Eucharistic Ministers Approaching Tabernacle

[T700]

I believe we have 14 EMHC’s at every mass.

Roughly how many people receive at a typical mass?

Paul

 

[msugeotech]

Hard to guess, really. I’d say 200-300 typical. We have almost 1400 registered families at the parish, and we have 4 masses (Sat. Vigil and 3 on Sunday).

 

[diggerdomer]

A priest may only make a temporary appointment of an EMHC when there’s a genuine need, and this function is very strictly limited to that particular moment. That’s what the word “extraordinary” means. In other words, not “ordinary” or not “all the time” but strictly according to the need, and dependant upon the specific appointment by a priest for that moment.

I don’t think that’s accurate. The U.S. Norms clearly state (see para. 28 usccb.org/liturgy/current/norms.shtml) that EHMCs are “formally instituted acolytes or even some of the faithful who have been commissioned according to the prescribed rite.” That’s in addition to the kind of EMHC you mentioned above. So, these are two examples of EHMCs who are not “temporarily” appointed on the spot as immediately determined by the priest.

Also, the USCCB requires that any such EMHCs “should receive sufficient spiritual, theological, and practical preparation to fulfill their role with knowledge and reverence.” Again, not something that can happen “in the moment.”

Regarding “Extraordinary”–this in contrast to the “ordinary” ministers (ordained). The ordained clergy are the “ordinary” ministers of communion, others who do so as approved by the Church are “extraordinary” because they are not the “ordinary” ministers i.e. they are not ordained clergy. That’s all.

The case you mention, of a priest “in the moment” appointing someone, is truly a temporary appointment and an *exceptional *case (imho) for using EHMCs. The GIRM notes this as allowing the priest to depute “for this single occasion.” It seems the GIRM preference for EHMCs, when they are used, is for acolytes or other properly formed, authorized, etc. laity. See GIRM 162. usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter4.shtml#sect2

I’ve never been in a parish that relied on temporary appointments, I’ve always observed EHMCs who are prepared, commissioned, etc. Personally I prefer that but obviously temporary designations are also allowed.

 

[FrDavid96]

I don’t think that’s accurate. The U.S. Norms clearly state (see para. 28 usccb.org/liturgy/current/norms.shtml) that EHMCs are “formally instituted acolytes or even some of the faithful who have been commissioned according to the prescribed rite.” That’s in addition to the kind of EMHC you mentioned above. So, these are two examples of EHMCs who are not “temporarily” appointed on the spot as immediately determined by the priest.

Also, the USCCB requires that any such EMHCs “should receive sufficient spiritual, theological, and practical preparation to fulfill their role with knowledge and reverence.” Again, not something that can happen “in the moment.”

Regarding “Extraordinary”–this in contrast to the “ordinary” ministers (ordained). The ordained clergy are the “ordinary” ministers of communion, others who do so as approved by the Church are “extraordinary” because they are not the “ordinary” ministers i.e. they are not ordained clergy. That’s all.

The case you mention, of a priest “in the moment” appointing someone, is truly a temporary appointment and an *exceptional *case (imho) for using EHMCs. The GIRM notes this as allowing the priest to depute “for this single occasion.” It seems the GIRM preference for EHMCs, when they are used, is for acolytes or other properly formed, authorized, etc. laity. See GIRM 162. usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter4.shtml#sect2

I’ve never been in a parish that relied on temporary appointments, I’ve always observed EHMCs who are prepared, commissioned, etc. Personally I prefer that but obviously temporary designations are also allowed.

Here’s the difference:

Instituted acolytes are automatically potential EMHCs. This is a given. But that’s not realy who we’re talking about here and now.

A parish priest cannot appoint an EMHC except “for the moment” many of them might claim that they are doing so (appointing for a year, or I’ve even heard “forever”) but this is not accurate as it cannot happen.

Here’s the GIRM
100. In the absence of an instituted acolyte, lay ministers may be deputed to serve at the altar and assist the priest and the deacon; they may carry the cross, the candles, the thurible, the bread, the wine, and the water, and they may also be deputed to distribute Holy Communion as extraordinary ministers.

GIRM 162 when referring to EMHCs is referring to those who have been previously appointed by the bishop–an important distinction.

There is nothing in there allowing for a parish priest (ie pastor) to make a stable appointment of an EMHC. Again, some might claim to do so, but they simply can’t.

Follow the footnotes for these documents and you will arrive at Ecclesia de Mysterio
Here’s what article 8 says:

A non-ordained member of the faithful, in cases of true necessity, may be deputed by the diocesan bishop, using the appropriate form of blessing for these situations, to act as an extraordinary minister to distribute Holy Communion outside of liturgical celebrations *ad actum vel ad tempus *(acting or temporarily appointed) or for a more stable period. In exceptional cases or in unforeseen circumstances, the priest presiding at the liturgy may authorize such ad actum.

Clearly, ONLY the diocesan bishop has any authority to appoint potential EMHCs “for a more stable period.” Some bishops might indeed do this, and when this function first appeared, that was the norm. However this practice has been so expanded (and indeed so abused) that in many places few bother anymore to seek the bishop’s appointment.

The key phrase with regard to a priest (ie presbyter as opposed to the bishop) is this:
“In exceptional cases or in unforeseen circumstances, the priest presiding at the liturgy may authorize such ad actum” That makes it very clear that a pastor (for example) may NOT appoint laypersons for a stable time (only ad actum). Pastors who claim to appoint laypersons “for a year” or so have no basis for making that claim. Unless appointed by the bishop, each potential EMHC must be appointed at that moment, and for only that moment–each and every time.

 

[stanthonyserver]

I believe we have 14 EMHC’s at every mass.

I’m guessing this is violating norms all over the place?

That seems excessive to me. We have 2,800 families in our parish and four Sunday Masses. There are 4 stations to receive the Body of Christ and two to receive the Blood of Christ. EMHC’s are only used for those stations that can not be provided by the Celebrant or deacons. I don’t really know how many people receive Communion but the church is generally pretty full and this number of stations handles it it a pretty short period of time.

Also, in the Archdiocese of Hartford, you have to attend a training session run by the Diocese in order to be certified (?not sure if that’s the right word) by the Archbishop as an EMHC and the certificate is good for 3 years and then has to be reapplied for.

 

[diggerdomer]

Here’s the difference:

Instituted acolytes are automatically potential EMHCs. This is a given. But that’s not realy who we’re talking about here and now.

A parish priest cannot appoint an EMHC except “for the moment” many of them might claim that they are doing so (appointing for a year, or I’ve even heard “forever”) but this is not accurate as it cannot happen.

Here’s the GIRM
100. In the absence of an instituted acolyte, lay ministers may be deputed to serve at the altar and assist the priest and the deacon; they may carry the cross, the candles, the thurible, the bread, the wine, and the water, and they may also be deputed to distribute Holy Communion as extraordinary ministers.

GIRM 162 when referring to EMHCs is referring to those who have been previously appointed by the bishop–an important distinction.

There is nothing in there allowing for a parish priest (ie pastor) to make a stable appointment of an EMHC. Again, some might claim to do so, but they simply can’t.

Follow the footnotes for these documents and you will arrive at Ecclesia de Mysterio
Here’s what article 8 says:

A non-ordained member of the faithful, in cases of true necessity, may be deputed by the diocesan bishop, using the appropriate form of blessing for these situations, to act as an extraordinary minister to distribute Holy Communion outside of liturgical celebrations *ad actum vel ad tempus *(acting or temporarily appointed) or for a more stable period. In exceptional cases or in unforeseen circumstances, the priest presiding at the liturgy may authorize such ad actum.

Clearly, ONLY the diocesan bishop has any authority to appoint potential EMHCs “for a more stable period.” Some bishops might indeed do this, and when this function first appeared, that was the norm. However this practice has been so expanded (and indeed so abused) that in many places few bother anymore to seek the bishop’s appointment.

The key phrase with regard to a priest (ie presbyter as opposed to the bishop) is this:
“In exceptional cases or in unforeseen circumstances, the priest presiding at the liturgy may authorize such ad actum” That makes it very clear that a pastor (for example) may NOT appoint laypersons for a stable time (only ad actum). Pastors who claim to appoint laypersons “for a year” or so have no basis for making that claim. Unless appointed by the bishop, each potential EMHC must be appointed at that moment, and for only that moment–each and every time.

I guess I was assuming, based on the widespread practice (and of course NOT assuming bishops are involved with widespread abuse) that the common understanding of how to practically implement all these norms is for the bishop’s “deputation” to be delegated to the parish/pastor. I don’t think there’s anything that denies that right to the Bishop, so I was thinking that’s how all these norms were being implemented legitimately. Bishops “depute”, ok, but HOW they manage and carry it out is, unless someone can find explicit guidance to the contrary, within his rights as the supreme legislator (and liturgist) of his diocese. At least, that’s what I would surmise. If this is not correct, I sure hope the Vatican or at least the U.S. Bishops would stop this widespread, routine practice of how to appropriately use EMHCs. I don’t see where GIRM 162 says “previously appointed by the bishop.”

Thanks for the clear and thorough response.

 

[msugeotech]

I might be, I don’t know. 14 is the max. we have, but sometimes I’ve seen as few as 9. I think it’s more of a logistics standpoint than it is the number of parishoners receiving. Usually 2 for the Body, and 2 for the Blood on each side of the altar. I think it would be difficult, based on the way our church is laid out (think circle with altar/square table in the middle) for everyone to walk around and get in a single line. I know they receive training every year. I don’t know if they do any kind of “certification” (I understand what you mean).

That seems excessive to me. We have 2,800 families in our parish and four Sunday Masses. There are 4 stations to receive the Body of Christ and two to receive the Blood of Christ. EMHC’s are only used for those stations that can not be provided by the Celebrant or deacons. I don’t really know how many people receive Communion but the church is generally pretty full and this number of stations handles it it a pretty short period of time.

Also, in the Archdiocese of Hartford, you have to attend a training session run by the Diocese in order to be certified (?not sure if that’s the right word) by the Archbishop as an EMHC and the certificate is good for 3 years and then has to be reapplied for.

 

[FrDavid96]

… I don’t see where GIRM 162 says “previously appointed by the bishop.”

That’s because you have to follow the footnotes (ok endnotes)

Here’s what GIRM 162 says (just so we don’t get crosseyed looking at docs):
162. The priest may be assisted in the distribution of Communion by other priests who happen to be present. If such priests are not present and there is a very large number of communicants, the priest may call upon extraordinary ministers to assist him, e.g., duly instituted acolytes or even other faithful who have been deputed for this purpose.97 In case of necessity, the priest may depute suitable faithful for this single occasion.98
and the endnotes:
97. Cf. Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship, Instruction Inaestimabile donum, 3 April 1980, no. 10: AAS 72 (1980), p. 336; Interdicasterial Instruction on certain questions regarding the collaboration of the non-ordained faithful in the sacred ministry of priests, Ecclesiae de mysterio, 15 August 1997, art. 8: AAS 89 (1997), p. 871.
98. Cf. below, Appendix, Order of Commissioning a Minister to Distribute Holy Communion on a Single Occasion, p. 1253.

Here’s how 162 makes the distinction between those appointed by the bishop, and those approinted at the moment by the priest In case of necessity, the priest may depute suitable faithful for this single occasion clearly there is a distinction being made between those appointed at the moment and those previously appointed. Again we have to go to Ecclesiae de Mysterio article #8 which makes that distinction clear. Realize that I’m not just drawing my own conclusion when I say to refer to Ecc de Mysterio, it’s the Church who is saying that by the notes.

A non-ordained member of the faithful, in cases of true necessity, may be deputed by the diocesan bishop, using the appropriate form of blessing for these situations, to act as an extraordinary minister to distribute Holy Communion outside of liturgical celebrations *ad actum vel ad tempus *(acting or temporarily appointed) or for a more stable period. In exceptional cases or in unforeseen circumstances, the priest presiding at the liturgy may authorize such ad actum.

Also note that the ceremony for a priest to depute (is that even a word? I thought it was deputize?) someone as an EMHC specifies “for a single occasion” this isn’t merely in the rubrics, but it’s the very title of the ceremony. I don’t know what they’re referring to there, it might be the bishops’ ceremonial, which would be odd in the context given that it’s referring to a priest, but the point still remains that it’s clearly saying “for a single occasion.”

 

[diggerdomer]

That’s because you have to follow the footnotes (ok endnotes)

Here’s what GIRM 162 says (just so we don’t get crosseyed looking at docs):
162. The priest may be assisted in the distribution of Communion by other priests who happen to be present. If such priests are not present and there is a very large number of communicants, the priest may call upon extraordinary ministers to assist him, e.g., duly instituted acolytes or even other faithful who have been deputed for this purpose.97 In case of necessity, the priest may depute suitable faithful for this single occasion.98
and the endnotes:
97. Cf. Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship, Instruction Inaestimabile donum, 3 April 1980, no. 10: AAS 72 (1980), p. 336; Interdicasterial Instruction on certain questions regarding the collaboration of the non-ordained faithful in the sacred ministry of priests, Ecclesiae de mysterio, 15 August 1997, art. 8: AAS 89 (1997), p. 871.
98. Cf. below, Appendix, Order of Commissioning a Minister to Distribute Holy Communion on a Single Occasion, p. 1253.

Here’s how 162 makes the distinction between those appointed by the bishop, and those approinted at the moment by the priest In case of necessity, the priest may depute suitable faithful for this single occasion clearly there is a distinction being made between those appointed at the moment and those previously appointed. Again we have to go to Ecclesiae de Mysterio article #8 which makes that distinction clear. Realize that I’m not just drawing my own conclusion when I say to refer to Ecc de Mysterio, it’s the Church who is saying that by the notes.

A non-ordained member of the faithful, in cases of true necessity, may be deputed by the diocesan bishop, using the appropriate form of blessing for these situations, to act as an extraordinary minister to distribute Holy Communion outside of liturgical celebrations *ad actum vel ad tempus *(acting or temporarily appointed) or for a more stable period. In exceptional cases or in unforeseen circumstances, the priest presiding at the liturgy may authorize such ad actum.

Also note that the ceremony for a priest to depute (is that even a word? I thought it was deputize?) someone as an EMHC specifies “for a single occasion” this isn’t merely in the rubrics, but it’s the very title of the ceremony. I don’t know what they’re referring to there, it might be the bishops’ ceremonial, which would be odd in the context given that it’s referring to a priest, but the point still remains that it’s clearly saying “for a single occasion.”

Sorry if I wasn’t clear a few posts ago. Yes, I read those references and footnotes/endnotes.

Still seems to me that all those documents give the Bishop the authority to determine exactly how he will “depute” EMHCs, and so I stand by my observation of current practice and thoughts.

I agree…I’ve never come across the word “depute” before! I would have thought “deputize” was the right one…oh well…love this Church and her peculiar vocabulary!! LOL

 

[benedictgal]

http://catholicexchange.com/2007/04/17/83700/ .
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing analysis, it is clear that there is no universal norm for whom is authorized to approach the tabernacle during Mass. Each bishop is free to set policy for his own diocese. A brief statement on local diocesan policy on this issue by pastors or priests in those parishes where this issue may be raising some concern is probably a prudent step.

Actually, there is something in the GIRM that specifically states that:

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.

The text specifically states the word “priest”, not EMHC, not instituted alcolyte.

Furthermore, the bishop does not have carte blanche authority over the liturgy. This is what the GIRM states that he can do:

1. The Diocesan Bishop, who is to be regarded as the high priest of his flock, and from whom the life in Christ of the faithful under his care in a certain sense derives and upon whom it depends,148 must promote, regulate, and be vigilant over the liturgical life in his diocese. It is to him that in this Instruction is entrusted the regulating of the discipline of concelebration (cf. above, nos. 202, 374) and the establishing of norms regarding the function of serving the priest at the altar (cf. above, no. 107), the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds (cf. above, no. 283), and the construction and ordering of churches (cf. above, no. 291). With him lies responsibility above all for fostering the spirit of the Sacred Liturgy in the priests, deacons, and faithful.

The last line is very important because the bishop is primarily responsible for ensuring fidelity and adherence to the rubrics and norms, not setting them aside. If he wants to change something, he must first submit it to his national conference. If the conference receives the affirmative vote of 2/3 of the Latin Rite bishops, then, the change is sent to Rome for the necessary recognitio. Rome has the final say in the matter, choosing whether or not to accept the change.