SPLIT: Definition/Function of EMHC

[zab]

Those are good principles, but what the Church actually says is that no one even is an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion unless and until he has been appointed as such by a priest for that particular moment–to put it another way, unless a priest at that moment made such an appointment, then he shouldn’t have been removing the Eucharist (indeed, the priest should have done that himself). In unusual circumstances, the bishop may appoint EMHCs on a more stable basis (say a year for example).

We don’t know exactly what was happening. The person might have even been a priest or deacon (as others have alluded).

My point here is to remind people that there is a misconception out there that certain people “are” EMHCs. That’s not the case. The function of an EMHC can only be for a particular act/moment and once that moment is over, the temporary function of EMHC ceases to exist. So unless there was a priest there to make that appointment, no layperson should be taking the Eucharist out of the church.

Can the same be said of the function of the Lector, the altar server, the choir member- that the function of the Lector and so on is only for that particular moment? In any case, I have never seen one who has ever served as an EMHC, wear the title on their shoulder or sign in as EMHC John or Jane Doe. It is my understanding that when someone says they are an EMHC, that means that they have been appointed for the duty of distributing Holy Communion when needed and/or taking Communion to the homebound and have gone through training to serve in this function.

 

[Marauder]

My point here is to remind people that there is a misconception out there that certain people “are” EMHCs. That’s not the case. The function of an EMHC can only be for a particular act/moment and once that moment is over, the temporary function of EMHC ceases to exist. So unless there was a priest there to make that appointment, no layperson should be taking the Eucharist out of the church.

With all due respect, in my parish EMHCs are usually appointed for a year and depending on if they meet certain requirements (i.e. take a class) usually are renewed. The EMHCs that serve as ministers for the sick are supposed to get their hosts from the tabernacle after Mass if possible, but if they have to take the hosts to the hospital/sick/nursing homes outside of Mass times they are told they can get the key from the parish office and with all due reverence retrieve the hosts themselves. Archdiocese level training said there is no problem with this, that it is up to the local parish to determine specifics of how to deal with the Ministry for the Sick as long as the policies don’t violate Church documents, and there is nothing in Church documents that addresses this (other then EMHCs not doing it during Mass.) The key is that all appointed EMHCs need to be properly trained in all the regulations both Church official documents and local requirements (i.e. parish regulations, hospital regulations, etc.)

 

[FrDavid96]

With all due respect, in my parish EMHCs are usually appointed for a year and depending on if they meet certain requirements (i.e. take a class) usually are renewed. The EMHCs that serve as ministers for the sick are supposed to get their hosts from the tabernacle after Mass if possible, but if they have to take the hosts to the hospital/sick/nursing homes outside of Mass times they are told they can get the key from the parish office and with all due reverence retrieve the hosts themselves. Archdiocese level training said there is no problem with this, that it is up to the local parish to determine specifics of how to deal with the Ministry for the Sick as long as the policies don’t violate Church documents, and there is nothing in Church documents that addresses this (other then EMHCs not doing it during Mass.) The key is that all appointed EMHCs need to be properly trained in all the regulations both Church official documents and local requirements (i.e. parish regulations, hospital regulations, etc.)

Actually, the Church documents do address this and do so very specifically. The local bishop may appoint persons to serve as EMHCs for a stable time (such as a year) if there is true necessity, but the local pastor may only do so for a particular moment. In neither case is any title or office conferred.
See Ecclesiae de mysterio, Redemptionis Sacramentum, and even the canon law itself.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

aaa

 

[jpjd]

Actually, the Church documents do address this and do so very specifically. The local bishop may appoint persons to serve as EMHCs for a stable time (such as a year) if there is true necessity, but the local pastor may only do so for a particular moment. In neither case is any title or office conferred.
See Ecclesiae de mysterio, Redemptionis Sacramentum, and even the canon law itself.

But carried out in practice, the pastor appoints persons to serve as EMHC, and the names are presented to the bishop with recomendation for approval. When I was asked to serve as EMHC, the bishop had never met me. It was the pastor who approached me about it. And the duration of my service was not just for the moment, but for continuous service, since my name and many others are on a EMHC schedule for Mass.

 

[Marauder]

Actually, the Church documents do address this and do so very specifically. The local bishop may appoint persons to serve as EMHCs for a stable time (such as a year) if there is true necessity, but the local pastor may only do so for a particular moment. In neither case is any title or office conferred.
See Ecclesiae de mysterio, Redemptionis Sacramentum, and even the canon law itself.

When I was referencing the documents I was specifically talking about who may approach the Tabernacle. Other then mentioning that EMHCs should not approach the Tabernacle during Mass, there is nothing prohibiting it outside of Mass.

As for whether it is actually the Bishop that approves the EMHCs or not is not known to the average parishoner. I personally have never talked to the Bishop and never saw any paperwork saying the Bishop approved me. The only knowledge that I have that I am an EMHC is from my pastor. I have also taken Archdiocese level training for the position. Whether technically the Bishop approved me for a period of time or technically the priest is making me for the moment every single time I go to the hospital I don’t know, I just know that is the way it is in our parish/diocese.

 

[MusicMan]

People are either lay or ordained. Extraordinary minister of Holy Communion is a liturgical function that a lay person can be deposed to perform. Ordinary minister of Holy Communion is a liturgical function that a ordained man is deposed to perform by virtue of his ordination.

For this reason, I have always been a proponent of referring to those who will distribute Holy Communion as “Communion Distributors” in the bulletins and on their schedules. It’s not a title, but neither is emHC, but it doesn’t seem to carry the superlativity that emHC seems to carry.

 

[Newbie2]

People are either lay or ordained. Extraordinary minister of Holy Communion is a liturgical function that a lay person can be deposed to perform. Ordinary minister of Holy Communion is a liturgical function that a ordained man is deposed to perform by virtue of his ordination.

For this reason, I have always been a proponent of referring to those who will distribute Holy Communion as “Communion Distributors” in the bulletins and on their schedules. It’s not a title, but neither is emHC, but it doesn’t seem to carry the superlativity that emHC seems to carry.

Interesting take.

I tend toward the opposite, stressing the importance of being an (extraordinary) minister of HC when training people for this ministry. To me, a term such as “communion distributor” somehow lessens the importance of this task. But then we’ve never had a problem with the misunderstanding of lay vs. clerical duties in our parish, at least as far as I’m aware.

 

[Phemie]

Interesting take.

I tend toward the opposite, stressing the importance of being an (extraordinary) minister of HC when training people for this ministry. To me, a term such as “communion distributor” somehow lessens the importance of this task. But then we’ve never had a problem with the misunderstanding of lay vs. clerical duties in our parish, at least as far as I’m aware.

I would never recommend using a term that the Church doesn’t use, so it’s Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion anytime I write or talk about them. The problem I’ve encountered is that ‘extraordinary’ is more often understood to mean ‘extra special minister’ rather than ‘not the normal minister’ of Holy Communion.

 

[John_Lilburne]

I think the example of an Instituted Acolyte might help with understanding some issues raised in post #1.

In a ceremony a bishop can make a man an Instituted Acolyte. The 1972 Motu Proprio Ministeria Quaedam, n. 6, writes about the Instituted Acolyte:
“he is also to distribute communion as a special minister when the ministers spoken of in the Codex Iuris Canonici can. 845 are not available or are prevented by ill health, age, or another pastoral ministry from performing this function, or when the number of communicants is so great that the celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged.”

There is no “expiry date” for an instituted acolyte. A man is not instituted a second time. From Ministeria Quaedam: “11. Unless they have already done so, candidates for ordination as deacons and priests are to receive the ministries of reader and acolyte …”. So it is for life.

The Instituted Acolyte may never actually distribute communion. Every day of his life there may be enough priests available. But any day there could be a need, and the Instituted Acolyte has been appointed as an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. Any day he could fill that need.

 

[japhy]

The Instituted Acolyte may never actually distribute communion.

Just to clarify the words John used (because it took me a couple times to read it right). When John said that the acolyte “may never actually distribute communion”, he does not mean the acolyte doesn’t have permission, he means there is a possibility that the acolyte won’t ever “actually distribute communion”. In other words, read “may” as “might”.

(Maybe I’m the only one who has this problem, but I often see – to my confusion! – the word “may” used where I would have used the word “might”.)

 

[MusicMan]

The church I grew up in refers to the lay people who are to serve as emsHC at a particular Mass as “Communion Distributors.”

The current pastor has been there for coming up on 33 years. There are three distributors for Masses without the Cup, five for Masses with. Period.

You come up with your arms crossed over your chest, you don’t get blessed. Father isn’t there to say Daily Mass, a lay person who has served as emHC doesn’t grab the Sunday Celebrations in the Absence of a Priest book and run a Communion Service.

Now, I suspect that it has little to do with the “title” and all to do with the pastor. His attitude towards Distributors isn’t “You’re More Specialer for Doing This.” His attitude is “what you’re doing is special, but you are not for doing it.”

He also offers Daily Mass every day, and if he cannot say it, he finds a retired priest to cover. There’s no fooling around with him and no opportunities for lay people to take advantage of the confusion between the laity and the clergy that a lot of people on CAF complain about and use as a rallying cry to get rid of the emHC altogether. The only times he parked it in the chair and didn’t distribute Communion was when he had his hip replaced (He came back from his medical leave early and said Mass on crutches), and when he was recovering from a bad car accident he was in on the way to visit a parishioner. (He was back saying Mass the first Sunday after they let him out of the hospital, and that was the only weekend he didn’t distribute).

If the Holy Mother Church were to take emsHC away tomorrow, this priest would shrug his shoulders, mutter “OK”, and he would distribute by himself. The faithful would never be offered the cup, but would continue to never have to experience a “Power of the Laity” Communion Service, nor would they receive a faux-blessing during Communion.

Yeah, never mind calling them “Communion Distributors.” It’s not the title. It’s the pastor.

 

[zab]

I would never recommend using a term that the Church doesn’t use, so it’s Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion anytime I write or talk about them. The problem I’ve encountered is that ‘extraordinary’ is more often understood to mean ‘extra special minister’ rather than ‘not the normal minister’ of Holy Communion.

The people who have received EMHC training know that they are not *“extra special ministers”. *Perhaps some of those in the pews have this false assumption of the EMHC. But I really wouldn’t know because I have never encountered this problem.

 

[Phemie]

The people who have received EMHC training know that they are not *“extra special ministers”. *Perhaps some of those in the pews have this false assumption of the EMHC. But I really wouldn’t know because I have never encountered this problem.

The reason I said that is because I actually had someone come up to me quite incensed by the term ‘extraordinary’ and I had to explain what it meant.

Then again, I had a priest argue with me that the laity were now the ordinary ministers of communion and he told me not to use the term EMHC but to refer to them as eucharistic ministers. Of course, he’s the same one who got up in a meeting and yelled at me, apoplectic because I’d referred to documents that forbid the use of EMCH when there are enough priests to give out Communion, “We’ve never paid attention to those documents and we’re not about to start now!” OOOKay.

 

[Brendan]

The people who have received EMHC training know that they are not "extra special ministers". Perhaps some of those in the pews have this false assumption of the EMHC. But I really wouldn’t know because I have never encountered this problem.

That reminded me of this bit of Catholic humor

maureenmartinblog.blogspot.com/2005/08/parishes-report-extraordinary-minister.html

 

[Newbie2]

I would never recommend using a term that the Church doesn’t use, so it’s Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion anytime I write or talk about them. The problem I’ve encountered is that ‘extraordinary’ is more often understood to mean ‘extra special minister’ rather than ‘not the normal minister’ of Holy Communion.

Yes, that would be problematic.