Holy Communion

[Macies]

Back to this question. Interesting. This weekend, I found myself in the presence of a priest (in all fairness, he is "more" than a priest - he holds high authority) and I could not bring myself to receive from him. He has spoken out against the basic precepts of our Faith and he has gone against Church teachings. He has had the "privilege" of doing damage to the Church (in my humble opinion) and I couldn't - in good conscience - receive from him. I felt in doing so would be against my love of our Faith and Church. Timing seems so very much in the Providence of Our Lord.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='15 June 2010 - 12:38 PM' timestamp='1276623510' post='2129297']
This is like saying a penny is equal in value to a hundred dollar bill. There is a significant order of magnatude difference and EUs are allowed by the Church. You are not participating in a schism or heresy by recieving from an EU. Reciving the Eucharist is an act of associating yourself with the Church you recieve it in. Yes, the Eucharist would be the same but the message you send in receiving it from a schismatic group is quite different. So your point is only in a very minor way valid.
[/quote]

Actually, having extraordinary ministers in ordinary circumstances, no matter how commonly it is seen, is [i]contra legem[/i] (against the law). But more importantly, it is [i]contra traditionem[/i]: it is against the universal liturgical tradition of the Church. Inasmuch as it is against the law and against tradition, the use of extraordinary ministers in ordinary circumstances is actually very similar to receiving holy Communion at the Mass of a schismatic and/or heretical priest. Obviously, however, in any comparison there will be similarities as well as differences, so the two are obviously not exactly the same.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='15 June 2010 - 07:16 PM' timestamp='1276643812' post='2129549']
Actually, having extraordinary ministers in ordinary circumstances, no matter how commonly it is seen, is [i]contra legem[/i] (against the law). But more importantly, it is [i]contra traditionem[/i]: it is against the universal liturgical tradition of the Church. Inasmuch as it is against the law and against tradition, the use of extraordinary ministers in ordinary circumstances is actually very similar to receiving holy Communion at the Mass of a schismatic and/or heretical priest. Obviously, however, in any comparison there will be similarities as well as differences, so the two are obviously not exactly the same.
[/quote]

Even at otherwise highly orthodox parishes, I have noticed that this is, in my experience, the most violated rubric in the Novus Ordo. This, and failure to bow the head at the name of Christ. It is arguable that the Sacramentary presupposes ad orientum, but I don't know if it is really a violation or not.

In any case, re: OP - I can't really imagine a scenario where I would deliberately refuse to receive the Lord from a priest. I might skip out on an EMHC in preference of a priest, however.

[thessalonian]

I first of all do not like the wide use of EUs but it is not on the same level at all as heresy. It is a matter of discipline not (T) Tradition. I agree that there is abuse. I agree that it should be reigned in. I agree that people are too causual. But again I am not going to let that affect my love for the Eucharist and further as long as the Bishops and Popes are not excommunicating people for it (my bishop is quite orthodox), I dont see it as a point to divide over. Perhaps I should write my bishop of my feelings against it. I am for that. I can in no way see it as similar to going to a schismatic mass. It is not a doctrinal matter. Priests commit sacralidge. The Eucharist does not depend on the holiness or lack thereof of the people we recieve it from.

[Slappo]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='15 June 2010 - 04:27 PM' timestamp='1276644427' post='2129553']
Even at otherwise highly orthodox parishes, I have noticed that this is, in my experience, the most violated rubric in the Novus Ordo. This, and [b]failure to bow the head at the name of Christ[/b]. It is arguable that the Sacramentary presupposes ad orientum, but I don't know if it is really a violation or not.

In any case, re: OP - I can't really imagine a scenario where I would deliberately refuse to receive the Lord from a priest. I might skip out on an EMHC in preference of a priest, however.
[/quote]

And when the three Divine Persons are named, the Blessed Virgin, and the Saint whose feast (solemnity, feast, memorial, or commemoration) is celebrated that day...

From the GIRM

[quote]275. A bow signifies reverence and honor shown to the persons themselves or to the signs that
represent them. There are two kinds of bows: a bow of the head and a bow of the body.
a. A bow of the head is made when the [b]three Divine Persons[/b] are named together and at
the [b]names of Jesus[/b], of [b]the Blessed Virgin Mary[/b], and of the [b]Saint in whose honor
Mass is being celebrated[/b].
b. A bow of the body, that is to say a profound bow, is made to the altar; during the
prayers Munda cor meum (Almighty God, cleanse my heart) and In spiritu humilitatis
(Lord God, we ask you to receive); in the Creed at the words Et incarnatus est (by the
power of the Holy Spirit . . . made man); in the Roman Canon at the words Supplices
te rogamus (Almighty God, we pray that your angel). The same kind of bow is made
by the deacon when he asks for a blessing before the proclamation of the Gospel. In
addition, the priest bows slightly as he speaks the words of the Lord at the
consecration.[/quote]

[Nihil Obstat]

So if more than one are mentioned within a fairly short period of time, you just keep bobbing? I've always wondered. I'm not in the habit, because I was never taught.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='14 June 2010 - 11:32 PM' timestamp='1276515120' post='2128474']
While I do agree that EU's are used way too much there is no differenece between a Eucharist administered by an EU and a priest. Thou dost protest too much.
[/quote]


[quote name='aalpha1989' date='11 June 2010 - 10:33 AM' timestamp='1276209182' post='2126972']
I would receive Communion from any priest, providing I didn't doubt the validity of the consecration. I really do try never to judge a priest because Our Lady holds them especially close to her heart and I know I've sinned in judging them before.
[/quote]
Good! my dear friend you're very spiritual as always.


Now to the thread not aiming at anyone.

Is the Host in some way diminished by EMHC's or suss Priests? Is the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ absolute or are there varying degree's in the transubstantiation. Firstly, a priest has no extraordinary powers. The bread and wine are consecrated not by the priest alone but by the power of the faithful. The priest being intermediary between them and Christ. Do we have the power to see that the EMHC or priest we don't like has reduced the Host and we need to cross to the other side to get the pure stuff. Sounds a bit physical to me and worse very judgemental. All through scripture Jesus said to those who touched him. "Your faith has healed you!" I have no reservation in touching the Host because firstly I say "I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed." More than that I am doing it because I want a greater union with Christ and I know he loves me and wants me to interact with him. Once when I was an EMHC someone pointed to a host that the aging priest had dropped and was unaware of. So imitating what I had seen once before I picked it up and ate it. Now the floor is quite a dirty place and unworthy of the body of Christ, but I didn't feel that it had been diminished in anyway. If anything it was more. I've had people cross to the priest and every Mass there are those who will not take the blood because they might catch something. I feel deep hurt, not for myself, but for the rejection of Jesus. You see, I often think that transubstantiation involves more than the Host. For the duration of the Eucharist the Priest or EM is not even there. You may see them but it is Jesus who gives you himself. I know this, because I often have tears in my eye at the feeling of Jesus entering my soul. Especially blessing the children, I always kneel down so I can look them in the eye then the child, Jesus and I become for a moment a trinity of love!

[dominicansoul]

in regards to receiving from a priest you don't like, or you have problems with...

St. Teresa of Avila was traveling between visits, and stopped at a little chapel for Mass. She was horrified to see two demons chained to the neck of the priest celebrating Mass...!!!

When the time for Consecration came, the demons became restless, and began to try to tear away from the priest...then Teresa saw Our Lord in the Host, despite the priest's sins, the Lord did not ignore the prayer of Consecration...

...

so, as much as possible, I don't try to see the human giving me the Body and Blood of Jesus, but instead, I try to see the priest...in his role as the alter-Christus...

[holly.o]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='20 June 2010 - 07:38 PM' timestamp='1277073484' post='2131848']
The bread and wine are consecrated not by the priest alone but by the power of the faithful. The priest being intermediary between them and Christ.
[/quote]

?

I've never heard this before. Wouldn't this reasoning mean that a priest celebrating Mass alone wouldn't be actually consecrating the Host? My understanding (which is limited since I'm still a relatively new convert) is that the Eucharist is consecrated [i]only[/i] by a priest - no one else has that God-given ability.

Could someone find this in the Catechism? I need to get to bed soon but I didn't want to not comment on this...

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='holly.o' date='20 June 2010 - 09:04 PM' timestamp='1277085853' post='2131934']
?

I've never heard this before. Wouldn't this reasoning mean that a priest celebrating Mass alone wouldn't be actually consecrating the Host? My understanding (which is limited since I'm still a relatively new convert) is that the Eucharist is consecrated [i]only[/i] by a priest - no one else has that God-given ability.

Could someone find this in the Catechism? I need to get to bed soon but I didn't want to not comment on this...
[/quote]
When a priest celebrates alone he still consecrates validly. Although to be fair, in that case I think we also refer to him being united to the entire Church on earth and in heaven regardless of who is physically present.

Edited June 21, 2010 by Nihil Obstat

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='holly.o' date='21 June 2010 - 02:04 PM' timestamp='1277085853' post='2131934']
?

I've never heard this before. Wouldn't this reasoning mean that a priest celebrating Mass alone wouldn't be actually consecrating the Host? My understanding (which is limited since I'm still a relatively new convert) is that the Eucharist is consecrated [i]only[/i] by a priest - no one else has that God-given ability.

Could someone find this in the Catechism? I need to get to bed soon but I didn't want to not comment on this...
[/quote]

I could be wrong about that since I'm no authority on Catholic teaching. If I am then I will withdraw it. But I imagined that numbers are not important, so for sure the priest is the only one who can consecrate the Host and he can do it alone if need be. But The Mass is not just about the priest, it is about the body of Christ and all are part of it. So I imagined that we are all in it together. Do you think our prayers have no value in this part of the Mass? Maybe you are right. Also Priests are special people but they have no power above normal people. They are subject to faults and failings. In our parish I know a number of lay people who I would think could be more Holy than many priests.
Hopefully I won't get into an argument about this. I like to write freely but if you think I contradict Church teaching then I am happy to withdraw it. I will do some study about that myself.

[quote name='dominicansoul' date='21 June 2010 - 01:53 PM' timestamp='1277085193' post='2131931']
I don't try to see the human giving me the Body and Blood of Jesus, but instead, I try to see the priest...in his role as the alter-Christus...
[/quote]

That's what I was trying to say but not doing as good a job as you.

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='21 June 2010 - 02:17 PM' timestamp='1277086631' post='2131947']
Although to be fair, in that case I think we also refer to him being united to the entire Church on earth and in heaven regardless of who is physically present.
[/quote]

Yeah that to. Thanks Nihil!

Edited June 21, 2010 by Mark of the Cross

[Norseman82]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='10 June 2010 - 03:24 PM' timestamp='1276197897' post='2126908']
I think the only time I would purposely move to another line is if it was an EM that I knew was in public scandal. So far that has never happened to me. [/quote]

The only difference between you and me is that is has happened to me.

Edited June 21, 2010 by Norseman82

[john654]

Hi,
I quit my job, sold my house and moved out of California to protect my family from the parish I attended for 50 years.

John

[holly.o]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='20 June 2010 - 11:33 PM' timestamp='1277087621' post='2131956']
I could be wrong about that since I'm no authority on Catholic teaching. If I am then I will withdraw it. But I imagined that numbers are not important, so for sure the priest is the only one who can consecrate the Host and he can do it alone if need be. But The Mass is not just about the priest, it is about the body of Christ and all are part of it. So I imagined that we are all in it together. Do you think our prayers have no value in this part of the Mass? Maybe you are right. Also Priests are special people but they have no power above normal people. They are subject to faults and failings. In our parish I know a number of lay people who I would think could be more Holy than many priests.
Hopefully I won't get into an argument about this. I like to write freely but if you think I contradict Church teaching then I am happy to withdraw it. I will do some study about that myself.
[/quote]

OK... I think it was just your wording that threw me off. The links to the section on the Eucharist & the priest in the CCC are here: [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a3.htm"]Eucharist[/url] & [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a6.htm"]Holy Orders[/url]. So I need to read up about those things, too.

Sorry to interrupt the topic!

[Gal. 5:22,23]

[quote name='DevotedtoHim' date='09 June 2010 - 03:18 PM' timestamp='1276111095' post='2126405']
This weekend I found myself in the very awkward position of being in line to receive Holy Communion from a priest that I have had very big problems with. I moved and received from another priest. I am wondering if that has ever happened to anybody else.

Katherine
[/quote]

This reminds me of a quote from St. Francis of Assisi. He was asked, “Brother Francis, what would you do if you knew that a priest celebrating Mass had three concubines on the side?” Francis replied, “When it came time for Holy Communion, I would go to receive the sacred body of my Lord from the priest’s anointed hands.”

I try to keep this in mind when my personal opinions or frustration with liturgical abuses tempt me to take my eyes off of Our Lord in Mass. But it's difficult, it's really really difficult.