The local media continues to cover the sit-in at a closed parish on a daily basis. Here are some interesting revelations today. The article says Fr. Coyne attended a “lay-led service at 8:30 am, and took Communion at the altar from the sacristan.”
What we have here is a Communion service, with a priest present. And apparently, Fr. Coyne, departing as pastor, has left the Eucharist behind. Those two conditions violate a whole host of canon laws.
Poor Bella, she continues to demonstrate her complete ignorance for all the world to see.
Coyne didn’t receive Communion from a sacristan, for crying out loud.
A sacristan is the person who prepares the articles for Holy Mass, whose duties are in the sacristy (the vesting area for priests prior to Mass).
She also states in the article that members of the parish are “preparing a canon (sic) appeal.” She means “canonICAL” appeal.
Doesn’t anybody proofread this moron’s writings? Or could it be that the bow-tied bum kissers (thanks, Howie!) know absolutely nothing about the Church they continue to profess they love and are helping to “modernize”?
I wouldn’t fault Fr Coyne for leaving the Eucharist in the tabernacle. Suppressing the parish isn’t the same thing as ‘deconsecrating’ the building.
OTOH, he apparently left the tabernacle keys with the protestors.
Perhaps they reserve the blessed Sacrament in the vestment pockets over at St. Judas’s.
If it qualifies as Eucharist, that is.
I wouldn’t automatically assume that the hosts that were distributed as “Communion” were even consecrated. Certainly, Bella English would have no idea.
And I doubt that unconsecrated hosts would present any problem for either Fr. Coyne or most anyone else at the “lay-led service.”