late to mass

[FrDavid96]

Personally, I believe that one should be there for the reconciliation (“I Confess”) in order to receive general absolution.

I guess the priest would be correct in telling you that you should at least be present for the readings. However, there are Eucharistic services that are not Masses. I’ve been to a few where there is a short prayer beforehand, recitation of the Act of Contrition, and “Lord, I am not worthy”; the Eucharist is then offered if there is no priest available. This is accomplished either by a deacon or extraordinary minister.

If it’s a Sunday Mass, you really should be there for the entire time. If it’s daily, maybe you can find a Eucharistic service in lieu of Mass, although participation at Mass is preferable.

There is no “general absolution” in the penitential rite. This is often a cause for much confusion. A person who is not conscious of any grave (mortal) sin may be forgiven in the penitential rite, but absolution can only occur through the actual Sacrament of Reconcilliation (ie Confession) in one form or the other, even the most abreviated form.

Again, remember that there is no absolution in the penitential rite.

 

[FrDavid96]

Thanks for the continued discussion on this subject. Regarding my friend who was refused communion after she entered late to Mass.

1. My friend is a daily communicant.
2. This was not her regular parish. This was a 12:00 noon Mass at another parish.
3. No the priest never interrogated her as to why she was late.
4. When it happened she said she was so shocked, she almost fainted on the spot. Her face reddened. Her eyes filled with tears.
5. After Mass, she felt so emotional: mortified, hurt, angry, that she did not even speak to the priest.

In my mind, there are several issues here.

1. Yes, it may be the priest’s prerogative (even his responsibility) to do this, but, he just said, “No, you came after the Liturgy of the Word,” There was no statement of, “Please see me later.” No statement of, “I’m so sorry to have to do this.” No explanation at the time. Personally, I think the priest was just having a bad day.
2. My guess is that the priest was reacting to his own emotions rather than out of love. Yes, I realize priest are people too. Ordination is not a guarantee of getting to heaven, nor does it make priests non-sinners themselves. The priest is human.
3. If he were going to do this, there should be a posted sign, “No communion given to those coming after the Gospel”.
4. Even if she was not “properly disposed”, a venial sin at best, before communion we all say the prayer, “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the Word and I should be healed.” I count on this prayer making me “properly disposed” because there are so many times when I am distracted during Mass.
5. Somehow, as a priest distributes the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, this is such an AWESOME MOMENT, where it is no longer US that lives but Jesus that lives within us, I just don’t think it is an appropriate time for the priest to be a liturgical gestapo.

Too often, people say “the priest didn’t do what I wanted him to do, therefore he’s wrong.”

If that person wanted to receive Communion, she should have been there at the start. Did she have a good reason for being late? Maybe, maybe not, but that isn’t the point. She was late.

The fact that a person gets emotional if it doesn’t happen is not a reason for a priest to administer Communion to someone.

Don’t blame the priest because your friend was late–it wasn’t his fault.

 

[peary]

There is no “general absolution” in the penitential rite. This is often a cause for much confusion. A person who is not conscious of any grave (mortal) sin may be forgiven in the penitential rite, but absolution can only occur through the actual Sacrament of Reconcilliation (ie Confession) in one form or the other, even the most abreviated form.

Again, remember that there is no absolution in the penitential rite.

Wow, then I was wrongly taught!
Thank you for the clarification.
But you would have to agree that the non-absolutory nature of the penitential rite does not mean that venial sins are not forgiven during this rite; they are also forgiven by receiving Communion and by the other intercessory prayers of Mass.
I understand the necessity of Confession for mortal sins, and know that the penitential rite does not cover this. This is what I was alluding to when I made the statement in my post.

 

[FrDavid96]

Wow, then I was wrongly taught!
Thank you for the clarification.
But you would have to agree that the non-absolutory nature of the penitential rite does not mean that venial sins are not forgiven during this rite; they are also forgiven by receiving Communion and by the other intercessory prayers of Mass.
I understand the necessity of Confession for mortal sins, and know that the penitential rite does not cover this. This is what I was alluding to when I made the statement in my post.

1. There are many ways we can be “forgiven” our venial sins outside of Confession. Yes, the penitential rite is one of these. We are forgiven by virtue of our own interior contrition and by a merciful God. But absolution itself only occurs in Confession, including absolution from venial sins. Sacramental confession and absolution is still necessary for venial sins (necessary but not absolutely necessary).
2. There is a common misconception that the penitential rite is some kind of “substitute” for sacramental confession and absolution if we’re talking about venial sins. That’s just not the case.

Feel free to start a new thread if you’d like to discuss this more.

 

[dconklin]

I visited a church once that must have had automatic door between the narthex and the sanctuary. Right after the 2nd reading and before the Gospel Acclimation, the doors shut with a noticeable thud. That sorta gives the impression you better get there before it is too late.

 

[Steave]

Yes. It’s his decision.

If she were there for the entire Mass it would not be his decision, of course. Priest’s can’t just arbitrarily decide who can receive. If he says that coming after the Gospel is not being ‘properly disposed’ to receive he can do that. He’s not actually refusing her Communion, he’s saying that this isn’t an appropriate moment.

Since this person missed the entire first half of the Mass, he could still decide to allow her to receive, but he can likewise choose not to.

Cannon law or not, it is not the priests place to judge who can and cannot recive the body of Christ period end of story. It is only God almighty who can choose that, we can only be conveyers of the message. How arrogant is it to not honor somebody’s circumstances.

Let’s say two attending daily mass, and on the way they both see someone in a ditch and go over to help them.

Who did the more Christ like thing the first person who passed the man up the ditch so he could be “on time” to daily mass, or the man who pulled over and helped the man and then made his way as fast as possible but missed the first part of mass?

Let it be known that it is"ok" for a priest to recieve the second person communion.

As humans we cannot judge somebody’s circumstance, preperation to recive the christ is in the Heart of a man, not in a mans body.

 

[peary]

Cannon law or not, it is not the priests place to judge who can and cannot recive the body of Christ period end of story. It is only God almighty who can choose that, we can only be conveyers of the message. How arrogant is it to not honor somebody’s circumstances.

Let’s say two attending daily mass, and on the way they both see someone in a ditch and go over to help them.

Who did the more Christ like thing the first person who passed the man up the ditch so he could be “on time” to daily mass, or the man who pulled over and helped the man and then made his way as fast as possible but missed the first part of mass?

Let it be known that it is"ok" for a priest to recieve the second person communion.

As humans we cannot judge somebody’s circumstance, preperation to recive the christ is in the Heart of a man, not in a mans body.

So, I guess a priest, in good conscience, cannot deny the Eucharist to pro-abort politicians?

 

[Steave]

So, I guess a priest, in good conscience, cannot deny the Eucharist to pro-abort politicians?

No, they cannot, why is because we are not judges on this earth, to judge somebody is the responsobillity of God almighty not you.

As arrogant as people are, I understand why you think that you can judge somebody, but the priest does not deny you a sinner the body of Christ, you gossiper, you blasphmer, you rablerouser coming into topic conversations and throwing in something completly off topic to satisfy your own flesh, then no you cannot make the judgement to deny Christ to somebody, you must have faith in God that he will rectify the situation.

Off topic posts…

 

[peary]

No, they cannot, why is because we are not judges on this earth, to judge somebody is the responsobillity of God almighty not you.

As arrogant as people are, I understand why you think that you can judge somebody, but the priest does not deny you a sinner the body of Christ, you gossiper, you blasphmer, you rablerouser coming into topic conversations and throwing in something completly off topic to satisfy your own flesh, then no you cannot make the judgement to deny Christ to somebody, you must have faith in God that he will rectify the situation.

Off topic posts…

**And you’re full of it. They are the primary guardians of the Eucharist, and they have the obligation to protect the Eucharist from secular profanation.

And for your information, It can be denied by a priest under the following circumstances:

1. The Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist cannot be administered to members of other religions, and
2. The Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist cannot be administered to those who voluntarily continue to live in grave sin.

As a general rule, giving the person the benefit of the doubt, the priest will not deny the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. (This is not saying that the administration of the Sacrament was permitted. The person who receives the Body and Blood of Christ in an unworthy manner shall still be answerable to God.) Following the administration of the Sacrament, the priest is obligated before God, as a representative of the Holy Catholic Church and by conscience to meet with the person in private, to identify the state of the person’s soul and to explain the teachings of the Church regarding the administration of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.

Should it be identified that the person is not in a state of grace, he/she will be notified that unless he/she changes his/her way of life, sincerely repent and receive the Sacrament of Confession, future administration of the Sacrament of the Holy Communion will be denied.

Should the person persist on approaching the Altar to receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion after having been warned and the priest is absolutely sure that the person has not repented of his/her sins, then, the priest is obligated to deny the person the Sacrament.

Should the person create a scene after having been warned, it shall not be the priest, but rather the person, who shall be responsible for creating the public scandal that draws attention to his/her status before God.

Many bishops have jumped on the bandwagon that Catholic politicians who support abortion are to be denied the Eucharist. This has been a directive to their priests. I would even go so far as denying ANY Catholic the Eucharist if they openly dissent from Church’s teachings on the fragility of life and abortion, and for the reasons stated above.**

 

[FrDavid96]

Cannon law or not, it is not the priests place to judge who can and cannot recive the body of Christ period end of story. It is only God almighty who can choose that, we can only be conveyers of the message. How arrogant is it to not honor somebody’s circumstances.

Let’s say two attending daily mass, and on the way they both see someone in a ditch and go over to help them.

Who did the more Christ like thing the first person who passed the man up the ditch so he could be “on time” to daily mass, or the man who pulled over and helped the man and then made his way as fast as possible but missed the first part of mass?

Let it be known that it is"ok" for a priest to recieve the second person communion.

As humans we cannot judge somebody’s circumstance, preperation to recive the christ is in the Heart of a man, not in a mans body.

I don’t think you understand what I’m trying to get across here. The priest isn’t judging the person in that scenario–he’s making a decision based on the objective facts in front of him. Priests must indeed discern who is able to receive Communion. Not based on his own standards, mind you. But every priest does have that responsibility. Just as a priest must decide matters in Confession (like delaying absolution). Please remember that this is not a matter of a personal decision of the priest–but one based on the criteria which the Church provides.

As I said in an earlier post, there are 2 values here, and sometimes those values might be in conflict. There is the right of the person to receive Communion and there is the responsibility of the priest as steward of the Sacraments to discern if a person is truly eligible. It’s not something to be taken lightly, and it’s not a decision that’s easily made. I hope you see what I’m trying to say here–the priest does NOT simply apply his own arbitrary standards. I’m concerned that you might think that’s what I’m saying, and I assure you it isn’t.

I am agreeing with you more than you might realize at first but I’m finding it difficult to find the right words here.

 

[peary]

I don’t think you understand what I’m trying to get across here. The priest isn’t judging the person in that scenario–he’s making a decision based on the objective facts in front of him. Priests must indeed discern who is able to receive Communion. Not based on his own standards, mind you. But every priest does have that responsibility. Just as a priest must decide matters in Confession (like delaying absolution). Please remember that this is not a matter of a personal decision of the priest–but one based on the criteria which the Church provides.

As I said in an earlier post, there are 2 values here, and sometimes those values might be in conflict. There is the right of the person to receive Communion and there is the responsibility of the priest as steward of the Sacraments to discern if a person is truly eligible. It’s not something to be taken lightly, and it’s not a decision that’s easily made. I hope you see what I’m trying to say here–the priest does NOT simply apply his own arbitrary standards. I’m concerned that you might think that’s what I’m saying, and I assure you it isn’t.

I am agreeing with you more than you might realize at first but I’m finding it difficult to find the right words here.

I think you did a *great *job!

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

So, I guess a priest, in good conscience, cannot deny the Eucharist to pro-abort politicians?

That is correct, if they approach in public and nothing has taken place to officially prohibit them canonically prior to them approaching.

 

[FrDavid96]

No, they cannot, why is because we are not judges on this earth, to judge somebody is the responsobillity of God almighty not you.

As arrogant as people are, I understand why you think that you can judge somebody, but the priest does not deny you a sinner the body of Christ, you gossiper, you blasphmer, you rablerouser coming into topic conversations and throwing in something completly off topic to satisfy your own flesh, then no you cannot make the judgement to deny Christ to somebody, you must have faith in God that he will rectify the situation.

Off topic posts…

Steave,
I’ve been chewing on this one for a while, and thinking of a better response to help you understand this issue.

A priest is not to judge the state of a person’s soul when that person comes forward at Communion-time to receive. Yes, priests do indeed have to do this (as best we can) in the Sacrament of Confession–but that’s a different matter.

A person’s state of sin-or-grace is a matter for the internal forum–it’s both personal and private. In some extreme circumstances (like the typical example of the pro-abortion politician) the bishop has to intervene and prevent someone from receiving until he repents–because the sin itself is so public. That’s a matter for the bishop to decide.

The priest however has to apply certain criteria in administering the Sacraments. There are 3 of these: properly disposed, at an appropriate time, and not impeded by canon law.

“At an appropriate time” means that people can’t just stop a priest anytime and demand a Sacrament. Someone who knocks on the rectory door at 3 AM and says “I can’t sleep, there’s nothing on TV, so I decided to come to confession,” is told “come back during the day at a reasonable hour.” The priest is not refusing the Sacrament, he’s saying that this isn’t an appropriate time.

“Properly disposed” can be very difficult to determine. The arch-typical example is the drunk who stumbles out of the bar, sees a priest and says “I want to confess…” Again, the priest doesn’t do it; not because he’s “refusing” but because the person is not in an appropriate state of mind to make a confession.

The above is simply to lay some groundwork for the discussion. The topic here is a person who arrives late for Mass. So let’s take a look at that.

First of all, we need to look at the Mass in its totality. The entire Mass forms a single whole (even though there are various rites or moments the Mass itself is a whole). The Mass is made up of both the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist–both of these form an integral whole. One without the other is not a Mass. This is true even though it’s possible to have a service of the Word or a service of the Eucharist, neither of these by itself is the Mass.

The Instruction Inaestimabile Donum approved by HH John Paul II expresses this in better words than I could ever compose:

1. “The two parts which in a sense go to make up the Mass, namely the Liturgy of the Word and the Eucharistic Liturgy, are so closely connected that they form but one single act of worship.” A person should not approach the table of the Bread of the Lord without having first been at the table of His Word. Sacred Scripture is therefore of the highest importance in the celebration of Mass…
   papalencyclicals.net/JP02/JP2inaest.htm

Catholics (not impeded by law) have a right to receive Communion at Mass, and the way that they “exercise” this right is by actually being at Mass. So if a Catholic actually attends Mass, the priest cannot refuse Communion. But when a person arrives so late as to miss the entire first part of the Mass–the Liturgy of the Word, that person has not attended Mass. The priest hasn’t prevented the person from attending. He has not refused to allow the person to be there–the priest is merely taking notice of the fact that this has happened.

A Catholic approaches the priest and requests Communion by virtue of being there for the Mass–not merely by being in the Communion line.

A person who misses a substantial part of the Mass (the Lit. of the Word) is not properly disposed to receive Communion, and waiting until after that to arrive for Mass is not making the request at an appropriate time.

A priest in that situation is saying “yes, you can receive Communion when attending Mass, but you cannot receive Communion by only attending part of a Mass.”

A priest may use his judgment and make provision for people to receive Communion even if they don’t attend Mass at all. Communion outside of Mass is perfectly legitimate way of administering Communion (though it’s never a substitute for Mass). Since a priest can release someone from the obligation to be at the entire Mass, he can likewise release someone from being there for part of the Mass. But saying that he may do this, when the situation calls for it, is not the same as saying he must do it.

 

[diggerdomer]

Yes, but could you be more specific.

The priest deciding a priori that anyone arriving after a certain point in the Mass is to be denied communion.

 

[Steave]

Steave,
I’ve been chewing on this one for a while, and thinking of a better response to help you understand this issue.

A priest is not to judge the state of a person’s soul when that person comes forward at Communion-time to receive. Yes, priests do indeed have to do this (as best we can) in the Sacrament of Confession–but that’s a different matter.

A person’s state of sin-or-grace is a matter for the internal forum–it’s both personal and private. In some extreme circumstances (like the typical example of the pro-abortion politician) the bishop has to intervene and prevent someone from receiving until he repents–because the sin itself is so public. That’s a matter for the bishop to decide.

The priest however has to apply certain criteria in administering the Sacraments. There are 3 of these: properly disposed, at an appropriate time, and not impeded by canon law.

“At an appropriate time” means that people can’t just stop a priest anytime and demand a Sacrament. Someone who knocks on the rectory door at 3 AM and says “I can’t sleep, there’s nothing on TV, so I decided to come to confession,” is told “come back during the day at a reasonable hour.” The priest is not refusing the Sacrament, he’s saying that this isn’t an appropriate time.

“Properly disposed” can be very difficult to determine. The arch-typical example is the drunk who stumbles out of the bar, sees a priest and says “I want to confess…” Again, the priest doesn’t do it; not because he’s “refusing” but because the person is not in an appropriate state of mind to make a confession.

The above is simply to lay some groundwork for the discussion. The topic here is a person who arrives late for Mass. So let’s take a look at that.

First of all, we need to look at the Mass in its totality. The entire Mass forms a single whole (even though there are various rites or moments the Mass itself is a whole). The Mass is made up of both the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist–both of these form an integral whole. One without the other is not a Mass. This is true even though it’s possible to have a service of the Word or a service of the Eucharist, neither of these by itself is the Mass.

The Instruction Inaestimabile Donum approved by HH John Paul II expresses this in better words than I could ever compose:

1. “The two parts which in a sense go to make up the Mass, namely the Liturgy of the Word and the Eucharistic Liturgy, are so closely connected that they form but one single act of worship.” A person should not approach the table of the Bread of the Lord without having first been at the table of His Word. Sacred Scripture is therefore of the highest importance in the celebration of Mass…
   papalencyclicals.net/JP02/JP2inaest.htm

Catholics (not impeded by law) have a right to receive Communion at Mass, and the way that they “exercise” this right is by actually being at Mass. So if a Catholic actually attends Mass, the priest cannot refuse Communion. But when a person arrives so late as to miss the entire first part of the Mass–the Liturgy of the Word, that person has not attended Mass. The priest hasn’t prevented the person from attending. He has not refused to allow the person to be there–the priest is merely taking notice of the fact that this has happened.

A Catholic approaches the priest and requests Communion by virtue of being there for the Mass–not merely by being in the Communion line.

A person who misses a substantial part of the Mass (the Lit. of the Word) is not properly disposed to receive Communion, and waiting until after that to arrive for Mass is not making the request at an appropriate time.

A priest in that situation is saying “yes, you can receive Communion when attending Mass, but you cannot receive Communion by only attending part of a Mass.”

A priest may use his judgment and make provision for people to receive Communion even if they don’t attend Mass at all. Communion outside of Mass is perfectly legitimate way of administering Communion (though it’s never a substitute for Mass). Since a priest can release someone from the obligation to be at the entire Mass, he can likewise release someone from being there for part of the Mass. But saying that he may do this, when the situation calls for it, is not the same as saying he must do it.

Thankyou for clearing alot of things up there is still one gaping thing that does not leave my mind.

What if the priest Judges wrong? What if his discernment is wrong, that is the defintion of the human race, falability? I gave you a scenario where two people were headed to mass, and both passed someone on the road that needed help. One went to mass so he could be on time, and the other stopped to help. Who did the more Christ like thing?

I understand the mass is as a whole, but while making judgements here people who are going to daily mass tend to have there heads on straitI(not every single last person but as a whole if your going to daily mass you are trying to find the lord). What if the person who is denied communion is strugling with his faith, struggling with a sin? Having someone refuse communion to them would be catostrophic, for many the only way to stay away from a mortal sin is becoming one with Christ.

I Understand the appropriate time scenario, but do you think that we could be falling victim of thinking like Humans instead of thinking like the Almighty?

Pax
-Steave.

 

[FrDavid96]

Thankyou for clearing alot of things up there is still one gaping thing that does not leave my mind.

What if the priest Judges wrong? What if his discernment is wrong, that is the defintion of the human race, falability? I gave you a scenario where two people were headed to mass, and both passed someone on the road that needed help. One went to mass so he could be on time, and the other stopped to help. Who did the more Christ like thing?

I understand the mass is as a whole, but while making judgements here people who are going to daily mass tend to have there heads on straitI(not every single last person but as a whole if your going to daily mass you are trying to find the lord). What if the person who is denied communion is strugling with his faith, struggling with a sin? Having someone refuse communion to them would be catostrophic, for many the only way to stay away from a mortal sin is becoming one with Christ.

I Understand the appropriate time scenario, but do you think that we could be falling victim of thinking like Humans instead of thinking like the Almighty?

Pax
-Steave.

Steave,
Please understand that in your above scenario, you are transferring the final blame for someone being late onto the priest. It’s not the priest’s fault that someone was late–he is merely noticing the fact which is before him.

In that scenario, the priest can’t judge wrongly, because he is not judging the state of the person’s soul–he is merely judging the time at which the person began to participate in the Mass.

The “good Samaritan” comparison is just not applicable here, because we’re not talking about a person’s standing (righteous or sinful or somewhere in between) before God. What we’re observing here is the objective fact that a person has not participated in the Mass.

Remember that a person can always approach the priest after Mass, offer an explanation and request that the priest administer Holy Communion. In the example I gave (the parishioner caring for a sick relative) that explanation was given beforehand, and so I already know the reason why she is sometimes late. I make the decision to administer Communion even though she hasn’t attended Mass.

But when someone who is unknown to the priest arrives late to Mass and simply comes forward in the Communion line without having attended Mass, the priest can say that such a person is not eligible to be admitted to Communion at that particular moment. This is not at all a judgement on the person’s soul–it a recognition of the objective fact that the person arrived so late in the Mass as to have not-participated in the Mass.

You also need to please keep in mind what I keep repeating here: the priest is not refusing someone Communion. If that person had been there for Mass, we can safely presume that the priest would have administered Communion. What the priest is refusing to do is to have a situation in the parish where people arrive at any time in the Mass and simply present themselves for Communion without having participated in the Mass. The distinction is very important.

 

[Steave]

[SIGN]Thank you[/SIGN]

 

[diggerdomer]

Steave,
Please understand that in your above scenario, you are transferring the final blame for someone being late onto the priest. It’s not the priest’s fault that someone was late–he is merely noticing the fact which is before him.

In that scenario, the priest can’t judge wrongly, because he is not judging the state of the person’s soul–he is merely judging the time at which the person began to participate in the Mass.

The “good Samaritan” comparison is just not applicable here, because we’re not talking about a person’s standing (righteous or sinful or somewhere in between) before God. What we’re observing here is the objective fact that a person has not participated in the Mass.

Remember that a person can always approach the priest after Mass, offer an explanation and request that the priest administer Holy Communion. In the example I gave (the parishioner caring for a sick relative) that explanation was given beforehand, and so I already know the reason why she is sometimes late. I make the decision to administer Communion even though she hasn’t attended Mass.

But when someone who is unknown to the priest arrives late to Mass and simply comes forward in the Communion line without having attended Mass, the priest can say that such a person is not eligible to be admitted to Communion at that particular moment. This is not at all a judgement on the person’s soul–it a recognition of the objective fact that the person arrived so late in the Mass as to have not-participated in the Mass.

You also need to please keep in mind what I keep repeating here: the priest is not refusing someone Communion. If that person had been there for Mass, we can safely presume that the priest would have administered Communion. What the priest is refusing to do is to have a situation in the parish where people arrive at any time in the Mass and simply present themselves for Communion without having participated in the Mass. The distinction is very important.

Where is being late for Mass considered a valid reason for denying the Sacrament to the faithful?

IF there’s a question in the minister’s mind, why not err on the side of favor (as canon law notes) rather than restriction? Would Christ turn someone away for being late (without knowing more about the individual and circumstances)?

 

[FrDavid96]

Where is being late for Mass considered a valid reason for denying the Sacrament to the faithful?

IF there’s a question in the minister’s mind, why not err on the side of favor (as canon law notes) rather than restriction? Would Christ turn someone away for being late (without knowing more about the individual and circumstances)?

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not a fast-food drive-thru where people just arrive whenever they please and say “I want to receive Communion and I want it now.”

As for your 2 questions, I’ve answered them already.

 

[DoloresWisecarv]

Thanks. That is a beautiful explanation. I do understand better and I will share this with my friend. I do still maintain that there were faults on both sides. Yes, my friend came to Mass just as the Gospel was finished being read. However, one must keep in mind this was more or less 7 minutes late. We had a priest who was noted for having 19 minute daily Masses. I understand two wrongs don’t make something right. It wasn’t so much “what” was done but the “way” it was done. When correcting an individual, be it laity or an ordained minister who is doing the correcting, one should remember to put the “love” before the “hammer”. I know of many people who have left the Church, not because they don’t believe in the doctrines of the faith, but because a priest said or did something that was very mean-spirited. In this year of the priests, I thank all priests who have made great sacrifices to follow their vocations faithfully. I pray that they have the courage to speak the truth whether it be “politically correct” or not. I pray that all priests are given the wisdom, prudence and humility to guide the faithful to greater spiritual growth. At the end of our Earthly lives, I pray that we all hear the words, “Well done, my good and faithful servant,” that we may all give glory and honor and praise to Almighty God for eternity.