Is passing the Eucharist around bad?

  • Thread starter Thread starter pcg2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
(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
If anyone but a priest, deacon, or bishop is breaking the bread at the agnus dei, the mass is illicit, and in that case, potentially invalid.

One should not receive when the priest commits grave errors, and rome has said that is one.
 
If anyone but a priest, deacon, or bishop is breaking the bread at the agnus dei, the mass is illicit, and in that case, potentially invalid.

One should not receive when the priest commits grave errors, and rome has said that is one.
Can you tell me where Rome says it’s grave?
 
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?

Do I need to hand write it? Seeing as how I live in LA, would I write to Cardinal Roger Mahonney? Also, should I include the standing around the altar?

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 😃
 
If anyone but a priest, deacon, or bishop is breaking the bread at the agnus dei, the mass is illicit, * and in that case, potentially invalid.

One should not receive when the priest commits grave errors, and rome has said that is one.
Any sources for the statements after the asterisk? I’m having a hard time figuring out what could happen during the Fraction that could invalidate the Sacrament, and why a person should not receive in such a case.
 
Any sources for the statements after the asterisk? I’m having a hard time figuring out what could happen during the Fraction that could invalidate the Sacrament, and why a person should not receive in such a case.
I don’t see either, but do realize everything isn’t validated until the priest consumes both the Body and Blood. It is a needless risk to have others help you with breaking the Body, though. Why do it at all?
 
I don’t see either, but do realize everything isn’t validated until the priest consumes both the Body and Blood. It is a needless risk to have others help you with breaking the Body, though. Why do it at all?
Oh, agreed that it’s a very poor idea for the priest to do. I don’t think you’re right that the Sacrament isn’t valid until the priest’s communion, though.
 
Sacrament or the Mass? If the priest doesn’t consume the Body and Blood there is no valid Mass.

wdtprs.com/blog/2010/03/quaeritur-priest-consecrates-more-hosts-during-communion/

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=102993 #7
I meant the Sacrament – if the priest has a heart attack and dies after the consecration and before his communion, the sacred species should be treated as consecrated, unlike if he dies at the Hanc Igitur.

As to the validity of the Mass, that’s interesting. Obviously, it makes no difference to the faithful if the priest communes before or after them – the Sacrament is valid, and the Mass gets completed, even though the priest’s conduct would be illicit if he did not take communion first. I wonder, though, if the priest never bothers to take communion, and you realize it, have you fulfilled your Sunday obligation? Clearly, you’re not obligated to attend a Mass that’s 100% licit in every possible respect, and clearly this is not the OP’s issue, but I guess it’s an interesting (if off topic) question.
 
I meant the Sacrament – if the priest has a heart attack and dies after the consecration and before his communion, the sacred species should be treated as consecrated, unlike if he dies at the Hanc Igitur.

As to the validity of the Mass, that’s interesting. Obviously, it makes no difference to the faithful if the priest communes before or after them – the Sacrament is valid, and the Mass gets completed, even though the priest’s conduct would be illicit if he did not take communion first. I wonder, though, if the priest never bothers to take communion, and you realize it, have you fulfilled your Sunday obligation? Clearly, you’re not obligated to attend a Mass that’s 100% licit in every possible respect, and clearly this is not the OP’s issue, but I guess it’s an interesting (if off topic) question.
I was under the impression validity trumps liceity as far as fulfilling your Sunday obligation. We are under no obligation to receive at a particular Mass. That’s why it’s risky to get laity involved with handling the Body and Blood during Mass. Participation doesn’t need to go that far.

I heard from someone who said he actually witnessed distribution of the Blood by the EMHC’s before the priest and left him nothing. What is he to do then? Reconsecrate?
 
I was under the impression validity trumps liceity as far as fulfilling your Sunday obligation. We are under no obligation to receive at a particular Mass. That’s why it’s risky to get laity involved with handling the Body and Blood during Mass. Participation doesn’t need to go that far.

I heard from someone who said he actually witnessed distribution of the Blood by the EMHC’s before the priest and left him nothing. What is he to do then? Reconsecrate?
I think he would do the same as if he got to the Agnus Dei and realized that there had not been wine in the chalice in the first place. As I remember, he may say the words of institution over the wine only, in that case, but I can’t find the citation for it. (I do remember having read it and wondering to myself: when on earth is a priest ever going to get all the way to that point in the Mass before discovering there wasn’t wine. I assume it would have to do with finding out the wine had turned bad.)
 
I think he would do the same as if he got to the Agnus Dei and realized that there had not been wine in the chalice in the first place. As I remember, he may say the words of institution over the wine only, in that case, but I can’t find the citation for it. (I do remember having read it and wondering to myself: when on earth is a priest ever going to get all the way to that point in the Mass before discovering there wasn’t wine. I assume it would have to do with finding out the wine had turned bad.)
This happened about two years ago. A very dear priest friend of mine was subbing at another parish. He was subjected to some severe liturgical abuse and it discombobulated him to the point that he forget to consecrate the wine. (Yes, what went on in that parish was pretty gruesome :eek: ). I made myself the last person to receive Holy Communion. As he was about to give me the Sacred Host, I put my hand in stop forrmation and told him what had happened. He turned pale, gave me Holy Communion, thanked me and went back to consecrate the wine. Then, he consumed the Precoius Blood.
 
I think he would do the same as if he got to the Agnus Dei and realized that there had not been wine in the chalice in the first place. As I remember, he may say the words of institution over the wine only, in that case, but I can’t find the citation for it. (I do remember having read it and wondering to myself: when on earth is a priest ever going to get all the way to that point in the Mass before discovering there wasn’t wine. I assume it would have to do with finding out the wine had turned bad.)
The De Defectibus addresses some of the issues we’ve discussed:

dailycatholic.org/defectib.htm

I don’t know if DD still applies though.
 
Oh, agreed that it’s a very poor idea for the priest to do. I don’t think you’re right that the Sacrament isn’t valid until the priest’s communion, though.
De defectibus states of celebrants that one who can but does not receive under both species is under grave sin. Since De defectibus is referenced in some of the responses from the CDWS, it can be assumed to remain in force where not specifically abrogated by newer instructions.

RS #97 says the priest “must” communicate at the correct moment.

If the celebrant is in unrepentant mortal sin, however, there already exists dubiousness to the liturgy.

However, in this case, it’s pretty clear from de defectibus that after the words of institution, it is the body and blood.

In re the breaking of the bread by laity: it violates GIRM 83, which reseserves the rite of fraction to priest and deacon, and thus RS 153, which forbids laity to assume the role or vesture of the clergy except where specifically permitted. RS 173 states that RS 153 is amongst the matters that risk rendering the sacrament invalid.

Oh, and RS 55 reiterates the reservation.

Yes, roundabout, but very blackletter.

dailycatholic.org/defectib.htm
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#Chapter%20III
 
Ok, so here’s the letter I have so far (I used a lot of what you already wrote, Mark. Thanks :D)

**Your Excellency Cardinal Roger Mahony:

Greetings in Christ. I am a student at the University of ______ in your diocese, and a frequent mass attendee at the daily Mass celebrated at our University Catholic 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 attendees stand around the altar, and 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:
  1. 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.
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______ and Father _______, both Paulist priests, usually celebrate the daily Mass at our University Catholic Center, and are responsible for continuing the practice I have described, which happens at every weekday Mass I have seen them celebrate there – at least 20 as of this date. Accordingly, I spoke more plainly about these concerns to Father _______ on May 19, showing him the portion of Redemptionis Sacramentum above. He explained that he believes that it is not out of line, that it is a “tradition” for daily masses to be celebrated in this way at the Catholic Center, and that neither he (nor Father ______) would stop distributing Holy Communion by passing the sacred vessels around the altar 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 _______, or by telephone at ________. I have also shown this letter to the staff at the University Catholic Center before sending it and given them a copy. Your Excellency, I have the honor to be

Sincerely yours,

________**

Anything else I should include? Pointers? Any advice is appreciated.

Should I include the litany of other abuses that are (apparently) occurring here? Breaking of the bread by EMHC… standing around the altar?

What if I find out other stuff they are doing wrong? What I am supposed to do then? Just keep bugging the Bishop about every thing I see going on here? At what point does it not become my responsibility anymore? Because this is really aggravating my scruples and pissing me off. I don’t want to be a priest’s babysitter, on the lookout for whenever they are about to do something wrong…
 
De defectibus states of celebrants that one who can but does not receive under both species is under grave sin. Since De defectibus is referenced in some of the responses from the CDWS, it can be assumed to remain in force where not specifically abrogated by newer instructions.

RS #97 says the priest “must” communicate at the correct moment.

If the celebrant is in unrepentant mortal sin, however, there already exists dubiousness to the liturgy.

However, in this case, it’s pretty clear from de defectibus that after the words of institution, it is the body and blood.

In re the breaking of the bread by laity: it violates GIRM 83, which reseserves the rite of fraction to priest and deacon, and thus RS 153, which forbids laity to assume the role or vesture of the clergy except where specifically permitted. RS 173 states that RS 153 is amongst the matters that risk rendering the sacrament invalid.

Oh, and RS 55 reiterates the reservation.

Yes, roundabout, but very blackletter.

dailycatholic.org/defectib.htm
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#Chapter%20III
Ok, so I’m confused. How does it invalidate the Sacrament if it (the breaking of the bread by the EMHC) is done after the consecration? You can flush the Eucharist down a toilet and it would still be Jesus… no amount of clerical illicitness is going to change that.
 
More fruits of the post-Conciliar “spirit of VII” Church…this WOULD NEVER happen at a TLM…what an abomination
On Thursday masses at my “church” (it’s actually a catholic center at my college), when we receive the Eucharist, we always gather around in a circle around the altar and do what was described above – pass the Eucharist to one another.
 
I would go ahead and include all of the information that you relayed to us. These are serious problems that need to be addressed. Other than that, it is a good letter.
 
I would go ahead and include all of the information that you relayed to us. These are serious problems that need to be addressed. Other than that, it is a good letter.
But I didn’t talk to the staff about any of the issues other than passing the Eucharist. Not that I would expect them to stop any of that anyways, even if I did talk to them about it.

Should I include the breaking of the bread thing?

And what do I do in the future when/if I see more wrong stuff going on?
 
Pcg2, that looks fine, although the salutation should be “Your Eminence:” instead of “Your Excellency Cardinal Roger Mahony.”

As I mentioned before, I would strongly advise against a laundry-list of complaints. To be completely honest, it’s probably a bit of a long shot for you to get the response you want to this letter at all, so you’d do best to focus on a small core of the most important issues. Yes, that does mean that you would send another letter. But if the archdiocese actually acts and sets this priest straight on one issue, don’t you think you’d be in a much better position on the next issue?

If you’d like, add one or at most two additional issues – ones that can be set out in no more than a sentence or two apiece, not ones that require a lot of argument, questions of interpretation, etc. You pick your battles. You should not, though, include anything you haven’t discussed with the priest, as that’s always the first step before you go above his head.

Also, I’ve rethought my previous draft, and would now change the sentence in the second paragraph from “Please direct this practice to be ended” to “I hope that this practice can be ended.” It’s important to plainly state the purpose of the letter early on, but I no longer care for the bluntness of my first formulation in light of the approach the final paragraph wound up taking.

[edited]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top