www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Eucharistic Ministers

Slightly off topic but I hope not too badly so

I would like to thank Admin for his understanding of the RC position regarding EEMs.

He has really understood the problems here [ err not geographically ]

A little more on the usage/training etc

We are usually approached by the Parish Priest and asked if we would be willing to serve, it is emphasised that it is a service to the Parish.

After training [ and obviously this does vary ] we are Commissioned at either a special service or in my own case , during Mass, and it is emphasised that we have a duty to care for the Sacred Vessels and so on and we have to agree to this publicly and audibly. After a Blessing we may then act as EEMs when required. We are presented with a Certificate stating that we have been commissioned as a Minister of the Eucharist for the Community/Parish/School [ named] for a period of 3 years or until we are no longer resident in that Community/Parish/School. The Certificate is signed by the Archbishop/Bishop of the Diocese .
The Certificate can be withdrawn at any time by the Diocese and it can be returned at any time by the EEM

Now the initial commissioning is for 3 years, but it may be extended by 3 year periods - and this renewal is done by the Parish Priest but each year he has to submit to the Diocesan Office, the names of all those who serve in this way.

I hope from this it can be seen that the use of EEMs is not a 'casual' thing but is strictly controled [at least here in Scotland]

Most of the EEMs I know [ and I do include myself in this category] regard it as a great and humbling privilege to be permitted to serve in this way.

Sorry about the time delay in my response - it's this time difference 'thing' again

Angela

I served as an Eucharistic Minister in the Roman Church for 3 years, and had a certificate signed by our bishop granting permission to do so. I volunteered for the parish sick and homebound ministry, and my intent was to do this only. Soon after I ended up on the Mass schedule, along with 7 other EMs. After some time I really got tired of being part of an "invasion force" heading up to the altar every Mass. I didn't feel there was a real need for so many lay persons to be fulfilling this function based on the number of parishioners presenting for Mass (but there was a need for some help for our priest). So I stopped being an EM at Mass, and continued the sick and homebound visits until my certificate expired (we moved to another parish anyway at about that time). The homebound ministry was very rewarding, and I got to meet some very interesting folks - always went "overtime"....

In the Orthodox Church only clergy are allowed to touch the holy vessels, the holy table and anything standing on it. I presumed that the rules were the same in Byzantine Catholic parishes.

From an Orthodox perspective, I'm astounded by the use of eucharistic ministers in the Byzantine rite.

Spasi Christos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Diak,

The relevant section of Particular Law follows. Please note that Fr. Vladimir, in his original post, stated that Bishop JOHN of Parma gave permission for two laymen to distribute the Eucharist. If the understanding of the canon on this issue was that permission were not needed then Fr. Vladimir would not have begun this discussion. Please note that the canons do not automatically give laymen the right to serve as Eucharistic Ministers. While my information is not official it is accurate and based on experience and discussion with several of our priests. You are welcome to contact any of the chanceries to verify this information if you wish.

Canon 709 �2

�l. In cases of true necessity, deacons may distribute the Divine Eucharist.

�2. In the same cases, even minor clerics and members of the laity can be designated to distribute the Divine Eucharist.

1o. A parish may have one person designated for this purpose plus another for each 75 communicants at the Liturgy.

2o. The metropolitan Liturgical Commission is to prepare a program of training that includes theological and spiritual formation, the selection process for candidates and a practicum.

3o. Those persons may take communion to those who, by reason of illness, infirmity or age, cannot attend the Divine Liturgy regularly.

4o. If any priest or deacon is present at the Liturgy, in any capacity whatever, he is to make himself known to the principal celebrant and shall distribute the divine Eucharist, vested insofar as possible, and taking precedence over any minor cleric or lay person present.

---

Fr. Mark,

Thank you for your post. You are correct that it is the tradition that only clergy are allowed to touch the holy vessels, the holy table and anything upon it. I think we are speaking here of extraordinary circumstances, which surely occur in your Church. What occurs when the pastor of a parish cannot physically distribute the Divine Eucharist? Also, if there are several hundred communicants and only one priest (and no deacon) how is the Eucharist distributed? I have always respected our traditions but I could never reconcile this tradition with that of the early Christians who took the Eucharist home with them to self-communicate during the week. Can you please reconcile these two customs from an Orthodox perspective? Thanks!

Admin

I'm still not convinced that the law (as presented above) would prevent a parish priest from having laypersons as Eucharistic ministers if he wanted to, without the bishop's knowledge or explicit permission.

Furthermore, and maybe more importantly, why is it that a priest ("Fr. Vladimir") of the Metropolia was seemingly unaware of these canons or the whole concept? The Particular Law has been in force since 1999, yes?

I don't believe Eucharistic Ministers are needed
in the Eastern Catholic Churches. In parishes where they were allowed because of an older priests' health was poor, they continued functioning as (multiple) Eucharistic Ministers even though they had new, younger priests with no health problems. It is an canonical abuse that has entered our churches because of the misuse of
Eucharistic Ministers in Roman Catholic "mega" parishes. Again, with the restoration of the married priesthood, this use of EM wouldn't be necessary. Until then, I don't think it's too much to encourage more married men to become deacons.

Ung-Certez

No law anywhere is a deterrent.

All a law does is lay out the way things should be done and, most of the time, describes the punishment if one does not follow that law.

As I have heard said before, its not breaking the law if I am not caught.

David

Lemko-Rusyn,

You are correct in that the law itself will not prevent abuse. Only education and discipline can prevent abuse. Please keep in mind that an abuse of a special privilege is not the same thing as the rightness or wrongness of the privilege. They are two separate discussions.

Fr. Vladimir can speak for himself but I would guess that he was not aware of these canon simply because there was never a need for his parish or surrounding parishes to use Eucharistic Ministers. Canons are generally consulted only when a situation arises. When people start memorizing them, look out!

--

Ung-Certez,

If you are aware of the abuse of the use of Eucharistic Ministers in a parish you have an obligation to report said abuse to the appropriate authorities.

Admin

Administrator, it occurs in a parish of the Archeparchy where things like installing a proper iconostas and getting rid of Latinizations are never taken seriouly and it is a sad situation. They are one of the few Archeparchial parishes that have ample younger families, unfortunately, they will never experience what it really means to be an Byzantine Catholic (or as Alex says, Orthodox in Communion with Rome). They will forever be Roman Catholics of the Byzantine Rite!

Ung-Certez

If my memory serves me well, in 1999 once all the hubbub over the married priests provision of the Particular Law died down, this was the other major "innovation" that was the topic of discussion here and on the street. (I won't say in the pews, because we all know that "Byzantine churches don't have pews.") I can understand most of our laypeople neither being aware of such "esoterica" nor caring about it, but how could our priests not be aware of it? Were there not eparchial seminars for the clergy about the Particular Law? Do they not read the eparchial press? (The laypeople don't, but still...)

Father Vladimir, did you really not know about this "innovation" already four years after it was introduced?

Ung-Certez,

Thank you for your clarification. Your original post seemed to indicate that the use of Eucharistic Ministers was common in our parishes. I understand now that you are speaking of your own parish.

Let me be blunt. If you believe that there is an abuse you have a responsibility to bring it to the attention of that particular priest or the pastor of the parish. If he has explained his action and you still believe him to be abusing a privilege then you have a responsibility to report it to the appropriate authority. If you have not done so they you are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

You speak of the sad situation of continued latinized practices in your parish. Can you share with us the specific initiatives you yourself have taken to assist the Church in restoring an authentic Byzantine-Ruthenian mindset and practice?

Admin

Dear Administrator:

I am a Eucharistic Minister in my Latin Church parish. I was asked by the pastor to assume this assistance, given training, and had my name recommended to the bishop of the diocese for approval.

I have no right to continue to do this ministry one minute beyond the pleasure of the pastor. When our new pastor arrived, I was asked to continue. It is our practice here that when a new pastor arrives, all such appointments stop--just like when a Pope dies. Everyone must be re-recommended by the pastor.

I was placed in charge of scheduling and training others when we became a one-priest parish with almost 800 families in the late 1980s.

When our new pastor arrived two years ago, he made it his policy that I would have to recommend to him anyone who approached him, since he did not know anyone. Our policy stipulates that one called to assist with this ministry must not have any impediments: no irregular marriages or divorces; no other situations that could cause scandal.

I see this as an emergency situation and not something that should continue. In fact, there is a Vatican instruction dating from 1997 that clarifies and limits the use of Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist. The problem is that many ignore it and want to interpret it away.

BOB

Bob,

You make some excellent points. In the Roman Catholic Church there is a difference in how EEOs are supposed to be called upon, be formed and then serve and how this may actually occur in some parishes or diocese.

Admin

"�2. In the same cases, even minor clerics and members of the laity can be designated to distribute the Divine Eucharist."

Minor clerics? I contemplate the reasons for instituting Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers but not minor orders. Is there a reason why one is opted for rather than the other? What are the arguments? I know several men who've been recommended for minor orders over the years with no response whatsoever on such a possibility.

Is this practice being adopted to reflect Byzantine traditions? Do the Orthodox have EEMs? Are we working closely with our Sister Orthodox to collaborate on such new ministries?

I am aware of the laws Mr. Administrator mentions. I am also aware that clerics of minor orders are on the books too, but no such program for minor orders, as a ministry unto itself, exist. Why would one ministry be allowed but not the other?

"2o. The metropolitan Liturgical Commission is to prepare a program of training that includes theological and spiritual formation, the selection process for candidates and a practicum."

I am unaware of any such training and formation program or selection process per such canons anywhere in the Metropolia. Does anyone have information on such programs? I am interested why such permission would be granted without proper training, formation and practicum. Will they be "certified?" And does certification without laying on of hands the way church ministry is going in the Byzantine Catholic Church? Was this published in any of our eparchial newspapers?

I can see several advantages to having EEMs: they are rather inexpensive, they help shorten the length of the Divine Liturgy, and are easier to institute than married priests without running afoul with the Latin Church.

What are your thoughts? Should the discussion on EEMs also include the possibility of re-instituting minor orders? According to the canons, if minor clerics or deacons exist then EEMs are unecessary. For the pastors who are opting for EEMs, have they attempted to get minor clerics?

Joe Thur

Joe,

You ask questions that only our bishops can answer.

I am sure that you are well aware that there are no active programs in any eparchy to form either minor clerics or EEMs. As far as I am aware in our Church there are less then four or five approved EEMs in the entire United States. I do not think that this is a case of one being allowed and the other being disallowed but rather a case of needing one more than needing the other.

As I have noted numerous times on the Forum, our Church has been without deacons and minor clerics for so long we have come to think that this is normal. We cannot move forward with a process of restoration until we fully realize what is missing. In order for our clergy and people to realize that something is missing they need to see examples of completeness. And this is a difficult thing to do.

Admin