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

[benedictgal]

Thanks everyone for your replies. First time on website and enjoyed the experience. God bless to you all. Will redirect the couple to the bishop i think.

While I am happy that you have found the forums helpful (and, we try to help as much as possible), I don’t think that you quite understand the rammifications here. First of all, the ministry of serving as an EMHC kicks in only if these parameters are in place:

[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.

If there is an unusually large number of faithful who will receive Holy Communion at the wedding Mass (highly unlikely), then, the first ones to help out would be those who are already EMHCs.

Furthermore, logisitically, even if the couple were EMHCs, it would not be practical. The wedding dress, if there is a train, would be difficult to manuever. Second, this is not your average Sunday Mass as there may be floral arrangments and such to navigate around.

It is better for the couple to just remain in prayer, kneeling or sitting, after they have received Holy Communion.

 

[Phemie]

It is better for the couple to just remain in prayer, kneeling or sitting, after they have received Holy Communion.

Sadly, like so many weddings I’ve seen, this is probably a situation where what the couple wants is seen as more important than what the Church wants.

 

[benedictgal]

An ordained minister is not “required”. An official witness for the Church is required but in some cases that can be a lay person appointed by the Bishop.

But, there need to be extrenuating circumstances for this, as Ecclesia de Mysterio indicates:

Assistance at Marriages

1. The possibility of delegating the non-ordained faithful to assist at marriages may prove necessary in special circumstances where there is a grave shortage of sacred ministers.

This possibility, however, is subject to the verification of three conditions. The diocesan Bishop may concede this delegation only in cases where there are no priests or deacons available and after he shall have obtained for his own diocese a favorable votum [vote] from the Conference of Bishops and the necessary permission of the Holy See. (106)

1. In such cases, the canonical norms concerning the validity of delegation, (107) the suitability, capacity and attitude of the non-ordained faithful must be observed. (108)

1. With the exception of an extraordinary case due to the absolute absence of both Priests and Deacons who can assist at marriages provided for in Canon 1112 of the Code of Canon Law, no ordained minister may authorize the non-ordained faithful for such assistance. Neither may an ordained minister authorize the non-ordained faithful to ask or receive matrimonial consent according to the norm of Canon 1108,2.

Thus, this provision would only kick in for situations like that in Canada where the territories are remote, or, in missionary outposts.

 

[benedictgal]

what if the couple were both EMHC’s could they both give out the Body of Christ? Might have to direct the couple to the bishop to get some sort of dispensation.

I don’t think you quite understand Redemptionis Sacramentum.

[94.] It is not licit for the faithful “to take … by themselves … and, still less, to hand … from one to another” the sacred host or the sacred chalice.181 Moreover, in this regard, the abuse is to be set aside whereby spouses administer Holy Communion to each other at a Nuptial Mass.

“Set aside” pretty much means that this practice has to stop. It is not up to the bishop to overrule something that Rome has already decreed. RS came about because certain aspects of the Mass were becoming free form exercises in creativity and abuses were creeping into the liturgy. What you suggest would, with all due respect, go squarely against the kinds of practices that RS is designed to stop.

 

[Phemie]

But, there need to be extrenuating circumstances for this, as Ecclesia de Mysterio indicates:

Thus, this provision would only kick in for situations like that in Canada where the territories are remote, or, in missionary outposts.

My point was simply that ‘ordained’ was not a requirement in the Latin Rite. Which is why you can get a dispensation and get married at the Court House and it will still be valid (and a sacrament if you’re both baptized).

 

[EasterJoy]

Taking the subject away from whether this is allowable, may we first discuss whether it is advisable? To start:

May I nominate this as among the worst wedding innovations ever suggested?

Even if the bride and groom are trained and active EMsHC, even if one of them trains the EMsHC for their entire diocese–or whatever else reason they can think of to rationalize that this is a remotely good idea–they should sit this opportunity out. Not because it could never be allowed, but because it is an opportunity to avoid self-centeredness* for one single minute. It is a chance to willingly give the stage over to God.

Brides and grooms rise up against our wedding-nuts culture!!! I will dare to say it out loud: In spite of popular misconceptions to the contrary, it is not necessary nor optimal for you to make every minute of the entire day revolve around you! Your wedding day is ideally not, repeat not, an exercise in self-aggrandizement in which everyone you know wants to make you king and queen for a day. You are allowed to retire from the spotlight once in awhile. The celebration can muddle along without you in the center of it for fifteen minutes.

If you can find any possible way to avoid inserting yourself as the absolute center of attention in every single moment possible on your wedding day…DO IT! A measure of humility and a willingness to cede the stage to someone else is both gracious and charming in a bride and groom. There is such a thing as too much of a good thing.

If there is no other moment in the wedding day festivities when the bride and groom are not treated as if they have united to become the single most important entity in the entire universe, please, please, please let it be during Holy Communion!!!

*(Note that I wrote “self-centered”, not “selfish”. There is nothing worse than unselfish yet self-centered service. So if someone wants to say they would be “serving”…I don’t buy it. If they want to serve, let them hang around for service after the cake is cut, instead of handing off the “honor” to their favorite aunts. That would be service.)

 

[Phemie]

Taking the subject away from whether this is allowable, may we first discuss whether it is advisable? To start:

May I nominate this as among the worst wedding innovations ever suggested?

I’ll second the nomination. All those in favor signify by saying “Aye”.

 

[PaulinVA]

Aye.

It’s just so…wrong.

 

[Corki]

I’ll second the nomination. All those in favor signify by saying “Aye”.

Aye!!!

And still unanswered…what will the priest be doing while the bride and groom are distributing Communion?

 

[ahollars]

Aye.

 

[benedictgal]

I’ll second the nomination. All those in favor signify by saying “Aye”.

Aye. This is not only the worst innovation, but, it also goes squarely against the authoritative documents of the Church.

 

[Ockham]

In a perfect world we’d never have EMHCs as only consecrated hands should be touching the Blessed Sacrament. However, in this Spirit of Vatican 2/Age of Aquarius modernitiy with EMHCs distributing Holy Communion whether needed or not, then why shouldn’t the newly weds participate in this manner? An EMHC is no better then the average parishioner…right?

 

[Becks]

Taking the subject away from whether this is allowable, may we first discuss whether it is advisable? To start:

May I nominate this as among the worst wedding innovations ever suggested?

Even if the bride and groom are trained and active EMsHC, even if one of them trains the EMsHC for their entire diocese–or whatever else reason they can think of to rationalize that this is a remotely good idea–they should sit this opportunity out. Not because it could never be allowed, but because it is an opportunity to avoid self-centeredness* for one single minute. It is a chance to willingly give the stage over to God.

Brides and grooms rise up against our wedding-nuts culture!!! I will dare to say it out loud: In spite of popular misconceptions to the contrary, it is not necessary nor optimal for you to make every minute of the entire day revolve around you! Your wedding day is ideally not, repeat not, an exercise in self-aggrandizement in which everyone you know wants to make you king and queen for a day. You are allowed to retire from the spotlight once in awhile. The celebration can muddle along without you in the center of it for fifteen minutes.

If you can find any possible way to avoid inserting yourself as the absolute center of attention in every single moment possible on your wedding day…DO IT! A measure of humility and a willingness to cede the stage to someone else is both gracious and charming in a bride and groom. There is such a thing as too much of a good thing.

If there is no other moment in the wedding day festivities when the bride and groom are not treated as if they have united to become the single most important entity in the entire universe, please, please, please let it be during Holy Communion!!!

*(Note that I wrote “self-centered”, not “selfish”. There is nothing worse than unselfish yet self-centered service. So if someone wants to say they would be “serving”…I don’t buy it. If they want to serve, let them hang around for service after the cake is cut, instead of handing off the “honor” to their favorite aunts. That would be service.)

Incidentally, this is one of the best rants I’ve ever read on these forums. Thank you for making my day better.

 

[Evan]

I’ve seen a lot of ranting on this thread, but it all seems to assume the bride/groom are distributing the Body of Christ.

Assume now, the priest will distribute the Body, and the EMHC will distribute the Blood of Christ. Certainly, if a Deacon were present, that duty would fall upon him, or if a second priest were present. But if both families were Catholic, large Catholic families, say 300 Catholics (mayby 100 others – like the wedding I went to last weekend) and the Blood were to be distributed (this did not happen last weekend); I would opine that the couple could properly distribute the Blood of Christ to the congregation as fulfilling a need for the service, and as a sign of service… the Sacrament of Matrimony is one of the Sacraments of Service (the other is Holy Orders).

An EMHC can be designated by the priest for any service where it is needed.

 

[EasterJoy]

I’ve seen a lot of ranting on this thread, but it all seems to assume the bride/groom are distributing the Body of Christ.

Assume now, the priest will distribute the Body, and the EMHC will distribute the Blood of Christ. Certainly, if a Deacon were present, that duty would fall upon him, or if a second priest were present. But if both families were Catholic, large Catholic families, say 300 Catholics (mayby 100 others – like the wedding I went to last weekend) and the Blood were to be distributed (this did not happen last weekend); I would opine that the couple could properly distribute the Blood of Christ to the congregation as fulfilling a need for the service, and as a sign of service… the Sacrament of Matrimony is one of the Sacraments of Service (the other is Holy Orders).

An EMHC can be designated by the priest for any service where it is needed.

If the wedding has Catholics enough in attendance to warrant the use of EMsHC, it is big enough that a confirmed Catholic in good standing besides the bride and groom may be found to assist the priest in this capacity.

The Lord should always be the center of attention, but especially, absolutely, and unequivocally this should be so during Holy Communion. In an ideal world, EMsHC, when needed, assist the priest in the most unobtrusive manner possible. It is impossible for the bride and groom to assist unobtrusively.

Therefore, in* all* cases, the bridal couple would do best to retire from the spotlight during Holy Communion at their own nuptial Mass. I don’t have this from any document (I can hear the committee now, saying, “They want us to cover *what *situation? No. Really?..Let me guess, this is in the US, right?”…)

 

[EasterJoy]

Incidentally, this is one of the best rants I’ve ever read on these forums. Thank you for making my day better.

Thanks. I have to admit that it made me feel better, too…

 

[Evan]

If the wedding has Catholics enough in attendance to warrant the use of EMsHC, it is big enough that a confirmed Catholic in good standing besides the bride and groom may be found to assist the priest in this capacity.

The Lord should always be the center of attention, but especially, absolutely, and unequivocally this should be so during Holy Communion. In an ideal world, EMsHC, when needed, assist the priest in the most unobtrusive manner possible. It is impossible for the bride and groom to assist unobtrusively.

Therefore, in* all* cases, the bridal couple would do best to retire from the spotlight during Holy Communion at their own nuptial Mass. I don’t have this from any document (I can hear the committee now, saying, “They want us to cover *what *situation? No. Really?..Let me guess, this is in the US, right?”…)

The bride and groom stand as the image of God and his Church. To be serving the Church at this time seems entirely appropriate and praiseworthy to me. “I came to serve, not to be served”

 

[EasterJoy]

The bride and groom stand as the image of God and his Church. To be serving the Church at this time seems entirely appropriate and praiseworthy to me. “I came to serve, not to be served”

I have to disagree. Especially in our bride-glorifying wedding culture, the inescapable image is: “I come here today to stand at the center of attention, and wow, here is yet another chance. Don’t you feel honored?”

There is one person who stands in the person of Christ at Mass, and that is the priest. EMsHC are nothing more than hand extensions. Their function is to be 100% practical, not symbolic, not in any way, which is why they are not used when it is not felt that a practical necessity exists. Do we want the bride and groom to be the altar servers, too? That would symbolize the couple’s unstinting willingness to serve to the Church, right? Heaven forbid!! (And I hope that doesn’t give anyone any hair-brained ideas.)

Once EMsHC become some kind of a symbol, they have strayed away from their function. Any use that gives them some sort of symbolic importance obscures that. As for the bride and groom, let them be the bride and groom, and not a single thing more: not lector, not commentator, not server, and not EMHC.

 

[Mattapoisett64]

Just the thought of this creeps me out. It’s as if the bride and groom are distributing Communion like wedding favors – like the little net bags of almonds waiting at the reception. Almost expect the hosts to be imprinted “Heather and Tyler - Our Wedding Day - May 3, 2010.” Uh-uh.

 

[benedictgal]

The bride and groom stand as the image of God and his Church. To be serving the Church at this time seems entirely appropriate and praiseworthy to me. “I came to serve, not to be served”

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.