Eucharistic Ministers

[wannabee]

That seems more like a token fast. I mean, by the time I walk out my front door and participate in the Liturgy, that’s an hour. I’d say most Protestants fast for an hour by default just because they don’t eat in the Sanctuary. I know there are always special needs and some folks won’t be able to fast. But, for those who are healthy, it doesn’t seem like to much preparation to me.

Yes - I agree - my Church gives the same minimum 1 hour - but I suspect that many of us still fast from Midnight . I do.

 

[Hesychios]

That seems more like a token fast…for those who are healthy, it doesn’t seem like to much preparation to me.

A very good observation.

I agree, a fast that long is essentially meaningless.

 

[jmcrae]

A very good observation.

I agree, a fast that long is essentially meaningless.

And too easily forgotten. When the fast was longer, it seems as though more people knew about it.

 

[Titus]

**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.

two things to note about the “acolyte option” you suggest:

1. Acolytes are still EMHC’s. They are first on the list in order of preference for selecting EMHC’s, but they are not ordinary Ministers of HC.
2. They must be men, so you can already see what battles that might lead to in certain communities…

I don’t know what the solution is, but I know that as long as we keep relying on these EMHC’s, we mask the vocations crisis that needs to be addressed. We also give people the impression that they are ministers just like a priest: they bring communion ot the sick, they pass out communion at Mass alongside the priest, they may even access the Tabernacle, they give “blessings”, they are “instituted” in some ceremony, and most of all, they handle the Eucharist, which infringes on the privileges of the ordained

“To touch the Sacred Species, and to distribute them with their own hands, is a privilege of the ordained.” - JPII

Incidently, another big factor in the vocations crisis is the dissent from the church’s 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. It’s no mystery. The parents are less likely to want to send off their only son to a celibate life. I’m 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.

**As you can see from my post above, I do recognise that Acolytes are still not ordinary. Simply stop distributing the Precious Blood every mass and we cut down the numbers of EMHCs needed dramatically. If we need them, acolytes are best of the laity. And they may purify the Sacred Vessels. **

 

[Titus]

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 “letter of the law” AT THE EXPENSE of the “spirit of the law” 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 today’s Gospel (Mark 7: 1-13) and listen to Our Lord’s words.

Can’t we just focus on advancing the Kingdom and stop all of the hostility to those who may not “get it” yet? I can tell you from personal experience that a lot of the people who don’t follow the Church’s 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 “connect” 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 “if they don’t believe everything the Church teaches then they shouldn’t be Catholic”. I have to remember that it’s far better to educate them in the reasons for the Church’s laws instead of saying “believe it or get lost”.

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 it’s use and I myself don’t use it, but everyone knows what the term means. We all knew what the original poster was referring to by “Eucharistic Minister”. 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 “owed this position” and that it’s not my vocation… I am just helping out because there is a need.

God Bless,
Gary

Firstly, . You seem to have a great attitude to the ministry, especially to the Sick. This is not an area we have discussed here, but is the one in which EMHCs are most important and useful. However, your point that those who focus on the letter of the law are missing the point is erroneous. The Catholic Church has rubrics for a very important reason: to ensure reverence, uniformity and authority (that the Church & not individual priests sets the text of the mass). And of course, the consecration must be valid, which requires the correct Words of Institution. If the people of the Church knew what was correct through better catechesis such nitpicky discussions would not be needed. That is something we all ought to pray for.
I recommend too that you avoid the terms ‘spirit of the law’ and ‘letter of the law’. They remind many people here of ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ reforms like ‘We are Church’ (women priests) et al, and of course the Barney Mass.

 

[gez722]

However, your point that those who focus on the letter of the law are missing the point is erroneous. The Catholic Church has rubrics for a very important reason: to ensure reverence, uniformity and authority (that the Church & not individual priests sets the text of the mass). And of course, the consecration must be valid, which requires the correct Words of Institution. If the people of the Church knew what was correct through better catechesis such nitpicky discussions would not be needed. That is something we all ought to pray for. I recommend too that you avoid the terms ‘spirit of the law’ and ‘letter of the law’. They remind many people here of ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ reforms like ‘We are Church’ (women priests) et al, and of course the Barney Mass.

Titus, The point that I was trying to make (which is hard to make on a message board) is that we need to remember that not every EMHC has a hidden agenda and that we shouldn’t be uncharitable in educating others about Church teachings. I wanted to do this without attacking any individual poster. If you take a look at the original question, Rhonda is asking a simple question that could have been answered without all of the sarcasm and empowerment of the laity rhetoric. It’s for this reason that I need to take a break from this board every now and then. I start to feel hostility to those who may not be following the rules laid down by the Church.

I understand your point about the “spirit/letter of the law” having a bad connotation (especially in a forum like this), but as someone who is loyal to the Church’s teaching I didn’t use it in that manner. I was simply trying to state that many people who abuse the Church’s rules do so with the best of intentions and we should try to charitably correct them instead of beating them over the head.

God Bless,
Gary

 

[LeahInancsi]

Yes, that is why the Church expanded the use of ‘permanent’ Deacons.

Or, as a priest friend once mentioned “Every prayer for ordained vocations is a prayer that the use of EMHC’s will end”

There’s rumor that my parish has a deacon. I think he only makes any appearance for the vigil Mass on Saturday.

Although I enjoy being an EMHC, I would gladly give it up to a new young priest.

I’ve noticed that when my priests give the Eucharist, that in such a hurry that they never look anyone in the eye. As an EMHC, I always do. It was so refreshing when a former priest at my parish came back over the Christmas holidays to help out always looked each communicant in the eye when he handed them the Eucharist. Although it’s not ideal to have EMHC’s, I don’t think I’m gaining anything by receiving the Eucharist from a priest when he won’t even look at my face when he gives it to me. The situation would be much worst if the priest had to distribute ALL the Eucharist.

 

[jmcrae]

Although it’s not ideal to have EMHC’s, I don’t think I’m gaining anything by receiving the Eucharist from a priest when he won’t even look at my face when he gives it to me. The situation would be much worst if the priest had to distribute ALL the Eucharist.

It’s not about how the priest treats people or his attitude - it’s that by virtue of his ordination, he distributes the Eucharist not with his own hands, but with Christ’s hands. Something a lay person - no matter how kind - can never do.

That having been said, I do appreciate the ministry of EMHCs, since we really do have a shortage of priests, whether good, bad, or indifferent.

 

[Titus]

Titus, The point that I was trying to make (which is hard to make on a message board) is that we need to remember that not every EMHC has a hidden agenda and that we shouldn’t be uncharitable in educating others about Church teachings. I wanted to do this without attacking any individual poster. If you take a look at the original question, Rhonda is asking a simple question that could have been answered without all of the sarcasm and empowerment of the laity rhetoric. It’s for this reason that I need to take a break from this board every now and then. I start to feel hostility to those who may not be following the rules laid down by the Church.

I understand your point about the “spirit/letter of the law” having a bad connotation (especially in a forum like this), but as someone who is loyal to the Church’s teaching I didn’t use it in that manner. I was simply trying to state that many people who abuse the Church’s rules do so with the best of intentions and we should try to charitably correct them instead of beating them over the head.

God Bless,
Gary

Jolly good. Of course not every EMHC has a hidden agenda, and of course some priests are irreverent (that is very sad but true by the way). However the OP is right that the ordination conveys the ability to touch the Sacred Species. I wasn’t attacking you by the way by talking about ‘the Spirit of VII’, just pointing out the unfortunate connotations it has here.

 

[palmas85]

There’s rumor that my parish has a deacon. I think he only makes any appearance for the vigil Mass on Saturday.

Although I enjoy being an EMHC, I would gladly give it up to a new young priest.

I’ve noticed that when my priests give the Eucharist, that in such a hurry that they never look anyone in the eye. As an EMHC, I always do. It was so refreshing when a former priest at my parish came back over the Christmas holidays to help out always looked each communicant in the eye when he handed them the Eucharist. Although it’s not ideal to have EMHC’s, I don’t think I’m gaining anything by receiving the Eucharist from a priest when he won’t even look at my face when he gives it to me. The situation would be much worst if the priest had to distribute ALL the Eucharist.

Why would it make any difference if the Priest looks you in the eye??

Its funny how times change peoples perceptions about what is important… You worry because the Priest doesn’t look people in the eye when distributing. When I went through catechism we were taught to close our eyes during reception because we were receiving the body of our Lord Jesus Christ… If people still did that you wouldn’t know if the Priest was looking at you or not.

Oh I forgot though, most people do receive in the hand these days. So keeping the eys open these days is probably a good idea. My bad. Sorry for speaking with such a pre Vatican II mindset.

 

[Sixtus]

No I never said a Deacon can consacrate the Holy Elemements!! But a Deacon is an Ordinary Minister for the distrabution of Holy Communion.

I have no problems with a Deacon touching and ministering the Host. I find the idea of laity so doing, repugant

 

[Michael038]

How does one become a Eucharistic Minister? It seems like such an important job… are they provided with classes and required to be a Catholic in good standing?

The Priests do appreciate the help. There will be many nasty replies to your question because many on this site are against emhc’s. i would call your parish offices and ask them who you need to speak with, thats what i did and was referred to our Sister who then trained me on becomming an emhc. it isnt a hard process and it is a great help to your parish.you must be a catholic in good standing with the church. i have been one for a few years now. good luck to you.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Strictly speaking the only way to become a Eucharistic Minister is to be ordained a priest. Not even deacons are Eucharistic Ministers.

Pax tecum!

They are. Both priests and deacons are ordinary ministers of Holy Communion (which is why lay persons are called “extraordinary”).

In Christ,
Rand

 

[LeahInancsi]

I have no problems with a Deacon touching and ministering the Host. I find the idea of laity so doing, repugant

Then I suggest you receive your Eucharist from the priest or deacon. No problem.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I have no problems with a Deacon touching and ministering the Host. I find the idea of laity so doing, repugant

Wonder if you will feel the same way if one day you become ill or home-bound and are unable to attend church to receive communion and no priests or deacons are available to bring the Eucharist to you?

Will you deny yourself the sacramental graces that come from receiving communion if only the laity is available to bring it to you or will you “get over” being repugant by the having the laity minister Christ to you?

 

[LeahInancsi]

Wonder if you will feel the same way if one day you become ill or home-bound and are unable to attend church to receive communion and no priests or deacons are available to bring the Eucharist to you?

Will you deny yourself the sacramental graces that come from receiving communion if only the laity is available to bring it to you or will you “get over” being repugant by the having the laity minister Christ to you?

I’d like to hear the answer to that question. The people who deliver the Eucharist to the homebound are no less an extraordinary minister than I am.

 

[Sir_Knight]

The people who deliver the Eucharist to the homebound are no less an extraordinary minister than I am.

Exactly my point

 

[nice]

There is no need for Extraordinary Ministers of The Eucharist except in extraordinary circumstances.
If your short of time with only one priest to administer Comunnion, have the Faithful kneel at the altar rail, thus eliminating the need for abusive ‘Extraordinary Ministers’

 

[maryjk]

There is no need for Extraordinary Ministers of The Eucharist except in extraordinary circumstances.
If you are short of time with only one priest to administer Comunnion, have the Faithful kneel at the altar rail, thus eliminating the need for abusive ‘Extraordinary Ministers’

And if there is no altar rail? Or if there isn’t enough space to kneel? Or if your parish has people that can’t receive the Host, but must only receive from the Chalice?

Are all of these extraordinary circumstances?

 

[nice]

If there is no rail kneel on the step, or on the floor in front of the altar. If there is no room then the church must be small in which case the priest can easily do it on his own. I have never heard of the third case, I believe communion under one form is perfectly sufficient and have never drunk from a chalice. Why would someone be unable to recieve the the Host and yeat able to drink from the Chalice?