I Beleive

#21

[quote="LegoGE1947, post:5, topic:286057"]
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!

[/quote]

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

0 Likes

#22

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.

0 Likes

#23

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

0 Likes

#24

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.

0 Likes

#25

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.

.

0 Likes

#26

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.

0 Likes

#27

[quote="johnthebaptist1, post:1, topic:286057"]
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

[/quote]

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.

0 Likes

#28

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 :slight_smile:

0 Likes

#29

[quote="LegoGE1947, post:5, topic:286057"]
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!

[/quote]

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

0 Likes

#30

[quote="wasserfall, post:29, topic:286057"]
The older (and, in my opinion, better) solution in such cases is to simply not distribute Holy Communion on such occasions.

[/quote]

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 :)

0 Likes

#31

[quote="ProVobis, post:15, topic:286057"]
Then what about those who need to go to confession first? Or just like to get the full indulgence with confession and communion?

[/quote]

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? :)

0 Likes

#32

[quote="JReducation, post:30, topic:286057"]
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.

[/quote]

Holy Communion was not distributed in the past in such settings and the faith of the Church was not denied.

The rights of the faithful to receive the sacraments are not impacted in any significant way by not distributing Holy Communion at a given mass, provided the faithful are not impeded from receiving the sacrament in general. Your argument could be used to claim that anyone has a right to walk into a church and demand Holy Communion on the spot (a right to the sacraments! No exceptions!), but clearly that is false.

It might be against the rubrics of the new mass, but the rubrics could easily be imprudent and ripe for revision too.

0 Likes

#33

[quote="wasserfall, post:32, topic:286057"]
Holy Communion was not distributed in the past in such settings and the faith of the Church was not denied.

The rights of the faithful to receive the sacraments are not impacted in any significant way by not distributing Holy Communion at a given mass, provided the faithful are not impeded from receiving the sacrament in general. Your argument could be used to claim that anyone has a right to walk into a church and demand Holy Communion on the spot (a right to the sacraments! No exceptions!), but clearly that is false.

It might be against the rubrics of the new mass, but the rubrics could easily be imprudent and ripe for revision too.

[/quote]

But you have to consider twof points very carefully here.

  1. These folks are not walking in and demanding the Eucharist. They are participating at a liturgy.

In this case, the law does protect their right to receive Holy Communion at that liturgy.

  1. The rubrics do not come into play here. The fact that there must be holy communion at a mass and it must be offered to the public, is not just a rubric. The rubrics echo a liturgical position of the Church based on pastoral theology.

Rubrics usually echo something else. They rarely stand alone.

  1. The fact that you're referring to the Ordinary Form of the mass as the "New Mass" suggests a bias against the form itself, which if this were to be presented to the hierarchy in such a manner, it would raise a red flag about the underlying motive for the request. Like yourself, others also continue to refer to the Ordinary Form as the NO or New Mass. The organizers of these liturgies can take note of the use of language as an indicator of a prejudice against the Ordinary Form rather than a spiritual need for the Extraordinary Form, which was the reason for issuing SP and UE in the first place.

For these reasons, I strongly suggest letting the hierarchy and organizers of these public masses figure out the logistics without this suggestion. It would raise more concerns and not really help. At least that is my believe at this moment.

Understand, that I'm looking at this from my point of view. Others may look at it a see something that I may be missing.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV :J

0 Likes

#34

[quote="JReducation, post:33, topic:286057"]
The fact that you're referring to the Ordinary Form of the mass as the "New Mass" suggests a bias against the form itself...

[/quote]

Hmm. Well is it "new" relative to the preconciliar mass?

0 Likes

#35

I understand that. Everything is new compared to something that came before it and old when compared to what follows.

Spaniards don’t refer to the Tridentine mass as new, because it’s newer than their Mozarabic mass. They call it the Tridentine mass.

In religious orders, we used to say the Tridentine Mass and the Pauline Mass. Now, we say the EF and OF.

Some people simply distinguish them by the year, such as the 1962 Missal.

There are other ways of speaking about the two forms that don’t have the overtone of disdain.

The terms like “new mass and novus ordo” are not terms that the Church uses. Novus ordo was printed on the first set of rubrics for the Pauline Mass. Once it was revised, the rubrics no longer said novus ordo. It simply said Roman. Novus or new were used to mean hot off the press.

Today, novus and new are more often than not used in a condescending way.

To be honest, there is a difference between those who prefer the EF because it meets their spiritual needs and those who are anti OF for whatever reasons. The first group is certainly thinking with the Church and deserves as many accommodations as are reasonable. The latter group is not thinking with the Church and I wouldn’t make any accommodations for this group. We must always accommodate to genuine needs. It is just and right, as we say at mass. We must avoid accommodating to hostility lest we reinforce it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV :slight_smile:

0 Likes

#36

[quote="TS_Aquinas, post:27, topic:286057"]
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.

[/quote]

Thank you agreeing with the way I feel. As long as their is a priest giving the HOLY Sacrament at Commnuion ,I will go to him. May many more men become Priest,so that we can receive OUR LORD from them ,instead of a lay person. Amen

0 Likes

#37

[quote="TS_Aquinas, post:27, topic:286057"]
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.

[/quote]

[quote="johnthebaptist1, post:36, topic:286057"]
Thank you agreeing with the way I feel. As long as their is a priest giving the HOLY Sacrament at Commnuion ,I will go to him. May many more men become Priest,so that we can receive OUR LORD from them ,instead of a lay person. Amen

[/quote]

Slow down folks, because you're not on the same page.

St. Thomas Aquinas said that the distribution of Holy Communion was for the consecrated hands of the priest. This is true. Unless you read Dominican history, you will not know that the Church disagreed with Aquinas. Therefore, Aquinas position cannot be used as an authoritative source.

Observe the difference between what Aquinas said and what the Church says.

AQUINAS: Distribution of the Eucharist is for the consecrated hands of the priest

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

The Church does on focus on the consecration of the hands. The consecration of the hands does not authorize the touching of the host. The Church focuses on the Sacrament of Holy Orders. It is the Sacrament of Holy Orders that authorizes one to touch the host or to delegate it to a layman.

Who receives the sacrament of Holy Orders?

Deacons, priests and bishops.

The long and the short of it is that Aquinas is wrong. The hands of the priest are not consecrated to distribute the Eucharist and you do not need consecrated hands to distribute the Eucharist. A deacon's hands are not consecrated. The consecrated hands are for the purpose of consecrating the Eucharist, not for touching the Eucharist. That's the confusion. One thing is consecrating and another thing is distributing. They are two different functions. The former belongs to a priest. The latter to any ordained man.

We must be very careful in Traditionalism. Because we tend to use Aquinas as the authority in everything, because he wrote about everything except airplanes. I'm not so sure about that. There may be some book that no one has found.

However, because it's in his writings does not mean that it's accepted by the Church. Not all of Aquinas' work was approved by the Church. One of his greatest challengers was Bonaventure, who was also his very best friend. However, Bonaventure had two points in his favor.

  1. He was a superior general and Aquinas was never a superior of any kind.

  2. He was a cardinal and Aquinas was not a bishop.

Bonaventure had a great deal of influence in the Holy See, that Aquinas did not have and he was known for being brilliant and for having been Aquinas' partner at one time when they were both teaching in Paris. They began the journey together, but Bonaventure was ordered by the Franciscans to drop his theological work and to govern the order. This actually gave Bonaventure a foot in the door at the Holy See. Soon after, he was ordained a bishop and then elevated to cardinal. Bonaventure debated Aquinas on this point. Apparently, so did other scholars. The Church never adopted this position. The argument was simple.

If Aquinas was right, then the Apostles were wrong. It was the Apostles who ordained the first deacons to "wait on tables," which was their expression for distributing the Eucharist. There is even some historical question as to the possibility that the deacons came first and the presbyters came later. The Acts of the Apostles mentions the deacons much earlier than the presbyters. It may be that the first presbyters came from that first group of deacons. If that's true, then Aquinas is seriously flawed on this point, because history proves that touching the Eucharist was not reserved for priests, but for the ordained.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, FFV :)

0 Likes

#38

He didn’t reject deacons from administering the Holy Eucharist absolutely but rejected it as a norm. “The deacon, as being nigh to the priestly order, has a certain share in the latter’s duties, so that he may dispense the blood; but not the body, except in case of necessity, at the bidding of a bishop or of a priest.”

That’s fine though, we’ll use The Catechism of The Council of Trent as an authoritative source.

Only Priests Have Power To Consecrate And Administer The Eucharist

It must be taught, then, that to priests alone has been given power to consecrate and administer to the faithful, the Holy Eucharist. That this has been the unvarying practice of the Church, that the faithful should receive the Sacrament from the priests, and that the officiating priests should communicate themselves, has been explained by the holy Council of Trent, which has also shown that this practice, as having proceeded from Apostolic tradition, is to be religiously retained, particularly as Christ the Lord has left us an illustrious example thereof, having consecrated His own most sacred body, and given it to the Apostles with His own hands.

And what’s the point of bringing up the history? And St. Bonaventure? This the ol’ Dominican vs Franciscan brotherly arm wrestle contest? :stuck_out_tongue:

0 Likes

#39

I think the point I was trying to make that in different cultures you’re going to have to take a different approach. In Spanish Masses, at least those which I have attended, less than half of the people there, if that much, go up to receive. (From the looks of things, I would guess less than 5% received at the Cuban Mass.) The Polish Masses aren’t much better. Contrast that with English Masses, where almost everyone receives, and where parishes have only one priest and one deacon, and you’re going to have some obvious problems, unless everyone is okay with 1.5 hour communions. In the 5000 people example, even if one-half of those receive, you’re still going to require not only 25 or more ministers, but a most-disciplined approach to distribution. I wish it weren’t necessary to use lay ministers but I can’t see any other way if I were planning the event.

0 Likes

#40

[quote="TS_Aquinas, post:38, topic:286057"]
He didn't reject deacons from administering the Holy Eucharist absolutely but rejected it as a norm. "The deacon, as being nigh to the priestly order, has a certain share in the latter's duties, so that he may dispense the blood; but not the body, except in case of necessity, at the bidding of a bishop or of a priest."

That's fine though, we'll use The Catechism of The Council of Trent as an authoritative source.

Only Priests Have Power To Consecrate And Administer The Eucharist

[/quote]

This is no longer the position of the Church. Canon Law and Bl. John Paul II are very explicit. The distribution of the Eucharist belongs to the ordained. The deacon, once incardinated into a diocese or a religious order, which usually happens at ordination, can distribute communion without permission from a priest or bishop. It is already granted by Canon Law and the permission to do so in a particular jurisdiction is granted by the ordinary.

The only restriction, if it can be called that, is that the priest must also distribute Holy Communion. He cannot sit and let the deacon take over. If the congregation does not warrant two ministers of Holy Communion, the priest who presides must be the one to distribute. In reality, this law is meant to guide the priest, not the deacon.

The official position of the Church on this question is no longer that of the Council of Trent as it was written then. It was modified to "the ordinary minister of Holy Communion is the deacon, priest and bishop," by Bl. John Paul II in 1983. It does not limit the distribution to the priest, except as stated above, which is in another canon. Popes always trump councils on all matters except dogmas and morals. Even when quoting the Council of Trent, we must always ask, "What is the current position of the Church?" The answer will usually be found in Canon Law, the CCC, or one of the papal writings.

1570 Deacons share in Christ's mission and grace in a special way. The sacrament of Holy Orders marks them with an imprint ("character") which cannot be removed and which configures them to Christ, who made himself the "deacon" or servant of all. Among other tasks, it is the task of deacons to assist the bishop and priests in the celebration of the divine mysteries, above all the Eucharist, in the distribution of Holy Communion, in assisting at and blessing marriages, in the proclamation of the Gospel and preaching, in presiding over funerals, and in dedicating themselves to the various ministries of charity.
**
Can. 910 §1. The ordinary minister of holy communion is a bishop, presbyter, or deacon.
**
As to your question about why the Franciscan history. It has nothing to do with competition. Actually, the two orders agree on this point. I was trying to show how this question is not new and why Aquinas position was never adopted as de fide.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV :)

0 Likes

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.