EMsHC Abuse?

[WBB]

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/laity/documents/rc_con_interdic_doc_15081997_en.html

Thanks for the link.

I must say, tonight I saw what I consider to be an abuse with EMHC. I was a sponsor for a young man at a celebration of the Sacrament of Confirmation. Granted, I live in a rather large parish, and there were over 130 candidates, and all together there were probably 800 to 1000 people present for the celebration. However, also present were 1 Bishop, 5 Priests, and 3 Permanent Deacons. When time came for Holy Communion, 6 EMHC promptly lined up in the nave. Now, mind you, I am an EMHC, but I leaned over to the young man whom I was blessed to sponsor and said, “Um, why do they need Eucharistic Ministers? There are 9 ordained ministers present!” What followed was confusion as the EMHC had no idea where to go. One of the Deacons seemed absolutely perturbed. Also, I received in the line of one of the EMHC, and she thrush the Host into my face and said, “The Body of Christ.” Now, when I am serving in the capacity as an EMHC, I hold the Host up, I make sure to make eye contact with the person in front of me, and I smile and say, “The Body of Christ”. I certainly don’t thrust the Host to within a few inches of their head!

 

[oldfogey]

Thank you WBB, it’s good to ponder what that situation tells us. I have also been to confirmations and EMHC’s are used while clergy sit and the bishop watches. What message does that send? It says exactly that today the use of EHMC’s is not extraordinary, but pro forma and they are used outside any guidlines Rome has set. And the bishops agree with this in many dioceses. The Vatican can send decrees by the boatload, and they are often ignored.

 

[Crusader]

oldfogey:

Thank you WBB, it’s good to ponder what that situation tells us. I have also been to confirmations and EMHC’s are used while clergy sit and the bishop watches. What message does that send? It says exactly that today the use of EHMC’s is not extraordinary, but pro forma and they are used outside any guidlines Rome has set. And the bishops agree with this in many dioceses. The Vatican can send decrees by the boatload, and they are often ignored.

So very true. I think the next two decades is going to bring about a delicious purging of poorly formed clergy through retirement and death. Many of hese poor men who went though seminary in the late 1960s, the 1970s, the 1980s and even the early 1990s seemed to be dissidents from the very beginning.

Godspeed to the young “old fogies” who are now passing though the seminaries with a love of the Church and the Pope.

When these men take care (as they are slowly doing right now), Satan will once again be driven back…

 

[otm]

Marauder:

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.

I find that an interesting comment, as it takes longer to distriubute the Precious Blood; in distributing the Host, it is place on the hand or tongue, and the communicant (can) step(s) to the side and consumes the Host. In distributing the Blood, the Chalice is handed to the communicant, who takes a sip, then hands it back, and the rim is wiped clean. There are physically more actions the one distributing the Blood has to make, and they have to wait for the communicant to receive before finsihing those acts, prior to the next communicant receiving.

In our parish on Sunday Masses, we have 4 people distributing the Host (father and three others). Our church is in the half-round, so two ar near the end of the half round, and Father and one other stand at the head of the middle isle. There are three in between the center and end distributing the Blood (6 total); the third one (in between the other two) has overflow people coming from both directions. It may sound chaotic when described, but moves reasonably smoothly and with almost no commotion. It takes us generally two hymns of three to four verses, and then some, to distribute to all, and I would guess maybe 60 to 70% receive both Species.

By the way, we have one priest for the parish, a married deacon (just ordained), , recently expanded the church because of growth of the parish, just finished and opened a grade school, and have 24 hour adoration.

 

[Marauder]

otm:

I find that an interesting comment, as it takes longer to distriubute the Precious Blood;

At most parishes I go to that distribute the Precious Blood, including the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception when they do it, there is usually either the same amount of ministers (either Ordinary or EMHC) with the cup as the number of ministers with the Eucharist or less ministers of the cup.

Usually due to the fact that a lot less people receive the cup then receive the host there isn’t usually that much of an issue. Occasionally you will get a small line between the people with the cup and the host but it’s not that big of deal.

 

[otm]

Servulus:

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.

Not really. Subsequent documents detailing the use of EMHCs indicate that EMHCs are not done away with.

The discussion seems to be revolving around a couple of words: “is so great”, and “unduly prolonged”.

The use of these words, that is, stating it in this manner, allows a certain amount of flexibility to the bishop to determine what “is so great” and “unduly prolonged” mean in actual practice. And most bishops have a large amount of issues and responsibilties on their plate.

The net result is that we may seem some constraints on the use of, and the number of, EMHCs, but it is likely that neither Rome nor any particular bishop is going to micro manage each an every parish.

A certain amount of the discussion has more to do with personal opinion than anything. Have there been abuses? Most reasonable people would answer “yes”. But defining whether any given circumstance is an abuse may have more to do with where the definer is on a political scale with liberals at one end, and conservatives at the other. Sadly, what people on both ends of the scale fail to acknowledge is that there are the large majority of people in between the two ends who are neither particularly liberal or conservative; they just try to follow along with the Magesterium and the actual application of whatever comes down to them. Most of them are not either insistent on keeping things “as is”, nor changing them - either by enlarging or decreasing the number of EMHCs.

 

[Les_Richardson]

Crusader:

Yes we have read both the GIRM and RS. Unfortunately our bishop condones the abuse by saying both the GIRM and RS are merely guidelines (not so!) that he is the final arbiter of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable.

Thanks be to God that he is retiring within a year…

There is provision in the RS to go above the Bishop’s head right to Rome is there not? I haven’t read it for several months now but I think it was in there.

In our parish the line in the centre isle to receive from the priest is much, much longer than those receiving from the EMHC’s. You would think they might get the idea that even the average Joe Catholic prefers communion from the priest.

What irritates me is that the sentiment in the RS is that EMHCs are there for an extreme reason, and extenuating circumstance, a time emergency if you will. But in our parish we have more than one priest. What does the second one do (they alternate as celebrant)? He reads the gospel, preaches the homily and cuts out through the sacristy. If he stuck around there might be less need of EMHCs.

 

[Crusader]

There is provision in the RS to go above the Bishop’s head right to Rome is there not? I haven’t read it for several months now but I think it was in there.

In our parish the line in the centre isle to receive from the priest is much, much longer than those receiving from the EMHC’s. You would think they might get the idea that even the average Joe Catholic prefers communion from the priest.

What irritates me is that the sentiment in the RS is that EMHCs are there for an extreme reason, and extenuating circumstance, a time emergency if you will. But in our parish we have more than one priest. What does the second one do (they alternate as celebrant)? He reads the gospel, preaches the homily and cuts out through the sacristy. If he stuck around there might be less need of EMHCs.

Yes there is.

I sent a well documented letter to my bishop (Bp. Sylvester Ryan) regarding some pretty nasty liturgical abuses after the advent of RS. His response was remarkably arrogant and empty.

I suppose I could have sent the entire package to Rome with a cover letter, but he’s ready to retire and I am certain he’ll be gone before my letter ever surfaced.

His response told me a great deal though. He did not address the problem. He did not gloss over the problem. He showed absolute arrogance in his reponse that boiled down to – “I know what I’m doing, don’t bother me anymore.”

When I received his response (pretty sationary and all), it was the first (and only) time I ever questioned the sanctity of the Church in my own mind.

It also underscored my belief that the Church needs to shed a great deal of rotting dead wood before it is ever to become truly healthy in the USA.

 

[Crusader]

RichT:

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.

That’s not healthy. Sounds like you need more parishes in your area.

 

[Mysty101]

Crusader:

Yes there is.

I sent a well documented letter to my bishop (Bp. Sylvester Ryan) regarding some pretty nasty liturgical abuses after the advent of RS. His response was remarkably arrogant and empty.

I suppose I could have sent the entire package to Rome with a cover letter, but he’s ready to retire and I am certain he’ll be gone before my letter ever surfaced.

His response told me a great deal though. He did not address the problem. He did not gloss over the problem. He showed absolute arrogance in his reponse that boiled down to – “I know what I’m doing, don’t bother me anymore.”

When I received his response (pretty sationary and all), it was the first (and only) time I ever questioned the sanctity of the Church in my own mind.

It also underscored my belief that the Church needs to shed a great deal of rotting dead wood before it is ever to become truly healthy in the USA.

Did you ever approach your pastor with your concerns? I understand that in light of the circumstances related below most US parishes will implimment RS in Advent.

Cardinal George had been in communication with Cardinal Arinze, and this was the delay

from USCCB question 2
usccb.org/liturgy/q&a/chalice.shtml

Does the Congregation have the authority to change particular law in this regard?

On August 2, 2004, Cardinal George wrote to Cardinal Arinze once again, noting that several Bishops “have questioned the competence of the Congregation to revise its
recognitio of norms approved and confirmed on a prior occasion.” On August 4, 2004, Cardinal Arinze responded (Prot. n. 660/04/L) to Cardinal George’s letter, observing that while “a provision of complementary legislation, once granted recognitio, may not simply be revised…,” it must be borne in mind that: (1) “an Instruction may develop the manner in which a law is to be put into effect (cf. can. 34 §1)…” and (2) “the effect of Redemptionis Sacramentum, nos.105-106 was to render inoperative certain elements contained in nos. 36-37 of the Norms since a presumption upon which the complementary norm has been based could no longer be maintained as being in accord with the ius commune.” Therefore, “the Congregation has attempted to supply a formulation according to which the existing legislation could be implemented in the light of the new Instruction, Redemptionis Sacramentum, maintaining insofar as possible the evident intentions of the Bishops in a way which would conform with the general norm of law.”

SuZ

 

[Crusader]

Mysty101:

Did you ever approach your pastor with your concerns? I understand that in light of the circumstances related below most US parishes will implimment RS in Advent.

Cardinal George had been in communication with Cardinal Arinze, and this was the delay

from USCCB question 2
usccb.org/liturgy/q&a/chalice.shtml

SuZ

I sure did. Gently, in writing. I also waited for his response before I wrote the bishop.

I was sorta stunned by arrogance of the bishop’s response, although I’m sure it was prepared by one of his cancerous consultors…

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Crusader,
Did you cite Redemptionis Sacramentum in your letter?
This document also instructs us to take it over the bishop’s head if nothing is done. Even if your bishop will be retiring soon, bad practices may continue unless reported.
Don’t give up hope on the Sanctity of the Church! (It’s the sanctity of the men in leadership~or lack thereof~that we need to constantly pray about, and sometimes act upon.)
Hopefully, you’ll soon see a correction to these practices.
The violations you described are grave.

Great quote, SuZ. Seems there are more problems with the new GIRM and some bishops’ obedience than previously thought…

God Bless. <><

 

[Crusader]

Panis Angelicas:

Crusader,
Did you cite Redemptionis Sacramentum in your letter?
This document also instructs us to take it over the bishop’s head if nothing is done. Even if your bishop will be retiring soon, bad practices may continue unless reported.

Don’t give up hope on the Sanctity of the Church! (It’s the sanctity of the men in leadership~or lack thereof~that we need to constantly pray about, and sometimes act upon.)
Hopefully, you’ll soon see a correction to these practices.
The violations you described are grave.

Great quote, SuZ. Seems there are more problems with the new GIRM and some bishops’ obedience than previously thought…

God Bless. <><

Formally foot noted using both the General Instruction of the Roman Missal and Redemptionis Sacramentum as references.

My guess is that he staffed-out the response and the thoroughness of my questions angered one of his minions. Still, he should have read the response before he signed it.

I too hope we will see continued changes at my parish. We have already come a long way…