Removing Jesus from the Monstrance and passing Him around during Adoration

[ethelzguy]

I am willing to bet that there is nothing written from the Church which says that outside of Adoration, it is not permitted to take the luna with the Blessed Sacrament in it out of the monstrance and pass it around from person to person.

I would also be willing to bet that formation as to why that is not permitted anyway should be given to seminarians.

I would also be willing to bet that (at least in recent years) most of them received no such formation.

I wouldn’t bet on it either way… But, I would want to see something in documentation before I would start accusing a priest of desecration, etc.

Seminarians may not be instructed against it because it may not be prohibited.

I don’t know, that’s why I’m asking. I have seen a lot of well-intentioned opinion, but I’d like to see the Church’s say (if any) on the matter.

Many times over the course of my life, I have seen people, especially kids, ask a priest a question like “what is that thing?”, or “what is that for?”…and the priest would take the object in question and explain in great detail what it was, what it was for, and how it worked.

cheers, TBL

 

[parrotgal]

I am asking if this occured DURING Benediction/Exposition/Adoration? I have read the OP and can’t quite be sure of your timeline of events.

Or, did it occur as a seperate instance, OUTSIDE of the usual Benediction/Exposition/Adoration ritual.

If it was OUTSIDE of those actual events, I would be interested to see specific Church documentation that states that the Blessed Sacrement is not to be otherwise handled in such a way.

I agree, that if it was “passed around” DURING B/E/A, that would be a major problem, but if it wasn’t, then we may have a horse of a different color.

then i would suggest you read my post again, or for that matter just read the title of the thread. that should clear it up for you. And for clarification purposes, there is first Exposition, Adoration, then Benediction.
good grief. do you really think “someone” would just willy nilly remove a consecrated host that was put in a monstrance and then pass it around during a time other than adoration or outside of another time would even be probable? (sorry to be irreverent but i’m trying to get an outrageous point across)
i think i am done reading now. i am in utter shock and disbelief.

and i did not accuse anyone of desecration get your facts straight.

 

[FrDavid96]

I wouldn’t bet on it either way… But, I would want to see something in documentation before I would start accusing a priest of desecration, etc.

Seminarians may not be instructed against it because it may not be prohibited.

I don’t know, that’s why I’m asking. I have seen a lot of well-intentioned opinion, but I’d like to see the Church’s say (if any) on the matter.

Many times over the course of my life, I have seen people, especially kids, ask a priest a question like “what is that thing?”, or “what is that for?”…and the priest would take the object in question and explain in great detail what it was, what it was for, and how it worked.

cheers, TBL

Canon 935 It is not licit to keep the Most Holy Eucharist on one’s person or to carry it on a journey unless there is an urgent pastoral need and the precepts of the diocesan bishop are observed.

Now let’s look at that. The canon does not distinguish between a short period of time or a long one. So the practice is forbidden no matter how briefly it might be done.

As for receiving in the hand, yes, one does have the Eucharist in his hand for a brief moment, but here the “pastoral need” is obvious. Common sense tells us that there are times when a person must handle the Eucharist. But if the necessity does not exist, then the act is always illicit.

 

[ethelzguy]

then i would suggest you read my post again, or for that matter just read the title of the thread. that should clear it up for you. And for clarification purposes, there is first Exposition, Adoration, then Benediction.
good grief. do you really think “someone” would just willy nilly remove a consecrated host that was put in a monstrance and then pass it around during a time other than adoration or outside of another time would even be probable? (sorry to be irreverent but i’m trying to get an outrageous point across)
i think i am done reading now. i am in utter shock and disbelief.

and i did not accuse anyone of desecration get your facts straight.

Not only is it possible, it is likely to have happened in many instances over time.

I have yet to see documentation that such action would not be allowed. What if a young altar server asked a priest how the monstrance was used and the mechanics of it? Would the priest be “committing abuse” if he showed the questioner all the details and allowed them to touch anything?

And to the accusation of desecration, I would respectfully refer you to your post number eleven…

**I feel that somehow Jesus was desecrated **

And, in post #61, I stated that **I **would want documentation, before I would make such an accusation. Did I direct my comment to you?

 

[ethelzguy]

Canon 935 It is not licit to keep the Most Holy Eucharist on one’s person or to carry it on a journey unless there is an urgent pastoral need and the precepts of the diocesan bishop are observed.

Now let’s look at that. The canon does not distinguish between a short period of time or a long one. ** So the practice is forbidden no matter how briefly it might be done.**

As for receiving in the hand, yes, one does have the Eucharist in his hand for a brief moment, but here the “pastoral need” is obvious. Common sense tells us that there are times when a person must handle the Eucharist. But if the necessity does not exist, then the act is always illicit.

How, then, do you explain laity taking consecrated hosts with them from Mass for distribution to the sick or homebound? By your definition, that can’t be done.

This is why sweeping statements can cause confusion.

 

[parrotgal]

a feeling is not an accusation sir.

and you are making assumptions about “likely” occurring situations.

i am stating facts about what happened in a situation in which i was personally in attendance.

i will continue to read this thread, but i feel i have expressed my views, I am NOT going to defend my words I said what I said and I mean what I mean.

for those of you with kind words, who understand the seriousness of this matter i once again express my gratitude.

God Bless
Peace

 

[japhy]

How, then, do you explain laity taking consecrated hosts with them from Mass for distribution to the sick or homebound? By your definition, that can’t be done.

Because that is a sufficient pastoral reason and is already accounted for.

 

[ethelzguy]

a feeling is not an accusation sir.

and you are making assumptions about “likely” occurring situations.

i am stating facts about what happened in a situation in which i was personally in attendance.

i will continue to read this thread, but i feel i have expressed my views, **I am NOT going to defend my words **I said what I said and I mean what I mean.

for those of you with kind words, who understand the seriousness of this matter i once again express my gratitude.

God Bless
Peace

So, what you’ve said above basically says, that you’re angry, you’re not really interested in facts, and you are looking for sympathetic posters?

You have made a claim against a priest that apparently you are the only witness to on this thread. When you say “I feel that somehow Jesus was desecrated” in reference to a specific priest and a specifc event, you ARE accusing that priest of desecration.

That’s what we have to work with. Some of us are asking legitimate questions. Refusing to evaluate all the possibilities doesn’t give credibility to your accusation(s) against the priest in question.

Being angry doesn’t make you right.

 

[parrotgal]

I am highly offended by you. How sad you have nothing better to do than to distort someone’s words who came to this forum in true hurt and dispair and give no constructive advice but destructive criticism.

You will be in my prayers.

 

[ethelzguy]

but being right does

Then show us that you are ‘right’ by providing Church documents to back up your accusation that the Blessed Sacrement was desecrated in this occurance. Please be specific.

 

[ethelzguy]

Yes we are. And we are to consume forthwith. However, we are NOT EVER ALLOWED to hold onto Him for a while adore Him personally and then pass Him along down the line, so that everyone else can share in the experience, until He reaches the front again.

But I suppose that since this occurred at a Lifeteen event, and we all know that Lifeteen would never ever ever under any circumstances, sanction these sort of things, that you would try to find some way to how shall we say it, minimize the affront? Minimize the , how would you best term it ,

Outright blatant disrespect and sacrilige? Is that too strong a statement?

I am pleased that you would be disturbed. I really am. Its good to know that Lifeteen hasn’t completely fried and distorted your sense of the sacred nature of the Eucharist.

I am however very concerned though that you tried to find some way, any way, to minimize what happened and in essence find some way to justify it. Comparing this atrocity to the reception of Holy Communion is just plain non sensical and wrong.

I think your deep love for Lifeteen got the best of you on this one. I hope that you can realize that. Some things cannot be justified nor minimized.

Ever, no matter who does them.

There is nothing wrong with righteous anger.

And before you get all testy, I know what this Priest was trying to do. He was trying to get the kids to experience Christ in an up close and personal physical way, just as most Lifeteen events try to do in some way or another. To bring the mystery of faith closer to the kids. To make it more real for them. To get them involved.

I sat through that sort of thing for years because the DRE and RCIA director were big fans of Lifeteen.

The problem though is that by coming up with new and inventive ways to try to accomplish these noble goals, those responsible often cause great damage to the Body of Christ. They may have the best of intentions, but we know what is often said about good intentions.

Agreed. I would just like to get to the specifics that would prohibit what is said to have occured, and to ferret out whether “desecration” actually occured, according to Church definition.

 

[parrotgal]

Agreed. I would just like to get to the specifics that would prohibit what is said to have occured, and to ferret out whether “desecration” actually occured, according to Church definition.

FOR THE RECORD

I AM DONE WITH GUY

I AM RIGHT THAT THIS WAS WRONG IN MY HEART

YOU FERRET YOUR OWN STUFF OUT SIR

I FEEL THIS IN MY HEART

YOU DON’T LIKE IT THAT IS YOUR PROBLEM

MY PROBLEM I WILL CARRY MY OWN HURT

YOU HAVE MADE A MOCKERY OF MY FEELINGS

GOOD DAY GOOD BYE

 

[benedictgal]

How, then, do you explain laity taking consecrated hosts with them from Mass for distribution to the sick or homebound? By your definition, that can’t be done.

This is why sweeping statements can cause confusion.

The two situations are radically different from one another. The communicant who receives Holy Communion in the hand must consume the Sacred Species as soon as possible.

This is from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments from 1969:

The faithful should consume the host before returning to their place

Some four years later, it seems that reports of problems were already creeping up, prompting the same Congregation to issue this statement, which reads, in part:

Ever since the Instruction Memoriale Domini three years ago, some of the conferences of bishops have been requesting the Apostolic See for the faculty to allow ministers distributing communion to place the eucharistic bread in the hand of the faithful. The same Instruction contained a reminder that “the laws of the Church and the writings of the Fathers give ample witness of a supreme reverence and utmost caution toward the Eucharist” and that this must continue. Particularly in regard to this way of receiving communion, experience suggests certain matters requiring careful attention.

On the part of both the minister and the recipient, whenever the host is placed in the hand of a communicant there must be careful concern and caution, especially about particles that might fall from the hosts.

The usage of communion in the hand must be accompanied by relevant instruction or catechesis on Catholic teaching regarding Christ’s real and permanent presence under the eucharistic elements and the proper reverence toward this sacrament.

Therefore, this indult was not issued without due consideration. Nowhere does the indult note that the faithful may handle the Eucharist in a manner described by the OP.

If one were to re-read the various instances that I’ve posted from two different dioceses and even from the USCCB, the “passing around approach” is not even mentioned. Fr. David quoted Canon Law. What further proof does one need to know that what the OP described is wrong?

there is enough documentation here to substantiate parrotgal’s assertions. Furthermore, even if there wasn’t documentation, the gesture is stiill wrong, especially if we hold to the belief that what is contained in the luna is the living and glorious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. Passing Him around like that is a poor means of teaching young people, or anyone else, for that matter, proper adoration of the Blessed Sacrament.

 

[parrotgal]

The two situations are radically different from one another. The communicant who receives Holy Communion in the hand must consume the Sacred Species as soon as possible.

This is from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments from 1969:

Some four years later, it seems that reports of problems were already creeping up, prompting the same Congregation to issue this statement, which reads, in part:

Therefore, this indult was not issued without due consideration. Nowhere does the indult note that the faithful may handle the Eucharist in a manner described by the OP.

If one were to re-read the various instances that I’ve posted from two different dioceses and even from the USCCB, the “passing around approach” is not even mentioned. Fr. David quoted Canon Law. What further proof does one need to know that what the OP described is wrong?

there is enough documentation here to substantiate parrotgal’s assertions. Furthermore, even if there wasn’t documentation, the gesture is stiill wrong, especially if we hold to the belief that what is contained in the luna is the living and glorious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. Passing Him around like that is a poor means of teaching young people, or anyone else, for that matter, proper adoration of the Blessed Sacrament.

Thank you again Benedictgal, even if I only held in my heart what I know is right and true, the documentation you have just provided also show what is true and correct as far as those who prefer the “letter of the law”.

God Bless
Peace

 

[ethelzguy]

Therefore, this indult was not issued without due consideration. Nowhere does the indult note that the faithful may handle the Eucharist in a manner described by the OP.

If one were to re-read the various instances that I’ve posted from two different dioceses and even from the USCCB, the “passing around approach” is not even mentioned. Fr. David quoted Canon Law. What further proof does one need to know that what the OP described is wrong?

We’re not discussiong “passing around” for reception/consumption. we’re talking about showing for learning or adoration outside of the “Benediction/Exposition/Adoration”.

there is enough documentation here to substantiate parrotgal’s assertions. Furthermore, even if there wasn’t documentation, the gesture is stiill wrong, especially if we hold to the belief that what is contained in the luna is the living and glorious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. Passing Him around like that is a poor means of teaching young people, or anyone else, for that matter, proper adoration of the Blessed Sacrament.

I do not see the documentation. I see personal opinion/extrapolation of documents, interpreted to suit a situation. It may well be “poor means of teaching young people”, but where does the Church prohibit such teaching?

 

[ethelzguy]

Thank you again Benedictgal, even if I only held in my heart what I know is right and true, the documentation you have just provided also show what is true and correct as far as those who prefer the “letter of the law”.

God Bless
Peace

You will find more than enough posters at CAF who will be glad to tell you that what you “know in your heart” to be right and true doesn’t neccessarily mean that it’s Church law.

We are a Church of tradition and law. What one “feels” to be right or wrong doesn’t make it Church law, anymore than someone who feels in their heart that it is ok to use ABC makes it ok with the Church.

It goes both ways.

 

[ethelzguy]

I am highly offended by you. How sad you have nothing better to do than to distort someone’s words who came to this forum in true hurt and dispair and give no constructive advice but destructive criticism.

You will be in my prayers.

I am equally offended by someone who would accuse a priest of desecration of the Blessed Sacrement without substantiating such accusation first, and then watching others twist said accusation into an indictment of the LifeTeen program.

 

[FrDavid96]

How, then, do you explain laity taking consecrated hosts with them from Mass for distribution to the sick or homebound? By your definition, that can’t be done.

This is why sweeping statements can cause confusion.

Now you’re being absurd. Please read the post before making non-sensical comments. The canon allows for “pastoral need” taking Communion to the sick is a pastoral need. Can we be reasonable and civilized, please?

 

[benedictgal]

This is taken from the Diocese of Trenton concerning the procedures for distributing Holy Communion to the Sick:

The Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion may be called forward after the Communion Rite at Mass, receive the pyx containing host (s), and be sent from the church or chapel with a
blessing or go to the tabernacle after Mass, put the host (s) in the pyx and depart.

The Extraordinary Minister will then proceed directly from the church or chapel to the place where Communion is to be distributed.

I am most alarmed at the tone this thread has taken. Sufficient, ample documentation has been provided and Canon law has been quoted that clearly indicates that what parrotgal described in the OP is wrong.

Regarding the example that ethelzguy provided in his post:

What if a young altar server asked a priest how the monstrance was used and the mechanics of it? Would the priest be “committing abuse” if he showed the questioner all the details and allowed them to touch anything?

common sense and a profound reverence and genuine respect for the Blessed Sacrament would call for prudence on the part of the priest. All he would have to do is to show the altar server an empty luna (parishes could very well have more than one) and explain to him that the Sacred Host is placed into this special vessel and then inserted into the Monstrance for exposition, adoration and benediction. Pulling our Lord out of the tabernacle for a simple show-and-tell would not be a wise move on the part of the priest.

I am afraid that, in some instances, this thread has drifted into the nonsensical. Fr. David had it right on target when he rightly observed that we needed to be civilized and reasonable.

 

[benedictgal]

We are a Church of tradition and law. What one “feels” to be right or wrong doesn’t make it Church law, anymore than someone who feels in their heart that it is ok to use ABC makes it ok with the Church.

It goes both ways.

It certainly does, and I respectfully note that you have, in effect, shot down your previous assertions. The law has been quoted several times here, both canonically and liturgically. Both have clearly indicated what one can and cannot do relative to the Blessed Sacrament.

In parrotgal’s defense, it wasn’t “feeling” any more than it was a gut-instinct and a tugging of the conscience. If someone has a strong and genunine prayer life, that person will, perhaps, be more attuned to irregularities that are unsettling to the soul. Rather than mere feelings, these inclinations are more along the lines of a matter of conscience and a strong spiritual instinct that something is seriously amiss.