Extraordinary Ministers Of Holy Communion

[puellapaschalis]

At my parish here we (the congregation) only receive communion under one species; at the main Sunday Mass in addition to the celebrant and one of the servers (who I believe is an acolyte), usually there are two EMCs. I think we tend to be the exception in the country, though.

In the UK it's widespread to receive, at least at Sunday Mass, both species. What would be the implications if a broad and relatively quick change was made to only normally offering the Sacred Body? I imagine some would be quite upset; most wouldn't care (sounds brutal but there it is). For the sake of those who actually understand what would be happening I can certainly see my old parish priest at least explaining this during Mass, and drawing up a document that people can read and take home with them.

I think that, certainly in this country, if a decision was made to only offer the Sacred Body as a norm, then it would need to be done gradually and with LOTS of discussion (the Dutch like discussing everything ).

Personally I don't have an opinion. I'm not sure that one option is "better" than the other: I can understand the point that receiving both species may be a "fuller" expression of communion with Christ who shed His Blood as well as His Body, but if I'm travelling, for example, and I can see that things are done differently to how it is here, I'll go with the flow.

These are only personal musings. I know only the bare basics about this stuff.

Love and prayers,

PP

[Dave]

[quote name='shortnun' post='1083649' date='Oct 4 2006, 08:59 AM']
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?
[/quote]

Distributing Communion under both species greatly increases the number of EMs being used at Masses. If most parishes just offered one species, then fewer EMs would be necessary at Mass -- if any would even be necessary at all.

[Oik]

Extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion are relpacing the diakonia (deaconate) in the Church.

Nearly 4,000+ men in the church 'serve' as a 'lay minister' in a paid position in the diocese on the local level, yet the sanctuary is not crowded with deacons?

Deacons can be paid.

Deacons lead the community in service.

Currently, some other 'ministry' leads the community in service while the deacon does not get paid and he may be the only deacon at the Church or 1500+ families.

In the Bible, The Apostles establish the diakonia in Acts for the specific purpose of distributing communion and serving the community, but specifically in this fashion.

So why are there extraordinary ministers of holy communion in the Roman Catholic Church (in the Eastern Church, we will not have them) anyways?

Dave,

All the Eastern Catholic Churches the Body and Blood of Christ are given and the most I have ever seen is five priests.

Granted, we use intinction (or the Body of Christ is in the Chalice with the Blood, given to the servant of God or handmaid of the Lord with a spoon).

I have seen priest give by intinction. It is quick, 'painless' and the servant or handmaid recieves Christ's Body and Blood.

Edited October 4, 2006 by Oik

[brendan1104]

Even if I reply to this, according to the true mind of the Church- including two of its greatest minds- John Paul II and St. Thomas Aquinas - I might warned or suspended or phisyied for supposed "error" or "uncharitableness." So obviously you know that I feel and know the true extraordinary minister to be an instituted/ordained acolyte or deacon.

[Aloysius]

because certain people think it's the answer to VII's call for the laity to be more "actively involved" in the liturgy. Of course, the Vatican has condemned that attitude many times, but it still persists.

the bishops are afraid to institute more permanent deacons to distribute communion because then they have to kick out all the female EMHCs. same reason they won't make more acolytes who would also have a more proper role distributing communion. They live in a state of compromise with feminists... if we can't let you be priests we'll at least let you storm the altar in as many positions as possible (EMHC, girl altar boy, pastoral assosiate, music director, et cetera et cetera)

[Lil Red]

in my diocese, the past two bishops will not allow a permanent diaconate program. hopefully a new bishop will allow it.

[Dave]

[quote name='Oik' post='1083892' date='Oct 4 2006, 03:17 PM']
Dave,

All the Eastern Catholic Churches the Body and Blood of Christ are given and the most I have ever seen is five priests.

Granted, we use intinction (or the Body of Christ is in the Chalice with the Blood, given to the servant of God or handmaid of the Lord with a spoon).

I have seen priest give by intinction. It is quick, 'painless' and the servant or handmaid recieves Christ's Body and Blood.
[/quote]

I realize the Eastern Catholic Churches distribute Communion under both species, but that's just it -- they use intinction, which makes EMs unnecessary! And I'd personally love to see intinction practiced more widely in the Western Rite (I know it's allowed), but parishes that actually practice intinction are almost nonexistent.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1083552' date='Oct 4 2006, 12:14 AM']
I do not believe it is permitted for a priest to distribute both at an FSSP mass.
[/quote]

I totally had a mental lapse there. I don't know what I was thinking about when I posted that (it was late : ) but yes, at both of the churches I mentioned, what I meant to say is that the priests only distribute His Precious Body, not the Blood at all, which the priest himself consumes. Except in cases of ciliac disease, which a whole family at the FSSP parish, had. In which case he distributed the Blood alone to them. Sorry about the confusion .

[shortnun]

[quote name='Dave' post='1083882' date='Oct 4 2006, 01:58 PM']
Distributing Communion under both species greatly increases the number of EMs being used at Masses. If most parishes just offered one species, then fewer EMs would be necessary at Mass -- if any would even be necessary at all.
[/quote]
The liturgical priority is that both species are distributed. But suddenly, to obey what is "ideal" for canon law (I'm not saying it's not abused), we look for a solution that seems easiest? It seems like we're putting a splint and a cast on a finger with a papercut.

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1083907' date='Oct 4 2006, 02:19 PM']
because certain people think it's the answer to VII's call for the laity to be more "actively involved" in the liturgy. Of course, the Vatican has condemned that attitude many times, but it still persists.

the bishops are afraid to institute more permanent deacons to distribute communion because then they have to kick out all the female EMHCs. same reason they won't make more acolytes who would also have a more proper role distributing communion. They live in a state of compromise with feminists... if we can't let you be priests we'll at least let you storm the altar in as many positions as possible (EMHC, girl altar boy, pastoral assosiate, music director, et cetera et cetera)
[/quote]
All the members of Christ's body are called to participate in the liturgy--in the entire life of the Church. Vatican II didn't come up with that one out of the blue. As for the rest of your post, I can't help but see it as entirely off topic and uncharitable. I'd be happy to speak with you in a new thread about why women (or lay men) can't be pastoral associates or music directors. I'm unfamiliar with documents prohibiting (or discouraging) them from such roles that give life to the Church.

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1083916' date='Oct 4 2006, 02:26 PM']
in my diocese, the past two bishops will not allow a permanent diaconate program. hopefully a new bishop will allow it.
[/quote]
It is a truly life-giving ministry. It is very difficult to begin from scratch, and to continue to do well. I join you in your prayers for your bishop.

[Oik]

[quote]The liturgical priority is that both species are distributed. But suddenly, to obey what is "ideal" for canon law (I'm not saying it's not abused), we look for a solution that seems easiest? It seems like we're putting a splint and a cast on a finger with a papercut.[/quote]

Exactly! That's why 15 mins extra waiting in line to receive your Lord and Saviour, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is not a reason to have any EMHC.

Rather, look at the tradition and biblical mandate of the deaconate to fill the roles of service the 30,000+ individuals (of which only 4-5,000 are men though) get paid for. Pay the deacons, not the laity!

[quote]All the members of Christ's body are called to participate in the liturgy--in the entire life of the Church. Vatican II didn't come up with that one out of the blue. As for the rest of your post, I can't help but see it as entirely off topic and uncharitable. I'd be happy to speak with you in a new thread about why women (or lay men) can't be pastoral associates or music directors. I'm unfamiliar with documents prohibiting (or discouraging) them from such roles that give life to the Church.[/quote]

I think he rather points out the reality that what has sadly arisen from lack men answersing the clerical vocation has become the norm. Namely, the offices praised by St. Igantios (especially the slaves, or deacons his so fond of) and other Church fathers, as well as the legitimate 'minor' orders founded on tradition have been overshadowed and downplayed in preference to the 'participation in th liturgy'.

Participation in the liturgy must be according to place. The laity, as Clement says, sound adhere to the layman's code.

The laity participate as laity, the clergy as clegy. The minor orders are ordained (institued in Western terms) to the specific task for which they perform.

[shortnun]

[quote name='Oik' post='1084500' date='Oct 4 2006, 11:01 PM']
Exactly! That's why 15 mins extra waiting in line to receive your Lord and Saviour, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is not a reason to have any EMHC.
[/quote]
15 mins!? Perhaps that's just an exaggertation. Participation in the table of the Lord is [u]not [/u]something that should be overly prolonged. And if that's the case, then we ought to look at ways to prevent that (installed acolytes, deacons, etc).

[quote name='Oik' post='1084500' date='Oct 4 2006, 11:01 PM']
Rather, look at the tradition and biblical mandate of the deaconate to fill the roles of service the 30,000+ individuals (of which only 4-5,000 are men though) get paid for. Pay the deacons, not the laity!
[/quote]
I think that the historical development of and appreciation for the role of the deacons has been severely delayed. But let me see if I have this correct: You'd advise that we fire/lay off/etc 25,000+ individuals so that we can just pay men who are installed as deacons a salary? Please correct how I'm reading your post if I'm in error.

[quote name='Oik' post='1084500' date='Oct 4 2006, 11:01 PM']
I think he rather points out the reality that what has sadly arisen from lack men answersing the clerical vocation has become the norm. Namely, the offices praised by St. Igantios (especially the slaves, or deacons his so fond of) and other Church fathers, as well as the legitimate 'minor' orders founded on tradition have been overshadowed and downplayed in preference to the 'participation in th liturgy'.

Participation in the liturgy must be according to place. The laity, as Clement says, sound adhere to the layman's code.

The laity participate as laity, the clergy as clegy. The minor orders are ordained (institued in Western terms) to the specific task for which they perform.
[/quote]
Yes, absolutely participation must be according to place. Please understand me, I'm not for a total "let's get ride of all rules and orders we have in the church." And I agree that the legitimate minor orders of the Church have been greatly overlooked in the past 1000 years. But I must temper my view with a realistic perspective of a the Church as dynamic, not static. Meaning the concept of "vocation" (particularly that of a "vocation" to minister within the Church) might be defined in ways that aren't explicitly found in scripture or tradition (but are certainly supported by revelation). And I respectfully disagree with your conclusion that a desire for "participation in the liturgy" is at all related to a lack of men "answering the clerical vocation."

[Oik]

[quote]15 mins!? Perhaps that's just an exaggertation. Participation in the table of the Lord is not something that should be overly prolonged. And if that's the case, then we ought to look at ways to prevent that (installed acolytes, deacons, etc).[/quote]

We don't even use instruments and the Divine Liturgy is 1hour 20-30mins. God Be praised!

Now, even a reverant Roman Mass can be celebrated in an hour with no exemptions. Therefore, what is 15 mins more? We alreay have it!

[quote]I think that the historical development of and appreciation for the role of the deacons has been severely delayed. But let me see if I have this correct: You'd advise that we fire/lay off/etc 25,000+ individuals so that we can just pay men who are installed as deacons a salary? Please correct how I'm reading your post if I'm in error.[/quote]

There has been a 30 percent increase in lay ministry in 8 years.

There are now 30,000 lay ministers with another 30,000 in training.

There are only 27,000 priests in active ministry in the USA and 14,000 deacons.

So, already, 'lay ministry' has elipsed clerical ministry.

Why are we doleing out money for ministry that has no tradition in our Church, yet failing to support the clearly defined, and apostolically instituted ministry already present. Do I think we should fire 25,000 plus people? YES. We need to support the ones that are indispensible to our Church first.



[url="http://www.usccb.org/deacon/statisticsworld.shtml"]Deacon statistics[/url]

[url="http://www.usccb.org/plm/summary.shtml"]Priest statistics[/url]


[quote]Meaning the concept of "vocation" (particularly that of a "vocation" to minister within the Church) might be defined in ways that aren't explicitly found in scripture or tradition (but are certainly supported by revelation). [/quote]

Neglect for clearly established clerical orders is not consdiered necessity for new offices. These new 'vocations' obscure already lacking numbers of clerical orders.

When the clerical orders are bursting at the seems, then i'd be all for these new 'vocations'.

[quote]And I respectfully disagree with your conclusion that a desire for "participation in the liturgy" is at all related to a lack of men "answering the clerical vocation."[/quote]

You misunderstand. Rather it is the improper implementation of Vatican II that has lead to erroneous practices and ideas. Proper participation in the liturgy has nothing to do with being an altar server, EMHC, ect. In fact, actual and active, proper participation has to do with each performing thier own role. Laity are laity.

Rather, some's desire for a misunderstood participation in the liturgy has lead to the decrease in men answering the clerical calling.



All is well though. God is in control and these matters of disciple and praxis will all be hammered out in due time. The clergy, who are eucharistic ministers, Bishops and priests and deacons, ordinary ministers of Commuion, are indispensible, while lay ministry is not firm and fast and can fade into and out of necessity.

[Aloysius]

THe Vatican specifically says that Eucharistic Ministers are NOT in place in order to foster more active participation.

Redemptionis Sacramentum:
[151.] Only out of true necessity is there to be recourse to the assistance of extraordinary ministers in the celebration of the Liturgy. [b]Such recourse is not intended for the sake of a fuller participation of the laity [/b]but rather, by its very nature, is supplementary and provisional.

As to the rest of it, it is very clear from the Vatican that altar boys are preferable, and that instituted offices such as cantor, lector, and acolyte are preferable to temporary non-stable ministries such as music director, reader, and extra-ordinary minister of holy communion. these stable ministries used to have minor orders attached to them but these have since been supressed, the requirement to be male has not. I only mentioned pastoral assosiates in passing and only with those in mind who sit next to the priest during mass in their own pseudo-vestments (it's been known to happen).

how and why altar boys are preferable:
Redemptionis Sacramentum
[47.] It is altogether laudable to maintain the noble custom by which boys or youths, customarily termed servers, provide service of the altar after the manner of acolytes, and receive catechesis regarding their function in accordance with their power of comprehension.[119] Nor should it be forgotten that a great number of sacred ministers over the course of the centuries have come from among boys such as these.[120] Associations for them, including also the participation and assistance of their parents, should be established or promoted, and in such a way greater pastoral care will be provided for the ministers. Whenever such associations are international in nature, it pertains to the competence of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments to establish them or to approve and revise their statutes.[121] Girls or women may also be admitted to this service of the altar, at the discretion of the diocesan Bishop and in observance of the established norms.[122]

I never expressed any contention against vatican ii's call for participation in the liturgy, I merely repeated what the vatican has said: being an extra-ordinary minister of holy communion is NOT something which is intended as a 'greater participation in the liturgy

fuller participation by the laity means fuller understanding, responses, singing, perhaps bringing up the gifts... not having everyone in the congregation up on the altar doing some job. I am merely relating to you what Rome relates to the churches (and the churches largely disregard).

Rome says the diaconate is preferable. Rome says the instituted ministries are preferable over the extra-ordinary in-case of grave necessity ministries.

As it stands, the bishops have not provided a structure for the training of real lay lectors, cantors, and acolytes as was Paul VI's intention. This is why, out of necessity and not out of an answer to Vatican II's call for participation, there are readers, music directors, and EMHCs. It is the bishop's duty to provide programs to train and institute acolytes, lectors, and cantors; as well as or even more so deacons; to fill the liturgy with more stable ministries.

one would be speaking against the will of Rome and Vatican II if one attempted to say "lay ministries such as EMHCs are in place to give the laity more active participation". Rome sees these things as temporary necessities grudgingly permitted. Rome sees Deacons, Acolytes, Lectors, and Cantors as preferable.

[Maria]

Assisting at Mass refers to being there and participating in the prayers, etc. We don't need to be up on the sanctuary. There might be a need for us to be there, but we don't need to be there.

[shortnun]

[quote name='Oik' post='1084653' date='Oct 5 2006, 12:57 AM']
There has been a 30 percent increase in lay ministry in 8 years.

There are now 30,000 lay ministers with another 30,000 in training.

There are only 27,000 priests in active ministry in the USA and 14,000 deacons.

So, already, 'lay ministry' has elipsed clerical ministry.

Why are we doleing out money for ministry that has no tradition in our Church, yet failing to support the clearly defined, and apostolically instituted ministry already present. Do I think we should fire 25,000 plus people? YES. We need to support the ones that are indispensible to our Church first.
[/quote]
Perhaps we ought to clarify our positions here. [b]Why is [u]bad[/u] that (as you call it) 'lay ministry' elapsed clerical ministry?[/b] I beg to differ with you. Lay ministry has no tradition in our Church?! Pardon me for considering [u]them [/u]to be some of the ones who are indispensible! A reference I would cite as valuable for the history of lay ministry is [color="#FF0000"][b][url="http://www.amazon.com/Ministry-Catholic-Church-History-Theology/dp/1592441572/sr=1-9/qid=1160086101/ref=sr_1_9/104-7602641-7448764?ie=UTF8&s=books"]Ministry: Lay Ministry in the Roman Catholic Church it's History and Theology[/url] [/b][/color]by Kenan Osborne, OFM. And along the lines of Osborne, I would refer you to Jesus' model of calling all to be his disciples.

[quote name='Oik' post='1084653' date='Oct 5 2006, 12:57 AM']
Neglect for clearly established clerical orders is not consdiered necessity for new offices. These new 'vocations' obscure already lacking numbers of clerical orders.

When the clerical orders are bursting at the seems, then i'd be all for these new 'vocations'.
[/quote]
So there is no ebb and flow for you? [b]There is no change when you look at Church history? [/b]The only way for something new to come about is if everything else is humming along as it should? So with that logic, there is no need for religious orders? People were neglecting the order of the presbyterate and deaconate. Thus vocations as a sister, nun, or brother are unfounded and merely detract from the already established orders?

[quote name='Oik' post='1084653' date='Oct 5 2006, 12:57 AM']
All is well though. God is in control and these matters of disciple and praxis will all be hammered out in due time. The clergy, who are eucharistic ministers, Bishops and priests and deacons, ordinary ministers of Commuion, are indispensible, while lay ministry is not firm and fast and can fade into and out of necessity.
[/quote]
I guess it's the beauty of our Catholic faith that can allow you to say "All is well" and for me to say the exact same phrase back to you. I would disagree with you that lay ministry is not firm and fast. I think it has existed since the Old Testament, and is not even something that came about as a result of Christ. And, even if it is as you say--that such ministry can fade into and out of necessity--who are you to say that now is the time for it to fade away? That sounds awfully close to a judgement. And who are we to judge?

And [b]if I may introduce a new topic... [/b]I see you're from FUS. What do you think about the lay men and women being educated at your institution? Is it your hope that they are unable to find jobs upon graduation, lest they perpetuate the "infection" that is lay ecclesial ministry"? Should seminaries no longer accept non-orditation track students to their schools? Should all (Catholic) graduate theological schools be closed down? I hate to sound like I'm stating extreme examples, but I would very much like to hear your position on these matters.

[b]
****************************************[/b]
[quote name='Aloysius' post='1084741' date='Oct 5 2006, 06:03 AM']
THe Vatican specifically says that Eucharistic Ministers are NOT in place in order to foster more active participation.

...

one would be speaking against the will of Rome and Vatican II if one attempted to say "lay ministries such as EMHCs are in place to give the laity more active participation". Rome sees these things as temporary necessities grudgingly permitted. Rome sees Deacons, Acolytes, Lectors, and Cantors as preferable.
[/quote]
[quote name='Maria' post='1085028' date='Oct 5 2006, 04:29 PM']
Assisting at Mass refers to being there and participating in the prayers, etc. We don't need to be up on the sanctuary. There might be a need for us to be there, but we don't need to be there.
[/quote]
[b]Thank you both for calling me to clarify my point. [/b]While I never explicitly stated what I meant by "active participation," I did [u]not [/u]mean to imply that the appointment of lay individuals as EMHC was a means of fostering active participation. Forgive me if I lead you to think otherwise.

Edited October 5, 2006 by shortnun