Questionable Communion procedures in Biloxi Diocese

[otjm]

While I agree that I am most definitely not in favor of such a song for Mass, I am old enough and have seen enough teens and young adults leave the Church that if that had any chance in possibly keeping some of them in the Church, I sould not stand in judgement of it; nor would I let it dictate my leaving Mass and the Eucharist.

And I grew up part of a children’s choir singing Gregorian Chant at funerals in the late 1950’s - so it is not like I have not observed much.

 

[CathBoy1]

spread the idea of the nonsense to people who had not yet thought of it.

Good counterpoint.

The bishop is the useful tool to put an end to any nonsense.

I absolutely agree, but perhaps sometimes the nonsense going on in a bishop’s diocese is brought to the attention of the bishop through use of the internet.

And the internet can be a useful tool for accountability, If something really nonsensical is going on, thanks to the internet it can be videoed and uploaded instantly (live streamed), which may have the benefit of discouraging some of the more nonsensical things that people may be thinking of doing.

So while I agree that the bishop is the most useful tool to put an end to such nonsense, the internet can be a useful tool of the bishop’s.

I am old enough and have seen enough teens and young adults leave the Church that if that had any chance in possibly keeping some of them in the Church

I honestly don’t believe playing classic rock in Mass has ever kept one single soul from leaving the Church, and I can tell you this much, it was such a turn off it made me (and at least 3 others) leave Mass.

”Innovations” such as playing classic rock at Mass should definitely be done away with, and the idea that playing classic rock during Mass would keep anybody there, to my ears is simply absurd, in fact it had the opposite effect for at least four people, as I and three others walked out.

 

[InThePew]

While it’s true that the intention to consecrate isn’t limited to what’s on the altar - there are limits and I’m not sure how this idea was supposed to work in practice in particular given that the priest wouldn’t be able to see all of the hosts.

Still, I have a lot of sympathy for this priest - the liturgical and canonical norms went out the window when coronavirus came along and right now everyone’s trying to work out what on earth we’re supposed to be doing which requires more than a bit of creative thinking and, in some ways this is probably actually better than “drive through communion”. At the end of the day he, like amy others, are simply trying to care for their flock as best they can in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. If LSN (or anyone else for that matter) think they can do it better, they’re welcome to try but imho they’ll find it’s not quite as easy as sniping from the sidelines.

 

[PianomanD]

If the priest intends to consecrate those hosts, then they are consecrated. It’s not as though there’s a “spiritual force field” emanating from the priest, in that any hosts within X distance get consecrated, but if those hosts are “out of range”, then they don’t get consecrated. Long story short, intent.

Not to press the issue, but if this is the case, could a priest then validly (and beyond-way-over-the-top illicitly) consecrate a loaf of bread that he knows exists overseas?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Yes, let us not forget that the last priest in Cleveland diocese who wanted to do some kind of “baggie” Communion was persuaded into that idea by a bunch of rich doctors in his parish who were afraid of germ transmission and got the priest to go along with it, until the diocesan admin (in lieu of bishop since there wasn’t one at the time) said no. It may be that parish members likewise pushed the idea to this priest in Biloxi as well.

I must say, his idea of making all the heads of households EMHCs was a interesting twist, although I do not agree with the approach and am glad the bishop stepped in and said no.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

If the priest intends to consecrate those hosts, then they are consecrated. It’s not as though there’s a “spiritual force field” emanating from the priest, in that any hosts within X distance get consecrated, but if those hosts are “out of range”, then they don’t get consecrated. Long story short, intent.

Not to press the issue, but if this is the case, could a priest then validly (and beyond-way-over-the-top illicitly) consecrate a loaf of bread that he knows exists overseas?

There is an apocryphal story of a renegade priest who went rogue and, for reasons known only to him, stood in front of a bakery, said “This is My Body”, and consecrated all of the bread in the bakery. I hope to heaven that this was just apocryphal, and that it never happened. I have heard the validity of such a scenario debated back and forth.

If I had to guess, I would say that any hosts, in close proximity to the priest, that the priest is aware of their existence and intends to consecrate, get consecrated. To say “a layperson in the very back pew of the nave is holding a vessel that contains a host, and I intend for that host to be consecrated in this Mass when I recite the words of consecration” is really getting on the outer edges of what could be considered a valid consecration.

So to answer your question, probably not, but I can’t say “not” with absolute certainty. Any experts here who could give a better answer?

As a side note, to attempt the consecration of the Sacred Species outside of Mass, by a priest merely saying “This is My Body” and/or “This is the chalice of My Blood”, is defined in canon law as nefas est, which in Latin is a very strong way of saying “you may never do this”. As far as validity, the way I have always understood it, we simply don’t know.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I must say, his idea of making all the heads of households EMHCs was a interesting twist, although I do not agree with the approach and am glad the bishop stepped in and said no.

I am no big fan of there even being such a thing as EMHCs — I can see it in isolated communities where a priest cannot be had for a long time, and it’s either that or self-communicate, which the hermits did without scruple — but I can see the merit of being able to take Holy Communion back from Mass to one’s family members who can’t get to Mass (disabled, shut-in, etc.), especially in these times. If I am not mistaken, this was the practice of the early Church.

I would want to see traditional means of purification be used (fingertips rinsed with holy water into a glass bowl, the water poured into a far corner of the garden or yard, etc.).

 

[otjm]

There is an apocryphal story of a renegade priest who went rogue and, for reasons known only to him, stood in front of a bakery, said “This is My Body”, and consecrated all of the bread in the bakery. I hope to heaven that this was just apocryphal, and that it never happened. I have heard the validity of such a scenario debated back and forth.

The Roman rite states that valid matter is unleavened bread. Presuming he was Roman Rite, he likely had no valid matter in front of him, so no go.

It is like presuming that he could consecrate potatoes.

Not even if he was Irish…

 

[otjm]

If I am not mistaken, this was the practice of the early Church.

It was. Tabernacles came into existence somewhere around the ninth century and came into churches about a century later.

 

[blackforest]

If the bishop stepped in and corrected the situation, there is no need for the public to be hearing or reading about it further.

And that alone suffices. If/when a priest does something that tingles the spidey senses, talk to him, (in most cases), then talk to the bishop, who will deal with it one way or another.

Bishops have handled these deviations for many millennia before the Internet Age. Sometimes I think the folks at Lifesite had a bit a savior complex.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Sometimes I think the folks at Lifesite had a bit a savior complex.

They appeal to the group of people who believe that abuses are rampant all over the world and that this is somehow bringing Satan down upon us.

 

[blackforest]

This whole business of looking for Satan under every dust bunny is why I left the Evangelical church in the first place. I’m not sure why Lifesite is trying to fan those flames among Catholics.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

There is an apocryphal story of a renegade priest who went rogue and, for reasons known only to him, stood in front of a bakery, said “This is My Body”, and consecrated all of the bread in the bakery. I hope to heaven that this was just apocryphal, and that it never happened. I have heard the validity of such a scenario debated back and forth.

The Roman rite states that valid matter is unleavened bread. Presuming he was Roman Rite, he likely had no valid matter in front of him, so no go.

Valid, or just illicit? If the word here is “valid”, then that means a Roman Rite priest cannot consecrate leavened bread, and an Eastern Rite priest cannot consecrate unleavened bread — not just “not allowed to”, but “it doesn’t become the Body of Christ”. That doesn’t quite make sense.

And what about bi-ritual priests?

Most breads in any bakery could not be valid matter anyway, due to the addition of eggs, salt, milk, and other invalidating elements.

blackforest:

Sometimes I think the folks at Lifesite had a bit a savior complex.

They appeal to the group of people who believe that abuses are rampant all over the world and that this is somehow bringing Satan down upon us.

I wouldn’t say it is the work of Satan, but liturgical abuses were the bane of every faithful, orthodox Catholic’s existence for 15-20 years or so after the introduction of the Novus Ordo Missae, then all of a sudden, it seems like they just kind of died out. (I didn’t say that the NOM caused them, just stating the time frame.) You couldn’t travel to a strange parish or diocese without cringing inwardly — “wonder what kind of nonsense is going to go on here?”. Sometimes nothing, sometimes something so blatant that I’d just walk out.

When it comes to liturgical abuses — even those done with the best of intentions — there is much to be said for being able to “nip them in the bud” where they occur. That seems to be what happened here.

 

[Mrchatsworth]

If everyone is still concerned about what is going on there, someone could contact the parish and simply ask.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

If everyone is still concerned about what is going on there, someone could contact the parish and simply ask.

From all appearances, it’s a done deal, the bishop wouldn’t allow it, end of story. Various readers have now begun discussing ancillary issues, such as the phenomenon of liturgical abuses in general, and whether consecration at a distance would be valid.

 

[otjm]

Valid , or just illicit? If the word here is “valid”, then that means a Roman Rite priest cannot consecrate leavened bread, and an Eastern Rite priest cannot consecrate unleavened bread — not just “not allowed to”, but “it doesn’t become the Body of Christ”. That doesn’t quite make sense.

Anyone who has studied theology and Church law might be inclined to say that some of it may not make sense.

My understanding is that both the Eastern and the Western church take these matters as going back to the Apostles; one might remember that Paul (and Peter and others) who write in the Epistles were working first with Jews in the Diaspora, and then (as Paul well puts it) the Gentiles; and we do not hear of the other Apostles in the rest of the countries they went to in order to evangelize. I would suspect that while it might be possible that Jews had moved as far as northern Europe and east of Constantinople, it is likely that the greater majority were not that far removed, and so the Apostles, in not being Judaizers - something hammered out in the Council of Jerusalem - were leaving behind the cultural aspects flowing from the Passover and the use of unleavened bread.

There is evidence that even in the Western rite world, that both leavened and unleavened bread was used in the Mass, apparently for several centuries,

So the short of it comes under the rule of binding and loosing, and someone fr more an ancient liturgical scholar than I would ever hope to be can enlighten on the matter.

But use, the term used is validity.

And a bi-ritual priest is bound by the ritual, so there is no problem when he says Mass or the Holy Mysteries or Divine Mysteries. He follows the liturgical law, most likely knowing more about it than any here involved (except I think we have at least one if not more Eastern Rite priests as members - maybe they can chime in).

 

[HomeschoolDad]

There is evidence that even in the Western rite world, that both leavened and unleavened bread was used in the Mass, apparently for several centuries,

So the short of it comes under the rule of binding and loosing, and someone fr more an ancient liturgical scholar than I would ever hope to be can enlighten on the matter.

But use, the term used is validity.

It still doesn’t make sense to me — if a Latin Rite priest were in a concentration camp and wanted to say Mass in secret for a handful of fellow prisoners, but only had leavened bread, to say “sorry, no can do, you’re Latin Rite, it’ll be invalid” — but, as in all things, I submit to the teaching of the magisterium. It doesn’t make sense to me, either, for baptized non-Catholics to be able to confect a valid sacrament of matrimony, when they have it in the back of their minds that marriages, including this one, are able to be dissolved by a civil magistrate “if something bad enough happens” (and let’s be real, that’s their litmus test for divorce), but if the Church says their marriages are valid sacraments, so be it. Some post-Vatican II developments on things such as ecumenism, religious liberty, and the seeming reduction of extra ecclesiam nulla salus to utter irrelevance, don’t make sense to me either. But, jumping through every intellectual and theological hoop I can jump through, I accept them. That’s just being a Catholic. That’s what we do.

Better stop before someone begins to view this as “off-topic”, but subordination of one’s will and intellect to the teaching office of the Church always needs a full-throated defense. It’s not exactly to many people’s liking anymore.

 

[otjm]

It still doesn’t make sense to me — if a Latin Rite priest were in a concentration camp and wanted to say Mass in secret for a handful of fellow prisoners, but only had leavened bread, to say “sorry, no can do, you’re Latin Rite, it’ll be invalid”

I don’t know that there has been a showing that such has been the fact. You might want to do some research either concerning priests who have been held in long captivity, or consulting a certified liturgist who actually knows the rules and subsets.

It doesn’t make sense to me, either, for baptized non-Catholics to be able to confect a valid sacrament of matrimony, when they have it in the back of their minds that marriages, including this one , are able to be dissolved by a civil magistrate “if something bad enough happens” (and let’s be real, that’s their litmus test for divorce), but if the Church says their marriages are valid sacraments, so be it.

You are conflating two issues.

The fact that any individual - Catholic or non Catholic - may enter a marriage with a “King’s X” attitude - “if this doesn’t work out I will get a divorce” may well be grounds for finding they have not confected the sacrament of marriage.

That does not have anything in particular with a couple which does enter a marriage with the intent of a permanent bond; and there is no particular factual information that non-Catholics do not do so.

As always, the Church presumes marriages are valid, unless and until shown they had an impediment or a defect of consent as of the day of the marriage.

So, since a Catholic, or anyone else not Catholic enters a marriage, it is presumed valid until shown invalid, and I cannot understand your difficulty in the matter.

Some post-Vatican II developments on things such as ecumenism, religious liberty, and the seeming reduction of extra ecclesiam nulla salus to utter irrelevance, don’t make sense to me either.

Perhaps then you should do some reading on the matter, as all of these issues are well explained by books and articles in the last 50 years, and in particular, more recently. None of them are rocket science or PhD level theology.

 

[otjm]

subordination of one’s will and intellect to the teaching office of the Church always needs a full-throated defense

I would agree strongly with you. That is why I try to read up on issues where there have been questions. And in doing so, I follow people who are strongly part of the Magisterium, not some of those who have drifted the the fringes - in either direction. So, for example, I ignore thos people and articles which push on the edges, trying to head in the direction of women’s ordination (to take the liberal fringe as an example).

Back to where we were: the issue of a Roman rite priest using leavened bread to consecrate the Eucharist is a matter for Canonists and the dicastery for the Liturgy, which is light years beyond my pay grade; I simply accept that under the authority granted by Christ to “bind and loose” the Church has the authority to bind the Roman rite to non-leavened bread and the Eastern rites to their parallel Canon, and don’t get my head in a spin about a priest or bishop in some foreign prison (prior USSR, or China,or any other anti Catholic country) and what he does or does not do - that is between him, Christ and the dicastery and Canonists, and I presume they do an abundantly adequate job.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

It still doesn’t make sense to me — if a Latin Rite priest were in a concentration camp and wanted to say Mass in secret for a handful of fellow prisoners, but only had leavened bread, to say “sorry, no can do, you’re Latin Rite, it’ll be invalid”

I don’t know that there has been a showing that such has been the fact. You might want to do some research either concerning priests who have been held in long captivity, or consulting a certified liturgist who actually knows the rules and subsets.

Again, invalid versus valid, not illicit-but-excusing-cause (which that certainly would be) versus licit. I’ll leave it be here now, and check it out at my leisure.

HomeschoolDad:

It doesn’t make sense to me, either, for baptized non-Catholics to be able to confect a valid sacrament of matrimony, when they have it in the back of their minds that marriages, including this one , are able to be dissolved by a civil magistrate “if something bad enough happens” (and let’s be real, that’s their litmus test for divorce), but if the Church says their marriages are valid sacraments, so be it.

You are conflating two issues.

The fact that any individual - Catholic or non Catholic - may enter a marriage with a “King’s X” attitude - “if this doesn’t work out I will get a divorce” may well be grounds for finding they have not confected the sacrament of marriage.

That does not have anything in particular with a couple which does enter a marriage with the intent of a permanent bond; and there is no particular factual information that non-Catholics do not do so.

I don’t think I’m conflating anything. Marriage in our culture is so filled with romance, and excitement, and high expectations, and the absolutely hugest, most tricked-out, groomsmen and bridesmaids dressed just-so, weddings and receptions possible (yes, I know not all marriages are like the latter scenario, I refer to trends and ideals), that I doubt many people are thinking, in that far part of their mind they don’t talk about, “if this doesn’t work out, we’ll get a divorce, and the marriage will cease to be”. However… if you were to take the bride and groom aside separately, and say “now, we know this will never happen, but what if — just what if — your fiance(e) here, sometime into the marriage, took a knock on the head, was never quite ‘right’ after that, and not just that, but they became a serial killer, a child molester, or a vicious sociopath — would you consider that, in that case, you could go to the court, get a divorce, then marry someone else instead, and Almighty God would ‘be good with that’, the first marriage would just not exist anymore?”. If they are of the mindset to be able to say “yes” to that — after they’ve excoriated you for having the cheek to suggest such a thing, two days before the wedding no less! — then I have to question whether they can “do what the Church does” (all sacraments are Catholic sacraments) and confect a valid sacrament of matrimony.