Have we become overly dependent on EMHC's?

  • Thread starter Thread starter victrolatim
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
V

victrolatim

Guest
First and foremost, I am in no way trying to belittle the ministry of an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, but this though crossed my mind at daily Mass today. Mass attendance was ~40 people today and I was sort of taken aback to see four (4) EMHC’s in addition to the celebrant distributing the Eucharist. Even so, the majority of the congregation went to the priest anyway, leaving the ministers standing there with ciboria. I can understand at a weekend Mass, but at a daily it just seemed excessive.
 
Yes, in some parishes that I have seen, they have exaggerated the need for extraordinary ministers. When I used to go to the Novus Ordo, there was probably 12 or so extraordinary ministers at my home parish. At a different parish, they used just 3 for the same size congregation and Communion wasn’t dragged out because of it.
 
victrolatim said:
First and foremost, I am in no way trying to belittle the ministry of an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, but this though crossed my mind at daily Mass today. Mass attendance was ~40 people today and I was sort of taken aback to see four (4) EMHC’s in addition to the celebrant distributing the Eucharist. Even so, the majority of the congregation went to the priest anyway, leaving the ministers standing there with ciboria. I can understand at a weekend Mass, but at a daily it just seemed excessive.
Click to expand...
The whole concept of laity handling the Sacred Host and Chalice is extremely perverted. What started as a pre-conciliar abuse has become the unofficial norm in most of the Latin Church. There is absolutely no need for an army of EMHCs. Communion should not be rushed. If it takes ten minutes for a priest to communicate the congregation, so be it.

The Second Vatican Council called them “EXTRAORDINARY” because they should only be used in extraordinary cases. My church has about 100-120 folks at Sunday Mass, and seven EMHCs. Completely unnecessary.
 
Last year I visited a parish where it took 6 minutes to give the EMHC communion and 4 minutes for them to distribute it. :rolleyes:
 
The decision to use EMHC is above my pay-grade.
If a priest/pastor feels that they are necessary, and the Ordinary allows them, then who am I to question?

In my diocese, our previous Bishop had issued instructions that if both species were going to be offered, there needed to be 2:1 ratio. So, if we needed 2 ministers to help the priest distribute the Sacred Body, we would need 6 ministers for the Sacred Blood. As far as I know, our new Bishop has not changed this, yet. There is talk that he might stop the offering of both species, which will make me very sad, but that is his prerogative.
 
Common sense would dictate that so many EMHC’s would not be necessary for so few people at a daily Mass.
 
smead2942 said:
The Second Vatican Council called them “EXTRAORDINARY” because they should only be used in extraordinary cases. My church has about 100-120 folks at Sunday Mass, and seven EMHCs. Completely unnecessary.
Click to expand...
The Second Vatican Council had nothing to do with them. They were not even envisioned by the Council Fathers, much less legislated in the documents of Vatican II, much less called “extraordinary”.

Immensae caritatis in 1973 was the first article to mention lay ministers in this role. This document called them “Special Ministers of the Eucharist”.

No Church document ever called this role “Eucharistic Minister”.

In 2004, Redemptionis sacramentum was issued, and certain terms and practices were reprobated. New terminology was introduced. It was this document which imposed the term “Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion” and explained that “Eucharistic Minister” could not describe anyone except an ordained priest or bishop. The Church was forced to make this latter explanation because many dioceses and parishes had leapt at the term “Special Minister of the Eucharist” and twisted it to say “Eucharistic Minister”, possibly because this was shorter, convenient and catchy, and also in a reflection of the bad kind of clericalism.

It was this same document which set out guidelines on when it is appropriate to use Extraordinary Ministers.

“Redemptionis sacramentum” said:
[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]

[158.] Indeed, the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may administer Communion only when the Priest and Deacon are lacking, when the Priest is prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged.[259] This, however, is to be understood in such a way that a brief prolongation, considering the circumstances and culture of the place, is not at all a sufficient reason.
Click to expand...

While it may be argued that this document clearly describes extraordinary circumstances, this is not what is meant when the Church uses the term. What the Church means is “not one of the ordinary ministers, outside the usual orders”. It describes the nature of their appointment and only by coincidence does it also describe the circumstances in which they operate.
 
And I would claim that is already the case. If EMHC’s were used about as frequently in any given diocese as the EF Mass is said, then I think we would all agree that that are being used in Extraordinary circumstances 😉

Let’s say, at maybe 2-3 parishes in a given Sunday :cool:
 
The best use of an extraordinary minister I have ever seen is when we had an elderly visiting priest while our pastor was on vacation. The priest’s arthritis was so bad that he had to celebrate Mass from a chair. The server, a seminarian, served as an extraordinary minister
 
Thank you Deacon, Clare, and Elizium for the informative posts. It’s nice to see a bit of sanity added to this topic, which can easily go the way of Chicken Little.
 
victrolatim said:
The best use of an extraordinary minister I have ever seen is when we had an elderly visiting priest while our pastor was on vacation. The priest’s arthritis was so bad that he had to celebrate Mass from a chair. The server, a seminarian, served as an extraordinary minister
Click to expand...
It may have been the case that the seminarian was an instituted Acolyte. This is one of the steps they take on the path to ordination to the priesthood. An altar server is actually just a stand-in when there is no Acolyte available, and an Acolyte is ex officio Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion.
 
Our new bishop issued sacramental policies that required parishes to request a certain number of EMHC’s before even asking anyone to serve. The response from his office would authorize a certain number. Persons in irregular marriages or relationships would not be approved. After two training sessions, an application form co-signed by the pastor and a profession of faith were signed and submitted to the bishop. A card was then issued to each approved EMHC. Our parish (with three churches) was told we needed more EMHC’s than we asked for but we have been unable to reach that number. The few we have serve frequently. At a Mass with, say, three hundred communicants, we get by with two EMHC’s and a deacon serving with the priest. Prior to this policy change, I have witnessed similarly sized congregations at other parishes with as many as fourteen EMHC’s.
 
I absolutely agree that we overuse the EMHCs. There is more justification when the chalice is also given.

Then there is the abuse of purifying the chalice. The only non-ordained person authorized to purify the chalice is an instituted acolyte.
 
eamonnroma said:
I absolutely agree that we overuse the EMHCs. There is more justification when the chalice is also given.

Then there is the abuse of purifying the chalice. The only non-ordained person authorized to purify the chalice is an instituted acolyte.
Click to expand...
Only our Deacons purify the vessels.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top