Removing Jesus from the Monstrance and passing Him around during Adoration

[palmas85]

Is this something that you can unequivocally document? It would certainly help clear things up.

No Ethyl, I cannot. You got me. Hey fellas, its all over, It is perfectly all right to do anything and everything that is not specifically spelled out as being wrong in Canon Law and the Rubrics. If the church doesn’t specifically say you can’t do it then you can.

So I say lets do it.

Just think of it. Since it is not specifically forbidden, why not use the Consecrated Host as a football for table football games? Hey, who knows, He might even like a little exercise don’t you think? And since we can already apparently take Him out and pass Him around the Church for no good reason, this seems the next logical step, actually getting personally involved with Him in something that we all enjoy.:dancing:

After all, it is not specifically forbidden and I guess that makes its all right.

:bigyikes: :bigyikes:

Its a shame that some people in their zeal for modernism, will accept anything novel as being OK.

 

[ethelzguy]

Now you’re being absurd. Please read the post before making non-sensical comments. The canon allows for “pastoral need” taking Communion to the sick is a pastoral need. Can we be reasonable and civilized, please?

I asked a direct question, based on your post…which Japhy answered. Simple enough.

Then, you call me absurd, and turn around and ask me to be “reasonable and civilized”.

Interesting commentary from someone whos screen name implies that they’re a priest.

 

[ethelzguy]

I am most alarmed at the tone this thread has taken. Sufficient, ample documentation has been provided and Canon law has been quoted that clearly indicates that what parrotgal described in the OP is wrong.

**Not true. Documentation regarding other issues has been taken and extrapolated to suit your position. Show me where it is prohibited that a priest uses the Blessed Sacrement in a luna to teach and inspire awe toward the Blessed Sacrement.

Heck, I’ll settle for “not recommended” or “inadvisable”. **

common sense and a profound reverence and genuine respect for the Blessed Sacrament would call for prudence on the part of the priest. …Pulling our Lord out of the tabernacle for a simple show-and-tell would not be a wise move on the part of the priest.

What was/is irreverent about what allegedly occured? This is another example of opinion being put forth as Church teaching.

I am afraid that, in some instances, this thread has drifted into the nonsensical. Fr. David had it right on target when he rightly observed that we needed to be civilized and reasonable.

Who is being uncivilized or unreasonable? I am asking direct questions that have yet to be answered.

 

[ethelzguy]

The law has been quoted several times here, both canonically and liturgically. Both have clearly indicated what one can and cannot do relative to the Blessed Sacrament.

Only within the rubrics/procedures of specific events.

 

[ethelzguy]

Its a shame that some people in their zeal for modernism, will accept anything novel as being OK.

This has nothing to do with modernism. It has to do with a specific accusation of abuse.

This thread is so typical of many that I have read here at CAF.

Somebody sees something that they don’t like. Rather than addressing it with the priest, or the diocese, or the Vatican…Rather than reading documents for him/herself…people go running to CAF screaming “abuse, abuse”, and find a ready and willing audience willing to pile on in sympathy…based on one side of a given event or issue.

Going on the internet and accusing a priest of desecration of the Blessed Sacrement is serious business.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of armchair Church authorities ready and willing to pass judgement on said priest without all the pertinent data.

 

[ethelzguy]

FOR THE RECORD

YOU DON’T LIKE IT THAT IS YOUR PROBLEM

Um, didn’t YOU come here with YOUR problem?

 

[FrDavid96]

Canon 941

“In churches, or oratories where it is permitted to reserve the Most Holy Eucharist, there can be exposition either with the ciborium or with a monstrance, observing the norms prescribed in the liturgical books.”

Observing the norms prescribed in the liturgical books means precisely that. Since the practice of passing around the Most Holy Eucharist is so vastly different from anything that might be even remotely found in the liturgical books (ie norms defined by the conference of bishops, and the local bishop) it is clearly an abuse.

It is the severity of the change here that makes it such a “big deal.” While no one is able to cite a specific law which says, you can’t do this, we have to look at the totality of the Church’s teaching, the totality of the Church’s laws/norms regarding the handling of the Eucharist, the totality of the legitimate liturgical tradition, and take a common sense approach to arrive at the conclusion that since passing around the Eucharist is specifically prohibited at Mass and there is no possible way we can interpret the norms to allow passing around the Eucharist around at adoration, to add this practice to adoration/benediction is certainly an abuse.

 

[palmas85]

Canon 941

“In churches, or oratories where it is permitted to reserve the Most Holy Eucharist, there can be exposition either with the ciborium or with a monstrance, observing the norms prescribed in the liturgical books.”

Observing the norms prescribed in the liturgical books means precisely that. Since the practice of passing around the Most Holy Eucharist is so vastly different from anything that might be even remotely found in the liturgical books (ie norms defined by the conference of bishops, and the local bishop) it is clearly an abuse.

It is the severity of the change here that makes it such a “big deal.” While no one is able to cite a specific law which says, you can’t do this, we have to look at the totality of the Church’s teaching, the totality of the Church’s laws/norms regarding the handling of the Eucharist, the totality of the legitimate liturgical tradition, and take a common sense approach to arrive at the conclusion that since passing around the Eucharist is specifically prohibited at Mass and there is no possible way we can interpret the norms to allow passing around the Eucharist around at adoration, to add this practice to adoration/benediction is certainly an abuse.

Outstanding answer.

I have found that many of the more progressive among us take the position that unless there is a specific prohibition concerning a certain practice, then it must be all right to engage in it. These same people often claim that that those who are more traditionally minded are acting like Pharisees and being legalistic most of the time.

The Pharisees felt that in order to fully follow the Law of Moses, every aspect of behavior had to be specifically covered by a written law. By following those written laws there was no possible way you could violate the Law of Moses If there was no written law prohibiting it, then it was OK within the Law of Moses to engage in whatever the practice was.

Many progressives seem to have this exact same attitude. Hey its not specifically prohibited, so lets do it.

And they call us Pharisees.

 

[Aramis]

How, then, do you explain laity taking consecrated hosts with them from Mass for distribution to the sick or homebound? By your definition, that can’t be done.

This is why sweeping statements can cause confusion.

That is pastoral need, as in the need for so doing to serve the people of God. It is urgent as in time-critical (tho not in the sense of life-or-death).