What's it like to be a eucharistic minister?

[benedictgal]

I agree with you, I have never known them by any other name. I even know a few of them & they refer to themselves as Eucharistic ministers. I dont have a problem with what they are called, I am just happy that we have people who dedicate themselves to this wonderful deed. There is no doubt that we need them

What I think, with all due respect, that both of you are not understanding is that the Church has terminology that she has told us that we must use. The priest and bishop are the ones woh confect (cause to happen) the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Thus, they are Eucharistic Ministers. When there is a genuine need, we, as Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, assist the Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, the deacon (added by virtue of his ordination), the bishop and the priest. We serve an extraordinary function.

As many of us have indicated, we are not against the concept of having EMHCs, especially when there is a genunine need. The issue that is lost among some folks here, as I see it, is the misunderstanding that we need to use the proper terminology as it pertains to what we do. We are not Eucharistic Ministers. We are not ordained. We do not have the power to cause the Eucharist to happen. That is solely reserved to the priest and the bishop. The deacon, while obviously not the Ordinary Minister of the Eucharist because he cannot cause the Sacrifice to happen, is one of the three Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. We are Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion who assist only when there is a legitimate need.

No one is denigrating the fact that you visit the sick. As I have noted on numerous occasions, my father does this. But, to keep insisting that you are something that you are not is not right. Maintaining the assertion that everyone else uses the term doesn’t justify making it right.

 

[Brendan]

I agree with you, I have never known them by any other name. I even know a few of them & they refer to themselves as Eucharistic ministers.** I dont have a problem with what they are called**, I am just happy that we have people who dedicate themselves to this wonderful deed. There is no doubt that we need them

The point is, Rome DOES care what this ministry is called and spelled out specific instructions for it.

If one becomes aware of what Rome says, one can then choose to be obedient, or disobedient. There really isn’t anything in between.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

I doubt that. The parishes around me can’t name enough ministries. Ushers are now “ministers of hospitality”. I’m waiting for “lectors” (i.e. readers) to eventually be called “ministers of the Word”…

Do you distribute Communion in a public facility? Many Catholics refuse Communion if they see the title minister in the person offering (or at least ask if they are Catholic)

Lux

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

The point is, Rome DOES care what this ministry is called and spelled out specific instructions for it.

If one becomes aware of what Rome says, one can then choose to be obedient, or disobedient. There really isn’t anything in between.

As I said, I don’t use any term out of obedience. I don’t want to use a confusing term, but I don’t want to disobey. The official title is too long, so I doubt it will ever become common usage. Rome can address this problem, or leave it as it is.

My Parish uses the term Eucharistic Minister. I got on the troublemaker list for wanting to refuse to allow self-intinction, I am certainly not going to question a title----pick you battles.

Lux

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

I agree with you, I have never known them by any other name. I even know a few of them & they refer to themselves as Eucharistic ministers. I dont have a problem with what they are called, I am just happy that we have people who dedicate themselves to this wonderful deed. There is no doubt that we need them

Thanks for the support. I can’t understand many of these “Rome has spoken, we must obey” people who have such little regard for an official ministry of the Church.

Lux

 

[Newbie2]

Thanks for the support. I can’t understand many of these “Rome has spoken, we must obey” people who have such little regard for an official ministry of the Church.

Lux

Dittos.

I like to look at the big picture too. When Rome comes down hard on bigger issues (take your pick…giving communion to pro-abort pols, etc. etc.), then I’ll get more concerned about terminology. Until then, sure, “Rome has spoken” people can make corrections, but please don’t beat people over the head with it as if using anything other than EMHC is a mortal sin.

 

[Brendan]

As I said, I don’t use any term out of obedience. I don’t want to use a confusing term, but I don’t want to disobey. The official title is too long, so I doubt it will ever become common usage. Rome can address this problem, or leave it as it is.
Lux

‘Too long’ by whose estimation, yours or Rome’s. Which one carries the greater authority?

If I am a lector and think the readings for the day are too long and believe that the message won’t be commonly received, that that alone give me the authority to read a Gospel passage instead?

No, of course not.

Rome DID address the problem. It said, correctly, that the term “Eucharistic Minister” is reserved for those who confect the Sacrament.

Our only response can be, “Yes Your Eminence”

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

‘Too long’ by whose estimation, yours or Rome’s. Which one carries the greater authority?

If I am a lector and think the readings for the day are too long and believe that the message won’t be commonly received, that that alone give me the authority to read a Gospel passage instead?

No, of course not.

Rome DID address the problem. It said, correctly, that the term “Eucharistic Minister” is reserved for those who confect the Sacrament.

Our only response can be, “Yes Your Eminence”

Brendan,

Your comparison detracts from your credibility. First of all, I said, that I don’t use either term, and secondly, the Mass is a totally different situation. My conversations are not even public, never mind liturgical, with instructed rubrics.

And common sense tells anyone that that term is too long to be commonly used----I’ve rarely heard it used by anyone in Parish authority, but I’ve heard euch min very often.

Lux

 

[centurionguard]

I think you’re called an “extraordinary” minister because EHMCs are only supposed to be used in rare/unique occasions and are not normative. That’s why Tridentine Masses are also called the “Extraordinary” Form of the Latin Rite as opposed to the “Ordinary” Form - because the New Mass is normative.

With no intention to create dissension or disrespect to your post you will find an increasing number of Catholics who find the present day Novus Ordo Mass with all it’s abusive liturgical fanfare extremely Extraordinary or lacking the Ordinary with the Tridentine Mass being Ordinary. It’s not just my opinion but many Catholics believe that the present day Novus Ordo Mass with all it’s liturgical abuses, needs a serious revisional overhaul and a tremendous amount of prayer on behalf of ALL the Faithful.

 

[benedictgal]

Dittos.

I like to look at the big picture too. When Rome comes down hard on bigger issues (take your pick…giving communion to pro-abort pols, etc. etc.), then I’ll get more concerned about terminology. Until then, sure, “Rome has spoken” people can make corrections, but please don’t beat people over the head with it as if using anything other than EMHC is a mortal sin.

However, as you, yourself, have said, Rome has issued the definitive word. What I detect here is that there perhaps, with all due respect, are some who still think that it is fine to call themselves something that they are not and ignore what the Holy See has said.

This is actually a big issue. Ecclesiae de Mysterio was written precisely because the Holy See believed that things had gotten out of hand with the laity in that they had blurred the lines between what they can do and what the ordained minister can do. This blurring also included titles. Needless to say, the document was very important, important to the point that even though it was issued through the Congregation for Clergy, several other discasteries also had (name removed by moderator)ut and placed their prefect’s signature on it, including the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.

This is clearly not the case of a rose by any other name smelling as sweet.

 

[maryjk]

However, as you, yourself, have said, Rome has issued the definitive word. What I detect here is that there perhaps, with all due respect, are some who still think that it is fine to call themselves something that they are not and ignore what the Holy See has said.

This is actually a big issue. Ecclesiae de Mysterio was written precisely **because the Holy See believed that things had gotten out of hand with the laity in that they had blurred the lines between what they can do and what the ordained minister can do. ** This blurring also included titles. Needless to say, the document was very important, important to the point that even though it was issued through the Congregation for Clergy, several other discasteries also had (name removed by moderator)ut and placed their prefect’s signature on it, including the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.

This is clearly not the case of a rose by any other name smelling as sweet.

First, I am in agreement with you, the correct titles should be used.
But, when the incorrect titles are used, we should look to see why they are used. Are people using these titles to blur the lines? Are they using the wrong titles so they feel more like clergy? Or are they using the wrong titles because their Priest does? Or because the nun that does the scheduling uses the wrong title?

Are we getting off track of the thread if every time someone uses the wrong title, the thread then becomes a thread on the real title?

I can tell you, when I use the title EMHC, at my parish, no one knows what it means. That’s because our Priest uses the title Eucharistic minister. I once used the correct title at a Bible study. One of the people there, someone very obedient to the Church, had never heard the title. And he had served as EMHC. (and you would think that Catholic Answers would show EMHC as a correct spelling, but they don’t)

So, yes, we should use the proper titles, but I don’t think we should beat people up when they don’t.

 

[Newbie2]

It’s not blurring the lines when someone uses a term, albeit technically incorrect, and others know what they mean…nobody yet in this thread has seemed to misunderstand the OP’s meaning, yet you beat them over the head with legalism.

You seem to think that all too many Catholics are stupid and/or disobedient in not losing sleep over this issue or otherwise making this a big deal. Whatever.

 

[japhy]

Substituting “terminology” with “smaller issues”, I read:

When Rome comes down hard on bigger issues … then I’ll get more concerned about smaller issues. Until then, sure, “Rome has spoken”…

I’ll admit, in the grand scheme of things, giving Communion to an adamant pro-abortion public figure is far worse (and produces worse scandal) than calling an EMHC a “Eucharistic minister”. The EMHC-name thing is a much easier problem to fix, and the doctrinal damage done (if there is any) is easily corrected. A pro-abortion public figure receiving Communion is a far tougher nut to crack.

But why should we wait for the bigger issues to be solved before we’ll obey the Church in smaller issues? The quote sounds (to me) prideful, with an air of distrust for the authority which has not yet settled some bigger matter, or at least an air of unconcern for that authority’s judgments in smaller matters.

Aren’t we called to be obedient in smaller things so that our Lord can trust us with larger ones? I sure can’t solve by myself the pro-abortion Communion problem… but I can help correct a nomenclature issue in my parish.

(And who is to decide which issues are “bigger” and which ones are “smaller”?)

 

[benedictgal]

First, I am in agreement with you, the correct titles should be used.
But, when the incorrect titles are used, we should look to see why they are used. Are people using these titles to blur the lines? Are they using the wrong titles so they feel more like clergy? Or are they using the wrong titles because their Priest does? Or because the nun that does the scheduling uses the wrong title?

Are we getting off track of the thread if every time someone uses the wrong title, the thread then becomes a thread on the real title?

I can tell you, when I use the title EMHC, at my parish, no one knows what it means. That’s because our Priest uses the title Eucharistic minister. I once used the correct title at a Bible study. One of the people there, someone very obedient to the Church, had never heard the title. And he had served as EMHC. (and you would think that Catholic Answers would show EMHC as a correct spelling, but they don’t)

So, yes, we should use the proper titles, but I don’t think we should beat people up when they don’t.

When the OP asked the question, what is it like to be a Eucharistic Minister, I cannot answer that because I am neither a priest nor a bishop. I can tell him what it is like to serve as an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, because that pertains to my scope of liturgical involvement. I cannot tell you what it is like to be something that I am not.

Even the training manuals that are out now, including a book by Msgr. Champlain (at least I believe that is what his name is) are using the term EMHC. In fact, there is a reference to it in the appendix, quoting both RS and another document.

A lot of this has to do with education. Unfortunately information does not flow from the top down, but, rather, from the bottom up. With all of these documents online, they are available to practically everyone.

It is not that we are beating people over the head with the use of the correct terminology. It is simply that we need to use the wording that the Church has given us and not keep a title that is not meant for us simply because it is either too long or because we like it.

Unfortunately, 12 years have passed since Ecclesiae de Mysterio was written and the blurring of the lines is still there. I have seen it both down here and in my old Central Texas parish.

 

[Newbie2]

The quote sounds (to me) prideful, with an air of distrust for the authority which has not yet settled some bigger matter, or at least an air of unconcern for that authority’s judgments in smaller matters.

It isn’t. As I mentioned, what bothers me is the way some forumites come down on others who, mistakenly or not, use incorrect terminology. I never questioned the legitimacy of the term EMHC, nor the authority behind it. It’s not what’s done, but how. EVERY time someone uses EME, EM, etc., instead of making note of it (as has been done very early in this thread) and moving on, the vatican documents get whipped out and the offenders beaten with them. The lack of understanding, and perhaps to a certain extent, charity, is the response is what bothers me.

Aren’t we called to be obedient in smaller things so that our Lord can trust us with larger ones? I sure can’t solve by myself the pro-abortion Communion problem… but I can help correct a nomenclature issue in my parish.

I’ve no problem with that. Kudos. But don’t condemn us who don’t make a mountain out of a molehill. This is in internet forum, for Pete’s sake. It’s not sinful to use a different term.

(And who is to decide which issues are “bigger” and which ones are “smaller”?)

Eucharistic “irregularities” vs. someone using an incorrect term when we pretty much all know what the OP meant? I think we can decide which is more important without consulting vatican documents.

When the OP asked the question, what is it like to be a Eucharistic Minister, I cannot answer that because I am neither a priest nor a bishop. .

Please. This is exactly what I’m talking about. B-gal, you’re not stupid, quite the contrary, and you know exactly what the OP meant. You’ve responded in most every thread about this terminology issue, intelligently so, may I add, and now claim you didn’t know what the OP meant? I don’t buy it.

Which is easier, cutting and pasting long posts from vatican documents, or simply asking the OP, "Did you mean Eucharistic Minister (as in Priest of Bishop) or EMCH (Lay minister)?

Methinks the latter shows more charity and less Pharisee-ism.

 

[benedictgal]

Please. This is exactly what I’m talking about. B-gal, you’re not stupid, quite the contrary, and you know exactly what the OP meant. You’ve responded in most every thread about this terminology issue, intelligently so, may I add, and now claim you didn’t know what the OP meant? I don’t buy it.

Which is easier, cutting and pasting long posts from vatican documents, or simply asking the OP, "Did you mean Eucharistic Minister (as in Priest of Bishop) or EMCH (Lay minister)?

Methinks the latter shows more charity and less Pharisee-ism.

Actually, it is less charitable for assuming that is (and calling one) Pharisaiacal simply because the person is asking that the proper nomenclature be used. Downplaying terminology and using it as one likes (without paying any regard as to its correct meaning) is one of the reasons why Rome had to address this issue, using a different congregations to help solve the problem.

The delightful irony in all of this is that you choose to use the word Pharisee when describing me. If you will note, Jesus called out the Pharisees because they were trying to impose priestly duties and obligations on the people. On the other hand, what I am simply saying is that since we are not priests (let alone bishops), we do not have the same duties as they, thus, we should not be imposing such on ourselves (and, this includes terminology that does not apply to us).

 

[Cristiano]

To me Pharisee are the ones who think that the Church should have laws but also that think that they are exempted from those laws that do not cover the major things that they agree with.

This is the trick of the foot in the door that the devil plays with us.

 

[a_pilgrim]

I doubt that. The parishes around me can’t name enough ministries. Ushers are now “ministers of hospitality”. I’m waiting for “lectors” (i.e. readers) to eventually be called “ministers of the Word”…

If I may…

Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned from the Eastern Catholics. This Article (20.2) is taken directly from the Statutes of the Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Parma (Ohio):

20.2. Laity who fulfill tasks of the ministry are not to be entitled “ministers”. This term is reserved to the ordained clergy.

Makes sense to me…

 

[Newbie2]

It’s not what you’re saying, B-gal, it’s how. Through you’re eyes, you’re “simply” correcting an error. Through my eyes you’re going way beyond “simply”. Here we disagree.

what I am simply saying is that since we are not priests (let alone bishops), we do not have the same duties as they, thus, we should not be imposing such on ourselves. Nobody in this thread ever suggested such. You’re going overboard on this. We were only talking about incorrect terminology.

Like I wrote, it would have been much simpler to ask for a clarification than to beat down the OP for what appears to be an unintentional error.

Wouldn’t it?

 

[japhy]

As I mentioned, what bothers me is the way some forumites come down on others who, mistakenly or not, use incorrect terminology. … The lack of understanding, and perhaps to a certain extent, charity, is the response is what bothers me.

I agree; there’s no need to beat someone over the head with this. Look back at how this thread began. Apart from people replying and using the term “EMHC”, no one corrected the terminology until post #15 (me), and that was in response to baltobetsy’s snark about the people who correct the terminology. Then one other person responded to her remark, and the thread lay dormant for over a year. 16 posts, finis.

Then FLNonny “who refrains from using the ‘extrodinary…’ term since it sounds odd to me” entered the thread. I attempted to explain that the EMHC term, despite sounding odd, is the term the Church uses, and it is more accurate than “Eucharistic minister”. Since then, this thread has not been primarily about the experience of being an EMHC, but about the terminology involved. Other people who have entered and written about their experience and used inaccurate terminology have most likely not followed the whole thread, so they hadn’t seen the explanation about the right and wrong terms, which is why they’ve been corrected “again”.

As for the conduct of other posters, I cannot answer. Some people are more militant about this than myself. I usually restrict my answer to “priests and bishops are EMs, ordained ministers are OMCs, others can be EMHCs”. I was more verbose to CarmeliteGirl25 who said she “get flustered with the terminology”. I don’t know how much more thoroughly the issue could be explained than post #40. CarmeliteGirl25 didn’t understand the logic of it, so I tried again in post #48.

It’s not sinful to use a different term.

What if the issue were about transubstantiation vs. transignification vs. transmutation vs. consubstantiation, etc.? It may not be objectively sinful to use the wrong term out of a simple misunderstanding… but to obstinately continue using a wrong (read: inaccurate) term – in essence, shunning the language of the Church in the matter – for matters of convenience or personal preference seems prideful to me.