Category: Liturgy

A reader writes:

Help Jimmy! In this Sunday’s bulletin was a splashy announcement, "At next Saturday’s 11:30 am Mass Fr.——- will be conducting a teaching Mass, stopping throughout to explain the history and significance of each part." Is this allowed? Where do I find data or info to back up a complaint letter that is soon to be written by moi. When will this maddness end!!

Probably not by this weekend.

Let’s take this piece by piece:

First, there is no such thing as a "teaching Mass" in the Church’s liturgical books. The category does not exist.

Second, it would be perfectly legitimate to do something that is not a Mass but otherwise looks like one for teaching the significance of the various parts of the Mass. This would be like having a stage-play of a Mass with detailed commentary. Such things should not, however, be advertised as Masses, and it does not appear that this is what is going to happen in your parish.

Third, the Church’s liturgical law does provide a role for the priest to make certain explanatory comments about the Mass, but they may or may not be as extensive as what is being envisioned in your parish’s case. Here is what the current General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) says about the priest’s commenting role:

31. It is also up to the priest, in the exercise of his office of presiding over the gathered assembly, to offer certain explanations that are foreseen in the rite itself. Where it is indicated in the rubrics, the celebrant is permitted to adapt them [i.e., the explanations] somewhat in order that they respond to the understanding of those participating. However, he should always take care to keep to the sense of the text given in the Missal and to express them succinctly. The presiding priest is also to direct the word of God and to impart the final blessing. In addition, he may give the faithful a very brief introduction to the Mass of the day (after the initial Greeting and before the Act of Penitence), to the Liturgy of the Word (before the readings), and to the Eucharistic Prayer (before the Preface), though never during the Eucharistic Prayer itself; he may also make concluding comments to the entire sacred action before the dismissal [GIRM 31].

If Fr.——- (Thanks for the dashes! Saves me having to put them in!) confines himself to these things, he’s home free. If he does more than this, he starts to exceed wha the law provides.

A reader writes:

First, here’s what canon law says about the observance of the Church’s liturgical books:

One of the Church’s liturgical book (in fact, it’s main liturgical book) is the Roman Missal. The Roman Missal comprises the Sacramentary, the Lectionary, and the Book of the Gospels. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) contains the core instructions for celebrating Mass. The GIRM that is currently in force states:

59. By tradition, the function of proclaiming the readings is ministerial, not presidential. The readings, therefore, should be proclaimed by a lector, and the Gospel by a deacon or, in his absence, a priest other than the celebrant. If, however, a deacon or another priest is not present, the priest celebrant himself should read the Gospel. Further, if another suitable lector is also not present, then the priest celebrant should also proclaim the other readings.

60. The reading of the Gospel is the high point of the Liturgy of the Word. The Liturgy itself teaches that great reverence is to be shown to it by setting it off from the other readings with special marks of honor: whether the minister appointed to proclaim it prepares himself by a blessing or prayer; or the faithful, standing as they listen to it being read, through their acclamations acknowledge and confess Christ present and speaking to them; or the very marks of reverence are given to the Book of the Gospels.

In view of this, the proposed skit in your parish is prohibited on several counts:

• The text of the Gospel cannot be paraphrased. The Lectionary and Book of the Gospels are liturgical books and therefore must be observed strictly, with no additions, deletions, or substitutions. Thus, no paraphrasing. To construct a paraphrase of the Gospel amounts to the creation of a non-biblical text that also falls afoul of the GIRM.
• The pantomiming of the Gospel also represents an addition to what is called for in the liturgical books and is therefore disallowed. Further, it detracts from the reverence due to the Gospel, which is stressed in the GIRM.

A reader writes:

Hi Jimmy, A few of us in our parish are trying to get Eucharistic Adoration established in our parish (Prince of Peace) and it has been a difficult road so far. We have a new pastor (6 mo) who is a Cannon Lawyer but is willling to listen to us. In the past our previous pastor wouldn’t even consider it. Our parish doesn’t even own a monstrance.

Our parish has a huge debt (almost a million dollars) left by the previous pastor and we are not allowed to have any sort of fund raising for a monstrance until this is eliminated. Msgr.wants all resources to go the reduction of the debt.

Sorry for the long backgroud story, here is my question. They (the Worship commission and Msgr.) maybe willing to let us have once a month adoration (with Eucharist in the ciborium) if we can show them just how we will open and close our day and who will be responsible for this. Where can I go to find the proper prayers for the opening and closing of Adoration?

Okay, permit me to be pedantic for a moment. What you’re talking about isn’t just Eucharistic adoration. I know that people always say that, but technically what you’re talking about is Eucharistic exposition. You can have Eucharistic adoration any time you like by simply adoring Jesus in all the Tabernacles of the world. You don’t even have to open your eyes or get out of bed to do that. You are wanting the Eucharist to be exposed for the adoration of the faithful–which is great! I’m just pointing out a terminology issue. Sometimes people semi-consciously absorb the idea that they can’t adore Jesus in the Eucharist if it isn’t exposed, which is not true.

As to what prayers need to be said, the document that needs to be consulted is called Holy Communion and the Worship of the Eucharist Outside of Mass, which is contained in The Rites, vol. 1 (a book well worth getting) or you can just

DOWNLOAD IT OFF THE DIOCESE OF FARGO’S WEB SITE. (WARNING! Evil file format [.pdf]!)

When one consults the document, one finds this:

EXPOSITION

93. After the people have assembled, a song may be sung while the minister comes to the altar. If the holy eucharist is not reserved at the altar where the exposition is to take place, the minister puts on a humeral veil and brings the sacrament from the place of reservation; he is accompanied by servers or by the faithful with lighted candles.

The ciborium or monstrance should be placed upon the table of the altar which is covered with a cloth. If exposition with the monstrance is to extend over a long period, a throne in an elevated position may be used, but his should not be too lofty or distant. After exposition, if the monstrance is used, the minister incenses the sacrament. If the adoration is to be lengthy, he may then withdraw.

94. In the case of more solemn and lengthy exposition, the host should be consecrated in the Mass which immediately precedes the exposition and after communion should be placed in the monstrance upon the altar. The Mass ends with the prayer after communion, and the concluding rites are omitted. Before the priest leaves, he may place the blessed sacrament on the throne and incense it.

ADORATION

95. During the exposition there should be prayers, songs, and readings to direct the attention fo the faithful to the worship of Christ the Lord.

To encourage a prayerful spirit, there should be readings from scripture with a homily or brief exhortations to develop a better understanding of the eucharistic mystery. It is also desirable for the people to respond to the word of God by singing and to spend some periods of time in religious silence.

96. Part of the liturgy of the hours, especially the principal hours, may be celebrated before the blessed sacrament when there is a lengthy period of exposition. This liturgy extends the praiseand thanksgiving offered to God in the eucharistic celebration to the several hours of the day; it directs the prayers of the Church to Christ and through him to the Father in the name of the whole world.

Also, one should note that the document provides that:

91. The ordinary minister for exposition of the eucharist is a priest or deacon. At the end of the period of adoration, before the reposition, he blesses the congregation with the sacrament.

In the absence of a priest or deacon or if they are lawfully impeded, an acolyte, another special minister of communion, or another person appointed by the local Ordinary may publicly expose and later repose the eucharist for the adoration of the faithful.

Such ministers may open the tabernacle and also, as required, place the ciborium on the altar orplace the host in the monstrance. At the end of the period of adoration, they replace the blessed sacrament in the tabernacle. It is not lawful, however, for them to give the blessing with the sacrament

From this one may conclude (a) that laity may expose and repose the Blessed Sacrament (just in case there were to be any confusion on this point, as there sometimes is) and (b) there are no specific prayers that are required.

That being said, you might want to check out the book Order for the Solemn Exposition of the Holy Eucharist. It may contain useful resources as well, though I have a little hesitancy in giving it a full thumbs up because I haven’t looked at it myself and the publisher (Liturgical Press) sometimes includes non-authoritative documents alongside authoritative ones without adequately noting the difference. Still, if I were engaged in setting this up in my parish, I’d get a copy . . . but then read it carefully with an eye to what’s definitely authoritative and what might not be.

We have people lined up (2-3 per hour) who want to participate.

Cool!

I was told this was" presumptious" on my part to line up people when it hasn’t been approved yet.

Ihh. You’re doing a feasibility study.

We wanted once a week from 10-4pm to start but it looks like they may approve only once a month.

Well, you take what you can get and then try to build from there.

Good luck!

A reader writes:

Dear Mr Akin,

Do you have a photographic memory? You have been a Catholic for only a short period of time, relatively speaking, yet your knowledge of Encyclicals and abstruse bits of Church teaching – including which number and page has me gob smacked.

Aw, shucks, ma’am. . . . T’ain’t nuthin.

In regard to my memory: I regard it as nothing but frustratingly inadequate. It forgets the things I want to remember and remembers the things I want to forget.

I am told, however, that others think it is a good one. Sometimes folks who have sat in on the radio show have remarked that they’re surprised I’m not looking up answers–not usually at least (unless I want to give an exact quotation as part of the answer).

I don’t really know, but I have been told that my memory is eidetic or "photographic." This does not mean that I remember everything I’m exposed to. (I’m not Lt. Cmdr. Data!) That kind of memory does not appear to occur in humans, despite a popular impression to the contrary. Our brains are designed to forget stuff.

I am told, however, that my memory is eidetic in that I remember things in an (apparently) more vividly visual way than some folks. For example, I will remember what part of the page a piece of information is on and have a mental image of it, even if I can’t remember the information itself. I assumed this was the way everyone remembers things until I was in my early thirties and someone told me that it ain’t. I haven’t asked enough folks to know if that’s true or not, though. It may be that my friend and his family have unusually non-visual memories and mine is only normal.

Now to the not so pleasant part! lol

On page 7 of your booklet, Mass Appeal (fantastic booklet for our undercatechised people) you wrote: ‘On the altar are vessels used during the eucharist, such as the ciborium, a plate or dish-like vessel…’ Should that not be ‘patern’ ? The ciborium is the large chalice like container which holds consecrated hosts from other Masses I think. I am not saying this to be a smarty pants but when/if another edition comes out if this is an error it can be corrected.

I remember when I was writing Mass Appeal that I had to do a good bit of research on the term "ciborium." It’s used in respect to liturgical vessels that have several different shapes. One, as you mention, is chalice-shaped. If that’s not in Mass Appeal then it should be. I’ll check it out and mention it to Publications and see about getting it added, though we’ll need to call the diocese to get in included as the booklet has an imprimatur.

My memory is also that my research turned up that "ciborium" is also applied to certain plate-shaped vessels, like a paten, though I don’t recall the sources I looked at that supported this. I’ll go back and verify them.

Finally, it is also applied to bowl-shaped vessels, like those in this picture:

[SOURCE.]

In any event, it seems that the term has a somewhat broad semantic range that can apply to a number of different shapes.

I will keep praying for the Catholic Answers apostolate.

Thanks! Please do!

A reader writes:

Jimmy,

I am reading your book "Mass Confusion" and I need some help that I can’t find on page 118.  My question has to do with the wording of the section that reads: "When supper was ended, he took up the cup.  Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his DISCIPLES, and said".   Our priest is substituting the word "Freind" for disciples.   Is this OK?  He is a Franciscan brother…tom

The word "friends" is used in place of "disciples" in the currently-authorized translations of the First and Second Eucharistic Prayers for Masses with Children. (I don’t have access to the Latin originals, so I can’t check to see if that’s the word used in the original. It may be ICEL tomfoolery.) Curiously, "friends" is not in the Third Eucharistic Prayer for Masses with Children ("disciples" is).

So if he’s saying one of those two Eucharistic prayers, he’s fine.

If he’s injecting the word "friends" into any other Eucharistic prayer (e.g., Eucharistic Prayers I-IV) then he’s not fine.

Because of the confusion caused to the faithful by any tampering with the words of consecration, this substitution (while it does not affect the validity of the consecration), is a liturgical abuse and sinful.

Down yonder, a reader writes:

I was listening to the program, and I have a further question in
response to your answer to this question "Can priests in the Society of
St. Pius X validly celebrate the sacrament of penance? How about those
in the Charismatic Episcopal Church?"

Considering, as you said, the fact that the SSPX priests would not
have faculties to absolve sins from the Bishop, wouldn’t "Ecclisia
Supplet" (spelling?) kick in, so long as they were unaware of the
sacramental defect?

The limits of the principle of ecclesia supplet ("the Church supplies") are spelled out in the Code of Canon Law as follows:

Can. 144
§1. In factual or legal common error and in positive and probable doubt of law or of fact, the Church supplies executive power of governance for both the external and internal forum.

§2. The same norm is applied to the faculties mentioned in cann. 882, 883, 966, and 1111, §1.

The immediately relevant part of this canon to the situation of confessions is  §2, which applies the principles of §1 to the faculties for hearing confessions mentioned in Canon 966. In order for those faculties to be supplied, the conditions mentioned in §1 must be satisfied (mutatis mutandis for the fact we are talking about sacramental faculties rather than the power of governance).

Per §1 (via §2), one of two situations must exist for the Church to supply the missing faculties in a particular case. Either:

1. There is a factual or legal common error regarding whether the faculties exist, or
2. There is a positive and probable doubt of law or of fact regarding whether the faculties exist.

In the case of whether an SSPX priest has faculties, there is no question of law but only a question of fact: Does the priest have faculties from the competent authority to hear the confessions of the faithful in the local area?

The only authority comptent to grant the faculty of hearing the confessions of the faithful in the local area is a local ordinary:

Can. 969
§1. The local ordinary alone is competent to confer
upon any presbyters whatsoever the faculty to hear the confessions of
any of the faithful.

The diocesan bishop is one such ordinary, though a given diocese may have additional ordinaries capable of granting faculties.

This focuses the question as follows: Is there (a) a common error or (b) a positive and probable doubt as to whether a local ordinary of the diocese has granted an SSPX priest the faculty of hearing the confessions of the faithful?

A common error is a term of art referring to an error affecting a certain community whereby a reasonable and prudent person would give his assent to the error (see the green CLSA commentary on Can. 144 for further elaboration on this point). Even though the people attending an SSPX chapel form a community capable of having a common error, it does not appear that a common error exists on this point since it is implausible on its face that a local ordinary in communion with the pope would grant faculties to an SSPX priest. This means that a reasonable and prudent person would not give his assent to the idea that the local ordinary has done so, and thus there does not appear to be a common error.

Is there a positive and probably doubt as to this question? It does not appear so. A doubt is a situation in which a person cannot make a decision between contradictory conclusions. In this case the doubt would involve a person being unable to make a decision about whether the local ordinary has granted the priest faculties. For the faculties to be supplied via ecclesia supplet, the doubt would have to be positive and probable.

A positive doubt is one in which there are arguments both for and againt the idea in question. It does not appear, apart from very bizarre circumstances, that there would be any arguments supporting the idea that the local ordinary has supplied faculties to an SSPX priest, meaning that any such doubt on the part of the faithful would not be positive.

Given the massive improbability of the local ordinary doing so, it does not appear that it would be a probable doubt, either.

Thus in the absence of a doubt that is both positive and probable, and in the absence of a common error, the principle of ecclesia supplet would not be engaged and the Church would not supply the faculties to an SSPX priest.

There is also a further problem with the idea that the Church might supply faculties: namely, that the Church supplies missing faculties to its own ministers and not to priests in a state of schism. Thus it does not supply faculties to Eastern Orthodox priests. Those priests, never having been baptized or received into the Latin Church, are not subject to the Latin Church’s canon law (Can. 11) and thus not required to have faculties per Can. 966. SSPX priests, however, typically have been baptized or received into the Latin Church and thus are required to have faculties per Can. 966.

They ain’t got ’em.

Thus it is going to be hard to build a case for ecclesia supplet validating the confessions heard by SSPX priests.

The reader also asks:

Futher, if it did kick in, they would be absolved because the
"Church provides the grace", but it would not be considered a valid
sacrament anyway right? even though it had the sacramental effect?

If (contrary to what we have said above) ecclesia supplet did kick in, the people would be validly absolved–not because the Church supplies grace directly but because it supplies faculties for the celebration of a sacrament–and the sacrament would be valid. What it would not be is licit (lawful). In cases where ecclesia supplet allows a (non-schismatic) priest who does not have faculties from the local ordinary to hear confessions, it is a valid but illicit (unlawful) celebration of the sacrament.

A reader writes:

Suppose that I have a very very close relative who is baptized in a mainstream protestant denomination, and who is living with his Catholic girlfriend.  This relative and his girlfriend get engaged to be married and live together right up through the wedding.  I try to charitably convince them that this behavior is sinful and harmful to them. May/should I attend the wedding under the following circumstances:

Before we get to the situations, let me say that the question of whether to attend any marriage is a question of prudence. You are never under a legal obligation to go (unless you are one of the parties getting married or have agreed to officiate at the wedding in some capacity required by canon law). As a result, I prefer not to give advice on whether you should attend. That’s a question of prudence, though in general it is prudent to attend the weddings of close relatives unless there is a reason not to do so (distance to travel, the marriage will be presumed invalid, etc.). So lemme answer in terms of whether I see a problem with you attending.

That said, on to the circumstances:

(1) The couple finds a priest who will marry them in a Catholic church. 

No problem (the marriage is presumed valid).

(2) They get married in the groom’s protestant church, but with a Catholic dispensation.

No problem (the marriage is presumed valid).

(3) They can’t find a Catholic priest to marry them or give them a dispensation, so they get married in a protestant church without obtaining a dispensation.

Problem (the marriage is invalid).

(4) They can’t find a priest to marry them, so the bride renounces her Catholicism and they get married in a protestant church.

Problem (the marriage is presumed valid, but the Catholic party has just committed a horrible sin against the faith for the sake of the marriage).

Finally, (5) suppose they see the light and stop living together, but they get married outside the Catholic church without a dispensation.

Problem (the marriage is invalid).

I can’t recommend that you attend a marriage that is known to be or presumed to be invalid. This covers situations (3) and (5).

Situation (4) is a special case. While the marriage will be presumed valid if the Catholic party has defected from the Church by a formal act, she has done something else that creates a problem: She has objectively and very gravely sinned against against the Catholic faith by defecting from the Church. Further, her doing this is directly linked to the marriage itself: This is the occasion that has caused her to defect.

For the sake of witnessing to the truth of the faith, I could not attend a wedding where one of the parties has just done this. The marriage may be presumed to be valid (assuming nothing else is known to block its validity), but I cannot by my attendance and thus my public witness endorse the overall complex of actions, which includes her defection from the Church for the sake of the marriage.

(Note: I put this in a different category than the sexual sin being committed before the marriage because that sin was not engaged in for the sake of the marriage but for its own sake, and a valid marriage will result in the behavior no longer being sinful. Defecting from the faith under these circumstances is for the sake of the marriage and will not stop being sinful after the marriage.)

A reader writes:

I have a sacrament and liturgy question; to wit:  In your reading of canon Law ( Canon 917 in particular), and any additional notations or opinions on that canon (or pronouncements from the US CCB), how many times may an individual (not the celebrant) receive communion in one day (my definition of "day" being one calendar day of the same date, vs. any 24 hour period)? 

Your definition of "day" is the same as the Code of Canon Law’s definition:

Can. 202 §1.
In law, a day is understood as a period consisting of 24 continuous hours and begins at midnight unless other provision is expressly made.

Since other provision is not made in Canon 917, that’s the definition of "day" that is operative there.

Canon 917 deals with the number of times one may receive Communion:

Can.  917
A person who has already received the Most Holy Eucharist can receive it a second time on the same day only within the eucharistic celebration in which the person participates, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 921, §2.

Canon 921, §2 deals with the case of Viaticum for the dying, so it does not concern us here.

As a result of canon 917 and Canon 202, a member of the lay faithful can receive holy Communion twice in a twenty-four hour period spanning midnight to midnight, barring the exception of receiving it a third time as Viaticum.

The reader continues:

The specifics arose recently when two Extraordinary Ministers for Holy Communion attended 2 funeral masses during the day on a Saturday (receiving Holy Communion at both), and then participated (as EMs) in the vigil mass that evening.  Should they have declined to receive communion at the vigil Mass? 

Yes, they should have declined, as per the above.

I understand the general rule is that one may receive communion at a second Mass if the whole sacrifice of the Mass is participated as part of the second reception. 

This is mostly correct, but there is no requirement that one be participating in the whole of the Mass at the second reception. Canon 917 simply refers to participating in the Mass, not participating in the whole of it or the whole of any part of it (if one is considering the sacrifice as occurring, e.g., in the Liturgy of the Eucharist). This provision of Canon 917 is meant to distinguish the second reception from Communion from cases where one receives it outside of Mass altogether. This is provided for in the following canon:

Can.  918
It is highly recommended that the faithful receive holy communion during the eucharistic celebration itself. It is to be administered outside the Mass, however, to those who request it for a just cause, with the liturgical rites being observed.

So the first time one receives Communion, it may be in a Mass or outside of Mass (Can. 918), but the second time it must be in a Mass in which one is participating (as opposed to one where one happens to walk through Church at Communion time). This would indicate substantial participation in the Mass, but not participation in all of it.

I argued with our pastor that the vigil Mass (considered as meeting our Sunday obligation) could be treated as Mass for the next day for the purposes of this "rule."    Is there anything published within the Church that further addresses or elucidates this matter?

Yeah, it seems to me that Canon 202 deals with the definition of "day." There isn’t anything in 202 or 917 allowing for a "vigil" Mass. This concept is never mentioned in the Code of Canon Law (the relevant canon simply speaking of fulfilling one’s Sunday/holy day obligation at a Mass falling on the evening of the preceding day, not a special "vigil" Mass occurring then). While Masses are celebrated on the vigils of certain days using the following day’s readings under liturgical law, it is not liturgical law that determines how many times one can receive Communion.

Canon law does that, and in the absence of a re-definition of the word "day" in Can. 917 to allow for this,  Can. 202 is going to govern the situation, meaning that one cannot receive twice and then receive again at a "vigil" Mass later in the day.

Hope this helps!

A reader writes:

Hi Jimmy,

You had a post on your blog about staying home from Mass when sick.
Beside infirmity, are there any other legitimate reasons for staying
home from Mass?  The particular situation I’m wondering about is going
away on a camping trip.

There are other reasons. The care of children is one, for example.

As to camping trips, business trips, and vacations, your obligation is to go to Mass if you reasonably can get to one on Sunday, based on where you are that day. The Church does not understand the obligation to ensuring that you are in a place where you can reasonably get to Mass. Thus if you are in a place where you cannot reasonably get to Mass on a Sunday or holy day, you do not have to go, and you are not legally obligated to cancel or avoid planned trips on this account.

As to what counts as being able to reasonably get to Mass, St. Alphonsus Ligouri spoke of having to ride to Mass for more than fifteen minutes by donkey as being enough. The donkey isn’t the essential part of this though, as people were used to travelling by donkey back then (it was easier for them to do this than it would be for us).

A reader writes:

I was recently visiting relatives in a small town outside Vienna, Austria, called Hinterbruel, and on Sunday assisted at Mass at the local parish, along with my family, to fulfill our Sunday obligation.  Though the Mass in German and so I could understand little of what was said, nevertheless the sacramental graces available through Holy Communion would still be efficacious.

But during distribution of Communion I got a shock.  The pastor, with the Altar servers, stood at the head of aisle holding a large bowl of consecrated hosts about waist level.  An altar server next to him held the chalice down low also.  People processed up, plucked a host out of the large bowl and intinctured it in the chalice themselves.  They then consumed the intinctured host.  The priest did nothing but hold the bowl of hosts out for them.

I was shocked.  The thought immediately struck me that this was an unlawful way of distributing communion.  Given what I thought was this illicitness, I did not feel I could participate, and that to do so knowing it was illicit would itself be a grave sin.  I also told my family not to participate, and explained after the Mass what the problem was.

I know this practice is contrary to the norms for the Latin Rite.  Is it properly termed "illicit"?  If it was illicit, would it not be a grave sin to knowingly receive communion under these circumstances?

It does appear that the situation was illicit, unless Austria has particular law that has been approved by the Vatican to allow such a situation. Here is what the universal law, as found in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) says:

160. The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.

The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another.

So that would prevent them taking the Host from a bowl or ciborium being held by the priest or other minister.

Regarding Communion by intinction, the GIRM says:

287. If Communion from the chalice is carried out by intinction, each communicant, holding a communion-plate under the chin, approaches the priest, who holds a vessel with the sacred particles, a minister standing at his side and holding the chalice. The priest takes a host, dips it partly into the chalice and, showing it, says, Corpus et Sanguis Christi (The Body and Blood of Christ). The communicant responds, Amen, receives the Sacrament in the mouth from the priest, and then withdraws.

There may be variation to allow others to perform the intinction, but the law does not envision the communicant himself doing so. So it looks like we have a case of illicit distribution of Holy Communion, barring Austria having particular law allowing this.

That being said, would it be a grave sin to receive under these circumstances?

No.

The faithful have a right to receive their Lord Jesus Christ in Holy Communion that is not trumped by local officials’ insistence on distributing this in an illicit manner. If there are no alternatives, your need and right to receive the Lord Jesus Christ trumps the fact that they insist on an illicit manner of distribution. If the only way to receive Communion is via their illicit method, it is morally licit for you to do so.

That being said, there are several considerations to add:

1) The fact that you were not parishioners but only temporary visitors made it reasonable for you to simply not go to Communion as you would not be deprived of licitly-distributed Communion for a long period, as parishioners might be.

2) If there was a possibility of changing the practice of the parish by refusing to participate then doing so would become more reasonable.

3) There may have been other options that would allow one to receive Communion without making use of the illicit process the parish had established: For example, going up and standing in front of the priest with one’s mouth open (or, if Communion in the hand is allowed in Austria, with one’s hand out) and not moving until Communion is given in a licit manner.

Similarly: Either standing in front of the minister of the chalice with one’s hands out to receive the chalice until one receives it or, if one has received Communion in the hand, approaching the minister of the chalice with hand extended and mouth open until the minister performs the intinction. Or simply not receiving Communion under the form of wine.

The latter (#3) would have been my preferred option, but then I’m an uppity American.