EMHC: How many is "too many"?

[Oneofthewomen]

In every parish I have attended in my home diocese EMHC are used to distribute the Eucharist under both species.
I myself am a properly trained EMHC (both in parish settings and to the ill and infirm) and take my responsibilites very seriously.

We all can agree, that in a perfect world, there would be no need for EMHC because we would have enough ordinary ministers,
but here in my little corner of the US, that is not the reality.

I have noticed that in many parishes there seems to be an abundance of EMHC, sometimes as many as 12
(+ 1 priest, and if there is a deacon, he usually does not administer communion)!
And that is for a Mass that has about 600 in attendance.

I have been to other parishes where there are 6 total,
4 EMHC and 1 priest & 1 deacon, again with about 600 in attendance,
and in both cases, communion took about the same amount of time.

I have read the GIRM, and there are no “hard & fast rules” regarding numbers,
so I figure it is probably up to the individual pastor,
as long as he is acting in accordance with the directives of his Bishop.
Is this correct?

So what do you out in CAF-land think?
How many EMHC is “too many” and how should we figure out how many to use?

I am especially interested in hearing from priests and/or liturgy coordinators who are responsible for arranging for EMHC at Mass.
Not only what you do, but what your thought process behind it is-
is it to speed things up, for more “active” participation for the laity,
because of illness or infirmity of the ordinary ministers, etc…

 

[ProVobis]

There’s another thread on speedy Masses and most there are bothered by speedy Masses as though they’re being shortchanged. Isn’t the intent of EMHC usage to speed up the Mass? If so, wouldn’t one be too many?

 

[boatbearer]

In every parish I have attended in my home diocese EMHC are used to distribute the Eucharist under both species.
I myself am a properly trained EMHC (both in parish settings and to the ill and infirm) and take my responsibilites very seriously.

We all can agree, that in a perfect world, there would be no need for EMHC because we would have enough ordinary ministers,
but here in my little corner of the US, that is not the reality.

**I have noticed that in many parishes there seems to be an abundance of EMHC, sometimes as many as 12
(+ 1 priest, and if there is a deacon, he usually does not administer communion)!
And that is for a Mass that has about 600 in attendance.

I have been to other parishes where there are 6 total,
4 EMHC and 1 priest & 1 deacon, again with about 600 in attendance,
and in both cases, communion took about the same amount of time.**

I have read the GIRM, and there are no “hard & fast rules” regarding numbers,
so I figure it is probably up to the individual pastor,
as long as he is acting in accordance with the directives of his Bishop.
Is this correct?

So what do you out in CAF-land think?
How many EMHC is “too many” and how should we figure out how many to use?

I am especially interested in hearing from priests and/or liturgy coordinators who are responsible for arranging for EMHC at Mass.
Not only what you do, but what your thought process behind it is-
is it to speed things up, for more “active” participation for the laity,
because of illness or infirmity of the ordinary ministers, etc…

You’re right – there are no hard and fast rules regarding quantity so I won’t add my opinion. What I will say is this. Attempting to decrease the total time it takes to distribute communion to everyone is typically the primary reason/excuse most parishes use for justifying their EMsHC use. I suggest that:

#1.) Attempts to “speed-up” the Mass through the use of EMsHC have had a grave impact on many parishes. The massive and often confusing and herky-jerky flow of communicants is a terrible thing.

#2) Given the increased number of EMsHC who need to receive and the horrible inefficiencies of most “systems” with too many people (ordinary/extraordinary) distributing communion, not much time is saved anyway.

Your confusion is based on not grasping the intricacies of queuing theory. Don’t worry you’re not alone – it’s a fairly abstruse area of study within operations research. It’s one of those disciplines where some wade-in and feel they know what to do intuitively when they would be doing something entirely different if they were actually able to analyze the “system.” The second “system” you observed had to be far more efficient with far fewer resources but then again I was not there. I could not observe what was going on, the different constraints on each system, etc.

They don’t teach operations research in seminary…

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

One.

 

[choy]

There’s another thread on speedy Masses and most there are bothered by speedy Masses as though they’re being shortchanged. Isn’t the intent of EMHC usage to speed up the Mass? If so, wouldn’t one be too many?

EMHCs cannot speed up the Mass. they can only affect the speed of communion being distributed. but other parts of the Mass all falls on the priest, and to a lesser extent the readers (i have heard readers who reads very, very slowly)

is one too many? depends. if you have 1000 people and one priest
there’s no formula on how many ministers (ordinary or extraordinary) per number of communicants, so its up to the priest really to justify why he has a said number of EMHCs

 

[Bob_Aliano]

In every parish I have attended in my home diocese EMHC are used to distribute the Eucharist under both species.
I myself am a properly trained EMHC (both in parish settings and to the ill and infirm) and take my responsibilites very seriously.

We all can agree, that in a perfect world, there would be no need for EMHC because we would have enough ordinary ministers,
but here in my little corner of the US, that is not the reality.

I have noticed that in many parishes there seems to be an abundance of EMHC, sometimes as many as 12
(+ 1 priest, and if there is a deacon, he usually does not administer communion)!
And that is for a Mass that has about 600 in attendance.

I have been to other parishes where there are 6 total,
4 EMHC and 1 priest & 1 deacon, again with about 600 in attendance,
and in both cases, communion took about the same amount of time.

I have read the GIRM, and there are no “hard & fast rules” regarding numbers,
so I figure it is probably up to the individual pastor,
as long as he is acting in accordance with the directives of his Bishop.
Is this correct?

So what do you out in CAF-land think?
How many EMHC is “too many” and how should we figure out how many to use?

I am especially interested in hearing from priests and/or liturgy coordinators who are responsible for arranging for EMHC at Mass.
Not only what you do, but what your thought process behind it is-
is it to speed things up, for more “active” participation for the laity,
because of illness or infirmity of the ordinary ministers, etc…

One is too many.

 

[MarkThompson]

There’s another thread on speedy Masses and most there are bothered by speedy Masses as though they’re being shortchanged. Isn’t the intent of EMHC usage to speed up the Mass? If so, wouldn’t one be too many?

If people on the other thread were complaining, it wasn’t because they aren’t spending enough time shuffling in line.

 

[ProVobis]

If people on the other thread were complaining, it wasn’t because they aren’t spending enough time shuffling in line.

Maybe because their ultimate goal is to give everyone the keys and make everyone in church an EMHC and have no lines. That wouldn’t be too many, would it?

 

[MarkThompson]

Maybe because their ultimate goal is to give everyone the keys and make everyone in church an EMHC and have no lines. That wouldn’t be too many, would it?

PV, I can tell that you’re joking, but unfortunately I’m not quite following the joke. Is your ultimate (non-joking) point that we really don’t need to speed up the reception of communion? It’s one thing in even a moderately large church of standard design to move people slowly up the aisles to receive from, say, just one priest and a deacon. But many newer churches are broader, or fan-shaped, or seat people in the transepts, or have some other idiosyncrasy that would make it really complicated and onerous to try to cycle people up to only one or two servers in the center. I suppose he could do one section, then move and do the next, etc., but now you’ve maybe just tripled the time it takes.

“Have more priests” and “Build churches differently” would be very good suggestions, but there’s a world of difference between suggestion and existence.

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

PV, I can tell that you’re joking, but unfortunately I’m not quite following the joke. Is your ultimate (non-joking) point that we really don’t need to speed up the reception of communion? It’s one thing in even a moderately large church of standard design to move people slowly up the aisles to receive from, say, just one priest and a deacon. But many newer churches are broader, or fan-shaped, or seat people in the transepts, or have some other idiosyncrasy that would make it really complicated and onerous to try to cycle people up to only one or two servers in the center. I suppose he could do one section, then move and do the next, etc., but now you’ve maybe just tripled the time it takes.

“Have more priests” and “Build churches differently” would be very good suggestions, but there’s a world of difference between suggestion and existence.

Altar rails solve that issue wonderfully I find.

 

[ProVobis]

PV, I can tell that you’re joking, but unfortunately I’m not quite following the joke.

Just followed your joke (?) and trying to stay on topic (a change for me, I know, and a poor job on my part). I’m not going to argue with your architecture theory. I’ve already answered the OP’s question, I think.

 

[Matariel]

One is too many. EMHC are only to be used in absolutely extraordinary circumstances, which is clearly not the case here.

 

[ljubim]

I agree that one is too many.

The same argument used to promote lots of EMHC’s (shortage of priests, more laity involvement needed) is also used to promote women priests, no celibacy (in the Roman Rite), and all sorts of nonsense. The problem is, the same people with all these liberal tendencies (a wait-and-see attitude about women priests… abortion is sometimes ok, etc) are the ones who have clawed their way into positions of influence in the Church, and help ensure that new parishes are built in ugly church in the round designs that *ensure *that one priest could never distribute communion.

The problem isn’t just EMHCs, it’s within many in the Church’s hierarchy. The majority of the faithful will go along with anything, it’s not them demanding EMHCs. I’ve been to massive TLM’s where there’s just two people, priest and deacon, distributing the Eucharist, and it goes by astoundingly fast for so many people(I wish it did take longer, every minute of a TLM is s gem ). It’s also a lot less of a mess, because by nature and by the traditional layout there is more order and less confusion.

 

[boatbearer]

The Byzantine Ruthenian Catholics in the USA say one EMHC can be used for every 75 additional communicants. Their communion cycle-time is a bit longer though.

 

[boatbearer]

When I received First Communion many years ago ONE PRIEST distributed Holy Communion. If it was via intinction, a curate held a chalice of the Precision Blood and stood on his right.

Today in that exact same church, at Masses celebrated by that very same priest (he’s now retired and in residence) EIGHT individuals plus TWO “captain EMsHC” are needed to distribute communion.

Keep in mind that few people are at each Mass yet FAR more go to communion.

I think things need to begin by reviewing the “qualifications” required to receive communion.

 

[boatbearer]

I agree that one is too many.

The same argument used to promote lots of EMHC’s (shortage of priests, more laity involvement needed) is also used to promote women priests, no celibacy (in the Roman Rite), and all sorts of nonsense. The problem is, the same people with all these liberal tendencies (a wait-and-see attitude about women priests… abortion is sometimes ok, etc) are the ones who have clawed their way into positions of influence in the Church, and help ensure that new parishes are built in ugly church in the round designs that *ensure *that one priest could never distribute communion.

The problem isn’t just EMHCs, it’s within many in the Church’s hierarchy. The majority of the faithful will go along with anything, it’s not them demanding EMHCs. I’ve been to massive TLM’s where there’s just two people, priest and deacon, distributing the Eucharist, and it goes by astoundingly fast for so many people(I wish it did take longer, every minute of a TLM is s gem ). It’s also a lot less of a mess, because by nature and by the traditional layout there is more order and less confusion.

Largely because their rivals have given-up in so many cases and retreated. These people who refused to stay in the fight need to recognize just how grave an impact their actions have had on the Church.

 

[MarkThompson]

One is too many. EMHC are only to be used in absolutely extraordinary circumstances, which is clearly not the case here.

What’s your source for that? Look into it a little harder, I don’t think you’ll find what you’re looking for.

 

[MarkThompson]

When I received First Communion many years ago ONE PRIEST distributed Holy Communion. If it was via intinction, a curate held a chalice of the Precision Blood and stood on his right.

Today in that exact same church, at Masses celebrated by that very same priest (he’s now retired and in residence) EIGHT individuals plus TWO “captain EMsHC” are needed to distribute communion.

Keep in mind that few people are at each Mass yet FAR more go to communion.

I think things need to begin by reviewing the “qualifications” required to receive communion.

Out of curiosity, did this priest pour the consecrated Precious Blood from a pitcher into chalices “many years ago”? Does he do it now?

 

[TheDoctor]

To the OP: First things first. If we are talking about taking Communion to the homebound, hospice, hospitals, etc. then there can never be “too many” to bring our Lord to those who desire Him unless and until we have enough Priests with enough time to do it themselves.

Now, if you are only talking about giving out communion at Mass, the general rule of thumb for me is anything over about 1 per 100 receiving is too many. The way I get that is based on the Pope.

When BVI said Mass at Yankee Stadium, there were 550 clergy giving out communion to 57,000 people, or 103 people per communion giver-outer. (wpbf.com/news/15777656/detail.html)

I tested it at my parish and the math worked. We have about 1,000 people receiving, so we need 10 giver-outers. Assume 2 priests and a deacon, and that leaves you 7 EMHC - which is give or take what we have. I have also done some “back of the envelope math” at a couple of other parishes in the area 1 per 100 seems to hold.

P. S. - The Pastor may want to adjust that number up a little if the are giving out the Precious Blood as well.

 

[hilde_the_dog]

'We all can agree, that in a perfect world, there would be no need for EMHC because we would have enough ordinary ministers,but here in my little corner of the US, that is not the reality. ’

Seriously, to those who said one is to many - clearly the author of the thread knew that. So how about a constructive comment. Let’s see at the 9am Mass by us 1500 people with only one priest - hum. Houston we have a problem. At our parish in VA the number of EMHC’s depends on the number of ordinary ministers at a Mass. Typically its six plus two ordinary ministers. The number of people (ordinary and EMHC) distrbuting communion is always 8 on Sunday and Sat vigil mass.

The design of the Curch would not lend itself to just two people distrbuting communion. Its one of those half circle 1950-60’s churches.