N
Nota_Bene
Guest
Gorgeous, absolutely gorgeous posting! I think I just sensed a few “love-the-tlm” brains exploding…
- Status
D
Defensor_Fidei
Guest
Nota Bene:
We are both under the same ordinary.
The training of the EMHCs is at the parish level. Mahoney as the ordinary, can allow or disallow this. The position is not necessary. Please refer to the GIRM. You could be deputed right now on the spot to be an EMHC if a priest finds it necessary to do so. That deputation has no rights or privileges beyond helping distribute, if and only if you are needed.
Altar server is not necessary either. Both are trained and deputed on the Parish level.
-Ted
-Ted
Nota,
We are both under the same ordinary.
The training of the EMHCs is at the parish level. Mahoney as the ordinary, can allow or disallow this. The position is not necessary. Please refer to the GIRM. You could be deputed right now on the spot to be an EMHC if a priest finds it necessary to do so. That deputation has no rights or privileges beyond helping distribute, if and only if you are needed.Altar server is not necessary either. Both are trained and deputed on the Parish level.
-Ted
-Ted
B
BulldogCath
Guest
Why not just do away with the EM’s all together? To say that a priest is “infirmed” and cant walk to the tabernacle, then maybe he should not be doing mass.
I never receive from the EM’s, I believe that unconsecrated hands should NEVER touch our Lords body. I only as well as my wife and family go to the Priest or the Deacon.
I still dont understand, with all due respect to people here who are EM’s and I am sure there are a few, what the dire need is for the laity to participate in a mass? When you go to see a concert, are you allowed to get up on stage and sing? Do these people think that they are getting more Graces by handing out the Body of Christ or reading from the Gospel------than someone like myself who stands outside of the abortion clinic to try and get “turnarounds” from entering and praying the rosary with close to 50 others each Saturday? Or as my wife does go to the nursing home and pray the rosary with Catholics and non Catholics alike?
What is the need to perform something that a Priest or Deacon, with years of seminary training behind them, can do quite well?
Nota Bene:
I never receive from the EM’s, I believe that unconsecrated hands should NEVER touch our Lords body. I only as well as my wife and family go to the Priest or the Deacon.
I still dont understand, with all due respect to people here who are EM’s and I am sure there are a few, what the dire need is for the laity to participate in a mass? When you go to see a concert, are you allowed to get up on stage and sing? Do these people think that they are getting more Graces by handing out the Body of Christ or reading from the Gospel------than someone like myself who stands outside of the abortion clinic to try and get “turnarounds” from entering and praying the rosary with close to 50 others each Saturday? Or as my wife does go to the nursing home and pray the rosary with Catholics and non Catholics alike?
What is the need to perform something that a Priest or Deacon, with years of seminary training behind them, can do quite well?
Nota Bene:
N
Nota_Bene
Guest
Defensor Fidei:
EMsHC are installed by the Cardinal along with readers – although the training is certainly at the parish level, and people can certainly be deputed on the spot.
Altar servers are not installed, although some parishes might hold they own ceremony of sorts.
Nope.Nota,
We are both under the same ordinary.
Altar server is not necessary either. Both are trained and deputed on the Parish level.
-Ted
-Ted
EMsHC are installed by the Cardinal along with readers – although the training is certainly at the parish level, and people can certainly be deputed on the spot.
Altar servers are not installed, although some parishes might hold they own ceremony of sorts.
N
Nota_Bene
Guest
You posting is amusing because it show how some people such as yourself know better (or so you think) then the Church does.
First, the Church allows EMsHC under certain situations. While the use of EMsHC have been abused in many situations, your idea that only consecrated hands should touch the Blessed Sacrament is nothing more than your own ideal that does not follow what the Church teaches.
Second, I can’t even imagine trying to compare the Mass to a concert. Poor attempt at an anology. We go to the Mass to worship Jesus Christ – not to see ordinary ministers.
Third, nice job at patting yourself on the back. By so proudly telling us of your good works, you fall into the same catagory of those who are EMsHC just to be seen and/or because they think it will get them to heaven sooner.
Finally, it’s axiomatic that ordinary ministers of the are always preferred. Unfortunately there aren’t always enough to go around. As for your suggestion that infirm priests should not “doing” Mass, well, I think that’s simply sad.
We have had priests in wheelchairs celebrate the Mass before – one was our former pastor and no, he was unable to get to the tabernacle himself.
B
BulldogCath
Guest
My own idea???what about these teachings from past and present Popes? I dont pretend to know more than the church, I am a humble man, quite aware of my faults, but I will take St Thomas, the council of Trent, and Pope Paul and JPII over corrupt liberal theoligians and “suspect” US Bishops any day. For that matter, why did the church, especially after Vatican II, allow all of these changes to take place when it knew quite well where the church stood on these topics for centuries.
And yes, I do pat myself on the back, you show little charity in belittling my saving of life and standing out in the cold at abortion clinics
**St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
“The Body of Christ must not be touched by anyone other than a
consecrated priest. No other person has the right to touch it,
except in case of extreme necessity.”
The Council of Trent (1545-1565)
“The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his
consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”
Pope Paul VI (1963-1978)
“This method [on the tongue] must be retained.”
(“Memoriale Domini”)
Pope John-Paul II
“To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own
hands is a privilege of the ordained” (Dominicae Cenae, 11).
**
Nota Bene:
And yes, I do pat myself on the back, you show little charity in belittling my saving of life and standing out in the cold at abortion clinics
**St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
“The Body of Christ must not be touched by anyone other than a
consecrated priest. No other person has the right to touch it,
except in case of extreme necessity.”
The Council of Trent (1545-1565)
“The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his
consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”
Pope Paul VI (1963-1978)
“This method [on the tongue] must be retained.”
(“Memoriale Domini”)
Pope John-Paul II
“To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own
hands is a privilege of the ordained” (Dominicae Cenae, 11).
**
Nota Bene:
B
BulldogCath
Guest
Nota Bene:
B
BulldogCath
Guest
With all due respect, I dont think I made up taking the Lords body only from consecrated hands. This has been a tradition in the church from the earliest times. I know, as I have read books on the history of the Mass as well as how the Eucarist was formerly dispensed, you are correct as it used to be given in the hand in the early church. But it is understood that people used to take it home with them and place it in a wood box. At one time a woman who was in severe mortal sin went and reached for it in the box, and the box went on fire. There were other abuses that eventually led to it being placed on the tongue by a Priest or Deacon. I am sure there are others here who probably know more than I do about this subject, but if you know church history, there was no reason to change this, other than to mimic the Protestants.
Additionally, as far as patting myself on the back, sure, standing out in the cold trying to get young mothers to turn around and not have the abortion (and I must say I and others from my Parish number maybe 10, and there so called big bad trads from St Pius X are almost 50 outside of the abortion clinic), yes I do think that is more important than trying to be some “Minister” (note-even the word Minister is Protestant).
Only consecrated hands for this Bulldog and his family
The Synod of Rouen (650)
“Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman
but only in their mouths.”
The Sixth Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681)
Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand,
threatening transgressors with Ex-Communication.
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
“The Body of Christ must not be touched by anyone other than a
consecrated priest. No other person has the right to touch it,
except in case of extreme necessity.”
The Council of Trent (1545-1565)
“The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his
consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”
Pope Paul VI (1963-1978)
“This method [on the tongue] must be retained.”
(“Memoriale Domini”)
Pope John-Paul II
“To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own
hands is a privilege of the ordained” (Dominicae Cenae, 11).
Nota Bene:
Additionally, as far as patting myself on the back, sure, standing out in the cold trying to get young mothers to turn around and not have the abortion (and I must say I and others from my Parish number maybe 10, and there so called big bad trads from St Pius X are almost 50 outside of the abortion clinic), yes I do think that is more important than trying to be some “Minister” (note-even the word Minister is Protestant).
Only consecrated hands for this Bulldog and his family
The Synod of Rouen (650)
“Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman
but only in their mouths.”
The Sixth Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681)
Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand,
threatening transgressors with Ex-Communication.
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
“The Body of Christ must not be touched by anyone other than a
consecrated priest. No other person has the right to touch it,
except in case of extreme necessity.”
The Council of Trent (1545-1565)
“The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his
consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”
Pope Paul VI (1963-1978)
“This method [on the tongue] must be retained.”
(“Memoriale Domini”)
Pope John-Paul II
“To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own
hands is a privilege of the ordained” (Dominicae Cenae, 11).
Nota Bene:
F
FenianMan
Guest
Nota Bene:
I intentionally constructed an argument about orientation that could be easily torn apart in one’s sleep. Nobody took the bait and actually deconstructed the syllogism. If we’re about real arguments here, then let’s talk like logicians.
If the word “better” is found offensive with regard to celebratory orientation then perhaps “normative historically” will suffice. I don’t quite understand why highlighting the sacrifical nature of the Mass is laughable, but if it is, then let’s talk about why. Is Mass facing the people a better mode of catechesis? If so, why?
Lastly, let’s distinguish between teaching and praxis. Church authorities at this point in history have seen fit to *allow *for the distribution of Holy Communion by Extraordinary Ministers so deputed by the legitimate authority. That doesn’t mean that the Church “teaches” extraordinary ministers, or even that they are the preferred method of distribution–it simply allows for them. It doesn’t even mean that such a practice is good, right, or holy; simply licit. Many have found that such extraordinary distribution, especially on a regular basis, is actually a catechetical disaster. The bishops as a whole or a bishop individually could abolish the practice altogether, and they wouldn’t be wrong to do so. The bishops in the Phillipines did precisely this with communion in the hand. They never *taught
*it, but they did allow it. Now that they’ve disallowed it, the teaching hasn’t changed. That being said, theology comes largely by way of explaining praxis. We developed an alternative theology of confirmation in the West to explain a peculiar practice. If the practice is found to be out of place, however, what of the theology? The Catholic Church has never *taught *a specific orientation for the celebration of the liturgy, but she has employed in praxis one dominant orientation for most of her history. As such, most of our liturgical theology comes out of an assumption of an orientation that is no longer normative to be taken for granted. The theology seems to be without flaw, so the question becomes, is the old theology wrong, the new practice, or neither. Is there a way to reconcile both? Are both acceptable but one more acceptable than the other? If so, how do you go about proving that?
Lastly, I’d like for Bene to provide one shred of historical evidence (which no one else has been able to come up with) that we have any notion whatever of the way in which the apostles said Mass. Until we do, we shouldn’t try and make general claims about historical realities that we have had no part of.
Consistently arguing ad hominem is not only poor logic, but out and out rude. Let’s not constanly label people via their arguments; especially things like “laughable” and “proud.”
I intentionally constructed an argument about orientation that could be easily torn apart in one’s sleep. Nobody took the bait and actually deconstructed the syllogism. If we’re about real arguments here, then let’s talk like logicians.
If the word “better” is found offensive with regard to celebratory orientation then perhaps “normative historically” will suffice. I don’t quite understand why highlighting the sacrifical nature of the Mass is laughable, but if it is, then let’s talk about why. Is Mass facing the people a better mode of catechesis? If so, why?
Lastly, let’s distinguish between teaching and praxis. Church authorities at this point in history have seen fit to *allow *for the distribution of Holy Communion by Extraordinary Ministers so deputed by the legitimate authority. That doesn’t mean that the Church “teaches” extraordinary ministers, or even that they are the preferred method of distribution–it simply allows for them. It doesn’t even mean that such a practice is good, right, or holy; simply licit. Many have found that such extraordinary distribution, especially on a regular basis, is actually a catechetical disaster. The bishops as a whole or a bishop individually could abolish the practice altogether, and they wouldn’t be wrong to do so. The bishops in the Phillipines did precisely this with communion in the hand. They never *taught
*it, but they did allow it. Now that they’ve disallowed it, the teaching hasn’t changed. That being said, theology comes largely by way of explaining praxis. We developed an alternative theology of confirmation in the West to explain a peculiar practice. If the practice is found to be out of place, however, what of the theology? The Catholic Church has never *taught *a specific orientation for the celebration of the liturgy, but she has employed in praxis one dominant orientation for most of her history. As such, most of our liturgical theology comes out of an assumption of an orientation that is no longer normative to be taken for granted. The theology seems to be without flaw, so the question becomes, is the old theology wrong, the new practice, or neither. Is there a way to reconcile both? Are both acceptable but one more acceptable than the other? If so, how do you go about proving that?
Lastly, I’d like for Bene to provide one shred of historical evidence (which no one else has been able to come up with) that we have any notion whatever of the way in which the apostles said Mass. Until we do, we shouldn’t try and make general claims about historical realities that we have had no part of.
O
otm
Guest
Considering that Rome has approved of the use of EMHCs, and they don’t have a problem with it, it would appear to be a case of hyper-religiosity coupled with hyper-scrupulosity.
J
jlw
Guest
Guilty as charged, I guess. For some reason, I can’t get past the check-out lady at the local Fred Meyer saying “the Body of Christ” and handing HIM to me like change after a transaction. Nor do I want my small children going up and being “blessed” by someone who looks like their aunt. If I visit the local parish, we just sit in the very back and enter the line that the priest is in.
N
Nota_Bene
Guest
The problem is with the abuse of the use of EMsHC.
I have seen four (4) EMsHC scramble up onto the sanctuary in order to serve 50 faithful. That’s horribly abusive. One EMHC was needed in order to tend the chalice and that’s it…
N
Nota_Bene
Guest
Follow the Church and not what you feel is “better.” If you feel you can discount the GIRM and RS then you need to make the full switch to Protestantism – or the SSPX.
N
Nota_Bene
Guest
Catholics need to follow the Catholic Church and not what they feel is better.
The same person who rails against the Church because of legitimate abuses becomes an instant hypocrite when they discount what the Church actually directs in favor what they believe is better.
I’m sorry, but Communion in the hand is every bit as valid and solemn as Communion on the tongue. No, women are no longer required to cover their heads in church. Yes, the normative posture for receiving Communion is standing.
It’s flat-out wrong to suggest that it’s better if one on receives on the tongue while kneeling (and wearing a hat if they are female), yet some misguided souls make such incorrect pronouncements on a daily basis…
Pray to get past your pride and follow the Church, not what you feel is superior…
B
BulldogCath
Guest
Nota
I really dont think I am better, not me by any means, I just dont understand why the church would lax all of the rules that have stood for centuries. Anybody who knew nothing about faith who first walked into a Novus Ordo Mass with the people in jeans, talking in the back, going on line , receiving the eucharist from non-consecrated laity in their hands, etc etc…And then goes to a Traditional Mass and sees the reverence and sees the Mass the way it was held for centuries and they would say…whoa, you changed from that to THIS???
But why all of these laxing of the rules in the church? People go to church to feel a sense of discipline as well as Love…we have the Love, but have lost the discipline.
Nota Bene:
I really dont think I am better, not me by any means, I just dont understand why the church would lax all of the rules that have stood for centuries. Anybody who knew nothing about faith who first walked into a Novus Ordo Mass with the people in jeans, talking in the back, going on line , receiving the eucharist from non-consecrated laity in their hands, etc etc…And then goes to a Traditional Mass and sees the reverence and sees the Mass the way it was held for centuries and they would say…whoa, you changed from that to THIS???
But why all of these laxing of the rules in the church? People go to church to feel a sense of discipline as well as Love…we have the Love, but have lost the discipline.
Nota Bene:
N
Nota_Bene
Guest
It can indeed be very difficult to deal with change – in the Church and in the World, but as Catholics we are called to follow the God through His Church, and not our own opinions of what is best.
We also need to understand precisely how the Church is directing us. With regard to the Mass, it’s primarily through the GIRM and the Code of Canon Law, plus Redemptionis Sacramentum – not the Summa Theologiae.
It’s PRIDE that keeps us from accepting what the Church directs, versus what we feel is “best.” PRIDE can be a real difficult battle. PRIDE is also a key tool of Satan.
If you want to take it a bit deeper and try to understand how the GIRM could possibly contravene the Summa Theologiae as an example, I suggest you talk to your pastor.
As for your Novus Ordo and Tridentine stereotypes, all they did was make you look naive and/or bigoted. Plenty of wonderful Novus Ordo Masses to choose from, beginning with the Daily Mass on EWTN.
B
BulldogCath
Guest
Nota
I agree, I dont mean to look bigoted, change is good…But God never changes, nor should the way we worship him. I am in a business that is cutting edge and I am well educated, but after doing much soul searching and reading on this subject (the Mass that is) I have my doubts about the Novus Ordo and the changes that are and have taken place. I still attend the NO mass, and I accept all and love my church and people, but these changes took place because the laity for many years were pushing for these changes, and were accepted while they still attended Mass. Why is it that when a conservative tries to restore something, he is called names.
It is a fact, that once something changes, it is usually gone foreever, that goes for the legalization of abortion also. We are a society that has seemed to have lost its moral ground in the 60’s and 70’s.
A simple example-when I was a teenager, shows like Happy Days and Laverne and Shirley were on TV, you never heard a profanity or sexual shows. Now, commercials for erectile disfunctions talking about erections for over 4 hours in the middle of the day, sexually explicit TV commericals one after the other, Desperate Housewives, Howard Stern, porn on the internet all of this at the reach of children-Is now commonplace, accepted, and promoted by the Jewish media and the secular society.
With the church not teaching our children proper Catechism any more, as the pastoral formation group is corrupt with liberal nuns and woman pushing for woman ordination and homosexual rights teaching our children catechism , with the teaching that one faith is equal to another as we all worship the same God, with the new Catechism totally out to lunch-it talks about finding salvation within oneself, instead of through preaching and through God (something like that as I dont remember the exact language), it is confusing to our Children and to adults, and it all goes back to Vatican II.
And I am sure you or someone may say “Well that is not the case with my child or my Parish”, but it is prevalent, widespread, and even ONE instance of poor catechism is one to many, and no one at the Bishop level has the guts to step in and enforce tradition as they feel they are going to “scare people away” from the church.
Well they are scaring people away-Right over the St Pius X that is as I personally know people I work with and family that travel great distances just to get sound teaching, the Traditional Mass, and Catechism taught by nuns that look like nuns and not the femi-nazis that we have now that look like, well lets just say they look a bit too masculine to this observer.
But I agree with you as we all must be charitable and love eachother-but acceptance is a two way street, and the Novus Ordo and Vatican II supporters are very intollerant of anyone who is into tradition-calling us “Stone Age” and “relics”. Well my wife and children are to young to be called a relic, well at least not yet!
Nota Bene:
I agree, I dont mean to look bigoted, change is good…But God never changes, nor should the way we worship him. I am in a business that is cutting edge and I am well educated, but after doing much soul searching and reading on this subject (the Mass that is) I have my doubts about the Novus Ordo and the changes that are and have taken place. I still attend the NO mass, and I accept all and love my church and people, but these changes took place because the laity for many years were pushing for these changes, and were accepted while they still attended Mass. Why is it that when a conservative tries to restore something, he is called names.
It is a fact, that once something changes, it is usually gone foreever, that goes for the legalization of abortion also. We are a society that has seemed to have lost its moral ground in the 60’s and 70’s.
A simple example-when I was a teenager, shows like Happy Days and Laverne and Shirley were on TV, you never heard a profanity or sexual shows. Now, commercials for erectile disfunctions talking about erections for over 4 hours in the middle of the day, sexually explicit TV commericals one after the other, Desperate Housewives, Howard Stern, porn on the internet all of this at the reach of children-Is now commonplace, accepted, and promoted by the Jewish media and the secular society.
With the church not teaching our children proper Catechism any more, as the pastoral formation group is corrupt with liberal nuns and woman pushing for woman ordination and homosexual rights teaching our children catechism , with the teaching that one faith is equal to another as we all worship the same God, with the new Catechism totally out to lunch-it talks about finding salvation within oneself, instead of through preaching and through God (something like that as I dont remember the exact language), it is confusing to our Children and to adults, and it all goes back to Vatican II.
And I am sure you or someone may say “Well that is not the case with my child or my Parish”, but it is prevalent, widespread, and even ONE instance of poor catechism is one to many, and no one at the Bishop level has the guts to step in and enforce tradition as they feel they are going to “scare people away” from the church.
Well they are scaring people away-Right over the St Pius X that is as I personally know people I work with and family that travel great distances just to get sound teaching, the Traditional Mass, and Catechism taught by nuns that look like nuns and not the femi-nazis that we have now that look like, well lets just say they look a bit too masculine to this observer.
But I agree with you as we all must be charitable and love eachother-but acceptance is a two way street, and the Novus Ordo and Vatican II supporters are very intollerant of anyone who is into tradition-calling us “Stone Age” and “relics”. Well my wife and children are to young to be called a relic, well at least not yet!
Nota Bene:
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
Nota Bene:
But I also admit the claims of those who point out that standards of reverence can’t really be proven to be objectively and inherently better or worse than other standards. I just think there are grounds for claiming better and worse without pure objectivity. I mean, we make judgments on good art and bad art, despite the fact that it’s an almost entirely subjective field. I hope that the above comments will serve as a bit of a window into the thought process that makes people consider traditional piety better.
The problem we’re running up against here is that standards of piety are in a state of flux. Those who defend traditional practices as better do so because they conform more closely to what they were raised to consider proper reverence for the Eucharist. Now another generation has been taught a new set of directives on propriety. The newcomers, knowing that long traditions of piety outweigh common modern practice, realize that they cannot really make a case for their piety being better in terms of traditional thought of the church. So they point out that we’re really dealing in an area without much objectivity. There can, after all, be different ways of expressing the same degree of reverence. Those in favor of traditional piety, however, point out that the new norms of reverence actually contravene norms of the piety they were raised in (for example, while it is now deemed perfectly acceptable for the laity to touch the Eucharist not only at reception but also to receive it, traditionalists do well to point out that it is very long established practice that only the ordained are supposed to touch the sacred species - and even then, only when necessary). So I can sympathize with the desire to label the older practices as better. It is not a question of new norms just changing what is considered best. They changed a wrong into a right. Not based on inherent value, but rather on long precedent and the attitudes I think can be reinforced by more modern practices, I also think the older norms are better.
But I also admit the claims of those who point out that standards of reverence can’t really be proven to be objectively and inherently better or worse than other standards. I just think there are grounds for claiming better and worse without pure objectivity. I mean, we make judgments on good art and bad art, despite the fact that it’s an almost entirely subjective field. I hope that the above comments will serve as a bit of a window into the thought process that makes people consider traditional piety better.
N
Nota_Bene
Guest
God is indeed immutable, how we worship God is not. Neither Sacred Scripture nor Sacred Tradition suggests that how we worship God is immutable.
Also, keep in mind the Tridentine Mass of today is a great deal different than the Mass of the early church, or even the pre-Trent MassES.
You’re taking a very short peek at history. Actually, things go in cycles. Abortion for example was rampant in the Roman Empire. Fifity years ago it was quite rare. Today it’s more common but on the decline (at least in the USA.)
I’m not sure what you meant by the prior paragraph, but rest assured that “Holywood” is NOT controled by Jews – it’s controlled by bean-counting WASPs of large corporations who survive on a quarter by quarter basis.
The reforms of Vatican Council II have little to do with what you are talking about. Abuse by Catholics, both clerical, religious and lay have a great deal to do with it. By the way, some parishes never wavered from having excellent catechesis…
The was horrid cathechesis WELL before V2. In fact, there has been horrid catechesis in one part of the Church or another for nearly 2000 years.
The SSPX ain’t Catholic. Anyone who would jump ship has issues that need to be dealt with in addition to the problems they are faced with at their own parishes.
Be careful of your wording. If you are indeed well-educated you’ll note that being a “Vatican II supporter” is really a prerequisite to being a Catholic Christian.
Find a good parish, attend the Mass as much as you can, spend time with the Blessed Sacrament, study the Bible and pray constantly, but don’t buy into the trash those nattering nabobs of negativism are so desperately trying to sell…
Dominus Vobiscum.
B
BulldogCath
Guest
Nota
You are correct in many ways-I was late for mass this AM to get my ashes, and nice eucharistic minister went to the back to get the ashes so I can have them as I knew I was going to have a long day at work and may not make it back in time for PM mass. The priest probably left for breakfast (just joking, maybe sleep as I leave for work early in the AM)
There is good in all
Nota Bene:
You are correct in many ways-I was late for mass this AM to get my ashes, and nice eucharistic minister went to the back to get the ashes so I can have them as I knew I was going to have a long day at work and may not make it back in time for PM mass. The priest probably left for breakfast (just joking, maybe sleep as I leave for work early in the AM)
There is good in all
Nota Bene:
- Status