Extraordinary Ministers

  • Thread starter Thread starter TimOliv
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CatholicNick said:
I think they should be abolished…

Only the Consecrated hands of an Ordained Priest should ever touch Our Blessed Lord.
Click to expand...
That’s not even close to accurate.

The church has okayed receiving the host in the hand.
 
kleary said:
Abolished for liturgical use - YES. Everything happening on the Liturgy must show our Catholic Faith - it is called Lex Orendi - Lex Credendi.

A lay person distributing Holy Communion does not show any Catholic Doctrine whatsoever and can be confused with Protestant Heresy due to previous church teaching that taught of the sacreligiousness of lay people touching the Sacred Host.

When they came out with “Ex Mins” and Communion in the hand they said it was to express our own “priesthood”.

Abolished for bringing Holy Communion to the sick - also YES. The priests need to get off their duffs and do what they are supposed to do! They even have two days of communion services at a local parish here so that the priest can have two days off!!! So Holy Mass is abolished for those two days at the parish.

And at my parish THERE ARE NO EXTRAORDINARY MINISTERS. Father runs everywhere doing sick calls himself and bringing Holy Communion- and also distributing It Himself at the communion rail every day and twice on Sunday! To a PACKED CONGREGATION as well.

THEY ARE NOT NEEDED!!! Not needed at all.

Ken
Click to expand...
Does your parish also give the Precious Blood to the faithful? If there are no other priests or any deacons, I don’t think it would be possible without EMHC’s.
 
I think it must not be abolished but the use of the name Extraordinary minister of the Holy Eucharist must be stopped!!

And one more thing, the must be well taught of the Eucharist because ive seen some one who dont know how to show reverence to the Blessed Sacrament.
 
viktor_aleksndr said:
I think it must not be abolished but the use of the name Extraordinary minister of the Holy Eucharist must be stopped!!

And one more thing, the must be well taught of the Eucharist because ive seen some one who dont know how to show reverence to the Blessed Sacrament.
Click to expand...
As far as the name, I really don’t know what else they could be called because “Ordinary Minister” is a priest or deacon.

As for training, yes I agree! You are 100% correct on that.👍
 
lak611 said:
As for training, yes I agree! You are 100% correct on that.👍
Click to expand...
You mean you’re not okay with extraordinary ministers self-communicating, administering priestly blessings, and scooping Hosts out of the ciborium like they’re delving into a bowl of chips? (Not to mention pouring the Sacred Species down the sacrarium?) Such a lack of charity and tolerance.
 
I believe any baptized person can give a blessing and pouring consecrated species down the sacrarium is exactly what should be done with it if it isn’t supposed to be reserved. That’s the purpose of a sacrarium. I’m not so sanguine about diving into them like their chips, unless the intent is to consume them after the faithful have received, then I suppose it’s OK, though proper reverence should be shown.
 
TimOliv said:
Anyone else think that its a position that just needs to be abolished?
Click to expand...
let’s see, one priest, 6 weekend Masses, plus one or two more if there is a funeral or wedding on Saturday and youth Mass, Mass at nursing home or hospital on Sunday, several thousand communicants, no I do not think it is unreasonable that suitable lay persons be chosen, prepared and commissioned to assist him in this ministry.
 
a_cermak said:
I believe any baptized person can give a blessing and pouring consecrated species down the sacrarium is exactly what should be done with it if it isn’t supposed to be reserved. That’s the purpose of a sacrarium. .
Click to expand...
no it is not. the consecrated blood must always be consumed and never be poured out. the only conceivable reason for doing so would be if it became contaminated to the extent of being undrinkable, in which case it should be diluted to the extent that it is no longer recognizable as the accidents of wine, and then poured in the sacrarium. The purpose of the sacrarium is to pour water that has been used to purify chalices, rinse purificators etc. directly into the earth. It is not to be used for the consecrated species that are still identifiable by their accidents as bread and wine.

any baptized person may give a blessing proper to the laity, but only a priest or deacon may give blessings reserved to the ordained.
 
a_cermak said:
I believe any baptized person can give a blessing and pouring consecrated species down the sacrarium is exactly what should be done with it if it isn’t supposed to be reserved. That’s the purpose of a sacrarium…
Click to expand...
The 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum explains clearly that pouring the Precious Blood down the sacrarium is wrong and serious:

"[107.] In accordance with what is laid down by the canons, “one who throws away the consecrated species or takes them away or keeps them for a sacrilegious purpose, incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; a cleric, moreover, may be punished by another penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state”.
[Footnote 194: Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1367.]
"To be regarded as pertaining to this case is any action that is voluntarily and gravely disrespectful of the sacred species. Anyone, therefore, who acts contrary to these norms,** for example casting the sacred species into the sacrarium** or in an unworthy place or on the ground, incurs the penalties laid down.
[Footnote 195: Cf. Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, Response to dubium, 3 July 1999: AAS 91 (1999) p. 918.]
“Furthermore all will remember that once the distribution of Holy Communion during the celebration of Mass has been completed, the prescriptions of the Roman Missal are to be observed, and in particular, whatever may remain of the Blood of Christ must be entirely and immediately consumed by the Priest or by another minister, according to the norms, while the consecrated hosts that are left are to be consumed by the Priest at the altar or carried to the place for the reservation of the Eucharist.
[Footnote 196: Cf. Missale Romanum, Institutio Generalis, nn. 163, 284.]”

The purpose of the sacrarium is explained in the 2002 General Introduction to the Roman Missal (GIRM) which can be accessed from romanrite.com/girm.html :

“280. If a host or any particle should fall, it is to be picked up reverently. If any of the Precious Blood is spilled, the area where the spill occurred should be washed with water, and this water should then be poured into the sacrarium in the sacristy.”

And: “334. The practice is to be kept of building a sacrarium in the sacristy, into which are poured the water from the purification of sacred vessels and linens (cf. above, no. 280).”
 
lak611 said:
Everyone seems to be forgetting a couple of things. First, prior to Vatican II, there were a lot more priests. With the priest shortage, there are many parishes that only have one priest, some that don’t even have one (they have to have a guest priest come to say Mass) not the 3 or 4 that they used to have. Also, if the Precious Blood is to be received by the faithful, this necessitates EMHC’s. My parish distributes the Precious Blood to the faithful at all Masses. I also don’t think that practice will change since the Cathecism says that "Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. . . (T)his manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But ‘the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly.’ " 1390 Cathecism of the Catholic Church. Our current Pope Benedict XVI wrote most of the Catechism, so he approves of communion under both kinds.
Click to expand...
Many parishes do not extend the Chalice at all and still have hoardes of Extraordinary Ministers floating around. Many parishes have Deacons these days in fact it appears to me that most do. They could easily handle the Chalice.

Just for info there is no requirement that the Chalice be offered to the laity. It is an option only and not a requirementin any sense of the word.
 
frommi said:
The church has okayed receiving the host in the hand.
Click to expand...
And you actually think that recieveing in the hand is a good thing?

Who are we (the laity) to even think about touching Our Lourd with our hands? It shows a much greater respect of Our Lord if we do not handle the host at all, and let the Priest give it to us on the tounge, it also is an act of humility on our part.

Also, every single particle and mollecule of that host is Our Lord himself, fully, body, blood, soul and divinity. In the Old Rite, the Priest keeps his thumb and forefinger pinched from the moment of the consecration of the Host, even when he elevates the Chalice. This was to ensure not even one particle of Our Lord is desecrated.

Notice the diagram - cfnews.org/chalice.jpg

Think a seccond, how many particles of the Host is lost when someone takes the Lord into their unclean, un-Consecrated hands. Its Sacrilage.

We wonder why belief in the Real Presence has plumemted? Who would believe the Host to be Our Lord himself if it is handled like a ‘simple wafer’ touched by anyone. In the Old Rite, only an Ordained Priest would ever touch Our Lord, and great reverence was shown to the Host in the ruberics of the Mass. Some may think this is irrelevnt, but it makes a difference.

cfnews.org/sacrilege.htm (good read)
 
CatholicNick, whoah there Nelly. If you think our hands are unclean and unconsecrated then what must our mouths and tongues be??? :bigyikes: Newsflash - they ain’t any more clean nor any more consecrated than our hands.

I agree that a lot of churches do have far too many Extraordinary Ministers and that a significant number of them take liberties and show disrespect at times. With all respect, though, it’s a chicken and egg argument as to whether the times they were raised in prouced a less reverential attitude leading to changes in rubrics and procedures or whether it was in fact the other way around.

Looking at how many other social institutions changed alongside Catholic liturgy in the post-Vatican 2 period I’m leaning towards the latter.
 
CatholicNick said:
And you actually think that recieveing in the hand is a good thing?

Who are we (the laity) to even think about touching Our Lourd with our hands? It shows a much greater respect of Our Lord if we do not handle the host at all, and let the Priest give it to us on the tounge, it also is an act of humility on our part.
)
Click to expand...
who are we as the laity to think we know more and are more qualified to establish rules governing Mass and the Sacraments than the Church? The reasons for it may not be to our liking and sensibilities but the fact remains that in this country reception in the hand has been permitted. that does not require one to receive in the hand if they prefer to receive on the tongue but it does not mean someone who does receive in the permitted matter is committing sacrilege, so please do not accuse others of sinnning when you have no authority to do so.

the true humility is in accepting all the laws, disciplines and doctrines of the Catholic Church, including the Scripture translations, order of the Mass, and anything else that conflicts with our personal preferences or childhood memories.

yes, the use of EMHCs can be inappropriate, their training and execution may be lax, poorly supervised or improper. any good thing can be abused. Marriage is one of the most frequently abused–should we abolish it for that reason?
 
A priest once reminded us that every prayer for vocations to the clergy is a prayer for that particular ministry to end.

The role of the EMHC exists not as some empowerment to the laity, but rather due to the shortage of clergy.
 
puzzleannie said:
who are we as the laity to think we know more and are more qualified to establish rules governing Mass and the Sacraments than the Church? The reasons for it may not be to our liking and sensibilities but the fact remains that in this country reception in the hand has been permitted. that does not require one to receive in the hand if they prefer to receive on the tongue but it does not mean someone who does receive in the permitted matter is committing sacrilege, so please do not accuse others of sinnning when you have no authority to do so.

the true humility is in accepting all the laws, disciplines and doctrines of the Catholic Church, including the Scripture translations, order of the Mass, and anything else that conflicts with our personal preferences or childhood memories.
Click to expand...
It is a historical fact that the Church was resisting the idea of Communion in the hand until Catholics, actually BREAKING THE THEN CHURCH LITURGICAL LAWS, started receiving Holy Communion in the hand and then later insisted that this was what the people wanted. The same thing happened with regards to altar girls.
In other words, sometimes the Church allows things, that ideally should not be allowed, in order to placate a noisy section of the liberal clergy and laity.
It can be argued that this should not be the way things happen, but unfortunately it is in the current Church climate.
As an instituted acolyte and an usher at a large metropolitan Cathedral I can assure you that the abuses surrounding the distribution of Holy Communion are a scandal screaming to Heaven for redress. The way Our Blessed Lord is treated in the Blessed Sacrament when it comes to Holy Communion is appalling. I honestly believe that this is one of the most urgent scandals that the Church has to deal with in our time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top