Eucharistic Ministers - yay or nay

  • Thread starter Thread starter RockinReptile
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RockinReptile

Guest
I’m a female catholic convert, baptized just 3 months ago. Although I’m continuously learning about my faith, I had a question concerning Eucharistic Ministers. Right after my Baptism, I was considering becoming one, but upon hearing a bit about church history, I’ve had second thoughts. For one example…

It was said by Pope St. Sixtus I, who was Pope from 114- 128. He states, “that none but sacred Ministers are allowed to touch the sacred vessels.” Does this mean that only priests, Bishops, Deacons, cardinals and the Pope can distribute the Holy Eucharist?

How and what do you guys think/feel about Eucharistic Ministers?
 
Last edited:
Only priests are Eucharistic Ministers. I believe that you were considering the role of Extraordinary Minister.

Until Vatican II, only the ones you named were permitted to touch the Sacred Host.

EDIT: See Post 9 below, by @Anne1964. Since EM is a frequent abbreviation, I’d forgotten about the additional HC in the abbreviation, EMHC. I apologize.
 
Last edited:
Hmm, I’ve never heard of Extraordinary Minister. I guess the more ‘proper’ term would be Lay Eucharist Minister? It seems that church customs have been changing to meet with today’s current societal standards/demands. But, I’m not interested in seeking loop holes within the church to feel ‘included’ as a woman. I’ve been cautious before seeking that sort of position - and if priests, Bishops, Deacons, etc only have the authority to truly distribute the Holy Eucharist, then I wish not to pursue this
 
Last edited:
RockinReptile said:
Hmm, I’ve never heard of Extraordinary Minister. I guess the more ‘proper’ term would be Lay Eucharist Minister? It seems that church customs have been changing to meet with today’s current societal standards/demands. But, I’m not interested in seeking loop holes within the church to feel ‘included’ as a woman. I’ve been cautious before seeking that sort of position - and if priests, Bishops, Deacons, etc only have the authority to truly distribute the Holy Eucharist, then I wish not to pursue this
Click to expand...
No, the only proper term for lay Catholics who distribute communion is Extraordinary Minister.

Unfortunately, I have occasionally visited churches where the incorrect “Eucharistic Minister” schedule has been noted in the bulletin, but if you’ve seen that, it’s incorrect.

Although my personal opinion is that the Extraordinary Minister positions never should have been instigated in the first place, that is merely my opinion. The Church has definitely established the role of Extraordinary Minister, and if you are drawn to that ministry, and your parish uses EMs, you have every right to pursue becoming one.

EDIT: Again, I apologize for my error, referring to EMHC as only EM. See Post #9, by @Anne1964.
 
Last edited:
That’s very comforting to hear I’m not the only one that had the desire, then had major hesitation with big doubts that followed. I think there’s perhaps a great supernatural reasoning behind our cautionary hesitation, maybe God telling us (don’t go down that route). I’ve only received Holy Communion a handful of times because I was baptized during the pandemic, with a few of those instants there were Eucharist Ministers, (now I’m just learning they’re actually “Extraordinary Minister”), and it did NOT feel right to receive Jesus that way
 
I will take your word on it. My Parish is kind of… suffering right now. I had a horrible RCIA teacher that would go on about Jesus’ miracles weren’t anything supernatural, they were… exaggerated stories to somehow prove a point. Very confusing for someone just coming into the faith!!! As a disclaimer, I absolutely do not take that to heart. He also taught some pretty questionable things aside from that… My teacher is also a “Eucharistic Minister”, thats where I heard the term.

In my heart, I totally agree with you. I’m fully beginning to believe that role is a special role, reserved to Sacred Ministers only
 
The correct term is Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. Both men and women are allowed to be EMHCs. Prior to Vatican II this was not allowed.

There is nothing wrong with receiving Communion from an EMHC.

If you do a search on CAF you will many threads on this topic. The other topic that comes up frequently is the debate about receiving Communion on the tongue or in the hand. Again, both are allowed.

With all that said, I attend the Traditional Latin Mass most of the time and we do not have EMHCs and we only receive Communion on the tongue while kneeling. This is my preference but there is absolutely nothing wrong with receiving Communion from an EMHC.
 
OP, I definitely understand your hesitation, as I am extremely uncomfortable receiving the Holy Eucharist from anyone (woman or man) other than a priest or higher, because of my training during pre-Vatican II years. I have never been in a church where a deacon was included, but even though it would be a new experience for me, I don’t think that receivig from a deacon would bother me.

I believe that the abbreviation of Extraordinary Ministers to merely EM is the reason laypeople erroneously think that they’re referring to Eucharistic Ministers. Lol! Had I been on the abbreviating committee, I would’ve voted for “EOM,” but had I been on the naming committee, I never would’ve voted for “Extraordinary,” for sure; probably “LM” for “Lay Minister,” or something similar. 😇

When EMs remain very reverent and act as though the Sacred Host is the most sacred item that they’ve ever even contemplated, let alone touched—with their voices, facial expressions, and posture—that demeanor of awe rubs off on those around them. It’s when they’re outwardly casual and blase, and hurry with each communicant, that they seem to demean the sacrament. However, sometimes priests fall into that manner, too, so the lay ministers aren’t solely at fault.

When we used to kneel at the long communion rails, most priests looked into our eyes as they spoke and held the Sacred Host aloft; they seemed to emit an aura of holiness around them. Many times I would blink back tears. Of course, there were a few others who seemed to be in a marathon—“Hurry it up & get ‘er done! Let’s move those lines as fast as possible.”

Study more about the EM role and experience the awe of the moment with each communicant if you elect to serve in that way. Because of your genuine concern, I’m guessing that you’d be a great Extraordinary Minister. Best wishes!

EDIT: I once again apologize for having omitted the HC (for Holy Communion) in the correct abbreviation, EMHC (Extraordinary Minister of Holy Comunion), as pointed out by @Anne1964, in Post #9.
 
Last edited:
Anne1964 said:
The correct term is Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. Both men and women are allowed to be EMHCs. Prior to Vatican II this was not allowed.

There is nothing wrong with receiving Communion from an EMHC.

If you do a search on CAF you will many threads on this topic. The other topic that comes up frequently is the debate about receiving Communion on the tongue or in the hand. Again, both are allowed.

With all that said, I attend the Traditional Latin Mass most of the time and we do not have EMHCs and we only receive Communion on the tongue while kneeling. This is my preference but there is absolutely nothing wrong with receiving Communion from an EMHC.
Click to expand...
Thank you for reminding me of the last two words! 😇 Since EM is usually used in churches where I’ve been, EMCH didn’t come to mind. I apologize for my memory lapse. Mea culpa! Mea culpa!
 
Last edited:
You might also consider that extraordinary ministers take communion to those who are hospitalized or homebound. There aren’t enough priests to make the rounds and those people would never (or seldom) receive communion if it weren’t for laypeople who make it possible.
 
Since Vatican II, the Church now allows lay members of the congregation to distribute communion as Extraordinary Ministers. As long as the Church allows it, it’s perfectly fine. If you feel called to this blessed Ministry, go for it. Contact whoever in your parish is in charge of scheduling and training EMHCs, and express your interest to them.
 
Last edited:
It sounds like you definitely had an RCIA experience that was…lacking, to put it mildly. However, don’t let the pendulum swing too far the other way. What the Church permits is acceptable; you don’t have to share the preferences, but it is important to understand that the Church has the competency (granted by Jesus himself) to regulate disciplines and certain practices. EMHCs are permitted; you don’t have to be one or receive from one, but it wouldn’t be appropriate to say they’re doing something they shouldn’t be or that no one may touch the host/sacred vessels.
 
Miracles are NOT exaggerated stories to prove a point. I have experienced large and small miracles in my own life, and they have been special blessings. I also have heard of some of Jesus’ miracles being played down by attempts to explain them as nothing more than natural events. Why even some priests do this is beyond me. Apparently, it’s the way they interpret these events from Scripture. It makes Jesus out to be less than Who he really was and is. NOT COOL!
 
RockinReptile said:
It was said by Pope St. Sixtus I, who was Pope from 114- 128. He states, “that none but sacred Ministers are allowed to touch the sacred vessels.” Does this mean that only priests, Bishops, Deacons, cardinals and the Pope can distribute the Holy Eucharist?
Click to expand...
That was an ecclesiastical law enacted by Sixtus I, not the re-iteration of an irreformable dogma. The Catholic Encyclopedia article on him notes the three ordinances he passed, which makes it clear this was a discipline that could be reformed
According to the “Liber Pontificalis” (ed. Duchesne, I, 128), he passed the following three ordinances: (1) that none but sacred ministers are allowed to touch the sacred vessels; (2) that bishops who have been summoned to the Holy See shall, upon their return, not be received by their diocese except on presenting Apostolic letters; (3) that after the Preface in the Mass the priest shall recite the Sanctus with the people.
Click to expand...
In fact, sacristans and altar societies later developed made of lay people who helped prepare the altar and sacred vessels for Mass, so clearly it is has been licit for the laity to touch the vessels for some centuries.

What is a dogma is that the Church has the power to decide how the sacraments are dispensed. As the Council of Trent declared in Session 21:
It furthermore declares, that this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, it may ordain,- or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circumstances, times, and places.
Click to expand...
The Church has determined in our time it is expedient to allow qualified lay people to distribute when there are insufficient ordinary ministers. The problem, in my opinion, is they are overused when in many cases when they are not needed.
 
Last edited:
RockinReptile said:
I’m a female catholic convert, baptized just 3 months ago. Although I’m continuously learning about my faith, I had a question concerning Eucharistic Ministers. Right after my Baptism, I was considering becoming one, but upon hearing a bit about church history, I’ve had second thoughts. For one example…

It was said by Pope St. Sixtus I, who was Pope from 114- 128. He states, “that none but sacred Ministers are allowed to touch the sacred vessels.” Does this mean that only priests, Bishops, Deacons, cardinals and the Pope can distribute the Holy Eucharist?

How and what do you guys think/feel about Eucharistic Ministers?
Click to expand...
I’d be curious as to what you’ve been reading. Most converts of 3 months’ duration don’t have a good working knowledge of 2nd Century popes. Nor do cradle Catholics for that matter. The document you cited has come up here innumerable times in the countless - and ultimately fruitless - threads on this topic.

And finally, it isn’t a matter of what people “think / feel.” It’s a matter of what the Church allows.
 
On a practical level at least, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion are needed if communion is to be distributed under both kinds (which of course has fuller form as sign of communion). Aside from that, at least one will be required at Sunday mass in most parishes.

It’s wrong though to see the eucharist distributed by a priest or deacon as being somehow better or superior to that distributed by a lay minister. It’s still the same Jesus and the nature and quality of what we receive isn’t dependent on who we receive it from.
 
Lack of training was one reason I stopped being an Extraordinary Minister. I couldn’t get anyone to answer my questions about how it’s supposed to be done during Easter and Christmas vigils, which was quite a bit different than how it was done during regular Masses. Nobody would tell me – I was left to try to guess for myself, then was criticized if I didn’t do it “right”.

Also, there was a rule in my parish that if I was scheduled to distribute communion on a particular Saturday or Sunday and was unable to do so, I was supposed to line up a substitute from the names on the EM roster to take my place. Good luck with that! Every single person from that roster whom I called had some ready excuse for why they couldn’t or wouldn’t fill in for me. Then I got blamed for not doing this duty!

In short, I was unjustly treated, so I stopped doing it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top