 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Esther
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bronx, New York USA |
| Posts: | 157 |
| First Name: | Esther | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Southern Baptist to Roman Catholic 11/26/06 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 6th, 2006 05:28 pm |
|
Which prayers are vital to the Eucharistic Liturgy to make it valid? If a priest changes some of the prayers, or leaves some out would this affect this validity? The one particular part I am referring to is the part in the Mass when the priests lowers his hands over the bread and then blesses it and according to my RCIA instructor this is the part in the Mass when the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus. Is this the case? And what would this imply if this portion of the Mass was left out?
Would any of the following items cause an invalid Mass? My understanding is it would be a valid Mass (even though not necessarily approved by the Church).
No crucifixes around/on the alter
The people offering up the gifts to God (lifting the bread and wine and adding the water to the wine)
Children and a few adults on the alter during the consecration and “participating” in the offering to God (Doing the same things other priests would be doing if they were on the alter)
Them passing around the Eucharist (like in a Protestant Church)
Using Pita like bread for the Eucharist
The priest sitting through the Eucharistic Liturgy
The priest “winging it” through the liturgy
I was pretty sure these things were wrong, but wanted to double check myself. I did some research last night and found that they may be illicit, but not invalid. The information I found was very general.
In these kinds of situations is it typical to write the bishop, or someone else?
Last edited on Mon Nov 6th, 2006 07:28 pm by Esther
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 6th, 2006 11:56 pm |
|
Esther wrote: Which prayers are vital to the Eucharistic Liturgy to make it valid? If a priest changes some of the prayers, or leaves some out would this affect this validity? The one particular part I am referring to is the part in the Mass when the priests lowers his hands over the bread and then blesses it and according to my RCIA instructor this is the part in the Mass when the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus. Is this the case? And what would this imply if this portion of the Mass was left out?
The Eucharist transforms into the Body and Blood of Christ at the words of consecration ("This is my body;" "This is my blood"). If those words are pronounced by a validly ordained priest, and it is the priest's intention to transform the bread and wine into the Body and Blood, then the transformation takes place. David will no doubt give more specific information as to exactly what is the exact minimum required.
A mass may be valid but not licit. In other words, any priest may consecrate the host, but the mass is "illegal" if it's done wrong, or if he does not have permission to say mass. This may be the case if a priest has been laicized, or if he has broken with the Church through a schism, or if he has been excommunicated for some reason. A priest who knowingly participates in an illicit mass is guilty of a serious sin; the same is true of a person in the congregation who knowingly receives Eucharist consecrated in an illicit manner.
Would any of the following items cause an invalid Mass? My understanding is it would be a valid Mass (even though not necessarily approved by the Church).
No crucifixes around/on the alter
The people offering up the gifts to God (lifting the bread and wine and adding the water to the wine)
Children and a few adults on the alter during the consecration and “participating” in the offering to God (Doing the same things other priests would be doing if they were on the alter)
Them passing around the Eucharist (like in a Protestant Church)
Using Pita like bread for the Eucharist
The priest sitting through the Eucharistic Liturgy
The priest “winging it” through the liturgy
I was pretty sure these things were wrong, but wanted to double check myself. I did some research last night and found that they may be illicit, but not invalid. The information I found was very general.
In these kinds of situations is it typical to write the bishop, or someone else?
None of these would necessarily invalidate the mass but they are certainly questionable and would make the mass illicit. There are two exceptions. If the "Pita-like bread" is not made from wheat, it may be invalid matter for the Eucharist, and if the priest who is "winging it" does not use the proper words of institution, the Eucharist may not be valid.
Some of the things you mention, such as the priest sitting through the Eucharistic Prayer, might be permitted by the bishop if the priest is physically unable to stand. In a similar manner, a lay person can prepare the gifts (pour the water into the wine) if the priest can't.
Some of the other things you mention, such as the lack of cruficixes, would not make the mass either invalid or illicit, but it is certainly irregular. There should be a crucifix on or near the altar of sacrifice. Sometimes it may be a cross without the corpus (body of Christ figure), or an image of the resurrected Lord without the cross, but that is usually permitted only for architectural reasons if the Church was built at a time that crucifixes were considered "out of favor". The Vatican does not require that a Church be remodeled to add a crucifix, but if it is remodeled, the bishop is responsible to see that current environmental norms are followed.
As to who you should write to, the type of abuses you mention definitely warrant a letter to the bishop. If you want to speak to someone directly, contact the dean of the deanery; your parish office can tell you who is your dean. You can also talk to the person at the Diocesan office responsible for liturgy (in my diocese, he is head of the Office of Worship), the Chancellor, the head of the Priests' Council, or the Judicial Vicar.
The matters you are presenting are serious if they are even remotely as you present them, and they deserve to be treated seriously. Please follow through with this. Serious liturgical abuses need to be addressed, and under Canon Law anyone has the right to question such matters.
|
|
|
Esther
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bronx, New York USA |
| Posts: | 157 |
| First Name: | Esther | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Southern Baptist to Roman Catholic 11/26/06 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 7th, 2006 12:42 am |
|
cajunrick wrote:
The matters you are presenting are serious if they are even remotely as you present them, and they deserve to be treated seriously. Please follow through with this. Serious liturgical abuses need to be addressed, and under Canon Law anyone has the right to question such matters.
Yes it is a serious matter. I was also sent to the church because "it was one of the most traditional Catholic churches in the area". I assumed when then said traditional they meant Orthodox. But the husband of one of the staff members of the place that I was visiting is a deacon at the interfaith chapel. And that is where most of them went. It is this odd kind of "catholic" service, from the way it was described to me. The whole ordeal was very disheartening to me. One of the reasons I joined the Catholic Church is the beauty that you could go across the world and have the same liturgy. I understand there would be different customs, music would be different, and all of that. I love that part of it, it gives a great flavor to the diverse family. But I just thought that this would be one thing that was consistent.
I was also shocked to see how many Catholic's were talking so bad about the Church (about it not being liberal enough). They even called the Pope "The Rat". Maybe I was just talking to the wrong people. I met and spoke with about 20 different Catholic's over the weekend. Some more extreme then other. I was even speaking with a nun about how I like Fr. Corapi, I thought she was going to come unglued.
I did learn so much over the week though. I talked with so many women, and their lives inspired me (this is at that Catholic Worker house). It is a women's ministry that is powerful. I may not have agreed with them on a lot of issues, but I could not deny that it is a wonderful, safe place for women. The whole staff and most of the volunteers shared the same heart of service. It was definitely inspiring.
I will write the bishop and follow through. The whole experience was quite the wake up call.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 7th, 2006 01:23 am |
|
Esther wrote: cajunrick wrote:
The matters you are presenting are serious if they are even remotely as you present them, and they deserve to be treated seriously. Please follow through with this. Serious liturgical abuses need to be addressed, and under Canon Law anyone has the right to question such matters.
Yes it is a serious matter. I was also sent to the church because "it was one of the most traditional Catholic churches in the area". I assumed when then said traditional they meant Orthodox. But the husband of one of the staff members of the place that I was visiting is a deacon at the interfaith chapel. And that is where most of them went. It is this odd kind of "catholic" service, from the way it was described to me. The whole ordeal was very disheartening to me. One of the reasons I joined the Catholic Church is the beauty that you could go across the world and have the same liturgy. I understand there would be different customs, music would be different, and all of that. I love that part of it, it gives a great flavor to the diverse family. But I just thought that this would be one thing that was consistent.
I was also shocked to see how many Catholic's were talking so bad about the Church (about it not being liberal enough). They even called the Pope "The Rat".
It sounds to me like you may have accidentally stumbled across a schismatic group. Unfortunately, "Traditional Catholic" is often a euphemism for a break-away group. Before you do anything else, call the diocesan office and ask if that church is a real Catholic church in union with the bishop and with Rome. Sounds to me like they aren't.
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2410 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 7th, 2006 01:55 am |
|
Validity (the sacrament actually celebrated) requires lawful matter (bread and wine) and form (the words of institution, or as we often say, the words of consecration).
Liceity (licitness, lawfulness) requires most of the things you mention. The General Instruction to the Roman Missal (GIRM, available here) requires that all the prayers as prescribed in the official Roman Missal be completely and correctly said. To change or omit or add anything to these prayers is specifically prohibited; the Vatican has pronounced that a priest has no authority to do this.
The part where the priest “lowers his hands over the bread and then blesses it” shortly before the consecration is the Invocation of the Holy Spirit, traditionally known as the Hanc Igitur (the beginning words of this prayer in Latin, according to the Roman Canon, also referred to nowadays as Eucharistic Prayer Number One). This is the opening prayer of the most solemn part of the Mass. But it is the subsequent words of institution (consecration), as Rick has mentioned, that actually effect the transubstantiation, bringing about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharistic species.
Theological opinion regards as invalid a Mass in which the words of institution, pronounced over valid matter, are omitted or changed. Other unauthorized changes from the norm would render the Mass illicit but not invalid.
From Canon Law regarding the matter to be used in the Eucharist:
Can. 924 §2 The bread must be wheaten only, and recently made, so that there is no danger of corruption.
Can. 926 In the eucharistic celebration, in accordance with the ancient tradition of the latin Church, the priest is to use unleavened bread wherever he celebrates Mass.
Regarding the specific points you mention:
A crucifix near the altar is required by the GIRM. It may be fixed (as on a wall or suspended) or portable (a processional crucifix, for example, placed in a stand). A cross without a corpus is specifically prohibited.
A layman can lawfully add water to the wine before the priest makes the offering at the Offertory; however, this is only allowed if no clergyman is available who can physically do this. (A deacon is a clergyman.) The offering of the elements (bread and wine) at the Offertory must be said by the priest. He can have assistance in elevating the elements only if he is physically unable to do so himself.
According to the GIRM, no person other than those necessary for the accomplishment of that part of the Mass may be “on the altar” during the Canon. This means that concelebrants, deacon, master of ceremonies (a liturgical expert who, because of its complexity, guides the celebrant through the celebration of a solemn Mass) and necessary altar servers may be present along with the celebrant, but any others are specifically excluded.
Passing of the Eucharist from hand to hand among communicants is expressly forbidden. Also, no one may self communicate except the celebrant and concelebrants.
Lawful bread for the Eucharist must be of wheat and water only. No other ingredients are allowed, because this would invalidate the Mass. The exact form and consistency of the bread may vary somewhat, but the ingredients may not.
Regarding the priest sitting during the Canon of the Mass:
Can. 930 §1 A priest who is ill or elderly, if he is unable to stand, may celebrate the eucharistic Sacrifice sitting but otherwise observing the liturgical laws; he may not, however, do so in public except by permission of the local Ordinary.
If you had watched public Masses celebrated by Pope John Paul II during his final years, when he was enfeebled to the point that even standing up was no longer possible, you could see that he was seated during the Mass.
As mentioned above, adding, omitting or changing words in the prayers of the Mass according to an approved rite is specifically forbidden. There are several points in the Mass where the exact wording is left up to the priest. Here and here only is he allowed to “ad lib.”
Some of the abuses you mention are serious. I agree with Rick that, if you are witnessing substantial violations on a regular basis, the bishop needs to know. By Canon Law, you have the right to a licit liturgy. In additional to the documents I have cited, there are several Instructions issued by the Vatican since the Second Vatican Council that are of importance in addressing liturgical abuses. This site has a good library.
David
|
|
|
Esther
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bronx, New York USA |
| Posts: | 157 |
| First Name: | Esther | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Southern Baptist to Roman Catholic 11/26/06 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 7th, 2006 10:25 am |
|
Thanks for the information (and the website!). The church in question is on the Diocese's website. So I think they are RC. As for the ministry itself, I don't know if there is really a way to know for sure. Each Catholic Worker House is independent. So I will just have to base that off of what they say and the values they uphold.
The priest in home Mass could have had permission to sit. He seemed well enough, but was shaking a little and could have been in more pain then let on. At any case it is not my place to judge that. After reading what you all wrote it sounds like a lot of rules were broken. It is sad.
The only concern I have about writing the bishop is I do not belong to this diocese and I don't know at this point if I ever will. Do you still think it to be wise to address this even though I am not a apart of that diocese?
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2410 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 7th, 2006 10:38 am |
|
Esther, I think the key is in this sentence from my post above:
If you are witnessing substantial violations on a regular basis, the bishop needs to know.
If you are not experiencing really grave violations (most of those you mention are ostentatious but not grave), or if they are not experienced on a regular basis with a certain priest or group of Catholics, you may assume that things just got out of hand on this one occasion and not worry too much about it.
Additionally, if grave violations have occurred within a certain bishop’s jurisdiction, he needs to know, regardless of who you are and where your home is, simply because he is responsible for these matters before the Lord.
David
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 7th, 2006 01:44 pm |
|
Esther wrote: The church in question is on the Diocese's website. So I think they are RC.
If they are listed on the diocese's web site, you can be sure they are Catholic. Not all Catholic churches are "RC" (Roman Catholic) as there are other Catholic Churches as well, but they are certainly in union with Rome and offer valid sacraments.
The priest in home Mass could have had permission to sit. He seemed well enough, but was shaking a little and could have been in more pain then let on. At any case it is not my place to judge that. After reading what you all wrote it sounds like a lot of rules were broken. It is sad.
As David said, the things you mentioned are serious but not necessarily "grave" given the proper circumstances and permissions. You say the priest was shaking; it's possible he has Parkinson's Disease or some other condition that prevents him from standing still. Also, Parkinson's in particular makes it difficult for the priest to elevate the Eucharist without the danger of spilling the Precious Blood. Special permissions may have been granted to allow him to have assistance.
You use the phrase "home mass"; if this was a private liturgy offered in a private home, it is common for rules to be somewhat relaxed just because of the environment in which the mass is offered. For example, there is no consecrated altar of sacrifice, no ambo from which to read scripture, etc., so some accomodations have to be made. It is also permitted (and at various times encouraged) that the bread used for the Eucharist be homemade, preferably by the host family, as long as it fulfills the requirement in the Roman Catholic liturgy that it be unleavened and made only of 100% wheat flour and water. (Eastern Catholic liturgies use leavened bread.) Normally none of the Eucharisted bread is reserved and extra care is taken to guard against crumbs being treated disrespectfully, but assuming those precautions are taken, this is perfectly acceptable for a small congregation. You can find recipes for baking bread for the Eucharist here, here, and here.
For reference and comparison only, you'll find a recipe for Eucharistic bread acceptable for Eastern Christians (Catholic and Orthodox) [url=http://www.sacredmeals.com/bread_which_strengthens_man's_heart.htm]here[/url]. It is not permitted for use in the Roman Catholic Church because it contains yeast. In the Eastern Churches, the Eucharistic bread is known as "blessed bread" until it is mixed with the blessed wine. The combination of blessed leavened bread and blessed wine become the consecrated Eucharist. The remaining blessed bread is distributed to the congregation at the conclusion of the Divine Liturgy (mass).
The only concern I have about writing the bishop is I do not belong to this diocese and I don't know at this point if I ever will. Do you still think it to be wise to address this even though I am not a apart of that diocese?
Honestly, no. You are not sure whether this is actually part of a pattern of liturgical abuse, a single incident, a special circumstance due to the infirmity of the priest, etc. If you find yourself attending mass there on at least an occasional basis, you might want to report it more from the standpoint of verifying that you are attending a valid, approved mass than that you are reporting abuse. You could simply write that you observed things you thought were not allowed and you wanted to make sure that the mass was properly authorized.
|
|
|
Esther
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bronx, New York USA |
| Posts: | 157 |
| First Name: | Esther | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Southern Baptist to Roman Catholic 11/26/06 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 7th, 2006 03:43 pm |
|
I see your point. I will not write any letter, since I do not know if this is a regular thing or not.
As for the home Mass being more relaxed, yes I understand that. (this is the Mass that the priest sat and the Eucharist was passed around) but all the other things happened at the Sunday Mass I attended at the local parish. I don't know what the bread was made out of. I saw it from a distance. But the bread used in the home Mass was the bread I am used to seeing at Mass.
But the whole thing is not for me to judge. And since I will not be writing anyone, I guess all I can do is pray. The whole thing is just a little disheartening.
Thanks for your help! God bless.
Esther
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2410 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 7th, 2006 05:38 pm |
|
I guess all I can do is pray.
Please remember, Esther, that prayer is powerful because it invokes the divine omnipotence. God knows your concern and acts on it in his own way. Do not think that your prayer will go unanswered. If he seems to delay or deny, it is because we humans are not privy to God’s inner counsel, not because he is blind to evil and deaf to our cry.
David
|
|
|
Current time is 10:26 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
