Resent receiving Communion from Eucharistic Minister

  • Thread starter Thread starter pmp147236
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Loud-living-dogma said:
TBH: I used the term “some meeting” in a tongue-in-cheek fashion. I feel like bringing up the words "Vatican II’ invites even more chaos to a conversation.
Nice deflecting the fact that for centuries, non-priests handling the Eucharist was a sacrilege. I link to this again:
http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=398899&language=en
Click to expand...
I think we’re only going to agree about this: Pray for vocations to the priesthood.
Regardless of what you think about Vatican II, it happened. It is binding.
The bishops who allow extraordinary ministers to assist in distribution of Holy Communion have the authority to do so.
Having said that, Vatican II did not change the notion that priests and deacons are the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion. They still are, the Church still says they are.
In the meantime, however, we are in a time in which priests are spread very thin. It should not surprise us that the conventions are not what they were when we had more priests.
If the OP’s feelings are the driving force behind a devotion to praying for more vocations to the priesthood and for perseverance of vocations, that will be a good use for it. Holding on to a grudge against people who have only answered a request by their pastor to help in accordance with the liturgical norms of their bishop really doesn’t help at all and could create a spiritual obstacle.
 
Last edited:
Hmm. I think the best idea is for the OP to attend EF Mass, if possible.
I personally just make it a point to take communion on the tongue, no matter who is distributing. If anyone reads into that that I disapprove of non-priests handling communion, so be it.
Praying for vocations of good and holy priests is for sure an area we can all agree on.
 
Last edited:
Loud-living-dogma said:
Hmm. I think the best idea is for the OP to attend EF Mass, if possible.
Click to expand...
That works, too.
Loud-living-dogma said:
I personally just make it a point to take communion on the tongue, no matter who is distributing. If anyone reads into that that I disapprove of non-priests handling communion, so be it.
Praying for vocations of good and holy priests is for sure and area we can all agree on.
Click to expand...
I know a lot of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion who also receive on the tongue, so I don’t know who would assume that receiving on the tongue is anything of the kind.
Actually, I know a lot of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion who think the best situation is when there is enough clergy that no extraordinary ministers are needed. I suspect there are some who don’t feel that way–with a billion of us, I’m not ruling out anybody having any particular set of attitudes–but preferring extraordinary ministers over ordinary ministers is contrary to the plain meaning of the liturgical norms.
 
Last edited:
I’m really late to this thread here having just opened it so I only read the first few posts and skimmed others. If you don’t like receiving from EMHCs sit where you can receive from the priest. It’s your choice if you only want to receive from priests.This is why I sit up front so I can receive from the priest. Most people don’t seem to care so it’s no big deal either way. The only thing I don’t like, since I prefer receiving from the priest, is when I’m in the line to receive from the priest and one or more EMHCs are finished with their line and they come over and start distributing in the priest’s line.
 
But if you were in a hospital and an Extraordinary Minister was bringing Jesus to patients, would you feel better about it?
 
PetraG said:
I think we’re only going to agree about this: Pray for vocations to the priesthood.
Regardless of what you think about Vatican II, it happened. It is binding.
The bishops who allow extraordinary ministers to assist in distribution of Holy Communion have the authority to do so.
Having said that, Vatican II did not change the notion that priests and deacons are the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion. They still are, the Church still says they are.
In the meantime, however, we are in a time in which priests are spread very thin. It should not surprise us that the conventions are not what they were when we had more priests.
If the OP’s feelings are the driving force behind a devotion to praying for more vocations to the priesthood and for perseverance of vocations, that will be a good use for it. Holding on to a grudge against people who have only answered a request by their pastor to help in accordance with the liturgical norms of their bishop really doesn’t help at all and could create a spiritual obstacle.
Click to expand...
Praying is very important, but all the Catholic faithful who would only like priests and deacons to distribute Holy Communion need to work on changing the culture of modern Catholic families where the parents use birth control to limit the size of their families.

Most priests have historically come from large families with many siblings. There’s great pressure placed on young men who might only have one or two other siblings to continue the family line instead of heeding God’s call to be come a celibate priest for the rest of their lives. The decline in vocations to the priesthood correlates directly with the decline of the average size of a Catholic family.

So to minimize the use of EMHCs, the Church needs more priests and deacons. And young men from large families are more likely to enter the priesthood than young men from small families, so we ought to be encouraging married Catholic men and women to forgo birth control and only let God’s providence to determine the size of their blessed families.
 
Loud-living-dogma said:
In 1961, would it have been okay to have EMHCs?
In 1961, would it have been okay to receive in the hand?
Click to expand...
What difference does that make? EMHC’s and receiving in the hand are disciplines and not doctrines. That can be changed any time.
The Church says EMHC’s are allowed and that receiving in the hand is allowed.
Stop complaining and be obedient to the Church. The Church is right and you are wrong.
 
angel12 said:
40.png
Zach:
If you don’t like receiving from EMHCs sit where you can receive from the priest.
Click to expand...
Such a simple solution. No resentment. No arguing.
Click to expand...
Yeah, like the priest announces ahead of time if he’ll be distributing on the St Mary side or the St Joseph side…:roll_eyes:
 
Well then everyone at my parish might suspect what a wacko rad-trad I am…🤣
 
The op very adamant that the only one qualified to handle the precious body and blood was one that went through seminary.
Since the OP had not, that effectively excluded themselves.
And they had eliminated their only means of reception.
 
Last edited:
Well most churches I’ve been in the priest distributes from the same place at every Mass.
 
You should be more concerned and focused on who you are receiving rather than how He comes into you. We believe in the Holy Catholic Church led by Holy Spirit and should respect its decisions. Judgement is always the Lord’s. This is an opportunity to make ourselves humble.
 
thistle said:
EMHC’s and receiving in the hand are disciplines and not doctrines. That can be changed any time.
Click to expand...
True, these are disciplines, but disciplines flow from doctrines. And theology is taught by experience. While the practice can be changed there is nothing to say that the current practice is wise or good just because it is the current practice. The long standing practice certainly at least has centuries of evidence to show its merit. If one were to examine the state of the Church now given the new practices one could hardly conclude these were positive changes.
thistle said:
The Church says EMHC’s are allowed and that receiving in the hand is allowed.
Stop complaining and be obedient to the Church. The Church is right and you are wrong.
Click to expand...
There is nothing to be obedient over. This isn’t a matter where the Church is right. I mean certainly the Church has the right to establish how communion is administered, but its rules aren’t divinely guaranteed to be the most ideal. One can freely think the practice of communion in the hand to be a less worthy means of reception. It is a novelty and still only allowed as an indult.

The long history of the Catholic Church is to not receive in the hand. The long history of the Orthodox Church is to not receive in the hand. Both had very sound and similar reasons for not allowing reception in the hand. Those reasons don’t cease to be simply because the practice is now allowed in some places.
 
I am saying that when we receive Jesus in the Holy Eucharist we should focus more on Who it is that we are receiving than who is the minister who is giving Him to us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top