Women dispensing the eucharist

[OhioBob]

JNB:

Cmom, I am in Ohio, and most suburban parishes around here have a Pastor, an asst Pastor and usually 2 or more deacons assigned to them. Yes some are fairly large, but if the chalice is abolished, 4 ordained men could easily distribute communion to 1000 communicants in 15 or so minuites.

At my parish, two priests or on occasion one priest and a deacon can distribute communion to 500 parishoners using the communion rail in 10-15 minuites.

I too am in Ohio (big surprise, huh?), although not in suburbia. Out here in cow country we certainly don’t have that luxury. We have a Pastor. That’s it. No assistants, no deacons. And we are lucky to have a Pastor. About six area churches have closed in the last 20 years.

We have about 150 - 250 at a typical sunday Mass (the church holds about 325 if we all inhale, 4 Masses each weekend). Since we distribute communion in both forms, we use two EMHC to minister the cup. We usually have an additional EMHC who assists the priest in distributing the host. I wish they would do without that one, but the Pastor prefers to have the help (he is in his sixties).

There are some things about the way we use EMHCs that I don’t particularly care for, but I have no problem with the fact that we use them the way we do.

And in the vast majority of cases, they aren’t EMHCs because they want to pretend to be priests. I give most of them more credit than that.

Blessings.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Catholic Eagle,

St. Tarcisius’ mass was spoken in the vernacular.

ITSJUSTDAVE1988 so giving out the Sacred Species is meagre task on the level of a cook.

Never said it was. Yet, NON-priests can distribute the Eucharist, to include laity, as was the practice of the ancient Church.

Last I checked, establishing liturgical norms ARE PROPER to only the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him. Display “pope” envy all you wish, but I understand who has the authentic authority to establish disciplinary norms for the Catholic Church, and it ain’t you.

You’re the one making the ignorant claim that it should be ONLY distributed by the priest, as if to do otherwise was irreverent. You seem to lack even an introductory understanding of the history of the Sacred Liturgy of our Holy Religion. I recommend you do some more study before making such ignorant assertions.

From St. Justin Martyr **:

There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. … And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons

give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion. (First Apology, ch. LXV)

---

St. Justin describes communion in both kinds, given to each of those present by the deacon (not JUST the priest).**

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Also Tarcisius and his friends celebrated the Mass in catacombs and private homes. Do you celebrate Mass at home on the dinner table?

My parish used to celebrate in a basement of a restaurant when it just started out. Likewise, I’ve celebrated Mass deep undergound in Cheyenne Mountain (NORAD). Priests in prison have celebrated the Mass in their cells. All of which are valid. What is your point?

 

[OhioBob]

itsjustdave1988:

St. Justin describes communion in both kinds, given to each of those present by the deacon (not JUST the priest).

I agree with your points, Dave.

Furthermore, my understanding is that when St. Jerome was talking about those “who carry away a portion” for people who cannot be present, he was referring to members of the laity, not just the deacons.

Blessings.

 

[AnnieD]

S_Corda:

This is addressed to lay people who distribute Holy Communion : are you playing priest? Do you think that assisting in this way is a substitute for being a priest?

I became an acolyte because the Pastor of our parish asked. I try to serve the parish any way I can, especially in ways that I am asked. To call your comment insulting is an understatement.

I take Communion to the patients in the hospital. I am not playing priest, I am assisting the priest, and feel honored to be able to be of help to the priest and the patients in the hospital. This is my third year.

Annie

 

[Iohannes]

Priests have the obligation and the right to distribute Holy Communion, the laity does not.

Extra Priests in the parish who sit back and read the newspaper while the EMHC are distribution Communion, shame on them.

I have seen priest give Holy Communion to the sick, this is how it is done:

When the priest is walking a bell is rung and people kneel as the priest carries Holy Communion to the patient.

Antiquarnism(sp?) or trying to conjure up early church things is not a good idea. Pope Pius XII warned of such things.

Lay People who distribute Communion are playing priest, in reality they are doing priestly jobs that priests should do.

Guys, it is time to rethink the “renewal”, “New pentacost” and “New Springtime”, where are the priests and why is there a priest shortage?
Unless those questions are answered, the Church in America is doomed.

I know there was liturgical abuse prior to Vatican II, but there was no extravagant need for EMHC.

 

[AnnieD]

Iohannes:

Priests have the obligation and the right to distribute Holy Communion, the laity does not.
.

Johannes, At our church, we have 1000+ members and one priest.
We have recently read that another parish will be added to ours, as they have no priest. Our priest needs all the help he can get from the church members. It is unrealistic to think he can attend to all the parishioners, 1 mass on Saturday and 4 masses on Sunday, a Catholic school, hospital patients, funerals and weddings without any help from the laity.

Annie

 

[visualops]

AnnieD:

Johannes, At our church, we have 1000+ members and one priest.
We have recently read that another parish will be added to ours, as they have no priest. Our priest needs all the help he can get from the church members. It is unrealistic to think he can attend to all the parishioners, 1 mass on Saturday and 4 masses on Sunday, a Catholic school, hospital patients, funerals and weddings without any help from the laity.

Annie

In our parish too we have only one priest (2500+ families), and he has many responsibilities beyond our church. We had a second priest here but he was sent to another city to replace a priest who took ill. Anyway, our priest just had his appendix out a few days ago, and already performed a wedding yesterday, and 2 Masses today, when he should have been resting. He is very very traditional and conservative, and yet we have a select group of parishioners who help the priest give out Communion along with the Deacon.
I don’t see how we could manage without that help. I also don’t see how it’s “pretending” to be a priest. They are specifically directed by the priest.
Perhaps this is a question for the apologists.

 

[Iohannes]

AnnieD:

Johannes, At our church, we have 1000+ members and one priest.
We have recently read that another parish will be added to ours, as they have no priest. Our priest needs all the help he can get from the church members. It is unrealistic to think he can attend to all the parishioners, 1 mass on Saturday and 4 masses on Sunday, a Catholic school, hospital patients, funerals and weddings without any help from the laity.

Annie

Can you in anyway encourage more vocations to the priesthood or at least to the deaconate? Deacons can be good for going to hospitals, etc.

The only long term solution to the problem is for more orthodox men to become priests.

Really have to start encourage men to become priests. It is a must! Must! Encourage more Vocations!!
That is the only long term solution right now, unless the laity want to end up with out a priest.

 

[OhioBob]

Iohannes:

Really have to start encourage men to become priests. It is a must! Must! Encourage more Vocations!!
That is the only long term solution right now, unless the laity want to end up with out a priest.

Sadly, many parishes are in that state right now. I agree that we must pray for vocations.

 

[RCEllis]

Catholic2003:

This is incorrect. There is a preference for installed acolytes, but after that there is no requirement or reason to prefer lay men over women.

I misspoke - I should have specified installed acolytes rather then ‘then lay men’. But it resolves to the same thing: acolytes are men. the Church prefers men over women in this activity.

I also find the use of extraordinary ministers regardless of gender to be a problem - most masses I attend (usually well attended in a large parish) could (and used to be) handled by a single priest - why are we in such a hurry to get through Communion?

Church documents make it clear the extraordinary ministers are to be used only when there is a pressing need to distribute communion to an overly large community - hence the term ‘extraordinary’.

The fact that women displace men in this office is almost a side issue.

Clint

 

[AnnieD]

visualops:

In our parish too we have only one priest (2500+ families), and he has many responsibilities beyond our church.
Anyway, our priest just had his appendix out a few days ago, and already performed a wedding yesterday, and 2 Masses today, when he should have been resting. He is very very traditional and conservative, and yet we have a select group of parishioners who help the priest give out Communion along with the Deacon.
I don’t see how we could manage without that help. I also don’t see how it’s “pretending” to be a priest. They are specifically directed by the priest.
Perhaps this is a question for the apologists.

There is a real crises in our churches, visualops. Very sad that your priest couldn’t rest after having his appendix out. I will keep him in my prayers. We don’t have a deacon at our church either.
I agree, this is a very good question for the apologists.
Thanks for sharing.
Annie

 

[AnnieD]

Iohannes:

Can you in anyway encourage more vocations to the priesthood or at least to the deaconate?.

I volunteer at a Catholic Book store and do encourage vocations, and I also say a rosary daily, for more vocations to the priesthood, Iohannes. I do not want to be a priest, and I wouldn’t attend a church that had a woman priest, but I will help out where I am needed, so we don’t lose the priests that we are lucky enough to have now, due to overwork or illness.

Annie

 

[JNB]

Priestly vocations of course have been a big problem for the last 35 years. but in some dioceses, the situation is better than others. In the LA archdiocese, a diocese that has 4 million baptised Catholics, only 5 men were ordained this year, in my diocese, a diocese with a little over 200K Catholics, 6 men were ordained this year. It is how the diocese approaches vocations and liturgy.

Boys growing up have grown up in too many cases with a very feminised church. In too many cases, girls have pushed boys away as altar servers, severe overuse of EMHCs, and with 8 of 10 EMHCs on the altar being females for example, has externally diminished the role of the priest. Then there is the issue of very feminised hymns such as what is typically found in OCP and GIA hymnals(think Haugen and Haas). All of this combines to drive boys away from thinking about the priesthood.

Then there are the issues Michael Rose brought up in his book, Goodbye Good Men, where seminary rectors have rejected orthodox young men entry into the seminary.

One last thought is people need to see what works in terms of vocations. In the Detroit Archdiocese, SS Cyrill and Methodius parish, a parish that is not all that big in terms of number of parishoners has 6 of its men in the seminary, while my guess is there are many suburban parishes that are far far larger than have not had a priestly vocation in years, if ever. The difference, SS Cyrill and Methodius preaches the faith in a uncompromising manner and while it is not a Traditional Latin Mass, it celebrates a mass in a very reverent manner with no altar girls and no EMHCs.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Priests have the obligation and the right to distribute Holy Communion, the laity does not.

Certainly priests have the obligation and the right (unless canonically restricted from that right). Yet, according to the Pope, laity may lawfully distribute the Holy Communion in accordance with canon law, as needed. You may not like it, but you are not among those that “govern” the Church, but are among those that are “governed.”

The laity, indeed, have an obligation as well to be just stewards for the Church, in accordance with what is lawfully proper for a lay person. When asked by the priest to be an EMHC, I act in obedience to the lawfully ordained pastors of the Catholic Church, and act as a just steward where needed.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

it celebrates a mass in a very reverent manner with no altar girls and no EMHCs.

Is your implication that the lawful use of altar girls and EMHCs make the mass irreverant? Seems that way. If so, such a proposition has been condemned by the Pius VI.

You may not like the decisions of the lawfully appointed pastors of the Catholic Church. You may think canon law is imprudent. But to suggest that eccesiastical disciplines established by the Church are harmful to the faithful is erroneous.

 

[JNB]

Itsjustdave, EMHCs are only allowed in extraordinary situations, Rome has stated that it should not become a typical practice. In some parishes, yes, it is needed, but in many, it is not justified. Canon law states that EMHCs should be used spareingly, and Cardinal Arinze has made statements that the bar should be set high before EMHCs are used.

In the end it is up to the Pastor, and the burden is with the Pastor to enforce liturgical norms. It is sad to say that a large majority of Pastors do what they can to pack as many of the laity as possible on the altar. No one is obliged to be an EMHC, and many reject offers to be an EMHC in a liturgical role thankfully.

 

[JNB]

itsjustdave1988:

Is your implication that the lawful use of altar girls and EMHCs make the mass irreverant? Seems that way. If so, such a proposition has been condemend by the Pius VI.

You may not like the decisions of the lawfully appointed pastors of the Catholic Church. You may think canon law is imprudent. But to suggest that eccesiastical disciplines established by the Church are harmful to the faithful is erroneous.

Itsjustdave, as stated in responses to your previous posts, enough with the mental gymnastics. Yes, I do say upfront that a Pastor who uses altar girls is making an (name removed by moderator)rudent decsion, and just because altar girls and EMHCs are allowed, does not make them mandated. You seem to fail to make that distinction in post after post. The proof is up in front of your face. What has the parish I mentioned produced so many vocations, while large suburban parishes have no produced vocations in years in many cases? What have the small numbers of Catholics who attend the Traditional Latin mass have produced so many vocations?

Again Itsjustdave, variations in the liturgy is not infalliable, people can openly question aspects of it as long as they do not deny the validity of an approved liturgy of the church. I will say agan upfront that altar girls and overuse/abuse of EMHCs have harmed vocations.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

In the end it is up to the Pastor

Exactly. I have no doubt that our pastor often goof this up. However, THEY are the pastors and the laity are obliged to submit to their authority.

I’m in the military, and I understand the process of being obedient to those lawfully appointed over you. In my parish, as a lay person, I have every right to say “But, Father …” when it seems prudent to do so. But, when Father says, “I understand, and this is my decision …”, it’s time for me to stop arguing about it with my superior.

Yet, I find on this forum, many traditionalists can’t seem to stop saying “But Father …” no matter how clear the Pope has been about his decision. Why is that?

By all means, we need to ensure our parishes are obedient to the norms established by the Church. We ought to correct liturgical abuse every chance we get. Yet, it seems some are implying that even when the rubrics are followed correctly, to include the lawful use of altar girls and EMHCs, then the mass is irrevereant. I think such a view is erroneous.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

As for the infallibility of eccesiastical disciplines established by the Church, I assert as does the author of the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia, that …

"[Disciplinary Infallibility has] found a place in all recent treatises on the Church (De Ecclesiâ}. The authors of these treatises decide unanimously in favour of a negative and indirect rather than a positive and direct infallibility, inasmuch as in her general discipline, i. e. the common laws imposed on all the faithful, the Church can prescribe nothing that would be contrary to the natural or the Divine law, nor prohibit anything that the natural or the Divine law would exact. If well understood this thesis is undeniable; it amounts to saying that the Church does not and cannot impose practical directions contradictory of her own teaching. (Catholic Encyclopedia - Ecclesiastical Discipline)

In other words,

“The Church is** infallible in her general discipline**. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as** liturgy and rubrics**, or the administration of the sacraments. . . .

“If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible.”

( P. Hermann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae (4th ed., Rome: Della Pace, 1908), vol. 1, p. 258)