C
csmm
Guest
Our parish was just assigned a new priest… Within the first 9 days, Adoration in the form of exposition which we had from 10am-10pm Mon-Fri was halted (We are now allowed to go into the Adoration chapel until 4pm, but our priest is against exposition in a monstrance except in the Holy Thursday Procession. Latin Mass was halted, Our two evening weekday masses were halted as well as a Saturday morning Mass and a Sunday Evening Mass (Youth Mass), and there is no Mass at all on Friday now (including First Friday’s). Esentially, without any notification or reason, we have lost 6 Masses and Exposition…Additionally, this priest replaces the Liturgical words “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world…” and replaces it with “God’s Holy food for God’s Holy people”. He also elevates the entire ciborium rather than the Patten and Host, ans there are few other differences as well…I had an inclination his idea of the Real Presence was now what I have come to understand…
I met with this priest and he asked me if I was asking him if he believes in the Real Presence. When I responded yes, He then told me it would depend on my definition of the real presence…He contests that Christ is present body blood soul and divinity in the Eucharist, but that this doesn’t necessarily constitute a substantial change in the literal sense of actual flesh or actual blood. That we receive Christ entirely, but the Eucharist we receive is not receiving the actual flesh of Christ in our mouths under the veil of bread, it is in a spiritual sense…He asked me if I could hold a Baptism or a confession in my hand and told me that you cannot hold a Eucharist in your hand either becasue it is a verb, not a noun.
He said exposition is a dangerous practice because people who beleive that the Eucharist is flesh under the appearance of bread turn the Eucharist into a “thing” rather than a sacrament and that in worshiping the Eucharist as a “thing” we are missing the forest for the trees. When I tried to explain that those who Adore in Exposition are not solely under the understanding that this is the flesh of Christ but that it is Christ entire and are happy to be in His presence in a unique way, (body blood sould and Divinity) He said that bc Christ is wholely in the Eucharist but the substance itself does not change in the literal sense, but still contains Christ entire Christ is no more present in the Eucharist than he is in each of us bc of reception of the Eucharist or between two people in prayer etc. He also said that the last 2 Popes have done great damage to the Church to promote Eucharist Adoration and/or Exposition and thank God that our Pope doesn’t claim to be a Liturgist, as this priest as a Masters in the Liturgy…He also attcked the credibility of our ArchBishop. When I asked about Church approved Eucharistic Miracles he said he didn;t believe Jesus would show himself that way and it is “disgusting” . He asked me how I would like it if the Host turned into a heart valve or blood in my mouth and I responded that I would be so grateful for the miracle that the idea of any form of revoltion wouldn;t cross my mind.
He beleives that reception on the tongue should not be allowed and is “gross”. He said it is outdated and is flawed bc in the middle ages hands were covered with white cloth and it refers to unworthiness which is contradictory to the very message of Christ, He said he would be happy for another SARS outbreak to not have to administer on the tongue. When I cited the GIRM and the Church in that the normal is to receive on the tongue, the indult being in the hand, he told me I was wrong.
When asked about liturgical changes in Mass, he said he had special permission, along with 6 priests in the Archdiocese to celebrate a more ancient liturgy. When I asked why he didn;t elevate the paten and Host, but the ciborium, he said “it’s still Eucharist isn;t it?”
…At his last parish they stood for the Consecration as well…oh, and he has also refused to administer Eucharist to those who genuflect or wish to receive on the knees, which I understand we are not supposed to do in the new Mass, but still cannot be refused. He says the reason is for consistency in the community, which I understand, but would also contend that if he were concerned with consistency in an existing community, he should not impose his personal ideas of how the Real Presence is substantiated on others and not impose a different form of liturgy on parishioners.
Am I completely off-base here or is this priest correct in what he is doing?
I met with this priest and he asked me if I was asking him if he believes in the Real Presence. When I responded yes, He then told me it would depend on my definition of the real presence…He contests that Christ is present body blood soul and divinity in the Eucharist, but that this doesn’t necessarily constitute a substantial change in the literal sense of actual flesh or actual blood. That we receive Christ entirely, but the Eucharist we receive is not receiving the actual flesh of Christ in our mouths under the veil of bread, it is in a spiritual sense…He asked me if I could hold a Baptism or a confession in my hand and told me that you cannot hold a Eucharist in your hand either becasue it is a verb, not a noun.
He said exposition is a dangerous practice because people who beleive that the Eucharist is flesh under the appearance of bread turn the Eucharist into a “thing” rather than a sacrament and that in worshiping the Eucharist as a “thing” we are missing the forest for the trees. When I tried to explain that those who Adore in Exposition are not solely under the understanding that this is the flesh of Christ but that it is Christ entire and are happy to be in His presence in a unique way, (body blood sould and Divinity) He said that bc Christ is wholely in the Eucharist but the substance itself does not change in the literal sense, but still contains Christ entire Christ is no more present in the Eucharist than he is in each of us bc of reception of the Eucharist or between two people in prayer etc. He also said that the last 2 Popes have done great damage to the Church to promote Eucharist Adoration and/or Exposition and thank God that our Pope doesn’t claim to be a Liturgist, as this priest as a Masters in the Liturgy…He also attcked the credibility of our ArchBishop. When I asked about Church approved Eucharistic Miracles he said he didn;t believe Jesus would show himself that way and it is “disgusting” . He asked me how I would like it if the Host turned into a heart valve or blood in my mouth and I responded that I would be so grateful for the miracle that the idea of any form of revoltion wouldn;t cross my mind.
He beleives that reception on the tongue should not be allowed and is “gross”. He said it is outdated and is flawed bc in the middle ages hands were covered with white cloth and it refers to unworthiness which is contradictory to the very message of Christ, He said he would be happy for another SARS outbreak to not have to administer on the tongue. When I cited the GIRM and the Church in that the normal is to receive on the tongue, the indult being in the hand, he told me I was wrong.
When asked about liturgical changes in Mass, he said he had special permission, along with 6 priests in the Archdiocese to celebrate a more ancient liturgy. When I asked why he didn;t elevate the paten and Host, but the ciborium, he said “it’s still Eucharist isn;t it?”
…At his last parish they stood for the Consecration as well…oh, and he has also refused to administer Eucharist to those who genuflect or wish to receive on the knees, which I understand we are not supposed to do in the new Mass, but still cannot be refused. He says the reason is for consistency in the community, which I understand, but would also contend that if he were concerned with consistency in an existing community, he should not impose his personal ideas of how the Real Presence is substantiated on others and not impose a different form of liturgy on parishioners.
Am I completely off-base here or is this priest correct in what he is doing?