C
ciero
Guest
Strictly speaking the only way to become a Eucharistic Minister is to be ordained a priest. Not even deacons are Eucharistic Ministers.
This is NOT true! A Deacon is an ordinary minister of Holy Communion!!
- Status
C
Cristiano
Guest
James0235;1880521:
.
This is NOT true! A Deacon is an ordinary minister of Holy Communion!!
Are you saying that a Deacon can consecrate the bread and wine?
M
Marauder
Guest
That isnât what the previous poster was saying.
Officially (unless there are co-celebrants) there is only one Eucharistic Minister and that is the priest.
But at a Mass with a Deacon there are two Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion and that is the priest and the deacon.
EMHCs as the name implies are Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.
C
ciero
Guest
ciero;1883269:
No I never said a Deacon can consacrate the Holy Elemements!! But a Deacon is an Ordinary Minister for the distrabution of Holy Communion.
T
Titus
Guest
ciero;1883269:
.
This is NOT true! A Deacon is an ordinary minister of Holy Communion!!
This all seems to stem from the lack of understanding of the terms âEucharistic Ministerâ (=Priest only) & '(Extra)ordinary Minister of Holy Communion '(Lay Person) or Deacon.
W
Windmill
Guest
Any minister of Holy Communion (ordinary or extraordinary) is assisting at the Communion Rite, when people receive the Body and Blood of Christ.
The term âEucharistic Ministerâ is no where in official Vatican documents simply because it is a misleading term. As stated above, a âEucharistic Ministerâ is one who can confect the Eucharist (ie, Bishops and Priests). To apply that to a layperson is, in my opinion, blurring the lines between priest and lay.
Incidently, in a Vatican doument called ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS REGARDING THE COLLABORATION OF THE NON-ORDAINED FAITHFUL IN THE SACRED MINISTRY OF PRIESTin Article 8 says that the âhabitual use of extraordinary ministers at Mass is to be eliminatedâ.
Why are we still scheduling people for these jobs?
The term âEucharistic Ministerâ is no where in official Vatican documents simply because it is a misleading term. As stated above, a âEucharistic Ministerâ is one who can confect the Eucharist (ie, Bishops and Priests). To apply that to a layperson is, in my opinion, blurring the lines between priest and lay.
Incidently, in a Vatican doument called ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS REGARDING THE COLLABORATION OF THE NON-ORDAINED FAITHFUL IN THE SACRED MINISTRY OF PRIESTin Article 8 says that the âhabitual use of extraordinary ministers at Mass is to be eliminatedâ.
Why are we still scheduling people for these jobs?
J
jmcrae
Guest
A Deacon has received the Sacrament of Holy Orders, and, as I understand it, he is an âordinaryâ (that is, ordained) minister of Holy Commmunion. He canât confect the Eucharist, but he can distribute it to the faithful without first seeking specific authorization from the Bishop.
Extraordinary (non-ordained) ministers of Holy Communion are lay people who have been specifically designated by the Bishop for this role, without receiving the Sacrament of Holy Orders (hence âextraâ [outside of] âordinaryâ [the Sacrament of Holy Orders]).
M
MusicMan
Guest
Does this mean that if I were a Latin Rite deacon attending a Byzantine Divine Liturgy, I would be required (or allowed) to make myself known to the celebrant, and then assist him (at his discretion) with the distribution of the divine Eucharist? Really? I thought that deacons who didnât have bi-ritual faculties couldnât help out in these circumstances.
(I am NOT a deacon, BTW, but God-willing, I might be one day, and I prefer to attend the Divine Liturgy at a Byzantine Church when I visit my in-laws. This situation could occur for me.)
L
LeahInancsi
Guest
Have any of you pre-Vatican II pureists thought that in the past 30 years there are fewer priests, fewer but larger churches and more Catholics to serve communion to?
At my parish, they have to squeeze four Masses into Sunday morning and the extra 10 or 15 minutes that it takes for the priest to serve communion without any help is a big factor. Consider the time required to get everyone from Mass A out of the parking lot and everyone for Mass B in the church and ready for Mass. It takes TIME!
Iâd rather hear a good homily, scripture readings than to be guaranteed that I will receive the Eucharist from the priest every week.
BTW, I DO receive the Eucharist from the priest every week because Iâm an EMHC!
At my parish, they have to squeeze four Masses into Sunday morning and the extra 10 or 15 minutes that it takes for the priest to serve communion without any help is a big factor. Consider the time required to get everyone from Mass A out of the parking lot and everyone for Mass B in the church and ready for Mass. It takes TIME!
Iâd rather hear a good homily, scripture readings than to be guaranteed that I will receive the Eucharist from the priest every week.
BTW, I DO receive the Eucharist from the priest every week because Iâm an EMHC!
T
Titus
Guest
**Leahlnancsi- observe the above statement. Roma locuta est, causa finita est. **
**The Holy See says that the habitual use of EMHCs is to be eliminated. Therefore your statement does not stand up. We could start instituting acolytes and then use them if the priest(s) & deacon(s) cannot distribute Communion in the time allotted. **Have any of you pre-Vatican II pureists thought that in the past 30 years there are fewer priests, fewer but larger churches and more Catholics to serve communion to?
**Not pre-Vatican II. Modern day Church teaching. **
At my parish, they have to squeeze four Masses into Sunday morning and the extra 10 or 15 minutes that it takes for the priest to serve communion without any help is a big factor. Consider the time required to get everyone from Mass A out of the parking lot and everyone for Mass B in the church and ready for Mass. It takes TIME!
**Clearly. There are two options: 1) distribute only the Body of Christ 2) and/or use instituted acolytes if necessary. **
Iâd rather hear a good homily, scripture readings than to be guaranteed that I will receive the Eucharist from the priest every week.
But why canât we do both?
BTW, I DO receive the Eucharist from the priest every week because Iâm an EMHC!
W
Windmill
Guest
two things to note about the âacolyte optionâ you suggest:
âTo touch the Sacred Species, and to distribute them with their own hands, is a privilege of the ordained.â - JPII
Incidently, another big factor in the vocations crisis is the dissent from the churchâs divine teaching on birth control. When parents had 4-6 kids, so what if one became a priest? Now, with the birth control mentality infecting Catholics, we have our boy and our girl, and we are less likely to encourage vocations. Itâs no mystery. The parents are less likely to want to send off their only son to a celibate life. Iâm not saying that all those who have only one boy do not encourage vocations, but there is that temptation to be less open since the cost is greater.
- Acolytes are still EMHCâs. They are first on the list in order of preference for selecting EMHCâs, but they are not ordinary Ministers of HC.
- They must be men, so you can already see what battles that might lead to in certain communitiesâŚ
âTo touch the Sacred Species, and to distribute them with their own hands, is a privilege of the ordained.â - JPII
Incidently, another big factor in the vocations crisis is the dissent from the churchâs divine teaching on birth control. When parents had 4-6 kids, so what if one became a priest? Now, with the birth control mentality infecting Catholics, we have our boy and our girl, and we are less likely to encourage vocations. Itâs no mystery. The parents are less likely to want to send off their only son to a celibate life. Iâm not saying that all those who have only one boy do not encourage vocations, but there is that temptation to be less open since the cost is greater.
G
gez722
Guest
I have to say that some of the posts in this thread really make me sad. The overall lack of charity and the focus of the âletter of the lawâ AT THE EXPENSE of the âspirit of the lawâ is quite disheartening. I must admit that I still have a tendency to fall into this trap, but I am working very hard to avoid it. I invite everyone to read todayâs Gospel (Mark 7: 1-13) and listen to Our Lordâs words.
Canât we just focus on advancing the Kingdom and stop all of the hostility to those who may not âget itâ yet? I can tell you from personal experience that a lot of the people who donât follow the Churchâs rules (which I DO NOT condone BTW!!)exhibit more charity toward their fellow man than those who are constantly bashing everyone who deviates from Church teaching. There is a priest in my parish who changes some of the words to the Eucharistic Prayer. While I agree that this is a grave abuse, I finally came to realize that I can learn a lot from him. His wording drove me crazy for the longest time, but I learned that he does things like this in an attempt to âconnectâ with the people in the pews. While I disagree with his methods, his motivation is good. It serves as a reminder that I should always try to find ways to preach the Good News to all people, especially those who have fallen away from the Church. I sometimes fall into the trap of âif they donât believe everything the Church teaches then they shouldnât be Catholicâ. I have to remember that itâs far better to educate them in the reasons for the Churchâs laws instead of saying âbelieve it or get lostâ.
I am an EMHC and I distribute Communion at a Nursing Home and at Mass. The nursing home I go to smells and is a very sad place on the surface, but I feel close to Jesus when I go there. I see Our Lord in the face of every person I minister to. These individuals are part of the Church and it is my duty to reach out to them. I give out Communion at Church because my pastor feels there is a need for EMHCs. He does that because our bishop wants Communion in both species. That creates a need for ministers. Do I agree we have too many ministers? Possibly. Do I feel that some of them do it for the wrong reasons? Yes. Does the Church approve of EMHCs? Yes ⌠and as a servant of the Lord I am obedient to the Church, the Bishop and my pastor.
And, like it or not, the commonly used term for EMHCs is Eucharistic Minister. I know that the Church discourages itâs use and I myself donât use it, but everyone knows what the term means. We all knew what the original poster was referring to by âEucharistic Ministerâ. It is a noble position and it is an honor to be able to act in this capacity for the Church. I understand fully that I am not âowed this positionâ and that itâs not my vocation⌠I am just helping out because there is a need.
God Bless,
Gary
Canât we just focus on advancing the Kingdom and stop all of the hostility to those who may not âget itâ yet? I can tell you from personal experience that a lot of the people who donât follow the Churchâs rules (which I DO NOT condone BTW!!)exhibit more charity toward their fellow man than those who are constantly bashing everyone who deviates from Church teaching. There is a priest in my parish who changes some of the words to the Eucharistic Prayer. While I agree that this is a grave abuse, I finally came to realize that I can learn a lot from him. His wording drove me crazy for the longest time, but I learned that he does things like this in an attempt to âconnectâ with the people in the pews. While I disagree with his methods, his motivation is good. It serves as a reminder that I should always try to find ways to preach the Good News to all people, especially those who have fallen away from the Church. I sometimes fall into the trap of âif they donât believe everything the Church teaches then they shouldnât be Catholicâ. I have to remember that itâs far better to educate them in the reasons for the Churchâs laws instead of saying âbelieve it or get lostâ.
I am an EMHC and I distribute Communion at a Nursing Home and at Mass. The nursing home I go to smells and is a very sad place on the surface, but I feel close to Jesus when I go there. I see Our Lord in the face of every person I minister to. These individuals are part of the Church and it is my duty to reach out to them. I give out Communion at Church because my pastor feels there is a need for EMHCs. He does that because our bishop wants Communion in both species. That creates a need for ministers. Do I agree we have too many ministers? Possibly. Do I feel that some of them do it for the wrong reasons? Yes. Does the Church approve of EMHCs? Yes ⌠and as a servant of the Lord I am obedient to the Church, the Bishop and my pastor.
And, like it or not, the commonly used term for EMHCs is Eucharistic Minister. I know that the Church discourages itâs use and I myself donât use it, but everyone knows what the term means. We all knew what the original poster was referring to by âEucharistic Ministerâ. It is a noble position and it is an honor to be able to act in this capacity for the Church. I understand fully that I am not âowed this positionâ and that itâs not my vocation⌠I am just helping out because there is a need.
God Bless,
Gary
B
Brendan
Guest
If you were Latin Rite, you would not be bound by Eastern Canon Law, so there would be no requirement.
You are allowed to make yourself known to the celebrant in such as case.
This particular canon, since it does not specifically restrict deacons by Rite, would consititute faculties to administer the Holy Eucharist in an Eastern Church in place of a minor order cleric or a lay person. You would be under no personal obligation though, only that you would have faculties to do so in the listed circumstances.
You could not perform any other liturgical functions (such as proclaim the Gospel or preach) without approval (faculties) from the Eastern Ordinary.
B
Brendan
Guest
Yes, that is why the Church expanded the use of âpermanentâ Deacons.
Or, as a priest friend once mentioned âEvery prayer for ordained vocations is a prayer that the use of EMHCâs will endâ
H
Hesychios
Guest
OK, I see that. My mistake, I stand corrected. I actually have a copy of the CCEO but I have not cracked it open since becoming Orthodox.
I had assumed the canons in this regard would have been the same as for Orthodox, I personally feel that my former Byzantine Catholic pastor would not have resorted to EMHCâs even if he had to stand there all day.
The practice is a Latinization. The CCEO is a product of the Vatican, a gift to the eastern churches by the Pope, and is basically a âone size fits allâ document that would certainly not make a provision for EMHCâs if it were derived from Orthodox practice and Tradition.
What makes this possible is the Roman Catholic theory (rather, dogma) that a Pope is above a church council, his judgments are irreformable and uncontestable. Therefore he can codify the Canons, set them aside or make new ones as he sees fit. He can (with this power) remold any Sui Iuris church, he could potentially remake them into whatever vision he has for them if it were his opinion that such changes were worthwhile.
I would not have expected the Byzantine Catholics to have EMHCâs considering their past tradition as Orthodox Catholics but the fact that it is allowable to them is beginning to look like a logical extension of being under the Pope of Rome.
Michael
B
Brendan
Guest
The Canonâs in there are the result of compilation by the Eastern Patriarchs and Synods.
If that Canon is in there, it is because the Synods of the East agreed to have it in there, not because the Holy Father in any way mandated it to be there.
The Holy Father merely requested that one be compiled, and gave his approval to the work done by the Churches of the East.
H
Hesychios
Guest
Eastern Patriarchs were eventually included in the commission. They did not work alone.
The CCEO itself tells a different story.
According to the Preface the Vatican I âCommision on Missions and Churches of the Eastern Riteâ had invoked a disciplinary unity of the whole church, effectively placing all of the Eastern church under the Latin code formally. This provoked a loud outcry from Eastern prelates to no avail.
This left the Eastern churches totally under the Latin Code for 120 years, and affected the development of the clergy and hierachs of those churches. This was the infamous latinization period that distorted so much of the traditions.
Work finally began on a separate Code in 1929 (the same year married seminarians were finally banned from ordination in the USA) under the Cardinal Secretary for the Eastern Church, Luigi Sincero.
At this point the Patriarchs and Archbishops of the various rites were to each appoint a priest to assist the commission. (page xxxii) After which the Supreme Pontiff also appointed a âPresidential Councilâ for Eastern codification composed of Cardinals Pietro Gasparri, Luigi Sincero and Bonaventura Cerretti.
Then in November, Pius XI created a "Cardinalatial Commission for Studies preperatory to the Eastern Codification. The members were: Pietro Gasparri, President, also Luigi Sincero, Bonaventura Ceretti and Franz Ehrle (all Cardinals), also father Amleto Cicognani (later a Cardinal).
It goes on to state that the eastern delegates did preparatory work as an aid to to the members of the Commission cardinal Fathers.
This went on for years. Fast forward to the 1980âs:
(page xxxix)
This text, appropriately distributed in eight drafts, was submitted at various times to the Supreme Pontiff to receive his approval before being sent to the consultative bodie, that is, the entire episcopate of the Eastern Catholic Churches, to the dicasteries of the Roman Curia, to the institutes of higher learning in Rome and to the union of superiors general of religious.
It seems there were a lot of fingers in this pie.
(page xli) :
The final draft was emended according to the wishes of the members of the commission and given the title âCode of Canons of the Eastern Churchesâ. Having been produced in ten copies by means called *informatica, *it was delivered to the Supreme Pontiff on 28 January 1989, with the request that it be promulgated.
The Supreme Pontiff himself, however, with the assistance of some experts and after consultation with the Vice president and Secretary of the Pontifical Commission for the Revision of the Code of Eastern Canon Law, revised this final *schema *of the code, ordered it to be published, and finally on 1 October 1990 decreed that the new code should be promulgated on the 18th of that month.
It appears the Pope had not only the first word, but the last. And the consultative bodies included a whole lot of people that were not Eastern Christians, but mostly members of the Curia in various capacities.
This should be a very satisfactory revelation to any Ultramontanists reading the thread.
Michael
R
Rhonda_Renee
Guest
I understand that Catholics used to fast before receiving Holy Communion. And, that this practice was done away with because Catholics were taking the fast seriously and not everyone was taking Communion every Sunday. I think the fast is a good idea. Itâs not like youâre fasting for a whole day and it brings a reverance to the table that isnât there today. If the fast was reinstituted, perhaps not everyone would take communion and the priest and the deacon could administer the Eucharist by themselves.
Perhaps the âQuality but not Quantityâ saying applies???
Perhaps the âQuality but not Quantityâ saying applies???
W
wannabee
Guest
The Pre-Communion Fast still exists - but it has been dropped to 1 hour before reciving Communion except for those who are exempt from the fast.
R
Rhonda_Renee
Guest
That seems more like a token fast. I mean, by the time I walk out my front door and participate in the Liturgy, thatâs an hour. Iâd say most Protestants fast for an hour by default just because they donât eat in the Sanctuary. I know there are always special needs and some folks wonât be able to fast. But, for those who are healthy, it doesnât seem like to much preparation to me.
- Status