I suppose my thinking is that NSMs can't have the same level of involvement in parish life as stipendary priests, because they have another job to do. Obviously, their role varies a lot, but at least some I have met largely work to preside at mass when the parish priest is away.
So an NSM is trained, ordained and so in that sense "set aside" from the laity, whilst at the same time working as one of the laity in their daily life.
whilst at the same time working as one of the laity in their daily life.
That's where my brief reference in the final sentence was going.
Basically, I see NSMs as priests, but ones who have a different role. I've not really thought that much about them. OLMs I find more bizarre, but they are both attempts to deal with the issue of not being able to pay enough people. Actually that sounds too negative, I think there is also something positive about priests in the workplace. It is certainly a response to wanting a member of your congregation to celebrate (say a housegroup leader) and better than just letting them get on with it. I'm not sure if that makes any sense whatsoever.
Communion in the formal setting is the corporate expression of the individual sacrament.
That strikes me as being the wrong way round. I see the corporate not the individual as primary.
I fail to see the link between Open Table and open (or not) Presidency. Surely they are two separate questions. I still don't understand why a non-baptised person would want to receive communion (and not be baptised). I think that it is right for the Body of Christ to be distinctive and Communion is part of that distinctiveness. That is not exculsionary because anyone can be baptised.
The trouble with letting anyone preside is that again the individual not the body becomes key.
We don't always get what we want immediately.
Mmm, those thoughts are connected to me, but they aren't in the way I've expressed them.
Comments 8
Reply
Reply
So an NSM is trained, ordained and so in that sense "set aside" from the laity, whilst at the same time working as one of the laity in their daily life.
Reply
That's where my brief reference in the final sentence was going.
Basically, I see NSMs as priests, but ones who have a different role. I've not really thought that much about them. OLMs I find more bizarre, but they are both attempts to deal with the issue of not being able to pay enough people. Actually that sounds too negative, I think there is also something positive about priests in the workplace. It is certainly a response to wanting a member of your congregation to celebrate (say a housegroup leader) and better than just letting them get on with it. I'm not sure if that makes any sense whatsoever.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
That strikes me as being the wrong way round. I see the corporate not the individual as primary.
I fail to see the link between Open Table and open (or not) Presidency. Surely they are two separate questions. I still don't understand why a non-baptised person would want to receive communion (and not be baptised). I think that it is right for the Body of Christ to be distinctive and Communion is part of that distinctiveness. That is not exculsionary because anyone can be baptised.
The trouble with letting anyone preside is that again the individual not the body becomes key.
We don't always get what we want immediately.
Mmm, those thoughts are connected to me, but they aren't in the way I've expressed them.
Reply
N
Reply
Leave a comment