EMHC: How many is "too many"?

[Oneofthewomen]

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.

Thank you!

I agree with you about ministry to the homebound, etc. I work in a long term care facility and only have Mass celebrated once a month. We are fortunate to have many dedicated volunteers who come with Communion weekly for our residents. We certainly don’t have enough priests/deacons to cover all these situations.

I was going to try and find some stats on how things are done at Papal Masses, so thanks a bunch for the link!
I would not want to be the person responsible for pulling that all together!!

This “formula” seems like a good compromise, at least from my perspective. I never like to see any more than this, although if both species are being offered, my experience tells me that 1 cup minister for every 2 bread ministers is usually a good ratio.

Again, thanks for sharing your insights!
BTW- love you signature line, pretty much sums up how I feel too!!

 

[Oneofthewomen]

'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.

Thanks for the constructive comment!
I was hoping for more of them, as this seems to be such a big issue for a lot of people!

We all seem to agree that in many places, especially in the US, we do not have enough priests, so EMHC are necessary so that all who are able, whether they can physically come to church or not, have the opportunity to receive communion.

Thanks for bringing up the architecture thing! That is something I had not thought of in my OP. The church with the 12 EMHC is a more modern, “in the round” style and only 2 communion ministers just would not work!
But 12 is still a little too much for me!:dts:

 

[bkovacs]

One is to many!!.

 

[Matariel]

One is to many!!.

Exactly, unless there is a grave need.

 

[bkovacs]

Exactly, unless there is a grave need.

And about 90% of the time it is not grave!.

 

[JerrySeibert]

One EMHC??? How would that work in a Parish like mine that has 4-500 people in attendance on average Sunday Mass?
Is there something you disagree with EMHC? Wondering because so many posts seem to be somewhat licit.
I hope the majority of EMHC like myself are humbled and honored that they are given the opportunity to give the gift of our Lord. Or, are you one of the old fashioned thinkers that believe the only Eucharist blessed is the one handed to you by a Priest?
Come now, Father Son and Holy Spirit… Omni present… in one Eucharist. All Consecrated at the Altar. It is as though the laity WHO HELP GLADLY taint the body and blood by our mear presence.
HHMMM What do you do to the presence with your holier than though attitude. At least we volunteered.
Sorry, a few of these posts struck a nerve with me.

 

[ljubim]

One EMHC??? How would that work in a Parish like mine that has 4-500 people in attendance on average Sunday Mass?
Is there something you disagree with EMHC? Wondering because so many posts seem to be somewhat licit.
I hope the majority of EMHC like myself are humbled and honored that they are given the opportunity to give the gift of our Lord. Or, are you one of the old fashioned thinkers that believe the only Eucharist blessed is the one handed to you by a Priest?
Come now, Father Son and Holy Spirit… Omni present… in one Eucharist. All Consecrated at the Altar. It is as though the laity WHO HELP GLADLY taint the body and blood by our mear presence.
HHMMM What do you do to the presence with your holier than though attitude. At least we volunteered.
Sorry, a few of these posts struck a nerve with me.

No it’s fine, I’ve ranted a bit on CAF myself

And technically, we would be arguing to maintain the practice of ONLY using Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. (Not one EMHC, one OMHC, if you’re referring to a priest, because he’s an OMHC, and many more depending on the number of deacons.) Basically, it has worked for all of history having just priests and deacons distribute the Eucharist, and in far larger cathedral parishes than we have today. But then us modern men think we need EMHCs, while Church history will say otherwise.

Please don’t be offended, we are not insulting the piety of any EMHC, rather speaking of the position and the over-reliance on it, when it is by definition unnecessary.

 

[bkovacs]

One EMHC??? How would that work in a Parish like mine that has 4-500 people in attendance on average Sunday Mass?
Is there something you disagree with EMHC? Wondering because so many posts seem to be somewhat licit.
I hope the majority of EMHC like myself are humbled and honored that they are given the opportunity to give the gift of our Lord. Or, are you one of the old fashioned thinkers that believe the only Eucharist blessed is the one handed to you by a Priest?
Come now, Father Son and Holy Spirit… Omni present… in one Eucharist. All Consecrated at the Altar. It is as though the laity WHO HELP GLADLY taint the body and blood by our mear presence.
HHMMM What do you do to the presence with your holier than though attitude. At least we volunteered.
Sorry, a few of these posts struck a nerve with me.

You should be a priest. Did they have EMHC before Vatican 2?. What did they do when they had 4-500 before the NO Mass. Do the Eastern Churches have EMHC?. Good thing there is no altar rails, all those EMHC would be bumping into each other.

 

[Melchior_1]

You should be a priest. Did they have EMHC before Vatican 2?. What did they do when they had 4-500 before the NO Mass. Do the Eastern Churches have EMHC?. Good thing there is no altar rails, all those EMHC would be bumping into each other.

I might start using that line for everything. “You should be a Priest”.

• Want more Latin at Mass? “You should be a Priest”.
• Want some Latin but still English? “You should be a Priest”.
• Want the EF more available? “You should be a Priest”.
• Want the OF? “You should be a Priest”.
• Want to distribute Communion? “You should be a Priest”.
• Want to have the Mass sung more? “You should be a Priest”.
• Want more chant? “You should be a Priest”.
• Want less chant? “You should be a Priest”.
• Want less EMHC? “You should be a Priest”.
• Want more EMHC? “You should be a Priest”.
• Want to face towards the East? “You should be a Priest”.
• Want to face away from the faithful? “You should be a Priest”.
• Want to face towards the faithful? “You should be a Priest”.
• Want to make any comments about the Mass or the Church ever? “You should be a Priest”.
• Want anything or something or other? “You should be a Priest”.

“You should be a Priest”.
“You should be a Priest”.
“You should be a Priest”.

Lets see if it works for other stuff:

• Want a steak? “You should be a Priest”.
• Want a cat? “You should be a Priest”.
• Want Lebron to stay with the Cavs? “You should be a Priest”.

Doesn’t work too well with those I guess.

 

[Marie5890]

Not sure how one objectively defines “too few” or “too many”.

My parish also has anywhere from 350-400 at any one Mass. We also offer the Precious Blood as well.

For every 1 distribution the hosts, we have 2 with the Precious Blood (as per our priest’s request). When our deacon is there, he obviously replaces one of the EM’s.

We also have one of the EMHC go up into the choir loft to make certain that they have the opportunity to receive.

 

[stephraim]

No it’s fine, I’ve ranted a bit on CAF myself

And technically, we would be arguing to maintain the practice of ONLY using Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. (Not one EMHC, one OMHC, if you’re referring to a priest, because he’s an OMHC, and many more depending on the number of deacons.) Basically, it has worked for all of history having just priests and deacons distribute the Eucharist, and in far larger cathedral parishes than we have today. But then us modern men think we need EMHCs, while Church history will say otherwise.

Please don’t be offended, we are not insulting the piety of any EMHC, rather speaking of the position and the over-reliance on it, when it is by definition unnecessary.

I agree with all my heart. One EMHC is too many, but since Holy Mother Church has said they may be used, they are licit. Let us all pray for priests and deacons and liturgical reform to correct our “misunderstanding” of “unduly prolonged” liturgies. Before anyone thinks I’m an Ordinary Form basher, by the way, let me say that a reverently celebrated OF Mass with strong liturgical continuity is a beautiful thing. Pope Benedict is trying to show us the way.

 

[Marie5890]

Am I wrong in my understanding of church history though that frequentreception of the Eucharist is actually a more recent trend that was encouraged by Pope Paul VI?..

If that is the case then prior to that its can be assumed most people didn’t go up to the communion rails. Most refrained. Right?

If my understanding in this is correct, then as more people have come forward for communion with less priest and deacon available to distribute, to say that it was never an issue in the past seems not to be taking in account that change after Pope Paul encouraged more frequent reception.

There would have been no need for EMHC because less people were receiving during a time when more priests and deacons were available.

It seems to me that, if I am correct, the whole dynamic has changed in the past century, which is very new.

 

[ProVobis]

If my understanding in this is correct, then as more people have come forward for communion with less priest and deacon available to distribute, to say that it was never an issue in the past seems not to be taking in account that change after Pope Paul encouraged more frequent reception.

There would have been no need for EMHC because less people were receiving during a time when more priests and deacons were available.

It seems to me that, if I am correct, the whole dynamic has changed in the past century, which is very new.

Actually it was Pius X who encouraged more reception of communion. At a time after Trent, not too few thought that they were worthy to receive EVER. So from maybe a tenth to a third of those present to receive was seen as a big improvement, et ceteris paribus.

The “encouragement” by Paul VI was probably more in relaxing the fast required from 3 hours before Mass to 1 hour before communion. Plus a few other things but those call for a separate thread. But the bottom line is that now about 98-99% of those attending an English Mass receive. On the other hand only about 50% of Polish Catholics receive.

 

[Marie5890]

Actually it was Pius X who encouraged more reception of communion. At a time after Trent, not too few thought that they were worthy to receive EVER. So from maybe a tenth to a third of those present to receive was seen as a big improvement, et ceteris paribus.

The “encouragement” by Paul VI was probably more in relaxing the fast required from 3 hours before Mass to 1 hour before communion. Plus a few other things but those call for a separate thread. But the bottom line is that now about 98-99% of those attending an English Mass receive. On the other hand only about 50% of Polish Catholics receive.

Thanks for the clarification.
It does make me wonder at the high number of people receiving because I have no doubts that some (many?) are doing so thoughtlessly. Receiving more out of ritual and less out out devotion.

But then I am being uncharitable in those thoughts I know. Still. It gives ME pause.

 

[ljubim]

Am I wrong in my understanding of church history though that frequentreception of the Eucharist is actually a more recent trend that was encouraged by Pope Paul VI?..

If that is the case then prior to that its can be assumed most people didn’t go up to the communion rails. Most refrained. Right?

If my understanding in this is correct, then as more people have come forward for communion with less priest and deacon available to distribute, to say that it was never an issue in the past seems not to be taking in account that change after Pope Paul encouraged more frequent reception.

There would have been no need for EMHC because less people were receiving during a time when more priests and deacons were available.

It seems to me that, if I am correct, the whole dynamic has changed in the past century, which is very new.

Not really… for one there used to be MORE Catholics anyway, as in there’d be less options for Mass times, less parishes to choose from, and the Church was growing, not shrinking. And two, people were more educated about the Eucharist and confession, and they wouldn’t receive if they thought they were in mortal sin and hadn’t confessed. People think mortal sin is so rare… when was the last time you intentionally skipped your Friday penance? Got angry enough at somebody to want to hurt them? Missed Mass on Sundays or a Holy Day? etc… We think we’re so perfect, and so by habit we receive all the time, without a thought.

Does that mean that when three people go to confession, and ALL receive the Eucharist, that we should bring in contradictingly mandatory EMHCs to save time, or should we reeducate and maintain traditional practices, making us all smarter, more informed Catholics?

A papal Mass with thousands might merit the use of EMHCs. Your regular local Mass? No, that would be a serious problem, and contrary to the definition of EMHCs.

 

[corsair]

All I can say is that when we go to our local OF parish there is the priest and 3 extraordinary ministers (two for the chalice and one to assist the priest). There is usually about 140 going to communion. The whole Mass takes about one hour. And there is always a traffic jam at the Chalice

At our FSSP parish there is one priest with about 300 going to communion. The low Mass takes about one hour and the High Mass takes about 1 1/2 hours. There is no Chalice hence no traffic jam.

 

[boatbearer]

Not really… for one there used to be MORE Catholics anyway, as in there’d be less options for Mass times, less parishes to choose from, and the Church was growing, not shrinking. And two, people were more educated about the Eucharist and confession, and they wouldn’t receive if they thought they were in mortal sin and hadn’t confessed. People think mortal sin is so rare… when was the last time you intentionally skipped your Friday penance? Got angry enough at somebody to want to hurt them? Missed Mass on Sundays or a Holy Day? etc… We think we’re so perfect, and so by habit we receive all the time, without a thought.

Does that mean that when three people go to confession, and ALL receive the Eucharist, that we should bring in contradictingly mandatory EMHCs to save time, or should we reeducate and maintain traditional practices, making us all smarter, more informed Catholics?

A papal Mass with thousands might merit the use of EMHCs. Your regular local Mass? No, that would be a serious problem, and contrary to the definition of EMHCs.

No, that’s simply not true. My parish seats about 1,100. In 1960 perhaps 200-400 of 1,100 would present themselves for Holy Communion under one species.

Today in that same exact parish perhaps 1,000 of 1,100 present themselves for Holy Communion under both species.

Using EMsHC in such a situation is NOT a serious problem. We can speculate and say that the 1,000 coming to communion might be problematic but if they present themselves they will most likely be served in the great majority of cases and given our priest/deacon count we DO need EMsHC.