women not allowed to distribute the Precious Body?

[felsguy]

I take it then that if a pastor decided that African-Americans, or Hispanics, or Norwegians or college students or whatever were allowed to distribute the Precious Blood but not the Precious Body that would be perfectly fine with all of you.

And yes, I know that both body and blood are contained in each of the consecrated species so save your energy on that regard.

 

[Corki]

I take it then that if a pastor decided that African-Americans, or Hispanics, or Norwegians or college students or whatever were allowed to distribute the Precious Blood but not the Precious Body that would be perfectly fine with all of you.

Please show us any parish where that has happened. Otherwise your assertion is just argumentum ad absurdum.

 

[Lapey]

I take it then that if a pastor decided that African-Americans, or Hispanics, or Norwegians or college students or whatever were allowed to distribute the Precious Blood but not the Precious Body that would be perfectly fine with all of you.

And yes, I know that both body and blood are contained in each of the consecrated species so save your energy on that regard.

Why is it in our current day society there is always one faction or the other that insists on bringing debate down into political fights and arguments.

Your post should be deleted because it infers and implies bigotry on the back of a priest, this pastor, without having the whole story; and furthermore, you attach that implication on anyone who tries to explain what you do not understand.

 

[Brendan]

I take it then that if a pastor decided that African-Americans, or Hispanics, or Norwegians or college students or whatever were allowed to distribute the Precious Blood but not the Precious Body that would be perfectly fine with all of you.

And yes, I know that both body and blood are contained in each of the consecrated species so save your energy on that regard.

‘Perfectly fine’?, not really. I would not like it. But I would have zero grounds for questioning his authority to do so.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Since EMHC are supposed to be extraordinary, thus not used every weekend, this really is a moot point since only priests and deacons are the ordinary ministers of holy communion.

This is not what “extraordinary” means for the Church, and you do a disservice to her and her members by perpetuating the misconception that “extraordinary=rarely used”.

I know many, many people who would be very upset if you applied this idea to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.

 

[felsguy]

Please show us any parish where that has happened. Otherwise your assertion is just argumentum ad absurdum.

Well, here’s one

Anyway, one of the changes the new pastor made is not allowing the female lay Eucharistic ministers to distribute the Precious Body, but they are allowed to distribute the Precious Blood.

 

[angell1]

If by an “agenda” you mean phasing the Church into having a more reverent liturgy I disagree. A priest has the authority to change anything in his parish as long as it is still within the bound of the teachings of the Catholic Church. If he wants to eventually move into an all male sanctuary there is no point in sitting there for a year changing light bulbs.

why is it, that whenever female liturgical roles are brought up, it seems like people think the presence of females is somehow irreverent? what is it that we do that does not measure up to the holiness of more natural reverence of men?

I’m not saying that’s what you meant but I do see a lot of posts on here that imply such a sentiment

 

[felsguy]

Why is it in our current day society there is always one faction or the other that insists on bringing debate down into political fights and arguments.

Your post should be deleted because it infers and implies bigotry on the back of a priest, this pastor, without having the whole story; and furthermore, you attach that implication on anyone who tries to explain what you do not understand.

Well golleee, I’m a whole faction now, am I.

Anyhow, help me out here, Deacon. Did I misunderstand that some posters here have ongoing problems with having women in the sanctuary and other are intensely opposed to the use of EMHCs?

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Yep. And I say that as a (female) extraordinary minister. I serve because I was asked to. It’s not a “right” I have. If Father said tomorrow that he wasn’t going to use extraordinary ministers anymore, I’d say “OK, Father.”

But use or non-use isn’t the question or the point. The priest in question has decided to use EM’s, but to arbitrarily assign roles based on gender. Rubrics clearly govern the use or non-use of EM’s; no one has shown that, when used, there is a gender basis for EM roles. What if a parish used both boy and girl servers, but only permitted girls to, say, handle the water cruet and not the wine cruet. No one has shown that there is any gender-related basis for EM usage when EM’s of both genders are actually being used. I could even sort of understand if a parish only permitted male EM’s, but again, that’s not the original question. The parish in question uses both but has arbitrarily assigned gender roles to that ministry with no apparent basis in the rubrics.

 

[felsguy]

‘Perfectly fine’?, not really. I would not like it. But I would have zero grounds for questioning his authority to do so.

How about questioning his wisdom in doing so?

 

[Lapey]

Last week all of the Dominican priests at my parish were replaced with “conservative” diocesan priests. (This has been quite controversial and many longtime members have left the parish. My parish could definitely use prayers.) Anyway, one of the changes the new pastor made is not allowing the female lay Eucharistic ministers to distribute the Precious Body, but they are allowed to distribute the Precious Blood. I was quite confused by this, and I don’t believe I’ve seen this at any other parish. Does anyone know what this is about? Is this the traditional way, and if so, what is the meaning behind it?

I suspect there is much more to this story. Are there other priests and deacons assigned here? Are there instituted acolytes? Some pastors insist on the Sacred Body stations be filled first by ordinary ministers such as bishops priests or deacons; then second by instituted acolytes, then lastly by the regular everyday EMHC. If the other stations are filled by ordinary ministers or acolytes, then the only stations left will typically be the Cup stations.

Also, the traditional spot for a deacon, according to the GIRM is the Cup not the Body station. The deacon is the “minister of the Cup” according to the GIRM and it strongly recommends he serve this role. With that said, many pastors and many deacons do not abide by this strong recommendation.

Last point, the “conservative” label you give these priests; can you explain?

 

[Cricket2]

Last week all of the Dominican priests at my parish were replaced with “conservative” diocesan priests. (This has been quite controversial and many longtime members have left the parish. My parish could definitely use prayers.) Anyway, one of the changes the new pastor made is not allowing the female lay Eucharistic ministers to distribute the Precious Body, but they are allowed to distribute the Precious Blood. I was quite confused by this, and I don’t believe I’ve seen this at any other parish. Does anyone know what this is about? Is this the traditional way, and if so, what is the meaning behind it?

Say what? I have never heard of this and think it is ridiculous. Why not make a call to the Archbishop and ask him the reason for this nonsense? The Church has enough problems without a radical group of “conservative priests” dreaming up ways to alienate people. And I have to ask: how large is your parish that you have more than one priest?

 

[Lapey]

Well golleee, I’m a whole faction now, am I.

Anyhow, help me out here, Deacon. Did I misunderstand that some posters here have ongoing problems with having women in the sanctuary and other are intensely opposed to the use of EMHCs?

All I saw was several mention that it is in fact the pastor’s choice. You took that to mean they are willing to exclude women or that they are bigoted towards women.

Simple fact is, the pastor has the authority to allow or disallow women in the sanctuary. Me mentioning that fact should cause you no reason to think I don’t want women in the sanctuary. Am I right? Or do you see hate in the way my fingers hit the keyboard???

 

[Lapey]

Say what? I have never heard of this and think it is ridiculous. Why not make a call to the Archbishop and ask him the reason for this nonsense? The Church has enough problems without a radical group of “conservative priests” dreaming up ways to alienate people. And I have to ask: how large is your parish that you have more than one priest?

I mean no disrespect but, are you trying to be sarcastic?

 

[Arizona_Fat_Gir]

Some churches have only one priest and one Mass. Also, if EMs are abolished the people in hospitals and those who are home bound would not have the option of Communion unless they call a priest. We have a hospital ministry where I live, and many of them are so happy to receive Christ, it doesn’t matter if a woman or a man bring Him to them.

Kind of funny. Gender doesn’t mean much when babies are proudly shown to friends and relatives. You would never know which is a boy and which is a girl unless they are dressed in pink or blue. We all start out on an equal path. Older people (like in their seventies and eighties) very often look like they could be a man or a woman. I have often mistaken one for the other because they dress alike, wear no makeup, and have their hair cut really short (I’m talking about here in Arizona, in a retirement community

I am not being a smart-aleck when I tell you that we have a pair of altar servers, husband and wife. They look like twins. I wonder if, to play down the sexes of each person and make them look unisex, would make a difference. When we were at a Doctors’ office once we met a child of an employee. We said “glad to meet your son”, and the employee said, "It’s not a son, it’s my daughter.

 

[felsguy]

All I saw was several mention that it is in fact the pastor’s choice. You took that to mean they are willing to exclude women or that they are bigoted towards women.

Simple fact is, the pastor has the authority to allow or disallow women in the sanctuary. Me mentioning that fact should cause you no reason to think I don’t want women in the sanctuary. Am I right? Or do you see hate in the way my fingers hit the keyboard???

Pausing first to take a deep breath…

I read several newspaper columnists both on the political right and the left on a daily basis. Mention a topic and I can tell you where each stands on it with a high degree of accuracy. Likewise I have read 80-90% of the posts on this and several other forums here almost daily for several years. I also at times go back and read many if not every post made by someone who catches my attention. (yes, I know, I need to get a life.)

So yes, I can say without hesitation that some here are opposed to women having any role in the sanctuary and some are opposed to any use of EMHCs. And that they frequently express these viewpoints either directly or indirectly…**which is absolutely their right **according to the rules of CAF. I strongly (and obviously) disagree with these viewpoints. Usually I do not choose challenge them. Today I chose otherwise…as I believe is my right.

So, have I read anything in your post today or previously that suggests you don’t want women in the sanctuary? Nope! Did I see any hatred in the way your fingers hit the keyboard? Not at all! Do I sense that my post certainly irritated you? Loud and clear!

Peace
felsguy

 

[rinnie]

Last week all of the Dominican priests at my parish were replaced with “conservative” diocesan priests. (This has been quite controversial and many longtime members have left the parish. My parish could definitely use prayers.) Anyway, one of the changes the new pastor made is not allowing the female lay Eucharistic ministers to distribute the Precious Body, but they are allowed to distribute the Precious Blood. I was quite confused by this, and I don’t believe I’ve seen this at any other parish. Does anyone know what this is about? Is this the traditional way, and if so, what is the meaning behind it?

We have no problem with it in ours.

I do know a Priest does have certain way he can choose to run his Church, and I guess as long as it does not break any rules, maybe his personal choice may be this, But I don’t know.

I would ask him what is the difference between the Body of Christ or the Blood of Christ because they are both Christ.

 

[pianistclare]

But use or non-use isn’t the question or the point. The priest in question has decided to use EM’s, but to arbitrarily assign roles based on gender. Rubrics clearly govern the use or non-use of EM’s; no one has shown that, when used, there is a gender basis for EM roles. What if a parish used both boy and girl servers, but only permitted girls to, say, handle the water cruet and not the wine cruet. No one has shown that there is any gender-related basis for EM usage when EM’s of both genders are actually being used. I could even sort of understand if a parish only permitted male EM’s, but again, that’s not the original question. The parish in question uses both but has arbitrarily assigned gender roles to that ministry with no apparent basis in the rubrics.

yup. That’s the way I read the original post.

And I think that is the point that felsguy is making…by making a fictitious scenario to illustrate the oddity of this particular scenario…

And now people are drawing lines in the sand.

 

[Corki]

But use or non-use isn’t the question or the point. The priest in question has decided to use EM’s, but to arbitrarily assign roles based on gender. Rubrics clearly govern the use or non-use of EM’s; no one has shown that, when used, there is a gender basis for EM roles. What if a parish used both boy and girl servers, but only permitted girls to, say, handle the water cruet and not the wine cruet. No one has shown that there is any gender-related basis for EM usage when EM’s of both genders are actually being used. I could even sort of understand if a parish only permitted male EM’s, but again, that’s not the original question. The parish in question uses both but has arbitrarily assigned gender roles to that ministry with no apparent basis in the rubrics.

In our parish, there are some roles that only male altar servers do. And when the Cardinal or one of the auxiliary Bishops comes for something special, such as Confirmation, there are duties that are only assigned to the male altar servers. I don’t see the problem.

 

[Lapey]

Pausing first to take a deep breath…

I read several newspaper columnists both on the political right and the left on a daily basis. Mention a topic and I can tell you where each stands on it with a high degree of accuracy. Likewise I have read 80-90% of the posts on this and several other forums here almost daily for several years. I also at times go back and read many if not every post made by someone who catches my attention. (yes, I know, I need to get a life.)

So yes, I can say without hesitation that some here are opposed to women having any role in the sanctuary and some are opposed to any use of EMHCs. And that they frequently express these viewpoints either directly or indirectly…**which is absolutely their right **according to the rules of CAF. I strongly (and obviously) disagree with these viewpoints. Usually I do not choose challenge them. Today I chose otherwise…as I believe is my right.

So, have I read anything in your post today or previously that suggests you don’t want women in the sanctuary? Nope! Did I see any hatred in the way your fingers hit the keyboard? Not at all! Do I sense that my post certainly irritated you? Loud and clear!

Peace
felsguy

Well thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt. It’s not irritation, more along the lines of disappointment. You chose to change the thread from a discussion of male and female EMHCs, which is a pastor’s right to change, into a lower level discussion or equality of racial discrimination which is not in a pastor’s power. Racism is intrinsically evil and must be rejected according to Church teaching. Choosing to use women and/or girls in the sanctuary for liturgy, or not to use them, is not intrinsically evil and fully the choice of the pastor.

Bottom line, I think the OP is leaving much of the story out; it just doesn’t make sense. There is no reason for a priest to do what is described, there has to be more.