Is passing the Eucharist around bad?

[MarkThompson]

Having also read this document although awhile back, I agree that it’s not in there as a direct quote.

It’s part of the “spirit of Redemptionis Sacramentum,” is that what you’re saying? I’ll have to remember that one.

However implicitly it may be? The advise is sound. Rather than participate in a sinful act; known to b a sinful act; one should chose not to participate. If i means going elsewhere, then that frind is what God is asking of you.

Love and prayers,

No, I still think it’s bad advice. Taking Communion after, for instance, the Fraction was illicitly assisted by EMHCs is not “participation in a sinful act.” The act is over and done, with absolutely no participation from PCG2, what remains is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. If you forgo Holy Communion because rubrics were violated, you’re in danger of ignoring the divinity of the Eucharist or (what seems more likely here) fetishizing and idolizing the rubrics. Sorry, but I can’t imagine anything more pathetic (which I mean in the literal sense) than someone who refused the Body of Christ because a layman had broken it, or turned up his nose at the Precious Blood because it was offered in a glass chalice. Talk about having your priorities backwards.

 

[PJM]

=MarkThompson;6751649]It’s part of the “spirit of Redemptionis Sacramentum,” is that what you’re saying? I’ll have to remember that one.

No, I still think it’s bad advice. Taking Communion after, for instance, the Fraction was illicitly assisted by EMHCs is not “participation in a sinful act.” The act is over and done, with absolutely no participation from PCG2, what remains is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. If you forgo Holy Communion because rubrics were violated, you’re in danger of ignoring the divinity of the Eucharist or (what seems more likely here) fetishizing and idolizing the rubrics. Sorry, but I can’t imagine anything more pathetic (which I mean in the literal sense) than someone who refused the Body of Christ because a layman had broken it, or turned up his nose at the Precious Blood because it was offered in a glass chalice. Talk about having your priorities backwards.

Mark my friend, that is why God gives us a mind, intellect and freewill. If your comfortable with your position. then as it is “just an invalid practice” go for it. My conscience would not permit me to do so.

 

[revert_jen]

Thank you so much Jen for taking the time out of your day to answer these questions of mine You have no idea how much what you wrote helped to bring back a sense of peace and hope in my heart. I would have been so lost on what to do had it not been for the assistance of you, benedictgal, mark and others. Rest assured that you will be in my prayers God bless you!

God bless you for persevering! I think we all sometimes feel that disquiet and worry that all we can do won’t be enough or our best efforts won’t be enough. I’m glad if I’ve helped you!

–Jen

 

[pcg2]

It’s part of the “spirit of Redemptionis Sacramentum,” is that what you’re saying? I’ll have to remember that one.

No, I still think it’s bad advice. Taking Communion after, for instance, the Fraction was illicitly assisted by EMHCs is not “participation in a sinful act.” The act is over and done, with absolutely no participation from PCG2, what remains is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. If you forgo Holy Communion because rubrics were violated, you’re in danger of ignoring the divinity of the Eucharist or (what seems more likely here) fetishizing and idolizing the rubrics. Sorry, but I can’t imagine anything more pathetic (which I mean in the literal sense) than someone who refused the Body of Christ because a layman had broken it, or turned up his nose at the Precious Blood because it was offered in a glass chalice. Talk about having your priorities backwards.

This is exactly how I felt, I just couldn’t put it into words lol. Very well done, Mark

 

[pcg2]

So one last questions, guys. After I talked to the priests at my Catholic center, I sort of implied that I wouldn’t contact the bishop until we had that “meeting” in September. Now, I never said that I wasn’t going to contact the bishop, it’s just that I implied that I would at least wait until September once I had attended that liturgy meeting. So basically, sending the letter to the bishop would kind of blindside the priests at my Catholic center, since I’m sure they are not expecting it.

Isn’t this kind of “backstabbing” them? Implying (not directly) that I wouldn’t send a letter but then doing it anyways? Or do you think I’m just scrupling over things and that I shouldn’t worry about what they may think?

Thanks

 

[benedictgal]

So one last questions, guys. After I talked to the priests at my Catholic center, I sort of implied that I wouldn’t contact the bishop until we had that “meeting” in September. Now, I never said that I wasn’t going to contact the bishop, it’s just that I implied that I would at least wait until September once I had attended that liturgy meeting. So basically, sending the letter to the bishop would kind of blindside the priests at my Catholic center, since I’m sure they are not expecting it.

Isn’t this kind of “backstabbing” them? Implying (not directly) that I wouldn’t send a letter but then doing it anyways? Or do you think I’m just scrupling over things and that I shouldn’t worry about what they may think?

Thanks

No, it’s not backstabbing. If anything, in my opinion, by willfully engaging in these gravely ilicit practices, the Catholic Center is the one that is backstabbing the norms and rubrics laid down by the Church. You’ve given the Catholic Center a chance to explain itself. Now, they must answer to the Archdiocese.

In my opinion, waiting until September is wrong. They are merely perpetuating a gravely ilicit liturgical practice. This needed to stop yesterday. If I were you, I would go ahead and send the letter.

 

[DeepeningFaith]

No, it’s not backstabbing. If anything, in my opinion, by willfully engaging in these gravely ilicit practices, the Catholic Center is the one that is backstabbing the norms and rubrics laid down by the Church. You’ve given the Catholic Center a chance to explain itself. Now, they must answer to the Archdiocese.

In my opinion, waiting until September is wrong. They are merely perpetuating a gravely ilicit liturgical practice. This needed to stop yesterday. If I were you, I would go ahead and send the letter.

Fully agree!!! And place in the letter that the Priest is intending to not even look into the issue til September. A Liturgy Committee is a none voting body. The Priest is responsible for making sure that the rubrics are followed for all Sacraments!

Pax!

 

[pcg2]

I want to make sure that I know what exactly is going on at these masses that is illicit, since I’m not sure exactly what I saw last Sunday. That way when I talk with the pastor I don’t end up looking rude (and like a fool) by accusing the priests of doing something they aren’t really doing… that would be unfair to the pastor and embarrasing

Unfortunately, I am going to be out of town this weekend and therefore won’t be able to go to mass at this parish this weekend, and will have to wait until next Sunday to see what exactly is going on… Do you guys think that it’s okay that I wait until then, or would it be sinful if I waited that long? Does it need to be done ASAP? Or is it more prudent that I wait and make sure to find out what’s going on exactly?

 

[Aramis]

No, it’s not backstabbing. If anything, in my opinion, by willfully engaging in these gravely ilicit practices, the Catholic Center is the one that is backstabbing the norms and rubrics laid down by the Church. You’ve given the Catholic Center a chance to explain itself. Now, they must answer to the Archdiocese.

In my opinion, waiting until September is wrong. They are merely perpetuating a gravely ilicit liturgical practice. This needed to stop yesterday. If I were you, I would go ahead and send the letter.

I, too, agree on this.

 

[MarkThompson]

Unfortunately, I am going to be out of town this weekend and therefore won’t be able to go to mass at this parish this weekend, and will have to wait until next Sunday to see what exactly is going on… :

Your priorities are a little backwards on that one, PCG. You are not a Mass Investigator. It’s not “unfortunate” if you don’t get to scope out the extent of possible abuses at any given Mass. If anything, it’s fortunate for your sake that you won’t be there. Please take that to heart.

Also, if you’re not familiar with the concept of supererogatory acts, Wikipedia actually does a fairly good job of explaining it. Investigating problems that have nothing directly to do with you, complaining to priests, writing to bishops, all of that stuff, are supererogatory acts.

 

[pcg2]

Your priorities are a little backwards on that one, PCG. You are not a Mass Investigator. It’s not “unfortunate” if you don’t get to scope out the extent of possible abuses at any given Mass. If anything, it’s fortunate for your sake that you won’t be there. Please take that to heart.

Also, if you’re not familiar with the concept of supererogatory acts, Wikipedia actually does a fairly good job of explaining it. Investigating problems that have nothing directly to do with you, complaining to priests, writing to bishops, all of that stuff, are supererogatory acts.

Wait a minute. So reporting these abuses is considered a supererogatory act?

 

[MarkThompson]

Wait a minute. So reporting these abuses is considered a supererogatory act?

You have no moral duty to go to your parish to investigate and report on its liturgy. It’s questionable whether, if you see an abuse, you have any moral duty to do anything about it. Sacrilege, probably; using the wrong color vestments, um, probably not.

So how does that square with the directive in Redemptionis Sacramentum that “all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one”? RS breaks abuses down into several levels of severity, but it does not say that your “duty to correct” is any different for the most trifling error as for the most grave sacrilege. And how would we really treat a “most serious duty” if we took it “most seriously”? Call the police? Physically stop the priest from doing what he was going to do, even at legal peril of an assault charge for ourselves? Personally go to the diocesan chancery and demand to see the bishop, waiting outside the door if we are rebuffed to catch him as he passes by, waiting perhaps for days to speak to him? Now remember that RS contains directives like, “The alb is to be tied at the waist with a cincture unless it is made so as to fit even without a cincture.”

No, we treat the instruction with common sense. In that light, the next paragraph makes sense: “Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse.” It would not be necessary to say that we have a right to lodge complaints if we had a duty to lodge complaints. As a general rule, a right is something you may not be prevented from doing. It empowers you – and Redemptionis Sacramentum was intended to empower you. It is not a burden; it is not a checklist you must carry to every Mass so that you know what you must report.

Do not participate in practices like passing the Eucharist around; do not condone errors by, for instance, saying to the priest, “Father, I love your glass chalice!” Beyond that, you are doing the Church a favor by identifying errors and bringing them to Her attention, but you’re doing spiritual damage to yourself if you’re forgoing the Eucharist because of other people’s conduct, so focused on the rubrics that it prevents you from appreciating and participating spiritually in the Mass. I’m like you. I notice mistakes, in church just like I do on menus. Here’s some life wisdom: if you take a girl on a date and see a mistake on the menu, just keep your mouth shut. In a similar way, if at Mass I’m afraid that the priest is going to bow rather than genuflect at the consecrations, I close my eyes. What am I going to do, write to Cardinal George? I’d rather think on the Holy Sacrifice.

That’s just me, I guess. Just remember that the purpose of Redemptionis Sacramentum was to give people the power to effect change, by giving them the right to complain and be heard – not to burden them with the moral onus of investigating Masses and reporting on them to the proper authorities.

 

[revert_jen]

“Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse.” It would not be necessary to say that we have a right to lodge complaints if we had a duty to lodge complaints.

If we look at that in context, it continues, “… liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.”

Given the rest of the contents of the instruction, it seems we each have a duty to make the report to the Pastor, and the right to take it further. In the case of what was happening at the University, since the abuse prevented participation in Mass without physical participation in the abuse, I think the duty to take the report further is implied, and certainly it is required if one wants to continue to attend the Mass in question.

In the current instance, it may be superogatory to report the abuse to the Pastor, but I wouldn’t like to bet on it. It is more likely to be superogatory to report it to the Bishop, should it ever get that far. I think you could stop short of going to the Bishop if it were burdensome, but you are doing a service to your fellow parishioners and the Church as a whole by reporting it to the (Arch)Bishop as well.

So how does that square with the directive in Redemptionis Sacramentum that “all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one”? …] And how would we really treat a “most serious duty” if we took it “most seriously”? Call the police? Physically stop the priest from doing what he was going to do, even at legal peril of an assault charge for ourselves? Personally go to the diocesan chancery and demand to see the bishop…]

Sorry to respond to bits of your post out of order but it made more sense to me that way.

It is important to distinguish between taking something seriously and treating it as an emergency. Taking it seriously means following through on the report until the correction is made. Treating it as an emergency would mean camping out in the Bishop’s office etc. RS doesn’t say that the abuses constitute an emergency.

Do not participate in practices like passing the Eucharist around; do not condone errors by, for instance, saying to the priest, “Father, I love your glass chalice!” Beyond that, you are doing the Church a favor by identifying errors and bringing them to Her attention, but you’re doing spiritual damage to yourself if you’re forgoing the Eucharist because of other people’s conduct, so focused on the rubrics that it prevents you from appreciating and participating spiritually in the Mass.

I agree with all of that, except that, as mentioned above, I’m not sure you are always “doing the Church a favor” in the sense that you don’t have to do it, although you are always “doing the Church a favor” in the sense that you are doing something that is for the good of the Church. Aside from cases in which the consecration is actually invalid (and this is actually something it is very hard to do requiring for example, bread made without wheat or the priest not saying, in any form of words, “This is my body” or of course someone acting as a priest who has not been ordained) I agree with those that say the great spiritual benefit of receiving Christ in the Most Holy Eucharist should not be foregone on account of another’s carelessness or even sin. If receiving requires participation in the abuse (like passing around the ciborium) then one must regretfully decline to receive, but in other cases, the fact that Jesus is there in the sarament is more important than whatever things were done wrong at the Mass.

I’m like you. I notice mistakes, in church just like I do on menus. Here’s some life wisdom: if you take a girl on a date and see a mistake on the menu, just keep your mouth shut.

There is no moral obligation whatsoever to point out errors on menus.

In a similar way, if at Mass I’m afraid that the priest is going to bow rather than genuflect at the consecrations, I close my eyes. What am I going to do, write to Cardinal George? I’d rather think on the Holy Sacrifice.

Well, for that particular point, I generally assume that if the priest bows instead of genuflects, it is because of some physical condition that is none of my business. I also notice things like typos in novels as well as things not done correctly at the Mass (when they ever happen, which at my curent parish they don’t.) Don’t you think the ability (gift of God) to notice abuses in the Mass (unlike typos) carries with it an attendant responsibility?

That’s just me, I guess. Just remember that the purpose of Redemptionis Sacramentum was to give people the power to effect change, by giving them the right to complain and be heard – not to burden them with the moral onus of investigating Masses and reporting on them to the proper authorities.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that it is necessary to seek out abuses. In fact, I personally spoke to the contrary in an earlier post. But that is not, as far as I can tell, what pcg2 is talking about. He saw a practice that he knew to be an abuse. However, before talking with the Pastor about it, he wants to fix in his mind exactly what he saw, and also make sure that it wasn’t just a one-off practice. The matter in question includes at least one abuse that RS calls grave matter (pouring the Precious Blood from one container to another). I can see thinking it is unfortunate to have to wait another week, because once one has seen something like this, one would probably like to get the reporting part over with.

–Jen

 

[revert_jen]

Given the rest of the contents of the instruction, it seems we each have a duty to make the report to the Pastor, and the right to take it further. In the case of what was happening at the University, since the abuse prevented participation in Mass without physical participation in the abuse, I think the duty to take the report further is implied, and certainly it is required if one wants to continue to attend the Mass in question.

HOWEVER, I have to say this as well. My opinions about what is required are my opinions based on reading the documents and applying logic to them. The idea that the Catholic Church has a set answer to every moral question, which is set out clearly in documents, is a Protestant misconception, not a Catholic idea. There are many questions that are not settled in such a definitive manner. Some of the documents of Vatican II (e.g. Gaudium et Spes) talk about the importance of the individual conscience. This did NOT mean, as many unfortunately took it to mean, that one can decide whether to obey the set rules of the Church depending on whether they “feel right.” Such rules must be followed always. What it means is that for each of us, there arise moral situations where the answer is not set, and a properly informed conscience, strengthened by prayer, can be our only good guide. There are times when works which may be superogatory in others are actually required of us by our consciences. There are also moral decisions, including the exact degree of duty in the current matter, which one can only make for oneself. I provide advice based on my own conscience, but it is of course not infallible even for me, much less for anyone else. I believe my judgement to be correct of course (who doesn’t believe their own judgement to be correct? ), but pcg2 has to make his own decision in the end, guided by prayer, as to what would be best for him to do. I’m sorry that I didn’t make this clear sooner–it’s one of those things I take for granted in my own head, so I don’t remember to say anything about it.

–Jen

 

[MarkThompson]

Jen, your points all make sense. What troubles me for PCG’s sake is that he doesn’t come saying, “I saw this at Mass, what should I do,” he comes saying, “I saw this at Mass and didn’t complain to the priest or write to the bishop, how many mortal sins did I commit?”

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

When the Apostolic See or the Magisterium of the Church wants to create a binding moral obligation, on pain of sin, to report liturgical abuses, it’ll do so with more than the awkward and fundamentally vague language of Redemptionis Sacramentum. PCG should focus on his worship at the Mass, and work to cut down on over-scrupulosity.*

 

[benedictgal]

Jen, your points all make sense. What troubles me for PCG’s sake is that he doesn’t come saying, “I saw this at Mass, what should I do,” he comes saying, “I saw this at Mass and didn’t complain to the priest or write to the bishop, how many mortal sins did I commit?”

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

When the Apostolic See or the Magisterium of the Church wants to create a binding moral obligation, on pain of sin, to report liturgical abuses, it’ll do so with more than the awkward and fundamentally vague language of Redemptionis Sacramentum. PCG should focus on his worship at the Mass, and work to cut down on over-scrupulosity.

However, I do not think that you should take what happened at Mass lightly. The offending parties were the priests and the EMHCs, not pcg. If I know that something is wrong, I have a moral obligation to report it, even if I have to go all the way up to the CDWDS. Liturgical abuse is not something that is to be taken lightly. Evidently, the Holy See does not take it lightly or else the CDWDS would not have written RS and Pope John Paul II (who actually called for such a document in the first place) would not have promulgated it.

 

[MarkThompson]

If I know that something is wrong, I have a moral obligation to report it, even if I have to go all the way up to the CDWDS.

That’s a manifestly incorrect statement, BG. Please see my comment above about alb cinctures, which are regulated by RS. If you want to take a complaint about albs to the Holy See, be my guest, but it’s confusing to readers like PCG when statements like this are thoughtlessly made without consideration or specification.

 

[benedictgal]

That’s a manifestly incorrect statement, BG. Please see my comment above about alb cinctures, which are regulated by RS. If you want to take a complaint about albs to the Holy See, be my guest, but it’s confusing to readers like PCG when statements like this are thoughtlessly made without consideration or specification.

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

For my part I have witnessed:

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

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

 

[PJM]

=pcg2;6753666]I want to make sure that I know what exactly is going on at these masses that is illicit, since I’m not sure exactly what I saw last Sunday. That way when I talk with the pastor I don’t end up looking rude (and like a fool) by accusing the priests of doing something they aren’t really doing… that would be unfair to the pastor and embarrasing

Unfortunately, I am going to be out of town this weekend and therefore won’t be able to go to mass at this parish this weekend, and will have to wait until next Sunday to see what exactly is going on… Do you guys think that it’s okay that I wait until then, or would it be sinful if I waited that long? Does it need to be done ASAP? Or is it more prudent that I wait and make sure to find out what’s going on exactly?

Prudence is the better part of valor. Your motive is good; NO SIN!

It is far better to be sure first:thumbsup:

 

[MarkThompson]

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

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

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

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