To: sempertrad
If you believed the priest is an Alter Christi, you wouldn't take from anyone else, nor would you insist on playing the part of one at Communion time, if you truly believed Christ was present in the Host, or had respect for the priesthood and its elevated status.It is Christ we are receiving in the Eucharist. Taking Him from an EEM doesn't lessen His Presence nor the graces one receives.
It is already a reality that laymen are conducting Communion services in some mission parishes on Sundays, and during the week in many others when the priest is unavailable.
Should the faithful be denied the Eucharist because a priest is not there to distribute?
215 posted on
06/03/2005 2:44:20 PM PDT by
sinkspur
(If you want unconditional love with skin, and hair and a warm nose, get a shelter dog.)
To: sinkspur
It is Christ we are receiving in the Eucharist. Taking Him from an EEM doesn't lessen His Presence nor the graces one receives.
Receiving him in an envelope in the mail wouldn't lessen his Presence or the graces either. Why don't we just order him up online and have Fed Ex or UPS or the USPS handle it? If there's no priest, then why bother going to a stupid "communion" service? It's not Mass. We can save a lot of time and useless overhead that way. In fact, a priest could be the one who distributes to thousands that way. Then, like Netflix you could just drop the envelope back into the mail.
216 posted on
06/03/2005 2:58:40 PM PDT by
Gerard.P
(The lips of liberals drip with honey while their hands drip with blood--Bishop Williamson)
To: sinkspur
It is already a reality that laymen are conducting Communion services in some mission parishes on Sundays, and during the week in many others when the priest is unavailable.
Can a layperson transubstantiate the host? AFAIK it's impossible.
To: sinkspur
It is Christ we are receiving in the Eucharist. Taking Him from an EEM doesn't lessen His Presence nor the graces one receives.
I agree. If the matter, form, intention, etc. are valid Christ is present no matter who you receive Him from. My issue is not with validity or graces. I sincerely believe that receiving Him into my unconsecrated hands, from hands also unconsecrated offends Him. I don't want to be a party to that. There is nothing in our Church history indicating that this was ever the norm, and nothing that suggests that the use of EMs has brought about deeper devotion to the Real Presense.
It is already a reality that laymen are conducting Communion services in some mission parishes on Sundays, and during the week in many others when the priest is unavailable.
Here in our country? If so, I can't help but wonder where their missions are located. Can they not travel a bit to get to a Mass? Is there no priest who can travel to bring Mass to them? Are people settling for this perhaps because its convenient? And really, how positive can the long term effects of such a situation possibly be?
Drastic times call for drastic measures, sure. But what are the requirements for becoming an EM? Obviously no one is without sin, but it seems to me a person meets the requirements simply by wanting to do the task. You asked me earlier if a priest with a "lavish lifestyle" waters down belief in the Real Presense, I said he could. But I also think his "lifestyle" is less apparent to the average Catholic than the EM who lives in the community. There's more of a chance of scandal with an EM. And as I understand it, an EM is not permitted to deny Communion to anyone. That's a risk of scandal, too. If you're an EM and a doctor whom you know provides abortions comes to you to receive, what do you do?
IIRC, in my NO parish the priest would was his fingers both before the consecration and after distribution of Communion. How come the EMs didn't do likewise? How come the faithful receiving in the hand don't do likewise? The cleansing of the fingers either means something and has a purpose, or it doesn't.
258 posted on
06/04/2005 10:47:26 AM PDT by
sempertrad
("I'm feeling fair today; one notch below mediocre" - My Husband)
To: sinkspur
It is already a reality that laymen are conducting Communion services in some mission parishesYes, Mr. Sinkspur: Communion services. Not Eucharistic services. Because only a priest can conduct a Eucharist. So why do you persist in using the illegitimate term "Extraordinary Eucharistic Minister", when there is NO SUCH THING?
280 posted on
06/06/2005 8:09:31 AM PDT by
Romulus
(Der Inn fließt in den Tiber.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson