I feel guilty about recieving communion at an irreverant mass

[Scotty_PGH]

I’ll take the word of Abp. Burke and Fr. Corapi over Jimmy (who?) Akin any day.

 

[mtr01]

Thoughts? Can anyone clear this up?VC

I don’t know, I just can’t see how leavened bread is invalid matter since all but one of the The Eastern Catholic Churches consecrate leavened bread (as do the Orthodox, which the Catholic Church considers to have a valid Eucharist). Saying leavened bread is invalid is tantamount to saying Eastern Catholics have invalid Eucharist.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

How about the Catholic Encyclopedia?

 

[Brooklyn]

I did some searching, and it is certainly the teaching of the Catholic Church that unleavened bread be used for the Eucharist. However, the Eastern Orthodox churches use leavened bread, and the Catholic Church does recognize them. So as you say, it is illicit, but not invalid.

My question is, why would a Catholic priest want to use leavened bread, when it most clearly goes against the teaching of the Church?

Mary

 

[verdigirl]

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 - this isn’t necessarily an issue

• no table cloth on the alter - are you sure there wasn’t a corporal at least?

-alter looked more like a stone table, oddly shapen - no accounting for tastes

-music was terrible and it used clashing instruments like tamborine, symbals, and maroccas (sp) - again, no accounting for tastes

• priest did not actually read the gospel, rather he gave a brief summary of what the overall message was and analyzed it - this could be problematic. There are specific places to abbreviate the lectionary, like in today’s Gospel, where there is an allowed short form. Is it possible the short form was read instead of the full version?
• stuff was adlibbed so much to the point where the mass was somewhat hard to follow - this could be a problem. Did he recite the actual words of consecration?

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.

I have some comments in red above, but why don’t you write a letter to the pastor of this parish (or to the priest himself) pointing out these issues? Remember Matthew 18:15-17"

"If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.

If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’

If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.

So this means that first you should go to the priest himself (if he isn’t the pastor), and then go to the Bishop if the priest/pastor seems reluctant to straighten things up. If no one listens to you, just don’t go there anymore.

 

[mtr01]

I did some searching, and it is certainly the teaching of the Catholic Church that unleavened bread be used for the Eucharist. However, the Eastern Orthodox churches use leavened bread, and the Catholic Church does recognize them. So as you say, it is illicit, but not invalid.

My question is, why would a Catholic priest want to use leavened bread, when it most clearly goes against the teaching of the Church?

Mary

Technically, its only a discipline of the Latin (Roman) Church, the other 22 Eastern Catholic Churches (with the exception of the Maronite Catholic Church, I believe) all use leavened bread. I used to attend the Liturgy at a Ruthenian Catholic Mission about once a month and receive the Eucharist, which was leavened. Since the Ruthenian Church is in union with the Pope and is every bit as Catholic as the Latin Church, I just can’t see how leavened bread is invalid.

 

[Windmill]

According to Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Jimmy is right.

*" According to the ancient custom of the Church, only wheaten bread is used for the consecration. The Decretum pro Armenis (1439) teaches with St. Thomas: cuius materia est panis triticeus. D 698; CIC 815 Par. I. Most theologians see in the use of wheaten bread a condition for validity, some, for example, G. Biel and Cajetan, only for liceity. *

"The validity of the Sacrament is not affected by the fact that unleavened bread or, as in the Eastern Church, leavened bread is used. This was defined by the Union Council of Florence in the Decretum pro Graecis: Item (diffinimus), in azymo sive fermentato pane triticeo corpus Christi veraciter confici. D 692; CIC 816. …

“According to the custom of primitive Christianity, a certain amount of water is mixed with the wine, but the validity of the Sacrament does not depend on this.”

Pages 391-391, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Tan Books

That having been said, no one should tread into “illicit” waters when the consequences are so scandalous.

 

[jmcrae]

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.

In your place, I would have assumed that I was in some kind of Protestant church - but you’re quite positive that these people were in full communion with Rome?

I would have gone to another Church somewhere else, myself.

 

[verdigirl]

In your place, I would have assumed that I was in some kind of Protestant church - but you’re quite positive that these people were in full communion with Rome?

I would have gone to another Church somewhere else, myself.

LOL!!! That was exactly my first reaction!

Here in my city there is a “National Catholic Church.” It’s even called St. Francis of Assisi, believe it or not.

 

[6glargento]

In your place, I would have assumed that I was in some kind of Protestant church - but you’re quite positive that these people were in full communion with Rome?

I would have gone to another Church somewhere else, myself.

yes it was in communion with rome as benedict XVI’s name was in the canon of the mass. Some things that also disturbed me was the fact that on the weekly bulliten, a woman is listed as “assistant pastor”. To make matters worde, the friend who invited me to the parish is a Brother who wanted to introduce me to a more libral liturgy, as he thinks im too conservative. Needless to say, i plan on never returning to this church again.

 

[jmcrae]

yes it was in communion with rome as benedict XVI’s name was in the canon of the mass. Some things that also disturbed me was the fact that on the weekly bulliten, a woman is listed as “assistant pastor”. To make matters worde, the friend who invited me to the parish is a Brother who wanted to introduce me to a more libral liturgy, as he thinks im too conservative. Needless to say, i plan on never returning to this church again.

The scary thing about this is that I consider myself to be something of a liberal - for example, I have no problems with women serving the Church as lay helpers, and I believe in the dignity of the human person, regardless of what form it happens to take, or what stage of life it is at. But yeah, I would have walked out of there, for sure. Seriously, I would have thought it was a Protestant liturgy.

 

[Brownginger]

I visit the Catholic Forums very infrequently, but it astonishes me to learn that these things are still going on! It would seem to me that the kooks who came out of the walls after Vatican II would all have been rounded up by Rome by now. What is going on at this parish is not “liberal” – and it is very disturbing. I don’t know how far the duty to report such things goes, but if the Bishop has done nothing about this, certainly there must be someone else to go to.

It seems to me that, given the opinions on both sides of the issue, the leavening of the bread may be the least of the parish’s problems. Not reading the Gospel, not following the structure of the Mass, and ad libbing (if done beyond the liturgical guidelines) indicate an attitude that must be dealt with at once. I would certainly not want to be the Holy Father, who is confronted with problems like this every day.

 

[verdigirl]

Some things that also disturbed me was the fact that on the weekly bulliten, a woman is listed as “assistant pastor”.

Are you sure she wasn’t listed as “pastoral associate”? This is a lay pastoral ministry role that some dioceses have.

It must be a misprint.

 

[verdigirl]

The scary thing about this is that I consider myself to be something of a liberal - for example, I have no problems with women serving the Church as lay helpers, and I believe in the dignity of the human person, regardless of what form it happens to take, or what stage of life it is at. But yeah, I would have walked out of there, for sure. Seriously, I would have thought it was a Protestant liturgy.

Amen. I’m definitely a social liberal but liturgically orthodox. And the Mass is not the place for making a stand about women’s roles in the Church. If we’re in communion with Rome, we go by the book, and THAT’S IT.

I would have stayed but talked to the pastor after Mass.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

"Pax et Caritas:

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.

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.

Youthinks wrong. Leaven bread does not invalidate the sacrament, and I’m sure Fr. Corapi know that. Leaven bread is illicit in the Latin right, but does not in any way whatsoever affect the vailidy.

 

[Brooklyn]

Technically, its only a discipline of the Latin (Roman) Church, the other 22 Eastern Catholic Churches (with the exception of the Maronite Catholic Church, I believe) all use leavened bread. I used to attend the Liturgy at a Ruthenian Catholic Mission about once a month and receive the Eucharist, which was leavened. Since the Ruthenian Church is in union with the Pope and is every bit as Catholic as the Latin Church, I just can’t see how leavened bread is invalid.

As stated, leavened bread is not invalid, it is still accepted as the Eucharist. However, the Roman Catholic Rite is to use unleavened bread. Therefore, any other kind is illicit, which is different from invalid.

Mary