Archive for chalice
And More on Crucifixes
ROME, JAN. 17, 2012 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.
Q: Why does the second response to the celebrant’s invitation, “The mystery of faith” retain the term “cup” instead of “chalice” as contained in the words of consecration? Is this an error in translation or is it correct? — T.A., Makurdi, Nigeria
A: I was not involved in the translation so, to be quite honest, anything I say will be speculative at best.
The text says: “When we eat this Bread and drink this Cup, we proclaim your death, O Lord, until you come again.”
It is unlikely to have been a simple oversight or a cut-and-paste job because the acclamation has been changed. The former translation said: “When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death, Lord Jesus, until you come in glory.”
The new translation of this text is generally more accurate even though in this case the Latin calicem is translated “cup” instead of “chalice” as is done elsewhere in the missal.
By keeping the word “cup,” it is probable that the translator wanted to follow as close as possible the original inspiration for this acclamation in 1 Corinthians 11:23-28:
“For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, ‘This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.”
Practically all English-language Bibles translate the Greek poterion as “cup” rather than chalice, as current English attributes a technical meaning to this word which it did not have in the original. In a similar vein the word calicem in Latin can refer to many drinking and cooking vessels and not just those reserved for liturgical use.
These memorial acclamations constitute a novelty within the Latin rite, and they were only introduced with the liturgical reform. With the removal of the acclamation “Christ has died …,” which was found only in the English missal, the remaining three are basically scriptural quotes.
For this reason I think the translator is justified in following here the commonly accepted biblical translation while translating the same word as “chalice” in the texts that manifest the Church’s 2,000-year development of her liturgical traditions.
Although respecting the biblical text is probably the principal reason for retaining “cup,” the translator may also have been influenced by a desire to allow continued use of melodies already well-known by the faithful who often sing this part of the Mass. The addition of an extra syllable would likely make this particular text a bit more difficult to manage.
* * *
Follow-up: Covering the Crucifix
There were several inquiries regarding the crucifix (see Dec. 20). A reader from Zambia asked which direction the figure of Christ should face when the cross is placed upon the altar itself or when the processional cross is used as the altar cross. Answer: In both cases the figure of Christ should face toward the celebrant. This is the current practice for papal Masses in Rome.
When there is a large crucifix present behind or suspended above the altar, there is no need for other crosses to be placed upon or near the altar itself.
A figure of the Risen Lord or any other similar image of Christ does not substitute the crucifix.
The crucifix, however, may adopt any of several historical styles. As well as the more common form of a dying or deceased Christ, it is possible to use an image of the Regal Christ. This image has the Savior with arms outstretched on the cross but alive, fully robed and sometimes wearing a kingly crown as the one who reigns from the cross. According to art historians, this form of representing Christ crucified was quite common until the Middle Ages, when the more dramatic images of the dying Christ became more popular in art and devotion.
This question arose with the beginning of Mass facing the people. Beforehand, both people and celebrant always faced toward the crucifix. The source for the answer is a clarification published in Latin in the review Notitiae in 1966. Although Notitiae is hard to find, the website www.ipsissima-verba.org has performed an invaluable service in publishing the most important responses and clarifications issued by this review which is the official organ of the Congregation for Divine Worship. Not all of the replies have the same legal force, and some are outdated, but the fact that the material is available on the web saves a lot time in the library.
And More on Litanies at Weddings
ROME, JULY 3, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.
Q: My parish priest recited the words of consecrating the host twice: first over the host and then over the chalice. He did not appear to notice — although a number of parishioners did. Certainly he did not go back and recite the correct prayer. Was the consecration of the chalice valid? Was the Mass valid? There was a deacon at that Mass, but he did not intervene. He was as startled as any of us and before we realized what had happened the priest was continuing with the next part of the Eucharistic Prayer. Should the deacon have intervened at once, even to the point of interrupting the Eucharistic Prayer? Should anyone have intervened at once, even if that means calling out from the pews? — F.T., England
A: This question highlights the importance of us priests being attentive during the celebration, above all at the essential moments of Mass.
It is advisable not to trust too much to memory and to read these prayers directly from the missal. Many of us have perhaps fallen into some error by excessive trust in automatic pilot.
The question is rather delicate, but I will try to answer succinctly. The consecration of the host was valid. The consecration of the chalice was not, for the priest’s intention to consecrate cannot supply for the lack of proper sacramental form.
As a consequence the Mass, which requires the consecration of both species, was not valid. Those who received the host at communion were in the same state as those who receive Communion outside of Mass.
What should the deacon or the faithful have done? As a priest is as human as everyone else, and can also get tired and distracted, they should comprehend that such mishaps may occur. The mishaps should, however, be remedied as soon as possible.
In the case at hand the deacon should have immediately, albeit quietly, interrupted the priest as soon as he realized that he was using the mistaken formula. If no deacon is present, then one of the faithful may approach the altar and inform him.
The priest, as soon as he has realized his mistake, should then recite the proper formula. If he had just initiated the second part of the Eucharistic Prayer he may repeat it. If the Eucharistic Prayer was already near the end or completed, then he should interrupt the Mass at that point, quietly recite the formula of consecration, and then continue the Mass from where he left off.
If he were informed of his error just after Mass ended, then he should immediately consecrate and consume the species of wine in order to complete the Sacrifice, even, if necessary, in the sacristy.
If he becomes aware of his error after some time has elapsed, then nothing remains to be done but seek forgiveness and commit himself to be more attentive in the future. If a stipend were attached to the celebration of the Mass in question, another Mass must be celebrated to fulfill the obligation.
A moment of slight priestly embarrassment is a small price to pay for assuring the validity of the celebration. Likewise, a priest’s meekness and humility in recognizing his error will be a source of edification to the faithful and serve to temper any harsh judgments.
* * *
Follow-up: Why No Litanies at a Wedding
Several readers commented on the prospects of using the litany of saints during a wedding (see June 19).
One priest wrote: “I just thought I would share with you an interesting use of the litany that I saw at a wedding Mass I attended while I was a seminarian. The litany was used as the gathering song during the entrance. I found it to be an interesting way to include the Litany of the Saints in the wedding Mass. I should add that the procession was an actual procession, and not just a fancy entrance of the bride.”
This described use of the litany as a gathering or entrance song is quite appropriate.
Another reader informed me that a couple of bishops’ conferences either have already approved or are in process of approving and submitting to the Holy See for confirmation, revised rituals for weddings which foresee the possibility of substituting the Litany of the Saints for the prayer of the faithful.
There were some other questions related to weddings. A reader from Ottawa asked: “After discussing wedding ideas with my significant other, I have realized that we together know about four priests! What is the appropriate role in the wedding service for ‘extra’ priests? Are they merely guests? Do they ‘concelebrate’ (an inaccurate term, but a better one eludes me) the marriage?”
There is no difficulty in priests concelebrating at a wedding Mass. Only one priest, however, usually the pastor or the priest duly delegated to receive the vows, may officiate at the specific matrimonial rites which may not be divided among several ministers. For serious reasons, however, another priest may preach the homily.
A correspondent from Vietnam mentioned a rather unusual novelty: “At our parish, sometimes two readers share the same reading in the Mass, especially in the wedding Mass where the bride and the bridegroom read the first reading, each takes over a half. I wonder if this practice is allowed.”
As it is impossible for liturgical norms to cover all that the imagination can concoct, it is not explicitly forbidden. But it does go against sound liturgical practice. If both bride and groom wish to read, then one can do the reading and the other one the psalm. The lectionary for ritual Masses also allows the possibility of adding a second reading.
Finally, a reader from Michigan consulted: “In July a wedding is scheduled to take place in our parish at our usual 6 p.m. Mass. Some few parishioners are upset about this and claim that weddings must be done at a separate Mass. Would you please explain if this is permissible. I should tell you that we are in a semi-rural community and our pastor, as with so many priests, must take care of two parishes.”
There is no rule that weddings should be celebrated at a separate Mass. And it is even recommendable that, at least occasionally, some sacraments, such as baptism and even matrimony, be celebrated within a Sunday Mass.
This serves to highlight the community sense of these sacraments. Marriage “in the Lord” is not just a private affair but a source of joy for the whole ecclesial community. Such a celebration should also help remind the couple that their commitment is not just to themselves but to God and the Church.
Since a wedding at a regular Sunday Mass can lead to some practical difficulties, the pastor needs to take the needs of regular churchgoers into account. By notifying well in advance, the pastor has assured that those who do not wish to attend have plenty of time to establish alternative plans.
There are also some specific norms regarding the situations when it is possible to celebrate the ritual Mass of Matrimony on a Sunday and in what circumstances the regular Sunday readings may be changed. If the readings and prayers are to be taken from the ritual Mass at a parish which habitually provides missalettes to the faithful, then sufficient booklets should be prepared for all who attend.