Show Me.
Posted on 09/14/2009 1:36:31 PM PDT by NYer
If this is true, we can expect to see a resurgence in older Catholics returning home.
Show Me.
I don’t know abot that. VII is over 40 years old. Most of the older Catholics who objected to the reforms of the Council are dead now. The grey hairs in my church are mostly the trouble makers who want liturgical dance, women priests and deacons and married priests and deacons.
See what happens to dim people when they multi task? I meant married priests. Of course we already enjoy the services of a marriage eligible permanent diaconate.
I do hope they will mandate ad orientem, at least for the Eucharistic prayer. It takes the focus off the priest’s personality and makes him less of a showman. And what a great image of the shepherd leading his flock toward God. Our priest did ad orientem last Holy Thursday and it was great. With the microphone, you could hear the words fine, so there is no problem about that. The problem will of course be the kicking and gnashing of teeth of Spirit of Vatican II types if anything is mandated.
Too bad for them.
Did you mean to say a permanent diaconate open to married men? An unmarried deacon is not free to marry, is he?
ping the Papist
and bite my tongue
Unmarried Deacons may not marry.
Married men may be ordained Deacons.
Is there any point in receiving on the tongue from a lay extraordinary eucharistic minister?
Thank you for the clarification.
“a period of “study had begun” on what will probably amount to long-term reform after plenty of consultation.”
IOW, not in our lifetimes.
Yes indeed (and kneeling if possible). It would be better to receive from an ordained minister, but small progress is better than no progress at all. I realize no person of genuine piety wishes to make a scene when he receives, but every decision to receive kneeling and on the tongue is a small act of witness of reverence to the Blessed Sacrament, and a reminder to the faithful of the Church's universal norms.
I'll disclose that just this past weekend while serving Mass for our new Archbishop, I knelt in the sanctuary to receive from his hands. Some in the congregation may have thought that silly man was just showing off and pretending to be more holy than everyone else. OTOH, others may have thought "I didn't know you could still do that. Maybe I should too."
Isn't receiving on the tongue related to the consecration (or should that be anointing?) of the priest's hands?
So I guess it would fall in the "one wrong is better than two wrongs" category?
One other comment to you, my newbie friend: despite very common use of the term, there’s no such thing as a lay eucharistic minister. Lay people who assist in distribution of Holy Communion are called “extraordinary [or lay] ministers of Holy Communion.” The critical difference is that a true minister of the Eucharist exercises his ministry in all aspects of the Eucharist — iow, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass — not just in the distribution of Holy Communion. Priests offer the Sacrifice, sometimes assisted by deacons. So they are the ordinary ministers of the Eucharist. In the absence of a priest or deacon, no lay person can/may perform these offices — ergo, no such thing as an “extraordinary” minister of the Eucharist.
Thanks for hearing out this somewhat tedious explanation. Welcome aboard Peter’s boat.
Sort of. The priest exercises his ministry not in his own name but in the name of Jesus, who's the true High Priest. In this capacity we say he's "alter Christus" (another Christ). I'm sure you understand this has nothing to do with the man's personal merits or faults; he is the consecrated instrument of the Lord who works through him. The annointing of his hands is one of the external signs of this consecration: when we receive from his hands we're making more visible the sign that we're really receiving from Jesus Himself.
So I guess it would fall in the "one wrong is better than two wrongs" category?
Yep.
Thank you for offering it. I was aware that there was a "proper" term but didn't take the time to track it down as, regardless of what they should be called, I avoid them and so don't give the whole thing much thought. There was a discussion on this subject a while back and I had meant to ask the question then, but didn't do so.
Our priest claims not to like them but uses them only to avoid the public outcry that would ensue were an additional 20 minutes to be added on to the mass to accommodate their elimination. I think it's 5 minutes tops and he just wants to avoid the controversy that would ensue, even though our parish is a pretty by-the-book one, liturgically speaking.
I've discovered my heart was always there - my head just didn't know it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.