Too Many EMHC's?

[exnihilo]

I don’t have a problem with EMHCs. I do think they are used when not entirely necessary. Also, I think just as much as you might say some don’t want them because of an agenda some insist on them because of an agenda.

I don’t doubt lots of folks would complain about communion taking longer with no EMHCs. But should we really be listening to those complaints?

It would seem to me that an altar rail could speed up reception quite a lot, and not require so many people, ordinary or extraordinary, to distribute.

(I’m not a hardline trad, but altar rails seem to me to be very practical.)

Altar rails, like most things the Church invented, were there for a good reason. A lot of very sensible traditions have been thrown out for no good reason.

 

[utah_rose]

Maybe a hard and fast rule would be good: 1 EMHC allowed for every so many people present (1:50 perhaps).

Our congregation can be very large and we sometimes only have one EMC with the wine. However, the priest and Deacon distribute the Eucharist even if it’s very crowded.

In a neighboring parish they have about 4 or 5, way too many for parishioners attending an evening Sunday Mass. So in my opinion, less is better. I grew up in the fifties wheen there were many parishioners attending Masx and only one priest.

Also, a few years ago when the flu was going around, many parishes stopped giving the Precious Blood for a few months and that was ok. Remember Jesus is present in both species and some for various reasons don’t drink the Blood anyway.

 

[corsair]

We don’t use the chalice. We receive at an Altar rail, kneeling and on the tongue. The priest is the only one who distributes communion except during a Solemn High Mass when the Deacon also serves.

Our parish is modest in size, 200-300 per Mass. Masses are 7 days a week, includes two on Sunday.

 

[otjm]

I used to be a Eucharistic Minister (EM) at both Daily and Weekend Masses. The church I served as an EM had about 50-100 people at the Daily Mass (2 EM’s and the priest for the consecrated host and three EM’s for the precious blood) and hundreds at the Weekend Mass (2 EM’s and the priest for the consecrated host and three EM’s for the precious blood). I now worship in a church that does NOT have lay people who serve as EM’s. Where I worship now the priest is the ONLY ONE permitted to dispense holy communion to the faithful and tincture is permitted. The priest therefore dips the consecrated host into the precious blood PRIOR to placing it on your tongue! NO-ONE is permitted to receive in the hand!

So I take it your bishop has outlawed Communion in the hand?

 

[Phemie]

However, use of the Communion rail makes reception of the Blood at best awkward, and likely hazardous, as one is liable to bump one’s arm into the rail when returning the Cup.

The Anglicans in my town don’t seem to think so. They both kneel at the rail and receive from the Cup.

While we don’t believe they are receiving the Precious Blood they do and would be just as horrified to see it spilled as we would if it happened in our own parish.

 

[Phemie]

Intinction is forbidden in this Archdiocese.
As far as altar rails, they are pretty alright, but with a growing elder population in parishes, they lose their popularity soon enough. It;s logistical nightmare for some.

What did older people do before we started standing for Communion? I don’t remember this being a big concern when we still had the altar rail. Older people still went to Communion and if they couldn’t kneel they simply didn’t.

 

[Phemie]

In our parish the Precious Blood is not offered at a weekday Mass but it is offered at Sunday Mass, special feasts, and funerals.

We usually have fewer than 50 people at the Saturday evening Mass so Father distributes the Host and 1 EMHC offers the Cup. At Sunday Mass, which may have a couple of hundred people, Father distributes the Host and there are two EMHCs,with the Cup, one on each side of him.

I estimate only 1/4 of communicants receive under both species. If I’m not mistaken it’s not recommended that the Cup be offered unless a majority of the communicants receive the Precious Blood.

 

[poche]

I suggest that we let the priest celebrant decide how many EMHCs are needed.

 

[pianistclare]

Altar rails, like most things the Church invented, were there for a good reason. A lot of very sensible traditions have been thrown out for no good reason.

??? You might read up on Church history. The reason the altar rails were there has nothing to do with what you think it does.
Which, is precisely why they were removed.

 

[pianistclare]

I suggest that we let the priest celebrant decide how many EMHCs are needed.

Well, yes, there’s that.
But no, why do that when there are literally hundreds of liturgy experts in the pews???

 

[thistle]

**I used to be a Eucharistic Minister **(EM) at both Daily and Weekend Masses. The church I served as an EM had about 50-100 people at the Daily Mass (2 EM’s and the priest for the consecrated host and three EM’s for the precious blood) and hundreds at the Weekend Mass (2 EM’s and the priest for the consecrated host and three EM’s for the precious blood). I now worship in a church that does NOT have lay people who serve as EM’s. Where I worship now the priest is the ONLY ONE permitted to dispense holy communion to the faithful and tincture is permitted. The priest therefore dips the consecrated host into the precious blood PRIOR to placing it on your tongue! NO-ONE is permitted to receive in the hand!

Not correct. The priest is the Eucharistic Minister. Lay people (EMHC) cannot be Eucharistic Ministers.

 

[thistle]

Here in the Philippines it would be impossible without EMHC’s.

Our parish has 14,000 parishioners and we get roughly an 80% Mass attendance every Sunday. To accommodate so many people we have 10 Masses on Sunday. Without EHMC’s almost nobody would be able to receive Communion.

 

[Phemie]

Not correct. The priest is the Eucharistic Minister. Lay people (EMHC) cannot be Eucharistic Ministers.

We have to stop jumping on people who use this term. Even priests refer to EMHCs as Eucharistic Ministers and it’s the term used in a lot of parish bulletins.

Not everyone has read Redemptionis Sacramentum. Heck, I doubt that all priests have read that document.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Who else gets the irony that the “Liturgy Guy” rails (heh) against Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, but also praises the liturgy he refers to as the Traditional Latin Mass, rather than referring to it as the Extraordinary Form?

Vocabulary Notes:
I am long on record expressing the belief that *Extraordinary Form *is a stoopid name for that liturgy, but – Hey – Irony.

There is also some school of thought that the Extraordinary in Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion denotes not Outside-the-normal-circumstance, but rather a Not-Ordered (that is: Not-Ordained) individual.

tee

 

[tee_eff_em]

Not everyone has read Redemptionis Sacramentum. Heck, I doubt that all priests have read that document.

Heck, apparently, even some archbishops have not read it?

Intinction is forbidden in this Archdiocese.

cf. (With

emphasis

added)

[103.] The norms of the Roman Missal admit the principle that in cases where Communion is administered under both kinds, “the Blood of the Lord may be received either by drinking from the chalice directly, or by intinction, or by means of a tube or a spoon”. As regards the administering of Communion to lay members of Christ’s faithful, the Bishops may exclude Communion with the tube or the spoon where this is not the local custom, though

the option of administering Communion by intinction always remains

. If this modality is employed, however, hosts should be used which are neither too thin nor too small, and the communicant should receive the Sacrament from the Priest only on the tongue.

tee

 

[DaveBj]

So I take it your bishop has outlawed Communion in the hand?

If you go back and look at Herculees’ post, you will see from the information at the top right that he is Maronite. Maronite rules differ from Roman rite rules.

 

[tee_eff_em]

I worship now the priest is the ONLY ONE permitted to dispense holy communion to the faithful and tincture is permitted. The priest therefore dips the consecrated host into the precious blood PRIOR to placing it on your tongue! NO-ONE is permitted to receive in the hand!

So I take it your bishop has outlawed Communion in the hand?

At least that would be within his purview. (Whether it would be wise or warranted I could not say ) cf. *Redemptionis Sacramentum *#92

Mini-rant:
I find it frustrating that making provision for an optional practice (Communion in the hand) eliminates an always-and-everywhere-valid practice (Communion by intinction).

tee

 

[JRS_88]

In the Maronite Church communion is given only by intinction.

 

[tee_eff_em]

If you go back and look at Herculees’ post, you will see from the information at the top right that he is Maronite. Maronite rules differ from Roman rite rules.

In the Maronite Church communion is given only by intinction.

I noticed that too, but the poster does not make clear whether or not he is worshipping in a Maronite parish/liturgy. (NB he also attests to having formerly served as a *Eucharistic Minister *[sic])

tee

 

[Phemie]

Mini-rant:
I find it frustrating that making provision for an optional practice (Communion in the hand) eliminates an always-and-everywhere-valid practice (Communion by intinction).
tee

A priest once told me that intinction wasn’t permitted in Canada because it removed the option of receiving in the hand but I don’t recall reading that anywhere. The GIRM with Canadian adaptations still has it as an option.