, I was looking at a video of Pope JP II elevating the Host. The video was taken when his Parkinson's was not yet very noticeable, and I did notice that he raised the Host first with the right hand only, with the left hand coming up to help hold the Host only a few moments later. I remember him doing the same thing in some other papal masses.
While I am in general sympathy with what Fr. McNamara proposes (and Shawn), we must have that 1978 norm formally counteracted in order to proceed.
Similarly, Mons. Marini has said (as recently as the papal visit to France) that the Pope hopes to lead by example. Example is very powerful, to be sure, however, we are a Church of law, like it or not. Ergo, while the Pope is now insisting that communicants for him must kneel and receive on the tongue, a parish priest doing the same would be yanked into the Chancery and told to cease and desist or be suspended. The indult must be revoked in this instance.
I am afraid that the Sovereign Pontiff wants an organic development that is not possible since the codification of liturgy at Trent. It also seems that he is loathe to counteract officially and canonically what has occurred, thus leaving the priests "in the trenches" in the lurch.
Patric,
yes (that is Fr McNamara's point). Ritus servandus VIII, 4 and 5: Speaking of the beginning of the Consecration, it says: "et accipiens pollice et indice dexterae manus hostiam, et eam cum illis ac indice et pollice sinistrae manus tenens" - "and taking the host with thumb and index finger of the right hand, and holding it with those and the index finger and thumb of the left hand" And then for the genuflection and elevation it says: "celebrans tenens hostiam inter pollices et indices praedictos" - "the celebrant holding the host between the aforementioned thumbs and index fingers".
Fr Stravinskas,
a new responsum would indeed be useful, and I have little doubt that the CDW today would answer in that sense. Of course, someone would have to submit a dubium. However, the 1978 responsum is not only as I said (may I, by the way, point out that this is my post, not Shawn's?)erratic (it is, as far as I can see, not supported by any surrounding pronouncements of this kind), but really illogical and should not be accorded to much importance (cf. my favourite post of Fr Finigan, Is your alb back to front?).
While the December 22, 2005 speech has much weight, it is non-specific, and it is still extremely difficult to arrive at any certainty as to how this could impact on the details of the celebration of the Novus Ordo. As Fr. Stravinskas notes, it is quite difficult to see how it alone suffices to overturn the 1978 reply of the CDW.
Furthermore, the 1978 decision was not an isolated decision, but was just one of many directives in which the CDW defined the Missal of Pope Paul VI as being in opposition to the Missal of 1962.
Indeed, the acual reply reads as follows:
"It must never be forgotten that the Missal of Pope Paul VI has, since 1970, supplanted the one called improperly "the Missal of St. Pius V," and completely so, in both texts and rubrics. When the rubrics of the Missal of Paul VI say nothing or say little on particulars in some places, it is not to be inferred that the former rite should be observed. Therefore, the multiple and complex gestures for incensation as prescribed in the former Missal (see "Missale Romanum," Vatican Polyglot Press, 1962: "Ritus servandus" VIII and "Ordo incensandi" pp. LXXXLXXXIII) are not to be resumed. In incensation the celebrant (GIRM nos. 51 and 105) proceeds as follows: a. toward the gifts: he incenses with three swings, as the deacon does toward the Book of the Gospels; b. toward the cross: he incenses with three swings when he comes in front of it; c. toward the altar: he incenses continuously from the side as he passes around the altar, making no distinction between the altar table and the base. (Not 14 (1978) 301-302, no. 2.)"
Take note of the phrase: "completely...supplanted, in both texts and rubrics" and, as one can see, the reply proceeds to totally redesign the ceremony of incensing the oblata.
This leads us to the question that, I think, needs to be asked repeatedly: is it really possible to offer the Mass of Pope Paul VI in continuity with the Mass of Pope St. Pius V, when the latter was expressly and clearly defined and formed by the Consilium to be a break with the received liturgical tradition, with further discontinuity being decreed by the Congregation for Divine Worship in the succeeding years, and with the Missal of John Paul II cementing further changes into the Novus Ordo?
Is it really possible to offer the Novus Ordo as a sort of "Gregorian Mass Lite"?
The fact is that the Novus Ordo was designed to be a recreation of the early Christian Mass, with a generous amount of "pastoral elements" for modern people's needs. No matter how much all of us here love the Gregorian Rite, importing as many elements of the Gregorian Rite into the Novus Ordo as possible seems to be patchwork that, in the end, neither sits well on the Novus Ordo, nor does justice to the received classical liturgical tradition.
Even Pope Benedict XVI, with his hermeneutic of continuity, has not really imported "Gregorian" elements into the papal mass, that are missing from the rubrics of the Novus Ordo. He doesn't do the genuflection before the consecration, does not do the canonical fingers, etc. As for communion in the tongue and ad orientem, these also belong to the Novus Ordo. He did once bow at the "simul adoratur", but he didn't repeat that in other Masses.
Pope Benedict XVI's actual liturgical thinking and praxis seem to be closer to the view of the post-conciliar liturgy that was promoted by, for example, Msgr. Francis Mannion and the Society for Catholic Liturgy pre-2006 which can be defined thus: "The Novus Ordo as it exists is, by and large, a successful interpretation of the wishes of the Second Vatican Council, and all that needs to be done is to celebrate it with fidelity to the rubrics and using the historic artistic, architectural and musical traditions of the Catholic Church."
With sadness, I think that at present, we really do not have much of a choice but to follow the clear decrees and indications of the CDW when it comes to the Novus Ordo, without mixing Tridentine elements save where these are a matter of common sense and decorum (such as not wearing the alb back to front).
Gregor,
this was "not supported by any other pronouncements of this kind"?
You have got to be kidding me. The SCDW was continually putting out specific rubrical dubia which said one should not follow the old rubric, but interpret the new rubrich in such and such way.
The REASON the 1978 instruction was put out like that is that they were tired of answering many of the dubia that relied on the old missal as a guide.
With that said, it is important to understand that dubia only canonically apply to those who requested an answer, unless otherwise indicated by the congregation.
Hence, many are sometimes irrelevant.
Additionally, it would be helpful to have a specific repudiation of this for exactly the reasons Father Stravinskas indicated in his post.
___
And Father Stravinskas --- if you are reading this, it's been over ten years since we have talked, but I would love to get an email address from you.
My email is papabile at gmail.com
"when the latter was expressly and clearly defined and formed by the Consilium to be a break with the received liturgical tradition..."
SHOULD READ AS:
"when the FORMER was expressly and clearly defined and formed by the Consilium to be a break with the received liturgical tradition..."
Carlos,
as has been so often here, the reform of the reform must consist of several steps, and must of course in its later stages inlcude chnages to the rubrics of the Ordinary Form, bringing it into greater continuity with liturgical tradition. But that is not to say that it is not a good and even necessary first step to clebrate the OF right now in as great a continuity as permitted by its norms. How you can come to the conclusion that Pope Benedict that "the Novus Ordo as it exists is, by and large, a successful interpretation of the wishes of the Second Vatican Council, and all that needs to be done is to celebrate it with fidelity to the rubrics" is, given all he has written on this subject, beyond me. Can I say, in all friendship, that I am somewhat mystified as to what your actual position is? Sometimes you appear deeply pessimistic, as in this post, and then again so positive.
Papabile,
thanks for pointing that out, that is why I said "as far as I can see" - I wasn't around at the time. Perhaps you could cite some of those decisions? Anyway, it doesn't really change very much my point in the original post.
It is my impression that the 1978 reply was triggered by a particular problem: how to do the incensation. This is an interesting case as is an occasion where what I would take to be the best interpretative principle for the new rubrics would have produced something out of harmony with the new liturgy as a whole.
The hermeneutical principle for N.O. rubrics that seems best to me would have two aspects: 1. do the actions specified a rubric of the New Mass specify and do not introduce actions from the old rubrics that are absent from the new. 2. when the new rubrics specify an action but do not specify how it is to be done, then consult the old rite as a model.
E.g. The new rite has makes no mention of joining the fingers after the consecration: so do not do it. But it does say to elevate the host (without telling us how), so use two hands to do so as in the old rite. That this distinction is so hard for so many to understand generated the massive numbers of dubia that lie behind the response, I suspect.
The case of the incensation presented a more difficult problem. Unlike application of these principles that I used (how to hold the elevated host), the result at the incensation would have been to impose a complex and somewhat baroque order for incensing that itself supposed all sorts of things (altar against the wall, six candles in the traditional position, etc.). So it does seem obvious that the older model could not simply be used. As a result the congregation itself had to provide a manner for doing the incensing.
That this particular piece of legislation does not rule out the principles I have given seems pretty clear to me: after all, you have to pick up the host somehow, make the sign of the cross somehow, hold your hands at the breast or in orans position somehow, etc. To say that the N.O. rubrics, which are in fact silent on these "somehows," rule out doing what was done in the old rite (hold with both hands, palm to palm, shoulder high) seems a peculiar conclusion at best.
Interestingly, the rubrics of the GIRM 2000 modify the directives for the incensation of the oblata, allowing for a sign of the cross over the gifts. So, obviously, the CDW does get involved in deciding between the pre-conciliar rubrics and the 1970 ones and the creation of a new rubric.
I think that some of these issues will resolve themselves gradually over an extended period of time, insofar as the celebration of the EF becomes more widespread and influential over current practices within the OF. We have begun to see some progress in this area. For example, 2002 GIRM 277 now contains an option: "The priest incenses the offerings with three swings of the thurible or by making the sign of the cross over the offerings with the thurible..." Furthermore, the Ceremonial of Bishops contains footnotes from the earlier Ceremoniale detailing the norms for handling the thurible and carrying candles in procession within the Roman Rite, details which are lacking in the rubrics and praenotanda.
Much of the apparent discontinuity stems from the Consilium's interpretation of SC 34, although what constitutes "repetitiones inutiles" may be a matter of some dispute. The threefold striking of the breast during the Confiteor in the OF seems to have been disallowed by CDW (c.f. Notitiae 14 [1978] 534-535, no. 10); curiously, the rubric appears in The Parish Book of Chant, p. 4. Similarly, with regard to Agnus Dei and Domine, non sum dignus, there is no mention of striking the breast in the rubrics of the Missal of Paul VI, so presumably it is not done in keeping with the 1978 response of the dicastery. In the same year, the Congregation quoted Bl. John XXIII with respect to heeding the "norms of the [new] Order of Mass" and "not add[ing] anything: 'Make complex and difficult matters simple; what is already simple leave alone.'" I wish I knew the original context of that papal remark! Its broad application to the renovation of the liturgy, however, has left us considerably impoverished, at least until the present time.
"Can I say, in all friendship, that I am somewhat mystified as to what your actual position is?"
Gregor, it is something I am still working on.
"Can I say, in all friendship, that I am somewhat mystified as to what your actual position is?"
Gregor, it is something I am still working on, as I am still wrestling with several other related liturgical and theological issues. I foresee myself doing this for the next several years.
My position as it now stands also has nuances that would take too long to explain on comboxes such as this; on the other hand, I am not sure that Rorate is the best place to inflict my complete thoughts on other people.
As for the Pope's position on the liturgical reform, if I am not mistaken, he affirmed his preference for the Novus Ordo in "Feast of Faith." And I wonder if his harsh comments on fabrication and banalization vis-a-vis the modern liturgy were directed not so much against the Novus Ordo itself as against the abuses of it. Certainly, Summorum Pontificum, Sacramentum Caritatis and other official documents and speeches assume that the Missal of Paul VI is a good and authentic reform of the liturgy, albeit one that can still be enriched by tradition even as it too enriches the 1962 Missal.
As for being positive, let me put it this way: I may have my misgivings about the Novus Ordo, but I will never question its validity and licitness, and I do not subscribe to the exaggerated criticisms leveled against it. Furthermore, I detest all malicious interpretations of Pope Benedict's actions, and I believe that the words and actions of the Holy Fathers and the cardinals must always be interpreted in the most charitable light. Hence my frequent defenses of Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul II, of Cardinal Arinze, etc.
Carlos,
I don't have time to go into it at the very moment, but no reading of Ratzinger's liturgical thought would make me think his critique wasn't deeper than just being concerned with abuses.
Much of what he says speaks contrary to such a proposition.
Shawn, I hope you are right.
The other night I was training deacons to celebrate the Extraordinary Form when I came across a point in the Epistle that caused us to pause. At the Holy Name of Jesus, the celebrant is to make a bow: but should he bow to the missal or rather to the cross? I checked Stercky, and he said the bow is made to the cross. I checked O'Connell and he said the bow is made to the missal ("without moving the feet or raising the eyes"). I looked for it in the '62 rubrics and found that it was silent on this point. I then looked in the rubrics of '52 and found that the bow was made to the cross. Thus I conclude that before 1962, the bow was made to the cross and that since the missal of John XXIII is silent on that point, some believed (e.g., O'Connell) that this meant it was not to be done anymore. But is this the case?
So should we go with the rubrics of 1952? Should we go with O'Connell? And if I find that our seminary was doing one of these customs before the Council, is it consistent with tradition to celebrate Mass as it was done then, even though forty years separate us?
the GIRM is far too ambiguous, leaves too much to the imagination. The next GIRM should have a reference to the Extraordinary Form, and shore up the holes in the ordinary form. I do not see why the Roman Rite can not go in the direction of the Byzantine(Greek) Rite when more than one Liturgy can be used, such as on specific feaats. The Byzantine Rite typically uses the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil Liturgy on particular feasts.
Sorry to disagree, but history is history.
The Holy Father did indeed use only one hand to elevate the Host at the Ad Orientem Mass he celebrated in the Sistine Chapel. I personally was taken somewhat aback, but this is the FIRST time I have had anyone bring it up. I was also surprised to see that he only elevated it to eye level, as opposed to overhead. I assumed it was just a NO rubrics issue.
I prefer to see the Host elevated with both hands overhead. I also prefer the priest to hold it there, but I have recently learned that was not technically proper even in the Old Rite.
Jack in KC
The rubric in the Pauline Missal reads "Hostiam consecratam ostendit populo, reponit super patenam, et genuflexus adorat." In a celebration ad orientem I don't see how this is possible apart from the celebrant raising the Host above his head. The rubric concerning the chalice is comparable. The emphasis is not on the elevation as such but on showing the Sanctissimum to the people.
As to the use of the hands, the rubric is "accipit panem," but even without reference to the prior use, the text of the Roman Canon at that point reads "accepit panem in sanctas ac venerabiles manus suas," referring to Our Lord's "hands." As the priest is acting "in persona Christi," faithfulness to the Lord's own example would ordinarily suggest the use of both hands, unless otherwise incapacitated.
Dear Anthony:
I have a July 1962 newsletter from one of the leading diocesan seminaries in the Philippines (run at the time by American Jesuits) which interprets the silence of the 1962 Missal on the bows, as meaning that the bows to the cross are now abolished and that all bows are now to be done towards the Missal.
As for myself, I continue as MC to ask priests to bow to the cross, on the basis of immemorial custom. I'm no canon lawyer but I think it's just common sense. However, for concord's sake, I let some priests who find the practice distracting to just bow towards the Missal.
I can't find anywhere that the Holy Father ever uses the term "Hermeneutic of Continuity". He does, however, say "hermeneutic of reform" which isn't exactly what this blog is promoting.
Ged,
that is a canard, playing with words. The phrase runs on, after "hermeneutic of reform", "of renewal in the continuity". That it is reform he is talking about is obvious, because the direct object of his discourse are the reforms of the II Vatican Council, but the interpretative key for these reforms is precisely continuity. This is made clear by the words of Bl. John XXIII which Pope Benedict quotes and which 'unequivocally express this hermeneutic when he says that the Council wishes "to transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion".' The term "hermeneutic of continuity" has been universally, and without correction by authority, understood to be the short hand for this concept, and as such has been not only mentioned by the Papal MC, Msgr. Guido Marini, but has also been employed in official doctrinal documents. E.g., the Spanish Episcopal Conference has issued a doctrinal note regarding the writings of a Spanish theologian because, inter alia, they are in contrast to the hermeneutic of continuity.
Jack,
so you have successfully identified (if you are correct) an instance where our Holy Father, for whatever reason, we certainly don't know, has deviated from his own liturgical practice. Congratulations. Exactly what are you proving thereby?
Seriously, this post was meant to positively highlight how the hermeneutic of continuity, in a way even the mutual enrichment envisaged by Summorum Pontificum, is beginning to work. Instead we get complaints about single instances of perceived mistakes of our Pope. I see a problematic attitude there.
Dear Pedro d'Aquino,
Be careful about taking the words of what Our Lord did at the Last Supper and applying them to the priest-celebrant. Why?
First of all, liturgy is not mimicry.
Second, that is exactly the logic used by priests who (illicitly and incorrectly) break the host at that point in the Liturgy, precisely because it says, "He broke it..."
Hello. I am a lay man from Hong Kong, and really appreciate your efforts!
May I express the following comments -
1. In my humble opinion, it is a matter of "common sense" of decency and reverence to hold an important object with both hands (if both are feasible). In the sense that it is offensive to hold the Book of Gospel, candelabra, etc., single-handedly during the Procession, holding the Host and the Chalice in this manner should be regarded an anomaly.
2. In Hong Kong (don't know if it occurs in other places as well?), it appears that some priests feel quite free to occupy both of their hands with the missalettes and thus impeded from reciting the prayers "with hands extended". On some occasions, a priest may hold the microphone by the left hand, and hold the Host by the right hand!
3. As Pedro d'Aquino mentioned, the Canon Romanus does narrate about our Lord taking the bread with both hands. Besides, I could also locate two other places which seem to allude to the priest's being supposed to hold the Host / Chalice by both hands:
a) according to nos. 141-142 of IGMR, at the Offertory, the priest is instructed to hold the paten with bread and the chalice with wine "with both hands" (ambabus manibus ... tenet). It could be argued "a fortiori" that this should also be the manner at the consecration.
b) according to Caeremoniale Episcoporum (Novus Ordo), we read in no. 106 under the category "DE MODO TENENDI MANUS" - "... Ad consecrationem, dum Episcopus tenet manibus hostiam vel calicem et profert verba consecrationis, concelebrantes verba Domini proferunt et manuum dexteram, si opportunum videtur, ad panem et ad calicem extendunt..." We know that "manibus" means both hands are used.
4. Personally, I am inclined to adhere to the CDW's rulings given its official character as an authentic interpretation of liturigcal norms. But I would at the same time remain open to possible future clarification(s) from the Holy See regarding whether and how is this rule "remaining in force".
Dear Fr Thompson,
my take would be slightly different, as I have pointed out in the thread on Fr Kocik's post which generally dealt with this question (as this one wasn't really intended to do), cf. http://www.haloscan.com/comments...5068329/
#220906 In essence, I see it as licit and in fact unproblematic to follow rites of the EF in the OF in so far as the rubrics of the OF are either vague or silent. In any case, the line between vagueness and silence would be hard to draw: in your example, you say that the rubrics say to elevate the Host, but not how to do it, therefore the EF rubric can be supplied. But they do not tell you to keep the fingers joined, so don't. Of course you could as well say to extend your hands, but don't specify how to hold your fingers, so supply the EF rubric. Which is, incidentally, what the Secretary of the CDW, Msgr. Ranjith, has done. I would not, perhaps, go as far as to say that this actually must be done, but I think it is licit to do it.
Edward Cheung,
thanks for your kind words. I don't think anyone has said that the Host should not be elevated with both hands. Also, keep in mind Fr Stravinskas's apposite warning regarding taking the words of what Our Lord did at the Last Supper and applying them to the priest-celebrant. As for the CDW responsum, apart from the arguments made against it in my original post and because it is contradictory in itself, remember what was said regarding its binding force: responsa are only binding for the one submitting the respective dubium, and then this specific responsum only deals with the incensation of the gifts.
"2. In Hong Kong (don't know if it occurs in other places as well?), it appears that some priests feel quite free to occupy both of their hands with the missalettes and thus impeded from reciting the prayers "with hands extended". On some occasions, a priest may hold the microphone by the left hand, and hold the Host by the right hand!'
Dear Edward, this practice is very common in the Philippines too. In my experience, the majority of priests celebrate Mass with one hand holding a missalette (saving them from the chore of having to turn the pages of the Sacramentary in front of them)
Your fellow Catholic across the South China sea;
Carlos
BTW, I see that Fr John Zuhlsdorf of the "What Does the Prayer Really Say" blog has now also picked up on this: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/10/q...ing-both-hands/
Fr Stravinskas,
Thank you for that correction. I was thinking only in terms of clarifying the NO rubric regarding the hands, and not about the unintended consequences of using the words of consecration as complete ceremonial directions for the priest-celebrant.
Gregor,
When you say that the responsa of the CDW are not binding except for the one submitting the dubium, do you mean that in a juridical or moral sense? If the responsa are officially published, are we not at least morally bound to obey them, even if we don't agree with them?
Dear Gregor,
I appreciate the reasoning behind Fr. Stravinskas' comment.
For me, it seems the issue involves how should we interpret the "institution narrative" in accordance with the liturgical tradition of the Church.
As far as the liturgical text and [rubrics] are concerned, it appears as follows -
[89. In formulis quae sequuntur, verba Domini proferantur distincte et aperte, prouti natura eorundem verborum requirit.]
Qui prídie quam paterétur,
[accipit panem, eumque parum elevatum super altare tenens, prosequitur:]
accépit panem in sanctas ac venerábiles manus suas,
[elevat oculos,]
et elevátis óculis in caelum
ad te Deum Patrem suum omnipoténtem,
tibi grátias agens benedíxit, fregit,
dedítque discípulis suis, dicens:
[parum se inclinat]...
From these prescriptions, it is clear that the first few lines of the institution narrative and rubrics in the Roman Canon are meant to "re-produce" what our Lord did in relation to the Eucharistic Bread within the context of "benedixit dicens"(gave thanks ... saying).
From the context of the liturgy, the Eucharistic Prayer corresponds to the "benedixit" of what our Lord commands the Church to do. It is interesting to note that historically, what the Lord "broke" was already the "bread that had been blessed" or "eucharistic bread" (i.e. the Body of Christ). And what he gave to the disciples was his own "broken" Body. So as St. Thomas Aquinas sings "se dat suis manibus" in Pange Lingua.
As we can see thus -
QUOD BENEDIXIT - bread - host, at the Eucharistic Prayer
QUOD FREGIT - eucharistic bread - consecrated host, to be broken at Agnus Dei
QUOD DEDIT - broken eucharistic bread - consecrated host, meant to be shared and consummated by the faithful in Holy Communion
Therefore, I think that the current English (and Chinese also) translation rendering the narrative "... he broke the bread" to be rather misleading.
Breaking the Host at consecration betrays a rather superficial understanding of this text, as well as a profound misunderstanding regarding the actio within the framework of the Eucharist.
Concerning the (to me, rather unfortunate) CDW ruling of "... Ubi rubricae Missalis Pauli VI nihil dicunt aut parum dicunt singillatim in nonnullis locis, non ideo inferendum est quod oporteat servare ritum antiquum ..." as published in Notitiae 14 [1978] 301-302, I wish to draw to your attention that it was also reiterated in another ruling regarding the triple striking of breast at the Agnus Dei in Novus Ordo - "... Uti dictum est in responsione n.2 Commentariorum 'Notitiae' [1978], p. 301: ubi rubricae Missalis Pauli VI nihil dicunt, non ideo inferendum est quod servare oporteat antiquas rubricas. Missale instauratum antiquum non supplet, sed substituit ..." (cf. Notitiae 14 [1978] 534-535). These seem to me to be beyond reasonable doubt that the competent authority in liturgical discipline was quoting it as a general rule in interpreting ritual prescriptions in the Reformed Liturgy.
No matter how "unfortunate" or even "wrong" the decision may seem to me, I regard myself as owing complete fidelity and submission to these (seemingly unreasonable) norms until the same authority declares otherwise (for example, the issue of "self-intinction" in Hong Kong). Certainly we may ask God in our daily prayers that our pastors may be "enlightened" in this aspect. But meanwhile, the hermeneutic of continuity has to be sustained with a morale of faithful obedience to the legitimate authorities of our beloved pastors. In discerning disciplinary measures, it is THEY who are guided by the Holy Spirit and not US.
Thanks for reading my long message. You guys are really wonderful!
Edward,
I don't know whether you have actually followed the link to Fr McNamara's column, but much of what you say here (e.g. regarding the Eucharistic Prayer = "He blessed or gave thanks") is already explained there (if not in so much detail).
As for the ruling, it is somewhat ironic that I am in the position I'm in here, because I myself have been accused of legalism before, but if you have the patience to read my comment in an earlier thread I had referenced above (http://www.haloscan.com/comments/stribe/
6057877628785068329/#220906) you will see why I think it is possible to regard it as obsolete.
Jack and Gregor,
I went back and checked the game tape on the supposed "one-handed" elevation. The Holy Father begins the elevation with his right hand, joins his left at about chin level and raises the Host with two hands to above his head. Then on the way down at about chin level he removes his left hand and brings the Host back to the paten with his right hand.
Now, MAJOR POINT: the reason he did this is that there is a microphone over his hands at chin level. In order to raise the Host as he normally does, he can only join his hands OVER the microphone, so as not to crash the Blessed Sacrament into the microphone. He had to go around the microphone. Obviously, this situation is not ideal, but I think that it is likely that the Holy Father did not know of this obstruction until well into the Mass. So, he did his best to deal with the situation.
I think we can now dispel the idea that Pope Benedict does one handed elevations. He does not.
You can view the video here (go to 0:44):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a...h?
v=aGzExgJRfiA
My apologies.
I stand corrected. I never got to see a repeat; it all happened too fast.
Beware, the comments posted are typical of the slime vermin that hate all which imitates Christ.
One of the pitfalls of YouTube; anybody can post most anything.
Sad to see this hatred, but...PRAYER!
Glad to see the Holy Father used both hands after all. He truly rules by humble example.
Jack in KC
3 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
