Do you avoid female Extraordinary Ministers Of the Holy Eucharist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ridesawhitehors
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A&O:
Don’t make such sweeping and incorrect statements.
While Anglican, I believed in Transubstantiation and had plans to buy a monstrance for my old parish. I was supportive of Corpus Christi processions, adoration, and benediction. All of which are tolerated in Anglicanism. (Usually found in the Anglo-Catholic Churches)

Anglicans, even of the lower branch, generally acknowledge the True Presence (as it is an official belief).
The Book of Common Prayer refers to the even Mass (as it is called) as a sacrifice.
Click to expand...
When I said anglicans don’t believe in the real presence, I was saying it assuming that they have been exposed to the Catholic Church’s teaching. Many of them know they don’t have the real presence and deliberately reject the Catholic Church’s teaching. They may think its the real presence but it isn’t since they are not in communion with Rome. Anglicans are not Catholic, I will never recognize them as catholic. To say Anglo-Catholic in of intself means that they are catholic. That is to say they are catholic with a disobedience to Rome agenda. It is true that they are not in communion with Rome, but it’s not the same thing as calling them anglo-catholic.
 
40.png
mlchance:
Pay careful attention: It was stated that EMHCs detract from the office of the priest. No evidence is offered for this assertion; it is merely made as a bald assertion.

This is exactly the same kind of argumentation used by anti-Catholics against Mary. Basically, it is predicated on the mistaken notion that God cannot/will not share his glory with others.

All baptised Christians share in Christ’s priestly ministry. A very few do so via the Sacrament of Holy Orders. As such, these ordained man have unique roles to fill. No argument.

But the role of ministry is not unique to the priesthood, just as the role of intercessor between man and Christ is not unique to Mary. We are all intercessors.

The Church has seen fit to allow certain members of the laity to exercise their share of the priesthood of the believers by assisting in the distribution of Christ’s Body and Blood at Mass. This doesn’t detract from the priest’s unique role of acting in persona Christi.

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
Interesting arguement, one that I can’t disagree with. Yet, when you say:
It was stated that EMHCs detract from the office of the priest. No evidence is offered for this assertion; it is merely made as a bald assertion.
Click to expand...
That isn’t really true. I have explained how I think it does, in many posts, and you merely have disagreed, but citing no “evidence” (as you put it) of your own. So, really maybe you and and I just have opinions or assertions. I say it does affect the priesthood, you say it doesn’t. I can put the burden of proof back on you. Can you prove a negative??

I think I just have a “separation of powers” kinda argument when it comes to this. No doubt a senator plays an important role in government, but he/she isn’t the president, and shouldn’t do the presidents job. Is that a lame analogy?? :o
 
Affirmed: I prefer to recieve from a preist because he stands in persona Christe, of course. But I understand that this is not always possible. And I trust the Church to provide an alternative.
Click to expand...
100% agreed. And where it is absolutly and obviously UNnecessary??
Disobedience to Rome doesn’t come in the form of our preferences. It is in how we act out those preferences. It is more Christ-like to be obedient to the will of His Church, even though it may go aganist our own wants.
Click to expand...
Yes, very true. AND…prefering to recieve communion from Persona Christi and pridefully (and publicly) bucking the GIRM are two different things, aren’t they??
Christ Himself was obedient to the Father, suffering an agonizing death. Surely this small cross, recieveing from a person whom His Church has delegated to assist our priests is not too much for Him? Even if we would prefer to receieve from His priest?
Click to expand...
When it is ABSOLUTELY necessary?? Of course. No problem. Done it before, will do it again, if necessary. I go to a parish that doesn’t have emcs, and when I go elsewhere, whether it’s for a daily mass, holy days of obligation, or due to scheduling conflicts, I sit in the pew that the priest will minister, if emcs are “necessary”.
 
40.png
ridesawhitehors:
I don’t have to answer this question at my church - because our priest would never have a female EM - “There will be no panty hose on my altar.” is what he says.
But my friend says when she goes to a different church she will go to the line where the priest is serving if there is a female EM.
What do you think?
Click to expand...
Avoid the female EM who are menstrating. Its an offense to God. The others are okay.
 
A&O:
You apparently did not even read my post. I am a former Anglican who is now a Roman Catholic in union with the Holy Father.

Further more, I never said Anglicans had a valid Eucharist. I said ** they ** believe that they do.
Click to expand...
There is an even more serious problem of historical inaccuracy in the post. The Anglicans did not lose their orders because they broke with Rome. If that were true then the Orthodox Church’s would have no valid orders either, but they do, and so the assertion is patently false. The Anglicans lost their orders with the re-composition of the rite of ordination in the Book of Common Prayer, which didn’t happen until years after the initial split. To suggest that the reason that they lost their orders was because of the split is essentially Donatism–that is, to assert that sin (in this case schism) could render the confection of a valid sacrament impossible.

Further, the assertions about the Anglican Communion and its orders are sloppy at best. Leo XIII declared Anglican Orders invalid as of 1896. Subsequent to that declaration a number of high Church Anglicans (the kind that would have things like monstrances) have had their bishops and priests ordained using Old Catholic or Eastern lines of succession. That means that *some *Anglicans do have a valid priesthood and so a valid Eucharist.

This is not at all to suggest that the Anglican answer works, as it clearly doesn’t, but we need to be careful with both the tone and content of our posts.
 
40.png
jlw:
Interesting arguement, one that I can’t disagree with.
Click to expand...
Then that’s all I need say. 😃
40.png
jlw:
I have explained how I think it does, in many posts, and you merely have disagreed, but citing no “evidence” (as you put it) of your own. So, really maybe you and and I just have opinions or assertions. I say it does affect the priesthood, you say it doesn’t. I can put the burden of proof back on you. Can you prove a negative??
Click to expand...
Suppositions aren’t evidence. Where is the evidence of the use of EMHC, female or otherwise, detrimentally affecting the office of the priest? It is not clear that there is a cause-effect relationship.

And, yes, in limited instances it is possible to prove a negative. In this case, however, such efforts would largely be arguments from silence, which prove nothing. 😃

– Mark L. Chance.
 
40.png
bluerose:
Just a thought…

Since there are SOOO many people receiving communion in some parishes that creates a necessity to have EMEs so that the lone priest won’t have to distribute communion for longer than 10 minutes or so, I have to wonder about something…

How long does it take Father to get through all those confessions he must be hearing every Saturday? I mean, you must be in a state of grace to receive the Body and Blood of Jesus, and I know that, speaking for myself, I have to go at least once a month, so if we figure that there are (just to grab a number from one of the latest posts) 2200 communicants on any given weekend, then divide that by 4 weeks, there should be an average of 550 people going to confession on any given Saturday. Even with 3 priests, that’s still more than 180 people per priest going to confession on any given Saturday. Right?

Riiiiiiight…

St. John Vianney (who used to spend 12 hours a day hearing confessions), pray for us!

BlueRose
Click to expand...
We didn’t have that average of confessions before Vatican 2; what makes you think we should have them now?
 
jlw said:
** **

Why?

My thoughts exactly.

Why?

Why?

Why?
Click to expand...

You asked why I said that if there are priests available (and/or deacons), they should be distributing before an EMHC. It is because that is the rule of the Church, as expressed in the GIRM.
 
40.png
mlchance:
Pay careful attention: It was stated that EMHCs detract from the office of the priest. No evidence is offered for this assertion; it is merely made as a bald assertion.

This is exactly the same kind of argumentation used by anti-Catholics against Mary. Basically, it is predicated on the mistaken notion that God cannot/will not share his glory with others.

All baptised Christians share in Christ’s priestly ministry. A very few do so via the Sacrament of Holy Orders. As such, these ordained man have unique roles to fill. No argument.

But the role of ministry is not unique to the priesthood, just as the role of intercessor between man and Christ is not unique to Mary. We are all intercessors.

The Church has seen fit to allow certain members of the laity to exercise their share of the priesthood of the believers by assisting in the distribution of Christ’s Body and Blood at Mass. This doesn’t detract from the priest’s unique role of acting in persona Christi.

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
that’s one of the better answers I have seen or heard. Well done.
 
40.png
katherine2:
Avoid the female EM who are menstrating.
Click to expand...
:rotfl:

Thanks for the laugh. I haven’t had mine for the day.

I does put a little perspective into our arguements. Where is the evidence? Who is to interpret it?

Give our leaders the benefit of the doubt until proven incompetent (or idiotic).
 
40.png
jlw:
It is not the cause. But it contributes to…

Bingo.

No, but there is a underlying context that emphasizies the “sameness” of laypeople and priests,…in a way de-empasizing the specialness of the priesthood, and the hierarchegal (sp?) way we theologically see things (badly articulated, maybe you can translate?? :o )

Agreed, if I said it was the reason. It isn’t. But it is a factor, much like female altar servers, much like the feminization of our Catechesis over the years
Click to expand...
Horse patooties! We have one priest(in his 70’s), and at the 10:30 Mass we have three other EMHCs distributing the Host, and 6 administering the Cup.

Oh, and we have girl altar servers.

And we have one priest (or is it two?) ordained within the last few years, one seminarian, two (or is it now 3?) women who have joined the convent, one just recently ordained deacon, and one in studies.

Girl altar servers have nothing to do with vocations or the lack of them.

EMHCs (even women EMHCs :eek: , heaven forbid!!!) have nothing to do with vocations, or the shortage thereof.

Prayer has a lot to do with it; we have 24 hour adoration, and have had for a number of years. THAT has something to do with it.
 
40.png
katherine2:
Avoid the female EM who are menstrating. Its an offense to God. The others are okay.
Click to expand...
I don’t get it, how would you tell if they are? and just in general huh?:confused:
 
40.png
bones_IV:
When I said anglicans don’t believe in the real presence, I was saying it assuming that they have been exposed to the Catholic Church’s teaching. Many of them know they don’t have the real presence and deliberately reject the Catholic Church’s teaching. They may think its the real presence but it isn’t since they are not in communion with Rome. Anglicans are not Catholic, I will never recognize them as catholic. To say Anglo-Catholic in of intself means that they are catholic. That is to say they are catholic with a disobedience to Rome agenda. It is true that they are not in communion with Rome, but it’s not the same thing as calling them anglo-catholic.
Click to expand...
You are trying to split hairs with a dull razor. Anglicans believe in the True Presence. Their theology is wrong (and they do not have a sacramental priesthood due to changes in the ordination ceremony), but if they use the term Anglo-Catholic, while I agree with you that does not make them in union with Rome, they can decide by what name they go, and it is not up to you to change that name.

As far as you not recognizing them as Catholic, you ought to tone down your sweeping statements, as there is permission from Rome for those Anglicans who have reunited to continue with a good portion of their format. If you walked into one of their churches during Mass, you would probably not be able to distinguish which one was in union with Rome and which was not.

I would also challenge your staatement that many of them know they do not have the True Presence. Where do you get this evidence?

And if we want to go one further, they are united with the Catholic Church, although incompletely. They are united through the sacrament of baptism, which they are fully capable of administering and which the Catholic Church acknowledges as valid baptism.

By the way, it is not the fact that they are not in communion with Rome that denies them the True Presence; it is the loss of the sacramental priesthood.

The Orthodox are not in union with Rome, but they do have a sacramental priesthood, and they do have the True Presence.
 
40.png
katherine2:
Avoid the female EM who are menstrating. Its an offense to God. The others are okay.
Click to expand...
You got suspended for just this type of sick comment in the past, didn’t you?
 
We usually have 3 extra ministers at Sunday mass, they include some women, they always dress appropriately and are dismissed before the congregation to take communion to the sick.
I would not dream of avoiding them:)
 
40.png
otm:
You would make a very god Mormon, as you seem to define your faith by your feelings.
Click to expand...
otm, I’m still waiting for you to explain this statement.
 
Pariah Pirana:
You got suspended for just this type of sick comment in the past, didn’t you?
Click to expand...
I also recall reading a nearly identical (and equally unfunny) statement before. I cannot say with certainty who posted it the first time, but you might just be correct!
 
I am an equal opportunity Extraordinary Minister avoider and I do so on the basis of priestly status - not gender, race, or age.

🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top