Is this valid?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Aussie_Revert
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Aussie_Revert

Guest
Hello I’m a newbie with a question about Mass.
Last Friday and Sunday when I attended Mass and went up to receive Communion I was not given the usual round host but a triangular piece of bread. It was darker in colour and tasted heavier than normal hosts. I think it was still unleavened but I’m confused about whether it was valid or not. Also a female Eucharistic Minister was dressed in liturgical vestments and looked like a priest - is that ok? I am a revert and getting confused. Thanks for any help.
 
were you one of the first in the communion line? could have been part of the larger Host that the priest broke up and added to the hosts that were distributed.
 
Aussie_Revert said:
Hello I’m a newbie with a question about Mass.
Last Friday and Sunday when I attended Mass and went up to receive Communion I was not given the usual round host but a triangular piece of bread. It was darker in colour and tasted heavier than normal hosts. I think it was still unleavened but I’m confused about whether it was valid or not. Also a female Eucharistic Minister was dressed in liturgical vestments and looked like a priest - is that ok? I am a revert and getting confused. Thanks for any help.
Click to expand...
The bread used can take on different colors and textures and still be valid matter. The female EMHC should not be dressed so as to imitate the vestments of the priest or deacon.
 
Hi Maryj, No I was amongst the last section of the congregation to receive. It looked like the bread/host had been deliberately cut into triangles not broken up during Mass. There were many more in the ciborium after mine was removed. Would the broken host be in a precise triangle do you think?
 
Aussie_Revert said:
Hi Maryj, No I was amongst the last section of the congregation to receive. It looked like the bread/host had been deliberately cut into triangles not broken up during Mass. There were many more in the ciborium after mine was removed. Would the broken host be in a precise triangle do you think?
Click to expand...
Yes I have seen it in a precise triangle after being broken by the priest at the altar.
 
Thank you Bro Rich. I thought it was strange. I’ve never seen it at Sunday Mass on either male or female EMHC. This Mass was to celebrate The Sacred Heart feastday on Friday last and was attended by the schoolchildren and parents at lunchtime.
 
Aussie_Revert said:
Hi Maryj, No I was amongst the last section of the congregation to receive. It looked like the bread/host had been deliberately cut into triangles not broken up during Mass. There were many more in the ciborium after mine was removed. Would the broken host be in a precise triangle do you think?
Click to expand...
It is the way it fractions, as the large host is round; if you watch closely as the priest breaks up the large host, you can see that it breaks into triangles.

Without more, it is hard to say if the EMHC was appropriately or inappropriately dressed. The EMHCs at our parish are in street clothtes - that is, what they wore to Mass.
 
As long as the bread is unleven - it is OK.

As far as the EM in vestments…some parishes (though it has been re-emphasized over and over that it is wrong) insist on dressing their EM’s in albs. I was told that it is a way to “easily identify” the EM’s and to make sure they are all properly dressed. (I personally don’t understand why it wouldn’t be easy to identify an EM, and for that matter why they wouldn’t be properly dressed in the first place.) In any case - it shouldn’t happen.
 
jmdsc said:
…
As far as the EM in vestments…some parishes (though it has been re-emphasized over and over that it is wrong) insist on dressing their EM’s in albs. I was told that it is a way to “easily identify” the EM’s and to make sure they are all properly dressed. (I personally don’t understand why it wouldn’t be easy to identify an EM, and for that matter why they wouldn’t be properly dressed in the first place.) In any case - it shouldn’t happen.
Click to expand...
From the 2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) approved for the USA, which can be accessed from romanrite.com/girm.html :
“339. In the dioceses of the United States of America, acolytes, altar servers, lectors, and other lay ministers may wear the alb or other suitable vesture or other appropriate and dignified clothing.”
“119. In the sacristy, the sacred vestments … for the priest, the deacon, and other ministers are to be prepared according to the various forms of celebration: … c. For the other ministers: albs or other lawfully approved attire.”

So to say “it shouldn’t happen” you need to argue that an “Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion” is somehow not a “minister”. Which is difficult.
 
I absolutely hate it when people use the improper term EM. :mad:

I just addressed this elsewhere. Why is this EM thing all over the place?:confused:

Even in bulletins. Its downright maddening.
 
Hellisreal said:
I absolutely hate it when people use the improper term EM. :mad:

I just addressed this elsewhere. Why is this EM thing all over the place?:confused:

Even in bulletins. Its downright maddening.
Click to expand...
Hate is a strong word. You may want to look at your internal anger.

Here’s a question: Do you call yourself a Catholic, or a Roman Catholic? Do you call it communion, or Holy Eucharist?

There are lots of terms we shorten when we write, and when we speak. Doing so does not make it incorrect usage, or a mortal sin, as some on these forums seem to imply.
 
I am a Catholic of the Latin Rite in union with Rome.

I am not angry but I do hate it when people do not use
Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion

They are NOT to be called anything else. I am not making this up. Do you believe me?

Not to mention how many who are EMHC who dont somehow even KNOW this.
bluehen said:
Hate is a strong word. You may want to look at your internal anger.

Here’s a question: Do you call yourself a Catholic, or a Roman Catholic? Do you call it communion, or Holy Eucharist?

There are lots of terms we shorten when we write, and when we speak. Doing so does not make it incorrect usage, or a mortal sin, as some on these forums seem to imply.
Click to expand...
 
Hellisreal said:
I am a Catholic of the Latin Rite in union with Rome.

I am not angry but I do hate it when people do not use
Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion

They are NOT to be called anything else. I am not making this up. Do you believe me?

Not to mention how many who are EMHC who dont somehow even KNOW this.
Click to expand...
Show me, exactly, documentation that says anyone shortening this is wrong. Don’t show me what it’s called. We agree on what it’s formally called. Show me where it is expressly forbidden to shorten it. And then show me where is expressly allowed to call yourself “Catholic” instead of the full “Catholic of the Latin Rite in union with Rome”.
 
bluehen said:
Show me, exactly, documentation that says anyone shortening this is wrong. Don’t show me what it’s called. We agree on what it’s formally called. Show me where it is expressly forbidden to shorten it. And then show me where is expressly allowed to call yourself “Catholic” instead of the full “Catholic of the Latin Rite in union with Rome”.
Click to expand...
You may find this interesting reading if you have not read it before.

Scroll down to the Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion and read it carefully.

As for as your demands regarding how one addresses themselves as a Catholic-- I am clueless as to your point -

My concern relates to EMHC only.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html
 
Hellisreal said:
You may find this interesting reading if you have not read it before.

Scroll down to the Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion and read it carefully.

As for as your demands regarding how one addresses themselves as a Catholic-- I am clueless as to your point -

My concern relates to EMHC only.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html
Click to expand...
It is interesting that [160] does not use the full title, notwithstanding [156]. But I’ll concede. You’re right. People should never, ever use shortened phrases for a term for which everyone knows the true name. They should always use the long version so as to avoid being called out by the Canon Police, Grammar Division.TM
 
bluehen said:
It is interesting that [160] does not use the full title, notwithstanding [156]. But I’ll concede. You’re right. People should never, ever use shortened phrases for a term for which everyone knows the true name. They should always use the long version so as to avoid being called out by the Canon Police, Grammar Division.TM
Click to expand...
YOU DID NOT READ IT!!!

I guess I will have to BOLD the High points you seemed to dismiss.
 
  1. The Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion
[154.] As has already been recalled, “the only minister who can confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist in persona Christi is a validly ordained Priest”.[254]** Hence the name “minister of the Eucharist” belongs properly to the **Priest alone. Moreover, also by reason of their sacred Ordination, the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are the Bishop, the Priest and the Deacon,[255] to whom it belongs therefore to administer Holy Communion to the lay members of Christ’s faithful during the celebration of Mass. In this way their ministerial office in the Church is fully and accurately brought to light, and the sign value of the Sacrament is made complete.

[156.] This function is to be understood strictly according to the name by which it is known, that is to say, that of extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, and not “special minister of Holy Communion” nor “extraordinary minister of the Eucharist” nor “special minister of the Eucharist”, by which names the meaning of this function is unnecessarily and improperly broadened.
 
EM
stands for extraordinary minister, not Eucharistic minister!

i dont see where it says not to shorten it to EM only if you shorten it make sure the meaning remains the same
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top