Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion - How many is too many?

[GloriaPatri4]

chevalier:

With respect to the author, the poll is somewhat redundant. The expression “Extraordinary Minister of the Holy Eucharist” contains the word “extraordinary”, which means it’s not supposed to be ordinary. This means that one EMHE is too many if the number of priests (and deacons) is sufficient. Also, the priest celebrant cannot abstain from distributing the Holy Eucharists if EMHE’s are to distribute unless he is impeded for serious reasons. Many people think it’s normal to receive from an EMHE or that they have a right to become one, but this is wrong.

In my church, when it comes to distributing the Holy Eucharist and the presiding priest(s) won’t suffice, other priests come out of the sacristy and help distribute, then go back to what they were doing before. I’m not sure if even temporary deacons haven’t assisted instead of distributing whenever we have had one.

Well, since I posted this thread I was informed by a priest in our diocese as to what is really going. Our bishop has issued some mandate/directive to all the churches in our diocese that Extraordinary Ministers of the Holy Eucharist will be used at all Masses even when there are enough priests. It all makes sense now.

I found this article that might help explain

****Ignore, Ignore ****

*****Bishop Brown Delays, Cardinal Mahony Challenges Rome’s Liturgy Document *****

"Bishop Tod Brown “is waiting for the deliberation of the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, the Bishops’ Conference, and subsequent consultation with the Diocesan Liturgical Commission to determine if any change is needed in the liturgical practices of our Diocese. Parishes are not to make any changes in their liturgical practices based on Redemptionis Sacramentum until this process is complete."

Click on link to read article
losangelesmission.com/ed/articles/2004/0409cz.htm

 

[EddieArent]

katherine2:

At least with an old lady you know she is not menstrating while giving our communion.

Yes, I totally agree. I attend Tridentine Masses (and watch EWTN’s version of the Novus Ordo) for the most part to avoid the abuses. Just the visual you gave got me because a comment my dad made earlier this weekend and that only added to what he said.

 

[chevalier]

Parishes are not to make any changes in their liturgical practices based on Redemptionis Sacramentum until this process is complete

**
Does that bishop really think he’s wiser than Rome? Wonder what is it that makes him want EMHEs during all masses contrary to Rome’s explicit directive. I don’t know what he’s doing. Bishops aren’t allowed to challenge Rome.

 

[Jakub]

It makes perfect sense if you reside within the Los Angeles Diocese as I do.

There were 7 EEMC’s today at the Mass I attended.

This appeal is clearly a delay tactic, I would not be surprised if they are stalling for a new Pope to be elected that would be more to their liking and agenda.

james

 

[MooCowSteph]

katherine2:

The people have a right to know that they are not receiving communion from a menstrating woman, right?

Maybe I should know the answer, but why is that a problem?

 

[Nota_Bene]

I attend the same Mass at the same parish that I did in 1975. Somewhat fewer people attend this Mass today, otherwise the only difference is that Holy Communion is now distributed under both species.

The difference in the number of people who give out Holy Communion is striking:

1975: One priest plus and altar boy to hold a paten under the communicants’ chins. If Holy Communion was by intinction, it would still be the priest plus two altar boys.

2005: Same one priest, plus two “captains” (“super” EMsHC) and eight EMsHC.

Something is screwed-up…

 

[chevalier]

Someone clearly has an agenda to separate distribution of the Holy Communion from priesthood. Question is, why?

What’s so good about making a rule of receiving from a layman or laywoman? What in it justifies violating Rome’s directives by local authorities?

 

[Kielbasi]

I attend the same Mass at the same parish that I did in 1975. Somewhat fewer people attend this Mass today, otherwise the only difference is that Holy Communion is now distributed under both species.

The difference in the number of people who give out Holy Communion is striking:

The percentage of people receiving communion is a lot higher today than in 1975. In 75, perhaps 2/3 of the people at mass (from what I remember) received, today its closer to 98-99%. [in the 60s, only a small minority received, it didn’t change over night]

So probably, the same number if not more receive today as opposed to 75.

Further, recipiency of communion under both kinds generally is about 3 times the work as one kind.

 

[Kielbasi]

Someone clearly has an agenda to separate distribution of the Holy Communion from priesthood. Question is, why?

The reason is that the priesthood isn’t necessary to distribute communion, there is a shortage of priests anyhow, and the Church would like to get laypeople more involved in the liturgy.

 

[JNB]

At the mass I was today, there were my guess would be 350 communicants, and it took 2 priests about 6-7 minuites to distribute communion to all of them using the altar rail with one species(and of course the vast majority of Catholics around the world to this day only recieve one species.)

 

[JNB]

By the way, if there is a time limit of 15 minuites involved, using 2 priests to cover 300 communicants in 6 minuites, 4 priests/deacons can in 12 minuites distribute communion to 1200 parishoners, so if the cup is not offered to the laity, as it is not in most the Catholic world, not too many priests/deacons are required to be used.

 

[JNB]

Kielbasi:

The reason is that the priesthood isn’t necessary to distribute communion, there is a shortage of priests anyhow, and the Church would like to get laypeople more involved in the liturgy.

Can you tell me where in Vatican II it said to use lay distributors or communion?

 

[chevalier]

The reason is that the priesthood isn’t necessary to distribute communion, there is a shortage of priests anyhow, and the Church would like to get laypeople more involved in the liturgy

Read up. We aren’t talking about a situation where there is not enough priests but when they commission EMHEs even though the number of priests (and deacons who are also ordinary ministers) is sufficient.

Getting lay people more involved. So what’s next? Laymen reading the Gospel and preaching the sermon? Laymen assisting marriages, ministering baptism and sacramentals? Let’s just have lay presidents like Protestants want.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

chevalier:
Does that bishop really think he’s wiser than Rome? Wonder what is it that makes him want EMHEs during all masses contrary to Rome’s explicit directive. I don’t know what he’s doing. Bishops aren’t allowed to challenge Rome.

While I agree that bishops shouldn’t challenge the authority of the Holy See, the American Church has been in de facto schism for some thirty years.

The only reason there hasn’t been a formal schism is because of Rome’s remarkable patience and measured responses to the liturgical silly season we are still living through.

This is why I discount the complaints of some who say, “Why doesn’t Rome DO something?” Rome is doing all it can. Does anyone truly think that if the Holy Father started cracking down and excommunicating defiant priests and removing racalcitrant bishops from their sees, that Mahoney and his like-minded cabal wouldn’t formally separate from Rome, and take the Church’s property and the majority of the faithful with them? One need only look to Henry VIII who, victimized by his own hubris, led an entire nation into schism, a schism that persists to our own day, some 500 years later.

Is this the road we want to travel as American Catholics? I say, NO! Find faithful priests. Support them and pray for them. And thank God that most of our bishops give at least lip service to Roman supremacy. How many Anglican bishops do that?

And pray daily for those willful priests and bishops who refuse to humble themselves before the authority of the Church. They need our prayers too.

 

[Kielbasi]

Dr. Bombay writes

While I agree that bishops shouldn’t challenge the authority of the Holy See, the American Church has been in de facto schism for some thirty years.

I don’t think so, Doc. Archbishop Mahoney, and the rest of the American bishops ,are all John Paul II-appointees. Every single one of them, almost without exception. They were all appointed by the current pope, and serve at his pleasure. Their actions are his actions, in the same sense that Rice and Rumsfeld’s actions are President Bush’s actions.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Kielbasi:

Dr. Bombay writes I don’t think so, Doc. Archbishop Mahoney, and the rest of the American bishops ,are all John Paul II-appointees. Every single one of them, almost without exception. They were all appointed by the current pope, and serve at his pleasure. Their actions are his actions, in the same sense that Rice and Rumsfeld’s actions are President Bush’s actions.

And seven members of the current Supreme Court were appointed by conservative Republicans and rarely, if ever, send down a conservative opinion. What does “appointed by so and so” mean? Nothing, in reality.

If, for example, JPII wanted to remove Mahoney and Mahoney refused to vacate his see, what legal standing would the Pope have in an American court? I’m not talking canon law, I’m talking civil law.

They serve at his pleasure but only as long as they deign to recognize his authority. Most of the American bishops, I fear, have much more loyalty to their brother bishops than they do to the Holy Father. In a power struggle between one of their own and the Pope, who do you think they’ll side with?

This article really clarified for me the dilemma the Pope faces and, as you’ll see, I stole many of my ideas from it

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ375.HTM

 

[BulldogCath]

Dr.

I agree with you-I always say why does not Rome do something-but like the seminaries and the sexual abuse scandal we have a rotten group of Bishops-that hold back the promotions of good orthodox seminarians to ordination (I understand that happens at the formation level, but the Bishops have a lot to do with this) and the Promotion of Good Priests. They want the Kumbaya priests as many are frustrated liberal radicals from the 70’s and need to go on way hopefully soon and bring in a new bunch. But I am not sure that will help as I look at some diocese that recently have got supposedly “Orthodox Bishops” and it is business as usual. I was watching on EWTN with Fr Pakwa the other evening, and I forget the Bishops name , and he was being asked questions about liturgical abuse, and he totally sidestepped the question and started talking about prayer and the wonderful priests and laity, blah blah.
We need a Father Corpai or the like to run the show-but that will never happen. That is why I and many like me have such respect for the Traditionals as at least with them it is in BLACK and WHITE and you know where you stand-St Pius X would never allow this to take place
Dr. Bombay:

While I agree that bishops shouldn’t challenge the authority of the Holy See, the American Church has been in de facto schism for some thirty years.

The only reason there hasn’t been a formal schism is because of Rome’s remarkable patience and measured responses to the liturgical silly season we are still living through.

This is why I discount the complaints of some who say, “Why doesn’t Rome DO something?” Rome is doing all it can. Does anyone truly think that if the Holy Father started cracking down and excommunicating defiant priests and removing racalcitrant bishops from their sees, that Mahoney and his like-minded cabal wouldn’t formally separate from Rome, and take the Church’s property and the majority of the faithful with them? One need only look to Henry VIII who, victimized by his own hubris, led an entire nation into schism, a schism that persists to our own day, some 500 years later.

Is this the road we want to travel as American Catholics? I say, NO! Find faithful priests. Support them and pray for them. And thank God that most of our bishops give at least lip service to Roman supremacy. How many Anglican bishops do that?

And pray daily for those willful priests and bishops who refuse to humble themselves before the authority of the Church. They need our prayers too.

 

[Jakub]

Is there a valid reason why the ratio of men vs women is so out of whack regarding EMHC’S ?

Nota, we agree on a point.

I’m still trying to figure out the laity raising their hands (aka blessing) during the consecration .

james

 

[HagiaSophia]

Jakub:

It makes perfect sense if you reside within the Los Angeles Diocese as I do.

There were 7 EEMC’s today at the Mass I attended.

This appeal is clearly a delay tactic, I would not be surprised if they are stalling for a new Pope to be elected that would be more to their liking and agenda.

james

I thought it quite interesting today when listening to Raymond Arroyo interview Cardinal Arinze that when asked about Extraordinary Ministers the Cardinal was quite clear and very definitive. What really struck me was that he used that Mahony quote about “we don’t have no abuses in my diocese” almost verbatim and then went on to say how wrong it was and that some dioceses ought to take a much better look at themselves. Being tactful, he mentioned no bishop by name.

His statement on extraordinary ministers was repeated in order to make certain he was being understood; the only people having a “right” to distribute Eucharist are ordained ministers. Extraordinary ministers are ONLY to be used when the numbers approaching reception are so great that the ordinary minister is unable to efficiently meet the need. It is understood by the cardinal that it is NEVER permissible to have the ordinary sit down somewhere and cool their heels while the extraordinary ministers show up as he put it “en masse” all over the altar crowding everyone out and rushing to distribute Eucharist. He called it a need to “seize” power and pretending they are equal to the priesthood or diaconate.

Frankly when he was through discussing liturgy, what the church and papal documents mean, and how they are to be interpreted I wished that every parish and liturgical leader in the country got a copy and had to hear it at least once. Great catechesis and delivered so that every ordinary in-the-pew Catholic would get it.

 

[HagiaSophia]

Kielbasi:

Their actions are his actions, in the same sense that Rice and Rumsfeld’s actions are President Bush’s actions.

I am afraid that is not really correct - each bishop once ordained has the fullness of the priesthood, the authority of his predecessors. If what you say was true then we would all be Arians… and as you can plainly admit from history, Cranmer and Richelieu certainly didn’t reflect the pope’s will.

The current Bishop of Rome prizes the collegiality of his fraternal body of brother bishops as one of the highest priorities in the Catholic administration of the church - he believes in rule by example and as one curial cardinal put it, he believes that by setting the example and constantly exhorting his fellow bishops to follow it, those who have “strayed” somewhat will change their ways. Like groups anywhere some of them learned to love the pope for it, others have taken advantage of it to scheme, plot, procrastinate or shamefully, hide behind their chairs rather than sit in them to lead.