Extraordinary vs Ordinary

[Denise1957]

At the FSSP parish near me there are two priests. During the mass one of them generally hears confession and just before Holy Communion goes to the altar and both priests distribute. The Sunday sung mass is always packed and communion doesn’t take very long. This has also been happening at my diocesan parish’s EF mass, although being a small parish in the middle of nowhere there’s always less congregants.

This is the same situation at the FSSP parish in my city, and it’s rather a large congregation. Usually two priests distribute Holy Communion on Sunday. It takes a little longer than if there were EMHC’s, but not that much longer, expecially since there’s no Precious Blood to distribute, which also takes time to distribute at the OF Mass.

 

[Neofight]

That really needs to be challenged (again).

In the first place, a Permanent deacon’s hands aren’t consecrated, either. The consecration of hands is for the confecting of the Eucharist, nothing to do with distribution.

And you know that some of the EMHC are in mortal sin how, exactly?

I agree!

Interesting how it is that good works are done with the hands, and evil often originates from the mouth…however, I would not go so far to say receiving one way or the other is superior.

But, when it comes to receiving the blessed sacrament, I think God is less concerned with the Hands or tongue of those receiving as He is with the disposition of their hearts.

 

[ihsamdg]

To be quite honest, I do not think that the Extraordinary Form of the Mass is “extraordinary” in the same way that “Extraordinary” Ministers of Holy Communion are “extraordinary.”

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

Or, being charitable, as we should be, we could say that priests schedule and use EMHC, regularly, because they can anticipate the number of people at each Mass.

I would have to imagine that priests aren’t surprised at every Mass. Generally, the same number of people attend and receive at every Mass.

Priests can plan.

I’ve gone to daily Mass during which there were no more than 20 people, yet there were three EMHC. It is a fact that the use of EMHC is an abuse. Pope Benedict even commented on it during his pontificate.

 

[concretecamper]

I’ve gone to daily Mass during which there were no more than 20 people, yet there were three EMHC. It is a fact that the use of EMHC is an abuse. Pope Benedict even commented on it during his pontificate.

Exactly. And I am not a self identified teenager

 

[maryjk]

I’ve gone to daily Mass during which there were no more than 20 people, yet there were three EMHC. It is a fact that the use of EMHC is an abuse. Pope Benedict even commented on it during his pontificate.

Which means that that particular priest might misuse EMHC.

But even if 100 people post here about their priest’s overuse of EMHC, it would still be wrong to post, “priests overuse EMHCs so the laity can “participate” more in the Mass.”

Sorry, but we need to respect our priests. If they seem to overuse EMHC, we need to discuss it with them.

We shouldn’t come here and complain about our priests.

 

[Cojuanco]

At the FSSP parish near me there are two priests. During the mass one of them generally hears confession and just before Holy Communion goes to the altar and both priests distribute. The Sunday sung mass is always packed and communion doesn’t take very long. This has also been happening at my diocesan parish’s EF mass, although being a small parish in the middle of nowhere there’s always less congregants.

This happens too at the High Mass on Sundays at the Norbertine parish here.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

I’d like to give an opposing example to those where EMHCs are overused.

At my parish - one of the largest in the diocese - we regularly schedule 4 EMHCs for every Sunday Mass. We do not ever distribute the Precious Blood, but those 4 EMHCs are needed at almost every Mass.

Here are the rules our Pastor uses: no one volunteers. He asks those he wants to be EMHCs. The bishop has to approve the choice and the person has to go to both diocesean and parish-level training (about 1.5 day worth).

All the priests/deacons who are available come to help distribute at each Mass. We have 8 communion “stations.” If all the clergy is available, than the EMHC step back. They are trained to do this and reminded as necessary in the monthly updates they receive.

However, if all the clergy are not available (which they frequently all aren’t) than the EMHC help. Sometimes this means that more than four EMHCs are needed. If so, an EMHC who isn’t scheduled, but is at the Mass will step up to help. We can all count to 8 and all add and subtract, so this goes smoothly.

At the early daily Masses, no one is scheduled to help. Sometimes the priest requests assistance. There are differently reasons for this. More people at this Mass than usual, the priest feels he can’t stand too long (two of our priests have non-visible health conditions), the priest himself has another appointment and wants to be sure Mass doesn’t run too long. (This happens more often when one of our priests has a diocesean job also.) Attendance at our noon daily Mass is high enough that one EMHC is necessary because many people have a limited time to be gone from work. If another priest is available, than he’ll come to help distribute.

I realize that not all parishes run like this, but I wanted to show an example of an orthodox parish where EMHCs are still used regularly - even at daily Mass - but not used as a means of “participation”.

 

[maryjk]

I’d like to give an opposing example to those where EMHCs are overused.

At my parish - one of the largest in the diocese - we regularly schedule 4 EMHCs for every Sunday Mass. We do not ever distribute the Precious Blood, but those 4 EMHCs are needed at almost every Mass.

Here are the rules our Pastor uses: no one volunteers. He asks those he wants to be EMHCs. The bishop has to approve the choice and the person has to go to both diocesean and parish-level training (about 1.5 day worth).

All the priests/deacons who are available come to help distribute at each Mass. We have 8 communion “stations.” If all the clergy is available, than the EMHC step back. They are trained to do this and reminded as necessary in the monthly updates they receive.

However, if all the clergy are not available (which they frequently all aren’t) than the EMHC help. Sometimes this means that more than four EMHCs are needed. If so, an EMHC who isn’t scheduled, but is at the Mass will step up to help. We can all count to 8 and all add and subtract, so this goes smoothly.

At the early daily Masses, no one is scheduled to help. Sometimes the priest requests assistance. There are differently reasons for this. More people at this Mass than usual, the priest feels he can’t stand too long (two of our priests have non-visible health conditions), the priest himself has another appointment and wants to be sure Mass doesn’t run too long. (This happens more often when one of our priests has a diocesean job also.) Attendance at our noon daily Mass is high enough that one EMHC is necessary because many people have a limited time to be gone from work. If another priest is available, than he’ll come to help distribute.

I realize that not all parishes run like this, but I wanted to show an example of an orthodox parish where EMHCs are still used regularly - even at daily Mass - but not used as a means of “participation”.

This is very similar to how our priests use EMHCs.

I have never seen an EMHC distribute to just a few people.

Our priests NEVER sit while EMHC are being used. Same with our deacons. An EMHC would be sent back to their seat if there are too many people that step up.

And people don’t ask to become an EMHC, they are invited. They must go through training. And they must be approved by the Bishop.

So, yes, I am sure there are parishes out there that overuse EMHC. But there are also parishes like mine and like Mrs Sally’s that don’t.

 

[RC_David333]

**the Catholic monk, brother Dimond, totally destroys the heretical arguments of the calvinist in this debate. Here is the link to that debate…

youtube.com/watch?v=Qn1vC1Ez-OI

To learn more about brother Dimond, his Monastery and the true teachings of our Lord, Jesus Christ, then please visit VaticanCatholic.com or MostHolyFamilyMonastery.com **

 

[acseawell]

You really need to learn how to keep these unfounded opinions to yourself. You have no right to disparage priests for using EMHC how THEY see fit. And unless/until you know the directives from the Bishop of your diocese regarding the use of said ministers, it will serve you well to not share such opinions.

I believe that oneofthewomen needs to brush up on her post-V2 directives. The subjects
posted are completely accurate.

 

[quilisma]

I would simply like to point out that relatively few self-identified teens of either gender, particularly who are not “yet” Catholic, show enough interest in the Church to pay much attention to her liturgy, much less take a stand on the way it is celebrated.

My hat is off to Ben for opening a dialogue seeking to know more. I hope he has not been discouraged from his faith journey. We need more thinking young people who ask questions - we do them and the Church no service, and we do not represent well the mercy and love by which we should be known as Christians, by jumping down their throats - “You are not yet fifty years old…”

It should be possible to say truthfully of those who love God and our Faith, “See how they love one another”.

 

[GangGreen]

One day I recorded the EF Mass I went to on a little camera. I don’t quite know how many people were at the Mass, but it was probably 100 people, maybe more. Either way, the priest on his own took a little more than 6 minutes from the first server to finishing distributing communion to the laity and then another 6 or so minutes to get everything in order before finishing the Mass. I guess in an EF Mass where it typically isn’t as rushed, this isn’t as big of a deal, i’m not sure. Either way, 6 minutes for Communion is fine. So, if it takes 6 minutes to distribute to 100 people for one priest. Then let’s say in the OF it can take the same amount of time. Then I can get using EMHC if there are more than 100 people per priest. So let’s say you have 3 priests available and there are 400 people in the church, then I can understand having 1 or 2 EMHC (they may not necessarily be as quick as a priest) in order to save a couple minutes.

However, I think there needs to be a rule along those lines. If there are 50 people in a church, there is absolutely no need for EMHC.

IMO, these are among the many things in the OF rubrics which need to be defined more clearly.

 

[otjm]

One day I recorded the EF Mass I went to on a little camera. I don’t quite know how many people were at the Mass, but it was probably 100 people, maybe more. Either way, the priest on his own took a little more than 6 minutes from the first server to finishing distributing communion to the laity and then another 6 or so minutes to get everything in order before finishing the Mass. I guess in an EF Mass where it typically isn’t as rushed, this isn’t as big of a deal, i’m not sure. Either way, 6 minutes for Communion is fine. So, if it takes 6 minutes to distribute to 100 people for one priest. Then let’s say in the OF it can take the same amount of time. Then I can get using EMHC if there are more than 100 people per priest. So let’s say you have 3 priests available and there are 400 people in the church, then I can understand having 1 or 2 EMHC (they may not necessarily be as quick as a priest) in order to save a couple minutes.

However, I think there needs to be a rule along those lines. If there are 50 people in a church, there is absolutely no need for EMHC.

IMO, these are among the many things in the OF rubrics which need to be defined more clearly.

Considering that there are numerous parishes with only one priest, you make no room for Communion under both species - however, the Church does.

 

[edwest2]

Pope Benedict:

"In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.

"This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

“As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[GangGreen]

Considering that there are numerous parishes with only one priest, you make no room for Communion under both species - however, the Church does.

Communion under both species is not a requirement and not something that the laity are “entitled” to. If it’s offered, it’s offered, otherwise it isn’t necessary.

 

[digitalpapist]

I would simply like to point out that relatively few self-identified teens of either gender, particularly who are not “yet” Catholic, show enough interest in the Church to pay much attention to her liturgy, much less take a stand on the way it is celebrated.

My hat is off to Ben for opening a dialogue seeking to know more. I hope he has not been discouraged from his faith journey. We need more thinking young people who ask questions - we do them and the Church no service, and we do not represent well the mercy and love by which we should be known as Christians, by jumping down their throats - “You are not yet fifty years old…”

It should be possible to say truthfully of those who love God and our Faith, “See how they love one another”.

Bingo.

People attacked a teen on here for repeating what the Church had practiced for over a 1000 years, and who himself is personally dealing with a complex situation in order to become Catholic and discern a vocation.
All because he went against the status quo.

And I will echo what he said: many priests use EMHC in a way to implement a false notion of lay participation.

There, I said it.

 

[Clevelander]

This sub-topic really deserves its own thread, and after leaving this reply, I won’t prolong its presence here, but:

Bben15 said: “EMHC’s actually are meant to be used on a case-by-case basis, not at every Mass. Priests overuse EMHCs so the laity can “participate” more in the Mass. However, they’re really only meant for huge Masses, where there aren’t enough priests or deacons to distribute the Eucharist. They are called ‘Extraordinary’ because the ‘Ordinary’ minister of Communion is a member of the clergy.”

And to this, Oneofthewomen replied:

You really need to learn how to keep these unfounded opinions to yourself. You have no right to disparage priests for using EMHC how THEY see fit. And unless/until you know the directives from the Bishop of your diocese regarding the use of said ministers, it will serve you well to not share such opinions.

Oneofthewomen, bben15’s statement is no mere unfounded opinion. In fact, it is not even an opinion at all. It is the magisterial teaching of your Church and mine. Please see the instruction, Redemptionis Sacramentum — On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist, approved by Pope John Paul II and issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in 2004 (and available at vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html). In it you will find statements like: “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.” ¶151]

To the same effect is the instruction Inaestimabile donum (issued by the same Congregation and Pope in 1980 and available at adoremus.org/InaestimabileDonum.html): “The faithful, whether religious or lay, who are authorized as extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist, can distribute Communion only when there is no priest, deacon, or acolyte, when the priest is impeded by illness or age, or when the number of the faithful going to Communion is so large as to make the celebration of the Mass excessively long. Accordingly, a reprehensible attitude is shown by those priests who, though present at the celebration, refrain from distributing Communion and leave this task to the laity.” ¶10]

There is disparagement going on here, but it is not coming from bben15. His tone is respectful enough. The fact of the matter is that a priest who disregards the teachings of his Church, like this teaching, has disparaged himself. It was the Holy See and not any of us who termed this a reprehensible attitude.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Since people seem to want to point out where I was wrong, I would like to respond.

If you actually read my reply (which you can do here) to bben 15, you would see that I was addressing a very specific point in his post, that priests use EMHC just so people can participate. That is what I have issue with!!! And yes, a 15 y.o boy, does not have the right to disparage any priest that way because said 15 y.o boy will not have all of the facts.

You can all debate the use of EMHC until the cows come home, I don’t really care. They are allowed by the church and their use is governed by the Ordinary of the diocese and the Pastor of the particular parish. It is not the decision of over-zealous lay people, young or not young, and it is certainly not their place to disrespect the clergy.

 

[Withburga]

Oneofthewomen, bben15’s statement is no mere unfounded opinion. In fact, it is not even an opinion at all. It is the magisterial teaching of your Church and mine. Please see the instruction, Redemptionis Sacramentum — On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist,

Without prejudice to the rights and wrongs of using/overusing EMHCs - with which debate I have no interest in engaging - it is worth pointing out that a disciplinary instruction is not magisterial teaching.

It is authoritative, and it is of note, but it is not the teaching of the magisterium. There is, of course, a world of difference between Church discipline and Church teaching.

Please note that I am not suggesting that Redemptionis Sacramentum should be ignored: I am merely saying that by its particular designation it was clearly not intended to be received as a teaching of the Church. Best wishes.

In Christ,
Withburga