Pope Benedicts wishes for communicants

[TimothyH]

I believe it was St. Augustine who put it this way: “The substance changes, the accidents remain the same”. The substance is the Body and Blood of Christ, the accidents are the bread and wine, which includes all the properties of bread and wine. That’s why celiacs can’t receive the host (because bread has gluten) and why it’s possibly to get drunk if you drink too much from the chalice (I can verify the latter, I’ve felt a little tipsy when asked to consume the rest of the Blood and there’s like half a chalice left. I’ve talked to others with similar stories). I’m pretty sure that if you too a consecrated host and put it under a microscope (not recommended for obvious reasons) you’d see bread, and that would not impact the Catholic understanding at all.

I’m not saying it’s not the Body and Blood of Christ (I’m saying the opposite actually), but that doesn’t mean it also can’t be a sign for us. They’re not mutually exclusive ideas, you can have both at once. It’s “both and”.

The accidents are the appearance to our senses of bread and wine. The accidents are different from the substance. The substance has completely changed while the appearance remains the same. The bread and wine are completely changed. The bread and wine no longer exist as such, but are changed, and only appear to us to be bread and wine.

Catechism 1376
The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”

We sense alcohol, and can therefor be physically effected by it. But it is not alcohol. The bread and wine no longer exist. It is blood. It is Jesus. It is The Lord.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

I believe it was St. Augustine who put it this way: “The substance changes, the accidents remain the same”. The substance is the Body and Blood of Christ, the accidents are the bread and wine, which includes all the properties of bread and wine. That’s why celiacs can’t receive the host (because bread has gluten) and why it’s possibly to get drunk if you drink too much from the chalice (I can verify the latter, I’ve felt a little tipsy when asked to consume the rest of the Blood and there’s like half a chalice left. I’ve talked to others with similar stories). I’m pretty sure that if you too a consecrated host and put it under a microscope (not recommended for obvious reasons) you’d see bread, and that would not impact the Catholic understanding at all.

I’m not saying it’s not the Body and Blood of Christ (I’m saying the opposite actually), but that doesn’t mean it also can’t be a sign for us. They’re not mutually exclusive ideas, you can have both at once. It’s “both and”.
Brooklyn;9253730:

I think this can be very confusing. It like saying my body is a sign of my soul. But my body and soul are completely intertwined. The bread and wine become

Christ, they are not a sign of Christ. How can Christ point us to Christ? When you start saying that the Eucharist is a sign, people will tend to be much less reverent (although in some churches it doesn’t seem like it can get any less!). I think this is very shaky reasoning and could lead to wrong interpretation.

I think you are both right but that you both have different definitions of the same words. There seems to be some disconnect between physical presence and sacramental presence and how the sacramental presence can be a sign of the physical presence.

We say that the full substance of Jesus is present in the Eucharist. It is his flesh. It is his blood. It is his soul. It is his divinity. It is the Lord! A theologian however, will never say that Jesus is physically present. For Jesus to be physically present would mean that a 180 lb man would be standing in front of us. Theologians are careful about this, and it is not something which we pick up on easily, and we often make the mistake. Theologians are careful to state that the bread and wine are changed into ***the substance ***of our Lord.

Jesus is ***sacramentally present ***in the Eucharist, and the sacramental presence of Jesus contains the ***entire substance ***of Jesus, and the entire substance of Jesus is present in the physical world in which we live, but Jesus’s physical body is not present - Jesus is not physically present.

Jesus was physically present 2000 years ago in Palestine, and he will be physically present at the second coming. His presence now is sacramental, and the sacramental presence is a sign of his physical return one day.

One could say that the sacramental presence of Jesus is an order of magnitude higher than his physical presence. He can be present simultaneously in tabernacles at different times and in different places. He can be present in a tabernacle in Rome in the twelfth century, can be present in a tabernacle today in New York City, and can be present in a tabernacle in Tokyo ten centuries from now. Jesus showed us his sacramental presence when he was physically present.

When they had rowed about three or four miles, they saw Jesus walking on the sea and coming near the boat, and they began to be afraid. But he said to them, “It is I. Do not be afraid.” They wanted to take him into the boat, but the boat immediately arrived at the shore to which they were heading. (John 6:19-21)

Jesus transcends the physical world by walking on water and transcends time by appearing in another place instantaneously. Note where this is in the Bible. It’s in John 6, right before Jesus explains how we must eat his flesh. To me the passage is John telling us about the sacramental presence of Jesus which is to come. John is truly the Gospel of the Eucharist.

Yes, the Eucharist is Jesus. The full substance of Jesus is present in the sacrament, under he appearance of bread an wine, as a sign of his physical presence at the parousia when he will stand before us as a man. So the sacrament is fully Jesus - his entire substance - and it is a sign of his physical return. The sacramental presence of Jesus now in the Eucharist points us to the physical presence of Jesus when he returns in glory.

-Tim-

 

[curlycool89]

I think this can be very confusing. It like saying my body is a sign of my soul. But my body and soul are completely intertwined. The bread and wine become Christ, they are not a sign of Christ. How can Christ point us to Christ?

It is Christ, but it also points us to Christ because our senses do not perceive it as Christ.

When you start saying that the Eucharist is a sign, people will tend to be much less reverent (although in some churches it doesn’t seem like it can get any less!). I think this is very shaky reasoning and could lead to wrong interpretation.

Since when does “can be misinterpreted” mean that we shouldn’t talk about it? When people talk about their devotion to the Blessed Mother sometimes here in CAF, outsiders can (and probably do) misinterpret it as as worship when it is not, but they don’t understand because they don’t have the background. Just because things can be hard to understand doesn’t mean we can’t talk about it.

I don’t think people should be less reverent though, as long as they have the correct understanding. It is Christ and you should treat the Eucharist as such as that demands, but you can also remember that there are reasons why Christ gave us the Eucharist as a Sacrament as opposed to something else.

We sense alcohol, and can therefor be physically effected by it. But it is not alcohol. The bread and wine no longer exist. It is blood. It is Jesus. It is The Lord.

I don’t think that explains it. If a person is a celiac, even if they don’t know that we use wheaten bread for the Eucharist they are still going to be affected by it (ie. have a reaction).

I think you’re arguing far too much in favour of any reaction being purely psychosomatic (Somatoform disorder) as opposed to a physical reaction, and I don’t think that can explain all cases (like the example above).

The host is the body and blood of Christ (the substance), but it has the accidents of bread (the appearance, taste, texture) are still there and not just as an illusion. Our senses only perceive the accidents: the taste of bread, the gluten in bread, but it is not bread. It is not that our senses think it is bread, our senses tell us that it is bread, but it is not bread. That’s because normally we do not see such big differences between the accidents and the substance. It is only through faith that we know the substance is the body and blood of Christ.

It is not that that we only think there’s alcohol, the Blood of Christ in the chalice has the properties of wine but it is not wine. Normally something (the substance) has the properties (accidents) of itself, but in this case that is not true, and we know that because of faith. I found this from EWTN to be helpful to understand.

Sorry, I don’t think I was explaining it well in my last post.

…and I think I’m now responding to a post that no longer exists.

The sacramental presence of Jesus now in the Eucharist points us to the physical presence of Jesus when he returns in glory.

Leave it to someone else to point out better in one sentence then what I try to do in a paragraph.

 

[TimothyH]

I don’t think that explains it. If a person is a celiac, even if they don’t know that we use wheaten bread for the Eucharist they are still going to be affected by it (ie. have a reaction).

I think you’re arguing far too much in favour of any reaction being purely psychosomatic (Somatoform disorder) as opposed to a physical reaction, and I don’t think that can explain all cases (like the example above).

The host is the body and blood of Christ (the substance), but it has the accidents of bread (the appearance, taste, texture) are still there and not just as an illusion. Our senses only perceive the accidents: the taste of bread, the gluten in bread, but it is not bread. It is not that our senses think it is bread, our senses tell us that it is bread, but it is not bread. That’s because normally we do not see such big differences between the accidents and the substance. It is only through faith that we know the substance is the body and blood of Christ.

It is not that that we only think there’s alcohol, the Blood of Christ in the chalice has the properties of wine but it is not wine. Normally something (the substance) has the properties (accidents) of itself, but in this case that is not true, and we know that because of faith. I found this from EWTN to be helpful to understand.

Sorry, I don’t think I was explaining it well in my last post.

.

I never said that anything was psychosomatic. I never said that it was an illusion. Other than that, we agree 100%.

-Tim-

 

[AMDG1]

I’ve never received in the hand, nor from an EMHC since making First Communion in 1972…ever. No joke. I’m not perfect by any means but can’t bring myself to do it the “new way”. I sometimes get curious looks from fellow parishioners.

 

[Liquid47]

In the Latin Rite, not only is kneeling and receiving on the tongue the preferred method to receive the Eucharist, it is the normal method. All other methods are exceptions that must be approved.

Through his actions, our Holy Father has admitted that it is the most reverent posture to kneel and receive Eucharist on the tongue. Cardinal Francis Arinze, who served as Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, who helped compile Redemptionis Sacramentum, has said this much as well. The current Prefect for the stated Congregation, Cardinal Antonio Canizares Llovera, has also stated that it is preferable to receive it on the tongue, while kneeling.

That being said, it is not bad to receive communion on the hand. In fact, it is perfectly acceptable to receive it on the hand, even from an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, provided the bishops have been given permission for their parishes to do so. What most lay people don’t realize in regards to the Latin Rite, is that standing and receiving Eucharist in the hand has to be APPROVED by the Apostolic See. If not approved, or not yet taken to the Apostolic See, the faithful must kneel, and must receive on the tongue.

What most people in the English speaking world are use to is standing and receiving Holy Communion in the hand. It is the most common, but it is neither the normal nor the preferred method. In fact, a priest cannot refuse Holy Communion to the one person out of a thousand who chooses to kneel and receive Our Lord in his/her tongue, despite being use to the other forms of reception.

Here is Cardinal Arinze on the ways to receive Holy Communion.

And as ever, the wonderful Michael Voris on reception in the hand, and kneeling for Holy Communion.

God Bless!

 

[ClayPots47]

Through his actions, our Holy Father has admitted has said, that it is the most reverent posture to kneel and receive Eucharist on the tongue".

If you read this thread, you would have learned that this is false. Yet this falsehood is often repeated, and refuted, on CAF, as it was on this thread. See Brother David’s reply here, then Bookcat’s reply here. Both quote the Holy Father’s words directly from “Light of the World” and “God Is Near Us”.

Cardinal Francis Arinze, who served as Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, who helped compile Redemptionis Sacramentum, has said this much as well.

Then he contradicts the Holy Father, which I doubt, but I’m willing to be corrected if you will kindly provide a source where Arinze said, “that it is the most reverent posture to kneel and receive Eucharist on the tongue.”

 

[TempleServant]

Ok, what are the benefits of changing over to this practice, if previously it was COTT, kneeling, in your parish? I mean, there’s got to be some, if its your god in the small piece of bread.

I’m getting cheesed of with the legalist approach to the Mass. With that approach, it comes down to this: “Whatever your bishop allows, you can do.” Since altar girls, CITH, wreckovations, folky music and lively offetory processions are all legal, you can have a mass that is as noisy, distracting, and audience-oriented as you want. You can have it in a church that looks like a masonic temple. If you complain, you get quoted the law, as if this was the end of the matter.

It’s sad it’s come to this: “We can do it if it’s not forbidden”, which is stretched further to "It is The Holy Sacrifice Of The Mass, so whatever happens in it, if it’s not actually illegal, you should accept gratefully and without murmur."

This, despite the fact the the Sacrifice is played down and the Celebration is played up 365, even at funerals!

The line taken on here is that ‘Catholics shouldn’t complain’. I think the problem is that they don’t do it enough. A polite letter to the bishop, explaining why you’re going to a TLM 50 miles away, might have some effect, if he got enough of them. Or a friendly chat if you happen to meet him.

The trouble with the changes is that they’ve happened gradually in human terms, after the first earthquake. People don’t bat an eyelid at rock bands at mass now. So when their priest is replaced by a female celebrant at a Communion Service, they’ll get used to that too, quickly.

It will be ‘Mrs Johnson’s Mass’.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I’m getting cheesed of with the legalist approach to the Mass. With that approach, it comes down to this: “Whatever your bishop allows, you can do.”

I’m getting cheesed off with all these users who have to apply labels and direct hatred toward those who disagree with them on the usage of things that the Church allows.

To do something that the Church allows is not being legalist in any way.

You seem to wish to paint a disparaging label on those who do not agree with you on legitimate choices. Maybe they see you are a “I’m holier than you because I do it the “right” way rather than that other way the Church allows for”.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

I’m getting cheesed off with all these users who have to apply labels and direct hatred toward those who disagree with them on the usage of things that the Church allows.

To do something that the Church allows is not being legalist in any way.

You seem to wish to paint a disparaging label on those who do not agree with you on legitimate choices. Maybe they see you are a “I’m holier than you because I do it the “right” way rather than that other way the Church allows for”.

The warrant in your argument is that whatever options the Church allows are equal. This warrant is unproven and I would argue incorrect. For example, the Church allows members the option of only confessing and communicating once a year. That’s the precept, the requirement. A Catholic can be faithful to the rules and precepts of the Church by only going to confession once a year and only receiving Holy Communion once a year. However, wouldn’t you agree that it would be better (and yes, I use that term intentionally) for Catholics to confess more than once a year? Wouldn’t it better to receive the graces from frequent Communion? So why the “legal” requirement is once a year, and every Catholic has the option to follow that legal requirement, it seems from the writings of popes, saints, and everyone else that it would be better to not follow that option and instead confess and communicate more often.

I think what TempleServant meant by “legalistic” approach was following the letter of the law instead of the spirit (if that’s not what TempleServant meant, then my apologies, but it is how I understand it). The letter says that you have these options and they are equal under Canon Law. The spirit says that some options are better than others. The letter says to confess once a year. The spirit says to confess often. The letter says to communicate once a year. The spirit says to communicate often.

Now, we can take this idea further, and say that other options the Church allows/requires fit into the same category. They may be allowed, but just because they are doesn’t mean they are the best. I keep bringing this up because I think it is a clear example. I am allowed to confess only once a year and remain a Catholic in good standing. It is better to confess more often.

• PAX

ETA: I agree with you that a “holier than thou” attitude is never good, because that is pride. But one can say one practice is better than another without saying I am holier than you because I follow that practice and you don’t. It is judging practices, not people, just like we judge sins, not sinners; the same principle is at work. If I say I am better than you because I am Catholic and you are not (the hypothetical you), then I have fallen into pride. However, I can easily say that Catholicism is better than other religions because Catholicism is the one religion that contains all the truths and graces necessary for salvation, and it was founded by God and is guided by Him. That is not pride or “holier than thou.” The same principle applies.

 

[Rich_C]

Well put, EcceAngusDei.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The warrant in your argument is that whatever options the Church allows are equal. This warrant is unproven and I would argue incorrect. For example, the Church allows members the option of only confessing and communicating once a year. That’s the precept, the requirement. A Catholic can be faithful to the rules and precepts of the Church by only going to confession once a year and only receiving Holy Communion once a year. However, wouldn’t you agree that it would be better (and yes, I use that term intentionally) for Catholics to confess more than once a year? Wouldn’t it better to receive the graces from frequent Communion? So why the “legal” requirement is once a year, and every Catholic has the option to follow that legal requirement, it seems from the writings of popes, saints, and everyone else that it would be better to not follow that option and instead confess and communicate more often.

I think what TempleServant meant by “legalistic” approach was following the letter of the law instead of the spirit (if that’s not what TempleServant meant, then my apologies, but it is how I understand it). The letter says that you have these options and they are equal under Canon Law. The spirit says that some options are better than others. The letter says to confess once a year. The spirit says to confess often. The letter says to communicate once a year. The spirit says to communicate often.

Now, we can take this idea further, and say that other options the Church allows/requires fit into the same category. They may be allowed, but just because they are doesn’t mean they are the best. I keep bringing this up because I think it is a clear example. I am allowed to confess only once a year and remain a Catholic in good standing. It is better to confess more often.

• PAX

ETA: I agree with you that a “holier than thou” attitude is never good, because that is pride. But one can say one practice is better than another without saying I am holier than you because I follow that practice and you don’t. It is judging practices, not people, just like we judge sins, not sinners; the same principle is at work. If I say I am better than you because I am Catholic and you are not (the hypothetical you), then I have fallen into pride. However, I can easily say that Catholicism is better than other religions because Catholicism is the one religion that contains all the truths and graces necessary for salvation, and it was founded by God and is guided by Him. That is not pride or “holier than thou.” The same principle applies.

I agree with all that you said here. The Church states through canon law that the choices are equal. It is silent as to the equality of the spiritual benefit to the individual.

That is a subjective thing and not something that can be argued.

It is not for us to tell others that their choice, which is allowed by the Church, is less spiritually beneficial than our personal choice. What we can say is that our choice is more spiritually beneficial to our own spiritual life without judging the others spiritual life.

Crying about the legalism of others is not beneficial to the discussion. I would even hazard a guess that it might be a cause of pointing out the speck in others eye while ignoring our the beam in ours.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

It is not for us to tell others that their choice, which is allowed by the Church, is less spiritually beneficial than our personal choice. What we can say is that our choice is more spiritually beneficial to our own spiritual life without judging the others spiritual life.

Then why do so many people popes, saints, superiors, bishops, priests, and everyone else say that we should have frequent confession and frequent communion? They are most certainly saying that it is more spiritually beneficial than to only confess and communicate once a year.

And we don’t have to judge someone else’s spiritual life in order to judge the spiritual practices they choose. We can simply judge the practice. If someone only confesses once a year, I shouldn’t say that their own specific personal spiritual life is lacking. But I can most certainly point out to them how it the practice of confessing more than once a year has spiritual benefits. Again, we separate the person from the practice and discuss the practice.

Just because some people mess up and judge the person and the practice, or just because some people misunderstand and think they are being judged when in reality on the practice is, doesn’t mean we can’t judge the practice. If this were the case, then we’d have to keep our mouths shut about sin because some people equate the sin with the sinner, and because some sinners feel that they are being judged when their sins are condemned.

Some spiritual practices, traditions, and options are more spiritually beneficial than others, even if Canon Law allows both to be practiced.

• PAX

 

[TempleServant]

I think what TempleServant meant by “legalistic” approach was following the letter of the law instead of the spirit (if that’s not what TempleServant meant, then my apologies, but it is how I understand it).

Yes! That’s it! The spirit of the law. The letter allows *(or does not forbid) *a lot of things that, if you were to do them all in the same mass, would be quite lively. Quite lively indeed.

Whereas a sung Latin Sunday Mass is rarer than even trads realise, I think. We have a long way to go yet! Or you never know: there might be a mass epiphany!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Then why do so many people popes, saints, superiors, bishops, priests, and everyone else say that we should have frequent confession and frequent communion? They are most certainly saying that it is more spiritually beneficial than to only confess and communicate once a year.

That is calling everyone to frequent the sacraments. No where do they say how to receive them. I have yet to see a large group of saints, popes, superiors, bishops. or priests say that we must receive the Eucharist in a certain manner or that we must go to confession face-to-face or must use the grill.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

EcceAgnusDei;9268391:

Then why do so many people popes, saints, superiors, bishops, priests, and everyone else say that we should have frequent confession and frequent communion? They are most certainly saying that it is more spiritually beneficial than to only confess and communicate once a year.

That is calling everyone to frequent the sacraments. No where do they say how to receive them.

I was taking about the specifics of how to receive sacraments. I am discussing the warrant of your argument, which was that we cannot judge one allowed spiritual practice to be more or less spiritually beneficial than another allowed spiritual practice. I am arguing that your basic principle is incorrect by using the example of the allowed practice of receiving communion only once a year and confessing only once a year. Those allowed practices are not as spiritually beneficial as receiving the sacraments more often, wouldn’t you agree? If so, then you and I agree that we have a precedent for saying that an allowed practice is not necessarily the best practice. Let’s determine if we agree on this principle before we begin applying it to specifics, such as how to receive sacraments.

I have yet to see a large group of saints, popes, superiors, bishops. or priests say that we must receive the Eucharist in a certain manner or that we must go to confession face-to-face or must use the grill.

I’m not going to really get into this yet until we agree on our warrant. Are some spiritual practices more beneficial than others? If you say no, then please explain how your view matches up with my examples of confession and communion.

Its a matter of degrees. I have also not seen any of them say that something is less reverent than another.

Can you explain what the “it” refers to in “It’s a matter of degrees”? Just for clarification before I respond.

Really as has been said before. These matters are of no concern for the average lay person as the rules are being followed.

I disagree here. The average layperson should frequent the sacraments of communion and confession, even though the rules say he or she only needs to go once a year. It is a concern.

• PAX

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I was taking about the specifics of how to receive sacraments. I am discussing the warrant of your argument, which was that we cannot judge one allowed spiritual practice to be more or less spiritually beneficial than another allowed spiritual practice. I am arguing that your basic principle is incorrect by using the example of the allowed practice of receiving communion only once a year and confessing only once a year. Those allowed practices are not as spiritually beneficial as receiving the sacraments more often, wouldn’t you agree? If so, then you and I agree that we have a precedent for saying that an allowed practice is not necessarily the best practice. Let’s determine if we agree on this principle before we begin applying it to specifics, such as how to receive sacraments.

Here is the difference between you and I. I would not presume to judge the spiritual life of anyone nor what spiritual benefit they get from their practices.

I would leave that for their spiritual father (spiritual director) to do as that is within their authority. I have no authority. I would point them to where the Church speaks about frequent communion and frequent confession but I would not judge that they are in any way deficient.

Now can you do the same? Can you not judge the spiritual life and spiritual benefits others derive from COTH and receiving while standing? Can you leave this for those who have authority over the individuals life in this area? Can you leave it to pointing out where the Church says that CITH and reception while kneeling are more more reverent and spirituality beneficial practices?

I know for a fact that you can not do the last one as the Church has never made any such statements.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Here is the difference between you and I. I would not presume to judge the spiritual life of anyone nor what spiritual benefit they get from their practices.

I would leave that for their spiritual father (spiritual director) to do as that is within their authority. I have no authority. I would point them to where the Church speaks about frequent communion and frequent confession but I would not judge that they are in any way deficient.

Now can you do the same? Can you not judge the spiritual life and spiritual benefits others derive from COTH and receiving while standing? Can you leave this for those who have authority over the individuals life in this area? Can you leave it to pointing out where the Church says that CITH and reception while kneeling are more more reverent and spirituality beneficial practices?

I know for a fact that you can not do the last one as the Church has never made any such statements.

You are still avoiding my argument. So I’ll ask again clearly. Do you believe that allowed spiritual practices are not always the best spiritual practices? If you answer no, then please explain my confession/communion once-a-year example, because it seems pretty clear to me, based on the statements of popes, bishops, saints, and everyone in-between, that the allowed practice of receiving only once-a-year is not as spiritually beneficial as the practice of receiving frequently.

I do not want to get into details until we have an understanding of this underlying principle.

• PAX

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

I would point them to where the Church speaks about frequent communion and frequent confession but I would not judge that they are in any way deficient.

I assume by “them” and “they” you are referring to the hypothetical person who only frequents the sacraments once-a-year because that is the allowed option. I would not judge them, either. I would judge the practice and not the person. I think it is safe to say that the practice of receiving frequent sacraments is more spiritually beneficial than the practice of receiving once-a-year. I think you might be hesitant to affirm this because you see that it sets a strong precedent for judging the spiritual benefit of allowed practices within the Church.

• PAX

ETA: Just to be clear, judging in this context doesn’t mean condemning, but making a judgement about something. Our relativistic culture has equated judgement with condemning, then said we shouldn’t condemn and therefore we shouldn’t judge. This is a false argument. We are called to judge all the time (and even the argument against judgement is a judgement).

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

You are still avoiding my argument. So I’ll ask again clearly. Do you believe that allowed spiritual practices are not always the best spiritual practices?

I did answer, you just chose not to accept it.

It is not my place to judge what the best spiritual practices are for individuals. One day when/if I am a spiritual director (spiritual father) then I will be in such a place for those I direct but not for others.

For myself, no those practices are not enough for my spiritual life. But what is necessary for my spiritual life I would not say that you should do what I do.