Help! I'm creeped out going to EMHCs for Communion!

[RosalieM]

I don’t think anyone was adding doctrine. What you missed is that this was something people were taught over 40 years ago - it was ingrained in them as truth. When they left and came back to the Church it was still ingrained in them. It’s very hard to break old habits. I as a musician know this just from old habits in singing and I know that you know this as well as a musician yourself. Even when we are changing or improving our technique, old techniques/habits stay very strongly in our muscle and mind memory. These people has had this belief ingrained since childhood - about consecrated and anointed hands. It can disturb someone like them seeing lay people no matter how much they know conciously that it’s fine by the Church now… Just like how it can disturb us when learning a new vocal or pano technique that we know is right, but still can’t let go of the old one.

Give these reverts a break on this.

Hi guys, revert here. When I mentioned the priest’s anointed hands, I wasn’t thinking doctrine. Priests really do have their hands anointed with oil in their ordination ceremony.

 

[de_profundis]

Seriously people, I doubt the poster was intending to insult the woman in the stretchy lavendar pants.
You people lay off.
I think maybe the poster is perhaps looking for a more traditional experience of the Eucharist and that entails receiving from a priest in proper vestments. Maybe I am wrong.
Who are you people to suddenly judge him/her as being insulting because he wants a priest instead of some woman with bad taste in clothes (my opinion, don’t care if you agree and will laugh at you when you get your knickers in a bunch because I am being insulting.) ?
Really? He wasn’t trying to be insulting. Get over it.

To the poster, wherever you sit, just line up in the priest’s line. People at my church will go round the back to line up in their preferred line. It is not disrupting at all.

Agreed. You can’t win - one thread will bash people for not dressing well enough at mass, and in a thread like this the poster is bashed for a light-hearted remark about insufficient attire (which is not the point of this thread anyway).

I generally go to whoever is closest (the EMHC or the priest), but I must admit I prefer to recieve from a priest. Perhaps it’s because of the priest’s apostolic connection to the last supper or something, either way I’m sure it has just as much to do with my own incapacity to fully appreciate the sacrament on its own regardless of who I receive from.

But yeah, like everyone suggested, sit at the back and make your way to wherever his queue is.

 

[FrDavid96]

Here we go:

The faithful do have a right to receive the Sacraments, including the Eucharist, from their proper pastors. (canon 213)

The priest celebrating Mass has the obligation to distribute Communion to the faithful. (Redemptionis Sacramentum 88) Although he may appoint EMHCs in cases of true necessity to assist him, that practice does not relieve him of the obligation.

Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion may never be seen or employed as substitutes for priests. (RS 146) Therefore, receiving from an EMHC does not carry the same weight as receiving from a priest.

EMHCs may never be appointed simply for the sake of being appointed (RS 151) If that applies to the entire Mass, then it applies to an individual communicant receiving as well.

The supplementary functions of EMHC can never be used to disfigure the ministry of the priest (RS 152) Again, receiving from an EMHC is not to be seen as the “same thing” as receiving from a priest.

“The practice of those Priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distributing Communion and hand this function over to laypersons” (RS 157)

All of this, especially RS 157 makes it clear that there is no obligation on the part of communicants to receive from an EMHC if their preference is to receive from a priest.

157 says that a priest cannot hand this function over for the entire distribution, therefore common sense says that he may not force anyone to receive from an EMHC on an individual basis either.

The faithful do have a right to receive the Eucharist from a priest; and moreover the priest has the obligation to do so.

If this means that the distribution of Communion takes a little longer, that simply means that people should be encouraged to make use of that time to pray for vocations to the priesthood, so that the problem can be solved.

Now, to prepare for the comments which I’m sure will follow…

 

[Kevin42]

I think if we really focus on the fact that we are receiving the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ we would be so enthralled and in awe that we would not be so focused on which particular person is distributing communion and what kind of clothes they are wearing. I agree that some things that can happen in certain churches can be unsettling, but when it comes to things like this, I feel that it is more important to focus on Jesus and let these little things go.

Just my two cents. Peace and good.

 

[FrDavid96]

Another thought:

I’ve read some comments about priests “switching around” from one line to another at different Masses. I’ve noticed that everyone who’s made a comment seems to suppose that the priest is doing this for the purpose of not allowing people to anticipate which line he’s in, to avoid people coming into his line, and thereby “making” them receive from EMHCs.

Has anyone thought that perhaps the priest might be moving around for the sake of giving other people a chance to receive from a priest? Just a thought.

 

[Lepanto]

I’ve quietly changed lines countless times to receive from the priest or deacon. I can’t remember the last time I received from an EMHC, even when an usher was pointing me to an EMHC with a shorter line.

Nobody’s going to tackle you for changing lines. Just do it.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

The faithful do have a right to receive the Eucharist from a priest; and moreover the priest has the obligation to do so.

If this means that the distribution of Communion takes a little longer, that simply means that people should be encouraged to make use of that time to pray for vocations to the priesthood, so that the problem can be solved.

Now, to prepare for the comments which I’m sure will follow…

Right on!
And I will say again- this is why EMHC’s should be done away with and we should all kneel at the altar to recieve from the priest.

I had the great blessing to go to an Anglican Use mass where I recieved at the altar rail. I must say that I really don’t think Communion took that much longer (not that I was timing it, just from observation) than the haphazard way we currently do Communion.

 

[happymommy]

“If this means that the distribution of Communion takes a little longer, that simply means that people should be encouraged to make use of that time to pray for vocations to the priesthood, so that the problem can be solved.”

You are right that we shouldn’t worry about how much time it will take, but like I stated before we only have one priest and hundreds of families in our parish. Even spreading them out with three masses on the weekend, plus daily mass, that is a lot to expect of one man.
I feel that if someone only wants to get Communion from a priest, by all means move into a different line. My only concern was that people are focused more on who is passing out the Eucharist then who is IN the Eucharist. That’s all. I don’t think anyone complained about the amount of time it would take.
Believe me we are thrilled with our priest! But with the way our parish is growing, he needs the help of EMHC. At every weekend mass we have Father and a EMHC on the center isle with the Host and a EMHC on either side of them with the Cup. We then have a EMHC with the host and one also with the Cup on both side isles. And we still have plenty of time to pray for vocations. I think it’s a beautiful thing that the Lord is growing our church so much! I am so proud to be a Catholic and receive Christ every week, that I do not concern myself if it is coming from the hand of our Priest or one of the awesome people I attend mass with. That is my opinion. I’m sure I’ll here from someone that I am wrong. And that is fine. I know where my heart is and who is filling it and that’s Jesus Christ and that’s all that matters too me.

 

[malphono]

In the Maronite rite, only a priest can minister the Eucharist, and you must receive on the tongue. My father and grandmother are Maronite and so when we go to mass at the Roman church (about 3/4ths of Sundays) they try to receive from the priest (my father tries, my grandmother insists ) and on the tongue.

Yes, but that doesn’t change the belief of Maronites that the priest should be the only minister, and thus that they should only receive from a priest and on the tongue. Any person from an Eastern rite church that believed the same who visited the described priest’s church would effectually have to chase him around the church in order to properly receive Eucharist. That’s not right.

Among the Maronites, a deacon is also a regular minister of the Eucharist.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Layman

EMHC’s make the Mass banal. So does the priest facing the congregation, use of vernacular, protestant hymns and female altar servers.

Why, because you think so? Why did the Church approve of these things?

Where is the holiness in it?

Why don’t you provide us with your definition of holiness, and perhaps we’ll have a better understanding of where you’re coming from.

Thank God for the Motu Proprio.

All this did is allow for the extra-ordinary form of the Latin Mass. Its not a mandate that Bishops must provide TLM, if it isn’t requested, but even then, if a Bishop does not have a priest willing and trained to say the TLM, the Bishop can refuse. No one can force a priest to say Mass, regardless of the format he uses.

Few parishes around the US have jumped on the TLM bandwagon.

I suppose the current state of the Church is the Holy Spirit’s answer to the Modernist heresy: Here, have the Mass you want, where Man is to the fore, and see where it gets you.

So you must not believe that the Holy Spirit hasn’t been guiding the Church for the past 40 years.

Jim

 

[JulianN]

Here we go:

The faithful do have a right to receive the Sacraments, including the Eucharist, from their proper pastors. (canon 213)

The priest celebrating Mass has the obligation to distribute Communion to the faithful. (Redemptionis Sacramentum 88) Although he may appoint EMHCs in cases of true necessity to assist him, that practice does not relieve him of the obligation.

Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion may never be seen or employed as substitutes for priests. (RS 146) Therefore, receiving from an EMHC does not carry the same weight as receiving from a priest.

EMHCs may never be appointed simply for the sake of being appointed (RS 151) If that applies to the entire Mass, then it applies to an individual communicant receiving as well.

The supplementary functions of EMHC can never be used to disfigure the ministry of the priest (RS 152) Again, receiving from an EMHC is not to be seen as the “same thing” as receiving from a priest.

“The practice of those Priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distributing Communion and hand this function over to laypersons” (RS 157)

All of this, especially RS 157 makes it clear that there is no obligation on the part of communicants to receive from an EMHC if their preference is to receive from a priest.

157 says that a priest cannot hand this function over for the entire distribution, therefore common sense says that he may not force anyone to receive from an EMHC on an individual basis either.

The faithful do have a right to receive the Eucharist from a priest; and moreover the priest has the obligation to do so.

If this means that the distribution of Communion takes a little longer, that simply means that people should be encouraged to make use of that time to pray for vocations to the priesthood, so that the problem can be solved.

Now, to prepare for the comments which I’m sure will follow…

I guess I’m still a little confused – it seems as if RS157 requires that a priest distribute Communion and not hand over that function in its entirety, which I knew. And I know that EMHCs are for cases of necessity – which is definitelly true in my parish. I’m not clear where the priest’s obligation becomes the right of everyone in the church to receive from his hand.

 

[Sarabande]

I guess I’m still a little confused – it seems as if RS157 requires that a priest distribute Communion and not hand over that function in its entirety, which I knew. And I know that EMHCs are for cases of necessity – which is definitelly true in my parish. I’m not clear where the priest’s obligation becomes the right of everyone in the church to receive from his hand.

I think in your parish situation, have EMHCs would be acceptable, but I’ve been to parishes where they had enough priests to handle the numbers, but yet, they sit back or stay in the sacristy while a boatload of EMHCs do the distributing. I’ve even seen it done for large, special mass celebrations where there are tons of priests, but they do not distribute the communion and either let lay people or sisters do it.

It makes sense if there is only one priest for a huge parish and he needs the help. I believe that is probably one of the reasons why the Church allowed it. (Even in my parish where there are 5-6 priests we sometimes need EMHCs because of the schedules of the priests being that we’re in a city and there is a lot of work required of them.) But it doesn’t make sense to me when there are enough priests to go around either in a parish or a special mass.

 

[MusicMan]

FrDavid, I find your interpretation to be quite conservative, and I’m not sure I agree with your conclusions that receiving from a lay person serving as an emHC is “not the same” as receiving from a priest. The Sacrament is the Sacrament regardless of who delivers it from the Holy Altar to the Communicant.

However, that said, I am fascinated by all of first hand observations of hordes of lay people serving as emsHC in their parishes. It’s really this bad?

The parish I grew up in calls emsHC “Communion Distributors.” If the Precious Blood is offered, there are five. If not, there are three.

One priest, three lay people for a parish of 900 families. The priest usually distributes on his left side of the aisle. He will occassionally distribute from the right. I don’t see this as being too many emsHC.

The church I belong to now always offers the Precious Blood. There is a minimum of 6 distributors, often as many as 9. It’s a parish of 600 families.

However, when I visit my in-laws, I attend a Byzantine Rite parish. Probably 500 families? The priest distributes by himself, as lay people are forbidden. YES! Communion takes longer than in either of the above mentioned Latin Churches. NO! It’s not a problem, and NO! I don’t have any problems making it to brunch with my in-laws on time.

 

[FrDavid96]

I guess I’m still a little confused – it seems as if RS157 requires that a priest distribute Communion and not hand over that function in its entirety, which I knew. And I know that EMHCs are for cases of necessity – which is definitelly true in my parish. I’m not clear where the priest’s obligation becomes the right of everyone in the church to receive from his hand.

Canon 213.

Although admittedly, this might not always be practical. That’s why the Church makes provision for extraordinary circumstances. The point is that there is nothing wrong with prefering to receive from a priest. The reality is that most Catholics (at the present time) don’t have any reservations about receiving from an EMHC, so those who do move to the priest’s line are very few. They should not (and I personally believe cannot) be denied that if that’s what they prefer.

When people make a show of this (and I’ve known some who do) by things like waiting until they’re already at the front of the line, then doing a little “sidestep” to get to the priest (I’ve even known some who make it a point to “sigh” or even “grunt” as they do this) they’re sinning against charity. But if two or three out of several hundred politely and unobtrusively move to the priest’s line, then they shouldn’t be actively prevented from receiving from the priest. When that happens, it is just as much a sin against charity.

 

[Sarabande]

However, that said, I am fascinated by all of first hand observations of hordes of lay people serving as emsHC in their parishes. It’s really this bad?

In some parishes it is. At my previous parish, which has 4 priests and 2 deacons, they will also have between 10-15 EMHCs all at once.

Again, if the parish really doesn’t have the help, I can see the benefit of using EMHC’s. I know that the Church would not have allowed them if they didn’t see a benefit to situations where parishes do not have enough priests. But when you are in a parish with a good number of priests and deacons, I can perhaps see maybe a couple - I’d even say 5 or 6 - should the priests or deacons be called away for priestly duties, but 10-15 of them?

 

[MusicMan]

In some parishes it is. At my previous parish, which has 4 priests and 2 deacons, they will also have between 10-15 EMHCs all at once.

If lay people really want that much priestly power, they should either pursue Holy Orders or become Lutherans.

I cannot fathom a Mass which has four priests and two deacons distributing needing any lay people to serve as emsHC. The four priests minister the Body and the 2 deacons minister the Blood, and it’s essentially the same situation as the 900 family parish I listed above, except with only the ordained distributing (FYI The Deacon is the Ordinary Minister of the Cup).

 

[Cat]

I’m going to opt for the Cowardly Catholic (according to some people on this board) view on this issue:

My bishop allows it and that settles it. I will rest in his wisdom and not be bothered by some of the opinions on this thread.

My bishop is the apostle, not me or any layman. HE knows the heart of the church and is my shepherd on this earth. I trust HIM to correctly interpret all the various documents (he has his doctorate in Canon Law). If he allows our parishes to have EMHCs (and altar girls), then so be it. I will not be disturbed.

 

[FrDavid96]

FrDavid, I find your interpretation to be quite conservative, and I’m not sure I agree with your conclusions that receiving from a lay person serving as an emHC is “not the same” as receiving from a priest. The Sacrament is the Sacrament regardless of who delivers it from the Holy Altar to the Communicant.

It’s not just my conclusion. It’s the Church’s teaching from Redemptionis Sacramentum–and elsewhere, I mention that only because it’s the most obvious and most accessible. Re-read #152 and the paragraphs surrounding it and you’ll see what I mean.

However, that said, I am fascinated by all of first hand observations of hordes of lay people serving as emsHC in their parishes. It’s really this bad?

Yes, in some places it realy is that bad. Sad but true.

The parish I grew up in calls emsHC “Communion Distributors.” If the Precious Blood is offered, there are five. If not, there are three.

One priest, three lay people for a parish of 900 families. The priest usually distributes on his left side of the aisle. He will occassionally distribute from the right. I don’t see this as being too many emsHC.

The church I belong to now always offers the Precious Blood. There is a minimum of 6 distributors, often as many as 9. It’s a parish of 600 families.

However, when I visit my in-laws, I attend a Byzantine Rite parish. Probably 500 families? The priest distributes by himself, as lay people are forbidden. YES! Communion takes longer than in either of the above mentioned Latin Churches. NO! It’s not a problem, and NO! I don’t have any problems making it to brunch with my in-laws on time.

If the Byzantine priest is able to distribute to 500 families using a form of distribution that is much more complicated and takes longer than distributing in the Latin Rite, then I see no reason why a healthy Latin priest can’t do so for an equal number of people. The reality is that EMHCs have been expanded and the practice is being abused. I don’t think it’s possible to use numbers to define when EMHCs are either needed or excessive, but we can all use some common sense to tell the difference between when they are truly needed on the one hand, and when they are just being employed for the sake of having them on the other hand.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Sarabande;

In some parishes it is. At my previous parish, which has 4 priests and 2 deacons, they will also have between 10-15 EMHCs all at once.

You have 4 priest and 2 deacons serving at Mass, or in your parish serving different Masses? If they’re serving different Masses, then there is probably justification for having EMHC’s at the Mass where only one priest and a deacon serves.

BTW, I haven’t seen a parish with more than two priest in a very long time.

My parish only has 400 families, but our one pastor, serves two parishes. So, as soon as he’s done Mass at my parish, he has to drive across town to say Mass at the sister Parish. Then drive back to say the last Mass out my parish. He’d be late if not for the EMHC’s.

Jim

 

[Layman]

To answer JimR:

Holiness is that which is of God, which makes us think of Heaven, and calls us to it.

The NO mass is focussed on Man; the priest faces his congregation, laywomen hand out communion, the Mass is in the local language, lay lectors, ‘Bind Us Together Lord’-style hymns etc.

I am in an unusual position; I can go to a variety of Latin Masses in London, and NO ones in London and in Ireland where I come from. I have also made friends with a Deacon who has been an MC for the Latin Mass for many years, and is an authority on it.

In the NO Masses I’ve been to, after 30 years absence, I’ve seen:

• A priest make up the words as he went along;
• A priest invite people up to the sanctuary for everyone to sing happy birthday to them, before the Mass was over;
• A priest sit down to let the good ladies dish out communion for him;
• A fish-pond built directly under a side-altar dedicated to Christ. I was kneeling down praying in front of it when some guy chucked fish-food in!

My opinion: I read a chilling thing recently: People get the clergy they deserve. Perhaps they also get the Mass they deserve. Heaven hears our prayers and curses; God gives us what we want, the way a father will make his son smoke a pack of cigarettes; to see him turn green, and put him off them.

Regardless of the theological arguments about validity, the Church is in serious trouble in some areas; there are few or no vocations. A few weeks ago a priest, in a parish near me in Ireland, announced that due to this lay people were going to take on more responsibility in his diocese.

So this is a problem that will solve itself; the vernacular NO Mass, with its attendant abuses, will likely die off. It will descend into absurdity and contradiction.

If you read Church history, this is not as big as problem as some might imagine; terrible heresies and ages of ignorance have occurred before.

The only option for humanity is the righteous worship of God through Christ The King; any distortons of this will fade away, or be rooted out.

My problem is my life is short, so I’m going to find the most sacred rite I can, and support it. I have a choice. I’m not obliged to go to an NO Mass, and I can criticise the abuses that have crept into it.

Quote: “So you must not believe that the Holy Spirit hasn’t been guiding the Church for the past 40 years.”

Sure He is. It’s just that He has eternity to play with, while we have four score years, if we’re lucky.