Monstrous and bloated "communion systems"

[Crusader]

I am really beginning to wonder about the efficiency of using large numbers of extraoridinary ministers of Holy Communion (EMsHC).

Notice I did not say the appropriateness of using huge numbers of EMsHC (it’s rarely appropriate), but the efficiency of concocting these monstrous and bloated “communion systems.”

Even the best of them seem to be poorly planned and coordinated. Long set-up times (the army of EMsHC have to receive first of course), traffic jams between the Body and Blood, people forcing their way into the priest’s line, lengthy clean-up with the huge number of vessels, etc. etc. etc. all lead to a very inefficient (and irreverent) process.

I am becoming convinced that most all the EMHCs could be released and Holy Communion would not only become more reverrent and solemn, it would also go faster.

I wonder if anyone has ever applied motion and time studies and queuing theory to the Mass?

I suppose if the hard data said that EMsHC slowed down communion that the next excuse is that using EMsHC gets more people “involved.”

 

[puzzleannie]

One or two priests and a couple of altar boys used to be able to communicate the larger numbers of Catholics at Mass when communion rails were in use with no problems, much more efficient, not to mention reverent.

 

[Agomemnon]

Crusader:

I am really beginning to wonder about the efficiency of using large numbers of extraoridinary ministers of Holy Communion (EMsHC).

Notice I did not say the appropriateness of using huge numbers of EMsHC (it’s rarely appropriate), but the efficiency of concocting these monstrous and bloated “communion systems.”

Even the best of them seem to be poorly planned and coordinated. Long set-up times (the army of EMsHC have to receive first of course), traffic jams between the Body and Blood, people forcing their way into the priest’s line, lengthy clean-up with the huge number of vessels, etc. etc. etc. all lead to a very inefficient (and irreverent) process.

I am becoming convinced that most all the EMHCs could be released and Holy Communion would not only become more reverrent and solemn, it would also go faster.

I wonder if anyone has ever applied motion and time studies and queuing theory to the Mass?

I suppose if the hard data said that EMsHC slowed down communion that the next excuse is that using EMsHC gets more people “involved.”

I wonder if I’ll get fired for using the MOST standard system and simulation software to evaluate it.

Truth is I have essentially done a non-scientific study and the altar rail method was far faster and reverent. The standing to recieve could be fast and reverent as well but would still have kneeling with 5 people to each side to maintain a qeue

 

[PASCENDI]

Agomemnon:

I wonder if I’ll get fired for using the MOST standard system and simulation software to evaluate it.

Truth is I have essentially done a non-scientific study and the altar rail method was far faster and reverent. The standing to recieve could be fast and reverent as well but would still have kneeling with 5 people to each side to maintain a qeue

Tell us more

 

[Crusader]

Agomemnon:

I wonder if I’ll get fired for using the MOST standard system and simulation software to evaluate it.

Truth is I have essentially done a non-scientific study and the altar rail method was far faster and reverent. The standing to recieve could be fast and reverent as well but would still have kneeling with 5 people to each side to maintain a qeue

The old model isn’t good because:

1.) People used to typically receive only under one species.

2.) Everyone didn’t actually go to communion. (Imagine that.)

 

[JimG]

In our parish we receive under only one species on most Sundays. The parish is large, and distributing both species would be unwieldy. * But*, the small army of EMHC’s receive under both species, and the logistics of accomplishing this delays the start of communion distribution.

 

[Crusader]

JimG:

In our parish we receive under only one species on most Sundays. The parish is large, and distributing both species would be unwieldy. But, the small army of EMHC’s receive under both species, and the logistics of accomplishing this delays the start of communion distribution.

That is hardcore uncool.

While not specifically prohibited by the rubrics of the Mass, it does elevate them to a psuedo-clerical level of EMHC.

I think this is one I would look into…

 

[Jermosh]

My parish is very organised about it, it goes quite quickly actually, and very solemn. Note I am a convert so not sure what it was like before or in allot of other parishes.

Peace
Jermosh

 

[chrystl]

JimG:

In our parish we receive under only one species on most Sundays. The parish is large, and distributing both species would be unwieldy. But, the small army of EMHC’s receive under both species, and the logistics of accomplishing this delays the start of communion distribution.

In actuality, the distribution of Communio begins when the Presider takes Communion and the choir begins the Communion hymn, which starts as soon as the Presider takes Communion.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Crusader:

I am really beginning to wonder about the efficiency of using large numbers of extraoridinary ministers of Holy Communion (EMsHC).

Notice I did not say the appropriateness of using huge numbers of EMsHC (it’s rarely appropriate), but the efficiency of concocting these monstrous and bloated “communion systems.”

Even the best of them seem to be poorly planned and coordinated. Long set-up times (the army of EMsHC have to receive first of course), traffic jams between the Body and Blood, people forcing their way into the priest’s line, lengthy clean-up with the huge number of vessels, etc. etc. etc. all lead to a very inefficient (and irreverent) process.

I am becoming convinced that most all the EMHCs could be released and Holy Communion would not only become more reverrent and solemn, it would also go faster.

I wonder if anyone has ever applied motion and time studies and queuing theory to the Mass?

I suppose if the hard data said that EMsHC slowed down communion that the next excuse is that using EMsHC gets more people “involved.”

While a “time and motion” study might be interesting, queueing theory really isn’t useful. Why? First, you have a closed system with an instantanous population – all customers arrive at the same time. Most queueing theory works best is you have either a Posson distribution of customer arrival. The queue is more than the line, for virtually everyone in the church is queued for a server, even if he or she is not in the line. Thus, when the servers being to serve all customers are present.

Since, in general, one doesn’t leave before receiving communion, none of the lossy systems fit. Oh, but if they are receiving communion under both species then there is a second set of servers and another queue they need to go through.

BTW, I was unaware the efficiency was an aspect of the Mass.

Deacon Ed