You read the minds and hearts of believers without the benefit of a ecclesiastical trial to determine if this communicant knew beforehand what this bishop would do when confronted in the most dastardly way possible with an insolent communicant who dares to kneel before the King of Kings, (not the bishop, btw) in order to receive that one and same King?
Would it not have been better simply to give the insolent soul Holy Communion and not draw worldwide attention to this ecclesiastical move of a power-play?
I like this comment from another blog:
We don’t know the state of the souls of public sinners so we can’t deny them Holy Communion. On the other hand we don’t know the state of Covid-19 exposure of faithful Catholics so we can deny them Holy Communion in the preferred fashion.
Regardless of who knew what when, the "Pastor" bishop should not have made a scene particularly with the camera aimed squarely on the communion line. It's offensive given that a child was involved. As an Eastern Catholic, to have distribution apart from the spoon is, for John Chrysostom/Basil the Great Liturgies, difficult to understand let alone adapt to as that's not neither what we've been taught nor practiced for centuries. Traditional Catholics should be given the same consideration despite the notion that they MUST accept and adopt all changes that have occurred since the 1960s. To me, that's pastoral sensitivity.
Communion on the tongue is NOT to be denied to communicants who present themselves in this fashion. Communion on the tongue CAN be distributed safely and with no contact should the minister know how to properly do so. Why do bishops, on their own, rewrite the rules to their liking? Perhaps I'm off base here.
Last, as much as traditional Catholics are criticized for being inflexible/unwelcoming....whatever (some of which isn't totally unfounded and location specific), the NO side can be equally inflexible/unwelcoming with this as an example. He made his uncharitable point which, the child will likely remember. A real win for the Church, the bishop and his diocese all captured on video.
A friend of mine told me this sort of thing happened to her about a year or so ago when she attended the First Holy Communion of her niece. The church was crowded and there were several stations for distribution of Holy Communion. She approached a priest who was mid-way down the center aisle, and she knelt on the floor to receive on the tongue. He whispered loudly, "We don't do that here." and gestured for the person behind here to come forward around her and receive in the hand. She had no choice but to get up and return to her seat without receiving.
To see this or hear of this sort of abuse angers me. I don't think Our Lord is the least bit intimidated by the status of a bishop, and when the bishop at long last arrives before the judgement seat, I hope a tape of this incident is playing in the background.
The "Pastor" bishop did not make the scene. The communicant did.
The insolent communicant brought the child into the event, not the "Pastor" bishop.
This scene has nothing whatsoever to do with being inflexible/unwelcoming. It would surprise me greatly if, outside pandemic conditions, the "Pastor" bishop would refuse communion on the tongue to a communicant who wished to recieve in that manner.
In that regard, this passage is from the Cathedral's newsletter: "Usually, it is the communicant who receives as they desire, however, receiving communion on the tongue during the pandemic is not permitted. As of now, the Bishop has determined that the health and safety of the people and the priests mitigates the choice."
Nothing to do with "inflexible."
Bishop Solis is strongly pro-life, anti-euthanasia, pro-justice, and has published opinion pieces in the Salt Lake City Tribune, a paper with a circulation of 74,000 to 84,000.
The Bishop acted ultra vires and in a decent world he would be removed and sent to a monastery for reflection. What a petty, mean spirited thing to do. Denying Holy Communion on the tongue, the normative way to receive Holy Communion, is an exclusionary and divisive act. The "science" does not support this either. Thank God my 32 year old pastor is not like this bishop.
Perhaps the communicants, father and daughter, didn't know of the cathedral's newsletter and revised procedures. The bishop could have done the pastorally sensitive thing and communed without causing a scene and discomfort for what appears to be sincere believers. None of us can judge who really was 'right' or 'wrong' here. To draw outright conclusions is obviously not possible.
"The communicant is 100% the scene maker" Nope, he is setting prfoper example to the so-called Catholics who have forgotten or do not care about how Our Lord should be received with humility, awe, and gratitude. The Host is not a Pillsbury reward biscuit.
I remember Bishop Solis from when I was apart of the LA archdiocese. He distributed to me kneeling and on the tongue without an issue.
I don't know whether they are regular parishoners, visitors. If the former, I suppose that is on them, because they would have already known. If the latter, it seems a bit much to cause a scene during Communion.
In my parish, we have not changed the distribution of Communion: (One Spoon, one chalice)...and we won't be changing it...Or obeying unconstitutional edicts saying indoor services are cancelled.
12 comments:
The communicant knew precisely what the bishop's reaction would be.
The communicant is 100% the scene maker. That was his intention, and dragging his small daughter into the fray doubles the error.
You read the minds and hearts of believers without the benefit of a ecclesiastical trial to determine if this communicant knew beforehand what this bishop would do when confronted in the most dastardly way possible with an insolent communicant who dares to kneel before the King of Kings, (not the bishop, btw) in order to receive that one and same King?
Would it not have been better simply to give the insolent soul Holy Communion and not draw worldwide attention to this ecclesiastical move of a power-play?
I like this comment from another blog:
We don’t know the state of the souls of public sinners so we can’t deny them Holy Communion. On the other hand we don’t know the state of Covid-19 exposure of faithful Catholics so we can deny them Holy Communion in the preferred fashion.
Regardless of who knew what when, the "Pastor" bishop should not have made a scene particularly with the camera aimed squarely on the communion line. It's offensive given that a child was involved. As an Eastern Catholic, to have distribution apart from the spoon is, for John Chrysostom/Basil the Great Liturgies, difficult to understand let alone adapt to as that's not neither what we've been taught nor practiced for centuries. Traditional Catholics should be given the same consideration despite the notion that they MUST accept and adopt all changes that have occurred since the 1960s. To me, that's pastoral sensitivity.
Communion on the tongue is NOT to be denied to communicants who present themselves in this fashion. Communion on the tongue CAN be distributed safely and with no contact should the minister know how to properly do so. Why do bishops, on their own, rewrite the rules to their liking? Perhaps I'm off base here.
Last, as much as traditional Catholics are criticized for being inflexible/unwelcoming....whatever (some of which isn't totally unfounded and location specific), the NO side can be equally inflexible/unwelcoming with this as an example. He made his uncharitable point which, the child will likely remember. A real win for the Church, the bishop and his diocese all captured on video.
Bee here:
A friend of mine told me this sort of thing happened to her about a year or so ago when she attended the First Holy Communion of her niece. The church was crowded and there were several stations for distribution of Holy Communion. She approached a priest who was mid-way down the center aisle, and she knelt on the floor to receive on the tongue. He whispered loudly, "We don't do that here." and gestured for the person behind here to come forward around her and receive in the hand. She had no choice but to get up and return to her seat without receiving.
To see this or hear of this sort of abuse angers me. I don't think Our Lord is the least bit intimidated by the status of a bishop, and when the bishop at long last arrives before the judgement seat, I hope a tape of this incident is playing in the background.
God bless,
Bee
The "Pastor" bishop did not make the scene. The communicant did.
The insolent communicant brought the child into the event, not the "Pastor" bishop.
This scene has nothing whatsoever to do with being inflexible/unwelcoming. It would surprise me greatly if, outside pandemic conditions, the "Pastor" bishop would refuse communion on the tongue to a communicant who wished to recieve in that manner.
In that regard, this passage is from the Cathedral's newsletter: "Usually, it is the
communicant who receives as they desire, however, receiving communion on the tongue during the pandemic is not permitted. As of now, the Bishop has determined that the health and safety of the people and the priests mitigates the choice."
Nothing to do with "inflexible."
Bishop Solis is strongly pro-life, anti-euthanasia, pro-justice, and has published opinion pieces in the Salt Lake City Tribune, a paper with a circulation of 74,000 to 84,000.
https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/03/07/after-one-year-in-utah-this-trailblazing-bishop-is-conquering-personal-mountains-and-leading-catholics-to-higher-ground/
https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/03/07/after-one-year-in-utah-this-trailblazing-bishop-is-conquering-personal-mountains-and-leading-catholics-to-higher-ground/
The Bishop acted ultra vires and in a decent world he would be removed and sent to a monastery for reflection. What a petty, mean spirited thing to do. Denying Holy Communion on the tongue, the normative way to receive Holy Communion, is an exclusionary and divisive act. The "science" does not support this either. Thank God my 32 year old pastor is not like this bishop.
Anonymous K,
Ah, our resident mind reader is back. You know no such thing. The bishop was an ass
Perhaps the communicants, father and daughter, didn't know of the cathedral's newsletter and revised procedures. The bishop could have done the pastorally sensitive thing and communed without causing a scene and discomfort for what appears to be sincere believers. None of us can judge who really was 'right' or 'wrong' here. To draw outright conclusions is obviously not possible.
Fr. If that's you, please stop.
Anonymous Kavanaugh,
You sound like you have anger management issues. Seek help
"The communicant is 100% the scene maker"
Nope, he is setting prfoper example to the so-called Catholics who have forgotten or do not care about how Our Lord should be received with humility, awe, and gratitude. The Host is not a Pillsbury reward biscuit.
I remember Bishop Solis from when I was apart of the LA archdiocese. He distributed to me kneeling and on the tongue without an issue.
I don't know whether they are regular parishoners, visitors. If the former, I suppose that is on them, because they would have already known. If the latter, it seems a bit much to cause a scene during Communion.
In my parish, we have not changed the distribution of Communion: (One Spoon, one chalice)...and we won't be changing it...Or obeying unconstitutional edicts saying indoor services are cancelled.
The bottom line: Solis has NO authority to deny the faithful Holy Communion of the tongue.
Post a Comment