E. M. Rudely Admonished My Family During the Final Hymn of the Mass Today

  • Thread starter Thread starter elsker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So someone was rude. 🤷

I’d need a psychiatrist if I took it personally every time someone was rude with me and I have done a lot worse to other people.

They nailed our Lord to a tree. Get over it and go on with life.

-Tim-
šŸ‘
 
So someone was rude. 🤷

I’d need a psychiatrist if I took it personally every time someone was rude with me and I have done a lot worse to other people.

They nailed our Lord to a tree. Get over it and go on with life.

-Tim-
But he was divine and human…we are only human, so while we strive to be Christ like, the expectation of us overcoming the frailty of human nature is unlikely. The best we can hope for is to follow the new commandment to love others as he has loved us.

ā€œGetting over itā€ may simply enable others to show a lack of charity, and offer excuses for such actions.
 
So someone was rude. 🤷

I’d need a psychiatrist if I took it personally every time someone was rude with me and I have done a lot worse to other people.

They nailed our Lord to a tree. Get over it and go on with life.

-Tim-
Words fail. So you think it fine to be rude?
 
We were not there.
We have no idea what people perceive as rude.
I think it was a great misunderstanding on both of their parts.
That’s why I advocate, forgiveness, and moving on.
He received.
All is well. Or, it should be.
 
I need some advice from e.m.'s who routinely deal with disabled communicants …

I go to a parish with my family and usually what happens is Father will bring communion to the disabled pews and the e.m. follows with the precious blood. Today that didn’t happen and my daughter asked the e.m. if she could bring the precious blood to the pew. The e.m. said no. My sister had to climb past the people in her pew to take me to receive the precious blood. This was also disruptive because it held up the line. I was so embarrassed that we just stood in the back until everyone was done.

During the last hymn while we were all singing that same e.m. came up and rudely stated that she would not bring the precious blood to the pew. When my daughter asked her to speak to me instead of over my head she rolled her eyes and started in anew. She was very agitated and kept yelling at my daughter (meanwhile the choir was still singing and all that). In my mind mass is not over until the hymn is finished.

Two questions: What is the protocol for dispensing communion to the disabled?

What is the protocol for correcting communicants who may not know they are receiving communion incorrectly?

Thanks for your help. Blessings Elsker
Every parish is going to be different in how communion is distributed to the disabled. As pianistclare stated, her parish does not travel around the church with the Precious Blood for fear of spilling. At our church, unless you are in the front pew, you do not receive the Precious Blood either. With the Eucharist, I often see the priest or the EMs bringing It to the back for disabled communicants.

Should the EM have come to your family and railed at you during the closing hymn? Of course not. There is no protocol that needs to be referenced to tell you that was rude and uncharitable. Depending on just how much she gave you guys the smack down, you can take the matter to the pastor or the person in charge of the formation of EM’s. Otherwise, take this humiliation with as much patience and humility as you can and offer it to our Lord. You received the fullness of the Lord in the Bread alone, so you are not lacking if you cannot recieve Him in the Blood as well. God bless.
 
So someone was rude. 🤷

I’d need a psychiatrist if I took it personally every time someone was rude with me and I have done a lot worse to other people.

They nailed our Lord to a tree. Get over it and go on with life.

-Tim-
Not sure I am agreeing with you on this post, Timothy. I usually do, but I think you may be disregarding the feelings of the OP, and kind of disregarding that people should not be rude to one another. Yes, she should move on and forgive. Absolutely, but what you said sort of seems like you are pinning this on her, and making it seem like rudeness is ok, that we all do it from time to time, and we should just all get used to it. If that were the case, what need is there for forgiveness if we have sinned on others and we should ā€˜just get over it’? It misses the mark of charity to suggest it.

Sorry!
 
There is a big difference between rudeness and embarrassment.
Both parties may have experienced both, IMHO
Are you saying that people cannot be mistaken? Or make mistakes?
I think the point is, we’ve all done something that we wish we could take back.
We need to forgive ourselves as well as others…when things go way out of whack.
 
I never wrote that. Those are your words, not mine.

Personally, I would have laughed, turned around and walked away. That’s all.

-Tim-
I’m fine with people being rude out on the street but not in a house of God and not when they decided to volunteer to hold a particular position that requires them to interact with the faithful during the mass. Anymore it seems as if people are treating their parishes like the local coffee shop and behaving as the please without regards to the sacredness of the space or the liturgy.

My fear is that due to attitudes such ad this one, the disabled are probably not feeling welcomed in the parishes and may not be availing themselves of the sacraments because it’s just too much of a hassle to do so-this is unfortunate.

I do realize that I DON’T HAVE to receive the precious blood since Father had given me the body. But with all due respect, neither do any of you have to receive from the chalice if you have received the eucharist but I’m betting a lot of you receive both as well. It is a choice that we are free to make if our parishes permit it. Furthermore, the excuse that an e. m. might spill the precious blood and that is why they won’t walk the two feet to the pew to give it is absurd considering the e.m.'s have to descend 4 steps down from the alter at my parish with FULL chalices in order to give the precious blood to the faithful. They could slip and fall because of poor balance or high heels, slick floors from a sprinkling rite, etc. I once saw an e.m. with shaky hands spill a whole bowl of hosts and she was standing still!

There are some persons who can’t receive the eucharist due to allergy and have to take from the chalice. Now does that mean that if they are disabled and have no one to assist them that they should NEVER receive? This isn’t about ME so much as it’s about my concern for the disabled who may have to put up with this type of attitude and may have just given up on going to mass altogether.

I respectfully ask everyone to put themselves in the shoes of the disabled in our parish communities. As advances in medicine result in more people living with disability than had in the past (where instead they would have died) we will be confronted with a population that’s living longer, living disabled and will be in need of the sacraments more than ever before.

I could get into confessionals not being accessible and parishes having steps but no ramps at all and so on but you get the point.

Unless our holy father wants to declare all disabled no longer in need of the sacraments, there will have to be tolerance shown and accommodations made so that the disabled can faithfully meet the obligations in the same way as the able bodied.

You, know it’s bad enough that groups outside of religion are doing what they can to get others to bend to their will in regards to choices they make but when people of faith are shown that their obligation to exercise that faith is worth less than that shows that the priorities in this country are all wrong and that the priorities in regards to meeting the needs of the faithful in our parishes are even more wrong.

I contacted the diocese to verify first if our bishop had a general policy in place-he does not. I contacted the parish and spoke to the secretary who said she would take this to the pastor. She said she would get back to me.
 
So your contention is that she said you should NOT receive at all?
I’m confused.
I thought this was about not receiving the Precious Blood, from someone who may have been instructed not to walk around.
I’ll be anxious to see what the Pastor says after investigation and speaking to both parties.
Keep us posted.
 
AMEN, in our parish they don’t ever bring the Precious Blood to the back of the Church. The Sacred Host is both Body and Blood of Our Lord. What’s the fuss? God Bless, Memaw
This is what your pastor has explicitly said–that is, if someone cannot leave their pew in order to receive the Eucharist under both species because the person is disabled, too bad for her? That would be both unusual and unfortunate. 😦

Normally, if a communicant is prevented from receiving under both species because of an unfortunate confluence of circumstance and the communicant’s disability, there would be an apology and an explanation issued after the fact, not a rebuke. The communicant would be instructed on how to help the parish accommodate him or her better in the future, such as asking the ushers to seat the person in a particular place where both species can be distributed to a person still at their place without worry of spilling or having the ushers alert the ministers to give the disabled person communion before the ushers allowed the rest of the congregation to leave their pews. Something is almost always worked out, but in any event there is no rebuke for desiring to receive Holy Communion under both species when this is being made available to the rest of the laity.
 
I never wrote that. Those are your words, not mine.

Personally, I would have laughed, turned around and walked away. That’s all.

-Tim-
While that is a praiseworthy response in that it is generous towards the minister, it is not generous in terms of alerting him or her about how a person other than you might feel if they got the same treatment.

The described behavior can’t be anyone’s ideal for Christian communication during Mass, let alone during the moment of Holy Communion, when we are to be drawn together in profound closeness by the bonds of faith, hope and love. You don’t want to set your fellow parishioner in a position of trust to offend someone who is not so thick-skinned as you are. It would be better to approach them, praise their desire to protect the Eucharist from being accidentally profaned, and yet point out that her manner might have struck you as lacking in charity had you not known her true intentions.
 
I do realize that I DON’T HAVE to receive the precious blood since Father had given me the body. But with all due respect, neither do any of you have to receive from the chalice if you have received the eucharist but I’m betting a lot of you receive both as well***]**. It is a choice that we are free to make if our parishes permit it.
But it is not anyone’s *right *to receive it nor is there any necessity for the parish that does offer the precious blood to do so in the fashion requested by any particular parishioner (cf. [post=12947885]the policy of pianistclare’s parish[/post])

(* And lot of us do not, even when the cup is proffered)

(** Or if there is, expect a lot more of your parishes to offer intinction at a communion rail – I am on my way for a visit)
Furthermore, the excuse that an e. m. might spill the precious blood and that is why they won’t walk the two feet to the pew to give it is absurd…
And yet, the creation and enforcement of such a policy is unquestionably within the purview of the pastor – Unquestionably.

Care for and ministry to the disabled is definitely a pastoral call – But the place to make the call is not during the celebration of the liturgy.

:twocents:
tee
 
perhaps there was a misunderstanding in the first incident but really there was no need for the second encounter. in Ireland we rarely take the wine or blood of Christ at mass. if somebody is unable to go up to receive they usually are seated near the front and the priest or one of the e m will bring the host to them. its a sad situation and nobody should be made to feel bad or upset. I hope you get over this and can continue to attend.
 
This is what your pastor has explicitly said–that is, if someone cannot leave their pew in order to receive the Eucharist under both species because the person is disabled, too bad for her? That would be both unusual and unfortunate. 😦

Normally, if a communicant is prevented from receiving under both species because of an unfortunate confluence of circumstance and the communicant’s disability, there would be an apology and an explanation issued after the fact, not a rebuke. The communicant would be instructed on how to help the parish accommodate him or her better in the future, such as asking the ushers to seat the person in a particular place where both species can be distributed to a person still at their place without worry of spilling or having the ushers alert the ministers to give the disabled person communion before the ushers allowed the rest of the congregation to leave their pews. Something is almost always worked out, but in any event there is no rebuke for desiring to receive Holy Communion under both species when this is being made available to the rest of the laity.
People are assuming that this is a disabled person issue.
It’s NOT.
It’s about handing the Precious Blood with the utmost care.
There’s a reason why we approach. If a person cannot approach, then the priest or Deacon comes to them. But rarely, rarely does the cup come to the people. Whether it be able bodied persons in the choir loft or disabled people at the rear of the church.
As been said many times, one received COMPLETELY with the host.
We need to refrain from making this a discriminatory issue.
It’s really not. A person may FEEL like they were being treated poorly, but it’s not about that. Truly.
 
Personally, I thought the sister was rude for making a fuss about it.She could have stayed put !! God Bless, Memaw
I agree. I would never have made a fuss about it.

It is not necessary to receive both. Our Lord is contained fully in each.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top