Holy Communion: who should distribute and where?

Following on from Nathan’s thread about priests popping up to distribute Communion when they had not been present for the Mass up to that point, there’s another point concerning the “distributors”.

In the early days of what were then called “special ministers” or “Eucharistic ministers”, it was common to see people switching from one Communion line to another in order to receive from the priest rather than from a lay person. The people who did this presumably either thought that lay people were unworthy to be distributing the sacred species, or that in some way having a priest give you Communion added value or lustre to the act, rather like those people who think that a rosary blessed by the Pope is of greater value than one blessed by your local parish priest. In extreme cases, some apparently thought that Holy Communion was not valid unless given by an ordained minister. You see the same kind of considerations arising when a bishop is present. Some people clearly think that receiving Communion from the bishop is more “valuable” than receiving from someone else. Clericalism persists in lay people, too!

It was clear back then, and is still clear today, that some people focus more on who is doing the distributing than on the elements they are receiving.

In a typical large parish these days, if there is a deacon, he will be standing alongside the priest in the centre, distributing under the form of bread. In pre-Covid days, commisssioned lay ministers would typically be at either side, distributing Communion from the chalice. With the general return of the chalice still some time off, there are still some parishes with enough communicants to warrant having lay ministers at the sides distributing under the form of bread.

The question is: what message does it give if the priest and deacon are always in the centre and lay ministers are always “relegated” to the side?

Some will say that it’s important to distinguish the ordinary ministers from the extraordinary ones. However, in pre-Covid days it was easy to point to GIRM 284a which indicates that the ordinary minister of the chalice is a deacon, and use that as a justification for having deacons at the side, not in the centre. But perhaps there is a deeper question of principle here.

One priest friend of mine got so exasperated with seeing people switching lines on their way to Communion in order to receive at his hands that he evolved the practice of never being in the same position twice. Sometimes he would be in the centre, distributing under the form of bread, sometimes on one side or the other side, distributing from the chalice (the parish had no deacon, and GIRM 284a also says that if there is no deacon then a priest is the next option for distribution from the chalice). On occasions he would even distribute from the side under the form of bread. No one could ever tell in advance where he would be at the time of distribution and plan their line accordingly. He coupled this with catechesis about the importance of focusing on what we receive, rather than on who we receive from. The effect of him ministering from the chalice at one side was that those who thought that Holy Communion was somehow “holier” when received from a priest were compelled to receive from a lay minister, unless they opted to receive under the form of wine only, from him.

Anyone who has been to Mass in a parish where the priest is too infirm to be on his feet for long periods of time will have encountered instances where the priest celebrant receives Communion and then sits down, leaving others, whether ordained or not, to distribute Communion on his behalf. That kind of situation can change people’s attitudes to the ministry of service.

Indeed, I think there’s something to be said for looking afresh at the whole ministry aspect of distributing Holy Communion. Is the status of the person distributing where we want to put the emphasis? Or is the distribution of Holy Communion an act of humble service to the People of God? How can we reflect what we believe in our positioning of ministers at this point in the rite?

Paul Inwood

Paul Inwood is an internationally-known liturgist, author, speaker, organist and composer. He was NPM's 2009 Pastoral Musician of the Year, ACP's Distinguished Catholic Composer of the year 2022, and in 2015 won the Vatican competition for the official Hymn for the Holy Year of Mercy, His work is found in journals, blogs and hymnals across the English-speaking world and beyond.

Please leave a reply.

Comments

30 responses to “Holy Communion: who should distribute and where?”

  1. Allan J. McDonald

    An anecdote that was kind of funny to me occurred regularly at our cathedral when I was stationed there in the 1980’s. I had alienated a somewhat obnoxious parishioner and after that he refused to receive Holy Communion from me and would jump to the Eucharistic Minister standing next to me. I was tempted to jump in front of the Eucharistic minister next to me when he arrived at her station and force him to receive from me. But that is also the point of my comment. Why should deacons and priest jump around so that those who want to receive from a clergyman will have a harder time doing so? That seems a bit obnoxious to me as I wanted to be obnoxious to the Cathedral parishioner I had. That’s not the way to go. If people want to go to a lay man or woman for Holy Communion or to a clergyman, let them. The bigger problem is what communicants believe about the Most Holy Eucharist. Statistics tell us that most simply believe the Host is a symbol only of Jesus, like the altar is. It doesn’t take faith to believe something is a symbol, an atheist would have to agree that the Host is a symbol of Christ. Real Presence, no matter how one describes that, is another story—it takes faith to believe that.

    Reply
    1. Tom Lindner

      The point is: It doesn’t matter who ministers the Body or Blood, which is why the priest switched places. Seems a bit much, agreed, but an interesting approach.

      Reply
    2. Alan Griffiths

      re. Allan J. McDonald above:

      ‘Symbol’ or ‘mere symbol’ ??

      The presence is real because it is symbolic, and symbolic because it is real. I can’t remember who said that.

      We seem to have got ourselves into a real symbolic muddle here.

      AG

      Reply
      1. Anthony Hawkins

        My pastor is wont to say “the opposite of symbolic is diabolic”

      2. Allan J. McDonald

        Of course an atheist believes the Eucharist is a symbol of Christ. But the atheist doesn’t believe in Christ. An atheist believes there are 7 sacraments but the atheist doesn’t believe in Sacraments. Duplicity?

  2. Karl Liam Saur

    “The question is: what message does it give if the priest and deacon are always in the centre and lay ministers are always “relegated” to the side?”

    What if, in a Mass with a deacon, there were just the priest and the deacon, the priest offering Holy Communion under the form of bread, the deacon offering Holy Communion under the form of wine? One line to receive from the same cups, as it were. No one relegated, no one jumping lines. How is the unfeasibility of that measured and by whom?

    Reply
    1. Andrew Rex

      I was at the choral sung mass at Westminster Cathedral one evening last week where I often attend weekday mass on occasion. I swapped communion lines to receive from the female eucharistic minister who was standing idle for some time due to the significant number of people who had swapped lines in the opposite direction in order to receive communion from the celebrating priest. The only person in front of me suddenly and without warning ducked to kneel on the floor in order to receive communion on the tongue so that I very nearly tripped over them and had to quickly steady myself to avoid a fall knocking the Eucharistic minister flying. Both myself and the Eucharistic minister couldn’t help but smile and I had to bite my tongue to prevent myself laughing out loud so comically ridiculous was the situation!

      My point being that these things will happen however you arrange the distribution of communion and it’s probably better just to ignore such idiosyncratic behaviour unless it becomes a significant problem which can’t be overlooked. At the time, I thought what would Jesus “WWJD” or Pope Francis “WWPFD” do and felt they wouldn’t make a fuss, especially as addressing the issue. These people feel (wrongly) that they’re making a pious statement and likely would stop receiving communion if there behaviour was addressed directly.

      Reply
      1. Edward Hamer

        I thought I would reply to this as I sometimes go to Mass at Westminster Cathedral, so there is a very remote chance that you might have the same problem with me one day!

        My question is how it is possible to kneel down in the floor straight from queueing without it seeming a bit sudden, to the person giving you Communion or to those behind you? It’s quite an awkward manoeuvre at the best of times. I try to signal my intention to the person distributing by looking down to the place where I plan to kneel and keeping my hands down, but I assume the people behind will just stay a few paces back.

        I prefer to receive on the tongue, and I had a bad experience when doing that standing: the priest was shorter than me, I leaned down slightly to meet his hand, and the Host fell straight from my tongue onto the floor. Since then I’ve always knelt down so as to present a stable target!

        All in all I would much prefer to receive at the altar rail, as I did in my Anglican days. You can stay still and the priest can move up and down the line, so you have a few moments to prepare yourself rather than just suddenly finding yourself at the front of the queue. I love the cathedral but the Oratory is a much more serene place to receive Communion.

      2. Fritz Bauerschmidt

        As someone who distributes communion, I will say that it is significantly easier to give communion on the tongue to someone who is kneeling as opposed to standing, simply as a practical matter.

      3. Alan Johnson

        Edward. I went to Mass at Vienna cathedral. Those who wanted to receive kneeling on the tongue waited and joined the end of the queue. There were about a dozen of them out of a couple of hundred. They went to the bottom step into the sanctuary and knelt along it.
        It was no big deal.

    2. Juliana Boerio-Goates

      How large is the congregation where you go to Mass? In my large bilingual parish, there can be more than a 1000 folks receiving Holy Communion, most, back in the day at least, receiving under both species. (Especially likely in the Spanish Masses!) The end result of this proposal would be people not returning to their pews but just heading out the door after a 20 minute or more wait.

      Reply
  3. Fr. Neil Xavier O'Donoghue

    On a related matter. I once was administering the Sacrament of the Sick to an individual who was angry at the diocesan bishop. I usually mention that the oil was blessed by the bishop the previous Holy Thursday at the Chrism Mass. but on this occasion the sick person asked me if it was possible to use some other oil. So I blessed some new oil myself using the formula in the ritual.

    It might not have been ecclesioloically perfect. But I considered that having the recipient calm was more important, that the advisability of using oil blessed by the bishop!

    Reply
    1. Mark J Miller

      Like.

      Reply
    2. Andrew Rex

      I’m also reminded of the recent story doing the rounds in the ‘rad trad” online circles recently following BIV’s funeral mass. The video clip showed a man causing somewhat of a scene in order to receive communion on the tongue while inconveniently kneeling in front of the white wooden barrier between priest and large crowd . The plastic poncho clad communicant appeared to suddenly lunge forward and bite the host from the disapproving priest’s fingers in one swooping action while still descending.

      The fake news narrative claimed that the priest was refusing him his rightful preference to receive communion in the traditionalist manner. Whereas I thought the priest was disapproving of the man selfishly causing a potentially serious health and safety incident, then horrified at the man appearing to literally take and eat the host from his fingers (possibly liberating saliva over than?). I question whether the whole incident was a contrived scenario for EWTN’s camera to film – or am I being paranoid?

      Reply
      1. Todd E Voss

        I would say you are being paranoid and somewhat condescending toward people who prefer to receive on the tongue as also evidenced by your other comment. As you said in that comment, ” I had to bite my tongue to prevent myself nearly laughing out loud”. Do you realize how that sounds?

  4. Chuck Middendorf

    I see pros and cons, and mostly it comes down to logistics.

    I worked at one parish where the priest rotated monthly through the 3 communion stations, so that he could be sure he could see face-to-face most parishioners.

    But then there’s another issue, which I am almost ashamed to bring up: I find that priests can go faster through a longer line of communicants–and really with no less grace or decorum, including with less anxiety of communion on the tongue, and less confusion about what to do about someone who comes up for a blessing. Thus I prefer to ask the priest to distribute communion on the side of the church where more people are seated. I hate to say it, but lay EM’s rarely can go as fast as priest presiders.

    Related, there’s also often an issue of less-mobile parishioners are seated, and sometimes it’s just easier for the priest (who’s there at every Mass, every Sunday) to handle those communicants who remain in their seats, which also might dictate where the priest distributes communion.

    The physical structure of the building might necessitate liturgical decisions (e.g. where the font is located, where the tabernacle is located, how big the narthex is–if there is one…), and this is just another example.

    Reply
    1. Chuck Middendorf

      One anecdote: there’s the Protestant couple at my parish who attend Mass every Sunday (who due to marriage-related issues don’t receive communion). They are very faithful in their attendance. During the pandemic, I noticed they always jumped into the line with the priest for a blessing, instead of the closer line where the Deacon was distributing communion. I asked why. Their response: “Father N. offers a beautiful short blessing. Deacon N. mumbles something unintelligible.”
      I never thought I would approve of line-jumping, but in this case, I fully approve!

      Reply
  5. Tom Lindner

    As the presider, I distribute at one of the side stations, since people seem not to notice the lay eucharistic minister if they take that spot. Odd. Curious. Part of the mystery.

    Reply
  6. Edward Hamer

    A good many people are uneasy about EMHCs, not because we think that a Host is somehow more holy if received from a priest but because the practice of having lay people handling the Blessed Sacrament seems irreverant to us, and weakens the beautiful symbolism of the shepherd feeding his sheep. (I have nothing against the EMHCs themselves personally, I might add.)

    The use of EMHCs is known to be controversial and the Church seems officially a bit uneasy with it (the documents seem to treat them as a sometimes-necessary evil) so I think it’s quite proper for things to be arranged so that we do not have to be complicit in their use.

    Reply
  7. Edward Hamer

    This is FAO Alan Johnson, as I don’t seem to be able to reply to his post directly. That sounds like a good arrangement Alan and I would welcome it at Westminster Cathedral (and other places) – thanks.

    Reply
  8. Jeffrey Armbruster

    “(the documents seem to treat them as a sometimes-necessary evil) ”

    Well, that may be overstating things…? You seem a bit conflicted about this; for example, “the practice of having lay people handling the Blessed Sacrament seems irreverant to us, and weakens the beautiful symbolism of the shepherd feeding his sheep.”

    We’re all different! For me, a sheep among sheep, the symbolism of the Sacrament descending even to us is quite moving. Jesus is both God and man. So too, a Priest is shepherd and sheep. Wait, no, a Priest is all sheep, all the way down! I don’t need the Eucharist to be Woolight fresh and otherworldly in order to be effective. If mere humans have handled it…and received it… isn’t that much of the point? Jesus asked Thomas to put his fingers into his wounds. The risen Christ asks the lay Thomas to touch his body. In this world, how can it ever be any different?

    Reply
    1. Edward Hamer

      Thank you! I find this interesting because clearly some people see the (respectful) handing of the Sacrament as strengthening their idea of Christ’s incarnation and his physical there-ness, as you say, and it’s helpful for me to hear that.

      What I would say is that when people want to denote something as being sacred they set it apart, and there are only so many ways of doing that. A sacred space (e.g. the sanctuary) is set apart by limiting who can enter it, and sacred objects (e.g. Hosts or the chalice) are set apart by having strict rules about who can touch them. That means that relaxations of the traditional practices (like people in lay dress entering the sanctuary to do readings, or EMHCs) sort of defeat the object for people like me, because we go to church to encounter the sacred and then we find things being done that reduce the subjective feeling of sacredness.

      I know that many people who seem to have a “progressive” approach to liturgy are mainly against clericalism in the liturgy, and of course only letting priests enter the sanctuary or distribute the Blessed Sacrament does in a sense put clerics on a pedestal. But I don’t know a good way to square this circle: if you let lots of lay people do these things then yes, you reduce the priest/lay distinction, but you also deny yourself much of the symbolic language needed to show the truly sacred things as being sacred.

      Reply
      1. Fr. Jack Feehily

        Donning liturgical garb does not make the wearers sacred. Whether one is wearing “street clothes” or fine vestments, each is called to holiness. The policies regarding the distribution of the Communion that can make us holy have to do with the number of people being served, whether they are being invited to both take and drink and take and eat. EMHC’s are priestly people whose love and reverence for worship in spirit and truth qualify them for this sacred duty. Our personal pious practices are best laid aside in a truly catholic church which promotes unity rather than uniformity. In the NT there are two instances in which Jesus offered himself as food and drink to his disciples. On neither occasion was he wearing sacred garb or placing himself on the tongue of kneeling recipients. It would be hundreds of years before those practices emerged. The reforms begun at Vatican II have led to a return to an older Tradition.

    2. Fr. Anthony Forte

      There is a real and proper distinction between priests and laity. The priest is not acting merely as a member of the congregation, but, by virtue of his ordination, in persona Christi. Reserving the distribution of Communion to priests and deacons preserves the sacramental symbolism that we are receiving from Christ. The unnecessary use of extraordinary lay ministers clouds this symbolism.

      Reply
      1. Michael H Marchal

        Where did this “in persona Christi” theology come from? The only justification I have ever heard for it is that in the narrative of institution the priest speaks in the first person. Yet grammatically that is an embarrassing misunderstanding of what it means to quote someone. Moreover, the narrative begins in the Roman Canon in Latin with the subordinating conjunction “nam” which indicates that the previous prayer is the important one.

      2. Alan Johnson

        By allowing deacons to distribute you seem to be contradicting yourself.

      3. Fr. Anthony Forte

        Michael, I am surprised at you. The term “in persona Christi” is found in the documents of Vatican II:

        The ministerial priest, by the sacred power he enjoys, teaches and rules the priestly people; acting in the person of Christ, he makes present the Eucharistic sacrifice, and offers it to God in the name of all the people. (Lumen Gentium, 10.)

        [Priests] exercise their sacred function especially in the Eucharistic worship or the celebration of the Mass by which acting in the person of Christ. (LG, 28.)

        Wherefore the priesthood, while indeed it presupposes the sacraments of Christian initiation, is conferred by that special sacrament; through it priests, by the anointing of the Holy Spirit, are signed with a special character and are conformed to Christ the Priest in such a way that they can act in the person of Christ the Head. (Presbyterorum Ordinis, 2.)

        You would not be questioning the teaching of Vatican II, would you?

    3. Donna Hoersten

      Amen the blessing of a Priest is the blessing coning from Jesus as the Priest is in persona of Christ
      more powerful for sure than a deacon who doesn’t have the same gifts I am grateful for our Deacons and they have their place in the church, however, the Priest are our Shepherds like Jesus

      Reply
  9. Michael H Marchal

    And that reflects the devotion of the prriod. My question was what were the origins of that understanding. The decrees assert it without explanation.

    Reply
  10. Peter Haydon

    “like those people who think that a rosary blessed by the Pope is of greater value than one blessed by your local parish priest:
    Last year in Lourdes I recognised a well known Italian bishop and asked him to bless my newest rosary. I did not think that his blessing was “better” than another but it was a way of showing respect and gratitude for the work that made him well known.
    Like Mgr Quixote’s purple socks this one is useful in emergencies.

    Reply

Posted

in

by

Paul Inwood

Tags:

,

Discover more from Home

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading