Eucharist Abuse

[dsimo]

Are Eucharistic Ministers illegal in the Catholic Church. I have been reading "The Eucharist Abuse " written by Kevin Orlin Johnson
can someone share their knowledge on this subject and author.

thank you
Dominick

 

[mosher]

dsimo:

Are Eucharistic Ministers illegal in the Catholic Church. I have been reading "The Eucharist Abuse " written by Kevin Orlin Johnson
can someone share their knowledge on this subject and author.

thank you
Dominick

Eucharistic Ministers or rather Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion as they are properly called are technically only supposed to be used when needed. Need would be that there are not enought clerics to fulfill the need of distributing Holy Communion in a timely basis.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Dominick:

First we need to clarify some terminology. The term “Eucharistic minister” refers to a priest or bishop. They are the only ones who can confect the Eucharist and so are rightly the only ones who can be called “Eucharistic Ministers.” The Deacon is an ordinary minister of Holy Communion, that is, he can distribute communion by virtue of his office as deacon.

Laypersons may serve as “Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.” That is, upon delegation by their bishop or, in case of need, the priest, they may distribute Holy Communion. This is not an abuse, nor is it illegal. Here’s an official statement from Rome found in the instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum:

1. The Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion

[154.] As has already been recalled, “the only minister who can confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist in persona Christi is a validly ordained Priest”. Hence the name “minister of the Eucharist” belongs properly to the Priest alone. Moreover, also by reason of their sacred Ordination, the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are the Bishop, the Priest and the Deacon, to whom it belongs therefore to administer Holy Communion to the lay members of Christ’s faithful during the celebration of Mass. In this way their ministerial office in the Church is fully and accurately brought to light, and the sign value of the Sacrament is made complete.

[155.] In addition to the ordinary ministers there is the formally instituted acolyte, who by virtue of his institution is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion even outside the celebration of Mass. If, moreover, reasons of real necessity prompt it, another lay member of Christ’s faithful may also be delegated by the diocesan Bishop, in accordance with the norm of law, for one occasion or for a specified time, and an appropriate formula of blessing may be used for the occasion. This act of appointment, however, does not necessarily take a liturgical form, nor, if it does take a liturgical form, should it resemble sacred Ordination in any way. Finally, in special cases of an unforeseen nature, permission can be given for a single occasion by the Priest who presides at the celebration of the Eucharist.

[156.] This function is to be understood strictly according to the name by which it is known, that is to say, that of extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, and not “special minister of Holy Communion” nor “extraordinary minister of the Eucharist” nor “special minister of the Eucharist”, by which names the meaning of this function is unnecessarily and improperly broadened.

There are several more paragraphs, but due to length limitations in this forum, I have not included them.

Deacon Ed

 

[dsimo]

Dear Deacon Ed

Lay people are being used to administer the Eucharist …would that define “in need” or would that be considered the “normal” .
Please define “in need”. And if the Bishop considered the "normal’

thank you
Dominick

 

[kleary]

The useage of lay people to assist distributing Holy Communion in the Liturgy IS an abuse as they are being used today.

I have attended many N.O. Masses to which lay people distribute Holy Communion even though the other priests of the parish are in the Rectory watching television or sleeping.

Back in the 70’s I was TAUGHT by the then pastor of my then parish church that “This is being done in order to more fully involve the layity in the Church as Vatican II taught and teach that we are all priests”!

There is also what is called “Lex Orendi - Lex Credendi”, which means that the Sacred Liturgy must express the Catholic Faith, so these lay people distributing Holy Communion- expresses what faith? Certainly not the Catholic faith as taught throughout the ages.

Therefore the useage of these lay people to distribute Holy Communion during the Sacred Liturgy is an abuse.

 

[paramedicgirl]

kleary:

The useage of lay people to assist distributing Holy Communion in the Liturgy IS an abuse as they are being used today.

I have attended many N.O. Masses to which lay people distribute Holy Communion even though the other priests of the parish are in the Rectory watching television or sleeping.

Back in the 70’s I was TAUGHT by the then pastor of my then parish church that “This is being done in order to more fully involve the layity in the Church as Vatican II taught and teach that we are all priests”!

There is also what is called “Lex Orendi - Lex Credendi”, which means that the Sacred Liturgy must express the Catholic Faith, so these lay people distributing Holy Communion- expresses what faith? Certainly not the Catholic faith as taught throughout the ages.

Therefore the useage of these lay people to distribute Holy Communion during the Sacred Liturgy is an abuse.

Our current priest put a stop to lay people distributing the Host, he just has them hold the cup and offer the Sacred Blood at Communion.

Our EMHC go to the Tabernacle just after the consecration at every Saturday night and Sunday Mass, and get the consecrated Hosts out and bring them up to the altar. I have heard that this is not supposed to happen on a regular basis, but I don’t have all the information on that. ( I think I read it here).

 

[threej_lc]

paramedicgirl:

Our EMHC go to the Tabernacle just after the consecration at every Saturday night and Sunday Mass, and get the consecrated Hosts out and bring them up to the altar. I have heard that this is not supposed to happen on a regular basis, but I don’t have all the information on that. ( I think I read it here).

This is also addressed in the Redemptionis Sacramentum document Deacon Ed cited earlier. During a mass, those attending should alway recieve hosts consecrated during that mass. The use of hosts in the tabernacle is reserved for emergencies.

Josh

 

[Deacon_Ed]

dsimo:

Dear Deacon Ed

Lay people are being used to administer the Eucharist …would that define “in need” or would that be considered the “normal” .
Please define “in need”. And if the Bishop considered the "normal’

Here’s what Rome has to say:

[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. 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.

This is, again, from Redemptionis Sacramentum. When EMHCs are used to prevent communion from being lengthened out of proportion to the rest of the Mass then they are being used correctly. For example, in my parish (one priest, two deacons) it is impossible to give communion to all the people who come to Mass without the use of EMHCs. On the other hand, last summer I was visiting a parish in a very small town. I served as deacon, and there were maybe 50 people in attendance. The priest and I distributed the hosts while two lay people distributed the Precious Blood. This was an appropriate use.

Deacon Ed

 

[SnorterLuster]

Deacon Ed:

Here’s what Rome has to say:This is, again, from Redemptionis Sacramentum. When EMHCs are used to prevent communion from being lengthened out of proportion to the rest of the Mass then they are being used correctly. For example, in my parish (one priest, two deacons) it is impossible to give communion to all the people who come to Mass without the use of EMHCs. On the other hand, last summer I was visiting a parish in a very small town. I served as deacon, and there were maybe 50 people in attendance. The priest and I distributed the hosts while two lay people distributed the Precious Blood. This was an appropriate use.

Deacon Ed

I’m just curious on how long is too long. I formerly belonged to a suburban parish with several thousand parishioners. I would guess that the church holds 500+ at Mass. It originally had Communion rails and usually two priests administered Communion on the tongue. I never timed how long Communion took, but I don’t remember it being inordinately long.

Today, with the Communion rails removed, Communion in the hand and standing, with one priest, one or two deacons and 10-20 EMHCs (half with the Precious Blood) Communion seems to take just as long or even longer.

If time is such a consideration, it seems to me that having Communion using only the Host would save more time than adding EMHCs. And having the priest move along a Communion rail seems much faster than having the priest waiting on each person to step forward to receive.

Maybe time isn’t the only or most important reason we see so many EMHCs today.

 

[Confiteor]

SnorterLuster:

I’m just curious on how long is too long. I formerly belonged to a suburban parish with several thousand parishioners. I would guess that the church holds 500+ at Mass. It originally had Communion rails and usually two priests administered Communion on the tongue. I never timed how long Communion took, but I don’t remember it being inordinately long.

Today, with the Communion rails removed, Communion in the hand and standing, with one priest, one or two deacons and 10-20 EMHCs (half with the Precious Blood) Communion seems to take just as long.

If time is such a consideration, it seems to me that having Communion using only the Host would save more time than adding EMHCs.

Since we started receiving the Precious Blood a couple of years ago, we have an army of EMHC…and probably 6-8 distribution points with one person for the Host; one for the Blood. It gets even more interesting when one line finishing because the EMHCs migrate to the center aisle and we might have 4 people distributing the host and 2-3 distributing the Precious Blood for 2 lines of communicants who have to allocate themselves in some fashion…sometimes one of the priests will direct people to one of the EMHC to even it out…The after communion clean-up looks like a tea party back there…and one priest never participates when he’s celebrating. He distributes communion and plops down into the presidential chair until it is finished. It’s all a bit much for me.

Also, didn’t RS or the GIRM say something about not distributing the Blood if a substantial # of people do not receive it? I think this is true in my parish, but it isn’t entirely clear how many people have to pass it by for this to apply. I think probably 1 in 2 do receive the Precious Blood; 1/2 do not.

Since our tabernacle is in the chapel behind the nave (a different room with doors), a EMHC gets the reserved hosts, not the priest. Yes, we do use reserved hosts every week in addition to the ones consecrated at Mass. I suppose they can’t calculate how many to consecrate, so there are always too many…After communion, the EMHC returns the remaining hosts to the tabernacle in the chapel

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Well, it does take longer when the Precious Blood is distributed. In my diocese (and, I suspect, most in the US), this is not an option since most of the bishops have mandated that communion under both species be given. That alone mandates the use of EMHCs.

I recently had the opportunity to see an old 8 mm home movie of a Mass in the parish of my childhood. Communion at the altar rail took about 10 minutes. My memories of serving there say it usually rand 10-12 minutes. One priest, people kneeling at the altar rail, and the priest raced through the “formula” as he gave communion to each person.

Here’s that church as it looks today:
http://www.faswebdesign.com/images/StDominic.jpg
I didn’t count the people. My parish today seats 950 people and communion still takes about 10-15 minutes, even with communion under both species. Of course, we have four stations for the host and four to six stations for the Precious Blood, depending on the size of the congregation.

To avoid the “tea party” appearance we have our EHMCs clean the vessels in the sacristy. There’s never a “mob scene” at the altar becuase of that.

Deacon Ed

 

[palmas85]

Why not use intinction? It works very well in the rites that use it. I have never understood why we don’t. As I understand it, it is permitted in the Latin Rite, so why not?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Deacon Ed:

For example, in my parish (one priest, two deacons) it is impossible to give communion to all the people who come to Mass without the use of EMHCs.

Actually, it wouldn’t be IMPOSSIBLE. It might take MUCH LONGER but it wouldn’t be IMPOSSIBLE.

And, would it be so “bad” if communion took longer? More songs could be sung and those who received early would have more “quite time” to spend with the Lord in communion.

That’s been my one main complaint with Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion giving out the Eucharist during Mass – my time with the Lord is cut short.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Sir Knight:

Actually, it wouldn’t be IMPOSSIBLE. It might take MUCH LONGER but it wouldn’t be IMPOSSIBLE.

And, would it be so “bad” if communion took longer? More songs could be sung and those who received early would have more “quite time” to spend with the Lord in communion.

That’s been my one main complaint with Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion giving out the Eucharist during Mass – my time with the Lord is cut short.

If we only had one Mass there would be no problem. We have seven, however, and need to clear the parking lot so the people coming to the next Mass can park. This is a logistical problem, but it is a real problem.

Of course, if we had sufficient priests and plenty of resources we could keep the parishes small enough that we could have a single liturgy and it if went an hour and a half (as does the Divine Liturgy in the Eastern parish I serve) it would not be a problem.

Deacon Ed

 

[Deacon_Ed]

palmas85:

Why not use intinction? It works very well in the rites that use it. I have never understood why we don’t. As I understand it, it is permitted in the Latin Rite, so why not?

While intinction is permitted, it is generally discouraged in the Latin rite because of the “confusion of symbols” (as used here the term “symbol” is theological and does not mean just a nice representation but and actual reality). I happen to serve a Melkite parish where we do use intinction, and it’s not a problem, but it is slower than just giving the host – and faster than each species individually.

Deacon Ed

 

[Sir_Knight]

Deacon Ed:

If we only had one Mass there would be no problem. We have seven, however, and need to clear the parking lot so the people coming to the next Mass can park. This is a logistical problem, but it is a real problem.

We had a “parking lot” problem and the pastor shuffled the Masses around from …

6pm (Sat); 7:30, 8:30, 9:30, 10:30 & 11:30

… to …

4:30pm & 6 (Sat); 7:30, 9, 10:30, & Noon.

… Same number of masses but with an extra half hour in between the masses for people to get out and in.

 

[palmas85]

Deacon Ed:

While intinction is permitted, it is generally discouraged in the Latin rite because of the “confusion of symbols” (as used here the term “symbol” is theological and does not mean just a nice representation but and actual reality). I happen to serve a Melkite parish where we do use intinction, and it’s not a problem, but it is slower than just giving the host – and faster than each species individually.

Deacon Ed

Hi Deacon, what exactly is meant by the cofusion of symbols? That really has me stumped.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

palmas85:

Hi Deacon, what exactly is meant by the cofusion of symbols? That really has me stumped.

Me too, especially since I’m bi-ritual. However, because of the way in which so many Latin Rite Catholics received communion (host only) the restoration of the Precious Blood was intended to be a way for the people to live out the command of Jesus to “take, eat…take, drink.” Because intinction does not inlcude the “drink” part, it is a “confusion of symbols.”

Weak, but it’s what I was told when I asked the same question…

Deacon Ed

 

[mosher]

Deacon Ed:

Me too, especially since I’m bi-ritual. However, because of the way in which so many Latin Rite Catholics received communion (host only) the restoration of the Precious Blood was intended to be a way for the people to live out the command of Jesus to “take, eat…take, drink.” Because intinction does not inlcude the “drink” part, it is a “confusion of symbols.”

Weak, but it’s what I was told when I asked the same question…

Deacon Ed

I would also point out that the reason why intinction is not really encourages is because it can only be done by a Bishop, Priest, or Deacon. An EMHC does not have the faculties to give communion in that manner.

On the matter of why there is a problem with the mixing of the symbols in the Latin Rite is that there is a historical issue at stake that even today is reviving. During the Reformation the claim was made that one must receive fromt he host and the chalice to receive the whole Christ. When Trent condemened this proposition the Liturgy was made to fit. The reception of the host only was to teach that if one receives either species they do in fact receive the whole Christ. I have noticed the error creeping up again as some catholics are now under the impression that if they do not receive from the host and the chalice they are not fully receiving communion in some way.