Extraordinary Ministers Of Holy Communion

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

I was prompted to start this thread, because of the Open mic thread about EMHCs. I have several times seen posts, on the phorum, about how EMHC are used too much in the Church today.

Here's the question, what is an extraodinary situation where these ministers SHOULD be used?

I will admit I am realatively ignorant of the Official Church Documents authorizing this ministry. Here are my basic thoughts.

The Church in the United States IS in an overall extraordinary circumstance. We are in a historical view "loosing" Vocations to Holy Orders. Few Dioces find that they have enough priest and even then could still use more. I know of several Priest in my own Archdioces who have multiple Parishes, two or three. I even know a Priest in the neighboring dioces who has four. You might be asking how this has anything to do with distributing the Body and Blood of Christ. As I see it. In the past where there were more Priest it would be more common to only have one Parish as a priest, and then have at least an Associate Pastor. This means that more people were available as Eucharistic Ministers (ordained). While I agree wholeheartedly that the prefered thing is to not have to use EMHC, when their simply are not enough Priest to distribut the Body and Blood, then the extraordinary ministers are used. Should we not then cut a little slack then to these ministers who even though they may help distribute every week, they are still serving in a realitive extraordinary way?

I realize that I MAY have faults in this post, and welcome solid Catholic correction for any errors.

[Theoketos]

We need to look no further then Canons 910 and 230

Can. 230 §1. Lay men who possess the age and qualifications established by decree of the conference of bishops can be admitted on a stable basis through the prescribed liturgical rite to the ministries of lector and acolyte.

Nevertheless, the conferral of these ministries does not grant them the right to obtain support or remuneration from the Church.

§2. Lay persons can fulfill the function of lector in liturgical actions by temporary designation. All lay persons can also perform the functions of commentator or cantor, or other functions, according to the norm of law.

§3. [b]When the need of the Church warrants it and ministers are lacking[/b], lay persons, even if they are not lectors or acolytes, can also supply certain of their duties, namely, to exercise the ministry of the word, to preside offer liturgical prayers, to confer baptism, and to distribute Holy Communion, according to the prescripts of the law.

The problem is the value of the laity reflecting the faith in the temporal order has been forgotten by the laity and the cause been taken up the religious. Conversely, the sacred order has often been to profained and become to familar (so that one priest even brings his dogs to Mass!).

[dUSt]

It get's out of hand when the EMHC's start to think that it is their right to be doing it every week, so you end up with 20 EMHC's at every mass, where every line has two people distributing the body and two people distributing the wine--where it actually takes longer for the priest to distribute the body and blood to the EMHC's than it does for the EMHC's to distribute to the rest of the congregation.

This was my previous parish just a few years ago.

[Groo the Wanderer]

wowsers. We use them all the time at my parish. Even though we are blessed to have 2 (and now a third until the start of 2007) priest, since we have 7 masses every weekend, canon law keeps both priests from being available at every mass (limit of 3 per weekend I think?) so we HAVE to use lots of EMHCs.

Far from dust's problem, we seem to have to coax the last few out of the pews at most masses. We use either 7 or 11 MHCs at each mass, depending on attendance, counting the priest and any deacons in attendance.

Oh, and that is with one with the cup and one with the Host per line, not multiples <---- *small brag about size of parish*

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

I can see the points you make. I guess I come from parishes that do not abuse it, so I didn't realize where the problem lies then. Interesting...

[Aloysius]

Moreover, the ministry of an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion is not meant to be a stable sustained ministry, but a temporary ministry in time of dire need. If the dire need sustains itself over a long period of time, the bishops ought to institute more into a stable ministry--lay acolytes-- to take care of that need. That there is a need for any extra-ordinary ministers at all on a consistent weekly basis is a problem that ought long ago to have been addressed by the bishops by creating acolyte programs for men at least 25 years of age. Paul VI surpressed the minor orders for a reason-- he wanted there to be more lay acolytes.

Moreover, this applies to readers (there ought to be instituted lectors) and music directors (there ought to be instituted cantors)... but where it is most gravely needed is the more important part of the mass, and that's why more acolytes ought to be instituted for this purpose.

[Resurrexi]

[quote] §3. When the need of the Church warrants it and ministers are lacking[/quote]

Now, this can be interpreted orthodoxly, or heteodoxly, and I tend to take the orthodox interpretation. Using the 1900 years of Tradition and tradition from before this Canon was published, I interpret this as being when there is a dire need for ministers of Communion (e. g. an army going into battle) and there are hardly enought priests available (e. g. for the army going into battle there is only one priest)

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1083107' date='Oct 3 2006, 02:29 PM']
That there is a need for any extra-ordinary ministers at all on a consistent weekly basis is a problem that ought long ago to have been addressed by the bishops by creating acolyte programs for men at least 25 years of age. Paul VI surpressed the minor orders for a reason-- he wanted there to be more lay acolytes.
[/quote]

Why 25, is there a canon or something requireing lay acolytes to be 25, or it just a general number?

[Dave]

Groo:

Regarding your canon law statement, I believe that only has to do with the number of Masses a priest may say on Sunday. It doesn't address priests being present at Mass merely to help distribute Holy Communion. So if at all possible, all priests and deacons in the parish should be there to help distribute Communion.

Another thing -- there's no reason why parishes have to offer Communion under both species for every single Mass. I mean, when the practice was brought back, it was really only meant to be done on special occasions. Well nowadays most parishes distribute both species, and as a result, it just adds to the number of extraordinary ministers!

[Resurrexi]

Could one priest distribute Commuinon under both species?

[goldenchild17]

Our Priest at the FSSP Mass we went to distributed both. Same at the Church I go to now.

[shortnun]

[quote name='Dave' post='1083392' date='Oct 3 2006, 07:28 PM']
Another thing -- there's no reason why parishes have to offer Communion under both species for every single Mass. I mean, when the practice was brought back, it was really only meant to be done on special occasions. Well nowadays most parishes distribute both species, and as a result, it just adds to the number of extraordinary ministers!
[/quote]
Dave,

Could you please elaborate your position on why parishes don't *have* to offer both species? (Beyond the theory of concomitance that is.) Thanks!

Edited October 4, 2006 by shortnun

[Aloysius]

I do not believe it is permitted for a priest to distribute both at an FSSP mass. The Ecclesia Dei indult specifically requires that the mass be done fully in compliance with all the norms and canon of the missal of 1962. That missal calls for the priest to receive both species but only to distribute under one species, if I'm not mistaken I don't think it's permitted to distribute both species at an indult mass.

25 is the age in the united states when men may be instituted as acolytes. I believe this was set by the USCCB. An acolyte is a more stable ministry which can be utilized every week in times of prolonged necessity for extraordinary ministers of holy communion (an acolyte is still considered extraordinary, in that he should only be used in extra-ordinary times), but the laity instituted as EMHCs is meant to be dire straights, didn't plan on it, too many people showed up for mass today and there's a steelers game coming on soon so we have to get done early situation.

As regards why a priest doesn't have to distribute both species... because Christ is fully present under one species and the Church calls parishes/priests to, as much as possible, only have the priest administering the sacrament. Therefore, if offering under both species would make that more difficult, because the full presence of Christ is in one of the species, it ought to be distributed under that one species alone.

[cappie]

[quote name='Dave' post='1083392' date='Oct 4 2006, 09:28 AM']

Another thing -- there's no reason why parishes have to offer Communion under both species for every single Mass. I mean, when the practice was brought back, it was really only meant to be done on special occasions. Well nowadays most parishes distribute both species, and as a result, it just adds to the number of extraordinary ministers!
[/quote]

Also there are a greater number of people receiving Holy Communion now as a fruit of the movement began by Pope St Pius X and the relaxiation of the law of fasting. One of our priests who used to celebrate Mass in Detroit in the 1950's said you could have 500+people at Mass but only about 20-30 people going to Holy Communion at the later Masses.

From Redemptionis Sacramentum:

1. The Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion

[154.] As has already been recalled, “the only minister who can confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist in persona Christi is a validly ordained Priest”.[254] Hence the name “minister of the Eucharist” belongs properly to the Priest alone. Moreover, also by reason of their sacred Ordination, the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are the Bishop, the Priest and the Deacon, to whom it belongs therefore to administer Holy Communion to the lay members of Christ’s faithful during the celebration of Mass. In this way their ministerial office in the Church is fully and accurately brought to light, and the sign value of the Sacrament is made complete.

[155.] In addition to the ordinary ministers there is the formally instituted acolyte, who by virtue of his institution is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion even outside the celebration of Mass. If, moreover, reasons of real necessity prompt it, another lay member of Christ’s faithful may also be delegated by the diocesan Bishop, in accordance with the norm of law, for one occasion or for a specified time, and an appropriate formula of blessing may be used for the occasion. This act of appointment, however, does not necessarily take a liturgical form, nor, if it does take a liturgical form, should it resemble sacred Ordination in any way. Finally, in special cases of an unforeseen nature, permission can be given for a single occasion by the Priest who presides at the celebration of the Eucharist.

[156.] This function is to be understood strictly according to the name by which it is known, that is to say, that of extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, and not “special minister of Holy Communion” nor “extraordinary minister of the Eucharist” nor “special minister of the Eucharist”, by which names the meaning of this function is unnecessarily and improperly broadened.

[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.

[158.] 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.

[159.] It is never allowed for the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion to delegate anyone else to administer the Eucharist, as for example a parent or spouse or child of the sick person who is the communicant.

[160.] Let the diocesan Bishop give renewed consideration to the practice in recent years regarding this matter, and if circumstances call for it, let him correct it or define it more precisely. Where such extraordinary ministers are appointed in a widespread manner out of true necessity, the diocesan Bishop should issue special norms by which he determines the manner in which this function is to be carried out in accordance with the law, bearing in mind the tradition of the Church.

[shortnun]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1083552' date='Oct 4 2006, 12:14 AM']
As regards why a priest doesn't have to distribute both species... because Christ is fully present under one species and the Church calls parishes/priests to, as much as possible, only have the priest administering the sacrament. Therefore, if offering under both species would make that more difficult, because the full presence of Christ is in one of the species, it ought to be distributed under that one species alone.
[/quote]
Yes, concomitance. I understand. I am asking you, Dave, and others as to what the[i] pastoral theological implications are[/i] (if you have priests, deacons, installed accalytes) if you do not distribute under both species... thoughts? comments? clarifications?