Have we become overly dependent on EMHC's?

  • Thread starter Thread starter victrolatim
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The reason it’s still overused is simple: many laymen have developed a whole spirituality around it and would be upset if the overuse EMHCs were cracked down on. Priests would get into less trouble for denying the Creed than restricting the use of EMHCs.
 
Windmill said:
The reason it’s still overused is simple: **many laymen have developed a whole spirituality around it **and would be upset if the overuse EMHCs were cracked down on. Priests would get into less trouble for denying the Creed than restricting the use of EMHCs.
Click to expand...
I would agree with this.
 
Hi there. My pastor is very faithful the Magisterium. As for the distribution of Holy Communion, the pastor and the vicar always distribute, as well as the deacon. Then, if a visiting seminarian is there he distributes. If there’s still a need for EMHCs then they assist.

I have visited parishes that appear to employ too many EMHCs , though.

God bless.
 
Elizium23 said:
That doesn’t make any sense when applied to “Extraordinary form”.
Click to expand...
Not only that, but a laicized priest can still confect the Eucharist in an Extraordinary circumstance, and they are still Ordained.

Yes, there are actually people are really ARE Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers, a laicized priest.

While they are no longer Clerics, they are still Ordained Priests.
 
Brendan said:
Not only that, but a laicized priest can still confect the Eucharist in an Extraordinary circumstance, and they are still Ordained.

Yes, there are actually people are really ARE Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers, a laicized priest.

While they are no longer Clerics, they are still Ordained Priests.
Click to expand...
Must be that stable group which brought him back. 🙂
 
Brendan said:
Not only that, but a laicized priest can still confect the Eucharist in an Extraordinary circumstance, and they are still Ordained.

Yes, there are actually people are really ARE Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers, a laicized priest.

While they are no longer Clerics, they are still Ordained Priests.
Click to expand...
Jimmy Akin’s blog reprinted the standard “Rescript of Laicization,” which seems to explicitly say that a laicized priest can only celebrate Reconciliation, and that in the extraordinary event of a deathbed confession, and also cannot serve as an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion.
 
Elizium23 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Actually, the guidelines for when it is allowed to use EMHC were written in the original 1973 document, Immensae Caritatis; they were reiterated in the 1980 document Inestimabile Donum; they were re-reiterated in the 1997 document Ecclesiae de Mysterio; and then they were re-re-reiterated in Redemptionis Sacramentum.

Forty-two years of unchanging guidelines and still I hear priests say, “It’s their ministry, they have a right to be there.”
 
I believe only the priest has a ministry, everyone else an apostalate. I will put semantics away for now and return to the original point of the post. Yes, they are overused. They are to be used only when the distribution of Holy Communion would unduly prolong the Mass. That of course is subject to interpretation.
Back in the 50’s, before I was born, my mother would attend standing room only Masses. Some of the congregation would actually have to hear Mass on the front steps as there was no room for them. lt was a very large parish and there were no Saturday vigil Masses then.
The priests would distribute previously consecrated Hosts from the beginning of Mass until the end. They did this without the existence of EHMC’s.
Nowadays it seems a second priest will not show up at a Mass because he feels unneeded with the EMHCS there.
I think the overuse stems from the Let’s give everyone a job mentality, which is not what The Church intended.
Am I putting EMHCS down? Not at all. They serve a vital function, particularly when visiting the sick. The priest can’t be everywhere. Just don’t overuse.
 
I do not think they are overused. I’ve been to some parishes where they had too many compared to the size of the congregation and vice versa on weekends. Weekday masses, normally 1 or 2 are used, but it depends on the amount of attendees too. Its hard to have the right amount because weekend Masses you can never predict the attendance especially in summer and holiday times.
 
MissRose73 said:
I do not think they are overused. I’ve been to some parishes where they had too many compared to the size of the congregation and vice versa on weekends. Weekday masses, normally 1 or 2 are used, but it depends on the amount of attendees too. Its hard to have the right amount because weekend Masses you can never predict the attendance especially in summer and holiday times.
Click to expand...
But see, this is when a priest has to step in and say, “I know that X number were scheduled, but now we only have a few congregants so we only need Y number. Please decide who will not be serving at this Mass.”

EMHCs who had been properly instructed in their ministry would happily volunteer to step aside.

I’ve seen 2 priests sit in the sanctuary and 3 EMHCs distribute along with the celebrant at Mass with ~150 people. Just because the EMHCs were already scheduled. That is simply wrong. Of course now we don’t have to worry about that in our parish because the occasion when we would have more than one priests are few and far between.

I know our Pastoral Assistant wanted to schedule EMHCs at an Ordination Mass with at least 10 concelebrants, because, well, women had to be involved in some capacity. And that’s not my interpretation, that’s what was said. Same with the new priest’s first Mass the next day.

I was relieved when the Bishop decreed no EMHCs at the Ordination. At the first Mass I opted not to schedule any because I knew several priests would still be around and concelebrating with the newly ordained priest.
 
jaimeleglise said:
Extraordinary=outside of being ordained.
Click to expand...
Elizium23 said:
That doesn’t make any sense when applied to “Extraordinary form”.
Click to expand...
Two different senses of the word.* Similarly, those 34~ish weeks of the year called *Ordinary Time *does not mean “not special”, it means the weeks are Ordered (numbered).
Brendan said:
Not only that, but a laicized priest can still confect the Eucharist in an Extraordinary circumstance, and they are still Ordained.

Yes, there are actually people are really ARE Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers, a laicized priest.

While they are no longer Clerics, they are still Ordained Priests.
Click to expand...
I am unaware of any circumstance in which a laicized priest may licitly celebrate Mass (ie confect the Eucharist)?? :confused: Similarly, it is my understanding that such men are not to e utilized as ministers of Holy Communion, in order*** to minimize confusion in the minds of the faithful. That is, to emphasize: This man is an ordained priest; He is a priest forever; But he is no longer permitted to even appear to function as a priest.****

(* Which is among the reasons, but certainly not the only one, that I object to the stoopid descriptors “Ordinary Form” and “Extraordinary Form”. That’s a topic for a different thread)

(** Yes, the weeks of all the Church’s seasons are numbered. In the case of Ordinary Time they number “through the year” rather than as part of a season)

(*** Sorry)

(**** In the extraordinary circumstance of imminent death, he is permitted, even obligated, to offer absolution)

tee
whew
 
PS,
To answer the question in the Title:

I do not believe that we are *overly dependent *on EMsHC.

I do believe EMsHC are overly used, in situations where their presence is unnecessary.

:twocents: A subtle but important distinction IMHO. :twocents:

tee
 
tee,

I think Brendan is being a little literal in order to make a point. The only “Ministers of the Eucharist” are those who can confect the Eucharist (ie, bishops and priests only). The phrase “Eucharistic Minister” or “Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist” are often used to describe laymen who help with the distribution of Communion. however these titles are explicitly discouraged by the Vatican because it can lead to bad theology if taken to its literal conclusions. These laymen are Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion because they assist with the Communion Rite, not the consecration of the Eucharist. Therefore, a person who can confect the Eucharist is a truly extraordinary situation is a laicized priest (even then, it’s very restricted).

Funny, Brendan.
 
tee_eff_em said:
PS,
To answer the question in the Title:

I do not believe that we are *overly dependent *on EMsHC.

I do believe EMsHC are overly used, in situations where their presence is unnecessary.

:twocents: A subtle but important distinction IMHO. :twocents:

tee
Click to expand...
Agreed. IN addition, as others have noted, once that horse is out of the barn…it’s hard to rein it back in.
People would lose their minds if their use were scaled back. That’s the problem when we “allow” certain things on a limited basis. Everyone comes up with a perceived “need” and then it become a widespread thing. Once you permit something, people feel they have had something “taken from them” and there’s more problems for the priests. 🤷
 
Windmill said:
tee,

I think Brendan is being a little literal in order to make a point.
Click to expand...
If so, he was pulling the point out of the air. Unless I misread the thread, up until then the only posters to use the term *“Eucharistic Minister” * were

  • *][post=13191197]Elizium23[/post], who was noting it as an INcorrect term for a layman deputed to administer the Eucharist, and
    *][post=13192349]Brendan[/post] himself
    Windmill said:
    The only “Ministers of the Eucharist” are those who can confect the Eucharist (ie, bishops and priests only). The phrase “Eucharistic Minister” or “Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist” are often used to describe laymen who help with the distribution of Communion. however these titles are explicitly discouraged by the Vatican because it can lead to bad theology if taken to its literal conclusions. These laymen are Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion because they assist with the Communion Rite, not the consecration of the Eucharist. Therefore, a person who can confect the Eucharist is a truly extraordinary situation is a laicized priest (even then, it’s very restricted).

    Funny, Brendan.
    Click to expand...
    And I repeat: I am unaware of any extraordinary (special) circumstance when a laicized priest may licitly confect the Eucharist. I welcome correction/education if it is available.

    :twocents:
    tee
 
tee_eff_em said:
I am unaware of any circumstance in which a laicized priest may licitly celebrate Mass (ie confect the Eucharist)??
Click to expand...
In cases of death, a laicized priest may offer not just Absolution, but Last Rites ( Absolution, Apostolic Blessing and viaticum)

And example would be a laicized priest on a sinking ship. Not only could he offer a General Absolution, but could offer Mass and distribute Holy Communion to those about to die.

It is a very unusual circumstance, but one that exists.

We actually covered that in one of my Sacramentology classes at the Seminary 🙂
 
I think a great way to start highlighting our overuse/over"dependency" on EMHCs would be to simply not use them for daily Mass. Keep HC limited to one species and have Fr. be the sole distributor. He doesn’t have a bunch of vessels to purify afterwards and it subtly makes the point that these people really aren’t needed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top