J
japhy
Guest
What rights are those? We have a right to be EMHC? I’m not sure what you’re referring to. Receiving Communion on the tongue from a priest is denying NO ONE their rights!
- Status
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
The right AND the DUTY for people top attend mass on Sunday!
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
Maybe I should have specifically said the Corporal instead of the altar in general. However the servers should be handing the deacon or priest the bread and wine, or placing them on the side of the altar off the corporal.
Z
zab
Guest
Sometimes the MC (an older altar server designated with certain duties) prepares the altar and places everything in their proper places before the priest approaches the altar.
M
marchoi
Guest
A good deed, when done for a bad reason, loses its goodness. If you are doing all of the above simply out of devotion, fine. But to do so out of “defiance” means that you are disagreeing with the Church and making a statement of it. I would suggest you rethink your words (and as necessary, your motives).
J
japhy
Guest
No one’s even hinting at infringing upon that. I don’t see how this is relevant to the thread.
S
Seatuck
Guest
We only have one priest who hands us the ciboria or chalices. I’ve tried to encourage the Pastor and other priests to do it but it doesn’t happen. Things like this make me reluctant to serve.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
It’s relevant to this thread because it addresses the comment about defiance and I will be more than happy to explain how such a gesture can infringe on somebody duty to attend Sunday Mass with a REAL example …
I belong to what once was a small country parish. Over the years, as people have left the cities and moved in the surrounding areas, the parish has more than doubled in size and despite an expansion of the church building which increased capacity by nearly 50%, masses were still packed with standing room only.
To address this, two extra masses were added – one on Saturday and one on Sunday. In order to add the Sunday Mass, the Mass schedule had to be re-shuffled around and instead of there being a two-hour gap block between masses at 8, 10 & 12; there was now only and hour and a half block between masses as 7:30, 9, 10:30 & 12.
Problem was that even with three priests (the pastor, a retired Monsignor and a priest) and two deacons (one permanent and one week-end assistant), they could not distribute communion quickly enough to end one mass, get the folks out and get the next group in during the 90 minutes.
To address this, there are now six EMHC helping the three priests and two deacons distribute communion and even with the eleven of them, it still takes them around ten minutes to complete the task.
If everyone “exercised their rights” and performed this “small gesture of defiance” and only received from the priests or the deacons, that would add at least another ten minutes to each mass. Which would mean that the second mass would be delayed by about 10-15 resulting in the third mass being delayed by about half an hour and so forth an so on.
This leads into another problem in that the local Bishop does not allow any Sunday Mass to begin after 12 Noon. As a result, the last Mass could not be said and we would be back to three Masses on Sunday instead of four resulting in them being packed with a standing room only situation as was the case before.
It is unrealistic to expect families with small children to stand for an hour plus. The children will get bored, restless, etc. Ditto for the elderly or those with physical limitations.
Some of these people will end up NOT going to mass!
Answer me this … NOT from a legal / law & order perspective but from a Christian Charity perspective – would exercising your “rights” be the CORRECT thing to do if it resulted in a situation where others were not attending Sunday Mass for the reasons that I just outlined?
C
Chatter163
Guest
Actually, you DID say that, or at least implied as much, when you said:
Referring to your more recent post:Hey this one has possibilities.:clapping: : As everyone comes up, whoever wants to strolls on into the Sanctuary, grabs the Chalice or Ciborum and starts to distribute.
This is great. Not only will it do away with the thundering herds of Extraordinary Ministers that fill most Sanctuaries during even lesser attended Masses, but it will allow all laymen present to experience the joy at least for a little while that they are the same as Priests. They too can bestow blessings and enjoy the favored place of the Priest. It is a win win situation as far as I see it:thumbsup:
But why stop there???
The possibilities are endless. Imagine, the first to receive absolution during reconciliation strolls over to an empty confessional. some churches still have them right?, and hears a few confessions:thumbsup: .and gives absolution:clapping:
I mean after all these are modern times and we have to be on the cutting edge of innovation don’t we??
You seem to like to use the word “stroll” to describe the action taken–for what reason, I do not know, but it certainly sounds like an attempt to read something into the situation that may or may not actually be there.
While I agree that if the communicant did this without permission of the priest, it is very wrong, and I also agree that in such circumstances, the priest should have handed the chalice to the communicant/EMHC, is it not possible that the communicant was an EMHC who simply did not realize during the Agnus Dei that no other EMHC had shown, and was belatedly responding? Or, similarly, that the priest had instructed the EMHC’s to come up at that point, if none had come up at the appropriate time? Neither is an ideal situation, but they seem at least within the realm of possibility, rather than assuming that the communicant took it upon herself to do so, which seems less likely.
J
japhy
Guest
Is Communion being offered under both kinds? That might be something to consider changing. Also, I have heard that Communion takes less time when using an altar rail method of reception (where numerous people are kneeling – or standing, if they prefer – and the priest goes to them to distribute Communion). I haven’t personally compared the two methods side-by-side, though.
If I was preventing others from going to Mass, I would certainly review my practices to see how to accommodate their needs.
P
palmas85
Guest
Actually, I was referring to the poster who never said the person was an EMHC. Incidentally the poster confirmed earlier today that the person was not an EMHC.
As far as using the word stroll, yes, it was used to convey the familiarity and total lack of respect that many today have for the sanctuary. The simple fact that someone, anyone, EMHC or other layperson would do such a thing, grab the Chalice off of the Altar, and start distributing Holy Communion, conveys one of three things, ignorance, excusable, arrogance. not excusable or a feeling that they can do whatever they want, also not excusable
Z
zab
Guest
Sometimes it is due to ignorance. It is possible that the only reason she did what she did was because she thought her help was needed. The priest could have scolded her then and there. But he didn’t. Perhaps he spoke to her afterwards.
There were times when I came into an empty or nearly empty church and found all of the lights left on, the sound system left on, doors left open in the cold of winter letting all the heat out. The few individuals in church did nothing, not even close the doors. I did what I thought I should do. First, I closed the doors. Anyone could have done that. Being a sacristan, I entered the sacristy and turned off the lights. Other times I turned off the sound system. Should it be any different when an altar server, a lector, an usher etc. notices that help is needed? In the case described to us, the person made a wrong descision. But that does not necessarily mean that she was arrogant or had the feeling that she could do whatever she wanted.
P
palmas85
Guest
Turning off lights and closing doors isn’t quite the same thing as distributing Holy Communion. At least I don’t think it is.
As far as help being needed, you hit the nail on the head. Many people today believe that you have to receive Holy Communion under both species and that someone other than the Priest is necessary. In fact they believe that they are missing out if they are not afforded the opportunity to receive under both species. In this case from what the poster has said it didn’t even appear that the Priest was prepared to distribute under both species, only under one. So why would a person take it upon themselves to do something like this?
In ending I will say this, it was not her decision to make regardless of what her motives were, be they good or bad.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Nope. Only one.
Well, it would have to be about three times as fast in order to make a difference because our retired Monsignor uses a walker so that would exclude him from distribution leaving only the Priest, the Pastor and two deacons. The four of them would have to pick up the difference of the six EMHC and the retired Monsignor.
The question is whether four distributors with a rail are as fast as eleven without a rail. I sort of doubt it but I, too, have never compared the two methods side-by-side.
That’s what folks need to consider when they do or suggest doing these “gestures of defiance” to “exercise their rights” – there may be consequences which they may not be aware of or which they may not take into consideration.
A
ASD
Guest
Well, I guess that if I really thought my receiving on the tongue from a Priest would deprive other families of Mass, I would communicate spiritually.
But the circumstances you describe are pretty extreme, right? I don’t think people often face that dilemma. I think that in most situations a few extra minutes to distribute communion just isn’t a big deal.
A more general point: When people say that we ought to be charitable about what goes on in Mass, I often think of 1 Cor 6:12. St. Paul says that people who feel free to ignore old taboos ought to bear in mind the feelings of their conservative brethren.
But these days it always seems to be the other way around: Conservatives who are outraged & heartbroken about what goes on at Mass don’t seem to get much consideration. Further, if they protest, they’re accused of being uncharitable. Does it ever work the other way around? Are liberals ever told that they should stop what they’re doing because it’s uncharitable?
Here’s a friendly challenge: Find me a thread on this forum or elsewhere in which a liberal is told that, regardless of what he believes is right, he ought to just let it go, be charitable, &c.
ASD
What Does The Prayer Really Say?
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
So you would give up the opportunity of being united with our Lord if you could not receive from a priest or deacon? Wow! How do you think our Lord would feel about something like that? Refusing to be united with Him because you do not wish to receive from an EMHC even when His INFALLIBLE Church OFFICIALLY says that it is alright to do so?
That’s not the point. The point is that I presented you with an actual situation which would have negative consequences if people “exercised their rights in gestures of defiance” and it is something which you did not take into consideration. Just as you did not take this consequence into consideration, there may be other consequences in other churches which you may not also be aware of or take into consideration.
We are to protect our church and support our priests – not show defiance to them.
Paul also commands us in 1 Tim. 5:17 & Heb. 12:9 to be obedient to our Church leaders and Peter in 2 Peter 2:10 WARNS the faithful about despising authority.
If the Vatican allows for EMHCs to be used in certain cases and the Pastor of the parish feels that his particular situation warrants it, then we should yeild to his training and experience in these areas and accept his decision as our spiritual leader.
This has nothing to do with conservatives and liberals. This has to do with ACCEPTING or REJECTING the teaching of the church the authority that the priests have over their flock.
I have a better one for you. Find me a thread where someone shows defiance to church teaching and they are told that it is okay to do so.
B
benedictgal
Guest
With all due respect, Sir Knight, the problem is that EMHCs have been overused. The aurthoritative documents of the Holy See clearly indicate that there are parameters that must be followed. Unfortunately, there are priests who seem to think that they need all of the extra help to the point that they have completely abdicated their responsibility in distributing Holy Communion during Mass and have left it to the deacon and EMHCs to do, and, these are able-bodied priests, mind you. I have seen this happen in a parish down here. Furthermore, there are some priests who feel the need to have an EMHC assist in the distribution of Holy Communion during daily Mass even when the communicants number under 30. I have also seen this, too.
In 1997, the Congregation for Clergy issued a document concerning the collaboration of the faithful in the sacred ministry of the priest. The document says in part that:
Furthermore, the document notes that:
If a celebrant is not adhering to these requirements, then, there are some serious problems, such as what the OP reported. Just because EMHCs are permitted, that doesn’t give the priest the wholesale right to use them when the circumstances do not warrant.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Who is better qualified to determine if EMHCs are needed or overused? A priest who has formal training and actual experience or someone sitting in the pew who lacks such training and experience?
A
Aramis
Guest
The largest problem is the lack of clarity on what constitutes abusive use of EMHC’s.
The Ruthenian Catholic Church has, in particular law, a definition for it’s own use: not more than 1 Minister of Holy Communion per 75 communicants, ordinary or extraordinary, and if not disabled, ordinary ministers of Holy Communion must serve when present.
Rome has not seen fit to define the issue as clearly as Pittsburgh, but Rome has approved Pittsburgh’s restriction for the Ruthenians.
A
ASD
Guest
OK, SirKnight, maybe the situations you describe do exist sometimes, & I should acknowledge them & concede that they show the inadequacy of my attitude in certain cases.
OK, I will acknowledge that point.
But, I don’t think it follows that we’re all somehow disqualified from ever questioning EMHC practice on the grounds that there just might be such extreme circumstances hidden in the background.
In fact, I guess you correctly noticed that I was implicitly assuming more or the less the opposite. That is, my suggestion of a small gesture of “defiance” presupposed that we all know the EMHC are usually not as necessary as they might be in the scenarios you describe.
But I think even the argument from convenience is usually insincere. At out local NO/OF parish the EMHCs take up so much time up in the sanctuary that it’s not clear that the precious 10 minutes is saved. It seems obvious that it’s not about the 10 minutes; it’s about getting laity up on the altar.
My point: Somehow, we ignore actual, frequent, open defiance by pastors and EMHC, but we scold the guy who doesn’t like it and suggests the possibility of not going along with it.
A general question about the pattern: What kind of rule-breaking do we ignore as opposed to what kind we crack down on?
OK, I will acknowledge that point.
But, I don’t think it follows that we’re all somehow disqualified from ever questioning EMHC practice on the grounds that there just might be such extreme circumstances hidden in the background.
In fact, I guess you correctly noticed that I was implicitly assuming more or the less the opposite. That is, my suggestion of a small gesture of “defiance” presupposed that we all know the EMHC are usually not as necessary as they might be in the scenarios you describe.
But I think even the argument from convenience is usually insincere. At out local NO/OF parish the EMHCs take up so much time up in the sanctuary that it’s not clear that the precious 10 minutes is saved. It seems obvious that it’s not about the 10 minutes; it’s about getting laity up on the altar.
On the other hand, I really shouldn’t have used the word “defiance” because it has obscured what I think are the real issues: (1) In practice EMHCs break the rules every day. (2) Anyone who objects is viewed as uncharitable.
My point: Somehow, we ignore actual, frequent, open defiance by pastors and EMHC, but we scold the guy who doesn’t like it and suggests the possibility of not going along with it.
I also think you’re correct to point to a dilemma that Catholics have always faced: What is our duty of obedience to parish Priests who themselves openly defy regulations?
Although it’s off-topic, NB: People haven’t always considered it necessary to receive at every Mass.
A general question about the pattern: What kind of rule-breaking do we ignore as opposed to what kind we crack down on?
- Status