Deacon distributing communion

[Lapey]

I will tell you that at my Parish the Deacon - if present - distributes the eucharist next to the Priest.

Whether right or wrong - I don’t know, but I can tell you, other then on the alter to the EMs I have never seen our Deacon distribute the chalice.

The same goes for when our Seminarian is present

This is the norm you will see in most parishes. Agree or not, the local Ordinary can make a change to this norm and often does. It also can be made, as in our diocese, an either or for the local pastor to decide. There is nothing wrong either way; I prefer to follow the strict letter of the GIRM. If my pastor tells me tomorrow that from now on he wants me to distribute next to him, and distribute the precious Body, I will and be happy. Although, in our formation the fact that the acolyte and deacon are instituted and ordained, respectfully, to minister the cup.

My comment about talking about the different species in different terms here on this thread was this post. I agree I might have read it too hastily. Sorry about that.

It’s just a pet peeve of min e to hear EMHC talking is the sacristy about distributing the Eucharist or the wine, “which are you today Sally?” This happens every weekend, drives me nuts. I have corrected them repeatedly, and they report me to my pastor.

Anyway, living in all the documents may be easy while sitting in the pew, but as I have stated many times and have been chastised for it, in the real world following the letter of the law is not as cut and dry as you may think.

PS. If I were to respond in the way some of us here to my pastor every time something is “not as the documents read,” I wouldn’t serve as deacon very long. Simple point is, its not always as simple as it looks to deal with people

 

[Lapey]

---

Lapey,
The quotes from the documents that have been provided seem to not support your statement that the deacon “should” distribute the blood (when Communion under both kinds are offered). The statements are more direct that it is the duty of the deacon to minister the Precious Blood.

ZAB, I appreciate your response here. I do agree, for that matter it’s really not up to me to agree because what you state is obvious and true, the deacon’s place is Cup minister with the celebrant, the 1st, and only truly necessary station of distribution of the Eucharist for mass.

But I will say that there are some differing opinions, not laity, in where is appropriate or acceptable for the deacon to serve. That’s my only point. If you think that these documents are the end all to any argument or discussion, then you are mistaken.

We just need to be careful about throwing people out because they have differing opinions; I specifically talk about bishops and priests who are much more prepared to comment than you and I. It’s just not that important that we should cause the appearance of scandal about it. You may disagree with me, doesn’t matter to me. You and I agree, I am just not ready to go to my neighboring parish and inform that pastor that he needs to make his deacon do it like me, that’s all. There are much bigger “infractions” to fix first. For instance, pouring the remaining Precious Blood down the sacrorium…it happens more often than one would think! This battle I will and do take on full speed ahead.

 

[Lapey]

Distributing commuion is strongly encouraged by the the Church under both species, with the prefered method that the precious blood be distrubted by the cup.
The deacon’s has several roles in the mass, to proclaim the gospel and as keeper of the cup. As an ordained minister he has the facility to distribute either the presious body or the prsious blood. If at a mass there is only a preist and deacon, the deacon would distribute the prescious blood.

You are correct here. Just know that the local bishop can mandate to his parishes not to offer the Precous Blood. Perfect example was a couple of years ago when the swine flue threat was the big crase. I didn’t agree, but I respectfully kept that opinion away from my bishop…

 

[centurionguard]

This is a little of subject but the only part I would disagree with is humble service to the priest. The Deacon’s call is to the word, liturgy and to charity. His humble service is not directly to the priest but to God and his people. Although a priest may be his supervisor, he is a minister directly to his ordinary.
In a mass he is by canon to distribute the eucharist. THe EMHC should understand that they have a role only when there is that necessity and when there are no other ordinary ministers.

The Deacon’s call is to the word, liturgy and to charity. His humble service is not directly to the priest but to God and his people.

No I didn’t include this assertion but this should be common knowledge to every Catholic.

Perhaps you missed the gist of what I was trying to get across in my last post.

I should have added that along with the ever vast decreasing of men entering the priesthood, naturally the diaconate is also disappearing with it.

Most existing deacons are single with very good chance they will become priests.

Most regrettably in my archdiocese we’ve only had one deacon in the last 25 years.
I felt humbly privileged to have known him all through those years. He’s now 86 years old and in poor health. His intellectual faculty and wit is as sharp as a twenty year old.

He’s humbly remarkable. I love and respect him like a Father.
.
I feel saddened that deacons in my archdiocese will be lost forever.

 

[Corki]

I should have added that along with the ever vast decreasing of men entering the priesthood, naturally the diaconate is also disappearing with it.

Most existing deacons are single with very good chance they will become priests.

Most regrettably in my archdiocese we’ve only had one deacon in the last 25 years.
I felt humbly privileged to have known him all through those years. He’s now 86 years old and in poor health. His intellectual faculty and wit is as sharp as a twenty year old.

He’s humbly remarkable. I love and respect him like a Father.
.
I feel saddened that deacons in my archdiocese will be lost forever.

Wow, it’s very different here. When I first moved to Texas, there was a ordination of over a dozen permanent deacons. They were mostly married men and not bound for the priesthood.

As of 2010 we have 383 permanent deacons in our diocese. There are over 17,000 in the US.

As an aside, the USCCB reports that 92% of the permanent deacons in the US are married.

usccb.org/cclv/diaconate-post-ordination-report2009-2010.pdf

But there is no reason to believe that the deacons will be lost forever. Some diocese have been slower than others to (re) institute the diaconate. Yours may do so in the future.

 

[Diaconia]

Something to keep in mind when quoting from the GIRM and the like . . .

The assumptions in the GIRM, both for the option of Mass with a Deacon and Mass without a Deacon are basic. They do not envision *every *sort of Mass that could be celebrated.

That’s why the GIRM speaks of **a **chalice and **a **paten, not the [typical] multiple ciboria and chalices we see in most parishes throughout the country.

That’s also why those who are well-read about the liturgy, and the corresponding documents and instructions can have differing opinions about this. And those opinions are valid and both right, under given circumstances.

For example - if there is ONE paten / ciborium and ONE chalice and a deacon is present it’s easy - priest distribute the Host, deacon distribute the Precious Blood.

If there’s a number of ciboria and [typically] twice as many chalices as ciboria - it’s easy to see why the priest and deacon would both distribute the Host in the main, center parts of the church.

It’s true that many people do not like to receive Holy Communion from an EMHC, (some not even from a deacon) and thus the deacon distributing the Body of Christ alongside the priest gives parishioners the ability to sit in the “priest’s section” or the “deacon’s section.”

For what it’s worth - I have assisted at Mass in 15 different dioceses and I’ve always been told, “you stand here by the priest and distribute the Host.”

Theologically there is a better linkage of the chalice to the deacon, but practically, with the super-sized parishes that are typical in the US, with armies of EMsHC (not a typo, *ministers *should be plural, not communions) at every Mass, you’re much more likely to legitimately] see the deacon distributing next to the priest.

God bless you all,

 

[FAB]

You are correct here. Just know that the local bishop can mandate to his parishes not to offer the Precous Blood. Perfect example was a couple of years ago when the swine flue threat was the big crase. I didn’t agree, but I respectfully kept that opinion away from my bishop…

The reaction to the swine flue now seems as an over reaction, but if it were to happen again the deacon would as he has the facilites to do so to distribute the precious boby.

 

[Corki]

The reaction to the swine flue now seems as an over reaction, but if it were to happen again the deacon would as he has the facilites to do so to distribute the precious boby.

Which is no different that what the deacon would do if he was in a parish or diocese that did not offer the chalice to the faithful at Mass.

 

[FAB]

Wow, it’s very different here. When I first moved to Texas, there was a ordination of over a dozen permanent deacons. They were mostly married men and not bound for the priesthood.

As of 2010 we have 383 permanent deacons in our diocese. There are over 17,000 in the US.

As an aside, the USCCB reports that 92% of the permanent deacons in the US are married.

usccb.org/cclv/diaconate-post-ordination-report2009-2010.pdf

But there is no reason to believe that the deacons will be lost forever. Some diocese have been slower than others to (re) institute the diaconate. Yours may do so in the future.

The Diaconate, at least in the US is growing as well as much of the developed world. It hasn’t had as much success in third world countries.

 

[Phemie]

Wow, it’s very different here. When I first moved to Texas, there was a ordination of over a dozen permanent deacons. They were mostly married men and not bound for the priesthood.

As of 2010 we have 383 permanent deacons in our diocese. There are over 17,000 in the US.

As an aside, the USCCB reports that 92% of the permanent deacons in the US are married.

usccb.org/cclv/diaconate-post-ordination-report2009-2010.pdf

But there is no reason to believe that the deacons will be lost forever. Some diocese have been slower than others to (re) institute the diaconate. Yours may do so in the future.

**centurionguard **and I fall within the four-province “Atlantic Conference of Bishops” which has 11 dioceses/archdioceses and only 26 or 27 permanent deacons. Most laity in our area know nothing about the role of deacons. The largest number of parishes are rural or small town and the deacons that we have generally live in cities. Most belong to one archdiocese where there is actually a school of theology where they can go study.

 

[zab]

ZAB, I appreciate your response here. I do agree, for that matter it’s really not up to me to agree because what you state is obvious and true, the deacon’s place is Cup minister with the celebrant, the 1st, and only truly necessary station of distribution of the Eucharist for mass.

But I will say that there are some differing opinions, not laity, in where is appropriate or acceptable for the deacon to serve. That’s my only point.
We just need to be careful about throwing people out because they have differing opinions; I specifically talk about bishops and priests who are much more prepared to comment than you and I. It’s just not that important that we should cause the appearance of scandal about it. You may disagree with me, doesn’t matter to me. You and I agree, I am just not ready to go to my neighboring parish and inform that pastor that he needs to make his deacon do it like me, that’s all. There are much bigger “infractions” to fix first. For instance, pouring the remaining Precious Blood down the sacrorium…it happens more often than one would think! This battle I will and do take on full speed ahead.

Deacon Gary,
I do understand exactly what you are saying.

 

[jpm309]

If there is a Priest and a Deacon why are you using EMHCs?

The instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum (RS) tells us when EMHCs can distribute Holy Communion:

[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. 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.

Given that you have a Priest and Deacon available then I assume you have a great number of communicants. In this case RS says that communion under both kinds should not be offered:

[102.] The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger that “more than a reasonable quantity of the Blood of Christ remain to be consumed at the end of the celebration”

And if this is in the context of a regular Sunday Mass then the instruction, "On certain questions regarding the collaboration of the non-ordained faithful in the sacred ministry of the priest, " also tells you that you also shouldn’t use EMHCs:

“To avoid creating confusion, certain practices are to be avoided and eliminated where such have emerged in particular Churches: - The habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass thus arbitrarily extending the concept of “a great number of the faithful”.” Article 8

The teaching from Rome is very clear about this. Why is there so much cognitive dissonance? The habitual use of EMHCs is to be avoided and eliminated!

 

[Adonia]

I know this is not exactly what you meant, at least I hope not. You are not as “qualified” as the deacon to minister the Eucharist. The ordination makes him an ordinary minister of Holy Communion. An EMHC is just what it says, an “extra” ordinary minister, in other words, needed at times but not ordinarily.

Protocal goes like this: celebrant distributes the Body, deacon “should” distribute the Blood with the celebrant. Many do not, they will take the Body station next to the priest celebrant.

There is reason for this, some will agree some won’t. Both species are not required to be distributed at every mass. The directives on both species is open to some opinion difference. Right or wrong, this is the reality. With that said, if only the Body is required to be distributed to the faithful, and there are two stations, then the priest and deacon would take those two spots. If both kinds were distributed then two ordinary and two EMHC would be used, the priest who believes not both kinds “need” to be distributed would say the first available spot after himself is the Body next to him; therefore two EMHC would take the cups. Either way is appropriate.

I always minister the cup with the celebrant, in my opinion that is where the deacon belongs if both are distributed. But many higher up than me think differenty.

It bothers me though, that so many people believe the the cup is any less important that the Body. Both are fully the Eucharist. I speak mostly of the laity here. Someone on this thread made a distinction between the two as if there was any less importance of the Blood than in the Body. We have some teaching to do!!!

I am well aware that I am an extraordinary and not an ordinary minister of Holy Communion. I just meant it in the sense that I am allowed to distribute either species, like the Deacon. I wasn’t aware of the protocol. I have a lot of respect for the Deacons of the Church. It takes a lot of dedication to pursue that calling. It brings me great joy to fulfill my role as a EMHC.

 

[RebeccaJ]

and, when the distribution is completed, he immediately and reverently consumes at the altar all of the Blood of Christ that remains, assisted if necessary by other deacons and priests.

When a deacon is present, I don’t think I’ve ever seen the priest (or bishop) consume what remains.

 

[Spirithound]

Distributing commuion is strongly encouraged by the the Church under both species, with the prefered method that the precious blood be distrubted by the cup.

Sacramentali Communione:
3) Among the ways of communicating prescribed by the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, receiving from the chalice itself ranks first. Even so, it is to be chosen only when everything can be carried out in fitting order and with no danger of irreverence toward the blood of Christ.

Are you two really arguing over “chalice” vs “cup”? A chalice is a cup. A cup used to distribute the Precious Blood is a chalice. Brendan, SC is about chalice vs intinction.

 

[Spirithound]

The reaction to the swine flue now seems as an over reaction…

Was it really? Or was it adequate and instrumental?

 

[Spirithound]

The habitual use of EMHCs is to be avoided and eliminated!

The habitual use of EMsHC will be avoided and eliminated when the practice of ordaining priests is restored!

 

[Phemie]

Are you two really arguing over “chalice” vs “cup”? A chalice is a cup. A cup used to distribute the Precious Blood is a chalice. Brendan, SC is about chalice vs intinction.

No, they’re arguing “Distributing commuion is strongly encouraged by the the Church under both species” VS “Even so, it is to be chosen only when everything can be carried out in fitting order and with no danger of irreverence toward the blood of Christ.”

I think that while the Church says that receiving under both species is a fuller sign and a good thing, she doesn’t say that all churches should do so all the time, in fact, she says quite the opposite.

 

[FAB]

Are you two really arguing over “chalice” vs “cup”? A chalice is a cup. A cup used to distribute the Precious Blood is a chalice. Brendan, SC is about chalice vs intinction.

I’m not, I use the two terms interchangeably except when specifically referring to the Deacon as the “minister of the cup” which is how he is referred to in the documents.

 

[FAB]

Was it really? Or was it adequate and instrumental?

From what we know now about the spread and seriousness of it, it does, but hindsight is always 20/20. It was in response to the main information we had, I guess one could say, better safe than sorry.