Genuflecting Extraordinary Ministers

[Reginald]

In the latest edition of Music and Liturgy there's a reference to readers not genuflecting as they approach the sanctuary and it got me thinking.

In the older form of Mass it was/is correct to genuflect every time one passes the centre of the altar - irrespective of whether there is a tabernacle - and it would seem that the rubric was revised in the modern missal with the intention of focusing attention on the fact that the Blessed Sacrament was to be confected (sorry about the word but I can't think of an alternative) in the course of the Mass. I would assume that to be a good thing. (It also seems reasonable to me that the rubrics might presuppose that all of the necessary ministers are in the sanctuary from the beginning of Mass until its end - but that's a bit of a rabbit hole for the purposes of this observation.)

Anyway, I noticed last week (not sat at the usual instrument and therefore able to see properly for once!) that the EMHCs stand at the altar step and then bow before gathering at the altar. It struck me as so odd that I asked around at school and it seems to be the case that, whatever the parish, the EMHCs have at some time been instructed that they should only genuflect at the beginning and end of Mass and then bow during the Mass. Surely this is a rubric gone astray? How bizarre is it that the EMHC's should genuflect to the Sacrament in the Tabernacle before and after Mass and only bow when it's on the altar before them? If I'm right in what I assume to have been the original purpose of the rubric it would seem to be being implemented (over here at least) in such a way as to have the reverse effect to that intended - Jesus isn't more present in the tabernacle than he is on the altar after the consecration or am I missing something? I appreciate that the bow is the more ancient gesture, retained in Benedictine communities for example, but elsewhere the missal and Bishop's Ceremonial presuppose that genuflection is a greater act of reverence than the profound bow or the token head bob as exhibited by the EMHCs

I wondered if anyone has any insights on practice in their parish and on the (mis)implementation of this particular rubric.

[Southern Comfort]

I would be asking why the ministers line up at the altar step at all, let alone bowing. In my diocese, the recommendation is that ministers go directly and unobtrusively to the sanctuary and line up behind or alongside the altar, during or immediately after the Sign of Peace, precisely in order to avoid being a distraction or appear pompous by processing to the sanctuary. Similarly, after Communion is over they are recommended not to line up at the altar step but to return directly and as unobtrusively as possible to their places, in order to disturb as little as possible the people's time of prayer and thanksgiving by yet another unnecessary procession.

I am on the road and do not have it to hand, but the Ceremonial of Bishops (somewhere around para 72, I think) makes it clear that liturgical ministers genuflect to the tabernacle on their way in (if, indeed, they pass in front of a tabernacle) and on their way out (ditto), but not during Mass itself. The idea behind this is that the focus is elsewhere: in the gathering rites, at the chair (the Real Presence of Christ in the person of the priest); during the Liturgy of the Word, at the ambo (the Real Presence of Christ in the word proclaimed and preached); during the Liturgy of the Eucharist, at the altar. (And by the way, the whole Eucharistic Prayer is consecratory, so it's difficult to specify that Jesus is present on the altar after the consecration.)

To dig us out of Reginald's rabbit hole, I don't think the rubrics assume that ministers of Communion are on the sanctuary right the way through Mass. Readers, cantors, gift-bearers, ministers of Communion, etc, all come forth from the people to minister to the people. Only those (priests, deacons, servers) whose natural "habitat" is the sanctuary should be there right the way through Mass.

[Reginald]

(And by the way, the whole Eucharistic Prayer is consecratory, so it's difficult to specify that Jesus is present on the altar after the consecration.)

Yes...but there is surely a reason for the celebrant/presider genuflecting after each of the elevations - and the ground was sufficiently muddy that the CDF vetoed (in the '60's) a Eucharistic Prayer based on the Anaphora of St Basil precisely because the epiclesis comes after the words of institution and not before as has been the immemorial custom of the Western Church.

As regards my rabbit hole - what I had in mind is that EMs of HC were only authorised in 1973 after the '69/'70 edition of the Misal which first gives us the rubric of only genuflecting at the beginning and end of Mass. At that time, anyone approaching the altar would have been doing so at a time before the Eucharistic Prayer and there would have been no case to make for genuflecting. My quibble is that the rubric was never amended to take account of the arrival of EMsHC in the sanctuary. I suppose that it's worth not being too England and Wales-o-centric with this because universally we are required to make an act of reverence before receiving Communion and in some countries that gesture, shared by the EMsHC will be a genuflection and not a procession or something equally understated.

The teacher in me worries about this every time that we have a whole school Mass as a group of students, led by servers (without candles I hasten to add!), processes to the altar with ordinary bread and wine and hands them over to the celebrant with a bow. Ten minutes later a different group of students and staff arrives at the altar, also makes a bow and then leaves with what is no longer bread...but how does the non-Catholic know that anything has happened in the course of that prayer? How does the Catholic child who doesn't practise their faith? What point is there in a language of signs and symbols if it remains unused. Now, of course I can tell them that such is the case - and I do - but there is nothing to enable them to perceive that change for themselves. What I hadn't realized was that this wasn't just an example of peculiar school practice (like the, oh-so irritating, business of having the children remain seated in the most passive position imaginable, on the grounds that they might make a disturbance by standing for the Gospel and Eucharistic Prayer) but happened in my parish too.

I'm reminded of that story of Cardinal Arinze's of the Protestant asking what the tabernacle is for and, having been given a comprehensive answer, asking why the Catholic friend does not prostrate himself every time he passes as he would surely do if he believed what his Catholic friend claimed to believe.

[Southern Comfort]

(And by the way, the whole Eucharistic Prayer is consecratory, so it's difficult to specify that Jesus is present on the altar after the consecration.)

Yes...but there is surely a reason for the celebrant/presider genuflecting after each of the elevations

Many presiders do not do this. It is a hangover from mediaeval times, and emphasises the "magic moment" school of theology, rather than the unity of the Eucharistic Prayer. I personally have little problem with bowing in honour of the words of institution, which is rather a different thing from genuflecting in honour of a dubiously-presumed transubstantiation. That means, of course, that my preference is to remain standing throughout the entire Prayer, to show honour to it. But we're straying off topic.

- and the ground was sufficiently muddy that the CDF vetoed (in the '60's) a Eucharistic Prayer based on the Anaphora of St Basil precisely because the epiclesis comes after the words of institution and not before as has been the immemorial custom of the Western Church.

I don't think this is quite accurate. ICEL produced its draft translation of the Prayer of St Basil in the 1970s. It was not banned by the CDF. It was never approved because, although quite a lot of our bishops wanted to try it out, they were told No, it's for study purposes only. They responded, How can we evaluate it if we don't use it? Tough luck, came the answer. So, they never evaluated it and therefore never recommended it for recognitio. It was a rather long prayer, in any case, even though it was a substantial abbreviation of the original Anaphora. Back to the topic:

As regards my rabbit hole - what I had in mind is that EMs of HC were only authorised in 1973 after the '69/'70 edition of the Misal which first gives us the rubric of only genuflecting at the beginning and end of Mass. At that time, anyone approaching the altar would have been doing so at a time before the Eucharistic Prayer and there would have been no case to make for genuflecting. My quibble is that the rubric was never amended to take account of the arrival of EMsHC in the sanctuary.

I take that point, but for that matter in 1969 we didn't have lay readers either; and despite a number of revisions of the Ordo Missae there are still no rubrics directing what they should do on the way to the ambo and back - it's all down to local custom. I know you'll say that when they come up the Eucharistic Prayer hasn't happened, but they may well be in a church with a centrally-located tabernacle.

I think all this is straining at gnats more than somewhat.

The teacher in me worries about this every time that we have a whole school Mass as a group of students, led by servers (without candles I hasten to add!), processes to the altar with ordinary bread and wine and hands them over to the celebrant with a bow. Ten minutes later a different group of students and staff arrives at the altar, also makes a bow and then leaves with what is no longer bread...but how does the non-Catholic know that anything has happened in the course of that prayer? How does the Catholic child who doesn't practise their faith? What point is there in a language of signs and symbols if it remains unused. Now, of course I can tell them that such is the case - and I do - but there is nothing to enable them to perceive that change for themselves. What I hadn't realized was that this wasn't just an example of peculiar school practice (like the, oh-so irritating, business of having the children remain seated in the most passive position imaginable, on the grounds that they might make a disturbance by standing for the Gospel and Eucharistic Prayer) but happened in my parish too.

I say again, they shouldn't be approaching at Communion with a bow. If they approach from the side of the sanctuary, there's absolutely no reason to bow. They are coming to the sanctuary not primarily to make an act of reverence but to serve Christ's people, as Christ himself, carrying Christ himself. As some liturgists have said in the past, if liturgical ministers are to bow to anyone or anything, they should probably bow to the assembly, whom they will serve. If that sounds completely off the wall, think what a thurifer does.

I'm reminded of that story of Cardinal Arinze's of the Protestant asking what the tabernacle is for and, having been given a comprehensive answer, asking why the Catholic friend does not prostrate himself every time he passes as he would surely do if he believed what his Catholic friend claimed to believe.

That would depend on the answer given, of course. Ask an Eastern Christian about this and you'd get a very blank look. No tabernacles in Eastern-rite churches (well, there are, but you can't see them, nor pass in front of them. For the Orthodox, the tabernacle retains its original functional purpose and is not an object of adoration).

[Reginald]

Straining at gnats? Maybe. Has belief in the real Presence really declined or is it the case that we are more comfortable expressing our disbelief in public than we were pre Vat II? I don't know. I do know that someone in my form some years ago had assumed that she was meant to go to Communion as she was Catholic. She knew she didn't like the taste and intended to drop Jesus in the bin as soon as possible - fortunately that didn't happen. As saddened as I was by the episode I could understand her completely. She was approaching someone who had gone up to a table, taken a bowl that, being pottery, looked for all the world like a cereal bowl from a 1970's Denby set, and was dispensing something that, fortified by vitamins and minerals and with added sugar could be sold by Kellogg's. Nothing there told her that it was anything other than food. As the money has become available the cereal bowls have been replaced by ciboria but I doubt it's enough to communicate the difference without a need for words.

Ratzinger (The Spirit of the Liturgy) has an interesting section on the whole "It's for eating, not looking at" debate - and on the notion that Medieval accretions have somehow contaminated the beauty of the primitive Mass. To which I would add that modern scholarship continues to cast considerable doubt on what formerly was received wisdom about EP II/Hippolytus and the antiquity of versus populum celebration of the Eucharist.

He has little to offer on genuflection but I offer this as a reflection rather than scholarship: Assuming the origins of genuflection are feudal then it's worth noting that it very closely resembles the act of homage by vassal to liege Lord. In medieval times the reciprocal act of the vassal kneeling before his Lord, and his Lord reaching out to him and accepting homage, signified the beginning of a binding relationship of love and protection. If genuflection is nothing more than bowing and scraping then it probably deserves to fall into desuetude, but I think that we we fail to do justice to the depth of the symbolism it once had...I submit myself wholly to Christ, and in return he offers me his love and protection. Of course we only see one side of the action, but a little gentle catechesis describing the unseen response of the (feudal) Lord could so easily rehabilitate it.

[mcb]

Many presiders do not do this. It is a hangover from mediaeval times, and emphasises the "magic moment" school of theology, rather than the unity of the Eucharistic Prayer. I personally have little problem with bowing in honour of the words of institution, which is rather a different thing from genuflecting in honour of a dubiously-presumed transubstantiation. That means, of course, that my preference is to remain standing throughout the entire Prayer, to show honour to it.

No presiders that I'm familiar with, and those who don't are disregarding the norms laid down in GIRM. SC, I'm not sure your account gets close enough to encapsulating orthodox Catholic belief. You're making a false antithesis between the consecratory nature of the entire Eucharistic Prayer (which isn't in doubt) and the idea that the words of institution might somehow be focal to this. The words of institution spell out our faith in the Eucharist in words of (mainly) one syllable, and it's appropriate (and hallowed by tradition) to reverence the sacrament at this point by genuflecting. I've honestly no idea what you mean by bowing in honour of the words or showing honour to the Prayer. That's not what we do. Are you suggesting that there's no point at which genuflection rather than bowing might be the appropriate gesture?

BTW, I wonder what it means in the Catechism, where it says The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration? (1377)

[Southern Comfort]

BTW, I wonder what it means in the Catechism, where it says The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration? (1377)

I have no idea. Even Trent does not say this. The Catechism is, I am told, notorious among theologians for its inadequacies, but let's not go there. If you asked an Orthodox Christian when they thought transubstantiation takes place, they would say that, like us, they believe that the whole prayer is consecratory but, if you insisted on pinning them down to a particular moment, it would more probably be at the epiclesis ("Let your Spirit come upon these offerings, so that they may become.....", et sim.).

and the idea that the words of institution might somehow be focal to this.

There are, of course, Eucharistic Prayers that contain no institution narrative. The Church considers them just as consecratory as those that do. IMO we need to get away from the superstitious "magic words" syndrome which has tended to transform the Eucharist from an action into a devotion over the centuries. I'm sure that some Catholics think that Jesus somehow 'zaps' the bread and wine at the words of consecration.

Your experience of presiders is different from mine. I would say that as many as 1 in 10 do a deep bow rather than genuflect, especially if they've got used to doing this as a concelebrating priest.

[Southern Comfort]

Has belief in the real Presence really declined or is it the case that we are more comfortable expressing our disbelief in public than we were pre Vat II?

I don't think so. Rather, I think it has expanded, as we have come to realise, following Paul VI in Mysterium Fidei, that the Real Presence exists in far more than the consecrated bread and wine, as I indicated in my previous post. Focusing solely on that modality of presence tends to prevent us from being present to the other modalities.

[mcb]

There are, of course, Eucharistic Prayers that contain no institution narrative. The Church considers them just as consecratory as those that do. IMO we need to get away from the superstitious "magic words" syndrome which has tended to transform the Eucharist from an action into a devotion over the centuries. I'm sure that some Catholics think that Jesus somehow 'zaps' the bread and wine at the words of consecration.

Whoa, steady! There's precisely one Eucharistic Prayer like that, in use only in one tiny branch of the eastern churches, so it's hardly prototypical or normative or representative of a new understanding of the sacrament. "Action" vs "devotion" is another false antithesis, isn't it? The fruit of the liturgical renewal is changing the people's focus from passive devotion to priestly action. That doesn't suddenly make it inappropriate to reverence the sacrament.

Change 'zaps' to something less calculated to raise hackles, and you're probably right.

[Reginald]

Anaphora of Saint Basil -

I was unjust to the CDF. It was voted down 16-15 by the Consilium. The presidency of same chose, in light of the closeness of the vote, to defer this to Paul VI who in turn bounced it back to the CDF and the Congregation of Rites. The Congregation of Rites accepted it, the CDF said "In view of the vote taken by the eminent Fathers of the Consilium and the necessity of prefixing an adequate study of the complex problem of the epiclesis...let the matter be postponed pro tempore dilata' I can't see any mention by Bugnini of a text being issued for translation ICEL, but then the index of The Reform of the Liturgy is not exactly helpful

Bugnini also comments on the fact that the epiclesis in the Mozarabic Rite is also to be found after the words of Institution.

I don't think so. Rather, I think it has expanded, as we have come to realise, following Paul VI in Mysterium Fidei, that the Real Presence exists in far more than the consecrated bread and wine, as I indicated in my previous post. Focusing solely on that modality of presence tends to prevent us from being present to the other modalities.

...and the pendulum certainly needed to swing, but I hope it's on the way back to the centre where we can acknowledge the presence of Christ in the Word, and the People and the Priest and supremely in the Blessed Sacrament. "The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend." In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained." "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present." Of course the quote is from the notoriously inadequate Catechism! And to think we took offence on this site some months ago at the words of Bishop O'Donoghue

PS Does anyone else get distracted by arbitrary numbers of censings of priest, people, book of Gospels and Bd Sac? Two for the Gospel, Six for the People because they're in the transepts as well...give me three swings (simplex or duplex doesn't matter to me as long as there's consistency throughout the Mass) - and only three swings. Don't make it up, just count!

[Southern Comfort]

There are, of course, Eucharistic Prayers that contain no institution narrative. The Church considers them just as consecratory as those that do. IMO we need to get away from the superstitious "magic words" syndrome which has tended to transform the Eucharist from an action into a devotion over the centuries. I'm sure that some Catholics think that Jesus somehow 'zaps' the bread and wine at the words of consecration.

Whoa, steady! There's precisely one Eucharistic Prayer like that, in use only in one tiny branch of the eastern churches, so it's hardly prototypical or normative or representative of a new understanding of the sacrament.

I think you'll find that Addai and Mari is not the only EP like that.

Here's an extract from scholar Robert Taft:

Furthermore, although theories on the origins and evolution of the pristine anaphora remain in flux, one point of growing agreement among representative scholars, Catholic and non, is that the Institution Narrative is a later embolism—i.e., interpolation—into the earliest eucharistic prayers. For pace Renaudot’s mistaken assertion, not only Addai and Mari but several other early eucharistic prayers do, in fact, lack these words. Those generally listed include: the 1/2nd century Didache 9-1011 and the dependent Apostolic Constitutions (ca. 380) VII, 25:1-4; the 2/3rd century apocryphal Acts of John 85-86, 109-110 and Acts of Thomas 27, 49-50, 133, 158; the Martyrdom of Polycarp (†167) 14; the 4/5th century Papyrus Strasbourg Gr. 254; the eucharistic prayer on two 7/8th century Coptic Ostraca, British Library Nr. 32 799 and Nr. 33 050; and the Ethiopic Anaphora of the Apostles, as Gabriele Winkler has recently demonstrated. Furthermore, it seems probable that ca. 150, Justin Martyr’s eucharistic prayer did not have them either. In addition, Cyrille Vogel lists six eucharistic prayers in the apocrypha without any trace of an Institution Narrative, and at least twenty-one later Syriac anaphoras either lack the Words of Institution completely (8 anaphoras) or partly (4), or give them in a form considered defective (9)—e.g., in indirect discourse.

[footnote refs removed]

Bradshaw, like Taft, is quite clear that the institution narrative doesn't show up in any synaxis until after the Council of Nicea (A&M and the others are earlier than that), and the words of institution themselves were not made mandatory in the West until Trent in 1531 - comparatively late on. The notion that Jesus is not sacramentally present until the priest says the 'magic' words "This is my body" is even more recent, dating only from Pius VII's letter Adorabile Eucharistiae (9 May 1822).

The point of all this is that a much earlier strand of our tradition, older than the Roman Canon with its unusual "defective" form, was content to confect Eucharist without quoting Jesus' exact words.

Try doing a web search for the Syrian Jacobite Liturgy of Dionysius Barsalibi for another EP without the words of institution, not specifically mentioned by Taft since it's a later example (and still in use, by the way) though probably based on an much earlier model.

"Action" vs "devotion" is another false antithesis, isn't it? The fruit of the liturgical renewal is changing the people's focus from passive devotion to priestly action. That doesn't suddenly make it inappropriate to reverence the sacrament.

I wasn't suggesting that it did. I'm simply suggesting that all you can say is that when the presider says "Lift up your hearts" we have bread and wine in front of us; when we reach the Great Amen, we have something else. But to attempt to pinpoint the exact moment with signs of reverence is not helpful. I'm not saying that we should be imagining a voice from on high saying "Not yet! I'm not there yet!" or anything so crude. What I am saying that we need to find ways of augmenting our participation in the EP as a whole, so that we focus on the whole thing as consecratory and don't doze off or let our attention wander. That is the challenge for the Church, and continuing to pretend that it's only the bit in the middle which is really important is, I maintain, hindering us from reverencing - even exalting - the whole EP as I think we need to. (This is of course moving us towards another thread about additional acclamations in the EP, posture during the EP, and heaven-knows-what-else, but I suspect we've already done enough here.)

[mcb]

Yes, I wouldn't disagree with much of that, SC. "Precisely one Eucharistic Prayer like that, recognised as valid by Rome" is what I meant. Maybe a good way to make the issues clear is to take the narrative from one of the the Eucharistic Prayers:

On the night he was betrayed,
he took bread and gave you thanks and praise.
He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said:
TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND EAT IT:
THIS IS MY BODY WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU.

and ask at what point in that narrative the bread "became" our Lord's body. Put like that the question looks silly. If anyone insists on answering it, what's the "right" answer? When he said This is my body? If so, the corresponding point in the Mass is the distribution of Communion, isn't it - the point where the sacrament is given to his disciples? The Eucharistic Prayer in the Mass, on the other hand, corresponds to gave you thanks and praise. I agree with you, SC - attempting to identify a particular moment means trying to pin down something that's not susceptible to pinning down.

On the other hand, gestures of reverence don't in themselves hinder our participation, and since they are human gestures they take place at particular moments. Eliminating them on the grounds that they unfairly (so to speak) single out a particular moment in the Eucharistic Prayer is tantamount to eliminating the reverence altogether.

[presbyter]

There are, of course, Eucharistic Prayers that contain no institution narrative.

And there are Catholic rites in which the institution narrative is not seen as "consecratory" - see the Melkite EP (pages 63ff) where the epiclesis over the bread and wine and the people comes later. http://www.melkite.org/PDF/LITURGY2009.pdf

I feel a longer post coming on but bed calls...... zzzzzzz

[presbyter]

I feel a longer post coming on..........

I agree with you, SC - attempting to identify a particular moment means trying to pin down something that's not susceptible to pinning down.

In brief, 20th and 21st century scholarship seems to be showing us:

- there are early Eucharistic Prayers which do not contain the Institution Narrative.
- there are early Eucharistic practices where the element of bread appears necessary for the celebration but not always the element of wine.
- the idea of a disiplina arcani holds much less weight than it used to,
- the Institution Narrative might possibly have come to be inserted in the EP as a form of mystagogical catechesis – helping the newly-initiated understand more fully what is happening in the celebration…

(if anyone wants references for all that, I can supply later)

These findings were not available to the person who, as it were, set the “middle bit” mentality in stone. Let’s just take a brief look at some of the points Aquinas makes on the Eucharist – and call to mind that he was not thinking in terms of a four-fold shape to the rite.

Aquinas does indeed seek to pin down “the moment” (S.T III, 75.7) and so much so, that he tries to allow for all possible contingencies, including the priest falling down dead half way through the “words of consecration” (S.T.III 83.6)

When he addresses the topic of the Rite of Mass itself (S.T.III. 83.4), he could be interpreted as saying that the entire ritual is a framework built around these “words of consecration” and although Aquinas is enthusiastic about the people singing praise at the offertory and their “being excited” to devotion in the Preface and participation in the Sanctus, on their participation in the rest of the EP, he says very, very little. The prayer of anamnesis and oblation (Unde et memores… ) is (unfortunately) described in terms of the priest making an excuse for his presumption in obeying Christ’s command.

At Aquinas’ time, the EP is celebrated in silence – and there are no printed missals with parallel texts in Latin and the vernacular for people to follow – and even if there had been, they would not have been much use, given what I imagine to be the overall level of adult literacy in the 13th century. It’s also in 13th century France that the practice of elevating the host in the EP begins (Bishop of Paris 1210 … the background to this being the Albigensian heresy) This is an era of adoration, devotion and “spiritual communion” and the Fourth Lateran Council had felt it necessary to institute our Easter Duties (1215) so that the faithful received the sacrament at least once a year. Aquinas himself encourages daily communion (80.10). Many at the time, I feel, would have thought him mad in so doing.

So why am I rambling like this? I was brought up with this “middle bit” mentality. For sure, Pius X’s encouragement to more frequent communion had taken some effect in the life of the church and following my First Communion, I was told to go to communion once a month (but only if I’d been to confession). But the truly important bit of the Mass was still the elevations – when I must bow my head, strike my breast and whisper inaudibly, “My Lord and my God”. All that mattered was Jesus’ real presence (which was somehow sacrificial – Easter didn’t get a look in) and no-one ever told me that what we might dare to do in the EP is this –

“The ministerial priest, by the sacred power he enjoys, teaches and rules the priestly people; acting in the person of Christ, he makes present the Eucharistic sacrifice, and offers it to God in the name of all the people. But the faithful, in virtue of their royal priesthood, join in the offering of the Eucharist” (Lumen Gentium 10 – cf Sacrosanctum Concilium 48)

Join in? An exercise of the common and royal priesthood of all assembled? Yes. That’s what’s at the heart of participation in the EP and it’s a theme returned to again and again in subsequent Papal and magisterial documents. For example:

The conciliar Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium encouraged the faithful to take part in the eucharistic liturgy not "as strangers or silent spectators," but as participants "in the sacred action, conscious of what they are doing, actively and devoutly" . This exhortation has lost none of its force. The Council went on to say that the faithful "should be instructed by God's word, and nourished at the table of the Lord's Body. They should give thanks to God. Offering the immaculate Victim, not only through the hands of the priest but also together with him, they should learn to make an offering of themselves. Through Christ, the Mediator, they should be drawn day by day into ever more perfect union with God and each other" (Sacramentum Caritatis 52)

What I am saying that we need to find ways of augmenting our participation in the EP as a whole, so that we focus on the whole thing as consecratory and don't doze off or let our attention wander.

My immediate reaction to Southern Comfort there is to suggest that rather than seeing the “whole thing” as consecratory – see it as an “act of consecration” (in the sense that one meaning of the word consecration is the dedication of something or someone to God)

The nub of the problem, I think, is that many (most?) of the faithful don’t understand and don’t know how to pray the EP – even though they might be following the text. The “middle bit” mentality persists – and I personally have no problem if the faithful might want to go as far as a Carthusian prostration at this moment in their adoration of Christ’s real presence although that might be a little eccentric in a parish Mass. (And I do also think there’s a need for an understanding of a moment – not in a “magical” sense of the elements being divinely “zapped” [hocus pocus = Hoc est corpus] but as a gracious, freely-given gift of the Father through the action of the Spirit in response to the prayer of the Church assembled)

But I suggest that what is not there yet, as a whole, is an “immediately post-middle bit” liturgical spirituality of active and conscious self-offering with Christ to the Father. Indeed, most of the faithful I’ve come across in workshops, talks etc… don’t realise that the focus of the EP is indeed God the Father – and that Christ is High Priest and Mediator. His real presence has a purpose!

Now as to how the faithful might be brought into a fuller understand of their “consecration” in the EP – i.e. in the Spirit, their conscious offering of themselves (their longings, their prayers and needs (and the needs of the world), and their very lives) with Christ to the Father, actively putting themselves totally at God’s disposal – I don’t know. Perhaps for some people, that would sound a bit scary, for it does imply total dedication to a life of love and self-sacrifice. But then, doesn’t reception of the sacrament strengthen us for that?

What’s this topic about? Oh yes – ha! – drifted away a bit here then. Genuflecting EMHCs – well if you have to go to the tabernacle – and the tabernacle is in close proximity to the altar – don’t genuflect when you open the tabernacle. The focus of the Communion Rite at this point is Christ on the Altar - so just put the ciborium on the altar gently and stand (or, if customary, kneel) at the priest’s genuflection and his proclamation “This is the Lamb of God…..”

[presbyter]

And whatever method the EMHCs use in their approach to the presbyterium - please don't distract the faithful from the Fraction and the recognition of the Lord in the "breaking of bread".