Liturgy abuses

[otjm]

I’m guessing it’s because they’ve been desensitized as to the gravity.

You are assuming that most people have read the document; most people are not even aware it exists.

 

[InThePew]

1. As the Communion procession was ending, the Blood being distributed by EMHC were brought to the “prep” area (where all the instruments/tools used in Communion are stationed before Mass) and the Blood was poured into one chalice and then left there. It remained there until after the Mass was completed, and a group of parishioners, including several of the EMHC, gathered in a prayer circle. They then proceeded to pass around the chalice and they drank until it was completely gone and then the chalice was taken to be cleaned. I was simply stunned and waited to make sure that the Blood was properly disposed of and witnessed this. I know this is an egregious liturgical abuse since Christ is not being properly reposed of. Where in the GIRM does it address this?

GIRM 279: The sacred vessels are purified by the priest, the deacon, or an instituted acolyte after Communion or after Mass, insofar as possible at the credence table.

Okay so the problem here is that the vessels were purified by the EMHC and not the priest - something which is still a common practise in my experience. Note however, that the GIRM also states that whatever may remain of the Blood of Christ after the distribution of Communion is consumed immediately and completely at the altar. although part of the same paragraph, this is separate from the instruction on purification since the GIRM would obviously envisage that the precious blood would be consumed by the EMHCs distributing it rather than all of it having to be consumed by the celebrant. As an aside, it is not at all uncommon to have a fair amount of precious blood left over since the amounts are notoriously hard to estimate.

1. EMHC were grabbing the chalices and ciboriums from the altar after they had been given Communion.

GIRM 162:* Extraordinary ministers should not approach the altar before the priest has received Communion, and they are always to receive from the hands of the priest celebrant the vessel containing either species of the Most Holy Eucharist for distribution to the faithful.*

Again something of a common practise to not do this - if anything, this particular instruction is probably not widely known. That said, it’s far from the most egregious breach. What Redemptionis Sacramentum was referring to is very different - where the hosts and / or chalice is passed amongst the EMHCs (or even communicants) for them to receive from and consume individually or together (been there, seen that )

1. The gifts were brought up to the altar by the gift bearers who lifted them up (maybe said a quiet prayer, couldn’t tell), and then put them on the altar. After this had been done the priest then came up to the altar and the gifts. He did not receive them from the gift-bearers.

GIRM 73: * It is praiseworthy for the bread and wine to be presented by the faithful. They are then accepted at an appropriate place by the priest or the deacon and carried to the altar. *

Again this doesn’t conform to the GIRM but is far from being a serious breach. An “appropriate place” can (within reason) be almost anywhere so, for example, the priest or deacon could accept them in front of the altar or, at a push, even right next to it. The wording of the GIRM is probably intended to reflect the idea of an offering being seen to be accepted - as opposed to just being left which doesn’t quite carry the same visual symbolism.

On a more general note, and meaning no criticism of the OP, the term “abuse” tends to be flung around quite a bit and often describes things which, while they are departures from the GIRM or rubrics, aren’t all that serious and are hardly likely to cause people to fall away from themselves. Granted, the GRIM and rubrics are there for a reason and liturgy should be celebrated with reverence, respect and care but, that said, departures from the norm do need to be kept in perspective.**

 

[Cat]

Need some help in finding citation sources and confirmation from those more knowledgable. I went to another parish a couple weeks ago and saw multiple abuses in the liturgy and need to write a letter to the Bishop about it so it can get corrected.

I would great appreciate help in references to the GIRM or other Church document so I can fully cite my letter. (or if I’m wrong and some aren’t abuses, I want to make sure I correct it before sending).

Here are the abuses I saw:

1. As the Communion procession was ending, the Blood being distributed by EMHC were brought to the “prep” area (where all the instruments/tools used in Communion are stationed before Mass) and the Blood was poured into one chalice and then left there. It remained there until after the Mass was completed, and a group of parishioners, including several of the EMHC, gathered in a prayer circle. They then proceeded to pass around the chalice and they drank until it was completely gone and then the chalice was taken to be cleaned. I was simply stunned and waited to make sure that the Blood was properly disposed of and witnessed this. I know this is an egregious liturgical abuse since Christ is not being properly reposed of. Where in the GIRM does it address this?
2. EMHC were grabbing the chalices and ciboriums from the altar after they had been given Communion.
3. The gifts were brought up to the altar by the gift bearers who lifted them up (maybe said a quiet prayer, couldn’t tell), and then put them on the altar. After this had been done the priest then came up to the altar and the gifts. He did not receive them from the gift-bearers.

There were other problems I had with the Mass, especially the irreverence and the dress of the readers, altar servers, and EMHC. But I don’t think these are abuses like the above items.

If anyone can help with giving some reference to the appropriate parts of the GIRM or other documents, I would greatly appreciate it.

You went once to another parish and saw these things, and now you are ready to write a letter to the bishop?

My suggestion is that you not visit other parishes, but stick with whatever parish you attend where everything is done in such a way that your sensitivities are not disturbed.

And I agree with others–don’t write the bishop. If you must state your case because of inner conviction of wrong done to Jesus, then call the parish that you visited, make an appointment to speak with that priest (whom I suspect was a visiting priest who was not completely aware of the procedures in that parish), and share your concerns, in a loving way, with that priest. Then listen carefully to him as he explains his side of the issue and demonstrates to you from the rubrics why he did what he did.

This approach is much more in line with Scripture and will bring about peace in your soul.

 

[Brendan]

In a small mission parish in the poorest part of the Congo where that is the best that anyone has why, yes, that is OK with me. Again, it depends on the circumstances.

Take a breath, please.

A bit off topic, Interesting, I regularly go the poorest part of Tanzanian, right ‘next door’, so to speak. I very rarely see men in shorts at all, at Church or not.

It might be thread bare, tied with a rope jeans, but it is almost always pants.

 

[tafan]

It would appear, by your understanding of the definition of self-communication, that if an EMHC were to hand the cup to a communicant and they drink, they would be self communicating; likewise, at the end of Communion, if the EMHC were to receive the remaining Blood, they would be self communicating; and likewise, anyone who receives the Host in the hand. I think you have the definition wrong.

I do not know where you would get this idea based on what I have posted. None of the actions you describe match what the situation described in the OP. Suffice it to say, you are completely off-base about my understanding of self communicating.

But lets just do away with that whole issue of what is or is not self-communication (as I doubt anyone could come up with an example where people would agree on the topic these days). The exact actions described by the OP are explicitly stated as "objectively to be considered among grave matters " in the document Redemptionis Sacramentum.