Lay mininsters may not cleanse Communion vessels, Pope Benedict says

[Sir_Knight]

Wrong.

And sorry, the American Heritage Dictionary isn’t a definitive source of information on English lexicography.

If you have 20 people, and 19 are uneducated, then most are uneducated. So are many.

But if 10 are uneducated, you could say many are uneducated, but you can’t say most are. Because most aren’t. Just half. Or, in this case, “many”.

Words have subtle distinctions in meaning. MANY is a positive degree adjective. MOST is superlative.

They’re not the same; one means a majority, the other just a large number. Of course a majority is also a large number - but a large number isn’t always a majority.

An important semantic distinction.

So you are more knowledgeable than professional dictionary writers. That is pretty impressive but I’ll need more than just your word to convince me that they are wrong. Kindly show me an authoritative source that does NOT use “many” to define “most” and “most” to define “many” in their complete definition. Otherwise, I’ll have to doubt what you say.

 

[AlexV]

Doubt all you want. I’m right, and you’re wrong.

I suggest you read my examples carefully and closely. They illustrate the subtle point quite well.

I repeat, to give another example of the same point:

19 ducks crossed the road. 11 died. Ergo, many or most died.

19 ducks crossed the road. 9 died. Many died. But not most.

It’s not brain surgery. You seem to be (obstinately) denying that there can be a distinction between the two words (which I’ve just proven, twice), preferring to argue (obstinately) that they’re “interchangeable”. Sometimes, sure. Always, no.

And that’s the subtle, and important, distinction.

Remember. Many = positive degree of adjective comparison, and most = superlative.

 

[Victorious]

So you are more knowledgeable than professional dictionary writers. That is pretty impressive but I’ll need more than just your word to convince me that they are wrong. Kindly show me an authoritative source that does NOT use “many” to define “most” and “most” to define “many” in their complete definition. Otherwise, I’ll have to doubt what you say.

Talk about getting off the subject. :yawn:

 

[Sir_Knight]

Doubt all you want. I’m right, and you’re wrong.

According to you but according to an authoritative source, you are wrong and I am right.

You seem to be (obstinately) denying that there can be a distinction between the two words (which I’ve just proven, twice), preferring to argue (obstinately) that they’re “interchangeable”. Sometimes, sure. Always, no.

And that’s the subtle, and important, distinction.

Remember. Many = positive degree of adjective comparison, and most = superlative.

Yes there is a distinction between the two words but despite your proof, if they are used to DEFINE EACH OTHER, I do not see how they can not mean the same thing.

PS: An I just used two other online dictionaries and found the same thing – the two words are used to DEFINE EACH OTHER.

 

[AlexV]

Excuse me.

Words have meaning. And that meaning isn’t just to provide a definition for another word.

Many has a meaning.

Most has a meaning.

SOMETIMES those meanings are virtually indistinguishable, if not identical.

BUT AT OTHER TIMES those meanings are quite different. Significantly different. Subtly different. Whatever the case, DIFFERENT.

As my quite grammatical examples proved.

I don’t really care how many online sources you check. What I stated is accurate and true. For the last time, one is a positive degree of comparison and the other a superlative.

But fret not. ICEL might love your resume from this board…they often love obfuscating what words mean.

Note: difference between always and often. If I am always right, I am often right. But if I am often right, I am not necessarily always right.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Always and often is not the same as most and many. Always & often can be compared to All & (many/most).

I see many as greater than half. I see most as greater than half. I see some as less than half.

But fret not. ICEL might love your resume from this board…they often love obfuscating what words mean.

That went completely over my head.

 

[Julianna]

"The problem in your diocese may be the lack of openness to life. How big are your families? We average five children. Ten are not unknown. Lots of kids means better odds for priests.
And of course we have no Girl Altar Servers. That helps.

Thank God He is in charge of our Holy Mother Church and His humble servant B16 is righting the wrongs of the last 20 years."

A diocese can’t have a “lack of openness to life”. If one means that a majority of Catholics in a given diocese are either aborting or using artificial birth control, show the proof. Otherwise, it’s an offensive remark. It leads all too easily to the attitude that the families with 10 children are models of Catholic tradition and those with 2-3-4 are…somehow less than ideal…snicker snicker, maybe there was some artificial contraception to prevent 10-12…

** Oh come on now, Alex V…what’s so wrong about an old fashioned “witch hunt”? If I had 10 children there would be no way I could afford Catholic school. **

As for “Girl Altar Servers”…John Paul approved them. If Benedict is supposed to “right the wongs of the last 20 years”, I guess that means much of JP’s reign was not so hot.

**Welcome to 1955. Suddenly I have the urge to wear pearls, high heels and clean the oven. **

My advice: don’t view popes as saviors. There’s only been one of those.

I agree with you on that one…they put their pants on one leg at a time just like the rest of us.

If lay ministers want to help with communion, fine, but I have to go with traditionalists on this one. I believe the priest needs to clean the vessels.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Suddenly I have the urge to wear pearls, high heels and clean the oven.

My wife wears pearls and high heels (which come off as soon as she gets in the car) but leaves the oven cleaning to me

 

[netmilsmom]

A diocese can’t have a “lack of openness to life”. If one means that a majority of Catholics in a given diocese are either aborting or using artificial birth control, show the proof. Otherwise, it’s an offensive remark. It leads all too easily to the attitude that the families with 10 children are models of Catholic tradition and those with 2-3-4 are…somehow less than ideal…snicker snicker, maybe there was some artificial contraception to prevent 10-12…
.

Seriously, how do you think this all works?
When married couples in a parish have sex for the 20 years that the woman is able to bear children, and everyone has two children, one of four things are happening.

1. After a few years they don’t have sex
2. They have a great NFP program
3. They are using artificial birth control
4. They’ve already divorced and are sticking to the rules.

I’m not saying 10 kids, I’m saying an average of five.
Sorry you don’t like the reality.
And BTW after living through my hysterctomy this year, I do understand the other reasons why people have only one or two children. But get real, EVERYONE? Even an average of two is fighting the odds.

 

[CRW]

Seriously, how do you think this all works?
When married couples in a parish have sex for the 20 years that the woman is able to bear children, and everyone has two children, one of four things are happening.

1. After a few years they don’t have sex
2. They have a great NFP program
3. They are using artificial birth control
4. They’ve already divorced and are sticking to the rules.

I’m not saying 10 kids, I’m saying an average of five.
Sorry you don’t like the reality.
And BTW after living through my hysterctomy this year, I do understand the other reasons why people have only one or two children. But get real, EVERYONE? Even an average of two is fighting the odds.

A current Catholic Position polls indicates that 75 percent believe condoms are against Catholic teachings. The question: **No condoms can never be use, even to prevent the spread of HIV **., This means 25 percent believe that condoms are OK to prevent the spread of HIV. Not many for some but more then I expected. I actually expected less then 5 percent. However to be honest to Catholic’s, this was a private poll so I can not determine if they are Catholic who voted for condom use.

 

[cheese_sdc]

Seriously, how do you think this all works?
When married couples in a parish have sex for the 20 years that the woman is able to bear children, and everyone has two children, one of four things are happening.

1. After a few years they don’t have sex
2. They have a great NFP program
3. They are using artificial birth control
4. They’ve already divorced and are sticking to the rules.

That couple may also have fertility issues.

 

[Elzee]

I wish I could restate your last few statements any better. I just can’t. Well said.

Thank you.

 

[AlexV]

And it’s frankly none of our business to be asserting what Catholics in a given diocese are probably, possibly, or obviously doing with their fertility.

Catholics don’t owe explanations of their fertility or the reasons they’re not having children to anyone but their spouses, their clergy in the confessional, and God.

And it smacks of arrogance and self-righteousness to be quipping that a given diocese may have vocation problems because its Catholic families aren’t producing the biological average of children…whether that be 5 or more or whatever.

I find such “pro-life” assertions to be offensive. The original post asked about a diocese being “open to life”. As I stated, the poster really means the majority of Catholics in the diocese. And it’s offensive to make the clear implication that a majority of Catholics in a given diocese are on artificial contraception, and ergo there aren’t as many vocations as in those glorious dioceses that don’t have such sinful practices.

 

[netmilsmom]

That couple may also have fertility issues.

Read it again. We are talking about entire parishes.
I have fertility issues and I am the unusual one in my parish.

 

[netmilsmom]

And it’s frankly none of our business to be asserting what Catholics in a given diocese are probably, possibly, or obviously doing with their fertility.

Catholics don’t owe explanations of their fertility or the reasons they’re not having children to anyone but their spouses, their clergy in the confessional, and God.

And it smacks of arrogance and self-righteousness to be quipping that a given diocese may have vocation problems because its Catholic families aren’t producing the biological average of children…whether that be 5 or more or whatever.

I find such “pro-life” assertions to be offensive. The original post asked about a diocese being “open to life”. As I stated, the poster really means the majority of Catholics in the diocese. And it’s offensive to make the clear implication that a majority of Catholics in a given diocese are on artificial contraception, and ergo there aren’t as many vocations as in those glorious dioceses that don’t have such sinful practices.

Yup, you’re right. This is all between families and God.
Some things are just obvious. If one will complain about lack of priests, one must expect to hear the explaination.

If you don’t like those facts, just block my posts.

 

[AlexV]

I’d hardly call it a “fact” that a given diocese has few vocations because of artificial contraception causing fewer births.

Maybe it’s a “fact” that some countries have record-breaking vocation numbers because the priesthood is a far better life than the dirt poverty the young man might otherwise face.

Maybe it’s a “fact” that some dioceses have huge vocation numbers because the screening process is less than rigorous.

In any cases, a diocese can’t be “open to life” or “not open”. Individuals are. And what lies ever so clearly behind your post is the artificial birth control issue…the “you’re not having at least 5 kids because you’re on the pill” accusation.

That’s offensive, and obfuscates the vocation issue.

 

[netmilsmom]

I’d hardly call it a “fact” that a given diocese has few vocations because of artificial contraception causing fewer births.

Maybe it’s a “fact” that some countries have record-breaking vocation numbers because the priesthood is a far better life than the dirt poverty the young man might otherwise face.

Maybe it’s a “fact” that some dioceses have huge vocation numbers because the screening process is less than rigorous.

In any cases, a diocese can’t be “open to life” or “not open”. Individuals are. And what lies ever so clearly behind your post is the artificial birth control issue…the “you’re not having at least 5 kids because you’re on the pill” accusation.

That’s offensive, and obfuscates the vocation issue.

Sorry you’re offended.
You have an option to ignore my posts.

 

[MrS]

When my pastor asked me to become an EMHC and minister to the homebound, the first words out of my mouth were that I was not worthy. His reply was that if I was unworthy to handle and touch our Lord, then I was unworthy to receive Him as well./quote]

I already know that… but for me the reverse is more my thinking… if I am unworthy to receive Him (and I am), I am also unworthy to touch Him. The words of your pastor not withstanding…

I can see why Mother Theresa was reported to have cried when ever she saw people receiving in the hand… not because they were receiving him, sinners that we are… but because of the lesser degree of reverence that they preferred.

.

 

[cheese_sdc]

When married couples in a parish have sex for the 20 years that the woman is able to bear children, and everyone has two children, one of four things are happening.

1. After a few years they don’t have sex
2. They have a great NFP program
3. They are using artificial birth control
4. They’ve already divorced and are sticking to the rules.

This seems relevant to the discussion:

Mildred, the church gossip, and self-appointed monitor of the church’s morals, kept sticking her nose into other people’s business. Several members did not approve of her extra curricular activities, but feared her enough to maintain their silence. She made a mistake, however, when she accused George, a new member, of being an alcoholic after she saw his old pickup parked in front of the town’s only bar one afternoon.
She emphatically told George and several others that everyone seeing it there would know what he was doing. George, a man of few words, stared at her for a moment and just turned and walked away. He didn’t explain, defend, or deny. He said nothing.
Later that evening, George quietly parked his pickup in front of Mildred’s house…

Walked home…

And left it there all night.

You gotta love George.

 

[Jakub]

What does fertility and birth control have to do with the purification of Sacred Vessels ?

Did I miss something in the memo from the Vatican ?

james