Priest consumed no Precious Blood

  • Thread starter Thread starter EvelynEVF
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

EvelynEVF

Guest
Forgive me if I am not very skilled with the search function.

I know that the priest is required to consume both Body and Blood. I was at a Mass a couple days ago where the priest (who is a recovering alcoholic) did not even lift the chalice to his lips. He consumed the Body of Christ and then immediately offered both species to the deacon.

This was valid, but not licit, right?
 
Thank you for finding that for me 👍 Is it correct, then, to say that this was a valid but illicit Eucharist? Do I have any obligation in the matter, ie do I need to avoid receiving when he does this?
 
In our parish, we do not have the Blood of Christ because of flu season and because so many people in the parish misunderstood it.
 
EvelynEVF said:
Thank you for finding that for me 👍 Is it correct, then, to say that this was a valid but illicit Eucharist? Do I have any obligation in the matter, ie do I need to avoid receiving when he does this?
Click to expand...
You are correct in saying it was a valid but illicit Mass. I would talk to the priest about this - point out that it is your understanding that he must receive under both species and you don’t understand why he doesn’t/didn’t. Even if you have a suspicion why he doesn’t (i.e. he is a recovering alcoholic) make him say why. Then take it to “but that makes Mass illicit doesn’t it Father?” and see where he goes from there.

From there it is up to your own conscious whether or not to inform/ask a senior (the Bishop or a senior pastor) about the matter if this priest continues to hold illicit Mass. But there is no reason to miss out on receiving the Body and Blood of Christ because of illicit actions over which you have no control.
 
BabyFang, the priest is not obligated to offer the Precious Blood to the congregation. He is the only one who must consume it. It’s not optional for him.

I don’t see any need for me to speak to the priest or anybody else, because I know this wasn’t a surprise to anybody. I don’t want to get into specifics because I don’t want to accidentally provide identifying information. I just needed to know what my obligation was as a communicant.
 
EvelynEVF said:
Forgive me if I am not very skilled with the search function.

I know that the priest is required to consume both Body and Blood. I was at a Mass a couple days ago where the priest (who is a recovering alcoholic) did not even lift the chalice to his lips. He consumed the Body of Christ and then immediately offered both species to the deacon.

This was valid, but not licit, right?
Click to expand...
In the U.S. it is forbidden for a priest to celebrate Mass alone or as the main celebrant if he cannot consume BOTH forms.
 
<<In our parish, we do not have the Blood of Christ because of flu season and because so many people in the parish misunderstood it.>>

What is to misunderstand about the Blood of Christ?

How can ANYBODY misunderstand it?
 
When a priest is a recovering alcoholic, can’t he get a dispensation that allows him to celebrate Mass without consuming the Precious Blood? I thought I had heard of that… and it could be the case with this priest. Ya never know…
 
Speak_Up said:
When a priest is a recovering alcoholic, can’t he get a dispensation that allows him to celebrate Mass without consuming the Precious Blood? I thought I had heard of that… and it could be the case with this priest. Ya never know…
Click to expand...
He may ask his Bishop or Superior for permission to use Mustum for himself or low Gluten Hosts in the case of Celiac disease.

No, it is forbidden for him to celebrate alone if he cannot use Mustum or Low Gluten Hosts.
 
Cluny said:
<<In our parish, we do not have the Blood of Christ because of flu season and because so many people in the parish misunderstood it.>>

What is to misunderstand about the Blood of Christ?

How can ANYBODY misunderstand it?
Click to expand...
I don’t think BabyFang means that people who receive the Precious Blood don’t actually believe that they are receiving the Blood of Christ - there are concerns, which I would hold too in some cases, that communicants believe that they are somehow missing out if they do not consume the Precious Blood. If there has been poor catechesis on the matter of the Holy Eucharist, some communicants may not realise that in receiving the Sacred Host alone they are receiving Christ entirely - body, blood, soul, divinity. Surely if such misunderstandings abound it would be prudent to only offer Holy Communion under one species until proper catechesis is offered on the matter.
 
Br.Rich_SFO said:
He may ask his Bishop or Superior for permission to use Mustum for himself or low Gluten Hosts in the case of Celiac disease.

No, it is forbidden for him to celebrate alone if he cannot use Mustum or Low Gluten Hosts.
Click to expand...
Additionally, a priest who requires the use of mustum or low gluten hosts with permission may never concelebrate.
 
BabyFang said:
In our parish, we do not have the Blood of Christ because of flu season and because so many people in the parish misunderstood it.
Click to expand...
but the celebrating priest is required to receive under both forms, regardless. please read Fr Serpa’s answer cited above, your answer is not what OP is talking about.
 
Silverburg said:
Additionally, a priest who requires the use of mustum or low gluten hosts with permission may never concelebrate.
Click to expand...
Additionally according to material from the USCCB states that and if any man preparing to become a priest in a seminary and was found to have Celiac disease he could not continue his studies and would be refused entrance into the priesthood due to the fact that a priest entire life is one of consumming the Body and Blood of Christ.
 
centurionguard said:
Additionally according to material from the USCCB states that and if any man preparing to become a priest in a seminary and was found to have Celiac disease he could not continue his studies and would be refused entrance into the priesthood due to the fact that a priest entire life is one of consumming the Body and Blood of Christ.
Click to expand...
Actually I was wrong. A priest who requires the use of mustum cannot typically preside at a Mass with concelebrants.

“D. In general, those who have received permission to use are prohibited from presiding at concelebrated Masses. There may be some exceptions however: in the case of a bishop or superior general; or, with prior approval of the ordinary, at the celebration of the anniversary of priestly ordination or other similar occasions. In these cases the one who presides is to communicate under both the species of bread and that of , while for the other concelebrants a chalice shall be provided in which normal wine is to be consecrated.”

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFMUSTM.HTM
 
I must be missing something obvious and if so, sorry.

The priest must know that once the wine has been consecrated it is no longer wine but the blood of Christ. It therefor is no longer an alcoholic beverage in any sense.

I once read of a cloistered nun whose responsibility it was to wash the alter cloths and when she initially used remedies for wine she was unsuccessful but did find success using a remedy for blood.

If the priest in question doesn’t fully believe that the consecrated wine is no longer wine then he has a much more fundamental problem, alcoholism not withstanding.

May the Peace of Christ be with us all, always

JT
 
jmtowle said:
I must be missing something obvious and if so, sorry.

The priest must know that once the wine has been consecrated it is no longer wine but the blood of Christ. It therefor is no longer an alcoholic beverage in any sense.

I once read of a cloistered nun whose responsibility it was to wash the alter cloths and when she initially used remedies for wine she was unsuccessful but did find success using a remedy for blood.

If the priest in question doesn’t fully believe that the consecrated wine is no longer wine then he has a much more fundamental problem, alcoholism not withstanding.

May the Peace of Christ be with us all, always

JT
Click to expand...
The accidents of wine are still there even if it is substantially the Blood of Christ. Drink enough and drive home and you leave yourself open to a DUI.
 
Yeah, I’ve been pretty queasy from finishing to much of what was left in the chalice.

Same reason celiacs need low gluten hosts–only the substance changes, and the accidents remain those of bread and wine. This is clear Church teaching, and doesn’t mean that celiacs or recovering alcoholics have less faith at all if they avoid what hurts them.
 
BabyFang said:
In our parish, we do not have the Blood of Christ because of flu season and because so many people in the parish misunderstood it.
Click to expand...
But your priest is supposed to receive both forms, regardless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top