Altar Servers or EMsHC?

[Nota_Bene]

Due to the age and infirmitites of our priests, and the distance and number of steps to our tabernacle, someone else must bring/return the ciborium to the altar/tabernacle during the Mass.

We have extremely proper and well trained 35-50 year old male altar servers at the early Mass I attend (they are all ex-military.) We also have a jumble of confused and very poorly trained EMsHC.

Who should bring the ciborium to the altar, and back to the tabernacle – the servers or the EMsHC?

The EMsHC seem intent on doing this, although they are not ministers of the altar. I have seen them use their bodies to block-out access to the ciborium, much like a basketball player uses his body to block-out opposing players from the key.

In a few cases I have seen the servers bring/return the ciborium and they do it in a respectful and elegant manner. Any ideas?

 

[netmilsmom]

Nota Bene:

Due to the age and infirmitites of our priests, and the distance and number of steps to our tabernacle, someone else must bring/return the ciborium to the altar/tabernacle during the Mass.

We have extremely proper and well trained 35-50 year old male altar servers at the early Mass I attend (they are all ex-military.) We also have a jumble of confused and very poorly trained EMsHC.

Who should bring the ciborium to the altar, and back to the tabernacle – the servers or the EMsHC?

The EMsHC seem intent on doing this, although they are not ministers of the altar. I have seen them use their bodies to block-out access to the ciborium, much like a basketball player uses his body to block-out opposing players from the key.

In a few cases I have seen the servers bring/return the ciborium and they do it in a respectful and elegant manner. Any ideas?

This is the GIRM on the subject…
Retrieving and Reposing the Sacrament

Since retrieving the Sacrament before Communion and reposing It after Communion is the task of the Ordinary Minister (bishop, priest or deacon), it would fall to him unless impeded, as in the case of infirmity or some other necessity, or to other Ordinary Ministers (concelebrants and deacons), before it would be legitimate for EMCs to do it.

GIRM 163. When the distribution of Communion is finished, the priest himself immediately and completely consumes at the altar any consecrated wine that happens to remain; as for any consecrated hosts that are left, he either consumes them at the altar or carries them to the place designated for the reservation of the Eucharist.

Seems it is the job of the EMC to do it because of the infimity.
Sad but true.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Nota Bene:

Due to the age and infirmitites of our priests, and the distance and number of steps to our tabernacle, someone else must bring/return the ciborium to the altar/tabernacle during the Mass.

We have extremely proper and well trained 35-50 year old male altar servers at the early Mass I attend (they are all ex-military.) We also have a jumble of confused and very poorly trained EMsHC.

Who should bring the ciborium to the altar, and back to the tabernacle – the servers or the EMsHC?

The EMsHC seem intent on doing this, although they are not ministers of the altar. I have seen them use their bodies to block-out access to the ciborium, much like a basketball player uses his body to block-out opposing players from the key.

In a few cases I have seen the servers bring/return the ciborium and they do it in a respectful and elegant manner. Any ideas?

Technically it would be the EMHC.

 

[otm]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

This is the GIRM on the subject…
Retrieving and Reposing the Sacrament

Since retrieving the Sacrament before Communion and reposing It after Communion is the task of the Ordinary Minister (bishop, priest or deacon), it would fall to him unless impeded, as in the case of infirmity or some other necessity, or to other Ordinary Ministers (concelebrants and deacons), before it would be legitimate for EMCs to do it.

GIRM 163. When the distribution of Communion is finished, the priest himself immediately and completely consumes at the altar any consecrated wine that happens to remain; as for any consecrated hosts that are left, he either consumes them at the altar or carries them to the place designated for the reservation of the Eucharist.

Seems it is the job of the EMC to do it because of the infimity.
Sad but true.

I fail to see why it would be sad.

 

[netmilsmom]

otm:

I fail to see why it would be sad.

Because if you read the original post again, you will see that the EMsHCs are acting like a bunch of football players on the Altar and the Servers are the pious ones.

Perhaps the Servers could give some pointers to the EMsHcs.

 

[Pisio]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

Perhaps the Servers could give some pointers to the EMsHcs.

Perhaps suggest to the pastor the the servers double as EMsHC.
Peace
Pisio

 

[Agomemnon]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

This is the GIRM on the subject…
Retrieving and Reposing the Sacrament

Since retrieving the Sacrament before Communion and reposing It after Communion is the task of the Ordinary Minister (bishop, priest or deacon), it would fall to him unless impeded, as in the case of infirmity or some other necessity, or to other Ordinary Ministers (concelebrants and deacons), before it would be legitimate for EMCs to do it.

GIRM 163. When the distribution of Communion is finished, the priest himself immediately and completely consumes at the altar any consecrated wine that happens to remain; as for any consecrated hosts that are left, he either consumes them at the altar or carries them to the place designated for the reservation of the Eucharist.

Seems it is the job of the EMC to do it because of the infimity.
Sad but true.

While I agree that an EMHC ‘can’ do it upon rare circumstances the Altar Boy is technically and historically an instituted order for men and boys. If men are serving as you suggest than it would be those men serving.

No let’s get to the facts…perhaps this moving the tabernacle away from the altar has been a mistake as the Popes have said.
If the tabernacle was upon the altar (as its supposed to be) than there would be no need for any of this silly talk.

 

[Bill_A]

Br. Rich SFO:

Technically it would be the EMHC.

My feeling is at my local Parish, we need more priests. Biblicaly speaking the only person thats supposed to put their hands in the tabernacle is a priest.

 

[Nota_Bene]

Agomemnon:

While I agree that an EMHC ‘can’ do it upon rare circumstances the Altar Boy is technically and historically an instituted order for men and boys. If men are serving as you suggest than it would be those men serving.

No let’s get to the facts…perhaps this moving the tabernacle away from the altar has been a mistake as the Popes have said.
If the tabernacle was upon the altar (as its supposed to be) than there would be no need for any of this silly talk.

Not likely. The Blessed Sacrament is now reposed in a gorgeous (and secure) side chapel that is very well marked so people can find it.

If the tabernacle were in its old position, the celebrant and the servers would have their back to Jesus Christ during the entire Liturgy of the Eucharist – until Jesus was confected in front of them as well.

No, the tabernacle is well located.

 

[EddieArent]

Nota Bene:

If the tabernacle were in its old position, the celebrant and the servers would have their back to Jesus Christ during the entire Liturgy of the Eucharist – until Jesus was confected in front of them as well.

Not if Mass were to be celebrated the right way and the priest were to be facing the tabernacle pre-VII.

Is there any mention in any document that the priest must face the people mondernly?

 

[Nota_Bene]

EddieArent:

Not if Mass were to be celebrated the right way and the priest were to be facing the tabernacle pre-VII.

Is there any mention in any document that the priest must face the people mondernly?

The “right way?” Who says that versus populum is the wrong way? Certainly not the Catholic Church.

Is there any mention in any standing document that the celebrant must have his back to the faithful? I think not.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Are the older altar servers instituted acolytes? If they were, they would be required to serve as EMHC before any other laypeople, in which case the task of reposing the Blessed Sacrament could also be seen to fall to them first after any ordinary ministers of holy communion.

 

[Catholic2003]

Br. Rich SFO:

Technically it would be the EMHC.

Thus, if the altar server were to do it instead of the EMHC, that would be a liturgical abuse.

 

[Nota_Bene]

Catholic2003:

Thus, if the altar server were to do it instead of the EMHC, that would be a liturgical abuse.

Your suggestion has neither been proven or disproven. I was hoping someone could offer more than conjecture.

Because EMsHC are not ministers of the altar, I’m not sure that they should even be near the altar.

In any event, no one has provided any definitive evidence one way or the other.

 

[otm]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

Because if you read the original post again, you will see that the EMsHCs are acting like a bunch of football players on the Altar and the Servers are the pious ones.

Perhaps the Servers could give some pointers to the EMsHcs.

OK, I can agree with that. Pride is reputed to be the cause of Satan’s downfall, and the root of Original Sin. I guess we shouldn’t be too surprised to find it rearing its ugly head elsewhere.

 

[FenianMan]

The question about the placement of the tabernacle and the orientation of the priest is an important one as well as an emotional one, but it doesn’t require snide remarks. Tabernacles are not placed in separate chapels so that people don’t “have their backs to Jesus.” This is indicative of hyper-scrupulosity. The documents which suggest having the tabernacle in some other chapel do so out of an expectation of frequent visitors (to see the Church, not the Blessed Sacrament). If it were in fact the case that it was disrespectful or irreverent to have your back to the tabernacle then everyone would have to walk out of church backwards. That being said, to argue that versus populum is the preferred posture because ad orientem is not legislatively required is a profound misreading of the pertinent documents. As has been noted in in many other places, the missal frequently calls for the priest to “turn” showing the people. If the priest were facing the people then no turn would be required, which *does *suggest that the assumption is for an ad orientem orientation. The posture can be rightfully understood as “better” according to the church not because the Holy Father has written an apostolic exhortation saying, “Ad orientem is better,” but because 1) the Church teaches the Eucharist as primarily sacrificial, a reality better expressed in an ad orientem posture; 2) Saying Mass ad orientem is the practice of the earliest chruch that we can reasonably ascertain and is without question the dominant orientation for the whole of Church history, and 3) it better experesses the further sacramental reality of the priest acting as a mediator between God and the people. In order to prove that another orientation is superior then one would have to find some other princples which the Church does teach which would supercede those already elucidated or would prove that the form of expression constitutes something else.

 

[Defensor_Fidei]

An altar boy has no higher or lower ranking than the EMHC. An ORDINARY minister is a Deacon, Priest or Bishop.

Now read the GIRM comments above.

-Ted

 

[kk1727]

FenianMan:

The question about the placement of the tabernacle and the orientation of the priest is an important one as well as an emotional one, but it doesn’t require snide remarks. Tabernacles are not placed in separate chapels so that people don’t “have their backs to Jesus.” This is indicative of hyper-scrupulosity. The documents which suggest having the tabernacle in some other chapel do so out of an expectation of frequent visitors (to see the Church, not the Blessed Sacrament). If it were in fact the case that it was disrespectful or irreverent to have your back to the tabernacle then everyone would have to walk out of church backwards. That being said, to argue that versus populum is the preferred posture because ad orientem is not legislatively required is a profound misreading of the pertinent documents. **As has been noted in in many other places, the missal frequently calls for the priest to “turn” showing the people. If the priest were facing the people then no turn would be required, which *does ***suggest that the assumption is for an ad orientem orientation. The posture can be rightfully understood as “better” according to the church not because the Holy Father has written an apostolic exhortation saying, “Ad orientem is better,” but because 1) the Church teaches the Eucharist as primarily sacrificial, a reality better expressed in an ad orientem posture; 2) Saying Mass ad orientem is the practice of the earliest chruch that we can reasonably ascertain and is without question the dominant orientation for the whole of Church history, and 3) it better experesses the further sacramental reality of the priest acting as a mediator between God and the people. In order to prove that another orientation is superior then one would have to find some other princples which the Church does teach which would supercede those already elucidated or would prove that the form of expression constitutes something else.

As to the first topic, I’d say there’s reason to move the tabernacle on the basis of providing a differentiation between the *dynamic *celebration of the Sacrifice which takes place on the altar and the static Real Presence of the tabernacle. Akin to this is that the Real Presence on the altar overrides both the reverence due to the altar as the place of sacrifice where the heavenly liturgy comes down to earth and the relic of the saint contained in the altar. Now, I’m not against having the tabernacle on the altar as this is the historical place for it for many centuries, but neither am I against moving in theory. In practice I usually don’t care for where our Lord ends up, but hey that’s just me.

On the second topic you should be careful to differentiate the terms of ad Orientem which means towards the East from versus apsidem or turned towards the Apse which was the actual orientation pre-Vatican II in most Churches. In my local parish it is the missa normativa where the Priest is properly facing towards the East and the Indult Mass where the truly ancient orientation is disregarded in favor of orientation towards the apse. Nevermind that the latter is also technically a liturgical abuse since in *Ritus servandus in celebratione Missae V,3 *there are rubrics for those Churches where facing East is versus populum. Too bad we in the West lost the architectural tradition of facing our Churches along an east/west axis with the apse pointing east. This has long obscured the ancient tradition according to St. Basil that praying towards the east is among the kergyma of the Church to be accorded the same respect as the written Gospels.

Pax,
Keith

 

[Nota_Bene]

FenianMan:

The question about the placement of the tabernacle and the orientation of the priest is an important one as well as an emotional one, but it doesn’t require snide remarks. Tabernacles are not placed in separate chapels so that people don’t “have their backs to Jesus.” This is indicative of hyper-scrupulosity. The documents which suggest having the tabernacle in some other chapel do so out of an expectation of frequent visitors (to see the Church, not the Blessed Sacrament). If it were in fact the case that it was disrespectful or irreverent to have your back to the tabernacle then everyone would have to walk out of church backwards. That being said, to argue that versus populum is the preferred posture because ad orientem is not legislatively required is a profound misreading of the pertinent documents. As has been noted in in many other places, the missal frequently calls for the priest to “turn” showing the people. If the priest were facing the people then no turn would be required, which *does *suggest that the assumption is for an ad orientem orientation. The posture can be rightfully understood as “better” according to the church not because the Holy Father has written an apostolic exhortation saying, “Ad orientem is better,” but because 1) the Church teaches the Eucharist as primarily sacrificial, a reality better expressed in an ad orientem posture; 2) Saying Mass ad orientem is the practice of the earliest chruch that we can reasonably ascertain and is without question the dominant orientation for the whole of Church history, and 3) it better experesses the further sacramental reality of the priest acting as a mediator between God and the people. In order to prove that another orientation is superior then one would have to find some other princples which the Church does teach which would supercede those already elucidated or would prove that the form of expression constitutes something else.

You are sadly confused…

It’s simply very disconcernting to have one’s back to Jesus, at the same time he is being confected on the altar of sacrifice. To suggest that one is suffering from hyper-scrupulosity if one is concerned about this arrangement is simply wrong.

Your argument on the other hand about posture is out and out laughable. The bottom line is that the Church makes no hint that ad orientum is “better” than versus populum. It’s only “better” in your eyes and your argument just dosen’t cut the mustard.

Though no one knows for certain, it’s a good bet the Apostles faced the faithful when they celebrated the Mass…

 

[Nota_Bene]

Defensor Fidei:

An altar boy has no higher or lower ranking than the EMHC. An ORDINARY minister is a Deacon, Priest or Bishop.

Now read the GIRM comments above.

-Ted

You’re wrong.

An EMHC is installed by the Bishop. An altar server is not. Only you apparently are confusing either with an ordinary minister of the Eucharist.

HOWEVER, an altar server is a minister of the altar and an EMHC is not. While the priest should be handling the ciborium under normal circumstances, I really don’t know who the next in line is (barring another priest, a deacon or an instituted acolyte in attendance.)

Now that I look at my own typing it may well be the EMHC – due to his installation by the bishop.

It certainly has nothing to do with your comments or the GIRM cits listed above…