FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Discouraging Homily
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
Moved cross-country last month, as some may recall from previous posts.  Quite far from the only TLM in my new diocese, so I am making do with the best (or so I thought) NO I could find.

But -

Last Sunday, the pastor openly mocked those who desire to receive Communion on the tongue. Two actual quotes:
"I don't see how the tongue is more reverent than the hand"
"It's like putting a quarter in a Coke machine"

This wasn't extemporaneous, either - the manner of his delivery included pauses for the "laugh lines" like the two quotes above.  And the laughter was duly forthcoming from the congregation.

Having neglected Confession recently, I did not communicate that morning - although even if I had been able to worthily receive the Blessed Sacrament, I probably would have been too inwardly angry to approach it reverently.

Any similar experiences out there?
Yes, plenty of them, which is why I recommend the TLM whenever possible.  Many people claim that the reform-of-the-reform or a reverent NO isn't the enemy of traditional Catholicism, but oftentimes (though not always) I have found it is.  The reason being is that they are of the opinion that they are doing it the right way, they are the good mainstream Catholics, and the TLM, while tolerable, isn't the solution.

I would venture to guess that this pastor if questioned would deny being an enemy of tradition, would say he himself is traditional and in line with the Church, and that reception on the tongue only is some kind of scrupulous insanity.  And he would mean well, but he would, of course, be wrong on all counts.  At least if my experience proves correct this would be the case.

When someone can't come up with a good reason, they often resort to ridiculing the other side.  Obviously, no one part of the body is more reverent than the other - the reasons not to receive in the hand include: only consecrated things should touch the Sacrament until reception (the priest's hand is consecrated, ours are not), to avoid abuses such as stealing hosts, to avoid accidents such as dropping hosts, etc.  Really, no one can argue against those reasons except by saying "they don't matter" when, in fact, they do matter if one believes in the Real Presence.  Either every particle is sacred and deserves the utmost in respect and care or it doesn't.

The logic is against him so he resorts to ridicule and plants a seed in people's minds that receiving on the tongue is ridiculous.  That doesn't mean he doesn't mean well, but it does mean he's engaging in sophistry and at the same time distorting people's attitude towards the Blessed Sacrament.

The Body of Christ is not a quarter and your body is not a Coke machine, whether the priest puts the host on your tongue or you do.

I hope you can find a parish where the priest doesn't mock Communion.
(08-16-2009, 08:46 PM)PaxVobiscum Wrote: [ -> ]The Body of Christ is not a quarter and your body is not a Coke machine, whether the priest puts the host on your tongue or you do.

I hope you can find a parish where the priest doesn't mock Communion.


That was my feeling when I read this...a comment like that from a priest in the Mass would mess me up. 
I'd be angry too. I never receive when I attend NO Masses, but that would have been so upsetting.
May I ask how old this priest is?  Was he one of the "Lost Generation" (those who attended seminary in the 70s and 80s) or one of the new generation of young priests who are devout, on-fire and returning to Tradition (if not necessarily the TLM)?

In my experience, this new generation of priests is taking back the church as best they are able.
Slightly similar.

I was at a retreat once. Before Mass, the priest asked that we all receive standing up and in the hand, so the line moved faster or something. He said something like, "I know you have the right to receive kneeling on the tongue and some of you may prefer it, but please humor me on this." I was okay with that, but he had to add, "Besides, we commit a lot more sins with our tongue than with our hands anyway."  He should have just left it alone. 

But that was before the Mass, and just an announcement, not unlike a regular Mass announcing there will be a second collection. Working his opinion into the homily for a laugh is wrong. 
(08-16-2009, 07:28 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, plenty of them, which is why I recommend the TLM whenever possible.  Many people claim that the reform-of-the-reform or a reverent NO isn't the enemy of traditional Catholicism, but oftentimes (though not always) I have found it is.  The reason being is that they are of the opinion that they are doing it the right way, they are the good mainstream Catholics, and the TLM, while tolerable, isn't the solution.

I would venture to guess that this pastor if questioned would deny being an enemy of tradition, would say he himself is traditional and in line with the Church, and that reception on the tongue only is some kind of scrupulous insanity.  And he would mean well, but he would, of course, be wrong on all counts.  At least if my experience proves correct this would be the case.

I would disagree; I think (serious) "reform of the reform" priests use the TLM as a standard, not as an alternative.

The parish I attend would best be described as "reform of the reform" in that most Masses are vernacular (English/Spanish), but there is Low Mass weekly and High Mass monthly. However, the method of reforming the new liturgy is to inject "tridentinisms" into the Mass; so, for example, the priests give Communion via altar rail, there is a lot of Latin (All Masses have the Sanctus, Pater Noster, and Agnus Dei in Latin, and I have heard the Gloria and dismissal in Latin as well), there are no female altar servers, and no white robes to replace traditional cassocks, and so on.

So by definition, if you are really reforming the reform you're only making it closer to the Tridentine Rite, which I can't understand as being inimical to tradition.
(08-16-2009, 07:18 PM)DesperatelySeeking Wrote: [ -> ]Any similar experiences out there?

Oh heck yeah.I was once told by a Priest that "this isnt 1200 when I tried to receive. Once one Priest just looked at me like the idiot he was until I just put my hand out.
I have heard Homilies before at a conservative Parish where the Priest said that he" doesnt need wet hands" and "the Church doesnt follow this practice that went out with our burning people at the stake"
I over heard someone ask why we dont receive kneeling on the tongue anymore and the Priest told him "because we are civilized now" the woman then said "but the Pope (Benedict this was at one of the last Novus Disorder "Masses" I went to after the Pope decided to give communion this way) does it this way". The liberal Priest sighed and said "yeah this Pope is a bad apple"

In RCIA I brought this up and was told that we dont need to do that that receiving in our hand is reverent enough "Vatican II did away with the medeavil practices for the most part though it seems the Pope (JPII back then) enjoys living in the past". This was said to a round of laughter especialy the unveiled dyke nun who nearly fell out of her chair.
This is why its best to avoid the "Protestant NO "Mass" at all costs.
Once I went to a local NO mass, and during the homily the priest (an elderly Irish man) commented that he shuddered every time someone entered the confessional and said a particular prayer about deserving punishment (I can't remember the exact prayer), and that before Vatican 2 mortal sins seemed to grow like weeds in the garden and everyone was unhappy, and then he said that great saints like St Francis Xavier went all the way to Asia and died under the false impression that they needed to save souls!
Pages: 1 2 3