Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion - How many is too many?

[itsjustdave1988]

If the priest chooses to distribute communion in both kinds, then the amount of chalices seems to determine the number of ministers, one per chalice. That’s if intinction is not used, that is.

For the size of our congregation, we use 8 chalices on Sunday Masses. Seems to be the right about too, since there’s very little if any left in the chalice after communion, which is promptly consumed.

The “right amount” ought to vary depending upon the number of in the pews. About 1-2 chalices per 100 people seems to be the norm in our parish.

 

[FenianMan]

Kielbasi:

The reason is that the priesthood isn’t necessary to distribute communion, there is a shortage of priests anyhow, and the Church would like to get laypeople more involved in the liturgy.

This is a common response, and one given by not a few priests, but it still needs re-working.

151.] Only out of true necessity is there to be recourse to the assistance of extraordinary ministers in the celebration of the Liturgy. Such recourse is not intended for the sake of a fuller participation of the laity but rather, by its very nature, is supplementary and provisional.[252] Furthermore, when recourse is had out of necessity to the functions of extraordinary ministers, special urgent prayers of intercession should be multiplied that the Lord may soon send a Priest for the service of the community and raise up an abundance of vocations to sacred Orders.[253] [152.] These purely supplementary functions must not be an occasion for disfiguring the very ministry of Priests, in such a way that the latter neglect the celebration of Holy Mass for the people for whom they are responsible, or their personal care of the sick, or the baptism of children, or assistance at weddings or the celebration of Christian funerals, matters which pertain in the first place to Priests assisted by Deacons. It must therefore never be the case that in parishes Priests alternate indiscriminately in shifts of pastoral service with Deacons or laypersons, thus confusing what is specific to each.

Both from *Redemptionis Sacramentum, *notwithstanding Mahonean dissent.

 

[chevalier]

Is there a valid reason why the ratio of men vs women is so out of whack regarding EMHC’S ?

Nota, we agree on a point.

I’m still trying to figure out the laity raising their hands (aka blessing) during the consecration .

james

Some Church Fathers believed the congregation should repeat the words of consecration with the priest and unite with him in a certain way. As in the whole congregation taking part in the consecration without prejudice to the fact that the priest alone can validly consecrate and no one without priestly orders can.

As for EMHEs, they are supposed to be male rather than female. Perhaps a nun would be preferable to a total layman (i.e. not even an acolyte), but that’s about it.

It needs to be pointed out over and over again that no one has the right to become an EMHE and that in normal circumstances no EMHE has a right to distribute other than what has explicitly been given to him.

While I agree that bishops shouldn’t challenge the authority of the Holy See, the American Church has been in de facto schism for some thirty years.
The only reason there hasn’t been a formal schism is because of Rome’s remarkable patience and measured responses to the liturgical silly season we are still living through.

It doesn’t look like the Pope’s word matters much in the American Church, I agree. I’m still wondering what they are going to do about the Cardinal (I’m thinking about two Cardinals and can’t decide which one it was) who headed the task force to decide if to give Communion to pro-“choice” politicians. He was supposed to distribute Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter to his fellow bishops, but did something quite opposite.

 

[FenianMan]

chevalier:

Some Church Fathers believed the congregation should repeat the words of consecration with the priest and unite with him in a certain way. As in the whole congregation taking part in the consecration without prejudice to the fact that the priest alone can validly consecrate and no one without priestly orders can.

As for EMHEs, they are supposed to be male rather than female. Perhaps a nun would be preferable to a total layman (i.e. not even an acolyte), but that’s about it.

It needs to be pointed out over and over again that no one has the right to become an EMHE and that in normal circumstances no EMHE has a right to distribute other than what has explicitly been given to him.

It doesn’t look like the Pope’s word matters much in the American Church, I agree. I’m still wondering what they are going to do about the Cardinal (I’m thinking about two Cardinals and can’t decide which one it was) who headed the task force to decide if to give Communion to pro-“choice” politicians. He was supposed to distribute Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter to his fellow bishops, but did something quite opposite.

Could you please offer a citation for any of the Fathers suggesting that the laity recite the consecratory formulae?

Also, I don’t know where EMHE is coming from, but the proper terminology according to Redemptionis Sacramentum is Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, not the Holy Eucharist as that would imply some sort of ministerial function with regard to the offering itself and not simply the distribution of the sanctified gifts.

 

[FenianMan]

Wait a minute, I overlooked one other problem. There’s no canonical preference for males in the distribution of Holy Communion, and a woman religious, even if solemnly professed, would not be legally preferred to an instituted acolyte.

Not trying to be nit-picky, just accurate.

 

[A.Pelliccio]

There shouldn’t be any. If we believe (which we do) that the Eucharist is the body of Christ who are we to touch it, who are we to receive it standing without reverence, and what about the crumbs we create? Lets just step all over the Lord.

The Priest should hand out the Eucharist with the assistance of a Deacon (with the plate under it). It doesn’t matter how long it takes. We’ve been waiting 2000 years for Christ to come back; we can wait a few more minutes to receive the holy body of our Lord.

Anthony

 

[MooCowSteph]

katherine2:

You’re welcome. The people have a right to know that they are not receiving communion from a menstrating woman, right?

Someone please tell me why a menstruating woman cannot distribute holy communion…

 

[Dr.Bombay]

MooCowSteph:

Someone please tell me why a menstruating woman cannot distribute holy communion…

I think it was a joke, Cow. A subtle attempt at sarcasm. Maybe she should’ve used one of these:

Sometimes I can’t tell if these people are serious or not either.

Sorry, I almost forgot:

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The only excuse for them, IMHO (and I mean that…I’m not handing down the law from Sinai) is in really large parishes, such as mine, where we have 1 Vigil and 7 Sunday Masses and limited parking. The priests really do have to keep it flowing. In small parishes, esp. when there is a deacon and a priest, I don’t see the need for them. I would rather have them, though, if it means I can rec. the Most Precious Blood from the Chalice.

 

[Catholic2003]

MooCowSteph:

Someone please tell me why a menstruating woman cannot distribute holy communion…

I believe that during much of Church history, a menstruating woman could not receive Holy Communion because she (and everything she touched) was considered unclean. Perhaps there was an implication that those posters who objected to receiving communion from an “old lady” preferred this period of Church history.

I think that the Greek Orthodox church still maintains this rule.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Catholic2003:

I believe that during much of Church history, a menstruating woman could not receive Holy Communion because she (and everything she touched) was considered unclean. Perhaps there was an implication that those posters who objected to receiving communion from an “old lady” preferred this period of Church history.

I think that the Greek Orthodox church still maintains this rule.

And how, exactly, do they enforce this rule? The mind boggles at the possibilities. Makes your friendly pat-down at the airport seem tame…

 

[Catholic2003]

Dr. Bombay:

And how, exactly, do they enforce this rule? The mind boggles at the possibilities. Makes your friendly pat-down at the airport seem tame…

I guess having an all-knowing God helps. Here is a web page with some more information.

 

[HumbleSinner]

GloriaPatri4:

Well, since I posted this thread I was informed by a priest in our diocese as to what is really going. Our bishop has issued some mandate/directive to all the churches in our diocese that Extraordinary Ministers of the Holy Eucharist will be used at all Masses even when there are enough priests. It all makes sense now.

Click on link to read article
losangelesmission.com/ed/articles/2004/0409cz.htm

I think by moving the tabernacles out this will just encourage more irreverence in our churches.

 

[OhioBob]

JKirkLVNV:

…I would rather have them, though, if it means I can rec. the Most Precious Blood from the Chalice.

This brings up a question that often comes up for me in these discussions regarding “how many EMHCs is too many”:

Is it better to provide communion under both kinds (even if it requires using a minimal number of EMHCs routinely to minister the cup) or should the precious blood only be offered if EMHCs are not required?

It would seem that few, if any, parishes would have enough ordinary ministers (priests, deacons) to provide communion under both kinds (maybe very small parishes or those that use intinction like our Eastern brothers). So it would seem impossible for most parishes to distribute communion under both kinds in any kind of reasonable time without using at least a small number of EMHCs.

Redemptionis Sacramentum seems to allude to this when it talks about factors that would preclude distribution of the precious blood:
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… (RS)

At our church we average 200-275 on a typical weekend Mass. We only have one priest and no deacons. Our priest uses one EMHC to assist in distributing the host, and two EMHCs to distribute from the cup (a two-line approach). While this approach has never seemed excessive with regard to the NUMBER of EMHCs used, it does represent a ROUTINE use of EMHCs.

Now I completely agree that there are parishes that abuse the privilege of EMHCs, however, I suppose that I share JKirkLVNV’s sentiment that I would rather have the opportunity to receive communion in both forms, even if that meant the routine use of a minimal number of EMHCs.

The Church teaches that communion under both kinds should be encouraged, but it also teaches that EMHCs should not be used routinely. So I’m a bit befuddled as to how those alternatives are reconciled for those of us who want the most complete participation in the sacrament yet struggle with a shortage of priests.

For most churches it seems that it’s either the routine (but minimal) use of EMHCs or no precious blood.

What do you all think?

 

[ThornGenX]

I could not see any choice I agree with. I don’t think there should be a “limit” on how many extraordinary ministers are used.

 

[OhioBob]

In fact, I think I will pose that question in a new thread… HERE

 

[MooCowSteph]

Dr. Bombay:

I think it was a joke, Cow. A subtle attempt at sarcasm. Maybe she should’ve used one of these:

Sometimes I can’t tell if these people are serious or not either.

Sorry, I almost forgot:

Now don’t I feel silly…thanks

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Catholic2003:

I guess having an all-knowing God helps. Here is a web page with some more information.

Ah, so it’s a voluntary, honor-system type thing. I feel better now.

I just got done reading that part in the OT (was it Numbers or Leviticus? I forget) about menstruating women and emissions from men. You’d think I would’ve made the connection. Oh, well. I’m usually a little slow. :whacky:

 

[Mycroft]

1 is too many. for how many years everyone got along fine with one priest doing it. now all of a sudden we need extraordinary ministers all over the place to save people 5 extra minutes of being in church…

 

[Jakub]

Seriously,

Will the women who make up 90% of the EMHC’s actually relinquish the role ?

I don’t think so, its the closest thing to the priesthood.

james