Point I am trying to make is this\u2026 the Truth for all of us probably lies in a radical trust of God in our lives. I have also found that the Truth is usually found somewhere in the middle. I have watched a few traditionalists think the church is a haven for them rather than a mission to proclaim forgiveness and reconciliation and true freedom and fullness of humanity. I think both extremes have hindered this mission.<\/span><\/p>\nI agree. I\u2019m not a \u201ctraditionalist\u201d. I am coming at this from a concern for the rubrics, and from the theology of the priesthood. I\u2019m all for mission, of course, being an apologist and evangelist myself.<\/p>\n
I have extreme respect for priests. May God always bless you, Father, as you serve Him! Thanks so much for your time and valuable input on this thread.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
There is a sense in which one may receive a little more alongside receiving the Eucharist (which remains the same from either source): akin to a priestly blessing. I don\u2019t know if that is literally true or not but I suspect it is. The hand that consecrated the elements now distributes our Lord Who is there because of the miracle of transubstantiation wrought by his own hands.<\/p>\n
To me it is (technically speaking) more of a liturgical or symbolic thing than eucharistic. The priest is the norm; therefore I prefer him if at all possible. He\u2019s out there distributing communion, too. I want to receive from the priest.<\/p>\n
What possible objection could there be? The priest who commented on this thread fully agreed that anyone can receive from the priest. Certainly there is no canonical prohibition of it. We ought not disrupt the procedure to do so; we agree on that.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
Those of us who prefer the priest don\u2019t usually \u201cswitch lines\u201d; we simply get in the one where the priest is, without making a fuss.<\/p>\n
I commend you for your service. As I have reiterated, none of this discussion requires any derision against EMHCs per se (have lots of friends who do this): it\u2019s only objecting to overuse of them, and poorly trained ones, or ones with objectionable demeanor or dress.<\/p>\n
Nor does preference to receive from a priest necessarily imply any such derision at all. We want to receive from him, because that is the norm, and he is the\u00a0alter Christus<\/i>. It\u2019s not difficult to understand.<\/p>\n
I agree that if this is accompanied with dumb attitudes and elitism, or disrupts a service, it then becomes wrong. I don\u2019t do any of that.<\/p>\n
We\u2019re not trying to major in the minors. We seek to receive Our Lord from the\u00a0alter Christus<\/i>. Don\u2019t take it personally! It is not (or shouldn\u2019t be) any slam at you.<\/p>\n
Even if one who takes this view holds that excessive use is in play, it\u2019s still not the fault of the individual EMHC, but of the priest who should know his rubrics better.<\/p>\n
We have to be careful. If abuses take place, it\u2019s not the fault of every EMHC. If you do a perfectly fine, solemn, pious job you shouldn\u2019t be subjected to any criticism for it. As one who is subjected to bum raps almost every day online, I can deeply empathize with that. It\u2019s terrible.<\/p>\n
As an analogy, I often criticize the public schools. But I rarely criticize teachers in them. I have the utmost respect for teachers of all sorts. It\u2019s a system vs. individuals in the system issue. So I can respect you as an EMHC, while continuing to object to abuses in the way it is carried out, as outlined in this thread.<\/p>\n
But you and I both know that there are EMHCs who don\u2019t do a good job, and it is understandable that there is a lot of resentment and even anger over that. We\u2019ve seen it in this thread. This sublimely sacred act \u2014 a sacrament \u2014 of Holy Communion shouldn\u2019t have to be accompanied by impious or inappropriate behavior (like my example of the lady with nice legs and a miniskirt).<\/p>\n
It\u2019s a lot like abuses in the OF Mass. We are complaining about that, not the Mass itself (like the RadCathRs do).<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
Catholics believe that it is not only the Blood given under the appearance of wine but the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, under either and both elements or accidents. That\u2019s why if only one is given, there is no intrinsic loss in what is received. There is no necessity to receive both, as the host contains the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ (which is why the Church reserved the cup for many centuries). Both\/and as usual in Catholicism. Anyone can do one or both, and they are receiving Jesus.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
It\u2019s not about EMHCs; it\u2019s about wanting to receive from the\u00a0alter Christus<\/i>. Individuals who do this ministry may be the holiest, most pious ministers in the history of the world, but it remains the case that they aren\u2019t priests. That is the reasoning behind why I practice the way I do.<\/p>\n
But I received from a deacon at my parish the last time. I didn\u2019t make a \u201cscene\u201d or get legalistic about it. I only \u201cswitch\u201d to the priest if it doesn\u2019t disrupt anything.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
My post was no more running down priests (quite the contrary!) than it was supposedly running down EMHCs. If it is a large parish, the Church allows for EMHCs. If not, it\u2019s a violation of the rubrics. That\u2019s not me saying that: it\u2019s Holy Mother Church (and writers like Jimmy Akin and Fr. Peter Stravinskas pointing this out). I didn\u2019t make the rules.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
I\u2019m not questioning the role of the EMHC at all. I am saying it is abused according to the rubrics, and that I prefer to receive from a priest. Having a preference carries no implication whatever that one is \u201cagainst\u201d the thing not chosen.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
The Body of Christ is the Body of Christ no matter who you receive Him from.<\/span><\/p>\nOf course. Not the issue at all. I simply want to receive my Lord from the hands of the person who presided over the consecration. As a priest stated above, the Church says this is the \u201cordinary\u201d way of receiving Holy Communion. I could see that offense could rightly be taken if I were bashing Extraordinary Ministers, but I\u2019m not, as reiterated about 3,863 times by now. To criticize an abuse of a practice is not to criticize the practice.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s also against the rubrics to raise hands during the\u00a0Our Father\u00a0<\/i>or hold hands during it. But that is rarely ever taught, for some reason. It\u2019s harmless, yet the Church has the rubrics for good reason, I assume. 99% of the congregants who do it don\u2019t know it is against the rubrics.<\/p>\n
Either the priests who allow it don\u2019t know what the rubrics say about that, or don\u2019t care, which I find disturbing. I think if they made a statement during the homily, 95% of Catholics would gladly obey the instruction.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
\u201cWith over 2,000 people there is no way that I could distribute communion to even half of them.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nExactly, Father! That is a case where EMHCs are needed, and why the Church provides that assistance to the priest. Everything is great if folks will simply go by what the Church teaches, in its rubrics and in everything else it authoritatively proclaims.<\/p>\n
If someone is completely against the EMHCs, they go against the Church. If someone rails against a person who simply wants to receive Holy Communion from a priest (the \u201cordinary\u201d way), without being legalistic or spiritual prideful or disruptive, that is wrong, too: just as it was wrong to deprive Catholics of the right (by canon law) to receive kneeling and on the tongue: though many priests sought to deprive them of that.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
Fr. Carlos (and to the other priests in this thread, on both sides of this issue),<\/p>\n
There is no one I respect more than priests. You are extraordinary human beings, and my heroes. I immensely admire all the work priests do, and what you yourself (Fr. Carlos) do (reading your comments). I never claimed that any priest had to distribute Holy Communion to 2,000 people!<\/p>\n
EMHCs FOR 2,000 PEOPLE IS NOT AN ABUSE OF THE RUBRICS. (I use caps because many people seem to be missing this elementary point in what I\u2019m saying, or at any rate, have written elsewhere in other papers).
\n
\n\u201cYou can decide that Communion should only be distributed by the priest because he is the most worthy person to distribute Our Lord.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nThat\u2019s not my reasoning\u00a0at all\u00a0<\/i>(I can\u2019t speak for all others in the thread: they may have some erroneous thinking).\u00a0My<\/i>\u00a0reasoning is that he is the\u00a0alter Christus<\/i>, and presided over the consecration. His personal holiness is technically irrelevant to this particular discussion, on the basis of the notion of\u00a0ex opere operato<\/i>. That was all decided definitively back in St. Augustine\u2019s time.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
The Church does not forbid a Catholic from receiving from a priest if he or she wants to do that. It would be as legalistic and wrong to frown upon that or forbid it as it would be to do the same towards the EMHCs. Legalism can be present in either side of an issue.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
\u201cgetting into the other line to receive Communion from the priest is not criticizing the abuse of the practice: it is criticizing the practice.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nIt\u2019s not criticizing anything! It\u2019s a personal preference in good faith, just as how we receive Holy Communion (standing \/ kneeling \/ hand \/ mouth) is: one acknowledged by the Church. There\u2019s really no argument against it.<\/p>\n
I\u2019m sure that\u00a0some<\/i>\u00a0who do this are legalistic, prideful Pharisees, because legalism can be found in any belief-system or practice: we being sinful human beings. If a person is plainly being disruptive or has spiritual pride, then I am against that as much as anyone. But that has to be determined.<\/p>\n
In any event, the simple preference to receive from a priest is not legalistic or prideful at all, in and of itself. Priests are the dispensers of the sacraments. They grant absolution. They baptize.<\/p>\n
I received from the deacon in our parish last time I went to church. I\u2019m not legalistic at all. He\u2019s not an\u00a0alter Christus<\/i>. And his being at the Mass was not an abuse.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
\u201cI am a Byzantine (Eastern) Catholic. We never use EMs \u2013 our priests don\u2019t seem to mind serving a lot of people.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nThis is another indication or continuance of the traditional way of doing that. Eastern Catholics comprise many many millions of Catholics. It was this way for a reason. So the Latin Rite now allows EMHCs. That\u2019s fine. The Church can do whatever she wants, and I defend her, and do so here.<\/p>\n
At the same time, those of us who want to receive from a priest should not be insulted and frowned upon\u00a0simply\u00a0<\/i>because we prefer to receive the way the Church dispensed Holy Communion for 1950 years. That\u2019s ludicrous. If the Church had said we\u00a0must<\/i>\u00a0receive from the EMHC or\u00a0never<\/i>\u00a0can receive kneeling or on the tongue, that would be entirely different. But of course that is not the case. Thus, legalism on either side of this is uncalled-for.<\/p>\n
We\u2019ve been through all this sort of argumentation regarding the TLM \/ EF. People who preferred that have been pilloried and insulted. Then all of a sudden JPII and BXVI started allowing it more widely. I had always advocated freedom of worship, since I became a Catholic in 1990. So I was ecstatic about all that. I myself prefer the OF. I want folks to worship as they prefer for themselves and not to be run down for it.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
\u201cI am more focused on WHO I am receiving, then WHOM I am receiving from\u2026.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nGOOD. SO AM I! The insinuation is that those of us who prefer to receive from a priest somehow think we get \u201cmore\u201d of Jesus in doing so. No one I\u2019m aware of is saying that, and it would be ridiculous if they did. No one is denying that Jesus is received, either way, and that that is overwhelmingly more important than any other consideration. That\u2019s not at issue. This is a question of liturgy and personal preference and piety (and what the Church allows).<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
\u201cMy position is if someone chooses to ONLY receive from a priest it is an act of pride.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nI agree if they did that and decided never\u00a0ever\u00a0<\/i>to receive otherwise, and\/or blast the Church for allowing otherwise. But I\u2019m not doing that, and I don\u2019t think most or all of the others on the thread who prefer the priest think that way, either.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
\u201cLife for Catholics would be a lot happier if everyone would just follow what the Church teaches.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nOh, I agree 100%. Now, can you be so kind as to tell me which Church teaching or canon law or rubric I violate for wanting to receive Holy Communion from a priest? Thanks. [it never came]<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
\u201cOne thing I\u2019ve never understood, is why some people feel the need to publicly state that, \u201cI only go to a Latin Mass\u201d, or \u201cI always receive Communion on the tongue\u201d, or \u201cI prefer to receive Communion only from a Priest.\u201d What is the purpose in making these public declarations?\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nFair enough; a fair question. Some people do do it in a prideful way, I think (I\u2019m not saying\u00a0who<\/i>: God knows), because that is the human condition. Every good thing is corrupted by the devil. I agree that there is no particular reason to state this out of the blue. It usually comes up in discussions of liturgy.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s\u00a0not<\/i>\u00a0just a matter of some prideful bigot wanting to receive a certain way or else they\u2019ll condemn everyone including the priest, pout, and take their bat and ball and go home. It\u2019s a serious consideration regarding the Eucharist.<\/p>\n
I\u2019ve condemned legalism and pride and insults on\u00a0both<\/i>\u00a0sides. All I\u2019m doing is practicing my faith as I see fit, in good conscience, not trying to make any scene or disrupt anything or condemn anyone else.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
\u201cWhy the need to stir up controversy with particular topics that we know will produce controversy?\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n1) I think all topics regarding the Catholic faith are worth discussing.<\/p>\n
2) Heaven help me, I am an idealist and will be to the grave, and I actually think that anyone ought to be able to discuss anything rationally, without rancor and acrimony, and that Christians should be able to do this and edify and learn from each other. The reality is often otherwise, but that is the cross we idealists bear. We keep trying.<\/p>\n
3) Simply disagreeing is not the problem. Rather, it is when accusations of interior dispositions get slung around.<\/p>\n
4) It\u2019s worth discussing, because there is a lot of erroneous thinking in this area about why people are doing what they do: the rationale for it,\u00a0alter Christus<\/i>, etc.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
I agree that there have been some attacks on EMHCs too. I oppose those, not because they are never true, but because it makes the argument turn emotional, and folks get defensive. We must take pains to say that we\u2019re not against\u00a0all<\/i>\u00a0of them because some do a lousy job at it.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
\u201cI don\u2019t think anyone is learning anything here, feelings are just being hurt.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nI can\u2019t control how people behave. I expect adult Christians to conduct themselves with charity and sensibility.<\/p>\n
But I will not\u00a0refuse<\/i>\u00a0to have a discussion because certain folks get all in a tizzy about it. If a controversy is present, generally in my experience it is because of massive misunderstanding and\/or ignorance. That\u2019s why people are getting mad. They say something about the other side that betrays their lack of understanding, then the other side gets insulted and hurt (since it misrepresents them) and it escalates.<\/p>\n
The way to get beyond that is not to put our heads in the sand and go throw a Frisbee and sing\u00a0Kumbaya<\/i>\u00a0around the fire, ending the night with a group hug. It\u2019s talking it through: listening to each other;\u00a0interacting<\/i><\/b>\u00a0with opposing arguments. That\u2019s how adult Christians should be able to resolve things. But if some people want to manifest that they cannot engage in a discussion without getting angry and insulting, then it\u2019s a free country. All I can do is delete the worst offenses.<\/p>\n
I refuse to give into the lowest common denominator. I\u2019ll keep being the biblical idealist and try to call people to a higher behavior, not give up and in effect admit that we are incapable of it, like we\u2019re a bunch of first-graders: not a whit different in behavior from the world we are called to be a witness to: offering something better and different, because of God\u2019s grace and the Holy Spirit in us.<\/p>\n
According to 1 Corinthians 13, love \u201cbelieves all things.\u201d That\u2019s part of love. I believe we can do better in talking about this.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
One of the problems here is that people (on all sides of any issue) tend to think in terms of \u201ceither\/or\u201d or back and white; oppositional thinking, or what Louis Bouyer calls \u201cdichotomous thinking\u201d: the incessant and annoying tendency of pitting one thing against another when there is no need at all to do so.<\/p>\n
So if a person simply says, \u201cI prefer to receive Our Lord at Mass from the priest\u201d other people hear or think that means, \u201cI am condemning all of you morons who receive from the EMHC and I\u2019m spiritually superior to you.\u201d<\/p>\n
One doesn\u2019t follow from the other. It\u2019s sort of like someone saying, \u201cI prefer chocolate ice cream.\u201d Then the next guy says, \u201cwhy are you condemning me for liking vanilla ice cream better? I\u2019m not inferior to you!\u201d<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
\u201cDave, you seem to ignore the fact that this approach causes division\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nJesus caused division. He said, \u201cI came not to bring peace, but a sword; brother will be divided against brother . . .\u201d Paul caused a big ruckus wherever he went (often riots). How is that any argument to not discuss something?<\/p>\n
All I would have to do is delete comments from the folks who can\u2019t talk amiably to those with whom they disagree. I have deleted some, but generally I like to allow free speech as much as possible. I was a staff moderator of a forum for three years at The Coming Home Network, so I even have experience with that. We allowed absolutely no personal attacks. We were very strict about it. And I\u2019m almost that strict on my Facebook pages.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn fact the true Christian way, would be to be in the line least favorable, and let others receive the \u201cbest\u201d\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nOkay; following that \u201clogic\u201d I\u2019ll seek out the crappiest, most insufficient Christian service I can find (with no sacraments, lousy sermon, ugly building, etc.), so I can be sure to exalt in my own humility in abasing myself and making sure that other folks get fed better than I do at a church service.<\/p>\n
[That is what is called in logic, a\u00a0reductio ad absurdum<\/i>. Illustrating the absurdity of an opposing position by taking it to its logical extreme. St. Paul was quite fond of it.]<\/p>\n
\u201cI think switching lines is offensive\u2026for any reason.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nWhy? Because you can\u2019t handle a person who believes in good faith in a thing you don\u2019t agree with? How does it affect\u00a0you<\/i>? Why must you be bothered by what someone\u00a0else<\/i>\u00a0does? My view is, \u201cworship and let worship.\u201d That\u2019s why I defend reception of communion in different ways, defend folks going to whatever kind of Mass they want, and now defend this choice if someone wants to make it, since the Church doesn\u2019t forbid it.
\n***<\/p>\n
And another thing occurs to me. If this practice we are advocating is\u00a0so<\/i>\u00a0extremely prideful: up there with the Pharisees: the most unimaginably wicked thing conceivable (receiving from a\u00a0priest<\/i>!), why is it that the Church doesn\u2019t simply forbid it once and for all: say that no one can choose to receive the Lord from a priest if they want to (where EMHCs are present)?<\/p>\n
The Church has all kinds of other regulations, yet with this it says not a word (that I\u2019m aware of). Instead we have folks condemning others for a thing the Church says\u00a0nothing<\/i>\u00a0about.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
\u201cchanging lines is not the answer to a problem.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nIt\u2019s not a \u201cproblem\u201d at all: it\u2019s a\u00a0preference<\/i>.<\/p>\n
\u201cDoes Jesus switch lines? no, He stays, so should you\u2026..who is above the Master?\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nJesus didn\u2019t go to Mass; He started it. He didn\u2019t have to wait in any line. He served Himself.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
Virtually all of us who do this, desire to do it \u201cwithout causing a problem.\u201d Yet we\u2019re too often accused of being disruptive and raising a ruckus at Mass. People will believe whatever they want, if they have an emotional disdain of something and don\u2019t seem to even understand it in the first place. Clearly, people are out to sea on this, if they think\u00a0we<\/i>\u00a0think it\u2019s because the priest is way holier than anyone else, or that we receive more of Jesus from him (as if Jesus can be quantified: that is rank heresy, denying His simplicity and self-sufficiency).<\/p>\n
Nor are we saying that EMHCs are fundamentally evil and wicked and that the Church has no reason or right to allow them. Myths and fables abound.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
We take three seconds max to get in one line rather than another, without causing the slightest problem. How does\u00a0that<\/i>\u00a0somehow subtract from our adoration of our Lord?<\/p>\n
***\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n\u201cMaybe for the first time in their lives they feel needed? or welcomed by the church?\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nYes, maybe so. Wonderful! Good for them! Now kindly explain to me how that is\u00a0any<\/i>\u00a0reason why I should be forced to receive Holy Communion from them?<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
Worship and let worship. I\u2019ve never disrupted a Mass in my life. I\u2019ve never personally criticized or have been rude to a priest, either in person or online (or an EMHC, either, for that matter). I always treat priests with the utmost respect and deference. I detest parish council meetings when they are filled with infighting, complaining, backbiting, trashing the priest (which seems to be, sadly, often), and refuse to participate in that (nor did I as a Protestant, with all their endless civil wars in congregations, etc.). I\u2019m the last person in the world who wants to foster any division or bickering within a congregation.<\/p>\n
Here is the simple solution, from m,y friend Patti Sheffield:\u00a0\u201cI just receive from whomever the Church says is okay to receive from, and don\u2019t mind if others prefer to go to a priest or a deacon. As long as nobody is disruptive it\u2019s no big deal.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nThe truth is so simple and right in front of us. Thanks, Patti! My variation of this would be:<\/p>\n
\u201cI prefer to receive from a priest whom the Church never says I should not receive from, and don\u2019t mind if others prefer to go to an EMHC. I\u2019m not disruptive at all, so it\u2019s no big deal.\u201d<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
My friend Bret Bellamy wrote:\u00a0\u201cWhen I was Latin Catholic, my preference was to receive Communion from the priest or deacon. However, if I happened to be in a line with an EM, I continued in that line. To me, disrupting Communion for others due to my personal preference tramples on an important virtue overlooked by some\/many on this issue as well as on a related issue that shall never be named. That virtue is Charity.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nI agree 100% Bret. Thanks! As I\u2019ve said, if I\u2019m at another parish (since this isn\u2019t an issue at my own), I try to get into the line where the priest is, if it causes no disturbance. If not, I receive from the EMHC in the hand with no attitudes whatsoever of hatred, derision, haughtiness, arrogance, etc.<\/p>\n
There are few other situations where my mind, heart and soul are so wholly concentrated on our Lord and adoration than when receiving Holy Communion. Any insinuation that I am supposedly thinking of all this other rotgut during that time is severely offensive to me.<\/p>\n
***Of course \u201cswitching lines\u201d\u00a0could\u00a0<\/i>be disruptive. No one denies that. What we\u2019re saying is that we who do this\u00a0don\u2019t\u00a0<\/i>cause a disruption, so it\u2019s a moot point: criticizing a thing no one is doing in the first place. Several times, we have said (in the previous thread) that if it causes a disruption, we receive from the EMHC.<\/p>\n
Some people say they would never receive from an EMHC. As long as they don\u2019t disrupt, that\u2019s fine, but if they do cause a disruption or \u201cscene\u201d in order to receive from a priest, I say that that is wrong and inconsiderate of others.<\/p>\n
***\u201con a personal level I am sure the vast majority [of EMHCs] are sincerely trying to serve the Church and do a good job.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nI\u2019ve said the same many times, too.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
I\u2019m not\u00a0against\u00a0<\/i>the thing itself (EMHCs); I am\u00a0for\u00a0<\/i>reform of the abuse of the thing.\u00a0Huge\u00a0<\/i>difference . . . I don\u2019t say, \u201cditch all the EMHCs and what the Church wants; be gone with\u00a0all\u00a0<\/i>of \u2019em.\u201d Rather, my view is: \u201cthere are widespread abuses; those should be reformed, and I personally prefer to receive from a priest, without judging anyone else, which is not my business to do.\u201d<\/p>\n
This is completely sensible and can hardly be argued against.<\/p>\n
***Someone also mentioned how if someone was at a Mass with the pope, wouldn\u2019t they try to receive from him? That would take it to another level still. It\u2019s still the same Jesus, but people want to receive from the pope, and there isn\u2019t one thing wrong with that.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
There were actually three issues simultaneously being discussed (in the now-deleted, often acrimonious Facebook thread), and that confused things all the more:<\/p>\n
1) Abuses in the practices of using EMHC (i.e., too many for too small of a crowd). That is the priest\u2019s fault: who should know better.<\/p>\n
2) Abuses of some few individual EMHCs (clothes, demeanor, irreverence, ignorance of communion on the tongue). This is the individual\u2019s fault.<\/p>\n
[neither #1 nor #2 implicate EMHCs as a class or a whole, because the fault lies with a priest or one EMHC, not the Church or the whole group]<\/p>\n
3) The preference of an individual to receive Holy Communion from a priest. This is a permitted preference and it\u2019s no one\u2019s \u201cfault\u201d and does not inherently correspond with alleged pride or other unsavory dispositions. Nor does it automatically imply disdain of EMHCs.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
Our reasoning is that the priest is the\u00a0alter Christus<\/i>\u00a0who presided over the Eucharist in a way that the EMHC has not done. Thus we prefer to receive from him, as was almost exclusively done till Vatican II, still is among Eastern Catholics and Orthodox and even Anglo-Catholics.<\/p>\n
It is not \u201canti<\/i>-EMHC\u201d; it\u2019s \u201cpro<\/i>-priest as the\u00a0alter Christus<\/i>.\u201d It\u2019s not running down EMHCs as a class or as individuals, as just clarified. They have their place. But it\u2019s often abused in numbers, and poorly trained ones do the whole valid ministry a grave disservice.<\/p>\n
***I don\u2019t personally receive from the priest (if possible) because of any abuses among EMHCs because I have never personally been confronted with that. I go to the priest because he is the priest. Period. Its a very simple thing, really. The priest is a special person; he dispenses sacraments as part of his main duties. We want to receive our Lord from him.<\/p>\n
***In one place I said that this perspective is not so much eucharistic (since the same Lord is received in any case) as it is liturgical and symbolic. This is why it is so misunderstood and pilloried, because traditional liturgical sensibilities and outlooks are so poorly known, primarily because many millions no longer practice them, and we are less familiar with what we have little or no personal acquaintance with.<\/p>\n
***Another thought I have is that we shouldn\u2019t run down the special, extraordinary nature of the priest in emphasizing a greater role of the laity. As always in Catholicism, it\u2019s a \u201cboth\/and\u201d proposition.\u201d The priest remains special, while we figure out that the laity should have a greater participation, too.<\/p>\n
I\u2019m all for lay involvement and ministry, obviously. I\u2019ve been a full time apologist for twelve years now. When it comes to EMHCs, however, that is part of the Mass, so there are obvious limitations. They can\u2019t perform the Mass, they can\u2019t consecrate (even a deacon can\u2019t do that). They can\u2019t give homilies. They can\u2019t hear confessions before Mass, or absolve. They can\u2019t give blessings. They are supposed to be used only in \u201cextraordinary\u201d circumstances, with large numbers, but we all know that is often (if not usually) not the case.<\/p>\n
Quite obviously, then, they remain vastly different in status from priests, and so many of us prefer to receive from the priest. I\u2019m truly sorry if someone is offended by that or imagines that it is \u201canti-EMHC.\u201d It\u2019s not.<\/p>\n
There is also the fact that in the numerous cases of overuse of the EMHCs, partaking from them is literally participating in the abuse; knowing it is an abuse (if a person is aware of the provisions concerning them). Thus if one was trying to follow Church rubrics, there would be all the more reason to receive from the priest.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
If we point out what the Church\u00a0actually teaches<\/i>\u00a0about the use of EMHCs, all of a sudden some folks say we are disobedient to the Church? Huh? That\u2019s not even\u00a0logical<\/i>, let alone sensible. It\u2019s like saying that someone who loves the Bill of Rights is anti-constitutional.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
If someone points out the abuses of those who do apologetics (which are many, usually in inverse proportion to how much a person knows about theology and apologetics, and how experienced they are), I readily agree and concur that it is a shame, and shouldn\u2019t happen. I don\u2019t fight against it and make out that the critic is \u201canti-apologetics\u201d or hates me as a person. I don\u2019t get angry and defensive.<\/p>\n
I join them in desiring to reform the practice that I love as my profession. I don\u2019t want to see it besmirched. Apologetics has always had a PR problem and is subject to many bum raps, so I think the less nonsense in the name of apologetics, the better.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
My friend Paul Hoffer wrote:\u00a0\u201cThe abuses you categorized above in 1 has as its effect a residual clericalism that improperly denigrates the importance of lay participation from the pews in the Mass.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nYes, unfortunately, any abuse gives a thing a bad reputation or name among many (we have seen the terrible tragedy and aftermath of the sex scandals in the Church). It\u2019s unfair but that is how it is. It\u2019s irrational, too, because if one notes, e.g., a bad teacher, clearly this has no implication as to\u00a0all\u00a0<\/i>teachers or even all teachers in\u00a0one school<\/i>. All it proves is that\u00a0that<\/i>\u00a0teacher was a bad apple.<\/p>\n
The abuses you categorize in 2 is in effect a lack of theological understanding of what the Eucharist is. When I take the Eucharist to nursing homes, the home-bound sick and to hospitals, I still wear a suit and tie out of respect for the sacrament and I still pray that I am worthy to carry out this sacred office before I receive the hosts to be distributed. At Mass, when I am EMHC, I make the effort to spiritually prepare myself for the immense privilege to actually touch Our Lord and carry out His Command to take and eat. I could not even imagine irreverence before Our Lord like what you speak.<\/span><\/p>\nWell, I\u2019m quite sure (because I know you) that you perform the ministry with the utmost diligence, reverence, and dignity.<\/p>\n
That is why EMHC are only supposed to be appointed to that office for two years and receive additional formation and training to before being allowed to participate in that ministry in the future to remind of them of the awesome and humbling duties we are called to carry out.<\/span><\/p>\nThen how can it even be possible for an EMHC to be so ignorant of canon law and the rubrics, that they would roll their eyes at someone wanting to receive on the tongue? I guess it\u2019s clearly improper formation somewhere down the line (or screening as to character and qualifications).<\/p>\n
Because, most parishes or dioceses for that matter do not follow the two year rule or require their EMHCs to read up on the Eucharist~Fr. Rolheiser\u2019s book \u201cOur One Great Act of Fidelity\u201d or Saint Augustine\u2019s sermons 227-229A, 272 or your \u201cBiblical Catholic Eucharistic Theology\u201d for example or encourage them to distribute communion outside of the Mass setting which impresses better the theology of \u2018missa\u2019 or mission or going forth to proclaim the Gospel which is why the Church used EMHC in the early Church in the first place.<\/span><\/p>\nLike I said, abusive practices lead to ignorance of theology or a failure to create a spirit of faith seeking understanding. [ . . .]
\n
\nAs for 3, I think it is all about attitude. If one wants to take communion from the priest to honor the mystery of the priesthood as spoken of by BL. JPII in Dominicae coenae (1980), that is laudable; but if one is doing it because one denies that EMHC\u2019s are a legitimate expression of our participation in Christ\u2019s priestly office, that is not.<\/span><\/p>\nI agree. My reasoning is not to deny the legitimacy of the EMHC; it\u2019s based on the undeniable fact that the EMHC is not a priest, and preferring the latter for the purpose of reception of Holy Communion.<\/p>\n
Bottom line is this, the office of EMHC is subject to abuse like all ministerial offices, but if nonpriests did not have a legitimate role in the distribution of communion we would have no St. Tarcisius after whom I try to model myself after when I am called to carry out the office of EMHC nor would we have deacons distributing communion.<\/span><\/p>\nI think they do \u201chave a legitimate role\u201d. Holy Mother Church has said so and I follow and defend her at all points. The biggest abuse by far is overuse, which is not the fault of the EMHC at all. They\u2019re gonna do what the priest tells them, and they should. But someone somewhere down the line has to communicate with the priest that there is such a thing as overuse.<\/p>\n
if I switch lines at Communion because of my dislike for a priest or deacon, what message am I sending?<\/span><\/p>\nOne that says you harbor sinful ill will. Of course most people wouldn\u2019t know the interior disposition, but I\u2019m going with your example. That\u2019s not a theological or liturgical argument (at least not regarding the priest) but a personal grudge.<\/p>\n
Does it not give the appearance that the mystical Body of Christ is not a reality?<\/span><\/p>\nIt indicates a sinful attitude.
\n
\nSwitching lines because one does not want to take communion from a EMHC is no different.<\/span><\/p>\nOne thing is sin and the other is a mere preference based on the status of the priest. We simply can\u2019t be forced to partake from the EMHC. No canon law that I\u2019m aware of forbids a preference for the priest. Preferring one thing does not automatically entail disdaining the other: which I have constantly disagreed with as illogical and not necessarily following at all, using the (trivial but analogous) example of being in the line for chocolate ice cream and then someone else saying, \u201cwhy are you against vanilla ice cream?\u201d<\/p>\n
Like a deacon expressed in my newer thread on this topic, there is nothing whatever wrong with that as long as it is expressed as a preference and not as a dogmatic or legalistic thing. The preference itself is for the\u00a0alter Christus<\/i>\u00a0over the one who is not.<\/p>\n
If the office of the EMHC is being rejected\u00a0altogether<\/i>, on the other hand, then your point is a valid one\u00a0in that instance<\/i>.
\n
\nSuch an attitude was declaimed by St. Paul at 1 Cor. 12.<\/span><\/p>\nThat chapter is about different parts and offices of the Body of Christ all being valid and important. I have not denied that the EMHC is a valid office or ministry. I commend all who undertake it, provided they do so properly (as you, no doubt, do). Your argument would only hold for one who is doing that (and I think that was probably your intention).<\/p>\n
St. Paul is teaching there that God distributes gifts as He wills. He also \u201cdistributes\u201d various differences in how Catholics (in all good conscience) prefer to worship; differences in liturgy: what rite; various options within rites (and we must respect those, too, by the same token). Thus, this is one of those things. To simply prefer one way has no direct relationship to what our opinion of another way is, or of those who choose it. If we can choose entirely distinct Masses to attend, certainly we can choose one communion line over the other when they lead to those who hold different offices in the Church.<\/p>\n
As another analogy, many people don\u2019t care much for apologetics (in fact, I know that for sure!). Some of them may be legalistic or biblically ignorant enough to actually say it is a worthless endeavor altogether (just because they don\u2019t like it). But most people, I think, would recognize that it is valid and important and modeled in Scripture: but just not their cup of tea.<\/p>\n
That isn\u2019t sinful, if it is in the second, non-legalistic sense, nor is it running down altogether what one personally doesn\u2019t engage in.<\/p>\n
Neither is the preference of receiving Holy Communion from a priest. The only argument that can be made against it is where disruption or excessive legalism are present, too, or, as you have been arguing, if the very role and office of the EMHC is \u201cdissed.\u201d I heartily condemn both attitudes \/ actions, with you.<\/p>\n
***It is clearly an abuse if use of EMHCs is seen as permanent and ongoing,\u00a0regardless<\/i>\u00a0of how many parishioners are present. That\u2019s simply an abuse. It\u2019s supposed to be \u201cextraordinary\u201d use. Words ought to mean things. I don\u2019t think Paul defended that, or would agree with the scenario one person mentioned where there were 25 people at the Mass and three EMHCs were still used. That is plainly an abuse.<\/p>\n
I can see three different scenarios where it would be perfectly acceptable to\u00a0not<\/i>\u00a0receive from an EMHC:<\/p>\n
1) Due to far too frequent experiences of abuses in the past (such as Michele was recounting). One is entitled to remove oneself from such annoying abuses; nothing wrong with that. That is a result of poor formation or selection of those EMHCs. No Catholic need be subjected to such unnecessary annoyances during this holy and sacred moment of the Mass. Thus, it is avoided by going to the priest.<\/p>\n
2) Refusing to participate in an abuse (too many EMHCs being used, contrary to the rubrics). That is being obedient to the Church, by refusing to engage in acts that imply consent to an abuse.<\/p>\n
3) Simply preferring the priest, as I have argued in various ways.<\/p>\n
That\u2019s not just one good reason; it\u2019s three, and I don\u2019t see any way to refute or overthrow them. Abuse is abuse: the first two are two different abuses that occur, and the third is a perfectly valid preference.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
The entire related earlier thread on my personal Facebook page, originally from August 2013, has been taken down, because:<\/p>\n
1) The meme offended several people and doesn\u2019t adequately or accurately express my actual opinions. No sense offending so many people; and at the same time what they are offended by isn\u2019t even (at least based on one report of someone highly offended) my true opinion.<\/p>\n
2) The thread itself was a free-for-all. I am fessing up to my part in causing that by an overly harsh and provocative meme.<\/p>\n
3) I\u2019m sorry that all the comments (450!) had to go with it, but I think, overall, it was best to take it down. I want good discussions to take place on my pages: not hurt feelings and rancor and misunderstandings all around.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
Deacon Sean Smith:\u00a0I guess I have a preference, too. In my view, it isn\u2019t about what we \u201cprefer\u201d and more about how we act. If our actions in service of our preferences are disruptive, then that seems to run counter to the very idea of \u201cCommunion\u201d. If our preferences are based on poor theology, then the theology should be reconsidered, and then maybe the preference.<\/span><\/p>\nI agree; as I stated over and over: there is to be no disruption of anything.\u00a0Alter Christus<\/i>\u00a0and the special, extraordinary status of the priest are very good and true theological positions to hold, as far as that goes.<\/p>\n
If we can act on our preferences in a manner that doesn\u2019t make them any more than preferences (I prefer Pepsi to Coke), then go for it.<\/span><\/p>\nI like that way of expressing it. Thanks! It\u2019s being overly dogmatic or legalistic from any perspective, or falling into dichotomous, \u201ceither\/or\u201d thinking, that creates problems and ill will.<\/p>\n
I suspect a big reason this topic generated so much attention is that too many of us have experienced people absolutely being disruptive. If people acted as you described, then there really wouldn\u2019t be much to discuss.<\/span><\/p>\nI\u2019m sorry to hear that. People fall short in any way that they possibly can, so it\u2019s no surprise that this happens (how\u00a0often<\/i>\u00a0it does, I don\u2019t know), and I condemn it wholeheartedly along with you.<\/p>\n
***I\u2019ve never \u201cswitched\u201d lines. If I can get in the priest\u2019s line, without making the slightest disturbance, I do. If not, I go to the EMHC (and receive in the hand) without the slightest disgruntlement, etc., or any other negative emotion or distraction from adoration of our Lord. I have no problem receiving in the hand because I know that it was very common in the early Church; in fact, it seems to have been the norm then, for some six centuries. Thus, I feel that I am participating in an equally valid liturgical tradition in doing that.<\/p>\n
In my own parish, it is at the altar rail kneeling, on the tongue, which 95% of us do: all at the rail: some few in the hand.<\/p>\n
* * * * *<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Girl receiving first Holy Communion, Sicily (photo by Jeanne Boleyn, 24 Dec. 2009) [public domain \/ Wikimedia Commons] (12-18-13)For previous treatments see my posts about\u00a0overuse of Extraordinary\u00a0Ministers of Holy Communion, and a lengthy\u00a0dialogue on receiving from a priest, with priests. See also the public\u00a0Facebook thread\u00a0where I linked to this, with more of my own comments […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":3750,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[58],"tags":[1003,593,363,1002,365,1004,2337],"class_list":["post-3748","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-eucharist-liturgy","tag-alter-christus","tag-catholic-priests","tag-eucharistic-ministers","tag-extraordinary-ministers-of-holy-communion","tag-holy-communion","tag-in-persona-christi","tag-the-mass"],"yoast_head":"\n
The Preference of Receiving Holy Communion from a Priest<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Nothing against eucharistic ministers themselves . . . I merely note that these ministers are excessively used, & that only the priest is the "alter Christus".\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/10\/the-preference-of-receiving-holy-communion-from-a-priest.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Preference of Receiving Holy Communion from a Priest\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Nothing against eucharistic ministers themselves . . . I merely note that these ministers are excessively used, & that only the priest is the "alter Christus".\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/10\/the-preference-of-receiving-holy-communion-from-a-priest.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2015-10-06T15:07:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-18T20:44:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2015\/10\/CommunionHoly.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"526\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"768\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"37 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/10\/the-preference-of-receiving-holy-communion-from-a-priest.html\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/10\/the-preference-of-receiving-holy-communion-from-a-priest.html\",\"name\":\"The Preference of Receiving Holy Communion from a Priest\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2015-10-06T15:07:55+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-18T20:44:19+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\"},\"description\":\"Nothing against eucharistic ministers themselves . . . I merely note that these ministers are excessively used, & that only the priest is the \\\"alter Christus\\\".\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/10\/the-preference-of-receiving-holy-communion-from-a-priest.html#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/10\/the-preference-of-receiving-holy-communion-from-a-priest.html\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/10\/the-preference-of-receiving-holy-communion-from-a-priest.html#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Preference of Receiving Holy Communion from a Priest\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/\",\"name\":\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\",\"description\":\"Catholic biblical apologetics\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\",\"name\":\"Dave Armstrong\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Dave Armstrong\"},\"description\":\"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \\\"This Rock\\\" (now called \\\"Catholic Answers Magazine\\\"), \\\"Envoy Magazine\\\" (Patrick Madrid), \\\"The Catholic Answer,\\\" \\\"The Coming Home Journal,\\\" \\\"Gilbert Magazine\\\" (American Chesterton Society), and \\\"The Latin Mass.\\\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \\\"The Michigan Catholic\\\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \\\"Catholic Answers Live\\\" (twice), \\\"Faith and Family Live\\\" (Steve Wood), \\\"Kresta in the Afternoon,\\\" \\\"Son Rise Morning Show,\\\" \\\"Catholic Connection\\\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \\\"The Catholics Next Door.\\\" His large and popular website, \\\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\\\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \\\"index\\\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \\\"Surprised by Truth\\\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \\\"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\\\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \\\"The Catholic Verses\\\" (2004), \\\"The One-Minute Apologist\\\" (2007), \\\"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\\\" (2009), \\\"The Quotable Newman\\\" (editor: 2012), and \\\"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\\\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \\\"The New Catholic Answer Bible\\\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \\\"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\\\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \\\"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\\\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \\\"Quotable Wesley\\\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Preference of Receiving Holy Communion from a Priest","description":"Nothing against eucharistic ministers themselves . . . I merely note that these ministers are excessively used, & that only the priest is the \"alter Christus\".","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/10\/the-preference-of-receiving-holy-communion-from-a-priest.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Preference of Receiving Holy Communion from a Priest","og_description":"Nothing against eucharistic ministers themselves . . . I merely note that these ministers are excessively used, & that only the priest is the \"alter Christus\".","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/10\/the-preference-of-receiving-holy-communion-from-a-priest.html","og_site_name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","article_published_time":"2015-10-06T15:07:55+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-18T20:44:19+00:00","og_image":[{"width":526,"height":768,"url":"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2015\/10\/CommunionHoly.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Dave Armstrong","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Dave Armstrong","Est. reading time":"37 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/10\/the-preference-of-receiving-holy-communion-from-a-priest.html","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/10\/the-preference-of-receiving-holy-communion-from-a-priest.html","name":"The Preference of Receiving Holy Communion from a Priest","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website"},"datePublished":"2015-10-06T15:07:55+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-18T20:44:19+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e"},"description":"Nothing against eucharistic ministers themselves . . . I merely note that these ministers are excessively used, & that only the priest is the \"alter Christus\".","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/10\/the-preference-of-receiving-holy-communion-from-a-priest.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/10\/the-preference-of-receiving-holy-communion-from-a-priest.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/10\/the-preference-of-receiving-holy-communion-from-a-priest.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Preference of Receiving Holy Communion from a Priest"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/","name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","description":"Catholic biblical apologetics","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e","name":"Dave Armstrong","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Dave Armstrong"},"description":"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \"This Rock\" (now called \"Catholic Answers Magazine\"), \"Envoy Magazine\" (Patrick Madrid), \"The Catholic Answer,\" \"The Coming Home Journal,\" \"Gilbert Magazine\" (American Chesterton Society), and \"The Latin Mass.\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \"The Michigan Catholic\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \"Envoy Magazine.\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \"Catholic Answers Live\" (twice), \"Faith and Family Live\" (Steve Wood), \"Kresta in the Afternoon,\" \"Son Rise Morning Show,\" \"Catholic Connection\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \"The Catholics Next Door.\" His large and popular website, \"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \"Envoy Magazine.\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \"index\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \"Surprised by Truth\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \"The Catholic Verses\" (2004), \"The One-Minute Apologist\" (2007), \"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\" (2009), \"The Quotable Newman\" (editor: 2012), and \"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \"The New Catholic Answer Bible\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \"Quotable Wesley\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).","sameAs":["https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics"],"url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3748","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2331"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3748"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3748\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3750"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3748"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3748"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3748"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![\"CommunionHoly\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2015\/10\/CommunionHoly.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\n