I Beleive

[RogerDeCourcy]

"EMHCs at Sunday mass are an improvement on distribution by the priest alone. That’s why they were introduced".

One can root aound in our history and laws for justification for their introduction but it comes down to that.

If one thinks the first statement is true, the argument is over. If you don’t, it goes on.

Personally, I think that if one thinks that the host is holy, you convey the idea better if the priest does it alone. It also conveys the idea that we lay people are unworthy.

If it’s just a distribution of blessed bread, then it doesn’t matter so much.

 

[ProVobis]

Personally, I think that if one thinks that the host is holy, you convey the idea better if the priest does it alone. It also conveys the idea that we lay people are unworthy.

Then, as I tried to indicate above, much fewer would be receiving. Problem solved.

 

[TimothyH]

"EMHCs at Sunday mass are an improvement on distribution by the priest alone. That’s why they were introduced".

One can root aound in our history and laws for justification for their introduction but it comes down to that.

If one thinks the first statement is true, the argument is over. If you don’t, it goes on.

Personally, I think that if one thinks that the host is holy, you convey the idea better if the priest does it alone. It also conveys the idea that we lay people are unworthy.

If it’s just a distribution of blessed bread, then it doesn’t matter so much.

No one is worthy. Not even a priest.

Reserving distribution of the Eucharist to priests alone ignores scripture itself which states, as Brother JR has pointed out, that the very first deacons distributed the Eucharist (waited on tables, cf Acts 6:1-6).

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

He didn’t reject deacons from administering the Holy Eucharist absolutely but rejected it as a norm. “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.”

That’s fine though, we’ll use The Catechism of The Council of Trent as an authoritative source.

Only Priests Have Power To Consecrate And Administer The Eucharist

It must be taught, then, that to priests alone has been given power to consecrate and administer to the faithful, the Holy Eucharist. That this has been the unvarying practice of the Church, that the faithful should receive the Sacrament from the priests, and that the officiating priests should communicate themselves, has been explained by the holy Council of Trent, which has also shown that this practice, as having proceeded from Apostolic tradition, is to be religiously retained, particularly as Christ the Lord has left us an illustrious example thereof, having consecrated His own most sacred body, and given it to the Apostles with His own hands.

And what’s the point of bringing up the history? And St. Bonaventure? This the ol’ Dominican vs Franciscan brotherly arm wrestle contest?

The permanent diaconate did not exist when Aquinas lived in the 1200’s or at the time of Trent. The diaconate was transitional. There was no such thing as a deacon who would never become a priest - the permanent diaconate - as it had existed for the first one thousand years of the Church. Every deacon was expected to become a priest within a very short time of becoming a deacon. The transitional nature of the diaconate is one reason why, for example, the deacon could only distribute the species of wine - he would be distributing under the species of bread before long anyway. Distributing the chalice and not the host was training for eventual priestly duties, as was the whole transitional diactonate itself.

The permanent diaconate - men who were deacons but who would never become priests - was only restored to the Church in 1968 after one thousand years of disuse. For this reason, because we have men who have been conformed to Christ through the sacrament of holy orders, yet who will never become priests, for the first time in 1000 years, the Church has made deacons the ordinary ministers of certain functions. Deacons have been granted many functions very recently, expecially under the 1982 code of canon law, which was written in part to address the restoration of a permanent diaconae. .

Baptism: Deacons were extraordinary ministers prior to 1983, ordinary ministers after 1983.

Eucharistic Benediction: Deacons were allowed to reserve and expose the blessed sacrament but were not the ordinary ministers of blessing during a benediction. The 1983 code allowed deacons to give Eucharistic blessing during benediction.

**Presiding at Matrimony: **Priests only prior to 1983, Deacon allowed if the ordinary granted permission.

Pastoral Care in Absence of a Prist: A deacon could be given a parish in anticipation of imminent ordaination into the priesthood prior to 1983. Permanent deacons allowed after 1983.

Deacons did not have power to dispense from impediment prior to 1983 but now do under specific conditions when the Ordinary allows.

Judge, Promoter of Justice, Defender of the Bond, auditor, chancellor, notary and other functions of a Tribunal were previously reserved for priests only, but can now be filled by deacons. Presiding at funerals as well, and all these in addition to being made ordinary ministers of communion in 1983. If a deacon could not preform these functions, it was because prior to the restoration of the permanent diaconate, a deacon would have been expected to become a priest in a very short time and would then become ordinary minister of these functions anyway.

That our Lord himself distributed to the Apostles with his own hands is without question. But that deacons were ordained in Acts 6 as minsters of the “Daily distribution” is equally without question, equally recorded in both Sacred Scripture and Apostilic Tradition. Confecting of the Eucharist will never change, because that is the sacrament. But distribution can change, and has, because the permanence of the diaconate was restored to the way it was in Acts 6.

-Tim-

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

No one is worthy. Not even a priest.

Reserving distribution of the Eucharist to priests alone ignores scripture itself which states, as Brother JR has pointed out, that the very first deacons distributed the Eucharist (waited on tables, cf Acts 6:1-6).

-Tim-

Exactly. We’re not worthy. To convey that idea, the host should be treated as if it were special. And we’ve come a long way since those early days. The deacon argument assumes that the circumstances, understanding and practice of mass is the same now, as then. They aren’t.

The clergy have made a BIG mistake in making mass a more communal affair in the 20th century and trying to get lay people more involved. It makes it look more like a school play. When you can’t see the supernatural persons involved, that works against creating an atmosphere of reverence, if all you can see is Mrs. Bloggs handing out the host.

I had the surreal experience of watching a clergyman hand out the hosts next to a blonde lady. As I was at the back and people in front of me were standing, I could only see her and the priest’s heads. It looked like Mr and Mrs Priest were handing out communion.

 

[TimothyH]

Exactly. We’re not worthy. To convey that idea, the host should be treated as if it were special. And we’ve come a long way since those early days. The deacon argument assumes that the circumstances, understanding and practice of mass is the same now, as then. They aren’t.

The clergy have made a BIG mistake in making mass a more communal affair in the 20th century and trying to get lay people more involved. It makes it look more like a school play. When you can’t see the supernatural persons involved, that works against creating an atmosphere of reverence, if all you can see is Mrs. Bloggs handing out the host.

I had the surreal experience of watching a clergyman hand out the hosts next to a blonde lady. As I was at the back and people in front of me were standing, I could only see her and the priest’s heads. It looked like Mr and Mrs Priest were handing out communion.

I distributed the Eucharist last night standing right next to a priest.

-Tim-

 

[TS_Aquinas]

This is no longer the position of the Church. Canon Law and Bl. John Paul II are very explicit. The distribution of the Eucharist belongs to the ordained. The deacon, once incardinated into a diocese or a religious order, which usually happens at ordination, can distribute communion without permission from a priest or bishop. It is already granted by Canon Law and the permission to do so in a particular jurisdiction is granted by the ordinary.

The only restriction, if it can be called that, is that the priest must also distribute Holy Communion. He cannot sit and let the deacon take over. If the congregation does not warrant two ministers of Holy Communion, the priest who presides must be the one to distribute. In reality, this law is meant to guide the priest, not the deacon.

The official position of the Church on this question is no longer that of the Council of Trent as it was written then. It was modified to “the ordinary minister of Holy Communion is the deacon, priest and bishop,” by Bl. John Paul II in 1983. It does not limit the distribution to the priest, except as stated above, which is in another canon. Popes always trump councils on all matters except dogmas and morals. Even when quoting the Council of Trent, we must always ask, “What is the current position of the Church?” The answer will usually be found in Canon Law, the CCC, or one of the papal writings.

1570 Deacons share in Christ’s mission and grace in a special way. 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. 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.
**
Can. 910 §1. The ordinary minister of holy communion is a bishop, presbyter, or deacon.
**
As to your question about why the Franciscan history. It has nothing to do with competition. Actually, the two orders agree on this point. I was trying to show how this question is not new and why Aquinas position was never adopted as de fide.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

The point of bringing up that source was to demonstrate the notion “unless you read Dominican history, you will not know that the Church disagreed with Aquinas” false when we understand Trent history and the position of the Church ever since until recently.

 

[estesbob]

I like to know if you,s feel the same way. That only , priest should Give out the Holy Eucharist itand not Lay people,the only way I would receive,is if they were wearing white Gloves,but I,am still receiveing it from the priest, if I have to I will go to the Ile that the priest is givng it out before I let an ordinnary. Amen

I respect your opinion and since you feel that way you should make sure you stand in the line where the Priest is distributing it. I personally never miss an opportunity to Receive Our Lord regardless of who is distributing it.

 

[JReducation]

The point of bringing up that source was to demonstrate the notion “unless you read Dominican history, you will not know that the Church disagreed with Aquinas” false when we understand Trent history and the position of the Church ever since until recently.

It’s not false, because the Church never made this a doctrine. Aquinas’ position is often presented by Traditionalists as if it were a doctrine that must be believed. Had the Church adopted this as a doctrine, then it would have been unchangeable. Instead, the Church did not act on it until Trent, about 300 years after Aquinas and it was put forth as a discipline, not a doctrine.

More than likely, the deacons were not mentioned at Trent, because by that time the permanent deacons in the Latin Church had almost vanished. But this was not the case during Aquinas’ time. The permanent diaconate was still alive and well in the religious orders. I don’t know about the secular clergy. This was a point of concern to theologians during Aquinas time and why it was challenged.

The fact that it was challenged by none other than Bonaventure, makes it a credible challenge for a number of reasons.

They were very good friends, not antagonists at all.

They were colleagues.

They were holy men, not interested in winning battles.

They were doctors of equal stature. Aquinas is the Angelic Doctor and Bonaventure is the Seraphic Doctor. In other words, they’re both lofty enough to be put up there with the angels.

If you have someone with such credential challenging a conclusion, you know that the person does not have an agenda. Looking a this from Aquinas’ point of view, it is a challenge that he would have taken in very good stride, because this was his friend and colleague whom he respected. It was a Franciscan and the Dominicans are bound by Proper Law to show reverence toward Franciscans. Aquinas was a very faithful son of St. Dominic.

The most important thing of all, Aquinas was a very very humble man. He was not out to prove anything. His thoughts were the product of his holiness, even when he made mistakes. He would not have refuted this challenge in principle. He probably went back to think about it some more. He was known to do that when he was challenged. This was an incredibly holy man, unlike us who fight over principles. Aquinas avoided such conflicts. His greatest desire in life was simply to preach and teach, not debate and argue.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[LegoGE1947]

I respect your opinion and since you feel that way you should make sure you stand in the line where the Priest is distributing it. I personally never miss an opportunity to Receive Our Lord regardless of who is distributing it.

I have been in Masses where the Priest was elderly and unable to stand and distribute communion. So he had lay ministers distribute while the priest sat in his chair on the platform.

 

[rebeccajohns]

I tried following the help button, but I cannot figure out how do I add a picture to my default name. How do I begin a new post w/out having to go into someone else’s post to respond to a post. Sometimes I just want to start a fresh one w/ a different subject. Any help is greatly appreciated. I would like to add a pic to my name, but I am a bit lost on how to do it. Thank you for any (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[LegoGE1947]

I tried following the help button, but I cannot figure out how do I add a picture to my default name. How do I begin a new post w/out having to go into someone else’s post to respond to a post. Sometimes I just want to start a fresh one w/ a different subject. Any help is greatly appreciated. I would like to add a pic to my name, but I am a bit lost on how to do it. Thank you for any (name removed by moderator)ut.

Thanks for that question. I’d like to know how to do that myself. I hope someone who is more computer savvy than we are will respond to this.

 

[rebeccajohns]

Thanks for that question. I’d like to know how to do that myself. I hope someone who is more computer savvy than we are will respond to this.

I know the help and the frequest top Q&A is not clear. I follow what it states, and it does not. Usually I can figure these things out, but this one is a challenge. Hopefully, someone w/ more skills can show me because I am ready to put my sweet St. Theresa of the little flower as my icon.

 

[TS_Aquinas]

It’s not false, because the Church never made this a doctrine. Aquinas’ position is often presented by Traditionalists as if it were a doctrine that must be believed. Had the Church adopted this as a doctrine, then it would have been unchangeable. Instead, the Church did not act on it until Trent, about 300 years after Aquinas and it was put forth as a discipline, not a doctrine.

I never used the word doctrine, but position of which is changeable. Or as you said, discipline. Being that St. Bonaventure and St. Aquinas (lack of a better word) debated the issue, doesn’t mean the Church disagreed with his position. By the very fact Aquinas held his position is evidence of that since, as you remind us, he was a very humble man, a devout son of the Church and one whom received the graceful words of our Lord, “Thomas, thou hast written well concerning the Sacrament of My Body.” My point is further reinforced by fact the Catechism of the Council of Trent taught the same position Aquinas held. I’m not seeing the claim “the Church disagreed with Aquinas” backed by evidence. As far as today with the diaconate, if Canon Law allows them to administer the Holy Host then there is no debate (of which I already knew prior to our conversation, my only concern is the history.) Question: since it stated in Canon Law, can it be abrogated? I’m only aware of Canon Laws that are built on dogma cannot be abrogated, but unaware of this sort of situation.

Also, why do you bring up “Traditionalists?” As opposed to what, progressivism? Not seeing the reasoning of this label.

More than likely, the deacons were not mentioned at Trent, because by that time the permanent deacons in the Latin Church had almost vanished. But this was not the case during Aquinas’ time. The permanent diaconate was still alive and well in the religious orders. I don’t know about the secular clergy. This was a point of concern to theologians during Aquinas time and why it was challenged.

I believe, as far as the secular clergy went, the permanent diaconate was not in practice at the turn of the millenia. Though I have to inquire you, what was or is the purpose of the permanent diaconate in a religious order? Isn’t that position traditionally held to be the Bishop’s assistant in a secular manner?

 

[johnthebaptist1]

He didn’t reject deacons from administering the Holy Eucharist absolutely but rejected it as a norm. “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.”

That’s fine though, we’ll use The Catechism of The Council of Trent as an authoritative source.

Only Priests Have Power To Consecrate And Administer The Eucharist

It must be taught, then, that to priests alone has been given power to consecrate and administer to the faithful, the Holy Eucharist. That this has been the unvarying practice of the Church, that the faithful should receive the Sacrament from the priests, and that the officiating priests should communicate themselves, has been explained by the holy Council of Trent, which has also shown that this practice, as having proceeded from Apostolic tradition, is to be religiously retained, particularly as Christ the Lord has left us an illustrious example thereof, having consecrated His own most sacred body, and given it to the Apostles with His own hands.

And what’s the point of bringing up the history? And St. Bonaventure? This the ol’ Dominican vs Franciscan brotherly arm wrestle contest?

No matter what, we need more Priest, so that lay people won,t be needed,and deacons either.God those more men to become Priest. Amen

 

[JReducation]

I believe, as far as the secular clergy went, the permanent diaconate was not in practice at the turn of the millenia. Though I have to inquire you, what was or is the purpose of the permanent diaconate in a religious order? Isn’t that position traditionally held to be the Bishop’s assistant in a secular manner?

The deacon is always at the liturgical service of the bishop. Many regular deacons served bishops. Also, many bishops were and are regulars and they prefer to have deacons from their communities or from a religious institute. That part has not changed much in 800 years. For example, when Bonaventure was cardinal, he insisted on ordaining a Franciscan to the diaconate, because the admonition of Francis to the clerics in the Franciscan order was to maintain their distance from monks and secular clergy. The only other option were the mendicants. The Servites, Franciscans, and Augustinians had permanent deacons. I don’ t believe that the Dominicans did and I don’t know about the Carmelites. The Servites modeled themselves on the Franciscans and the Augustinians were canons, usually attached to a cathedral.

As to your other question about canon law, all canon law can be abrogated by the pope, including canon law based on dogma. It’s not the dogma that is being abrogated, but the law. For example, the dogma of transubstantiation remains intact. However, in the Eastern Code of Canon Law, it allows for the anaphora without the words of institution for the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church and the Chaldean Catholic Church, if they choose to use the Holy Qurbana of Addai and Mari. This was a recent change that Bl. John Paul made, not long before his death. I believe around 2000 or 2001.

To wrap this up, what I was trying to point out was that people often refer to Aquinas on this point, but in fact the Church does not follow Aquinas’ position on this point. Nor does the Church follow Tent’s position on this point. It is not a valid argument to say that only a priest should distribute Holy Communion.

The current canon is based on sacred tradition. It was Pope Paul who said that there was a misunderstanding regarding the role of the deacon in the Latin Church. Because the deacon had been reduced to a seminarian in a sort of internship for the priesthood, his place at mass had been reduced to they ministry of the chalice. Pope Paul argued that the permanent deacons at the time of the Apostles literally distributed the Holy Eucharist under both species. He proposed the change to canon law to bring back the permanent diaconate and to reinstate the deacon as an ordinary minister of Holy Communion, for the Latin Church. This is not the same in all the Catholic Churches.

The other 22 Catholic Churches have always had a permanent diaconate, but the role of the deacon varies from one rite to another. The deacon is not at the service of the bishop in all of the other Catholic Churches. That’s a very Latin tradition.

I’m out of here. I have a friary to run. Ciao!

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[TS_Aquinas]

No matter what, we need more Priest, so that lay people won,t be needed,and deacons either.God those more men to become Priest. Amen

Though I question the intent of deacons administering the Holy Host, I do believe we need the diaconate regardless. The Church is suffering vocations, liturgical abuses and defiant priests and bishops but also bad catechesis and evangelization of which can be remedied with holy deacons. If it were not my vocation to the priesthood in Ordo Praedicatorum, which I hope to follow soon, I would pursue the diaconate.

 

[LegoGE1947]

Though I question the intent of deacons administering the Holy Host, I do believe we need the diaconate regardless. The Church is suffering vocations, liturgical abuses and defiant priests and bishops but also bad catechesis and evangelization of which can be remedied with holy deacons. If it were not my vocation to the priesthood in Ordo Praedicatorum, which I hope to follow soon, I would pursue the diaconate.

I was wondering if anyone saw this on Yahoo.com today. The Catholic Church is Dangerous, Outdated, and Should …
From Yahoo! News: COMMENTARY | The Catholic Church is hammering so many nails into its own coffin that even an outside observer like me is left shaking his head at …
news.yahoo.com/catholic-church-dangerous-outdated… - Cached
Isn’t it wonderful to know that the Church Our Lord founded is dangerous, outdated, and should be desolved? I would agree with only one of those things namely DANGEROUS to those who enjoy their sin and want to stay in it.

 

[paperwight66]

Though I question the intent of deacons administering the Holy Host, .

A puzzling statement. What do you mean? Care to elaborate?

 

[Mike30]

Given the size of my parish,approx1300 at every Mass.Even though we are blessed to have two priests,it would take an inordinate amount of time to dispense the HolyCommunion to that number of people. times that by five Masses,the priests would be even more stretched than they already are!

1300 at every Mass? Must be one huge Parish.