Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion; When Required?

[Greg_N]

Same old drumbeat, huh Greg? Even though it’s been refuted

Also, Since when did you refute Church Instruction?

 

[Phemie]

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” ?

Nobody is denying your quote but it is disingenuous to consistently post it without the second part.

Yes the Church allows EMHCs.
Is their use abused? Of course it is.
Does that mean they should never be used? Of course not. Thistle’s parish is a perfect example of necessity.
My parish, however…

We no longer have 3 priests in residence regularly concelebrating. But we have a small parish with only two Sunday Masses – one on Saturday afternoon which rarely, if ever has 50 people in attendance, and one on Sunday morning which might have 200 people on a very good day. There was an insistence on 3 EMHCs on both Saturdays and Sundays, one to help with the Hosts and two with precious Blood.

Logistically, there is need for only 1 on Saturday, for the Precious Blood, since Father can easily and quickly distribute the Hosts to such a small number and only about 1/4 of them receive from the Chalice.

On Sunday Father can still distribute the Host by himself (that was proven when H1N1 was on the go) and two EMHCs are needed for the Chalice. There is no other Mass, ample parking, and the extra 5-7 minutes Mass might take means that the coffee lovers will still get to Tim Hortons well before the various Protestants, whose services start an hour after Mass does.

You never hear a Pentecostal moaning because the service lasted 2 hours and 10 minutes because they picked a 12 verse hymn at the end. Why are Catholics complaining because Mass takes an extra 5 minutes?

I will say that what I most often hear, in my parish and others, is not that we NEED EMHCs but that we have to INVOLVE more of the laity – as though attending Mass to worship and praise God is not enough.

 

[thistle]

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.

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).

The question is simple. Does the Church permit EHMC’s when the Bishop deems it necessary.
Yes or No???

 

[Sirach2]

The question is simple. Does the Church permit EHMC’s when the Bishop deems it necessary.
Yes or No???

A point missed by Greg in his avidity to isolate key sentences in the Instruction, is this paragraph:

In this respect the Holy Father notes that in “some local situations, generous, intelligent solutions have been sought. The legislation of the *Code of Canon Law *has itself provided new possibilities, which however, must be correctly applied, so as not to fall into the ambiguity of considering as ordinary and normal, solutions that were meant for extraordinary situations in which priests were lacking or in short supply”. (116)

Canon Law referenced by Pope John Paul II: 230 §3. When the need of the Church warrants it and ministers are lacking, lay persons, even if they are not lectors or acolytes, can also supply certain of their duties, namely, to exercise the ministry of the word, to preside offer liturgical prayers, to confer baptism, and to distribute Holy Communion, according to the prescripts of the law.
[Note: the USCCB has received a *recognito approving their guidelines for distribution of the Eucharist]

Greg has cherry-picked a portion of the Instruction without reading the whole thought of the Pontiff, simply to promote his own erroneous views as though it were law. In other documents, the Pope references nations that are blessed with abundant vocations, such as South Africa, etc. However, in the USA, there is a scarcity of vocations, which necessitates the use of EMHC’s.

Isn’t it deplorable that anyone would challenge a Bishop’s decision and flaunt a section of a document in his face as a condemnation of his authority?

 

[Greg_N]

what type of sin do you attribute to our clergy and brothers/sisters who are EMHC’s? Mortal? Venial? Omission?

I don’t condemn anyone. I pray that the Lord will act with mercy and kindness towards those who profane Him, but I also acknowledge that the Lord is just, and His ways are far beyond my ways. I will therefore continue to stress that the Most August Sacrament should be respected with utmost reverence and veneration.

Would you condemn them all to hell-fire because “you” despise this ministry?

Not only do I not despise such a ministry, but I hold it in such high regard, that I believe (in line with Church doctrine) that it is the Priest’s duty first and foremost to distribute that which is most Sacred and Holy, as God chose the Levites to carry the Ark.

In 1 Chronicles 13:6-10, the Lord strikes and kills Oza as he tries to prevent the Ark of the Covenant from falling off the wagon. Do you consider God’s actions as “too harsh”?

you are oblivious of with regard to your condemnation, not only mentally, but verbally in every post on this thread.

Quite the hot-headed accusation, I don’t believe I’ve condemned anyone? In fact, you appear to be condemning me for “condemning” others?

Here is a quote by the Venerable Bishop Fulton Sheen which I think is relevant to your “situation”:

In the face of this false broadmindedness, what the world needs is intolerance. The world seems to have lost entirely the faculty of distinguishing between good and bad, the right and the wrong. There are some minds that believe that intolerance is always wrong, because they make “intolerance” mean hate, narrow-mindedness, and bigotry. These same minds believe that tolerance is always right because, for them, it means charity, broadmindedness, and American good nature.

What is tolerance? Tolerance is an attitude of reasoned patience toward evil and a forbearance that restrains us from showing anger or inflicting punishment. But what is more important than the definition is the field of its application. The important point here is this: Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons. Tolerance applies to the erring; intolerance to the error.

Heed these words Sirach2, I am condemning the error, not the erring.

You wrap it all up in a neat proliferation of documents that are taken out of context with regard to existing lawlful permissions

The documents are not taken out of context, but I see you threw in a disclaimer at the end there: “with regard to existing lawlful permissions”.
Would you mind demonstrating how the Church documents I’ve cited have been rendered null and void “with regard to existing lawlful permissions”?

Nobody is denying your quote but it is disingenuous to consistently post it without the second part.

Sirach2 broad-brushed my claims asserting they were “refuted”, I take that as a denial of there importance. And (without trying to appear too stubborn!) I genuinely don’t take it to be too terribly disingenuous to quote the segment of the document which I find applicable to the topic, especially once you take into consideration the context of the document Dominicae Cenae] itself. Take this excerpt for instance:

But one must not forget the primary office of priests, who have been consecrated by their ordination to represent Christ the Priest: for this reason their hands, like their words and their will, have become the direct instruments of Christ. Through this fact, that is, as ministers of the Holy Eucharist, they have a primary responsibility for the sacred species, because it is a total responsibility: they offer the bread and wine, they consecrate it, and then distribute the sacred species to the participants in the assembly who wish to receive them. Deacons can only bring to the altar the offerings of the faithful and, once they have been consecrated by the priest, distribute them. 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 deny the context of the entirety of the document as Sirach2 continullay appears to do so, is showing grave lack of acknowledgement for the severity of this issue (i.e. habitual or frequent EMHC’s).

Yes the Church allows EMHCs.
Is their use abused? Of course it is.

I know we’re on the same side here (we all are), but you seem to gloss over the issue with a certain triviality…
The emphasis the Church places on the Eucharist itself; i.e. The Gift from God Par Excellence, the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, prevents me from taking this situation lightly. I’m sorry if I hurt some feelings, but there is something more important than feelings; God. [Recall Ahio who saw his brother killed for trying to prevent the Ark of the Covenant from falling by *touching it].

Does that mean they should never be used? Of course not. Thistle’s parish is a perfect example of necessity.

“Of course not” is an exaggeration; the Church instructs; "habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass" is to be “avoided and eliminated”.

 

[Greg_N]

The question is simple. Does the Church permit EHMC’s when the Bishop deems it necessary.
Yes or No???

Yes.

But “habitual” use constitutes an abuse, and is to be “avoided and eliminated”.

Was the Church wrong when instructing this?

Yes or No???

 

[Greg_N]

Greg has cherry-picked a portion of the Instruction without reading the whole thought of the Pontiff, simply to promote his own erroneous views as though it were law.

Since when is advocating the instruction of substituting (when possible) EMHC’s with Priests considered an “erroneous view”?

 

[Sirach2]

Since when is advocating the instruction of substituting (when possible) EMHC’s with Priests considered an “erroneous view”?

Your head is wrapped around this single point and you are either incapable or stubbornly resisting any efforts to help you see the Church’s view. It is useless to debate any further, and even if this is closed. I know from past experience that you will harass a person via PM. Very opinionated for such a young person.

 

[thistle]

Yes.

But “habitual” use constitutes an abuse, and is to be “avoided and eliminated”.

Was the Church wrong when instructing this?

Yes or No???

The answer is yes they should be avoided and eliminated if there is no necessity to have them so I agree with the Church instruction.
However, in the case of our parish the necessity is ongoing. Approx 11,000 people attending 10 Masses at our parish Church every Sunday cannot be handled by the priest.

 

[Greg_N]

The answer is yes they should be avoided and eliminated if there is no necessity to have them so I agree with the Church instruction.
However, in the case of our parish the necessity is ongoing. Approx 11,000 people attending 10 Masses at our parish Church every Sunday cannot be handled by the priest.

I agree, but as I said to Annabelle; 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 - and If you can’t find another priest in an area which claims 14000(10000?) faithful parishioners, then something doesn’t weigh up.

 

[Sirach2]

The answer is yes they should be avoided and eliminated if there is no necessity to have them so I agree with the Church instruction.
However, in the case of our parish the necessity is ongoing. Approx 11,000 people attending 10 Masses at our parish Church every Sunday cannot be handled by the priest.

Necessity is the determination of the Lcoal Ordinary in every diocese. Greg would limit the use of EMHC’s in every conceivable situation, regardless. He ignores these canons:

Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth.** By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.**

Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

 

[Greg_N]

Your head is wrapped around this single point and you are either incapable or stubbornly resisting any efforts to help you see the Church’s view. It is useless to debate any further, and even if this is closed. I know from past experience that you will harass a person via PM. Very opinionated for such a young person.

There is nothing to debate about; EHMC’s are an indult which need to be duly regulated and permitted only when utterly necessary.
Also, I never harassed you through PM, in fact I discontinued any further contact once you told me you no longer wished to speak with me.

 

[Greg_N]

Necessity is the determination of the Lcoal Ordinary in every diocese. Greg would limit the use of EMHC’s in every conceivable situation, regardless. He ignores these canons:

Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth.** By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.**

Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

What are you doing Sirach? How can you say that?

Please tell me where I have been disobedient to the Church…