Can We Put this Myth to Rest: EF vs EMHC?

[ProVobis]

Can We Put this Myth to Rest…

No. We cannot put this or any other topic to rest. Not on an Internet discussion forum.

It is just simply not possible.

LOL.

Can we now start a “Heaven is an extraterrestrial place” myth?

 

[triumphguy]

and that would be no fun!

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Because it’s not the Ordinary Form, in the same way the EMHCs are not the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion?

With apologies to the OP

Before taking a critical tone in responding it would have been more appropriate to have clarified with me what I meant. It seems to me that you’ve not understood what I said.

 

[curlycool89]

Actually it’s more “outside of, beyond.” However, I do think the Pope meant the term “forma/expressio extraordinaria” in a flattering way. I don’t know the source of EMHC.

If you want to pretend that is the reason.

It’s pretty obvious to everyone else that the Pope called it the Extraordinary Form to contrast it with the Ordinary Form. Otherwise, why would the Pope call it the Ordinary Form? Let’s be honest, we could have kept Mass of Pope Paul VI, nobody really cares that much about the name as long as it’s not disrespectful or derogatory.

No, the only reason it was called the Ordinary Form was to give legal/canonical standing to what is ordinary (OF) and what is extra-ordinary (EF). It doesn’t mean special, it just means “outside of ordinary”.

It’s the same for extra-ordinary ministers of Holy Communion (EMHC). It’s a contrast with the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion (priests, bishops, and deacons). They are EMHC because they are not the ordinary ministers of communion, simply by definition. That’s it.

In both cases, they are not the ordinary, and their name implies they cannot become the ordinary in either case.

In both cases, they are a pastoral response to an imperfect world. In a perfect world, we don’t need EMHC because we would have an abundant amount of ordinary ministers. And in a perfect world, we would not need to have an EF (yes it is a pastoral response, because there’s nothing that requires it to be there. The Latin Rite is complete without the EF, but the Pope (and, to be clear, myself) recognize that there are people who are quite attached to the EF and so it is spiritually advantageous to allow both forms as long as it does not split the Latin Rite into 2 camps. In that case, it would be better to only have 1 form).

 

[TheMc]

Can We Put this Myth to Rest…

No. We cannot put this or any other topic to rest. Not on an Internet discussion forum.

It is just simply not possible.

That’s more truth there in that line than I’ve seen all day anywhere else.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Correct.

“Extraordinary” doesn’t mean “only when absolutely necessary” in either the case of the EF or EMHCs. It just means “other than the ordinary.” Other than the ordinary form of the Mass, and other than the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion.

You cannot have the description of extraordinary in EF mean “other than the ordinary” while the description of extraordinary in EMHC mean “horrible, awful, reprobated, only when absolutely necessary, abnormal, etc.”

Each of the EF and EMHCs are regulated by Church directives, and of course differently.

Just as the parish priest is the extraordinary minister of confirmation. It doesn’t mean that it’s wrong when the priest confirms on the Easter Vigil…it just means that he is not the ordinary minster of confirmation because it is usually the Bishop.

 

[TheMc]

You rock!

Thanks! As for SP, I think I summarized the whole document, so if you want to get the gist of it without digging through the wordy statements, it’s right there for your reading pleasure. I got all of the major “legislative” points, and hopefully most of the other points in the document too.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

In both cases, they are a pastoral response to an imperfect world. In a perfect world, we don’t need EMHC because we would have an abundant amount of ordinary ministers. And in a perfect world, we would not need to have an EF (yes it is a pastoral response, because there’s nothing that requires it to be there. The Latin Rite is complete without the EF, but the Pope (and, to be clear, myself) recognize that there are people who are quite attached to the EF and so it is spiritually advantageous to allow both forms as long as it does not split the Latin Rite into 2 camps. In that case, it would be better to only have 1 form).

I wouldn’t go that far. Ordinary and extraordinary exist in the Church in all sorts of forms. There’s ordinary/extraordinary ministers, there’s also ordinary/extraordinary administration, and ordinary/extraordinary authority.

The term doesn’t always imply that extraordinary means “exists because of an imperfect world.”

In the case of EMHC the Church has made abundantly clear that they exist because of an imperfect world. However that’s not true of every use of the term extraordinary.

 

[TheMc]

In both cases, they are a pastoral response to an imperfect world. In a perfect world, we don’t need EMHC because we would have an abundant amount of ordinary ministers. And in a perfect world, we would not need to have an EF (yes it is a pastoral response, because there’s nothing that requires it to be there. The Latin Rite is complete without the EF, but the Pope (and, to be clear, myself) recognize that there are people who are quite attached to the EF and so it is spiritually advantageous to allow both forms as long as it does not split the Latin Rite into 2 camps. In that case, it would be better to only have 1 form).

But don’t forget that in a perfect world, the OF would be celebrated with great reverence, and would possibly not be the OF we have today.

 

[GwenL]

Actually, in their defense, I don’t think most are making up definitions. The two (EF and EMHC) actually use quite different definitions of “extraordinary.” Let’s dig a little deeper, shall we?

Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion
(Quotes from Redemptionis Sacramentum, unless noted).

[88.] It is the Priest celebrant’s responsibility to minister Communion, perhaps assisted by other Priests or Deacons; and he should not resume the Mass until after the Communion of the faithful is concluded. Only when there is a necessity may extraordinary ministers assist the Priest celebrant in accordance with the norm of law. [Read: only when absolutely necessary, see below for a fleshing out of this concept.]

[151.] Only out of true necessity is there to be recourse to the assistance of extraordinary ministers in the celebration of the Liturgy. Such recourse is …] by its very nature, is supplementary and provisional. [ie, should not be normal] Furthermore, when recourse is had out of necessity to the functions of extraordinary ministers, special urgent prayers of intercession should be multiplied that the Lord may soon send a Priest for the service of the community and raise up an abundance of vocations to sacred Orders. [And if it happens, we should pray that it stops being necessary.]

[157.] 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. [Again: Use only when absolutely necessary.] 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.[If I recall, the word "reprobated " is one of the strongest words they could have used in this context. It’s quite a serious matter.]

Summary:

• Only to be used when absolutely necessary
• If they are used, we should pray “urgent prayers” that this state of necessity cease
• If they are used unnecessarily, it’s a quite serious matter

So overall, the church envisions quite a limited usage of EMHCs.

Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite
From Pope Benedict:
In 2007: “What was sacred for prior generations, remains sacred and great for us as well, and cannot be suddenly prohibited altogether or even judged harmful.”

Summorum Pontificum: (This is quite wordy, so I’ll just summarize the points I’m trying to make. Feel free to go back to the actual document and confirm my summarization if you don’t believe it)

Art. 1: The EF must be given due honor for its venerable and ancient usage.
Art. 2: When celebrating privately, a priest may use the EF 363 days a year. (Not during the Triduum)
Art. 3: Religious communities may also use the EF, either habitually or even permanently and exlusively, if the appropriate Superiors decide.
Art. 4: When celebrating privately, the faithful can attend if they wish. [LOL!]
Art. 5: If there is a stable group asking for the EF, the pastor MUST celebrate the EF or at least allow it to be celebrated, AND ensure they aren’t marginalized for doing so.
Art. 6: Talks about theoretical readings in the vernacular which might be allowed in the future
Art. 7: If the pastor isn’t helping, take it to the bishop, and if he doesn’t, take it to Rome [That’s what I’m always saying on these forums!]
Art. 8: If a bishop is unable to help them, he should talk to Rome, and they will help the bishop help the faithful.
Art. 9: If the pastor wishes and the faithful request it, he can allow the other sacraments be celebrated in the EF, even confirmation. Clerics may also use the 1962 breviary to fulfill their obligation.
Art. 10 The bishop may even set up a parish for the EF people to have as their own.
Art. 11 and 12: beside the point for the issue at hand here.
[Cont. in the next post]

Regarding EMHCs. Most of your comments in red are your personal opinions and personal interpretations. Your summary, therefore, is not a summary of the facts, but is a summary of your personal opinion.

For example, you have added your descriptor “absolutely necessary.” That appears nowhere in RS. Your personal interpretation.

Another example. RS says that for an (able) priest to sit while EMHCs distribute Holy Communion is reprobated. It does not say that excessive use of EMHCs is reprobated. Your addition is an exaggeration, and a false one.

You are of course entitled to your opinion. But let’s not confuse your opinion with fact, or with the teaching of the Church.

 

[markomalley]

Regarding EMHCs. Most of your comments in red are your personal opinions and personal interpretations. Your summary, therefore, is not a summary of the facts, but is a summary of your personal opinion.

For example, you have added your descriptor “absolutely necessary.” That appears nowhere in RS. Your personal interpretation.

Another example. RS says that for an (able) priest to sit while EMHCs distribute Holy Communion is reprobated. It does not say that excessive use of EMHCs is reprobated. Your addition is an exaggeration, and a false one.

You are of course entitled to your opinion. But let’s not confuse your opinion with fact, or with the teaching of the Church.

Well…

Article 8

The Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion

(snip)

§ 2. Extraordinary ministers may distribute Holy Communion at eucharistic celebrations only when there are no ordained ministers present or when those ordained ministers present at a liturgical celebration are truly unable to distribute Holy Communion.(99) They may also exercise this function at eucharistic celebrations where there are particularly large numbers of the faithful and which would be excessively prolonged because of an insufficient number of ordained ministers to distribute Holy Communion. (100)

This function is supplementary and extraordinary (101) and must be exercised in accordance with the norm of law. It is thus useful for the diocesan bishop to issue particular norms concerning extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion which, in complete harmony with the universal law of the Church, should regulate the exercise of this function in his diocese. Such norms should provide, amongst other things, for matters such as the instruction in eucharistic doctrine of those chosen to be extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, the meaning of the service they provide, the rubrics to be observed, the reverence to be shown for such an august Sacrament and instruction concerning the discipline on admission to Holy Communion.

To avoid creating confusion, certain practices are to be avoided and eliminated where such have emerged in particular Churches:

— extraordinary ministers receiving Holy Communion apart from the other faithful as though concelebrants;

— association with the renewal of promises made by priests at the Chrism Mass on Holy Thursday, as well as other categories of faithful who renew religious vows or receive a mandate as extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion;

— the habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass thus arbitrarily extending the concept of “a great number of the faithful”.

Congregation for the Clergy, Instruction on Certain Questions Regarding The collaboration of the non-ordained faithful in the Sacred Ministry of Priest (August 15, 1997)​

 

[ProVobis]

Otherwise, why would the Pope call it the Ordinary Form?

I’ve asked the same question about naming them Sundays in Ordinary Time instead of Sundays after Epiphany or Sundays after Pentecost. And are other 16-17 Sundays Extraordinary? Seems technically they would be according to some schools of distinction here.

 

[triumphguy]

Before taking a critical tone in responding it would have been more appropriate to have clarified with me what I meant. It seems to me that you’ve not understood what I said.

Not so sure I was using a critical tone. Apparently there were nuances in your question I don’t pick up on. If I was using a critical tone it would be fairly obvious I think. Oh, the joys of digital communcation

 

[archangel04]

MC you never fail to amaze me! What is amazing to me as how many people just love their EMHC and I think they would just be so devestated if Rome banned the practice. I agree that there are times when they are needed due to vocations being low. But there are many parishes that have few parishoners and still use an army of EMHCs, and I ask why? Fuller participation of the mass? Higher calling? If so I guess the rest of us are left out

 

[TrueLight]

In both cases, they are not the ordinary, and their name implies they cannot become the ordinary in either case.

I have heard more than one person say this and I don’t believe the EF cannot ever become ordinary.

In both cases, they are a pastoral response to an imperfect world. In a perfect world, we don’t need EMHC because we would have an abundant amount of ordinary ministers. And in a perfect world, we would not need to have an EF (yes it is a pastoral response, because there’s nothing that requires it to be there. The Latin Rite is complete without the EF, but the Pope (and, to be clear, myself) recognize that there are people who are quite attached to the EF and so it is spiritually advantageous to allow both forms as long as it does not split the Latin Rite into 2 camps. In that case, it would be better to only have 1 form).

Meh.

 

[MartyrForJesus]

In both cases, they are a pastoral response to an imperfect world. In a perfect world, we don’t need EMHC because we would have an abundant amount of ordinary ministers. And in a perfect world, we would not need to have an EF (yes it is a pastoral response, because there’s nothing that requires it to be there. The Latin Rite is complete without the EF, but the Pope (and, to be clear, myself) recognize that there are people who are quite attached to the EF and so it is spiritually advantageous to allow both forms as long as it does not split the Latin Rite into 2 camps. In that case, it would be better to only have 1 form).

That is wrong. The EF was never abrogated (in theory) and the Pope, Benedict XVI, said that it never will be abrogated. As TheMC has shown above, the way the term ‘Extra-ordinary’ is used in reference to the Traditional Latin Mass is different to the way it is used when referring to Extra-ordinary ministers of Holy Communion.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

MC you never fail to amaze me! What is amazing to me as how many people just love their EMHC and I think they would just be so devestated if Rome banned the practice. I agree that there are times when they are needed due to vocations being low. But there are many parishes that have few parishoners and still use an army of EMHCs, and I ask why? Fuller participation of the mass? Higher calling? If so I guess the rest of us are left out

I don’t “just love” our EMHC’s however I don’t hate them as I am a realist…with one priest and no deacons…I would love it if we had enough…but it just aint so.

 

[archangel04]

I don’t “just love” our EMHC’s however I don’t hate them as I am a realist…with one priest and no deacons…I would love it if we had enough…but it just aint so.

Hi Annabelle! Long time no chat. Missed ya! BTW I agree with your statement (looks out the window to make sure the sky is not falling)

 

[PA650]

In both cases, they are a pastoral response to an imperfect world. In a perfect world, we don’t need EMHC because we would have an abundant amount of ordinary ministers. And in a perfect world, we would not need to have an EF (yes it is a pastoral response, because there’s nothing that requires it to be there. The Latin Rite is complete without the EF, but the Pope (and, to be clear, myself) recognize that there are people who are quite attached to the EF and so it is spiritually advantageous to allow both forms as long as it does not split the Latin Rite into 2 camps. In that case, it would be better to only have 1 form).

Hence the time has come for us to be courageous in working for a true reform of the reform and also a return to the true liturgy of the Church, which had developed over its bi-millenial history in a continuous flow. I wish and pray that, that would happen. - Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith

newliturgicalmovement.org/2011/12/cardinal-ranjith-time-has-come-powerful.html

 

[pnewton]

I do not think the definitions differ. I think the definitions in both usages are just very literal, and apart from the very literal nature of being outside the ordinary, the two usages have almost nothing in common. There are different rules for each, and the ordinary is different for each. It is spin to compare them, or to disparage either.

I regret that this thread was needed, and perhaps it was, if it arose from any attempt to insinuate that the extraordinary form of the Mass in any way should be limited, or was the same as lay people giving communiont. On the other hand, perhaps it would not have happened if we did not also have so many people second guessing priests and bishops decisions on how to distribute communion. A little bit of the Golden Rule might have prevented this issue from arising.