Eucharist question

ellen73

OK- so we occasionally go to a parish other than our own, b/c ours doesn't have a Sunday evening Mass.   I have witnessed something I find a little odd a few times at this other parish.  People go completely out of their way to receive the Eucharist from a priest (or in one case a male lay minister) instead of receiving from a woman (lay).   Am I the only person who finds this odd?  Do some people think that the Eucharist less holy if a non-ordained minister (or female) is the one presenting it to you?? 

The family that did this today made quite a commotion to "get in the right line," so even DH noticed (it was hard not to, they were two pews in front of us). 

ootmother2

haha, THAT would absolutely include my brother.  He refuses to take communion from anyone other than a priest and he won't even touch it himself.  No idea why though.

Now that  I think about it, I always seem to wind up in the line for the priest.  St. Patrick's Cathedral is the only place where I can't avoid a non priest giving out the Eucharist.  There are barriers set up in certain rows to ease getting up and returning to your seat.

caitriona87

*raises hand*

I do whatever I can (within reason--I wouldn't be disruptive) to receive from a priest or deacon. I am giving my reasons below and please please no one take this as a criticism of anyone else...these are my reasons. It has nothing to do with the Eucharist being more or less holy or valid...

I receive kneeling and on the tongue. Especially in so far the latter goes, it seems silly to receive on the tongue from a layperson whose hands, like my own, are not consecrated.

EMHC's are way overused. They are called extraordinary for a reason--it's not supposed to be the norm to use them, but only when distribution by ordained ministers (the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion) would be burdensome for some reason. One parish I attend regularly has about 25 EMHC's go up every Sunday, the purpose of which seems to be so that Communion takes two minutes instead of ten. Is that really a sufficient reason?

Having all these EMHC's de-emphasizes the role of the priest as standing in persona Christi and, especially, the role of bridegroom. The Eucharist is Christ's complete and total giving of Himself, the Bridegroom, to His Church, the Bride. The priest acts in this role during Mass and it is just more fitting for the priest to be the one not only offering the Sacrifice of Christ to the Father, but also to be offering the Body of Christ to the Church, His Bride.

lalaith50

My understading is that some people do that because they recognize that since the Eucharist is so sacred, they would prefer that only the hands of a priest (which are explicitly consecrated when he is ordained,) touch the Eucharist. 

Some people who go out of their way to only receive from a priest recognize that while it is *permitted* for a lay person to touch the Eucharist, they  themselves simply wish to utilize their *right* to receive on the tongue or from a priest. 

Part of the problem is in the abundant usage of *Extraordinary* Eucharistic Ministers, (which by definition should be only used in "extraordinary" circumstances, although most people conveniently leave out the official term "extraordinary,") and so some people wish to protest their presence (as in, who cares if Communion takes an extra 5 minutes? Why is there literallly an army of extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers at some churches?) 

Also, there is the issue of the permission for lay people ourselves to receive Communion in the hand. Most people forget that up until about 50 years, for *centuries* NOBODY touched the Eucharist with their hands except a priest! So it is not as strange as you might think.

ETA: oops, caitriona beat me to it! :-)

caitriona87

You added some other important points, lalaith! We only have permission to receive in the hand, not a requirement, and that permission could (theoretically) be revoked at any time. That issue is definitely bound up with the EMHC one as well.

agapecarrie

I understand one's desire to receive from a priest, have no problem with it... .I also agree that EMHCs tend to be overused. However...

yes, at many many parishes, 10 minutes additional time IS a big deal- not to those attending mass, but the logistics...  AND, at my parish, if we only had deacons and priests ministering Communion, it would add about 20-25 minutes. And that's not even if we ministered under both species (which is the preference of the church) the logistics of masses done one after the other is a nightmare.

doctabroccoli

I'll second what Agape said. While we only have about 6 lay ministers per Mass, one Mass would butt right up to the next if we didn't, as we already have the problem of close calls some weeks when our regular Masses run over 1:15 in length (lots of music and a long-winded pastor). So I understand one's desire to receive from an ordained minister, but I also know that's just not feasible from a logistics standpoint sometimes.

Riss91

lala and caitrona both said what I would have said. My husband and I would be in the "priest" line. If you saw me at mass in my teens, it would've been the complete opposite though!

But to add to agape's point - I think administering on the tongue, by a priest is quicker in the Extraordinary Form than in the Ordinary Form. When we attend Latin Mass, everyone receives kneeling, on the tongue, by a priest or deacon, the people are all lined up along the altar rail, which I think provides for a faster "deliveyr" of the Eucharist. There are literally 25 people all kneeling side-by-side, and with 2 priests/deacon administering. I think it goes by much faster than if you had 2 lines where each person stepped up separately. Especially if everyone is receiving it differently.

debbiem56

With only one priest, we need to have EM; I am one.  In fact, I was the first female at the church where I grew up.  And I always saw parishioners go into another line, even a male lay minister, to avoid me.  Of course, times have changed and now there are only a handful of males distributing communion.  We have 7 at each Mass times 4 Masses.  Somehow, the males tend to be the lectors more ...?

On a related note, I was also the first female and youth Lector at my old church.  This is dating me, but it was back in the 70's in the age of the miniskirt.  Several of the elderly ladies complained about the length of my skirt to the priest and to parish council.  It just so happens that I was the youth rep on parish council and they all supported me.  However, it was not long after that the Lectors started wearing robes.

bibliophile2010

I see it a lot, because I am frequently the lay woman serving as an EMHC. My parish uses 6 of us (one to help the one priest who is present serve the Body of Christ, 4 to serve the Precious Blood, one to deliver communion to the musicians in the choir loft). I'm not insulted when I see people line shift, I get it. But at the same time, the Eucharist could not be served under both species without us, and there is enormous value in doing so.

Then again, I don't have a problem with EMHCs, so long as there are not religious around who should be helping, but are not (like if there is a guest homilist who does not serve).

caiti2u

Ok, now I have a follow-up question for those who prefer going to the priest... does it then matter who is distributing the wine? In my old church, the blood was reserved for "special occasions" but at my new church, you may receive every Sunday. But when it is given, obviously the priest can't give body and blood, so is it ok for someone else to give because no-one's hands are touching it?  just curious

Calypso1977

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_eucharist-question?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:2ccede47-3d10-474c-b376-e796605e9836Post:932a2444-f775-495e-a7d7-c305d4c41aef">Re: Eucharist question</a>:
[QUOTE]*raises hand* I do whatever I can (within reason--I wouldn't be disruptive) to receive from a priest or deacon. I am giving my reasons below and please please no one take this as a criticism of anyone else...these are my reasons. It has nothing to do with the Eucharist being more or less holy or valid... I receive kneeling and on the tongue. Especially in so far the latter goes, it seems silly to receive on the tongue from a layperson whose hands, like my own, are not consecrated. EMHC's are way overused. They are called extraordinary for a reason--it's not supposed to be the norm to use them, but only when distribution by ordained ministers (the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion) would be burdensome for some reason. One parish I attend regularly has about 25 EMHC's go up every Sunday, the purpose of which seems to be so that Communion takes two minutes instead of ten. Is that really a sufficient reason? Having all these EMHC's de-emphasizes the role of the priest as standing in persona Christi and, especially, the role of bridegroom. The Eucharist is Christ's complete and total giving of Himself, the Bridegroom, to His Church, the Bride. The priest acts in this role during Mass and it is just more fitting for the priest to be the one not only offering the Sacrifice of Christ to the Father, but also to be offering the Body of Christ to the Church, His Bride.
Posted by caitriona87[/QUOTE]

this, exactly, for me.  I have only received once, in my life, from someone other than a priest and it made me extremely uncomfortable.  i also think he felt uncomfortable giving it to me on the tongue.  i was sort of stuck.  there are times ive even forgone receiving if i dont have a clear path to a priest.  some of you might find that crazy or odd, but tha'ts just how i feel about it.  i heve never, ever received it in the hand.  ever.  i dont even like it when i have to stand to receive.  fortunatley, our church has an altar rail and our priest uses it at all masses - latin and novus ordo.

Calypso1977

caiti - i never receive the blood.  its completley unnecessary.  one crumb of the host counts as receiving.  its not any more holy to take both the host and the wine.  not to mention the germs...

caiti2u

Ah, thanks calypso. I actually always forgo the wine (b/c of the germs!) and often feel bad about it. But I guess I could have put 2 and 2 together and realized that since my old church didn't offer it, it wasn't necessary. ha

Riss91

I don't think the wine is offered to lay people in the Latin Mass. I'm completely fine with it for the reasons Calypso mentioned.

ElisabethJoanne

If you were in Gettysburg and it was one little lady, I could explain a very strange set of circumstances applying only to that lady.

Everywhere else, I don't like all the crumb possibilities created when the consecrated Hosts are passed from patten to patten and hand to hand. The fewer transfers, the fewer opportunities any bit of Jesus is lost to be trodden underfoot, the better.