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

[Charioteer]

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…

• I certainly hope you are aware that while the priest most certainly stands in the Person of Christ at the Altar of Sacrifice he is NOT Christ at the communion rail – the priest is NOT Christ in that context – he distributes Christ in that context.
• The Church does not recognize your outrageous and terribly ignorant claim that unconsecrated hands “taint” the Blessed Sacrament during the distribution of Holy Communion.

Your posting may well be a spoof but if it’s real all I can say is that you clearly need to better understand the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

 

[Charioteer]

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.

I don’t believe the EF has a provision for the use of EMsHC, does it? This is nothing unique to the FSSP. It’s simply a matter of following the rubrics for the EF Mass.

 

[Charioteer]

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.

Thanks for the history. It’s always nicer to go a bit deeper on such matters…

 

[Layman]

‘Tainted’ may not be the best word. Can the Host be affected by what Men do to it, like what Satanists do? ‘Dishonoured’ might be better, if not, in this instance.

Regardless, If the host is the Body of Christ, and great care was taken in the past, using patens, to make sure a crumb of it did not fall to the ground, and communion was given kneeling, on the tongue, why is it now OK for CITH via EMCs?

Did the Host stop being so sacred? Or did we laymen become more so?

And I don’t want to hear about what other rites do. That’s their business. Or what was done briefly in Antioch 1000 years ago. I could make up a very … interesting … Mass myself by picking and choosing discarded rubrics, I dare say. Or is that what has already happened?

I’m talking about the Roman Catholic rite, which, by dropping Latin, is now not so very Roman and thus universal.

 

[Jennifer_G]

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.

I heard about his injury last night at our prayer group, although I did see his name during a wedding last Saturday.

Anyway, I noticed that sometimes, the priest and deacon will switch places. I’m guessing it’s during Holy Days of obligation when relating to Mary. First time I was able to receive communion (after becoming Catholic) during a Holy Day, I sat on the St. Joseph side so I could receive Communion from the priest, and the priest went to the BVM side.

 

[Charioteer]

‘Tainted’ may not be the best word. Can the Host be affected by what Men do to it, like what Satanists do? ‘Dishonoured’ might be better, if not, in this instance…

…I’m talking about the Roman Catholic rite, which, by dropping Latin, is now not so very Roman and thus universal.

• You didn’t try to argue that the priest does not stand in the person of Christ at the communion railing so I will presume you learned something.
• “Tainted” is both ignorant and outrageous in this context. Now you are suggesting “dishonored” is more accurate? Let’s think about this for a moment. EMsHC just like ordained priests are made in the image of God – in fact they are part of the royal priesthood of the Church. To distribute communion EMsHC must typically be confirmed Catholic Christians in a state of grace who have been trained and instituted/commissioned by their bishop to perform that roll. Perhaps even more important they sacramentally carry the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ within their bodies as they have just received communion themselves and in their hands contained in a sacred vessel. Further do you think the Church would allow ANYTHING that would “dishonor” the Blessed Sacrament? Given all that are they necessarily more apt to “dishonor” the Blessed Sacrament more than an ordained priest? Nope.
• You are aware that it’s the “Catholic” part and not the “Roman” part that means universal, right? Further when we talk about the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" we are talking about ALL the rites/churches/traditions that comprise the Catholic Church – and not just the Latin Rite.

 

[Layman]

• You didn’t try to argue that the priest does not stand in the person of Christ at the communion railing so I will presume you learned something.

**I didn’t argue this because I don’t know. And still don’t. When is he and when is he not acting ‘in persona Christi’? Does stop being consecrated at some point in the mass?

Does he, as a priest, have a virtue that an EMC does not?** And if he does, is it not preferable to receive Communion from him?

• “Tainted” is both ignorant and outrageous in this context. Now you are suggesting “dishonored” is more accurate?

It’s a fair proposal. If you truly know the answer, tell me: Can the Host be affected by what laymen do to it? I want to know. Not an opinion, something authoritative. If I’m an EMC and I’ve got perfume, dirt or snot on my hands from sneezing, does that matter?

If the Host is sacred, should it not be handled with all the reverence one can muster? This leads logically to Communion, kneeling, on the tongue, from your priest, as in “Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my roof …”

Let’s think about this for a moment. EMsHC just like ordained priests are made in the image of God – in fact they are part of the royal priesthood of the Church.

**Rubbish. I’ve heard this before. ‘The Priesthood of the Laity’. If I’m a priest what do I need an ordained one for? One more reason to play down the role of priests.

Next up: ‘Communion services’ instead of Masses. Because we can’t get priests. Because we don’t esteem the role any more.** Because lay people are doing more and more of the priest’s role. So why do we need a priest? Why give up money, freedom and marriage for it, if Mrs. McGonagle from No. 27 can do what you’d be doing?

Use pre-consecrated Hosts! Got a priest shortage? Problem solved. Handy for Bishops too; no vocation crisis to worry about. Consecrate hosts centrally and distribute.

Coming soon to a parish near you … ‘Communion services’? Which you are not obligated to attend. Because they’re not Masses.

To distribute communion EMsHC must typically be confirmed Catholic Christians in a state of grace who have been trained and instituted/commissioned by their bishop to perform that roll.

So any good lay Catholic can do it. And do bishops directly commission EMCs? All of them? And what does commissioning mean? A laying-on of hands?

Perhaps even more important they sacramentally carry the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ within their bodies as they have just received communion themselves and in their hands contained in a sacred vessel.

So any good lay Catholic can do it.

Further do you think the Church would allow ANYTHING that would “dishonor” the Blessed Sacrament? Given all that are they necessarily more apt to “dishonor” the Blessed Sacrament more than an ordained priest? Nope.

I think rebellious Bishops would allow novelties like CITH and EMCs. In fact, I know they have. And I’ve read that these are not preferred by Rome. Allowed, but not preferred. But rebellious Bishops, clergy and laity persist with them, and even promote them.

As far as I know, EMCs were originally meant to distribute Communion to sick people, outside the church, when a priest was not available. Now they’re ubiquitous and used when there’s no real reason to do so. One more way of making our rite more mundane.

• You are aware that it’s the “Catholic” part and not the “Roman” part that means universal, right? Further when we talk about the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" we are talking about ALL the rites/churches/traditions that comprise the Catholic Church – and not just the Latin Rite.

Dropping Latin meant our rite is no longer universal in practice. Go to a foreign country, where they don’t speak your language and go to a ‘Roman’ Catholic Mass. You’ll barely have a clue what’s going on. No such problem with the old Latin mass. One rite, one language, wherever you go.

 

[Layman]

PS:

• Perhaps even more important they sacramentally carry the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ within their bodies as they have just received communion themselves and in their hands contained in a sacred vessel.

**I think you are overstating your case here. They have just received Communion, that’s all. It doesn’t elevate them to the same spiritual level as a priest. **

Further do you think the Church would allow ANYTHING that would “dishonor” the Blessed Sacrament? Given all that are they necessarily more apt to “dishonor” the Blessed Sacrament more than an ordained priest? Nope.

**I think the Church is now being wracked by subtle (and not-so-subtle) dissension by her clergy and laity.

Really, if you truly believed that The King Of The Universe, who suffered so much before and during His pitiful and prolonged agony on Calvary, is present in the Host, you wouldn’t have the EMCs and the other strange, crowd-pleasing novelties that accompany the modern Mass.

I perceive an odd attitude of “I’m as good as the priest” in the modern Church. An attitude of crowd-pleasing. Of dumbing-down. Of soft-pedaling Hell, Sin and Damnation, to the spiritual peril of the faithful. At an event you’d think the community would go all-out** to make glorious, humbling, and awe-inspiring.

Mrs. McCafferty standing beside Fr. Nice-Guy giving out the hosts detracts from that.

 

[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.

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.

You never said it had to do with the intrinsic nature of the priesthood. All you asked was for a valid reason someone receives only from the Priest. I receive from the Priest and only from the Priest. I do some crazy movements around the church to get to the Priest. I will walk past any EMHC. Because I MUST receive only from the Priest, at our Parish.

True, if the priest trained someone else to do it, I would go to them. But, at this point, I must receive from the Priest.

 

[Charioteer]

You never said it had to do with the intrinsic nature of the priesthood. All you asked was for a valid reason someone receives only from the Priest. I receive from the Priest and only from the Priest. I do some crazy movements around the church to get to the Priest. I will walk past any EMHC. Because I MUST receive only from the Priest, at our Parish.

True, if the priest trained someone else to do it, I would go to them. But, at this point, I must receive from the Priest.

You must receive from a specific person. It makes no difference if the person is a priest or not.

 

[EasterJoy]

I think we’re getting into apples and oranges here. It must be a cultural thing, but for some reason, “I am something that you are not” has come to mean, “I am better than you.” It doesn’t take much analysis to realize that this is utter nonsense. It is unnecessary to put down the laity in order to draw a clear and meaningful distinction between the laity and the priesthood; neither does the degree to which both priests and laypersons share one baptism change the ways in which the two are entirely different.

Stand any priest before Our Blessed Mother, and she would be the first to tell you that he has an imprint on his soul that even her soul, as pure and beautiful as it is, does not have. She, who is Co-Mediatrix of All Graces, Queen of Heaven, Queen of Apostles, and Help of Priests, is not herself a priest. That this priest standing before her, whatever the state of his soul, is something that a layperson is not does not diminish the layperson any more than it diminishes Our Blessed Mother!

It is because of the sacramental seal upon the priests (and deacons) that they differ from the laity. That is why they are the ordinary ministers of the Eucharist.

A second point, though, is that the Church, in her wisdom, has decided that the good of offering Our Lord under both species by practical necessity requires that extraordinary ministers be appointed to help the ordinary ministers with the distribution of Holy Communion.

At present, most Catholics do not place such importance on the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary that they are unwilling to receive the Eucharist from whatever minister the Church provides, provided that the ordinary ministers are faithful to their ministry to their full capacity. When Catholics do start refusing to receive from EMsHC en masse, then the Church may need to require that Catholics obediently get into such-and-so line, or else decide on some other accomodation, so that Holy Communion may be dispensed under both species without violating order or exceeding the capacity of the normal ministers. If a pastor has not made it clear that such a point of necessity has been reached in his parish, though, what is the point of an argument between us?

Our brothers and sisters do not need any reason to prefer receiving from an ordinary minister whenever they can, save personal preference. If the Eucharistic mystery is more meaningful to them when dispensed directly by an ordinary minister, what is it to us? Neither do any of us need to apologize for accepting as permissible anything that Rome does in fact permit, or for esteeming “Mrs. McCafferty” as better than ourselves and incapable of diminishing a liturgy which was diminished enough in having had to include us. We are allowed to look at this question both ways. May I dare to say that we do no wrong by minding our own business about it, either? It might even do us some good.

As for the OP, perhaps they can inquire into the matter with their pastor. That is the person who is actually in a position to address their particular case.

 

[Charioteer]

Our brothers and sisters do not need any reason to prefer receiving from an ordinary minister whenever they can, save personal preference.

You’re absolutely right!

The ONLY valid reason for receiving from only a priest is just that – person preference. Problems begin when people try to justify their choices. There is no justification in this case, there is just that – person preference.

 

[Layman]

If there’s no difference between receiving from a layperson or a priest, then why weren’t EMCs the norm until well after Vat. II?

Here’s one opinion: because previouly the idea was inconceivable that a priest would confect the Hosts at the altar, and then delegate lay women to distribute them.

It’s weird: Why would he go to that trouble, then say, “here you go, darlin’, you give them out”? I assume Christ gave bread at the Last Supper directly. He didn’t say to Mary Magdalen: “Pass it 'round, will you?”

But post Vat. II, the laity, largely women, are marching on the altar, and supine, badly-formed priests, indoctrinated by modernist bishops, are throwing away their authority in the central rite of our religion, mistakenly confusing appeasment with caritas.

Can you see where this is heading?

**No priests for your church. **

(**What robust man wants to give up marriage, money and personal freedom to be a mere confectioner at a N.O. mass? **Assuming he can get past liberal vocation directors and please effeminate superiors to last through to his ordination.)

The bossiest lay members will distribute pre-consecrated hosts at a Communion service. Then your church will close. No priests = no mass = no church. Priests will be moved to the more lucrative churches, they die off, they have no replacements, then the parish is merged with more robust ones next to it.

If the diocese is liberal, it has a vocations crisis, which too-clever Bishops will try to fix with stop-gap permanent deacons. Except they can’t say Mass. No Mass = no church.

All because EMCs, women in the sanctuary, communion in the hand, lay lectors, the priest versus populum evangelise for the idea that the Mass is not a sacred and mysterious site any more; anyone can walk in the sanctuary now and face the congregation to be admired, deflecting attention from Him.

Wake up and see where your liberal clerics and laity are taking you.

 

[EasterJoy]

You’re absolutely right!

The ONLY valid reason for receiving from only a priest is just that – person preference. Problems begin when people try to justify their choices. There is no justification in this case, there is just that – person preference.

My point was that if a brother or sister finds that receiving from the ordinary ministers is more edifying, if for any reason some particular person presents an obstacle for them, we should just leave them alone about it. Conversations can be enlightening, yes, but what is to be gained by disputes? Let them be ministered to where they are.

Their preference does none of the rest of us any harm, and I say this as a EMHC. If they would rather receive from someone other than me, I need no justification or apologies from them. As long as they are not standing in someone else’s way, let them be. Who knows? Maybe they have found graces we don’t know about. If so, I wouldn’t stand in the way, just because those graces aren’t being offered to me. And if they are accomodating a spiritual fault, what is it to me? Don’t others accomodate our faults all the time, too?

This is a pastoral question, meaning that whether there is objectively a difference one way or another depends on discernment that is a pastor’s to make. If we are being ministered to, then how ministry is offered to others and what accomodations they need isn’t our concern.

It is just my opinion, but I believe it to be an unnecessary distraction for us to worry about it at all. I mean that it is good to share our take on these things with each other, so we can consider ways to look at things we might not have thought of or sources of grace we might have otherwise missed, but let’s not make it into a topic for disputes.

 

[ac_claire]

I also try to receive from the priest only, if possible. I don’t have any great tips but I can basically just back up some of the good advice already given in this thread. When it’s time for my row to go up, I just walk up and move to the priest line. If I see I’ve somehow ended up in an EMHC line, I just switch over to the end of the priest’s line. It’s never caused any kind of problem. If anyone’s ever “dirty-looked” me, I didn’t notice.

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…

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?

Hi Charioteer. You’ve been given several, various valid reasons (including simple personal preference) why some people prefer to receive from the priest only. But for some reason you are refusing to accept any of the explanations given. They all seem valid to me. And you seem to think that your personal opinion is the ultimate judge of what constitutes a “valid reason”…Sorry you feel that way, but there’s not really anything anyone can do about that.

 

[sarahraegraham]

Hi Charioteer. You’ve been given several, various valid reasons (including simple personal preference) why some people prefer to receive from the priest only. But for some reason you are refusing to accept any of the explanations given. They all seem valid to me. And you seem to think that your personal opinion is the ultimate judge of what constitutes a “valid reason”…Sorry you feel that way, but there’s not really anything anyone can do about that.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Charioteer]

My point was that if a brother or sister finds that receiving from the ordinary ministers is more edifying, if for any reason some particular person presents an obstacle for them, we should just leave them alone about it. Conversations can be enlightening, yes, but what is to be gained by disputes? Let them be ministered to where they are.

No one was attacked because they prefer CotT. Not a single person. At the same time not everyone accepted their personal opinion that CotT was in any way superior to CitH. If there was any friction it was because they pushed their personal opinion as being “superior.”

 

[EasterJoy]

No one was attacked because they prefer CotT. Not a single person. At the same time not everyone accepted their personal opinion that CotT was in any way superior to CitH. If there was any friction it was because they pushed their personal opinion as being “superior.”

Friction takes two surfaces rubbing together, though, right?

I didn’t mean to accuse you, only to clarify what my own point was. I didn’t mean to imply you were attacking anybody. I have that problem, though: I respond to someone, meaning my comment as an add-on to theirs, and it is taken as a counter-argument. I need to work on clarifying that right off the bat.

My point was not that their opinion was only their opinion and not a thing more, but that we didn’t have to even concern ourselves with whether it was more or not. We can just say our piece, ask questions where we don’t understand, and then take whatever edification they do have to offer and let the question go. What anyone else does or doesn’t think of themselves is no worry of ours, after all. What they think of us isn’t our worry, for that matter, except that we take care to examine ourselves whenever we are admonished.

Thank you for clarifying your point, though…so I’ll now try to take my own advice!

 

[EasterJoy]

Hi Charioteer. You’ve been given several, various valid reasons (including simple personal preference) why some people prefer to receive from the priest only. But for some reason you are refusing to accept any of the explanations given. They all seem valid to me. And you seem to think that your personal opinion is the ultimate judge of what constitutes a “valid reason”…Sorry you feel that way, but there’s not really anything anyone can do about that.

To the contrary: He has not tried to dissuade anyone from attempting to receive from the priest only, and accepts personal preference as a fully valid reason for doing that.

It is also hard to expect that he ask no clarification when words like “tainted” are used in the context they were, as those who do have authority over us all do not explain the matter in this way. That does not mean he has a quarrel with the thought that real grace can come from following personal preference in this instance. It means he could not accept the argument presented in the form it took. Even someone who agrees with our premise might feel a need to address factual or logical errors or weaknesses in supportive arguments we put forth.

Well, as implied above, that needs to be my last (name removed by moderator)ut, too. I’ve made my points.

 

[ac_claire]

To the contrary: He has not tried to dissuade anyone from attempting to receive from the priest only, and accepts personal preference as a fully valid reason for doing that.

It is also hard to expect that he ask no clarification when words like “tainted” are used in the context they were, as those who do have authority over us all do not explain the matter in this way. That does not mean he has a quarrel with the thought that real grace can come from following personal preference in this instance. It means he could not accept the argument presented in the form it took. Even someone who agrees with our premise might feel a need to address factual or logical errors or weaknesses in supportive arguments we put forth.

Clarification is fine. Posting repeatedly that he has seen only “personal preferences” in this thread but “no valid reasons,” and “not a single valid reason,” etc. seems to indicate that he doesn’t feel that a personal preference is a valid reason.

But…I won’t belabor the point.