Is passing the Eucharist around bad?

[revert_jen]

I don’t know what “subsidiarity” is, and I certainly don’t want to remove the Paulists. Does what he is saying hold any merit?

Subsidiarity (as the person is using it) means handling matters at the lowest level possible in the hierarchy.

I guess the person they want to talk to you about is someone you haven’t spoken with before? I don’t know how many priests there are at your Catholic center–I think at ours there was only one, even though it was a big school.

I would e-mail back as soon as you can and say that your intention was certainly not to remove the Paulists from the University. I don’t know why someone would want that. Your desire to be fair to all parties is why you informed them of the letter before sending it. Personally, I didn’t realize that university centers were arranged like regular parishes with a Pastor, and that it was some priest that wasn’t one of the two you had seen doing it. If you didn’t realize this either, it might be good to put that in your response as well. You might mention that you have no intentions at all, except to be able to attend Mass that is celebrated according to the teachings of the Church, and that if the issue can be resolved without resorting to the Archbishop, all the better. However, the priest said that this abuse was a tradition at the center and that he wouldn’t change, so you thought there was no help to be had except the Archbishop.

So, I would re-word your existing letter slightly as appropriate, address and send it to the director of the Catholic center, and wait for a response. It is better to do these things in writing if you can, because then nobody can be confused later about what was said.

That said, I think the writer of the e-mail was being a bit disingenuous. First of all, the principle of subsidiarity as used by the Catholic Church generally refers to secular society meaning that, for example, the state should not interfere with the rights and functions of the family. It is true that the Archbishop’s office would request some sort of reponse from the Pastor, but they wouldn’t just hand the letter back to him and wash their hands of it.

Also, if the priests are doing this regularly, and you have brought it up to them before, either the Pastor doesn’t know what is going on in his Parish (so he isn’t doing his job well) or he knows about it and doesn’t stop it (in which case again, he isn’t doing his job well). But there’s no point in going into any of this with him or anyone else at the center.

So basically what happens is you send the letter to the Pastor, and wait for a response. If it doesn’t come in a timely fashion, say within a month or so (since it’s summer), I’d send another e-mail to the pastor himself, saying that if you don’t get a response in a certain amount of time (maybe a couple of weeks), you will have to send your original letter to the Archbishop. Then if you don’t get it, send the letter to the Archbishop, adding a paragraph about your having sent the letter to the Pastor and waited for a response.

If they want you to come in and meet with him, I would say that you prefer a response in writing, although you will be happy to talk with the Pastor on the phone about it (since you are out of town by then, I think?) once you have received his response. If he wants more details about what you have seen, you could handle that via e-mail.

If he responds that the abuses will stop, then you have saved time and trouble. If he responds that they won’t, you can still send your letter to the Archbishop, and include a copy of the letter that the Pastor sent to you.

It sounds like a lot but since most of your letter would do for either the Pastor or the Archbishop equally well, it shouldn’t be that big a deal. And you will be doing a very great service for your fellow Catholics at the university. As my grandma used to say, “You’ll have another star in your crown in Heaven.”

–Jen

 

[revert_jen]

With all due respect, that was a huge tactical error. You do not write the staff to tell them what you are doing. You simply do it. You have already tried to deal with the situation locally. The priest, in question, decided to perpetuate the abuse. Your next recourse is the Archdiocese. If the Archdiocese does not respond in a timely manner, you then write to the CDWDS.

What the staff is trying to do is to dissuade you from the course of action you are about to take. Again, should this ever happen again, please do not write to the staff. Just move up the chain. This goes for anyone else trying to pursue a legitimate complaint.

Sorry, your reply was posted while I was writing mine. Shouldn’t he go to the Pastor before the Archbishop? You know a lot more about this than I do, but I thought if there is a Pastor and the OP hasn’t spoken to him, he should go through him before going to the Archbishop.

pcg2, if benedictgal disagrees with me, definitely ignore me and listen to her.

–Jen

 

[benedictgal]

Jen:

The OP has already met with the priest at the Catholic Center. He had already had correspondence with the Catholic Center. Initially, he wrote an anonymous note, but, later on included his name.

During the course of the meeting, the priest responded in the negative, indicating that he will continue the ilicit practices. There was no need on the part of the OP to inform the Catholic Center that he was taking this course of action. That being said, the OP now has to move his complaint to the Archbishop. If the Archdiocese does not respond within about a month, then, he will have every right to take this to the CDWDS.

 

[MarkThompson]

PCG2: sounds like what you did was right. What I don’t know is whether the “Father _____” who was mentioned in the reply from the Catholic Center is the same priest who’s committing these abuses and whom you’ve already spoken to. If it is, then you’ve already talked to him, gotten a negative reply, and it’s time to send your letter to the Cardinal. If not, then I think you’d want to talk or send a letter to this Father ____, who may in fact be the next one up the chain of command and have the ability to put an end to these abuses.

I’m not sure exactly how the structure of your Campus Ministry is set up, but at an ordinary parish, if you had a problem with what an associate priest was doing, you would talk to (1) the priest himself, (2) the pastor of the parish, then (3) the bishop. The reply you got may just be trying to get you to do the equivalent of Step 2.

And don’t worry for a minute about the “remove the Paulists” language; that’s nonsense.

 

[pcg2]

Subsidiarity (as the person is using it) means handling matters at the lowest level possible in the hierarchy.

I guess the person they want to talk to you about is someone you haven’t spoken with before? I don’t know how many priests there are at your Catholic center–I think at ours there was only one, even though it was a big school.

I would e-mail back as soon as you can and say that your intention was certainly not to remove the Paulists from the University. I don’t know why someone would want that. Your desire to be fair to all parties is why you informed them of the letter before sending it. Personally, I didn’t realize that university centers were arranged like regular parishes with a Pastor, and that it was some priest that wasn’t one of the two you had seen doing it. If you didn’t realize this either, it might be good to put that in your response as well. You might mention that you have no intentions at all, except to be able to attend Mass that is celebrated according to the teachings of the Church, and that if the issue can be resolved without resorting to the Archbishop, all the better. However, the priest said that this abuse was a tradition at the center and that he wouldn’t change, so you thought there was no help to be had except the Archbishop.

So, I would re-word your existing letter slightly as appropriate, address and send it to the director of the Catholic center, and wait for a response. It is better to do these things in writing if you can, because then nobody can be confused later about what was said.

That said, I think the writer of the e-mail was being a bit disingenuous. First of all, the principle of subsidiarity as used by the Catholic Church generally refers to secular society meaning that, for example, the state should not interfere with the rights and functions of the family. It is true that the Archbishop’s office would request some sort of reponse from the Pastor, but they wouldn’t just hand the letter back to him and wash their hands of it.

Also, if the priests are doing this regularly, and you have brought it up to them before, either the Pastor doesn’t know what is going on in his Parish (so he isn’t doing his job well) or he knows about it and doesn’t stop it (in which case again, he isn’t doing his job well). But there’s no point in going into any of this with him or anyone else at the center.

So basically what happens is you send the letter to the Pastor, and wait for a response. If it doesn’t come in a timely fashion, say within a month or so (since it’s summer), I’d send another e-mail to the pastor himself, saying that if you don’t get a response in a certain amount of time (maybe a couple of weeks), you will have to send your original letter to the Archbishop. Then if you don’t get it, send the letter to the Archbishop, adding a paragraph about your having sent the letter to the Pastor and waited for a response.

If they want you to come in and meet with him, I would say that you prefer a response in writing, although you will be happy to talk with the Pastor on the phone about it (since you are out of town by then, I think?) once you have received his response. If he wants more details about what you have seen, you could handle that via e-mail.

If he responds that the abuses will stop, then you have saved time and trouble. If he responds that they won’t, you can still send your letter to the Archbishop, and include a copy of the letter that the Pastor sent to you.

It sounds like a lot but since most of your letter would do for either the Pastor or the Archbishop equally well, it shouldn’t be that big a deal. And you will be doing a very great service for your fellow Catholics at the university. As my grandma used to say, “You’ll have another star in your crown in Heaven.”

–Jen

Okay there is a lot of confusion, so I should clear some things up:

1. There are 2 priests at the Catholic center, both of whom I personally know and would say I am friends with
2. One of those 2 priests also happens to be the “pastor,” or director, of the Catholic center.
3. I spoke personally with the priest who is NOT the director, and he said that he would not stop. He said that he would talk to the director priest about changing things, but I know that this was just blowing smoke. They spoke about it, but didn’t change anything. So, I know that the director priest knows about all this.
4. After this conversation with the priest, I wrote the letter.
5. I emailed the letter to them the staff (which includes the 2 priests) so that they would know that I was telling the bishop – I don’t want to go above anyone’s head here.
6. The priest who is not the director emailed me back the response.

So, I’ve never talked to the pastor priest in person, although I know that he knows about the situation and obviously has done nothing about it. So should I still talk with him? or forget about it, seeing as how he had 2 weeks to do something about it and yet did nothing.

 

[pcg2]

PCG2: sounds like what you did was right. What I don’t know is whether the “Father _____” who was mentioned in the reply from the Catholic Center is the same priest who’s committing these abuses and whom you’ve already spoken to. If it is, then you’ve already talked to him, gotten a negative reply, and it’s time to send your letter to the Cardinal. If not, then I think you’d want to talk or send a letter to this Father ____, who may in fact be the next one up the chain of command and have the ability to put an end to these abuses.

Yes, they are the same priest. To see details of the situation, please see the reply I gave to Jen in the previous post.

 

[revert_jen]

So, I’ve never talked to the pastor priest in person, although I know that he knows about the situation and obviously has done nothing about it. So should I still talk with him? or forget about it, seeing as how he had 2 weeks to do something about it and yet did nothing.

If you e-mailed the letter to the Pastor and the other priest is the one who replied, then I think that is all you need. If the Pastor had a response, he would have responded. I was thinking it was a secretary or something who had responded.

I think I’d still want to e-mail them back and say that the Pastor knows about the problem and has done nothing, and so it seems to be time to send the letter to the Archbishop. But I defer to benedictgal’s greater knowledge, so you should probably just do as you said you were going to do in your e-mail and send the letter to the Archbishop.

You could always just take the procedure in my post and replace Pastor with Archbishop and Archbishop with CDWDS.

–Jen

 

[pcg2]

So I guess I am just going to reply to his email but make it clear that unless they he is going to tell me something different than what I was told last time, I am sending the letter.

 

[pcg2]

The non-director priest emailed me back this:

**Thanks for replying. At our conversation, I did not say things would not change, neither did I say they would change. You inferred that I said ‘no’.

My objective was to help you understand better these UCC traditions. Conversations are
not possible unless people understand each other. Good change happens when there’s
conversation and everyone is on the same page and can move together. Bad change happens when folks are coerced out of the blue without understanding because of some distant authority, even if that authority is correct. Even God doesn’t do that - that’s why we still have this magical, yet complex thing called free will.

Change is a slow process. Don’t imagine that just because bishops declared in
Vatican II that the Mass was to be in one’s local language and the priest was to face
the people that all Catholic churches immediately made those changes. It took time
and some communities continue to resist even today. Change always takes time.
Now an ecumenical council, which Vatican II was, has the weight of infallibility, so does
that mean all those churches that didn’t make the change instantly had invalid Masses.
I don’t think God works that way. The Church doesn’t.

Grace doesn’t work by some exacting formula, but by the messiness of love, God’s love.

Also be careful about dualistic thinking, that everything is either right or wrong.
That’s the trap of the Pharisees. Jesus healed on the Sabbath, allowed his disciples
to collect food on the Sabbath, forgave sinners when the law says they should be
punished and killed, etc. The Pharisees even quoted the Torah against him.
Imagine, these folks were trying to use the Father’s words against him!
Jesus however worked from a lot of gray and still kept true to the spirit of the law.

It would be good for you to talk to Fr. ______ about your concerns. And then to continue
the conversation with the liturgy committee. You bring up some good points that are
worth discussing and bringing to prayer.**

Now what? I guess he never technically said “no,” but to me, their inaction was a confirmation of their decision. I don’t agree that this should take time. You either change it or you don’t. It’s not that hard to stop letting EMHC break the bread, and to not let the Eucharist be passed around like some sort of graham cracker around a camp fire. Now it seems like they want to have a meeting to discuss things further.

Should I really wait to have a conversation with the director priest? I want to nip this in the bud already and this is taking longer than expected. And now my scruples are acting up because now i feel like I committed the sin of sloth by procrastinating and being lazy and not taking care of this in a more timely manner. So frustrating…

 

[ProVobis]

Now an ecumenical council, which Vatican II was, has the weight of infallibility, so does
that mean all those churches that didn’t make the change instantly had invalid Masses.
I don’t think God works that way. The Church doesn’t.

I’ve heard this argument before. But Vatican II didn’t order all those changes he’s speaking about.

 

[Monica4316]

Today MIchelle Arnold, our resident apologist, asnwered a question thusly: “Mass celebrated in a home is subject to the same rubrics as Mass celebrated in Church. There is NO passing of the Eucharist from one person to the other while sitting in a circle!” (emphasis mine)

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 always knew that we shouldn’t be gathering around the altar, and I had a feeling that passing of the Eucharist wasn’t “allowed” either. My question is, is this sinful in any way?

I’m always confused during moments like these – when I know that/am conflicted about whether a celebrant is doing something illicit during mass, what should I do? Is it bad to still receive the Eucharist? I want to receive so badly and I need Him, especially because I face so much temptation here on campus every day. I guess I just figure that if I am doing something (venially) sinful, the Eucharist cancels it out… any answers/suggestions?

Thank you

I don’t know if you’re sinning by receiving the Eucharist, if you can’t control how it’s done… of course if you’re not the celebrant, you can’t control that. But it’s definitely illicit, I’d say, and shouldn’t be done in this way. It sounds very “Protestant”… and not respectful to Jesus. But I don’t think* you’re* doing anything bad because your intentions are to honour Him… maybe you could either look for a different church, or if there’s none around, receive the Eucharist in reparation for any possible sacrilige? But if you don’t have other options, try to maybe talk to the priest about this…

it’s always difficult to be in a situation like this, liturgical abuse really upsets me too and I think it should. I wish people followed the rubrics more closely. Thankfully, many parishes do, but not all.

 

[MarkThompson]

Now what? I guess he never technically said “no,” but to me, their inaction was a confirmation of their decision. I don’t agree that this should take time. You either change it or you don’t. It’s not that hard to stop letting EMHC break the bread, and to not let the Eucharist be passed around like some sort of graham cracker around a camp fire. Now it seems like they want to have a meeting to discuss things further.

Should I really wait to have a conversation with the director priest? I want to nip this in the bud already and this is taking longer than expected. And now my scruples are acting up because now i feel like I committed the sin of sloth by procrastinating and being lazy and not taking care of this in a more timely manner. So frustrating…

It sounds like he may be willing to resolve this in a face-saving manner. That would be good. I’d send back something like the following:
Father, thanks for your reply, and for taking the time to follow up by looking into these things. I’m sorry if I caught you by surprise before with the documents I showed you when we spoke before. You’re quite right that change can take time, but hopefully there’s now been enough time for reflection that our center’s traditions of distributing Communion can be nudged back into unity with the regular practice of the Church. So I’d be happy to speak with Father ____ about it, although I’d feel better if I knew I could count you with me on this issue now!
Ignore the “liturgy committee” (which has no authority over the pastor), and ignore the various provocations about Vatican II (they never mandated Mass facing the people, etc.), the Pharisees, and so on. The best result if if he gets to just say, “Ah, yes, well, it was all a misunderstanding – of course we intended to end this practice, you just caught us off guard.”

Also, you haven’t committed any sins here. You’re earning graces through your assiduous conduct.

 

[revert_jen]

**Thanks for replying. At our conversation, I did not say things would not change, neither did I say they would change. You inferred that I said ‘no’. **

That is why it is probably better in future for any interaction to be in writing.

**My objective was to help you understand better these UCC traditions. Conversations are
not possible unless people understand each other. Good change happens when there’s
conversation and everyone is on the same page and can move together. Bad change happens when folks are coerced out of the blue without understanding because of some distant authority, even if that authority is correct. Even God doesn’t do that - that’s why we still have this magical, yet complex thing called free will. **

That part, IMHO, wandered from drivel, to near-heresy, back to drivel.
a) Conversation is supposed to help us understand each other, not the other way around.
b) Good change comes when the direction of the change is toward God, regardless of the amount of conversation and togetherness involved.
c) There is no coercion involved in the change, they have voluntarily decided to be Catholic priests. They used their free will to voluntarily submit their own judgement to the measure of the Magisterium.
d) Free will is an amazing gift, showing how much God favors us with the ability to choose our actions. It is NOT magical in any way. Nor is it (to my mind) particularly complex in itself. Some of the decisions you have to use it for can be pretty complex, but none of the decisions here. Either they obey the authority to which they committed themselves when they became priests, or they don’t.

Change is a slow process. Don’t imagine that just because bishops declared in
Vatican II that the Mass was to be in one’s local language and the priest was to face
the people that all Catholic churches immediately made those changes.

Never happened. Not in the documents.
"Sacrosanctum concilium #36:

1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin Language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters…]

Sacrosanctum concilium #54:

In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and “the common prayer,” but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to tho norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.
Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them. …]

So much for Latin.

But as far as I can tell, the documents of Vatican II do not mention the issue of which direction the priest faces. The GIRM, however, does say that it is “desirable whenever possible” to have the priest face the people (#299), referencing a document that was released in 60s that was NOT part of the documents of Vatican II. The document referenced, however (Inter oecumenici), does not say that celebration facing the people is desirable whenever possible, but merely that it is good to build freestanding altars so that it is possible to have Mass facing the people (#91).

So basically everything he said above about Vatican II was completely wrong.

**It took time
and some communities continue to resist even today. Change always takes time.
Now an ecumenical council, which Vatican II was, has the weight of infallibility, so does
that mean all those churches that didn’t make the change instantly had invalid Masses.
I don’t think God works that way. The Church doesn’t.

Grace doesn’t work by some exacting formula, but by the messiness of love, God’s love.**

Argh, argh, argh. Leaving aside that the changes he mentions were merely permitted, not mandated at any time, the practice which you have brought to his attention has NEVER been allowed in the Church in at least the last thousand years.

And I personally do not find God’s love to be “messy.”

I’m not even going to address the rest of their reply, because it’s just offensive. “We shouldn’t follow the rules of the Church that was founded by Christ and is guided by the Holy Spirit because some Pharisees put man-made laws over the laws given to them by God.” Heard it before. Faulty logic.

Should I really wait to have a conversation with the director priest? I want to nip this in the bud already and this is taking longer than expected.

You are completely right. Benedictgal is completely right (as usual!). However, you might include copies of this correspondence with your letter to the Archbishop. But I wouldn’t bother with the Catholic center any more. Liturgical abuse is happening; they could stop it immediately by just not doing it any more, and they want you to consult with the “liturgy committee” about a clear, documented abuse.

If they didn’t know that what they are doing is wrong, they wouldn’t be trying so hard to keep you from telling the Archbishop.

–Jen

 

[revert_jen]

And now my scruples are acting up because now i feel like I committed the sin of sloth by procrastinating and being lazy and not taking care of this in a more timely manner. So frustrating…

BTW, the important thing is what you are doing now, not what you did before. And I’m assuming you had finals and stuff also taking up your time? You had to give them time to respond properly, too. If there was any laziness before, you have more than made up for it now.

–Jen

 

[revert_jen]

It sounds like he may be willing to resolve this in a face-saving manner. That would be good.

It would be good, but to me it sounds much more like a stall. If he’s not willing to say clearly in an e-mail whether the practice is going to stop or not (which he still hasn’t), it seems to me like he wants to draw this out with consultations with the liturgy committee and chats about the magic of free will and so forth until poor pcg2 runs out of patience and gives up.

I would pay a good deal of money, however, to see a debate between my very orthodox, smart, and articulate Pastor, and Fr. “Jesus-worked-in-shades-of-grey” there at the university.

–Jen

 

[MarkThompson]

It would be good, but to me it sounds much more like a stall. If he’s not willing to say clearly in an e-mail whether the practice is going to stop or not (which he still hasn’t), it seems to me like he wants to draw this out with consultations with the liturgy committee and chats about the magic of free will and so forth until poor pcg2 runs out of patience and gives up.

I wouldn’t be so sure. When someone says no, and then they come back to you saying, “Come on, I never really said no, there’s room to talk and straighten things out,” that reads to me like a sign that they’re looking for a chance to back out of their refusal. I think there’s a reasonable chance that when he saw pcg2’s letter and realized it was going to get sent to the Cardinal, he said “Uh oh, better see if I can finesse this.” We all deserve a chance for repentance, don’t we?

It’s not easy to expect an established priest to say to a a random college kid, “You were right about the liturgy, and I was wrong. I’ll do as you recommended,” and pcg2 should try hard to avoid putting him in that position. A minor face-saving fiction – “Well, I was caught by surprise, but we had time for reflection, and we decided that unity of practice with other parishes is more important than sticking to our own separate tradition” – may work best for everyone. And let’s keep in mind that the chance that Cardinal Mahony is going to immediately fly out in his private helicopter to settle things is, all in all, fairly low.

You just want to avoid ever having to deal with the “liturgy committee.” The pastor has the power to make the decision, and he should make it.

 

[pcg2]

I just finished a 2 hour long discussion with both of the priests who serve the Catholic Center – including the pastor/director priest. I told them of the passing around of the Eucharist, and of the illicit practice going on with the fraction. Basically, I didn’t get a straight answer. They went on about how it is a tradition, and that liturgy is about the community, and that change takes time. I expressed that this isn’t something that you need to discuss, that it is grave matter, and that they as our father in Christ have the obligation and authority to end these practices.

At the end of our meeting I asked them very clearly: are these practices on their way to changing, or are we still in this convoluted gray area? They said that the Catholic Center’s next liturgy meeting is this september and that I should bring it up there.

They definitely were open to stopping the practices, but they kept going on about how this takes time and that they want to bring it up to the community first.

1. What should I do? Did I do something wrong or sinful by not giving them a clear “you change it or else” response? They sound like they may be willing to stop it (without me having to resort to the bishop), but, if change did happen, it wouldn’t be until September. There will be no more daily masses until that time, so the passing around the Eucharist wouldn’t happen again until then. However, there are Sunday masses during the summer and the illicit practice during the Fraction would still be occurring then.
2. Is the practice of allowing the EMHC to participate in the Fraction grave matter? Is this something that needs to be changed? Which bring me to another question…
3. What do you guys do when you see an illicit practice taking place? Do you always report it, or what? Because it seems like a lot of masses these days are illicit in one way or another… I’m confused.
4. Is it our obligation to speak up? Or does it depend on the gravity of the illicit practice that’s going on? Also, if we don’t say something, is it sinful on our part?

Please pray for me as I have finals this week and this is really bugging me out and adding uneccessary stress And I’m sorry for all the questions, it’s just that I want to do the right thing and you guys really help out with that

 

[revert_jen]

At the end of our meeting I asked them very clearly: are these practices on their way to changing, or are we still in this convoluted gray area? They said that the Catholic Center’s next liturgy meeting is this september and that I should bring it up there.

They definitely were open to stopping the practices, but they kept going on about how this takes time and that they want to bring it up to the community first.

They’re stalling. The practice should be stopped, not discussed three months from now.

1. What should I do? Did I do something wrong or sinful by not giving them a clear “you change it or else” response? They sound like they may be willing to stop it (without me having to resort to the bishop), but, if change did happen, it wouldn’t be until September. There will be no more daily masses until that time, so the passing around the Eucharist wouldn’t happen again until then. However, there are Sunday masses during the summer and the illicit practice during the Fraction would still be occurring then.

You do not have to give them an ultimatum. You have NOT sinned in your handling of this matter.

1. Is the practice of allowing the EMHC to participate in the Fraction grave matter? Is this something that needs to be changed? Which bring me to another question…
2. What do you guys do when you see an illicit practice taking place? Do you always report it, or what? Because it seems like a lot of masses these days are illicit in one way or another… I’m confused.

They have in no way made any commitment to change the practice of passing around the Eucharist. They have agreed to talk it over with a committee which condoned the abuse in the first place, and in any case it is not the liturgy committee’s responsibility, but the Pastor’s. So they haven’t done anything and I would send the letter.

I saw some abuses in my last parish, but most of them were in my first year or two back to the Church so I didn’t know what to do. But the Bishop here is pretty on top of things (and it’s a much smaller diocese), and it’s been a long time since I saw any abuses except by visiting priests who were just there for one Sunday.

I can honestly say that I have never seen a liturgical abuse at my new parish.

1. Is it our obligation to speak up? Or does it depend on the gravity of the illicit practice that’s going on? Also, if we don’t say something, is it sinful on our part?

Please pray for me as I have finals this week and this is really bugging me out and adding uneccessary stress And I’m sorry for all the questions, it’s just that I want to do the right thing and you guys really help out with that

It is certainly better to speak up than not, and since the passing around thing was something you had to participate in, I think you would have to stop going to the weekday Masses to be sure of not sinning. Yes, I think the amount of obligation is definitely related to the seriousness of the offense.

It would certainly NOT be sinful to ignore the problem for a week until you finish your finals. I’m sure we’ll all pray for you that this situation won’t affect your finals and that you’ll do well.

After that, you could slightly re-word your letter, saying that you had discussed it with the Pastor but he would not make any commitment to change but instead said that you should wait three months and bring it up at the liturgy committee meeting. The Archbishop’s office will know as well as we do that the liturgy committee has no canonical standing and that it is the Pastor’s responsibility to make sure that liturgical abuse is eradicated, so there’s no need to add that part.

Then you can send a copy to the Catholic Center in the same mail as you send it to the Archbishop’s office. At the end of the letter (further down than your signature) you just include the line:

cc: [University name] Catholic Center

and put both copies in envelopes and drop them in the mail.

Then think about something else.

–Jen

 

[FrCorey]

Yes, No One should ever touch a consecrated host but someone in major orders. God is Not a bisket snack to be passed around.
wow, it’s terrifying to see what goes on in the churches today.
What in the world has happened to the respect of the holy rituals.
This is not the juice and crackers of other churches, this is the blood and body of the one true Holy God.

 

[Aramis]

I just finished a 2 hour long discussion with both of the priests who serve the Catholic Center – including the pastor/director priest. I told them of the passing around of the Eucharist, and of the illicit practice going on with the fraction. Basically, I didn’t get a straight answer. They went on about how it is a tradition, and that liturgy is about the community, and that change takes time. I expressed that this isn’t something that you need to discuss, that it is grave matter, and that they as our father in Christ have the obligation and authority to end these practices.

At the end of our meeting I asked them very clearly: are these practices on their way to changing, or are we still in this convoluted gray area? They said that the Catholic Center’s next liturgy meeting is this september and that I should bring it up there.

They definitely were open to stopping the practices, but they kept going on about how this takes time and that they want to bring it up to the community first.

1. What should I do? Did I do something wrong or sinful by not giving them a clear “you change it or else” response? They sound like they may be willing to stop it (without me having to resort to the bishop), but, if change did happen, it wouldn’t be until September. There will be no more daily masses until that time, so the passing around the Eucharist wouldn’t happen again until then. However, there are Sunday masses during the summer and the illicit practice during the Fraction would still be occurring then.
2. Is the practice of allowing the EMHC to participate in the Fraction grave matter? Is this something that needs to be changed? Which bring me to another question…
3. What do you guys do when you see an illicit practice taking place? Do you always report it, or what? Because it seems like a lot of masses these days are illicit in one way or another… I’m confused.
4. Is it our obligation to speak up? Or does it depend on the gravity of the illicit practice that’s going on? Also, if we don’t say something, is it sinful on our part?

Please pray for me as I have finals this week and this is really bugging me out and adding uneccessary stress And I’m sorry for all the questions, it’s just that I want to do the right thing and you guys really help out with that

Our obligation is: 1) to not participate in such grave error, and 2) admonish the errant priest gently but with documentation, 3) to inform the bishop if the priest continues, 4) to notify to CDWS if the bishop takes no action to stop it. This is from redemptionis sacramentum, His Emminence Cardinal Arinze’s 2004 admonition to the laity, under mandate by HH John Paul II.

If you can not receive except by participation in that error, go elsewhere or don’t receive. Attending an illicit mass still fulfills the obligation if it is the scheduled mass for your canonical parish.

The errors themselves constitute laity performing roles reserved to those in holy orders; that is a grave error, tho the specific actions themselves are not explicitly grave. (If, for example, the priest and several deacons did so, it would be far less an issue, tho still illicit, because it’s a misapplication of the roles they have.)

HH Benedict XVI has stated that a liturgy celebrated according to the rubrics is our right… as has Cardinal Arinze. But with that right comes a responsibility: to be polite, well informed, and accurate in our complaints, to know the rubrics when we do complain, and to complain to the right people, in the right order, giving the right time for correction.

It also implies strongly a duty upon the clergy to provide such rubrically accurate liturgies, and to accept that, if they did err, they need to correct the error.