Eucharistic Ministers?

[ComradeAndrei]

As strongly as some of you guys feel about this issue, I doubt that any parish would be big enough to require EMHCs. Or any situation EXtraordinary enough.

My parish has two priests and a deacon. The deacon does prison ministry on Sunday, so he’s not available. Each priest does two Masses on Sunday and a visiting priest does Mass on Saturday evening. I don’t know why both priests don’t attend all the Masses. At other parishes, I suppose all the priests attend all the Masses so there will be more Ordinary ministers to serve communion. I don’t know.

I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. What is your definition of “extraordinary”? I would say that in the situation you describe, it sounds like it could be “extraordinary” as it sits. However, theoretically, things could be juggled around. I’ve seen parishes that have more than one priest and the other priest comes out during Communion to distribute. He doesn’t have to concelebrate or assist for the whole Mass if he has his own Mass(s) to say.

Ok, so our parish, who shares a priest with a second parish (doing two masses at each every weekend), should never have them according to this logic since it is never “extraordinary” for this to happen. And our priest should go back and forth between the ciborium and the cup for each person.

Did I say that “extraordinary” means never and that I am omniscient and know every single parish and what their issues are throughout the whole world? I don’t think so. I (and I suppose many others) think that there doesn’t need to be a gaggle of EMHC and every single Mass when there is honestly no need for them.

Believe it or not, not every parish has the luxury of multiple priests and deacons. There are parishes that are lucky to get a visiting priest on an irregular schedule.

Again, I didn’t claim omniscience. If you really need EMHC and they are not just up there because somebody says that Vatican II says that we need “full and active participation” and that means lay people need to be “doing” things-then fine. I hereby deem your situation “extraordinary” anything to the contrary notwithstanding.

I have to join in here with those who find this belief that there is something inherently holier about only allowing a priest to distribute communion truly sad. And the antipathy expressed toward those of us who take on the awesome responsibility and honor of presenting Our Lord to each other is really troubling. What ever happened to our command to lift each other up rather than tearing each other down?

IF there is a real need, fine. If we are doing it just to be “pastoral” in the 80’s populist sense of the word, then we have a problem.

This focus on petty externals certainly seems to run contrary to everything that Jesus preached.

The “WWJD?” card. Sorry, but I don’t buy that my position is contrary to “everything that Jesus preached.” You cannot just reduce everything like this to “petty externals”. These sorts of issues have a much deeper theological aspect than some of you seem to realize, which is unfortunate.

That is one of the problems with the “reform” theology, we lost our rich and deep symbolism and it has been replaced with far too much superficiality.

 

[ncjohn]

The “WWJD?” card. …

…These sorts of issues have a much deeper theological aspect than some of you seem to realize, which is unfortunate.

Ahh, the “you’re just too stupid to understand the great significance” card.

After over 50 years in a combination of the pre-Vatican 2 and post-Vatican 2 church, and a reasonable level of intelligence and study, I am indeed quite aware of the “deeper theological aspect” of many things. And the “deeper theological aspect” in many cases is often just a nostalgic wish to go back to a fairyland “leave it to beaver” church that never really existed, and which was often never even experienced by the person “reminiscing”.

If one prefers to receive communion from the priest, that is perfectly fine with me. But please don’t try to tell me that there is something inherently “holier” about the host because it comes from the hands of the priest, any more than it makes the one receiving it holier because they received it from the hand of the priest.

Yes, I agree that there are excesses in the use of extraordinary ministers and cases where they are being used for improper reasons. But making comments that

Sunday doesn’t count as extraordinary, unless you have a huge parish and only one priest (and no deacons).

doesn’t take into account the realities of many, many different circumstances.

Peace,

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Ahh, the “you’re just too stupid to understand the great significance” card.

“Seem to realize” is a lot different than “you’re too stupid”.

After over 50 years in a combination of the pre-Vatican 2 and post-Vatican 2 church, and a reasonable level of intelligence and study, I am indeed quite aware of the “deeper theological aspect” of many things. And the “deeper theological aspect” in many cases is often just a nostalgic wish to go back to a fairyland “leave it to beaver” church that never really existed, and which was often never even experienced by the person “reminiscing”.

Not always. I’ve experienced what “could be” and know from first hand accounts of what “was” and how good it was. I have also experienced the good and bad of the “present” and know that there cannot be a “pre” and “post” Vatican II Church. However, again, I deny being omniscient.

If one prefers to receive communion from the priest, that is perfectly fine with me. But please don’t try to tell me that there is something inherently “holier” about the host because it comes from the hands of the priest, any more than it makes the one receiving it holier because they received it from the hand of the priest.

I never said it was holier. I said it was a “fuller sign” sorta like receiving both the Precious Blood and Body-nobody gets “more” or gets “holier” if they have both as opposed to only one species.

doesn’t take into account the realities of many, many different circumstances.

That was an example, not an absolute univeral of what has to be done.

 

[LeahInancsi]

My parish has an average attendance of 2000/weekend with five Masses and 10 EMHCs at each Mass. A neighboring parish has 3000/weekend with six Masses and about 14-16 EMHCs per Mass.

Most here will probably think that is too many EMHCs. We kneel during communion. A lot of people are not able to kneel comfortably and have rest their rear on the edge of the bench. That arrangement probably doesn’t help their knees any. My point is that I think speed in a significant consideration for the comfort of those who are not able to kneel very long. My parish is in an older part of town with an older membership and kneeling time becomes an issue. It started to bother me a little today during the Holy Spirit novena. I can only imagine what it’s like for the 60, 70, and 80 year olds.

 

[TradyDaddy]

Ahh, the “you’re just too stupid to understand the great significance” card.

After over 50 years in a combination of the pre-Vatican 2 and post-Vatican 2 church, and a reasonable level of intelligence and study, I am indeed quite aware of the “deeper theological aspect” of many things. And the “deeper theological aspect” in many cases is often just a nostalgic wish to go back to a fairyland “leave it to beaver” church that never really existed, and which was often never even experienced by the person “reminiscing”…

Peace,

I just love statements like this. Now, are you talking about the fairyland church that actually had seminaries and convents full of young men and women? Are you talking about the fairy land church where nuns taught in the schools and you could send your child for a song rather than the several thousand bucks a year it cost these days to pay all the lay teachers? Oh, I see… thaaaaaaat fairy land church. You mean the one where Catholics actually stayed married, when maybe a few hundred annulements were issued per year as opposed the tens of thousands that are now dished out? or the church where 75% of Catholics actually attended Mass weekly as opposed to the 20% now? Yeah, that was horrible wasn’t it. We should never want to return to that.

 

[Marian_Carroll]

**REMINDER;

The topic of this thread is Eucharistic Ministers…**…

 

[ncjohn]

I just love statements like this. Now, are you talking about the fairyland church that actually had seminaries and convents full of young men and women? Are you talking about the fairy land church where nuns taught in the schools and you could send your child for a song rather than the several thousand bucks a year it cost these days to pay all the lay teachers? Oh, I see… thaaaaaaat fairy land church. You mean the one where Catholics actually stayed married, when maybe a few hundred annulements were issued per year as opposed the tens of thousands that are now dished out? or the church where 75% of Catholics actually attended Mass weekly as opposed to the 20% now? Yeah, that was horrible wasn’t it. We should never want to return to that.

I rest my case!

Another statement that has nothing to do with the topic, about things that are results of the changes in society rather than changes in the Church, from someone who almost surely was not alive when all of this wonderment was going on, and to which you can’t return because that world no longer exists any more than the the willingness to give up all for the common good of the original Christians.

No, my statement was referring strictly to this belief that going back to that time when only the priest was allowed to touch the host made it somehow inherently holier, and this bashing of the EMHC here, without which many parishes would be struggling even worse than we are. There was in my experience no greater sense of holiness then–in fact, if anything I found it to be less so, especially on the part of the “faithful”, which is why I left the Church for so many years. I believe that the belief that there was is for the most part a nostalgia for the “good ole days” that never really were, mostly by people who weren’t there to experience it. I don’t claim that my experiences were universal or that there was no sense of “holy” but I did not encounter it in any of the many parishes I attended in those times.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Another statement that has nothing to do with the topic, about things that are results of the changes in society rather than changes in the Church, from someone who almost surely was not alive when all of this wonderment was going on, and to which you can’t return because that world no longer exists any more than the the willingness to give up all for the common good of the original Christians.

It was a change in society, Catholics lost (or purposefully threw out) their Catholic culture and adopted the World. When the windows of the Church were thrown open, a lot of the junk from outside flowed in and many in the Church jumped out.

I’m all for Vatican II, but the way that many in the Church reformed according to that demon “Spirit of Vatican II” is shameful.

No, my statement was referring strictly to this belief that going back to that time when only the priest was allowed to touch the host made it somehow inherently holier,

That isn’t what was said, and I really doubt anyone seriously believes that if they are really traditional. It contradicts Trent and all of Catholic teaching on the Eucharist.

and this bashing of the EMHC here, without which many parishes would be struggling even worse than we are.

How would they be “struggling” so bad granting legitimate and real situations are met as they should be? I think you read too much into what we say.

There was in my experience no greater sense of holiness then–in fact, if anything I found it to be less so, especially on the part of the “faithful”, which is why I left the Church for so many years. I believe that the belief that there was is for the most part a nostalgia for the “good ole days” that never really were, mostly by people who weren’t there to experience it. I don’t claim that my experiences were universal or that there was no sense of “holy” but I did not encounter it in any of the many parishes I attended in those times.

Problem is, I can say the same about the Church today. I’ve been to a lot of parishes in which I don’t “experience” (which is entirely subjective and nothing to build faith on) a greater sense of holiness when people are engaging in “full and active participation”-actually besides the metaphysical fact and spiritual reality of the Mass, I’d say there is a whole lot of unholiness and impiety in some/many of the parishes I’ve gone to.

I don’t want to engage in a “my source of experience holds more water than yours does” argument but I know plenty of people that lived “back in the old days” who would gladly have the “fairy land” Church back. My personal experience with the “fairy land” Church of today is that its deepened my faith and given me much hope. Granted, we cannot go back to the 50’s (and I’m not advocating it) but the reform we got was not what was intended.

As to EMHC, they are not the problem but merely a symptom. We supposedly have enough people going to Mass to justify their use, but we also don’t have enough priests and deacons out of these larger numbers to go around. Hmm…

 

[TradyDaddy]

No, my statement was referring strictly to this belief that going back to that time when only the priest was allowed to touch the host made it somehow inherently holier, and this bashing of the EMHC here, without which many parishes would be struggling even worse than we are. There was in my experience no greater sense of holiness then–in fact, if anything I found it to be less so, especially on the part of the “faithful”, which is why I left the Church for so many years. I believe that the belief that there was is for the most part a nostalgia for the “good ole days” that never really were, mostly by people who weren’t there to experience it. I don’t claim that my experiences were universal or that there was no sense of “holy” but I did not encounter it in any of the many parishes I attended in those times.

So, that “old” church wasn’t good enough for you, so you left it. And now we’re supposed to take your word that it wasn’t as holy as the “new” and improved post Vat II church. Wow… that’s great. So the increase in divorce among Catholics, the incredible number of Catholics who now are Pro-abortion, polls showing acceptance of Gay rights … (need I go on?) … these don’t point to a decline of faith and a decline of holiness? Oh, I forgot, these are just because of changes in the culture.

 

[Titus]

I’m all for Vatican II, but the way that many in the Church reformed according to that demon “Spirit of Vatican II” is shameful.

I think we need to stick to the ‘letter of Vatican II’ no the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’. That way we would have a much more faithful use of the many great ideas of that council.

As for the EMHC question, in my parish we have many EMHCs who each serve one sunday mass a month, and a couple for the daily masses. We are a reasonably large parish (1,000) with a great team of 4 priests (1 Irish, 1 Thai, 1 Korean, 1 English) and 1 deacon, plus several Sisters from the Poor Servants of the Mother of God, all of whom are great witnesses for the church. But the clergy never pop out to give out communion when they aren’t celebrating, which is a shame. It should be a simple task of their ministry, much easier than a lot of the difficult counselling/ teaching work they do.

 

[Walking_Home]

I rest my case!

Another statement that has nothing to do with the topic, about things that are results of the changes in society rather than changes in the Church, from someone who almost surely was not alive when all of this wonderment was going on, and to which you can’t return because that world no longer exists any more than the the willingness to give up all for the common good of the original Christians.

No, my statement was referring strictly to this belief that going back to that time when only the priest was allowed to touch the host made it somehow inherently holier, and this bashing of the EMHC here, without which many parishes would be struggling even worse than we are. There was in my experience no greater sense of holiness then–in fact, if anything I found it to be less so, especially on the part of the “faithful”, which is why I left the Church for so many years. I believe that the belief that there was is for the most part a nostalgia for the “good ole days” that never really were, mostly by people who weren’t there to experience it. I don’t claim that my experiences were universal or that there was no sense of “holy” but I did not encounter it in any of the many parishes I attended in those times.

---

Your words above demonstrate the misguided understanding that is turning what was to help the Church in extraordinary circumstances into a deregulation of duty by the laity, priests and bishops.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_24021980_dominicae-cenae_en.html

LETTER
DOMINICAE CENAE
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
JOHN PAUL II
TO ALL THE BISHOPS OF THE CHURCH
ON THE MYSTERY AND WORSHIP
OF THE EUCHARIST
But one must not forget the primary office of priests, who have been consecrated by their ordination to represent Christ the Priest: for this reason their hands, like their words and their will, have become the direct instruments of Christ. Through this fact, that is, as ministers of the Holy Eucharist, they have a primary responsibility for the sacred species, because it is a total responsibility: they offer the bread and wine, they consecrate it, and then distribute the sacred species to the participants in the assembly who wish to receive them. Deacons can only bring to the altar the offerings of the faithful and, once they have been consecrated by the priest, distribute them. How eloquent therefore, even if not of ancient custom, is the rite of the anointing of the hands in our Latin ordination, as though precisely for these hands a special grace and power of the Holy Spirit is necessary!

To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained, one which indicates an active participation in the ministry of the Eucharist. It is obvious that the Church can grant this faculty to those who are neither priests nor deacons, as is the case with acolytes in the exercise of their ministry, especially if they are destined for future ordination, or with other lay people who are chosen for this to meet a just need, but always after an adequate preparation.

 

[ncjohn]

So, that “old” church wasn’t good enough for you, so you left it. And now we’re supposed to take your word that it wasn’t as holy as the “new” and improved post Vat II church. Wow… that’s great. So the increase in divorce among Catholics, the incredible number of Catholics who now are Pro-abortion, polls showing acceptance of Gay rights … (need I go on?) … these don’t point to a decline of faith and a decline of holiness? Oh, I forgot, these are just because of changes in the culture.

No, I left the Church because what was being taught to me was not being lived out anywhere in the Church and the hypocracy drove me to distraction. I wanted no part of a “do as I say, not as I do” church. The lack of reverence or any sense of awe in the church was simply symptomatic of that, not separated from it.

And yes, the phenomena you list are largely the result of the societal and cultural changes of the last 40 years, not the result of the change in what language the mass is said in. In places where those cultural acceptances are not present you don’t see Catholics embracing them either.

But in saying that, I also recognize that the “old Mass” where it is celebrated now is probably totally different and the level of reverence is likely quite high. But I would attribute that to the fact that people who attend it do so because it is something that specifically calls to them. It is not unlike the difference in those who go to school because they have to and those who do so out of their own desire.

And that has probably caused the tables to be largely reversed now as those who only go to meet their “Sunday obligation” will much more likely be at an N.O. mass. While that doesn’t reduce the reverence of those of us who are there because we want to come to give praise to our God, it can seem to reduce the perceived reverence of the environment.

Do you think we could make a deal here? I have nothing against the TLM (though I prefer the N.O.) and do not question either your devotion or your intentions. Could I possibly be extended that same courtesy rather than you making putting words in my mouth, which has happened several times now, and then making a judgment that I’m just not a good enough Catholic? I really tend to think that at the core we are both paddling the same boat even if our paddles might look a little different.

Peace,

 

[ncjohn]

Your words above demonstrate the misguided understanding that is turning what was to help the Church in extraordinary circumstances into a deregulation of duty by the laity, priests and bishops.

And yours, as usual, show that you have no understanding of what I’m saying and feel like citing any old irrelevant document to try to attack me is a proper thing to do.

I have nowhere said anything like what you say or imply. I have said only that there are many parishes that have only a single priest, which create the “extraordinary” need for which this was created. And I am stating Church teaching in that the host is holy because of what it is, not who distributes it. It cannot be any more or less holy by virtue of who distributes it.

I have in no way at any time denigrated the role of the priest or the special blessing of his ordination. Where you got any such thing I have no clue.

 

[Walking_Home]

And yours, as usual, show that you have no understanding of what I’m saying and feel like citing any old irrelevant document to try to attack me is a proper thing to do.

I have nowhere said anything like what you say or imply. I have said only that there are many parishes that have only a single priest, which create the “extraordinary” need for which this was created. And I am stating Church teaching in that the host is holy because of what it is, not who distributes it. It cannot be any more or less holy by virtue of who distributes it.

I have in no way at any time denigrated the role of the priest or the special blessing of his ordination. Where you got any such thing I have no clue.

---

An old irrelevant document-----It is from 1980—post Vat. II. Our late Pope speaks to the “new” enlightened time you are so fond of expressing.

The Host is God–no matter who touches Him—but a priest is someone we are not. The relationship of a priest to our Lord --is totally different --from that of the laity. Having the number of EMHCs that have become prevalent—does undermined who a priest is—in relation to who we are.

Quote=ncjohn
No, my statement was referring strictly to this belief that going back to that time when only the priest was allowed to touch the host made it somehow inherently holier, and this bashing of the EMHC here,

 

[ncjohn]

An old irrelevant document-----It is from 1980—post Vat. II. Our late Pope speaks to the “new” enlightened time you are so fond of expressing.

As I said…the tendency to misquote and misunderstand what I said. I did not anywhere say the document was “old”. I used the phrase “any old” as in “any random”. The document you cited was irrelevant to anything I said or implied, pure and simple, regardless of its age.

The Host is God–no matter who touches Him—but a priest is someone we are not. The relationship of a priest to our Lord --is totally different --from that of the laity. Having the number of EMHCs that have become prevalent—does undermined who a priest is—in relation to who we are.

Thank you! While not word for word, you have expressed exactly what I said in one of my previous posts where I agreed that there are cases where the use of EMHC’s is excessive, specifically here

ncjohn:

Yes, I agree that there are excesses in the use of extraordinary ministers and cases where they are being used for improper reasons. But making comments that

ComradeAndrei:

Sunday doesn’t count as extraordinary, unless you have a huge parish and only one priest (and no deacons).

doesn’t take into account the realities of many, many different circumstances.

And I’ll stick by those statements. Yes, they can be abused, but yes, there are places and occasions where they are necessary, as the Church acknowledges. Yes the priest’s relation is different to a great extent, which is why he does things we don’t or can’t, but no, there is nothing inherently holier about receiving only from a priest.

If you can find something outside of Catholic teaching in any of that, please let me know.

Peace,

 

[Walking_Home]

As I said…the tendency to misquote and misunderstand what I said. I did not anywhere say the document was “old”. I used the phrase “any old” as in “any random”. The document you cited was irrelevant to anything I said or implied, pure and simple, regardless of its age.
Thank you! While not word for word, you have expressed exactly what I said in one of my previous posts where I agreed that there are cases where the use of EMHC’s is excessive, specifically here

And I’ll stick by those statements. Yes, they can be abused, but yes, there are places and occasions where they are necessary, as the Church acknowledges. Yes the priest’s relation is different to a great extent, which is why he does things we don’t or can’t, but no, there is nothing inherently holier about receiving only from a priest.

If you can find something outside of Catholic teaching in any of that, please let me know.

Peace,

---

Baloney. Old and Irrelevant----mean just that.

Quote=ncjohn
And yours, as usual, show that you have no understanding of what I’m saying and feel like citing any old irrelevant document to try to attack me is a proper thing to do.

 

[ncjohn]

---

Baloney. Old and Irrelevant----mean just that.

Quote=ncjohn
And yours, as usual, show that you have no understanding of what I’m saying and feel like citing any old irrelevant document to try to attack me is a proper thing to do.

In the English language we have these idiomatic phrases that have a commonly-understood meaning. From Answers.Com answers.com/topic/any-old

Idioms
Directory > Words > Idioms any old
No particular, whichever or whatever, as in Any old brand of detergent suits me. [Colloquial; mid-1800s]

WordNet
Directory > Words > WordNet Note: click on a word meaning below to see its connections and related words.
The adjective any old has one meaning:

Meaning #1: being any unspecified one; used for emphasis

Maybe that has been the problem all the time. Perhaps English is not your primary language and you don’t always understand my meaning? That would explain an awful lot. (“awful lot” is also an idiom )

You are correct though that I meant irrelevant to mean exactly what you understood it to mean–“not pertaining to what was being talked about”. It’s not irrelevant because of its age but because it had nothing to do with anything I said.

Peace,

 

[Walking_Home]

In the English language we have these idiomatic phrases that have a commonly-understood meaning. From Answers.Com answers.com/topic/any-old

Idioms
Directory > Words > Idioms any old
No particular, whichever or whatever, as in Any old brand of detergent suits me. [Colloquial; mid-1800s]

WordNet
Directory > Words > WordNet Note: click on a word meaning below to see its connections and related words.
The adjective any old has one meaning:

Meaning #1: being any unspecified one; used for emphasis

Maybe that has been the problem all the time. Perhaps English is not your primary language and you don’t always understand my meaning? That would explain an awful lot. (“awful lot” is also an idiom )

You are correct though that I meant irrelevant to mean exactly what you understood it to mean–“not pertaining to what was being talked about”. It’s not irrelevant because of its age but because it had nothing to do with anything I said.

Peace,

Quote=ncjohn
No, my statement was referring strictly to this belief that going back to that time when only the priest was allowed to touch the host made it somehow inherently holier, and this bashing of the EMHC here

---

I must give it to you ncjohn----you are pretty good at throwing of the focus of a discussion. You try to change the focus of the abuse of the overuse of EMHC by changing the focus to God in the Host. God will not be any holier no matter who handles Him.

I change it back by showing there is great distinction between the laity and the ordained priest—and provided a document that reflects this.

A priest offering Holy Communion is the authentic representation of Christ offering His Body and Blood. Only a priest has the sacramental identification with our eternal High Priest. We in turn-- receiving from a priest brings us into the mystery of receiving from our Lord His Body and Blood.

The abundance of EM’s that have become prevalent derails this sacramental identification and puts an unhealthy focus on the common priesthood.

By the way ncjohn—I see that you continue along the same path. In reference to me --you have mentioned time in confession, comandments, forum rules,etc. Now we are to primary language—what next—I am at the edge of my seat—waiting.

Here is a bit more of the “old and irrelevant document”.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_24021980_dominicae-cenae_en.html

The priest offers the holy Sacrifice in persona Christi; this means more than offering "in the name of’ or "in place of’ Christ. In persona means in specific sacramental identification with “the eternal High Priest”(42) who is the author and principal subject of this sacrifice of His, a sacrifice in which, in truth, nobody can take His place. Only He-only Christ-was able and is always able to be the true and effective “expiation for our sins and…for the sins of the whole world.”(43) Only His sacrifice-and no one else’s-was able and is able to have a “propitiatory power” be fore God, the Trinity, and the transcendent holiness. Awareness of this reality throws a certain light on the character and significance of the priest celebrant who, by confecting the holy Sacrifice and acting “in persona Christi,” is sacramentally (and ineffably) brought into that most profound sacredness, and made part of it, spiritually linking with it in turn all those participating in the eucharistic assembly.

 

[ncjohn]

I must give it to you ncjohn----you are pretty good at throwing of the focus of a discussion. You try to change the focus of the abuse of the overuse of EMHC by changing the focus to God in the Host. God will not be any holier no matter who handles Him.

I change it back by showing there is great distinction between the laity and the ordained priest—and provided a document that reflects this.

And again, I am just totally baffled by whether you just don’t read what I write, don’t understand it, or just enjoy fighting for the sake of fightiing. There is indeed someone changing the focus here, but it sure isn’t me. In fact, your document doesn’t return the focus since it doesn’t have anything to do with the question.

I have said here, and even requoted for your benefit, that there are places where the use of Extraordinary Ministers is overdone, while noting that there are parishes where they are a basic necessity due to a lack of priests and deacons. Maybe you disagree with that??

And again, the document you quote is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT, both to the topic at hand–whether EM’s should be allowed–the Church has said “yes”–or anything I have said, since I have agreed that they are at times overused.

Whether the priest stands in a special position at the Mass, which I agree he does, is not relevant to either of those questions. Now if you’re saying you don’t think the Church has the authority to allow EM’s, or you don’t think that they should allow them, just say so. But then at least admit that you are outside of current Church teaching on the subject. I don’t think you’re saying that, but maybe I’m wrong.

But please stop putting words into my mouth that I did not say, and please stop attributing views to me that I do not hold.

And PLEASE turn off your “random quote” generator so we can try to keep discussion to the actual topic being discussed. I’m beginning to think that if I commented how lovely it was to see the sky blue again that I would either get a response that the sky is gray where you are, or a quote from some document picking up on the “key word” of “blue” that said that the Vatican has outawed the use of the color blue in the liturgy.

Is there something in the view I have expressed–summarized as “there are places that do in fact need to use a reasonable number of EM’s to assist a lone priest”–that you don’t agree with? If not, can we call an end to this??

 

[Walking_Home]

And again, I am just totally baffled by whether you just don’t read what I write, don’t understand it, or just enjoy fighting for the sake of fightiing. There is indeed someone changing the focus here, but it sure isn’t me. In fact, your document doesn’t return the focus since it doesn’t have anything to do with the question.

I have said here, and even requoted for your benefit, that there are places where the use of Extraordinary Ministers is overdone, while noting that there are parishes where they are a basic necessity due to a lack of priests and deacons. Maybe you disagree with that??

And again, the document you quote is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT, both to the topic at hand–whether EM’s should be allowed–the Church has said “yes”–or anything I have said, since I have agreed that they are at times overused.

Whether the priest stands in a special position at the Mass, which I agree he does, is not relevant to either of those questions. Now if you’re saying you don’t think the Church has the authority to allow EM’s, or you don’t think that they should allow them, just say so. But then at least admit that you are outside of current Church teaching on the subject. I don’t think you’re saying that, but maybe I’m wrong.

But please stop putting words into my mouth that I did not say, and please stop attributing views to me that I do not hold.

And PLEASE turn off your “random quote” generator so we can try to keep discussion to the actual topic being discussed. I’m beginning to think that if I commented how lovely it was to see the sky blue again that I would either get a response that the sky is gray where you are, or a quote from some document picking up on the “key word” of “blue” that said that the Vatican has outawed the use of the color blue in the liturgy.

Is there something in the view I have expressed–summarized as “there are places that do in fact need to use a reasonable number of EM’s to assist a lone priest”–that you don’t agree with? If not, can we call an end to this??

Quote=ncjohn
No, my statement was referring strictly to this belief that going back to that time when only the priest was allowed to touch the host made it somehow inherently holier, and this bashing of the EMHC here

---

You do like to spin. My response to your post was in reference the statement you made. Changing the focus by stating that back in the day there was a belief that the Host was somehow made holier by having the priest only touch the Host.

It wasn’t about making God holier–but because He is all holy there is the need of understanding the relationship of the priest vs. the laity with God.

Only the priest has sacramental identification with Christ—we do not. This was something that well expressed in that time–and has slowing been eroding in the “new” time. The document posted reflects the distinction.