Question about possible abuse during mass

[hamjeepr]

Today, we had first communion mass. The priest required the children’s reception in the extraordinary form and both species He also had all of them line up behind the altar during the consecration and made the Eucharistic Prayer wording more “child friendly”. Assuming this was good intentions/ignorance on the priest’s part, I am debating having a private meeting with him to discuss this. We have a great church and are very active, both teaching CCD, parish council, and multiple church groups. We love our church and,with the help of several other families, are slowly changing it for the better. I don’t want to change churches and abandon them, but I also don’t want to have my youngest go through this in 2 years at her first communion.

I’m looking for advice on how to approach our priest or if I should approach.

Thanks
Marc

 

[Phemie]

Well, he shouldn’t have had the children in the sanctuary with him.

As for the method of reception, what’s the extraordinary form?? Do you mean that he forbid COTT? Or that the teachers were only teaching CITH? Did he order the children to receive from the Cup? I’ve seen it encouraged in parishes that offered the Cup regulary, but I’ve never heard of anyone being mandated to do so. Parents have a right to say no to their children receiving from the Cup.

The EP, OTOH, he could have been using one of the EPs for Children’s Masses. That would be licit.

 

[benedictgal]

Well, he shouldn’t have had the children in the sanctuary with him.

As for the method of reception, do you mean that he forbid COTT? Or that the teachers were only teaching CITH? Did he order the children to receive from the Cup? I’ve seen it encouraged in parishes that offered the Cup regulary, but I’ve never heard of anyone being mandated to do so.

The EP, OTOH, he could have been using one of the EPs for Children’s Masses. That would be licit.

The EP would not necessarily be licit because, the only time that the EP for Masses with Children is to be used is when the kids make up a majority (and not 50 + 1) of the Ma

The children, I hope, received FHC directly from the priest and not from an EMHC. Furthermore, COTT should not have been denied. The Church maintains that communicants have the right to receive COTT or CITH.

 

[Phemie]

The EP would not necessarily be licit because, the only time that the EP for Masses with Children is to be used is when the kids make up a majority (and not 50 + 1) of the Ma

The children, I hope, received FHC directly from the priest and not from an EMHC. Furthermore, COTT should not have been denied. The Church maintains that communicants have the right to receive COTT or CITH.

While it’s true that COTT is a valid choice, in reality, in my experience in many parishes over a 25 year period, only a handful of people ever do so (3 in my parish) and I’ve never known it to be taught to the First Communion class. Not because the priest mandated that it not be taught but because most people think Vat. II did away with that.

 

[benedictgal]

While it’s true that COTT is a valid choice, in reality, in my experience in many parishes over a 25 year period, only a handful of people ever do so (3 in my parish) and I’ve never known it to be taught to the First Communion class. Not because the priest mandated that it not be taught but because most people think Vat. II did away with that.

It is sad. It’s also poor catechesis. If only people would pay attention to what Vatican II actually said instead of listening to the alleged “spirit” of Vatican II.

 

[boatbearer]

Today, we had first communion mass. The priest required the children’s reception in the extraordinary form and both species He also had all of them line up behind the altar during the consecration and made the Eucharistic Prayer wording more “child friendly”. Assuming this was good intentions/ignorance on the priest’s part, I am debating having a private meeting with him to discuss this. We have a great church and are very active, both teaching CCD, parish council, and multiple church groups. We love our church and,with the help of several other families, are slowly changing it for the better. I don’t want to change churches and abandon them, but I also don’t want to have my youngest go through this in 2 years at her first communion.

I’m looking for advice on how to approach our priest or if I should approach.

Thanks
Marc

You need to dig a little bit deeper before you do anything else.

First, how do you KNOW that the priest REQUIRED each to receive under both species? Unless you can read the individual communicant’s minds you really don’t know. I can easily see where absolutely all of the new communicants wanting to receive under both species. Other than a medical condition, why would anyone chose to receive under one species at their first communion? I DID have NO choice at my first communion – it was via intinction.

Second, when I was confirmed my co-cofirmandi and I was sitting in “choir.” Some not very familiar with the Mass people might equate that to “line(ing) up behind the altar during the consecration” but that’s not what was going on.

Third; beware of the EP. Are you absolutely certain he deviated away from it?

You might consider prayer in place of a “private meeting.”

 

[VetA]

It is sad. It’s also poor catechesis. If only people would pay attention to what Vatican II actually said instead of listening to the alleged “spirit” of Vatican II.

the “spirit” of Vatican ii is the ruination of the church if the liberal progressive modernists would have their way.

i have never received on my toung but its no more or less valid than in the hand that is for sure.

 

[hamjeepr]

You need to dig a little bit deeper before you do anything else.

First, how do you KNOW that the priest REQUIRED each to receive under both species? Unless you can read the individual communicant’s minds you really don’t know. I can easily see where absolutely all of the new communicants wanting to receive under both species. Other than a medical condition, why would anyone chose to receive under one species at their first communion? I DID have NO choice at my first communion – it was via intinction.

Second, when I was confirmed my co-cofirmandi and I was sitting in “choir.” Some not very familiar with the Mass people might equate that to “line(ing) up behind the altar during the consecration” but that’s not what was going on.

Third; beware of the EP. Are you absolutely certain he deviated away from it?

You might consider prayer in place of a “private meeting.”

Both my wife and I teach CCD and are close friends with the teachers for the 1HC class. This was a requirement that the children receive in the hand and in both species. They were concerned since kids tend to not react well to the taste of the wine. I recommended use of intinction if they must receive both species and I was told this was not an option. While I understand the importance of teaching reception both ways so that they kids are familiar, it should be up to the parents (last year) or restricted to the ordinary (tongue) reception (this was the case 2 years ago).

This is a small church and there is not choir. The altar and tabernacle are pretty much all that is up there. He also stood off the the side (at the end of the half moon shape) and they all held hands and offered the Our Father up together behind the altar.

The Eucharistic Prayer is iffy. The words were basically the same(ie: instead of disciples, friends) He, for lack of a better description, “dumbed” it down. I cannot be certain he deviated in spirit, just replaced some words.

I am still considering prayer and the use of sacramentals (blessed salt particularly came to mind) to defend this church. The other church he is pastor over is pretty far to the left so I think they are trying to bring it into our church as well. To tell you the truth, I’ve been on the fence with migrating to the Latin mass and this might just be the push I needed.

 

[boatbearer]

Both my wife and I teach CCD and are close friends with the teachers for the 1HC class. This was a requirement that the children receive in the hand and in both species. They were concerned since kids tend to not react well to the taste of the wine. I recommended use of intinction if they must receive both species and I was told this was not an option. While I understand the importance of teaching reception both ways so that they kids are familiar, it should be up to the parents (last year) or restricted to the ordinary (tongue) reception (this was the case 2 years ago).

OK, that’s clearly unacceptable but it’s a catachetical issue not a Mass issue. Your pastor does need to change that. First communicants SHOULD consume wine and unconsecrated hosts during their formation to prevent any “problems” or sour faces.

This is a small church and there is not choir. The altar and tabernacle are pretty much all that is up there. He also stood off the the side (at the end of the half moon shape) and they all held hands and offered the Our Father up together behind the altar.

Scary

The Eucharistic Prayer is iffy. The words were basically the same(ie: instead of disciples, friends) He, for lack of a better description, “dumbed” it down. I cannot be certain he deviated in spirit, just replaced some words.

OK

I am still considering prayer and the use of sacramentals (blessed salt particularly came to mind) to defend this church. The other church he is pastor over is pretty far to the left so I think they are trying to bring it into our church as well. To tell you the truth, I’ve been on the fence with migrating to the Latin mass and this might just be the push I needed.

Prayer is powerful. If you do have to talk with him, consider doing it over coffee…or even a scotch…

 

[puzzleannie]

Today, we had first communion mass. The priest required the children’s reception in the extraordinary form and both species He also had all of them line up behind the altar during the consecration and made the Eucharistic Prayer wording more “child friendly”. Marc

I never heard of reception in the extraordinary form, I assume you mean receiving the host in the hand, then drinking from the chalice as usual. Assuming they were instructed that they had the choice to receive on the tongue if they prefer I see no problem. There is a huge problem with children around the altar during the Eucharistic prayer it is forbidden. If you mean they were invited up to receive communion, that was done even in my day at times for first communion, because back then it was the only time, save at nuptial Masses, why laity were offered the chalice.

there are Masses for children with other Eucharistic prayers that are licit and I assumed that is one of the approved versions he chose, if so, no problema.

There is a way to approach a pastor with questions about possible liturgical abuses, it is the lay witness protocol, described by Catholics United for the faith at cuf.org. I think it is on one of the stickies.

 

[boatbearer]

I would guess that 95% of all first communicants in the USA today choose to receive CIH and under both species. Not because they are coerced or because that’s the only way they’ve been taught but because they choose to.

Some people here seem to think that COT is somehow inherently “better” than CIH and that’s rubbish. Some here would applaud if a pastor took it upon himself to limit reception of communion to COT. Doing so would be every bit as bad as limiting it to CIH – “indult” or not.

Some need to come to grips with the fact that the vast majority of Catholic in the USA prefer CIH for a variety of reasons and not because they were not allowed or told about COT.

 

[benedictgal]

I never heard of reception in the extraordinary form, I assume you mean receiving the host in the hand, then drinking from the chalice as usual. Assuming they were instructed that they had the choice to receive on the tongue if they prefer I see no problem. There is a huge problem with children around the altar during the Eucharistic prayer it is forbidden. If you mean they were invited up to receive communion, that was done even in my day at times for first communion, because back then it was the only time, save at nuptial Masses, why laity were offered the chalice.

there are Masses for children with other Eucharistic prayers that are licit and I assumed that is one of the approved versions he chose, if so, no problema.

There is a way to approach a pastor with questions about possible liturgical abuses, it is the lay witness protocol, described by Catholics United for the faith at cuf.org. I think it is on one of the stickies.

Puzzleannie, the problem is that the EPs should be used only when children constitute a solid majority of the faithful at Mass (ie a school Mass) not for a Mass where FHC is celebrated. Clearly, at that point, the kids do not constitute an overwhelming majority.

 

[hamjeepr]

OK, that’s clearly unacceptable but it’s a catachetical issue not a Mass issue. Your pastor does need to change that. First communicants SHOULD consume wine and unconsecrated hosts during their formation to prevent any “problems” or sour faces.

They do introduce them to both but that doesn’t always solve the problem. Last year was had a student who would receive the unconsecrated host but then let it fall from their mouth - a very scary situation! You receive body, blood, soul and divinity when you receive the accident of the bread. Why do we need both, particularly during first communion?

Some people here seem to think that COT is somehow inherently “better” than CIH and that’s rubbish. Some here would applaud if a pastor took it upon himself to limit reception of communion to COT. Doing so would be every bit as bad as limiting it to CIH – “indult” or not.

The only real problem with reception in the hand is that it becomes casual. I’ve seen people pop it in their mouth like a snack chip. Reception on the tongue forces you to humble yourself before the Eucharist. I teach my ccd kids that if they receive on the hand they take on the responsibility of keeping the Eucharist safe. I tell them they must protect every part of the Eucharist from falling, even the smallest crumbs. I use the quote from St. Cyril of Jerusalem:

Approaching, therefore, come not with thy wrists extended, or thy fingers open; but make thy left hand as if a throne for thy right, which is about to receive the king. And having hollowed thy palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying after it, Amen. Give heed lest thou lose any of it; for what thou losest is a loss to thee as it were from one of thine own members. For tell me, if any one gave thee gold dust, wouldest thou not with all precaution keep it fast, being on thy guard against losing any of it, and suffering loss? How much more cautiously then wilt thou observe that not a crumb falls from thee, of what is more precious than gold and precious stones?"

If they receive on the tongue, that responsibility falls to the priest/deacon/EMHC and the server with the paten. One of my students from 2 years ago became a server and his is adamant about keeping the paten under the Eucharist.

I read somewhere that even papal masses require kneeling and reception on the tongue now (don’t know if its true). As far as I’m concerned, that would be just fine with me! We should approach the Eucharist with an awe and humble ourselves completely when we receive.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Puzzleannie, the problem is that the EPs should be used only when children constitute a solid majority of the faithful at Mass (ie a school Mass) not for a Mass where FHC is celebrated. Clearly, at that point, the kids do not constitute an overwhelming majority.

No, but its not that big of a deal. A FHC Mass is clearly aimed at the children and not the adults. The readers are children, the PoF is read by children, there’s probably a children’s choir, and childre bring up the gifts. The “spirit” of the existence of Children’s Eucharistic Prayers would not eliminate the option of using them.

 

[benedictgal]

No, but its not that big of a deal. A FHC Mass is clearly aimed at the children and not the adults. The readers are children, the PoF is read by children, there’s probably a children’s choir, and childre bring up the gifts. The “spirit” of the existence of Children’s Eucharistic Prayers would not eliminate the option of using them.

I would respectfully disagree with you, Father. At the Cathedral, the rector would not use the EPs for children precisely because, first of all, the Mass was not about them, second, they did not constitute the majority of the faithful (and, even when they do at the school Masses he celebrates he does not use them) and third, the EPs are problematic. In fact, Rome considers them to also be problematic as these were not included in the new translations. Indications are that they will either be revised or eliminated.

Regarding children reading, he would not allow it. He, instead, had the CCD teachers read. As I have experienced it down here, FHC Masses unfortunately become photo-ops where everyone concentrates and focuses on what the children are doing instead of Who they are receiving for the first time. It has been reduced to a paparazzi fest with the parents. That is why, during the rector’s tenure at the Cathedral, changes were made, even to the point of having one contracted photographer who discreetly took pictures.

 

[Mattapoisett64]

I would respectfully disagree with you, Father. At the Cathedral, the rector would not use the EPs for children precisely because, first of all, the Mass was not about them, second, they did not constitute the majority of the faithful (and, even when they do at the school Masses he celebrates he does not use them) and third, the EPs are problematic. In fact, Rome considers them to also be problematic as these were not included in the new translations. Indications are that they will either be revised or eliminated.

Regarding children reading, he would not allow it. He, instead, had the CCD teachers read. As I have experienced it down here, FHC Masses unfortunately become photo-ops where everyone concentrates and focuses on what the children are doing instead of Who they are receiving for the first time. It has been reduced to a paparazzi fest with the parents. That is why, during the rector’s tenure at the Cathedral, changes were made, even to the point of having one contracted photographer who discreetly took pictures.

It was my understanding from the *Directory for Masses With Children *that the local bishop has the authority to permit use of the special EP’s even when children may not strictly be in the statistical majority:

"The Directory for Masses with Children – and hence the Lectionary for Masses with Children – applies primarily to congregations that are predominantly children. Yet the Introduction lists this in last place. DMC does allow adaptations intended for children’s Masses to be used in ordinary congregations with a large number of children:

*If the number of children is large, it may at times be suitable to plan this kind of Mass so that it corresponds more closely to the needs of the children… Wherever the bishop permits … one or the other of the particular adaptations described later in the Directory may be employed in a Mass celebrated with adults in which children also participate. *(DMC #19)."

What one cathedral rector may choose to do would presumably not be binding on the Ordinary of another diocese, as much as I am in sympathy with eliminating the “photo-op” chaos. It’s one thing to say that “the Mass is not about them,” but even the DMC seems to recognize that their “needs” may be suitably addressed in the liturgy.

 

[cradlecatholic5]

Whatever it takes to get the children “into” their faith is fine by me. As an adult woman, during our CRHP retreat, our wonderful priest invited us around the altar during the consecration an it was simply awesome.

 

[benedictgal]

It was my understanding from the *Directory for Masses With Children *that the local bishop has the authority to permit use of the special EP’s even when children may not strictly be in the statistical majority:

"The Directory for Masses with Children – and hence the Lectionary for Masses with Children – applies primarily to congregations that are predominantly children. Yet the Introduction lists this in last place. DMC does allow adaptations intended for children’s Masses to be used in ordinary congregations with a large number of children:

*If the number of children is large, it may at times be suitable to plan this kind of Mass so that it corresponds more closely to the needs of the children… Wherever the bishop permits … one or the other of the particular adaptations described later in the Directory may be employed in a Mass celebrated with adults in which children also participate. *(DMC #19)."

What one cathedral rector may choose to do would presumably not be binding on the Ordinary of another diocese, as much as I am in sympathy with eliminating the “photo-op” chaos. It’s one thing to say that “the Mass is not about them,” but even the DMC seems to recognize that their “needs” may be suitably addressed in the liturgy.

However, even in FHC, I would be hardpressed to make a case for using the EPs for children since the vast majority of the faithful in these liturgies are adults. The first communicants could not conceivably outnumber the adults in this scenario. The rector was well within his rights to do what he did. The needs of the children, in this case, are not as dire since there are quite a few EPs that are not too hard for the average eight-year-old to understand. EP II readily comes to mind, as does EP III. Now, for a FHC Mass, I would not necessarily use the Roman Canon, but, there are two other options (the aforementioned ones) that would work better than the EP for children.

In any case, the EPs for use with Children may go the way of the dinosaur (extinction) as these were not included in the new translations and Rome, from what I understand, is rethinking the matter altogether.

 

[benedictgal]

Whatever it takes to get the children “into” their faith is fine by me. As an adult woman, during our CRHP retreat, our wonderful priest invited us around the altar during the consecration an it was simply awesome.

With all due respect, that is the wrong approach, and, what the celebrant did was ilicit and totally forbidden. Just because something “feels awesome”, that does not make it a good thing to do, let alone something wonderful. The faithful should not act in a manner that would make them akin to concelebrants. Only the priest (and the deacon, if there is one) and concelebrants (if there are any other priests present) should be there, not laity.

The children need to be taught at an early age to respect the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. I do not blame the children, nor, in your case, do I blame you. I blame the celebrant for a sad misunderstanding of what the Mass is. It is not within his purview to add anything to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, whether it be texts or actions.

Remember too that we believe as we pray. The law of prayer is the law of belief (lex orandi, lex credandi). What kind of a message are we sending to the faithful (adults and children alike) if we set aside the norms of the Church when it comes to the Mass? It would be a very poor message indeed. Please read what Redemptionis Sacramentum states:

9.] Finally, abuses are often based on ignorance, in that they involve a rejection of those elements whose deeper meaning is not understood and whose antiquity is not recognized. For “the liturgical prayers, orations and songs are pervaded by the inspiration and impulse” of the Sacred Scriptures themselves, “and it is from these that the actions and signs receive their meaning”.20 As for the visible signs “which the Sacred Liturgy uses in order to signify the invisible divine realities, they have been chosen by Christ or by the Church”.21 Finally, the structures and forms of the sacred celebrations according to each of the Rites of both East and West are in harmony with the practice of the universal Church also as regards practices received universally from apostolic and unbroken tradition,22 which it is the Church’s task to transmit faithfully and carefully to future generations. All these things are wisely safeguarded and protected by the liturgical norms.

[10.] The Church herself has no power over those things which were established by Christ Himself and which constitute an unchangeable part of the Liturgy.23 Indeed, if the bond were to be broken which the Sacraments have with Christ Himself who instituted them, and with the events of the Church’s founding,24 it would not be beneficial to the faithful but rather would do them grave harm. For the Sacred Liturgy is quite intimately connected with principles of doctrine,25 so that the use of unapproved texts and rites necessarily leads either to the attenuation or to the disappearance of that necessary link between the lex orandi and the lex credendi.26

[11.] The Mystery of the Eucharist “is too great for anyone to permit himself to treat it according to his own whim, so that its sacredness and its universal ordering would be obscured”.27 On the contrary, anyone who acts thus by giving free rein to his own inclinations, even if he is a Priest, injures the substantial unity of the Roman Rite, which ought to be vigorously preserved,28 and becomes responsible for actions that are in no way consistent with the hunger and thirst for the living God that is experienced by the people today. Nor do such actions serve authentic pastoral care or proper liturgical renewal; instead, they deprive Christ’s faithful of their patrimony and their heritage. For arbitrary actions are not conducive to true renewal,29 but are detrimental to the right of Christ’s faithful to a liturgical celebration that is an expression of the Church’s life in accordance with her tradition and discipline. In the end, they introduce elements of distortion and disharmony into the very celebration of the Eucharist, which is oriented in its own lofty way and by its very nature to signifying and wondrously bringing about the communion of divine life and the unity of the People of God.30 The result is uncertainty in matters of doctrine, perplexity and scandal on the part of the People of God, and, almost as a necessary consequence, vigorous opposition, all of which greatly confuse and sadden many of Christ’s faithful in this age of ours when Christian life is often particularly difficult on account of the inroads of “secularization” as well.31

The faithful, adults and children alike, deserve better than what they are getting when things like this happen. The Church certainly deserves better.

 

[cradlecatholic5]

benedictgal, I respect your opinion.