Eucharistic Minister and blessing

[palmas85]

The last part (“deliver the host to the receipiant”) is in contradiction with official church teaching because the church DOES allow lay Eucharistic Ministers to distribute communion.

Let me ask you a “what if”

What if when you become older, you find yourself homebound. As the number of priests are decreasing, it will be unlikely that a priest will be able to bring you communion. Will you deny yourself sacramentally receiving our Lord and all of the blessings and graces that are contained in the Eucharist if He is only available from a Eucharistic Ministers?

If the answer is “yes”, then I find that very sad. If the answer is “no”, then you really have no reason not to receive from one now.

In the hypothetical case presented, someone had to consecrate the Host, prior to the Extraordinary Minister delivering it. Since we all know that only a Priest can so consecrate there must a Priest nearby. I do not believe that the Priests have completely turned this aspect of the ministry completely over to the laity. We still have annoiting of the sick you know, and that is done by a Priest is it not?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Why would that surprise you? As I said, I was taught to view the Priest not as just any priest but as the supreme Priest Christ re-presenting the sacrifice at Calvary to the father… You call it passing up the opportunity to receive Christ. I look at it as receiving this great gift in the most respectful and meaningful manner possible. That means at least to me receiving from the Priest.

But the church teaches that the gift is the same no matter who the bearer of that gift is. As long as that host was properly consecreted, it doesn’t matter if your receive from the Pope or a EMHC – Christ will come to you in EXACTLY the same way REGARDLESS of who distributes Him.

I accept tha fact that the Chucrh has decided, at least for now, to allow the laity the great privilige of assisting the Priest in this duty.

If you ACCEPT the fact “that the Church has decided, at least for now, to allow the laity the great privilige of assisting the Priest in this duty”, then you would not AVOID receiving communion from an EMHC. The fact that you will not receive communion from an EMHC and are willing to give up an opportunity for a SACRAMENTAL visit with our Lord shows that you do not accept CHURCH TEACHING on this matter.

Besides, spiritual communion also works and has often served me in the past when for whatever reason I was unable to receive.

According to church teaching, spiritual communion does not bless your soul with the SACRAMENTAL graces that actual communion does. “spiritual communion” should be mainly used for those times when fasting or sin prevent us from approaching our Lord in the SACRAMENT.

In the hypothetical case presented, someone had to consecrate the Host, prior to the Extraordinary Minister delivering it. Since we all know that only a Priest can so consecrate there must a Priest nearby. I do not believe that the Priests have completely turned this aspect of the ministry completely over to the laity. We still have annoiting of the sick you know, and that is done by a Priest is it not?

My Parish consists of 3500 FAMILIES. We have two priests (actually three priests but one is in a wheelchair so that disqualifies him since he is unable to get around and doesn’t even distribute communion on the Sunday masses that he celebrates because there is no way for him ti make it down the front stairs) and a part-time deacon.

We also have about 40+ EMHC (of which, I am one) who tend to the homebound. On Sunday I normally spend 3+ hours ministering to the homebound. I drop my family off at home at a little before 1pm and immediately go to do the communion distributions and normally do not return home until after 4PM. If all other EMHC spend a similar amount of time (some might spend less but that might be off-set by those that spend more), that adds up to 120+ hours a week. I can’t see how two priests can add an extra 60 hours into their work week. Can you? Even if we include our part-time Deacon and give him an equal share, that still comes out to 40 extra hours each. I still don’t see how that would be do’able.

The simple reality of the situation is that if only the priests and deacon distributed communion to them, folks that receive weekly would drop that to monthly or less. And those that receive monthly would be lucky to get it a few times a year. A direct contradiction of church teaching which stresses frequent communion because of the SACRAMENTAL graces that benefit the soul.

 

[tequilamac]

But the church teaches that the gift is the same no matter who the bearer of that gift is. As long as that host was properly consecreted, it doesn’t matter if your receive from the Pope or a EMHC – Christ will come to you in EXACTLY the same way REGARDLESS of who distributes Him.

If you ACCEPT the fact “that the Church has decided, at least for now, to allow the laity the great privilige of assisting the Priest in this duty”, then you would not AVOID receiving communion from an EMHC. The fact that you will not receive communion from an EMHC and are willing to give up an opportunity for a SACRAMENTAL visit with our Lord shows that you do not accept CHURCH TEACHING on this matter.

According to church teaching, spiritual communion does not bless your soul with the SACRAMENTAL graces that actual communion does. “spiritual communion” should be mainly used for those times when fasting or sin prevent us from approaching our Lord in the SACRAMENT.

My Parish consists of 3500 FAMILIES. We have two priests (actually three priests but one is in a wheelchair so that disqualifies him since he is unable to get around and doesn’t even distribute communion on the Sunday masses that he celebrates because there is no way for him ti make it down the front stairs) and a part-time deacon.

We also have about 40+ EMHC (of which, I am one) who tend to the homebound. On Sunday I normally spend 3+ hours ministering to the homebound. I drop my family off at home at a little before 1pm and immediately go to do the communion distributions and normally do not return home until after 4PM. If all other EMHC spend a similar amount of time (some might spend less but that might be off-set by those that spend more), that adds up to 120+ hours a week. I can’t see how two priests can add an extra 60 hours into their work week. Can you? Even if we include our part-time Deacon and give him an equal share, that still comes out to 40 extra hours each. I still don’t see how that would be do’able.

The simple reality of the situation is that if only the priests and deacon distributed communion to them, folks that receive weekly would drop that to monthly or less. And those that receive monthly would be lucky to get it a few times a year. A direct contradiction of church teaching which stresses frequent communion because of the SACRAMENTAL graces that benefit the soul.

Then it seems that we should pray harder for vocations. People who feel called not simply to distribute but to Consecrate. People called to dedicate all of their life to Christ, not just a few hours a month. Don’t you? It does not seem that the answer is to have more EMHCs who cannot Consecrate the Host or hear confessions. But to have more priests so that we would not need more EMHC’s. Priests it seems would be a better investment.
But if EMHC’s are going to view it as an insult or wrong every time someone rightly prefers to receive from the Priest, vocations will probably continue to dwindle. Which means over time we will not need EMHCs either as there will be no Consecrated Host for them to distribute.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Then it seems that we should pray harder for vocations. People who feel called not simply to distribute but to Consecrate. People called to dedicate all of their life to Christ, not just a few hours a month. Don’t you? It does not seem that the answer is to have more EMHCs who cannot Consecrate the Host or hear confessions. But to have more priests so that we would not need more EMHC’s. Priests it seems would be a better investment.

But until that happens, a need still needs to be addressed and the Church has addressed that need. Are we not obligated to obey church teaching? By avoiding EMHC, are we not in effect doubting church teaching?

 

[Cristiano]

It is interesting to me how we criticize faithfuls that choose not to accept all the teaching and disciplines of the Church, and we call them “Cafeteria Catholics” but when it comes to ourselves we criticize the Church for allowing disciplines that might touch our sense of comfort.

I am the father of a boy that expressed the desire of becoming a priest. I assist our pastor as a catechist and as an EMHC. I take night classes with our diocese to further my understanding as a Catholic. I do that to be a role model to my son and to show to him that men must be involved with the Church.
Then almost every Sunday after Mass I hear people complaining that this priest is too conservative and that is too rigid with following the Church teachings, or that the other priest spent too much time on the homily and he went really fast on the Creed, or that the deacon might sound too liberal because he talks about compassion, or that the other deacon is a nutjob because he puts together abortion with ABC. There are priests that make snappy remarks about other priests. My son spends a lot of time in the parish and he hears all of these comments and I think that those behaviors are much worse for his vocation that some disciplines of the Church. Our behaviors  are the problem with the vocations of our children and not a discipline of the Church.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I agree. People complaining about priests will discourage young men from entering the priesthood requiring even more use of EMHC.

… Hopefully due to the outright abuse of the system by both the laity and quite frankly either lazy of modernist thinking priests, the practice will be curtailed …

 

[tequilamac]

But until that happens, a need still needs to be addressed and the Church has addressed that need. Are we not obligated to obey church teaching? By avoiding EMHC, are we not in effect doubting church teaching?

Preferring to receive from the priest is not avoiding the EMHC. No one in their right mind would criticise someone for preferring to receive from the priest. We are not doubting Church teaching. We are following the Church teaching of the last 2000 years. It wasn’t until we had a vocation shortage that everyone received from an EMHC. Church teaching has not changed, the preference for a priest still remains. When I die or when most Cahtolics die, they simply find the presence of a priest more comforting than an EMHC. Do you understand that priests have abilities that extend beyond the abilities of an EMHC? I always receive from an EMHC when the priest is out of town or on vacation and has already consecrated the host for distribution. But when he is here and in the Communion line, why should I go to the EMHC instead of him?

 

[MariaG]

…(edited, see link for complete post)

It has been my experience that the hordes of Extraordinary Ministers that normally manifest themselves at MOST Masses are in no way needed and in fact constitute an abuse of their function. I see absolutely no reason for me to contribute to that abuse. So I will seek out the Priest and if for some reason he runs out before I get there, I will return to my seat kneel down and ask for spiritual communion, also as I was taught to do oh so many years ago.

Preferring to receive from the priest is not avoiding the EMHC. No one in their right mind would criticise someone for preferring to receive from the priest. We are not doubting Church teaching. We are following the Church teaching of the last 2000 years. It wasn’t until we had a vocation shortage that everyone received from an EMHC. Church teaching has not changed, the preference for a priest still remains. When I die or when most Cahtolics die, they simply find the presence of a priest more comforting than an EMHC. Do you understand that priests have abilities that extend beyond the abilities of an EMHC? I always receive from an EMHC when the priest is out of town or on vacation and has already consecrated the host for distribution. But when he is here and in the Communion line, why should I go to the EMHC instead of him?

MOST people prefer to recieve from the priest.

But Sir Knight was specifically referring to the person who not only prefers to recieve, but chooses not to reieve Christ at all if they can’t recieve from the priest. Will be in line, priest runs out, so instead of going to a EMHC will go turn his back on the Real Presence of Christ and choose a spiritual communion instead.

And I will “jump lines” in order to recieve from a priest. But to choose not to recieve at all because the priest runs out? :nope:

I agree with Cristiano.

 

[Cristiano]

But when he is here and in the Communion line, why should I go to the EMHC instead of him?

The reason of the proper support to the priest through the use of EMHC is due to the fact that the number of communicants is too large. If everybody would choose to receive from the priest instead of the EMHC then it would defeat the purpose and it would put an unnecessary burden back on the priest.

BTW I am an EMHC that prefers to receive from the priest; however, I will do it only if I am not going to be part of a line in front of the priest while leaving the EMHC standing by himself. We probably have close to 1,000 people during each Mass (>4,000 registered families in the parish).

 

[palmas85]

But the church teaches that the gift is the same no matter who the bearer of that gift is. As long as that host was properly consecreted, it doesn’t matter if your receive from the Pope or a EMHC – Christ will come to you in EXACTLY the same way REGARDLESS of who distributes Him.

If you ACCEPT the fact “that the Church has decided, at least for now, to allow the laity the great privilige of assisting the Priest in this duty”, then you would not AVOID receiving communion from an EMHC. The fact that you will not receive communion from an EMHC and are willing to give up an opportunity for a SACRAMENTAL visit with our Lord shows that you do not accept CHURCH TEACHING on this matter.

According to church teaching, spiritual communion does not bless your soul with the SACRAMENTAL graces that actual communion does. “spiritual communion” should be mainly used for those times when fasting or sin prevent us from approaching our Lord in the SACRAMENT.

My Parish consists of 3500 FAMILIES. We have two priests (actually three priests but one is in a wheelchair so that disqualifies him since he is unable to get around and doesn’t even distribute communion on the Sunday masses that he celebrates because there is no way for him ti make it down the front stairs) and a part-time deacon.

We also have about 40+ EMHC (of which, I am one) who tend to the homebound. On Sunday I normally spend 3+ hours ministering to the homebound. I drop my family off at home at a little before 1pm and immediately go to do the communion distributions and normally do not return home until after 4PM. If all other EMHC spend a similar amount of time (some might spend less but that might be off-set by those that spend more), that adds up to 120+ hours a week. I can’t see how two priests can add an extra 60 hours into their work week. Can you? Even if we include our part-time Deacon and give him an equal share, that still comes out to 40 extra hours each. I still don’t see how that would be do’able.

The simple reality of the situation is that if only the priests and deacon distributed communion to them, folks that receive weekly would drop that to monthly or less. And those that receive monthly would be lucky to get it a few times a year. A direct contradiction of church teaching which stresses frequent communion because of the SACRAMENTAL graces that benefit the soul.

I accept as a fact of life many things that I do not agree with. I deal every day with many issues that I do not agree with. The general attitude among many in in the Church today seems to be that we are somehow special and more deserving than were past generations and that we must have want we want whenever we want it. I have read indignant posts on this very forum when people would attend Mass somewhere and find out that the Chalice was not offered for example. They felt they were being deprived of the full sacramental grace of communion as a result. In other posts people would complain about communion dragging on and on forever.

When the Church tells me that as a layperson I MUST receive from an Extraordinary Minister then I will. I will obey the Churches teaching and authority as I always have. The Church has NEVER said that any church **MUST **use them, or that we the communicants MUST avail ourselves of them. Their very existance is merely an option, and a privilige, nothing more and nothing less, to be used as circumstances require. That salient point is often completely overlooked. They were never intended to be used at each and every Mass… Your rabid defense of Extraordinary Ministers didn’t make a lot of sense until you pointed out that you were one of 40 plus at your parish. It all became clear at that point.

 

[Cristiano]

Your rabid defense of Extraordinary Ministers didn’t make a lot of sense until you pointed out that you were one of 40 plus at your parish. It all became clear at that point.

40 EMHC for ~5 Masses in a weekend = 8EMHC/Mass (assuming that all the EMHCs serve every weekend)

Assuming a priest and a deacon at each Mass you have 10 people distributing from the ciborium and the chalice. Usually for logistics (reason for having EMHCs) it is better to have two chalices for each ciborium thus you have 3 peoples distributing from the ciborium and 7 from the chalice.

Assuming that it takes 15 seconds to distribute the ciborium ( no added time for the chalice) it will take everybody 25 minutes to distibute communion to a church with 300 communicants.

My take is that if there are more than 300 communicants I see the justification for 40 EMHC helping the priest

 

[az_4_faith]

15 seconds? Wow, that seems awfully slow . . .

 

[Cristiano]

15 seconds? Wow, that seems awfully slow . . .

Next time I will time our pastor with a stopwatch. After that expect to read in the news about a parishioner having his butt kicked by a priest as a penance.

 

[palmas85]

40 EMHC for ~5 Masses in a weekend = 8EMHC/Mass (assuming that all the EMHCs serve every weekend)

Assuming a priest and a deacon at each Mass you have 10 people distributing from the ciborium and the chalice. Usually for logistics (reason for having EMHCs) it is better to have two chalices for each ciborium thus you have 3 peoples distributing from the ciborium and 7 from the chalice.

Assuming that it takes 15 seconds to distribute the ciborium ( no added time for the chalice) it will take everybody 25 minutes to distibute communion to a church with 300 communicants.

My take is that if there are more than 300 communicants I see the justification for 40 EMHC helping the priest

At the indult Masses I’ve attended recently, in two separate cities there were in excess of 400 people receiving at each… Kneeling and on the tongue. Two Priests distributing. each saying the entire line of Corpus Domini Jesu Christi custodiat animam meam in vitam eternam, amen. Distribution took well less than 20 minutes at each. I somehow doubt that in the system used by most Churches today distributing Holy Communion to an equivalent number would take the same anount of time as in an Indult Mass and we both know would be considerably less.
.
From what I have seen in Mass these days a more realistic and common time is about 3-5 seconds per person. So a third of the time you mentioned would be 8-10 minutes for 300 people. That sound about right?. It does to me:thumbsup:

f you are going to try to justify Extraordinary Ministerson the basis of expediency at least try to be realistic in the times you mention. 15 seconds, per person not likely at all. Sorry

 

[palmas85]

The reason of the proper support to the priest through the use of EMHC is due to the fact that the number of communicants is too large. If everybody would choose to receive from the priest instead of the EMHC then it would defeat the purpose and it would put an unnecessary burden back on the priest.

BTW I am an EMHC that prefers to receive from the priest; however, I will do it only if I am not going to be part of a line in front of the priest while leaving the EMHC standing by himself. We probably have close to 1,000 people during each Mass (>4,000 registered families in the parish).

Congratulations:thumbsup: according to most Parishes only about a third of the registered members show up. Yours must be truly exceptional. I would love to go there. Could you let us know the name of this Parish?

 

[LeahInancsi]

40 EMHC for ~5 Masses in a weekend = 8EMHC/Mass (assuming that all the EMHCs serve every weekend)

Assuming a priest and a deacon at each Mass you have 10 people distributing from the ciborium and the chalice. Usually for logistics (reason for having EMHCs) it is better to have two chalices for each ciborium thus you have 3 peoples distributing from the ciborium and 7 from the chalice.

Assuming that it takes 15 seconds to distribute the ciborium ( no added time for the chalice) it will take everybody 25 minutes to distibute communion to a church with 300 communicants.

My take is that if there are more than 300 communicants I see the justification for 40 EMHC helping the priest

My parish has 40 EMHC serving 2300 communicants. At each Mass we have at least one priest and 8 EMHCs with six distributing from ciborium and two from the chalice. The chalice is first come first served. Most communicants don’t chose to receive from the chalice. Works out very well.

 

[az_4_faith]

Next time I will time our pastor with a stopwatch. After that expect to read in the news about a parishioner having his butt kicked by a priest as a penance.

Excuse me, that wasn’t meant for sarcasm.

You stated a 15 second time frame. I found that to be an awful lot of time per parishioner.

You didn’t need to respond with a nasty remark.

 

[Walking_Home]

When the Church tells me that as a layperson I MUST receive from an Extraordinary Minister then I will. I will obey the Churches teaching and authority as I always have. The Church has NEVER said that any church **MUST **use them, or that we the communicants MUST avail ourselves of them. Their very existance is merely an option, and a privilige, nothing more and nothing less, to be used as circumstances require. That salient point is often completely overlooked. They were never intended to be used at each and every Mass… Your rabid defense of Extraordinary Ministers didn’t make a lot of sense until you pointed out that you were one of 40 plus at your parish. It all became clear at that point.

---

It comes down to what palmas has stated above. The Church has not stated that we “must” receive from the EMHC. Further–since it belongs to the priest by virtue of their sacred ordination to administer Holy Communion—no one -should have a problem with anyone who prefers to receive from the priest.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#Chapter%20III

[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”.[254] 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,[255] 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.

 

[MariaG]

---

It comes down to what palmas has stated above. The Church has not stated that we “must” receive from the EMHC. Further–since it belongs to the priest by virtue of their sacred ordination to administer Holy Communion—no one -should have a problem with anyone who prefers to receive from the priest.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#Chapter%20III

[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”.[254] 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,[255] 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.

No one here has said that one MUST recieve. Most here have stated the preference for recieving from a priest.

But to turn our backs on the Real Presence because the Priest runs out and the option is to recieve from a EMHC?

Do you really agree with that view and see absolutely nothing wrong in this?

 

[LeahInancsi]

Excuse me, that wasn’t meant for sarcasm.

You stated a 15 second time frame. I found that to be an awful lot of time per parishioner.

You didn’t need to respond with a nasty remark.

15 seconds is a lot of time per parishoner.

One difference I’ve noticed in receiving from a priest and an EMHC. The priest never looks up from the ciborium and is thinking about moving to the next person as the host leaves his fingers. The EMHC looks the parishoners in the eye, may smile, very gently puts the host in the parhishoner hand. This takes about three times as much time as a priest, but not as much as fifteen seconds.