Extraordinary Ministers Of Holy Communion

[Aloysius]

you lead me otherwise by responding to my comment by defending active participation in the liturgy, something which I did not attack in principle and therefore I took that as you defending EMHCs as active participation. My point is that these are things which the Vatican specifically calls temporary and specifically states that it would be desirable if they were not necessary.

Rome says that lay ministry (as regards the LITURGY) is temporary and only out of necessity. Rome says that the desirable state of things is that the liturgy, in terms of the principal parts which take place on the sanctuary at least, ought to be as populated as possible with ordained positions, and if not by ordained positions then at least by instituted positions which used to have the minor orders. the proper order always has been, and Rome insists that it should remain so, that the ministerial priesthood and diaconate minister to the people (supplemented only out of necessity by laity but then only insofar as they are laity in instituted positions... in the liturgy those things which used to hold minor orders, outside of the liturgy in catholic education primarily monks and nuns and brothers and sisters and then, only out of necessity, others in non-instituted ministerial positions) and then the role of the people, the majority of the laity, is to minister to the rest of the world. That is the desirable orientation of the Church from Rome's perspective.

[Oik]

Shortnun,

Glory to God! FUS is a great school.

As for myself, I will finish my degree and get married. As an Eastern Catholic, I will pursue my vocation as a Deacon and I hope and pray God will grant me the Grace to serve the Church well.

As a Father, I hope and pray I will raise my chilredn to love and serve God and to live God-fearing Christian lives.

Edited October 5, 2006 by Oik

[Oik]

I overspoke and misguiding the thread.

The canon law information provided in this thread gives a hard and fast answer to the original question according to the disciplines of the Roman Catholic Church
In the Eastern Churches, only can distribute Communion.

I don't see anything else to comment on.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Oik' post='1085257' date='Oct 5 2006, 10:10 PM']
I overspoke and misguiding the thread.

The canon law information provided in this thread gives a hard and fast answer to the original question according to the disciplines of the Roman Catholic Church
In the Eastern Churches, only ________ can distribute Communion.

I don't see anything else to comment on.
[/quote]
Only what?

[Oik]

hahaha


Thanks for the edit!

Only clergy can distribute Holy Communion.

[Resurrexi]

[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]

The liturgical priority is for a priest to distribute Communion, becuase only the Priests can act in Persona Christi when doing so. Communion under both species is not necessary becuase when recieveing Communion, even under one species, you recieve the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of God the Son made Man, you recieve Christ, the Whole Christ, and nothing but Christ.

[quote]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]

right on!

[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.[/quote]

Of course all the members of Christ's [i][u]MYSTICAL[/u][/i] Body (i. e. not His physical Body) are obliged to participate in the liturgy, but not in ways such as distributing Communion (I don't think there would ever be a great enough need to use EMHCs at all during Mass: they are meant for extraordinary Communion services). Lay people should participate in the Mass following along in their Latin-English Missal (the norm for the Missa Normativa is Latin) and offering up the Victim to God with the priest. Boys also may, if there are no/not enough acolytes and deacons (males are the norm in the Church, females are supposed to be a rare exception) serve at the altar.

[quote]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]

It is not uncharitable, it is so correct you don't even want to admit it. women should not be pastoral associates (a position I don't think should exist) or music directors (in fact, unless there are not enough men to make a chior, women aren't even supposed to sing in the chior).

[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.[/quote]
Ita vero!

[quote]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 totally agree that if there are not enough priests to distribute Communion, deacons should be ordained to do so.

[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]

Are you kidding me? You can't wait fifteen minutes? There is nothing that says Mass shouldn't be long. In fact, the most beautiful Masses (such as St. Padre Pio's) were 2 hours long. Moreover, I can barely do all my pre and post revieving devotions in fifteen minutes.

[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]

We shouldn't have EMHS being paid to do their job at all, they should be in extraordinary circumstances and not be hardly used at all.

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

I love the Eastern Divine Liturgy(s). If my diocese didn't have an indult for the TLM every month, I'd attend one.

[quote]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 agree that Mass should take longer.

[shortnun]

[b]My quotes are inter-textual and bold. STM, in the future, it would be helpful if you could include who you are quoting, just so we can all keep the conversation straight.[/b]

[quote][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]
... Communion under both species is not necessary becuase when recieveing Communion, even under one species, you recieve the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of God the Son made Man, you recieve Christ, the Whole Christ, and nothing but Christ.
[b]
Yes, concomitance. I've stated that I fully comprehend and understand. What I'm stating, is that the distribution of the cup fell into an historical lack of appreciation/distribution throughout history, and that I find this to be problematic. Hence my insistancy that both species be made available if at all possible.[/b]

...

[quote]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]
It is not uncharitable, it is so correct you don't even want to admit it. women should not be pastoral associates (a position I don't think should exist) or music directors (in fact, unless there are not enough men to make a chior, women aren't even supposed to sing in the chior).

[b]Please check Al's orginal post here. It was the comments about women "storming the altar" and the disrespect I perceived in his lack of empathy with the difficulty that comes with the role of episcopacy that I called off topic and uncharitable. Also, I intend on creating a new thread on pastoral associates, and I would welcome you into that discussion.[/b]

...

[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]
Are you kidding me? You can't wait fifteen minutes? There is nothing that says Mass shouldn't be long. In fact, the most beautiful Masses (such as St. Padre Pio's) were 2 hours long. Moreover, I can barely do all my pre and post revieving devotions in fifteen minutes.

[b]It's one thing to have a longer, reverent, well-planned liturgy. It's entirely different to have people wait for their taste of heaven here on earth. It is the latter which I am calling to not be absurdly lengthy in time.
[/b]

[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]
We shouldn't have EMHS being paid to do their job at all, they should be in extraordinary circumstances and not be hardly used at all.

[b]I am unaware of a single circumstance where EMHC are paid simply for doing that task. The Church [u]does not[/u] pay lay ministers [u]just [/u]for that.[/b]

[/quote]

[Guest Maldod]

Does anyone know if there is a specific age limit for EMHCs. My parish wants to have some youth EHMCs from about the age of 14 or 15.

[cappie]

[quote name='Maldod' post='1095288' date='Oct 19 2006, 08:53 AM']
Does anyone know if there is a specific age limit for EMHCs. My parish wants to have some youth EHMCs from about the age of 14 or 15.
[/quote]


The minimum age in Australia is 18

[son_of_angels]

Here's the thing....

If a priest has already celebrated more than his allowed number of Masses for a given day, he could still come to the mass, in choir dress, or function as the deacon or lector, and distribute communion as an ordinary minister. Indeed, the church would be greatly enriched by seeing more priests fulfilling their ministerial as opposed to presidential role.

Also,
The GIRM and Sacramentary both conceive of distributing under both species with only one priest. It means everybody goes up once, then goes back to their seats, then goes up again. Intinction is another option (not self-intinction of course!), but it requires careful coordination. The books also allow for an Eastern-style distribution (if I remember correctly), which might also be effective. In the Tridentine Papal Mass, the Holy Father would even receive from a sort of straw!

Why no EMC's? Generally, I think what has been lost in the modern liturgy is reflection on the priestly character of ministerial roles. Reading the Scriptures, is it not a presentation of Christ, almost like the Eucharist? Why then shouldn't those ordained "ad ministerium" or at least those blessed to that end, and possessing the male gender be the ones to present those Scriptures. Or, in their absence, let the priest fulfill this ministry, as he is not simply presider at an assembly, but also a minister of grace to his people.

The same goes with the Blessed Sacrament. Let those consecrated to be our ministers fulfill their roles, and perhaps we'll have a little less sketchy people, given only to vanity, politics, and maneuvering, running our Congregations!