Denying The Eucharist?

[Resurrexi]

[quote]An EMHC does not possess the right because the EMHC does not hear confessions and would be unqualified to determine if any person the "fitness" of the person receiving the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.[/quote]

Though a Deacon or Subdeacon or Acolyte (I shall not even include EMHCs in this since they are not even supposed to distribute Holy Communion except in emergencies where there is no priest), can not choose to deny a person Communion because of his secret sins, if the person trying to recieve Communion is a public sinner or the deacon, subdeacon or acolyte knows that the person trying to recieve Communion is excommunicated. As has been posted, the current Code Canon Law says:

[quote name='Code of Canon Law'] Can. 915 Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion. [/quote]

The right of the priest or deacon or subdeacon or acolyte distributing Holy Communion is definitly with the teaching of the Church found in the Catechism of the Council of Trent [quote name='Catechism of the Council of Trent'] We should, in the next place, carefully examine whether our consciences be defiled by mortal sin, which has to be repented of, in order that it may be blotted out before Communion by the remedy of contrition and confession. The Council of Trent has defined that no one conscious of mortal sin and having an opportunity of going to confession, however contrite he may deem himself, is to approach the Holy Eucharist until he has been purified by sacramental confession.[/quote]
It, by force, makes sure that no public sinner or excommunicated person may comitt a sacrilige against the Body of God.

On the subject of EMHCs, I find it interesting to note what the Sacred Catechism of the Holy and Oecumencal Council of Trent says:

[quote name='Catechism of the Council of Trent'] 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,107 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.108


THE LAITY PROHIBITED TO TOUCH THE SACRED VESSELS

To safeguard in every possible way the dignity of so august a Sacrament, not only is the power of its administration entrusted exclusively to priests, but the Church has also prohibited by law any but consecrated persons, unless some case of great necessity intervene, to dare handle or touch the sacred vessels, the linen, or other instruments necessary to its completion.

Priests themselves and the rest of the faithful may hence understand how great should be the piety and holiness of those who approach to consecrate, administer or receive the Eucharist. [/quote]

Edited January 9, 2007 by StThomasMore

[Lexi06]

I took EM training, and they said to give the Eucharist to everyone who approaches, unless it's obvious the person is too young. They said to leave it up to God. When I was in mortal sin, I took the Eucharist, even though I knew I wasn't supposed to. I did confess this. But I felt it gave me strength to find my way out of the sin. The priest did not dwell on the fact that I did this. I don't think Jesus is as hard to deal with as people believe. We have to do what we can to find our way out of sin. it is a sin to take the Eucharist with mortal sin, we have to confess it if we do.

[Resurrexi]

[quote]I took EM training, and they said to give the Eucharist to everyone who approaches, unless it's obvious the person is too young. They said to leave it up to God. When I was in mortal sin, I took the Eucharist, even though I knew I wasn't supposed to. I did confess this. But I felt it gave me strength to find my way out of the sin. The priest did not dwell on the fact that I did this. I don't think Jesus is as hard to deal with as people believe. We have to do what we can to find our way out of sin. it is a sin to take the Eucharist with mortal sin, we have to confess it if we do.[/quote]

You could not have taken Eucharistic Minister training, the only persons who are Eucharistic Ministers are priests.

[quote name='The Catechism of the Council of Trent']The priest is also one and the same, Christ the Lord; for the ministers who offer Sacrifice, consecrate the holy mysteries, not in their own person, but in that of Christ, as the words of consecration itself show, for the priest does not say: This is the body of Christ, but, This is my body; and thus, acting in the Person of Christ the Lord, he changes the substance of the bread and wine into the true substance of His body and blood. [/quote]

"They" (by they I mean whoever said to leave it up to God) are wrong. Does this have to be spelled out again. the Code of Canon Law says:

[quote name='The AD 1983 Code of Canon Law'] Can. 915 Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.[/quote]

Therefore, any person distributing the Body of God can deny it to a person who is excommunicated or in a state of public mortal sin.

The Eucharist, when recieved in a state of mortal sin, can not help you, but only harm you. As the Scripures say:

[quote name='1 Corinthians Ch. 11 Vs. 27-30']27 Therefore [b]whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord[/b]. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 [b]For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself[/b], not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.

27 "Or drink"... Here erroneous translators corrupted the text, by putting and drink (contrary to the original) instead of or drink.

27 "Guilty of the body"... not discerning the body. This demonstrates the real presence of the body and blood of Christ, even to the unworthy communicant; who otherwise could not be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, or justly condemned for not discerning the Lord's body.

28 "Drink of the chalice"... This is not said by way of command, but by way of allowance, viz., where and when it is agreeable to the practice and discipline of the church. [/quote]

Not only is it going make you eat judgement unto yourself, but it is a grave mortal sin, as says the Catechsim:

[quote name='The Catechsim of Pope St. Pius X']37 Q. Does he who goes to Communion in mortal sin receive Jesus Christ?
A. He who goes to Communion in mortal sin receives Jesus Christ but not His grace; moreover, he commits a sacrilege and renders himself deserving of sentence of damnation.[/quote]

You will not gain anything good from receiving in a state of mortal sin, and it will not keep you from sinning, but the opposite. I once read a story about a young man who wished to loose his faith who went to Voltaire. The man told Voltaire that he could not loose his faith becuase the Holy Euchairst kept drawing him back to his Catholic faith. So Voltaire instructed him to comitt as many mortal sins as possible then recieve Communion as many times as possible. So the man did this, and very soon he lost his faith completley.

The more sins you comitt the worse it is. Two wrongs do not make a right. Receiving Communion in a state of mortal sin is never good.

[Akalyte]

Thank God my parish has no EMHC's. I cant stand them either. Too many of them think its a backdoor to the Priesthood.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1161443' date='Jan 11 2007, 10:12 AM']The more sins you comitt the worse it is. Two wrongs do not make a right. Receiving Communion in a state of mortal sin is never good.[/quote]way to come down hard on Lexi06, but i'm pretty sure Lexi said that they confessed receiving in a state of mortal sin.

[quote name='Lexi06' post='1161340' date='Jan 11 2007, 07:32 AM'] I took EM training, and they said to give the Eucharist to everyone who approaches, unless it's obvious the person is too young. They said to leave it up to God. When I was in mortal sin, I took the Eucharist, even though I knew I wasn't supposed to. [b]I did confess this.[/b] But I felt it gave me strength to find my way out of the sin. The priest did not dwell on the fact that I did this. I don't think Jesus is as hard to deal with as people believe. We have to do what we can to find our way out of sin. [b]it is a sin to take the Eucharist with mortal sin, we have to confess it if we do.[/b][/quote]bolded emphasis mine.

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='phatcatholic' post='1159278' date='Jan 8 2007, 07:07 PM']
You're opening a can of worms with that question........
[/quote]


Never saw the can.


It is starting to bother me how certain posters (not just you More) feel like they can make fun of something the church has determined in a practice. The church is the shepherd you are the sheep. You are the child, they are the parent. Quit talking back. You sound like a bloody protestant.



/rant

[morostheos]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1161864' date='Jan 12 2007, 01:13 AM']
way to come down hard on Lexi06, but i'm pretty sure Lexi said that they confessed receiving in a state of mortal sin.

bolded emphasis mine.
[/quote]

In his defense, what St.ThomasMore said is true. The charity which I'm sure he says these things with just doesn't seem to come across, I agree. It is also very important not just to know something is wrong but to understand why it is wrong as well. I thought he did a pretty good job explaining it.

[Aloysius]

the Church herself has consistently tried to put the reins back on the idea of EMoHCs. the Church herself says that they must be used only in extra-ordinary cases when, without them, the wait would be far too unbearably long (and seriously, people should be able to wait 10-20 minutes... we should be talkin like if the wait would be 40 minutes at least then maybe add one or two EMoHCs to curb the time)

also, of course, lay men can be instituted as permanent deacons. and, of course, Pope Paul VI supressed the minor orders so that lay men could be instituted as Acolytes, a much more stable ministry with the authority to distribute Holy Communion. it has been a few decades and the bishops have refused to use this option and form a program for the formation of lay acolytes.

the prevelancy of EMoHCs is an abuse. under Church law and allowance, if it becomes necessary to use extra-ordinary ministers on a weekly (or daily for daily mass goers) basis, then the bishop ought to institute acolytes.

why won't the bishops do it? perhaps to be PC, because only men can be deacons and acolytes.

why should they do it? aside from the fact that the Church declares it preferable as a more stable ministry; an acolyte more fully represents an extension of the priest. it is the priest who ought to distribute communion, in keeping with the symbolism of Christ feeding His sheep; you are to be fed by Christ, or by one who is acting in Persona Christi, or, if that is not possible, by one who is an extension of the one acting in persona Christi.

the problem with EMoHCs is that they are an extension of the laity, brought up in order that the laity might feed themselves. in extreme emergency extra-ordinary situations this is allowable by the Church because, in an extra-ordinary situation sometimes we must abandon symbolism and just get the absolute necessity of the distribution of the sacrament.

it is not supposed to be ordinary. there are many ways to establish more ordinary means; first with deacons then with acolytes. such people are instituted by the bishop and able to act and dress as extensions of the priest in distributing communion.

EMoHCs are not to be made ordinary, not to be used on a weekly basis witha schedule, nor dress like the clergy in any way. On those rare occasions when they are used, it is to be clear that they are extensions of the laity, there only for an extra-ordinary situation.

this isn't talk-back to the magisterium, this is what the highest levels of the magisterium have been saying for years. but because of the collegiality of the bishops, Rome does not directly intervene and command the bishops to step in line. nonetheless, this is what Church law says ought to be done: if a state persists in which EMoHCs are absolutely necessary, more deacons and acolytes ought to be installed.