Use of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Andreas_Hofer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Andreas_Hofer

Guest
I am a lay minister in position to determine the extent of our recourse to EMHCs and was looking for guidance as to the offering of the Cup to the faithful. The American norms for distribution under both kinds say that
  1. …When recourse is had to Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, especially in the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds, their number should not be increased beyond what is required for the orderly and reverent distribution of the Body and Blood of the Lord.
This does not seem to imply any prejudice against the offering of both species even when it requires the use of extraordinary ministers. It only seeks to limit the number, minimizing the use of EMHCs. A previous paragraph states:
  1. …In practice, the need to avoid obscuring the role of the priest and the deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion by an excessive use of extraordinary minister might in some circumstances constitute a reason either for limiting the distribution of Holy Communion under both species or for using intinction instead of distributing the Precious Blood from the chalice.
Yet this is rather vague, seeing as how it uses qualifiers and sets no specific circumstances. My question, then, is whether there are other, more explicit guidelines concerning the use of extraordinary ministers or else whether anyone knows how these regulations are generally interpreted (authoritatively, not abusively). Should the cup be offered if it requires the use of EMHCs?
usccb.org/liturgy/current/norms.shtml
 
Andreas,

The guidelines are specifically vague because the Church realizes that she cannot possibly anticpate every sort of condition that might arise.

To your specific questions: 1) one should not avoid offering the cup simply because to do so would entail the use of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. 2) There are no more explicit rules.

The general quidelines must follow those laid out in your diocese by your bishop. For example, my bishop has instructed all parishes to offer both species at all Masses. This means that all parishes always have one or more EMHCs. My own parish has one priest plus one in residence and two deacons. We have seven Masses on Saturday evening and Sunday. The priests rotate through the Masses and we have a “supply priest” who comes in to say one of the Spanish Masses since it’s at our mission church and happens at the same time as one of the Masses at the main church. Thus, there are six Masses. My brother deacon works primarily with the Hispanic community (he’s Hispanic) while I work with the Anglo community (my dad tells me our family is “Scowegian” – born on the boat coming over). I also serve the Melkite Greek Catholic Church near us so two Sundays a month I’m at that church.

This means we never have enough ordinary ministers at any given Mass, so are always dependent upon EMHCs. According to the guidelines of the Church this is not an abuse.

Deacon Ed
 
Thank you, Deacon. I’ll contact the chancery and see about the specific policy of our diocese.
 
I have never felt comfortable with the extraordinary ministers of communion. I see lay people giving out communion when there are priests to do it. The squeaking wheel gets the greaseso lets start squeaking everyone!!:mad:
 
Deacon_Ed said:
Andreas,

The guidelines are specifically vague because the Church realizes that she cannot possibly anticpate every sort of condition that might arise.

To your specific questions: 1) one should not avoid offering the cup simply because to do so would entail the use of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. 2) There are no more explicit rules.

The general quidelines must follow those laid out in your diocese by your bishop. For example, my bishop has instructed all parishes to offer both species at all Masses. This means that all parishes always have one or more EMHCs. My own parish has one priest plus one in residence and two deacons. We have seven Masses on Saturday evening and Sunday. The priests rotate through the Masses and we have a “supply priest” who comes in to say one of the Spanish Masses since it’s at our mission church and happens at the same time as one of the Masses at the main church. Thus, there are six Masses. My brother deacon works primarily with the Hispanic community (he’s Hispanic) while I work with the Anglo community (my dad tells me our family is “Scowegian” – born on the boat coming over). I also serve the Melkite Greek Catholic Church near us so two Sundays a month I’m at that church.

This means we never have enough ordinary ministers at any given Mass, so are always dependent upon EMHCs. According to the guidelines of the Church this is not an abuse.

Deacon Ed
Click to expand...
Actually Deacon in some cases it could be. That would depend on the number of communicants and whether or not either another Priest or Deacon was avaliable to help with the distribution. I have seen way too many instances where there would a second Priest, Deacon or even more than one Deacon present sitting down down while Extraordinary Ministers took care of the bulk of the distribution.
 
Andreas_Hofer said:
I am a lay minister in position to determine the extent of our recourse to EMHCs and was looking for guidance as to the offering of the Cup to the faithful. The American norms for distribution under both kinds say that
  1. …When recourse is had to Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, especially in the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds, their number should not be increased beyond what is required for the orderly and reverent distribution of the Body and Blood of the Lord.
This does not seem to imply any prejudice against the offering of both species even when it requires the use of extraordinary ministers. It only seeks to limit the number, minimizing the use of EMHCs. A previous paragraph states:
  1. …In practice, the need to avoid obscuring the role of the priest and the deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion by an excessive use of extraordinary minister might in some circumstances constitute a reason either for limiting the distribution of Holy Communion under both species or for using intinction instead of distributing the Precious Blood from the chalice.
Yet this is rather vague, seeing as how it uses qualifiers and sets no specific circumstances. My question, then, is whether there are other, more explicit guidelines concerning the use of extraordinary ministers or else whether anyone knows how these regulations are generally interpreted (authoritatively, not abusively). Should the cup be offered if it requires the use of EMHCs?
usccb.org/liturgy/current/norms.shtml
Click to expand...
The biggest issue I’ve heard is that because EMHC’s cannot purify their chalices any longer, the priest or deacon must do that after Holy Communion. This reduces the number of chalices they will allow to be used. At a parish where there used to be 14 to 16 chalices used, there are now 6 to 8 and three distribution positions for the Body of Christ were also eliminated.
 
mroy_sw1 said:
I have never felt comfortable with the extraordinary ministers of communion. I see lay people giving out communion when there are priests to do it. The squeaking wheel gets the greaseso lets start squeaking everyone!!:mad:
Click to expand...
Welcome. Many will agree with you and many will disagree. But IMHO just keep posting.👍
 
Andreas_Hofer said:
Yet this is rather vague, seeing as how it uses qualifiers and sets no specific circumstances. My question, then, is whether there are other, more explicit guidelines concerning the use of extraordinary ministers or else whether anyone knows how these regulations are generally interpreted (authoritatively, not abusively). Should the cup be offered if it requires the use of EMHCs?
usccb.org/liturgy/current/norms.shtml
Click to expand...
What has been your local parish tradition in the past? Is it pretty well accepted to have the cups with the hosts? What does your local priest and parish council say? Have you talked with anyone in the pews after or before mass on their opinions on this?
 
Strangely enough, the norms seem to recommend a common sense approach. Perhaps that is the road our clerics should take and we lay people should respect.
 
Certain jurisdictions have placed concrete restrictions on EMHC’s.

In the Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh (The Ruthenian Church), the maximum is 1 minister of holy communion per 75 communicants. (Note that, as with all Byzantine churches, communion is always intinction, given from a spoon.) The clerics present MUST serve. If there is still a need, then a trained EMHC may distribute.

There are few priests who would consider using one in the Metropolitan church. About the only exception I can see would be the deacon candidate being used as EMHC at Nativity or Pascha. (Christmas or Easter.) One priest, unable to stand, is permitted to remain seated by indult… But the Rev. Father in question is also not a pastor, either.

Usually, we just “suffer” longer communion lines, and more psalms being sung. 👍

Sure, Pascha runs an extra 20-30 minutes for the increased communion lines. It’s an extra 20 minutes because it’s the liturgy of St. Basil, too. So 2 hours instead of an hour and a half… and then add 45 minutes for resurrection matins.

Perhaps Rome should consider the example… with higher numbers… say 1 per 300, if only the body is distributed. 1 per 150 if both species are.
 
It’s been a while since I’ve posted, but this has been on my mind a while and hope we can reopen this topic just a bit. 🙂

We have a VERY LARGE parish, which can have upwards of 1100 people per mass for six English-language masses (there is one more each for the Vietnamese Catholic community and one for the Hispanic community). Average is probably 850 per mass.

I am one of the sacristans (EMHC/altar server/choirster – but not at the same time!) of the parish like my dad before me, and I almost got into a fight with our EMHC coordinator…like my dad before me 🤷. The shape of our church is conducive to having six total ministers (ordinary & otherwise) distributing the Blessed Sacrament – two per section (Epistle, center, and Gospel). With my numbers above, at worst, there are communicants per minister less than 200 each. (I’m not taking into account those not receiving nor children not of age). This is considered a normal Sunday mass number. We’ll add one more for the 1100 person congregation.

One week, we were blessed to have two concelebrants and about 900 in the congregation, which, again doing the math, three (or at least two) of the EMHCs should have taken a seat. One of the coordinators asked me to put more ciboria out, to which I stated that all were already out – enough for seven ministers. When he futher demanded I do this, I not-so-politely stated that some of “his” ministers should sit in deference to the Ordinaries. When he pressed further, I snapped that it’s up to the Presider, not him.

Wouldn’t you know it, he still sent all the EMHCs up, and the Presider ended up being the one without a ciboria or even his own bowl patten!

What I found even funnier was that he tattled on me to the choir director/liturgist, who I was sure would have my back – but all he said was that even though I was right in the, “letter of the law,” our coordinator was right in the “spirit” of the law.

I can’t see how “spirit” of the law even applies here. Deference to an Ordinary seems pretty simple to me. He said something about scheduling and people taking the time to get all dolled up to do his/her EMHC duty which still didn’t make sense to me. Am I missing something? Does anyone have reference to rubrics on this? Are we using too many/few/just-the-right-amount of EMHCs?

IMHO, overuse of EMHCs diminishes the gravity of the Blessed Sacrament. But I need more documentation! Help?!!?!? :confused:
 
kinderbueno said:
One week, we were blessed to have two concelebrants and about 900 in the congregation, which, again doing the math, three (or at least two) of the EMHCs should have taken a seat. One of the coordinators asked me to put more ciboria out, to which I stated that all were already out – enough for seven ministers. … Wouldn’t you know it, he still sent all the EMHCs up, and the Presider ended up being the one without a ciboria or even his own bowl patten!
Click to expand...
It is deplorable when ordinary ministers of Holy Communion present at a Mass delegate their responsibility to administer Communion to extraordinary ministers. Read the 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum nn. 154-160, especially n. 157: “If there is usually present a sufficient number of sacred ministers for the distribution of Holy Communion, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not be appointed. Indeed, in such circumstances, those who may have already been appointed to this ministry should not exercise it. The practice of those Priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distributing Communion and hand this function over to laypersons.”

And lest someone say “that’s new and we haven’t implemented it”, it’s merely repeating (in this case) a 1980 Instruction, Inaestimabile Donum, n. 10: “The faithful, whether religious or lay, who are authorized as extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist can distribute Communion only when there is no priest, deacon or acolyte, when the priest is impeded by illness or advanced age, or when the number of the faithful going to Communion is so large as to make the celebration of Mass excessively long. Accordingly, a reprehensible attitude is shown by those priests who, though present at the celebration, refrain from distributing Communion and leave the task to the laity.”
kinderbueno said:
What I found even funnier was that he tattled on me to the choir director/liturgist, who I was sure would have my back – but all he said was that even though I was right in the, “letter of the law,” our coordinator was right in the “spirit” of the law. I can’t see how “spirit” of the law even applies here. Deference to an Ordinary seems pretty simple to me. He said something about scheduling and people taking the time to get all dolled up to do his/her EMHC duty which still didn’t make sense to me.
Click to expand...
Sometimes people prefer to follow the “spirit” of the law so that they can avoid following the law at all.
 
Andreas_Hofer said:
My question, then, is whether there are other, more explicit guidelines concerning the use of extraordinary ministers or else whether anyone knows how these regulations are generally interpreted (authoritatively, not abusively). Should the cup be offered if it requires the use of EMHCs?
Click to expand...
The distribution of Holy Communion under both forms was never intended to be an “every day - every Mass” practice. We have only to look around us to realize it has become just that, particularly in the USA. The relationship between the number of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion and the routine practice of distribution under both Species is a bit like the chicken and the egg conundrum - did we need to normalize the practice to make maximum use of EMHCs, or did we need to expand the number of EMHCs used to accomodate the normalized practice?

Whatever the origin of the situation was (and that may vary even from parish to parish), we should be able to find an answer to the OP’s questions in what the Church has to say on the central issues in the matter. Redemptionis Sacramentum offers the following direction on limiting the distribution of the Eucharist under both Species:

"102. The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants****that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger that “more than a reasonable quantity of the Blood of Christ remains to be consumed at the end of the celebration”. 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, or where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated."

Consider the above in light of the example cited in an earlier post of the Mass attended by 1100 people. How much sacramental wine needed to be prepared for such an occasion? Did any of the Precious Blood remain to be consumed after Communion? What proportion of communicants did not receive from the chalice? The answers to these and other similar questions can clarify the appropriateness of offering the chalice to the lay faithful at all Masses or at any given Mass.

If, for instance, some two liters of wine are consecrated for 1100 people to receive, each would consume an average of 1.8 ml and there would be none remaining to be consumed by the minister. Is that the situation in the parish in question? If it is not, other questions should be posed. Random observation at various churches will show that it isn’t uncommon for 30% - 40% of communicants receive under only one form. This would seem to be “a notable part of the people”.

Food for thought.

Servulus
 
kinderbueno said:
One week, we were blessed to have two concelebrants and about 900 in the congregation, which, again doing the math, three (or at least two) of the EMHCs should have taken a seat. One of the coordinators asked me to put more ciboria out, to which I stated that all were already out – enough for seven ministers. When he futher demanded I do this, I not-so-politely stated that some of “his” ministers should sit in deference to the Ordinaries. When he pressed further, I snapped that it’s up to the Presider, not him.
Click to expand...
If the coordinator has been given authority by the Pastor, it is best to follow his/her instructions, and speak with the Pastor afterward. It is better to have the extra minister, than the Priest not distribute.

Although I totally agree with you, it is up to the Pastor, not you to correct the coordinator. We have a seminarian in our Parish, and no minister offers to step down when he makes an unscheduled visit. I feel it is terribly arrogant of these ministers, but since the Pastor doesn’t step in, these situations continue.

I bring Communion to the sick. I was bringing it weekly for a few years to my friend, before she died. My Pastor asked me to serve at her funeral, even though there were enough priests in attendence, but I refused—I would never have a priest sit out, even under those circumstances.
IMHO, overuse of EMHCs diminishes the gravity of the Blessed Sacrament. But I need more documentation! Help?!!?!?
Click to expand...
Try not to let this disturb your peace. Voice your concerns to the Pastor. If he chooses to let this happen, there is little you can do, except write to the Bishop. You may or may not get the desired result, but he will probly mention it to your Pastor, and this may cause friction between you and the Pastor. I personally would defer to the Pastor, or resign from that particular ministry.

Lux
 
kinderbueno said:
It’s been a while since I’ve posted, but this has been on my mind a while and hope we can reopen this topic just a bit. 🙂

We have a VERY LARGE parish, which can have upwards of 1100 people per mass for six English-language masses (there is one more each for the Vietnamese Catholic community and one for the Hispanic community). Average is probably 850 per mass.

I am one of the sacristans (EMHC/altar server/choirster – but not at the same time!) of the parish like my dad before me, and I almost got into a fight with our EMHC coordinator…like my dad before me 🤷. The shape of our church is conducive to having six total ministers (ordinary & otherwise) distributing the Blessed Sacrament – two per section (Epistle, center, and Gospel). With my numbers above, at worst, there are communicants per minister less than 200 each. (I’m not taking into account those not receiving nor children not of age). This is considered a normal Sunday mass number. We’ll add one more for the 1100 person congregation.

One week, we were blessed to have two concelebrants and about 900 in the congregation, which, again doing the math, three (or at least two) of the EMHCs should have taken a seat. One of the coordinators asked me to put more ciboria out, to which I stated that all were already out – enough for seven ministers. When he futher demanded I do this, I not-so-politely stated that some of “his” ministers should sit in deference to the Ordinaries. When he pressed further, I snapped that it’s up to the Presider, not him.

Wouldn’t you know it, he still sent all the EMHCs up, and the Presider ended up being the one without a ciboria or even his own bowl patten!

What I found even funnier was that he tattled on me to the choir director/liturgist, who I was sure would have my back – but all he said was that even though I was right in the, “letter of the law,” our coordinator was right in the “spirit” of the law.

I can’t see how “spirit” of the law even applies here. Deference to an Ordinary seems pretty simple to me. He said something about scheduling and people taking the time to get all dolled up to do his/her EMHC duty which still didn’t make sense to me. Am I missing something? Does anyone have reference to rubrics on this? Are we using too many/few/just-the-right-amount of EMHCs?

IMHO, overuse of EMHCs diminishes the gravity of the Blessed Sacrament. But I need more documentation! Help?!!?!? :confused:
Click to expand...
If laypeople are going to act so boorish, the main celebrant of the Mass should have excused some of the EMsHC. I’ve seen it here.
 
In my parish the EMHCs know that we need 8 people total to distribute communion. Assuming they could count, they see how many priests and deacons are there and then it is up to them to decide who is going to pass up serving at that mass. Since most of our EMHCs sit in the same row for mass, the last ones usually are the ones to remain in the assembly. It causes no problems since they know this is the policy.
 
Lux_et_Tenebrae said:
Try not to let this disturb your peace. Voice your concerns to the Pastor. If he chooses to let this happen, there is little you can do, except write to the Bishop. You may or may not get the desired result, but he will probly mention it to your Pastor, and this may cause friction between you and the Pastor. I personally would defer to the Pastor, or resign from that particular ministry.

Lux
Click to expand...
I guess therein lies problem one of two. IMO, our Pastor knows what’s right, but opts to be non-confrontational. This is nothing new for our parish as I could go on with other examples. As disheartening as it is, I sit back and, out of obedience, do what he says…or in this case, doesn’t say.

I think it was my Schola director who put it best when stating a sad reality that as much as we try to avoid it in our spiritual lives, politics do creep in. Our Pastor would rather cater to the fragile on the fringes, as he knows the faithful will always be there, regardless of how their feelings might be hurt.

Keeping things in perspective, resignation should not be an option for me (unless, of course, the Pastor asks it of me). But I *will *continue to voice my opinion and standing up for what is right, because it is the Lord we serve, regardless of how strong or weak of a Pastor we have – I’ll just have to speak more charitably! 😃

Problem two of two, then, would be proper catechesis of said coordinator. When I quoted GIRM or any of the instructions mentioned in this thread, he was more concerned that I yelled at him (and wagged a finger in his face 😉 ). I guess I’m looking for different approaches at instilling more humility, especially when we’re blessed to have so many Ordinary Ministers at a given liturgy.

Sorry to go slightly off-topic of the OP, but I think these are certainly two factors that affect proper practice of the Sacred Liturgy.

In Christ, -Mike
 
Hi Mike,

Yes, we must consider all factors.

Have you tried a more calm discussion with the coordinator? If he resists, and the Pastor does not get involved,it really is better not to cause a scene. Once you have brought the error to the Pastor’s attention, it is best to let it go.

Lux
 
Lux_et_Tenebrae said:
Hi Mike,

Yes, we must consider all factors.

Have you tried a more calm discussion with the coordinator? If he resists, and the Pastor does not get involved,it really is better not to cause a scene. Once you have brought the error to the Pastor’s attention, it is best to let it go.

Lux
Click to expand...
Hi Lux,

Frankly, I have already let it go. Let’s just say this isn’t the first run-in with the coordinator and his wife (they co-coordinate(?) the ministry). I’ve been much more civil in my past dealings, too…it’s just frustrating when you can’t even appeal to rubrics or common sense; IMO, they are drunk with power and not really open to discussion. My frustration just comes to the surface every once in a while when the abuses are more blatant.

On a side but related note, I’m in my early 30’s, and am one of the youngest sacristans I know of (I learned the trade from my dearly departed dad who was our parish’s senior sacristan for 35 years, and by reading Church documents), so I get a mix of reactions whenever I respectfully bring to light proper procedure; from acceptance riding the coat tails of dad’s reputation to dismissal based on age or perceived experience. Human nature and psychology can’t be discounted.

Thanks for your thoughts.
On the main topic, I’m hope forum readers can see where I lean on this discussion – our parish also has Holy Communion under both kinds for two of our large masses, and I also wonder when it is appropriate – given the amount of chalices to be purified.

Keeping in mind Redemptionis Sacramentum 102 (as posted by Servulus), I have the task of filing those cups for that 1100 person mass. I usually err on the side of preparing too little, so there’s less of a chance of excess. Once we’re out, we’re out! He is present BBS&D in the host anyway! :cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top