Is there any inherent reason EMHCs must receive communion before distributing?

[Digitonomy]

Periodically on this forum we discuss the dilemma of a portion of the Body and Blood going unconsumed during communion. Normally the priest must consume the remaining consecrated wine, and in some situations, the hosts as well. However, if there is an unforeseen need for the priest to drive 30 miles to administer last rites, or sub for an ill celebrant at another parish, the extra alcohol can be a problem.

EMHCs, when they are used, are generally required to receive first, then distribute. It’s improper for them to receive again at the end of communion.

It seems to me that if the EMHCs received at the tail end of communion instead of the start, they could better adjust how much they receive according to the needs at that time.

Rules and procedures are sometimes in place simply to assure uniformity, but often they are in the service of a deeper truth or symbolism. Is there anything essential about the time in the mass when EMHCs receive according to current rules? Or could the rules be rewritten to allow for EMHCs to receive at the end of communion, instead of the beginning?

 

[JReducation]

Periodically on this forum we discuss the dilemma of a portion of the Body and Blood going unconsumed during communion. Normally the priest must consume the remaining consecrated wine, and in some situations, the hosts as well. However, if there is an unforeseen need for the priest to drive 30 miles to administer last rites, or sub for an ill celebrant at another parish, the extra alcohol can be a problem.

EMHCs, when they are used, are generally required to receive first, then distribute. It’s improper for them to receive again at the end of communion.

It seems to me that if the EMHCs received at the tail end of communion instead of the start, they could better adjust how much they receive according to the needs at that time.

Rules and procedures are sometimes in place simply to assure uniformity, but often they are in the service of a deeper truth or symbolism. Is there anything essential about the time in the mass when EMHCs receive according to current rules? Or could the rules be rewritten to allow for EMHCs to receive at the end of communion, instead of the beginning?

That’s a good question and I’ll look it up. But I have never seen a rule that says that the EMHC have to receive before the congregation. I believe it may just be a custom that has arisen.

As to the priest who has to drive after mass, there is very little alcohol involved when the priest drinks the remaining precious blood, because it’s not a large amount. If there is a large amount, the priest can ask anyone from the congregation, either the EHMC or others to help him consume it. If there is a deacon present, the deacon can help consume it. To the best of my knowledge, there is not rule that says that a priest has to consume two chalices of the precious blood. Again, if I find anything specifically on this, I’ll post it. You have now provoked my curiosity on this.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Phemie]

That’s a good question and I’ll look it up. But I have never seen a rule that says that the EMHC have to receive before the congregation. I believe it may just be a custom that has arisen.

As to the priest who has to drive after mass, there is very little alcohol involved when the priest drinks the remaining precious blood, because it’s not a large amount. If there is a large amount, the priest can ask anyone from the congregation, either the EHMC or others to help him consume it. If there is a deacon present, the deacon can help consume it. To the best of my knowledge, there is not rule that says that a priest has to consume two chalices of the precious blood. Again, if I find anything specifically on this, I’ll post it. You have now provoked my curiosity on this.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

The USCCB’s Norms for the distribution and reception of Holy Communion under both kinds says:

1. All receive Holy Communion in the manner described by the General Instruction to the Roman Missal, whether priest concelebrants (cf. GIRM, nos. 159, 242, 243, 246), deacons (cf. GIRM, nos. 182, 244, 246), or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion (cf. GIRM, no. 284). Neither deacons nor lay ministers may ever receive Holy Communion in the manner of a concelebrating priest. The practice of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion waiting to receive Holy Communion until after the distribution of Holy Communion is not in accord with liturgical law.

The USCCB’s norms on Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion says:

If extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion are required by pastoral need, they should not approach the altar before the priest has received Communion. After the priest has concluded his own Communion, he distributes Communion to the extraordinary ministers, assisted by the deacon, and then hands the sacred vessels to them for distribution of Holy Communion to the people.

 

[Digitonomy]

The USCCB’s Norms for the distribution and reception of Holy Communion under both kinds says:

Neither deacons nor lay ministers may ever receive Holy Communion in the manner of a concelebrating priest. The practice of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion waiting to receive Holy Communion until after the distribution of Holy Communion is not in accord with liturgical law.

It’s not clear what liturgical law is being referenced. The GIRM doesn’t directly address the timing of EMHC’s receiving. It’s also possible that that norm is addressing not so much my suggestion, but the common practice of EMHCs drinking the remaining consecrated wine, after they and the congregation had already received in the normal way.

The GIRM only appears to guide this issue by analogy in paragraph 182 on deacons:

1. After the priest’s Communion, the deacon receives Communion under both kinds from the priest himself and then assists the priest in distributing Communion to the people.

 

[tinalewis]

No one knows less about norms and rules than I do, but I’m an EMHC and I’ll answer from my own personal experience.

Absolutely there’s a reason.

And here it is: You can’t give what you don’t have.

When I distribute Holy Communion at my church I still have Our Lord in me and angels surrounding Him. I give a little part of that with every “Body of Christ” I say and goes to every hand and tongue that approaches me for the Blessed Sacrament.

When I distrubute Holy Communion at the nursing home, I always do it directly after Mass and I ask Our Lord to stay with me and administer Himself with me. Same goes for when I bring Holy Communion to patients in the inner city hospital.

Or, it could be put another modern way, one recognizable to frequent fliers:

“Please secure your own oxygen mask before assisting other persons.”

 

[Digitonomy]

When I distrubute Holy Communion at the nursing home, I always do it directly after Mass and I ask Our Lord to stay with me and administer Himself with me. Same goes for when I bring Holy Communion to patients in the inner city hospital.

Aren’t there occasions where this is done a day or two later? In such a situation would you self-communicate before distributing?

 

[tinalewis]

Aren’t there occasions where this is done a day or two later? In such a situation would you self-communicate before distributing?

Again, I can only speak from my own experience of being an EMHC for less than a year, but when I’ve gone to the nursing home or hospital on a weekday I always go right after weekday Mass. I wouldn’t go otherwise, and also I wouldn’t easily be able to obtain the Hosts except in conjunction with a Mass (would involve getting someone from the office to go over and unlock the church, which I have to do if I have Hosts remaining after my visits.). It just wouldn’t feel the same to me if I distributed Holy Communion “cold”.

 

[roadsend]

No one knows less about norms and rules than I do, but I’m an EMHC and I’ll answer from my own personal experience.

Absolutely there’s a reason.

And here it is: You can’t give what you don’t have.

When I distribute Holy Communion at my church I still have Our Lord in me and angels surrounding Him. I give a little part of that with every “Body of Christ” I say and goes to every hand and tongue that approaches me for the Blessed Sacrament.

When I distrubute Holy Communion at the nursing home, I always do it directly after Mass and I ask Our Lord to stay with me and administer Himself with me. Same goes for when I bring Holy Communion to patients in the inner city hospital.

Or, it could be put another modern way, one recognizable to frequent fliers:

“Please secure your own oxygen mask before assisting other persons.”

Back when most Catholics still attended Mass every Sunday and Masses were extremely crowded, I recall having seen an extra padre come over from the rectory to help the padre saying Mass distribute Communion. The extra padre had not received Communion himself.

 

[JReducation]

Actually, the idea of being in union with the Lord before you distribute communion is noble one. However, according to sacramental theology, the state of the the person who is distributing communion or even the priest who consecrates the Eucharist does not affect the the faithful who receive the Eucharist in any way, either positive or negative. Christ’s presence and action in the soul of the person receiving him is not dependent and cannot be affected in any way by the minister. Even the most sinful priest can consecrate and distribute the Eucharist with all the benefits that it brings to the faithful, not to him, but to the receiver.

That’s why before we had permanent deacons and EMHC the priest would come over to help distribute holy communion without having to receive communion himself. The state of his soul is not important for the person who is receiving. Our hope is that everyone who is involved in ministry will always be in a state of grace for their benefit, not for the benefit of the people they serve. It has no impact on them, unless you’re doing something scandalous. But that’s a whole other issue.

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JimG]

EMHC’s are intended to be an extraordinary accommodation, so the less fuss with using them, the better. I have seen some parishes where the communicating of the EMHC’s before distributing communion to the congregation, is so lengthy as to take on the appearance of an added rite in itself. I once was thinking, “a second priest–or even the one priest–could have distributed to a lot of communicants in the time all this is taking.”

One solution would be for EHMC’s to receive under one species only, or for very crowded Masses, to apply the same to the entire congregation.

 

[roadsend]

EMHC’s are intended to be an extraordinary accommodation, so the less fuss with using them, the better. I have seen some parishes where the communicating of the EMHC’s before distributing communion to the congregation, is so lengthy as to take on the appearance of an added rite in itself. I once was thinking, “a second priest–or even the one priest–could have distributed to a lot of communicants in the time all this is taking.”

One solution would be for EHMC’s to receive under one species only, or for very crowded Masses, to apply the same to the entire congregation.

Good point. We have five “Eucharistic Ministers” helping our padre distribute Communion to about 150 communicants at each Sunday Mass. I would bet that the
“Eucharistic Minister” ceremony, which starts with them all shaking hands up behind the padre during the Agnus Dei takes longer than the time saved by using them.

 

[benedictgal]

Good point. We have five “Eucharistic Ministers” helping our padre distribute Communion to about 150 communicants at each Sunday Mass. I would bet that the
“Eucharistic Minister” ceremony, which starts with them all shaking hands up behind the padre during the Agnus Dei takes longer than the time saved by using them.

However, the Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion should not approach the atlar until after the priest has communicated. Please bear in mind that the term “Eucharistic Minister” is reserved solely for the priest and bishop since only they can confect (cause to happen) the Eucharist, not the deacon (who along with the priest and the bishop) is an Ordinary Minister of Holy Communion.

Unless the EMHCs are assisting in administering the chalice, you should not be having five of them.

 

[roadsend]

However, the Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion should not approach the atlar until after the priest has communicated. Please bear in mind that the term “Eucharistic Minister” is reserved solely for the priest and bishop since only they can confect (cause to happen) the Eucharist, not the deacon (who along with the priest and the bishop) is an Ordinary Minister of Holy Communion.

Unless the EMHCs are assisting in administering the chalice, you should not be having five of them.

Thank you.
I am aware of the proper terminology, which is why I put “Eucharistic Minister” into quotation marks.
In this archdiocese it is the commonly used term for EMHC. Parish bulletins use it as does the Archdiocesan newspaper (a quick search yielded dozens of examples).
If you were to use the term EMHC in front of local EMHCs, I doubt that any of them would have a clue what you were talking about.
As to when they approach the altar, they do what they have been (mis)trained to do.

 

[JReducation]

Thank you.
I am aware of the proper terminology, which is why I put “Eucharistic Minister” into quotation marks.
In this archdiocese it is the commonly used term for EMHC. Parish bulletins use it as does the Archdiocesan newspaper (a quick search yielded dozens of examples).
If you were to use the term EMHC in front of local EMHCs, I doubt that any of them would have a clue what you were talking about.
As to when they approach the altar, they do what they have been (mis)trained to do.

People don’t always mean any harm. A lot of times we just use terms interchangeably, even though incorrectly or for the sake of brevity. I know, because I belong to a religious order and I always hear people refer to religious orders or refer to everyone who is a priest as a religious. The term is being used incorrectly, but there is no harm meant.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Newbie2]

Thank you.
I am aware of the proper terminology, which is why I put “Eucharistic Minister” into quotation marks.
In this archdiocese it is the commonly used term for EMHC. Parish bulletins use it as does the Archdiocesan newspaper (a quick search yielded dozens of examples).
If you were to use the term EMHC in front of local EMHCs, I doubt that any of them would have a clue what you were talking about.
.

Some folks take terminology way more seriously than others. You’re right, though, it’s not as if nobody knows that such terms, even though are misused as defined by Rome, are not misleading anyone into mistaking a lay person for clergy.

 

[JReducation]

Some folks take terminology way more seriously than others. You’re right, though, it’s not as if nobody knows that such terms, even though are misused as defined by Rome, are not misleading anyone into mistaking a lay person for clergy.

This may be a little off topic, but since you mentioned the word clergy, there is another great example. There are people right here on CAF who still speak about priests when they mean clerics. Even though we have had permanent deacons for 25 years or so, people still talk about the priest distributing communion or the priest reading the Gospel or the priest preaching the sermon. In another thread on celibacy, someone was very confused when I said that all single men must promise celibacy before being ordained a cleric. I had to back-pedal and explain that a deacon is a cleric and that the promise is made before the ordiantion to the diaconate, not the priesthood.

This is just another example of how people use words interchangeable without meaning harm. When you ask them, they do understand the difference between a lay person and a cleric. OK, maybe they don’t. I just remembered someone referring to permanent deacons as “lay deacons.” If they are deacons, they are not lay. But still, they did not mean to be offensive toward the deacons.

The same thing happens with the title Eucharistic Minister. Unless you have read the documents and the theology of the sacraments, you may not know the different between the two.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[thomas_jd]

“the practice of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion waiting to receive Holy Communion until after the distribution of Holy Communion is not in accord with liturgical law.” NDRHC,#39.

 

[Digitonomy]

“the practice of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion waiting to receive Holy Communion until after the distribution of Holy Communion is not in accord with liturgical law.” NDRHC,#39.

Yes, we covered that up in post #3. The question is whether there is any inherent reason the norm or law couldn’t be changed.

 

[Moscati]

I’m sure the norm could be changed, but I’m curious as to how it would work, since EMHC’s can’t self-communicate. Would they go at the end of the line? While holding chalices full of the Precious Blood? Or go put them down first, then receive? It just seems like it would make everything more complicated. And it wouldn’t be right for them not to receive at all on a regular basis.

 

[Phemie]

I’m sure the norm could be changed, but I’m curious as to how it would work, since EMHC’s can’t self-communicate. Would they go at the end of the line? While holding chalices full of the Precious Blood? Or go put them down first, then receive? It just seems like it would make everything more complicated. And it wouldn’t be right for them not to receive at all on a regular basis.

The OP was concerned that too much Precious Blood was left over and that having the EMHCs receive last would allow them to drink most of that.

His question was based on the flawed premise that they couldn’t consume the remaining Precious Blood because they had already received Communion. Since that is not the case, there is no reason for the EMHCs to not receive along with all the other ministers, as required by the GIRM, before being given either a chalice or ciborium to distribute to their fellow parishioners.