Is passing the Eucharist around bad?

  • Thread starter Thread starter pcg2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Well, see, this only happens at daily mass (where there are never more than 10 people). On Sunday masses, everything is done correctly (I think :confused:). So it wouldn’t be a problem of meeting my Sunday obligation, it would just suck because now I cannot go to Thursday mass (at least for now), which really helped me with my scrupulosity.
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.
So I write a letter? Would I email it or send it through carrier? See the thing is, I’ve never even done this before, so I have no idea how to contact the bishop, or what to write in the letter 😊 Should I include the standing around the altar as well, even though this is not grave matter?
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.
Yes, I think this is good advice. I am going to give him a week to respond to me (so I can give him time to “talk with” the other priest), but if he hasn’t responded by next Wednesday, I’m sending the letter. I just don’t want to end up sending the letter and it turns out that they decided they would stop. That would suck :doh2:
Good luck, PCG, and thanks for having the courage to stand up for the Blessed Sacrament. :knight1:
And thank you for all the advice 🙂

But I do have another question… at Sunday masses, the UCC has a practice here of using real bread – not the wafers. The liturgy committee makes it themselves. Now I know for a fact that they use the proper ingredients (just wheat and water), so that is not my concern. I guess I’m just wondering if this is okay. And then, after the consecration has been done and we are singing the Agnus Dei, the priest and several Eucharistic ministers break the pieces of bread into little pieces for each attendee. Is this allowed? I assume it is, I just don’t want to take any more chances.
 
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…
no, it won’t invalidate the Eucharist. remember invalid is different from illicit
yes, its disrespectful, but in no way does it invalidate the Eucharist
and regardless if it invalidates the Eucharist, it should stop
 
Well, see, this only happens at daily mass (where there are never more than 10 people). On Sunday masses, everything is done correctly (I think :confused:). So it wouldn’t be a problem of meeting my Sunday obligation, it would just suck because now I cannot go to Thursday mass (at least for now), which really helped me with my scrupulosity.
That’s good about Sundays. My view as to weekday Masses is, you aren’t in change of other people’s behavior. The illicit practice will go on whether or not you’re there, and you’ve already made clear that you don’t approve of it.
So I write a letter? Would I email it or send it through carrier? See the thing is, I’ve never even done this before, so I have no idea how to contact the bishop, or what to write in the letter 😊 Should I include the standing around the altar as well, even though this is not grave matter?
Yes, you would write a letter-letter, on paper. You look up the street address of the diocese on their website, it’ll generally be at the bottom of the page or else a link called “Contact” or somesuch. Address the letter
His Excellency John Q. Doe [or, if he is a Cardinal, His Eminence John Q. Doe]
Bishop [or Archbishop]
[Arch]Diocese of Yourlocation
123 Streetly Blvd.
City, ST 01234
Begin, “Your Excellency [or Your Eminence]:” Then just say what you have to say in a few factual paragraphs. An example might be:
Your Excellency:

Greetings in Christ. I am a student at the University of Anytown in your diocese, and a frequent massgoer at the daily Mass celebrated at our Newman Center. As a lifelong Catholic, I am very thankful that these facilities and these Masses are available to strengthen and enrich my faith. However, I am disturbed at the method by which communion is given at these daily Masses: the chalice and the ciborium are passed around the room, from communicant to communicant, with each person expected to self-communicate and then hand the sacred vessels along to another.

Please direct this practice to be ended. It always struck me as unusual and problematic, so I looked into the matter and found confirmation: Paragraph 160 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal expressly provides, “The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another.” The recent instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, given in 2004 by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, amplifies that the practice is not to be tolerated:
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.
Most troubling to me is the determination, in Paragraph 173 of Redemptionis Sacramentum, that a violation in this respect “puts at risk the validity and dignity of the Most Holy Eucharist” and is “objectively to be considered among grave matters.” My experience may be limited, but I feel confident that the practice of passing Holy Communion around the room cannot be left to the individual discretion of a celebrant, and that it should be ended wherever it exists.

As you may know, Father Freespirit usually celebrates the daily Mass at our Anytown Newman Center, and he is responsible for continuing the practice I have described, which happens at every weekday Mass I have seen him celebrate there – at least thirty as of this date. The only exception was on May 15, when I asked Father Freespirit before Mass if I could receive Communion directly from him; on that day, he distributed communion himself and, at his request, I served as an Extraordinary Minister of the Cup. The next day, however, he reverted to the pass-around method of distribution. Accordingly, I spoke more plainly about these concerns to Father Freespirit on May 17, showing him the portion of Redemptionis Sacramentum above. He explained that he believes the prohibited practice to be common “in Rome,” that our Newman Center presents special circumstances, and that he would not stop distributing Holy Communion by passing the sacred vessels around the room to allow each person to self-communicate.

Having evaluated the situation to the best of my ability, and having prayed about it, I hope I am not out of line to ask you to use your authority as Ordinary of our diocese to end this “grave matter” which “puts at risk the validity and dignity of the Most Holy Eucharist.” If I can provide further information, please contact me at my address above, by email at pcg2@anytown.edu, or by telephone at (212) 867-5309. I have also shown this letter to Father Freespirit before sending it and given him a copy. Your Excellency, I have the honor to be

Sincerely yours,

PCG2.​

Hmm, didn’t mean to write the whole thing, but I got carried away. Use as much of it as you see fit, but please adjust all the facts so that they are true 😃
 
But I do have another question… at Sunday masses, the UCC has a practice here of using real bread – not the wafers. The liturgy committee makes it themselves. Now I know for a fact that they use the proper ingredients (just wheat and water), so that is not my concern. I guess I’m just wondering if this is okay. And then, after the consecration has been done and we are singing the Agnus Dei, the priest and several Eucharistic ministers break the pieces of bread into little pieces for each attendee. Is this allowed? I assume it is, I just don’t want to take any more chances.
The action of breaking the bread is called the Fraction (from Latin frangere, “to break”), and this is the right time to do it. Generally whole bread is not used, because of the delay in breaking it for everyone and because of the crumb hazard. However, you’re right that it is not permitted for anyone but the priest or deacon to do this. If a lot of bread needs to be broken up by someone else, it should be done before the consecration. Again, the GIRM has the explanation:
  1. The priest breaks the Eucharistic Bread, assisted, if the case calls for it, by the deacon or a concelebrant. Christ’s gesture of breaking bread at the Last Supper, which gave the entire Eucharistic Action its name in apostolic times, signifies that the many faithful are made one body (1 Cor 10:17) by receiving Communion from the one Bread of Life which is Christ, who died and rose for the salvation of the world. The fraction or breaking of bread is begun after the sign of peace and is carried out with proper reverence, though it should not be unnecessarily prolonged, nor should it be accorded undue importance. This rite is reserved to the priest and the deacon.
The priest breaks the Bread and puts a piece of the host into the chalice to signify the unity of the Body and Blood of the Lord in the work of salvation, namely, of the living and glorious Body of Jesus Christ. The supplication Agnus Dei, is, as a rule, sung by the choir or cantor with the congregation responding; or it is, at least, recited aloud. This invocation accompanies the fraction and, for this reason, may be repeated as many times as necessary until the rite has reached its conclusion, the last time ending with the words dona nobis pacem (grant us peace).
 
Yes, you would write a letter-letter, on paper. You look up the street address of the diocese on their website, it’ll generally be at the bottom of the page or else a link called “Contact” or somesuch.
Great post, great letter! The only thing is if it is a Paulist priest I think it should be addressed to the head of the Paulist order, shouldn’t it? That would be Very Reverend John F. Duffy, C.S.P probably, but according to Wikipedia (not always reliable, but it could be right), “Father Michael B. McGarry, C.S.P. was elected President of the Paulist Fathers on the second ballot, and will assume office in May 2010.” Either way, I think the address would be:

President, Paulist Fathers
86-11 Midland Parkway
Jamaica Estates, NY 11432

It is possible that the letter should go both to the Bishop and the head of the order, and if so you could say in the letter that you were sending it both places.

The other concern is that I am really not sure that you should have acted as an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. Since you have not been appointed by the Bishop, I think the following quote from Redemptionis Sacramentum would be relevant:
  1. The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger that “more than a reasonable quantity of the Blood of Christ remain to be consumed at the end of the celebration”. The same is true wherever access to the chalice would be difficult to arrange, or where such a large amount of wine would be required that its certain provenance and quality could only be known with difficulty, or wherever there is not an adequate number of sacred ministers or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion with proper formation, or where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated.
The priest can depute a member of the lay faithful for a single occasion when there is great need, but in general EMHCs should have some sort of formation and be approved by the Bishop (or possibly in your case the head of the Paulists?) before serving. And it seems from the quote above that in those occasions where it is necessary for the priest to depute a one-time EM, the Precious Blood should not be distributed.

I’m not saying that this is in any way your fault, but you might want to add this question to your letter.

–Jen
 
In the case of ordered clerics, as with the Paulists, they serve i the diocese at the bishop’s suffrage. He is the sole moderator of public liturgy within his diocese.

Therefore, yes, it needs to go to the bishop. That is the procedure in RS, as well.

It would probably be appropriate, however, to “Courtesy Copy” the superior, so that the superior is aware of the issue.

Make certain that you note at the bottom of the letter “CC: Very Reverend John F. Duffy, C.S.P”
 
Regarding the issue of the breaking of the bread, it should not happen before the Consecration. According to Redemptionis Sacramentum:
[55.] In some places there has existed an abuse by which the Priest breaks the host at the time of the consecration in the Holy Mass. This abuse is contrary to the tradition of the Church. It is reprobated and is to be corrected with haste.
Regarding who can do what insofar as the Fraction Rite is concerned, RS states that:
73.] In the celebration of Holy Mass the breaking of the Eucharistic Bread - done only by the Priest celebrant, if necessary with the help of a Deacon or of a concelebrant - begins after the exchange of peace, while the Agnus Dei is being recited. For the gesture of breaking bread “carried out by Christ at the Last Supper, which in apostolic times gave the whole Eucharistic action its name, signifies that the faithful, though they are many, are made one Body in the communion of the one Bread of Life who is Christ, who died and rose for the world’s salvation” (cf. I Cor 10:17).153 For this reason the rite must be carried out with great reverence.154 Even so, it should be brief. The abuse that has prevailed in some places, by which this rite is unnecessarily prolonged and given undue emphasis, with laypersons also helping in contradiction to the norms, should be corrected with all haste.155
I went to a Paulist parish. Inasmuch as I like them as human beings, they have, lamentably, introduced several abuses to the Mass. It was a painful experience being a member of the liturgy committee there.
 
In the case of ordered clerics, as with the Paulists, they serve i the diocese at the bishop’s suffrage. He is the sole moderator of public liturgy within his diocese.

Therefore, yes, it needs to go to the bishop. That is the procedure in RS, as well.

It would probably be appropriate, however, to “Courtesy Copy” the superior, so that the superior is aware of the issue.

Make certain that you note at the bottom of the letter “CC: Very Reverend John F. Duffy, C.S.P”
I know Fr. Duffy. He is sound and orthodox, and, a good man. He is also fair.
 
That’s good about Sundays. My view as to weekday Masses is, you aren’t in change of other people’s behavior. The illicit practice will go on whether or not you’re there, and you’ve already made clear that you don’t approve of it.
Ok, I’m confused. So this is illicit? I thought it “put at risk the validity and dignity of the Eucharist.” So if it’s “just” illicit, what does that statement from the Vatican mean, exactly?
Yes, you would write a letter-letter, on paper. You look up the street address of the diocese on their website, it’ll generally be at the bottom of the page or else a link called “Contact” or somesuch.
Do I need to hand write it? And I go to UCLA, so, seeing as how I live in LA, would I write to Cardinal Roger Mahonney? Also, should I include the standing around the altar?
Having evaluated the situation to the best of my ability, and having prayed about it, I hope I am not out of line to ask you to use your authority as Ordinary of our diocese to end this “grave matter” which “puts at risk the validity and dignity of the Most Holy Eucharist.” If I can provide further information, please contact me at my address above, by email at pcg2@anytown.edu, or by telephone at (212) 867-5309. I have also shown this letter to Father Freespirit before sending it and given him a copy. Your Excellency, I have the honor to be

Sincerely yours,

PCG2.[/INDENT]

Hmm, didn’t mean to write the whole thing, but I got carried away. Use as much of it as you see fit, but please adjust all the facts so that they are true 😃
Wow, that was excellent!! Thank you so much! I’ll work on the details, and when I finish it, I’ll post it on here and see if it’s “up to par.”

God bless you 😃
 
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.
Are you sure, though? If i went into the bathroom and brushed my teeth because I thought (honestly) that every time I did, it killed 50 babies, and I wanted so badly to kill those 50 babies with all my heart, that wouldn’t be mortally sinful? I would certainly think so, seeing as how my one and only desire would be to go against God and kill his children…
 
Ok, I’m confused. So this is illicit? I thought it “put at risk the validity and dignity of the Eucharist.” So if it’s “just” illicit, what does that statement from the Vatican mean, exactly?
There are different levels of “illicit.” If the priest adds the word “for” to the Offertory, saying, “Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation, for through your goodness we have this bread to offer,” that would be illicit. If he has a laywoman read the Offertory while clowns do somersaults on the altar, that would also be illicit, though much worse.

Now that you make me think about it, I’d say Redemptionis Sacramentum probably goes farther than necessary in saying that passing around communion risks the “validity” of the Eucharist. Only four things can make the Eucharist invalid: not using bread and wine, not having a validly ordained priest, the priest not using the words of consecration, and the priest not intending to consecrate the gifts. Once the priest says, “This is my body . . . This is the cup of my blood,” the Eucharist is either valid or invalid, and no amount of subsequent abuse or disrespect can change that.

Anyway, “illicit” simply means “not permitted,” and that’s what you’re focusing on here: the priest is not permitted to distribute communion this way.
Do I need to hand write it? And I go to UCLA, so, seeing as how I live in LA, would I write to Cardinal Roger Mahonney? Also, should I include the standing around the altar?
No, typed is better, although you should sign it by hand. And I would focus on only one thing at a time.

You would address the letter as follows:

His Eminence Roger Cardinal Mahony [note spelling]
Archbishop
Archdiocese of Los Angeles
3424 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90010-2202

Then you would begin, “Your Eminence:”.

Please note that there’s a highly minimal chance of Cdl. Mahony actually reading your letter himself. In a diocese the size of Los Angeles, there are a lot of people in place to deal with things.
Wow, that was excellent!! Thank you so much! I’ll work on the details, and when I finish it, I’ll post it on here and see if it’s “up to par.”
God bless you 😃
You’re welcome! I’m happy to give you my comments on whatever you post, but please do not post further identifying information about this priest, etc., especially his name.
 
Ok, I’m confused. So this is illicit? I thought it “put at risk the validity and dignity of the Eucharist.” So if it’s “just” illicit, what does that statement from the Vatican mean, exactly?
“Grave matter” means that, if you know it’s a wrong thing to do, it’s also a mortal sin, and even if you don’t know it is wrong to do, it’s STILL a sin.

Anything that puts the validity at risk makes it illicit.

Illicit means “Forbidden to be done”…
Invalid means “No mass happened here… just a perfomance.”
 
Only four things can make the Eucharist invalid: not using bread and wine, not having a validly ordained priest, the priest not using the words of consecration, and the priest not intending to consecrate the gifts. Once the priest says, “This is my body . . . This is the cup of my blood,” the Eucharist is either valid or invalid, and no amount of subsequent abuse or disrespect can change that.
Sorry to be picky, but the above is only mostly true. The underlined portion should read, “not using bread and wine composed of the proper ingredients,”

Having bread with any other ingredients besides wheat and water is gravely illicit in the Latin rite, and having bread with any other ingreredients besides wheat, water, and leaven makes the sacrament invalid (regardless of the rite). The wine (before it is is mixed with the water during Mass) must be made from fermented grapes only (no additives), except that with special permission from the bishop mustum (made from unfermented grapes only) may be used. (Presumably even without the bishop’s approval, the use of mustum would only be illicit rather than invalid.)

I’m sure you know this, and it wasn’t the main point of your post anyway, but in a time when there are still people apparently making bread for Mass with all sorts of things in it, it’s as well to be exact, since it’s possible that not everyone reading this thread knows it.

–Jen
 
Having bread with any other ingredients besides wheat and water is gravely illicit in the Latin rite, and having bread with any other ingreredients besides wheat, water, and leaven makes the sacrament invalid (regardless of the rite).
You’re right, I wasn’t trying to write an exhaustive discourse on sacramental validity. 🙂 The part I’ve underlined isn’t true, however. Bread can contain salt, honey or spices, and, heck, probably preservatives, and still be valid matter. The requirement for validity is that the wheat flour not be mixed with “another substance different from wheat to such an extent that it would not commonly be considered wheat bread.” Redemptionis Sacramentum ¶ 48. Normal, off-the-shelf bread is perfectly valid (though, except in the concentration-camp scenario, gravely illicit) matter, even though it’ll generally contain small amounts of a wide variety of things like high-fructose corn syrup, enriched niacin, egg, and so on.
 
You’re right, I wasn’t trying to write an exhaustive discourse on sacramental validity. 🙂 The part I’ve underlined isn’t true, however. Bread can contain salt, honey or spices, and, heck, probably preservatives, and still be valid matter. The requirement for validity is that the wheat flour not be mixed with “another substance different from wheat to such an extent that it would not commonly be considered wheat bread.” Redemptionis Sacramentum ¶ 48. Normal, off-the-shelf bread is perfectly valid (though, except in the concentration-camp scenario, gravely illicit) matter, even though it’ll generally contain small amounts of a wide variety of things like high-fructose corn syrup, enriched niacin, egg, and so on.
Wow, you’re totally right, I was reading that section wrong the whole time. Thanks for the correction! But apparently the amounts matter. This is from a letter from the CDF:

“It may be helpful to note that recipes sent to the Sacred Congregation over the past several years vary greatly in the matter of “additions”; where there is question of slight additions (e.g., salt, condiments) the matter will be valid but illicit; where there is substitution of all or a large quantity of water by other liquids (e.g., milk, honey, etc.) the matter will be invalid.”

–Jen
 
The allowance for salt is because some of the Orthodox recipies for prosphora (the bread for the eucharist) include it to prevent the leaven from rising too fast; local airborne yeasts are of widely variant action and ability to digest wheat flour, and some prosphora recipes are reliant upon wild yeast. And because of that, some of the ECCs permit salt as well.
 
To the OP:

Please send me a PM. I looked at the website. Apparently, I know one of the Paulists on staff there. I served under him in my old parish’s AIDS Care Team.
 
Are you sure, though? If i went into the bathroom and brushed my teeth because I thought (honestly) that every time I did, it killed 50 babies, and I wanted so badly to kill those 50 babies with all my heart, that wouldn’t be mortally sinful? I would certainly think so, seeing as how my one and only desire would be to go against God and kill his children…
You would be guilty of having murderous thoughts, but you would not be guilty of having murdered anyone. Even in a court of law, the worst you could be charged with is attempted murder, and there isn’t a jury in the world that is going to lock you up for brushing your teeth with intent to kill. They’d not put you in a prison, anyway. Do you think God has less compassion for such a state than humans do?

Let’s face it, though: a scrupulous person is in the exact opposite position. She’s so worried about unintentionally doing something wrong that she can barely get her teeth brushed! This is why a confessor will sometimes tell a scrupulous person that she ought to go ahead and do anything that she does not know for a fact is wrong. How can they say such a thing? Because it is hardly possible that the scrupulous person won’t consider the morality of the action and won’t go looking for those facts. So while a confessor would never ever give advice like that to a person not afflicted with scruples, the actual advice given to a person with scruples fairly assumes that examination of each act for its morality is a given. The confessor is merely requiring that the scrupulous person know an act to be wrong before mentally condemning the act as inadmissable.

In this case, you did exactly the right thing. You did the best you knew how and then, just as a confessor would predict, you went to find out what the facts were. See? He knew you wouldn’t just keep doing the same thing you were unsure about. He knew you’d want to know, that you’d have to know. He knew you’d look into it.

Does that make sense? If and when you ever become apathetic instead of scrupulous, the advice might change. Don’t lay awake nights worrying about that happening. Cross that bridge with your confessor on the vey unlikely day that it happens. In the meantime, work on the “be not afraid” thing, OK?
 
The action of breaking the bread is called the Fraction (from Latin frangere, “to break”), and this is the right time to do it. Generally whole bread is not used, because of the delay in breaking it for everyone and because of the crumb hazard. However, you’re right that it is not permitted for anyone but the priest or deacon to do this. If a lot of bread needs to be broken up by someone else, it should be done before the consecration. Again, the GIRM has the explanation:
  1. The priest breaks the Eucharistic Bread, assisted, if the case calls for it, by the deacon or a concelebrant. Christ’s gesture of breaking bread at the Last Supper, which gave the entire Eucharistic Action its name in apostolic times, signifies that the many faithful are made one body (1 Cor 10:17) by receiving Communion from the one Bread of Life which is Christ, who died and rose for the salvation of the world. The fraction or breaking of bread is begun after the sign of peace and is carried out with proper reverence, though it should not be unnecessarily prolonged, nor should it be accorded undue importance. This rite is reserved to the priest and the deacon.
The priest breaks the Bread and puts a piece of the host into the chalice to signify the unity of the Body and Blood of the Lord in the work of salvation, namely, of the living and glorious Body of Jesus Christ. The supplication Agnus Dei, is, as a rule, sung by the choir or cantor with the congregation responding; or it is, at least, recited aloud. This invocation accompanies the fraction and, for this reason, may be repeated as many times as necessary until the rite has reached its conclusion, the last time ending with the words dona nobis pacem (grant us peace).
(Emphasis mine)

Ok, so I won’t have time to reply to everyone’s responses tonight, but I wanted to ask about this real quick. So I am not allowed to recieve the Eucharist tomorrow at mass because the Eucharistic ministers are helping the priest break the bread during the Agnus Dei? Or am I allowed to still receive, even though they do this? Because I didn’t see anything in the above excerpt saying anything about it being grave matter…

This is sort of urgent and needs to be answered quickly, because I am going to a morning mass tomorrow and need to know if I can recieve!!! :eek:

Thank you
 
(Emphasis mine)

Ok, so I won’t have time to reply to everyone’s responses tonight, but I wanted to ask about this real quick. So I am not allowed to recieve the Eucharist tomorrow at mass because the Eucharistic ministers are helping the priest break the bread during the Agnus Dei? Or am I allowed to still receive, even though they do this? Because I didn’t see anything in the above excerpt saying anything about it being grave matter…

This is sort of urgent and needs to be answered quickly, because I am going to a morning mass tomorrow and need to know if I can recieve!!! :eek:

Thank you
Yes, you should receive. Don’t be so scrupulous about things other people are doing that do not involve you. They should not be doing it, but if they do, it has absolutely no bearing on the relationship between you and the Eucharist. 🙂

(Well, things like this involve you indirectly, because, as Redemptionis Sacramentum makes clear, we all have the right to a Mass celebrated without abuses. But my third sentence above stands nevertheless.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top