Confession of a Eucharistic Minister

  • Thread starter Thread starter marymonde
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You can take hyper-piety to a scrupulous extreme. You get shouted down as being a desecrator. That’s, yet. another reason for having a Magisterium: to keep laxity AND rigorism in check.
 
marymonde said:
Maurin,

These are really very good points. I know the Holy Father can change disciplines, even receiving communion in the hand by EM’s, but priests and people really are not following the directives he set on when EM’s are to be used, which is suppose to be rare. Most of the laity who become EM’s never read what the Holy Father said about them actually being one. Kwim? It is just so difficult knowing and seeing with my own eyes how Our Lord was handled. If I seem overzealous about my position, it is only because I hate to think of how He is being abused. This is a matter of the heart for me.

And yes, the trad seminaries are full, the NO ones are not. The odds are that in 100 years there will be more Traditional priests than not and the mindset will undoubtedly change. As you can see I need to work on my patience. 🙂
Click to expand...
🙂 Yes, let us pray for one another that we receive the blessing of patience and of love, without neglecting the Spiritual and Corporal Acts of Mercy! Forget not to share charity and love!

🙂 maurin
 
Caesar said:
Ok, we are getting a bit off-topic.

Lets just assume for the moment that the vast majority of communicants dont smuggle the Host out of the Church for use in Satanic rituals. Now, I think I described above in detail the manner of communion in the TLM. Compared to the average NO Mass (not the rare ones which are half-way reverant), which Mass protects the particles of the Body of Christ best?
Click to expand...
We will just go in circles forever Ceaser. They will say" The Church approves it!" Which is true, I cannot deny that. However, I still fail to see the benefit to communion in the hand, despite the Church approving it. It only opens the door wider for abuse. Not to mention all the things marymonde said - which are quite commonplace.

But I suppose THOSE don’t matter either because
Desecration is committed only by consciously and willingly “-throwing away, taking or retaining for evil purposes the consecrated species.”
Click to expand...
So carelessness and lack of respect are okay to have.
 
marymonde said:
Windmill,

What is hyper-piety?
Click to expand...
the type of piety where people, under the guise of “devotion” are trying to one-up each other and be the most pious. the end result is a bunch of legalisms that get way too scrupulous. this is what happened to the pharisees. they’d count cumin seeds, they’d wear strapless sandals on saturdays so you wouldn’t have to do any “work” on the sabbath (buckling your sandals), they considered healing a sick man on the sabbath to be “working”. they had all these obscure rules that they kept to a T, and in doing so, considered themselves “sinless”.

the main lesson to learn from this is that we should major on the majors, not major on the minors. jesus said that the pharisees neglected the weightier matters of the law to pursue these lesser ones, and in doing so, proved that their hearts were not in the right place.

as traditionalists, we should fight to restore sacredness in the liturgy, but we need to be sure and live the virtuous life, receive the sacraments, strive for holiness, and not make this fight pre-emminent in our spirituality.

our goal is saintliness, not ideal liturgy. if we get both - great. if we get great liturgy but lose our souls in the process, what have we gained.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
The Church cannot propose or permit a discipline of Her sacraments that will lead the faithful to impiety, according to the Council of Trent.
Click to expand...
I am interested in the exact quote you are talking about in Trent. This is what I could find. Is it what you mean in the above snip or one of your other references to Trent on this thread?

Trent twenty-first session chapter two:
It declares furthermore, that in the dispensation of the sacraments, salva illorum substantia, the Church may, according to circumstances, times and places, determine or change whatever she may judge most expedient for the benefit of those receiving them or for the veneration of the sacraments; and this power has always been hers. The Apostle seems to have clearly intimated this when he said: Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God;10 and that he himself exercised this power, as in many other things so in this sacrament, is sufficiently manifest, for after having given some instructions regarding its use, he says: *The rest I will set in order when I come.*11 Wherefore, though from the beginning of the Christian religion the use of both forms has not been infrequent, yet since that custom has been already very widely changed, holy mother Church, cognizant of her authority in the administration of the sacraments, has, induced by just and weighty reasons, approved this custom of communicating under either species and has decreed that it be considered the law, which may not be repudiated or changed at pleasure without the authority of the Church.
Click to expand...
 
What a load of old hooey. This kind of exteme over reaction does no one any favours.

Reception of the Most Blessed Sacrament in the hand was normal practice in the early Church.

Abuses of the Host were perpetrated even by those who received in the mouth. Remember the Eucharistic Miracle of Santarem, Portugal?

There is no sin in the distribution on behalf of the EMHC.

Of course we should take every care to ensure that no prefanation takes place, we cannot be scrupulous that each and every Host placed into the hands of the recipient does not shed a crumb or fragment.

The Angels take care of these tiny fragments that are shed due to nobodies fault.

Now relax!
 
My understanding, per Michael Davies, was that the Church cannot impose a discipline of administering the sacraments that will lead the faithful to impiety. However, as Davies goes on to say, the church may, out of a spirit of compromise, permit an exception from the imposed norm. This allowance is not guarded by the same indefectiblity.

Eg: Communion in the Hand is allowed by a rescript, but it is not the imposed norm. The pope has not come out and bound the faithful to receive in the hand as the norm. Many claim that Communion in the hand can easily lead the faithful to the impious neglect of the Real Presence.

I may be wrong, and if so, I submit to whatever. I just know that Mr. Davies knew quite a bit about this stuff.
 
Windmill said:
My understanding, per Michael Davies, was that the Church cannot impose a discipline of administering the sacraments that will lead the faithful to impiety. However, as Davies goes on to say, the church may, out of a spirit of compromise, permit an exception from the imposed norm. This allowance is not guarded by the same indefectiblity.

Eg: Communion in the Hand is allowed by a rescript, but it is not the imposed norm. The pope has not come out and bound the faithful to receive in the hand as the norm. Many claim that Communion in the hand can easily lead the faithful to the impious neglect of the Real Presence.

I may be wrong, and if so, I submit to whatever. I just know that Mr. Davies knew quite a bit about this stuff.
Click to expand...
‘The gates of hell will not prevail’ means ‘the gates of hell will not prevail’! Whether an impious and sacrilegous discipline were to be imposed by the Pontiff and bound upon all the faithful or instead permitted to the vast majority of them by a Papal indult, either way it would mean that the gates of hell have prevailed, and if Mr Davies thinks otherwise I’d take a good hard look at him.
 
Pug said:
I am interested in the exact quote you are talking about in Trent. This is what I could find. Is it what you mean in the above snip or one of your other references to Trent on this thread?

Trent twenty-first session chapter two:
Click to expand...
Mine has an anathema attached. I’ll have to look for it. I haven’t had time to address Marymonde yet. I’ll look before I do.
 
djrakowski said:
It would be interesting indeed. What is even more interesting is how those who oppose the practice of communion in the hand do so in opposition to a practice that is permitted by the Church.
Click to expand...
The General says attack at dawn. As an officer with some experince, you think it would be better to attack at midnight.

That observation does not commit you to saying that the General has no right to order an attack at dawn, that the General isn’t the rightful General, that he is deliberately trying to lose the battle.

You make your objections known and he says “OK, some of you can go in at midnight if you want”. Naturally you send your men in at midnight, and you encourage the other officers to do the same. However you cannot legitimately criticise those who go with the main body of the army.
 
Windmill said:
the type of piety where people, under the guise of “devotion” are trying to one-up each other and be the most pious. the end result is a bunch of legalisms that get way too scrupulous. this is what happened to the pharisees. they’d count cumin seeds, they’d wear strapless sandals on saturdays so you wouldn’t have to do any “work” on the sabbath (buckling your sandals), they considered healing a sick man on the sabbath to be “working”. they had all these obscure rules that they kept to a T, and in doing so, considered themselves “sinless”.

the main lesson to learn from this is that we should major on the majors, not major on the minors. jesus said that the pharisees neglected the weightier matters of the law to pursue these lesser ones, and in doing so, proved that their hearts were not in the right place.

as traditionalists, we should fight to restore sacredness in the liturgy, but we need to be sure and live the virtuous life, receive the sacraments, strive for holiness, and not make this fight pre-emminent in our spirituality.

our goal is saintliness, not ideal liturgy. if we get both - great. if we get great liturgy but lose our souls in the process, what have we gained.
Click to expand...
A light in the darkness. God bless you.
 
windmill- I respectfully disagree. My words in purple:

the main lesson to learn from this is that we should major on the majors, not major on the minors. jesus said that the pharisees neglected the weightier matters of the law to pursue these lesser ones, and in doing so, proved that their hearts were not in the right place.

Since when was the Holy Mass a “minor”?

as traditionalists, we should fight to restore sacredness in the liturgy, but we need to be sure and live the virtuous life, receive the sacraments, strive for holiness, and not make this fight pre-emminent in our spirituality.

Shame there even has to be anyone having to “fight” for the right to a Mass done reverently.

our goal is saintliness, not ideal liturgy. if we get both - great. if we get great liturgy but lose our souls in the process, what have we gained.

False dichotomy.
 
Hell;) ,

I didn’t mean to imply that the liturgy is a “minor”. your clarification is well-received. however, i would argue that the liturgy is the domain of the holy see, and, thus, it is something that is out of our control and responsibility. so, in the hierarchy of responsibilities, our personal sanctitiy is a higher priority than the church’s legislation on the liturgy. that being the case, we need to major on the higher priorities.

i should add, jesus said to the pharisees who were obsessed with all the little laws, that “these you should have done without neglecting the weightier matters of the law”. so, jesus didn’t say to avoid the minor laws, just don’t give them preemminence.

as far as the “false dichotomy” you mention, i disagree. if one is uncharitable, slanderous, and hateful in acheiving the end of, say, having a TLM offered in his parish, he may get great liturgy, but his soul is marred by the sins mentioned above. the ideal is to strive for charity in such dealings.
 
Windmill said:
Hell;) ,

I didn’t mean to imply that the liturgy is a “minor”. your clarification is well-received. however, i would argue that the liturgy is the domain of the holy see, and, thus, it is something that is out of our control and responsibility. so, in the hierarchy of responsibilities, our personal sanctitiy is a higher priority than the church’s legislation on the liturgy. that being the case, we need to major on the higher priorities.

i should add, jesus said to the pharisees who were obsessed with all the little laws, that “these you should have done without neglecting the weightier matters of the law”. so, jesus didn’t say to avoid the minor laws, just don’t give them preemminence.

as far as the “false dichotomy” you mention, i disagree. if one is uncharitable, slanderous, and hateful in acheiving the end of, say, having a TLM offered in his parish, he may get great liturgy, but his soul is marred by the sins mentioned above. the ideal is to strive for charity in such dealings.
Click to expand...
Liturgy is important, but it is not paramount.

Sometimes it is better to tolerate minor abuses for the greater good of the parish community. For instance Eucharistic Ministers are usually good members. Anatognising them by insisting on the correct title of “Extraordinary Minister of the Holy Eucharist” isn’t usually the best idea, though done with good motives.
 
Malcolm_McLean said:
Liturgy is important, but it is not paramount.

Sometimes it is better to tolerate minor abuses for the greater good of the parish community. For instance Eucharistic Ministers are usually good members. Anatognising them by insisting on the correct title of “Extraordinary Minister of the Holy Eucharist” isn’t usually the best idea, though done with good motives.
Click to expand...
Why would referring to them as what they are antagonize them in the least? That is of course assuming they know what they are, which often appears not to be the case.
 
The actual name is "Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion". It emphasizes the fact that they are helping administer the rite of Communion. They are not, in fact, ministers of the Eucharist. The only true “Eucharistic Ministers” are those that can confect the Eucharist (ie, Bishops and Priests). Even a Deacon isn’t a Eucharistic Minister, much less a layman. Minsters of Holy Communion are divided into Ordinary and Extraordinary. Bishops, priests, and deacons are ordinary ministers of HC.

Part of the problem with these EMHC’s is that they think the church invented this role to get them to participate more at Mass. Though JPII and BXVI have started pulling in the reigns of this problem, people seriously believe they are “ministers” like a priest is. If you even intimate that these people whould be looking forward to, and praying for, the day when they can happily relinquish this role to an ordained minister, they’d look at you like you were robbing grandmothers in the subway. How dare you take away their identity as a Catholic Minister?

Sorry…soapbox…
 
Windmill said:
The actual name is "Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion". It emphasizes the fact that they are helping administer the rite of Communion. They are not, in fact, ministers of the Eucharist. The only true “Eucharistic Ministers” are those that can confect the Eucharist (ie, Bishops and Priests). Even a Deacon isn’t a Eucharistic Minister, much less a layman. Minsters of Holy Communion are divided into Ordinary and Extraordinary. Bishops, priests, and deacons are ordinary ministers of HC.
Click to expand...
You would be hard pressed to find a Diocese in North America where the Extraordinary Ministers are actualy extraordinary.

What I dont understand is why the Holy See thinks the laity can be trusted with the Body of Christ.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top