But, again, the way you keep defending this leads me to think otherwise, bmadamsberry. The OP is not asking for extreme cases, just if the average person can do this. By bringing in extreme cases, which may or may not even be licit, you are, as I see it, compounding and confusing the situation. Again, reading RS should be enough. The answer to the OP’s question is, as Fr. David wrote, no.Again with the words in my mouth that I have NEVER said. Some people call that bearing a false witness.
I have not said that someone can take the Eucharist home. Nope. They cannot. Nor have I said that it is common, nor have I said that it is simple. It cost a lot of money (it has to be a worthy chapel, complete with an altar that Mass must be celebrated at 2x a month, a tabernacle that fits within the Code, security system of some kind to protect the Host, etc.).
You are taking what I have written as saying that I all that has to happen is a "bishop just casually says “sure, if you want a tabernacle at your house, go right ahead”. That is not, if you read carefully, what I have been supporting.
You could always try to do the research yourself.And your source for all of this? Is there a website or some other bona fide means to support this contention?
And I guess RS superceeds the Code? Because I quoted the Code earlier, and it states:But, again, the way you keep defending this leads me to think otherwise, bmadamsberry. The OP is not asking for extreme cases, just if the average person can do this. By bringing in extreme cases, which may or may not even be licit, you are, as I see it, compounding and confusing the situation. Again, reading RS should be enough. The answer to the OP’s question is, as Fr. David wrote, no.
The quotes continually given from RS
- The approval of the Bishop is given
- It is a pious house
- It is within a chapel or oratory
- Mass is celebrated twice a month there
is not argued by me. I agree, the laity cannot carry it home. But this is in reference to transportation, not location!No one may carry the Most Holy Eucharist to his or her home, or to any other place contrary to the norm of law.
The answer yes is needed. HOWEVER, a but can, and should, follow it that while the laity can reserve it at home, X, Y, and Z conditions must be met which are only givin in extreme, unusual, and rare situations.the laity reserve the Holy Eucharist at home
However, bmadamsberry, when you bring up extreme cases, whose licitness may or may not be in doubt, that, in my opinion, tends to confuse things. Fr. David’s interpretation of the Canon is accurate. Furthermore, just because pious people may live in a house, that is not sufficient grounds to allow the Blessed Sacrament to be reserved there.And I guess RS superceeds the Code? Because I quoted the Code earlier, and it states:
The quotes continually given from RS is not argued by me. I agree, the laity cannot carry it home. But this is in reference to transportation, not location!
My giving example of extreme cases is to show that it can be done. FrDavid seems to be arguing that it cannot be done period, and so the use of any legitimate case is simply to show that it can, indeed, be licitly done. I am not showing that it can be often done.
Furthermore, the OP’s question was
The answer yes is needed. HOWEVER, a but can, and should, follow it that while the laity can reserve it at home, X, Y, and Z conditions must be met which are only givin in extreme, unusual, and rare situations.
The licitness is not in doubt for me, who has researched the matter pertaining to Sir Walter Scott. It may be in doubt to you, but I can’t help that because even if I presented a document giving the okay from a bishop you wouldn’t accept it.However, bmadamsberry, when you bring up extreme cases, whose licitness may or may not be in doubt, that, in my opinion, tends to confuse things. Fr. David’s interpretation of the Canon is accurate. Furthermore, just because pious people may live in a house, that is not sufficient grounds to allow the Blessed Sacrament to be reserved there.
Your examples are, again, extreme cases. The answer that Fr. David gave is correct. Inasmuch as you are trying, as I read your posts, to justify things, the particular intepretation may not necessarily be helpful to the OP.
But, in 99% of the cases, the answer is no. In my opinion, there is no need to show the OP extreme cases that, more than likely, do not apply to his situation. The answer that Fr. David gave (and which RS supports) does not fly in the face of reality. Quoting extreme situations to try to justify a point really, with all due respect, does not help the situation. In fact, it muddles it, making it more compounded and more confused.The licitness is not in doubt for me, who has researched the matter pertaining to Sir Walter Scott. It may be in doubt to you, but I can’t help that because even if I presented a document giving the okay from a bishop you wouldn’t accept it.
I agree that just because pious people live in a house is not sufficient grounds to allow the Blessed Sacrament. That is why there are the other 3 rules in the Code. It is necessary, but not sufficient. I don’t even know why you brought it up considering I have not argued that it is sufficient.
I also have not argued that my cases aren’t extreme. They are. They are unusualy cases that don’t usually happen. But what does that have to do with anything? If just ONE laity has the Blessed Sacrament reserved in his or her house LICITLY, then the answer to the OP’s question is yes. It doesn’t matter that it is rare. In the same way, if someone asked is water the only way to be baptized I would say no, because one can be baptized by blood or desire. Those are RARE cases that almost NEVER happen, but to answer yes would be incorrect.
I don’t know what the OP is planning, but his question was plain and simple, and that was can the laity reserve the Blessed Sacrament. Yes, they can. Is it easy? No. Does it happen often? No. Is it normal? No. But to say “no, the laity cannot reserve the Blessed Sacrament” flies in the face of the fact that it CAN happen, rarity aside.
It’s that 1%, though. If X is false in 99% of cases, but is true in 1%, is it always false? No.But, in 99% of the cases, the answer is no. In my opinion, there is no need to show the OP extreme cases that, more than likely, do not apply to his situation. The answer that Fr. David gave (and which RS supports) does not fly in the face of reality. Quoting extreme situations to try to justify a point really, with all due respect, does not help the situation. In fact, it muddles it, making it more compounded and more confused.
But, again, there is no need to use extreme cases to justify something that is probably not warranted. In my opinion, there is no need to further confuse the matter for the OP by bringing in something that will not, more than likely, apply to him. Furthermore, the reference from RS is sufficient. Again, I refer you to Fr. David’s explanation.It’s that 1%, though. If X is false in 99% of cases, but is true in 1%, is it always false? No.
You are under the assumption that the OP even has a case. Maybe he or she just wanted to know, maybe someone asked him or her the question. Furthermore, what about if the matter DID apply to his or her case?
I am using extreme cases to show that in extreme cases it can be done. I am proving exactly what I have said, extreme cases. It would be impossible to use extreme cases to show that in normal cases it can be done, and in the same way it would be impossible to use normal cases to prove that it can be done in extreme cases. That doesn’t make sense.
And you are watering down the Truth. You are generalizing, saying that it cannot be done period when, in fact, it can be done.
Yeah… I see we’re getting no where, which is probably because we both have a very hard head. You seem of the opinion that we should answer questions simply and in a generalized way so as to be easily understood. I am of the opinion that one’s qustion should be answered to the fullest, even the complexities and oddities that exist. I really don’t see either of us getting anywhere on this, because you keep repeating the same thing and I keep repeating the same thing.But, again, there is no need to use extreme cases to justify something that is probably not warranted. In my opinion, there is no need to further confuse the matter for the OP by bringing in something that will not, more than likely, apply to him. Furthermore, the reference from RS is sufficient. Again, I refer you to Fr. David’s explanation.
But, by giving too much information, we compound the situation even more than it needs to be. We should not go into extremes. Evidently, the OP is not in the situation where such would be allowed. That is why the simpler the easier. That is why I keep referring back to Fr. David’s response, which is about as straight-forward as one can get.Yeah… I see we’re getting no where, which is probably because we both have a very hard head. You seem of the opinion that we should answer questions simply and in a generalized way so as to be easily understood. I am of the opinion that one’s qustion should be answered to the fullest, even the complexities and oddities that exist. I really don’t see either of us getting anywhere on this, because you keep repeating the same thing and I keep repeating the same thing.
Dear Sister in Christ,This is not what the question is about. It is about a lay person having permission to keep the Blessed Sacrament reserved in their home. This is not permitted. It may be that some family has a private chapel with a tabernacle and permission to reserve the Holy Eucharist, but this would entail a priest saying Mass there at least once each fortnight (I believe this is the required time period), since the Host reserved would be consumed and a new one reserved, so that the Host does not become moldy …
Such permissions are not lightly given.