P
ProVobis
Guest
If I’m not mistaken, isn’t that still part of the pre-communion prayer? Domine non sum dignus (“Lord, I am not worthy”) Are EMHCs philosophically exempt?
- Status
A
archangel04
Guest
Lol that says it all right there folks! Sorry to burst your bubble mam but the younger generations, you know the ones that your generation “screwed” over by taking away the treasures of the Church and leaving us with a big mess, are seeking the “old ways”
Most of us don’t care for the hand holding, and the “hippie” style mass. Continue to think however you want, but the rest of us will follow the Rock the bishop of Rome.
B
Brendan
Guest
OK, let’s look at ith with reason.
The Minister of Baptism is the person who pours the water and recites the Triune Formula.
The Minister of Reconcillation is the person who absolves the penitent.
The Minster of Marriage is are the couple themselves,
The Minister of Annointing is the one who places the oil on the sick person’s head.
In other words, the minister of the Sacrament is the one who brings the Sacrament about, who confects the Sacrament
The Best Man and Maid of Honor, nor the priest do not minister the Sacrament, but to have a key funtion. But they are not the Matrimonial Ministers, are they.
The Minister of the Eucharist, therefore is the man who confects the Sacrament, who brings about the change of bread and wine into the Eucharist. Thus the priest or bishop is the only person who can be called Ministers of the Eucharist.
The clergy and designated laypeople can bring that Sacrament to the community ( to ‘Commune’ the Sacrament. Note that this is a seperate function from actually confecting the Sacrament.
The people who bring the Sacrament to the community are called "Ministers of Holy Communion’. Priests, Bishops and Deacon do this ordinarily, designated lay people do this in a Extraordinary way.
So we can see, using Reason, and thinking about it, that
- The functions of confecting the Sacrament and communing the Sacrament are two distinct ministries.
- Since the ministries are so distinct, they have seperate titles, in the same way that the witness to marriage ( priest, best man, maid of honor) are distinct from being the Minister of Marriage.
If a lay person is claiming to be a “Eucharistic Minister”, a thinking person would recognize that their statement cannot be so. The person making that claim would be wrong and why should any of us promote error?
If you read above, you will see that the phraseology does not, in fact describe the function in question.
A
agnes_therese
Guest
Using the correct terminology means that someone feels “threatened?” News to me. I am happy to serve as an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. That in no way demeans me as a lay person in general, nor as a woman in particular. It in no way implies that “the hierarchy” is saying we are “below” them. ‘Below’ and ‘different’ are two entirely different words.
I’m sorry you feel such antagonism toward my beloved Catholic Church.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
I’m not being arrogant. I’m simply pointing out that your manner of thinking on this subject is backwards and, consequent to this post, now contradictory. You understand that we all have a function in the Church and that those functions can be very different. Okay. But you feel somehow entitled to serve as a [sic] Eucharistic Minister, something that only priests and bishops can do, because we are “all priests?” Alright, I guess, but not really.
I think you’re paranoid. This reminds me of something I’d read on NCR. Like I said, I find it hard to believe that it knocks the socks off the bishops and priests when they “control” us. I hate using this word, because it’s magnificently overused, but that is uncharitable. It really is. The Catholic Church is a hierarchy. I’m sorry if you don’t like that, but that was instituted by Christ himself. It is here for a reason. There would be no Church without a hierarchy. There would be no sacraments without a hierarchy. Why? Because that is how God himself ordered it to be. Now, with a hierarchy obviously comes different roles. People are in charge of other people. People make decisions for other people. You just have to deal with it. I’d like to give a gentler, more loving answer, but there isn’t one.
Let me tell you something. We are all unworthy. You know that line from mass? Domine, non sum dignus, ut intres sub tectum meum: sed tantum dic verbo, et sanabitur anima mea. Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed. Guess what? The bishop or priest also says that.
I want to share something with you. I’ve only been a Catholic for a short while. I’ve spoken socially to many people at my parish, young and old, black and white, men and women, ordained and non-ordained (
). It’s been my experience that, more often than not, the majority of people with the most radically “progressive” of these attitudes (as you put it) were born before Vatican II and remember all that stuff. I’ve formulated my own hypothesis as to why it’s generally older people. I think it’s because it’s their cultural “mark,” if you will, on the Catholic world. In the 1960s, the cultural current was change. Change, change change, radical change. Naturally, the young teenagers and twenty-somethings of that generation generally embraced that. It was intoxicating. Vatican II had the unfortunate experience of being held in that crazy decade. It was a very poor coincidence. Since the world was changing, the youth of that era expected the Church to radically change also. I’m sure many people were perhaps disappointed by the documents of Vatican II when they were released. Then came the willy-nilly. Everything changed anyways, sometimes in ways contrary to not only tradition, but also the Council itself. These types of attitudes were born. There was the expectation of change, the world’s expectation of the youth of that era, Catholic youth being no exception. So basically, this attitude, I think, is the generational identifier, if you will, of the Catholics of that era. That is what they embrace. They are the “Children of Vatican II,” if you will, and many of them remain that way, and I wager you are among them. I feel this entire thread is an indicator of this. It’s the 60’s cultural dumping on the Catholic Church. You will find that today’s Catholic youth are not so radical, nor are the young priests usually. We are healing that wound.I don’t deny that there were problems before Vatican II. But let me tell you a secret: there still are, and probably more now than before, for various reasons, our culture being one of them. This entire thread proves it. We must defenestrate this sense of entitlement. Thanks for reading my hair-brained post.
A
Annabelle_Marie
Guest
I don’t get it…yes I understand it is EMHC however most of those I come in contact with don’t know what an EMHC is. Not that they mean anything bad or that they want to upstage priests…they just don’t know there is a difference:shrug: Am I bad because I don’t jump down their throat for using the incorrect term?
Do we get after people if they call the priest a minister of confirmation when in reality he is an extraordinary minister of confirmation?
Yes…I usually say EMHC but I don’t go around correcting everyone else because it just seems like that is the most important thing in our faith…
Do we get after people if they call the priest a minister of confirmation when in reality he is an extraordinary minister of confirmation?
Yes…I usually say EMHC but I don’t go around correcting everyone else because it just seems like that is the most important thing in our faith…
A
Anna_Claire
Guest
Good point Annabelle…Agreed! I never correct people. I do the formation in my parish for EMs. I do use both terms and tell them what the church prefers.I don’t spend a lot of time on this. It’s not important and not a good idea. One of the reasons the term “EM” is discouraged is because of the potential to blur functions between clerical and lay ministries. Please! We are very aware of our different functions. Why does the Church insist that we need to know our place? Its called clericalism.I don’t get it…yes I understand it is EMHC however most of those I come in contact with don’t know what an EMHC is. Not that they mean anything bad or that they want to upstage priests…they just don’t know there is a difference:shrug: Am I bad because I don’t jump down their throat for using the incorrect term?
Do we get after people if they call the priest a minister of confirmation when in reality he is an extraordinary minister of confirmation?
Yes…I usually say EMHC but I don’t go around correcting everyone else because it just seems like that is the most important thing in our faith…
P
paperwight66
Guest
Exactly. Even the clergy in our parish refer to Eucharistic Ministers, meaning EMHC.
There is no confusion whatsoever. How can there be, when some of us women and none of us wear any clerical garb or vestments. The idea that we could be confused with priests is laughable.
There is no confusion whatsoever. How can there be, when some of us women and none of us wear any clerical garb or vestments. The idea that we could be confused with priests is laughable.
B
Brendan
Guest
I’m sure that people are aware of the distinction between the roles of Minster of Baptism and that of Godparent.
But if a Godparent said that they were the “Minister of Baptism”, would you correct them?
Or would you rather that they continue in ignorance.
One of the Spiritual Works of Mercy is to instruct the ignorant. Do you not wish to perform acts of Mercy?
Anna Clare, you wanted the faithful to be thinkers, but yet I have shown you the information, the facts involved. The Sacramentology is there, it’s clear
It would seem that you really do not want the faithful to think about facts, but to go along with the flow, do to what everyone else does, even if it is incorrect. You seem to want to be lemmings, not thinkers.
B
Brendan
Guest
But if a person is claiming to be a Minister of the Eucharist, they are, in fact, claiming to be able to confect the Eucharist.
Even if they do so unknowingly, why should we leave a person in ignorance, why would anyone consider that to be a good thing?
B
Brendan
Guest
There is a difference between imparting knowledge (which is a good thing) and 'jumping down their throat".
Why is it a good thing for a person to remain in ignorance of the correct term, especially as it relates to having a knowledgable understanding of how the Sacraments are administerd.
No, and they should not, as one term just is a clarification of of a larger subset. The equivalent error would really be calling the Confirmation Sponsor a “Minister of Confirmation”
That would be incorrect and I presume that anyone would be able to (and willing to) correct a person who made such an error, and do so in a polite, educational way.
I would say that it IS important, as it promotes a fuller understanding of the theology of our Sacraments.Yes…I usually say EMHC but I don’t go around correcting everyone else because it just seems like that is the most important thing in our faith…
Vatican II desired an informed, knowledable laity, so why hinder that by promoting ignorance?
C
Cristiano
Guest
If there were an enlisted man in the army with the rank of sergeant major who started calling himself major, don’t you think that he would end up confusing people that do not know him? I a battlefield it is not a good idea to wear your stripes and thus I think that people would obey someone called major before listening to someone addressed as captain and that would create a lot of problems.
P
ProVobis
Guest
The problem is that many Anglophones equate Eucharist with communion so therefore a Eucharistic Minister and Minister of Holy Communion are the same thing to them. That’s compounded by an acronym EM which can be Eucharistic Minister or Extraordinary Minister.
So does it become an issue of correcting their English?
A
Annabelle_Marie
Guest
I’m not hindering anything. Please have some charity! I don’t think it’s a super important thing as when people say Eucharistic minister…they are NOT meaning a priest or someone who consecrates it. I get enough questions by using the term EMHC and I figure that is good enough. When their heart is in the right place I don’t see the need to get into the nitty gritty details. If I thought someone actually meant that…then yes I would correct them.
Really I find reconcillation and proper respect for the Eucharist and the Mass MUCH more important then correcting someone who means the same thing but used the wrong term…call me crazy:shrug:
B
Brendan
Guest
Annabelle,
The Vatican thought it was important enough to issue a document that addressed it (Redemptionis Sacramentum).
Do you feel comfortable enough placing your own level of understanding of the importance of the issue above that of Rome’s?
The Vatican thought it was important enough to issue a document that addressed it (Redemptionis Sacramentum).
Do you feel comfortable enough placing your own level of understanding of the importance of the issue above that of Rome’s?
B
Brendan
Guest
It is not a matter of correctling their English, as there are no grammatical errors involved. To use Christano’s example; it would be grammatically correct to refer to a person using the title of Major, but that is not the error, the error is in using a title that does not apply to the individual involved.
The error here is in the title given to the person who confects the Sacrament is different from the title given to the one who communes the Sacrament
You are correct that there is a lack of understanding on the roles each title conveys, but that is a matter of ignorance.
And I have yet to hear a justifiication for leaving a person in ignorance on this matter.
How, exactly does the ignorance help the person? In what way does letting a person remain in ignorance of the teachings of the Faith aid them? Did not Vatican II call for the laity to be better educated in their faith?
N
Newbie2
Guest
I pretty much stopped reading this thread right after I read this…
A
Annabelle_Marie
Guest
Ya…I do… I would have to spend my time correcting EVERYONE…including some priests. I am following my fully informed concience…I don’t use the term and therefore don’t provide a bad example…when people use it they are not meaning what some people are saying they are…therefore I consider my time and charity to be much more useful elsewhere.
Do I think it’s something that I’m going to get to heaven and Jesus is going to say…wait a minute…you didn’t spend enough time correcting and instructing people on the PROPER term? No.
Sure…it’s important…is it MORE important then some other things? No. As we are learning in the daily readings…even Jesus didn’t have time to heal everyone and he had to move on.
P
ProVobis
Guest
You are right, of course. Unless the language or title is corrected, the underlying meanings will tend to become (further) corrupted.
B
Brendan
Guest
Annabelle,
I posted this on the second page, and I’ll post it again.
Here is Pastor Aeternus (Vatican I)
If one holds that Eccumenical Councils (such as Vatican I and II) are to be listened to,
It would mean that we have to be obedient to the Church in this matter. Therefore, we have to use this term, and to encourage others to do so.
What will you say when Jesus asks you if you were obedient to His Church? Go and read the parable of the talents (Luke 19) . We called to be faithful in small matters as well as large, are we not?
- Status