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

[NewEnglandPriest]

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 don’t think that’s really fair. I think its more a case of people sick and tired of hearing negative things about EMHC when these are individuals who usually love their Church and their faith and are just trying to help out in accordance with what the Church allows.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

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.

The extraordinary form of the Mass has been limited in the past and could be again. Anything labeled extraordinary by the Church is subject to regulation, whether its the form of Mass, EMHC, administrative functions, Minister of Confirmation, etc. However the reasons for their existence and their current regulations differ greatly.

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t think that’s really fair. I think its more a case of people sick and tired of hearing negative things about EMHC when these are individuals who usually love their Church and their faith and are just trying to help out in accordance with what the Church allows.

This may be true. However, isn’t it also human nature to dislike those who appear to be holier than the others, especially since it doesn’t exactly appear to take much skill or training to be an EMHC? Just saying.

 

[ProVobis]

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 agree. The word “extraordinary” is just an adjective which modifies a noun. In our Anglophone world we could just as easily use the words “amazing” or “super” or “outstanding” and draw just as much ire, failing to realize it’s the noun that really should matter. A form performs a function of a form and a minister performs a function of a minister, regardless of adjectives used.

 

[markomalley]

I don’t think that’s really fair. I think its more a case of people sick and tired of hearing negative things about EMHC when these are individuals who usually love their Church and their faith and are just trying to help out in accordance with what the Church allows.

The existence of EMHCs (should not) be offensive to anybody (except the most radical traditionalist). The function is clearly called for, on an extraordinary basis,

I think what offends people are abuses that are typically associated with EMHCs.

For example (not an exhaustive list):

• In many places, they are referred to as “eucharistic ministers”. They are not “eucharistic ministers”, they are not “extraordinary eucharistic ministers”, they are “extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion”. There is a difference.
• In many places, they are used at the exclusion of ordinary ministers far too often. For example, in my parish, there are three priests and four permanent deacons. Our sanctuary holds about 500 people We have six masses per weekend, four of which are on Sunday morning. On a typical basis, there is no great need to use EMHCs, with the possible exception of the vigil Mass and the Sunday evening Mass. Four out of the seven ordinary ministers could perform the function with no problems. But EMHCs are used. Every Mass. On weekday Masses, they use two EMHCs (for a total number of less than 50 communicants). If this does not qualify as “habitual use”, I don’t know what does. I list my parish as typical, but I see that as the norm, in virtually every place where I attend Mass.
• Far too often EMHCs are in the habit of giving “blessings” to people in a communion line (for example, blessing infants and children who accompany parents who are receiving communion). To the best of my knowledge, that is a massive no-no. (Can 1169 & Ecclesia de Mysterio Art 6 § 2)

Again, most people I communicate with do not have something against EMHCs in of themselves, rather, they have something against abuses.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

The existence of EMHCs (should not) be offensive to anybody (except the most radical traditionalist). The function is clearly called for, on an extraordinary basis,

I hate the use of the wording “extraordinary basis” because I think it gives the wrong impression. I would say “as needed” or “in accordance with regulations.”

I think what offends people are abuses that are typically associated with EMHCs.

Agreed, but far too often posts about EMHC deal with either their mere existence or their gender.

• In many places, they are referred to as “eucharistic ministers”. They are not “eucharistic ministers”, they are not “extraordinary eucharistic ministers”, they are “extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion”. There is a difference.

Yes, there is a technical difference between the two. However for many people who use the incorrect term I don’t think they mean anything by it, they simply find Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion to be a mouthful. I know a few very conservative priests who still say “eucharistic ministers.”

• In many places, they are used at the exclusion of ordinary ministers far too often

Agreed that should not be done.

• Far too often EMHCs are in the habit of giving “blessings” to people in a communion line

Again, agreed. However that’s a different conversation.

 

[zab]

The existence of EMHCs (should not) be offensive to anybody (except the most radical traditionalist). The function is clearly called for, on an extraordinary basis,

I think what offends people are abuses that are typically associated with EMHCs.

For example (not an exhaustive list):

• In many places, they are referred to as “eucharistic ministers”. They are not “eucharistic ministers”, they are not “extraordinary eucharistic ministers”, they are “extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion”. There is a difference.
• In many places, they are used at the exclusion of ordinary ministers far too often. For example, in my parish, there are three priests and four permanent deacons. Our sanctuary holds about 500 people We have six masses per weekend, four of which are on Sunday morning. On a typical basis, there is no great need to use EMHCs, with the possible exception of the vigil Mass and the Sunday evening Mass. Four out of the seven ordinary ministers could perform the function with no problems. But EMHCs are used. Every Mass. On weekday Masses, they use two EMHCs (for a total number of less than 50 communicants). If this does not qualify as “habitual use”, I don’t know what does. I list my parish as typical, but I see that as the norm, in virtually every place where I attend Mass.
• Far too often EMHCs are in the habit of giving “blessings” to people in a communion line (for example, blessing infants and children who accompany parents who are receiving communion). To the best of my knowledge, that is a massive no-no. (Can 1169 & Ecclesia de Mysterio Art 6 § 2)

Again, most people I communicate with do not have something against EMHCs in of themselves, rather, they have something against abuses.

But whose fault is all of this really? The pastor has much to say about how things are done in his parish, whether that be telling the EMHC what they are supposed to do or correcting abuses. Even if the parish has a lay person who is in charge of training, they still get their direction from the pastor on what to do and what not to do. In many cases the EMHC are doing what they have been instructed to do.

 

[markomalley]

But whose fault is all of this really? The pastor has much to say about how things are done in his parish, whether that be telling the EMHC what they are supposed to do or correcting abuses. Even if the parish has a lay person who is in charge of training, they still get their direction from the pastor on what to do and what not to do. In many cases the EMHC are doing what they have been instructed to do.

Exactly my point.

 

[archangel04]

The existence of EMHCs (should not) be offensive to anybody (except the most radical traditionalist). The function is clearly called for, on an extraordinary basis,

I think what offends people are abuses that are typically associated with EMHCs.

For example (not an exhaustive list):

• In many places, they are referred to as “eucharistic ministers”. They are not “eucharistic ministers”, they are not “extraordinary eucharistic ministers”, they are “extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion”. There is a difference.
• In many places, they are used at the exclusion of ordinary ministers far too often. For example, in my parish, there are three priests and four permanent deacons. Our sanctuary holds about 500 people We have six masses per weekend, four of which are on Sunday morning. On a typical basis, there is no great need to use EMHCs, with the possible exception of the vigil Mass and the Sunday evening Mass. Four out of the seven ordinary ministers could perform the function with no problems. But EMHCs are used. Every Mass. On weekday Masses, they use two EMHCs (for a total number of less than 50 communicants). If this does not qualify as “habitual use”, I don’t know what does. I list my parish as typical, but I see that as the norm, in virtually every place where I attend Mass.
• **Far too often EMHCs are in the habit of giving “blessings” to people in a communion line (for example, blessing infants and children who accompany parents who are receiving communion). To the best of my knowledge, that is a massive no-no. (Can 1169 & Ecclesia de Mysterio Art 6 § 2)
  **
  Again, most people I communicate with do not have something against EMHCs in of themselves, rather, they have something against abuses.

Exactly!
In responce to the blessings, I’ve seen this explain to some EMC at parish level and on here at CAF and still refuse to obey Rome. There excuse is that if a person request a blessing then they will give it to them. Too much clericalization and confusion. I just don’t understand what is so difficult in accepting that we all have our place in this world?

 

[archangel04]

But whose fault is all of this really? The pastor has much to say about how things are done in his parish, whether that be telling the EMHC what they are supposed to do or correcting abuses. Even if the parish has a lay person who is in charge of training, they still get their direction from the pastor on what to do and what not to do. In many cases the EMHC are doing what they have been instructed to do.

Then when you have priest who wish to correct the problem the laity get upset and begin to protest. Some priest have the patience to go against the flow, others simply do not.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Then when you have priest who wish to correct the problem the laity get upset and begin to protest. Some priest have the patience to go against the flow, others simply do not.

And this is simply due to our poor state of catechesis and our society’s value on personal independence and rejection of authority.

 

[Kerry77]

I would like to see only male altar servers, male EMHCs (when needed!) and male lectors. And heck, since I’m going to get it for this comment anyway, I prefer male cantors as well.

However we want to pray and work to increase vocations, that is all well and good.

But no one can argue that having up to 15 women/girls on the altar during a single Mass, as it is in my parish, encourages vocations to the priesthood. It is a fact that as women become predominant in a field or an activity, men become less attracted to it.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I would like to see only male altar servers, male EMHCs (when needed!) and male lectors. And heck, since I’m going to get it for this comment anyway, I prefer male cantors as well.

However we want to pray and work to increase vocations, that is all well and good. But no one can argue that having up to 15 women/girls on the altar during a single Mass, as it is in my parish, is going to encourage vocations to the priesthood.

I agree with you, but I’m going to popcorn it anyway.

 

[zab]

Exactly!
In responce to the blessings, I’ve seen this explain to some EMC at parish level and on here at CAF and still refuse to obey Rome. There excuse is that if a person request a blessing then they will give it to them. Too much clericalization and confusion. I just don’t understand what is so difficult in accepting that we all have our place in this world?

It is an exaggeration to say that some here at CAF refuse to obey Rome on this issue. The question is whether or not Rome has in fact made a decision on this issue. Those who quote the protocol stating that this issue is still under study are not refusing to obey Rome.

 

[zab]

Then when you have priest who wish to correct the problem the laity get upset and begin to protest. Some priest have the patience to go against the flow, others simply do not.

I don’t think this is true in most cases. I think most people want to do the right thing and they do as they have been instructed to do.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Then when you have priest who wish to correct the problem the laity get upset and begin to protest. Some priest have the patience to go against the flow, others simply do not.

I think we have to be careful to separate real life from the distorted view here on CAF. When things are changed in any place where people have been accustomed to one thing, there is always a period of confusion and transition. To say that that equals a protest is not charitable and not really truthful.

Priests are people too and some are not as patient, true. Some also do not explain things well or are not willing to work with the laity who have held office (as EMHC scheduler, sacristan, whatever) to bring the changes about.

Also, we get lots of posts about the new wonderful priest and the evil lay people because someone forgot and walked up to the altar too soon, or got too close, or set out the wrong altar vessels by accident.

If we all through our prayers and good example brign about a little change to the better at our parishes, we should rejoice and thank God. While venting can help blow off steam, we also need to be careful not to let it make us more and more critical, so that our once prayerful in imperfect parish becomes to us a hotbed of radicalism.

 

[TheMc]

But whose fault is all of this really? The pastor has much to say about how things are done in his parish, whether that be telling the EMHC what they are supposed to do or correcting abuses. Even if the parish has a lay person who is in charge of training, they still get their direction from the pastor on what to do and what not to do. In many cases the EMHC are doing what they have been instructed to do.

That’s the entire problem.

 

[TheMc]

Yes, there is a technical difference between the two. However for many people who use the incorrect term I don’t think they mean anything by it, they simply find Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion to be a mouthful. I know a few very conservative priests who still say “eucharistic ministers.”

Yes, even some conservatives get it wrong, but the point is, the church has clearly said:

“[T]he name “Minister of the Eucharist” [Eucharistic Minister] belongs properly to the Priest alone. …] [The function of EMHC] is to be understood strictly according to the name by which it is known.”

It may be a technical difference, but it is one that we should be making, and teaching about if we aren’t making.

 

[TheMc]

It is an exaggeration to say that some here at CAF refuse to obey Rome on this issue. The question is whether or not Rome has in fact made a decision on this issue. Those who quote the protocol stating that this issue is still under study are not refusing to obey Rome.

Just because something is under study does not mean that anything they say about it doesn’t matter, especially when they reference existing documents. They said “It’s under study, so we’ll limit ourselves to the following.” They could have said more against them, but they decieded to keep it at that. It does not mean, however, that what they say doesn’t matter.

 

[zab]

Just because something is under study does not mean that anything they say about it doesn’t matter, especially when they reference existing documents. They said “It’s under study, so we’ll limit ourselves to the following.” They could have said more against them, but they decieded to keep it at that. It does not mean, however, that what they say doesn’t matter.

That is not the point. The point is that it is incorrect and insulting to say that some at CAF are refusing to obey Rome because they point out that the matter is under study.