Extraordinary Minister Holy Communion Question

[Brendan]

Is the Byzantive rite in communion with Rome or are they in schism?

They are in communion with Rome

Here is the website of one of their dioceses ( called ‘Eparchies’)

parma.org/Eparchy_Parma.asp

That should give you more information about the Byzantines. We have a Byzantine parish a few miles from our house. I like to take the kids there ( or to the Chaldean Catholic parish) every few months so they can a taste of the full majesty of the Church.

I hope I wasn’t disrespectful in any way and if so then I’m sorry. These past months have been such a discovery, often unexpected and sometimes surprising.

No prob

 

[OurLadyPerpHelp]

I’m finding that I do not have a sufficient level of knowledge of my own rite let alone anyone else’s. If you don’t mind I’ll keep my research to the Roman rite for now and one day look into the others.

 

[FAB]

Well, from what I’ve read, EMHCs are only to be used when necessary. This particular priest is saying they aren’t necessary in his parish, therefore, they are not to be used.

How is he being “ignorant”?

It is true that the rubics indicate when necessary, and that could be the reason that this priest is eliminated them, but yet, unless this priest has muliple deacons, or multiple co-celebrants or possibly a very small parish it’s had to see why having EMHC not as a necessity. He called himself “ignorant”, perhaps I would say a missunderstanding that he could possibly being compounding by swinging 180 degrees in another direction.
Remember EMHC do not just assist at mass, they also visit the sick and take the eucharist to them. this is a very valuable ministry. Often the this ministry opens the doors to even more involvement and a deeper spiritual understanding of our Lord. I don’t know all the reason that this priest did so, but in the long run, eliminating EMHC could be a negative for his parish.

 

[OurLadyPerpHelp]

If you read his letter you’d find that Holy Communion in a full church only took eight minutes. Therefore he concluded using EMHCs was against the rubics. It seems as though this priest knows his parish better than you or I do. Even if a priest refers to himself as ‘ignorant’ I think the safer and respectful course is to not repeat the description.

 

[FAB]

If you read his letter you’d find that Holy Communion in a full church only took eight minutes. Therefore he concluded using EMHCs was against the rubics. It seems as though this priest knows his parish better than you or I do. Even if a priest refers to himself as ‘ignorant’ I think the safer and respectful course is to not repeat the description.

I have great respect for priest, but that doesn’t mean they make the right decissions. I also know preist have their own agendas. It’s his decission either way.

 

[Brendan]

I have great respect for priest, but that doesn’t mean they make the right decissions. I also know preist have their own agendas. It’s his decission either way.

So you are saying that if a priest can distribute Holy Communion to his parish by himself in 8 minutes, any decision not to use EMHCs is somehow NOT the right decision?

And if he does not, that is an ‘agenda’?

 

[revert_jen]

Often on this site I read post of how “liberal” or “progressive” priest perform liturgical abuses. I’m afraid that this preist who made the post is also misinformed, or perhaps pushing an oposite agenda. EMHC are allowed by the GIRM, to eliminate their use completely seems also to be an abuse. He seems to only be extending his own “ignorance”.

Redemptionis Sacramentum:

Only out of true necessity is there to be recourse to the assistance of extraordinary ministers in the celebration of the Liturgy. Such recourse is not intended for the sake of a fuller participation of the laity but rather, by its very nature, is supplementary and provisional. Furthermore, when recourse is had out of necessity to the functions of extraordinary ministers, special urgent prayers of intercession should be multiplied that the Lord may soon send a Priest for the service of the community and raise up an abundance of vocations to sacred Orders.

Redemptionis Sacramentum:

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 advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number of 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 a sufficient reason.

How does this say that it is an abuse not to use them? It seems that any priest who, with prayer and contemplation, finds that it is not truly necessary to have EMHCs, is obliged not to use them.

I am not saying that they are never necessary. Sometimes, especially at Sunday Masses, it would take so long that not enough Masses could be scheduled, or that Mass would truly be “unduly prolonged.”

But in cases where EMHCs are merely convenient (especially in, e.g., daily Masses with few communicants), the practice needs to be examined closely. I have been at daily Masses where the EMHCs very nearly outnumber the regular communicants. With all the vessels needed and getting everyone in position, I truly wonder whether just having the Priest do it by himself wouldn’t actually be faster than having 10 EMHCs at a daily Mass. I’m sure that the Mass would not be “unduly prolonged” by having only the Ordinary Minister (the Priest) distribute.

–Jen

 

[OurLadyPerpHelp]

Thank you for your response Jen.

FAB, I think we need to be very careful in accusing a priest of liturgical abuse. Jen posted the guidelines for EMHCs and it sure appears to these eyes that this particular priest is acting properly. Moreso, this priest is not anonymous so you are making a rather serious charge against a known person. If you can provide evidence of him being ‘misinformed’ I’d like to see it.

What hidden agenda do you think he is pursuing?

 

[FAB]

So you are saying that if a priest can distribute Holy Communion to his parish by himself in 8 minutes, any decision not to use EMHCs is somehow NOT the right decision?

And if he does not, that is an ‘agenda’?

Since he made a decision that 8 min is not to long to distribute communion and he would be the only one doing so, it also means that the precsious blood is not being distributed or that it is only being given by intinction, which then means it can only be recieved on the tongue, of course the recipient can recieve by the hand without the precsious blood. He then decided to post his decision on what can be called a conservation blog and indicating that what ever practice he was doing before was in error, which by the rites of the Church could be argued were not.
He’s the shepherd of the parish, he does have a right to do this, but the fact that he made it public, almost in the form of a confession, leads me to wonder about is motivation.

 

[FAB]

Thank you for your response Jen.

FAB, I think we need to be very careful in accusing a priest of liturgical abuse. Jen posted the guidelines for EMHCs and it sure appears to these eyes that this particular priest is acting properly. Moreso, this priest is not anonymous so you are making a rather serious charge against a known person. If you can provide evidence of him being ‘misinformed’ I’d like to see it.

What hidden agenda do you think he is pursuing?

Telling me to be careful about accusing a priest of liturgical abuse on this site is like the pot calling the kettle black. There are endless post accusing priest of the same on these blogs, which very few seem to have any problem. Most of the time the recomendation is to report them to their bishop. What I was proposing is denying the faithful positions which are allowed by the Girm could also be considered a liturgical abuse? Certainly it could be considered these than pastoral.
The fact that he made the post, and gave his name, opened up his post for comment both pro and con.

 

[FAB]

How does this say that it is an abuse not to use them? It seems that any priest who, with prayer and contemplation, finds that it is not truly necessary to have EMHCs, is obliged not to use them.

I am not saying that they are never necessary. Sometimes, especially at Sunday Masses, it would take so long that not enough Masses could be scheduled, or that Mass would truly be “unduly prolonged.”

But in cases where EMHCs are merely convenient (especially in, e.g., daily Masses with few communicants), the practice needs to be examined closely. I have been at daily Masses where the EMHCs very nearly outnumber the regular communicants. With all the vessels needed and getting everyone in position, I truly wonder whether just having the Priest do it by himself wouldn’t actually be faster than having 10 EMHCs at a daily Mass. I’m sure that the Mass would not be “unduly prolonged” by having only the Ordinary Minister (the Priest) distribute.

–Jen

It may be the case that after a proper disernment he came to this conclusion. I would also hope that he consulted with liturgy council and pastoral council as part of the process. My original post was in a form of a question, that his this were a liberal or progress preist making a decision instead of a conservation priest would he be praised and defended in the same way?
His decision is being hailed because many on thise site like it. I may have clumsily first expressed my thoughts my indicating that the priest was extending his ignorance, his word not mine, but I do find it troubling a preist would eliminate all EMHC denying his parishioners a ministy that is allowed.

 

[Brendan]

Telling me to be careful about accusing a priest of liturgical abuse on this site is like the pot calling the kettle black. There are endless post accusing priest of the same on these blogs, which very few seem to have any problem. Most of the time the recomendation is to report them to their bishop.

Actually, in the vast majority of cases where the priest is excercising a valid option in accordance to the general intent of Rome, you will usually hear the person being corrected.

Here is a great example
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=133544&highlight=laity+expose+blessed+sacrament

What I was proposing is denying the faithful positions which are allowed by the Girm could also be considered a liturgical abuse? Certainly it could be considered these than pastoral.

What allowed position is being denied to the faithful?

 

[OurLadyPerpHelp]

FAB, respectfully I suggest to you to read the guidelines for EMHCs. The laity do not have a right to this duty. It was not created as a way to increase active participation. Just because other people make wild accussations of liturgical abuse against priests doesn’t mean you should follow their lead. At this point it seems to me you are out of line and disrespecting a priest. I’m not sure what the forum rules here say about that, but I know in the real world this isn’t a good thing.

 

[FAB]

FAB, respectfully I suggest to you to read the guidelines for EMHCs. The laity do not have a right to this duty. It was not created as a way to increase active participation. Just because other people make wild accussations of liturgical abuse against priests doesn’t mean you should follow their lead. At this point it seems to me you are out of line and disrespecting a priest. I’m not sure what the forum rules here say about that, but I know in the real world this isn’t a good thing.

I am questioning a priest motivation for his action which he publicly professed, this is allowed by the canon, not disrespect.
I am also allowed to disagree with his decision, and I respectfully do so. I fully understand that EMHC should only be used out of necessity, but in most parishes they are. I also understand that it is not a right but a privalage to be a EMHC. Even though the position was note create to increase participation, in many cases it does. EMHC have a important and often vital role in distribution of communion. To many is one extreme, elimination all together is another. A balance needs to be found.

 

[OurLadyPerpHelp]

I am questioning a priest motivation for his action which he publicly professed, this is allowed by the canon, not disrespect.
I am also allowed to disagree with his decision, and I respectfully do so. I fully understand that EMHC should only be used out of necessity, but in most parishes they are. I also understand that it is not a right but a privalage to be a EMHC. Even though the position was note create to increase participation, in many cases it does. EMHC have a important and often vital role in distribution of communion. To many is one extreme, elimination all together is another. A balance needs to be found.

Unfortunately, your opinion is contrary to the teachings of the Church; your opinion of this priest is contrary to the dignity and respect each priest deserves.

 

[FAB]

Actually, in the vast majority of cases where the priest is excercising a valid option in accordance to the general intent of Rome, you will usually hear the person being corrected.

Here is a great example
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=133544&highlight=laity+expose+blessed+sacrament

What allowed position is being denied to the faithful?

I propose an opposite. If the priest instead of coming to the conclusion that 8 min was too long for the distribution of communion and instead decide to increase the number of EMHC so he could reduce that time by half, would he still be applauded? Or would he then be accused of liturgical abuse?

 

[Brendan]

I. EMHC have a important and often vital role in distribution of communion. To many is one extreme, elimination all together is another. A balance needs to be found.

Actually, no it is not. The elimination of this role is what the Church consideres to be the ideal.

As a priest once told an EMHC training class I was observing; “Every prayer for vocations is a prayer for the end to this ministry”. It was a reminder that the ministry only exists when the attending clergy are not capable of distributing the Eucharist in a timely fashion.

If the attending clergy can do so, there really is no need for the ministry.

Do you consider 8 min to be too long for a parish to take to distribute Holy Communion? If so, what is the minimum amount of time you would consider for this to be a timely act?

As I had mentioned, at our parish, we also do not use EMHC’s. Ours is a parish of about 970 registered families. Our pastor distributes Communion to the faithful himself, or with the assistance of our deacon at the largest Sunday Mass. It takes about 8-10, as it is done at the Communion rail (and yes, a person can stand to recieve).

Now why exactly does our pastor need EMHC’s?

 

[Brendan]

I propose an opposite. If the priest instead of coming to the conclusion that 8 min was too long for the distribution of communion and instead decide to increase the number of EMHC so he could reduce that time by half, would he still be applauded? Or would he then be accused of liturgical abuse?

Neither applauded nor accused of liturgical abuse.

 

[FAB]

Actually, no it is not. The elimination of this role is what the Church consideres to be the ideal.

As a priest once told an EMHC training class I was observing; “Every prayer for vocations is a prayer for the end to this ministry”. It was a reminder that the ministry only exists when the attending clergy are not capable of distributing the Eucharist in a timely fashion.

If the attending clergy can do so, there really is no need for the ministry.

Do you consider 8 min to be too long for a parish to take to distribute Holy Communion? If so, what is the minimum amount of time you would consider for this to be a timely act?

As I had mentioned, at our parish, we also do not use EMHC’s. Ours is a parish of about 970 registered families. Our pastor distributes Communion to the faithful himself, or with the assistance of our deacon at the largest Sunday Mass. It takes about 8-10, as it is done at the Communion rail (and yes, a person can stand to recieve).

Now why exactly does our pastor need EMHC’s?

So let me rephrase, at this time EMHC have a vital and important role and for the forseeable future. There are parishes with 4000 to 7000 families, You would work your preist and decons to death if there were no EMHC.

 

[FAB]

Neither applauded nor accused of liturgical abuse.

good far you but not in all cases, my point with the original post,