Posted on 08/18/2009 3:44:35 PM PDT by NYer
Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist should be used in extraordinary circumstances. Not every Mass every Sunday. How about waiting to "receive" Holy Communion rather than running up to "take" Holy Communion. This is creating the appearance of a privileged class of the laity."
In the Byzantine Rite, there are NO Eucharistic Ministers. Not even the deacon ministers the Holy Eucharist to the people. Before V II Father did it all. If people wish for time for recollection and thanksgiving after reception of Holy Eucharist, this is the perfect way to accomplish it. Give Father time to minister to the entire congregation.
I’m delighted that those who want to attend Mass using the Missal of 1962 are able to. However, I do not have the slightest desire to do it myself. If our Bishop or the Pope were to assign this as the standard for everyone, we would say, “Yes sir!” and still be grateful to have the Mass at all, of course.
My parish’s music director, who bases a lot of the music from a local Passionist Fathers retreat house, during the Holy Week/Easter time, had the choir do at least one or two verses on the Latin. Also at that same retreat house there was at a music minister’s conference before the liturgy, a chanting in Latin of one verse in Latin.
Why is this in the Evangelical Christian sidebar? You do this frequently.
Great article. We do most of this, which comes as a bit of a shock to the tourists.
I will say, though, that depending on the room, amplification can be a necessary evil. In a smaller church built before about 1960, you can get away with no mikes if you have a choir that can project and has decent diction. Part of the problem is to really make the music thing work, you have to have musicians who are trained to know what they are doing.
I do think that the peace and silence needs to be stressed. Mass is for worship, not a social hour. That's for coffee and donuts afterward.
extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.
The only Eucharistic Minister at Mass is the celebrant.
1. The Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion
[154.] As has already been recalled, “the only minister who can confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist in persona Christi is a validly ordained Priest”.[254] Hence the name “minister of the Eucharist” belongs properly to the Priest alone. Moreover, also by reason of their sacred Ordination, the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are the Bishop, the Priest and the Deacon,[255] to whom it belongs therefore to administer Holy Communion to the lay members of Christ’s faithful during the celebration of Mass. In this way their ministerial office in the Church is fully and accurately brought to light, and the sign value of the Sacrament is made complete.
[155.] In addition to the ordinary ministers there is the formally instituted acolyte, who by virtue of his institution is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion even outside the celebration of Mass. If, moreover, reasons of real necessity prompt it, another lay member of Christ’s faithful may also be delegated by the diocesan Bishop, in accordance with the norm of law,[256] for one occasion or for a specified time, and an appropriate formula of blessing may be used for the occasion. This act of appointment, however, does not necessarily take a liturgical form, nor, if it does take a liturgical form, should it resemble sacred Ordination in any way. Finally, in special cases of an unforeseen nature, permission can be given for a single occasion by the Priest who presides at the celebration of the Eucharist.[257]
[156.] This function is to be understood strictly according to the name by which it is known, that is to say, that of extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, and not “special minister of Holy Communion” nor “extraordinary minister of the Eucharist” nor “special minister of the Eucharist”, by which names the meaning of this function is unnecessarily and improperly broadened.
[157.] If there is usually present a sufficient number of sacred ministers for the distribution of Holy Communion, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not be appointed. Indeed, in such circumstances, those who may have already been appointed to this ministry should not exercise it. The practice of those Priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distributing Communion and hand this function over to laypersons.[258]
[158.] Indeed, the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may administer Communion only when the Priest and Deacon are lacking, when the Priest is prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged.[259] This, however, is to be understood in such a way that a brief prolongation, considering the circumstances and culture of the place, is not at all a sufficient reason.
[159.] It is never allowed for the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion to delegate anyone else to administer the Eucharist, as for example a parent or spouse or child of the sick person who is the communicant.
[160.] Let the diocesan Bishop give renewed consideration to the practice in recent years regarding this matter, and if circumstances call for it, let him correct it or define it more precisely. Where such extraordinary ministers are appointed in a widespread manner out of true necessity, the diocesan Bishop should issue special norms by which he determines the manner in which this function is to be carried out in accordance with the law, bearing in mind the tradition of the Church.
Or the deacon, in a more limited sense. But thanks for calling attention to this abuse of terms. It's important.
The problem is not being 'holier than thou' - and you might hesitate before accusing others of that, isn't that itself 'holier than thou'? (you can go round and round with that one - relativism in disguise) - but being aware of abuses of the liturgy.
It's one thing to have music that is familiar and consistent with the traditions of the congregation -- quite another to have innovation just for the sake of innovation. Rome has made it quite clear that things that are appropriate culturally are one thing (dancing in Africa for example), while adopting things that are inappropriate culturally is wrong.
What we have seen in ordinary suburban American parishes is an almost frantic adoption of multi-culti, exhibitionist practices that are not holy or conducive to worship but completely foreign to the tradition. Many times they come straight from Hollywood and Broadway and pop or rock music.
Many of us call for a turning back to the older traditions of a quiet, reverent Mass, chant, Renaissance polyphony and traditional hymns as a counterweight to what Kipling called "The Lust for Newness". It's not holier than thou, but a desire for holiness that drives this.
It's a real shame when the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Real Presence are hidden by raucous pop music, glad-handing, and failure to abide by the norms.
Music and reverent celebration by themselves mean nothing, of course. As I said before, the Episcopalians are a bunch of screaming heretics, but in some quarters they retain the knowledge of good music and even reverent celebration.
Still, it seems to me a real shame when the Episcopalians 'get it', but Catholics don't abide by the Holy Father's explicit directions for reverence in music and liturgy, and even worse don't abide by the actual instructions of VCII but some goofy idea of the 'spirit of VCII' which is just their own inclinations.
I truly appreciate and agree with your commentary. Thanks for the post and ping.
The author makes specific references to the Evangelical Church.
This is one of my pet peeves. I always address them as Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. It was funny at first, because even the staff thought I was mistaken, but the priest said I was right! LOL!
For example, instead of a "gathering song" (gag) have the choir chant the Introit. For this coming Sunday (unfortunate minimalist translation): Listen, Lord, and answer me. Save your servant who trusts in you. I call to you all day long, have mercy on me, O Lord.
The Anglican Use Gradual (which we use in our Novus Ordo Masses): Bow down, O Lord, thine ear to me and hear me: O my God, save Thy servant that trusteth in Thee; have mercy upon me. O Lord, for I have called daily upon Thee.
How many parishes' music directors ever consider the Propers? They're mostly ignored and yet they should be primary in the music of the Mass. They're integral to the structure of each Sunday's Mass. Yet hardly any parish uses this most proper option.
Instead we have the four-hymn sandwich. A hymn, however dignified and stately and beautiful is no match for the actual Proper that belongs to those parts we've been accustomed to hearing and singing a liturgical song.
The structure of the Mass is compromised when all we rely on are the hymns. To recover what is truly Catholic, recover the Propers. Plain and simple. Then you get away from this debate on stylistic choices.
Fr. Columba Kelly has been writing them for years in a hermeneutic of continuity with tradition. They're simply breathtaking and in the vernacular. The Arbogast Complete English Propers has them. And Richard Rice has just complete the Simple Choral Gradual for the whole church year that is accessible for choirs and parishes that are not yet able to do Gregorian chant.
These are free! No longer does your parish have to be slaves to the OCP/GIA monopoly on church music. These people are offering this to the church for free. And the music is gorgeous.
And no, I do not work for the CMAA. Just an ordinary and obscure musician working in the hermeneutic of continuity and for the reform of the reform.
Sancta Cecilia, ora pro nobis.
We sometimes chant the Proper as a prelude. Our two young Parochial Vicars are intensely interested in bringing back chant, and the music director and choir are happy to oblige....
And how great that you have the AU. Still trying to convince our
man to try Anglican chant .
How about just standing through like (most) the Orthodox do rather than sit in pews?
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
If the author doew mention evangelicals, it is not easily seen. Glancing through it three times, I saw the word Protestant, but not evangelical. That is because it really has nothing to do with evangelical beliefs and probably does not belong in the evangelical sideabar.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.