Refusing the Cup

[withwind]

Wow–it amazes me how many people on this forum think that unmarried people live together as “brother & sister.” I highly, highly doubt that most people living together are being chaste. If you can’t afford to make it on your own, why wouldn’t you get a roommate or move back in with your parents? The single person was making it on their own before they found their boyfriend/girlfriend & then all of a sudden it makes economic sense for them to room together? Please tell me why they could make it on their own before they met each other & then after meeting each other they suddenly become impoverished and have to live together “economically” in order to make ends meet?

Isn’t is ironic that when they speak to their devout Catholic friends & family members that they always claim to be living as “brother & sister” for economic reasons?

I myself don’t recommend any unmarried couple to share the same roof but I think your post could’ve been brought up in another thread - this thread is more about whose authority to refuse one to receive the Holy Communion (in this case: Jesus’ Blood).

 

[FrDavid96]

This may be a new twist to the controversy surrounding Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharistic.

Last Sunday, a man openly living with his unmarried girlfriend (a small town and everyone is aware) approached me as Minister of the Cup. The Priest had already given both of them Eucharist. I teach a teen Catechism class, and since we had discussed the conditions for proper reception of the Eucharist in class, some of my students were closely watching to see what I would do. I refused them both. After Mass, the man angrily accosted me with the “how dare you judge me” admonition. I explained that I was not judging him yet in my opinion it would have been scandalous and a sacrilege to give him the Cup. He took his complaint to the Pastor, who told me that since he had administered the Host, I should have administered the Cup. I asked the Pastor if he had talked to the couple about their lifestyle, and he said he had not, but it was not my place to refuse the Cup. I don’t believe EM’s should be placed in this position and have since dropped out of the EM program. What say you?

Rich,
As an EMHC you are a representative of the priest who appointed you to that position–i.e. the priest-celebrant at that Mass. The actual moment of the distribution of Communion is not the time for anyone (clergy or especialy laity) to determine whether or not a particular Catholic should be receieing.

In the case of “public persons” who openly dissent from the Church’s teachings, even they are given ample opportunity to recant before being denied the Eucharist.

Please ask youself a question here: Do I know for a fact that the person receiving has not been to confession recently?

Even if you do somehow know the answer to that question, the fact is that if the priest himself gave the Body of Christ to that person, that means 2 things: 1. The person has already received the Eucharist, so denying the Precious Blood makes no difference. 2. For whatever reason (again, whatever reason) that priest decided to administer Communion. That is his decision to make and his alone at that particular moment.

The pastor (or priest if he wasn’t the pastor) is not in a position to discuss with you or any other third party confidential information which he has in regard to that couple. Let’s assume just for the sake of argument that the couple had gone to confession a few minutes before Mass. Do you realy think that the priest would violate the seal of the confessional for the sake of easing your conscience in giving them Communion?

If you have some questions about distributing, or reservations about to whom you should distribute, the time to discuss that is with the pastor in a private setting. Also, your students need to understand that they should likewise not be judging who receives Communion–a general understanding yes, but a particular judgment no.

You are doing the right thing in teaching your students that people who commit certain public sins should not be receiving, but the other side of the coin is to teach them not to judge others’ consciences.

When you serve as an EMHC, please remember that you are a representative of the priest who appointed you. It’s his determination to make, and it’s his responsibility to make that decision wisely and in accord with the entire teaching of the Church.

Your heart is in the right place here by “safeguarding” the Eucharist. I only ask that you please remember that the decision is for the priest to make.

 

[palmas85]

This may be a new twist to the controversy surrounding Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharistic.

Last Sunday, a man openly living with his unmarried girlfriend (a small town and everyone is aware) approached me as Minister of the Cup. The Priest had already given both of them Eucharist. I teach a teen Catechism class, and since we had discussed the conditions for proper reception of the Eucharist in class, some of my students were closely watching to see what I would do. I refused them both. After Mass, the man angrily accosted me with the “how dare you judge me” admonition. I explained that I was not judging him yet in my opinion it would have been scandalous and a sacrilege to give him the Cup. He took his complaint to the Pastor, who told me that since he had administered the Host, I should have administered the Cup. I asked the Pastor if he had talked to the couple about their lifestyle, and he said he had not, but it was not my place to refuse the Cup. I don’t believe EM’s should be placed in this position and have since dropped out of the EM program. What say you?

The poster took it upon himself to override the Priest in this case and impose his own judgement on the situation.

**THAT IS NOT HIS JOB **

The Communicant had already received so witholding the Chalice accomplished exactly what? The Communicant had already consumed both Body and Blood. At an elemental sense this displays a misunderstanding of both the role of the Extraordinary Minister in the Mass and a lack of understanding on the part of the poster as to what exactly is going on in the reception of Communion.

Solution. Either train these people properly before having them take on such a role or scrap the whole program.

I heartily endorse the second and am not sure that the first would do much good with the large number of Extraordinary Ministers who apparently see themselves as being actual Priests rather than being assistants and very limited assistants at that to the Priest.

 

[Island_Oak]

No one said anything about marriage in the OP, and it is definitely gossip. He could be openly living as brother and sister, he could’ve spoken to Father two days before and cleared everything up. A private matter between Pastor and members of his flock. There isn’t a public scandal here unless people want to start making assumptions and making it into one.

Better to leave it up to the Pastor, the parishoners, and God.

I won’t go back and forth here, but it’s clear to me that the OP was way out of line and shouldn’t be looking to examine ones worthiness when they come up for Holy Communion.

Totally agree here.

 

[Tsuwano]

I believe your pastor is correct. It is not your place to refuse communion to those who come to receive it. That very important decision, which could influence the faith life of someone for years to come, belongs to the head of the community; your pastor. If you have concerns, you should direct them to your pastor before or after the mass and allow him to make the decision. If you feel uncomfortable in this ministry to the community, then it is right that you not participate in it.

 

[JPUSC]

That’s why Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist are supposed to be permitted only in rare occasions. Situations like this arise when the laity is allowed to engage in roles previously reserved for the priest.

I’ve never had an inclination to become an EMHC. I think only the consecrated hands of the priest should be handling the Eucharist.

On the flip side to this situation, back in Catholic school and college, it felt strange to receive Communion during school Masses from the hands of some of my friends since I often knew of their personal histories related to their moral decisions…a strange situation indeed.

Also, in one parish, an EMHC told me something to the likes of, “chug it all down” or “finish up the cup” (I can’t recall the exact words) since I was the last person in line for the chalice. Gives me the impression that I’m having a drink at a casual gathering.

 

[CWBetts]

That’s why Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist are supposed to be permitted only in rare occasions. Situations like this arise when the laity is allowed to engage in roles previously reserved for the priest.

I’ve never had an inclination to become an EMHC. I think only the consecrated hands of the priest should be handling the Eucharist.

On the flip side to this situation, back in Catholic school and college, it felt strange to receive Communion during school Masses from the hands of some of my friends since I often knew of their personal histories related to their moral decisions…a strange situation indeed.

Also, in one parish, an EMHC told me something to the likes of, “chug it all down” or “finish up the cup” (I can’t recall the exact words) since I was the last person in line for the chalice. Gives me the impression that I’m having a drink at a casual gathering.

Perhaps we wouldn’t need EMHCs on a regular basis if there wasn’t such a shortage of vocations to the priesthood. My parish has but a single priest, and until recently he had 2 parishes! Icouldn’t imagine mass without EMHCs to assist. The problem lies not with the EMHC, but with the poor catechesis of the parishoner recieving unworthily.

 

[ChristIsLord]

Perhaps we wouldn’t need EMHCs on a regular basis if there wasn’t such a shortage of vocations to the priesthood. My parish has but a single priest, and until recently he had 2 parishes! Icouldn’t imagine mass without EMHCs to assist. The problem lies not with the EMHC, but with the poor catechesis of the parishoner recieving unworthily.

That’s true but a Church like mine that has four Priests I don’t see a good reason to have them. I don’t see why the Priests can’t distribute Holy Communion. In many Churches it’s like this, multiple Priests on hand but only one at each Mass and the laity distributing Holy Communion and apparently deciding who is worthy to recieve or not.

They’re necessary for “extraordinary” circumstances but in most Churches there is nothing extra ordinary about their use, they are the normative way of distributing Holy Communion now.

 

[CWBetts]

That’s true but a Church like mine that has four Priests I don’t see a good reason to have them. I don’t see why the Priests can’t distribute Holy Communion. In many Churches it’s like this, multiple Priests on hand but only one at each Mass and the laity distributing Holy Communion and apparently deciding who is worthy to recieve or not.

They’re necessary for “extraordinary” circumstances but in most Churches there is nothing extra ordinary about their use, they are the normative way of distributing Holy Communion now.

We are in agreement. thety are necessary in small parishes with only a asingle priest, but in larger parishes with multiple priests I really don’t see the point, unless one or more of the priests is on retreat, filling in at another perish and so on.

 

[Lovemyfaith]

That’s why Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist are supposed to be permitted only in rare occasions. Situations like this arise when the laity is allowed to engage in roles previously reserved for the priest.

I’ve never had an inclination to become an EMHC. I think only the consecrated hands of the priest should be handling the Eucharist.

With all respect to EMHC, I do agree with this. My husband is no longer an EMHC. In fact, he dropped out before he would ever be faced with those who are pro-abortion coming to him to receive. (Believe it or not we have people in our parish who support planned parenthood and a woman’s right to choose abortion).

I know there is a shortage of priests, but I am in no hurry when I am at Mass, and will gladly wait whatever time is needed.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I’ve never had an inclination to become an EMHC. I think only the consecrated hands of the priest should be handling the Eucharist.

So are you saying that the Church is WRONG in allowing non-consecrated hands to touch the Eucharist?

 

[Sir_Knight]

That’s true but a Church like mine that has four Priests I don’t see a good reason to have them. I don’t see why the Priests can’t distribute Holy Communion. In many Churches it’s like this, multiple Priests on hand but only one at each Mass and the laity distributing Holy Communion and apparently deciding who is worthy to recieve or not.

They’re necessary for “extraordinary” circumstances but in most Churches there is nothing extra ordinary about their use, they are the normative way of distributing Holy Communion now.

We are in agreement. thety are necessary in small parishes with only a asingle priest, but in larger parishes with multiple priests I really don’t see the point, unless one or more of the priests is on retreat, filling in at another perish and so on.

We have four priests (all present for the distribution of Communion at each mass) along with two deacons (usually only one is present during the distribution of Communion but sometimes both are present) and the Pastor insists that there be six additional EMHC present.

We have a sign-up sheet in the back and if six names are not there, the ushers are instructed to scan the pews for EMHC’s to fill the empty slots.

 

[Sir_Knight]

but I am in no hurry when I am at Mass, and will gladly wait whatever time is needed.

And if waiting longer causes a delay in the start of the next mass which results in even a greater delay in the start of the mass after that (delay due to the mass starting late and additional delay due to a long communion) and so forth and so on – what happens then?

Before you answer, factor this in …

The local bishop REQUIRES that no Sunday masses are to begin after 12 Noon. If each mass is delayed for 10-15 minutes, that would push the last mass past 12 Noon.

So, while you may not be in a HURRY, there may be a need to have Communion distributed in a timely reason.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please stay on topic, everyone. Take side discussions to new or existing threads. Thank you all.

 

[PaulAndrew83]

Public sin is public sin.

If the sin is grievous then you must refuse Holy Communion.

edit: But due to the fact of the Priest having gave Holy Communion it would be legitimate to believe that they had been to confession.

Though it is clear that the Priest has not talked to them from your post afterwards.

Paul

 

[FrDavid96]

Public sin is public sin.

If the sin is grievous then you must refuse Holy Communion.

edit: But due to the fact of the Priest having gave Holy Communion it would be legitimate to believe that they had been to confession.

Though it is clear that the Priest has not talked to them from your post afterwards.

Paul

Paul,
That’s not how it works. No EMHC is ever in a position to decide whether or not someone should be receiving, unless the bishop or the priest has given specific instructions to that effect, or if the person is not Catholic, or has not yet made first Communion.

Even a priest is not in a position to make the decision to withhold Communion from a Catholic person at the time of distribution. The decision to withhold Communion is not made during Mass and every Catholic who approaches to receive must be given the benefit of the doubt unless something else stands in the way. EMHCs are in no position to know the condition of a person’s soul, and certainly not in any position to make that decision based on their own authority and knowlege.

 

[PaulAndrew83]

I don’t see how that effects the teaching that public sin must be accompanied by a public retraction so as not to give scandal to the faithful.

I quite understand that private knowledge of someones wrongdoing can have no impact on a refusal because Jesus gave communion to Judas. Judas sin of taking from the purse was not well known.

First of all If I was in that position I would not have refuse the cup because I would have made the assumption that the Priest had “sorted” it out.

However since the Priest did no such thing was he not in an obligation to refsue himself?

It is exactly the same thing as someone who is divorced and remarried and presents themselves for communion, or someone who is a pro-abortion politician. People whose sin is public knowledge must be refused Communion.

If any person in a state of public sin presented themself for Holy Communion after a full repentance, and they were refused a simple “I have been to confession and received absolution” would suffice, If not go away.

I do not see an argument against that in any post in this thread.

Paul

 

[FrDavid96]

I don’t see how that effects the teaching that public sin must be accompanied by a public retraction so as not to give scandal to the faithful.

I quite understand that private knowledge of someones wrongdoing can have no impact on a refusal because Jesus gave communion to Judas. Judas sin of taking from the purse was not well known.

First of all If I was in that position I would not have refuse the cup because I would have made the assumption that the Priest had “sorted” it out.

And that is the point–sort of. The first thing to say is that it is not up to the EMHC even to try to make that determination.

However since the Priest did no such thing was he not in an obligation to refsue himself?

The point is that we don’t know. What we do know is that for whatever reason, the priest did administer Communion.

It is exactly the same thing as someone who is divorced and remarried and presents themselves for communion, or someone who is a pro-abortion politician. People whose sin is public knowledge must be refused Communion.

This is subtle, but it’s important. It is up to the person to realize that it isn’t proper to receive. It is not up to the minister or EMHC to decide to refuse/delay. The pastor might make that decision, but the time to make it is in the internal forum, and not at the moment of Communion.
In the case of public persons, such as politicians, it is up to the bishop of the place to make such a decision. It is not up to the person distributing Communion to usurp the authority of the bishop to make that call. The bishop is perfectly competent to decide when a politician should be refused, and we need to respect his authority in this.

If any person in a state of public sin presented themself for Holy Communion after a full repentance, and they were refused a simple “I have been to confession and received absolution” would suffice, If not go away.

Please think for a moment about what you wrote. You’re expecting a person to violate the seal of the confession for the sake of putting at ease the mind of the EMHC–who has no business knowing in the first place. The EMHC certainly has no right to go even further and expect someone to violate the seal.

I do not see an argument against that in any post in this thread.

Paul

Simply put, the EMHC has no business questioning the status of a person’s soul when that person approaches to receive. The very thought of doing this should not even be in their minds.

 

[puzzleannie]

this whole issue is one of the main reasons I will not serve in this capacity. No layperson has the capacity or permission to make such a judgement, and should never be put in this situation of having to administer to someone who, judging public appearances, should not receive. If the pastor did not make the call, the EMHC certainly has no right to do so, but putting them in that position is unforgivable. The pastor is the only one who can make the call, because it deals with what is matter for confession. I share OP’s frustration because for one thing this is seldom if ever dealt with in the training received, and because the minister may also be someone charged with educating the young on who may receive communion, and then be forced in a position of looking like a hypocrite no matter what she does. Unforgiveable.

 

[Sir_Knight]

this whole issue is one of the main reasons I will not serve in this capacity.

Hopefully you will never find yourself in the position where you are homebound and unable to attend mass and there aren’t enough EMHC to bring Communion to you on a regular basis.