J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
With respect, where is it stated that intinction is the prefered method?
- Status
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Reception in the hand is allowed by the Church. The Church is protected INFALLIBLY in whatever discipline she establishes. That is to say, if a discipline is established or permitted by the Church, it cannot lead the faithful to impiety. Itsjustdave, one of the more able apologists on the forums, listed a detailed citation of papal teaching explaining how disciplines are protected infallibly rectently. I don’t think it survived the crash, but I’d be happy to ask him to repost.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
As for extraordinary ministers, they are much abused in some places, but we need them for the Sunday masses in my parish. The priests already have the sermons timed down, masses are an hour and a half apart, yet people are arriving for masses as we’re leaving the church. If the priest didn’t have help, he’d run over substantially. We’ve had to ADD masses to accomodate the number of people, indeed, the only room to move now would be a second vigil Mass on Saturday evening. The EMHCs are of some value and we should be grateful to them, esp. since many of them also take the Blessed Sacrament to the sick and homebound.
What I find bothersome is this: at a Saturday AM Mass I attend, there is a priest AND a deacon. This Mass is very well attended (between 250-300 people), but it doesn’t compare to a Sunday Mass at the same parish (where people are parking blocks away) and yet they still feel the need to trot out a disproportionate number of EMHCs. If we all came to the central aisle, the priest and deacon could communicate ALL of the faithful in an entirely reasonable time, the deacon standing behind the priest with the chalice, or both of them offereing both Sacred Species through intinction, side by side. It’s like someone somewhere is afraid to say,“Look, we don’t need EMHCs this time” for fear of offending them.
What I find bothersome is this: at a Saturday AM Mass I attend, there is a priest AND a deacon. This Mass is very well attended (between 250-300 people), but it doesn’t compare to a Sunday Mass at the same parish (where people are parking blocks away) and yet they still feel the need to trot out a disproportionate number of EMHCs. If we all came to the central aisle, the priest and deacon could communicate ALL of the faithful in an entirely reasonable time, the deacon standing behind the priest with the chalice, or both of them offereing both Sacred Species through intinction, side by side. It’s like someone somewhere is afraid to say,“Look, we don’t need EMHCs this time” for fear of offending them.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
That is not quite true. For the Church to state that reception in the hand is to be withdrawn–if there is a risk of profanation—She well knows that impiety or worse can occur.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#Chapter%20III
[92.] Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice,[178] if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.[179]
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
You are splitting hairs. If the church says that a certain action is allowed (which is did with receiving communion in the hand), then it has to be correct otherwise it would have lead the faithful who listened to it into sin – which, according to Christ’s assurance, it can not do.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
The Church does not lead anyone into sin. People lead themselves into sin. There is a distinction between the Church and the people in the Church. RS [92] is to protect our Lord from any form of profanation deriving from the people.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
That’s where you are wrong. If the message from Rome is that it is now okay to receive communion in the hand and that is what the local churches start teaching the new children who are going to first communion and they start receiving in the hand and it turns out that it is wrong – who bears the guilt for that? The little children? I don’t think so. The local churches for doing what Roman said was okay? I don’t think so! It’s the official church. Thus, IF that happened, then it WOULD be the church leading the people into sin. Since we have Christ assurance that will never happen, we do not have to worry about whether or not this discipline is wrong because if the church approved it, it CAN NOT be wrong.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
You seem to have a mixed up understanding of what our Lords assurance is. Communion in the hand is a discipline allowed by the Church,----I am not arguing against it. If at some point there is any danger of profaning our Lord–it can be withdrawn. This would be the way our Lord assures the protection of the Church—that She can withdraw communion in the hand.
Now lets talk about sin. As I stated before—the Church does not lead anyone into sin. We are responsible for our own sins. The Church did not allow communion in the hand with the intent of having someone abuse it or profane our Lord—so She is in no way responsible for the actions someone can take.
As to children who are being taught to receive in the hand. If at some pt. reception in the hand is withdrawn—they will just learn to receive on the tongue—like many of us do. They would just need to be told that because some people were profaning our Lord ---- receiving in the hand would no longer be allowed. The Church would continue to be protected by our Lord.
Now lets talk about sin. As I stated before—the Church does not lead anyone into sin. We are responsible for our own sins. The Church did not allow communion in the hand with the intent of having someone abuse it or profane our Lord—so She is in no way responsible for the actions someone can take.
As to children who are being taught to receive in the hand. If at some pt. reception in the hand is withdrawn—they will just learn to receive on the tongue—like many of us do. They would just need to be told that because some people were profaning our Lord ---- receiving in the hand would no longer be allowed. The Church would continue to be protected by our Lord.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
I’m not talking about abuse that COULD happen. I’m saying that if the church allows communion to be received in the hand, then THAT action can not be sinful sin the church approved it.
M
Marian_Carroll
Guest
Gentle Reminder:
The topic of this thread, at least from the title, is Extraordinary Ministers…
The topic of this thread, at least from the title, is Extraordinary Ministers…
W
Walking_Home
Guest
I did not say the the Church allowing reception in the hand is sinful. It would be a person’s own actions that may lead to danger to our Lord. RS [92] is written to protect our Lord from any form of profanation.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
So we are in agreement.
The comment was made that lay people should not touch the host and therefore, there should be no EMHC.
Now that THAT objection is out of the way, we can swing back to the original topic of EMHC as we were reminded to do by our moderator
The comment was made that lay people should not touch the host and therefore, there should be no EMHC.
Now that THAT objection is out of the way, we can swing back to the original topic of EMHC as we were reminded to do by our moderator
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Popes have still taught that the Church is infallible in the disciplines she establishes. So if the Church permits it, it cannot be termed an abuse. Now, people can abuse a discipline of the Church, but that’s because of their own sin/sinful nature, not because of the discipline. The Most Sacred Body was secreted away for nefarious purposes before Communion in the hand was re-established or again permitted. Is the Church responsible for that? No.
Sir Knight is quite correct. Since the Church allows EMHCs and they must, per force, touch the Sacred Species, the office/service is not of itself an abuse. Can it be abused? Yes.
B
Brendan
Guest
The later part of the CCC link
The usual form of recieving Communion is the Eastern Rite is the most complete sign.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
I did not say it was an abuse. What I said is that the Church has taken into account the possibility of peoples own actions causing harm to our Lord-----that is the purpose of RS[92].
As to the EMHC’s-----I again—did not state the office is an abuse.They are a provisional service and the Church has asked for prayers to increase vocations so that eventually this service will no longer be necessary.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Sorry, I don’t read it that way. I read it to say that reception of both of the Sacred Species is a fuller sign. The CCC then goes on to state how it is done in the Eastern Churches, but makes no recomendation as to adopting it for the Western Church (though we certainly could), where the tradition, when rec. both of the Sacred Species, is to rec. from the Chalice. I don’t argue against intinction, I simply argue that it is not the recommended practice for the Western Church by the competent authority.
T
TimOliv
Guest
Slow it down, speed racer. You are looking entirely too far into a passing statement.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
You seem to like calling people names – “Martin Luther”, “Speed Racer”, …
Not very charitable :nope: especially the “Martin Luther” insult towards a long-time and respected member.
Not very charitable :nope: especially the “Martin Luther” insult towards a long-time and respected member.
S
Saint_Sinner
Guest
Actually, JPII in Redemptionis Sacramentum:
“[156.] This function is to be understood strictly according to the name by which it is known, that is to say, that of extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, and not “special minister of Holy Communion” nor “extraordinary minister of the Eucharist” nor “special minister of the Eucharist”, by which names the meaning of this function is unnecessarily and improperly broadened.”
T
TimOliv
Guest
I wasn’t calling anyone a Martin Luther wannabe, I was calling the statement proposed an ideal sounding more like Lutheran theology than Catholic.
- Status