Is passing the Eucharist around bad?

[zab]

By ignoring the black-letter obligations RS puts on the faithful.

By easing the mind of a confused college student who fears that he has committed a mortal sin because he received Holy Communion at a Mass where liturgical abuses occur. And he has expressed that he is getting pretty disillusioned with the Catholic Church because of the pressures some have placed on him to report the errors of others implying that he would be guilty of mortal sin if he doesn’t!

 

[Aramis]

The CDWS demands we do all in our power to stop the grave abuses.

Not reporting these errors at least to the bishop is enabling others to commit sins as part of the Mass.

Allowing others to sin is not a sin in and of itself unless an obligation is imposed by competent authority; the CDWS is such an authority when it comes to celebration of the mass. The wording of RS is such that, while it doesn’t state what level of sin, it does make it clear that one has an obligation to report; failing to meet ones obligations to the church is a sin.

So, if the OP knows it is wrong, and fails to report it to the proper authority, they have sinned.

Whether that is a mortal sin or not would depend upon their level of participation; if they actively participated in or encouraged the grave errors, those would be mortal sins.

Telling someone “its okay not to report it” is both erroneous and unjust. It is encouragement to sin.

 

[benedictgal]

The CDWS demands we do all in our power to stop the grave abuses.

Not reporting these errors at least to the bishop is enabling others to commit sins as part of the Mass.

Allowing others to sin is not a sin in and of itself unless an obligation is imposed by competent authority; the CDWS is such an authority when it comes to celebration of the mass. The wording of RS is such that, while it doesn’t state what level of sin, it does make it clear that one has an obligation to report; failing to meet ones obligations to the church is a sin.

So, if the OP knows it is wrong, and fails to report it to the proper authority, they have sinned.

Whether that is a mortal sin or not would depend upon their level of participation; if they actively participated in or encouraged the grave errors, those would be mortal sins.

Telling someone “its okay not to report it” is both erroneous and unjust. It is encouragement to sin.

I could not agree with you more. If the issue of liturgical abuse weren’t so serious, why would the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments explicitly state that the faithful have a right to a properly celebrated Mass and that they had the right of recourse to the Holy See when abuses occur?

In my opinion, silence, insofar as abuse is concerned, is the equivalent of ascent.

 

[MarkThompson]

The CDWS demands we do all in our power to stop the grave abuses.

That’s a fabrication, Aramis. It says to do all in your power to stop any and all abuses. You’d like to ignore that and pretend it said something else to avoid exposing the weaknesses in your logic, that’s all.

I could not agree with you more. If the issue of liturgical abuse weren’t so serious, why would the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments explicitly state that the faithful have a right to a properly celebrated Mass and that they had the right of recourse to the Holy See when abuses occur?

A right is something that exists for the benefit of the the right-holder, and can be exercised or waived as he or she pleases. The right to do X most certainly does not imply the obligation to do X.

 

[benedictgal]

That’s a fabrication, Aramis. It says to do all in your power to stop any and all abuses. You’d like to ignore that and pretend it said something else to avoid exposing the weaknesses in your logic, that’s all.

A right is something that exists for the benefit of the the right-holder, and can be exercised or waived as he or she pleases. The right to do X most certainly does not imply the obligation to do X.

With all due respect Mark, you are wrong on both counts. Perhaps you don’t take matters of abuse seriously. Inasmuch as I realize I cannot make that judgment call, that attitude seems to pervade in your posts. If the Vatican did not take liturgical abuse seriously, why did the Holy See issue RS in the first place? You have yet to answer that question.

Abuse cannot and should not be ignored. Abuse is detrimental to the integrity of the liturgy. I, for one, am not going to keep my head in the sand, nor am I going to look the other way and pretend stuff does not happen. Now that the OP knows that what he wtinessed is an abuse and totally unacceptable, he has the moral obligation to inform the necessary parties (which he is already doing). He should not be discouraged, nor deterred from doing so, since RS specifically states that it needs to be done.

 

[MarkThompson]

With all due respect Mark, you are wrong on both counts. Perhaps you don’t take matters of abuse seriously. Inasmuch as I realize I cannot make that judgment call, that attitude seems to pervade in your posts. If the Vatican did not take liturgical abuse seriously, why did the Holy See issue RS in the first place? You have yet to answer that question.

Abuse cannot and should not be ignored. Abuse is detrimental to the integrity of the liturgy. I, for one, am not going to keep my head in the sand, nor am I going to look the other way and pretend stuff does not happen. Now that the OP knows that what he wtinessed is an abuse and totally unacceptable, he has the moral obligation to inform the necessary parties (which he is already doing). He should not be discouraged, nor deterred from doing so, since RS specifically states that it needs to be done.

Well, your view is one possible interpretation of RS. I don’t see anywhere that it says the “obligation” of the faithful is a moral one or binding on pain of sin, and I haven’t been shown anywhere that your view has been adopted or expressed by other Church officials or documents.

What I do take seriously is when someone comes on here and says, “Mass is going to be horrible if I have to complain and write to bishops every time I see anything wrong and police everything under penalty of sin for myself; and I can’t receive the Eucharist; and I’m getting disillusioned with the whole thing; what can I do, can’t I just enjoy Mass, this will make it intolerable.” Your response has basically been, “Yeah, sucks to be you, dude.”

I do not think that is what the drafters of Redemptionis Sacramentum had in mind. And they haven’t said it was either.

 

[Aramis]

Mark:

the CCC lists the following for venial sin:
1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6C.HTM

Our obligations are part of moral law, as evidenced by the following section of the CCC:
THE MORAL LAW

1950 The moral law is the work of divine Wisdom. Its biblical meaning can be defined as fatherly instruction, God’s pedagogy. It prescribes for man the ways, the rules of conduct that lead to the promised beatitude; it proscribes the ways of evil which turn him away from God and his love. It is at once firm in its precepts and, in its promises, worthy of love.

1951 Law is a rule of conduct enacted by competent authority for the sake of the common good. the moral law presupposes the rational order, established among creatures for their good and to serve their final end, by the power, wisdom, and goodness of the Creator. All law finds its first and ultimate truth in the eternal law. Law is declared and established by reason as a participation in the providence of the living God, Creator and Redeemer of all. "Such an ordinance of reason is what one calls law."2

Alone among all animate beings, man can boast of having been counted worthy to receive a law from God: as an animal endowed with reason, capable of understanding and discernment, he is to govern his conduct by using his freedom and reason, in obedience to the One who has entrusted everything to him.3

1952 There are different expressions of the moral law, all of them interrelated: eternal law - the source, in God, of all law; natural law; revealed law, comprising the Old Law and the New Law, or Law of the Gospel;** finally, civil and ecclesiastical laws**.

1953 The moral law finds its fullness and its unity in Christ. Jesus Christ is in person the way of perfection. He is the end of the law, for only he teaches and bestows the justice of God: "For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified."4vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6T.HTM
Bolding mine.

From the Compendium of the CCC:
in the section on the Commandment to “Remember the Sabbath and Keep it Holy.”
453. How does one keep Sunday holy?

2177-2185
2192-2193

Christians keep Sunday and other days of obligation holy by participating in the Eucharist of the Lord and by refraining from those activities which impede the worship of God and disturb the joy proper to the day of the Lord or the necessary relaxation of mind and body. Activities are allowed on the Sabbath which are bound up with family needs or with important social service, provided that they do not lead to habits prejudicial to the holiness of Sunday, to family life and to health.
vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html#Gods%20Salvation:%20Law%20and%20Grace

Participating in abuses of, or failing to defend, the Liturgy, the public act of worship, is a clear violation of the third commandment, in its own right. All violations of the decalogue are sins.

 

[MarkThompson]

You have not, however, shown that the alleged obligation of ¶ 183 upon the faithful has the force of ecclesiastical law; nor that, if so, it requires people to take any particular steps; nor, even then, that this would be an ecclesiastical law of moral import. It would have been really big news if the Holy See had declared it to be a sin for all Catholics not to complain about any rubrical violation they saw at Mass. Do you notice how no one reported it that way, and no one else has been propounding these notions? That’s because your view is an illogical minority position.

And I regret to say that your claim about Third Commandment, implying that somehow the Law given to Moses on Mt. Sinai forbids not sending letters to bishops and the CDWDS about various abuses, borders on self-parody. I actually thought you were kidding at first.

 

[zab]

It is a sin to attempt to kill the good character of another.

 

[benedictgal]

You have not, however, shown that the alleged obligation of ¶ 183 upon the faithful has the force of ecclesiastical law; nor that, if so, it requires people to take any particular steps; nor, even then, that this would be an ecclesiastical law of moral import. It would have been really big news if the Holy See had declared it to be a sin for all Catholics not to complain about any rubrical violation they saw at Mass. Do you notice how no one reported it that way, and no one else has been propounding these notions? That’s because your view is an illogical minority position.

And I regret to say that your claim about Third Commandment, implying that somehow the Law given to Moses on Mt. Sinai forbids not sending letters to bishops and the CDWDS about various abuses, borders on self-parody. I actually thought you were kidding at first.

Mark, we’ve already given you enough citations. It seems to me, with all due respect, that you do not take the issue of liturgical abuse seriously. If Redemptionis Sacramentum makes the explicit statement (and it does) that the laity should get involved where liturigcal use is concerned, what is the problem?

If you are advocating that the OP and the rest of us who are in similar situations should just turn a blind eye to whatever goes on in front of us, that is a sad position to take. When we know that something is wrong, we have a moral obligation to address the issue. If I know that my best friend is out drinking and he wants to drive home, I have a moral obligation to take the keys from him and either drive him home or call a cab. It’s the same principle with the Mass. If I know that the rubrics are being violated, I need to address it and then follow the proper procedures. Taking your position would mean ignoring things. As I said earlier, silence equals ascent.

 

[MarkThompson]

Mark, we’ve already given you enough citations. It seems to me, with all due respect, that you do not take the issue of liturgical abuse seriously.

Right, that’s why I drafted a whole letter for PCG to Cardinal Mahony like eight pages back.

If Redemptionis Sacramentum makes the explicit statement (and it does) that the laity should get involved where liturigcal use is concerned, what is the problem?

The problem is these wild claims that if you don’t write letters to bishops and to Rome about every abuse (e.g., “we are obliged to report every abuse [to] the CDW[D]S”) it’s definitely sinful.

If you are advocating that the OP and the rest of us who are in similar situations should just turn a blind eye to whatever goes on in front of us, that is a sad position to take.

Yeah, right, I don’t care; that’s why I urged him at the beginning of this thread to talk to the priests, write a letter to the Cardinal, and everything else. Look, I haven’t seen you show one whit of concern for the OP’s feelings or his frustration at being told that he is supposed to police the Mass and that if he doesn’t he’s just a big fat sinner.

Taking your position would mean ignoring things. As I said earlier, silence equals ass]ent.

Taking my position would mean that a person could feel free, as the 99% of Catholics who have never heard of Redemptionis Sacramentum do, to go to Mass every once in a while knowing he was not under a moral duty to compile a list of all liturgical goofs and then argue and pursue them to the halls of the Vatican if necessary.

 

[benedictgal]

Right, that’s why I drafted a whole letter for PCG to Cardinal Mahony like eight pages back.

The problem is these wild claims that if you don’t write letters to bishops and to Rome about every abuse (e.g., “we are obliged to report every abuse [to] the CDW[D]S”) it’s definitely sinful.

Yeah, right, I don’t care; that’s why I urged him at the beginning of this thread to talk to the priests, write a letter to the Cardinal, and everything else. Look, I haven’t seen you show one whit of concern for the OP’s feelings or his frustration at being told that he is supposed to police the Mass and that if he doesn’t he’s just a big fat sinner.

Taking my position would mean that a person could feel free, as the 99% of Catholics who have never heard of Redemptionis Sacramentum do, to go to Mass every once in a while knowing he was not under a moral duty to compile a list of all liturgical goofs and then argue and pursue them to the halls of the Vatican if necessary.

Please do not start accusing me of not caring about th OP. Inasmuch as you did help write the letter, that still, in my opinion, seems to me as though you aren’t taking RS seriously. I never told the OP that he was a big fat sinner. Adding words to my posts is uncharitable because I never said that.

What I have been saying is that now that the OP knows it’s wrong, he should not be deterred by others from doing the right thing. RS enjoins on us to study the liturgy, believe it or not. You can’t love what you don’t really know. Not a few people view Sunday Mass as their obligatory visit to their parishes and assist at the liturgy so as to fulfill the precept of the Church. The Mass is more than that. It is our greatest prayer. Thus, it falls on all of us, clergy and laity alike, to do what we can to safeguard the integrity of the Holy Sacrifice. All of us have to do our part, from the person in the pews to the celebrant at the altar.

 

[zab]

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.