Liturgical Abuses

[Marauder]

bob:

If someone grabs your child and runs out of church, would you chase him? Let alone your God?

I really think you are missing the point. The point is that the EMHC is not morally responsable for someone doing something wrong to the Eucharist. If a person is determined to do something wrong, an EMHC can make every attempt to stop them, BUT if the person still does the thing wrong, the EMHC is not the one responsable. You are not responsable for the actions of others. If a person is determined to do something wrong they will.

If a person validly presents themselves for communion then bolts out the door as quick as then can, an EMHC will not be able to catch them. They first have to worry about what could happen to the rest of the hosts in their hand. If the EMHC makes every resonable attempt to stop them, they are not morally responsable for the actions of the person that did the thing wrong.

 

[Marauder]

bob:

Obeying your bishop, your church and avoiding desecrating your God definitely has higher priority to me then obeying an illegal or ilicit order of the pastor don’t you think?

Allowing the desecration of the Holy Eucharist is a sacrilege. That is a greater sin than pride (you can do it discretely to aovid pride) or disobedience. Christ openly told the Pharisees that they were vipers, etc

I think you are getting real confused in the degrees of “desecrating your God”.

Remember that the original topic of this thread is the treatment of a person that is doing self-intinction. This is not listed as a sacrilege. It is not listed even as a grave abuse. A person is not supposed to do it and attempts are supposed to be made to stop it but it is up to the pastor and/or bishop to define what is done in their area.

If your pastor requested you to participate in a Satanic ritual during Mass with the Eucharist you would be required to actively stop it. If your pastor requested you to do something that would make the Mass invalid versus illicit you should try to stop it. Beyond that, you should not be working it out AT Mass, you should be working it out with the pastor and/or Bishop outside of Mass. If you do not agree with a practice that is illicit, you should not actively participate in it (i.e. step down from the position.) Especially when you are in a position that was appointed by the pastor.

Wow, equating stopping someone that is doing self-intinction as desicration is a little overboard.

If a visiting priest, gives the Eucharist to the EMHCs before he receives, do you stand up and an tell him he is doing something wrong, or do you address it after Mass? Same type of situation as above.

 

[buffalo]

RS

[183.] In an altogether particular manner, let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favouritism.

[184.] Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a 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.[290] It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.

CONCLUSION

[185.] “Against the seeds of discord which daily experience shows to be so deeply ingrained in human nature as a result of sin, there stands the creative power of the unity of Christ’s body. For it is precisely by building up the Church that the Eucharist establishes fellowship among men.”[291] It is therefore the hope of this Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments that also, by the diligent application of those things that are recalled in this Instruction, human weakness may come to pose less of an obstacle to the action of the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, and that with all distortion set aside and every reprobated practice removed,[292] through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, “Woman of the Eucharist”, the saving presence of Christ in the Sacrament of his Body and Blood may shine brightly upon all people.

[186.] Let all Christ’s faithful participate in the Most Holy Eucharist as fully, consciously and actively as they can,[293] honouring it lovingly by their devotion and the manner of their life. Let Bishops, Priests and Deacons, in the exercise of the sacred ministry, examine their consciences as regards the authenticity and fidelity of the actions they have performed in the name of Christ and the Church in the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy. Let each one of the sacred ministers ask himself, even with severity, whether he has respected the rights of the lay members of Christ’s faithful, who confidently entrust themselves and their children to him, relying on him to fulfill for the faithful those sacred functions that the Church intends to carry out in celebrating the sacred Liturgy at Christ’s command.[294] For each one should always remember that he is a servant of the Sacred Liturgy.[295]

All things to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Bob is da bomb on this one.

And an emHC isn’t the pastor’s personal assistant, either. The emHC is commissioned by the diocese, not merely appointed by the pastor.

The Church is bound by the same rules. No pastor can alter them to make someone feel more comfortable. Even if it’s at the front of the communion line. If an emHC must cover the chalice to prevent an abuse, that is well within the instruction given in RS! It is her/his duty to do so. If he/she can’t bring herself to protect the Eucharist from abuse, then he/she best not be distributing it.

If a Host becomes too saturated at intinction, it can easily break off and fall to the floor. That’s one of the main reasons so few parishes distribute the Host by intinction. Those that do are encouraged to use a thick wafer to avoid saturation and breakage.

 

[Marauder]

I am amazed that so many people think they have the right to openly disobey a pastor while perfroming appointed positions. If you have an issue take it up with the pastor and/or the bishop. In Mass is not the appropriate place to take up the issue. Especially on something that isn’t listed as a grave abuse.

The proper place to fix this issue is in the form of instruction. Either of the person trying to do the intinction, in the church bulliten or in a homily.

If the pastor in conjunction with the bishop feels it is not appropriate to do the instruction at the altar rail, that is his right and it in no way violates anything.

Like I said before if there is something that may make the Mass invalid, then address it during Mass. If it is only something that makes the Mass illicit, address it after the Mass.

 

[Confiteor]

What a nightmare…sounds like a good argument for eliminating communion under both species and/or EMHC. Having to decide whether to “cause a scene” or “profane the Body and Blood of Christ” shouldn’t be a burden for a lay person. It’s a wonderful way to serve, but I’d find other ways if the pastor doesn’t address this ASAP.

 

[dvalle27]

No wonder I prefer to receive HC from a priest only (when possible) and on the tongue…

Anyways, sorry my ignorance, but I thought intinction was not allowed altogether…

 

[Cathy]

I come from a diocese in which some of the liturgical abuses mentioned in recent Church documents are prevalent. I stepped down as an EMHC as a result. I spoke first to our priest, who said, “I don’t believe in blind obedience,” and then I wrote to our bishop. He very kindly responded and told me he would guide the priests. It’s been over a month, and I see no changes whatsoever.

I’m thinking about attending a Marian shrine outside my diocese where the Church law is more respected.

 

[bob]

Marauder:

I really think you are missing the point. The point is that the EMHC is not morally responsable for someone doing something wrong to the Eucharist… .

Ever heard of the sin of omission?
IF you see a wrongful act and fail to stop it if it is within your power to do so, then you are morally responsible.

An EMHC is responsible for the safety of Christ which he holds in his hands. If Christ is abused and mistreated and he refuses to prevent it or worse, allows it, then he IS MORALLY RESPONSIBLE.

The problem here is people are treating the reception of the Eucharist very lightly - just like getting a piece of candy or burger. IT SHOULD NOT BE.

 

[Cathy]

I’ve been thinking and praying about whether I should go to Sunday Mass at and support another parish in order to escape the frequent liturgical abuses I see at my parish. Then I heard a Protestant speaking on the radio about “church hopping.” Alistair Begg (sp?) referred to what Chuck Colson called the “McChurch” attitude: “Don’t go scurrying around from church to church,” he said. “Perhaps it’s in God’s plan that you be distinctly uncomfortable for a time, so that you may know the comfort He will give.” Though I take what Protestant leaders say with a grain of salt, I believe they often speak wisely.
So now instead of thinking so much about leaving, I’m going to pray for discernment (and charity) about whether to take another step about what appears to me to be liturgical abuses in my parish.

 

[Confiteor]

Cathy:

I’ve been thinking and praying about whether I should go to Sunday Mass at and support another parish in order to escape the frequent liturgical abuses I see at my parish. Then I heard a Protestant speaking on the radio about “church hopping.” Alistair Begg (sp?) referred to what Chuck Colson called the “McChurch” attitude: “Don’t go scurrying around from church to church,” he said. “Perhaps it’s in God’s plan that you be distinctly uncomfortable for a time, so that you may know the comfort He will give.” Though I take what Protestant leaders say with a grain of salt, I believe they often speak wisely.
So now instead of thinking so much about leaving, I’m going to pray for discernment (and charity) about whether to take another step about what appears to me to be liturgical abuses in my parish.

Do discern carefully, but understand that the priest/minister in the church you are considering leaving may not respond unless people: a.) bring the abuse to the attention of the bishop (who may or may not take action) b). vote with their pocketbooks or c) vote with their feet. Note: b and c usually but not always go together. Yes, the Protestant pastors and the Catholic pastors may advise that you should suffer in silence out of love for God. but they should be following the rubrics for the same reason.

 

[bob]

Confiteor:

Do discern carefully, but understand that the priest/minister in the church you are considering leaving may not respond unless people: a.) bring the abuse to the attention of the bishop (who may or may not take action) b). vote with their pocketbooks or c) vote with their feet. Note: b and c usually but not always go together. Yes, the Protestant pastors and the Catholic pastors may advise that you should suffer in silence out of love for God. but they should be following the rubrics for the same reason.

Agree with you on everything…except “vote with pocketbooks”.

Sounds like bribery/simony to me. A very grave sin.

Church should respond to theology not money surely?

 

[bob]

Cathy,

Stay, pray and help correct the abuses.

May God be with you.

 

[Confiteor]

bob:

Agree with you on everything…except “vote with pocketbooks”.

Sounds like bribery/simony to me. A very grave sin.

Church should respond to theology not money surely?

In an ideal world, all pastors and priests would preach the Truth in and out of season, and follow the rubrics. In our world, they often do not. And the one thing that they are sensitive to, is how their behavior affects collections. So when my pastor dealt with all the moral issues in the election seasons with silence (and his associate with dissenting sermons), I dealt with it by directing my support of the Church to parishes and other organizations that spoke out in accord with the teachings of the Church. I didn’t consider that a bribe. Does that seem wrong? In the past, I have provided feedback in other ways, but all they seem to care about is not offending parishioners with the teaching of the Church.

 

[bob]

Confiteor:

In an ideal world, all pastors and priests would preach the Truth in and out of season, and follow the rubrics. In our world, they often do not. And the one thing that they are sensitive to, is how their behavior affects collections. So when my pastor dealt with all the moral issues in the election seasons with silence (and his associate with dissenting sermons), I dealt with it by directing my support of the Church to parishes and other organizations that spoke out in accord with the teachings of the Church. I didn’t consider that a bribe. Does that seem wrong? In the past, I have provided feedback in other ways, but all they seem to care about is not offending parishioners with the teaching of the Church.

You’re probably right about the real world.

Personally, I have not experienced or seen pastors who have been affected by their collections. How can they know what is affecting their contributions, if the parishioners do not speak up?

I always thought that such “monetary theology” is in non-Catholic Christian churches where the pastors are employed by the parishioners. One bad sermon and you’re out!

Still, I am very uncomfortable with “guiding the priests” with my money. Just does not sound right.

Anyway holding out on contributions affects the whole parish - building funds, programs for the parishioners, the poor, the sick, Catholic education, etc. The money does not go directly into his pocket surely?

 

[Confiteor]

bob:

You’re probably right about the real world.

Personally, I have not experienced or seen pastors who have been affected by their collections. How can they know what is affecting their contributions, if the parishioners do not speak up?

I always thought that such “monetary theology” is in non-Catholic Christian churches where the pastors are employed by the parishioners. One bad sermon and you’re out!

Still, I am very uncomfortable with “guiding the priests” with my money. Just does not sound right.

Anyway holding out on contributions affects the whole parish - building funds, programs for the parishioners, the poor, the sick, Catholic education, etc. The money does not go directly into his pocket surely?

Yes, it does affect the whole parish, but if it isn’t a very orthodox parish, maybe I’d rather directly support organizations that are However, I do think trends in collections may be taken into account in how the bishops view pastor’s “performance” and opportunities for future assignments and that may be why so may soft pedal the Church’s hard teachings.

As far the individual pastor’s responsiveness, it probably depends on the person. Years ago, we had sent a thank you note and fairly substantial donation to our parish addressed to the pastor. Month after month went by until the check was nearly uncollectible. He never opened it until he found out a check was inside. This wasn’t a complaint letter, just a kind of thank you. If people do have concerns, they should probably deliver them in person if they want to be sure they get heard just in case they have a pastor who doesn’t open his mail!!

I’d like to think that money does not matter in the Church, but it does since without it, few good works could happen. This is another areas, but, sadly, if it were not for the expensive lawsuits, I don’t think the US bishops would have acted on the clergy sexual abuse crisis. Even now, they are often legalistic about it, more worried about addressing the audit points than really fixing what’s gone wrong.