Extraordinary Ministers of Communion title

[JimR-OCDS]

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.

The document is the technical term for the Bishops to carry out according to their authority. The document doesn’t get into ridgid linguistics issues on how people are to use various titles and terms.

The Bishops and priest don’t operate in a vacuum where they don’t discuss these issues, nor do they necessarily ignore them.

They use the term, Eucharistic Minister, constantly. Technically, its not correct. Pastorally, its not a big issue.

Jim

 

[Brendan]

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.

I understand that, but both the Vatican and the USCCB have adopted the title of EMHC.

It could be shortend to “Extraordinary Minister”, but NOT to “Eucharistic Minister”.

 

[Windmill]

Using fuzzy language that the Vatican has pointed out is erroneous in it’s theology is bad pastorally.

 

[MusicMan]

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.

This only tells us what the name of the liturgical function is called and how it is to be understood. It does not tell us what to call those who carry out the function.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

They use the term, Eucharistic Minister, constantly. Technically, its not correct. Pastorally, its not a big issue.

After the bit about the Church’s opinion and mine not being in sync, where do you get the authority to decide what is “pastoral” when the Vatican has gone through the problem of saying why such fuzzy language is inappropriate?

The issue at hand is one of semantics, and as another poster has said-words mean things. Little changes that you might think are “not a big issue” can certainly be.

There is no such an office, instituted minister, minor order, etc. that is just a “eucharistic minister”.

 

[MarleneD]

I wish to thank everyone for their responses to my original post. As you can see, I think almost everyone is in agreement that the documents all state “Extra-ordinary” Minister of communion. This has been, and continues to be, the term I hae found to be the most accurate.

Once again, I’d like to thank everyone for taking the time to answer my question.