Extraordinary Ministers

[TimOliv]

On this, we agree.

Very good, if we break things down too far we will inevitably find disagreement, let’s let it rest there before we become honorary Pharisees.

Phew…wanna go halves on a pie?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Well, it states clearly in the GIRM that only the priest is supposed to do that.

And your question is, if a priest tells you to commit a liturgical abuse that you are aware is a liturgical abuse, what are you supposed to do?

NOT DO IT

So you would disobey church authority even though the infallible Word of God tells us in the 13th chapter Heb. that we are to obey our church leaders.

 

[TimOliv]

So you would disobey church authority even though the infallible Word of God tells us in the 13th chapter Heb. that we are to obey our church leaders.

So Liturgical abuse is okay when a priest says it is?

 

[LilyM]

If a priest told me to strip down to my skivees and do the “funky chicken” after Communion, I would respectfully decline. And that is not even specifically prohibited by a law (just common sense).

That wasn’t such obvious common sense to King David when he stripped down and danced before the Lord. I somehow doubt that he was as great a dancer as he was a warrior or poet/musician. At least history doesn’t record him as a great dancer, so he probably was doing something about on the level of the funky chicken At least his wife Michal who was upset by it seems to have thought so

This attitude that whatever a priest says goes is what gave rise to Star Trek Masses and clown Masses and Rocky Horror Picture Show Masses in decades past.

:bigyikes: I have never seen a Mass that purported to be on any of these themes, nor do I have a desire to hear about all the gory details thereof. Suffice it to say that a Rocky Horror Mass strikes me as being particularly awful.

 

[PerkyCurlz]

I think they should be abolished…

Only the Consecrated hands of an Ordained Priest should ever touch Our Blessed Lord.

We, as the People of God, share in Christ’s priestly vocation and have consecrated hands.

To quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

On entering the People of God through faith and Baptism, one receives a share in this people’s unique, *priestly *

vocation: "Christ the Lord, high priest taken from among men, has made this new people ‘a kingdom of priests to God, his Father.’ “The baptized, by regeneration and the anointing of the Holy Spirit are *consecrated *to be a spiritual house and a holy priesthood.” (CCC 784)

 

[Sir_Knight]

So Liturgical abuse is okay when a priest says it is?

I didn’t say that. I said that church authority needs to be obeyed. Off the top of my head I can rattle off at least half a dozen biblical passages teaching this.

If a priest told me to do something that was not obviously wrong, I would give him the benefit of the doubt and concluded that he was aware of some exception in church law that I wasn’t aware of and obey his authority as the bible tells us to do.

 

[Hegesippus]

We, as the People of God, share in Christ’s priestly vocation and have consecrated hands.

To quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Yes we are all baptized prophet, priest, and king, but I did not know my hands were consecrated. Where is that idea from?

 

[Hegesippus]

So you would disobey church authority even though the infallible Word of God tells us in the 13th chapter Heb. that we are to obey our church leaders.

I think by disobeying the Priest and following the Girm you would be obeying the Church leaders, the Holy Father, as well as those who are in charge of the liturgy.

 

[palmas85]

We, as the People of God, share in Christ’s priestly vocation and have consecrated hands.

:

Actually, no, we don’t all have consecrated hands, although with the current abysmal level of catechis it is not hard to believe that someone might believe it.

Blurring of the line betwen the Ordained Priesthood and the laity and a grave misunderstanding of the great differences between them is is very well documented by the above post. Posts like this one should cause great alarm to all. Pitiful, just pitiful.

 

[jmcrae]

I think by disobeying the Priest and following the Girm you would be obeying the Church leaders, the Holy Father, as well as those who are in charge of the liturgy.

The parish priest is responsible for the Masses that take place in his own parish. No one else. Certainly, no lay person has the right to tell the priest how to do his job.

If the Bishop thinks he’s doing something that’s out of line, then it’s the Bishop’s job to correct him. We as lay people don’t have the authority to correct a priest, though - and especially not right in the middle of Mass. As someone above pointed out, it’s probable that the priest knows something that we don’t know.

 

[jmcrae]

Very good, if we break things down too far we will inevitably find disagreement, let’s let it rest there before we become honorary Pharisees.

Phew…wanna go halves on a pie?

HEY, that sounds good to me! Do you like banana cream, or hot apple pie a la mode? :bounce:

 

[PerkyCurlz]

The TLM churches are packed to the hilt, my friend. Their attendance would make any parish priest jealous. Yet, they don’t have EMHCs and often have multiple priests per parish…

**NOT **in my city. The TLM has *maybe *50-100 people attend each Sunday, whereas my parish has over 5,000 people attend each week (and only one priest and two deacons).

 

[PerkyCurlz]

Yes we are all baptized prophet, priest, and king, but I did not know my hands were consecrated. Where is that idea from?

Where is the idea from? The CCC (as I quoted above).

palmas85:

Actually, no, we don’t all have consecrated hands, although with the current abysmal level of catechis it is not hard to believe that someone might believe it.

Blurring of the line betwen the Ordained Priesthood and the laity and a grave misunderstanding of the great differences between them is is very well documented by the above post. Posts like this one should cause great alarm to all. Pitiful, just pitiful.

First, my quote came straight from the CCC. Are you saying that what it contains is incorrect? Or just that how *my priest *explained it to me is incorrect? If so, I guess you are saying that ***he ***is “pitiful, just pitiful”.

Second, I *never *said I (or any other lay person) am on the same level as an ordained priest, since they are the ones who act in persona Christi capitis during the mass, nor am I trying to blur the line between those who are ordained and the laity. I do not feel that I implied with my quote from the CCC that I, or any other lay person, had received ordination (also called *consecratio *in CCC1538) because we, as part of the people of God, are consecrated to be a spiritual house. The meaning of consecration in CCC784 is *not *the same as that in CCC1538.

Third, nowhere that I have read can I find that certain parts of me are consecrated and other parts of me aren’t. Nor does logic tell me that if I am consecrated (as described in CCC784), that this doesn’t also include my hands. If you can cite references that indicate that only parts of us are consecrated, please pass them along so I may better understand your position. Also, if you can point out to me where in the GIRM, the CCC or any other Church document that *only *priests and deacons are allowed to ever touch the Sacred Body with their hands, I would greatly appreciate it. If we are allowed to receive the Eucharist in the hand, then why can an EMHC not touch the Eucharist to distribute it when necessary?

 

[lak611]

By the definition that an EMHC going into the tabernacle is a LITURGICAL ABUSE.

What if the priest is elderly and has really bad arthritis? If he physically is unable to walk the 20 ft. to the tabernacle, what do you propose? And don’t suggest a deacon because my parish does not have one.

 

[John_Higgins]

TimOliv:

Forcing Tridentine priests to give communion in the hand? What a glorious idea to bring about unity. Until it ends up causing a schism. Perhaps we should force the Eastern Rite Priests to give communicants choices in how they receive?

Tim,
We’re not doing the “forcing”, the following is the approved norm in the United States, per the USCCB, approved by the Holy See.

1. Holy Communion under the form of bread is offered to the communicant with the words “The Body of Christ.” The communicant may choose whether to receive the Body of Christ in the hand or on the tongue. When receiving in the hand, the communicant should be guided by the words of St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “When you approach, take care not to do so with your hand stretched out and your fingers open or apart, but rather place your left hand as a throne beneath your right, as befits one who is about to receive the King. Then receive him, taking care that nothing is lost.”

John

 

[Servulus]

Where is the idea from? The CCC (as I quoted above).

First, my quote came straight from the CCC. Are you saying that what it contains is incorrect? Or just that how *my priest *explained it to me is incorrect? If so, I guess you are saying that ***he ***is “pitiful, just pitiful”.

Second, I *never *said I (or any other lay person) am on the same level as an ordained priest, since they are the ones who act in persona Christi capitis during the mass, nor am I trying to blur the line between those who are ordained and the laity. I do not feel that I implied with my quote from the CCC that I, or any other lay person, had received ordination (also called *consecratio *in CCC1538) because we, as part of the people of God, are consecrated to be a spiritual house. The meaning of consecration in CCC784 is *not *the same as that in CCC1538.

Third, nowhere that I have read can I find that certain parts of me are consecrated and other parts of me aren’t. Nor does logic tell me that if I am consecrated (as described in CCC784), that this doesn’t also include my hands. If you can cite references that indicate that only parts of us are consecrated, please pass them along so I may better understand your position. Also, if you can point out to me where in the GIRM, the CCC or any other Church document that *only *priests and deacons are allowed to ever touch the Sacred Body with their hands, I would greatly appreciate it. If we are allowed to receive the Eucharist in the hand, then why can an EMHC not touch the Eucharist to distribute it when necessary?

Given your interpretation of CCC 784 and CCC1538, how do you account for this portion of the Rite of Ordination?

“The newly-ordained are now assisted by a priest to take off the vestments of the deacon and put on the stole and chasuble, the garments worn by the priest at Mass. Each of the newly-ordained will have chosen a priest prior to his ordination to assist him. Then each of them returns to the bishop who anoints their palms with Chrism saying,‘The Father anointed our Lord Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit. May Jesus preserve you to sanctity the Christian people and to offer sacrifice to God’.”

If their whole selves were already consecrated, what’s the purpose of anointing with Chrism here?

 

[Sir_Knight]

I think by disobeying the Priest and following the Girm you would be obeying the Church leaders, the Holy Father, as well as those who are in charge of the liturgy.

Most priests SHOULD be more knowledgable about church law than MOST lay people. I would give the priest the benefit of the doubt that he was aware of an exception to the rule or his understanding of the facts were better than mine and obey his lawful authority.

 

[TimOliv]

OH, so we should teach our superiors how to do their job?

If I did that at work, I’d get fired.

It says in your sig that you’re a veteran. How well do you think it would have gone over, disobeying orders and teaching your superior officers how to do their job in the middle of a battle?

A priest is much more holy than a boss or a military commander, though.

It’s not something he’s likely to ask. If he did, I’d assume he was joking.

My friend, it is very clear you never served in your nation’s military.

IF a superior EVER told you to violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice (that is, perform an act you cannot do according to the ‘rules of the road’ equivelant to committing a liturgical abuse) not only are you not obligated to obey the order, you are obligated to not carry the order out. This is particularly true when an officer (and this has happened many more times than it should have) gives an order which just oversteps his/her bounds as an officer.

Example, an officer once came up to me and ordered me to surrender my office keys to him. However, I happened to know that because of his position and the financial records contained therein, he was never permitted to have keys to my office. This was a matter of military procedure which he SHOULD have been knowledgable in. I refused to relinquish the keys, he said I was obeying a lawful order, however, simple citation of the policy in question to my immediate superior had me in the right. Had I let him in, I would have been guilty of a crime because I, as a “watchstander” would have allowed someone access where they should not be going.

 

[PopePaddy]

That wasn’t such obvious common sense to King David when he stripped down and danced before the Lord. I somehow doubt that he was as great a dancer as he was a warrior or poet/musician. At least history doesn’t record him as a great dancer, so he probably was doing something about on the level of the funky chicken At least his wife Michal who was upset by it seems to have thought so

:bigyikes: I have never seen a Mass that purported to be on any of these themes, nor do I have a desire to hear about all the gory details thereof. Suffice it to say that a Rocky Horror Mass strikes me as being particularly awful.

Hahaha! I like that King David bit! :dancing:

Like it as I may, I think even King David might have done a few things that wouldn’t be acceptable at Mass.

And as for the theme Masses, yes. Yes, indeed. I have never seen one, Deo gratias, but I have heard some terrifying stories. In contrast, it would seem that the overuse of EMHCs, which definitely occurs, is not quite the sacrilege we could have on our hands.

 

[jmcrae]

I’ve never been in battle, but as I understand it, if you are in the middle of a battle and you are given an order, you either obey it, or else you get shot. (This is what my step father tells me - he is a veteran of the Burma Star battle against the Japanese in WWII.)

They don’t have time for the niceties of legal order in the middle of battle.

The situation with your keys doesn’t sound like it happened in the heat of enemy fire.

Mass would be the equivalent of being in battle, in the heat of enemy fire. This is where we are actively engaged in destroying Satan. In Mass, you do as you’re told.

You can ask questions and quote from documents after the Mass is over, but I would never argue with a priest right in the middle of Mass, no matter what I was thinking inside.