Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion; When Required?

[Elizium23]

Indeed. This quote from your document is especially telling:

This function is supplementary and extraordinary (101) 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 me, it appears as if Rome is actually encouraging bishops to be even more restrictive and specific than the Vatican! Indeed, it is the competence of ordinaries to establish particular law which is in harmony with the mind of the Church, which can give broad guidelines but would not usefully restrict things as much as possible.

It is the same principle by which the Church regulates many things, particularly music. What’s good for the whole Roman Rite isn’t necessarily good for my diocese. My bishop has written a four-part discourse on sacred music in the liturgy, intended to be a blueprint for pastors to implement singing of the Mass and chanting the propers. While it fell short of establishing true norms or particular law, it was a very admirable way to exercise his teaching ministry, and he is leading by example in this respect.

Back on topic to Holy Communion, my diocese established norms for distribution under both kinds last year, and this has little to do with the use of EMHCs. It should be noted that the bishop was apparently mulling a much more restrictive policy which was extremely controversial, so this policy seems to be a compromise. I am not sure of his motivations for considering restrictions but I can guess that it partly had to do with too many EMHCs being required all the time.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

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.

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!

The Church never foresaw adding one EMHC for daily Mass? Says who? You? Who’s authority are we going with? Certainly there are some practical things that come into play. First is that the Church allows (currently) distribution of Holy Communion under both species. There are plenty of places with only one priest. So, how is that going to happen without an EMHC? Also there is the issue of how do you tell how many you are going to need? You certainly can not do that Sunday morning on the spot. Father looks around after the Eucharistic prayers and say…ok we need 5. Now he has to look out and see who is there? Same thing with a daily Mass. For all practical purposes you are not going to know how many are going to be at Mass…how many need to get back to work, etc. So, an attempt is made to work these things out ahead of time and schedule them. Does it mean that one Sunday the 8:00 Mass attendance is a little lighter and they could have made due with one less EMHC? Maybe but that’s a darn sight better then trying to pull people out at the last minute. In my work as sacristan/ministry coordinator (MC) it’s hard enough to get the people that are schedule…with illnesses and vacations and such. Sometimes I am scrambling 5 minutes before Mass to find up to 1/2 of them as fill ins. What EMHC does me for me is that I am not obligated nor should I have to do it at every Mass that I attend.

However, praying for vocations is ALWAYS a good thing. I would love for our parish to have two priests! We have over 1,200 families.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

FYI:

Eucharistic Ministers: or Minister of the Eucharist. ONLY a priest since no one else can consecrate the Eucharist.

Ordinary Minister of Holy Communion: Priest, Deacon, or Installed Acolyte (who sees those anymore). Of course this to me shoots down Thomas Aquinas quote as only the priest’s hands are concencrated.

Extraordinay Minister of Holy Communion. The question I have here is if they are commonly used to bring communion to the sick and home bound (using other people’s logic that the title means only in extraordinary circumstances) do they then become ordinary? Of course not…they still retain the title.

 

[Bergon]

FYI:

Eucharistic Ministers: or Minister of the Eucharist. ONLY a priest since no one else can consecrate the Eucharist.

Ordinary Minister of Holy Communion: Priest, Deacon, or Installed Acolyte (who sees those anymore). Of course this to me shoots down Thomas Aquinas quote as only the priest’s hands are concencrated.

Extraordinay Minister of Holy Communion. The question I have here is if they are commonly used to bring communion to the sick and home bound (using other people’s logic that the title means only in extraordinary circumstances) do they then become ordinary? Of course not…they still retain the title.

Instituted acolytes are extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion. They are ex officio extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion but they are extraordinary ministers not ordinary ones.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Instituted acolytes are extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion. They are ex officio extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion but they are extraordinary ministers not ordinary ones.

I’m sorry - you are correct. Have you ever seen them in use? I have not.

 

[Bergon]

I’m sorry - you are correct. Have you ever seen them in use? I have not.

Never, I think they are a very rare species!

 

[thistle]

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.

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!

I notice you did not comment on my earlier post regarding NECESSITY so I will repeat my comments.
We have 14,000 parishioners and a Sunday Mass attendance of 80% and also well attended weekday Masses.
To accommodate all who attend Mass on Sundays our parish Church has 10 Masses. This would be impossible without using EMHC’s to help distribute Communion.
The use of EMHC’s for us is necessary or are you suggesting that nobody should receive Communion?

 

[Greg_N]

I notice you did not comment on my earlier post regarding NECESSITY so I will repeat my comments.
We have 14,000 parishioners and a Sunday Mass attendance of 80% and also well attended weekday Masses.
To accommodate all who attend Mass on Sundays our parish Church has 10 Masses. This would be impossible without using EMHC’s to help distribute Communion.
The use of EMHC’s for us is necessary or are you suggesting that nobody should receive Communion?

It would not be impossible, it would just take an extended period of time, no need for hyperbole. In the context from instruction given from the Vatican here, here and from here, I think it can be determined that as long as it did not become a frequent occurrence it may at times be permissible. If you cannot find another priest to help cater for a crowd of 14000 faithful parishioners, then something doesn’t weigh up.

 

[Greg_N]

Never, I think they are a very rare species!

My dad was one in his old parish.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

It would not be impossible, it would just take an extended period of time, no need for hyperbole. In the context from instruction given from the Vatican here, here and from here, I think it can be determined that as long as it did not become a frequent occurrence it may at times be permissible. If you cannot find another priest to help cater for a crowd of 14000 faithful parishioners, then something doesn’t weigh up.

They well have another priest or two but given that a priest has to be given a disputation to celebrate more than two Masses a day, I doubt that they are used. And yes it can be impossible because the Masses can run into each other…especially parking can be one a problem…

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

I notice you did not comment on my earlier post regarding NECESSITY so I will repeat my comments.
We have 14,000 parishioners and a Sunday Mass attendance of 80% and also well attended weekday Masses.
To accommodate all who attend Mass on Sundays our parish Church has 10 Masses. This would be impossible without using EMHC’s to help distribute Communion.
The use of EMHC’s for us is necessary or are you suggesting that nobody should receive Communion?

To be fair, Elizabeth has said EMHC’s are not an abuse. Although the number might be a problem with her, I don’t know. I have more of a problem with those that don’t believe any should ever be used even though that is clearly not what the church says. And then they use snippets to try justify their view…

 

[thistle]

It would not be impossible, it would just take an extended period of time, no need for hyperbole. In the context from instruction given from the Vatican here, here and from here, I think it can be determined that as long as it did not become a frequent occurrence it may at times be permissible. If you cannot find another priest to help cater for a crowd of 14000 faithful parishioners, then something doesn’t weigh up.

Are you joking? 10 Masses on a Sunday , the first one at 5.30 am and the last at 8.30 pm and you want the time to be extended. You obviously have no clue!!!

 

[thistle]

To be fair, Elizabeth has said EMHC’s are not an abuse. Although the number might be a problem with her, I don’t know. I have more of a problem with those that don’t believe any should ever be used even though that is clearly not what the church says. And then they use snippets to try justify their view…

I agree with you. The Church permits EMHC’s so anyone who states they should not be used is being disobedient to the Church.

 

[Bergon]

My dad was one in his old parish.

Does his current parish not permit him to serve the Church in this ministry?

 

[Aramis]

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?

There is a danger, recognized even in the 1800’s…

Irreverence. It’s just as easy to be irreverent kneeling as standing.

The use of a communion rail does speed up the process, but can lead to a rushed approach to reception, in that some priests tried to be communing a person ever 5 seconds - just long enough to say the words, and not long enough to wait for a response.

Note that communion standing, if done in the same “line 'em up, and pop down the line” isn’t any slower… but would seem much more irreverent.

The individual approaching singly is normative in the Byzantine rite, and has been for over a millennium. It’s about the same speed as for the Roman when standing - about 20-60 seconds per person, depending upon a number of factors, and about 40-120 sec with individual kneeling.

The rapid fire assembly line approach wasn’t (and isn’t) more reverent than individual approach, and didn’t do anything to prevent abuses. After all, some of the least (and most) reverent reception I’ve seen has been at an LCMS Lutheran parish - reception kneeling, under both species, at the communion rail. It was fast - and one priest emphasized the fast portion, jamming hosts into communicants’ mouths as fast as he could without picking them up 2+ at a time. Another was insistent on reverence… and was no faster than individual approach, leaving time for a response, and reverent consumption. It’s not just a Catholic issue - Lutherans, especially LCMS, have a belief in the real presence of Christ in the communion, and some priests in the CC are of the “assembly line” model, and others of the reverence model.

 

[Greg_N]

I agree with you. The Church permits EMHC’s so anyone who states they should not be used is being disobedient to the Church.

The Church has stated, as instruction, that; “habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass" is to be "avoided and eliminated where such have emerged in particular Churches”.
It is not to be a frequent occurrence, and if you do approve of such an occurrence becoming frequent, then you are being dissident.

They well have another priest or two but given that a priest has to be given a disputation to celebrate more than two Masses a day, I doubt that they are used. And yes it can be impossible because the Masses can run into each other…especially parking can be one a problem…

Annabelle, I’m not suggesting habitual concelebration (as that too, is not the norm), rather I’m implying that other Priests (whence should be available) fill the role of either Deacon and/or Sub Deacon; so as to ensure they are present to distribute the Sacred Species accordingly.

The key thing I’m trying to emphasise here (in defence of my disinclination toward EMHC’s) it that the Eucharist is truly the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, *The *Gift from God Par Excellence; and the truth of this reality cannot be stressed enough. It is the fulcrum on which the entire body of the Church depends, and so must be dealt with in utmost reverence and veneration at all times. Am I wrong to echo the Church and proclaim that it is indeed the priests duty to administer the Eucharist to the faithful? The priest who acts in Persona Christi, must even himself grip the Sacred Species in a particular manner following the ceremonial washing of the hands (not intended for reasons of hygiene) but to constitute the ritual ablution, signifying increased solemnity and spiritual cleansing. Blessed Pope John Paul II in Dominicae Cenae states:

“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”.

So at what point do EMHC’s get this privilege?

They never did… and that is why they are called Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion; they are are to be used only in Extraordinary circumstances, they do not have the privilege of the ordained and they are NOT to become a frequent addition to the Mass (as clearly outlined by instruction from the Church).

 

[hansard]

Turning to the original thrust of the thread:

I teach in a large-ish Catholic high school in Australia (about 950 students, 70 staff). We have to have Mass in the gym; neither local church could accommodate us. Even when I was a student at the school back in the mid-80s (before the gym was built), they had to bus us down for separate masses.

Anyway, to the point of the ministers: we have about 6 students assisting with Communion, as well as 3 or 4 lay teachers. We only have an hour or so to get it all done and get students back to class, so the extra numbers certainly help. With those extra ministers, Communion is over quite quickly.

By the way, they are always called simply “Ministers of Holy Communion” in the school (whether they are lay teachers or students). The students do a short course before they are eligible. Do we need to add the “extraordinary” to their title?

 

[Greg_N]

Turning to the original thrust of the thread:

I teach in a large-ish Catholic high school in Australia (about 950 students, 70 staff). We have to have Mass in the gym; neither local church could accommodate us. Even when I was a student at the school back in the mid-80s (before the gym was built), they had to bus us down for separate masses.

Anyway, to the point of the ministers: we have about 6 students assisting with Communion, as well as 3 or 4 lay teachers. We only have an hour or so to get it all done and get students back to class, so the extra numbers certainly help. With those extra ministers, Communion is over quite quickly.

By the way, they are always called simply “Ministers of Holy Communion” in the school (whether they are lay teachers or students). The students do a short course before they are eligible. Do we need to add the “extraordinary” to their title?

A fellow aussie!

The answer to your question is yes; the proper title is specifically Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.

Vatican Instruction states:

§This function is supplementary and extraordinary (101) 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.

 

[Sirach2]

Greg_N:

The Church has stated, as instruction, that; “habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass" is to be "avoided and eliminated where such have emerged in particular Churches”.
It is not to be a frequent occurrence, and if you do approve of such an occurrence becoming frequent, then you are being dissident.

Same old drumbeat, huh Greg? Even though it’s been refuted, you still prefer your own opinion over that of the Church. As for dissidence, what type of sin do you attribute to our clergy and brothers/sisters who are EMHC’s? Mortal? Venial? Omission? Would you condemn them all to hell-fire because “you” despise this ministry? What about the sin of rash judgment that you are oblivious of with regard to your condemnation, not only mentally, but verbally in every post on this thread. You wrap it all up in a neat proliferation of documents that are taken out of context with regard to existing lawlful permissions in order to back up your agenda posting…including this one:

Blessed Pope John Paul II in Dominicae Cenae states:

“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”.

You conveniently omitted His Eminence’s very next sentence which I posted for you earlier: [and which was totally ignored]

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. *

 

[Greg_N]

You conveniently omitted His Eminence’s very next sentence which I posted for you earlier: [and which was totally ignored]

Why have I consistently sourced the document if I expected others not to read it? I’m not quoting the document out of context either, are you denying that “To touch the sacred species, and to distribute them with their own hands, is a privilege of the ordained” ?