Is this the beginning of the end for communion in the hand?

  • Thread starter Thread starter paramedicgirl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
They should only be used in EXTRAORDINARY circumstances, not a matter of course.
Correct. I think it was St. Basil who said that receiving on the hand (thereby touching the Host with hands that are not consecrated) is not a grave fault during times of persecution.

This shows that proponents of receiving on the tongue allow for exceptions in extraordinary circumstances, and so the position is not demolished by the example involving St. Tarcisius.
 
They should only be used in EXTRAORDINARY circumstances, not a matter of course.
Why, and who says. Apparently that is NOT the position of the Church as reception in the hand is wide spread…several examples have been given.
Examples can be found in the early church where reception in the hand is the norm. If Jesus can go in my belly he can go in my hand.
 
They should only be used in EXTRAORDINARY circumstances, not a matter of course.
This is the teaching of the Church. And the truth is that EMHC are over used and in the majority of Masses they are not needed.

DOMINICAE CENAE
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
JOHN PAUL II February 24, First Sunday of Lent, in the year 1980,
11.9 In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been introduced. This practice has been requested by individual episcopal conferences and has received approval from the Apostolic See. However, cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards the eucharistic species have been reported, cases which are imputable not only to the individuals guilty of such behavior but also to the pastors of the church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist. It also happens, on occasion, that the free choice of those who prefer to continue the practice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue is not taken into account in those places where the distribution of Communion in the hand has been authorized. It is therefore difficult in the context of this present letter not to mention the sad phenomena previously referred to. This is in no way meant to refer to those who, receiving the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion, in those countries where this practice has been authorized.
11.10 But one must not forget the primary office of priests, who have been consecrated by their ordination to represent Christ the Priest: for this reason their hands, like their words and their will, have become the direct instruments of Christ. Through this fact, that is, as ministers of the Holy Eucharist, they have a primary responsibility for the sacred species, because it is a total responsibility: they offer the bread and wine, they consecrate it, and then distribute the sacred species to the participants in the assembly who wish to receive them. Deacons can only bring to the altar the offerings of the faithful and, once they have been consecrated by the priest, distribute them. How eloquent therefore, even if not of ancient custom, is the rite of the anointing of the hands in our Latin ordination, as though precisely for these hands a special grace and power of the Holy Spirit is necessary!
11 To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained, one which indicates an active participation in the ministry of the Eucharist. It is obvious that the Church can grant this faculty to those who are neither priests nor deacons, as is the case with acolytes in the exercise of their ministry, especially if they are destined for future ordination, or with other lay people who are chosen for this to meet a just need, but always after an adequate preparation."

Where is the just need when you have a Mass with 200 people and you have eight EMHC doing what the priest should do.
 
Done. It hasn’t made any more sense than last I checked.
Like using what one thinks is a less reverent form of reception because the Sacrament is received from a layperson does???

I have to wonder if folks who think that one form is only appropriate for receiving from a member of clergy and the other when receiving from a layperson has stopped believing they are receiving the same Sacrament.
 
Like using what one thinks is a less reverent form of reception because the Sacrament is received from a layperson does???

I have to wonder if folks who think that one form is only appropriate for receiving from a member of clergy and the other when receiving from a layperson has stopped believing they are receiving the same Sacrament.
Do you agree with Pope John Paul that, “To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained”?
WIll you also acknowledge that EMHC are to be used in only extraordinary circumstances?
 
The pope’s letter did NOT use the phrase EXTRAORDINARY circumstances…nor did it condemn or denegrate the practice of reception in the hand, only the ABUSE associated with this…and them blamed the pastors for not preventing some of the abuses.
 
Priests and deacons are ORDINARY ministers of the Eucharist. One of the most aggregious abuses I saw was an Army Chaplain who would use EMHCs while leaving the deacon that was present and had faculties in his pew. This was done because the two had a personality conflict. Then Sergeant C. told Colonel B that he was wrong in doing this, in not allowing the deacon…who serves the bishop…to exercise his ministry at the altar due to a personality conflict.
 
I take Communion on the tonque when I manage to get in Father’s line (which is most of the time) But when I find myself in lay person’s line I take it on the hand, because I don’t see the point otherwise.

Am I alone feeling this way?
Apparently not, but I think you’re wrong.

While I consider the armies of EMHCs to be a misuse and much prefer Masses where multiple Priests distribute communion, it is still Our Lord from the point of consecration onward, and coming into contact with a layperson’s hands doesn’t change that fact.

I am always amazed at line-jumpers - I even knew a EMHC who, when he was in the congregation, insisted on receiving from a Priest. I think that to do so shows a lack of both Faith and Charity. I have been at Masses where so many people refused to receive from the EMHC that the I left the Priest’s line and walked about 20 feet or so to receive from the EMHC.

My RCIA sponsor, who served as a EMHC, joked to me that when nobody was in his line he sometimes wondered if his fly was down.

If people really think so highly of the Priest, then why would they question his judgement regarding the use of EMHCs? Why would they question the Bishop’s judgement in appointing them?

Most puzzling of all - why would you treat Our Lord like a snack cracker just because a layperson touched him?
 
Priests and deacons are ORDINARY ministers of the Eucharist. One of the most aggregious abuses I saw was an Army Chaplain who would use EMHCs while leaving the deacon that was present and had faculties in his pew. This was done because the two had a personality conflict. Then Sergeant C. told Colonel B that he was wrong in doing this, in not allowing the deacon…who serves the bishop…to exercise his ministry at the altar due to a personality conflict.
We see that here all the time. Don’t want to hurt the feelings of one single EEM, you know.
 
Do you agree with Pope John Paul that, “To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained”?
WIll you also acknowledge that EMHC are to be used in only extraordinary circumstances?
If you can prove to me that either question is a suitable response to the concerns I raised about this flip flop in showing reverence.
 
If you can prove to me that either question is a suitable response to the concerns I raised about this flip flop in showing reverence.
. This isn’t a trick question. I would honestly like to know your feelings about this.
Originally Posted by stmaria
Do you agree with Pope John Paul that, “To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained”?
WIll you also acknowledge that EMHC are to be used in only extraordinary circumstances
 
. This isn’t a trick question. I would honestly like to know your feelings about this.
Trick or not - it has nothing to do with the concern I raised.

Unless it can be shown that it does I prefer not to answer to not lose focus on the issue (the flip flop re reverence by some traditional Catholics based on whether the Blessed Sacrament is received from clergy or layperson).
 
The pope’s letter did NOT use the phrase EXTRAORDINARY circumstances…nor did it condemn or denegrate the practice of reception in the hand, only the ABUSE associated with this…and them blamed the pastors for not preventing some of the abuses.
O.K. He didn’t use the word “extarordinary” But isn’t that what they are called and isn’t their use to be only when necessary? How often does that really happen? 4, 6, 8, EMHC is over kill. Not necessary. It blurs the line between the priest and laity.

Redemptionis Sacramentum
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html
On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided
regarding the Most Holy Eucharist

157.] If there is usually present a sufficient number of sacred ministers for the distribution of Holy Communion, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not be appointed. Indeed, in such circumstances, those who may have already been appointed to this ministry should not exercise it. The practice of those Priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distributing Communion and hand this function over to laypersons.[258]
[158.] Indeed, the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may administer Communion only when the Priest and Deacon are lacking, when the Priest is prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number of faithful coming to Communion **is so great **that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged.[259]
 
O.K. He didn’t use the word “extarordinary” But isn’t that what they are called and isn’t their use to be only when necessary?
They are called that to differentiate them from the ‘ordinary’ minister (clergy).

The when necessary is determined by the pastor.
 
Trick or not - it has nothing to do with the concern I raised.

Unless it can be shown that it does I prefer not to answer to not lose focus on the issue (the flip flop re reverence by some traditional Catholics based on whether the Blessed Sacrament is received from clergy or layperson).
You prefer not to anwser this simple question yet you do not hesitate to voice your opinion on your posts?

Do you agree with Pope John Paul that, “To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained”? My anwser is Yes.
WIll you also acknowledge that EMHC are to be used in only extraordinary circumstances? My anwser is yes

What is your anwser?
 
You prefer not to anwser this simple question yet you do not hesitate to voice your opinion on your posts?

Do you agree with Pope John Paul that, “To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained”? My anwser is Yes.
WIll you also acknowledge that EMHC are to be used in only extraordinary circumstances? My anwser is yes

What is your anwser?
Feel free to review posts #72 & #74.
 
They are called that to differentiate them from the ‘ordinary’ minister (clergy).

The when necessary is determined by the pastor.
Redemptionis Sacramentum
On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided
regarding the Most Holy Eucharist

[158.] Indeed, the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may administer Communion only when the Priest and Deacon are lacking, when the Priest is prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged.[259]

So you would agree that if there is not a great number of people at Mass and Mass would not be “unduly prolonged” that there would be no need for any EMHC?
 
Redemptionis Sacramentum
On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided
regarding the Most Holy Eucharist

[158.] Indeed, the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may administer Communion only when the Priest and Deacon are lacking, when the Priest is prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged.[259]

So you would agree that if there is not a great number of people at Mass and Mass would not be “unduly prolonged” that there would be no need for any EMHC?
It is the pastor’s call.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top