Holy Communion (Need Advice Please)

[adam26]

It is not the external show that is important.

I agree with that statement…to a point. The external show is not important but imagine the Marines at the end of the stairs of the Presidential chopper in shorts and flip flops with their arms crossed, does it make them any less of Marines? NO Does it make them look sloppy and careless? YES

That is my point, the external show is not a necesity but it cannot be disregarded completely.

 

[JS_Cortez]

Please forgive my ignorance, but I didn’t know there was a difference of Holy Days of Obligation from country to country…surely you must be mistaken. There is an allowance of variance within the Church when it comes to Holy Days of Obligation?? I learn something new everyday!

I didn’t know it for a long time either. I just assumed everyone was the same because universal Catholic Church and all. Then I read it. Here’s a list for fun trivia. It’s the wikipedia page for Holy Days of Obligation, but all properly cited.

Though back to receiving knelt during the NO Mass. If you really want to receive knelt and don’t want to deal with holding up the line - receive last. Some people in my parish will do that. Toward the end they kneel at the communion rail and the priest steps to the side to them. Once done the priest can then easily turn around and continue back around to the altar.

 

[bayernfan]

Being from an Eastern Catholic/Orthodox background, I had a hard time with laypeople giving me Communion. I tried to sit where I knew I would be in the line for a priest or Deacon. I would only receive on the tongue.

But after two years in a contemporary Roman parish and visiting many parishes, I realized that the most important thing is that I’m receiving Jesus. Even if there are things going on that make me cringe, or I have to sing a Marty Hagen-daas song from the Gather hymnal, etc. I try not to think about whether the well-meaning pious people of the parish are doing everything right, but instead ask “Is it well with my soul?” Am I partaking worthily.

Does it matter if the old lady distributing the host is worthy to handle it when I’m not worthy to receive it? At a TLM, though everyone is going through the “right” motions, and doing things “correctly” their hearts can still be far from Christ.

Actually, yes, because it’s still a sacrilege.

 

[bayernfan]

Please forgive my ignorance, but I didn’t know there was a difference of Holy Days of Obligation from country to country…surely you must be mistaken. There is an allowance of variance within the Church when it comes to Holy Days of Obligation?? I learn something new everyday!

Bishops can dispense the faithful from obligations such as these. In the USA’s case, the USCCB (then the NCCB, I think) in 1992 made Jan 1st, something else, and Nov. 1st, when on a Sat/Mon, dispensed.

 

[bayernfan]

You can show all the respect that you wish to. If you want to kneel, then do so. It may draw some attention to yourself, but so what?

Personally, I feel no need to kneel to show respect to the living presence. I bow before the host, and then take it into my hand. I then consume it, and feel the actual presence of Jesus inside me. That is all the respect that is necessary.

It is not the external show that is important. It is what each and every person feels and believes that is important.

Remember that Jesus himself rebuked the Pharisee’s for providing a “show”, but no real belief.

And, remember, the norm, universally, in the Latin Rite, is for reception of the Eucharist to be done on the tongue, and kneeling, whereas the standing and in the hand is the exception (it is given through an indult).

 

[zab]

Actually, yes, because it’s still a sacrilege.

Well, that depends. Are you taking MisterCorduroy’s post out of context? When you say, “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed” and then you receive Communion, are you committing a sacrilege for receiving unworthily?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Actually, yes, because it’s still a sacrilege.

So are you saying the EMHC are a sacrilege?

 

[bayernfan]

Well, that depends. Are you taking MisterCorduroy’s post out of context? When you say, “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed” and then you receive Communion, are you committing a sacrilege for receiving unworthily?

People are worthy to receive it if they have no mortal sins on their conscience (ie, they have been to confession) and they follow the precepts of the Church. Worthy in the sense that they can receive it without worrying about committing grave sin by receiving in not-a-state-of-grace.

 

[bayernfan]

So are you saying the EMHC are a sacrilege?

It is my personal opinion that indeed they are. For centuries, up until 1973, the Church regarded the Eucharist as worthy for the ministers of the Church (deacon, priest) to handle and distribute the Eucharist. Why this constant practice changed all of a sudden is beyond me. And, as such, I believe, as my great-grandparents believed, that a layman handling the Eucharist is indeed a sacrilege.

 

[JS_Cortez]

It is my personal opinion that indeed they are. For centuries, up until 1973, the Church regarded the Eucharist as worthy for the ministers of the Church (deacon, priest) to handle and distribute the Eucharist. Why this constant practice changed all of a sudden is beyond me. And, as such, I believe, as my great-grandparents believed, that a layman handling the Eucharist is indeed a sacrilege.

Deacons & Priests are supposed to still handle and distribute the Eucharist but with an average of two priests per parish and a packed Sunday schedule, it is just improbable, especially if the Chalice is also being offered. That is why laymen are allowed to assist.

I mean no disrespect by this but even though it is a centuries old practice, doesn’t mean it was always the case. We have to be careful about things like this. We have written documents from Hippolytus recounting instruction to early Catholics to safeguard the Eucharist that they were allowed to take home and consume on their own from household pests in the third century or so. In addition, in the Vatican II reforms, many good, and highly educated, priests determined it was acceptable for the laity to assist when needed - which is the pastor’s call.

If you accept the private revelation of St. Faustina, she even had visions of the Host leaping into her hands.

Sacrilege is quite a strong word considering.

But this thread may be going a bit off topic.

 

[zab]

It is my personal opinion that indeed they are. For centuries, up until 1973, the Church regarded the Eucharist as worthy for the ministers of the Church (deacon, priest) to handle and distribute the Eucharist. Why this constant practice changed all of a sudden is beyond me. And, as such, I believe, as my great-grandparents believed, that a layman handling the Eucharist is indeed a sacrilege.

Tarsisius was neither a priest nor a deacon. He was a 12 year old who was sent to carry the Eucharist to prisoners. And the church has declared him a saint.

 

[bayernfan]

Tarsisius was neither a priest nor a deacon. He was a 12 year old who was sent to carry the Eucharist to prisoners. And the church has declared him a saint.

From someone smarter than me, regarding St. Tarsicius:
Be that as it may, even if he were an acolyte he would have carried the Sacrament by dispensation of the bishop. The Church allows lots of things in emergencies, the salvation of souls being the highest law. There is a difference between facing death without the Sacrament and waiting an extra 10 minutes at Mass to receive it from consecrated hands.

From Catholic Encyclopedia:
He may have been a deacon, as Damasus compares him to Stephen.

 

[zab]

From someone smarter than me, regarding St. Tarsicius:
Be that as it may, even if he were an acolyte he would have carried the Sacrament by dispensation of the bishop. The Church allows lots of things in emergencies, the salvation of souls being the highest law. There is a difference between facing death without the Sacrament and waiting an extra 10 minutes at Mass to receive it from consecrated hands.

From Catholic Encyclopedia:
He may have been a deacon, as Damasus compares him to Stephen.

[160.] Let the diocesan Bishop give renewed consideration to the practice in recent years regarding this matter, and if circumstances call for it, let him correct it or define it more precisely. Where such extraordinary ministers are appointed in a widespread manner out of true necessity, the diocesan Bishop should issue special norms by which he determines the manner in which this function is to be carried out in accordance with the law, bearing in mind the tradition of the Church.

 

[Remington]

I will preface this post by saying I was born and raised in the Traditional Latin Mass and between the ages of 8-19 I served Mass atleast 2 our of every 4 Sundays a month.
The closest Latin Mass to me now is about a 100 mile round trip, and we (my wife and I) have an English Mass about a 20 mile round trip so that is where we go. My wife was born and raised in the -]Novus Ordo/-] OF Mass and has never been to a Traditional Mass. We were married in the -]Novus Ordo/-] OF Mass, but I have only one issue I am having a hard time getting over and am looking for some advice/guidance on this matter.

I consider Holy Communion to be disrespectful at the -]Novus Ordo/-] OF Mass. I am used to a communion rail, the priest being the only one to handle the host, kneeling down to receive communion, the altar boy with the paten to catch any particles that may fall, hands folded, the sign of the cross afterwards, etc……
Here is what I see on a weekly basis from 80-85% of the church we attend during communion. Hands not folded on the way up or back, or if they are it is the folding of the hands like if you are twiddling your thumbs. No sign of the cross made, hands out to receive communion they like are receiving change at a cash register, un-ordained lay persons giving out communion and blessings to young children, etc…….

I know this may sound harsh, but I just don’t get it. Can anyone give me a GOOD answer as to why we no longer kneel before Christ in Communion, why we feel we have the right to take the host in our hands and not on the tongue, why do lay people who have taken classes feel that they are special enough to give communion as opposed to a priest, with years of schooling and who has taken vows (who also washes his hands at the offertory to prepare for the host).

I like the English Mass, most of it I am accustomed to already, and our Parish is pretty conservative, but I just miss badly the respect I felt for Communion in the Latin Mass. I want to so badly except the entire new Mass but it is hard for me to get over what I consider to be disrespect towards the Host. I know the only person I can control is myself, I still receive on the tongue only, but any advice on how to deal with my “issue” is very apprecicated.

~Adam

Then your belief runs contrary to what the Church teaches. I suggest you pray on it and follow the Church on this matter and not your own opinion.

 

[adam26]

I find the argument that “if we do not have Eucharistic Ministers than the Mass would be way too long and it wouldn’t be feasible”, to be interesting considering the centuries and centuries before Vatican II when the priest was the only one giving Communion to the faithful. How in the world did people survive for centuries with the Mass lasting an extra 20 minutes?? Our Parish has 4 priests, if they are concerned about the size of the congregation why not have them distribute instead of John Doe? I just wish people could be honest and call a spade a spade………E.M. are used so that lay people can feel more involved in the Mass and have a larger role, not because the extra 15-20 minutes for a large congregation would spoil everyone’s weekend.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Closed pending mod review.

 

[Joannm]

I find the argument that “if we do not have Eucharistic Ministers than the Mass would be way too long and it wouldn’t be feasible”, to be interesting considering the centuries and centuries before Vatican II when the priest was the only one giving Communion to the faithful. How in the world did people survive for centuries with the Mass lasting an extra 20 minutes?? Our Parish has 4 priests, if they are concerned about the size of the congregation why not have them distribute instead of John Doe? I just wish people could be honest and call a spade a spade………E.M. are used so that lay people can feel more involved in the Mass and have a larger role, not because the extra 15-20 minutes for a large congregation would spoil everyone’s weekend.

Prior to the late 60’s, few people actually received communion every Sunday. In my parish the ushers would keep things moving and woudn’t let anyone dawdle at the communion rail. We would have at least 3 priests distributing communion. The priests moved down the line quickly saying his prayer at lighting speed in latin. It really wasn’t a slow reverent receiving as everyone seems to think. So Mass really wasn’t extended at all during this time.

EMs are not used so that lay people have a larger role. They are used because of necessity. Maybe if less people went to communion they would not be needed. If there were more priests and there were 4 or 5 in a parish then perhaps we wouldn’t need them. But the truth is, many parishes have only one or two priests and now almost everyone goes to communion. Honestly, at least in my parish, I find the EMs distribute communion much more reverently than some of the priests I’ve seen who don’t even look at the person, who mumble the words and deal out the host as if they were dealing cards.

 

[zab]

I do happen to think that sometimes the EMHC are overused particularly when we only have about 75-100 in attendance at weekday Mass and the deacon is not present. I think the priest could handle it by himself. But Joannm makes some good points. When I was growing up, we had three priests in our little Midwestern town and the parish was one third the size of my parish today. On Sundays and feast days where there was a large attendance, the other priests helped distribute Communion and they did move fast down the Communion rail. But we have been living in another part of the country for the past few decades and for many years we have only had one priest in residence. We do have a permanent deacon, but on Sunday’s his duty is to distribute the Precious Blood. We have had elderly priests and military chaplains that have assisted and have filled in for the pastor on his day off and other times when needed. But for the most part, it is just our pastor that tends to over 1500 registered families. I believe the use of EMHC in our parish on Sunday’s is justified. This is not the Vatican where numerous priests are available to assist with the distribution of Communion.

 

[CheeseHead1]

Here’s a nice link that summarizes the teachings of the Church on the postures and reception of Holy Communion, courtesy of Catholics United for the Faith:
cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=46

To affirm previous comments, you do have a right to receive in your hand or on the tongue.

Here is a nice summary of the changes introduced in the 2002 Generation Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM), courtesy of Catholic Answers:
catholic.com/library/liturgy/cag_changes.asp

Finally, here is a gem I just ran across today - letters from the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments clarifying that

“… communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds. Indeed, the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion”.

(emphasis added)

ourladyswarriors.org/liturgy/kneeling.htm

So in the eyes of the Vatican:

1. It is not disobedient to receive Holy Communion kneeling
2. It is licit to receive Holy Communion kneeling (if it’s not illicit, it must be licit)

God Bless!

 

[Aramis]

Here’s a nice link that summarizes the teachings of the Church on the postures and reception of Holy Communion, courtesy of Catholics United for the Faith:
cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=46

To affirm previous comments, you do have a right to receive in your hand or on the tongue.

Here is a nice summary of the changes introduced in the 2002 Generation Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM), courtesy of Catholic Answers:
catholic.com/library/liturgy/cag_changes.asp

Finally, here is a gem I just ran across today - letters from the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments clarifying that

“… communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds. Indeed, the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion”.

(emphasis added)

ourladyswarriors.org/liturgy/kneeling.htm

So in the eyes of the Vatican:

1. It is not disobedient to receive Holy Communion kneeling
2. It is licit to receive Holy Communion kneeling (if it’s not illicit, it must be licit)

God Bless!

There is no right to receive in the hand unless one is a priest. The bishop may permit reception in the hand, but it isn’t a right.