If it is an overstated concern, why did Rome bother issuing it in the first place?
Is the distribution both species a necessity, a true necessity (which is one of the critiera set by R.S.? Cannot the priest intinct the Eucharist? As I metioned earlier in the article, it is an option always and everywhere.
The RS states that the Ministry is not to be used to increase the role of the Laity. I read this to mean if they are not necessicary, don’t have them for this purpose. The fact that they are necessary troubles many, since it points to the shortage of priest and deacons, but the fact that it does mean greater involvemement can be seen as the Lord providing for His Church through other means and as such a blessing.
Actually, FAB is correct. Though the term “conservative” has no place in the Church, it does tend to mean something specific that most of us understand. However, I’ve read something somewhere about this spiritual formation of EMHCs. But it applies to all of us, not just EMHCs. It’s about forming oneself to be mindful at all times what is taking place. Setting a good example is the opportunity that you are meeting. Perhaps God is not calling you to serve. Then you should set it aside and let it be. That way it will not disturb your peace.
FYI, the priestly blessing after the Penitential Rite is absolutive in nature, but not Sacramental. (GIRM 51)
Since recieving from the cup is allowed and has been encourage, the necessity has been created by the Church. This becomes a mixed message. The good men of Rome are often out of touch with the real world. It’s one of the reason why the final decisions are left to the local ordinary.
So where do we move to get this luxury? I’d love that. I do believe you are correct about communion going much quicker and smoother with the rail. It works great at the Anglican use parish I mentioned. However, unless a parish is allowed or else to do this then its not just going to happen. But boy do I wish it would. I would serve in a different capacity.
As I said through my own personal experiance, and my work in the Church. It is not the only way, but is is one way, and a way that works for many.
What definition would that be? In this context it would appear to mean following the rules
This is wonderful and I’m happy for you both. However, it does not necessarily mean you have the greatest understanding of the Lord among the laity in your parish.
I’m quite peaceful thank you. I’m also fascinated at the insights into my fellow Catholics I’m gaining in this discussion.
Can I ask you about this? You describe yourself as a real traditionalist because you are in favour of married clergy?
I’m sure you’ve had a wonderful personal experience as an EMHC. God bless you for that. However, my dear friend, I doubt you know how well every member of your parish understands the Lord. Nor do you know the understanding level of any other parish. You may have a saint in your midst. Having such zeal for the Lord and carrying out a duty for the parish is one thing, but thinking your understanding is automatically higher than the non-EMHCs is another.
Of course. We all already do. Are you Catholic? Then you support a married priesthood. It’s pretty simple. Now, I know you’ll ask me why. But you’ve already admitted to ignorance of the eastern rites. A thousand years ago the western Church also had a married priesthood. At one time it was not universally mandated. There were pockets of mandated celibate priests. And none of us here are truly disposed to speak properly on this subject dealing with the western church. But go on the eastern Catholic forum of CAF and try to say what you just said to me. I’ve admitted all the way through that I would prefer to transfer to the eastern or Byzantine Catholic Church. So this should not surprise anyone, assuming they know anything about the differences and my reasons for it.
My apologies. I assumed we were discussing the Roman Rite/Latin Church. You are correct, I know virtually nothing about the Eastern Rites. I know some are in schism and some are not, that’s about it. At this time I’m not interested in learning about them, but if that changes I’ll be happy to chat with you in their forum.
I do believe the holy father wants us to learn about each other though. Unity will only occur when we have enough charity to try to know each other. As far as the Latin rite returning to a married priesthood, I’m open if the holy father declares it acceptable once again. If our current clergy were honest about their celibate vocations that should not produce a problem for any of them. Bishops are always required to be celibate even in the Eastern Orthodox Church. I used to get upset defending celibacy too using really misguided things I was taught. But now I understand vocations better than back then. Wives will certainly cause a lot of problems. My wife gets jealous with me just talking to some women - even on here. So I avoid exposing my emotions and avoid playing into the hands of women playing unsuspecting fools like myself. She had a lot of problems with me becoming a Protestant clergy. But now she supports me, for the first time, in becoming a really ordained deacon, which is even more than a protestant preacher of any kind (no offense to my Protestant friends). I wish the Church would allow ordained permanent deacons to participate in the TLM. That would be an awesome experience. BTW: I say my rosary in Latin. I am traditional, but not to the point of SSPX or other similar groups. My dad was like that, which in contrast to my anti-Catholic mother led me down the road of deep confusion. My mother’s death opened the door for me to return to Catholicism. Unfortunately, my dad never got to see me return.
The pope is certainly a good man, but the are many councils and departments made up of Cardinals, Bishops, Theologians and priest. Many voices are heard before any document is issued. These voice go from traditional and concervative to liberal and progressive. As in civil politics it is often the ones in middle that swing decisions. We believe that any decision is ultimated guided by the Holy Spirit.
I never said EMHC automatically have a higher understanding, but that it does provide a path to know the Lord better. Any path that leads to a higher understanding and personal spiritality is a good thing and each person finds there own paths. Eliminating EMHC would take that path away for many, which is on of the reasons I disagree with a priest decision to take them out of his parish.