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

[Charioteer]

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)."

I’m not sure why you would call yourself an “acolyte” if you were not installed but I certainly appreciate your posting. I agree – if someone goes to Mass and wants to receive from a priest then they should sit in a location where they can do so. It’s totally their choice They run into trouble when three things take place.

First, if they try to justify their personal choice with the consecrated hands/OMHC/abuse of EMsHC, etc. argument. That’s all a bunch of rubbish in the context of actually receiving communion. It’s a personal preference and nothing more.

Second, if they have to put on a show or be disruptive to receive from a priest by traversing half way across the church or by subverting well-meaning ushers

Third, if they feel they need to talk about it – at least at Mass.

 

[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 ?

Why not sick to the subject? While do you try to derail it by adding unnecessary variables like hand/tongue, use/abuse of EMsHC, etc? Are you even aware you are doing this? Let’s look at 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” and “You want to discourage this person from obtaining his spiritual needs?”

Strong belief in the Real Presence, understanding a priest’s role in confecting vs. distributing communion would NOT lead one to only receive communion from a priest. It’s nothing more than a person choice.

Finally you infer that receiving communion only from a priest is a “spiritual need”? By whom? Poorly catechized Catholics?

 

[Ad_Gentes]

I’m not sure why you would call yourself an “acolyte” if you were not installed but I certainly appreciate your posting.

I currently serve as and perform the functions of an acolyte in my parish according to CIC 230. Since I am expected to be instituted sometime in the near future, perhaps “acolyte-in-training” would be more a more appropriate term (unless you prefer adult altar server).

 

[I_Believe]

Let’s look at my questions:

Finally you infer that receiving communion only from a priest is a “spiritual need”? By whom? Poorly catechized Catholics?

How can I discuss this with someone who told me after I said “I’ve never seen a trad suggest a new Rite”, that “that’s not true”. You know it’s not true huh ? You know of every thread I’ve visited here and know everything I’ve read and determined I’m lying ? :ehh:

Remember the thread ? And after looking at your posts via your profile, all you seem to do is tell people they are wrong. That’s why you are here.

If you seriously feel that the desire to receive from a priest is due to poor catechesis, then there is no point in discussing anything at all with you in regards to Catholicism. You know nothing of the traditional Catholic mindset and worldview, and have no desire trying to understand it.

Save your keystrokes :hey_bud:

 

[sarahraegraham]

If you seriously feel that the desire to receive from a priest is due to poor catechesis, then there is no point in discussing anything at all with you in regards to Catholicism. You know nothing of the traditional Catholic mindset and worldview, and have no desire trying to understand it.

Yes, I agree with that part; I am by no means poorly catechized. It is a fact that a priest’s hands are used as a holy vessel. If the Church saw fit for nearly 2000 for the faithful to receive only from a priest (and there are numerous writings of priests, bishops, etc. in the Church who very strongly feel that it should still be only priests) then I don’t see any reason for others to criticize those of us who still wish to receive from the ordinary minister. I am by no means saying that the Church’s institution of the use of EMHC is illicit, but what I am saying is that if I want to adhere to the Church’s tradition which has been around for nearly 2000 years, neither you nor anyone else has the right to tell me that I am “poorly catechized”. It’s an insinuation that is both unfair and ignorant.

I wear a mantilla to Mass every single time I go, in dresses, pants or jeans. I receive from a priest at Mass every single time I go. These are my choices in my Christian walk. I don’t harm anyone else in doing them or demand that it’s “necessary” for others to do so. I simply defend my reasoning and discuss it with others in order to perhaps further their walk as well. If it’s not for you, fine. That’s your personal decision and I won’t attack it either.

 

[I_Believe]

Yes, I agree with that part; I am by no means poorly catechized. It is a fact that a priest’s hands are used as a holy vessel. If the Church saw fit for nearly 2000 for the faithful to receive only from a priest (and there are numerous writings of priests, bishops, etc. in the Church who very strongly feel that it should still be only priests) then I don’t see any reason for others to criticize those of us who still wish to receive from the ordinary minister. I am by no means saying that the Church’s institution of the use of EMHC is illicit, but what I am saying is that if I want to adhere to the Church’s tradition which has been around for nearly 2000 years, neither you nor anyone else has the right to tell me that I am “poorly catechized”. It’s an insinuation that is both unfair and ignorant.

I wear a mantilla to Mass every single time I go, in dresses, pants or jeans. I receive from a priest at Mass every single time I go. These are my choices in my Christian walk. I don’t harm anyone else in doing them or demand that it’s “necessary” for others to do so. I simply defend my reasoning and discuss it with others in order to perhaps further their walk as well. If it’s not for you, fine. That’s your personal decision and I won’t attack it either.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. It is indeed an insult to question one’s knowledge of the Faith just because he/she wants to receive from a priest. Such views are born on ignorance of traditional Church practices throughout Her history.

For anyone interested in further discussions on OTT vs ITH reception of the Blessed Sacrament, I just found this article minutes a go. It’s a great crash course on the when and why’s regarding the history of how we receive.
te-deum.blogspot.com/2008/03/historical-liturgical-notes-on-rite-of.html

 

[Charioteer]

I currently serve as and perform the functions of an acolyte in my parish according to CIC 230. Since I am expected to be instituted sometime in the near future, perhaps “acolyte-in-training” would be more a more appropriate term (unless you prefer adult altar server).

How about simply “altar server?”

 

[Charioteer]

If you seriously feel that the desire to receive from a priest is due to poor catechesis, then there is no point in discussing anything at all with you in regards to Catholicism. You know nothing of the traditional Catholic mindset and worldview, and have no desire trying to understand it.

I said I have not seen anyone mention a valid reason for receiving only from a priest on this forum. Would you like to try and give one? But I urge you to read this thread first.

If someone privately feels that they want to only want to receive from a priest, that’s between them and God – it’s really none of my business. The problem is some try to justify their preference (which don’t require justification) and they aren’t justifiable – at least I have not seen them justified on their forum.

This situation is often exacerbated by two other matters. First, an unfounded public insistence that receiving from a priest is somehow “better.” And second in some cases their physical convolutions during the Mass to receive only from a priest.

 

[Charioteer]

Yes, I agree with that part; I am by no means poorly catechized. It is a fact that a priest’s hands are used as a holy vessel. If the Church saw fit for nearly 2000 for the faithful to receive only from a priest (and there are numerous writings of priests, bishops, etc. in the Church who very strongly feel that it should still be only priests) then I don’t see any reason for others to criticize those of us who still wish to receive from the ordinary minister. I am by no means saying that the Church’s institution of the use of EMHC is illicit, but what I am saying is that if I want to adhere to the Church’s tradition which has been around for nearly 2000 years, neither you nor anyone else has the right to tell me that I am “poorly catechized”. It’s an insinuation that is both unfair and ignorant.

What you don’t mention is the Church now sees fit for deacons and under specific conditions instituted/commissioned laypersons to also distribute communion. Why don’t you mention that fact? Is it possible that you think the Church would somehow allow an inferior practice in this setting? I don’t think that’s possible. Do you?

Or is it because what you personally prefer (for whatever reason) is not the only means approved by the Church?

 

[Charioteer]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. It is indeed an insult to question one’s knowledge of the Faith just because he/she wants to receive from a priest. Such views are born on ignorance of traditional Church practices throughout Her history.

Why would one insist on receiving communion only from a priest when the Church formally allows deacons and under specific circumstances instituted/commissioned laypersons to also distribute communion? I have yet to see a valid reason mentioned on this entire thread. Go ahead, give me a succinct bullet list of VALID reasons. Thanks.

 

[sarahraegraham]

Why would one insist on receiving communion only from a priest when the Church formally allows deacons and under specific circumstances instituted/commissioned laypersons to also distribute communion? I have yet to see a valid reason mentioned on this entire thread. Go ahead, give me a succinct bullet list of VALID reasons. Thanks.

As has been stated a number of times in this thread, the tradition of the Church for nearly 2000 years was reception from a priest. Good enough reason for me. Not for you? Then DON’T DO IT. Your “personal preference” as you put it.

As an aside, I am sure that others (as well as myself) take it for granted that when we say EMHC the reader will infer that we mean that phrase to include deacons and those otherwise used in that capacity, as they can also be called EMHC, since they are not the ordinary minister.

I don’t see why you are intent on condemning those of us who believe that receiving from a priest is the better choice if we have one. You are thereby imposing your “personal preference” on us, thereby condemning yourself by your own words.

I “prefer” to receive from a priest. I’ve outlined my reasons why. I believe it’s better that way. I’m not here to get you to change your opinion, only to serve as a voice for my own.Feel free to disagree, but you will never persuade me otherwise.

 

[Ad_Gentes]

As an aside, I am sure that others (as well as myself) take it for granted that when we say EMHC the reader will infer that we mean that phrase to include deacons and those otherwise used in that capacity, as they can also be called EMHC, since they are not the ordinary minister.

Actually, according to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) 94 and 182 deacons ARE ordinary ministers of Holy Communion, not EMHC.

 

[maryjk]

Why would one insist on receiving communion only from a priest when the Church formally allows deacons and under specific circumstances instituted/commissioned laypersons to also distribute communion? I have yet to see a valid reason mentioned on this entire thread. Go ahead, give me a succinct bullet list of VALID reasons. Thanks.

Want one? Okay.

I have to receive from the Priest because at our Parish, only the Priest has the low gluten hosts. If you need to receive a low gluten host, you need to go to the Priest.

One valid reason. :yup:

 

[Layman]

The priest is acting ‘in persona Christi’. I prefer to receive from Christ rather than a layman or laywoman.

Either the host is special and has a mystical virtue, or it doesn’t. If it does, then it ideally should not be tainted by being touched to mundane objects, including unconsecrated hands, before it enters your mouth.

A previous poster has said that we use EMCs because we have so few priests. How about this: we have so few priests because we now have novelties like EMCs, and others, which help make the Mass more mundane and crowd-pleasing. Not something an intelligent, lively man would immediately want to dedicate his life to, especially since it mutates all the time. Celibacy, obedience, poverty and a feminised Mass. What will it be like in another forty years?

Like it’s a hard job giving a small host to a couple of hundred people. Standing eight hours on a production line soldering electronic components is a hard job; distributing Communion isn’t.

If anyone or anything impedes you from getting Communion from your priest, go around them. If you can’t, object to being impeded. Failing that, go to a TLM.

Another post about a Novus Ordo practice in the traditional forum. Maybe we need a ‘modern Catholicism’ forum for this sort of thing? [Sarcasm] Then traditionalists can go over there and start posts arguing for traditional practices with those favouring the novelties. How about it?

 

[sarahraegraham]

Actually, according to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) 94 and 182 deacons ARE ordinary ministers of Holy Communion, not EMHC.

I stand corrected. Thank you!

The priest is acting ‘in persona Christi’. I prefer to receive from Christ rather than a layman or laywoman.

Either the host is special and has a mystical virtue, or it doesn’t. If it does, then it ideally should not be tainted by being touched to mundane objects, including unconsecrated hands, before it enters your mouth.

A previous poster has said that we use EMCs because we have so few priests. How about this: we have so few priests because we now have novelties like EMCs, and others, which help make the Mass more mundane and crowd-pleasing. Not something an intelligent, lively man would immediately want to dedicate his life to, especially since it mutates all the time. Celibacy, obedience, poverty and a feminised Mass. What will it be like in another forty years?

Like it’s a hard job giving a small host to a couple of hundred people. Standing eight hours on a production line soldering electronic components is a hard job; distributing Communion isn’t.

If anyone or anything impedes you from getting Communion from your priest, go around them. If you can’t, object to being impeded. Failing that, go to a TLM.

Another post about a Novus Ordo practice in the traditional forum. Maybe we need a ‘modern Catholicism’ forum for this sort of thing? [Sarcasm] Then traditionalists can go over there and start posts arguing for traditional practices with those favouring the novelties. How about it?

Whoo-aa… Way to shake things up. :clapping:

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

I rarely post in the TC forum because I attend the Chaldean Church (Eastern, where there are no un-consecrated hands distrubuting the Qurbana (Eucharist) ), but last week i attended the first communion of my niece who is RC and went up for a blessing…

anyhow the priest line was long and the other person’s line, i don’t know if it was a deacon or EMHC was almost empty…anyhow, twice they tried to make me go but I said I prefer the priest…its amazing how much caught up these people are in trying to “aid” in the mass but don’t know that its my right to go to the priest.

 

[Mattapoisett64]

As has been stated a number of times in this thread, the tradition of the Church for nearly 2000 years was reception from a priest. Good enough reason for me. Not for you? Then DON’T DO IT. Your “personal preference” as you put it.

As an aside, I am sure that others (as well as myself) take it for granted that when we say EMHC the reader will infer that we mean that phrase to include deacons and those otherwise used in that capacity, as they can also be called EMHC, since they are not the ordinary minister.

I don’t see why you are intent on condemning those of us who believe that receiving from a priest is the better choice if we have one. You are thereby imposing your “personal preference” on us, thereby condemning yourself by your own words.

I “prefer” to receive from a priest. I’ve outlined my reasons why. I believe it’s better that way. I’m not here to get you to change your opinion, only to serve as a voice for my own.Feel free to disagree, but you will never persuade me otherwise.

Actually, the order of deacon pre-dates the ministerial priesthood. In the early days of the Church, it was bishops and deacons. The priesthood developed as an extension of the bishop’s authority and ministry. One of the early roles of the deacon was to bring the consecrated Eucharist from the bishop’s Mass to the homes of the faithful not in attendance for whatever reason. So from the earliest days of the Church, the deacon has had a special role regarding the Eucharist. Thus the “priest only” practice is not in fact 2,000 years old. And, has been already pointed out, by virtue of their receipt of Holy Orders, deacons are *ordinary *ministers of Holy Communion. You’re certainly free to receive from the priest only if you wish, but please don’t misunderstand or diminish the role of the deacon in the process.

 

[Charioteer]

Want one? Okay.

I have to receive from the Priest because at our Parish, only the Priest has the low gluten hosts. If you need to receive a low gluten host, you need to go to the Priest.

One valid reason.

No. That has nothing at all to do with the intrinsic nature of the priesthood. That has to do with how the Mass is planned at your parish. A deacon or lay EMHC could just as easily distribute the special hosts.

 

[Charioteer]

As has been stated a number of times in this thread, the tradition of the Church for nearly 2000 years was reception from a priest. Good enough reason for me. Not for you? Then DON’T DO IT. Your “personal preference” as you put it.

As an aside, I am sure that others (as well as myself) take it for granted that when we say EMHC the reader will infer that we mean that phrase to include deacons and those otherwise used in that capacity, as they can also be called EMHC, since they are not the ordinary minister.

I don’t see why you are intent on condemning those of us who believe that receiving from a priest is the better choice if we have one. You are thereby imposing your “personal preference” on us, thereby condemning yourself by your own words.

I “prefer” to receive from a priest. I’ve outlined my reasons why. I believe it’s better that way. I’m not here to get you to change your opinion, only to serve as a voice for my own.Feel free to disagree, but you will never persuade me otherwise.

You can receive communion from anyone you care to. I just have not heard a valid reason (yet) to only receive from a priest. The Church now sees fit for deacons and under specific conditions instituted/commissioned laypersons to also distribute communion. That’s the final word. So while there is no prohibition of your preference, there is no reason for it either.

 

[TRUTH1960]

May be it’s not as conservative as you may think, since traddional catholic churches like the Fraternity of Saint Peter Mass (Tridentine Mass) do not allow EMC to distribute communion. If You like traddition, then you need where traddition is practised! I means according to your needs and what your heart tells you. God bless You.