Very Uncomfortable Mass; Liturgical Abuse?

[Aelred Minor]

Might the seminarian have been a deacon? If so his reading the Gospel and even saying the homily would be fine, though I didn't think the blessing was optional.

The way the chalice was passed around might or might not be open to interpretation, but in the case of the hosts this sounds like a clear case of self-communication, which is an abuse. However, it sounds like you were caught off-guard and did not know what to do, so I doubt there was that much moral culpability on your part. If caught in a similarly horrible situation in the future, I would just quietly refrain from taking communion at all, or from passing it to any other person.

In any case it's a terrible situation for them to have put you in. It reminds me of a time (during a period when I was receiving on the hands) when, visiting an unfamiliar parish, I received a thousand crumbs in my hands because of the kind of bread used, and was forced to make a fool of myself trying to consume all of it without dropping anything, all the while stepping on what I knew must be many consecrated fragments, since I could see everyone else was just brushing off their hands after receiving. I felt physically ill from it, and for the rest of my life I'll have to live with the knowledge that I have tread upon the body of Christ (unless the matter was invalid, which I hope), all because someone thought it would be nice to use a different kind of bread.

[ByzCathCantor]

The reported aspects of this Mass should be reviewed fairly and honestly.

First, there is the reading of the Gospel by a seminarian. The OP did say Gospel, and not Old Testament or Apostolic reading. If it were the latter, there would be little question as to the propriety. That said, the Gospel is supposed to be read by a priest or deacon. If this seminarian had been ordained the deaconate, it would be permissible to have him read the Gospel, and even to preach a homily. In a Jesuit setting where seminarians are being prepared, daily Mass provides an opportunity for those ordained to the deaconate to get real, practical experience. If in the deaconate, the seminarian should have been properly vested for the Mass (and not simply in a cassock).

Can. 757 It belongs to priests, as co*operators of the Bishops, to proclaim the Gospel of God. For the people entrusted to their care, this task rests especially on parish priests, and on other priests entrusted with the care of souls. Deacons also are to serve the people of God in the ministry of the word, in union with the Bishop and his presbyterium.

GIRM 66. The Homily should ordinarily be given by the Priest Celebrant himself or be entrusted by him to a concelebrating Priest, or from time to time and, if appropriate, to the Deacon, but never to a lay person. In particular cases and for a just cause, the Homily may even be given by a Bishop or a Priest who is present at the celebration but cannot concelebrate.

The manner in which the Eucharist was distributed in indeed odd, yet I agree with the poster who suggested that one might be hard pressed to find a priest who would condemn it, given what has been shared here. That said, common sense would suggest it was not proper, as anyone other than a priest or deacon (i.e. an Extraordinary Eucharistic Minister) must be qualified and trained in order to distribute the Holy Eucharist. Being handed a bowl by a fellow congregant and expected to take (rather than partake) the Holy Eucharist does not seem at all consistent with the norms of the Church.

As for CITH itself, it is permitted, irrespective of one's prior experience or preference. It is unfortunate that the situation seemingly put pressure on the OP to conform, and certainly may have made many a traditional Catholic nervous, but CITH itself is not the issue here. It is the general manner in which the Holy Eucharist was distributed.

I cannot understand how some have suggested that you are guilty of sin for having partaken of the Eucharist. Perhaps it is my Eastern Catholic mindset, where we generally believe the the Eucharist should always be accessible to worthy faithful, that does not allow me to believe that the form of Mass and manner of distribution of the Eucharist became a sinful act for anyone who did receive the sacrament.

As odd as this was, we pray we are able to be level-headed about this and assess the situation accordingly.

[superamazingman]

Originally Posted by billy15

This past Friday evening, I had attended a small mass at a Jesuit home. About 10 people were present, and the chapel itself was extremely small. All ten people sat around the "altar" and priest, which was very tiny table. I was first off uncomfortable when a Jesuit seminarian read the Gospel, and gave the homily. There was no visible blessing by the priest, so I wonder if that was allowed.

The thing that really bothered me though was the reception of the Eucharist. Instead of everyone standing up, the priest handed the bowl containing the Eucharist to the person to his right, and then continued to hand it down to each person. I was petrified. I am in my mid-20's and I have never, NEVER taken communion in the hand before, much less go into the bowl and give it to myself. It has been weighing on me ever since and I am appaled that it happened. Following the reception of Communion, the chalice was then passed in the same fashion, therefore making everyone in the room essentially an "extraordinary minister".. However, I have never been trained, had no idea what I was doing, and was in such shock, completely forgot to wipe off the chalice as I gave it to the person next to me. I felt sick and broke into a cold sweat after that. I could not believe what had just occurred.

From a couple other topics I read, it seems that I "self-communicated", and it seems that is not allowed by canon law, correct? But what about this SPECIFIC instance, regarding both the Body and Blood? Was this a violation of canon law, was it a liturgical abuse. Me and the other person I was attending with had no idea this mass would be held in this way. We had never been in this home before, and were expecting an actual chapel with pew and a priest giving us Holy Communiuon, not giving it to ourselves. I just need to know if there is any circumstance where this is allowed, and if not was this truly a liturgical abuse.

I should note the rest of the form seemed correct, the words of institution was correct, but the whole mass came off as very irreverent to me as the consecration itself took less time than the "sign of peace", among other things. Some help on this would be greatly appreciated.

You need to write this in a calm letter to the bishop. He needs to know about this.

[JGMendes4049]

Originally Posted by superamazingman

You need to write this in a calm letter to the bishop. He needs to know about this.

And the religious priest's superior.

[triumphguy]

You were in a private Jesuit house.

You were in a tiny chapel with a table.

You have no idea if the seminarian was a deacon or not.

Some Orders allow communion to be taken directly from the ciborium or plate.

Some orders have their own licit tradition and rubrics for saying mass.

You were guest in their house.

[newyorkcatholic]

LOL. People will justify anything! Jesuits use the Roman Rite. The description in the OP mentions many serious abuses not allowed in the Roman Rite.

You didn't want any of this, so I don't blame you. But this sounds awful. This is not approved "Jesuit liturgy.".

This is exactly the kind of thing I would just have walked out of.

[ImmaculataFides]

Minus the part about the Jesuit Seminarian giving the homily, that "Mass" is exactly the same as one of the first Novus Ordo's I attended when coming back to the faith.

It's the new springtime. We don't need to think. Let's just hold hands and hug.

[Inquiringperson]

Originally Posted by Joannm

I have never heard that self-communicating is grave matter or even a matter of sin. How can receiving our Lord be sin? Yes, it is an illicit action but it is not sinful especially since the priest instigated the action. I was at a home mass two weeks ago where the same thing happened. I was extremely uncomfortable with it as well, but I still received our Lord and in no way felt I was at fault.

Inaestimabile Donum
9. Eucharistic Communion. Communion is a gift of the Lord, given to the faithful through the minister appointed for this purpose. It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another.

These are instructions straight from the Vatican and approved and confirmed by the late Blessed John Paul II. To break these rules would constitute grave matter.

Given the fact that the priest instigated the self-communication, most likely it would be the priest that's in trouble and not the reader.

[Tony the mad]

Originally Posted by newyorkcatholic

LOL. People will justify anything! Jesuits use the Roman Rite. The description in the OP mentions many serious abuses not allowed in the Roman Rite.

You didn't want any of this, so I don't blame you. But this sounds awful. This is not approved "Jesuit liturgy.".

This is exactly the kind of thing I would just have walked out of.

And some people, including myself unfortunately, are quick to blame about everything. Often there are reasons we would never expect. And even when they are to blame we are often guilty of something much worse such as a sin against charity. Sometimes we have to ask someone to remove the plank from our eyes before we can remove the splinter from theirs.

You are right that the poster should not blame themselves. Neither is it good to walk out in the middle of the liturgy. The correct response is to ask politely to have someone distribute Holy Communion to you. The fact that the poster felt uncomfortable doing so is understandable.

I see no reason to contact the priest's superiors. Rather, the poster should mention to the priest directly how uncomfortable they were; in a polite manner of course. Whether or not the priest was correct, the poster and the priest might learn something.

[Stylites]

Originally Posted by Tony the mad

And some people, including myself unfortunately, are quick to blame about everything. Often there are reasons we would never expect. And even when they are to blame we are often guilty of something much worse such as a sin against charity. Sometimes we have to ask someone to remove the plank from our eyes before we can remove the splinter from theirs.

You are right that the poster should not blame themselves. Neither is it good to walk out in the middle of the liturgy. The correct response is to ask politely to have someone distribute Holy Communion to you. The fact that the poster felt uncomfortable doing so is understandable.

I see no reason to contact the priest's superiors. Rather, the poster should mention to the priest directly how uncomfortable they were; in a polite manner of course. Whether or not the priest was correct, the poster and the priest might learn something.

Well said.

[markomalley]

Does not at all look like anything licit happened. Probably mostly invalid.

[Inquiringperson]

Originally Posted by Tony the mad

And some people, including myself unfortunately, are quick to blame about everything. Often there are reasons we would never expect. And even when they are to blame we are often guilty of something much worse such as a sin against charity. Sometimes we have to ask someone to remove the plank from our eyes before we can remove the splinter from theirs.

You are right that the poster should not blame themselves. Neither is it good to walk out in the middle of the liturgy. The correct response is to ask politely to have someone distribute Holy Communion to you. The fact that the poster felt uncomfortable doing so is understandable.

I see no reason to contact the priest's superiors. Rather, the poster should mention to the priest directly how uncomfortable they were; in a polite manner of course. Whether or not the priest was correct, the poster and the priest might learn something.

Good advice.

[englishredrose]

Is that considered Liturgical abuse in the Roman Catholic Church then?

I am genuinely asking rather than getting lots of things and people on the wrong foot with me because I have participated in communion elsewhere, where indeed we have passed it down the line. I was taught this in school once by a teacher who was born again in RE and I have no idea whether the Headteacher knew anything what was happening since we were a state school and not a church school of any kind. Though at the time I did not understand what born again meant either
Initially like the opening poster, I was uncomfortable because not done it before at that time. But these days I would be okay. Though in my own church I receive the host on the tongue and I don't even touch the chalice to balance it etc as many do or take the chalice off the lay chalice bearer etc.
In an RC setting its abuse as of the other posters, but not everywhere. Life gets complicated doesn't it. I kind of which it was all plain sailing with Christianity but it goes to show how wide the spectrum goes.

[japhy]

Before you write to bishops and superiors, I think it would be best to write to the priest (or to the director of that particular Jesuit house) to ask for some clarification or explanation on the issues that surprised you.

[Luna Lovecraft]

Originally Posted by Tony the mad

And some people, including myself unfortunately, are quick to blame about everything. Often there are reasons we would never expect. And even when they are to blame we are often guilty of something much worse such as a sin against charity. Sometimes we have to ask someone to remove the plank from our eyes before we can remove the splinter from theirs.

You are right that the poster should not blame themselves. Neither is it good to walk out in the middle of the liturgy. The correct response is to ask politely to have someone distribute Holy Communion to you. The fact that the poster felt uncomfortable doing so is understandable.

I see no reason to contact the priest's superiors. Rather, the poster should mention to the priest directly how uncomfortable they were; in a polite manner of course. Whether or not the priest was correct, the poster and the priest might learn something.

Excellent. Thank you.