Sacrilege Against the Holy Eucharist!

  • Thread starter Thread starter JKirkLVNV
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am probably stating the obvious, but eliminating communion in the hand would be a great start.

Last summer, two children about 7 or 8 were the last ones in the communion line, took the host, and walked back carrying it in their hands. The deacon did not notice since he had already turned back to the altar. I followed them to the back of church and explained gently that the were holding Jesus and they must consume the host. They looked at me like I was crazy, but complied. Since they were strangers I have no way of knowing if they had made their first communion, and could not in justice just take it away from them. I spoke to the parents, who were waiting outside, and asked if the children had made first communion, but they said something in a foreign language (not Spanish) and hustled the kids away. I went to the deacon and explained what happened (the visiting priest had already left by this time). He said I was right, and that a child that young could not profane the Eucharist by receiving, even if they had not been prepared, and I possibly prevented an abuse. Comments?
 
40.png
misericordie:
This is just one of the consequenses of Communion in the hand, and also having so so called “eucharistic ministers” IN THE MASS, when it’s the PRIEST’s job to distribute the Holy Communion. That’s why NOW, I MOSTLY attend the Latin Tridentine Mass of INDULT, and when I do attend a “novus Ordo” i do ONLY at a reverent parish.
Click to expand...
I knew someone would blame this on communion in hand!! And sneer quotes around “Eucharistic Ministers” to boot!! How’s that for a one-two punch? Take that, Novus Ordo!

Misericordie, who are you to decide what the priest’s job in the mass is? EM’s are 100% legitimate. Since the mass is the prayer of the Church and governed by the Magesterium, not a manifestation of your or anyone else’s aesthetic preferences, you could do yourself a favor and pray to get over this hangup. Don’t like communion in the hand? Don’t take it in the hand. Don’t like recieving from EM’s? Then sit in the section that approaches the priest. It is possible to incorporate your preferences into the existing mass. Not that there’s anything wrong with the Indult mass per se.
  • JP
 
besides, i didn’t just mean eme’s. i meant priests, too.

oh. unless she just means the PROBLEM is due to eme’s, and not the issue i was addressing.

in which case - nevermind! 🙂
 
40.png
misericordie:
This is just one of the consequenses of Communion in the hand, and also having so so called “eucharistic ministers” IN THE MASS, when it’s the PRIEST’s job to distribute the Holy Communion. That’s why NOW, I MOSTLY attend the Latin Tridentine Mass of INDULT, and when I do attend a “novus Ordo” i do ONLY at a reverent parish.
Click to expand...
The Priest IS the “eucharistic minister” the correct term is Extraordinary minister of Holy Communion EMHC. If your going to slam us, please use the correct term.
%between% smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_4.gif
 
40.png
jmm08:
I’ll bet in that case, she was in a Catholic family and took communion out of peer pressure or because her parents expected her to take communion (strong extrinsic motivation). And as others have said, perhaps she didn’t personally think of herself as Roman Catholic and did not really want to take communion (no intrinsic motivation and possibly intrinsic rejection). How sad that she had to face such struggles concerning the Catholic Church and the Holy Eucharist. If it is something like that, then maybe we need to make sure parents don’t force their kids into taking communion. I suppose nobody should be “forced” into it – especially since taking communion in a state of mortal sin is also a sin. This is so sad.
Click to expand...
Dear jmm08,

That was one of the scenarios I was imagining, particularly since Catholics are so quick to warn that “anyone who eats this bread unworthily eats judgment upon himself.” A person who’s troubled with constant confusion over what’s a sin, what sins are mortal, etc. is best off not taking the Eucharist at all, it would seem, to play it safe.

Sure this scenario may not be true, but I came to the conclusion some time ago that if we are to forgive 70 times 7, and not to judge, then when we see or hear something that causes us to judge in our minds, then it behooves us to give the perpetrator the benefit of the doubt. I do this by imagining a scenario which makes them not of evil intent, if at all possible. It may be idealistic, and I may truly believe that is an unlikely explanation, but how else are we going to “think out of the box” and be like Christ, who said “forgive them Father for they know not what they do,” to people who surely knew they were hammering nails through an innocent man.

Alan
 
I use to be an EMHC (stepped down a year ago) and I can tell you it is very hard to determine if someone has taken the host or not. Due to the numerous styles of receiving communion in the hand, you can’t always tell what is going on before you have to move on to the next person.

I can tell you that what we do at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception is pretty good at getting rid of this type of sacrilege. The ushers come forward during communion and watch to make sure that people actually consume the Eucharist before going back to their seat. It is done in a way, that unless there is a problem, most people don’t even know why we are standing there. We stand far enough away from the Priest/Deacon/EMHC to make sure the person isn’t just taking a few steps or some other appropriate communion “ritual”. Over time we have found that people try to take the host with them for a number of reasons:
a) They aren’t Catholic and want a thing to take with them.
b) They are Catholic and want to take the Eucharist home to poor Aunt Sally.
c) They are Catholic and want a souvenior from the National Shrine.
d) They aren’t Catholic and just went up when everyone else did and didn’t know what to do.
e) They didn’t realize they need to consume the Eucharist there.
f) We have heard of desecration reasons, but nobody ever says that is the reason on the spot.

If the person is Catholic they are supposed to consume it on the spot, if not they give the Eucharist to the usher to deal with in an appropriate manner.

If someone is really determined to steal the Eucharist they will be able to, but this at least stems the tide. I’m sure we have to deal with this at the National Shrine more then the average parish, since it is a pilgramage spot and a place where non-Catholic sightseers visit, but I have seen normal parishes do the same thing.
 
I’ve heard that some priests around the nation have been “consecrating” pizzas, potato chips or cookies and milk since Jesus used “common food” during the first Mass, that is their rationalization. Is this still a problem in the U.S.?
 
40.png
puzzleannie:
I am probably stating the obvious, but eliminating communion in the hand would be a great start.

Last summer, two children about 7 or 8 were the last ones in the communion line, took the host, and walked back carrying it in their hands. The deacon did not notice since he had already turned back to the altar. I followed them to the back of church and explained gently that the were holding Jesus and they must consume the host. They looked at me like I was crazy, but complied. Since they were strangers I have no way of knowing if they had made their first communion, and could not in justice just take it away from them. I spoke to the parents, who were waiting outside, and asked if the children had made first communion, but they said something in a foreign language (not Spanish) and hustled the kids away. I went to the deacon and explained what happened (the visiting priest had already left by this time). He said I was right, and that a child that young could not profane the Eucharist by receiving, even if they had not been prepared, and I possibly prevented an abuse. Comments?
Click to expand...
I think you acted both rightly and charitibly.
 
40.png
sweetchuck:
I’ve heard that some priests around the nation have been “consecrating” pizzas, potato chips or cookies and milk since Jesus used “common food” during the first Mass, that is their rationalization. Is this still a problem in the U.S.?
Click to expand...
I never heard of this, I have heard of blessing this stuff, as in a person blessing their meal before eating, but not trying to consecrate it.

Jesus didn’t use “common food” at the Last Supper, he used the standard food used in the Passover meal. Which is why in the Latin rite, the Eucharist can only contain, wheat flour and water (certain rites can use yeast.)
 
We have eagle-eyed ushers. 2 at the front of the Communion line, 1 at the each end of the first pew, and at the back of the church. No one gets past the first pew ushers without consuming the Eucharist.

I recently visited another parish, and saw a young boy, maybe 9 or 10 years old, receive in his hand, stroll back to the pew and began to nibble(!) on the Host. I was stunned! Thanks be to God the woman next to me told him to consume the Host and stared at him while he did so. I don’t think his mother even knew what was going on.
 
At our old church I saw a father hand the host to his 3 year old in the pew and she ate it like a cookie.:eek:
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
At Mass this moring, our pastor talked about the Year of the Eucharist that the Holy Father porclaimed and how he would be tightening up on the rubrics re:GRIM (this has been somewhat ongoing in our parish). Father talked about the importance of reverence to Our Lord in the Sacred Species and then he gave us a shocker: the last 2 weekends, when they’ve opened the poor boxes on Monday, they’ve found two of the Consecrated Hosts!!!
Click to expand...
What a shame…:hmmm: sure does makes a good case for receiving on the tongue only… Annunciata:)
 
I’m sorry if this sounds odd or irreverant, but I don’t understand why taking Communion on the tongue is such a big deal. If the Magesterium says we can take it in the hand then it should be okay, right?

I understand the need to prevent abuse to the Host, but other than that why should it matter? And abuses don’t seem happen that often.

I’ve only been a Catholic a few months, but, to be perfectly honest, I think I would have a very difficult time taking Communion on the tongue. I am just not comfortable with the idea.

Scout :tiphat:
 
40.png
Scout:
I’m sorry if this sounds odd or irreverant, but I don’t understand why taking Communion on the tongue is such a big deal. If the Magesterium says we can take it in the hand then it should be okay, right?
Click to expand...
Receiving on the tongue is the norm for the Church throughout the world. In the United States (and elsewhere) there is an indult, or special permission, that allows receiving in the hand. The Church says that either way can be perfectly reverant, so that’s good enough for me. But there are some good arguments for receiving on the tongue only, the prevention of abuse being one of them.
 
Jim ov Cov:
This is easily guarded against, stop communion in the hand.
Click to expand...
I dont see how that would stop it if someone is going to do something like that. I remember in my First Holy Communion classes, Sister telling a horror story of a girl coming back and spitting the host unto a hankercheif and wrapping it up.
 
40.png
marytk:
I dont see how that would stop it if someone is going to do something like that. I remember in my First Holy Communion classes, Sister telling a horror story of a girl coming back and spitting the host unto a hankercheif and wrapping it up.
Click to expand...
It is plainly obvious that it is easier to steal or desecrate a host through communion in the hand. What’s more, because of communion in the hand, the way Altar breads are baked has changed. They have to be sealed to make them more robust and less inclined to crumble. When I made my first holy communion, there was only communion on the tounge then (1974), the host was the lightest wafer imaginable, and would dissolve on the tounge almost immediately.
 
40.png
Mysty101:
Judged reverent by you , of course?
Click to expand...
Two pints: 1. I DO have the canonical right to attend a Mass where the rubrics of the ACTUAL Mass are followed, not where the priest does whatever he wishes. 2. Reverent here also means: Masses where the priest is not acting like a comedian, the people are not busy talking to each other, where people don’t go dressed as if going to the beach, where cell phones are going off, where there are eucharistic ministers, where there are electric guitars. In other words, a ROMAN CATHOLIC MASS.:hmmm:
 
Dr. Colossus:
Are you certain the hosts were consecrated? At my parish, at the entrance to the church the wafers are set out next to a bowl, and people who intend to receive communion transfer one into the bowl, so that enough hosts are consecrated.
Click to expand...
Is your parish Catholic? Does not seem so. Transfering to the “bowl” is a priest’s job. Well, to each his own, one more reason why i ONLY go to the Latin Tridentine Mass of INDULT!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top