Receiving Holy Communion

[dconklin]

Their hands have neither been consecrated or cleansed.

The bread and wine are consecrated. The priest’s hands are specially blessed at ordination to be able to this. The washing of hands after the offertory is not for cleanliness sake, but a symbol of his soul being purified to celebrate this wonderful sacrament. He says, “Lord, wash away my inequities and cleans me of my sins.”

As an aside, back when the swine flu was running rampant, our priests and the EMCs used a squirt of hand sanitizer before distributing Communion.

 

[choy]

The bread and wine are consecrated. The priest’s hands are specially blessed at ordination to be able to this. The washing of hands after the offertory is not for cleanliness sake, but a symbol of his soul being purified to celebrate this wonderful sacrament. He says, “Lord, wash away my inequities and cleans me of my sins.”

priests hands are concecrated to be able to consecrate the bread and wine, not for the purpose of distributing the Eucharist. Deacons’ hands are not consecrated

As an aside, back when the swine flu was running rampant, our priests and the EMCs used a squirt of hand sanitizer before distributing Communion.

thankfully, even if the AH1N1 is not a threat today, our EMHCs still use the hand sanitizer before distributing Holy Communion. its a good practice to keep. i remember staying in Hong Kong for 3 months in 2000. going to fast food restaurants there, food is commonly handled by bare hands by the servers. it was the way of life there. hey, i didn’t die or get sick for 3 months, so i can’t complain. but after the SARS outbreak, everyone was wearing face masks and gloves in the kitchens. and it didn’t stop even after SARS was gone. its good to keep sanitary practices even if there’s no immediate threat

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

The idea that many people have is that to get the lay people more involved, is the solution to the priest shortage. Not to help boost vocations, not to help seminarians, but to just give up and allow lay people more “power.” This exact same argument can also be used to support women “priestesses” and married priests, so one should be careful which argument one chooses to support. Radicals who want to change the Church love to have precedents to work with. I’m not saying that. But where the Church allows people to help…I defer to the Church.

Yes he can… I’ve seen it done a thousand times! There are altar boys too which helps but Father is perfectly able to do these things by himself (read, distribute the Eucharist, etc.) Wow…no wonder there is priest burn out using that logic…so what happens when he gets sick? and run down? and discouraged because people complain about things that the Church does allow? Oh…and did I say we have 3 services on Sunday and there is not enough time for Father to distribute the Eucharist solely himself.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

It sounds to me like we need to pray for vocations and also be willing to help our priests in whatever ways we can.

ABSOLUTELY!

 

[SimonDodd]

I know what you mean. But try not to think only of yourself. The reception of Our Lord is what really counts. It does not matter how the means is.

If that’s true, why has the Vatican repeatedly emphasized that the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are bishops, priests, and deacons, and that extraordinary ministers are to be used sparingly if at all? E.g. GIRM, no.162; Ecclesiae de Mysterio, art. 8.2 (Interdicasterial Instruction approved in forma specifica by John Paul II, 1997); Redemptionis Sacramentum, no. 151-58 (C.D.W. 2004).

As you’re in the U.S., you should follow the teaching of the Bishops for the U.S., as approved by the Vatican. As they teach, there is no objective difference regarding who distributes communion.

Where is this taught?

Similarly, it’s up to the Bishops to decide appropriate ministerial roles at Liturgy.

It’s up to the bishop of each diocese rather than the bishops collectively, and then only within the limits and norms established by the Holy See.

 

[PJM]

=GKCT;6899922]Problem, for me anyway. When I receive Communion, I prefer to receive it from a priest, that is, from hands that have been cleansed and consecrated. I do not like to receive from a lay person (and I don’t care what their “title” is). Their hands have neither been consecrated or cleansed.

Also, there seems to be too many lay persons attending to things in the Mass that a priest used to do. It’s nice that lay are involved, just think it is too much. We have people doing readings who can’t read, can’t pronounce the words correctly, have a heavy accent so it’s hard to understand. We have enough priests in our parish to handle all these things. Just my thoughts.

YEA!

Somebody actually get’s it:thumbsup:

 

[ProVobis]

Just concentrate on WHO you are receiving.

Easier said than done in the congestion that is so common in the communion receiving area.

 

[CradleCath]

That’s good news for Lincoln.

I did some Googling to look for a chart showing the number of priests by diocese, but couldn’t find one. CARA

 

[CradleCath]

The idea that many people have is that to get the lay people more involved, is the solution to the priest shortage. Not to help boost vocations, not to help seminarians, but to just give up and allow lay people more “power.” This exact same argument can also be used to support women “priestesses” and married priests, so one should be careful which argument one chooses to support. Radicals who want to change the Church love to have precedents to work with.

Yes he can… I’ve seen it done a thousand times! There are altar boys too which helps but Father is perfectly able to do these things by himself (read, distribute the Eucharist, etc.)

You’re right. The priests & altar boys do everything during TLM.

BTW., I agree with you that giving the laity “more power”, is definitely NOT the answer. And, as far as married deacons. I agree with Cardinal Bacci, of the Roman Curia, who spoke out against the principle of a married diaconate; saying that "it was both inopportune and dangerous. If the law of celibacy were relaxed for deacons, the number of priests would certainly decline, since youth ‘would choose the easier way.’Moreover, if the Council waives the obligation of celibacy for deacons, the plea will soon be heard that the same should be done for priests.”

As you said, BEWARE of the precedents one encourages.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

Easier said than done in the congestion that is so common in the communion receiving area.

Sounds like we need more extraordinary ministers to relieve that congestion.

 

[ProVobis]

Sounds like we need more extraordinary ministers to relieve that congestion.

Yeh, really.

Yesterday, I gave the guy in front of me some space to receive and the priest looked at me funny when the guy stepped out of the way. Looks like they now expect you to pile up on one another in line. Is this a new way of reverence? Don’t you just love it when the guy in back of you breathes down your neck as you receive?

 

[CradleCath]

Sounds like we need more extraordinary ministers to relieve that congestion.

I notice that you are from Los Angeles, Cardinal Mahoney territory…so, are there still Catholics in Los Angeles who AREN’T EEM’s???

 

[ProVobis]

I notice that you are from Los Angelus, Cardinal Mahoney territory…so, are there still Catholics in Los Angelus who AREN’T EEM’s???

Sure, they’re at Disneyland.

 

[choy]

Yeh, really.

Yesterday, I gave the guy in front of me some space to receive and the priest looked at me funny when the guy stepped out of the way. Looks like they now expect you to pile up on one another in line. Is this a new way of reverence? Don’t you just love it when the guy in back of you breathes down your neck as you receive?

i would rather have the person behind me breathe down my neck than hit my bum. sometimes the unfortunate part collide and…

i saw something interesting at Mass. when i genuflected at Communion the priest opted to give again to the next person beside me. and when i was back up, then he gave Communion to me. at least no one will accuse me of holding the line up. it was moving fine on one side at least

 

[SimonDodd]

ljubim:

The idea that many people have is that to get the lay people more involved, is the solution to the priest shortage. Not to help boost vocations, not to help seminarians, but to just give up and allow lay people more “power.” This exact same argument can also be used to support women “priestesses” and married priests, so one should be careful which argument one chooses to support. Radicals who want to change the Church love to have precedents to work with.

. . . .

… And, as far as married deacons. I agree with Cardinal Bacci, of the Roman Curia, who spoke out against the principle of a married diaconate; saying that "it was both inopportune and dangerous. If the law of celibacy were relaxed for deacons, the number of priests would certainly decline, since youth ‘would choose the easier way.’Moreover, if the Council waives the obligation of celibacy for deacons, the plea will soon be heard that the same should be done for priests.”

As you said, BEWARE of the precedents one encourages.

If your thesis is merely that some people with vocations to the priesthood chose the permanent diaconate instead, that’s unobjectionable. If, however, you mean to connect that observation to the vocations crisis (which is how it reads, given that your remarks are a reply to a comment about the laity and the priest shortage), that’s more problematic.

In the United States, there are currently about 41,000 priests ministering to 65.2 million Catholics, as compared to about 59,000 priests ministering to about 45.6 million Catholics in 1965. In round numbers, call it 770 parishioners per priest in 1965 as compared to 1590 parishioners per priest in 2009. That’s the vocations crisis, and here’s a link for the numbers. How many extra priests would we need to solve it, assuming that the 1965 benchmark is itself satisfactory? You’d need approximately 85,000 priests, i.e. 44,000 more than we have.

To what extent has the permanent diaconate’s (supposed) effect of leaching men from the priesthood affected these numbers? Well, today, there are only c.16,300 permanent deacons in the United States. If every single one of those active deacons had instead entered the priesthood, which is truly fanciful, would that solve the vocations crisis? Not even come close. The priestarishoner ratio would be 1:1140.

Things look better if we slice the numbers another way. Instead of looking at the vocations crisis in terms of the priestarishoner ratio, we could look at it in terms of the number of parishes without a resident pastor. 3400 of 18,280 parishes—18%!—are so situated. If a quarter of the men who volunteered for the permanent diaconate would otherwise have volunteered for the priesthood, the crisis would be mitigated a great deal. That is more plausible than blaming the permanent diaconate for the vocations crisis as a whole but is it likely that a quarter of our permanent deacons have (ignored) vocations to the priesthood?

 

[choy]

You’re right. The priests & altar boys do everything during TLM.

BTW., I agree with you that giving the laity “more power”, is definitely NOT the answer. And, as far as married deacons. I agree with Cardinal Bacci, of the Roman Curia, who spoke out against the principle of a married diaconate; saying that "it was both inopportune and dangerous. If the law of celibacy were relaxed for deacons, the number of priests would certainly decline, since youth ‘would choose the easier way.’Moreover, if the Council waives the obligation of celibacy for deacons, the plea will soon be heard that the same should be done for priests.”

As you said, BEWARE of the precedents one encourages.

i’m not against married men becoming priests. we’re the only sui juris Church that imposes such discipline anyway.

but you can’t say that men will choose to become permanent deacons than pursue the priesthood because of marriage. many men choose to be celibate religious, even though they do not become priests. i don’t think marriage is the dealbreaker in all cases. surely for some, but not all.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

That’s too bad as it would be interesting to see where these diocese that are so short of priests…are.

 

[diggerdomer]

I

Where is this taught?

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (as approved for the U.S.).

 

[Cat]

Thank you everyone. I think I need an attitude adjustment. Sometimes just get a bit? carried away. I know the “rules and regs”, but I would still prefer to receive from a priest. But I’ll get with the program!

Wow.

God bless you for your wonderful spirit! Awesome!

I think this is one of the few times I have ever seen an OP actually change their mind after their post, and take seriously what the responders say. Most of the time, the thread goes on and on and on, and the OP continues to insist that they’re right and everyone else is wrong, even the Church Herself, and eventually the thread gets locked and a few people get suspended or banned, and it’s just a disaster!

This is such a sweet difference! Wow, wow, wow!

I don’t blame you at all for prefering to receive from a priest. A priest is a special person. Maybe it’s because I’m a convert from Catholicism, but I’ll admit, I’m in awe of priests. I remember something that Michael Cumbie said in one of his CDs about a bishop entering the Church–he wanted to jump up and yell, “Hey everyone, it’s an apostle!” He would never do that (and neither would I), but I still feel like doing it!

I personally prefer to receive from someone who is tall. I prefer to receive Holy Communion on my tongue, and the short people can’t reach my mouth, and I have to stoop, and that hurts my knees, and often it’s just so awkward. If there is no tall person, I’ll receive in my hand from the short person.

But I agree with everyone else here that it’s not who you receive from, but Who you receive. I know most of the EMHC in our parish, and I admire their faith and love for Christ and His Church.

 

[SimonDodd]

SimonDodd:

diggerdomer:

As you’re in the U.S., you should follow the teaching of the Bishops for the U.S., as approved by the Vatican. As they teach, there is no objective difference regarding who distributes communion.

Where is this taught?The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (as approved for the U.S.).

In which number of the GIRM does it “teach that] there is no objective difference regarding who distributes communion”? GIRM says that in specific conditions, “lay ministers may be deputed to … assist the priest and the deacon” by, inter alia, “distribut[ing] Holy Communion as extraordinary ministers” (nos. 100 and 162). Those two instructions do not say that there is “no objective difference regarding who distributes communion”—they say that in extraordinary circumstances, there may be extraordinary ministers, which is an entirely different proposition.

(Indeed, if GIRM did teach the lack of “objective difference regarding who distributes communion,” it would be hard to understand why it places so much emphasis on the extraordinary nature of that ministry: if there’s no difference, why cabin the use of EMs?)

Do you have another instruction in mind which I may have overlooked?