Are We The Bread Of Life...

[Uncle Gus]

Katholikos, what's the problem with talking to people at the start of Mass? Is it before or after the Sign of the Cross?

[CatholicAndFanatical]

Well at least you don't sing chorus' over and over and over again which was my experience in the Charismatic House Church Movement (a brief moment of insanity on my part, honest!!    :D ) I remember one delightful gentleman in his 70s who was from a more traditional background, at experiencing this type of service for the first time, saying God must think we think he's deaf!!

thats hilarious

Likos, we have Eucharist ministers in our Parish too, I personally dont like it because I dont think we are worthy to hold the Body of Christ, only the Ordained hands should be able to do that. If im in line for communion and find out that the Priest is in the other line, I ask the person next to me if I could cut in front of them so I can go to the Priest instead..I might look wierd, but oh well.

[Dave]

Likos, we have Eucharist ministers in our Parish too, I personally dont like it because I dont think we are worthy to hold the Body of Christ, only the Ordained hands should be able to do that. If im in line for communion and find out that the Priest is in the other line, I ask the person next to me if I could cut in front of them so I can go to the Priest instead..I might look wierd, but oh well.

And I thought I was the only one who hated receiving Holy Communion from an EM!

I always try to sit in the row where I know the priest will be distributing Communion.

I don't like receiving Communion from EMs for the same reasons Steve cited but also because I prefer to receive It on the tongue. I get the feeling the EMs would be more squeamish in that area than priests. I don't know why I feel that way, but I do.

[marielapin]

Katholikos, what's the problem with talking to people at the start of Mass? Is it before or after the Sign of the Cross?

Talking to people inside the Sanctuary is rude. People are trying to pray and prepare themselves for Mass. Whispering important things is one thing, but out and out chit-chat should be done outside the Sanctuary, before or after Mass.

[marielapin]

And I thought I was the only one who hated receiving Holy Communion from an EM!

I always try to sit in the row where I know the priest will be distributing Communion.

I don't like receiving Communion from EMs for the same reasons Steve cited but also because I prefer to receive It on the tongue.  I get the feeling the EMs would be more squeamish in that area than priests.  I don't know why I feel that way, but I do.

We are the same, Dave. We always sit in the rows where the priest or deacon will distribute Communion.

[phatcatholic]

since the use of Eucharistic Ministers is allowed by the Church, should we not trust her judgement? if its ok for the Church, its ok w/ me. also, i'm reminded of a story about St. Francis of Assisi:

There is a story told of Francis of Assisi that sticks in my mind from one of the biographies I read as a seminarian. Once one of the brothers in the order of Friars Minor who was sensitive to scandal asked him, "Brother Francis, what would you do if you knew that a priest celebrating Mass had three concubines on the side?" Francis replied, "When it came time for Holy Communion, I would go to receive the sacred body of my Lord from the priest's anointed hands."

Francis was getting at a tremendous truth of the faith and a tremendous gift of the Lord: God has made the sacraments "priest-proof." No matter how holy or wicked a priest is, provided he has the intention to do what the Church does, then Christ himself acts through the priest, just as he acted through Judas when Judas ministered as an apostle. So whether Pope John Paul II or a priest on death row for a felony consecrates the bread and wine, it is Christ himself who acts to gives us his own body and blood. Francis was saying he was not going to let the wickedness or immorality of the priest lead him (Francis) to commit spiritual suicide.

i think the point here is that it does not matter how sinfult the person is who is giving you the Eucharist. it is STILL the Body of Christ. NOTHING can change that. the Body of Christ in the hands of a sinful man--priest, deacon, or (gasp!) eucharistic minister--does not diminish the value, power, or effect of the Body of Christ.

so, this, coupled w/ the fact that the Church approves the use of Eucharistic Ministers, gives me enough assurance to recieve my Lord in either line. Jesus is the same, now and forever.

pax christi,

nick

[PedroX]

Nick,

I think that you need to understand that the correct term is Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers. This distinction has been covered extensively on other threads, but please believe me that the church has not approved Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers for regular use.

peace...

[Uncle Gus]

Talking to people inside the Sanctuary is rude.  People are trying to pray and prepare themselves for Mass.  Whispering important things is one thing, but out and out chit-chat should be done outside the Sanctuary, before or after Mass.

This is all true, which is why there is no problem with people talking to each other in the pews before the Sign of the Cross (which marks the start of Mass). If it is after the Sign of the Cross, then yes, it is out of place, but it is a good thing for people to come together to celebrate Mass and to build up the community with holy fellowship. Remember, Mass is liturgy, public worship*. We come together to be a communion of believers and to celebrate the Mass together. The argument that you should be preparing yourself for Eucharist is a selfish one, looking at the individual rather than the congregation. We do prepare for Eucharist, as a communion in the Penitential Rite, and the Liturgy of the Word.

Now, I am not saying that spending time in silence to personally prepare for the Mass is wrong or bad, it is very good, but it is better to spend time on your own in your own time. When you come to Mass, you are there to join the rest of your community in work, the work of worshipping God. And if you are going to work together, it is good to be on friendly terms with each other.

* The word "liturgy" comes from the Greek word "liturgia," which means "the work of the people."

[marielapin]

This is all true, which is why there is no problem with people talking to each other in the pews before the Sign of the Cross (which marks the start of Mass). If it is after the Sign of the Cross, then yes, it is out of place, but it is a good thing for people to come together to celebrate Mass and to build up the community with holy fellowship. Remember, Mass is liturgy, public worship*. We come together to be a communion of believers and to celebrate the Mass together. The argument that you should be preparing yourself for Eucharist is a selfish one, looking at the individual rather than the congregation. We do prepare for Eucharist, as a communion in the Penitential Rite, and the Liturgy of the Word.

Now, I am not saying that spending time in silence to personally prepare for the Mass is wrong or bad, it is very good, but it is better to spend time on your own in your own time. When you come to Mass, you are there to join the rest of your community in work, the work of worshipping God. And if you are going to work together, it is good to be on friendly terms with each other.

* The word "liturgy" comes from the Greek word "liturgia," which means "the work of the people."

So then you agree that it is appropriate for a family to plant themselves behind a person trying to pray and discuss baking chocolate cakes and what they are going to do later at the mall? Or old ladies leaning over a pew to hit another lady on the shoulder and shout how you doin? Some of us are trying to talk to OUR LORD here. The Sanctuary is supposed to be a quiet place, whether before, during or after Mass. It is a place of reverence. There is a time and a place for everything, and the time and place for chit chat is not while in the Sanctuary. Period. During any part of the day.

Heck, even when we had RCIA classes where we were walked through the Sanctuary, we were told to keep our voices down. This was during the middle of the afternoon. And no other people were present except Our Lord in the Tabernacle.

If Jesus were physically before you would you be more concerned with saying hello to your neighbor than paying homage to Him?

[marielapin]

Here is an article I found on ewtn.com:

Talking in Church

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assuming that what is being said is not itself sinful, it is morally neutral to talk. However, Catholic moral teaching tells us that "circumstances" change the moral character of actions.

Talking in Church when not demanded by necessity is at least venially sinful for the following reasons:

1) It is the Lord's House, which Jesus taught was "a house of prayer" (Mt 21:13) and thus should be used according to its purpose. This is a violation of justice against God, for whom we should have reverence.

2) It is a violation of justice against actual neighbors who are trying to pray. Again, necessity permits talking, just as it permits practicing the music before Mass and so on. However, most conversations are trivial and could gone on elsewhere at another time. This puts them in the category of unnecessary. The truth of this is shown by the strict guard for silence maintained in the chapels of the Roman basilicas where people are praying. Even in the areas where the tourists are viewing the architecture and art, talking above a whisper is not permitted. This is an accurate reflection of the Catholic respect for the church and for others.

3) Finally, it is a violation of charity, since as Christians we should be going "out of ourselves" to look after others first. If a person crassly and knowingly disregarded others trying to pray, or worst of all did so with malice or contempt, it could even be a mortal sin against charity.

These are basic principles of Catholic moral theology and need no other authority than that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL

[CatholicAndFanatical]

i think the point here is that it does not matter how sinfult the person is who is giving you the Eucharist. it is STILL the Body of Christ. NOTHING can change that. the Body of Christ in the hands of a sinful man--priest, deacon, or (gasp!) eucharistic minister--does not diminish the value, power, or effect of the Body of Christ.

so, this, coupled w/ the fact that the Church approves the use of Eucharistic Ministers, gives me enough assurance to recieve my Lord in either line. Jesus is the same, now and forever.

Well, I agree EEM's would be of benefit if they are used appropriately, but I dont feel comfortable receiving from them.

that St. Francis was pointing out that even if a PRIEST is in sin, the Body and Blood are untouched and still becomes such. It doesnt talk about non-ordained hands like EEM's are. They are not Priests, so that quote would not describe them.

Which is my point exactly, No one should be able to touch the Body of Christ unless your a Priest. I know EEM"s are permissable according to the Church but thats only if there are not enough Priests to give the Body of Christ to the crowd. Its abused alot.

[marielapin]

Why There Should Be Quiet In Church

1. The Church says so. Paragraph 45 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) states:

"Even before the celebration itself, it is commendable that silence be observed in the church, in the sacristy, in the vesting room, and in adjacent areas, so that all may dispose themselves to carry out the sacred action in a devout and fitting manner."

2. Talking in Church is disrespectful of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. We are in the House of God, in the Presence of God Himself in the Tabernacle, not in a coffee shop. What a priviledge we have! All our thoughts should be directed to Him.

3. It teaches disrespect. When children see adults talking in Church instead of in prayer or silent meditation it teaches them that its O.K., thus further eroding respect for the Blessed Sacrament in the next generation.

4. It is the Lord's House, which Jesus taught was "a house of prayer" (Mt 21:13) and thus should be used according to its purpose. It is unholy to turn the Holy House of God into a man-made place of socializing or gossiping. The House of God, where dwells the Real Presence of God, must be treated with ongoing reverence. Talking is a violation of justice against God, for whom we should have reverence.

5. Talking in Church is a violation of justice against actual neighbors who are trying to pray.

6. Talking in Church is a violation of charity, since as Christians we should be going "out of ourselves" to look after others first. Unnecessary talk in the Church is a total disrespect for one's brothers and sisters in Christ who are trying to pray, and against the faithful who seek to grow in their spiritual lives. Talking in the Church falls short of manifesting love, charity, kindness, and self-control, which are fruits of the Holy Spirit. [Gal. 5:22] If a person crassly and knowingly disregards others trying to pray, or worst of all does so with malice or contempt, it could even be a mortal sin against charity.

[Uncle Gus]

I think you are confused as to what the Sanctuary is. The Sanctuary is the (usually raised) area where the Altar is. People in the pews are not in the Sanctuary. And, as I said, there is a place for holy conversation, and you have just clearly identified what is and what isn't holy conversation.

My point still stands.

[BullnaChinaShop]

I think you are confused as to what the Sanctuary is. The Sanctuary is the (usually raised) area where the Altar is. People in the pews are not in the Sanctuary. And, as I said, there is a place for holy conversation, and you have just clearly identified what is and what isn't holy conversation.

My point still stands.

I think you should reread this:

1. The Church says so. Paragraph 45 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) states:

"Even before the celebration itself, it is commendable that silence be observed in the church, in the sacristy, in the vesting room, and in adjacent areas, so that all may dispose themselves to carry out the sacred action in a devout and fitting manner."

According to this there should be silence in the church, which includes both the sactuary and the area where the people sit.

And also reread this:

6. Talking in Church is a violation of charity, since as Christians we should be going "out of ourselves" to look after others first. Unnecessary talk in the Church is a total disrespect for one's brothers and sisters in Christ who are trying to pray, and against the faithful who seek to grow in their spiritual lives. Talking in the Church falls short of manifesting love, charity, kindness, and self-control, which are fruits of the Holy Spirit. [Gal. 5:22] If a person crassly and knowingly disregards others trying to pray, or worst of all does so with malice or contempt, it could even be a mortal sin against charity.

It is the people talking unnecessarily not those who wish to pray who are being selfish.

If you actually read what has been posted from the GIRM you would see that your argument only stands on its head.

[Uncle Gus]

1. The Church says so. Paragraph 45 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) states:

According to this there should be silence in the church, which includes both the sactuary and the area where the people sit.

I never debated this, I was merely trying to correct you on your idea of what the Sanctuary is. It was by-the-by. Back to the meat of this debate:

It is the people talking unnecessarily not those who wish to pray who are being selfish.

This I agree with also. Unnecessary talk equates to unholy conversation. But there is a place for conversation before Mass. For example, just today I was at midday Mass and my mother and grandmother were there. As I was knelt in prayer, my mother tapped me on the shoulder and informed me that my grandmother's brother had passed away on Monday and asked me to pray for him. I don't think this was out of place.

[Uncle Gus]

I apologise for my poor choice of words. "Selfish" was not really the right sentiment I was trying to convey. It was more to do with focus. Why do we celebrate Mass? Because it is public worship. It is not an individual endeavour, nor a "one-to-one" with God. It is a communal act, a public work. This should be our focus. To this end, I do not see a problem with introducing ourselves to our neighbour and engaging in holy and edifying conversation before starting Mass.

That is my argument.

[Spiritual_Arsonist]

We've sung that song as well.  Its that blasted publishing house out of Oregon.  Almost everything they print is nonsense.  I've tried and tried to change the music, but Ah well.

peace...

AMEN. That publishing company is so heterodox. I never join in that hymn at my parish. They print hippy tunes. TIME FOR THE CHANT TO COME BACK WHICH IS THE OFFICIAL NORM FOR LITURGICAL MUSIC.

[Muschi]

To all who do not like to receive communion from EMs. While I mostly think whether one prefers or does not prefer to receive communion from an EM is a personal choice, I have to ask.......do you believe that Jesus is not there in that consecrated Host that the EM distributes? When he or she holds the Host up and says, "The Body of Christ"......does it somehow revert back to bread because He is not in the hands of the priest? I don't want to be misunderstood as sarcastic because that is the furthest from my intentions. Just some "food" for thought.

Also with regards to talking in Church....as a convert I hate it. When I go to Church it is literally a sanctuary from the world to me. Outside of a smile, hug and a handshake, I think people should remain silent and hold off on unecesessary conversation until after Mass OUTSIDE the church.

Lastly, a final question. Is anyone here on this site subjected to the rediculous habit of applauding the choir or whatever, after Mass? This is somewhat new in my parish and they have even printed on our worship aids a request not to do this, but people still do it. It makes me feel like I've just attended a show and I think it is very tacky to put it mildly. Well, that's it for now. God bless all here! - Muschi

[phatcatholic]

PedroX, Fanatical, and others,

this may not be necessary, but i feel the need to defend my earlier post and to address your responses to it. they are below:

PedroX:

I think that you need to understand that the correct term is Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers. This distinction has been covered extensively on other threads, but please believe me that the church has not approved Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers for regular use.

Fanatical:

Well, I agree EEM's would be of benefit if they are used appropriately, but I dont feel comfortable receiving from them.

that St. Francis was pointing out that even if a PRIEST is in sin, the Body and Blood are untouched and still becomes such. It doesnt talk about non-ordained hands like EEM's are. They are not Priests, so that quote would not describe them.

Which is my point exactly, No one should be able to touch the Body of Christ unless your a Priest. I know EEM"s are permissable according to the Church but thats only if there are not enough Priests to give the Body of Christ to the crowd. Its abused alot.

first off, try not to forget that members who are new to this site may not be aware of topics discussed in earlier threads. so, you may have to succinctly restate what is understood to everyone else, or provide a link to the earlier thread so that the newbie can be properly informed. Pedro, something about ur reply held a certain air of condescension, but maybe that's just me. afterall, i still feel new here.

as to the story about st. francis that i posted, i think it is in fact relevant to my point. the story was taken from a larger article about the sexual-abuse scandal in the church (the article in its entirety can be found here. maybe, w/o context, its hard to find the meaning of the story. but, even apart from the article it seems to me that the story is less about who is actually handing the eucharist to you, and MORE about wether the sinful nature of the person effects the sacrament. w/ this meaning, the story re-enforces my point.

what was my point? basically, i was arguing that there was nothing INTRINSICALLY wrong w/ having eucharistic ministers or in receiving the eucharist from them. before you conceded that the use of these ministers is ok when used correctly, it seemed to me as though you felt that the wrongness of having eucharistic ministers was an absolute--instead of just restricted to the times in which they are abused--as in, they are always wrong and we should never recieve from them. so, i was arguing for their intended value. afterall,

1. they are approved by the church

2. necessary when not enough priests are present

3. their sinfulness and their lack of anointed hands does nothing to take away from the power, glory, value, graces, and reality of the Body of Christ.

so, we are essentially in agreement when we say that there is nothing intrinsically or inherently wrong w/ eucharistic ministers.

as to only going to the priest, i would agree w/ this only in times when the use of eucharistic ministers is being abused. when the ministers are there, and they are legally and rightfully there, there is NOTHING wrong w/ them touching the Body of Christ or in receiving the Body of Christ from them. How could this possibly be wrong when the Church grants them that right to be there, that right to touch the very Body of Christ even tho their hands are not anointed, that right to receive the Body of Christ from those very hands? To say that a eucharistic minister--who is there out of necessity--should not touch/distribute the Body of Christ is to go against the very Church who allows them to do so. even tho you say its ok to use these ministers when they are not abused, you seem to reject them in every instance.

but, then again, i may require further clarification on your stance regarding this issue. hopefully, i have cleared things up on my end.

pax christi,

nick

[PedroX]

First, everything on Phat Mass is showing up wierd on my screen, is it just me?

PhatCatholic,

No condescension (sp?) was implied. The matter is simple, in my simple mind at least. The vast majority of times EEMs are in themselves an abuse. They are to be used only in times of extraordinary need. It is not neccessary to recieve under both species. It is not therefore neccessary to have 8 EEMs at every mass. In large parishes, perhaps you do need a few (2?) on an ongoing basis, but then why not ordain a deacon? Again, no air of superiority is intended in my response. I would search through the records and find a link for you to previous threads, but as I said everything is whack today on my screen, and I have to leave to go see a client.

peace...