EMHC Abuse

[Phemie]

Shouldn’t that decision be made by the pastor?

The decision is already made by Rome when Redemptionis Sacramentum says:

[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.

By no stretch of the imagination can one say that 150 is a ‘great number’. One priest could easily distribute Communion to 150 communicants. Where the OP’s priest is elderly and sick you can add someone to help him. Add 2 EMHCs to offer the chalice. Communion doesn’t have to be over in 5 minutes.

 

[Sir_Knight]

By no stretch of the imagination can one say that 150 is a ‘great number’. One priest could easily distribute Communion to 150 communicants.

That is your uneducated and non-professional opinion. What you think and what I think takes a back seat to that of what the pastor thinks … who is TRAINED in this area AND has professional EXPERIENCE in this area – which I and you do not … unless you are a priest.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Just to be clear, my above comments were not meant to sound insulting and if that is how they came across, then I apologize. What I was trying to say is that if one does not have formal training in the priesthood, then one is uneducated in that area and the opinion of someone (like a priest) who DOES have formal training AND actual experience should take precedent over the opinions of those of us who lack this formal training and professional experience.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Thank you. I was just getting ready to say exactly the same thing. When we are pastor, we can make the calls. I for one do not want that job.
Deacon Ed B

 

[ac_claire]

So, to answer your question, it is not proper that the priest say those prayers out loud, with the intention of having the congregation hear him and expect they need to respond with “Amen”. This is for a few reasons:

1. 
   *]There is no rubric for them to respond Amen to those prayers.
   *]The rubrics say the prayers are to be said silently (in a “low” voice).
   *]The nature of these prayers does not demand the “consent” of the congregation! The priest is not speaking to us, he is speaking to God.

1. 
   Thanks, this answers my question.
   
   I think the congregation says “Amen,” just because we don’t know what else to say. Otherwise the prayer just hangs awkwardly in the air. I sort of figured the whole exchange wasn’t in the rubrics because I’d never heard it before anywhere else.
   
   I like how “Lord, I am not worthy…” is the last thing we pray out loud before receiving.
   

   There is no need to fill silence during the Mass with sound just for the sake of sound.

   Amen to that.

 

[Brendan]

I’m sorry but 150 people doesn’t require 8 people to distribute Communion. We easily do it with the priest and 1 EMHC distributing the Hosts and 2 EMHCs for the chalices. Rarely does Mass extend beyond an hour even with the Ordinary sung and 4 hymns. Granted the Homily is never more than 10 minutes.

I would agree, we have 700-800 at each Mass, and we have 3 priests distributing Holy Communion, with 1 deacon bringing Communion to those in the pews who cannot come forward ( elderly, etc…). Communion is not overly extended. We have Sunday Masses at 7:30, 9:30, 11:30 and 1:00pm, plus 6:30 and 8:30pm, so about 2 hours apart. I can’t see why a Mass would have to be pushed back several hours.

As I mentioned in a previous post, two of those priests are retired, one is 85-ish, the other is 94.

 

[Brendan]

Shouldn’t that decision be made by the pastor?

Yes, but should not the pastor be open to suggestions from others. Perhaps he could be made aware of the parishes that DO manage with fewer EMHC’s, and see what those pastors do.

The pastor should, of course, be always open to what his fellow pastors do and be ever vigilant to improve his own technique.

I’d be glad to arrange a call between my pastor and anyone elses.

 

[Sir_Knight]

There may be circumstances which the pastor is aware of which those in the pews are not. The Shepard is not accountable to his sheep – only to his masters. While the sheep ARE to be obedient to those that shepard them.

 

[Brother_John]

Communion doesn’t have to be over in 5 minutes.

That depends…if you’re running six Masses on hour and fifteen minute headways, you better keep it moving, or total chaos will result.

 

[drafdog]

The Eucharist is to be approached with reverence and humility and received with thanksgiving. Being critical of someone else when going to communion is not conducive to proper attitude. We’re letting nonessentials get in the way of prayer.

Matthew

 

[benedictgal]

The Eucharist is to be approached with reverence and humility and received with thanksgiving. Being critical of someone else when going to communion is not conducive to proper attitude. We’re letting nonessentials get in the way of prayer.

Matthew

Since when is violating the GIRM and Redemptionis Sacramentum a non-essential? The fact that an abuse exists and is still going on is something that is rather disturbing. What is worse is the apathetic attitude that some people have regarding the integrity of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Since when is violating the GIRM and Redemptionis Sacramentum a non-essential? The fact that an abuse exists and is still going on is something that is rather disturbing. What is worse is the apathetic attitude that some people have regarding the integrity of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Violating the GIRM in your opinion. As I said above, the judgment call of a trained professional (i.e., the priest who has formal training and actual experience in these matters) takes precedent over the opinions of those sitting in the pews who have neither the training or the experience.

 

[benedictgal]

Violating the GIRM in your opinion. As I said above, the judgment call of a trained professional (i.e., the priest who has formal training and actual experience in these matters) takes precedent over the opinions of those sitting in the pews who have neither the training or the experience.

Not necessarily. Furthermore, many of these “trained professionals” are the ones who are instigating these abuses. So, your argument (and your tone) doesn’t hold much water.

If you insist on discounting “opinions”, then, you might reconsider your stance on this one. This is what Francis Cardinal Arinze has to say on the matter (as found in the online edition of Adoremus):

Well, the question of Eucharistic minister – you mean the Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, that is, those who will help the priest and the deacon when the priest and the deacon are not [sufficient] to give Holy Communion to the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds who are receiving Communion. That’s what we mean by Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. Which means that if the priests and deacons are many and sufficient for those receiving Holy Communion, nobody else should dare to come near the altar and touch the sacred vessel to distribute Communion, because they were not ordained for that.

It’s very important to stress that, because some people do not understand the whole point of these Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. Some people think that it is a power struggle for lay people to prove that what the priest can do, so can they. Which means if there are not many people to receive Communion – suppose there are three priests or two priests and one deacon and 100 people to receive Communion – then there is no need for even one single Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion.

…***The only case where it would be allowed, by the books from Rome, is if the number of communicants is very high and it would take too long for the priest to do it alone ***-- then the priest, the priest himself, can choose one of the people and say, “I authorize you, just for today, to help me to distribute Holy Communion”. Lest it take too long; that is allowed. But only the priest, and only when the communicants are too many

This is coming from the Church’s leading authority on issues concerning Divine Worship. I would say that his credentials are most impressive.

 

[LilyM]

The decision is already made by Rome when Redemptionis Sacramentum says:

By no stretch of the imagination can one say that 150 is a ‘great number’. One priest could easily distribute Communion to 150 communicants. Where the OP’s priest is elderly and sick you can add someone to help him. Add 2 EMHCs to offer the chalice. Communion doesn’t have to be over in 5 minutes.

A lot of priests have more than one parish you know - which means they may need to travel long distances saying several masses en route.

Not to mention that you’ll never know how many shutins they may need to visit, hospitals, baptisms or weddings they may have to do. Nor necessarily how well the priest himself is healthwise - not unless he’s visibly ill.

In such cases, yes, even five minutes can make a huge difference.

 

[NoPlaceLikeRome]

Originally Posted by Joannm
Pre Vatican II we did not have the large numbers going to communion as we do now. i would say less than half of the people at mass went to communion.

But think of Christmas and Holy Week – everyone went to communion then and the crowds were large, yet Communion wasn’t inordinately long.

Altar rails make things move much quicker, I think. Altar rail, 10-50 people kneel at once, depending on the width of your church, and the priest moves swiftly down the line with an altar boy to hold the paten under your chin, takes much less time since he’s the only one moving and you don’t have to wait for people to bow or genuflect, since they are already in a position of reverence. With lines like when Communion is usually received standing, it’s walk up, pause, walk up, pause, walk up, pause…

 

[Sir_Knight]

Furthermore, many of these “trained professionals” are the ones who are instigating these abuses.

In YOUR opinion.

So, your argument (and your tone) doesn’t hold much water.

My argument holds the same amount of water as your’s – it takes SECOND place to that of the priests who have formal training and real-life experience in these areas where you and I do not.

If you insist on discounting “opinions”, then, you might reconsider your stance on this one. This is what Francis Cardinal Arinze has to say on the matter (as found in the online edition of Adoremus):

Well, the question of Eucharistic minister – you mean the Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, that is, those who will help the priest and the deacon when the priest and the deacon are not [sufficient] to give Holy Communion to the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds who are receiving Communion. That’s what we mean by Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. Which means that if the priests and deacons are many and sufficient for those receiving Holy Communion

And, again, who is best qualified to decided if the priests and deacons are many and sufficient for those receiving Holy Communion? The people in the pew who have no formal training or actual experience in this matter or the priest who DOES have formal training and actual experience in this area?

 

[Brendan]

? The people in the pew who have no formal training or actual experience in this matter or the priest who DOES have formal training and actual experience in this area?

Can you describe this actual ‘formal trainnig’ in determining the number of EMHC’s required.

Here is a link to the classes that the Seminarians take in the Archdiocese of Detroit.

Link Here

Which one do you feel provides the formal training.

As part of the Diaconate program, I take many of the same clasess, and I know most of the seminarians and recently ordained men. They all pretty much confirm that it’s all ‘on the job’ As part of their Associate pastorships, they simply watch how another priest does it. The same is true for other matters, such as hiriing and firinig employees, taxes and bookkeeping. The priest recieves no real formal training in those, but yet, is the authority in the parish. If the books are keep badly, he’s the one at fault. The ‘formal’ training he recieves again was mostly ‘on the job’ with several Diocesan workshops thrown in.

If a person with accounting experience offers help and advice, the priest would be negligent in refusing exclusively on the grounds that he is the ultimate authority for bookkeeping in the parish (which he is).

Likewise, here in Detroit, process engineers are not uncommon. I myself have far more training ini process efficency that every priest I know. Why should I not offer my advice as a field expert.

What training does a priest have in this area that hundreds of other in my general area do not have?

 

[baltobetsy]

Can you describe this actual ‘formal trainnig’ in determining the number of EMHC’s required.

Let’s see, what year of grade school was it when we learned to use a clock and memorize the multiplication tables? Let’s see, three or four seconds per communicant, times the number of communicants, divided by sixty equals number of minutes needed for one person to distribute Holy Communion under one form…

Sir Knight, I’ll give you that the pastor gets to decide, but it’s based on his authority, not his training.

Betsy

 

[Newbie2]

The problem is that people seem to think that they need to recieve under both species. If only the species of the hosts is being distributed during communion, then one priest could easily do it. Then people would complain that it took too long, but you know what I am sure sitting in the pews and taking a little bit more time to pray would be good. So many people seem to think mass has a time limit of 1 hr. Well, it doesn’t. When you are going up to communion, you are going up to receive the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. Is this not the greatest honor. People will wait 6 hrs in front of stores to buy stuff when it comes out, but can people not wait for a few minutes to receive Our Lord? Only one species needs to be distributed and if you do that, then only one priest needs to distribute.

Easy in a small parish; difficult in a large one…and it depends on the age of the priest. We have one priest at our parish, and one deacon. On occasion, we have a retired priest visit and say mass; he can barely make it up the couple of stairs to the sanctuary…

It seems to me that not offering the cup so that a single priest can do without EMHCs is…well…sorry, I can’t think of the word right now. “Silly” isn’t what I mean to say, but maybe “tradeoff”?

Of course parishes could adjust there mass times. Perhaps offer more so as to more evenly spread it out. A parish could have an 8 AM and an 11 AM. Or it could just do one at 10. Or do one at 8 10 and noon. Either way the parking is no excuse. Mass is not about being convenient.

Yes, parking can be an excuse, if we want people to come to mass; is it better to have people not come to mass, because of parking snarls or have them offered communion by an EMCH?

 

[cfrancis]

The problem is that people seem to think that they need to recieve under both species. If only the species of the hosts is being distributed during communion, then one priest could easily do it. Then people would complain that it took too long, but you know what I am sure sitting in the pews and taking a little bit more time to pray would be good. So many people seem to think mass has a time limit of 1 hr. Well, it doesn’t. When you are going up to communion, you are going up to receive the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. Is this not the greatest honor. People will wait 6 hrs in front of stores to buy stuff when it comes out, but can people not wait for a few minutes to receive Our Lord? Only one species needs to be distributed and if you do that, then only one priest needs to distribute.

I have never thought of this analogy before - and I will shamelessly use it, ad nauseum!!!
Thank you!