Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion; When Required?

[Sirach2]

Sometimes it is really a matter of accessible flow during communion. Our new pastor originally had folks come up the center aisle in two lines (for morning mass) where he distributed the host. There was only one EMHC with the chalice to his left That meant everyone in the right side of the communion line had to cross behind the priest to the left to receive from the chalice and walk all the way around the left side of the church before returning to their pews on the right side. It created a bottleneck behind the priest where, naturally, the line for the chalice was slow.

He added another EMHC to distribute the chalice, one for both sides where he distributed the host. Much better! It is a shame folks have to be so persnickety about the use of these brothers and sisters being used to facilitate our reception of the sacrament.

 

[Elizium23]

It is likewise a shame that EMHCs were such the subject of abuse that the liturgical instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum had to issue corrections on the subject. RS was designed to address many major liturgical abuses: if it wasn’t being abused then it probably wasn’t in RS.

 

[Sirach2]

It is likewise a shame that EMHCs were such the subject of abuse that the liturgical instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum had to issue corrections on the subject. RS was designed to address many major liturgical abuses: if it wasn’t being abused then it probably wasn’t in RS.

What you may not realize is that RS is a document issued in general for the universal church. However, each nation’s Conference of Bishops is permitted to issue guidelines that may not line up 100% with the RS … and they do this with the authority (recognito) of the Holy See. So trying to pin every nation to the RS exclusively and point fingers that they are guilty of abuse is terribly negligent and gives a false picture of our bishops.

 

[Elizium23]

Actually, it is only for the Latin Church. And these abuses were widespread enough to require the attention of Rome, not just the regional episcopal conference. If the abuses had been confined to the USA then the USCCB might have corrected them, and not needed any real legislative power because RS essentially reiterates and amplifies existing law. So this was something needed by the whole Latin Church in order to celebrate the Roman Rite with the mind of the Church and the Holy Father.

The regional episcopal conferences do not have much liturgical power. Even with recognitio by the Holy See, there is not much they can do to affect liturgy. That which they can do is explicitly spelled out in the books, and there exist complementary norms and local GIRM modifications, but I am not aware of any which contradict RS as you say they do. I would be happy to read citations to the contrary.

 

[Sirach2]

The regional episcopal conferences do not have much liturgical power. Even with recognitio by the Holy See, there is not much they can do to affect liturgy. That which they can do is explicitly spelled out in the books, and there exist complementary norms and local GIRM modifications, but I am not aware of any which contradict RS as you say they do. I would be happy to read citations to the contrary.

You are not correct in asserting your opinion here. Please read:

Approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
on June 14, 2001
Congregation for Divine Worship
and the Discipline of the Sacraments

Prot. 1383/01/L​

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
　
In response to the request of His Excellency, the Most Reverend Joseph Fiorenza, Bishop of Galveston-Houston, President of the Conference of Bishops of the United States of America, made in a letter dated June 21, 2001, and by virtue of the faculties granted to this Congregation by the Supreme Pontiff JOHN PAUL II, we grant recognition of the text entitled, "Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America," as found in the attached copy, and which shall be inserted into future editions of the Roman Missal published in English for use in the dioceses of the this same Conference.​

The Prot. is the recognito granted to them and the guidelines under the auspices of the USCCB are authentic and approved, despite an occasional deviation from the RS. Offhand, I’m not aware of these nuances, but if they exist, they are permitted. You cannot override the Holy See and demand that our bishops adhere to RS, nor give a bad witness that somehow the bishops are negligent or reprobate in failing to follow the RS to a T.

 

[Elizium23]

That document was issued three years before RS was issued.

 

[Sirach2]

That document was issued three years before RS was issued.

I agree that it was posted on the “Old USCCB” website. The reason I pulled it was due to the official recognito that is not shown on this current USCCB website, although the guidelines are pretty much the same.

1. The General Instruction then indicates that the Diocesan Bishop may lay down norms for the distribution of Communion under both kinds for his own diocese, which must be observed. . . . The Diocesan Bishop also has the faculty to allow Communion under both kinds, whenever it seems appropriate to the Priest to whom charge of a given community has been entrusted as [its] own pastor, provided that the faithful have been well instructed and there is no danger of the profanation of the Sacrament or that the rite would be difficult to carry out on account of the number of participants or for some other reason.36

Are you saying the Bishops have no authority to issue these simply because RS is a newer document? You are certainly not familiar with Canon Law, I see.

From the footnote #34 of the above document:

Cf. GIRM, no. 283. The text before approval of Adaptations for the Dioceses of the United States of America read, "As to the manner of distributing Holy Communion under both kinds to the faithful and the extent of the faculty for doing so, **the Conferences of Bishops may publish norms, once their decisions have received the *recognitio ***of the Apostolic See.

 

[Elizium23]

Are you saying the Bishops have no authority to issue these simply because RS is a newer document? You are certainly not familiar with Canon Law, I see.

No, I never said that. I said that the episcopal conference has limited authority - you have provided an example of legitimate exercise of that authority, so bravo.

It is worth noting that the permission in that document for EMHCs to purify sacred vessels has been revoked.

 

[Sirach2]

No, I never said that. I said that the episcopal conference has limited authority - you have provided an example of legitimate exercise of that authority, so bravo.

It is worth noting that the permission in that document for EMHCs to purify sacred vessels has been revoked.

But of course, Fr. Z holds the highest authority. Do, by all means, listen to him instead of the USCCB.

What does your point have to do with licitness of the Bishops’ guidelines?

 

[Elizium23]

Are you saying that Fr. Z is incorrect in this matter?

 

[Sirach2]

Are you saying that Fr. Z is incorrect in this matter?

I’m saying whatever the parishioner wrote to Fr. Z with regard to his observation of the purification in his parish has no bearing on this topic. Of course, most of us realize the guideline was changed and the pastors generally abide by it.

I merely object to arguing with you, which seems to be your forté in finding fault with EMHC’s in order to spread division over a lawful practice.

Done.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

I think it’s a shame that the laity feels that THEY know better then everyone else. Some feel any use if them is an abuse. Really can we not leave this to our priests?

 

[Elizium23]

It is too bad that you feel the need to shame your peers into silence over liturgical abuse, when we as laity have a right to properly celebrated sacraments and a duty to report abuses to the competent authority. Redemptionis Sacramentum lays out the groundwork for how to determine abuses are taking place, the level of gravity in them, and how to report them.

[170.] In order that a remedy may be applied to such abuses, “there is a pressing need for the biblical and liturgical formation of the people of God, both pastors and faithful”,[279] so that the Church’s faith and discipline concerning the sacred Liturgy may be accurately presented and understood. Where abuses persist, however, proceedings should be undertaken for safeguarding the spiritual patrimony and rights of the Church in accordance with the law, employing all legitimate means.

[174.] Furthermore, those actions that are brought about which are contrary to the other matters treated elsewhere in this Instruction or in the norms established by law are not to be considered of little account, but are to be numbered among the other abuses to be carefully avoided and corrected.

[EMHCs and their terminology are not among the list of typically grave abuses. But as you can see, their abuse is not to be considered of little account.]

[183.] In an altogether particular manner, let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favouritism.

[184.] Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.[290] It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.

It is not a shame that the Church has empowered the laity with such means for safeguarding our spiritual patrimony. It is a shame that such a document as RS would become necessary, but IMHO it was 30 years too late. I am glad and proud that the “reform of the reform” is underway, and I am especially proud of my faithful bishop and pastor who have both worked tirelessly to provide reverent liturgy, according to the letter and spirit of the law, for all the faithful regardless of the snotty opinions of people who enjoy the abuses. And my pastor uses plenty of EMHCs.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

It is too bad that you feel the need to shame your peers into silence over liturgical abuse, when we as laity have a right to properly celebrated sacraments and a duty to report abuses to the competent authority. Redemptionis Sacramentum lays out the groundwork for how to determine abuses are taking place, the level of gravity in them, and how to report them.

[EMHCs and their terminology are not among the list of typically grave abuses. But as you can see, their abuse is not to be considered of little account.]

It is not a shame that the Church has empowered the laity with such means for safeguarding our spiritual patrimony. It is a shame that such a document as RS would become necessary, but IMHO it was 30 years too late. I am glad and proud that the “reform of the reform” is underway, and I am especially proud of my faithful bishop and pastor who have both worked tirelessly to provide reverent liturgy, according to the letter and spirit of the law, for all the faithful regardless of the snotty opinions of people who enjoy the abuses. And my pastor uses plenty of EMHCs.

Wow! It’s a shame you didn’t really read my post. There are some that think any use of an EMHC is an abuse. So are you really advocating that those people would report this “abuse”. Can you not see that some people that think they know better and report any use of EMHC’s then clogs up the system and takes away from others to report serious liturgical abuse? If not then that is a true shame.

 

[Elizium23]

EMHCs are not an abuse.

I am sure that administrators such as bishops and Vatican dicasteries are extremely efficient at processing complaints with the appropriate gravity. Most frivolous complaints can easily be dismissed out of hand. Many complaints are presented anonymously, or without evidence. There is no time to be given to these types.

On the contrary, I would rather have the laity well-educated and knowledgeable about what constitutes an abuse and how to report it. I would rather there be a steady stream of complaints whose merit needs to be evaluated, than to have no complaints at all. A lack of complaints would indicate a seriously sick system and a woefully uninformed laity. I think we have suffered from a lack of complaints for long enough. Cranks and frivolity should not be encouraged, but everyone should be encouraged to do their duty, and stand up for their rights. It is about rights, and duty, and it is not about whether a bureaucracy will become “clogged”. If someone’s desk is clogged with complaints, then perhaps that is an indication of a deeper problem and should be duly investigated.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

EMHCs are not an abuse.

So now I am confused. Was that not what this thread was about? And when I posted my original post here on page 3 that you responded to-I had not quoted your post. So why the post at me about abuses. I was talking about EMHCs on a thread about such. Hence my confusion to your response.

You now cleared it up by adding to your original response HOWEVER I disagree with you and think all you are doing is promoting division amongst your fellow brothers and sisters.
That to me violates the spirit of the gospel. Having a clogged system with people being dismissed when they thought they were going to be heard does not help things. In fact it almost ensures that when there is a serious abuse that they will not then do the appropriate thing as they feel they will not be heard.

I think we should be able to see the forest through the trees without becoming “liturgical terrorists” and those are the Pope’s words not mine.

But I am glad to hear you say that the use of EMHC’s is not an abuse.

 

[Aramis]

Hi, sorry if this question has been asked before, but basically I want to know under what circumstances EMHC should be used at Mass

EMHC’s are ** never required**. Well, if the priest is incapable of distribution, and no other clerics are available, then one might say that it might be obligate to use them at least once during the easter season.

It is prudent when the number of communicants is sufficient that the clergy present would not complete communion of the faithful in a reasonable time.

What a “reasonable time” is is a matter for the pastor, bishop, and celebrant. If they all agree that a reasonable time is 10 minutes, and communion is under one species alone, 200 communicants would be between 50 and 100 person-minutes… so 5 total ministers might be appropriate. If they all agree it’s 20 minutes, that same crowd would justify about 3 total ministers. If, for some reason, they feel it should be 5 minutes, well, 10 or so.

Note that some dioceses have written policies; in such dioceses, an upper bound on the use of EMHC’s may be in place.

The principles in the GIRM: all concelebrants and deacons with faculties and in good health should be communing the faithful before any EMHC’s are used. Not all priests and deacons are.

 

[Sirach2]

EMHC’s are never required. Well, if the priest is incapable of distribution, and no other clerics are available, then one might say that it might be obligate to use them at least once during the easter season.

It is prudent when the number of communicants is sufficient that the clergy present would not complete communion of the faithful in a reasonable time.

As usual, misinformation is running amuck. Maybe you missed my post earlier stating the bishops are the regulators of liturgical norms in their dioceses. To be more precise, it is specifically stated in the Redemptoris Sacramentum, right at the beginning of the document.

Chapter 1. [14.] "The regulation of the Sacred Liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, which rests specifically with the Apostolic See and, according to the norms of law, with the Bishop.
Chapter 2. [28.] All liturgical norms that a Conference of Bishops will have established for its territory in accordance with the law are to be submitted to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments for the recognitio, without which they lack any binding force.

As has been said, the USCCB was given the recognito for its guidelines with regard to distribution of the Eucharist, and therefore, the Bishops’ Conference is not bound by the strict regulation of R.S. in this regard. The use of EMHC’s is at the discretion of the Local Ordinary who is not reprobate with respect to permitting their so-called overuse, much as you might like to pin that designation on the clergy by your inference of wrong-doing.

Can we please put this horse to rest already?

 

[thistle]

EMHC’s are ** never required**. Well, if the priest is incapable of distribution, and no other clerics are available, then one might say that it might be obligate to use them at least once during the easter season.

It is prudent when the number of communicants is sufficient that the clergy present would not complete communion of the faithful in a reasonable time.

What a “reasonable time” is is a matter for the pastor, bishop, and celebrant. If they all agree that a reasonable time is 10 minutes, and communion is under one species alone, 200 communicants would be between 50 and 100 person-minutes… so 5 total ministers might be appropriate. If they all agree it’s 20 minutes, that same crowd would justify about 3 total ministers. If, for some reason, they feel it should be 5 minutes, well, 10 or so.

Note that some dioceses have written policies; in such dioceses, an upper bound on the use of EMHC’s may be in place.

The principles in the GIRM: all concelebrants and deacons with faculties and in good health should be communing the faithful before any EMHC’s are used. Not all priests and deacons are.

EMHC’s are necessary at our parish Church. I’ve mentioned this in other threads.
We have 14,000 parishioners and have a Sunday Mass attendence of around 80%. To accommodate everyone we have 10 Masses on Sundays (plus 3 Masses daily Mon - Sat). Our daily Masses are also well attended.
That would totally impractical without EMHC’s.

 

[Mary_Ellen]

We have about 150 attending daily 7:00 am mass. Recently our pastor cut one EMHC so we now only have two, to distribute communion from the cup on each side of the church. The priest handles everyone on his own with the Body of Christ. Communion time is a little longer but it doesn’t seem to be twice as long, for some reason. Maybe during Lent he’ll bring on an extra EMHC to handle the larger crowd but we’ll just have to wait and see.