Mandate for Eucharistic Ministers

[TJRC2767]

I was very vocally away from the Church for most of adult life. Three years ago I had a very strong conversion (reversion?) experience and I am thankful to be back everyday. I have been a Eucharistic Minister for a little over a year, which is the focus of my concern today. Last week all EMs received the following information in an e-mail from one of the lay leaders in the Parish:

“Also ministers, please remember you are role models for the rest of the assembly on how to properly receive the eucharist. If you are serving at a mass – please receive the host in your hand and receive from the cup. When you are not scheduled to serve, you may receive however you wish. “

There is a tremendous amount about our Faith that I don’t know and while I read a great deal I still defer to some of the lay leaders on Liturgical questions. The above statement, however, struck me as wrong and over stepping. When I inquired as to why we must receive in the hand I was told that its better and that, “the US has always been a little ahead in terms of implementing the liturgical revision set by the Second Vatican Council.” My hours scouring the web has left me a little exhausted by the wealth of writings that are either very conservative (tongue only) or liberal (hand only) but I’m not looking to further a debate based on personal views. One of the unique beauties of our Faith is the central authority of the Church. Can someone let me know where the Magisterium stands on this issue? I could find nothing in the Catechism either way. Perhaps my concerns are just a result of my own ignorance. Any feedback would be appreciated.

 

[Phemie]

I was very vocally away from the Church for most of adult life. Three years ago I had a very strong conversion (reversion?) experience and I am thankful to be back everyday. I have been a Eucharistic Minister for a little over a year, which is the focus of my concern today. Last week all EMs received the following information in an e-mail from one of the lay leaders in the Parish:

“Also ministers, please remember you are role models for the rest of the assembly on how to properly receive the eucharist. If you are serving at a mass – please receive the host in your hand and receive from the cup. When you are not scheduled to serve, you may receive however you wish. “

There is a tremendous amount about our Faith that I don’t know and while I read a great deal I still defer to some of the lay leaders on Liturgical questions. The above statement, however, struck me as wrong and over stepping. When I inquired as to why we must receive in the hand I was told that its better and that, “the US has always been a little ahead in terms of implementing the liturgical revision set by the Second Vatican Council.” My hours scouring the web has left me a little exhausted by the wealth of writings that are either very conservative (tongue only) or liberal (hand only) but I’m not looking to further a debate based on personal views. One of the unique beauties of our Faith is the central authority of the Church. Can someone let me know where the Magisterium stands on this issue? I could find nothing in the Catechism either way. Perhaps my concerns are just a result of my own ignorance. Any feedback would be appreciated.

Receiving on the tongue is the universal norm and what the Holy Father prefers as we’ve seen at his recent Masses. We, North Americans, have an indult to receive in the hand but it doesn’t mean that we have to do so, only that we may do so. As for receiving the Precious Blood, we needn’t do so. I would agree that your liturgy people have overstepped their bounds.

FYI, your use of the term Eucharistic Minister goes against what the documents have repeatedly stated (I’m not blaming you, it might be the term your parish uses). The only Eucharistic Ministers are priests and bishops, in that they confect the Eucharist (i.e. Consecrate). You are an “Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion” in that a) your ministry is to distribute Communion, and b) that ministry is ordinarily that of deacons, priests and bishops.

 

[TJRC2767]

Thank you.

Any suggestions on how best to approach this? I don’t want to let it go but I also don’t want to cause undo stress in the Parish. My preference would to be present some irrefutable documentation, hopefully get a retraction sent and move on. I have not brought our Priest into the conversation. I want to make sure the Parish is doing what is Liturgically correct but at the same time feel ill equipped to defend the Church’s true position.

I did not realize the EM label was incorrectly applied. Perhaps that will be the next conversation.

Thanks again.

 

[mercygate]

Thank you.

Any suggestions on how best to approach this? I don’t want to let it go but I also don’t want to cause undo stress in the Parish. My preference would to be present some irrefutable documentation, hopefully get a retraction sent and move on. I have not brought our Priest into the conversation. I want to make sure the Parish is doing what is Liturgically correct but at the same time feel ill equipped to defend the Church’s true position.

I did not realize the EM label was incorrectly applied. Perhaps that will be the next conversation.

Thanks again.

We must belong to the same parish. (I think I know who you are!) I’m staying tuned to this thread to see what develops, as I agree that this is overstepping.

If you are who I think you are, I don’t know how I missed the line about the U.S. being "ahead in implementing the liturgical revision set by the Second Vatican Council.”

Gimme a BREAK!

Would that be the SAME Second Vatican Council that stipulated that the laity should be taught the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin? The same Second Vatican Council that said that Gregorian chant should retain “pride of place” in the liturgy?

 

[TJRC2767]

Wow…cold busted right out of the gate.

I’m just trying to arm myself with some knowledge. I found MEMORIALE DOMINI and am digesting that. I hope be able to make the case although…truth be told…I’m felling a tad like David with a broken sling!

 

[chrisb]

Grace and Peace,

Is this the Church being coercive against one’s conscience? When did that become acceptable for liberal Catholics?

Although I completely recognize the legitimacy of reception in the hands I agree that it’s more reverent to receive on the tongue but I have never seen an overt attempt to coerce one to do either. Weird.

 

[mercygate]

Grace and Peace,

Is this the Church being coercive against one’s conscience? When did that become acceptable for liberal Catholics?

Although I completely recognize the legitimacy of reception in the hands I agree that it’s more reverent to receive on the tongue but I have never seen an overt attempt to coerce one to do either. Weird.

The argument I received in response to an e-mail I sent to the LC on the same subject was that she found it ridiculous (or was it "ludicrous) that someone would receive on the tongue but then distribute Communion with his hands.

I kind of see that. An EMHC who also objected to this mandate pointed out that as an “extraordinary” minister he was only doing the job that should be done by the “ordinary” ministers and that he would resign from the job if there were sufficient priests/deacons to do the job.

 

[SenorSalsa]

I wish I had the actual document for you, but I did find this for you in the Catholic Answers Library

The Congregation of the Sacraments and Divine Worship permitted the U.S. Bishops’ Conference to authorize reception of Communion in the hand on July 25, 1977, provided the local bishop implements the practice in his diocese. Once implemented, the option to receive Communion either in the hand or on the tongue always remains with the communicant. No priest, deacon, acolyte, or extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may refuse a communicant Communion on the tongue. Likewise, once the local bishop has introduced Communion in the hand, none may refuse a communicant Communion in the hand (except when Communion is being given by intinction, in which case it must be given on the tongue).

catholic.com/library/Who_Can_Receive_Communion.asp

 

[Joe_5859]

The appropriate document to look at would be the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM). The relevant paragraphs are no. 160 & 161. Take a look at what paragraph 161 says (emphasis added):

If Communion is given only under the species of bread, the priest raises the host slightly and shows it to each, saying, Corpus Christi (The Body of Christ). The communicant replies, Amen, and receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or, where this is allowed and if the communicant so chooses, in the hand. As soon as the communicant receives the host, he or she consumes it entirely.

Notice what it does not say. It does not say that receiving on the hand is the norm in the U.S., or is better in any way. In fact, it is reception on the hand that is only allowed in certain places. If it was the preferred method of reception, one would assume it would be everywhere. The burden of proof, in this case, would be on this lay leader to provide documentation stating that receiving on the hand is preferable.

Not knowing your situation, I can’t recommend a sure course of action that you should take. If I were you, I would first talk to the lay leader about it to try to straighten it out. If not, then I would try talking to the pastor. Of course, you want to do so in a spirit of charity and honest inquiry. Simply say something like “I was reading this in the GIRM and I could not find where it said that reception in the hand was preferable. Can you help me find it?” Or if talking to your pastor, show him the letter from the lay leader and express your concern that it doesn’t seem quite right without coming off as accusatory.

 

[mercygate]

The appropriate document to look at would be the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM). The relevant paragraphs are no. 160 & 161. Take a look at what paragraph 161 says (emphasis added):

Notice what it does not say. It does not say that receiving on the hand is the norm in the U.S., or is better in any way. In fact, it is reception on the hand that is only allowed in certain places. If it was the preferred method of reception, one would assume it would be everywhere. The burden of proof, in this case, would be on this lay leader to provide documentation stating that receiving on the hand is preferable.

Not knowing your situation, I can’t recommend a sure course of action that you should take. If I were you, I would first talk to the lay leader about it to try to straighten it out. If not, then I would try talking to the pastor. Of course, you want to do so in a spirit of charity and honest inquiry. Simply say something like “I was reading this in the GIRM and I could not find where it said that reception in the hand was preferable. Can you help me find it?” Or if talking to your pastor, show him the letter from the lay leader and express your concern that it doesn’t seem quite right without coming off as accusatory.

Good refs and good advice. In this case (if it is who I think it is) the pastor is likely to be on the same page as the LC.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I was very vocally away from the Church for most of adult life. Three years ago I had a very strong conversion (reversion?) experience and I am thankful to be back everyday. I have been a Eucharistic Minister for a little over a year, which is the focus of my concern today. Last week all EMs received the following information in an e-mail from one of the lay leaders in the Parish:

“Also ministers, please remember you are role models for the rest of the assembly on how to properly receive the eucharist. If you are serving at a mass – please receive the host in your hand and receive from the cup. When you are not scheduled to serve, you may receive however you wish. “

There is a tremendous amount about our Faith that I don’t know and while I read a great deal I still defer to some of the lay leaders on Liturgical questions. The above statement, however, struck me as wrong and over stepping. When I inquired as to why we must receive in the hand I was told that its better and that, “the US has always been a little ahead in terms of implementing the liturgical revision set by the Second Vatican Council.” My hours scouring the web has left me a little exhausted by the wealth of writings that are either very conservative (tongue only) or liberal (hand only) but I’m not looking to further a debate based on personal views. One of the unique beauties of our Faith is the central authority of the Church. Can someone let me know where the Magisterium stands on this issue? I could find nothing in the Catechism either way. Perhaps my concerns are just a result of my own ignorance. Any feedback would be appreciated.

First let me say you are an “Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion”, not a “Eucharistic Minister”. The manner of reception of Holy Communion is left (in the US) up to the individual when allowed by the Bishop in his diocese one may receive on the hand. No one may dictate in nearly all diocese how you receive or under what form(s).

 

[tee_eff_em]

Any suggestions on how best to approach this? I don’t want to let it go but I also don’t want to cause undo stress in the Parish. My preference would to be present some irrefutable documentation, hopefully get a retraction sent and move on.

No one may force you to receive in the hand. “Each of the faithful” includes EMsHC.

[92.] Although

each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice

, if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission…

Redemptionis Sacramentum

In fact, you need not receive at all, even when acting as EMHC.

tee

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Thank you.

Any suggestions on how best to approach this? I don’t want to let it go but I also don’t want to cause undo stress in the Parish. My preference would to be present some irrefutable documentation, hopefully get a retraction sent and move on. I have not brought our Priest into the conversation. I want to make sure the Parish is doing what is Liturgically correct but at the same time feel ill equipped to defend the Church’s true position.

I did not realize the EM label was incorrectly applied. Perhaps that will be the next conversation.

Thanks again.

I think you should simply ask the person who sent the letter for the documentation supporting their request that you are required to receive under both forms and in a particular manner.

 

[mercygate]

I think you should simply ask the person who sent the letter for the documentation supporting their request that you are required to receive under both forms and in a particular manner.

Her rationale (again, if we’re talking about the same person) is that the early Church did it that way, that Jesus distributed to the hand, and that we teach our first Communion classes to receive in the hand and we don’t want the EMHCs confusing them.

Nevertheless, your suggestion that our OP request documentation is excellent. Y’all have shown that there is documentation to the contrary – which I fruitlessly noted to the LC. She does not attempt to mandate how EMHCs receive when they are not on duty FWIW.

 

[Corki]

Thank you.

Any suggestions on how best to approach this? I don’t want to let it go but I also don’t want to cause undo stress in the Parish. My preference would to be present some irrefutable documentation, hopefully get a retraction sent and move on. I have not brought our Priest into the conversation. I want to make sure the Parish is doing what is Liturgically correct but at the same time feel ill equipped to defend the Church’s true position.

I did not realize the EM label was incorrectly applied. Perhaps that will be the next conversation.

Thanks again.

How about this for irrefutable documentation (from Redemptionis Sacramentum)?

[92.] Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice,[178] if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.[179]

 

[TJRC2767]

The information you have provided is invaluable both in addressing the issue at hand and in aiding my personal formation.

Humble thanks.

TC

 

[chrisb]

The argument I received in response to an e-mail I sent to the LC on the same subject was that she found it ridiculous (or was it "ludicrous) that someone would receive on the tongue but then distribute Communion with his hands.

I kind of see that. An EMHC who also objected to this mandate pointed out that as an “extraordinary” minister he was only doing the job that should be done by the “ordinary” ministers and that he would resign from the job if there were sufficient priests/deacons to do the job.

Grace and Peace,

Great point, I didn’t even think of that. I gratefully stand smited!

 

[mercygate]

The information you have provided is invaluable both in addressing the issue at hand and in aiding my personal formation.

Humble thanks.

TC

You might ask around to see if others on the EMHC team have the same reservations you have. A pack attack is likely to be more successful than a lone wolf operation. http://www.theteacherscorner.net/forums/images/smilies/bricks.gif

 

[Joe_5859]

Her rationale (again, if we’re talking about the same person) is that the early Church did it that way, that Jesus distributed to the hand, and that we teach our first Communion classes to receive in the hand and we don’t want the EMHCs confusing them.

That seems rather silly. If someone is going to be Catholic long enough, they are going to see people receiving on the tongue eventually. If she is truly concerned about confusing the children, then catechize them!!! I went through my First Communion catechesis in the lackluster 80’s, but my teacher still pointed out that we could receive on the hand or on the tongue. I was only in second grade, but it wasn’t greatly confusing to me. All you have to do is tell the kids there are two ways to receive. Most children really can understand such a concept!

Nevertheless, your suggestion that our OP request documentation is excellent. Y’all have shown that there is documentation to the contrary – which I fruitlessly noted to the LC. She does not attempt to mandate how EMHCs receive when they are not on duty FWIW.

There’s also the 1997 statement from the Holy See On Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful In the Sacred Ministry of Priest. Article 8 is all about Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, but there is no mention of any uniform posture. In fact, what it does mention are a few things that most parishes tend to overlook (emphasis added):

To avoid creating confusion, certain practices are to be avoided and eliminated where such have emerged in particular Churches:

— extraordinary ministers receiving Holy Communion apart from the other faithful as though concelebrants;

— association with the renewal of promises made by priests at the Chrism Mass on Holy Thursday, as well as other categories of faithful who renew religious vows or receive a mandate as extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion;

— the habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass thus arbitrarily extending the concept of “a great number of the faithful”.

If the lay leader is concerned about doing what the Church wants us to do, addressing these points should be higher up on the priority list, I would think.

 

[Rickwood]

I was very vocally away from the Church for most of adult life. Three years ago I had a very strong conversion (reversion?) experience and I am thankful to be back everyday. I have been a Eucharistic Minister for a little over a year, which is the focus of my concern today. Last week all EMs received the following information in an e-mail from one of the lay leaders in the Parish:

“Also ministers, please remember you are role models for the rest of the assembly on how to properly receive the eucharist. If you are serving at a mass – please receive the host in your hand and receive from the cup. When you are not scheduled to serve, you may receive however you wish. “

There is a tremendous amount about our Faith that I don’t know and while I read a great deal I still defer to some of the lay leaders on Liturgical questions. The above statement, however, struck me as wrong and over stepping. When I inquired as to why we must receive in the hand I was told that its better and that, “the US has always been a little ahead in terms of implementing the liturgical revision set by the Second Vatican Council.” My hours scouring the web has left me a little exhausted by the wealth of writings that are either very conservative (tongue only) or liberal (hand only) but I’m not looking to further a debate based on personal views. One of the unique beauties of our Faith is the central authority of the Church. Can someone let me know where the Magisterium stands on this issue? I could find nothing in the Catechism either way. Perhaps my concerns are just a result of my own ignorance. Any feedback would be appreciated.

It’s purely up to you whether to receive communion on your tongue or in your hands. They are quite wrong to force you to do one or the other.

I was reading a website for a parish which said:

“Before the Lamb of God, the celebrant will distribute a Host to the EMs and acolytes. Each person should make a simple bow (i.e., just the head) as they are being handed the Host. NOTE: All EMs MUST receive the Host in the hand; not on the tongue. Wait to consume the Host until after the Lamb of God and the celebrant has consumed his Host. After all EMs have consumed the Host, the celebrant and the Captain of the Cup will administer the Precious Blood to each EM and acolyte. Each EM should make a simple bow prior to being handed the cup.”

news.blessedsacramenthollywood.org/porter/procedures/

Aside from the other problems described on that website, they are very wrong to demand what extraordinary ministers receive in their hands. I actually e-mailed the person that wrote that and of course I receive no response.

So you are not alone…