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

[ErrorCMDR]

I also prefer receiving at the least the Host from a Priest the Blood I will allow the Deacon to give me. EM’s are not consecrated so I wouldn’t want them to touch the Host just as I receive on the tongue.

We have a small perish and I find it odd that we even have EMs.

to the OP I would talk to the Priest and let him know you convictions.
Even though EMs are allowed you should have the rite to follow your believes.
Just like those who where veils.

Although if he has a problem with it even though to receive from a EM would violate your Conviction I would find a new parish. Maybe a TLM

Out of about 100 people at our Mass I am 1 of 10 who receive on the tongue. And he knows it is out of respect for the Host.

God Bless and I hope this was helpful

ErrorCMDR

 

[puzzleannie]

the ushers should not be leading people to communion at all, that is not their job. they can direct traffic a bit, but should not be inviting whole pews of people since that implies they have a supernatural knowledge of who is properly disposed to receive. If they are actually impeding people they should be, uh stopped and instructed properly (my first thought is too uncharitable).

 

[rotlex]

A sensible person who is drowning is happy for someone - anyone - to throw them a rope. It would be more than a little odd, would it not, to waste even a moment’s thought on whether it was your preferred person throwing it?

We’re all drowning here, people. Holy Communion is the rope. To worry about who distributes it (providing the priest is fulfilling his responsibility and taking part in the distribution as much as he can) seems to me to be missing the point of the exercise entirely.

Well put. It actually disturbs me when I see people in our own parish “switch” lines, when they are not going to receive from the priest. If it’s OK with the Church to receive from an EMHC, it’s OK with God. For me, or anyone else for that matter, to make such a comotion out of it, is well, to put it bluntly, insulting.

You would not believe the contortions some of our parishioners go through to recieve from the priests alone. I think at times the priests switch places, we generally have 4 communion lines, on purpose, just so they can chuckle to themselves at how folks attempt to move around.

 

[nsper7]

This reminds of an interesting occurrence that happened a few days ago. Time came to receive Communion and there was the Priest and the EMHC passing out the Host. The Priest was on audience left and the EMCH audience right. Basically, I guess it was whichever side of the aisle you were on, you went to that person (I was in the right side, so I went to the EMHC).

Anyway, from where I was (and I admit I could have seen wrong), it looked like the EMHC’s line was backed up while the Priest had few parishioners. Now, granted, there may have been more parishioners on one side or the other, but it just seems odd one line would get backed up (at one point, it looked like the Priest had to get more Hosts for the EMHC, but again, I may have mis-seen the incident). You would think if one line was noticeably longer than the other, some people would have moved from the EMHC’s line to the Priest’s.

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

Well put. It actually disturbs me when I see people in our own parish “switch” lines, when they are not going to receive from the priest. If it’s OK with the Church to receive from an EMHC, it’s OK with God. For me, or anyone else for that matter, to make such a comotion out of it, is well, to put it bluntly, insulting.

You would not believe the contortions some of our parishioners go through to recieve from the priests alone. I think at times the priests switch places, we generally have 4 communion lines, on purpose, just so they can chuckle to themselves at how folks attempt to move around.

How is it insulting?

A LOT of Catholics think the EMHCs are OVERUSED. They are called EXTRAORDINARY for a reason, but they are always used.

It’s OK to receive in circumstances where the number of faithful exceed the priest extraordinarily.

And, why is it so bad to receive from a priest? The NORM of reception is from a priest - Christ consecrates the bread and wine through him, his hands have been deemed by the Church as holy.

Almost all of the EMHCs I have seen are not instituted (as they should be), and are overused.

There is nothing wrong with going to receive from a priest. It is how it is to be done. EMHCs are an EXCEPTION, NOT THE RULE.

 

[sarahraegraham]

How is it insulting?

A LOT of Catholics think the EMHCs are OVERUSED. They are called EXTRAORDINARY for a reason, but they are always used.

It’s OK to receive in circumstances where the number of faithful exceed the priest extraordinarily.

And, why is it so bad to receive from a priest? The NORM of reception is from a priest - Christ consecrates the bread and wine through him, his hands have been deemed by the Church as holy.

Almost all of the EMHCs I have seen are not instituted (as they should be), and are overused.

There is nothing wrong with going to receive from a priest. It is how it is to be done. EMHCs are an EXCEPTION, NOT THE RULE.

Agreed. Also, the thread should not be allowed to derail into an argument over whether or not it is proper to attempt to receive from a priest instead of an EMHC. It’s a personal choice that we should all respect regardless of our personal opinion.

 

[maryjk]

Well, if you read the OP’s post… you see it has nothing to do with his commentary on the usage of EMHCs, but rather him being “forced” by the ushers to receive from them.

I did read it. Which was why I started my response. And no one “forces” anyone to receive. Simply walk by the EMHC, like I do.

But hey, we appreciate your attitude towards traditional Catholics.

But if you read most the of the responses, you will see that it comes down to, the Priest vs an EMHC, NOT how to get to the Priest to receive. It has been derailed from how to get to the Priest to how awful EMHC are.

I can quote posts, but I am sure you can read them for yourself.

What’s really funny, is that most of my friends think I am really traditional. I laugh, because I am very liberal compared to folks here.

 

[WhollyRoamin]

Go to a traditional Catholic parish and avoid this whole problem altogether!

At my territorial Novus Ordo parish, the pastor is a “roamer”. You never know what position in the spaceship where he will stand to distribute communion, so you can’t sit in an according pew to receive from him. He could be anywhere. It’s so frustrating.

As a Catholic, I have a RIGHT to receive communion from consecrated hands. To exercise that right, it seems like you’ve got to hike the North 40 to find a priest.

 

[rotlex]

How is it insulting?

A LOT of Catholics think the EMHCs are OVERUSED. They are called EXTRAORDINARY for a reason, but they are always used.

It’s OK to receive in circumstances where the number of faithful exceed the priest extraordinarily.

And, why is it so bad to receive from a priest? The NORM of reception is from a priest - Christ consecrates the bread and wine through him, his hands have been deemed by the Church as holy.

Almost all of the EMHCs I have seen are not instituted (as they should be), and are overused.

There is nothing wrong with going to receive from a priest. It is how it is to be done. EMHCs are an EXCEPTION, NOT THE RULE.

Did I say it was bad to receive from a priest? No, I did not. How is it insulting? In my eyes, it is insulting to both the Church and to God to have an “issue” with receiving from an EMHC, when He must obviously think it is OK, or He would not allow it.

Sorry to derail, or offend. I’ll step out. Just want to point out that there are a lot of folks who get way to worked up over the little things. IMO, not very Christian like of someone.

 

[Orogeny]

They are called EXTRAORDINARY for a reason, but they are always used.

And what would that reason be?

Peace

Tim

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

Did I say it was bad to receive from a priest? No, I did not. How is it insulting? In my eyes, it is insulting to both the Church and to God to have an “issue” with receiving from an EMHC, when He must obviously think it is OK, or He would not allow it.

Sorry to derail, or offend. I’ll step out. Just want to point out that there are a lot of folks who get way to worked up over the little things. IMO, not very Christian like of someone.

I don’t see how it’s insulting.

Rather than receive from Bob (or as is more often the case, Jane), I would like to receive from Fr. O’Malley. Fr.'s hands are consecrated for JUST THIS. He, up until the 1970s, was the only person who could handle the Sacred Species.

I don’t know how it’s un-Christian to have a discussion on the merits of receiving from a priest or not. But, hey, I see that “un-Christian” line whenever I disagree with Catholics on practices like EMHCs, the Sign of Peace, and other such things. So it really means nothing to me.

I think Christ would also rather have us receive HIM from his DULY APPOINTED AND CONSECRATED man on Earth - the priest.

 

[Orogeny]

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

You should just stand up, go to the Priest’s line and receive from him. If anyone tries to stop you, make a huge fuss and draw all the attention from the sacrament to you so that everyone will know that you have been prevented from receiving as you wish. I bet that would put a stop to the ushers forcing you to receive from an EMHC!

Peace

Tim

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

And what would that reason be?

Peace

Tim

The reason they are called EXTRAORDINARY Ministers of Holy Communion, is because they are out of the norm. The priest is an Ordinary Minister of Communion (a deacon might be too? I don’t know). So, the Church calls them EXTRAordinary, because they are outside of the normal bounds of Ministers of Holy Communion.

 

[Michael96]

While I can understand why people prefer to go to the priest - I would also add my voice to those saying that we should be humble enough to receive Christ in whatever way is presented to us. While I know people want to show greatest devotion - the greatest devotion, I believe, really is being instantly ready to receive Christ wherever and whenever.

 

[Orogeny]

The reason they are called EXTRAORDINARY Ministers of Holy Communion, is because they are out of the norm. The priest is an Ordinary Minister of Communion (a deacon might be too? I don’t know). So, the Church calls them EXTRAordinary, because they are outside of the normal bounds of Ministers of Holy Communion.

Not because they are out of the norm, because they are not ordained. The priest is the Eucharistic Minister. The deacon is the ordinary minister of Holy Communion. They are both ordained. Laity who help distribute Holy Communion are extraordinary because they are not ordained. It does not refer to the frequency for which they are to be used.

One can make the argument that EMHCs are overused and I would tend to agree in some parishes. However, the term extraordinary doesn’t have anything to do with that.

Peace

Tim

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

Not because they are out of the norm, because they are not ordained. The priest is the Eucharistic Minister. The deacon is the ordinary minister of Holy Communion. They are both ordained. Laity who help distribute Holy Communion are extraordinary because they are not ordained. It does not refer to the frequency for which they are to be used.

One can make the argument that EMHCs are overused and I would tend to agree in some parishes. However, the term extraordinary doesn’t have anything to do with that.

Peace

Tim

Well…
If the norm is an ordained man.
And anything not an ordained man is outside the norm.
Then laity distributing Communion are outside the norm.

So my logic stands.

And I’m aware that the word Extraordinary doesn’t apply to their frequency of usage. I didn’t imply that in my writing. I said they are outside of the norm for normal distributers of Communion.

 

[Orogeny]

Well…
If the norm is an ordained man.
And anything not an ordained man is outside the norm.
Then laity distributing Communion are outside the norm.

So my logic stands.

Your logic may stand, but your logic as applied is wrong. You said “The reason they are called EXTRAORDINARY Ministers of Holy Communion, is because they are out of the norm.”. They may be out of the norm, but that is not why they are called extraordinary. I gave you the reason they are called extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion.

And I’m aware that the word Extraordinary doesn’t apply to their frequency of usage. I didn’t imply that in my writing. I said they are outside of the norm for normal distributers of Communion.

So wrote BayernAnhaenger: “A LOT of Catholics think the EMHCs are OVERUSED. They are called EXTRAORDINARY for a reason, but they are always used.” (emphasis added).

Peace

Tim

 

[larousser]

It isn’t insulting to the Church to believe there should be no EMHCs, nor does Church law oblige people to receive from them. They were only permitted because Dutch ‘reformers’ had introduced it illicitly and the Pope decided to placate them, but nobody was obliged to accept the idea, much less even receive from one of them. Many bishops have condemned and banned the practice. John Paul II had originally condemned the idea: "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained. (Dominicae Cenae, sec. 11); “It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another.” (Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980, sec. 9).

Futhermore it is illict to use EMHCs when there are enough ordinary ministers to dispense the Sacrament to the faithful:

RS 88 Only when there is a necessity may extraordinary ministers assist the Priest celebrant in accordance with the norm of law.

They may be used, but nobody is obliged to receive from them, and I certainly would never do so.

 

[sarahraegraham]

Since everyone seems intent on or content with continuing the derailed discussion, I would like to also add the following, for those who think it is “inappropriate” for a parishioner to “make a fuss” about receiving from a priest and not an EMHC:

The Church has **allowed **for us to believe in miracles of the past, but does **not **require that we believe them.

The Church has also **allowed **EMHC’s, but does **not **require that we receive from them.

For those us of who wish to receive from a priest, we can all make accomodations so that it will happen every time we attend Mass. Sit where you need to sit; get there on time; if you arrive late, then move to where you need to be. If someone (i.e., an usher) is in your way, say “Excuse me” and walk around them/behind them, etc. to where you wish to go. Not many people will be paying attention to what you are doing, and if they are, that’s not your problem. They should be concentrating on prayer before/after receiving anyway.

For those who wish to insist on arguing that those of us who desire to receive from a priest are ridiculous (or whatever other word you would like to use) I would question your motives on trying to prove that you are right and we are wrong. We are not “un-Christian”, or selfish, or silly.

Christ instituted the priesthood for a reason, and (now I’m speaking personally) by my receiving on the tongue and only from a priest and while covering my head, all these things show respect, reverence and honor to those to whom it is due: **CHRIST **and **HIS **chosen men. **NONE **of these things are required, however, I do them because of my love for God. PERIOD!

Now… if you have a problem with that, well that’s just tough.

 

[larousser]

Sarah, you are a voice of reason amidst the screams of confusion.