Receiving Holy Communion

[Phemie]

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.)

While the Celebrant Priest is the Ordinary Minister of Holy Communion he is not the Ordinary Minister of the Word.

The Ordinary Minister of the Word is the Instituted Lector, whose ministry may be filled by a non-instituted reader if no Instituted Lector is available. Just for the record, Church documents use both ‘Instituted Reader’ and ‘Instituted Lector’ depending on when they were published. English seems to be the only language in which a distinction is made between Lector & Reader. Latin doesn’t use a different word to distinguish between instituted and non-instituted.

The Ordinary Minister of the Gospel is the Deacon. A priest other than the Celebrant may read the Gospel if there is no Deacon.

Per the GIRM, the Celebrant only performs those ministries if appropriate people are not available.

 

[CradleCath]

QUOTE=SimonDodd;6909238]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.

Perhaps you didn’t realize that I was quoting someone…a Cardinal who was present at Vatican II. He was not so much concerned about the permanent diaconate, as he was against a married permanent diaconate:
… 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.”

catholictruthscotland.com/blog/tag/married-deacons/

I was also answering a post that dealt with setting precedents.

I am curious…do you think that, if the permanent diaconate required celibacy, that it would have grown into what it has become??

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.

You have missed the point. If the permanent diaconate required celibacy, as the priesthood does, how many permanent deacons do you think we’d have?

Don’t get me wrong, I do not want a married priesthood, for MANY reasons…but that is a whole “nother” subject. However, if you are saying that the non-celibate, permanent diaconate is the** answer **to our shortage of celibate priests who act in Persona Christe, I disagree with you.

 

[SimonDodd]

Perhaps you didn’t realize that I was quoting someone…a Cardinal who was present at Vatican II.

Yeah, I got that. It didn’t take great perspicacity on my part to glean that you were quoting Card. Bacci given that you put the quote in quotation marks and introduced it by stating that you “agree with Cardinal Bacci, of the Roman Curia, who spoke out against the principle of a married diaconate] saying that….”

Not to put too fine a point on it: So what? Assuming that the quote is accurate (the only source I know of for it is Fr. Wiltgen’s book The Rhine flows into the Tiber), Card. Bacci was expressing an opinion of what he thought would happen. We, however, have the benefit of being able to look at what did happen. Card. Bacci said that “If the law of celibacy were relaxed for deacons, the number of priests would certainly decline, since youth ‘would choose the easier way.’” But the decline in the number of priests does not prove his theory. His claim wasn’t that the number of priests would decline, but that it would do so for a reason, so you have to connect the decline to the cause he offered. And that’s tough to do. After all, critics of the novus ordo are swift to claim liturgical reform as the villain of the piece, and it’s not as if nothing has changed in society at large which bears on men accepting vocations to the priesthood. What evidence is there that men who would otherwise have entered the priesthood have instead entered the permanent diaconate, as Card. Bacci theorized?

I am curious…do you think that, if the permanent diaconate required celibacy, that it would have grown into what it has become??

How on earth would I know? That’s an unanswerable question.

You have missed the point. If the permanent diaconate required celibacy, as the priesthood does, how many permanent deacons do you think we’d have?

No; respectfully, you have missed the point. The point is not how many permanent deacons we have. The issue is this: How many people who are now permanent deacons would otherwise have become priests, and thus, would we have the vocations crisis absent that leaching effect? We have absolutely no way of answering the former question (who would be the control group?), and the numbers suggest that the answer to the latter is “yes.” Empirical data severely undermine Card. Bacci’s theory, but even if you don’t accept that much, at absolute minimum, what we have learned from experience places the onus on those who claim a causal relationship between the permanent diaconate and the vocations crisis to do better than ipse dixit from one cardinal.

if you are saying that the non-celibate, permanent diaconate is the** answer **to our shortage of celibate priests who act in Persona Christe, I disagree with you.

I didn’t said anything remotely like that. Actually, what I said was almost the exact opposite: that linking the vocations crisis to the permanent diaconate is a tenuous enterprise.

 

[ProVobis]

Just for the record, Church documents use both ‘Instituted Reader’ and ‘Instituted Lector’ depending on when they were published. English seems to be the only language in which a distinction is made between Lector & Reader. Latin doesn’t use a different word to distinguish between instituted and non-instituted.

Thanks for bringing up that point. Shows how some translations can lead to wars.

 

[PJM]

=SuscipeMeDomine;6907365]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 has numbers for the whole country but not (that I could find) by diocese.

The 3,400 parishes without a resident pastor are scary. I keep hearing about cases where two or three parishes share a priest, but I’d hate to belong to one of them. Still, if there are all those parishes who have 1/2 a priest or 1/3 of a priest, the ones who have even one priest should be thankful. And also thankful for the permanent deacons who can take on care of parishioners.

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

***TRY www. CatholicAlmanac.com *

I seem to recall seeing that information in there, but it’s been a few years since I purchased one.

I agree with your final comment. My suggestion is to seek FREE Retired business people to run all th business aspects of the parish. Reporting once a week to th priest who can consentrate on the Spiritual apsects**.

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[PJM]

=choy;6909237]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

I have found it a “best practice” to genuflect while the person in front of me receives Christ

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[choy]

You have missed the point. If the permanent diaconate required celibacy, as the priesthood does, how many permanent deacons do you think we’d have?

definitely less. because there are married men who are called when they are married already. i know sometimes the view is the other way around when it is said that single men opt to get married before ordination then remain as permanent deacons. while no doubt that happens, don’t forget that there are married men who are called as well.

 

[ProVobis]

I have found it a “best practice” to genuflect while the person in front of me receives Christ

That’s okay but I see people bowing, kneeling, genuflecting, standing to the side, what a congestion that can cause with two lines. Today one on crutches moved the two crutches out of the way just so she could receive in the hands, proceeded to take the time to step wabbly aside and consume It, then almost tumbled over as the next one was stepping aside to consume his Host. And we’re supposed to concentrate on Whom we are receiving? How? I dare not even suggest they use patens to catch falling particles.

 

[ConstantineTG]

That’s okay but I see people bowing, kneeling, genuflecting, standing to the side, what a congestion that can cause with two lines. Today one on crutches moved the two crutches out of the way just so she could receive in the hands, proceeded to take the time to step wabbly aside and consume It, then almost tumbled over as the next one was stepping aside to consume his Host. And we’re supposed to concentrate on Whom we are receiving? How? I dare not even suggest they use patens to catch falling particles.

I will agree with you in this case that this person should be “forced” to receive COTT. Our former pastor has mandated COTT for those carrying small children for the obvious fact that they have a child in their hands. And since the proper posture for CITH is to receive with both hands, he’s not going to give Communion to those who only use one hand in the even they insist on receiving CITH by carrying the child on one hand and trying to receive with the other.

 

[Monica4316]

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.

I feel the same way…

 

[ConstantineTG]

I feel the same way…

While people do enjoy the freedom to pursue such beliefs within the Church, I feel that such beliefs may be the beginning of bigger and dangerous beliefs. If we undermine the Church authority and teachings that tell us that lay people can distribute Holy Communion if called upon, we’re opening ourselves up to worse problems in our faith. Sure, this may be trivial, but all big things start from little things.

 

[joanne_govan]

My head is bowed walking down the aisle to the priest, I have no idea what the person in front is or is not doing??? When I see the bottom of the vestments and the priests feet I raise my head, I am now going to receive Christ. I have read the word ‘force’ congestion, Are we talking Mass here or the Olympics.(Am a new member)

 

[Brooke449]

I was at a Mass at a parish I only attend once every few weeks because of my schedule and after Holy Communion had been distributed there were 6 lay people helping out on the alter. It was very distracting. Everybody trying to help and doing something to look busy. At one point, Father sat down BEFORE they were all finished cleaning up. It was really too much. I liked it better when I was young and there were 2 servers and a Priest and that was it. I guess it doesn’t matter what I like though. It’s not about me and it’s not about what I think is best.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I was at a Mass at a parish I only attend once every few weeks because of my schedule and after Holy Communion had been distributed there were 6 lay people helping out on the alter. It was very distracting. Everybody trying to help and doing something to look busy. At one point, Father sat down BEFORE they were all finished cleaning up. It was really too much. I liked it better when I was young and there were 2 servers and a Priest and that was it. I guess it doesn’t matter what I like though. It’s not about me and it’s not about what I think is best.

In our parish the EMHCs are not even allowed to take the ciborium from the altar. The priest must hand it to them after they receive from the priest, and after distribution they must hand it back to the priest. I like how our parish does it. Perhaps your priest is old and needs the help?

 

[diggerdomer]

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?

That’s the point. No matter who distributes communion, as the GIRM allows, the communicant is completely and fully participating, with no difference.

Are you saying that if one receives communion from a Priest (or Deacon) it’s somehow better or holier than receiving communion from an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion? If so…where does the Church teach this?

 

[ProVobis]

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?)

Seems like a good argument to me.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Why would there be a difference on who distributes Holy Communion? Can a layperson diminish the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ? If one believes that, then one should question why they receive Communion at all. Even a priest with a ton of mortal sin cannot diminish Christ and still consecrate bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ (and they can still administer the other Sacraments as well).

 

[ProVobis]

Why would there be a difference on who distributes Holy Communion?

Well, you’ll have to agree we do need some rules on Its distribution and define some roles here. Or would you prefer a free grab for all at communion time? That would be desacralizing the sacrament, wouldn’t it?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Well, you’ll have to agree we do need some rules on Its distribution and define some roles here. Or would you prefer a free grab for all at communion time? That would be desacralizing the sacrament, wouldn’t it?

Well there are rules allowing for lay persons to distribute Holy Communion, and there is a proper procedure to put them in that Ministry which includes proper instruction and the Rite. Is there more needed to be done?

 

[SimonDodd]

That’s the point. No matter who distributes communion, as the GIRM allows, the communicant is completely and fully participating, with no difference.

Sorry, what’s the point? You claimed that the General Instruction of the Roman Missal contains a teaching of the American Bishops, approved by the Vatican, that “there is no objective difference regarding who distributes communion.” Are you really conceding that your claim is no more than an inference you’ve extracted from GIRM’s authorization of Extraordinary ministers in some situations?

It seems that way. But to get from what GIRM nos. 100 and 162 say to what you claim GIRM teaches, more is needed. Your reasoning appears to bridge the gap this way: GIRM wouldn’t authorize EMHCs if there was a difference, ergo, an authorization amounts to a teaching that there’s no difference. Nevertheless, you cite no authority for a critical premise, or the proffered hermeneutic, or the conclusion. And on top of all that, your reasoning doesn’t make sense. Let’s follow it to its illogical conclusion: under your theory, since communion services are authorized, ergo there can’t be an objective difference between the Mass and a communion service. Right?

Are you saying that if one receives communion from a Priest (or Deacon) it’s somehow better or holier than receiving communion from an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion? If so…where does the Church teach this?

I’m not definitively advancing any claim at this time; rather, you said something, and I’m politely asking you to explain how you justify it.