Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion

[CatholicforChrist]

There seems to be something frightening concerning hand Communion. The Council of Trent declared the following:

"The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition."

The Church has defined in an Ecumenical Council (infallible) that it is not only a Tradition (capital T) but an Apostolic Tradition that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands. With this being said, since the Council is infallible, does that not mean that the allowance for Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion is impossible? If so, are not the many people (and parishes) who do this and allow this in danger of grave sin and sacrilege?

[Brother Adam]

No, it is not impossible. What is impossible is to give communion to 2,000 people with only one priest due to such a shortage of priests. The use of Extraordinary ministers is unfavorable, but permissable.

See the code of canon law - 230, 906, [u]910[/u], 274, 608

Edited October 13, 2004 by Brother Adam

[CatholicforChrist]

Then, I suppose, if it is a part of Canon Law, the question would better be posed: Can a Code of Canon Law be validly promulgated if it contradicts and infallible decree by the Church? In other words, is the current Code of Canon Law valid if it contradicts an infallible statement from Rome?

Edit: I should add. It is not impossible to distribute Communion to 2,000 people with one priest. That would be burdensome, but it is not impossible. If there is something that is unacceptable for theological and sacramental reasons, then there is no burden which can make it acceptable, i.e., if there are 5,000 people who need their Confessions heard, and there is only one priest, the hearing of Confessions cannot be delegated to a laymen. The reason for this is that it is never acceptable for theological reasons, etc, for a laymen to hear a Confession or attempt to give absolution. According to Trent, it seems the same is true about distributing Communion. It says this is an Apostolic Tradition. If this is infallible, then no amount of burden would make it permissible to use laymen. Further, the obligation is to receive Communion once per year during Easter time, so if it were "impossible" because of some great burden, then the people would not receive Communion, if we are saying that Trent's decree is infallible (how could it not be?).

Edited October 13, 2004 by CatholicforChrist

[Brother Adam]

I'm having trouble finding this line in the Council of Trent. I just did several searches on my online version of all of the councils documents and couldn't find it. Could you point me to where the council states this?

[CatholicforChrist]

I took the quote from a thread in the Apologetics section of this website. I will look into my sources for the quote, and if I cannot find it, I will contact the person who quoted it to begin with.

[Brother Adam]

Yeah, cool cause I've done searches on all of the documents from all of the 21 councils and the code of canon law and the catechism and several papal encycials and turned up nothing.

[CatholicforChrist]

I have found the reference. It is from Pope Julius III's third session, Session Thirteen. Session XIII [i]Decree Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist[/i], Chapter VIII [i]On the use of this admirable Sacrament[/i]. Perhaps you have a different translation, and it did not contain the entire phrase because it was worded in a different order. Depending on the time of the translation, the word order may be altered to better suit the Latin order or vice versa (my translation may be the more faithful to the Latin order). I do not really know. I wish I had a copy of the actual Latin. Anyway, it is Session XIII, Chapter VIII. You will see it in there. God bless.

[Brother Adam]

cool. I'll look that up and get back to you after I pick the wife up from work. Hopefully we can sort through this

[Brother Adam]

[quote]CHAPTER VIII.

On the use of this admirable Sacrament.

Now as to the use of this holy sacrament, our Fathers have rightly and wisely distinguished three ways of receiving it. For they have taught that some receive it sacramentally only, to wit sinners: others spiritually only, those to wit who eating in desire that heavenly bread which is set before them, are, by a lively faith which worketh by charity, made sensible of the fruit and usefulness thereof: whereas the third (class) receive it both sacramentally and spiritually, and these are they who so prove and prepare themselves beforehand, as to approach to this divine table clothed with the wedding garment. [u]Now as to the reception of the sacrament, it was always the custom in the Church of God, that laymen should receive the communion from priests; but that priests when celebrating should communicate themselves; which custom, as coming down from an apostolical tradition, ought with justice and reason to be retained.[/u] And finally this holy Synod with true fatherly affection admonishes, exhorts, begs, and beseeches, through the bowels of the mercy of our God, that all and each of those who bear the Christian name would now at length agree and be of one mind in this sign of unity, in this bond of charity, in this symbol of concord; and that mindful of the so great majesty, and the so [Page 82] exceeding love of our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave His own beloved soul as the price of our salvation, and gave us His own flesh to eat, they would believe and venerate these sacred mysteries of His body and blood with such constancy and firmness of faith, with such devotion of soul, with such piety and worship as to be able frequently to receive that supersubstantial bread, and that it may be to them truly the life of the soul, and the perpetual health of their mind; that being invigorated by the strength thereof, they may, after the journeying of this miserable pilgrimage, be able to arrive at their heavenly country, there to eat, without any veil, that same bread of angels which they now eat under the sacred veils.

But forasmuch as it is not enough to declare the truth, if errors be not laid bare and repudiated, it hath seemed good to the holy Synod to subjoin these canons, that all, -the Catholic doctrine being already recognised,-may now also understand what are the heresies which they ought to guard against and avoid.
ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST
CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.
CANON lI.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.
CANON III.-If any one denieth, that, in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each [Page 83] species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema.
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that, after the consecration is completed, the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not in the admirable sacrament of the Eucharist, but (are there) only during the use, whilst it is being taken, and not either before or after; and that, in the hosts, or consecrated particles, which are reserved or which remain after communion, the true Body of the Lord remaineth not; let him be anathema.
CANON V.-If any one saith, either that the principal fruit of the most holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, or, that other effects do not result therefrom; let him be anathema.
CANON VI.-If any one saith, that, in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship, even external of latria; and is, consequently, neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in processions, according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy church; or, is not to be proposed publicly to the people to be adored, and that the adorers thereof are idolators; let him be anathema.
CANON VII.-If any one saith, that it is not lawful for the sacred Eucharist to be reserved in the sacrarium, but that, immediately after consecration, it must necessarily be distributed amongst those present; or, that it is not lawful that it be carried with honour to the sick; let him be anathema.
CANON VIII.-lf any one saith, that Christ, given in the Eucharist, is eaten spiritually only, and not also sacramentally and really; let him be anathema.
CANON IX.-If any one denieth, that all and each of Christ's faithful of both sexes are bound, when they have attained to years of discretion, to communicate every year, at least at Easter, in accordance with the precept of holy Mother Church; let him be anathema.
[Page 84] CANON X.-If any one saith, that it is not lawful for the celebrating priest to communicate himself; let him be anathema.
CANON XI.-lf any one saith, that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist; let him be anathema. And for fear lest so great a sacrament may be received unworthily, and so unto death and condemnation, this holy Synod ordains and declares, that sacramental confession, when a confessor may be had, is of necessity to be made beforehand, by those whose conscience is burthened with mortal sin, how contrite even soever they may think themselves. But if any one shall presume to teach, preach, or obstinately to assert, or even in public disputation to defend the contrary, he shall be thereupon excommunicated.[/quote]





It does not seem to speak against the use of extraordinary ministers. It says we should recieve it from a priest, however does not specifically forbid the use of special ministers. Just as the ordinary minister of baptism is the priest, in special cases, anyone can baptize.

Edited October 13, 2004 by Brother Adam

[CatholicforChrist]

"Now as to the reception of the sacrament, it was always the custom in the Church of God, that laymen should receive the communion from priests; but that priests when celebrating should communicate themselves; which custom, as coming down from an apostolical tradition, ought with justice and reason to be retained."

That seems to be the source of the other quote. I assume there is simply a translation discrepancy. Either way, this one seems to be saying the same thing, but it is not an infallible part of the Council, i.e., it is not a Canon, an anathema. I suppose one could argue that because it is not an infallible part of the Council that it does not have to be considered now that the Church has spoken again, but it still says Apostolic Tradition. Shouldn't that at least be a cause of concern?

[qfnol31]

It says with "reason" it should be attained. I see good reason for it not to be. I know that's a very short answer.

Ed. It also calls it a custom. Customs can be changed.

Edited October 13, 2004 by qfnol31

[D0RK4JP2]

[quote name='CatholicforChrist' date='Oct 14 2004, 08:17 AM']There seems to be something frightening concerning hand Communion. The Council of Trent declared the following:

"The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition."

The Church has defined in an Ecumenical Council (infallible) that it is not only a Tradition (capital T) but an Apostolic Tradition that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands. With this being said, since the Council is infallible, does that not mean that the allowance for Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion is impossible? If so, are not the many people (and parishes) who do this and allow this in danger of grave sin and sacrilege?[/quote]
Gday,

Here is a link to a similiar discussion i brought up >>>

[url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=21920"]Click here for the TOPIC[/url]

But then i was given this article to read >>>

[url="http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html"]Click here for ARTICLE[/url]

A good article to read seperatly from all of this is >>>

[url="http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0697/_PD.HTM"]Instruction on the collaboration of the non-ordained faithful in the sacred ministry of priest[/url]

Personally, i haven't come to a put of closure with this topic either. It's tricky because it can come to the possibility of the Magesterium teaching false doctrine which CANNOT EVER HAPPEN. Have a read of all of that, and it would be good to find the time to read it all because they're all very time-worthy articles, and see what you come up with afterwards.

JMJ.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

The article posted above is good:
[url="http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html"]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html[/url]

Check it.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='CatholicforChrist' date='Oct 13 2004, 06:17 PM'] There seems to be something frightening concerning hand Communion. The Council of Trent declared the following:

"The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition."

The Church has defined in an Ecumenical Council (infallible) that it is not only a Tradition (capital T) but an Apostolic Tradition that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands. With this being said, since the Council is infallible, does that not mean that the allowance for Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion is impossible? If so, are not the many people (and parishes) who do this and allow this in danger of grave sin and sacrilege? [/quote]
Not everything said in at Trent or Vaitican II was infallible. There are levels of fallibility, anddocuments dealing with disciplinary matters to not rank the same as documents dealing with dogma.

Early christians carried the Eucharist home with them.

[Brother Adam]

I personally don't like the idea of recieving communion from EM's, especially from female EM's. I agree it is a problem, but not because it is forbidden by the Church here in America. It isn't.

If you can find a solution, I'll be there to cheer you on.