Are religious priests in a higher state than diocesan priests?

[Vico]

Interesting note on no. 1, the current discipline of the Catholic Church is that a person cannot self communicate.

Summa Theologiae > Third Part > Question 82 The minister of this sacrament
Article 3. Whether dispensing of this sacrament belongs to a priest alone?

I answer that, The dispensing of Christ’s body belongs to the priest for three reasons. First, because, as was said above (Article 1), he consecrates as in the person of Christ. But as Christ consecrated His body at the supper, so also He gave it to others to be partaken of by them. Accordingly, as the consecration of Christ’s body belongs to the priest, so likewise does the dispensing belong to him. Secondly, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people; hence as it belongs to him to offer the people’s gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver consecrated gifts to the people. Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it except from necessity, for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency.

Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America is the referenced in GIRM 283 and is:

49. Holy Communion may be distributed by intinction in the following manner: “the communicant, while holding the paten under the chin, approaches the priest who holds the vessel with the hosts and at whose side stands a minister holding the chalice. The priest takes the host, intincts the particle into the chalice and, showing it, says: ‘The Body and Blood of Christ.’ The communicant responds, ‘Amen,’ and receives the Sacrament on the tongue from the priest. Afterwards, the communicant returns to his or her place.”

50. The communicant, including the extraordinary minister, is never allowed to self‑communicate, even by means of intinction. Communion under either form, bread or wine, must always be given by an ordinary or extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.

 

[Arkansan]

Aquinas’s competence was theology and philosophy, not biology, nor predicting what changes would be made to the sacramental discipline of the Church ~700 years down the road. He never claimed that that priests being the only ministers of the Eucharist was of divine law, nor were his comments on conception any more inaccurate than the views then accepted by scientists. None of the other things you’ve mentioned (some of which you’ve misrepresented through lack of Aquinas’s nuance e.g. the relation of the saints to the damned) have been rejected by the Magisterium. The fact that a view is either misunderstood or politically incorrect does not make it wrong.

I agree, to be clear, that he was probably wrong about ensoulment, but the Magisterium has explicitly refrained from taking a position on that issue, and in any case its ridiculous to blame him for Roe. The Roe majority ruled as they did because they were wicked tyrants, not because they legitimately misunderstood Aquinas’s position on the morality of abortion.

If there’s anything you wish to bring up, but don’t want to publicly, feel free to PM me.

 

[Spyridon]

“Let him who is greatest among you be a servant of all; the first shall be last, and the last first.”

 

[stinkcat_14]

This was an incredibly unkind statement by whoever said this to you. Our Archdiocesan priests are very devout, very obedient, very truthful, very spiritual. We also have Franciscans here and they interact well with their brother priests There is no huge difference. Someone is planting doubt in your mind for a personal agenda. Don’t fall into those traps.

Priests are human beings. There are awkward or lukewarm priests within every Diocese and order.

But the VAST majority of both are wonderful. Focus on supporting them through prayer.

I look at diocesan and religious priests as right and left lungs. Both are important, both bring something to the table. We could get by with just one, but we are richer (spiritually) with both.

 

[Arkansan]

I would need to be reminded of the specific context to comment in detail. Suffice it to say, men and women are not interchangeable, and both would generally do poorly trying to fulfill the roles of the other. This statement is as obvious as it is unPC, and there’s certainly nothing in the Magisterium which could be taken as refuting it.

and that the saints delight in the suffering of the damned?

The saints do no delight in anything evil per se, but the sufferings of the damned are for them an occasion to rejoice both in the justice of God and in their own salvation. That is what Aquinas says, and it makes perfect sense, following logically from the principle that all knowledge is to the saints a source of joy.

. . . and trying to sidestep by saying certain things have never been explicitly “rejected by the magisterium” or that he said something but never claimed it was “divine law” are pretty thin straws to stand upon. Those qualifiers would apply to pretty much 99% of what everybody has ever said.

Criticizing him for justifying what was then the discipline of the Church is obviously unfair. Nothing he said in that regard was wrong, which is the pertinent point.

If any arguments had been advanced against the positions you listed, those could be addressed directly. Since all you did was list things he said with the implication that we know better now, nothing could be said except that his views and arguments have not been rejected by the Magisterium, and therefore remain as valid as ever.

I take offense at being accused of misrepresenting what he said . . . I decline to be wrongly implicitly accused of malice toward a doctor of the church any further

No one has accused you of malice or dishonesty. Pointing out that your representation of his positions was inaccurate or that you didn’t refute them doesn’t equate to an impugning of your motives.

 

[JamalChristophr]

I think it is essential to keep in mind that God calls a man to the priesthood in a specific place. That man’s holiness rests in his degree of cooperation with the grace of God.

Some men are called to be parish priests, or within diocesan clergy, while God calls other men to live out in vocation within a religious community. A man may wish and plan to be a priest in either one, but I believe it is God who will have the final say.

I think what we, as beggars before God, need to keep our focus on is how much we are cooperating with God’s Will in our life.

I certainly wouldn’t give a second thought to whether my vocation as a priest was somehow “a higher state” than that of a brother priest, whether it be religious or diocesan.

The priest who is most humble is in the highest state. (That is my 2 cents.)

Padre Pio said,

I want only to be a poor friar who prays.

 

[johnjacob2004]

Hi are you a priest? If so are you part of the diocese or part of an order?

 

[JamalChristophr]

I wish I were a priest, but it is not what God has called me to. If I have a religious vocation at all, it would be to be a simple brother. I like contemplation, but up to the present, I’m just a single person in the world, though I’m very fond of spending time in silent adoration of Jesus hidden in the host.

One of the saints, perhaps it was Francis of Assisi said that if he saw both an angel and a priest passing by, he would greet the priest first. That is how elevated the vocation of the priest is, as it is his hands who bring us Jesus. We must always pray daily for our priests. We must.