New priest conundrum

[bluerose]

Only during flu season and because it was a hospital chapel. No sign of peace either.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

It certainly is if it’s warranted and the priest isn’t willing to do what the Church prescribes. This could be a a case of a priest not believing in the real presence as is all too common today. The Bishop should have an idea of which of his priests are actually Catholic.

To my way of thinking, to make the leap from non-conformance with rubrics (possibly, or not, with what was felt to be a good reason) to questioning a priest’s belief in the Real Presence and accusing him of not being “actually Catholic” approaches slander (if stated to the bishop in those terms). If I were a priest and a parishioner went to my bishop and accused me in such terms, I would sue for defamation. And you know that it is “all too common” for priests to not believe in the Real Presence how?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Only during flu season and because it was a hospital chapel. No sign of peace either.

Plague, Flu, Aids, or Gonorrhea, A priest does not have the authority to deny the faithful reception on the tongue. Not even a Bishop does.
Now, the sign of peace? That I could get behind the suspension of anytime of the year!

 

[LongingSoul]

I have experienced that years ago, an announcement was made but the instruction was from the archdiocese to all the parishes in the city. At that time, they had also asked not to shake hands with other parishioners while wishing them peace.

This is a new priest to our parish, first mass, he made an announcement. It was completely shocking. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.

There may be underlying issues with radical traditionalists in the Parish. A few years ago in my parents parish the Priest asked (not mandated) for people to receive in the hand because of a group of hostile parishioners who were trying to force through quiet aggression… pre VII practices. They (the group) left the parish after that. It was a problem that was known about at diocesan level and the measure was an attempt to diffuse the abuse of the communion line by a hostile group.

 

[Kelfa28]

It’s hard to receive on the hand when your holding a toddler and walking with a preschooler holding your hand.

Especially a toddler who likes to grab at new and interesting things.

I’d be horrified and really flustered if this announcement were ever made at our parish. I probably wouldn’t receive communion.

 

[OraLabora]

Plague, Flu, Aids, or Gonorrhea, A priest does not have the authority to deny the faithful reception on the tongue. Not even a Bishop does.
Now, the sign of peace? That I could get behind the suspension of anytime of the year!

Common sense should prevail. The Law is meant to serve mankind, not the other way around. The common-sense approach is to realize that there may be unforeseen circumstances that the Law did not provide for, and make an exception, not stand behind a rule that may endanger people. I once saw a car speed down a city street at top speed, passing people. At first I thought “what a crazy driver” but then he pulled into the hospital parking, drove up to the emergency entrance, and I saw the mother emerge with an inanimate child in her hands and run into the door. Would you have handed out a speeding ticket and a ticket for illegal passing because “unconscious child, woman in labour, it doesn’t matter, the law is the law?”

Maybe it’s just me, I live in an area with a more Latin European approach towards the law… and where common-sense exceptions to the rule are made when clearly the public good requires it.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Common sense should prevail. The Law is meant to serve mankind, not the other way around. The common-sense approach is to realize that there may be unforeseen circumstances that the Law did not provide for, and make an exception, not stand behind a rule that may endanger people. I once saw a car speed down a city street at top speed, passing people. At first I thought “what a crazy driver” but then he pulled into the hospital parking, drove up to the emergency entrance, and I saw the mother emerge with an inanimate child in her hands and run into the door. Would you have handed out a speeding ticket and a ticket for illegal passing because “unconscious child, woman in labour, it doesn’t matter, the law is the law?”

Maybe it’s just me, I live in an area with a more Latin European approach towards the law… and where common-sense exceptions to the rule are made when clearly the public good requires it.

I’m sure a lot of things can be justified using that logic. But the fact remains, those who CAN dispense the law can and those who cannot cannot.

 

[TARSUS_PADDY]

I’m going through my memory cells and I’m pretty sure I have not seen any of the recent Popes receiving the Eucharist in their hand…if that is the case then your priest is up against some tough opposition!
In ref. to the flu epidemics in various parts of the world in recent years I have never heard of theBody of Christ being responsible for some unfortunate being catching a virus.
God Bless

 

[Dulcinea2721]

There may be underlying issues with radical traditionalists in the Parish. A few years ago in my parents parish the Priest asked (not mandated) for people to receive in the hand because of a group of hostile parishioners who were trying to force through quiet aggression… pre VII practices. They (the group) left the parish after that. It was a problem that was known about at diocesan level and the measure was an attempt to diffuse the abuse of the communion line by a hostile group.

No such situation in our parish.

May I ask, did the priest refuse to give communion on the tongue to the dissenters? If your parish had radicals they must have insisted on communion on the tongue.

 

[LongingSoul]

No such situation in our parish.

May I ask, did the priest refuse to give communion on the tongue to the dissenters? If your parish had radicals they must have insisted on communion on the tongue.

Yes he did give it to them. They walked up the aisle in Fr.s queue and when the first one knelt and presented the tongue he tried to encourage her to stand and she just refused. The others did the same after that one by one emanating palpable defiance and it was obvious that Fr. was distressed by it. It wasn’t like just a random occurrence from a visitor to the parish… It was a co ordinated act of aggression by a group who had become well known in the diocese for trying to overturn the reforms of Vatican II. That has been my only experience of radicals in Australia. It really isn’t a huge problem here in the main. It left a sense among people that something pretty ‘wolf in sheeps clothing’ had happened.

Fr. had explained at a subsequent Mass that the communion protocols were more suited to receiving in the hand… ie. no paten or kneeling rails. The group hasn’t turned up in that parish again and the only ones who generally receive on the tongue are the foreign Catholics and the parish has no issue there.

 

[ProVobis]

I have also seen this during flu season - as well as suspension of the Cup and discouraging hand shaking at the Sign of Peace.

People who have a known contagious disease should stay at home. It doesn’t make you holier spreading diseases,

If you absolutely must be there, come within no closer than 6 feet of anther person. At least that’s what some researchers have suggested.

 

[OraLabora]

People who have a known contagious disease should stay at home. It doesn’t make you holier spreading diseases,

If you absolutely must be there, come within no closer than 6 feet of anther person. At least that’s what some researchers have suggested.

Many viruses are contagious before the first symptoms set in, so the person carrying it may not know he or she has it. Which is why the precautions are necessary.

 

[ProVobis]

Many viruses are contagious before the first symptoms set in, so the person carrying it may not know he or she has it. Which is why the precautions are necessary.

My territorial parish was using hand sanitizers. I don’t know, do those things even work? There are such things as those giving a false sense of security.

 

[ServusHumilis]

No, it is not. I’m not saying you can’t or shouldn’t contact the Bishop, but don’t “threaten” to do so… Kids cry to their siblings, “I’m telling!”

Threatening shows a lack of humility, and is a show of self-importance and power.

It shows you mean business. The Church needs to be rid of certain priests; it wouldn’t surprise me if the one in question is one of them.

 

[esieffe]

I asked one of our Priests once. He said we could receive either way.

 

[ServusHumilis]

No, it is not. I’m not saying you can’t or shouldn’t contact the Bishop, but don’t “threaten” to do so… Kids cry to their siblings, “I’m telling!”

Threatening shows a lack of humility, and is a show of self-importance and power.

Threatening to tell the Bishop shows you mean business and will likely be the quickest way to get things moving in the right direction without actually having to talk to the Bishop. This priest is in the wrong and his superiors should probably be notified anyways. “Bishops today don’t know which of their priests are really Catholic” is something a priest said to me; how better for Bishops to know than for them to be notified by the laity on the ground which of their priests can’t even follow the most basic of Church rules?

To my way of thinking, to make the leap from non-conformance with rubrics (possibly, or not, with what was felt to be a good reason) to questioning a priest’s belief in the Real Presence and accusing him of not being “actually Catholic” approaches slander (if stated to the bishop in those terms). If I were a priest and a parishioner went to my bishop and accused me in such terms, I would sue for defamation. And you know that it is “all too common” for priests to not believe in the Real Presence how?

I suggest you reread what I wrote; “This could be a a case of a priest not believing in the real presence,” something the bishop would have to look into for himself. And how do I know it’s all too common? Because of the state of affairs within the Church today and the drying up of graces seen within the world over the last many years which can only come from the only divinely founded organization on this earth which is the Catholic Church. What about the moving of tabernacles away from their rightful place of directly behind the altar, off to the side or even off in some other room; out of sight, out of mind? Clearly you do not know what’s going on within the Church right now and the push for sacrilege in giving the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ to those who live lives contrary to Church teaching. It’s rather obvious that those many churchmen behind this push don’t believe in the real presence.

 

[LongingSoul]

My territorial parish was using hand sanitizers. I don’t know, do those things even work? There are such things as those giving a false sense of security.

Lol. You sound like my son. He even doubts that medications even work. He’s suspicious that they are all just placebos!

 

[ServusHumilis]

No, it is not. I’m not saying you can’t or shouldn’t contact the Bishop, but don’t “threaten” to do so… Kids cry to their siblings, “I’m telling!”

Threatening shows a lack of humility, and is a show of self-importance and power.

Threatening to tell the Bishop shows you mean business and will likely be the quickest way to get things moving in the right direction without actually having to talk to the Bishop. This priest is in the wrong and his superiors should probably be notified anyways. “Bishops today don’t know which of their priests are really Catholic” is something a priest said to me; how better for Bishops to know than for them to be notified by the laity on the ground which of their priests can’t even follow the most basic of Church rules?

To my way of thinking, to make the leap from non-conformance with rubrics (possibly, or not, with what was felt to be a good reason) to questioning a priest’s belief in the Real Presence and accusing him of not being “actually Catholic” approaches slander (if stated to the bishop in those terms). If I were a priest and a parishioner went to my bishop and accused me in such terms, I would sue for defamation. And you know that it is “all too common” for priests to not believe in the Real Presence how?

I suggest you reread what I wrote; “This could be a a case of a priest not believing in the real presence,” something the bishop would have to look into for himself. And how do I know it’s all too common? Because of the state of affairs within the Church today and the drying up of graces seen within the world over the last many years which can only come from the only divinely founded organization on this earth which is the Catholic Church. What about the moving of tabernacles away from their rightful place of directly behind the altar, off to the side or even off in some other room; out of sight, out of mind? Clearly you do not know what’s going on within the Church right now and the push for sacrilege in giving the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ to those who live lives contrary to Church teaching. It’s rather obvious that those many churchmen behind this push don’t believe in the real presence of their Lord, or perhaps not in the Lord at all.

 

[tee_eff_em]

[ASIDE]

Now, the sign of peace? That I could get behind the suspension of anytime of the year!

And that would be perfectly legitimate:

• 
  *]The form of the sign of peace is specified in neither the Missal nor its Instruction, and
  *]It is, according to the Missal, *optional *in any case.
  
  :hug1:
  tee

 

[Dulcinea2721]

Common sense should prevail. The Law is meant to serve mankind, not the other way around. The common-sense approach is to realize that there may be unforeseen circumstances that the Law did not provide for, and make an exception, not stand behind a rule that may endanger people. I once saw a car speed down a city street at top speed, passing people. At first I thought “what a crazy driver” but then he pulled into the hospital parking, drove up to the emergency entrance, and I saw the mother emerge with an inanimate child in her hands and run into the door. Would you have handed out a speeding ticket and a ticket for illegal passing because “unconscious child, woman in labour, it doesn’t matter, the law is the law?”

Maybe it’s just me, I live in an area with a more Latin European approach towards the law… and where common-sense exceptions to the rule are made when clearly the public good requires it.

Are you saying that a priest actually can /should deny communion on the tongue in certain cases