People who do not like traditional Catholicism

[nice2000]

I also notice that more and more lay persons are giving communion. I find myself feeling a little uneasy taking communion from a lay person. Do any of the true traditional Catholics feel this way too? I know this sounds a little weird, but I try to always get in the line where the priest is giving out the communion.

I can’t get around the Blood of Christ though. There’s always a lay person holding the cup. It’s all good though. God knows my heart is with him.

 

[rlg94086]

Definitely. The Compendium of the CCC has Latin-vernacular prayers in the back. Very Cool (capital “C” for “Catholic”).

I’m learning the Rosary and the Chaplet of Divine Mercy in Latin. (By which I mean, learning the prayers in Latin by heart.) The Creed is the hardest thing for me to learn, simply because it’s so long.

I agree. The Gregorian Chant helps though. I haven’t really applied myself, but just from going to Mass every Sunday, I have the Sanctus, Mysterium Fidei and Agnus Dei (the easiest) completely memorized; the Gloria, Pater Noster and Credo mostly memorized. I guess some out-of-Mass practice would help. Two of my kids have them all memorized, but I think they just pick it up easier.

I’ve memorized the Hail Mary in Latin, but I don’t have the rest of the Rosary down yet. I mostly pray the Chaplet of Divine Mercy when driving in my car by singing along with the beautiful English version I originally saw on EWTN and now have on CD. I’m not sure I am that interested in learning it in Latin if it means giving up the CD version.

I am seriously considering learning Latin outright, but I don’t think it is necessary for everyone to do that…just learn the common prayers of the Mass.

 

[rlg94086]

I also notice that more and more lay persons are giving communion. I find myself feeling a little uneasy taking communion from a lay person. Do any of the true traditional Catholics feel this way too? I know this sounds a little weird, but I try to always get in the line where the priest is giving out the communion.

I can’t get around the Blood of Christ though. There’s always a lay person holding the cup. It’s all good though. God knows my heart is with him.

Well, I guess I don’t qualify as a “true traditional Catholic,” but I prefer to receive from the priest…especially when I am at a different parish. It is hypocritical of me, since I answered my priest’s request to be an EMHC.

You know what is interesting to me, is that some EMHCs (my wife included) are afraid of distributing the Precious Body and prefer the Cup. I am just the opposite. They are both the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord. I am more concerned with spilling His Precious Blood than I am dropping His Precious Body, because I can easily pick-up and consume the Body…not so easy with the Blood.

I would prefer that we have enough ordained to not need EMHCs, but that is not the case.

 

[EasterJoy]

I would prefer that we have enough ordained to not need EMHCs, but that is not the case.

Have *you *ever considered the diaconate?

 

[rlg94086]

Have *you *ever considered the diaconate?

Yes, I have.

I have contacted the Archdiocese but haven’t heard back yet. I just missed the current group. It is a four-year program, so I won’t be able to start until 2012. My wife is in full support of my decision, but I know there is more discernment that will need to take place with the help of the Archdiocese. The timing may work out well, as my youngest will be a freshman in High School by the time I am ordained.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I was once in a parish where a gentleman refused to receive Communion from anyone except a priest. He would not even receive from a deacon who is also an ordinary minister of the Eucharist. I honestly admit, I cannot understand anyone refusing to receive the Eucharist from anyone orher than a priest. To refuse to take it from a lay person, I am unable to understand. Why in heaven would a person refuse to receive Jesus in the Eucharist, which is his precious body and his blood pored out for our sins. I am sorry, but in my mind, that is not devotion. That is stupidity. It is a false piety. I would receive communion from the most hardened sinner if that was the only way I could receive my Lord. We go to receive our savior in the Eucharist and no matter who gives it to us, it is still him, in the fullness of his body, blood, soul and divinity. If I have offended anyone with my opinion, I am sorry. But this certainly does not make you holier to refuse either the host or the precious blood from a lay person. It means YOU DID NOT RECEIVE.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[rlg94086]

I was once in a parish where a gentleman refused to receive Communion from anyone except a priest. He would not even receive from a deacon who is also an ordinary minister of the Eucharist. I honestly admit, I cannot understand anyone refusing to receive the Eucharist from anyone orher than a priest. To refuse to take it from a lay person, I am unable to understand. Why in heaven would a person refuse to receive Jesus in the Eucharist, which is his precious body and his blood pored out for our sins. I am sorry, but in my mind, that is not devotion. That is stupidity. It is a false piety. I would receive communion from the most hardened sinner if that was the only way I could receive my Lord. We go to receive our savior in the Eucharist and no matter who gives it to us, it is still him, in the fullness of his body, blood, soul and divinity. If I have offended anyone with my opinion, I am sorry. But this certainly does not make you holier to refuse either the host or the precious blood from a lay person. It means YOU DID NOT RECEIVE.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Couldn’t agree with you more.

 

[nice2000]

I was once in a parish where a gentleman refused to receive Communion from anyone except a priest. He would not even receive from a deacon who is also an ordinary minister of the Eucharist. I honestly admit, I cannot understand anyone refusing to receive the Eucharist from anyone orher than a priest. To refuse to take it from a lay person, I am unable to understand. Why in heaven would a person refuse to receive Jesus in the Eucharist, which is his precious body and his blood pored out for our sins. I am sorry, but in my mind, that is not devotion. That is stupidity. It is a false piety. I would receive communion from the most hardened sinner if that was the only way I could receive my Lord. We go to receive our savior in the Eucharist and no matter who gives it to us, it is still him, in the fullness of his body, blood, soul and divinity. If I have offended anyone with my opinion, I am sorry. But this certainly does not make you holier to refuse either the host or the precious blood from a lay person. It means YOU DID NOT RECEIVE.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Trust me, if there was No Priests around giving communion and all there were was left is Lay persons and Deacons. Yes, I would accept communion wholeheartedly. I am no holier than anyone on this earth. I need prayer too. I realize I am a sinner.

Oh and I can understand why that gentlemen refused to accept communion from no other than a Priest. See below.

The teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas, in his great Summa Theologica bears this out. He explains:

   "The dispensing of Christ’s Body belongs to the priest for three reasons.

   "First, because he consecrates in the person of Christ. But as Christ consecrated His Body at the (Last) Supper, so also He gave It to others to be partaken of by them. Accordingly, as the consecration of Christ’s Body belongs to the priest, so likewise does the dispensing belong to him.

   "Second, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people, hence as it belongs to him to offer the people’s gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver the consecrated gifts to the people.

   "Third, because out of reverence for this Sacrament, nothing touches It but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands for touching this Sacrament. Hence, it is not lawful for anyone else to touch It, except from necessity, for instance, if It were to fall upon the ground or else in some other case of urgency." (ST, III, Q.82, Art. 13)

   Saint Thomas, who is the prince of theologians in the Catholic Church, who towers above all the rest, whose Summa Theologica was placed on the altar next to the Scriptures during the Council of Trent, and whose teaching Saint Pius X said was the remedy for Modernism ... Saint Thomas clearly teaches that it belongs to the priest and only to the priest to touch and administer the Sacred Host, that "only that which is consecrated" (the hands of the priest) "should touch the Consecrated" (the Sacred Host).

 

[ethelzguy]

I was once in a parish where a gentleman refused to receive Communion from anyone except a priest. He would not even receive from a deacon who is also an ordinary minister of the Eucharist. Deacon Ed B

His Loss.

 

[nice2000]

Well, I guess I don’t qualify as a “true traditional Catholic,” but I prefer to receive from the priest…especially when I am at a different parish. It is hypocritical of me, since I answered my priest’s request to be an EMHC.

You know what is interesting to me, is that some EMHCs (my wife included) are afraid of distributing the Precious Body and prefer the Cup. I am just the opposite. They are both the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord. I am more concerned with spilling His Precious Blood than I am dropping His Precious Body, because I can easily pick-up and consume the Body…not so easy with the Blood.

I would prefer that we have enough ordained to not need EMHCs, but that is not the case.

Hi Robert,

What does EMHC stand for? does it mean a lay person?

 

[WILKM]

I was once in a parish where a gentleman refused to receive Communion from anyone except a priest. He would not even receive from a deacon who is also an ordinary minister of the Eucharist. I honestly admit, I cannot understand anyone refusing to receive the Eucharist from anyone orher than a priest. To refuse to take it from a lay person, I am unable to understand. Why in heaven would a person refuse to receive Jesus in the Eucharist, which is his precious body and his blood pored out for our sins. I am sorry, but in my mind, that is not devotion. That is stupidity. It is a false piety. I would receive communion from the most hardened sinner if that was the only way I could receive my Lord. We go to receive our savior in the Eucharist and no matter who gives it to us, it is still him, in the fullness of his body, blood, soul and divinity. If I have offended anyone with my opinion, I am sorry. But this certainly does not make you holier to refuse either the host or the precious blood from a lay person. It means YOU DID NOT RECEIVE.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Deacon Ed, I agree with you one hundred percent!

 

[japhy]

What does EMHC stand for? does it mean a lay person?

EMHC = “Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion”, which is the proper (and only accurate) term for a layman who distributes Holy Communion.

The Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion are the Bishop, Priest, and Deacon. Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion are the Instituted Acolyte and those other laymen who are specially deputed for this ministry.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

The teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas, in his great Summa Theologica bears this out. He explains:
"The dispensing of Christ’s Body belongs to the priest for three reasons.

First, because he consecrates in the person of Christ. But as Christ consecrated His Body at the (Last) Supper, so also He gave It to others to be partaken of by them. Accordingly, as the consecration of Christ’s Body belongs to the priest, so likewise does the dispensing belong to him.
“Second, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people, hence as it belongs to him to offer the people’s gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver the consecrated gifts to the people.
Third, because out of reverence for this Sacrament, nothing touches It but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands for touching this Sacrament. Hence, it is not lawful for anyone else to touch It, except from necessity, for instance, if It were to fall upon the ground or else in some other case of urgency.” (ST, III, Q.82, Art. 13)

Having been a student of Thomistic Philosophy and Theology, I agree.whole heartedly that St Thomas Aquinas was our pre-eminent theologian. However, there are several things to consider which you did not post.

1. A deacon who is an ordinary minister of the Eucharist, does not have his hands consecrated as does a priest. Yet we are ordinary ministers.
2. St Thomas was not part of the Magisterium. As a monk, under obedience, per Thomistic Theology,if the magisterium would have said that lay people can distribute communion, under obedience, St Thomas would have accepted it. You point out that he said someone else, under necessity, could touch it. This is exactly what the Magisterium has said. Under necessity, lay people can distribute Communion. It is not for lay persons to determine what that necessity may or not be. If the magisterium has said the pastors may determine that, the argument is over.
   Prayers & blessings
   Deacon Ed B

 

[rlg94086]

Having been a student of Thomistic Philosophy and Theology, I agree.whole heartedly that St Thomas Aquinas was our pre-eminent theologian. However, there are several things to consider which you did not post.

1. A deacon who is an ordinary minister of the Eucharist, does not have his hands consecrated as does a priest. Yet we are ordinary ministers.
2. St Thomas was not part of the Magisterium. As a monk, under obedience, per Thomistic Theology,if the magisterium would have said that lay people can distribute communion, under obedience, St Thomas would have accepted it. You point out that he said someone else, under necessity, could touch it. This is exactly what the Magisterium has said. Under necessity, lay people can distribute Communion. It is not for lay persons to determine what that necessity may or not be. If the magisterium has said the pastors may determine that, the argument is over.
   Prayers & blessings
   Deacon Ed B

Understood Deacon Ed B.

I think the only issue I have with it (and it is my issue…not the Church) is that some EMHCs don’t appear to know what they are doing and some parishes seem to go further than “necessity” when assessing the need and number of EMHCs. I’m not an expert on this, and I know it is up to the priest.

Then again, my other possilbe “hypocrisy” is in how to receive. I prefer to receive on the tongue because I believe it is more reverent (though I recognize that receiving in the hand is licit). However, when traveling, I will often receive in the hand. My reason? There are no patens; the EMHCs in many parishes are not used to people receiving on the tongue; and some of them (even some priests - thankfully, this is rare) will insist you receive in the hand. Even at our parish, during our EMHC annual training/meeting, one of the EMHCs asked “can’t we tell people they have to receive in the hand?!” Obviously, they don’t attend the same Mass we do, where over 75% receive on the tongue.

Oh…one more possible “hypocrisy” in our family, that I’m sure looks odd to others. My 8yo recently asked what a mantilla is (a few women wear them at our parish). When I explained the origin and meaning of wearing a mantilla, she asked if she could wear one. Now, since she made that decision, I’ve taught her to wear it every time we are in the Church. The hypocrisy? My wife and older daughter (14yo) have no interest in wearing one. I’m sure that is an odd sight to people. They are a little more used to seeing a matriarch wear a mantilla with bareheaded children and grandchildren.

 

[nice2000]

EMHC = “Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion”, which is the proper (and only accurate) term for a layman who distributes Holy Communion.

The Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion are the Bishop, Priest, and Deacon. Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion are the Instituted Acolyte and those other laymen who are specially deputed for this ministry.

Thank you japhy.

 

[nice2000]

Understood Deacon Ed B.

I think the only issue I have with it (and it is my issue…not the Church) is that some EMHCs don’t appear to know what they are doing and some parishes seem to go further than “necessity” when assessing the need and number of EMHCs. I’m not an expert on this, and I know it is up to the priest.

Then again, my other possilbe “hypocrisy” is in how to receive. I prefer to receive on the tongue because I believe it is more reverent (though I recognize that receiving in the hand is licit). However, when traveling, I will often receive in the hand. My reason? There are no patens; the EMHCs in many parishes are not used to people receiving on the tongue; and some of them (even some priests - thankfully, this is rare) will insist you receive in the hand. Even at our parish, during our EMHC annual training/meeting, one of the EMHCs asked “can’t we tell people they have to receive in the hand?!” Obviously, they don’t attend the same Mass we do, where over 75% receive on the tongue.

Oh…one more possible “hypocrisy” in our family, that I’m sure looks odd to others. My 8yo recently asked what a mantilla is (a few women wear them at our parish). When I explained the origin and meaning of wearing a mantilla, she asked if she could wear one. Now, since she made that decision, I’ve taught her to wear it every time we are in the Church. The hypocrisy? My wife and older daughter (14yo) have no interest in wearing one. I’m sure that is an odd sight to people. They are a little more used to seeing a matriarch wear a mantilla with bareheaded children and grandchildren.

Hmmm, interesting. A mantilla is that little veil like thingy that a lady wears on top of her head right? I wouldn’t think it looks odd. I have seen several woman in my parish wear them.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Understood Deacon Ed B.

Oh…one more possible “hypocrisy” in our family, that I’m sure looks odd to others. My 8yo recently asked what a mantilla is (a few women wear them at our parish). When I explained the origin and meaning of wearing a mantilla, she asked if she could wear one. Now, since she made that decision, I’ve taught her to wear it every time we are in the Church. The hypocrisy? My wife and older daughter (14yo) have no interest in wearing one. I’m sure that is an odd sight to people. They are a little more used to seeing a matriarch wear a mantilla with bareheaded children and grandchildren.

Your family is starting to sound an lot like mine.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[nice2000]

There are no patens; the EMHCs in many parishes are not used to people receiving on the tongue; and some of them (even some priests - thankfully, this is rare) will insist you receive in the hand.

What does “patens” mean?

I agree, that is sad…Why would a Priest(s) insist that we receive communion by the hand. Isn’t that heresy?

This is what I found in regards to receiving Communion in the hand.

Source: John Vennari, Fatima Crusader # 74, Pg. 77,

How Did Today’s Communion in the Hand Come About?

   400 years ago, Communion in the hand was introduced into "Christian" worship by men whose motives were rooted in defiance of Catholicism. The 16th Century Protestant revolutionaries (more politely but undeservedly called Protestant "reformers") re-established Communion in the hand as a means of showing two things:

   1) That they believed there was no such thing as "transubstantiation" and that the bread used at Communion time was just ordinary bread. In other words, the real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is just a "Papist superstition", and that the bread is just bread and anybody can handle it.

   2) Their belief that the minister of Communion is no different in any fundamental from laymen. Now, it is Catholic teaching that the Sacrament of Holy Orders gives a man a spiritual, sacramental power, it imprints an indelible mark on his soul and makes him fundamentally different from laymen. The Protestant Minister, however, is just an ordinary man who leads the hymns, reads the lessons and gives sermons to stir up the convictions of the believers. He can’t change bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Our Lord, he can’t bless, he can’t forgive sins. He can’t do anything a normal layman can’t do. 

   The Protestants’ establishment of Communion in the hand was their way of showing their rejection of belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, rejection of the Sacramental Priesthood — in short, to show their rejection of Catholicism altogether.

   From that point on, Communion in the hand received a distinctly anti-Catholic significance. It was a recognizably anti-Catholic practice rooted in disbelief in the real Presence of Christ and the priesthood. So, if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, it is not unfair to ask why are our modern churchmen imitating self-proclaimed infidels who reject core sacramental teaching of Catholicism? This is a question that those Churchmen intoxicated by the liberal spirit of Vatican II have yet to answer satisfactorily.

 

[rlg94086]

What does “patens” mean?

I agree, that is sad…Why would a Priest(s) insist that we receive communion by the hand. Isn’t that heresy?

This is what I found in regards to receiving Communion in the hand.

Source: John Vennari, Fatima Crusader # 74, Pg. 77,

How Did Today’s Communion in the Hand Come About?

400 years ago, Communion in the hand was introduced into “Christian” worship by men whose motives were rooted in defiance of Catholicism. The 16th Century Protestant revolutionaries (more politely but undeservedly called Protestant “reformers”) re-established Communion in the hand as a means of showing two things:

1. That they believed there was no such thing as “transubstantiation” and that the bread used at Communion time was just ordinary bread. In other words, the real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is just a “Papist superstition”, and that the bread is just bread and anybody can handle it.
2. Their belief that the minister of Communion is no different in any fundamental from laymen. Now, it is Catholic teaching that the Sacrament of Holy Orders gives a man a spiritual, sacramental power, it imprints an indelible mark on his soul and makes him fundamentally different from laymen. The Protestant Minister, however, is just an ordinary man who leads the hymns, reads the lessons and gives sermons to stir up the convictions of the believers. He can’t change bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Our Lord, he can’t bless, he can’t forgive sins. He can’t do anything a normal layman can’t do.

The Protestants’ establishment of Communion in the hand was their way of showing their rejection of belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, rejection of the Sacramental Priesthood — in short, to show their rejection of Catholicism altogether.

From that point on, Communion in the hand received a distinctly anti-Catholic significance. It was a recognizably anti-Catholic practice rooted in disbelief in the real Presence of Christ and the priesthood. So, if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, it is not unfair to ask why are our modern churchmen imitating self-proclaimed infidels who reject core sacramental teaching of Catholicism? This is a question that those Churchmen intoxicated by the liberal spirit of Vatican II have yet to answer satisfactorily.

Hi nice2000,

The paten is the shallow plate that the priest uses during the consecration - newadvent.org/cathen/11541b.htm . However, unless I am mistaken, it is also the term used to described the similar vessels which altar boys hold under the communicant in case particles from the consecrated Host drop when received.

As I mentioned, it is very rare for a priest to tell someone to receive in the hand - it would be a priest who not only has disdain for “traditionalists” but also doesn’t have a problem ignoring the rubrics of the Church. If they are instructing their flock that they must receive in the hand, then there are usually other abuses going on. I’ve heard of it happening, but it hasn’t happened to me. Therefore, take it for what it is - hearsay.

 

[nice2000]

Hi nice2000,

The paten is the shallow plate that the priest uses during the consecration - newadvent.org/cathen/11541b.htm . However, unless I am mistaken, it is also the term used to described the similar vessels which altar boys hold under the communicant in case particles from the consecrated Host drop when received.

As I mentioned, it is very rare for a priest to tell someone to receive in the hand - it would be a priest who not only has disdain for “traditionalists” but also doesn’t have a problem ignoring the rubrics of the Church. If they are instructing their flock that they must receive in the hand, then there are usually other abuses going on. I’ve heard of it happening, but it hasn’t happened to me. Therefore, take it for what it is - hearsay.

Thanks Robert for the link. I just read it. I learn something new everyday ! Now i’m trying to see if I can find a picture of a paten on the website. I never noticed a paten in mass…hmmmmm…When I go to mass this weekend, i’m going to see if the Priest is using a paten.

No problem, about the hearsay. I’m still in a learning process…even though i’ve been Catholic for the past 25 years or so… trust me…I have lots of questions…