Can a layperson ever administer sacraments?

[EasterJoy]

It’s not the case that there would have been “no Holy Communion for the children” but simply a matter of saying that the time to distribute Communion would have been a little longer. I can tell you personally that 300 is not an impossible number for a priest to distribute all by himself.

Still, the liturgical standards do not require that the task of distribution be impossible for the priest before he may choose to enlist the aid of an EMHC, is that correct? Besides, what is well within your capability under circumstances you are familiar with may be far more of a stretch for someone else and their actual circumstances, wouldn’t you agree? It is conceivable for a priest to have considered the situation and his own limits and rightly concluded: It is possible that I really can’t do this. If I’m not sure, I should get help while help can be had discretely and gracefully.

Having said that, I think it would have been better for the EMHC to suggest that the teacher might have been shorting herself or might want to consider looking at the matter another way, rather than stating so flatly that she was mistaken in her thinking. It is simplistic to state that a person is always missing out by failing to receive every time it is legally permitted. There are times when refraining for positive reasons is more edifying for the individual and the Church than to receive, and I don’t just mean those times when one is objectively forbidden. These are issues that the individual communicant ought to be allowed to discern with the help of his or her confessor or pastor. I think the EMHC certainly crossed a boundary by telling her that her decision had anything to do with a failure to discern the Real Presence. The truth could easily be quite the opposite.

 

[Aramis]

From what I understand, in the sacrament of matrimony, the two who are getting married administer the sacrament to each other and so therefore, if they are lay people, then in this case, the answer is yes. Also, I have seen lay people conduct Communion Services too in which the Eucharist is not consecrated but the daily readings are simply read and the Eucharist is distributed amongst the faithful along with prayer intentions.

Only in the Roman Rite. In the Eastern Rites, matrimony requires a priest to confer it; not even a deacon is sufficient for the completion of the sacrament. It’s one of those issues where the different histories and theologies find different expressions in the East and West.

Without the sacred minister, a marriage in conformity with the Canon Laws for the Eastern Churches is not fully sacramental until it has been blessed by a priest (but does prevent the sin of fornication even if done by witnessed contract alone) .

It is possible, but extremely rare, for 1st Eucharist to be given by a layperson from the reserved Blessed Sacrament, but the conditions would need to be exceptional.

Confirmation requires a priest. In the west, it normally is reserved to the bishop; in the East, it’s normally done by the pastor (and is done immediately following baptism, even for infants).

Confession and reconciliation normally requires a priest, but some offenses are reserved to the bishop or even the patriarch or pope. A perfect act of contrition has the same effect, but one can never be certain one’s act of Contrition is perfect; one can be certain of the absolution by a priest or bishop.

Extreme Unction requires confession.

Annointing of the sick with the holy oils is done by priests.

 

[FrDavid96]

…
Confession and reconciliation normally requires a priest, but some offenses are reserved to the bishop or even the patriarch or pope. A perfect act of contrition has the same effect, but one can never be certain one’s act of Contrition is perfect; one can be certain of the absolution by a priest or bishop…

No, a “perfect act of contrition” does not have the “same effect” as the Sacrament of Reconciliation. This is a very important distinction to make. One cannot be absolved except through the ministry of a priest.

 

[thomas_jd]

It’s not the case that there would have been “no Holy Communion for the children” but simply a matter of saying that the time to distribute Communion would have been a little longer. I can tell you personally that 300 is not an impossible number for a priest to distribute all by himself.

It was the case Fr. The principal did not have the extra few minutes available. The mass is still continued at that school under a strict time frame. Bus schedule and responsibilities at the end of the day.
As to three hundred being a impossible number for one priest, I will wait a long time to receive from a priest but at my parish morning mass, two weeks ago , we had over seven hundred receive Holy Communion. I wonder how many of those seven hundred would return the following Sunday if there was no E.M.H.C to aid the priest?
Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, it is refreshing to hear from a priest with patience.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

From what I understand, in the sacrament of matrimony, the two who are getting married administer the sacrament to each other and so therefore, if they are lay people, then in this case, the answer is yes. Also, I have seen lay people conduct Communion Services too in which the Eucharist is not consecrated but the daily readings are simply read and the Eucharist is distributed amongst the faithful along with prayer intentions.

While this is true I beleive that a priest, deacon, or other such respresentitive as assgined by the bishop must be present for a marriage to be of valid form.

 

[Victorious]

His reply was along these lines. You seem to have a problem understanding the Real Presence. You abstained from receiving Our Lord because I wasn’t a priest! Look what you missed!

No, I wouldn’t say she had a problem understanding the Real Presence. I would say it was more likely that her understanding of the Real Presence caused her to object to the casual manner in which the Eucharist is being handled nowadays. I agree with the earlier poster who said this guy’s comments to the woman who abstained from Communion were out of line. They were WAY out of line.

Still, the liturgical standards do not require that the task of distribution be impossible for the priest before he may choose to enlist the aid of an EMHC, is that correct? Besides, what is well within your capability under circumstances you are familiar with may be far more of a stretch for someone else and their actual circumstances, wouldn’t you agree?

If the priest physically can’t handle distributing Communion, then that is the time to call out the EMHCs. But that wasn’t the reason given above for using EMHCs, but the length of time it would have otherwise taken to distribute Communion. If I’m not mistaken, Redemptionis Sacramentum says that is not sufficient reason to bring out the EMHCs.

Confession and reconciliation normally requires a priest, but some offenses are reserved to the bishop or even the patriarch or pope. A perfect act of contrition has the same effect, but one can never be certain one’s act of Contrition is perfect; one can be certain of the absolution by a priest or bishop.

Bishops – including the Bishop of Rome – are priests.

 

[thomas_jd]

Still, the liturgical standards do not require that the task of distribution be impossible for the priest before he may choose to enlist the aid of an EMHC, is that correct? Besides, what is well within your capability under circumstances you are familiar with may be far more of a stretch for someone else and their actual circumstances, wouldn’t you agree? It is conceivable for a priest to have considered the situation and his own limits and rightly concluded: It is possible that I really can’t do this. If I’m not sure, I should get help while help can be had discretely and gracefully.

Having said that, I think it would have been better for the EMHC to suggest that the teacher might have been shorting herself or might want to consider looking at the matter another way, rather than stating so flatly that she was mistaken in her thinking. It is simplistic to state that a person is always missing out by failing to receive every time it is legally permitted. There are times when refraining for positive reasons is more edifying for the individual and the Church than to receive, and I don’t just mean those times when one is objectively forbidden. These are issues that the individual communicant ought to be allowed to discern with the help of his or her confessor or pastor. I think the EMHC certainly crossed a boundary by telling her that her decision had anything to do with a failure to discern the Real Presence. The truth could easily be quite the opposite.

Once a person in line for Holy Communion , turns around and sits back down without receiving the Real Presence of Our Lord, due to her refusal to receive from a E.M.H.C. she
established her line of reasoning. To deny oneself Holy Communion based soley on the
matter of who is distributing the Host ,leds one to question the persons understanding of THE REAL PRESENCE! I am inclined to accept the principals statement as accurate due to the result of not receiving Our Lord at that time.
I do not understand, even remotely, how refraining from the Eucharist can be “more edifying” for the individual. Death comes swift and unseen, at mass Always receive if possible. Your first obligation is to your salvation.There are better ways to improve spiritually than to deny the Holy Eucharist to oneself.

 

[angelic06]

While this is true I beleive that a priest, deacon, or other such respresentitive as assgined by the bishop must be present for a marriage to be of valid form.

May I also kindly add that this is only true for a marriage between two Latin Catholics. If a Latin Catholic marries an Eastern Catholic, a valid marriage must be celebrated according to the norm of CCEO canon 828.1 (with a priest), w/o prejudice to canon 832 (witnesses only in cases of extreme inconvenience only). If this occurs, the couple should receive a priest’s blessing as soon as possible, according to the same canon.

 

[Aramis]

Bishops – including the Bishop of Rome – are priests.

But they are not JUST priests. Priests who are not bishops can not absolve all sins.
Bishops can not absolve all sins, either; the Pope can absolve all sins. (check the CIC…)

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.

 

[choy]

While this is true I beleive that a priest, deacon, or other such respresentitive as assgined by the bishop must be present for a marriage to be of valid form.

yes, when the couple administers the Sacrement of Matrimony to one another, it must be in front of a witness of the Church. so thats a Deacon, Priest or a Bishop

 

[thomas_jd]

No, I wouldn’t say she had a problem understanding the Real Presence. I would say it was more likely that her understanding of the Real Presence caused her to object to the casual manner in which the Eucharist is being handled nowadays. I agree with the earlier poster who said this guy’s comments to the woman who abstained from Communion were out of line. They were WAY out of line.

If the priest physically can’t handle distributing Communion, then that is the time to call out the EMHCs. But that wasn’t the reason given above for using EMHCs, but the length of time it would have otherwise taken to distribute Communion. If I’m not mistaken, Redemptionis Sacramentum says that is not sufficient reason to bring out the EMHCs.

Bishops – including the Bishop of Rome – are priests.

The use of E.M.H.C is authorized from Rome. When the Holy Father decides to elimanate this position, it will be over. Until that happens , in America , they are now the norm.
No where did it state that the principal acted in a casual manner, and to assume that took place is irresponsible thinking. The priest that selected the principle to aid him at mass
never does anything casual at mass. A very special and holy priest that I have had the pleasure of serving with at mass.

Irregardless of personal opinion , the E.M.H.C provide a service to our church. If the question was “Is the priest physically fit to distrubite Holy Communion?” I would estimate that the E.M.H.C. would be needed once in a thousand times at mass. Remember we have approximatly one priest per 1200 catholics.
We are still charged with the second Spiritual Work of Mercy. " Instruct the ignorant."
It is better to be too harsh, than lukewarm, when dealing with the REAL PRESENCE OF GOD. This is the center of our Faith!

 

[Victorious]

The use of E.M.H.C is authorized from Rome. When the Holy Father decides to elimanate this position, it will be over. Until that happens , in America , they are now the norm.
No where did it state that the principal acted in a casual manner, and to assume that took place is irresponsible thinking. The priest that selected the principle to aid him at mass
never does anything casual at mass. A very special and holy priest that I have had the pleasure of serving with at mass.

To the extent EMHCs are the norm, that is an abuse. They are not supposed to be the norm. Read Redemptionis Sacramentum, especially paragraphs 151-160.

The very fact of the widespread use of laymen to handle the Eucharist, without sufficient cause, constitutes the casual handling of the Eucharist. There was a time, within living memory, when this would have been unthinkable. The privilege of handling the Eucharist belongs to priests, who are specially ordained and fitted out for the responsibilities of doing so. To allow laymen to do what is supposed to be reserved to priests, without real necessity, does not elevate the laity, but serves to denigrate the Eucharist and the priesthood. It removes the awe and dignity that once surrounded them both, makes it look as though neither was as big a deal as was previously thought. That erodes people’s faith.

 

[choy]

the lack of priests makes it a real necessity

if we want to stop the use of EMHCs, we shouldn’t ask for the stop of the use of EMHCs. instead, we should pray for more priests

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

yes, when the couple administers the Sacrement of Matrimony to one another, it must be in front of a witness of the Church. so thats a Deacon, Priest or a Bishop

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.

 

[thomas_jd]

To the extent EMHCs are the norm, that is an abuse. They are not supposed to be the norm. Read Redemptionis Sacramentum, especially paragraphs 151-160.

The very fact of the widespread use of laymen to handle the Eucharist, without sufficient cause, constitutes the casual handling of the Eucharist. There was a time, within living memory, when this would have been unthinkable. The privilege of handling the Eucharist belongs to priests, who are specially ordained and fitted out for the responsibilities of doing so. To allow laymen to do what is supposed to be reserved to priests, without real necessity, does not elevate the laity, but serves to denigrate the Eucharist and the priesthood. It removes the awe and dignity that once surrounded them both, makes it look as though neither was as big a deal as was previously thought. That erodes people’s faith.

This was not widespread abuse. This was one person ,instructed by the priest, to aid in Holy Communion. Again there is no, I repeat no basis, for your calling this a instance of
abuse. It is specifically this situtation that allows the use of E.M.H.C.
Whether you approve of E.M.H.C. or not has no bearing whatsoever on the authorization of when and where they are allowed. Read #158 of Redemptionis Sacramentum for a better understanding of E.M.H.C. and the role that has been given to them from the church.
p.s. I enjoy your defence of Fatima on the other post .

 

[EasterJoy]

Once a person in line for Holy Communion , turns around and sits back down without receiving the Real Presence of Our Lord, due to her refusal to receive from a E.M.H.C. she
established her line of reasoning. To deny oneself Holy Communion based soley on the
matter of who is distributing the Host ,leds one to question the persons understanding of THE REAL PRESENCE! I am inclined to accept the principals statement as accurate due to the result of not receiving Our Lord at that time.
I do not understand, even remotely, how refraining from the Eucharist can be “more edifying” for the individual. Death comes swift and unseen, at mass Always receive if possible. Your first obligation is to your salvation.There are better ways to improve spiritually than to deny the Holy Eucharist to oneself.

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.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

It’s possible yes. However, it’s also forbidden by the Church, so it’s not licit.

It’s not licit in the sense that it’s an unlawful use of the oils, but what’s more, there is no Sacrament, either, for the Sacrament consists in more than simply in applying the oils.

 

[choy]

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.

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

 

[benedictgal]

It’s not licit in the sense that it’s an unlawful use of the oils, but what’s more, there is no Sacrament, either, for the Sacrament consists in more than simply in applying the oils.

However, in the document that Fr. David referenced, it makes specific note that this is expressly forbidden:

The Apostolate to the Sick

1. In this area, the non-ordained faithful can often provide valuable collaboration. (102) Innumerable works of charity to the sick are constantly provided by the non-ordained faithful either individually or through community apostolates. These constitute an important Christian presence to sick and suffering of the greatest importance. The non-ordained faithful particularly assist the sick by being with them in difficult moments, encouraging them to receive the Sacraments of Penance and the Anointing of the Sick, by helping them to have the disposition to make a good individual confession as well as to prepare them to receive the Anointing of the Sick. In using sacramentals, the non-ordained faithful should ensure that these are in no way regarded as sacraments whose administration is proper and exclusive to the Bishop and to the priest. Since they are not priests, in no instance may the non-ordained perform anointings either with the Oil of the Sick or ony other oil.

1. With regard to the administration of this sacrament, ecclesiastical legislation reiterates the theologically certain doctrine and the age old usage of the Church (103) which regards the priest as its only valid minister. (104) This norm is completely coherent with the theological mystery signified and realized by means of priestly service.

It must also be affirmed that the reservation of the ministry of Anointing to the priest is related to the connection of this sacrament to the forgiveness of sin and the worthy reception of the Holy Eucharist. No other person may act as ordinary or extraordinary minister of the sacrament since such constitutes simulation of the sacrament. (105)

The part that I highlighted in bold dark red print is pretty strong language. Even my own bishop, in his weekly radio program, specifically stated that this should not be done.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

Benedictgal,

I agree completely. I just wanted to clarify a previous statement that such a practice was “illicit”; yes, it is illicit because it is contrary to law (and a mortal sin), but it is also invalid in the sense that the sacrament is not effected.