Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
No, it’s called clericalism when people are too afraid to be called what they are. That’s an enslavement to clericalism.
- Status
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
Your “fully informed conscience?” What does that mean? Your conscience does not have the power of going above Rome unless you are, really, hopelessly ignorant (and I mean that literally) of the truth. You don’t provide a bad example by not providing a good example? What does that even mean? How do you know what people mean when they say “Eucharistic minister?” Hm? Isn’t it, logically and charitably, the better choice to help the ignorant by using the right term anyway? But, really, what does this have to do with charity anyway? Nothing. Using the right term for something isn’t being anything contrary to charitable.
Moving on doesn’t mean giving in to impropriety. No, you don’t have to go around correcting everyone you hear, but you do know the correct term, so it seems at least a bit disingenuous to use any other term, if not a bit unseemly depending on why, as it is completely incorrect. If it didn’t matter there wouldn’t be a different term.
A
Annabelle_Marie
Guest
I do use that term…if you read my posts. Do I go about correcting and instructing everyone else…no…and I don’t believe that is what it is saying. My husband knows the correct term and a few other people that I know closely do.
So therefore…yes I consider myself to be faithful in this small matter and obedient to the Church.
Again…I use the correct term and if people ask about what that is…I instruct them. I believe in all good concience for that to be following the Church and providing a good example. I will leave it up for Jesus to judge me…not you. As I well know from your other posts that nothing I ever did would be good enough for you.
F
FLGreg
Guest
Agreed. I would think that this would be a fantastic opportunity to correct the poor catechesis that some catholics received. How long does it take to explain the difference between an ordinary and extraordinary minister of Holy Communion?
Food for thought?
A
Annabelle_Marie
Guest
??? Did I not say I use the correct term??? What I mean by fully informed concience is yes…I know what Rome says and what I believe it to say…not what you or Brendan believe it to say. That is what I mean by an informed concience.
**I use the correct term **and those closest to me know what I believe it to be. But do I correct EVERYONE when I hear them use Eucharistic minister…no. Hmmm…last night during Fr.'s talk he used the term Eucharistic minister instead of EMHC when he really meant EMHC…maybe I should have piped up and corrected him in front of everyone…
It really is getting a bit ridicoulous and legalistic in my book for me. Do I believe this is THE most important topic of the Church? NO! It’s this kind of nit picking that drives people away. Especially doing it to people I’m not really familiar with. So no…I choose not to correct everyone and I don’t believe that Rome is asking us to correct everyone.
A
Annabelle_Marie
Guest
Hmmm…well take a check and see how much the other term is used. I believe that there are other things that need more addressing then this. So when you add them all up…yes it would take a little while if you do it to everyone.
But you decide what you want to correct and let me decide what I want to correct…
C
Cristiano
Guest
It can be very fast or it can take quite a long time. It just depends on the speaker and on the listener.
P
paperwight66
Guest
So OK, I was at a parish meeting on Monday, and both the priest and the Permanent Deacon used the term ‘Eucharistic Minister’, meaning EMHC. Do you really think I should have waved my hand n the air and corrected them?
A
Anna_Claire
Guest
There are so many more important things to teach people about the Faith. EMs or EMHCs is not one of them. If it were that important to correct every catechetical mistake or misinformation I hear… or even things that I read in this forum, it would be a full-time job!
P
Phemie
Guest
I have to admit that the response I’ve got every time I’ve corrected anyone on this is “Yeah, yeah, whatever…” and they’ve kept right on using the term Eucharistic minister. Even my pastor once ordered me not to use ‘extraordinary minister of Holy Communion’ but only ‘eucharistic minister’.
B
Brendan
Guest
I will grant that there are FAR too many Catholics that are uncatechized on their Faith on FAR too many matters.
But your claim about taking too much time doesn’t make much sense. After all, I have pointed out that it is Spiritual Act of Mercy to do so.
It is the equivalent to saying that there are too many hungry people to bother feeding them ( a Corporal Act of Mercy).
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I don’t see why we need to construe any attempt at clarification on the part of the Holy See or our bishops as being some malicious attempt to “control” the faithful. If I honestly felt that the Pope and bishops were only out to control me, I don’t think I could be Catholic.
I understand wanting to stick with EM over EMHC. EM is the term I was accustomed to and it rolls off the tongue much more easily. But we shouldn’t fault our bishops for trying to bring theological precision into our Catholic vocabulary. Indeed, Church history is full of heresies, schisms and Councils that rose or fell based on terminology (the entire 4th century basically flows from whether or not the letter ‘i’ should be included in a particular term or not!). It does make a difference.
Even if we don’t like the term EMHC or we don’t think it makes much of a difference, we should at the very least respect our shepherds enough not to assign ill intent to their actions. They deserve the benefit of the doubt. And there are certainly a number of reasonable explanations for their clarification beyond them wanting to keep us under their thumb.
I understand wanting to stick with EM over EMHC. EM is the term I was accustomed to and it rolls off the tongue much more easily. But we shouldn’t fault our bishops for trying to bring theological precision into our Catholic vocabulary. Indeed, Church history is full of heresies, schisms and Councils that rose or fell based on terminology (the entire 4th century basically flows from whether or not the letter ‘i’ should be included in a particular term or not!). It does make a difference.
Even if we don’t like the term EMHC or we don’t think it makes much of a difference, we should at the very least respect our shepherds enough not to assign ill intent to their actions. They deserve the benefit of the doubt. And there are certainly a number of reasonable explanations for their clarification beyond them wanting to keep us under their thumb.
F
FLGreg
Guest
No, I would not embarrass them in public like that. However, if I enjoyed a cordial relationship with the priest and/or deacon I would say something after the meeting – charitably, of course.
This whole discussion illustrates that the extra-ordinary character of this ministry has been lost and opens up possible -]abuse/-] misuse.
For the 0830 Mass at my parish we have no less than ten folks up there for Communion (the celebrant, the deacon and eight EMHC) each and every Sunday. Sure, distributing Communion to 100-150 people takes about 5 minutes but the rationale behind the Church allowing the EMHC program is lost.
A
Annabelle_Marie
Guest
But it appears that from what you are saying that it would be the equivalent of saying that you have to feed all the hungry people you see…every one.
I serve as an EMHC however I look forward to and pray for the day when this is all a mute point because there are so many priests and deacons!
B
Brendan
Guest
If you see someone who is hungry and you have food… What do you think Christ’s response would be?
A priest friend of mine tells the EMHC’s that he trains that every prayer for vocations is a prayer that their ministry will end.
B
Belfarmer
Guest
EMHC and Eucharistic Minister have distinct meanings according to our Church. To knowingly disagree or dismiss our hierarchy even in minor distinctions is important as it leads us down a slippery slope of dissent.
Dissent usually starts small but gains steam over a lifetime. Terms are important and are vitally so when it comes to faith and morals. My experience tells me that to knowingly dissent by using the term EM incorrectly makes it easier to disagree with the church on say contraception, gay marriage, or a host of more important issues. One does not directly lead to another but dissent will always lead to more dissent.
To those who teach future EMHC candidates, please keep in mind that it is important to cultivate a reverence for the Church that starts with the small distinctions and carries through to all teachings of the Church.
Dissent usually starts small but gains steam over a lifetime. Terms are important and are vitally so when it comes to faith and morals. My experience tells me that to knowingly dissent by using the term EM incorrectly makes it easier to disagree with the church on say contraception, gay marriage, or a host of more important issues. One does not directly lead to another but dissent will always lead to more dissent.
To those who teach future EMHC candidates, please keep in mind that it is important to cultivate a reverence for the Church that starts with the small distinctions and carries through to all teachings of the Church.
A
Anna_Claire
Guest
Sometimes it is necessary to dissent from a teaching that is doing more harm than good. Its been that way throughout church history. The EM vs EMHC debate is just not that much of an issue. There is no scandal involved. This is a non issue and a discussion that will not convince anyone on either side of the debate. Finis…
W
Windmill
Guest
What harm is it doing to use proper terminology and acquiesce to a God-given authority? Do we really harm people by clarifying things? Do we really help the situation by publicly belittling a God-given authority?
P
paperwight66
Guest
Quite. It’s just words. I know what my priest or deacon means by ‘Eucharistic Minister’, and I’d guess everyone else in the parish does, or at the least, they know they are not the same as priests. There’s no dissent involved. It’s just quicker and easier to say.
I would compare it with wanting to correct anyone who speaks of the Sun ‘rising’, by saying, ‘No, you are wrong. the Sun doesn’t rise, it just looks like it does’. Or correcting someone who says that the lead in their pencil is broken, by pointing out that there is no lead in pencils nowadays, so they are wrong. Or taking someone to task for saying that their baby ‘has his father’s nose’. Or for saying ‘pram’ or ‘bus’ or PC or any other common abbreviation.
Everyday language is for communication. If that communication is achieved by using commonly-understood words, where is the problem? Some posters seem to be ascribing mystical powers to certain words.
W
Windmill
Guest
Words mean things, and the people who introduced such fuzzy language in the first place knew that. Rome knows that, too.
- Status