Extraordinary Ministers of Communion title

[MarleneD]

The other day at our parish council meeting, we had a disagreement about what we call “extra-ordinary ministers of communion.” Our pastor firmly stated that we no longer use the term “extra-ordinary”, the term is just “ministers of communion” as if it had been promulgated by the Church. I think this is incorrect since I cannot find it anywhere.

Has anyone else heard this before? If so, where can I find documentation to back up what he stated. To the best of my knowledge “extra-ordinary” is how we should term our lay people when they are called upon to perform this service.

Thank you,
MarleneD

 

[jmcrae]

That is also my understanding. I think the onus is on them to provide documentation to show when this change was officially made.

In the absence of such evidence, I will continue to refer to them as Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, or EMHCs, for short.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The other day at our parish council meeting, we had a disagreement about what we call “extra-ordinary ministers of communion.” Our pastor firmly stated that we no longer use the term “extra-ordinary”, the term is just “ministers of communion” as if it had been promulgated by the Church. I think this is incorrect since I cannot find it anywhere.

Has anyone else heard this before? If so, where can I find documentation to back up what he stated. To the best of my knowledge “extra-ordinary” is how we should term our lay people when they are called upon to perform this service.

Thank you,
MarleneD

The fact of life is that the need for Eucharistic ministers is rarely extraordinary, but most always required.

Perhaps your pastor is just living in reality.

Jim

 

[Lepanto]

The other day at our parish council meeting, we had a disagreement about what we call “extra-ordinary ministers of communion.” Our pastor firmly stated that we no longer use the term “extra-ordinary”, the term is just “ministers of communion” as if it had been promulgated by the Church. I think this is incorrect since I cannot find it anywhere.

Has anyone else heard this before? If so, where can I find documentation to back up what he stated. To the best of my knowledge “extra-ordinary” is how we should term our lay people when they are called upon to perform this service.

Thank you,
MarleneD

All official Church documents use the term “Extraordinary.”

Read Redemptionis Sacramentum for an example.

usccb.org/liturgy/documents/menu.shtml

 

[Cristiano]

I have seen the use of both “extraordinary” and “special” (in English) and their literal translations (in Italian). I do not know if the English usage was associated with the geographical location of the Diocese. In Italian I have seen Diocesan/Parish documents with both terms.

I have never seen the comment (for both languages) that either one term or the other should be dropped in favor of minister of communion.

Do they have remedy classes in Seminaries like they do here in the USA for drivers after they get a traffic ticket?

 

[ComradeAndrei]

The fact of life is that the need for Eucharistic ministers is rarely extraordinary, but most always required.

Perhaps your pastor is just living in reality.

Jim

You’d be suprised how efficient the communion rail is, even with intinction…

Laymen acting as EMHCs are never “required”, they may be expedient but never required. Also, remember what Francis Cardinal Arinze said in the letter denying the indult for laymen to purify the sacred vessels.

“2. Sometimes, however, the high number of communicants may render it inadvisable for everyone to drink from the chalice (cf. Redemptionis Sacramentum, no. 102). intinction with reception on the tongue always and everywhere remains a legitimate option, by virtue of the general liturgical law of the Roman Rite.”

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

The other day at our parish council meeting, we had a disagreement about what we call “extra-ordinary ministers of communion.” Our pastor firmly stated that we no longer use the term “extra-ordinary”, the term is just “ministers of communion” as if it had been promulgated by the Church. I think this is incorrect since I cannot find it anywhere.

Has anyone else heard this before? If so, where can I find documentation to back up what he stated. To the best of my knowledge “extra-ordinary” is how we should term our lay people when they are called upon to perform this service.

Thank you,
MarleneD

The correct term required by the Church for Lay persons who assist with the distribution of Holy Communion is Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. EMHC

 

[MusicMan]

There is actually no title for laypeople who distribute Holy Communion. They are simply laypeople. The title of the liturgical function is extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.

They used to be called Special Minister of the Eucharist back in the 1970s when they were authorized, but the strict wording of RS took away their titles and only gave a term for what they do.

 

[John_Lilburne]

I would not have a problem with calling a lay person a “communion minister” or “minister of communion”. On the other hand I would not object to the title “extraordinary minister of Holy Communion”.

The 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum has:
“[156.] This function is to be understood strictly according to the name by which it is known, that is to say, that of extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, and not “special minister of Holy Communion” nor “extraordinary minister of the Eucharist” nor “special minister of the Eucharist”, by which names the meaning of this function is unnecessarily and improperly broadened.”

Clearly “special minister” is out, even though the currently approved translation of the 1975 Roman Missal has “Rite of Commissioning a Special Minister to Distribute Holy Communion on a Single Occasion”. (Roman Missal, Catholic Book Publishing Co., New York, 1985, page 1095).

Similarly “Eucharistic Minister” is clearly forbidden.

But it is true to say: “Ministers of Communion” includes Ordinary Ministers and Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.

Is an eagle an animal? Yes, even though it is a bird, it is also an animal. Is an EMHC a minister of communion? Yes.

Must we always say “Holy Communion”? No, normally from the context and English usage it is clear what it meant if we use the word “Communion”. Must we say “Sacred Scripture”? No, use the word “scripture” and most people know what you mean. Must we say “extraordinary minister of Holy Communion”? No, “minister of Communion” is clear and less of a mouthful.

 

[Windmill]

“In the same Synod Assembly, however, a critical judgment was voiced along with these positive elements, about a too-indiscriminate use of the word “ministry”, the confusion and the equating of the common priesthood and the ministerial priesthood, the lack of observance of ecclesiastical laws and norms, the arbitrary interpretation of the concept of “supply”, the tendency towards a “clericalization” of the lay faithful and the risk of creating, in reality, an ecclesial structure of parallel service to that founded on the Sacrament of Orders.”

• Christifideles Laici, John Paul II

 

[JimR-OCDS]

All official Church documents use the term “Extraordinary.”

Read Redemptionis Sacramentum for an example.

usccb.org/liturgy/documents/menu.shtml

The part of this document which is so often ignored;

1. The Diocesan Bishop, High Priest of His Flock

1. The diocesan Bishop, the first steward of the mysteries of God in the particular Church entrusted to him, is the moderator, promoter and guardian of her whole liturgical life.39 For “the Bishop, endowed with the fullness of the Sacrament of Order, is ‘the steward of the grace of the high Priesthood,’40 especially in the Eucharist which he either himself offers or causes to be offered,41 by which the Church continually lives and grows.”42

1. Indeed, the pre-eminent manifestation of the Church is found whenever the Rites of Mass are celebrated, especially in the cathedral church, “with the full and active participation of the entire holy People of God, joined in one act of prayer, at one altar at which the Bishop presides,” surrounded by his presbyterate with the Deacons and ministers.43 Furthermore, “every lawful celebration of the Eucharist is directed by the Bishop, to whom is entrusted the office of presenting the worship of the Christian religion to the Divine Majesty and ordering it according to the precepts of the Lord and the laws of the Church, further specified by his own particular judgment for the Diocese.[my emphasis]”44

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

ComradeAndrei;2406841]You’d be suprised how efficient the communion rail is, even with intinction…

Laymen acting as EMHCs are never “required”, they may be expedient but never required.

That decision rest with the Bishop and the priest of his dioceses, in which he places his trust in.

For you to say laymen acting as EMHS is never required, is your own opinion and not that of the Church.

Jim

 

[Windmill]

The bishop is not competent to change those things that are reserved to the Holy See. His power over the liturgy is only based on those things that are delegated to him by Rome.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The bishop is not competent to change those things that are reserved to the Holy See. His power over the liturgy is only based on those things that are delegated to him by Rome.

Those things reserved to the Holy See is not what is being adressed in this thread.

Calling an extraordinary eucharistic minister a eucharistic minister, is not something the Holy See rigidly overseas, but leaves such petty issues to the Bishop.

Jim

 

[MusicMan]

That decision rest with the Bishop and the priest of his dioceses, in which he places his trust in.

For you to say laymen acting as EMHS is never required, is your own opinion and not that of the Church.

Jim

Actually, Jim, the use of lay people serving as emHC is optional. This poster is correct that their use is never required. However, using them is up to the Bishop and the priests he places his trust in. I don’t believe that the Bishop can mandate their use, but he can certainly regulate or eliminate use of emHCs.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Actually, Jim, the use of lay people serving as emHC is optional. This poster is correct that their use is never required. However, using them is up to the Bishop and the priests he places his trust in. I don’t believe that the Bishop can mandate their use, but he can certainly regulate or eliminate use of emHCs.

Whether they are required or not is left to the discretion of the celebrant. If the priest has 100 people receiving, he may decide that an EMHC is required. If he has only 10 people, he probably will decide that they are not required.

I think the wording you are looking for is whether EMHC’s are mandated by the Holy See, they are not.

Jim

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

That is also my understanding. I think the onus is on them to provide documentation to show when this change was officially made.

In the absence of such evidence, I will continue to refer to them as Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, or EMHCs, for short.

Yep, that is the “official” title, but it is also very wordy. I have never heard that term used in general conversation before and after mass in the many parishes I have visited. It is always “Eucharistic Ministers”, both from the priests and laity. Part of it is because it is too wordy for most people but also part of it is because of an overall trend to bring the Mass down to the people’s level. EM is much easier in casual conversation.

 

[Windmill]

Those things reserved to the Holy See is not what is being adressed in this thread.

Calling an extraordinary eucharistic minister a eucharistic minister, is not something the Holy See rigidly overseas, but leaves such petty issues to the Bishop.

Jim

What document are you basing this assumption on? I base mine on the document Redemptionis Sacramentum which takes great pains not only to consistently call them EMHC’s, but actually devotes a particular paragraph to this very abberation that you and I are discussing:

[156.] This function is to be understood strictly according to the name by which it is known, that is to say, that of extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, and not “special minister of Holy Communion” nor “extraordinary minister of the Eucharist” nor “special minister of the Eucharist”, by which names the meaning of this function is unnecessarily and improperly broadened.

The EMHC’s have absolutely nothing to do with the confecting of the Eucharist. They are affiliated solely with the Communion Rite. A “Eucharistic Minister” is one who can confect hte Eucharist - ie, a Priest or Bishop. Not even a Deacon is a Eucharistic Minister. He is an Ordinary Minister of Holy Communion. Priests and Bishops are also, OMHC’s. This “fuzzy language” can lead EMHC’s to believe they are on a parrallel track as the ordained. THe Vatican is very careful to prevent such confusion. So should we be.

The reason it is important that the Bishop not be given the freedom to rename titles is precisely because words mean things. If we get loose in our terminology, we start heading down the path of ambiguity. That can lead to even greater problems - like ones we now face. That is why the Vatican has had to put out all these correctional documents (Christifideles Laici, Dominus Iesus, Redemptionis Sacramentum…etc).

The Bishop is not competent to redefine these things.

 

[THurifer2]

That decision rest with the Bishop and the priest of his dioceses, in which he places his trust in.

For you to say laymen acting as EMHS is never required, is your own opinion and not that of the Church.

Jim

Here is the official church stance on what to call EMHCs
Redemptionis sacramentum.
[156.] This function is to be understood strictly according to the name by which it is known, that is to say, that of extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, and not “special minister of Holy Communion” nor “extraordinary minister of the Eucharist” nor “special minister of the Eucharist”, by which names the meaning of this function is unnecessarily and improperly broadened.

 

[MusicMan]

I don’t see an issue with using the term Communion Minister or Communion Distributor. Neither of these are misleading about what is happening. Eucharistic Minister or Minister of the Eucharist is incorrect because the Holy See has defined this terminology as inclusive of only priests and bishops because they are the only ones who can confect the Sacrifice of the Eucharist.

It is up to the Diocesesan Bishop to regulate the use of emHCs. He can determine that they are not to be used, or he can cap how many can be used at a given Mass. No church can be compelled to use emHCs, however, unless the Bishop is celebrating Mass at that church and, as the celebrant, mandates their use.

Are emHCs overused? I don’t know. I am not the competent authority to determine. Every Friday during the summers, I am the reader and serve as an emHC for daily Mass. There are never more than 50 people there. Father has determined that an emHC is appropriate for that Mass. I am not going to argue with him. I do not have the authority to do so. I could decline to serve in that function, but since he has asked me to do this as part of preparing to discern the Diaconate, that would seem silly to me.