Why I got angry at Mass on Sunday (Transfiguration)

[FrChris]

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:

http://www.doy.org/guidelines_ministers.asp

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.

[ialmisry]

I am told that is is only "good for one hour" after that - it is nothing.
Who came up with this?
random time?
URrrgh...
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.

[username!]

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.

JoeS

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]

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.

[JoeS]

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?

[Schultz]

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.

[Ebor]

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.)

Ebor

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Liturgy > Western Rite Discussion (Moderator: arimethea) > Topic: Why I got angry at Mass on Sunday (Transfiguration)