Confession of a Eucharistic Minister

[Windmill]

Caesar,

That, too is a problem. So much so that JPII had to say in **ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS REGARDING THE COLLABORATION OF THE NON-ORDAINED FAITHFUL IN THE SACRED MINISTRY OF PRIEST *that “the habitual use of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion at Mass is to be eliminated.”

That was back in 1997. Why have we not responded?
*

 

[Pug]

My understanding, per Michael Davies, was that the Church cannot impose a discipline of administering the sacraments that will lead the faithful to impiety.

Does Mr. Davies give a precise reference to documents that I could look up? This is an interesting distinction that I’ve never thought about before. I actually do want to pursue it.

And JKirk,

No problem, thanks for the time you spend looking. I realize that I have more free time than most to burn here at CAF.

 

[Hellisreal]

Hell ,

I didn’t mean to imply that the liturgy is a “minor”. your clarification is well-received. however, i would argue that the liturgy is the domain of the holy see, and, thus, it is something that is out of our control and responsibility. so, in the hierarchy of responsibilities, our personal sanctitiy is a higher priority than the church’s legislation on the liturgy. that being the case, we need to major on the higher priorities.

i should add, jesus said to the pharisees who were obsessed with all the little laws, that “these you should have done without neglecting the weightier matters of the law”. so, jesus didn’t say to avoid the minor laws, just don’t give them preemminence.

as far as the “false dichotomy” you mention, i disagree. if one is uncharitable, slanderous, and hateful in acheiving the end of, say, having a TLM offered in his parish, he may get great liturgy, but his soul is marred by the sins mentioned above. the ideal is to strive for charity in such dealings.

Yes, I agree. Sorry it took so long to reply to your post. Jesus did say that to the Pharisees, however his body and blood was not the subject.

Again, sorry for the delay.

 

[Joysong]

Windmill:

if one is uncharitable, slanderous, and hateful in acheiving the end of, say, having a TLM offered in his parish, he may get great liturgy, but his soul is marred by the sins mentioned above. the ideal is to strive for charity in such dealings.

Beautiful post!

… the habitual use of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion at Mass is to be eliminated.

However, the Church encourages reception of the Eucharist under both forms, and that does require the habitual use of EMHC’s to administer the precious Blood. Our parish offers both forms at every mass, so every mass has need, of necessity, to employ the service of EMHC’s.

 

[BobP123]

Run, RUN, RRRRRRRUUUUUUUUUUUUNNNNNN!!!

This is from one of Father Gruner’s websites. He still denies Russia was consecrated, and thinks there’s a REAL third secret of Fatima. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was on the grassy knoll and saw two or three shooters.

I truly respect my “conservative” comrades here, but Father Gruner is truly out there. Feel free to look at his websites, but I won’t link to them.

John

That’s right. Kill the messenger, why don’t you.

 

[BobP123]

Liturgy is important, but it is not paramount.

Sometimes it is better to tolerate minor abuses for the greater good of the parish community. For instance Eucharistic Ministers are usually good members. Anatognising them by insisting on the correct title of “Extraordinary Minister of the Holy Eucharist” isn’t usually the best idea, though done with good motives.

Whatever happened to that old adage, “The road to Hell is usually paved with good intentions.”??

 

[BobP123]

‘The gates of hell will not prevail’ means ‘the gates of hell will not prevail’! Whether an impious and sacrilegous discipline were to be imposed by the Pontiff and bound upon all the faithful or instead permitted to the vast majority of them by a Papal indult, either way it would mean that the gates of hell have prevailed, and if Mr Davies thinks otherwise I’d take a good hard look at him.

This is a non-sequitor. Many Popes have been sinners, Peter himself denied Christ thrice, yet the Church still stands today.

 

[BobP123]

What a load of old hooey. …

The Angels take care of these tiny fragments that are shed due to nobodies fault.

While the devil stands idly by? I doubt it.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please be careful of your charity, folks, and do get back on topic. Thanks for your cooperation.

 

[Genesis315]

Of course, Communion in the hand is not sacriligious to begin with. :yawn:

While it can be debated whether it fosters proper respect for the Eucharist or not (I personally believe the developments of the Church leading to Communion on the tongue engendered a greater and respect), to say ti is sacriligious is ignorant. That would mean the early Church was involved in massive sacrilige.

Here is what the great Doctor of the Church, St. Cyril of Jerusalme says:

newadvent.org/fathers/310123.htm

That’s an interesting practice he suggests concerning the Sacred Blood too. One I’m sure folks would scream sacrilige about if they saw it today.

Anyway, while I am not fond of antiquarianism and going back to early Church practices, to say the practices are sacriligious shows a very limited understanding of history and tradition. But of course, that tends to be the hallmark of “traditionalists.” :yawn:

 

[paramedicgirl]

This is bizarre sounding. Is this what traditionalists worry about, tiny particles of consecrated hosts? I’m sorry, but many people reading this thread would think we are nuts and the members of a giant cult.

The early Christians received in their hands. God knows the nature of the physical universe which he created. Did you know that you shed tens of thousands of skin cells a day? Do you think it is disrespectful to the human body that these cells are trampled upon?

Have you ever read Memoriale Domini?

Here’s part of what the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship said on May 19, 1969 about the early practice of receiving Communion in the hand:

It is certainly true that ancient usage once allowed the faithful to take this divine food in their hands and to place it in their mouths themselves.

It is also true that in very ancient times they were allowed to take the Blessed Sacrament with them from the place where the holy sacrifice was celebrated. This was principally so as to be able to give themselves Viaticum in case they had to face death for their faith.

However, the Church’s prescriptions and the evidence of the Fathers make it abundantly clear that the greatest reverence was shown the Blessed Sacrament, and that people acted with the greatest prudence. Thus, “let nobody . . . eat that flesh without first adoring it”(2) As a person takes (the Blessed Sacrament) he is warned: " . . . receive it: be careful lest you lose any of it."(3) “For it is the Body of Christ.”(4)

Further, the care and the ministry of the Body and Blood of Christ was specially committed to sacred ministers or to men specially designated for this purpose: “When the president has recited the prayers and all the people have uttered an acclamation, those whom we call deacons distribute to all those present the bread and wine for which thanks have been given, and they take them to those who are absent.”(5)

Soon the task of taking the Blessed Eucharist to those absent was confided to the sacred ministers alone, so as the better to ensure the respect due to the sacrament and to meet the needs of the faithful. Later, with a deepening understanding of the truth of the eucharistic mystery, of its power and of the presence of Christ in it, there came a greater feeling of reverence towards this sacrament and a deeper humility was felt to be demanded when receiving it. Thus the custom was established of the minister placing a particle of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant.

This method of distributing holy communion must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist. The custom does not detract in any way from the personal dignity of those who approach this great sacrament: it is part of that preparation that is needed for the most fruitful reception of the Body of the Lord.(6)

This reverence shows that it is not a sharing in “ordinary bread and wine”(7) that is involved, but in the Body and Blood of the Lord, through which “The people of God share the benefits of the Paschal Sacrifice, renew the New Covenant which God has made with man once for all through the Blood of Christ, and in faith and hope foreshadow and anticipate the eschatological banquet in the kingdom of the Father.”(8)

Further, the practice which must be considered traditional ensures, more effectively, that holy communion is distributed with the proper respect, decorum and dignity. It removes the danger of profanation of the sacred species, in which “in a unique way, Christ, God and man, is present whole and entire, substantially and continually.”(9) Lastly, it ensures that diligent carefulness about the fragments of consecrated bread which the Church has always recommended: “What you have allowed to drop, think of it as though you had lost one of your own members.”(10)

When therefore a small number of episcopal conferences and some individual bishops asked that the practice of placing the consecrated hosts in the people’s hands be permitted in their territories, the Holy Father decided that all the bishops of the Latin Church should be asked if they thought it opportune to introduce this rite. A change in a matter of such moment, based on a most ancient and venerable tradition, does not merely affect discipline. It carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering holy communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the august sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine.

 

[Adonis33]

Have you ever read Memoriale Domini?

Here’s part of what the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship said on May 19, 1969 about the early practice of receiving Communion in the hand:

It is certainly true that ancient usage once allowed the faithful to take this divine food in their hands and to place it in their mouths themselves.

It is also true that in very ancient times they were allowed to take the Blessed Sacrament with them from the place where the holy sacrifice was celebrated. This was principally so as to be able to give themselves Viaticum in case they had to face death for their faith.

However, the Church’s prescriptions and the evidence of the Fathers make it abundantly clear that the greatest reverence was shown the Blessed Sacrament, and that people acted with the greatest prudence. Thus, “let nobody . . . eat that flesh without first adoring it”(2) As a person takes (the Blessed Sacrament) he is warned: " . . . receive it: be careful lest you lose any of it."(3) “For it is the Body of Christ.”(4)

Further, the care and the ministry of the Body and Blood of Christ was specially committed to sacred ministers or to men specially designated for this purpose: “When the president has recited the prayers and all the people have uttered an acclamation, those whom we call deacons distribute to all those present the bread and wine for which thanks have been given, and they take them to those who are absent.”(5)

Soon the task of taking the Blessed Eucharist to those absent was confided to the sacred ministers alone, so as the better to ensure the respect due to the sacrament and to meet the needs of the faithful. Later, with a deepening understanding of the truth of the eucharistic mystery, of its power and of the presence of Christ in it, there came a greater feeling of reverence towards this sacrament and a deeper humility was felt to be demanded when receiving it. Thus the custom was established of the minister placing a particle of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant.

This method of distributing holy communion must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist. The custom does not detract in any way from the personal dignity of those who approach this great sacrament: it is part of that preparation that is needed for the most fruitful reception of the Body of the Lord.(6)

This reverence shows that it is not a sharing in “ordinary bread and wine”(7) that is involved, but in the Body and Blood of the Lord, through which “The people of God share the benefits of the Paschal Sacrifice, renew the New Covenant which God has made with man once for all through the Blood of Christ, and in faith and hope foreshadow and anticipate the eschatological banquet in the kingdom of the Father.”(8)

Further, the practice which must be considered traditional ensures, more effectively, that holy communion is distributed with the proper respect, decorum and dignity. It removes the danger of profanation of the sacred species, in which “in a unique way, Christ, God and man, is present whole and entire, substantially and continually.”(9) Lastly, it ensures that diligent carefulness about the fragments of consecrated bread which the Church has always recommended: “What you have allowed to drop, think of it as though you had lost one of your own members.”(10)

When therefore a small number of episcopal conferences and some individual bishops asked that the practice of placing the consecrated hosts in the people’s hands be permitted in their territories, the Holy Father decided that all the bishops of the Latin Church should be asked if they thought it opportune to introduce this rite. A change in a matter of such moment, based on a most ancient and venerable tradition, does not merely affect discipline. It carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering holy communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the august sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine.

Excellent post.

 

[LilyM]

This is a non-sequitor. Many Popes have been sinners, Peter himself denied Christ thrice, yet the Church still stands today.

He did, but I’m not (neither is anyone else here) talking about personal sin on the part of a Pope. Rather, what is being said is that the Pope AND the whole teaching authority of the Church have officially taught, permitted and endorsed sacrilege and desecration of the Eucharist on a massive scale.

And you can bank on the fact that if either St Peter or any other Pope either officially taught ANYONE to commit sacrilege OR gave them official permission, speaking as head of the Church, to do so, that would mean the gates of hell had prevailed.

 

[Rykell]

Here’s part of what the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship said on May 19, 1969 about the early practice of receiving Communion in the hand:

Document noted, and the only comment I would add is that this was dated 1969, thirty-eight years ago when the manner of reception in the hand was initiated as an “early practice.” It does not render as void and null the current practice of receiving Holy Communion in the hand, for after this many years, the instructions have been widely disseminated. Had the new manner of receiving been unacceptable, it would have been revoked by now, but it is important to realize that it has NOT been rescinded.

 

[TNT]

Document noted, and the only comment I would add is that this was dated 1969, thirty-eight years ago when the manner of reception in the hand was initiated as an “early practice.” It does not render as void and null the current practice of receiving Holy Communion in the hand, for after this many years, the instructions have been widely disseminated. Had the new manner of receiving been unacceptable, it would have been revoked by now, but it is important to realize that it has NOT been rescinded.

It’s the REASONS set forth that do not change, regardless of “38 yrs” (less than a generation!).
Those reasons are still as valid as they were then or 400yrs before that or 1600yrs before that. As it says, it is the result of a maturation in the Truth/Faith.
It is not what is tolerated/permitted, but what is the most excellent/proper/ or lex credendiorandi. Catholics are not legalists, they should aspire to the highest or most sublime as the Church has practiced and recognized, not the legal or the novel or the antiquarian.

1 Corinthians 6
12 All things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient. All things are lawful to me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

That’s all.

 

[paramedicgirl]

It’s the REASONS set forth that do not change, regardless of “38 yrs” (less than a generation!).
Those reasons are still as valid as they were then or 400yrs before that or 1600yrs before that. As it says, it is the result of a maturation in the Truth/Faith.
It is not what is tolerated/permitted, but what is the most excellent/proper/ or lex orandi lex credendi. Catholics are not legalists, they should aspire to the highest or most sublime as the Church has practiced and recognized, not the legal or the novel or the antiquarian.

1 Corinthians 6
12 All things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient. All things are lawful to me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

That’s all.

Yes, and with the majority of the bishops voting against it, it does appear that it was “tolerated” rather than encouraged.

Three questions were asked of the bishops, and the replies received by 12 March 1969 were as follows:

1. Do you think that attention should be paid to the desire that, over and above the traditional manner, the rite of receiving holy communion on the hand should be admitted?
   

   * Yes: 597
   
   * No: 1,233
   
   * Yes, but with reservations: 315
   
   * Invalid votes: 20

2. Is it your wish that this new rite be first tried in small communities, with the consent of the bishop?
   

   * Yes: 751
   
   * No: 1,215
   
   * Invalid votes, 70

3. 1. Do you think that the faithful will receive this new rite gladly, after a proper catechetical preparation?
      • Yes: 835
      • No: 1,185
      • Invalid votes: 128

From the returns it is clear that the vast majority of bishops believe that the present discipline should not be changed, and that if it were, the change would be offensive to the sentiments and the spiritual culture of these bishops and of many of the faithful.

 

[Rykell]

they should aspire to the highest or most sublime

What then are the two of you saying and promoting here? That the present mind of the Church is in error, and we should all set up protests at the church doors to bann communion in the hand? That those who receive devoutly in the hand with approval of the Church are not receiving “sublimely?” Isn’t that a terrible judgment on the heart and mind of others?

True, it may be more perfect in your mind for many to receive traditionally, but for those who CHOSE to receive in the hand, just as devoutly, they are perfectly within the mind of the Church who has seen fit to approve the practice.

Why are you still trying to change everyone to your personal manner of receiving, and implying that others are somehow less than reverent, or dare I say it, heretical?

From the returns it is clear that the vast majority of bishops believe that the present discipline should not be changed, and that if it were, the change would be offensive to the sentiments and the spiritual culture of these bishops and of many of the faithful.

Believe is present tense of a document that was written in past tense. May we please see the current mind of the Bishops and the Church now that the practice has been used extensively? You cannot simply quote a document in antiquity without also giving the present thinking after the initial period where misgivings have passed. As I said before, if it was a practice that the majority of the Bishops presently find to be troublesome, steps would have been taken to return to the former practice.

No such steps have been taken.

 

[paramedicgirl]

It’s the REASONS
It is not what is tolerated/permitted, but what is the most excellent/proper

This statement reminds me of the protocol of my profession, to always go with the person who has the highest standards.

 

[Rykell]

This statement reminds me of the protocol of my profession, to always go with the person who has the highest standards.

Very subjective reasoning, Paramedicgirl, and borders on being judgmental of the hidden secrets of hearts, which incidentally is the gospel this weekend. Who determines that one manner is “higher” than another … the person who is forbidden by Jesus to judge? Show me where the Church has publicly stated in present-day language that one manner of reception is “higher” than another?

 

[TNT]

Very subjective reasoning, Paramedicgirl, and borders on being judgmental of the hidden secrets of hearts, which incidentally is the gospel this weekend. Who determines that one manner is “higher” than another … the person who is forbidden by Jesus to judge? Show me where the Church has publicly stated in present-day language that one manner of reception is “higher” than another?

She already did…with a whole host of reasons the Church used…shall we go in circles?
What would be more public than a public Vatican document? What would it take?
The “highest” standards were already listed by the Church in the public document. It has nothing to do with “subjective”. The reasons given were completely Objective.
Maybe you didn’t read the whole posted document, but it’s all there, once & for all to see.
Now, what would be good for your case, if you have one, is an equal/superior public Church document that retracts all those reasons as now in error or now worthless.