Eucharistic Minister and blessing

[Sir_Knight]

I accept as a fact of life many things that I do not agree with. I deal every day with many issues that I do not agree with. The general attitude among many in in the Church today seems to be that we are somehow special and more deserving than were past generations and that we must have want we want whenever we want it. I have read indignant posts on this very forum when people would attend Mass somewhere and find out that the Chalice was not offered for example. They felt they were being deprived of the full sacramental grace of communion as a result. In other posts people would complain about communion dragging on and on forever.

When the Church tells me that as a layperson I MUST receive from an Extraordinary Minister then I will. I will obey the Churches teaching and authority as I always have. The Church has NEVER said that any church **MUST **use them, or that we the communicants MUST avail ourselves of them. Their very existance is merely an option, and a privilige, nothing more and nothing less, to be used as circumstances require. That salient point is often completely overlooked. They were never intended to be used at each and every Mass… Your rabid defense of Extraordinary Ministers didn’t make a lot of sense until you pointed out that you were one of 40 plus at your parish. It all became clear at that point.

It’s interesting that in the very same post you find fault with people because they think that they are “special” and “more deserving” than past generations and then you go on to say that you will not receive from a EMHC unless the church tells you that you MUST.

Aren’t you making yourself out to be more special and more deserving than others? If Rome approves it and the priest requests EMHC to help with the distribution, what makes you more deserving to receive from a priest than from a EMHC?

As Cristiano said, if everybody behaved like you and choose to receive from the priest instead of the EMHC then it would defeat the purpose and it would put an unnecessary burden back on the priest.

Oh, and for the record, I do not distribute at Mass. I minister ONLY to the sick and homebound and I didn’t ask to be a EMHC because I want to “play priest”. Instead, the pastor asked ME because he said that there was a great need. When I told him that I felt I was worthy, he replied that none of us are worthy and began telling me about the ill and homebound who desire and need someone to bring our Lord to them.

Until you walk in an EMHC’s shoes, be careful not to critize them for you MAY not know of what you speak.

 

[Sir_Knight]

It comes down to what palmas has stated above. The Church has not stated that we “must” receive from the EMHC. Further–since it belongs to the priest by virtue of their sacred ordination to administer Holy Communion—no one -should have a problem with anyone who prefers to receive from the priest.

Except, asCristiano said, if everybody would choose to receive from the priest instead of the EMHC then it would defeat the purpose and it would put an unnecessary burden back on the priest.

 

[Lion]

I always receive from an EMHC when the priest is out of town or on vacation and has already consecrated the host for distribution. But when he is here and in the Communion line, why should I go to the EMHC instead of him?

That is definitely your choice! Your personal choice. During Communion my focus is on the The Lord present in the Consecrated Host and not in who is distributing this miracle. However, are you suggesting that receiving a consecrated Host from an EMHC is somehow “lesser”

 

[Cristiano]

Congratulations:thumbsup: according to most Parishes only about a third of the registered members show up. Yours must be truly exceptional. I would love to go there. Could you let us know the name of this Parish?

You are correct we are about 18,000 registred people and I assume that about 6,000 show up at the services during the weekend.

 

[Cristiano]

Excuse me, that wasn’t meant for sarcasm.

You stated a 15 second time frame. I found that to be an awful lot of time per parishioner.

You didn’t need to respond with a nasty remark.

Sorry, I did not mean it as laughing at you. I took your comment seriously, and after that I imagined myself standing there timing my pastor. If you knew him you would realize that doing something like that is scarier than jumping from a three story building. I was lauthing at the idea of him getting on my case. I am sorry that my post gave the wrong impression.

 

[Walking_Home]

Except, asCristiano said, if everybody would choose to receive from the priest instead of the EMHC then it would defeat the purpose and it would put an b]unnecessary burden] back on the priest.

---

Interesting that you would say it puts an “unnecessary burden” on the priest. What does it mean to be in “persona christi”. Our Lord carried His cross to His own crucifiction—and hung on the cross until His death. I guess for a priest to administer Holy Communion to all who present themselves–would be to much of a cross from them to carry—an unnecessary burden.

 

[Cristiano]

---

Interesting that you would say it puts an “unnecessary burden” on the priest. What does it mean to be in “persona christi”. Our Lord carried His cross to His own crucifiction—and hung on the cross until His death. I guess for a priest to administer Holy Communion to all who present themselves–would be to much of a cross from them to carry—an unnecessary burden.

He was quoting my post. The comment for unnecessary burden is referred to the logistic of the Mass and not to the moral or physical burden of the individual. That is why ( in my understanding) the Church for now adopts the discipline of using EMHCs, not to spare the priest but for logistics.

 

[Sean.McKenzie]

I find this disturbing. Our lay ministers have been told that the most they would be doing was extending their own personal blessing on someone and that that shouldn’t be confused with the Church’s sacramental blessing. I don’t see how it can not be, however, and it needs to be dropped. If the Church thinks people not rec. Holy Communion during that time need to be blessed, then they should be instructed to go to the priests’ line. I like the idea of doing after Mass.

I don’t see how it can not be, however, and it needs to be dropped

I agree with you emphatically…The normal lay person does not catch or is able to discern the difference between an ordained minister blessing (Deacon or Priest) and a lay person extending some act of good will. And therein lies the problem confusion and pride. Pride, in that those extrodinary ministers, do not submit their entirety to the magesterium. And the local Ordinary (Bishop) is becoming increasingly heterodoxical.

 

[palmas85]

It’s interesting that in the very same post you find fault with people because they think that they are “special” and “more deserving” than past generations and then you go on to say that you will not receive from a EMHC unless the church tells you that you MUST.

Aren’t you making yourself out to be more special and more deserving than others? If Rome approves it and the priest requests EMHC to help with the distribution, what makes you more deserving to receive from a priest than from a EMHC?

As Cristiano said, if everybody behaved like you and choose to receive from the priest instead of the EMHC then it would defeat the purpose and it would put an unnecessary burden back on the priest.

Oh, and for the record, I do not distribute at Mass. I minister ONLY to the sick and homebound and I didn’t ask to be a EMHC because I want to “play priest”. Instead, the pastor asked ME because he said that there was a great need. When I told him that I felt I was worthy, he replied that none of us are worthy and began telling me about the ill and homebound who desire and need someone to bring our Lord to them.

Until you walk in an EMHC’s shoes, be careful not to critize them for you MAY not know of what you speak.

Yes, I suppose it could place a burdon on the Priest. I don’t really think so, but I will grant that it could. Rome said that Extraordinary Ministers could be used on occasion due to necesity. They said nothing about making the Priests job easier. What next, have Extraordinary Ministers to hear confessions too? That would make the Priests job . Or lets have Deacons do all the weddings, baptisms and funerals and that would make the Priests job easier still. In fact we could do as our separated brethren have done and do away with the Priesthood altogether and just have laymen proclaim the gospel. Where does it end? How easy do things have to be? Do we really have to cut Communion time down to five minutes or less in all circumstances?

And you are exactly correct, when and if the Church tells me that I have to receive from a layman I will. In obedience I will. But they haven’t and I’m not going to.

The Bishops in the US say that the norm is to receive standing. So I stand. I don’t agree with it or personally think it is right but i comply. They say the only sign of reverence needed is a nod of the head, so again I comply. They say you can receive on either the hand or tongue. I choose to receive on the tongue and have never received in the hand. Nor do I ever plan to unless the Church mandates it… That is a choice the Church gives me. It also gives a choice to receive from a Priest** or in ****extraordinary circumstances from someone else. ** Since I have yet to attend a Mass in which extraordinary circumstamces even remotely required anyone else, although there have been plenty of Extraordinary Ministers running around, I never have. In fact, I have actually seen Priests run some of them off because there were too many of them swarming the altar. .

As far as me thinking Im special, no Im not special at all. But the Priest is.

Actually, I know very well what Extraordinary Ministers do and what a lot, not all, but a lot of them think. I’ve been around for a long long time, and have talked to many many people. Further if you have read any of my posts you know that just about the only time I can see any justification at all for Extraordinary Ministers is to do what you say you do. …

 

[Cristiano]

I agree with you emphatically…The normal lay person does not catch or is able to discern the difference between an ordained minister blessing (Deacon or Priest) and a lay person extending some act of good will. And therein lies the problem confusion and pride. Pride, in that those extrodinary ministers, do not submit their entirety to the magesterium. And the local Ordinary (Bishop) is becoming increasingly heterodoxical.

The priest should educate the lay people (including the EMHCs) in what are proper behaviors and expectations during the liturgy. I assume that most of the abuses on the EMHCs’ side are not out of pride (but again, I cannot read their hearts!) but out of lack of proper training or even worse because of training based on abuses in order to make everybody’s life easier.

 

[Lion]

The Bishops in the US say that the norm is to receive standing. So I stand. I don’t agree with it or personally think it is right but i comply. They say the only sign of reverence needed is a nod of the head, so again I comply. They say you can receive on either the hand or tongue. I choose to receive on the tongue and have never received in the hand. Nor do I ever plan to unless the Church mandates it… That is a choice the Church gives me. It also gives a choice to receive from a Priest** or in ******extraordinary circumstances from someone else. Since I have yet to attend a Mass in which extraordinary circumstamces even remotely required anyone else, although there have been plenty of Extraordinary Ministers running around, I never have. In fact, I have actually seen Priests run some of them off because there were too many of them swarming the altar. .

As far as me thinking Im special, no Im not special at all. But the Priest is.

…

I am an EMHC and i agree with you totally. I am not offended at all by those who would prefer to receive from a priest. I prefer receiving on my tongue and kneeling but often times I do not out of “Respect/Consideration” for the rest of the masses… it is not that I’m scared but more out of charity to the community (I always kneel at the Consecration, but stand the rest of the time… this is how i was brought up and since it’s a miracle taking place i feel a need to do so) …my personal choice… I’ve lived in different places and experienced different practices. I always say amen when “whoever” says Body of Christ… as an EMHC, I would wait for the commmunicant to say the same… to me a NOD IS NOT ENOUGH!

 

[tequilamac]

Except, asCristiano said, if everybody would choose to receive from the priest instead of the EMHC then it would defeat the purpose and it would put an unnecessary burden back on the priest.

An unnecessary burden? An unnecessary burden? Excuse me, that is what the priest signed up for- unnecessary burdens. The Eucharist, the center and the life of our faith, is an unnecessary burden that in your judgement needs to be alleviated by the EMHC’s? Really?

If everyone chose to receive from the priest it would defeat what purpose? the purpose of laicizing the Church? the purpose of undermining the priesthood? The “unnecessary burden” of distributing the Eucharist?

I think that is the first time in all my born days that I have ever, ever heard anyone, whether they be catholic, presbyterian or even Baptist or Mormon, refer to the distribution of the Eucharist as an “unnecessary burden.”

 

[tequilamac]

---

Interesting that you would say it puts an “unnecessary burden” on the priest. What does it mean to be in “persona christi”. Our Lord carried His cross to His own crucifiction—and hung on the cross until His death. I guess for a priest to administer Holy Communion to all who present themselves–would be to much of a cross from them to carry—an unnecessary burden.

Again as I say, I really believe the problem here is that people really do not understand the difference between a priest and the laity. For instance in your own excellent example above, the priest has been called for that very thing- “to carry unnecessary burdens.” Unnecessary burdens. I have never heard anyone make that offensive of a remark. I have heard the Whore of Babylon stuff and I have argued with many a protestant and mormon about the Church. None of them, even the JW’s have ever made such a crass and stupid remark about the Church. Distribution of the Eucharist an “unnecessary burden”. Holy Mother of God, we really need more priests and less EMHC’s.

 

[Cristiano]

Again as I say, I really believe the problem here is that people really do not understand the difference between a priest and the laity. For instance in your own excellent example above, the priest has been called for that very thing- “to carry unnecessary burdens.” Unnecessary burdens. I have never heard anyone make that offensive of a remark. I have heard the Whore of Babylon stuff and I have argued with many a protestant and mormon about the Church. None of them, even the JW’s have ever made such a crass and stupid remark about the Church. Distribution of the Eucharist an “unnecessary burden”. Holy Mother of God, we really need more priests and less EMHC’s.

If you would take time to read #133 you probably would understand that the comment was referring to making some logistic decisions unnecessary after they were demed necessary by the priest and allowed by the Bishop. This assuming that the priest did is job instead of giving into possible selfish motivations of the people expected to support him.

Probably the wording of #133 was still confusing (and that would be my fault), but making such a Pindaric flight from that statement to the fact the distribution of the Eucharist would be an unecessary burden for the priest seems absurd to me. I would expect that an intelligent person (like you appear to be from your comments in the past) would give more credit to a Catholic and possibly would ask for further explanation.

The point is that there is a logistic associated with the liturgy, and that such logistic must be theologically appropriate, If the logistic is theologically appropriate an unnecessay change could be a burden on the flow of the liturgy. If the logistic is not theologically appropriate, than it would be an abuse since the beginning and it should be changed by the priest even before starting the celebration. A different example (that strikes a chord with me) is unnecessary contemporary music just after receiving communion, that takes away from the flow of the liturgy (our contemplation of the mistery of the Eucharist)

 

[Walking_Home]

If you would take time to read #133 you probably would understand that the comment was referring to making some logistic decisions unnecessary after they were demed necessary by the priest and allowed by the Bishop. This assuming that the priest did is job instead of giving into possible selfish motivations of the people expected to support him.

Probably the wording of #133 was still confusing (and that would be my fault), but making such a Pindaric flight from that statement to the fact the distribution of the Eucharist would be an unecessary burden for the priest seems absurd to me. I would expect that an intelligent person (like you appear to be from your comments in the past) would give more credit to a Catholic and possibly would ask for further explanation.

The point is that there is a logistic associated with the liturgy, and that such logistic must be theologically appropriate, If the logistic is theologically appropriate an unnecessay change could be a burden on the flow of the liturgy. If the logistic is not theologically appropriate, than it would be an abuse since the beginning and it should be changed by the priest even before starting the celebration. A different example (that strikes a chord with me) is unnecessary contemporary music just after receiving communion, that takes away from the flow of the liturgy (our contemplation of the mistery of the Eucharist)

---

Explain —theologically appropriate.

 

[tequilamac]

If you would take time to read #133 you probably would understand that the comment was referring to making some logistic decisions unnecessary after they were demed necessary by the priest and allowed by the Bishop. This assuming that the priest did is job instead of giving into possible selfish motivations of the people expected to support him.

Probably the wording of #133 was still confusing (and that would be my fault), but making such a Pindaric flight from that statement to the fact the distribution of the Eucharist would be an unecessary burden for the priest seems absurd to me. I would expect that an intelligent person (like you appear to be from your comments in the past) would give more credit to a Catholic and possibly would ask for further explanation.

The point is that there is a logistic associated with the liturgy, and that such logistic must be theologically appropriate, If the logistic is theologically appropriate an unnecessay change could be a burden on the flow of the liturgy. If the logistic is not theologically appropriate, than it would be an abuse since the beginning and it should be changed by the priest even before starting the celebration. A different example (that strikes a chord with me) is unnecessary contemporary music just after receiving communion, that takes away from the flow of the liturgy (our contemplation of the mistery of the Eucharist)

No. I don’t think so. I do think however that someone who purports himself as a Catholic should not make the assumption that we have EMHC’s so the priest does not get “Eucharistic elbow” from handing out the Host too frequently. The EMHC’s are EXTRA ordinary ministers. EXTRA- just in case. What people on this thread, like myself, are objecting to is that they have become ordinary rather than EXTRA. And it is not due to the muscle strain of the priest assuming an “unnecessary burden” in handing out the Eucharist.

 

[Cristiano]

The EMHC’s are EXTRA ordinary ministers. EXTRA- just in case. What people on this thread, like myself, are objecting to is that they have become ordinary rather than EXTRA. And it is not due to the muscle strain of the priest assuming an “unnecessary burden” in handing out the Eucharist.

I do not disagree with you on that. The priest should be honestly making that call without worrying about people taking offense for not being called to serve. I think that in this culture people are not familiar with the to true concept of serving. That is an act of submission (to support the mission) to the priest (in this case) and not an act of self fulfillment. Mary agreed to be the Handmaid of the Lord because she wanted to please Him and not her ego, and that is why she directs us to him and not herself. However, being an extremely rigid and conservative person myself I always must make an exercise in being open minded toward what I would assume are the people intents. The problem is that I can easily become to judgmental without knowing what really lies in peoples hearts.

 

[Cristiano]

---

Explain —theologically appropriate.

I am not trying to be offensive or sarcastic but my reply it is similar to what people say about obscenity. I can usually recognize it when I see it. However, it is up to the bishop and/or priest to establish what is Theologically appropriate, and it is my obligation to accept it out of obedience. It not up to me not to define it, just to follow it.

 

[Walking_Home]

I am not trying to be offensive or sarcastic but my reply it is similar to what people say about obscenity. I can usually recognize it when I see it. However, it is up to the bishop and/or priest to establish what is Theologically appropriate, and it is my obligation to accept it out of obedience. It not up to me not to define it, just to follow it.

---

Well Cristiano—since it was no priest or bishops who brought up theological appropriateness in this thread----it was you----I asked you the question. If you are not willing to explain it–then there was no reason to include it in your posts.

 

[Sean.McKenzie]

An unnecessary burden? An unnecessary burden? Excuse me, that is what the priest signed up for- unnecessary burdens. The Eucharist, the center and the life of our faith, is an unnecessary burden that in your judgement needs to be alleviated by the EMHC’s? Really?

If everyone chose to receive from the priest it would defeat what purpose? the purpose of laicizing the Church? the purpose of undermining the priesthood? The “unnecessary burden” of distributing the Eucharist?

I think that is the first time in all my born days that I have ever, ever heard anyone, whether they be catholic, presbyterian or even Baptist or Mormon, refer to the distribution of the Eucharist as an “unnecessary burden.”

AMEN AMEN AMEN!!! God BLess you! I find it disturbing to hear someone say that a priest is “unessecarily burdened” by taking a little bit more time to distribute Our Lord to the communicants…you hit it right on the head.