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

[FrDavid96]

So the way it’s stated doesn’t exclude inappropriate attire? Just trying to cover all possibilities, that’s all.

Here’s what the GIRM says (from post 13)
339. In the Dioceses of the United States of America, acolytes, altar servers, readers, and other lay ministers may wear the alb or other appropriate and dignified clothing.

“other appropriate…clothing” does exclude inappropriate clothing.

 

[ProVobis]

Here’s what the GIRM says (from post 13)
339. In the Dioceses of the United States of America, acolytes, altar servers, readers, and other lay ministers may wear the alb or other appropriate and dignified clothing.

“other appropriate…clothing” does exclude inappropriate clothing.

My rhetoric instructor (1966), who put red ink all over my paper, would have really had fits with that. She probably would have me reword it to “…must wear either the alb or other appropriate and dignified clothing.”

However, I suppose in today’s classroom the GIRM wording would pass but that’s only my opinion. That is, if they even hold English rhetoric classes any more.

 

[Cat]

I would not object personally, but I think that if the EMsHC wear any kind of garment resembling a vestment, it could give the false impression to weak believers and non-believers that the EMsHC are a type of “clergy.”

Keep in mind that the Church is involved in a tremendous evangelization effort, and at any given Mass, there are visitors in the building. Many of these visitors, even those who are returning Catholics, know little/nothing about the Catholic Church, and could easily be led down a wrong path.

When my husband and I first started attending our parish (while we were still Protestant), we were very confused by the vestments, but we had the chutzpah to ask. A very kind permanent deacon took the time to explain the difference between the various vestments and the difference between priests, deacons, etc.

I think a lot of visitors don’t have the courage that we had to speak up! Many people who visit the Catholic Church just want to hide in the background, and they’re hoping that they don’t stick out in any way.

We have enough problems in the Catholic Church with people who believe that women should be priests. I don’t think we should give any weak person the idea that we are in some way establishing some kind of “lay/clergy.”

I also think this would add an unnecessary expense to the parish budget, as there would need to be a sizeable selection of sizes and lengths, and more importantly, these garments really should be cleaned in-between each wearing. I don’t like putting something against my skin that someone else has worn.

 

[datritle]

We should get rid of EMHC

 

[maryjk]

We should get rid of EMHC

NOT the topic under discussion. :tsktsk:

 

[Stillsosola]

Would you receive from a Permanent Deacon?

in my parish the mass is either done by a priest or a deacon, with EMHCs helping I have received from the deacon but he seemed a bit alarmed at me kneeling and receiving on my tongue, I’m not against deacons since they normally are men on the road to priesthood or they live very religious lives. I should have been clearer that I was ok with deacons as well.

To answer the poll, no, for all the reasons Fr. David and YTC stated.

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.

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.
true but I just personally prefer receiving from the priest since some EMHC have tapped me to stand up to receive or tapped my hand when I wanted to receive on my tongue well in the ultra liberal parish near where I live, in a parish with more older EMHCs it might not be an issue.
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? I have all the respect in the world for priests but deacons, permanent or transitional, are—like priests—Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.

True and I should have been clear that I was ok with deacons they are not identical to priests they cannot consecrate the Host. They are considered clerics I believe thus setting them apart from the laity.

And about EMHCs they should only be used when the priest is unable such as advanced age or illness, in my parish there will be a deacon present, and two priests yet still the holy Eucharist is given to the lay people to distribute?
Right here on this page from catholic answers it states that EMHCs should not be friviously used catholic.com/documents/liturgical-abuses

And if gloves were to be used I suppose ones made of a fabric that didn’t snag easy or was overly slippery would do:shrug:

 

[Cat]

in my parish the mass is either done by a priest or a deacon, with EMHCs helping I have received from the deacon but he seemed a bit alarmed at me kneeling and receiving on my tongue, I’m not against deacons since they normally are men on the road to priesthood or they live very religious lives. I should have been clearer that I was ok with deacons as well.

True and I should have been clear that I was ok with deacons they are not identical to priests they cannot consecrate the Host. They are considered clerics I believe thus setting them apart from the laity.

And about EMHCs they should only be used when the priest is unable such as advanced age or illness, in my parish there will be a deacon present, and two priests yet still the holy Eucharist is given to the lay people to distribute?
Right here on this page from catholic answers it states that EMHCs should not be friviously used catholic.com/documents/liturgical-abuses

And if gloves were to be used I suppose ones made of a fabric that didn’t snag easy or was overly slippery would do:shrug:

IMO, a layperson questioning a priest’s decisions is a more serious issue than the use of EMsHC in the Mass.

Priests are given the option of using EMsHC. They do no wrong if they opt to use the option.

But IMO, we do wrong when we label a priest’s decisions as “frivolous.”

I wish that Catholics could see how dangerous this mindset is. For the first 47 years of my life, I was Evangelical Protestant. In these churches, Christians constantly question their pastors and teachers, and there is constant movement from church to church as Christians decide that the pastor or the teacher or a fellow Christian is less than perfect.

This constant questioning creates a mindset of rebellion and pride, as we feel that we are the only ones right and everyone else is wrong, or at least “inferior” in their understanding.

It’s so subtle. Yes, there are parts of the Catholic Church documents that imply that we have a “right” to a correctly-done Mass. But there is nothing “incorrect” about a priest using EMsHC!

IMO, Catholics should flee those attitudes in themselves that even allow a remote possibility of a rebellious spirit. It was the sin of rebellion that caused Lucifer to fall from God’s Presence!

Also, the New Testament has the harshest of words for those who create “factions” in the Church. By criticizing a priest for using his Church-approved option, we create a division in the Church, pitting “EMsHC approvers” against “those who think EMsHCs should not be used.”

I hope this post is helpful to others.

And as I said earlier, I would personally have no problem with seeing EMsHC in some type of garment, but I respect the decision of the parish priests in regards to this matter.

 

[Phemie]

This constant questioning creates a mindset of rebellion and pride, as we feel that we are the only ones right and everyone else is wrong, or at least “inferior” in their understanding.

It’s so subtle. Yes, there are parts of the Catholic Church documents that imply that we have a “right” to a correctly-done Mass. But there is nothing “incorrect” about a priest using EMsHC!

Unfortunately, in a lot of situations there is something ‘incorrect’ about a priest using EMHCs.

I’ve had priests tell me that the EMHCs have ‘a right’ to be up there. There is no such ‘right’.
I’ve had a priest tell me that now EMHCs are the ‘ordinary’ ministers of Communion. I’ve had the same priest yell at me that on the topic of EMHCs ‘we’ve never listened to Rome and we’re not about to start now.’

I think in many cases one must question the use of EMHCs. How can any pastor justify using an EMCH when there are only 12 people in church? Why is there no problem created by the priest distributing Communion alone during flu season but a dire need for EMCHs at other times?

 

[Cat]

Unfortunately, in a lot of situations there is something ‘incorrect’ about a priest using EMHCs.

I’ve had priests tell me that the EMHCs have ‘a right’ to be up there. There is no such ‘right’.
I’ve had a priest tell me that now EMHCs are the ‘ordinary’ ministers of Communion. I’ve had the same priest yell at me that on the topic of EMHCs ‘we’ve never listened to Rome and we’re not about to start now.’

I think in many cases one must question the use of EMHCs. How can any pastor justify using an EMCH when there are only 12 people in church? Why is there no problem created by the priest distributing Communion alone during flu season but a dire need for EMCHs at other times?

And I would ask how any layperson can justify questioning or doubting a priest over something that is not overtly sinful?

Can’t we just accept that priests are humans and have their own individual preferences that are allowed by the Church?

 

[Brendan]

And I would ask how any layperson can justify questioning or doubting a priest over something that is not overtly sinful?

In one of those cases, where the priest stated that EMHC’s have a right to serve, that IS factually incorrect. It is not a matter of questioning, but a matter of clear error.

As to the MEANS by which the need for EMHC’s to be reduced, there are certainly just ways to consider that,

For example, a priest friend of mine tells the EMHC’s in his parish that every prayer for vocations is a prayer to end their ministry. The goal of the Church really is to have sufficient priests and deacons such that there will never be a need for EMHCs.

 

[Phemie]

And I would ask how any layperson can justify questioning or doubting a priest over something that is not overtly sinful?

Can’t we just accept that priests are humans and have their own individual preferences that are allowed by the Church?

But they are NOT allowed by the Church. That’s the problem.

Documents, at least 4 to date, have stated and restated the rules about when EMHCs are allowed. In no case do any of them state “When the priest’s individual preference is to use them.” No, they state a) when the priest &/or deacon is for some reason incapable of doing so; b) when the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged.%between% This, however, is to be understood in such a way that a brief prolongation, considering the circumstances and culture of the place, is not at all a sufficient reason.

 

[ProVobis]

Can’t we just accept that priests are humans and have their own individual preferences that are allowed by the Church?

Does the use of EMHC fall under the category of “allowed” more than “needed”? And does cutting the communion time in half or more really justify it?

 

[Cat]

But they are NOT allowed by the Church. That’s the problem.

Documents, at least 4 to date, have stated and restated the rules about when EMHCs are allowed. In no case do any of them state “When the priest’s individual preference is to use them.” No, they state a) when the priest &/or deacon is for some reason incapable of doing so; b) when the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged.%between% This, however, is to be understood in such a way that a brief prolongation, considering the circumstances and culture of the place, is not at all a sufficient reason.

If you don’t trust your priest to make this simple, everyday decision, then how can you trust your priest when it comes to the issues of marriage, contraception, homosexuality, etc.?

Each time we question a priest’s judgment, we erode our respect for him.

Many marriages end not because the couple has a major conflict, but many minor conflicts that build up over the months or years and eventually make it impossible for the couple to be together.

 

[Cat]

Does the use of EMHC fall under the category of “allowed” more than “needed”? And does cutting the communion time in half or more really justify it?

Again, this is the priest’s call, not mine.

 

[ProVobis]

If you don’t trust your priest to make this simple, everyday decision,

I believe technically it would be the pastor’s call as EMHC’s generally serve within one parish. I’ve visited parishes which have different, sometimes visiting, priests saying Mass while the policy and methods seem to be the same, except perhaps where there is a communion rail.

 

[Stillsosola]

IMO, a layperson questioning a priest’s decisions is a more serious issue than the use of EMsHC in the Mass.

Priests are given the option of using EMsHC. They do no wrong if they opt to use the option.

But IMO, we do wrong when we label a priest’s decisions as “frivolous.”

I wish that Catholics could see how dangerous this mindset is. For the first 47 years of my life, I was Evangelical Protestant. In these churches, Christians constantly question their pastors and teachers, and there is constant movement from church to church as Christians decide that the pastor or the teacher or a fellow Christian is less than perfect.

This constant questioning creates a mindset of rebellion and pride, as we feel that we are the only ones right and everyone else is wrong, or at least “inferior” in their understanding.

It’s so subtle. Yes, there are parts of the Catholic Church documents that imply that we have a “right” to a correctly-done Mass. But there is nothing “incorrect” about a priest using EMsHC!

IMO, Catholics should flee those attitudes in themselves that even allow a remote possibility of a rebellious spirit. It was the sin of rebellion that caused Lucifer to fall from God’s Presence!

Also, the New Testament has the harshest of words for those who create “factions” in the Church. By criticizing a priest for using his Church-approved option, we create a division in the Church, pitting “EMsHC approvers” against “those who think EMsHCs should not be used.”

I hope this post is helpful to others.

And as I said earlier, I would personally have no problem with seeing EMsHC in some type of garment, but I respect the decision of the parish priests in regards to this matter.

well here is a page from this very site about liturgical abuse and how often EMHCs should be used and to what extent
When can extraordinary ministers be used? If there are enough ordinary ministers at a Mass, what should the extraordinary ministers do? I’ve seen some Masses where the priest doesn’t even distribute Communion but lets the extraordinary ministers do it.

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.

Indeed, the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may administer Communion only when the priest and deacon are lacking, when the priest is prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged. This, however, is to be understood in such a way that a brief prolongation, considering the circumstances and culture of the place, is not at all a sufficient reason (157–8).

this is not my opinion its church teaching apparently I too am a convert of about 5 yrs I don’t know as much about the faith as you obviously. I don’'t have a rebellious spirit I am simply stating facts right here in black and white.

 

[Cat]

well here is a page from this very site about liturgical abuse and how often EMHCs should be used and to what extent
When can extraordinary ministers be used? If there are enough ordinary ministers at a Mass, what should the extraordinary ministers do? I’ve seen some Masses where the priest doesn’t even distribute Communion but lets the extraordinary ministers do it.

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.

Indeed, the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may administer Communion only when the priest and deacon are lacking, when the priest is prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged. This, however, is to be understood in such a way that a brief prolongation, considering the circumstances and culture of the place, is not at all a sufficient reason (157–8).

this is not my opinion its church teaching apparently I too am a convert of about 5 yrs I don’t know as much about the faith as you obviously. I don’'t have a rebellious spirit I am simply stating facts right here in black and white.

It seems to me that you have taken one portion (a few paragraphs) of one Church document completely out of context.

I don’t think you have attended seminary and been part of deep discussions with those learned and experienced men who teach our priests. Perhaps in those discussions, the topic of EMsHC has come up, and all these learned men cite other Church documents, as well as the Scriptures as they together seek a proper understanding of when it is appropriate for them to make use of EMsHC.

Surely all these teachers and priests are much more likely to arrive at that proper understanding than we, the laypeople. After all, they have been called by God to be priests–would God not grant His priests wisdom and knowledge to make these decisions?

I don’t think you are a pastor, which means you don’t have a “pastoral” understanding of parish life. I think those of us who are laypeople need to always keep in mind that we aren’t the “father” of our parish, and therefore, we don’t know best.

 

[ProVobis]

Surely all these teachers and priests are much more likely to arrive at that proper understanding than we, the laypeople. After all, they have been called by God to be priests–would God not grant His priests wisdom and knowledge to make these decisions?

There’s also the business and management side of it. I know this because I took graduate business courses at Illinois Benedictine with priests in the 70’s. The decline of priests and the oversuccess of getting people to go to communion certainly brought new challenges to the Church.

 

[Cat]

There’s also the business and management side of it. I know this because I took graduate business courses at Illinois Benedictine with priests in the 70’s. The decline of priests and the oversuccess of getting people to go to communion certainly brought new challenges to the Church.

True.

Earlier in the thread, someone asked why the Mass has to be “hurried along” by using EMsHC. In large parishes like mine, getting the hundreds of cars in and out of the parking lot for all the Sunday Masses is a necessity. We don’t have the luxury of taking our time during Holy Communion and giving each individual an unhurried, slow experience receiving the Lord.

Taking this back to the OP’s question, I think that one of the biggest reasons why most parishes don’t require some kind of special “garment” for the EMsHC is because of the cost, the storage of so many garments, the cleaning issues, and the necessity of getting many sizes and possibly fabrics to accommodate many people. These are all “physical” reasons and there is nothing wrong with that, just like it’s not “wrong” for a priest to use EMsHC to make sure that the congregation can get into and out of the parking lot in a timely and safe way.

One of the things I love about the Catholic Church is the emphasis on the practical. The “smells and bells”, statues, tastes, sights, music, etc. are done because we are human, and need these “physical things” to be able to better appreciate Jesus and His Sacrifice. This is so very different than the Evangelical Protestant churches that I grew up in that emphasized the “spiritual life,” and downplayed or even scorned the “material/physical” world.

 

[ProVobis]

Taking this back to the OP’s question, I think that one of the biggest reasons why most parishes don’t require some kind of special “garment” for the EMsHC is because of the cost, the storage of so many garments, the cleaning issues, and the necessity of getting many sizes and possibly fabrics to accommodate many people. These are all “physical” reasons and there is nothing wrong with that, just like it’s not “wrong” for a priest to use EMsHC to make sure that the congregation can get into and out of the parking lot in a timely and safe way.

Driving to church is for wimps.

Seriously, many churches in Chicago and the suburbs use alleys for parking lots. Only the far suburban churches have the luxury of large parking areas, which, by the way, cost a fortune to maintain and insure.