Can a layperson ever administer sacraments?

[Victorious]

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

I don’t like to receive Holy Communion from a layman, and will get into the priest’s line whenever possible. Perhaps you’d like to pass judgment on me.

 

[thomas_jd]

I don’t like to receive Holy Communion from a layman, and will get into the priest’s line whenever possible. Perhaps you’d like to pass judgment on me.

I also don’t like to receive Communion from a layman, I also get into the line of the priest whenever possible. I also will step across the lines to receive from a priest.
Now what has that to do with not receiving the Real Presence?

 

[thomas_jd]

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.

And, with all due respect, who are you to make the judgement of pride? You take umbridge with me for doing exactly what you have just did to me. The issue is not receiving the Consecrated Host thru( IMO )pride. Can’t you understand that this is a example of irreverance to Our Lord. Never was it stated that abuse was a issue.
The issue ,intintion by a E.M.H.C.that you brought up , without any explaination whatsoever is not allowed. E.M.H.C. are never allow to intinct. , It’s not principal, it’s not allowed! Therein lies one of the quotes regarding derailment.
I stand by the issue of her refusal to receive Holy Communion. IMO that was due to not understanding the Real Presence. I selected Pride as the reason to help my position be better understood. She would rather not receive Communion than go to anyone other than a priest.We can conclude that to mean a Deacon, a instuted acyolate, or a E.M.H.C. just by her reply. Again She turned her back on Holy Communion. Her statement was explicit
'“only from a priest”
I am called “judgemental” Great I can live with that. I could never turn my back on Jesus in the Eucharist. I repeat never. Even in the hands of whomever or whatever, that is God! Everyone is so concerned with this womans right to refuse the Greatest Gift from God
the Eucharist. How was the thirty-three thousand individual religions started?
Turning your back on God ! Perhaps now you may understand the Importance that I place on the reception of Holy Communion! I live to attend mass and receive this Precious Gift, I try to go every other week to confession. I can serve at both forms of our mass and serve regularly at the ordinary form. This is who I am .Isn"t this what is required of us? I would love to see everyone at the Communion rail, but know the Real Presence first.This long posting that I have undertaken was to highlight the Irreverance, that I see . Irreverance to the Eucharist must never be tolerated.
You see me attacking a womans thru judgemental irresponsibility, I see you defending the Irreverance that she displayed to the Eucharist. How are we to know that she was one of the Faithful? Her actions and words prove the opposite.
I will take my chances on losing this argument, but by the way , she refused Our Lord, turned her back on him and sat down.

 

[surritter]

 

[thomas_jd]

Thanks I needed that.

 

[benedictgal]

And, with all due respect, who are you to make the judgement of pride? You take umbridge with me for doing exactly what you have just did to me. The issue is not receiving the Consecrated Host thru( IMO )pride. Can’t you understand that this is a example of irreverance to Our Lord. Never was it stated that abuse was a issue.
The issue ,intintion by a E.M.H.C.that you brought up , without any explaination whatsoever is not allowed. E.M.H.C. are never allow to intinct. , It’s not principal, it’s not allowed! Therein lies one of the quotes regarding derailment.
I stand by the issue of her refusal to receive Holy Communion. IMO that was due to not understanding the Real Presence. I selected Pride as the reason to help my position be better understood. She would rather not receive Communion than go to anyone other than a priest.We can conclude that to mean a Deacon, a instuted acyolate, or a E.M.H.C. just by her reply. Again She turned her back on Holy Communion. Her statement was explicit
'“only from a priest”
I am called “judgemental” Great I can live with that. I could never turn my back on Jesus in the Eucharist. I repeat never. Even in the hands of whomever or whatever, that is God! Everyone is so concerned with this womans right to refuse the Greatest Gift from God
the Eucharist. How was the thirty-three thousand individual religions started?
Turning your back on God ! Perhaps now you may understand the Importance that I place on the reception of Holy Communion! I live to attend mass and receive this Precious Gift, I try to go every other week to confession. I can serve at both forms of our mass and serve regularly at the ordinary form. This is who I am .Isn"t this what is required of us? I would love to see everyone at the Communion rail, but know the Real Presence first.This long posting that I have undertaken was to highlight the Irreverance, that I see . Irreverance to the Eucharist must never be tolerated.
You see me attacking a womans thru judgemental irresponsibility, I see you defending the Irreverance that she displayed to the Eucharist. How are we to know that she was one of the Faithful? Her actions and words prove the opposite.
I will take my chances on losing this argument, but by the way , she refused Our Lord, turned her back on him and sat down.

Again, you are making judgment calls without knowing the situation. The last two letters in your username are jd. I would assume that you are a lawyer. With all due respect, I do not think that you would consider it highly appropriate for your opposing counsel to make accusations against your client which you would take as unfounded, right? Unfortunately, as I read your posts, you are doing the same thing to the individual.

She did not refuse Our Lord as you would like us to believe. Furthermore, we are only obliged to receive Holy Communion during the Easter duty, the period which runs from the First Sunday of Lent through Trinity Sunday. Furthermore, if one does not believe oneself to be in the proper disposition to receive Holy Communion, then, by all means, that person should refrain from doing so. Refraining from receiving Holy Communion under those circumstances is laudable. Why risk profaning the Eucharist if one receives Our Lord with an angry heart? That, to me, shows more respect than simply getting up, getting in line and receiving Our Lord in anger.

As I said, while your devotion to the Eucharist is laudable, that does not set you up as judge, jury and executioner. You are not in a position to judge people’s hearts. That belongs to God.

 

[EasterJoy]

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.

Do you back out of the church when you leave? If not, then you turn your back on the Blessed Sacrament after every Mass. If someone comes up to you and tells you that your failure to back out of church betrays a lack of understanding of the Real Presence, they would be wrong. You are wrong, too: not because frequent reception of the Eucharist is not to be encouraged, but because you imply that the Church encourages it to the point that it is a duty to receive every time there is an opportunity. There is no such obligation.

You have never even given evidence that this woman is not a regular communicant, so there is no reason to believe she isn’t. I’m only pointing out that there is no canonical obligation to be one. You have given evidence that she refrained from receiving once at a daily Mass, in a case where the use of a EMHC was so unforeseen that the priest made provision for it at the last minute. Since she isn’t avoiding fulfillment of a serious obligation, since for all we know she receives every Sunday, I fail to see why you’re throwing around threats of dire things that could happen to her if she should die suddenly. The next thing we know, you’ll be threatening people who had a chance to attend a daily Mass or to spend an hour in adoration and failed to do so. This is not how the Church encourages exemplary habits among the faithful!

I do not have to know what is in someone’s heart in order to judge what is a grave matter and what is not. Your heart can be in an awful state, but if there is no grave matter in your actions, there is no mortal sin. I didn’t make that up. That is what the Church teaches.

I do not see how it is logically possible to accuse someone you know of Pride with a capital “P” in one breath and then say you never accused her of sin in the next! If you go around telling people they need to fear imminent death on account of their actions, then you are implying eternal consequences. If you told me I should be afraid to die after what I did because I am risking the loss of salvation, I would take that to mean you think I have sinned mortally. If you didn’t mean that, choose your words more carefully.

You will not find the Church teaching that the faithful must not act on a personal preference to receive from ordinary ministers instead of EMsHC. In fact, the Church allows for the use of EMsHC for the good of the faithful, not in order to force them into separation them from the direct ministry of the ordained. The Church also teaches very clearly that ordinary and extraordinary ministers are and must act in a way the distinguishes them as clearly different.

I tell you this as a EMHC myself: Unless it is the only way to fulfill the precept that we must receive Holy Communion during the Easter season, there is no duty for a Catholic to receive from a EMHC. We exist to assist the ordained, but our assistance is intended to serve the faithful, not to place burdens on them that have never been in place. If they are willing to receive less often in order to be ministered to only by ordinary ministers, that is their perogative. It is no business of ours, and if it were, it would not be within our jurisdiction to correct them.