What To Do About Grave Liturgical Abuses

A reader writes:

We went to a church where the priest has the entire congregation say the eucharistic prayer along with him.

We know that this is not right but not sure if we should do anything about it other than not attend that church.

One other thing is -Can a non-catholic receive Communion if they believe that it is the body and blood of Christ?  This happens often in the same church.

Let’s answer the second question first: As I indicated in the previous blog post, there are some situations in which non-Catholics can receive Communion in the Catholic Church. In that post, I addressed the situation of an Eastern Christian who does not have full communion with the Catholic Church. The conditions for such Christians receiving Communion are fairly broad. However, they are much stricter with Protestants. Here is what the Code of Canon Law says in their regard:
Canon 844

§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.

As you can see, the conditions are much more strict, requiring danger of death or other grave necessity just for openers. Therefore, if there is indiscriminate distribution of Communion to non-Catholics in that parish, a very grave liturgical abuse is being committed. In Redemptionis Sacramentum the Holy See was emphatic about this matter:

[85.] Catholic ministers licitly administer the Sacraments only to the Catholic faithful, who likewise receive them licitly only from Catholic ministers, except for those situations for which provision is made in can. 844 §§ 2,3, and 4, and can. 861 § 2. In addition, the conditions comprising can. 844 § 4, from which no dispensation can be given, cannot be separated; thus, it is necessary that all of these conditions be present together.

[83.] It is certainly best that all who are participating in the celebration of Holy Mass with the necessary dispositions should receive Communion. Nevertheless, it sometimes happens that Christ’s faithful approach the altar as a group indiscriminately. It pertains to the Pastors prudently and firmly to correct such an abuse.

The Holy See has also been most firm regarding the recitation of the Eucharistic Prayer. Redemptionis Sacramentum also states:
[52.] The proclamation of the Eucharistic Prayer, which by its very nature is the climax of the whole celebration, is proper to the Priest by virtue of his Ordination. It is therefore an abuse to proffer it in such a way that some parts of the Eucharistic Prayer are recited by a Deacon, a lay minister, or by an individual member of the faithful, or by all members of the faithful together. The Eucharistic Prayer, then, is to be recited by the Priest alone in full.

As to what to do regarding the abuses you witnessed, it is a judgment call. It depends on your relationship to the parish and your ability to bring about change in it. As a general rule, one would want to start with the individual responsible for these abuses (principally the pastor of the parish) and work one’s way up the chain of command from him to the bishop to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. The latter, should appeal to them be necessary, is inclined these days not only to take a very dim view of such actions but to actually take steps to correct them.

If you do take action, be sure to build a paper trail with dates and times and, to the extent possible, names: Who did what, where, and when. Specific reports get action taken on them more than vague allegations.

For detailed practical information on how to deal with liturgical abuses and to discern whether action should be taken, see chapter 12 of my book MASS CONFUSION.

Author: Jimmy Akin

Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."

16 thoughts on “What To Do About Grave Liturgical Abuses”

  1. Jimmy,
    I saw that you deleted the comments in the previous thread. I forgot about the blog rule regarding discussions on question related posts. Sorry about that.

  2. Question:
    Does the U.S. Conference then give any further deligation: such as “if x than priests may Y” regarding this canon?

  3. This answer, from the Congregation of the Blessed Sacrament, seems a little broader regarding Eucharistic sharing:
    It is difficult to reply in a few words to the question: “May Protestants and Other Christians receive in the Catholic Church?” Even more difficult is the question: “May Catholics receive in other Christian Churches?”
    The answer can be found in the Code of Canon Law (can. 844) and in the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms for Ecumenism (published in 1993).
    These sources state simply that normally Christians should receive in their own Churches. However it is possible for Christians to share the Eucharist across Church lines under certain circumstances by way of exception (persons must be baptized, they must be unable to receive from their own minister, they must have the same understanding of the Eucharist as the Catholic Church, they must receive for spiritual benefit, they must approach the Eucharist on their own accord.)
    A “rule of thumb” that might be useful for further discernment is that the degree of communion that exists between the Churches concerned determines the degree of possibility for eucharistic sharing. Also important, according to Catholic teaching, is the valid ordination of ministers.
    Thus, because Orthodox and Ancient Eastern Churches are considered to be in “almost full communion” and because their ordinations have always been recognized as valid by the Catholic Church, according to canon 844 Catholics may receive in the Orthodox Church and Orthodox may receive in the Catholic Church. Indeed the East Syrian and West Syrian (Ancient Eastern) Churches explicitly allow such eucharistic sharing. The same is true of the Old Catholic and Polish National Churches which are considered to be in the same condition as the Orthodox Churches (cf. canon 844#3).
    As for other Christian Churches, reciprocity does not exist because the Roman Catholic Church has not recognized the validity of their ordinations. Thus Catholics may not, according to existing legislation, receive in those Churches. However Protestants may receive in the Catholic Church when they fulfill the conditions indicated in the documents cited above.

  4. The pastor at my parish reportedly cites some document that allows ‘high churchmen’, e.g., Anglicans and Lutherans, to have more relaxed rules for intercommunion. Anybody familiar with such a document? (Don’t misunderstand me–I don’t buy it; I’m just curious what in the world he’s citing.)

  5. I think it is important to be careful about terms here.
    “Intercommunion” and “eucharistic sharing” are two very different things, from my reading. Ecclesia de Eucaristia 45 says: While it is never legitimate to concelebrate in the absence of full communion, the same is not true with respect to the administration of the Eucharist under special circumstances, to individual persons belonging to Churches or Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church. In this case, in fact, the intention is to meet a grave spiritual need for the eternal salvation of an individual believer, not to bring about an intercommunion which remains impossible until the visible bonds of ecclesial communion are fully re-established.
    “Intercommunion” refers to the essential communion of churches. “Eucharistic sharing” refers to the participation of an individual in the eucharistic celebration of a church of which s/he is not a member (yet). As the encyclical states, “Intercommunion…remains impossible until the visible bonds of ecclesial communion are fully re-established.” Individual Christians (validly baptized), however, who may be seeking the spiritual good of the sacrament, and have a proper disposition, faith and situation, are a different case. And, when dealing with individual cases, it is hard to develop strict rules that apply to all cases.
    The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism n. 129:
    A sacrament is an act of Christ and of the Church through the Spirit. Its celebration in a concrete community is the sign of the reality of its unity in faith, worship and community life. As well as being signs, sacraments—most specially the Eucharist—are sources of the unity of the Christian community and of spiritual life, and are means for building them up. Thus Eucharistic communion is inseparably linked to full ecclesial communion and its visible expression.
    At the same time, the Catholic Church teaches that by baptism members of other Churches and ecclesial Communities are brought into a real, even if imperfect communion, with the Catholic Church and that “baptism, which constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn… is wholly directed toward the acquiring of fullness of life in Christ”. The Eucharist is, for the baptized, a spiritual food which enables them to overcome sin and to live the very life of Christ, to be incorporated more profoundly in Him and share more intensely in the whole economy of the Mystery of Christ.
    It is in the light of these two basic principles, which must always be taken into account together, that in general the Catholic Church permits access to its Eucharistic communion and to the sacraments of penance and anointing of the sick, only to those who share its oneness in faith, worship and ecclesial life. For the same reasons, it also recognizes that in certain circumstances, by way of exception, and under certain conditions, access to these sacraments may be permitted, or even commended, for Christians of other Churches and ecclesial Communities.
    —
    Like many things in the Church, it is also up to your local bishop. If he is O.K. with eucharistic sharing in his diocese, under his guidelines, then it is O.K. If your bishop says, “No,” then you have your answer.

  6. The Holy Father also addresses this in Ecclesia de Eucharistia:
    “45. While it is never legitimate to concelebrate in the absence of full communion, the same is not true with respect to the administration of the Eucharist under special circumstances, to individual persons belonging to Churches or Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church. In this case, in fact, the intention is to meet a grave spiritual need for the eternal salvation of an individual believer, not to bring about an intercommunion which remains impossible until the visible bonds of ecclesial communion are fully re-established.
    “This was the approach taken by the Second Vatican Council when it gave guidelines for responding to Eastern Christians separated in good faith from the Catholic Church, who spontaneously ask to receive the Eucharist from a Catholic minister and are properly disposed. This approach was then ratified by both Codes, which also consider – with necessary modifications – the case of other non-Eastern Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church.
    “46. In my Encyclical Ut Unum Sint I expressed my own appreciation of these norms, which make it possible to provide for the salvation of souls with proper discernment: ‘It is a source of joy to note that Catholic ministers are able, in certain particular cases, to administer the sacraments of the Eucharist, Penance and Anointing of the Sick to Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church but who greatly desire to receive these sacraments, freely request them and manifest the faith which the Catholic Church professes with regard to these sacraments. Conversely, in specific cases and in particular circumstances, Catholics too can request these same sacraments from ministers of Churches in which these sacraments are valid’.
    “These conditions, from which no dispensation can be given, must be carefully respected, even though they deal with specific individual cases, because the denial of one or more truths of the faith regarding these sacraments and, among these, the truth regarding the need of the ministerial priesthood for their validity, renders the person asking improperly disposed to legitimately receiving them. And the opposite is also true: Catholics may not receive communion in those communities which lack a valid sacrament of Orders.
    “The faithful observance of the body of norms established in this area is a manifestation and, at the same time, a guarantee of our love for Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, for our brothers and sisters of different Christian confessions – who have a right to our witness to the truth – and for the cause itself of the promotion of unity.”

  8. Sorry, Rich, but the Glossary that you reference at the USCCB website is not part of the Catechism. From its Prefatory Note:
    Even before the promulgation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a Glossary had been proposed to provide assistance to those who would use the new Catechism. This Glossary has been prepared by Archbishop William J. Levada ….
    It is important to remember that this Glossary, like the Catechism’s Indexes, is an additional instrument by which readers may find assistance in their use of the Catechism itself. While the Glossary is faithful to the language of the Catechism, it does not participate in the approval of the text of the Catechism given in the Apostolic Constitution Fidei depositum of Pope John Paul II.
    Please use the real, official Catechism at the Vatican website. It also has IntraText indexing. “Intercommunion” occurs only once in the English translation, in 1400 (not 1398, as indicated by the obsolete American glossary), and it refers to “communities,” not individuals.
    http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

  9. Zhou,
    Could you end the semantic silliness? The text of section 1400 of the CCC explicitly refers to “Eucharistic intercommunion” and the definition above is found in both the online and paper-bound versions of the Catechism.

  10. Here is the position of the Diocese of the Dioceses of Helena and Great Falls-Billings. Notice the distiction of three different things: “open communion,” “intercommunion between churches,” and “eucharistic hospitality for individuals.” Very different. Not just semantic silliness.
    EUCHARISTIC SHARING MAY BE CONSIDERED IN THREE CATEGORIES:
    1. Open Communion is a general invitation to receive communion as opposed to the individual consideration of each request. This is not permitted.
    2. Intercommunion is the reciprocal and mutual sharing among the different Christian churches which have preserved the substance of the Eucharist, the Sacrament of Orders, and Apostolic Succession. At this time, this includes only the Orthodox and Uniate churches.
    3. Eucharistic Hospitality or the admission of individuals to communion is, under certain conditions is, permissible and pastorally commendable. In determining whether or not a request can be granted, the six conditions listed above should be fulfilled.
    …
    As Bishops of the Dioceses of Montana, we would like to share this authority, on the basis of these guidelines, with the priests and deacons of our dioceses. The priest or deacon in the local situation will know best all the implications involved in responding to a request for Eucharistic sharing on an individual basis.
    Notice also that the bishop have delegated the decision to the local clergy, who are in the best position to judge the individual cases.
    (Rich…my copy of CCC, in Latin from the Vatican, does not have the American English glossary which, I suspect, only adds to confusion. Why don’t you use the Vatican version? Archbishop Levada’s glossary is not helpful here, and not at all authoritative.
    1400 Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, “have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders.” It is for this reason that Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible for the Catholic Church. However these ecclesial communities, “when they commemorate the Lord’s death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory.”
    1401 When, in the Ordinary’s judgment, a grave necessity arises, Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance, and Anointing of the Sick to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who ask for them of their own will, provided they give evidence of holding the Catholic faith regarding these sacraments and possess the required dispositions.)

  11. Zhou,
    When you find yourself bolding, italicizing and shaping text to fit a particular point of view, i.e., generous intercommunion, not permitted by a clear reading of the most salient section of Canon law on that point, i.e., c 844, you might ask yourself why you feel compelled to do so.
    Over and out. If anyone has any information on the “high church” document I mention above, please share it.

  12. New morning. Let me try to briefly summarize the many words I posted from yesterday.
    (1) “Open Communion,” free and reciprocal sharing between Churches, is theologically and pastorally wrong, and not permitted. Some folks have tried this, especially in misguided efforts at implementing a “spirit of Vatican II.” It is wrong, wrong, wrong. We are not all doing the same thing.
    (2) “Intercommunion,” is a technical term for a reciprocal relationship between Churches. There are a very few such relationships, such as between the Roman Catholic Church and certain ancient Eastern Churches. While it is expect that in general Christians will receive commuion in their own churches, intercommunion between these churches is allowed. This does not apply to Protestant churches which came out of the Reformation, a more recent break with the Roman church. This is also in CCC 1400.
    (3) “Eucharistic Hospitality” involves a baptized individual not in the Roman Catholic Church who may, at the discretion of the local ordinary, receive sacraments from a Roman Catholic minister. This is, you could say, a “side door,” the openness of which is up to the bishop, which recognizes that real, but non-Roman Catholic, baptism does result in a relationship with the Catholic Church, even if imperfect. It is not reciprocal. It is not general. In remote areas like Montana, or in a battlefiield, for example, or in the case of an individual being drawn to the Catholic Church, this door may be opened, depending on the ordinary. One this that it should not be used for, however, is “friends coming with me to Church” or folks, even non-Catholic bride or groom, at a wedding. It is not about someone who happens to be in Church with a Catholic, but about someone being drawn to the Church, being drawn to Christ. This is CCC 1401.
    If great leaders of our Church in the Vatican like Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Kasper can hold different views on this last matter, I don’t expect to find full agreement in the blogosphere. And, again, it is up to the local ordinary, not a uniform thing across all the Church.
    The end.

  13. *Sigh* What’s ‘wrong, wrong, wrong’ is the definition of ‘Intercommunion’ given above which varies from that given in the official, ‘sure’, and normative expression of Church teaching, the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
    Again, if you find yourself going to great lengths — even in a ‘brief’ summary — to vary what that magnificient document contains, you’ve got to ask yourself why.

  14. Rich, am I writing in Chinese, or you just don’t understand English? Here is CCC 1400, copied from above:
    1400 Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, “have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders.” It is for this reason that Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible for the Catholic Church. However these ecclesial communities, “when they commemorate the Lord’s death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory.”
    This is the ONLY place where the word “intercommunion” occurs in the official English CCC. The Glossary is NOT PART of the Catechism. It is an unofficial, American addition. Archbishop Levada is my metropolitan. Would you like me to write to him and ask him about the word “intercommunion?”
    This section speaks only of communities.
    Intercommunion is about communities, and reciprocal agreements.

Comments are closed.