women not allowed to distribute the Precious Body?

[Sunbreak]

This is not what “extraordinary” means for the Church, and you do a disservice to her and her members by perpetuating the misconception that “extraordinary=rarely used”.

Huh? That is exactly the original intent of using extraordinary ministers. They were to be used only when the clergy could not handle the amount of people receiving communion, not as some sort of “right” for lay people to administer communion.

To the original poster:
The pastor can decide whatever he wants in this regard. I would not build this into a discrimination type thing. Administering communion, whether body or blood of Christ is a privilege, not a right.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Pausing first to take a deep breath…

I read several newspaper columnists both on the political right and the left on a daily basis. Mention a topic and I can tell you where each stands on it with a high degree of accuracy. Likewise I have read 80-90% of the posts on this and several other forums here almost daily for several years. I also at times go back and read many if not every post made by someone who catches my attention. (yes, I know, I need to get a life.)

So yes, I can say without hesitation that some here are opposed to women having any role in the sanctuary and some are opposed to any use of EMHCs. And that they frequently express these viewpoints either directly or indirectly…**which is absolutely their right **according to the rules of CAF. I strongly (and obviously) disagree with these viewpoints. Usually I do not choose challenge them. Today I chose otherwise…as I believe is my right.

So, have I read anything in your post today or previously that suggests you don’t want women in the sanctuary? Nope! Did I see any hatred in the way your fingers hit the keyboard? Not at all! Do I sense that my post certainly irritated you? Loud and clear!

Peace
felsguy

I’m Eastern Catholic, I’m opposed to any lay person having any role in the sanctuary or even reading the Liturgy readings. Due to need, the priest and/or bishop blesses males to serve the Liturgy to at least the lowest order of Deacon and the bishop gives permission for females and males who are not serving to read the Biblical Readings.

 

[drforjc]

Some churches have only one priest and one Mass. Also, if EMs are abolished the people in hospitals and those who are home bound would not have the option of Communion unless they call a priest. We have a hospital ministry where I live, and many of them are so happy to receive Christ, it doesn’t matter if a woman or a man bring Him to them.

Kind of funny. Gender doesn’t mean much when babies are proudly shown to friends and relatives. You would never know which is a boy and which is a girl unless they are dressed in pink or blue. We all start out on an equal path. Older people (like in their seventies and eighties) very often look like they could be a man or a woman. I have often mistaken one for the other because they dress alike, wear no makeup, and have their hair cut really short (I’m talking about here in Arizona, in a retirement community

I am not being a smart-aleck when I tell you that we have a pair of altar servers, husband and wife. They look like twins. I wonder if, to play down the sexes of each person and make them look unisex, would make a difference. When we were at a Doctors’ office once we met a child of an employee. We said “glad to meet your son”, and the employee said, "It’s not a son, it’s my daughter.

We are mostly talking about at mass, not homebound or hospital settings.

 

[Elizium23]

This is not what “extraordinary” means for the Church, and you do a disservice to her and her members by perpetuating the misconception that “extraordinary=rarely used”.

I know many, many people who would be very upset if you applied this idea to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.

Nobody has applied it to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. It’s apples and oranges.

Redemptionis Sacramentum states:

[151.]
Only out of true necessity is there to be recourse to the assistance of extraordinary ministers in the celebration of the Liturgy. Such recourse is not intended for the sake of a fuller participation of the laity but rather, by its very nature, is supplementary and provisional.[252] Furthermore, when recourse is had out of necessity to the functions of extraordinary ministers, special urgent prayers of intercession should be multiplied that the Lord may soon send a Priest for the service of the community and raise up an abundance of vocations to sacred Orders.[253]

[157.] If there is usually present a sufficient number of sacred ministers for the distribution of Holy Communion, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not be appointed. Indeed, in such circumstances, those who may have already been appointed to this ministry should not exercise it. The practice of those Priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distributing Communion and hand this function over to laypersons.[258]

So yes, the vocation of an EMHC is to pray for more vocations to the priesthood and diaconate and therefore render himself unnecessary. Use of EMHCs should be “safe, legal, and rare”.

 

[pianistclare]

Nobody has applied it to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. It’s apples and oranges.

Redemptionis Sacramentum states:

So yes, the vocation of an EMHC is to pray for more vocations to the priesthood and diaconate and therefore render himself unnecessary. Use of EMHCs should be “safe, legal, and rare”.

I’ve seen this posted SO MANY TIMES.
So why is it that so many of the Archdiocese’ and Diocese’ ignore this?
Why?
It seems as if they use of EMHC as a way to have the laity participate more is EXCACTLY why we have them. We don’t need them at my parish, but we have at LEAST 8 at every Mass. Why then?
If the docs are CLEAR…which they seem pretty clear to me…why are they roundly ignored?

Hypothetical question, I know you can’t possibly read minds…but that’s at the root of these “discussions”. When you permit something, and then disallow it, the laity believe they have had something “taken” from them. And there follows ill will.
I don’t know why it has to be like this.

 

[Elizium23]

For the same reasons the provisions of Sacrosanctum Concilium have been ignored for fifty years now.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

In our parish, there are some roles that only male altar servers do. And when the Cardinal or one of the auxiliary Bishops comes for something special, such as Confirmation, there are duties that are only assigned to the male altar servers. I don’t see the problem.

My guess would be that the use of male-specific server roles reflects what the personal preferences of the celebrant are, rather than being grounded in the GIRM, RS, or any other official document of guidance. Nowhere in this thread has anyone cited where Church rubrics specify that, in the setting of male and female servers, only males may do X, Y, and Z. I would be truly interested in such. I am obviously not referring to common-sense on-the-spot pastoral or MC decisions such as having a more experienced server handling a hot thurible, or choosing a 6-foot server for the processional cross instead of someone 4 foot 10.

 

[felsguy]

I’m Eastern Catholic, I’m opposed to any lay person having any role in the sanctuary or even reading the Liturgy readings. Due to need, the priest and/or bishop blesses males to serve the Liturgy to at least the lowest order of Deacon and the bishop gives permission for females and males who are not serving to read the Biblical Readings.

I do not share your viewpoint but I do applaud you for clearly stating it up front. I think it can be a good thing for the Church, you do not. On that basis it can be discussed in a straight forward manner without any pretense or contrived reasoning. I wish that would happen more often on the several “hot button” issues that crop up here with regularity.

 

[Corki]

This is not what “extraordinary” means for the Church, and you do a disservice to her and her members by perpetuating the misconception that “extraordinary=rarely used”.

I know many, many people who would be very upset if you applied this idea to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.

Extraordinary means whatever the Church says it means** in the contex**t it is defined. In the case of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, the Church has included in the definition that it means “only out of true necessity”. In the case of the Extraordinary form of the Mass, the definition given by the Church is that:

It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church. The conditions for the use of this Missal as laid down by earlier documents ‘Quattuor abhinc annis’ and ‘Ecclesia Dei,’ are substituted as follows:

The conditions that follow define “extraordinary” as something the Bishop is to not only allow but to facilitate generously. In this case, “extraordinary” is not related to necessity but simply to set it apart from the normative form.

 

[Corki]

My guess would be that the use of male-specific server roles reflects what the personal preferences of the celebrant are, rather than being grounded in the GIRM, RS, or any other official document of guidance. Nowhere in this thread has anyone cited where Church rubrics specify that, in the setting of male and female servers, only males may do X, Y, and Z. I would be truly interested in such. I am obviously not referring to common-sense on-the-spot pastoral or MC decisions such as having a more experienced server handling a hot thurible, or choosing a 6-foot server for the processional cross instead of someone 4 foot 10.

Well, of course it is personal preference. As for documents, RS says that boys should be encouraged to be altar servers and that girls can be allowed. How that is implemented is going to vary by diocese and pastor.

I am not saying that it is** required** to have gender specific roles for EMHCs or altar servers. I am only replying to the poster that implied that we wouldn’t see different jobs for male altar servers vs. female ones when in fact we do.

 

[pnewton]

While the pastor has the authority to make these types of decisions in anyway not countermanded by the bishop, it does seem illogical to me, as both the cup and the Eucharist are substantial identical. It seems akin to saying only men can stand on the right, with women on the left.

 

[Brendan]

My guess would be that the use of male-specific server roles reflects what the personal preferences of the celebrant are, rather than being grounded in the GIRM, RS, or any other official document of guidance. Nowhere in this thread has anyone cited where Church rubrics specify that, in the setting of male and female servers, only males may do X, Y, and Z. I would be truly interested in such. I am obviously not referring to common-sense on-the-spot pastoral or MC decisions such as having a more experienced server handling a hot thurible, or choosing a 6-foot server for the processional cross instead of someone 4 foot 10.

At least in the setting of altar servers, there is a document

This was a response by the Vatican on if a pastor, or even a priest-celebrant, was obligated to use girls as altar servers.

adoremus.org/CDW-AltarServers.html

Note that while a priest COULD exclude girls as altar servers, a priest could NOT exclude men or boys.

“In accord with the above cited instructions of the Holy See such an authorization may not, in any way, exclude men or, in particular, boys from service at the altar”

• With the reason given that it is, in fact, an obligation to include boys

“Indeed, the obligation to support groups of altar boys will always remain, not least of all due to the well known assistance that such programs have provided since time immemorial in encouraging future priestly vocations”

And, while that is specific to altar servers, the final paragraph has information that would pertain to the topic at hand

With respect to whether the practice of women serving at the altar would truly be of pastoral advantage in the local pastoral situation, it is perhaps helpful to recall that the non-ordained faithful do not have a right to service at the altar, rather they are capable of being admitted to such service by the Sacred Pastors "

So the final question would be, if women are admitted to serve in a liturgical capacity, would the pastor have the authority to assign them to particular positions at his discretion.

I would say that the answer would be ‘yes’

 

[pianistclare]

While the pastor has the authority to make these types of decisions in anyway not countermanded by the bishop, it does seem illogical to me, as both the cup and the Eucharist are substantial identical. It seems akin to saying only men can stand on the right, with women on the left.

THIS^^^. Yes.

 

[Rico_S]

While the pastor has the authority to make these types of decisions in anyway not countermanded by the bishop, it does seem illogical to me, as both the cup and the Eucharist are substantial identical. It seems akin to saying only men can stand on the right, with women on the left.

I must be missing something, but isn’t there a relatively obvious distinction that may account for the priests decision? The blood is not actually handled by the EMHC, as he/she simply holds the vessel that contains it; where as the Eucharist is necessarily handled/touched during communion. Perhaps this is the basis for his reasoning?

 

[Lapey]

While the pastor has the authority to make these types of decisions in anyway not countermanded by the bishop, it does seem illogical to me, as both the cup and the Eucharist are substantial identical. It seems akin to saying only men can stand on the right, with women on the left.

Which is precisely why I think there is more to the story…it just makes no sense.

 

[pnewton]

I must be missing something, but isn’t there a relatively obvious distinction that may account for the priests decision? The blood is not actually handled by the EMHC, as he/she simply holds the vessel that contains it; where as the Eucharist is necessarily handled/touched during communion. Perhaps this is the basis for his reasoning?

That may be it. Perhaps the priest thinks men’s hands are holier, or just more appropriate than women’s. After all, some think the tongue is holier than the hand. I guess we all have our opinions. In this case, that of the priest should be respected.

 

[Lapey]

I must be missing something, but isn’t there a relatively obvious distinction that may account for the priests decision? The** blood** is not actually handled by the EMHC, as he/she simply holds the vessel that contains it; where as the Eucharist is necessarily handled/touched during communion. Perhaps this is the basis for his reasoning?

Please use words correctly, the Precious Blood is the Eucharist and so is the Sacred Body. The reason I call this out is because I get that question all the time and I correct it every time, “Deacon, why don’t you distribute the Eucharist at Mass?” then I say that I do, and they still continue, “No you serve the cup.” When I finish explaining it to them they understand, but where does this come from?

If this priest is thinking that only a man can physically touch the Sacred Species then he is very confused. There is a school of thought that believes only consecrated hands may tough the Sacred Species, i.e. the priest, but not all men have consecrated hands.

But again, I wait for the OP to return and add in the missing details. The fact that the OP has not returns to help is an indicator to me that there is much more to the story.

 

[Brendan]

Please use words correctly, the Precious Blood is the Eucharist and so is the Sacred Body. The reason I call this out is because I get that question all the time and I correct it every time, “Deacon, why don’t you distribute the Eucharist at Mass?” then I say that I do, and they still continue, “No you serve the cup.” When I finish explaining it to them they understand, but where does this come from?.

THANK YOU DEACON!!

I was at another parish, and I elected to receive via one species, a friend asked me why I didn’t receive the Precious Blood. He was substantially (little pun) confused when I stated that I did.

 

[Digitonomy]

It seems akin to saying only men can stand on the right, with women on the left.

Put that way it actually makes sense. In some places, it is traditional that women sit on one side, and men the other. Since it does not seem unreasonable for the priest to instruct the male EMHCs to serve on the right (if that’s where the men are sitting) and female EMHCs on the left, perhaps it is also reasonable for the priest to split distribution of the Eucharistic species according to his preference.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Put that way it actually makes sense. In some places, it is traditional that women sit on one side, and men the other. Since it does not seem unreasonable for the priest to instruct the male EMHCs to serve on the right (if that’s where the men are sitting) and female EMHCs on the left, perhaps it is also reasonable for the priest to split distribution of the Eucharistic species according to his preference.

The wording of the OP was such that it appeared a U.S. or Canadian parish might be involved, although this is not certain. It would be most interesting to know of any Catholic parish in those countries where such segregation of men from women is a practice at Mass. Orthodox Jewish synagogues, yes, but Catholic churches?