January 29, 2015, 02:45:24 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Down
Author Topic: Why I got angry at Mass on Sunday (Transfiguration)  (Read 9357 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252

Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!

« Reply #45 on: August 25, 2006, 10:37:07 PM »

This was and still is aloud!!! Special Eucharistic ministers are trained to take the Eucharist home to the sick. But that is their job and they know what they are doing. Priest also take the Eucharist to the sick and dying.

I think the point of the OP was that the poster observed the Extraordinary Ministers not being reverent enough to suit her. Th efollowing is the policy for EM's promulgated by the Diocese of Youngstown:


The minister who distributes the body of Christ to the people should make eye contact with the communicant and hold the eucharistic bread briefly before the communicant. As states in the "General Instruction of the Roman Missal," the appropriate exchange between the minister and the communicant is "The body of Christ" and "Amen." These words are not to be adapted. The minister then places the eucharistic bread in the communicant's hand or on his or her tongue depending upon the preference of the communicant.
The minister of the cup should make eye contact with the communicant and present the cup. As stated in the "General Instruction of the Roman Missal," the appropriate exchange between the minister and the communicant is "The blood of Christ" and "Amen." These words are not to be adapted. Except for a good reason (a parent holding a child, a person who does not have full use of hands), the minister does not attempt to guide the cup but places it entirely into the hands of the communicant. After the communicant has received, the minister takes the cup, wipes both sides of the rim with the purificator, turns the cup slightly and addresses the next communicant.

From the OP it seems that perhaps the EM did not properly greet the communicant.

As the guidelines point out, if anyone was to take the eucharist to the sick, it should be placed in a pyx (the guidelines even give helpful hints on where to find one!):

Communion should be taken to the sick in an appropriate sacred vessel. A worthy, yet inexpensive, pyx can be purchased at a religious goods store.

So, yes, EMs can take the eucharist to RCs, as well as priests. However the original post was describing something that Dismus felt was irreverence when distributing the eucharist within the church setting.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2006, 10:38:24 PM by chris » Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,348

« Reply #46 on: November 12, 2007, 10:31:28 AM »

I am told that is is only "good for one hour" after that - it is nothing.
Who came up with this?
random time?
Thank you for the response, but now I am only MORE angry!

(*&*&^(& that would put Jesus at risk like this!!!

One hour?  That can only be a reference to the time for digestion.  Not if He is carried.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2007, 10:31:53 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Section Moderator
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,081

« Reply #47 on: November 12, 2007, 05:43:45 PM »

Why not dispense the Eucharist like the Middle East Catholics do, by intinctur.  Each host is dipped into wine and placed on the tongue of those receiving.  There is very little chance of someone trying to remove a wetted host once in the mouth.  I see this as a very safe way of receiving.


In many Roman Catholic dioceses this is prohibited.  In the RC diocese where I live I know for a fact that the Bishop banned intinction years ago. 

Reader KevinAndrew
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Western Rite
Posts: 138

« Reply #48 on: November 12, 2007, 08:49:02 PM »

In many Roman Catholic dioceses this is prohibited.  In the RC diocese where I live I know for a fact that the Bishop banned intinction years ago. 

I go to a Western rite parish and intinction is how we recieve. The priest will give communion from the consecrated wine to infants with a spoon. Pieces of consecrated bread are already in the chalice from the fraction, so the child recieves both spieces when he get communion this way.
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122

Global Warming Enthusiast.

« Reply #49 on: November 13, 2007, 04:26:05 PM »

In many Roman Catholic dioceses this is prohibited.  In the RC diocese where I live I know for a fact that the Bishop banned intinction years ago. 

How does one ban the Body with the Blood at Communion.  Doesnt this sound wrong somehow?  If this is the norm why does the priest need the wine on the altar at all?
Christian. Guitarist. Scooterist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,520

Scion of the McKeesport Becks.

« Reply #50 on: November 13, 2007, 04:37:03 PM »

It's not necessarily the banning of the Blood from communion, but the process of intinction.  In most RC churches nowadays, the Blood is communed via the chalice after one receives the Body.

Prior to the V2 reforms, the chalice was withheld from the faithful during communion time due to the perceived danger of spilling the Blood.  While it sounds ridiculous to us who partake of the Holy Mysteries via the Holy Spoon, there had to have been a compelling reason some point in the past for such a restriction to have been placed.

Theologically, the Latins justify the apparent separation of the Body and Blood with the idea that after the consecration, both the Body and the Blood are fully Christ.  Mystically speaking, the Body cannot be without the Blood and vice versa, so it is only necessary for the faithful to commune via the Body in order to receive Christ.


"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,478

« Reply #51 on: November 13, 2007, 05:02:03 PM »

I have a theory that another possible reason for the laity not receiving the Blood was that with the advent of the Little Ice Age wine was not produced locally in northern areas and had to be imported so there was less of that then bread.  (there are records of wine being produced in England as far up as Shrewsbury iirc, and there were grapes grown in the southern areas before the climate got colder.)


"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Up
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.053 seconds with 34 queries.