Doesn't receiving only from the Priest rather than the EMHCs mess up the flow of traffic?

[benedictgal]

Yes I know what is says, but the teaching is still that EMHC are allowed. As a practicallity they are a neccecity.
The question is still, why the objection to using a possition which is allowed by the Church. The body and blood of Christ is still the same no matter if it is recieved from the ordained or from the layity who has been commisioned to perform that duty.

Peace,
FAB

There is a difference between teaching and liturgical allowance. The use of EMHCs is allowed only when the numbers are so great that the Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion (celebrant and deacon) cannot handle it themselves. Furthermore, it is not necessarily a requirement that the Precious Blood be administered. Thus, a parish can actually get by without having EMHCs.

The objection, as I see it, is that EMHCs are overused. That is a sad reality. Even the documents point out that this should not happen.

Incidentally, the Church points out, in RS, something rather interesting when it comes to the reception of First Holy Communion:

[87.] The First Communion of children must always be preceded by sacramental confession and absolution.169 Moreover First Communion should always be administered by a Priest and never outside the celebration of Mass.

The EMHC is not even mentioned here.

 

[yellowbird]

A couple months ago I was in line, and a man appeared to be crossing the next line, and wanting through my line, to get to the row of pews for some reason. A bit confusing to me that someone would be plowing through the communion lines like this - I had to consider that perhaps there was someone ill in the pews that needed help, or who knows what else. I made way, only to have him take his place in front of me in line. When I realized my line had the priest, and this communicant was disrupting my concentration (and presumably that of others) for such a silly reason, I was seriously annoyed. Luckily I had several moments to regain my state of mind and take a more charitable view of things before I received.

So yes, it does sometimes mess up the flow of traffic and the concentration of some parishioners, and if you feel you can only receive from the priest, try to do so with as little disturbance as possible - perhaps getting in line at the back.

I totally hear what you’re saying and I would NOT want to disturb someone else waiting in line. I agree that is rude and disruptive.

And just when you think you’ve seen everything: At our recent May Crowning Mass where the second graders wear their 1st Communion clothes, a man in front of me in the commuion line snapped pictures of his child’s class… snap snap… snap snap… all the way to the front of the line and then he scooted OUT of line and positioned himself so he could snap pictures as the children walked back down the isle. It was SOOOOOO ridiculously distracting. Well, that and he took pictures all throught the mass… even during the consecration while we were all kneeling. RUDE RUDE RUDE.

OK, Sorry for the rant… Back to the topic at hand…

 

[yellowbird]

One has absolutly no realtion to te other.

Oh I don’t know… they are both Sacraments that historically were administered by the Priest. Baptisms are still done by the Priest (or Deacon) but in extrodinary circumstances, *could *be done by a teenager in a polo shirt. Holy Communion used to be distributed by the Priest but is now *typically *done by teenagers in polo shirts.

I wish it weren’t so. Maybe it’s just me?

 

[FAB]

There is a difference between teaching and liturgical allowance. The use of EMHCs is allowed only when the numbers are so great that the Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion (celebrant and deacon) cannot handle it themselves. Furthermore, it is not necessarily a requirement that the Precious Blood be administered. Thus, a parish can actually get by without having EMHCs.

The objection, as I see it, is that EMHCs are overused. That is a sad reality. Even the documents point out that this should not happen.

Incidentally, the Church points out, in RS, something rather interesting when it comes to the reception of First Holy Communion:

The EMHC is not even mentioned here.

What you quoted came out of the GIRM, a liturgical document that contains the teachings of the Church for the mass.
The Catholic bishops have prescribed that communion be given under both species, so it is not an option.
You can feel as you want, but EMHC are not going away, so way cause grief for the preist and the parish by moving from line to line to get what you want. That to me to contadict Church teaching to a much greater degree.
Peace,
FAB

 

[yellowbird]

What you quoted came out of the GIRM, a liturgical document that contains the teachings of the Church for the mass.
The Catholic bishops have prescribed that communion be given under both species, so it is not an option.
You can feel as you want, but EMHC are not going away, so way cause grief for the preist and the parish by moving from line to line to get what you want. That to me to contadict Church teaching to a much greater degree.
Peace,
FAB

Ok, fairly new Catholic here trying respectfully to understand… isn’t the GRIM what everyone is supposed to follow to keep us unified and not off doing our own thing? I thought that was the How-To book for the mass? Why would the Bishops suggest something different? Do the Bishops trump the GRIM?

and part two: How are some parishes able to pull it off without the use of EMHC? Might an option be to find one that doesn’t use them, as a previous poster did? But in doing so, aren’t I “church shopping” to suit my own personal desires, much as I did as a former Protestant?

the whole topic is unsettling to me. Again, I just WISH I could receive only from the Priest. What about whole on the tongue thing. Honestly, doing so really throws the EMHC … it’s seems to be so uncomfortable for them? To the new EMHC poster who previously responded, is it weird for you?

 

[benedictgal]

What you quoted came out of the GIRM, a liturgical document that contains the teachings of the Church for the mass.
The Catholic bishops have prescribed that communion be given under both species, so it is not an option.
You can feel as you want, but EMHC are not going away, so way cause grief for the preist and the parish by moving from line to line to get what you want. That to me to contadict Church teaching to a much greater degree.
Peace,
FAB

Communion under both species is not a requirement. It is an option. While reception under both species may constitute a fuller sign, the Church has never taught that receiving under one species is not good enough. Even at the Papal Mass (and the installation Mass for NYC Archbishop Timothy Dolan), communion was not given under both species and EMHCs were not used.

Regarding the issue of reception under both species, please refer to the writings of the Council of Trent and Laud Sion, composed by St. Thomas Aquinas.

Wanting to receive Holy Communion from an Ordinary Minister of Holy Communion is not violating the Church’s liturgical documents. The teachings of the Church are contained in the Catechism. The liturigcal documents of the Church tell us how the Mass (and other liturgies) is supposed to be celebrated. While EMHCs are allowed, they are not a requirement. Unfortunately, their use in many parishes has been relegated to the ordinary and regular as opposed to the extraordinary and rare.

 

[FAB]

Ok, fairly new Catholic here trying to understand… isn’t the GRIM what everyone is supposed to follow to keep us unified and not off doing our own thing? I thought that was the How-To book for the mass? Why would the Bishops suggest something different? Do the Bishops trump the GRIM?

The Bishops have the teaching authority of the Church. An individaul bishop has the authority over his diocese to make decisions concerning a wide varaity of issues. They would not “trump” the Girm, but they might issue directives pastorally meets the needs of the people he sheperds.
They are many on this site who want to quote documents as the final word, but then want to ignor the parts of those documents that give the bishops the flexability that they do have. Also keep in mind that the GIRM is written and approved by the Bishops. They very well know the issues involved.

Peace,
FAB

 

[benedictgal]

The Bishops have the teaching authority of the Church. An individaul bishop has the authority over his diocese to make decisions concerning a wide varaity of issues. They would not “trump” the Girm, but they might issue directives pastorally meets the needs of the people he sheperds.
They are many on this site who want to quote documents as the final word, but then want to ignor the parts of those documents that give the bishops the flexability that they do have. Also keep in mind that the GIRM is written and approved by the Bishops. They very well know the issues involved.

Peace,
FAB

Actually, while the bishop may have authority, it is not carte blanche. It is limited. He cannot overrule what the GIRM, RS and the CDWDS say in all matters regarding the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

For example, he can suggest that Holy Communion be distributed by the hand (as some have done in the wake of the swine flu issue), but, he cannot mandate it (without the risk of violating RS). If he chooses to dismiss the usage of EMHCs, he is certainly entitled to do that. However, he cannot make wholesale changes to the Mass or make his own adaptations. These must come from the national episcoopal conference and must be agreed to by a 2/3 vote of the Latin Rite bishops. Then, they are sent to Rome for the required recognitio.

 

[FAB]

Communion under both species is not a requirement. It is an option. While reception under both species may constitute a fuller sign, the Church has never taught that receiving under one species is not good enough. Even at the Papal Mass (and the installation Mass for NYC Archbishop Timothy Dolan), communion was not given under both species and EMHCs were not used.

Regarding the issue of reception under both species, please refer to the writings of the Council of Trent and Laud Sion, composed by St. Thomas Aquinas.

Wanting to receive Holy Communion from an Ordinary Minister of Holy Communion is not violating the Church’s liturgical documents. The teachings of the Church are contained in the Catechism. The liturigcal documents of the Church tell us how the Mass (and other liturgies) is supposed to be celebrated. While EMHCs are allowed, they are not a requirement. Unfortunately, their use in many parishes has been relegated to the ordinary and regular as opposed to the extraordinary and rare.

I didn’t say that one species is not good enough, but that the Catholic bishops directed that both should be given when possible.
As far as documents and writings, I prefer the most recent via, Vatcian II and following.
EMHC may not be requied but they are needed and the documents of the Church in it’s collective wisdom has made made provision for their use.

Peace,
FAB

 

[yellowbird]

The Bishops have the teaching authority of the Church. An individaul bishop has the authority over his diocese to make decisions concerning a wide varaity of issues. They would not “trump” the Girm, but they might issue directives pastorally meets the needs of the people he sheperds.
They are many on this site who want to quote documents as the final word, but then want to ignor the parts of those documents that give the bishops the flexability that they do have. Also keep in mind that the GIRM is written and approved by the Bishops. They very well know the issues involved.

Peace,
FAB

So then I suppose it becomes a matter of personal opinion for the Bishop… whether he believes it is necessary to use the EMHC in his diocese? Because the GRIM says under extra-ordinary circumstances … I suppose the Bishop decides what consitutes extra-ordinary. I do agree with benedict gal… at some point it becomes ordinary… at least at my parish it would be SOOOOOO rare to not have the 8-10 EMHCs. It recently happened at the Veneration of the Cross mass… 4 Priests - no EMHCs. It was beautiful.

 

[FAB]

Actually, while the bishop may have authority, it is not carte blanche. It is limited. He cannot overrule what the GIRM, RS and the CDWDS say in all matters regarding the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

For example, he can suggest that Holy Communion be distributed by the hand (as some have done in the wake of the swine flu issue), but, he cannot mandate it (without the risk of violating RS). If he chooses to dismiss the usage of EMHCs, he is certainly entitled to do that. However, he cannot make wholesale changes to the Mass or make his own adaptations. These must come from the national episcoopal conference and must be agreed to by a 2/3 vote of the Latin Rite bishops. Then, they are sent to Rome for the required recognitio.

Once again, don’t go to the extreme. The bishops have a certain amount of flexabilty which was my point. So the mass is celebrated at the Vatican is according to the GIRM, as to the direction of the local bishop, the pope. Not even he can do whole sale changes to the mass. If the pope chooses to only give under one species, he can. That doesn’t then set the norm for the rest of church unless it goes through the proper proceedures.
I answer to my local ordinary, I know he has the authority and trust that he will not violate the trust that has been placed in him.
Peace,
FAB

 

[FAB]

So then I suppose it becomes a matter of personal opinion for the Bishop… whether he believes it is necessary to use the EMHC in his diocese? Because the GRIM says under extra-ordinary circumstances … I suppose the Bishop decides what consitutes extra-ordinary. I do agree with benedict gal… at some point it becomes ordinary… at least at my parish it would be SOOOOOO rare to not have the 8-10 EMHCs. It recently happened at the Veneration of the Cross mass… 4 Priests - no EMHCs. It was beautiful.

The Girm indicates that the ordained minister, priest or deacon, is to be first the first minister to distribute. It has become the norm in most parishes to need EMHC.
It’s not so much of personal opinion of the bishop, but more of a recongition of the need.

Peace,
FAB

 

[benedictgal]

The Girm indicates that the ordained minister, priest or deacon, is to be first the first minister to distribute. It has become the norm in most parishes to need EMHC.
It’s not so much of personal opinion of the bishop, but more of a recongition of the need.

Peace,
FAB

Interesting. When we had our re-training, our pastor indicated that we should kick in only when there is a need. He has stopped using an EMHC for daily Mass (although my PV does even though there is no justification for 30 communicants with no distribution of the Precious Blood). Furthermore, since we have begun administering the Precious Blood, the celebrant alone distributes Holy Communion under the form of the Host with two EMHCs on either side administering the chalice. Thus, he has proven the point that he does not need help with the ciborrium. The only time he will use an EMHC to help him is when the faithful number at close to 300. Now, when the deacon is there, it is just him and the celebrant.

 

[yellowbird]

The Girm indicates that the ordained minister, priest or deacon, is to be first the first minister to distribute. It has become the norm in most parishes to need EMHC.
It’s not so much of personal opinion of the bishop, but more of a recongition of the need.

Peace,
FAB

Thanks for helping me to understand. I would so much prefer the Priest so … perhaps one solution to my problem is to continue to PRAY PRAY PRAY for more answered vocations to the Priesthood, thus eliminating the need.

 

[Brendan]

Thanks for helping me to understand. I would so much prefer the Priest so … perhaps one solution to my problem is to continue to PRAY PRAY PRAY for more answered vocations to the Priesthood, thus eliminating the need.

Yep, a priest friend of mine noted that every prayer for ordained vocations is a prayer that the EMHC ministry will end.

 

[Jenny_Z]

The teaching of the church is to allow the use of EMHC. Teaching does not have to be dogma. You can disagree, but we are still called as faithful catholics to accept it.
The use of EMHC I don’t see as a unfortunate necessity. It allows for the faithful to be called to a particularly special kind of service. Since the shortage of preist and deacons is not going to end, te faithful should recieve from the EMHC without making an issue about the practice, even privatly.
By the way, only a priest’s hands are consecrated, not a deacon’s.

Peace,
FAB

Just because the church allows it doesn’t mean anyone is obligated to receive from an EMHC.

 

[pickguard1]

Yep, a priest friend of mine noted that every prayer for ordained vocations is a prayer that the EMHC ministry will end.

Very well said. In a perfect world, the term “extraodinary minister of Holy Communion” wouldn’t even exist, since there would be enough priests to administer communion to everyone.

For my part, I am lucky enough to avoid the issue altogether, since I attend an FSSP mass. Only the priests administer communion (not even deacons do - they will usually take the place of an acolyte at the altar rail and hold the patton under our chins). As to what constitutes a “necessity” for when EMHC’s “need” to be used? Sometimes we have only one priest at the parish (altough two or three is the norm) everyone manages to receive communion within a 5 to 10 minute period (and we have about 150-200 or so at each mass). So I don’t really think EMCH’s are “necessary” unless the parish size is really large While that’s up to the Bishop of course, I would say over 300 communicants would be a minimum if there’s only ONE priest.

When I have gone to an OF mass, I always receive form the priest since his hands are consecrated, and I feel that I am following more closely what Christ intended at the last supper - that His priests “do this in memory of me.” Is it required? No. Do I feel more connected to Christ? Yes.

 

[Digitonomy]

FAB, I have a couple of quibbles with what you’ve said…

The teaching of the church is to allow the use of EMHC. Teaching does not have to be dogma. You can disagree, but we are still called as faithful catholics to accept it.

The word “teaching” in the context we are in generally refers to what the Church has proclaimed about our faith. Instructions are orders as to how that faith should be put into practice. Some documents, such as Deus Caritas Est, are all teaching and no instruction. Many documents are a mix. Other documents, such as the motu proprio from last year, or the GIRM, are pretty light on teaching and primarily instructions (hence the name of the latter).

Long story short, your statement is a bit misleading - it would be more accurate to say

The instruction of the Church is to allow the use of EMHCs. You can disagree, but we are still called as faithful Catholics to accept such instructions.

FAB:

Once again, don’t go to the extreme. The bishops have a certain amount of flexabilty which was my point. So the mass is celebrated at the Vatican is according to the GIRM, as to the direction of the local bishop, the pope. Not even he can do whole sale changes to the mass.

The pope actually has supreme authority over the entire Church, so he could choose to say the mass in pig latin, and have handouts prepared for the congregation so they could read their responses in limerick form. Thankfully this has not happened, but it’s not because he doesn’t have the authority.

 

[Sarabande]

Thanks for helping me to understand. I would so much prefer the Priest so … perhaps one solution to my problem is to continue to PRAY PRAY PRAY for more answered vocations to the Priesthood, thus eliminating the need.

Yes! Yes! Yes!! Pray

Although I totally understand why parishes need EMHCs, some parishes go totally overboard with them. If you really would rather receive from a priest, here is a suggestion. Sit on the end of whatever pew you are in. When your pew is ready to get in the communion line, leave a coat, sweater, etc where you are sitting, get up, but go all the way to the back of the church. If there is an empty pew in the very back near the line with the priest, kneel there for a while and pray. Don’t cut through lines. Wait till the end so that you won’t disturb anyone and tack yourself onto the end of the line, then you can just go back to your pew and not even have to climb over anyone. You’ll eliminate being noticed. But for me, personally, if I’m in a situation where I can’t do that, just receive from the EMHC. It is permitted, so it wouldn’t be wrong to do that. I understand where you are coming from because my husband and I also prefer to receive from a Priest or Deacon, but we also don’t want to make a scene either.

 

[brigid12]

If Holy Communion is being offered under both kinds, I don’t know how it could work with a fairly large congregation without the use of EMHCs - other than receiving at two separate times with a break between to go back to pews.
That is, unless the vocations problem were to completely reverse itself to 1950s percentages.