Extraordinary Ministers

[frommi]

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.

That’s an oversimplification.

While true that the emhc exists because we don’t have enough priests in many places, it is still a legitimate ministry that the laity are empowered to undertake in many situations.

The idea of praying for vocations so we don’t have any more emhcs is sort of twisting prayer for personal opinion I think.

We need priests, but don’t we need them for about 8000 reasons that are more important that making sure that Betty from Ypsilanti never distributes the Body of Christ at mass.

 

[Brendan]

That’s an oversimplification.

While true that the emhc exists because we don’t have enough priests in many places, it is still a legitimate ministry that the laity are empowered to undertake in many situations.

The idea of praying for vocations so we don’t have any more emhcs is sort of twisting prayer for personal opinion I think.

We need priests, but don’t we need them for about 8000 reasons that are more important that making sure that Betty from Ypsilanti never distributes the Body of Christ at mass.

Note that the priest said nothing about “praying for vocations so that we don’t have any more emhcs”

But it still remains that every prayer for vocations is a prayer that the need for extraordinary ministers is no longer there.

Unless of course one prays for “more vocations, but not too many, so Betty can still be an EMHC”

 

[Niz]

How did priests before VII and EMHCs manage in the Tridentine Rite with parishes just as large? they did, just finely i believe.

Not nearly as many people received Our Lord then,

My parish has 5,000 families, and we have a pastor, a vicar and occasionally the vocations director assists by celebrating some of the masses, But if we just used our priests for communion, that would impossible to have everyone receive before the next mass was scheduled to start. So, logistically speaking, we still need EMCH’s in our parish (usually 4, aside from the priest and deacon), we can barely complete the mass in an hour and fifteen minutes and we have 5 masses for sunday obligation at the parish church and another at the mission church. We cycle EMCH’s, so each one rarely covers more than a couple masses in any given 4 week period

 

[Walking_Home]

That’s an oversimplification.

While true that the emhc exists because we don’t have enough priests in many places, it is still a legitimate ministry that the laity are empowered to undertake in many situations.

The idea of praying for vocations so we don’t have any more emhcs is sort of twisting prayer for personal opinion I think.

.

---

Actually no----it is not twisting prayer for personal opinion. Praying for vocations—even if it is to end the use of EMHC is of benefit for the whole Church. It is indeed encouraged by the Church Herself.

As far as the proper training of EMs----how many are instructed that they are not to serve----if the situation does not call for it. How many would be willing to give up their “empowerment”.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#Chapter%20III

[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 not intended for the sake of a fuller participation of the laity but rather, by its very nature, is supplementary and provisional.[252] 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.[253]

[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]

 

[Sir_Knight]

CatholicNick;1481449:

I think they should be abolished…

Only the Consecrated hands of an Ordained Priest should ever touch Our Blessed Lord.

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

So when you become old, ill or homebound and are unable to go to church YOU WILL BE FINE with never receiving communion, or only receiving it a couple of times a year when the priest is able to make it out there instead of being able to receive weekly from a visiting EMHC?

frommi;1482102:

CatholicNick;1481449:

I think they should be abolished…

Only the Consecrated hands of an Ordained Priest should ever touch Our Blessed Lord.

That’s not even close to accurate.

The church has okayed receiving the host in the hand.

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.

Then are you saying that the Catholic Church has ERRORED in it’s teaching by allowing the faithful to touch the host?

 

[CatholicNick]

Then are you saying that the Catholic Church has ERRORED in it’s teaching by allowing the faithful to touch the host?

The allowing the faitful to touch the Host is not an infallible Dogma of the Church, it is not infallible teaching, period. Its not even a teaching, its a new ‘discipline’, the promulgation of disciplines does not fall under the catagory of Papal Infallibility, which, is what you are trying to imply that i am rejecting.

Rjs said this quite well:

It is a historical fact that the Church was resisting the idea of Communion in the hand until Catholics, actually Breaking the then church litrugical 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.

You may wish to read this Knight, it is rather interesting, and has some quotations from St.Thomas Aquinas…

cfnews.org/sacrilege.htm

First of all, Saint Thomas Aquinas taught that “out of reverence for this Sacrament, nothing touches it but what is consecrated.” Thus, he said the sacred vessels of the altar are consecrated for this holy purpose, but also, the priest’s hands are consecrated for touching this Sacrament. And St. Thomas said that it is therefore not lawful for anyone else to touch it, except to save it from desecration. (Summa, III, Q. 82. Art. 3)

 

[Sir_Knight]

Let me re-phrase the question and remove the word “teaching” …

Are you saying that the Catholic Church has errored in allowing the faithful to touch the host? Are you saying that a ‘discipline’ of the Catholic Church is wrong?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Just wanted to add …

It is a historical fact that the Church was resisting the idea of Communion in the hand until Catholics, actually Breaking the then church litrugical 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.

The Church allows things that should not be allowed in order to placate a noisy section of the liberal clergy and laity?

If the church allows something that is not right, then it has allowed the gates of hell to prevail against it – turning Christ into a liar for He said that the gates of hell would not prevail against it – Matthew 16:18.

 

[YachtsMan]

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…

Receiving in one’s hand is approved by the Church. It’s not in any way inferior to receiving on the tongue.

Given that the Church is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, what sort of respect are you paying our Lord if you suggest you know better than His Church?

If receiving in one’s hand was inferior to any way to receiving on one’s tongue, it would never have been approved by the Church – ever.

 

[lak611]

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.

No, I’m not okay with that! That is a sacrilege! I am an EMHC. At my Church, we only go into the tabernacle when the retired priest in-residence says Mass because he has bad arthritis and our tabernacle is about 20 ft. from the altar. If we do retrieve the ciborium for him, we immediately leave the altar until after he communicates. We do not go to the altar until after the priest communicates. We NEVER self-communicate. We never take Hosts out of the ciborium. The priests do that for us, then hand us the plates. We consume whatever is left of the Precious Blood, and in a reverant manner, never while walking and not right in front of the altar. After Communion, the priest always places the consecrated Hosts back into the ciborium, and unless it is the retired priest, the other priests always return the ciborium to the tabernacle. We always genuflect or bow (in the case of some of the older EMHC’s) when we pass the tabernacle on the way to the sacristy after Mass to assist the priest with the purification of the vessels.

 

[lak611]

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.

My church does not have a deacon. No, it is not a requirement that the Chalice be offered to the laity, but the Cathechism, which Pope Benedict XVI wrote as a Cardinal, recommends offering the Chalice to the laity.

 

[TimOliv]

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.

If you have one priest performing 6 weekend masses he has a serious dilemma since he is limited in the number of masses he can perform in one day…*

So your answer is to hand priestly duties to the laity? Eaaaaaasy there, Martin Luther, I think instead of putting lay bandaids on things we should be doing more to encourage vocations.

Not just more priests, but how about supporting candidates for the permanent diaconate who would be able to replace Eucharistic Ministers?

*Can. 905 ß1 Apart from those cases in which the law allows him to celebrate or concelebrate the Eucharist a number of times on the same day, a priest may not celebrate more than once a day.

ß2 If there is a scarcity of priests, the local Ordinary may for a good reason allow priests to celebrate twice in one day or even, if pastoral need requires it, three times on Sundays or holydays of obligation.

 

[Elzee]

We have 140 (and growing) EXTRAordinary ministers in my parish. We’re fairly large, but not that large.

 

[jmcrae]

I see (all too often) Eucharistic Ministers mouthing the words to the consecration and mimicking the priest’s hand movements.

At Masses with more than one priest, I’ve heard lay people chorusing along with the words of the Consecration, and with other words that are reserved only to the priests.

I suspect ignorance in this case (people hear more than one voice reciting the words, so they just automatically join in without even thinking) but I find it very distracting, even so.

I have also heard people singing along with the priest’s parts of the Mass along with him (when it is being sung), even when there is only one priest. :tsktsk:

 

[palmas85]

My church does not have a deacon. No, it is not a requirement that the Chalice be offered to the laity, but the Cathechism, which Pope Benedict XVI wrote as a Cardinal, recommends offering the Chalice to the laity.

I’m sorry that your parish doesn’t have a Deacon. I know that the Church approves of and “warmly encourages” the laity receiving the Chalice. I also know that it is not a requirement that the Chalice be offered to the laity at all

Actually, I know lot about the Church and its’ myriad of rules, rituals and beliefs. I know a whole lot about its’ history, its’ dogma and its’ doctrines. I even know that Extraordinary Ministers are not required, mandated or to be used in every Mass and are to be used only in cases of necesity. Providing the Chalice to the laity while a noble concept is not a matter of necesity, as it is not a requirement that it be done.

As to Extraordinary Ministers, .

GIRM 162. The priest may be assisted in the distribution of Communion by other priests who happen to be present. If such priests are not present and there is a very large number of communicants, the priest may call upon extraordinary ministers to assist him, e.g., duly instituted acolytes or even other faithful who have been deputed for this purpose. In case of necessity, the priest may depute suitable faithful for this single occasion.

RS 88 Only when there is a necessity may extraordinary ministers assist the Priest celebrant in accordance with the norm of law.
.
I was completely unaware that the Holy Father wrote the entire Catechism of the Catholic Church How could I have been so blind and misled?? Oh well…

But just so you don’t embarrass yourself in the future I will let you in on a little secret. Ready>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He didn’t write it.:bigyikes:

In actuality the Holy Father provided the Imprimi Potest of the current Catechism… The Imprimi Potest is a stamp of approval from a religious superior which basically gives permision for a document to be printed.

The Bishop gives the Impramatur,
The Censor gives the Nihil Obstat
The Religious Superior, in this case Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger gives the Imprimi Potest

Best wishes, bye for now.

.

 

[TimOliv]

At Masses with more than one priest, I’ve heard lay people chorusing along with the words of the Consecration, and with other words that are reserved only to the priests.

I suspect ignorance in this case (people hear more than one voice reciting the words, so they just automatically join in without even thinking) but I find it very distracting, even so.

I have also heard people singing along with the priest’s parts of the Mass along with him (when it is being sung), even when there is only one priest. :tsktsk:

Take one lay person + An alb + the privelage of distributing Holy Communion and sometimes, just sometimes you get a person who thinks they were just consecrated the Archbishop…

Those are the ones who are in their glory when they preside over Communion Services.

 

[Brendan]

My church does not have a deacon. No, it is not a requirement that the Chalice be offered to the laity, but the Cathechism, which Pope Benedict XVI wrote as a Cardinal, recommends offering the Chalice to the laity.

\

Actually, no he did not. He recommended, as does the CCC and GIRM, that the faithful be able to recieve both species.

This may be done via Intinction, which requires only one minister

This is the way that the Eastern Catholic Churches offer both species and is the prefered method

CCC

1390 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. For pastoral reasons this 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.” This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.

 

[Victorious]

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.

Actually, this is an automatically excommunicable offense.

 

[MusicMan]

So your answer is to hand priestly duties to the laity? Eaaaaaasy there, Martin Luther, I think instead of putting lay bandaids on things we should be doing more to encourage vocations.

You’re out of line here. I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t agree with Puzzleannie on all issues, but I’ll also be the first one to tell you that she’s no Martin Luther-wannabe. Puzzleannie happens to be one of the most devout and loyal Catholics on this forum. If her parish and diocese are shorthanded on priests, you can rest assured that she is the first one praying for an increase of vocations to the priesthood, and is likely on the frontlines encouraging young men to discern a call.

 

[steve_green_2]

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.

amen and AMEN !!!