Can a priest entirely not distribute the Eucharist at Mass?

[ProVobis]

No, there’s not a vocation crisis because of EMHC, there’s a vocation crisis because too many people ask first, “what’s in it for me?” and the devil plugs their ears, blinds their eyes, and hardens their hearts so that they cannot hear, see, nor feel the Holy Spirit.

Say you’ve identified the problem, and if it’s so, it’s probably been that way for at least 50 years. So what’s the solution, everyone should become an EMHC?

 

[ProVobis]

Normally the scheduled EMHC don’t show up in my Parish so we’re combing the pews for volunteers. There has been at least three occasions where I have ended up being Lector, EMHC. and Usher because people didn’t show up and no-one would come up despite a direct appeal from the Priest, from the Dais, for help. 300 people, 2 annexes, no Deacon and at least 5 people I know personally that could have helped and not a single one of them so much as blinked an eye. Sad, so Sad.

If this were an EF, it would be expected that no one would come up and “help.” It is not unusual for communion distribution to take 20-30 minutes there. Just sayin…

 

[Lion_IRC]

So, let us take the quote from Chatter163 and actually place it in context.

The quote didn’t need context. It was perfectly plain and self-explanatory.
It did NOT refer to priests who are unable or incapable.
It referred to those who were unwilling.
To “refrain” from distributing Communion is a deliberate act. The Op isn’t talking about priests with sore ankles or headaches. It is asking whether, all things being equal, priests OUGHT to lead the distribution of Holy Communion.

• Taking things out of context is a favorite tactic… happens with scripture all of the time, no?
• I agree with Oneofthewomen, it is truly reprehensible to knowingly twist the words of another to mean something not intended by that person - it is, (IMHO), “bearing false witness.”…

Are you accusing Chatter163 of being reprehensible and a liar?

 

[Lion_IRC]

Wow, talk about loaded and ready to fire. No judgment was made on anyone. The OP asked a question, and a relevant papal guideline was provided. Nothing was said about any specific situation. The Holy Father did use unusually strong language, but that was his prerogative. Nothing was made out of context, as you may see from this fuller excerpt:

1. Eucharistic Communion. Communion is a gift of the Lord, given to the faithful through the minister appointed for this purpose. It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another.
2. The faithful, whether religious or lay, who are authorized as extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist can distribute Communion only when there is no priest, deacon or acolyte, when the priest is impeded by illness or advanced age, or when the number of the faithful going to Communion is so large as to make the celebration of Mass excessively long.[20] Accordingly, a reprehensible attitude is shown by those priests who, though present at the celebration, refrain from distributing Communion and leave this task to the laity.

In case you are further worried that the Holy Father’s teachings have been distorted:
catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/documentText/Index/2/SubIndex/11/ContentIndex/285/Start/202

Only when the priest is impeded by illness or advanced age…

Seems straight forward

No distortion. Thanks for keeping it real Chatter163

 

[z_0101]

The quote didn’t need context. It was perfectly plain and self-explanatory.

The quote “a reprehensible attitude is shown by those priests who, though present at the celebration, refrain from distributing Communion and leave this task to the laity.” as taken out of context can be interpreted to mean that any use of EMHC by the priest is a reprehensible act especially in the light of the prior posts (post#10). Chatter163 in a subsequent post had to clarify the position taken. (post#12)

It is unfortunate that Chatter163’s second post and mine crossed paths while I was reading the relevant text of *Inaestimabile donum * or I would not have made the post at all.

Are you accusing Chatter163 of being reprehensible and a liar?

How rude and uncharitable to imply that I would call Chatter163 a liar - at no point was that intended or stated.

Yes, I agreed with “Oneofthewomen”, that the original post, as it stood at that point in time, was reprehensible in that the quote was provided without context. The quote as originally posted in reply to the prior posts gave the impression that Chatter163 was saying that at no time were EMHC to be used by the priest.

 

[Phemie]

Yes, I agreed with “Oneofthewomen”, that the original post, as it stood at that point in time, was reprehensible in that the quote was provided without context. The quote as originally posted in reply to the prior posts gave the impression that Chatter163 was saying that at no time were EMHC to be used by the priest.

How could the quote possibly be interpreted that way? “A reprehensible attitude is shown by those priests who, though present at the celebration, refrain from distributing Communion and leave this task to the laity” is not an obscure, hard to understand statement.

Interestingly, the most misinterpreted/ignored part of article 10 is the sentence directly above: 'The faithful, whether religious or lay, who are authorized as extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist can distribute Communion only when there is no priest, deacon or acolyte, when the priest is impeded by illness or advanced age, or when the number of the faithful going to Communion is so large as to make the celebration of Mass excessively long." That one has been widely misinterpreted since the very beginning to mean “EMHCs must serve at every Mass, regardless of the number of people present because, well, it’s their ministry and their right to be there and the Mass can’t last more than 60 minutes and preferably less.”

 

[z_0101]

How could the quote possibly be interpreted that way? “A reprehensible attitude is shown by those priests who, though present at the celebration, refrain from distributing Communion and leave this task to the laity” is not an obscure, hard to understand statement. "

You and I may very well not misread the quote in Post#10.

However, many do not have the same level of knowledge nor will take the time to read the source text. We see this, “sound byte” type quoting frequently in the media, politicians, and in the sola scriptura crowd where the “sound byte” is the mainstay because a large number of people will not source the original context ((MIND YOU, :nope: , I am not saying that this was what Chater163 was attempting - I am commenting on the mind set of a large number of people)) and if the media, SS, politicians, etc… are called out on their “spin” they readily say, oh, well, it was a misinterpretation if our intent.

It is also obvious that I was not the first person to misread Chatter163’s intent in Post#10 as evidenced in Post#11 forcing Chatter163 to clarify the intent in Post#12

So in the light of a new Convert or one of those that only reads the surface text, let’s see if I can show you how one could misread Chatter163’s quote in Post#10

Ok, take only the quote in Post#10.
Do not add to it your knowledge of the document cited… only the quoted text in Post#10

Now read the first 8 posts, each describe an event where the Celebrant may have had just cause not to distribute communion… Post#10. Can you see how, in the context of the first 8 posts, wherein a legitimate reason may be present for the priest to use the laity, that Post#10 indicates the priest committed a reprehensible act in each of the cases cited in posts#1thru8; without the context subsequently provided in Post#12?

Just to be sure I wasn’t the only one with that impression, I’ve had another take a look at this too, that taking only the text cited in Post#10, without the remaining supporting text, this third set of eyes, also took the quote to be read (and once again, basing this only on the text contained in posts 1 thru 10) that the quote, as cited in Post#10, is intended to be read so that a priest, that uses EMHC, for any reason, is committing a reprehensible act. Doesn’t matter if he’s suffering from some illness or not.

If, from the above attempt, you cannot see how someone, just skimming thru, could misinterpret the intent, then we must agree to disagree on this point.
This subtopic is simply not worth any more effort on my part.
Nor will I reply any further to posts regarding this subtopic.

 

[ProVobis]

How could the quote possibly be interpreted that way? “A reprehensible attitude is shown by those priests who, though present at the celebration, refrain from distributing Communion and leave this task to the laity” is not an obscure, hard to understand statement.

Interestingly, the most misinterpreted/ignored part of article 10 is the sentence directly above: 'The faithful, whether religious or lay, who are authorized as extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist can distribute Communion only when there is no priest, deacon or acolyte, when the priest is impeded by illness or advanced age, or when the number of the faithful going to Communion is so large as to make the celebration of Mass excessively long." That one has been widely misinterpreted since the very beginning to mean “EMHCs must serve at every Mass, regardless of the number of people present because, well, it’s their ministry and their right to be there and the Mass can’t last more than 60 minutes and preferably less.”

Phemie, with all due respect, you seem to be arguing that article 10, by its subjective nature, just isn’t very workable. If that’s the case, I agree with you. But don’t you agree that the precedence of having the laity administer the sacrament was bound to have some serious negative consequences, if one can call them that?

 

[Chatter163]

I just came back and saw this thread after several days. Thanks to Lion, Phemie and others who came to my defense against the (pardon the pun) lions. I will make my final statement in this thread here.

I am aware that at least two members misinterpreted my post to mean something that I did not say. However, it is my opinion that they read what they wanted to into my post, then tried to claim that it was “without context.” This is rather laughable, since the context had been established by the title of the thread, and the first three posts, particularly number three below:

Re: Can a priest entirely not distribute the Eucharist at Mass?

That’s definitely a possibility. Under the current rubrics is the celebrant technically required to distribute or does he indeed have the authority to fully delegate it to the EMHC. I assume there is a clause for the latter if need be.

My response was simply answering the question raised in the third post, as to whether or not a priest is required to administer communion at Mass. We were not discussing whether or not a priest was physically able, or whether or not a disability or other condition was preventing him, or anything else. My brief post answered that question (which was the only question that had been raised at that point), and nothing else. Everything else was people trying to make it into something that it was not.

When I chose to show that I had not quoted St. John Paul II out of context, one person then claimed that I was “forced” into clarifying myself and, as such, was “proof” that what I had posted earlier was vague and possibly incendiary. That was even more laughable, which is why in my second post, I had included two entire articles from the encyclical in question, and provided a link to the entire document. Thanks to those who demonstrated that what I had quoted in both posts was fine and in no need of interpretation, revision, or any of the other tools used by those who don’t like to see such clarity in papal documents. I appreciate their presence during my absence. :tiphat: