the habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass

[IrishBrigade]

One priest can give out Holy Communion to *hundreds *of communicants if they’re on an altar rail kneeling and receiving on the tongue in about 15 minutes. Really sometimes people create more problems with their purported solutions.

Also, the Host contains the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. You do **not **need laymen to handle the consecrated wine. The communicants already receive the Precious Blood.

…just saying, at the very first celebration of a TLM in my area, about 300 people showed up…it took the priest about 20 minutes to complete, which I think he could have done more quickly if he hadn’t kept returning to the beginning of the altar rail but had resumed from where he had left off, going in the opposite direction…I’m certain that if it it took modern day Catholics any more than ten minutes to complete the Eucharist, there would be much grumbling, especially on Sunday mornings in which breakfast specials end at 9:00 or so…

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Try again. The only “time” involved using an altar rail is the time it takes for the priest to move 2-3 feet to the next communicant and return to “the starting point”. And the longer the communion rail, the more time one has to receive and then make room for another. The “time” involved for one communicant to approach and then move away is about twice.

&
Irish Brigade:

it took the priest about 20 minutes to complete, which I think he could have done more quickly if he hadn’t kept returning to the beginning of the altar rail

This is my point. How can it take less time for the priest to keep going back and forth, than standing in one place?

Lux

 

[benedictgal]

Actually, your line of thinking doesn’t necessarily match what the Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has to say.

Who are you to judge what is a sufficient reason? or judge how a priest preceives his stamina? Your opinion is not withstanding, RS also tells us how to handle situations of perceived abuse:

I do not see “badmouthing clergy on the internet” listed.

Some here really need to brush up on canon law regarding respect for the clergy.

Lux

Actually, youi didn’t read Cardinal Arinze’s explanation:

Well, the question of Eucharistic minister – you mean the Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, that is, those who will help the priest and the deacon when the priest and the deacon are not [sufficient] to give Holy Communion to the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds who are receiving Communion. That’s what we mean by Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. Which means that if the priests and deacons are many and sufficient for those receiving Holy Communion, nobody else should dare to come near the altar and touch the sacred vessel to distribute Communion, because they were not ordained for that.

It’s very important to stress that, because some people do not understand the whole point of these Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. Some people think that it is a power struggle for lay people to prove that what the priest can do, so can they. Which means if there are not many people to receive Communion – suppose there are three priests or two priests and one deacon and 100 people to receive Communion – then there is no need for even one single Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion.

The fact of the matter remains that having 30 communicants at daily Mass doesn’t justify having an EMHC when the priest can handle it himself. Cardinal Arinze’s explaination is very clear on that.

 

[Sir_Knight]

And who is best qualified to make that determination? Someone sitting in the pew or a priest who has professional training and actual experience in these areas?

 

[hilde_the_dog]

Receiving under both species is not a requirement and if the numbers of communicants is too great it can easily be done away with. Is that 1200 at each Mass? What is the number registered at the Parish? It must be a huge parish if you have that many at each Mass… Also, I’m concerned that you apparently don’t have a Deacon there. I was under the impression that most Parishes nowadays have the services of a Deacon.

Palmas

 

[EasterJoy]

Actually, your line of thinking doesn’t necessarily match what the Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has to say.

What the Prefect says, on behalf of the Holy See, is what binds or looses. What they “loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”, so that pretty obviously includes even the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Are we not to believe that they have been given the Holy Spirit?

An abuse is what they say it is, and if they say something is not an abuse, it is not an abuse. There is nothing wrong with not liking with their conclusions, per se, but they are not liable to correction by the laity on these matters, and that is all there is to it.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Actually, youi didn’t read Cardinal Arinze’s explanation:

The fact of the matter remains that having 30 communicants at daily Mass doesn’t justify having an EMHC when the priest can handle it himself. Cardinal Arinze’s explaination is very clear on that.

And my point is that it is not up to you to judge the Priest. If you feel it is wrong handle it as you are instructed.

Lux

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

What the Prefect says, on behalf of the Holy See, is what binds or looses. What they “loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”, so that pretty obviously includes even the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Are we not to believe that they have been given the Holy Spirit?

An abuse is what they say it is, and if they say something is not an abuse, it is not an abuse. There is nothing wrong with not liking with their conclusions, per se, but they are not liable to correction by the laity on these matters, and that is all there is to it.

And what of the rest of my post? I was quoting RS----do you disagree with RS?

Lux

 

[benedictgal]

And what of the rest of my post? I was quoting RS----do you disagree with RS?

Lux

I think the problem lies with your interpretation of what RS is saying. Cardnial Arinze, the Prefect of the same Congregation that wrote this document (incidentally, under his tenure) has issued a valid intepretation of it.

It becomes an abuse when something that is supposed to be “extra-ordinary” has now become the ordinary. Using EMHCs during daily Mass when the numbers don’t justify this doen’t pass the “smell” test.

As far as Sir Knights comments are concerned, RS gives the laity the right to have the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass celebrated without abuses. An over-use of EMHCs when there is no need is an abuse. Furthermore, in 1997, the Congregation for Clergy released a document that clearly defines and stipulates just when and how the EMHCs are supposed to be used. Rome has not abrogated this document.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

And you seem to ignore the instructions for handling PERCEIVEDabuses, and the respect of the clergy, not to mention the teachings on judging others, which is twice as strong since a priest is a spiritual leader as well as thw authority in the Parish.

Lux

 

[Harpazo]

The whole notion of using EMHC, in my opinion, is to be done only when extremely necessary. The reason many Latin parishes still have them, is for the people of the congregation. To me, that sounds selfish. The Liturgy isn’t about us or how we feel. It’s about worshiping the Holy Trinity and partaking of the Body and Blood of the God of the universe as He commanded us to do. If people cannot stay 5, 10, or 15 more minutes at a Mass, there’s a problem somewhere and it’s not with the Liturgy.

It’s strange. In the Eastern Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) at their Divine Liturgies, they could have 100+ communicants and still not use a EMHC. No one complains about there being “too much time” taken up.

Alloho minokhoun,
Andrew

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

100+ ?

How about 1000+

Lux

 

[Rickwood]

Try again. The only “time” involved using an altar rail is the time it takes for the priest to move 2-3 feet to the next communicant and return to “the starting point”. And the longer the communion rail, the more time one has to receive and then make room for another. The “time” involved for one communicant to approach and then move away is about twice.

Sorry but you’re wrong. I understand the process and it’s slower.

Two different things. The Church (witness all the hugh Masses celebrated by Popes, for one example) seem quite content with distributing one species. Wine is only necessary for the proper confection of the Eucharist. And no one, except you, has tried to correlate one species with eliminating EMHC. That is not an issue.

The Church has never and I mean NEVER hinted that communion should be limited to one species due to throughput considerations. 1200/Mass at my parish is not comparable to a papal Mass. Extremely poor analogy.

“Wine?” “Proper?” Hmm. “Try again.”

 

[Rickwood]

…just saying, at the very first celebration of a TLM in my area, about 300 people showed up…it took the priest about 20 minutes to complete, which I think he could have done more quickly if he hadn’t kept returning to the beginning of the altar rail but had resumed from where he had left off, going in the opposite direction…I’m certain that if it it took modern day Catholics any more than ten minutes to complete the Eucharist, there would be much grumbling, especially on Sunday mornings in which breakfast specials end at 9:00 or so…

Some people don’t seem to grasp how long communion takes – about 2 seconds (or more) per communicant. At 1,200/Mass at my parish that’s 2,400 seconds or 40 minutes.

40 minutes is too long. Yes, I suppose the single priest could focus on speed and get that down to a half hour, but that’s still too long.

 

[Rickwood]

The fact of the matter remains that having 30 communicants at daily Mass doesn’t justify having an EMHC when the priest can handle it himself. Cardinal Arinze’s explaination is very clear on that.

Wrong. If the celebrant wanted to offer communion under both kinds via the chalice, it might well take one EMHC depending on who is available.

 

[Aramis]

As an interesting aside, the Ruthenian Catholic Church (Met. of Pittsburgh) has in its particular law a designation of how many Minsters of Communion are permitted: 1, plus 1 per 75 communicants, maximum, to be taken from priests and deacons, then instituted acolytes & installed laymen. (Ruthenian particular law also forbids women in any Altar ministries.)

(Note: I’ve seen rounding up only when it’s a concelebration, and have never seen a layman EMHC in any of the Ruthenian parishes I’ve been to.)

Perhaps the abuses could be curtailed if Rome instituted similar numeric rules for the Roman Church as well.

 

[Sir_Knight]

As far as Sir Knights comments are concerned, RS gives the laity the right to have the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass celebrated without abuses. An over-use of EMHCs when there is no need is an abuse.

And I ask AGAIN, who is better qualified to determine if there is abuse and an overuse of EMHC’s – someone sitting in the pew or a priest who has professional training and actual experience in these areas?

 

[Rickwood]

I think the problem lies with your interpretation of what RS is saying. Cardnial Arinze, the Prefect of the same Congregation that wrote this document (incidentally, under his tenure) has issued a valid intepretation of it.

It becomes an abuse when something that is supposed to be “extra-ordinary” has now become the ordinary. Using EMHCs during daily Mass when the numbers don’t justify this doen’t pass the “smell” test.

As far as Sir Knights comments are concerned, RS gives the laity the right to have the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass celebrated without abuses. An over-use of EMHCs when there is no need is an abuse. Furthermore, in 1997, the Congregation for Clergy released a document that clearly defines and stipulates just when and how the EMHCs are supposed to be used. Rome has not abrogated this document.

Thankfully you’re not the judge of that.

Oh and it wasn’t RS that “gives the laity the right to have the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass celebrated without abuses.” Try again.

 

[Rickwood]

As an interesting aside, the Ruthenian Catholic Church (Met. of Pittsburgh) has in its particular law a designation of how many Minsters of Communion are permitted: 1, plus 1 per 75 communicants, maximum, to be taken from priests and deacons, then instituted acolytes & installed laymen. (Ruthenian particular law also forbids women in any Altar ministries.)

(Note: I’ve seen rounding up only when it’s a concelebration, and have never seen a layman EMHC in any of the Ruthenian parishes I’ve been to.)

Perhaps the abuses could be curtailed if Rome instituted similar numeric rules for the Roman Church as well.

That’s fascinating. Is that documented on-line anywhere?

 

[pnewton]

Perhaps the abuses could be curtailed if Rome instituted similar numeric rules for the Roman Church as well.

I doubt we will ever see that. Rome reeaalllly believes in the concept of local control. The idea that the Bishop know best for his diocese and priest best for his parish is pretty firmly entrenched. Also, issues like the method of communion, number of species, number of invalid, design of the Church all can affect such decisions.