Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion

[qfnol31]

Most places probably wouldn't need them if we didn't always communicate under both Species....

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Oct 13 2004, 07:23 PM'] Most places probably wouldn't need them if we didn't always communicate under both Species.... [/quote]
I concur.

[Laudate_Dominum]

While I don't deny that the priest distributing Communion is a practice that has come from Apostolic times, there is no doctrine which states that only a priest can distribute Communion; this is in the realm of discilpine or custom. In fact throughout the history of the Church non-priests have handled the Eucharist and even distributed. For example deacons, whose hands are not consecrated. This practice existed during the time of Trent (and long before) so I highly doubt they intended this statement in the sense you imply.

Pace bene

[Guest Aluigi]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Oct 13 2004, 06:13 PM'] 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. [/quote]
amen.

[D0RK4JP2]

The whole idea of Extraordinary ministers is a sound idea, but as usual, like in the Old Testament, it was not the Law that was wrong it was the people.

The Church teaches that you need to have a "PARTICULARLY LARGE NUMBER" that is in that instruction i got a link to up the top. It is reasonable if there were a priest who was 80 yrs old, with a cain and a gammy leg, handing out communion to 2000 or so communicants, however this is RARILY the case. Like the Old Testament, this instruction is good in istelf because it recognises the limits of the priest, but people ABUSE that instruction by minimising how big 'PARTICULARLY LARGE' really is.

Also it states that there should NEVER be any roster of EM's. They are after the use of ordained ministers, so the use of the 'regulars' at the local parish when other acolytes, deacons, priests etc is a WRONG also. And the use of a roster, well that's just stupid because it's clericalising the layity and secularising the clerics by putting them up on the sanctuary all the time.

Here's a thought. You know how you go up to get a blessing if you are not in a state of grace instead of receiving Communion? WHY THE HECK WOULD YOU WANT A BLESSING EM WHO WOULD ORDINARILY SIT NEXT TO YOU IN THE CONGREGATION??? they're just other people, NOT other Christ's!

JMJ.

Edited October 14, 2004 by D0RK4JP2

[qfnol31]

One of the reasons why it could be argued that we need EMs today and never before is that there are so many more people in the world. If you wanted to take this argument, you could see how it would go. Never before has there been 6 billion people. Only 100 years ago did we hit the 1 billion mark. What's right for one generation isn't always necessarily right for another. Each teaching must be looked at in context.

[D0RK4JP2]

But but but but, there should be NO EM's that abuse their privilege. The fact that, at least the ones i know, aren't doing the right thing is because they are ignorant. Their superiors, if there are any, are not teaching them correctly for the position they may need to take if necessity calls it.

If there are 6 billion people that increases the need of EM's, yes. It also increases the needs of priests MORESO. The same goes for the priests that are meant to teach us; we can have alot of priests but it is better to have priests who are faithful and literate to the teachings of the Church than alot of priests who don't do what they are supposed to out of pride, malice and/or ignorance.

I know good priests and i know unfaithful priests. The good priests are all to happy to take the time to hand out Communion to 100 or so Communicants. the unfaithful priest let's "the liturgy commitee" run the Mass more or less, so you end up getting a whole stack of EM's up there (this is in my experience anyway - in Australia).

The fact that you have liturgy commitees that do not listen or pressure the priest into unlawful things in Mass or in the Church is wrong too. It is a two-way thing: weak-priests/over-powering layity. The priest is in charge of the Church he is stationed to unequivocaly (unless he himself is being unlawful). If both parties recognised their office correctly alot of these problems would be just left to just the heretics, not the ignorant doing damage without knowing.

I agree qfnol31 that the use of EM's is a response to the vastly increased population but alose the slower rate of which vocations are increasing. However, i was just reading the Poland have 25 extra priests with, more or less, nothing to do in the country because ALL THE PARISHES ARE FULL UP! In Australia we have some priests doing 3 parishes, we have parishes being combined etc. Where are the priests for Australia???

JMJ.

[toledo_jesus]

This is something that bothers me: Extraordinary ministers blessing people. Mostly it's small children and babies, and they do a little cross on their forehead. I thought that only priests could do blessings like that.
It's sad because the priest at this parish is really great, wears a cassock and has said to me that he would sometimes much rather be facing away from the congregation so as to better focus on what's happening (showing he has a true concept of what is going on up there and how special it is). I think that he is in a power struggle of sorts with these lay ministers.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='D0RK4JP2' date='Oct 14 2004, 12:06 AM'] The whole idea of Extraordinary ministers is a sound idea, but as usual, like in the Old Testament, it was not the Law that was wrong it was the people.

The Church teaches that you need to have a "PARTICULARLY LARGE NUMBER" that is in that instruction i got a link to up the top. It is reasonable if there were a priest who was 80 yrs old, with a cain and a gammy leg, handing out communion to 2000 or so communicants, however this is RARILY the case. Like the Old Testament, this instruction is good in istelf because it recognises the limits of the priest, but people ABUSE that instruction by minimising how big 'PARTICULARLY LARGE' really is.

Also it states that there should NEVER be any roster of EM's. They are after the use of ordained ministers, so the use of the 'regulars' at the local parish when other acolytes, deacons, priests etc is a WRONG also. And the use of a roster, well that's just stupid because it's clericalising the layity and secularising the clerics by putting them up on the sanctuary all the time.

Here's a thought. You know how you go up to get a blessing if you are not in a state of grace instead of receiving Communion? WHY THE HECK WOULD YOU WANT A BLESSING EM WHO WOULD ORDINARILY SIT NEXT TO YOU IN THE CONGREGATION??? they're just other people, NOT other Christ's!

JMJ. [/quote]
THe Bishop decides what constitutes a really large number, not us. Most parishes today only have one priest and most do NOT have other priests , deacons, or acolytes at Mass. They are alone.

Blessings are not part of the Mass.

[D0RK4JP2]

Nowhere in the "INSTRUCTION on certain questions regarding the collaboration of the non-ordained faithful in the sacred ministry of priests" does it give the option of the Bishop deciding how LARGE "particularly large". I watched a video once by Cardinal Arinze on the matter - he never once mentioned the station of the Bishop deciding how large 'particularly large' is, and he is the prefect of the congregation that looks after divine worship and the sacraments. The job of the Bishop to do with EM's is to deploy them in necessity. It is very necessary to read this
instruction.

In our diocese, in Brisbane Australia, the case is that a few priests look after a few Church's. They are put on a roster with 1 priest in charge. I know a priest in the scenario who tells me often how many 'days off' he gets so he ends up finding somewhere else to celebrate Mass. Maybe the condition is different in your country and diocese but here our Church's usally have about 50-200 per parish.

I think the priest, outside of Communion, gives about 7 blessings during Mass. In the tridentine rite, i dunno exactly, but that number was far greater.

So a non-Catholic or a Communicant not in a state of grace is not supposed to go up for a blessing from the priest? That i would believe but source documents to prove that case are always helpful.

Thanks for the corrections m8! it's always helpful because it makes you think, 'well, am i really right?' Which inturn is very humbling! Thankyou .

JMJ.

Edited October 14, 2004 by D0RK4JP2

[cmotherofpirl]

The Bishop is the chief liturgist in his diocese and he is the boss. For example, in our diocese, Communion on is always with both species and Confirmation is in 8th grade. In our neighboring diocese, Communion is under one species and Confirmation is at age 8.
So deciding how many constitute a "large number" is well within his parameters.

Edited October 15, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[qfnol31]

Sadly most are liberal (not meaning that so much in the normal use, but freer) with EMs and letting Priests decide. My parish has 27 at each Mass. I go to a Mass here that has 2 (Priests) and there are 1/3 as many people at the Mass. Communion isn't that slow, and it's very reverent. I just wish that there would be much more discretion when using EMs.

[D0RK4JP2]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Oct 15 2004, 03:10 PM'] Sadly most are liberal (not meaning that so much in the normal use, but freer) with EMs and letting Priests decide. My parish has 27 at each Mass. I go to a Mass here that has 2 (Priests) and there are 1/3 as many people at the Mass. Communion isn't that slow, and it's very reverent. I just wish that there would be much more discretion when using EMs. [/quote]
Gday,

I can empathise with ya. At our Cathedral, where you would assume the MOST people go (hardly the case) for Mass. For the 5:10 daily mass, which is in the chapel next door, about 20 ppl go2 Mass. there is ALWAYS 2 other EM's there, usually the same persons each time.

There is a balance. [b]There has to be a balance[/b]. The use of EM's is good...where the Church says it is good to use them. Using them like 'extra priests', or, this term really gets me fired up, extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist (NO SUCH THING!), instead of lay people filling in the duty of what ordinarliy should be acolytes, deacons and (always preferably) priests.

Has that term sunk in at your Church anyone? "extraordinary minister of the Eucharist"? It is entirely different to the proper term "extraordinary minister of Communion".

What would be lovely if all EM's were given proper catechetical training. I'm an alter server at a Latin Mass community (1962), and i had to get training for that, and i'm not even handling the Blessed Sacrament!

It would be an easy thing to accept if EM's were taught correctly and did their job correctly. Then we wouldn't need to go on and on (more or less) about it because there would be no crisis to discuss...

JMJ.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Oct 15 2004, 01:10 AM'] Sadly most are liberal (not meaning that so much in the normal use, but freer) with EMs and letting Priests decide. My parish has 27 at each Mass. I go to a Mass here that has 2 (Priests) and there are 1/3 as many people at the Mass. Communion isn't that slow, and it's very reverent. I just wish that there would be much more discretion when using EMs. [/quote]
How many people are at the Mass?

[qfnol31]

About 400 at the Mass with two Priests (it's a monastery so they could easily have more) and about 1200 at the Mass with 29 ministers (normally 2 ordinary and 27 extraordinary).