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

[TheMc]

Exactly. I love the self-described “traditional” Catholics who have a visceral reaction to “extraordinary” ministers, even to the point of jumping lines to avoid receiving communion from them, yet think that the “extraordinary” form of the Mass should be the only form. You can’t have it both ways–you can’t make up your own definitions to suit your own feelings.

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]

 

[TheMc]

[Cont. from the last post]
Universae Ecclesiae
(Again, summarized for easy reading)
1: The above document has helped to make the richness of the Roman liturgy more accessible to the faithful.
6: Defines OF and EF. Both are two usages of the Roman Rite, to be used alongside one another. The EF “is to be maintained with appropriate honor.”
8.1: The EF is to be considered a “precious treasure to be preserved”
8.2: The EF should be effectively guaranteed to those who ask.
13: Bishops should be in agreement with the mens (mind) of the holy father in these areas
14: The bishop is to ensure that the EF is respected
15: The pastors of churches should allow the EF to be celebrated if it is asked for.
18: Even in places of pilgrimage, the EF is to be celebrated when asked for by pilgrims.
23: Celebrating the EF privately is allowed to all priests secular and religious, and to do so, no special permission is needed in any case.
33: The Triduum can be celebrated in the EF if asked for, even if that means celebrating the Triduum rites twice in the same church (once OF, once EF)

Make note of what it does not say:
It is only to be used in cases of necessity, and with great demand
The EF is not important
The EF should not be frequently celebrated
People who wish to attend the EF should eventually be taught to like the OF
If the pastor says no, then it can’t happen.
If the bishop says no, then it can’t happen.
The Triduum can not be celebrated in the EF if it is already being celebrated in the OF at a particular church.

Clearly, the two are not equal. Can we finally put this myth to rest?

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

And if you have too many people at your masses given the number of priests and deacons, get an altar rail. It is much more efficient and much more reverent. EMHC’s were never meant to be a way to encourage participation of the laity, as using the Body and Blood of our Lord to do this seems highly profane. Let’s pray for vocations so that we no longer have a need for these EMHC’s.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

What, is the idea supposed to be that anything “extraordinary” is so in exactly the same sense? Silly. Something might be out of the ordinary in any number of different ways.

 

[triumphguy]

In the meantime my parish has 6 weekend masses with 2 priests and no deacons, with approximately 5-600 people at each mass. So EMHCs are necessary due to the amount of time it would take for the priest by themselves to serve communion to the faithful.

 

[TheMc]

What, is the idea supposed to be that anything “extraordinary” is so in exactly the same sense? Silly. Something might be out of the ordinary in any number of different ways.

Yes, that’s the premise many put forward. Indeed, very silly.

“You people are always complaining about EMHCs, but what about your EF? Huh?! Huh?!”

I finally had to spend an hour and put this to rest forever, because it always bugs me when I see it. Now when I see it, I just link over to those posts above.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

In the meantime my parish has 6 weekend masses with 2 priests and no deacons, with approximately 5-600 people at each mass. So EMHCs are necessary due to the amount of time it would take for the priest by themselves to serve communion to the faithful.

I think the OP adequately explained that they can be used if necessary, but that we should pray for vocations so that we do not need them. Given that, I don’t understand what you’re getting at.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

[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]

On this issue, your red comment I think is an overreach. If there’s not enough ordained clergy to properly distributed communion in a particular parish then it would become the normal procedure to have EMCHs at Masses.

As for why the term “reprobated” is used, yes its a strong word, however I’d caution reading too much into the severity of its use. The term is also used as a way of specifically preventing things from being claimed as “local custom.”

 

[TheMc]

On this issue, your red comment I think is an overreach. If there’s not enough ordained clergy to properly distributed communion in a particular parish then it would become the normal procedure to have EMCHs at Masses.

I should have said “in an ideal world, they would not be normal [since the prayers for vocations would be answered].” I was thinking that when I typed it, I don’t know why I didn’t put it down. Thanks for pointing that out.

As for why the term “reprobated” is used, yes its a strong word, however I’d caution reading too much into the severity of its use. The term is also used as a way of specifically preventing things from being claimed as “local custom.”

However, I’ll stand by my interpretation of reprobated. There’s no reason for capable priests to stand by while the laity does their job. It’s a severe distortion of the role of EMHCs.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

However, I’ll stand by my interpretation of reprobated. There’s no reason for capable priests to stand by while the laity does their job. It’s a severe distortion of the role of EMHCs.

I agree, there’s no reasonable explanation for such choices. That’s why I think the Vatican was trying to put an end to it. They were explaining that it is not a legitimate interpretation of the law.

And in defense of the poster you quoted, I think they did have a legitimate point. The EF of Mass is extraordinary because its use can be limited, though at this time it is not. The OF is always and everywhere the Mass of the Church. Any other Mass may be restricted. How the EMHC and how the EF of Mass are regulated are indeed different, but in essence the word extraordinary is being used in the same way.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Why did the Pope call it the extraordinary form? I don’t think we can go around changing the meaning of extraordinary to meet our own agendas.

 

[triumphguy]

I think the OP adequately explained that they can be used if necessary, but that we should pray for vocations so that we do not need them. Given that, I don’t understand what you’re getting at.

See…

On this issue, your red comment I think is an overreach. If there’s not enough ordained clergy to properly distributed communion in a particular parish then it would become the normal procedure to have EMCHs at Masses.

“If necessary” has become “normal” in many parishes, and so thank God for the EMHCs!. They are not a necessary evil, they are good people ministering to the faithful in an extra-ordinary way.

And I agree: we should pray for vocations.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

Why did the Pope call it the extraordinary form? I don’t think we can go around changing the meaning of extraordinary to meet our own agendas.

What definition was he trying to change? He clearly showed how the EF is supposed to be used and the rules regarding its use.

 

[triumphguy]

Why did the Pope call it the extraordinary form? I don’t think we can go around changing the meaning of extraordinary to meet our own agendas.

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

 

[GwenL]

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

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.

 

[TrueLight]

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]

You rock!

 

[ProVobis]

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.

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.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

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.

Correct. The definition of extraordinary in both cases is the same. What isn’t the same is what the church directives say about how, when, and why the extraordinary thing should be managed.

We should all be praying for vocations, in our own families, in our parishes, in the world. In the meantime, we should pray for the priests we do have, and trust them to follow God’s will and the bishop’s guidance in all things.

 

[markomalley]

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.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

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.

IIRC, Back the Future clearly stated that a resolved issue on the internet would cause a paradox in the space-time continuum and result in the implosion of the universe.