C
Crusader
Guest
Still no commentary on posting #39, aye?
- Status
M
Marauder
Guest
Already have in one of my above posts. You can’t blame EMHCs for the lack of training of the people in when it is appropriate to take communion. The priests and deacons should be instructing on it. You can’t even blame the EMHC for the overuse of the EMHC because the priest is in charge of the Mass not the liturgist, not the EMHC.
Again assuming you know more about the Shrine then someone that actually volunteers there. Monsignor Bransfield (as the rector) has his hands in EVERYTHING that goes on at the Shrine.
M
Marauder
Guest
I think the following quote that I got today from the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception is really appropriate to some people in this thread:
Some minds are like concrete: thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
Some minds are like concrete: thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
C
Crusader
Guest
EMsHC are indeed allowed under specific circumstances. You don’t seem to want to face that. One word: EXTRAORDINARY.
I can see how you are embarassed that you were not aware that Fr. Fischer is the Director of Liturgy at the Shrine, but please, no more spin.
C
Crusader
Guest
Extraordinary.
M
Marauder
Guest
I know what position each priest has at the National Shrine. Are you feeling superior? Having a little pride today are we?
This isn’t worth it, you have an agenda and are not open to anything other then your agenda.
The position of EMHC has been permited by the church. The use of which has been defined by RS and GIRM. It is up to the local Bishop to define aspects of the position.
RS has stated that EMHCs can be used when the number of people present precludes speedy reception of Communion. In churches that have large numbers of Communicants at all Masses, Extraordinary refers to the use of a particular minister. A particular minister shouldn’t be used over and over again and the role should only last for a set period of time, not indefinitly.
As I said it is not worth it, because you can’t hear anyway. Address the issue in your own church before you try taking it on in a church you have never been to.
And I’m also sure Father Fisher would appreciate it if you spelled his name right.
R
RichT
Guest
Apperantly you aren’t even reading my posts. No where have I said the altar was an AREA! I am simply pointing out that it and the sanctuary are two different parts of the church. Your interpretations of my posts are utterly amazing. Not unlike the amazing interpretations of the GIRM itself. Yes the sanctuary is an area, and yes the altar is inside that area. For anyone to enter the sanctuary they have to move physically close to the altar. That does not constitute approaching the altar.
Ahh, forget it!!! This is a complete waste of time. It’s obvious that you have your problems with your parish. I am sorry to hear that. If you don’t like your parish, either find a new one or complain to your priest. There! All finished. Good day…
C
Crusader
Guest
Abuse of EMsHC has never been authorized.
Your definition of “extraordinary” is INCORRECT!! That sorting thinking smacks strongly of abuse. Where does the Church define “extraordinary” in the manner you do?
M
Marauder
Guest
And as such you should ADDRESS THE ABUSE IN YOUR OWN PARISH.
Maybe in letters from our Archbishop and at Archdiocese training.
In our parish the number of the faithful attending is always large at Sunday Mass.
As I said before, work on it in your own parish and don’t worry about others. Our Archdiocesan training says that if EMHCs are required at every Mass due to size, then the EMHC should not be the same ones and their term should be set to 1 year.
Extraordinary refers to both the position, as in not the Ordinary Minister and the role, as in the person shouldn’t be doing it all the time.
R
RichT
Guest
In my parish we use 34 EMHC’s at every 10:30 Mass plus the priest and deacon for a grand total of 36! If we didn’t serve the Precious Blood we would still need 12 altogether. The way our church is built, it would be impossible to serve communion in any sort of a timely fashion otherwise.
Well, I bet the blood is boiling now!
Well, I bet the blood is boiling now!
M
Marauder
Guest
I doubt I am the one you intended this for. Without ever being to your church I can’t really judge it, but that does sound excessive. Even at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, at the Vigil for Life when there is over 5000 people present I don’t think they have that many people distributing communion. Of course at the Vigil for Life all the people distributing are priests and deacons since that have that many priests visiting.
Also strange that the number doesn’t just double because people are also receiving the precious blood. Usually you only need at most one person with the cup for every person with the host.
R
RichT
Guest
This was definately not meant for you. But yes, our parish is two levels and built like a stadium with sections and everything. Our walkways and aisles are very narrow. We have most of our handicapped sitting upstairs. Our upstairs is actually the level you enter the church on. It would become very clogged to expect everyone to receive from fewer that the 12. Our parish has over 7000 families registered at last count and it is very important to keep the flow moving. If we have one mass that goes over a certain time, we end up with parking lot problems. Most everyone who attends mass at my parish shows up early to get a seat. Our parish is usually standing room only 15-20 minutes before mass even starts. Anyway, it works, it is done with reverance, and respect, and yes, it is necessary.
O
otm
Guest
Crusader: back to your original post, item 2 appears to be a violation of RS; however, my understanding is that there was to be a period of time before the items addressed therein were to be implimented. The time period I have heard from a number of sources appears to be by Advent of this year. If so, then it appears that things are operating pretty much as they have for centuries; implementation of specific laws takes some time, and while there is technically a violation, the Church seems to have the tolerance to abide with that for a short time.
Item 1 doesn’t really appear to be answered in either the GIRM or in RS. However, the GIRM does make a provision for readers to sit in the sanctuary, I believe. Therefore, it could certainly be possible that EMHCs could step into the sanctuary area without being an abuse. Where they stand and when they stand in that position might be at least in part dictated by the number and the physical layout and size of the sanctuary.
For those who don’t like or approve of EMHCs at all, or only grudgingly, it probably won’t matter whether it is spelled out in the rules or not. A sense of reverence is certainly called for, but I think the word “abuse” is itself abused. The EMHCs need to gather somewhere at some point. Personally, I would like to see them gathered before the priest receives, as that is usually the point where the Hosts are being separated out for distribution. Right after the priest receives would also be fine. However, the priest is ready to distribute Communion to them after he has received, so there is a greater likelihood of people still coming into the sanctuary while he is starting to distribute; I would rather see them all standing still. But hardcore abuse? I think not. I reserve that for having someone other than a priest or deacon give the homily. I don’t even see that qualifying as an abuse, as the documents are written.
Item 1 doesn’t really appear to be answered in either the GIRM or in RS. However, the GIRM does make a provision for readers to sit in the sanctuary, I believe. Therefore, it could certainly be possible that EMHCs could step into the sanctuary area without being an abuse. Where they stand and when they stand in that position might be at least in part dictated by the number and the physical layout and size of the sanctuary.
For those who don’t like or approve of EMHCs at all, or only grudgingly, it probably won’t matter whether it is spelled out in the rules or not. A sense of reverence is certainly called for, but I think the word “abuse” is itself abused. The EMHCs need to gather somewhere at some point. Personally, I would like to see them gathered before the priest receives, as that is usually the point where the Hosts are being separated out for distribution. Right after the priest receives would also be fine. However, the priest is ready to distribute Communion to them after he has received, so there is a greater likelihood of people still coming into the sanctuary while he is starting to distribute; I would rather see them all standing still. But hardcore abuse? I think not. I reserve that for having someone other than a priest or deacon give the homily. I don’t even see that qualifying as an abuse, as the documents are written.
C
Crusader
Guest
I wanted to re-visit this posting one more time because it’s perhaps the single most corrosive and misleading statement within this entire thread.
“Extraordinary” does not pertain to a specific individual. Anyone suggesting that is gravely mistaken.
“Extraordinary” in the case of EMsHC refers that which is beyond ordinary or usual. Something highly exceptional or remarkable. It refers to a classification of people, not a specific person.
This is in direct contrast to ordinary ministers of the Eucharist (bishops/priests/deacons.)
Using the erroneous definition offered by Marauder is nothing more than an attempt to license the abuse of EMsHC.
M
Marauder
Guest
As usual you only seem to read parts of the posts and quote things that you want to quote. If you look in another post after you wanted clarification I offer this statement.
You also seem to miss the quotes in RS that talk about using EMHC when the number of communicants as large. There are no exceptions that say, “If the number is always large don’t use any or anything like that.”
It is not up to you to define how many is too large it is up to the Priest and/or Bishop.
Things sure sound cemented in your mind to me.
P.S. If you don’t like the number of EMHCs in your church complain to the Bishop. Believe it or not complaining on here doesn’t get anything done in solving your problem.
C
Crusader
Guest
Say what you will, but in no way are you recovering from your earlier post:
S
Servulus
Guest
In 1997, eight of the Vatican Congregations jointly issued a document called:
"INSTRUCTION
ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS REGARDING
THE COLLABORATION OF THE NON-ORDAINED
FAITHFUL IN THE SACRED MINISTRY OF PRIEST"
Article 8 of that instruction says, in part:
“To avoid creating confusion, certain practices are to be avoided and eliminated where such have emerged in particular Churches:
. . . the habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass thus arbitrarily extending the concept of ‘a great number of the faithful’.”
What actual authority has this document? It closes with these words:
"All particular laws, customs and faculties conceded by the Holy See ad experimentum or other ecclesiastical authorities which are contrary to the foregoing norms are hereby revoked.
The Supreme Pontiff, in Audience of the 13th of August 1997 approved in forma specifica this present Instruction and ordered its promulgation.
Vatican City 15 August 1997, the Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary."
Hope that helps.
"INSTRUCTION
ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS REGARDING
THE COLLABORATION OF THE NON-ORDAINED
FAITHFUL IN THE SACRED MINISTRY OF PRIEST"
Article 8 of that instruction says, in part:
“To avoid creating confusion, certain practices are to be avoided and eliminated where such have emerged in particular Churches:
. . . the habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass thus arbitrarily extending the concept of ‘a great number of the faithful’.”
What actual authority has this document? It closes with these words:
"All particular laws, customs and faculties conceded by the Holy See ad experimentum or other ecclesiastical authorities which are contrary to the foregoing norms are hereby revoked.
The Supreme Pontiff, in Audience of the 13th of August 1997 approved in forma specifica this present Instruction and ordered its promulgation.
Vatican City 15 August 1997, the Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary."
Hope that helps.
M
Marauder
Guest
You know it isn’t worth it. If you don’t feel that someone can explain what was meant by a previous post then you have “issues”.
A common courtesy of dealing with people on message boards is to first ask for clarification on a point before attacking. Since this is not a verbal discussion you can not always say every point or everything you want meant to say.
As I said before IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE NUMBER OF EMHC IN YOUR PARISH TAKE IT UP WITH YOUR PRIEST AND/OR BISHOP AND/OR VATICAN NUNCIO.
They are the one that has the ultimate say, not you, not me. Why not work on your own church before judging other churches?
W
WBB
Guest
Could you give us a linkie, please?
C
Crusader
Guest
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/laity/documents/rc_con_interdic_doc_15081997_en.htmlCould you give us a linkie, please?
- Status