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.
Eilish_Maura said:
It is the pastor’s call.
Click to expand...
maybe that is the sad truth…

[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]

A strong priest, in the mold of a John Vianney, would love to see big crowds for communion.

But as you have pointed out, if we see the overuse of EMHC, we are safe in suspecting the presence of the pastor’s influence and approval… a weak pastor perhaps who folds to the desires of the laity to “actively participate.”

Yep Eilish, you have hit on something:rolleyes:

.
 
ByzCath said:
Very sad indeed. What an uproar we would have if someone posted that they were praying for the abrogation of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass and yet there is hardly even a whimper for this outrageous statement.
Click to expand...
Well, David, I for one did not see this and yes it is outrageous. I normally desire that those who wish for the TLM have the opportunity to attend in their parish and think it needs to be expanded. However, when an ultratraditionalist makes these type of us-versus-them statements, it lowers my sympathy level for a day or two.

I normally receive on the tongue only when my hands are full with a child, as I find the hand more reverential. But I am willing to go along with whatever the Church wants. My attitude is unaffected either way.

It was asked earlier why people post here who are not traditional catholics. I would point out that in the rules, this is not a club for traditional catholics, but a place for discussing issues. That means pro and con should be allowed. One is open to suggesting rule changes if you disagree. However, if that is done, might I ask what exactly receiving communion in the hand has to do with the TLM?
 
Kielbasi said:
It might well be the end, but the process of changing traditions that people are accustomed to takes a pretty long time.

Even if your assessment is correct, we probably won’t be around to see the end of communion in the hand as it is entrenched.
Click to expand...
It will probably remain part of those eastern rites which allow it and have since before V II. Chaldeans I’m aware of specifically, and ISTR there is another group as well, but not whom.
 
Eilish_Maura said:
They are called that to differentiate them from the ‘ordinary’ minister (clergy).

The when necessary is determined by the pastor.
Click to expand...
The “When Necessary” is defined by Rome
Redemptionis Sacramentum #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] This, however, is to be understood in such a way that a brief prolongation, considering the circumstances and culture of the place, is not at all a sufficient reason.”
**
I’ve yet to be in a parish where there wasn’t abuse of this ministry.
 
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.
Click to expand...
As EIL stated, they are called extra-ordinary to distinguish them from the ORDINARY ministers of the Eucharist.

Then WHEN it’s necessary decision is left to the judgement of the pastor within the guidelines given. No one here, unless they are a pastor, are a competent authority to determine that a pastor’s decision in this matter was incorrect.
 
Yerusalyim said:
As EIL stated, they are called extra-ordinary to distinguish them from the ORDINARY ministers of the Eucharist.

Then WHEN it’s necessary decision is left to the judgement of the pastor within the guidelines given. No one here, unless they are a pastor, are a competent authority to determine that a pastor’s decision in this matter was incorrect.
Click to expand...
Daily Mass, 30-40 attending, 3EMHC… wrong

Daily Mass, less than 100 attending, 5EMHC… wrong

Sunday night mass, approx 800 attending, 11EMHC… wrong

One would have to be a rather incompetent observer to think that communion MUST be finished in 10 minutes or less so the people can hurry up and get to breakfast, dinner, or the mall.

As the priest said this morning…

“… I wish more were as dedicated to God as they are the Super Bowl, or golf, or their bbq…”

.
 
Aramis said:
It will probably remain part of those eastern rites which allow it and have since before V II. Chaldeans I’m aware of specifically, and ISTR there is another group as well, but not whom.
Click to expand...
I would agree with that. I believe the Congregation for Worship that came up with the report only has jurisdiction over the Latin rite anyhow.
 
The Ruthenian Catholic church set a very firm standard to establish when an addition minister of Communion is permitted: 1 per 75 communicants.

It’s in the canon law for the Ruthenian Church.

Perhaps Rome needs to do likewise.
 
MrS said:
Daily Mass, 30-40 attending, 3EMHC… wrong

Daily Mass, less than 100 attending, 5EMHC… wrong

Sunday night mass, approx 800 attending, 11EMHC… wrong

One would have to be a rather incompetent observer to think that communion MUST be finished in 10 minutes or less so the people can hurry up and get to breakfast, dinner, or the mall.

As the priest said this morning…

“… I wish more were as dedicated to God as they are the Super Bowl, or golf, or their bbq…”

.
Click to expand...
Thank you Pastor S.

Did it ever occur to you that just sometimes it may be the PRIEST who needs to leave early and not the parishioners?

That the priest may have numerous sick people to visit, babies to baptise, weddings or funerals to plan or do, grieving families to talk to … I’ve never met a priest who isn’t extremely busy with such things.

That rather than cater to their whims he’s instead catering to their very real spiritual needs other than Mass?
 
=MrS;3275561]Daily Mass, 30-40 attending, 3EMHC… wrong

Daily Mass, less than 100 attending, 5EMHC… wrong

Sunday night mass, approx 800 attending, 11EMHC… wrong

One would have to be a rather incompetent observer to think that communion MUST be finished in 10 minutes or less so the people can hurry up and get to breakfast, dinner, or the mall.

As the priest said this morning…

“… I wish more were as dedicated to God as they are the Super Bowl, or golf, or their bbq…”
Click to expand...
This is what I see when I attend the OF in my parish. . No more than 250 at mass yet there are 8 EMHC plus the priest and deacon.
 
Phemie said:
The “When Necessary” is defined by Rome
Redemptionis Sacramentum #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] This, however, is to be understood in such a way that a brief prolongation, considering the circumstances and culture of the place, is not at all a sufficient reason.”
**
I’ve yet to be in a parish where there wasn’t abuse of this ministry.
Click to expand...
Take it up with the pastor.
 
MrS said:
maybe that is the sad truth…

[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]

A strong priest, in the mold of a John Vianney, would love to see big crowds for communion.

But as you have pointed out, if we see the overuse of EMHC, we are safe in suspecting the presence of the pastor’s influence and approval… a weak pastor perhaps who folds to the desires of the laity to “actively participate.”

Yep Eilish, you have hit on something:rolleyes:

.
Click to expand...
Then there are the pastors who LIKE having plenty of EMHCs.

It does not change that it is THEIR call.
 
MrS said:
Daily Mass, 30-40 attending, 3EMHC… wrong

Daily Mass, less than 100 attending, 5EMHC… wrong

Sunday night mass, approx 800 attending, 11EMHC… wrong

One would have to be a rather incompetent observer to think that communion MUST be finished in 10 minutes or less so the people can hurry up and get to breakfast, dinner, or the mall.

As the priest said this morning…

“… I wish more were as dedicated to God as they are the Super Bowl, or golf, or their bbq…”

.
Click to expand...
It is the PASTOR’s choice.
 
Look, I didn’t intend to start a flameout, so let me clarify.

The people in our parish are EMMCs and have the paperwork. It would not be consistent with our pastor or the Diocese hiearchy otherwise. The Diocese is very conservative.

The numbers justify the EMHCs, no problem with that.

I was educated in Catholic School, by nuns whose sole purpose in life was educating folks like me in the Faith, pre Vatican II days, 1st-8th grades. It was a thorough and defined education in the Faith, and I have carried it all my life. I view those days as priceless.

By the 3rd grade I could name every Pope of the last 100 years, the major councils and what was talked about, and I could take a pencil (#2 lead only pencil allowed by the Sisters, how they knew a guy used a #5 I dunno, but it went straight to trash can.) and lay out the chain of command from Rome to the my parish.

It was in this background I was schooled on the Host. Most of Vatican I view as a good thing, especially in the Mass, but for whatever reason EMCH on the tongue doesn’t feel right. I admit it is not a rational thought. Why changing the Mass out of Latin, doesn’t bother me, but EMCH on the tonque does, I can’t really say. Its not rational. EMCH on the hand, is not a issue, the whole thing is based on emotion and we know where that gets us.

I have the same thing with female altar servers, especially when I seem them in the robes. It just doesn’t look right. I don’t know if its a numbers thing, or girls just feel like they need to be equal. I have no good reason as to why they can’t do the job, other than it doesn’t look right.
 
BamaRider said:
Look, I didn’t intend to start a flameout, so let me clarify.

The people in our parish are EMMCs and have the paperwork. It would not be consistent with our pastor or the Diocese hiearchy otherwise. The Diocese is very conservative.

The numbers justify the EMHCs, no problem with that.

I was educated in Catholic School, by nuns whose sole purpose in life was educating folks like me in the Faith, pre Vatican II days, 1st-8th grades. It was a thorough and defined education in the Faith, and I have carried it all my life. I view those days as priceless.

By the 3rd grade I could name every Pope of the last 100 years, the major councils and what was talked about, and I could take a pencil (#2 lead only pencil allowed by the Sisters, how they knew a guy used a #5 I dunno, but it went straight to trash can.) and lay out the chain of command from Rome to the my parish.

It was in this background I was schooled on the Host. Most of Vatican I view as a good thing, especially in the Mass, but for whatever reason EMCH on the tongue doesn’t feel right. I admit it is not a rational thought. Why changing the Mass out of Latin, doesn’t bother me, but EMCH on the tonque does, I can’t really say. Its not rational. EMCH on the hand, is not a issue, the whole thing is based on emotion and we know where that gets us.

I have the same thing with female altar servers, especially when I seem them in the robes. It just doesn’t look right. I don’t know if its a numbers thing, or girls just feel like they need to be equal. I have no good reason as to why they can’t do the job, other than it doesn’t look right.
Click to expand...
Is receiving in the hand less reverent than receiving on the tongue IYO?
 
Eilish_Maura said:
Like using what one thinks is a less reverent form of reception because the Sacrament is received from a layperson does???
Click to expand...
Less reverent form of distribution. Only consecrated hands of the ordained should touch the Host.
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.
Click to expand...
Nope. Ask them.
 
Miles_Mariae said:
Less reverent form of distribution. Only consecrated hands of the ordained should touch the Host.

Nope. Ask them.
Click to expand...
LOL trying to “ask them” and seems ‘they’ are dodging the question.

It is not a less reverent form of distribution.

It should not affect how one receives.

If you feel it is more reverent to receive on the tongue it should not matter if the one putting it there is lay or ordained. If it does then you are holding the Eucharist in lower esteem.
 
Eilish_Maura said:
Is receiving communion in the hand less reverent?
Click to expand...
May very well be. Take it up with Archbishop Ranjith.

Oh, wait, no I forgot. You know better than the Congregation and its secretary. Why don’t you just send 'em an email and tell them to call off this whole investigation.

Gotta remind them where the buck stops :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top