Priest passes out, hosts fall: what do you do first?

  • Thread starter Thread starter UKcatholicGuy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I said “Other”. If this is at Mass, then there are plenty of people to help! 🙂

Oh, and get another priest to give the Anointing of the Sick to the fallen priest! :gopray:
 
40.png
UKcatholicGuy:
OK, here’s the hypothetical situation:

You’re the ONLY person at a Mass (just go along for the sake of the question). Suddenly, as the priest is walking down to the aisle to give you Holy Communion, he faints! The dish of consecrated hosts (yes, he has a dish with him even for one person for the sake of the question) falls to the floor, and all the consecrated hosts fall everywhere on the floor. Likewise, the priest is knocked out, obviously injured laying on the floor.

You stand there in shock over what’s just happened. You’re mind is racing. Here’s the question: WHAT DO YOU DO FIRST??

VOTE!!
I imagine you always got an A grade on creative writing in school?
 
40.png
UKcatholicGuy:
that’s an emotional argument. it wouldnt change anything. our first duty is to Christ. we should have faith that, if we serve Him first, He will take care of the rest. “Seek first the Kingdom of God, and all else will follow.” Don’t you think Christ would reward us for putting Him before a creation? He would take care of the priest far more efficiently than calling 911, if we attend to Christ first. everyone who’s saying that Christ wants us to help our fellow brother before Him is basically arguing for the social Gospel: put people before God, rather than the other way around.

Christ has given Himself to us so humbly and freely in the Blessed Sacrament. We have a grave responsibility to care for this wonderful gift. “To him who much is given, much is expected.” What a slap in Christ’s face that, after giving Himself to us in the Sacrament, we would ignore Him and let Him lay there. Do you not have faith that Christ will help the priest if you serve Christ first?

This thread has truly revealed that many Catholics must not accept the True Presence when it comes down to it. Sure, we accept the idea in our mind, but when faced with a situation like the one argued here, thats when true faith shows.
WWJD???

Christ would tell you to attend to the other person first. He is kinda big on those selfless acts of sacrificing Himself for the Good of Mankind 😃
 
If two people fell, one living and worthy of all honor, but the other possibly dying, I would attend to the dying person first. Once I ascertained that the second person was not dying or in urgent need of aid, I would pay heed to the person that both I and the second person honored above all others.

There is no greater homage you could pay to Jesus than to immediately attend the dying or seriously ill, even if you had to violate the honor you would otherwise render to God. This was Our Lord’s reasoning on why it was okay for him to heal on the Sabbath. He saw this as a “no-brainer”!

So… I would attend to the priest. If his condition allowed the few seconds it would take to attend to the hosts, I would do that, then return to helping him.
 
I believe in the true presence. I believe that Jesus would want me to go to the aid of the Priest first. This is an interesting question, because we should think through certain emergencies to be able to think clearly to take the appropriate action before the emergency arises.

We have a priest who is quite old at my parish and has had several heart attacks and 2 stents placed. I found myself one day at mass worrying about his health, I was not sure why. I kept thinking to myself what I would do if he would pass out on the altar while consecrating the host and I decided I would run up there to his aid. I believe he would be in good hands, luckily there are many nurses in our parish and several attend each mass.

It is my hope that never happens, however I would imagine although it may be disturbing to others there is probably no better place to be than in the presence of God if one was to pass away.

One of the parishioners at my parent’s parish had a heart attack at a social function; luckily, the church has an automatic external defibrillator (AED). He was able to be shocked twice before the paramedics arrived that is what saved his life. The AED was donated and by grace the Church had an instructional course on how to operate the AED by the parish nurse a moth or two prior to the incident. It was the AED and the quick actions of a few parishioners that saved his life.

~P
 
Hmm see how I can answer this. I would call 911 for help and try to pick up the hosts one at a time. But of cousse I would go to the priest aid at once.
 
I would attend to the priest assuming all the variables of this hypothetical situation were present, of course!

Now a new question,
What if it wasn’t the Body of Christ but His Precious Blood ?¿?¿?!¿¡¡
 
40.png
EsclavoDeCristo:
I would attend to the priest assuming all the variables of this hypothetical situation were present, of course!

Now a new question,
What if it wasn’t the Body of Christ but His Precious Blood ?¿?¿?!¿¡¡
Still, our Lord said how can we state that we love God whom we don’t see, if we fail to love our neighbor whom we do see. In this case, first attend to the Christ in the priest who fell over, then attend to the Christ in the Sacred host and wine=blood.
 
40.png
UKcatholicGuy:
What a slap in Christ’s face that, after giving Himself to us in the Sacrament, we would ignore Him and let Him lay there. Do you not have faith that Christ will help the priest if you serve Christ first?

This thread has truly revealed that many Catholics must not accept the True Presence when it comes down to it. Sure, we accept the idea in our mind, but when faced with a situation like the one argued here, thats when true faith shows.
Sorry, I go the other way. I believe in the real presence, but I think Christ would rather lie on the floor while someone attends to the Priest. Christ has been there, and the floor itself is not an insult, nor was the spilling an insult.

You can say “O Ye of little faith” if you want to, but I’d rather attend to the priest than put the Lord my God to the test… 😉
 
We have a very orthodox priest. One Sunday an elderly woman was feeling faint and her daughter was trying to help her leave Mass during the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Father didn’t notice at first, even as she was being walked to the closest door which was in front of church. She passed out and was laid on the floor in front of the pews when Father finally noticed. He immediately left the altar and went to the sacristy to retrieve the oil for Annointing of the Sick and annointed her. After the EMTs left, he returned to the altar and completed the Eucharistic prayers. I KNOW that this priest would guard the Blessed Sacrament with his life so I beleive it’s OK to help another first.
 
Attend the priest first.

The Precious Body and Blood are not going anywhere, and there is no danger of further desecration (assuming you believe dropping is a desecration, I do not).

You can figure out what to do about the Body and Blood after the priest is taken care of.

But we all react in a crises situation differently, you mileage may vary.

Z
 
Odd that I should choose so, but I would pick up the hosts first (like he wouldn’t have a hundred on there or fifty, most likely only a few and how long would it take to pick them up? seconds?.) and in the meantime I would know that God would be taking very good care of the Priest.

Unless, of course, there was blood spurting everywhere, or bones sticking out of the body or some such thing that would cause enough trauma as to forget everything but the Priest.

On second thought, as I typed the above paragraph, probably I would check the Priest first.
 
The priest can, through the power of God, consecrate hosts. From our (physical) perspective, the priest is the one who obtains the consecration for us and delivers it to us.

Let’s change this into a worldly argument just for a moment.

If I had a goose and it laid a golden egg twice a day, and one time the goose and an egg were threatened, I’d save the goose. As precious as that one egg is to me, there is no contest at all.

Yes, maybe this whole thing is pretty far fetched, but far fetched things happen in this vast world. If a priest died or entered a vegetative state because I felt consecrated hosts were more important than a human being and that delayed his getting oxygen to the brain just long enough, I personally don’t think I’d want to have to explain that to God. If I had my choice of going to church with people who would tend to hosts rather than me if I needed emergency medical care, versus one where people were the other way around, I’d choose the latter in a second.

David allowed his followers to do what was considered unlawful involving eating the consecrated bread at the temple because they were hungry, and Jesus held that up as an example. Loving Jesus means to tend to human needs of each other. I can just see at the Last Supper if a disciple choked on the bread and spit a little bit out that Jesus would reverently clean up the crumb before dealing with the choking guy. Of course, since He is God, He could actually do that and then heal whatever damage – up to and including death – that might have befallen the human being.

I wonder if at the Last Supper they spilled any crumbs, and if so, whether it bothered Jesus even in the slightest. Anybody more concerned with the crumbs than with the well being of the people deserve any criticism they get from Protestants.

Yes, I would try to avoid stepping on the hosts while tending to the priest, but not if it caused any delay in getting necessary emergency help to the priest.

Alan
 
40.png
UKcatholicGuy:
OK, here’s the hypothetical situation:
The problem with hypothetical situations is that they’re hypothetical. And the problem with hypothetical questions is that the poser is often more interested in entrapping respondents inside the boundaries of artificial constructs than in genuinely exploring the issues involved (I’m not pointing fingers here, just going with my past experiences). I used to have discussions with a cop friend who was always trying to challenge my pacifism:

Q: What would you do if a burglar attacked your family?
A: Well, first I’d try to –

Q: But what if you couldn’t?
A: Then I would –

Q: But you can’t because [insert artificial reason]
A: Then I –

ad nauseum.

I think I understand what you’re trying to do here – create a rubber-meets-road test of our reverence for the Eucharist. But your premises, I think, are at fault. As has already been pointed out, it is by no means a given that the mere act of falling to the ground desecrates the host – how can there be desecration where there is no intent to desecrate – or that Jesus would be insulted if I didn’t attend to him first (quite the opposite, in fact, at least to my mind).

For me, it’s a no brainer – priest first, hosts later – for all of the many excellent reasons others have already outlined.

How about an alternative scenario? Imagine a pack of rabid Gay Pride types bursts into the church with the intention of desecrating the host, and knocks the priest down. On the one side you have an injured priest, on the other a bunch of sacreligious lunies about to trample all over the host. What would you do?

Me? I’d shoot the guy who invented this silly scenario. 🙂
 
Br. Patricius:
I think I understand what you’re trying to do here – create a rubber-meets-road test of our reverence for the Eucharist. But your premises, I think, are at fault. As has already been pointed out, it is by no means a given that the mere act of falling to the ground desecrates the host – how can there be desecration where there is no intent to desecrate – or that Jesus would be insulted if I didn’t attend to him first (quite the opposite, in fact, at least to my mind).
I really like your answer, although I didn’t consider UKCatholicGuy as trying to “test” our reverence so much as pose the question of whether our reverence requires us to behave in this bizarre way.
For me, it’s a no brainer – priest first, hosts later – for all of the many excellent reasons others have already outlined.
Thank you. When it gets down to it, this is what matters.
How about an alternative scenario? Imagine a pack of rabid Gay Pride types bursts into the church with the intention of desecrating the host, and knocks the priest down. On the one side you have an injured priest, on the other a bunch of sacreligious lunies about to trample all over the host. What would you do?
Me? I’d shoot the guy who invented this silly scenario. 🙂
Perhaps we should be prepared for such an eventuality. Keep some phony hosts on hand, just like normal hosts except with just a touch of pastel in a shade of lavender. Throw some of them out as decoys, and when we get their attention, use more of them to lure the loonies into a heavily secured room where they will be disinfected, dressed in goth style, and required to renounce their sexual orientation. 😛

Oh yeah, help the priest too.

Alan
 
I would go Christ first, Priest second…what are the chances that I would be the only one there to help out? What about everyone else in the Church? How long does it take to pick Christ up anyway? A couple of seconds at best…be quick about it…
 
Tyler Smedley:
I would go Christ first, Priest second…what are the chances that I would be the only one there to help out? What about everyone else in the Church? How long does it take to pick Christ up anyway? A couple of seconds at best…be quick about it…
As a practical matter, I agree. 👍 Gosh, the last time someone collapsed during our Mass, what did I do? I ran outside! OK, so it was to help guide the paramedics, since I was close to the door. Then I came back in to play hymns softly on the organ to cover the otherwise awkward silence interrupted by staccato emanations from the paramedics’ radios, until Mass got resumed. The priest never left the altar. The fallen person was well taken care of by others.

For the sake of this contrived argument, you cheated because you changed the premise. :tsktsk:

Alan
 
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
As a practical matter, I agree. 👍 Gosh, the last time someone collapsed during our Mass, what did I do? I ran outside! OK, so it was to help guide the paramedics, since I was close to the door. Then I came back in to play hymns softly on the organ to cover the otherwise awkward silence interrupted by staccato emanations from the paramedics’ radios, until Mass got resumed. The priest never left the altar. The fallen person was well taken care of by others.
This is a more practical situation considering we both experienced someone collapsing at Mass. My priest left the altar to anoint the woman and your priest stayed. Who did the right thing? Is there a right or wrong?
 
ktm said:
WOW that’s quite a charge! I guess next you’ll tell us we’re all going to Hell.

I usually enjoy reading your posts on the CA Forums, but this thread has been a real disappointment. Whether you realize it or not, you are coming across as being very self-righteous.

## I would still worry about the priest first:

**1. The priest is a person, made in image of Christ - the Blessed Sacrament is not a person. **

2. St. Philip Neri was always ready to interrupt his prayers to Christ, in order to help Christ in His servants: he had no time for the sort of piety which ignores human need by pleading the need of obedience to the first of the two great commendments.

**3. To ignore Christ in our neighbour in favour of Christ in the Eucharist, is too close to putting pious practices before people in need; and one’s own increase in grace over one’s neighbour’s need - we will lose the growth in grace we seek, if we are not prepared to lose it by doing what may seem less devout and less directly related to Christ. We will lose one of the main fruits of the Eucharist: active love of our neighbour in his weakness and need. To that, liturgical correctness is altogether secondary. **

**4. Devotion as such, is less important than the ethical test of that devotion: whether our devotions make us readier to love Christ in our negihbour - if not, they are not worth much. **

**5. Piety can become a means of dodging our responsibilities to others: Jesus was very severe against this: **

**Mar 7:1 Now when the Pharisees gathered together to him, with some of the scribes, who had come from Jerusalem, **

**Mar 7:2 they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands defiled, that is, unwashed. **

**Mar 7:3 (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they wash their hands, observing the tradition of the elders; **

**Mar 7:4 and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they purify themselves; and there are many other traditions which they observe, the washing of cups and pots and vessels of bronze.) **

**Mar 7:5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with hands defiled?” **

**Mar 7:6 And he said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; **

**Mar 7:7 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’ **

**Mar 7:8 You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men." **

**Mar 7:9 And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition!

Mar 7:10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die’; **

**Mar 7:11 but you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is Corban’ (that is, given to God) –

**Mar 7:12 then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, **

**Mar 7:13 thus making void the word of God through your tradition which you hand on. And many such things you do."

**Mar 7:14 And he called the people to him again, and said to them, "Hear me, all of you, and understand: **

**Mar 7:15 there is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him." ## **
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top