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

  • Thread starter Thread starter GloriaPatri4
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Kielbasi:
None of the answers is correct, eight might not be enough, it depends on the circumstances.

Many Sunday masses have hundreds and hundreds of communicants, receiving under both kinds. Some parishes might only have a single priest, the legion of EMs might be absolutely necessary to relieve the priest.
Click to expand...
GIRM says that if EMHC are necessary IOT distribute the Precious Blood, then that species should not be distributed. I think that speaks volumes for the intention of EXTRAORDINARY MHC.
Ciao,
Dano
 
Went to Mass this AM:

10 of 'em, despite the fact that it was a Saturday morning mass, about 100 people, 1 priest, 1 deacon. If we had all left our seats and walked to the center aisle, they could both have easily communicated all of us with both the Sacred Species. Also, the wine was consecrated in two flagons, besides the Chalice on the Altar, then fractioned into the chalices for the laity BY ONE OF THE EMHCs on a table behind the Altar!!! What the hey was the deacon there for, I wanted to ask!
 
40.png
dano:
GIRM says that if EMHC are necessary IOT distribute the Precious Blood, then that species should not be distributed.
Click to expand...
Where does the GIRM say this?
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
Where does the GIRM say this?
Click to expand...
First attempt to find citation:

Based on these norms, Holy Communion under both species is permitted in parishes on Sundays and holy days of obligation. But there are further considerations now that the document On Certain Questions . . . has been published.
Article eight provides several clear rules concerning the use of extraordinary ministers. First, they are only to be used in extraordinary circumstances, (hence the name). Second, the use of extraordinary ministers is not to be habitual. It must always be remembered that distribution under both kinds is not mandatory so Sunday Masses do not “require” extraordinary ministers. If there is always a shortage of ordinary ministers, distribution under both kinds just does not occur. The bishop might set aside a particular day of special importance where extraordinary ministers are used so that distribution under both species may occur. Reservation of the Precious Blood for such occurences would emphasize the importance of the celebration, and with proper catechesis, bring the faithful to a greater understanding of the doctrines of the Holy Eucharist

Dano
 
40.png
dano:
If there is always a shortage of ordinary ministers, distribution under both kinds just does not occur. The bishop might set aside a particular day of special importance where extraordinary ministers are used so that distribution under both species may occur.
Click to expand...
Who is the author of these words? They do not seem to appear in Part II, Article 8 of Ecclesiae de Mysterio.
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
Who is the author of these words? They do not seem to appear in Part II, Article 8 of Ecclesiae de Mysterio.
Click to expand...
I cut them directly from a website from the below doc. Had to modify to get under 5000 characters IOT paste this time.
On Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of Priest (Prot. 0)
**Ecclesiae de Mysterio
******August 15, 1997 Authors:
Congregation for Bishops
Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments
Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societes of Apostolic Life
Congregation for Legislative Texts
Congregation for the Clergy
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples
Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts
Pontifical Council for the Laity

Premiss
**Part I. Theological Principles
******Part I-I. The Common Priesthood of the Faithful and the Ministerial Priesthood
Part I-II. Unity and Diversity of Ministerial Functions
Part I-III. The Indispensability of the Ordained Ministery
Part I-IV. The Collaboration of the Non-ordained Faithful in Pastoral Ministry
**Part II. Practical Provisions
******Part II, Article I. Need for Appropriate Terminology
Part II, Article 2: The Ministry of the Word [59]
Part II, Article 3. The Homily
Part II, Article 4. The Parish Priest and the Parish
Part II, Article 5. The Structures of Collaboration in the Particular Church
Part II, Article 6. Liturgical Celebration
Part II, Article 7. Sunday Celebrations in the Absence of a Priest
Part II, Article 8. The Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion
 
40.png
dano:
GIRM says that if EMHC are necessary IOT distribute the Precious Blood, then that species should not be distributed. I think that speaks volumes for the intention of EXTRAORDINARY MHC.
Ciao,
Dano
Click to expand...
Dear Dano,

I’m just curious, how many if any Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion do the churches in Naples, Italy use?
 
40.png
GloriaPatri4:
Dear Dano,

I’m just curious, how many if any Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion do the churches in Naples, Italy use?
Click to expand...
Where I am (Navy base) same as in US - too many. We use on avg, 7 for 200 people. Out in the Italian community all Priests and Deacons. No Precious Blood.
Ciao,
Dano
 
40.png
dano:
Where I am (Navy base) same as in US - too many. We use on avg, 7 for 200 people. Out in the Italian community all Priests and Deacons. No Precious Blood.
Ciao,
Dano
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info but just for clarification: In the Italian community, in a large church (seating capacity 850 to 1000) on a holiday when the church is full are any EMHC’s used then if not and only priests and deacons are distributing how many priests and deacons are there and how long does it take? If it takes long do the locals get upset or impatient?
 
40.png
MooCowSteph:
Someone please tell me why a menstruating woman cannot distribute holy communion… 😦
Click to expand...
MooCowSteph,

At least you got the spelling right unlike the person who brought the subject up in the first place.

God saves
 
Windmill said:
On Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful (1997)

§2. To avoid creating confusion, certain practices are to be avoided and eliminated where such have emerged in particular Churches:
  • extraordinary ministers receiving Holy Communion apart from the other faithful as though concelebrants;
  • association with the renewal of promises made by priests at the Chrism Mass on Holy Thursday, as well as other categories of faithful who renew religious vows or receive a mandate as extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion;
  • the habitual use of extraordinary ministers ****of Holy Communion at Mass, thus arbitrarily extending the concept of “a great number of the faithful.”
Click to expand...

I wonder what would be considered habitual in our diocese?:rolleyes:
I think our diocese has a different definition for the word :whistle:
 
At our parish celebration on Holy Thursday there was 3 priests & 3 deacons.
At Communion about 12 EMs came up to the Altar & the priests sat down & did not distribute Holy Communion.
We have a large parish & there was close to 1,000 parishioners in attendence but I feel the 6 ordained ministers would have been plenty.
What can be done to change this?
 
Being too lazy to read this thread, my response is as follows:

ANY EMHCs are too many.

There may be exceptions when a priest is too ill/frail to distribute (as is the case with a 90 year-old priest we have in residence). Other than that. . .if we have one priest and 800 attendees. . .get ready for a long communion line.
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
Thanks, I managed to find the exact link from your information: catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/LawText/Index/6/SubIndex/92/LawIndex/12

The comments are from the webmaster. I did a little search of the site, but I could not determine either the webmaster’s name or qualifications.
Click to expand...
C2003:

Here is the ‘official link’ from the Vatican: vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/laity/documents/rc_con_interdic_doc_15081997_en.html

What’s of great importance as Dano has already pointed out is that the document in Article eight specifies that the habitual use of EMHC’s at Holy Mass is to be eliminated. And what’s even more important is that this document was approved by the Holy Roman Pontiff in forma specifica which means that it has the same force fo law as the Code of Canon Law. Since most diocese ignore the latter it’s no surprise that the ignore the former.

Pax,
Keith
 
40.png
kk1727:
Here is the ‘official link’ from the Vatican: vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/laity/documents/rc_con_interdic_doc_15081997_en.html
Click to expand...
The quote, “If there is always a shortage of ordinary ministers, distribution under both kinds just does not occur” is not contained anywhere in this document.

Habitual use of EMHCs, that is, using EMHCs out of habit instead of out of actual necessity, is a serious liturgical abuse.

However, it is incorrect to assume that the priest is required to make the choice between the various licit options for the Mass based on minimizing the need for EMHCs. Sacrosanctum Concilium states the actual criteria to be used by the priest:
  1. But in order that the liturgy may be able to produce its full effects, it is necessary that the faithful come to it with proper dispositions, that their minds should be attuned to their voices, and that they should cooperate with divine grace lest they receive it in vain. Pastors of souls must therefore realize that, when the liturgy is celebrated, something more is required than the mere observation of the laws governing valid and licit celebration; it is their duty also to ensure that the faithful take part fully aware of what they are doing, actively engaged in the rite, and enriched by its effects.
Click to expand...
It is certainly reasonable to believe that offering the Precious Blood to the congregation can help achive this noble goal.
 
C2003:

I misread your earlier statement and thought you had referred to the document issued by the Holy See itself, which is why I provided the link.

The document itself says that the habitual use of EHMC’s is to be eliminated. If the habitual use of EHMC’s is required in order that communion under both kinds may be available it seems that this is of itself a liturgical abuse since their habitual use is to be eliminated.

Secondly, I would point out that the lay faithful do not more fully participate in the holy liturgy by either being an EMHC nor by having them present. This is not the reason for EMHC’s. Since Holy Communion under both kinds is not necessary for the full participation of the faithful this can never be the reason for using EMHC’s. On the other hand, where upon occasion it is laudable to allow reception of Holy Communion under both kinds, it is permissible to use EMHC’s if Holy Communion would be unduly prolonged, keeping in mind that such circumstances are not to be habitual. And of course, intinction which does not require an EMHC is always permissible and therefore prior to the choice of using EMHC’s. The issue is one of true necessity and not fuller participation.
Redemptionis Sacramentum:
[151.] 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.

[158.] 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.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
kk1727:
Secondly, I would point out that the lay faithful do not more fully participate in the holy liturgy by either being an EMHC nor by having them present.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
40.png
kk1727:
Since Holy Communion under both kinds is not necessary for the full participation of the faithful this can never be the reason for using EMHC’s.
Click to expand...
This is incorrect. As I have stated, when priests choose between the various licit options for the Mass, they are not required to make the minimization of EMHCs more important than any other consideration. Read my above quote from Sacrosanctum Concilium again:
Pastors of souls must therefore realize that, when the liturgy is celebrated, something more is required than the mere observation of the laws governing valid and licit celebration;
Click to expand...
That is, just because it is a licit option to offer only the Sacred Host to the congregation does not mean that option is preferable, or that offering the Precious Blood to the congregation is without importance.
40.png
kk1727:
And of course, intinction which does not require an EMHC is always permissible and therefore prior to the choice of using EMHC’s.
Click to expand...
I would hope that the choice to use intinction would be based on something more important than eliminating the use of EMHCs.

In summary: It is a liturgical abuse to use EMHCs at a mass where they are not necessary, either because it has become a habit, or because of a misguided notion that having EMHCs allows fuller participcation. However, the use of EMHCs when they are necessary is not any kind of abuse at all. And planning the various licit options of the Mass based solely or primarily on minimizing the use of EMHCs is very poor idea.
 
I think one is to many and I am totally against the use of EHMC’s. What is the gain? I have heard the argument for them as the line is to long. Well cant the laity stand on a line to receive our Lords precious body for an extra 5 minutes? Is that to much to ask or is your Sunday golf game being held up. Participation? Try doing the rosary after mass at the abortion clinic or feeding the elderly at the nursing home if you want to “participate”. I dont think those that are EHMC’s are scoring any points. I never ever when I go to the NO mass even get in line with the EHMC and always go to the Priest, as do my mother, wife, and many I talk to.

Participate? try praying silently during mass. You want to help? Teach RCIA or go paint the church like we do. That is what really counts
 
40.png
BulldogCath:
I think one is to many and I am totally against the use of EHMC’s. What is the gain?
counts
Click to expand...
I am not totally against using EM’sHC. I know there are some places in the world and even here in our country where there may be only one priest distributing but too many parishioners coming to receive communion or there may be situations where the priest is too old to stand for long periods and he needs assistance.

I am very much against the habitual use of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. A normal size parish doesn’t need 8 to 10 EM’sHC. I was at a Mass recently where there were about fifteen priests concelebrating. The church was about half to 3/4 of the way full and they still used Extraordinary Ministers, if that is not habitual what is?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top