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

[Cat]

Is the number “300” an official number that is used by priests to determine whether they need to make use of their EMHCs?

I’m glad to hear an actual number quoted, instead of the usual vague discussion and opinions about unnecessary use of EMHCs. I’ve wondered if there is an actual hard standard that the priests can use to determine whether they are overusing EMHCs.

And I am glad to hear the number “300.” At my parish, at least six EMHCs are used at Masses, and whenever I read CAF threads about EMHCs, I have to admit, I worry that our priests are overusing the EMHCs. But we generally have around 500 people or more in attendance at Mass, so we are well over the official standard for overuse. Also,the priests generally offer Holy Communion under both species. So I’m glad to be assured that my priests aren’t overusing the EMHCs. Whew.

 

[pickguard1]

Is the number “300” an official number that is used by priests to determine whether they need to make use of their EMHCs?

I’m glad to hear an actual number quoted, instead of the usual vague discussion and opinions about unnecessary use of EMHCs. I’ve wondered if there is an actual hard standard that the priests can use to determine whether they are overusing EMHCs.

And I am glad to hear the number “300.” At my parish, at least six EMHCs are used at Masses, and whenever I read CAF threads about EMHCs, I have to admit, I worry that our priests are overusing the EMHCs. But we generally have around 500 people or more in attendance at Mass, so we are well over the official standard for overuse. Also,the priests generally offer Holy Communion under both species. So I’m glad to be assured that my priests aren’t overusing the EMHCs. Whew.

I in no way, meant to imply that 300 is an official number. It was my personal opinion that EMHC’s may be warranted at that level. I don’t think you’ll ever actually see a number, since the priests/bishops need to have the ability to use their prudential judgement. As a very personal opinion, I think any amount of time is worth it to receive communion, and if I had to wait an hour because there were a couple thousand people, so be it. I personally only see a “need” in circumstances like war (providing communion to soldiers going into battle) Holy Viaticum for the dying, etc. Missing the Sunday game because a lot of people feel the need to glorify God in the mass doesn’t seem like too much of a burden to me.

 

[FAB]

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

A bishop has the authority to teach on any issue for the church and can issue thier own documents.
The pope is primarily the Bishop of Rome. There are no decision concerning faith and doctrine that he makes without first consulting the other bishops of the world.

Peace, FAB

 

[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.

This discussion seems to question what the role of the Laity has in the Church. Vatican II very much opened up and expanded the role that the laity should and needs to have in the Church.
Ordinary Ministers, are to be the first in the distribution of communion. I have no aurgument with that of that it is the perfered method. The church lives in a real world in which the prefered is not always possible. If the pastor can work out a way not to use EMHC, good for him, but faithful Catholics should also understand that recieving form a EMHC in no way diminises the sacrament. Comments on this thread lead me to think that is the case.

Peace,
FAB

 

[pickguard1]

but faithful Catholics should also understand that recieving form a EMHC in no way diminises the sacrament. Comments on this thread lead me to think that is the case.

Peace,
FAB

Whose?

 

[FAB]

Whose?

Yours

 

[pickguard1]

Yours

What!?

 

[Jenny_Z]

You didn’t respond to what I said, so I’ll say it again:

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

Just the same as one is not obligated to receive the Precious Blood. People have their reasons, and it doesn’t mean they’re disobeying the Church.

 

[FAB]

Whose?

This is your comment.

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

Makes me think so, Also you are diminsing the role of the deacon as part of this comment. His hands are not concecrated.
It looks as though you don’t feel as connected with Christ unless the euchaist comes from the hands of a priest, that sounds like you are diminising the sacarament if recieving for an EMHC.

Peace,
FAB

 

[pickguard1]

This is your comment.

Makes me think so, Also you are diminsing the role of the deacon as part of this comment. His hands are not concecrated.
It looks as though you don’t feel as connected with Christ unless the euchaist comes from the hands of a priest, that sounds like you are diminising the sacarament if recieving for an EMHC.

Peace,
FAB

Where I go to church, deacons don’t administer communion (I attend an FSSP parish).

The sacrament can’t be diminished by anything. Period.

I have a particular reverence for the priest in that it is by HIS hands and through HIS words that Christ is re-presented to us at mass. That I wish to receive my Lord directly from His priest is only my personal preference. (I might add that this was how all Latin Rite Catholics ordinarily received communion up to about 40 or so years ago).

The purpose of rite and ritual is to stir the interior emotions as well as provide a medium for teaching doctrine. That is why the rituals are so well-preserved. One part of the ritual that helps me focus on the enormity of Christ’s gift to us (himself in the Eucharist) is receving Him from His priest. This connects me, not more to Christ (sorry for not expanding on that earlier) - as He dwells within me and couldn’t be more connected to me if I wanted Him to, but to His Church, to the fact that I am participating in the same sacrifice that countless others have.

I don’t know why your posts are always so antagonizing. You seem to try and read ill intent and impiety into everyone’s posts.

 

[Cat]

Where I go to church, deacons don’t administer communion (I attend an FSSP parish).

The sacrament can’t be diminished by anything. Period.

I have a particular reverence for the priest in that it is by HIS hands and through HIS words that Christ is re-presented to us at mass. That I wish to receive my Lord directly from His priest is only my personal preference. (I might add that this was how all Latin Rite Catholics ordinarily received communion up to about 40 or so years ago).

The purpose of rite and ritual is to stir the interior emotions as well as provide a medium for teaching doctrine. That is why the rituals are so well-preserved. One part of the ritual that helps me focus on the enormity of Christ’s gift to us (himself in the Eucharist) is receving Him from His priest. This connects me, not more to Christ (sorry for not expanding on that earlier) - as He dwells within me and couldn’t be more connected to me if I wanted Him to, but to His Church, to the fact that I am participating in the same sacrifice that countless others have.

I don’t know why your posts are always so antagonizing. You seem to try and read ill intent and impiety into everyone’s posts.

I disagree with your last few sentences. I think that FABs posts are reasonable and charitable. So many regular Catholics (“conservative” Catholics?–I’m not sure what I am but I know it’s not traditional) have abandoned any attempt to discuss this topic with the traditional Catholics on CAF, and poor FAB, along with only a few others, is attempting to bring people of CAF to an understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches about EMHCs. I personally think he/she may as well just give up.

I personally find the continued insistence that receiving from the priest’s “consecrated hands” is better than receiving from EMHCs antagonizing and frustrating.

And I am really beginning to wonder why so many Catholics consider this and the “Hand vs. Tongue” debate worth investing so much energy in, while in this world, people continue to die without ever knowing Jesus Christ. IMO, this is very similiar to a lot of the silly debates that Protestants have about going to movies, attending baseball games on Sunday, dancing, wearing makeup, dating people of another race, etc.

 

[KathleenElsie]

We sit in the first pew so we don’t have to receive from the EM’s. A couple of weeks ago an EM was the one to give the hosts to us and she literal shoved it between my folded hands and ignored my mouth being open with my tongue sticking out.

 

[pickguard1]

I disagree with your last few sentences.

That is your right.

I personally find the continued insistence that receiving from the priest’s “consecrated hands” is better than receiving from EMHCs antagonizing and frustrating.

I see no “insistence” here. I have not “insisted” that this is better. Who has? I have merely stated MY preference and why, along with others. You are free to prefer a priest or an EMHC.
The point revolves more around the fact that, were there not a shortage of clergy, EMHC’s would not be necessary. I would prefer that as well.

And I am really beginning to wonder why so many Catholics consider this and the “Hand vs. Tongue” debate worth investing so much energy in, while in this world, people continue to die without ever knowing Jesus Christ. IMO, this is very similiar to a lot of the silly debates that Protestants have about going to movies, attending baseball games on Sunday, dancing, wearing makeup, dating people of another race, etc.

Why interject that topic into this thread if you feel it is so “silly”?

 

[benedictgal]

A bishop has the authority to teach on any issue for the church and can issue thier own documents.
The pope is primarily the Bishop of Rome. There are no decision concerning faith and doctrine that he makes without first consulting the other bishops of the world.

Peace, FAB

FAB, the bishop’s authority is not carte blanche. The Holy Father is more than the Bishop of Rome. He is the Universal Shepherd, the Supreme Pontiff and the Vicar of Christ on Earth. To say that he is primarily the Bishop of Rome is to equate his position with that of Archbishop Rowan Williams, who is the Archbishop of Canterbury and, as far as the Anglican Community is concerned, merely the first among equals.

The use of EMHCs is not a matter of Church teaching, per se. It is simply something that is allowed, but, only within certain parameters. It is not something that is locked in stone and the Church can remove this at any time. It was never meant to be permanent.

 

[Sarabande]

I personally find the continued insistence that receiving from the priest’s “consecrated hands” is better than receiving from EMHCs antagonizing and frustrating.

Although there may be a couple people who are more “staunch” in asserting absolutes regarding this, I really believe that most are just expressing their preference. They know that it is acceptable, but they choose to only receive through a priest or deacon. That’s fine. I could care less whether or not someone else does or prefers not to receiving from an EMHC. Some people on both sides of the coin can be very volatile on this issue.

But come on… at least on this thread no one was really insisting that everyone else receive from the priest. They are just expressing what they do for themselves for their spiritual nourishment. Some people really truly feel spiritually complete receiving by a priest or deacon. They know that there is nothing wrong receiving from an EMHC, especially since it is ok’d by the Church, but their preference is through the priest. There isn’t anything wrong with that especially if a scene is not made and it does not disrupt anything. Why is it when they express that, it is immediately assumed as a judgemental statement towards others? Is it because a few posts by a minority who might be too volatile in their beliefs suddenly represent the whole lot of them? This is true on either side of the coin. Then what happens is that each side will feel like they are made to back up their belief or preference, so they provide that and then are suddenly branded as being judgemental.

This happens so often in so many on-line discussions. We’re all guilty of assuming the worst in people at one time or another either because of past experience, a bad day or whatever. But perhaps we should all try to think the best of them when they are posting.

 

[benedictgal]

This discussion seems to question what the role of the Laity has in the Church. Vatican II very much opened up and expanded the role that the laity should and needs to have in the Church.
Ordinary Ministers, are to be the first in the distribution of communion. I have no aurgument with that of that it is the perfered method. The church lives in a real world in which the prefered is not always possible. If the pastor can work out a way not to use EMHC, good for him, but faithful Catholics should also understand that recieving form a EMHC in no way diminises the sacrament. Comments on this thread lead me to think that is the case.

Peace,
FAB

FAB, whether or not you may want to admit this, as late as 1997, the Church found the over-use of EMHCs rather problematic. That is why she issued the document Ecclesia de Mysterio. It has some rather interesting things to say about the subject:

Article 8

The Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion
The non-ordained faithful already collaborate with the sacred ministers in diverse pastoral situations since “This wonderful gift of the Eucharist, which is the greatest gift of all, demands that such an important mystery should be increasingly better known and its saving power more fully shared”.(95)

Such liturgical service is a response to the objective needs of the faithful especially those of the sick and to those liturgical assemblies in which there are particularly large numbers of the faithful who wish to receive Holy Communion.

1. The canonical discipline concerning extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion must be correctly applied so as to avoid generating confusion. The same discipline establishes that the ordinary minister of Holy Communion is the Bishop, the Priest and the the Deacon.(96) Extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion are those instituted as acolytes and the faithful so deputed in accordance with Canon 230, 3.(97)

A non-ordained member of the faithful, in cases of true necessity, may be deputed by the diocesan bishop, using the appropriate form of blessing for these situations, to act as an extraordinary minister to distribute Holy Communion outside of liturgical celebrations ad actum vel ad tempus (acting or temporarily appointed) or for a more stable period. In exceptional cases or in unforeseen circumstances, the priest presiding at the liturgy may authorize such ad actum.(98)

1. Extraordinary ministers may distribute Holy Communion at eucharistic celebrations only when there are no ordained ministers present or when those ordained ministers present at a liturgical celebration are truly unable to distribute Holy Communion.(99) They may also exercise this function at eucharistic celebrations where there are particularly large numbers of the faithful and which would be excessively prolonged because of an insufficient number of ordained ministers to distribute Holy Communion. (100)

This function is supplementary and extraordinary (101) and must be exercised in accordance with the norm of law. It is thus useful for the diocesan bishop to issue particular norms concerning extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion which, in complete harmony with the universal law of the Church, should regulate the exercise of this function in his diocese. Such norms should provide, amongst other things, for matters such as the instruction in eucharistic doctrine of those chosen to be extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, the meaning of the service they provide, the rubrics to be observed, the reverence to be shown for such an august Sacrament and instruction concerning the discipline on admission to Holy Communion.

To avoid creating confusion, certain practices are to be avoided and eliminated where such have emerged in particular Churches:

extraordinary ministers receiving Holy Communion apart from the other faithful as though concelebrants;

association with the renewal of promises made by priests at the Chrism Mass on Holy Thursday, as well as other categories of faithful who renew religious vows or receive a mandate as extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion;

**the habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass thus arbitrarily extending the concept of “a great number of the faithful”. **

The last line is the key here. Evidently, what was supposed to have been extraordinary is now, sadly, habitual. Incidentally, this document, released by the Congregation for Clergy, was also written with the collaboration of the Congregtion for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (headed at the time by Pope Benedict XVI).

 

[Jenny_Z]

My guess is that the folks that are truly offended by a preference to receive from a priest are most likely EMHC’s themselves, and feel like someone is judging them by not receiving communion from them… a totally normal, human reaction, but it’s really not something that should be taken personally.

 

[Newbie2]

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 havin***g EMHCs.

This is a non sequitur. Yes, some parishes can get by without EMHCs, but some cannot. The allowance of the use of EMHCs is a recognition of this fact.

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

Evidently, what was supposed to have been extraordinary is now, sadly, habitual.

Yep. We need more priests.

 

[FAB]

CAT
Thank you for your defense. I do try to be charitable in my post and my line of questions and comments are never to be insulting, but they do challenge somes lines of traditional thought.

Back to EMHC. At baptism we are called to be priest, prophet and servant king. Each of these is a particular call to the baptised to serve Christ. The increase role of the laity in the church has been part of this call. It is aslo a role that will increase in the future.
It is fine to quote church documents on that EMHC should be used sparingly. It does not change the practicallity of a single preist in a parish saying multiple masses on a Sunday and to be able to distrubute communion the neccessity of having EMHC.
So let’s drop that side of the discussion, the use of EMHC are here to stay.
The question then is the importance that some individuals have to recieving only from a preist or deacon, to the point of being willing to switch and break in lines to fullfil this need. It seems to me that this is contrary to the sacrament and our baptismal call. It is putting ones own wishes, for no real explainable purpose, except it’s my preferance about the communial aspect of being a single body of Christ.
Although it may not be a disobediance to the church to not accept communion from a EMHC, it does represent a certain amount of disrepect for the Church and practices which have been well thought out to meet the needs of the faithful.
I particular find this contrary to a traditionalist line of thought which comes from a time of total unquestioning obediance to the church.

Peace,
FAB

 

[Jenny_Z]

Wow, switching lines is “contrary to the sacrament”? You don’t think that’s a bit much?

Anyway, you STILL haven’t responded to what I’ve said twice, so I’ll quote it again.

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

Just the same as one is not obligated to receive the Precious Blood. People have their reasons, and it doesn’t mean they’re disobeying the Church.