(2nd request) Why was I denied Holy Communion by an E.M.?

[Scoochy]

For those to whom I’ve caused upset, I apologize.

Scoochy

 

[jmj603]

For those to whom I’ve caused upset, I apologize.

Scoochy

I don’t think you’ve caused anyone upset. You should talk with the pastor and explain your situation.

 

[Scoochy]

My parish Priest has many health difficulties, also; worse than mine.
I left a message on his answering machine & on email. No response yet after 6 days.
He’s trying to care for three different parishes, as this is considered a mission due to the Osage Indian population.

If any of you tried to send a msg. to me, I haven’t received it. Many times this site is confusing to me.
Thank all of you for caring.

Scoochy

(Who is like unto God?)

 

[jmj603]

Do you have any friends whose presence would make you feel calm? Could you ask them to be present when the minister comes?

 

[Trishie]

I saw your apology. Please don’t feel you need to apologise…you were feeling sad and cut off.

People get caught up in discussion by their own choice. It isn’t anything to apologise for.

I wouldn’t have told you to wait two weeks if I’d been your Eucharistic minister. That wasn’t the kindest way of dealing with things…I think I would find it a bit manipulative.
Of course as I was pointing out, she has her reasons which as valid to her as yours to you, but though it wasn’t wrong for her to ask another with advance warning,
it still was a tactless way to handle things and thoughtless, unless totally unavoidable, to neglect ensuring you received Communion within the fortnight while you thought things over as she suggested
…and perhaps you do need a change…to someone who understand your anxiety issues more sensitively? It might, in the end, be beneficial for you to have a change?

Warm wishes, Trishie

 

[laszlo]

That’s false. The minister is individually bound in conscience to obey the laws of God and of His Church (including Canon 915). Obedience to the pastor is part of this, but it is not the only part.

In the Canon Law what I know the pastor is responsible for the parish, and anyone else (including the associate pastor) can act only under his guidance.

I may be wrong, but please prove your thesis, that a lay person can act on his/her own related to sacred things.

here is the Canon what you quoted

Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

If the pastor orders the Extraordinary Minister to break this law, the Extraordinary Minister should report the case to the bishop, and resign as Extraordinary Minister. He/she cannot act of his/her own.

Also if a recipient of the communion hits on her, and want to be with her in one by one basis, she has the obligation to report it to the pastor and resign as his extraordinary minister.

 

[Aydan]

I saw your apology. Please don’t feel you need to apologise…you were feeling sad and cut off.

People get caught up in discussion by their own choice. It isn’t anything to apologise for.

I wouldn’t have told you to wait two weeks if I’d been your Eucharistic minister. That wasn’t the kindest way of dealing with things…I think I would find it a bit manipulative.
Of course as I was pointing out, she has her reasons which as valid to her as yours to you, but though it wasn’t wrong for her to ask another with advance warning,
it still was a tactless way to handle things and thoughtless, unless totally unavoidable, to neglect ensuring you received Communion within the fortnight while you thought things over as she suggested
…and perhaps you do need a change…to someone who understand your anxiety issues more sensitively? It might, in the end, be beneficial for you to have a change?

Warm wishes, Trishie

I agree with Trishie. In fact I hope you will continue to use this forum for support and interact with us I hope it is a comfort to you knowing that you have many people who are praying for you. Peace

 

[jmj603]

In the Canon Law…

There is no obligation to resign when an invalid order is given. An invalid order is, of its nature, null and void. Being fired for disobeying an invalid order would be an unjust firing.

Edit: You may be confusing the situation of an EMHC with that of someone who takes an oath to perform a certain action, for example to obey the King or Constitution, which he is no longer capable of performing in conscience. In that case, the obligation to resign is derived from his obligation to keep his oath and so not bring into disrepute the Holy Name of God.

EMHC’s do not swear obedience to the pastor.

 

[Scoochy]

Please, I did not wish to cause discord amongst those who might choose to respond to my question.
Whatever one wishes to call the distributor of the Holy Eucharist: Extraodinary, Eucharistic, or Special Minister, my only concern was that I wanted, I needed the Grace that comes from the receipt of the Holy Eucharist, always, but especially at this time when my world feels like it’s caving in on me. I’m not going into the, “Woe is me.” Everyone has troubles; such is life.
All I wanted was for my friend, the EM, to perform her function that I may derive the Graces of my Soul that I so badly need right now.

Prostrating myself before God for the negativity that this situation has seemed to cause: :bowdown:

Scoochy

(Who is like unto God?)

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Please, I did not wish to cause discord amongst those who might choose to respond to my question.
Whatever one wishes to call the distributor of the Holy Eucharist: Extraodinary, Eucharistic, or Special Minister, my only concern was that I wanted, I needed the Grace that comes from the receipt of the Holy Eucharist, always, but especially at this time when my world feels like it’s caving in on me. I’m not going into the, “Woe is me.” Everyone has troubles; such is life.
All I wanted was for my friend, the EM, to perform her function that I may derive the Graces of my Soul that I so badly need right now.

Prostrating myself before God for the negativity that this situation has seemed to cause: :bowdown:

Scoochy

(Who is like unto God?)

Scoochy,

I have a touch of anxiety and it worsened with my illness. I know how it can get, especially when you have to confront something big.

You are in my prayers.

 

[Sir_Knight]

With all due respect, I don’t see that this has any relevance to this particular post. I see no evidence in the information in this post that the EM’s family or work would have suffered if she attended to her ministry.

Nor do we have any evidence in the information in the post to the contrary either. The point is that you focused on her “duty” to her ministry and I was merely pointing out that that “duty” is a secondary thing for a lay person and not her primary responsibility.

 

[jmj603]

Please, I did not wish to cause discord amongst those who might choose to respond to my question.

There’s no discord, we’re just talking.

 

[laszlo]

There is no obligation to resign when an invalid order is given. An invalid order is, of its nature, null and void. Being fired for disobeying an invalid order would be an unjust firing.

We are the military Church, and the Extraordinary or Ordinary Eucharistic Ministers are serving the King. In the military you obey the ruler.

The laity has no decision making power related to the Sacred. The full problem around the modern Mass is, that the lower clergy and laymen chosen or allowed by their pastor took things into their own hand. The result is chaos.

The same rules apply to administering the sacrament as to the Mass itself.

 

[jmj603]

We are the military Church, and the Extraordinary or Ordinary Eucharistic Ministers are serving the King. In the military you obey the ruler.

The laity has no decision making power related to the Sacred.

We have to serve the King, not the priest. If we are delegated the job of fulfilling an ecclesiastical ministry, we need to do so according to our conscience. This applies equally at the Extraordinary Form as at the Ordinary Form. If a priest asks a Latin Mass server to distribute Communion, the server should say no, but he does not have to disvest and leave the Sanctuary. He can also come back and serve again in the future in good conscience.

Edit: Anyway, why don’t we take this discussion to another thread, as the OP probably keeps getting e-mailed on replies and it’s driving her blood pressure up.

 

[Spirithound]

The preferred rite involves a priest with servers.

There is no provision for the communicant himself to choose to choose a lesser solemnity.

This is correct, but the option of the priest visiting, with servers, has already been dispensed with. A member of the laity was going to fulfill this ministry, until she was asked not to bring that other person who she proposed to bring, and then she made the choice to not fulfill the ministry, as opposed to simply leaving that person in the car for 10 minutes.

 

[malphono]

A member of the laity was going to fulfill this ministry, until she was asked not to bring that other person who she proposed to bring, and then she made the choice to not fulfill the ministry, as opposed to simply leaving that person in the car for 10 minutes.

And that really would have been the best ad-hoc solution for a variety of reasons. The more I think about the situation described in the OP, the more I tend to think that the EMHC acted strangely. It was very nice to ask in advance about the bringing the other person (whoever it was), but when told “no, I’d prefer not,” the EMHC should have simply said “OK, I understand” and made the visit alone. But of course that was not the case. Given what did happen, it would seem to me that the pastor should be consulted, lest there be a repeat performance.

 

[jmj603]

This is correct, but the option of the priest visiting, with servers, has already been dispensed with. A member of the laity was going to fulfill this ministry, until she was asked not to bring that other person who she proposed to bring, and then she made the choice to not fulfill the ministry, as opposed to simply leaving that person in the car for 10 minutes.

The priest has been dispensed with. Apparently the servers were not dispensed with.

 

[Phemie]

And that really would have been the best ad-hoc solution for a variety of reasons. The more I think about the situation described in the OP, the more I tend to think that the EMHC acted strangely. It was very nice to ask in advance about the bringing the other person (whoever it was), but when told “no, I’d prefer not,” the EMHC should have simply said “OK, I understand” and made the visit alone. But of course that was not the case. Given what did happen, it would seem to me that the pastor should be consulted, lest there be a repeat performance.

We’d have to know why the EMHC did what she did. Our diocese is implementing a Responsible Ministry Protocol and as such EMHCs will probably not be allowed to go into homes by themselves since it can be a danger both to themselves and to the vulnerable people to whom they minister (one such was a woman confined to bed in an unlocked house except when a home care worker was present for a few hours). It may well be that the OP’s parish had instituted such a practice but we have no way of knowing that based on the post.

 

[PattiDay]

To be fair, we only heard one side of the story.

It is irrelevent that we heard only one side of the story. We heard the side of the person who feels that she has been harmed. You can ask the EM to give her side, but wouldn’t that imply that she had knowledge of the anxiety she was causing, or that she intended to make the OP wait until she came around to the EM’s way of thinking? I’ll take the other tack. I think the EM is oblivious to the anxiety her actions caused, that she never intended for this to happen, that she will be shocked when she learns of it. But learn she should, so that it doesn’t happen again. No one need take any punitive action against the EM, or berate her for her decision, but give gentle guidance.

 

[PattiDay]

Nor do we have any evidence in the information in the post to the contrary either. The point is that you focused on her “duty” to her ministry and I was merely pointing out that that “duty” is a secondary thing for a lay person and not her primary responsibility.

We’re talking here about her duty in this particular instance, which does not include making a unilateral decision to deny or withhold the Eucharist from a recipient. We are not talking about whether her duty as a EM has precedence over any other duty she may have as a lay person.