P
palmas85
Guest
A Priest has received the sacrament of Holy Orders. Lay People don’t and cannot… Either the sacrament means something or it doesn’t.
- Status
B
Brendan
Guest
The priest at Mass is in persona Christi. Christ Himself.
The priest is Christ Himself. The Deacon is configured to Christus Servitus, Christ the Servant.
When one recieves the Eucharist from an Ordained Minister, they recieve Christ from the hands of Christ Himself.
So yes, a cleric in Holy Orders, IS more worty, as they are Christ.
J
jj2011
Guest
The answer is none-- and Sacramentum caritatis says they shouldn’t be used without ‘true necessity,’ which of course doesn’t exist.
P
PKinsale
Guest
Paramedicgirl, can you provide the source for this? I googled the quote and got the Summa (III Q82 A13), but I have yet to find a copy of the Summa online or on my bookshelf where there is a 13th article for Quaestio 82.
A
Aramis
Guest
Given that there are parishes where there is no priest, and only a circuit priest once a month, the need may arise if these outlying communities “demand” an EF communion service. (The '62 missal includes same, specifically for Good Friday… so the liturgy exists.)
B
BobP123
Guest
Good Friday liturgy exists, but there is no communion distributed on Good Friday, at least from what I remember. I don’t think I ever heard of an EF (or Old Rite or 1962) communion “service.”
P
PKinsale
Guest
The full Aquinas (Summa, III, Q82 A3):
*Article 3. Whether dispensing of this sacrament belongs to a priest alone?
Objection 1. It seems that the dispensing of this sacrament does not belong to a priest alone. For Christ’s blood belongs to this sacrament no less than His body. But Christ’s blood is dispensed by deacons: hence the blessed Lawrence said to the blessed Sixtus (Office of St. Lawrence, Resp. at Matins): “Try whether you have chosen a fit minister, to whom you have entrusted the dispensing of the Lord’s blood.” Therefore, with equal reason the dispensing of Christ’s body does not belong to priests only.
Objection 2. Further, priests are the appointed ministers of the sacraments. But this sacrament is completed in the consecration of the matter, and not in the use, to which the dispensing belongs. Therefore it seems that it does not belong to a priest to dispense the Lord’s body.
Objection 3. Further, Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii, iv) that this sacrament, like chrism, has the power of perfecting. But it belongs, not to priests, but to bishops, to sign with the chrism. Therefore likewise, to dispense this sacrament belongs to the bishop and not to the priest.
On the contrary, It is written (De Consecr., dist. 12): “It has come to our knowledge that some priests deliver the Lord’s body to a layman or to a woman to carry it to the sick: The synod therefore forbids such presumption to continue; and let the priest himself communicate the sick.”
I answer that, **The dispensing of Christ’s body belongs to the priest for three reasons. First, because, as was said above (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.
**
Reply to Objection 1. The deacon, as being nigh to the priestly order, has a certain share in the latter’s duties, so that he may dispense the blood; but not the body, except in case of necessity, at the bidding of a bishop or of a priest. First of all, because Christ’s blood is contained in a vessel, hence there is no need for it to be touched by the dispenser, as Christ’s body is touched. Secondly, because the blood denotes the redemption derived by the people from Christ; hence it is that water is mixed with the blood, which water denotes the people. And because deacons are between priest and people, the dispensing of the blood is in the competency of deacons, rather than the dispensing of the body.
Reply to Objection 2. For the reason given above, it belongs to the same person to dispense and to consecrate this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 3. As the deacon, in a measure, shares in the priest’s “power of enlightening” (Eccl. Hier. v), inasmuch as he dispenses the blood. so the priest shares in the “perfective dispensing” (Eccl. Hier. v) of the bishop, inasmuch as he dispenses this sacrament whereby man is perfected in himself by union with Christ. But other perfections whereby a man is perfected in relation to others, are reserved to the bishop.*
*Article 3. Whether dispensing of this sacrament belongs to a priest alone?
Objection 1. It seems that the dispensing of this sacrament does not belong to a priest alone. For Christ’s blood belongs to this sacrament no less than His body. But Christ’s blood is dispensed by deacons: hence the blessed Lawrence said to the blessed Sixtus (Office of St. Lawrence, Resp. at Matins): “Try whether you have chosen a fit minister, to whom you have entrusted the dispensing of the Lord’s blood.” Therefore, with equal reason the dispensing of Christ’s body does not belong to priests only.
Objection 2. Further, priests are the appointed ministers of the sacraments. But this sacrament is completed in the consecration of the matter, and not in the use, to which the dispensing belongs. Therefore it seems that it does not belong to a priest to dispense the Lord’s body.
Objection 3. Further, Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii, iv) that this sacrament, like chrism, has the power of perfecting. But it belongs, not to priests, but to bishops, to sign with the chrism. Therefore likewise, to dispense this sacrament belongs to the bishop and not to the priest.
On the contrary, It is written (De Consecr., dist. 12): “It has come to our knowledge that some priests deliver the Lord’s body to a layman or to a woman to carry it to the sick: The synod therefore forbids such presumption to continue; and let the priest himself communicate the sick.”
I answer that, **The dispensing of Christ’s body belongs to the priest for three reasons. First, because, as was said above (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.
**
Reply to Objection 1. The deacon, as being nigh to the priestly order, has a certain share in the latter’s duties, so that he may dispense the blood; but not the body, except in case of necessity, at the bidding of a bishop or of a priest. First of all, because Christ’s blood is contained in a vessel, hence there is no need for it to be touched by the dispenser, as Christ’s body is touched. Secondly, because the blood denotes the redemption derived by the people from Christ; hence it is that water is mixed with the blood, which water denotes the people. And because deacons are between priest and people, the dispensing of the blood is in the competency of deacons, rather than the dispensing of the body.
Reply to Objection 2. For the reason given above, it belongs to the same person to dispense and to consecrate this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 3. As the deacon, in a measure, shares in the priest’s “power of enlightening” (Eccl. Hier. v), inasmuch as he dispenses the blood. so the priest shares in the “perfective dispensing” (Eccl. Hier. v) of the bishop, inasmuch as he dispenses this sacrament whereby man is perfected in himself by union with Christ. But other perfections whereby a man is perfected in relation to others, are reserved to the bishop.*
S
StMarkEofE
Guest
The TLM does not allow Eucharistic ministers. If you want to remain so it would be wise to stick with the Novus Ordo Mass.
D
demerzel85
Guest
Umm… I was answering…
Code:
Do indult TLMs use EMHCs at their liturgies, or does it depend on the community?And I indicated negative to both. This is the opposite to what you are assuming are my views
P
paramedicgirl
Guest
Don’t worry. We all figured it out.Umm… I was answering…
What about FSSP Masses?Code:Do indult TLMs use EMHCs at their liturgies, or does it depend on the community?
And I indicated negative to both. This is the opposite to what you are assuming are my views
K
kleary
Guest
I saw this thread and wanted to throw up. Just came by to say that.
As I was taught by the nuns in Catholic School- and at my first holy Communion- “It is considered sacreligious for anyone’s hands to touch the Sacred Host except for the priest who’s hands were annointed for that specific purpose.”
So no OP, lay people are not allowed to distribute Holy Communion at the Traditional Latin Mass. And “Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion” are indeed lay people and do not let them tell you otherwise.
Ken
K
KathleenElsie
Guest
Amen and Amen
K
KathleenElsie
Guest
Well said.
- Status