Is passing the Eucharist around bad?

[mariakatherine]

I thought it was common knowledge about the Neocatechumenal Way.

chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/44140?eng=y

I would suggest that’s probably more along the lines of common misrepresentation than common knowledge. The host is a divided unleavened loaf, which participants receive through the hands of a priest, deacon, or acolyte. Same with the Precious Blood. In no way is it a bunch of people seated around a table passing around the Body and Blood of our Lord in a circle I guess it just makes it sound more sensationalist to describe it like that

 

[benedictgal]

I would suggest that’s probably more along the lines of common misrepresentation than common knowledge. The host is a divided unleavened loaf, which participants receive through the hands of a priest, deacon, or acolyte. Same with the Precious Blood. In no way is it a bunch of people seated around a table passing around the Body and Blood of our Lord in a circle I guess it just makes it sound more sensationalist to describe it like that

I have been to these liturgies. It happened. I witnessed it only because I had an emergency situation regarding an elderly priest (who was with me at the time) and needed to wait for the service to be over so that I could get to the rector. Needless to say, the experience shocked me and it also shocked and confused the elderly priest.

In fact, it would not have been much of an issue had Rome not directly intervened. What you are doing now is following the directive that Pope Benedict XVI personally issued to the Neocatechumenal Movement regarding the manner in which Holy Communion is to be received. In fact, the movement had to follow these directives in order for their charter to receive approval.

 

[Aramis]

So it’s actually mortally sinful to do this? So I can’t even receive?..

It is forbidden. It is grave matter. If you didn’t know it was forbidden, it probably wasn’t a mortal sin for you when you did so, but it still need to be confessed.

To continue participating in this abuse, after Benedictgal having shown you the prohibitions in canon law and Papal teaching, would be knowingly committing a grave act, and thus be a mortal sin.

On the other hand, Rome permits laypersons to be appointed to assist in the distribution of Holy Communion. They are to be communed by the clergy, and then be entrusted with the cup or ciborium; in the case of the cup, it must come back to them after every communicant; in the case of the Ciborium, they must themself place the Body upon the tongue, or where and when allowed, in the hand of, the communicant.

 

[pcg2]

It is forbidden. It is grave matter. If you didn’t know it was forbidden, it probably wasn’t a mortal sin for you when you did so, but it still need to be confessed.

To continue participating in this abuse, after Benedictgal having shown you the prohibitions in canon law and Papal teaching, would be knowingly committing a grave act, and thus be a mortal sin.

Why in the world would it need to be confessed? I had NO IDEA this wasn’t allowed until I came here. I understand that it is grave matter, but that doesn’t mean that I mortally sinned, and therefore, there is no need to confess it.

 

[Aramis]

Because of 3 things…

1. You suspected it was wrong…
2. It provides opportunity for your confessor to help you determine your culpability WRT point 1, which might be a sin, might not.
3. it allows the confessor to make note of the abuse and mention it to his superiors.
4. It ensures that, no matter what, it weighs not on your soul.

 

[Corki]

Because of 3 things…
3) it allows the confessor to make note of the abuse and mention it to his superiors.

I don’t think #3 is appropriate. For one thing, you can’t confess the sins of others, only of yourself. Secondly, it would be almost impossible to pursue this with his superiors without breaking the seal of confession.

 

[pcg2]

Because of 3 things…

1. You suspected it was wrong…
2. It provides opportunity for your confessor to help you determine your culpability WRT point 1, which might be a sin, might not.
3. it allows the confessor to make note of the abuse and mention it to his superiors.
4. It ensures that, no matter what, it weighs not on your soul.

1. Yes, but I thought it was something that might have been illicit, but certainly not unlawful and certainly not grave matter.
2. I don’t see how If I had no clue that it was grave matter
3. lol this would be hard, seeing as how the priest I would be going to confession to would be the same priest who allows the Eucharist to be passed around in the first place…

Me: “Forgive me father for i have sinned. I partook in passing around the Eucharist in a circle at mass multiple times, which I later found out was grave matter.”

Priest: “Wait what, that’s a sin? I better head to confession myself!”

 

[pcg2]

OK, first off, if you did not know for a fact you were doing something gravely sinful, you didn’t commit a mortal sin. You have to know, and do it anyway. Having said that, it is possible to sin mortally and then to rationalize around about it. This is where scruples are a real pain, because of course you and I both know that one can rationalize and have scruples, just like you can be a hypochondriac who actually does have diabetes and needs to watch her blood sugar.

Yes, this is what’s so bad about it. It sucks because after I do something that causes me anxiety (like having been a minister of the precious blood at mass), it’s hard for me to determine what to do. It’s a balancing act between not being too hard on myself, but at the same time not trying to rationalize something I did that was truly sinful. That’s the worst part about it – not knowing how to distinguish between the two.

With sin, this means having a kind of methodical way of examining your conscience. For mortal sins: Was this a grave matter? Did I actually know that? Was my choice free, or was it coerced? If the matter wasn’t grave, you didn’t know, OR there was coersion, it isn’t a mortal sin. It might have grave consequences, but it doesn’t have the eternal consequences attached to a mortal sin.

But here’s something that confuses me: I’ve read (to my understanding) that if you do something that you think is grave matter, even if it is not, then you commit grave sin – not because what you did was objectively grave, but because of the fact that you thought it was grave and did it anyways. For example, if someone believes that tying their shoelaces is gravely sinful, and yet does it anyways, they have mortally sinned – not because tying their shoelaces is sinful, but because they thought it was and did it anyways.

Is this true? Or is my understanding false?

And see, this is what else causes that anxiety. Being scrupulous, I naturally believe that many things are grave matter when they actually aren’t. So it’s difficult to make moral decisions becasue of what I described above. I guess that’s why they tell the scrupulous to follow the “if you don’t know whether something’s sinful or not, do it anyways” rule, huh?

Unlike your blood sugar, your culpability really does depend on whether you are trying your best. In spite of your best efforts, you are going to mess up sometimes. As the saying goes, saints aren’t people who never fall. They’re people who fall and get back up. If you are willing to get up every time, then God will take care of the rest.

Thanks for the encouragement It’s truly a blessing to see people helping one another – over the internet, none the less!!

 

[pcg2]

So I emailed the staff at the catholic center letting them know about the grave abuse they were allowing to happen at masses/communion services. This is what I emailed them:

**Hello,

I am emailing you all to inform you of abuses that I see happening when I go to daily mass and that I wish would stop immediately - namely, the standing around in a circle around the altar and passing around the eucharist and precious blood, allowing each attendee to self-communicate.

This practice is a grave abuse of the Blessed Sacrament. The instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum makes clear:
94. It is not licit for the faithful “to take . . . by themselves . . . and, still less, to hand . . . from one to another” the sacred host or the sacred chalice. Moreover, in this regard, the abuse is to be set aside whereby spouses administer Holy Communion to each other at a Nuptial Mass.
According to paragraph 173 of the same document, a violation of this “puts at risk the validity and dignity of the Most Holy Eucharist” and is “objectively to be considered among grave matters.”

Please, please stop doing this. It is very disturbing and it makes me feel uncomfortable. I go to mass to receive peace and comfort, and abuses like these rob that from me

I don’t know if you all were unaware that this is not supposed to happen, but in either case I pray that it would cease. Please inform the priests Fr. -------- and Fr. -------, and any other priest who may come from time to time to celebrate daily mass. Also, please inform ---------, seeing as how she occasionally celebrates a communion service.

I love the UCC and love going to mass here. I love the community, ministry and staff. Please know that I didn’t write this email to be a jerk - I just felt like it was my duty to inform you all, because all of us have the right to a properly-celebrated mass.

It would be great if you would contact me with any questions, concerns, or comments you may have.

Thank you so much,
Concerned Catholic**

To which they replied:

**Dear Anonymous Catholic,

Please let us know who you are. Sending anonymous complaints (with the message that we should contact you) is cowardly. Please identify yourself. We don’t bite.**

To which I replied:

**I don’t see how it is cowardly. In fact, I feel like writing to tell you all this was rather courageous and well-intentioned. And I write anonymously for two reasons:
.

1. I don’t want to make things awkward
2. I would like to see if changes actually take place at every single mass, not just masses at which I participate.

I hope you understand my concern**

Did I do the right thing here? Was my email rude in some way? Was it cowardly for me to have sent them an anonymous email? Or was she just trying to get a rise out of me…

 

[EasterJoy]

But here’s something that confuses me: I’ve read (to my understanding) that if you do something that you think is grave matter, even if it is not, then you commit grave sin – not because what you did was objectively grave, but because of the fact that you thought it was grave and did it anyways. For example, if someone believes that tying their shoelaces is gravely sinful, and yet does it anyways, they have mortally sinned – not because tying their shoelaces is sinful, but because they thought it was and did it anyways.

Is this true? Or is my understanding false?

And see, this is what else causes that anxiety. Being scrupulous, I naturally believe that many things are grave matter when they actually aren’t. So it’s difficult to make moral decisions becasue of what I described above. I guess that’s why they tell the scrupulous to follow the “if you don’t know whether something’s sinful or not, do it anyways” rule, huh?

Thanks for the encouragement It’s truly a blessing to see people helping one another – over the internet, none the less!!

No, no, no, you were right in the first place…if the matter does not turn out to be grave, there is not a mortal sin, and if the matter doesn’t turn out to be wrong, there probably is no sin at all.

Let us take the example of the shoelaces. It is objectively bad to leave them untied, because the ends of the shoelaces will get all mucked up, and besides you could trip. This is the way moral law works. God’s law is never arbitrary. Things are wrong because they lead to bad consequences.

OK, so you’re five. Let us say that you can’t remember if you’re always supposed to tie them or always supposed to leave them untied. You just don’t know, and on that account, you are one worried little girl. Well, worried little girl, let’s look at the possibilities, and then maybe you won’t worry so much.

Let us say you decide, “hmmm, I’m worried that I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure that untied is the safe arrangement.” You leave them untied. That’s objectively the wrong decision, because you could fall. If you were to trip on them and fall, though, you wouldn’t be culpable. Your knees would be skinned up, but you wouldn’t get into trouble. You were doing your best. God will kiss your knees and make them better and then go over the rules about shoelaces again, until you get it right. He didn’t have you so He could give you rules! He gave you rules because He cares about you… and your knees!

Let us say, though, that you decide, “I don’t know which is right, and I don’t care, because I’m mad at Daddy and I hate these stupid shoes He chose for me, anyway.” Whether you tie them or not, and whether fall or not, you are being a naughty little girl! Your attitude is wrong. It would be the attitude, though, and not your choice that would be where the naughtiness is. You would be a rash little girl if you were to say to yourself, “Oh, Daddy, he’s always making rules, but he’s such a softie. He won’t be mad for long if I do the wrong thing, so what does it matter?” That attitude is not how little girls get to be smart capable big girls!

What is the best case? Well, you obviously can’t just magically try harder and simply know. Sometimes, you do your best to know the rules, and a situation will still come up that stumps you. In this case, you look at your shoes and you say, “I can’t remember which is which. I’ll ask one of the older kids Daddy would want me to ask” or “I don’t know what to do; I’ll just choose what seems the thing Daddy would want, and then later I’ll ask somebody, so that next time I’ll know.”

We are God’s children. He allows the consequences we choose, but He isn’t looking to punish us for bad decisions. He wants us to follow His will, so we accomplish what is good and as much as possible avoid the bad outcomes we can avoid. Among those accomplishments, He wants us to pursue a relationship with Him, which is where our “actions of attitude” come in. If we ever pull a “I don’t care”, what He wants for us is to stop and say, “Wait. I’m sorry. I know you’re good, I know you only will that which is the best, I know you love me, and I do love you back. I do care. Help me remember to care, even when I’m mad or don’t understand your rules. Help me to do my best and help me never be afraid of you.”

He does want that for us, so much so that it is the most oft-repeated command in the Bible: Be not afraid. Do your best, and then be not afraid. You’ll be all set.

 

[Lepanto]

Is passing the Eucharist around bad?

Isn’t that essentially what happens when one receives in the hand?

 

[MarkThompson]

Is passing the Eucharist around bad?

Isn’t that essentially what happens when one receives in the hand?

No, each communicant receives from the priest or other minister. They don’t self-communicate or administer Communion to each other.

Or are you just trying to make a funny point?

 

[ProVobis]

They don’t self-communicate or administer Communion to each other.

Before they allowed communion in the hand, I believe it was considered self-communication and a sacrilege. Probably a moot point now, though.

 

[MarkThompson]

Before they allowed communion in the hand, I believe it was considered self-communicating and a sacrilege.

Obviously you know that “before they allowed communion in the hand” must mean “before the very early Church,” so I won’t belabor you with the semantics. But do you have a source that this was considered an act of sacrilege?

 

[ProVobis]

Obviously you know that “before they allowed communion in the hand” must mean “before the very early Church,” so I won’t belabor you with the semantics. But do you have a source that this was considered an act of sacrilege?

I wasn’t around in the early part of the Church so I don’t know what they considered it to be. I’m not a historian, but I have read where a couple of councils and several Popes have condemned the practice. I believe I even have an old missal that specifies it as one of the points of making an examination of conscience before confession. But as I said, it’s a moot point now.

 

[benedictgal]

To which they replied:

**Dear Anonymous Catholic,

Please let us know who you are. Sending anonymous complaints (with the message that we should contact you) is cowardly. Please identify yourself. We don’t bite.**

To which I replied:

**I don’t see how it is cowardly. In fact, I feel like writing to tell you all this was rather courageous and well-intentioned. And I write anonymously for two reasons:
.

1. I don’t want to make things awkward
2. I would like to see if changes actually take place at every single mass, not just masses at which I participate.

I hope you understand my concern**

Did I do the right thing here? Was my email rude in some way? Was it cowardly for me to have sent them an anonymous email? Or was she just trying to get a rise out of me…

You should not have written an anonymous letter. You should have signed your name to it. This is the first step. Second, if they respond in the negative, then, you can use this (note signed in your name) as grounds to take this before the bishop, again, signed in your name). If the bishop does not respond or responds in the negative, then, you send a copy of all of the correspondence to the CDWDS. Anonymous letters are the worst thing that one can do because, as valid and as legitimate as your concerns are, these forms of correspondence will get you nowhere fast.

 

[pcg2]

So I ended up going in person to talk to a priest about everything. I told him about it being grave matter, possibly invalidating the Eucharist, etc…

And he didn’t say he would stop. He said that it was sort of a “tradition” at the Catholic center to do it. He said that when Jesus broke the bread at the last supper, he probably passed it around. He said that in America, the law is very strict, but in Rome, the law is more lenient. He said that, technically, there should be no home masses (and I guess he was trying to compare this to the seriousness of the passing around of the Eucharist and self-communication).

Basically, he said that, although he appreciated me initiating a dialogue with him, he wasn’t gonna change it, even though he saw right there, in front of his face, the email I sent him sighting the vatican document saying how serious of an abuse that was. He said that he would talk to the other priest and see if they were going to do something.

I’m so discouraged. What should I do now? I thought he was one of the only orthodox staff members here at the Catholic center, and it tunrs out he’s not as orthodox as I had hoped

Can I still go to mass, even though it’s not going to stop? Would it be a sin for me to continue to go?

 

[benedictgal]

So I ended up going in person to talk to a priest about everything. I told him about it being grave matter, possibly invalidating the Eucharist, etc…

And he didn’t say he would stop. He said that it was sort of a “tradition” at the Catholic center to do it. He said that when Jesus broke the bread at the last supper, he probably passed it around. He said that in America, the law is very strict, but in Rome, the law is more lenient. He said that, technically, there should be no home masses (and I guess he was trying to compare this to the seriousness of the passing around of the Eucharist and self-communication).

Basically, he said that, although he appreciated me initiating a dialogue with him, he wasn’t gonna change it, even though he saw right there, in front of his face, the email I sent him sighting the vatican document saying how serious of an abuse that was. He said that he would talk to the other priest and see if they were going to do something.

I’m so discouraged. What should I do now? I thought he was one of the only orthodox staff members here at the Catholic center, and it tunrs out he’s not as orthodox as I had hoped

Can I still go to mass, even though it’s not going to stop? Would it be a sin for me to continue to go?

Actually, you should not go to Mass there anymore if the illict activity is not gonig to cease. His “talking to the other priest” is not going to solve anything. The documents are there. They need to be read and heeded, not discussed in some sort of a committee to determine whether or not they are to be obeyed. Regarding the issue of Rome, does he not realize that the Holy Father is also the Bishop of Rome? If anything, Rome, as the originator of the law, is not likely to deviate from the liturgical norms, especially since her bishop just happens to be the Supreme Pontiff. The priest needs to realize that obedience is a two-way street. Just as the faithful are to obey the priest in legitimate matters, the priest is bound by a vow to obey the Church, ie, the Holy See. The argument that he gave you about what Jesus did at the Last Supper does not hold water because the Last Supper was the ordination of the Apostles into the priesthood as the first priests of the new covenant. He was commissioning them and their successors to offer the Holy Sacrifice; thus, bishops and priests take, while the faithful receive. This is a sad misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Last Supper.

Furthermore, you should, in my opinion, write to the bishop and tell him what is happening. This is a serious abuse. I laud you for taking the bold step of meeting with the priest and pointing out the gravity of the situation. Document everything when you write to the bishop and send that letter certified, return receipt requested. Even if you are the only one to take a stand, what you are doing is necessary for the integrity of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

I am curious. Is this center staffed by religious order priests or are these diocesan priests?

 

[MarkThompson]

PCG, if there’s another Mass that you can easily access, like Benedictgal I’d suggest going to that one. If this is your only reasonable choice for Mass, you must continue to go to meet your Sunday obligation. It sounds like the priest is willing to allow you to receive the Eucharist normally, he just doesn’t want to change the practice for everyone.

I also commend you for speaking up. That ain’t easy! You did the right thing. The next step, as Benedictgal explained would be to contact the bishop. Just mention the facts, don’t include a lot of your own personal opinions, but state that you believe the practice is a prohibited and considered a grave abuse and ask that the bishop order the practice to be ended immediately. Don’t insert irrelevant information or other complaints, like a list of other minor things the priest does wrong. (This is what makes people come off like cranks or crackpots, and what gets people ignored.) If your letter is longer than two pages, it’s too long.

It sounds like this priest isn’t badly intentioned, he just has dramatically wrong ideas about what’s permitted and what elements of the liturgy he’s allowed to change. That being the case, you should consider telling him beforehand that you’re planning to send a letter to the bishop, and even show it to him and asking him to comment on it. The more open and straightforward you are, the better it is for everyone. He doesn’t seem to think he’s “sneaking around the rules,” just that the “real” rules are different from what you’re telling him, so you should not adopt a posture of getting him “punished for breaking the rules,” just getting clarification of what the rules are.

Good luck, PCG, and thanks for having the courage to stand up for the Blessed Sacrament. :knight1:

 

[pcg2]

Actually, you should not go to Mass there anymore if the illict activity is not gonig to cease.

But isn’t this more than just illicit? It is grave matter, and the vatican document said that this practice could call into question the validity of the Eucharist. I only ask because of the fact that I don’t think it would be bad to go to a mass where there was an illicit practice, just as long as it wasn’t grave matter and it wouldn’t invalidate the mass, right?

Furthermore, you should, in my opinion, write to the bishop and tell him what is happening. This is a serious abuse. I laud you for taking the bold step of meeting with the priest and pointing out the gravity of the situation. Document everything when you write to the bishop and send that letter certified, return receipt requested. Even if you are the only one to take a stand, what you are doing is necessary for the integrity of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

You lost me here Forgive my ignorance, but I have no idea what it means for the letter to be certified, or what a return reciept is. How would I go along writing to the bishop? Or do I even have to seeing as how…

I am curious. Is this center staffed by religious order priests or are these diocesan priests?

…the priests are Paulist Fathers. They are not diocesan priests. So would I have to contact one of their superiors, or what?

Btw, thanks for all the help!! God bless you