Help! I'm creeped out going to EMHCs for Communion!

[RosalieM]

I know what you mean. After a long absence and return 2-1/2 years ago, I have seen:

-Scores of Christmas gifts going to those poor children who requested them placed upon the altar for weeks.
(it’s great to help the kids, but why emphasize the materialistic aspect of Christmas right on the altar?)
-Requests on a tree to buy gifts for them.
-Children invited to sit up at the altar and play a quiz game to win prizes.(family mass)
-Music to make your hair stand on end. (family mass)
-skipping the homily for a speech from a woman teacher about some fundraiser (can’t remember exactly what it was)
-a “different” kind of mass that resembled a revival tent and freaked me out for days.

I’ve had the same thought, that yes, things would be rooted out but I don’t have that much time. So – I try to do more on my own at home and plan to increase prayer, contemplation, reading. I have a little prayer shrine with sacred paintings of Divine Mercy and L’Innocence, the Virgin Mary, flowers, candles and sometimes insence. I’m in the choir. I avoid family mass because it upsets me so. Thank heaven there are plenty of other Masses to attend.

 

[PJM]

How do you think it makes the other people feel? The Church thinks that they are worthy pass out the body of Christ, why can’t you? But to not go to them based only on the fact that they are not a priest, it just doesn’t seem right to me.

Reply: My dear friend in Christ.

As “one of the other people” I respectfully disagree with your position, both because of our faternal charity, and because I do understand why you hold what you believe. As an informed and practicing Roman Catholic, who has studied the documents of Vatican II and the current Code of Canon law, I have no other choice open to me, in obedience to Rome.

If you desire in a seperate post I can and will cut and post the very Teaching’s from which I formulated my understanding of what the Catholic Universal Magestrium, Our Supreme Pontiff and others hold to be true. There are MANY good, holy, pious and obedient bishops.

I point out with great relutance that none of the following were PRE-approved by the Second Vatican Council, or by our Popes frpm Pious VI to our present Holy Father.

Removal of Altar Rails - NO
Communion under both species-NO
Communion in the hand-NO
Ordinary (certainly not "extrodinary) ministers of The Eucharist-NO
Lay Lectors-NO

Yes, indeed the American bishops have requested an “indult” which is a request for Rome’s Permission to implement specifc variances to normal practice of the Entire Roman Catholic Church.

Yes (except for the removal of Communion rails) indults were granted. But why?

**But, but, they were granted AFTER the errant practices had already been FORCED to become COMMON PRACTICE. That means they were all put into place in direct disobedience to the Will of The Supreme Pontiff and the Universal Catholic Magistrium ( of which the majority of America’s bishops were not a part of due to there disobedience) **

One sees in the very recent TEACHING actions of Pope Benedicy XVI, as futher evidence of Romes desire to get back to prior pious practice, which give greater emphasis of Latria Worship (the kind due God alone).

"

“Pope returns to old way of distributing Communion**
2 days ago: June 25,2008
VATICAN CITY (AP) — A papal aide says Pope Benedict XVI intends to return to the old way of distributing Communion at Masses**.”

“Benedict’s master of liturgical ceremonies said in an interview Wednesday in the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano that the pontiff will place the Communion host in the mouths of the faithful who kneel before him.”

cont. “Benedict gave Communion to kneeling faithful during his trip this month to southern Italy.”

cont. “The aide, Monsignor Guido Marini, says that distributing Communion the old way helps faithful be devout.”

Catholic News Network
Vatican

cont. “Pope prefers Communion on the tongue, Msgr. Marini says”

Vatican City, Jun 25, 2008 / 04:51 pm (CNA).- In interview published in the Wednesday edition of L’Osservatore Romano,

cont. “Pope Benedict’s new Master of Pontifical Liturgical Celebrations, Monsignor Guido Marini, says he believes that people receiving Communion kneeling and on the tongue will become common practice at the Vatican.”

cont. “Msgr. Marini’s comments were made during an interview with Gianluca Biccini on some of Pope Benedict XVI’s recent liturgical decisions and their meaning.”

cont. "When he was asked if this would become a common practice at the Vatican, Marini responded, “I believe so.”
"

cont. "In this regard it is necessary not to forget the fact that the distribution of Communion on the hand remains, up to now, from the juridical standpoint, an exception (indult) to the universal law, conceded by the Holy See to those bishops’ conferences who requested it,” the liturgical master of ceremonies reminded. "

cont. “Canada, Mexico, the Philippines and the United States are all countries that **have been granted an exception from the universal practice of receiving Communion on the tongue.” **

cont. **“It seems though that the Pope wants to provide an example for the Church, according to Msgr. Marini, “The form adopted by Benedict XVI is meant to highlight the force of this valid norm for the whole Church.” **

cont. "It could also be noted that the (Pope’s) preference for such form of distribution which, without taking anything away from the other one, better highlights the truth of the real presence in the Eucharist, helps the devotion of the faithful, and introduces more easily to the sense of mystery. Aspects which, in our times, pastorally speaking, it is urgent to highlight and recover." "
end of article PJM

A priest hands have been consecrated, ours have not. Do we REALLY think that we are worthy to actually TOUCH the Body of God? I have read that some 90% of professed Catholics do not even go to the Sacramnet anymore!

So you should practice our liturgy, as you understand it. But please me mindful that there are some of us who in this particular instance, do have a fuller, and more complete understanding of the mind and heart of Rome, and thus Christ Himself. We too must obey. Pax!

May God continue to bless and keep you in His Loving Embrace,

PJM m.c.

 

[Sarabande]

Sarabande;
You have 4 priest and 2 deacons serving at Mass, or in your parish serving different Masses? If they’re serving different Masses, then there is probably justification for having EMHC’s at the Mass where only one priest and a deacon serves.

When I attended mass there we’d have the four priests there serving at mass (or sitting in the sacristy) and at least one deacon. Whenever I attended mass there, I would always be the cantor, so I knew that they were in the sacristy while mass was going on and would come up to distribute communion. I could see maybe up to 5 or 6 if they really insisted on having them, but 10-15 EHMCs is overboard for that parish.

BTW, I haven’t seen a parish with more than two priest in a very long time.

I’m very fortunate to live in an area which has a high Catholic population and was in a well-off parish that they could have more than two priests. But I also know that there are other parishes in my area who are not as fortunate. My parents’ parish (a wealthy and very large parish) has about 4 priests and a good number of deacons, but my grandmother’s parish has only 2 priests. The parish I am part of now (only 600 households, but it has a enormous visitor base as we are the Cathedral in a metropolitan city) has 5-6 priests and two deacons - I’m sorry, three deacons, but the one deacon usually serves at the Spanish mass. For most of the masses (6 masses a weekend), almost all of the priests and at least one deacon will be there for the mass. Although I’m not sure about the very early mass since the earliest I’ve attended was the 9:30. If needed, they will also have about two EHMCs (3 if a priest can’t be there due to other priestly duties.) I know I am extremely fortunate in that sense to have so many priests at my parish.

My parish only has 400 families, but our one pastor, serves two parishes. So, as soon as he’s done Mass at my parish, he has to drive across town to say Mass at the sister Parish. Then drive back to say the last Mass out my parish. He’d be late if not for the EMHC’s.

As you will notice from my posts, I have said that EMHCs would be necessary for situations such as your parish or even if the priest just had one parish, but he was the only one serving the parish. I know that there was good reason for the Church to allow EMHCs. I’m not against Her reasons, but it doesn’t make sense to go totally overboard with them if you really do have enough priests and deacons to distribute.

 

[PJM]

Here we go:

The faithful do have a right to receive the Sacraments, including the Eucharist, from their proper pastors. (canon 213)

The priest celebrating Mass has the obligation to distribute Communion to the faithful. (Redemptionis Sacramentum 88) Although he may appoint EMHCs in cases of true necessity to assist him, that practice does not relieve him of the obligation.

Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion may never be seen or employed as substitutes for priests. (RS 146) Therefore, receiving from an EMHC does not carry the same weight as receiving from a priest.

EMHCs may never be appointed simply for the sake of being appointed (RS 151) If that applies to the entire Mass, then it applies to an individual communicant receiving as well.

The supplementary functions of EMHC can never be used to disfigure the ministry of the priest (RS 152) Again, receiving from an EMHC is not to be seen as the “same thing” as receiving from a priest.

“The practice of those Priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distributing Communion and hand this function over to laypersons” (RS 157)

All of this, especially RS 157 makes it clear that there is no obligation on the part of communicants to receive from an EMHC if their preference is to receive from a priest.

157 says that a priest cannot hand this function over for the entire distribution, therefore common sense says that he may not force anyone to receive from an EMHC on an individual basis either.

The faithful do have a right to receive the Eucharist from a priest; and moreover the priest has the obligation to do so.

If this means that the distribution of Communion takes a little longer, that simply means that people should be encouraged to make use of that time to pray for vocations to the priesthood, so that the problem can be solved.

Now, to prepare for the comments which I’m sure will follow…

REPLY:

Dear Father Davis,

Once again I am in your debt for having the courage to teach the TRUTH and beauty of our Most Sacred Liturgy.

May our Blessed Lord continue to guide, inspire and use to share His truth.

You continue in my prayers,
PJM m.c.

 

[Cat]

To answer JimR:

Holiness is that which is of God, which makes us think of Heaven, and calls us to it.

The NO mass is focussed on Man; the priest faces his congregation, laywomen hand out communion, the Mass is in the local language, lay lectors, ‘Bind Us Together Lord’-style hymns etc.

I am in an unusual position; I can go to a variety of Latin Masses in London, and NO ones in London and in Ireland where I come from. I have also made friends with a Deacon who has been an MC for the Latin Mass for many years, and is an authority on it.

In the NO Masses I’ve been to, after 30 years absence, I’ve seen:

• A priest make up the words as he went along;
• A priest invite people up to the sanctuary for everyone to sing happy birthday to them, before the Mass was over;
• A priest sit down to let the good ladies dish out communion for him;
• A fish-pond built directly under a side-altar dedicated to Christ. I was kneeling down praying in front of it when some guy chucked fish-food in!

My opinion: I read a chilling thing recently: People get the clergy they deserve. Perhaps they also get the Mass they deserve. Heaven hears our prayers and curses; God gives us what we want, the way a father will make his son smoke a pack of cigarettes; to see him turn green, and put him off them.

Regardless of the theological arguments about validity, the Church is in serious trouble in some areas; there are few or no vocations. A few weeks ago a priest, in a parish near me in Ireland, announced that due to this lay people were going to take on more responsibility in his diocese.

So this is a problem that will solve itself; the vernacular NO Mass, with its attendant abuses, will likely die off. It will descend into absurdity and contradiction.

If you read Church history, this is not as big as problem as some might imagine; terrible heresies and ages of ignorance have occurred before.

The only option for humanity is the righteous worship of God through Christ The King; any distortons of this will fade away, or be rooted out.

My problem is my life is short, so I’m going to find the most sacred rite I can, and support it. I have a choice. I’m not obliged to go to an NO Mass, and I can criticise the abuses that have crept into it.

Quote: “So you must not believe that the Holy Spirit hasn’t been guiding the Church for the past 40 years.”

Sure He is. It’s just that He has eternity to play with, while we have four score years, if we’re lucky.

This post is pretty bad. Even though the Catholic Church approves of the NO Mass and even though the Holy Father himself celebrates the NO Mass, this poster apparently thinks that the NO Mass is “man-centered.”

So does the poster think that the Holy Mother Church and the current Pope are “man-centered” as well?

The NO Masses that this poster describes do not resemble in any way the reverent NO Masses that I and many others in the U.S. attend daily and weekly.

As I said, the Church approves it and that settles it. Honor the Church.

The Lord says that to OBEY is better than sacrifice. To be holy is to be in perfect obedience to the Lord and His Church. That doesn’t mean you have to attend NO Masses if the EF is your personal preference. But you don’t insult the form of the Mass that Holy Mother Church calls the Ordinary Form.

 

[EasterJoy]

Canon 213.

Although admittedly, this might not always be practical. That’s why the Church makes provision for extraordinary circumstances. The point is that there is nothing wrong with prefering to receive from a priest. The reality is that most Catholics (at the present time) don’t have any reservations about receiving from an EMHC, so those who do move to the priest’s line are very few. They should not (and I personally believe cannot) be denied that if that’s what they prefer.

When people make a show of this (and I’ve known some who do) by things like waiting until they’re already at the front of the line, then doing a little “sidestep” to get to the priest (I’ve even known some who make it a point to “sigh” or even “grunt” as they do this) they’re sinning against charity. But if two or three out of several hundred politely and unobtrusively move to the priest’s line, then they shouldn’t be actively prevented from receiving from the priest. When that happens, it is just as much a sin against charity.

If receiving from the priest is not the simultaneous right of every person at a Mass, then it isn’t a right. As long as the ordained are observing canon law–meaning, as long as they are active in distributing to someone–then it isn’t, strictly speaking, anyone’s right to choose which licit minister of Holy Communion they will or will not receive from. Pastoral prudence may compel the ministers, ordained or not, to comply with the wishes of the faithful, but that does not mean that it is the law that compels them. As you say, it is the law of love, not canon law, that compels in this case. It is not on the same plane as complying with a communicant who insists on his right to receive on the tongue, for instance.

One would hope, though, that like the matter St. Paul treated, concerning those who would not eat meat sacrificed to idols, that we would all give in to the weakness of others.

 

[PJM]

Be informed, and pray!

And that’s not all.

MSN.com home page today is running an article on PE Obama, and what he plans to do to “religion.” It’s scary stuff and “A MUST read.”

Pray brethern, pray,

PJM m.c.

 

[Layman]

Re: EMHCs. I don’t see what’s so hard about giving communion to a congregation of a hundred souls. Or even a thousand. It’s not physically hard work.

I’m assuming ‘Extraordinary’ means in special circumstances; a man is dying, and there’s no priest to go to him.
Now they’re very common. It’s an abuse.

Quote: “The Lord says that to OBEY is better than sacrifice. To be holy is to be in perfect obedience to the Lord and His Church. That doesn’t mean you have to attend NO Masses if the EF is your personal preference. But you don’t insult the form of the Mass that Holy Mother Church calls the Ordinary Form.”

The Church’s greatest strength, obedience, has been turned against it. I can criticise the way the Mass is done, if I want.

All the things I listed are abuses, and abnormal. The Church never intended them. **Defenders of the NO habitually trot out ‘obedience’ and ‘lack of charity’ as retorts to those who criticise the NO. **

My father recalls that forty years ago a local PP changed the Mass time at our small rural church, then complained from the pulpit that fewer people were present the next Sunday.

A local ‘character’ stood up and said “That’s because you changed a Mass time that’s existed since this church was built”, or words to that effect.

That Mass time was changed back.

I’ve mentioned my concerns to priests when I’ve talked to them about the NO vs the Latin Mass. People are nice to priests, and so they should be.

But if they never hear people’s criticisms (voiced coolly), if all they hear are words of praise, they might think everything’s hunky-dory, and be scratching their heads wondering why their parish is in decline.

It may be that many other people feel as I do, or simply don’t think that Mass is important any more. They don’t speak up. They vote with their feet.

Also, you can’t rule out simple theatrics: Gregorian chant, a hushed church, candlelight, statues, icons, a mysterious language will likely affect a sinner more than seeing Mrs. Donoghue in her raincoat doling out the host.

 

[Newbie2]

I’m going to opt for the Cowardly Catholic (according to some people on this board) view on this issue:

My bishop allows it and that settles it. I will rest in his wisdom and not be bothered by some of the opinions on this thread.

My bishop is the apostle, not me or any layman. HE knows the heart of the church and is my shepherd on this earth. I trust HIM to correctly interpret all the various documents (he has his doctorate in Canon Law). If he allows our parishes to have EMHCs (and altar girls), then so be it. I will not be disturbed.

 

[RosalieM]

Re: EMHCs. Also, you can’t rule out simple theatrics: Gregorian chant, a hushed church, candlelight, statues, icons, a mysterious language will likely affect a sinner more than seeing Mrs. Donoghue in her raincoat doling out the host.

:clapping: Thank you for that. I remember when power was out in our church and we had a candlelight Mass. I felt connected to Catholics hundreds of years ago. Thankfully, our church has statues and stained glass windows and sometimes we get to sing in Latin. I’m thinking whatever things there are that we don’t like; the essence will remain the same forever, in spite of abuses.

 

[Cat]

Re: EMHCs. I don’t see what’s so hard about giving communion to a congregation of a hundred souls. Or even a thousand. It’s not physically hard work.

I’m assuming ‘Extraordinary’ means in special circumstances; a man is dying, and there’s no priest to go to him.
Now they’re very common. It’s an abuse.

Quote: “The Lord says that to OBEY is better than sacrifice. To be holy is to be in perfect obedience to the Lord and His Church. That doesn’t mean you have to attend NO Masses if the EF is your personal preference. But you don’t insult the form of the Mass that Holy Mother Church calls the Ordinary Form.”

The Church’s greatest strength, obedience, has been turned against it. I can criticise the way the Mass is done, if I want.

All the things I listed are abuses, and abnormal. The Church never intended them. **Defenders of the NO habitually trot out ‘obedience’ and ‘lack of charity’ as retorts to those who criticise the NO. **

My father recalls that forty years ago a local PP changed the Mass time at our small rural church, then complained from the pulpit that fewer people were present the next Sunday.

A local ‘character’ stood up and said “That’s because you changed a Mass time that’s existed since this church was built”, or words to that effect.

That Mass time was changed back.

I’ve mentioned my concerns to priests when I’ve talked to them about the NO vs the Latin Mass. People are nice to priests, and so they should be.

But if they never hear people’s criticisms (voiced coolly), if all they hear are words of praise, they might think everything’s hunky-dory, and be scratching their heads wondering why their parish is in decline.

It may be that many other people feel as I do, or simply don’t think that Mass is important any more. They don’t speak up. They vote with their feet.

Also, you can’t rule out simple theatrics: Gregorian chant, a hushed church, candlelight, statues, icons, a mysterious language will likely affect a sinner more than seeing Mrs. Donoghue in her raincoat doling out the host.

See bold, above. Various Protestant sects say exactly the same thing. I know. I was Protestant for most of my life, and very involved in “producing” the theatrics that made people “feel” closer to God–various musical styles, lighting effects, banners, emotional testimonies–just like you’re suggesting for Catholic churches. Trouble is, Christianity isn’t a play, it’s a Person. And what happens to a person’s faith when the “simple theatrics” aren’t there–if the faith dissipates, it wasn’t real faith to begin with, but just emotional hype.

 

[JulianN]

Canon 213.

Although admittedly, this might not always be practical. That’s why the Church makes provision for extraordinary circumstances. The point is that there is nothing wrong with prefering to receive from a priest. The reality is that most Catholics (at the present time) don’t have any reservations about receiving from an EMHC, so those who do move to the priest’s line are very few. They should not (and I personally believe cannot) be denied that if that’s what they prefer.

When people make a show of this (and I’ve known some who do) by things like waiting until they’re already at the front of the line, then doing a little “sidestep” to get to the priest (I’ve even known some who make it a point to “sigh” or even “grunt” as they do this) they’re sinning against charity. But if two or three out of several hundred politely and unobtrusively move to the priest’s line, then they shouldn’t be actively prevented from receiving from the priest. When that happens, it is just as much a sin against charity.

I must have a different translation of the Code. In mine, Canon 213 says that the Christian faithful have the right to receive assistance from the sacred pastors out of the spiritual goods of hte Church, expecially the word of God and the sacraments.

Which is not exactly the same thing as saying it must be directly from the pastor’s hand. But, as I said, perhaps my translation is in error.

 

[Layman]

To: Cat.

The simple theatrics already exist in the Latin Mass, properly done, and have existed for centuries. No invention needed. One of its many benefits is that it allows little leeway for novelty.

The current problem with the NO Mass is that there’s too much invention, a lot of it not sanctioned by the Church.

I’m not too familiar with Protestant worship, but isn’t the NO Mass, as now commonly celebrated, slowly heading towards a Protestant-style worship; a ‘happy meal’, rather than a sacrifice?

 

[RosalieM]

Various Protestant sects say exactly the same thing. I know. I was Protestant for most of my life, and very involved in “producing” the theatrics that made people “feel” closer to God–various musical styles, lighting effects, banners, emotional testimonies–just like you’re suggesting for Catholic churches. Trouble is, Christianity isn’t a play, it’s a Person. And what happens to a person’s faith when the “simple theatrics” aren’t there–if the faith dissipates, it wasn’t real faith to begin with, but just emotional hype.

Gregorian chants, candles, insence, statues and the like are traditional symbols of inspiration. The statues are images of Jesus, Mary, saints, angels, the heavenly host. It is actually deeper than “theatrics”. The world’s greatest art and music have been inspired by Christianity. There aren’t “emotional testimonies” in a proper Mass. The faith will be there if a person goes to a church without much in the way of traditional symbols. But if there’s a choice, give me what’s closest to St. Peter’s basilica any day. Spiritual inspiration, not “emotional hype” is the essence and purpose of true religious art and music.

 

[FrDavid96]

If receiving from the priest is not the simultaneous right of every person at a Mass, then it isn’t a right. As long as the ordained are observing canon law–meaning, as long as they are active in distributing to someone–then it isn’t, strictly speaking, anyone’s right to choose which licit minister of Holy Communion they will or will not receive from. Pastoral prudence may compel the ministers, ordained or not, to comply with the wishes of the faithful, but that does not mean that it is the law that compels them. As you say, it is the law of love, not canon law, that compels in this case. It is not on the same plane as complying with a communicant who insists on his right to receive on the tongue, for instance.

One would hope, though, that like the matter St. Paul treated, concerning those who would not eat meat sacrificed to idols, that we would all give in to the weakness of others.

The point is that no one may place any obstacles impeding a member of the Christian Faithful from receiving directly from a priest. If Catholics prefer to receive from the priest, then it’s not for anyone else to deny that to them.

The Church has taken great pains to make clear the distinction between ordinary ministers of communion and extraordinary; the two are not to be treated as having equal value. One is always licit, the other is extraordinary and supplemental.

And for-the-record, I am not opposed to EMHCs as such, my opposition is to the fact that the practice is without any doubt being broadly abused (in the US at least) and this is causing confusion and a diminished regard for the necessity of the sacred priesthood. Why should we pray for vocations to the priesthood, or encourage young men to pursue that vocation if we obviously don’t need them?

 

[jpjd]

Why should we pray for vocations to the priesthood, or encourage young men to pursue that vocation if we obviously don’t need them?

Father, normally I agree with your posts, but this statement is off-target.

I doubt anyone thinks that priests are not needed just because there are EMHCs distributing Communion. That’s like saying priests are nothing more than “Communion-distributors.” Joe and Jane in the pew know that EMHCs simply *help *to distribute, and nothing more than that. Priests consecrate and there is no EMHC that can touch that with a 10-foot pole.

 

[happymommy]

Reply: My dear friend in Christ.

As “one of the other people” I respectfully disagree with your position, both because of our faternal charity, and because I do understand why you hold what you believe. As an informed and practicing Roman Catholic, who has studied the documents of Vatican II and the current Code of Canon law, I have no other choice open to me, in obedience to Rome.

I thank you for you very kind and eloquent response. I joined the Roman Catholic faith in 2001, and what I have been practicing in my church is all that I know. My husband is a cradle Catholic, but it has just been in this last year that our faith has grown. I have no doubt that you have a much more intelligent understanding of the faith. In fact, I find myself intimidated by your knowledge. I would be interested to know how it was possible for the Churches to change, or alter, the distribution of the Eucharist, if it goes against the teachings in Rome? If it is the Bishops who have done this, can we find fault with our priest for following what he was told to do? I’m interested to know if the 90% of Catholics who don’t receive the Sacrament do so because of the EMHC or because they are some of the people who only go to church on Christmas and Easter? I know a lot of people who claim to be Catholic, that do not find going to church important. But that is a whole other problem!
I plan on discussing this with Father, see what he thinks and feels. He is a very kind man, filled with the Holy Spirit. You can tell that he loves being a priest and only has our best interests in mind. Someone else posted that people are too nice to priests and that they need to be told of the problems. Wow, I don’t know how your church runs, but some in our parish are very quick to point out everything to Father, and some are really unkind and rude to him. We may disagree with him, as we will with all people at some point, but I believe that they should always be treated with the upmost respect.
I look forward to your response.

 

[Layman]

Quote: “Someone else posted that people are too nice to priests and that they need to be told of the problems. Wow, I don’t know how your church runs, but some in our parish are very quick to point out everything to Father, and some are really unkind and rude to him. We may disagree with him, as we will with all people at some point, but I believe that they should always be treated with the upmost respect.”

I said:

*"People are nice to priests, and so they should be.

But if they never hear people’s criticisms (voiced coolly), if all they hear are words of praise, they might think everything’s hunky-dory, and be scratching their heads wondering why their parish is in decline.

It may be that many other people feel as I do, or simply don’t think that Mass is important any more. They don’t speak up. They vote with their feet."*

Good manners cost nothing. And I think if you attack people, if you are rude to them, they’ll automaticaly discount what you say, even if you’re right.

So from point of good manners, from respect for their office, and for what you have to say being given a fair hearing, then of course you must speak softly.

 

[FrDavid96]

Father, normally I agree with your posts, but this statement is off-target.

I doubt anyone thinks that priests are not needed just because there are EMHCs distributing Communion. That’s like saying priests are nothing more than “Communion-distributors.” Joe and Jane in the pew know that EMHCs simply *help *to distribute, and nothing more than that. Priests consecrate and there is no EMHC that can touch that with a 10-foot pole.

I can assure you that I personally know such people.

I personally know people who say that there is no need for the priesthood or that the “priesthood of all believers” makes ordination superfluous. It might very well be that you have never met them, but I can assure you that they are out there.

I also personally know people who feel that the priest is interfering in “their ministry” when the priest distributes Holy Communion either within Mass or to the sick and shut-ins.

I personally know priests and deacons who refuse to distribute Communion because they see this as interfering in the “ministry of the Eucharistic Ministers.”

A few weeks ago, someone approached me and asked for some unconsecrated hosts. I asked “why?” The answer was “so that I can say Mass at home when I can’t make it on Sundays.” I’m not making that up. This sort of thing is rare, but it does happen.

Unfortunately because the practice of EMHCs has been so widely abused, many Catholics in fact do not know that EMHCs are extraordinary. And yes, there are a very few people who feel that because they have declared themselved to be priests, they can consecrate the Eucharist. They are rare, but the phenomenon is growing. What is more disturbing is the fact that the people who accept this practice, or who “see no problem with it” are also growing.

 

[happymommy]

Quote: "Someone else posted that people are too nice to priests and that they need to be told of the problems. Wow, I don’t know how your church runs, but some in our parish are very quick to point out everything to Father, and some are really unkind and rude to him. We may disagree with him, as we will with all people at some point, but I believe that they should always be treated with the upmost respect."

I said:

"People are nice to priests, and so they should be.

But if they never hear people’s criticisms (voiced coolly), if all they hear are words of praise, they might think everything’s hunky-dory, and be scratching their heads wondering why their parish is in decline.

It may be that many other people feel as I do, or simply don’t think that Mass is important any more. They don’t speak up. They vote with their feet."

God manners cost nothing. And I think if you attack people, if you are rude to them, they’ll automaticaly discount what you say, even if you’re right.

So from point of good manners, from respect for their office, and for what you have to say being given a fair hearing, then of course you must speak softly.

Sorry, I couldn’t find your post to quote you. I think I misunderstood your point. I’ve witnessed people getting very upset with Father over simple things. We have an issue in our Church that people bolt out the door as soon as Communion is done and they don’t wait and pray or receive the final blessing. They put in their time and now they are done. We realized that the ushers were already out and passing out bulletins to these people as they left, like mass was over. So Father said, no bulletins until Mass is truly over. He wanted everyone to pray and reflect on the Eucharist and to receive the blessing. You should have seen the fuss people made. Some said that they would not be back to our Church. He said he understands that sometimes you do need to leave right away, some do have to work on Sunday, but he had one of the ushers count one weekend and we had 50 people leave the Sat. night mass, before Communion was done. That’s a lot. But even if they disagreed with him, there was no need to be so rude to him over it.
I apologize for misquoting you.