QUAERITUR: reserving two ciboria, for TLM and for Novus Ordo

From a priest reader:

Firstly, I’ve been a reader of the blog for a long time now, and it’s really fantastic.  Thank you for your efforts.  I have a question:  Is it permissible to reserve in the tabernacle a separate ciborium for the community that celebrates the Extraordinary Form?  Apparently, there is some concern about receiving Communion with hosts consecrated at the Ordinary Form Mass.  I seem to recall that PCED has a position on this, but have been unable to find it, so I turn to you.  Any help you can provide will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks for the nice comment!

I know of no law that would prevent the reservation of one ciborum for Host consecrated with the TLM and one for the Novus Ordo.

However, everything must be done to move the people –  if there are any – in your community away from the error of thinking that the consecration during a TLM is any different in effect from a consecration in the NO.

To that end, I would resist doing this, lest you feed that error any more energy.

QUAERITUR: reserving two ciboria, for TLM and for Novus Ordo
0 votes, 0.00 avg. rating (0% score)
FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in ASK FATHER Question Box, SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

78 Responses to QUAERITUR: reserving two ciboria, for TLM and for Novus Ordo

  1. Youngcatholicstl says:

    Fr. Z –

    Unless the EF congregants believed that the hosts consecrated in the OF were not consecrated because of a defect in wording (such as in your post of a few days ago where the priest said “Blood” twice) and not because of an insufficiency with the OF itself, wouldn’t separate ciboria be in opposition to Summorum Pontificum? Pope Benedict made it crystal clear that the OF and EF are merely different forms of the same rite. To me, separate ciboria would imply that the two sets of hosts are not of the same rite, not of the same importance, and not equal in dignity.

  2. Anthony says:

    Youngcatholicstl — A possible reason for requiring two ciboria are the rubrics for the EF. A modern “Bowl” type ciborium, without a stem, would be very difficult to use (if not impossible) while holding your fingers correctly for the EF.

    Our parish has an EF Mass once a month (thanks to a very kind priest from the FSSP). On those weekends, there always ends up being a separate ciborium from the EF Mass in the tabernacle until the priests consolidate the Hosts.

  3. a priest from Michigan says:

    As usual (an understatement) Father Z is right again. But as a parish priest, I tell you these kinds of reports cause me apprehension. Such people as you have described set back the movement toward Tradition; in my parish, the traditional believers have a reputation as being rigid and judgmental. I defend them and certainly — like all generalizations — this caricature of a group of people is sometimes the exact opposite of who they really are. Unfortunately, in too many cases, the stereotype fits. The Holy Roman Catholic Church has pronounced the Mass of Paul VI — the ordinary form — as a valid rite. We need to be careful about how we think of these things. One would think that the Holy Spirit would infuse in the most devout, a kindness and zeal to evangelize (with all the patience that implies). I understand the sense of betrayal that can arise in people who have been hurt by irreverent liturgies, yet one would think such people would be all the more eager to win over those who have been confused by patient, cheerful magnanimity. Instead, what we have so often is the sense that some are superior to others. I certainly hope that Anthony is correct and the request is due to the need for the ciborium with the stem and node and not because of condescension.

  4. Fr Steven Fisher says:

    When we started the weekly EF Mass here this question came up. I told the people concerned that the hosts in the tabernacle were consecrated in either the OF or the EF, and I had no idea which. Statistically they were much more likely to be OF hosts rather than EF.

    I also resisted the suggestion that we have separate holy water. Water is blessed in both forms in my parish depending when we need it.

    I also told the person that since I was ordained in the OF if the OF hosts were invalid then my ordination probably was too in their mind and therefore the EF hosts would be… That argument seemed to be the one that worked.

    But as someone once said ‘brick by brick’. Catechesis might be necessary before a firm decision was made lest the weak fall away.

  5. I agree with Father Z that one would not want to encourage any error in thinking, especially in the belief that those Hosts which are consecrated during the Extraordinary Form Mass are any different from those of the Ordinary Form. Perhaps some people think that one Mass is better than the other, and this is simply not the case. The old Mass and the new Mass are of equal power and efficacy. Jesus does not play favorites, rather He looks at the heart.

  6. Mark M says:

    Spot on, Father! Indeed, I remember once going to serve Mass for an Extraordinary Form celebrating (nomenclature apologies) Priest who impressed upon me that he quite deliberately did not consecrate more Hosts at Mass so that he could use the ones already reserved in the Tabernacle. He was quite clear in the intention that it was to show an equal dignity and to not allow for any “our Mass is better than yours” mentalities.

  7. Alex says:

    Unless it is for a reason as suggested by Anthony, there is no good reason. In fact if it is because of the stem and node then those should be consecrated at Mass and then what is not consumed placed in the sacred vessel already in the tabernacle. Believe me, I am against the use of anything other than traditional ciboria. However, this is an opportunity to highlight that this is the Roman Rite in two expressions. I also propose the use of chalice veils, maniples, Gothic and fiddleback chasubles for this purpose.

  8. LCB says:

    Fr Steven Fisher,

    The holy water thing I can understand, because the content of the blessings is very different. The EF blessing includes an exorcism of the water, whereas the OF blessing does not.

  9. Dino says:

    This sounds like the old discussion, before V2, of whether the Hosts were “more consecrated” at a High Mass than at a Low Mass.
    All things being equal, it makes no difference whether the actual consecration is the OF, EF, in English, Latin, Spanish or Swahili.

  10. If the reason for desiring segregated ciboriums is simply a belief in the greater excellence of the EF then we would be dealing with persons who claim to be traditional but in fact are guilty of the hermeneutic of rupture and actually go so far as to deny Tradition, thus not being traditionalist at all.

    Anthony’s potential reasoning for such a desire is fine, but it would be easy enough to switch the consecrated hosts from one ciborium to another.

  11. Mike says:

    Many traditionalists believe that the Novus Ordo is completely invalid due to the same principles that made the Anglican orders invalid. See Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae. Therefore, they also believe a TLM said by a priest ordained in the New Rite is invalid, because that priest is not really a priest (according to them). Some even research to find out if the priest was ordained in the old rite and if the Bishop that also ordained him was also consecrated in the old rite. Otherwise these people go to the Eastern Churches, which did not change their sacraments at Vatican II. Father Z, maybe you can deal with an article refuting these people in depth. I know Adam S. Miller did a book defending the validity of the Novus Ordo.

    It is understandable that one may question why Pope Paul VI changed the ordination rites. Liberals will say that the changes were to make the Mass more “accessible” to the people. Ok, this may or may not be the case, but if that is the reason, then why change the ORDINATION rites? These are rites that 99 percent of Catholics will never witness in their entire lives!

    I think these topics of the validity of orders and sedevacantism need to be dealt with more. Most blogs and apologetics organizations won’t even touch the topic, but it needs to be addressed

  12. Mike said: Many traditionalists believe that the Novus Ordo is completely invalid

    They are objectively wrong and in grave error. They are separate from the authoritative teaching of the Church and are outside of apostolic Tradition. They are promoting schismatic belief and they must repent of such error and be brought back into true and authentic Catholic teaching. There is no legitimate question of the intrinsic validity of the Novus Ordo.

  13. LCB says:

    I’ll bite.

    If the argument could be made that consuming both species is a “more complete sign”, could not the same argument be made that consuming hosts consecrated at an EF is a “more complete sign”?

  14. Noel says:

    Regrettably, it seems that errors are already in some people’s mentalities.

  15. Here is a similar situation: Two of my friends are members of the local EF congregation under our bishop. They were part of a group that had returned after splitting off from the local sspx congregation some years ago.

    One of my friends had knee surgury in the local Catholic hospital. While there the Catholic woman chaplain came and offered Communion to my friend. She refused it. Later the local priest was making his rounds and again offered her Communion. Again she refused it saying she was a member of the EF congregation.

    In the second instance, I invited my other friend to come to my OF parish with me one Sunday. He came but did not go to Communion. He later said it wasn’t valid because we used EMHC. He wouldn’t even receive from the priest’s line.

    Later on a different day, I reciprocated and attended his EF Mass with him and received on the tongue as was the custom there, saying I believed that his Mass was as valid as mine. Of course, his comment was: “Naturally, because you know we have the true Mass.”

    Sad, isn’t it?

  16. Tom says:

    With the rise of Eucharistic Adoration, there is a growing perception in both communities that this is higher/better than
    reception of Communion

  17. joe says:

    I would hope those not willing to receive hosts from the NO realise sooner rather than later that they are in fact, at least practically speaking, sedevacantist. I was there and it took me a while to figure it out and admit it. If you accept Benedict and his immediate predecessors as popes, than you have to accept the missal that they promulgate, as well as the liturgical laws that go with it(emhc’s, Protestant’s being able to receive under certain conditions,etc). Be true to Christ and be consistent-consistently faithful to the Catholic faith as it was transmitted by true popes before Vatican II. Recognise that Rome no longer is Catholic. By their fruits you shall know them.

    Joe

  18. LCB says:

    I have a lot of sympathy for those that have issues with the NO. Here is why:

    Imagine being married to a beautiful bride. You are happily married for some time, and go out of town on a business trip for a day. Upon coming back you find that she has been totally ravaged by meth, is living on the streets, her arm is full of needle marks, and she is prostituting herself to anyone who comes along. Her face has been badly disfigured, and she now talks with a New York accent. All of this happened in one or two days.

    Further, this disfigured bride is only found in a certain neighborhood. When the man returns to his home, he finds the same woman he left, looking the same, and so on.

    I have sympathy because I can understand a person saying “That woman, she is not my bride.” The reaction can be both kneejerk (denial), or from an evaluation of the facts. A genetic test may prove that she is, infact, the spouse, but the change is so shocking and stunning that the person may still be in denial.

    Why sketch this example out? Am I trying to justify the position? No I’m not. What I am trying to show is how it is a sympathetic position and is somewhat understandable, especially from the side of those who have a great love and attachment to the EF.

    The new translation of the NO will likely help a great deal, as would getting rid of Extraordinary Ministers at Mass.

  19. Frank P says:

    Perhaps the reservations of some traditionalists with regard to the status of a host consecrated in the OF have to do with the inthetion of the priest to “do what the Church intends to do” when conscrating the host. It is a sad fact that many “presiders” using the OF no longer have this intention. Those priests who offer the Mass in the EF however, are more likely to hold firm to this intention.

  20. LCB:

    It might be true that both species symbolically reflects the presence of Christ (flesh and blood combined to bring forth life), but intrinsically Christ is truly, fully, and equally present under either species. One does not receive “more” of Christ by receiving under both species. It makes a grand symbolic point, but in terms of our union with Christ in the Eucharist it makes no difference. Thus, one could argue that the EF has better form, is better suited towards preparing the soul for the transcendent, etc., but one cannot argue that there is any difference whatsoever in the Eucharist in the OF vis-a-vis the EF. Christ is truly and perfectly present any time a priest in either Mass consecrates the Bread and Wine.

  21. LCB:

    An additional point: Since we are talking about the reserve Eucharist in the Tabernacle, the idea of a “more complete sign” would be irrelevant, because those consecrated Eucharists would be used in the Mass in the Extraordinary Form (in the case of those being consumed by Catholics who only attend the EF and desire the segregation), or by the sick who have the Eucharist brought to them. If the former, they are still getting the full benefit of the Extraordinary Form and there is no distinction among the hosts, since it is equally Christ no matter under which form it is consecrated; if the latter, they are not having a full Mass anyway, and so once again it is only a matter of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which, again, is equal in all hosts validly consecrated under either form.

  22. LCB says:

    Michael,

    On your first post: But is a host consecrated at an EF Mass a “More complete sign”? (There is a bit of tongue-in-cheek mocking of the concept of “more complete sign” involved with my question). The faithful have been encouraged to seek out Communion under both species as a “more complete sign”, so why not Communion from an EF-consecrated host as a “more complete sign”, especially because the EF focuses more on Sacrifice. I do not doubt the Real Presence in any fashion, in either the EF or NO.

    On your second post: It seems you’re making, perhaps unintentionally, an argument in favor of returning to Communion received only one species for all the faithful, since the concept of a “more complete sign” seems to be moot if one has attended mass.

    FWIW, I would agree that the concept of a “more complete sign” is moot, and shifts the focus from participation in the mass itself to reception of Communion.

  23. Fr A says:

    There are other reasons — not mentioned above — for which it may be perfectly legitimate to maintain two (or more) separate ciboria in the tabernacle.

    a) Those who suffer from celiac disease ought to avoid consuming the standard wheat hosts most frequently in use. Special, gluten-free wheat hosts are available for their Communion.

    b) Some congregations (I’m thinking in particular — but not exclusively — of those who have a predilection for the Gregorian rite) prefer the use of pure white hosts over the currently trendy whole wheat variety. The use of either is licit, both types are validly consecrated (whether at the OF or the EF), but some worshippers simply prefer one over the other. Nothing wrong with that.

  24. Anonymous Seminarian says:

    I concur with the above posters who said this practice could lead to dangerous territory. There is no defect of form in the new Rite (and that will be especially clear when the new translation comes out). Its also presumed that a priest has the correct intention when celebrating a Rite solemnly, and doesn’t state a counter-intention.

    I think reserving separate Hosts will just foster a schismatic mentality.

  25. stigmatized says:

    it is so sad when one considers that the council of trent stated that someone who insists that the eucharistic prayer must be said aloud is ‘anathema’. most priests DO insist this. they in fact do more…they insist that the prayer be recited directly into a microphone. they also insist that the eucharistic prayer be said in the vernacular. the council of trent also said that people who insist upon this are anathema. if priests who say mass in the novusordo religion are anathematized then maybe it is better to reserve their hosts in a separate place. if priests are not anathematized in the novusordo religion then let them demonstrate it by coming out of sacristies all around the world tomorrow with no microphones and celebrating the novus ordo mass in latin and facing eastward. their inability to do this most simple of things would be a sign.

    it would seem that we are not supposed to ‘worry’ about what the council of trent said. but if it is true that we are not supposed to worry about what the council of trent taught then why should we endlessly worry about what apostolicae curae said? people DO worry about apostolicae curae. for some reason. as a matter of fact, most people who laugh at you for ‘worrying’ about the council of trent call you ‘schismatic’ if you attend the anglican church.

  26. What’s wrong with girls with New York accents? :)

  27. Dave N. says:

    “Apparently, there is some concern about receiving Communion with hosts consecrated at the Ordinary Form Mass.”

    It doesn’t take much to divine what the probable nature of this concern. Good advice.

  28. LCB:

    No, the more complete sign argument is not analogous because the reception under both species is a more complete sign only because of the symbolism of the matter, even though it is but accidental, not the presence of Christ or the form in which it was consecrated. Once a host is consecrated, since there is no difference in quality of the consecration itself, there could be no such argument as a “more complete sign” because that would necessitate that one could actually tell the difference between the two.

  29. stigmatized,

    Trent was not defining liturgical dogma, so your point is moot.

  30. LCB:

    Also, this isn’t about sympathy for those who prefer the EF. I think the vast majority of the readers here prefer the EF. The issue here is simple the validity of the OF, and whether the hosts consecrated are intrinsically equal in value as those consecrated at the EF. To say that the OF is invalid or that there is a qualitative difference between an EF consecrated host and an OF consecrated host is to move towards schism and is an unacceptable attitude (I know you’re not taking that position, I’m just trying to bring this back to the topic of the post, which is the segregation of hosts).

  31. Anonymous Seminarian says:

    “Perhaps the reservations of some traditionalists with regard to the status of a host consecrated in the OF have to do with the inthetion of the priest to “do what the Church intends to do” when conscrating the host. It is a sad fact that many “presiders” using the OF no longer have this intention. Those priests who offer the Mass in the EF however, are more likely to hold firm to this intention.”

    A priest can be a obstinate heretic, deny the Real Presence, and still consecrate the Eucharist validly. He does not need to believe what the Church believes, but only needs to do what the Church intends. When a priest says “This is my Body” and “This is my Blood” in an approved liturgy, then he is carrying out a rite of the Church. His intention is presumed, unless it can be proved that he secretly withheld intention (which is impossible in most cases).

  32. Heather says:

    Why can’t the faithful receive hosts consecrated during the Mass they are attending? I believe the GIRM stipulates that they should.

  33. Matthew W. I. Dunn says:

    Given that there is here an implied denial by Catholics of the sacramental efficacy of the OF of the Holy Mass, I find the above reply quite irenic.

    Is this the same man who went ballistic for a couple weeks over the Vatican’s “love fest” with the abortionist Pres. Obama? Yet, possibly deny the validity of the revised Mass and . . .

  34. The only reason I would have a separate ciborium is the need for more consecrated hosts at the Mass. Either Jesus Christ is present or He isn’t. If someone doesn’t believe the OF is valid, that is their problem! They are heretics. They do have a right to prefer to attend any rite approved by the Church, yet, they don’t have a right to reject the validity of any unless the priest personally does something to destroy the validity!

  35. LCB says:

    Matthew,

    Where has Fr. Z denied the sacramental efficacy of the OF of the Holy Mass? Direct quotations only please. [I don’t think he is saying thta I denied anything. I think he was being a little sly.]

    Even I, while playing devil’s advocate for this position (trying to flesh out some angles for a good discussion) am not taking that hypothetical position.

    Michael,

    I think you’re right, and I don’t see a way to take my hypothetical argument any further.

    Other than health concerns (mentioned above for those that need special hosts), or perhaps some situation where consecrated hosts are pre-counted in advance based on expected attendance, I don’t see the argument carrying much water.

    Frater,

    Nothing at all :-D And please don’t tell any of them that I implied otherwise.

  36. Breier says:

    How is “reconciliation” being aided if you treat people with doubts about the validity of the Novus Ordo with such harshness? St. Paul circumcised a man so as not be a scandal to the Jews, but noone gives a fig about scandalizing troubled traditionalists?

    The Eastern Catholics remove the “Filioque” from their creeds, might that ben countenancing an error? Oh no, it’s aiding reconciliation with the East. How about using unleaved bread an Eastern liturgy? Same real presence right? Oh no, grave sacrilege, we can’t mix rites.

    So the mere existence of the same Real Presence, and the danger of countenancing an error, are not necessarily dispositive in settling this issue. If we really want to bring in wounded traditionalists, I don’t see why removing causes of scandal is necessarily wrong. Wouldn’t it be better to get the people comfortable with going to a diocesan Mass without scruple? Wouldn’t that in itself be meliorative as opposed to being an independent chapel?

    I think there is a reason for separate ciboria precisely because people have wrong-headed ideas. If I was going to send a missionary to sedevacantists I’d pick someone ordained under the old rite and who’d never celebrated the Novus Ordo. Why? Because he’d have greater authority and less reason for people to doubt him. Someone like that could be a bridge to the truth.

    It seems to me quite sensible that if you

  37. Breier says:

    Or we could just translate “Pro Multis” correctly as “For Many.” Or should we keep the error ofc “For All” less we countenance people scandalized by the mistranslation?

  38. Breier says:

    Could not someone submit a dubia to the CDW asking permission to substitute “for many” in place of “for all” prior to the eventual promulgation of the new translation? That would eliminate the need for two ciboria for anyone, since the mistranslation of “pro multis” is what makes causes the most doubts about the Novus Ordo, since people assume that it’s part of consecratory formula and that changing the meaning invalidates the consecration. All that scandal could be removed by changing one word.

    Or better yet, priests at such parishes could celebrate the Novus Ordo in Latin…

  39. stigmatized says:

    the anathemas of the council of trent were never revoked. why do priests refuse to celebrate mass in the novusordo religion in latin and without a microphone?

    after removing the wool people have hastily pulled down over us i found the canon…

    CANON IX.–If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only…let him be anathema.

  40. David Gardiner says:

    The hosts and wine consecrated in the OF are the very Body and Blood of Christ and those who suggest otherwise are themselves in error. I have great empathy for those who have been hurt and scandalized by liturgical abuses in the celebration of the OF, however, there have been abuses associated with poor celebration of the EF throughout its history as well. The 20-minute low Masses in many parishes prior to the reforms were also cause for scandal, as were the so called “printer’s Masses” which were more commonly referred to the “drunks’ Masses”. That being said, there indeed are valid reasons to emply a ciborium with a knop if there is to be an EF Mass. But to suggest anything other than practicality for the proper celebration of each rite is to open the door for grave confusion and harm to the Church. Thanks to this Holy Father, a system of checks and balances is gently being introduced — wisely through example — for liturgical celebrations of the OF. And most folks are actually being quite good about it. It was the great Francis De Sales who coined the expression, you can catch more flies with honey…
    Long live the Pope!

  41. Breier says:

    Stigmatized,

    You have to may close attention to the language of the canon you cited. It doesn’t forbid a canon said out loud, nor does it forbid Mass in the vernacular. It only referts to people who condemn a silent canon, or who condemn a non-vernacular liturgy. It condemns certain attitudes, but it doesn’t condemn the Novus Ordo as such.

  42. stigmatized says:

    when i have asked priests to say the novus ordo mass in latin and facing eastward after they refused to celebrate the extraordinary form they have told me that this was Not Possible.

  43. Breier, those who doubt the validity of the NO Mass do not deserve gentleness at this point because they have been taught over and over by the Church and have renounced Church teaching. It is a spirit of disobedience that afflicts them, and they are denying the authority of the Church. Paul was not at all gentle with those who renounced Church teachings regarding circumcision and other Jewish laws when those who were in error had already been properly taught. His famous, “You stupid Galatians…are you so stupid?” passage is all about those who had been properly catechized and then renounced that catechesis and submitted to Jewish covenant laws such as circumcision. I’m not saying this is analogous, but you made the point so it bears correcting. Those who have been poorly catechized into thinking that the NO is invalid or that there is a qualitative difference between Eucharists deserve gentleness. Those who have received proper teaching and continue to renounce it (including some who comment in this blog) are best treated in a different manner. A point in time comes when gentleness is not appropriate. More often than not, when dealing with those who simply renounce Church teaching in a spirit of disobedience and continue to reject the validity of the NO, gentleness is not the appropriate response, anymore than Christ was gentle with the Pharisees or Paul was gentle with the Galatians or the Corinthians.

  44. Louis Ullmer says:

    In my experience, peoples’ concerns with Hosts consecrated in the OF are not due to a defect in the missal or Mass itself but more from a worry about defect in matter, form, or intention by the priest… similar as what was alluded to by Frank P above.

    These concerns arise from stories of priests insisting that Mass is not a sacrifice, but a meal, by statistics saying that a large percentage of priests no longer believe in the Real Presence, etc.

    Are these worries justifiable? It’s probably a situation best brought privately to the priest or your confessor, who likely would deal with it gently and prudently as Fr. Steven Fisher does above.

  45. Roland de Chanson says:

    In attempting to learn more about the history of the FSSPX, I stumbled across a site purporting to espouse “traditional Catholicism”. It appears to be scurrilous in the extreme and in a recent posting (http://www.traditio.com/comment/com0907.htm) under date of July 16 (!) purports to show Pope Benedict XVI consecrating a pretzel and pilsner.

    I am no expert on doctored photographs, but is this image authentic? I cannot believe that it is. If not, that site should be shut down. Does anyone have any information on this sacrilegious site?

  46. dcs says:

    I am no expert on doctored photographs, but is this image authentic?

    No.

    I would strongly advise against reading that site or linking to it.

  47. Roland,

    Do you honestly think there is even the remotest possibility that the Holy Father is consecrating a pretzel and a beer as valid matter? Come on…

  48. stigmatized says:

    if someone doubts the validity of the novus ordo it means that it is not valid FOR THEM. in other words, if a person is of the old rite but priests refuse to minister to them according to their rite this implies that they do not have existence to the same degree that others in the church have existence. it also implies that what they may have read in summorum pontificum is itself not valid…or that they made up summorum pontificum in their mind. receiving communion in the novus ordo religion could, in a very real sense, be a sacrament of one’s own nonexistence.

  49. wsxyz says:

    I agree with Father Z that one would not want to encourage any error in thinking, especially in the belief that those Hosts which are consecrated during the Extraordinary Form Mass are any different from those of the Ordinary Form.

    So far, so good. The hosts consecrated at any valid Mass are the body, blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord.

    Perhaps some people think that one Mass is better than the other, and this is simply not the case. The old Mass and the new Mass are of equal power and efficacy.

    This does not follow. Consecrated hosts are not the only effects of Holy Mass. It is entirely possible, indeed likely, that the traditional Mass is more effective in bringing the grace of God upon the Church and those assisting than the new Mass.

  50. wsxyz says:

    Many traditionalists believe that the Novus Ordo is completely invalid …

    What is your definition of “traditionalist?”

    In fact, only a tiny minority of traditional Catholics believe such a thing, unless your definition of “traditionalist” is “sedevacantist.”

  51. David2 says:

    Mike,

    The “traditionalists” to whom you refer are really sedevacantists.

    Michael Davies deals with this at length in his “The Order of Melchisidek: A defence of the Catholic Priesthood”.

    http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/melchisedech.htm

    Roland,

    The ‘traditio’ site is sedevacantist, and scurrilous. The pretzel and pilsner image is fake. A protestant colleage of mine e-mailed it to me way back in 2005, thinking it a great joke.

  52. Dominic says:

    In reply to “Anonymous seminarian”:

    “He does not need to believe what the Church believes, but only needs to do what the Church intends”

    That’s not quite right. The priest needs to intend to do what the Church does. (Am I just being picky? Maybe, but maybe not.)

  53. Dominic says:

    Here are some reasons I can think of why traditionalist people might not be comfortable receiving communion consecrated at a Novus Ordo Mass:

    1.) The potential for abuse is much greater. Perhaps if you know the priest(s) who say the OF in a particular place, then this would not be a concern. But, generally speaking, is there not the danger that you could be receiving hosts that were consecrated at a truly loony OF?

    2.) While those who follow the line of Archbishop Lefebvre certainly do admit the validity of the OF in abstracto, they do not admit the liturgical parity of the two rites. The offertory of the OF, for example, represents a significant diminution in the adequacy of expression of the intentions of the sacrifice. Communion is intimate union both in the sacrifice and in its ritual expression. One could be uncomfortable showing intimate union with something one believes to be an inadequate expression of Christ’s sacrifice.

    3.) Generally speaking, the arguments along the lines of “it’s valid therefore you don’t have the right to express reservations” are too black-and-white. We need room to express nuances of assent to different liturgical forms.

  54. Michael says:

    HYPOTHETICALLY – Would there be an issue with an Eastern Catholic bi-ritual priest who celebrated a Latin Mass in the Eastern parish, using the priest’s unleavened host to celebrate the Mass, but distributing the leavened host that was placed in the Tabernacle after the previous Divine Liturgy (either wholly or partially [i.e. due to lack of hosts, etc])?

  55. Alice says:

    Roland,
    That picture is doctored and the news paper that printed it in August of 2005 issued an apology for doing so. Just do a little googling and you’ll find that it’s a hoax.

    Stigmatized,
    You’ve completely lost me. The OF is valid, whether or not you accept it. To claim that the OF is invalid for those who believe that it is invalid is relativism.

  56. B. says:

    I do not think that the NO is invalid and I have absolutely no problem recieving communion from my parish’s pastor.
    However, I can understand the concern regarding mixing of NO consecrated hosts. I once accidentally stumbled into the NO that is celebrated in the Church where our TLM is offered. It certainly was not a Catholic service and I don’t know if it was Christian at all. The pastor made a point about the nonexistence of heaven and called all those believing in heaven “unchristian”. I have also been to NOs where the priest openly said that he did not believe in the real presence, invented a eucharistic prayer and never genuflected towards the host. I never got the impression that these priests wanted to do what the Church does.
    So as long as you do not know exactly who is celebrating, at least in my diocese there is real reason for concern.

  57. LCB says:

    Michael,

    That’s a ridiculously awesome question.

    I hope someone who knows the answer chimes in.

  58. Philippe says:

    Father, I agree with you but why keep more hosts in the tabernacle than necessary? The hosts reserved in the tabernacle are intended primarily for the Viaticum. Is the congregation systematically sick at Mass? Eucharisticum Mysterium says (3,g) that the Blessed Sacrament is reserved “ad extensionem gratiae sacrificii”. Therefore, why not follow the practice recommended by Pius XII in Mediator Dei: consecrate a fresh ciborium at each Mass and distribute it?

    I expect the usual objections: too complicated, too lenghty etc. but this is what is practiced by all of the Catholic Churches, except just by the Western Church, and they find it perfectly feasible. Second, this would dramatically enhance the awareness of the link between the celebration of the Eucharist and its consumption (“consecratur ut summatur”). Isn’t this beautifully expressed in the Roman Canon: “ex hac altaris participatione”? What do we make of the Roman Canon?

  59. Veritas says:

    If the New Order Mass is invalid then it would seem that all masses in the first millenium were so. One would wish that its critics would accept the logic of their position. Certainly it lacks the numinous quality of the Mass of Pius V, which was a reformed version of the Mass of the Middle Ages, but that does not make it invalid.

  60. tired student says:

    Re: people refusing the Host in a hospital setting because they’re not sure in what form it was consecrated: I spent a week in a secular hospital and was not visited by a priest even though I asked for one immediately upon admittance. I was peeved, to say the least, especially because I would have preferred to make a confession before receiving which is not possible with a lay minister. Grace is grace, however, and almost certainly the Host I would have received would have been consecrated at the OF. To refuse the Eucharist from any rite of the Church is hubris indeed.

  61. wsxyz says:

    If the New Order Mass is invalid then it would seem that all masses in the first millenium were so.

    How does that follow?
    Because in the first millenium:
    * Many priests at that time did not believe that the bread and wine became the body and blood of Our Lord?
    * Contrary to the traditional Mass and Holy Scripture, the words of institution at that time included the phrase “for all”?
    * The words of institution at that time did not include the phrase Mysterium fidei?
    * All of the above?

  62. Veritas says:

    wsxyz Point 1 There were priests in the 18th century such as the Bishop pf Autun, Talleyrand, who did not believe in God, yet alone any consecration, yet this did not invalidate the Mass of Pius V.

    Point 2. What please is the traditional Mass? That mentioned in the Didache, that of St Hippolytus? Tradition is never constant.
    Point 3. Can you find these words in any of these liturgies?

    Point 4. The liturgy of Addai and Mari, that of the Assyrian Christians ,did not include the institution narrative at all until 1890. They obeyed the Lord’s command to take, give thanks, break, and distribute and it seems no one questioned the validity of their masses.

  63. General Instruction of the Roman Missal:

    ‘85. It is most desirable that the faithful, just as the priest himself is bound to do, receive the Lord’s Body from hosts consecrated at the same Mass and that, in the instances when it is permitted, they partake of the chalice, so that even by means of the signs Communion will stand out more clearly as a participation in the sacrifice actually being celebrated.’

    The widespread practice of the old days of ‘tabernacle Communions’ is still, unfortunately, widespread. When the priest gives Holy Communion from the Hosts reserved in the tabernacle he is, in effect, leading a Communion service within the Mass. In most ordinary pastoral situations a sufficient number of hosts can be prepared before the Mass, whether EF or OF, with a small number of hosts being left in the tabernacle for Communion of the sick and for adoration.

    Many places now have Communion services on weekdays and Sundays led by lay persons, a practice I find questionable, and many people see no difference between such a service and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. I believe that centuries of ‘tabernacle Communions’ have led to this impoverished understanding of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. For some all that matters is receiving Holy Communion.

    In no way am I suggesting that those who receive Holy Communion from the tabernacle are receiving any ‘lesser’ form of Holy Communion but I am suggesting that perhaps they are not fully participating in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

    If priest celebrating Mass in either form followed the GIRM – I know the GIRM is for Mass in the Ordinary Form but the theology of the Sacrifice is what’s behind it – this rather bizarre discussion would never have arisen.

  64. Maureen says:

    Would it be participating more fully in the Mass, if the priest was standing there before Mass counting how many people were there, and going back and adding more hosts to the ciborium for every family that comes in? Or if people were standing in the back of the church chunking hosts into the ciborium with tongs all the time as they came in, with the tongs occasionally clattering or clicking as people had difficulty with handling them?

    The words “giant distracting pain in the butt” come to mind.

    Obviously, this is something priests have to think about. But every single Host really is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ, and frankly, while I’m thinking about the perpetuity of the once-for-all sacrifice, I think it’s a bit late to worry about whether I’m receiving from the ciborium that stood on the altar or the extras the deacon fetched from the tabernacle. This Mass is not any different from any other Mass; transubstantiation doesn’t wear off with time (except time in my gullet — and that’s the dissolving, not the time it takes).

    In fact, it’s rude to worry about it, just as it would be rude to worry about whether my iced tea came from the pitcher on the table or the reserve pitcher back in the kitchen. It’s all the same iced tea, and it all mixes together in your stomach just the same.

    Basically, then, that isn’t my problem, as a laywoman. Host numbers are the priest’s problem, part of the ars celebrandi stuff that I don’t need to see or know. Don’t care. Don’t need to. Not any kind of scandal or abuse. Thus, not gonna think about it.

  65. The SSPX used to promote this error directly in their website FAQ some years ago. I did a quick look and that seems to be gone now, or perhaps I didn\’t look sufficiently to find it. However, I found this indirect version of that type of error at http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__theological.htm.

    \”This is why it [the Novus Ordo Mass] is a grave danger to the Faith, and why priests should not celebrate it, nor should the faithful assist at it, under pain of sin. [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]\”

    Doctrinal discussions indeed!

  66. Roland de Chanson says:

    Thanks to all who clarified the issue of the fake picture of Pope Benedict. I looked a bit more at the site and it does seem to be sedevacantist.

    What with all the abuses in the NO, I suppose I can be forgiven for momentarily thinking this was an experimental new “Teutonic Rite”? ;-)

  67. wsxyz says:

    Point 1 There were priests in the 18th century such as the Bishop pf Autun, Talleyrand, who did not believe in God, yet alone any consecration, yet this did not invalidate the Mass of Pius V.

    The same people who believe that the new Mass is invalid may well consider those masses to have been invalid as well, but that is beside the point. You were claiming that masses of the first millennium are somehow similar to the new Mass in such a way that people might consider them all invalid. So are you arguing that there was widespread disbelief in the first millennium that the bread and wine truly become the body and blood of Christ, or not?

    Point 2. What please is the traditional Mass? That mentioned in the Didache, that of St Hippolytus? Tradition is never constant.

    Does it matter? Which of those masses included the phrase “for all” in the words of institution?

    Point 3. Can you find these words in any of these liturgies?

    Do we have complete texts for any of these masses? How about those traditional latin rite masses for which we do have complete texts?

    Point 4. The liturgy of Addai and Mari, that of the Assyrian Christians ,did not include the institution narrative at all until 1890 … it seems no one questioned the validity of their masses.

    Actually very many people have questioned the validity of those masses. In fact very many people do still question the validity of those masses. Oh by the way, why did they start including the institution narrative?

  68. stigmatized says:

    in that multitudes of priests have the attitudes concerning worship which cause them to be anathematized by the council of trent, don’t you think this is the real concern? surely the fathers of that council knew well that different rites of the church have different beliefs concerning when consecration occurs. how silly to think that a priest can have all the attitudes condemned by trent but, because he has someone ring a bell three times at ‘the moment of consecration’, he is okay. maybe he is. but if he is then so are anglican priests. to say otherwise, at this late date, is hypocrisy.

  69. Alice says:

    Stigmatized, Anglican orders have been found wanting, plus the Anglican communion as a whole denies transubstantiation. It is not hypocrisy for me to deny that an Anglican Mass is valid while giving a poorly done Catholic Mass (EF, OF, or some other rite) the benefit of the doubt.

  70. Michael J says:

    How many times must a Parish act contrary to the expressed will of the Church before we are allowed to entertain doubts about the validity of the particular Mass celebrated at that particular Church?

    If the TLM community in question were being established in the Brisbane parish that performed hundreds of invalid baptisms, would it be a mark of sedvacantism and a grave error to begin to doubt the validity of the Masses celebrated there as well?

  71. Sacristymaiden says:

    HYPOTHETICALLY – Would there be an issue with an Eastern Catholic bi-ritual priest who celebrated a Latin Mass in the Eastern parish, using the priest’s unleavened host to celebrate the Mass, but distributing the leavened host that was placed in the Tabernacle after the previous Divine Liturgy (either wholly or partially [i.e. due to lack of hosts, etc])?

    Michael,
    In answer to your question, the answer would be yes. But to anyone not familiar with the Eastern Rite, such a thing would be MOST confusing/misleading and even seem to be liturgical abuse. I cannot think of any rule at the moment that would prohibit such a thing, but it is NOT a common practice.
    I’ve never actually seen or heard of this happening, the closest I’ve heard is of a wedding celebrated in an Eastern church with the TLM.

  72. Jordanes says:

    wsxyz said: Actually very many people have questioned the validity of those masses. In fact very many people do still question the validity of those masses. Oh by the way, why did they start including the institution narrative?

    That’s right — the validity of Assyrian liturgies that lack the Institution Narrative has long been questioned, and when the Holy See learned that some manuscripts of that anaphora lacked an Institution Narrative, it firmly demanded an end to what it called an “incredible abuse.”

    http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2008/02/declaration-on-anaphora-of-addai-and.html

    http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2008/02/declaration-on-anaphora-of-addai-and_04.html

  73. stigmatized says:

    the same person who found anglican orders ‘wanting’ would surely find something wanting in almost every single celebration of mass in americhurch. he took the council of trent very seriously.

  74. Guillaume says:

    This attitude is more widely held than we might like to believe; for one thing, it’s been part of the SSPX “marketing” for some time, encouraging those who had access to an indult Mass (pre SP, of course) to avoid it in favor of a Society chapel. And as was mentioned in another thread there is frequent a poster on another site who smugly proclaimed she would refuse the Eucharist from the Pope’s hands if it were consecrated at a Novus Ordo Mass.

    Such crypto-sedevacantism is misguided at best, and hypocritical at worst. Liturgical bigotry exists on both ends of the spectrum, the progressivist and the pseudo-traditional.

  75. Candi says:

    Wouldn’t the sensible course to take be the on that does not make certain traditional parishioners violate their conscience? Isn’t that the most loving way to handle the situation, since as you say, Father Zed, there is no law against having seperate ciboriums? In all our ways, should we not be as gentle with the weaker brethern as we can, while praying for them?

  76. badsede says:

    It seems that the only reason to have two ciboria is because the rubrics in the EF about the ciborium are different than those of the OF. At the same time, maintaining two ciboria would only be enabling to some traditionalists who hold errors (which are ultimately the protestant error) about the OF, as well as to some others who see the EF as the “other” or “outside.” So, it seems that the best solution would be to use only one ciborium and to use one that meets the rubrics of both forms.

    On another note, I am often surprized at the reports about OF liturgies that I often hear from many fans of the EF. Don’t get me wrong, I think that the American Catholic experience is one riddled with liturgical abuses. But so often I hear about abuses and proclaimed heresies that are downright shocking. But the characterization given with these descriptions of shocking abuses and bald-faced heresy is that they are common. I’ve moved around the country a lot, I average well over the weekly mass, and I attend OF liturgies almost exclusively. Yet I have never seen these shocking abuses. And I even lived in the Sacramento archdiocese. I would think that if these shocking abuses are so common in the OF, then someone who has attended so many of them in so many different parishes in so many places would have seen far more of them than someone who only attends the occasional OF liturgy. But dishearteningly common little abuses and implied heresies aside, I have never seen one on the shocking scale. I have never met a priest of any stripe who does not believe in the Real Presence or the divinity of Jesus (seen them online and on TV though).

    Which brings me back to the main topic. My point is that this experience makes me seriously doubt the validity of the claim that the general state of orthodoxy out in the OF realm is sufficiently lacking for people to entertain legitimate doubts about the general validity of Communion from an OF liturgy. If one knows the state of the OF liturgies at that place specifically, that is another matter, but to doubt them in principle displays a significant deficit in Christian charity (assuming heresy in one’s brothers and sisters in Christ).

    I think you also have to consider the character of priests who are the type who offer the EF. I think that it is reasonable to assume that they would be conscious of whether or not the OF liturgies in that place were sufficiently error-free to safeguard the validity of their Eucharists before offering them to communicants in another mass.

  77. convertdeb says:

    As a recent convert to the faith, I find quite of bit of this discussion disturbing. First, those of you who keep referring to the consecrated host (valid or not depending on your ‘cafeteria’) as a more complete “sign” is reminiscent of protestant churches who do not have the eucharist but have the “sign”. Once consecrated, it is no longer a sign. It is the true body and true blood. If I wanted a “sign” I would have stayed protestant. If you feel the church is wrong, do something about it in the proper order. Or you can continue to follow in Luther’s footsteps. Just because you think the traditional form is more right it does not make you more Catholic. You become what you fear, a cafeteria Catholic. Roman Catholics are to follow their priests, bishops, and pope. If you cannot make changes within this chain of command, then you are simply being a cafeteria Catholic, picking and choosing what you like and leaving what you do not like.
    As a convert, I am drawn to the more traditional form of mass. My mother, who also converted recently, said on her deathbed, “We go to different churches”. This was very true. We both went to Catholic church but she only went to confession once, when she had to. She had more of a ‘feel good’ kind of church experience. My FIL also converted and he thinks he can pick and choose. How is it any different when a person says, “Well, the church is wrong about contraception, so I am not following that teaching” and a person says, “Well the church is wrong about that liturgical form, so I am not following that teaching.”? It is not any different. A person denying the authority of the church also denies the authority of God. There is a way to make changes in the church. It takes a long time, sometimes hundreds of years, to make a change in the church. Sometimes the changes are good, other times they are bad. The authority must be given to the church because Christ gave it to Peter.