Extraordinary Minister Holy Communion Question

[benedictgal]

Benedictgal,

Did you not notice the rubrics authorizing two EMHC’s distributing the chalice for EACH one distributing the host? The USCCB does not diminish their use and encourage intinction as a more worthy preference. I suppose you would rather cite your document to support your opinion, but the US bishops are permitted to regulate the practice in our country. Your citation applies globally, yet does not trump their authority here - particulary since they DO HAVE the recognito.

Again, I am not disputing the rubrics; however, you seem to also be disounting what that same document states regarding the over-use of EMHCs and how intinction is a way to eliminate their usage.

The problem is that there is an overuse of EMHCs. Redemptionis Sacramentum recognizes this problem. The Norms for Distribution of Holy Communion for the United States also indicate this as well.

 

[FAB]

Highlighted by OurLadyPerpHelp

I read this bold print to mean "Because of the nature of these ministries, they (EMHC) also have a deeper understanding of the the liturgy and of the Lord (than they did before they served in this ministry).

At least is the case in my parish, we encourage our ministers to attend retreats, pray daily, read the scriptures to deepen their spirituality. what I mean by the nature of the ministry, is that through these actions it which are encoured, they will recieve a deeper understanding of the Lord. It’s not tht this is the only way, just that this can provide an additonal way.
I know in my own case, when I became a EMHC I did as advised, to pray, read scripture, and even though I may had done so before, it took new meaning in my life. That I can hold my God in my hands.

 

[FAB]

Now that’s true. I was speaking once with a card carying Communist and she lamented over the right-wing element in her party. A right-wing Communist. Ha!

Based on what I’ve learned recently, I’d say the liberal/progressives have been in charge of the Church for awhile now.

They may have, and I’m on there side. I recently attended a retreat by an American theologian, who indicated that the conservate leaning group of fathers have actually been in more control, JPII was not liberal and neither is Pope Benidict.

 

[FAB]

Again, I am not disputing the rubrics; however, you seem to also be disounting what that same document states regarding the over-use of EMHCs and how intinction is a way to eliminate their usage.

The problem is that there is an overuse of EMHCs. Redemptionis Sacramentum recognizes this problem. The Norms for Distribution of Holy Communion for the United States also indicate this as well.

I had a pastor who called the practice of intiction, dunking Jesus. Not particularly a good image or sign. The only times that I have regularly seen intinction used was a large center that didn’t want to invest in additional communion chalices and a older conservative priest with the same views as expressed here. He has since gone home.

 

[benedictgal]

I had a pastor who called the practice of intiction, dunking Jesus. Not particularly a good image or sign. The only times that I have regularly seen intinction used was a large center that didn’t want to invest in additional communion chalices and a older conservative priest with the same views as expressed here. He has since gone home.

But, it is a legitimate option. I, for one, prefer intinction as a means of receiving Holy Communion under both kinds. It eliminates the need for EMHCs and it is practice recommended by the Holy See.

 

[archangel04]

I had a pastor who called the practice of intiction, dunking Jesus. Not particularly a good image or sign. The only times that I have regularly seen intinction used was a large center that didn’t want to invest in additional communion chalices and a older conservative priest with the same views as expressed here. He has since gone home.

A lot of the Eastern Churches “dunk” Jesus, you should tell them to start using EMHCs.

 

[revert_jen]

Here are some things that have struck me regarding this thread:

1. • Someone claims that the role as an EMHC is an important source for people on their spiritual journey and to remove it would jeopardize souls. I have a couple of responses to that:
   • The reason for this is said to be encouragement to prayer, retreats, etc. Why can those resources not be made available to all members of the parish? EMHCs are not supposed to be some spiritual elite. Where is the encouragement to the whole congregation to participate in retreats, pray daily, and go to confession? These things are things that all parishioners should have the opportunity to do (the former two of course are things that all Catholics should do regardless), and perhaps some parishioners are not getting the support they need because of the time spent training EMHCs for a job, when we all should be multiplying our prayers that the job will be abolished (according to RS 151).
   • Aren’t people who pray daily, attend Confession regularly, and go on retreats the people who should be selected to be EMHCs? This would mean that their spiritual journey would not be much affected by being selected. Especially the first two behaviors should be standard behavior for most Catholics. Certainly someone who was not engaged in daily prayer and frequent Confession should not be considered a good candidate to be an EMHC.
   .
   • Most (although possibly not all) of the people posting here for less use of EMHCs openly acknowledge that in some cases they are necessary. It is frustrating to read the following exchange (in effect) over and over:
     P1: “Some parishes that use EMHCs don’t really need them at all Masses.”
     P2: “But my parish has 500,000 families and only one priest, who is too old to stand!”
     P1: “Fine, some parishes need EMHCs, but some don’t, or need fewer than they use.”
     P2: “But we go to communion for 3 hours already!”
     P1: “OK, you can keep your EMHCs; I wasn’t saying you couldn’t! Just in this country they are frequently used when not needed.”
     P2: “But my parish has 500,000 families and only one priest, who is too old to stand!”
   (note: extreme exaggeration intended for the sake of humor, not for the sake of giving offense. If I have offended, I sincerely apologize.)
   .
   • It is NOT being judgemental to wonder in the abstract if all of the 99% of people who did not go to Confession are really free of having committed actions with objectively grave matter. In a society where the use of artificial birth control is comparable between Catholic and non-Catholic people, where there are huge incidences of pornography use and fornication, where weekly Mass attendance is certainly less than 50% of baptized Catholics, and frequently less than 25%, and where huge numbers of Catholics have made themselves ineligible to recieve the Eucharist by ceasing to believe that the Eucharist really is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ; it is merely prudence.
     Speculating as to the state of any actual individual person or persons is judgemental and wrong. Speculating in accord with statistics about a population as a whole is not.
   Yes, just to make it perfectly clear: I think, in accordance with the guidance we have been given, that EMHCs should only be used in cases of real necessity. That does not make me a conservative, that makes me (little-o) orthodox. What possibly makes me a conservative is my belief that it is a fuller sign of the dignity of Christ in the Eucharist to restrict the handling of the Eucharist to priests and deacons, and that, at this point in history, we have a much greater need of a sign of the sacredness of the Eucharist. At the time of Vatican II this was undoubtedly not the case, and I am certainly not advocating for the Church to once again restrict reception to the host alone, I’m just saying that everyone these days knows that the Eucharist is a meal, but lots of people don’t seem to know (or believe) that it is Jesus.
   
   (I am emphatically NOT saying that that is true of any posters on this thread, I’m just talking about the many surveys that have shown that many Catholics (the majority in several surveys) either don’t understand that the Eucharist is really Jesus, or understand that the Church teaches that and don’t believe it.)
   
   We have a couple EMHCs at our OF Sunday Masses, and all is done according to the rubrics, as far as how they receive Communion, when they come up to the altar, etc. I trust my Pastor that they are good Catholics who pray daily and attend regular Confession because they are Catholics, not because they are EMHCs. I think they are good people performing a necessary function for the Church in good faith. I also think they would be very pleased if we could have enough priests so that they could stop being EMHCs.
   
   In my former parish, I never saw even a daily Mass with less than 6 EMHCs. The EMHCs, which were necessarily a large group given how many were used per Mass, did, in my interactions with them, sometimes seem to see themselves as super-Catholics or something. Like, if you were a good Catholic, you could be promoted to EMHC, like getting promoted in a job. I did find the attitude pretty confusing when I first returned to the Church, like if you wanted to be a real Catholic, you had to be an EMHC or a Lector. So I can say from personal experience that the proliferation of a large number of EMHCs can lead to role-confusion among the laity.
   
   Do I think that parish needed to use EMHCs? Yes, I do. However, there were four priests in residence at that (pretty large) parish, none of whom were particularly elderly or inferm, so I think they could have used a lot fewer than they did.
   
   –Jen

 

[Oneofthewomen]

A lot of the Eastern Churches “dunk” Jesus, you should tell them to start using EMHCs.

But that is how they have always done it.
There was never any restriction on the laity receiving the Blood of Christ,
like there was in the Roman rite.

As to intiction- only a priest is allowed to do that, and I imagine that it can take quite a while if you have 700 people @ Mass and only one priest.

Do I agree that in some places there are way too many EMHC used?
Yes, I do.

Is it really my problem?
No, it’s not.

In the US, this is allowed. The doucments state that for everyone one minister of the Body of Christ, they recommend 2 minister of the Blood of Christ. It is up to the priest & his Bishop to make these decisions, within the parameters set for them by the Holy See.
I will bow to there judgement.

I don’t know about too many of you, but in my diocese, we are lucky if our churches have one priest, let alone 3, which would be the minimum required (according to the USCCB) to distribute communion under both species.

I am a properly trained EMHC. I have found that my service in this capacity as strongly increased my faith, and my understanding of liturgy. I knwo that I receive the body, bold, soul, divinity of Jesus in either species. I just find that being able to partake of communion, like the apostles did, is a fuller, richer form of symbolism for me, and I am lucky that, in my diocese, most churches offer both. I do not look any differently at anyone who choose to only receive one species, and I would hope that no one would look at me any differently either.

IMHO, the real problem here is not the use of EMHC, it is the lack of proper catechesis of the faithful.

 

[revert_jen]

I had a pastor who called the practice of intiction, dunking Jesus. Not particularly a good image or sign.

It is possible to make anything holy sound cheap by referring to it in a derogatory manner. It says nothing about the practice itself that it can be made to sound bad. For example, there are the “Catholics are cookie worshippers” tracts, the existence of which does not negate the true dignity of the Eucharist.

The only times that I have regularly seen intinction used was a large center that didn’t want to invest in additional communion chalices and a older conservative priest with the same views as expressed here. He has since gone home.

It is also possible to think of intinction as a symbol of the reuniting of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus at the Resurrection. (Just a symbol of course, they are all completely present in each species.)

–Jen

 

[Brendan]

As to intiction- only a priest is allowed to do that, and I imagine that it can take quite a while if you have 700 people @ Mass and only one priest…

You have just described the average Sunday Mass at my parish. about 700 people, 1 priest and intinction, no EMHC’s

It takes about 10-12 min.

But we also use the communion rail too. You don’t have to kneel ( though most do), you can stand at the rail, but it’s a LOT more efficent than communion lines,

 

[PbloPicasso]

You have just described the average Sunday Mass at my parish. about 700 people, 1 priest and intinction, no EMHC’s

It takes about 10-12 min.

But we also use the communion rail too. You don’t have to kneel ( though most do), you can stand at the rail, but it’s a LOT more efficent than communion lines,

 

[FAB]

A lot of the Eastern Churches “dunk” Jesus, you should tell them to start using EMHCs.

It might be a good idea. The Eastern Orthodox have all the right in the world to use the rite they wish. They also have married priest, perhaps we should swap.

 

[benedictgal]

You have just described the average Sunday Mass at my parish. about 700 people, 1 priest and intinction, no EMHC’s

It takes about 10-12 min.

But we also use the communion rail too. You don’t have to kneel ( though most do), you can stand at the rail, but it’s a LOT more efficent than communion lines,

As far as I know, the Anglican-Rite does not use EMHCs. The priest at the Mass I assisted at distributed Holy Communion to the faithful as they knelt at the communion rail.

 

[FAB]

It is possible to make anything holy sound cheap by referring to it in a derogatory manner. It says nothing about the practice itself that it can be made to sound bad. For example, there are the “Catholics are cookie worshippers” tracts, the existence of which does not negate the true dignity of the Eucharist.

My pastor at the time had his opion of the practice, I was glad then and still am that we don’t use it.

It is also possible to think of intinction as a symbol of the reuniting of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus at the Resurrection. (Just a symbol of course, they are all completely present in each species.)

–Jen

Since in both species there contains the body, Blood, soul and divinity of Christ that would be incorrect. By your reasoning just recieving one species then would make it less than whole, and that would be an incorrect teaching.

 

[benedictgal]

My pastor at the time had his opion of the practice, I was glad then and still am that we don’t use it.

Evidently, this is not the opinon of the Holy See, as even the Prefect emeritus, Francis Cardinal Arinze, has recommended it several times. In fact, when I spoke to the CDWDS about this matter back in December, they, too recommended intinction. Apparently, they don’t have a disregard or degrading opinion of what is a perfectly legitimate practice.

 

[Brendan]

Since in both species there contains the body, Blood, soul and divinity of Christ that would be incorrect. By your reasoning just recieving one species then would make it less than whole, and that would be an incorrect teaching.

As Jen noted, it has a sign value. In much the same way that the US Norms on the distrubtion of Holy Communion under both species has a “fuller sign value”

What Jen noted is the precise reason that the Byzantine Catholic Churches use intinction exclusively, because of the sign value presented by distributing the two species together.

You are quite correct to note that each species is the same Substance ( Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ).

Is your point that you consider sign value to be meaningless?

 

[revert_jen]

Since in both species there contains the body, Blood, soul and divinity of Christ that would be incorrect. By your reasoning just recieving one species then would make it less than whole, and that would be an incorrect teaching.

That is why I took pains to indicate that it was just a symbol, like receiving under both species using the chalice (rather than just receiving the Host) is just a fuller symbol of the Eucharistic banquet, not an actual fuller reception of Our Lord in the Sacrament.

Of course, it is also just my idea for a symbol, as opposed to Communion under both species, which is the Church’s idea for a symbol and therefore much more useful than mine.

Anyway, it was just a suggestion for meditation, not a theological position. If the image doesn’t help you, by all means forget it.

–Jen

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

But, it is a legitimate option. I, for one, prefer intinction as a means of receiving Holy Communion under both kinds. It eliminates the need for EMHCs and it is practice recommended by the Holy See.

I don’t see how this would eliminate the need for EMHC’s in our parish. There is only one priest and three Masses on Sunday. We would have Masses backing up into each other.

 

[benedictgal]

I don’t see how this would eliminate the need for EMHC’s in our parish. There is only one priest and three Masses on Sunday. We would have Masses backing up into each other.

Would it really take that long? Brendan gave an example that even with 700 faithful, it would not be such a herculean feat.

 

[benedictgal]

As a recovering former EMHC, I am actually happy not to be doing this anymore. The problem is that this ministry tends to be overused a lot. The extraordinary has now, sadly, become the ordinary.

In some cases, even when there is a deacon already assisting with the distribution of Holy Communion under one species, one pastor wants an EMHC to share in this duty, even though the numbers of the faithful at the Mass in question do not justify it. In another parish, the celebrant, who is healthy, sits down while the deacon and three EMHCs distribute Holy Communion, also, under one species. In yet another parish, where the Mass attendance is under 50, the celebrant has an EMHC assigned to him (also distributing Holy Communion under one species). The numbers really do not justify and the celebrant is quite capable of handling the distribution by himself.

I used to want to be an EMHC because I wanted to make sure that at least we were following the guidelines set forth by the Holy See. However, when the numbers simply do not justify our usage, we need to stand back. There is just no reason why an EMHC is needed for 50 people at a Saturday evening vigil Mass where Holy Communion is distributed under one species.