B
blaskoman
Guest
The Priest did not participate in handing out the Eucharist today, but left the duties to two EMHC. Is this a liturgical abuse?
No. We have an elderly priest who cannot stand for long periods without something to steady himself (like the ambo or altar.) When it comes to distributing communion an EMHC takes his place.The Priest did not participate in handing out the Eucharist today, but left the duties to two EMHC. Is this a liturgical abuse?
It would depend on WHY?The Priest did not participate in handing out the Eucharist today, but left the duties to two EMHC. Is this a liturgical abuse?
2004’s Redemptionis Sacramentum 157 says: “If there is usually present a sufficient number of sacred ministers for the distribution of Holy Communion, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not be appointed. Indeed, in such circumstances, those who may have already been appointed to this ministry should not exercise it. The practice of those Priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distributing Communion and hand this function over to laypersons.”The Priest did not participate in handing out the Eucharist today, but left the duties to two EMHC. Is this a liturgical abuse?
What did he say when you asked him?The Priest did not participate in handing out the Eucharist today, but left the duties to two EMHC. Is this a liturgical abuse?
That is a very good point that few seem to ever think about.There could have been a good reason. One of our priests needs the assist of a cane to stand so he abstains from distributing communion to avoid accidentally profaning the Eucharist should he fall.
Not all disabilities are obvious. As I said before, give him the benefit of te doubt.The priest seemed capable and healthy enough to distribute Communion. He appeared in his mid 50’s and did not walk with a cane.
Early stages of Parkinson’s. e.g…Not all disabilities are obvious. As I said before, give him the benefit of te doubt.
So, should we give the priest the benefit of the doubt or not?2004’s Redemptionis Sacramentum 157 says: “If there is usually present a sufficient number of sacred ministers for the distribution of Holy Communion, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not be appointed. Indeed, in such circumstances, those who may have already been appointed to this ministry should not exercise it. The practice of those Priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distributing Communion and hand this function over to laypersons.”
Unless the priest had a good and sufficient reason for not distributing Holy Communion, he was engaging in a reprobated practice and displaying a reprehensible attitude, according to John Paul II in 1980: “Accordingly, a reprehensible attitude is shown by those priests who, though present at the celebration, refrain from distributing Communion and leave the task to the laity.” (Inaestimabile Donum 10)
Unless you know for a fact that there was not “a good and sufficient reason**” **for him not to distribute communion, yes.So, should we give the priest the benefit of the doubt or not?
Is this something I need to know? Can’t I just be OK with it, operating under the belief that my priest knows his situation best?Unless you know for a fact that there was not “a good and sufficient reason**” **for him not to distribute communion, yes.