From a reader…
QUAERITUR:
Father, you posted about the Divine Praises and Benediction and there is a photo in the post of Benediction. I’ve wondered about something for a while. Most of us are revolted by the regular reception of Communion in the hand because of particles and because lay hands are not consecrated like priestly hands. In some traditional parishes altar boys have to wear gloves to take the chalice to the altar or handle a communion plate. But at Benediction, which lay people can’t do, the priest uses a humeral veil to hold the monstrance which is a sacred vessel for the Host. What gives?
So, my question is, if the monstrance is a sacred vessel, and the priest’s hands are consecrated for sacred vessels, why does he have to use a humeral veil for Benediction?
Okay! Good question. Some one is observant and thoughtful.
Veils are so very important in the Roman Rite. My dear long lost friend the late and great Extraordinary Ordinary, Bishop Robert C. Morlino (shall men like him ever be made bishops again instead of what we now…. ehem… *cough*…. ummm…), once said in a regular talk he gave the chancery staff, that things cannot be revealed unless they are first veiled. Therefore, I love this question.
You are right about the difference between the hands of the laity and the hands of the priest. One quibble I have with your question is that deacons can now give Benediction also. Their hands are not consecrated. They are, however, Ministers of the Eucharist.
The humeral veil at Benediction is used precisely to make a point: the benediction (blessing) is not given by the priest as a priest, but by Christ Himself in the Blessed Sacrament.
Hence, the veil reveals (to the thoughtful and observant) a distinction of agency.
For most blessings, the priest blesses in virtue of his sacred orders. He is alter Christus, another Christ. He raises his consecrated hand and makes the sign of the Cross. At Benediction, however, he does not bless with his hand. He covers his hands, takes the monstrance, and makes the sign of the Cross with the Eucharistic Lord Himself. It shows that the LORD is making the Sign of His Cross as a blessing using the hands of the alter Christus.
The veil visually effaces – de-faces – the minister. The veil, if it could speak, is saying: “This is not Father’s blessing! This is the blessing of Jesus, truly present before your eyes.”
This also explains why the priest does not say the usual blessing formula, such as “Benedicat vos omnipotens Deus…”. For the blessing, the priest is silent as the High Priest blesses His people.
There is also a reverential, ceremonial dimension. The humeral veil is an ornament of honor, used when handling what is especially sacred such as when at Solemn Mass the Subdeacon stands at the foot of the alter behind the priest with the paten covered up with the humeral veil which he holds in front of his own face as if to make himself symbolically disappear from view.
How wise were those who lovingly crafted the sacred Roman Rite, handed down lovingly, reverently, from generation to generation for so many centuries. As they celebrated with it over time and reflected and prayed and meditated about the rites, they would from time to time apply a little polish to make it dazzle the more or perhaps to remove a little scratch. Then came the rite-smashers of the 20th century with their arrogance, who handled the precious living gift, organically developed and venerated, and treated it like a lawn mower needing repair or a set of legos. And what did they produce? A noise machine that also has elements that hurt, such as when you step on a lego with the foot you made bear out of desire to approach the bush burning with mystery.
I digress.
Wrapped in the so-expressive veil of honor and eloquent mystery the priest, though ordained and consecrated, recedes behind the sacramental presence of the Lord. His consecrated hands are at the service of mystery. The humeral veil teaches the faithful to look beyond the minister to the One whom he bears.
Worthy dispelling the idea that the priest’s hands are consecrated for the Eucharist (which goes to the point of your mention of the deacon being the ordinary minister of the chalice and extraordinary minister of Holy Communion without consecrated hands).
From the 1961 Pontifical, when the bishop is anointing the hands of the newly ordained priest with the Oil of the Catechumens:
“May it please Thee, O Lord, to sanctify and consecrate these hands by this anointing and our blessing … that whatever they bless may be blessed and whatever they consecrate may be consecrated in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ.”
So, according to the traditional rite, the purpose of consecrating a priest’s hands is so that he can bless and consecrate things, not simply to handle consecrated things.
I get the sentiment of keeping to the ordained the distribution and handling of the Eucharist, which the idea of “only with consecrated hands” communicates, but the reason there is the diaconal difficulty with this statement is it’s not, strictly speaking, correct or rooted in anything liturgical, dogmatic, or canonical.
Excellent question and answer!