www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Eastern Catholic Lay Ministers.

Does the Eastern Catholic Churches permit laypeople to give out Holy Communion?

I certainly hope not because, to me, this seriously de emphasizes the role of the priesthood and almost Protestantizes the Mass/Litrugy of the Church.

IMHO, only the priest should be allowed to handle Communion since it is the body and blood of Christ. Therefore only the hands that consecrated the gifts should be allowed to dispense them to the faithful.

Robert K.

Dear Robert,

The tradition of the Eastern Churches is that laypersons are not permitted to give the Mysteries to the faithful.

The reason for this is not so much the "consecrated hands" (more a Roman notion, I think), but that the Mysteries are given within the Divine Liturgy, and the sacramental distribution of the Mysteries within that context preserves the rich and complex symbolism of the priest-celebrant (as icon and instrument of divine blessing) and the proper relationships of all the community.

Even when the Mysteries are administered outside the Liturgy, a Liturgical service is celebrated, and the priestly ministry emphasized.

In special circumstances, some of the Eastern Churches have granted permission for other ministers to assist in the distribution of the Mysteries, however this is by way of exception and dispensation, and is clearly not the norm.

Elias

Thanks you Elias and Robert.

The Latin practice of non-priests (laypersons and deacons) distributing the Eucharist would not be a welcome development in the Eastern Churches. While the Latin practice of non-priest distributing is not new to their tradition, just because its been done for a long time does not mean it is proper.

The other side of the coin, of course, is the common Latin abuse of priests assumming duties properly of the laity, such as the financial management and control of the parish. I dare say this is an equal abuse to the lay and diaconal distribution of communion.

Axios

Axios,

The deacon in the East and West has always been a minister of Communion. In the early Church the deacons always administered the chalice and took the Communion to the sick/dying. While it is true the priest is the normal minister, given the size of most Eastern Catholic and Orthodox parishes, if neccessity requires the deacon may also distribute. It is quite a common occurence in Greece on Pascha or Christmas. The deacon may also serve Typica and distribute the Gifts during it as well. The Antiochian Orthodox sanction this practice when priests are unavailable.

I am against lay Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist. I am in favor of restoring the subdiaconate in the parishes and if it would be neccessary allow them to distribute the Gifts, whether for lack of/or disability of a priest.

In Christ,
Lance

Lance,

Yes, except in the early church layperson also distributed communion as well. This is not our historical practice however. Additionally, a subdeacon and a lay eucharistic minsiter are really the same thing, with a different terminology.

Axios

In the current UGCC practice, the priest is the ordinary minister of the Holy Mysteries with the deacon. A subdeacon, who has had hands laid on him by the bishop, may be called as the extraordinary minister if necessary. But even in this case someone set aside for service at the altar in orders is the proper extraordinary minister, not a layperson not invested in orders.

Diak,

A subdeacon IS a layperson.

Axios

Read - layperson not invested in orders. I believe there is a distinction between those set aside by the bishop, even for minor orders, through his blessing to a particular order or function within the church specifically to perform that function and laypersons, male or female, not having been set aside.
Subdeacon Randolph, a sinner

A distinction without a difference, maybe? Having accepted lay distribution by a subdeacon, (who, in the Church's history have not always been put in that ministry by a bishop), it then seems a discussion as to what formalities are pastorally best for commissioning lay eucharistic ministers.

My point (I must have one somewhere...Oh, yes...) once BC's have become "a little bit pregnant" by having laity under some circumstance distribute communion, I think after that you are in to too fine of points for us Orthodox to continue to comment. It really becomes internal minutia of the BCC.

Axios

Robert,
Why should they? There is not the need that there is in the Latin Church with the large congregations.
Stephanos I

Yes, I agree, no lay-ministers. By the way, a priest in the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches does not have his hands anointed with oil. So his hands are not consecrated. :p

Stephanos - great reply. We simply have no need and its really a moot point for discussion. I don't know why canonically the issue is even on the table. I am certainly against anyone other than the priest or deacon performing the administration of the mysteries, and that includes myself as a subdeacon. I really don't understand canonically why there is even consideration of such a provision.

I have been at liturgies with a deacon present when because of attendance the deacon did not need to assist in distribution of the mysteries, so why anyone not ordained should do this doesn't really make sense. Even at the large cathedrals, with a deacon assisting the priest, the two of them (with enough verses of Viruju Hospodi to sing for the choir) should be able to get the job done.

It is still not part of Byzantine tradition for the deacon to distribute. In for a penny in for a pound?

Axios

Axios - it's done that way in both Orthodox and Eastern Catholic parishes...Which Byzantine tradition are you referring to? I don't think we can all wait around for the bishop to administer the Holy Mysteries as in apostolic times.

One of the beautiful things about Byzantine spirituality and tradition is precisely the sense of economia, of being flexible in the correct and respectful way when necessary. If you have an elderly priest (common in some parishes)and there is an able deacon assisting, ordained by the bishop into one of the historic and traditional major orders, should he not assist in distribution, especially if the priest is not physically well? This situation does happen. I am picking up some very Latin-ish rigidism here in the interpretation of the practice and tradition.

I am opposed in general to anyone other than the priest assisting in most cases as it is simply unnecessary. But if genuine need and spiritual benefit exist, it is provided for in the liturgical texts for the deacon to assist in the distribution of the Holy Mysteries. Economia. This thread is falling into frivolity, this just isn't really much of an issue in our churches, at least in the UGCC.