emhc training?

[Suslar]

Yes, I have thought about it. But figured it would do no good.
We have priests that don’t fully vest for Mass ( just alb and stole)
We use glass wine glasses. . . the Associate pastor’s chalice is crystal
We allow lay people to give “reflections” instead of the priest giving a homily.
I could keep going, but just thinking about it all makes me sick . . . . . . .

 

[EasterJoy]

IAfter distribution of Holy Communion, those on the Host approach the Tabernacle and those on the cup go into the Sacristy. Some will consume remaining Precisou Blood. Others do not. I watched in horor as one woman attempted to dispose of the Precious Blood in the Sacrarium . . . and other s(name removed by moderator)ly said she couldn’t finish hers and left the chalice on the counter and went back to her seat. Not only are people not purifying the vessels, but they are leaving Christ just sitting there! Then, an EMCH will come back after Mass and begin to wash the vessels in hot soapy water as if they were washing dishes at home – completely unaware that Jesus is still present!!! While I know we are not supposed to purify vessels, it seems to me that a lay person pouring some water in each cup and consuming the remains is a far better (albeit not perfect) scenario than we currently have.

Our pastor has been approached about this numerous times but does nothing. He says he “doesn’t want to rock the boat.” Talk about need for training! Not only do the EMHC need it, but so does the pastor. Please pray for us. And please ask Christ to pardon the abuses inflicted on His most precious Body & Blood due to our carelessness and lack of reverence.

Yes, since there have been circumstances when it was allowed, I would think that ritual purification by a layperson would be preferable to no purification at all. Anything that keeps the Precious Blood from going down the sacrarium! (Heaven forbid!!) (I think that the GIRM for the Archdiocese of Portland states that lay EMHC may ‘assist’ with purification of the vessels.)

We were told that the practice of purifying vessels after Mass was gone, due to just this kind of abuse. My impression that this applies to the US, not just our archdiocese. I have not been to a Mass in many years at which the vessels were not purified during Mass by a priest or a deacon. He does it in solemn silence. The deacon who does our annual training–all EMsHC have to go once a year, every year, for as long as they serve–was adamant that there was to be solemnity in handling the sacred vessels, too, even after they were purified. He is a very good deacon, though. He has a great sense of humor, but he is very protective of solemnity and reverence with everything having to do with the Blessed Sacrament and the Mass. There is no nonsense there.

I do not know what to tell you, except to ask whoever it is that is in charge of liturgy at your chancery office what can be done about it. I am not in favor of running to the bishop until necessary, but once you have approached the pastor and gotten a firm refusal to address the problem (rather than real attempts that have yet to bring about fully satisfactory results, for instance), you don’t have a lot of choices. You can’t stand around and do nothing, not as long as something remains to try.

Cardinal George was Bishop of Yakima (Washington State) for several years and then Archbishop of Portland in Oregon for a short time before being called to serve in Chicago. Based on his reputation, I would expect he would want to be notified of such a thing, absolutely.

 

[EasterJoy]

Yes, I have thought about it. But figured it would do no good.
We have priests that don’t fully vest for Mass ( just alb and stole)
We use glass wine glasses. . . the Associate pastor’s chalice is crystal
We allow lay people to give “reflections” instead of the priest giving a homily.
I could keep going, but just thinking about it all makes me sick . . . . . . .

When there are many things to deal with, you have to pick your battles.

Nothing, but nothing, that you list above sinks to the same level as disposing of the Blessed Sacrament in the ways you have described.

You know which battle to choose. Fight it!

 

[EasterJoy]

Yep, it is a BAD situation . . . . and, sadly, just the tip of the iceberg . . . . don’t even get me started on the pastor knowingly giving the Eucharist to the Lutheran . . . . .

So, the rules exist. You know it and I know it that there are abuses. The pastor doesn’t seem to care. Multiply this times another 50 or parishes in teh archdiocese that also premit such abuses. . . . . ugh. . . . What can we do? PRAY!!!

Yes, pray!

Forced to make a choice, I’d much rather the Blessed Sacrament be given to the separated baptized than dumped unceremoniously into an inanimate drain.

 

[Suslar]

Thanks for the encouragement, EasterJoy!
The last time I talked to the pastor about giving Holy Communion to someone who is not in full communion with us, he said, “Oh, I guess you have a problem with her.” and tried to turn it into something personal. I said I didn’t have a problem with the person, just with the fact that she’s publically declared she’s not Catholic and never will convert because she “has all the rights & priveledges of membership now.” His response was that I should examine my own state of grace and seriously consider that I’m not worthy of being an EMHC . . . . . .(like anyone could be worthy???)

When I mentioned what goes on in the Sacristy and the abuses to Jesus, he mentioned something about “crumb theology” and how in the old days, they would remove the piece of the Church’s floor if the Host of Precious Blood touched the floor and how it “got crazy.”

 

[Brendan]

Personally, I think that a bishop should just ordain R. Lee Ermey a deacon and put him in charge of EMHC training.

“All right you pukes, polish those pyx!! I want to see the Pope’s reflection in those from here…After that, a 12 mile run to the Catheral and back with a full Sacramental load!! MOVE IT MOVE IT MOVE IT!!”

 

[mistypoint]

Well, I’m in the South, and we have a wonderful, conservative Bishop who recently sent out a copy of the way things were to be done, in accord with the Church’s rubrics. That being said…NO ONE READ IT!!! (Well, I read it…) So, with no training for EMs, things were pretty much the same as before, with a couple of exceptions…first we were given a note with the monthly schedule, alerting us that we were no longer to carry the vessels holding the Precious Blood into the sacristy, nor were we to consume the remaining Precious Blood. (We never cleansed the vessels, that was solely the Priest’s job, done between Masses.) We were to place them on a small side table, where the priest would purify them before the congregation. Well, half the EMs didn’t even read that short note. So, it was, pardon the pun, mass confusion! Then, after approximately a month of “for show”, it was back to the same-old, same-old. Carrying the vessels into the sacristy, consuming the remainder of the Precious Blood, and then leaving the covered vessels for later purification by the Priest. None of the EMs kneel at the final elevation of the Precious Body and Blood, although the remainder of the congregation and the cantor do. I don’t know whether it is because they are elderly and can’t get up without assistance, but, if they waited until the Priest communed, as the rubrics dictatethen they wouldn’t have that problem…they’d be in the pews, and have no need for assistance to arise from a kneeler.

So, aside from feeling like a “tattle-tale” running to the Bishop every week…what else are we to do?

 

[mistypoint]

Thanks for the encouragement, EasterJoy!
The last time I talked to the pastor about giving Holy Communion to someone who is not in full communion with us, he said, “Oh, I guess you have a problem with her.” and tried to turn it into something personal. I said I didn’t have a problem with the person, just with the fact that she’s publically declared she’s not Catholic and never will convert because she “has all the rights & priveledges of membership now.” His response was that I should examine my own state of grace and seriously consider that I’m not worthy of being an EMHC . . . . . .(like anyone could be worthy???)

When I mentioned what goes on in the Sacristy and the abuses to Jesus, he mentioned something about “crumb theology” and how in the old days, they would remove the piece of the Church’s floor if the Host of Precious Blood touched the floor and how it “got crazy.”

How HORRIBLE!!! I would DEFINITELY call your Bishop with that business! I’m a convert, had to go through an extensive RCIA program, be excluded from the Liturgy of the Eucharist for months, not be able to receive the Precious Body and Blood and stand in front of the entire congregation and publicly profess that I believed everything the Catholic Church teaches! What’s up with that man??? He needs to examine the Catechism of the Catholic Church!

 

[Kally616]

Actually, when there is no deacon, the celebrant (or in the case of concelebrants, one of them) should be retrieving the Blessed Sacrament from the Tabernacle. EMHCs should never approach the altar until after the celebrant has communicated. If there are enough concelebrants and deacons, EMHCs should not be used at all.

Benedictgal, I am wondering if you could point out to me in one of the church documents where it states that only priests and deacons should approach the tabernacle. I’m pretty sure in my parish that EMHC’s are the ones who retrieve the Blessed Sacrament from the tabernacle and I just want a reference to back up my claim that this practice is illicit. Thank you!!!

 

[benedictgal]

Benedictgal, I am wondering if you could point out to me in one of the church documents where it states that only priests and deacons should approach the tabernacle. I’m pretty sure in my parish that EMHC’s are the ones who retrieve the Blessed Sacrament from the tabernacle and I just want a reference to back up my claim that this practice is illicit. Thank you!!!

Here is the reference from the GIRM:

These ministers should not approach the altar before the priest has received Communion, and they are always to receive from the hands of the priest celebrant the vessel containing either species of the Most Holy Eucharist for distribution to the faithful.

1. When the distribution of Communion is finished, the priest himself immediately and completely consumes at the altar any consecrated wine that happens to remain; as for any consecrated hosts that are left, he either consumes them at the altar or carries them to the place designated for the reservation of the Eucharist.

I hope this helps.

 

[EasterJoy]

Thanks for the encouragement, EasterJoy!
The last time I talked to the pastor about giving Holy Communion to someone who is not in full communion with us, he said, “Oh, I guess you have a problem with her.” and tried to turn it into something personal. I said I didn’t have a problem with the person, just with the fact that she’s publically declared she’s not Catholic and never will convert because she “has all the rights & priveledges of membership now.” His response was that I should examine my own state of grace and seriously consider that I’m not worthy of being an EMHC . . . . . .(like anyone could be worthy???)

When I mentioned what goes on in the Sacristy and the abuses to Jesus, he mentioned something about “crumb theology” and how in the old days, they would remove the piece of the Church’s floor if the Host of Precious Blood touched the floor and how it “got crazy.”

When you talk to the chancery office, make it clear that you have reason to fear reprisals, too, since when you asked questions in the past, you were asked to consider if you should quit serving as a EMHC. That is appalling. Be respectful, mention any honest benefit of the doubt you can think of, but be totally honest, too.

If your pastor was trying to point out that at some point the Eucharist loses its identity, when the fragment is too small to be recognizable as bread, for instance, or if water has been added to abolish the identity of the Precious Blood, fine. That is true. It is besides the point, though. Equating an honest objection to purposefully, ignorantly, and habitually putting the Blessed Sacrament directly down the drain with the time when they would tear up the floor of a church on account of a spill is over the top. Now, if you are mistaken, and what you saw going down the sacrarium was a later rinse, not the Precious Blood directly, that is another thing, but you still deserved a better answer than you got. The priest needed to make sure you got a clear explanation, that you were relieved of any unnecessary scandal before parting. He also needed to make sure that it wasn’t the other EMHC who was mistaken about what is permissible. (Quite frankly, IMO, anybody who could not clearly explain that to you in the first place had no business cleaning the vessels. This is an area too full of misunderstanding and abuse as it is.)

Even if nothing happens immediately, it is worth saying something…in writing. If the cardinal gets enough reports, he may see that he needs to take a wholesale re-education of his clergy. If he hears nothing, he will assume nothing is amiss.

As far as I know, Cardinal George is still a member of the Holy See’s Congregation for Divine Worship. Again, I hate tattling on priests when it is not absolutely necessary, but do try to see that Cardinal George hears about what you have seen and been told. At some point, you don’t have any other choice. It is not fun information to get, but he will want to know, too.

 

[Lepanto]

I watched in horor as one woman attempted to dispose of the Precious Blood in the Sacrarium

As one who has served as a sacristan is many parishes over the past 30 years, let me just add…probably 50% of the sacristies that I have worked in do NOT have a sacrarium. What you “may” think is a sacrarium may not be one after all – it might be just an ordinary sink that drains right into the sewer.

The newer churches most often do not have a sacrarium in their sacristy (and it seems like the uglier the church the less likely it is that it has a sacrarium). However, I’ve also served in older, more traditional churches whose sacristies were “renovated” and they did not have a sacrarium either. I suspect that those were removed.

The lesson: don’t assume. Look before you pour!

 

[Suslar]

Thanks, Lepanto for the warning. I know in our Sacristy we do in fact have a Sacrarium that does drain into the ground. It is marked as such and kept covered. There is also a separate sink that drains into the sewer system.