Wednesday, October 11, 2017

TO TAKE COMMUNION OR TO RECIEVE COMMUNION: THAT IS THE QUESTION AND MANY MORE


I was listening today to Gus Lloyd of XM Satellite Catholic Radio about non Catholics receiving Holy Communion. He wanted to know from callers if they had witnessed non Catholics receiving Holy Communion or not.

Many said they did, especially at weddings and funerals or guests at Sunday Mass, especially if no announcement was made about who qualifies to receive in the Catholic Church.

I hope that everyone knows that for priests today to be ordained, in most dioceses seminarians must have three years of philosophy and four years of theology with a pastoral year somewhere within the last four years, making it a 5th year or 8th year depending on when you begin counting.

Yet, we invite volunteers to be Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion and to bring Holy Communion to hospitals, nursing homes and to the home-bound. They don't need one ounce of seminary whatsoever. And their preparation for this ministry varies from parish to parish, either just the mechanics of how to distribute Holy Communion to a simple 45 minute preparation on this ministry.

Thus a Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion  told Gus Lloyd that she on her own regularly gives Holy Communion to non-Catholics because Jesus wouldn't enter into a theological debate with anyone who wanted to receive Him.

Why in the name of God and all that is holy do deacons, priests and bishops need such an elaborate education, formation and knowledge of Church law when you can simply act like a priest with none of that and be as authoritative in your ignorance as you please and proclaim it from the rooftop on a national radio program?

And many of the callers spoke of "taking" Holy Communion rather than "receiving" Holy Communion. Does the terminology even matter???????

17 comments:

ByzRC said...

Perhaps these among other reasons aggregate to contribute to the priest shortage. Again, let us please put the societal change component aside. Look how casually our lord is being presented and/or waved around in the photo. Additionally, there are EMHC's who, in my opinion, abuse their role by acting like pseudo-priests authority figures, being excessively dramatic when distributing, opening/accessing and closing the tabernacle and purifying vessels. This role was a mistake as it adds to the already casual approach to liturgy found in many places and just causes confusion as to roles, responsibilities and limitations.

qwikness said...

I was a Eucharistic Minister. I quit. People would come up, look in my eyes as I offered Our Lord to them. I did not feel worthy.

Mark Thomas said...

The photo (even if not real, depicts the reality that occurs during various Masses offered throughout the Latin Church) demonstrates the horrific collapse of the Roman Liturgy.

Wow! What a photo! Sad.

I pray that His Holiness Pope Francis and our bishops correct the horrific manner in which Holy Communion is administered at many Latin Church parishes throughout the world.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

John Nolan said...

Fr McDonald

You yourself have admitted that you employ EMHC of both sexes in your parish. Does that mean you lack the courage of your convictions? Can you honestly say that the distribution of Communion would be unduly prolonged in their absence (RS 158)? You are also aware that most parishes see EMHC as a means of fostering greater participation of the laity, which is an abuse (RS 151).

To visit the sick is one of the corporal works of mercy incumbent on all Christians. Taking Communion to the sick should only be delegated to a lay person as a last resort, for the simple reason that only a priest can hear sacramental Confession and confer absolution.

Anonymous said...

If there weren't so may Eucharistic ministers, priests would be in dire straits to find priestly candidates to aid in the distribution of the blessed sacrament. Out of necessity they would find those candidates.

Gene said...

I have attended Mass with several hundred people in attendance, the majority of whom went down to receive. With two Priests, everyone was out in @ 15 minutes. You don't need all those EMHC's, most of whom dress like they are going to Wal Mart. And, certainly we don't need ninnies like the girl who wanted to let non-Catholics receive "because Jesus would have." The Church continues to decline.

Anonymous said...

TAKE this all of you and eat of it....

TAKE this all of you and drink from it....

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Dear TAKE! Thanks for this comment because it points out a major deficiency of many Catholics about what Jesus instituted at the Last Supper on Holy Thursday, the night before His one Sacrifice on Good Friday. First He establishes the ordained Priesthood and then secondly gives the manner in which His saving One Sacrifice on Good Friday would be "memorialized" and eventually celebrated by the Church for all ages after the Resurrection, Ascension and Pentecost event!

The Priest, the ordained priest alone, that is, "TAKES" the Sacramental presence of the Body and Blood of our Lord and "EATS and DRINKS" to successfully complete the Sacramental celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of our Lord. Jesus at the Last Supper wan't talking to the laity, but to HIS FIRST PRIESTS AND SUBSEQUENT PRIESTS THROUGHOUT THE AGES! PRIESTS TAKE AND EAT, TAKE AND DRINK TO COMPLETE THE LITURGICAL SACRIFICIAL ASPECT OF THE HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS.

THE LAITY? THEY RECEIVE THE BODY AND BLOOD OF OUR LORD AND NOT NECESSARILY CONSECRATED AT THE MASS THEY ATTEND, BUT MORE LIKELY THAN NOT, CONSECRATED AT A PREVIOUS MASS.

Hasn't this distinction of taking or receiving been intentionally obfuscated in the current Liturgy? Not even you knew this?

Anonymous said...

Take this, ALL OF YOU, and eat...

Take this, ALL OF YOU, and drink...

There's no obfuscation, except on the part of those who seek to make the sacrifice one thing for the priest and another for the laity.

It's not. It is ONE sacrifice.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

WRONG! Your's is a Protestant theology of the Last Supper. JESUS IS SPEAKING TO THE APOSTLES AND THEIR SUCCESSORS (AND PRIEST THROUGH THEM ARE SUCCESSORS TO THE APOSTLES)
If you want to make a case for your Protestant theology, use one of the Epistles which speaks about the laity receiving Christ in Holy Communion. Not even in John's Gospel does Jesus say to the generic crowd, unless you take and eat the Flesh..." He says EAT alone!

Henry said...

"It's not. It is ONE sacrifice."

As a Protestant, you can believe whatever you wish. But as Catholics we believe that the priest alone acts in persona Christi in re-presenting the Sacrifice of the Cross. In the Mass, this sacrifice is consummated by the priest's reception of the Body and Blood. In their communion, the faithful receive the fruits of this sacrifice. Two entirely different things.

TJM said...

Henry,

Unfortunately, after Vatican Disaster II, the Catholic Church in the US gave up teaching the Faith. Instead, the Church opted for teaching good feelings and assorted drivel.

Anonymous said...

Henry - The priest and the laity participate in the same, ONE sacrifice. It is the same, ONE sacrifice offered on Calvary.

The sacrifice in which the priest participates and the sacrifice in which the laity participate is the same, ONE sacrifice.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

The laity are not required by canon law or liturgy law (only recommended in the GIRM) to receive Hosts consecrated at the Mass they attend. They normally receive Host (don't take them) from the tabernacle and thus consecrated at another Mass.

The priest, though, must take and eat, take and drink the host and Precious Blood from what he has consecrated at the altar. He takes both elements and thus consummates the one Sacrifice offered at that particular time in an unbloody way.

To say that the laity consummate the One Sacrifice along with the priest is heresy.

The laity don't even have to receive Holy Communion at the Mass they attend. If they are conscious of mortal sin or have broken the fast they are instructed not to receive. Not so for the priest, though. Even if in mortal sin, he must take, eat and drink. Not receive from anyone. He must do so to complete the sacrifice.

Henry said...

"Henry - The priest and the laity participate in the same"

Sure. But their manner of participation is entirely different. The priest alone offers the sacrifice. After it has been consummated by the priest's communion, the people may share its fruits with their communion (which is not required for the sacrifice).

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Henry, the laity are under the obligation to attend Sunday Mass and Holy Days of Obligation under the penalty of mortal sin. However, the laity are required by canon law to receive Holy Communion once a year only and as a part of their Easter duty.

Of course this is the bare minimum and pertains to the laity only, not the clergy since it is required for the validity of the Mass that he take and eat, take and drink, the laity simply receive.

John Nolan said...

Orate fratres, ut meum et vestrum sacrificium acceptabile fiat apud Deum Patrem Omnipotentem.

The old ICEL had 'our sacrifice', a good example of using translation to alter theology. They weren't alone in this; the original French version of the liturgical books was so riddled with wilful distortions that even Yves Congar protested.

From the outset the English hierarchy insisted on 'my sacrifice and yours'. Another change they made was to EP IV where, after the Consecration, ICEL translated (if that's the word) 'qui ex hoc uno pane participabunt et calice' as 'all who share in this bread and wine'. In England and Wales it had to be 'this one Bread and one Cup'.