Laymen involved in the celebration of the Mass

[Phemie]

Well, we can’t see into their hearts. But I have to wonder how many of the EMHC’s know the origin and history of the practice itself, and of CITH as well.

Most would say, “it’s approved by Rome”, when in fact it only became tolerated by Rome after it was clear the abuse was going to continue regardless. And before the indult, it was an abuse. Now the conditions of the indult itself are ignored in most parishes. (…)

Both practices save time and that’s about it. Imo, that is selfishness.

Communion in the hand is an indult but EMHCs are not since they are allowed by Canon Law.

When Immensae Caritatis was first promulgated in 1973, it made no reference to an indult but implemented the use of EMHCs world-wide by stating:

The new conditions of the present seem to demand that, without prejudice to the supreme reverence due to so great a sacrament, access to communion be made easier, so that by sharing more fully in the effects of the sacrifice of the Mass, the faithful may more willingly and intensely give themselves to God and to the good of the Church and of all humanity.

The first measures to be taken are meant to prevent reception of communion from becoming either impossible or difficult because there are not enough ministers. (…) There are several situations in which a shortage of ministers of communion has been pointed out:

• within Mass because of a great crowd of people or some disability of the celebrant;

•       outside Mass when distance makes it difficult to bring  communion,         especially as viaticum to the sick in danger of death;

• or when the sheer number of sick people, especially in hospitals or similar institutions, requires several ministers.

     In order, then, that the faithful who are in the state of  grace and         rightly and devoutly wish to share in the sacred meal may not be         deprived of this sacramental aid and solace, Pope Paul VI has  decided it         opportune to authorize special ministers who will be empowered  to give         communion to themselves and others of the faithful, under the  exact and         specified conditions here listed.

Many parishes in my diocese are relegated to having a priest once every couple of months. EMHCs serve to allow the members of those parishes to not be denied Communion for months on end. It’s most unfortunate that in parishes with priests the conditions listed are usually ignored.

 

[Ockham]

EMHCs serve to allow the members of those parishes to not be denied Communion for months on end. It’s most unfortunate that in parishes with priests the conditions listed are usually ignored.

Let’s remember that we are only obligated to receive Communion once a year. Rather than lowering the reverence due to the Blessed Sacrament, in parishes without priests people should pray for vocations. If we restore the liturgy it will attract more priests.

 

[Phemie]

Let’s remember that we are only obligated to receive Communion once a year. Rather than lowering the reverence due to the Blessed Sacrament, in parishes without priests people should pray for vocations. If we restore the liturgy it will attract more priests.

So you would deny someone Viaticum because there is no priest in town?

 

[Ockham]

So you would deny someone Viaticum because there is no priest in town?

It’s not a question of denying the dying. It is a question of the common practice of lowering the reverence due to the Blessed Sacrament. Is the dying person in a state of grace? The dying need priests, not laity.

 

[ProVobis]

So you would deny someone Viaticum because there is no priest in town?

Sorry, but if I’m dying, I want a priest to hear my confession or give me Last Rites. I saw my father die last year and he wasn’t able to receive communion two days before he died.

 

[ProVobis]

Most would say, “it’s approved by Rome”, when in fact it only became tolerated by Rome after it was clear the abuse was going to continue regardless. And before the indult, it was an abuse. Now the conditions of the indult itself are ignored in most parishes.

Exactly. If the conditions are ignored, then by definition, the practice IS NOT allowed and IS sinful. That’s been my contention all along.

 

[Ockham]

A couple of years ago, a university professor in Minnesota posted videos on Youtube desecrating stolen Eucharist hosts. How many parishes in Minnesota stopped distributing Communion in hand because of it as the conditions state?

 

[Aramis]

A couple of years ago, a university professor in Minnesota posted videos on Youtube desecrating stolen Eucharist hosts. How many parishes in Minnesota stopped distributing Communion in hand because of it as the conditions state?

The people desecrating the Eucharist can get it on the tongue, but it requires just a little more prep… Just suck on some alum during the homily. Serious case of drymouth, but one can then receive on the tongue and still recover the host for later desecration.

I watched someone try it when I was an altar server many years ago. I pointed it out to the padre, and the ushers also noticed and dealt with the guy.

Further, others will simply steal the hosts from the Lutherans, Episcopalians, or others, and still claim to be desecrating the Eucharist…

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

That’s just ignorant. While you may not agree with it Eucharistic Ministers have a defined place in the Church and provide a service. Are you also opposed to them serving in nursing homes and to the home bound? I would say that there are times when Eucharistic Ministers accomplish a lot.

I was talking about EMs at Mass, not in the community. As Ockham said, only the hands of the priest should touch the Host. Why go against tradition by allowing EMs to be present when for many years the Church said it was wrong?

 

[Ockham]

"Only by being radically faithful to this doctrinal foundation can we avoid one-dimensional and unilateral interpretations of the Council’s teaching. The sharing of all the baptized in the one priesthood of Jesus Christ is the key to understanding the Council’s call for full, conscious and active participation in the liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 14). Full participation certainly means that every member of the community has a part to play in the liturgy; and in this respect a great deal has been achieved in parishes and communities across your land. But full participation does not mean that everyone does everything, since this would lead to a clericalizing of the laity and a laicizing of the priesthood; and this was not what the Council had in mind. The liturgy, like the Church, is intended to be hierarchical and polyphonic, respecting the different roles assigned by Christ and allowing all the different voices to blend in one great hymn of praise.

Active participation certainly means that, in gesture, word, song and service, all the members of the community take part in an act of worship, which is anything but inert or passive. Yet active participation does not preclude the active passivity of silence, stillness and listening: indeed, it demands it. Worshippers are not passive, for instance, when listening to the readings or the homily, or following the prayers of the celebrant, and the chants and music of the liturgy. These are experiences of silence and stillness, but they are in their own way profoundly active. In a culture which neither favors nor fosters meditative quiet, the art of interior listening is learned only with difficulty. Here we see how the liturgy, though it must always be properly inculturated, must also be counter-cultural."

Ad Limina Address of Pope John Paul II to Bishops of the United States
On Active Participation in the Liturgy
adoremus.org/JPIIadlim1198.html

 

[Ockham]

I watched someone try it when I was an altar server many years ago. I pointed it out to the padre, and the ushers also noticed and dealt with the guy.

What’s harder to notice: someone taking a host out of their mouth, or not putting it in? CITH is to be suspended if threat of desecration exists. If a local professor is making public his intention to desecrate the Eucharist then that would qualify.

 

[ProVobis]

If the American hierarchy had legitimately fulfilled the Holy See’s requirements up to this point, there would still be several conditions that would have to be met in each instance of Communion in the hand, or no permission could be given. Included in these conditions are that no irreverence, sacrilege, or loss of faith occur as a result of Communion in the hand. Five conditions follow:

1. The new manner of giving Communion must not be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional practice. It is a matter of particular seriousness that in places where the new practice is lawfully permitted, every one of the faithful have the option to receive Communion on the tongue, even when others receive Communion in the hand. The two ways of receiving Communion can without question take place during the same liturgical service. There is a twofold purpose here: that none will find in the new rite anything disturbing to personal devotion toward the Eucharist; that this sacrament, the source and cause of unity by its very nature, will not become an occasion of discord between members of the faithful.

1. The rite of Communion in the hand must not be put into practice indiscriminately. Since the question involves human attitudes, this manner of Communion is bound up with the perceptiveness and preparation of the one receiving. It is advisable, therefore, that the rite be introduced gradually and in the beginning, within small, better-prepared groups and in favorable settings. Above all it is necessary to have the introduction of the rite preceded by an effective catechesis, so that the people will clearly understand the meaning of receiving in the hand and will practice it with the reverence owed to the Sacrament. This catechesis must succeed in excluding any suggestion that in the mind of the Church there is a lessening of faith in the Eucharistic presence and in excluding as well** any danger or hint of danger of profaning the Eucharist. **

1. The option offered to the faithful of receiving the Eucharistic Bread in their hand and putting it in their own mouth** must not turn out to be the occasion for regarding It as ordinary bread **or as just another religious article. Instead this option must increase in them a consciousness of the dignity of the members of Christ’s Mystical Body, into which they are incorporated by Baptism and by the grace of the Eucharist. It must also increase their faith in the sublime reality of the Lord’s Body and Blood, which they touch with their hand. Their attitude of reverence must measure up to what they are doing.

1. [Condition #4 was eliminated on the occasion of the publication of De sacra Communione et du cultu Mysterii Eucharistichi (n. 21), July 21, 1973].

1. Whatever procedure is adopted, care must be taken not to allow particles of the Eucharistic Bread to fall or be scattered. Care must also be taken that the communicants have clean hands and that their comportment is becoming and in keeping with the practices of the different peoples.

 

[PJM]

=Phemie;6545113]Communion in the hand is an indult but EMHCs are not since they are allowed by Canon Law.

When Immensae Caritatis was first promulgated in 1973, it made no reference to an indult but implemented the use of EMHCs world-wide by stating: Many parishes in my diocese are relegated to having a priest once every couple of months. EMHCs serve to allow the members of those parishes to not be denied Communion for months on end. It’s most unfortunate that in parishes with priests the conditions listed are usually ignored.

Can. 910 §1 The ordinary minister of holy communion is a Bishop, a priest or a deacon.

§2 The extraordinary minister of holy communion is an acolyte, or another of Christ’s faithful deputed in accordance with can. 230 §3.

**Can. 230 §1 **Lay men whose age and talents meet the requirements prescribed by decree of the Episcopal Conference, can be given the stable ministry of lector and of acolyte, through the prescribed liturgical rite. This conferral of ministry does not, however, give them a right to sustenance or remuneration from the Church.

**§2 **Lay people can receive a temporary assignment to the role of lector in liturgical actions. Likewise, all lay people can exercise the roles of commentator, cantor or other such, in accordance with the law.

§3 Where the needs of the Church require and ministers are not available, lay people, even though they are not lectors or acolytes, can supply certain of their functions, that is, exercise the ministry of the word, preside over liturgical prayers, confer baptism and distribute Holy Communion, in accordance with the provisions of the law.
**
What Vatican II wants, you to do, what our Pope wants and what Christ wants!**

MEMORIALE DOMINI Vatican II Document on Holy Communion

“Three questions were asked of the bishops, and the replies received by 12 March 1969 were as follows:

1. Do you think that attention should be paid to the desire that, over and above the traditional manner, the rite of receiving holy communion on the hand should be admitted?
   Yes: 597
   No: 1,233
   Yes, but with reservations: 315
   Invalid votes: 20
2. Is it your wish that this new rite be first tried in small communities, with the consent of the bishop?
   Yes: 751
   No: 1,215
   Invalid votes, 70
3. Do you think that the faithful will receive this new rite gladly, after a proper catechetical preparation?
   Yes: 835
   No: 1,185
   Invalid votes: 128

From the returns it is clear that the vast majority of bishops believe that the present discipline should not be changed, and that if it were, the change would be offensive to the sentiments and the spiritual culture of these bishops and of many of the faithful.”

 

[ChurchTorch]

Sorry, but if I’m dying, I want a priest to hear my confession or give me Last Rites. I saw my father die last year and he wasn’t able to receive communion two days before he died.

If someone was dying and they wanted but there was no one to hear their confession their sins would not keep them from eternal life.

If I was in such a situation, I would sure what to receive Holy Communion – even if it was from a duly commissioned laywoman.

 

[Canto]

I submit for your reading pleasure the following taken from a letter sent to His Holiness Pope Paul VI from Cardinal Ottaviani and Cardinal Bocci in 1969 as the “reform” was taking place:

While I think laymen and women can sometimes be over used esp. EMHCs, I submit what Cardinal Ottaviani said once the Ordo was in it’s final form.

“I have REJOICED PROFOUNDLY to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae, and ESPECIALLY THE DOCTRINAL PRECISIONS CONTAINED IN HIS DISCOURSES at the public Audiences of November 19 and 26, after which I believe, NO ONE CAN ANY LONGER BE GENUINELY SCANDALIZED. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your ‘Doctrinal Note’ [on the Pauline Rite Mass] and the activity of the Militia Sanctae Mariae WIDE DIFFUSION AND SUCCESS.” (Whitehead, 129, Letter from his eminence Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani to Dom Gerard Lafond, O.S.B., in Documentation Catholique, #67, 1970, pages 215-216 and 343)

 

[ProVobis]

If someone was dying and they wanted but there was no one to hear their confession their sins would not keep them from eternal life.

If I was in such a situation, I would sure what to receive Holy Communion – even if it was from a duly commissioned laywoman.

Wrong answer as I see it. I’ll take my chances with a perfect act of contrition. However, I could use the laywoman’s prayers so I’ll physically see Christ within a short time.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

If someone was dying and they wanted but there was no one to hear their confession their sins would not keep them from eternal life.

If I was in such a situation, I would sure what to receive Holy Communion – even if it was from a duly commissioned laywoman.

I would prefer to receive it from a priest. After all, that’s the way it was done before Vatican II.

 

[ProVobis]

“I have REJOICED PROFOUNDLY to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae, and ESPECIALLY THE DOCTRINAL PRECISIONS CONTAINED IN HIS DISCOURSES at the public Audiences of November 19 and 26, after which I believe, NO ONE CAN ANY LONGER BE GENUINELY SCANDALIZED. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your ‘Doctrinal Note’ [on the Pauline Rite Mass] and the activity of the Militia Sanctae Mariae WIDE DIFFUSION AND SUCCESS.” (Whitehead, 129, Letter from his eminence Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani to Dom Gerard Lafond, O.S.B., in Documentation Catholique, #67, 1970, pages 215-216 and 343)

Was he talking about corrections to the definition of the New Mass which he and Cardinal Bacci implored the Pope to make?

But how could he have read it? He was blind, I thought.

 

[Canto]

Was he talking about corrections to the definition of the New Mass which he and Cardinal Bacci implored the Pope to make?

But how could he have read it? He was blind, I thought.

My understanding is that he was only partially blind, but somone could have read it to him nonetheless.

My reading of things is that he privately expressed concerns to Pope Paul. Once the ordo was in its final form he didn’t believe anyone could be scandalised.

 

[At_Trent]

Communion in the hand is an indult but EMHCs are not since they are allowed by Canon Law.

When Immensae Caritatis was first promulgated in 1973, it made no reference to an indult but implemented the use of EMHCs world-wide by stating: Many parishes in my diocese are relegated to having a priest once every couple of months. EMHCs serve to allow the members of those parishes to not be denied Communion for months on end. It’s most unfortunate that in parishes with priests the conditions listed are usually ignored.

Ok, noted, thanks.