Is passing the Eucharist around bad?

[benedictgal]

I knew that’s what you would say, I almost posted a second paragraph to preempt it. But can you explicitly describe (assuming you so believe) how Redemptionis Sacramentum (or anything else) creates a moral obligation (on pain of sin?) to go all the way to the Holy See on the issue of who assists in the Fraction, and does not create any such obligation on the issue of alb cinctures?

If you can’t, then I humbly suggest there’s something wrong (most likely arbitrariness) with your analysis.

(And by the way, you did not say that in the OP’s situation, one would have an obligation to report it, you said as a blanket statement “If I know that something is wrong, I have a moral obligation to report it.”)

Mark, the fact that pcg had an inkling that something was wrong prompted him to come here and seek advice. What he witnessed was wrong. RS clearly states that. The GIRM clearly states that. Now that he knows, and, since the act persists, he has the obligation to point that out and address the matter.

Common sense indicates that, after reading RS, if there is legitimate grounds for concerns insofar as liturgical abuse is concerned, we are obligated to say something about it and address it. Omission is just as bad as commission.

It seems as though some people do not understand, or, as I read it, do not want to understand the severity of the situation.

 

[MarkThompson]

Common sense indicates that, after reading RS, if there is legitimate grounds for concerns insofar as liturgical abuse is concerned, we are obligated to say something about it and address it. Omission is just as bad as commission.

I don’t think it’s “common sense” at all to say that the Holy See announced a massive new precept of the Church – an obligation for all the world’s faithful, to be carried out on pain of sin – in one vague sentence buried at the end of a document. No references to the Church Fathers, the Catechism, or earlier Church documents, in fact no citations of any sort for this giant new sin, just an offhanded comment. No explanation for what you must do (notice it does not say “talk to the pastor first”), just a generalized exhortation to do “all in your power,” and a declaration that you have the “right” to go the bishop or above, somehow speaking around the fact that you also have an obligation to go to the bishop and above.

Has any legitimate authority interpreted the document this way? The more I think about it, the less I believe yours to be a plausible consequence of it.

I also don’t appreciate your backhanded remark that I “do not want to understand the severity of the situation,” but I can let it go. Maybe instead of adding comments like that, you can get around to explaining how Redemptionis Sacramentum creates an excriciating, pain-of-sin obligation to follow through to the utmost on the issues you consider important, and not on the issues you don’t. Before you mention that RS itself breaks its prescriptions down into levels of gravity, please call to mind that the text of the document in no way connects this alleged “obligation” of the faithful to these categories or indicates that our obligation exists for some categories and not for others. (In fact, it indicates the opposite.)

 

[revert_jen]

You say that "t is important to distinguish between taking something seriously and treating it as an emergency," but Redemptionis Sacramentum doesn’t say we should take liturgical abuses seriously, it says we should take them most seriously. And it doesn’t say that we should pick and choose which errors are important enough to complain and follow through on, it demands without distinction or discrimination that “all abuses be thoroughly corrected” by people doing “all that is in their power.”

Ok, it is important to distinguish between taking something most seriously and treating it as an emergency. And the examples you gave, in (I think) a sort of reductio ad absurdam (e.g. accosting the priest and getting arrested), would not actually help correct the abuse. The process, as far as I know, is pretty much laid out. Taking it most seriously would be following the process diligently, not striking out ineffectually in random directions.
MarkThompson;6754488:

When the Apostolic See or the Magisterium of the Church wants to create a binding moral obligation, on pain of sin, to report liturgical abuses, it’ll do so with more than the awkward and fundamentally vague language of Redemptionis Sacramentum

. PCG should focus on his worship at the Mass, and work to cut down on over-scrupulosity.

I don’t think that there is any scrupulosity involved. He asked if it were a sin to attend the Mass, probably because we had said before that attending the Mass at school, where he was required to participate in the abuse, was grave matter. We (mostly) said in this case no, and that was it. It was a reasonable question, even though the answer was no. Nor does it seem fair or supported by the posts here to imply that he was not focused on his worship at the Mass. By responding in this manner it makes it seem that not only do you not think it is a requirement to report abuses (for which there are reasonable arguments on both sides), but that you don’t even think it is a good idea. I don’t think any possible reading of RS could lead to the conclusion that it is a bad thing to report abuses once noticed.

As to whether it is a morally binding obligation, please see my post above about conscience. I do not think it is mortal sin to fail to report it, but it may well be venial sin (which is likewise to be avoided). I, based on my own conscience and the faculty of logic that has been given to me (however limited) have given my opinion and I hold to it. You have also given yours, and benedictgal has given hers. At this point I think it is up to pcg2 to decide, based on what everyone has said, and after some prayer, whether he feels he is obliged to report what he saw at his home parish. Or alternatively whether he feels that he wants to report it regardless of whether there is an obligation, for the good of the Church in general and his parish in particular.

As for what he saw at school, I think there is very good reason to believe that he has a moral obligation, on pain of serious sin, to either report the practices or to stop attending the Masses at which they take place, since they require his physical participation in grave abuses. The better path, both for himself and for the others who attend the Masses, is to report it, so that he can attend the weekday Mass as often as he feels called to, and so that all of the people attending Mass would be able to attend a licit liturgy, as is their right.

–Jen

 

[FrCorey]

I wasn’t referring to alb cinctures, Mark. I was referring to what got the whole thing started in the first place, EMHCs assisting at the Fraction Rite when they should not be doing so.

For my part I have witnessed:

1. Hymns substituting the Penitential Rite
2. A Christmas carol substituting the Gloria
3. EMHCs going to the altar prior to the Agnus Dei and retrieving the hosts from the Tabernacle
4. Celebrant making up his own collect and having the faithful repeat it after him
5. Celebrant changing the words of the EP and making his own additions to the Memorial
6. Musical parts of the Mass that have been paraphrased to the point that they are no longer recognizzable
7. EMHCs intincting
8. Celebrant making up his own offertory rite during a Wedding Mass, including having the bride and groom up there with him offering the gifts

These are not things that I take lightly and I have addressed them all the way up the chain.

thats horrific and very bad ritual form.
If you forget a part of the rite, you look it up, you don’t ever add to or take away from the holy rites. the bishop should be told and if he don’t do anything then you start going up the ladder. the Holy Father would be appaled if he heard of these things.

 

[benedictgal]

thats horrific and very bad ritual form.
If you forget a part of the rite, you look it up, you don’t ever add to or take away from the holy rites. the bishop should be told and if he don’t do anything then you start going up the ladder. the Holy Father would be appaled if he heard of these things.

I told the bishop about #3 and #7, which stunned him. However, I do not know if he took any action on #3, and, as far as I know, #7 is still taking place. As for the others, the information was relayed, but, never addressed and the matter is now heading to the CDWDS.

 

[Aramis]

Mark: RS makes it our duty to report those grave abuses we encounter. RS makes clear that anyone but a cleric performing actions reserved to clerics is gravely illicit.

It makes clear also that, if the pastor does not end it, we are obligated to report it to the bishop, and that if the bishop does not, to the CDWS.

The only superogatory element is returning to check. If you see an abuse you have reported before, you are obliged to inform the bishop.

No need to go back looking, but if one is present and it continues, one is obligated to pursue the issue.

Proper liturgy is our right and duty as Catholics.

 

[MarkThompson]

Any abuse, Aramis?

 

[pcg2]

I won’t have time to reply thoroughly to anything until at least Sunday, but I just wanted to let you guys know that I appreciate you trying to help and that I have learned so much about the liturgy thanks to you

 

[Aramis]

Any abuse, Aramis?

I said grave abuse. But the literal text of RS is far broader… I quote from the English edition:
6. Complaints Regarding Abuses in Liturgical Matters

[183.] In an altogether particular manner, let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favouritism.

[184.] Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.[290] It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.

Note 183 it says “…, let everyone do all that is in their power…” and 184 makes it clear that, unlike almost all other consistories, the layman has right to complain to the CDWS.

It doesn’t even require taking it to the offending priest!

The principles of subsidiarity and of charity do call for confronting the offenders, if one can do so without undue burden.

So, yes, Mark, we are obliged to report every abuse by the CDWS, who issued the instruction RS on the orders of the Pope.

But that obligation would be in proportion to the nature of the error, as well… so a grave liturgical error brings a grave obligation to correct it, just like a grave sin brings about a grave obligation to confession.

Source: RS at Vatican.VA

 

[MarkThompson]

I said grave abuse. But the literal text of RS is far broader… I quote from the English edition:

That’s true you said “grave abuse,” sorry if I implied otherwise. However, as youve identified, ¶ 183 does not make a distinction in our (supposed) duty based on the level of the abuse.

So, yes, Mark, we are obliged to report every abuse by the CDWS, who issued the instruction RS on the orders of the Pope.

Wrong color vestments? Letter to Rome. First Communion administered by a deacon? Letter to Rome. Alb incorrectly tied? Letter to Rome. And if you don’t send it, you’re in a state of sin.

I just want to make sure if I’m following you.

But that obligation would be in proportion to the nature of the error, as well… so a grave liturgical error brings a grave obligation to correct it, just like a grave sin brings about a grave obligation to confession.

Source: RS at Vatican.VA

A principle of the proportionality of duty to gravity seems like a pretty good one to have, but I can’t find any such principle in RS. Is this just something you’ve invented because it (1) seems like it ought to have been in the document, and is probably somewhere in the document’s spirit, and (2) will allow you to brush off claims that your interpretation of ¶ 183 would otherwise imply a most serious duty to correct even the most trifling of issues, hounding the cause all the way to Rome, on pain of sin?

And if you (or BG) could show me where any Church authority has stated or implied that ¶ 183 was intended to create a binding moral duty to take certain steps, I’d appreciate knowing it.

 

[benedictgal]

Wrong color vestments? Letter to Rome. First Communion administered by a deacon? Letter to Rome. Alb incorrectly tied? Letter to Rome. And if you don’t send it, you’re in a state of sin.

I just want to make sure if I’m following you.

A principle of the proportionality of duty to gravity seems like a pretty good one to have, but I can’t find any such principle in RS. Is this just something you’ve invented because it (1) seems like it ought to have been in the document, and is probably somewhere in the document’s spirit, and (2) will allow you to brush off claims that your interpretation of ¶ 183 would otherwise imply a most serious duty to correct even the most trifling of issues, hounding the cause all the way to Rome, on pain of sin?

And if you (or BG) could show me where any Church authority has stated or implied that ¶ 183 was intended to create a binding moral duty to take certain steps, I’d appreciate knowing it.

Mark, with all due respect, I think you are being facetiuos. The fact remains that if we know that something is wrong, we have a moral obligation to report it, just as we would if other morally wrong things were happening in the secular world. At this point, we can’t be like ostriches.

Second, the issue of the deacon administering First Holy Communion is not one to take lightly. The documents clearly state that the priest should be doing this, not anyone else. Inasmuch as the deacon is an ordinary minister of Holy Communion, the distribution of Holy Communion to First Communicants is a special matter.

Of course, unless you have Superman’s x-ray vision, you aren’t going to know what’s under the chasuble to see if the alb is tied on correctly. Again, this argument of yours is, with all due respect, facetious.

 

[FrCorey]

man oh man. the holy father needs to bring back the pre-vii book, You and the Holy Mass. and use it for RCIA, Adults and Children.
we need to bring back the fullness and respect of the holy rites.
and there WILL be a test at the end of the book.
also, uneducated people shouldnt worry, it’s a cartoon book.

 

[benedictgal]

Hopefully, these words from Pope Benedict XVI, taken from an address he delivered at a diocesan conference for the Diocese of Rome, will give the OP some hope and incentive for what he is doing:

The Holy Mass, celebrated in the respect of the liturgical norms and with a fitting appreciation of the richness of the signs and gestures, fosters and promotes the growth of Eucharistic faith. In the Eucharistic celebration we do not invent something, but we enter into a reality that precedes us, more than that, which embraces heaven and earth and, hence, also the past, the future and the present. This universal openness, this encounter with all the sons and daughters of God is the grandeur of the Eucharist: we go to meet the reality of God present in the body and blood of the Risen One among us. Hence, the liturgical prescriptions dictated by the Church are not external things, but express concretely this reality of the revelation of the body and blood of Christ and thus the prayer reveals the faith according to the ancient principle “lex orandi - lex credendi.” And because of this we can say “the best catechesis on the Eucharist is the Eucharist itself well celebrated” (Benedict XVI, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation “Sacramentum Caritatis,” No. 64). It is necessary that in the liturgy the transcendent dimension emerge with clarity, that of the mystery, of the encounter with the Divine, which also illumines and elevates the “horizontal,” that is the bond of communion and of solidarity that exists between all those who belong to the Church. In fact, when the latter prevails, the beauty, profundity and importance of the mystery celebrated is fully understood. Dear brothers in the priesthood, to you the bishop has entrusted, on the day of your priestly Ordination, the task to preside over the Eucharist. Always have at heart the exercise of this mission: celebrate the divine mysteries with intense interior participation, so that the men and women of our City can be sanctified, put into contact with God, absolute truth and eternal love.

To the OP: Don’t lose faith!

 

[MarkThompson]

Now what am I supposed to do, talk to this pastor as well? And then what? Wait until I find out about the next gravely illicit practice going on? And then report that as well? And then just end up being a taddle-tale who is on the lookout for every single minute detail that isn’t going according to plan, playing the role of “big brother” in the congregation, never getting to actually enjoy mass and recieve the Lord and just scrupling over this **** all the time? When does it end? At what point will I be able to just be a normal member of the laity who doesn’t have to supervise the freaking pastor and priests??? I’m 19 for goodness sakes these priests have been ordained for longer than I’ve been alive the pastor has PhD, and I have to tell them how to celebrate a freaking mass??!!

I’m getting pretty disillusioned woth the Catholic church… I now realize that I don’t think I’ve ever been to a properly celebiated mass. So what, I was sinning all those times too?

BenedictGal, Aramis, give the guy a break. He doesn’t need to be told it’s a sin if he fails to take every complaint to the Vatican. It’s his right to do so if he’s willing to go to the trouble.

By the way, BG, how were the drums at your Easter Vigil this year? I assume you’ve lodged formal complaints with the priest, your bishop, and the CDWDS (or even higher?) by now; what have you heard back?

 

[Aramis]

Mark,

I suggest you need to reread paragraph 184. It’s still above.

It invokes the principle of subsidiarity. This principle is in Canon Law, and is invoked directly in RS para 184. In short, you’re claims of complain to the CDWS every minor error are baseless, since by that principle, enshrined in Canon Law and explicit in RS, requires one to complain to the Bishop first.

Further, subsidiarity, under canon law, requires one address the person erring before going to the superior and/or ordinary.

Further still, the principle of responsibility by gravity is in fact present, as RS ¶172 directs some offenses against the liturgy to be handled by the prescriptions of Graviora Delicta (which itself deals with grave delicts), others are grave matters to be reported (¶173), and others still to be avoided and stopped, but are not grave (¶174). ¶175 makes clear that RS does not abrogate other canonical processes, but in fact those processes are still in place for other, unmentioned errors.

I suggest, therefore, that the principle of proportionate response and proportionate duty are in fact not just present, but unavoidably implicit, if not explicit, in RS.

Further still, proportionality is explicit in Canon Law, by virtue of some delicts and/or sins being reserved to the pope, others to the bishop, others to the pastor, and the rest are left to the priest-confessor.

Proportionality is part of Catholicism; RS can not be understood without proportionality.

Proportionality, subsidiarity, and charity require non-grave deviations be dealt with locally first. Grave errors other than the graviora delicta must be reported to the bishop, and the graviora delicta must be dealt with per the special rules for those most grave errors.

 

[MarkThompson]

Mark,

I suggest you need to reread paragraph 184. It’s still above.

It invokes the principle of subsidiarity. This principle is in Canon Law, and is invoked directly in RS para 184. In short, you’re claims of complain to the CDWS every minor error are baseless, since by that principle, enshrined in Canon Law and explicit in RS, requires one to complain to the Bishop first.

You’re changing your tune, Aramis. After I said, “Any abuse?”, you replied, “yes, Mark, we are obliged to report every abuse by the CDWS, who issued the instruction RS on the orders of the Pope.” (If “by the CDWS” meant something other than “to the CDWDS,” my apologies). The point is, if my priest wears the wrong color stole, and I complain to a bishop who doesn’t care, it’s a sin against God and a violation of the papal mandates of Redemptionis Sacramentum if I fail to write a letter to Rome about the matter.

…Right? Or is your view now are we not required to report “every abuse” to the CDWDS?

Further, subsidiarity, under canon law, requires one address the person erring before going to the superior and/or ordinary.

Further still, the principle of responsibility by gravity is in fact present, as RS ¶172 directs some offenses against the liturgy to be handled by the prescriptions of Graviora Delicta (which itself deals with grave delicts), others are grave matters to be reported (¶173), and others still to be avoided and stopped, but are not grave (¶174). ¶175 makes clear that RS does not abrogate other canonical processes, but in fact those processes are still in place for other, unmentioned errors.

I suggest, therefore, that the principle of proportionate response and proportionate duty are in fact not just present, but unavoidably implicit, if not explicit, in RS.

Further still, proportionality is explicit in Canon Law, by virtue of some delicts and/or sins being reserved to the pope, others to the bishop, others to the pastor, and the rest are left to the priest-confessor.

Proportionality is part of Catholicism; RS can not be understood without proportionality.

Proportionality, subsidiarity, and charity require non-grave deviations be dealt with locally first. Grave errors other than the graviora delicta must be reported to the bishop, and the graviora delicta must be dealt with per the special rules for those most grave errors.

It’s tough to know quite how to respond, because most of your claims have been fabricated out of whole cloth, or at least the wispiest fibers of wishful thinking. Paragraph 183 says that “everyone [is to] do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected.” It’s very nice that you’ve found a prevailing “spirit of proportionality” in the Canon Law. But then you say that it’s “unavoidably implicit, if not explicit, in RS.” Hardly. It’s in fact easy to avoid such a reading when you look at the plain and blatant language of the text. And far from being explicit, it’s pretty much explicitly denied: the document lays out several categories with respect to the remedies that are to be applied by Church authorities, but then follows by demanding of the faithful that “any,” “every,” and “all” be thoroughly corrected through everything in our power.

It’s simply impossible to credibly draw from this what appears to be your detailed scheme in which some problems can be ignored, some must be mentioned to the priest, some must be taken to the bishop, and some we must doggedly pursue unto the utmost. You’ve written a lengthy justification that amounts in the end to the claim, “Surely this document, seen through properly attuned eyes, does not mean what it appears to say, but in fact just says what I, Aramis, would consider commonsensical.”

 

[Aramis]

The obligation is imposed by the CDWS on behalf of the holy father. It is not always to the CDWS that the complaint be made, but the obligation to complain is in fact present.

Please, Mark, Quit your nitpicking, accept that you were wrong, and quit trying to muddle the issue.

 

[MarkThompson]

The obligation is imposed by the CDWS on behalf of the holy father. It is not always to the CDWS that the complaint be made, but the obligation to complain is in fact present.

Quit your nitpicking, accept that you were wrong, and quit trying to muddle the issue.

Um, no. :nope:

To PCG2: you’ve been very concerned about whether your omission to send a letter by such-and-such a date, or your decision not to catalogue and submit every liturgical error you see, is sinful. Please be aware that this is a very complex and largely unexplored topic, that the Church has not issued any guidance or interpretations on the extent if any of our morals duties in this sphere, and that proper interpretations here are at best a very muddled area. Find yourself a decent spiritual advisor to whom you can talk through these questions, and enjoy Mass and being a Catholic.

 

[zab]

Please, Mark, Quit your nitpicking, accept that you were wrong, and quit trying to muddle the issue.

I think Mark has done a good job of responding to the OP’s concerns.

 

[Aramis]

I think Mark has done a good job of responding to the OP’s concerns.

By ignoring the black-letter obligations RS puts on the faithful.