EMHC: Something is weird here

  • Thread starter Thread starter manualman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

manualman

Guest
I’m more confused the more I think about lay people and the EMHC role.

If the ordinary minister is the priest and deacons and the ‘extraordinary’ minister is the lay person, what does that mean?

Does it mean: It would be nice if we could reserve this role to those with Holy Orders, but the numers are too large, so we can’t.

Does it imply that an ‘ordinary’ or ‘healthy’ church would have enough priests and deacons to do it without lay help?

Does it imply that EMHC’s ought to be unusual and used only in rare cases?

It just seems odd that ‘Extraordinary’ Ministers of Holy Communion’ drastically outnumber the ‘ordinary’ ones everywhere I’ve been to mass in my life.

Is there some kind of disconnect here or do I incorrectly understand the term?
 
Your question is just the result of a basic and normal missunderstanding of the role of the EMHC.

Think of the word Ordinary in this sense as regular or normal. What it really means is that this person has legal jurisdiction over the distrobution of Holy Communion.

The term Extraordinary is just that. They are only to be used in a case of necessity. The purpose is that there may be occasion when there may be so many communicants that it would take the ordinary ministers greater than half an hour to give out communion. In these circumstances an EMHC is to be used to help ease the burden on the clergy and on the people receiving. However, as you know they have become normative which is still not the intent that the Holy See has when using EMHC. It is a position created our of practicality.
 
EMHC are just that-- extraordinary. Rome specifically states that they are only to be employed when ordained ministers (i.e., priests and deacons) cannot distribute Holy Communion to everyone without making Mass insanely long. The fact that we see the EMHCs outnumber the priest is an abuse, mostly found in the disobedient American Church, I’m sure.

If you watched the Christmas Eve Mass from the Vatican this year, you notice that there were several thousand people in attendance who needed to receive Communion. Well, the Vatican has a slight advantage being in the capital city of Christianity, so there were over 100 priests who distributed Holy Communion. So the Vatican shows us that priests are the ordinary ministers, and lay persons are only to be used in extraordinary circumstances, as the very name implies.

Of course, you’ll hear a lot of EMHCs talk about how this is their vocation somehow. Nonsense. It’s an emergency plan that was devised in response to lower numbers of priests and on occasions where there are many more people at Mass than usual, such as Christmas and Easter.

From Redemptionis Sacramentum:
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.
Click to expand...
%between%
 
I’ll tell you what I think is weirder still.
When Extraordinary misnisters are used to bless the people with ashes on Ash Wednesday and bless throats on the day that happens (which I don’t recall right now).
Both could have happend to me and I didn’t like it one bit so I made sure I got into a line with the Priest at the end of it.
 
40.png
mosher:
The term Extraordinary is just that. They are only to be used in a case of necessity. The purpose is that there may be occasion when there may be so many communicants that it would take the ordinary ministers greater than half an hour to give out communion. In these circumstances an EMHC is to be used to help ease the burden on the clergy and on the people receiving. However, as you know they have become normative which is still not the intent that the Holy See has when using EMHC. It is a position created our of practicality.
Click to expand...
But the guys in Rome are smart guys. Surely they can do the math. Surely they realize that promulgating communion under both species at the same time that the priest:lay ratio is 1:several thousand has implications.

How can they simultaneously state that the ordinary means for distribution of communion is from priests and deacons AND create a situation that requires many more ministers to distribute the sacrament? It seems self-contradictory.

Why is it that my parish (which has done a fair amount of work to comply with the GIRM) has three priests, all of which are usually present to greet those leaving every mass, but only one of which distributes communion at each mass?
 
40.png
UKcatholicGuy:
EMHC are just that-- extraordinary. Rome specifically states that they are only to be employed when ordained ministers (i.e., priests and deacons) cannot distribute Holy Communion to everyone without making Mass insanely long. The fact that we see the EMHCs outnumber the priest is an abuse, mostly found in the disobedient American Church, I’m sure.

If you watched the Christmas Eve Mass from the Vatican this year, you notice that there were several thousand people in attendance who needed to receive Communion. Well, the Vatican has a slight advantage being in the capital city of Christianity, so there were over 100 priests who distributed Holy Communion. So the Vatican shows us that priests are the ordinary ministers, and lay persons are only to be used in extraordinary circumstances, as the very name implies.

Of course, you’ll hear a lot of EMHCs talk about how this is their vocation somehow. Nonsense. It’s an emergency plan that was devised in response to lower numbers of priests and on occasions where there are many more people at Mass than usual, such as Christmas and Easter.

From Redemptionis Sacramentum:
%between%
Click to expand...
I agree that EMHC’s should only be used when needed, and also agree that some get big headed and think that they are above oters. I’m a EMHC myself, the problem in our diocese is that since there is such a shortage of Priest’s some run 2 or three parishes, there is a much more needed role for these EMHC’s. Pray for vocations, that more men will step up and become Priest’s, and Deacons.

Peace
 
I don’t know about EMHC’s giving blessings(children and throats etc.). That defintely seems off but what would the problem be distributing the already blessed by the priest ashes on Ash Wednesday? If the EMHC is allowed to distribute God in Holy Communion, I think it is okay for them to distribute ashes, no?
 
40.png
manualman:
But the guys in Rome are smart guys. Surely they can do the math. Surely they realize that promulgating communion under both species at the same time that the priest:lay ratio is 1:several thousand has implications.

How can they simultaneously state that the ordinary means for distribution of communion is from priests and deacons AND create a situation that requires many more ministers to distribute the sacrament? It seems self-contradictory.

Why is it that my parish (which has done a fair amount of work to comply with the GIRM) has three priests, all of which are usually present to greet those leaving every mass, but only one of which distributes communion at each mass?
Click to expand...
It is not self-contradictory on any measure. The Church assumes that there would be enough clergy to distribute communion. The norms are not written with just a parish in mind. They consider religious communities and monestaries and other states of apostolic living when they consider the norms. Thus, in the monestaries etc there are plenty of clergy to perform this function. In a parish it is the hope that there would be enough priests and deacons to do the same. However, if there are not enough clergy then laymen may assist in an extraordinary capacity.
 
40.png
genealogist:
I don’t know about EMHC’s giving blessings(children and throats etc.). That defintely seems off but what would the problem be distributing the already blessed by the priest ashes on Ash Wednesday? If the EMHC is allowed to distribute God in Holy Communion, I think it is okay for them to distribute ashes, no?
Click to expand...
My understanding is that the Church permits lay people to assist in the distribution ashes on Ash Wednesday. I don’t particularly like the practice, but it is permitted.
 
40.png
mosher:
It is not self-contradictory on any measure. The Church assumes that there would be enough clergy to distribute communion. The norms are not written with just a parish in mind. They consider religious communities and monestaries and other states of apostolic living when they consider the norms. Thus, in the monestaries etc there are plenty of clergy to perform this function. In a parish it is the hope that there would be enough priests and deacons to do the same. However, if there are not enough clergy then laymen may assist in an extraordinary capacity.
Click to expand...
I think the situation of communion under both kinds definitely HAS confused the issue further than necessary. For one, *permission *exists to distribute communion under both kinds, but no universal mandate (I have, however, heard of bishops who essentially order it done within their dioceses). So simply allowing both kinds does not create a contradiction in the context of dwindling ranks of ordinary ministers. No one must distribute under both kinds, so the permission doesn’t impact the need for ordinary ministers.

Furthermore, the Vatican instruction published in Notitiae in the 70s (I think that’s “On the colloboration of the laity” from 1976, but both of those details could be slightly off) clearly states that the use of extraordinary ministers is not to become habitual. Therefore it seems to me that most parishes using EMHCs at every single Mass or on every single Sunday are doing so illicitly. Having a schedule is probably a good indicator of habitual use.

I think the really murky territory, though, is whether the choice to distribute communion under both species in and of itself creates an extraordinary circumstance that requires the use of EMHCs. I don’t see why the choice to take advantage of a totally unnecessary option should be cited as a case of necessity for extraordinary measures. But many individuals reason that BECAUSE the Blood of Christ is being distributed from the chalice, EMHCs are NEEDED to facilitate the distribution. Perhaps I’m just missing something, but from what I see in the instructions of the Church, EMHCs should be rarely used and then only to the extent necessitated by extraordinary circumstances. Any other takes on that?
 
40.png
mosher:
Your question is just the result of a basic and normal missunderstanding of the role of the EMHC.

Think of the word Ordinary in this sense as regular or normal. What it really means is that this person has legal jurisdiction over the distrobution of Holy Communion.

The term Extraordinary is just that. They are only to be used in a case of necessity. The purpose is that there may be occasion when there may be so many communicants that it would take the ordinary ministers greater than half an hour to give out communion. In these circumstances an EMHC is to be used to help ease the burden on the clergy and on the people receiving. However, as you know they have become normative which is still not the intent that the Holy See has when using EMHC. It is a position created our of practicality.
Click to expand...
I’ve never heard of a thirty minute guideline before --where did you get that from? I honestly wish there were such a standard to make more “objective” the assessment of the need for all these ministers…We had the usual army of EMHC on Sunday, in spite of the fact that the attendance at the early Mass was VERY low…
 
40.png
genealogist:
I don’t know about EMHC’s giving blessings(children and throats etc.). That defintely seems off but what would the problem be distributing the already blessed by the priest ashes on Ash Wednesday? If the EMHC is allowed to distribute God in Holy Communion, I think it is okay for them to distribute ashes, no?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I thought about that, too. And it does seem less offensive than blessing throats - I guess it’s just a matter of my own personal feelings on the subject. At Mass I try to sit where I can receive Communion from the priest, too. No offense to EMHC’s, since they are the only ones who ever distribute the Precious Blood at my Church. I just prefer receiving Communion from the priest when I can - and if given the opportunity, a Bishop or Cardinal!
 
40.png
manualman:
I’m more confused the more I think about lay people and the EMHC role.

If the ordinary minister is the priest and deacons and the ‘extraordinary’ minister is the lay person, what does that mean?

Does it mean: It would be nice if we could reserve this role to those with Holy Orders, but the numers are too large, so we can’t.

Does it imply that an ‘ordinary’ or ‘healthy’ church would have enough priests and deacons to do it without lay help?

Does it imply that EMHC’s ought to be unusual and used only in rare cases?

It just seems odd that ‘Extraordinary’ Ministers of Holy Communion’ drastically outnumber the ‘ordinary’ ones everywhere I’ve been to mass in my life.

Is there some kind of disconnect here or do I incorrectly understand the term?
Click to expand...
Personally, nothing surprises me anymore…or seems weird for that matter. We have armies of EMHC’s distributing communion that’s been consecrated on a “table” for a “banquet” and nary a soul abstains from receiving (I must’ve missed the long lines for the confessionals…er, “reconciliation rooms”. How foolish of me…reconciliation Masses have taken care of all that). Time to bring back the fire and brimstone homilies and imposing churches that scared the daylights out of generations into reasonably pious behavior. Right…that said I’ll carry on minding my biscuits.
 
We have the same thing going on in our diocese too many Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion even when there are three to five priests in a parish. Sometimes the priest sits down and lets the EM’sHC distribute.

I think it would be more fitting to give the priests the title of extraordinary ministers since the EM’sHC are more the norm and are always in abundant supply (usually 8 or 9) and it’s an extraordinary occasion to see only the priest distributing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top