Terrors of the Triduum

[docmattc]

Straying further...

What are the knock-on consequences of omitting the Friday communion rite for the altar of repose and adoration on Thursday night?

[mcb]

SC, I think it's a struggle to make the case that Communion isn't integral to the Good Friday liturgy. As you yourself point out, it's documented in the 8th/9th centuries, which is around the time that the Holy Week liturgies emerged in the (gallicanised) form we still recognise. And it evidently goes back earlier still:

It is merely the Communion separated from the liturgical celebration of the Eucharist properly so called. The details of the ceremony are not found earlier than in books of the eighth or ninth century, but the service must belong to a much earlier period. At the time when synaxes without liturgy were frequent, the 'Mass of the Presanctified' must have been frequent also. In the Greek Church it was celebrated every day in Lent except on Saturdays and Sundays, but in the Latin Church it was confined to Good Friday. (Duchesne, Origines du culte chrétien, 249)

The important issue is theological rather than historical, though. The Christ in the Eucharist is the crucified Christ - his broken body is the one on the cross - and it makes no sense, to my mind, to argue that sharing in Communion is not relevant to the celebration of the Passion, or to judge it appropriate to refrain, as a mark of, what? Solemnity? Respect? Penitence? (To argue, as you do, from the mediaeval practice of reserving Communion to the celebrant seems perverse in the extreme. We know full well that the 'people's' Communion was regarded as extraneous to the rite over a period of centuries. That was a situation deserving of reform, and there's no merit in picking on it as a means of underpinning a modern, improvised position.)

Besides, isn't there an arrogance in deciding for ourselves when to accept and when to decline the gift of Christ in the sacrament? At least if it's been on offer (if you'll pardon the flippancy) at this juncture for more than 1200 years?

[pirate]

JD Crichton, in The Liturgy of Holy Week:

'The sense of the Communion of this day is given first by the prayer after communion and then by the blessing prayer that concludes the service.
It is a paschal communion: God has restored us to life by 'the triumphant death and resurrection of Christ', it is in this mystery that we share and we pray that the healing effect of it may never fail in us. In the second prayer, we recall the death of God's son 'in the sure hope of the resurrection' for his death and resurrection are the basis for our own resurrection at the end.'

Apparently in the Gelasian Sacramentary (8thC) the people processed to venerate the Cross, then carried on to receive Communion. But of course they weren't in and out of benches and pews at that time and it might simply have been more practical...

[presbyter]

Egeria records that in Jerusalem, the True Cross is held by two burly deacons (I think so, anyway - this is off the top of my head) - they were there to protect it from damage for in a previous year some mad relic hunter had attempted to bite a chunk out of it.

[Southern Comfort]

It is merely the Communion separated from the liturgical celebration of the Eucharist properly so called. The details of the ceremony are not found earlier than in books of the eighth or ninth century, but the service must belong to a much earlier period. At the time when synaxes without liturgy were frequent, the 'Mass of the Presanctified' must have been frequent also. In the Greek Church it was celebrated every day in Lent except on Saturdays and Sundays, but in the Latin Church it was confined to Good Friday. (Duchesne, Origines du culte chrétien, 249)

This comes from the "New" Catholic Encyclopaedia of 1914.... More recent scholarship has revised some of this, if I recall.

Apparently in the Gelasian Sacramentary (8thC) the people processed to venerate the Cross, then carried on to receive Communion. But of course they weren't in and out of benches and pews at that time and it might simply have been more practical...

This practice has been found across Europe during the past 40 years, basing itself precisely on the Gel. Sac. Benches and pews have not been found a hindrance. The main practical thing to be sorted is how to ensure that those who don't wish to or can't receive Communion are not embarrassed when they "pass by on the other side". I seem to recall that St Thomas More Centre Holy Week Book in the 1970s saying something about this combined rite?

SC, I think it's a struggle to make the case that Communion isn't integral to the Good Friday liturgy.

<snip>

Besides, isn't there an arrogance in deciding for ourselves when to accept and when to decline the gift of Christ in the sacrament? At least if it's been on offer (if you'll pardon the flippancy) at this juncture for more than 1200 years?

My point was that Communion wasn't integral for anyone except the celebrant for 1200 years, and so can scarcely be said to have been "on offer" during this time.

[mcb]

This comes from the "New" Catholic Encyclopaedia of 1914.

Nope, it's from a book by Louis Duchesne, in turn quoted in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

More recent scholarship has revised some of this, if I recall.

Go on then... I'd be keen to know your source. As far as I can see, the only thing in the paragraph which is capable of revision is the claim that it predates the 8th/9th century. I'd be surprised if you're right. At that time, anyway, Communion for all was the norm: that much is clear.

My point was that Communion wasn't integral for anyone except the celebrant for 1200 years, and so can scarcely be said to have been "on offer" during this time.

There's a bit of humpty-dumpty logic here. You're suggesting that because 'only' the celebrant received Communion over a long period, it was therefore of less importance, or somehow extraneous to the Good Friday liturgy. This isn't so - compare the way, for centuries, it was unusual (and a bolt-on to the form of the liturgy) for the people to receive Communion at all during Mass. You wouldn't argue from that that Communion on Sundays is an extra to be dispensed with at choice.

The substantive point still needs an answer: if Christ broken on the cross and Christ broken in the Eucharistic bread are intimately and inextricably connected, how does it make sense to separate them on Good Friday?

[alan29]

One of our priests used to run the veneration and communion together, so the people weren't getting up and down twice. He had the procession with the cross in the usual place and he and the servers would venerate. Then into communion and the PBIs would go from venerating at the centre to communion at the sides on the way back. I was able to bully my way into doing most things by the book, but he wouldn't budge on that. But then he wouldn't (had never) do the Mandatum or prostrate himself at the start of Good Friday. He didn't really "do" liturgy.
Alan

[Southern Comfort]

This comes from the "New" Catholic Encyclopaedia of 1914.

Nope, it's from a book by Louis Duchesne, in turn quoted in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Indeed it is, a book that was published in 1889, and which is notable for its lack of source references. This lack of background information was still true in 1914 when the Encyclopaedia quoted him. My point was that folk like Duchesne did not have access to the vast critical apparatus that more recent scholarship luxuriates in, and therefore it's very easy today to find fault with remarks such as "the details of the ceremony are only to be found in books of the 8th and 9th centuries, but the ceremony must be far older" (my emphasis; I translate from the original French). He offers no justification whatsoever for his view that it must be far older. Succeeding generations of scholars such as Botte have taken Duchesne to task in many areas.

More recent scholarship has revised some of this, if I recall.

Go on then... I'd be keen to know your source. As far as I can see, the only thing in the paragraph which is capable of revision is the claim that it predates the 8th/9th century. I'd be surprised if you're right. At that time, anyway, Communion for all was the norm: that much is clear.

I suggest starting with two general books by Paul Bradshaw, Early Christian worship: a basic introduction to ideas and practice, followed by The search for the origins of Christian worship: source and methods for the study of early liturgy. The point about both of these is that not only are quite a lot of previously held ideas debunked, but also he is very clear about the fact that liturgical historians should not be arguing a posteriori, which is what people like Duchesne and his contemporaries tended to do.

After that, a good summary of more recent scholarship on Holy Week will be found in James Monti, The Week of Salvation: history and traditions of Holy Week.

As far as Communion on Good Friday is concerned, the broad lines are:

In the East, a Communion service may have been added to the liturgy as early as the 5th century, but there’s no actual evidence of it until the middle of the 7th century, when it also appears in the West for the first time. Both clergy and laity appear to have received; but interestingly, there was no singing during Communion, which implies that it didn’t take very long at all – so perhaps only a few received. What is certain is that in the papal liturgies of the 8th century only the pope received. Nevertheless, it appears that reception by all gradually spread, reaching its apogee in the 10th-11th centuries. After that, reception by all diminished, and by the 16th century reception was only allowed for the celebrant. This was reinforced in the 17th century by a specific prohibition on anyone else receiving. Only in 1955 was this reversed.

My point was that Communion wasn't integral for anyone except the celebrant for 1200 years, and so can scarcely be said to have been "on offer" during this time.

There's a bit of humpty-dumpty logic here. You're suggesting that because 'only' the celebrant received Communion over a long period, it was therefore of less importance, or somehow extraneous to the Good Friday liturgy. This isn't so - compare the way, for centuries, it was unusual (and a bolt-on to the form of the liturgy) for the people to receive Communion at all during Mass. You wouldn't argue from that that Communion on Sundays is an extra to be dispensed with at choice.

My logic runs like this:

(1) For the first 5-7 centuries of the Church's life, possibly longer, there was no Communion on Good Friday in the West.
(2) Communion on Good Friday crescendo'd in the Middle Ages (8th-10th centuries) and then diminuendo'd again (11th-16th centuries).
(3) There was no Communion for anyone except the celebrant from the 16th century until 1955.
(4) There is therefore a case for saying that the reformers post-Vatican II reverted to a mediaeval practice of the Church, rather than the Church's earliest tradition which they had espoused in many other areas.

The substantive point still needs an answer: if Christ broken on the cross and Christ broken in the Eucharistic bread are intimately and inextricably connected, how does it make sense to separate them on Good Friday?

I can only give you a personal answer here. (a) The day is an extraordinary one. Fasting from Communion on it seems entirely appropriate to me. (b) It seems to me that Communion is not so much connected to the Passion and Death of Christ as connected to his Resurrection. In a real sense he lives on in his resurrected Mystical Body. Initiating people at the Vigil, we celebrate new life in Christ, and an ongoing nourishment of our spiritual lives.

Many commentators have tried to show us how Good Friday, while concerned with suffering, is also a celebration of the triumph of the cross, the victory over death. If you were taking this line, I would be more sympathetic. As it is, I find it a little simplistic to say that because Christ's body was broken on the cross therefore we should be eating bread that has been broken. Christ also poured out his blood for us on the cross, and yet we do not drink consecrated wine, the Blood of Christ, on Good Friday, and never have.

[Hare]

[Note: I have moved this post and the replies to it from a defunct thread, which I have now locked - Musicus, moderator]

We did tonight (as we have for several years) the Martin Foster Exsultet with refrains. The cantor totally fouled up the first phrase, fitting the words in wrongly, and had four attempts before giving up and going onto the next verse.

My letter of resignation will be on the PP's doormat after mass tomoorrow!

[pirate]

Well, I suppose I could resign, too, choir having totally gone astray during fourth psalm tonight (my fault, not enough rehearsal - an organist or even a midi file would have helped ). But if I did that, we'd probably go back to no sung psalms at all, and the Israeli Mass and I'd have to kill myself. So I will console myself with the thought that we'll sing it better next year, and the rest of the liturgy - note, the whole liturgy, not just the musical bits - was glorious; a baptism and three receptions, a praying singing assembly (even in the cantor/choir/assembly bits, and with no congregational rehearsal at all).

And the PP finished his homily on the thought that he's supposed to be saying Mass in the prison tomorrow afternoon at three o'clock. Where they seem to have lit their New Fire a bit early - you'll have seen it on the news. So perhaps not.

[docmattc]

My PP leapt in with the prayer immediately after one of the readings tonight, forgetting the presence of the psalm. I presume the Bishop will have his letter of resignation on his desk tomorrow.

Mistakes happen, its part of being human.

[Hare]

The Exsultet was totally ruined, and do you know, people wished me and the cantor a Happy Easter!! They must be mad!!

[mcb]

It seems to me that Communion is not so much connected to the Passion and Death of Christ as connected to his Resurrection.

Two more things that are so inextricably connected it doesn't make sense to try and untangle them! Thanks for the reply, SC. I think you're right - it comes down to a 'personal' answer about the meaning of the encounter with our Lord in the sacrament. The issue with reserving the sacrament in the form of bread and not of wine is one of practicalities, isn't it? If the Church's custom had been to reserve under both kinds, we would certainly partake of both on Good Friday.

Easter blessings!
M.

[gwyn]

Hare said

My letter of resignation will be on the PP's doormat after mass tomorrow!

Hope not, that'd be fragile ego, not ministry.

Pirate said

Well, I suppose I could resign, too, choir having totally gone astray during fourth psalm tonight

Same goes.

Docmatic said

Mistakes happen, its part of being human.

Abso. One day we'll all join in the perfection that is the heavenly liturgy, until then we wait in joyful (but imperfect) hope...

Hare said

The Exsultet was totally ruined, and do you know, people wished me and the cantor a Happy Easter!! They must be mad!!

Not mad, just charitable and prob appreciative of the invaluable ministry you offer. We all offer at best our imperfections don't we? If after any Mass or Service we only take away the memories of that which we managed to foul up then we should think seriously about stepping down in favour of a more worthy, pious minister.

Come on folks, we do what we do to glorify God, not ourselves.

[Hare]

I do it for the glory of God, who is worthy of the best we can offer - especially on the Night of Nights! What was offered in this parish was NOT the best - and, please, don't anyone say "God doesn't mind" because that is the big daddy of all cop-outs - ie, why bother even trying if He doesn't mind if it goes wrong?

If it is not too much of a paradox, i am actually a paid Director of Music, and "questions will be asked" as to what the parish are paying for. I also have private music students in the congregation - what must they, and their parents who pay me for lessons, be thinking after last night's débacle?