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

There are two in my home parish alone, and I would give my pastor the benefit of the doubt that they are "approved." From anecdotal evidence from just a handful of our parishes in Pennsylvania alone, I think that (if we can also give benefit of the doubt that these persons are acting in "approval") you are underestimating the actual number by at least fivefold.

Mr. Administrator,

Thank you for your reply. This topic caught my attention and I have some time to actually participate on a forum. But not for too long.

"I am sure that you are well aware that there are no active programs in any eparchy to form either minor clerics or EEMs."

This might become a problem, especially since ministries/-ers are being approved without proper formation per the canons. On one hand, the changes in particular law are being used to help institute such ministries, but on the other hand, the necessary canonical preparation and oversight is not there. What happens in one parish affects the others. No parish is an island, and if one priest can get away with ill-prepared or un-prepared ministries, what is next?

"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."

Are you implying that subdeacons cannot meet the same needs? What, may I ask, is a "need?" What is necessary in church ministry? Is the need for education and formation considered unnecessary or less necessary in priority because the need to have warm bodies distribute Communion is greater?

"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."

I agree. So why ignore such long-standing ministries, especially if they are used in our Sister Orthodox Churches, and opt for EEMs? We all know that "extraordinary" becomes the "ordinary" in only a short time and, like in some churches, any push for the restoration of minor orders would be considered a threat to the existence of EEMs. Take the Latin Church, example. Some deacon programs have been terminated because of conflict between various ministries that developed before the reinstitution of the diaconate in those same dioceses. The same canons recognize an order of hierarchy and if EEMs do the trick in some parishes, then why would they "need" deacons or minor orders?

"We cannot move forward with a process of restoration until we fully realize what is missing."

Such as minor orders?

"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."

Can you expand on what you mean by completeness? I would appreciate it. I'm not sure I follow you.

If what you mean by completeness is excercising ALL the ministries in the Church, then we don't have to look too far. Many Orthodox Churches have ministries we only read about in history books, such as lectors, subdeacons, and the like. As Byzantine Catholics, we only have to trace back a few decades - or more - and see what 'disappeared' from our ministry tradition here in the States.

What worries me about our typical path of "organic development" is that we rid of one ministry or tradition (liturgical or theological) and adopt another from elsewhere. Are we doing to ministry now what we did to our liturgical and theological traditions in the last century? Will the conventional ordination route be replaced with more certified-volunteer ministers? Our liturgical tradition lost out when deacons and subdeacons were weaned out for "altar boys" and our chant traditions lost out when ordained cantors were weaned out for "volunteer" cantors. This situation made it easier for pastors to innovate and rid of our liturgies and theology, especially since nobody could challenge his doings. There is no checks-and-balances nor oversight, and our church begins to drift with no goal or understanding of where it has been or where it intends to go.

The "easier route" is taken to fulfill those needs. It is less costly and the eparchy doesn't have to have a commitment beyond giving permission. Is this a bad example of what it means to "stand by your man" if commitment is lacking or not required? What is lacking is a reciprocal relationship, where a minister offers back obedience to his bishop and the bishop/church offers support to the minister. If the Church worships one way (such as what is found in the Typicon), the ministers don't have to follow it, especially if what the Church does conflicts with their "personal spirituality", whatever that may be. Even a volunteer (read: dispensable?) cantor doesn't even have to sing his or her Church's music. They can sing anything they want. They can be neither here nor there; just so it satisfies a need, their need.

The Church, from what I gather, doesn't have to properly educate, train or form the aforesaid ministers. It can even ignore its ban on the non-ordained using the title "minister" and simply chuck it all. In time, one will begin to wonder if our church is serious about itself and whether deacons, who go through several years of training and formation, are doing it unnecessarily since they only have to know how to hold the chalice.

I am not trying to be cynical about this. I am only trying to assess the many mixed signals and inconsistencies. We abhor others calling us a mere "rite" because our church tradition is more than rubrics, but we don't mind reducing ministry down to knowing how to administer Communion (rubrics) without the proper training and formation.

Any more thoughts on the matter? I care to hear from you and others.

Joe Thur

Administrator, no it is not my home parish (Thank God!) but a neighboring one. It happens there because the priests that have served the parish don't wan't to get rid of Latinizations, so why wouldn't they want EM's to make their job easier?

Ung-Certez

Now, not everything needs a bureuacracy. The lack of the formal program does not prove proper instruction is lacking.

Axios

This is all part of the Popes plan for Byzantines not to "stuck in the past." It's just a taste of whats to come.

You are incorrect. I know for a fact that at least one of the parrishes you have listed had all the proper permission/approval. Those involved did have extensive instruction prior to serving their respective parrishes. Please get your facts straight before posting to avoid misunderstadings about sister churches.

This has been a very provocative thread and an issue that does need to be discussed. Admin, the Toronto UGCC program has a specific subdiaconal training track for those who do not wish to go on to the diaconate. So there is one eparchy with a specific "minor order" training program. At least one other UGCC program is also considering this approach. Perhaps more eparchies should be looking at this option.

Admin, it is interesting that in your particular law Canon 709 does not specifically mention approval of the eparch is required. In fact, the eparch is not even mentioned in this canon, although one would think that with something of this grave of a nature would necessitate his permission . A correlative canon of the UGCC, 298 (2), states:
"The extra ordinary distributor of Holy Communion is a man who has reached his thirty-third year, a right member of the place in which he is to act as extra ordinary distributor, properly trained in his role, and having received an 'indult' from the Eparchial Bishop to exercise this role."

Admin, you make some very salient and thought-provoking points. Your questions and concerns are right to the heart of the matter. The question is the restoration of the diaconate and minor orders within the Church. How can we restore if we don't know what has been lost? The availability of candidates, programs, faculty and facilities to train them, etc. must all be worked out in before a minor order program can be developed and implemented.

But without the exceptions of ill and absent priests, are EEMs really needed in Greek Catholic parishes? I don't think so. If the priest is absent or incapacitated, then we really need to look at deacons or at least subdeacons assisting in those cases consistent with the particular law.

Dear Cetver,
Please read Ung-Certez's quoted statement more carefully and you will see that he says those three parishes had approval to use these ministers.

For the record, parishes in Pittsburgh (Central South Hills- Carrick) and New Salem, both in southwest PA in the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh, also had archbishop-approved eucharistic ministers in the early 1990s because their priests at the time were physically infirm. At one of those parishes, that is no longer the case, but perhaps the use of these ministers continues there; I don't know.

"It happens there because the priests that have served the parish don't wan't to get rid of Latinizations, so why wouldn't they want EM's to make their job easier?"

This must be the "personal spirituality" bit that Fr. David Petras once wrote about awhile back. Can you imagine one or two football players doing their own thing on the field - even with permission from one of their coaches?

Lemko-Rusyn,
The canons specifically state that training and formation be set up. The fact that our churches have not set up any such program is questionable. It is not an issue about formal versus informal training in lieu of good versus bad preparation. Even very loving couples have to attend the Pre-Cana program per eparchial stipulations. There are requirements AND education for everything. Sorry! It seems that that there is some sort of inverse relationship between level of ministry and level of education that is acceptable for some, and that the argument about formal vs. informal becomes something to get defensive about. But that is another issue.

Several priests that I grew up with and attended seminary with have nothing to do with anything Byzantine. They are the first to adopt what the next "Catholic" parish is doing and consider our official Typicon, theology and traditions too Orthodox for their liking. And so, being well-educated will not gaurantee a team-player. They'd rather get bi-ritual faculties to serve in the nearest Latin Church rather than evangelize (read: walk the beat and pound on doors to invite newcomers to their own parishes).

Unfortunately, "drift" in our church occurs usually in those parish communities where there is a fear of our Byzantine restoration making us "too Orthodox" (infant communion, proper liturgies, and theology) but no hesitation of adopting what our neighboring Latins are doing (including titles that we ourselves could not come up with); hence, the reason for the lack of "push" for minor orders.

I would like to hear from our Orthodox friends if this ministry is being introduced in their communities.

The new model for ministry seems to be the ever expendable 'volunteer.' Is this like dating with no intention to commit to marriage? "Why buy the cow if one gets the milk for free?" as the rhetorical question goes.

I would like to give our hierarchy and officials the benefit of the doubt in their decisions. What concerns me is the absence of initiative to restore minor orders.

Joe Thur

I�m pressed for time this morning but would like to post a few thoughts on this topic. I will state again that anyone who is aware of an abuse of the use of EEMs has a responsibility to seek the counsel of his or her pastor and then ask direction on the matter from the eparchial bishop and really should not limit their concern to just complaining about it on the Forum.

Joe T wrote:
Are you implying that subdeacons cannot meet the same needs? What, may I ask, is a "need?" What is necessary in church ministry? Is the need for education and formation considered unnecessary or less necessary in priority because the need to have warm bodies distribute Communion is greater?

No, I am not implying that subdeacons could not meet the same needs. I am only suggesting that it is most likely that when there is a need the easiest solution will be found. That�s human nature. I did not suggest that it was the best course of action or that it would serve our Church well.

What is needed in church ministry? Prayer, first and foremost. If we do not teach our people how to pray it will not be possible for them to minister, let alone minister effectively. There is a need for education and formation but this education and formation cannot come without good liturgy in our parishes (and good liturgy cannot come without people knowing how to pray). What we need first and foremost is people in our parishes who will commit to praying. I�m not sure that we really have such commitment in many of our parishes at the moment.

Joe T wrote:
So why ignore such long-standing ministries, especially if they are used in our Sister Orthodox Churches, and opt for EEMs?

Good question. Again, I am not one who can answer it. Maybe a good research paper on the importance of minor orders would be useful to educate our entire Church? How about writing one?

Joe T wrote:
Can you expand on what you mean by completeness? I would appreciate it. I'm not sure I follow you.

Primarily I mean the completeness of well served, well sung Divine Services with the all the appropriate ministers (especially a deacon). I agree that we should be able to look to our Sister Orthodox Churches to see these examples but that won�t really work. First, because many of the Orthodox parishes that are located near our parishes are as severely liturgically challenged as our own parishes and cannot really serve as models (many of them envy our liturgical singing). Second, because seeing quality liturgy in a Church of a different jurisdiction is not the same thing as seeing it at the parish that your sister or brother belongs to. It will only be when a few of our parishes have renewed good liturgy and a solid prayer life and others in our Church see it and want it for their own parish that things will start to happen (and we have always had a small number of wonderful parishes).

One of the things that we, the laity, need is to develop a spirit of cooperation with our leaders. How many of us have contacted our pastors and bishops and offered 3 or 4 hours a week to work on a project that would be entirely done under his direction without question? We are a very small Church and the laborers are few. We need to consider that our leaders are often so busy dealing with the day-to-day events in our Church that it is very difficult for them to set a long term vision, establish goals and enact a plan to accomplish them. But maybe determining how we can help is a topic of another thread? I think it would be a very worthy topic.

--

Diak,

I did speak with a few priests and confirmed a couple of things. Permission from the eparchial bishop is required for each EEM (because the Particular Law does not specifically give blanket permission it is automatically reserved to the eparchial bishop to establish rules for his eparchy). The pastor who is applying is expected to justify the need and assure that the candidate has been properly formed for this ministry (since there is no formal program). The number of EEMs has increased in the last few years, especially in Pittsburgh where they are in use in several parishes.

Admin

Administrator wrote: "I am only suggesting that it is most likely that when there is a need the easiest solution will be found."

This is unfortunate. We aren't living in war-torn (name the country) and have no fear of KGB taking notes and names or following us into the woods to witness clandestine liturgies. Why should we look for the "easiest solution" in a free country?

Easy solutions can eventually lead to difficult problems later down the road. For instance, if minor orders was re-introduced (and why not, given our desire and argument to restore everything else), would we then be setting ourselves up for a possible conflict between to parallel ministries? Again, it can become a battle between the "volunteer" and the "ordained." If volunteers can do it, then what IS exactly the meaning or value of ordination? For years, altar boys have successfully managed to keep the need for deacons at bay. Volunteer cantors worked well so we can pay the secretary, the janitor, and the lawncare specialists. (I believe a Melkite bishoop once made some comments about this irony.) When we shoot from the hip, we usually shoot ourselves in the foot and leave it for the next generation to solve.

BTW, on a different subject, has any of the deacon-students in the Pittsburgh archeparchy been ordained to minor orders? Anyone scheduled to be ordained to this important ministry?

Joe Thur

Joe,

I understand your frustration. Can you switch the focus to a discussion of specific actions that can be done to build a future? Awhile back you posted some excellent ideas. What has become of them? Have you presented them to your pastor and / or bishop? If yes, how did they direct you? If not, why not? How can we provide support to our leaders to help them lead?

Admin

My understanding of lay eucharistic ministry involves distributing communion to the sick and shut-ins in Latin parishes, not distributing it in lieu of a priest or deacon within a Ruthenian parish Divine Liturgy. If there is an eparchial exception with very specific constraints based on economia, it would make sense, but only for highly unusual circumstances as this role is not given to the laity by tradition in the East. (I understand the Latin innovation, but it has nothing to do with what Ruthenians would do, based on their seperate tradition.) Having said the above, there IS a Bethany Ministry Program under the auspices of the Byzantine Seminary which is designed to train laity to assist the bereaved, sick, and shut-ins. Though I haven't seen the materials (It can be purchased for local training.), I have no reason to believe it would include distributing communion. That is just not an eastern tradition, and I personally would not want to be faced with such an innovation in light of the need to restore traditions as opposed to working around them. For Latin Catholics it is a different matter, of course.

As to other orthodox jurisdictions, the difficulty comes with where to draw a line. It's ok to visit the bereaved, sick, or shut-in, to pray with them, and to take them an icon card, etc. but when you cross over to distributing the sacraments in lieu of a priest, there is a fear that someone will want to have confession and so on. There is no tradition in Orthodoxy for this. I once heard a statement given with regard to tradition versus non-tradition: You can't make something out of nothing. Only God can do that. The priest making that statement was referring to the lack of tradition for Holy Orders for women. And while lay eucharistic ministry is a far cry from ordination, such innovations are a slippery slope that can lead to a radicalized faith that is no longer orthodox. (Should I lighten up?)

Actually, my (OCA) pastor tells me that in Orthodoxy, our practice is that the ordinary minsiters of the Eucharist are the priests. We have no particuar udnerstanding of the deacons as distributers, so making use of deacons rather than others is not really more in line with Orthodox practice. On the other hand, the Byzantine Catholics must do what is pastorally best for their community. One can only respect them for that.

Axios

"Having said the above, there IS a Bethany Ministry Program under the auspices of the Byzantine Seminary which is designed to train laity to assist the bereaved, sick, and shut-ins. Though I haven't seen the materials (It can be purchased for local training.), I have no reason to believe it would include distributing communion."

The Bethany Ministry is an outreach to those who are unable to participate fully in the life of the parish due to physical or emotional limitations. Of course there is nothing about taking Communion to the sick...that is just ridiculous...the issue of communion distribution was related to the Liturgy and has nothing to do with visiting the sick. Let's not over react!
Please note that the Bethany Ministry is under the auspices of the Office of Religious Education of the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh. There is NO connection to the Seminary.