Guidelines for Eucharistic Ministers?

[John_Lilburne]

“72. A deep bow is made to the altar by all who enter the sanctuary (chancel), leave it, or pass before the altar.”
(Ceremonial of Bishops, Liturgical Press, 1989, ISBN 0-8146-1818-9, page 37. The Latin name of this liturgical book is “Caeremoniale Episcoporum”).

From the 2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) approved for the USA, which can be accessed from romanrite.com/girm.html :
“112. … At a Mass celebrated by the Bishop or at which he presides without celebrating the Eucharist, the norms found in the Caeremoniale Episcoporum should be observed.”

So the instruction to bow applies when there is a bishop. But for some reason the 2002 GIRM did not include this instruction, so it is not specified for a Mass without a bishop.

Why was it omitted? One theory is that the 2002 GIRM expect the Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion to be in the sanctuary for the whole of Mass. From the 2002 GIRM:
“D. THE DUTIES OF THE LECTOR
Introductory Rites …
195. Upon reaching the altar, the lector makes a profound bow with the others. If he is
carrying the Book of the Gospels, he approaches the altar and places the Book of the Gospels
upon it. Then the lector takes his own place in the sanctuary with the other ministers.”

This also helps to make sense of this part of the GIRM:
“162. … These ministers should not approach the altar before the priest has received Communion, and
they are always to receive from the hands of the priest celebrant the vessel containing either
species of the Most Holy Eucharist for distribution to the faithful.”

If the Extraordinary Ministers are in the sanctuary this makes sense, a way of emphasizing that the priest is clearly to receive Communion first. But if the Extraordinary Ministers are scattered throughout the Church is creates a strange “procession of Extraordinary Ministers” before the Communion procession.

So my understanding, in this case, of “should not approach the altar” is that it is OK to approach and enter the sanctuary. But space should be given to the priest at the altar, with the Extraordinary Ministers only approaching to receive Communion after the priest has.

 

[benedictgal]

“72. A deep bow is made to the altar by all who enter the sanctuary (chancel), leave it, or pass before the altar.”
(Ceremonial of Bishops, Liturgical Press, 1989, ISBN 0-8146-1818-9, page 37. The Latin name of this liturgical book is “Caeremoniale Episcoporum”).

From the 2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) approved for the USA, which can be accessed from romanrite.com/girm.html :
“112. … At a Mass celebrated by the Bishop or at which he presides without celebrating the Eucharist, the norms found in the Caeremoniale Episcoporum should be observed.”

So the instruction to bow applies when there is a bishop. But for some reason the 2002 GIRM did not include this instruction, so it is not specified for a Mass without a bishop.

Why was it omitted? One theory is that the 2002 GIRM expect the Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion to be in the sanctuary for the whole of Mass. From the 2002 GIRM:
“D. THE DUTIES OF THE LECTOR
Introductory Rites …
195. Upon reaching the altar, the lector makes a profound bow with the others. If he is
carrying the Book of the Gospels, he approaches the altar and places the Book of the Gospels
upon it. Then the lector takes his own place in the sanctuary with the other ministers.”

This also helps to make sense of this part of the GIRM:
“162. … These ministers should not approach the altar before the priest has received Communion, and
they are always to receive from the hands of the priest celebrant the vessel containing either
species of the Most Holy Eucharist for distribution to the faithful.”

If the Extraordinary Ministers are in the sanctuary this makes sense, a way of emphasizing that the priest is clearly to receive Communion first. But if the Extraordinary Ministers are scattered throughout the Church is creates a strange “procession of Extraordinary Ministers” before the Communion procession.

So my understanding, in this case, of “should not approach the altar” is that it is OK to approach and enter the sanctuary. But space should be given to the priest at the altar, with the Extraordinary Ministers only approaching to receive Communion after the priest has.

John, somehow, I do not think that it was ever envisioned for an EMHC to be up there in the sanctuary the entire time. An altar server would be up there because they have a function all throughout Mass, but, an EMHC should only come forth when the time is appropriate.

 

[FrDavid96]

“72. A deep bow is made to the altar by all who enter the sanctuary (chancel), leave it, or pass before the altar.”
(Ceremonial of Bishops, Liturgical Press, 1989, ISBN 0-8146-1818-9, page 37. The Latin name of this liturgical book is “Caeremoniale Episcoporum”).

From the 2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) approved for the USA, which can be accessed from romanrite.com/girm.html :
“112. … At a Mass celebrated by the Bishop or at which he presides without celebrating the Eucharist, the norms found in the Caeremoniale Episcoporum should be observed.”

So the instruction to bow applies when there is a bishop. But for some reason the 2002 GIRM did not include this instruction, so it is not specified for a Mass without a bishop.

Why was it omitted? One theory is that the 2002 GIRM expect the Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion to be in the sanctuary for the whole of Mass. From the 2002 GIRM:
“D. THE DUTIES OF THE LECTOR
Introductory Rites …
195. Upon reaching the altar, the lector makes a profound bow with the others. If he is
carrying the Book of the Gospels, he approaches the altar and places the Book of the Gospels
upon it. Then the lector takes his own place in the sanctuary with the other ministers.”

This also helps to make sense of this part of the GIRM:
“162. … These ministers should not approach the altar before the priest has received Communion, and
they are always to receive from the hands of the priest celebrant the vessel containing either
species of the Most Holy Eucharist for distribution to the faithful.”

If the Extraordinary Ministers are in the sanctuary this makes sense, a way of emphasizing that the priest is clearly to receive Communion first. But if the Extraordinary Ministers are scattered throughout the Church is creates a strange “procession of Extraordinary Ministers” before the Communion procession.

So my understanding, in this case, of “should not approach the altar” is that it is OK to approach and enter the sanctuary. But space should be given to the priest at the altar, with the Extraordinary Ministers only approaching to receive Communion after the priest has.

John,
Actually, what the GIRM “expects” is that there will not be extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion in the first place. Since this function is purely extraordinary, the GIRM doesn’t necessarily address where potential EMHCs should be during other parts of the Mass–because of the very fact that they aren’t EMHCs until after the priest receives Communion and appoints them to assist him. Yes, of course there are references to EMHCs in the GIRM when talking about distributing Communion, but if the GIRM were to say that they take part in the entrance procession, or to say that they bow or genuflect at the beginning of Mass would imply that this is an ordinary part of the Mass in the first place–which it is not.

 

[EasterJoy]

John,
Actually, what the GIRM “expects” is that there will not be extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion in the first place. Since this function is purely extraordinary, the GIRM doesn’t necessarily address where potential EMHCs should be during other parts of the Mass–because of the very fact that they aren’t EMHCs until after the priest receives Communion and appoints them to assist him. Yes, of course there are references to EMHCs in the GIRM when talking about distributing Communion, but if the GIRM were to say that they take part in the entrance procession, or to say that they bow or genuflect at the beginning of Mass would imply that this is an ordinary part of the Mass in the first place–which it is not.

Well, yes and no. IMHO only, you’re overstating the case a bit.

You are more aware than I that in Church parlance, “extraordinary” and “rare” are not the same thing. We should not even imply that they are. You’re not going to see EMsHC at Papal Masses, but very few parishes have such a wealth of ordinary ministers as the Pope does. Let’s not go overboard and overstate the case, as if Rome were not fully aware of this state of affairs, or as if it were going to change this year, next year, or the next. It isn’t.

For instance, I mean to say that we ought to be very careful not to imply that those writing the GIRM somehow thought that a parish with one priest and no deacons should not offer the Precious Blood. That is not true. Neither does the Church say, “Unless it could ordinarily be expected that a parish will have enough ordinary ministers to offer the Precious Blood, it should not be offered; neither should a priest alone in a parish ordinarily expect any assistance. Rather, in a situation where there are ordinarily enough ministers, but there are not for some extraordinary reason, then members of the laity may fill in, if the situation is truly extraordinary.” You don’t say that, but the implication could be fairly drawn from what you do say, IMHO. The Church directives don’t say that, either, of course.

Of course ordinary ministers should not be replaced by the extraordinary, excepting in extraordinary circumstances, such as the local priest who ceded his spot to a EMHC because the priest had had knee surgery two weeks prior and had been instructed by his physician to keep off his feet as much as humanly possible.

Of course is to be hoped that there would be enough ordinary ministers for all species, but that isn’t even a realistic possibility in many, many places.

I am fully with you on this: an interpretation of the GIRM that implies that a priest might conceivably choose that EMsHC be seated as close to the altar during the Mass as the lectors is a million miles from a finding that either one has to be there, or that the EMHC have to be there if the lectors are, or that anything else having to do with elevating EMsHC. That is an invented connection, one that does not necessarily follow from what is in the GIRM. EMsHC have no eminence beyond any of the baptised, a dignity which is fully sufficient. We are entitled to no recognition or eminence beyond that. Besides, it is better to flee from eminence than to seek it. EMsHC are fortunate to have that option.

It is not necessary for extraordinary ministers to sit with the lectors, but it is sensible to have all of the EMsHC sit near each other and off to the side of the church from which the priest wants them to approach the altar. It is not as if anybody really thinks that the EMsHC had no idea until some time after the Our Father that they’d be summoned to help. That would be a silly pretense. Surely conscientious priests and deacons make preparations for all the help that will be needed (or might needed) before Mass begins.

 

[zab]

Exactly who is a lector? Is this a person who is studying to be a priest or deacon and has has received one of the minor orders? Or are we mistaking a reader (lay person) for a lector when we try to interpret the instruction that says the lector should take his place in the sanctuary with the other ministers, that is, the priest or priests and deacon? I’m just trying to understand this myself.

 

[FrDavid96]

Well, yes and no. IMHO only, you’re overstating the case a bit.

You are more aware than I that in Church parlance, “extraordinary” and “rare” are not the same thing. We should not even imply that they are. You’re not going to see EMsHC at Papal Masses, but very few parishes have such a wealth of ordinary ministers as the Pope does. Let’s not go overboard and overstate the case, as if Rome were not fully aware of this state of affairs, or as if it were going to change this year, next year, or the next. It isn’t.

For instance, I mean to say that we ought to be very careful not to imply that those writing the GIRM somehow thought that a parish with one priest and no deacons should not offer the Precious Blood. That is not true. Neither does the Church say, “Unless it could ordinarily be expected that a parish will have enough ordinary ministers to offer the Precious Blood, it should not be offered; neither should a priest alone in a parish ordinarily expect any assistance. Rather, in a situation where there are ordinarily enough ministers, but there are not for some extraordinary reason, then members of the laity may fill in, if the situation is truly extraordinary.” You don’t say that, but the implication could be fairly drawn from what you do say, IMHO. The Church directives don’t say that, either, of course.

Of course ordinary ministers should not be replaced by the extraordinary, excepting in extraordinary circumstances, such as the local priest who ceded his spot to a EMHC because the priest had had knee surgery two weeks prior and had been instructed by his physician to keep off his feet as much as humanly possible.

Of course is to be hoped that there would be enough ordinary ministers for all species, but that isn’t even a realistic possibility in many, many places.

I am fully with you on this: an interpretation of the GIRM that implies that a priest might conceivably choose that EMsHC be seated as close to the altar during the Mass as the lectors is a million miles from a finding that either one has to be there, or that the EMHC have to be there if the lectors are, or that anything else having to do with elevating EMsHC. That is an invented connection, one that does not necessarily follow from what is in the GIRM. EMsHC have no eminence beyond any of the baptised, a dignity which is fully sufficient. We are entitled to no recognition or eminence beyond that. Besides, it is better to flee from eminence than to seek it. EMsHC are fortunate to have that option.

It is not necessary for extraordinary ministers to sit with the lectors, but it is sensible to have all of the EMsHC sit near each other and off to the side of the church from which the priest wants them to approach the altar. It is not as if anybody really thinks that the EMsHC had no idea until some time after the Our Father that they’d be summoned to help. That would be a silly pretense. Surely conscientious priests and deacons make preparations for all the help that will be needed (or might needed) before Mass begins.

Please understand what I’m saying. The nature of the GIRM is that it deals with ordinary circumstances, not extraordinary ones. That’s why we shouldn’t “expect” that the GIRM will tell us every detail about what happens in extraordinary circumstances. Sometimes, those things are simply dealt-with in other documents. The GIRM itself says very little about EMHCs. But if we want more information, we turn to the US norms for the distribution of Communion. Just as the GIRM doesn’t say much about Baptism during the Mass–instead we turn to the Rite of Baptism.

My point is to say that if people want information on this particular topic, the GIRM by itself won’t necessarily be of much help. I’m attempting to explain why we should not expect that the GIRM will say “the EMHCs sit in the sanctuary” or “the EMHCs don’t sit in the sanctuary.” It might tell us coincidentally, but we shouldn’t be surprised if it doesn’t.

Yes, I do believe that the use of extraordinary ministers has reached the point of outright abuse in the United States–but that wasn’t my point. Not this time. Different topic different thread. I was only explaining why the GIRM doesn’t say something that may people might expect it to say.

 

[FrDavid96]

Exactly who is a lector? Is this a person who is studying to be a priest or deacon and has has received one of the minor orders? Or are we mistaking a reader (lay person) for a lector when we try to interpret the instruction that says the lector should take his place in the sanctuary with the other ministers, that is, the priest or priests and deacon? I’m just trying to understand this myself.

Zab,
When the GIRM refers to “lector” that’s a reference to a duly instituted Lector (usually a seminarian). That’s literally what it means.

Since, in the absence of a Lector, a layperson might be appointed to perform this function, we can safely say that it would be acceptable to apply whatever is said about the Lector to a lay reader (unless it’s something that by its very nature refers exclusively to the Lector, of course).

There’s also another option:

But at the same time, we can just as correctly choose not-to-apply parts not directly related to the readings themselves to a lay reader. In other words, an instituted Lector must be part of the entrance procession, must take his proper place in the Sanctuary, etc. but these things aren’t required for lay readers.

 

[zab]

The fact is that the Church already gives us proper terminology to use for laity exercising this ministry. However, there are those (and this is not a slight on the OP) who will belittle this and seek to use terminology that is not applicable and, therefore, incorrect. The basic rule of thumb is to use that which the Church already gives us.

Despite what other parishes may call this particular mode of service, those exercising it are Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. This is not a benedictgal term; this comes from the Church in its documents, documents we are bound to obey.

Zab,
When the GIRM refers to “lector” that’s a reference to a duly instituted Lector (usually a seminarian). That’s literally what it means.

Since, in the absence of a Lector, a layperson might be appointed to perform this function, we can safely say that it would be acceptable to apply whatever is said about the Lector to a lay reader …

We keep hearing about the importance of useing the proper terms for lay ministry. Is it improper to call a lay reader a lector?

 

[Brendan]

We keep hearing about the importance of useing the proper terms for lay ministry. Is it improper to call a lay reader a lector?

When specifically refering to a lay reader, yes it is incorrect.

 

[FrDavid96]

We keep hearing about the importance of useing the proper terms for lay ministry. Is it improper to call a lay reader a lector?

When I use the terms, I try to use “Lector” to refer to a duly instituted Lector, but say “reader” or “lay reader” merely for the sake of making the distinction. The word lector itself is simply the latin word for “one who reads” it could apply to someone reading sacred scripture as well as someone reading a newspaper. Perhaps there is some clarification from the Church and I’m not aware of it (Brendan?)

The above is nothing more than my own little shortcut, to avoid having to type “duly instituted Lector” too many times.

 

[EasterJoy]

Please understand what I’m saying. The nature of the GIRM is that it deals with ordinary circumstances, not extraordinary ones. That’s why we shouldn’t “expect” that the GIRM will tell us every detail about what happens in extraordinary circumstances. Sometimes, those things are simply dealt-with in other documents. The GIRM itself says very little about EMHCs. But if we want more information, we turn to the US norms for the distribution of Communion. Just as the GIRM doesn’t say much about Baptism during the Mass–instead we turn to the Rite of Baptism.

My point is to say that if people want information on this particular topic, the GIRM by itself won’t necessarily be of much help. I’m attempting to explain why we should not expect that the GIRM will say “the EMHCs sit in the sanctuary” or “the EMHCs don’t sit in the sanctuary.” It might tell us coincidentally, but we shouldn’t be surprised if it doesn’t.

Yes, I do believe that the use of extraordinary ministers has reached the point of outright abuse in the United States–but that wasn’t my point. Not this time. Different topic different thread. I was only explaining why the GIRM doesn’t say something that may people might expect it to say.

Exactly. The GIRM should be followed, absolutely, but it isn’t some kind of divine constitution of liturgy that we can expect to use to figure out every contingency.

Generally speaking, we have live people at the chancery office and the Vatican that can answer questions of import. The rest is the stuff that bishops leave up to the discretion of the priests to whom they have given faculties.

If we think a priest is going beyond the boundaries of discretion, we can talk to him about it, and that includes the amount of discretion he gives to the people who help him plan liturgies in his parish. If he has no time for us or can’t agree with us, there is nothing to do but ask the chancery office (in the case of an abuse), find Masses at which the presiding priests set their boundaries within our understanding of what the boundaries are, or just live with the situation where we are.

 

[smak_84]

“72. A deep bow is made to the altar by all who enter the sanctuary (chancel), leave it, or pass before the altar.”
(Ceremonial of Bishops, Liturgical Press, 1989, ISBN 0-8146-1818-9, page 37. The Latin name of this liturgical book is “Caeremoniale Episcoporum”).

From the 2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) approved for the USA, which can be accessed from romanrite.com/girm.html :
“112. … At a Mass celebrated by the Bishop or at which he presides without celebrating the Eucharist, the norms found in the Caeremoniale Episcoporum should be observed.”

So the instruction to bow applies when there is a bishop. But for some reason the 2002 GIRM did not include this instruction, so it is not specified for a Mass without a bishop.

Why was it omitted? One theory is that the 2002 GIRM expect the Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion to be in the sanctuary for the whole of Mass. From the 2002 GIRM:
“D. THE DUTIES OF THE LECTOR
Introductory Rites …
195. Upon reaching the altar, the lector makes a profound bow with the others. If he is
carrying the Book of the Gospels, he approaches the altar and places the Book of the Gospels
upon it. Then the lector takes his own place in the sanctuary with the other ministers.”

This also helps to make sense of this part of the GIRM:
“162. … These ministers should not approach the altar before the priest has received Communion, and
they are always to receive from the hands of the priest celebrant the vessel containing either
species of the Most Holy Eucharist for distribution to the faithful.”

If the Extraordinary Ministers are in the sanctuary this makes sense, a way of emphasizing that the priest is clearly to receive Communion first. But if the Extraordinary Ministers are scattered throughout the Church is creates a strange “procession of Extraordinary Ministers” before the Communion procession.

So my understanding, in this case, of “should not approach the altar” is that it is OK to approach and enter the sanctuary. But space should be given to the priest at the altar, with the Extraordinary Ministers only approaching to receive Communion after the priest has.

First of all, being a fellow instituted lector, let me say that you are a God-send.

Second of all, as per the question. “Other Ministers,” probably has a context interpretation. In that same section, “ministers” would most likely refer to Acolytes (or their stand-in deputations) and everyone else already up in the sanctuary (and who are being talked about in the GRIM at that point). Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion are not mentioned among the figures allowed in any liturgical procession anywhere in any official rubrics (to my knowledge). The omission of the rubric in the 2002 GIRM was probably a gaff (these are humans writing these things…). To my knowledge, the Ceremonial ought to supply any rubrics which are missing in the GIRM (often these rubrics refer to bishops only…but they can fill in some other areas as well). Also, the GIRM does supply a similar rubirc at no. 49: “When they reach the sanctuary, the priest, the deacons, and the ministers reverence the altar with a profound bow,” so the rubric is not totally lost (the Ceremonial will complement this as it supplies a directive for a genuflection as a reverence if the tabernacle is present in the sanctuary).

As far as liturgical rubrics for extraordinary ministers for Holy Communion (who are not also acolytes) - well, the books don’t envision a common use for them. Given the wording of the rubrics, they actually seem to expect that a whole gang of instituted acolytes will just be ‘hanging around’ if there are a shortage of priests or deacons at some Mass. As a result, the books just expect that the logical thing will be to use one of the acolytes (who are up in the sanctuary anyways). This, however, is not the case. As a result, you really have few rubrics concerning installed-acolyte-extraordinary-ministers-of-Holy-Communion, and you have basically none concerning lay-NON-acolyte-extraordinary-ministers-of-Holy-Communion… So, they just approach the altar from wherever they’re at (remember, we’re technically dealing with an “emergency situation” where there are not enough ordinary ministers - this ought not be the norm of celebration). I don’t think it constitutes a liturgical procession of any sort. They’re just going from point A to point B with no ceremonial - this is an “emergency” after all.

Perhaps instead of ever entering the sanctuary (rather, merely approaching it), they ought to just be the first ones in line for communion (but no one moves until after the priest has received communion - kind of like things are in the TLM) and be simply given the vessels to distribute communion after they have themselves received, standing outside the sanctuary the whole time.

 

[EasterJoy]

…So, they just approach the altar from wherever they’re at (remember, we’re technically dealing with an “emergency situation” where there are not enough ordinary ministers - this ought not be the norm of celebration). I don’t think it constitutes a liturgical procession of any sort. They’re just going from point A to point B with no ceremonial - this is an “emergency” after all.

Again: Extraordinary does not mean unforeseeable! There is a reason that the GIRM does not call these Emergency Ministers of Holy Communion, after all.

The pretense that EMsHC should appear to have been summoned on such an emergent basis that they cannot have been directed before Mass to be seated in the same general area in the church is just silly. When an EMHC is needed because an ordinary minister passed out at the altar or had to leave church in the middle of Mass, that is an emergency. Otherwise, it is a no more than an extraordinary circumstance. It is nonsensical to act as if the presider could have flown an ordinary minister in by helicopter by the time Mass was over, if he had only known of this “emergency” beforehand.

We can admit openly that there was not an ordinary minister to be had, that there would not be one if we had six months to line him up, since this guy we need isn’t even the seminary yet. Let’s just call these extraordinary times, in the hope that he and legions like him will be in training very soon.

Perhaps instead of ever entering the sanctuary (rather, merely approaching it), they ought to just be the first ones in line for communion (but no one moves until after the priest has received communion - kind of like things are in the TLM) and be simply given the vessels to distribute communion after they have themselves received, standing outside the sanctuary the whole time.

The priests in our archdiocese serve until they are 70, and the retired guys often serve as substitutes when the ones “still in harness” are away. Are you trying to tell me that we should make the priests and deacons that we are lucky enough to have schlep back and forth up and down stairs from the altar to get communion cups for able-bodied people who have been appointed to assist them? And what do you propose we do for people like the priest near us who wrecked his knee and could not do stairs while carrying something? His parish should just go without Mass?

I’d like to say I’m exaggerating, but consider the elderly priests who are still saying Mass, especially in the remote areas of the West. Honestly, some of them go until they literally cannot trust themselves to stay on their feet for an entire Mass. They are that heroic, and this is really the choices we’re looking at. If the clergy needs assistance, then let them have assistance, for crying out loud.

The EMsHC can wait to approach until the clergy have received Holy Communion. After that, there is no reason they may not approach the altar to render the assistance they’ve been asked to render–do we not let unconfirmed boys assist in the sanctuary, and receive Holy Communion there?–assuming of course that the EMsHC wait to be given Holy Communion themselves, that they wait to be given whatever species of the Eucharist they have been appointed to assist with, and so on.

I’m not saying that EMsHC should be any part of the processional, only that discussing this or acting as if nobody knew before the processional started that EMsHC would be called upon is ridiculous, 99.9% of the time.

 

[zab]

When I use the terms, I try to use “Lector” to refer to a duly instituted Lector, but say “reader” or “lay reader” merely for the sake of making the distinction. The word lector itself is simply the latin word for “one who reads” it could apply to someone reading sacred scripture as well as someone reading a newspaper. Perhaps there is some clarification from the Church and I’m not aware of it (Brendan?)

The above is nothing more than my own little shortcut, to avoid having to type “duly instituted Lector” too many times

 

[FrDavid96]

Again: Extraordinary does not mean unforeseeable! There is a reason that the GIRM does not call these Emergency Ministers of Holy Communion, after all.

The pretense that EMsHC should appear to have been summoned on such an emergent basis that they cannot have been directed before Mass to be seated in the same general area in the church is just silly. When an EMHC is needed because an ordinary minister passed out at the altar or had to leave church in the middle of Mass, that is an emergency. Otherwise, it is a no more than an extraordinary circumstance. It is nonsensical to act as if the presider could have flown an ordinary minister in by helicopter by the time Mass was over, if he had only known of this “emergency” beforehand.

We can admit openly that there was not an ordinary minister to be had, that there would not be one if we had six months to line him up, since this guy we need isn’t even the seminary yet. Let’s just call these extraordinary times, in the hope that he and legions like him will be in training very soon.

The priests in our archdiocese serve until they are 70, and the retired guys often serve as substitutes when the ones “still in harness” are away. Are you trying to tell me that we should make the priests and deacons that we are lucky enough to have schlep back and forth up and down stairs from the altar to get communion cups for able-bodied people who have been appointed to assist them? And what do you propose we do for people like the priest near us who wrecked his knee and could not do stairs while carrying something? His parish should just go without Mass?

I’d like to say I’m exaggerating, but consider the elderly priests who are still saying Mass, especially in the remote areas of the West. Honestly, some of them go until they literally cannot trust themselves to stay on their feet for an entire Mass. They are that heroic, and this is really the choices we’re looking at. If the clergy needs assistance, then let them have assistance, for crying out loud.

The EMsHC can wait to approach until the clergy have received Holy Communion. After that, there is no reason they may not approach the altar to render the assistance they’ve been asked to render–do we not let unconfirmed boys assist in the sanctuary, and receive Holy Communion there?–assuming of course that the EMsHC wait to be given Holy Communion themselves, that they wait to be given whatever species of the Eucharist they have been appointed to assist with, and so on.

I’m not saying that EMsHC should be any part of the processional, only that discussing this or acting as if nobody knew before the processional started that EMsHC would be called upon is ridiculous, 99.9% of the time.

You’re so quick to defend the practice of EMHCs that you’re missing my entire point, even though I’ve repeated it. One more time, I am explaining why the GIRM does not address the issue of where EMHCs are supposed to sit, or whether or not they are supposed to take part in the entrance procession–that’s what this thread is about. The reason is because the GIRM generally doesn’t address extraordinary circumstances, and therefore a person who looks to the GIRM for certain information, namely the question posed in this thread, won’t find it there. It’s no different than saying that one will not find a recipe for chocolate cake in an encyclopedia: it’s not the appropriate source to consult. That doesn’t mean I’m criticizing people for baking cakes.

Contrary to what you might be thinking, I’m not trying to address the issue of over-use of EMHCs. As I said, that’s a different topic for another time.

 

[EasterJoy]

You’re so quick to defend the practice of EMHCs that you’re missing my entire point, even though I’ve repeated it. One more time, I am explaining why the GIRM does not address the issue of where EMHCs are supposed to sit, or whether or not they are supposed to take part in the entrance procession–that’s what this thread is about. The reason is because the GIRM generally doesn’t address extraordinary circumstances, and therefore a person who looks to the GIRM for certain information, namely the question posed in this thread, won’t find it there. It’s no different than saying that one will not find a recipe for chocolate cake in an encyclopedia: it’s not the appropriate source to consult. That doesn’t mean I’m criticizing people for baking cakes.

Contrary to what you might be thinking, I’m not trying to address the issue of over-use of EMHCs. As I said, that’s a different topic for another time.

Even though I was making the same point I made with you, I was responding to a different poster, not you.

It is not the question of whether to use of EMsHC where I take issue with you two, but with this recurring implication that their use must be in response to circumstances that are emergent, rather than extraordinary. That something is done at Mass that is left out of the GIRM doesn’t make doing it into an emergency. As you point out, the GIRM doesn’t aim to be the end-all for every contingency, whether emergent or not.

That is my point: EMsHC are extraordinary, not emergency. Extraordinary and emergency are not the same thing. It is ridiculous to make some pretense that implies that they were summoned literally at the last minute, such as not asking them to sit together, lest it appear that their assistance was pre-arranged. Well, of course it was! If their approach to render assistance is not orderly, it only looks as if the pre-arrangement was done in a shoddy fashion. Nobody thinks it was not done. If the use of EMsHC were not pre-arranged, it would not reflect well on the diligence of the priest, since he didn’t have the forethought to arrange for help that obviously could have known he needed. Are the laity present to think he just changed his mind at the last minute? Do you see my point? It is silly.

Likewise, it is silly not to have those who are legitimately assisting a priest approach the altar, *if *approaching the altar renders them of greater assistance to him. If small boys are allowed near the altar when having them there is useful, then it is ludicrous not to allow adults whose assistance the priest has deemed necessary.

And yes, whether their assistance was really required in the first place is another kettle of fish. This discussion is about how it might be handled when those with the discretion to make these decisions have decided the assistance of EMsHC is required. How might that assistance be rendered in a way that is the most reverent, the least distracting, and the most appropriate in light of the fact that certain adults rendering assistance still belong squarely within the laity? I don’t think that having them sit together in the church or approach the altar when they are needed makes them appear to be pseudo-clergy.

 

[Phemie]

I think this distinction between lector and reader is something people on this board do. The GIRM doesn’t use the term reader when it means uninstituted – see GIRM 59

1. By tradition, the function of proclaiming the readings is ministerial, not presidential. The readings, therefore, should be proclaimed by a lector, and the Gospel by a deacon or, in his absence, a priest other than the celebrant. If, however, a deacon or another priest is not present, the priest celebrant himself should read the Gospel. Further, if another suitable lector is also not present, then the priest celebrant should also proclaim the other readings.

I don’t think the part in blue refers strictly to an instituted lector, do you? It think this argument exists only because there are two words in English that mean the same thing. In French you don’t hear this argument since ‘lecteur’ is a common word used for anyone who reads.

 

[FrDavid96]

I think this distinction between lector and reader is something people on this board do. The GIRM doesn’t use the term reader when it means uninstituted – see GIRM 59

1. By tradition, the function of proclaiming the readings is ministerial, not presidential. The readings, therefore, should be proclaimed by a lector, and the Gospel by a deacon or, in his absence, a priest other than the celebrant. If, however, a deacon or another priest is not present, the priest celebrant himself should read the Gospel. Further, if another suitable lector is also not present, then the priest celebrant should also proclaim the other readings.

I don’t think the part in blue refers strictly to an instituted lector, do you? It think this argument exists only because there are two words in English that mean the same thing. In French you don’t hear this argument since ‘lecteur’ is a common word used for anyone who reads.

There’s no difference between the words “lector” and “reader” I don’t see any argument. Perhaps on threads I haven’t seen? (no, I wouldn’t be interrested in seeing them if anyone has links). Sure, one should use the term “Lector” for an instituted Lector if the context calls for it (say if the context is formal for example), but there’s nothing wrong with using the word “reader” when referring to the person doing the readings. There’s also nothing wrong with using the word “lector” when referring to someone who hasn’t been duly instituted. As I said in my earlier post, it’s nothing more than a convenient “shortcut.”

 

[Halos1n2Horns]

I have a Question concerning extra ordinary ministers of HC. Where does it say in the GIRM , cannon , or catechism that were not allowed to make the sign of peace in the santuary, As so our new Priest thinks its ok his cause was to signify unity? I told him i prefer not to. and explained why, My question is this is it in writing that extraordinary ministers are not allowed or are allowed to make the sign of peace with other extra ordinary ministers in the santuary? I know the Priest is allowed to do so with the small group around him at the present time.

thanks Halos

 

[Joannm]

I have a Question concerning extra ordinary ministers of HC. Where does it say in the GIRM , cannon , or catechism that were not allowed to make the sign of peace in the santuary, As so our new Priest thinks its ok his cause was to signify unity? I told him i prefer not to. and explained why, My question is this is it in writing that extraordinary ministers are not allowed or are allowed to make the sign of peace with other extra ordinary ministers in the santuary? I know the Priest is allowed to do so with the small group around him at the present time.

thanks Halos

It doesn’t say it because the EMHC’s are not supposed to be in the sanctuary for the sign of peace. Others have posted documentation that says when the EMHCs are supposed to approach the altar.