The Priest Who Would Not Get It.


Interesting post at Father Z's, where the rather usual situation – at least in my experience – occurs: long line to receive from the priest, pretty much no one wants to receive from the riduculous layman – or woman – with the strange abbreviation beginning with E standing nearby.

What does, then, the priest in question do? He simply provides the chap – or gal; or more probably old woman – with the desired clientele by stopping his own distribution.

Interesting, this one. The priest can clearly see the faithful want to receive from him. Does this happen because he is a fine chap who knows a lot of jokes? Or will it perhaps be because… they want to receive from the priest?

If the priest isn't a humble Jesuit, he knows the truth already. Therefore, the only conclusion that can be drawn here is that the man is actively recoiling from doing his job so that another one who is not a priest, and not the one from whom the parishioner want to receive, may avoid feeling a total fool, standing there all alone with a face that says “the Sixties were a good time, actually…”.

My personal suggestion is to never, on no account and under no circumstances, receive from a laywhatever. Oh well, if you're dying and there is truly no alternative, perhaps, but that's that. If many start doing this way, at some point even the most politically correct knucklehead will get the message. I have never received from a laysomething in my life, nor have I ever given communion to myself. I am firmly intentioned to die with my record intact. If you can receive and feel like receiving – nowadays one must explain why he doesn't, doesn't he; and he must pay attention some old woman will not nag him no end that he really, really should – and the only alternative is to take part to a horrible legalised liturgical abuse like no generation of pre V II had to endure, or not to receive like many in every generation before V II, I can't imagine how it would not be vastly better to choose the second, the traditional option. Choose to be in the company of sixty generations of Christians, rather than of one and a half of tambourine cafeteria Catholics. You can make spiritual communion anyway, and there will be other occasions.

But certainly, confronted with such behaviour I would seriously consider whether the priest in question should have another occasion, or at least a fourth or fifth. From their fruits you will recognise them; a priest who willingly neglects his duty so that the Sixties may look better doesn't look like a very good fruit to me.

Mundabor

 

Posted on February 1, 2014, in Bad Shepherds, Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. 22 Comments.

  1. Interesting post. I don’t like to receive from the laity because in fact it is an abuse for it contradicts teachings millenia old. However, I would be careful about being proud of one’s record of not having received from the laity for it can become a problem if other, larger issues of charity are neglected. At the end of the day, though, I agree with you–this is the wacky late 60s speaking to us, where no one is left out, Lord forbid, and the only one neglected–irony of ironies–is the Eucharistic Lord Himself!

    • First you should demonstrate that not wanting to receive from the “minister” is an “issue of charity”. I find it an issue of respect for the Church and the Eucharist. Once that it demonstrated, it should be argued how from this alleged issue, larger issues may arise.

      M

  2. Not only get the Holy Communion from the priest, but kneel please kneel every time you do it

  3. mundabor.i have just starting to read your blog and it is fantastic.i too dislike the post conciliar liturgical trappings and its modernistic ways.bring back latin;bring back the holy communion rails;bring back black vestments and the traditional yearly cycle .god bless pope pious x.-its enough to make me go to the sspx!! god bless philip johnson.

  4. What are your thoughts on people who bring communion to people home bound or sick in the hospital. Unfortunately many parishes don’t have enough priests, Or they prefer sending someone instead of them going.

    • I don’t think the parishes don’t have enough priests. I think they have other priorities: meetings, committees, groups, and the like.
      If the bishop decided that Mass, Confession, care for the sick and pastoral visits were the priority, I am rather sure the time would be there. When I was young, the priests did found the time, and it was chocking full of people to visit and confess.
      I would also be curious to know how many priests in the average diocese are exempted from priestly duties without real need, or for things of lesser importance.

      M

  5. Mr. M, I’m a secular member of a religious community and part of our ministry is to bring Communion to one of the nearby nursing homes on Sunday. I find it very rewarding but I also agree with what you say. I only do it because the 4 deacons in my parish will not go the 3 nursing homes in our area. They assume that we and other lay groups will take care of it. I’ve never felt comfortable about being an EMHC. I know my hands are not consecrated and before I distribute Our Lord I beg his Blessed Mother to purify my fingers for a few moments and protect her Son from my sinfulness. I also hate when I go to Mass and everyone expects me to get up and serve which is why on my free Sundays I go to a different church. I pray for the day when I no longer have to do this and there are plenty of priests and deacons to resume responsibility.

  6. From what I’ve seen, priests seem to spend a lot of time doing things (like admin) which the laity could do while lay people seem to do half the things the priests should do.

    • Yes, my impression too. Also, a lot of meetings with parish busybodies, and stuff like that. Here in England I suspect there is also a lot of interreligious/ecumaniacal stuff going on. All the while, old peopel die in hospitals and nursing homes without the comfort of a priest. See the other comment.

      M

  7. Never said that.

    If one were “proud” of one’s record of never receiving from a layman, and then sinning gravely against one’s neighbor, I would say we have quite a problem. Vide: St. John’s First Letter.

    • Yes, but then there is still to explain where is the issue.
      You can say of absolutely everything under the sun (say: being a good father, or a chaste husband) that we would have quite a problem if one is a chaste husband but then sins gravely against one’s neighbour.

      M

  8. At Mass Lay People distributing Communion is absolutely not necessary, for any reason whatsoever. People can’t bear to wait for Our Lord, too bad. That said, priests can’t be everywhere at once. the only time that perhaps lay people can be justified, possibly. Personally, I prefer the St Basil approach…only in times of persecution should a lay person handle Our Lord

    • No they can’t be everywhere at once, but they should be where they are supposed to be: mass, confession, sick people, visits in the homes.
      Let the laymen and laywomen do the PC stuff. Or better, abolish it altogether when possible.
      M

  9. Ah, I see. The problem is that one is counting up one’s “perfect record” and then failing gravely in another area. And yes, it can happen with any other good thing. I have met fathers of large families who heroically followed the Church’s teaching on marriage, and then were as proud as peacocks.

  10. I do, however, essentially agree the laity should not be handling the Body of Christ at anytime.

  11. I am just finishing Fr. Ian Ker’s bio of Cardinal Newman (good, except he makes Newman way too much a backer of Vatican II.) How humble the great Cardinal is!! Truly, as all the saints tell us, humility is a foundational virtue. Newman, for instance, wouldn’t go near the “aristocracy of talent” of the famous. What would he think of our “professional Catholics” today?

  12. I suppose I should say “precursor of Vatican II”….

  13. Yes, I agree. Newman’s works are voluminous, and therefore easy to manipulate. Ker does a good job, but can’t let go of seeing Newman as some kind of precursor to V2. I am quite sure Newman would walk out of my parish, with its army of EMHCs, its saccharine, Disney hymns, its virtually doctrine-free homilies, the blazing banality of it all. Then, he would weep.

    Blessed John Henry Newman, Ora pro nobis!

%d bloggers like this: