Eucharistic ministers

[msproule]

Dr. Bombay:

Can’t. Psycho stuff is not my field of specialty. My doctorate is in a much more advanced field of study.

I think it was Queen that said “If you can’t beat 'em, join 'em.”

However, I agree. This is not advice I would personally take in this situation…

 

[msproule]

bob:

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?

At my home parish, which I rarely ever attend (keep reading), a young man of perhaps 16 years stands among the EMHC with the glass flagon in hand containing the yet un-poured Precious Blood. He is there for refills…Honest.

 

[palmas85]

*
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.

• 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?
• 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?

If more people are receiving communion today than ever before, and people have lost the concept of sin, and further are in a state of grave or mortal sin when receiving then they are receiving unworthily, correct? Shouldn’t be receiving in the first place

3200 familires, wow.

No I would not consider being an Extraordinary Minister under any circumstances at all. . Why? I believe that the Sacrament of Holy Orders actually means something, thats why. I don’t think it is a mindless, meaningless ritual. It actually does something, it gives the Priest something that I, unfortunately do not have. At least not to the same degree that he does.

 

[Sir_Knight]

palmas85:

If more people are receiving communion today than ever before, and people have lost the concept of sin, and further are in a state of grave or mortal sin when receiving then they are receiving unworthily, correct? Shouldn’t be receiving in the first place

You are ABSOLUTELY correct!

palmas85:

3200 familires, wow.

New town homes are going up behind the church property and they estimate that our parish will be at around 3500 FAMILIES before the end of the decade.

palmas85:

No I would not consider being an Extraordinary Minister under any circumstances at all. . Why? I believe that the Sacrament of Holy Orders actually means something, thats why. I don’t think it is a mindless, meaningless ritual. It actually does something, it gives the Priest something that I, unfortunately do not have. At least not to the same degree that he does.

Are we not to obey the teachings of the Holy Father? And if the Holy Father says that it is permissible for those who have not been ordained to handle and distribute Communion, why would you question such teaching while accepting other teachings of the church.

Additionally, if the Holy Father approves of it, isn’t bringing Christ to those that wish to receive Him but can not, a good thing?

Recall Jesus’s teaching … for I was hungry and you fed me …

If someone has the time and opportunity to bring Christ’s to others and does not when the Pope says that they can, will not Jesus say to us … for I was hungry and you did not feed me?

And what will we say in return? I was being respectful of your Holy Body?

And what will be our reply when He says, I gave all authority to my church, why did you not listen to them when they said that it was alright for you to distribute my Body to those that hungered for it?

 

[John_Lilburne]

msproule:

At my home parish, which I rarely ever attend (keep reading), a young man of perhaps 16 years stands among the EMHC with the glass flagon in hand containing the yet un-poured Precious Blood. He is there for refills…Honest.

This is a clear breach of the 2004 Instruction “Redemptionis Sacramentum”:

“[106.] However, the pouring of the Blood of Christ after the consecration from one vessel to another is completely to be avoided, lest anything should happen that would be to the detriment of so great a mystery.”

 

[JC_Nixon]

When recourse is had to Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, especially in the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds, their number should not be increased beyond what is required for the orderly and reverent distribution of the Body and Blood of the Lord. In all matters such Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion should follow the guidance of the diocesan bishop (IBID).USCCB, Committee on the Liturgy, Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion at Mass, General Principles

So if 2 Priests can reverently distribute Eucharist (under one kind) in a timely manner, why do we have as many as 20 Extraordinary Ministers??? I was at Mass out of town not too long ago and I kid you not, they had 20 EMHC’s distributing. Ridiculous.

Two years ago, at the request of our Pastor, I took over the training and scheduling of EMHC’s, because I too, thought I could make a difference and through training instill in people the proper way to reverently distribute the Body and Blood of Christ. I am sorry to say, that I have made no difference, at least not that I have seen. To say I am discouraged and disheartened is an understatement.

I have recently resigned this ministry because I find I can no longer attend Mass without the distraction of watching this one and that one to see who is doing what wrong that needs to be corrected. I want to go to Mass to pray and celebrate. I am losing my focus being ‘in charge’.

There are so many reasons why the use of EMHC’s has become the norm, least of which is the Pastors don’t want to keep people at Mass any longer than necessary because they will just leave all the earlier if distribution of the Body and Blood of Christ ‘takes too long’. People have forgotten, or selectively forgotten, that Sunday is the Lord’s day, a day to praise and worship, not to hurry through Mass so you can go shopping, or home to do chores or watch mindless TV or whatever. I don’t remember ever seeing anything that said Mass has to be an hour or less. . .

 

[palmas85]

Sir Knight:

You are ABSOLUTELY correct!

New town homes are going up behind the church property and they estimate that our parish will be at around 3500 FAMILIES before the end of the decade.

Are we not to obey the teachings of the Holy Father? And if the Holy Father says that it is permissible for those who have not been ordained to handle and distribute Communion, why would you question such teaching while accepting other teachings of the church.

Additionally, if the Holy Father approves of it, isn’t bringing Christ to those that wish to receive Him but can not, a good thing?

Recall Jesus’s teaching … for I was hungry and you fed me …

If someone has the time and opportunity to bring Christ’s to others and does not when the Pope says that they can, will not Jesus say to us … for I was hungry and you did not feed me?

And what will we say in return? I was being respectful of your Holy Body?

And what will be our reply when He says, I gave all authority to my church, why did you not listen to them when they said that it was alright for you to distribute my Body to those that hungered for it?

Just because the Holy Father approves of something doesn’t mean it is a mandate and that we have to agree with him and approve of it as well. Popes are human beings, not Gods. . The Holy Father, being German, may approve of FC Bayern Munich as well, but I don’t like them.

On the other hand If the Holy Father says it is permissable to use them on certain occasions,** it does not mean that we have to use them.** It is an option only. And as I understand it, they are to be used only on certain specific occasions, and** NOT** as a general way of operation I’ve been going to mass for a long long time, and I don’t recall any Novus Ordo masses in the past twenty years or so that didn’t have them, sometimes LOTS of them. I like to bring up the example of my Parish here in San Diego where on a normal weekday Mass we’ll have maybe 25-50 people in attendance and usually 3-4 Extraordinary Ministers plus the Priest and usually a Deacon… You tell me, is that proper and in the spirit of what was intended? Why would youneed 4-6 mimisters to distribute communion for 50 people?

As far as taking the Eucharist to the ill and homebound, your area must be awfully contagious or have an excess of old folk homes if the Priest is unable or more likely unwilling to make the side trips.

Besides that which Pope expressly gave this authority? Please provide a link. I’d like to know. I never knew which Pope specifically authorized it.

 

[gladius_Verbi]

Sir Knight:

*] 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?

He also approved of giving the Sacraments to non-Catholics, which is a mortal sin. Saint Thomas says that this is what Scripture means when it says, “Thou shalt not give that which is holy to dogs.” What do you think about that “canonical approval” of the Pope?

 

[Brendan]

Every prayer for vocations to the priesthood and the diaconate, is, by defintion, a prayer that the use of EMHC’s at Mass dissappears.

 

[Sir_Knight]

palmas85:

Just because the Holy Father approves of something doesn’t mean it is a mandate and that we have to agree with him and approve of it as well.

Actually, when it comes to matters of faith, as a Catholic, you do have to agree with him.

palmas85:

On the other hand If the Holy Father says it is permissable to use them on certain occasions, it does not mean that we have to use them. It is an option only.

But if using them allows for more individuals to receive the Body of Christ, isn’t that a good thing? As a matter of fact, isn’t that a better course of action than not taking the option and seriously limiting the number & frequency of ill & homebound Catholics who would receive Christ in holy Communion?

palmas85:

I like to bring up the example of my Parish here in San Diego where on a normal weekday Mass we’ll have maybe 25-50 people in attendance and usually 3-4 Extraordinary Ministers plus the Priest and usually a Deacon… You tell me, is that proper and in the spirit of what was intended?

Definitely not.

palmas85:

Why would youneed 4-6 mimisters to distribute communion for 50 people?

I don’t see why the priest couldn’t take care of this himself. Or, at most, the priest and the deacon.

palmas85:

As far as taking the Eucharist to the ill and homebound, your area must be awfully contagious or have an excess of old folk homes if the Priest is unable or more likely unwilling to make the side trips.

3200+ families translates into a lot of individual members. Taking into account that many people from NY and NJ retire in PA, we may indeed have a higher percentage of elderly than normal. Additionally, we are located in a rural community and our parish covers a rather large geographic area. I live ten miles from the church and I have homebound people that I minister to that live even further. Assuming 10-15 miles in each direction from the church and our parish covers about 500 square miles.

Now, let’s do the math and address your assertion that the priests of the parish are “more likely not willing to make the side trips.” Including myself, there are 34 EMHC in our parish who minister to the homebound. I, personally, have 6 people that I bring communion to regularily. I’m one of the new’er EMHC, so my list is mostlikely smaller than EMHCs that have been doing this longer. But let’s assume that all of us have 6 people on our list. That translates into 204 people. For a parish that have 3200+ families covering about 500 square miles, it isn’t unusual to have 200-300 sick and homebound parish members.

Getting back to the six people on my list. Two of them receive communion once a week – making it 8-10 visits a month for the two of them. Let’s count that as 9 as an average. One person receives communion from me only once a month on first Fridays so it brings the number up to 10. And the other three receive communion from me every other week making it 6-9 visits a month for them. Let’s count that as 8. Those 8 plus the previous 10 add up to 18 visits that I made a month on average.

Averaged out weekly, that comes out to about 4.5 visits per week. Let’s be conservate and say 4 just to keep the math simple. Each visit takes about 30-45 minutes. 5-10 minutes to distribute communion plus 5-10 minutes of small talk for some of them while 10-20 minutes of small talk for others … since they are home bound, we are often the one of the few humans that they interact with and they just want to talk. Factor in round trip travel time, and each visit is about 45-60 minutes. Four visits a week at 45-60 minutes a visit translates into about 3.5 hours a week.

Assuming the other EMHCs in my parish devote the same amount of time, that translates into 119 hours a week. Since we’ve been rounding down the entire time, let’s just round this number up to 120 hours a week to keep the math simplier.

On average, 120 hours a week is spend within my parish distributing communion to the homebound. If there were no EMHCs in my parish devoted to bringing communion to the homebound, our two priests would have to spend 60 hours every week delivering communion leaving them almost no time to do anything else.

Something would have to suffer somewhere. Either the people could not receive as often as they would like or all of them could not receive or other parish functions would have to suffer.

After looking at the raw data, if you do not see the positive benefit of having EMHCs bringing communion to homebound, then I no longer know what to say.

palmas85:

Besides that which Pope expressly gave this authority? Please provide a link. I’d like to know. I never knew which Pope specifically authorized it.
Reply With Quote

Link.

 

[Sir_Knight]

gladius_Verbi:

He also approved of giving the Sacraments to non-Catholics, which is a mortal sin.

As Catholics, do we not believe that when it comes to matters of faith, the Pope teaches without error? Didn’t Jesus give complete authority to His church with regards to binding and loosening? Isn’t the Pope the final authority on matters of faith upon this earth?

 

[Catholic2003]

palmas85:

Besides that which Pope expressly gave this authority? Please provide a link. I’d like to know. I never knew which Pope specifically authorized it.

Pope Paul VI

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Sir Knight:

You are ABSOLUTELY correct!

New town homes are going up behind the church property and they estimate that our parish will be at around 3500 FAMILIES before the end of the decade.

Are we not to obey the teachings of the Holy Father? And if the Holy Father says that it is permissible for those who have not been ordained to handle and distribute Communion, why would you question such teaching while accepting other teachings of the church.

The approval of laymen distributing Communion is a discipline, not a teaching. We have the right to question the prudence of a change in discipline. We have no right to question a Church teaching.
Sir Knight:

Additionally, if the Holy Father approves of it, isn’t bringing Christ to those that wish to receive Him but can not, a good thing?

Recall Jesus’s teaching … for I was hungry and you fed me …

If someone has the time and opportunity to bring Christ’s to others and does not when the Pope says that they can, will not Jesus say to us … for I was hungry and you did not feed me?

And what will we say in return? I was being respectful of your Holy Body?

And what will be our reply when He says, I gave all authority to my church, why did you not listen to them when they said that it was alright for you to distribute my Body to those that hungered for it?

So now, we as laymen have an **obligation **to distribute Holy Communion or risk our immortal souls? Wow!

Next thing ya know, they’ll be telling us it’s a mortal sin to not hold hands during the Pater Noster.

 

[otm]

gladius_Verbi:

He also approved of giving the Sacraments to non-Catholics, which is a mortal sin. Saint Thomas says that this is what Scripture means when it says, “Thou shalt not give that which is holy to dogs.” What do you think about that “canonical approval” of the Pope?

I think that you do not know very much about sacramental theology, nor do you seem to understand the limited circumstances when this can occur. Further, since the Church has the authority over the sacraments given to it by Christ, and chooses to exercise it in a limited fashion, I wonder how you can charge that it is a mortal sin? Particuarly since the church is guided by the Holy Spirit in matters of faith and morals?

 

[Kirane]

gladius_Verbi:

He also approved of giving the Sacraments to non-Catholics, which is a mortal sin. Saint Thomas says that this is what Scripture means when it says, “Thou shalt not give that which is holy to dogs.” What do you think about that “canonical approval” of the Pope?

Does the Catholic Pope have the right to change and administer the rules and regulations of the Catholic Church or is it up to a layperson such as yourself to decide what are the correct rules and regulations regarding the distribution of holy Communion? What happens if a layperson disagrees and says one thing, but the Pope says something else? Should Catholics obey the layperson, even if we don’t know who he is or what he looks like, who doesn’t have any known authority in the Church or are Catholics supposed to obey the Pope who is the Supreme Pontiff and the Vicar of Christ on earth? Hasn’t the Pope been elected by a college of cardinals and don’t they have the authority to do so? Or is it not true and something else is true in the Catholic Church these days?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Dr. Bombay:

So now, we as laymen have an **obligation **to distribute Holy Communion or risk our immortal souls? Wow!

If we have the opportunity to do good for others and do not, why wouldn’t Jesus say the following to us on judgement day …

31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

… Matthew 25.

 

[gladius_Verbi]

otm:

I think that you do not know very much about sacramental theology, nor do you seem to understand the limited circumstances when this can occur. Further, since the Church has the authority over the sacraments given to it by Christ, and chooses to exercise it in a limited fashion, I wonder how you can charge that it is a mortal sin? Particuarly since the church is guided by the Holy Spirit in matters of faith and morals?

While I appreciate your condescending remarks about my knowledge of sacramental theology, the fact that there is even one instance where such shameful behavior is allowed (and there are, in fact, some where it is encouraged), tells me all I need to know.

I can charge that it is a mortal sin because 2000 years of Catholic teaching on the matter make that so plain it is remarkable that it needs to be defended.

 

[gladius_Verbi]

Kirane:

Does the Catholic Pope have the right to change and administer the rules and regulations of the Catholic Church or is it up to a layperson such as yourself to decide what are the correct rules and regulations regarding the distribution of holy Communion?

The Pope has no right to legalize something that is sinful, such as communicatio in sacris. It is against the natural law, and there has not ever been, nor will there ever be, a Pope who can alter that.

The Church, a fortiori an individual Pope, cannot touch anything that pertains to the substance of the Sacraments. There have been four crystal clear statements about this fact, although this did not stop the modern Innovators from touching just about all of them. I would be happy to cite them here for you, should you not take my word for it.

As a layman, I am simply going by what 2000 years of authoritative Catholic teaching says, and if the recent teaching contradicts it, too bad for the recent teaching.

 

[gladius_Verbi]

Sir Knight:

As Catholics, do we not believe that when it comes to matters of faith, the Pope teaches without error?

Yes, we do.

Didn’t Jesus give complete authority to His church with regards to binding and loosening?

Yes, He did.

Isn’t the Pope the final authority on matters of faith upon this earth?

Yes, he is.

When you care to actually try and prove that this sinful action, which has always been held as such by Catholics, is somehow perfectly acceptable now, I shall happily respond at greater length.

 

[Kirane]

gladius_Verbi:

The Pope has no right to legalize something that is sinful, such as communicatio in sacris. It is against the natural law, and there has not ever been, nor will there ever be, a Pope who can alter that.

The Church, a fortiori an individual Pope, cannot touch anything that pertains to the substance of the Sacraments. There have been four crystal clear statements about this fact, although this did not stop the modern Innovators from touching just about all of them. I would be happy to cite them here for you, should you not take my word for it.

As a layman, I am simply going by what 2000 years of authoritative Catholic teaching says, and if the recent teaching contradicts it, too bad for the recent teaching.

Should a Roman Catholic listen and submit to your teaching, who as far as I know have no authority from Christ, or should a Roman Catholic listen and submit to the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the infallible Vicar of Christ, such as Pope John Paul II or the present Pope Benedict?