The Most Reverend Mark Coleridge, Archbishop of the Diocese of Canberra and Goulburn in Australia has written a fascinating letter about the liturgy. The Archbishop is one of the people in charge of the new translations of the missal and he presents some interesting insight on what we can expect. You can read the entire letter here, however I wish to focus on one small area of the letter.
This pertains to a pet peeve of mine, but as I work in pet peeves as others might work in oils or clays, I am going to pick a nit.
In the letter the Archbishop writes about the proper reception of communion. In this section, he also details some of the responsibilities of the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion.
The celebrant is the first to receive Communion in order to complete the Eucharistic sacrifice. If there is a deacon, the celebrant offers the deacon the Body of Christ as soon as he himself has received and then the Blood of Christ as soon as he has drunk from the chalice. If there are concelebrants, they receive the Body of Christ with the celebrant and the Blood of Christ only after the celebrant and deacon have drunk from the chalice. The Acolytes and Extraordinary Ministers then receive Communion before going to distribute Communion to the assembly.
There should be no more Extraordinary Ministers than is necessary. If there are clergy enough to distribute Communion, then Extraordinary Ministers are not required. It should never happen that clergy are left seated during the distribution of Communion while Extraordinary Ministers attend to the distribution.
While I certainly concur with the Archbishop, I am unsure whether this language goes far enough. I have witnessed multiple incidents at my own parish in which the pastor gives the homily and then disappears, only to reappear in the narthex after mass to meet and greet. This drives me crazy. Moreover, since it is the responsibility of the priests, as ordinary ministers of the sacrament they should be there. Where are they?
I understand that often the duties of a priest can call them away from the parish on Sundays, but if they are within a five mile radius, they should be there distributing communion. Not just at the masses they celebrate, but at all the masses.
Prior to the imposition of ubiquitous extraordinary ministers, we would routinely witness the non celebrating priests of a parish make their way to the sacristy a few minutes before communion to vest and then appear in the sanctuary at communion time. What are they doing now?
Now before you start yelling at me about the shortage of priests and their other duties keeping them away from communion, listen. If a priest is out doing priestly duties elsewhere, so be it. No issue. But I have witnessed non celebrating priests in the vicinity before or after mass too many times to think that they are ALL otherwise occupied.
So, again, if these ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are within the zone, they should be distributing communion. Honestly, I cannot think of a good reason why they would not unless it is some false sense of empowerment the laity that leaves them at the rectory. Get off you priestly duffs and distribute Communion. Please.
Now as I know that we have a number of priests who read this site, I am particularly interested in your perspectives. If I am being to harsh or demanding, please correct me. If not, your thoughts (and everyone else’s) are most welcome. End of nit pick.
May 15, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Perhaps we can go one step further in this discussion: what is the “magic” number of communicants before a priest actually uses an extraordinary minister? In our little parish of 120 max we use one for 1/2 of the congregation and he sends one to the choir loft (this really irks me, as if the Lord needs to come to the choir instead of the other way around!). I’ve also seen EMs placing a “blessing” on kids heads, which is a no-no but it goes on and on and on…thanks to VII and it’s “Protestant-like” multitudinous interpretations…
May 15, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Have you been hanging out in our parish? On Easter Sunday (packed church) lots of Eucharistic ministers. Chaos. The Pastor – sitting up in a corner during communion so he could give a little “welcome” afterwards. He was sitting right there! Why couldn’t he vest up and help out? Drove me nuts!
May 15, 2008 at 1:44 pm
man with black hat: Playing Priest
May 15, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Has anyone ever done a survey of how the people in the pews feel about the whole EM phenomenon? Personally, I could do without them–wouldn’t mind if Mass took longer. Wouldn’t it be funny if the only ones who liked the proliferation of EMs was the EMs themselves?
May 15, 2008 at 3:24 pm
In my parish, which I now attend as little as I can, I have seen on several occasions the Pastor in his Carmelite Robes singing in the choir and receiving Holy Communion from a lay woman while both permanent deacons are sitting in the pews like regular folks. They too go forward to the lay Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. Something just doesn’t sit right with this behavior. Why have permanent deacons if all they do is sit in the pew?
I have been told by a canon lawyer clergyman friend that the above behavior is not against any norm. I find that hard to believe and harder to stomach.
May 15, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Not to make any offense. But isn’t this a little case of lazy-bones disease. After a priest did the 6:30 a.m. Mass, he doesn’t want to have to come back for the 10 a.m. Mass when he knows there’s eucharistic ministers who will pick up the slack.
May 15, 2008 at 5:58 pm
This is not a bad point. I think one thing even good priests learned over the years, is that the use of laymen to administer communion gave them a better chance to unwind after a sixty-plus-hour workweek. At my parish, they’re used sparingly, and mostly for visiting the sick. Our priests are always on board for communion.
In some places, even when there are enough priests and they’re all there (my cathedral parish, for example), there’s always a couple of EMs who can’t resist the urge to get in on the act. Their uselessness becomes readily apparent on a regular basis, but it’s like watching the Pod People creeping up there like moths to a flame. Sooner or later, I hear some mantra about “getting the lay people involved.”
Personally, I try to avoid receiving from them if I can help it.
May 15, 2008 at 6:54 pm
At my church we use one EM and one priest, usually. Everyone gets there as early as they can so they can sit on the “priest” side (yes, I’m one of them). So the people in the pews are always lopsided. You would think that someone somewhere would get the hint and do away with the EM altogether, but they don’t. It really doesn’t take that much longer for the priest to distribute communion without assistance. Is that extra 10 minutes really that horrid?
May 15, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Holy Mixed Metaphor alert: “but it’s like watching the Pod People creeping up there like moths to a flame.”
Though I agree with the sentiment wholeheartedly.
May 15, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Reinstall the altar rail! Bet you anything that it takes less time to administer Holy Communion to an equal number of communicants as they kneel and receive as per pre-1962. Much abuse now takes place: Sacred Species dropped or spilled on floor, or stuck between missalette pages, or sold on Ebay, etc., etc. Desecration and sacrilege all in the name of expediency! EM’s should be eliminated.
–William Anonymous
May 15, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Our church has none of the problems cited in this post. It is one of the largest churches in the area and has a large number of EMs. We have several priests in the parish who distribute communion along with the Deacon and the EMs. If the priest distributed alone, the Mass would probably run over into the next one. No abuses here, works fine; I have no problem with the process.
May 15, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Anyone ever heard of an Intinctorium? That sacred vessel solves the problem. Communion would then much like it is at Divine Liturgy only faster. No spoon.
May 15, 2008 at 11:59 pm
I would not expect a priest who was not present during the Mass to suddenly appear to help distribute communion. I don’t know what the rule is. I don’t even know if there is a rule that speaks to priests not being present at a Mass suddenly appearing to distribute communion. It seems to me that if you’re going to distribute communion at a Mass, even if you’re an ordinary minister of communion, you should be there for the entire Mass. Otherwise, let the EMs do it.
Some of the activity that’s described in this post strikes me as ridiculous and, I must say, the kind of stuff I haven’t seen myself in many, many years. It makes me wonder if some parishes are stuck in a 1970s time warp.
I also honestly wonder if some of you guys are too easily robbed of the joy of your faith over these matters. I mean, respectfully, why would you allow the fact that your pastor is in the back corner welcoming people after Mass, and that he didn’t help distribute communion, drive you “nuts”? You’ve just received the Body and Blood of Christ to strengthen you for salvation. There is cause for rejoicing here! And you’re being driven nuts by your pastor’s not vesting and distributing communion? Okay. You go, guy! Forgive me if I’m not driven nuts.
Have ya’ll spoken with your pastors about these things? Have ya’ll recommended better fidelity to the rubrics, if that’s really the issue? Or is this more a matter of personal preference?
Bob Hunt
May 16, 2008 at 12:25 am
Bob,
what do you do when you see a friend of yours insulted? You stick up for them. Now imagine that folks are seeing Jesus’s body and blood disrespected.
We turned the priest around.
We got rid of the communion rails.
Now, the eucharistic ministers.
It’s all disrespect to Jesus. So I think some very good folks get incensed and want to stick up for Him.
May 16, 2008 at 2:19 am
I’m with the first anonymous person. Where do lay people get off “blessing” children? Unless there is an ordinary minister serving our line who can provide a genuine blessing, we leave our children who are too young to receive sitting in the pew.
May 16, 2008 at 2:21 am
And, I do appreciate the fact that EM’s are necessary to an extent these days. But our parish uses about twice as many as necessary for the body, and I’d much prefer that the laity not receive the blood at all unless there are enough ordinary ministers. I could cut the number of EM’s at our church from 24 to 6 without costing any time at all.
May 16, 2008 at 2:22 am
…and it wouldn’t kill those six to wear a coat and tie…
May 16, 2008 at 4:07 am
Bob Hunt:
It’s not a personal preference. The use of an available priest or deacon is preferred over an EM. You knew that, but what you didn’t know, is that according to a clarification issued by Rome about ten or twelve years ago, “available” includes sitting over in the rectory.
I posted a link to my blog earlier, which includes some other stuff you might like to know. That’s why I posted it. Some of this business is actually written down somewhere. Who woulda thunk it?
May 16, 2008 at 4:43 am
Matthew,
Golly, I just don’t see using EMs as insulting to Jesus. Ditto for getting rid of the altar rails and turning the priest around. Not intrinsically so, anyway. It’s certainly possible to worship our Lord respectfully, to achieve “lex orandi, lex credendi” without “orientation”, altar rails and with EMs. At least, the Church seems to think it is, given that she was the one who initiated these changes. And I certainly hope it is, given that it’s the only way I’ve ever done so (not counting the first four or so years of my life, when I was too young to remember.)
Yes, everything can be abused, and that needs to be addressed when it happens. But it seems that some are consumed by it to the point of distracting them away from the joy and glory of the Mass.
I’ve noticed stuff in my parish. When it’s something big, I’ll contact the pastor and let him know my concerns. He’s always receptive, and has made changes, sometimes the very next Sunday. Sometimes he shares his own frustrations, and then given it a good go at greater reverence or order or whatever. I also make a point of contacting him when things go well. Right now I’m working on him to return the Blessed Sacrament back to being reserved behind the main altar instead of the side altar, to where it was moved several decades ago when that was all the rage. Time will tell.
Based on what I’ve read on your blog, it does seem to be a bit crazier up north than down south, I give you that. I’ve lived all my life, except one year, below the Mason-Dixon, and I’ve not seen much of what you Yankees complain about (ie: the congregation invited into the sanctuary; priests sitting down while only the EMs distribute communion — practices about which I would certainly contact my pastor). But I simply don’t have the energy to be driven nuts at Mass by every abuse or potential abuse or perceived abuse. By and large, our priests give it a good go, and our liturgies are worshipful and faithful, without altar rails and with EMs.
God’s peace.
Bob
May 16, 2008 at 4:44 am
Actually in Australia I would say the biggest problem isn’t priests absenting themselves (though that does happen) since very few parishes these days have more than one priest!
Rather the issue is communion under both kinds. I can’t remeber the last time I went to mass when it didn’t occur, priest and maybe one extraordinary minister distributing the Body of Christ, and several women scattered around the Church offering the chalice. Last time I encountered this it was a positive obstacle course getting back to the pews, and makes any display of reverence to the Blood of Christ extremely difficult….