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.
pianistclare said:
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.
Click to expand...
You are absolutely correct.
 
elsker said:
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.
Click to expand...
  1. let’s make sure that we are using the correct terminology. An E.M (Eucharistic Minister) is a priest or a deacon. An EMHC is (an extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion.) It may sound like hair splitting but it is indeed important that we do not confuse the two because it confuses the actual Eucharistic experience. And to not make the distinction runs the risk of devaluing the Clergy and their offices. So when speaking, please take the time to refer to the person correctly. You will find doing so will bring to mind the importance of the hands that Consecrate the Eucharist.
  2. I was with you all the way up until the above post. Then it kind of seemed like a feeling of entitlement creeped in.
    Perhaps you needed direction and perhaps the EMHC was out of line. It should be your pastor’s job, not the EMHC.
    Sometimes I wonder if the EMHC use causes more problems than it solves.🤷
  3. Perhaps rethinking your view on the precious blood is needed. During the flu season here the Blood was ommited (except for the priest of course) And it went over fine. NOt only that but I often do not partake of the Blood if I have a cough or if I just don’t want slobbery stuff all up in my grille…🤷
 
pianistclare said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yep!
 
Personally, I have never encountered a parish where communion under both kinds (when offered) was only offered to some. IMHO there is a far greater risk of spillage in carrying a chalice down the steps of the sanctuary than there is in travelling along a (presumably) flat nave. Still, having had the experience of being involuntarily excluded from the host myself in the past (due to health issues), I can relate to the OPs concerns.

If communion under both kinds is offered generally to communicants, then the chalice should be taken to the disabled simply as a matter of good pastoral ministry to them. Otherwise, there is a real risk that they will (understandably) feel excluded or less than other communicants. Of course it is true that Christ, is received whole and entire even under only one species; that said, communion has a fuller form as a sign when it is distributed under both kinds. So this then prompts the question - what sign do we send to the elderly and disabled in our communities when we only permit them to receive under one kind at mass, while allowing the able-bodied to receive both kinds? Care and respect for the precious blood is obviously extremely important but what is the point of such reverence if applied to the exclusion of those most in need?
 
I can certainly understand a parish having a policy of not ‘travelling’ with a Chalice containing the Precious Blood. I’ve noticed that in mine an EMHC doesn’t accompany the priest when he goes to give Communion to a couple in the back row. Is it because of the fear of spillage or is it because they don’t want to receive under both species? I don’t know.

But something that seems to have been missed from the OP’s story is that Communion under both species IS usually brought to the pew and the occurrence this time was an anomaly. Wouldn’t you think that if there had been a change in the parish’s policy in this regard, those upon whom the change has a direct impact would have been informed in some way - a mention of this fact before distribution begins, perhaps?

I do find that the EMHC’s behavior during the recessional left something to be desired. Hopefully that will be addressed when the OP speaks with the Pastor.
 
EasterJoy said:
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.
Click to expand...
It’s never been done in our parish, no one expects it, no one is disappointed and NO ONE tells the priest what to do. I have never seen the Precious Blood carried to the back of the Church in any parish I have visited either and I do get around. Bringing the Host back is not done in most parishes. God Bless, Memaw
 
elsker said:
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. .
Click to expand...
I’m confused, your original post stated that Holy Communion WAS offered to the disabled, in the species of bread.

So all the ‘obligations’ were fulfilled. Sacramental needs WERE fulfilled. Accommodations WERE made for those who were in the pews.

So what is the actual problem?
 
  1. The OP did get in touch with the church secretary, who promised to bring the matter to the pastor. So presumably, things are going to be dealt with, in that parish.
  2. Most US parishes probably don’t have anybody with gluten allergies and disabilities, so the policy of Memaw’s parish is probably just fine for their current parishioners. If somebody with gluten allergies and disabilities were to join Memaw’s parish, I’m sure that the pastor would be happy to accommodate, as long as the disabled, gluten-allergic person said something about it to him.
  3. In a country like the UK where gluten allergies and Crohn’s, etc. are extremely common, accommodations of bringing the Precious Blood to the pews are probably more common.
  4. Many parishes deal with these problems by reserving seats at or near the front, for those who are disabled enough to need Communion brought to them under either/both species. This reduces the risk of spillage and other accidents.
But usually the ushers know all, and will help you find out what the heck is the deal with Communion for disabled people in that parish. Talking to them before Mass can help a lot!
  1. In general, if something inadvertent happens at Communion that would deprive you of Communion, it’s okay to try to flag down a Eucharistic minister before Communion ends. (If you don’t think you can do it, see if you can get an usher’s help! They know all!) If you haven’t received by the end of Mass and the ushers couldn’t manage anything, it’s usually better to go to the deacon, sacristan, etc; and if that gives you no joy, wait to talk to Father and he’ll fix you up. If nothing works out, you just shrug and wait for next Sunday.
  2. As for “holding up the Communion line,” there ain’t no such thing! Everybody who is Catholic, in a state of grace, and eligible to receive is eligible to receive in any order whatsoever. In the old days, there wasn’t any pew-by-pew order, and nobody died or got upset or got trampled. We are all beggars who’ve been invited to the wedding feast, and I’m happy to let somebody by me if they need to get in or out of the pew. No harm done!
  3. If everything is all messed up and it’s something that could happen again, you do need to talk to the pastor. Failing him, you talk to the deanery (or whoever does disabled stuff in the diocese). Failing them, you talk to the bishop, and failing him, the Vatican.
Hope this helps!
 
Memaw said:
It’s never been done in our parish, no one expects it, no one is disappointed and NO ONE tells the priest what to do. I have never seen the Precious Blood carried to the back of the Church in any parish I have visited either and I do get around. Bringing the Host back is not done in most parishes. God Bless, Memaw
Click to expand...
I am an EMHC, too. What usually happens is one of two things:
a) parishioners with mobility problems are told by the ushers that if they agree to be seated in designated areas the EMsHC will come to them and distribute Holy Communion to them under all species being made available to everyone else before beginning with everyone else. The ushers contain the able-bodied so that this poses no particular danger of spilling.
b) as Holy Communion progresses, the ushers identify anyone with mobility issues who was missed. Provided those persons can come to the end of a pew, the EMsHC are told of these persons by the ushers, and the EMsHC come to them after everyone else has returned to their seats. That includes having someone come with the Precious Blood, too, provided that it has not all been consumed already by other communicants (which cannot be helped).

This doesn’t happen because someone tells the pastor to do it. It happens because when pastors find that some members of their flock have desired to receive Holy Communion under both species but have not found a way to do it themselves, their pastor sees to it that they are taken care of. That is what pastors do. If it takes “opening up the roof” to do it, that’s what the pastors have done.

In any event, I do not know of any pastor who would be pleased to find that one of his EMsHC took it upon herself to berate someone who is ignorant of whatever system is in place in the parish, let alone one who decided she had to do it while the choir was still leading the congregation in song. I fail to see what hoped-for positive outcome could be given as an excuse for choosing such a confrontational tactic. I prefer to think the EMHC simply fell into a moment of poor judgment, and given the chance would not do it again. Most of us have done something like that in our lives.
 
Mintaka said:
Many parishes deal with these problems by reserving seats at or near the front, for those who are disabled enough to need Communion brought to them under either/both species. This reduces the risk of spillage and other accidents.

But usually the ushers know all, and will help you find out what the heck is the deal with Communion for disabled people in that parish. Talking to them before Mass can help a lot!

In general, if something inadvertent happens at Communion that would deprive you of Communion, it’s okay to try to flag down a Eucharistic minister before Communion ends. (If you don’t think you can do it, see if you can get an usher’s help! They know all!)…
Click to expand...
Exactly. This is the kind of thing that can be worked out. Pastors rarely say “too bad” to those who are prevented by physical disability from having the same access to the Sacraments as the able-bodied. They are more likely to be particularly solicitous that the infirm, the elderly, and children, who are all tended with extra care. When we need care and find some difficulty in our way we need to practice patience, but that is not the same as resigning ourselves to the idea that nothing can be done. Most pastors want to prove that by trying a few things first.
 
I’ve been reading the conversations going back and forth and I see that a lot of posters are either choosing to or honestly don’t understand the events as I’ve described them and are instead choosing to have whatever opinion of the events you have based on whatever you think about me. This is unfortunate as this is in my opinion a way to side with the EMHC in any event simply because their seems from my point of view an intolerance of the disabled in our parishes. No one of course woukd ever admit that but when I look around me in the parishes and see very view wheel chair users or other disabled, now I can guess why that is. So much for offering different scenarios involving other disabled in a hope to illuminate the challenges some of us face-seems it just made the heels dig in

Well, it’s easy to judge and speculate when it’s not you or someone you care for or care about hopefully that remains the case because it’s been said that :

Disability is a [minority] that one does not plan to be a part of but sadly can join at any time in life.

I apologize that I ever started this conversation to begin with. Lets consider this forgotten and not to be revisited if that’s ok with all of you.
 
pianistclare said:
People are assuming that this is a disabled person issue.
It’s NOT.
It’s about handing the Precious Blood with the utmost care.
Click to expand...
Yes, but I think part of the point is, in the original post the OP said “usually what happens is Father will bring communion to the disabled pews **and the e.m. follows with the precious blood.” **

If that’s what normally happened, it’s not unreasonable for them to have been surprised that it didn’t happen this time.
 
In the parishes I have been both species of Holy Communion have been brought to the disabled person. With one particular EMHC I was concerned that a spill might take place. She was running on high heels and holding the chalice at an angle. If a spill happened the Sunday before it might explain a sudden change in policy.

I was under the impression that only an EM or an EMHC was allowed to handle Holy Communion and that the OP’s sister definitely should not have gone up and tried to get the chalice. That said I consider the EMHC’s behavior to be inappropriate.

@Mintaka: every parish I have been in has definitely had at least one gluten intolerant person. Gluten intolerance isn’t rare here.
 
Mintaka said:
  1. The OP did get in touch with the church secretary, who promised to bring the matter to the pastor. So presumably, things are going to be dealt with, in that parish.
  2. Most US parishes probably don’t have anybody with gluten allergies and disabilities, so the policy of Memaw’s parish is probably just fine for their current parishioners. If somebody with gluten allergies and disabilities were to join Memaw’s parish, I’m sure that the pastor would be happy to accommodate, as long as the disabled, gluten-allergic person said something about it to him.
  3. In a country like the UK where gluten allergies and Crohn’s, etc. are extremely common, accommodations of bringing the Precious Blood to the pews are probably more common.
  4. Many parishes deal with these problems by reserving seats at or near the front, for those who are disabled enough to need Communion brought to them under either/both species. This reduces the risk of spillage and other accidents.
But usually the ushers know all, and will help you find out what the heck is the deal with Communion for disabled people in that parish. Talking to them before Mass can help a lot!
  1. In general, if something inadvertent happens at Communion that would deprive you of Communion, it’s okay to try to flag down a Eucharistic minister before Communion ends. (If you don’t think you can do it, see if you can get an usher’s help! They know all!) If you haven’t received by the end of Mass and the ushers couldn’t manage anything, it’s usually better to go to the deacon, sacristan, etc; and if that gives you no joy, wait to talk to Father and he’ll fix you up. If nothing works out, you just shrug and wait for next Sunday.
  2. As for “holding up the Communion line,” there ain’t no such thing! Everybody who is Catholic, in a state of grace, and eligible to receive is eligible to receive in any order whatsoever. In the old days, there wasn’t any pew-by-pew order, and nobody died or got upset or got trampled. We are all beggars who’ve been invited to the wedding feast, and I’m happy to let somebody by me if they need to get in or out of the pew. No harm done!
  3. If everything is all messed up and it’s something that could happen again, you do need to talk to the pastor. Failing him, you talk to the deanery (or whoever does disabled stuff in the diocese). Failing them, you talk to the bishop, and failing him, the Vatican.
Hope this helps!
Click to expand...
We do have gluten free Hosts, one has to make arrangements with Fr. ahead of time. And we do have pews reserved in front for those who need them but some still prefer to set farther back and Fr. takes Communion, (Host only) to them. Only Fr. does that, never a EMHC. Our Ushers do a great job. Never heard anyone complain how it is done, yet ! God Bless, Memaw
 
MSSheBear said:
I was under the impression that only an EM or an EMHC was allowed to handle Holy Communion and that the OP’s sister definitely should not have gone up and tried to get the chalice.
Click to expand...
I didn’t interpret it this way at all and since no one has commented I can only assume (yes, I know…) that other people understood the same thing as I.

When the OP wrote “(…) my daughter asked the e.m. if she could bring the precious blood to the pew. The e.m. said no.” “she” in this case is the EMHC, not the daughter. Wouldn’t it make sense that her daughter asked the EMCH to bring the Precious Blood to the pew since an EMHC brought it to the pew every other time?

The sister in this case only moved in order to accompany her sibling so that he/she (not sure if the OP is a man or a woman) could approach the EMHC who was responsible for the chalice.
 
Those who say that you don’t have to recieve both the chalice and host miss the point of doing so. The idea is concommitance, that Jesus is fully present under both species and this is certainly true.

It is however a fuller sign to receive under both species. There was a whole thread about this a month or so ago. It is not necessary but it is more fitting to receive under both species and a fuller expression of our faith.

-Tim-
 
MSSheBear said:
…With one particular EMHC I was concerned that a spill might take place. She was running on high heels and holding the chalice at an angle. If a spill happened the Sunday before it might explain a sudden change in policy.
Click to expand...
In this case, the greater issue is whether those shoes are too unstable to be prudent footwear for a extraordinary minister of Holy Communion at all. It is certainly fair to ask why on earth a EMHC would ever have to run with a chalice. When grade schools do fire drills, no one runs.
 
Phemie said:
I didn’t interpret it this way at all and since no one has commented I can only assume (yes, I know…) that other people understood the same thing as I.

When the OP wrote “(…) my daughter asked the e.m. if she could bring the precious blood to the pew. The e.m. said no.” “she” in this case is the EMHC, not the daughter. Wouldn’t it make sense that her daughter asked the EMCH to bring the Precious Blood to the pew since an EMHC brought it to the pew every other time?

The sister in this case only moved in order to accompany her sibling so that he/she (not sure if the OP is a man or a woman) could approach the EMHC who was responsible for the chalice.
Click to expand...
😊 I guess I misinterpreted it.😊
 
EasterJoy said:
In this case, the greater issue is whether those shoes are too unstable to be prudent footwear for a extraordinary minister of Holy Communion at all. It is certainly fair to ask why on earth a EMHC would ever have to run with a chalice. When grade schools do fire drills, no one runs.
Click to expand...
She was trotting to keep up with Father. She had been lagging behind. Are you actually going to take my side that six inch stilettos are too unstable for Mass? :eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top