Is it there?

It occurs to me upon reflection of the Latin behind the English words we commonly use that there, perhaps, a nod toward closed communion right there in the Preface.  I have not a great deal to say about the first two phrases of the dialogue that preceeds the Canon (of greater or briefer length).  It is there in the third of those phrases, the call to give thanks.  Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro intones the priest.  In case your Latin is rusty, in English and nearly universally so it is “Let us give thanks to the Lord our God.”  

The hidden reference to closed communion lies in the response of the people.  Dignum et justum est.  Now here is where it gets a bit sticky.  In preconciliar Roman missals, it is commonly rendered It is meet and just or as the Common Service put it, It is meet and right so to do. Therein lies the problem.  Meet is an old and was a serviceable word to mean fitting or proper.  The problem does not lie with the accuracy of those older translations but that they fail to incorporate the full nuance of the word.  “Right” when used as a synonym for “just” in the same way that there is little difference between a righteous man and a just man. But the Latin dignus is not synonymous with nore merely an amplication of “good, suitable, fitting, becoming, or proper.”  Indeed, dignus means worthy as in Dignus et Agnus --  worthy the Lamb.  Meet is okay but hardly common in our vocaculary and therefore fails to note what worthy means in this context.

Worthiness certainly is accurate with reference to Him who is worth our due -- our thanks and praise and humble adoration.  But is that all there is -- God is worthy?  or is there more?  Perhaps this hearkens to 1 Corinthians 11:29 and the solemn warning of St. Paul not to eat and drink unworthily the body and blood of Jesus Christ or to suffer judgment and condemnation to himself.”   The older and familiar pre-communion prayer also admits such an understanding, the communicant praying that he is not worthy that the Lord God should enter under his roof.  Could it possibly be that in this response dignum et justum est, the communicants and congregation is referencing their own worthiness, having been redeemed by the blood of Christ and judged righteous in His clothing of holiness and believing and confessing this with their whole hearts?  They are confessing their own worthiness not apart from Christ but in Christ to receive what He offers, solemnly acknowledging and not skipping over the righteousness that comes by faith.

Just as the people responded to sursum corda with Habemus ad Dominum  -- almost saying they are already up, padre, so the call to give thanks to the Lord by receiving in faith the gifts Christ offers apart from any merit on their part but to the faithful is answered "we are worthy in Christ and declared righteous (just) to be here where we are and to receive what He offers.  Now maybe you think it a stretch but I am not so sure.  While surely such imagery has long ago departed the liturgy in favor of a loosey goosey y'all come as you are..., it was not always so and worthiness was woven in the fabric of the liturgy at many points along the way but certainly in reference to receiving the Sacrament.  It is good to do so but a great deal more than that.  This is, by the way, a confession less of us than of the Christ in whom we are made worthy.   Just a little something to get you thinking....