Refusing the Cup

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by puzzleannie View Post
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.

---

It don’t believe there is a requirement for a person to do both–serve during Mass and take Holy Communion to the homebound. A person can dedicate their service to the homebound–and not serve as EMHC during Mass.

 

[CWBetts]

ISn’t this a non-issue. Isn’t the culpability on the one presenting themselfs to recieve the Eucharist? Shouldn’t the EMCH assume that the parishoner presnting himself has taken the necessary steps to be recieving worthily? We cannot possibly know the parishoner’s heart, nor what has passed between the parishoner and the pastor, and most certainly, the parishoner and God.

 

[Sir_Knight]

---

It don’t believe there is a requirement for a person to do both–serve during Mass and take Holy Communion to the homebound. A person can dedicate their service to the homebound–and not serve as EMHC during Mass.

If there is no objection to an EMHC bringing Our Lord to the homebound, why would there be an objection to an EMHC giving Our Lord to others during mass?

 

[FrDavid96]

ISn’t this a non-issue. Isn’t the culpability on the one presenting themselfs to recieve the Eucharist? Shouldn’t the EMCH assume that the parishoner presnting himself has taken the necessary steps to be recieving worthily? We cannot possibly know the parishoner’s heart, nor what has passed between the parishoner and the pastor, and most certainly, the parishoner and God.

Precisely.

This is how the clergy are required to handle the situation. (Unless something in the external forum indicates otherwise).

 

[PaulAndrew83]

The person who sins gravely and publicly must, first, be cautioned not to approach to receive Holy Communion. The memorandum, “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion”, of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in its fifth principle, gives the perennial pastoral instruction in the matter. This, in fact, is done effectively in a pastoral conversation with the person, so that the person knows that he is not to approach to receive Holy Communion and, therefore, the distribution of Holy Communion does not become an occasion of conflict. **It must also be recalled that <<no ecclesiastical authority may dispense the minister of Holy Communion from this obligation in any case, nor may he emanate directives that contradict it. **

Canon 915: The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to Those Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin
Most Rev. Raymond L. Burke
Archbishop of St. Louis
ewtn.com/library/CANONLAW/burkcompol.HTM

I think what is more disturbing is the pastors failure to reprove the couple in manifest grave sin.

But even so this canon 915 is quite explicit that those in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy Communion.

Archbishop Burke even states that no ecclesiastical authority can dispense the minister of Holy Communion from the obligation to refuse.

While I would still have followed the Priest out of charitable interpretation but now that such Priest has shown that he did not reprove them, I think that such charitable interpretation becomes problematic.

Paul

p.s took some time because wanted to check my copy of the code.

 

[FrDavid96]

I think what is more disturbing is the pastors failure to reprove the couple in manifest grave sin.

But even so this canon 915 is quite explicit that those in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy Communion.

Archbishop Burke even states that no ecclesiastical authority can dispense the minister of Holy Communion from the obligation to refuse.

While I would still have followed the Priest out of charitable interpretation but now that such Priest has shown that he did not reprove them, I think that such charitable interpretation becomes problematic.

Paul

p.s took some time because wanted to check my copy of the code.

The operative words here are “must, first, be cautioned not to approach to receive Holy Communion”
That is, the priest approaches the person BEFORE Mass, and not during the distribution of Communion during Mass.

What I do not understand here is that this thread is full of people who were not there, who do not know the details of this person’s situation, and who certainly do not have access to whether or not this person went to confession, nor what might have been confessed (or not).

Yet, these same people feel that they can judge this person’s conscience and the state of his soul, based only on a few sentences reported by a third party on the internet.

I’d very much like to learn that trick. How does it work?

Please explain how you can make the statement that the “Priest has shown that he did not reprove them” Were you there? Are you privy to the conversations between the priest and this person. Were you there in the confessional keeping a roster of who confessed or did not, and what was said?

 

[CWBetts]

The operative words here are “must, first, be cautioned not to approach to receive Holy Communion”
That is, the priest approaches the person BEFORE Mass, and not during the distribution of Communion during Mass.

What I do not understand here is that this thread is full of people who were not there, who do not know the details of this person’s situation, and who certainly do not have access to whether or not this person went to confession, nor what might have been confessed (or not).

Yet, these same people feel that they can judge this person’s conscience and the state of his soul, based only on a few sentences reported by a third party on the internet.

I’d very much like to learn that trick. How does it work?

Please explain how you can make the statement that the “Priest has shown that he did not reprove them” Were you there? Are you privy to the conversations between the priest and this person. Were you there in the confessional keeping a roster of who confessed or did not, and what was said?

The more of your posts I read FrDavid, the more I like what you have to say.

 

[jmcrae]

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?

You did the right thing by dropping out. You were in an impossible situation, because as an EM you have no authority to refuse anyone the Eucharist, but as a Catechist, you have the duty to provide a good example to others.

I’m with Puzzleannie; this is one reason I would never be an EMHC, either. On the one hand you are required to protect the Eucharist from sacrilege, but on the other hand, you can’t refuse to let other people commit sacrilege against it. Impossible!!

 

[Sir_Knight]

The operative words here are “must, first, be cautioned not to approach to receive Holy Communion”
That is, the priest approaches the person BEFORE Mass, and not during the distribution of Communion during Mass.

What I do not understand here is that this thread is full of people who were not there, who do not know the details of this person’s situation, and who certainly do not have access to whether or not this person went to confession, nor what might have been confessed (or not).

Yet, these same people feel that they can judge this person’s conscience and the state of his soul, based only on a few sentences reported by a third party on the internet.

I’d very much like to learn that trick. How does it work?

Please explain how you can make the statement that the “Priest has shown that he did not reprove them” Were you there? Are you privy to the conversations between the priest and this person. Were you there in the confessional keeping a roster of who confessed or did not, and what was said?

http://kofc10921.org/image/ISWOP4.GIF All excellent points, Padre It amazes me how many people are quick to find fault with those charged with sheparding the flock but are unwilling to step forward to help with those tasks either as EMHCs, or Acolytes, or Deacons, or Priests or other religious vocations.

 

[PaulAndrew83]

I asked the Pastor if he had talked to the couple about their lifestyle, and he said he had not,

Thats how we know that the pastor has not reproved them.

Of course this might not be true - but since we are discussing the situation my answers are only valid if the above is true. However I am not going to accuse the poster of lying about the pastor not reproving them.

Since the pastor has told the OP he has not informed the persons involved BEFORE mass, I stand by my quote of Archbishop Burke and my concluding statement.
archbishop burke:

It must also be recalled that <<no ecclesiastical authority may dispense the minister of Holy Communion from this obligation in any case, nor may he emanate directives that contradict it.

This of course refers to canon 915 which states clearly that people in manifest grave sin must be refused Holy Communion. In fact Nobody can dispense the minister from refusing nor can they even contradict said canon.

me:

While I would still have followed the Priest out of charitable interpretation but now that such Priest has shown that he did not reprove them, I think that such charitable interpretation becomes problematic.

As I said originally I would have followed Priest, but now after finding out he did not inform them to change their life or “about their lifestyle”. I would no longer be able to follow said Priest in these matters.

Paul

 

[FrDavid96]

Thats how we know that the pastor has not reproved them.

Of course this might not be true - but since we are discussing the situation my answers are only valid if the above is true. However I am not going to accuse the poster of lying about the pastor not reproving them.

Since the pastor has told the OP he has not informed the persons involved BEFORE mass, I stand by my quote of Archbishop Burke and my concluding statement.

This of course refers to canon 915 which states clearly that people in manifest grave sin must be refused Holy Communion. In fact Nobody can dispense the minister from refusing nor can they even contradict said canon.

As I said originally I would have followed Priest, but now after finding out he did not inform them to change their life or “about their lifestyle”. I would no longer be able to follow said Priest in these matters.

Paul

Before saying any of that, you still haven’t answered the questions that should come first:

How are you in a position to judge the consciences and the state of the souls of that couple? And, furthermore how are you in a better position to do so than their own pastor?

 

[sarah_anne_628]

You did the right thing by dropping out. You were in an impossible situation, because as an EM you have no authority to refuse anyone the Eucharist, but as a Catechist, you have the duty to provide a good example to others.

I’m with Puzzleannie; this is one reason I would never be an EMHC, either. On the one hand you are required to protect the Eucharist from sacrilege, but on the other hand, you can’t refuse to let other people commit sacrilege against it. Impossible!!

That’s why I’ll stick to singing (and an occasional reading at the daily mass). That, and my clumsy hands would probably commit sacrilage by spilling the host all over someone!

 

[jmcrae]

That’s why I’ll stick to singing (and an occasional reading at the daily mass). That, and my clumsy hands would probably commit sacrilage by spilling the host all over someone!

Neat trick, that. I assume you meant the Chalice.

 

[Sir_Knight]

This of course refers to canon 915 which states clearly that people in manifest grave sin must be refused Holy Communion. In fact Nobody can dispense the minister from refusing nor can they even contradict said canon

How do you know that they are “in manifest grave sin”? How do you know that they are not sleeping in separate beds. Unlikely but possible. Is it our place to judge others and ASSUME the worst?

"Judge not, and ye shall not be judged; Condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned." – Luke 6:37.

 

[AHapka]

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

Perhaps one of the conditions for mortal sin was/is not present in this situation? There is no way for an EMHC to know that. Perhaps the priest knows something the EMHC doesn’t???

Catholics who are properly disposed have a right to the Sacraments. If this person was properly disposed, then in my opinion the EMHC sinned in refusing Communion.

Which is why as an EMHC I will never refuse someone Communion unless ordered to by my religious superior. By the theological virtues of hope and charity, I will presume that all people presenting themselves are in a proper state.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Neat trick, that. I assume you meant the Chalice.

Ciborium. The hosts are kept in the Ciborium and the blood in the Chalice.

 

[jmcrae]

Ciborium. The hosts are kept in the Ciborium and the blood in the Chalice.

Hosts are solid objects; they don’t “spill” or if they did, they wouldn’t get “all over” anyone.

I assumed she was referring to the Blood, in the Chalice.

No biggie.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Doesn’t one SPILL salt? And isn’t salt a solid object?

As you said, no biggie but an interesting drift.

 

[ChristIsLord]

On any given Sunday Mass probably a significant portion that come up for Communion should not be, some recieve everytime they go to Mass without having confessed for decades. If EMHC’s start trying to judge who should and shouldn’t recieve it becomes crazy. I think an EMHC has to err on the side of it’s the responsibility of the Communicant to prepare himself for Holy Communion, not the responsibility of the EMHC or even Priest to know the heart and state of the soul of every parishoner.

 

[Seatuck]

That’s why I’ll stick to singing (and an occasional reading at the daily mass). That, and my clumsy hands would probably commit sacrilage by spilling the host all over someone!

I hear ya! I wonder if Holy Orders comes with some special graces to make these decisions more clear.

As an EMOHC I’ve struggled with these issues. It is difficult to participate as others seem to be committing sin. Especially when I have had to excuse myself from serving and remain in the pew on some occasions when i have not been in a state of grace.