Confession of a Eucharistic Minister

[JKirkLVNV]

Disciplinary matters are not infallible and do not enjoy negative infallibility.

They enjoy a negative infallibility, insofar as at the very least, they cannot lead the faithful to impiety (you seem to disagree with the Church about this). Look it up.

And if YOU are correct, this being a disciplinary matter, the Church couldn’t infallibly state that to receive in the hand is a sacrilege.

 

[marymonde]

But the Church has considered it a sacrilege! Why do you think it was banned for so long? Do you think that truth simply changes with the whim of the current pope or college of bishops?

This is true. Relativism at it’s best here. A sacrilege for many years is now considered a norm. My poor Jesus!

John6:12 And when they were filled, he said to his disciples: Gather up the fragments that remain, lest they be lost.

 

[Crusade_Guy]

They enjoy a negative infallibility, insofar as at the very least, they cannot lead the faithful to impiety (you seem to disagree with the Church about this). Look it up.

And if YOU are correct, this being a disciplinary matter, the Church couldn’t infallibly state that to receive in the hand is a sacrilege.

Look it up? Prove to me that it’s true! And I never said the Church “infallibly stated” to receive in the hand is a sacrilege.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Look it up? Prove to me that it’s true! And I never said the Church “infallibly stated” to receive in the hand is a sacrilege.

See, this is covering ground that we’ve already covered dozens of times in the forums on the same topic. The Council of Trent anathematized anyone who stated that any of the outward signs with which the Church governed and disciplined her sacraments, any of the disciplines surrounding the sacraments imposed by her, could lead the faithful to impiety. That’s one of the sources for the concept of negative infallibility (no one is obliged to LIKE it).

“Sacrilege” is a wrong done to a sacred person or thing. If the Church allows it, it cannot be what you are stating that it is.

 

[marymonde]

Again, I have yet to see any proof of their effectiveness. Again, I’m not saying they aren’t effective (not in the slightest) but I haven’t seen any non-anecdotal evidence that they are.

And again, because you’re the one suggesting reversal of a practice that has been approved by the church, the onus is on you to show why it should be.

Lily,

This made me smile that the “onus” is on us who want to receive Our Lord from a priest. Lily, honestly wherever someone has made a good case, or offer good proof opposite of what the Church now allows, or tolerates, it isn’t accepted by you. Like I said before, if folks cannot see the fruit of communion in the hand, there really is no point of debating the issue with us. Matter of fact I would be interested to read a thread started by you on the positive affects of communion in the hand. Perhaps if you took a different direction in this matter and state your reasons for being pro-communion in the hand, we could understand your position a bit better? Other than that, you just seem to be arguementive and not willing to offer any facts on why this issue is so important for the Church to keep this new discipline.

To everyone else who cares to read this long testimony, well, here it is:
I was a EXTRAORDINARY Eucharistic minister for years. Note the word EXTRAORDINARY, this is the correct term. The very fact that EM’s are only to be used in extraordinary circumstances, is abused. I have seen priests sit down during communion and allow the EM’s to do their job.

You many not want to take my word on this, but there was an abuse at almost every Mass. The hosts by the ministers were never properly handled. None of us were trained on how NOT to lose any particles of Our Lord. The purification of the vessels, was a joke. I cannot count the time Our Lords Most Precious Blood was poured down a sink, spilled, chugged down like a bar sport with streams of Blood coming out of the EM’s mouth. Hosts were dropped alot, due to a paten being obsolete. The ground was never purified properly and many hosts were just trampled upon. I witnessed people sticking them in their pockets, children playing with them throwing them back and forth in their hands, while the parents gleefully watched. Everytime I complained to the priests, they would say, “Oh that happens all the time.” Really?

Here is a true happening. I was NOT a EM this particular day. A KNOWN freemason, who was never went to Mass, went to Holy Communion, stuck it in his pocket and walked out. I went straight to Father and begged him to stop him. He refused. By the time I was done crying to Father, the man left the Church.

Unfortunately I also knew of women who would tell me they took their dd’s to PP and got them on the pill. I had a long conversation with one woman, in a WalMart what a grievious sin this was and that she needed confession before she received communion. She flat out refused. I went to Father and told him I couldn’t be a Eucharistic Minister anymore. I felt it was not my position, I am not a priest obviously, to put Our Lord in people’s hands that I KNEW were in mortal sin. Only he had that privilege. I asked him to hear my confession, for I truly felt it was a mortal sin what I was doing. My goodness I put Our Lord in the mouth of a man chewing gum. How could I do that and know He would be spit into a trash can, or worse yet on the ground? I told him of all I saw and how deeply it had affected my soul. I cry to this day knowing how I allowed Him to be so poorly treated.

I know this will not affect many here from refraining touching Our Lord. My words will be countered by some very intelligent people here who will state very well their position. For those who are EM’s or receive Communion in the Hand, and there is a twinge of your conscience that is bothered, please reconsider how you are approaching Our Dear Lord. If you are afraid of being chastised by a priest for receiving on the tongue, stand fast and hold onto the ancient tradition of the saints. Offer up the humiliation for the reparation of Our Lord being abused in the Blessed Sacrament. If you will stick out like a sore thumb because no one else recieves Our Lord in a more humble manner, set aside the pride in your soul and take that chance of receiving human humiliation. It is worth that price!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

This is true. Relativism at it’s best here. A sacrilege for many years is now considered a norm. My poor Jesus!

John6:12 And when they were filled, he said to his disciples: Gather up the fragments that remain, lest they be lost.

You prooftext precisely like a Protestant, only they usually provide a better context. You know full well that the above verse has nothing whatsover to do with the Eucharist.

You might find this link as to what relativism actually is:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

One of hallmarks of relativism is that there is no final, universal standard. Since the Catholics here believe that the Church, in the plentitude of Her authority, is that final, universal standard (until Christ comes), it is calumny to suggest that those of us defend that authority are relativists. It’s also ironic since you were the one who posted a link to a source that is constantly at odds with that same final, universal standard.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Like I said before, if folks cannot see the fruit of communion in the hand, there really is no point of debating the issue with us.
quote]

Correlation does not demonstrate or prove causation. And you’re setting yourself up as a greater judge of an issue than the Church itself (you call what she allows a mortal sin, a sin that cuts us off from the grace of God?!?!?!?).

If you don’t want to receive in the hand, do what I do: receive on the tongue.

And the freemason could have as easily secreted away the Host in his mouth, as nefarious uses of the Sacred Species predate the re-advent of Communion in the hand.

 

[marymonde]

You prooftext precisely like a Protestant, only they usually provide a better context. You know full well that the above verse has nothing whatsover to do with the Eucharist.

You might find this link as to what relativism actually is:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

One of hallmarks of relativism is that there is no final, universal standard. Since the Catholics here believe that the Church, in the plentitude of Her authority, is that final, universal standard (until Christ comes), it is calumny to suggest that those of us defend that authority are relativists. It’s also ironic since you were the one who posted a link to a source that is constantly at odds with that same final, universal standard.

It’s not calumny if it is true:

In philosophy, moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition’s truth. Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries or in the context of individual preferences. An extreme relativist position might suggest that judging the moral or ethical judgments or acts of another person or group has no meaning, though most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory.

Do you NOT believe that it was once a sacrilige to hold Our Lord in your hand, and now it’s not? That’s the defintion of above.

The verse has everything to do with the Holy Eucharist. Multipying the loaves and fishes was a precursor to Our Lord muliplying His Body for us in Holy Communion. My priest has a sermon on this once a year. I believe him. Having the apostles divide the people into groups (parishes), the apostles distributing the food by Jesus muliplying the food (no additional help of the laity was needed to feed the thousands). The gathering of the leftovers to make sure no fragments are lost? A MIRACLE. None of this sounds familiar to you? This amazes me.

 

[maryalene]

This seems a bit scrupulous to me. I receive in the hand and have never seen visible particles in my hand although I do check each week. Maybe the hosts used elsewhere are more fragile, but our hosts are rather thick and firm here. I have been to some parishes where the hosts are paper thin - maybe those are more suseptible to having bits break off. It would be interesting to know if the Vatican responded to this letter and what was said in the response.

 

[marymonde]

[Correlation does not demonstrate or prove causation…And the freemason could have as easily secreted away the Host in his mouth, as nefarious uses of the Sacred Species predate the re-advent of Communion in the hand.

This is an excellent example you provided using the exact criteria you began your post with.
[/quote]

 

[maryalene]

marymonde, it sounds like your priest really did not truly comprehend the sacredness of the Eucharist for him to be so lax about abuses at your parish. I don’t know if it makes you feel any better, but I am a former EMOHC and have never experienced anything like you describe. I think your situation is extremely tragic but not the norm for most parishes.

 

[djrakowski]

This seems a bit scrupulous to me. I receive in the hand and have never seen visible particles in my hand although I do check each week. Maybe the hosts used elsewhere are more fragile, but our hosts are rather thick and firm here. I have been to some parishes where the hosts are paper thin - maybe those are more suseptible to having bits break off. It would be interesting to know if the Vatican responded to this letter and what was said in the response.

It would be interesting indeed. What is even more interesting is how those who oppose the practice of communion in the hand do so in opposition to a practice that is permitted by the Church.

 

[marymonde]

This seems a bit scrupulous to me. I receive in the hand and have never seen visible particles in my hand although I do check each week. Maybe the hosts used elsewhere are more fragile, but our hosts are rather thick and firm here. I have been to some parishes where the hosts are paper thin - maybe those are more suseptible to having bits break off. It would be interesting to know if the Vatican responded to this letter and what was said in the response.

Maryalene,

Are you an EM?

I would suggest that if anyone wants to truly see how Our Lord is handled go to a parish, sign up to be a Eucharistic minister, and see what the process is and how properly one is trained to make sure Our Lord is not abused. I don’t suggest following through with actually becoming one, but seeing how little attention is given to maintaining a reverent reception of the Holy Eucharist, will shock you.

 

[Caesar]

Ok, we are getting a bit off-topic.

Lets just assume for the moment that the vast majority of communicants dont smuggle the Host out of the Church for use in Satanic rituals. Now, I think I described above in detail the manner of communion in the TLM. Compared to the average NO Mass (not the rare ones which are half-way reverant), which Mass protects the particles of the Body of Christ best?

 

[marymonde]

marymonde, it sounds like your priest really did not truly comprehend the sacredness of the Eucharist for him to be so lax about abuses at your parish. I don’t know if it makes you feel any better, but I am a former EMOHC and have never experienced anything like you describe. I think your situation is extremely tragic but not the norm for most parishes.

Yes it is tragic. I was in three different parishes and it was status quo wherever I went.

I do maintain that if we all truly understood the sacredness of the Host, no laity at all would be involved.

The Holy Father has issued some sort of new purification disciplines recently. I am not exactly sure, but I think the laity is no longer allowed to purify the vessels after communion. I attend the TLM, so I am not up to all the news in the NO. From what I witnessed, this makes alot of sense he would change this. I can see no other reason for taking this measure. I’ll try to google up and see if I can find the changes.

 

[maurin]

Do you NOT believe that it was once a sacrilige to hold Our Lord in your hand, and now it’s not? That’s the defintion of above.

The verse has everything to do with the Holy Eucharist. Multipying the loaves and fishes was a precursor to Our Lord muliplying His Body for us in Holy Communion. .

Dear marymonde,

First: If I may interject, I believe it would have been more accurate to say that first it was not a sacrilege, then it was a sacrilege, and now it is not a sacrilege to hold Our Lord in one’s hand.

Second: I agree with you and your Priest. That verse has EVERYTHING to do with the Eucharist.

Third: I am so happy that I have never met nor seen some of these horrible people that frequent your Parish and then abscond with Our Lord in the Most Blessed Sacrament.

Fourth: I am firmly of the opinion that it is best, for all the reasons you have described, to receive on the tongue.

Fifth: I am also firmly of the opinion that this whole issue comes down to authority. Peter was given the authority to bind and to loose. Peter has bound that the time-honored and Traditional Latin way of doing things can exist along side the New Order.

Sixth: Trust that His Will be done. As more and more men of the Traditional mindset are Ordained and begin to teach–and I mean teach–these ways, and make us, God’s people, understand these ways, then, maybe slowly but inexorably we will see a return to a High Christology in the grass-roots Church (if this last expression makes sense…).

Your sincere brother in Jesus’ Sacred Heart,

maurin

 

[marymonde]

Ok, we are getting a bit off-topic.
which Mass protects the particles of the Body of Christ best?

The Roman Rite, the Tridentine Mass.

 

[marymonde]

Fifth: I am also firmly of the opinion that this whole issue comes down to authority. Peter was given the authority to bind and to loose. Peter has bound that the time-honored and Traditional Latin way of doing things can exist along side the New Order.

Sixth: Trust that His Will be done. As more and more men of the Traditional mindset are Ordained and begin to teach–and I mean teach–these ways, make us, God’s people, understand these ways, then, maybe slowly but inexorably we will see a return to a High Christology in the grass-roots Church (if this last expression makes sense…).

Your sincere brother in Jesus’ Sacred Heart,

maurin

Maurin,

These are really very good points. I know the Holy Father can change disciplines, even receiving communion in the hand by EM’s, but priests and people really are not following the directives he set on when EM’s are to be used, which is suppose to be rare. Most of the laity who become EM’s never read what the Holy Father said about them actually being one. Kwim? It is just so difficult knowing and seeing with my own eyes how Our Lord was handled. If I seem overzealous about my position, it is only because I hate to think of how He is being abused. This is a matter of the heart for me.

And yes, the trad seminaries are full, the NO ones are not. The odds are that in 100 years there will be more Traditional priests than not and the mindset will undoubtedly change. As you can see I need to work on my patience.

 

[cosine]

In case anyone’s interested, the answer from the Vatican:

Secretariat of State
Section One-General Affaires Vatican, June 21, 2002
No. 513185

Dear Sir,

 On behalf of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, I would like to thank you for your letter dated April 17th, for the enclosed offering and materials concerning the Holy Eucharist.

 Answers to questions you have raised are contained in documents approved by the Pope: Rituale Romanum, De Sacra Comunione et de cultu Misterii Eucharistici extra Missam, Praenotanda 21 and Congregatio de Cultu Divino et Disiplina Sacramentorum, Instructio varietates legittimae, Nos. 31, 54, 62. They allow reception of Holy Communion while standing and in the hand. It is not an error provided that one's attitude is one of respect while meeting God Who is coming. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says about the subject: "To prepare for worthy reception of this sacrament, the faithful should observe the fast required in their Church. Bodily demeanor (gestures, clothing) ought to convey the respect, solemnity, and joy of this moment when Christ becomes our guest" (Catechism of Catholic Church, art. 1387). The practical application of those instructions is up to the giver who is obliged to make sure that the faithful are both conscious of what they receive in the Eucharist and that they express their respect for Christ present in the form of bread.

 The palm is not any less respectable a part of the human body than the tongue. Christ accepted bread "fruit of the earth and human labor" as material for the Eucharist. During the Last Supper he did not give consecrated pieces to the mouth of his disciples but he "broke it and gave it" knowing that it is not possible to avoid destruction of some particles of consecrated bread in which He is present. Accordingly, church regulations say that both the priest offering communion and the recipient are responsible only for the particles which are visible without the use of optical instruments. To make it easier in practice, the western Church developed through the ages a tradition of passing communion directly on the tongue of the believer. There is, though, no reason to stick stubbornly to that traditional form of receiving communion.  It would be more appropriate to be concerned about respecting the Eucharist by every day adoration, frequent participation in Holy Communion, by helping others to receive it in a dignified manner etc. Desecration is committed only by consciously and willingly "-throwing away, taking or retaining for evil purposes the consecrated species."

 Accordingly, there is no need to take part in the Eucharist celebrated by members of the Society of St. Pius X, which is not in unity with the Catholic Church. Furthermore, it would be highly inappropriate to do so.

 I would like to encourage you to remain in the love of the Eucharistic Christ, to adore and respect the Eucharist, but without being too scrupulous. I would like also to assure you that the Holy Father prays for you and asks for God's grace for you.

Respectfully,

Monsigniore Pedro Lopez Quintana
ASSESSOR

 

[maryalene]

Maryalene,

Are you an EM?

I would suggest that if anyone wants to truly see how Our Lord is handled go to a parish, sign up to be a Eucharistic minister, and see what the process is and how properly one is trained to make sure Our Lord is not abused. I don’t suggest following through with actually becoming one, but seeing how little attention is given to maintaining a reverent reception of the Holy Eucharist, will shock you.

Not anymore, but I used to be one at my old parish. We had extensive initial training and periodic “refresher” training sessions. At my current parish, I am a reader and responsible for taking care of the collection. While doing this, the EMOHCs are in the same room purifying the Eucharistic vessels. I have never seen anyone being irreverent or careless. Also, on the rare ocassions I have witnessed someone walking away without consuming the host immediately, the EMOHC always stopped the person and asked them to consume the host or return it.