New priest conundrum

[Casilda]

The experience we had in this country with swine flu and at the moment with the yearly peoples show (carnival) passes through town, and advocated by the medical experts, involved things like putting bottle soap on counters at cafes and shops… putting perspex covers on buffet serveries… signs in schools discouraging children from sharing drinks and foods… signs to remind to take greater care with coughing and sneezing and lots of other little adjustments to regular life in the light of the presence of severe communicable diseases.

Perhaps that was overkill by the Australian establishment and didn’t happen in the US but it makes sense to me in the light of the this countries greater caution around times where viruses were more rampant, that communion on the tongue would be naturally addressed because of the increased risk of direct saliva contact. It seems there may be a discrepancy in how our countries perceive this type of disease control.

Sounds like germophobic scrupulosity. I rue the day we get sanitized prepackaged hosts we pick out with tweezers.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Perhaps this has nothing to do with “germs” at all and the priest just does not like it.

I have seen where “flu season” is a reason given to quell any blow back by people who wish to receive on the tongue. It always amuses me because if COTT is done correctly, no saliva is touched. Meanwhile, the entire congregation does not wash their hands. As long as the EM is doing things correctly, there should be no issue.

Also, if “germs” are the real reason of such deep concern that Father wishes to cause spiritual turmoil, then this should logically present itself in other ways as well. Perhaps Father could announce that the Bathrooms will be closed until flu season is over. Or forbid his parishioners from going to the grocery store after mass to get things for breakfast. Or even just mandate that the bathrooms are cleaned more frequently… But alas, no, COTT seems to be the number one spreader of germs…

 

[OraLabora]

As for the penitential rite, I was perplexed because I grew up in a french home going to french mass and the confiteor is NEVER said there. When I went back to my french mass, I realised that the penitential rite is actually there in a different way. It was not missing from the french mass at all just done differently.

I live in Quebec and attend Mass almost always in French. The confiteor is not heard often, but for many years I have been mostly attending Mass at a Benedictine abbey. There, they use the confiteor in French at weekday Mass, and on Sunday another option is used:

V. Seigneur, accorde-nous ton pardon
R. Nous avons péché contre toi
V. Montre-nous ta miséricorde
R. Et nous serons sauvés.

The above is chanted in French, then the Kyrie is chanted in Greek Gregorian chant.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Perhaps this has nothing to do with “germs” at all and the priest just does not like it.

I have seen where “flu season” is a reason given to quell any blow back by people who wish to receive on the tongue. It always amuses me because if COTT is done correctly, no saliva is touched. Meanwhile, the entire congregation does not wash their hands. As long as the EM is doing things correctly, there should be no issue.

Also, if “germs” are the real reason of such deep concern that Father wishes to cause spiritual turmoil, then this should logically present itself in other ways as well. Perhaps Father could announce that the Bathrooms will be closed until flu season is over. Or forbid his parishioners from going to the grocery store after mass to get things for breakfast. Or even just mandate that the bathrooms are cleaned more frequently… But alas, no, COTT seems to be the number one spreader of germs…

“EM doing things correctly?” It takes two to tango. As someone who distributes Communion, it seems to me that it is the rare COTT recipient who in fact either opens their mouth wide enough or extends their tongue far enough, thus requiring the minister of Communion to engage in a sort of “cave diving” in order to ensure that the Host is securely placed. And thus the saliva.

Closing the bathrooms? Forbidding grocery shopping? Would this be a good example of reductio ad absurdum, and unclear how this helps your argument.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

“EM doing things correctly?” It takes two to tango. As someone who distributes Communion, it seems to me that it is the rare COTT recipient who in fact either opens their mouth wide enough or extends their tongue far enough, thus requiring the minister of Communion to engage in a sort of “cave diving” in order to ensure that the Host is securely placed. And thus the saliva.

Closing the bathrooms? Forbidding grocery shopping? Would this be a good example of reductio ad absurdum, and unclear how this helps your argument.

We can agree that better training for EMs and communicants is in dire need…

 

[revert_jen]

We can agree that better training for EMs and communicants is in dire need…

I had been having some problems with it (as a communicant at the OF Mass) until I was at an EF Mass (where there never seems to be a problem) and realized that the reason I didn’t have a problem at the EF is that when you’re kneeling and the priest is standing, it’s natural to tilt your head back. My problem when receiving COTT standing was that I wasn’t tilting my head back. When I did, it made all the difference. Just a hint for anyone who has to do any communicant training or may have a problem receiving COTT properly.

Also, my Pastor said (in a homily, not to me personally!) that you should practice in front of a mirror: close your eyes, make your face do what you usually do when you’re receiving, and then open your eyes. Your mouth is probably not nearly as open as you think, and you’ll see that in the mirror.

–Jen

 

[LongingSoul]

Sounds like germophobic scrupulosity. I rue the day we get sanitized prepackaged hosts we pick out with tweezers.

Do you not think that extra precautions are warranted with worse than usual flu episodes? I mean in general? Even hospitals enact different precautionary procedures during flu season.

 

[tee_eff_em]

I had been having some problems with it (as a communicant at the OF Mass) until I was at an EF Mass (where there never seems to be a problem) and realized that the reason I didn’t have a problem at the EF is that when you’re kneeling and the priest is standing, it’s natural to tilt your head back. My problem when receiving COTT standing was that I wasn’t tilting my head back. When I did, it made all the difference. Just a hint for anyone who has to do any communicant training or may have a problem receiving COTT properly.

:twocents:
Yes, kneeling to receive would make things much easier.

In my case, I am taller than most Ministers of Holy Communion (Ordinary or Extra-) of my acquaintance, and I know it is difficult to correctly place the host on that higher target. I know I should not be refused for kneeling, but the bishops in this country have made it clear they prefer we stand, so I don’t mind doing that.

It may seem less dignified, but I tend to stoop when it is time to receive. So far, no one has counseled me to kneel nor to stand up straight (and some ministers have whispered a *“Thank you” *ether in the moment or after Mass), so I expect I shall continue to do so.

:twocents:
tee

 

[ServusHumilis]

In other news, Bolivian Bishop Krzysztof Białasik bans any and all communion in the hand in his diocese.

 

[biffoqueen]

But you can travel to another parish, surely?

Yes we can travel to any parish but we do not officially join a parish our home parish is where we live. I live in a area with a vibrant busy parish and I feel lucky but sometimes I go to other parishes for mass.

 

[LongingSoul]

In other news, Bolivian Bishop Krzysztof Białasik bans any and all communion in the hand in his diocese.

The ‘why’ is the important aspect of a decision like this. Has there been a reason given?

 

[Dulcinea2721]

I live in Quebec and attend Mass almost always in French. The confiteor is not heard often, but for many years I have been mostly attending Mass at a Benedictine abbey. There, they use the confiteor in French at weekday Mass, and on Sunday another option is used:

V. Seigneur, accorde-nous ton pardon
R. Nous avons péché contre toi
V. Montre-nous ta miséricorde
R. Et nous serons sauvés.

The above is chanted in French, then the Kyrie is chanted in Greek Gregorian chant.

That sounds wonderful. This version (also a valid option) is the one that I am familiar with:

*3/ Les invocations adressées au Christ

Par exemple :

« Seigneur Jésus, envoyé par le Père pour guérir et sauver les hommes,

Prends pitié de nous. Prends pitié de nous.

O Christ, venu dans le monde appeler tous les pécheurs,

Prends pitié de nous. Prends pitié de nous.

Seigneur, élevé dans la gloire du Père où tu intercède pour nous,

Prends pitié de nous. Prends pitié de nous. »

puis le prêtre dit :

« Que Dieu tout-puissant nous fasse miséricorde ;

qu’il nous pardonne nos péchés et nous conduise à la vie éternelle. Amen »
*

As a reflection on this hiccup in our parish, I can say that it has caused me to PAY ATTENTION and learn something. That is good. Years ago comments such as were uttered by this priest would have flown over my head.

PS For a chuckle …as a french speaking cradle catholic you can imagine how I felt when I finally figured out the word “salut” as in “pour la gloire de Dieu et le salut du monde” translated to salvation and not salute.…I just never gave it any thought

 

[Vico]

As has been stated, it had to do with the spread of disease not a blanket power of bishops. The person you are quoting is only commenting about a letter he received. A letter which he did not reproduce and may have more in it. I really don’t doubt the letter only the interpretation and what might have been left out.

All the documents that I have read indicate that is the communicant that may decide.

Missale Romanum, Institutio Generalis, n. 161. (2002 Roman Missal)
referred to in Redemptionis Sacramentum (2004)

2010 US GIRM - 390. It is for the Conferences of Bishops to formulate the adaptations indicated in this General Instruction and in the Order of Mass and, once their decisions have been accorded the recognitio of the Apostolic See, to introduce them into the Missal itself. They are such as these:
the manner of receiving Holy Communion (cf. nos. 160, 283);

#160 and #283 are:

1. The Priest then takes the paten or ciborium and approaches the communicants, who usually come up in procession.

It is not permitted for the faithful to take the consecrated Bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them on from one to another among themselves. The norm established for the Dioceses of the United States of America is that Holy Communion is to be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Instruction, Redemptionis Sacramentum, March 25, 2004, no. 91).

When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.

1. In addition to those cases given in the ritual books, Communion under both kinds is permitted for:

a) Priests who are not able to celebrate or concelebrate Mass;

b) the Deacon and others who perform some duty at the Mass;

c) members of communities at the Conventual Mass or the “community” Mass, along with seminarians, and all those engaged in a retreat or taking part in a spiritual or pastoral gathering.

The Diocesan Bishop may establish norms for Communion under both kinds for his own diocese, which are also to be observed in churches of religious and at celebrations with small groups. The Diocesan Bishop is also given the faculty to permit Communion under both kinds whenever it may seem appropriate to the Priest to whom a community has been entrusted as its own shepherd, provided that the faithful have been well instructed and that there is no danger of profanation of the Sacrament or of the rite’s becoming difficult because of the large number of participants or for some other cause.

In all that pertains to Communion under both kinds, the Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America are to be followed (particularly nos. 27-54).

 

[808Catholic]

In Ireland it’s different we can’t really change parish our parish is the one we live in. Each priest is different and works in different ways maybe just give him time he may well be a excellent priest for your parish.

You are doubly blessed @biffoqueen!

 

[Sunbreak]

A new priest arrived at our parish about 6 weeks ago. He has already caused quite a stir.

He has cancelled First Friday adoration.
Someone may not like this, but not all parishes have it to began with so it’s not a reason to leave a parish.

*Is not following proper procedure at mass regarding penitential rite. *
You have already received many responses on this so not necessary for my comments

Has announced that he will not give communion on the tongue.
Have you ever considered the possibility that he has never done it this way and may not know the technique to do it (and it really is a skill to do it properly)?

Other troublesome comments about how people are too hung up on tradition etc.
Well, he’s entitled to his opinion and he may be right about some people being this way.

Having 4 children ages 14 to 8 who are in need of proper guidance, would you change parishes?
It depends on what is being taught. If the catechism teachers are teaching things correctly and the priest doesn’t interfere with the classes, then it seems like it would be fine for the children to go to those classes.

Would you try to work with it?
Yes.

What would you do?
Talk to the priest about your most pressing concerns. Stay with the parish for awhile and see how things go. Since priests change so frequently at the parish I would wait it out unless there were some really serious things happening and by really serious, I mean things like “let’s all gather around the altar and given communion to each other like passing cookies on a plate” kind of things.

 

[Rosebud77]

I have heard of this before. The Bishop should be contacted immediately to rectify this situation. The Church allows people to receive kneeling and on the tongue if they wish, a parish priest doesn’t have the authority to mandate one way or the other.

Well said. I once attended mass a t a country church where EVERYONE, except me, received in the tongue and my impression was that this was a similar situation. He kind of hesitated,

 

[ServusHumilis]

The ‘why’ is the important aspect of a decision like this. Has there been a reason given?

Because he can. As I’m sure has already been mentioned the reception of Holy Communion in the hand is the exception not the norm, and only with permission from Rome is receiving in the hand allowed in certain jurisdictions. In others it will be flat out refused as receiving on the tongue is the official way to receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church.

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.

Where, by the way, do the documents of Vatican II mandate communion in the hand? Vatican II has yet to be implemented as far as I’m concerned, unless you subscribe to the false interpretation of it by the Bologna school. In reality the Church will continue to reform the Ordinary Form of the Mass with the Extraordinary Form of the Mass used as a guide; Pope Francis has basically said so himself when he said he wished the reform began under Benedict XVI to continue.

 

[EasterJoy]

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.

People sometimes do not realize they are infected until it is too late. Remember, too, we are talking about serious epidemics, not the common cold.

 

[EasterJoy]

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.

This is all kind of a moot point, since the Vatican clarified in 2004 that the faithful do have a right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue. If their bishops obtain permission to dispense Holy Communion on the hand, it is not for the minister to decide to deny that, either:

From Redemptionis Sacramentum (On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist), 2004
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

“Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice,[178] if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.”(92)

“The worship of the Eucharist outside the Sacrifice of the Mass is a tribute of inestimable value in the life of the Church. Such worship is closely linked to the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice.”[227] Therefore both public and private devotion to the Most Holy Eucharist even outside Mass should be vigorously promoted, for by means of it the faithful give adoration to Christ, truly and really present,[228] the “High Priest of the good things to come”[229] and Redeemer of the whole world. “It is the responsibility of sacred Pastors, even by the witness of their life, to support the practice of Eucharistic worship and especially exposition of the Most Holy Sacrament, as well as prayer of adoration before Christ present under the eucharistic species.” (134)

“…those actions that are brought about which are contrary to the other matters treated elsewhere in this Instruction or in the norms established by law are not to be considered of little account, but are to be numbered among the other abuses to be carefully avoided and corrected…” (174)

In other words, it is wrong to try to shut people up and tell them that they are not humble if they object to having their rights taken from them. There is no law against a bishop or priest strenuously requesting that no one receive Holy Communion on the tongue, lest the hand of the minister get saliva on it and transfer a disease, but they do not have the right to forbid someone who is properly disposed to receive from electing to receive Holy Communion on the tongue.

 

[LongingSoul]

This is all kind of a moot point, since the Vatican clarified in 2004 that the faithful do have a right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue. If their bishops obtain permission to dispense Holy Communion on the hand, it is not for the minister to decide to deny that, either:

From Redemptionis Sacramentum (On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist), 2004
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

“Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice,[178] if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.”(92)

“The worship of the Eucharist outside the Sacrifice of the Mass is a tribute of inestimable value in the life of the Church. Such worship is closely linked to the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice.”[227] Therefore both public and private devotion to the Most Holy Eucharist even outside Mass should be vigorously promoted, for by means of it the faithful give adoration to Christ, truly and really present,[228] the “High Priest of the good things to come”[229] and Redeemer of the whole world. “It is the responsibility of sacred Pastors, even by the witness of their life, to support the practice of Eucharistic worship and especially exposition of the Most Holy Sacrament, as well as prayer of adoration before Christ present under the eucharistic species.” (134)

“…those actions that are brought about which are contrary to the other matters treated elsewhere in this Instruction or in the norms established by law are not to be considered of little account, but are to be numbered among the other abuses to be carefully avoided and corrected…” (174)

In other words, it is wrong to try to shut people up and tell them that they are not humble if they object to having their rights taken from them. There is no law against a bishop or priest strenuously requesting that no one receive Holy Communion on the tongue, lest the hand of the minister get saliva on it and transfer a disease, but they do not have the right to forbid someone who is properly disposed to receive from electing to receive Holy Communion on the tongue.

The context of my post was offering a reason why the OP’s priest might have banned communion on the tongue. He had not given us any information about that and was asking if he should leave the parish over it. I said in another post about my anecdote that I didn’t know if the priest was right or wrong in what he did, I was just explaining why he did it. The OP did say that one of the issues in his parish was with some traditionalists and it’s just a fact that some of them are a problem. Not all of course.

How does the Church deal with the problem of authors of discord within a parish? It’s a hard call for a Parish priest in the heat of a situation. We all know that there are some groups of traditionalists that want to outlaw communion in the hand altogether as a sacrilege along with lots of other VII reforms (as with the group that came to my parents parish). How are priests to address those hostile sorts? Jesus spoke of strict ‘letter of the law’ types as bringing death, not life.