Mandate for Eucharistic Ministers

[Mattapoisett64]

“Captain of the Cup?” That’s a new one on me. I must have missed the institution of that new “minor order” in RS. If the assigned individual is absent, is there a “Lieutenant of the Cup?”

 

[Rickwood]

“Captain of the Cup?” That’s a new one on me. I must have missed the institution of that new “minor order” in RS. If the assigned individual is absent, is there a “Lieutenant of the Cup?”

I came across that website after someone said they visited that parish 30+ years ago and said the church was stunning.

If you read that page it’s very, very sad. I now know where MY parish got some of its nomenclature. We have “captains” too – I’m just not sure why we do – they are nothing more than super-EMsHC who do not actually distribute communion.

 

[Mattapoisett64]

I came across that website after someone said they visited that parish 30+ years ago and said the church was stunning.

If you read that page it’s very, very sad. I now know where MY parish got some of its nomenclature. We have “captains” too – I’m just not sure why we do – they are nothing more than super-EMsHC who do not actually distribute communion.

Your reply prompted me to visit their website. It got worse: “The Captain of the Bread will distribute the Hosts to the various vessels.” BREAD? Not at that point. I realize it’s Hollywood, but all the drama…The first reference made me laugh. After visiting the site for myself - you’re completely right: very sad.

 

[Brendan]

“Captain of the Cup?” That’s a new one on me. I must have missed the institution of that new “minor order” in RS. If the assigned individual is absent, is there a “Lieutenant of the Cup?”

Ooooh, can I be the “Sergeant Major of the Cup”

I promise to make any “Privates of the Cup” do push up if they approach the altar before the priest consumes the Host

 

[mercygate]

Ooooh, can I be the “Sergeant Major of the Cup”

I promise to make any “Privates of the Cup” do push up if they approach the altar before the priest consumes the Host

You can be the Sergeant Major if I can ge the Major General.

 

[EasterJoy]

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

I think a good outcome is much more likely if this is approached in a spirit that makes it clear that it is not an attack at all, but rather an effort to achieve clarification–“Did you mean this to be taken this way?”-- and perhaps to clear up some misconceptions–“well, maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think we can say it like that, because the Vatican has said this, and in fact, by my reading of this document we’re probably required to do thus-and-so instead…”.

It can be very counter-productive, both in the long term and in the short term, to put someone in authority on the defensive. (If their authority is largely imaginary, this is even more so!) Even in parish life, we’re all human. Being discreet, bending over backwards to put the best possible intentions on other people’s motives, and making it clear that you have no interest in being an adversary or making the discussion into a competition of wills are efforts well-spent.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

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 haven’t seen anyone address this issue. If your hands are good enough to pick up the host and give it to someone else, why are they not good enough to receive communion in the first place? Or, if you’re distributing the Precious Blood instead, why would you be distributing what you do not receive yourself?

It sounds to me like the person in charge is overstepping her authority, but I still think she has a point.

 

[mercygate]

I think a good outcome is much more likely if this is approached in a spirit that makes it clear that it is not an attack at all, but rather an effort to achieve clarification–“Did you mean this to be taken this way?”-- and perhaps to clear up some misconceptions–“well, maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think we can say it like that, because the Vatican has said this, and in fact, by my reading of this document we’re probably required to do thus-and-so instead…”.

It can be very counter-productive, both in the long term and in the short term, to put someone in authority on the defensive. (If their authority is largely imaginary, this is even more so!) Even in parish life, we’re all human. Being discreet, bending over backwards to put the best possible intentions on other people’s motives, and making it clear that you have no interest in being an adversary or making the discussion into a competition of wills are efforts well-spent.

I agree with you 100%. Hostility or an open threat to someone’s authority is really going to make trouble all around.

My intention was to suggest that the OP might very well find that many of his colleagues in the EMHC squad share his reservations and could join in asking the question.

That said, if this is the parish I think it is, while liturgical abuses are not rampant, they are still using glass chalices and occasionally use a pottery set of vessels. Both the Pastor and the LC were liturgically formed in the wake of the nouvelle theology on liturgics that gained prominence in the '70s and was full blown in the '80s.

 

[japhy]

If your hands are good enough to pick up the host and give it to someone else, why are they not good enough to receive communion in the first place? Or, if you’re distributing the Precious Blood instead, why would you be distributing what you do not receive yourself?

What a depressing argument to use. How coercive and uncompassionate.

It produces a veritable “army” of EMHCs who only receive in the hand (is there any other way?) and always receive under both kinds (is there any other way?); and they’ll probably feel slighted when their services aren’t required.

 

[Phemie]

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.

Obviously in this case, because they were being treated almost like concelebrants, they had to receive in the hand in order to not receive before the celebrant. Just goes to show that doing things right in the first place makes it possible to avoid having to do many things wrong.

 

[japhy]

Obviously in this case, because they were being treated almost like concelebrants, they had to receive in the hand in order to not receive before the celebrant. Just goes to show that doing things right in the first place makes it possible to avoid having to do many things wrong.

The college Mass I was at a few weeks ago had the EMHCs receiving in the hand during the Lamb of God as well. It’s practices like that which make it IMPOSSIBLE to receive on the tongue. Maybe I’m out of my gourd, but it seems to be designed specifically to prohibit the practice. As soon as you forget that there’s two ways to do things, and you make a policy centered around the one way you remember, you end up being exclusive towards those who do things the other way.

 

[Rickwood]

The college Mass I was at a few weeks ago had the EMHCs receiving in the hand during the Lamb of God as well. It’s practices like that which make it IMPOSSIBLE to receive on the tongue. Maybe I’m out of my gourd, but it seems to be designed specifically to prohibit the practice. As soon as you forget that there’s two ways to do things, and you make a policy centered around the one way you remember, you end up being exclusive towards those who do things the other way.

It’s wrong. The laity should not even be approaching the altar until AFTER the celebrant has taken communion. They shouldn’t be close enough to be given communion.

 

[japhy]

It’s wrong. The laity should not even be approaching the altar until AFTER the celebrant has taken communion. They shouldn’t be close enough to be given communion.

Yes, I’m aware of that.

 

[tee_eff_em]

[NB: I am not, nor ever have been instituted, an EMHC, but I can think of these off the top of my head]

I haven’t seen anyone address this issue. If your hands are good enough to pick up the host and give it to someone else, why are they not good enough to receive communion in the first place?

You are presuming the only reason someone would choose to receive on the tongue is that his hands “are not good enough”.

Or, if you’re distributing the Precious Blood instead, why would you be distributing what you do not receive yourself?

EMsHC Wanted: Teetotalers and recovering alcoholics need not apply.

It sounds to me like the person in charge is overstepping her authority, but I still think she has a point.

I am sure there is a point, but it is a dubious one at best.

I repeat: I know nothing that requires an EMHC to receive at all. Here is a f’rinstance:
Suppose an EMHC is scheduled to serve at a particular liturgy, but fails to keep the Communion fast. Should she:

• 
  *]Serve without herself receiving?
  *]Receive, in violation of the fast, and serve?
  *]Remain in the congregation while everyone stares and wonders why she doesn’t go up to serve?
  
  :twocents:
  tee

 

[tee_eff_em]

The college Mass I was at a few weeks ago had the EMHCs receiving in the hand during the Lamb of God as well. It’s practices like that which make it IMPOSSIBLE to receive on the tongue. Maybe I’m out of my gourd, but it seems to be designed specifically to prohibit the practice. As soon as you forget that there’s two ways to do things, and you make a policy centered around the one way you remember, you end up being exclusive towards those who do things the other way.

*Were it permitted *for EMsHC to to this, any or all could still receive on the tongue, but it would require the cooperation of another of the EMsHC – “After Father has consumed, please administer your host to me on the tongue, then I’ll administer mine to you, on your tongue or in your hand, as you wish”

-]Ooooh, unless there were an odd number of EMsHC, and all wished to receive on the tongue – Then Father would be required to adminster to at least one./-]
EDIT: No, that’s wrong: They could just do a round-robin; No ordinary minister necessary.

tee

 

[Rickwood]

[NB: I am not, nor ever have been instituted, an EMHC, but I can think of these off the top of my head]

You are presuming the only reason someone would choose to receive on the tongue is that his hands “are not good enough”.

EMsHC Wanted: Teetotalers and recovering alcoholics need not apply.

I am sure there is a point, but it is a dubious one at best.

I repeat: I know nothing that requires an EMHC to receive at all. Here is a f’rinstance:
Suppose an EMHC is scheduled to serve at a particular liturgy, but fails to keep the Communion fast. Should she:

• 
  *]Serve without herself receiving?
  *]Receive, in violation of the fast, and serve?
  *]Remain in the congregation while everyone stares and wonders why she doesn’t go up to serve?
  
  :twocents:
  tee

• 
  EMsHC are commissioned, not instituted. To answer your question, the EMHC should NOT fail to keep the fast or else find a replacement.
  
  Does the Church REQUIRE EMsHC to receive? I am not sure I have ever seen any language that requires this. That said I once stepped “out of the circle” when a visiting priest tried to make us concelebrants by giving us communion in hand before he took communion.
  
  I was a server standing with the EMsHC and when I realized what was going on, I took a step back and bowed my head with my hands crossed over my chest. Once he passed me in the circle I looked-up and the priest was purple with rage and he was sweating and a lot of people were wondering what was going on. Very bad, never again.

 

[EasterJoy]

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.

Whoa. That would imply that receiving on the tongue is not allowed. Now that would be ludicrous…not that I’d put it quite that way when raising the question with those who wrote the rules.

The LC might not realize that receiving on the tongue is not an implicit judgement upon those who receive otherwise. If it were, the EMHC who thought like that would never have come forward as an extraordinary minister. The question would never come up.

Given the choice, I’d actually prefer that at least one of the EMsHC did receive on the tongue, if one were willing, just to put those at ease who receive that way. I wouldn’t compel anyone, but it would be a nice gesture of hospitality, should someone care to do it.

I haven’t seen anyone address this issue. If your hands are good enough to pick up the host and give it to someone else, why are they not good enough to receive communion in the first place? Or, if you’re distributing the Precious Blood instead, why would you be distributing what you do not receive yourself?

It sounds to me like the person in charge is overstepping her authority, but I still think she has a point.

Anyone who has received under a single species has received Our Lord, whole and entire. A EMHC who distributes the Precious Blood in spite of not having received under that species gives evidence of this, and that there are reasons that an otherwise healthy-looking person might not choose to receive under both species.

In other words, why someone chooses to receive one way and not another or under one species and not another is not a cause for drawing any conclusions about them and isn’t any of our business. I think that if the EMsHC receive in a way that reflects that, it reinforces the validity of that idea.

For instance, sometimes I do not receive the Precious Blood on a Sunday that I’m a EMHC because, although I am not aware of having anything, a particularly nasty bug is going around my house, or even my kids’ school. There is no reason to believe I’m contagious, but I like to be on the safe side, since I would be receiving first, immediately before the elderly people who sit up front (so as to receive in their seats). If everyone has received and the remainder of the Precious Blood needs to be consumed, I would feel free to receive then, because the cups are all washed with soap before the next Mass. It has never occurred to me to wonder what people “think” about that.

(If I actually felt sick, though, I’d arrange for someone else to take my place that week.)

 

[tee_eff_em]

To answer your question, the EMHC should NOT fail to keep the fast or else find a replacement.

Do you mean there is some rule that says this? Then it seems similar to “is there a rule that EMsHC must receive?” (Not, apparently, to either of our knowledge)
Or do you mean it should not happen? Well, yeah: But geeze-louise, it’s not her fault that Father’s homily was short. And then she’s supposed to start whispering up and down the pew seeking a replacement? I don’t think so.

tee

 

[tee_eff_em]

[Rats! The edit window has elapsed!]

-]Ooooh, unless there were an odd number of EMsHC, and all wished to receive on the tongue – Then Father would be required to adminster to at least one./-]
EDIT: No, that’s wrong: They could just do a round-robin; No ordinary minister necessary.

Of course, if there were but a single EMHC being used, he would still require Father’s cooperation to receive on the tongue. What would be the dispostion of the host he had been made to hold I cannot speculate.

tee

 

[japhy]

Do you mean there is some rule that says this? Then it seems similar to “is there a rule that EMsHC must receive?” (Not, apparently, to either of our knowledge)

Or do you mean it should not happen? Well, yeah: But geeze-louise, it’s not her fault that Father’s homily was short. And then she’s supposed to start whispering up and down the pew seeking a replacement? I don’t think so.

What if an EMHC cannot legally receive at that time? What if it’s a Communion service after a Mass at which he has already received? Or what if he’s been to two Masses already today, receiving at both, and now he’s at a third Mass as an EMHC? (This would be more likely for an Acolyte (who is a de facto EMHC) I suppose.)