Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free
A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for discussion for anyone who adheres to the Extraordinary form of the mass and any issues related to the practices of Eastern Rite Catholicism.

Saint Athanasius is counted as one of the four Great Doctors of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Athanasius

Dec 23rd 2012 new

(Quote) William-607613 said: In a word, Rachel: pressure. I think the practice has been going on for...
(Quote) William-607613 said:




In a word, Rachel: pressure.


I think the practice has been going on for so long that it will take something in writing from a superior for the priest to tell his "Eucharistic Ministers," : "Hey, it's not me saying this; look here. It's from the bishop (or pope). I have no choice."

--hide--
Perhaps you'd prefer the good old days when one priest distributed Communion to 200-400 people (range of Mass attendance at our Church). Actually, back in the old days, there were few recipients, so it could more readily be handled by one person. Also, Communion was distributed under one species only -- the Host.

Pressure? I think not.

Perhaps you would eliminate EME visits to nursing homes, senior citizen apartments and hospitals, too. With the shortage of priests, this would, by necessity, have to be curtailed.

LOCKED
Dec 23rd 2012 new

(Quote) Ray-566531 said: I think you are doing a disservice to those who serve as EME's, especially by saying they are a...
(Quote) Ray-566531 said:

I think you are doing a disservice to those who serve as EME's, especially by saying they are acting out of ignorance. This is demeaning and insulting to those who perform this special service to Our Lord. I can't speak for all EME's, but locally, they are trained, they have the process explained to them, including the background about how this came to be.

We have two priests saying 6 weekend Masses at our cluster parish group (3 parishes). Sometimes they arrive just 2 minutes before a Mass at one of the other Churches in this cluster group. Imagine how much time they would need if they would personally distribute the hosts to more than 200 recipients at each Mass. The Church allows for this, and I don't see it as abuse, nor have their been complaints about this. As a parish council member, I do receive comments, suggestions and opinions from many parishioners, none of whom have ever complained about our procedures. The priests are running ragged.

I certainly don't see any of our EME's acting out of ignorance and would appreciate any allusion to that effect be excluded from any dialogue about them. Especially at this time of the year, we should instead be grateful for their help. I know the overworked priests appreciate their service.

--hide--


There are legitimate uses for Extraordinary Ministers, and while I can't speak to this case in particular, the Bishop may decide this is one of those cases. The uses of Ordinary Ministers including Deacons would be the first step. In most cases in the western world, the use of EMEs has constituted an abuse, one in which local church leaders too liberally interpreted the directives of the Popes and one which the Vatican is looking to remedy. Many traditional theologians write about this. Cardinal Arinze has spoken about this for years. "He (was) Prefect Emeritus of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, having served as prefect from 2002 to 2008. He is the current Cardinal Bishop of Velletri-Segni (succeeding Joseph Ratzinger, who became Pope Benedict XVI) since 2005" (en.wikipedia.org. Church reform is occurring as we speak and it is coming from high places.

The argument that EMEs commonly participate in Masses does not mean there is no correction needed. There are many things commonly accepted in the church today that go against tradtional teachings. A spirit of modernism has invaded the Church and affected many in positions of leadership. During the Church Counter-reformation, many became saints (St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, St. Charles Borromeo, etc.) for trying to both correct the Reformers (Protestants) and those in the Church hierarchy who were in error. Things generally returned to a more traditional stance than before the Reformation. What is TRUE in the church will always continue and will be returned to. Christ's teachings are consistent. He doesn't change, we try to.

LOCKED
Dec 23rd 2012 new

(Quote) Rosanna-921185 said: There are legitimate uses for Extraordinary Ministers, and while I can't speak...
(Quote) Rosanna-921185 said:


There are legitimate uses for Extraordinary Ministers, and while I can't speak to this case in particular, the Bishop may decide this is one of those cases. The uses of Ordinary Ministers including Deacons would be the first step. In most cases in the western world, the use of EMEs has constituted an abuse, one in which local church leaders too liberally interpreted the directives of the Popes and one which the Vatican is looking to remedy. Many traditional theologians write about this. Cardinal Arinze has spoken about this for years. "He (was) Prefect Emeritus of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, having served as prefect from 2002 to 2008. He is the current Cardinal Bishop of Velletri-Segni (succeeding Joseph Ratzinger, who became Pope Benedict XVI) since 2005" (en.wikipedia.org. Church reform is occurring as we speak and it is coming from high places.

The argument that EMEs commonly participate in Masses does not mean there is no correction needed. There are many things commonly accepted in the church today that go against tradtional teachings. A spirit of modernism has invaded the Church and affected many in positions of leadership. During the Church Counter-reformation, many became saints (St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, St. Charles Borromeo, etc.) for trying to both correct the Reformers (Protestants) and those in the Church hierarchy who were in error. Things generally returned to a more traditional stance than before the Reformation. What is TRUE in the church will always continue and will be returned to. Christ's teachings are consistent. He doesn't change, we try to.

--hide--
Not everything is cut and dry, or etched in stone. Issues of doctrine are permanent, of course. But...as an example, we have the Rules of the Church. As most of you will recall, it was once a Church rule that stated eating meat on a Friday was a mortal sin. Well, the Church can change its own rules -- and it did. That particular rule was oriented toward an act of penance. The specific act of refraining from meat on Fridays was amended to perform an act (or acts) of penance. The choice of acts was thereby left to us to decide.

What hasn't been addressed is how a single priest would handle disributing Communion to as many as 400 people at a single Mass without some assistance. The Church's stance on this is clear (at least to me) that EME's can provide such assistance.

Their service is being demeaned here -- unfairly, too. People just don't get up from the pews to help with Communion. Training has been given to those who volunteer to be an EME; they understand what they are doing. Let us be thankful there are such people who serve the Lord in this capacity instead of tearing them apart. They don't deserve belittling.

LOCKED
Dec 23rd 2012 new

(Quote) Ray-566531 said: Perhaps you'd prefer the good old days when one priest distributed Communion to 200-400 people ...
(Quote) Ray-566531 said:

Perhaps you'd prefer the good old days when one priest distributed Communion to 200-400 people (range of Mass attendance at our Church). Actually, back in the old days, there were few recipients, so it could more readily be handled by one person. Also, Communion was distributed under one species only -- the Host.

Pressure? I think not.

Perhaps you would eliminate EME visits to nursing homes, senior citizen apartments and hospitals, too. With the shortage of priests, this would, by necessity, have to be curtailed.

--hide--

Ray, you seem to have taken a personal affront to the discussion, and that is unfortunate. Your personal feelings have taken your responses beyond the limited scope of the original question and the answers provided. This isn't and hasn't been a discussion about what we "like" or prefer, but rather whether or not we're doing what we should be doing as we should be doing it.


I haven't read a single comment in this thread arguing against the intended role of the Extraordinary Minister, however, I have referenced documentation directly from the Vatican's own website which, when read, draws clear parallels between how the Holy See defines the role of the Extraordinary Minister and how the US Bishops have chosen to define their role, including the decision by the Bishops to change their title to Eucharistic Ministers.


Remember, the Bishops in this country aren't exactly revered for their sound judgement and have often been chastized for acting beyond the wishes of the Holy See. These are the same Bishops who, prior to the most recent election, endorsed the more liberal, pro-contraception, and pro-abortion candidate on the ballot in every presidential election during my lifetime. They do not have a great track record.


theheart

LOCKED
Dec 23rd 2012 new

(Quote) Ray-566531 said: Perhaps you'd prefer the good old days when one priest distributed Communion to 200-400 people ...
(Quote) Ray-566531 said:

Perhaps you'd prefer the good old days when one priest distributed Communion to 200-400 people (range of Mass attendance at our Church). Actually, back in the old days, there were few recipients, so it could more readily be handled by one person. Also, Communion was distributed under one species only -- the Host.

Pressure? I think not.

Perhaps you would eliminate EME visits to nursing homes, senior citizen apartments and hospitals, too. With the shortage of priests, this would, by necessity, have to be curtailed.

--hide--


Ray, EMEs do serve a function in the church, that is why the direction was given to allow for them. You don't, however, seem to be addressing the concern expressed by others that there has been a too liberal interpretation of their roles and that this constitutes an abuse. Ordinary Ministers, consecrated Priests and Deacons, should be used whenever possible and Extraordinary Ministers only in certain, well-defined circumstances. Again I refer you to the article llinked previously and the 6 papal encyclicals mentioned in it. Personally, I do prefer that a priest distribute Communion to the entire assembly, assisted by another priest or deacon when available and necessary. It may take longer, but that is fine. I prefer that to the "Express" mentality I sometimes experience when I attend the new Mass.

There is also much written about how only one species is necessary for Communion. Most of what I read is in books so I don't know if I can link anything. The taking of wine as a regular occurrence is a newer practice, but legitimate. EMEs can be used for distributing Communion for those unable to attend Mass, but again, there are certain requirements, and these are not often followed as many don't know the teachings. Based on the experience I have had with people, most EMEs have SOME training but MANY do not know or understand what is written in the encyclicals on this topic. They are not ordained and admitedly do not have the training of a priest or deacon.

"To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained, one which indicates an active participation in the ministry of the Eucharist.4" Dominicae coenae (1980).

LOCKED
Dec 23rd 2012 new

(Quote) Ray-566531 said: ...Their service is being demeaned here -- unfairly, too. People just don't get up from the pew...
(Quote) Ray-566531 said:

...Their service is being demeaned here -- unfairly, too. People just don't get up from the pews to help with Communion. Training has been given to those who volunteer to be an EME; they understand what they are doing. Let us be thankful there are such people who serve the Lord in this capacity instead of tearing them apart. They don't deserve belittling.

--hide--


How many EMEs know what is written in the 6 papal encyclicals? I don't the answer to that, but some EMEs I personally know don't even know the encyclicals exist. I agree with their use IN CERTAIN, WELL-DEFINED CIRCUMSTANCES and with MUCH better training than what is currently occurring. I agree with Victor that you seem to have taken this as a personal attack, while it is not "belittling" the people in the role but attempting to correct the definition of the role as is guided by church teachings.

I won't even get into the other issues (meat on Fridays) you mentioned b/c then this thread would go all over the place.

LOCKED
Dec 23rd 2012 new

(Quote) Victor-544727 said: Ray, you seem to have taken a personal affront to the discussion, and that is ...
(Quote) Victor-544727 said:

Ray, you seem to have taken a personal affront to the discussion, and that is unfortunate. Your personal feelings have taken your responses beyond the limited scope of the original question and the answers provided. This isn't and hasn't been a discussion about what we "like" or prefer, but rather whether or not we're doing what we should be doing as we should be doing it.


I haven't read a single comment in this thread arguing against the intended role of the Extraordinary Minister, however, I have referenced documentation directly from the Vatican's own website which, when read, draws clear parallels between how the Holy See defines the role of the Extraordinary Minister and how the US Bishops have chosen to define their role, including the decision by the Bishops to change their title to Eucharistic Ministers.


Remember, the Bishops in this country aren't exactly revered for their sound judgement and have often been chastized for acting beyond the wishes of the Holy See. These are the same Bishops who, prior to the most recent election, endorsed the more liberal, pro-contraception, and pro-abortion candidate on the ballot in every presidential election during my lifetime. They do not have a great track record.

--hide--


In my church, the priest and Deacon speak out against contraception, against abortion, against gay marriage, against politician's pro-death positions, againsts abuses of many kinds. They don't do anything outside of proper church teaching (except allow the congreation to hold their hands raised during the Our Father). But we do have EMHE at every Mass help out -- even daily Mass. Usually at Daily Mass our Sister distributes the Precious Blood, but not always. There is training and instruction. Our parish used to have 140 or more EMHE but now only have 70 and they are stretched very thin to bring the Holy Eucharist to all the nursing homes and hospital and homebound every day. But if we go back to only the priest distributing to everyone, I don't know how the Masses will scheduled to allow everyone to get in and out of the parking lots, much less the church itself. We run over an hour always now, which isn't long for anyone except those with young children or those who only 'squeeze God in' in their lives, but it really would make things difficult. I'm just saying how it is here. I remember as a child the priest wiping his face with his hankerchief every few people as he stood in the center aisle in a crush of people murmurring 'BodyaChris,BodyaChris,BodyaChris' as fast as he could and practically pushing people out of the way to get done faster -- it never seemed a 'beautiful sacrament' but a hurry-get-it-done experience. I find the slower pace set by having 7 EMHE help at every weekend Mass to much more reverent and uplifting. (ducking to escape)

LOCKED
Dec 23rd 2012 new

(Quote) Victor-544727 said: Ray, you seem to have taken a personal affront to the discussion, and that is ...
(Quote) Victor-544727 said:

Ray, you seem to have taken a personal affront to the discussion, and that is unfortunate. Your personal feelings have taken your responses beyond the limited scope of the original question and the answers provided. This isn't and hasn't been a discussion about what we "like" or prefer, but rather whether or not we're doing what we should be doing as we should be doing it.


I haven't read a single comment in this thread arguing against the intended role of the Extraordinary Minister, however, I have referenced documentation directly from the Vatican's own website which, when read, draws clear parallels between how the Holy See defines the role of the Extraordinary Minister and how the US Bishops have chosen to define their role, including the decision by the Bishops to change their title to Eucharistic Ministers.


Remember, the Bishops in this country aren't exactly revered for their sound judgement and have often been chastized for acting beyond the wishes of the Holy See. These are the same Bishops who, prior to the most recent election, endorsed the more liberal, pro-contraception, and pro-abortion candidate on the ballot in every presidential election during my lifetime. They do not have a great track record.

--hide--
There are provisions allowing the use of EME's to provide for a "great number of the faithful" receiving Communion. There isn't a specific number assigned to this provision. Typically, our Church has 200-400 communicants at each Mass, with one priest to distribute Communion. Does this qualify as a "great number of the faithful"?

The reason for my umbrage is that EME's are personally being maligned here. I've heard from some EME's

who have been deeply hurt by the comments made here, such as they are paritipating in an abuse; they are acting out of ignorance. These comments are not very flattering, nor are they appropriate. They are insulting.

After visiting different Churches, I'm not seeing the abuses of which anyone speaks. I assume they are limited instances, and not the norm. Given the guidelines from Rome, I believe that, in general and in the majority of cases, both the priest and EME's are acting appropiately, and within the scope of the guidelines.

As far as the bishops are concerned, I'm regarding that as a separate issue, and agree that some have been out-of-step.

I feel we should be thankful to those who serve as EME's. They perform a valuable service to the Church and the faithful.

LOCKED
Dec 23rd 2012 new

(Quote) Gabor-19025 said: One of the things that drove me to attend the Traditional Latin Mass was that during the average N...
(Quote) Gabor-19025 said:

One of the things that drove me to attend the Traditional Latin Mass was that during the average Novus Ordo Mass there would always be a team of women (not being sexist but women seemed to dominate in this "role" locally) on the Altar distributing Holy Communion. I was told by a couple of people that I knew that I was a "fuddy duddy" for always going to the Communion line of the priest.

My understanding is that the priest is acting persona Christi and providing us with the Body of Christ on behalf of Jesus himself so those without consecrated hands should never handle the Bread from Heaven. I know that is the view of Traditional Catholics and former Church teaching for many centuries until the 1970's. It seems common on the Catholic Singles web sites for women to write with some pride about being Eucharistic Ministers as part of their "Catholic activities". There are some (including myself) who would consider it to be sinful to handle the Body of Christ.

I am intrigued about what priests tell would be EM's in the process of recruiting them? Are there any EM's out there who could share what they have been taught and why they consider it appropriate to perform that role?

--hide--
One of the differences from the '50's is that the Churches were packed, but only a small percentage of the people received Communion. It was easier for one priest to handle the distribution of the Blessed Sacrament. Now most of those in attendance receive thi sacrament making it difficult for a single priest to administer this sacrament.

LOCKED
Dec 23rd 2012 new

(Quote) Victor-544727 said: Ray, you seem to have taken a personal affront to the discussion, and that is ...
(Quote) Victor-544727 said:

Ray, you seem to have taken a personal affront to the discussion, and that is unfortunate. Your personal feelings have taken your responses beyond the limited scope of the original question and the answers provided. This isn't and hasn't been a discussion about what we "like" or prefer, but rather whether or not we're doing what we should be doing as we should be doing it.


I haven't read a single comment in this thread arguing against the intended role of the Extraordinary Minister, however, I have referenced documentation directly from the Vatican's own website which, when read, draws clear parallels between how the Holy See defines the role of the Extraordinary Minister and how the US Bishops have chosen to define their role, including the decision by the Bishops to change their title to Eucharistic Ministers.


Remember, the Bishops in this country aren't exactly revered for their sound judgement and have often been chastized for acting beyond the wishes of the Holy See. These are the same Bishops who, prior to the most recent election, endorsed the more liberal, pro-contraception, and pro-abortion candidate on the ballot in every presidential election during my lifetime. They do not have a great track record.

--hide--
An additional comment that disturbed me relates to a lay person touching the Blessed Sacrament as being considered a sinful act. That is also a highly offense statement to EME's.

LOCKED
Posts 31 - 40 of 200