What r we going to do if we encounter a liturgical abuse?

[recsdennis]

I’m an altar server and within my 9 months experience into this apostolate, I’ve witnessed different priests celebrate the Holy Mass differently. And I can’t help but get confused on what i should do.

1. I’ve seen two priests within our city-- one is a diocesan priest while the other, a missionary-- do the same thing at consecration: **they break the bread at the moment they say “…He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples…” **All the other priests in our place don’t do such. Isn’t the Eucharist only broken after the Lamb of God part? I checked the Missal, there was no instruction whatsoever telling the priest to break the bread at consecration…
2. Once I attended a Mass in a chapel where only less than 6 people attended. Instead of distributing to us the Eucharist, the priest just prepared the Eucharistic hosts on the paten and the precious blood on the altar. He just sat and allowed us to handpick the Eucharist and dip it into the chalice (where the Precious Blood is of course) and take Him.

I have been advised by a nun that if i were to encounter such situation, I was not to make communion. Instead, it would be better if were to attend the next mass.

Are these actually liturgical abuses? Were these Masses still valid if they were liturgical abuses?

Was the nun right in advising me to do so? If she was right,what if the priest approaches me and wants me to take communion? (I’m referring to the priest who broke the bread at the consecration)

If it was really a liturgical abuse, I don’t understand why his fellow priests in the congregation did not correct him.

Aside from that, these missionary priests run our school. I feel a bit alarmed that if these liturgical abuses continue, the students, esp. the Catholics will regard the Mass as something “not anymore that sacred”.

 

[Alma]

" **they break the bread at the moment they say “…He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples…” **
Isn’t the Eucharist only broken after the Lamb of God part? "

You are right. The bread should not be broken during the Consecration. The priest who does so obviously considers this to be some kind of ‘representation’ of the Last Supper, as if he were supposed to perform what he is saying. He is wrong and the General Instruction of the Roman Missal clearly states that the bread should be broken during the ‘fraction of the bread’ ( I don’t know if it is called like that in English, in Spanish it is called ‘Fracción del Pan’). What you call ‘the Lamb of God part’.

I checked the Missal, there was no instruction whatsoever telling the priest to break the bread at consecration…

You are right, there is none.

1. Once I attended a Mass in a chapel where only less than 6 people attended. Instead of distributing to us the Eucharist, **the priest just prepared the Eucharistic hosts on the paten and the precious blood on the altar. He just sat and allowed us to handpick the Eucharist and dip it into the chalice (where the Precious Blood is of course) and take Him.

That is considered an abuse. The faithful should receive the Eucharist from the priest or minister.
**
I have been advised by a nun that if i were to encounter such situation, I was not to make communion. Instead, it would be better if were to attend the next mass.
Are these actually liturgical abuses? Were these Masses still valid if they were liturgical abuses?

I do not think those two situations you mentioned are so grave as to justify that you abstain from Communion. I do not think in neither case the Sacrament was invalid. They are abuses, yes, wrong attitudes of the priest, mistakes that should be corrected, that is all.

Was the nun right in advising me to do so?

The nun was right to advise you that when there is a grave liturgical abuse that renders the Sacrament invalid you should abstain from Communion,( which I don’t think is now the case).

If she was right,what if the priest approaches me and wants me to take communion? (I’m referring to the priest who broke the bread at the consecration)

In this particular case, if the priest asks you to take Communion and you are capable of doing so (I mean, you have not commited a grave sin, etc.), then by all means, do so!

If it was really a liturgical abuse, I don’t understand why his fellow priests in the congregation did not correct him.

Maybe you should talk with him about your concerns, and if he does not correct this, then you could go and have a talk with his superior.

Aside from that, these missionary priests run our school. I feel a bit alarmed that if these liturgical abuses continue, the students, esp. the Catholics will regard the Mass as something “not anymore that sacred”.

I don’t think this particular liturgical abuses can cause such a harmful effect. Unfortunately most people that attend Mass do not know enough as to notice them. However the Pope has insisted on correcting those apparently small things before they pile up and can do some real damage.

I will pray for you and those priests, that you may have a fruitful dialogue.


Alma

 

[otm]

recsdennis:

I’m an altar server and within my 9 months experience into this apostolate, I’ve witnessed different priests celebrate the Holy Mass differently. And I can’t help but get confused on what i should do.

1. I’ve seen two priests within our city-- one is a diocesan priest while the other, a missionary-- do the same thing at consecration: **they break the bread at the moment they say “…He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples…” **All the other priests in our place don’t do such. Isn’t the Eucharist only broken after the Lamb of God part? I checked the Missal, there was no instruction whatsoever telling the priest to break the bread at consecration…

I believe that was corrected in Redemptionis Sacramentum. The Host is not to be broken during the Consecration, but later.

recsdennis:

1. Once I attended a Mass in a chapel where only less than 6 people attended. Instead of distributing to us the Eucharist, the priest just prepared the Eucharistic hosts on the paten and the precious blood on the altar. He just sat and allowed us to handpick the Eucharist and dip it into the chalice (where the Precious Blood is of course) and take Him.

Two errors; one does not “take” Communion, one “receives” it. Picking up the Host is a no-no. It is to be handed to you by the priest, deacon, or EMHC.

The same with intinction: if the Host is to be intincted, the priest is to do it (my understanding is that iether a priest or deacon is to do that, but not an EMHC, but that last could be wrong).

recsdennis:

I have been advised by a nun that if i were to encounter such situation, I was not to make communion. Instead, it would be better if were to attend the next mass.

The nun is just flat out wrong. There is no rule that you cannot receive. She is confusing the terms “illicit” (against the law) with “invalid” (no consecration occured; if you knew that and received anyway, it would be a sacrilege). Neither of the above activities invalidate the Sacrement.

recsdennis:

Are these actually liturgical abuses? Were these Masses still valid if they were liturgical abuses?

I would prefer to think that the priest did not know that he was violating one or more of the rubrics. I would reserve the word “abuse” for an intentional, flagrant violation of the rubrics after being corrected by the bishop; prior to that I would give the benefit of the doubt to the priest that either he was not well trained in rubrics to begin with, or has strayed from the rubrics in a misguided attempt to do something he perceives as meaningful and within the lattitude he believes he has.

Yes, the Masses are valid. About the only things that make a Mass invalid are using improper matter (e.g. unfermented grape juice, or pop, or tea instead of wine, or a rice cake instead of a what host), or failure to say the words of consecration, substituting something else. It rarely happens now.

recsdennis:

Was the nun right in advising me to do so? If she was right,what if the priest approaches me and wants me to take communion? (I’m referring to the priest who broke the bread at the consecration)

No. She was flat out wrong. the Consecration is valid whether he breaks the Host at the wrong time or not. It is not intrinsic to the Consecration.

recsdennis:

If it was really a liturgical abuse, I don’t understand why his fellow priests in the congregation did not correct him.

Perhaps for the same reason that he does what he does - either poor training, or a belief that they have a legitimate lattitude in certain things.

Aside from that, these missionary priests run our school. I feel a bit alarmed that if these liturgical abuses continue, the students, esp. the Catholics will regard the Mass as something “not anymore that sacred”.Actually, it is entirely possible that the students have no idea that any liberties have been taken with the rubrics. It would therefore be an act of charity to them to keep this to yourself, as it would cause them to question things they are not questioning now.

Furthermore, it is entirely possible to be so deep in prayer that one does not notice if Father strays from the rubrics slightly in some issues. Some may be noticeable, such as the priest not distributing Communion. others are not if one is not looking for them, but rather joining in the prayers with the priest as he prays for the Church, etc.

None of this is to suggest that the rubrics are not important, or that I believe the priest has the liberty to change whatever suits him, no matter how earnest and holy may be his intent.