What constitutes the practice of "extraordinary ministers receiving Holy Communion apart from the other faithful as though concelebrants"?

ok.. picture this...

priest/celebrant with EMHCs: priest eats the Host... drinks the Blood. priest then turns around and hands out the Host ... and each consumes. then priest passes the cup to each, and each consumes.

priest with concelebrants: priest passes the Host to all the concelebrants and then he and all the concelebrants eat the Host at the same time.

not sure if i'm describing that clearly enough.

the celebrant(s) always partake of the Host and the Blood before everybody else.

It is a clear violation of the GIRM when a EMHC picks up the host out of the paten instead of having it given to him/her by the priest, or when the EMHC picks up the chalice from the altar to recieve Holy Communion from it. Concelebrant priests take a host directly from the paten before the presiding priest says: "This is the Lamb of God ...." and consume the host at the same time as the presiding priest. Only concelebrating priests do this, not EMHC. Concelebrant priests pick up the chalice from the altar.

Thanks to both of you for your explanations.

I understand what it means to be a concelebrant.

thanks for a clearer statement on the matter, father.. i couldn't seem to verbalize what you actually said.

Ooooh - this just happened in our school mass Thursday. So I have a question. If the priest does not hand the chalice to the EMHCs and instead just wanders out to distribute communion, what are they to do? I've posted in other threads about the plethora of liturgical abuses I've seen - this is another source. Our school masses. I think our priest is just creative and likes to "fly by the seat of his pants" sometimes.

The key element here is the prohibition agians slef communication. One may not distribute Communion to oneself. In the case you mentioned, one of th EMHC should take the Chalice and distribute the Precious blood to all communicant save himself.. He (or she) amy receive the Precoius Blood from another EMHC, but not himslef.

Remember, if someone is not able to receieve the Precous Blood, they have lost no portion of a full Communion. Christ is truly and fully present in both Species.

Pax Christi

My understanding was EMHCs should not take either Species from the Altar, but should be handed either by the priest as they go to distribute the Species after receiving Communion themselves from EMEs.

Is this function limited to bishops and priests or can deacons also hand the Species out to EMHCs?

That is very true. If the celebrant leaves the Chalice on the main alta, the Precious Blood may not be distributed intil a Euchristic Minister hands it to the EMHC.

Is this function limited to bishops and priests or can deacons also hand the Species out to EMHCs?[/quote]

All ordained clergy are considered Ordinary Ministers of the Eucharist and may distribute from the Altar. In our parish, the priest distributes the Body and the deacon distributes the Precious Blood to the EMHC.


Pax Christi

I'm a little confused...trying to keep up with abbreviations here.



What is EMHC?

Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion.

Okay, that's what I thought it meant.


So the Precious Blood may not be distributed until a Eucharistic Minister hands it to the Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion? What is the difference between a Eucharistic Minister and an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. That's where I got confused.

An Ordinary Minister of the Eucharist is ordained clergy - deacon, priest , Bishop.

And EMHC is "Extraordinary" minister and laity.

Where I think the Church in Redemptionis Sacramentum is trying to make the distinction is between "Liturgy of the Eucharist" - the part of the Mass containg the Consecration which can only be done by ordained clergy. However, the deacon does not have the authority to consecrate (or "confect" as it is called).

This is distinct from the "Communion Rite" which begins withe Our Father and ends with the distribution of Communion. This can now be done by laity, so the Chruch wants to make a clear distinction so there is no blurring of the line between clergy and laity.

"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."


Pax Christi

If I understand it correctly, a Eucharistic Minister is a Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, with Bishops and Priests only being able to confect the Species.

While Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion are authorized only to distribute the Species.

You've got it!!

Pax Christi

Wow. You'd never know it from what people say...I've always heard people call EMHCs Eucharistic Ministers. Hence my confusion.

So to translate and avoid this confusion of mine, what we said earlier is true: the EMHCs should not take the chalice without a priest/deacon/bishop handing it to him or her. So in the case of our school mass this past Thursday, our EMHCs were very confused. They hesitated and looked a little forlornly at one another. Finally, they just picked up the cups and proceeded as if they had been given to them. Was that a mistake? Is this included in EMHC training? (If so, that would likely explain their forlorn looks.) So they should have just walked away, leaving all the Precious Blood there? That's a little worrisome to me because I'd worry our oftimes clueless priest would just dump the Precious Blood then. He'd be pretty toasted if he drank all of it!

...or should one of them have gone to him to request that he distribute the Precious Blood?

This is why I am so hesitant to be EMHC. I'm so sensitive to liturgical abuses and so uncomfortable with the distribution of our Lord in the hand that I probably would have had a meltdown right then and there. I feel so much safer as a lector.

It's possible that the priest was intending not to distribute the Precious Blood, but to only distribute one species. If there were multiple chalices consecrated, though, then that's probably not it.

The leftover Blood should never be dumped out. It is consumed by the priest, and then the chalices are purified. If the chalices are then again rinsed with water, that water is poured into the sacrarium - the special sink that goes into the ground and not into the sewer system. The Precious Blood is never poured into the sacrarium, but must be consumed.

I can assure you he intended for the Precious Blood to be distributed. He just wandered away leaving it to the EMHCs to get it. We almost always distribute under both species and there were several chalices of the Precious Blood. I agree it should not be poured out. I would worry if I were an EMHC at that point because if I just walked away, I'm pretty certain this careless priest would not consume it. In fact, knowing this priest, he would probably loudly, before the entire school, chastise the EMHCs for not distributing it. So my question is - what should they have done? Should they have gone to him and asked him to return to the altar to distribute it? They chose to just take the chalices from the altar which - again, knowing this priest - was the most peaceful thing to do that caused the least disruption.

(Note - this is a different priest from the one I've written about in other threads about liturgical abuse. I have written to the secretary of the Cardinal about this man. He's a moving target, though. He chooses a different anamoly for each mass. *sigh*)

This is one of the "danged if you, danged if you don't" mommnets. However, the fact that it is the Precious blood and must be treated with the reverence due it mitigates the necessity of taking it from the altar. Just remind the priest every time he does this and maybe he will get the idea.

Pax Christi

Thanks - that makes sense. So they didn't make the ideal decision but they didn't have the ideal circumstances. As for telling the priest, like I said, he's a moving target. It'll be something else this Thursday. Fortunately, this one was something the students did not notice.

At the risk of digressing (but sort of on the same topic) I saw yet another anamoly, this time in my own beloved parish. The celebrant was a retired priest and he sort of ad-libbed the words during the consecration. That's wasn't my problem. Just as he mentioned breaking bread, he broke the host.

Maybe this isn't a big deal - I thought I'd ask here. I thought the celebrant was not supposed to break the host until after the Agnus Dei, possibly to symbolize that Christ's bones were not broken - in fulfillment of OT prophecy. I've only seen this happen one other time. Is this a problem or does the priest have leeway in terms of when he breaks the host?