What Does The Prayer Really Say?
W D T P R S

I got this very serious question via e-mail.  I am horrified by what I read here, but I don’t have time to look up the concrete references.  I am betting some of you can.  I just don’t have time today.

I have a question and have searched for a document or something and don’t know where else to look.

In our parish, we have a chapel that doesn’t have a tabernacle.  It is some distance from the main church.  We have recently run out of hosts on a number of occasions.  On three of these, the celebrant has sent the sacristan to the sacristy to bring hosts and he then recites the consecration over these hosts and finishes giving communion.  He seems to be adverse to breaking the consecrated hosts, and on one occasion this would not have sufficed.

This strikes me as wrong, and the first time I saw it you could probably have knocked me over with a feather.  Where do I go to read up on this?  My pastor and I have talked about this, but he is not sure what to say either.

This sort of thing really disturbs me.  The consecration of the Eucharist is not to be done apart from the double-consecration at Mass even if it is during Mass itself.  The only exception I can think of would be when, for example, the chalice was discovered to contain not wine but perhaps water or something else.  In that case, the priest would immediately have to consecrate the Precious Blood before Mass could proceed.  The same does not apply with consecrating more Hosts.  Nor does it really apply to the main Host for Mass, since it would be obvious to the priest handling it that something wasn’t right (unless perhaps he was blind, etc. etc. etc.).

 

If it was discovered that there were not enough Hosts, and breaking wasn’t going to work, I think you would simply have to tell people what happened and assure them that they fulfilled their Mass obigation, and perhaps suggest making a spiritual communion.  That happened to me at a parish I was visiting.  The pastor told me there were Hosts in the tabernacle, but there weren’t.  So, I just had to explain the situation.  No one freaked out.

But it is simply WRONG to consecrate Hosts apart from the two-fold consecration.

Maybe someone else has more USEFUL information to impart here, some references or citations.  Don’t just chime it with anecdotes or snark.

Do you remember my talking about the parish in Greenville, SC, where the altar and direction of worship is being "reoriented"?  During Lent the pastor Fr. Scott Newman issued in the parish bulletin a series of article explaining what worship ad orientem is all about in anticipation of … hold on …. actually doing it.  I wrote about this here.

Ad orientem worship is one of the most important re-reforms we can implement because the turning around of altars after Vatican II was perhaps the single most damaging change to Catholic identity that was forced on the Church.

A follow up is due, since Fr. Newman is hard at it again.  Let’s have a look at his recent bulletin with my emphases and comments.

 

Fifth Sunday of Easter
20 April 2008

Dear Friends in Christ,

During the five Sundays of Lent, I dedicated my bulletin columns to an explanation of the origin and purpose of the ancient custom of priest and people standing together on the same side of the altar during the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharist, a practice known variously as the celebration of Mass ad orientem (towards the East) or ad Deum (towards God). All five of those columns are available on the parish website, and if you did not read them during Lent, I encourage you to do so now since they provide a thorough explanation of what you will see today and contain recommended reading for in depth study of these questions. Among the essential points in those essays is my explanation that celebrating ad Deum does not mean that the priest is turning his back on the people; rather, priest and people are joined together in turning towards the LORD.

In the last of those five columns I announced that sometime during Eastertide we would restore the custom of ad Deum celebration here at St. Mary’s to follow Pope Benedict’s lead in recovering our own authentic traditions of liturgical prayer, and we begin this practice today. During the first few weeks of this very old and (to us) totally new way of praying, there will undoubtedly be a bit of confusion [And, you can bet, resistence and griping and letter writing.] for everyone: our priests, deacons, and servers must adjust to the logistical changes which flow from the change of direction, and our congregation must adjust to an unfamiliar experience of the Eucharistic Prayer. And while we are all growing accustomed to this method of celebrating the sacred liturgy, I ask everyone to be patient and charitable.

While the celebration of Mass facing liturgical East is ancient, my decision to try this practice here is not an exercise in antiquarianism. Father Bartholomew, Father Longenecker, and I are deeply convinced that this way of praying is a more effective means of drawing everyone more deeply into the Paschal Mystery of the Lord Jesus, and that is why we are introducing this practice for a period of discernment. Having said that, the Church has made clear that both ways of celebrating the Eucharist (ad Deum and versus populum) have value and are equally legitimate, [Something I think we might reasonably dispute, but this is a parish bulletin and this is a bold project.] so no one should conclude that one practice excludes the other. For this reason, we will from time to time revert to the more familiar form of celebration (particularly, for example, at weddings or funerals when large numbers of people from other places may be present), and every priest remains free to decide in which posture to offer the Mass.  [YES!]

In doubtful things, liberty; in essential things, unity; in all things, charity. This ancient maxim should guide us all in our response to what we begin today. I hope that each of you will see this development as an opportunity to retrieve an ancient and noble part of Christian tradition and enter with generosity into the celebration of the sacred mysteries of redemption.

Father Newman

Fr. Newman gets the highest WDTPRS kudos for this initiative.  I hope to hear reports about how this is going.

All of a sudden, the cassock decided it wanted to leave. 

Oh would that we had more parish priests like don Camillo.  Would that fictional characters could be canonized!

Our friends at Rorate have another great entry today about how Guareschi’s character "don Camillo" strove to block the destruction of an altar:

...two days later, the Bishop’s secretary plunged into Don Camillo’s office. The young priest, like all the progressive priests of the Aggiornamento, despised and detested all parish priests…

"Reverend Father!" he ranted. "Is it possible that you lie in wait for opportunities to show your obtuseness as regards political and social matters involving the Church? What is the meaning of this latest sideshow of yours? Quite rightly Mayor Botazzi intends to encourage tourism and adapt the town to the needs of the motorized times—- and to do this he wants to create an ample parking lot here in the square. How can you have the arrogance to oppose this project?"

"No arrogance at all: I’m simply preventing the destruction of Church property."

"What Church property! You can’t clutter half a town square with useless columns. Don’t you understand what an advantage it will be to you? Aren’t you aware that many people don’t come to Mass because they can’t find a place to park their cars?"

"Certainly I know that," Don Camillo answered calmly. "However, I don’t believe the mission of a pastor of souls should be to organize parking lots and rock Masses to provide the public with a religion complete with all the modern conveniences. The Christian religion is not, and should not be, either comfortable or amusing."

His point of view was a bit hackneyed and it caused the Bishop’s priest to explode. "My dear Father, you appear not to have grasped that the Church must attempt to bring itself up to date, and it should be helping progress, not blocking it!"
...
There was no point in arguing with such an old fossil, so the secretary wound up the discussion. "Don Camillo, are you saying that you refuse to obey?"

 

You’ll have to go over to Rorate to read the rest.  Tell ‘em Fr. Z sent you.

Take note that in one of the comments some dolt, bravely posting as "anonymous" wrote:  "What a load of contrived bunk." 

Were I don Camillo, I would be reaching for my shotgun.