G.K. Chesterton once said that there is “a silent anarchy eating out our society” because there is a wholesale “incapacity to grasp that the exception proves the rule.” What he meant by this the very fact that when we treat something extraordinary, we are in fact admitting that there is an ordinary. The anarchy has come in because we now treat the exception as the rule. Possible is interpreted as probable and all dogmatic statements are rendered useless. Unfortunately, this habit has crept into the Church as well and has led to a widescale adoption of things that were hitherto thought sacrilegious. One such example considers special attention today and that is the use of so-called Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.
The Church has not been immune to the Covidiocy that has attacked our world, especially in the Liturgy. Not only was there a long-term liturgical blackout, but the dictatorship of the hygienic has led to all kinds of abuses of Our Lord in the distribution of Communion. Part of the issue can be placed at the feet of bad catechesis.
The Real, Real Presence
In the 12th and 13th Centuries, the Church was confronted with a Eucharistic heresy that might be described as an exaggerated realism in which the broken Host or half-filled chalice was thought to no longer contain the whole Christ since the sacred species had become corrupted. The Church, adopting the view of St. Thomas that Christ was wholly present as long as the appearances of bread and wine were not corrupted (say through digestion for example) was quick to defend the truth that Christ is wholly present in even the smallest particle of the Host or the smallest drop of the Precious Blood. As St. Thomas puts it:
If there be such change on the part of the accidents as would not have sufficed for the corruption of the bread and wine, then the body and blood of Christ do not cease to be under this sacrament on account of such change, whether the change be on the part of the quality, as for instance, when the color or the savor of the bread or wine is slightly modified; or on the part of the quantity, as when the bread or the wine is divided into such parts as to keep in them the nature of bread or of wine. But if the change be so great that the substance of the bread or wine would have been corrupted, then Christ’s body and blood do not remain under this sacrament; and this either on the part of the qualities, as when the color, savor, and other qualities of the bread and wine are so altered as to be incompatible with the nature of bread or of wine; or else on the part of the quantity, as, for instance, if the bread be reduced to fine particles, or the wine divided into such tiny drops that the species of bread or wine no longer remain.
ST III q.77, art.4
In summary, provided that the Eucharist does not undergo a substantial change, Christ remains whole and entire in each and every part. This foundational truth has profound practical implications both in the manner in which we receive and respond. If Christ remains whole and entire as long as the borrowed accidental appearances of bread and wine are present, then we truly have Christ wholly present within us until the species are digested. This ought to inspire in us a profound reverence and gratitude by which we remain wholly attentive to the Divine presence. We should be slow to leave the Church and never omit sentiments of sincere thanksgiving and self-offering.
Our response however is conditioned on our reception and so a special emphasis needs to be placed on the manner in which Communion is distributed. Communion in the hand, which I have spoken of previously, is one such abuse that should be avoided. The passing of the Sacred Host back and forth most certainly leads to particles of the Host falling to the ground. Add to this the phenomenon of masks which are usually touched after receiving the Host in the hand and there is an even greater risk that the small particles of the Host is lost. Receiving in the hand is also by far the less sanitary means of receiving as our hands are far dirtier than our tongues, especially considering that Communion on the tongue, when done properly, does not lead to any tongue to hand contact the way that there is hand to hand contact when receiving in the hand.
The hygienic considerations hinge on the clause “when done properly”. Those who receive on the tongue know to tilt their head back and extend their tongue and priests know how to place it on the tongue without touching it. Consider further that when the Priest is taller than the person receiving (which happens 100% of the time when Communion is received while kneeling) then the chances of contact are far less than if Communion was received in the hand. The problem of course is that far too often, Communion is distributed by someone other than a Priest.
“Eucharistic Ministers”
All of this leads up to the question of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. This “office” is a relatively new phenomenon in the Church and was not present anywhere at any time during the first 1900 years of Christianity. It was added as part of the Liturgical changes made in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. It was meant to facilitate the distribution of Holy Communion when some extraordinary circumstance dictated it. The problem of course was that it fell upon the soil of anarchy that Chesterton mentioned so that it became ordinary and thus has led the way to great abuse of the Blessed Sacrament.
One of the reasons the Church has traditionally avoided the sanctioning of Extraordinary Ministers is certainly the practical things we have already discussed. But there are deep theological reasons for not using them also. Not only does it lead to abuses of Our Lord in the Sacrament, but it ends up being an attack upon the Faith itself.
Traditionally only men who received the Sacrament of Orders could touch the Eucharist because only they, by virtue of their ordination, have been consecrated to the service of God in the Liturgy. This consecration is not merely symbolic but real. Sacraments effect what they signify so that they have been Sacramentally conformed to Christ the Priest through a Sacramental Character. It is Christ who distributes the Eucharist and only those who have been Sacramentally conformed to Him should do so. This power cannot be delegated.
If that is true then why did the Church reverse course? They thought that there might be times when, because of some extraordinary circumstance such as a Priest not being available or too infirm to come off the Altar and distribute Communion. But like all “exceptions” those who have a clear agenda to Protestantize the Church seized the opportunity to further blur the distinction between the Ministerial Priesthood and the Priesthood of All Believers. The exception became the rule.
The Vatican has repeatedly cautioned against the “habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion…[as something that is] to be avoided and eliminated where such have emerged in particular Churches” (Ecclesia de Mysterio, 1997). Despite the clear mandate and the fact that most churches are now at less than 50% capacity, the practice has continued.
The Mandate
The Congregation for Divine Worship in 2004 called upon all the Faithful to maintain Eucharistic integrity, saying “In an altogether particular manner, let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favoritism” (Redemptionis Sacramentum §183). It is in that spirit that “everyone” should actively work to remedy the abuse. This can be done, not in some democratic way, but through an application of the law of supply and demand. Those who want to see greater reverence for Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament should not serve as Extraordinary Ministers to cut off the supply. To reduce the demand, one should avoid receiving from them in situations where it is reasonable to receive from the Ordinary Minister of Holy Communion.
St. Paul informs the Corinthians that many of their infirmities are being caused by their Eucharistic irreverence. Abusing the Blessed Sacrament is literally causing their sickness. That is why it is ironic that in the name of keeping people from getting sick, the Church has turned a blind eye to the many Eucharistic offenses. What if, rather than making it better, it was actually making people get sick? We need to all work to restore Eucharistic piety, which starts by eliminating the ordinary usage of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.