Communion services

[MrTheosis]

You’re right–this is clearly an abuse. I read the regulations at the Vatican link someone else posted in this thread. The regs warn against and prohibit “stretching,” as you correctly identify this, throughout those regs.

Also, someone in this thread mentioned a “lay minister.” As far as I know, there is no such thing in the Catholic Church and such title is prohibited. (See sections 149 & 156–I think these are the correct sections–if not, I’m only off a paragraph or so). “Lay minister” implies a loftier position than “pastoral assistant” and a broader (and thus loftier) position than EMHC.

Many of the examples in this thread seem to smack of the “media council” abuses of which the Pope recently spoke. As vigilant Catholics, we have an obligation to speak up when we observe such abuses. Also, don’t be lulled into thinking “it must be ok because this is what has been done in my parish for years.” Thanks to the OP and others who have pointed out and questioned such abuses.

Nothing “abusive” about it. No prohibition about it either.

Should this typically be allowed? I would think not. But are there special situations with specifically the right person involved? Yes, I think so. Trying to label anything one personally dislikes as being an “abuse” is simply wrong.

 

[JustCath]

Nothing “abusive” about it. No prohibition about it either.

Should this typically be allowed? I would think not. But are there special situations with specifically the right person involved? Yes, I think so. Trying to label anything one personally dislikes as being an “abuse” is simply wrong.

Please direct me to what you think provides for such a practice. Just saying something is proper does not make it proper.

 

[MrTheosis]

You’re right–this is clearly an abuse. I read the regulations at the Vatican link someone else posted in this thread. The regs warn against and prohibit “stretching,” as you correctly identify this, throughout those regs.

Also, someone in this thread mentioned a “lay minister.” As far as I know, there is no such thing in the Catholic Church and such title is prohibited. (See sections 149 & 156–I think these are the correct sections–if not, I’m only off a paragraph or so). “Lay minister” implies a loftier position than “pastoral assistant” and a broader (and thus loftier) position than EMHC.

Many of the examples in this thread seem to smack of the “media council” abuses of which the Pope recently spoke. As vigilant Catholics, we have an obligation to speak up when we observe such abuses. Also, don’t be lulled into thinking “it must be ok because this is what has been done in my parish for years.” Thanks to the OP and others who have pointed out and questioned such abuses.

Thankfully you’re not the arbiter of what is an “abuse” in the Church nor is it up to you to define what a lay minister is within the bounds of the Church.

Just for a moment about the absurdity of your sentence: “Also, someone in this thread mentioned a “lay minister.” As far as I know, there is no such thing in the Catholic Church and such title is prohibited.” (emphasis mine.)

Please direct me to what you think provides for such a practice. Just saying something is proper does not make it proper.

No, no, you’re the one that made the silly comments regarding an “abuse.” The onus is on you to back-up your judgement.

I hope you do realize soon that your interpretation of Church documents and/or your personal opinion on Church matters holds absolutely zero authority.

 

[JustCath]

No, no, you’re the one that made the silly comments regarding an “abuse.” The onus is on you to back-up your judgement.

There is nothing silly about what I said. I expect you are resorting to such unproductive, baseless, unjustly rediculing comments because you are fearful of the “media council” creep that has came into practice being abolished.

I met my burden of pointing to authority in the very post where I made my assertions. Thus, it is quite disingenuous for you to make it sound like I am just pulling rules out of the air.

Anyway, below is the text of the sections I cited earlier.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#Chapter%20VII

[149.] More recently, in some dioceses long since evangelized, members of Christ’s lay faithful have been appointed as “pastoral assistants”, and among them many have undoubtedly served the good of the Church by providing assistance to the Bishop, Priests and Deacons in the carrying out of their pastoral activity. Let care be taken, however, lest the delineation of this function be assimilated too closely to the form of pastoral ministry that belongs to clerics. That is to say, attention should be paid to ensuring that “pastoral assistants” do not take upon themselves what is proper to the ministry of the sacred ministers.

[156.] This function is to be understood strictly according to the name by which it is known, that is to say, that of extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, and not “special minister of Holy Communion” nor “extraordinary minister of the Eucharist” nor “special minister of the Eucharist”, by which names the meaning of this function is unnecessarily and improperly broadened.

. . .

You will observe in section 149 above the reference to “pastoral assistant.” “Lay minister” sounds like a position with more autonomy than an “assistant.”

Section 156 above provides that the function of extraordinary minister of holy communion is to be "understood strictly according to [that] name. “Lay minister” is a clear departure from that rule.

If you bother yourself with reading the 20 or so paragraphs in Chapt VII on these matters at the link above, you will see that such strictness and limiting of these practices is commanded throughout the relevant provisions.

 

[dshix]

It’s not stretching the rules and it’s certainly not an “abuse” but I do agree, this is not the primary reason communion services exist. Nor should it typically be applied like this.

Heh, it’s funny that you think that saying that (the bolded) makes it true. How is this NOT an abuse, may I ask?

But in this case given my friend’s situation, his own trustworthiness and his own spiritual needs (as determined by his pastor) I think the pastor made a brilliant offer. The proof is in the pudding over the past 5+ years. I know it has done my friend a great deal of good. I suspect God would be quite pleased.

For an act to be good, the object, means, and end must be good. If any of the three are evil, the act is wrong.

In this case, your friend’s object may be good, and the end might be good, but he is using the wrong means, and abusing one of the Church’s extraordinary functions.

 

[dshix]

No, no, you’re the one that made the silly comments regarding an “abuse.” The onus is on you to back-up your judgement.
**
I hope you do realize soon that your interpretation of Church documents and/or your personal opinion on Church matters holds absolutely zero authority.**

And what are you doing, my friend?

Your hypocrisy is blaring. You accuse another of making “personal opinion on Church matters,” but what are you doing? You have arbitrarily decided that there is nothing wrong with a priest letting a person walk into the Church and receive communion whenever he wants.

Quite obviously, this is not how communion services were intended to be used, and this priest who allows his church member to commence these personal communion services 6 times a week is putting the Holy Eucharist in grave danger of abuse and harm.

 

[crazzeto]

When did it become the Latin Catholic practice that one can’t go a day without communion?



More modernism!

I believe the accurate standard is at least once a year, during the … Lenten season (very true of confession regarding season)?

The more the better, daily is best.

 

[MrTheosis]

And what are you doing, my friend?

Your hypocrisy is blaring. You accuse another of making “personal opinion on Church matters,” but what are you doing? You have arbitrarily decided that there is nothing wrong with a priest letting a person walk into the Church and receive communion whenever he wants.

Quite obviously, this is not how communion services were intended to be used, and this priest who allows his church member to commence these personal communion services 6 times a week is putting the Holy Eucharist in grave danger of abuse and harm.

First, I’m not your “friend.” Particuarly after you suggest a very dear friend of mine puts “the Holy Eucharist in grave danger of abuse and harm.” How terribly inaccurate and offensive.

You’re simply wrong when you reach your conclusion of “…the Holy Eucharist in grave danger of abuse and harm.” Just where did that come from? My friend does not put the Blessed Sacrament “in grave danger of abuse and harm.” That is simply a fabrication meant to inflame. It’s meant to add weight to the notion of what he does as being an “abuse.” It’s also blarney.

I offered this as a good example of a pastor using a communion service in a way that provides real, sustained spiritual benefit for a member of his flock. Should this be common practice? Of course not. But in this case it has produced much fruit no matter how much that might bother others.

 

[MrTheosis]

How is this NOT an abuse, may I ask?

For an act to be good, the object, means, and end must be good. If any of the three are evil, the act is wrong.

In this case, your friend’s object may be good, and the end might be good, but he is using the wrong means, and abusing one of the Church’s extraordinary functions.

So you say.

Thankfully the Church does not operate based on your personal opinions.

His pastor recommended and approved the practice. There is nothing from the Church that prohibits the practice. The practice has provided him with great benefit over more than 5 years. On the other hand you suggest he’s “using the wrong means” which of course is nonsense – just more of your personal opinions.

It’s pretty amusing to see people try to manufacture “reasons” to make this an “abuse.”

 

[dshix]

First, I’m not your “friend.”

This is ludicrous. Do you not recognize English idioms?!

Particuarly after you suggest a very dear friend of mine puts “the Holy Eucharist in grave danger of abuse and harm.” How terribly inaccurate and offensive.

Whenever a priest puts the Eucharist in a position where a lay person has free access to it, he puts the Eucharist in grave harm. What if your friend were to be mugged, and the keys to the Church and tabernacle stolen? What if your friend somehow left the Church, but didn’t tell anyone, and kept going to the Church to continue claiming hosts? There is danger of desecration here.

I make no statement whatsoever as to the personal character of this person, but the general principles upon which guardians of the Eucharist should function. I’m not saying your friend is not a good person; all I am saying is that it is still an abuse and exposing the Eucharist to harm.

You’re simply wrong when you reach your conclusion of “…the Holy Eucharist in grave danger of abuse and harm.” Just where did that come from? My friend does not put the Blessed Sacrament “in grave danger of abuse and harm.” That is simply a fabrication meant to inflame. It’s meant to add weight to the notion of what he does as being an “abuse.” It’s also blarney.

Ok. I am going to quote four sentences out of that quote.

“You’re simply wrong when you reach your conclusion of…”
“Just where did that come from?”
“That is simply a fabrication meant to inflame.”
“It’s also blarney.”

All four of these phrases disclose something to me. You are speaking in a close-minded, immature way. You are saying that I’m “simply wrong” because you say so. Don’t use such faulty logic with me. “It’s also blarney” shows that you are absolutely close minded because you won’t even try to understand what I’m saying, but will only assume I am wrong. What proof have you given to support your position? What logical response have you given?

Every one of your posts has been loaded with emotion.

I offered this as a good example of a pastor using a communion service in a way that provides real, sustained spiritual benefit for a member of his flock. Should this be common practice? Of course not. But in this case it has produced much fruit no matter how much that might bother others.

You know what? I’m not even going to answer this again because I already did:

"For an act to be good, the object, means, and end must be good. If any of the three are evil, the act is wrong.

In this case, your friend’s object may be good, and the end might be good, but he is using the wrong means, and abusing one of the Church’s extraordinary functions."

---

To answer your post as a whole, I suggest you try to see other people’s point of view in a neutral light, before you explode into a cloud of flaming refutation.

Just think about it; you might just not be perfect!

What a radical thought.

 

[dshix]

So you say.

Thankfully the Church does not operate based on your personal opinions.

His pastor recommended and approved the practice. There is nothing from the Church that prohibits the practice. The practice has provided him with great benefit over more than 5 years. On the other hand you suggest he’s “using the wrong means” which of course is nonsense – just more of your personal opinions.

It’s pretty amusing to see people try to manufacture “reasons” to make this an “abuse.”

Lol. You didn’t read my post, did you? Read it again, it answers exactly what you just said AGAIN.

---

(Oh, and excuse my sarcasm in this and my last post; it’s hard not to when a person is posting in this way.)

 

[dshix]

So you say.

Thankfully the Church does not operate based on your personal opinions.

His pastor recommended and approved the practice. There is nothing from the Church that prohibits the practice. The practice has provided him with great benefit over more than 5 years. On the other hand you suggest he’s “using the wrong means”** which of course is nonsense – just more of your personal opinions.**

It’s pretty amusing to see people** try to manufacture** “reasons” to make this an “abuse.”

All of the bolded phrases are your personal opinion, not the intent of the Church. Please function on the Church’s teaching, not your own.

If you want to say that your friend may continue this practice of giving himself communion, you must cite a Church document which says that the faithful may do this. If you cannot, your claim is false. I don’t see what’s so hard about that.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

When a parish offers weekday Masses, the pastor might occasionally need to ask a deacon or approved lay person to lead a Communion service when he cannot make it. It is no easy matter for many within the congregation to make it to weekday Mass, and to arrive to the church to find the doors shuttered would be disconcerting.

A nearby parish offers early morning and 5 p.m. Masses every day. Last Wednesday evening, he announced that he was going to celebrate two funeral Masses the next day, and because he was unable to find priests to celebrate the regularly-scheduled Masses, Communion services would be offered. That particular parish is in the middle of a tourist area, and weekday Masses are well-attended. Just closing the doors would have upset and/or confused parishioners and visitors alike.

Catholics may not be “entitled” to receive Holy Communion, but what a tremendous opportuinity for spiritual nourishment it offers during this time of religious oppression and economic and moral struggle in our society. Thank you Jesus.

Is not the Mass one of the most important things we can do? Daily Mass is wonderful! And yes I receive almost every day because I go to Mass almost every day. If a parish has Mass everyday then they may have a communion service on the priest’s day off. Trust me–our priest hardly gets any time off at all. Our Mass is at noon normally…I don’t expect him to have to come in on his day off. These communion services are scripted out by the priest ahead of time. I personally don’t attend communion services but I don’t think they are abuses if allowed by the Bishop.

Didn’t anyone hear the Church and Pope encourage frequent reception of the Eucharist? There are many graces to be had by such.

 

[GwenL]

A friend of mine has absolutely no chance to attend Mass during the week because of his work and there is no Mass here locally on Saturdays. He mentioned this to his pastor and the pastor encouraged him to conduct a solo communion service just for himself each night.

Just around midnight on his way home he stops at his parish and conducts the communion service inside the church on a decommissioned side altar. No one else is around and no one else knows except for the pastor, his parochial vicar and me.

At first I thought this sounded a bit odd, and it certainly has the potential for abuse. On the other hand my friend reads the daily readings, reads a bit from the Early Church Fathers in place of a “reflection”, follows the ritual to a T and takes communion. He has been doing this 5-6 times per week for almost 6 years. Quite a gift from what I can see.

While this certainly would not be right for many, I think my friend’s pastor was quite correct to make him such a generous offer.

This would involve self-communication, which is prohibited for the non-ordained.

See “Norms For The Distribution And Reception Of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds In The Dioceses Of The United States Of America.”

 

[JustCath]

This would involve self-communication, which is prohibited for the non-ordained.

See “Norms For The Distribution And Reception Of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds In The Dioceses Of The United States Of America.”

Found at the link Gwen posted:

1. The communicant, including the extraordinary minister, is never allowed to self-communicate, even by means of intinction. Communion under either form, bread or wine, must always be given by an ordinary or extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.

 

[MrTheosis]

This would involve self-communication, which is prohibited for the non-ordained.

See “Norms For The Distribution And Reception Of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds In The Dioceses Of The United States Of America.”

Did you take a moment to actually read the ritual you are citing?

Seriously, did you?

No where does it say another layperson distributes Holy Communion to the individual conducting the communion service.

 

[MrTheosis]

This is ludicrous. Do you not recognize English idioms?!

“Idiom” or not, let me very direct. I am not your “friend” particularly given some of your comments directed towards my friend.

Whenever a priest puts the Eucharist in a position where a lay person has free access to it, he puts the Eucharist in grave harm. What if your friend were to be mugged, and the keys to the Church and tabernacle stolen? What if your friend somehow left the Church, but didn’t tell anyone, and kept going to the Church to continue claiming hosts? There is danger of desecration here.

Keys to the tabernacle/mugging? Are you serious? Oh my goodness you really are reaching, aren’t you?

In any event you’re simply wrong. This man is a trusted and very long term member of the parish. It also makes no difference if the person is a cleric or layperson. The key is the integrity and trustworthiness of the person and not if he is ordained. My friend is very trustworthy. Sorry but no “grave harm.”

You are merely trying to manufacture a reason for my friend’s pastor not to allow what I have described. Again, sorry but no sale.

I make no statement whatsoever as to the personal character of this person, but the general principles upon which guardians of the Eucharist should function. I’m not saying your friend is not a good person; all I am saying is that it is still an abuse and exposing the Eucharist to harm.

There is no harm and therefore no abuse no matter how hard you work at trying to fabricate one. I brought this up originally because communion services are allowed under conditions that some here have tried to sell as “the only way.”

. I am going to quote four sentences out of that quote.

“You’re simply wrong when you reach your conclusion of…”
“Just where did that come from?”
“That is simply a fabrication meant to inflame.”
“It’s also blarney.”

All four of these phrases disclose something to me. You are speaking in a close-minded, immature way. You are saying that I’m “simply wrong” because you say so. Don’t use such faulty logic with me. “It’s also blarney” shows that you are absolutely close minded because you won’t even try to understand what I’m saying, but will only assume I am wrong. What proof have you given to support your position? What logical response have you given?

Every one of your posts has been loaded with emotion.

Go ahead and continue to judge me and my friend. I could take some of your comments out of context too – beginning with your “grave harm” theory which is nothing more than a painful-to-read fabrication. You can’t face the fact that you are wrong. That for nearly six years my friend has been benefiting from daily grace because his pastor saw and/or felt something that compelled him to make a wonderful offer. An offer that has bestowed remarkable grace onto my friend for many years, like it or not.

You know what? I’m not even going to answer this again because I already did:

"For an act to be good, the object, means, and end must be good. If any of the three are evil, the act is wrong.

In this case, your friend’s object may be good, and the end might be good, but he is using the wrong means, and abusing one of the Church’s extraordinary functions."

Again my regrets but you’re not the arbiter (nor is your personal interpretation of Church documents the arbiter) of whether his means is right or wrong. To be honest I should have stopped reading at the tabernacle key/mugging scenario you began with…

To answer your post as a whole, I suggest you try to see other people’s point of view in a neutral light, before you explode into a cloud of flaming refutation.

Just think about it; you might just not be perfect!

What a radical thought.

Far from perfect. Unlike yourself though, I haven’t tried to make myself the arbiter of what the Church actually directs. Your sarcasm doesn’t help matters either.

 

[MrTheosis]

Found at the link Gwen posted:

1. The communicant, including the extraordinary minister, is never allowed to self-communicate, even by means of intinction. Communion under either form, bread or wine, must always be given by an ordinary or extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.

Nor does the ritual call for someone else to give communion to the layperson conducting the communion service…

 

[MrTheosis]

Is not the Mass one of the most important things we can do? Daily Mass is wonderful! And yes I receive almost every day because I go to Mass almost every day. If a parish has Mass everyday then they may have a communion service on the priest’s day off. Trust me–our priest hardly gets any time off at all. Our Mass is at noon normally…I don’t expect him to have to come in on his day off. These communion services are scripted out by the priest ahead of time. I personally don’t attend communion services but I don’t think they are abuses if allowed by the Bishop.

Didn’t anyone hear the Church and Pope encourage frequent reception of the Eucharist? There are many graces to be had by such.

That’s truly what it comes down to no matter how much that might upset some people.

Communion services in my parish are now very uncommon. Perhaps 3-4 per year. In years past it was abusive because laypeople would conduct communion services while priests were in the rectory. Thankfully the bishop learned of this and put a stop to it some years ago.

 

[MrTheosis]

All of the bolded phrases are your personal opinion, not the intent of the Church. Please function on the Church’s teaching, not your own.

If you want to say that your friend may continue this practice of giving himself communion, you must cite a Church document which says that the faithful may do this. If you cannot, your claim is false. I don’t see what’s so hard about that.

My regrets but the onus is on you to show that what his pastor recommended and allows (with the bishop’s approval) is somehow wrong.

He conducts the communion service per the official Church ritual with the full knowledge and approval of his pastor and bishop.

That’s all there is to it. That might bother you but it makes no difference.