Deacon Jeff, thanks for this. I do think the implication is a little overstated, certainly the word ordained is closely related to the word ordinary, same roots: the latin ordo or ordinare , the proper order or to appoint. But the church does not use non-ordained as the term, but extra-ordinary. So it seems to me to be related more to the meaning of “order” as apposed to “appoint”. And that seems quite consistent with the stress the Church places on using the correct term: (from Redemptionis Sacramentum).
[156.] 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.
Having said that, your point is well taken. We should not as much stress on the word extraordinary as we would when in other contexts of the word. It is certainly related to the “non-ordained”. And since the Church gives good guidance on when EMHC can be used, there is no need to guess the use based on this single word. It seems to me the church stresses this word to be used so as to understand the issue, not as a guide as to when or how much they should be used. In other words, there is a proper order of Ministers of Holy Communion. That proper order does not necessarily define how often they should be used.
Which brings me back to the question on the thread title: which I have not taken a side. I have my thoughts on the matter at specific masses and such, but in general I am happy leaving it up to the pastor.
(name removed by moderator):
I too prefer to receive communion from a priest than from an EMHC, so I hope you don’t mind me answering this question even though it was not directed at me specifically. Who one receives communion from is certainly not the end-all/be-all. By far what we should focus on is that we are receiving the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. However, receiving communion is part of the liturgy, and the liturgy is full of signs which help us to better understand and more fully engage in the mysteries. Part of receiving holy communion is that we are also receiving it from Christ, he is who is giving himself to us. Now, the priest, acting in persona of Christ, certainly gives a better sign of that than when a lay person does so. I suppose I will once again go to quoting Redemptionis Sacramentum to better make my point:
154.] As has already been recalled, “the only minister who can confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist in persona Christi is a validly ordained Priest”.[254] Hence the name “minister of the Eucharist” belongs properly to the Priest alone. Moreover, also by reason of their sacred Ordination, the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are the Bishop, the Priest and the Deacon,[255] to whom it belongs therefore to administer Holy Communion to the lay members of Christ’s faithful during the celebration of Mass. In this way their ministerial office in the Church is fully and accurately brought to light, **and the sign value of the Sacrament is made complete
** (boldness added).
Again, that does not mean that I will not receive communion from a EMHC, I do so all the time. But my preference would be a priest, and then a deacon: ie the proper order comes into play.
Hope this helps clarify my stance on the whole issue.
God bless.
)