Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion; When Required?

[tafan]

I don’t like the need for EMC. But the need for them is simply a fact of life at this point in the church in many places. Yes, abuses are bad, but like most liturgical abuses, they will eventually go away. If we, as lay people, want to get rid of them, we should send more of our sons to the seminary. It’s the most effective solution.

 

[YoungTradCath]

As usual, misinformation is running amuck. Maybe you missed my post earlier stating the bishops are the regulators of liturgical norms in their dioceses. To be more precise, it is specifically stated in the Redemptoris Sacramentum, right at the beginning of the document.

As has been said, the USCCB was given the recognito for its guidelines with regard to distribution of the Eucharist, and therefore, the Bishops’ Conference is not bound by the strict regulation of R.S. in this regard. The use of EMHC’s is at the discretion of the Local Ordinary who is not reprobate with respect to permitting their so-called overuse, much as you might like to pin that designation on the clergy by your inference of wrong-doing.

Can we please put this horse to rest already?

The language of those paragraphs seem to imply that if any local adaptation not in keeping with RS is invalidated by that document, and that in the future any local adaptations need to have the recognitio of the Holy See to be valid. So, for example, even if flagons or bowls were allowed for the Blood in the Diocese of ___, USA, in 2003, they are no longer allowed because RS says so. RS invalidates their use even if they had been allowed. And as an aside, even if recognitio were requested for their use now, I doubt it would be given.

RS is clearly a sort of “reset” document, the most recent for liturgical matters to date. Rome had seen that abuses or plain bad ideas had crept in to the liturgy, sometimes even “official,” and so Rome spoke to give a fresh start to most of these tidbits.

 

[Sirach2]

The language of those paragraphs seem to imply that if any local adaptation not in keeping with RS is invalidated by that document, and that in the future any local adaptations need to have the recognitio of the Holy See to be valid. So, for example, even if flagons or bowls were allowed for the Blood in the Diocese of ___, USA, in 2003, they are no longer allowed because RS says so. RS invalidates their use even if they had been allowed. And as an aside, even if recognitio were requested for their use now, I doubt it would be given.

RS is clearly a sort of “reset” document, the most recent for liturgical matters to date. Rome had seen that abuses or plain bad ideas had crept in to the liturgy, sometimes even “official,” and so Rome spoke to give a fresh start to most of these tidbits.

Yes, I agree — but we are not discussing flagons, but EMHC’s. The recognito was given for our bishops’ guidance in distributing the Eucharist, and there is nothing to suggest that a bishop will disregard the RS with respect to flagons.

Despite the RS calling for minimal use of EMHC’s unless necessary, it is the bishop who decides the necessity, although there are many trads who would like to bury the use of EMHC’s altogether. These have their own TLM liturgies, but they are rather adamant in projecting their intense dislike onto other faithful Catholics in faithfully served parishes by faithful clergy. How many times I have seen the RS quoted as false rationale for getting rid of them. Why they cannot let this go and MYOB, is beyond me.

 

[Aramis]

Yes, I agree — but we are not discussing flagons, but EMHC’s. The recognito was given for our bishops’ guidance in distributing the Eucharist, and there is nothing to suggest that a bishop will disregard the RS with respect to flagons.

Despite the RS calling for minimal use of EMHC’s unless necessary, it is the bishop who decides the necessity, although there are many trads who would like to bury the use of EMHC’s altogether. These have their own TLM liturgies, but they are rather adamant in projecting their intense dislike onto other faithful Catholics in faithfully served parishes by faithful clergy. How many times I have seen the RS quoted as false rationale for getting rid of them. Why they cannot let this go and MYOB, is beyond me.

No pastor can be compelled to use EMHC’s. Cdl. Arinze has made that clear. Canon Law is also clear on that. The standard in the law is reasonable and prudent.

RS DOES invalidate the 1980’s guidelines. It explicitly destroyed the rationale behind some portions of them; it also expressly reprobates some practices allowed by them.

If there’s any disinformation being disseminated, it’s coming from folks hanging on to the abuses of the 80’s and 90’s USCCB decisions.

Further, not all dioceses in the USCCB have the same guidelines. The Metropolia of Pittsburgh, and its suffragans, have a fixed, hard guideline: maximum One Minister per 75 communicants. It’s in the Particular Law for the Metropolia. And given the size of many of the parishes, that means even the deacon doesn’t distribute communion except for major feasts.

 

[Sirach2]

No pastor can be compelled to use EMHC’s. Cdl. Arinze has made that clear. Canon Law is also clear on that. The standard in the law is reasonable and prudent.

If there’s any disinformation being disseminated, it’s coming from folks hanging on to the abuses of the 80’s and 90’s USCCB decisions.

Further, not all dioceses in the USCCB have the same guidelines. The Metropolia of Pittsburgh, and its suffragans, have a fixed, hard guideline: maximum One Minister per 75 communicants. It’s in the Particular Law for the Metropolia. And given the size of many of the parishes, that means even the deacon doesn’t distribute communion except for major feasts.

May I ask why you are contentious about this? Each diocesan bishop has the authority to regulate his diocese within, of course, lawful guidelines and recognitos. If a priest opts NOT to use an EMHC, it is his decision. I don’t recall anyone, including me, say that a priest is compelled to use them.

If Pittsburgh has that directive, so be it. Can you prove it? I live near Pgh. and have not seen such an ordinance. BTW, other dioceses are free to make a decision according to their prudent understanding of their congregations and the guidance of their bishop.

RS DOES invalidate the 1980’s guidelines. It explicitly destroyed the rationale behind some portions of them; it also expressly reprobates some practices allowed by them.

We are speaking of EMHC’s, not the entire scope of directives in the RS. The document clearly gives the bishops permission to regulate distribution of the Eucharist in accordance with official recognitos, much as you are unwilling to admit it. This has been given to the USCCB by the Holy See. Too my knowledge, and unless you can prove it to the contrary, it has never been withdrawn.

Who is the one disseminating false information, now … You are free to hold onto it, and I’m not going to chase you to correct your misunderstanding. It is readily available, and the bishop of any diocese can provide clear instruction.

 

[twf]

May I ask why you are contentious about this? Each diocesan bishop has the authority to regulate his diocese within, of course, lawful guidelines and recognitos. If a priest opts NOT to use an EMHC, it is his decision. I don’t recall anyone, including me, say that a priest is compelled to use them.

If Pittsburgh has that directive, so be it. Can you prove it? I live near Pgh. and have not seen such an ordinance. BTW, other dioceses are free to make a decision according to their prudent understanding of their congregations and the guidance of their bishop.

We are speaking of EMHC’s, not the entire scope of directives in the RS. The document clearly gives the bishops permission to regulate distribution of the Eucharist in accordance with official recognitos, much as you are unwilling to admit it. This has been given to the USCCB by the Holy See. Too my knowledge, and unless you can prove it to the contrary, it has never been withdrawn.

Who is the one disseminating false information, now … You are free to hold onto it, and I’m not going to chase you to correct your misunderstanding. It is readily available, and the bishop of any diocese can provide clear instruction.

The Metropolia of Pittsburg is a Church Sui Iuris of the Byzantine Rite. Technically, the Church considers it part of the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church, but the Metropolia is completely self-governing and has its own particular law. I have seen this particular norm quoted before. It is for the Metropolitan and his brother hierarchs to determine norms for their Church.

 

[Sirach2]

The Metropolia of Pittsburg is a Church Sui Iuris of the Byzantine Rite. Technically, the Church considers it part of the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church, but the** Metropolia is completely self-governing and has its own particular law.** I have seen this particular norm quoted before. It is for the Metropolitan and his brother hierarchs to determine norms for their Church.

Ah, thank you. So we are speaking about cherries and fruitcake here. Two different scenarios. Aramis is attempting to supply the norms existing within **their **church and extend them to fit into the ordinary rite.

 

[Greg_N]

Despite the RS calling for minimal use of EMHC’s unless necessary, it is the bishop who decides the necessity, although there are many trads who would like to bury the use of EMHC’s altogether.

The Church thrived for centuries without them, did it not?

Inaestimabile Donum

Instruction Concerning Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery
Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship
Approved and Confirmed by His Holiness Pope John Paul II on April 17, 1980

“Communion is a gift of the Lord, given to the faithful through the minister appointed for the purpose. It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice; still less that they should hand them from one to another. The faithful, whether religious or lay, who are authorized as extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist can distribute Communion only when there is no priest, deacon or acolyte, when the priest is impeded by illness or advanced age, or when the number of the faithful going to communion is so large as to make the celebration of Mass excessively long. Accordingly, a reprehensible attitude is shown by those priests who, though present at the celebration, refrain from distributing Communion and leave this task to the laity.”

Quite the loaded statement from the Holy Father.

**The use of EMHC’s is at the discretion of the Local Ordinary **who is not reprobate with respect to permitting their so-called overuse, much as you might like to pin that designation on the clergy by your inference of wrong-doing.

Maybe so, but take into consideration the words from Blessed Pope John Paul II:

a reprehensible attitude is shown by those priests who, though present at the celebration, refrain from distributing Communion and leave this task to the laity."

Looks like those darn trads have an ally.

[Reinforcing the context of this quote]; Blessed Pope John Paul II’s apostolic letter Dominicae Cenae states:

"How eloquent, therefore, even if not of ancient custom, is the rite of the anointing of the hands in our Latin ordination, as though precisely for these hands a special grace and power of the Holy Spirit is necessary. To touch the sacred species, and to distribute them with their own hands, is a privilege of the ordained, one which indicates an active participation in the ministry of the Eucharist."17

“To touch the sacred species, and to distribute them with their own hands, is a privilege of the ordained”.

This echoes the Angelic Doctor (St. Thomas Aquinas) who asserts:

. . out of reverence towards this Sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this Sacrament. Hence, it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it except from necessity, for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency” (Summa Theologiae, III, 82, 3).

Sorry Sirach2, but I’m sticking with the “trads” on this one and if that includes the Angelic Doctor and JPII, then we’re in good company.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

But most of the time we are not talking about the priest sitting down but on how many EMHC’s are needed, or not needed to help him. There are many factors to consider in that.

Oh…and if you are going off a snipet from Thomas Aquinas…then even a deacons hands are not concentrated…

 

[Greg_N]

But most of the time we are not talking about the priest sitting down but on how many EMHC’s are needed, or not needed to help him. There are many factors to consider in that.

Oh…and if you are going off a snipet from Thomas Aquinas…then even a deacons hands are not ordained…

[Regardless of deacons or not], If there is a priest present there needn’t be any; to distribute the Sacred Species with their own hands, is a privilege of the ordained.

[Edit] Notice also, that the “snippet from [Saint] Thomas Aquinas” is actually the snippet from Blessed JPII.

[Edit] Oh, and that quote from St. Thomas Aquinas was posted on the instruction of the Office for the Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff, so take up your discrepancy with them.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Hmmm…and yet the Church allows the use of EMHC’s at Mass…where there is ALWAYs a priest present (or it wouldn’t be a Mass) so take it up with them…

It’s almost as if the Church was not aware of what Thomas Aquinas had to say on the subject…

FYI …the snippet I was talking about was Thomas. And if there is a deacon-he is also a Eucharistic minister NOT an EMHC…even those his hands are not concencrated.

John Paul II was talking about priest not distributing…not having EMHC’s helping. Being a Eucharistic Minister is a privilege of the ordained but sometimes they need help. They should never be supplanted by EMHC’s.

 

[Elizium23]

In my experience, the most common abuse of EMHCs is in calling them incorrect names. The Church never called them “Eucharistic Ministers” and yet the use of that term is incredibly widespread, despite the very clear explanations in Redemptionis Sacramentum.

 

[Greg_N]

Hmmm…and yet the Church allows the use of EMHC’s at Mass…where there is ALWAYs a priest present (or it wouldn’t be a Mass) so take it up with them…

It’s almost as if the Church was not aware of what Thomas Aquinas had to say on the subject…

“From some fissure the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God.” - Venerable Pope Paul VI

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

“From some fissure the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God.” - Venerable Pope Paul VI

EXCUSE me? What exactly are you saying? Please clarify!

 

[Greg_N]

EXCUSE me? What exactly are you saying? Please clarify!

:bluelite:

 

[Greg_N]

EXCUSE me? What exactly are you saying? Please clarify!

It was meant in jest, though on reflection, I know [personally] of EMHC’s who are simply not cut out for such a role.

 

[Glad2behome]

It was meant in jest, though on reflection, I know [personally] of EMHC’s who are simply not cut out for such a role.

Same here! I know some very faithful EMHC’s but in my area, that is not the case.Those persons are in the extreme minority. I am sinner just like they are and I have no right to judge them but they are handling the BODY, SOUL AND DIVINITY of JESUS, you know that GOD guy. For example, one EMHC at one parish is part of their “LGBT” group. One was dressed like she just came out of a Lesbian Biker Bar(There is a difference Casual and appropriate dress).

This video is old and has been posted but this is can happen with the liberal use of EMHCs. youtube.com/watch?v=khco_N-uEOY
And if you think this is bad, you should come to some of the parishes in my area. They make this “Mass” look like a Pontifical High Mass.

 

[Greg_N]

Just found this:

VATICAN INSTRUCTION:
On certain questions regarding the collaboration of the non-ordained faithful in the sacred ministry of priest:

§2. Extraordinary ministers may distribute Holy Communion at Eucharistic celebrations only when there are no ordained ministers present or when those ordained ministers present at a liturgical celebration are truly unable to distribute Holy Communion. They may also exercise this function at eucharistic celebrations where there are *particularly large numbers of the faithful *and which would be excessively prolonged because of an insufficient number of ordained ministers to distribute Holy Communion. This function is supplementary and extraordinary and must be exercised in accordance with the norm of law.

It is thus useful for the diocesan bishop to issue particular norms concerning extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion which, in complete harmony with the universal law of the Church, should regulate the exercise of this function in his diocese. Such norms should provide, amongst other things, for matters such as the instruction in Eucharistic doctrine of those chosen to be extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, the meaning of the service they provide, the rubrics to be observed, the reverence to be shown for such an august Sacrament and instruction concerning the discipline on admission to Holy Communion.

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."

^That last point does it for me:

To avoid creating confusion, certain practices are to be avoided and eliminated where such have emerged in particular Churches:

•The habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass, thus arbitrarily extending the concept of "a great number of the faithful"

I will be contacting my Bishop about this and printing a copy for my local Priest. This needs to be firmly promulgated at dioceses everywhere. I highly recommend others do the same.

Link to Instruction.

 

[Sirach2]

Greg_N:

The Church thrived for centuries without them, did it not?

That has absolutely no bearing on the disciplines of the Church which may change from age to age … licitly!

“To touch the sacred species, and to distribute them with their own hands, is a privilege of the ordained”.

I have seen this cherry-picked sentence used by trads before. They assume folks will take it at face value without checking. The very next sentence states:
Pope John Paul II:

It is obvious that the Church can grant this faculty to those who are neither priests nor deacons

, as is the case with acolytes in the exercise of their ministry, especially if they are destined for future ordination, or with other lay people who are chosen for this to meet a just need, but always after an adequate preparation.
Pope John Paul II:

a reprehensible

attitude is shown by those priests who, though present at the celebration, refrain from distributing Communion and leave this task to the laity."
More cherry-picking. Pope John Paul was NOT speaking about ALL priests, but only those who refrain. This is/was a rare occurrence. No priest sits quietly and lets the laity distribute - they distribute together. The comment is taken out of context from the time it was stated. The recognito was given by the Holy See to USCCB at least 20 years after these documents were written in 1980. You simply cannot negate this permission by quoting an older statement.

Greg_N:

This echoes the Angelic Doctor (St. Thomas Aquinas) who asserts:

St. Thomas is NOT the Magisterium, and his 12th century opinion does not override the lawful permissions granted to the clergy by the Holy See in the current dispensation. A moot point not valid under present discussion.

Bottom line, Greg, is that the practice is lawful and it is not going away because a few trads object to it, though you strive ever so hard to make a point against their lawful use with all kinds of trumped-up rhetoric.

 

[Bergon]

Extraordinary ministers of the Holy Communion are authorised by the Church. That’s a given. IMHO I don’t think there’s a big issue with having EMHCs per se. The problem is when their use turns into an abuse. 1. When there’s no need; however, that’s a difficult one because no one’s said exactly when they’re needed and how many per communicants. 2. The EMHCs taking the sacred vessels directly off the altar - I think this does sometimes happen. 3. The EMHCs cleansing the sacred vessels after Communion - although I hope this is now understood as wrong and has stopped almost everywhere. 4. EMHCs giving blessings - which does still happen and is a twofold problem.