Yes, I know, LifeSiteNews. Many people don’t like LifeSiteNews. So be it.
Just read the article.
Thoughts?
Questionable Communion procedures in Biloxi Diocese
- Thread starter HomeschoolDad
- Start date
- Status
Yes, I know, LifeSiteNews. Many people don’t like LifeSiteNews. So be it.
Just read the article.
Thoughts?
E
eagerbeaver
Guest
Lord have mercy !
P
puer.dei
Guest
Well, I can’t find the video on their facebook page; of course, they may have taken it down. But the story says “Every family will be issued a sacred vessel.” Who’s got that many sitting around?
1
1ke
Guest
A pyx I would guess. You can buy them easily in bulk.
C
Cor_ad_Cor
Guest
The bishop hasn’t weighed in, so I’m not sure anyone else is really in position to at this point, either.
1
1ke
Guest
Exactly.
And while the peanut gallery over at Life Site had plenty to say— and some of it wrong (i.e. no one is “self communicating” in this scenario)— no one actually said it was invalid (because it isn’t).
Illicit? Perhaps, perhaps not. Problematic? Probably, unless people are properly trained.
As you said, that’s for the bishop to weigh in on, not anyone else.
S
stpurl
Guest
Ah. Yet another example of what happens when people worry so much about ‘rigidity’ and ‘tradition’ and a supposed over-concern about rules, and insist on creativity and spontaneity and openness and concern.
Every one of those things mentioned above has a proper place in life.
Unfortunately we are at a point where every single word or action is treated as though it directly contraindicates other actions, turning the world into a “This OR that” and never a “This AND that”, a “this for that”, a “This because of that”, a “this for here, that for there”.
In the Catholic liturgical world the byword has been ‘pastoral’ and “personalize’ and “adapt, adjust, ad lib”. No surprise that we have squirt guns for holy water and baggies for COVID. We aren’t Catholics in a world with issues from various fears and failings, we are “issues” who identify as “Catholic’ somewhere pretty far down after sex, race, nationality, age, and socioeconomic group, maybe even after “sports affiliation’, ‘college alumnus/a’, and definitely after ‘political party’ or ‘regional affiliation’.
So we Macguyver our liturgy to suit the needs of the issues and pat ourselves on the backs. We will ‘get the white thingy’ after all because it’s not about the WHO who is present, but about the US getting what we WANT.
Every one of those things mentioned above has a proper place in life.
Unfortunately we are at a point where every single word or action is treated as though it directly contraindicates other actions, turning the world into a “This OR that” and never a “This AND that”, a “this for that”, a “This because of that”, a “this for here, that for there”.
In the Catholic liturgical world the byword has been ‘pastoral’ and “personalize’ and “adapt, adjust, ad lib”. No surprise that we have squirt guns for holy water and baggies for COVID. We aren’t Catholics in a world with issues from various fears and failings, we are “issues” who identify as “Catholic’ somewhere pretty far down after sex, race, nationality, age, and socioeconomic group, maybe even after “sports affiliation’, ‘college alumnus/a’, and definitely after ‘political party’ or ‘regional affiliation’.
So we Macguyver our liturgy to suit the needs of the issues and pat ourselves on the backs. We will ‘get the white thingy’ after all because it’s not about the WHO who is present, but about the US getting what we WANT.
V
Victoria33
Guest
Happy Cake Day!!! Happy Cake Day to everyone’s whose day is today or any other day!
With humility, I’d like to say one can learn a lot from what you write.
With humility, I’d like to say one can learn a lot from what you write.
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
The Bishop of Biloxi released a “precept” on Communion on the diocesan website on July 15 that would appear to shoot down this priest’s idea by mandating that each church is only allowed one EMHC per 100 communicants present at Mass. This would seem to make it impossible for the pastor to designate every head of household an EMHC. The pastor also seems to have deleted or made private his Facebook video that got picked up by Lifesite.
I do not know whether this parish is going to continue with their plan on the sly in defiance of the Bishop’s precept, as their Facebook page still has them handing out “Mass bags” with a window decal, a misalette, and “other items you need for Mass”. But the bishop does not appear to approve, although my impression is he also didn’t want to single out St. Fabian’s in his precept. Or maybe this parish isn’t the only one coming up with inappropriate ideas.
I do not know whether this parish is going to continue with their plan on the sly in defiance of the Bishop’s precept, as their Facebook page still has them handing out “Mass bags” with a window decal, a misalette, and “other items you need for Mass”. But the bishop does not appear to approve, although my impression is he also didn’t want to single out St. Fabian’s in his precept. Or maybe this parish isn’t the only one coming up with inappropriate ideas.
Last edited:
It is somewhat similar, somewhat not, to a recent situation in Switzerland where consecrated Hosts were placed in something resembling white cardboard matchboxes and set out to be taken “self-service”. The bishop of that diocese promptly brought that to a screeching halt.Cor_ad_Cor:
Exactly.
And while the peanut gallery over at Life Site had plenty to say— and some of it wrong (i.e. no one is “self communicating” in this scenario)— no one actually said it was invalid (because it isn’t).
Illicit? Perhaps, perhaps not. Problematic? Probably, unless people are properly trained.
As you said, that’s for the bishop to weigh in on, not anyone else.
There is no question here of an invalid Eucharist. Shocking though it is, I have to think that if the Hosts are in the custody of individuals and families sitting or kneeling in the nave of the church (or even at an outdoor Mass where faithful are congregated), and if the priest intends to consecrate those Hosts, They are indeed consecrated. That’s just my slant, I could be wrong, but I’m not clear on why that would be wrong.
I hope the Mississippi situation will be resolved soon, if it hasn’t already been, the same way as the situation in Switzerland was.
FWIW, the article I posted was taken from Dr Jeffrey Mirus’s Catholic Culture website, not a place I normally think of as a “peanut gallery”. They simply linked to the original LifeSiteNews article.
C
Cor_ad_Cor
Guest
Which raises a good point: This may already have been addressed, and we’re simply not getting the latest news but just the scandalous version of the story. … Just a possibility.
P
PianomanD
Guest
Would this even be valid consecration? I mean, I’m not sure how validity of consecration works in these circumstances, but from my understanding, the vessels with hosts are being held by the laity for the entirety of the consecration. I mean, I guess if intention beyond the altar is sufficient, it would be valid consecration…
Valid or not, it is undeniably illicit.
Valid or not, it is undeniably illicit.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
I can see where a bishop might handle it more quietly in a manner such that the pastors concerned get the message without making it more grist for the sensational Catholic media.
Consecration depends upon the intent of the priest. I have told this story before, but when I was younger and serving Mass one time, I saw a ciborium of unconsecrated hosts on the credence table, and after Mass, I asked the priest if those got consecrated too, when he said Mass. He said no, he did not intend to consecrate those, they were for a later Mass.
So I have to think it cuts both ways. If the priest intends to consecrate those hosts, then they are consecrated. It’s not as though there’s a “spiritual force field” emanating from the priest, in that any hosts within X distance get consecrated, but if those hosts are “out of range”, then they don’t get consecrated. Long story short, intent.
Indeed. It would have sufficed to put a terse blurb in the bulletin, explaining that the bishop said we can’t do this, so we won’t be doing it, end of story. The pastor might also have been well-advised to comment on it briefly from the pulpit at all Masses, saying something like “hey, I was just trying to find a way for everyone to receive communion safely, but as it turns out, the bishop reminded me that the Church doesn’t allow something like that, bad idea, best of intentions, we all make mistakes, live and learn, we move on”. He may have done something precisely like that.
Last edited:
P
paperwight
Guest
I absolutely love the way you have phrased that, HSD!
My first thoughts are fear of the (very great) possibility of desecration of the Holy Eucharist.
I pray for a swift end to this “innovation”.
I really do wish priests would stop with these innovations, no matter how well intentioned these priests are, these innovations are almost all ways scandalous and are frequently dangerous (I’m thinking of how easily satanists could acquire the sacred host for use in black mass, among other things).
I pray for a swift end to this “innovation”.
I really do wish priests would stop with these innovations, no matter how well intentioned these priests are, these innovations are almost all ways scandalous and are frequently dangerous (I’m thinking of how easily satanists could acquire the sacred host for use in black mass, among other things).
This story told within any light you wish to present it in is still quite scandalous though, no?
Tis_Bearself
Patron
If the bishop stepped in and corrected the situation, there is no need for the public to be hearing or reading about it further.
I disagree, if stories like these were viewed by a wider audience perhaps our clergy would be less inclined to continue coming up with ”innovations”, no matter how well intentioned, as I stated earlier these ”innovations” are dangerous.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
The priests are making decisions for their own parish. They are unlikely to care what some Catholic who’s likely in another diocese, state, or country thinks about the matter.
They do care what their own bishop thinks, and the bishops like I said are capable of dealing with this like they have for decades when we didn’t have the Internet and LifeSiteNews so somebody in Maine or France could get all wound up about what a priest did in Biloxi.
They do care what their own bishop thinks, and the bishops like I said are capable of dealing with this like they have for decades when we didn’t have the Internet and LifeSiteNews so somebody in Maine or France could get all wound up about what a priest did in Biloxi.
Last edited:
I have to think that if I were a priest, in keeping with Pope Francis’s comments about “smelling like the sheep”, it would be better to speak in the people’s vernacular, “I’m just like you, Our Lord just called me to the priesthood to help all of us to save our souls, you work with me and I’ll work with you”. I have heard far too much, especially in traditionalist circles, of wooden, preachy admonitions that sound as though they come from someone who has never lived in the “real world” and does not understand what “real people” go through in their daily lives.HomeschoolDad:
I absolutely love the way you have phrased that, HSD!
I would respectfully have to part company with you on this one point. The internet, and the plethora of faithful Catholic and Catholic-oriented websites and apostolates, have made it far more difficult for those priests, bishops, teachers, and others who are supposed to be guardians of sound doctrine and liturgy, to “get away with shenanigans”. Do something bizarre or out-of-bounds, and it will go viral. It’s just too bad we didn’t have something like this in the 1960s and 1970s.
Last edited:
- Status