What if EMHCs were

[ConstantineTG]

I’ve been thinking about stuff during my commutes. Sure I pray sometimes, but sometimes I meditate too on what is discussed here at CAF. Anyway, I was reflecting on the differences between Liturgical practices in the East and West. One thing I was thinking about is that in the East, only the clergy may touch the Sacred Vessels. Okay, so sometimes the laity would reverence them by kissing the chalice after receiving Communion. Anyway, I just thought that at Mass, the Sacred Vessels are prepared by the altar boys, who are lay. So I thought, even from there the debate would begin because why can’t EMHCs touch Sacred Vessels and altar boys can? Then an idea…

What if minor orders are restored and the EMHCs are only those who receive minor orders? I mean, ideally it would all be priests and deacons to distribute Communion. But realistically, there are parishes that is serviced by one priest only. So a helper is truly needed. Would someone ordained to minor orders satisfy traditional Catholics?

 

[YoungTradCath]

I like the idea of this. I mean, as long as proper catechesis was part of the process. I wouldn’t want to see just anyone doing this. There would have to be a discernment process and everything. But, I think if this actually went through, there would be less abuse of the Eucharist. I think this is a good idea, and I’ve been thinking about it myself.

In one diocese in the United States, I don’t remember which one though, all EMHCs must be recommended by the pastor of each church and they are limited to a certain number of them, and they must fill out a form and have their priest endorse it and certify that they have taken a mandated diocesan course on being an EMHC. Then, their names are submitted to the bishop’s office and the bishop himself evaluates them. Also, in this diocese, the bishop instructed the priests to lengthen communion if it meant not using EMHCs, and to only use them when absolutely necessary.

 

[thistle]

I like the idea of this. I mean, as long as proper catechesis was part of the process. I wouldn’t want to see just anyone doing this. There would have to be a discernment process and everything. But, I think if this actually went through, there would be less abuse of the Eucharist. I think this is a good idea, and I’ve been thinking about it myself.

In one diocese in the United States, I don’t remember which one though, all EMHCs must be recommended by the pastor of each church and they are limited to a certain number of them, and they must fill out a form and have their priest endorse it and certify that they have taken a mandated diocesan course on being an EMHC. Then, their names are submitted to the bishop’s office and the bishop himself evaluates them. Also, in this diocese, the bishop instructed the priests to lengthen communion if it meant not using EMHCs, and to only use them when absolutely necessary.

EMHC’s are essential in our parish. We have an 80% Mass attendence rate in a parish of 14,000. To accomodate all we have 10 Masses every Sunday.

 

[ConstantineTG]

EMHC’s are essential in our parish. We have an 80% Mass attendence rate in a parish of 14,000. To accomodate all we have 10 Masses every Sunday.

And in the Philippines, EMHCs are almost always males. The only females allowed to distribute Communion are religious sisters. I think the Philippines is already exemplary in this matter because EMHCs are required to wear barong (the national ethnic formal wear, for everyone else out there) and also a stole, and they are also made to sit in a section on their own apart from everyone else. Its clear to everyone these people have a role to play separate from everyone else.

 

[thistle]

And in the Philippines, EMHCs are almost always males. The only females allowed to distribute Communion are religious sisters. I think the Philippines is already exemplary in this matter because EMHCs are required to wear barong (the national ethnic formal wear, for everyone else out there) and also a stole, and they are also made to sit in a section on their own apart from everyone else. Its clear to everyone these people have a role to play separate from everyone else.

 

[BertBlyleven]

Keep in mind pre-VII altar servers would have gone through minor orders.

If it is “acceptable” for lay people to receive communion on the hand, then I see no reason why orders would be necessary for EMHC…

It is good the Philippines practiced this (now if only they would start receiving on the tongue). I just came from a trip to metro Manila, and have mixed feelings about the state of the Church there. It certainly is under attack from just about everyone and needs our prayers and work.

 

[Love_Divine]

And in the Philippines, EMHCs are almost always males. The only females allowed to distribute Communion are religious sisters. I think the Philippines is already exemplary in this matter because EMHCs are required to wear barong (the national ethnic formal wear, for everyone else out there) and also a stole, and they are also made to sit in a section on their own apart from everyone else. Its clear to everyone these people have a role to play separate from everyone else.

Everything from the Vatican that I’ve read prohibits such a setting apart. EMHC’s aren’t supposed to wear any type of special clothing, or sit apart. They are especially not to wear a stole, as it is reserved for priests and deacons.

IMHO, EMHC’s should have to wear gloves to handle the sacred vessels, and use one of these special tongs, or something similar for distributing communion.
http://www.christiansupply.com/imagesupload/thumb/6101013057.jpg

 

[FAB]

I’ve been thinking about stuff during my commutes. Sure I pray sometimes, but sometimes I meditate too on what is discussed here at CAF. Anyway, I was reflecting on the differences between Liturgical practices in the East and West. One thing I was thinking about is that in the East, only the clergy may touch the Sacred Vessels. Okay, so sometimes the laity would reverence them by kissing the chalice after receiving Communion. Anyway, I just thought that at Mass, the Sacred Vessels are prepared by the altar boys, who are lay. So I thought, even from there the debate would begin because why can’t EMHCs touch Sacred Vessels and altar boys can? Then an idea…

What if minor orders are restored and the EMHCs are only those who receive minor orders? I mean, ideally it would all be priests and deacons to distribute Communion. But realistically, there are parishes that is serviced by one priest only. So a helper is truly needed. Would someone ordained to minor orders satisfy traditional Catholics?

What is always missed in these discussions is that EMHC are trained and commissioned/blessed for their role by the bishop through the parish priest.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Keep in mind pre-VII altar servers would have gone through minor orders.
If it is “acceptable” for lay people to receive communion on the hand, then I see no reason why orders would be necessary for EMHC…

It is good the Philippines practiced this (now if only they would start receiving on the tongue). I just came from a trip to metro Manila, and have mixed feelings about the state of the Church there. It certainly is under attack from just about everyone and needs our prayers and work.

Huh? My understanding is that before the minor orders were supressed by Paul VI, they were only given to seminarians. In my North American experience, altar servers were typically boys from the parish parochial school, way before seminarian age.

 

[TrentCath]

I’ve been thinking about stuff during my commutes. Sure I pray sometimes, but sometimes I meditate too on what is discussed here at CAF. Anyway, I was reflecting on the differences between Liturgical practices in the East and West. One thing I was thinking about is that in the East, only the clergy may touch the Sacred Vessels. Okay, so sometimes the laity would reverence them by kissing the chalice after receiving Communion. Anyway, I just thought that at Mass, the Sacred Vessels are prepared by the altar boys, who are lay. So I thought, even from there the debate would begin because why can’t EMHCs touch Sacred Vessels and altar boys can? Then an idea…

What if minor orders are restored and the EMHCs are only those who receive minor orders? I mean, ideally it would all be priests and deacons to distribute Communion. But realistically, there are parishes that is serviced by one priest only. So a helper is truly needed. Would someone ordained to minor orders satisfy traditional Catholics?

Sorry to play Devils Advocate here but I deliberately only receive from the priest because one of the major reasons to receive on the tongue is so that you receive the body of Christ only from consecrated hands and to ensure that it is only handled by consecrated hands.

The only ‘minor order’ allowed to distribute communion was (or in the case of those who still follow the 1962 missal still is) the diaconate, that said it was not fitting for them to do so when a priest was available to give out communion. However if a church is extremely crowded and undermanned then I wouldn’t have an objection to seminarians who have been ordained to the order of Deacon to give out communion if there is a genuine need for it. Anything else would ultimately undermine both the idea of minor ideas and the reason many traditional Catholics receive only from a priest and on the tongue.

 

[TrentCath]

And in the Philippines, EMHCs are almost always males. The only females allowed to distribute Communion are religious sisters. I think the Philippines is already exemplary in this matter because EMHCs are required to wear barong (the national ethnic formal wear, for everyone else out there) and also a stole, and they are also made to sit in a section on their own apart from everyone else. Its clear to everyone these people have a role to play separate from everyone else.

The problem with this is that one of the major arguments against EMHC’s is that it supplants a role traditionally exclusive to the Priesthood and gives it to the laity, EMHC’s wearing distinctive clothing or worse a stole only make’s this situation worse. It blurs the lines between the priesthood and the laity yet further and in that sense makes things worse rather than better.

 

[Elizium23]

Sorry to play Devils Advocate here but I deliberately only receive from the priest because one of the major reasons to receive on the tongue is so that you receive the body of Christ only from consecrated hands and to ensure that it is only handled by consecrated hands.

Do you receive from a deacon? Deacons are Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, and their hands are not consecrated.

Priests’ hands are consecrated in order that they can *confect *the sacrament, not touch or distribute it.

 

[TrentCath]

Do you receive from a deacon? Deacons are Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, and their hands are not consecrated.

Priests’ hands are consecrated in order that they can *confect *the sacrament, not touch or distribute it.

No, I don’t. That is because the idea of the diaconate today and the historical and traditional diaconate are two different things, traditionally the diaconate was merely one of the orders someone was ordained in on the ‘road’ to priesthood. Nowadays it is a permanent institution and oftentimes those in it are married, therefore I do not receive from Deacons.

Priests are consecrated amongst other things, in order to be the ordinary and in some cases the only ministers of 5 of the sacraments and the extraordinary ministers of confirmation (in the case that the bishop himself cannot celebrate it they use the oil blessed by him).

The ordinary ministers of holy communion is the priest and no one else, as much can be seen by the Tradition of the Church and the Last Supper itself, there is in fact a pious tradition that says that in accordance with the custom of the time Jesus distributed the bread and wine to the Apostles. Even if it is not the case all those present at the last supper were the apostles and just as today only a priest may give himself a communion, it would have been legitimate for them to give communion out amongst themselves. It is because of this and in order to honour Our Lord that I receive only from consecrated hands, that is from a priest.

 

[InquisitorMax]

I can’t ever remember receiving Communion from a Deacon. How often does that happen IRL (In Real Life)?

There are some clever-sounding arguments for why, yes, the lastest twist to our worship is perfectly legal. “Let us consult the legal documents!”, goes the cry. But people are not looking at the spirit, the intention of that worship.

They seem to be looking at what they, as a body, can get away with, remove or add, rather than consider Who the rite is directed to and Who is made manifest in it. Sometimes/often they won’t even “Say The Black And Do The Red”.

 

[TimothyH]

Just a point of interest.

My experience is that sacristans prepare the vessles - chalice, bread place, paten, etc - prior to Mass and not altar servers. Altar servers bring the vessles to the deacon or priest from the sacristy or creedence table and retrieve them from the priest or deacon at the altar after communion but they do not prepare them prior to Mass. Part of the reason is that often the vessels are kept locked in a safe and children/teens will not have access to the safe. Even the adult servers at our parish are not permitted to access the safe and prepare the vessels prior to Mass. The combination to the safe is trusted only to a few - priests, deacons and sacristans - and it is these who prepare the vessels prior to Mass.

At least that is my experience, for what it is worth.

Having said that, our parish can have >1000 present at any given Mass and there are six Masses on Sunday plus the vigil on Saturday evening. Even with three preists, six deacons and the odd summer seminarian, EMHC’s are a reality that isn’t going away.

-Tim-

 

[TrentCath]

I can’t ever remember receiving Communion from a Deacon. How often does that happen IRL (In Real Life)?

To be honest I wouldn’t even be able to tell the difference between a deacon and a EMHC, the people who give out communion at my old church wear stoles whether that means their deacons or not I dont know Though I suspect as some of them are woman they’re not.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

No, I don’t. That is because the idea of the diaconate today and the historical and traditional diaconate are two different things, traditionally the diaconate was merely one of the orders someone was ordained in on the ‘road’ to priesthood. Nowadays it is a permanent institution and oftentimes those in it are married, therefore I do not receive from Deacons.

Priests are consecrated amongst other things, in order to be the ordinary and in some cases the only ministers of 5 of the sacraments and the extraordinary ministers of confirmation (in the case that the bishop himself cannot celebrate it they use the oil blessed by him).

The ordinary ministers of holy communion is the priest and no one else, as much can be seen by the Tradition of the Church and the Last Supper itself, there is in fact a pious tradition that says that in accordance with the custom of the time Jesus distributed the bread and wine to the Apostles. Even if it is not the case all those present at the last supper were the apostles and just as today only a priest may give himself a communion, it would have been legitimate for them to give communion out amongst themselves. It is because of this and in order to honour Our Lord that I receive only from consecrated hands, that is from a priest.

Since you wish to cite Apostolic times, you should at least be historically more accurate: In fact, for the first centuries of the Church, the diaconate was in fact a vocation unto itself, and only later evolved into the “stepping stone” to the priesthood that it was into the 20th century.

Your statement that *“The ordinary ministers of holy communion is the priest and no one else” *puts you outside the mind of the Church, which has clearly stated that the deacon is also an Ordinary Minister of Holy Communion.

Finally, while you are free to receive from whom you wish, your statement concerning the diaconate that “oftentimes those in it are married, therefore I do not receive from Deacons” appears to indicate that a man’s status as married makes him unworthy or impure or otherwise unsuitable to distribute the Eucharist – also an opinion at odds with the Church.

 

[TrentCath]

Since you wish to cite Apostolic times, you should at least be historically more accurate: In fact, for the first centuries of the Church, the diaconate was in fact a vocation unto itself, and only later evolved into the “stepping stone” to the priesthood that it was into the 20th century.

Your statement that *“The ordinary ministers of holy communion is the priest and no one else” *puts you outside the mind of the Church, which has clearly stated that the deacon is also an Ordinary Minister of Holy Communion.

Finally, while you are free to receive from whom you wish, your statement concerning the diaconate that “oftentimes those in it are married, therefore I do not receive from Deacons” appears to indicate that a man’s status as married makes him unworthy or impure or otherwise unsuitable to distribute the Eucharist – also an opinion at odds with the Church.

I think perhaps you should distinguish here and rather than state ‘puts you outside the mind of the church’ say puts me at odds with the majority of Catholics and the Hirerarchy today. As I can cite a rather lengthy list of sources that support my point of view.

And as for it developing in the 20th century? I rather suspect it developed much earlier than that.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

Keep in mind pre-VII altar servers would have gone through minor orders…

Sorry, but that is flat out false. I was an Alter Server from my Baptism at the age of 13 (1956, and I served Mass the first time the day AFTER I was baptized), right through 1964 (when the Priest turned around facing the congregation, but no other changes had been made).

I NEVER received any “minor orders”, nor did any other server that I knew. Even in minor seminary (with the Passionists), we would sometimes be selected to serve Mass, yet none of us had received any form of minor orders (which you only got in Major Seminary).

 

[Elizium23]

No, I don’t. That is because the idea of the diaconate today and the historical and traditional diaconate are two different things, traditionally the diaconate was merely one of the orders someone was ordained in on the ‘road’ to priesthood. Nowadays it is a permanent institution and oftentimes those in it are married, therefore I do not receive from Deacons.

Priests are consecrated amongst other things, in order to be the ordinary and in some cases the only ministers of 5 of the sacraments and the extraordinary ministers of confirmation (in the case that the bishop himself cannot celebrate it they use the oil blessed by him).

The ordinary ministers of holy communion is the priest and no one else, as much can be seen by the Tradition of the Church and the Last Supper itself, there is in fact a pious tradition that says that in accordance with the custom of the time Jesus distributed the bread and wine to the Apostles. Even if it is not the case all those present at the last supper were the apostles and just as today only a priest may give himself a communion, it would have been legitimate for them to give communion out amongst themselves. It is because of this and in order to honour Our Lord that I receive only from consecrated hands, that is from a priest.

It seems to me that you soundly reject current Church teaching and discipline, especially when you say that the ordinary minister of Holy Communion is the priest alone, because the Church clearly teaches that the ordinary minister is the deacon, the priest and the bishop.