Extraordinary Ministers

[TimOliv]

I’ve never been in battle, but as I understand it, if you are in the middle of a battle and you are given an order, you either obey it, or else you get shot. (This is what my step father tells me - he is a veteran of the Burma Star battle against the Japanese in WWII.)

They don’t have time for the niceties of legal order in the middle of battle.

The situation with your keys doesn’t sound like it happened in the heat of enemy fire.

Mass would be the equivalent of being in battle, in the heat of enemy fire. This is where we are actively engaged in destroying Satan. In Mass, you do as you’re told.

You can ask questions and quote from documents after the Mass is over, but I would never argue with a priest right in the middle of Mass, no matter what I was thinking inside.

Once again, in the heat battle, you are still bound by those little niceties of legal order, whether you like it or not.

If, in the heat of battle, you are ordered to, say, kill an unarmed man, you are required to defy the order. If you are ordered to, perhaps, steal while clearing a town or village, you are required to defy the order.

Let’s take it to a less severe stage. Let’s say you are in Lebanon, right now, present day. And you come under attack so your ROTC enabled leader tells you to steal clothing from a clothesline, disguise yourself, and evade your attackers. He has just ordered you to committ a crime, you cannot do it.

And also, the US Military has quite the justice system, and if anyone ever told your step-father to do something or be shot, that person who told him such was violating the UCMJ. Only the soviet military gets to shoot you in the field, the US court martials. (Note there are LIMITED exceptions to that)

 

[jmcrae]

So you would stand there and argue with your commanding officer while the enemy are surrounding you and killing as many of you as they can see?

Don’t you think they would hear the shouting, and come over and kill you both?

 

[PopePaddy]

Mass would be the equivalent of being in battle, in the heat of enemy fire. This is where we are actively engaged in destroying Satan. In Mass, you do as you’re told.

You can ask questions and quote from documents after the Mass is over, but I would never argue with a priest right in the middle of Mass, no matter what I was thinking inside.

I am more apt to presume that Mass is the equivalent of Calvary, but to each his own, I suppose…

Now, as for the question of defying the “orders” of a priest during the Mass, I would like to ask you about another analogical military attribute, the chain of command. Presumably, your “superior officer” (i.e., the priest) is not going to give you an unlawful order. If he does, which are you more obligated to obey, the law or the superior?

Allow me to continue to apply the military analogy: The reason you can’t obey an unlawful order given by your superior is because he has no authority to give such orders, because the law is his superior. In fact, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, if it were a person, is the superior of everyone in the military. No one could legally order you to disobey it.

Similarly, the GIRM is the superior of everyone in the clerical state. Every priest is charged with the responsibility of upholding the GIRM, and none has the authority to supercede it. Not a priest, not a bishop, not a cardinal. A case might be make-able for the Pope, since he bears the office of “Supreme Legislator” and can pretty much enact and un-enact law as he sees fit. However, I think we can rule that out of the “usual circumstances” stipulation under which I have placed all of my comments in this thread.

So, yes, I would refuse to obey a priest, under usual circumstances, who told me to open the tabernacle. Incidentally, I think it would be unlikely that this would escalate into an argument. Most priests have enough respect for the Mass, as far as I have seen, to just shrug it off and talk it over afterwards.

Liturgical abuse is liturgical abuse. No one can make it otherwise without changing the laws of the liturgy, and no priest can do that. In fact, those laws themselves make it very clear that no priest has the authority to just change any part of the Mass for any reason. All are bound by the law.

 

[TimOliv]

So you would stand there and argue with your commanding officer while the enemy are surrounding you and killing as many of you as they can see?

Don’t you think they would hear the shouting, and come over and kill you both?

Brother, first of all, you are completely out of your element. I don’t know where you got this idea that the present day military is a like a game of “Commando.” Nor do I care where you got the notion that military officers have an authority which is above the law. The fact of the matter is, if you break the law, you go to jail. If your Officer, your Non-Com or the President tells you to break the law and you do, you are subject to prosecution. So would I argue and risk death or rather go to Leavenworth for obeying the unlawful order? Short answer, I’d rather die with honor. I cannot expect you to understand such because you have never served.

All I know is this, using the military as an arguement with me when you have never served and do not know about the UCMJ, Code of Conduct or the way the military hierarchy functions and it is simply looking ridiculous and off-topic. So if you want to continue to justify your position to me, please choose another medium.

 

[jmcrae]

The priest is also forbidden to leave the Altar as long as Jesus is on it.

He can’t be in two places at the same time. (Which is a good argument to have the Tabernacle on the Altar, but in most churches, it’s either behind the Altar, or off to one side. Or worse, in a different room altogether - so far, I haven’t seen too many churches like that, yet. But the priest would certainly be forbidden to leave the room during Mass, I should think.)

So, either he leaves the EMHCs alone at the Altar with Jesus still on it (which is forbidden), or he sends one of the EMHCs to get the previously consecrated hosts out of the Tabernacle (which is also forbidden but most people don’t know that).

Either way, he’s breaking the law.

 

[TimOliv]

The priest is also forbidden to leave the Altar as long as Jesus is on it.

He can’t be in two places at the same time. (Which is a good argument to have the Tabernacle on the Altar, but in most churches, it’s either behind the Altar, or off to one side. Or worse, in a different room altogether - so far, I haven’t seen too many churches like that, yet. But the priest would certainly be forbidden to leave the room during Mass, I should think.)

So, either he leaves the EMHCs alone at the Altar with Jesus still on it (which is forbidden), or he sends one of the EMHCs to get the previously consecrated hosts out of the Tabernacle (which is also forbidden but most people don’t know that).

Either way, he’s breaking the law.

What is your definition of leaving the altar? Where is this prohibition?

The main prohibition I see first and foremost is that a tabernacle cannot be placed on the altar.

1. It is more in keeping with the meaning of the sign that the tabernacle in which the Most Holy Eucharist is reserved not be on an altar on which Mass is celebrated.128

Consequently, it is preferable that the tabernacle be located, according to the judgment of the Diocesan Bishop,

1. Either in the sanctuary, apart from the altar of celebration, in a form and place more appropriate, not excluding on an old altar no longer used for celebration (cf. above, no. 303);
2. Or even in some chapel suitable for the faithful’s private adoration and prayer129 and which is organically connected to the church and readily visible to the Christian faithful.

 

[paramedicgirl]

In our Church, the EMHC are always getting the key to the Tabernacle and unlocking it. I didn’t realize this was forbidden. Then they do their little parade up to the sanctuary and place the previously consecrated hosts on the altar to be consumed at that Mass. Now,* that*, I knew was forbidden.

Sorry if I missed the reference to EMHC being forbidden to unlock the Tabernacle. (I have read the whole thread). Can someone please direct me to it?

 

[TimOliv]

In our Church, the EMHC are always getting the key to the Tabernacle and unlocking it. I didn’t realize this was forbidden. Then they do their little parade up to the sanctuary and place the previously consecrated hosts on the altar to be consumed at that Mass. Now,* that*, I knew was forbidden.

Sorry if I missed the reference to EMHC being forbidden to unlock the Tabernacle. (I have read the whole thread). Can someone please direct me to it?

The prohibition I was speaking of dealt with reposing the Host to the tabernacle or removing the Host from the Tabernacle.

 

[paramedicgirl]

The prohibition I was speaking of dealt with reposing the Host to the tabernacle or removing the Host from the Tabernacle.

Well, they do both those things, too. And they get offended when I refer to them as EMHC. They say there is nothing extraordinary about them!

 

[TimOliv]

Brother, first of all, you are completely out of your element. I don’t know where you got this idea that the present day military is a like a game of “Commando.” Nor do I care where you got the notion that military officers have an authority which is above the law. The fact of the matter is, if you break the law, you go to jail. If your Officer, your Non-Com or the President tells you to break the law and you do, you are subject to prosecution. So would I argue and risk death or rather go to Leavenworth for obeying the unlawful order? Short answer, I’d rather die with honor. I cannot expect you to understand such because you have never served.

All I know is this, using the military as an arguement with me when you have never served and do not know about the UCMJ, Code of Conduct or the way the military hierarchy functions is simply looking ridiculous and off-topic. So if you want to continue to justify your position to me, please choose another medium.

 

[ravenonthecross]

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.

You’re right. What the RC church needs is more vocations to the Priesthood, and the permanent diaconate, rather than extraordinary minsters. So let’s pray for more of these vocations.

 

[Sir_Knight]

You’re right. What the RC church needs is more vocations to the Priesthood, and the permanent diaconate, rather than extraordinary minsters. So let’s pray for more of these vocations.

And until that happens, what do we do with EMHC? Do we embrace them for filling a void in the church or do we let that void exist?

 

[ravenonthecross]

And until that happens, what do we do with EMHC? Do we embrace them for filling a void in the church or do we let that void exist?

I never said we shouldn’t, however they should be gradually reduced as we gain more deacons, and priests.

 

[Walking_Home]

The parish priest is responsible for the Masses that take place in his own parish. No one else. Certainly, no lay person has the right to tell the priest how to do his job.

If the Bishop thinks he’s doing something that’s out of line, then it’s the Bishop’s job to correct him. We as lay people don’t have the authority to correct a priest, though - and especially not right in the middle of Mass. As someone above pointed out, it’s probable that the priest knows something that we don’t know.

---

We actually do.-----The Church has placed that responsibility on all of us. I am not saying correct a priest right in the middle of Mass----but we do have the responsibility try to correct any and all abuses that we see happen.

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

1. Complaints Regarding Abuses in Liturgical Matters

[183.] In an altogether particular manner, let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favouritism.

[184.] Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.[290] It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.

 

[Podo2005]

Anyone else think that its a position that just needs to be abolished?

Absolutely not

 

[prv]

In our Church, the EMHC are always getting the key to the Tabernacle and unlocking it. I didn’t realize this was forbidden. Then they do their little parade up to the sanctuary and place the previously consecrated hosts on the altar to be consumed at that Mass. Now,* that*, I knew was forbidden.

Sorry if I missed the reference to EMHC being forbidden to unlock the Tabernacle. (I have read the whole thread). Can someone please direct me to it?

Parade—I like that term, in my old church, the EMHC paraded to the altar with clergy.

 

[palmas85]

Where is the idea from? The CCC (as I quoted above).

First, my quote came straight from the CCC. Are you saying that what it contains is incorrect? Or just that how *my priest *explained it to me is incorrect? If so, I guess you are saying that ***he ***is “pitiful, just pitiful”.

Second, I *never *said I (or any other lay person) am on the same level as an ordained priest, since they are the ones who act in persona Christi capitis during the mass, nor am I trying to blur the line between those who are ordained and the laity. I do not feel that I implied with my quote from the CCC that I, or any other lay person, had received ordination (also called *consecratio *in CCC1538) because we, as part of the people of God, are consecrated to be a spiritual house. The meaning of consecration in CCC784 is *not *the same as that in CCC1538.

Third, nowhere that I have read can I find that certain parts of me are consecrated and other parts of me aren’t. Nor does logic tell me that if I am consecrated (as described in CCC784), that this doesn’t also include my hands. If you can cite references that indicate that only parts of us are consecrated, please pass them along so I may better understand your position. Also, if you can point out to me where in the GIRM, the CCC or any other Church document that *only *priests and deacons are allowed to ever touch the Sacred Body with their hands, I would greatly appreciate it. If we are allowed to receive the Eucharist in the hand, then why can an EMHC not touch the Eucharist to distribute it when necessary?

Actually many people who don’t receive in the hand disapprove of Extraordinary Ministers. They don’t believe that they themselves should touch the Host with their hands and neither should anyone else except a validly ordained Priest or Deacon. . Very simple, not hard to understand at all. If you accept the basic difference between the Laity and the Ordained Priesthood that is. There is a huge difference

I personally have never said an Extraordinary Minister shouldn’t touch the Host. Sorry, I haven’t done it. I have said I don’t really see a need for them most of the time, and I stand by that, despite hearing of all these mega masses where 5, 10 or even 20,000 parishners gather every Sunday. I don’t really believe all those claims either. Maybe a total Parish registry of that number, but I would have to check with the Parish to confirm that that many attend Mass every Sunday. Just call me sceptical.

I did say say that your hands are not consecrated as a Priests are,. There is a difference, a huge difference between the universal priesthood and the ordained Priesthood. whether you want to admit it or not… You have not received the Sacrament of Holy Orders. They have. They have received the Oils of Ordination. You have not. They have received that indelible mark on their souls that you and I do not have. For you to imply that because we are all called to a universal Priesthood, we are all consecrated exactly the same as an Ordained Priest is laughable, and yes pitiful and even tragic…

And yes, by your quote you did seem to imply there is no difference in the two. Maybe it was unintentional, I don’t know. But the implication was certainly there.

 

[palmas85]

And until that happens, what do we do with EMHC? Do we embrace them for filling a void in the church or do we let that void exist?

Cut down their numbers and, ensure that they comply with Liturgical rules and norms. You don’t need them at every Mass and you certainly don’t need the numbers that usually parade up to the altar. I mean come on. An average Mass here in San Diego has about 5-600 people there. A few more and a few less, but an average of about 5-600. The Indult Mass that I attend on occasion has about 4-500 as well. Two Priests distribute at the Indult and Communion runs between 20 and 25 minutes most of the time. That amount of time to me is not unreasonable. If two people can commune that number in 25 minutes at an Indult, kneeling, why can’t a Priest and a Deacon or a Priest and one Extraordinary Minister do the same at a regular Mass where the lines move a whole lot faster? Don’t bother mentioning the Chalice. At the Parish I go to they don’t routinely offer the chalice and they still have 9-11 Extraordinary Ministers ringing the altar.

The truth is they could do it and do it easily but people want comunion over quickly so they can get out and do whatever it is they do on Sundays. Thats all. Speed and more opportunities for full and active participation by the laity. Thats all it is and really all it ever has been.

 

[MusicMan]

I think there are a number of factors that are creating the unstoppable army of EMsHC.

One is attitude, the other is architecture.

The parish I grew up in does not have the EMHC “problem” because neither of these factors are conducive to an army of EMsHC.

The pastor of this church has been there for over 30 years. At Mass where the cup is offered, there are five EMsHC, no more. Christmas and Easter Masses might use two more with the cup. At Masses where the cup is not offered there are three EMsHC, never more. If the congregation is smaller, there will be only one, and Father will ask two of them to remain in their seats.

The EMsHC in his parish are not called EMHC. They are called Communion Distributors. Have been for as long as I can recall. It’s not treated like a pseudo-ordained/commissioned ministry, and the title reflects this. It’s treated like a small group of lay people assisting the priest when he needs them. It is a functional service task, with the key phrase being “assiting the priest when he needs them.” There is no head Communion Distributor making policy for them. I can’t even recall if Father has a lay person do the schedule or if he does that himself. So long as Father remains Pastor, these men and women will continue to be called Communion Distributors, and they will continue to behave accordingly. They exist only to help Father distribute Communion. None of these people think of themselves as “ministers.” They think of themselves as humble helpers. As a side note, I don’t recall ANY time a Word and Communion service took place in that church led by a lay minister of something or a Deacon.

As I said, architecture also can be a factor with the EMHC army. There are three aisles in the above mentioned church, two side aisles and one main aisle. There are three sections of the Nave, one small set of pews on the far side of each side aisle, and then the Main Nave which has the main aisle running through it. There are two Distributors on either side of the main aisle with the Hosts. The Distributors with the Cup stand near the side aisles. Every one in the Main Nave goes through the line. If the congregation is smaller, Father and one distributor will handle the entire Main Nave. Once the Main Nave has communed, two Distributors will handle the side pews while Father goes to clean the altar. Unless separate Distributors were sent to the side aisle to commune maybe 30 total people, the architecture of the church makes it completely impossible to have any more people Distributing Communion.

The parish I belong to now has several sections, and we have armies of EMsHC. In my current Pastor’s defense, there are a ton of reasons why he might want to have more EMsHC than the Pastor of my church growing up, but I know the architecture of this parish is conducive to more EMsHC. This parish is set up in the contemporary style versus the traditional style that I grew up in. That means more “main sections” and more aisles. More people can come forward at the same time for Communion, so we can use more EMsHC.

Those of you who are ready to jettison this practice, take a quick look at your parish and see if the architecture is part of the problem. You maybe able to advocate having fewer EMsHC if they’re tripping over each other to line the altar of a traditional style parish. If your parish is in the contemporary style, you may wish to use their liturgical “visible sign of unity” clap-trap against them and advocate everyone receiving via the Center Aisle as a visible sign of our unity as a parish, and thus you’ll need fewer EMsHC.

Just a long thought.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Cut down their numbers

You are again overlooking the work that EMHC do outside of the mass in bringing the Eucharist to the ill & elderly. Cut down on their number and you will be denying the homebound from receiving Our Lord as frequential as they do now.