Loading ...
Since it’s Thursday, and so in honor of the Blessed Sacrament, and because during my time of late at Anabel Taylor Hall, I’ve noticed how so-called “Communion Services”, always led by a woman, are wont to take the place of the daily Mass when both of the chaplains are otherwise engaged, I thought that I would repost some material which I stumbled across in the Summa back in Fall of 2005. Incidentally, why both Fr. Daniel McMullin and Fr. Robert Smith should both be unable to say the daily Mass, which would appear to be their only pressing duty each day, is beyond me.
Whether dispensing of the Blessed Sacrament belongs to a priest alone?
Objection 1. It seems that the dispensing of this sacrament does not belong to a priest alone. For Christ’s blood belongs to this sacrament no less than His body. But Christ’s blood is dispensed by deacons: hence the blessed Lawrence said to the blessed Sixtus: “Try whether you have chosen a fit minister, to whom you have entrusted the dispensing of the Lord’s blood.” Therefore, with equal reason the dispensing of Christ’s body does not belong to priests only.
Objection 2. Further, priests are the appointed ministers of the sacraments. But this sacrament is completed in the consecration of the matter, and not in the use, to which the dispensing belongs. Therefore it seems that it does not belong to a priest to dispense the Lord’s body.
Objection 3. Further, Dionysius says that this sacrament, like chrism, has the power of perfecting. But it belongs, not to priests, but to bishops, to sign with the chrism. Therefore likewise, to dispense this sacrament belongs to the bishop and not to the priest.
On the contrary, It is written: “It has come to our knowledge that some priests deliver the Lord’s body to a layman or to a woman to carry it to the sick. The synod therefore forbids such presumption to continue; and let the priest himself communicate the sick.”
I answer that, The dispensing of Christ’s body belongs to the priest for three reasons.
First, because . . . he consecrates as 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 consecrated gifts to the people.
Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are 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.
Reply to Objection 1. The deacon, as being nigh to the priestly order, has a certain share in the latter’s duties, so that he may dispense the blood; but not the body, except in case of necessity, at the bidding of a bishop or of a priest. First of all, because Christ’s blood is contained in a vessel, hence there is no need for it to be touched by the dispenser, as Christ’s body is touched. Secondly, because the blood denotes the redemption derived by the people from Christ; hence it is that water is mixed with the blood, which water denotes the people. And because deacons are between priest and people, the dispensing of the blood is in the competency of deacons, rather than the dispensing of the body.
Reply to Objection 2. For the reason given above, it belongs to the same person to dispense and to consecrate this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 3. As the deacon, in a measure, shares in the priest’s “power of enlightening”, inasmuch as he dispenses the blood, so the priest shares in the “perfective dispensing” of the bishop, inasmuch as he dispenses this sacrament whereby man is perfected in himself by union with Christ. But other perfections whereby a man is perfected in relation to others, are reserved to the bishop.
Now isn’t this material most interesting? I had never read that article before and it only adds to my indignation at the Novus Ordo regime. I’d like to think that if more people knew about this sort of thing, they would begin to question the use of extra-ordinary ministers of the Eucharist.
Since I’m already speaking here about the reverence due the Blessed Sacrament, this seems a good place to relate some more details from the biography of the Cure d’Ars.
These passages are taken from the chapter about an average day in his life, days which began around 1AM, when he rose to hear confessions, and ended when he retired to his bedroom around 8 or 9PM where, very often unable to sleep, he would gaze at the “pictures on his wall”, pictures of the saints. These depictions, he said, seemed to mock him: “What are you doing lying abed? During our lives, we watched and prayed during the nights.” (Yeah, this guy was not in the ordinary run of men.) I quote:
“He never deemed the vestments too magnificent. He would have wished the chalice to be of solid gold, because ‘even the best that he had did not seem worthy to contain the blood of Jesus Christ.’ . . . .
“As he stood at the altar [saying Mass, many] feelings came crowding in upon him, and, strangely enough, they were not unmixed with fear and even temptations to despair. One morning the thought of hell so harassed him with a fear of losing God forever that he groaned within himself: ‘At least leave me the Blessed Virgin!’
“One Christmas, during the midnight Mass, a fairly long hymn was sung after the consecration. According to the rubrics of the rite of Lyons, M. le Cure, who was celebrant, had, at a certain moment after the consecration, to hold the sacred Host over the chalice until the Pater Noster. ‘I saw him look at the Host now with tears, now all smiles,’ says Frere Athanase. ‘He seemed to speak to it; then the tears began again, to be followed by yet more smiles. On our return to the sacristy after Mass, we apologized for having kept him waiting. “Oh, I did not find the time long,” was his reply.
“‘But, Monsieur le Cure, what were you doing whilst you held the sacred Host? You seemed to be greatly moved.’
“‘So I was. A curious idea came into my head. I said to our Lord: ‘If I knew that I should have the misfortune to be deprived of seeing you throughout all eternity, now that I hold you in my hand, I should never let you go.’”
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
Not all Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion perform their duties at Mass.
Many bring it to perhaps one person who cannot make it to the Church. Many bring it to nursing homes where a number of patients need to be visited.
And many, like me, have a volunteer ministry at a large hospital where twice a week I spend six-seven hours each day visiting patients in their room, praying with them and giving them Holy Communion if they desire it and I deem that they can physically consume the host.
There are other Catholic volunteers who also are Extraordinary Ministers there, most of them with lesser time commitments than I have made. We can bring Communion to the patients seven days a week.
There is a full time Catholic priest chaplain at the hospital and he also visits patients, some of whom are in hospice care, some in intensive care, many in long term care, some in psychiatric care and other conditions seen in large hospitals. He is available for Anointing of the Sick and Confessions upon request. He says Mass that is open to the public and televised to the rooms for patients to view at noon. And he has administrative duties over other chaplains and volunteers of other faiths. A volunteer retired priest says an early morning Mass that is televised also.
And of course he needs to find a replacement for himself when he is unable to be present for Mass or the Sacraments.
You do have me thinking about my unconsecrated hands and how I handle the Body and Blood of Our Lord.
“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.”
Ah, and therein lies the rub — “necessity,” “urgency.” At least one synod called it presumption for a priest to delegate to a layperson or woman the task of administering Holy Communion to the sick. But that synod is unnamed and, in any case, its decrees (if not the rationale for them) have been superseded by the current Church discipline on this particular issue.
Of course, St. Thomas is right — only priests with their consecrated hands have a right to administer the Sacrament. But today, due to lack of priests and disinterest, one really could argue that there is some “necessity” or “urgency” to finding more people for the job. However, “extraordinary ministers” needn’t be the solution. You would think that the Church could at least create a “minor order” for the role of distributing Holy Communion. By taking this minor order, these folks would be in some sense “ordinary” ministers of the Sacrament in the absence of a priest. They would also be “clergy” in some sense, analogous to the status of permanent deacons (who’d also do for distributing the Sacrament). In order (hah!) to keep this ministry somehow united to the priesthood, it could be restricted to men (as the original minor orders were) and made mandatory as a step toward the diaconate (ditto above). Also, there could be a restriction on the age of the applicants and the numbers permitted per parish. This would prevent, among other abuses, every 18-year-old applicant at college chaplaincies from being made an extraordinary minister upon request.
Additionally, it stands to reason that a similar rule for “extraordinary” ministers should apply as does for altar servers. If you can’t have a priest perform the job, you should have someone who could become a priest, i.e. a man.
“You would think that the Church could at least create a “minor order” for the role of distributing Holy Communion. By taking this minor order, these folks would be in some sense “ordinary” ministers of the Sacrament in the absence of a priest. They would also be “clergy” in some sense, analogous to the status of permanent deacons (who’d also do for distributing the Sacrament). In order (hah!) to keep this ministry somehow united to the priesthood, it could be restricted to men (as the original minor orders were) and made mandatory as a step toward the diaconate (ditto above).”
The Church has done just that… (and perhaps you knew that and were being ironic.)
Institution in the ministry of Acolyte is a required step to the priesthood and the diaconate, it is reserved to men and they are delegated on a special but more permanent basis to distribute Communion when neccesary.
See Ministeria quaedam:
“The acolyte is appointed in order to aid the deacon and to minister to the priest. It is his duty therefore to attend to the service of the altar and to assist the deacon and the priest in liturgical celebrations, especially in the celebration of Mass; he is also to distribute communion as a special minister when the ministers spoken of in the Codex Iuris Canonici can. 845 are not available or are prevented by ill health, age, or another pastoral ministry from performing this function, or when the number of communicants is so great that the celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged.”
They’re not clergy, however, I think for one reason that the clerical state is historically linked to the right of support from the Church (and prohibition on engaging in trade), which these lay ministers are specifically excluded from in the motu proprio. Presumably now the Pope could change this, for, with the restoration of the permanent diaconate clerics (deacons) commonly do engage in trade, and derive their income mostly from that, and Lectors and Acolytes could be placed on a similar footing, at least those that are engaged in extensive pastoral ministry beyond just showing up to read on sundays. See Canon 281.
Thanks for that info! Yes, I was aware that the Church still had official Acolytes, but I was not entirely certain what their assigned role was. I did have them in mind as a substitution for straight-up extraordinary Eucharistic ministers.
The matter of where such people would fall on the clergy/laity divide would still need find-tuning, I concede. But at least Acolytes and Lectors of this variety would have an “order” to do what they do.
Btw, many traditionalists in the past have objected to the permanent diaconate. Well, one big objection — that it would lead to a married priesthood — does not seem to have materialized. In Novus Ordo parishes, the deacon sometimes is the voice of reason. Maybe this is because he has a real job and so hasn’t become totally addicted to the type of flattery and casual deceit that many people direct at priests? Or perhaps it’s because he tends to be married and unambigously heterosexual? Or is it the fact that the deacons have generally formed their spirituality without the dubious “benefit” of seminary training? Perhaps the biggest change in my life was the result of a homily delivered by a permanent deacon during a parish retreat; I never heard our priest talk that way.
Look, though some wild case could hypothetically be crafted in which urgent need and necessity coincided with the distribution of the Blessed Sacrament by laymen in a hospital, I’m of the opinion that in no way does the ordinary situation at hospitals or whatever justify the touching of the Sacrament by a laymen (let alone by a mere woman).
Why? because there just can’t be that many people in need of Communion. Does it constitute an emergency if a person cannot receive Communion every day or even every week? Call me a Jansenist (and I am), but the reception of Holy Communion on a daily or weekly basis is a privilege, not a right.
How many of these people who are receiving Communion even on a weekly basis are having their confessions heard? That’s where the real emergency is, the real urgent need and necessity: there need to be more priests hearing confessions. Again, call me a Jansenist, but once upon a time, there was this not so Jansenistic guy by the name of St. Philip Neri who told his Oratorians to confess at least as often as they planned to receive the Sacrament.
Here’s a case of urgent need and necessity, though: you find out from the television that the hospital is going to be crushed by a meteor in exactly 15 minutes time. There’s no chance of getting everyone out, so the more feeble patients decide to make their peace with God, and every able bodied man (who has recently confessed and hopes to die in the service of God) makes a rush on the tabernacle to carry the the Lord’s Body to as many of the Catholic patients as he can before the building is in smithereens. Now that is an extraordinary minister of the Eucharist!
As a Catholic priest, I can assure you that it is the opinion of about twenty brother priest friends and myself that there is nothing more destructive to the priesthood than so-called “extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist.” To understand our thinking, I would recommend you read Father James McLucas’ essay, “The Emasculation of the Priesthood” which can be found online.
Blessings to all of you.
Iosephe, you are correct: there is no “right” to receive the Eucharist on a daily or weekly basis. But please don’t say you’re a Jansenist even in jest.
My FSSP pastor advised me yesterday that one of the dangers of Eucharistic Ministers bringing Holy Communion to the elderly or the sick is the question of worthy reception; that is, is it proper to offer the Eucharist to persons who have not had the opportunity to have their confession heard by a priest, and if the person has not, and receives Communion, isn’t their sin compounded.
I’m still here and am following the discussion closely. I am a man, by the way.
But we do have women volunteers who are religious sisters and who serve as Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.
I’m going to download “The Emasculation of the Priesthood” immediately.
Iosephus–
St. Philip did advocate going to confession at least as often as one received the Blessed Sacrament, but he was an advocate of daily confession as well as daily Communion (at the discretion of one’s confessor etc.)