Canada's PM in missing host mystery [CN-USA]

[PadraigPearce]

This incident is actually turning out to be a fantastic teaching moment. I was listening to some radio call-in shows today and they were discussing this. A lot of people calling in, even Catholics, didn’t know what the Church teaches about non-members receiving communion, but by the end of the show a lot more people knew the Catholic teaching. When was the last time you heard a radio show on a secular radio station discussing the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist? God is good and will bring something positive out of this.

 

[canadianguy1143]

This incident is actually turning out to be a fantastic teaching moment. I was listening to some radio call-in shows today and they were discussing this. A lot of people calling in, even Catholics, didn’t know what the Church teaches about non-members receiving communion, but by the end of the show a lot more people knew the Catholic teaching. When was the last time you heard a radio show on a secular radio station discussing the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist? God is good and will bring something positive out of this.

That is great. I hope the Archbishop was listening to it too and learned something about it too!!

 

[Janet1983]

Dear Janet1983,

I find your post to be incoherent. Can you please restate what you are trying to say?

What I am trying to say is simply this:
Even though I do not share the commitment to the preservation of the eucharist, I certainly wonder how something that is this valuable to the church can find its way into the hands of an outsider through the actions of a catholic bishop. It simply does not seem to be right.
Apart from the fact that the PM should have known better and considered what he was doing, there is something else that does strike me as unusual: How is it possible to coerce a bishop into giving him the eucharist in the first place and if this was not done by any kind of coercion, why did he do it?

 

[canadianguy1143]

What I am trying to say is simply this:
Even though I do not share the commitment to the preservation of the eucharist, I certainly wonder how something that is this valuable to the church can find its way into the hands of an outsider through the actions of a catholic bishop. It simply does not seem to be right.
Apart from the fact that the PM should have known better and considered what he was doing, there is something else that does strike me as unusual: How is it possible to coerce a bishop into giving him the eucharist in the first place and if this was not done by any kind of coercion, why did he do it?

Thank you Janet. I understand what you are saying and must commend you for raising such good questions.

To answer your questions, I would say that Communion got into the hands of our Prime Minister because my Bishop has a pattern of following his own directives than that of his legitimate superiors (Vatican).

It isn’t right.

I have to say that as Prime Minister, he has greater responsibilities than to know all the rules of different religions when attending different denomination’s services. That is why his Protocol aide is there. Clearly the Protocol officer should have known but what exactly was said between the Protocol officer and the Archbishop is unknown.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

In the video the priest practically shoved the host into the Prime Minister’s hand. The polite thing to do when handed something is to take it. He took it and said thank you, then wasn’t sure what to do with it, and thought about it for a bit then ate it.

The PM didn’t approach the priest, he was just standing in the front pew and a priest came along and stuck a host in his hand. I don’t think this is his fault at all.

The “protocol officer” didn’t order the priest to give the host to anyone, they just had an agreement that people who wanted the host would somehow signal that they wanted one. This is a non-issue, except for the priest who seemed not to even care who he gave the host to. It’s the prime minister, the priest must have known who he was and that he isn’t catholic.

 

[canadianguy1143]

In the video the priest practically shoved the host into the Prime Minister’s hand. The polite thing to do when handed something is to take it. He took it and said thank you, then wasn’t sure what to do with it, and thought about it for a bit then ate it.

The PM didn’t approach the priest, he was just standing in the front pew and a priest came along and stuck a host in his hand. I don’t think this is his fault at all.

The “protocol officer” didn’t order the priest to give the host to anyone, they just had an agreement that people who wanted the host would somehow signal that they wanted one. This is a non-issue, except for the priest who seemed not to even care who he gave the host to. It’s the prime minister, the priest must have known who he was and that he isn’t catholic.

First off the “priest” is actually the Archbishop of Moncton. Secondly this agreement is so wrong as it places the decision of who can receive communion in the hands of whoever goes up to the altar under a cloud of ignorance.

 

[centurionguard]

Canadian Non-Catholic PM Says he Did Consume Communion after Offered, Will Meet Pope Saturday

This controversy would not have occured had the Archbishop of Moncton followed Church norms as he is supposed to. The Vatican issued an instruction (Redemptionis Sacramentum) in 2004 in an attempt to correct various liturgical abuses, including the giving of communion to non-Catholics.

Paragraph 84 states: "when Holy Mass is celebrated for a large crowd, …] care should be taken lest out of ignorance non-Catholics or even non-Christians come forward for Holy Communion, without taking into account the Church’s Magisterium in matters pertaining to doctrine and discipline. It is the DUTY OF PASTORS at an opportune moment to inform those present of the authenticity and the discipline that are strictly to be observed.

As for Fr. Bourgeois’ comment that communion may be given to non-Catholics at major occasions, he is utterly wrong: canon 844 §4 states that other Christians may receive Communion “only if the danger of death is present or some other grave necessity urges it, provided that these people manifest Catholic faith in respect to the Eucharist”, in other words, that they recognize it as the body, soul and divinity of our Lord, Jesus-Christ.

The lay association, Catholics United to Peter, Moncton, New Brunswick Chapter, has urged the archbishop in the past to ensure that this and other Church norms be followed by diocesan clergy, all to no avail. Communion continues to be given indiscriminately to whoever comes forward: non-Catholics, remarried divorcees, active homosexuals, those who long ago abandoned the faith, politicians openly in favour of abortion, etc. “The Lord [may] provide” claims Fr. Bourgeois, but He is certainly not amused for the embarrassment caused to his Church.

James Ouellet, Chair
Catholics United to Peter, Moncton Chapter
catholicsunitedtopeter.com/
Grande-Digue, NB
…
If there ever was a scandal, it is Catholic clergy choosing not to follow Church norms. Not Prime Minister Harper who received the host directly from the hands of Archbishop. Richard who "didn’t see anything wrong with it because he was busy doing something else (?).

This controversy would not have occurred had the Archbishop of Moncton followed Church norms as he is supposed to. The Vatican issued an instruction (Redemptionis Sacramentum) in 2004 to correct various liturgical abuses, including the giving of communion to non-Catholics. Paragraph 84 states: "when Holy Mass is celebrated for a large crowd, …] care should be taken lest out of ignorance non-Catholics or even non-Christians come forward for Holy Communion, without taking into account the Church’s Magisterium in matters pertaining to doctrine and discipline. It is the DUTY OF PASTORS at an opportune moment to inform those present of the authenticity and the discipline that are strictly to be observed. It is also the duty of Pastors to remind Catholics of the required conditions to receive communion.

These norms are simply being ignored by most priests in the Moncton archdiocese who remain utterly silent on this most important issue.

If there ever was a scandal, it is Catholic clergy choosing not to follow Church norms and thus allowing just about anybody to present themselves for communion: non-Catholics, remarried divorcees, lapsed Catholics, politicians openly in favour of abortion and other people in a state of grave sin. This is an outrage against Our Lord Jesus-Christ, truly present in the Eucharist, body, soul and divinity.

It is high time for the Archbishop to put an end to this scandal!

 

[centurionguard]

Thank you Janet. I understand what you are saying and must commend you for raising such good questions.

To answer your questions, I would say that Communion got into the hands of our Prime Minister because my Bishop has a pattern of following his own directives than that of his legitimate superiors (Vatican).

It isn’t right.

I have to say that as Prime Minister, he has greater responsibilities than to know all the rules of different religions when attending different denomination’s services. That is why his Protocol aide is there. Clearly the Protocol officer should have known but what exactly was said between the Protocol officer and the Archbishop is unknown.

Nothing was said between the Protocol Officer and the Archbishop. And even if there was an exchange of words the Archbishop simply ignored it and did his own thing.
I am from the Archdiocese of Moncton were this story is getting quite a stir.
Am I totally surprised about this controversy ? Not really since I living in one of the most liberalized Catholic dioceses in Canada. Almost two decades ago two newly ordained young priest with liberal views came out of Saint Paul’s University in Ottawa. Their original destination was Canada’s largest diocese in Toronto. After an interview with His Eminence Aloysius Cardinal Ambrozic the priest were told they could not be part of the Toronto Archdiocese strictly because of their liberal views concerning the teachings of the Catholic Church. Someone in Toronto suggested they go to eastern Canada in a liberal archdiocese. If you heard some of their homilies you would understand why Cardinal Ambrozic refused their entry into the diocese of Toronto.

RE: Canada’s PM in missing host mystery [CN-USA]

I will tell you that as far as the title of this post being a mystery, there is no mystery.
The PM took the host in his hand, looked at it and consumed the host.

 

[canadianguy1143]

Nothing was said between the Protocol Officer and the Archbishop. And even if there was an exchange of words the Archbishop simply ignored it and did his own thing.

According to the CBC TV broadcast, the Archbishop had a conversation with the PM’s Protocol Officer and the Archbishop had asked the Protocol officer for advice on what to do.

 

[Georgia]

According to the CBC TV broadcast, the Archbishop had a conversation with the PM’s Protocol Officer and the Archbishop had asked the Protocol officer for advice on what to do.

I have long ago become suspicious of what the press reports. That said, if the archbishop asked anyone else whether he should offer the host to a non-Catholic, I wonder how he rose to his position. That is an elementary question.

There was scandal a few years back when Bill Clinton was in office. He attended Mass somewhere in Africa and participated in communion in a Catholic church. There was some press release saying it was a tradition to offer it to visiting heads of state. Uhhhhh!

 

[centurionguard]

According to the CBC TV broadcast, the Archbishop had a conversation with the PM’s Protocol Officer and the Archbishop had asked the Protocol officer for advice on what to do.

What advice ? How to address and pay honored homage to a political secular dignitary ?
You should think an Archbishop would already know such protocols having to deal with hierarchical dignitaries in the clergy such as meeting Cardinals or having an audience with our Holy Father the Pope. Why would an Archbishop have to request such protocol which is usually common knowledge even to ordinary citizens with no political or religious hierarchical status. Having common dog courtesy for ones fellow man no matter what his pompous status is not such a lofty acquired skill.
Shouldn’t it have been the other way around for Prime Minister Mr Harper requesting protocol on how to address an Archbishop ?

 

[canadianguy1143]

What advice ? How to address and pay honored homage to a political secular dignitary ?
You should think an Archbishop would already know such protocols having to deal with hierarchical dignitaries in the clergy such as meeting Cardinals or having an audience with our Holy Father the Pope. Why would an Archbishop have to request such protocol which is usually common knowledge even to ordinary citizens with no political or religious hierarchical status. Having common dog courtesy for ones fellow man no matter what his pompous status is not such a lofty acquired skill.
Shouldn’t it have been the other way around for Prime Minister Mr Harper requesting protocol on how to address an Archbishop ?

Exactly. The thing about this and I have just realized this, is that the Archbishop is not helping himself out here by remaining silent on this. While the Archbishop clearly made a mistake, that doesn’t mean that the CBC is going to report this entirely accurate. We have to take this “news” account with a grain of salt.

However, with the Archbishop not communicating to the people directly (as opposed through the MSM), then how can we make sense of all this?

 

[Mickey_Finn]

I did not read all of the post. Nor do I know what the P.M. did with the host.

But I do know that at alot of Catholic funerals for firefighters/ cops. There is a special dispensation for our seperated brethern. So, they may recieve the host. So, if this was a funeral. Then the same may have been true.

 

[centurionguard]

I did not read all of the post. Nor do I know what the P.M. did with the host.

But I do know that at alot of Catholic funerals for firefighters/ cops. There is a special dispensation for our seperated brethern. So, they may recieve the host. So, if this was a funeral. Then the same may have been true.

No Priest, Bishop, Cardinal, or even the Pope himself has authority to grant special dispensation to Non-Catholics to unworthily receive the Sacred Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ miraculously present inside the Sacred Consecrated Host.
Even Catholics who partake of the Holy Sacrament with sins on their soul are guilty condemnation with mortal sin. Any priest or bishop who knowingly distributes the Holy Eucharist to a Non-Catholic or a Catholic who is in sin brings guilt and condemnation upon themselves.

 

[centurionguard]

Denying Holy Communion

I commend the New Oxford Review for publishing E. Christian Brugger’s excellent article “On Denying Pro-Abortion Politicians Holy Communion” (Apr.), which explains that, in accordance with canon 915, pro-abortion politicians, since they persist in manifest grave sin, ought not to be given the Eucharist.

The reason for this canon can be found in the Summa of St. Thomas Aquinas (III, q.80, a.6), in which the Angelic Doctor raises the question of denying Communion to a sinner. He points out that there is a difference between one whose sin is hidden and one whose sin is manifest. A priest who knows the serious but hidden sin of another may not deny him Communion because by such an action the priest would commit the grave sin of defamation. If, however, the sin is manifest – e.g., the public pro-abortion voting record of a congressman – then Holy Communion ought not to be given to the sinner, even though the sinner requests it.

If a bishop, priest, or Eucharistic minister knowingly gives Communion to a pro-abortion politician, he cooperates in the sinner’s sacrilege.

 

[Holly3278]

Hmmm, hopefully he still has the sacred Host and can return it to the Church.

 

[taye]

My first reaction to this news was one of anger and disgust. I felt glad that I hadn’t voted for Harper (truth being I didn’t have the opportunity). Looking to my own past, I realize that I didn’t initially know that you couldn’t receive the eucharist while in a state of mortal sin. Sadly, I continued to receive communion. I don’t understand how Harper could be culpable of a grave sin if he did not KNOW it was wrong. But I will leaving the judging up to God, who knows all.

After viewing the video on YouTube, it looks to me as if Harper was looking for a handshake. Instead, the Archbishop gave him the communion wafer. Maybe he didn’t know what to do with it, and proceeded to put it in his pocket. Maybe someone nudged him and told him that he should consume it.

As for the Archbishop, it seems that he was told by an officer to give communion to Harper. I wasn’t there, and I didn’t not see any video footage of this, but is there a possibility that the news media could have fabricated this to make the Church look bad? Perhaps he pretended to listen to this officer and forgot to deny communal rights to Steven Harper. I’m not saying that I would be nervous or tend to forget things when I have a dozen cameras closing in on me (just kidding!).

Steven Harper and Archbishop Andre are sinners like YOU and I. Although we will never know the true state of their souls, they are responsible to explain to the situation to the media. Harper should apologize (if he hasn’t already).

I have received confession from the Archbishop. He understood what I was going through, and was able to give me excellent advice. I think the best thing I can do for him is pray and leave the judging to God.

 

[centurionguard]

My first reaction to this news was one of anger and disgust. I felt glad that I hadn’t voted for Harper (truth being I didn’t have the opportunity). Looking to my own past, I realize that I didn’t initially know that you couldn’t receive the eucharist while in a state of mortal sin. Sadly, I continued to receive communion. I don’t understand how Harper could be culpable of a grave sin if he did not KNOW it was wrong. But I will leaving the judging up to God, who knows all.

After viewing the video on YouTube, it looks to me as if Harper was looking for a handshake. Instead, the Archbishop gave him the communion wafer. Maybe he didn’t know what to do with it, and proceeded to put it in his pocket. Maybe someone nudged him and told him that he should consume it.

As for the Archbishop, it seems that he was told by an officer to give communion to Harper. I wasn’t there, and I didn’t not see any video footage of this, but is there a possibility that the news media could have fabricated this to make the Church look bad? Perhaps he pretended to listen to this officer and forgot to deny communal rights to Steven Harper. I’m not saying that I would be nervous or tend to forget things when I have a dozen cameras closing in on me (just kidding!).

Steven Harper and Archbishop Andre are sinners like YOU and I. Although we will never know the true state of their souls, they are responsible to explain to the situation to the media. Harper should apologize (if he hasn’t already).

I have received confession from the Archbishop. He understood what I was going through, and was able to give me excellent advice. I think the best thing I can do for him is pray and leave the judging to God.

After viewing the video on YouTube, it looks to me as if Harper was looking for a handshake. Instead, the Archbishop gave him the communion wafer. Maybe he didn’t know what to do with it, and proceeded to put it in his pocket. Maybe someone nudged him and told him that he should consume it.

I personally did not attend the funeral which is only 15 miles from where I live.
See: telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/front/article/722036
There are less than 35 priest in the Archdiocese of Moncton, New Brunswick in eastern Canada I am not sure how many priest were sitting in the Sanctuary including at least four Bishops who were in attendance. Having talked to a few people after Sunday Mass everything seems hushed as if the Archbishop wants to bury this embarrassment under the carpet. Some priest say that Harper did consume the host. Others say he did not and he placed the host in his coat pocket.

 

[canadianguy1143]

Reviewing the videotape of the incident, I realized that the Governor General of Canada received Holy Communion just prior to Harper. I can find no evidence that she is a Catholic or even a Christian. Has anyone got any evidence that she is Catholic or what her religious denomination is?

 

[twf]

Reviewing the videotape of the incident, I realized that the Governor General of Canada received Holy Communion just prior to Harper. I can find no evidence that she is a Catholic or even a Christian. Has anyone got any evidence that she is Catholic or what her religious denomination is?

I can’t find anything on Her Excellency’s religious affiliation either. She did, however, apparently spend some time at the Catholic University of Milan. Perhaps she is Catholic. To their shame, current British law doesn’t allow a Catholic to serve as monarch, but there is no law here against the Prime Minister selecting a Catholic as her viceroy. Regardless, the Prime Minister certainly is not.