Can you name be said when you're given communion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Elzee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JimR-OCDS said:
Fine, you can belong to your cold ridged parish. I’ll belong to my friendly compassionate parish. I’m glad my spiritual life in Christ, isn’t as gloomy as yours.

Jim
Click to expand...
Please, Jim, we’re talking about receiving Jesus. There’s nothing rigid or unfriendly or gloomy about this…'tis JOYFUL whether the communicant is addressed by name or not! Please don’t pass judgment on EMHCs or priests who don’t address people by name – let us allow charity (love) to prevail here, to give honor to Love Himself.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
The formula of the words can not be change, but using the name of the person, i.e. “Jim” the body of Christ, doesn’t change the formula.

Jim
Click to expand...
So it’s ok for the recipient to answer back with the EHMC’s name too before the “Amen”?

And how about “And also with you, Father” or “Blessed be God forever, Father” at that point in the Mass?

You know this is bound to happen at some point.
 
BobP123 said:
So it’s ok for the recipient to answer back with the EHMC’s name too before the “Amen”?

And how about “And also with you, Father” or “Blessed be God forever, Father” at that point in the Mass?

You know this is bound to happen at some point.
Click to expand...
That’s a good point. I could have said, “Thank you, Sandy,” after she said gave me Communion, using my name. Same logic.
 
I am an Extraordinary Minister at my parish, and when I was trained, I was told that, if I knew the name of the person I was serving, and if I wished to do so, I could say “The Body of Christ, Mary”. I do it, and I cannot see what could be wrong with it. As for it being “Engaging in a conversation”, huh? :confused:

As for others not liking that they miss out on the privilege of being named, again, huh? :confused: Who is paying that close attention to the person receiving ahead of them in line?

As an EM, I feel it is an enormous privilege and responsibility to serve. With or without uttering the name of the recipient, I feel it is a very reverent, shared, intimate holy moment, and it is my intent to convey this with every person I serve.

imho
 
BobP123 said:
So it’s ok for the recipient to answer back with the EHMC’s name too before the “Amen”?

And how about “And also with you, Father” or “Blessed be God forever, Father” at that point in the Mass?

You know this is bound to happen at some point.
Click to expand...
As an EM who says the name of the people I know, this has NEVER happened to me…
 
sandraladeda said:
I am an Extraordinary Minister at my parish, and when I was trained, I was told that, if I knew the name of the person I was serving, and if I wished to do so, I could say “The Body of Christ, Mary”. I do it, and I cannot see what could be wrong with it. As for it being “Engaging in a conversation”, huh? :confused:

As for others not liking that they miss out on the privilege of being named, again, huh? :confused: Who is paying that close attention to the person receiving ahead of them in line?

As an EM, I feel it is an enormous privilege and responsibility to serve. With or without uttering the name of the recipient, I feel it is a very reverent, shared, intimate holy moment, and it is my intent to convey this with every person I serve.

imho
Click to expand...
If you knew that it was a distraction for the person, would you stop doing it though? Would you be amicable to someone approaching you after Mass, and telling you that they found it distracting, and asking you to please refrain from using their name? Just wondering what approach is best for those who don’t like it.
 
Ah well, this was never a controversy in my youth. Can’t recall the priest ever saying, “Jim, Corpus Domini Nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuum in vitam aeternam,” even though he did know me!
 
paramedicgirl said:
If you knew that it was a distraction for the person, would you stop doing it though? Would you be amicable to someone approaching you after Mass, and telling you that they found it distracting, and asking you to please refrain from using their name? Just wondering what approach is best for those who don’t like it.
Click to expand...
i do not see how it could be a distraction.

“The Body of Christ”

“The Body of Christ, Sandra”

…both said reverently.

I don’t say it for myself, I say it for the person I am saying it to. I think it is special, not offensive. I say it to people I obviously know and have a relationship with. Obviously, I am not going to say it to someone I don’t know.

I cannot see why it would be such a distraction, but then, when I receive the body of Christ, I am in such a state of anticipation of receiving our Lord, that is really all that is on my mind, which, imho, is as it should be…(what is distracting to me is when the priest hands out the body of Christ so fast, it leaves me wondering if he has an early tee time he’s hoping to make, THAT I find offensive)

I am very active in my parish. I am on our Liturgy Committee. I have never ever ever heard of anyone expressing that they do not like it. Not ever.

However, in the very very unlikely event that someone came to me and said please don’t say my name anymore, do you not think it is obvious, I would not say their name anymore. Why would I insist on continuing? :confused:
 
Your job isn’t “creating intimate moments”. You’re there to administer a sacrament. You’re on a “liturgy committee”? One would imagine such a committee would be well-versed in the rubrics. The US Bishops…again, no conservatives they…have explicitly stated names are not to be added to the formula. A good reading assignment for your “committee”.

I love the trend here…blame the person following the rules. They’re psychotic, they shouldn’t receive, they’re not paying attention to the right things…

Just follow the rules. It’s not hard. Curb that obsession with innovation.
 
sandraladeda said:
i do not see how it could be a distraction.

“The Body of Christ”

"The Body of Christ, Sandra"

…both said reverently.

I don’t say it for myself, I say it for the person I am saying it to. I think it is special, not offensive. I say it to people I obviously know and have a relationship with. Obviously, I am not going to say it to someone I don’t know.

I cannot see why it would be such a distraction, but then, when I receive the body of Christ, I am in such a state of anticipation of receiving our Lord, that is really all that is on my mind, which, imho, is as it should be…(what is distracting to me is when the priest hands out the body of Christ so fast, it leaves me wondering if he has an early tee time he’s hoping to make, THAT I find offensive)

I am very active in my parish. I am on our Liturgy Committee. I have never ever ever heard of anyone expressing that they do not like it. Not ever.

However, in the very very unlikely event that someone came to me and said please don’t say my name anymore, do you not think it is obvious, I would not say their name anymore. Why would I insist on continuing? :confused:
Click to expand...
You are adding.
 
AlexV said:
Your job isn’t “creating intimate moments”. You’re there to administer a sacrament. You’re on a “liturgy committee”? One would imagine such a committee would be well-versed in the rubrics. The US Bishops…again, no conservatives they…have explicitly stated names are not to be added to the formula. A good reading assignment for your “committee”.

I love the trend here…blame the person following the rules. They’re psychotic, they shouldn’t receive, they’re not paying attention to the right things…

Just follow the rules. It’s not hard. Curb that obsession with innovation.
Click to expand...
Oh, did I say I was"Creating an intimate moment"? I think I said I am trying to be reverent. Very different from “intimate”.

Did you note the earlier post which stated it was part of my instruction as an EMHC? I did not make it up.

What do I know about US Bishops? I am Canadian.

My “committee” (love your use of quotes, how do you really feel? 😉 ) includes 2 priests.

Our latest reading assignment is the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium.

I am frankly puzzled by the last remark - I don’t recall “blaming someone”, nor do I recall calling someone “psychotic”. :confused:

And on that note I believe I shall bow out of the “Liturgy and Sacraments” discussions…

May the Peace of our Risen Lord be with you…
 
sandraladeda said:
Oh, did I say I was"Creating an intimate moment"? I think I said I am trying to be reverent. Very different from “intimate”.

Did you note the earlier post which stated it was part of my instruction as an EMHC? I did not make it up.

What do I know about US Bishops? I am Canadian.

My “committee” (love your use of quotes, how do you really feel? 😉 ) includes 2 priests.

Our latest reading assignment is the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium.

I am frankly puzzled by the last remark - I don’t recall “blaming someone”, nor do I recall calling someone “psychotic”. :confused:

And on that note I believe I shall bow out of the “Liturgy and Sacraments” discussions…

May the Peace of our Risen Lord be with you…
Click to expand...
Well —hopefully the following from SC will stick.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

A) General norms
    1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.
  2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.
  3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.
 
Walking_Home said:
Well —hopefully the following from SC will stick.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

A) General norms
    1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.
  2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.
  3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.
Click to expand...
Hey WH! 👋 You’ve joined late, so you may have missed this post. It states clearly, with a reference, that no names can be added.
 
Seatuck said:
. The minister is supposed to all but disappear at that moment. Not be present so you experience that intimate moment with Christ. When you say a name it emphasizes the relationship with the minister and the communicant . . .
Click to expand...
I think that explains it perfectly, how can anyone honestly disagree with that?
 
Those rubics are something the way they keep coming and going!
Click to expand...
I believe this slur is directed to me, and it is about the third or fourth time I’ve seen it. Which brings me to the very reason I do not listen to people who privately interpret rubrics. They cannot even privately interpret my simple words, but put an erroneous slant on them that is intended to mock and insult.

I had decided that it was not worth dignifying the remark, and let it pass, but it has now become a catch phrase. Let me clarify.

Those of you who claim to know the GIRM –
Have you printed out the 1983 Code of Canon Law and compared it verbatim to the latest issue? Are they identical?
Have you compared the 1917 issue of the GIRM with the latest copy dated 2003? Could it not be said therefore with absolute truth, that rubrics come and rubrics go? You reveal your ignorance of the GIRM in refusing to acknowledge that disciplines change, and with that demonstration of ignorance, why would I listen to you as you try to teach me what the GIRM means on any given point?

As I said, I have taken the matter higher than an internet user with a peripheral understanding, and who seems to find delight in castigating me for just not getting their teaching. :bowdown2:

Be assured, if I find that you happen to be right, I promised to come back and say so when the authorites get back to me. If you are wrong, and this practice is NOT an abuse or deliction of any kind, then you have wasted CAF’s bandwidth and delivered insults to other good people thoughtlessly, while straining to prove your point. (And you know who you are!) If the thread is closed, and it looks as though it will be, I promise to get word to you.
 
sandraladeda said:
i do not see how it could be a distraction.

“The Body of Christ”

“The Body of Christ, Sandra”

…both said reverently.

I don’t say it for myself, I say it for the person I am saying it to. I think it is special, not offensive. I say it to people I obviously know and have a relationship with. Obviously, I am not going to say it to someone I don’t know.

I cannot see why it would be such a distraction, but then, when I receive the body of Christ, I am in such a state of anticipation of receiving our Lord, that is really all that is on my mind, which, imho, is as it should be…(what is distracting to me is when the priest hands out the body of Christ so fast, it leaves me wondering if he has an early tee time he’s hoping to make, THAT I find offensive)

I am very active in my parish. I am on our Liturgy Committee. I have never ever ever heard of anyone expressing that they do not like it. Not ever.

However, in the very very unlikely event that someone came to me and said please don’t say my name anymore, do you not think it is obvious, I would not say their name anymore. Why would I insist on continuing? :confused:
Click to expand...
I think once again the point is proven as to why lay people should bow out of distribution of Holy Communion. How many priests have you heard say something equivalent to what you say? I never have nor have I ever heard an Extraordinary Minister do it either. Just from the outside it looks to me like by doing this you are trying to improve upon reception by making the moment more personal and meaningful to the Communicant.

NOT YOUR JOB ** NOT YOUR BUSINESS**

Your job is to assist in the distribution of Holy Communion according to set standards. Period. You are not there to improve upon the practice, to put your own personal spin on things, to make things up as you go along or to help draw the Communicant to a higher loftier goal. You are there to assist the Priest in the distribution. Believe it or not, thats it.
 
FINAL NOTICE: This thread will remain open based on a high increase in the level of charity and civility to one another, which includes but is not limited to:

Editing posts for tone and content removing from them all personalized remarks.

Cessation of critiquing posters rather than discussing the content of their posts.

Please refer to Post 66 and forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1892098&postcount=1
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top