Misconceptions about Traditional Catholics

[ignatius777]

OK, I understand now what you meant. I thought you were saying the deacon and EMHC were refusing to self-Communicate.

You are saying that the laypeople would not receive Holy Communion from a deacon or EMHC. You are correct, the laypeople were in error if that’s the only reason they did not receive Holy Communion. The deacon is an ordinary minister of the Eucharist.

But this scenario has absolutely nothing to do with traditionalism. This isn’t a rule that changed at the time of Vatican II. Deacons have always been Eucharistic ministers.

That was the ONLY reason they didn’t receive. I merely asked for (name removed by moderator)ut

 

[ProVobis]

Deacons have always been Eucharistic ministers.

This is true, though most if not all deacons before the 60’s were transitional. But I do remember once when a newly ordained priest came in to say Mass and most went to him (via altar rail) for communion as that was his first Mass at the parish. (At that time, it was not uncommon for other priests serving at that parish to help with the distribution of communion.)

 

[shawnbm]

But not receiving from anyone but a priest is precisely the discussion I raised. My question was is it proper for the faithful to refuse reception of Holy Communion because it was not distributed by a priest. The people in question wouldn’t even receive from a deacon.

I believe the answer was previously given and it my understanding from the monsignor that receiving from either a priest or a deacon is valid–both are the ordinary ministers of communion, even though only a priest can effectuate the transubstantiation. Once the bread and wine has been transformed into the most precious Body and Blood of our LORD, the priest and deacon appear to be more or less on equal footing in terms of administering the sacrament to the faithful, although tradition dictates the deacon typically ministers the chalice. I know, however, there are some here who can answer this with a citation to canon law, so let us see.

 

[shawnbm]

I think you mean to say that the priest distributes the Body of Christ and it is normaly the duty of the deacon to distribute the Precious Blood when both species are being offered.

Yes, you are correct–a bit in-artfully phrased on my part.

 

[JReducation]

I believe the answer was previously given and it my understanding from the monsignor that receiving from either a priest or a deacon is valid–both are the ordinary ministers of communion, even though only a priest can effectuate the transubstantiation. Once the bread and wine has been transformed into the most precious Body and Blood of our LORD, the priest and deacon appear to be more or less on equal footing in terms of administering the sacrament to the faithful, although tradition dictates the deacon typically ministers the chalice. I know, however, there are some here who can answer this with a citation to canon law, so let us see.

I believe that the words that you’re looking for a Minister of the Eucharist and Minister of Holy Communion.

The Minister of the Eucharist is the one who consecrates. The Minister of Holy Communion is the one who distributes.

 

[ProVobis]

There are plenty of people in my parish that leave an EM’s line to go stand in Father’s line.
It begs the question: Do people think the Eucharist is LESS depending on who gives it to them?
really?

You may be jumping to unnecessary conclusions here. At Papal Masses, don’t many wish to receive from the Pope himself? Or even forsake going to a more local Mass in favor of the Pope’s? Does this diminish their value of the Eucharist?

 

[MikeDunphy]

That was the ONLY reason they didn’t receive. I merely asked for (name removed by moderator)ut

I think you were being too harsh in your judgment. If you are still in doubt, you could ask them whether they were rejecting God that day. They can tell you what their motivations were better than anyone here.

 

[shawnbm]

I believe that the words that you’re looking for a Minister of the Eucharist and Minister of Holy Communion.

The Minister of the Eucharist is the one who consecrates. The Minister of Holy Communion is the one who distributes.

. Correct!

 

[TimothyH]

This is true, though most if not all deacons before the 60’s were transitional. But I do remember once when a newly ordained priest came in to say Mass and most went to him (via altar rail) for communion as that was his first Mass at the parish. (At that time, it was not uncommon for other priests serving at that parish to help with the distribution of communion.)

From about 1000 AD to 1967, all deacons in the Roman Church were transitional. I don’t know about the Eastern Churches. The early Church saw the diaconate as a unique vocation in-and-of itself apart from the priesthood but gradually moved away from it until it abandoned the permanent diaconate altogether around 1000 AD. The permanent diaconate was restored by Motu Proprio in 1967.

Reference vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/motu_proprio/documents/hf_p-vi_motu-proprio_19670618_sacrum-diaconatus_en.html

I often wonder where traditionalists fall in terms of the permanent deacon. A deacon who will never become a priest, recognized as having a unique and authentic vocation in-and-of itself, potentially a married cleric, is certainly not patrimony from the age of Trent yet is firmly rooted in Scripture and the ancient Church.

The truth is that many who were ignorant of the history of the permanent diaconate were extremely disrespectful to the first restored permanent deacons in the early 70’s. I get the sense that there is still some distrust of the permanent deacons among traditionalists who see them as an innovation. I hope that this is a misconception on my part.

-Tim-

 

[pianistclare]

You may be jumping to unnecessary conclusions here. At Papal Masses, don’t many wish to receive from the Pope himself? Or even forsake going to a more local Mass in favor of the Pope’s? Does this diminish their value of the Eucharist?

Oh please. That’s a totally different scenario and you know it.
And anyway, if I was at a papal Mass and didn’t end up in the Pope’s “line” (if there even is such a thing) I wouldn’t be disappointed, for he is the one who consecrated the host.
I just can’t see any reason for line jumping. It’s disrespectful to Deacons. They are ordained, after all.

 

[EphelDuath]

From about 1000 AD to 1967, all deacons in the Roman Church were transitional.

False, St. Francis.

 

[TimothyH]

False, St. Francis.

I would like to ask you to please speak to me online as if I were sitting with you at a table having coffee. I’m sure that you are a really nice person and would not speak to anyone that way face to face.

The fact is that the permanent diaconate fell into disuse for about 1000 years and was restored by Motu Proprio in 1967.

If you wan to learn the history of the diaconate, why it fell into disuse, the impetus for restoration and the mechanics of how it came about then pick up a copy of “The Emerging Diaconate” by William T. Ditewig.

-Tim-

 

[JReducation]

False, St. Francis.

According to our archives, St. Francis’ diaconate may not have been diaconate as we understand it. There are no records of St. Francis ever exercising the diaconate. There is an oral tradition that says that he was a deacon. But the man never baptized, distributed Holy Communion, buried the dead, even among his brothers, and never witnessed a marriage.

He was allowed to sing the Gospel and to preach at mass. Here is the problem. Most Franciscans have been allowed to do that over the centuries without being ordained. There was a diakonia that died out in the Church. It was not the order of deacon per se, but a ministry.

We’re not sure if that’s what the oral tradition means when it refers to Francis as a deacon. When his body was exhumed, there was a habit, but no stole. Clerics were buried with a habit and a stole. There doesn’t seem to have ever been a stole in that coffin.

St. Francis is not a good example of a permanent deacon, because we just don’t know. We can’t prove it.

In the East the permanent diaconate was never abolished. They have always had the Father Deacon as they call them.

 

[JReducation]

I am not understanding what you are trying to say. Are you saying that a deacon does not usually distribute the Precious Blood when both species are being offered/distributed to the people?

No, not at all. Sorry about the confusion. I’m just saying that he is not tied to the cup. The cup can be given to an EMHC and the deacon should take the hosts, if there is a need for another person to distribute the host.

It’s not that the precious blood is less than the consecrated host. Believe it or not, it’s actually done for liturgical aesthetics. It is more pleasant to the eye to look ahead and see deacon and priest side by side and than priest and layman.

 

[zab]

No, not at all. Sorry about the confusion. I’m just saying that he is not tied to the cup. The cup can be given to an EMHC and the deacon should take the hosts, if there is a need for another person to distribute the host.

It’s not that the precious blood is less than the consecrated host. Believe it or not, it’s actually done for liturgical aesthetics. It is more pleasant to the eye to look ahead and see deacon and priest side by side and than priest and layman.

Sometimes it is a little difficult to keep up with the conversation and what a post is directed to. I was laughing to myself when I read the post from** shawnbm** who wrote “…the deacon provides the blood.”. I was thinking that the correct term should be "distributes" or as you stated “the deacon is the* Minister of the Cup*”. Then I looked up the definition of “provides”. Maybe **shawnbm **was right after all.

make available for use; supply.

“these clubs provide a much appreciated service for this area”
synonyms:
supply, give, issue, furnish, come up with, dispense, bestow, impart, produce, yield, bring forth, bear, deliver, donate, contribute, pledge, advance, spare, part with, allocate, distribute, allot, put up;

 

[hoop0826]

According to our archives, St. Francis’ diaconate may not have been diaconate as we understand it. There are no records of St. Francis ever exercising the diaconate. There is an oral tradition that says that he was a deacon. But the man never baptized, distributed Holy Communion, buried the dead, even among his brothers, and never witnessed a marriage.

He was allowed to sing the Gospel and to preach at mass. Here is the problem. Most Franciscans have been allowed to do that over the centuries without being ordained. There was a diakonia that died out in the Church. It was not the order of deacon per se, but a ministry.

We’re not sure if that’s what the oral tradition means when it refers to Francis as a deacon. When his body was exhumed, there was a habit, but no stole. Clerics were buried with a habit and a stole. There doesn’t seem to have ever been a stole in that coffin.

St. Francis is not a good example of a permanent deacon, because we just don’t know. We can’t prove it.

In the East the permanent diaconate was never abolished. They have always had the Father Deacon as they call them.

JREductaion,

I am learning much about Franciscan tradition through your posts - and am greatful for that light.
The Franciscan spirituality and the what I think is the right spirit of the Ordinary form of the Latin Rite Mass seem to resonate together, and help me to understand it. In fact, the coming of Pope Francis I makes the Ordinary form and the changes it implemented even more dignified to me.
The Benedictine spirituality seems to resonated more to me with the Extraordinary Form of the Latin Rite which makes me think that abolishing this form could do great harm to the spiritual traditions. :blushing:

 

[Denise1957]

Some of the misconceptions that I sometimes find frustrating are that traditional Catholics are supposedly obsessed with rubrics, rules, gregorian chant, adherence to the Council of Trent, and Latin. Sure, there are some who obsess over these things. But most traditionalists, IMO, see these things, for the most part (which are a part of the Church’s rich history), as a means for growing in holiness. If used properly, they can be a means of growing in holiness, but not the only means, of course.

Given our fallen nature, we have the tendency to get carried away sometimes, but perhaps we can find it in out heart to forgive those traditionalists who obsess on these things. They really are trying to be good Catholics.

 

[JReducation]

JREductaion,

I am learning much about Franciscan tradition through your posts - and am greatful for that light.
The Franciscan spirituality and the what I think is the right spirit of the Ordinary form of the Latin Rite Mass seem to resonate together, and help me to understand it. In fact, the coming of Pope Francis I makes the Ordinary form and the changes it implemented even more dignified to me.
The Benedictine spirituality seems to resonated more to me with the Extraordinary Form of the Latin Rite which makes me think that abolishing this form could do great harm to the spiritual traditions. :blushing:

It’s funny that you should connect the Benedictines with the EF. The Tridentine form of Pope Pius V came from Franciscan tradition, not Benedictine. Pope Pius embellished a form that was made popular by Francis of Assisi.

Some of the misconceptions that I sometimes find frustrating are that traditional Catholics are supposedly obsessed with rubrics, rules, gregorian chant, adherence to the Council of Trent, and Latin. Sure, there are some who obsess over these things. But most traditionalists, IMO, see these things, for the most part (which are a part of the Church’s rich history), as a means for growing in holiness. If used properly, they can be a means of growing in holiness, but not the only means, of course.

Given our fallen nature, we have the tendency to get carried away sometimes, but perhaps we can find it in out heart to forgive those traditionalists who obsess on these things. They really are trying to be good Catholics.

This is very true. We have to be compassionate to all people. It is very wrong to try to do harm to others who are trying their best to follow the faith as they understand it. They make mistakes, but who doesn’t?

It’s very important to be honest in our dealings and reports about those who are on a different page. Part of this honesty is to see the goodness in them. To go around saying that others are horrible sinners, heretics, schismatics, nuts or whatever other label we wish to attach to them does not make us better disciples of Christ.

We have to see people as Christ sees them. He sees their weaknesses, but he also sees that they have redeeming qualities. If man had no redeeming qualities, the Cross would have been ineffective. The effectiveness of the Cross rests on the fact that God created us redeemable. We often forget that he did this for us. When we forget this, we forget that others are redeemable. That’s when we go on the attack.

That’s not what Christ is about.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

So, what are the misconceptions?

 

[ignatius777]

I think you were being too harsh in your judgment. If you are still in doubt, you could ask them whether they were rejecting God that day. They can tell you what their motivations were better than anyone here.

Ok fair enough but I cant fathom why anyone wouldn’t receive when they went there with every intention of receiving. But your point is well taken