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

[Brennan_Doherty]

Deacons are ordained in the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Like a Priest, they don’t have fullness of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Only Bishops have that. And Deacons are elgible to recieve certain faculties (all of the Priestly faculties primarily except consecrating the Eucharist, Confession, and Annointing. I also do not think they can be given the faculty to confirm.

While you don’t see them as ordained, Holy Mother Church does.

While you think that laity have no business distributing Communion, Holy Mother Church does.

Which other views of the Church do you arbitrarily choose to dissent from?

Orionthehunter,

First, when I said I don’t see Deacons ordained “like the Priest” I meant that Deacons don’t receive the power to confect the Holy Eucharist. But I realize I was not clear and I was not fully sure of the nature of their office. I looked into it further. They are ordained and, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “The council [Trent] not only lays down that order is truly and properly a sacrament … and it insists that the ordaining bishop does not vainly say “receive ye the Holy Ghost”, but by that a character is imprinted by the rite of ordination.”

And that is what I was wondering about them, whether they received a character of imprint on their soul or if it was that they were merely allowed to perform some functions but received no imprint on the soul. I was certainly not trying to dissent from Church teaching on the nature of the Diaconate as if the Church says they are ordained and I’m going to disagree with that. I just needed some clarification on the nature of their office.

And while I don’t think the laity have any business distributing Holy Communion, as I said in my original post, I realize they are allowed to by the Church. And the Church has the authority to allow them to distribute Holy Communion whether I like it or not. However, this allowance is not the nature of a dogma that one either assents to or dissents from. It is a prudential decision, just like communion in the hand, and Catholics are not required to think that any particular prudential decision is necessarily good.

 

[Petergee]

And while I don’t think the laity have any business distributing Holy Communion, as I said in my original post, I realize they are allowed to by the Church. And the Church has the authority to allow them to distribute Holy Communion whether I like it or not. However, this allowance is not the nature of a dogma that one either assents to or dissents from. It is a prudential decision, just like communion in the hand, and Catholics are not required to think that any particular prudential decision is necessarily good.

But Catholics are required, by liturgical laws and by basic good manners, to refrain from publicly expressing, by word or action, dissent from the Church’s prudential decisions during the actual Communion rite of the Mass.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

But Catholics are required, by liturgical laws and by basic good manners, to refrain from publicly expressing, by word or action, dissent from the Church’s prudential decisions during the actual Communion rite of the Mass.

Since when is getting in the same line the Priest is in expressing dissent from the Church’s prudential decision? Does the Church have a liturgical law that says you can’t get in the Priest’s line?

 

[Petergee]

Since when is getting in the same line the Priest is in expressing dissent from the Church’s prudential decision? Does the Church have a liturgical law that says you can’t get in the Priest’s line?

No, but when you join a line of 10 people in front of the priest when there is a line of 2 people in front of the EMHC next to him, or when you cross over to the other side of the church to get in the priest’s line; when the EMHCs are standing there with nobody left wiating for them and there is still a line in front of the priest and the people in it won’t go to the EMHCs, sometimes even ignoring the usher who politely points this out to them - then yes, it is obvious to everyone that you are making a public expression of dissent.

 

[Orionthehunter]

And while I don’t think the laity have any business distributing Holy Communion, as I said in my original post, I realize they are allowed to by the Church. And the Church has the authority to allow them to distribute Holy Communion whether I like it or not. However, this allowance is not the nature of a dogma that one either assents to or dissents from. It is a prudential decision, just like communion in the hand, and Catholics are not required to think that any particular prudential decision is necessarily good.

We need to realize that EMHC’s are here to stay so long as we have a Priest shortage, insufficient ordained Deacons, and the Church desiring that we recieve under both species.

Even if this were a prudential decision of which we are free to accept or not (I don’t believe so and I’ll cover that later), for the people who are “picking and choosing” they are at a catechetical formation level not to understand the distinction between that to which we must assent and that which we can disagree. And the examples we set at Mass are probably some of the best and most impactful examples we can set to our breathren struggling.

Brendan, I am trying to make a point. Often (not always) those who are most “anti-EMHC” are often (not always) those who are the most concerned about the problem of people “picking and choosing” which Teaching, Dogma, Doctrine and Discipline they will accept. Despite only 103 posts, this thread has been viewed over 1,400 times. What are those who are not posting thinking? Are they coming to the conclusion that it is right to reject teachings of the Church to which we disagree?

We have people taking views and committing action that is grave matter for which we need to change. This needs to be our focus for change and sometimes our submission on the matter of this thread can be an instrument that reinforces the need to submit on more meaningful matters.

With regard to why I think this is not a prudential matter is EMHC’s are, when used, incorporated into the Mass as ministers. This is no small matter. The GIRM and other Church documents spell out clearly it is desirable to recieve under both Species. By extention, it is nearly impossible to assent to recieving under both species without assenting to the use of EMHC’s.

Prudential matters end once we enter the worship area. I walk through those doors praying for the Graces for Christ to change me and not the other way around. If I won’t stand, kneel, sit, jump, or stand on my head regardless of whether I “agree” or not in Mass, how can I be disposed to change on the things that matter?

Just something to think about I pray.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

No, but when you join a line of 10 people in front of the priest when there is a line of 2 people in front of the EMHC next to him, or when you cross over to the other side of the church to get in the priest’s line; when the EMHCs are standing there with nobody left wiating for them and there is still a line in front of the priest and the people in it won’t go to the EMHCs, sometimes even ignoring the usher who politely points this out to them - then yes, it is obvious to everyone that you are making a public expression of dissent.

The word dissent ought to be used in regards to doctrinal matters.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

We need to realize that EMHC’s are here to stay so long as we have a Priest shortage, insufficient ordained Deacons, and the Church desiring that we recieve under both species.

Even if this were a prudential decision of which we are free to accept or not (I don’t believe so and I’ll cover that later), for the people who are “picking and choosing” they are at a catechetical formation level not to understand the distinction between that to which we must assent and that which we can disagree. And the examples we set at Mass are probably some of the best and most impactful examples we can set to our breathren struggling.

Brendan, I am trying to make a point. Often (not always) those who are most “anti-EMHC” are often (not always) those who are the most concerned about the problem of people “picking and choosing” which Teaching, Dogma, Doctrine and Discipline they will accept. Despite only 103 posts, this thread has been viewed over 1,400 times. What are those who are not posting thinking? Are they coming to the conclusion that it is right to reject teachings of the Church to which we disagree?

We have people taking views and committing action that is grave matter for which we need to change. This needs to be our focus for change and sometimes our submission on the matter of this thread can be an instrument that reinforces the need to submit on more meaningful matters.

With regard to why I think this is not a prudential matter is EMHC’s are, when used, incorporated into the Mass as ministers. This is no small matter. The GIRM and other Church documents spell out clearly it is desirable to recieve under both Species. By extention, it is nearly impossible to assent to recieving under both species without assenting to the use of EMHC’s.

Prudential matters end once we enter the worship area. I walk through those doors praying for the Graces for Christ to change me and not the other way around. If I won’t stand, kneel, sit, jump, or stand on my head regardless of whether I “agree” or not in Mass, how can I be disposed to change on the things that matter?

Just something to think about I pray.

I realize EMHC’s are here for a long while. I realize I can’t run off and form my own church because I don’t think laypeople should be distributing Holy Communion or miss Mass because I refuse to go to a church where laypeople distribute. Getting in the line of the Priest is a perfectly valid option.

 

[mmboys07]

I only receive communion from a priest. However, this is all now moot. I have discovered, by accident, a parish (small) in my diocese that:

1. chants all the sung parts of the Mass.
2. says I believe in the Creed.
3. does not use EMCs.
4. Recites the Prayer to St. Michael after Mass.

Uses the most traditional options for the N.O.

1. And hosted a TLM last Sunday evening with a follow up discussion.

By the way; this is in a diocese where the Bishop just sent a letter to all the priests warning the provisions of Ecclesia Dei will still be in effect even AFTER September 14.

 

[Sr_Sally]

This again is training and direction on that part of that priest. EMHCs in my parish do wash their hands at a station specifically provided for that. They do kneel at the tabernacle, but they do not take anything out or put anything into the tabernacle. They carefully cover the ciborium as they walk back to the altar so that no hosts fall. They also regularly take communion to sick or housebound parishoners. We have a large parish and after each Mass 5 or 6 EMHCs will approach for communion to distribute to the sick. We also have a weekly Adoration time (and will soon be having more!!) and they take time to be with our Lord then too. I thank God daily for the direction and piety of the Priests in our parish.

When I used to serve at my local NO, the Priest would carefully rinse his fingers during the Lavabo after Communion was finished. He made sure no visible particle of the Host was left on his hands, the patten, the ciborium.

The EMHC’s would come up to the Altar and put their ciborium(s) there and walk back to their seats. What happened to all the visible particles of the Host on their unconsecrated fingers? They would wipe them on their shirt, wipe their hands together, or forget all about it.

I remember one devout EMHC would rinse his fingers in the little water bowl, the same one the priest would use in the Lavabo. The contents of this bowl were/are emptied into the Sacrarium after Mass.

We have the Catholic Faith! It has both an internal and external dimension, and each must be properly expressed to develop the other. We are corporate beings, and what we see on the outside affects what we believe on the inside. It can only help the faith of the next generation to do away with all the things that do not lead to a greater reverence for Christ in the Eucharist.

I am thinking here of my young children, who ask me, why this, and why that, at Mass. They are very observant, and for 2000 years the faith has been taught largely by what was able to be seen. I would rather my boys did not see junk at Mass, as it will do NOTHING to foster and cultivate the true Catholic faith in their little hearts and minds. I want them to have every chance to love and learn the Faith and thereby save their souls.

 

[beckers]

This again is training and direction on that part of that priest. EMHCs in my parish do wash their hands at a station specifically provided for that. They do kneel at the tabernacle, but they do not take anything out or put anything into the tabernacle. They carefully cover the ciborium as they walk back to the altar so that no hosts fall. They also regularly take communion to sick or housebound parishoners. We have a large parish and after each Mass 5 or 6 EMHCs will approach for communion to distribute to the sick. We also have a weekly Adoration time (and will soon be having more!!) and they take time to be with our Lord then too. I thank God daily for the direction and piety of the Priests in our parish.

 

[Aramis]

From the same post
Can you please how in this case it is misguided piety?

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”

According to current canon law, the deacon is an ordinary minister of holy communion. Not just the cup.

For clarity, from the Vatican’s English Translation of the Code of Canon Law (emphasis and underline mine)
Can. 900 §1. The minister who is able to confect the sacrament of the Eucharist in the person of Christ is a validly ordained priest alone.

§2. A priest not impeded by canon law celebrates the Eucharist licitly; the provisions of the following canons are to be observed.

…]

Can. 910 §1. The ordinary minister of holy communion is a bishop, presbyter, or deacon.

§2. The extraordinary minister of holy communion is an acolyte or another member of the Christian faithful designated according to the norm of ⇒ can. 230, §3.

Note that canon 900 says confect, which is the consecration. No priest, no new eucharist.

910 §1 makes it clear that all three are ordinary ministers of holy communion.

And just for clarity of the authority of the current code:

Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:

1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;

2/ other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescripts of this Code unless other provision is expressly made for particular laws;

3/ any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See unless they are contained in this Code;

4/ other universal disciplinary laws regarding matter which this Code completely reorders.

§2. Insofar as they repeat former law, the canons of this Code must be assessed also in accord with canonical tradition.

 

[Cristiano]

According to current canon law, the deacon is an ordinary minister of holy communion. Not just the cup.

For clarity, from the Vatican’s English Translation of the Code of Canon Law (emphasis and underline mine)
Can. 900 §1. The minister who is able to confect the sacrament of the Eucharist in the person of Christ is a validly ordained priest alone.

§2. A priest not impeded by canon law celebrates the Eucharist licitly; the provisions of the following canons are to be observed.

…]

Can. 910 §1. The ordinary minister of holy communion is a bishop, presbyter, or deacon.

§2. The extraordinary minister of holy communion is an acolyte or another member of the Christian faithful designated according to the norm of ⇒ can. 230, §3.

Note that canon 900 says confect, which is the consecration. No priest, no new eucharist.

910 §1 makes it clear that all three are ordinary ministers of holy communion.

And just for clarity of the authority of the current code:

Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:

1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;

2/ other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescripts of this Code unless other provision is expressly made for particular laws;

3/ any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See unless they are contained in this Code;

4/ other universal disciplinary laws regarding matter which this Code completely reorders.

§2. Insofar as they repeat former law, the canons of this Code must be assessed also in accord with canonical tradition.

Sorry but I do not understand how this relates to proper piety and improper piety as mentioned in the post that I was addressing?

 

[Petergee]

The word dissent ought to be used in regards to doctrinal matters.

And I do use it so. Are you suggesting it should be used ONLY in regards to doctrinal matters?

 

[Petergee]

I realize EMHC’s are here for a long while. I realize I can’t run off and form my own church because I don’t think laypeople should be distributing Holy Communion or miss Mass because I refuse to go to a church where laypeople distribute. Getting in the line of the Priest is a perfectly valid option.

And nobody here has disputed that or told you that you may not get in the line of the priest. But pointedly and obviously avoiding the EMHCs is making a statement of dissent. Yes, it’s a matter of discipline, not doctrine. But would you agree it would be OK for someone to go up to communion wearing a shirt printed with a slogan such as “Ban the Tridentine Mass”, or “Ban the Novus Ordo”, or “Let priests marry!” or “Ban meat on Fridays” or “We want Father X for our parish priest”? All matters of discipline.

 

[Sarabande]

Most of the people I know who prefer to go to the priest are rarely, if ever, obvious about avoiding an EMHC. I have a feeling the majority of people posting on here are probably the same way, so it’s not like they are making any public sign of dissent. Also, most congregants are involved in concentrating on the Eucharist and not looking around to see who is in which line, so if someone really was trying to make a point (which I doubt is the reason that most people do intentionally avoid the EMHC line - and I agree that it would not be in good taste for someone to actually make a big fuss over this during mass - believe me, I’ve seen it all in our large archdiocesan masses in front of and in the Cathedral), the majority of the congregation wouldn’t see it anyway.

It’s actually more obvious on Good Friday at our Cathedral when you see the huge, long confessional line for the Archbishop and no one is in the line at the confessionals on either side of him. That I don’t understand, but it doesn’t bother me either that those people prefer to go to the Archbishop, just like it doesn’t bother me that people prefer to go to a priest rather than an EMHC, especially if they’re not making a big deal out of it. My husband and I were EMHCs in college. I never got to do it because they always needed me to cantor, but neither he nor I would have been hurt if someone preferred to go to the priest rather than to us. That would have been egoism if we were insulted by that. Actually, my husband only receives from a priest now and hasn’t acted as an EMHC since graduate school, but we usually have four priests distributing communion and two EMHCs, and I’m always cantoring and receiving from the celebrant, so it’s really a non-issue for us.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

And I do use it so. Are you suggesting it should be used ONLY in regards to doctrinal matters?

Yes, as the word dissent connotes a repudiation of a doctrine of the Church (thus we think of a “dissenter” as someone who is repudiating a doctrine of the Church).

I would use the word “disagree” in regards to someone who disagrees with a prudential decision of the Church.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

And nobody here has disputed that or told you that you may not get in the line of the priest. But pointedly and obviously avoiding the EMHCs is making a statement of dissent. Yes, it’s a matter of discipline, not doctrine. But would you agree it would be OK for someone to go up to communion wearing a shirt printed with a slogan such as “Ban the Tridentine Mass”, or “Ban the Novus Ordo”, or “Let priests marry!” or “Ban meat on Fridays” or “We want Father X for our parish priest”? All matters of discipline.

No, it is not making a “statment of dissent.” If I have to move on occasion to get in the line of the Priest I try to do it as inconspicuously as possible (and of course I try to make sure I’m going to be in his line in the first place). If I were waving my arms around or proclaiming, “Hey, I’m moving now everyone so that I don’t have to receive communion from an EMHC” then I could see your point. And I’m sure other people who at times need to move try to do it as inconspicuously as possible. Usually when you try to make a statement you try to do it in such a way that you’re sure to get attention.

 

[BritishCatholic]

No, it is not making a “statment of dissent.” If I have to move on occasion to get in the line of the Priest I try to do it as inconspicuously as possible (and of course I try to make sure I’m going to be in his line in the first place). If I were waving my arms around or proclaiming, “Hey, I’m moving now everyone so that I don’t have to receive communion from an EMHC” then I could see your point. And I’m sure other people who at times need to move try to do it as inconspicuously as possible. Usually when you try to make a statement you try to do it in such a way that you’re sure to get attention.

I agree.

Here are my quick views on it. I have no objection to the people who are Eucharistic Ministers. I know quite a few and they are truly holy and devout people.

However, I do have an objection to their ministry. I personally do not believe that lay people should distribute Holy Communion at a Mass. To me it is just very unorthodox.

But to answer this thread’s original question: Yes, I have intentionally avoided going to a EM to receive from a priest. It just feels more right and proper that way, you know.

 

[rayne89]

When I go to Mass I am there to participate in the Holy Sacrifice and to receive Jesus body, blood, soul and divinity. Whom I receive it from changes nothing. Jesus’ presence is not lessened because an EMHC distributes it as opposed to a priest. It is exactly the same. I will not waste my time at Mass concentrating on whom I am receiving it from when I should be concentrating on whom I am receiving. I would find it an incredible distraction to have to jostle around to find a place in the line of a priest instead of an EMHC when my Lord is the same received from either. It seems completely illogical to me.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

When I go to Mass I am there to participate in the Holy Sacrifice and to receive Jesus body, blood, soul and divinity. Whom I receive it from changes nothing. Jesus’ presence is not lessened because an EMHC distributes it as opposed to a priest. It is exactly the same. I will not waste my time at Mass concentrating on whom I am receiving it from when I should be concentrating on whom I am receiving. I would find it an incredible distraction to have to jostle around to find a place in the line of a priest instead of an EMHC when my Lord is the same received from either. It seems completely illogical to me.

Whoever said Jesus’ presence was lessened depending on who you receive Him from?

The concern over who handles Holy Communion is a concern rooted in the recognition that it is Jesus fully present body, blood, soul and divinity. It is also a concern rooted in the recognition of the role of the Priest who has consecrated hands. These concerns are entirely logical and flow from recognizing who is fully present in the Holy Eucharist.