A
Annabelle_Marie
Guest
???Wouldn’t it be easier to say priest?
We have one priest…and distribute under both species…so no…it wouldn’t…
In the time it takes to ceremoniously distribute both species to all the EMHC's..
- Status
We have one priest…and distribute under both species…so no…it wouldn’t…
S
smndtupidisaftr
Guest
In the argument about whether EMHC’s are necessary or not, certain time saving practices are routinely ignored. Namely, bringing back the altar rail would greatly speed things up, as would having those who are not disposed to receive Communion stay in the pews rather than coming up for a blessing.
C
cothrige
Guest
Do the EMHCs in your parish say the consecration and confect the Sacrament? If they don’t do that then they are not, in fact, Eucharistic ministers. That is what it means to minister the Eucharist. It refers to offering the sacrifice of the Mass, not distributing Holy Communion.???
We have one priest…and distribute under both species…so no…it wouldn’t…
And this is the reason for my post above. You say you call people Eucharistic ministers, i.e those who minister the Eucharistic sacrifice, because it is easier to say than EMHC. But, if you are going to call these people what they are not just because it is easier then go ahead and call them priests. It is easier still and means the same thing as what you call them now.
A
Annabelle_Marie
Guest
It’s semantics…is what it is. Most of them look at me like my head sprouted off if I say EMHC each and every time (believe me…because I used to do this). They don’t think they say the consecration nor do I…we know what we mean. Just like I don’t say to my priest…“hello ordinary minister of holy communion”…honestly people get so wrapped up in the littlest semantical detail. I’m more worried about ensuring that the body/blood are treated with respect and the mass flows smoothly and the altar servers are doing their job…which is my job then in say EMHC each and every time.
But if it helps you to be uncharitable and stick to semantics…then by all means go ahead and do so.
A
Annabelle_Marie
Guest
Maybe…but so are certain things right now…like leaving it up to the Bishops/priests to decide-maybe that would be a good idea…oh wait…that’s what the Church says right now…
C
cothrige
Guest
Words have meanings and this is how language works. If you want to say things that make sense you use words with the correct accepted meanings. For instance, I know what uncharitable means, and your profoundly ugly and unchristian insult is meaningful because of that.
A
Annabelle_Marie
Guest
Uncalled for and reported!
C
cothrige
Guest
From the forum rules:
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks.
Calling me uncharitable for pointing out incorrect usage of Catholic terminology as defined by Holy Mother Church is definitely a personal attack. It is an insult to my person, and as it speaks to a lack of the theological virtues is in fact a statement on my personal soul. You have no right to say so, and your post is outside of the forum rules. I, however, have chosen not to report you and instead pointed out that you were insulting me. Your response is both ironic and amusing.
A
Annabelle_Marie
Guest
Please stop now!
K
Kevin812
Guest
This is a wonderfully suggestion!
L
larsont7
Guest
This from Catholic Answers own website: catholic.com/quickquestions/is-eucharistic-minister-the-correct-title-for-a-layperson-who-distributes-the-euchari
"No, the title [Eucharistic Minister] is not correct. *Redemptionis Sacramentum *states:
This function is to be understood strictly according to the name by which it is known, that is to say, that of extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, and not “special minister of holy Communion” nor “extraordinary minister of the Eucharist” nor “special minister of the Eucharist,” by which names the meaning of this function is unnecessarily and improperly broadened." (RS 156) - Answered by Jim Blackburn
Yeah. We know.
The point is that a significant number (and possibly the majority of) parishes do not use the proper terminology.
A
ajecphotos
Guest
For me, what is important is the point of receiving the Holy Communion, praising Our Lord, Loving the whole mass not wether the terminology is correct or not.
People get too hung up on that and should concentrate on what is happening at mass and why we attend and receive the body and blood of our dear Lord
People get too hung up on that and should concentrate on what is happening at mass and why we attend and receive the body and blood of our dear Lord
J
JackyB
Guest
I agree, how often the obvious solutions are ignored.
S
Spudbynight
Guest
There is no requirement for the faithful to receive communion under both kinds. In fact it is quite the opposite. It requires the permission of a bishop to allow communion under both kinds in a parish.Our parish has one priest and no deacons, so I guess he could hold the ciborium in his right hand and the chalice in his left hand, and the parishioners could help themselves…But heaven forbid he should ask any of the sinful laity to help him!
In our parish we don’t have any EMHCs and our priest manages to distribute communion on his own to a packed church without any problems.
S
Spudbynight
Guest
This is a question I ask myself. I sit on the border of two parishes and have attended Mass at both.
Parish 1 - 50-60 EMHCs, confession only on saturdays for 30mins
Parish 2 - 0 EMHCs, confession every day Mon-Sat after morning Mass AND Saturday evenings AND by appointment AND before and after Mass on Sunday if Father is able
I have attended midweek Mass at Parish 1 with maybe 12-15 in the congregation. At these Masses there are 3 EMHCs to distribute under both kinds.
J
JackyB
Guest
I do wish I could say the same about our parish, I see absolutely no need for EMHCs in our parish and if there is argument for them why the need for so many I have yet to discover.
S
Spudbynight
Guest
If there are 1000 people in the congregation and only a single priest without any assistance then a valid argument can be made for the use of EMHCs. It does pose the question as to why in such a large parish there is only a single priest but that is a separate question.
If the priest is infirm then again that is a valid reason for the use of EMHCs.
From my own experience the use of EMHCs seems to be invalid in most cases and bordering on disobedience.
A
Annabelle_Marie
Guest
Extraordinary Ministers of Holy CommunionIf there are 1000 people in the congregation and only a single priest without any assistance then a valid argument can be made for the use of EMHCs. It does pose the question as to why in such a large parish there is only a single priest but that is a separate question.
If the priest is infirm then again that is a valid reason for the use of EMHCs.
From my own experience the use of EMHCs seems to be invalid in most cases and bordering on disobedience.
28. When the size of the congregation or the incapacity of the bishop, priest, or deacon requires it, the celebrant may be assisted by other bishops, priests, or deacons. If such ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are not present, “the priest may call upon extraordinary ministers to assist him, i.e., formally instituted acolytes or even some of the faithful who have been commissioned according to the prescribed rite. In case of necessity, the priest may also commission suitable members of the faithful for the occasion.”
It is not your call to say that the use of EMHC’s is invalid in most case or to say it is bordering on disobedience.
The Church leaves this decision up to the Bishop and priest. They decide as they have the pastoral sense of what is needed and what is not.
I never understand how some people will complain that the laity make the decisions in the parish…and yet on something like this…when the priest has made their decision…we complain about it and think we know better.
No one has answered this…we trust the priest to be the Eucharistic minister (to use the correct terminolgy) but we can’t trust the priest to make the decisions regarding on if both species will be offered and if EMHC’s are needed???
K
klm120861
Guest
We have 4 station for the main floor. 2 to 4 stations for the overflow. And at least 4 for the upstairs. There are chairs in the upstairs, which is almost always full, as that is actually “ground level” (we do weird construction things in AZ). Also, that is where most of our handicapped people sit, as it is “ground level”. There are pews downstairs, and removable chairs in the “overflow”. In terms of seating, pretty much during the 10 o’clock during Lent, there are only a couple of inches between bottoms.
I don’t know how long it takes, but I know it’s always at least 3 long songs worth, with instrumental interludes included. For want of a better phrase, it all runs like a well-oiled machine. But that’s not surprising as the Catholic Church has a long history of efficency. I’m always amazed at how quickly the Eucharist is served to the 100,000’s at St. Peter’s square when they celebrate Mass to the masses. But there’s no way our priests and deacons could do it alone.
Kris
- Status