SPLIT: Abuses worth reporting to the bishop?

[Oneofthewomen]

I also believe that far too many people (myself included, at times ), will lable anything that does not fit in within their preconceived notions of what is correct, is automatically an abuse.

This is a good example of the attitude I discussed above.

Now, I have just a question for everyone who has contacted their bishop. What have you asked about and did it change? Because there are things I would like to change such as the constant use of EMHC, the receiving of Communion in the hands, etc. But I’m just not sure if this is something that bishops are willing to change or if this is something that they’ve instituted.

The use of EMHC, and the reception of Communion in the hand ARE NOT ABUSES!!! You don’t have to like them and you don’t have to paricipate in them either. But please do not lable them abuses.
They are both perfectly licit practices. The decision of how the are applied is up to the pastor to some extent and the Bishop. Calling licit and acceptable variations & practices “abuses” because you don’t like them is not doing the laity or the Church any good. Here’s an example of what I mean.

Our focus needs to be “building up” the kingdom, meeting people where the are, and leading them back to the truth not “tearing it down” because of what “I” want. think it right, better, or more pious!!

 

[GwenL]

I can’t believe that people would react in such a way to that, especially the music part. Do people really enjoy the contemporary music sung in churches? My favorite is the cheerful music that gets played during Communion.

Though I have noticed that parishoners typically don’t know why things are happening and so are upset when what they see is the whim of the priest or bishop deciding the form rather than an appeal to something greater. I feel as though if things were explained better that we would get less resistance (I’m looking at you new translation, no parishoners that I know of understand the significance of these changes).

Now, I have just a question for everyone who has contacted their bishop. What have you asked about and did it change? Because there are things I would like to change such as the constant use of EMHC, the receiving of Communion in the hands, etc. But I’m just not sure if this is something that bishops are willing to change or if this is something that they’ve instituted.

Reference your second paragraph. Our rector provided extensive catechesis. He explained (gently, I thought), why Vatican II (and every Pope on record) thought it important to retain Latin in the liturgy, especially in the ordinary of the Mass. He explained why chant has “pride of place” in the liturgy. He taught the congregation vernacular chant as a bridge to Latin. They rebelled against chanting the Our Father in English!

In my limited experience, it seems that there are a number of parishioners who think that they run the parish and own the liturgy. I think it ends up being a power struggle, with these parishioners who have run things for years.

Reference your second paragraph. EMHCs are allowed in the OF, regardless of our opinion. You might write a charitable letter to the bishop suggesting that he change current practices regarding the use of EHMC, especially if you think they are over-used. But EHMC are allowed, and the answer of the accused priest is going to be “In my judgement, we needed X number of EHMCs.” What bishop is going to argue with one of his priests about his judgement on the number of EHMCs needed on a particular day?

Regarding CITH, it is allowed by indult from the Vatican. Unless you can proved that the faithful are not catechized properly, or that there is a chance for profanation of the sacred species, the bishop is going to (rightly) ignore your request to require COTT.

Personally, I receive kneeling and on the tongue. But it is the right of every person (in the U.S.) to receive standing, and in the hand, unless their bishop has decreed otherwise. And I’m not aware of any that have done so. CITH is licit, valid, and perfectly acceptable in the Church in the U.S.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

aaa

 

[thistle]

Reference your second paragraph. Our rector provided extensive catechesis. He explained (gently, I thought), why Vatican II (and every Pope on record) thought it important to retain Latin in the liturgy, especially in the ordinary of the Mass. He explained why chant has “pride of place” in the liturgy. He taught the congregation vernacular chant as a bridge to Latin. They rebelled against chanting the Our Father in English!

In my limited experience, it seems that there are a number of parishioners who think that they run the parish and own the liturgy. I think it ends up being a power struggle, with these parishioners who have run things for years.

Reference your second paragraph. EMHCs are allowed in the OF, regardless of our opinion. You might write a charitable letter to the bishop suggesting that he change current practices regarding the use of EHMC, especially if you think they are over-used. But EHMC are allowed, and the answer of the accused priest is going to be “In my judgement, we needed X number of EHMCs.” What bishop is going to argue with one of his priests about his judgement on the number of EHMCs needed on a particular day?

Regarding CITH, it is allowed by indult from the Vatican. Unless you can proved that the faithful are not catechized properly, or that there is a chance for profanation of the sacred species, the bishop is going to (rightly) ignore your request to require COTT.

Personally, I receive kneeling and on the tongue. But it is the right of every person (in the U.S.) to receive standing, and in the hand, unless their bishop has decreed otherwise. And I’m not aware of any that have done so. CITH is licit, valid, and perfectly acceptable in the Church in the U.S.

We have 10 Masses every Sunday which would be impossible without EMHC’s.

Actually the Bishop cannot stop a person receiving in the hand. It is the exclusive choice of the person receiving Communion.

 

[fall_fox]

We have 10 Masses every Sunday which would be impossible without EMHC’s.

Sorry to say, you are absolutely correct. Back in the day, as the saying goes, we had more Priests than we knew what to do with. Of course we were only receiving the Host but it also seemed we weren’t in a hurry to get out of church, we knew that that was the way things were and we accepted it.

 

[mburn16]

An abuse serious enough to report would be, in my view, anything which places in danger the validity of the sacrament or practice, and accordingly, misleads the congregation as to their proper state of grace or accordance with Catholic practice. So improper confession or absolution, flawed consecrations, willful dispense of the host to non-catholics, incorrectly or illicit clergy, etc.

Bad Music, overly casual behavior, or things of a similar nature may be offensive, but they are also a part of a legitimate debate about the manner of our worship.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

thistle;8595749:

We have 10 Masses every Sunday which would be impossible without EMHC’s.

Sorry to say, you are absolutely correct. Back in the day, as the saying goes, we had more Priests than we knew what to do with. Of course we were only receiving the Host but it also seemed we weren’t in a hurry to get out of church, we knew that that was the way things were and we accepted it.

There are plenty of deacons and priests. I’ve been to Masses where just two people (priest and deacon or another priest) serve the Eucharist. Is it unduly long? Not at all. Are the daily Masses that I’ve been to where about 20 people show so packed that we need EMHC? Yet this happens here too.

EMHC are supposed to be the exception, not the rule. Are 5 EMHC needed to assist a priest and a deacon really necessary for a Mass that has about 200 people? Really? Yet this is standard in most parishes.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

We have 10 Masses every Sunday which would be impossible without EMHC’s.

Actually the Bishop cannot stop a person receiving in the hand. It is the exclusive choice of the person receiving Communion.

You probably have a lot of priests, then. Why not just have them rotate to help distribute Communion?

I’m just trying to make the point that the use of EMHC is supposed to be only for extenuating circumstances, not standard procedure.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

Reference your second paragraph. Our rector provided extensive catechesis. He explained (gently, I thought), why Vatican II (and every Pope on record) thought it important to retain Latin in the liturgy, especially in the ordinary of the Mass. He explained why chant has “pride of place” in the liturgy. He taught the congregation vernacular chant as a bridge to Latin. They rebelled against chanting the Our Father in English!

In my limited experience, it seems that there are a number of parishioners who think that they run the parish and own the liturgy. I think it ends up being a power struggle, with these parishioners who have run things for years.

Reference your second paragraph. EMHCs are allowed in the OF, regardless of our opinion. You might write a charitable letter to the bishop suggesting that he change current practices regarding the use of EHMC, especially if you think they are over-used. But EHMC are allowed, and the answer of the accused priest is going to be “In my judgement, we needed X number of EHMCs.” What bishop is going to argue with one of his priests about his judgement on the number of EHMCs needed on a particular day?

Regarding CITH, it is allowed by indult from the Vatican. Unless you can proved that the faithful are not catechized properly, or that there is a chance for profanation of the sacred species, the bishop is going to (rightly) ignore your request to require COTT.

Personally, I receive kneeling and on the tongue. But it is the right of every person (in the U.S.) to receive standing, and in the hand, unless their bishop has decreed otherwise. And I’m not aware of any that have done so. CITH is licit, valid, and perfectly acceptable in the Church in the U.S.

But my point is why have these things become standard when they are supposed to be the exception, rather than the rule? And why are churches that follow these traditions so difficult to find?

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

This is a good example of the attitude I discussed above.

The use of EMHC, and the reception of Communion in the hand ARE NOT ABUSES!!! You don’t have to like them and you don’t have to paricipate in them either. But please do not lable them abuses.
They are both perfectly licit practices. The decision of how the are applied is up to the pastor to some extent and the Bishop. Calling licit and acceptable variations & practices “abuses” because you don’t like them is not doing the laity or the Church any good. Here’s an example of what I mean.

Our focus needs to be “building up” the kingdom, meeting people where the are, and leading them back to the truth not “tearing it down” because of what “I” want. think it right, better, or more pious!!

This is why I asked a question, and didn’t automatically claim it to be an abuse. I just asked a simple question, no need to go off on me.

And just a question: shouldn’t we strive for more piety when talking about the Eucharist? Then why characterize my ideas as so petty?

 

[Oneofthewomen]

This is why I asked a question, and didn’t automatically claim it to be an abuse. I just asked a simple question, no need to go off on me.

And just a question: shouldn’t we strive for more piety when talking about the Eucharist? Then why characterize my ideas as so petty?

I am sorry if I offended you, it was not my intention.

The fact is there are many threads here where you see people yelling “abuse” where there is none, just misunderstanding.
Hence, my comparison to Aseop’s fable. Unfounded calls of abuses just detract form the more serious issues that our Church faces and helps to divide us even further.
Yes, we should strive for piety, but it needs to come from the heart first.
Outward gestures mean nothing if my heart is not pure.

 

[thistle]

fall fox;8595886:

There are plenty of deacons and priests. I’ve been to Masses where just two people (priest and deacon or another priest) serve the Eucharist. Is it unduly long? Not at all. Are the daily Masses that I’ve been to where about 20 people show so packed that we need EMHC? Yet this happens here too.

EMHC are supposed to be the exception, not the rule. Are 5 EMHC needed to assist a priest and a deacon really necessary for a Mass that has about 200 people? Really? Yet this is standard in most parishes.

We have 14,000 people in our parish and Sunday Mass attendance averages 80%. We have 10 Masses on Sundays to cope. That means on average 1000 + people at each Mass for 10 Masses. It is simply not possible for the priest to handle that.
We have 3 permanent priests (which means special dispensations given for them to receive more than 2 times) and 2 of the 3 priests are out saying Mass elsewhere. They rotate.
It might be just 200 people where you live but certainly not here.
[edited]

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

There could be more, no doubt, but there are plenty such that EMHC does not have to be the norm.

 

[GwenL]

We have 10 Masses every Sunday which would be impossible without EMHC’s.

Actually the Bishop cannot stop a person receiving in the hand. It is the exclusive choice of the person receiving Communion.

That is incorrect. If there is danger of profanation of the host, the priest is prohibited from giving communion in the hand. For example, if the priest suspects that people are carrying the host back to their pews (or out of the door), sticking them in pockets, etc. he is well within his responsibilities to direct COTT. But of course he’d explain it!

Redemptionis Sacramentum says this: if there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful

notice from the Vatican

the indult

 

[GwenL]

But my point is why have these things become standard when they are supposed to be the exception, rather than the rule? And why are churches that follow these traditions so difficult to find?

COTT is not an “exception.” Absent the risk of profanation, it is the choice of every Catholic at every OF Mass in locations where the bishops’ conference has received the indult. My opinion is that COTT should be universal. But my opinion means nothing–Holy Mother Church has seen fit to permit CITH. We cannot label CITH in and of itself an “abuse” or “exception.”

Extraordinary Ministers are necessary at even a small daily Mass when the Precious Blood is offered to the faithful. Due to the layout of many “modern” churches, EMHCs are also required. I used to go to a parish church designed in that horrid horseshoe shape with the raised sanctuary in the middle. One priest (no deacons) for a parish of 5,000 families and usually at least 600 at each Mass. There’s no physical way to complete Holy Communion with one priest and that setup in less than 20 minutes. Our cathedral (where I go now) is different; it’s laid out traditionally and everyone files into a center aisle.

What I find silly is people who avoid the EMHC and jump into the priest’s line to receive the host. Their reasoning is that they will only receive from someone with “consecrated hands.” What’s really silly is that these same people will also jump into the deacon’s line to avoid the EMHC. Not realizing that the deacon’s hands aren’t consecrated. For that matter, neither are the hands of an Eastern Catholic priest (or so I’m told).

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

COTT is not an “exception.” Absent the risk of profanation, it is the choice of every Catholic at every OF Mass in locations where the bishops’ conference has received the indult. My opinion is that COTT should be universal. But my opinion means nothing–Holy Mother Church has seen fit to permit CITH. We cannot label CITH in and of itself an “abuse” or “exception.”

The very fact that it has to be allowed by an indult makes it the exception and not the rule.

 

[thistle]

That is incorrect. ** If there is danger of profanation of the host, the priest is prohibited from giving communion in the hand. For example, if the priest suspects that people are carrying the host back to their pews (or out of the door), sticking them in pockets, **etc. he is well within his responsibilities to direct COTT. But of course he’d explain it!

Redemptionis Sacramentum says this: if there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful

notice from the Vatican

the indult

That is a totally different issue. We are not talking about bad individuals. A person could just as easily spit out the host after receiving on the tongue. Does that mean you want to stop receiving completely? Obviously individual cases like that happen. I have seen a non-Catholic approach to receive and the priest refuse to distribute to him.

The Church allows receiving on the tongue and in the hand. This is embedded in the GIRM and the GIRM states clearly that the person receiving has the choice of how to receive. Unless the individual is known to the priest or ushers to be a person who should not receive then he cannot be refused in the hand.

 

[GwenL]

That is a totally different issue. We are not talking about bad individuals. A person could just as easily spit out the host after receiving on the tongue. Does that mean you want to stop receiving completely? Obviously individual cases like that happen. I have seen a non-Catholic approach to receive and the priest refuse to distribute to him.

The Church allows receiving on the tongue and in the hand. This is embedded in the GIRM and the GIRM states clearly that the person receiving has the choice of how to receive. Unless the individual is known to the priest or ushers to be a person who should not receive then he cannot be refused in the hand.

No, it is not a totally different issue. It is central to the issue. This is why Redemptionis Sacramentum addresses it. Profanation does not include only things like spitting out the host.

An entire congregation can be refused in the hand. Read the document, and the answers from the Vatican again.

 

[GwenL]

The very fact that it has to be allowed by an indult makes it the exception and not the rule.

“Exception and not the rule” implies that it is outside the rule, or somehow breaking or stretching the rule. It also implies that people who do this are doing something abnormal, exceptional, outside the norm. That is not the case. It is allowed as a normal practice.

The practice could be taken away, of course.

I teach CCD, both teen first Holy Communion and Confirmation classes. We require our FHC communicants to receive kneeling and on the tongue.

I teach them what the Church teaches and requires: that, in the U.S., they may receive kneeling, standing, on the tongue, in the hand. I encourage them to discuss this with their parents and pray about it.

 

[Tigg]

We require our FHC communicants to receive kneeling and on the tongue.

I teach them what the Church teaches and requires: that, in the U.S., they may receive kneeling, standing, on the tongue, in the hand. I encourage them to discuss this with their parents and pray about it.

I’m curious as to how this was received by the parents. Our DRE will tell the new class of FHC kids that for their very first time, they will receive on the tongue and after that, it will be their choice. She’s arming herself for the onslaught of negative comments that are likely to come.