Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist

[Petergee]

Thankfully, times have changed since then, and the Church has dogmatically proclaimed that we receive ALL of Jesus in his body, blood, soul, and divinity in the consecrated host.

True.

It is NOT necessary to receive from the cup.

True.

It’s merely an option.

False. The Church encourages pastors to provide Communion under both kinds whenever practicable, especially on significant feasts such as Holy thursday, Corpus Christi. And no this does not contradict Trent. The Church does not claim that receiving under both kinds is a “necessity”, or “by the precept of God”, only that it is a fuller sign which should be encouraged.

Hence, lay faithful do not receive from the cup at a Papal Mass.

Only because it would be totally impracticable with tens of thousands of people and especially for outdoor Masses. I’m sure Popes offer the cup when they say Mass for small congregations.

 

[palmas85]

True. True.False. The Church encourages pastors to provide Communion under both kinds whenever practicable, especially on significant feasts such as Holy thursday, Corpus Christi. And no this does not contradict Trent. The Church does not claim that receiving under both kinds is a “necessity”, or “by the precept of God”, only that it is a fuller sign which should be encouraged. Only because it would be totally impracticable with tens of thousands of people and especially for outdoor Masses. I’m sure Popes offer the cup when they say Mass for small congregations.

I disagree in part, I have known several people who have been blessed with attending smaller Masses celebrated by the Holy Fathers over the years and the Chalice was not offered on those occasions. I’m not saying that it never is, but on those occasions it was not. Options are by definition optional and not set in stone Since offering the Chalice is not required it is optional and by definition an option. Something can be strongly encouraged and still be optional.

 

[tcraig]

Let’s put this into perspective. The pastor is the one who determines how many lay people are needed to serve as emHC in his parish. No one else. If you believe that your pastor is using too many lay people as emHC, you may express your concern to him charitably. If you cannot resolve the matter, you may take it to your diocesesan bishop, again charitably. Other than that, your choice is to just deal with the number of lay people your pastor chooses to use as emHC. **It’s not your call. **

It’s really that simple.

Very sensible words.

 

[MSJoan]

Personally, I pray that there will be soon enough men affirmatively embracing God’s call to the priesthood that I never have to serve as EMHC again. However, until then, when the celebrant asks me to serve, I will - and when Mass is over, I offer additional prayers for an increase in vocations.

 

[MusicMan]

Personally, I pray that there will be soon enough men affirmatively embracing God’s call to the priesthood that I never have to serve as EMHC again. However, until then, when the celebrant asks me to serve, I will - and when Mass is over, I offer additional prayers for an increase in vocations.

You are wise and charitable in your concerns over the use of lay people serving as emHC. May God bless you and may He hear and answer your prayer.

 

[Petergee]

I disagree in part, I have known several people who have been blessed with attending smaller Masses celebrated by the Holy Fathers over the years and the Chalice was not offered on those occasions. I’m not saying that it never is, but on those occasions it was not. Options are by definition optional and not set in stone Since offering the Chalice is not required it is optional and by definition an option. Something can be strongly encouraged and still be optional.

Yes. I was disagreeing with the statement that taking the chalice is “merely an option”. It’s more than just an option.

 

[rlg94086]

I’m kind of torn on this issue. My wife and I were EMHCs for the first time on Sunday. I’m not thrilled with the use of EMHCs (especially after my online education here at CAF…thanks fellow posters!), but father asked us to. We don’t over do it at our Mass time - one next to father with the Body, one on each side with the Blood.

Bottomline for me, father asked us to, and it is allowed in the rubrics. I’m guessing we won’t have EMHCs at the TLM starting this September, and that will be good too. In fact, initially father is offering the Latin Mass of Paul VI at 11:30AM and the TLM at 1:30PM. Hopefully, those will turn into just one Mass. I’m thinking that those at the 11:30AM Mass today are probably more likely predisposed to the offering of the Extraordinary Form.

Another side benefit for me personally - my wife has never been very good about going to Confession. Because we would be handling the Body and Blood of Our Lord, she said she really felt the need to ensure she was in the state of grace. I was very happy, and took the opportunity to remind her that we should always have that attitude, since we receive Our Lord every week!

Pax,
Robert

 

[trooper]

Here’s our little part of it all.

Me and the kids want to receive from Father and not from an Extraordinary. So, we position ourselves in the Church to be in that line. I figure if enough folks pack the front right hand side, then someone will get the message that we want to only receive from the priest. Somewhere I read that that is our right as communicants, so let’s take advantage of it.

 

[rlg94086]

Here’s our little part of it all.

Me and the kids want to receive from Father and not from an Extraordinary. So, we position ourselves in the Church to be in that line. I figure if enough folks pack the front right hand side, then someone will get the message that we want to only receive from the priest.** Somewhere I read that that is our right as communicants,** so let’s take advantage of it.

Of course it is! I support your tactic. Interestingly, there were three nuns at the 11:30 Mass this Sunday. They received from me. I noticed as I left Mass that they were sitting on priest’s side of the church. :ehh:

They were in the last pew though, and my line was shorter toward the end. That is probably the reason. The others taking your approach probably made the priest’s line about 10-15 people longer overall.

 

[Vittorio23]

I’m kind of torn on this issue. My wife and I were EMHCs for the first time on Sunday. I’m not thrilled with the use of EMHCs (especially after my online education here at CAF…thanks fellow posters!), but father asked us to. We don’t over do it at our Mass time - one next to father with the Body, one on each side with the Blood.

Bottomline for me, father asked us to, and it is allowed in the rubrics. I’m guessing we won’t have EMHCs at the TLM starting this September, and that will be good too. In fact, initially father is offering the Latin Mass of Paul VI at 11:30AM and the TLM at 1:30PM. Hopefully, those will turn into just one Mass. I’m thinking that those at the 11:30AM Mass today are probably more likely predisposed to the offering of the Extraordinary Form.

Pax,
Robert

Robert,

Were you serving at the 11:30 Mass on Sunday? I believe I received from you, then.

I’m generally with trooper, and try to receive from Father. That’s one thing I like about daily Mass- usually it is only Father offering the Body and two EMHC offering the Chalice (which is understandable). When I go to Sunday Mass, however, I sit with my friend’s family (I suppose I could sit alone, but…) and her mom likes to sit on the left hand side, which pretty much means receiving from an EMHC.

I think, for the most part, EMHC’s are over-used. But, sometime’s they’re necessary. I don’t really have too much of a problem with the way our parish does it. Three EMHC and Father. What else can you do, really?

As for myself, unless there were a dire need, I don’t think I could ever serve as an EMHC. The thought of myself touching the Body of Christ with unconsecrated hands- I don’t think I could personally do it. I receive only on the tongue for this reason as well. Once Father dropped the Host by accident and with quick reactions I was able to stick out my hands and catch Jesus before He fell to the floor. It was such a weird feeling to look down at my hands afterwords and think that they had just touched the Divine.

 

[rlg94086]

Yes…hopefully my aim was good. It was a little daunting, quite frankly.

Robert,

Were you serving at the 11:30 Mass on Sunday? I believe I received from you, then.

I’m generally with trooper, and try to receive from Father. That’s one thing I like about daily Mass- usually it is only Father offering the Body and two EMHC offering the Chalice (which is understandable). When I go to Sunday Mass, however, I sit with my friend’s family (I suppose I could sit alone, but…) and her mom likes to sit on the left hand side, which pretty much means receiving from an EMHC.

I think, for the most part, EMHC’s are over-used. But, sometime’s they’re necessary. I don’t really have too much of a problem with the way our parish does it. Three EMHC and Father. What else can you do, really?

As for myself, unless there were a dire need, I don’t think I could ever serve as an EMHC. The thought of myself touching the Body of Christ with unconsecrated hands- I don’t think I could personally do it. I receive only on the tongue for this reason as well. Once Father dropped the Host by accident and with quick reactions I was able to stick out my hands and catch Jesus before He fell to the floor. It was such a weird feeling to look down at my hands afterwords and think that they had just touched the Divine.

 

[jco2004]

Walking_Home;2576677:

I agree I am a Daily communicant, I never recieve The Chalice I “miss out” on nothing.

Silly Jesus, consecrating both the bread and the cup, and bidding us both to eat AND drink. Joe

 

[paramedicgirl]

Silly Jesus, consecrating both the bread and the cup, and bidding us both to eat AND drink. Joe

We do not have to receive the cup though, to have received the body and blood of Jesus. Surely you know that. For centuries only the priests received the Blood. Why would you criticize someone who chooses to only receive the Eucharist? It is perfectly valid.

 

[AlexV]

It’s a sad testimony to the collapse of catechesis that some Catholics really think there’s something deficient, improper, in violation of the command of Christ, if you don’t receive from the chalice. Gee…and some people think the worries of Trent are long past.

 

[Brendan]

Nordar;2576800:

Silly Jesus, consecrating both the bread and the cup, and bidding us both to eat AND drink. Joe

Silly jco, thinking that the accidents imply the Substance.

When we recieve from a single species, Christ’s command to Eat and Drink are fulfilled in their entirety.

We both EAT His Flesh and DRINK His Blood with a single species.

The muscular actions of our throat do not define Drinking His Blood anymore than the nervous action of our eyes seeing bread define the Substance.

 

[lak611]

jco2004;2581394:

Silly jco, thinking that the accidents imply the Substance.

When we recieve from a single species, Christ’s command to Eat and Drink are fulfilled in their entirety

.

We both EAT His Flesh and DRINK His Blood with a single species.

The muscular actions of our throat do not define Drinking His Blood anymore than the nervous action of our eyes seeing bread define the Substance.At daily Mass once, I was EMHC with the Chalice. Father offered the Hosts. There were more people than usual at this Mass and Father did not consecrate enough Hosts. There was one communicant who approached Father in the line and he was out. He said he would get a Host from the Tabernacle. The last communicant said that wasn’t necessary, since she would receive from the Chalice, which she did. She understood that only receiving from the Chalice was also the full Sacrament.

 

[Cristiano]

I am an EMHC and I serve when I am asked to serve. My opinion if my serving is necessary or not is irrelevant. It is up to my priest to decide that.

Do I feel that I am serving in a really extraordinary role? Not always during Mass, but yes when I bring communion to the homebound.

What do I do to to avoid conflicts? I work in different roles to support vocations and make sure that we will have plenty of orthodox priests to eliminate such a widespread use of EMHCs.

I receive from the cup too because I feel that I would be ignoring Jesus’ offer if I were to walk by. I also do not like to receive in the hand. Again this is how I feel about it; however, my theological take is much more complex but they do not conflict as into “right” vs. “wrong”

 

[Orionthehunter]

Part 2

1. In 1963, the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council authorized the extension of the faculty for Holy Communion under both kinds in Sacrosanctum Concilium:

The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact, Communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See. . . . (29)

1. The Council’s decision to restore Holy Communion under both kinds at the bishop’s discretion took expression in the first edition of the Missale Romanum and enjoys an even more generous application in the third typical edition of the Missale Romanum:

Holy Communion has a more complete form as a sign when it is received under both kinds. For in this manner of reception a fuller sign of the Eucharistic banquet shines forth. Moreover there is a clearer expression of that will by which the new and everlasting covenant is ratified in the blood of the Lord and of the relationship of the Eucharistic banquet to the eschatological banquet in the Father’s kingdom. (30)

The General Instruction further states that “at the same time the faithful should be guided toward a desire to take part more intensely in a sacred rite in which the sign of the Eucharistic meal stands out more explicitly.” (31)

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. (32) 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.” (33)

Stop offering the Cup. Use the Host only. A lot of the abuses involve use of theCup.

Unless you believe that these abuses are intentional (for which you need hard information/evidence so as not to be making a rash judgment), the solution is to provide better catechesis, training and direction. We should not avoid what the Church teaches because of fear of abuses.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Thankfully, times have changed since then, and the Church has dogmatically proclaimed that we receive ALL of Jesus in his body, blood, soul, and divinity in the consecrated host. It is NOT necessary to receive from the cup. It’s merely an option. Hence, lay faithful do not receive from the cup at a Papal Mass.

With regard to the comment that we don’t recieve the Blood during Papal Masses and other non-ordinary Masses with large extra-ordinary numbers of worshippers, the Redemptionis Sacramentum says: "RS 102. The chalice should not be administered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants 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 remains to be consumed at the end of the celebration”. 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. "

adoremus.org/RedemptionisSacramentum.html#anchor1189765

With regard to the comment is is only an option and not necessary, I would like to point out that it is only “necessary” to recieve Communion annually. It is only and “option” to have Mass with a funeral or wedding. But we are not called to only do the minimal but to do the maximum.

The following is an excerpt from the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments
usccb.org/liturgy/current/norms.shtml
Please note what is highlighted (by me). The Church encourages reception under both species in most cases. While it is optional to recieve one or the other and not necessary, it is encouraged.

Holy Communion Under Both Kinds

1. 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.
2. The practice of Holy Communion under both kinds at Mass continued until the late eleventh century, when the custom of distributing the Eucharist to the faithful under the form of bread alone began to grow. By the twelfth century theologians such as Peter Cantor speak of Communion under one kind as a “custom” of the Church. (28) This practice spread until the Council of Constance in 1415 decreed that Holy Communion under the form of bread alone would be distributed to the faithful.

See the continuation below. I tried to find what could be cut but I decided that nobody speaks as well for the Church than the Church.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Here’s our little part of it all.

Me and the kids want to receive from Father and not from an Extraordinary. So, we position ourselves in the Church to be in that line. I figure if enough folks pack the front right hand side, then someone will get the message that we want to only receive from the priest. Somewhere I read that that is our right as communicants, so let’s take advantage of it.

While we are free to exercise our preferences in this regard, are we supposed to be making political statements when we go to communion? Is the Eucharist more efficacious if recieved from a Bishop? Is it less effective if recieving from a properly instituted EMHC? We are talking about Jesus Christ who can’t be added to or subtracted to but is always perfect, aren’t we?