B
benedictgal
Guest
However, one can always write to the CDWDS. It won’t hurt. In fact, it may do a world of good.
- Status
J
JerrySeibert
Guest
I must ask this question. I recite the Mass, under my breath of course, as the Priest is saying the Mass. I have read great amounts of Liturgy to determine what prayer is said, where did it begin etc.
Is this wrong? I am not a Priest but I just love Mass. Being apart of the entire miracle that we call Church is humbling and satisfying. That being said. I do this out of Prayer hoping to raise my Prayer to the almighty God. That I have studied and understand the importance and appreciate the gift he gave to all of us. It is not done with licit intent, it is done out of love.
I have done this for years. It just seems natural to me.
Is this wrong? I am not a Priest but I just love Mass. Being apart of the entire miracle that we call Church is humbling and satisfying. That being said. I do this out of Prayer hoping to raise my Prayer to the almighty God. That I have studied and understand the importance and appreciate the gift he gave to all of us. It is not done with licit intent, it is done out of love.
I have done this for years. It just seems natural to me.
T
tristetrista
Guest
thank you. that is what i thought. my concern was that the congregation was “participating” in the second part of the Eucharistic Prayer (between the Mysteries and the Doxology (the Great Amen)).
while the priest was the only one to say the prayer, after certain parts of Eucharistic Prayer (part 2) the choir and congregation would sing, “Oh Lord hear us, hear our prayers.” Funnily, my preschooler was diverting my attention, so i started singing until i remembered we were in the middle of the Eucharistic Prayer. i stopped singing. at this point i wasn’t even sure it was wrong, that maybe since it was done in the second part the priest and choir had found a loop hole. i’m going with not.
Are you participating in this disrespect if you receive communion knowing that a violation has occurred?
M
MarkThompson
Guest
No, of course not. The Eucharist is not tainted by a celebrant’s disrespect, and taking it is an act of communion with God, not the priest. If you went to the Mass knowing that an abuse would take place, it might be argued that you ratified it, but even that would be by your presence, not by receiving the Eucharist, and for run-of-the-mill “abuses” like having people speak along with the Doxology or, you know, stuff like wearing the stole over the chasuble, I don’t think you’re obligated to seek out a parish that commits zero abuses. Of course, it would be a different story if you deliberately went to a schismatic church or something of that sort, where the very celebration of the Mass and confection of the Eucharist without faculties is a grave sin.
T
tristetrista
Guest
Thank you Mark, do you know if there is a reference for this anywhere? That is it being okay to receive even tho the transgression has occurred?
Also, I was so confused, and not sure that I would be adding to the disrespect (not even sure at the time that it was one), I did not receive communion. I’m guess from what you are saying I was in error to not receive?
I did not know prior to the service that this was going to occur. This is my parish, but my regular attendance is at a different time, as far as I recall this error had not occurred during my regular attendance.
Also, I was so confused, and not sure that I would be adding to the disrespect (not even sure at the time that it was one), I did not receive communion. I’m guess from what you are saying I was in error to not receive?
I did not know prior to the service that this was going to occur. This is my parish, but my regular attendance is at a different time, as far as I recall this error had not occurred during my regular attendance.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
I cannot think of a reference off the top of my head, but it pretty much stands to reason. Anything that contradicts the rubrics is an “abuse,” so these are abuses: wearing the stole over the chasuble, not having at least two candles on or beside the altar, reading the Gospel from the altar rather than the ambo, or inserting the word “for” in the offertory so as to say “Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation, for through your goodness we have this bread to offer.” But you would obviously be crazy to stick your nose up at the Eucharist over “abuses” of very minor sort. Canon 918 of the Code of Canon Law encourages us: “It is highly recommended that the faithful receive holy communion during the eucharistic celebration itself.” Nothing in the law says, the faithful must be vigilant and refuse communion if anything is improper about the Mass.
Again, if you deliberately went to an SSPX mass or something like that, where every celebration of the Eucharist is gravely illicit and sinful, I think you’d be at risk of being held to condone the sin. Maybe the same would apply if you went to a licit Mass where you knew that really grave abuses would be perpetrated, I don’t know. But even then, the issue is whether you should have attended the Mass at all, not whether your should receive the Eucharist once you’re there. You don’t “ratify” the priest’s conduct by receiving a host that he consecrated. Only the wildest abuses (using rice cakes, failing to say “This is my body”) could invalidate the sacrament, and if the sacrament is valid the host demands to be consumed.
Again, if you deliberately went to an SSPX mass or something like that, where every celebration of the Eucharist is gravely illicit and sinful, I think you’d be at risk of being held to condone the sin. Maybe the same would apply if you went to a licit Mass where you knew that really grave abuses would be perpetrated, I don’t know. But even then, the issue is whether you should have attended the Mass at all, not whether your should receive the Eucharist once you’re there. You don’t “ratify” the priest’s conduct by receiving a host that he consecrated. Only the wildest abuses (using rice cakes, failing to say “This is my body”) could invalidate the sacrament, and if the sacrament is valid the host demands to be consumed.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
There was an alternate Eucharistic Prayer, which was approved by Rome, which had some acclamations by the congregation inserted into the canon. I recall this from years back. I don’t know if it’s been re-done and the acclamations removed or if the approval to use it has been withdrawn–or not, on both counts. You might have heard that one, although you probably would have noticed the different words as well. What I’m referring to is (I think) sometimes called the “Swiss Canon.” I haven’t looked at the text in many years, though and it’s not printed in the Sacramentary (it was printed as in its own little booklet which I don’t have), so I’m only working from some vague memories.
In any case, to respond to your question, no there was nothing wrong with the fact that you received Communion–nothing at all. This might make for an interresting discussion in the moral theology section; the question of whether or not actively (and here, I mean intentionally and knowingly, etc) participating in illicit changes to the Mass would make one not-properly-disposed to receive Communion, but that would be a different thread for a different day. Regrardless of what the answer to that question might be, you didn’t intend to do anything wrong, so it would not in any way affect your own disposition to receive Communion.
R
roadsend
Guest
Canon 844 §2 Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it (my bolds), and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ’s faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
True. But the other words, which also deserve emphasis are “for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a catholic minister.”
M
MarkThompson
Guest
Right, absolutely; I tried to communicate that in the word “deliberately” without straying too far from the main point. But if you just say, “Gee, these schismatics have a more reverent liturgy, I think I’ll start going there instead,” I think you be at severe risk of the kind of problem the OP was asking about. Anyway, this isn’t the right thread to debate schismatics and the SSPX, so I’m not going to do it. I will point out that the passage you quoted does not mean, if spiritual advantage commends it, you can go to a schismatic priest – it means, if you are a person “for whom it is physically or morally impossible [impossible ≠ distasteful, objectionable] to approach a catholic minister,” then if there is no “danger of error or indifferentism” and “necessity . . . or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it,” you can approach a “non-catholic minister” with valid sacraments. Well, that’s it for me on this topic in this thread.
T
tristetrista
Guest
Thank you, FrDavid and Mr. Thompson. I did not receive communion. I wasn’t meaning to “turn my nose up at it”. I just couldn’t stand the thought that I might be adding to the disrespect to it. Now I may have disrespected it by not receiving it? I knew that was a possibility too. Not knowing and not knowing what to do my thought was, in not receiving, it would be a little like attending Mass when you haven’t had the chance to go to confession. I think you you still get spiritual communion?
Upon deciding not to receive, I offered the prayer, “Oh Lord, forgive me if I am in error for not receiving this communion I am denying myself the honor of receiving Your Precious Body and Blood. It is only my intention to avoid any disrespect to You on my part. If this communion is valid and/or I should have received, let me partake in Your Spiritual Communion. It is always my intention to approach Your Gifts with the deepest of love, devotion, and respect.”
In looking up the Swiss Canon, EWTN has a little on it.
ewtn.com/expert/answers/eucharistic_prayers.htm
I’m not sure I’m reading it right, but I think it suggests that they are not approved for use in the United States. Can’t seem to find more. The American Catholic Church publishes the words. As I was attending my son, I believe the wording was as I said, however between that and trying to figure out what I should do, those may have been the words.
Should I seek reconciliation for not receiving?
B
benedictgal
Guest
No. What many of us tend to forget is that we are not required to receive Holy Communion at every Mass we assist. The only time we are required to receive Holy Communion is from the First Sunday of Lent through Trinity Sunday. This is called the Easter Duty.
One note: I would not call us the American Catholic Church. that would mean that we are apart. Rather, I would say the Church in America.
C
curlycool89
Guest
I attended a parish where a Benedictine priest was filling in for a priest on sabbatical, and he used the Swiss Canon a few times. I have to say that I found it quite interesting. I kind of like it. I’m not one of those people who has issues with the many options for eucharistic prayers, so I like hearing other approved options.
You can find the words here.
T
tristetrista
Guest
In that reference, I WAS referring to the American Catholic Church of the United States who officially separated itself from the Roman Catholic Church so that they could be “inclusive”.
I like options as long as they ARE approved. His Body and Blood are too precious to me to mind (at least for my part) disrespect to them especially within the Mass.
Again, I have no idea what it means if it is NOT approved for use in the United States and allowed elsewhere. I am not even certain whether it is or isn’t. And, I’m not certain that this is what occurred at the mass of which I speak.
C
curlycool89
Guest
Oh definitely. I don’t mind options, as long as they are approved for use.
It seems that it is approved here in Canada at least.
- Status