hermit Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 [quote name='Aloysius' date='Mar 16 2004, 12:01 PM'] but i would hope it tightens the roll of Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist, as they are now used as if they're ordinary. [/quote] The way I was brought up as a kid(and this was back in the day of communion rails) Eucharistic Ministers did'nt even exist, that I know of, and recieving in your hand was virtually unheard of... This practice seems to run Rampant in our Parish, Now I have nothing against Eucharistic Ministers, but I think it has to be done with a certain amount of dacorum and respect along with judicious training, after all you are ministering the Body and Blood of Christ to His flock and this should be looked at as a great Honor, and done with the utmost respect... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mom25angels Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 [quote name='Aloysius' date='Mar 16 2004, 12:13 PM'] i don't understand the thing of under only one form. although i know He is fully present Body Blood Soul and Divinity under only one form, are they really planning on not making both forms available? [/quote] This is how our parish priest who has refused to allow the Precious Blood to be carried to the CHOIR LOFT(UGH I can't believe people complained about it) explained it. Jesus is fully present in the Eucharist, Body, Blood Soul and Divinity. The simple fact of the matter is that it is MUCH easier to spill the Precious Blood. (did you see the Passion, Mary and Mary Magdelen wiping up the precious blood?) Certainly we don't want Jesus on the ground, to be tred upon. I never receive the blood at mass because I am always holding a baby---just too much of a chance for an accident. The last time I receive the blood was by Intinction(I have know idea if that's spelled right). It's when the priest dips the Body into the Blood---this is done by a local religious community on occasion. Hope that helps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fonzmonster Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Mar 16 2004, 10:39 AM'] The draft, which .....limited the role of altar girls...... .. .[/quote] Whoa whoa whoa...what does THAT mean? Just alter GIRLS? Why would just the alter GIRLS have their roles limited? I think I don't understand the whole thing, but if someone gets that, just explain that little part to me. Is this what is happening? Or was that something PREVENTED from happening? I need to know whether or not I'm angry... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mom25angels Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 Well, you see, altar girls were never "allowed" for in Vat 2. The practice of altar girls is actually an abuse--widespraed but still an abuse. I imagine this means that they are trying to diplomatically address it. Just my opinion on the last sentance though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 altar girls are allowed IF THE NECESSITY ARISES. however, they are not supposed to be used normally. altar boys are more preferable because it nurtures vocations to the priesthood. it is set infallibly that the priesthood is for men only, so altar girls do not foster priest vocations. that's why altar boys are supposed to be the norm for altar servers. if we were to start adhering to this more it would be a great tool to help us in our current vocation crises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iacobus Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 So I understand the thing about not wanting to spill the Blood and Christ being 100% present in both types. But why would we want to discourge people from reciving both types? I am just wondering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donna Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 (edited) Because during the Protestant Revolt, were complaints that the Precious Blood was being withheld from the layity. Protestant (heretical) services springing up had communion under both kinds as a flaunting of their being in schism with the Catholic Church. The Council of Trent (infallible) upheld that Jesus is received whole and entire under each species. Hence, practical reason (it [i]is[/i] easier to spill the Precious Blood; also some are timid about sharing the same chalice) became doctrinal. Note that. [i]Disciplines having to do with upholding the doctrinal[/i]. Bro Adam, look again at those verses...sometimes Jesus says "or" (bread or wine), and St. Paul says it in the 2 Cor. verse about when we eat this bread OR drink this chalice... Edited March 17, 2004 by Donna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PedroX Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 Donna, So good to see your wisdom here again. Disciplines not only uphold doctrines, they gaurd doctrines as well. They force us to look at the truth of the doctrines. We should never brush them aside as "just a discipline". Fonzmonster and Al, Alter Girls have only been allowed since the late 80's or early 90's. This was done in large part because American Bishops were pressuring the Vatican to allow this innovation that had no historical basis. The actual norms set up to allow the practice call for it to be a limited practice, and the new document will hopefully reinforce the limitations. peace... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted March 17, 2004 Author Share Posted March 17, 2004 All you know what will break loose if it does. Too many parents are proud of their daughter being able to serve God, just like the boys do. Theological reasons will be totally dismissed out of hand in the name of pride and parent love. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donna Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 PedroX, good to see you. Yes...good point, Cmom. This has happened with other current norms which began as abuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 Female altar boys were not allowed until 1994 in a document signed by the Holy Father, though certainly of questionable origin. By that I mean, it seems the Holy Father was kind of pressured or tricked in the matter. He had promised Mother Theresa, in no uncertain terms, that the practice would never be allowed (this was attested to by my friend, Fr. Anthony Mastroeni, who was told this by Mother Theresa herself). I don't see the Holy Father changing his mind in the matter after having opposed it for so long, and I highly doubt that he lied to her, so that leaves the origins of (or at least the motivation behind) the document in some question. It certainly gave the impression that if one simply disobeys long enough and loud enough Rome will cave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 PedroX, i was defending altar boys only. i'd be fine with only one form. as i stated, i understand he's there fully even in one lil crumb, i was just wondring the reason, so thanx for explaining. maybe they'd go back to intinction? i donno. i'd be fine with just the host. yes, disciplines guard doctrines and shed light upon doctrines. and the Church gets to diside what disciplines should be in place to guard those doctrines best in any particular time, what disciplines will be most illuminating to doctrines to the people of today. that's not our call, it's the Vatican's. anyway, parents are so annoying in this matter of altar girls. i wish they would stop seeing it as some thing that any lil kid could go through and understand that it fosters vocations and for the good of the Church they should let boys only be altar girls (although i'm sure there's plenty out there in the US who are hoping their girls will one day be priests :barf:) seriously, i'd love to see it be altar boys only again. but the parents would throw a temper tantrum and maybe even leave the Church over such a silly matter. May God stomp out all arrogant pride and misguided disobedience throughout His holy Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 [quote name='hermit' date='Mar 16 2004, 01:31 PM'] The way I was brought up as a kid(and this was back in the day of communion rails) Eucharistic Ministers did'nt even exist, [/quote] by the way, Eucharistic Ministers still don't exist, except for the Priest. however, there are EXTRAORDINARY ministers of Holy Communion allowed. i HATE when ppl call them Eucharistic Ministers. i refuse to call them that and have even contemplated taking a sharpy and changing it on their lil sign in sheet in the Narthex i didn't, but i did think about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 One of the (many) things I love about going to the Old Mass is that I don't have to deal with these matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Michael Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 I thought the Church was ENCOURAGING people to partake of both bread and wine at Communion. If not, then where was I hearing this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now