• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Corpus Christi Watershed

Pope Saint Paul VI (3 April 1969): “Although the text of the Roman Gradual—at least that which concerns the singing—has not been changed, the Entrance antiphons and Communions antiphons have been revised for Masses without singing.”

  • Donate
  • Our Team
    • Our Editorial Policy
    • Who We Are
    • How To Contact Us
    • Sainte Marie Bulletin Articles
    • Jeff’s Mom Joins Fundraiser
  • Pew Resources
    • Brébeuf Catholic Hymnal
    • Jogues Illuminated Missal
    • KYRIALE • Saint Antoine Daniel
    • Campion Missal, 3rd Edition
    • Repository • “Spanish Music”
    • Ordinary Form Feasts (Sainte-Marie)
  • MUSICAL WEBSITES
    • René Goupil Gregorian Chant
    • Noël Chabanel Psalms
    • Nova Organi Harmonia (2,279 pages)
    • Roman Missal, 3rd Edition
    • Catechism of Gregorian Rhythm
    • Father Enemond Massé Manuscripts
    • Lalemant Polyphonic
  • Miscellaneous
    • Site Map
    • Secrets of the Conscientious Choirmaster
    • “Wedding March” for lazy organists
    • Emporium Kevin Allen
    • Saint Jean de Lalande Library
    • Sacred Music Symposium 2023
    • The Eight Gregorian Modes
    • Gradual by Pothier’s Protégé
    • Seven (7) Considerations
Views from the Choir Loft

“Confiteor” Before Communion • Should It Be Done?

Jeff Ostrowski · July 2, 2016

375 Ecce Agnus Dei EFORE THE REIGN of Pope St. Pius X, congregations often did not receive Holy Communion at Mass. This sounds foreign to us in the year 2016. 1 Indeed, the Missal said nothing about the congregation receiving Holy Communion. Nor did the Missal tell the priest to turn and say “Domine, non sum dignus” three times. (These were adapted from the RITUALE: “Rite for Administering Holy Communion Outside of Mass.”)

Don’t take my word for it: examine a London Missal from 1806AD, or peruse what the Liber Usualis says. Moreover, the official 1962 MISSALE ROMANUM contains absolutely nothing about the priest turning around to say “Ecce Agnus Dei”—even though that’s something we normally associate with the Traditional Latin Mass. 2 This is noteworthy in light of the massive changes made just three years later for the 1965 Missal.

Author’s Note: As with all my articles, what’s presented below is not meant to be the “final word” on this subject. Rather, it is provided for your consideration.

UPDATE (2 September 2019) : I was wrong and foolish; I should have mentioned what the “Ritus Servandus” says about the priest distributing Holy Communion—and it has said the same thing for many centuries. For example, look at this 1842 edition. Sorry!

More here about my error. Basically, the Missals assumed nobody would receive Holy Communion except the priest…

IT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS, THEN, that anyone writing about the CONFITEOR before Communion should avoid statements like “this Confiteor is not found in the 1962 Missal” because nothing was there to begin with—including Ecce Agnus Dei—as I’ve already demonstrated. To understand what’s going on, we have to look at the 1961 code of rubrics.

On 25 July 1960, Pope St. John XXIII issued new rubrics which would go into effect on 1 January 1961. Feel free to examine Rubricarum Instructum, where this is clearly stated. The 1961 code of rubrics governs anyone saying the Extraordinary Form and made numerous changes—especially to feast classification. Number 503 of that document says:

503. Quoties sancta Communio infra Missam distributur, celebrans, sumpto sacratissimo Sanguine, omissis confessione et absolutione, dictis tamen Ecce Agnus Dei et ter Dómine, non sum dignus, immediate ad distribtionem sanctæ Eucharistiæ procedit.

In English, translated by Most Rev’d Patrick Murphy (1960):

503. Whenever Holy Communion is distributed during Mass, the celebrant, after receiving the Precious Blood, and the Confiteor and absolution having been omitted, says three times Ecce Agnus Dei and three times Domine non sum dignus, then proceeds immediately to distribute the Holy Eucharist.

Since the 1990s, I’ve served Mass for many priests from all over the world, but I have yet to attend a single EF Mass omitting the Pre-Communion Confiteor.

I’ve been given various explanations for this. Here are six:

(1) Blessing No Big Deal : Many priests give a blessing to folks who approach the Communion rail but do not receive. A blessing is also frequently given to babies at Holy Communion. It’s difficult to understand why people who “rail against” (pardon the pun!) the Pre-Communion Confiteor never complain about those additional blessings. After all, the only addition made by the priest is a blessing & absolution. [The actions by servers & congregation—at least for Low Mass—have never been legislated. Indeed, people often said prayers and sang hymns during Low Mass.]

(2) Letter from “Ecclesia Dei” Commission : Some claim the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” issued a letter allowing the Pre-Communion Confiteor to be kept wherever it’s customary. I have never seen this letter, but perhaps a reader can provide it? Such a letter would not surprise me, considering some of the bizarre rulings (often contradictory) from the commission during the 1990s. The 2016 FSSP Liturgical Ordo says the Pre-Communion Confiteor was “suppressed” but is tolerated “where it is currently established practice.”

* UPDATE: The CMAA forum just posted a message from Poland claiming that “Ecclesia Dei” Commission gave permission for the Confiteor before Communion, but can anyone provide a scanned copy of the actual letter? We will gladly post it online.

(3) The Role of Custom : Catholic priests have always relied on a living tradition rather than rigid adherence to the written law. If you examine Fr. Weller’s 1948 Rituale, you will observe the truth of what I say. Fr. Fortescue says the same thing when he talks about “obsolete” rubrics such as wearing a surplice under a chasuble, covering books with silk, or altar servers wearing lay clothes. The white Communion cloth, which I’m told is required by the rubrics, is another good example.

(4) Omitted Not Forbidden : The 1961 code says the Pre-Communion Confiteor is omitted, not forbidden. Some view this as basically saying to priests: “This Rite was brought in from the ceremony for giving Holy Communion outside of Mass. From now on, it is not obligatory to say the Confiteor, which is prayed twice at the beginning of Mass.” The Pre-Communion Confiteor is helpful, since it reminds us how unworthy we are of such a gift. Throughout history, whether some realize this or not, small additions have been made in different countries, such as the Pre-Gospel hymn mentioned by Professor László Dobszay.

(5) 1962 Instances of Retention : Something adding weight to the “not forbidden” argument—where the intent of the lawgiver is questioned—is the 1962 PONTIFICALE ROMANUM, which retains the Confiteor before Communion. Furthermore, the official 1962 MISSALE ROMANUM specifically mandates the Pre-Communion Confiteor on Good Friday.

(6) USCCB Permission : Finally, the USCCB issued a statement on 20 November 2012 saying that anything done for the liturgy—even if the bishop doesn’t know about it—is automatically approved unless the local bishop personally puts a stop to it. They call this “tacit” approval. Such a statement sounds bizarre, so Daniel Craig sent more than 100 letters to the USCCB, asking for clarification. Astoundingly, the USCCB would not back away from that 20 November statement. Therefore, according to the USCCB, the local bishop “approves” the Pre-Communion Confiteor wherever he has not specifically forbidden it. [Would a local bishop’s permission matter? It can’t hurt, right?]

I recently had a conversation with an M.C. at the FSSP seminary in Lincoln, Nebraska. He told me the Confiteor before Communion is never done there (at least for Low Mass).

MY PERSONAL OPINION is that uniformity regarding the CONFITEOR before Communion would be desirable. Specifically, to have everyone follow the FSSP seminary praxis would be praiseworthy since it would eliminate the need to ask before each Mass, “Father, do you want the Confiteor before Communion?”

I suppose someone could write to the “Eccelsia Dei” Commission about this topic, but their response would likely be as follows:

The Church is in crisis, yet you write today about an incredibly peripheral issue. Say your prayers each day, obey the commandments, undertake the spiritual & corporal works of mercy, and never again concern yourself with this issue.

For the record, regardless of my personal opinion, I always do whatever the priest asks me when I serve Mass.

Update:

*  PDF Download • The Vatican Responds
—Letter from the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (18 September 2018).


NOTES FROM THIS ARTICLE:

1   We often encounter rubrics in the old books which begin, “In those Masses where people besides the priest will receive Holy Communion…” Not everything was written down because the liturgy was something LIVING. To my knowledge the old books say nothing about kneeling for Holy Communion—but everyone knew how things were done.

2   When I was being trained to serve Mass, nobody could agree where we should kneel for what they called the “Second Confiteor” (a.k.a. “Third Confiteor”). Having read this article, you’ll understand why. The same is true for whether the Subdeacon & Deacon kneel or stand at the Ecce Agnus Dei. In my view, so long as things are done with proper decorum, such minor details don’t amount to much.

Opinions by blog authors do not necessarily represent the views of Corpus Christi Watershed.

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: 2nd Confiteor Last Updated: December 29, 2021

Subscribe

It greatly helps us if you subscribe to our mailing list!

* indicates required

About Jeff Ostrowski

Jeff Ostrowski holds his B.M. in Music Theory from the University of Kansas (2004). He resides with his wife and children in Michigan. —(Read full biography).

Primary Sidebar

Corpus Christi Watershed

President’s Corner

    PDF Comparison Chart • “Serious Problems with the Lectionary Translation”
    EARS BEFORE truly revolutionary changes were introduced by the post-conciliar reformers, Evelyn Waugh wrote (on 16 August 1964) to John Cardinal Heenan: “I think that a vociferous minority has imposed itself on the hierarchy and made them believe that a popular demand existed where there was in fact not even a preference.” We ask the kind reader— indeed, we beg you—to realize that those of us born in the 1940s and 1950s had no cognizance of Roman activities during the 1960s and 1970s. We were concerned with making sure we had the day’s bus fare, graduating from high school, taking care of our siblings, learning a trade, getting a job, courting a spouse. We questioned neither the nuns nor the Church.1 Do not believe for one instant any of us were following the liturgical machinations of Cardinal Lercaro or Father Bugnini in real time. Setting The Stage • To never question or resist Church authorities is praiseworthy. On the other hand, when a scandalous situation persists for decades, it must be brought into focus. Our series will do precisely that as we discuss the Lectionary Scandal from a variety of angles. We don’t do this to attack the Catholic Church. Our goal is bringing to light what’s been going on, so it can be fixed once and for all. Our subject is extremely knotty and difficult to navigate. Its complexity helps explain why the situation has persisted for such a long time.2 But if we immediately get “into the weeds” we’ll lose our audience. Therefore, it seems better to jump right in. So today, we’ll explore the legality of selling these texts. A Word On Copyright • Suppose Susie modifies a paragraph by Edgar Allan Poe. That doesn’t mean ipso facto she can assert copyright on it. If Susie takes a picture of a Corvette and uses Photoshop to color the tires blue, that doesn’t mean she henceforth “owns” all Corvettes in America. But when it comes to Responsorial Psalm translations, certain parties have been asserting copyright over them, selling them for a profit, and bullying publishers vis-à-vis hymnals and missals. Increasingly, Catholics are asking whether these translations are truly under copyright—because they are identical (or substantially identical) to other translations.3 Example After Example • Our series will provide copious examples supporting our claims. Sometimes we’ll rely on the readership for assistance, because—as we’ve stressed—our subject’s history couldn’t be more convoluted. There are countless manuscripts (in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin) we don’t have access to, so it would be foolish for us to claim that our observations are somehow the ‘final word’ on anything. Nevertheless, we demand accountability. Catholics in the pews are the ones who paid for all this. We demand to know who specifically made these decisions (which impact every English-speaking Catholic) and why specifically certain decisions were made. The Responsorial Psalms used in America are—broadly speaking—stolen from the hard work of others. In particular, they borrowed heavily from Father Cuthbert Lattey’s 1939 PSALTER TRANSLATION:
    *  PDF Download • COMPARISON CHART —We thank the CCW staff for technical assistance with this graph.
    Analysis • Although certain parties have been selling (!!!) that translation for decades, the chart demonstrates it’s not a candidate for copyright since it “borrows” or “steals” or “rearranges” so much material from other translations, especially the 1939 translation by Father Cuthbert Lattey. What this means in layman’s terms is that individuals have been selling a translation under false pretenses, a translation they don’t own (although they claim to). To make RESTITUTION, all that money will have to be returned. A few years ago, the head of ICEL gave a public speech in which he said they give some of “their” profits to the poor. While almsgiving is a good thing, it cannot justify theft. Our Constant Theme • Our series will be held together by one thread, which will be repeated constantly: “Who was responsible?” Since 1970, the conduct of those who made a profit by selling these sacred texts has been repugnant. Favoritism was shown toward certain entities—and we will document that with written proof. It is absolutely essential going forward that the faithful be told who is making these decisions. Moreover, vague justifications can no longer be accepted. If we’re told they are “making the translations better,” we must demand to know what specifically they’re doing and what specific criteria they’re following. Stay Tuned • If you’re wondering whether we’ll address the forthcoming (allegedly) Lectionary and the so-called ABBEY PSALMS AND CANTICLES, have no fear. We’ll have much to say about both. Please stay tuned. We believe this will end up being the longest series of articles ever submitted to Corpus Christi Watershed. To be continued. ROBERT O’NEILL Former associate of Monsignor Francis “Frank” P. Schmitt at Boys Town in Nebraska JAMES ARNOLD Formerly associated w/ King’s College, Cambridge A convert to the Catholic Church, and distant relative of J. H. Arnold MARIA B. Currently serves as a musician in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte. Those aware of the situation in her diocese won’t be surprised she chose to withhold her last name.
    1 Even if we’d been able to obtain Roman journals such as NOTITIAE, none of them contained English translations. But such an idea would never have occurred to a high school student or a college student growing up in the 1960s. 2 A number of shell corporations claim to own the various biblical translations mandated for Roman Catholics. They’ve made millions of dollars selling (!) these indulgenced texts. If time permits, we hope to enumerate these various shell corporations and explain: which texts they claim to own; how much they bring in each year; who runs them; and so forth. It would also be good to explore the morality of selling these indulgenced texts for a profit. Furthermore, for the last fifty years these organizations have employed several tactics to manipulate and bully others. If time permits, we will expose those tactics (including written examples). Some of us—who have been working on this problem for three decades—have amassed written documentation we’ll be sharing that demonstrates behavior at best “shady” and at worst criminal. 3 Again, we are not yet examining the morality of selling (!) indulgenced texts to Catholics mandated to use those same translations.
    —Guest Author
    “Music List” • 17th in Ordinary Time (Year C)
    Some have expressed interest in perusing the ORDER OF MUSIC I prepared for the 17th Sunday in Ordinary Time (27 July 2025). If such a thing interests you, feel free to download it as a PDF file. As always, the Responsorial Psalm, Gospel Acclamation, and Mass Propers for this Sunday are conveniently stored at the the feasts website.
    —Jeff Ostrowski
    Communion • “Ask & You Shall Receive”
    All of the chants for 27 July 2025 have been added to the feasts website, as usual under a convenient “drop down” menu. The COMMUNION ANTIPHON (both text and melody) are exceedingly beautiful and ancient.
    —Jeff Ostrowski

Quick Thoughts

    Pope Pius XII Hymnal?
    Have you ever heard of the Pope Pius XII Hymnal? It’s a real book, published in the United States in 1959. Here’s a sample page so you can verify with your own eyes it existed.
    —Corpus Christi Watershed
    “Hybrid” Chant Notation?
    Over the years, many have tried to ‘simplify’ plainsong notation. The O’Fallon Propers attempted to simplify the notation—but ended up making matters worse. Dr. Karl Weinmann tried to do the same in the time of Pope Saint Pius X by replacing each porrectus. You can examine a specimen from his edition and see whether you agree he complicated matters. In particular, look at what he did with éxsules fílii Hévae.
    —Corpus Christi Watershed
    Antiphons Don’t Match?
    A reader wants to know why the Entrance and Communion antiphons in certain publications deviate from what’s prescribed by the GRADUALE ROMANUM published after Vatican II. Click here to read our answer. The short answer is: the Adalbert Propers were never intended to be sung. They were intended for private Masses only (or Masses without music). The “Graduale Parvum,” published by the John Henry Newman Institute of Liturgical Music in 2023, mostly uses the Adalbert Propers—but sometimes uses the GRADUALE text: e.g. Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul (29 June).
    —Corpus Christi Watershed

Random Quote

The Sacrifice is celebrated with many solemn rites, none of which should be deemed useless or superfluous. On the contrary, all of them tend to display the majesty of this august sacrifice, and to excite the faithful, when beholding these saving mysteries, to contemplate the divine things which lie concealed in the Eucharistic Sacrifice.

— Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566)

Recent Posts

  • PDF Comparison Chart • “Serious Problems with the Lectionary Translation”
  • “Music List” • 17th in Ordinary Time (Year C)
  • Flor Peeters In A Weird Mood?
  • Communion • “Ask & You Shall Receive”
  • Jeff’s Mother Joins Our Fundraiser

Subscribe

Subscribe

* indicates required

Copyright © 2025 Corpus Christi Watershed · Isaac Jogues on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Corpus Christi Watershed is a 501(c)3 public charity dedicated to exploring and embodying as our calling the relationship of religion, culture, and the arts. This non-profit organization employs the creative media in service of theology, the Church, and Christian culture for the enrichment and enjoyment of the public.

The election of Pope Leo XIV has been exciting, and we’re filled with hope for our apostolate’s future!

But we’re under pressure to transfer our website to a “subscription model.”

We don’t want to do that. We believe our website should remain free to all.

Our president has written the following letter:

President’s Message (dated 30 May 2025)

Are you able to support us?

clock.png

Time's up