Eucharistic Minister. Should I resign?

[Fr_Michael_Grac]

Spending all day on you knees (that is)

 

[Elizium23]

I’ve been commissioned, and my hands have been annointed.

Back up a moment here. Your hands have been anointed? By what rite is this ever done? I have not heard of an acceptable liturgical action that anoints the hands of lay ministers. What kind of oil was used? Blessed oil? Chrism? This seems irregular to me.

 

[Phemie]

I agree. Although I don’t think we should get rid of EMHCs. We should make sure that such lay ministries are given some prominence so people whould know that its not something ordinary, even though the people serving are lay. Case in point, in the Philippines lay ministers are always male,
always wearing the national formal wear of barong tagalog, and always wearing a stole designed for the ministry.

Why stoles? Stoles belong to the clergy. Vest your EMHCs in albs but keep stoles where they belong, on deacons and priests.

They also usually are set apart and are given the first row. So people know that they are special, even though they are lay.

It depends on how you define special. They are no better than anyone else because they distribute Communion, they should be humbled by the privilege they have been given.

There is no reason they cannot convey the message in the lay state.

 

[Phemie]

  			Originally Posted by **phgboy**

I had the same reaction and I would really like to hear the answers to those questions. There is a commissioning ceremony for EMHCs but even deacons don’t have their hand anointed.

 

[georgewithfaith]

Should you decide to end your role as an EM is your personal decision. I am not an EM nor ever plan to be one because I believe EMs are overused and I prefer to receive Holy Communion from a priest or deacon. However that is my opinion and the Church employees EMs which is to be recognized as valid because the Bishops have the authority and have enforced this. Becoming an EM is valid and anyone who chooses can become one.

It is fair to say that the Church authorizes Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion because the Bishops allow it. I don’t know it all but I do know that good questions are now being raised about the Holy See’s intention for such practices.

The Holy See in the late 1990s issued a document clarifying the use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion. In part its states:

“Extraordinary ministers may distribute Holy Communion at eucharistic celebrations only when there are no ordained ministers present or when those ordained ministers present at a liturgical celebration are truly unable to distribute Holy Communion.(99) They may also exercise this function at eucharistic celebrations where there are particularly large numbers of the faithful and which would be excessively prolonged because of an insufficient number of ordained ministers to distribute Holy Communion.”

This document seems to make it clear that extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion are only needed in rare circumstances and not as a normal occurrence at most Masses.

Here is the link:

wdtprs.com/blog/2010/12/ecclesia-de-mysterio-ever-heard-of-it/

A parish priest in Wisconsin stopped using extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion. He said that it did not take a long time for him to distribute Holy Communion:

wdtprs.com/blog/2011/02/pastor-of-two-parishes-ends-use-of-extraordinary-ministers-of-communion/

Now, again clearly the Bishops allow the use of EMs and you are not violating any laws although the Holy See may prefer a more restricted use of EMs but has not come down in a stronger fashion on the practice of using EMs.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Why stoles? Stoles belong to the clergy. Vest your EMHCs in albs but keep stoles where they belong, on deacons and priests.

Don’t look at me, I don’t make the decisions for it. It was the Episcopal Conference for the Philippines who made that prescription. Here is how they look like:



Unless you call that green thing around them something else

It depends on how you define special. They are no better than anyone else because they distribute Communion, they should be humbled by the privilege they have been given.

Special in the sense that they have been set aside for a special service to the Church. They make sure they dress up differently and sit in a reserved space in front so people wouldn’t think that they are just anyone. No one wears barong tagalog to church unless there’s a wedding.

 

[thistle]

Don’t look at me, I don’t make the decisions for it. It was the Episcopal Conference for the Philippines who made that prescription. Here is how they look like:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3035/2937753460_0da40c68d1.jpg

Unless you call that green thing around them something else

Special in the sense that they have been set aside for a special service to the Church. They make sure they dress up differently and sit in a reserved space in front so people wouldn’t think that they are just anyone. No one wears barong tagalog to church unless there’s a wedding.

You are right. That’s my experience here too.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Negative and rude comments toward clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) or toward religious and religious orders are banned.

Please read the rules in sticky titled Let’s talk about clergy and religious. You can find it in sticky Please read before posting.

It is OK to disagree. But disagreements should focus on the subject of the OP and refrain from comments about others, especially clergy, women religious and religious men.

 

[phgboy]

Back up a moment here. Your hands have been anointed? By what rite is this ever done? I have not heard of an acceptable liturgical action that anoints the hands of lay ministers. What kind of oil was used? Blessed oil? Chrism? This seems irregular to me.

Honestly, I’m not quite sure. After the blessing, I just took it from there. This of course was way before I started researching the TLM.

 

[phgboy]

I sympathize with your dilema. I have had similar doubts lately. It´s imperative you follow what is most pleasing to God. My straight answer to you, since you asked, would be “yes, you should resign from your position as Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion.”

I know I´ll get knocked for saying this, but I think it´s important. Prior to Vatican II for a lay person to touch the Holy Eucharist was considered sacrilege. For example, St. Thomas of Aquinas wrote the following:

“Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament.” (Summa Theologica)

My question to you is: “How do you justify that what 50 years ago was a sacrilege is know OK?” Doesn´t that make you at least slightly suspicious of something having gone wrong?

I suggest you read this link, and meditate on these questions, as well as reading the quotes at the foot of the page.

latinmas.s701.sureserver.com/commwhy.htm

God bless you on your quest for the Truth.

Thanks for the link. This is further helping me reach a decision.

 

[JReducation]

Here’s my situation. I’ve been doing a lot of research (not extensively, just through browsing the internet) on the Traditional Latin Mass. The more I read up on it, the more the desire and conviction to attend one. One of the subjects I came accross during my research was that on Eucharistic Ministers. To my shocking suprise, I did not know that Eucharistic Ministers was never ordered by Vatican II. It was started as a result of direct disobedience to the Pope. They are only used on rare occasions, hence the true title “Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion”. I other words, I guess they are not to be used on an on-going basis. Now here is where it gets tricky. I currently am a Eucharistic Minister at my parish. I’ve been commissioned, and my hands have been annointed. Based on what I have read on this, should I resign this position and start going to the Latin Mass instead? I welcome any feedback. Thank you

Whether you stay or not is your call. However, there are a few misconceptions that you should know about.

1. EMHC are allowed by Church authority. No one can place themselves above Church authority.
2. There is a claim that the practice began without permission. The question is a moot one. The Church has the power to bind and to loose. Even if something begins without permission, the Church has the authority to legitimize it by approving it. This is not the only thing that has happened this way. Look at the ordinations of the four SSPX bishops. They were illegal. The Church is looking for a way to regularize their status. Just because something is illicit, does not mean that it has to remain that way. It’s up to the Church authority.
3. Many quote St. Thomas’ writings on the consecrated hands of the priest. We must remember that St. Thomas wrote much, but not everything the he wrote became law. He was a theologian. He had no more authority over the Church than the man in the pew. The Church never accepted his position on this matter. The proof is the use of deacons as Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. Deacons do not have consecrated hands. Yet, the deacon has the authority to handle the Eucharist. As you can see, St. Thomas’ position was not followed.
4. Other people say that the it is a sacrilege for the laity to touch the consecrated host. This was never the case. It has always been and still is a sacrilege to desecrate the consecrated host. It was forbidden to the secular laity to touch the consecrated host. Here is the example of where the sacrilege concept does not work. For hundreds of years monks and nuns in communities that practice perpetual adoration have been exposing and reposing the Blessed Sacrament. Most of these monks were not ordained, canonically they are lay (not secular). Obviously, the nuns are not ordained. If this were a sacrilege, then the Church has allowed many monks and nuns to go to hell over the centuries. Also, among the friars, many have been acolytes. An acolyte is not a cleric. These acolytes often took communion to the sick, especially during the great plagues of Europe and in mission countries as far back as the 1300s. There is a misunderstanding about what is and what is not a sacrilege against the Holy Eucharist. A prohibtion, does not constitute a sacrilege unless the Church imposes such a penalty. If the Church imposes a penalty, she can also unbind the penalty.
5. The argument that this was good for 1500 years and now it’s changed is not a valid argument. It is an understandable argument. Allow me to explain. There are many customs, laws, and rules that have been in place for many many centuries. However, the Church can change them. Many things were in place because the Church deemed that they were appropriate. The popes of today have the same rights and deserve the same respect as the popes of the past. Therefore, they too have the right to decide what they deem to be necessary and what they believe can be modified or abrogated, just as their predecessors had the right to do so.

We have to be very careful that we don’t find ourselves in a position where we deny the current popes the same rights that his predecessors had. That would place us over him. We cannot make rules for the pope, nor can previous popes make rules for their successors… The only thing that can bind are doctrines and morals. This is not a question of either doctrine or moral found in Divine Revelation. Therefore, the Church can authorize the ministry.

We can disagree with it. But we cannot say that the Church does not have the right to do this or shove a wedge between othes and legitimate ecclesial authority. That would be very wrong.

If you are uncomfortable with something, that’s fine. However, always be ready to acknowledge legitimate authority. I can disagree, but I have a moral duty to admit to myself and to others that the Church has authority and I do not.

I hope this helps at least a little.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[buffalo]

We should all aim for the highest possible standard in reverencing the Eucharist. Any priest should way up carefully the need for EMHCs before implementing them. Our Protestant friend however was only half right. Yes, if we truly believe that Jesus is present in the tabernacle then we will pay the reserved sacrament the highest respect (and indeed a genuflection is still the proper respect for the blessed sacrament). However Jesus’ original followers did not spend their lives grovelling before him (although they did fall down and worship him, on a number of occasions). Rather they ate and drank with him, and indeed by the Lord’s command we do the same ('take this all of you and eat it"…).

We should not try and be more catholic then the Church.

EMHC are and non ideal solution to a current problem. Let us be respectful of the church’s authority. They should be used, only when they are truly needed. But if they are used, in accordance with the church’s law, there is absolutely, no wrong or disrespect in that. The highest form of respect for the Eucharist, is in following the Lord’s commands. Spending all day on you need before the Blessed Sacrament, with an attitude of defiance to the teachings of the church, would be of no credit to you at all. (Not that I am suggesting you have such an attitude, and I am sure you don’t).

God bless

Father I agree with you. I meant no disrespect. I only brought up the Protestant comment to point out that man Catholics do not believe that it is indeed the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. I agree with your comment we should aim for the highest reverence. I am sorry if this came out wrong.

 

[auntpat45]

GloriousOrder;7573895:

Extraordinary ministers are generally not needed in most circumstances. The problem is that Communion under both kinds (Sacred Body and Blood) has become normal. There are not enough deacons and priests to hand out both properly, so lay ministers are required. If it was only in terms of the Host being consumed, there would be no need for E.M.H.C.s, it seems!
QUOTE]

I disagree…we have only one priests…three Masses on Sunday. Even distributing under one species…the Mass would be unduly delayed…

in fact backing up into the next Mass.

I don’t really think its a problem that both species are being used. I appreciate it. Also more and more people are becoming gluten intorlerent so consuming the Precious Blood is there only option.

WOW… Since when is being at Mass considered being “Unduly delayed”… Ouch…

 

[Irishgal49]

Annabelle Marie;7573968:

WOW… Since when is being at Mass considered being “Unduly delayed”… Ouch…

I agree. I could sit in mass all day. I am astounded at how many people cut during the closing hymn.

 

[joanofarc2008]

My opinion on this matter is simple. The Vatican says we can have them - if my Bishop says that we can have them under a,b, and c norms than we can have them. I am more interested in going to Mass and receiving. My only issue becomes this - I was an EMHC for the Nursing Home ministry at my old parish - and it was one of the most joyous, emotional ministries I could have taken part in. But I guarantee you that the only people that ever thanked me or noticed were the patients and their families. I wasn’t there for that - I was there for Christ and service to Him.

So my issue is this, if every one of those ministers is just as happy to go to bring Eucharist to the nursing home as they are to give Eucharist at a Mass then I am fine. But this is a personal examination of conscience we all have to do for ourselves as we are the only ones that know our true intent. I just bring it up as I believe it is an important point of note. God bless.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

auntpat45;8234573:

I agree. I could sit in mass all day. I am astounded at how many people cut during the closing hymn.

That wasn’t my original quote…it was the poster above you.

My point…several months ago was…one priest…three Masses…having Mass delayed backs it up into the other Mass. Also…I attend daily Mass…on my lunch hour. I would love to be there all day but I do have work responsiblities and can not be late.

That said…I don’t understand why people leave early either…there are some that have to due to work or other commitments…but most of the people I see leave early…I see them at coffee and doughnuts… But it’s their loss…some day when they find out the value of one single Mass they will be suprised.

 

[InquisitorMax]

Seeing vested EMHCs reminds me of a quote from the cartoon ‘The Incredibles’:

“If everyone is special, then no one is”.

Is the priest so special if lay people are taking over more of his role (Lector and Deacon)? With a ‘Communion Service In The Absence Of A Priest’, well, you can manage without one entirely.

Let’s see:

Modern, minimalist church;
No altar rails;
Unvested laity;
The rite changed into the local language;
Sentimental hymns, in the local language;
Changing to kneeling to standing up and now …
Laity handing out the sacred object.

Can you see a pattern, yet?

Peculiar to do this deliberately to a mystical rite.

 

[TrueLight]

Seeing vested EMHCs reminds me of a quote from the cartoon ‘The Incredibles’:

“If everyone is special, then no one is”.

Is the priest so special if lay people are taking over more of his role (Lector and Deacon)? With a ‘Communion Service In The Absence Of A Priest’, well, you can manage without one entirely.

I don’t understand the point of a communion service.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

My opinion on this matter is simple. The Vatican says we can have them - if my Bishop says that we can have them under a,b, and c norms than we can have them. I am more interested in going to Mass and receiving. My only issue becomes this - I was an EMHC for the Nursing Home ministry at my old parish - and it was one of the most joyous, emotional ministries I could have taken part in. But I guarantee you that the only people that ever thanked me or noticed were the patients and their families. I wasn’t there for that - I was there for Christ and service to Him.

So my issue is this, if every one of those ministers is just as happy to go to bring Eucharist to the nursing home as they are to give Eucharist at a Mass then I am fine. But this is a personal examination of conscience we all have to do for ourselves as we are the only ones that know our true intent. I just bring it up as I believe it is an important point of note. God bless.

Thank you so much for being a part of this ministry.
I work in a nursing home, and if it were not for EM’sHC, most of our residents would never receive communion.

 

[Phemie]

I don’t understand the point of a communion service.

Well, some of us are sometimes without a priest on Sunday. Some of us are often, or usually without a priest on Sunday. The Church says that, even when there’s no priest, it’s important that the community gather on Sunday to praise and worship God. Since we can’t have Mass, we have a Liturgy of the Word. The Church also says that during those Liturgies, Communion may be distributed.

One parish in our diocese only sees a priest for 2 Sundays every 3 months. When he’s there, the priest (our Pastor) consecrates enough Hosts to last until he returns. ‘Communion Services’ are then celebrated on the Sundays when he’s not there.