Should we even have EMHC's?

[japhy]

So what would you do if approached by the Pastor and asked to be one? Him telling you that he wouldn’t be asking you if he didn’t feel that the need was great. That anyone who gives someone even a cup of water for Christ’s sake will not go unrewarded and how much more important it is to bring the body & blood of Christ to others.

When you agree, he tells you to meet with the parish nun who hands you a book and tells you to memorize certain pages and walks you over to another priest who lays hands on you and prays in Latin.

When you ask him if there is anything else, he says ‘no’ and shakes your hand saying ‘congratulations, we can really use the extra help.’

Do you tell him that he is wrong? That there should be more to it? Do you not perform the duties that are now being assigned to you?

Please advise?

First of all, at my parish, we have plenty of EMHCs. I lament that, at Holy Thursday Mass, when another half-dozen priests from the nearby Vincentian Seminary came to the Mass to concelebrate, not a single one of them distributed Communion; instead, they took their seats and a half-dozen laity came up to distribute. That is against the rules.

Assuming, however, that there was a need for another EMHC at parish, I’m not sure I would accept the invitation. I would prefer only to administer the Chalice, since I am not in the habit of receiving the Host in my hand anymore, and I would not be comfortable handling that many Hosts. If they could respect that, I would consider accepting.

And if I did accept the invitation, I would request what is my right as an EMHC – proper and “sufficient spiritual, theological, and practical preparation” – as well as the corresponding Order of Commissioning. I would also only accept on the condition that my parish cease the practice of having EMHCs purify the vessels after Mass (which they still do); I would not want to be put in the situation where I would be requested to do so. I have purified the sacred vessels once only (I repeat, I’m not an EMHC, nor do I have permission to purify the sacred vessels), and that was after I saw an EMHC pour the remains of the Precious Blood down the sink in the sacristy (I do not think it was even the sacrarium she poured it into). The very next day, since the priest did not purify them, I went into the sacristy to prevent further profaning of the Precious Blood.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Let me tell you a true story here.

A man I know was at a parish that emptied the holy water fonts during Lent. This man also knew that the Vatican had forbidden that practice.

So this man wrote a nice letter to his pastor, outlining both the theological reasons for keeping holy water in the fonts, and also including the Vatican instruction on the matter.

The pastor replied back that the bishop emptied the fonts in the Cathedral during Lent, and he was following the bishop’s example.

Now most men would have dropped the issue, and mumbled a bit about disobedient bishops.

But this man wrote a letter to the bishop, and didn’t hear back, he wrote another letter, same thing, he wrote a third.

About three weeks later, a letter went out from the bishop’s office instructing ALL parishes in the diocese to NOT empty the fonts during Lent.

Was this man ever disobedient to his pastor or bishop is seeking to have Vatican instructions followed?

(read Luke 18:1-8)

So the man through his respectful persistence taught both his pastor and bishop.

Reminds me of Mt 23:8 ““But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers.” and Luke 16:10 “” He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much.”

God bless,

Michael

 

[KatieD]

My training consisted of listening to our Director of Liturgy and another women sort of show us what to do and where to stand, and then listening to the Director of Liturgy talk about how it doesn’t really matter if a non-Catholic receives Holy Communion, people shouldn’t worry about going to Confession, etc. We spent a total of about 30 minutes there - no prayers, nothing else. I was quite disappointed, and it became clear to me why we have several EMHC’s who show absolutely no reverence at all.

 

[Cobbfmly]

First of all, at my parish, we have plenty of EMHCs. I lament that, at Holy Thursday Mass, when another half-dozen priests from the nearby Vincentian Seminary came to the Mass to concelebrate, not a single one of them distributed Communion; instead, they took their seats and a half-dozen laity came up to distribute. That is against the rules.

Assuming, however, that there was a need for another EMHC at parish, I’m not sure I would accept the invitation. I would prefer only to administer the Chalice, since I am not in the habit of receiving the Host in my hand anymore, and I would not be comfortable handling that many Hosts. If they could respect that, I would consider accepting.

And if I did accept the invitation, I would request what is my right as an EMHC – proper and “sufficient spiritual, theological, and practical preparation” – as well as the corresponding Order of Commissioning. I would also only accept on the condition that my parish cease the practice of having EMHCs purify the vessels after Mass (which they still do); I would not want to be put in the situation where I would be requested to do so. I have purified the sacred vessels once only (I repeat, I’m not an EMHC, nor do I have permission to purify the sacred vessels), and that was after I saw an EMHC pour the remains of the Precious Blood down the sink in the sacristy (I do not think it was even the sacrarium she poured it into). The very next day, since the priest did not purify them, I went into the sacristy to prevent further profaning of the Precious Blood.

Our pastor has made it very clear that we are extrordinary ministers and that any priests and/or deacons at the mass, regardless of if they are celebrating the mass or not, would be distributing holy eucharist. We are only to distribute when there are not enough priests and/or deacons for the number of people attending.

When the Vatican decided not to renew the exception (I don’t know the formal name) allowing laity in the US to purify the vessels our pastor posted a newspaper article about this in the sacristy. He did not inform the EMHC’s that they were to continue purifying the vessels until the Bishops issued instructions on this change. As a result he found himself walking into the sacristy after greeting everyone as they left to find vessels to purify and clean with a few minutes until the next mass. Needless to say, he quickly posted a clarification and kept the EMHC’s informed on the status of him starting to purify the vessels.

 

[japhy]

When the Vatican decided not to renew the exception (I don’t know the formal name) allowing laity in the US to purify the vessels our pastor posted a newspaper article about this in the sacristy. He did not inform the EMHC’s that they were to continue purifying the vessels until the Bishops issued instructions on this change. As a result he found himself walking into the sacristy after greeting everyone as they left to find vessels to purify and clean with a few minutes until the next mass. Needless to say, he quickly posted a clarification and kept the EMHC’s informed on the status of him starting to purify the vessels.

What I’m curious about, though, is how the Bishops could respond to the denial of the permission for EMHCs to purify the sacred vessels that would at all change what must be done. The GIRM says priest, deacon, or acolyte. The Magisterium says it can’t be a non-acolyte EMHC. What are we waiting to hear from our Bishops that could change anything?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

What I’m curious about, though, is how the Bishops could respond to the denial of the permission for EMHCs to purify the sacred vessels that would at all change what must be done. The GIRM says priest, deacon, or acolyte. The Magisterium says it can’t be a non-acolyte EMHC. What are we waiting to hear from our Bishops that could change anything?

Because if you read the GIRM from the beginning, and throughout, you’ll see how the conference of Bishops have the authority on various issues such as these.

Jim

 

[Cobbfmly]

What I’m curious about, though, is how the Bishops could respond to the denial of the permission for EMHCs to purify the sacred vessels that would at all change what must be done. The GIRM says priest, deacon, or acolyte. The Magisterium says it can’t be a non-acolyte EMHC. What are we waiting to hear from our Bishops that could change anything?

What the instructions were for the procedure the priests where to use for purifying the vessels (i.e. after mass, to a side of the altar after Eucharist, etc). The instructions had nothing to do with whether laity could or couldn’t purify the vessels.

 

[lak611]

What the instructions were for the procedure the priests where to use for purifying the vessels (i.e. after mass, to a side of the altar after Eucharist, etc). The instructions had nothing to do with whether laity could or couldn’t purify the vessels.

This article clearly explains that EMHC’s who are not instituted Acolytes are not allowed to purify the vessels.

 

[Cobbfmly]

This article clearly explains that EMHC’s who are not instituted Acolytes are not allowed to purify the vessels.

I was not stating that laity was allowed to purify vessels. What I was explaining was that the instructions that the Bishops prepared after the none renewal by the Vatican of the exception (don’t know the formal name for this) allowing laity in the US to purify vessels had to do with the procedures the priests where to use to purify the vessels (time, location, etc) now that laity could not purify the vessels.

 

[lak611]

I was not stating that laity was allowed to purify vessels. What I was explaining was that the instructions that the Bishops prepared after the none renewal by the Vatican of the exception (don’t know the formal name for this) allowing laity in the US to purify vessels had to do with the procedures the priests where to use to purify the vessels (time, location, etc) now that laity could not purify the vessels.

There had been an indult allowing EMHC’s to purify vessels. The indult expired and was not renewed. Those of us who are EMHC’s are no longer allowed to do the purifications. My pastor complied with the rules.

 

[Brendan]

Because if you read the GIRM from the beginning, and throughout, you’ll see how the conference of Bishops have the authority on various issues such as these.

Jim

If the GIRM already gave the bishops the authority to do this, why did they ask Rome if they could continue allowing EMHC’s to purify? That’s what the bishop’s did in 2005, they requested permission from Rome to continue this practice.

Why ask permission for something you have the authority to decide on yourself (assuming they had that authority in the first place)

 

[JimR-OCDS]

If the GIRM already gave the bishops the authority to do this, why did they ask Rome if they could continue allowing EMHC’s to purify? That’s what the bishop’s did in 2005, they requested permission from Rome to continue this practice.

Why ask permission for something you have the authority to decide on yourself (assuming they had that authority in the first place)

Because the issue was not agreed upon by all the Bishops of the USCCB. In other words, they didn’t have a consensus on the issue.

The American Bishops don’t operate in a vacuum, but in union with Rome. However, lately, too many American fundamentalist Catholics, wouldn’t trust what the USCCB would come up with and would only force the issue toward Rome anyway.

.

Jim

 

[japhy]

From the USCCB web site:
In a decree dated March 22, 2002 (Prot. 1382/01/L), the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments granted an indult whereby, for grave pastoral reasons, the diocesan Bishop may grant to priest celebrants the faculty to permit extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion to assist with the purification of sacred vessels after the distribution of Communion at Mass. This faculty dispenses from the norm of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, editio typica tertia for a period of three years.

On June 15, 2002, the Latin members of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops approved a request for an indult from the prescriptions of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, editio typica tertia, allowing for the purification of sacred vessels by extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion when deemed pastorally appropriate by the diocesan bishop.

On June 9, 2006 in an audience with the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI this indult was not extended. The Conference of Bishops was informed of this by a letter from Cardinal Francis Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, dated October 12, 2006 (Prot, n. 468/05/L).

 

[bkovacs]

NO NO NO NO!!!:

 

[Cathryn]

I hope the Extra Ordinary Rite Mass becomes as common as Extra Ordinary Eucharistic Ministers.

 

[Kielbasi]

NO NO NO NO!!!:

Nowadays in parishes with hundreds of communicants receiving communion in both kinds and just a single priest on duty, it would be a major increase in the time allotted were the office of extraordinary minister were to be abolished.

Back in the 60’s of course, they didn’t have them, but in those days parishes had 2 or 3 other priests, a majority of Catholics didn’t receive each week and they received only the host.

Now we have a bit of a priest shortage, 90% plus of all present receive and communion in both kinds is now traditional- and mandated in some dioceses.

Practically speaking, its almost a necessity

 

[anamchara]

NO NO NO NO!!!:

What would be the problem with them

 

[Brendan]

Now we have a bit of a priest shortage, 90% plus of all present receive and communion in both kinds is now traditional- and mandated in some dioceses.

FYI, using Intinction means that a single minister may offer both species. And since Cardinal Arinze instructed the US Bishops that Intinction was a valid option “always and everywhere” it means it’s a valid option in every diocese.

 

[palmas85]

Nowadays in parishes with hundreds of communicants receiving communion in both kinds and just a single priest on duty, it would be a major increase in the time allotted were the office of extraordinary minister were to be abolished.

Back in the 60’s of course, they didn’t have them, but in those days parishes had 2 or 3 other priests, a majority of Catholics didn’t receive each week and they received only the host.

Now we have a bit of a priest shortage, 90% plus of all present receive and communion in both kinds is now traditional- and mandated in some dioceses.

Practically speaking, its almost a necessity

No, it is not. Sorry, expediency in receiving Holy Communion should not and cannot be the overriding concern in this equation.

 

[lak611]

No, it is not. Sorry, expediency in receiving Holy Communion should not and cannot be the overriding concern in this equation.

How could Masses be scheduled if they became much longer? What kind of schedule could accomodate a large parish of say 2100 families?