How do you receive the host?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lorrie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
palmas85:
I cannot speak for Sir Knight but most people I know who do not receive from EMHC do so for a simple reason…
Click to expand...
Palmas85,

Thanks for your answer, but Sir Knight states that he does receive in the hand from an EMHC, but from a priest or deacon he will receive on the tongue.

Addressing your comments, I agree with you in wishing that there was not a need for EMHCs. That may sound unusual since I myself am one. I only distribute Holy Communion at a nursing home, I don’t distribute it at Mass. As I mentioned to my pastor before getting involved in this ministry, I want to serve where I’m needed. He said that there was a a huge need for people to minister to the folks in the nursing home. Without myself and the other EMHCs, the patients wouldn’t be able to receive Our Lord every week. That would be tragic because they REALLY need Him! Also, if there was a need to distribute Holy Communion at Mass I would do it.
40.png
palmas85:
They as I believe that the Priest through the Sacrament of Holy Orders occupies a position I guess you could say above us in the structure of the Church and is in a sense closer to God.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, I think that’s a dangerous line of reasoning. It’s obvious that you have a great piety and reverence for the Holy Eucharist, but your logic isn’t in line with Church teaching. I also have a tremendous respect for all priests and deacons, but they are not “above us and closer to God”. The laity and the clergy have different roles, but we are all called to be saints. Once we start thinking that the clergy is “above us”, we place limitations on our own holiness. As Jesus stated in Matthew 5:48, “So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect”. There was no disclaimer that it only applies to the clergy. That’s what we are all called to.

As long as the Church approves the use of EMHCs, I feel that we should accept it. Once we start saying that the Church should “change this” and “change that”, we become just like the various dissenters who support the ordination of women, married priests, etc.

God Bless,
Gary
 
40.png
gez722:
Palmas85,

With all due respect, I think that’s a dangerous line of reasoning. It’s obvious that you have a great piety and reverence for the Holy Eucharist, but your logic isn’t in line with Church teaching. I also have a tremendous respect for all priests and deacons, but they are not “above us and closer to God”. The laity and the clergy have different roles, but we are all called to be saints. Once we start thinking that the clergy is “above us”, we place limitations on our own holiness. As Jesus stated in Matthew 5:48, “So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect”. There was no disclaimer that it only applies to the clergy. That’s what we are all called to.

As long as the Church approves the use of EMHCs, I feel that we should accept it. Once we start saying that the Church should “change this” and “change that”, we become just like the various dissenters who support the ordination of women, married priests, etc.

God Bless,
Gary
Click to expand...
Then I suppose the next logical question would be, why have Priests at all? If there is no intrinsic difference in the laity and validly ordained Priests, why have them? If the Sacrament of Holy Orders is not necessary or anything special, then what is the purpose? If anybody can assume priestly duties, it seems like a lot of trouble to go through to have Priests at all. One of the biggest differences in Catholicism and Protestants is the idea concerning Priesthood.

The Protestants generally believe that everybody is a minister, none above or below, and nothing special is required except the desire to be one. Anyone can start his own church and preach what he wants. They as a rule have no central authority and answer only to themselves. The Catholic Church has never had that line of reasoning, and has always had a hierarchial structure, with the Holy Father at it’s head, extending down through the Cardinals, to the Bishops to the Priests to the Deacons to the Religious and to us, the laity. Eliminating or curtailing the duties and responsibilities of the Priesthood and elevating the laity to their level seems to me almost a Protestant line of reasoning.

While it is no doubt true that the Church currently allows Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, it did not always, nor do I think it always will. If the Church is to survive in these times, as the Roman Catholic Church, it needs to, I feel, re-examine some of the practices which have been allowed to creep in and in essence change what the Church is. If it does not it will cease to be what we know as the Catholic Church and become just another church.

While I am in no way a sedevecantist, and accept the HolyFathers teaching and authority, I have to let my own conscience guide me and in fact am required to do so. When the final judgement comes, I will be judged on what I believe and what I did. I will not be judged by others actions or beliefs.
 
40.png
palmas85:
Then I suppose the next logical question would be, why have Priests at all? If there is no intrinsic difference in the laity and validly ordained Priests, why have them? If the Sacrament of Holy Orders is not necessary or anything special, then what is the purpose? If anybody can assume priestly duties, it seems like a lot of trouble to go through to have Priests at all.
Click to expand...
WOW! That’s a huge leap from what Gary said. He didn’t say anything about the laity performing priestly duties. He only talked about the holiness of the laity vs. the priest. I agree with him on that, but I didn’t see any mention of the faithful taking on priestly duties.
40.png
palmas85:
If the Church is to survive in these times, as the Roman Catholic Church, it needs to, I feel, re-examine some of the practices which have been allowed to creep in and in essence change what the Church is. If it does not it will cease to be what we know as the Catholic Church and become just another church.
Click to expand...
That’s not even possible. The Church is protected by the Holy Spirit against all error. The Church CANNOT cease to exist as the Catholic Church. God would prevent such from happening. He promised that, and He has never broken a promise.
 
40.png
palmas85:
Then I suppose the next logical question would be, why have Priests at all? If there is no intrinsic difference in the laity and validly ordained Priests, why have them? If the Sacrament of Holy Orders is not necessary or anything special, then what is the purpose? If anybody can assume priestly duties, it seems like a lot of trouble to go through to have Priests at all. .
Click to expand...
No, it is not a logical step at all. I think you see a “slippery slope” where none exists. Perhaps groups like Voice of the Faithful envision such a course, but do not be fooled into believing it exists.

Michael Welter is correct in noting you took a huge side leap from gary’s post. We must have priest. They stand unique in their position and the laity will never be able to perform priestly duties. At the same time, there are many ways in which we are equal. The recognition of this obvious fact does not make like Protestants in structure and in fact has no conflict with a hierarchial structure.
 
Michael Welter:
WOW! That’s a huge leap from what Gary said. He didn’t say anything about the laity performing priestly duties. He only talked about the holiness of the laity vs. the priest. I agree with him on that, but I didn’t see any mention of the faithful taking on priestly duties.

That’s not even possible. The Church is protected by the Holy Spirit against all error. The Church CANNOT cease to exist as the Catholic Church. God would prevent such from happening. He promised that, and He has never broken a promise.
Click to expand...
Distributing Holy Communion was a duty of the Priest. The readings were a duty of the Priest. Hearing confessions was a duty of the Priest. Baptisms were a duty of the Priest. All of those were duties of the Priest which have now been given over to the laity in many circumstances… So whats next? What other Priestly duties will be given over to the Laity?

To say that the Church has never had error is not at all correct. Throughout history numerous heresies have emerged, grown, flourished and ultimately been destroyed. . At the heighth of the Arian heresy probably 3/4 of the Clergy were deeply infected.
There have been times in history when they Papacy was claimed by several at one time. Each of them had followers who truly believed they were correct and following the true church and that they were protected against error. So anyone who says that error cannot enter the church is completely wrong.

Error can and has entered the Church. It has almost destroyed the Church on occasion. The Church survived through the will of God, and through the body of the church, the people. It is up to us to save the Church. We the people have to stand firm in the faith and refject heresy if we see it, reject false teaching if we hear it and reject false prophets if we find them

No, I truly believe that the Church will survive but we need to make that happen. The Holy Ghost works through the Church but he also works through us. Yes through us. If we see each other, or the Priests or the Bishops or the Cardinals or even the Pope falling into heresy, we need to tell them. We need to show them. They depend on us for that. We owe it to the Church to stand firm in the faith.

Look at it this way. Every Protestant Church as well the Eastern Orthodox Churches came into being as the result of either Schism or outright heresy. Those are hard truths but they are the truth. No matter how you sugarcoat them to satisfy ecumenical feelings, they are true facts and cannot be denied. Error in belief, error in doctrine, error in interpretation, error in whatever form entered the Church and for lack of a better word infected the minds of those who led these movements and caused the great tribulations that almost pulled the Church apart. Those people turned their backs on the Church and freely walked away, rejecting the truth. God didn’t stop them. Jesus didn’t say, you can’t leave my church. No. God gave man free will, to do as he chooses. And they did.

If you start chipping away at the foundation of any structure, it gradually weakens. Since many of the changes that have taken place inthe Church in the past forty or fifty years, have weakened the structure, I have to believe that there are those, probably at upper levels somewhere who have either grown incredibly lazy, are incredibly naive or actively want to bring the Church down.

Church history is full of instances where the faithful correctly and bravely stood up to corruption, error and heresy in the Church. Just because someone wears the Bishops Mitre or sits in the Papal Throne does not endow upon them a cloak of invulnerability… They are not Gods, just men, with all the weaknesses of men. They can and do make mistakes or consciously reject the truth. We need to remind them.

And I will repeat, I am not a sedevecantist and I accept the teachings of the Church and the authority of the Roman Pontiff. But if I see error, or I see heresy or I see a lack of faith, I will point it out. I will scream it out. I owe that much to Jesus Christ who died for my sins.
 
i receive on the tongue except for when i’m at my home parish. our host is an actual piece of unleavened bread and it would be a mess to try to place it on the tongue b/c they’d probebly have to throw it in my mouth.
 
40.png
palmas85:
Then I suppose the next logical question would be, why have Priests at all? If there is no intrinsic difference in the laity and validly ordained Priests, why have them?
Click to expand...
Palmas,

As others have already pointed out, I was in no way implying that there was no need for priests. I simply stated that the laity and the clergy have different roles, but we are all called to be saints. One of the things that a priest can do (which the laity cannot) is to transform bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. I am very grateful for this wonderful ministry that was instituted by Our Lord and for these selfless men that give up so much to help us in get to Heaven. Without priests, there would be no disagreement about receiving from a EMHC as there would be no Eucharist to receive!

I was mainly taking issue with the fact that you stated that a priest was “above us and closer to God” and was pointing out that there was no Catholic doctrine that supported such a claim. Both the clergy and the laity are called to the same level of holiness. However, priests and deacons have a more visible role and may ultimately have a greater degree of responsibility for the sanctity of the souls entrusted to them.

God Bless,
Gary
 
FYI I will not be posting the study about the particles coming off of the hosts. While I still assert that when it is placed in the hand there is a greater possibility of particles of the host flying all over the place (hyperbole) but my friend and I have some questions about the accuracy of the study.
 
On the tongue. I am not worthy to touch the host and I dont want our Lord on my pants or skirt.

FOr those parishes that dip the Consecrated host in the Blood, how do you receive if you are an alcoholic and cant drink the Precious blood?
 
at a small mass (outside) there were maybe 30 people attending. I opened my mouth to get communion and the priest took the host and put it on the tip of his finger and kind of slammed it one-fingered into my mouth. No one else received in the tongue, just the hand. I don’t think he was too happy about me receiving on the tongue. It kind of really made me upset.
 
I have been kneeling for some time now (no Churches that I know have alter rails except the Tridentine mass-church) and I used to receive on the hand until I noticed a particle on my hand. I now receive on the tongue.
 
I recieve the host in my hand after bowing first. May be I will recieve it on toungue some day, but for now I am not ready for that (I have always resieved the host in my hand).
 
40.png
mgy100:
at a small mass (outside) there were maybe 30 people attending. I opened my mouth to get communion and the priest took the host and put it on the tip of his finger and kind of slammed it one-fingered into my mouth. No one else received in the tongue, just the hand. I don’t think he was too happy about me receiving on the tongue. It kind of really made me upset.
Click to expand...
That was not very cool of him.
 
I receive mostly in the hand, although if I’m carrying one of my grandchildren when I approach I will receive on the tongue.
 
I occationally am asked to assist as an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion and yesterday was such a day. And we had a visiting Bishop from Sri Lanka concelebrating the Mass with our wonderful pastor. I ended up standing next to the Bishop and we had several in my line who received on the tongue. Typically most take it on the hand, but now that I’ve given it on the tongue a few times, it’s not too difficult to do it correctly. The first time, I was afraid it was going to be dropped! :eek: It was a tense moment there, one I’m not likely to forget.

And no, it’s not my preference that I assist in distributing the Eucharist. I’d be just as happy to leave it to the Priests, but I have been asked to assist, and in that case, seeing as this is a matter of discipline, not doctrine, I give my assistance gladly.

CARose
 
I only receive on the tongue.

For those who receive in the hand and are open to re-evaluate their reasoning, I highly recommend the following homilies to read.

At the church I attend, only the priest distributes communion. Usually another priest will assist in the distribution but this past Sunday there was only one priest. One priest who went back and forth along the communion rail until everyone had received the Eucharist. Sure, it took a while longer but I was thankful to have that silent time with Our Lord. Sadly, I think that is one reason some churches have “help”…so people don’t have to stay kneeling and praying for too long a time…they can hurry up and get on with things.

desertvoice.org/written/Alti012704.htm

desertvoice.org/written/Alti091001.htm
 
We’re not typically in any hurry at my parish. I love the way our priest remembers to retain times of silence through-out the Mass. He even trains us as lectors to include silence between the readings so the parishoners have time to reflect on the readings of the day. Be careful to not assume a one size fits all explanation of why Extraordinary Ministers are being used. It is possible that there are extremely holy priests who don’t have a desire to short change their parishoners of their prayer time who still utilize EMHC’s.

CARose
 
CARose, I think you’ve read in my post a couple of things that weren’t there and I’d like to set my post straight so this doesn’t get taken somewhere it wasn’t intended to go.

I stated “I think that is one reason **some **churches…” If it doesn’t apply to your church…great! I know it does to **some. **I’ve witnessed it.

In no way did I “assume” a one size fits all explanation. Hence the words “one reason” and “some”.

Also, I’m not sure why or how the “holy priests” was read into my post either. I never made reference that priests who use EMs aren’t holy and I’m actually a bit taken aback by that assumption.

Just to set my post straight…

Thanks.
 
I want to say also that if my previous post comes across harsh it really isn’t meant to…tried to state things more matter-of-fact and when I re-read it I see how it could be read standoffish. Sorry if it does - not mean to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top