D
DustinsDad
Guest
Oh yes - I know of what and whom you speak:
http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/11/26/23372611.jpg
Amen!
DD
“The hour has come .... abandon the practice of Communion standing and in the hand”
- Status
http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/11/26/23372611.jpg
DD
L
lovesMary
Guest
I was under the impression that this has been a long standing practise, that men must have a certain level of physical wellness to be ordained, much as you describe. I’m not sure the actual canon law, but I’m sure it spells it out.
Is this unreasonable? No, it’s not. Many occupations have physcial requirements. I think part of the reason is that the priest symbolizes the unblemished lamb, just as Christ was the unblemished lamb that was sacrificed for humanity. There is also the practical consideration.
Once a man is a priest, if he becomes disabled, that’s another story.
L
lovesMary
Guest
Here, however, is the interesting account of the journey of a deaf man to the Catholic priesthood.
alldeaf.com/deaf-news/42588-newly-ordained-hears-responds-call-deaf-priest.html
alldeaf.com/deaf-news/42588-newly-ordained-hears-responds-call-deaf-priest.html
J
JReducation
Guest
Canon Law discusses the irregularities that must receive the dispensation of the Holy See or the Ordinary (Bishop or Major Superior).
These only include mental illness and requires two psychiatrists to say that the candidate is capable of priestly functions.
Other physical irregularities such as forms of paralysis, deafness and even blindness are not mentioned as reasons for disqualifying a candidate to the priesthood. Bishops may have their own rules for their diocese, but these do not apply to religious. The General Chapter of the religious community determines how those to be ordained are to be selected. It’s usually left to the Major Superior with son criteria given in the Constitutions. But we must remember that the Constitutions do not overrule the Superior General, only the Major Superior in a Province of the community.
As the unblemished lamb, developmental disabilities are not blemishes. They take nothing away from the dignity of the person or the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
JR
These only include mental illness and requires two psychiatrists to say that the candidate is capable of priestly functions.
Other physical irregularities such as forms of paralysis, deafness and even blindness are not mentioned as reasons for disqualifying a candidate to the priesthood. Bishops may have their own rules for their diocese, but these do not apply to religious. The General Chapter of the religious community determines how those to be ordained are to be selected. It’s usually left to the Major Superior with son criteria given in the Constitutions. But we must remember that the Constitutions do not overrule the Superior General, only the Major Superior in a Province of the community.
As the unblemished lamb, developmental disabilities are not blemishes. They take nothing away from the dignity of the person or the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
JR
J
Jeanette_L
Guest
I think Christ being referred to as the unblemished lamb was meant as being free from all sin. It was a spiritual perfection.
The unblemished lamb used in the Jewish ritual was to represent the spiritual purity of the Messianic Sacrificial Lamb.
L
lovesMary
Guest
JR, do you have a link to the actual rules as set out in canon law? I’d be most interested in reading them.
J
JReducation
Guest
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM
Canons 1008 to 1054 are all about the requirements for ordination, irregularities and impairments.
Hope this answers your question.
As your link indicated, a deaf man can become a priest. This was not heard off in the past.
JR
L
lovesMary
Guest
I was totally misinformed, it seems. I see nothing in there regarding physical defects. Thanks, I had read someone that someone with a physical defect, such as missing fingers mentioned here, was precluded from entering the priesthood.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM
Canons 1008 to 1054 are all about the requirements for ordination, irregularities and impairments.
Hope this answers your question.
As your link indicated, a deaf man can become a priest. This was not heard off in the past.
JR
L
latinmasslover
Guest
As I recall, he was not permitted to hear confessions. Doesn’t seem fair, does it?Brother Solanus Casey knew no theology, no Latin, and did not know how to preach. He joined the Capuchin Brothers and they ordered him to be ordained. He was ordained on the merits of his sanctity. Now he’s up for canonization and will probaby be the next American Saint. He’s from Michigan.
JR
L
latinmasslover
Guest
My question is, how much do we take out to satisfy those who want to join? Too much kneeling? The Church managed fine for many, many, many years. If people were more active today, perhaps kneeling wouldn’t be such a hardship. Are we to lower standards in order to satisfy everybody? Why have a seminary, why not just ordain left and right.The title of this thread says that the time has come to abandon communion in the hand.
My argument is that communion in the hand, while standing on line and the simplicity of the NO have allowed many to become good priests.
If you suddently abandon this, what do we do with these vocations who are coming in? The Holy Father himself expressed great joy today at the fact that vocations in the USA to the secular priesthood are on the rise.
The second question piggy-backs on the first, what do we do with priests who have disabilities due to developmental disorders or to age? Some have already said that they can’t celebrate the EF becasue it requires too much mobility and kneeling.
If this allows us to attract more men to the priesthood, leave it alone. The only irreverence is in the heart, not the action.
JR
I am the first to admit that there are exceptions to every rule, I do not deny that. These days, however, the exceptions always become the norm. The Church, and the world for that matter, need to buckle down and get with it. Giving in is a very poor choice for this generation.
And why is everybody quoting me as saying that we should take all disabled priests and shove them in a cloister to be hidden from the world. Read what I wrote, please. There are other things priests do, they don’t just spend day and night passing out Communion.
L
latinmasslover
Guest
Thank you, I was beginning to feel like a hunted North American wolf.
P
pnewton
Guest
The thing is, I think you may have been right, at least in some cases considering Can. 1029
The canon leaves the possibility that the bishop could set some minimum physical standard, based on his own judgment.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
This reminds me of a priest from Boston, who said many of the churches in that city have a flight of steps up to the main church and down to a meeting room in the basement. One of the pastors, having been told that his church needed to be made accessible to the disabled, protested that his parish didn’t have any disabled people in it! Somehow, he had missed the possiblity that if the stairs weren’t a barrier, there might be a few people like that showing up!
So, it could be that here and there for, oh, centuries, it was assumed that because no one came to receive who couldn’t kneel, there was no need to provide the option to receive in another way.
My guess, though, is that since reception by the ill was always allowed from the sickbed, that those who could not kneel have always (or nearly always) been accomodated, even in during Mass.
It is not my place to make any judgement about Sen. Kennedy’s soul, but he will be the first one to tell you that nobody, but nobody, grew up in Rose Kennedy’s house (may she rest in peace!) and remained ignorant of the tenets of our faith. She was a great enemy of ignorance, in general, as far as that goes. If he forgot, you might catch him; he won’t blame his mother for what he gets wrong.
The quote that it refers to, however, says that the time has come to examine the practice and if necessary, to abandon the practice. This implies that the practice should be examined with an open mind, in which either retaining or abandoning the practice is possible. I think it also implies that the examination be done by those whose prerogative it is to decide.
As for the Pope, in Sacramentum Caritatis he refers the question back to the instruction Redemptoris Sacramentum. By my reading of that document, there are three quotes that stand out with regards to this thread (italics mine, of course):
In distributing Holy Communion it is to be remembered that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who seek them in a reasonable manner, are rightly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them”. Hence any baptized Catholic *who is not prevented by law *must be admitted to Holy Communion.
Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.
Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice, if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her.
In other words, first off: it seems reasonable from this that even the Pope might not deny communion to a Catholic not yet formally excommunicated, as it is the most pastorally conservative reading of the instructions set down. This is not to say it is not his perogative to read them in a less conservative manner, only that it is reasonable that a sacred minister might do well to err on the side of allowing the communicant to read his or her own conscience. Even the Pope cannot be told the time and contents of a famous person’s last confession.
Secondly, because of the greater danger of profanation after reception compared to reception directly onto the tongue, the perogative is reserved for the Holy See and then the bishops conferencesto decide on whether administration to the hand is appropriate.
So, maybe they will take it up. I wouldn’t be astonished to have it happen, but I’m not holding my breath.
I
I_Believe
Guest
The same at my NO parish, but it’s while standing. It’s saying “on the tongue is ok, but…”. Kind of a half acknowledgement.
It’s true that we accomplish nothing by arguing about it. One thing is certain though. It’s the overall abrupt changes that have enabled the division. Not the traditional rubrics and practices.
I
I_Believe
Guest
Good point.
I
I_Believe
Guest
Oh, make no mistake, you are one of the hunted ones. But the wolves do the hunting
E
elt1956
Guest
Dear Deac. not to be a snot, but I don’t think Jesus would even be discussing this topic.
Peace
E
elt1956
Guest
Dear lat. Humaness is ALWAYS painfully obvious, no matter how hard we try to deny it.
E
elt1956
Guest
The way my knees are collapsing, I will probably have to stand at the Altar rail. No kidding.Since I returned to the church a month ago, I’ve been to mass each week. Once in the NO form and 3 times in the EF form. I intend to go to the EF rite as often as possible.
When I attended the NO rite, I stood in line, and kept my hands closed in prayer and put out my tongue to recieve the Sacred Eucharist.
My eyes were closed - There was what appeared to be an horrifically long time pass before I felt the Eucharist placed on my tongue. I had the feeling I threw the priest a bit when I stuck my tongue out
One of the reasons I want to keep going to the EF rite is that I dont want to take the Eucharist in my hand. I prefer the reverence and devotion demanded by the Latin Mass. Personally I cant wait for the day all chruches have their alter rails replaced - if it ever happends!!!
- Status