Excessive handling of the Eucharist

[japhy]

In the Catholic teaching, is the Eucharist always Christ, or is it bread that becomes Christ?

We start with bread and wine: these are not the Eucharist. Once they have been consecrated, the bread and wine are transubstantiated (that is, their substance is changed) and are the Eucharist, the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.

In which case, who cares how it’s handled, it’s not Christ yet.

There are three stages that the bread and wine go through. (1) Before Mass, they are plain old bread and wine. Nothing has happened to them yet. (2) Then, during Mass, during the part called the “Offertory” (or the “Preparation of the Gifts”), the bread and wine are offered to God, that He would find them acceptable for becoming the Eucharist. The bread and wine are blessed and become “sacramentals”, and are, in a sense, consecrated; that is, they are set aside for a particular use. At this point, they are sacred, and not meant to be treated as profane (non-sacred) bread and wine. (3) Finally, during the Eucharistic Prayer, the bread and wine are consecrated properly speaking, and cease to be bread and wine, but are the Eucharist, the Most Blessed Sacrament.

Any casual handling of the bread and wine should occur before the Mass. There shouldn’t be anything casual or haphazard at Mass anyway.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

michael daniels:

Hey…I agree…ultimate accountability lies on the priest and bishops…doesn’t mean that the EMHC’s don’t share in the blame…but the real chastisement should fall on those in positions of power allowing it to happen

Originally Posted by Joannm View Post
Why do people keep blaming the EMHCs when it is the pastor who sets the procedures in the parish? If anything, he should be the one who is criticized not the poor EMHCs who are only following his direction.

Yes people, it’s the priest or pastor of your parish that you should be criticizing. If the EMHCs are not complying with diocesan guidelines, then it is for the pastor to correct. 99.99% of the time the EMHCs are following parish “guidelines” or traditions, which the priest is either oblivious to, or negligent of. The EMHCs are all serving at the discretion of the Pastor. He can dismiss them with a single word, and prevent their presence evermore in the church sanctuary. He is the one that decides how many are needed at every Mass. (Whether he abdicates this role or not it remains HIS responsibility,) no EMHC is “in charge” of these decisions.

My diocese is rather particular about the guidelines for EMHCs and stresses the importance of Parish training and leadership by the Priest Pastor in addition to the mandatory Diocesan training. Most of the EMHCs are dedicated, fervent Catholics with a better than average appreciation of the Blessed Sacrament. They have to jump through quite a few hoops before being commissioned as an EMHC (and even then it is for a limited time only.) I’m pretty tired of seeing all the smears against EMHCs in threads all over CAF.

 

[ProVobis]

They have to jump through quite a few hoops before being commissioned as an EMHC (and even then it is for a limited time only.)

Could you elaborate on this? How limited (except for having too many of them at one Mass)?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Could you elaborate on this? How limited (except for having too many of them at one Mass)?

In the Cleveland Diocese the commission is for 5 yrs. only. The Pastor must approve of all candidates who are submitted to the Bishop. In other Dioceses the period may be even shorter, such as for two or three years. After that period expires, the EMHC must go through all of the mandatory training AGAIN! It doesn’t matter how “experienced” or knowledgeable they are. This is the Bishop’s way of guaranteeing that the Diocesan EMHCs are understanding the guidelines, and how they are to function within the Parish. EMHCs are also restricted to the Parish (or school, hospital or university) in which they are commissioned. It is not allowed for EMHCs to look upon themselves as “ministers” that can help anywhere they go. Aside from this, the Pastor is ALSO responsible for the training and managing of the EMHCs in the customs and usage of their own particular Parish (or school, hospital and university.) The Pastor is equivalent to the battle line commander, and the Bishop is the General back at headquarters. If the infantry is failing in its duty or causing scandal, who do you think God, and the Bishop will hold accountable?

As for having too many of them, this is the prerogative of the Pastor, therefore it is HIS responsibility to guarantee that there are NOT too many EMHCs or that any other abuse does not take place.

If you see abuses with the EMHCs, you can be sure there are many other abuses going on in your Parish as well. If the Pastor is wishy-washy, or afraid of the laity, or just simply negligent about the use of EMHCs, a lot more at your Parish is suffering too.

 

[eaputzer]

Yes people, it’s the priest or pastor of your parish that you should be criticizing. If the EMHCs are not complying with diocesan guidelines, then it is for the pastor to correct. 99.99% of the time the EMHCs are following parish “guidelines” or traditions, which the priest is either oblivious to, or negligent of. The EMHCs are all serving at the discretion of the Pastor. He can dismiss them with a single word, and prevent their presence evermore in the church sanctuary. He is the one that decides how many are needed at every Mass. (Whether he abdicates this role or not it remains HIS responsibility,) no EMHC is “in charge” of these decisions.

My diocese is rather particular about the guidelines for EMHCs and stresses the importance of Parish training and leadership by the Priest Pastor in addition to the mandatory Diocesan training. Most of the EMHCs are dedicated, fervent Catholics with a better than average appreciation of the Blessed Sacrament. They have to jump through quite a few hoops before being commissioned as an EMHC (and even then it is for a limited time only.) I’m pretty tired of seeing all the smears against EMHCs in threads all over CAF.

While I agree with you that the priest is ultimately in charge, don’t the EMHCs have some sort of culpability? Maybe these are things they never knew, but don’t you think at least SOME of them might say “hey, this seems irreverent, Father”? For all I know, my priest is angry and mean to them if they even mention how what they’re doing could be wrong!

Maybe it is in my parish, that the priest (who seems to ME to be a good one otherwise) has relinquished/transferred the “control” of the EMHCs to these women (the ones who seem to be in charge; they are the only 2 I’ve ever seen dividing up the hosts).

I’m sorry you’re angry, but I think this kind of thing needs to be talked about. It helps people learn.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

While I agree with you that the priest is ultimately in charge, don’t the EMHCs have some sort of culpability? Maybe these are things they never knew, but don’t you think at least SOME of them might say “hey, this seems irreverent, Father”? For all I know, my priest is angry and mean to them if they even mention how what they’re doing could be wrong!

Maybe it is in my parish, that the priest (who seems to ME to be a good one otherwise) has relinquished/transferred the “control” of the EMHCs to these women (the ones who seem to be in charge; they are the only 2 I’ve ever seen dividing up the hosts).

I’m sorry you’re angry, but I think this kind of thing needs to be talked about. It helps people learn.

The EMHCs CAN complain to the priest if they feel something isn’t right or irreverant. However, that is not a good situation for either party. The priest may feel an EMHC has no business instructing HIM on what is reverent etc. It is lose/lose for the EMHC. Therefore, it is the parishioners who can register their complaints with the Pastor. Maybe he’ll listen to them, maybe he won’t. But THAT is who shoulders 100% of the responsibility. Even if an EMHC should be culpable of some flagrant violation, it is a simple matter for the priest to nip it on the spot, or later after Mass. If its a case where the priest is not aware, or doesn’t see what is happening, then someone should be speaking up to the Pastor about the situation.

In your case, you should speak up to your Pastor and ask what gives with these two.

 

[StillWondering]

In the Cleveland Diocese the commission is for 5 yrs. only. The Pastor must approve of all candidates who are submitted to the Bishop. In other Dioceses the period may be even shorter, such as for two or three years. After that period expires, the EMHC must go through all of the mandatory training AGAIN! It doesn’t matter how “experienced” or knowledgeable they are. This is the Bishop’s way of guaranteeing that the Diocesan EMHCs are understanding the guidelines, and how they are to function within the Parish. EMHCs are also restricted to the Parish (or school, hospital or university) in which they are commissioned. It is not allowed for EMHCs to look upon themselves as “ministers” that can help anywhere they go. Aside from this, the Pastor is ALSO responsible for the training and managing of the EMHCs in the customs and usage of their own particular Parish (or school, hospital and university.) The Pastor is equivalent to the battle line commander, and the Bishop is the General back at headquarters. If the infantry is failing in its duty or causing scandal, who do you think God, and the Bishop will hold accountable?

As for having too many of them, this is the prerogative of the Pastor, therefore it is HIS responsibility to guarantee that there are NOT too many EMHCs or that any other abuse does not take place.

If you see abuses with the EMHCs, you can be sure there are many other abuses going on in your Parish as well. If the Pastor is wishy-washy, or afraid of the laity, or just simply negligent about the use of EMHCs, a lot more at your Parish is suffering too.

Cheers for the way this diocese is run

 

[JReducation]

First of all, the EMHC has no business being at the altar, by the side of the priest until after the priest consumes the Sacred Host and the Precious Blood. According to the GIRM:

Regarding the Fraction Rite, Redemptionis Sacramentum says the following:

I hope that this helps.

This post hits the nail on the head. And no, we are not going to flame you.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ChurchTorch]

You can’t post a thread like this…you are about to be attacked…they will consider you a schismatic, heretical, ultra-conservative, traditionalists member of the “remnant” and we all know that means we believe we are “holier” than though…LOL just kidding. I loved your post and I agree, but be prepared to be flamed for it.

This has nothing to do with being “ultra-conservative.”

 

[ChurchTorch]

Yes people, it’s the priest or pastor of your parish that you should be criticizing. If the EMHCs are not complying with diocesan guidelines, then it is for the pastor to correct. 99.99% of the time the EMHCs are following parish “guidelines” or traditions, which the priest is either oblivious to, or negligent of. The EMHCs are all serving at the discretion of the Pastor. He can dismiss them with a single word, and prevent their presence evermore in the church sanctuary. He is the one that decides how many are needed at every Mass. (Whether he abdicates this role or not it remains HIS responsibility,) no EMHC is “in charge” of these decisions.

**My diocese is rather particular about the guidelines for EMHCs and stresses the importance of Parish training and leadership by the Priest Pastor in addition to the mandatory Diocesan training. Most of the EMHCs are dedicated, fervent Catholics with a better than average appreciation of the Blessed Sacrament. They have to jump through quite a few hoops before being commissioned as an EMHC (and even then it is for a limited time only.) ** I’m pretty tired of seeing all the smears against EMHCs in threads all over CAF.

You are every fortunate. Far too many EMsHC at my parish have been around far too long and they have some very bad habits. As far as this thread goes, we have some EMsHC who can distribute the hosts between vessels with great dignity and grace. With others it’s painful. Same with priest and deacons.

The EMsHC smears are often exhibitions of bigotry in my opinion.

 

[puzzleannie]

I don’t know much about transubstantiation so forgive me if I say something wrong. In the Catholic teaching, is the Eucharist always Christ, or is it bread that becomes Christ?

If the bread becomes- suggesting that it was something different beforehand- the body and the blood of Christ; then, before that happens isn’t it just bread? Regular plain old get-it-at-store bread? (Idiom for effect. I know that you cannot go down to the corner store and buy communion wafers, and I mean no disrespect to the actual Eucharist.) In which case, who cares how it’s handled, it’s not Christ yet. Either way, I can understand how it would be upsetting for them to be doing that in the middle of Mass… That’s a bit much.

your understanding is correct, what we buy wholesale from a religious supply house or nuns who make them are hosts of bread, that is made from wheat and water only and baked. The confusion comes in because there is usually a bowl (called a ciborium) of hosts that have been consecrated at an earlier Mass in the tabernacle, where it is reserved to be given to the sick. since we don’t want them to become stale, they are brought out to be distributed to the faithful and what remains of the bread that has now been consecrated at today’s Mass will be returned to the tablernacle.

where EMHCs (lay ministers to distribute communion) are used, they each take one of those ciboria, so the priest or deacon is supposed to fill them from the larger bowl that has just been consecrated. the lay persons are not supposed to do this at all, which is why OP is upset, because of the disrespect he is noting, and the apparent carelessness with which this is being done. Since at this point (after the consecration, just before communion) all the hosts on the altar have been consecrated and are now the Body of the Lord, this disrespect is an abuse.

 

[brap]

Although I’m sure this has been discussed ad nauseum, I think the church has opened a can of worms with EMHC. While I find that for the most part most EMHC’s correctly execute their proscribed parts in the celebration of the Eucharist, many worshippers are turned off by receiving communion from them (we all see them cutting into the line with the priest) and the diminished role of the priest in handling the Eucharist.

It is my understanding (please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong) the the proscribed role of the EM’s is to help distribute communion when it is deemed that the congregation is so large that it would take a very long time for the priests to do it without their help. It appears that in most parishes more than 5 or 10 minutes qualifies as an extraordinarily long time.

I am not slamming the EM’s as I believe that they are doing what they are told but instead I think that the Pastors have stretched the guidelines quite a bit.

 

[JReducation]

Although I’m sure this has been discussed ad nauseum, I think the church has opened a can of worms with EMHC.

the proscribed role of the EM’s is to help distribute communion when it is deemed that the congregation is so large that it would take a very long time for the priests to do it without their help. It appears that in most parishes more than 5 or 10 minutes qualifies as an extraordinarily long time.

You’re right about the use of the Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. I don’t believe that the Church has opened a can of worms and I’ll get to that in my second paragraph. But let’s just review the function of the EMHC. Their primary function was to carry the Eucharist to the sick and shut-ins who could not attend mass. As society has grown and stretched all over the place, priests and deacons can’t get to every person who can’t come to mass and take care of other needs in the parish. The regulations allow for the use of the EMHC at mass when the help is needed to shorten the time that it would take to distribute communion. This is left up to the discretion of the pastor, because what is long in one parish may not be long in another.

I volunteer at a parish that has seven masses every weekend, two on Saturday and five on Sundays. They are all full to capacity. The church holds about 800 people. When you have 90 minutes to celebrate the mass and clear the parking lot for those who are coming to the next mass, you may need the EMHC. The last thing you want it a bottle-neck in the parking lot. That can discourage people from coming to mass. Common sense dictates that you leave at least 20 minutes between the end of one mass and the beginning of the next. That should allow enough time to get 500 cars out of your parking lot for 500 incoming. In this case, you may need to use the EMHC to shorten the time that it takes to distribute communion. This is not the case in every parish. In those parishes where you don’t have this problem of time, you don’t need to use the EMHC. I have no idea why they would be used or are used during mass when they don’t have the large numbers and the pressures of time.

That being said, let me get back to the “can of worms.” EMHC may be a new title, but not a new practice in the Church. I have never seen the term used in history books, but I have seen the practice. I’ll use an example with which I’m very familiar. In my Franciscan family, the friars and the nuns, we have had the practice of bringing the Eucharist to the sick and older members of the community in their cells. These are friars or nuns who can’t make it to the chapel. The communion was often brought by another friar or nun. Among the friars, there are priests, but the majority are not. In fact we’re ordaining less men each year because we don’t need that many priests, but that’s another story. The point was that the friars and nuns took communion from the altar to the sick when there was no priest to do so. Our Poor Clares have had a long tradition of devotion to the Eucharist. Beginning with Clare, the nuns would expose and repose the Blessed Sacrament. A priest did not come over to do it for them. In fact, St. Francis did not allow the ordained friars to do more than celebrate mass for Clare and the nuns. There is that famous image of St. Clare holding a monstrance. The reason was that she fought back an invading army by taking the Blessed Sacrament from the tabernacle and holding it over the wall of the monastery to repel the invading forces. Clare would not have dared to open the tabernacle had she not been accustomed to doing so.

There are also records of the early generations of the Church in the East and West that indicate that the presbyters would consecrate during the mass, but not consume all of the Eucharist. Some of it would be left in the home of a faithful family for distribution to the sick and dying and even for Sunday services, if the presbyter could not come back to celebrate the mass. This custom died out with the erection of churches with tabernacles.

These were later attached to monasteries so that the ordained monks (not all monks are priests or deacons) served as the local pastors. It was almost 1000 years before the concept of a parish was firmly established. Even during the Middle Ages most people attended mass at a monastery or a cathedral. The custom was that the monks would build chapels at a distance from the monastery and they would go there to celebrate mass for the local people. These were the seeds of the first parishes. But the monks could not stay and take care of these chapels and their people, because the first obligation of a monk and a friar is to be a religious. The care of parishes has to be abandoned when it interferes with religious life or the mission of the order.

However, there were lay penitential movements during the Middle Ages. The local bishop could give them permission to do two things: preach and take communion to the sick. We don’t know how many of these people there were. No one kept records. The lay movements faded away for three reasons. Some died by attrition. Others fell into heresy and were excommunicated and others became religious communities. The Franciscans were one of those lay movements known as the Lesser Brothers.

My point is that the Church was not creating something new. The hope was that it would be done as it had been done in the past, for the sick and those who did not have the benefit of a priest or deacon, such as in mission countries. It’s an old ministry where involved: pastors and laity, need more training on how it is meant to be used.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[paperwight]

many worshippers are turned off by receiving communion from them (we all see them cutting into the line with the priest) and the diminished role of the priest in handling the Eucharist. QUOTE

The thought that strikes me reading this is ‘poor catechesis’, to tell the truth. The role of the priest at Mass is to preach and consecrate. Distributing can be delegated, the Church says.

‘Cutting into the line with the priest’ implies that those who do this think that the giver is more important than the Gift. Or, to put it another way, that the Gift is worth more coming from a priest.

It’s really sad that ‘many’ feel that way in your parish. It’s not something that occurs in our parish to any noticeable extent, I have to say. Even the one or two who genuflect before receiving ( as a short-hand way of identifying the very traditional) join the line for the EMHCs. Perhaps your pastor needs to preach on how the Blessed Sacrament is not dependent on who distributes?

At a training for EMHCs, we were told to think of ourselves as the Christmas donkey, if ever we were tempted to think we were anyone special.

It is the Gift, not the giver, who is important.

 

[JReducation]

brap;6416929:

many worshippers are turned off by receiving communion from them (we all see them cutting into the line with the priest) and the diminished role of the priest in handling the Eucharist. QUOTE

The thought that strikes me reading this is ‘poor catechesis’, to tell the truth. The role of the priest at Mass is to preach and consecrate. Distributing can be delegated, the Church says

…

The bold is mine.

With all due respect, this is theologically incorrect. The role of the priest is to proclaim the Gospel (includes the preaching), to offer the sacrifice (consecration) and to distribute the Eucharist. Every priest is first ordained a deacon. The diaconate does not disappear when he is ordained a presbyter. His diaconal role in the liturgy does not change. He is to proclaim the Gospel and preach, but he is also to distribute the Eucharist.

When he is ordained a presbyter, he now consecrates the Eucharist, which he could not do as a deacon. He blesses the congregation, which he could not do as a deacon.

Distributing the Eucharist is the role of the ordained. No deacon or priest is ever allowed to delegate that role to a lay person. He may use EMHC if there is a need due to large numbers of communicants. But he MUST distribute communion unless he has a physical handicap that prevents him from doing so. An example would be an older priest who has arthritis in his hands. Distributing communion to more than three or four people may be painful. He does not have to more than that. You see what I’m saying?

Distributing communion is one of the diaconal roles and every presbyter is also a deacon and every bishop is a deacon and presbyter. That’s why they are called orders. Each order has a proper role in the mass.

The communicant does have the right to choose to receive the Eucharist from a cleric. It would be inappropriate for the communicant to reject the deacon to go to the presbyter, because the deacon and the presbyter are both Eucharistic Ministers. The lay person is not a Eucharistic Minister. The communicant has a right to require that he be given communion from the Ordinary Minister of the Eucharist. This is a legal right.

The Church takes this so seriously that some religious orders do not allow an EMHC to distribute communion to their members. They must receive from a cleric. One example of this are the Poor Clares. They may only receive from a lay person if there is no cleric present.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[brap]

…I volunteer at a parish that has seven masses every weekend, two on Saturday and five on Sundays. They are all full to capacity.

That is wonderful to hear.

…My point is that the Church was not creating something new. The hope was that it would be done as it had been done in the past, for the sick and those who did not have the benefit of a priest or deacon, such as in mission countries. It’s an old ministry where involved: pastors and laity, need more training on how it is meant to be used.
Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I agree (bold is mine), and thank you for the explaination of the historical origins of the EMHC.

 

[ProVobis]

The regulations allow for the use of the EMHC at mass when the help is needed to shorten the time that it would take to distribute communion. This is left up to the discretion of the pastor, because what is long in one parish may not be long in another.

JR, here you’re getting into the root of the matter. Forget the legalities, just too many communicants for the number of priests we have. This becomes a circular argument. Do we need more EMHC’s to handle this imbalance or do we keep encouraging more priests? And that becomes more difficult as more EMHC’s seem to be undermining the role of the priests. And getting worse, in my opinion. But how many really care what’s done the road for the Church? Especially since we get more and more reports of all the sex abuses and coverups going on. (I just saw the movie “Doubt” by the way.) I only see more EMHC’s and communion services; hope I’m wrong.

 

[brap]

brap;6416929:

many worshippers are turned off by receiving communion from them (we all see them cutting into the line with the priest) and the diminished role of the priest in handling the Eucharist. QUOTE

It’s really sad that **‘many’ **

feel that way in your parish. It’s not something that occurs in our parish to any noticeable extent, I have to say. Even the one or two who genuflect before receiving ( as a short-hand way of identifying the very traditional) join the line for the EMHCs. Perhaps your pastor needs to preach on how the Blessed Sacrament is not dependent on who distributes?

At a training for EMHCs, we were told to think of ourselves as the Christmas donkey, if ever we were tempted to think we were anyone special.

It is the Gift, not the giver, who is important.

The many of my statement was meant to imply more than a few or better yet a noticable few. I am of the mind that Catholic living is centralized around the Eucharist and that older Catholics do feel that receiving Holy Communion from a priest IS a more moving and religious experience than from an EMHC. I love the feeling of attending a community of like minded people praising and honoring God and receiving the sacrament of Holy Communion. Whomever distributes I receive but I do prefer the priest.

I am convinced however that the EMHCs are currently being used (by the pastors) to promote participation of the laity in the parishes rather then as proscribed.

 

[JReducation]

JR, here you’re getting into the root of the matter. Forget the legalities, just too many communicants for the number of priests we have. This becomes a circular argument. Do we need more EMHC’s to handle this imbalance or do we keep encouraging more priests? And that becomes more difficult as more EMHC’s seem to be undermining the role of the priests. And getting worse, in my opinion. But how many really care what’s done the road for the Church? Especially since we get more and more reports of all the sex abuses and coverups going on. (I just saw the movie “Doubt” by the way.) I only see more EMHC’s and communion services; hope I’m wrong.

If I’m understanding you correctly, I have to say that I doubt that the number of EMHC is going to discourage Christ from calling men to Holy Orders. Christ calls regardless and men are responding.

Don’t forget something that I have said on these posts many times. There are many reasons why there are less parish priests. Not everything has to do with the sex-abuse scandal, Vatican II, the devil, secularism, etc. I don’t know how much of this the average lay person in the pew know, but those religious orders that had many priests and who lent them out to run parishes are stopping that practice. It’s not just that there are less men entering the seminary or that the EHMC’s discourage vocations. Actually, the number of secular priests is on the rise. A lot of the shortage has been caused by the fact that the new generation of male religious no longer serve in parishes in the large numbers that we did. Many orders no longer ordain as many men either, because the order does not need as many priests. The orders that are not clerical, only ordain the number of men that they need for their religious houses,

So the use of the EMHC is not causing the decline in numbers of parish priests, it’s many many other factors, including the fact that religious are no longer obliged to serve in parishes, because they were not founded for that purpose. That’s why men like Fr. Corapi, Fr. Benedict G., Fr. Mitch, Fr. Wade, all the Franciscans of the Renewal, Franciscan of the Immaculate and Franciscans of the Eternal Word have never been in parish work. Their religious communities were not founded for this ministry. Look at this one is a Trinitarian, the other a Jesuit, the other a Father of Mercy, the others are Franciscans, that’s four of the many religious communities of men in the Church.

The solution is to make proper use of the EMHC and of our deacons too. We are not using our deacons appropriately.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JerrySeibert]

I am confused. If you mean distributing the Eucharist from the Caborium then this host is Consecrated. And should be treated with the utmost reverence. In my parish the Priest or Deacon are the only ones the do this. Tipping the bowl and ‘pouring’ the Eucharist to me is horrible. I would speak to your Priest. For those who ‘help’ should do so more respectfully.