I Beleive

[Stylites]

Originally Posted by thomas jd

What color gloves do you require your priest to wear?

I thought the proposed requirement is that people wear white gloves, but am uncertain if he wants everyone to wear them on their hands or on their tongues.

[Catholic1954]

Originally Posted by johnthebaptist1

I like to know if you,s feel the same way. That only , priest should Give out the Holy Eucharist itand not Lay people,the only way I would receive,is if they were wearing white Gloves,but I,am still receiveing it from the priest, if I have to I will go to the Ile that the priest is givng it out before I let an ordinnary. Amen

I do not feel the same way. Jesus is just as present in a host distributed from an EM as he is in one from a priest. I have seen big interuptions at Communion from people who refuse to receive from the EM and try and crash into the line with the priest, unseemly and not necessary. BTW gloves are not allowed, there is too much potential for unseen residue to be left behind on the material and transfered elsewhere.

[TimothyH]

Originally Posted by thomas jd

What color gloves do you require your priest to wear?

I was wondering the same thing, what the color of the gloves has to do with anything.

Anyway, I think johnthebaptist has left the building.


-Tim-

[Stylites]

Originally Posted by johnthebaptist1

I like to know if you,s feel the same way. That only , priest should Give out the Holy Eucharist itand not Lay people,the only way I would receive,is if they were wearing white Gloves,but I,am still receiveing it from the priest, if I have to I will go to the Ile that the priest is givng it out before I let an ordinnary. Amen

That is a great idea. All you would need to do is join a seminary, become a holy priest, get elevated to bishop, and then elected to Pope, and then you might be able to get all the faithful to follow your will. In the meantime, you could wear whichever color gloves you yourself wish to.

[ProVobis]

Originally Posted by LegoGE1947

Also there are Masses where there are so many people that the celebrant needs help to serve all those in attendance, such as the installation of a new Bishop. Recently, the Diocese of Rockford, Illinois installed a new Bishop and the audience was nearly 6,000 people! Definitely was a need for assistance there!

There were more than that at the Papal Mass in Cuba. Not everyone there received though. I guess all the saints are in Rockford.

[PacoG]

Originally Posted by johnthebaptist1

I like to know if you,s feel the same way. That only , priest should Give out the Holy Eucharist itand not Lay people,the only way I would receive,is if they were wearing white Gloves,but I,am still receiveing it from the priest, if I have to I will go to the Ile that the priest is givng it out before I let an ordinnary. Amen

First, your physical demands on priests is uncharitable at best. Our previous pastor who has since gone to his reward was in great pain in his last days. He had arthritis in his ankles and suffered from cancer. The poor man could barely walk (and admirably he soldiered on in his last days) much less give communion to more than maybe 20-40 people at Mass (which average about 300). Gone are the days when most parishes had two or three priests. Our priests are overworked from running a parish, sometimes having to handle every Mass on their own and then having to perform ministries handed to them by the bishop (Vicar General, Chancellor, Director of Liturgy, etc.)

Second, Deacons are also Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. Like priests, they can distribute both the Precious Blood and the Sacred Body.

I am happy to live in a diocese that has enough priests so that every church has a priest and the major ones have two. There are similarly sized dioceses in other parts of the country where churches have been shut down for lack of priests.

I am happy and grateful for our late pastor who gave every last ounce of life to feed the Lord's sheep. I am happy and grateful for the two young priests who said Mass while we were between pastors, and for our part-time assistant pastor, a Franciscan who shuttles between three parishes, and our new pastor (who I pray that God will give him many happy years).

I will not impose on them. I will do anything I can to help them and make their burden lighter and their life longer.

If that means receiving Holy Communion from a layman, so be it.

There are worse things....like having only one Mass on Sunday because "the Cluster" consists of four or six churches.

[LegoGE1947]

Originally Posted by ProVobis

There were more than that at the Papal Mass in Cuba. Not everyone there received though. I guess all the saints are in Rockford.

It's probably that not everyone received in Rockford either. According to reports on tv not everyone who attended was Catholic. I watched the ordination on tv.

[johnthebaptist1]

Originally Posted by tabycat

How about the shutins and the people in places like nursing homes and the priest does not have the time and abilaty to take the Holy Eucharist to them?

Most of the place I visit a Priest gave out commmunion,only once did I see a lay person do it,but she was allow to do it because like you said priest are doing other things as well,so they give it too a lay person to give too them.

[johnthebaptist1]

Originally Posted by TimothyH

I was wondering the same thing, what the color of the gloves has to do with anything.

Anyway, I think johnthebaptist has left the building.


-Tim-

I haven,t left the building. What I meant is that lay people that give out Holy Communion should.Also at Latin Mass the alter boy that walks along with the preist giving Holy Communion wears white gloves, and also when I see the alter boy holding the chalice to put on the Alter wears white gloves.

.

[johnthebaptist1]

Originally Posted by Jeanne S

Given the size of my parish,approx1300 at every Mass.Even though we are blessed to have two priests,it would take an inordinate amount of time to dispense the HolyCommunion to that number of people. times that by five Masses,the priests would be even more stretched than they already are!

Well when the priest at Rome, help the Holy father give out Holy Communion the peole wait,and theirs a lot of people their they have a special Mass at the Vatican.

[TS Aquinas]

Originally Posted by johnthebaptist1

I like to know if you,s feel the same way. That only , priest should Give out the Holy Eucharist itand not Lay people,the only way I would receive,is if they were wearing white Gloves,but I,am still receiveing it from the priest, if I have to I will go to the Ile that the priest is givng it out before I let an ordinnary. Amen

You're not alone in this regard,

“To touch the sacred species, and to distribute them with their own hands,
is a privilege of the ordained ... “ Pope John Paul II

And St. Thomas Aquinas defended the same notion in ST III, 82, 3 that only the priest may handle the Holy Sacrament.


Not a bad company concerning the subject.

[JReducation]

Originally Posted by johnthebaptist1

I like to know if you,s feel the same way. That only , priest should Give out the Holy Eucharist itand not Lay people,the only way I would receive,is if they were wearing white Gloves,but I,am still receiveing it from the priest, if I have to I will go to the Ile that the priest is givng it out before I let an ordinnary. Amen

It is against Canon Law to limit the distribution of Holy Communion to the priest. Canon Law for the Latin Church says that the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are ordained clergy: deacons, priests and bishops.

Therefore, the mindset that only a priest should distribute Holy Communion is contrary to the mind of the Church and to the Sacrament of Holy Orders which the deacon also receives.

As to the non ordained distributing Holy Communion, there are times when it is appropriate and at time when it is overused. This is a fact. It is quite appropriate to use them in a parish that has few priests and deacons and many hospital patients or home bound Catholics.

I'll offer an example. Our brothers ran a parish with 8 friars. Only one was a priest. The others were neither priests nor deacons. The parish had two hospitals with a total of 500 beds, three nursing facilities, and one very large senior housing complex. That was in addition to 3200 families.

The parish also have four permanent deacons. However, these men have wives and children to support. The parish does not put them on the payroll. They can only take communion to the sick and elderly after work or weekends. Their first duty is to the wives, second to their children and third to their ministry. The superior had no authority to pull a permanent deacon to help out at more than one Sunday mass, when his kids are waiting to go to the zoo or one of them has a birthday. That would be immoral.

What happened was that the other seven brothers, who were not clerics were instituted as acolytes. They took care of the nursing homes the assisted living complex and the hospital. The ordained brother covered those services that required Holy Orders. At time, they had to use lay EMHC. At Sunday mass the priest was helped out by one of the non ordained brothers, a deacon or a EMHC. There was no way that the superior was going to allow anyone to be ordained just to distribute Holy Communion. This is not the purpose of a religious community in a parish. It's purpose is to promote its charism and through that charism draw the parishioners into the Church.

Diocesan priests have it worse than religious. There can be five diocesan priests at a parish, but they only get paid for the mass that they celebrate and the duties on their job description. Other than that, asking them to hang around on a Sunday morning to help distribute Holy Communion can create a canonical conflict. While the mission of the priest is certainly sacramental, which no one denies, Canon Law also says that the secular priest must be compensated. This can be financially or by way of time off some place else in the week, if you're going to tie him down all of Sunday morning and Saturday afternoon.

Many pastors prefer to use the deacons and the EMHC on Sundays and leave the associates free after they say their mass, because they need them to cover during the week, especially if it's a very active parish.

While it is true that the EMHC is often overused, it is also true that there are times when there is a legitimate need to use them. It is equally true that the distribution of Holy Communion cannot be denied to a deacon or reduced only to priests. This is a big question right now about the rubrics of the 1962 missal, whether or not to allow the permanent deacon to distribute Holy Communion. When the missal was written the law was not clear on this. The clarification did not come until1983. with the revision of Canon Law. The question on the table is, "Which takes precedence, the rubrics or the law?' It's a legitimate question and not an easy one for liturgists and lawyers to answer.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, FFV

[wasserfall]

Originally Posted by LegoGE1947

Also there are Masses where there are so many people that the celebrant needs help to serve all those in attendance, such as the installation of a new Bishop. Recently, the Diocese of Rockford, Illinois installed a new Bishop and the audience was nearly 6,000 people! Definitely was a need for assistance there!

The older (and, in my opinion, better) solution in such cases is to simply not distribute Holy Communion on such occasions.

[JReducation]

Originally Posted by wasserfall

The older (and, in my opinion, better) solution in such cases is to simply not distribute Holy Communion on such occasions.

You run the risk of running into a major problem with the Sacred Congregation for the Faith, the Signatura and the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship. The law specifically says that Catholics have a right to receive the sacraments. It doesn't include exceptions

The Sacred Congregation for the faith would argue that not distributing communion at said masses is contrary to the faith of the Church. The Congregation for Divine Worship would argue that it's contradictory to the rubric, which call for communion. And the Signatura would argue that the rights of the faithful have been violated.

It's a can of worms best left closed.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

[tabycat]

Originally Posted by ProVobis

Then what about those who need to go to confession first? Or just like to get the full indulgence with confession and communion?

God knows evveryones heart. Try to put yourself in the role of a shutin whitch would you choose (no mortal sin) between being able to at least able to have communion once a week and maybe confission once every four to eight weeks (depending on the time that the priest have) or neather of them?