For MEN only !

[MarkThompson]

Your premise is INcorrect. JPII is very clear about why the Priests’ hands are consecrated.

Yes, he is – and it’s not so that they can handle an already-consecrated Host.

 

[ProVobis]

va/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a6.htm

The ordination of deacons - “in order to serve”

1569 “At a lower level of the hierarchy are to be found deacons, who receive the imposition of hands 'not unto the priesthood, but unto the ministry.”'53 At an ordination to the diaconate only the bishop lays hands on the candidate, thus signifying the deacon’s special attachment to the bishop in the tasks of his "diakonia."54

1570 Deacons share in Christ’s mission and grace in a special way.55 The sacrament of Holy Orders marks them with an imprint (“character”) which cannot be removed and which configures them to Christ, who made himself the “deacon” or servant of all.56 Among other tasks, it is the task of deacons to assist the bishop and priests in the celebration of the divine mysteries, above all the Eucharist, in the distribution of Holy Communion, in assisting at and blessing marriages, in the proclamation of the Gospel and preaching, in presiding over funerals, and in dedicating themselves to the various ministries of charity.57

1571 Since the Second Vatican Council the Latin Church has restored the diaconate "as a proper and permanent rank of the hierarchy,"58 while the Churches of the East had always maintained it. This permanent diaconate, which can be conferred on married men, constitutes an important enrichment for the Church’s mission. Indeed it is appropriate and useful that men who carry out a truly diaconal ministry in the Church, whether in its liturgical and pastoral life or whether in its social and charitable works, should "be strengthened by the imposition of hands which has come down from the apostles. They would be more closely bound to the altar and their ministry would be made more fruitful through the sacramental grace of the diaconate."59

 

[Ockham]

If you don’t follow the teachings of the Pope and Magesterium, you are a heretic or schismatic. It’s that simple.
You can not pick and choose what you want to believe. - or worse yet - what you propogate to others.

If you think I’m a heretic because I don’t want to be an EMHC then I suggest you speak to a priest. You may have read the Catechism but clearly you dont’ understand it.

It doesn’t seem you understand the Eighth Commandment either.

The Church is international so it doesn’t matter what country you live in.

One can be misogynist and female.

Father’s Day has come an past. Perhaps you should let this rant go for the year.

 

[ProVobis]

The Anointing of Hands

After the first verse of the hymn the bishop rises and sits on the faldstool (wearing the mitre). He removes his gloves but puts the episcopal ring back on his finger. The gremiale is placed over his knees. The ordained come forward and one by one kneel before the bishop. He then takes the oil of catechumens and anoints both of their hands which they hold together palms upward. First he anoints the inside of the hands, tracing a cross from the thumb of the right hand to the index finger of the left, and from the thumb of the left hand to the index finger of the right. Next he anoints the entire palms. He says as he performs the anointings:

May it please you, O Lord, to consecrate and sanctify these hands by this anointing and our blessing.

All: Amen.

And having made the sign of the cross over the hands of the ordained he continues:

That whatever they bless may be blessed, and whatever they consecrate may be consecrated in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

To the above form each of the ordained adds:

Amen.

Then the bishop closes or joins together the hands of the ordained. The latter, keeping his hands joined, goes to the side of the altar where one of the assistants of the bishop binds the consecrated hands together with a white cloth, leaving the fingers free. Each of the ordained goes back to his place. The bishop cleanses his fingers with a piece of bread.

sanctamissa.org/en/resources/books-1962/rituale-romanum/40-the-sacrament-of-holy-orders-rite-of-priestly-ordination.html

 

[JReducation]

va/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a6.htm

Thank you. I’m not spreading error. The deacon is the Ordinary Minister of Holy Communion and Pope John Paul is not speaking about that. He’s speaking about priests. He’s not denying the role of the deacon. As we all know, the deacon’s hands have never been consecrated.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I find it strange that St. Thomas Aquinas would not be aware of this given that he himself was a Dominican.

Aquinas was aware of it. He disagreed with it. But the Church did not agree with him on this point. It was Bonaventure who argued against Aquinas on this point, because Bonaventure defended the rights of the Franciscans and the Benedictines who always had permanent acolytes and lectors who were not clerics. It was not allowed for them to have too many clerics. Therefore, they received minor orders, but no tonsure. As long as you did not have tonsue, you were not a cleric.

In addition, the old code of canon law does not say that the minor orders of acolytes and lector made one a cleric. The term order was used, but it was not synonimous with the clerical state. That’s why John Paul II had the whole thing reworded in the code of 1983, so that it would make more sense with what it acutally is. It is not an order per se, but a ministry. It’s not an order, because it is not part of the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

Someone else said that the religious superior could not force someone to become a priest. That rule has to be understood in context. That law was only for clerks regular. It was never meant for monks or friars. Monks and friars had their own laws that preceeded the canons 1917. The law of the Church is that if you have a custom or rule that preceeds the law, you go with the custom of your religious order. Monks and friars had the other way around, no one could be ordained unless it was with the permission of the abbot or the minister. The needs of the bishop had not influence in monastic and mendicant orders. That has not changed.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Your premise is INcorrect. JPII is very clear about why the Priests’ hands are consecrated. The Chalice has always been the domain of the Deacon. While addressing the innovations, the Pope also clearly says it isw a privelege of the ordained or those destined to be.

You are free to sew confusion, but. The Pope’s words arew clear enough to those who have eyes to see.

That aside, how are yoy. Its been a while.

Please don’t ever accuse me of sowing confusion. You know me better than that and you know that I have never done such a thing. I would appreciate it if you took back that comment.

That being said, I’m not doing too badly. I went for a checkup and seem to be OK. Not going to die this week. I was just elected superior of my community on Pentecost Sunday. I’m working hard to get settled into the new role. I’m going to Rome in October for the International Respect Life Conference at the Vatican. I’ll be spending a lot of time studying Evangelium Vitae this summer.

We have 37 solemn professions next week, 29 simple professions, 32 novices being admitted and 16 postulants. I have had to decide who gets permission to make vows, receive the habit, be ordained and be admitted to the formation program. The superior is not allowed to consult with anyone. The future and souls of his brothers are his responsibility. There are no ordinations this year nor for the forseeable future. We have enough priests to last us a while. Every house has at least 1/2 priest.

No we don’t cut them in pieces. LOL Half means that you have one priest who serves to community houses. There was a poster who actually asked me what that 1/2 meant. I believe he/she thought that we sliced the brothers into two parts.

Thanks for asking.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[IntegraCatholic]

Someone else said that the religious superior could not force someone to become a priest. That rule has to be understood in context. That law was only for clerks regular. It was never meant for monks or friars. Monks and friars had their own laws that preceeded the canons 1917. The law of the Church is that if you have a custom or rule that preceeds the law, you go with the custom of your religious order. Monks and friars had the other way around, no one could be ordained unless it was with the permission of the abbot or the minister. The needs of the bishop had not influence in monastic and mendicant orders. That has not changed.

This is entirely correct for those orders that do not depend upon the diocesan bishop (e.g., Dominicans, Franciscans, Carmelites, etc.), who are exempt religious. It does not hold for those religious who depend upon the diocesan bishop for existence, just as the clerics of the former (Dominicans, Franciscans, etc.) would have an obligation to receive the priesthood if the Pope were to require it for the good of the universal Church. I sometimes get confused about what did and did not change with regard to these laws from the decretals to 1917, though.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Any Traditionalist worth his salt would know that an Acolyte is considered part of the clergy.
*
“While acolytes did not receive the sacrament of Holy Orders they were considered part of the clergy, and were considered a step on the way to Holy Orders.”*

From the Wikipedia entry for Acolyte

You can argue whether an acolyte is an ordained member of the clergy or not – but not all altar servers are acolytes (indeed, most altar servers are not acolytes). And altar servers are in the sanctuary even in the EF. And not nary a single so called ‘traditionalist’ has any qualms about this.

 

[Lycorth]

You can argue whether an acolyte is an ordained member of the clergy or not – but not all altar servers are acolytes (indeed, most altar servers are not acolytes). And altar servers are in the sanctuary even in the EF. And not nary a single so called ‘traditionalist’ has any qualms about this.

Ah, I see; I wasn’t aware of a specific difference. But I suppose you’re right; when I was an acolyte, the delineations were clear and we wore cassock and surplice, and there were no female altar servers. However, since about oh, 2004-ish when I moved back home after a few years away, I saw my home church started using female altar servers and everyone wore the alb and amice and cincture.

Though if all Traditionalist orders may use altar servers as opposed to acolytes, there must be some proscription for it, one would think.

Wikipedia entry for Altar Server

 

[maurin]

Please don’t ever accuse me of sowing confusion. You know me better than that and you know that I have never done such a thing. I would appreciate it if you took back that comment.

That being said, I’m not doing too badly. I went for a checkup and seem to be OK. Not going to die this week. I was just elected superior of my community on Pentecost Sunday. I’m working hard to get settled into the new role. I’m going to Rome in October for the International Respect Life Conference at the Vatican. I’ll be spending a lot of time studying Evangelium Vitae this summer.

We have 37 solemn professions next week, 29 simple professions, 32 novices being admitted and 16 postulants. I have had to decide who gets permission to make vows, receive the habit, be ordained and be admitted to the formation program. The superior is not allowed to consult with anyone. The future and souls of his brothers are his responsibility. There are no ordinations this year nor for the forseeable future. We have enough priests to last us a while. Every house has at least 1/2 priest.

No we don’t cut them in pieces. LOL Half means that you have one priest who serves to community houses. There was a poster who actually asked me what that 1/2 meant. I believe he/she thought that we sliced the brothers into two parts.

Thanks for asking.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Quid pro quo JR. You accused me of doing the same in your first post on this thread. I too would appreciate it if you took it back. You too know me better than that. You to know my sincerity. The difference, it would seem, is that we are held to different standards.

Happy to hear all is well with you and your community!

 

[maurin]

Yes, he is – and it’s not so that they can handle an already-consecrated Host.

You are arguing a point I never made.

 

[Layman]

Here’s my opinion: The O.F. has become ‘cissified’, as said, in many churches. By that I mean feminised. Lovey-dovey. Touchy-feely.

Effeminate priests, kids drawings in the sanctuary, banal liturgy, cheesy hymns, local lingo, EMHCs. Where’s the mystery and the sense of hierarchy, exclusivity, masculinity and antiquity? It ain’t interestin’ no more.

Hence: exit men.