I went to Mass in the diocese of St. Paul when I visited my Dad this past month. The priest used English, but he also used incense and made Communion available to the congregation in both bread and wine. Is the use of incense with English tied to the Extroadinary Form? Secondly, is the availability of Communion in both forms somehow tied to the Pentecost calendar or just part of the assumed different form of the Mass? This happened four Sundays in a row. I guess I should have asked the priest but I didn’t.
In short Joe, no.
The extraordinary form of the Mass uses different prayers from the ordinary Mass, and is always prayed in Latin.
Here’s a video of one actually celebrated on a modern looking altar (traditionally altars were part of the wall, you couldn’t walk about them):
Here is the text of the extraordinary form in Latin and English so you can read the prayers and see what’s different and what’s the same as what you’re familiar with:
PM me if you have any questions, I’m always happy to talk about the form of the Mass I love best.
So what I attended is still the OF? Thanks.
You got it. If you ever get the chance to assist at a High Mass or Solemn Mass in the Extraordinary Form, go for it. It changed my life.
In our parish at the OF Masses, we almost always have Holy Communion available under both Wine and Bread.
Incense is used less often, but it is used often enough that it’s not a jaw-dropper when it happens.
At our parish, we have been blessed to have priests who use incense liberally.
Everyone else was right in saying you didn’t attend the EF Mass, but rather the OF.
As for incense, I know that my parish uses incense every Sunday at our OF Mass and communion is distributed under both species as well.
However, I know plenty of pastors use incense or communion under both species for specific reasons (pastoral or otherwise). Why don’t you ask him after Mass? I’m sure he’d be happy to answer your question.
Indeed, at the parish I have been attending the Priest has been using lots of incense (such a thing is actually called for in the ordinary form). But probably because it was the Easter season/Pentecost, we will see if this continues into ordinary time, and he just likes incense or he was trying to bring out the solemnity of the season.
Well I know longer am in the area so can’t ask him. Maybe I’ll visit one Sunday, since my Dad lives there.
And so you should .
Jesus commanded that we both take and eat and that we take and drink .
Communion under both kinds , in the form of bread and in the form of wine , is a commandment of Jesus .
That’s what he commanded his priests to do (they were the only ones in the upper room), and they do “eat and drink” at every Mass, but as laity, we only need receive under one form, and to say that Jesus commanded us to receive in both forms is a gross misinterpretation of the scriptures. We have the church to interpret these things, and the church has made it clear that we only need to receive under the form of bread to receive the entire body, blood, soul, and divinity of the Lord.
The Extraordinary Form is the Tridentine Mass. It’s not necessarily a Mass in Latin, as Ordinary Form can be celebrated in Latin as well. There are more parts of the Mass, the readings follow a different cycle, and the Tridentine Mass is always in Latin. For an example of an Ordinary Form Mass said partially in Latin see the Daily Mass broadcast on EWTN.
Even if your preference is the Ordinary Form, every Catholic (in my opinion) ought to get the opportunity to hear the Tridentine Mass at least a couple of times in their lifetime. It is an incredible experience, even if it’s not your baseline spirituality. If you get the chance to go, don’t try to desperately follow along the first time. Just absorb the experience.
I can see that you aren’t a world traveler.
In most parts of the world that I have visited, there is no option to receive both species. Only the species of bread is offered.
In fact, I remember one amusing mass in Germany where a visiting group of Americans encountered some difficulties because the German sacristan had (naturally!) prepared only one tiny chalice of wine for the priest, and then the entire group tried to share it. It was quite absurd to see them all trying to take a minuscule sip of the precious blood from the small chalice, and even then running completely out after about 20 persons had received, leaving the other 100 standing there looking befuddled, even though all had already received Holy Communion under the species of bread.
But it took them 1200 years to articulate something like this view: in the early church there was no question of anyone not receiving, and the cup was initialy withdrawn on a piecemeal basis only for fear of spillage.
And that is an excellent reason to discontinue communion under both kinds today.
Another excellent reason is to combat errors like those Arkwright is making.
What is the “excellent” reason?
The two reasons I mentioned are both excellent reasons:
- To avoid spiilage
- To combat the error that Arkwright is making (that it is necessary to receive under both kinds).
Well, it’s not going to happen. Most Bishops have now restored the chalice following the the norms about the eucharistic banquet and fuller sign. As for spillages, in 42 years I have never seen one incident, though I did once see the precious body dropped when an elderly priest was unsteady.
You might be surprised. Holy Communion under the species of wine is not given in many parts of the world.
I beg to differ. I have received in both kinds in the far east, in Africa and in most countries in Europe.