Extraordinary Ministers

[NewEnglandPriest]

That’s no excuse. When we have extra concelebrants or assisting deacons at our parish, if all of the scheduled EMHCs come up, either the MC or celebrant simply waves them off. They understand their role, so there are no hard feelings. Actually, at midnight Mass, we had lots of priests, and all the EMHCs came up. Far from having hard feelings, they were overjoyed that their assistance was no longer needed!

In an ideal world you’d be correct. But some people can be rather touchy about arranging their weekend schedules to be free to serve at a particular Mass only to be “waved off” at the last minute. I wouldn’t blame a pastor for sitting down on a one time occasion to show respect for those who make time in their busy schedules to serve at Mass.

While I know many EMHCs who would be understanding about being “waved off” due to last minute circumstances I also know that they wouldn’t be “overjoyed.”

 

[Fink]

While I know many EMHCs who would be understanding about being “waved off” due to last minute circumstances I also know that they wouldn’t be “overjoyed.”

Whats more important: respect for peoples egos, or respect for the Sacred Species?

Do EMHC`s do it to help the priest, or because it gives them a kick?

 

[mcmitton]

I agree with you entirely, leroy656.

I was an ex Anglo-Catholic in the Church of England for over 50 years, I am now a Roman Catholic in the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham.

The main reason that I ‘defected’ to Rome was the gross liberality now being practiced in the Church of England, with regard to women priests (soon bishops), divorcees, abortion etc, to the detriment of the essentials of faith.

The Church of England has its own version of EMs but they are not the accepted norm and are only used where the situation demands it.

I believe that we should not compromise nor abuse the tenets of our faith (and, for that matter, Canon Law) by pandering to increasingly-trendy liberality.

It is my sincere prayer that Roman Catholicism does not go the way of the Church of England.

In many churches the solemnity of the Mass has been significantly eroded.

As you may have gathered, I am a traditionalist at heart but I assure Ibo that my concerns will never affect the essentials of my faith.

Lifequest, I too left the anglican communion in the 1970’s here in the USA. The revised liturgy, forms 1, 2, and 3, female ministers [how can I call them priests?], and other deviations just called me to leave. These forms of liturgy were weaker and weaker language and deference to God, so much so that one of the forms I called the “Howdy, God” liturgy. Unfortunately, I was unchurched for 10 years, and the remainder of my journey is another long story. Thanks be to God, I found my way to the Catholic Church in 2000, the Holy Spirit pushing me along the path and the prayers of the unknown to help me.

To the remainder of this thread, I welcome the revised Roman Missal English edition, and its more faithful translation. And I agree we must hold fast to the tenets, rubrics, and practice of our Catholic liturgy and faith.

 

[Melchior_1]

The objection that Extraordinary Ministers shouldn’t be used because unless the situation is “extraordinary” doesn’t quite wash when you consider we also have the Extraordinary Form.

 

[benedictgal]

The objection that Extraordinary Ministers shouldn’t be used because unless the situation is “extraordinary” doesn’t quite wash when you consider we also have the Extraordinary Form.

I find this not to be a good analogy.

Regarding the use of “extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion”, Redemptionis Sacramentum states that:

[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

[156.] This function is to be understood strictly according to the name by which it is known, that is to say, that of extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, and not “special minister of Holy Communion” nor “extraordinary minister of the Eucharist” nor “special minister of the Eucharist”, by which names the meaning of this function is unnecessarily and improperly broadened.

[157.] If there is usually present a sufficient number of sacred ministers for the distribution of Holy Communion, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not be appointed. Indeed, in such circumstances, those who may have already been appointed to this ministry should not exercise it. The practice of those Priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distributing Communion and hand this function over to laypersons.258

[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.259 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.

The Extraordinary Form of the Mass is an entirely different matter altogether. It is one form of the same rite.

 

[Phemie]

The objection that Extraordinary Ministers shouldn’t be used because unless the situation is “extraordinary” doesn’t quite wash when you consider we also have the Extraordinary Form.

I’m not sure I understand your comment. Extraordinary just means ‘not the norm’ – in both cases it’s not the norm. The norm is for the priest or deacon to give Communion and the norm is for the celebration of the Paul VI form of Mass.

The situation need not be ‘extraordinary’ to use an EMHC.

You cannot consider it an extraordinary situation when a parish that gives Communion under both kinds on a regular basis has no deacon and only one priest but it still requires the use of at least one Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion.

 

[Elena_26]

I have a lot of issues with this, which is why I go to a more orthodox Roman Catholic church. That way I don’t fall into an occasion of sin by being critical. However, I don’t agree that this is a minor or trivial issue. I have seen abuses that make me upset, because we are talking about Our Lord here. He has put Himself under our care, and we should protect and honor Him. Watch a Mass from Rome with our Holy Father. Think of the multitude of people, yet how is the Most Holy communion distributed? Something to research and think about.
Anyway, here’s a link
ewtn.com/expert/answers/EMCs.htm
This won’t satisfy you with a concrete answer though.
The determination of when to use is discretionary to the priest.
However, the extraordinary ministers need to be trained. They are taking on a very serious responsibility. I should makes tremble in awe and fear of the Lord.
I am radical about this I admit it, but like I said it’s the Lord of Glory that we are talking about here…
One of the Fatima prayers: “Holy Trinity, My God I love you in the Most Blessed Sacrament.” I think this something in which all of us can agree

 

[Love_Divine]

In an ideal world you’d be correct. But some people can be rather touchy about arranging their weekend schedules to be free to serve at a particular Mass only to be “waved off” at the last minute.

Then those individuals should not be EMHCs. EMHCs are supposed to be used on very rare occasions, not every Sunday as they are used now. Priests are the only Eucharistic Ministers, and the ordinary minister of Holy Communion. All these other people are unneccesary, and should be humble enough to recognize this.

I wouldn’t blame a pastor for sitting down on a one time occasion to show respect for those who make time in their busy schedules to serve at Mass.

I would, given that doing so is REPROBATED

From ***INSTRUCTION Redemptionis Sacramentum On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist

---

[157.] If there is usually present a sufficient number of sacred ministers for the distribution of Holy Communion, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not be appointed. Indeed,** in such circumstances, those who may have already been appointed to this ministry should not exercise it.** The practice of those Priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distributing Communion and hand this function over to laypersons.[258]

[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.[259] 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.**

Note the word that was used was “reprobated”. This is significant. It’s not just a fancy word for “not permitted”.

Rep·ro·bate
n.

1. A morally unprincipled person.
2. One who is predestined to damnation.
   adj.
3. Morally unprincipled; shameless.
4. Rejected by God and without hope of salvation.
   tr.v. rep·ro·bat·ed, rep·ro·bat·ing, rep·ro·bates
   1. To disapprove of; condemn.
5. To abandon to eternal damnation. Used of God.

While I know many EMHCs who would be understanding about being “waved off” due to last minute circumstances I also know that they wouldn’t be “overjoyed.”

Then they have their own issues they need to work out. This is the problem with this incorrect understanding of “active participation”.

 

[MusicMan]

Some thoughts here:

1.) An extraordinary minister of Holy Communion is not a person, it is not a title, it is not an office. It is a duty that can be performed by a lay person at Mass should there be, in the judgement of the celebrant, an insufficient number of ordained ministers to distribute.

2.) The priest proclaiming the Gospel does not need a title, and certainly not one that says “extraordinary,” as we have come to use this term to mean: “outside the ordained,” or “outside the norm.” A priest proclaiming the Gospel is done by the power of his ordination to the Diaconate. There is no need to “highlight” this or bring awareness to the abnormalness of it, unless you are making a case for wider vocation to the Permanent Married Diaconate.

3.) Along with that, the gratuitous slapping of titles on to things that do not carry them or do not merit them is what got us into this mess. The egos of humans are frail. Referring to people distributing Communion as “Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion” makes them important, no matter how much catechesis is done on the matter. Thus, a title such as “Extraordinary Lector of Reading the Readings” would create yet another unmerited ego boost for the faithful.

By and large, this website and its membership prattle on and on about how the line between the ordained and the laity is being blurred out of existence. Yet, the things we do, the behaviors we engage in, the way we fight for things is actually making it worse.

Leave the uninstalled readers listed as “Reader” in the bulletin, or better omit it altogether. Go back to the term “Communion Distributor” for emHC. Rather than lead the charge to call something “this” because I read a document to say it that way, lead the charge to bring the line back. You’re not a Lector, you’re a person reading the first reading. You’re not an emHC, such a “person” or “title” doesn’t exist. You’re a servant, distributing Holy Communion.

And lastly, get off these priests who do things that may or may not be in accordance with the norms. If a priest doesn’t distribute Holy Communion, don’t come on CAF and whine about it. Fall on your knees and say, “Dear God, our celebrant is not distributing Holy Communion today. I hope he isn’t unwell. Please bring healing and succor to your servant.”

For heaven’s sake let the priests lead instead of us trying to lead them!

 

[Angel_Bradford]

Some thoughts here:

1.) An extraordinary minister of Holy Communion is not a person, it is not a title, it is not an office. It is a duty that can be performed by a lay person at Mass should there be, in the judgement of the celebrant, an insufficient number of ordained ministers to distribute.

2.) The priest proclaiming the Gospel does not need a title, and certainly not one that says “extraordinary,” as we have come to use this term to mean: “outside the ordained,” or “outside the norm.” A priest proclaiming the Gospel is done by the power of his ordination to the Diaconate. There is no need to “highlight” this or bring awareness to the abnormalness of it, unless you are making a case for wider vocation to the Permanent Married Diaconate.

3.) Along with that, the gratuitous slapping of titles on to things that do not carry them or do not merit them is what got us into this mess. The egos of humans are frail. Referring to people distributing Communion as “Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion” makes them important, no matter how much catechesis is done on the matter. Thus, a title such as “Extraordinary Lector of Reading the Readings” would create yet another unmerited ego boost for the faithful.

By and large, this website and its membership prattle on and on about how the line between the ordained and the laity is being blurred out of existence. Yet, the things we do, the behaviors we engage in, the way we fight for things is actually making it worse.

Leave the uninstalled readers listed as “Reader” in the bulletin, or better omit it altogether. Go back to the term “Communion Distributor” for emHC. Rather than lead the charge to call something “this” because I read a document to say it that way, lead the charge to bring the line back. You’re not a Lector, you’re a person reading the first reading. You’re not an emHC, such a “person” or “title” doesn’t exist. You’re a servant, distributing Holy Communion.

And lastly, get off these priests who do things that may or may not be in accordance with the norms. If a priest doesn’t distribute Holy Communion, don’t come on CAF and whine about it. Fall on your knees and say, “Dear God, our celebrant is not distributing Holy Communion today. I hope he isn’t unwell. Please bring healing and succor to your servant.”

For heaven’s sake let the priests lead instead of us trying to lead them!

:clapping:

 

[benedictgal]

Some thoughts here:

1.) An extraordinary minister of Holy Communion is not a person, it is not a title, it is not an office. It is a duty that can be performed by a lay person at Mass should there be, in the judgement of the celebrant, an insufficient number of ordained ministers to distribute.

2.) The priest proclaiming the Gospel does not need a title, and certainly not one that says “extraordinary,” as we have come to use this term to mean: “outside the ordained,” or “outside the norm.” A priest proclaiming the Gospel is done by the power of his ordination to the Diaconate. There is no need to “highlight” this or bring awareness to the abnormalness of it, unless you are making a case for wider vocation to the Permanent Married Diaconate.

3.) Along with that, the gratuitous slapping of titles on to things that do not carry them or do not merit them is what got us into this mess. The egos of humans are frail. Referring to people distributing Communion as “Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion” makes them important, no matter how much catechesis is done on the matter. Thus, a title such as “Extraordinary Lector of Reading the Readings” would create yet another unmerited ego boost for the faithful.

By and large, this website and its membership prattle on and on about how the line between the ordained and the laity is being blurred out of existence. Yet, the things we do, the behaviors we engage in, the way we fight for things is actually making it worse.

Leave the uninstalled readers listed as “Reader” in the bulletin, or better omit it altogether. Go back to the term “Communion Distributor” for emHC. Rather than lead the charge to call something “this” because I read a document to say it that way, lead the charge to bring the line back. You’re not a Lector, you’re a person reading the first reading. You’re not an emHC, such a “person” or “title” doesn’t exist. You’re a servant, distributing Holy Communion.

And lastly, get off these priests who do things that may or may not be in accordance with the norms. If a priest doesn’t distribute Holy Communion, don’t come on CAF and whine about it. Fall on your knees and say, “Dear God, our celebrant is not distributing Holy Communion today. I hope he isn’t unwell. Please bring healing and succor to your servant.”

For heaven’s sake let the priests lead instead of us trying to lead them!

First of all, the Church already gives us the proper titles for the laity who are performing some sort of duty during the Mass. The term is not “communion distributor”; rather, it is Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion.

Second, the circumstances have to be quite serious for the celebrant to refrain from distributing Holy Communion. Down here, there was one celebrant who consistently refrained from distributing Holy Communion even though there was nothing wrong with him. He was finally told that he had to distribute to the faithful as he is the ordinary minister of Holy Communion. The parish also had an excessive amount of EMHCs who were vested in an alb (no problem here) and a vestment that was in similar appearance to a fiddleback (in the liturgical color of the day).

Yes, the priests should lead; however, they should do so in accordance with the prescriptions, norms and rubrics as mandated by the Church. It is not so much that the laity are trying to lead them, but, sometimes, the sheep have to speak up when the shepherd starts to stray.

 

[MusicMan]

No, benedictgal, there is absolutely NO title for people who distribute Holy Communion. If we’d take a better look at the documents and stop patting ourselves on the back for finding a title where there is none, we could actually start putting an end to this mess.

 

[benedictgal]

No, benedictgal, there is absolutely NO title for people who distribute Holy Communion. If we’d take a better look at the documents and stop patting ourselves on the back for finding a title where there is none, we could actually start putting an end to this mess.

Did you not read the citation from Redemptionis Sacramentum? It does not refer to those who assist as “communion distributors.” That is what you were proposing. I was pointing out that we need to use the language that the Church gives us. The term, name, title or whatever you want to call it, “Communion distributors”, does not exist in the documents.

 

[MusicMan]

There is no title for the lay people who assist with the distribution of Holy Communion. The duty is called extraordinary minister of Holy Communion. Better to call them Communion distributor if one must title them than call them “Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion.” You’re deliberately missing my point. The Church gives us no title, only an optional duty. Stop confusing people by calling them by the duty and you’ll stop having way too damn many of them at Mass.

 

[benedictgal]

There is no title for the lay people who assist with the distribution of Holy Communion. The duty is called extraordinary minister of Holy Communion. Better to call them Communion distributor if one must title them than call them “Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion.” You’re deliberately missing my point. The Church gives us no title, only an optional duty. Stop confusing people by calling them by the duty and you’ll stop having way too damn many of them at Mass.

I am not confusing the terms. What I am objecting to is using terminology that the Church does not even use. Also, I would kindly ask that you please refrain from using such langauge as you used in your last sentence.

 

[Phemie]

Did you not read the citation from Redemptionis Sacramentum? It does not refer to those who assist as “communion distributors.” That is what you were proposing. I was pointing out that we need to use the language that the Church gives us. The term, name, title or whatever you want to call it, “Communion distributors”, does not exist in the documents.

Hmm, perhaps his point is that ‘extraordinary minister of Holy Communion’ is the name of the function and not the title of the person who performs that function. Not sure that most people make the distinction between the function and the person. Would make for an interesting philosophical debate.

 

[PJM]

=lifequest;8131095]Could I ask your opinions about the Indiscriminate, needless use of Extraordinary Ministers which appears to go directly against Rome.

I recently attended a Mass at a small urban church with a small congregation.
Two priests officiated at the Mass.
The celebrant took no part in the distribution of Holy Communion.
The other priest distributed Holy Communion with the assistance of four EMs, all female.

Extraordinary surely means means non-customary ie used only if the situation demands it.

A lot of churches, nowadays, have an all-pervasive matriarchal predominance in the parish council, its officers and church organisations.

Could it be that this abuse have evolved as part of a sop to female catholics who seem to be in the majority in the EM ranks.

***THANK YOU and WELCOME to the FORUM:thumbsup:

I have relayed the same information NUMEROUS times on this FORUM.

The problems seem to be 1. That it is nealy universal in practice 2. That folks don’t know and those who do KNOW, don’t seem to care that its against what ROME desires 3. many feel that they are EQUAl TO PRIEST IN AUTHORITY just as many vowed think they no-longer have to answer to Rome] 4.There is a liberated women aspect that gives them a false sense of equality; and LASTLY there are a GREAT many who do NOT know and think they are doing Gods will in line with Romes Approval. They are to be thanked!

For all of these reason UNLESS ROME comes out and directly forbids the practice PERIOD, it will continue unabated. Even the recent diection that priest themselves MUST clean the Challac and Cherboriiums; which was more than a hint; had little effect.

The message here was if a Priest HAS TO/ MUST clean the vessels holding Christ; then logically they too ought to be the exclusive distributiors of Christ. AMEN!

Welcome to the FORUM,

God Bless you,
Pat***

 

[DCNBILL]

***THANK YOU and WELCOME to the FORUM:thumbsup:

I have relayed the same information NUMEROUS times on this FORUM.

The problems seem to be 1. That it is nealy universal in practice 2. That folks don’t know and those who do KNOW, don’t seem to care that its against what ROME desires 3. many feel that they are EQUAl TO PRIEST IN AUTHORITY just as many vowed think they no-longer have to answer to Rome] 4.There is a liberated women aspect that gives them a false sense of equality; and LASTLY there are a GREAT many who do NOT know and think they are doing Gods will in line with Romes Approval. They are to be thanked!

For all of these reason UNLESS ROME comes out and directly forbids the practice PERIOD, it will continue unabated. Even the recent diection that priest/deacon/instituted acolyte ***themselves MUST clean the Challac and Cherboriiums; which was more than a hint; had little effect.

The message here was if a priest/deacon/instituted acolyte HAS TO/ MUST clean the vessels holding Christ; then logically they too ought to be the exclusive distributiors of Christ. AMEN!

Welcome to the FORUM,

God Bless you,
Pat

Just a slight adjustment.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Whats more important: respect for peoples egos, or respect for the Sacred Species?

Do EMHC`s do it to help the priest, or because it gives them a kick?

It’s not about “ego”, its about respect for people’s time. If people feel like their time and sacrifices aren’t respected they’ll simply stop showing up. They’ll still come to Mass but they’ll stop arranging their schedules to show up at a particular Mass “just in case they might possibly be needed, maybe.”
Of course, normally you’d just keep the extra EMHC on for the Mass and have an overabundance of them for a single Mass.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Then those individuals should not be EMHCs. EMHCs are supposed to be used on very rare occasions, not every Sunday as they are used now. Priests are the only Eucharistic Ministers, and the ordinary minister of Holy Communion.

That couldn’t be more incorrect. The Church uses the terms “ordinary” and “extraordinary” differently. They refer to individuals who do something by virtue of their office (Ordinary) or by virtue of being appointed to do it (Extraordinary).
EMHC can be used anytime there is a need for them. They can be used everyday if need be.

All these other people are unneccesary, and should be humble enough to recognize this.

How nice.

I would, given that doing so is REPROBATED

Note the word that was used was “reprobated”. This is significant. It’s not just a fancy word for “not permitted”.

The word “reprobated” is used by the Church for a few reasons. One of which is to make sure certain practices can never be assumed to obtain the force of law. Any custom that is not contrary to law that is in practice for 30 continuous years may obtain the legal status of a local custom. Thus the Church officially declares some things “reprobated” as a way of preventing them from being claimed as a legal status of local custom.

The Church does not want EMHC to be distributing communion while priests are sitting around. That is 100% correct. However, there are exceptional circumstances that occasionally lead priests to choose what on the surface might not be the best decision but one in which they are balancing other concerns.

Then they have their own issues they need to work out. This is the problem with this incorrect understanding of “active participation”.

I’ve yet to meet anyone who doesn’t have some kind of issue(s) to work out. Yes, there are problems with incorrect understandings of “active participation” but apparently there’s also well meaning people who don’t understand what the Church is actually trying to accomplish when it uses different terms.