Mass Sitting Down the Entire Time

[Tantum_ergo]

I have worked with way too many shut-ins to accept this statement. Some people cannot get to Mass. They are too weak and sick. So having a Priest that is willing to offer Mass in their home, in my mind, can be similar to a “war zone” situation. Those who attend these Masses are fully aware of the the glitches and are willing to work with them. Reverence is not lost because of a strange or different setting, any more than it is guaranteed because Mass is held in a Church.

Ideally Church is were Mass will always be held, but there are exceptions. Reverence must be in the heart, not an external display of apparent piety.

Ideally Church is where Mass will always be held, but there are exceptions. Reverence must be in the heart, not an external display of apparent piety.

With respect, I find that kind of statement facile and condescending.

Why in the name of Waukegan, Illinois, cannot one have reverence **in the heart ******along with external piety???

I venture to say that one finds the ‘external appearance’ as well as the ‘reverence’ more often together than one finds the 'external appearance only, and that the 'reverence in the heart but not that ‘external appearance thereof’ is rarer still.

 

[TheDoctor]

This Mass did not take place in a war zone or in the middle of the jungle. A proper place should have been found before celebrating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. This solemn ritual should only be celebrated in holy respectful facilities.

I think we are all aware of the proper procedures for celebrating Mass. The basics are found in the GIRM. It’s available on-line.

I believe by focusing on my examples, you missed the point, which is that it is not always possible to have Mass in a Church (just ask any of the missionary Priests we know).

While it is always preferable, it is not always possible. In these cases, it is impossible to follow the GIRM so the Priest has a choice - do as best he can or not offer Mass at all. For me, the former is preferable to the latter.

We all deserve a proper Mass done according to the rubrics, however not knowing what Father is or is not formally allowed to do requires us to give him the benefit of the doubt and the best way to resolve the OP’s concern is simply to talk to the Priest, is it not?

 

[MtnDwellar]

I believe by focusing on my examples, you missed the point, which is that it is not always possible to have Mass in a Church (just ask any of the missionary Priests we know).

Oh! That was the point? I thought we all knew that. I thought your point was that interior preparation was all that was needed… Sorry.

We all deserve a proper Mass done according to the rubrics, however not knowing what Father is or is not formally allowed to do requires us to give him the benefit of the doubt and the best way to resolve the OP’s concern is simply to talk to the Priest, is it not?

If I wanted to know whether or not the Mass was conducted in accordance with established standards, I would ask a different priest. We know that self Communication is always wrong. I wouldn’t trust his judgment.

 

[twf]

The Church is clear that the faithful have a RIGHT to proper liturgy. I would speak to the priest and most certainly avoid these sorts of masses in the future. There are several problems:

1. Holy mass should always be celebrated in a church or chapel, that is, in a holy place set aside for worship, unless there is truly a good reason to do otherwise. In this case the chapel was available.
2. If you were able to kneel, then others could have knelt - kneeling during the consecration is not optional. This outward expression of adoration for the Lord during the most holy sacrifice is the least we can do. Likewise for standing…
3. The “passing around” of Our Lord is the most serious abuse to my mind…this is no laughing matter. While you did not sin, I would advise that you never receive holy communion in this unlawful manner if asked to do so in the future. We are not obliged to receive at every single mass, and in my opinion it is better not to receive at all than to receive in a manner which the Church forbids. This isn’t your fault - but just to keep in mind for the future. Redemptionis Sacramentum states:

[94.] It is not licit for the faithful “to take . . . by themselves . . . and, still less, to hand . . . from one to another” the sacred host or the sacred chalice.[181] Moreover, in this regard, the abuse is to be set aside whereby spouses administer Holy Communion to each other at a Nuptial Mass.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

If you check the footnotes, this practice was condemned by the Holy Ecumenical Council of Trent. It is gravely wrong.