[quote=Angels Watchin]Deacon Ed, please tell us what document says that the church says it’s “a good thing”.
It is allowed, but DEFINITELY NOT REQUIRED. In fact, up until 2003, it wasn’t even allowed, under ordinary circumstances.
To the best of my knowledge, it’s not “the Church” (Rome, Magisterium, Sacred Congregation), it’s the individual bishops that require (or prohibit) this. (please correct me if I’m wrong).
Problem is, it doesn’t reinforce the Catholic teaching (that any tiny particle of a consecrated host includes the entire body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ). Again, another act in the mass that DOES reinforce protestant theology.
So, Deacon Ed, we add something completely unnecessary (the Precious Blood required, by an individual bishop, to be offered) then make a new position in the church (and in the sanctuary, and touching the sacred species, which has become so regularly desecrated) so we can accomodate it?
And, by the way, THE ONLY VALID REASON FOR ADDING EMHC’S is to speed up the distribution of communion!
The true reason for bishops REQUIRING the distribution of the Precious Blood at every mass? To get women and ANYONE up into the sanctuary so we can get used to ANYBODY being up there. So feminists can get up there and then expect the next step… priesthood. “I can touch it and distribute it and say “the body of Christ”, why can’t I consecrate it?”
That’s the truth.
The Church states that it is good in the GIRM:
- Moved by the same desire and pastoral concern, the Second Vatican Council was able to give renewed consideration to what was established by Trent on Communion under both kinds. And indeed, since no one today calls into doubt in any way the doctrinal principles on the complete efficacy of eucharistic Communion under the species of bread alone, the Council thus gave permission for the reception of Communion under both kinds on some occasions, because this clearer form of the sacramental sign offers a particular opportunity of deepening the understanding of the mystery in which the faithful take part.[font=Arial]
[font=Times New Roman]281. Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it is distributed under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clear expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the relationship between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Father’s Kingdom.
You are correct that it is not required (but I never said it was required, only that the Church said it was good). You are incorrect that the only reason for using EMHCs is to “speed up” communion. They are to be used in cases where the ordinary minister (priest or deacon) is unable to give communion.[/font][/font]