Liturgical Abuses

[just_4_him]

I need help!

I find the discussion about Liturgical abuses very informing and engaging. My initial problem is two-fold. First, I feel responsible for protecting the sanctity of the Blessed Sacrament as EMHC in my Church and school. At times, communicant present themselves for the Prescious Blood with the intention of self communication (self intinction). There are numerous abuses in this act such as not immediately consuming the Blessed Sacrament upon distribution (RS 92) and the illicit nature of self communication (RS 94) as well as the risk of profaination of the Precious Blood. Here is my dilema. When I am serving as EMHC and a communicant presents in a manner that would make reception illicit, I have politely covered the cup and not allowed abuse to occur. Recently, the person presenting themselves improperly complained to the Pastor using RS 91 that “any Baptized Catholic not prohibitted by law must be admitted to Holy Communion”. It is my understanding of RS 91 that if the communicant does not present in a reasonable manner that they may be denied the sacrament if there is a reasonable risk of profaination. All that said, am I overstepping my duties in “policing” the distribution? and is there an appropriate manner to bring to the communicants attention the abuse while in the communion procession without drawing attention and embarrassment to the communicant?

Peace

 

[Marauder]

Actually you are overstepping your boundaries if you are doing something against your pastor’s wishes. Your pastor is responsable. If you don’t agree with the way your pastor is handling it you need to first talk it over with him then write a letter to your Bishop.

When I took the archdiocese training and talked it over with the priest, they said the appropriate thing for an EMHC to do in this situation is during Mass to allow the self-intinction, BUT if possible in a charitable manner, after Mass approach the person and let them know the proper procedure. If the person is not receptive, let the pastor or priest know. He can address it to the person or use it as an excuse to talk about it in the church newsletter or during a homily.

 

[Mysty101]

I do understand that the Pastor is ultimately responsible, but one instruction makes me very uneasy.

From RS

1. The communicant must not be permitted to intinct the host himself in the chalice, nor to receive the intincted host in the hand. As for the host to be used for the intinction, it should be made of valid matter, also consecrated; it is altogether forbidden to use non-consecrated bread or other matter.

To me this is an instruction to the minister saying it must not be allowed. I am very uneasy allowing it. Once a drop of the precious Blood fell on the purificator—I felt as if I had been slapped. I keep praying on this.

 

[Marauder]

Mysty101:

I do understand that the Pastor is ultimately responsible, but one instruction makes me very uneasy.

From RS
To me this is an instruction to the minister saying it must not be allowed. I am very uneasy allowing it. Once a drop of the precious Blood fell on the purificator—I felt as if I had been slapped. I keep praying on this.

You must remember that an EMHC is a duly appointed representative of the pastor. As such they answer to the pastor. If they do not agree with the pastor they have only a few options:

1. step down from the role
2. discuss the issue with the pastor
3. after discussing with the pastor, complaining to the bishop

It is the pastor’s role to teach the flock, not the role of the EMHC.

Most people that I know that have addressed this say that having a confrontation on this DURING Mass at the communion rail isn’t appropriate.

Just like it isn’t appropriate for an EMHC to deny communion to anyone during Mass without being informed by the priest, it isn’t the role of the EMHC to correct these types of things during Mass.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Just a couple of observations here. First, if the person has the host in hand then that person has, in fact, been given communion so you are not denying them communion. Secondly, they are not permitted to self-intinct. In my parish if a person should wish to receive in this manner, the EMHC takes the host, dips it in the chalice, and gives it to the communicant on the tongue saying “The Body and Blood of Christ.” This provides the reception of communion under both species in the manner the communicant has desired and does not violate the rules against self-intinction.

Deacon Ed

 

[Inquisitor]

just 4 him:

I need help!

I find the discussion about Liturgical abuses very informing and engaging. My initial problem is two-fold. First, I feel responsible for protecting the sanctity of the Blessed Sacrament as EMHC in my Church and school. At times, communicant present themselves for the Prescious Blood with the intention of self communication (self intinction). There are numerous abuses in this act such as not immediately consuming the Blessed Sacrament upon distribution (RS 92) and the illicit nature of self communication (RS 94) as well as the risk of profaination of the Precious Blood. Here is my dilema. When I am serving as EMHC and a communicant presents in a manner that would make reception illicit, I have politely covered the cup and not allowed abuse to occur. Recently, the person presenting themselves improperly complained to the Pastor using RS 91 that “any Baptized Catholic not prohibitted by law must be admitted to Holy Communion”. It is my understanding of RS 91 that if the communicant does not present in a reasonable manner that they may be denied the sacrament if there is a reasonable risk of profaination. All that said, am I overstepping my duties in “policing” the distribution? and is there an appropriate manner to bring to the communicants attention the abuse while in the communion procession without drawing attention and embarrassment to the communicant?

Peace

As long as you are covering the chalice in an extremely polite and charitable manner, I would say continue to do what you are doing. It will then be up to your pastor to either keep you, or remove you.

You are displaying the courage to stand-up for Jesus Christ. If your pastor does not remove you, I will bet your actions will have a very positive effect as “the word gets out.”

By all means, if you are forced to cover the chalice, do indeed follow-up with that person after Mass in the same extremely polite and charitable manner.

 

[just_4_him]

Deacon Ed:

Just a couple of observations here. First, if the person has the host in hand then that person has, in fact, been given communion so you are not denying them communion. Secondly, they are not permitted to self-intinct. In my parish if a person should wish to receive in this manner, the EMHC takes the host, dips it in the chalice, and gives it to the communicant on the tongue saying “The Body and Blood of Christ.” This provides the reception of communion under both species in the manner the communicant has desired and does not violate the rules against self-intinction.

Deacon Ed

Unfortunately, our church does not offer the appropriate vessels for communion under both kinds incorporating intinction.

 

[Marauder]

Deacon Ed,
I assumed that the person that was originally posting this was addressing the times when the person is putting the Eucharist in the cup without handing it to the Deacon or EMHC.

I know when I was an EMHC one time I had someone place the Eucharist in the cup so fast that there was no time to either get the Eucharist from them or stop it. It was after this happen I brought it up with the pastor.

It sounds like the members of your parish are well informed of the proper procedure. I found that problems usually occur when you have visitors that come in from parishes that “allow” self-intinction. Or people from one parish visit another and see it.

 

[just_4_him]

Inquisitor:

As long as you are covering the chalice in an extremely polite and charitable manner, I would say continue to do what you are doing. It will then be up to your pastor to either keep you, or remove you.

You are displaying the courage to stand-up for Jesus Christ. If your pastor does not remove you, I will bet your actions will have a very positive effect as “the word gets out.”

By all means, if you are forced to cover the chalice, do indeed follow-up with that person after Mass in the same extremely polite and charitable manner.

I understand I have been appointed by the Pastor and I coninue to serve only at his bequest. However, I find it hard to believe I am expected to stand by and blindly participate in an abuse and possible profination of the Sacrament. I would feel culpable as a result of my participation in this.

 

[just_4_him]

Marauder:

Deacon Ed,
I assumed that the person that was originally posting this was addressing the times when the person is putting the Eucharist in the cup without handing it to the Deacon or EMHC.

You are correct…

 

[Marauder]

just 4 him:

I understand I have been appointed by the Pastor and I coninue to serve only at his bequest. However, I find it hard to believe I am expected to stand by and blindly participate in an abuse and possible profination of the Sacrament. I would feel culpable as a result of my participation in this.

You are not responsible for the actions of others. If you are an EMHC and a person receives the Eucharist from you and then runs out of the church and uses in a Satanic ritual, are you responsable? No.

The practice of self-intinction isn’t allowed by the church, but it isn’t listed as a grave-abuse, or a profanity. To cause a public spectical against the wishes of your pastor is overstepping your boundaries as an EMHC.

It’s one thing to publically approach someone that is taking the Eucharist home with them, it’s another to publically prevent self-intinction.

Approach your pastor and if that doesn’t work approach the Bishop.

 

[just_4_him]

Marauder:

You are not responsible for the actions of others. If you are an EMHC and a person receives the Eucharist from you and then runs out of the church and uses in a Satanic ritual, are you responsable? No.

The practice of self-intinction isn’t allowed by the church, but it isn’t listed as a grave-abuse, or a profanity. To cause a public spectical against the wishes of your pastor is overstepping your boundaries as an EMHC.

It’s one thing to publically approach someone that is taking the Eucharist home with them, it’s another to publically prevent self-intinction.

Approach your pastor and if that doesn’t work approach the Bishop.

This sounds like GREAT advice

 

[asquared]

self communication through intinction was allowed for a brief time in my former diocese, then our new bishop put a stop to it, with a very thorough instruction on the whole topic of proper disposition and reception for communion. At that time we were taught only the priest may communicate the faithful through intinction, never the lay EEMs (as they were called at that time).

 

[Mysty101]

just 4 him:

I understand I have been appointed by the Pastor and I coninue to serve only at his bequest. However, I find it hard to believe I am expected to stand by and blindly participate in an abuse and possible profination of the Sacrament. I would feel culpable as a result of my participation in this.

This is how I feel. I would never cause a scene over someone using an incorrect procedure in most cases, but the self-intinction of the Precious Blood leaves much room for abuse. It is very possible that there will be a drop falling somewhere. The language in RS

** must not be permitted**

makes me very uneasy about doing nothing when self intinction of the Precious Blood is attempted. And I firmly believe that this is just done becuse of ignorance, and many people would be very cooperative and even grateful if they were told they were doing something not permitted.

 

[bob]

Marauder:

You are not responsible for the actions of others. If you are an EMHC and a person receives the Eucharist from you and then runs out of the church and uses in a Satanic ritual, are you responsable? No.

I am sorry, but I disagree. The duty of the EMHC and Wardens if present is to ensure that the Eucharist is consumed on the spot. They are not allowed to consume it back in their seats or elsewhere.

So, if the EMHC fails to ensure that the Eucharist and wine are properly and licitly consumed, they are failing in their duties to the Church and Christ.

 

[bob]

Marauder:

Actually you are overstepping your boundaries if you are doing something against your pastor’s wishes. Your pastor is responsable. If you don’t agree with the way your pastor is handling it you need to first talk it over with him then write a letter to your Bishop…

If the pastor issues an instruction against that of the Church, you are under no obligation to obey him. No law in the world, canon law included, can fault you for not obeying an illegal order.

Your duty to the Church and Christ is of higher importance than that to the pastor.

Knowingly carrying out an illegal or illicit act makes you just as guilty as the person ordering you to do so.

There is just no excuse to say, " the pastor told me so."

 

[Marauder]

bob:

If the pastor issues an instruction against that of the Church, you are under no obligation to obey him. No law in the world, canon law included, can fault you for not obeying an illegal order.

Your duty to the Church and Christ is of higher importance than that to the pastor.

Knowingly carrying out an illegal or illicit act makes you just as guilty as the person ordering you to do so.

There is just no excuse to say, " the pastor told me so."

I never said you should say the “pastor told me so” is a good excuse.

To openly during Mass defy your pastor shows a whole bunch of sins including pride (in that you think you know more then your pastor)

I guess you missed the post where I said that as an EMHC you only have three choices.

1. Step down from the position
2. Complain to the pastor
3. If the pastor doesn’t agree go to the Bishop

To ignore the instructions of your pastor is just as bad as anything else. If you do not agree with your pastor you can step down.

I personally did this myself. At my church under the last pastor they requested the EMHCs do a thing that was a major violation. I stepped down from the position instead of doing it. When the abuse was handled I resumed my position. I think a lot of people think they have the right to be an EMHC. As an EMHC you are in the position at the discression of the pastor, to disobey the pastor means you should not be in the position.

 

[Marauder]

bob:

I am sorry, but I disagree. The duty of the EMHC and Wardens if present is to ensure that the Eucharist is consumed on the spot. They are not allowed to consume it back in their seats or elsewhere.

So, if the EMHC fails to ensure that the Eucharist and wine are properly and licitly consumed, they are failing in their duties to the Church and Christ.

I think you missed the point of my post. I said if the person takes the host and runs out of the church. I literally meant run. If you think an EMHC is under an obigation to chase down a fleeing person and tackle them, I think you are in your own world.

An EMHC is not morally responsable if a person does something wrong with the Eucharist. If that was the case then every EMHC would have to follow every communicate to make sure they didn’t do anything wrong until 15 minutes after they left the church.

Very rarely can an EMHC make sure it is consumed on the spot anyway. In practicality, based on the number of different ways a person receives and the different “customs” that people have when receiving it is impossible for a EMHC to know whether someone has consumed the Eucharist before they have to move on to the next person. In churches where they actually “safeguard” the Eucharist they place ushers in near the EMHCs to watch for this.

 

[bob]

Marauder:

I think you missed the point of my post. I said if the person takes the host and runs out of the church. I literally meant run. If you think an EMHC is under an obigation to chase down a fleeing person and tackle them, I think you are in your own world…

If someone grabs your child and runs out of church, would you chase him? Let alone your God?

Marauder:

An EMHC is not morally responsable if a person does something wrong with the Eucharist. If that was the case then every EMHC would have to follow every communicate to make sure they didn’t do anything wrong until 15 minutes after they left the church.

Very rarely can an EMHC make sure it is consumed on the spot anyway. In practicality, based on the number of different ways a person receives and the different “customs” that people have when receiving it is impossible for a EMHC to know whether someone has consumed the Eucharist before they have to move on to the next person. In churches where they actually “safeguard” the Eucharist they place ushers in near the EMHCs to watch for this.

The duty of an EMHC is not that of a cashier at McDonald’s. It is a very sacred and honoured duty.
One just does not hand out the Holy Communion like a Big Mac.

I quote Redemptionis Sacramentum: (Highlight is mine)

Chapter IV,
HOLY COMMUNION
2. The distribution of Holy Communion

1. Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice,[178] if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.[179]

[179] Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Dubium: Notitiae 35 (1999) pp. 160-161.

 

[bob]

Marauder:

I never said you should say the “pastor told me so” is a good excuse…

My emphasis. Not intended to quote you. Sorry. Perhaps you meant “against your pastor’s wishes.”?

Marauder:

To openly during Mass defy your pastor shows a whole bunch of sins including pride (in that you think you know more then your pastor)

Obeying your bishop, your church and avoiding desecrating your God definitely has higher priority to me then obeying an illegal or ilicit order of the pastor don’t you think?

Allowing the desecration of the Holy Eucharist is a sacrilege. That is a greater sin than pride (you can do it discretely to aovid pride) or disobedience. Christ openly told the Pharisees that they were vipers, etc

Marauder:

I guess you missed the post where I said that as an EMHC you only have three choices.

1. Step down from the position
2. Complain to the pastor
3. If the pastor doesn’t agree go to the Bishop

To ignore the instructions of your pastor is just as bad as anything else. If you do not agree with your pastor you can step down.

I personally did this myself. At my church under the last pastor they requested the EMHCs do a thing that was a major violation. I stepped down from the position instead of doing it. When the abuse was handled I resumed my position. I think a lot of people think they have the right to be an EMHC. As an EMHC you are in the position at the discression of the pastor, to disobey the pastor means you should not be in the position.

You did well to resign. Would have done better not assist in the desecration of the Holy Eucharist(if it was done)