Elderly Priest - Holy Thursday Transfer

  • Thread starter Thread starter sr.christinaosf
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The other priest who serves us was able to come after all, even though he just got out of the hospital earlier in the afternoon so the dilemma was alleviated. 🙂
 
That is an interesting perspective; do you have anything to back it up? Thanks.
 
Awesome. Thank you for responding. Praying for your priests. 🙏
 
Last edited:
Please pray we can get more of a steady Mass schedule here for our residents.
 
sr.christinaosf said:
That is an interesting perspective; do you have anything to back it up? Thanks.
Click to expand...
It is very much a cultural thing. I live on the edge of both worlds, in Quebec but in a part of Quebec with a significant anglophone population and I am of both Francophone (mother) and Anglophone (father) descent. It has very much been my experience that the Anglophone Church in Canada is much more of a stickler on detail than the Francophone Church.

And we see that not just in Church life, but in ordinary life as well, particularly when it comes to, umm, obeying traffic laws. It’s even more noticeable in Europe, where, shall we say, Italians and the French drive with considerably more “flair” than the British, for example. I have found driving on the left in the UK, even with a stick shift car, easier than driving on the side I’m used to in Italy, because things in the UK are so orderly and predictable compared to Italy especially Rome (as a side note, last time I drove in Rome I had to drive in central Rome during a public transit strike. Ugh.)
 
Last edited:
OK, but does that make it “licit?” - not to be picky - but we don’t do things because “everybody’s doing it!” Just because Europeans (non-British) are less careful about obeying laws, does that mean that regulations written perhaps in Italy are meant to be “taken with a grain of salt?”
Again, I am not trying to be rude or argumentative, but would like some further discussion on this.
Thanks.
 
Last edited:
sr.christinaosf said:
OK, but does that make it “licit?”
Click to expand...
I think “licitness” is the wrong way to look at it. It is more of a philosophy of life issue.

It sort of boils down to: do we see Church doctrine as a set of “rules to obey” or “ideals to strive for”? Both currents coexist in the Church (and at the very highest levels), and there are good devout Catholics in either camp. I’m definitely in the “ideals to strive for” camp. I don’t “break the rules” indiscriminately; but I realize that I will end up breaking some on the path to Christian perfection, which I will likely not attain this life. I try to do my best, and when I fail, do better next time.

Any law that does not allow for exceptions, as rare as they may (and should) be, is not a law that serves man.

If we think about it this was exactly the problem with Jewish law and the Pharisees. Scrupulous adherence to law at the expense of mercy.
 
I was taught the same thing in law school; but reduced a bit.

Germanic philosophy of law:What is not allowed is prohibited.

Mediterranean philosophy of law: What is not forbidden is allowed.

A year or so ago there was an individual, identified as a priest who got into it with me (and he clearly exhibited the Germanic philosophy) and denied there was any such thing.
 
No, it is not a matter that laws are to be taken with a grain of salt. It means that one needs to look not only to the text of the law, but also to what is behind that - the intent.

Let’s go back to the priest with the walker. Normally the Eucharist is removed from the tabernacle as part of the final “end” of the Mass on Holy Thursday, the tabernacle doors are left open and the sanctuary light extinguished, and the Eucharist is removed to another location as a reminder of Good Friday, and Christ’s death.

So what is the priest to do if he cannot remove the Eucharist in procession, and how is the tabernacle to be emptied? Are we simply left with the Eucharist in the tabernacle?

An EMHC can be appointed for the circumstance if there are none in the parish. If there is no deacon, there is no solution there. Having an EMHC carry the Eucharist to its place of repose is a matter of common sense (and a Tip of the Hat to Voltaire) even though the Law did not envisage the circumstances. That is not a “grain of salt”, but rather a following of the liturgical law (reposing the Eucharist) as best can be accomplished. It is not a bending of liturgical law to whims, or to “everyone else is doing it” as likely no one else is doing it. And it is not a whim; it is addressing the impossibility of the normal way - the priest reposing it.

I know of a parish which had Perpetual Adoration for about 25 years. A new priest came into the parish, found the Eucharist not reposed when someone at Adoration had no one to replace them after the hour (occurring several times); and apparently there was some question as to the authority or lack thereof of a lay person to open the tabernacle to repose.

Adoration was shut down WHAMBANG with no forewarning, no attempt to find more adorers to “double cover”, no explanation that there were some sort of problems which needed to be resolved; in short, a completely Germanic approach. Were there problems? The LAW might not have been followed exactly. Could there have been a different approach, including one of (re)education of all adorers? I am inclined to think so, but my opinion would have had no impact whatsoever. No one would have been playing fast and loose with the law.

25 +/- years of Adoration and in one day, dismantled. Because the LAW was not followed.

And I don’t suggest the law should not be followed.
 
Last edited:
sr.christinaosf said:
OK, but does that make it “licit?” - not to be picky - but we don’t do things because “everybody’s doing it!”
Click to expand...
To suggest that a reasonable and obvious accommodation for a priest’s physical disability is “illicit” when it does not involve a sacramental act strikes me as uncharitable.

In byzantine liturgy, the priest(s) and deacon wave the AĂ«r over the gifts as the creed is chanted. (The AĂ«r is the cloth that covers the gifts during the earlier parts of the liturgy and though the Great Entrance.

Due to an injury to his shoulder (he lifted something he shouldn’t have while helping a deacon move in! đŸ˜±), he cannot hold his right arm that high (in fact, I’m amazed that he manages to administer communion [spoon drops Eucharist into mouth]).

He needs to use a server to hold the other side of the AĂ«r over the gifts. It’s not that I am waving it over the gifts with my hand, but that he is using my right hand to accomplish his task.

The alternative would be omitting this significant act entirely.

The correct question to be asking is not, “is this licit or proper,” but, “how can I help this priest who is enduring pain to accomplish this for us?”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top