My pastor recently asked me to be an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion (EMHC) at Mass. The kids are old enough that they generally behave without my wife and I having to team up against them, so I said "OK."
I should explain up front that I'm generally against the idea of EMHC's. I'm not against them as provided for in Canon Law, but rather as they have become institutionalized in the United States as de rigeur. Honest men can disagree about the number of people attending Mass that makes EHMC's "necessary." What honest men may not disagree about is this: The Church does not intend the role of EMHC to be a mechanism for increasing "participation" at Mass (you can read my opinion on that subject, here).
The Church's clear directive is that the priest is the minister of not only the Holy Eucharist, which is to say, offering the Sacrifice of the Mass, but also of Holy Communion, which is our sacramental participation in that Sacrifice. Extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion are so-called for two reasons: The first is that they are non-ordained. Extra = "outside." Ordinary = "within or pertaining to ordination." Therefore extra-ordinary = outside of the ordained ministry. The second reason is in keeping with the more vernacular usage of the term, which is that it is to be reserved for unusual or special circumstances.
One such circumstance is that the ratio of the number those receiving Holy Communion to the number of priests is such that it would take a burdensomely long time to distribute Holy Communion. As I said, it is on this point that men can disagree and still make an honest claim to be in mind with the Church on the matter. Of course, if that ratio is such that a parish's standard Mass attendance exceeds it, then that means every week is an unusual or special--an extraordinary--circumstance.
But I digress. My purpose here is to record some observations I've had while in the role of EMHC. I've distributed both the Body and the Precious Blood of our Lord. That is to say, I've distributed under the forms of both bread and wine. In either case, I am actually handing people the whole Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. The point is that my observations include both sets of circumstances. It should be noted that I don't set out to observe those receiving Holy Communion, and to be sure my observations are incomplete. It is difficult to focus on much other than not dropping our Lord or the sacred vessels. Nonetheless, there are some things that have caught my notice.
When distributing under the form of bread, I was surprised how many people actually receive on the tongue. This may be an artifact of the parish I belong to. I hope it is not.
It isn't because I think it's "bad" or "wrong" to receive Christ in the hand rather than on the tongue. Once when I attended Mass at a church near my parents' home (because I was visiting them), I received in the hand out of concern that the EMHC might be unfamiliar or unpracticed at distributing on the tongue, and might drop the Host. After Mass, one of my aunts, who noticed and who knows that I regularly receive on the tongue, asked "Since when are you worthy to touch the Lord with your hands?" Of course, I said that I wasn't, and explained my reasoning. My aunt told me that actually many regulars at that parish do receive on the tongue, and therefore the EMHC's are very good about knowing how to distribute that way.
However, the more precisely correct answer to my aunt's question is "I'm not worthy, any more than I am to receive Him on my tongue." The "big" issue, when it comes to Holy Communion, isn't how or where to receive Him, but whether to do so. None of us--not even the priest--is worthy, either innately or by way of our own accomplishment, to receive Jesus in Holy Communion. Rather, we are made worthy by the presence of sanctifying grace, a free gift which we obtained in the sacrament baptsim (and which, if lost, we recover through the sacrament of penance.) The precise manner in which to receive Holy Communion is a matter of prescription by the Church. If the Church prescribes that we are to receive on the tongue, then we are obligated to comply. If the Church says that we may receive either on the tongue or in the hand, then we are truly morally free to opt for either method of receiving. If the Church were to proscribe receiving on the tongue, in favor of receiving on the hand, then we would be obligated to comply with that discinpline as well. If the Church leaves the matter to our bishop, then we are bound to obey whatever prescription he has in place.
Then why should I care whether people receive on the tongue rather than in the hand? One reason is that, when the Church has given us the option, making the decision to receive on the tongue is a simple way for a layperson to perform a small additional act of worship in the reception of Holy Communion. I say an "additional" act of worship because receiving Holy Communion itself is already an act of worship--receiving any sacrament is, since the sacraments are part of the Sacred Liturgy. Indeed, one must not make the mistake of thinking that, within the allowances provided by the Church, the manner of receiving Holy Communion can represent an act of worship whose significance is even close to that of the fact of receiving Holy Communion. Nonetheless, the conscious decision to deviate from the normal mode of consuming food and instead allow this spiritual food to be fed to us is an act of worship, no matter how small.
Another reason is that a larger number of people receiving on the tongue can indicate a stronger adherence to a belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I pray the reader doesn't misunderstand me. I am in no way suggesting that those who receive on the hand don't believe in the Real Presence. I would be very surprised to learn that any regular attendee of Mass at my own parish does not firmly believe in the Real Presence. One cannot deny the logic, however, that since there is no longer an expectation of receiving on the tongue in the United States, those who do not believe in the Real Presence but choose to continue to receive Holy Communion (in clear violation of the Church's directives, I might add) will certainly not choose to do so on the tongue.
Another observation that I find somewhat edifying is that many people in my parish receive only under the form of bread. It may seem strange that I would find comfort in such a thing. Why wouldn't I prefer people to receive under both species? Isn't that a "more complete" Communion?
The Church teaches that it isn't, except symbolically. Communion under either form is receiving the entire Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, and is full reception of the sacrament of Holy Communion. Christ died once for our sins on Calvary, and now the Christ we receive in Holy Communion is the risen, living Christ. For His Body and Blood to be separate would mean that He is not living. Rather, while His presence is truly effected on the altar, His death is represented only symbolically by the separate forms. This symbolic representation of Christ's death is necessary, since the Mass is a re-presenting to the Father of Christ's death. Thus, both species must be used, and the priest, in order to consummate the sacrifice, must consume both forms. However, our sacramental participation in that sacrifice requires only that we receive Jesus wholly, which is accomplished when we receive Holy Communion under either form.
The reception of Communion under both species is a matter of personal edification of the communicant. It represents a symbolic level of completeness that in no way affects the graces obtained in the sacrament. In the past, the Church has prohibited this for perhaps several reasons, but one is worth mentioning. The Church determined, based on popular movements of the time, that allowing the faithful to receive under both kinds fed into the false belief that the Body and Blood of Christ were actually separated in the Holy Eucharist.
More recently, the Church has re-examined the question, and determined that the lay faithful are well-enough taught in the reality of the Holy Eucharist and the nature of the Real Presence, that allowing people to receive under both species no longer carries that danger. Therefore, the opportunity to complete the symbolism of Christ's death in their mode of receiving Holy Communion--that is, to receive under both species--is something that the Church wills the faithful to have available to them. For this reason, it is good that people are permitted to do so, and to think I am saying otherwise would be to mistake my meaning.
There is a temptation, however, or perhaps I should say a "movement," among today's Catholics to see Holy Communion as principally a source of fellowship--that is, a share in communion with one another--rather than a source of sharing in Christ's life, death, and and resurrection. If one realizes that Communion is first a means of sharing in Christ, and that every other meaning and purpose derives from that, then it is readily apparent why there is no necessity of receiving under both kinds. Communion under either species is the entire Person of Christ.
If, on the other hand, one believes that our sacrament of Communion is a means and expression of fellowship aside from or prior to its purpose of uniting us with Christ, then one can see the motivation to receive under both forms. Sharing bread and wine (for if Communion is not Christ, then bread and wine is all it is) is a greater expression of fellowhip than just sharing bread, the way sharing pretzels and beers is a greater expression of fellowship than just sharing pretzels. The communion with one another, if not first in Christ, is always incomplete and thus always demands further perfection. For that reason, such a diminished view of the Catholic sacrament of Communion necessarily leads to the assertion that it is somehow necessary to receive both kinds in order to receive it completely.
The number of those who pass by the Precious Blood without receiving it, then, far from indicating a level of apathy or indifference, indicates (to my mind, at least) a certain understaning of the basic tenets of the Faith regarding the Sacred Mysteries.
There is one observation I find troubling. While receiving the Host, people are nearly always focused entirely on doing so. I don't get that impression when it comes to the Precious Blood. It isn't so much in how people are receiving the Precious Blood, but rather in how they are returning the cup to my hands. Everybody approaches reverently, bows slightly, per our diocese' instructions, and receives the cup from me carefully. However, about a third of those who do so, rather than carefully seeing the cup back into my hands after taking a sip, hand it back to me while they are in the act of turning to head back to their pew. Their eyes are looking towards where they intend to go, and they are simply trusting that I actually have the vessel in my hand when they let go.
When we're on the road and want to share a drink with the kids (or want the kids to share a drink with each other), we have a hand-off protocol. Its entire purpose is to prevent a drink from being dropped and spilled when being handed off. The person holding the drink holds it out to the person receiving the drink. The person receiving the drink takes hold of it, but doesn't pull it out of the other person's hand. While both have a solid hold on the drink (such that if the other let go it woudn't drop) the person receiving the drink says "I have it." Then, and only then, the other person lets go.
Sometimes I feel like we should have something like that at Mass, for those who receive the Precious Blood.
I don't have any memory within my lifetime of the Precious Blood being spilled at any Mass, ever. Perhaps God grants some special grace to ministers of the Precious Blood, which allows them to unerringly "catch" the cup from those whose attention has turned elsewhere; but those who receive from the cup should realize that if God does grant such a grace, then it is not theirs (the communicants') to rely on. They should take every care that the cup is safely returned to the hands of the minister (whether priest or EMHC) before turning to depart for their pews. The act of passing the cup between hands takes only a quarter of a second, but the attention given the act during that quarter second can make all the difference.
Anyway, those are some observations (or rather, reflections on observations) that have entered my mind while in the role of EMHC.
May God grant our children's generation an abundance of priests such that all honest men can agree that the use of EMHC's is rarely if ever called for.
