How to receive from the priest when ushers make it impossible!?

[Mary_Harmon]

One Sunday I was sitting alone in a pew (it was a small pew). I was not going to receive Communion, I had my head bowed, praying and the usher actually tapped me on the shoulder and asked if I was going to Communion. I was so embarrassed by this that I actually started to cry.

 

[the_phoenix]

One Sunday I was sitting alone in a pew (it was a small pew). I was not going to receive Communion, I had my head bowed, praying and the usher actually tapped me on the shoulder and asked if I was going to Communion. I was so embarrassed by this that I actually started to cry.

I feel for you. Once when I unexpectedly walked into a Mass being held by the Neocatechumenal Way, someone escorted me right up to the front to sit in a circle. When Communion time came, I actually had to say “No” right in front of everyone to refuse the Sacrament, because at the time I was not prepared to receive.

Bless you for doing the right thing.



As for receiving from a priest, I have received Communion from both priests and EMHCs. That said, I fully respect anyone’s right to prefer receiving only from a priest. I’m also not a fan of bullying ushers. I once left a parish, and part of the reason was in fact due to the usher situation. In my new parish, I am happy to report that the ushers as well as parishioners are very courteous, and the priests very reverent.

~~ the phoenix

 

[marleelynn]

I prefer to also receive from the priest. at my parish I usually (and at two neighboring parishes), I sit on the side where I know the priest would give out communion. today was an exception. My assoc pastor had heel surgery and couldn’t give out communion so I got it from our deacon. at my parish where I grew up I usually receive from an EM.

 

[LeroyCRHP]

Yes, but a priest during Mass is in persona Christi, he is Christ Himself. That is not true for a layperson.

So recieving from the priest is recieving from Christ Himself.

Guess I did not realize that transformation. Understood the bread and blood is transformed, but the priest also?

I think the authority of the usher is being expanded, and I’m one. We guide, we assist where asked, we certainly don’t push people to go to communion. Depending on the size of your church the lines can get all mixed up. We typically have 500 to 2000 people at each mass. It certainly is each persons choice if they are able to take communion or not.

 

[sarahraegraham]

Guess I did not realize that transformation. Understood the bread and blood is transformed, but the priest also?

I think you are misunderstanding what the previous poster said… The priest is not transformed, but he does, indeed, act in the place of Christ (in persona Christi). If we believe as Catholics that Christ instituted the priesthood and conveyed the power to the priests to truly transform ordinary bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood, then those are blessed hands indeed! Why would we want to receive from any other hands than those? Not that we have to, but it’s a privilege to be able to receive Christ, and I believe that the person I should receive from is the priest, Christ’s express representative. Each person’s decision on this issue is their own.

 

[redrosetea]

I think you just need to tell Fr how you feel, and ask him to help you receive from him personally…He may not even be aware of the situation, and he doesn’t know of your feelings unless you express them to him

You can do it nicely in a way that is not confrontational

 

[EasterJoy]

I think you are misunderstanding what the previous poster said… The priest is not transformed, but he does, indeed, act in the place of Christ (in persona Christi). If we believe as Catholics that Christ instituted the priesthood and conveyed the power to the priests to truly transform ordinary bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood, then those are blessed hands indeed! Why would we want to receive from any other hands than those? Not that we have to, but it’s a privilege to be able to receive Christ, and I believe that the person I should receive from is the priest, Christ’s express representative. Each person’s decision on this issue is their own.

I think that you are right. In most cases, neither charity nor obedience will force a person in either direction, and therefore the communicant can decide. I have never seen a stampede in one direction or the other that would cause the sort of chaos that would force an exception to this rule.

The priest is the ordinary minister. Extraordinary ministers are, with some exceptions, licitly used. It isn’t right to treat something licit as if it were illicit, but at the same time, there is nothing wrong with having a personal preference. If the personal preference between two licit things is strong and gives any feeling of superiority whatsoever, or if it requires someone else to make a sacrifice for it to be accomodated, I have learned that is a good thing to examine one’s motives, but that doesn’t make the choice itself or the preference wrong, not by any means. It is worth looking at, though.

OTOH, I will speak up for use of ushers during communion. Sometimes able-bodied communicants come forward before the disabled have been ministered to, and in doing so make it difficult for the minister (ordinary or extraordinary) to move from where the disabled are seated to the regular station where everyone else will receive the Blessed Sacrament. This is particularly true when the minister of the Body of Christ returns to his or her regular station well before the minister of the Precious Blood, so much so that some ministers of the Body of Christ will not start up on the able-bodied until the other minister has made it to his or her place. In the interest of using whatever means are necessary to prevent accidents, I think it reasonable under this sort of conditions that ushers be used for “crowd control”.

 

[PKinsale]

On Easter Sunday, I saw the best use possible of ushers during Communion … To stand at the side and watch how people received Communion and to make sure no one walked off with the Host.

The original poster should talk to the pastor about this. Those who thinh the OP should just happily accept Communion from whoever are wrong if the EHMC role is being abused, and clearly there are abuses there if the OP is forced down a certain path. We need to make a stand here.

 

[Arthur_of_Lancs]

In the sixties, when there were far more at Mass, the priests did it all themselves. We all knelt at the rail. It was reverent. It maybe took longer, but hey, Holy Communion isn’t fast food. Now its like queuing for free soup. The sloppiness of the practice, to me, is an affront to the sanctity of the Real Presence. Lets return to the reverence of tradition.

Lay ministers have a role, but only when there is no priest.

 

[I_Believe]

I found a more conservative parish to attend for the rest of high school and I was loving it until I realized they have this impossibly complicated way of leading people to the (all female) EM’s except for about 2 rows that receive from the priest who are elderly or disabled folk. They have an usher come to your row who “escorts” you to the EM. There’s literally no way to get to the priest to receive. I mean I really do sort of have a problem with receiving Communion from a non priest when a priest is present. Anyone else ever encountered this type of thing?

pax

Get there early and sit in the front pew. If someone stops you, return to your car and get a cane. If that doesn’t work, hit the usher with the cane and grab a kneeler. Don’t forget to pray for the usher.

 

[hamburglar]

I encounter this problem all the time at parishes as well. I will only receive kneeling, on the tongue, from an ordained minister (so basically only from a priest). If I am familiar with a parish and where the priest distributes from, I try to sit in that section. Of course, often EMHC’s don’t pay attention to where the priest usually stands and the priest is displaced.

What I do is literally walk right over and jump in the line that receives from the priest. I’ve had to weave around pews before and after I receive I usually have to walk to the back and circle around to where I was seated, getting there after the other people in the pew back. I always get strange looks and it can be embarrassing, but it is what I feel I need to do. What I do, and perhaps you could as well, is to offer up any suffering I experience from ridicule or embarrassment and unite these sufferings to Christ’s suffering on the Cross.

 

[Holly3278]

Personally, I’d just receive from the Eucharistic minister. It is what you are receiving that is important, not who you are receiving it from.

 

[LilyM]

Personally, I’d just receive from the Eucharistic minister. It is what you are receiving that is important, not who you are receiving it from.

Whom you are receiving - the Eucharist is a someone not a something - but otherwise I tend to agree.

 

[Charioteer]

One just cannot help but shake their head when reading a thread like this one. One also wonders about the quality level of the catechesis received by some.

Yes, the priest’s hands are consecrated. If they were not he could not confect the Blessed Sacrament. But in the context of actually distributing communion how does that matter in any way to anyone that realizes what’s actually going on?

Do the priests’ hands somehow make the Blessed Sacrament somehow “better” during distribution? Alternately do the hands of deacons or the laity somehow profane the Blessed Sacrament in a way that the priests’ hands do not? The answer to both is clearly “no.”

Why would one care if a consecrated host was placed on their own unworthy tongue or hands by a priest or deacon/layperson?

Clearly some require more or better catechesis. This is yet another example of some people believing a certain something is somehow “better” then something else when in fact it’s not.

Scary.

 

[LilyM]

One just cannot help but shake their head when reading a thread like this one. One also wonders about the quality level of the catechesis received by some.

Yes, the priest’s hands are consecrated. If they were not he could not confect the Blessed Sacrament. But in the context of actually distributing communion how does that matter in any way to anyone that realizes what’s actually going on?

Do the priests’ hands somehow make the Blessed Sacrament somehow “better” during distribution? Alternately do the hands of deacons or the laity somehow profane the Blessed Sacrament in a way that the priests’ hands do not? The answer to both is clearly “no.”

Why would one care if a consecrated host was placed on their own unworthy tongue or hands by a priest or deacon/layperson?

Clearly some require more or better catechesis. This is yet another example of some people believing a certain something is somehow “better” then something else when in fact it’s not.

Scary.

To be fair, for many centuries ONLY priests or deacons were allowed to distribute Communion. And there were various not irrelevant reasons for this - an important one being to prevent blurring of the roles of ordained and laity, for example, which especially occurs when laity come into the sanctuary as they must to distribute communion.

Like it or not, this has led to decreased respect for the role of the priesthood, increased demands for women’s ordination because it’s seen as ‘just another job’ that women could do equally well like many jobs and so on.

I for one think with the current priest shortage it simply has to be all hands on deck, in a lot of parishes, for whatever can feasibly be done by the laity.

Pray for more vocations so that we can go back to having only priests or deacons in the sanctuary, sure, but it’s most uncalled for to look askance at the poor EMHCs who are usually only there because they have been invited to perform the function by the priest because he feels they are necessary.

I remember a few years back putting my name down on the roster as a reader, having no intentions at all of becoming an EMHC, and being begged to consider helping the distribution of communion. Sadly, most of our priests are not getting any younger and some seem to be struggling a bit even with help.

 

[Charioteer]

To be fair, for many centuries ONLY priests or deacons were allowed to distribute Communion. And there were various not irrelevant reasons for this - an important one being to prevent blurring of the roles of ordained and laity, for example, which especially occurs when laity come into the sanctuary as they must to distribute communion.

I for one think with the current priest shortage it simply has to be all hands on deck, in a lot of parishes, for whatever can feasibly be done by the laity.

Pray for more vocations so that we can go back to having only priests or deacons in the sanctuary, sure, but it’s most uncalled for to look askance at the poor EMHCs who are usually only there because they have been invited to perform the function by the priest because he feels they are necessary.

I remember a few years back putting my name down on the roster as a reader, having no intentions at all of becoming an EMHC, and being begged to consider helping the distribution of communion. Sadly, most of our priests are not getting any younger and some seem to be struggling a bit even with help.

I appreciate your comments but there seems to almost be an issue of pride mixed with ignorance in demanding to only receive from a priest. Further if someone positions themselves before Mass to receive only from a priest that’s one thing. But to go through the convolutions some here talk about to receive only from a priest is quite a different thing. It smacks of putting on a show. Of advertising the false notion that receiving communion only from a priest is somehow “better” and I don’t think that’s a good thing.

 

[I_Believe]

One just cannot help but shake their head when reading a thread like this one. One also wonders about the quality level of the catechesis received by some.

Yes, the priest’s hands are consecrated. If they were not he could not confect the Blessed Sacrament. But in the context of actually distributing communion **how does that matter in any way to anyone that realizes what’s actually going on? **

Did you read the whole thread ? Others have stated the facts.

First of all, the laity is given a choice by the Church to receive even on the tongue if they so wish. A priest can’t deny anyone Communion to anyone unless he is aware that doing so would cause public scandal. On the tongue or in the hand.

Secondly, what is the purpose of EMHC ? It’s allowed by the Church and I accept that. But what is the purpose ? To save time ?

Fair enough, but I’ve been to the NO Mass with 300 in attendance and 7 EMHC and the TLM with the same number, all receiving at the rail with a priest and a deacon, or two priests. Takes about 5-10 minutes longer.

So are you going to come here and tell someone who has the privilege to receive from a priest granted to them from the Church, and is choosing to receive from a priest in the traditional manner because of his strong Faith in the Real Presence and an understanding the priest’s role in administering the Blessed Sacrament , that he might better build his Faith in the embrace of a novelty that was NOT introduced by Rome, but has only become tolerated by the Church ?

You want to discourage this person from obtaining his spiritual needs ? Is that the better catechesis you speak of ? :ehh:

 

[I_Believe]

To be fair, for many centuries ONLY priests or deacons were allowed to distribute Communion. And there were various not irrelevant reasons for this - an important one being to prevent blurring of the roles of ordained and laity, for example, which especially occurs when laity come into the sanctuary as they must to distribute communion.

And also, in the past, Communions were fewer. If one wasn’t sure if he/she was in a state of grace, they didn’t receive. Nowadays, folks are more worried if someone will notice they aren’t receiving that if they receive unworthily.

I know it’s true. When I returned to the Church, my Pastor had me wait until a couple of matters were dealt with. During that time, I had 3 folks ask me about it. I told 2 that “Fr, has asked me to wait” and I forget what I told the other one lol.

 

[Ad_Gentes]

As an acolyte (not yet instituted), I assist the priest in giving Holy Communion as an extraordinary minister as prescribed in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) 191. While I agree with most of the posters that EMHC are overused to the point of almost acting as “ordinary” ministers, I believe we should be cautious not to blow this out of proportion.

There is certainly nothing wrong with wanting to receive Communion from a priest (I would not call it a “right” though). However, to go out of your way, i.e. crossing several isles, just because you refuse to receive from a validly deputed EMHC (GIRM 100), is not only unjustified, it is also disruptive. Not only that, it shows a lack of charity and respect. Is following “personal” believes more important that following official Church teaching and disciple?

Again, I do not see anything wrong with one sitting in an isle that would allow to receive Communion from a priest, but the Holy Eucharist is not less valid when distributed by a lay person. And we do not just “allow” deacons to give Holy Communion to include the Blessed Blood; as ordained ministers they are also ordinary ministers of Holy Communion along with the priest (GIRM 182).

You can try to come up with all sorts of rationales, but the bottom line is that a lay person can validly give Holy Communion when properly deputed by the priest. Obviously, as extraordinary ministers, they should assist the priest when an extraordinary need exists. We all know that they are overused in most parishes now a day and that is something that should be addressed with the priest. IMHO, there are more important things to worry about than who you are receiving Holy Communion from. As LilyM stated in Post #3: "you should humbly and gratefully receive Our Lord from whoever is distributing communion (same Lord in each case, after all)."

 

[Charioteer]

Did you read the whole thread ? Others have stated the facts.

First of all, the laity is given a choice by the Church to receive even on the tongue if they so wish. A priest can’t deny anyone Communion to anyone unless he is aware that doing so would cause public scandal. On the tongue or in the hand.

Secondly, what is the purpose of EMHC ? It’s allowed by the Church and I accept that. But what is the purpose ? To save time ?

Fair enough, but I’ve been to the NO Mass with 300 in attendance and 7 EMHC and the TLM with the same number, all receiving at the rail with a priest and a deacon, or two priests. Takes about 5-10 minutes longer.

So are you going to come here and tell someone who has the privilege to receive from a priest granted to them from the Church, and is choosing to receive from a priest in the traditional manner because of his strong Faith in the Real Presence and an understanding the priest’s role in administering the Blessed Sacrament , that he might better build his Faith in the embrace of a novelty that was NOT introduced by Rome, but has only become tolerated by the Church ?

You want to discourage this person from obtaining his spiritual needs ? Is that the better catechesis you speak of ? :ehh:

Your post in no way answered my questions:

*Yes, the priest’s hands are consecrated. If they were not he could not confect the Blessed Sacrament. But in the context of actually distributing communion how does that matter in any way to anyone that realizes what’s actually going on?

Do the priests’ hands somehow make the Blessed Sacrament somehow “better” during distribution? Alternately do the hands of deacons or the laity somehow profane the Blessed Sacrament in a way that the priests’ hands do not? The answer to both is clearly “no.”

Why would one care if a consecrated host was placed on their own unworthy tongue or hands by a priest or deacon/layperson?*

Take a close look at what you typed. In no way did you address my questions. Instead you gave us “…because of his strong Faith in the Real Presence and an understanding the priest’s role in administering the Blessed Sacrament.”

Strong belief in the Real Presence and an ability to differentiate between confecting and distributing the Blessed Sacrament would NOT lead one to only receive communion from a priest.