Communion under Both Kinds is a fuller form?

[frommi]

About why receiving form an ordained minister increases reverence for the Eucharist, I have already answer that in my previous posts.

You may think that it doesn’t matter who you receive Holy Communion from, but the Church doesn’t agree with you. “It is the Priest celebrant’s responsability to minister Communion.” (RS 88). “Only out of true necessity is there to be recourse to the assistance of extraordinary ministers in the celebration of the Liturgy. …] These purely supplementary functions must not be an occasion for disfiguring the very ministry of Priest.” (RS 151-152)

Holy Communion has been distributed under one specie for centuries and is now offered like that in most Catholic countries. And no, we shouldn’t use dancing as role model for our Liturgy.

You are misuing RS again…the abuse of EMHCs occurs when there are 7 priests present and only one distributes communion. That doesn’t happen very often.

EMHCs are allowed in all situations where it is prudent that communion not be unnecssairly prolonged…and they are allowed to help distribute communion under both kinds.

These things do NOTHING to disfigure a priest’s ministry.

 

[Walking_Home]

You are misuing RS again…the abuse of EMHCs occurs when there are 7 priests present and only one distributes communion. That doesn’t happen very often.

EMHCs are allowed in all situations where it is prudent that communion not be unnecssairly prolonged…and they are allowed to help distribute communion under both kinds.

These things do NOTHING to disfigure a priest’s ministry.

---

When the priest is standing there-- among any number of EMHCs distributing Holy Communion—the priest becomes just one of the group. So in essense–the priests ministry Does become disfigured.

 

[Aquinate]

These things do NOTHING to disfigure a priest’s ministry.

I wouldn’t be so quick to emphasize the word “nothing”. I would say that today’s crisis of vocations to the priesthood and the lack of devotion and faith in the Eucharist has to do in some way with the abuse and excessive use EMHCs and other lay ministries. RS, which I seem to misuse so frequently, was written and approved by JPII to control the abuses to the Liturgy. If you don’t see it in this way I cannot convince you otherwise.

 

[frommi]

I wouldn’t be so quick to emphasize the word “nothing”. I would say that today’s crisis of vocations to the priesthood and the lack of devotion and faith in the Eucharist has to do in some way with the abuse and excessive use EMHCs and other lay ministries. RS, which I seem to misuse so frequently, was written and approved by JPII to control the abuses to the Liturgy. If you don’t see it in this way I cannot convince you otherwise.

Signed by the Pope and written by the Pope are two different things.

The expansion of lay ministries in the church hasn’t made the church less healthy…and I really think it’s a stretch to tie the lack of vocations to having an EMHC distribute communion.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

When the priest is standing there-- among any number of EMHCs distributing Holy Communion—the priest becomes just one of the group. So in essense–the priests ministry Does become disfigured.

Not necessarily. The priest is robed in his vestments. No one not BENT on being confused WOULD confuse the laity with the priest (“the one in the robes must be the priest”). It might be a problem in either the Archdiocese of Los Angeles or the Diocese of Orange County, I forget which, where the female head “liturgist” for that diocese is inexplicably allowed to robe and stand at the altar. I really rather doubt it’s much of an issue at 99% of the parishes where EMHCs are utilized.

 

[Walking_Home]

Not necessarily. The priest is robed in his vestments. No one not BENT on being confused WOULD confuse the laity with the priest (“the one in the robes must be the priest”). It might be a problem in either the Archdiocese of Los Angeles or the Diocese of Orange County, I forget which, where the female head “liturgist” for that diocese is inexplicably allowed to robe and stand at the altar. I really rather doubt it’s much of an issue at 99% of the parishes where EMHCs are utilized.

---

Even with vestments–the priest is part of a group. Their action of distributing is the same.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

Even with vestments–the priest is part of a group. Their action of distributing is the same.

That doesn’t mean the role of the priest is “disfigured.” Now, if we were talking about people being invited to gather round the altar and extend their hands to help “consecrate” the Sacred Elements, yes, that would “disfigure” the role of the priest.

 

[Walking_Home]

That doesn’t mean the role of the priest is “disfigured.” Now, if we were talking about people being invited to gather round the altar and extend their hands to help “consecrate” the Sacred Elements, yes, that would “disfigure” the role of the priest.

---

It doesn’t disfigure—So whose role are the EMHCs playing. The laity who are to receive —or the priest—who is to distribute.

 

[frommi]

---

It doesn’t disfigure—So whose role are the EMHCs playing. The laity who are to receive —or the priest—who is to distribute.

They are not ‘playing’ a role, they are performing a legitimate role in the liturgy.

All of these posts seem to come from a point of view that an EMHC is illicit when it is not.

The specific conditions under which you can utilize these ministers happen to exist quite often at many parishes.

Just because they have to be used often does not make them an ‘abuse’.

 

[CommonMan]

When the priest is standing there-- among any number of EMHCs distributing Holy Communion—the priest becomes just one of the group. So in essense–the priests ministry Does become disfigured.

The priest becomes “just one of the group”?

Doesn’t this sound a bit snobish?

 

[Walking_Home]

They are not ‘playing’ a role, they are performing a legitimate role in the liturgy.

All of these posts seem to come from a point of view that an EMHC is illicit when it is not.

The specific conditions under which you can utilize these ministers happen to exist quite often at many parishes.

Just because they have to be used often does not make them an ‘abuse’.

---

I know well that they are not illicit. Whether they are “playing” or “performing”-- makes no difference-- in that they are still in a role that puts them on par with the priest when distributing Holy Communion.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

It doesn’t disfigure—So whose role are the EMHCs playing. The laity who are to receive —or the priest—who is to distribute.

This is where we run into problems, thinking that we know more than the Church. The lay EMHC is playing the role that is set for them (determined by their priest and/or bishop) in helping in the distribution of Holy Communion. They aren’t consecrating (particular to the office of the priest), they aren’t absolving (particular to the office of the priest). I seriously doubt that most lay Catholics in the pew are confused as to who is the priest and who isn’t, though I’m open to the argument that there are EMHCs who might be “confused” or even priests who are “confused” (really, it isn’t confusion so much as an agenda). The ROLE of EMHCs is outlined by the Church. I’ve seen abuses of that role, but the role they play is, by and large, the role that has been assigned.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

I know well that they are not illicit. Whether they are “playing” or “performing”-- makes no difference-- in that they are still in a role that puts them on par with the priest when distributing Holy Communion.

Nonsense. The Church recognizes that there may be times when priests need help distributing Holy Communion. The Church also clearly distinguishes between the priesthood and the laity. The two are not on a par nor are they normally to be confused (any more than we confuse altar boys dressed in black cassocks and surplices with priests). Your assertion seems to imply that it is wrong for the laity to distribute Communion. The Church has said otherwise. .

 

[Walking_Home]

This is where we run into problems, thinking that we know more than the Church. The lay EMHC is playing the role that is set for them (determined by their priest and/or bishop) in helping in the distribution of Holy Communion. They aren’t consecrating (particular to the office of the priest), they aren’t absolving (particular to the office of the priest). I seriously doubt that most lay Catholics in the pew are confused as to who is the priest and who isn’t, though I’m open to the argument that there are EMHCs who might be “confused” or even priests who are “confused” (really, it isn’t confusion so much as an agenda). The ROLE of EMHCs is outlined by the Church. I’ve seen abuses of that role, but the role they play is, by and large, the role that has been assigned.

---

Like you said–most would not be confused–so how about bringing those who are confused/agenda -to the correct understanding by having the ordained distribute. Having EMHCs only enforces those with an agenda. Those of us down here in the trenches do become aware of confusions/agendas–so it is not about thinking we know more than the Church.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

Like you said–most would not be confused–so how about bringing those who are confused/agenda -to the correct understanding by having the ordained distribute. Having EMHCs only enforces those with an agenda. Those of us down here in the trenches do become aware of confusions/agendas–so it is not about thinking we know more than the Church.

So we should NOT read into your posts that it is wrong for the laity to distribute Holy Communion? We should not read into your posts that the laity doing so distorts or “disfigures” the priesthood?

 

[Walking_Home]

So we should NOT read into your posts that it is wrong for the laity to distribute Holy Communion? We should not read into your posts that the laity doing so distorts or “disfigures” the priesthood?

---

You can read into my posts what ever you want. I know they are allowed by the Church–and will bear with them until they are eliminated.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

You can read into my posts what ever you want. I know they are allowed by the Church–and will bear with them until they are eliminated.

Good idea. We should all pray that there are sufficient priests that the role of EMHC can be honorably retired.

 

[Aquinate]

---

You can read into my posts what ever you want. I know they are allowed by the Church–and will bear with them until they are eliminated.

I support this statement, because if the Church doesn’t change its practice, the use of EMHCs will cease as soon as the crisis of vocations ends. (Hey frommi, I am going to quote RS again )

When recouse is had out of necessity to the functions of extraordinary ministers, special urgent prayers of intercession should be multiplied that the Lord may soon send a Priest for the service of the community and raise up an abundance of vocations to sacred Orders. (151)

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I support this statement, because if the Church doesn’t change its practice, the use of EMHCs will cease as soon as the crisis of vocations ends. (Hey frommi, I am going to quote RS again )

No one has ever argued, not in these forums, that it was other than a stopgap measure.

 

[CommonMan]

…the use of EMHCs will cease as soon as the crisis of vocations ends.

In other words, it will not end in the near future.

All this being said, the “fuller form” question hasn’t really been answered. The Church expressed it’s belief that reception of both elements is the “fuller form”. Following the command of Christsupports that view. Yet local bishops can choose to opt out and offer the “lesser form” and effectivly disregard the GIRM and the historical agreement of the 4 Gospels.

Perhaps part of the problem with the laity’s grasp of what the Holy Euchrist / the Lord’s Supper, really is can be attributed to the Church itself confusing the issue.