I fail to understand why people feel that they need to run off and find another parish every time there is an issue which upsets them, whether it is legitimate abuse or otherwise.find another parish.
This I think, is the perfect solution. Why not serve the parish and the brethren instead of abandoning it. Perhapse God is calling lakotak like he did Abraham and Samuel?fvolunteer to serve as a minister of the cup should you find yourself in this position
Hi,I fail to understand why people feel that they need to run off and find another parish every time there is an issue which upsets them, whether it is legitimate abuse or otherwise.
Our call to love each other is carried out first in the family, and then in the parish. After the family, parish life is where our membership in Christ’s Body becomes real, where the fact that we are all members in Christ’s Body called to love each other is carried out. And love means to put up with, to be patient with, to bear the faults of others, and to put the needs of other’s before our own, and to die for one another if called upon to do so. And that self-sacrificing love - Christ’s love - means that we don’t abandon each other just because something happens that we don’t like, even if it is outright abuse.
That’s the way it was in the earliest Churches - Ephesius, Corinth and Phillipi. These people didn’t have the option of driving to the next zip code to look for a church where abuses didn’t take place. They had to stay there and put up with it, working through it, and correcting it. And they grew as better Christians for the effort, not only as individuals, but as a group, as a parish. It was like a family, and just like a family, they didn’t run off every time they were faced with some difficutly.
When did people start to feel that their parish was something which is disposable or something which was there to serve them instead of the other way around?
This I think, is the perfect solution. Why not serve the parish and the brethren instead of abandoning it. Perhapse God is calling lakotak like he did Abraham and Samuel?
-Tim-
I don’t know what you should do about the chalice. Someone more qualified will have to answer that question.Hi,
I would like to serve and hold the cup, but I have a nervous disorder in which I have a pronounced jerk a good bit of the time, and the last thing I want is to have this happen and spill the Blood. This is also why I do not do the readings. In this case should one partake of the Blood or refrain? What is the proper thing to do?
If you are unable to act as a EMHC to help with the cup and there is no one else at Mass that is willing or able to do so, you should refrain from the cup. Of course, it’s not refraining from the Blood. It is never allowed for a person to self-communicate.Hi,
I would like to serve and hold the cup, but I have a nervous disorder in which I have a pronounced jerk a good bit of the time, and the last thing I want is to have this happen and spill the Blood. This is also why I do not do the readings. In this case should one partake of the Blood or refrain? What is the proper thing to do?
While I agree you shouldn’t just jump parishes on a whim, you should definitely not self-communicate in this sort of situation. The only one at Mass who must receive under both kinds is the priest; you receive just as much grace through the Sacred Host alone as you do under both kinds. Also, and this should be reason enough, the bishops have told us not to (emphasis added):What is the proper thing to do when there is no Eucharist Minister and the priest tell the congregation members to come to the altar and take the cup themselves. Should one refrain from receiving the Blood or go ahead an receive?
Thanks
- The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.
The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another.
General Instruction of the Roman Missal
usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter4.shtml#sect4
Hi,If you are unable to act as a EMHC to help with the cup and there is no one else at Mass that is willing or able to do so, you should refrain from the cup. Of course, it’s not refraining from the Blood. It is never allowed for a person to self-communicate.
We don’t know how the chalice was administered a the last supper. However, one apostle handing the chalice to another would be like one bishop handing it to another. That’s not the same as the laity handling the chalice.When Jesus was at the last supper, I guess it is assumed that the cup of His Blood that he had just instituted was passed from one Apostle to another. Why has the Church said this is wrong? What is the Church’s thinking or justification on this issue?
At the Last Supper, the apostles were also given the vocation of priesthood so they as priests could give the cup to each other or even pick the cup up from the table and self-communicate.Hi,
I did refrain, but what I don’t understand is there were two people there who have administered the cup before, especially the one who does it on a regular basis. She did the readings today, but not the cup.
Just a question, not a debate.
When Jesus was at the last supper, I guess it is assumed that the cup of His Blood that he had just instituted was passed from one Apostle to another. Why has the Church said this is wrong? What is the Church’s thinking or justification on this issue?
Thank for the info, now I understand the circumstances.At the Last Supper, the apostles were also given the vocation of priesthood so they as priests could give the cup to each other or even pick the cup up from the table and self-communicate.
The Last Supper was also the Ordination Liturgy for the Apostles. Thus, as “concelebrants”, if you will, they, having already been ordained, can do this because they were now the priests of the New Covenant.Hi,
I did refrain, but what I don’t understand is there were two people there who have administered the cup before, especially the one who does it on a regular basis. She did the readings today, but not the cup.
Just a question, not a debate.
When Jesus was at the last supper, I guess it is assumed that the cup of His Blood that he had just instituted was passed from one Apostle to another. Why has the Church said this is wrong? What is the Church’s thinking or justification on this issue?
This constitutes a grave abuse, as indicated in Redemptionis Sacramentum:94.] It is not licit for the faithful “to take … by themselves … and, still less, to hand … from one to another” the sacred host or the sacred chalice.181 Moreover, in this regard, the abuse is to be set aside whereby spouses administer Holy Communion to each other at a Nuptial Mass.
Simply picking up stakes and leaving solves nothing. The matter needs to be addressed to the local bishop.
- Grave Matters
[173.] Although the gravity of a matter is to be judged in accordance with the common teaching of the Church and the norms established by her, objectively to be considered among grave matters is anything that puts at risk the validity and dignity of the Most Holy Eucharist: namely, anything that contravenes what is set out above in nn. 48-52, 56, 76-77, 79, 91-92, 94, 96, 101-102, 104, 106, 109, 111, 115, 117, 126, 131-133, 138, 153 and 168. Moreover, attention should be given to the other prescriptions of the Code of Canon Law, and especially what is laid down by canons 1364, 1369, 1373, 1376, 1380, 1384, 1385, 1386, and 1398.
Sorry, I meant the Extraordinary Ministers were there.The Last Supper was also the Ordination Liturgy for the Apostles. Thus, as “concelebrants”, if you will, they, having already been ordained, can do this because they were now the priests of the New Covenant.
Regarding the OP’s question, Redemptionis Sacramentum specifically states that:
This constitutes a grave abuse, as indicated in Redemptionis Sacramentum:
Simply picking up stakes and leaving solves nothing. The matter needs to be addressed to the local bishop.
Now, as far as the Eucharistic Minister being present, he already was there, as he is the priest. Laity who assist the priest are to be called Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, per the authoritative Church documents.
A person who serves as lector should not be serving as an EMHC at the same Mass. (The duties of lay members serving at Mass are to be divided.) It is somewhat puzzling why the other person who has served as EMHC did not volunteer. Perhaps he/she had a cold. If I were in a similar situaltion, I would do as you did and not go up and take the Precious Blood. You and I know that we receive Jesus fully, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Host.Hi,
I did refrain, but what I don’t understand is there were two people there who have administered the cup before, especially the one who does it on a regular basis. She did the readings today, but not the cup.
Just a question, not a debate.
When Jesus was at the last supper, I guess it is assumed that the cup of His Blood that he had just instituted was passed from one Apostle to another. Why has the Church said this is wrong? What is the Church’s thinking or justification on this issue?
under no circumstances can you self-communicate. in such a case you simply receive only under the form of bread. If like many of us you are a bit too shakey to dependably hold the chalice you may want to do that all the time.Hi,
I would like to serve and hold the cup, but I have a nervous disorder in which I have a pronounced jerk a good bit of the time, and the last thing I want is to have this happen and spill the Blood. This is also why I do not do the readings. In this case should one partake of the Blood or refrain? What is the proper thing to do?
Well there is obviously a lot of views expressed that one should refrain, but in scanning the answers I did not see anyone address the fact that the priest granted permission for any who wished to go to the altar and partake of the Precious blood.What is the proper thing to do when there is no Eucharist Minister and the priest tell the congregation members to come to the altar and take the cup themselves. Should one refrain from receiving the Blood or go ahead an receive?
Thanks
This is a morning Mass, very few people. This happens basically with one priest. I am pretty sure that most people there do not know this is not proper, but I know. Should I just listen to my conscious or is there something specific I should do knowing that this is not proper? Is the issue an individual choice to receive or not to receive?Well there is obviously a lot of views expressed that one should refrain, but in scanning the answers I did not see anyone address the fact that the priest granted permission for any who wished to go to the altar and partake of the Precious blood.
Now - evidently this is not correct practice and the priest erred, BUT in so far as the faithful, there that day and at that mass, were concerned, they would not incur sin if they chose to partake. This is an important point. If there was sin incurred, it would be on the part of the priest and not on the part of the faithful who in honesty and with proper reverence toward the cup, obeyed the priest.
This kind of thing reminds me a bit of the Gospel story of the Apostles pulling and eating the wheat as they walked through the field on the Sabbath. “Technically” they were wrong and violating sabbath law. But realistically they were doing nothing wrong. The “technocrats” (pharisees and lawyers) called them on it, but Jesus, basically told them to “lighten up”, pointing out how much more important is Love and Mercy than blind obedience to law and ritual.
Don’t get me wrong, I oppose abuses in the mass, or abuse of any of the Church’s teachings. I just think that sometimes we can carry the “Lawyer” attitude to the extreme.
Peace
James
The priest is the one who incurred the guilt, in this case, not the faithful, as you have said.This kind of thing reminds me a bit of the Gospel story of the Apostles pulling and eating the wheat as they walked through the field on the Sabbath. “Technically” they were wrong and violating sabbath law. But realistically they were doing nothing wrong. The “technocrats” (pharisees and lawyers) called them on it, but Jesus, basically told them to “lighten up”, pointing out how much more important is Love and Mercy than blind obedience to law and ritual.
Don’t get me wrong, I oppose abuses in the mass, or abuse of any of the Church’s teachings. I just think that sometimes we can carry the “Lawyer” attitude to the extreme.
Peace
James
If you know that this is wrong, you have an obligation to do something about it. If you know that this manner of distribution of Holy Communion is gravely ilicit, you should refrain and then address the matter as soon as possible.This is a morning Mass, very few people. This happens basically with one priest. I am pretty sure that most people there do not know this is not proper, but I know. Should I just listen to my conscious or is there something specific I should do knowing that this is not proper? Is the issue an individual choice to receive or not to receive?
Is this something that should properly be addressed to the Pastor of the Church or the priest directly? I feel I am in an awkward situation here.If you know that this is wrong, you have an obligation to do something about it. If you know that this manner of distribution of Holy Communion is gravely ilicit, you should refrain and then address the matter as soon as possible.