Anyone?
I had this blinding epiphany this morning walking from my house to my car, which takes about a minute. So, y'know, take the thought for what it's worth.
During Communion, in the Catholic Church, there are certain laypeople who have been 'deputized' to be allowed to distribute Communion to the people. The actual title is 'Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion' but they're usually just referred to as Eucharistic Ministers. They are only *meant* to be used in times when the priest (who is the only *true* minister of the Eucharist) is prevented from doing so by illness, or some other issue. Ah...lemme see...
"If there is usually present a sufficient number of sacred ministers for the distribution of Holy Communion, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not be appointed. Indeed, in such circumstances, those who may have already been appointed to this ministry should not exercise it. The practice of those priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distributing Communion and hand this function over to laypersons." - Redemptionis sacramentum, 157
"The extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may administer Communion only when the priest and deacon are lacking, when the priest is prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged. ... A brief prolongation, considering the circumstances and culture of the place, is not at all a sufficient reason." - Redemptionis sacramentum, 158
In my experience, all Catholic churches use the Extraordinary Ministers in order to keep the Masses 'on schedule'. It's not that the priest or deacon isn't there and capable, but that there are so many parishoners they need to use other people in order to get everyone Communion and out of the church in time for the next 'shift'. My church has...four, I think, for every Mass on Saturday and Sunday. So, unless you sit in the very first pews, you cannot receive from either the priest or the deacon. Which annoyed me as a catechumen, because I couldn't receive, but unless I happened to be able to get in the priests set of pews, I couldn't get a blessing either.
Anyway, I'm fairly certain that I haven't seen a person in the Orthodox church fulfilling a similar function. I know that at the Serbian church only the priest gave out Communion, and I'm pretty sure that only the priest distributed Communion at the Greek church, but I can't be certain because I was busy 'rubbernecking' subtly, checking everything out. So I might have missed something.
But the main reason for the EMHC's use doesn't (to my mind) exist in the Orthodox church. There's no second, third, fourth or fifth Divine Liturgy of the day to 'get out of the way' for. So, yes, while the Communion line needs to be kept moving, I suppose, there's no *rush*.
That's the thought that occurred to me. I've looked around, and I haven't found anything that says they have them, on the other hand, I haven't found anything explicitly stating that *only* the priest or the priest and the deacon can distribute Communion.
I really kind of want the answer to be that only the priest gives out Communion.
I haven't been Orthodox for that long, but I am almost sure that only a priest can distribute Communion during the Divine Liturgy. We have had Typica services (when Father was out of town) with our deacon distributing (pre-sanctified ?) communion at that service. I am sure that someone more qualified will give a 'canons' answer soon.
ReplyDeleteΗello-
ReplyDeleteI was pretty much certain that only a priest is in the authority to give Holy Communion, but i also looked up the liturgical canons, just to be sure, and confirmed it fully.In fact i found that the Fathers of the Church are quite firm on that one. Also, venerating (i hope this is the correct word) the priest's right hand when the divine liturgy is finished (as well as on other occasions) is a symbolism to show that we honour and cherish the hand that touches and distributes the Holy Communion.
p.s.I read your "above the comments" comment about names and anonymous commenters and so on and i just hope i haven't upset you. I didn't get a chance to answer back any sooner because i suffered a major pc break down these last few days. In any case, do forgive...
Formerly M(due to mistyping...), Currently,
Ann
Mamajuliana,
ReplyDeleteThat sounds about right. :) And, since it's the answer I want, I'll take it!
Ann (the poster previously misnamed as 'M'),
ReplyDeleteFirst, please don't think that the 'above comments' comment was in any way meant for you. I occasionally get people who leave no name whatsoever. They don't have a blogger id, they don't bother to sign their comments, and they're usually obnoxious jerks. I've had to delete comments from these people before. Those are the people the instruction is meant for. Even if I hadn't accidentally named you 'M', you have a name (your blogger id), I just can't read it. *grin* So please, I hope I didn't upset *you*.
And don't even think twice about 'not answering back sooner' - I assume people do have lives that don't revolve around entertaining me. :) I had my computer die a horrible death just a few weeks ago, so I understand the pain! However FrankenComputer is working well now. I hope your computer problems have been solved!
Now, on to the important stuff. :)
Thank you! I know it's a 'little thing' but this makes me incredibly happy to know!
Orthodox don't receive in the hand, do they? *is pretty certain they don't* Which would make sense in light of:
'Also, venerating (i hope this is the correct word) the priest's right hand when the divine liturgy is finished (as well as on other occasions) is a symbolism to show that we honour and cherish the hand that touches and distributes the Holy Communion.'
See, that's just...I *love* that. I mean, it's Christ, it's God he's touching...maybe it's just me (and I'm not saying that Catholics don't honor the Eucharist or anything), but it seems to be treated with even *more* honor and respect in Orthodoxy.
I mean, I know these aren't huge, theological issues, but they're things that matter to me.
I enjoy learning about such things from you and your commenters. :)
ReplyDeleteI wasn't upset, just wanted to make sure that you weren't:)
ReplyDeleteOrthodox do not receive in the hand. In some divine liturgies(those of saint Mark and saint Gregory and i think in some more), unlike what happens in saint John the Chrysostome's liturgy,we receive Body and Blood separately, but always from the priest and never having the Holy Communion touch our hands. This is of course out of respect towards the Eucharist and it is also a sign of Humility. The priest, in all orthodox services, and most importantly during the divine Liturgy is considered to stand before us depicting Christ, in a way "standing in His place", symbolically. So, it is Christ Himself who is being offered in the Eucharist and it is again Christ Himself who is making that offer. I am kind of translating from greek so i hope i'm making sense... Another reason, maybe less doctrinal but i think quite important, for having the priest only offering Communion, is that in orthodox worship what is offered to become the Body of Christ in Eucharist, is the prosphoron, which is actual bread, that easily breaks down to bits and pieces, so it would be kind of risky to have it wandering around in our hands.
On whether these are "huge, theological issues" i haven't got an answer. However the Church Fathers say that doctrinal or liturgical issues like those, that seem like details, when practised (or not practised, or mal-practised) in every day life contribute to the construction of our eternal "image" as God's images and share a part in our ethical formation (ethical here used not in the sense of the collection of "do's" and "dont's" or "goods" and "bads" but in the sense of attaining a permanent "way of being", as God has a permanent and unchanging way of existing as Love) and are, under that light, of vital importance.
Sorry for going on forever and sorry for an incomprehensible blogger id:) ("for now we see through a glass,darkly; but then face to face:now i know in part;but then shall i know even as also i am known" 1 cor.14:12) :):)
Oh Fascinating. I like it, makes it even more special :)
ReplyDeleteSusanne,
ReplyDeleteWe're here, not just to entertain, but to educate. :) Even such a hoary old scholar as yourself. ;p
Ann,
ReplyDeleteAs long as we're all not upset. :)
The priest in Catholic services is also viewed to be acting in depiction of Christ - or, as they say, 'in persona Christi'.
But still, and this is just my impression, there's less of a sense of...demarcation, I think, between the friendliness of the priest in everyday life, and the office that he is acting in during worship, in the Catholic church as I have observed it. I'm not sure if that makes any sense.
'So, it is Christ Himself who is being offered in the Eucharist and it is again Christ Himself who is making that offer. I am kind of translating from greek so i hope i'm making sense...'
You're making perfect sense, don't worry. :)
'in orthodox worship what is offered to become the Body of Christ in Eucharist, is the prosphoron, which is actual bread, that easily breaks down to bits and pieces, so it would be kind of risky to have it wandering around in our hands.'
While we use a wafer for Communion, the concern about crumbs and 'bits and pieces' still exists. They're not very thick, and actually break fairly easily. It's one of the arguments that people use for wanting Catholics to all go back to receiving only on the tongue. I've read some people who have actually gone so far as to lick their palm after they receive 'just to be sure' (they would have received on the tongue, but there are some parishes that forbid it, which is not actually allowed, but they do it anyway).
'However the Church Fathers say that doctrinal or liturgical issues like those, that seem like details, when practised (or not practised, or mal-practised) in every day life contribute to the construction of our eternal "image" as God's images and share a part in our ethical formation (ethical here used not in the sense of the collection of "do's" and "dont's" or "goods" and "bads" but in the sense of attaining a permanent "way of being", as God has a permanent and unchanging way of existing as Love) and are, under that light, of vital importance.'
Along the lines of, 'the devil is in the details'? Or would this be better stated as, God is in the details? :) I personally feel that, how you do/observe the 'small' things reflects how seriously you take your position on the 'big' things. Do you carry over your stated reverence and submission into the minutiae? Or is it something that 'slides' depending on how 'important' you consider this or that 'minor' action? That's what I tend to think about, anyway. It's easy to say one thing, harder, in many ways, to follow it even down to the seemingly tiniest thing.
Never apologize for long comments! :) And I'm certain that your blogger id is perfectly comprehensible. If one reads Greek. :)
LK,
ReplyDeleteIt's less (to me) about making it special, so much as acknowledging and acting on the holiness of what we're participating it. :)
I have not read your whole post (will do after writing this) but I CAN answer your initial question: Absotootalutely NOT. Only the priest or deacon are allowed to dispense the holy gifts.
ReplyDeleteNow, off to read your post.
Oh, and a deacon only holds the chalice and spoon...he never consecrates the gifts.
ReplyDeleteOne time, in our parish of several hundred people (perhaps six hundred or more), there as only ONE priest one Sunday. Usually there are two other retired priests who are also there to assist in distributing the Eucharist, so we form at least three, if not four lines (we now have a deacon and there are often visiting priests). Well, this one Sunday there was ONE priest and ONE line. And the choir (me in it) sang, and sang and sang and sang and sang and sang and sang and sang and sang and sang and sang and sang and sang....while everyone got in line and the communion was distributed. At one point the priest had to return to the Altar and refill his chalice, or fetch the next chalice, or whatever he did...this is what happens in a very big Orthodox Church when there is only one priest present. Church too a very long time that day. What else is there to do, right?
ReplyDeleteAlana,
ReplyDeleteHeh. As you no doubt know now, the rest of the post was just me explaining the initial question in case people didn't know what it was, or used a different word for it. :)
I'm glad to know that only the priest distributes the Eucharist. Really, I mean I guess it's kind of a weird thing to be bugged by, but the reliance on EMHC's has bugged me for a long time.