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

[Joysong]

Palmas:

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?

Nothing is proven except that being a traditionalist, you are reinforcing yourself with pseudo ammunition in your dislike for EMHC’s. Note that many priests, as already mentioned in this thread, use the custom of saying a person’s name, and Sandra was told she could do so.

Let’s not go into a separate discussion of why you think EMHC’s should bow out. This too, is permitted by the Church, remember?

 

[Joysong]

Dear Sandra,

Being fairly new here, you may not have recognized that almost all of the posters are latin mass traditionalists who have demonstrated no real love for this liturgy or the practices connected with it. They do not even respond Amen, as we do, so arguments on adding “Amen, Sandy” are fallacious.

I hope you will consider the source and stay in your sacred ministry unhindered by these uncharitable remarks. Have you ever heard the expression “killjoy?” You know this is not God’s way of correcting anyone.

The final umpire is the peace of the Holy Spirit deep within and witnessing affirmation to you … continue therefore, until such time, if it ever comes, that the Lord (or your pastor) convicts you to do differently. Nobody can tamper with that inner sanctuary of conscience but God. If this happens to be wrong, He will bring it to light in His timing.

As for how to handle those who object to the practice, there should not be a 4-page thread on such a minor issue. It seems rather simple for them to contact you and ask that you not do it.
But I doubt you’ll receive any calls.

God’s peace be with you,
Carole

 

[Nordar]

I believe this slur is directed to me,

Then you believe wrong!

1. It was not a slur.
2. It was meant as a light hearted joke

 

[Joysong]

Nordar,

The initial use was not a joke by any stretch of the imagination, so when it was reinforced again, there was no way to realize you or Thurifer were ‘joking.’

I appreciate your reply to let me know your intentions.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2572252

 

[japhy]

Being fairly new here, you may not have recognized that almost all of the posters are latin mass traditionalists who have demonstrated no real love for this liturgy or the practices connected with it. They do not even respond Amen, as we do, so arguments on adding “Amen, Sandy” are fallacious.

I am not a “latin mass traditionalist”. I am 25, I have grown up with the Mass of Paul VI (in the vernacular) all my life. The problem I have, though, is that I have started reading documents about the liturgy and have been finding widespread ignorance of what they dictate. Have you seen any of these actions?

• Consecrating the wine while it is still in a glass flagon, and then pouring the Precious Blood into chalices after the Eucharistic Prayer?
• Pouring the Precious Blood from one chalice to another?
• Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion distributing the Precious Body and/or Precious Blood when there are capable priests available?
• Priests changing words of Eucharistic Prayers or “Ordinary” parts of the Mass?
• Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion purifying the sacred vessels after Mass?

I have seen all the things on that list; they’re all inappropriate. They’re abuses. I have never attended a “clown Mass” or a “halloween Mass” – the likes of which can be found on YouTube – but I have attended a Mass where the Our Father was sung… but with different words.

On the other hand, I hope to attend my first Mass of John XXIII next week (at a parish about an hour away). Our Pope has liberalized access to the previous form of the Roman Rite, and I intend to make use of that access, for the good of my soul. I hold no disdain for the Mass of Paul VI, but I am irritated by the abuses I have seen (some with my own eyes). I am not “leaving” the Mass of Paul VI (nor my parish!), but I do wish, on occasion, to participate in the extraordinary form of the one Roman Rite.

I happen to like the Latin language, the more I am exposed to it. I pray the Liturgy of the Hours, and say the parts in Latin that I can; I say all of Night Prayer in Latin. No one hears me doing this except God. I’m not trying to impress Him, though. I see now how hard it is to accurately translate some of the very theologically dense prayers of the Mass from Latin into English. The translation of the Mass of Paul VI we have is, at times, pretty awful. This is why it’s being redone, at the order of the Vatican: because lex credendi, lex orandi, or “the law of belief [is] the law of prayer”. In other words, how we pray dictates how we believe. If we stop referring to Mary as “the Blessed Virgin Mary” and “the Virgin Mother of God”, we eventually excise that from the faith, and Mary just becomes the mother of Jesus. If we stop calling the Body and Blood of our Lord “Precious”, if we stop using the terminology of “Holy Sacrifice of the Mass”, then we will eventually regard (Holy?) Communion as a symbolic meal with our brothers and sisters at church, and we will lose faith in the Real Presence, in the sacrificial reality of the Mass, and in the ministry of the priest in persona Christi.

I hope you will consider the source and stay in your sacred ministry unhindered by these uncharitable remarks.

I do not refuse Communion from an EMHC. But I do expect whoever the minister of Holy Communion is, that he or she follows the rules. The liturgy is simply not ours to change. I am not opposed to the EMHCs on principle, either. There is a shortage of priests and deacons, clearly, and additional ministers of Holy Communion are necessary at times. But they can be a source of abuse; Vatican officials agree.

As for how to handle those who object to the practice, there should not be a 4-page thread on such a minor issue. It seems rather simple for them to contact you and ask that you not do it.
But I doubt you’ll receive any calls.

I would probably discreetly email the pastor of the church – as I have done in the past.

It’s a bit harder, honestly, at my own parish, because I need to be as charitable as possible with my pastor; I do not wish to offend (not that I’m offensive in my emails!) and I’m sure he has some of these abuses in mind and is trying to gently correct them.

 

[VociMike]

Dear Sandra,

Being fairly new here, you may not have recognized that almost all of the posters are latin mass traditionalists who have demonstrated no real love for this liturgy or the practices connected with it.

I am not a “latin mass traditionalist”. I attend the NO Mass, usually in English.

And I believe that all priests and ministers should obey the rubrics, as very explicitly stated by the Fathers of Vatican II, by the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, and by the USCCB instructions for EMHCs, and not add “feel-good” amendments, no matter how sincere.

 

[Joysong]

Japhy,

I did realize you were not a traditionist, per se, and that is why I used the words, “almost” in referring to the number of posters.

Since we aren’t discussing abuses “gravissima delicta,” but an infraction so minor that it isn’t even mentioned in the RS or any place whatsoever on the Web, it is abhorrent to me that anyone would find fault with the priest over this. He may just be interpreting that document in one of two possible ways, unless of course he cleared up the ambiguity previously with the bishop, and none of us knows that, do we?

Maybe this lingering doubt in my mind is a preparation to search for more clarity. This is often the way God leads us into truth. Let’s pray it will become evident so that these types of threads do not cause turmoil in the future.

I think that is why the Vatican finally came out with their explanation on the single word “subsist” because multiple angry threads written by those who knew more than the Pope had distorted truth and led people astray. I believe this reached their desk and they finally addressed the problem. Perhaps this is another gray area that might need clarification. I doubt the authors of the GIRM could foresee that extremists would misinterpret the wording by narrowing their perception to black and white. Protestants can be unyielding on certain words in written in scripture, as you know.

Therefore, while doubt exists for me, and since no clarification is able to be found at this moment, we will need to be patient and simply continue as is, especially since it is not a grave abuse, not even close! People can print it 10-20 times here what they believe the document says, but that doesn’t erase my inner check. If it were something God wanted me to adhere to, I would receive inner peace and confirmation from Him, that yes, this is true! It’s not there!

I support your efforts to follow your heart and God’s leading to the worship of your desire, and I thank you for proposing what you feel is right, in a better spirit than some have demonstrated.

Carole

 

[Walking_Home]

Japhy,

I did realize you were not a traditionist, per se, and that is why I used the words, “almost” in referring to the number of posters.

Since we aren’t discussing abuses “gravissima delicta,”** but an infraction so minor that it isn’t even mentioned in the RS** or any place whatsoever on the Web, it is abhorrent to me that anyone would find fault with the priest over this. He may just be interpreting that document in one of two possible ways, unless of course he cleared up the ambiguity previously with the bishop, and none of us knows that, do we?

Maybe this lingering doubt in my mind is a preparation to search for more clarity. This is often the way God leads us into truth. Let’s pray it will become evident so that these types of threads do not cause turmoil in the future.

I think that is why the Vatican finally came out with their explanation on the single word “subsist” because multiple angry threads written by those who knew more than the Pope had distorted truth and led people astray. I believe this reached their desk and they finally addressed the problem. Perhaps this is another gray area that might need clarification. I doubt the authors of the GIRM could foresee that extremists would misinterpret the wording by narrowing their perception to black and white. Protestants can be unyielding on certain words in written in scripture, as you know.

Therefore, while doubt exists for me, and since no clarification is able to be found at this moment, we will need to be patient and simply continue as is, especially since it is not a grave abuse, not even close! People can print it 10-20 times here what they believe the document says, but that doesn’t erase my inner check. If it were something God wanted me to adhere to, I would receive inner peace and confirmation from Him, that yes, this is true! It’s not there!

I support your efforts to follow your heart and God’s leading to the worship of your desire, and I thank you for proposing what you feel is right, in a better spirit than some have demonstrated.

Carole

---

So minor—that it is not mentioned in RS–you say.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

[31.] In keeping with the solemn promises that they have made in the rite of Sacred Ordination and renewed each year in the Mass of the Chrism, let Priests celebrate “devoutly and faithfully the mysteries of Christ for the praise of God and the sanctification of the Christian people, according to the tradition of the Church, especially in the Eucharistic Sacrifice and in the Sacrament of Reconciliation”.[71] They ought not to detract from the profound meaning of their own ministry by corrupting the liturgical celebration either through alteration or omission, or through arbitrary additions.[72] For as St. Ambrose said, “It is not in herself . . . but in us that the Church is injured. Let us take care so that our own failure may not cause injury to the Church”.[73] Let the Church of God not be injured, then, by Priests who have so solemnly dedicated themselves to the ministry. Indeed, under the Bishop’s authority let them faithfully seek to prevent others as well from committing this type of distortion.

 

[Joysong]

For the umpteenth time, WH, that over-used quote does not prove conclusively that you are correct in your private interpretation. It would not hold up in law. If you studied the zillions of cases in law that argue over single words and meanings, it would stagger the mind. This is why we have hundreds of amendments that clarify ambiguities. We need to have the mind of the author before saying he meant this or that. In this case, there is a shadow of doubt leaving room for another interpretation. [As I have tried, and as JimR has tried to point out.]

Bottom line, you are not convincing me.

Other readers, let’s keep in mind:

Can. 1373 A person who publicly incites his or her subjects to hatred or animosity against the Apostolic See or the Ordinary because of some act of ecclesiastical authority or ministry, or who provokes the subjects to disobedience against them, is to be punished by interdict or other just penalties.

IOW, if the priest instructs people like Sandra according to their clerical training, and they are castigated because of one’s private interpretation that they are in error, and publicly incites others to also disdain the clergy, it may be to your advantage to refrain until you are absolutely certain of being right.

 

[Walking_Home]

For the umpteenth time, WH, that over-used quote does not prove conclusively that you are correct in your private interpretation. It would not hold up in law. If you studied the zillions of cases in law that argue over single words and meanings, it would stagger the mind. This is why we have hundreds of amendments that clarify ambiguities. We need to have the mind of the author before saying he meant this or that. In this case, there is a shadow of doubt leaving room for another interpretation. [As I have tried, and as JimR has tried to point out.]

Bottom line, you are not convincing me.

---

Well Joysong—I did provide documentation that disproves your statement that RS does not address this issue. This is not my private interpretation—it is there in RS. Now you can beat around the bush–in every way you want–but it is in print.

 

[Joysong]

Not denying that it is in print, but it is being misapplied with a broad brush to prove one’s point. That’s the problem.

 

[Walking_Home]

Not denying that it is in print, but it is being misapplied with a broad brush to prove one’s point. That’s the problem.

---

Only to those who are bent on allowing and taking liberties with the Mass.

 

[AlexV]

Let’s review this thread.

The Vatican has said nobody, even a priest, can add anything to the liturgy.

The US Bishops, no conservative bunch overall they, have said specifically, SPECIFICALLY that is, that the Communion formula cannot have names added to it. Specifically.

“Jim”, in response to this issue, has stated that anyone who has a problem adding names at Communion is 1) perhaps unworthy to receive the sacrament, 2) perhaps psychotic, and 3) preventing the liturgy from becoming “human”.

“Joysong” now speaks of messages from God. Unless God tells her personally that something is the way it is, she doubts. She accuses others (who can read, sometimes in many languages, and who have fine Catholic educations) of “private interpretations”, while she claims God speaks personally to her and clears up these little doubtful matters for her.

So we’ve got on the one side clear statements from Rome and, MORE EXPLICITLY, the American bishops.

On the other side we have accusations of psychosis, unworthiness to receive, and lack of humanity, AND voices from God clearing up things for private individuals, and rumors of possible secret rubrics nobody knows about except the presumably Gnostic few.

You’re right about law courts, Joysong". Your case, and Jim’s, would have been tossed out for lack of evidence pages ago.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

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.

I’m not passing judgement on anyone. If anything, its judgement being passed onto EMHC’s who do use the name of the person receiving. This is what this thread has been about from the beginning.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

“Jim”, in response to this issue, has stated that anyone who has a problem adding names at Communion is 1) perhaps unworthy to receive the sacrament, 2) perhaps psychotic, and 3) preventing the liturgy from becoming “human”.

Of course you’ve twisted what I said for your own spin.

 

[AlexV]

Don’t prevaricate.

Besides the fact nobody said they were “angry” or “wrathful” at the minister, the FACT remains that the CAUSE of the problem here is the minister who refuses to follow the rubric.

The rubric says nothing, INCLUDING NAMES, may be added to the formula.

Telling people they’d best not receive if they are bothered by this is blaming the victim, liturgist style.

“Don’t like it…don’t receive.”

I’m glad you didn’t challenge the fact you called such people psychotic.

The same old pattern of progressive liturgists…screw around with the liturgy, violate rubrics, and then cast aspersions on those who protest: psychotics, unworthy to receive, inhuman…

 

[bpbasilphx]

<<3) preventing the liturgy from becoming “human”.>>

It is worth pointing out that we in the East don’t consider it to be mere human liturgy? That’s why we call it the Divine Liturgy.

 

[Joysong]

“Joysong” now speaks of messages from God. Unless God tells her personally that something is the way it is, she doubts. She accuses others (who can read, sometimes in many languages, and who have fine Catholic educations) of “private interpretations”, while she claims God speaks personally to her and clears up these little doubtful matters for her.

Alex, I realize you are baiting me, so rejoice! The slanderous wording and deliberate misinterpretation of my post is an unworthy tactic of any who call themselves a christian. Did you miss Marian’s warning?

 

[PaixGioiaAmor]

<<3) preventing the liturgy from becoming “human”.>>

It is worth pointing out that we in the East don’t consider it to be mere human liturgy? That’s why we call it the Divine Liturgy.

Liturgy is the “work of the people”.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

AlexV

Besides the fact nobody said they were “angry” or “wrathful” at the minister,

Which is why I used the word “IF” as a qualifier.

the FACT remains that the CAUSE of the problem here is the minister who refuses to follow the rubric.

But its only a problem for some people. My guess, is that the majority of Catholics either like it, or don’t care.

The rubric says nothing, INCLUDING NAMES, may be added to the formula.

Nothing is added to the formula. You’re adding the name of the person to the formula, where it is not. The formula remains the same, “The Body of Christ.” The persons name before it, doesn’t change it or add to it.

Telling people they’d best not receive if they are bothered by this is blaming the victim, liturgist style.

Being angry at the EMCH over this petty issue, in my opinion, would indicate serious problems that go beyond rubrics. Either way, no one should receive the Body of Christ while being angry at his brother or sister, who is distributing Communion to them.

“Don’t like it…don’t receive.”

I’m glad you didn’t challenge the fact you called such people psychotic.

Once again, twisting what I said. I was referring to people who would feel 2nd class because the EMHC said the other person’s name and not theirs. BTW, you’re starting to prove my point.

The same old pattern of progressive liturgists…screw around with the liturgy, violate rubrics, and then cast aspersions on those who protest: psychotics, unworthy to receive, inhuman.

Of course this is your opinion which is loaded with bias.

Jim