Doesn't receiving only from the Priest rather than the EMHCs mess up the flow of traffic?

[FAB]

Wow, switching lines is “contrary to the sacrament”? You don’t think that’s a bit much?

Recieving communion is not an indivdual act, it is the act of community. We go as one body to recieve this gift, and in our recieving we are called to embody all that being one in Christ implies. Love, caring, service, justice, sacrafice for each other.
A priest cannot celebrate the sacrafic of the Eucharist by himself because it is not an individual act.
By saying that I’m going to recieve only from the preist and to do so I will possition my self to do so, to me is putting that individual desire above the call for community.

Anyway, you STILL haven’t responded to what I’ve said twice, so I’ll quote it again.

 

[Brendan]

Recieving communion is not an indivdual act, it is the act of community. We go as one body to recieve this gift, and in our recieving we are called to embody all that being one in Christ implies. Love, caring, service, justice, sacrafice for each other.
A priest cannot celebrate the sacrafic of the Eucharist by himself because it is not an individual act.
By saying that I’m going to recieve only from the preist and to do so I will possition my self to do so, to me is putting that individual desire above the call for community.

 

[FAB]

How exactly is having a desire to recieve from the priest alone less of a community reception? Do you have any documentation to support this opinion?

No documentation just human action. I asked does recieving from an EMHC make any difference in the nature of the sacrament. I got the answer that it makes me feel closer to Christ if I recieve from the priest. How? So an individual, in my opinion, is breaking the line, disturbing the continunity and flow of all those recieving communion, breaking the communial action, because they feel they get something extra by recieving from the preist.

The Church gives lots of room for personal preferences. In the US you can recieve standing or kneeling, you can recieve on the tounge, or in the hand. After you return to your pew, you sit, stand or kneel as you choose.

Actually the prefered proceedure is to recieve while standing. Someone who kneels in the mist of communion line sort of mucks up the works. I also think it set up personal piety against a communial action.

Where exactly does the Church limit a person to recieve from the minister of their choosing? If it doesn’t why are you trying to go above the Church and place limts where the Church does not?

It doesn’t and I’m not. I just don’t find any compelling aurgument to only recieve from a priest except for person preferance. (me, myself and I)

We’ve already seen that the Church simply allows EMHC’s and does not consider it to be ideal. They are simply permitted under exceptional circumstances. Why should a person have a less than ideal Mass when it is within their power, and within Church teaching to experience the ideal?

even though prefered it’s not reality. The Church recongizes this fact and has offered other viable options.

Right, and we do both in a single species. the contents of the ciborium and the chalice and exactly the same, differing ONLY in how they appear to our human senses. Do you subscribe to the Utraquist Heresy and deny that we eat the Body AND drink the Blood of Christ within a single species.

No.

If not, they you must then admit, as the Church does, that Christ’s Command is fullfilled perfectly in the reception of a single specices.

And, if you do subscribe to what the Church teachs, why accuse anyone of not following Christ’s Command?

Yes I know the commandment is fullfilled in a single species and I wasn’t suggesting the contrary. I would have to do some reaserch on why the Church has allowed the laity to recieve under both species. Although I don’t know the exact reason, I can presum that it goes back to the last supper.

Peace,
FAB

 

[pickguard1]

:banghead:

 

[Jenny_Z]

But I would love it if you would find some documentation backing up your claim that 1) those who go to the priest’s line or sit in the priest’s area specifically to receive from him are doing so "contrary to the sacrament and 2) that those of us who don’t receive the Precious Blood “aren’t following Christ”.

 

[jennicalabrese0]

I have no* good* reason for wanting to receive from the Priest… I just do. Part of it may be that receiving from the Priest is the ONLY interaction I have with him other than Confession. Plus it just feels different for me… receiving from him rather than the teenager in a polo shirt. Truth be told, I wish the EMHCs didn’t exist. I’d rather wait in a long line for the Priest than be able to book it out of mass more quickly.

I’d also like it on my tongue and the EMHC are totally flustered by that. It’s almost embarassing. Why on my tongue? I don’t feel my hands are so clean… In the morning I’m dressing kids, putting on their shoes, wiping noses etc. I don’t feel my hands are clean enough to handle our Lord. And didn’t Mother Teresa say something about it making her sad to see us all handling Jesus?

Again, I have no good reason… and I DO want to be obedient and not put myself above others. I just wish it were different is all I guess.

I know not all churchs work the same but our Church there are some major rules that need to be followed by all Extraordinary Ministers of Communion.

1. Dress code- Dress clothes must always be worn on the altar. Men always wear dress pants, dress shirts, and ties. Women always wear skirts, dresses or dress slacks and appropriate blouses nothing low cut, tight, or see through.
2. All EMC’s must be 16 and older. Our church most teens do not even begin the training process until after they graduate high school.
3. Receiving on the tongue. My church is a traditional Italian church with over 50% of the parishioners receiving on the tongue. We practiced doing it so that the body does not fall and that we do not touch the tongue. I highly recommend that if the EMC’s appear flustered or as if they do not want to give on the tongue that you speak with your Director of Liturgy.

Being an EMC is a wonderful honor and I always remember the sacredness of the Sacrament each time I am given that honor. Also I am never offended when parishioners go to our Priest instead of me.

 

[pickguard1]

Recieving communion is not an indivdual act, it is the act of community.

 

[forever_always]

I dunno, hard to tell… (I don’t know why he would, that seems like it would cause a bit of confusion with the EMHC’s not knowing where to go)

If it was a huge hassle, I’d probably just find a different parish. I recently started going to a parish with an altar rail and extra deacons instead of EMHC’s, so the point is kinda moot for me.

Im jealous!!!

 

[FAB]

FAB;5192672:

Ah, so now we’re wrong if we don’t receive the Precious Blood?

Gotcha. You’re nitpicky, and way over-reacting to these things (and this is coming from a VERY traditional, nitpicky person here). I’m just going to have to agree to disagree with you.

I’m not nitpicky, I’m courious. What are your objections to recieving the precious blood?

Peace,
FAB

 

[Jenny_Z]

Jenny Z;5193069:

I’m not nitpicky, I’m courious. What are your objections to recieving the precious blood?

Peace,
FAB

1. The Eucharist is both fully the Body and Blood of Christ, one doesn’t receive the sacrament “more” simply because they choose to drink the Blood, just as a person who gets a piece of the Eucharist doesn’t receive less than someone who gets a whole, 2) I’m pregnant, and trying to stay away from as many means of catching colds as possible, 3) The EMHC’s with the Precious Blood are (obviously) slower than those with the Eucharist, and there tends to be a backup, so it’s easier for me to just get the Eucharist and get back to my pew.

 

[FAB]

This is not the case. We are united to the Mystical Body of Christ (which is His Church, which all the faithful are part of) through the reception of the Sacrament, so yes there is a community aspect after Communion is received. The act of going up and receiving the Eucharist is a very individual act, since no other member of the community can force one to receive, nor can they know the state of one’s soul. It’s not a “well he’s going up, so I should as well to be part of the community” type thing. It’s a "I (me, one person, myself) am going up to receive communion to THEN be joined to my bretheren in the Mystical Body of Christ. This happens regardless of how many people are there. If I am the only one attending Mass, does my being by myself eliminate the spriritual communion that takes place? No.

You imply that there must be a group of people receiving in order for one to take part in the “community”. What about those faithful who are in a state of sin but receive “spiritual communion”? What about those faithful who are sick, and cannot receive communion because of breathing/feeding tubes? What about the saints in heaven? The souls in Purgatory? Are we less united to them because they aren’t in line with us? You are ascribing way too much importance to the simple formation of a line.

I in no way advocate disrupting the communion line, since we should be repectful of the meditative environment that should be fostered during communion, (and all of mass for that matter). But if one moves from one to another withour disrupting anyone - nothing big has happened. Sorry. No dice. Someone just changed lines. That’s it.

From the USCCB office of Divine Worship

The liturgical assembly of the baptized that comes together for the celebration of the Eucharist is a witness to, a manifestation of, the pilgrim Church. When we move in procession, particularly the procession to receive the body and blood of Christ in Communion, we are a sign, a symbol of that pilgrim Church ‘on the way.’ For some, however, the experience of the Communion Procession is far more prosaic, analogous perhaps to standing on line in the supermarket or at the motor vehicle bureau. A perception such as this is a dreadfully inaccurate and impoverished understanding of what is a significant religious action.

The Communion Procession is an action of the Body of Christ. At Christ’s invitation, extended by the priest acting in Christ’s person: Happy are they who are called to his supper, the members of the community move forward to share in the sacred meal, to receive the body and blood of Christ which is the sign and the source of their unity. In fact, each time we move forward together to receive the body and blood of the Lord, we join the countless ranks of all the baptized who have gone before us, our loved ones, the canonized and uncanonized saints down through the ages, who at their time in history formed a part of this mighty stream of believers.

This shure sounds like a community action. United as one.
Peace,
FAB

 

[FAB]

Something additional

Finally, the fact that the Communion Procession is a profoundly religious action tells us something about the way in which we should participate in this procession. We are the Body of Christ, moving forward to receive the Christ who makes us one with himself and with one another. Our procession should move with dignity; our bearing should be that of those who know they have been redeemed by Christ and are coming to receive their God!

 

[FAB]

FAB;5193738:

1. The Eucharist is both fully the Body and Blood of Christ, one doesn’t receive the sacrament “more” simply because they choose to drink the Blood, just as a person who gets a piece of the Eucharist doesn’t receive less than someone who gets a whole

,
True, but the church feels it important that the people are offered and given under both species.

1. I’m pregnant, and trying to stay away from as many means of catching colds as possible,

Germs cannot live in the alchohol. The process of wiping and turning the cup also prevent the spread of the criters. Taking from the cup is actually more sanitary than you think.

1. The EMHC’s with the Precious Blood are (obviously) slower than those with the Eucharist, and there tends to be a backup, so it’s easier for me to just get the Eucharist and get back to my pew.

I could understand the rush because your pregnant, but what about before, and waht about after the baby is born. By the way congratulations.

Peace,
FAB

 

[FAB]

Reason to recieve under both species:

Holy Communion Under Both Kinds

1. From the first days of the Church’s celebration of the Eucharist, Holy Communion consisted of the reception of both species in fulfillment of the Lord’s command to “take and eat . . . take and drink.” The distribution of Holy Communion to the faithful under both kinds was thus the norm for more than a millennium of Catholic liturgical practice.

1. The practice of Holy Communion under both kinds at Mass continued until the late eleventh century, when the custom of distributing the Eucharist to the faithful under the form of bread alone began to grow. By the twelfth century theologians such as Peter Cantor speak of Communion under one kind as a “custom” of the Church. (28) This practice spread until the Council of Constance in 1415 decreed that Holy Communion under the form of bread alone would be distributed to the faithful.

1. In 1963, the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council authorized the extension of the faculty for Holy Communion under both kinds in Sacrosanctum Concilium:

The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact, Communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See. . . . (29)

1. The Council’s decision to restore Holy Communion under both kinds at the bishop’s discretion took expression in the first edition of the Missale Romanum and enjoys an even more generous application in the third typical edition of the Missale Romanum:

**Holy Communion has a more complete form as a sign when it is received under both kinds. For in this manner of reception a fuller sign of the Eucharistic banquet shines forth. Moreover there is a clearer expression of that will by which the new and everlasting covenant is ratified in the blood of the Lord and of the relationship of the Eucharistic banquet to the eschatological banquet in the Father’s kingdom. **(30)

**The General Instruction further states that “at the same time the faithful should be guided toward a desire to take part more intensely in a sacred rite in which the sign of the Eucharistic meal stands out more explicitly.” **(31)

1. The extension of the faculty for the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds does not represent a change in the Church’s immemorial beliefs concerning the Holy Eucharist. Rather, today the Church finds it salutary to restore a practice, when appropriate, that for various reasons was not opportune when the Council of Trent was convened in 1545. (32) But with the passing of time, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the reform of the **Second Vatican Council has resulted in the restoration of a practice by which the faithful are again able to experience “a fuller sign of the Eucharistic banquet.” **(33)

 

[FAB]

How currious. Even when presented with information from Church Sources and Church teaching. Still an augument and a desire to discount the very authority that is claimed to be followed.
Goes back to the original idea of changing lines to recieve from the preist. Seems less like personal preferance and more of personal stuborness.
For individuals so set on making certain every rule is followed to the letter, even when they are, unless it falls within your personal idea of what the Church should be, you reject them. :banghead:

Peace,
FAB

 

[pickguard1]

I think it’s important to mention here WHY communion began to be administered under one species. (I unfortuantley don’t ahve any source for this, so if any of you do, or can point me to it, please do.) It is my understanding that the practice of Holy Communion under one species was begun to combat the heresy of believing that Christ was not Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, under each species - that one HAD to receive both to recieve all of Christ.

Christ cannot be divided - He is One, and since He is One, he is fully present under either species alone. So, to insist that one receive both under the premise that doing so grants the recipient more grace, or a more “complete” sacrament is walking that dangerous line.

FAB, thanks for the quote from the USCCB. I understand the symbolic nature of processing up to communion. However, I don’t feel that someone (without disrupting things) switching lines, or going to the other line from the back of the Church to change lines in order to receive Communion from the priest diminishes this in any way.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

The posts that addressed not receiving the cup have been moved to this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=337087. Please take any further discussion of that issue there and keep to the OP’s topic here. Thank you all.

 

[Jenny_Z]

How currious. Even when presented with information from Church Sources and Church teaching. Still an augument and a desire to discount the very authority that is claimed to be followed.
Goes back to the original idea of changing lines to recieve from the preist. Seems less like personal preferance and more of personal stuborness.
For individuals so set on making certain every rule is followed to the letter, even when they are, unless it falls within your personal idea of what the Church should be, you reject them. :banghead:

Peace,
FAB

I just don’t understand how you don’t understand the definition of “obligation”. If the Church wanted to mandate that someone MUST receive from an EMHC, or MUST receive the Precious Blood, then the Church would do that. But it’s not an obligation.

Whether you want to believe it or not, there are bits of Catholic theology that are left up to the individual. A Catholic is free to take the creation story literally, or not. They’re free to attend different liturgies. They’re free to disagree on whether Mary was assumed to heaven before or after she died. Not everything is written in stone. And when it is written in stone, I don’t argue with it.

Not everything is black and white.

edit: I think I may have meant that for another thread, but I can’t tell, because they’re all mixed up now

 

[benedictgal]

How currious. Even when presented with information from Church Sources and Church teaching. Still an augument and a desire to discount the very authority that is claimed to be followed.
Goes back to the original idea of changing lines to recieve from the preist. Seems less like personal preferance and more of personal stuborness.
For individuals so set on making certain every rule is followed to the letter, even when they are, unless it falls within your personal idea of what the Church should be, you reject them. :banghead:

Peace,
FAB

But, the fact remains that EMHCs should be the exception and not the rule. The Church documents, specifically Redemptionis Sacramentum and Ecclesia de Mysterio (written seven years apart) make that point perfectly clear.

Unfortunately, there are many instances when using them is not justified. Daily Mass is one such occasions. The communicants do not even number 30 and yet one priest I know still can’t seem to make it without one. He is my best friend and we have been arguing over this. Incidentally, he is now not using an EMHC for daily Mass, given the fact that my pastor agreed with me, based on the documents.

 

[pickguard1]

For individuals so set on making certain every rule is followed to the letter, even when they are, unless it falls within your personal idea of what the Church should be, you reject them.
Peace,
FAB

I am curious which rules are being rejected here.