Can a lay woman give communion??

[Sirach2]

Was watching a mass celebration and saw a female(not a reverend sister or nun) handing out the eucharist to communicants.and a friend mentioned that it was wrong for a woman to touch the communion [for whatever reason?]
What’s the church’s position on this? And opinions please??

Eva, it is always good to search for truth and not accept casual answers from others. Best place to go is to the bishops’ website (USCCB) and review the entire document whenver such a question arises. Here is the section that I believe will help you.

Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion
28. When the size of the congregation or the incapacity of the bishop, priest, or deacon requires it, the celebrant may be assisted by other bishops, priests, or deacons. If such ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are not present, “the priest may call upon extraordinary ministers to assist him, i.e., formally instituted acolytes or even some of the faithful who have been commissioned according to the prescribed rite.** In case of necessity, the priest may also commission suitable members of the faithful for the occasion.**”

As you can see, not only can the priest use formally commissioned faithful to assist with distribution, but in real necessity, even non-commissioned “suitable” members may be called upon, according to the priest’s discretion. It should not be our concern to call this into question.

 

[Julianna]

Was watching a mass celebration and saw a female(not a reverend sister or nun) handing out the eucharist to communicants.and a friend mentioned that it was **wrong for a woman to touch the communion,because she’s always unclean once in a month. **While i dont believe that’s a good reason (kinda dumb actually),my thoughts are that lay persons shouldnt hand out communion.
What’s the church’s position on this? And opinions please??

Are you kidding me??

 

[neusys]

i was an altar boy in the early 60s, even won the coveted Serra Award. i left the church, and went back to it on Ash Wed., 2015. i also say the rosary every day, i have a very, very hard problem with women not wearing hats or veils in church. i find it very disrespectful, and part of their being to always challenge rule as Eve/Lilith did to God. I even see them on the altar, both as servers, touching the chalice and giving out communion to the congregants. to me, i find it outrageous. i was brought up they are not allowed to do this. the church says that there aren’t enough priests nor altar servers. i disagree. in my day, there were only two altar boys, and we put the paten under the chin of the congregants, no matter how many people were in the congregation. now, they have up to six altar servers and deacons! why? in my opinion, it’s not necessary. my question, who is a female, helped me to try accept this by putting it into a better perspective, which, admittedly, allows me to ‘swallow’ it better. she said, think of it like this. they – the women on the altar – are there, just like me, to get closer to God.’ interesting concept. someone help me understand my comment better. i thank you. tom

 

[TimothyH]

Nuns are Religious and never Lay.

Nuns are always lay. All women are lay. Lay means not clergy and women can never be clergy. You are either clergy or lay.

They are not ordained so they are part of the laity.

The laity is the entire group of persons who are neither clergy nor consecrated religious. If the nun is consecrated religious then she is not part of the laity.

Laity and lay are two different things. Clergy and consecrated religious are not part of the laity. Everyone else is part of the laity.

***Clergy ***: deacon, priest and bishop

Cleric: an ordained deacon, priest or bishop whose ministry is to serve the People of God through the sacrament of Holy Orders.

Lay: any man or woman who is not clergy

Religious: any man or woman whose life is consecrated to God by the observance of the Evangelical Counsels, living in a stable community of religious approved by the Church, and is celibate.

Consecrated Life: the life of one who has made vows to remain a virgin or to live in a religious community under obedience, stability, chastity, poverty, etc.

Secular: any man or woman who is not consecrated to God by the Evangelical Counsels

Secularism: not the same as secular. The secular person belongs to the world and lives in the world, but has his eyes set on God. Secularism is living in the world, belonging to the world and focusing one’s gaze on things of the world such as inordinate power, surplus wealth and inappropriate pleasure.

Consecrated: a person, an object or a place designated, by the Church, for the service of God. In the case of a person, the individual is consecrated, not his way of life.

Layman or woman: any man or woman who is neither clergy nor a consecrated religious.

Laity: The entire group of people who are neither clergy nor consecrated religious.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10227137&highlight=lay+laity+cleric#post10227137

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10694959&highlight=lay+laity+cleric#post10694959

-Tim-

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

i was an altar boy in the early 60s… tom

Many things changed since the time you were an altar boy and I, too, disagree with much of it. Even though it is allowed doesn’t necessarily make it right, but that is just my opinion.

I don’t know why it was changed, but things are still done as it was done in the early 60’s at FSSP parishes and the like that offer the Traditional Latin Mass.You could go to Mass there if you’d like.

 

[LightBound]

i was an altar boy in the early 60s, even won the coveted Serra Award. i left the church, and went back to it on Ash Wed., 2015. i also say the rosary every day, i have a very, very hard problem with women not wearing hats or veils in church. i find it very disrespectful, and part of their being to always challenge rule as Eve/Lilith did to God. I even see them on the altar, both as servers, touching the chalice and giving out communion to the congregants. to me, i find it outrageous. i was brought up they are not allowed to do this. the church says that there aren’t enough priests nor altar servers. i disagree. in my day, there were only two altar boys, and we put the paten under the chin of the congregants, no matter how many people were in the congregation. now, they have up to six altar servers and deacons! why? in my opinion, it’s not necessary. my question, who is a female, helped me to try accept this by putting it into a better perspective, which, admittedly, allows me to ‘swallow’ it better. she said, think of it like this. they – the women on the altar – are there, just like me, to get closer to God.’ interesting concept. someone help me understand my comment better. i thank you. tom

So, let me get this straight- you feel like women are always challenging the rules like Eve did when they don’t cover their heads at Mass? Even with the rules now say they do not have to? How is that being rebellious? It sounds from your sentence about women that you do not really trust females or respect them. I hope that is not the case, so would you please expand on your comment as to make sure the rest of understand what you are attempting to say about women, because it’s coming across pretty misogynistic with how you worded things.

 

[neusys]

Obviously, you really didn’t read my post. You know, I do not like your attitude and tone of voice! You’re out of line, bub, jumping to conclusions and accusing me of something. Who the hell to you think you are talking to me like that? That’s the problem with people like you. You don’t read. You don’t listen. If you do not understand my comment, you should have enough sense, maturity, and professionalism by asking something so simple as to asking me clarify my question, etc. Are you that daft? And by the by, you need to learn punctuation! Peace! * Another person replied, and their response was completely the antithesis of yours and most welcomed.

 

[TK421]

I don’t think the fathers of Vatican II, such as St JPII or Paul VI, were dumb men, so I’m not a traditionalist. But, from a purely aesthetic point of view, I think women with veils in church makes them look really nice and, frankly, kind of cute, because it seems to enhance and accent their femininity. This was a purely disciplinary practice though so there’s no authority to say women without veils is wrong. They are quite nice though and I would feel happy & giddy if more women decided to wear them.

The conventional argument goes that altar girls / female Eucharistic ministers /etc might be imprudent because it can discourage the formation of priests and deacons. This argument makes sense to me, but I’m still okay with it, and the reason is simple: priests aren’t indispensable. You might have fewer priests but you’ll still have priests. Cultivating Catholic moms & religious works just fine for me. The vocations are all built-up towards the same end, and they’re all connected. Everybody is talking about a “vocation crisis” in priests, but I say it’s first and foremost a vocation crisis in the family, since the family is the first seminary. Build better families and you’ll get more priests by default.

 

[LightBound]

Obviously, you really didn’t read my post. You know, I do not like your attitude and tone of voice! You’re out of line, bub, jumping to conclusions and accusing me of something. Who the hell to you think you are talking to me like that? That’s the problem with people like you. You don’t read. You don’t listen. If you do not understand my comment, you should have enough sense, maturity, and professionalism by asking something so simple as to asking me clarify my question, etc. Are you that daft?

Reported

 

[LightBound]

Obviously, you really didn’t read my post. You know, I do not like your attitude and tone of voice! You’re out of line, bub, jumping to conclusions and accusing me of something. Who the hell to you think you are talking to me like that? That’s the problem with people like you. You don’t read. You don’t listen. If you do not understand my comment, you should have enough sense, maturity, and professionalism by asking something so simple as to asking me clarify my question, etc. Are you that daft? And by the by, you need to learn punctuation! Peace! * Another person replied, and their response was completely the antithesis of yours and most welcomed.

Reported.

 

[Crown_of_Stars]

Was watching a mass celebration and saw a female(not a reverend sister or nun) handing out the eucharist to communicants.and a friend mentioned that it was wrong for a woman to touch the communion,because she’s always unclean once in a month. While i dont believe that’s a good reason (kinda dumb actually),my thoughts are that lay persons shouldnt hand out communion.
What’s the church’s position on this? And opinions please??

Women were considered “unclean” during their flow in the Old Testament. It’s no longer that way. But I’ve secretly felt as you do too. Not so much that a lay person, man or woman, shouldn’t be handing out Communion, but rather I just feel less special receiving the Host from a lay person rather than the priest himself. But that’s just my own feeling. Naturally, I feel directly from the priest’s hand is more sacred. Even though, realistically, this isn’t true. If this were so, they wouldn’t allow the lay to hand out Communion.

 

[TK421]

@Crown of Stars:

Plus you have to think of it this way: if a host has been consecrated into the Body & Blood of Christ, how could it possibly be “less” from a particular person?

Try to think less of the human instrument and more on the miracle you are receiving.

 

[Crown_of_Stars]

@Crown of Stars:

Plus you have to think of it this way: if a host has been consecrated into the Body & Blood of Christ, how could it possibly be “less” from a particular person?

Try to think less of the human instrument and more of the miracle you are consuming.

I know. You’re right. I need to give it deeper thought. It’s a leftover from when I used to wonder if the Host was any less sacred if I received it in my hand rather than on my tongue. I receive in my hand, but when I was younger, I was told that the priest was the only one whose hand should be touching it, and my hand would dissolve, in a sense, the sacredness. Now I know this isn’t true.

 

[ProVobis]

… when I was younger, I was told that the priest was the only one whose hand should be touching it,

Before Vatican II, almost everyone was taught this. As well as how sacrilegious it was for lay hands to touch it. It was almost like believing it was being spoiled or being unpure because another human touched it. Some just haven’t made the adjustment of thinking otherwise.

 

[Walking_Home]

Obviously, you really didn’t read my post. You know, I do not like your attitude and tone of voice! You’re out of line, bub, jumping to conclusions and accusing me of something. Who the hell to you think you are talking to me like that? That’s the problem with people like you. You don’t read. You don’t listen. If you do not understand my comment, you should have enough sense, maturity, and professionalism by asking something so simple as to asking me clarify my question, etc. Are you that daft? And by the by, you need to learn punctuation! Peace! * Another person replied, and their response was completely the antithesis of yours and most welcomed.

---

I read your prior post – and frankly – I can see the reason for LightBound’s response.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

Before Vatican II, almost everyone was taught this. As well as how sacrilegious it was for lay hands to touch it. It was almost like believing it was being spoiled or being unpure because another human touched it. Some just haven’t made the adjustment of thinking otherwise.

Yes, my father was strictly taught this in Catholic school by the nuns. He was taught that for a layman to dare touch the Host was a horrible sacrilege of the Blessed Sacrament and that only the priest may touch the Host and give It to you kneeling and on the tongue. To this day, he still can’t accept Communion in the hand and extraordinary ministers. I can’t accept it either but that’s because I’m just old-fashioned.

 

[ProVobis]

I can’t accept it either but that’s because I’m just old-fashioned.

Well, think of it this way, is it old-fashioned not to pick an orange or an apple in a produce store after you see someone else pick it up? Or would you even begin to eat a donut a stranger handed to you? It seems the same psychology is in play here.

 

[TK421]

Donut…:hypno:

 

[TK421]

I know. You’re right. I need to give it deeper thought. It’s a leftover from when I used to wonder if the Host was any less sacred if I received it in my hand rather than on my tongue. I receive in my hand, but when I was younger, I was told that the priest was the only one whose hand should be touching it, and my hand would dissolve, in a sense, the sacredness. Now I know this isn’t true.

I receive on the tongue too, and I’m 29 and haven’t even been to an EF before. For me it’s about the intimacy & sense of vulnerability it conveys, like how a mother feds her child with a spoon when he is too small to use silverware.

I’ve never knelt though, because people might misinterpret it as flamboyant or Pharisaical, even though that wouldn’t be the intention at all. I do like the idea of it.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

Well, think of it this way, is it old-fashioned not to pick an orange or an apple in a produce store after you see someone else pick it up? Or would you even begin to eat a donut a stranger handed to you? It seems the same psychology is in play here.

Hmm, I never thought about it that way. Stuff that’s been touched by others does sort of make it seem dirty and the same could apply to the Host. I like to receive from the priest on the tongue, though, since his hands were consecrated for that. When I see Communion in the hand and extraordinary ministers, it just seems disrespectful to me since something so sacred shouldn’t be handled so… informally, but that is just how I see it. I see it as an irreverent handling rather than a dirtying of the Host Itself.