When "Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist" become "ordinary"

[dailymass]

I believe the use of Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist has gotten gravely out of hand. If I recall, the rule is that if there are over 600 people attending Mass, the Priest may use them. The problem is at numerous churches I have attended, there may be 25 people in attendance (i.e. at daily Mass), and the parade of “Ministers” heading up to the altar to distribute Communion begins. At other larger churches, on Sunday when there are clearly more than 600 people in attendance (estimating no more than 1000), I have witnessed as many as 12 Extraordinary Ministers coming forward.

I mean no disrespect to those who faithfully execute this office, but I believe the use of these people is out of control. I know that people want to feel like they are part of the church, but I feel the use of EMs is not the way. In my humble opinion, I feel that the abusive practice is just another way to undermine the importance of the Priesthood.

One more thought - I will not receive from EMs - only from a Priest or Deacon. I will jump to a different line in order to make that happen. I have also seen MANY EMs administering “blessings” to children under the age of receiving Communion - only a Priest, Deacon, Bishop, or the Pope can give that! Just another undermining of the Priesthood.

 

[Windmill]

This should probably be in the Liturgy and Sacraments forum, but I agree with you wholeheartedly. Even more important, so does the Vatican.

 

[hilde_the_dog]

I agree. This week the church where I go to daily mass when I can added an EMHC for the consecrated host. Now they have two EMHC’s distributing consecrated wine, and one distributing the consecrated host with the priest for only 30 people. Huh??? In the past only the priest distributed the consecrated host.

 

[frommi]

It’s important to note that there exists no ‘formula’ for calculating how many EMs to use. An individual bishop may have one…but the only thing I’ve ever heard is one bishop saying there should be 2 chalices for every 1 paten (so to speak).

It’s quite a liturgical grey area as far as the rubrics are concerned…they just say that the reception of the eucharist should not be unduly prolonged.

 

[Writer]

I believe the use of Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist has gotten gravely out of hand. If I recall, the rule is that if there are over 600 people attending Mass, the Priest may use them. The problem is at numerous churches I have attended, there may be 25 people in attendance (i.e. at daily Mass), and the parade of “Ministers” heading up to the altar to distribute Communion begins. At other larger churches, on Sunday when there are clearly more than 600 people in attendance (estimating no more than 1000), I have witnessed as many as 12 Extraordinary Ministers coming forward.

I mean no disrespect to those who faithfully execute this office, but I believe the use of these people is out of control. I know that people want to feel like they are part of the church, but I feel the use of EMs is not the way. In my humble opinion, I feel that the abusive practice is just another way to undermine the importance of the Priesthood.

One more thought - I will not receive from EMs - only from a Priest or Deacon. I will jump to a different line in order to make that happen. I have also seen MANY EMs administering “blessings” to children under the age of receiving Communion - only a Priest, Deacon, Bishop, or the Pope can give that! Just another undermining of the Priesthood.

Some good points. I signed-up for this ministry at our very large parish as a fairly young Catholic, and I didn’t understand all the controversies associated with this ministry. A few weeks ago, a number of issues came to a head for me: the element of controversy is disturbing to someone who simply wants to do the right thing, confusion as to where we are supposed to stand with some new (and valuable) procedures, and I had a bad experience with a non-Catholic requesting to receive the Sacrament who had no business being in line (and whose behavior was terrible). To make a long story short(er), I asked to resign the ministry, but my priest and his pastoral assistant requested that I continue, that my ministry was deeply valued. So, I gave the issue to God, and, after a lot of prayer and thought, I decided to stay on.

I have had discussions on all of this with my priest, pastoral assistant, and possibly the pastorial associate. (It seens I may have even raised some related concerns last year with the Office of the Bishop, but I don’t recall whether it was this issue or another concern I was discussing with them.) I have asked about the “blessings” aspect as well. The rule of thumb is that making the cross on the forehead of the child and saying a few words of blessing is what we have been requested to do. As a ministry to God and His Church, I continue to do this ministry–even though it is not something one can ever be “comfortable” with, its a stressfull ministry–at least for me. In fact, if it were comfortable for someone, I would almost be inclined to question their understanding of this profound mystery of our faith: the Eucharist.

I guess the reason I share this with you is to give folks a bit of insight into one Extraordinary Minister and his motivation for staying on. I’m a new Catholic, very conservative, and somone who enjoys writing about all issues Catholic. I am very aware of the controversies surrounding this ministry, but many of us (like me) are staying on because of guidance given them by their priest–or, in my case, an actual request/appeal to continue the ministry.

For those who don’t feel comfortable receiving, I understand completely, but your personal feelings make it no less the body, soul, and divinity of Christ. If it is indeed not appropriate in a large church, then we should bring back the beauty and reverence of receiving at the rail in front. (We recently experienced this kind of Mass for the first time in a lovely parish in Portland.) Short of a fundamental shift on this issue by our bishops and priests, however, I question the benefit of constantly questioning and tearing-down of those who give of their time towards this ministry. I do appreciate the kind words of the orginal poster, though, in regards to those “who faithfully execute this office”.

 

[Yes]

I believe the use of Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist has gotten gravely out of hand. If I recall, the rule is that if there are over 600 people attending Mass, the Priest may use them. The problem is at numerous churches I have attended, there may be 25 people in attendance (i.e. at daily Mass), and the parade of “Ministers” heading up to the altar to distribute Communion begins. At other larger churches, on Sunday when there are clearly more than 600 people in attendance (estimating no more than 1000), I have witnessed as many as 12 Extraordinary Ministers coming forward.

That “600 rule” may come from your parish or diocese, but it does not come from the Holy See.

I mean no disrespect to those who faithfully execute this office, but I believe the use of these people is out of control. I know that people want to feel like they are part of the church, but I feel the use of EMs is not the way. In my humble opinion, I feel that the abusive practice is just another way to undermine the importance of the Priesthood.

I would add that in my parish, quite a few that function as EMHC are the type that feed on attention.

One more thought - I will not receive from EMs - only from a Priest or Deacon. I will jump to a different line in order to make that happen. I have also seen MANY EMs administering “blessings” to children under the age of receiving Communion - only a Priest, Deacon, Bishop, or the Pope can give that! Just another undermining of the Priesthood.

That’s too bad. The Sacrament is no more valid if received from clergy. Doing what you are doing is however a quietly effective way to protest the over-use of EMHC.

 

[Servulus]

One dimension of this question that doesn’t seem to get a lot of attention is the impact of distributing Communion under both Forms. When permission to do this was first given, it was never intended that it should become the practice at every Mass. Rather, there were guidelines regarding the circumstances under which it would be appropriate.
However, in the intervening time, many parishes have made the practice an “every Mass, every day” element, adding significantly to the “need” for and use of EMHCs. It’s impossible to know the reasons in every case, but in at least some parishes, this was done to give more parishoners an active role in the liturgy. Were the practice to be brought into conformity with the Church’s guidelines, at least a part of the overuse problem would be corrected.

 

[Yes]

…When permission to do this was first given, it was never intended that it should become the practice at every Mass. Rather, there were guidelines regarding the circumstances under which it would be appropriate…

Where are said guidelines?

 

[Steve12045]

I believe the use of Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist has gotten gravely out of hand. If I recall, the rule is that if there are over 600 people attending Mass, the Priest may use them. The problem is at numerous churches I have attended, there may be 25 people in attendance (i.e. at daily Mass), and the parade of “Ministers” heading up to the altar to distribute Communion begins. At other larger churches, on Sunday when there are clearly more than 600 people in attendance (estimating no more than 1000), I have witnessed as many as 12 Extraordinary Ministers coming forward.

I mean no disrespect to those who faithfully execute this office, but I believe the use of these people is out of control. I know that people want to feel like they are part of the church, but I feel the use of EMs is not the way. In my humble opinion, I feel that the abusive practice is just another way to undermine the importance of the Priesthood.

One more thought - I will not receive from EMs - only from a Priest or Deacon. I will jump to a different line in order to make that happen. I have also seen MANY EMs administering “blessings” to children under the age of receiving Communion - only a Priest, Deacon, Bishop, or the Pope can give that! Just another undermining of the Priesthood.

 

[dylanschrader]

Where are said guidelines?

Sacrosanctum Concilium (1963) said:

1. That more perfect form of participation in the Mass whereby the faithful, after the priest’s communion, receive the Lord’s body from the same sacrifice, is strongly commended.

The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact (40), communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See, as, for instance, to the newly ordained in the Mass of their sacred ordination, to the newly professed in the Mass of their religious profession, and to the newly baptized in the Mass which follows their baptism.

Liturgicae Instaurantiones (1970) says (6a):

Ordinaries are not to grant blanket permission but, within the limits set by the conference of bishops, are to specify the instances and celebrations for this form of communion.

Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States (2001) says, quoting the General Instruction of the Roman Missal:

When Communion Under Both Kinds May Be Given

1. The revised Missale Romanum, third typical edition, significantly expands those opportunities when Holy Communion may be offered under both kinds. In addition to those instances specified by individual ritual books, the General Instruction states that Communion under both kinds may be permitted as follows:

1. for priests who are not able to celebrate or concelebrate
2. for the deacon and others who perform some role at Mass
3. for community members at their conventual Mass or what in some places is known as the “community” Mass, for seminarians, [and] for all who are on retreat or are participating in a spiritual or pastoral gathering (35)

1. The General Instruction then indicates that
   the diocesan Bishop may lay down norms for the distribution of Communion under both kinds for his own diocese, which must be observed. . . . The diocesan Bishop also has the faculty to allow Communion under both kinds, whenever it seems appropriate to the priest to whom charge of a given community has been entrusted as [its] own pastor, provided that the faithful have been well instructed and there is no danger of the profanation of the Sacrament or that the rite would be difficult to carry out on account of the number of participants or for some other reason. (36)

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.

Norms established by the diocesan bishop must be observed wherever the Eucharist is celebrated in the diocese, “even in the churches of religious orders and in celebrations with small groups.”

Redemptionis Sacramentum (2004) adds:

4. Communion under Both Kinds

…]

[102.] The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants[189]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 remain to be consumed at the end of the celebration”.[190] 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.

 

[Steve12045]

Steve12045:
I would like to respond to your thoughtful remarks on EM’s. Speaking as an Extraordinary Minister myself, I totally agree with you were there are a small number at daily Mass there is no need for EM’s.As far as giving any blessings, I would never attempt to do any such thing. I have never seen this at my parish. I agree that this should be left to the Priest or other ordained clergy you mentioned. Your decision not to recieve from any EM is entirely up to you. I wouldn’t want to give the Body of Christ to you and make you uncomfortable.
Now just a personal thought. I feel extremely honored and humbled to be able to assist with the Holy Eucharist.

 

[dylanschrader]

More on the history of both species in the U.S.

Appendix to the General Instruction for the Dioceses of the United States (1970) allowed both species to be offered at weekday Masses.

This Holy and Living Sacrifice: Directory for the Celebration and Reception of Communion under Both Kinds (1984) from the USCCB extended the cases where both species could be offered.

Both of these have been superceded by the new edition of the GIRM and the Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion respectively.

 

[Servulus]

Where are said guidelines?

There are several sources of guidelines. Here are the ones most readily available to me:

Inaestimabile Donum
“12. With regard to Communion under both kinds, the norms laid down by the Church must be observed, both by reason of the reverence due to the Sacrament and for the good of those receiving the Eucharist, . . .
Episcopal conferences and ordinaries also are not to go beyond what is laid down in the present discipline: the granting of permission for Communion under both kinds is not to be indiscriminate, and the celebrations in question are to be specified precisely; the groups that use this faculty are to be clearly defined, well disciplined, and homogeneous.”

Redemptionis Sacramentum

Sections 100 - 107 treat directly of this matter. Too much text to reproduce here, but these excerpts are germane to the discussion at hand:

“100. So that the fullness of the sign may be made more clearly evident to the faithful in the course of the Eucharistic banquet, lay members of Christ’s faithful, too, are admitted to Communion under both kinds, in the cases set forth in the liturgical books, . . …” (emphasis added)

It isn’t clear which “liturgical books” are being referenced here (perhaps some of the more learned forum members can shed some light on that) but it is plain that there are restrictions on the circumstances considered appropriate.

Section 102 is also pertinent here:

“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 remain to be consumed at the end of the celebration’ . . . or where such a large amount of wine would be required that its certain provenance and quality could only be known with difficulty, . . . or where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, . . .”

This link may also be useful:

usccb.org/liturgy/current/norms.shtml

Hope that helps.

 

[jpjd]

I am an EMHC and I am very aware of my unworthiness to distribute the Body and Blood, but I do it because I know our solitary priest can’t do it all. We don’t have any assistant priests or any deacons.

I did tell my priest however, that I am uncomfortable with taking Communion to the sick and shut-in. In my mind, it’s one thing to distribute, it’s another level to conduct a Communion service. Not to mention, that I would be carrying the Eucharists in a pix in my purse! I told Father, I just couldn’t reconcile that during the feast of Corpus Christi, he carries the Eucharist in a monstrance, under a canopy, and we process around the church. And compare that grand treatment of the Eucharist to having it in a pix in my purse between my billfold and my cellphone. I just can’t do it. He said that he understood.

P.S. To the OP, dailymass, whose location is “Minnesota - the center of the liberal universe,” I have to disagree. Have you ever been to Berkeley, CA?!

 

[jmm08]

One more thought - I will not receive from EMs - only from a Priest or Deacon. I will jump to a different line in order to make that happen. I have also seen MANY EMs administering “blessings” to children under the age of receiving Communion - only a Priest, Deacon, Bishop, or the Pope can give that! Just another undermining of the Priesthood.

I cannot receive Holy Communion or Penance yet. If I’m going to be in the wrong line (or when I sing in the choir) I simply keep my seat (and pray the prayer of Spiritual Communion). If I went forward for a blessing, the Extraordinary Minister may mistakenly bless me with the host, and from what I understand this is really not correct at all for them to do. So I try to keep them from making a mistake by keeping my seat.

 

[whatevergirl]

I believe the use of Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist has gotten gravely out of hand. If I recall, the rule is that if there are over 600 people attending Mass, the Priest may use them. The problem is at numerous churches I have attended, there may be 25 people in attendance (i.e. at daily Mass), and the parade of “Ministers” heading up to the altar to distribute Communion begins. At other larger churches, on Sunday when there are clearly more than 600 people in attendance (estimating no more than 1000), I have witnessed as many as 12 Extraordinary Ministers coming forward.

I mean no disrespect to those who faithfully execute this office, but I believe the use of these people is out of control. I know that people want to feel like they are part of the church, but I feel the use of EMs is not the way. In my humble opinion, I feel that the abusive practice is just another way to undermine the importance of the Priesthood.

One more thought - I will not receive from EMs - only from a Priest or Deacon. I will jump to a different line in order to make that happen. I have also seen MANY EMs administering “blessings” to children under the age of receiving Communion - only a Priest, Deacon, Bishop, or the Pope can give that! Just another undermining of the Priesthood.

I’m a EEM…yet I would agree with whatever the Vatican’s stance is on it…if the Pope decided against EEM’s, then it would be no problem for me. Whatever is acceptable…I would follow.

I think that EEM’s have a serious responsibility with their role…I am humbled by it, but know many who look at it lightly.

I can see where you are coming from, though. I don’t think it undermines the Priesthood though.

It’s funny…people make a lot of excuses as to why the priesthood is diminishing…lots of finger pointing. Maybe it’s because the priesthood has suffered a lot of scandal…due to the disregard of the position BY OTHER PRIESTS. There could be other reasons no doubt…but please do not underestimate the sex scandals’ devestating effects on the priesthood. Let’s stop dancing around the issue and saying it’s the EEM’s fault…or it is because altar servers are girls. Although a small percentage of priests were involved in those scandals, I believe that many men are afraid of becoming priests because of the scandals.

 

[Writer]

I’m a EEM…yet I would agree with whatever the Vatican’s stance is on it…if the Pope decided against EEM’s, then it would be no problem for me. Whatever is acceptable…I would follow.

I think that EEM’s have a serious responsibility with their role…I am humbled by it, but know many who look at it lightly.

I can see where you are coming from, though. I don’t think it undermines the Priesthood though.

It’s funny…people make a lot of excuses as to why the priesthood is diminishing…lots of finger pointing. Maybe it’s because the priesthood has suffered a lot of scandal…due to the disregard of the position BY OTHER PRIESTS. There could be other reasons no doubt…but please do not underestimate the sex scandals’ devestating effects on the priesthood. Let’s stop dancing around the issue and saying it’s the EEM’s fault…or it is because altar servers are girls. Although a small percentage of priests were involved in those scandals, I believe that many men are afraid of becoming priests because of the scandals.

Good post… That blessing issue seems a particular point of interest for a lot of people, and that was one of the reasons why I asked my priest about it. Since he asked us to do it this way, I think I am doing the right thing. I can certainly understand the concern, though. If there is an error with regards to this issue, it would seem that it would fall on the priest and not the lay person.

At any rate, though, I also would change anything I am doing at the first request to do so. As it is, it seems the frustration with EEMs is a little bit misplaced; there are larger issues at work.

 

[dylanschrader]

I cannot receive Holy Communion or Penance yet. If I’m going to be in the wrong line (or when I sing in the choir) I simply keep my seat (and pray the prayer of Spiritual Communion). If I went forward for a blessing, the Extraordinary Minister may mistakenly bless me with the host, and from what I understand this is really not correct at all for them to do. So I try to keep them from making a mistake by keeping my seat.

If you don’t mind my asking, why can’t you receive Penance yet? Are you in the process of being catechized? Sorry for the personal question, but I hate to think that people aren’t receiving the sacraments.

 

[whatevergirl]

Good post… That blessing issue seems a particular point of interest for a lot of people, and that was one of the reasons why I asked my priest about it. Since he asked us to do it this way, I think I am doing the right thing. I can certainly understand the concern, though. If there is an error with regards to this issue, it would seem that it would fall on the priest and not the lay person.

At any rate, though, I also would change anything I am doing at the first request to do so. As it is, it seems the frustration with EEMs is a little bit misplaced; there are larger issues at work.

The issue with EEM’s is that many see lay people as fallen people. The truth is…all mortals are fallen and sinful. ALL. Who is to say that the priest isn’t in mortal sin when giving mass? But, we do not make such a judgement, but we judge EEM’s and view people who are not ordained, so to speak, as ‘lesser than.’ It’s ok. I don’t have a problem of people thinking this of me…or EEM’s. God handed this gift to me…I prayed for what He was calling me to do in His church…and this is it. I also have a magnifcent responsibility that comes with it. To keep striving towards holiness…it’s God’s point of view, I’m most concerned with…

It’s humbling holding Jesus’ precious blood…it shouldn’t be taken lightly.

 

[baltobetsy]

The issue with EEM’s is that many see lay people as fallen people. The truth is…all mortals are fallen and sinful. ALL. Who is to say that the priest isn’t in mortal sin when giving mass? But, we do not make such a judgement, but we judge EEM’s and view people who are not ordained, so to speak, as ‘lesser than.’

That’s not my issue at all. Mine is the sign value of receiving from the priest. The priest is acting in persona Christi, and represents Christ giving Himself to me in the Sacrament, regardless of his personal holiness or lack thereof. No lay person, no matter how holy, can fulfill this role. So I sit where I know my section will receive from the priest. If something changes and I end up in the line for the EMHC, that’s OK, too. It’s just not my preference. It’s still Jesus.

Betsy