FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Questions about Eucharistic Ministers?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
Hello everyone,
I am a cradle Catholic, but I am only just having my eyes opened to the beautiful traditions of our faith! I long to find out more and participate in Mass as reverently as I can, as I have found that my relationship and love for Jesus has deepened so much since discovering Traditional Catholicism :heart:
I am extremely thankful to my university for celebrating Mass daily on campus, as it has been immensely helpful in my faith journey. While many of the young people there are very reverent (kneeling for communion, veiling, etc) the Mass is not a traditional Latin Mass, and so I have a couple of things that are confusing me about reverence in a Novus Ordo Mass, especially concerning Eucharistic Ministers.
Should we avoid at all costs, receiving Communion from a Eucharistic Minister?
Secondly, if both the Body and Blood of Jesus are being offered at a Mass, should we not receive the Blood of Jesus if it is given by a Eucharistic Minister? I.e: would it be more proper to forgo receiving the Blood of Jesus entirely, than if we received Him from a layperson or altar boy?
I hope that makes sense. I'm sorry if these questions have been posted dozens of times before, I just can't seem to find conclusive answers! Thank you in advance!
(12-20-2017, 05:08 AM)petite_sourire Wrote: [ -> ]Hello everyone,
I am a cradle Catholic, but I am only just having my eyes opened to the beautiful traditions of our faith! I long to find out more and participate in Mass as reverently as I can, as I have found that my relationship and love for Jesus has deepened so much since discovering Traditional Catholicism :heart:
I am extremely thankful to my university for celebrating Mass daily on campus, as it has been immensely helpful in my faith journey. While many of the young people there are very reverent (kneeling for communion, veiling, etc) the Mass is not a traditional Latin Mass, and so I have a couple of things that are confusing me about reverence in a Novus Ordo Mass, especially concerning Eucharistic Ministers.
Should we avoid at all costs, receiving Communion from a Eucharistic Minister?
Secondly, if both the Body and Blood of Jesus are being offered at a Mass, should we not receive the Blood of Jesus if it is given by a Eucharistic Minister? I.e: would it be more proper to forgo receiving the Blood of Jesus entirely, than if we received Him from a layperson or altar boy?
I hope that makes sense. I'm sorry if these questions have been posted dozens of times before, I just can't seem to find conclusive answers! Thank you in advance!

Howdy!   :hello!:

Welcome to the tank! :)

My understanding is that the Sacred Host is only to be touched by an ordained priest.  The Eucharistic Ministers were only meant for extraordinary circumstances.

Now they are used at practically every Mass and I suspect it's an intentional way of a progression towards a more Protestant service, a decrease in the reverence for the Eucharist and the need for the priesthood.

If you find a traditional Mass of the FSSP or ICKS there will be no Eucharistic Ministers.

Others on this forum know a lot more than me, however, and I'm sure they will chime in when they can. :)
BTW, since you are in France, do you know about the pilgrimage and Mass at Chartres in May?  :cool:

Check this out:

Ooops, duplicate post.
(12-20-2017, 05:08 AM)petite_sourire Wrote: [ -> ]Hello everyone,
I am a cradle Catholic, but I am only just having my eyes opened to the beautiful traditions of our faith! I long to find out more and participate in Mass as reverently as I can, as I have found that my relationship and love for Jesus has deepened so much since discovering Traditional Catholicism :heart:
I am extremely thankful to my university for celebrating Mass daily on campus, as it has been immensely helpful in my faith journey. While many of the young people there are very reverent (kneeling for communion, veiling, etc) the Mass is not a traditional Latin Mass, and so I have a couple of things that are confusing me about reverence in a Novus Ordo Mass, especially concerning Eucharistic Ministers.
Should we avoid at all costs, receiving Communion from a Eucharistic Minister?
Secondly, if both the Body and Blood of Jesus are being offered at a Mass, should we not receive the Blood of Jesus if it is given by a Eucharistic Minister? I.e: would it be more proper to forgo receiving the Blood of Jesus entirely, than if we received Him from a layperson or altar boy?
I hope that makes sense. I'm sorry if these questions have been posted dozens of times before, I just can't seem to find conclusive answers! Thank you in advance!

Hello!  

et bienvenue à Fisheaters!

Quote:Should we avoid at all costs, receiving Communion from a Eucharistic Minister?

It is certainly your choice.  Remember that the term "Eucharistic Minister" is misleading, incorrect, and dubious.  There is only one real Eucharistic Minister, and that is the priest.  The proper and more appropriate term (seldom used by them) is "Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion".  The name itself implies its designed scarce use; as in only to be used in times whenever the priest needs assistance, not every Sunday.  

There are Catholics who refuse ever to receive from an EMHC, and there are those who don't care.  I tend to receive only from the priest, or deacon; but sometimes if I am at a new parish ---especially if architecturally is designed in the weird semi-circular shape--- I am sometimes apt to just receive from the EMHC. Though last time, the woman (bless her heart), managed to deck me in the teeth while distributing Holy Communion to me.  So needless to say, it will be some time before I go up to a EMHC.


Quote:Secondly, if both the Body and Blood of Jesus are being offered at a Mass, should we not receive the Blood of Jesus if it is given by a Eucharistic Minister? I.e: would it be more proper to forgo receiving the Blood of Jesus entirely, than if we received Him from a layperson or altar boy?

You would think, but that is erroneous thinking.

DENZINGER 932 (Chapter 3 of Session XXI of the Council of Trent) Wrote:932  Moreover, it declares that although our Redeemer, as has been said before, at that Last Supper instituted this sacrament and gave it to the apostles under two species, yet it must be confessed that Christ whole and entire and a true sacrament is received even under either species alone, and that on that account, as far as regards its fruit, those who receive only one species are not to be deprived of any grace which is necessary for salvation [can. 3].

It has traditionally been the practice that only laymen receive only the Sacred Host and only the priest receives from the Sacred Chalice.  You are certainly well within your right to receiving from the Sacred Chalice, but do be aware that no "added" grace is conferred upon you.  You receive all the graces from either the Host, or a drink from the Chalice, as you would from receiving both.
In my opinion, unconsecrated hands should not touch the Sacrament. That means receiving on the tongue, and only from a priest. I also don’t think a chalice with the Sacrament in it should ever leave the altar, meaning no lay person receives from it. Also, drinking after other people is just nasty.
In my Parish, and indeed, in the entire Diocese, it's not a problem. Only the adult ministers of the Sanctuary receive the Precious Blood, and we don't have EMHCs at all. If there is actually a need for a second person distributing Holy Communion, the Instituted Acolyte assists. Oh, and Communion on the tongue is encouraged!

That said, if I receive in another Diocese, I do not receive the Precious Blood. I simply receive Holy Communion under the Species of the Sacred Body, and walk by the EMHC with the Chalice.
(12-20-2017, 08:00 AM)Credidi Propter Wrote: [ -> ]In my opinion, unconsecrated hands should not touch the Sacrament. That means receiving on the tongue, and only from a priest. I also don’t think a chalice with the Sacrament in it should ever leave the altar, meaning no lay person receives from it. Also, drinking after other people is just nasty.

One often hears this phrase "only consecrated hands should touch the Blessed Sacrament".

This seems a good rule, and even come up with the correct outcome (only a priest, normally should handle the Eucharist), but if we dig but a bit past the surface it is false. 

First example : the deacon.

It has been a practice, maintained from Apostolic times that the deacon is the minister of the chalice. When the precious blood was distributed in the early Church, it was the deacon who ministered the chalice. Likewise in the old Papal Mass it was a Cardinal acting as deacon who brought the chalice to the Pope at his throne. This is why at a solemn Mass the deacon offers the chalice with the priest.

But if the deacon has power over the precious blood, then he also has some power over the Body of Our Lord, and it was the ancient and constant practice that, with the permission of the priest, a deacon can give the Body of Christ in communion. 

The traditional Ritual Romanum was the source of a doubt because deacons could give communion, but the rite for this for a priest instructs the priest to give a blessing afterward. What about the deacon? A deacon does not have the power to bless (which is given at priestly ordination). It seems a silly question, but Canon Law is severe against those who would attempt to use a power in an order above where they were. If a deacon, for instance, presumed to hear a confession, he would be barred from ever becoming a priest. Similarly, if he presumed to give a blessing, he could be barred from the priesthood.  

The Holy See replied to the doubt that the deacon follows the same ritual, and thus blesses, and this was written into the ritual. 

Interesting as that is, it is clear that the deacon is a extraordinay minister of the Eucharist, and yet he does not have "consecrated hands".

It is also clear that the consecration of a priests hands, at least in the traditional rite, using the Oil of Catechumens (wheras Chrism is typically used for consecrations), is not in order to handle the Eucharist.

The prayer of the bishop when anointing the new priest's hands says : "May it please you, O Lord, to consecrate and sanctify these hands by this anointing and our blessing ...That whatever they bless may be blessed, and whatever they consecrate may be consecrated in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ."

It is only after this that the priest is given the power to offer Mass.

So according to the rite itself the purpose of consecrating a priest's hands is in order that he may bless things, not in order to handle the Eucharist, nor in order to say Mass, even if these are tied together.

So, while the argument comes to the correct conclusion (only a priest should normally handle the Eucharist), it is based on a false principle.
(12-20-2017, 05:37 AM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: [ -> ]BTW, since you are in France, do you know about the pilgrimage and Mass at Chartres in May?  :cool:

Check this out:


Thank you so much for your reply! I agree that EMs make the service more Protestant :dodgy:  I'll try and avoid them from now on.
That video was extremely interesting! The nativity scenes spoken about upset me at first, but it was very uplifting to hear about the pilgrimage in Chartres! I've always wanted to go on a pilgrimage, especially the Camino, and this one sounds incredible also - led by Cardinal Sarah!! That man is amazing. Thank you for that!
(12-20-2017, 08:00 AM)Credidi Propter Wrote: [ -> ]In my opinion, unconsecrated hands should not touch the Sacrament. That means receiving on the tongue, and only from a priest. I also don’t think a chalice with the Sacrament in it should ever leave the altar, meaning no lay person receives from it. Also, drinking after other people is just nasty.


(12-20-2017, 07:18 AM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]It has traditionally been the practice that only laymen receive only the Sacred Host and only the priest receives from the Sacred Chalice.  You are certainly well within your right to receiving from the Sacred Chalice, but do be aware that no "added" grace is conferred upon you.  You receive all the graces from either the Host, or a drink from the Chalice, as you would from receiving both.


Thank you both for your advice! I will definitely take it, and not receive from the Chalice anymore.
What I am worried about though, is that I feel quite rude just walking past Jesus like that :( Do you have any advice?
Pages: 1 2 3