Extraordinary Minister Holy Communion Question

[PbloPicasso]

I never said EMHC automatically have a higher understanding, but that it does provide a path to know the Lord better. Any path that leads to a higher understanding and personal spiritality is a good thing and each person finds there own paths. Eliminating EMHC would take that path away for many, which is on of the reasons I disagree with a priest decision to take them out of his parish.
We are in the buisness to bring people to Christ and we need all the tools we can get.

Better for themselves, but not better than the those not engaged in the same ministry. That’s a very irregular way of describing the roll of an EMHC. The truth is that there is a rule that is not adhered to in our diocese. No one is supposed to serve for more than 2 years unless there is a need. The irony is its even difficult to find people willing to serve in all of these ministries. So we end up serving indefinitely. My turn should be over by now. But with the shortage of men servers I will continue.

 

[Phemie]

These same good men are the ones who on the one hand tell us that the fullness of the Eucharist is experianced under both species, with the perfered method by the cup although intiction is allowed.

No, the Church teaches that the fullness of the Eucharist is experienced whether one receives one or the other of the species or both.

Receiving under both species is a fuller symbol of a meal but does not give us anything more than receiving under just one specie.

 

[OurLadyPerpHelp]

Yes there lies the rub. I believe that having the laity more involved add to their own spiritual journey with Christ. Our lectors, EMHC, choirs, cantors are all ministries that build the community. Often these roles help to lead to greater involvment in other areas of the church. Because of the nature of these ministries, they also have a deeper understanding of the liturgy and of the Lord. Yes, much more than the 10 year old and even the 90 year old who has come to church their entire life.

 

[OurLadyPerpHelp]

These same good men are the ones who on the one hand tell us that the fullness of the Eucharist is experianced under both species, with the perfered method by the cup although intiction is allowed. They invisioned a priest giving out the precious body and a deacon the precious blood, the ideal situation. The problem is that the ideal exist in very few places. All diocses are suffering from a shortage of both preist and deacons.

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.

 

[zab]

Highlighted by OurLadyPerpHelp

Originally Posted by FAB forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Yes there lies the rub. I believe that having the laity more involved add to their own spiritual journey with Christ. Our lectors, EMHC, choirs, cantors are all ministries that build the community. Often these roles help to lead to greater involvment in other areas of the church. Because of the nature of these ministries, they also have a deeper understanding of the liturgy and of the Lord. Yes, much more than the 10 year old and even the 90 year old who has come to church their entire life.

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).

 

[OurLadyPerpHelp]

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).

I hope that is what was meant. I have asked for clarification several times. There still seems to be a misunderstanding of the guidelines for EMHCs though. The guidelines are quite clear. To act against them is disobedience to the Church.

 

[Sirach2]

It is apparent that some are lacking accurate information on the rubrics for EMHC’s. This causes undue apprehension and suspicion, not only of clergy, but of those who have been lawfully commissioned to serve in that role.

This document from the USCCB is very beautifully summarizes, not only the theology, but the manner of distribution, particularly for reception under both species.

1. The extension of the faculty for the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds does not represent a change in the Church’s immemorial beliefs concerning the Holy Eucharist. Rather, today the Church finds it salutary to restore a practice, when appropriate, that for various reasons was not opportune when the Council of Trent was convened in 1545. But with the passing of time, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the reform of the Second Vatican Council has resulted in the restoration of a practice by which the faithful are again able to experience “a fuller sign of the Eucharistic banquet.”
2. When Holy Communion is to be distributed under both species, careful planning should be undertaken so that:
   a suitable number of ministers of Holy Communion are provided at each Mass. For Communion from the chalice, it is desirable that there be generally two ministers of the Precious Blood for each minister of the Body of Christ, lest the liturgical celebration be unduly prolonged.

Conceivably, if a church has three stations for distribution of the sacred host, there would be a minimum of six EMHC’s distributing the chalice. The math is simple - eight EMHC’s plus the priest.

I take offense as I observed a post that judged the large number of communicants as receiving sacrilegiously because the person only saw ten people for confession. Oh my!

 

[benedictgal]

Originally Posted by FAB
Since recieving from the cup is allowed and has been encourage, the necessity has been created by the Church. This becomes a mixed message. The good men of Rome are often out of touch with the real world. It’s one of the reason why the final decisions are left to the local ordinary.

Unfortunately, what I highlighted in bold is what I frequently hear in arguments justifying disobedience to the norms. As for the final decisions being left to the local ordinary, that is not always the case.

Receiving the Precious Blood is an option; not a requirement. In fact, Redemptionis Sacramentum does carry a cautionary warning concerning the distribution of the Precious Blood:

[101.] In order for Holy Communion under both kinds to be administered to the lay members of Christ’s faithful, due consideration should be given to the circumstances, as judged first of all by the diocesan Bishop. It is to be completely excluded where even a small danger exists of the sacred species being profaned.187 With a view to wider co-ordination, the Bishops’ Conferences should issue norms, once their decisions have received the recognitio of the Apostolic See through the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, especially as regards “the manner of distributing Holy Communion to the faithful under both kinds, and the faculty for its extension”.188

[102.] The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants189 that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger that “more than a reasonable quantity of the Blood of Christ remain to be consumed at the end of the celebration”.190 The same is true wherever access to the chalice would be difficult to arrange, or where such a large amount of wine would be required that its certain provenance and quality could only be known with difficulty, or wherever there is not an adequate number of sacred ministers or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion with proper formation, or where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated.

While the diocesan bishop makes the initial judgement, he does so in accordance with what has been laid down and recognized by the Holy See.

Now, if the parish wants to administer Holy Communion under both species, it can certainly do this by intinction, but, only the priest can employ this form. Actually, intinction was designed to reduce/eliminate the need for EMHCs.

 

[OurLadyPerpHelp]

Here’s an entry from a wonderful blog that I’m learning quite a lot from: northlandcatholic.blogspot.com/2010_12_01_archive.html

“Sunday, December 19, 2010
What is the biggest liturgical abuse?
.
The biggest abuse at almost every parish is the nearly 100% reception of Holy Communion by the congregation in parishes that have minuscule Confession opportunities and lines.”

While we don’t know the status of anyone’s soul but our own, if we are truly loving and caring of our fellow Catholics we should be concerned about where they will spend Eternity. Perhaps the respectful course is to speak to our pastors about this issue and encourage more times for Confession than the usual Saturday at 4:00pm. Annabelle Marie’s parish has multiple Confession times. If you have any insights into this Annabelle Marie I would love to hear them.

 

[Sirach2]

With a view to wider co-ordination, the Bishops’ Conferences should issue norms, once their decisions have received the recognitio of the Apostolic See through the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, especially as regards “the manner of distributing Holy Communion to the faithful under both kinds, and the faculty for its extension”.

I believe this is the critical statement we should focus upon - especially since the USCCB’s document I just cited DOES have the required recognito, and lawful authority to issue these norms for all US bishops.

 

[benedictgal]

I believe this is the critical statement we should focus upon - especially since the USCCB’s document I just cited DOES have the required recognito, and lawful authority to issue these norms for all US bishops.

I am not disputing this. I am merely stating that the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds is an option; not a requirement. Furthermore, that same document also recommends employing intinction as a means of distribution of Holy Commuion under both kinds:

In practice, the need to avoid obscuring the role of the priest and the deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion by an excessive use of extraordinary minister might in some circumstances constitute a reason either for limiting the distribution of Holy Communion under both species or for using intinction instead of distributing the Precious Blood from the chalice.

…49. Holy Communion may be distributed by intinction in the following manner: “the communicant, while holding the paten under the chin, approaches the priest who holds the vessel with the hosts and at whose side stands the minister holding the chalice. The priest takes the host, intincts the particle into the chalice and, showing it, says: ‘The Body and Blood of Christ.’ The communicant responds, ‘Amen,’ and receives the Sacrament on the tongue from the priest. Afterwards, the communicant returns to his or her place.” (53)

Thus, one can actually receive Holy Communion under both kinds by one minister, the priest.

 

[Sirach2]

The biggest abuse at almost every parish is the nearly 100% reception of Holy Communion by the congregation in parishes that have minuscule Confession opportunities and lines."

While we don’t know the status of anyone’s soul but our own, if we are truly loving and caring of our fellow Catholics we should be concerned about where they will spend Eternity. Perhaps the respectful course is to speak to our pastors about this issue and encourage more times for Confession than the usual Saturday at 4:00pm.

There are a lot of assumptions in this post, and these judgments are subtly written all over the page. Namely,

that the reason people do not go to confession is that they are indifferent about sin
that they consequently have no respect for worthy reception of the Eucharist
that this “blogger” is authorized by God and the Church to judge their souls
that the near 100% who communicate are in mortal sin
that most pastors do not allow other times for confession than 4 PM

I am of the age when nearly 100% of the parish did NOT receive communion - simply because the later masses required a fast from midnight. Unless these Catholics went to a 7:30 am mass, most of them did not receive communion for long periods of time. That alone would cause sufficient spiritual weakness to enable a drift into serious sin.

Since the fast is reduced to one hour, and since many are now able to receive and be strengthened every week with reception of communion, there is less likelihood of serious sin. While it is not a good practice to go a long period without confession due to the graces one receives, it is NOT required to confess venial sins - period. It is a far greater sin to judge others, than it is for those in venial sin to receive communion.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Here’s an entry from a wonderful blog that I’m learning quite a lot from: northlandcatholic.blogspot.com/2010_12_01_archive.html

“Sunday, December 19, 2010
What is the biggest liturgical abuse?
.
The biggest abuse at almost every parish is the nearly 100% reception of Holy Communion by the congregation in parishes that have minuscule Confession opportunities and lines.”

While we don’t know the status of anyone’s soul but our own, if we are truly loving and caring of our fellow Catholics we should be concerned about where they will spend Eternity. Perhaps the respectful course is to speak to our pastors about this issue and encourage more times for Confession than the usual Saturday at 4:00pm. Annabelle Marie’s parish has multiple Confession times. If you have any insights into this Annabelle Marie I would love to hear them.

Well…there are two seperate issues…I for one am hopeful that none of our EMHC’s are judging my soul

As far as confession times…I really didn’t know it was any different. My parish has two confession times (last night I counted…there were 9 of us…one of them was my husband for his first reconciliation…YA!) Our priest constantly talks about reconciliation…but maybe he has the energy to do so as he does because he doesn’t have to try to distribute to everyone because we do use EMHC’s. He does however have to get a dispensation to give the three Masses on Sunday but we have no choice as especially the last two are FULL!

But I know the parish I go to for daily Mass has confession times each day before the noon Mass as well as Saturday’s…of course they have more then one priest.

I think most people may not use the sacrament as they are not in a state of mortal sin…they don’t understand the value of the sacrament on a regular basis…even if you are not in a state of mortal sin. But it’s really not for me to judge that.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

There are a lot of assumptions in this post, and these judgments are subtly written all over the page. Namely,

that the reason people do not go to confession is that they are indifferent about sin
that they consequently have no respect for worthy reception of the Eucharist
that this “blogger” is authorized by God and the Church to judge their souls
that the near 100% who communicate are in mortal sin
that most pastors do not allow other times for confession than 4 PM

I am of the age when nearly 100% of the parish did NOT receive communion - simply because the later masses required a fast from midnight. Unless these Catholics went to a 7:30 am mass, most of them did not receive communion for long periods of time. That alone would cause sufficient spiritual weakness to enable a drift into serious sin.

Since the fast is reduced to one hour, and since many are now able to receive and be strengthened every week with reception of communion, there is less likelihood of serious sin. While it is not a good practice to go a long period without confession due to the graces one receives, it is NOT required to confess venial sins - period. It is a far greater sin to judge others, than it is for those in venial sin to receive communion.

Agreed! I like to be an example for those people…my husband has been watching me on his journey into the church and he says he can see the fruits in me from frequent confession.

 

[Sirach2]

Benedictgal,

I did see your comments about intinction, subtly implying your personal opinion is anti-EMHC’s. However, you apparently did not read the theology behind the fuller sign as presented in the USCCB’s document. I am in full agreement with their teaching, and offer just a few paragraphs to show the “mind of the Church.” I would hope that many of us would study it and come to appreciate the reasons for the practice…

1. Since, however, by reason of the sign value, sharing in both eucharistic species reflects more fully the sacred realities that the Liturgy signifies, the Church in her wisdom has made provisions in recent years so that more frequent eucharistic participation from both the sacred host and the chalice of salvation might be made possible for the laity in the Latin Church.
2. At the same time an appreciation for reception of “the whole Christ” through one species should not diminish in any way the fuller sign value of reception of Holy Communion under both kinds. For just as Christ offered his whole self, body and blood, as a sacrifice for our sins, so too is our reception of his Body and Blood under both kinds an especially fitting participation in his memorial of eternal life.

Holy Communion Under Both Kinds
17. From the first days of the Church’s celebration of the Eucharist, Holy Communion consisted of the reception of both species in fulfillment of the Lord’s command to “take and eat . . . take and drink.” The distribution of Holy Communion to the faithful under both kinds was thus the norm for more than a millennium of Catholic liturgical practice.

 

[benedictgal]

Benedictgal,

I did see your comments about intinction, subtly implying your personal opinion is anti-EMHC’s. However, you apparently did not read the theology behind the fuller sign as presented in the USCCB’s document. I am in full agreement with their teaching, and offer just a few paragraphs to show the “mind of the Church.” I would hope that many of us would study it and come to appreciate the reasons for the practice…

1. Since, however, by reason of the sign value, sharing in both eucharistic species reflects more fully the sacred realities that the Liturgy signifies, the Church in her wisdom has made provisions in recent years so that more frequent eucharistic participation from both the sacred host and the chalice of salvation might be made possible for the laity in the Latin Church.
2. At the same time an appreciation for reception of “the whole Christ” through one species should not diminish in any way the fuller sign value of reception of Holy Communion under both kinds. For just as Christ offered his whole self, body and blood, as a sacrifice for our sins, so too is our reception of his Body and Blood under both kinds an especially fitting participation in his memorial of eternal life.

**Holy Communion Under Both Kinds
**17. From the first days of the Church’s celebration of the Eucharist, Holy Communion consisted of the reception of both species in fulfillment of the Lord’s command to “take and eat . . . take and drink.” The distribution of Holy Communion to the faithful under both kinds was thus the norm for more than a millennium of Catholic liturgical practice.

However, with all due respect, what you seem to not cite is the fact that this ministry is “extraordinary” in that it should not be exercised all of the time. While Holy Communion under both species is certainly laudable, it is not required. It constitutes the fuller sign, but, I do not need to receive under both kinds in order to receive Christ completely. He is just as fully present in either form.

Furthermore, I am merely stating what the documents state. If one wants to receive under both kinds, and, if there is an overuse of EMHCs, then, the means to go is through intinction. These are not my words; they are the Church’s. One does not need EMHCs in order to receive via intinction.

 

[OurLadyPerpHelp]

[edited]

Once again I’ll point out (hopefully for the last time) that I am by no means judging anyone’s particular soul. I’m just doing some basic deduction supported by Church teaching. If you read the Catechesim and the authorized Examinations of Consceince you’ll discover that it is quite easy to commit a mortal sin. Just one mortal sin is enough to send you to Hell for all Eternity. Given the numbers the blogger cited and my own observations in my diocese it is fair to conclude many people are receiving the Blessed Sacrament in a state of mortal sin, which is a sin in itself.

That’s my point. Hopefully those who care to respond stick to the point and refrain from spin and conjecture, especially those whom I have deliberately chosen to ignore to the best of my abilities.

God bless you Annabelle Marie for returning to the faith and bringing your husband along. You are truly a woman of God, a missionary, and it’s a pleasure reading your posts.

 

[OurLadyPerpHelp]

However, with all due respect, what you seem to not cite is the fact that this ministry is “extraordinary” in that it should not be exercised all of the time. While Holy Communion under both species is certainly laudable, it is not required. It constitutes the fuller sign, but, I do not need to receive under both kinds in order to receive Christ completely. He is just as fully present in either form.

Furthermore, I am merely stating what the documents state. If one wants to receive under both kinds, and, if there is an overuse of EMHCs, then, the means to go is through intinction. These are not my words; they are the Church’s. One does not need EMHCs in order to receive via intinction.

Gosh, I just realized my parish nor the others in town distribute Holy Communion in both kinds. I wonder if that means we are in defacto schism and not telling anyone?

It seems some people either don’t understand RS or chose to ignore it and make up their own rules. I guess God will judge them accordingly, some sooner than others.

 

[Sirach2]

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.

 

[FAB]

No, the Church teaches that the fullness of the Eucharist is experienced whether one receives one or the other of the species or both.

Receiving under both species is a fuller symbol of a meal but does not give us anything more than receiving under just one specie.

Same meaning different wording