www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Private masses: prohibited?

One must acknowledge that while a "private Liturgy" is far from the ideal, special circumstances do occur.

During the recent persecutions in Eastern Europe, it was not particularly uncommon (especially in prisons or in the concentration camps) for a priest to offer the Divine Liturgy in strict privacy, reserve the Holy Gifts, and then stay alert for opportunities to give the faithful Holy Communion.

At the Life-Giving Tomb of Our Lord Jesus Christ, a bishop or priest may offer the Divine Liturgy in the Edicule in strict privacy (kneeeling throughout the Liturgy, incidentally). If, however, there is a congregation, the priest will serve the Prothesis in the Edicule and then serve the rest of the Liturgy just outside the Edicule, where a stone Holy Table is available for the purpose.

Back in the nineteen-fifties, Serge Bolshakoff reported having been invited, as a great privilege, to attend the daily Divine Liturgy offered in strict privacy at the Valaam Monastery (in Finland) by the ascetic Father Michael - the two were otherwise alone, and according to Bolshakoff there was normally no one present at all (at least, not visibly!) except Father Michael.

Fr. Serge

I had the privilege in 1986, I think it was, of being at the home of an old gentleman in Milwaukee, Wisconsin who had devoted his whole life to the study of astrophysics. I believe he had been a professor of that subject for many years. He was bed-ridden with cancer, and invited me to go out back with his son-in-law to view the 14" reflecting telescope he had installed at the back of his home. When I returned to his beside I noticed that he had a copy of "The Orthodox Church" by Timothy Ware next to his bed, and an icon of the crucified Christ above on the wall. He told me he had not been able to come to the faith, but was always curious about it. He told me that as a young man he was walking by a Serbian Orthodox church in the neighborhood where he grew up one morning and an old priest was standing on the steps. Bereft that no one in his congregation had come to celebrate with him the feast of the Holy Cross, he invited this young man to come into the church to assist him in serving the Liturgy. The young man protested that he was not Orthodox and had no idea how to serve. The priest assured him that he could quickly instruct him, and did so. He served as best he could, and was deeply impressed by the old priest's devotion. The priest gave him the icon that hung above his bed. After returning to my home in Massachusetts, I received a call on September 15 that the old astrophysicist, whose name I forget, had passed away the previous day, the feast of the Holy Cross.

Yes, indeed, there are extraordinary circumstances, and the Church continues to pray her Liturgy alone or in multitudes, but never privately.

Beautiful - very moving.

This is not uniformly true. The Malankara and Syriac Orthodox custom is to celebrate on individual altars simultaneously, each priest assisted by his own deacon and servers, if possible. The main celebrant in the center.

The Malankara Catholics have done this less often, but also historically have this tradition.

Michael_Thoma are these liturgies not celebrated at spearate altars in the same space, so in effect are a form on concelebration in the Syrian tradition.

What a mumber of people here are talking about is where priests got to various altars and start at different times and may even be in different buildings and they may be alone (not always).

When I was a kid in England in the 1960s the Congregation of Priest who ran the boarding school I was at used to serve each other's Masses, if there were no altar boys available.

If a priest has a server, then is the preference for "the presence of the faithful" fulfilled in his person?

I would say so.

Yes.

A while back I assisted a youth retreat where one of the invited regular speakers was a blind priest. He would offer the Holy Mass daily, privately, while the youth were praying the Mass publicly with another priest. I would prepare the altar in a side room for him, one host, a small amount of wine mixed with water in the chalice. No one was barred from attending the blind priest's Mass, but normally all attended the main celebration.

Growing up, my father was one of the altar boys who got to assist a pious nonagenerian mosnignor who was confined to a wheelchair every morning at 6am. To assist him at his private morning Mass was a privelage.

Dad still talks about it.

Some of this has already been said, but here's my few thoughts on this subject:
1. "Private" is such a fascinating word in Western terminology. Normally, "private" is used in contrast to "public" in the sense that a "public" in the West is almost synonymous with Liturgy. In Western thought, an individual who is reading the Liturgy of the Hours in physically private prayer is still mystically praying with the Church, which is why the use of standardized translations-and ideally of the official liturgical language--is so important in the West. So, *if* a priest celebrates Mass "alone", he is still engaging in liturgy because he is mystically united to the whole Church, praying that same liturgy that day. "Private" prayer is anything that does not have an official Ritual from Rome, that is not part of the Office/Liturgy or part of the Book of Blessings. 1000 people saying a Rosary together are still engaging in "private" prayer.

2. The use of "private" in the sense of "private" Mass seems contradictory in that respect, but it really has to do with location, not the Mass itself. In the previous example, the Litany of the Saints is "approved for public prayer" in the West. The Litany of the HOly Name, IIRC, is not. That means that the Litany of the Saints can be said at Mass in place of the Kyrie or the General Intercessions. It is used in the Rite of Exorcism. It can be used in a Benediction Ceremony. The Litany of the Holy Name cannot be used in those situations. However, at the times when it is appropriate to say the Rosary--such as before Mass, or during the period between the Exposition ceremony and the Benediction ceremony--a group of people could pray the Litany of the Holy Name.

So, "private" in the sense of "private Mass" pertains really to the location. Normally, a "private" devotion is not appropriate inside the Mass itself. Similarly, the Mass is normally to be said in a place approved for *public* worship.

As said by someone above, the idea of a "private Mass" arose in the Middle Ages through the use of private chapels at monasteries and castles: a priest offering Mass in a location *other than aa parish church*, a place for essentially a small group.

If a priest offers Mass at a generic, "non-denominational" chapel at a university or hospital, that would bea "private mass." Technically, under certain circumstances, a priest is permitted to offer Mass in a location other than a church or even a "private chapel." For example, this has become common practice at Papal Masses (even though the whole point of a basilica is that it's supposed to be where teh Pope says Mass when he visits a country).

Now, here's where things get into canonically murky waters.

Strictly speaking, as noted above, the bishop's approval is needed for such "private Masses," but it's one of this "how do you enforce it" issues. Also, several liturgical experts--including then-Cardinal Ratzinger--have noted that, at a "private" Mass, a priest is free to use whatever liturgy he wants.

This is kind of an important issue in the Latin traditional movement, because, in the era of _Ecclesia Dei_, and even now with certain recalcitrant bishops, traditionalists will use the "loophole" of having a "private Mass" at a hotel conference room with a "visiting" priest from some diocese (usually out of the country) where the TLM is permitted. The priest is permitted to say a "private Mass" because he's travelling and not in his normal jurisdiction, and outside the jurisdiction of the bishop.

This is how Mel Gibson's "private" chapel operates, even though it's essentially a parish with a huge building and a large congregation. He has some priest come up from Mexico, and he has his kids confirmed by that priest's Mexican bishop. (Although the "private" chapel has to be recognized by the local bishop, which it isn't).

All that said, in theory, a priest who is like an invalid, or, as above, travelling can say a Mass by hismelf in private. Priests under certain kinds of suspension are allowed to say Mass "in private". But I would wonder how often that really *happens*. FOr example, even an invalid priest has to have some attendants, or live in a nursing home where he can say mass in the chapel.

Fascinating.

How about this: Naval Aviation Chapel at NAS Pensacola.

This is a facility permanently served by both a protestant and catholic chaplain. There is a cross/crucifix at the front: it rotates for the appropriate service.

It has a regular congregation and a regular priest assigned.

Hmm, I may have just answered my own question, with a side-reference to my post earlier today about Holy Family's prior building.

I just remembered that there sis a small consecrated church area off to the side. I assume then that it is a public mass of that church.

hawk

God be praised !

I got goose bumps as I read that !

-- John