Should we even have EMHC's?

[JimR-OCDS]

Hi Jim. If you believe that expediency should be the norm then please point out to me where it says that. I’ve looked through Canon Law and cannot find any thing that says Communion MUST be expeditiously delivered to the receipients.

In fact, as far as I know, Extraordinary Ministers are NOT supposed to be used at all Masses and especially if there are other Priests or deacons available to distribute.

I believe the decision on whether to use EMHC’s is up to the celebrant. Yes, when there is another priest or deacon present, there may or may not be a need for EMHCs. The point is, it isn’t my decision to make in this forum, but that of the priest celebrating the Mass.

At my small parish, when the deacon serves, we only have ministers of the cup. When the deacon doesn’t serve, we have on EMHC, and that’s our Pastor’s decision. He has to say Mass at my parish, then drive across town to say Mass at the other parish that he is pastor of.

What gives anyone in this forum the right to say that my pastor is over using EMHC’s or that they should not be used, when the Church says they are?

BTW, the document that you refering to, was drawn up long before the shortage of priest we have today. So don’t take it too literally, The Bishops have had to make adjustments since then.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

lak611:

JimR said Sacrosanctum Concilium had the “norms for the Novus Ordo”, and I asked where particular norms were found in that document. I’m entirely aware of the GIRM and various documents from the USCCB, but I disagree that Vatican II produced the norms for the Pauline Mass.

The basis for the Norms drawin up in the Novus Ordo, come from the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy. Sorry for not I not being clear on this.

III. The Reform of the Sacred Liturgy

1. In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself. For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it.

In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.

Wherefore the sacred Council establishes the following general norms:

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

Jim

 

[japhy]

The basis for the Norms drawin up in the Novus Ordo, come from the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy. Sorry for not I not being clear on this.

The basis for the norms, generally speaking, yes – that is, the Constitution initiated the development of new norms for the Mass, but it defined very few. Specifically speaking, the Constitution did not call for EMHCs, Communion in the hand, removal of altar rails, the “table-ifying” of altars, priests speaking the prayers of the Mass facing the people, etc.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The basis for the norms, generally speaking, yes – that is, the Constitution initiated the development of new norms for the Mass, but it defined very few. Specifically speaking, the Constitution did not call for EMHCs, Communion in the hand, removal of altar rails, the “table-ifying” of altars, priests speaking the prayers of the Mass facing the people, etc.

Communion in hand, removal of altar rails etc, was driven by the Holy See in accord with the Constitution. The introduction of the GIRM, states;

The liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council have enjoyed great success in bringing many Catholics closer to the perfect sacrifice of praise that Christ the Lord offered from the wood of the Cross. Perhaps most of all, the reforms of the Missale Romanum, which regulates the celebration of the Eucharist as the “source and summit of the Christian life” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 47), have been the cause and witness of this great work.

The first stages of the postconciliar reform of the Mass were marked by Pope Paul VI’s apostolic constitution Missale Romanum (1969), which was quickly followed by the revised Ordo Missae (l970), including the first edition of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani (1970). This last document, which described the form for the new Order of Mass, was further revised in 1972 and yet more definitively as a part of the editio typica altera of the Missale Romanum in March 27, 1975.

The Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy, called for the renewal of the Mass, which, Pope Paul VI did. Communion in hand, removal of altar rails, was all part of it, and in accord with the spirit of the Constitution of The Sacred Liturgy.

II. The Promotion of Liturgical Instruction and Active Participation

1. Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. 2:4-5), is their right and duty by reason of their baptism.

In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else; for it is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit; and therefore pastors of souls must zealously strive to achieve it, by means of the necessary instruction, in all their pastoral work.

The use of EMHC’s, which this thread is questioning, is allowed by the Church, and is the result of the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy, which called for greater participation of the people.

The use of EMHC’s has become more and more necessary, because of the shortage of priest. There is nothing against either the Constitution, nor the GIRM, that EMHC’s are being used, as the celebrant decides.

Jim

 

[japhy]

Communion in hand, removal of altar rails etc, was driven by the Holy See in accord with the Constitution.

What do you mean by “driven by the Holy See”?

The Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy, called for the renewal of the Mass, which, Pope Paul VI did. Communion in hand, removal of altar rails, was all part of it, and in accord with the spirit of the Constitution of The Sacred Liturgy.

Communion in the hand came about because of liturgical abuse – people were doing it without permission. It is not a norm, it is an indult. The norm, the universal practice of the Church is to receive on the tongue. Memoriale Domini was written to address the matter. Here is an excerpt:
A change in a matter of such moment, based on a most ancient and venerable tradition, does not merely affect discipline. It carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering holy communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the august sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine.

Three questions were asked of the bishops, and the replies received by 12 March 1969 were as follows:

1. Do you think that attention should be paid to the desire that, over and above the traditional manner, the rite of receiving holy communion on the hand should be admitted?

Y: 597
N: 1,233
Y with reservations: 315
…

1. Is it your wish that this new rite be first tried in small communities, with the consent of the bishop?

Y: 751
N: 1,215
…

1. Do you think that the faithful will receive this new rite gladly, after a proper catechetical preparation?

Y: 835
N: 1,185
…

From the returns it is clear that the vast majority of bishops believe that the present discipline should not be changed, and that if it were, the change would be offensive to the sentiments and the spiritual culture of these bishops and of many of the faithful.

Therefore … the Holy Father has decided not to change the existing way of administering holy communion to the faithful.

The Apostolic See therefore emphatically urges bishops, priests and laity to obey carefully the law which is still valid and which has again been confirmed. It urges them to take account of the judgment given by the majority of Catholic bishops, of the rite now in use in the liturgy, of the common good of the Church.

Where a contrary usage, that of placing holy communion on the hand, prevails, the Holy See—wishing to help them fulfill their task, often difficult as it is nowadays—lays on those conferences the task of weighing carefully whatever special circumstances may exist there, taking care to avoid any risk of lack of respect or of false opinions with regard to the Blessed Eucharist, and to avoid any other ill effects that may follow.

In such cases, episcopal conferences should examine matters carefully and should make whatever decisions, by a secret vote and with a two-thirds majority, are needed to regulate matters. Their decisions should be sent to Rome to receive the necessary confirmation, accompanied with a detailed account of the reasons which led them to take those decisions. The Holy See will examine each case carefully…
Sadly, this meant that, where such practice was already illegally being done, the Holy Father decided not to enforce the confirmed law of the Church, but rather let them vote on the matter and then inform Rome of their decision, and Rome would then (more likely than not) approve and grant them the indult. However, this was only permissible where the practice already existed, as the document states. There is also the suspicious manner by which it was (finally) successfully voted on in the United States.

The use of EMHC’s, which this thread is questioning, is allowed by the Church, and is the result of the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy, which called for greater participation of the people.

No, no, no. The extraordinary minister of Holy Communion is not a means of “greater participation of the people”. The EMHC is only means of distributing Communion to the faithful. While it is true that EMHCs are only permissible because of Sacrosanctum Concilium, they are not the “result” of it. EMHCs are the result of declining vocations to the diaconate and priesthood, and were only permitted in 1973 (ten years after the Constitution) by the instruction Immensae Caritatis; the instruction says nothing about “participation”.

 

[THurifer2]

Let’s see, with our parish we have over 10,000 parishioners. Based on our census counts during mass, our attendance is about 45%. Our masses are at 5pm and 7pm on Saturday and 7am, 8:30am, 10am, 11:30am, 1pm, 5pm and 7pm Sunday. With the exception of the 7am Sunday mass, each mass has about 500 people at it and one priest and sometimes one deacon. As our church will only hold 500 people, we can not reduce the number of masses, therefore we have to use EMHC’s to be able to have mass, have everyone leave from the mass and everyone for the next mass to enter church in 1 1/2 hrs (in most cases). We do use far fewer EMHC’s at the 7am mass as there are fewer people attending.

We could tighten up the schedule and add a couple of masses, to reduce the number of people at each mass and reduce the need for EMHC’s, but with the schedule we have now we have burned out one pastor and are currently burning out his replacement. Normally, we have 2 priests, but due to circumstances beyond our pastors control we have been down to one priest for long periods of time during the last 3 yrs.

In addition to daily and Sunday masses, our parish has a nursery/preschool (infant - pre-K), a school (K-8), a cemetery, a mission church (no regularly scheduled masses due to too few priests), a small Catholic bookstore, RCIA classes (both for adults and unbaptized children 7 yrs old and older), religious education classes, adult education clases and Remembering Church classes. We serve multiple convalescence homes, a county jail, a juvenile hall and a hospital. You can see how with a tight weekend schedule along with the daily demands of managing our parish can burn out pastors.

Please pray that we will be able to build our 1200 seat church soon. This will allow us to cut the number of masses at least in half and increase the time between masses. This will help reduce the strain on the pastor and decrease the need for EMHC’s.

you do realize that the vatican indicates in Redemptionis Sacramentum that when the congregation is large the precious blood should not be offered.

 

[THurifer2]

EMCH’s have become common because of the shortage of priest.
Learn to live with them, they’re not going away. In fact, you’ll see even more participation of the laity in the years to come. Communion services will be presided over by “Lay Presiders.”

Will you avoid Holy Communion when this comes to be?

Jim

Except in the more orthodox dioceses like Lincoln which almost seems like they are being favored by God. 19 first year seminarians for Bp b not bad for a fundamentalist. You will never see Lay Presiders in Linclon…EVER.

I w

 

[Windmill]

Except in the more orthodox dioceses like Lincoln which almost seems like they are being favored by God. 19 first year seminarians for Bp b not bad for a fundamentalist. You will never see Lay Presiders in Linclon…EVER.

I w

The Diocese of Austin, TX is seeing a record “crop” of vocations, too. That’s in large part due to solid efforts of St. Mary’s Catholic Center in College Station (Texas A&M University’s student parish). Fr. Mike Sis, Fr. Dean Wilhelm, Fr. David Konderla, and Fr. Brian McMasters have a low tolerance for bad theology. Their catechetical programs are superior, and they continually put out record numbers of vocations in the diocesan seminary, as well as in religious orders. Not only that, but the average layman that leaves St. Mary’s knows his faith well enough to be in awe of the priesthood. Such a doctrinally- and spirtually-informed Catholic is vital to supporting growing vocations in his diocese.

The EMHC “solution” is nothing of the sort. It is a self-perpetuating disease that is slowly strangling the ministerial priesthood to death. Dioceses that continue to exalt EMHC’s while minimizing the distinction of the ministerial priesthood will soon be turning to “imported” priests, as they will not be generating any on their own.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

japhy

I appreciate this bit of info. I did not know that this is how this all evolved. However we are here now, and I see nothing wrong with it
and apparently, neither do the current Bishops.

The bottom line question to all of what you posted,

Are Catholics prohibited from receiving Holy Communion in their hand?

The answer of course is no.

Does the Vatican prohibit the use of EMHC’s?

Of course the answer once again is no. Does allowing lay people to help in the distribution of Holy Communion allow then to participate closer in the Mass? Of course it does, how can it not?

Again, none of these changes would have come about, if not for Vatican II and what the goal was as outlined in the Constitution of The Sacred Liturgy, i.e., fuller participation of the people.

Maybe we should open a thread titled, “Should Vatican II Be Done Away With?”

My guess is that most fundamentalist Catholics would love nothing better.

Jim

 

[Jakub]

<<>>

Why not ? The progressives have had control of things in the American Church for 35 odd years…and what is the fruit of their time…?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Hmm, apparently I was not all wrong.

Excerpt from Pastoral Answers

by Msgr. M. Francis Mannion
Questions and answers about the Faith
Communion in the Hand
Question: I know the practice is optional, but where did Communion in the hand come from? Don’t you think it encourages disrespect?

Answer: Communion in the hand was the norm for most of the first millennium. Because of the dangers of misuse and the growing concern for reverence, the practice of giving the Host on the tongue was introduced about the ninth century.

The present practice of giving communion in the hand dates from 1969, when Pope Paul VI opened the way for episcopal conferences who wished to reintroduce the practice. Permission was granted to the U.S. bishops in 1977.
osv.com/OSV4MeNav/MyCatholicFaithOnlineResources/TheEucharist/EucharisticQandA/tabid/498/Default.aspx

Jim

 

[Windmill]

Ratzinger has written extensively on what “active participation” is and is not. It is primarily contemplative participation. Distributing communion is not what the Council fathers would have envisioned as “active participation.”

As mentioned in RS, lay distribution of communion is a regrettable, makeshift, temporary, and, hopefully, soon-to-be-relieved-of position. A well-prepared EMHC should be hoping and praying for the day when he can relinquish his position to an Ordinary Minister of Communion (ie, an ordained man). Far from glorifying in the fact that a layman is “participating” in this manner, the Church sees it as a temporary compromise to the traditional custom of only ordained hands being able to touch the Sacred Species.

We should all be striving for everything to be ordered, that is, “ordinary.” We should not be happy that we must resort to “extraordinary” exceptions to what is normal.

 

[japhy]

I appreciate this bit of info. I did not know that this is how this all evolved. However we are here now, and I see nothing wrong with it and apparently, neither do the current Bishops.

You see nothing wrong with “it”… what is “it”? I happen to see a lot wrong with the current state of the liturgy – altered by priests on a regular basis, prone to abuses, devoid of Latin and chant (or even polyphony), and often with a poor translation of the official Mass texts (in Latin) – and not a few bishops agree.

Are Catholics prohibited from receiving Holy Communion in their hand? The answer of course is no.

They are still prohibited where express permission has not been granted. Receiving in the hand is not a universal right of Catholics; receiving on the tongue is. And the Vatican is strongly opposed to profaning the Eucharist, which is much easier to do when the Host is placed in the hand.

Does the Vatican prohibit the use of EMHC’s? Of course the answer once again is no.

When the need for EMHCs disappears, so will the EMHCs. We didn’t need them for hundreds of years. The “necessity” comes from constantly offering Communion under both kinds and the “single file” mode of receiving.

Maybe we should open a thread titled, “Should Vatican II Be Done Away With?”

Of course Vatican II shouldn’t be done away with. We should just look back at what the actual documents said, not what people think they said, and enact a reform of the reform.

 

[Jakub]

" Of course Vatican II shouldn’t be done away with. We should just look back at what the actual documents said, not what people think they said, and enact a reform of the reform. "

Exactly what the Pope is trying to do…

james

 

[Brendan]

As mentioned in RS, lay distribution of communion is a regrettable, makeshift, temporary, and, hopefully, soon-to-be-relieved-of position. .

Exactly, a priest friend of mine mentioned that “Every prayer for vocations is a prayer to end that ministry ( EMHCs)”

And he is spot on!

 

[Marsha_Adams]

" Of course Vatican II shouldn’t be done away with. We should just look back at what the actual documents said, not what people think they said, and enact a reform of the reform. "

Exactly what the Pope is trying to do…

james

Well said, and truly spoken.

Pope Benedict XVI, FKA Cardinal Ratzinger said in an interview many many years ago, that nobody knows if Vatican II worked because it was never tried. What was intended by the Council and what was pawned off on the faithful has little in common. I look forward to seeing what his holiness does with it.

 

[Brendan]

Maybe we should open a thread titled, “Should Vatican II Be Done Away With?”

My guess is that most fundamentalist Catholics would love nothing better.

Jim

I love Vatican II, in fact I love it so much I can’t wait for it to be implemented.

I hope it happens soon

 

[japhy]

I love Vatican II, in fact I love it so much I can’t wait for it to be implemented.

You, sir, are hilarious. I would like to subscribe to your periodical.

Excellent statement.

 

[Cobbfmly]

Exactly, a priest friend of mine mentioned that “Every prayer for vocations is a prayer to end that ministry ( EMHCs)”

And he is spot on!

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I love Vatican II, in fact I love it so much I can’t wait for it to be implemented.

I hope it happens soon

Perhaps you can tell us what parts of Vatican II have not been implemented yet?

Jim