Can a layperson ever administer sacraments?

[Aramis]

Or, in the Latin Church, other representative appointed by the bishop.

I have heard of a sister who is (or was) so appointed for the Alaska native territories as priests did not visit there all too often.

Is, but not permitted to do so when the circuit priest will be in within the month.

She’s also been granted preaching faculties for the Liturgy of the Word with Communion service.

And it’s not really in native turf, either. It’s in the Kenai area. The sisters are not dispersed to the villages. Villagers are trained and ordained as deacons to serve their village as pastoral associates, and the nominal pastor makes circuit.

 

[thomas_jd]

You’re going well beyond what the Church teaches.

There are situations when the use of an EMHC is an abuse. To decide that one is not going to receive from any minister, ordinary or extraordinary, under circumstances one considers abusive or that one is concerned may be abusive is probably an act of reverence, not an act of misunderstanding concerning the Real Presence. (I say “probably” only since the act could be done out of pride, and an act cannot both be an act of pride and a true act of reverence.)

Certainly to avoid receiving with the motive of avoiding abuse or sacrilege is more edifying that receiving with no care about whether the situation is licit or not. How can one simultaneously appreciate the True Presence and yet not care about reverence? Isn’t that impossible? I think you not only understand, but would agree with that, right? Where we differ is whether or not receiving with no care about whether the situation is licit or not might just as well betray a lack of reverence or a lack of understanding of the Real Presence.

At any rate, nowhere in the teaching of the Church will you find the idea that a Catholic who dies in a state of grace will fail to receive salvation because she chose not to receive Holy Communion when given the opportunity to do so at a daily Mass. Even if she unfairly and sinfully judged the EMHC as unfit, that act of pride would not be of sufficient gravity to be a mortal sin. Therefore, she did not hazard Hell by what she did. In that light, I don’t know what the possibility of unforeseen Death has to do with this at all. This is what I mean by going beyond what the Church teaches. There is a place and time to strictly avoid hyperbole.

It is inappropriate to teach or imply to people that something will put their salvation in jeopardy when the Church doesn’t teach that. The Church does not teach that a Catholic always ought to receive if possible. The Church teaches that it is good to receive frequently, if and only if one is in a position to do so worthily. If a person is in doubt about her own worthiness or whether a minister of the Eucharist is licit, she does not sin by refraining, particularly if she is not refraining against the advice of her confessor. She may well sin by failing to refrain. Her strict obligation is to receive once a year during Eastertide. After that, the Church encourages frequency, but does not require it. The Lord has given the Church that power to bind and loose, those will be the conditions under which we may expect to be judged. Let us not lay burdens on one another beyond the burdens the successors of the Apostles teach are necessary.

Lets see if I got this straight:
1: Its a act of reverence not to receive a Consecrated Host(the improper use of a E.M. H .C
deputed in accordance with the directives from Redemptious Sacramentum See #158)
I maintain that unless shown to the contrary he was duly deputized.
2:It is more edifying not to receive THE REAL PRESENSE
3:She stated that she only will partake in the Eucharist if a priest Communicates her. She never convayed any referance of abuse. Only she will not receive Communion from anyone not a priest.
4:Receive once a year. Let us not lay burdens on one another.
I am quite perplexed as to your arrival at these disjointed conclusions, yet I will clarify my statement regarding the reception of THE REAL PRESENCE ,BODY, BLOOD SOUL and DIVINITY. No one in their right mind would sit down, and refuse the reception of JESUS
solely based on a E.M.H.C., in this case doing what the priest required of him.
The very center of the Catholic Faith is the Eucharist. Your obligation, as a Catholic, is the salvation of your soul.Focus on the Eucharist as the doorway to Heaven.
Remember what Jesus said about the lukewarm. Attend mass and Holy Communion weekly.

 

[Victorious]

I am quite perplexed as to your arrival at these disjointed conclusions, yet I will clarify my statement regarding the reception of THE REAL PRESENCE ,BODY, BLOOD SOUL and DIVINITY. No one in their right mind would sit down, and refuse the reception of JESUS
solely based on a E.M.H.C., in this case doing what the priest required of him.
The very center of the Catholic Faith is the Eucharist. Your obligation, as a Catholic, is the salvation of your soul.Focus on the Eucharist as the doorway to Heaven.
Remember what Jesus said about the lukewarm. Attend mass and Holy Communion weekly.

Dang, you’re judgmental!

 

[benedictgal]

Lets see if I got this straight:
1: Its a act of reverence not to receive a Consecrated Host(the improper use of a E.M. H .C
deputed in accordance with the directives from Redemptious Sacramentum See #158)
I maintain that unless shown to the contrary he was duly deputized.
2:It is more edifying not to receive THE REAL PRESENSE
3:She stated that she only will partake in the Eucharist if a priest Communicates her. She never convayed any referance of abuse. Only she will not receive Communion from anyone not a priest.
4:Receive once a year. Let us not lay burdens on one another.
I am quite perplexed as to your arrival at these disjointed conclusions, yet I will clarify my statement regarding the reception of THE REAL PRESENCE ,BODY, BLOOD SOUL and DIVINITY. No one in their right mind would sit down, and refuse the reception of JESUS
solely based on a E.M.H.C., in this case doing what the priest required of him.
The very center of the Catholic Faith is the Eucharist. Your obligation, as a Catholic, is the salvation of your soul.Focus on the Eucharist as the doorway to Heaven.
Remember what Jesus said about the lukewarm. Attend mass and Holy Communion weekly.

However, we are not required to receive Holy Communion at every Mass we assist. Inasmuch as the very center of our Faith is the Paschal Mystery, we do not have to receive Holy Communion whenever we are at Mass. The high point of the Mass is not the reception of Holy Communion, but, the actual Sacrifice on the Altar, when the celebrant raises the Sacred Host and the Chalice and offers the sacred species to the Father. Someone who chooses not to receive or is unable to receive is not being lukewarm. That is a harsh and unqualifiable judgment to make, as I see it.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

the CCC only teaches that a representative of the Church must be there to witness, didn’t specify that the witness has to be an ordained member of the Church. so i don’t think its outside the bounds of a Bishop to appoint this to someone, especially in cases where the area is remote and there are no priests readily available

Is, but not permitted to do so when the circuit priest will be in within the month.

She’s also been granted preaching faculties for the Liturgy of the Word with Communion service.

And it’s not really in native turf, either. It’s in the Kenai area. The sisters are not dispersed to the villages. Villagers are trained and ordained as deacons to serve their village as pastoral associates, and the nominal pastor makes circuit.

Right, I was trying to use this as an example of a Sacrament administered by lay people but that requires a witness from the Church, in the Latin Church that is, which is usually an ordained person but not required to be.

 

[FrDavid96]

Fr David: check CCC 1452 (and surrounds)…
1452 When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called “perfect” (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible.51

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P4D.HTM#29

An act of Perfect contrition does forgive mortal sins, which is the primary purpose of confession. It is possible, in extreme cases, for an individual to be unable to obtain auricular confession and formal absolution for periods of up to many years… for example, in non-US prisons, or in remote site military assignments like the LORAN stations. Or the supposedly still on the schedule mission to Mars.

It is not a sacrament in itself, but a perfect act of contrition is (like lay-witnessed marriage) a sacramental with the same primary effect as the sacrament it ties to, and like marriage, requires validation by the clergy when such becomes possible.

But, as was taught by St Basil, and by several Dominicans I’ve met, one can never be certain that one’s contrition is perfect, for we poor banished children of Eve are imperfect, and have fear of the consequences of sin besides simple love for God.

OK. One…more…time… “Perfect Contrition” does not mean that the contrition is “perfect” it is a term which is used, a perfectly legitimate term, but still one not to be taken literally. As human beings, we are finite. We are not perfect. Only God is perfect. Therefore only God can ever do anything in a perfect way. Since we are not perfect beings, we cannot have contrition that is literally perfect. I am well aware that the Catechism uses the term “perfect contrition” and I do know what it means. The problem here is that some people will hear the term “perfect contrition” and mistakenly think that to mean “contrition which is perfect” the two are not the same thing.

A “perfect act of contrition” does not have the “same primary effect as the sacrament” because it lacks absolution. Only through the sacrament of Reconciliation (in at least its minimal form) can anyone ever be absolved. Absolution is certainly one of the “primary effects” of the sacrament. Making a “perfect act of contrition” does not equate to actually being absolved by a priest (sacerdos), although I’ve read that misconception many times on this thread and similar threads.

Please note that the Catechism does not say that “perfect contrition” brings about absolution, nor does it say that it can be equated to the Sacrament.

When a priest absolves someone who previously made a “perfect act of contrition” this is entirely different from a situation of 2 people who marry each other in some kind of extraordinary circumstances when a priest or deacon is unavailable. A priest does not just “validate” the act of contrition–he absolves and that’s a significant difference.

I realize that this post reads a bit “firm” but please understand that there are very serious problems arising from the misconception that an act of contrition (or the penitential rite, or receiving Communion, etc. etc.) is an acceptable substitute for sacramental confession and absolution. Please realize that there are many people out there reading these threads (and not necessarily posting or participating) who come away with the impression that they don’t need confession because they “read on the internet” that the Sacrament isn’t necessary.

If we want to explain that a “perfect act of contrition” obtains forgiveness of sins, that’s all well and good. I’m completely in favor of that. But at the same time, that’s only part of the answer. The other part of the answer, and it is a necessary part, is to likewise explain that there is still no absolution, and that absolution is still necessary in order to have full and complete reconciliation—yes, even after a “perfect act of contrition.”

 

[EasterJoy]

Lets see if I got this straight:
1: Its a act of reverence not to receive a Consecrated Host(the improper use of a E.M. H .C
deputed in accordance with the directives from Redemptious Sacramentum See #158)
I maintain that unless shown to the contrary he was duly deputized.
2:It is more edifying not to receive THE REAL PRESENSE
3:She stated that she only will partake in the Eucharist if a priest Communicates her. She never convayed any referance of abuse. Only she will not receive Communion from anyone not a priest.
4:Receive once a year. Let us not lay burdens on one another.
I am quite perplexed as to your arrival at these disjointed conclusions, yet I will clarify my statement regarding the reception of THE REAL PRESENCE ,BODY, BLOOD SOUL and DIVINITY. No one in their right mind would sit down, and refuse the reception of JESUS
solely based on a E.M.H.C., in this case doing what the priest required of him.
The very center of the Catholic Faith is the Eucharist. Your obligation, as a Catholic, is the salvation of your soul.Focus on the Eucharist as the doorway to Heaven.
Remember what Jesus said about the lukewarm. Attend mass and Holy Communion weekly.

There is no need to “yell” with the caps. Remember what Jesus said about the measure you measure with being measured back to you. Those who wish to escape judgement do well to refrain from judging. He gave certain people the power to bind and loose, with the assurance that the same would be bound and loose in Heaven. They have not made weekly reception of Holy Communion a binding obligation. Get off of the woman’s back, please, then. There is nothing edifying about trying to exercise authority over those over whom you have no jurisdiction.

The woman was not evading a grave obligation as a Catholic. She was at daily Mass and didn’t receive Holy Communion. If it seemed to her that going would amount to complicity in what might be an abuse, then she has a duty not to go. OTOH, the Church clearly teaches that she is under no compulsion to go, and that it is not an act of sacrilege to fail to receive (which you seem to be implying). So she decides not to go. The truth is, it is really none of our business why.

Could she have failed to go for sinful reasons? Well, yes, she could have. Is that our business? Well, no it isn’t. She isn’t here asking us. If she were, the answer would have to be that she does not sin by electing not to receive Holy Communion at a daily Mass. She would sin if instead of either letting the matter drop or respectfully inquiring into the matter, she sat in judgement of those over whom she has no jurisdiction or pridefully considered herself superior in the eyes of God to them. She didn’t say that. She said she prefers to receive only from an ordinary minister. That is her perogative. We Catholics do have a few of those. That is one of them, whether we like it or not.

 

[thomas_jd]

However, we are not required to receive Holy Communion at every Mass we assist. Inasmuch as the very center of our Faith is the Paschal Mystery, we do not have to receive Holy Communion whenever we are at Mass. The high point of the Mass is not the reception of Holy Communion, but, the actual Sacrifice on the Altar, when the celebrant raises the Sacred Host and the Chalice and offers the sacred species to the Father. Someone who chooses not to receive or is unable to receive is not being lukewarm. That is a harsh and unqualifiable judgment to make, as I see it.

We are called, at each and every mass that we attend, by Jesus himself at the Consecration when the following words are spoken by the priest, “Take and eat ye all of this: For This is My Body.”
Frequent Holy Communion infuses new life to a person. While it is true that we only are bound, by the Church, to receive once a year, what a tragedy that would be!
Someone who chooses not to receive can be lukewarm, indifferent, or even ignorant of the Real Presence. Unable to receive is just that " unable to receive" ,not a discussion point that I have commented on.
Maybe ,as you see it, my (name removed by moderator)ut on the womans refusal to receive because it was not from the hands of a priest are judgemental and harsh. I will grant you that , but no more unqualified than your above statement.

 

[benedictgal]

We are called, at each and every mass that we attend, by Jesus himself at the Consecration when the following words are spoken by the priest, “Take and eat ye all of this: For This is My Body.”
Frequent Holy Communion infuses new life to a person. While it is true that we only are bound, by the Church, to receive once a year, what a tragedy that would be!
Someone who chooses not to receive can be lukewarm, indifferent, or even ignorant of the Real Presence. Unable to receive is just that " unable to receive" ,not a discussion point that I have commented on.
Maybe ,as you see it, my (name removed by moderator)ut on the womans refusal to receive because it was not from the hands of a priest are judgemental and harsh. I will grant you that , but no more unqualified than your above statement.

Again, I do not believe that you are getting the point. We are not required to receive Holy Communion during Mass. In fact, we are only required to receive once a year, our Easter duty, if you will. To not receive Holy Communion is not to deny the Real Presence. What you have written, as I read it, makes people like my late grandmother who could not receive for 40 years because she was an invalid marriage, second-rate Catholics because, although she never missed Mass during that time, she could not receive until her annulment came. She was never lukewarm about the faith and reared my father as a devout Catholic. It was unfortunate that the marriage situation could not be resolved until I was 14, but, that did not stop her from assisting at Mass as best she could.

Before you start making judgmental statements, I will not receive communion via intinction by an EMHC because it is wrong. It is not allowed and I will not participate in an ilicit act. I have great respect for the integrity of the Sacrifice and the Sacrament.

 

[surritter]

BG, hold on a minute. I don’t think it’s illicit for an EMHC to dip the host into the Precious Blood and the place it on the communicant’s tongue. Yet you say that it is?

 

[benedictgal]

BG, hold on a minute. I don’t think it’s illicit for an EMHC to dip the host into the Precious Blood and the place it on the communicant’s tongue. Yet you say that it is?

Yes, it is. The only one who can do this is the priest. The documents clearly state that, from the GIRM to RS to the Norms for Distribution of Holy Communion in the United States. Furthermore, when I brought up this issue during a phone conversation at the CDWDS, I was told that only the priest can do this and was given the relevent citations from the authoritative documents.

 

[surritter]

Thanks – I didn’t know that. I think I’ve been to a neighboring parish where that’s done (occasionally) so I was confused.

 

[Aramis]

In the Churches of the Eastern Rites, deacons are be permitted to intinct when so instructed by the rubrics.

In point of fact, the norm for the DL of St. John Chrysostom is that, after the communion of the clergy, the deacon places the precious body into the chalice all at once, so that the faithful are communed under both species.

Individual intinction by laymen is absolutely forbidden, and half a dozen documents instruct same.

The most obvious, tho, is Redemptionis Sacramentum, which governs the Roman Church’s Missals:[103.] The norms of the Roman Missal admit the principle that in cases where Communion is administered under both kinds, “the Blood of the Lord may be received either by drinking from the chalice directly, or by intinction, or by means of a tube or a spoon”.[191] As regards the administering of Communion to lay members of Christ’s faithful, the Bishops may exclude Communion with the tube or the spoon where this is not the local custom, though the option of administering Communion by intinction always remains. If this modality is employed, however, hosts should be used which are neither too thin nor too small, and the communicant should receive the Sacrament from the Priest only on the tongue.[192]

[104.] The communicant must not be permitted to intinct the host himself in the chalice, nor to receive the intincted host in the hand. As for the host to be used for the intinction, it should be made of valid matter, also consecrated; it is altogether forbidden to use non-consecrated bread or other matter.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

RS is abundantly clear.

 

[thomas_jd]

Again, I do not believe that you are getting the point. We are not required to receive Holy Communion during Mass. In fact, we are only required to receive once a year, our Easter duty, if you will. To not receive Holy Communion is not to deny the Real Presence. What you have written, as I read it, makes people like my late grandmother who could not receive for 40 years because she was an invalid marriage, second-rate Catholics because, although she never missed Mass during that time, she could not receive until her annulment came. She was never lukewarm about the faith and reared my father as a devout Catholic. It was unfortunate that the marriage situation could not be resolved until I was 14, but, that did not stop her from assisting at Mass as best she could.

Before you start making judgmental statements, I will not receive communion via intinction by an EMHC because it is wrong. It is not allowed and I will not participate in an ilicit act. I have great respect for the integrity of the Sacrifice and the Sacrament.

Never has the subject of intinction by a E.M.H.C.been discussed by me.
Your grandmothers position is outside of this discussion. I would never call anyone a second rate Catholic.The question to be resolved is along these lines: " Does a person that removes themself from receiving Holy Communion because they do not receive from anyone other than the priest understand the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.?"
I do not think that person understands. This quoting the basic requirements of the Church
" once a year" undermines the many, many, sources that ask for frequent reception of Holy Communion. Our Lady asked for five first saturdays in reparation of the abuses committed to her Immaculate Heart. Mass and Confession are a part of the requirements.
Of course many will attack this as not necessary of belief, due to private revelation.
The Holy Father Benedict XVI confesses each week and, just a afterthought, partakes in the reception of Holy Communion more than yearly. The question has never been how often do you receive?
The point that so many seem to be missing, probally thru my inadequate writing skills,
is that there is something very wrong in turning your back on the Host and sitting back down, rather than receiving from a E.M.H.C. No more no less! Until Rome removes the position of E.M.H.C. they fufill a duty.
Jesus is present in the Host! It is immaterial, whether the priest or the deacon or the instuted acyolate or the E.M. H.C. hold the HOST. The Host is God!

 

[EasterJoy]

Never has the subject of intinction by a E.M.H.C.been discussed by me.
Your grandmothers position is outside of this discussion. I would never call anyone a second rate Catholic.The question to be resolved is along these lines: " Does a person that removes themself from receiving Holy Communion because they do not receive from anyone other than the priest understand the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.?"
I do not think that person understands. This quoting the basic requirements of the Church
" once a year" undermines the many, many, sources that ask for frequent reception of Holy Communion. Our Lady asked for five first saturdays in reparation of the abuses committed to her Immaculate Heart. Mass and Confession are a part of the requirements.
Of course many will attack this as not necessary of belief, due to private revelation.
The Holy Father Benedict XVI confesses each week and, just a afterthought, partakes in the reception of Holy Communion more than yearly. The question has never been how often do you receive?
The point that so many seem to be missing, probally thru my inadequate writing skills,
is that there is something very wrong in turning your back on the Host and sitting back down, rather than receiving from a E.M.H.C. No more no less! Until Rome removes the position of E.M.H.C. they fufill a duty.
Jesus is present in the Host! It is immaterial, whether the priest or the deacon or the instuted acyolate or the E.M. H.C. hold the HOST. The Host is God!

EMsHC are allowed because they are sometimes needed. This is discerned by the presider. I am a EMHC. I understand this. I also understand, though, that it is the perogative of individual Catholics to refrain from receiving from anyone but an ordinary minister, particularly when the person is already a regular communicant.

It is unquestionable that the Church encourages frequent reception. What you don’t seem to get is that this does not translate into a duty to receive Holy Communion at every opportunity, in spite of any reservations one might have. That is simply not true! Rather, the person ought to consider in every instance whether he or she is sufficiently well-disposed to receive worthily and reverently. This can include refraining when one is concerned about giving tacit approval of a possible abuse. I want to be careful not to accuse anyone who does receive, not taking that as complicity with any abuses taking place. Requiring that is going too far. If something is lacking, or if we are seriously concerned that something may be lacking, though, we do not sin by electing not to receive, and especially not if we are regular communicants in the big picture.

The individual communicant is the one that needs to discern when she is disposed to receive and what effect her reception will have on the Body of Christ. We are not bound to refrain unless we are not in a state of grace, have not observed the required fast, or something of that nature. Nevertheless, if we discern we are not well disposed, we do well to refrain. We do not sin nor lose sight of the Real Presence in doing so.

“You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna. Therefore, if you bring your gift to the altar, and there recall that your brother has anything against you, leave your gift there at the altar, go first and be reconciled with your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Settle with your opponent quickly while on the way to court with him. Otherwise your opponent will hand you over to the judge, and the judge will hand you over to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison. Amen, I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny.” Matt. 5: 21-26.

IMHO, it is better to refrain from going at all than to receive the Lord with judgement in your heart about whether someone else is fit to be a EMHC. Certainly, it is allowed to refrain. It is allowed to refrain if you discern that the situation is in any way irreverent. It is allowed to refrain if you are concerned about being complicit with what you honestly believe to be an abusive situation. Strictly speaking, it is even allowed to only receive from someone you personally like, for that matter. That could be a venial sin, but it is **not **a mortal sin, such that you should fear dying before having a chance to confess it, if you have ever done it. It is way, way out of bounds to suggest that this attitude consitutes a mortally serious offense against the Eucharist. We are not allowed to make things up or insert our own sense of things when it comes to admonshing others concerning the gravity of their sins! We have to stick to what the Church teaches.

At any rate, no matter what her reasons, no one should ever judged for deciding not to receive, particularly not if the person is a regular communicant. It is the communicant who knows her heart, and God who will judge her heart, not any of us. That judgement should be considered every bit as serious a matter as sitting in judgement of someone else as being unfit to be a minister of the Blessed Sacrament, when the requirements the Church has laid down for fitness have been met.

 

[jayk15]

Never has the subject of intinction by a E.M.H.C.been discussed by me.
Your grandmothers position is outside of this discussion. I would never call anyone a second rate Catholic.The question to be resolved is along these lines: " Does a person that removes themself from receiving Holy Communion because they do not receive from anyone other than the priest understand the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.?"
I do not think that person understands. This quoting the basic requirements of the Church
" once a year" undermines the many, many, sources that ask for frequent reception of Holy Communion. Our Lady asked for five first saturdays in reparation of the abuses committed to her Immaculate Heart. Mass and Confession are a part of the requirements.
Of course many will attack this as not necessary of belief, due to private revelation.
The Holy Father Benedict XVI confesses each week and, just a afterthought, partakes in the reception of Holy Communion more than yearly. The question has never been how often do you receive?
The point that so many seem to be missing, probally thru my inadequate writing skills,
is that there is something very wrong in turning your back on the Host and sitting back down, rather than receiving from a E.M.H.C. No more no less! Until Rome removes the position of E.M.H.C. they fufill a duty.
Jesus is present in the Host! It is immaterial, whether the priest or the deacon or the instuted acyolate or the E.M. H.C. hold the HOST. The Host is God!

Why is it then that only a mass and not a communion service can fulfill the sunday obligation? Because the sole purpose of fulfilling the obligation is to attend the re enactment of Christs sacrifice on the cross. In my opinion not receiving Communion in an abusive Mass is showing more respect to the Real Presence because you are actualy making the implication that you are not agreeing with the abuses against the Real Presence.

 

[thomas_jd]

EMsHC are allowed because they are sometimes needed. This is discerned by the presider. I am a EMHC. I understand this. I also understand, though, that it is the perogative of individual Catholics to refrain from receiving from anyone but an ordinary minister, particularly when the person is already a regular communicant.

It is unquestionable that the Church encourages frequent reception. What you don’t seem to get is that this does not translate into a duty to receive Holy Communion at every opportunity, in spite of any reservations one might have. That is simply not true! Rather, the person ought to consider in every instance whether he or she is sufficiently well-disposed to receive worthily and reverently. This can include refraining when one is concerned about giving tacit approval of a possible abuse. I want to be careful not to accuse anyone who does receive, not taking that as complicity with any abuses taking place. Requiring that is going too far. If something is lacking, or if we are seriously concerned that something may be lacking, though, we do not sin by electing not to receive, and especially not if we are regular communicants in the big picture.

The individual communicant is the one that needs to discern when she is disposed to receive and what effect her reception will have on the Body of Christ. We are not bound to refrain unless we are not in a state of grace, have not observed the required fast, or something of that nature. Nevertheless, if we discern we are not well disposed, we do well to refrain. We do not sin nor lose sight of the Real Presence in doing so.

“You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna. Therefore, if you bring your gift to the altar, and there recall that your brother has anything against you, leave your gift there at the altar, go first and be reconciled with your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Settle with your opponent quickly while on the way to court with him. Otherwise your opponent will hand you over to the judge, and the judge will hand you over to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison. Amen, I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny.” Matt. 5: 21-26.

IMHO, it is better to refrain from going at all than to receive the Lord with judgement in your heart about whether someone else is fit to be a EMHC. Certainly, it is allowed to refrain. It is allowed to refrain if you discern that the situation is in any way irreverent. It is allowed to refrain if you are concerned about being complicit with what you honestly believe to be an abusive situation. Strictly speaking, it is even allowed to only receive from someone you personally like, for that matter. That could be a venial sin, but it is **not **a mortal sin, such that you should fear dying before having a chance to confess it, if you have ever done it. It is way, way out of bounds to suggest that this attitude consitutes a mortally serious offense against the Eucharist. We are not allowed to make things up or insert our own sense of things when it comes to admonshing others concerning the gravity of their sins! We have to stick to what the Church teaches.

At any rate, no matter what her reasons, no one should ever judged for deciding not to receive, particularly not if the person is a regular communicant. It is the communicant who knows her heart, and God who will judge her heart, not any of us. That judgement should be considered every bit as serious a matter as sitting in judgement of someone else as being unfit to be a minister of the Blessed Sacrament, when the requirements the Church has laid down for fitness have been met.

The person that choose not to receive never said that :" She said she does not receive from anyone other than a priest!" She refrained from receiving the Host out of Pride. IMO
You stated that is the right of Catholics not to receive. The church requires one to receive once a year. I will go out on a limb here." Once a year is not enough.
Again to turn ones back on a Consecrated Host and not receive Holy Communion conveys a statement to me that she is not aware of the Real Presence in the Eucharist.You are making the assumption , despite her spoken words, that she sees abuse. This is completely off the subject. “She refused Communion because she was unable to receive from the priest.” The issue is not her refusal to receive but rather her mistaken reasoning for declining. The center of our Faith is and always has been the Eucharist! This is not a issue of whom we receive from but rather a refusal to partake in the greatest gift from God.
Before you enlighten me with the requirements of venal sin as opposed to mortal sin you must be aware of what is in the persons heart. A venal sin over time can become a mortal sin. My belief is this " Due to her actions and statement, she doesn’t understand the Real Presence in the Eucharist" I never accused anyone of sin and those of you that have are wrong. Reread your scripture quote with my last sentence in mind.

 

[thomas_jd]

Why is it then that only a mass and not a communion service can fulfill the sunday obligation? Because the sole purpose of fulfilling the obligation is to attend the re enactment of Christs sacrifice on the cross. In my opinion not receiving Communion in an abusive Mass is showing more respect to the Real Presence because you are actualy making the implication that you are not agreeing with the abuses against the Real Presence.

The Mass is both a Sacrifice and a Banquet.To fufill your Sunday obligitation one must be present at the Consecration, if my memory serves me correct.There is no Consecration at a Communion service. I agree with your opinion regarding not receiving Communion at a abusive mass, but that was never the issue with this post despite numerous attempts to derail the issue.The issue is not receiving due to pride. IMO

 

[benedictgal]

The Mass is both a Sacrifice and a Banquet.To fufill your Sunday obligitation one must be present at the Consecration, if my memory serves me correct.There is no Consecration at a Communion service. I agree with your opinion regarding not receiving Communion at a abusive mass, but that was never the issue with this post despite numerous attempts to derail the issue.The issue is not receiving due to pride. IMO

And, with all due respect, who are you to make the judgment of pride? It is more prideful, as I read your posts, to set oneself up as judge, jury and excutioner. Attorneys would certainly not expect that and would fight for due process, something, that I believe, you are not giving to the individual who does not wish to receive Holy Communion from an EMHC.

I brought up the issue of EMHCs intincting and my refusal to go along with this practice as an example. It is not pride; it is principle. You need to learn to make that distinction. Furthermore, the thread is titled “lay people adminstering the sacrament”; the EMHC issue is not a derailment.

While your reverence for Holy Commuion is laudable, you tend to lose your argument by making unwarranted judgments on the faithful.

 

[crazzeto]

No.

The “power,” for lack of a better word, to baptize does not come from the sacrament of Holy Orders. Therefore, a layperson can baptize in an emergency.

However, the “power,” to absolve sins comes from the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Therefore a layperson cannot absolve sins, even in an emergency.

More specifically, a preist or bishop… Deacons have valid holy orders but can not absolve sins.