Implied accusation of disobedience

  • Thread starter Thread starter floresco
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ConstantineTG said:
Have stats for this or another made up statistic?
Click to expand...
“another made up statistic” implies I’ve falsified statistics.

If I challenged someone’s integrity and then proven wrong I’d apologize. I wouldn’t try to weasel out of it with spin and distraction.

We don’t need to PM. Your posts of late are declining in respectability.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Ah, good for you then. Same here, in Canada there is no prescription to kneel or to stand. I don’t know if its the CCCB or the Vatican thats dragging their feet here.
Click to expand...
I would assume that if the bishops don’t say anything then the norm of the universal Church, i.e. kneeling, applies.
 
Annabelle_Marie said:
To the OP–I’m sure your friend meant no more then the concern for you that Fr. Vincent Sherpa gave in his reply in the apologetics thread. Something to think about anyway.

"Dear friend,

The Church has given permission for certain lay people to administer the Eucharist. These are people that have not consecrated the bread and wine. Only the priest can do that. They are simply people who have been incorporated into the Body of Christ by their baptism and are helping the priest distribute the sacrament. **We are all called to obey the Church in such matters.**Faith is not a matter of feeling. It a matter of the will. You have allowed the matter of who gives you the Eucharist to be more important to you than Who it is you are receiving. Think about it and will to accept this in spite of your feelings. The feelings will eventually diminish. . . .
Click to expand...
While Father Sherpa is making some good points about why people who are reluctant to receive Communion from an EMHC should reconsider, I am puzzled by the sentence I have bolded. I do not understand why he is speaking of obedience here. I am not aware of any Church teaching that says we are obliged to receive from EMHC. Do you know if he has explained his reasoning for this comment anywhere?
 
floresco said:
While Father Sherpa is making some good points about why people who are reluctant to receive Communion from an EMHC should reconsider, I am puzzled by the sentence I have bolded. I do not understand why he is speaking of obedience here. I am not aware of any Church teaching that says we are obliged to receive from EMHC. Do you know if he has explained his reasoning for this comment anywhere?
Click to expand...
Perhaps he means that we should accept this as a legitimate practice. However, when it comes to intinction, this is where the line, I believe, should be drawn. EMHCs, while allowed to assist in the distribution of either the Sacred Host or the Precious Blood, are not allowed to intinct the host. This action is reserved only to the priest/bishop. That is why I will not receive Holy Communion via intinction if the EMHC is the one doing this because it is ilicit.

As for receiving (manner and mode), it is your personal preference.
 
If we all obeyed the Church EMHCs would only be used in cases of emergency or when Mass would take an excessive amount of time. That would rule out the majority of them.
 
ConstantineTG said:
I know I read that somewhere that the Cup must be ministered by a Deacon if the Cup is offered and a Deacon is present. But I cannot find it now, maybe its not an official text that I read.
Click to expand...
qui_est_ce said:
Let me know. I have to believe it’s not true, though.
Click to expand...
Here is the quote from the General Instruction of the Roman Missal:
  1. After the priest, the deacon, in virtue of the sacred ordination he has received, holds first place among those who minister in the Eucharistic Celebration. For the sacred Order of the diaconate has been held in high honor in the Church even from the time of the Apostles.82 At Mass the deacon has his own part in proclaiming the Gospel, in preaching God’s word from time to time, in announcing the intentions of the Prayer of the Faithful, in ministering to the priest, in preparing the altar and serving the celebration of the Sacrifice, in distributing the Eucharist to the faithful, especially under the species of wine, and sometimes in giving directions regarding the people’s gestures and posture.
 
Ockham said:
If we all obeyed the Church EMHCs would only be used in cases of emergency or when Mass would take an excessive amount of time. That would rule out the majority of them.
Click to expand...
A reinstatement of the 3-hr fast will also rule many of them out. 🙂
 
As would preaching about sin and receiving the Blessed Sacrament in a state of grace. Or better yet a return to the Sacrament of Confession.
 
benedictgal said:
Perhaps he means that we should accept this as a legitimate practice.
Click to expand...
I do accept that receiving Communion from EMHCs is a legitimate practice (although perhaps inappropriately implemented at times) but I am not comfortable doing it myself.
 
Yet by receiving Holy Communion from a fellow member of the laity you are in effect condoning the practice. If more Catholics spoke out in word or deed changes would hopefully get implemented.
 
Ockham said:
If we all obeyed the Church EMHCs would only be used in cases of emergency or when Mass would take an excessive amount of time. That would rule out the majority of them.
Click to expand...
ProVobis said:
A reinstatement of the 3-hr fast will also rule many of them out. 🙂
Click to expand...
Ockham said:
As would preaching about sin and receiving the Blessed Sacrament in a state of grace. Or better yet a return to the Sacrament of Confession.
Click to expand...
Careful!
 
Victorious said:
And we need to keep in mind that there is a distinction between what is decreed and what is tolerated; and sometimes things are tolerated that should not be tolerated. The Church decrees that priests and deacons are ordinary ministers of Holy Communion; that they have a duty to exercise their office; that they should never give place to EMHCs; and that there should be a genuine need before deploying EMHCs.
Click to expand...
I laughed when I read that. At the parish I used to attend they did march out in deployment fashion. A whole army of them.
 
Ockham said:
Yet by receiving Holy Communion from a fellow member of the laity you are in effect condoning the practice. If more Catholics spoke out in word or deed changes would hopefully get implemented.
Click to expand...
I can’t say I like the practice, but I don’t have any authority to make such decisions. It isn’t up to me to condone or not condone it or to try to get it changed.
 
ProVobis said:
As in “for what you ask”?
Click to expand...
It is one thing to lament the need for the use of EMHC. It is another thing to imply that the majority of those who serve are not worthy. And that seemed to be where that conversation was heading.
 
floresco said:
I would assume that if the bishops don’t say anything then the norm of the universal Church, i.e. kneeling, applies.
Click to expand...
Well, RS states that its the Bishops’ Conference who would choose if the norm is standing or kneeling. The case for Canada is that the Bishops’ Conference hasn’t said anything. Or perhaps they have but it hasn’t received recognitio with the Holy See, therefore there is nothing in effect with the force of law.

I asked a priest the other day about it, and he simply said that if there is a Communion Rail then you should kneel. If there is none, you should stand. Although there is nothing written in law then there is nothing that would say one posture is preferred over the other. A priest or bishop in this circumstance may have a preference but cannot hold you to as a matter of discipline. I think this will come down to how you are going to be obedient to your parish pastor or not. But otherwise its not enforcable by law.
 
zab said:
It is another thing to imply that the majority of those who serve are not worthy.
Click to expand...
Let’s not go down that road again. This has nothing to do with worthiness. Or personalities.
 
floresco said:
While Father Sherpa is making some good points about why people who are reluctant to receive Communion from an EMHC should reconsider, I am puzzled by the sentence I have bolded. I do not understand why he is speaking of obedience here. I am not aware of any Church teaching that says we are obliged to receive from EMHC. Do you know if he has explained his reasoning for this comment anywhere?
Click to expand...
I don’t know that he personally has clarified it. At the end of the post he wanted the person to reflect on our Lord’s passion.

Personally I think that he probably meant that the Church has encorporated the use of EMHC’s when needed. Now we all certainly have our “feelings” about that. But if we all let our “feelings” wonder into it and our personal theology…well to me…while that certainly is a much nobler thought…I fail to distinguish between that and my stepmother who says she doesn’t believe that the church should deny her communion because she is divorced. She doesn’t want to get an annullment…it’s just a man-made rule by the Church…so she receives anyway…😦 While your feelings do not appear to be breaking any Church laws…I guess I would ask you to reconsider…or at least understand while your friend was concerned.

Peace,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top