I feel guilty about recieving communion at an irreverant mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter 6glargento
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
6

6glargento

Guest
ok, this afternoon I attended a mass that was very irreverant some of the things i saw were:

-no decorations around the alter, crucifix looked plain, and disfigured
  • no table cloth on the alter
-alter looked more like a stone table, oddly shapen

-music was terrible and it used clashing instruments like tamborine, symbals, and maroccas (sp)
  • priest did not actually read the gospel, rather he gave a brief summary of what the overall message was and analyzed it
  • stuff was adlibbed so much to the point where the mass was somewhat hard to follow
and most of all…

The eucharist was leavend bread instead of unleavend hoasts, and while the ministers were giving the eucharist to the people, they would rip off a portion of the bread and give it to the person. Iknow that in the eastern rite they use leavened bread, buy it is usually broken up reverently by the priest, not ripped apart by lay ministers. I truly felt that i was attending a non catholic liturgy. Nevertheless, I recieved communion and from what i could taste, it seemed like valid matter, however illicit because leavend bread is not used in the roman rite. But I felt guilty afterwards for some reason, like I shouldn’t have recieved communion at that mass. Did I do something wrong by taking communion at this offensive mass? I plan on never returning to this parish and only went becasue i was with a friend. Also, apparently the bishop visited this church and didn’t think anything of this.
 
Although that does sound very distressing, I don’t think you committed any sin by receiving communion under those circumstances. You didn’t know that there would be such liturgical…issues there, and you obviously wouldn’t have received communion if you knew/seriously believed at the time that it would offend the Lord to do so (which means it was at least definitely NOT mortal), and you don’t plan to go again, so I don’t know why you would be guilty of anything (or at least anything grave)…I’ll be interested to hear other’s opinions, though.

If I were in your situation, I think I would consult a priest I trusted (maybe not naming the parish) and see if he thought I should contact the bishop with my specific concerns (I know you said he visited, but maybe someone needs to point it out explicitly? I don’t know). If the bishop still doesn’t do anything, I’d find a way to go higher. It’s a very serious thing for clergy to disrespect the Blessed Sacrament, as you obviously know, and if you can pursue the matter with humility, compassion, and respect for the clergy involved, I think it would be wise to do so.

God bless.
 
It wasnt just an illicit Eucharist, but an invalid one if leaven was used in the bread. Any deviation in the form (the words “this is my body” and “this is my blood”) or matter (the Eucharistic species must be made as specified, meaning the bread can’t be leavened in Latin Rite Masses) invalidates the Sacrament.

Any OTHER deviation, such as not reading the Gospel, is illicit. Ad-libbing is hard to judge without specifics - there are parts of the Mass where provision is made for the priest to use ‘similar words’.

Having said that, you didn’t know about the invalidity issue, so don’t worry about having received there. But don’t go back there again, and report them to the Bishop immediately!
 
now this is example of egregious liturgical abuse, and it is quite possible that the Mass was illicit and the sacrament invalid, however what distresses me most is that you, the innocent victim, should feel guilt about witnessing it and about receiving communion. that shows the danger in this type of action on the part of the priest who allowed and encouraged it. YOu were quite right in receiving, since, it is also possible that despite all appearance to the contrary, the sacrament was valid, but please please do not beat yourself up for the sins of others. These are the types of things than certainly should be carefully documented and reported to the bishop.

We encountered an almost identical situation travelling this summer. It so happened our hostess worked in the diocesan office and I told her, and she said, yes the bishop is aware and has been in conflict with this parish and pastor for a long time but is handling things “his own way” so I left it at that. the shocker was that my kids, who also went, thought it was great, so I had some education to do.
 
so wait, leavened bread in the roman rite is an invalid sacrament not just illicit? Why is that, if the eastern catholics uses leavened bread?
 
6glargento said:
so wait, leavened bread in the roman rite is an invalid sacrament not just illicit? Why is that, if the eastern catholics uses leavened bread?
Click to expand...
Leaven bread does not invalidate the sacrament. It is “illicit” (that is, contrary to the law), but it is valid. For the “matter” to be valid only requires real bread, whether leaven or not is only a matter of particular law.

But, if I would have been in your position at such a sacreligious mass, I would not only not have received, but walked out.
 
6glargento said:
ok, this afternoon I attended a mass that was very irreverant some of the things i saw were:

-no decorations around the alter, crucifix looked plain, and disfigured
  • no table cloth on the alter
-alter looked more like a stone table, oddly shapen

-music was terrible and it used clashing instruments like tamborine, symbals, and maroccas (sp)
  • priest did not actually read the gospel, rather he gave a brief summary of what the overall message was and analyzed it
  • stuff was adlibbed so much to the point where the mass was somewhat hard to follow
and most of all…

The eucharist was leavend bread instead of unleavend hoasts, and while the ministers were giving the eucharist to the people, they would rip off a portion of the bread and give it to the person. Iknow that in the eastern rite they use leavened bread, buy it is usually broken up reverently by the priest, not ripped apart by lay ministers. I truly felt that i was attending a non catholic liturgy. Nevertheless, I recieved communion and from what i could taste, it seemed like valid matter, however illicit because leavend bread is not used in the roman rite. But I felt guilty afterwards for some reason, like I shouldn’t have recieved communion at that mass. Did I do something wrong by taking communion at this offensive mass? I plan on never returning to this parish and only went becasue i was with a friend. Also, apparently the bishop visited this church and didn’t think anything of this.
Click to expand...
No Gospel and leavend bread? I dont think you received communion at this “mass” beucase i dont think there was a Mass to begin with.
 
I figure that if Jesus can stand it then I can too. If He is displeased He knows how to complain.
 
Joe_Kelley said:
I figure that if Jesus can stand it then I can too. If He is displeased He knows how to complain.
Click to expand...
Joe, Perhaps God is showing His displeasure by having people who are aware of abuses bring them to light.

One abuse that has gone uncorrected and that has even come to be regarded as correct is the music that accompanies most weekend Masses. Liturgical music is supposed to be an integral part of the Mass, not superimposed on it. Thus songs, or hymns, that are appropriate in other settings certainly may never be said to be part of the Mass; and when the intruments further detract our minds from the sacrifice – such as were mentioned in the original post in this thread – it is totally out of order. Those instruments may be judged appropriate in lands where such instruments are ordinary; in the United States, except for parts of Louisiana, perhaps, they are NOT ordinary.
 
Pax_et_Caritas said:
Leaven bread does not invalidate the sacrament. It is “illicit” (that is, contrary to the law), but it is valid. For the “matter” to be valid only requires real bread, whether leaven or not is only a matter of particular law.

But, if I would have been in your position at such a sacreligious mass, I would not only not have received, but walked out.
Click to expand...
Methinks Fr Corapi for one would beg to differ. The ‘real’ bread required for validity IS the type the particular law requires. Meaning pure wheat flour and water only.

No additions. Which means no leaven for Latin Riters - leaven is something that has to be added separately, as would be sugar, egg, oil or what have you.

Adding any of these things - including leaven - would invalidate it.
 
In general, is any bread that has the shape and size of a loaf, “leavened bread”?
 
Well, you most likely did not attend Holy Mass. To use invalid bread stuffs invalidates the Mass. I know that I encountered this a few years ago in a particular diocese and even at the Cathedral. I called the one parish and spoke to the nice lady in the baking ministry who gave me the recipe with extra (invalidating) ingredients. I wrote to that bishop. I learned in a roundabout way that the pastor was disouraged from doing this but the letter I got back from the bishop said it never happened!!!

And in another diocese, there was the bread stuff being broken up and crumbs flying and so forth and I spoke to my spiritual director who explained that there was no Mass! Those faithful people are only receiving a spiritual communion and not the Body and Blood of Our Lord. This is what seems to be happening at the parish you attended and just think, your dear friend takes this in stride and does not know the truth of the thing, just like my relatives who have been lied to for years. Yes, write to the bishop and that may or may not accomplish anything but yu have brought the matter to the superior and therin ends your responsibility.

Many times I have gone running to my director about the abuses at Mass–if this part and that part are missing and something else is added–is it still valid? In almost all cases the Mass is valid but illicit. We rarely have a totally licit Sunday Mass with today being no exception In two weeks I shall be on retreat in an orthodox place and can hardly wait for a totally licit and valid Mass.Wow!

Ave Maria!
 
Brownginger said:
In general, is any bread that has the shape and size of a loaf, “leavened bread”?
Click to expand...
Yes and no. Leavened bread specifically is bread that has some sort of ‘rising agent’ added to it - either yeast or baking powder. It’s this rising agent that enables the bread to hold the shape of a loaf and cook thoroughly in the centre as well as the outside.

You can’t MAKE loaves out of unleavened bread, they’d be all gooey and uncooked in the centre. Unleavened bread has to be flatbread like a pita, a tortilla or lebanese or lavash bread.
 
LilyM said:
Yes and no. Leavened bread specifically is bread that has some sort of ‘rising agent’ added to it - either yeast or baking powder. It’s this rising agent that enables the bread to hold the shape of a loaf and cook thoroughly in the centre as well as the outside.

You can’t MAKE loaves out of unleavened bread, they’d be all gooey and uncooked in the centre. Unleavened bread has to be flatbread like a pita, a tortilla or lebanese or lavash bread.
Click to expand...
Lily,

I saw a photo of the annual conference of Catholic Music Directors, or whatever their title, and it appears that they were distributing small bites of a loaf of bread. That would have to “leavened bread,” then, according to your definition, correct?
 
Brownginger said:
Lily,

I saw a photo of the annual conference of Catholic Music Directors, or whatever their title, and it appears that they were distributing small bites of a loaf of bread. That would have to “leavened bread,” then, according to your definition, correct?
Click to expand...
Small bites of a fluffy loaf or just small bites of a flatbread, a pita or something? It can be hard to tell the difference sometimes.
 
A parish I attended as a child would on various occaisions use what I can only describe as a waffle. The priest’s Host was square, dark brown, and had the surface of a waffle.
 
LilyM said:
Methinks Fr Corapi for one would beg to differ. The ‘real’ bread required for validity IS the type the particular law requires. Meaning pure wheat flour and water only.

No additions. Which means no leaven for Latin Riters - leaven is something that has to be added separately, as would be sugar, egg, oil or what have you.

Adding any of these things - including leaven - would invalidate it.
Click to expand...
Hmm, Jimmy Akin would disagree:

“The matter required for a valid celebration of the Eucharist consists of wheat bread and grape wine (CIC 924). In the Latin Rite of the Church, the bread must be unleavened for a licit celebration (CIC 926). In all rites of the Church, the wine must be mixed with a small quantity of water for a licit celebration. However, neither the presence of water nor the absence of leaven is needed for a *valid *celebration. In fact, most of the Eastern Rites use leavened bread for confecting the Eucharist.”

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9905chap.asp
 
mtr01 said:
Hmm, Jimmy Akin would disagree:

“The matter required for a valid celebration of the Eucharist consists of wheat bread and grape wine (CIC 924). In the Latin Rite of the Church, the bread must be unleavened for a licit celebration (CIC 926). In all rites of the Church, the wine must be mixed with a small quantity of water for a licit celebration. However, neither the presence of water nor the absence of leaven is needed for a *valid *celebration. In fact, most of the Eastern Rites use leavened bread for confecting the Eucharist.”

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9905chap.asp
Click to expand...
You are absolutely correct in regard to using unleavened bread for the Eucharist. As you quoted, Canon Law 926 says: “In the eucharistic celebration, in accordance with the ancient tradition of the latin Church, the priest is to use unleavened bread wherever he celebrates Mass.”

The leavened bread alone completely invalidated this Mass. Certainly the OP did not sin by receiving communion, but the priest, in my opinion, is in big trouble and should be reported.

Mary
 
It seems to me the question over whether or not leavening makes for an invalid or valid Eucharist remains.

The statute of Canon law (926) certainly speaks to what should be done in the Roman Rite . . . . but the code also contemplates deviations that would in some cases invalidate, and other deviations that would not invalidate but be illicit.

Can anyone show that the above canon 926 is of the kind that deviation from which would invalidate the sacrament?

It’s unfortunately somewhat confusing from my point of view. Cleary we know that leavened bread is not impossible to consecrate, say as a cookie would be. But it seems that some want to extrapolate from the possibility of consecrating leavened bread (i.e in an eastern rite) to the validity but illicity of consecrating leavened bread in the Roman Rite.

For instance, along with Jimmy Akin linked to above we have, Fr. Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University, of Zenit fame:The use or omission of leaven in baking bread does not affect the reality of the end product as true bread. And so both leavened and unleavened bread are valid matter for the Eucharist.

The traditional use of unleavened bread in the Latin Church is a requirement for the Eucharist’s licit celebration. A priest who consecrates a roll, bun or some other form of true wheat bread containing leaven performs a valid but illicit act.

And, also in the corner of “leavened is illicit but valid” we have the Catholic Encylopedia (from 1917, so surely this is not a post-Vatican II innovation) article on Altar Breads
For valid consecration the hosts must be:

made of wheaten flour, mixed with pure natural water, baked in an oven. . .and they must not be corrupted (Miss. Rom., De Defectibus, III, 1).

For licit consecration:
the bread must be, at present unleavened in the Western Church, but leavened bread in the Eastern Church. . .

But on the contrary note we have the emminent Archbishop Raymond L. Burke, who seems to suggest that leavening makes the bread invalid matter.
The matter of the Holy Eucharist is bread and wine. The bread "must be unleavened, purely of wheat, and recently made so that there is no danger of decomposition." In recent times, it has been suggested that a different kind of bread, even leavened bread, may be used for the celebration of the Holy Mass. The instruction makes it clear that any other kind of bread or wheat bread mixed with a substance other than wheat is not "valid matter for confecting the sacrifice and the eucharistic sacrament." The introduction of other substances, like honey or molasses or raisins, in the wheat bread renders the celebration of the Holy Eucharist invalid.

Which is it folks? Can anyone convincingly clear this up? I don’t think we can out of hand say one or the other position is correct without some support because we have good and knowledgeable sources on both sides of the position here. (The Catholic Encylopedia is quite strong, no?)

It seems that the argument is sound on both sides:
  1. Valid, but illicit – because leavened bread is manifestly valid matter in other rites. Furthermore the matter is valid so long as the admixture of other elements is not so great as to substantially change it from wheat bread. Thus just as a drop of honey would not invalidate the matter, so too “a pinch” of yeast would not invalidate the matter.
  2. Invalid and illicit – The Church has the compentancy to regulate the matter (although it cannot change the matter Christ established) used for the confecting of the Sacraments. The Church has regulated that leavened bread is to be used in the Eastern Rites, and unleavened bread is to be used in the Roman Rite. Therefore the use of leavened bread in the Roman Rite, would be invalid matter, not based on its intrinsic invalidty (such as a cookie) but based on a jurisdictional or juridical invalidity.
Thoughts? Can anyone clear this up?

VC
 
I did not have time to make this observation earlier. Not all loaf-style heavy homemade looking wheat breads used for communion in parishes that feel compelled to do this are leavened or sweetened in any way, so unless you know for sure, and you are within your rights in asking the pastor point blank about it, best not to assume.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top