Ship of Fools: Why does the celebrant need to communicate

Thread: Why does the celebrant need to communicate Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028712

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Priests often say 3 masses on a Sunday.

Do they have to communicate at each one?

Why?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Yes. And why not?

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

I don't think an Orthodox priest can say multiple masses in a day. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong!

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Is not the priest a member of the body of Christ? Is she not in communion with the congregation present at that service? It would seem to me to be very strange to not share in Communion with the gathered community of which the priest is a part.

Though, if the Communion includes alcoholic wine and the priest is driving, restraint in taking only the smallest sip of wine may be wise.

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

To complete the sacrifice. Or so I have heard it said.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
I don't think an Orthodox priest can say multiple masses in a day.

Indeed, as far as I'm aware. But then, of course, the rationale behind the western practice of multiple masses or each priest celebrating his own private mass is that 20 low masses Is more efficacious than one high mass, that these things can be quantified. Nonsense, of course.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

In the C of E the rationale is usually that a priest has to celebrate in more than one parish or that there is an 8am Eucharist left over from the days when the pattern of worship was early morning communion for the old maids, who had doubtless bicycled through the morning mist to get there, followed by Matins as the main act of worship.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

The rationale behind binating or even trinating is pastoral necessity to provide sufficient opportunities for the faithful to attend the eucharist.
The days of private masses are over as Ad Orientem should know, unless his only experience of the Catholic Church was in the SPPX, which is hardly mainstream post Vat 2 Catholicism. Since Vat 2, unless there is a pastoral necessity ,priests will normally concelebrate, just as in the Byzantine rite.
The Eucharistic sacrifice is completed in the priest's communion, so the priest should communicate at each celebration over which he presides.
There are differing practices which have grown up over the centuries. If I am right there is only one celebration of the eucharist each day in an Orthodox church. Even on a Sunday the faithful are not required to be present at the whole of the liturgy, which generally lasts a lot longer than a Catholic celebration. The generally shorter Catholic celebrations allow a greater number of participants at the liturgy of Word and Sacrament.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Well, at first level a cleric only has one spell per day, so he'd be limited to doing one Mass anyway. Once he's levelled up a bit he'd have sufficient slots.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
The Eucharistic sacrifice is completed in the priest's communion

I've heard that before but what does it actually mean?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Is a eucharist invalid if the priest doesn't communicate?

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

I think the story is that transubstantiation may have taken place, but the mass has not yet been completely offered.

Aquinas seems to say:

quote:
If the priest be stricken by death or grave sickness before the consecration of our Lord's body and blood, there is no need for it to be completed by another. But if this happens after the consecration is begun, for instance, when the body has been consecrated and before the consecration of the blood, or even after both have been consecrated, then the celebration of the mass ought to be finished by someone else.

De Defectibus of Trent, 33, extends this:

quote:
33. If before the Consecration the priest becomes seriously ill, or faints, or dies, the Mass is discontinued. If this happens after the consecration of the Body only and before the consecration of the Blood, or after both have been consecrated, the Mass is to be completed by another priest from the place where the first priest stopped, and in case of necessity even by a priest who is not fasting. If the first priest has not died but has become ill and is still able to receive Communion, and there is no other consecrated host at hand, the priest who is completing the Mass should divide the host, give one part to the sick priest and consume the other part himself. If the priest has died after half-saying the formula for the consecration of the Body, then there is no Consecration and no need for another priest to complete the Mass. If, on the other hand, the priest has died after half- saying the formula for the consecration of the Blood, then another priest is to complete the Mass, repeating the whole formula over the same chalice from the words Simili modo, postquam cenatum est; or he may say the whole formula over another chalice which has been prepared, and consume the first priest's host and the Blood consecrated by himself, and then the chalice which was left half-consecrated.

It would be odd if "consume" were the rule in this case but not in the ordinary one.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

There used to be a view that one should not communicate more than once a day. Therefore I have known priests celebrate with communicating if they had done so earlier; no one seemed to think there was anything wrong or odd about this at all.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Sometimes people talk about the Sacrfice of the Mass .
After the liturgy of the Word the people offer bread and wine. This is taken by the priest who speaks the words of consecration,in Jesus'name over the bread and wine.The Body and Blood of Christ are then offered to God the Father,just as Jesus did, in another way, on the cross.
The priest has done this both for and on behalf of the people.For and on behalf of the people the 'sacrifice' is completed by the reception of Communion by the celebrant.
Since Vatican 2 perhaps less stress has been put on the 'showing forth of the death of the Lord' and the passing on of the graces of the sacrificial death of Christ. More stress is laid now on the commemoration of the Last Supper and the sharing in the bread and wine/Body and Blood of Christ.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Is a eucharist invalid if the priest doesn't communicate?

I don't think that can be the case. There are some clergy who communicate themselves after rather than before everyone else. It would be a nonsense if at the time when the ordinary people communicate, they could not know whether the eucharist was going to be valid or invalid because of whether something else did or did not happen after they had received.

There is a second reason. There is nothing in scripture that remotely pertains to this. So if there are rulings on the subject, that is a matter for church discipline and practice.

Therefore, if you are CofE this is covered by the 1662 BCP, Common Worship, the canons etc. I suspect there's nothing in any of those that answers the question, otherwise Leo would not have asked it, and somebody would have answered it already. If you are RC, whether that is answered or not is covered by what I think is called the GIRM, and American Piskie's citation from the Council of Trent. However, if one is CofE, those no more apply to one than the rubrics of the 1662 BCP have ever applied to Catholics.

My own preference, for what it's worth, would be that the celebrant should always communicate. If that means he or she has to do so more than once on the same day, that spiritual indigestion is a sacrifice he or she has to bear in the service of a laity in a church with not enough clergy to go round.

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

There is nothing in scripture that remotely pertains to this.

Well, the only theological reason I have read did quote scripture: "Take, eat ...". The reasoning then runs "The Lord addressed these words to the Apostles, whose successors (or their deputies) are the ones standing at the altar".

(disclaimer: I am not terribly convinced by the rules and written reasons. I realise though what a sheltered life I've led: it had never crossed my mind that in normal circumstances the president would not eat and drink.)

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

Ritual Notes goes on at some length and in delightful detail about the procedures for modifying the ablutions when the priest must bi- or trinate (since the unconsecrated wine traditionally used counted as "food"!). Retro that I am, I wouldn't be inclined to think of any eating or drinking connected to the Eucharistic ceremonies as breaking the fast.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

In my diocese the practice of the priest-presider communicating last has crept in. It's a sort of "look at me and how humble I am" practice, so far as I can see.

But I would never want not to communicate. having celebrated the great saving acts of God in human history it would be just a wee tad strange to say "yeah, but not for me thanks."

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

False humility is exactly what it is.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Indeed it is.

It is also self-aggrandizement.

It is the LORD'S table, not the priest's. So the priest is not a gracious host, attending to his guests first.

He is as much a guest as the rest of us.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Yes. And why not?

The priest I am thinking about gave two reasons for two occasions:

1) I communicated at the 8 o' clock

2) I forgot.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

It is my considered opinion that the celebrant/presider should receive first, before they go on to communicate the congregation. A celebrant not receiving when presiding is unknown to me.

However, I have been a confused communicant at an informal celebration when the paten and chalice were passed from one communicant to the next. In supposing that the celebrant had received first when that was not the case, I did not know what to do as to whether or not to address the celebrant by the formula, "The Body (or Blood) of Christ", after I had received and it fell to me to hand the element back to the celebrant, standing at the end of the row.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Indeed it is.

It is also self-aggrandizement.

It is the LORD'S table, not the priest's. So the priest is not a gracious host, attending to his guests first.

He is as much a guest as the rest of us.

Amen.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The priest I am thinking about gave two reasons for two occasions:

1) I communicated at the 8 o' clock

2) I forgot.

As a person who is not as young as he used to be, I find the second of those excuses the better one.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

2) I forgot.

I know a Methodist who gave up on the presider receiving last thing for precisely this reason: she would sometimes forget to receive. I'll admit there are a few things I've occasionally forgotten during Mass. The dialogue before the Gospel is one, the double alleluia at the dismissal during the Octave is another. But I fail to see how I could ever forget to receive: I'm holding the consecrated species in my hands and I've just said "but only say the word and my soul shall be healed." If it's in my hands, it's going in my mouth at that point.

[duplicate post deleted... djo!]

[ 05. November 2014, 22:28: Message edited by: dj_ordinaire ]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

From the rubrics (general notes) of Common Worship:
'The president must say the Eucharistic Prayer, break the consecrated bread and receive the sacrament on every occasion.'

So there is no argument, for C of E Anglicans, about what we should do. The reasons why have been addressed above; despite the mechanical and sometimes unhelpful language about 'completing the sacrifice', there is a truth there. The priest is not just providing a service for the congregation, s/he is part of it. And while not everyone needs to communicate, and while the eucharist is as much about offering as it is sharing a meal, receiving the sacrament is the natural and logical consummation of the celebration.

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

Even the Westminster Directory was explicit that the minister should receive the sacrament. I think one might say that this was until recently the unbroken practice of the English Church.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Very interesting last two points - that has given me the information I sought.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

The way it's been explained to me, for the Episcopal Church, is that anyone may receive Communion, priests included, more than once in a day if it's with a different congregation. I don't think that comes up much for most people, but those who work in a church shouldn't feel they have to refrain from all but one of the services they participate in.

As for priests receiving last - one case where it was probably the right thing to do: Bishop Swing, in the Diocese of California, asked priests to receive last during the AIDS crisis in the 80s and 90s, as a way to show that there was no fear of catching the disease from the shared chalice. That, I think, was truly hospitable.

I've served at the altar with some priests who seem to like to receive last because they can just finish off the wine (as part of ablutions). That doesn't seem legit to me - receiving the Sacrament and performing ablutions should be two different acts IMO. The priest should be able to receive Communion like the rest of us - not as a separate act of "cleaning up" after the rest of us.

Posted by Sacerdote (# 11627) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Indeed it is.

It is also self-aggrandizement.

It is the LORD'S table, not the priest's. So the priest is not a gracious host, attending to his guests first.

He is as much a guest as the rest of us.

Posted by Sacerdote (# 11627) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Indeed it is.

It is also self-aggrandizement.

It is the LORD'S table, not the priest's. So the priest is not a gracious host, attending to his guests first.

He is as much a guest as the rest of us.

Might this not also be an argument in favour of celebration "ad orientem"?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sacerdote:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Indeed it is.

It is also self-aggrandizement.

It is the LORD'S table, not the priest's. So the priest is not a gracious host, attending to his guests first.

He is as much a guest as the rest of us.
Might this not also be an argument in favour of celebration "ad orientem"?

I can sort of see how that could be an argument in favour of the north position (i.e. southwards). I can't see how it could be an argument in favour of eastward as against the current westward facing one.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I suspect the E v W argument is in danger of becoming an Ecclesiantical dead horse. I sort of agree with Sacerdote that if ad orientem means 'all facing the same way' and 'versus populum' is taken literally to mean the priest is in some way 'opposed' to the people, then the former is preferable. But I prefer a setting where all gather around the altar on all sides, thus all face the same way towards the presence of Christ in our midst. I don't like traditional altars that are pulled away from the east wall by a couple of metres or less.

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:

I've served at the altar with some priests who seem to like to receive last because they can just finish off the wine (as part of ablutions). That doesn't seem legit to me - receiving the Sacrament and performing ablutions should be two different acts IMO. The priest should be able to receive Communion like the rest of us - not as a separate act of "cleaning up" after the rest of us.

Yes. At our place, it is the vergers who deal with the ablutions after the main Sunday Eucharist and there have been a couple of occasions when I haven't managed to receive at the altar but then have to consume what is left. This feels very strange to me.

Carys

Posted by DangerousDeacon (# 10582) on :

In my last parish, which was a rural parish, there were three churches. It would have been bizarre not to have communicated at each one. If I am their priest and their brother, it would have been very odd to say "this is for you, the Body of Christ which we share, but not for me at the 10 o'clock service thank you very much". If there was too much wine, I usually had an obliging lay assistant to help.

Far easier to receive first, which helps emphasise that we are all in this together. On a couple of occasions, for good reasons peculiar to the service, I communicated last (and then did the ablutions as a separate act), but in general surely the priest should show the unity of the body of Christ by communicating first in full view of the Congregation, rather than when half of them have their backs turned returning to their pew?

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I don't like traditional altars that are pulled away from the east wall by a couple of metres or less.

Agree. Also churches where a central altar is used for the main eucharist, but the unused East End altar remains in place and is referred to as the "High Altar" and is bowed to in preference to the one actually used. (The entire choir, clergy and serving team at a church I know well put their bottoms out at the end of the main Sunday service towards the altar that has been used.)

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Also churches where a central altar is used for the main eucharist, but the unused East End altar remains in place and is referred to as the "High Altar" and is bowed to in preference to the one actually used. (The entire choir, clergy and serving team at a church I know well put their bottoms out at the end of the main Sunday service towards the altar that has been used.)

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I take it DangerousDeacon is now a PerilousPriest. Either way he or she is a sound thing.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I suspect the E v W argument is in danger of becoming an Ecclesiantical dead horse. I sort of agree with Sacerdote that if ad orientem means 'all facing the same way' and 'versus populum' is taken literally to mean the priest is in some way 'opposed' to the people, then the former is preferable. But I prefer a setting where all gather around the altar on all sides, thus all face the same way towards the presence of Christ in our midst. I don't like traditional altars that are pulled away from the east wall by a couple of metres or less.

I think versus is used as an adverb in that expression, and has rather the sense "towards" or "facing" than "opposed to".

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

While the Latin 'versus' can be used as an adverb,
it is being used here as a preposition followed by the accusative case :

populus but versus populum

'ad' in Latin is also a preposition followed by the accusative case

oriens but ad orientem

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Versus populum is complete break from the liturgical tradition of the Church. The rising sun is a sign of the risen Christ. It is also where our Lord will return and thus our facing the east is also a sign of our hope in the parousia just as, for instance, burial (as opposed to cremation) is a sign of our hope in the resurrection. These are visible signs of our faith - lex orandi lex credendi. Cardinal Ratzinger's writings on this are a great help.

[ 25. November 2014, 14:20: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0