Have you ever intentionally avoided receiving communion from an EMHC so as to receive from a priest or deacon?

[BritishCatholic]

As far as bringing up non-Communicants to a priest/bishop for a blessing, I personally think there is nothing wrong with it.

I’ve always hated it when people say something like, “There’s a blessing before the end of Mass, so why get one during Communion?” That’s not the point.

See, when I was growing up, one of best friends aspired to become a Catholic and he eventually did. But, in the process, he was a Catechuman. And he said that he wanted to go up for a blessing because he wanted to be including during Holy Communion; even though he wasn’t actually receiving Holy Communion. And I supported him all the way. If someone wants to get an extra blessing, then by golly, let them get an extra blessing.

And any priest who refuses to give individual blessings during Communion to non-Communicants I think is just being cruel.

 

[Petergee]

As far as bringing up non-Communicants to a priest/bishop for a blessing, I personally think there is nothing wrong with it.

I’ve always hated it when people say something like, “There’s a blessing before the end of Mass, so why get one during Communion?” That’s not the point.

See, when I was growing up, one of best friends aspired to become a Catholic and he eventually did. But, in the process, he was a Catechuman. And he said that he wanted to go up for a blessing because he wanted to be including during Holy Communion; even though he wasn’t actually receiving Holy Communion. And I supported him all the way. If someone wants to get an extra blessing, then by golly, let them get an extra blessing.

And any priest who refuses to give individual blessings during Communion to non-Communicants I think is just being cruel.

Yes, if you put the poor priest on the spot by going up and demanding a blessing during communion, you make it awkward, embarrassing and very difficult for him to refuse. But you should not put him in that situation. A catechumen should be being taught that he should practice “spiritual communion” during the communion rite. This is how he can be included.

If he really thinks he can benefit from an extra individual blessing, he can ask the priest before or after Mass where it won’t put anyone in a difficult situation.

And if you think this is “cruel”, how’d you like to be living during the early centuries of the Church when all the catechumens were kicked out of the Church before the Offertory / Preparation of the Gifts began?

 

[Leopard]

I am sorry; I do not understand what you are trying to say. I have posted the old code of canon law, which clearly stated that only a priest was the ordinary minister of the Body of Christ and that a deacon was extraordinary. (This was pre-Vatican II.)

What exactly are you trying to say, something which seems in complete contradiction to this very clear law and practice of previous centuries?

I am not a good enough Latinist to understand the full nuance of the idiom in the excerpt you have posted, but I am certain that it does not mean that the office of Deacon, either permanent or transient, as it is understood today, is an un-ordained (extraordinary) state. (As opposed, for example, to some persons in the early Church known as diakonos (such as the deaconesses in the early Church) who may or not have been ordained as we understand that state today.)

 

[Chatter163]

See below.

 

[Chatter163]

I am not a good enough Latinist to understand the full nuance of the idiom in the excerpt you have posted, but I am certain that it does not mean that the office of Deacon, either permanent or transient, as it is understood today, is an un-ordained (extraordinary) state. (As opposed, for example, to some persons in the early Church known as diakonos (such as the deaconesses in the early Church) who may or not have been ordained as we understand that state today.)

There is little to understand because there are no “nuances” or “idioms involved.” The canon clearly states that the only ordinary minister of the Sacrament is the priest, and that the deacon is an extraordinary minister.

You seem to be equating ordinary/extraordinary with ordained/unordained, which has nothing to do with the canon. No one stated that deacons of yesteryear were unordained.
Prior to Vatican II, deacons did not administer communion, except in extraordinary circumstances, because of the canon previously cited. How much clearer could it be?

 

[Miserissima]

Back to the original question…

I did receive Jesus validly, Body Blood Soul and Divinity under both species, and should feel gratitude, but instead feel vaguely sinful for letting it “get” to me that I received from a woman. Going to do my best not to get into that situation again. . .

I empathise, Khoria Anna, I really do.

I used to not mind receiving Communion from an EMHC, but in the past few years I’ve made it a point to get the main aisle seating to receive from the priest.

Not that I wouldn’t receive from an EMHC, but I prefer receiving from the priest. I never thought about why.

“My whole problem with this discussion is that I have difficulty sorting out any reason for a preference which doesn’t indicate some disproportionate focus on the vehicle as opposed to the Gift itself.”

Perhaps it would be a test of humility for me (not suggesting this is for everyone, just me) to be less…pious, in this regard. If the Church is okay with EMHCs, then I should swallow my pride and focus my reverence on the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ and less on how the Host is coming physically to me, the least worthy.

Sometimes it’s harder to do the things that are asked of us, especially when they take us our of our ‘comfort zone.’ It’s a very difficult act of submission I’ll seriously have to think about this week.

 

[lak611]

There is little to understand because there are no “nuances” or “idioms involved.” The canon clearly states that the only ordinary minister of the Sacrament is the priest, and that the deacon is an extraordinary minister.

You seem to be equating ordinary/extraordinary with ordained/unordained, which has nothing to do with the canon. No one stated that deacons of yesteryear were unordained.
Prior to Vatican II, deacons did not administer communion, except in extraordinary circumstances, because of the canon previously cited. How much clearer could it be?

The Code of Canon Law that is binding is the 1983 version which states:

Can. 910 ß1 The ordinary minister of holy communion is a Bishop, a priest or a deacon.

ß2 The extraordinary minister of holy communion is an acolyte, or another of Christ’s faithful deputed in accordance with can. 230 ß3.

Deacons are ordinary ministers of Holy Communion.

 

[Aramis]

There is little to understand because there are no “nuances” or “idioms involved.” The canon clearly states that the only ordinary minister of the Sacrament is the priest, and that the deacon is an extraordinary minister.

Current cannon law (1983) in Canon 6 completely abrogates the 1917 code. It permits, in canon 910, explicitly state that the ordinary minister of Holy communion is a Bishop, Priest, or Deacon.
Canon 911 defines the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion as a member of the faithful.

While under the 1917, the Deacon was the only EMHC, that hasn’t been true since 1983 at all.

Links in canon numbers are to the Vatican’s English Translation of the Code of canon law.

 

[Leopard]

…You seem to be equating ordinary/extraordinary with ordained/unordained…

That is correct. “Ordinary” in this context indicates a person in the ordained state. “Extarordinary” in this context (Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion) indicates a person outside the ordained state.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Sojo said

When we have visiting priests, including once the Bishop, we were in the “wrong” line. Not wanting to upset the balance of things with a visitor, we just stayed in the line with the EM and gently moved my son to the side (no, an EM cannot do a blessing in the communion line according to the Vatican, anyway) while we received. We have been surprised EVERY single time to see the visiting priest and even the Bishop step out of their position to come over and bless my son. We were very touched. After the Mass, we did stand in line to shake the Bishop’s hand (doesn’t come out to our little rural parish often!), and my son threw himself into the man’s arms.

re–no, an EM cannot do a blessing in the communion line according to the Vatican, anyway

I guess you are referring to EMHC (usually EM refers to Eucharistic Minister which is the ordinary minister-Priest or deacon), but anyway Do you have documentation for this? I understand that there is no prohibition of this practice.

Lux

 

[Chatter163]

I was not claiming that the 1917 code was still in effect. I am well aware that it was superceded by the 1983 code. I was replying to a specific member who stated that the deacon had always been, at all times in Church history, the ordinary minister of holy communion. I cited the 1917 code to prove that such was not always the case. For many centuries deacons were not ordinary ministers of the Sacrament, but extraordinary. I have no problems with deacons of today routinely administering the Sacrament.

 

[CatholicCajun]

YES!! Husband and I REFUSE to take Communion from anyone but the Priest. Our Priest goes about the church distributing Communion to the handicapped, why he does not have them sit in the front pew is beyone me, but we wait until he finishes his journey throught the church and then go and stand where we know he will be distributing Communion. God Bless.

 

[Petergee]

YES!! Husband and I REFUSE to take Communion from anyone but the Priest. Our Priest goes about the church distributing Communion to the handicapped, why he does not have them sit in the front pew is beyone me, but we wait until he finishes his journey throught the church and then go and stand where we know he will be distributing Communion. God Bless.

Your charitable attitude overwhelms me. We can’t have those cripples sitting with “normal” people can we? So what if they have trouble walking? Let them walk the full length of the church to get them away from us so we don’t have to wait to receive Communion from our chosen minister because we REFUSE to receive it from anybody else. “Normal” people are free to choose to sit wherever they like, but those cripples should sit only where I want them to sit.

Your post is disgraceful.

 

[CatholicCajun]

To the person I offended with my reply. I am sorry my post offended you. I guess I should have explained myself. I understand people can sit where ever they want. In our last Parish, the priest would have all the handicapped people sit in a special front pew reserved for them, he would bring each of them Communion where they sat and they did not have to worry about people trying to move over them to get to and from Communion and they also got to receive kneeling down if they could, it was also near the exit of the church with the ramp so they could get into and out of church easier plus park next to those doors. In our new parish they don’t do this and that was my point. Again I am sorry if I offended you. God Bless.

 

[Petergee]

Maybe your priest goes and gives communion to all the disabled people himself because he’s worried that one of them might have an attitude like yours and refuse communion if he sends an EMHC to them, creating a most undignified scene.

 

[catholicapmama]

I always try to sit on the side of the church that I know will be in line to receive Communion from the Priest.

I think my main problem with Eucharistic ministers is that in most cases, they seem so unnecessary. Why is it that we have to do everything SO FAST that we cannot wait in line for an extra 3 minutes to receive Communion? We must have 10 people giving out Communion so that no one has to wait? It just seem so impatient to me. And I have gone to Masses where there were only 20+/- people and there was a Eucharistic minister. Why?

 

[Sarabande]

Why is it that we have to do everything SO FAST that we cannot wait in line for an extra 3 minutes to receive Communion?

I sometimes feel that way as well. I cantor at two parishes - my cathedral parish every week and my home parish whenever I have the time (I was doing it once a month this summer, but for this fall the dates that I’m available they have some folk group). At the cathedral they usually have two EMHCs, two to three priests and maybe the deacon distribute communion. It never feels rushed nor too long and there are a lot of people that come to mass.

At my home parish, they seem to always have between 10-15 EMHCs with one or two priests. That feels rushed. My instincts were correct though. Three Sundays ago the monsignor was in the sacristy speaking with someone else. He said, “When you have the meeting the Eucharistic Ministers, make sure you tell them that even if they aren’t on the schedule for that mass, to come up anyway. We need to get communion done as quickly as possible.” I was struck speechless. I didn’t know the mnsgr and it was the first time he ever met me and was kind to me, so I didn’t feel it was my place to say anything, especially since it was right before mass began and I had to be out there at 9:29:30 seconds (literally - 30 seconds to make the announcements so to be completed and starting the hymn exactly at 9:30. He is very precise with time). I also could have misunderstood him, but it was pretty straight forward. Perhaps his obsession with time is the reason for him wanting to get mass done quickly. He may not like it to last an extra three or five minutes, but it’s still the wrong reason to have extra EMHCs. If there truly was a deficiency, I understand having them like the way we do it at the Cathedral, but just for the reason to get mass done quickly?

I personally like the anticipation of receiving Jesus while in line - sort of like the tingly sensation when you are looking forward to seeing someone you really love.

 

[Petergee]

We all know that there are some priests who use too many EMHCs. The solution to this is to take it up with the priest outside of Mass.
Your avoiding receiving from an EMHC will not make any priest reduce the number of EMHCs. If anything, it will cause him, if he notices you doing it, to conclude that you do not understand that the Eucharist is exactly the same whether it’s received from an EMHC, a priest or the Pope. And it may even lead him to (wrongly) stop giving Communion himself in order to “force” you to receive from an EMHC in order to teach you this lesson.

 

[Sarabande]

We all know that there are some priests who use too many EMHCs. The solution to this is to take it up with the priest outside of Mass.
Your avoiding receiving from an EMHC will not make any priest reduce the number of EMHCs. If anything, it will cause him, if he notices you doing it, to conclude that you do not understand that the Eucharist is exactly the same whether it’s received from an EMHC, a priest or the Pope. And it may even lead him to (wrongly) stop giving Communion himself in order to “force” you to receive from an EMHC in order to teach you this lesson.

Well, it’s a non-issue for me at my home parish, since I’m only there whenever I cantor (which is like once a month) and the priest is the only one distributing at that point before they start distributing to the rest of the congregation. I do plan on mentioning something nicely next time, if he does mention the importance of having the EMHCs to speed it up and finish mass more quickly.

 

[jaaraf]

No, since there are always several people at Mass (even on weekdays) at my own parish, and other parish churches where I may happen to attend mass, so more often than not, I receive communion from a lay minister, but I always receive with the tongue (a special reason of reverence on my part, I suffer from idiopathic palmar hyperhidrosis- sweaty palms)