Eucharistic Ministers

  • Thread starter Thread starter Iowander
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Iowander

Guest
I’m considering suggesting that my parish move away from the our practice of referring to extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion as “Eucharistic Ministers”. I’m familiar with what Redemptionis Sacramentum says on the topic, but I was just reading Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America and I notice that, while "extraordinary minister of Holy Communion is the predominant term used, it also once uses the term “eucharistic ministers” (40) in a way the seems to include extraordinary ministers. It also uses “extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist” (25) once.

Given how resistant some people are to change, I’m thinking that this might be enough of a reason to not even bother bringing it up. What do you think.
 
On Eucharistic ministers…extraordinary…My view on this is and what the directives say about extraordinary ministers of the Eucharists is just that extraordinary. Which means when not sufficient priests are there they are privileged to distribute the Eucharist. But that is not the case in most parishes there seems to a cast of thousands in the sanctuary to help in the distribution of the Eucharist even though there might be two priests and a deacon.
I believe and please correct me but this ministry was for the sole purpose when there are not sufficient priest, deacons to help in the distribution of the Eucharist. It’s not a right of an individual but a privilege and a necessity at times.But a as I have stated time and time again it has become an abuse and that is not why this ministry was instituted.
The other fact which I have observed is that it seems that we need to have all these Extraordinary ministers of the Eucharistic so we can get it over quick and fast. Personally I will not go to a extraordinary minister of the Eucharist unless it’s deemed as such as only one priest. But if there are two priest and a deacon I feel it’s an abuse and will definitely go to the proper minister of the Eucharist.😦
 
I think it’s much to do about nothing. Although the preferred term is EMHC, seriously, does Joe Average Catholic get confused at to who are the priests and deacons and who are the laity helping out during mass? I think not.

We’ve been using the term EME (Extrodinary Minister of the Eucharist) since our parish opened in 1993. 🤷 No problems.

I don’t think it’s anything to stress over, but I’m aware that others on this forum will strongly disagree. 🤷
 
Iowander said:
I’m considering suggesting that my parish move away from the our practice of referring to extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion as “Eucharistic Ministers”. I’m familiar with what Redemptionis Sacramentum says on the topic, but I was just reading Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America and I notice that, while "extraordinary minister of Holy Communion is the predominant term used, it also once uses the term “eucharistic ministers” (40) in a way the seems to include extraordinary ministers. It also uses “extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist” (25) once…
Click to expand...
Take a look at the dates on both documents.

The “Norms” is March of 2002.

R.S. is March of 2004.

One of the purposes of R.S. was to correct the terminology errors is such documents as the Norms for Distribution.
 
Newbie2 said:
I think it’s much to do about nothing. Although the preferred term is EMHC, seriously, does Joe Average Catholic get confused at to who are the priests and deacons and who are the laity helping out during mass? I think not.

We’ve been using the term EME (Extrodinary Minister of the Eucharist) since our parish opened in 1993. 🤷 No problems.

I don’t think it’s anything to stress over, but I’m aware that others on this forum will strongly disagree. 🤷
Click to expand...
Personally, I don’t think it is an issue of confusing the priest with laypeople, but more like continuing to diminish the importance of the priesthood. Also, I just kind of figure that if it is much to do about nothing or no big deal, then why not just do it right? This should be easy right? Also, I just kind of figured that the time was right with the changes coming from the new translation. Why not just fix a few other minor issues while we’re at it?
 
Newbie2 said:
I
I don’t think it’s anything to stress over, but I’m aware that others on this forum will strongly disagree. 🤷
Click to expand...
Stress? No. Be concerned with, yes.

Large matters or small, we are still called to obedience. Christ Himself told us so.
His master said to him, ‘Well done, my good and faithful servant. Since you were faithful in small matters, I will give you great responsibilities. Come, share your master’s joy!’
Click to expand...
Matt 25:23
 
nigelk said:
On Eucharistic ministers…extraordinary…My view on this is and what the directives say about **extraordinary ministers of the Eucharists **is just that extraordinary. .😦
Click to expand...
The OP’s point is that the Vatican has instructed the faithful to us the correct term for lay people who assist in the distribtion of the Blessed Sacrament, Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion ( not of the Eucharist).

A Minister of a Sacrament is the one who confects the Sacrament. The Minister of Baptism is the one who pours water while reciting the Trinitarian formula.

The Minister of Reconcillition is a priest or bishop (with faculties from the local Ordinary or Rome)

The Ministers of Marriage are the couple themselves.

The Minister of the Eucharist is a validly ordained priest or bishop. They are the ones (and only ones) who can confect the Eucharist.

A second, and distinct ministry is the communicaiton of the Sacrament, the bringing of it to the communinty. That ministry is known as Ministers of Holy Communion. Deacons, priests and bishops are ordinary ministers of Holy Communion, laypeople are EMHC’s.
  1. The Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion
Click to expand...
[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”.[254] Hence the name “minister of the Eucharist” belongs properly to the Priest alone. Moreover, also by reason of their sacred Ordination, the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are the Bishop, the Priest and the Deacon,[255] to whom it belongs therefore to administer Holy Communion to the lay members of Christ’s faithful during the celebration of Mass. In this way their ministerial office in the Church is fully and accurately brought to light, and the sign value of the Sacrament is made complete.
Click to expand...
-Redemptionis Sacramentum

There IS such a thing as an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist. That would be a lacized priest. They still can confect the Sacrament, but only in extraordinary situtations.
 
This is what the Redemptionis Sacramentum says.
[45.] To be avoided is the danger of obscuring the complementary relationship between the action of clerics and that of laypersons, in such a way that the ministry of laypersons undergoes what might be called a certain “clericalization”, while the sacred ministers inappropriately assume those things that are proper to the life and activity of the lay faithful.[116]
Click to expand...
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

Regardless of the name the lay Eucharistic ministers are not extraordinary anymore, over 90% of the churches they distribute the Eucharist together with the priest, and I estimate 10% of the churches were in an ordinary Sunday there is no priest at all, only Eucharist service lead by a lay person.

Imho the proper name is lay ministers, what the Redemptionis Sacramentum is using most often. The lay ministers are the readers (almost always lay person), the Eucharistic ministers (who help the priest to distribute the Eucharist) and the altar servers.

The name does not changes anything. The requirements to this ministry should be reformed requiring strict background check of the truly Catholic life, instruction at the beginning and strict follow up, may be official blessing to the ministry, like the minor orders were.

The distinctive word is sacred minister, ordained minister.
 
benedictgal said:
I actually wrote about this:

benedictgal-lexorandilexcredendi.blogspot.com/2011/03/when-extraordinary-becomes-ordinary.html
Click to expand...
benedictgal,

What you wrote makes a lot of sense. Attend any Sunday Mass in the Dallas area and there are always two or three EMHCs. Comparing the written instructions given in church documents to actual practice it seems we have a liberal interpretation whereby the extraordinary has become ordinary. I favor a conservative interpretation of church instructions and limited use of EMHCs.
 
Iowander said:
I’m considering suggesting that my parish move away from the our practice of referring to extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion as “Eucharistic Ministers”. I’m familiar with what Redemptionis Sacramentum says on the topic, but I was just reading Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America and I notice that, while "extraordinary minister of Holy Communion is the predominant term used, it also once uses the term “eucharistic ministers” (40) in a way the seems to include extraordinary ministers. It also uses “extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist” (25) once.

Given how resistant some people are to change, I’m thinking that this might be enough of a reason to not even bother bringing it up. What do you think.
Click to expand...
I hear your pain. The use of the wrong terminology is not infrequent in my parish and it makes me cringe every time that I hear the expression. I made sure that the children in my catechism class understand the difference, but I did not do anything else about it. Prudence taught me which battles to pick and that is not one at the top of my priorities. I wish the problem would go away but honestly it is not the most important thing when compared to liberal adaptation to the GIRM, obnoxious music, and sadly on top of every thing else my bad habits (e.g. getting involved in a conversation/greetings just before or after Mass) that for sure bug people around me.
 
georgewithfaith said:
benedictgal,

What you wrote makes a lot of sense. Attend any Sunday Mass in the Dallas area and there are always two or three EMHCs. Comparing the written instructions given in church documents to actual practice it seems we have a liberal interpretation whereby the extraordinary has become ordinary. I favor a conservative interpretation of church instructions and limited use of EMHCs.
Click to expand...
Here is a bit of humor on the subject :cool:

pblosser.blogspot.com/2006/02/parishes-report-extraordinary-minister.html
 
Iowander said:
…and I notice that, while "extraordinary minister of Holy Communion is the predominant term used, it also once uses the term “eucharistic ministers” (40) in a way the seems to include extraordinary ministers. It also uses “extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist” (25) once.

Given how resistant some people are to change, I’m thinking that this might be enough of a reason to not even bother bringing it up. What do you think.
Click to expand...
I think you are totally on the right track. Words mean things - and the document authors did not just pick words out of the air when they chose to use a title for one role or another.
Iowander said:
Personally, I don’t think it is an issue of confusing the priest with laypeople, but more like continuing to diminish the importance of the priesthood. Also, I just kind of figure that if it is much to do about nothing or no big deal, then why not just do it right? This should be easy right? Also, I just kind of figured that the time was right with the changes coming from the new translation. Why not just fix a few other minor issues while we’re at it?
Click to expand...
This really sums it up perfectly. You get it. Good luck fixing it! 😉

~Liza
 
Brendan said:
Stress? No. Be concerned with, yes.

Large matters or small, we are still called to obedience. Christ Himself told us so.

Matt 25:23
Click to expand...
Sure. But I’m talking about those who want EMHCs abandoned in toto and those who start throwing documents around about the proper terminology rather than take a less accusatory position of “abuse”.

EMHCs are permitted, and the priest is the one to determine whether or not they are needed, not somebody who thinks they are in a better position to decide such than the priest (mostly forumites who way overgeneralize the “abuse” of using EMHCs in parishes where they’ve never been.

I guess it’s a bug in my behind that people think they know what’s best in other people’s parishes…so I rant about it every now and then. :D;)
 
Brendan said:
Take a look at the dates on both documents.

The “Norms” is March of 2002.

R.S. is March of 2004.

One of the purposes of R.S. was to correct the terminology errors is such documents as the Norms for Distribution.
Click to expand...
I was thinking exactly this, too.

Norms has terminology issues. RS corrects them.
 
The EMHC at my parish have been referred to as just that - Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. There used to be waaaaay too many of them and none of them were needed at all (small attendance). Thankfully the pastor canned the ones that distributed the hosts. Now if only he’d do the same for those with the chalice…
 
What are you saying, that you don’t think the laity should receive from the chalice?

The Church says otherwise, describing it as a ‘fuller sign’.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top