Annabelle’s objection to this was that her parish does not have room for communion rails. But, as has been pointed out, that would be immaterial. The faithful could simply stand at a designated area at the foot of the Sanctuary and have the priest offer in that way.
Please Benedictal, The Holy See has not dictated that incintion is the only method to distribute the preciouos body and blood. The Good Cardinal is one voice and one of the conservative voices to which I spoke. I’m certain there are those who agree with him, but at the same time many who disagree.
However, the fact that opinion you reported seems to denigrate the mode of intinction is cause for concern.
The idea that the use of intiction would eliminate the need for EMHC is a staw dog argument. For large parishes there would still not be enough priest and deacons.
EMHCs do not intinct. Only the bishop/priest can distribute Holy Communion via intinction. There are also intinction sets. Furthermore, EMHCs would simply holding the chalice and not distributing the Precious Blood, per se. Incidentally, the guidelines do not even specifically state that an EMHC would be the one to hold the chalice. It says minister, but, that could be an instituted alcolyte. In any case, be it an EMHC or an instituted alcolyte, they would not be the ones performing the act of intinction.
Maybe, but since this priest felt this way, it only logical to believe many believe this way, which can lead to a general denigation of peoples view of the Eucharist, this is also a concern.
It is an option, but there is a but I there are very good reasons why the Holy Sea felt that this fuller sign should be allowed and done. When you want to eliminate the practice, you are then ingoring those teachings.
I doublt it would, see may other post.
Then you haven’t elimnated the need. I would have to check, but I do believe alcolytes are able to intinct, I trust that EMHC cannot, since we don’t use the practice, I havn’t read it recently, but Deacons are ordinary ministers and you left them out, they can also intinct.
While I agree with you Fab, unfortunately, you will never have the last word in this thread, no matter how often you repeat these valid points.
Deacons and alcolytes do not intinct. I have checked this wtih the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. In the citations that they gave me, including the norms for the United States, only the priest is mentioned. In the Latin version of the GIRM and Redemptionis Sacramentum, the word “sacredos” is used. The CDWDS was very specific that this was only for the celebrant to do, not anyone else.
The problem with the logic that both you and FAB have displayed is that while the bishop has the initial word, he does not act independently of the documents. He acts within the documents.
10-12 minutes wow enough time to play good meditativ sacred music and use it to pray and meditate on Christ, if that so bad? Good for your priest, I wish I could attend that mass.
He has always made the argument of liberal vs conservative and calls himself liberal, but as yet to define what liberal catholic is
That is purely your observation and personal opinion, based on your dislike for the practice. The recommendation in the rubrics, using only three stations at a well attended mass, calls for the use of eight EMHC’s - the Bishops’ stated directive.
Sirach, please do not type words into my posts. It is rather disingenous for you to make the assumptions based on what I have written. All that I am saying is that we do not have to have Holy Communion under both species and that intinction is also a legitimate option.
Has anyone on this thread actually said that intinction is the only valid method for the distribution of both species?
')? That would be a similar derogatory comment over what is (likewise) a legitmate option. Imagine how FAB would slam us if we used such language.