C
crenfro
Guest
I’m curious what the motivation is in asking this question…
Have you ever intentionally avoided receiving communion from an EMHC so as to receive from a priest or deacon?
- Status
P
PoliSciProf
Guest
Absolutely Not!
G
Generic_Man
Guest
I have no problem whatsoever recieving from an EM. They’re recognized as valid by the Church, that’s good enough for me.
P
Petergee
Guest
CatholicCajun, please forgive me for overdoing the sarcasm towards you. This thread has been quite frustrating.
A
Ad_Deum
Guest
YES, I did it many times because I believed that the order of Clergy has the sole authority to give communion.
O
otjm
Guest
Speed is relative (I think that came from Einstein???). Seriously, it has been my personal experience that since we started receiving standing, as opposed to kneeling at a communion rail, that the time spent between whoever is distributing Communion - priest or EMHC - and the recipient is longer. It wa my experience - both as a recipient and as an altar boy prior to Vatican 2, that the priest would speed down the line with almost one continual sounding statement in Latin; that is, it was hard tio distinguish when he finished the phrase and started the next one, and he was not unkown to chastise someone who did not have their tongue out far enough. Now, there seems to be more time - or “The Body of Christ” seems to be said slower; the distributor waits for the response “Amen” and then distributes - either in hand or on the tongue.
I would agree that the whole parish may receive more quickly; but at the same time, each individual receives more slowly. Others may not agree, but I find the slower distribution now to be more reverant.
I recently attended Mass in a parish that still used the Communion rial, and I was struck at how quickly the priest moved down the rail distributing Communion. Each individual waited longer because there was only one priest; but he most certainly did not linger with each communicant. I know some people find it more reverant to be kneeling and receiving on the tongue; I find it more reverant (because of the timespent infront of whoever is dsitributing) to be more reverant - and on the tongue is just as much on the tongue.
Just my observations.
CatholicCajun
New member
All is forgiven. God Bless you.
D
Donna_Mc
Guest
I totally agree with you! I could never understand this either!
Aside from that, I prefer to receive from a priest if possible.
M
maryjk
Guest
Nope, but then I don’t receive the Host. I receive only from the Chalice. Since we have one vigil mass and four Sunday masses and only one Deacon the chances that the Deacon is at the same Mass I attend is slim. So I receive from whomever is standing to the right of my Priest.
L
Leopard
Guest
I think this may be directed at me.
I am reminded of a discussion I had with my daughter when she was very young. I was telling her the story of Moses and one of the details I mentioned was that Moses’ brother Aaron and his sons became the first Jewish priests. “But Daddy”, she objected “you said the Apostles were the first priests.” It was a natural confusion from the same word being used in two different manners in similar contexts.
We seem to have the same situation here. when I said “…the deacon is indeed today and has been as long as this clerical state has existed, an ordinary minister of the Blessed Sacrament under either species…”, I meant that the Deacon is today and has been as long as this clerical state has existed, (as opposed to other possibly unordained persons in the early Church known as diakonos) an ordained minister through the sacrament of Holy Orders (as the sacramental theology of Holy Orders has been understood throughout Church history), as opposed to an unordained (extraordinary) person authorized to distribute Holy Communion under certain circumstances.
If the citation from the earlier Code of Canon Law is correct, and I have no reason to think it may not be, then this might seem to contradict my point, but it does not do so any more than the pre-existence of the Aaronic priesthood would mean that Apostles were not the first priests in the Catholic Church. The terms as used in the two different contexts do not mean the same thing.
Likewise, the term Extraordinary Minister as applied to the deacon in the citation does not mean the same thing as the same title applied to the lay Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. What it does mean I do not know. Perhaps it means that the deacon is not ordained to confect the Eucharist, which is true but still not the same thing as the term means when applied to the Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. If the term did mean the same thing, then it would have to mean either:
The office of deacon is not clerical state through the sacrament of Holy Orders (the state of the Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion.)
or
The lay or non-clerical religious Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion actually is an ordained person through the sacrament of Holy Orders, although not ordained to confect the Eucharist (the state of the deacon.)
Both alternatives being clearly false, the conclusion must be as stated before, the deacon is today and has been as long as this clerical state has existed, an ordinary minister of the Blessed Sacrament, based on the definition for the terms “ordinary” and “extraordinary” as used to describe liturgical ministry today. Other uses of the terms, whether from the the previous Code of Canon Law or from persons who equivalate “extraordinary” with “rarely” are accidents of language.
C
chsngtailodogma
Guest
yep. i have intentionally avoided receiving communion. usually whenever i’m not at my normal church. i know that may be in a lot of ways wrong and/or intolerant, but i’ve tried. usually i receive communion kneeling and by mouth from a priest. my other option is standing and in the hand by (to me) a random person. i tried once to receive in this way, but at the last minute, when i got to the front of the line, i couldn’t bring myself to take it. so i just opened my mouth, thinking hopefully they’ll just put it on my tongue. no such luck. i think i confused them or, i don’t know… something… we just paused for a moment, and i ended up walking away. i was pretty embarrassed about the whole thing and never tried to take communion at another church again. even though yeah i probably just should.
L
Lux_et_Tenebrae
Guest
It is sad when these misunderstandings happen.
I underatand why you would be reluctant. Would you just say please put the host on my tongue? If the EMHC refused or did not know how, they are not properly trained, and should be the one embarrassed, not you.
Lux
I underatand why you would be reluctant. Would you just say please put the host on my tongue? If the EMHC refused or did not know how, they are not properly trained, and should be the one embarrassed, not you.
Lux
B
beckers
Guest
I second this. Don’t be afraid to receieve on the tongue.
P
Petergee
Guest
NOT a random person, but someone who the parish priest has specifically selected and decided is an appropriate person to perform this role.
What if you had no idea who the priest was, but the EMHC happened to be somebody you knew well? Would you receive from the priest who is, to you, “a random person”?
B
Brendan
Guest
The priest, during Mass, is Persona Christi, that is, Christ Himself. Thus he IS always a person we know well, as he created us.
C
chsngtailodogma
Guest
i wouldn’t consider a priest to be a “random person”, so that would be a non-issue.
- Status