No Priest at Communion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Greeneflag
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Greeneflag

Guest
This Easter Sunday Mass at my parish the celebrating priest sat down at his chair and let an EMHC take his place to serve Communion. He didn’t attempt to come down to serve; he immediately gave the responsibility to the EMHC. There was a Deacon co-celebrating; and he held the wine. Is this licit?

This priest is in his 80s and he does tremble somewhat. But shouldn’t the parish have a second priest assisting? Or would it be better for the Deacon to serve the Communion?
 
As you said, your priest is in his 80s and trembles, which probably means he has trouble walking (would explain why he refrained from doing the Sprinkling Rite in your other post). My sincere suggestion is to thank him for continuing to help serve, even after a lifetime of devoted service. Perhaps send him an Easter card with a gift card to a nice local restaurant. The alternative is to cancel Mass, or to further strain a younger priest.

Also, not to quibble but rather to be precise, deacons don’t concelebrate the liturgy. Only priests can do that. Second, again, just to be precise and theologically correct, no one ever holds wine at Mass. The correct term is the Precious Blood.
 
On Holy Thursday, our priest had a cough so he had the sacristan distribute Holy Communion while he sat down. 🤷
 
I believe James Barnett in his book “the Diaconate: a Full and Equal Order” suggests this practice of having a layman distribute the host. As has been mentioned, I think it is in respect to the Deacon whose usual ministry is the cup.
 
I wonder if the OP is suggesting that one somehow receives “more” Jesus if they take communion from the priest instead of a deacon or an EMHC.

I think that we’ve all seen people who jump from one communion line to another so that they’ll receive from the priest. There have also been people on this forum who have said that they will only receive from a priest. How sad.
 
How sad, you say? So, are you suggesting that those thousands of years that Catholics only received Communion from priests and deacons were sad times?

I’d hate to “grow another branch” of this thread, but I think the idea of EMHCs has been abused. It should be that the priest, acting in Persona Christi, is the forefront of the Communion Rite. EMHCs are supposed to be for “extraordinary” circumstances, no?

In my parish it is definitely abused. There seems to be more EMHCs up on the altar than there are actual communicants. The ones at my parish act with such irreverence it is gut-wrenching: They often laugh and chat behind the altar while the tabernacle is open. Women sometimes wear miniskirts and show ample cleavage. They think they have the power to bless individuals who come up with arms crossed. Some don’t bow or genuflect before the tabernacle. And if you want to receive on the tongue, they have this deer-in-the-headlights-look, and don’t know what to do. I saw one allow a communicant it do intinction with her own hands. I find THAT sad!

Yes, I do make it a point to sit in the front-right pews so that I can receive Communion from a bona fide ordained priest. (And I made sure that I received the blood of Jesus from the deacon for this reason). If we continue to take away the rites, powers and services of the priests, how far will we go? If we had reason for the priest to do these things in the past, why aren’t they reasonable now?
 
If you want to make a post about the over use of EMHC’s, do so. Instead, you decided to trash an elderly priest for wanting to sit down for a few minutes during the long Easter liturgy. Don’t you see how wrong that was?
 
Greeneflag said:
How sad, you say? So, are you suggesting that those thousands of years that Catholics only received Communion from priests and deacons were sad times?
Click to expand...
Indeed. There was probably a good reason the Church prohibited the laity from even touching the Blessed Sacrament for many centuries. What was the gain by allowing them to do so on a routine basis?
PaulfromIowa said:
If you want to make a post about the over use of EMHC’s, do so. Instead, you decided to trash an elderly priest for wanting to sit down for a few minutes during the long Easter liturgy. Don’t you see how wrong that was?
Click to expand...
Fair point. It does show an exception to the rule.
 
Ideally we would have sufficient priests such that one could assist, but that’s not the times we live in. Under such circumstances, as others have said, this sounds licit and appropriate.
 
Greeneflag said:
How sad, you say?
Click to expand...
Yes, it is very sad that someone can be fortunate enough to be able to attend regularly scheduled Masses and yet be disappointed that they’re not receiving from the priest, as if that makes the reception of the Eucharist that much more efficacious.

It calls to mind the rich man who saw Jesus face to face yet went away sad because he was told to give his riches to the poor. There are parts of the world where not only are there not enough priests but there aren’t any true dioceses or parishes to serve the faithful. I wonder how sad you would be if you were only able to attend
Mass once every 10 months or so.
Greeneflag said:
Yes, I do make it a point to sit in the front-right pews so that I can receive Communion from a bona fide ordained priest. (And I made sure that I received the blood of Jesus from the deacon for this reason). If we continue to take away the rites, powers and services of the priests, how far will we go? If we had reason for the priest to do these things in the past, why aren’t they reasonable now?
Click to expand...
Take away the “powers of the priest?” :rolleyes: I wonder what your disposition would be if you were in a hospital about to have surgery and could only receive from a “non-priest.”
 
PaulfromIowa said:
If you want to make a post about the over use of EMHC’s, do so. Instead, you decided to trash an elderly priest for wanting to sit down for a few minutes during the long Easter liturgy. Don’t you see how wrong that was?
Click to expand...
How is my question trashing anyone? If the action was licit, then fine; I got my answer. If there was a better way for the parish to go about the situation, it would be nice to hear about that also.

I brought up the health of the priest to solicit if that could be any influence on the circumstance. I brought up the overuse of the EMHCs in response to another post about people like me who would rather receive from a priest. I believe you are reading too much into this; and I expect an apology for your unwarranted accusation.
 
ProVobis said:
Indeed. There was probably a good reason the Church prohibited the laity from even touching the Blessed Sacrament for many centuries. What was the gain by allowing them to do so on a routine basis?
Click to expand...
Sure…you’re not allowed to touch it but we’ll put it on your nasty tongue in a mouth that has never known a toothbrush or an antiseptic. Now THAT’S preferable.
 
Tim_D said:
I wonder what your disposition would be if you were in a hospital about to have surgery and could only receive from a “non-priest.”
Click to expand...
Er, I was in this position a few months ago. No food before surgery, no exceptions.

Poor, if not invalid, example.
 
Wesrock said:
Ideally we would have sufficient priests such that one could assist, but that’s not the times we live in. Under such circumstances, as others have said, this sounds licit and appropriate.
Click to expand...
Newsflash but there has always been a shortage of priests. In the previous two centuries or so bishops would plunder local orders and appoint their priests as pastors of diocesan parishes. It was Vatican II that returned religious orders back to their own “independence,” if you will. Some religious orders are still very hesitant to ordain priests for fear that they will be “conscripted.”
 
ProVobis said:
Er, I was in this position a few months ago. No food before surgery, no exceptions.

Poor, if not invalid, example.
Click to expand...
No, the example is that it is better to receive Christ through an EMCH or a “non-priest” than not receive Him at all. If I were about to have surgery, orders be damned but I would receive in case of something going wrong. You must think very highly of your doctors.
 
It very well could be your “angry” emoji that has people concerned about your motives.

I find most people who are asking honest questions, without having their mind made up if something is right or wrong, generally do not use :mad: as a thread descriptor.
Greeneflag said:
How is my question trashing anyone? If the action was licit, then fine; I got my answer. If there was a better way for the parish to go about the situation, it would be nice to hear about that also.

I brought up the health of the priest to solicit if that could be any influence on the circumstance. I brought up the overuse of the EMHCs in response to another post about people like me who would rather receive from a priest. I believe you are reading too much into this; and I expect an apology for your unwarranted accusation.
Click to expand...
 
Ah! I got it! The Church must be relevant to the world. I guess you mean the world does not have to be relevant to the Church.
:eek:
 
Third, disciplines change and MUST do so for the church to remain relevant in the world.
Click to expand...
On a philosophical note, if it keeps meeting the world halfway, pretty soon it will lose its identity altogether. (similar to the half-life principle in physics)
 
Yes, you would think, Deacon Jeff, but you just now committed a great heresy here on CAF! 😉

Don’t ya know that style is way more important than substance?! :eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top