Eucharistic Ministers?

[ncjohn]

Quote=ncjohn
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.

Which still has nothing to do with the topic, nor does it disagree with anything I said.

Are you saying that EM’s just should not be used, period? That they are unworthy by virtue of not being a priest? If not, exactly what is your position?

 

[Walking_Home]

Which still has nothing to do with the topic, nor does it disagree with anything I said.

Are you saying that EM’s just should not be used, period? That they are unworthy by virtue of not being a priest? If not, exactly what is your position?

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

---

Hey—you made the statement–I didn’t. I pointed the distinction between the ordained handling our Lord vs the laity.

EMHCs were to be used only in extraordinary circumstances—but that is not the case.

 

[ncjohn]

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

---

Hey—you made the statement–I didn’t. I pointed the distinction between the ordained handling our Lord vs the laity.

EMHCs were to be used only in extraordinary circumstances—but that is not the case.

I guess I’m just at a loss. I totally do not understand what you are trying to convey here or how your reference has anything whatsoever to do with my statement. What is wrong with my questioning why people think it’s somehow inherently holier to have only the priest distribute communion, when the Church doesn’t say any such thing?? And why it is ok to just bash those people who act as EM’s where they are needed? It might have been nicer to have all those priests around to do that, as it is for those places that have that now. But a lot of us don’t have that luxury and wishing for it don’t make it so.

Are you saying that you think it WAS (or IS) holier when only the priest distributed communion? If so, why?

My position, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, is that EM’s should only be used when needed, but that when they are needed there is nothing more or less holy about it.

Maybe someone else can explain to me what is wrong with that position. I’m not trying to be difficult; I just truly think either you so totally fixated on just disagreeing with me that you will not see what I’m saying, or that you have your own agenda with which my position disagrees though you don’t want to state it. Since you never answer any of the direct questions, it’s hard to determine what your position even is.

 

[Walking_Home]

I guess I’m just at a loss. I totally do not understand what you are trying to convey here or how your reference has anything whatsoever to do with my statement. What is wrong with my questioning why people think it’s somehow inherently holier to have only the priest distribute communion, when the Church doesn’t say any such thing?? And why it is ok to just bash those people who act as EM’s where they are needed? It might have been nicer to have all those priests around to do that, as it is for those places that have that now. But a lot of us don’t have that luxury and wishing for it don’t make it so.

Are you saying that you think it WAS (or IS) holier when only the priest distributed communion? If so, why?
My position, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, is that EM’s should only be used when needed, but that when they are needed there is nothing more or less holy about it.

Maybe someone else can explain to me what is wrong with that position. I’m not trying to be difficult; I just truly think either you so totally fixated on just disagreeing with me that you will not see what I’m saying, or that you have your own agenda with which my position disagrees though you don’t want to state it. Since you never answer any of the direct questions, it’s hard to determine what your position even is.

---

It is not a matter of making Him holier—He has always been The Holiest–God Himself. The distinction is ourselves—in relation to He --who is All Holy. Only thru the priest does our Lord become present—because of his ordination. A priest’s relationship to our Lord surpasses that of ours–the laity.

The extraordinary —in EMHC—expresses that relationship the priest has. Laity is to be used only in “extraordinary” circumstances–because we do not hold the same relationship to God that the priest does. God loves all–but we the laity do not have a relationship with our Lord to bring forth His Body and Blood.

 

[ncjohn]

It is not a matter of making Him holier—He has always been The Holiest–God Himself…

When I said
"ncjohn:

Are you saying that you think it WAS (or IS) holier when only the priest distributed communion?

here, I was not talking about making the host holier, I meant whether it made the experience holier in some way by virtue of receiving only from the priest.

I’m glad to see that we do agree though that the host is inherently holy because of Who it is, not who distributes it.

God loves all–but we the laity do not have a relationship with our Lord to bring forth His Body and Blood.

So are you saying the EM’s should not be used at all, that we just don’t have the capacity to distribute communion? In other words, that only a priest should be distributing communion?

If not, what would meet the definition of “extraordinary”?

 

[Walking_Home]

When I said here, I was not talking about making the host holier, I meant whether it made the experience holier in some way by virtue of receiving only from the priest.

I’m glad to see that we do agree though that the host is inherently holy because of Who it is, not who distributes it.

So are you saying the EM’s should not be used at all, that we just don’t have the capacity to distribute communion? In other words, that only a priest should be distributing communion?
If not, what would meet the definition of “extraordinary”?

---

Yes–only a priest should be distributing Holy Communion. The Church has allowed EMHC to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Extraordinary has come to mean–anytime --anywhere. This has nothing to do with capacity. A priest or deacon by virtue of their ordination are the ones to be offering Holy Communion.

Extraordinary does not mean the following

Quote=KnightforChrist
Question for all…

Why do we see, especially in smaller church parishes such as the one that I’m in, extraordinary eucharistic ministers at both the vigil and sunday morning masses…

I thought unless the priest was say physically hindered or if there were such a large number of people that it caused a overrun on the time for mass that the priest was to be the minister of the eucharist ???

I am not talking about large church parishes…I’m well aware it would take an extra long time to distribute communion…

Anyway, in small cases, such as mine and possibly some of yours, say 50 people at a Saturday evening vigil…Why has this become a practice when its supposed to be reserved for these extra-ordinary circumstances ???

Any guidelines would be appreciated !!!

 

[ncjohn]

Yes–only a priest should be distributing Holy Communion. The Church has allowed EMHC to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Extraordinary has come to mean–anytime --anywhere. This has nothing to do with capacity. A priest or deacon by virtue of their ordination are the ones to be offering Holy Communion.

Then I would understand your position would be that our parish–which has a priest shared with another parish, and 400-500 people at each Mass–should not be allowed to have any EM’s and the priest should be the only one to distribute communion. And further that he will then have to go back and forth between the host and the cup, or by virtue of our not having a second priest, we should be punished in just not having the cup.

Is that a fair interpretation of what you’re saying?

 

[davy39]

Here’s my two cents worth. Yes, there probably has been too many Eucharistic Ministers used at some Masses sometimes. At our parish, we are lucky to have two at each Mass because of the apathy. We only have three priests in the whole county, so they are spread pretty thin. The deacon, and some EMHC’s make most of the calls to the sick and the homebound. I was always humbled to take the Lord to people that are sick. You people have to realize that the same conditions do not exist from parish to parish. To eliminate EMHC’s completely would be like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. What we need is better scheduling, not a complete elimination.

 

[Walking_Home]

Then I would understand your position would be that our parish–which has a priest shared with another parish, and 400-500 people at each Mass–should not be allowed to have any EM’s and the priest should be the only one to distribute communion. And further that he will then have to go back and forth between the host and the cup, or by virtue of our not having a second priest, we should be punished in just not having the cup.
Is that a fair interpretation of what you’re saying?

---

I am impressed. 400-500 people that have all made it to confession or don’t sin. I haven’t experience a Mass where each and everyone in attendance has gone forward to receive Holy Communion.

As to being punished----I am not quite sure what to think of that. The Church did not offer the Chalice for hundreds of years ----so all this time She was punishing Her people.

You didn’t mention the number of EMHC present your Mass. Since our Lord Christ is whole and complete in the Host–offering the Host only would surely cut down on the number of EMHC used. As would offering our Lord’s Body and Blood via intinction.

 

[ncjohn]

---

I am impressed. 400-500 people that have all made it to confession or don’t sin. I haven’t experience a Mass where each and everyone in attendance has gone forward to receive Holy Communion.

As to being punished----I am not quite sure what to think of that. The Church did not offer the Chalice for hundreds of years ----so all this time She was punishing Her people.

You didn’t mention the number of EMHC present your Mass. Since our Lord Christ is whole and complete in the Host–offering the Host only would surely cut down on the number of EMHC used. As would offering our Lord’s Body and Blood via intinction.

But you didn’t answer the question. Was that a fair interpretation of your position? Should we just not be allowed to have any? Should davy39’s parish, with 3 priests in an entire county, not be allowed the use of EM’s?

As to offering both, the Church has said it is preferred to offer both, so yes, it would in effect be punishing us to not offer both for the sole reason that we don’t have an extra priest. I’m not trying to debate that point though. I’m really more interested in what your actual position is on whether EM’s should just not be allowed. As best I can tell from what you have said, you just don’t think that anyone who is not ordained can or should distribute communion.

 

[Walking_Home]

But you didn’t answer the question. Was that a fair interpretation of your position? Should we just not be allowed to have any? Should davy39’s parish, with 3 priests in an entire county, not be allowed the use of EM’s?

As to offering both, the Church has said it is preferred to offer both, so yes, it would in effect be punishing us to not offer both for the sole reason that we don’t have an extra priest. I’m not trying to debate that point though. I’m really more interested in what your actual position is on whether EM’s should just not be allowed. As best I can tell from what you have said, you just don’t think that anyone who is not ordained can or should distribute communion.

---

As I stated before—they are to be used in “extraordinary” circumstances since the priest and/or deacon are the ones to offer Holy Communion by virtue of their ordination.

“Extraordinary”—as when all other avenues are used and
there is still a need to use them.

davy39 post has left variables unanswered. Is the whole congregation receiving Holy Communion where the priest and deacon are not sufficient to offer Holy Communion. He mentioned the service the EMHCs provide in taking Holy Communion to the sick and homebound. In this respect they are surely needed and provide a good service to the Church.

Ps. If you would feel punished if the Chalice is not offered–maybe a more orthodox understanding that our Lord is whole and complete in the Host is in order.

 

[ncjohn]

…the priest and/or deacon are the ones to offer Holy Communion by virtue of their ordination.

You keep saying this but can you tell me what document says this as it would appear then that the Church would be violating that in allowing EM’s under any circumstances. Please do not requote the previously-cited document as it does not say any such thing but only addresses the priest’s special standing in offering the Mass. I will acknowledge that there is a document that says that any priest or deacon present should be distributing communion before using any EM, but I don’t recall ever seeing one that said only a priest or deacon should be distributing communion.

“Extraordinary”—as when all other avenues are used and
there is still a need to use them.

This at least implies that you may consider there to actually be extraordinary circumstances, though you keep going back to the statement that only priests and deacons are to offer communion. If you do think though that there can be exceptions, then is a parish with 400-500 people approaching for communion and only one priest extraordinary? I can tell you for sure that the existence of the situation isn’t extraordinary at all, but I am interested as to whether it qualifies as extraordinary in your definition.

Ps. If you would feel punished if the Chalice is not offered–maybe a more orthodox understanding that our Lord is whole and complete in the Host is in order.

You were doing so well with not dropping down to the snide comments and I am trying to reciprocate so we can have an actual discussion of the issue. Believe it or not, I have a fairly high level of intelligence and education and a pretty throrough and Orthodox understanding of the concept that all is present in either species. But as the Church–NOT me–has declared it to be a fuller sign and preferable, my statement is that we would be denied that which the Church has said is preferable solely because on a continuing basis we don’t have an extra priest. I am not in any way saying that we do not receive the whole and complete Body and Blood.

So the question is still…do you believe that there are extraordinary circumstances that justify the use of EM’s or do you believe that there just really shouldn’t be any except maybe on a case-by-case approval of the Vatican or something?

 

[Walking_Home]

You keep saying this but can you tell me what document says this as it would appear then that the Church would be violating that in allowing EM’s under any circumstances. Please do not requote the previously-cited document as it does not say any such thing but only addresses the priest’s special standing in offering the Mass. I will acknowledge that there is a document that says that any priest or deacon present should be distributing communion before using any EM, but I don’t recall ever seeing one that said only a priest or deacon should be distributing communion.
This at least implies that you may consider there to actually be extraordinary circumstances, though you keep going back to the statement that only priests and deacons are to offer communion. If you do think though that there can be exceptions, then is a parish with 400-500 people approaching for communion and only one priest extraordinary? I can tell you for sure that the existence of the situation isn’t extraordinary at all, but I am interested as to whether it qualifies as extraordinary in your definition.
You were doing so well with not dropping down to the snide comments and I am trying to reciprocate so we can have an actual discussion of the issue. Believe it or not, I have a fairly high level of intelligence and education and a pretty throrough and Orthodox understanding of the concept that all is present in either species. But as the Church–NOT me–has declared it to be a fuller sign and preferable, my statement is that we would be denied that which the Church has said is preferable solely because on a continuing basis we don’t have an extra priest. I am not in any way saying that we do not receive the whole and complete Body and Blood.

So the question is still…do you believe that there are extraordinary circumstances that justify the use of EM’s or do you believe that there just really shouldn’t be any except maybe on a case-by-case approval of the Vatican or something?

---

To begin with ncjohn—you cannot tell me what to quote. I will quote what is needed. If you fail to accept it because it doesn’t meet your needs–that is your problem.

Communion under both kinds may be a “fuller sign” --the “fuller sign” in itself—does not add anthing to receiving the Host alone.
What I have said ----follows what Card. Arinze has stated.

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

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0606058.htm

Although receiving Communion under both kinds is a “more complete” sign of the sacrament’s meaning, Cardinal Arinze said, “Christ is fully present under each of the species.”

“Communion under the species of the bread alone, as a consequence, makes it possible to receive all the fruit of eucharistic grace,” he added.

Another “legitimate option” when “the high number of communicants may render it inadvisable for everyone to drink from the chalice” is intinction – the practice of dipping the consecrated host into the consecrated wine – “with reception on the tongue always and everywhere,” the cardinal’s letter said.

 

[ncjohn]

To begin with ncjohn—you cannot tell me what to quote. I will quote what is needed. If you fail to accept it because it doesn’t meet your needs–that is your problem.

Then quote what is needed…that actually applies to the situation. It is not a matter of whether it meets MY needs. Something that doesn’t address the issue doesn’t further the discussion and, as I stated, what you had previously quoted did not address the issue.

Communion under both kinds may be a “fuller sign” --the “fuller sign” in itself—does not add anthing to receiving the Host alone.
What I have said ----follows what Card. Arinze has stated.

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

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.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0606058.htm

Although receiving Communion under both kinds is a “more complete” sign of the sacrament’s meaning, Cardinal Arinze said, “Christ is fully present under each of the species.”

“Communion under the species of the bread alone, as a consequence, makes it possible to receive all the fruit of eucharistic grace,” he added.

Another “legitimate option” when “the high number of communicants may render it inadvisable for everyone to drink from the chalice” is intinction – the practice of dipping the consecrated host into the consecrated wine – “with reception on the tongue always and everywhere,” the cardinal’s letter said.

And I have no problem with any of this, noting especially that in your own reference Cardinal Arinze says "It is obvious that the Church can grant this faculty to those who are neither priests nor deacons…or with other lay people who are chosen for this to meet a just need, but always after an adequate preparation. "

And while intinction is commendable and a legitimate option, it is still problematic for a congregation of 400-500 approaching for communion with only one priest. And of course, even if one allowed only one EM, intinction isn’t an option since lay people cannot do intinction.

So the question is still unanswered.

ncjohn:

Do you believe that there are extraordinary circumstances that justify the use of EM’s or do you believe that there just really shouldn’t be any except maybe on a case-by-case approval of the Vatican or something?

 

[Walking_Home]

Then quote what is needed…that actually applies to the situation. It is not a matter of whether it meets MY needs. Something that doesn’t address the issue doesn’t further the discussion and, as I stated, what you had previously quoted did not address the issue.

And I have no problem with any of this, noting especially that in your own reference Cardinal Arinze says "It is obvious that the Church can grant this faculty to those who are neither priests nor deacons…or with other lay people who are chosen for this to meet a just need, but always after an adequate preparation. "

And while intinction is commendable and a legitimate option, it is still problematic for a congregation of 400-500 approaching for communion with only one priest. And of course, even if one allowed only one EM, intinction isn’t an option since lay people cannot do intinction.

So the question is still unanswered.

---

How has what I have said or posted not addressed the issue. It seems what you have been doing in your posts is just going around in circles.

As I said before—I am impressed. 400-500, the whole congregation receiving Holy Communion in your church–that is a true wonder.

 

[CRW]

Instruction on the Eucharist, Redemptionis Sacramentum, and paragraph 157: If there is usually present a sufficient number of sacred ministers for the distribution of Holy Communion, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not be appointed. Indeed, in such circumstances, those who may have already been appointed to this ministry should not exercise it. The practice of those Priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distribution Communion and hand this function over to laypersons. See also: S. Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship, Instruction, Inaestimabile donum, no. 10: AAS 72 (1980) page 336; Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpreatation of the Code of the Code of Canon Law, Response to dubium, 11 July 1984; AAS 76 (1984) page 746.

158: Indeed, the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may administer Communion only when the Priest and Deacon are lacking, when the Priest is prevented by weakness or advance age or some other genuine reason, or when the faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged. This, however, is to be understood in such a way that a brief prolongation, considering the circumstances and culture of the place, is not at all sufficient reason.

Paragraph 160 requires the diocesan Bishop to review the practice and if circumstances call for it, let him correct it or define it more precisely.

As an EMHC I see a need and abuse of the instructions provided above. In our parish, over 1600 families, there is a need, especially for EMHC to distribute Holy Communion to the sick and the homebound. One may be surprised at the number of Catholic’s that fall under this disability. Additionally, the common and worthy practice of distribution under both species, Body and Blood, has contributed significantly to the requirement of EMHC’s at Mass. The design of the church, especially without Communion rails, increases the necessity of EMHC’s. Intinction is an option for priests; however, not praticed widely or in most parishes that I have attended.

I must also add, at times, this practice has become a habit of ministry, a habit of priest and deacons to expedite the Communion process and EMHC’s holding on to their appointed ministry. I do not foresee local Bishops changing the custom within their authority and many have delegated the norms by which this practice can be carried out to the pastor.

Let’s pray, that all is done in the spirit of charity to Christ, to the EMHC’s, the parishioners, and a sincere desire to function within the spirit of the norms.

 

[ncjohn]

---

How has what I have said or posted not addressed the issue. It seems what you have been doing in your posts is just going around in circles.

As I said before—I am impressed. 400-500, the whole congregation receiving Holy Communion in your church–that is a true wonder.

Well, since it is clear you are not going to answer the one question that relates to the issue, and have not denied it when I’ve asked directly I’ll have to assume that you do indeed hold to the “no exceptions” rule, which was the only thing I was trying to ascertain so I could see if there was any actual discussion to be had. Since you’re obviously going to just keep dancing around it I’ll stop wasting time and bandwidth.

Coming from the absolute Gold Medalist in posting around in circles, given the previous series of posts that address everything except the direct questions related to the topic, I’ll let those who read this judge for themselves.

Adieu,

 

[Walking_Home]

Well, since it is clear you are not going to answer the one question that relates to the issue, and have not denied it when I’ve asked directly I’ll have to assume that you do indeed hold to the “no exceptions” rule, which was the only thing I was trying to ascertain so I could see if there was any actual discussion to be had. Since you’re obviously going to just keep dancing around it I’ll stop wasting time and bandwidth.

Coming from the absolute Gold Medalist in posting around in circles, given the previous series of posts that address everything except the direct questions related to the topic, I’ll let those who read this judge for themselves.

Adieu,

---

I have answered your questions—you in turn keep coming up with circular arguments—(talk about wasting time).

We will leave it at that.

 

[davy39]

---

As I stated before—they are to be used in “extraordinary” circumstances since the priest and/or deacon are the ones to offer Holy Communion by virtue of their ordination.

“Extraordinary”—as when all other avenues are used and
there is still a need to use them.

davy39 post has left variables unanswered. Is the whole congregation receiving Holy Communion where the priest and deacon are not sufficient to offer Holy Communion. He mentioned the service the EMHCs provide in taking Holy Communion to the sick and homebound. In this respect they are surely needed and provide a good service to the Church.

Ps. If you would feel punished if the Chalice is not offered–maybe a more orthodox understanding that our Lord is whole and complete in the Host is in order.

I will answer a few of the variables. Our church holds about 500. We only have one Mass on Sun., Sat nite was eliminated. The deacon, due to bad health, is only present to help the priest occasionaly. We usually have only two EMHCs (to give the Precious Blood). I really don’t think the EMHCs are being overused. Our priest has to take care of our parish (about 700 people) and a neighboring parish (about 2000 people) so he really keeps busy. And yes, most everybody received Holy Communion. I hope this answers some of your questions. God bless and pray for vocations.

 

[Walking_Home]

I will answer a few of the variables. Our church holds about 500. We only have one Mass on Sun., Sat nite was eliminated. The deacon, due to bad health, is only present to help the priest occasionaly. We usually have only two EMHCs (to give the Precious Blood). I really don’t think the EMHCs are being overused. Our priest has to take care of our parish (about 700 people) and a neighboring parish (about 2000 people) so he really keeps busy. And yes, most everybody received Holy Communion. I hope this answers some of your questions. God bless and pray for vocations.

---

Yes—we should always pray for vocations.