Can couples give out communion at their wedding if not eucharistic ministers?

[mcolhounhotmail]

Hi all.
More details from the up coming wedding is that there are 130 people going and my friend wishes to give out the body of christ not the blood of Christ.I also find it unhelpful when some members try and state this as the worst wedding innovation ever. I wanted an open and honest discussion. (although i enjoyed the rant and agreed with most of it!!)

I am still trying to find a church document relating specially to the marriage of a couple that categorically and specifically states that a couple cannot give holy communion to each other and to their wedding guests (that are practicising Catholics).
I definitely agree that there is too much of a circus going on at Wedding masses not in keeping with the Church and influenced by modern fades self centred and not centred on Christ.I wonder should there be Church document relating specifically to marriage and guidance notes for about to marry couples.
Yet I wonder then how the Church evolves moved by the Spirit if it continues to stick too rigidly to its own rules. Does there need to be revisions of Church documents on a regular basis to take into account this new evolving towards a fuller meaning of the Kingdom of God? Im not liberal but consider myself to be conservative. I have read about Saints who have been persecuted by the church because what they preached did not fit in with church rules and documents at the time. Yet their ideas then went on often after their deaths to become accepted by the Church.
Yet a deeper question is how we can remain open to the Holy Spirit that is moving the Church and not become like Pharisees (who Christ had the biggest criticism of).

 

[Shaken]

My guess would be no, partly because EMs have to undergo a period of training and because their service is usually long term. It is a serious responsibility. Being an EM for one mass seems frivolous in comparison.

 

[NPC]

Hi all.
More details from the up coming wedding is that there are 130 people going and my friend wishes to give out the body of christ not the blood of Christ.I also find it unhelpful when some members try and state this as the worst wedding innovation ever. I wanted an open and honest discussion. (although i enjoyed the rant and agreed with most of it!!)).

Even with that many people, I’m not sure that there would be need for an EMHC. As Benedictgal said, the chances are that many will not receive. If 100 people received (and that might be overly ambitious on my part), I would estimate that Communion would take about 5 minutes. Remember, the justification for having an EMHC is the excessive prolongation of the Communion procession - and I don’t think that 5 minutes counts as excessive, especially at a wedding where, as I said earlier, if anything holds up the Communion procession, it will probably be the music.

I am still trying to find a church document relating specially to the marriage of a couple that categorically and specifically states that a couple cannot give holy communion to each other and to their wedding guests (that are practicising Catholics).

We have given you Redemptionis Sacramentum which specifically rules out the possibility of the couple giving Holy Communion to one another. As for giving Communion to wedding guests, I cannot see where it is specifically ruled out, although I don’t have as wide a knowledge on Church documents as others on CAF. However, as most of us have been saying all along, what’s proper to the people should be just so, and whats proper to the priest (as the ordinary minister of Holy Communion) should be just so also.

I definitely agree that there is too much of a circus going on at Wedding masses not in keeping with the Church and influenced by modern fades self centred and not centred on Christ.I wonder should there be Church document relating specifically to marriage and guidance notes for about to marry couples.

As I said, I do not know of a specific Church document relating to some of the issues you raise. Sometimes individual dioceses have published regulations, so you could check your diocesan website or contact a liturgy director.

Yet I wonder then how the Church evolves moved by the Spirit if it continues to stick too rigidly to its own rules. Does there need to be revisions of Church documents on a regular basis to take into account this new evolving towards a fuller meaning of the Kingdom of God? Im not liberal but consider myself to be conservative. I have read about Saints who have been persecuted by the church because what they preached did not fit in with church rules and documents at the time. Yet their ideas then went on often after their deaths to become accepted by the Church.
Yet a deeper question is how we can remain open to the Holy Spirit that is moving the Church and not become like Pharisees (who Christ had the biggest criticism of).

The Church does not issue any of it’s documents or directives on a whim - each one is carefully prepared after a long period of examining the issues concerned. There are many aspects of Church teaching that people don’t like and which are hard for Catholics to take. The documents to which we have referred are not ancient documents - the Church does revise and review, but it doesn’t bow to public pressure to keep the people happy. In the case of your friends, I don’t see how them giving out Communion at their wedding brings about a fuller meaning of the Kingdom of God - in fact it demeans it as many innovations do by blurring the lines between the role of the laity and the ordained ministry. Is the fact that 130 people are going to witness the couple being conferred with the sacrament of marriage not evidence enough of the building up of the Kingdom? Or the wonder of the Mass, which Christ left to His priests to bring to us through the ages? I’m sorry to say this as I don’t wish to cause offense, but it sounds like your friends’ wishes are for their own benefit rather than bringing about a “fuller meaning of the Kingdom of God”. By the way, I am of the opinion that there are no “conservatives” or “liberals” when it comes to the Church - there are those who are faithful and obedient to Church teaching and those who are not. I’m glad you don’t regard yourself as the latter. Let’s hope your friends aren’t the latter either.

 

[NPC]

I forgot to add that it might be a good idea to post this question on the “Ask an Apologist” section if you don’t feel convinced by the answers we have given here… I would especially love to hear Fr Serpa’s answer.

 

[Phemie]

Hi all.
More details from the up coming wedding is that there are 130 people going and my friend wishes to give out the body of christ not the blood of Christ.I also find it unhelpful when some members try and state this as the worst wedding innovation ever. I wanted an open and honest discussion. (although i enjoyed the rant and agreed with most of it!!)

I am still trying to find a church document relating specially to the marriage of a couple that categorically and specifically states that a couple cannot give holy communion to each other and to their wedding guests (that are practicising Catholics).

Have you not been reading what has already been posted? They quote the documents. I’ll add another part of Redemptionis Sacramentum which says under what circumstances an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion my exercise that function:

[157.] If there is usually present a sufficient number of sacred ministers for the distribution of Holy Communion, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not be appointed. Indeed, in such circumstances, those who may have already been appointed to this ministry should not exercise it. The practice of those Priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distributing Communion and hand this function over to laypersons.[258]
[158.] Indeed, the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may administer Communion only when the Priest and Deacon are lacking, when the Priest is prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged.[259] This, however, is to be understood in such a way that a brief prolongation, considering the circumstances and culture of the place, is not at all a sufficient reason.

In no way, shape or form does 130 people constitute “a number . . . so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged.” That’s fewer people than go to Communion on Sunday in my parish. Since the arrival of the H1N1 virus our priest is the only one distributing Communion and the only effect has been an extra couple of minutes for Communion.

The document has already been quoted that says that the practice of the bride and groom giving Communion to each other must stop.

I have to admit that I have known a couple to be the EMHCs at their own wedding. It was one of our politicians and his bride, a media personality. This had everything to do with the media spotlight under which these two always are and nothing to do with proper liturgy. It’s always the same in Canada when the liturgy, be it wedding or funeral, involves a famous Catholic. To quote one of our Bishops re a politician’s funeral (father of the above-mentioned groom): “It was good television. Some would even say good politics. Nevertheless, it was also bad liturgy.”

 

[PaulinVA]

Yet a deeper question is how we can remain open to the Holy Spirit that is moving the Church and not become like Pharisees (who Christ had the biggest criticism of).

Good question. Let me ask you. Does this proposed action indicate the humility of the wedding couple or say “Look at ME!”?

If someone is imputing holy guidance to a new idea, they need to explain the liturgical and theological reason for the change. If they just want to do it because it is neat, it didn’t come from the Holy Spirit.

 

[Marie5890]

Hi all.
More details from the up coming wedding is that there are 130 people going and my friend wishes to give out the body of christ not the blood of Christ.I also find it unhelpful when some members try and state this as the worst wedding innovation ever. I wanted an open and honest discussion. (although i enjoyed the rant and agreed with most of it!!)

I am still trying to find a church document relating specially to the marriage of a couple that categorically and specifically states that a couple cannot give holy communion to each other and to their wedding guests (that are practicising Catholics).
I definitely agree that there is too much of a circus going on at Wedding masses not in keeping with the Church and influenced by modern fades self centred and not centred on Christ.I wonder should there be Church document relating specifically to marriage and guidance notes for about to marry couples.
Yet I wonder then how the Church evolves moved by the Spirit if it continues to stick too rigidly to its own rules. Does there need to be revisions of Church documents on a regular basis to take into account this new evolving towards a fuller meaning of the Kingdom of God? Im not liberal but consider myself to be conservative. I have read about Saints who have been persecuted by the church because what they preached did not fit in with church rules and documents at the time. Yet their ideas then went on often after their deaths to become accepted by the Church.
Yet a deeper question is how we can remain open to the Holy Spirit that is moving the Church and not become like Pharisees (who Christ had the biggest criticism of).

As your friends are devout Catholics according to your original post it may be wise to encourage them to be obedient to what has already been laid out and proper.

The priest IS the Ordinary Minister of Holy Communion.

They should let their well-intentioned, but improper, desire go.

JMO

 

[EasterJoy]

Not necessarily. With all due respect, I think that you fail to take into account that there are already too many things going on at the wedding. Furthermore, the Precious Blood is rarely distributed at a Wedding Mass. I have been to about 100 at the Cathedral and this never happens. And, most of the faithful at the wedding Mass do not necessarily go to Communion. We had about 150 at my cousin’s wedding and only 20-30 went to receive.

Conversely:

When a Catholic bride from a family of five weds a Catholic groom from a family of six, both of whom had parents from families of five or eight or twelve who all still live next door to their old classmates from St. Benedict Prep School, in a 125-year-old German Catholic parish out in the middle of nowhere, the church is packed and pretty much everyone over 8 years old receives. OK, so Holy Communion could take awhile, and heroic Fr. Could-Be-Retired-By-Now stationed as the lone priest out in that middle-of-nowhere parish could decide he needs some help. Fair enough. A unquestionable need for EMsHC is certainly conceivable.

If the parish is in the habit of offering the Precious Blood on Sundays (as most in Oregon do), that typically leaves a lot of trained EMsHC from that parish or in those families to choose from who are not dressed in something out of Bride’s Magazine. In highly unlikely event that the couple doesn’t know anyone else besides themselves who are trained EMsHC, I’m thinking their priest could scare someone else up to help him out.

 

[EasterJoy]

Hi all.
More details from the up coming wedding is that there are 130 people going and my friend wishes to give out the body of christ not the blood of Christ.I also find it unhelpful when some members try and state this as the worst wedding innovation ever. I wanted an open and honest discussion. (although i enjoyed the rant and agreed with most of it!!)

I am still trying to find a church document relating specially to the marriage of a couple that categorically and specifically states that a couple cannot give holy communion to each other and to their wedding guests (that are practicising Catholics).
I definitely agree that there is too much of a circus going on at Wedding masses not in keeping with the Church and influenced by modern fades self centred and not centred on Christ.I wonder should there be Church document relating specifically to marriage and guidance notes for about to marry couples.
Yet I wonder then how the Church evolves moved by the Spirit if it continues to stick too rigidly to its own rules. Does there need to be revisions of Church documents on a regular basis to take into account this new evolving towards a fuller meaning of the Kingdom of God? Im not liberal but consider myself to be conservative. I have read about Saints who have been persecuted by the church because what they preached did not fit in with church rules and documents at the time. Yet their ideas then went on often after their deaths to become accepted by the Church.
Yet a deeper question is how we can remain open to the Holy Spirit that is moving the Church and not become like Pharisees (who Christ had the biggest criticism of).

There is no such document. The idea is not forbidden, except that the bride and groom aren’t trained EMsHC. That is a problem, that is in the documents, they are aware of that, and so are you, right? OK.

I’m not sure where all this talk about persecution of the saints and the Holy Spirit blowing comes from. This is just some couple’s idea about what might or might not make a nice wedding. It isn’t St. Joan hearing voices. I mean, correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to want to know why people who haven’t felt any need to serve as EMsHC when it they would have been obscure and unthanked should not be admired for wanting to do it when they will be the center of attention? Hmmm. Does there need to be a Church document on that?

Not everything that the Church has failed to specifically forbid is a good idea. Besides, if prudence does not reign when there is not a written rule, how can there be an objection that there are too many rules? Who is it that stifles the Holy Spirit in the Church: those who ignore prudence when no rule constrains them, or those bishops who have found their flocks so lacking prudence that they need a lot of rules? I would say that the rules are there because widespread imprudence forced the bishops to write them.

Speaking of Pharisees, let us remember that Christ had more than just rule-obsession to object to about them, too: he criticized them because they enjoyed being looked at, being made the center of attention, having the seat of honor. Was Christ a Pharisee, then, for saying that? What about “when you give alms, don’t let your left hand know what right hand is doing?” Maybe this bride and groom would do better to serve when they will serve just as much, but will be less likely to be made of something by others for it?

It is a bad idea to make service as a EMHC into a “seat of honor” by giving the function to the bride and groom. It seems especially inappropriate to give the service to those who will be doing it only because they will be the center of attention that day, when they never bothered to step forward to fill the need when they weren’t, and have no intention to do so when they will again be out of the spotlight.

It is not pharisaical to be wise, nor to err in favor of humility, if there is to be an error. The saints did that, too.

So: First, Do No Harm. This is not a good idea. Even if this particular bride and groom mean no self-inflation by doing this–and I have no reason to believe they do!–the danger of unleashing habitual abuse of the position of EMHC in the future is very clear. This should be avoided.

 

[Corki]

Conversely:

When a Catholic bride from a family of five weds a Catholic groom from a family of six, both of whom had parents from families of five or eight or twelve who all still live next door to their old classmates from St. Benedict Prep School, in a 125-year-old German Catholic parish out in the middle of nowhere, the church is packed and pretty much everyone over 8 years old receives. OK, so Holy Communion could take awhile, and heroic Fr. Could-Be-Retired-By-Now stationed as the lone priest out in that middle-of-nowhere parish could decide he needs some help. Fair enough. A unquestionable need for EMsHC is certainly conceivable.

If the parish is in the habit of offering the Precious Blood on Sundays (as most in Oregon do), that typically leaves a lot of trained EMsHC from that parish or in those families to choose from who are not dressed in something out of Bride’s Magazine. In highly unlikely event that the couple doesn’t know anyone else besides themselves who are trained EMsHC, I’m thinking their priest could scare someone else up to help him out.

First of all, I want to go to that wedding! Sounds like a blast!

Second, who wants to take bets that between those two families there might be a priest or two in the relations to help poor Father Could-Be-Retired-By-Now with Communion? Wouldn’t that be beautifu? But, yes, that’s a great example of why EMHCs would be needed.

In the OPs example, with 130 people, if both bride and groom want to distribute Communion, I envision poor Father being shuttled off to the side. Now THAT would be strictly prohibited by Church documents.

 

[EasterJoy]

First of all, I want to go to that wedding! Sounds like a blast!

Second, who wants to take bets that between those two families there might be a priest or two in the relations to help poor Father Could-Be-Retired-By-Now with Communion? Wouldn’t that be beautifu? But, yes, that’s a great example of why EMHCs would be needed.

In the OPs example, with 130 people, if both bride and groom want to distribute Communion, I envision poor Father being shuttled off to the side. Now THAT would be strictly prohibited by Church documents.

Alas, my grandparents had 49 grandchildren, and only one religious vocation. To the convent, and not the seminary, but we’re thankful for her! I know of only one priestly vocation out of the the entire time I went to our Catholic high school; that was a lot of guys from big Catholic families. But maybe I lost touch and there were more.

But YES, unless Father has some fairly serious health issues, he is the Ordinary Minister, and YES, when two locals marry in those old big-Catholic-family parishes, the receptions are an awful lot of fun!

If you can’t wrangle your way into one of those, the next best thing is Oktoberfest in my mom’s home town of Mt. Angel. If things haven’t changed, there’s a family-friendly Alpinegarten that allows you to bring the kids, drink beer, sing old German beer songs, and dance. (The main biergarten is adults only). Don’t miss the concerts in St. Mary church; I think they’re still free. Church Latin, German, and American sacred music; the accoustics are wonderful. The church, built in 1881, was renovated to period after the Scott’s Mill earthquake in 1993.

http://www.oktoberfest.org/highlights/highlights/resources/media/01default_st/large/Of=20FCO.jpg

 

[benedictgal]

Hi all.
More details from the up coming wedding is that there are 130 people going and my friend wishes to give out the body of christ not the blood of Christ.I also find it unhelpful when some members try and state this as the worst wedding innovation ever. I wanted an open and honest discussion. (although i enjoyed the rant and agreed with most of it!!)

I am still trying to find a church document relating specially to the marriage of a couple that categorically and specifically states that a couple cannot give holy communion to each other and to their wedding guests (that are practicising Catholics).
I definitely agree that there is too much of a circus going on at Wedding masses not in keeping with the Church and influenced by modern fades self centred and not centred on Christ.I wonder should there be Church document relating specifically to marriage and guidance notes for about to marry couples.
Yet I wonder then how the Church evolves moved by the Spirit if it continues to stick too rigidly to its own rules. Does there need to be revisions of Church documents on a regular basis to take into account this new evolving towards a fuller meaning of the Kingdom of God? Im not liberal but consider myself to be conservative. I have read about Saints who have been persecuted by the church because what they preached did not fit in with church rules and documents at the time. Yet their ideas then went on often after their deaths to become accepted by the Church.
Yet a deeper question is how we can remain open to the Holy Spirit that is moving the Church and not become like Pharisees (who Christ had the biggest criticism of).

I have already provided you ample proof in the document Redemptionis Sacramentum, which was promulgated in 2004. This document comes directly from the Holy See and is very clear about this being a major liturgical abuse. With all due respect, what point of this do you not understand?

The Church, herself, has set the parameters as to when an EMHC may function. Furthermore, this document came about to curb abuses such as what you are describing. It is the definitive answer to a lot of what you have addressed.

For you to equate all of this with some action of the Holy Spirit, is, with all due respect, a failure to understand why the Church does what she does. As to comparing this to the Pharisees, may I remind you that the Pharisees were not at all concerned with the Temple Sacrificial Worship, the official cultic liturgy of Ancient Israel. Jesus never criticized the cultic sacrificial form of worship employed by Ancient Israel because these norms were dictated by His own Father to Moses. Therefore, your analogy is not applicable.

 

[EasterJoy]

I have already provided you ample proof in the document Redemptionis Sacramentum, which was promulgated in 2004. This document comes directly from the Holy See and is very clear about this being a major liturgical abuse. With all due respect, what point of this do you not understand?

The Church, herself, has set the parameters as to when an EMHC may function. Furthermore, this document came about to curb abuses such as what you are describing. It is the definitive answer to a lot of what you have addressed.

For you to equate all of this with some action of the Holy Spirit, is, with all due respect, a failure to understand why the Church does what she does. As to comparing this to the Pharisees, may I remind you that the Pharisees were not at all concerned with the Temple Sacrificial Worship, the official cultic liturgy of Ancient Israel. Jesus never criticized the cultic sacrificial form of worship employed by Ancient Israel because these norms were dictated by His own Father to Moses. Therefore, your analogy is not applicable.

I somehow missed that the bride and groom intended to give Holy Communion to each other and then to everyone else…implying the Ordinary Minister was going to be sent to the sidelines. I don’t know how that fact, once taken in, possibly could have gotten away again. I thought they would be assisting as needed EMsHC; if the Precious Blood were to be offered at a large wedding, it is conceivable that there would be two of those. That would be problematic enough.

I take that back then: there is a document forbidding this, and although I don’t think the bride and groom probably mean any harm, it would be a clear abuse, even if they regularly assisted as EMsHC.

I’m sure these are very nice people, devout Catholics, and just want to send a message of service on their wedding day. It is just that this is a wrong-headed way to try to accomplish it. Although I’m sure it is well-meant, the idea betrays a misunderstanding of the function of EMsHC.

OP, I’m not asking you to butt in where it isn’t your business, but if you are asked, please try to talk them out of approaching their priest with this idea. Their hearts may be in the right place, but the idea doesn’t fit into the Mass as they envision it will. It is not a good one.

 

[EasterJoy]

I hope I’m not exceeding my limit by adding one more rant.

If we start by asking a question in the form of “Is this acceptable…”, I believe that there is committed the offense of bait-and-switch when the answer is “no” and we counter with talk about rule-crazy Pharisees stifling the Holy Spirit.

Either you care about what is acceptable and therefore accept the underlying premise that some things are acceptable and some things are not, or else you don’t.

If someone thinks at heart than there is nothing that is ultimately unacceptable, then why come here and ask?

The practice is, at the very least, entrapment.

I think it is OK to counter with, “Well, the truth is, I don’t care two bits about the rules, but my aunt does, and I was hoping to have something with which I could shut her up. I’m sorry you couldn’t help me out.”…well, that’s at least honest.

This doesn’t necessarily apply to the OP, but it happens on this forum in particular, and it drives me a little nuts when it does.

 

[benedictgal]

I somehow missed that the bride and groom intended to give Holy Communion to each other and then to everyone else…implying the Ordinary Minister was going to be sent to the sidelines. I don’t know how that fact, once taken in, possibly could have gotten away again. I thought they would be assisting as needed EMsHC; if the Precious Blood were to be offered at a large wedding, it is conceivable that there would be two of those. That would be problematic enough.

I take that back then: there is a document forbidding this, and although I don’t think the bride and groom probably mean any harm, it would be a clear abuse, even if they regularly assisted as EMsHC.

I’m sure these are very nice people, devout Catholics, and just want to send a message of service on their wedding day. It is just that this is a wrong-headed way to try to accomplish it. Although I’m sure it is well-meant, the idea betrays a misunderstanding of the function of EMsHC.

OP, I’m not asking you to butt in where it isn’t your business, but if you are asked, please try to talk them out of approaching their priest with this idea. Their hearts may be in the right place, but the idea doesn’t fit into the Mass as they envision it will. It is not a good one.

Here is where the OP said this about the couple:

am still trying to find a church document relating specially to the marriage of a couple that categorically and specifically states that a couple cannot give holy communion to each other and to their wedding guests (that are practicising Catholics).

I agree with your point. If the bride and groom are devout Catholics, then, it would not behoove them to do something that is squarely against the authoritative documents of the Church. While, as you observe, their intentions may be good, they are not in line with what the Church requires us to do. Furthermore, not everyone receives Holy Communion at a wedding Mass. I know. I just survived my cousin’s about a week ago. Only 20-30, at the most, went. My dad, who is an EMHC, assisted my PV by holding the paten while the prelate distributed Holy Communion. The only ones who received under both species were my cousin and her husband, and even at that, it was my PV who distributed them.