New priest conundrum

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dulcinea2721
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
An example would be the Doctrine of the Trinity. One does not need to suspend Reason to hold that in Faith. The concept of a Triune Omnipotent Godhead sharing a Divine Will does not result in logical inconsistency.

Therefore a Faith belief in a Triune Godhead does not require a suspension of Reason.

Likewise with a Transubstantiated Eucharist. It is not contrary to Reason, as that too does not result in a paradox or self contradiction.

But a Lutheran would claim that there are reasons against holding such a belief, and they would be correct. But having reasons against it does not make it contrary to Reason, nor does it mean that Reason and Faith are in conflict.
 
Brendan said:
And there is nothing contrary to Reason in the Church’s teaching on this matter. As I stated above to Ora, there might be reasons against receiving on the tongue, but that is not that same thing as stating that it is contrary to Reason; or that one must suspend Reason.
Click to expand...
I’d be contrary to reason to receive on the tongue against the current practical indications for receiving in the hand, based on a personal dogmatic position alone. I find that nuance demonstrated by our foreign parishioners who for cultural reasons prefer to receive on the tongue rather than on principle.
 
LongingSoul said:
I’d be contrary to reason to receive on the tongue against the current practical indications for receiving in the hand, based on a personal dogmatic position alone. I find that nuance demonstrated by our foreign parishioners who for cultural reasons prefer to receive on the tongue rather than on principle.
Click to expand...
I presume that you mean a premise would be contrary to Reason, rather than a person… If so…

What logical paradox or self contradiction does it result it then?

That is what it means for something to be Contrary to Reason, as opposed to have reason against it.
 
Brendan said:
I presume that you mean a premise would be contrary to Reason, rather than a person… If so…

What logical paradox or self contradiction does it result it then?

That is what it means for something to be Contrary to Reason, as opposed to have reason against it.
Click to expand...
Communion by its definition is an act performed with the purpose of participating in a unity with our fellow parishioners and the whole Church. So if the act has the motive to be unique apart from that Eucharistic union for the point of a principle even if it can be referred to canon law, the whole meaning of Communion is lost.
 
Did your priest explain why he was making this requirement? As others have noted, this isn’t something a priest can mandate, but knowing why he made this decision would go a long way towards understanding where he is coming from and figuring out the best way to handle it.
 
Joe_5859 said:
Did your priest explain why he was making this requirement? As others have noted, this isn’t something a priest can mandate, but knowing why he made this decision would go a long way towards understanding where he is coming from and figuring out the best way to handle it.
Click to expand...
He did not say why. Only that he will only give communion in the hand not on the tongue.

Brief announcement at his first mass .
 
Brendan said:
But, that would imply that to receive on the tongue is contrary to Reason. There might be reasons against it, but that is not that same thing as having to suspend Reason.
Click to expand...
If communion on the tongue is a vector to transmit disease, as it very well can be if there is accidental contact with saliva, and one continues to obstinately insist on communion in that manner in the belief that it is one’s right to do so even though one may be contributing to the spread of a disease, then I respectfully submit that one has clearly suspended reason. Even more so if one has fallen prey to magical thinking by believing that somehow because it’s the Eucharist it’s impossible to spread disease that way (I’ve even heard it said by more than one Catholic that one can’t catch a disease from holy water or the Eucharist… that’s magical thinking).
 
OraLabora said:
If communion on the tongue is a vector to transmit disease, as it very well can be if there is accidental contact with saliva, and one continues to obstinately insist on communion in that manner in the belief that it is one’s right to do so even though one may be contributing to the spread of a disease, then I respectfully submit that one has clearly suspended reason.
Click to expand...
Ora, IIRC, in your involvement with the Benedictines, you have studies Philosophy. If so, you should know enough to know the difference. What you provided was a reason against, not that Reason itself has been suspended.

If it a reason against, as opposed to a violation of Reason itself, then the proper authority can weigh the factors and make judgement in one way or the other.

I would also note, that even with the reasons you have provided, Rome (an authority superior in this matter than a parish priest) has ruled that attempts to restrict the reception are in error.

You might disagree with such a conclusion, but it would be authoritative

Here is an example of such a clarification

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/11/it-is-not-licit-to-deny-communion-on.html
 
Brendan said:
Ora, IIRC, in your involvement with the Benedictines, you have studies Philosophy.
Click to expand...
Not really. Oblates are only laypeople, deacons and priests trying to configure their lives to Christ through the Rule of Saint Benedict. What we do study is the Rule in its practical applications to our lives, and in trying to find its deeper meaning, that is, not just as a “rule book”.

I have very little interest in philosophy, being a practical scientist by training. I have never studied philosophy.

All I am really trying to say is that we should use our reason to make legitimate exceptions when unforeseen circumstances call for it. Jesus was rather stern with those who hid behind the law when charity suggested they do otherwise.

BTW I can’t be certain from the copy of the letter on the link you produced is in any way related to the flu epidemic. I am generally very skeptical of anything from that website.
 
Corki said:
Hmmm. So, in order to thwart a group of parishioners who were “aggressive” in exercising a valid option, the priest thought it was better to break canon law to make a point? Seems like he just gave them ammunition.
Click to expand...
Actually, having read the thread and also remembering the H1N1 thing a few years ago, I don’t think there was any break in canon law in the post you were referencing from LongingSoul.

AFAICT, you do not break canon law by requesting people to receive in the hand, but only by mandating that they must. If you request it, but still administer it on the tongue if a person disregards the request, I think that is completely OK.

The OP’s situation seems to be in breach or canon law, however. To answer the OP’s question, I have never heard of such a thing before. I have certainly heard of (and even experienced) people (in person I mean, not online–of course anything can happen online 🙂 ) saying snide things about you (later) if you choose to receive on the tongue, but I’ve never seen a priest flat out refuse.

Let’s hope that the pastor’s intentions are good, and that he and the bishop will have a productive and amicable discussion about it that leads to a change in policy.

–Jen
 
OraLabora said:
Not really. Oblates are only laypeople, deacons and priests trying to configure their lives to Christ through the Rule of Saint Benedict. What we do study is the Rule in its practical applications to our lives, and in trying to find its deeper meaning, that is, not just as a “rule book”.

I have very little interest in philosophy, being a practical scientist by training. I have never studied philosophy.

All I am really trying to say is that we should use our reason to make legitimate exceptions when unforeseen circumstances call for it. Jesus was rather stern with those who hid behind the law when charity suggested they do otherwise.
Click to expand...
And St Pauls teaching 2 Cor 3:4-6

4 Such confidence we have through Christ before God. 5 Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. 6 He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

To rigidly stick to the letter of the law contradicts reason as by Christs death, God gave man the competence to discern the spirit of the law.
 
Brendan said:
How about on Zenit
They reference the same letter in regards to treatment of patients with ebola.

zenit.org/en/articles/ministering-to-ebola-patients
Click to expand...
Yes and they also wrote this in the article:
Some bishops have temporarily forbidden Communion on the tongue during epidemics.
Click to expand...
Some deny that it is within the bishop’s authority to make such a blanket prohibition. In 2009, during a severe flu epidemic, the Congregation for Divine Worship reiterated in a private letter (Prot. N 655/09/L) that the faithful always and everywhere have the right to receive on the tongue (Redemptionis Sacramentum, No. 92).
Click to expand...
At the same time, in truly grave circumstances – for example, a deadly infection that is spread almost exclusively through body fluids – it is difficult to sustain that a bishop would not be able to suspend such general laws for the sake of the common good.
Click to expand...
In similar circumstances bishops in various parts of the world have even gone so far as to cancel all public Masses in a diocese so as to prevent contagion. Attendance at Sunday Mass is a higher law than that regarding the manner of receiving Communion. Thus if there is no doubt regarding a bishop’s authority to do the former, it certainly falls within his province to do the latter.
Click to expand...
In both cases, however, prudence is required. Such actions should not be taken lightly. They should be backed up by medical recommendations regarding the real danger of contagion and should be for the minimum time necessary.
Click to expand...
In this case the faithful, even if they prefer to receive Communion on the tongue, should accept the bishop’s mandate as an act of charity toward others in avoiding all possible danger to themselves and others.
Click to expand...
(My bold. Source: Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy and dean of theology at the Regina Apostolorum university.)

Again, common sense should prevail, as this writer suggests.

The spirit, not the letter, of the law. :rolleyes:
 
OraLabora said:
Yes and they also wrote this in the article:

(My bold. Source: Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy and dean of theology at the Regina Apostolorum university.)

Again, common sense should prevail, as this writer suggests.

The spirit, not the letter, of the law. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
But we agree that the letter is valid, correct?

As Fr noted, if things are that bad, the bishop should just cancel Masses and tell everyone to stay home. We all agree that it is within his rights to do that particular act. As you mention, common sense
 
A new priest arrived at our parish about 6 weeks ago. He has already caused quite a stir.

He has cancelled First Friday adoration.
Is not following proper procedure at mass regarding penitential rite.
Has announced that he will not give communion on the tongue.
Other troublesome comments about how people are too hung up on tradition etc.

Having 4 children ages 14 to 8 who are in need of proper guidance, would you change parishes?

Would you try to work with it?

What would you do?

I am not sure this is in the correct forum but since the other threads are here, I thought I would post here.

Thanks for your help
 
If I had children to consider, I would change parishes.
I would have a private conversation with the priest as to why I was leaving.
 
Is this priest the pastor? If so I would contact the Bishop. If not I would contact your pastor about your concerns, respectfully of course.
 
adrift said:
If I had children to consider, I would change parishes.
I would have a private conversation with the priest as to why I was leaving.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut
 
Nothing sends a better message to kids than: If you don’t like the authority’s rules, rather than attempt to understand them, leave.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top