NAPIER MARISTS FORBID COMMUNION POST-COVID EVEN

 To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X (Twitter).

St John the Evangelist giving Communion to the Blessed Virgin Mary
Giovanni Gasparo

Today - the Solemnity of the Assumption - a Marist priest at St Patrick's, Napier refused two readers of this blog their absolute right to receive  Holy Communion on the tongue.

One reader attends St Patrick's only if there's no alternative. But the other has to live in Napier temporarily and has had to go without Communion for weeks. 

The liturgical practice of Communion in the hand began in disobedience and is perpetuated by disobedience. What is it with the Marists? What's their problem? Communion on the tongue Is. The. Norm.  

Marists are dedicated to Mary but refuse to obey the Church by giving her Son to her faithful children who ask for Him (one on her knees). Didn't they read their morning paper? All Covid restrictions were lifted last night - just in time for today's Solemnity.

"Nobody can force us to receive the Body of Christ in a way that constitutes a risk of the loss of the fragments, and a decrease in reverence, as is the way of receiving Communion in the hand" - Bishop Athanasius Schneiderhttps://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2020/02/op-ed-bishop-schneider-rite-of-holy.html . 

Canon law and the Magisterium give the Marists no leg to stand on. In the Instruction Memoriale Domini (1969) the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship stated that Communion on the tongue "must be retained", so that it is crystal-clear that Communion on the tongue is the norm for the entire Church. 16 years later the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (CDW) stated that "the faithful are not to be obliged to adopt the practice of Communion in the hand. Each one is free to communicate in one way or the other." 

In 1999 the CDW answered a dubium thusly: "Those who restrict communicants to receive only in the hands are acting against the norms."

2004: "Each of the faithful always has the right to receive Communion on the tongue". No ifs, buts or maybes. 

Nothing about "if you're afraid of catching a bug you can insist on Communion in the hand." And the reason for that is, Communion on the hand increases the risk of catching a bug. I

'The ban on Communion in the mouth is unfounded compared to the great health risks of Communion in the hand in the time of a pandemic. Such a ban constitutes an abuse of authority.'- -Bishop Athanasius Schneider

In 2020 as a pathological fear of Covid began to take hold - even among bishops and priests whose faith should make them immune ("Fear Not", says the Bible, 365 times), a canon lawyer's opinion was that "a bishop cannot require anyone to receive in the hand". https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2020/02/can-bishop-require-communion-in-hand-to.html

Will the Marists argue that there is one canon law for the world's bishops but another one for Marist priests?  

St Patrick's Napier is a sad church. The number of people at Mass for the Solemnity of the Assumption - one of only two surviving Holy Days of Obligation in New Zealand - was sad. Were the faithful reminded on Sunday that a Holy Day of Obligation obliges one to attend Mass? Were they also reminded (as they were at St Anthony's SSPX Whanganui), that today should have been treated like a Sunday, with no servile work? Maybe today's congregation at St Patrick's was the same as for a Sunday Mass, in which case the attendance was even sadder.

The new St Patrick's "Mission Centre" is sad. It was estimated to cost $1.9m. "There has been no parish centre in the area since 2015 when the presbytery and office were relocated" said a parishioner. "The new centre will provide a real presence for the parish and its hospitality for many, particularly when the cruise ships start returning to Napier Port."https://www.wn.catholic.org.nz/adw_welcom/new-mission-centre-for-napier-parish/

Isn't St Patrick's church the "real presence for the parish"? But the Real Presence in the church is tucked away in a side wall instead of being front and centre where Our Eucharistic Lord belongs - as we have been told by the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum: "The Most Holy Sacrament is to be reserved in a tabernacle in a part of the church that is noble, prominent, readily visible, and adorned in a dignified manner”.https://adoremus.org/2012/06/where-to-place-the-tabernacle/

A hole in the wall doesn't fill the bill. That's sad too.

The end-of-year Mass for Napier's Sacred Heart College is held in the Anglican cathedral because St Patrick's is too small. But instead of building a bigger church the Marists built a mission centre to entertain sailors and tourists. That's more than sad.

But what's so sad as to be tragic is the fence in front of the new Mission Centre, adorned as it is with lots of multi-coloured ribbons fluttering - just like St Mary of the Angels, Wellington, another Marist domain. The ribbons are tied there to honour victims of abuse because the Catholic Church, victims say, has not paid enough attention to the matter. Rather like New Zealand has not paid enough attention to the wrongs done to Maori. Yeah, right.

The way for the Church to acknowledge her past sins is not by tying ribbons on a fence or encouraging others to do it, but by offering prayers of reparation, especially the supreme prayer of the Mass even if only in the Ordinary Form (the Novus Ordo). 

The supreme tragedy is the rejection of our Crucified Lord manifested especially in neglect of the Holy Eucharist, and the insults offered Him in the abhorrent practice of Communion in the hand. 

If the Church post-Vatican II had not veered from the straight and narrow path that leads to heaven by adopting a fabricated Mass and Communion in the hand, but had continued to offer to God the sublime act of adoration, thanksgiving, petition and ATONEMENT in the traditional "Mass of Ages" (the Latin Mass), would there be any ribbons tied to Catholic church fences?

Assumption of the Virgin Mary
Peter Paul Rubens


O Mary, assumed into heaven, pray for us who have recourse to thee