Communion from a Lay Person

[MikeK]

I'm not ok with it. Priests or deacons should be the stewards of the Eucharist bringing it to the faithful. Clergy. Period. In the early Church that was something deacons did as well as priests, but not lay folks.

Neat, I was just wondering what people who aren't members of Christ's One True Church thought of its practices. How helpful.

 

[catholicbybirth]

What do you think of receiving communion from a lay person. The RC church up the street has a lay person making house calls to offer communion. He says he was authorized by the church to do this.

I gave communion to my mother when she was dying. It took her months to die. A lay person gave my son communion when he was in the hospital with a broken femur.

I have no problem with lay people giving communion to people who are not able to come to Mass.

As long as the lay person does not do the whole consecrating bit, then there is nothing wrong with it.

Janice

 

[AMDG]

Beat me to it. Plus Priest and Bishops don't call. Lay people volunteer, and if there is a need, assignments are made. And most are permanent. And Level 2 EMHC is required to take Communion to the sick, home bound.

Not every place. The program is actually ALWAYS under the Bishop/Priest. (When it is not, there have been questions of abuse as they were in RS--RS questioned whether there was REALLY a shortage or a manufactured one if laymen are simply assigned as if the Mass couldn't go on without them.)

Around here (where we have an extreme shortage of priests) the Ministry is around three years in duration--but can be continued if no one else is found to serve. Yes, some volunteer, but others (including myself--and I have the documents from two separate parishes, one military and one civilian, that acknowledge being in the ministry which is under the Bishop) were personally asked by the priest to serve in the program and sometimes just for a particular Mass. I am no longer a Eucharistic Minister. After the document about the non-collaboration with the ordained priesthood came out in 1997 and really noticed that sometimes there was no reason to ALWAYS have six or seven people administer the Eucharist NO MATTER HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE PRESENT, I retired from the official ministry (besides I figured my 16 years of the privilege was enough and someone else should be given the opportunity.)

We don't have "levels" of being a Eucharist Minister that brings Communion to the homebound. As I understand it, ALL EMs could be expected to be of service to the Homebound.

My parish also had a special program known as Stephen's Ministry that also served the homebound in varied ways that even the EMs that brought the Eucharist to the homebound were not doing. Those who were Stephen's Ministers were not necessarily Eucharist Ministers and had special training. They worked directly under the priest. The Stephen's Ministers were assigned people to visit, to send cards to, to remain in contact with, to make certain that the records of the Sacraments were kept, were called as a group to attend the funerals of the most forgotten members of the parish, and were only allowed to offer the Eucharist to the homebound if they also happened to be Eucharist Ministers. The Program doesn't exist anymore, and I guess it was left to the Eucharistic Ministers to take it's place.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

There's a definite difference in training for EMHCs at Mass and those who travel.

 

[Michie]

Beat me to it. Plus Priest and Bishops don't call. Lay people volunteer, and if there is a need, assignments are made. And most are permanent. And Level 2 EMHC is required to take Communion to the sick, home bound.

I was asked by my priest. And I'm pretty good at it from what I hear.

 

[Tallguy88]

Neat, I was just wondering what people who aren't members of Christ's One True Church thought of its practices. How helpful.

All who have been validly Baptized are members of Christ's One True Church. Additionally, Gurney's Church has a true Eucharist. As such, his (and their) opinion on Eucharistic practices are valuable. Nevermind the fact that in the Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with Rome also forbid anyone but the Ordained from handling the Eucharist, in accordance with the same ancient traditions of the Orthodox and, until recently, the Roman Church.

 

[MikeK]

All that have been validly baptized are Christian, but not all Christians are members of Christ's one true Church.

Christ founded but one Church, and He founded it on Peter, the rock, the first Pope, who's throne is occupied today by Peter's successor as appointed by the Holy Spirit, Pope Francis. Good Pope Boniface VIII explained rather plainly that the Orthodox are not Christ's sheep. It probably isn't their fault that they've been duped, and it seems quite likely that many of them will obtain salvation through the Catholic Church (Christ's Church). That they have a valid Eucharist is a sign of the Lord's mercy for their poor souls. That they share some practices with Eastern Catholics who are not apostates means little.

No non-Catholic should be opining negatively about The Catholic Church in OBOB, and those that do show their character.

 

[Second Phoenix]

All who have been validly Baptized are members of Christ's One True Church.

Are members of the CATHOLIC CHURCH, albeit impartially because they profess errors.

Additionally, Gurney's Church has a true Eucharist. As such, his (and their) opinion on Eucharistic practices are valuable. Nevermind the fact that in the Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with Rome also forbid anyone but the Ordained from handling the Eucharist, in accordance with the same ancient traditions of the Orthodox and, until recently, the Roman Church.

Wrong, those are not ancient traditions. Eucharistic ministers are going back to the ancient practice of bringing communion.

 

[Tallguy88]

All that have been validly baptized are Christian, but not all Christians are members of Christ's one true Church.

You might read up on the Church's theology of Baptism. All who have been validly baptized ARE members of the Catholic Church, even if imperfectly. Otherwise, their Baptism would be meaningless, like that of LDS.

Christ founded but one Church, and He founded it on Peter, the rock, the first Pope, who's throne is occupied today by Peter's successor as appointed by the Holy Spirit, Pope Francis. Good Pope Boniface VIII explained rather plainly that the Orthodox are not Christ's sheep.

Not sure what Boniface said, but there have been plenty of ecumenically positive statements about the Orthodox Church from the Roman Church and the Popes in the last century. I'll defer to them. Ever hear of the Two Lungs of the Church?

It probably isn't their fault that they've been duped, and it seems quite likely that many of them will obtain salvation through the Catholic Church (Christ's Church). That they have a valid Eucharist is a sign of the Lord's mercy for their poor souls. That they share some practices with Eastern Catholics who are not apostates means little.

It means quite a bit, actually. Gurney's statement in this thread is the official teaching of the Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with the Pope. To simply dismiss that as heretic blathering is to dismiss a valid and equal tradition within the Church. It's tantamount to saying Latin traditions are superior to Eastern traditions.

No non-Catholic should be opining negatively about The Catholic Church in OBOB, an those that do show their character.

Earlier today you stood up for an Anglican who basically did the same thing.

 

[Tallguy88]

Are members of the CATHOLIC CHURCH, albeit impartially because they profess errors.

Which is what I said with less nuance.

Wrong, those are not ancient traditions. Eucharistic ministers are going back to the ancient practice of bringing communion.

If the traditions have been around for 1500 or so years, it's not incorrect to call them "ancient traditions". I didn't call them "original traditions" and if you'll reread the thread, you'll see I already mentioned the practice of the persecuted church bringing communion home.

 

[Michie]

You might read up on the Church's theology of Baptism. All who have been validly baptized ARE members of the Catholic Church, even if imperfectly. Otherwise, their Baptism would be meaningless, like that of LDS.



Not sure what Boniface said, but there have been plenty of ecumenically positive statements about the Orthodox Church from the Roman Church and the Popes in the last century. I'll defer to them. Ever hear of the Two Lungs of the Church?



It means quite a bit, actually. Gurney's statement in this thread is the official teaching of the Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with the Pope. To simply dismiss that as heretic blathering is to dismiss a valid and equal tradition within the Church. It's tantamount to saying Latin traditions are superior to Eastern traditions.



Earlier today you stood up for an Anglican who basically did the same thing.

.

 

[Second Phoenix]

Which is what I said with less nuance.

When speaking of truth it is important to be precise, not politically correct.

If the traditions have been around for 1500 or so years, it's not incorrect to call them "ancient traditions". I didn't call them "original traditions" and if you'll reread the thread, you'll see I already mentioned the practice of the persecuted church bringing communion home.

They are original traditions. EMHCs are a revival of an ancient practice.

 

[Tallguy88]

When speaking of truth it is important to be precise, not politically correct.

I wasn't being politically correct. I was having a debate with my friend.

They are original traditions. EMHCs are a revival of an ancient practice.

Which in no way contradicts my statement of the Eastern practice being an "ancient tradition".

 

[ebia]

I've read that back during the church of the Roman persecutions, Christians who made it to Mass would take some of the consecrated bread home for their family who couldn't make it to Mass. Being caught with it by the Romans was an automatic death sentence.

According to Dom Gregory Dix it was at one time common to take a tiny part of the Sunday communion bread home to communion from during the week, IIRC.

 

[MikeK]

Earlier today you stood up for an Anglican who basically did the same thing.

Unless I missed it (and I may have, it was a long thread) that Anglican stopped short of saying that she didn't like the teaching of Christ's one true Church and in fact gave the teaching of the Catholic Church without undue editorialization. PM me the part you found untrue or uncharitable to Catholics and if I agree I'll call her out on it.

As far as Pope Boniface VII, and as far as two lungs go - there may be two lungs, but:

"Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster." - Unam Sanctum

The same bull closes with "we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Unam Sanctam

 

[Tallguy88]

Unless I missed it (and I may have, it was a long thread) that Anglican stopped short of saying that she didn't like the teaching of Christ's one true Church and in fact gave the teaching of the Catholic Church without undue editorialization. PM me the part you found untrue or uncharitable to Catholics and if I agree I'll call her out on it.

As far as Pope Boniface VII, and as far as two lungs go - there may be two lungs, but:

"Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster." - Unam Sanctum

The same bull closes with "we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Unam Sanctam

Ah. Unam Sanctam. Like I said, I'll trust the statements and teachings of this century more than ones from the thirteenth century. More refined and with better understanding of the overall situation.

 

[MikeK]

Ah. Unam Sanctam. Like I said, I'll trust the statements and teachings of this century more than ones from the thirteenth century. More refined and with better understanding of the overall situation.

I'm torn on that. While schollars today have far greater access to early Church history than Popes in the 1300s did, those Popes were 700 years closer to Christ and they were witnessing apostasy up close and in real time.

 

[Tallguy88]

I'm torn on that. While schollars today have far greater access to early Church history than Popes in the 1300s did, those Popes were 700 years closer to Christ and they were witnessing apostasy up close and in real time.

The immediate causes of the schism were bull-headedness, arrogance, and theological misunderstanding. Both sides were to blame. Cardinal Humbert was a terrible choice for a legate and Patriarch Michael chose to antagonize him. Both sides left feeling that the differences were greater than they really were and that the other side was inventing heresies.

Now, we have begun to dialogue with each other. We can speak each others language (which was not the case in the Eleventh Century). We read each others theologians. We see that there are in fact only a handful of issues that truly separate us. The absolute biggest obstacle is the claim
of Papal Supremacy and Universal Jurisdiction. Infallibility is also a big deal, but less so than the above two.

But just being able to speak to each other in words we can both understand is a huge improvement over the time of the schism or of Unam Sanctam. That's why I'm going to go with the more recent statements over the older ones.

I don't believe reunion is anywhere nearby, but there is no harm in increasing our mutual understanding and figuring out where the real differences and agreements lie.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I'm torn on that. While schollars today have far greater access to early Church history than Popes in the 1300s did, those Popes were 700 years closer to Christ and they were witnessing apostasy up close and in real time.

Closer to Christ ?




Time frame doesn't make a person closer to Christ, but whether they follow Jesus who is present in their lives.

The corrupt Popes of the past who led armies into wars and used excommunication as a weapon against political adversaries, was hardly Christ like.

Jim

 

[Michie]

Closer to Christ ?




Time frame doesn't make a person closer to Christ, but whether they follow Jesus who is present in their lives.

The corrupt Popes of the past who led armies into wars and used excommunication as a weapon against political adversaries, was hardly Christ like.

Jim

Exactly.

God is outside time.

Timeframes do not have much to do with it imo.