Would you prefer that the EMHC (Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion) wear a simple long tunic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fred_conty
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
YoungTradCath said:
No, it would institutionalize them.
Click to expand...
Pax Christi!

Then they could wear strait jackets in liturgical colors!

Sorry. Couldn’t resist.

Yes, I like robes/tunics/albs/whatever. Including for the choir.

But please, no nametags!

God bless.
 
yes they should out of reverence, and they should wear gloves since only the priests hands are truly worthy to touch the Host.

Flame away this is just how I feel about it, I also think that more priests would be better than EMHC, I myself line up for the priest no matter where I sit in church I’m just not comfortable taking communion from someone who isn’t ordained to the priesthood.
 
Stillsosola said:
yes they should out of reverence, and they should wear gloves since only the priests hands are truly worthy to touch the Host.

Flame away this is just how I feel about it, I also think that more priests would be better than EMHC, I myself line up for the priest no matter where I sit in church I’m just not comfortable taking communion from someone who isn’t ordained to the priesthood.
Click to expand...
Would you receive from a Permanent Deacon?
 
I would like to see our readers and EMCHs vested in albs. Were this decided in my parish I would purchase my own alb, the type that doesn’t require a cincture, and maintain it myself.

Of course in our parish EMHCs and readers don’t sit in the sanctuary with the priest and altar servers so having them vested and seated in the assembly is a bit problematic.
 
No, because they could be confused with an ordained minister. Typically, the alb is only worn by ordained ministers such as deacons and priests.
 
To answer the poll, no, for all the reasons Fr. David and YTC stated.
Stillsosola said:
yes they should out of reverence, and they should wear gloves
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity, what would these gloves be made out of? I ask because I prepare the Mass wearing white fabric gloves (I am a sacristan), but I remove the gloves to prepare the Communion bowls because I found the altar breads stick to the fabric and sometimes detach themselves in unpredictable fashion. The idea of EMHCs wearing fabric gloves to distribute Communion gives rise in my mind to a greater possibility hosts would be dropped.
Stillsosola said:
since only the priests hands are truly worthy to touch the Host.
Click to expand...
I know priests all over the world and I spend my days in the company of priests. None would ever say he was worthy of touching the Blessed Sacrament. None. Ever.
Stillsosola said:
Flame away this is just how I feel about it, I also think that more priests would be better than EMHC, I myself line up for the priest no matter where I sit in church I’m just not comfortable taking communion from someone who isn’t ordained to the priesthood.
Click to expand...
Not flaming, with you on the matter of more priests (but hey, they don’t grow on trees), and I too do not receive Communion from EMHCs because in my area I find they don’t know how to handle a person who receives on the tongue while kneeling. But I have to ask: why ordained specifically to the priesthood? :confused: I have all the respect in the world for priests but deacons, permanent or transitional, are—like priests—Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.
 
I am leaning against this.

The role of EMHC is like that of lector the person only assists for a particular time of the liturgy. This is distinct from altar servers, who assist throughout all the liturgy.

The question then becomes, do lectors also wear the albs, if not, why distinguish lectors from EMHC’s in this regards.
 
27lw said:
I like what GIRM says. Why would we not follow that?
Click to expand...
Every parish I am aware of does. the GIRM says ‘may’. Which means that it is neither prohibited nor required. And, like all similar liturgical options, are up to the pastor or celebrant.
 
Phemie said:
I would like to see our readers and EMCHs vested in albs. Were this decided in my parish I would purchase my own alb, the type that doesn’t require a cincture, and maintain it myself.

Of course in our parish EMHCs and readers don’t sit in the sanctuary with the priest and altar servers so having them vested and seated in the assembly is a bit problematic.
Click to expand...
Yet there (still) are parishes where servers do sit in the assembly, and if so, in the first pew or so.
 
ProVobis said:
But I believe the bishop can translate the IGMR to “must” if he sees fit. Just sayin…
Click to expand...
I would presume that he might have that right. It depends on the conditions that the CDWDS intended that to be. They CDWDS is the actual canonical legislature of the GIRM.

There are quite a number of things that ‘may’ happen that the bishop does not have the authority to mandate.
 
27lw said:
I like what GIRM says. Why would we not follow that?
Click to expand...
Good question.

The answer is that it’s an option. It isn’t required. Therefore either option is actually following the GIRM.

triumphguy posted the GIRM in post #13.

The alb is common to all ordained and instituted ministers (which actually excludes EMHCs).
GIRM 336

However, it is an approved adaptation in the US that EMHCs may wear the alb, or may wear other appropriate clothing (ie street clothes).
GIRM 339

Saying that the alb is “common” really isn’t saying very much. It simply means that all ordained and instituted ministers wear one. The rest of the GIRM says that deacons, priests, and bishops wear other vestments over their albs.
 
ProVobis said:
But I believe the bishop can translate the IGMR to “must” if he sees fit. Just sayin…
Click to expand...
He cannot do that.

He can’t just change what the GIRM says.

When options are given in the GIRM, the bishop can ask for a certain uniformity throughout the diocese, but he cannot outright change what’s in the GIRM (in other words, he cannot change “may” to “must”), nor prohibit the celebrant from making legitimate choices given in the GIRM.

The Holy See actually answered this question back in 1965
notitiae.ipsissima-verba.org/show/80

But the answer is a sort of non-answer. It says that the bishop can call for uniformity, but not take away the freedom to choose from the options given in the Missal.
 
Okay - - my eyes skipped over the word “may”. You are all correct! Mea culpa, as they say.
 
FrDavid96 said:
He cannot do that.

He can’t just change what the GIRM says.

When options are given in the GIRM, the bishop can ask for a certain uniformity throughout the diocese, but he cannot outright change what’s in the GIRM (in other words, he cannot change “may” to “must”), nor prohibit the celebrant from making legitimate choices given in the GIRM.

The Holy See actually answered this question back in 1965
notitiae.ipsissima-verba.org/show/80

But the answer is a sort of non-answer. It says that the bishop can call for uniformity, but not take away the freedom to choose from the options given in the Missal.
Click to expand...
Not exactly the point I was trying to make, but your citation works for me. Thanks.
 
27lw said:
Okay - - my eyes skipped over the word “may”. You are all correct! Mea culpa, as they say.
Click to expand...
FWIW, it’s okay to question any translation from the Latin which includes a modal verb. Consider this point the author tries to make:
…I would like to give short quotation on the verbs which express “irreality” in English which are called in English The Modal Verbs. (C J Bailey: Grammar Series I, l992, Appendix.). Irrealis is the term is what we use in English to equate with the Latin Subjunctive:
Click to expand...
Code: 
The English "modal verbs" are **will, would, can, could, may, might, must, should, ought (to)** and the now rare **shall**. The forms and grammatical usages of modal verbs differ in several important ways from those of non-modal verbs --- e.g. modals are uninflected -- as grammars are obligated to show in terms of an intelligible system,. Modal verbs express modal or unreal (irrealis) situations: those which are not yet existent, viz. futurative - - willed or forbidden, denied and so on. Modal need and dare convey modal overtones, viz. volitional force, advice or warning. Contrast needn't (and obsolescent daren't) with doesn't need to and doesn't dare to, and note the advisory vs. neutral thrust of the respective variants. Contrast negated modal needn't with doesn't before non-modal need . Another syntactic difference is that the modal takes a short infinitive (i.e. without to).
Click to expand...
Tough sledding as this statement is, it covers accurately the use of the special English verbs which match the range of the Latin Subjunctives and several other Latin verbs as well. Nothing like Bailey’s analysis is found in standard English grammar books, which still tend to describe English grammar in terms of the format and terminology of traditional Latin grammar. It is especially in the analysis of the “unreal” that English grammar differs so strongly from Latin usage.
Click to expand...
community.middlebury.edu/~harris/whylatin.html
 
ProVobis said:
FWIW, it’s okay to question any translation from the Latin which includes a modal verb. Consider this point the author tries to make:
Click to expand...
Sure, we can question translations.

But the point is that an individual bishop cannot just arbitrarily change a word in the official, approved translation of the GIRM. Even if the translation is objectively incorrect, he is stuck with it as much as everyone else–at least in the sense of acting on his own authority because he could certainly follow the proper procedures to have something clarified or changed. Think back a few years ago to the Mass translation. Towards the end (let’s say 2010 to pick a late date) there was very little doubt among anyone (who could be taken seriously) that “one in being” was a bad translation, but no bishop had the authority to change to “consubstantial” until the process worked itself out.

And even if we do say, just for the sake of discussion that a bishop could interpret “may wear an alb” to “must wear an alb” there’s also the other half of the sentence that clearly states that other appropriate attire may be worn. The bishop would have to eliminate that entire provision, and there’s really no way of justifying doing that.

Personally, I don’t feel very strongly about it. I can see the values in both options.
 
FrDavid96 said:
And even if we do say, just for the sake of discussion that a bishop could interpret “may wear an alb” to “must wear an alb” there’s also the other half of the sentence that clearly states that other appropriate attire may be worn. The bishop would have to eliminate that entire provision, and there’s really no way of justifying doing that.
Click to expand...
So the way it’s stated doesn’t exclude inappropriate attire? Just trying to cover all possibilities, that’s all. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top