[sinkspur]

Aquinas was entitled to his opinion on who may distribute the Eucharist. The Early Church encouraged mere laymen to take the Eucharist home on Sunday for self-consumption during the week.

It is the Eucharist, Christ's Body, that is important. Arguing over who distributes seems beside the point, much like arguing over the role of the disposition of the priest as he celebrates Mass.

[ninenot]

As usual, Sinky, you do not understand the systemic nature of liturgy--odd, given your profession.

All elements are consistent with the nature of the Sacrifice and the Body/Blood PRESENT--of God, no less.

TA's explanation is not only cohesive, it's systemically consistent.

Alas, yours is eccentric. Don't write nested if's, Sinky.

[sempertrad]

The Early Church encouraged mere laymen to take the Eucharist home on Sunday for self-consumption during the week.

Wasn't that allowed only during times of persecution?

It is the Eucharist, Christ's Body, that is important.

Exactly. All the more reason He shouldn't be handled and passed out as if He were a mere hors d'oerve.

EMs, perhaps unwittingly, help blur the distinction between priest and laity and water down belief in the Real Presense. If I were still in the NO, I'd like to think I'd avoid receiving from a layman, not because I'd question the validity, but simply because I wouldn't want to help keep the abuse of EMs going. Unless your average Sunday Mass sees 2,000 people in attendence per Mass, EMs are absolutely unnecessary. So what if it takes longer when the priest alone distributes? Use that time to make a good meditation and thanksgiving. This is essential especially in NO parishes given that after the final hymn, when people would otherwise make a thanksgiving, they instead must put up with the loud conversations of other Mass-goers.