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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lepanto
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes I have…in situations where there were almost as many people in the pews as people up on “stage”…I remeber a Mass one time where there was 40 people in the pews and 10 people up on “stage” (gee look at me…aren’t I imoportant in the church). EMHCs exist for the SOLE reason that they are needed in EXTRAORDINARY cirucumstances to distribute…Extraordinary means RARELY
 
I have when travelling and attending parishes I am not familiar with. Since I receive on the tongue, I feel the odds are better that the priest won’t flub it. Most parishes don’t use patens anymore. If I am going to an EMHC outside of my own parish, I will receive in the hand in order to minimize the chance of Our Lord dropping to the floor.
 
Even in the old rite and old piety…a deacon was considered fine, an ordinary minister. In fact, that was one of the main jobs of the early deacons; being the cleric who brought communion to the sick.

Avoiding the deacon to go to the priest…is unnecessary and represents a misguided piety or theology.

Don’t avoid the deacon, though it is preferable (when the cup is given) that the priest handle the hosts and the deacon handle the cup.

However, even in the old days…the deacon was a-okay for giving communion.
Click to expand...
While I agree the reception from a deacon is perfectly appropriate today, it is not true that the deacon was the ordinary minister of the Sacred Host. It was is ordinary role to administer the Precious Blood, but not the Sacred Host. Even the 1917 Code of Canon Law states:

CAPUT II.
De sanctissimo Eucharistiae sacramento.

ART. I. De ministro sacrae communionis.
Can. 845. § l. Minister ordinarius sacrae communionis est solus sacerdos.
§ 2. Extraordinarius est diaconus, de Ordinarii loci vel parochi licentia, gravi de causa concedenda, quae in casu necessitatis legitime praesumitur.

When the chalice began to be used for the clergy only, with it went the role of the deacon as an ordinary minister, to only that of extraordinary minister, until the restoration of the permanent diaconate.
 
I have always felt that layment have no business handling the Eucharist, whether through an EMHC or their own hands. I like it to go to from the hands of the celebrant to my tongue without any pitstops. Since the priest is in persona christi, it makes the experience Holier in my opinion, and I don’t see how nobody in the mainstream agrees with me on that. These days, one goes to mass and sees ten EMHCs when there are only thirty people in attendance. To me being in EMCH in most cases involves an undeniable sin of pride.
 
Well stated Brendan…

“The priest is in persona Christi. When one recieves the Eucharist from a priest, one recieves it from the hands of Christ Himself.”

james
 
Although I will not do anything to create a scene or draw attention to myself, I always make sure that I position myself to receive from the ordained.
 
Jakub said:
Well stated Brendan…
“The priest is in persona Christi. When one recieves the Eucharist from a priest, one recieves it from the hands of Christ Himself.”
james
Click to expand...
Agreed. My family and I sit in the second pew on the left side of the church. This way we are at the front of the line and we always take on the tonge. I only take from the priest. And yes if I have to I will “jump” line.
 
Actually, my priest is an elderly man, in his 80s. He has a pronounced limp, balance difficulty, and hand tremors. God bless him in his service!

Since I prefer to receive on the tongue, I actually go to the ONE EMHC we have at our Mass to receive, because if I try to receive on the tongue from Father, he has great difficulty placing the Eucharist on the recipient’s tongue. So for charity’s sake, in order not to give Father difficulty, I receive from the EMHC.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
Actually, my priest is an elderly man, in his 80s. He has a pronounced limp, balance difficulty, and hand tremors. God bless him in his service!

Since I prefer to receive on the tongue, I actually go to the ONE EMHC we have at our Mass to receive, because if I try to receive on the tongue from Father, he has great difficulty placing the Eucharist on the recipient’s tongue. So for charity’s sake, in order not to give Father difficulty, I receive from the EMHC.
Click to expand...
I am sorry but I am having difficulty with recieving on the tongue from the laity. Since the EMHC is a layperson and their hands are not consecrated whats the point. In this case you are not recieving the ordained.
 
Well, the Body and Blood are the Body and Blood, aren’t they? The use of EMHC in extraordinary circumstances (and the use of ONE EMHC for a parish with an elderly priest who does have difficulty moving meets that criteria) is approved by the Church.

I respectfully disagree with your assessment. However, if the Church itself reverses its current authorization of the laity, I’ll be the first in line to receive from Father. . . in the hand, as long as our good priest is here to serve us.

I’m not too worried though. If that day does come when EMHCs are banned and communion in the hand is banned, I strongly suspect my dear good priest will be in heaven by that time.
 
Wow. It’s surprising to see how many people here share my preference to receive Communion from a priest rather than from an EMHC. I would have been afraid to be the first one to speak up, as I have been accused of being prideful and dissenting on this very forum for choosing to receive only from a priest. It is as Brendan says, receiving from a priest is the same as receiving from Christ himself.

In my current church it’s not an issue as the priest only allows the EMHC to distribute the Blood.
 
From the same post
batteddy said:
Even in the old rite and old piety…a deacon was considered fine, an ordinary minister. In fact, that was one of the main jobs of the early deacons; being the cleric who brought communion to the sick.

Avoiding the deacon to go to the priest…is unnecessary and represents a misguided piety or theology.

Don’t avoid the deacon …
Click to expand...
Can you please how in this case it is misguided piety?
batteddy said:
However, I would highly encourage anyone to avoid EMHC’s. Vote with your feet. Especially stay away from the women.
Click to expand...
And in this case is not?

I can follow Brendan’s argument about going to the priest because he is “In Persona Christi” and that you want to receive directly from Christ’s hands. The Deacon is not “In Persona Christi”
 
lizaanne said:
There was one woman many years ago who would wear SO MUCH perfume that the Body of Christ tasted like it!!! :eek: I could actually taste that perfume taste in my mouth for a good half hour after Mass. I would always try to avoid her line if possible.
Click to expand...
That would be my pastor with too much perfume!
I never avoid the EMHC, but I see it happen all the time, and I certainly understand when people do that. I heard a homily once about the hands of a priest with all the Sacraments mentioned and it was just so beautiful.
 
ncjohn said:
Wow. I would never do that. Our Lord is Our Lord, whoever’s hand he comes from. Short of seeing an EMHC do something that concerned me health-wise, there is no difference to me at all.
Click to expand...
This is sort of awkward, but I’m going to have to agree… I’ve never had the least issue with recieving from lay Eucharistic Ministers at all. I’ve never even heard the least concerns expressed about it by anyone else before in my life… so I guess I’m kind of surprised at the number of people here who do… The only somwhat-related (but thankfully rare) problem I’ve ever heard of (and have a huge problem with) is the priest simply deciding not to distribute Holy Communion himself, and just leaving it all to Eucharistic Ministers… :nope:
 
I usually will make a point to receive from a priest or a deacon if I can’t get to the priest, although I don’t have anything against an EMHC. I don’t believe the host is any less the body or blood of Christ when distributed by an EMHC, but I prefer to receive from the priest.
 
No. I’m interested only in who I am receiving not the person who is giving him to me.
 
things kind of got out of hand in my life today, so I went to a local Western church at Noon for Mass for the feast of the Assumption rather than to Divine Liturgy at my home (Eastern rite) parish. There were one priest, two deacons, and a couple of seminarians on the Altar, along with an assortment of altar children. Come time for distribution of Communion, the priest and a woman who came out of the congregation distributed Hosts while the two deacons administered the Chalices. Where I was sitting, I was forced to get into the line with the woman and, quite frankly, was a bit distressed about it. I did receive in both kinds, first from the woman then from one of the deacons, but it just plain didn’t feel “right”. . . 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. . .
 
This is me! I am the guy who will go to the other end of the Church to receive from the priest. Why wouldn’t I want to go to the most qualified person there? I am also of the mind that the priest is the only one, I know, who has washed his hands. 👍

In my years of receiving communion I have only gone to an EME a handfull of times. Most of them were years ago when the EME would cut half way down the line and I had no choice.

I am also not impressed with the extensive use of EMEs at church.
 
I’m curious. Would all of the above posters, refuse Holy Communion from a visiting EMHC, if you were homebound? I can’t believe you would, but lets here more about this.
 
davy39 said:
I’m curious. Would all of the above posters, refuse Holy Communion from a visiting EMHC, if you were homebound? I can’t believe you would, but lets here more about this.
Click to expand...
No, I wouldn’t refuse to receive from an EMHC, especially if I lived in an area that only had one priest to serve the entire parish. As I said in my previous post, I don’t have anything against an EMHC as I understand that there is a need for them in some instances, but I prefer to receive from a priest whenever possible. Where I live, we have many priests and deacons, so I don’t see the need to go to an EMHC during mass.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top