Communion from a Lay Person

gurneyhalleck1 said:

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.

Click to expand...

This

So if there's a shortage of clergy, you're just fine with the home bound never receiving Communion. How nice.

AvilaSurfer said:

So if there's a shortage of clergy, you're just fine with the home bound never receiving Communion. How nice.

Click to expand...

We might as well ask the lay to celebrate Mass and hear confessions since the lack of clergy is the excuse.

RomanRite said:

We might as well ask the lay to celebrate Mass and hear confessions since the lack of clergy is the excuse.

Click to expand...

That's just not true.

RomanRite said:

We might as well ask the lay to celebrate Mass and hear confessions since the lack of clergy is the excuse.

Click to expand...

Shame on you for saying something so...so..well, unspeakable in this forum. You are free to have a preference for the clergy distributing the Eucharist. You are not free to deny Church history and state the demonstrable falsehood that allowing for EMHCs is somehow akin to asking laypeople to administer the Sacrament of Penance or celebrate the Mass. You know better. Do better.

AvilaSurfer said:

So if there's a shortage of clergy, you're just fine with the home bound never receiving Communion. How nice.

Click to expand...

There's room for all sorts in the cafeteria.

RomanRite said:

We might as well ask the lay to celebrate Mass and hear confessions since the lack of clergy is the excuse.

Click to expand...

To equate saying Mass, or hearing confessions to carrying a consecrated Host, under the supervision of a priest, to a sick person, is just, well, ludicrous.

By the way, anyone can hear a confession. In fact it's kind of a joke among newly ordained deacons.

MikeK said:

Shame on you for saying something so...so..well, unspeakable in this forum. You are free to have a preference for the clergy distributing the Eucharist. You are not free to deny Church history and state the demonstrable falsehood that allowing for EMHCs is somehow akin to asking laypeople to administer the Sacrament of Penance or celebrate the Mass. You know better. Do better.

Click to expand...

If you have not noticed it was sarcasm, I in no way shape or form support such liberalism, neither do I as a Catholic support "EMHC" which I find to be a plain split from Roman Catholic tradition. I could not picture any Pre-V2 Popes ever accepting such a modernist practice, this is as bad as altar girls but "who am I to judge?"

RomanRite said:

If you have not noticed it was sarcasm, I in no way shape or form support such liberalism, neither do I as a Catholic support "EMHC" which I find to be a plain split from Roman Catholic tradition. I could not picture any Pre-V2 Popes ever accepting such a modernist practice, this is as bad as altar girls but "who am I to judge?"

Click to expand...

Good advice.

AvilaSurfer said:

To equate saying Mass, or hearing confessions to carrying a consecrated Host, under the supervision of a priest, to a sick person, is just, well, ludicrous.

By the way, anyone can hear a confession. In fact it's kind of a joke among newly ordained deacons.

Click to expand...

I hope your joking on "anybody can hear confessions" because that would be very heretical and a huge contradiction to the faith. I suggest reading John 20:21-23

Back to the topic now, lets see what Saint Thomas Aquinas has to say

"The dispensing of Christ's Body belongs to the priest for three reasons. First, because he consecrates in the person of Christ. But as Christ consecrated His Body at the Supper, so also He gave It to others to be partaken of by them.
Accordingly, as the consecration of Christ's Body belongs to the priest, so likewise does the dispensing belong to him. Secondly, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people, hence as it belongs to him to offer the people's gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver the consecrated gifts to the people. Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this Sacrament, nothing touches It but what is consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands for touching this Sacrament. Hence, it is not lawful for anyone else to touch It, except from necessity, for instance, if It were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency."

AvilaSurfer said:

To equate saying Mass, or hearing confessions to carrying a consecrated Host, under the supervision of a priest, to a sick person, is just, well, ludicrous.

By the way, anyone can hear a confession. In fact it's kind of a joke among newly ordained deacons.

Click to expand...

I think he was trying to point out the ridiculous nature of the excuse of "well we should be allowed to do it because there is a priest shortage".

As far as hearing a confession, you are right in that anyone can hear one. Happens all the time in psychiatrist/psychologist's offices, to doctors, to bar tenders, in locker rooms, on TV (Dr. Phil and some of the other weird shows where people "air their dirty laundry" to the television audience) and just about any time people start to gossip with each other. The difference? In the Sacrament of Confession there aren't "brags"--the person accuses himself and asks for forgiveness...to God in the person of the priest. He also receives it and the grace to at least help the person not to sin again.

AMDG said:

I think he was trying to point out the ridiculous nature of the excuse of "well we should be allowed to do it because there is a priest shortage".

As far as hearing a confession, you are right in that anyone can hear one. Happens all the time in psychiatrist/psychologist's offices, to doctors, to bar tenders, in locker rooms, on TV (Dr. Phil and some of the other weird shows where people "air their dirty laundry" to the television audience) and just about any time people start to gossip with each other. The difference? In the Sacrament of Confession there aren't "brags"--the person accuses himself and asks for forgiveness...to God in the person of the priest. He also receives it and the grace to at least help the person not to sin again.

Click to expand...

This is correct!

Geez why so serious? Like I said, it's a common joke among newly ordained deacons. "Sure I can hear your confession. I just can't give you absolution." Heretical......sheesh.

Isn't the alternate to the Sacrament of Confession with a priest, confessing to the entire congregation? I think that'd take some huge balls to do...

WisdomTree said:

Isn't the alternate to the Sacrament of Confession with a priest, confessing to the entire congregation? I think that'd take some huge balls to do...

Click to expand...

Actually people do it all the time only they don't call it "Confession" and they aren't very humble. They brag about their antics in locker rooms or to their friends and neighbors, and they tell their deepest darkest secrets to psychologists/psychiatrists and sometimes to those awful shows like "Dr. Phil", those court television show like "Judge Judy", or "Divorce Court", and I even briefly saw one where couples would fight in front of an audience and the audience got to vote on fought best!

AMDG said:

Actually people do it all the time only they don't call it "Confession" and they aren't very humble. They brag about their antics in locker rooms or to their friends and neighbors, and they tell their deepest darkest secrets to psychologists/psychiatrists and sometimes to those awful shows like "Dr. Phil", those court television show like "Judge Judy", or "Divorce Court", and I even briefly saw one where couples would fight in front of an audience and the audience got to vote on fought best!

Click to expand...

Are they asking for forgiveness? What I'm saying is that it was ancient practice to confess and ask for forgiveness to and from the whole congregation since when we sin against God, we also inadvertedly sin against our brothers and sisters.

Andrew B. said:

Thinking about this more, I read somewhere that a lay person can offer extreme unction to a dying person if a priest is not available. So it would make sense that a lay person can offer communion when a priest is not available. I guess I'd just prefer a priest, because they give me good spiritual guidance.

Click to expand...

Extreme Unction also called Last Rites, which is officially called Annointing of the Sick, can only be done by a priest. This is because it usually involves Confession, which only a priest can administer.

Even Deacons can not give last rights.

A lay person, with permission can bring Holy Communion to a person, but without the priest who consecrated the Host at Mass, it's not possible.


Jim

WisdomTree said:

Isn't the alternate to the Sacrament of Confession with a priest, confessing to the entire congregation? I think that'd take some huge balls to do...

Click to expand...

In the early Church when this was only way allowed for Confession, in fact, private confessions were prohibited by the Pope. However, there were only certain sins which a person would have to stand up before the congregation and confess. Adultery, theft and apostasy or also known as rejection of faith which was common by Christians who were being persecuted.

The reason for this is that sin harms the body of Christ, which is the Church.

When we sin, we cause harm to the Church, whether we understand it or not. We harm it by those who witness our sinning who know we are also practicing Catholics, and we also harm the Church on the spiritual level because the evil one knows we have sin and uses it against Christ to discredit his saving act.



Jim