Visiting priests preaches on "bread-only" Mass

[1Lord1Faith]

Where are the lines drawn? Are there any lines at all according to some?

Of course BlackFriar, and I, and most others who you may not think consider these things actually do consider them. It’s kind of condescending to think that we don’t. But we do not get all bent out shape about them. We don’t approach them with an attitude of thinking the worst. I personally would approach this particular situation without any judgment at all because I am not clergy, and I would give the priest the benefit of the doubt. I also would consider that you may have your story wrong…am I supposed to trust the poster who is constantly criticizing “liturgical abuses”? No, I give the priest the benefit of the doubt, not you.

 

[Duesenberg]

Of course BlackFriar, and I, and most others who you may not think consider these things actually do. It’s kind of condescending to think that we don’t.

Take a look at the comments. That’s exactly the impression that is given.

But we do not get all bent out shape about them. We don’t approach them with an attitude of thinking the worst.

Oh! so that’s the justification, aye?

I would give the priest the benefit of the doubt.

What “doubt” in this case? The canon is clear.

I also would consider that you may have your story wrong

Oh, that’s always an option – attack the person asking the question. That’s world class deflection!

No wonder the Church struggles so terribly. Everything is up for grabs in so many peoples’ minds. No wonder why self-professed Catholics claim to be pro-choice, publicly state there will one day be a Catholic priestesshood and otherwise question the authority of the Church.

This matter is not like the one I described in another thread where a priest went nutso (in private) because I included a chalice pall, chalice & ciborium veils and a burse when setting up for Mass. This is a very clear and serious breach of canon law that was preached about as if it was a positive thing to so.

 

[Duesenberg]

Fr. David had some reflections on the story. What is your take on his posts?

Do you really think members of the same brotherhood are going to engage in serious discourse on a matter like this in a medium like this?

 

[phil19034]

Thank you for always providing detailed answers! They should hire you at Catholic Answers! Or at least have you on as a guest

God Bless you and thank you for the time you give us on these forums.

 

[FiveLinden]

So could a priest in prison and under observation to prevent religious activity quietly consecrate bread and share it with fellow Catholics without breaching the canon?

You tell me, please.

Here is the canon

Can. 927 It is absolutely forbidden, even in extreme urgent necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other or even both outside the eucharistic celebration.”

What do you think is the answer to your question?

Well I don’t know. One bit says it cannot be done for a sacrilegious purpose, and one for any purpose. Where I come from different parts of the law saying different things can lead to a court preferring one over the other. Which applies in this case and how do we know?

 

[FrDavid96]

FrDavid96:

So could a priest in prison and under observation to prevent religious activity quietly consecrate bread and share it with fellow Catholics without breaching the canon?

You tell me, please.

Here is the canon

Can. 927 It is absolutely forbidden, even in extreme urgent necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other or even both outside the eucharistic celebration.”

What do you think is the answer to your question?

Well I don’t know. One bit says it cannot be done for a sacrilegious purpose, and one for any purpose. Where I come from different parts of the law saying different things can lead to a court preferring one over the other. Which applies in this case and how do we know?

They are 2 different laws that say 2 different but related things.

Can. 927 It is absolutely forbidden, even in extreme urgent necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other or even both outside the eucharistic celebration.

That answers your question about when such a thing might be considered permitted. The canon is quite clear in answering that question.

The penalty for violating that canon is “a just penalty.”

Stop here. That’s all for canon 927. Now we are changing subjects.

Now, the other law is one that is not found directly in the Code itself. The Code of Canon Law talks about certain crimes that incur that Latae sententiae excommunication. The canons list some of them, but in very general terms like “crime against the Eucharist” To clarify what is meant by a crime against the Eucharist, the Pope (JPII) issued an Apostolic Constitution listing some of them. In that, he says that consecrating for sacrilegious purposes is one of those crimes to which the canon refers.

In summary
Violating canon 927, all by itself, is a crime, one to be punished by “a just penalty.”

If a priest goes beyond what 927 describes and adds the crime of sacrilege, then it incurs the excommunication.

Does that help?

 

[Augustinian]

It brought to mind: “Can. 927 It is absolutely forbidden, even in extreme urgent necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other or even both outside the eucharistic celebration.” I was aware of this canon after reading stories about Catholic priests who always kept a morsel of bread on hand while in POW camps during WWII,

All this really means is that you are more informed that the priest you had this week. You might want to discuss it with him when you get a chance.

Considering the fact that it is very unlikely that any of those listening will ever be in a position to commit the same error, its really water under the bridge.

 

[Duesenberg]

All this really means is that you are more informed that the priest you had this week.

For me to be better informed on such a matter than a Catholic priest is troubling. DO priests know NOT to do such things? I would sure hope they do!

You might want to discuss it with him when you get a chance.

He was visiting, I doubt I will ever see him again. That said I cannot imagine approaching a priest (even in the most differential manner possible), respectfully bringing up Canon 927 and having them say something to the effect: “I did not know that! Thank you! Today I learned Something!” I would further guess that this priest HAS been approached by others after telling this story.

Considering the fact that it is very unlikely that any of those listening will ever be in a position to commit the same error, its really water under the bridge.

Not really. It underscores the prevailing feeling that “anything is OK” in today’s Catholic Church. Someone above actually tried to justify this priest’s actions. It’s mind-boggling!

 

[FiveLinden]

Thank you FrDavid96.

 

[runningdude]

Mass and Eucharist are actually synonyms.

 

[Gorgias]

Mass is actually liturgy and Eucharist is actually a sacrament, so… no: in this context, they’re not ‘synonyms’.

 

[runningdude]

A Sacrament is fundamentally liturgical. The word Eucharist literally means Thanksgiving in Greek, and refers to the Liturgy through which the body and blood of Christ become present. We celebrate the Eucharist in remembrance and gratitude to Christ for his sacrifice, and through the Eucharistic liturgy (the liurgury of Thanksgiving, the Mass) we receive the sacramental graces of his body and blood.

 

[Gorgias]

A Sacrament is fundamentally liturgical.

The Sacrament of Matrimony can be received without a liturgy.

The Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick can be administered without liturgy.

The Sacrament of Reconciliation, in an emergency, can be administered simply by saying the words of absolution.

I get what you’re saying… but you’re overly generalizing.

The word Eucharist literally means Thanksgiving in Greek

Yes. Thanks.

, and refers to the Liturgy through which the body and blood of Christ become present.

No. Not in this context. Here, we’re talking about a liturgy during which the Eucharist is being attempted to be confected. We’re making a distinction between “the Eucharist itself” and “the liturgy during which the Eucharist is confected.” They are not identical, per se, although your point about them sharing a context is true.

 

[runningdude]

The exchange of vows is a litergical action. The act of blessing with oil is a liturgical action. Even reciting the words of absolution is liturgical! The sacraments are sounds and actions that make Christ present. Without the ritual, there is no sacrament.

Without reciting the words of institution, there is no body and blood present.

The Eucharist is not simply the Body and Blood; the Body and Blood are confected within the Eucharist. The Eucharist itself is the ritual, the sacrificial action, the prayers, worship, and reception.

According to the Catechism:

1408 The Eucharistic celebration always includes: the proclamation of the Word of God; thanksgiving to God the Father for all his benefits, above all the gift of his Son; the consecration of bread and wine; and participation in the liturgical banquet by receiving the Lord’s body and blood. These elements constitute one single act of worship. (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm)

In the context of this thread, it is forbidden to consecrate the bread without the wine, because the sacrament requires both by it’s nature. The body of Christ is validly consecrated, but gravely illicit, because the mass, the sacrament, is incomplete. Christ said do this, not only part of this, in memory of him.

See also from the Catechism:

II. WHAT IS THIS SACRAMENT CALLED?
…1332 Holy Mass (Missa), because the liturgy in which the mystery of salvation is accomplished concludes with the sending forth (missio) of the faithful, so that they may fulfill God’s will in their daily lives (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm)