Eucharistic Ministers/lectors

[DallasCatholic]

Thanks for the post – I was certain the term ordinary was officially used.

yup, it is officially used but not a “title” per se (he says whilst splitting hairs).

 

[sphilomena]

Typically a priest would want someone who has been with the church for sometime. If you just converted, they are unlikely to ask you to become an EMHC right away.

This is a really good point IMHO. One should be somewhat mature in the faith, and as someone else said, pray about what the Lord wants you to do. We have to be sure to seek His will and not our own.

 

[Brendan]

AFAIK, a Deacon would be considered an ordinary Minister or the Eucharist…I think it is stated in Canon law.

The Deacon (as shown above) is an ordinary minister of Holy Communion.

This is seperate and distinct from the minister of the Eucharist, that is a validly ordained priest alone.

Each Sacrament has a minister, the one who calls the Sacrament into being. For Holy Orders, the minister of Holy Orders is a valid Bishop. No one else can do it.

For marriage, the ministers are the couple themselves.

For the Sacrament of the Eucharist, the minister is a priest. No one else can confect the Sacrament.

This is a different ministry than bringing the Eucharist to the Community ( to Communicate, or Holy Communion).

A Deacon cannot confect the Eucharist, so he cannot be a minister of the Eucharist. He can, however, bring the Eucharist to the community. He is a minister of Holy Communion ( note, two seperate ministries, therefore two seperate titles)

Theology is a very precise discipline, the specific use of terms is very important to understanding the Sacramentology.

Redemptionis Sacramentum - 154

As has already been recalled, “the only minister who can confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist in persona Christi is a validly ordained Priest”. Hence the name “minister of the Eucharist” belongs properly to the Priest alone.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Well, to become a Eucharistic Minister you would need to be ordained as a Priest or Deacon. Most parishes in the US are allowed to use Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, there should be information in the bulletin or at least a contact person for that ministry.

To the OP, many parishes still use Eucharistic Minister as the general day to day term. It is a synonym for EMHC, but that long term is rarely used in day to day parishes (it is a mouthful for one thing). If you use the term EM, people know what you are talking about.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

To the OP, many parishes still use Eucharistic Minister as the general day to day term. It is a synonym for EMHC, but that long term is rarely used in day to day parishes (it is a mouthful for one thing). If you use the term EM, people know what you are talking about.

Unless someone wants to play bait and switch - shifting the talk from who distributes to who confects the Sacrament.

 

[Brendan]

To the OP, many parishes still use Eucharistic Minister as the general day to day term. It is a synonym for EMHC, but that long term is rarely used in day to day parishes (it is a mouthful for one thing). If you use the term EM, people know what you are talking about.

You can use “EM” to mean “ExtraOrdinary Minister” without issue.

And it does not matter what the ‘day to day’ term is. The Vatican has given it’s instructions in the matter, which the USCCB has seconded, the term “Eucharistic Minister” is to be used in reference to priests alone.

We even have clear reasons why. So anything less is ignorance or disobedience.

 

[THurifer2]

Are deacons some odd category inbetween priests and laity? I ask because of a post just before this one.

I Believe that priests are the ordinary minister of the Eucharist…deacons are the ordinary minister of communion.

The Minister of the Eucharist is the person who performs or can perform the words of consecration validly.

 

[THurifer2]

To the OP, many parishes still use Eucharistic Minister as the general day to day term. It is a synonym for EMHC, but that long term is rarely used in day to day parishes (it is a mouthful for one thing). If you use the term EM, people know what you are talking about.

It is a mouthful indeed but the vatican says the term Eucharistic Minister is reserved for the priest.
You and I are bound to the Vatican’s instructions in this matter.

Redemptionis Sacramentum… States.[156.] This function is to be understood strictly according to the name by which it is known, that is to say, that of extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, and not “special minister of Holy Communion” nor “extraordinary minister of the Eucharist” nor “special minister of the Eucharist”, by which names the meaning of this function is unnecessarily and improperly broadened.

 

[DallasCatholic]

The Deacon (as shown above) is an ordinary minister of Holy Communion.

This is seperate and distinct from the minister of the Eucharist, that is a validly ordained priest alone.

Each Sacrament has a minister, the one who calls the Sacrament into being. For Holy Orders, the minister of Holy Orders is a valid Bishop. No one else can do it.

For marriage, the ministers are the couple themselves.

For the Sacrament of the Eucharist, the minister is a priest. No one else can confect the Sacrament.

This is a different ministry than bringing the Eucharist to the Community ( to Communicate, or Holy Communion).

A Deacon cannot confect the Eucharist, so he cannot be a minister of the Eucharist. He can, however, bring the Eucharist to the community. He is a minister of Holy Communion ( note, two seperate ministries, therefore two seperate titles)

Theology is a very precise discipline, the specific use of terms is very important to understanding the Sacramentology.

Redemptionis Sacramentum - 154

Bendan,
Thanks for the clarification and correction. I understand the distinction but was guilty of blending the terms/concepts…your points are spot on and I appreciate your comments.

 

[Brendan]

Are deacons some odd category inbetween priests and laity? I ask because of a post just before this one.

Deacons were instituted by the Church in Act 6. As mentioned earlier, St. Stephen, St. Lawrence and St. Francis of Assisi were Deacons ( as well as St. Patrick’s father)

They are clerics who have recieved the Sacrament of Holy Orders. You can’t really say that they are ‘between’ the priests and the laity. Since they have recieved Holy Orders, they are no longer lay men.

They perform service ministry, as well as assist the priest at Mass. By right, the Deacon is the one to proclaim the Gospel and may give the Homily as well.

I am in formation to become a Deacon, all though I am taking a year or so off after my wife and I had our 5th child ( as well as moved into a bigger house)

The education is similar to a priest, but with less depth, so it can be accomplished in 4 years of evening classes at the seminary.

Here is the academic requirements (at least for Detroit, other diocese will be very similar)

Link Here

 

[DallasCatholic]

To the OP, many parishes still use Eucharistic Minister as the general day to day term. It is a synonym for EMHC, but that long term is rarely used in day to day parishes (it is a mouthful for one thing). If you use the term EM, people know what you are talking about.

Actually, I think you will find that the term “Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion” and its abbreviation EMHC are actually being used in more parishes. My parish for instance used “EM” and “Eucharistic Minister” out of ignorance. Once the reasons were explained (via Redemptionis Scramentum) for the precise title most people made the change…and more do it every day.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

It is a mouthful indeed but the vatican says the term Eucharistic Minister is reserved for the priest.
You and I are bound to the Vatican’s instructions in this matter.

Redemptionis Sacramentum… States.[156.] This function is to be understood strictly according to the name by which it is known, that is to say, that of extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, and not “special minister of Holy Communion” nor “extraordinary minister of the Eucharist” nor “special minister of the Eucharist”, by which names the meaning of this function is unnecessarily and improperly broadened.

And it is a rare Catholic who can quote every part of Cannon Law. While EM can be an abbreviation, it is still a mouthful and while I see it on a rare parish bulletin, it is not used in the common Catholic vernacular for the reasons in my previous post. I see nothing wrong with it, as the Church on a local level is a bit more “down to earth” than on a higher level closer to the Vatican where proper terminology is not as important as proper spirituality.

 

[Brendan]

And it is a rare Catholic who can quote every part of Cannon Law. While EM can be an abbreviation, it is still a mouthful and while I see it on a rare parish bulletin, it is not used in the common Catholic vernacular for the reasons in my previous post. I see nothing wrong with it, as the Church on a local level is a bit more “down to earth” than on a higher level closer to the Vatican where proper terminology is not as important as proper spirituality.

Being disobedient or ignorant is not being “down to earth”. And continuing to use a term in a prohibited context still remains one or the other.

And while a proper spirituality can involve ignorance, a proper spirituality can never involve disobedience once a instruction is known.

So if you want to enjoy a proper spirituality, use the correct term.

 

[MrS]

And it is a rare Catholic who can quote every part of Cannon Law. While EM can be an abbreviation, it is still a mouthful and while I see it on a rare parish bulletin, it is not used in the common Catholic vernacular for the reasons in my previous post. I see nothing wrong with it, as the Church on a local level is a bit more “down to earth” than on a higher level closer to the Vatican where proper terminology is not as important as proper spirituality.

So if we refer to you as New…m…o, that is okay, because it is more down to earth, and easier to say.

It is used wrongly. If you choose, if thousands choose, to continue or persist in using EM in place of EMHC, so be it. You continue to be wrong.

Next it will be bread and wine, or
we believe, or
and also with you, or
for all…

Oh, gee… those are already here (and thankfully subject to change very soon)

.

 

[Lepanto]

A key point that nobody has touched on – all of us, especially EMHCs – should be praying and working for the day when EMHCs are no longer needed.

The fact that they are needed at all (although in many cases they are not needed but used out of habit) is symptomatic of the vocations crisis. If we had enough priests and deacons we wouldn’t need EMHCs. But of course, the problem just feeds on itself, because the more EMHCs that we have, the less it appears that we need ordained clergy. It seems that EMHCs have become permanent fixtures in most parishes.

EMHCs should be seen as nothing more than a temporary stop-gap until we have more priests and deacons. EMHCs should pray and work for the day when their services are no longer needed.

Anyone visit the Vocations forum room lately?

 

[Brendan]

A key point that nobody has touched on – all of us, especially EMHCs – should be praying and working for the day when EMHCs are no longer needed.?

A priest friend of mine once gave a homily on vocations that mentioned the fact that every prayer for priestly vocations is also a prayer that the ministry of EHMC’s will come to an end.

So just remember, every time someone prays for more priests, they are also praying for fewer EMHC’s

 

[MrS]

A priest friend of mine once gave a homily on vocations that mentioned the fact that every prayer for priestly vocations is also a prayer that the ministry of EHMC’s will come to an end.

So just remember, every time someone prays for more priests, they are also praying for fewer EMHC’s

 

[Sheeniac]

A priest friend of mine once gave a homily on vocations that mentioned the fact that every prayer for priestly vocations is also a prayer that the ministry of EHMC’s will come to an end.

So just remember, every time someone prays for more priests, they are also praying for fewer EMHC’s

As an EMHC, I applaud this.

Of course, my parish calls us SPECIAL ministers of Holy Communion in the booklets, etc. Sigh…

Pray for us in these parishes, as well as those in parishes who DISOBEDIENTLY prefer to use EM. New Ulm, shame on you for arguing not out of ignorance, but preference. Why not join in and become part of the solution?

Words mean things, my friend…

 

[THurifer2]

And it is a rare Catholic who can quote every part of Cannon Law. While EM can be an abbreviation, it is still a mouthful and while I see it on a rare parish bulletin, it is not used in the common Catholic vernacular for the reasons in my previous post. I see nothing wrong with it, as the Church on a local level is a bit more “down to earth” than on a higher level closer to the Vatican where proper terminology is not as important as proper spirituality.

The document I quoted was not canon law it was a document written for the faithful.(thats you and me). It seems to me that you are indicating that you think Arinze has wasted his time preparing that document for us because he is not “down to earth?”

 

[benedictgal]

To the OP, many parishes still use Eucharistic Minister as the general day to day term. It is a synonym for EMHC, but that long term is rarely used in day to day parishes (it is a mouthful for one thing). If you use the term EM, people know what you are talking about.

You should use Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion when referring to laity who assist in distributing Holy Communion. The big problem is that people are confused because the right terminology is not being used to describe the person’s duty. We needn’t perpetuate the confusion by using the wrong terminology.