THE UNCONSECRATED HANDS OF THE EUCHARISTIC MINISTER

Recently something interesting struck me at Mass as the Eucharistic ministers staged themselves behind the altar preparing to receive the Blessed Sacrament in both species. A nice lady who’s been a Eucharistic minister for years, recently began receiving the host on her tongue from the priest, a change from having received it from the priest in her hand for years. Then, having expressed such a solemn reverence, she then proceeded to her place and began delivering the host with her unconsecrated hand.

I thought this odd, being that she viewed her hands to be unworthy of touching the Blessed Sacrament, yet then proceeded to use the same unconsecrated hands to deliver the host to others.

The moment manifested an incongruity between the consecrated hands of the priest who hands out communion, and the unconsecrated hands of the Eucharistic minister who does the very same thing. Yes, we know the convenience of having “extra hands” to save everyone time, and process the delivery of the Blessed Sacrament to the congregation in a timely manner that allows them to return in time to their homes to catch the football game in time, or some other important event. A worldly influence? I get it.

But why has it been necessary to consecrate the hands of the priest anyway? The consecration of hands is more than a liturgical detail. It is a quiet yet profound acknowledgment of the priest’s mission: to bless, to consecrate, to serve, and to lead others toward the sacred.

So why has the Church been seemingly cavalier in allowing a lay person’s unconsecrated hands to handle the Eucharist? Yes, our understanding of the Eucharist has developed and evolved over the centuries. But the development has been in a more reverential, not secular, path. The Eucharistic minister does not handle a less-meaningful Eucharist does he/she?

And what does the Canon Law say about this? Canon Law 910.2 only defines this person as an Extraordinary Minister. That their use in Mass is in extraordinary situations of clergy shortage, or large congregations. But we all know this has been abused. A story for another time.

The rite of consecrating a priest’s hands during ordination is a practice steeped in centuries of Catholic tradition and spiritual symbolism. It emerged within the Latin Rite and gained prominence around the 11th century during the Middle Ages, becoming a hallmark of the priestly vocation. The anointing of hands with holy oil has always signified the sacred responsibility bestowed upon the priest, especially and because he will handle the Eucharist and administer the Church’s sacraments.

This intimate gesture embodies the Church’s deep reverence for the sacramental life. St. Thomas Aquinas eloquently highlighted its significance, because of his Eucharistic Theology noting that out of reverence for the Eucharist, only consecrated hnads may touch it. During the ordination rite, the Roman Pontifical prescribes the anointing with chrism oil, along with the prayer: “Whatever they bless may be blessed, whatever they consecrate may become sacred and holy, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” These words affirm that the priest becomes a vessel through which divine grace flows.

I served as a traveling Eucharistic minister briefly years ago, bringing the Eucharist to those in nursing homes. But I could never warm to the fact that I was delivering the Eucharist with unconsecrated hands. Call it scrupulosity, perhaps.

Popes like John Paul II and Benedict XVI spoke reverently about this practice, emphasizing its role in reinforcing the priest’s calling to act in persona Christi, standing in the person of Christ during the liturgy and sacraments.

The practice of Eucharistic ministers seems to fly in the face of Eucharistic Theology.
Either St. Thomas Aquinas got it wrong. Or, there’s been a human misunderstanding of how that theology should be applied, resulting in something of a schizophrenic understanding of what the Eucharist – the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ–truly means.

So, what is the theology of the Eucharist that explains why a priests hands must be anointed and consecrated, but the hands of a Eucharistic minister does not need to be? What is it about the Eucharist, theologically, that explains this seemingly schizophrenic position? Is there one?