Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion; When Required?

[Sirach2]

Greg_N:

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"

Again, Greg, you are cherry-picking isolated statements out of context of current permissions. This instruction was written August 1997. Redemptoris Sacramentum was issued March, 2004. Further, please note the other recognitos granted by the Holy See in this thread to the USCCB in our nation that gives permission for our bishops to regulate distribution of the Eucharist according to their approved guidelines.

Each Local Ordinary has the authority, as mentioned in Canon Law AND the R.S., to regulate their dioceses with this regard. You might check what permissions are in place by way of a recognito in Austrailia.

I am dismayed that you are so intolerant of lawful practices and spin your wheels trying to make the public think our clergy are reprobate.

 

[Phemie]

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.

I quit the Liturgy Committee in my parish over precisely this situation: 3 EMHCs distributing Communion and 2 priests sitting down watching them. The parish administrator even wanted to have EMHCs distributing at an Ordination and the newly ordained’s first Mass so that women would be involved. This in spite of the fact that there were at least 20 concelebrants.

I’ve heard my former Pastor make the comment that EMHCs have a right to be there, when no such right exists as the Church has made very clear.

 

[Sirach2]

Gren_N,

In addition to the documents already quoted in this thread, I think you need to consider that, even for Australia, the GIRM dated 2011 holds priority over all of them, and is written for the universal Church.

1. In the distribution of Communion the Priest may be assisted by other Priests who happen to be present. If such Priests are not present and there is a truly large number of communicants, the Priest may call upon extraordinary ministers to assist him, that is, duly instituted acolytes or even other faithful who have been duly deputed for this purpose.[96] In case of necessity, the Priest may depute suitable faithful for this single occasion.[

[97[/COLOR][147]** It is to himestablishing of norms regarding the function of serving the Priest at the altar (cf. no. 107), the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds.　**
](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/l footnote-10010-97)

 

[Sirach2]

Phemie:

I quit the Liturgy Committee in my parish over precisely this situation: 3 EMHCs distributing Communion and 2 priests sitting down watching them. The parish administrator even wanted to have EMHCs distributing at an Ordination and the newly ordained’s first Mass so that women would be involved. This in spite of the fact that there were at least 20 concelebrants.

I’ve heard my former Pastor make the comment that EMHCs have a right to be there, when no such right exists as the Church has made very clear.

That is truly an isolated matter, not typical of the huge majority of Catholic parishes. You did not mention what year this was. Perhaps it was prior to new guidelines being issued. Kindly read my last post where the GIRM clearly guides with regard to the use of EMHC’s. Your situation does not negate the permissions outlined in other documents, and probably should have been reported if this occured after they were issued.

 

[Elizium23]

Here’s the situation in my parish. And I will point out that my pastor is a faithful, holy, and reverent man, with my utmost respect for the way he runs things.

The Tuesday night Mass I serve has a regular attendance of maybe 40-50. EMHC usage is seemingly random. Sometimes there is one, and sometimes there is none. The former situation is much, much more common. It seems that there is only no EMHC if there is nobody trained sitting in the pews. The presider twice deputed me to distribute until our regular EMHC spoke up and said he would be happy to serve. Having an EMHC at all for 50 people seems, to me, singularly useless. There is no undue prolongation of the Mass, and besides, nobody there is in a hurry, it’s an early evening Mass after work hours, most people are happy to stay for the novena afterwards, if they were in a hurry they would split after the final blessing.

On Sundays we have the requisite army of EMHCs always scheduled. The schedule is drawn up without regard to changing attendance numbers; there is always a fixed number for each Mass. The peculiarity to me is that the language of the Mass makes a difference: one EMHC is scheduled for Spanish, and three for English. I guess it must mean that there are far more English-language confessions, because there are many Spanish speakers who do not receive, while among English-speakers of the proper age, the reception is nearly 100%. We almost never offer the species of wine. I would say that traffic flows fairly smoothly with one minister to cover each aisle, and Mass is never unduly prolonged, so we probably have the right number of EMHCs. But another way of looking at it is that we have too few priests and deacons in the diocese. With enough clergy available, an EMHC’s vocation disappears, and wouldn’t that be a lovely thing?

As I said, the most common abuse of EMHCs in my parish is the terminology. I personally corrected the parish manager who was still using “Eucharistic Ministers” on scheduling and signage up until the end of last year. There is still a laminated “Eucharistic Ministers” sign in the sacristy which I have been meaning to complain about. And naturally, every single one of them still thinks s/he is a “Eucharistic Minister” because there was no definitive correction issued, just a quiet change in wording at the lowest level.

 

[Phemie]

That is truly an isolated matter, not typical of the huge majority of Catholic parishes. You did not mention what year this was. Perhaps it was prior to new guidelines being issued. Kindly read my last post where the GIRM clearly guides with regard to the use of EMHC’s. Your situation does not negate the permissions outlined in other documents, and probably should have been reported if this occured after they were issued.

I live in Canada where RS was ignored by the Conference until Advent 2011. RS, only reiterated the rules from 3 previous documents, including the first one to allow EMHCs. At the meeting where I brought up the abuse an older priest got up, shook his finger in my face and shouted, “We haven’t paid attention to Rome before and we’re not about to start now!” Considering he’d been both my Pastor’s and my Bishop’s seminary professor, what chance did I have to be heard on the topic?

 

[Sirach2]

I live in Canada where RS was ignored by the Conference until Advent 2011. RS, only reiterated the rules from 3 previous documents, including the first one to allow EMHCs. At the meeting where I brought up the abuse an older priest got up, shook his finger in my face and shouted, “We haven’t paid attention to Rome before and we’re not about to start now!” Considering he’d been both my Pastor’s and my Bishop’s seminary professor, what chance did I have to be heard on the topic?

Yes, that is really sad to read. In that case, you would never be heard, but I hope you considered reporting it?

 

[YoungTradCath]

On Sundays we have the requisite army of EMHCs always scheduled. The schedule is drawn up without regard to changing attendance numbers; there is always a fixed number for each Mass. The peculiarity to me is that the language of the Mass makes a difference: one EMHC is scheduled for Spanish, and three for English. I guess it must mean that there are far more English-language confessions, because there are many Spanish speakers who do not receive, while among English-speakers of the proper age, the reception is nearly 100%. We almost never offer the species of wine. I would say that traffic flows fairly smoothly with one minister to cover each aisle, and Mass is never unduly prolonged, so we probably have the right number of EMHCs. But another way of looking at it is that we have too few priests and deacons in the diocese. With enough clergy available, an EMHC’s vocation disappears, and wouldn’t that be a lovely thing?

Two things. One, I don’t see why it should magically take so long for one priest to distribute Holy Communion to X individuals today but it took (supposedly, or that is the deduction one has to make) less time 60 years ago.

Second, I have a problem (!) calling EMHC a vocation. Is it really?

 

[Greg_N]

Again, Greg, you are cherry-picking isolated statements out of context of current permissions. This instruction was written August 1997. Redemptoris Sacramentum was issued March, 2004. Further, please note the other recognitos granted by the Holy See in this thread to the USCCB in our nation that gives permission for our bishops to regulate distribution of the Eucharist according to their approved guidelines.

Sorry Sirach2, let me put it in context:

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"

Source:

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

Take it all in; The Instruction on “Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of Priests” is a valid and official instruction retaining official recognito (which never became null and void). It is to be adhered to as is Redemptoris Sacramentum. Substituting instruction with capricious “permissions” where there isn’t any, is simply being duplicitous. The instruction is clear: “habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass, thus arbitrarily extending the concept of ‘a great number of the faithful’ is to be eliminated where such have emerged”. At no point is this instruction abrogated, it must be adhered to.

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.

Bottom line, Sirach, is that the practice of regular EMHC’s is on the way out (along with other redundant additions to the liturgy), and traditional Catholic rubrics (however subtle) are gradually becoming the dominate norm within Church’s across the world. The remaining remnants of so-called “modern renewal” are fading as quickly as those who support it do; the only ones soon to be left are those who’ve weathered the storm of liturgical abuse and catechistic misapplication; the majority being fervent young adults who are no strangers to the superficial inclinations of contemporary culture. As much as you’d hate to admit it, you know it’s happening; when secular news sources such as the New York Times and The Economist are publishing articles on it, any appeal to ignorance is just being disingenuous. Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith explains the situation in brief.

 

[Elizium23]

Two things. One, I don’t see why it should magically take so long for one priest to distribute Holy Communion to X individuals today but it took (supposedly, or that is the deduction one has to make) less time 60 years ago.

Second, I have a problem (!) calling EMHC a vocation. Is it really?

Well, you have to remember that frequent reception of the Eucharist is really a new innovation. It was upon the promulgation of Sacra Tridentina in 1905 that this custom came about. So 110 years ago, it really did take much less time for a priest to distribute Holy Communion!

And there are other elements that is very hard to prove or quote hard statistics: the importance of confession and obstinate sin. How many people since Vatican II have forgotten the need to be in a state of grace for Holy Communion? As I have directly observed, there is a disconnect between speakers of English and Latinos in the USA: it is partly due to the lack of confessions and the view that we have a “right” to the Eucharist - just look at our leaders Pelosi and Biden who proudly receive week after week.

 

[agnes_therese]

Second, I have a problem (!) calling EMHC a vocation. Is it really?

Well, speaking as an EMHC – I’d have to agree with you, there. But there does seem to be a tendency, in some places, to call every type of service a vocation. Not my parish, fortunately.

 

[Phemie]

Yes, that is really sad to read. In that case, you would never be heard, but I hope you considered reporting it?

Considered it but realized that it was futile. I was also a parish employee which put me in a weird position. A few years earlier, after becoming aware of all the documents, I has told my pastor at the time that I wished to cease being an EMHC and leaving the Liturgy Committee seemed to be my only choice after that incident.

It’s funny, when H1N1 was a problem and we suddenly had only the priest distributing Communion to an entire church on Sunday we never once heard that it was taking too long.

 

[Greg_N]

Gren_N,

In addition to the documents already quoted in this thread, I think you need to consider that, even for Australia, the GIRM dated 2011 holds priority over all of them, and is written for the universal Church.

1. In the distribution of Communion the Priest may be assisted by other Priests who happen to be present. If such Priests are not present and there is a truly large number of communicants, the Priest may call upon extraordinary ministers to assist him, that is, duly instituted acolytes or even other faithful who have been duly deputed for this purpose.[96] In case of necessity, the Priest may depute suitable faithful for this single occasion.[97[/COLOR]
2. The Diocesan Bishop, who is to be regarded as the High Priest of his flock, from whom the life in Christ of his faithful in some sense derives and upon whom it depends,[147] must promote, regulate, and be vigilant over the liturgical life in his diocese.** It is to him** that in this Instruction is entrusted the regulating of the discipline of concelebration (cf. nos. 202, 374) and the establishing of norms regarding the function of serving the Priest at the altar (cf. no. 107), the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds.

**　**

[From GIRM]
“In case of necessity, the Priest may depute suitable faithful for this single occasion”

Single occasion.

[From instruction]
“The habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass” is to be “avoided and eliminated where such have emerged in particular Churches”

Instruction says: **habitual use **

GIRM says: single occasion

Did you even read the instruction?

 

[Sirach2]

Greg_N:

Sorry Sirach2, let me put it in context:

Take it all in; The Instruction on “Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of Priests” is a valid and official instruction retaining official recognito (which never became null and void). It is to be adhered to as is Redemptoris Sacramentum. Substituting instruction with capricious “permissions” where there isn’t any, is simply being duplicitous. The instruction is clear: “habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass, thus arbitrarily extending the concept of ‘a great number of the faithful’ is to be eliminated where such have emerged”. At no point is this instruction abrogated, it must be adhered to.

Says Greg_N. Sorry, the Church is the Authority, not you. The GIRM overrides your document, which is written for the Universal Church. End of story.

Bottom line, Sirach, is that the practice of regular EMHC’s is on the way out (along with other redundant additions to the liturgy), and traditional Catholic rubrics (however subtle) are gradually becoming the dominate norm within Church’s across the world.

So says Greg_N, the ultimate regulator. We shall see, Greg. We shall see. Meanwhile, the Universal Church will follow the norms as they are presently existing.

 

[Elizium23]

Don’t forget “truly large”

And it’s the Latin Church, Sirach. The LATIN CHURCH. One out of 23. Most of the others, as far as I am aware, are extremely averse to laity distributing Holy Communion, as it is not part of their liturgical patrimony.

I imagine that there are some Byzantines sitting on the sidelines here wondering what you are smoking.

 

[Sirach2]

[From GIRM]
“In case of necessity, the Priest may depute suitable faithful for this single occasion”

You misread the instruction, which was written for regularly deputed EMHC’s. In the event of necessity, when EMHC’s are not present, for a “single occasion” the priest has permission to deputize a non-EMHC for that particular liturgy. It is NOT the norm, nor is it anticipated that this will occur often. But that, too, is lawful.

 

[Sirach2]

Elizium23:

Don’t forget “truly large”

And it’s the Latin Church, Sirach. The LATIN CHURCH. One out of 23. Most of the others, as far as I am aware, are extremely averse to laity distributing Holy Communion, as it is not part of their liturgical patrimony.

I imagine that there are some Byzantines sitting on the sidelines here wondering what you are smoking.

Another voice of authority emerges. The LATIN CHURCH has given permission for the practice. When it is withdrawn, if it ever is, you may celebrate. Meanwhile, you have no voice other than a complaint, which is a no-no in this forum.

It is getting old to beat this horse. I’m going to mass. Have your day in court trying to prove your point, folks. You are NOT the Magisterium, so it will only create division to continue this sorry venue.

 

[Elizium23]

One has to wonder how EMHCs can be viewed as hunky-dory with the Church when that same Church has had to issue not just one but several corrections and instructions on the precise situations where it is acceptable and unacceptable to use them. Clearly the 1997 instruction was not heeded well enough because RS was issued 7 years later and had several paragraphs devoted to correcting abuses in this area.

[155.] In addition to the ordinary ministers there is the formally instituted acolyte, who by virtue of his institution is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion even outside the celebration of Mass. If, moreover, reasons of real necessity prompt it, another lay member of Christ’s faithful may also be delegated by the diocesan Bishop, in accordance with the norm of law,[256] for one occasion or for a specified time, and an appropriate formula of blessing may be used for the occasion. This act of appointment, however, does not necessarily take a liturgical form, nor, if it does take a liturgical form, should it resemble sacred Ordination in any way. Finally, in special cases of an unforeseen nature, permission can be given for a single occasion by the Priest who presides at the celebration of the Eucharist.[257]

Here is the “real” law on delegation of EMHCs. Please note that instructions about their use are always couched in cautious terms meant to limit their use. The Church never foresaw an army of 16 EMHCs at an ordinary Mass, nor adding 1 EMHC for a daily Mass of 40-50 communicants. If a bishop wants those types of “uses” to continue then perhaps he is within his competency to legislate it. But there are bishops who have issued real restrictions and stricter norms than required, as well.

The real truth lies in the very name. Extraordinary. These ministers are never meant to be used all the time, they are out of the ordinary. Of course, I suppose some people think extraordinary has a secular meaning of “epic” or “awesome” and think these are actually Awesome Ministers who should be given pride of place in the Eucharistic celebration. To each his own!

 

[Greg_N]

Says Greg_N. Sorry, the Church is the Authority, not you. The GIRM overrides your document, which is written for the Universal Church. End of story.

I of course do not claim to be an authority, though I don’t see where either document contradicts the other; is not instruction promulgated by the Holy See to be adhered to? Also, while the document is well written I cannot claim to the authorship, so no, it is not “my document”.

Bottom line, Sirach, is that the practice of regular EMHC’s is on the way out (along with other redundant additions to the liturgy), and traditional Catholic rubrics (however subtle) are gradually becoming the dominate norm within Church’s across the world.

You’re not familiar with the “New Mass translation” from 2011? The Director of my archdiocese’s Liturgical Commission (who is a Priest mind you), called it a betrayal of the Vatican.

 

[Greg_N]

The real truth lies in the very name. Extraordinary. These ministers are never meant to be used all the time, they are out of the ordinary. Of course, I suppose some people think extraordinary has a secular meaning of “epic” or “awesome” and think these are actually Awesome Ministers who should be given pride of place in the Eucharistic celebration. To each his own!

That’s exactly right, and I don’t see what’s so hard to understand about it.

The document I’ve been spotlighting clearly highlights this point: “The habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass” is to be “avoided and eliminated where such have emerged in particular Churches”.