Eucharistic ministers

  • Thread starter Thread starter naroad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Let’s see - the distribution of the Body of Christ is a reason for making Mass last too long? What seems to be wrong with this thinking? Speed it up - it’s taking too long for the faithful to receive.

Altar rails are very efficient and reverent.
 
40.png
buffalo:
…The extraordinary part means only to be used in extraordinary circumstances…
This is not correct. The term Extraordinary does not refer to the circumstances under which this ministry may be exercised. It refers to the non-ordained state of those persons exercising this ministry, as compared with the Ordinary (= ordained) Ministers of Holy Communion: Bishops, Priests and Deacons.
40.png
buffalo:
Please note the first two paragraphs of this selection.
 
JB.:
This is not correct. The term Extraordinary does not refer to the circumstances under which this ministry may be exercised. It refers to the non-ordained state of those persons exercising this ministry, as compared with the Ordinary (= ordained) Ministers of Holy Communion: Bishops, Priests and Deacons.

Please note the first two paragraphs of this selection.
They are not to be scheduled and used only in extraordinary circumstances. (coinicidence in language) I do understand the term extraordinary in context.
 
40.png
buffalo:
… I do understand the term extraordinary in context.
That’s good 🙂 . I brought this up because your earlier statement
40.png
buffalo:
… The extraordinary part means only to be used in extraordinary circumstances.
could be misleading to persons who do not know what the term extraordinary means in this context. The circumstances under which this ministry may be exercised can not be presumed from the title Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, but must be referenced from other authoritative sources.
 
JB.:
That’s good 🙂 . I brought this up because your earlier statement

could be misleading to persons who do not know what the term extraordinary means in this context. The circumstances under which this ministry may be exercised can not be presumed from the title Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, but must be referenced from other authoritative sources.
I stand clarified.🙂 Thank you.
 
40.png
davy39:
In our county, we have two priests to take care of four parishes. They are both really busy.Our priest says Mass at 9am, then drives 10 miles to his home parish, and says another Mass at 11. Of course, there other things to take care of besides saying Mass. We only have one deacon and he is stretched pretty thin, too. So Eucharistic ministers are the norm, especially for the Precious Blood. As far as people jumping line so they can receive from the priest, I think that is just stupid. They still receive the Body and Blood of Christ no matter who they receive from. As the previous poster said, become a Eucharistic minister, and then maybe you’ll have some idea of what we do.
I know it’s the norm and knowexactly what you guys do… And if you want me to be scathingly honest I’ll tell you. You do one thing, you speed up the mass. Expediency, haste get it over with, there are kids soccer games, the NFL and shopping to get to. You make communion go faster. and that sure as heck isn’t necessary.

I’ve posted here many times that the only real reason I’ve ever seen for Extraordinary Minister is to give the laity something to do in the Mass. Thats all.
 
40.png
palmas85:
I know it’s the norm and knowexactly what you guys do… And if you want me to be scathingly honest I’ll tell you. You do one thing, you speed up the mass. Expediency, haste get it over with, there are kids soccer games, the NFL and shopping to get to. You make communion go faster. and that sure as heck isn’t necessary.

I’ve posted here many times that the only real reason I’ve ever seen for Extraordinary Minister is to give the laity something to do in the Mass. Thats all.
A misunderstanding of the phrase “full, conscious and active participation”.

The Mass of Vatican II


The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, was one of two documents issued on the same day, December 4, 1963, the first two documents issued by the Second Vatican Council. The other document, Inter Mirifica, is on social communication. Sacrosanctum Concilium is one of the most important documents of the Council, one that has been the least understood and, I believe, has wrought the most havoc — not by having been fulfilled — but by having been ignored or misinterpreted. Now there should be no argument about the central intent of the Council concerning the liturgy. The Council actually spells out its intent, in paragraph 14 of Sacrosanctum Concilium: “Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that full, conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations, which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy.” The key words here are “full, conscious, and active participation.” The Latin for “active participation” is actuosa participatio.

I did a little research into previous uses of that expression in papal and other ecclesial documents. The first papal usage was in 1903 by Pope St. Pius X, whose motto was “Omnia Instaurare in Christo” (To restore all things in Christ). He considered himself a pope of renewal. He was elected in August of 1903 and in November, he issued one of the first documents of his pontificate, a motu proprio called Tra Le Solicitudini, that is, “Among the Concerns.” This was a document on the renewal of sacred music. In it, the Holy Father states, “In order that the faithful may more actively participate in the sacred liturgy, let them be once again made to sing Gregorian Chant as a congregation.”

That’s what the term “active participation” meant when it was first used in a papal document. But it had been used ten years earlier in another document, issued by Pius X before he was pope. He was the patriarch of Venice, and the document — as it turns out — was actually written by a Jesuit, with the wonderful name of Angelo dei Santi (“angel of the saints”). Sounds like a fictitious name.

In any case, the first use of actuosa participatio, i.e., active participation, referred explicitly and exclusively to the restoration of the congregational singing of Gregorian Chant. In 1928, Pope Pius XI reiterated the point in his Apostolic Letter, Divini Cultus. Nineteen years after that, in the Magna Carta of liturgical reform, Mediator Dei, issued by Pius XII, the same term was used with the same meaning. So until the Second Vatican Council, the term “active participation” referred exclusively to the singing of Gregorian Chant by the people.
 
40.png
palmas85:
You do one thing, you speed up the mass. Expediency, haste get it over with, there are kids soccer games, the NFL and shopping to get to. You make communion go faster. and that sure as heck isn’t necessary.

I’ve posted here many times that the only real reason I’ve ever seen for Extraordinary Minister is to give the laity something to do in the Mass. Thats all.
You won’t get any arguement out of me on this. However, our parish uses EMHC’s, heck, our whole diocese uses them. Until their use is banned by the Archbishop, they will continue to be used. There is nothing I can do about that except lodge my personal protest at the appropriate times and in the appropriate ways. Outside of that, why sit in the pews grumbling about their use? I don’t like that we use EMHC’s and I especially don’t like it when they come dressed inappropriately and minister in an inappropriate manner. So I decided that if we are stuck with EMHC’s in my parish, I was going to become one and help set the example for how it should be done. The lesser of two evils I suppose.

As an EMHC I take the time to minister to each communicant. If anything, I take a lot longer with each communicant than our priests and deacons typically do. How many times have you stood before the priest and had him looking beyond you; not even make eye contact with you when he is ministering the Body of Christ? Made you feel in “communion” did it? How much better when you come forward to a minister that makes eye contact, proclaims TO YOU “the Body of Christ” and waits patiently for your AMEN - regardless of who you are. Is it better to receive the Eucharist like a dollop of mashed potatos in the chow line?

So what’s the better way to go for a lay person in a parish that uses EMHC’s? Whine about it or sit in the pews fuming? Cop out by going to some other parish IF you actually have that option (kind of like what Martin Luther did)? Or try to work within the parish to make EMHC serivce palatable until it can be eliminated? Its kind of like the politician that runs for office with the promise that if elected, he/she will eliminate the position.

When you said “You do one thing, you speed up the mass.” That really is not accurate. The archdiocese/parish speeds up the mass. As an EMHC, I respond to the needs of our parish as set forth by our pastor and archbishop. I’m sorry that so many want to characterize EMHC’s as the “holier than thou” types that perform this duty out of some need for personal recognition. Its a very sad generalization that really serves no positive purpose.
 
40.png
buffalo:
A misunderstanding of the phrase “full, conscious and active participation”.

The Mass of Vatican II


The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, was one of two documents issued on the same day, December 4, 1963, the first two documents issued by the Second Vatican Council. The other document, Inter Mirifica, is on social communication. Sacrosanctum Concilium is one of the most important documents of the Council, one that has been the least understood and, I believe, has wrought the most havoc — not by having been fulfilled — but by having been ignored or misinterpreted. Now there should be no argument about the central intent of the Council concerning the liturgy. The Council actually spells out its intent, in paragraph 14 of Sacrosanctum Concilium: “Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that full, conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations, which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy.” The key words here are “full, conscious, and active participation.” The Latin for “active participation” is actuosa participatio.

I did a little research into previous uses of that expression in papal and other ecclesial documents. The first papal usage was in 1903 by Pope St. Pius X, whose motto was “Omnia Instaurare in Christo” (To restore all things in Christ). He considered himself a pope of renewal. He was elected in August of 1903 and in November, he issued one of the first documents of his pontificate, a motu proprio called Tra Le Solicitudini, that is, “Among the Concerns.” This was a document on the renewal of sacred music. In it, the Holy Father states, “In order that the faithful may more actively participate in the sacred liturgy, let them be once again made to sing Gregorian Chant as a congregation.”

That’s what the term “active participation” meant when it was first used in a papal document. But it had been used ten years earlier in another document, issued by Pius X before he was pope. He was the patriarch of Venice, and the document — as it turns out — was actually written by a Jesuit, with the wonderful name of Angelo dei Santi (“angel of the saints”). Sounds like a fictitious name.

In any case, the first use of actuosa participatio, i.e., active participation, referred explicitly and exclusively to the restoration of the congregational singing of Gregorian Chant. In 1928, Pope Pius XI reiterated the point in his Apostolic Letter, Divini Cultus. Nineteen years after that, in the Magna Carta of liturgical reform, Mediator Dei, issued by Pius XII, the same term was used with the same meaning. So until the Second Vatican Council, the term “active participation” referred exclusively to the singing of Gregorian Chant by the people.
I agree with this. I don’t think full and active participation meant for everyone to be running around all the time or for the laity to take over the Priests functions.

I still believe that the only reason for them is to give the laity more participation. What else could it possibly be? Help with the distribution of Holy Communion? Give me a break. They are generally not needed, in fact I’ve never seen a mass except for the Papal masses where there would even be the slightest need for them. And at Papal masses and other large gatherings there are always a LOT of clergy present. Shouldn’t they be doing it? I mean that is in the GIRM right?

Lets look at this this way. When I attend Novus Ordo masses on Sunday, the congregation averages 4-500 maybe. There is generally one priest, one or two deacons and anywhere from 6-10 extraordinary ministers. Often the Priest and the deacon or deacons just sit down and the laity handles communion. I know that is not right. On the other hand, at the indult Mass I go to, there is an equivalent number of people 4-500, one priest and one deacon. They manage to handle the distribution in a timely fashion without any problems. And this is a little slower you know with people kneeling and everything. Of course I wil hear the anguished cries about receiving the chalice as well. That doesn’t fly. At the Novus Ordo I attend thery don’t even offer the chalice and they still have hordes of extraordinary ministers roaming about.

I stand firm, there is no real need for them, at all
 
I train and schedule the Extraordinary Ministers for our parish. I do see valid reasons for using EMHC’s but also understand their use can be detrimental.
Our parish has some 2000 families and we probably average 400 in attendance for each Sunday mass (one on Saturday evening and three on Sunday). We have one priest right now and 3 deacons. We have the Church encouraging the faithful to recieve the Eucharist under both species. Our Archbishop approves of our use of EMHC’s and our Pastor supports the Archbishop. We use EMHC’s at every mass. If we did not, our masses would most likely last an additional 20 to 30 minutes, which is not necessarily a bad thing but, when your priest has to get through the masses so that he can go to the parish in the next town over to say mass for them, you can see where time is sometimes of the essence.
The use (overuse) of EMHC’s is not perfect. But the EMHC’s themselves are not the villains here. I see a lot of post in these forums from people whining and sniping at EMHC’s. I see a lot of posts where folks do or suggest that you find another parish. They often sound like the little kid that gets mad and cries that he’s going to take his toys and go home. Lot of good that does.
How about this: if you don’t like the EMHC’s in your parish, why not become one and see what its really like. Why not work for change from inside rather than sit in the peanut gallery taking pot-shots.
Everybody’s a critic; its easiest to take your toys and go to another sandbox. What we need are people who are willing to stick it out and affect change.
Halloa?! You make it sound necessary . I guess that the poor faithful couldn’t all receive in a timely manner before the last 50 years.

But wait…back then, people discerned before they received. They actually thought that what they were receiving was significant, and realised that it was not obligatory to receive at every Mass, especially without prior confession.

Now it is just another queue, and people line up, get shoved into it, feel ostracised if they do not.

I will never become a EMHC because I am not worthy to touch the King of Kings with my unordained hands. I will not desecrate Him to prove your or anybody’s point.

-SPXII
 
Servus Pio XII:
I will never become a EMHC because I am not worthy to touch the King of Kings with my unordained hands. I will not desecrate Him to prove your or anybody’s point.
-SPXII
Stop the presses! News flash from Pio XII - his Excellency Archbishop Jose Gomez allows his flock to desecrate the Body of Christ with their unordained hands!

Your piety is oh so inspiring. 👍
 
Breton said:
👍 You illustrate my point perfectly Dr. Bombay - nothing useful to add to the discussion. How is the view from the peanut gallery? 👍

Oh, yes. You’re certainly contributing brilliant suggestions. Telling someone who dislikes EMHCs to become one? :whacky: Dr. Freud would have a field day with that one, I’m sure.
 
40.png
naroad:
It is really unsettling to me to see young kids and women handing out Communion.
It ought to be, as they have not been ordained, having their hands specially consecrated for that purpose.
 
40.png
Breton:
In what way? Please, enlighten me.
Can’t. Psycho stuff is not my field of specialty. My doctorate is in a much more advanced field of study. 🤓
 
Dr. Bombay:
Can’t. Psycho stuff is not my field of specialty. My doctorate is in a much more advanced field of study. 🤓
And yet you seemed so sure of yourself Dr. Bombay. :hmmm:
 
40.png
davy39:
…So Eucharistic ministers are the norm, …
Sorry Davy - The term Eucharistic Minister is reserved for ordained priests. the correct term here is Extraordinary Ministers of the Holy Communion.

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. Moreover, also by reason of their sacred Ordination, the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are the Bishop, the Priest and the Deacon, 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.”

and

“[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.”
 
40.png
gladius_Verbi:
It ought to be, as they have not been ordained, having their hands specially consecrated for that purpose.
Canon Law 230 lays down the requirement for lay men of suitable age and talents… to exercise certain ministries within the church subject to the approval of the Bishops’ Conference.

Has the Bishops’ Conference approved of the minimum age of the EMHCs in your church?

I dread to think of young kids playing bread and wine with the Body and Blood of Christ!

Further, if you cannot drink if you are below 18, can you serve wine?
 
40.png
bob:
Sorry Davy - The term Eucharistic Minister is reserved for ordained priests. the correct term here is Extraordinary Ministers of the Holy Communion.

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. Moreover, also by reason of their sacred Ordination, the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are the Bishop, the Priest and the Deacon, 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.”

and

“[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.”
Yes, I did realize what they are correctly called, but since the thread was titled Eucharistic Ministers, I though the term would be less confusing to all. And I will admit they are overused. Our neighboring parish used six at every Mass. A little bit much.
 
40.png
moira:
Then why are they at every Mass? There aren’t extraordinary circumstances at all Masses.
Yes there are. A lot people in today’s society have lost the concept of Sin. Less & less people are going to confession and more & more people are going to communion than ever before.
40.png
gladius_Verbi:
It ought to be, as they have not been ordained, having their hands specially consecrated for that purpose.
As has already been pointed out, the Pope has approved unconsecrated hands touch and distribute the Eucharist. As a Catholic, are we not to obey the teachings of our Pope?
Servus Pio XII:
I will never become a EMHC because I am not worthy to touch the King of Kings with my unordained hands. I will not desecrate Him to prove your or anybody’s point.
My parish has 3200+ families – that’s FAMILIES, not just members. There are a lot of them that are sick & homebound that like to receive the Eucharist. There is no way that their needs could be met just by the priests of our parish. EMHC allow these people to receive our Lord into their heart & soul much more regularily than if EMHC did not exist. You wouldn’t consider being a EMHC to bring communion to those that otherwise could not receive?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top