L
litany
Guest
How can I let a eucharistic minister know that her life of going to bars and sleeping around is not right?
- Status
P
Pentecost2005
Guest
“She” is not a eucharistic minister. The ordinary minister of the sacrament of the Eucharist is the priest or Bishop; only they have the faculties to consecrate the bread and wine. “She” therefore must be an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion.
C
cathologos
Guest
I have to believe that the person you reference already knows that “sleeping around” isn’t consistent with Catholic teaching. Either that, or she’s completely uncatechized.
Which, I think, gets to the heart of the problem here. Why is this person an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion? Is her (and your?) pastor unaware of this person’s immoral behavior?
It is bad enough, in my opinion, that so many priests abuse the availability of EMHCs. For instance, in our parish, the pastor typically shows up at masses said by our other resident priest – to make the occasional announcement, and to tell his obligatory “joke” after Communion…but he never dons an alb and stole, and assists with distribution of Communion – he leaves that to the EMHCs. We typically have four people distributing – the celebrant and three EMHCs, with typical mass attendance of maybe 200 people. We do not distribute under both species…
What you are suggesting is that your pastor has installed at least one EMHC without even bothering to ascertain her fitness for the role – thus creating the scandal that troubles you.
I would suggest that you raise this matter with your pastor, quietly – because scandal is a grave matter. However, I’m not optimistic about the reception you may get…If this person was selected by the current pastor (e.g., not inherited from a prior pastor), he may not be particularly receptive to the suggestion that he messed up…assuming he even takes that particular responsibility seriously.
Which, I think, gets to the heart of the problem here. Why is this person an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion? Is her (and your?) pastor unaware of this person’s immoral behavior?
It is bad enough, in my opinion, that so many priests abuse the availability of EMHCs. For instance, in our parish, the pastor typically shows up at masses said by our other resident priest – to make the occasional announcement, and to tell his obligatory “joke” after Communion…but he never dons an alb and stole, and assists with distribution of Communion – he leaves that to the EMHCs. We typically have four people distributing – the celebrant and three EMHCs, with typical mass attendance of maybe 200 people. We do not distribute under both species…
What you are suggesting is that your pastor has installed at least one EMHC without even bothering to ascertain her fitness for the role – thus creating the scandal that troubles you.
I would suggest that you raise this matter with your pastor, quietly – because scandal is a grave matter. However, I’m not optimistic about the reception you may get…If this person was selected by the current pastor (e.g., not inherited from a prior pastor), he may not be particularly receptive to the suggestion that he messed up…assuming he even takes that particular responsibility seriously.
T
toppro77
Guest
In response to the extraordinary minister for communion, you might find this article interesting.
The Holy Eucharist
Once the consecration takes place at mass, the bread and wine are changed into the Sacred Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The power of which to perform this most sublime and holy act, is given only to duly ordained priests of the Catholic Church. The priests hands are consecrated at ordination in such a way that only the forefinger and thumb are given the privilege of touching the consecrated host.
One of the Church’s primary functions is to safeguard the consecrated Host from desecration and sacrilege. In accordance with the rubrics for celebrating mass, the priest was only allowed to touch the Sacred Host with the forefinger and thumb of both hands. When elevating the host, only those two fingers came in contact with the Sacred Species.
Once the consecration was complete, the priest, in order to keep his fingers pure and allow no foreign material to come in contact with his fingers, held the forefinger and thumb together throughout the canon of the mass, turning the pages of the missal with only the three remaining fingers. Even in elevating the chalice, the priest did not allow those two fingers to come apart. This was all done out of respect for any particles that could still be remaining on the fingers of the priest after the consecration of the host. During communion the priest reached into the ciborium with those two fingers and retrieved the hosts one at a time and placed them on the tongue of the recipient, who was reverently kneeling before an altar railing, in adoration of his Lord and God.
An altar boy was present with a paten which was placed under the chin of the communicant to catch any particles that might possibly fall from the host before it reached the persons tongue, or in case the host might fall from the priests fingers. So careful was the Catholic Church in protecting the True Body and Blood of Our Lord from desecration and sacrilege.
Once communion was finished, the priest would return to the altar, take the paten from the altar boy and scrape any particles that could be remaining on the paten, into the chalice. The priest then would go to the side of the altar and the altar boy would pour the ablutions over the fingers of the priest. These two fingers were held over the chalice in order to wash any particles still left on the fingers, into the chalice for consumption. This was all done out of the utmost love and respect for Our Lord’s true Body and Blood.
The Infallible Dogmatic Council of Trent stated in canon xi “Now, as it was always the custom in the Church of God that laymen should receive the communion from priests; but that priests when celebrating should communicate themselves; which custom, as coming down from the Apostolic tradition, ought to be retained.”1
Pope John Paul II in his encyclical DOMINICAE CENAE (On The Mystery And Worship Of The Eucharist) Promulgated On 24 February 1980, art. 11 says: “To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained.”
to be cont…
The Holy Eucharist
Once the consecration takes place at mass, the bread and wine are changed into the Sacred Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The power of which to perform this most sublime and holy act, is given only to duly ordained priests of the Catholic Church. The priests hands are consecrated at ordination in such a way that only the forefinger and thumb are given the privilege of touching the consecrated host.
One of the Church’s primary functions is to safeguard the consecrated Host from desecration and sacrilege. In accordance with the rubrics for celebrating mass, the priest was only allowed to touch the Sacred Host with the forefinger and thumb of both hands. When elevating the host, only those two fingers came in contact with the Sacred Species.
Once the consecration was complete, the priest, in order to keep his fingers pure and allow no foreign material to come in contact with his fingers, held the forefinger and thumb together throughout the canon of the mass, turning the pages of the missal with only the three remaining fingers. Even in elevating the chalice, the priest did not allow those two fingers to come apart. This was all done out of respect for any particles that could still be remaining on the fingers of the priest after the consecration of the host. During communion the priest reached into the ciborium with those two fingers and retrieved the hosts one at a time and placed them on the tongue of the recipient, who was reverently kneeling before an altar railing, in adoration of his Lord and God.
An altar boy was present with a paten which was placed under the chin of the communicant to catch any particles that might possibly fall from the host before it reached the persons tongue, or in case the host might fall from the priests fingers. So careful was the Catholic Church in protecting the True Body and Blood of Our Lord from desecration and sacrilege.
Once communion was finished, the priest would return to the altar, take the paten from the altar boy and scrape any particles that could be remaining on the paten, into the chalice. The priest then would go to the side of the altar and the altar boy would pour the ablutions over the fingers of the priest. These two fingers were held over the chalice in order to wash any particles still left on the fingers, into the chalice for consumption. This was all done out of the utmost love and respect for Our Lord’s true Body and Blood.
The Infallible Dogmatic Council of Trent stated in canon xi “Now, as it was always the custom in the Church of God that laymen should receive the communion from priests; but that priests when celebrating should communicate themselves; which custom, as coming down from the Apostolic tradition, ought to be retained.”1
Pope John Paul II in his encyclical DOMINICAE CENAE (On The Mystery And Worship Of The Eucharist) Promulgated On 24 February 1980, art. 11 says: “To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained.”
to be cont…
T
toppro77
Guest
It was around 1977 that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church started allowing members of the parish to become Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion and to distribute communion into the hands of the faithful. These Eucharistic ministers, although very zealous to serve Our Lord, were not required to have consecrated hands, nor were many of them required to wash their hands previous to handling the Body and Blood of Our Lord. The paten used to catch any particles that might fall from the consecrated Host, or to prevent the Host itself from falling to the floor, was also discarded in many churches. No longer were the faithful encouraged to fall on their knees in adoration of the Host because it is said that it takes up too much time.
No longer does the priest hold the two fingers together after consecration, but instead one can clearly see his fingers in contact with other objects, allowing particles still remaining on his fingers to fall wherever they will. And what of the Eucharistic Minister’s hands! What becomes of the particles that are still remaining on his hands, as he is not required to consume these particles as the priest is required to do after distribution. Add to this, the millions of people throughout the world now receiving communion in the hand. None of which have any idea how many particles could be remaining on their hands after communion. What actions are performed with these hands throughout the rest of the day that still have the Sacred Body and Blood of Our Lord still attached to them!
How many particles containing the Body and Blood of Our Lord have been dropped to the ground and trampled on especially at huge gatherings like World Youth Day and at the funeral of Pope John Paul II, where over 320 priests went into the crowd to pass out communion in the hand. This has caused unknown numbers of sacrileges and desecrations.
One Eucharistic Minister confessed that he was unaware of the sacrileges he had been involved in for years, but upon coming to the realization of the error of his ways, admits that in the course of his service as a Eucharistic Minister, he must have given communion in the hand to over 15,000 individuals. In performing a study, with the aid of his son, on the number of particles left upon the hand after receiving a communion wafer, he observed that approximately four particles remained on the palm of the communicant after the consumption of the host.
This test was performed with unconsecrated hosts that he had obtained from a Catholic supply house. He then realized that he was guilty of over 60,000 potential desecrations of the host from the particles that remained in the hands of those he had distributed too. Knowing full well that these individuals would not have checked their palms for the particles that could be seen not to mention those that could not be seen without a microscope. He also realized that many of these particles would have fallen to the floor to be trampled upon by all those that were coming and going from communion.
Why has this been allowed by the Bishops of the Catholic Church? Why did Pope John Paul II, foster distribution of communion in the hand when the Church has known for centuries that these type of desecrations and sacrileges would be committed in the process?
A perfect example of what can happen when one is allowed to take communion in the hand was demonstrated on April 11, 2005 on E Bay, the giant auction site. An individual who was not Catholic, was able to receive communion in the hand, not once, but twice from Pope John Paul II himself, while visiting in Rome. This individual consumed one host, as he relates in his description of the item. He then puts the other host up for auction to the highest bidder. The host along with some other memorabilia sold for $2000 on April 12, 2005.
The site can be viewed by going to this link for verification. (update: The listing for this auction has since been deleted by E Bay. I have copies of the pictures and the listing on my computer for verification purposes.) cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=1447&item=6169851381&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW
to be cont…
No longer does the priest hold the two fingers together after consecration, but instead one can clearly see his fingers in contact with other objects, allowing particles still remaining on his fingers to fall wherever they will. And what of the Eucharistic Minister’s hands! What becomes of the particles that are still remaining on his hands, as he is not required to consume these particles as the priest is required to do after distribution. Add to this, the millions of people throughout the world now receiving communion in the hand. None of which have any idea how many particles could be remaining on their hands after communion. What actions are performed with these hands throughout the rest of the day that still have the Sacred Body and Blood of Our Lord still attached to them!
How many particles containing the Body and Blood of Our Lord have been dropped to the ground and trampled on especially at huge gatherings like World Youth Day and at the funeral of Pope John Paul II, where over 320 priests went into the crowd to pass out communion in the hand. This has caused unknown numbers of sacrileges and desecrations.
One Eucharistic Minister confessed that he was unaware of the sacrileges he had been involved in for years, but upon coming to the realization of the error of his ways, admits that in the course of his service as a Eucharistic Minister, he must have given communion in the hand to over 15,000 individuals. In performing a study, with the aid of his son, on the number of particles left upon the hand after receiving a communion wafer, he observed that approximately four particles remained on the palm of the communicant after the consumption of the host.
This test was performed with unconsecrated hosts that he had obtained from a Catholic supply house. He then realized that he was guilty of over 60,000 potential desecrations of the host from the particles that remained in the hands of those he had distributed too. Knowing full well that these individuals would not have checked their palms for the particles that could be seen not to mention those that could not be seen without a microscope. He also realized that many of these particles would have fallen to the floor to be trampled upon by all those that were coming and going from communion.
Why has this been allowed by the Bishops of the Catholic Church? Why did Pope John Paul II, foster distribution of communion in the hand when the Church has known for centuries that these type of desecrations and sacrileges would be committed in the process?
A perfect example of what can happen when one is allowed to take communion in the hand was demonstrated on April 11, 2005 on E Bay, the giant auction site. An individual who was not Catholic, was able to receive communion in the hand, not once, but twice from Pope John Paul II himself, while visiting in Rome. This individual consumed one host, as he relates in his description of the item. He then puts the other host up for auction to the highest bidder. The host along with some other memorabilia sold for $2000 on April 12, 2005.
The site can be viewed by going to this link for verification. (update: The listing for this auction has since been deleted by E Bay. I have copies of the pictures and the listing on my computer for verification purposes.) cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=1447&item=6169851381&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW
to be cont…
T
toppro77
Guest
The question remains as to what the Church will do about such sacrileges. It has been almost 30 years now since they instituted communion in the hand and nothing has been done yet. In fact they are encouraging it even more now than in 1977. In 1993 the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions put out a pamphlet on Communion in the Hand called “Take and Eat” which quotes the Holy Father as saying that he hopes the practice of communion in the hand “will strengthen the faith and increase the sense of dignity in the faithful.“ The pamphlet even goes as far as teaching you, what they feel is the proper way to receive communion in this manner. Why would they want to see sacrileges continue if they truly loved and respected Our Lord?
In his 1549 Communion Service, Cranmer allowed the Sacrament to be placed on the tongue of the communicant by the minister. This was severely criticized by Martin Bucer, who demanded that Communion should be given in the hand. Cranmer complied and changed the rubric for his 1552 Prayer Book, to bring it into line with Protestant practice on the Continent. The reasons Bucer gives for insisting on this change are quite clear:
"I cannot see how the seventh section requiring the bread of the Lord to be put not in the hand, but in the mouth, of the recipient, can be consistent. Certainly the reason given in this section, namely, lest those who receive the bread of the Lord should not eat it but take it away with them to misuse it for superstition or horrible wickedness, is not, it seems to me, conclusive; for the minister can easily see, when he puts the bread in the hand, whether it is eaten or not. In fact, I have no doubt that this usage of not putting these sacraments in the hands of the faithful has been introduced out of a double superstition; firstly, the false honor they wished to show to this sacrament, and secondly the wicked arrogance of priests claiming greater holiness than that of the people of Christ, by virtue of the oil of consecration. The Lord undoubtedly gave these, His sacred symbols, into the hands of the Apostles, and no one who has read the records of the ancients can be in doubt that this was the usage observed in the churches until the advent of the Roman Antichrist.
"As, therefore, every superstition of the Roman Anti Christ is to be detested, and the simplicity of Christ, and the Apostles, and the ancient Churches, is to be recalled, I should wish that pastors and teachers of the people should be commanded that each is faithfully to teach the people that it is superstitious and wicked to think that the hands of those who truly believe in Christ are less pure than their mouths; or that the hands of the ministers are holier than the hands of the laity; so that it would be wicked, or less fitting, as was formerly wrongly believed by the ordinary folk, for the laity to receive these sacraments in the hand: and therefore that the indications of this wicked belief be removed-----as that the ministers may handle the sacraments, but not allow the laity to do so, and instead put the sacraments into the mouth-----which is not only foreign to what was instituted by the Lord but offensive to human reason.
“In that way good men will be easily brought to the point of all receiving the sacred symbols in the hand, conformity in receiving will be kept, and there will be safeguards against all furtive abuse of the sacraments. For, although for a time concession can be made to those whose faith is weak, by giving them the Sacraments in the mouth when they so desire, if they are carefully taught they will soon conform themselves to the rest of the Church and take the Sacraments in the hand.” 2
As one can see from this statement by one of the foremost protestant reformers at the time, that the reason behind communion in the hand was to elevate the faithful to the dignity of the priest, just as they claimed in the pamphlet “Take and Eat” It also was to destroy in the minds of the people that Christ was indeed present, whole and entire in each and every particle of the bread, claiming that it was false honor being shown to the Consecrated Host.
to be cont…
In his 1549 Communion Service, Cranmer allowed the Sacrament to be placed on the tongue of the communicant by the minister. This was severely criticized by Martin Bucer, who demanded that Communion should be given in the hand. Cranmer complied and changed the rubric for his 1552 Prayer Book, to bring it into line with Protestant practice on the Continent. The reasons Bucer gives for insisting on this change are quite clear:
"I cannot see how the seventh section requiring the bread of the Lord to be put not in the hand, but in the mouth, of the recipient, can be consistent. Certainly the reason given in this section, namely, lest those who receive the bread of the Lord should not eat it but take it away with them to misuse it for superstition or horrible wickedness, is not, it seems to me, conclusive; for the minister can easily see, when he puts the bread in the hand, whether it is eaten or not. In fact, I have no doubt that this usage of not putting these sacraments in the hands of the faithful has been introduced out of a double superstition; firstly, the false honor they wished to show to this sacrament, and secondly the wicked arrogance of priests claiming greater holiness than that of the people of Christ, by virtue of the oil of consecration. The Lord undoubtedly gave these, His sacred symbols, into the hands of the Apostles, and no one who has read the records of the ancients can be in doubt that this was the usage observed in the churches until the advent of the Roman Antichrist.
"As, therefore, every superstition of the Roman Anti Christ is to be detested, and the simplicity of Christ, and the Apostles, and the ancient Churches, is to be recalled, I should wish that pastors and teachers of the people should be commanded that each is faithfully to teach the people that it is superstitious and wicked to think that the hands of those who truly believe in Christ are less pure than their mouths; or that the hands of the ministers are holier than the hands of the laity; so that it would be wicked, or less fitting, as was formerly wrongly believed by the ordinary folk, for the laity to receive these sacraments in the hand: and therefore that the indications of this wicked belief be removed-----as that the ministers may handle the sacraments, but not allow the laity to do so, and instead put the sacraments into the mouth-----which is not only foreign to what was instituted by the Lord but offensive to human reason.
“In that way good men will be easily brought to the point of all receiving the sacred symbols in the hand, conformity in receiving will be kept, and there will be safeguards against all furtive abuse of the sacraments. For, although for a time concession can be made to those whose faith is weak, by giving them the Sacraments in the mouth when they so desire, if they are carefully taught they will soon conform themselves to the rest of the Church and take the Sacraments in the hand.” 2
As one can see from this statement by one of the foremost protestant reformers at the time, that the reason behind communion in the hand was to elevate the faithful to the dignity of the priest, just as they claimed in the pamphlet “Take and Eat” It also was to destroy in the minds of the people that Christ was indeed present, whole and entire in each and every particle of the bread, claiming that it was false honor being shown to the Consecrated Host.
to be cont…
T
toppro77
Guest
In conclusion moral theologians tell us there are nine ways to cooperate in evil or aid another in sin:
Galatians 1:8 “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.”
II Corinthians 11:13 “For such false apostles are deceitful workmen, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.14 And no wonder: for Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.”
I Timothy 4:1 “Now the Spirit manifestly says, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils.”
Hebrews 13:9 “Be not led away with various and strange doctrines.”
St John says, speaking of priest who were deceiving the Christians at that time:
I John 2:19 “They went out from us, but they were not of us.“
If we who call ourselves Catholic, believe that the Host is changed into the true Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. How can we allow such sacrileges to continue? How many of us will be true soldiers of Christ and come to the defense of Our Lord against such abominations by confronting any priest, bishop, cardinal or pope who allow these desecrations to continue. It’s entirely up to each one of us.
Christ says in St. Matthew’s Gospel 12:30 “He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathers not with me, scatters.”
We can all make excuses in sin before our fellow men, but what excuse will we give Almighty God when we are confronted by Him?
- counseling or advising another to sin
- commanding another to sin
- provoking another to sin
- consenting to another’s sin
- showing another how to sin
- praising another’s sin
- concealing, remaining silent about, or doing nothing to prevent another’s sin
- taking part in or rejoicing in the results of another’s sin
- defending another’s sin.
Galatians 1:8 “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.”
II Corinthians 11:13 “For such false apostles are deceitful workmen, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.14 And no wonder: for Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.”
I Timothy 4:1 “Now the Spirit manifestly says, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils.”
Hebrews 13:9 “Be not led away with various and strange doctrines.”
St John says, speaking of priest who were deceiving the Christians at that time:
I John 2:19 “They went out from us, but they were not of us.“
If we who call ourselves Catholic, believe that the Host is changed into the true Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. How can we allow such sacrileges to continue? How many of us will be true soldiers of Christ and come to the defense of Our Lord against such abominations by confronting any priest, bishop, cardinal or pope who allow these desecrations to continue. It’s entirely up to each one of us.
Christ says in St. Matthew’s Gospel 12:30 “He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathers not with me, scatters.”
We can all make excuses in sin before our fellow men, but what excuse will we give Almighty God when we are confronted by Him?
- Dogmatic Canons and Decrees pg 79, from Tan publishing, Rockford IL
- This is an original translation but Bucer’s Censura has now been republished with the Latin text and an English translation on parallel pages: Martin Bucer and the Book of Common Prayer, ed. E. C. Whitaker (Mayhew-McCrimmon, Essex, England).
- Status