J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
The use of figures of speech are part of everyday life. Learn to live with it.I missed the memo that said:
“Figures of speech are fine”
Got one handy?
Jim
The use of figures of speech are part of everyday life. Learn to live with it.I missed the memo that said:
“Figures of speech are fine”
Got one handy?
Heck, I’ve been Catholic all of my life, but in this web-site, I’m often treated as a heretic. Welcome to the club.Ha ha, but I’m still a Protestant heretic.![]()
Pre-Vatican II, we had three times the numbers of priest as we do today. We also had twice the number of Masses said in each parish.I can understand the need in very large parishes, but why do most parishes think it is so necessary? They made do without them before Vatican II, so why are they needed today?
Really, the Church now controls figure of speech? How about thinking, does the Church also control how people think?It doesn’t matter if it’s a ‘common figure of speech’ or not.
We have been instructed not to use it in reference to an EMHC, so don’t. Simple.
The Church controlls what Her ministries are called and how the faithful shall refer to them by. And, in that, the Church has issued the appropriate instructions on the matter.Really, the Church now controls figure of speech?
How about thinking, does the Church also control how people think?
If so, which I don’t believe they do, they’ll fail.
Red Herring, and you know it.
But this is in the technical use of the term, not the daily talk around the parish. I haven’t heard any Bishop instructing Pastors, to stop using Eucharistic Minister, when talking about EMHCs. Bishops generally don’t go down to this level of pettiness.The Church controlls what Her ministries are called and how the faithful shall refer to them by. And, in that, the Church has issued the appropriate instructions on the matter.
The Vatican has clearly said that the term “Eucharistic Minister” shall only refer to one who may confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist. The USCCB has complied with that directive and, you will note, does not use any other term by “EMHC” to denote the lay role in the distribution of the Eucharist.
If you consider yourself to be somehow above the Vatican or the USCCB in this matter, I feel sorry for you, because you are simply deluding yourself.
Cardinal Arinze is a bishop, and he issued the document that said to stop doing that. John Paul II ordered the document to be released ( as well as approving the document’s content) JPII was a Bishop too.But this is in the technical use of the term, not the daily talk around the parish. I haven’t heard any Bishop instructing Pastors, to stop using Eucharistic Minister, when talking about EMHCs. Bishops generally don’t go down to this level of pettiness.
Jim
***********this is a warning from your Catholic emergency broadcast systemBut this is in the technical use of the term, not the daily talk around the parish. I haven’t heard any Bishop instructing Pastors, to stop using Eucharistic Minister, when talking about EMHCs. Bishops generally don’t go down to this level of pettiness.
Jim
The Vatican is more likely talking about using the term in hierarchical levels of communication, not down at the street level where parishioners, where they’re ordering parishioners to stop saying Eucharistic Minister. They’re talking about the technical use of the term, which is the way the Vatican usually addresses issues.Cardinal Arinze is a bishop, and he issued the document that said to stop doing that. John Paul II ordered the document to be released ( as well as approving the document’s content) JPII was a Bishop too.
If you consider that to be ‘petty’, that’s your problem, but the directive still stands.
If you think that it only applies to ‘technical terms’ can you please site the source for this, or are we just supposed to take in on your personal authority?
Heck, you are right! Its pertaining to the Eucharist.Boy, I bet God’s going to be real happy with how much time we dedicate to ironing out this issue.Yep, nothing more important we could be using this time for.
For people to have right understanding of issues and not reach erroneous understandings, it is important that the words used do not create misunderstanding. Half of the arguments on this forum is because Catholics and non-Catholics use the same words with different meanings, connotations and/or context.The Vatican is more likely talking about using the term in hierarchical levels of communication, not down at the street level where parishioners, where they’re ordering parishioners to stop saying Eucharistic Minister. They’re talking about the technical use of the term, which is the way the Vatican usually addresses issues.
Jim
I agree that using Extraordrinary Minister of Holy Communion is the proper term. Its wonderful when people take the time to use it this way.For people to have right understanding of issues and not reach erroneous understandings, it is important that the words used do not create misunderstanding. Half of the arguments on this forum is because Catholics and non-Catholics use the same words with different meanings, connotations and/or context.
My wife is a EMHC. She uses EHMC and so do the others in our parish to describe what they do. They do so because they understand that they are not Eucharistic Ministers. She cringes when non EMHC’s shorten the term. She knows they do so without rancor but it shows that they do not understand the distinction.
Those who think it is “petty” or “trivial” but understand the distiction imply/infer one thing: They think the distinction between a Priest and lay minister is “trivial.”
Recently, the Church has issued a letter that says that only EM’s may cleanse the sacred vessels. Unless EMHC’s understand they are not EM’s, they will be confused when they read the church documents and listen to their pastor tell them they can’t. They will erroneously think the Pastor is doing something or saying something improper. In fact, they might read into the document that THEY (and not the Priest) is supposed to cleanse the vessels. Confusion caused because somebody thought the distinction trivial or insignificant.
We can not have good Catholics without good catechesis. And it is impossible to have good catechesis without using words and terms correctly always. Confusion is not trivial.
I agree that using Extraordrinary Minister of Holy Communion is the proper term. Its wonderful when people take the time to use it this way.
The pettiness I’m addressing, is people having a melt-down over it, as the OP of this thread.
BTW, I’ll be sure to correct my pastor, if I ever catch him using the term, “Eucharistic Minister” again.
Jim
I do think it would be good that you do address your pastor. He is not intending to cause confusion and probably has not given it any thought. But with the new changes regarding vessels that according to my wife is causing confusion these first few weeks they have been implementing it, I’m sure he won’t want any new confusions. And it will be an opportunity for HIM to teach his EMHC’s.I agree that using Extraordrinary Minister of Holy Communion is the proper term. Its wonderful when people take the time to use it this way.
The pettiness I’m addressing, is people having a melt-down over it, as the OP of this thread.
BTW, I’ll be sure to correct my pastor, if I ever catch him using the term, “Eucharistic Minister” again.
Jim
I don’t think anyone has a problem with shortening the the term, the problem that ‘shorting’ EMHC would be rendered as “Extraordinary Minister” NOT “Eucharistic Minister”. Most people who use the term don’t know the difference and find the term EMHC cumbersome so they just shorten it.
Agreed.I don’t think anyone has a problem with shortening the the term, the problem that ‘shorting’ EMHC would be rendered as “Extraordinary Minister” NOT “Eucharistic Minister”
I’m an EMHC as well, and you raise some great points. It really does hinge on education and catechesis. It’s also important to remember that many EMHCs have no idea of the distinction or its significance themselves. Our parish still does not differentiate very well, but the priest definitely understands the difference and has implemented a number of good changes to ensure that he is celebrating Mass in the appropriate manner.For people to have right understanding of issues and not reach erroneous understandings, it is important that the words used do not create misunderstanding. Half of the arguments on this forum is because Catholics and non-Catholics use the same words with different meanings, connotations and/or context.
My wife is a EMHC. She uses EHMC and so do the others in our parish to describe what they do. They do so because they understand that they are not Eucharistic Ministers. She cringes when non EMHC’s shorten the term. She knows they do so without rancor but it shows that they do not understand the distinction.
Those who think it is “petty” or “trivial” but understand the distiction imply/infer one thing: They think the distinction between a Priest and lay minister is “trivial.”
Recently, the Church has issued a letter that says that only EM’s may cleanse the sacred vessels. Unless EMHC’s understand they are not EM’s, they will be confused when they read the church documents and listen to their pastor tell them they can’t. They will erroneously think the Pastor is doing something or saying something improper. In fact, they might read into the document that THEY (and not the Priest) is supposed to cleanse the vessels. Confusion caused because somebody thought the distinction trivial or insignificant.
We can not have good Catholics without good catechesis. And it is impossible to have good catechesis without using words and terms correctly always. Confusion is not trivial.
Correction: But she does make a good point in her last post: The shorthand phrase should **not **be in writing in the parish bulletin.
I agree. This would be better. Unfortunately, American vernacular is usually such that it is sometimes a shortening not of the title but to a description of what they do. In this case they adMINISTER the delivery of the Eucharist. I’m not defending it but only trying to illuminate that I don’t think the use is by sinister design. And with diligent catechesis, we can get it so it is done properly.I don’t think anyone has a problem with shortening the the term, the problem that ‘shorting’ EMHC would be rendered as “Extraordinary Minister” NOT “Eucharistic Minister”
Thanks. I actually have considered teaching RCIA once I convert. I’m going to school to become a high school teacher, so it would be right up my alley. I hope I can convert soon. RCIA is starting at my local Newman Center, and right now I have a conflict with my work schedule, so I need to see what I can figure out.Savio-
dont get me going!
You are not a heretic. You are discerning.
Dont make me pull out more papal documents now…
![]()
Sorry I neglected in my rant to welcome you to…
Well, to welcome you to reality, I guess.
We can not judge the Church on its members, and if we did- we would be in deep doo doo.
But- we can have faith that in spite of anything a sinful member does-
It will not change the fact that the Church is faithful-
even if its members are not. (I am not implying I am faithful in any imagined way)
I hope I have not hindered you in any way from continuing your discernment-
But- I also feel its best you see this now-
Remember- Jesus chose Judas to be an apostle. He knew Judas would betray him (read John)
(bet you know this but, I just like to add it because I forget this sometimes)
God bless you and
I was not kidding about formation, have you considered teaching RCIA once you convert?
Not a bad idea if you think its for you…
I hope you will pray about it, you know I will.
The Church needs good teachers now. More than ever.
Before my little epiphany, I used to refer to it as “sacred cannibalism.” :banghead: Remind me to confess that one…Heck, you are right! Its pertaining to the Eucharist.
Maybe that could be shortened up too, and we can use a figure of speech for it…