Lay Eucharistic Ministers giving Communion while Priest sits?

[StrugglingTim]

He may have been a Deacon or a Seminarian. I know that the parish has Seminarians who live there over the summer. However, this is the first time I saw this happen.

Also, from my limited experience, Deacons always wear plain white vestments. In the case I described above, the concelebrant was not wearing a plain white vestment - it had embroidery on it. He also stood at the altar and held up the bread and wine during the Eucharistic Prayer, along with the Pastor.

Could he have been a Seminarian? He seemed a bit older, perhaps 40, but I know there are later vocations.

If he was a Deacon or a Seminarian, should he have been asked to give out Communion before the lay ministers, just like a priest would?

I’m not losing sleep over this. I’m just curious.

 

[twf]

He may have been a Deacon or a Seminarian. I know that the parish has Seminarians who live there over the summer. However, this is the first time I saw this happen.

Also, from my limited experience, Deacons always wear plain white vestments. In the case I described above, the concelebrant was not wearing a plain white vestment - it had embroidery on it. He also stood at the altar and held up the bread and wine during the Eucharistic Prayer, along with the Pastor.

Could he have been a Seminarian? He seemed a bit older, perhaps 40, but I know there are later vocations.

If he was a Deacon or a Seminarian, should he have been asked to give out Communion before the lay ministers, just like a priest would?

I’m not losing sleep over this. I’m just curious.

A deacon is an ordinary minister of Holy Communion. A deacon can always help distribute Holy Communion…and if sufficient priests and deacons are present, lay people may not be used.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

He may have been a Deacon or a Seminarian. I know that the parish has Seminarians who live there over the summer. However, this is the first time I saw this happen.

Also, from my limited experience, Deacons always wear plain white vestments. In the case I described above, the concelebrant was not wearing a plain white vestment - it had embroidery on it. He also stood at the altar and held up the bread and wine during the Eucharistic Prayer, along with the Pastor.

Could he have been a Seminarian? He seemed a bit older, perhaps 40, but I know there are later vocations.

If he was a Deacon or a Seminarian, should he have been asked to give out Communion before the lay ministers, just like a priest would?

I’m not losing sleep over this. I’m just curious.

I don’t think a Seminarian would be wearing vestments, just an alb. A Deacon would wear his stole crosswise from shoulder to opposite hip. For most sacraments the priest wears the stole hanging loose down the front. For Mass he wears it crossed over his chest. If a deacon wore an outer garment it would be a dalmatic, not a chasuble. The dalmatic is closed to the sides and has short sleeves. It may be decorated as the chasuble.

 

[davetv]

I think this comes down to training for the Eucharist Ministers. I too have seen similar situations happen at Mass with priests or deacons sitting while the EMOHC distribute communion. It could be that they came up without doing the math and the visiting priest didn’t want to assert his precedence in the matter out of charity.

I would KINDLY mention it to your pastor to have a proper protocol included in the next meeting of EMOHC, and then let it go.

 

[thistle]

I think this comes down to training for the Eucharist Ministers. I too have seen similar situations happen at Mass with priests or deacons sitting while the EMOHC distribute communion. It could be that they came up without doing the math and the visiting priest didn’t want to assert his precedence in the matter out of charity.

I would KINDLY mention it to your pastor to have a proper protocol included in the next meeting of EMOHC, and then let it go.

The Eucharistic Minister is the priest. Lay people are not Eucharistic Ministers. They are Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion which is not a Eucharistic Minister.

 

[davetv]

The Eucharistic Minister is the priest. Lay people are not Eucharistic Ministers. They are Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion which is not a Eucharistic Minister.

Yes but commonly referring to the EMOHC as "Eucharist Ministers ” is what most people hear and understand. It’s best IMO to not be overly pedantic.

 

[Brendan]

The Eucharistic Minister is the priest. Lay people are not Eucharistic Ministers. They are Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion which is not a Eucharistic Minister.

Davetv’s comment has some truth though. The Eucharistic Minister (the priest) clearly needed some training in this matter as well

 

[ProVobis]

Yes but commonly referring to the EMOHC as "Eucharist Ministers ” is what most people hear and understand. It’s best IMO to not be overly pedantic.

I guess that depends on exactly how Eucharist is defined. I see a local Church (I don’t even know if it’s really Catholic) with “Eucharist at 10:30 Sunday morning” posted. So there would be implications on one’s faith if people understand the terminology incorrectly. Do EMOHC’s conduct the Eucharist wherever they bring or take communion, for example?

 

[OraLabora]

Not all illnesses are visible. Unless I had some other, very solid, reason to doubt his and the regular priests’ orthodoxy, I would just drop it.

I love your succinct and to-the-point answers!

I agree wholeheartedly. We make ourselves heartsick over normal human foibles that we all have. It does nothing to deepen our faith, just makes us bitter.

I remember once when the service writer at the garage accidentally charged me for a part that should have been under warranty. He was new. He was very embarrassed and apologetic. I told him “don’t worry, no problem, I’ll give you heck for making mistakes the day I stop making them myself”. We had a hearty laugh and a “I wish you could explain your philosophy to my boss!”. Meanwhile every time I came back and had him as service writer he would always go out of his way to be pleasant and helpful with me.

Things go so much better when we acknowledge our own foibles rather than always pointing out the mistakes of others.

 

[davetv]

I guess that depends on exactly how Eucharist is defined. I see a local Church (I don’t even know if it’s really Catholic) with “Eucharist at 10:30 Sunday morning” posted. So there would be implications on one’s faith if people understand the terminology incorrectly. Do EMOHC’s conduct the Eucharist wherever they bring or take communion, for example?

Terminology is important which is why I used both in my reply but, going on about how the OP called them EM would have been self serving, rather than answering his question. I find it best to meet people and explain things where they are at, when discussing matters of faith.

 

[ProVobis]

Terminology is important which is why I used both in my reply but, going on about how the OP called them EM would have been self serving, rather than answering his question. I find it best to meet people and explain things where they are at, when discussing matters of faith.

I agree, but at the same time, the minute something is posted here, it goes on the internet and appears on the search engines and can propagate an error in terminology, so it behooves to make the correction as early as possible.

 

[thistle]

Davetv’s comment has some truth though. The Eucharistic Minister (the priest) clearly needed some training in this matter as well

 

[thistle]

Yes but commonly referring to the EMOHC as "Eucharist Ministers ” is what most people hear and understand. It’s best IMO to not be overly pedantic.

I don’t agree. This is not being pedantic. This is quite fundamental. Lay people are NOT Eucharistic Ministers and that should be made clear to everyone who misunderstands this.
The Church does not want them to consider themselves as Eucharistic Ministers. They were originally called Extraordinary Ministers of the Holy Eucharist. This is what caused the problem in the first place and when people thought that meant they were Eucharistic Ministers the Church clarified they were NOT and the Church changed the title to Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.
They are not Eucharistic Ministers. The Church does not want them to consider themselves as Eucharistic Ministers and neither should we.
Anytime I see in these forums posters making comments about EMHC’s being Eucharistic Ministers I will correct them. I certainly do not view that as pedantic.

 

[davetv]

Anytime I see in these forums posters making comments about EMHC’s being Eucharistic Ministers I will correct them. I certainly do not view that as pedantic.

I could agree with this approach, but then we would both be wrong.

 

[thistle]

I could agree with this approach, but then we would both be wrong.

Are you saying you have no problem with EMHC’s thinking they are Eucharistic Ministers or non-EMHC’s also thinking EMHC’s are Eucharistic Ministers and that no correction to that understanding should be made.

 

[Brendan]

I could agree with this approach, but then we would both be wrong.

Dave, the fact is, the Church has asked us not to use the term “Eucharistic Minister” in any other context other than in reference to a validly ordained priest or bishop.

It is not about being pedantic, it is about use the correct term for each office, in accordance with the wishes of the Church.

The reason is the theology of the Sacraments themselves. Each Sacrament has a Minister of that Sacrament.

For Baptism, the Baptismal Minister is the one pouring the water and reciting the Trinitarian Formula. It would be a mistake to refer to the Godparents, as “Baptismal Ministers”. Their role is distinct from the Minister of the Sacrament.

For Holy Orders, the Minister is a validily Ordained Bishop. It would likewise be a mistake to refer to the altar boys present as “Ordination Ministers”

Likewise, the Minister of the Eucharist is the priest who confects the Sacrament, who brings about the change of bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. It would be an error to refer to anyone other than a validly ordained priest as a “Minister of the Eucharist” or any variant thereof.

If people are ignorant of this, it does us no good to allow them to continue to remain in ignorance. If they are aware that the Church has instructed us to use certain terms, and they continue to do so, it does us no good to support their disobedience.

 

[coachdennis]

Dave, the fact is, the Church has asked us not to use the term “Eucharistic Minister” in any other context other than in reference to a validly ordained priest or bishop.

It is not about being pedantic, it is about use the correct term for each office, in accordance with the wishes of the Church.

The reason is the theology of the Sacraments themselves. Each Sacrament has a Minister of that Sacrament.

For Baptism, the Baptismal Minister is the one pouring the water and reciting the Trinitarian Formula. It would be a mistake to refer to the Godparents, as “Baptismal Ministers”. Their role is distinct from the Minister of the Sacrament.

For Holy Orders, the Minister is a validily Ordained Bishop. It would likewise be a mistake to refer to the altar boys present as “Ordination Ministers”

Likewise, the Minister of the Eucharist is the priest who confects the Sacrament, who brings about the change of bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. It would be an error to refer to anyone other than a validly ordained priest as a “Minister of the Eucharist” or any variant thereof.

If people are ignorant of this, it does us no good to allow them to continue to remain in ignorance. If they are aware that the Church has instructed us to use certain terms, and they continue to do so, it does us no good to support their disobedience.

This is a good, calm explanation. Unfortunately, what usually happens is that an individual, usually a newcomer, writes a post using an incorrect term and rather than correcting them and explaining why, the poster is virtually “scolded” .

And we wonder why people don’t come back

 

[maryjk]

This is a good, calm explanation. Unfortunately, what usually happens is that an individual, usually a newcomer, writes a post using an incorrect term and rather than correcting them and explaining why, the poster is virtually “scolded” .

And we wonder why people don’t come back

I often wonder why people post a correction like that, but then don’t add to the conversation at all.

StrugglingTim,
If this happens again, I would simply ask the priest about it. If it is a one off, chances are there was a reason that the second priest didn’t distribute.