Extraordinary Ministers

[Dan_Daly]

And what does that have to do with my statement?

A man who decides to rejects Christ’s call to the priesthood because he sees women serving as EMHCs probably mis-heard that “call.”

I just don’t think a vocation to the priesthood is all so delicate that the view of five women in pantsuits could destroy the vocation.

Show me a "traditional bishop/order/society that doesn’t have EMHCs in a large parish setting. You’ll come up with FSSP and ICKSP for societies. Now show me the bishop.

I think that the supposition on many on the CAF boards is just hilarious. People talk about what destroys/subverts/ruins vocations to the priesthood, and claim that it’s female EMHCs, altar girls, females in the sanctuary, females in the sacristy, females apparently taking over the world. Get real. Men, authentic men of the type we need as priests, can work with women just fine and never worry about women taking over their roles. They aren’t so insecure in their manhood that women EMHCs worry them. Men that can’t work with women, we don’t need as priests.

The real destroyer of vocations is Satan, and he’s having great success with his most ingenious tool, contraception. That’s what destroys vocations.

I’m a little confused on your point regarding the FSSP and ICKSP- when you say “show me the bishop” are you referring to the bishop whose diocese they operate in or the fact that they don’t have bishops of their own? In either case, I am still missing the point of the comment. Can you elaborate?

You are spot on that contraception is a huge problem and directly related to the lack of priests. However, I would suggest that if you fail to see a connection between contraception and feminism, you are missing something. Is the massive use of female servers as serious a problem as the massive use of contraception? No. However, both problems in many ways flow from the same source: the myth that women can only be “liberated” from male oppression by masculinizing themselves.

Pax Christi

 

[YoungTradCath]

I’m a little confused on your point regarding the FSSP and ICKSP- when you say “show me the bishop” are you referring to the bishop whose diocese they operate in or the fact that they don’t have bishops of their own? In either case, I am still missing the point of the comment. Can you elaborate?

You are spot on that contraception is a huge problem and directly related to the lack of priests. However, I would suggest that if you fail to see a connection between contraception and feminism, you are missing something. Is the massive use of female servers as serious a problem as the massive use of contraception? No. However, both problems in many ways flow from the same source: the myth that women can only be “liberated” from male oppression by masculinizing themselves.

Pax Christi

I agree with your second paragraph wholeheartedly, but I will attempt to relay her side relating to the first paragraph. She means to ask who the bishops are who don’t use EMHCs who also have a lot of vocations.

 

[GwenL]

I see. I guess I misunderstood the primary reasons for your comments. Mea culpa.

Whenever we use EMHCs, we should be offering “urgent prayers” for more vocations (RS no. 151), so if you ask me, I would go with a slightly less amount of EMHCs than slightly too many, since they really should be extraordinary. IDK, I think (as does the church) there’s a pretty strong link between EMHCs and vocations.

bolded part: source please? Quotes? Documents? Anything?

 

[YoungTradCath]

bolded part: source please? Quotes? Documents? Anything?

Are you serious? Are you asking why an EMHC must really be extraordinary?

 

[GwenL]

I’m a little confused on your point regarding the FSSP and ICKSP- when you say “show me the bishop” are you referring to the bishop whose diocese they operate in or the fact that they don’t have bishops of their own? In either case, I am still missing the point of the comment. Can you elaborate?

You are spot on that contraception is a huge problem and directly related to the lack of priests. However, I would suggest that if you fail to see a connection between contraception and feminism, you are missing something. Is the massive use of female servers as serious a problem as the massive use of contraception? No. However, both problems in many ways flow from the same source: the myth that women can only be “liberated” from male oppression by masculinizing themselves.

Pax Christi

I was answering MC’s statement. This thread, after all, is about EMHCs. MC implied that traditional bishops and societies don’t use EMHCs and that’s why they have a lot of vocations. FSSP and ICKSP don’t use EMHCs because the offer the TLM. I challenged him to find me a traditional bishop with many vocations who also doesn’t use EMHCs. Of course, he cannot. These bishops and societies have many vocations because they are traditional and teach what Holy Mother Church teaches, which is the truth. Period.

I strongly disagree that female servers are “masculinizing” themselves. You are laying out a fine straw man argument. This is a red herring and detracts from the real cause for the lack of vocations, which is what we should focus upon. Perhaps you could start another altar girl thread and see how many people will argue with you; this thread is about EMHCs and we really should stick to that, right?

You know, I also agree that EMHCs should be “extraordinary.” We should be using fewer of them. But I also think that this is a decision that is 100% up to the priest. He’s the guy who makes this call, based on his judgement of what would unduly extend communion time. All of our criticism of the “overuse” of EHMCs is, in the bottom line, a criticism of the priest’s judgement.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Are you serious? Are you asking why an EMHC must really be extraordinary?

Once again, we should be careful about mixing secular use of words with Church uses of those words. Extraordinary in this case means someone who performs a function through delegation/appointment or something in the law itself. Its different from the Ordinary minister who performs a function by virtue of his office.

Ordinary/Extraordinary distinctions are made in many aspects of Church life and are not limited to the EMHC “debate.”

 

[YoungTradCath]

Once again, we should be careful about mixing secular use of words with Church uses of those words. Extraordinary in this case means someone who performs a function through delegation/appointment or something in the law itself. Its different from the Ordinary minister who performs a function by virtue of his office.

I suppose if we look at the two parts of extraordinary, “extra” and “ordinary,” that makes sense.

 

[GwenL]

Are you serious? Are you asking why an EMHC must really be extraordinary?

My bolding didn’t take, sorry.

Here is MC’s statement: I think (as does the church) there’s a pretty strong link between EMHCs and vocations.

My question for him: what is your source for this statement?

 

[GwenL]

Once again, we should be careful about mixing secular use of words with Church uses of those words. Extraordinary in this case means someone who performs a function through delegation/appointment or something in the law itself. Its different from the Ordinary minister who performs a function by virtue of his office.

Ordinary/Extraordinary distinctions are made in many aspects of Church life and are not limited to the EMHC “debate.”

Exactly. I love the self-described “traditional” Catholics who have a visceral reaction to “extraordinary” ministers, even to the point of jumping lines to avoid receiving communion from them, yet think that the “extraordinary” form of the Mass should be the only form. You can’t have it both ways–you can’t make up your own definitions to suit your own feelings.

 

[promethius]

Hmmm… Maybe Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison?

When he took over from the quite liberal bishop, there was 2 seminarians, and the previous bishop took pride in saying he ordained [sic:] 3 priests during his not-too-short tenure there of about 10 years. Now, Bp. Morlino is pushing 30 seminiarians (and counting), and has between 2 and 6 new priests a year. New, young, chanting, cassock wearing, east-facing, lace wearing, (even some biretta touting priests.

Let me put it this way. Bp. Morlino ordains as many priests each year as the old bishop did in 10 years.

Oh yeah, and almost 1/3 of the seminiarians are from 2 of the most traditional parishes in the diocese. Yep. You read that right. 100+ parishes in a diocese, and 1/3 of the men come from two parishes, one of which is quite small (really, it’s pretty dang small).

If every parish had as many seminiarians as either one of these two parishes have created, we would have about 600 seminarians for our Diocese, with 100+ priests being ordained EVERY YEAR. Take a while to think about that.
(I know these numbers seem crazy, but I checked and double checked it, and it’s right.)

And that’s not even taking into account the size of the parishes. If you were counting in seminarian-per-pew-sitter, I’m sure that projection would be even higher, since one of those two is a small parish, and the other isn’t terribly big either.

With those numbers, to staff our entire diocese, we would only need 10 traditional parishes (out of 100+), and we’d have more than enough priests.

But surely being traditional doesn’t effect vocations.

You can’t argue with the numbers, Ma’am. And that’s just one diocese that I ran the numbers on.

Worshiping and teaching with a continuity to the past is the tried and true way to go.

Let’s not blame rites on that front. If we were to compare, the Koreans celebrating the OF would put your two parishes to shame, as would the africans. If we’re not arguing with the numbers, it’s not the rite that has the problem, but the West.

 

[TheMc]

My bolding didn’t take, sorry.

Here is MC’s statement: I think (as does the church) there’s a pretty strong link between EMHCs and vocations.

My question for him: what is your source for this statement?

redemptionis sacramentum

 

[TheMc]

Let’s not blame rites on that front. If we were to compare, the Koreans celebrating the OF would put your two parishes to shame, as would the africans. If we’re not arguing with the numbers, it’s not the rite that has the problem, but the West.

Yes, the Koreans may have more vocations, but the point is, traditional parishes are usually the ones with the vocations. And I would like to point out, when I say traditional parishes, I don’t mean “EF parishes.” I mean parishes that celebrate the EF well, and in accordance with the mens of the Holy Father.

 

[TheMc]

Exactly. I love the self-described “traditional” Catholics who have a visceral reaction to “extraordinary” ministers, even to the point of jumping lines to avoid receiving communion from them, yet think that the “extraordinary” form of the Mass should be the only form. You can’t have it both ways–you can’t make up your own definitions to suit your own feelings.

Actually, in their defense, I don’t think most are making up definitions. The two (EF and EMHC) actually use quite different definitions of “extraordinary.” Let’s dig a little deeper, shall we?

Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion
(Quotes from Redemptionis Sacramentum, unless noted).

[88.] It is the Priest celebrant’s responsibility to minister Communion, perhaps assisted by other Priests or Deacons; and he should not resume the Mass until after the Communion of the faithful is concluded. Only when there is a necessity may extraordinary ministers assist the Priest celebrant in accordance with the norm of law. [Read: only when absolutely necessary, see below for a fleshing out of this concept.]

[151.] Only out of true necessity is there to be recourse to the assistance of extraordinary ministers in the celebration of the Liturgy. Such recourse is …] by its very nature, is supplementary and provisional. [ie, should not be normal] Furthermore, when recourse is had out of necessity to the functions of extraordinary ministers, special urgent prayers of intercession should be multiplied that the Lord may soon send a Priest for the service of the community and raise up an abundance of vocations to sacred Orders. [And if it happens, we should pray that it stops being necessary.]

[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. [Again: Use only when absolutely necessary.] 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.[If I recall, the word "reprobated " is one of the strongest words they could have used in this context. It’s quite a serious matter.]

Summary:

• Only to be used when absolutely necessary
• If they are used, we should pray “urgent prayers” that this state of necessity cease
• If they are used unnecessarily, it’s a quite serious matter

So overall, the church envisions quite a limited usage of EMHCs.

Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite
From Pope Benedict:
In 2007: “What was sacred for prior generations, remains sacred and great for us as well, and cannot be suddenly prohibited altogether or even judged harmful.”

Summorum Pontificum: (This is quite wordy, so I’ll just summarize the points I’m trying to make. Feel free to go back to the actual document and confirm my summarization if you don’t believe it)

Art. 1: The EF must be given due honor for its venerable and ancient usage.
Art. 2: When celebrating privately, a priest may use the EF 363 days a year. (Not during the Triduum)
Art. 3: Religious communities may also use the EF, either habitually or even permanently and exlusively, if the appropriate Superiors decide.
Art. 4: When celebrating privately, the faithful can attend if they wish. [LOL!]
Art. 5: If there is a stable group asking for the EF, the pastor MUST celebrate the EF or at least allow it to be celebrated, AND ensure they aren’t marginalized for doing so.
Art. 6: Talks about theoretical readings in the vernacular which might be allowed in the future
Art. 7: If the pastor isn’t helping, take it to the bishop, and if he doesn’t, take it to Rome [That’s what I’m always saying on these forums!]
Art. 8: If a bishop is unable to help them, he should talk to Rome, and they will help the bishop help the faithful.
Art. 9: If the pastor wishes and the faithful request it, he can allow the other sacraments be celebrated in the EF, even confirmation. Clerics may also use the 1962 breviary to fulfill their obligation.
Art. 10 The bishop may even set up a parish for the EF people to have as their own.
Art. 11 and 12: beside the point for the issue at hand here.
[Cont. in the next post]

 

[TheMc]

[Cont. from the last post]
Universae Ecclesiae
(Again, summarized for easy reading)
1: The above document has helped to make the richness of the Roman liturgy more accessible to the faithful.
6: Defines OF and EF. Both are two usages of the Roman Rite, to be used alongside one another. The EF “is to be maintained with appropriate honor.”
8.1: The EF is to be considered a “precious treasure to be preserved”
8.2: The EF should be effectively guaranteed to those who ask.
13: Bishops should be in agreement with the mens (mind) of the holy father in these areas
14: The bishop is to ensure that the EF is respected
15: The pastors of churches should allow the EF to be celebrated if it is asked for.
18: Even in places of pilgrimage, the EF is to be celebrated when asked for by pilgrims.
23: Celebrating the EF privately is allowed to all priests secular and religious, and to do so, no special permission is needed in any case.
33: The Triduum can be celebrated in the EF if asked for, even if that means celebrating the Triduum rites twice in the same church (once OF, once EF)

Make note of what it does not say:
It is only to be used in cases of necessity, and with great demand
The EF is not important
The EF should not be frequently celebrated
People who wish to attend the EF should eventually be taught to like the OF
If the pastor says no, then it can’t happen.
If the bishop says no, then it can’t happen.
The Triduum can not be celebrated in the EF if it is already being celebrated in the OF at a particular church.

Clearly, the two are not equal. Can we finally put this myth to rest?

 

[GwenL]

redemptionis sacramentum

where? This is like saying “at the library”

 

[GwenL]

Actually, in their defense, I don’t think most are making up definitions. The two (EF and EMHC) actually use quite different definitions of “extraordinary.” Let’s dig a little deeper, shall we?

Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion
(Quotes from Redemptionis Sacramentum, unless noted).

[88.] It is the Priest celebrant’s responsibility to minister Communion, perhaps assisted by other Priests or Deacons; and he should not resume the Mass until after the Communion of the faithful is concluded. Only when there is a necessity may extraordinary ministers assist the Priest celebrant in accordance with the norm of law. [Read: only when absolutely necessary, see below for a fleshing out of this concept.]

[151.] Only out of true necessity is there to be recourse to the assistance of extraordinary ministers in the celebration of the Liturgy. Such recourse is …] by its very nature, is supplementary and provisional. [ie, should not be normal] Furthermore, when recourse is had out of necessity to the functions of extraordinary ministers, special urgent prayers of intercession should be multiplied that the Lord may soon send a Priest for the service of the community and raise up an abundance of vocations to sacred Orders. [And if it happens, we should pray that it stops being necessary.]

[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. [Again: Use only when absolutely necessary.] 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.[If I recall, the word "reprobated " is one of the strongest words they could have used in this context. It’s quite a serious matter.]

Summary:

• Only to be used when absolutely necessary
• If they are used, we should pray “urgent prayers” that this state of necessity cease
• If they are used unnecessarily, it’s a quite serious matter

So overall, the church envisions quite a limited usage of EMHCs.

Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite
From Pope Benedict:
In 2007: “What was sacred for prior generations, remains sacred and great for us as well, and cannot be suddenly prohibited altogether or even judged harmful.”

Summorum Pontificum: (This is quite wordy, so I’ll just summarize the points I’m trying to make. Feel free to go back to the actual document and confirm my summarization if you don’t believe it)

Art. 1: The EF must be given due honor for its venerable and ancient usage.
Art. 2: When celebrating privately, a priest may use the EF 363 days a year. (Not during the Triduum)
Art. 3: Religious communities may also use the EF, either habitually or even permanently and exlusively, if the appropriate Superiors decide.
Art. 4: When celebrating privately, the faithful can attend if they wish. [LOL!]
Art. 5: If there is a stable group asking for the EF, the pastor MUST celebrate the EF or at least allow it to be celebrated, AND ensure they aren’t marginalized for doing so.
Art. 6: Talks about theoretical readings in the vernacular which might be allowed in the future
Art. 7: If the pastor isn’t helping, take it to the bishop, and if he doesn’t, take it to Rome [That’s what I’m always saying on these forums!]
Art. 8: If a bishop is unable to help them, he should talk to Rome, and they will help the bishop help the faithful.
Art. 9: If the pastor wishes and the faithful request it, he can allow the other sacraments be celebrated in the EF, even confirmation. Clerics may also use the 1962 breviary to fulfill their obligation.
Art. 10 The bishop may even set up a parish for the EF people to have as their own.
Art. 11 and 12: beside the point for the issue at hand here.
[Cont. in the next post]

Referring to “summary” of EMHCs, you added the modifier “absolutely” and made “supplemental and provisional” into “not normal.” Neither of those descriptions (absolutely and not normal) are in RS. “Absolutely” is your personal addition with no basis in the document. “Supplementary” means “additional,” and “provisional” means “serving for the time being only.” Neither carry the implication of “not normal.”

Plus, you determined that “used when not necessary” is a “serious matter.” RS doesn’t say this. RS does say that when the priest could distribute Holy Communion and allows an EMHC to deliver in his place that is reprobated. “when not necessary” is a totally subjective judgement call.

The “extra” part of “extraordinary” for EMHCs modifies “ordinary.” This applies to their clear status as NOT being ordinary ministers of Holy Communion. Priests and deacons are ordinary ministers. Everybody else is not an ordinary minister and therefore would be an extraordinary minister. It does not describe the terms of the usage of EMHCs. The GIRM does that, supplemented by RS. Clearly, if there are sufficient ordinary ministers, you don’t need extraordinary ministers and should not use them.

I’m still waiting for the clear quotation or reference on the Church thinking that the use of EMHCs hurts vocations.

 

[TheMc]

where? This is like saying “at the library”

In the non fiction section. Mainly no. 151.

Sorry for the lack of clarity.

 

[GwenL]

In the non fiction section. Mainly no. 151.

Sorry for the lack of clarity.

My dear MC, I do think you have cause and effect backwards.

We have to resort to EMHCs because we don’t have enough deacons and priests. Every time we have to use an EMHC of course we should pray that a future priest or deacon hears the call. We need more priests and deacons because we need more priests and deacons, not so that we can replace EMHCs. You might propose that using EMHCs causes the lack of vocations; but you cannot prove it. It does fit nicely with the story line, though, doesn’t it?

There is nothing in RS 151 that says using (or even overusing) EMHCs has a negative impact on vocations.

All of this argument about EMHCs and vocations is a distraction from the real cause of the vocation crisis, and that is the contraceptive mentality. As an earlier poster pointed out, the Catholics in Africa (celebrating almost exclusively the OF) are booming with vocations. It is in the West that the vocation crisis exists. What’s the difference between the two? It is much bigger than your parish having one or two extra EMHCs on Sunday.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Exactly. I love the self-described “traditional” Catholics who have a visceral reaction to “extraordinary” ministers, even to the point of jumping lines to avoid receiving communion from them, yet think that the “extraordinary” form of the Mass should be the only form. You can’t have it both ways–you can’t make up your own definitions to suit your own feelings.

Indeed, when the word “extraordinary” is thought of in the common sense then it would be a contradiction to apply it differently. However, the EF of Mass and EMHC are regulated in very different ways.