Routine EMHCs or Communion Under both Kinds? Which is preferred?

[OhioBob]

A question that often comes up for me in discussions regarding “how many EMHCs is too many” is:

Is it better to provide communion under both kinds (even if it requires using a minimal number of EMHCs routinely to minister the cup) or should the precious blood only be offered if EMHCs are not required?

It would seem that few, if any, parishes would have enough ordinary ministers (priests, deacons) to provide communion under both kinds (maybe very small parishes or those that use intinction like our Eastern brothers). So it would seem impossible for most parishes to distribute communion under both kinds in any kind of reasonable time without using at least a small number of EMHCs.

Redemptionis Sacramentum seems to allude to this when it talks about factors that would preclude distribution of the precious blood:
190 The same is true wherever access to the chalice would be difficult to arrange, or where such a large amount of wine would be required that its certain provenance and quality could only be known with difficulty, or wherever there is not an adequate number of sacred ministers or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion with proper formation… (RS)

At our church we average 200-275 on a typical weekend Mass. We only have one priest and no deacons. Our priest uses one EMHC to assist in distributing the host, and two EMHCs to distribute from the cup (a two-line approach). While this approach has never seemed excessive with regard to the NUMBER of EMHCs used, it does represent a ROUTINE use of EMHCs.

Now I completely agree that there are parishes that abuse the privilege of EMHCs, however, I suppose that I share JKirkLVNV’s sentiment that I would rather have the opportunity to receive communion in both forms, even if that meant the routine use of a minimal number of EMHCs.

The Church teaches that communion under both kinds should be encouraged, but it also teaches that EMHCs should not be used routinely. So I’m a bit befuddled as to how those alternatives are reconciled for those of us who want the most complete participation in the sacrament yet struggle with a shortage of priests.

For most churches it seems that it’s either the routine (but minimal) use of EMHCs or no precious blood.

What do you all think?

 

[GloriaPatri4]

OhioBob:

A question that often comes up for me in discussions regarding “how many EMHCs is too many” is:

Is it better to provide communion under both kinds (even if it requires using a minimal number of EMHCs routinely to minister the cup) or should the precious blood only be offered if EMHCs are not required?

It would seem that few, if any, parishes would have enough ordinary ministers (priests, deacons) to provide communion under both kinds (maybe very small parishes or those that use intinction like our Eastern brothers). So it would seem impossible for most parishes to distribute communion under both kinds in any kind of reasonable time without using at least a small number of EMHCs.

Redemptionis Sacramentum seems to allude to this when it talks about factors that would preclude distribution of the precious blood:
190 The same is true wherever access to the chalice would be difficult to arrange, or where such a large amount of wine would be required that its certain provenance and quality could only be known with difficulty, or wherever there is not an adequate number of sacred ministers or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion with proper formation… (RS)

At our church we average 200-275 on a typical weekend Mass. We only have one priest and no deacons. Our priest uses one EMHC to assist in distributing the host, and two EMHCs to distribute from the cup (a two-line approach). While this approach has never seemed excessive with regard to the NUMBER of EMHCs used, it does represent a ROUTINE use of EMHCs.

Now I completely agree that there are parishes that abuse the privilege of EMHCs, however, I suppose that I share JKirkLVNV’s sentiment that I would rather have the opportunity to receive communion in both forms, even if that meant the routine use of a minimal number of EMHCs.

The Church teaches that communion under both kinds should be encouraged, but it also teaches that EMHCs should not be used routinely. So I’m a bit befuddled as to how those alternatives are reconciled for those of us who want the most complete participation in the sacrament yet struggle with a shortage of priests.

For most churches it seems that it’s either the routine (but minimal) use of EMHCs or no precious blood.

What do you all think?

If I understand your question correctly I would rather have communion in the form of only one species (not the precious blood) if it means by offering the precious blood we need to have a whole army of EMHC’s. We are not getting more of our Lord by receiving under both species. There is no need to receive the precious blood because we receive Christ in his entirety body, blood, soul and divinity in the Consecrated Host. I was at a Mass a few years ago when the Precious Blood was spilled (on carpet). They had to get a bunch of purificators and carefully soak up our Lord.

 

[OhioBob]

GloriaPatri4:

If I understand your question correctly I would rather have communion in the form of only one species (not the precious blood) if it means by offering the precious blood we need to have a whole army of EMHC’s. We are not getting more of our Lord by receiving under both species. There is no need to receive the precious blood because we receive Christ in his entirety body, blood, soul and divinity in the Consecrated Host. I was at a Mass a few years ago when the Precious Blood was spilled (on carpet). They had to get a bunch of purificators and carefully soak up our Lord.

I wasn’t talking about a “whole army”. I was talking about 2 (to minister the chalice to the faithful). I agree with the obvious abuse present in the “whole army” approach.

My question is whether routine use of a small number is a problem. If it is, why does the church promote communion under both kinds at all, since many parishes (with one priest and no deacons) could not take partake in it without using at least one EMHC on a regular basis?

And why would RS use the unavailability of sufficient EMHCs as a reason not to distribute under both kinds if the use of EMHCs for this purpose was not permitted per se?

And I know that Jesus is fully present under either form. That isn’t my question.

I am just wondering why the Church promotes both forms at all if it would be so difficult to provide sufficient means to distribute both forms properly?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

As I said, Bob, in the other thread, I, too, prefer to rec. in both Species. Like you, I know I rec. the fullness of Christ in one Species, but I prefer to rec. in two. I still think this can be done a little more minimally. I was in the parish near my family’s old farm in Texas 2 weeks ago. They used to have a deacon, I guess he must have moved. The priest communicated about 35 adults with the Most Sacred Body. He had two lay “extraordinaries” to administer the Most Precious Blood. I think, no irreverence to the priest, that he could have done it with one. I think part of the solution would be for there to be a broader attempt to recruit more married men to serve as deacons. Then we wouldn’t be worrying about this, seeing that deacons, being in Holy Orders, are REAL ministers of the Eucharist. We should have several in each parish. Just MHO.

 

[HumbleSinner]

Catholics United for the Faith

Communion Under Both Species

cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=42

 

[Mysty101]

JKirkLVNV:

The priest communicated about 35 adults with the Most Sacred Body. He had two lay “extraordinaries” to administer the Most Precious Blood. I think, no irreverence to the priest, that he could have done it with one.

Was it one minister of the cup on each side? I’m not sure if the guidelines would consider this an overuse. To have people crossing over to the other side to receive the Precious Blood, may be more of a possibility of accidental spillage or other accident. If people would just walk around the Church to return to their pew, it might be OK, but I have seen people walk practically in front of the minister to take a short cut. I will leave that one to the judgement of the Pastor. And I feel fortunate that our Pastor does offer the Precious Blood.

I think part of the solution would be for there to be a broader attempt to recruit more married men to serve as deacons. Then we wouldn’t be worrying about this, seeing that deacons, being in Holy Orders, are REAL ministers of the Eucharist. We should have several in each parish. Just MHO

Good luck on that one. It would be wonderful, but it is quite a bit of training, and I have not seen that much interest. Deaconesses would problaby get more interest.

 

[GloriaPatri4]

Catholics United for the Faith

Communion Under Both Species

cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=42

HumbleSinner,

Thanks for the link. This is from the EWTN Q&A. I think this article explains why precautions should be taken when distributing the Precious Blood.

Communion

Question from Dave D on 01-09-2003: What is the proper procedure if a consecrated host is dropped during the distribution of communion? Thank you.

Answer by Colin B. Donovan, STL on 02-12-2003: 2002 GIRM 280 “If the Eucharistic bread or any particle of it should fall, it is to be picked up reverently. If any of the precious blood spills, the area where the spill occurred should be washed and the water poured into the sacrarium. 334 The custom of building a sacrarium in the sacristy into which water from the cleansing of sacred vessels and linens is poured should be observed (see n. 280).” It should be remembered that any Particle or Drop is Christ, since whatever has the outward sign of bread or wine is no longer bread or wine after the consecration. The Host or Particle can either be consumed or placed in a dish of water to dissolve. The place on the floor should be covered, with a purificator or other cloth, so that after Mass it can be determined that ALL Particles have indeed been recovered. This will be especially necessary of the Precious Blood is spilled, so that all persons walking in the area avoid stepping on the place. After Mass, the place should be inspected and if necessary washed with water (absolutely necessary if the Precious Blood). Such water is poured down the sacrarium, the sink in the sacristy that goes directly into the ground. If such a sink does not exist, a hole in the ground must be dug in a place not likely to be distubed by animals or man and the liquid poured into it. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES may a Host or the Precious Blood be disposed of in either manner (sacrarium or hole in ground). They must first be diluted in water until the sign (appearance of bread or wine), and thus the Presence, is gone.

ewtn.org/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=295978&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=3000&Author=&Keyword=Precious+Blood+spill&pgnu=1&groupnum=0

 

[OhioBob]

Catholics United for the Faith

Communion Under Both Species

cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=42

The CUF page is a nice summary, but it really doesn’t illuminate my question any further. In fact, the statement that:
Whether to allow Communion under both species in a particular situation is left to the pastor’s prudential discretion (based on guidelines set out in the norms as well as any further guidelines that his bishop may provide).
seems to provide a loophole big enough to drive a “whole army” of EMHCs through. Does that mean that if a pastor decides to offer communion under both kinds using one or two ECHCs that such a practice is not an abuse of EMHCs? How about 5? How about 25? There seems to be a pretty wide lattitude offered in this explanation.

 

[OhioBob]

GloriaPatri4:

Thanks for the link. This is from the EWTN Q&A. I think this article explains why precautions should be taken when distributing the Precious Blood…

Thanks for the post. But this thread isn’t about the need for precautions in distributing the Precious Blood, it is about the balance between the benefits of offering the faithful communion under both kinds when that would require involvement of EMHCs. Precautions are obviously important, regardless of who is handling the Precious Blood.

 

[Mysty101]

Bob,

Yes this is true, but since the whole point to this Year of the Eucharist was to be more mindful ot the reverence, safegarding the sacred species is another consideration in restricting offering the Precious Blood.

Danger of accidental spillage is why the pouring of the Precious Blood was reprobated, and another reason why Communion under both kinds is the be restricted, or at least the pros & cons examined more closely.

Since it is at the discretion or the Pastor, your choices are change Parishes or write to the Bishop (who will most probably back the Pastor which leaves you with change Parishes) if you do not agree with your Pastor.

 

[Mycroft]

it used to be that the precious blood was only administered on special occasions. this makes sense, since whenever you allow there to be more extraordinary ministers you immediately get a bunch of abuses, as ive seen in every church in my city. the church says they should only be used in extreme need (priest physically cant, etc.) im pretty sure there isnt an extreme need eevry sunday in every church. i think that allowance was a bad idea. i much prefer recieving communion from the priest who is supposed to be acting as jesus.

 

[Mysty101]

Mycroft:

im pretty sure there isnt an extreme need eevry sunday in every church. i think that allowance was a bad idea. i much prefer recieving communion from the priest who is supposed to be acting as jesus.

There is an extreme need every Sunday in my Church and many of the larger Parishes. Yes, there are abuses, but this doesn’t give you the right to make generalizations which snipe at overcrowded parishes which are doing the best they can to administer to all the parishioners.

 

[OhioBob]

Mysty101:

…Since it is at the discretion or the Pastor, your choices are change Parishes or write to the Bishop (who will most probably back the Pastor which leaves you with change Parishes) if you do not agree with your Pastor.

Actually I don’t disagree with our Pastor at all. I don’t think it is an abuse to use a minimal number of EMHCs on a routine basis in order to permit the faithful to receive under both kinds (assuming the obvious needs for formation among the EMHCs and precautions regarding the handling of the sacrament).

I’m just trying to see how everyone else feels.