Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit!
You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language.
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Services of Word and Holy Communion; commonly called "Eucharistic Services"
Topic Started: Monday, 23. April 2007, 23:55 (2,630 Views)
Derekap
Member Avatar

Clare
Sunday, 1. August 2010, 22:08
Derekap
Saturday, 31. July 2010, 17:13
6 Long before V2 there were occasions in my then parish when the priest distributed Holy Communion outside of Holy Mass on weekdays.
Nowt wrong wi'that.

If I may quote something Archbishop Lefebvre said (it's not inflammatory or controversial, it's just about his early life, and it is relevant to what Derek has written!):

Quote:
 
At that time, in the parish, a priest distributed Holy Communion every quarter of an hour, from five-fifteen until nine o'clock in the morning, I think. This was the custom in those days, because many persons went to work and did not have time to stay for Mass. Therefore, by arriving at the church a few minutes before the quarter of an hour, one was sure of being able to receive Communion. A few minutes of preparation for Communion, a few minutes of thanksgiving afterwards, and then one left for work.
Why then are clerics and people now objecting to the provision by an EMHC of something more than: Confiteor, Absolution, Holy Communion and a Blessing?

If there was nowt wrong wit latter, wots wrong wit tuther?
Derekap
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Derek, I think the main objection on here is small groups deciding amongst themselves they will have Service of Word and Holy Communion and making up DIY Liturgies that, in some cases, give the impression there is no difference between the EMHC and a priest (for example, entrance procession and installing self on the celebrants chair). If they are not trained in the proper procedure, anything goes!
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Derekap
Monday, 2. August 2010, 12:59
Why then are clerics and people now objecting to the provision by an EMHC of something more than: Confiteor, Absolution, Holy Communion and a Blessing?

If there was nowt wrong wit latter, wots wrong wit tuther?
The two things are not equivalent. EMHCs are not priests and do not have consecrated hands.
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Services of Word and Holy Communion, conducted by commissioned Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, are liturgical rites approved by the Church. As with any other liturgy, there are correct and incorrect ways of holding them. The consecration of hands is for priests, who offer Mass and administer the sacraments that are reserved to them. Bishops are allowed to appoint lay people to distribute Holy Communion. We all know consecration of hands is for clergy only. They offer Mass, including saying the words of consecration. EMHCs do not.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Rose of York
Monday, 2. August 2010, 14:27
Services of Word and Holy Communion, conducted by commissioned Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, are liturgical rites approved by the Church.
Approved by churchmen.
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Anne-Marie

Rose of York
Friday, 30. July 2010, 18:41
Mairtin
Friday, 30. July 2010, 12:38
I think that additional services where the Holy Eucharist is distributed are a good thing in principle and will become more and more important as the ongong decline in vocations starts to bite even more than it is at present.

I also don't see the need for them to be as restricted as they currently are - there is no prayer better than receiving Holy Communion and those who receive daily by attendance at Mass are generally accorded great respect so why should a person be refused the opportunity to recive on any particular day if there is an acceptable method for them to do so and I think the Vatican should consider relaxing the rules in that respect. After all, if a Service of the Word is acceptable on some days, why should they not be acceptable on other days?
The reason for the restriction is, that if such services were held daily, there would be a danger of blurring the distinction between ordained priesthood and lay ministries.
I agree with Mairtin on this one.
I have the greatest respect for those who wish to be 'extra-close' to God, receiving His Body at any service available.
If the bishops forbid it - if the pope himself forbids it - I have no hesitation in just ignoring them! He who gets in God's way should be brushed aside.

I recall at primary school, a nun telling us the story of the Chinese Communists ransacking and closing the churches... and one boy sneaked into the church through a broken window each day to receive one of the Hosts left laying on the floor, picking one up with his tongue each day as he wasn't allowed to handle them.
I have never forgotten that story and, frankly, I don't give a damn about the theologians and their stupid rules: love has nothing whatever to do with rules, as Jesus Himself tried so hard to tell us (not that anyone bothers listening to an 'out-of-date-relic' like Him)!
Anne-Marie
FIAT VOLUNTAS DEI
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Anne-Marie
Monday, 2. August 2010, 15:12
I have the greatest respect for those who wish to be 'extra-close' to God, receiving His Body at any service available.
If the bishops forbid it - if the pope himself forbids it - I have no hesitation in just ignoring them! He who gets in God's way should be brushed aside.

I recall at primary school, a nun telling us the story of the Chinese Communists ransacking and closing the churches... and one boy sneaked into the church through a broken window each day to receive one of the Hosts left laying on the floor, picking one up with his tongue each day as he wasn't allowed to handle them.
I have never forgotten that story and, frankly, I don't give a damn about the theologians and their stupid rules: love has nothing whatever to do with rules, as Jesus Himself tried so hard to tell us (not that anyone bothers listening to an 'out-of-date-relic' like Him)!

The next progression could be people borrowing tabernacle keys and any member of the laity receiving Holy Communion when they feel like it. If each person makes an individual decision which rules to obey and which to ignore, we would end up with anarchy. How, then, could we teach children self discipline? There are plenty of people who, sitting on voluntary bodies, disobey criminal and civil legislation because they take upon themselves an imagined right to make up their own minds. If we treat consecrated hosts as though they belong to nobody, and refuse to acknowledge there are people appointed to make decisions as to their use, we have no respect for the Eucharist.

Removing hosts from a tabernacle without permission is theft.

If a boy picked up one host with his tongue each day, from a church that had been ransacked by Chinese Communists, he saved them from a degrading fate, being blown away with rubbish. That situation is hardly comparable to a few people who have regular access to Mass, deciding to do as they please. It is doubtful whether he would have done that if others had been able to take the hosts to a place of safety.

Anne-Marie
Monday, 2. August 2010, 15:12
love has nothing whatever to do with rules
Self indulgence can be disguised as love.
Anne-Marie
Monday, 2. August 2010, 15:12
If the bishops forbid it - if the pope himself forbids it
Redemptionis Sacramentum Instruction on certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist was signed by a person acting on behalf of a Pope.

Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Anne-Marie

Rose of York
 
have no respect for the Eucharist.
On the contrary, Rose, in many (if not all) cases, people only bother turning up at church and receiving Communion precisely because the DO have IMMENSE respect for God.
Rose of York
 
Removing hosts from a tabernacle without permission is theft.
You make that charge, Rose, if you dare face God afterward!
Anyone (frankly) crass enough to charge a 'devout' Catholic with theft for receiving God in Communion, really ought to consider themselves blasphemous - though it probably wouldn't occur to anyone that arrogant!
HOW DARE anyone deny God to someone who loves Him - and then use the Law to enforce it.
Edited by Anne-Marie, Monday, 2. August 2010, 16:50.
Anne-Marie
FIAT VOLUNTAS DEI
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PJD

"Rose of York
Removing hosts from a tabernacle without permission is theft."


More importantly it could be sacrilege.

PJD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Derekap
Member Avatar

Lest anyone doubt my opinion in a particular case may I repeat point No.4 in my posting No. 2099

"4 I do not approve of the ministers taking it upon themselves to lead such services without the knowledge of the Parish Priest nor using the Celebrant's Chair."

I don't think a more liberal official use of the service of the Word and Holy Communion would encourage the majority of EMsHC to provide such services without the guidance and authority of the Parish Priest. Human nature being what it is there is always bound to be an individual who would take matters into their own hands. I am not talking here of situations where people are gathered for Holy Mass and for some reason a priest is unexpectedly not available.
Derekap
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Derekap
Member Avatar

May I digress slightly? EMsHC who are taking Holy Communion to the housebound or to patients in hospital are of course entitled to enter the church and take Hosts from the Tabernacle - so long as the parish priest is aware and approves.
Derekap
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Derek, I imagine if they were not allowed they would not have access the tabernacle keys. If a sick person, or family member, contacts an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion direct, when the priest is unavailable, is the EMHC permitted then to take Holy Communion to them without waiting to speak to the priest? If so, does the EMHC need to notify the parish priest, when able?
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

Members are reminded that this forum exists to promote the exchange of ideas. This is not best done by comments which are or appear to be slurs on the integrity of other forumites, especially when they are identified by name. Let's stick to vigorous but courteous debate!
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Anne-Marie

OsullivanB
Monday, 2. August 2010, 23:36
Members are reminded that this forum exists to promote the exchange of ideas. This is not best done by comments which are or appear to be slurs on the integrity of other forumites, especially when they are identified by name. Let's stick to vigorous but courteous debate!
I assume your remark was aimed at me - I think you misunderstood what I was expressing:
I felt there to be a condemnation of those who 'break a rule' in order to love God - the history of the saints is packed with examples of people doing just that - breaking rules to serve God.
My point (made clearly or otherwise) was that I would be more than a tad reluctant to face God after condemning someone for practicing the love they proclaim.
I would certainly hope folks didn't assume (wrongly) that I was attacking Rose - but rather disagreeing vigorously with the view she expressed!
Anne-Marie
FIAT VOLUNTAS DEI
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Derekap
Member Avatar

Rose of York
Monday, 2. August 2010, 20:50
Derek, I imagine if they were not allowed they would not have access the tabernacle keys. If a sick person, or family member, contacts an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion direct, when the priest is unavailable, is the EMHC permitted then to take Holy Communion to them without waiting to speak to the priest? If so, does the EMHC need to notify the parish priest, when able?
A difficult question. I would not say never - that is an EMHC must always consult the relevant priest. These days, however, with the increasingly fewer priests and temporary emergency absence of priests there could be an odd occasion where the EMHC would have to use his/her initiative. However, because, as occasionally happens, I don't feel well enough to go to church on a particular Saturday Evening or Sunday I wouldn't expect a Priest or Minister to come and bring me Holy Communion. Sometimes I have attended churches where the Celebrant ceremoniously gives pyxes to Ministers after Holy Mass. In the church we attend the Deacon often places Hosts in one or two pyxies at the end of distribution of Holy communion and places them in the Tabernacle whether for he himself or others to visit the sick, I don't know.
Derekap
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic »
Add Reply