What is wrong with EMHCs?

[nsper7]

Sorry if my questions seem inflammatory (i.e. about Communion in the Hand), but I guess part of it is that I want to try and better understand certain Traditionalist viewpoints so I can decide for myself whether to agree or disagree with them (of course, I admit part of it is I do love a good fight…I mean debate…).

Anyway, why is it that some people seem so against EMHCs? I know that if one wants to receive a blessing in lieu of Communion, one needs to go to the Priest (or Deacon, right? Deacon’s can bless, right?), but for receiving the Blessed Sacrament, why does it matter? Whether the EMHC or Priest or Deacon or whoever is passing out the Host and the Blood, it is always the Celebrant (whether Priest or Bishop) who has blessed/consecrated the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood.

 

[Phemie]

The problem is not with EMHCs per se, because it is a sad fact that without EMHCs some people would go without Communion for months on end.

But, when the Church established that ministry it set very strict guidelines about when and how EMHCs could exercise their ministry. Unfortunately, most parishes where I’ve worshipped in the past 30 years have totally ignored the guidelines, either because they aren’t aware of them (I know some priests don’t read all the documents they should) or, as is the case in my parish, because the priests are bound and determined to make the laity feel ‘needed’.

The term Extraordinary Minister means just that "not ordinarily the person to do this ministry’. Most parishes seem to have the idea that if they don’t use EMHCs at every Mass they are denying the people something. Can you ever truly justify the use of an EMHC at a Mass with 30 people? Not unless the priest is handicapped and unable to distribute Communion OR you are offering Communion under both species.

The only other valid reason “too great a number of communicants that the Mass would be unduly prolonged” certainly doesn’t apply.

 

[brigid12]

Although I can see the use of EMHCs often (mostly on Sunday masses with large congregations), especially since most churches distribute the Eucharist under both species. However, it bothers me that they’re hands are not consecrated (if not ordained).

 

[bkovacs]

The Orthodox have communion under both species, and they to have many people attending the Divine Liturgies. Those Liturgies last about as long if not longer than a TLM. No one in the Orthodox Church ever feels the need to ask for EMHC, to get the Liturgy done sooner. I will always feel that only the priest and deacon, if needed, are the only ones allowed to distribute Holy Communion. This all has to do with a lack of understanding after Vatican 2 about lay participation!. I have no objections to lay people doing the readings, but only the priest or deacon distributes communion. I welcome everyone to attend an Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox Church and see how communion is properly done. No EMHC!!. My views will never change!.

 

[benedictgal]

Sorry if my questions seem inflammatory (i.e. about Communion in the Hand), but I guess part of it is that I want to try and better understand certain Traditionalist viewpoints so I can decide for myself whether to agree or disagree with them (of course, I admit part of it is I do love a good fight…I mean debate…).

Anyway, why is it that some people seem so against EMHCs? I know that if one wants to receive a blessing in lieu of Communion, one needs to go to the Priest (or Deacon, right? Deacon’s can bless, right?), but for receiving the Blessed Sacrament, why does it matter? Whether the EMHC or Priest or Deacon or whoever is passing out the Host and the Blood, it is always the Celebrant (whether Priest or Bishop) who has blessed/consecrated the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood.

First of all, oner cannot receive a blessing in lieu of Holy Communion. The Congregation for Divine Worship made that very clear in a letter dated November 22, 2008 that as the matter is under study:

1. The liturgical blessing of the Holy Mass is properly given to each and to all at the conclusion of the Mass, just a few moments subsequent to the distribution of Holy Communion.

1. Lay people, within the context of Holy Mass, are unable to confer blessings. These blessings, rather, are the competence of the priest (cf. Ecclesia de Mysterio, Notitiae 34 (15 Aug. 1997), art. 6, § 2; Canon 1169, § 2; and Roman Ritual De Benedictionibus (1985), n. 18).

1. Furthermore, the laying on of a hand or hands — which has its own sacramental significance, inappropriate here — by those distributing Holy Communion, in substitution for its reception, is to be explicitly discouraged.

1. The Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio n. 84, “forbids any pastor, for whatever reason to pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry”. To be feared is that any form of blessing in substitution for communion would give the impression that the divorced and remarried have been returned, in some sense, to the status of Catholics in good standing.

1. In a similar way, for others who are not to be admitted to Holy Communion in accord with the norm of law, the Church’s discipline has already made clear that they should not approach Holy Communion nor receive a blessing. This would include non-Catholics and those envisaged in can. 915 (i.e., those under the penalty of excommunication or interdict, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin).

That takes care of one matter. As to the second one, I am EMHC. However, I am not in favor of employing our use when the situation does not warrant it. For example, if there are sufficient Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion (bishop, priest, deacon), then, we don’t need to be helping out. Granted, if the Precious Blood is to be administered, then, we could help, but, let the Ordinary Ministers handle the Body of Christ. My parochial vicar and I have argued about the fact that he uses an EMHC for daily Mass even when it’s a small number of communicants.

The bottom line is that there are parameters that need to be followed. Redemptionis Sacramnetum spells these out very clearly:

[155.] In addition to the ordinary ministers there is the formally instituted acolyte, who by virtue of his institution is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion even outside the celebration of Mass. If, moreover, reasons of real necessity prompt it, another lay member of Christ’s faithful may also be delegated by the diocesan Bishop, in accordance with the norm of law,256 for one occasion or for a specified time, and an appropriate formula of blessing may be used for the occasion. This act of appointment, however, does not necessarily take a liturgical form, nor, if it does take a liturgical form, should it resemble sacred Ordination in any way. Finally, in special cases of an unforeseen nature, permission can be given for a single occasion by the Priest who presides at the celebration of the Eucharist.257

[156.] This function is to be understood strictly according to the name by which it is known, that is to say, that of extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, and not “special minister of Holy Communion” nor “extraordinary minister of the Eucharist” nor “special minister of the Eucharist”, by which names the meaning of this function is unnecessarily and improperly broadened.

[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.258

[158.] Indeed, the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may administer Communion only when the Priest and Deacon are lacking, when the Priest is prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged.259 This, however, is to be understood in such a way that a brief prolongation, considering the circumstances and culture of the place, is not at all a sufficient reason.

Unfortunately, there are many cases when these guidelines are not followed.

 

[Ockham]

Christ knew He was to leave us in his human form so he instituted the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist and entrusted the mystery to the clergy. Our priests are blessed with the ability to transubstantiate the host into the Body of Christ. From his hands the Eucharist is to pass into us.

When we handle the consecrated host we are relegating the graces bestowed onto the priest to mere gesture. When EMHC storm the altar during the Agnus Dei they make a mockery of the entire Mass and erode our faith in the Real Presence. What’s the point of having priests and a Mass if anyone can carry out this sacrament? Why not just have the bishop consecrate barrels of hosts once a year for each parish and the faithful can just help themselves anytime they wish?

How much longer would the average Mass take without EMHC? Ten minutes? Fifteen? Is that too long to stay in God’s House? Most Catholics spend one hour a week in church and ten hours in front of the television. What’s more important?

From the Lavabo in the Tridentine Mass:
I wash my hands in innocence, and I go around Your altar, O Lord,
Giving voice to my thanks, and recounting all Your wonderous deeds.
O Lord, I love the house in which You dwell, the tenting place of Your glory.
Gather not my soul with those of sinners, nor with men of blood my life.
On their hands are crimes, and their right hands are full of bribes.
But I walk in integrity; redeem me, and have pity on me.
My foot stands on level ground; in the assemblies I will bless You, O Lord.
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

The priest wears vestements similar to those worn in the dawn of Christianity. He entered the priesthood in the sacrament of Holy Orders. The EMHC have no such graces, show no such reverence, receite any prayers and may even be wearning shorts, sweat shirt, whatever. They have no place being in the sanctuary let alone handling the Holy Eucharist.

Is it any wonder the majority of Catholics don’t believe in transubstantation when we’ve allowed the sacrament to be diluted nearly beyond recognition?

 

[tee_eff_em]

I am EMHC. However, I am not in favor of employing our use when the situation does not warrant it. For example, if there are sufficient Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion (bishop, priest, deacon), then, we don’t need to be helping out. Granted, if the Precious Blood is to be administered, then, we could help, but, let the Ordinary Ministers handle the Body of Christ. My parochial vicar and I have argued about the fact that he uses an EMHC for daily Mass even when it’s a small number of communicants.

How much longer would the average Mass take without EMHC? Ten minutes? Fifteen? Is that too long to stay in God’s House? Most Catholics spend one hour a week in church and ten hours in front of the television. What’s more important?

This is the point that causes me to frown on the use of EMsHC in my parish. We have 3 Sunday Masses: Saturday 5pm and Sunday 9am and 11am, and Communion is distributed (under the species of bread alone) by Father and 3 EMsHC at each one. The only time there might be an “urgency” to clear the parking spaces is the 9am Mass, and that could last an hour and a half with plenty of time to spare. In my opinion, we could easily make do with the use of a single EMHC per Mass.

:twocents:
tee

 

[eelpis]

There is nothing wrong with EMHC’s in certain circumstances. But it’s a novel innovation, because the Eucharistic faith of the Church has matured during the centuries.
In the ‘Pangue Lingua’, the eucharistic hymn composed by the Church’s greatest theologian St Thomas Aquinas, he says that when Christ instituted the Eucharist, He gave Himself from His own hands to the Apostles. “Se dat suis manibus.”

Christ gives himself to us. This becomes more clear when the priest, who stands in the place of Christ the Head, distributes Holy Communion.

 

[maryjk]

The Orthodox have communion under both species, and they to have many people attending the Divine Liturgies. Those Liturgies last about as long if not longer than a TLM. No one in the Orthodox Church ever feels the need to ask for EMHC, to get the Liturgy done sooner. I will always feel that only the priest and deacon, if needed, are the only ones allowed to distribute Holy Communion. This all has to do with a lack of understanding after Vatican 2 about lay participation!. I have no objections to lay people doing the readings, but only the priest or deacon distributes communion. I welcome everyone to attend an Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox Church and see how communion is properly done. No EMHC!!. My views will never change!.

How many Masses does your church have on a Sunday morning? And how do people with Celiac Disease receive?

This is the point that causes me to frown on the use of EMsHC in my parish. We have 3 Sunday Masses: Saturday 5pm and Sunday 9am and 11am, and Communion is distributed (under the species of bread alone) by Father and 3 EMsHC at each one. The only time there might be an “urgency” to clear the parking spaces is the 9am Mass, and that could last an hour and a half with plenty of time to spare. In my opinion, we could easily make do with the use of a single EMHC per Mass.

:twocents:
tee

We have five Sunday Masses.
5pm Saturday and Sunday at 7:45 (with Sunday school at 9:00), another Mass at 10:30. Then there are two more in the evenings.

We already have people outside directing traffic while the students are being dropped off, and we have terrible parking problems with teachers having nowhere to park. Generally we try to slip in while the people that are leaving early, leave.

We also have one Priest and a church that doesn’t have the room for people to receive as if they were receiving at a Communion rail. What to do?

 

[Ockham]

In my opinion, we could easily make do with the use of a single EMHC per Mass.

The question isn’t how many EMHC it is why they are allowed to handle the Eucharist. Once you break the tradition of priest’s hand to your tongue, anything is fair game.

For the parishes that have large congregations, praise God, then build another church.

 

[bkovacs]

How many Masses does your church have on a Sunday morning? And how do people with Celiac Disease receive?

We have five Sunday Masses.
5pm Saturday and Sunday at 7:45 (with Sunday school at 9:00), another Mass at 10:30. Then there are two more in the evenings.

We already have people outside directing traffic while the students are being dropped off, and we have terrible parking problems with teachers having nowhere to park. Generally we try to slip in while the people that are leaving early, leave.

We also have one Priest and a church that doesn’t have the room for people to receive as if they were receiving at a Communion rail. What to do?

Well we have Vespers on Saturday evening. Roman Catholic parishes have no public Vespers on Saturday evening. We have no need to have a more than 2 Divine Liturgys on Sunday. Don’t know of an Orthodox Church that has more than two Divine Liturgy on Sundays. Usually one in English and one in Greek or another native language. We also have public Matins before the Divine Liturgy. I don’t see public Matins being offered in the Roman Catholic parishes either. We have two priests and one deacon, and allot of altar boys. I don’t remember Catholic Churches having Saturday Masses years ago when I was a child. Don’t seem to recall the Catholic Church ever having problems with people receiving Holy Communion in the past either. Has something changed?. Does everyone have to be done Mass in 45 minutes. Our liturgy lasts about 1hour and 45 minutes, and no one complains. Maybe you should build more Churches instead of closing them down, if you need to have 5 Masses a day. Or figure out why young men don’t want to be Catholic priests in the modern day Catholic church. I here that traditional Catholic seminaries, like the FSSP, etc are overbooked.

Don’t know how the Orthodox Church deals with Celiac disease, I’m sure they have options.

 

[tee_eff_em]

What to do?

Whatever you need to within the norms and guidelines.

I had specified that my comments were wrt

my parish

, not yours nor anyone else’s where there might be a legitimate need.

tee

 

[tee_eff_em]

The question isn’t how many EMHC it is why they are allowed to handle the Eucharist.

Because the Church, exercising her legitimate authority, has recognized the need and authorized them to do so in appropriate circumstances.

tee

 

[Ockham]

Because the Church, exercising her legitimate authority, has recognized the need and authorized them to do so in appropriate circumstances.

tee

EMHC are not dogma thus not infallible. From what I’ve read, the Church’s authorization was in response to certain liberal European diocese doing it anyway.

If you actually believe the consecrated host is the Body of Christ, why would you want it handled by one of your fellow parishioners?

By removing the exclusive duties of the priest we have lessened their importance. As a result seminary enrollment is down - dramatically. Except (as another poster pointed out) in the Tridentine orders.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

Don’t know how the Orthodox Church deals with Celiac disease, I’m sure they have options.

Like most Latin Rite Catholics, they probably only receive the Precious Blood. After all, in receiving either we receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord, Jesus Christ.

 

[cthulhubryan]

In our diocese the priest consecrates and then delivers the host. Either a Deacon or EMHC holds the chalice between each participant. They do not touch the chalice until the priest has blessed them and given them the host.

Anything wrong with this? After all, I’m still learning.

 

[tee_eff_em]

EMHC are not dogma thus not infallible. From what I’ve read, the Church’s authorization was in response to certain liberal European diocese doing it anyway.

I do not understand. Are you saying that it is not within the legitimate authority of the Church to allow EMsHC?

tee

 

[Ockham]

It is my personal opinion the EMHC shouldn’t be allowed at all.

It is my understanding that the Church permits their use in some areas when absolutely necessary.

Are EMHCs absolutely necessary in your parish?

 

[tee_eff_em]

It is my understanding that the Church permits their use in some areas when absolutely necessary.

Are EMHCs absolutely necessary in your parish?

No.

But I am also not sure it is correct to say the Church permits their use only when absolutely necessary.

tee

 

[Ockham]

In case of necessity, the priest may also depute suitable faithful for this single occasion (GIRM 162)."

usccb.org/liturgy/girm/lit4.shtml