Resent receiving Communion from Eucharistic Minister

[Joe_5859]

If someone in the EMHC’s line comes up with crossed arms at our church the direction they have been given is to say God bless you.

Yeah, there aren’t any universal guidelines that I am aware of that address this specifically as the practice of coming forth to receive a blessing at Communion time is a relatively new concept that also isn’t addressed in the liturgical rubrics.

I’ve received different instructions at different times and different parishes. One place said that EMHC’s could put their hand on the person’s shoulder (not their head) and say “God bless you.” Another basically said to just smile and nod at the person. The main thing was to avoid acting like a priest.

 

[Sbee0]

If someone in the EMHC’s line comes up with crossed arms at our church the direction they have been given is to say God bless you.

I’ve heard this said but I also see them lay a hand or hands at the same time like an actual formal blessing… which didn’t seem right to me.

 

[OraLabora]

Thus my use of “etc.”

I figured you probably knew, but given how often I’ve heard the “consecrated hands” argument, and in the OP the “persona Christi” argument, I thought it important to point it out.

And for the OP, a thought: if an EMHC is deemed not suitable to touch the Eucharist, then neither are we, the rest of the laity, whether with our tongue or our hands. The “only priest can handle the Host” argument then becomes a logical absurdity.

None of the EMHCs I’ve ever encountered handled the Host irreverently. That’s all that matters.

 

[Genesis315]

I don’t have a problem receiving from them, but in general I find them overused. If only the extraordinary form was found as ordinarily as extraordinary ministers…

In any event, here’s an analogy that might help some understand the argument against them.

Even though it would be the same Christ either way, there’s a reason the Church requires special kinds of plates, cups, and bowls to be used to hold the sacred species. We could just use paper plates and dixie cups or even fine china and wine glasses, but having special vessels set aside for a sacred purpose emphasizes the sacred nature of what they contain. They are an act of homage. They reinforce for us that this is something out of the ordinary worthy of special honor and consideration. On the flipside, deliberately choosing not to use these special vessels would signify disrespect or a lack of consideration for the sacred reality.

The same is true for a priest who has been set aside for sacred purposes in the liturgy. It’s why he wears special vestments, makes special vows, etc. Deliberately and needlessly using other vessels instead of the set-aside ones can signify disrespect (even if that is not the intent).

Sure, those of strong supernatural faith may not need these extra helps to perceive the reality of the Holy Eucharist and to properly venerate it, but many do.

Unfortunately, we’ve eliminated many of these helps (some still remain) and the stats on belief in the supernatural truths associated with them reflect that.

 

[tafan2]

I came to this site to see if others shared my concern.

To a certain extent I do. I in no way resent receiving communion from an EMHC, but I have never been comfortable with it. And I much to prefer to receive from a priest or deacon. I try not to think about it, but if I know the priest and know he has a pattern of distributing on one side, I will sit where I will be in that line.

 

[OraLabora]

but having special vessels set aside for a sacred purpose emphasizes the sacred nature of what they contain.

Also it’s to avoid sacrilege. Noble materials are resistant to breakage and spillage, and are easy to clean any remaining Host particles or Precious Blood in a reverent manner. Glass vessels could be made just as beautiful, but are easily broken. In many austere orders or poor areas you will find plain brass vessels with little or no ornementation. What they contain is sacred, and the do the job of protecting Our Lord from sacrilege just as well as ornate ones.

Note that there’s nothing wrong with beautiful vessels, but being beautiful vessels for Our Lord is not the only or even the main purpose.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Your statement is flat-out wrong. The Church does not teach that EMHCs are a “liturgical abuse”, nor that “we must avoid receiving from them whenever possible.”

Please do not give such incorrect information on the forum, especially when you are holding yourself out with “Catholic” in your username.

I’m also not sure why you’re telling me what the “proper term” is when I used the abbreviation “EMHC”.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

EWTN Experts are not the official source of Church teaching.

The USCCB permits EMHCs in the USA. I am sure if there was a problem with them doing so, the Vatican would command that they stop. We are also permitted to receive Holy Communion in the hand. This is official Church teaching. What you are claiming is somebody’s opinion.

http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-wor...inary-ministers-of-holy-communion-at-mass.cfm

 

[angel12]

Lay “Eucharistic Ministers” (the proper term is “Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion”), when used as they are today, are a liturgical abuse. We must avoid receiving from them whenever possible.

That is not the teaching of the Church.

 

[paperwight]

Genesis315:

but having special vessels set aside for a sacred purpose emphasizes the sacred nature of what they contain.

Not that there nothing wrong with beautiful vessels, but being beautiful vessels for Our Lord is not the only or even the main purpose.

Indeed. If it is the container that matters, we ought to dress in cloth of gold and adorn our fingers with costly rings before receiving Holy Communion… And perhaps wear a crown.

 

[phil19034]

You are not alone. I used to struggle greatly with this.

However, I eventually got better with this because of two reasons:

1. my parish priest constantly changes which communion line he’s going to serve, so you can never sit in one spot and always receive form him. It used to drive me nuts because there is this one EMHC who always jabs the top of my mouth with the host.
2. there is another parish near my house with a Sunday evening mass I sometimes attend. I love a side pew there with nice, big think kneelers. So at that parish, while I could always sit in the same pew and receive from Father, I love the side pew. So I’m choosing to receive from the EMHC because I want that nice side pew with the nice kneeler.

So, that’s how I got used to it.

But yes, when I was a child, we almost ALWAYS sat where we could receive from Father. And when we couldn’t, we would sit in the back so we could then walk around the back of the Church into Father’s line.

As a child, my parents always prefered to receive from the priest.

 

[JulianN]

“Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion”), when used as they are today, are a liturgical abuse. We must avoid receiving from them whenever possible.

This is completely untrue.

 

[MarthaSo]

I received the Eucharist from a tiny miniskirt and tube top wearing with heels young lady once. It did feel hurtful to me. In saying that here in this forum and being here a while, now more as a lurker, , I get the sense that even my experience with that particular EM doesn’t matter, who cares what she’s wearing, who am I to judge etc… I think of Padre Pio turning away women from even confessionals if they were dressed inappropriately. It’s a different world to be sure. I don’t see you as selfish for posing this question at all by the way. (to the OP)

 

[myhathaswords]

I get a lot of what you’re saying. A significant portion of parishioners have mentioned this to me. Many of whom were the first to welcome me like I was coming home when I started going to church. You have my sympathy.

I would like to offer some helpful suggestions/comments to dealing with your resentment.

When I started to get serious about the faith, I had a major problem with scandal. I read tons of articles and forum threads on it. The one thing that stuck was a quote from a saint (I think). I don’t remember who he was or the exact quote. (I tried to find it but I don’t remember enough detail.) Someone asked him about receiving Communion from a very scandalous priest. He basically said he would receive Communion from anyone rather than not receive it at all. There was more to the article but the point was don’t let yourself get distracted from what matters.

I go to a mission church. Our priest has a forty-minute drive from another town. He is the priest for two churches in two different towns and 3 distinct cultural communities. There is one deacon who lives an hour away from us and 30 minutes from the parish. Our priest and our deacon give a great deal of themselves. There is only so much time in the day and they devote a great deal of time to us as it is. EMHCs help to save them a considerable amount of time.

Our priest designated another lady and me to help distribute the Body of Christ when our deacon isn’t there. It was not an assignment that either of us took lightly. Everyone involved with distributing the Body and Blood of Christ knows He is Jesus and we all have the utmost concern for His treatment, as well as the treatment of the vessels and linens. Discussions are held on what to do if the Blood is spilled or a Host is dropped. EMHCs that are in the pews help watch for and take care of any problems.

It is a great honor to help distribute the Body and Blood of Christ. Everyone I know takes it very seriously. And truly, my heart sings the whole time, every time.

I hope my personal feelings and experiences help to soften your hard feelings (and the feelings of anyone else who may feel similarly).

And lastly, there is nothing wrong with getting in the priest’s line! It happens all the time at our church, especially by people who can’t receive but want a blessing. I’ve never once been offended and no one has ever said anything to me about it bothering them : ) All the best to you on your journey!

 

[anon48198893]

Out of curiosity, do you receive the Host in your hands on your tongue?

 

[graciew]

What is the difference between your tongue and the hands of those persons , the EMHC ?
Imagine a person saying that he/ she cringes when she sees your tongue and skips you…

 

[ELCore]

My parents always blessed me, as a child, when they tucked me in. I was taught this was a good thing and proper. It may not be exactly the same as a blessing via a priest, but it’s part of Church tradition.

Your parents had/have the authority to bless their child(ren). Parents can bless their children, not merely ask God to bless them. This is because parents have God-given authority over their children. See CCC # 1669: “Sacramentals derive from the baptismal priesthood: every baptized person is called to be a ‘blessing,’ and to bless. Hence lay people may preside at certain blessings; the more a blessing concerns ecclesial and sacramental life, the more is its administration reserved to the ordained ministry (bishops, priests, or deacons).”

 

[Dorothy]

Because the bishop allows it, you should be at peace about it.

It was the priest who consecrated the sacrament.

Forget about feeling hostile and be at peace!

 

[tafan2]

There is at times a difference between receiving from a priest and a EMHC if one receives on the tongue. Not often around here, but when we visit friends in the Midwest, most certainly. We often attend on parish there where I believe we are the only people who receive on the tongue. The EMHC just aren’t used to doing it. It’s noticible, and scary, at times.

 

[anon48198893]

I think a good practice to go by is to observe and emulate the Eastern Catholic churches, since they were less prone to innovations.

Do they offer communion in the hand by laypersons?