Skip to main content

Extra-Ordinary Eucharistic Ministers

+
JMJ


There is nothing so ordinary (regular) in the Catholic Church as 'Extra-Ordinary Eucharistic Ministers' (EOEM).

I added the attached article because it provides references to actual rules.

I would like to offer the following commentary:
  • Delegating the distribution of communion to the laity to hospitals etc causes problems.  A person who is confined to a hospital or similar circumstance will not have the opportunity to go to confession.  So, when a EOEM arrives, they will have peer pressure to receive.  This will, I posit, increase the sacrilegious receipt of Holy Communion. 
  • If a priest is ill, I find it hard to believe that he would have sole responsibility for a parish.
  • There is only one person who must receive communion at mass, the priest who is celebrating Mass.  In this way the sacrifice is consummated.   Laity do not need to receive communion.
  • Regular confession is as needed as regular communion.

P^3

Catholic Answers: What is the proper use of ...





What is the proper use of the laity as Eucharistic ministers?





In answering this question, we will restrict our answer to the role of Eucharistic Ministers.  Here we must keep in mind two premises:  First, the most precious gift our Lord entrusted to His Church is the Most Holy Eucharist, the Sacrament of His Body and Blood.  The Blessed Sacrament, as Vatican II stated, is the center and summit of our worship as Catholics.  Second, the pastor of the parish is to insure that the Most Holy Eucharist is truly the center of parish life and that the faithful are nourished through a devout celebration of all the sacraments, especially through frequent reception of the sacraments of the Most Holy Eucharist and Penance (Canon 528, #2).
Given this foundation, the Sacred Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments (now called the Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship since 1975) issued on January 25, 1973 the Instruction on Facilitating Sacramental Eucharistic Communion in Particular Circumstances.  The instruction addressed the appointment of “Extraordinary Ministers” of the Eucharist.  (Note that the “Ordinary Ministers” of Holy Communion would be the Bishop, Priest, and Deacon (Code of Canon Law, #910.1).)  Extraordinary Ministers may be used to assist the Ordinary Ministers in the following circumstances:  (1) at Mass when the size of the congregation would “unduly” prolong the reception of Holy Communion (especially since the relaxation of the old “fasting laws”); (2) when the Ordinary Ministers would be prevented from distributing Holy Communion by ill health, advanced age, or other pastoral obligations; (3) when the number of sick or homebound in various places (hospitals, nursing homes, or private homes) requires assistance to provide for regular reception of Holy Communion.  Therefore, the Vatican allowed Bishops to appoint a “suitable person” for a specific occasion or a period of time to assist the Ordinary Ministers to distribute Holy Communion.
The appointment of Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist and the privilege of distributing Holy Communion is granted for the good of the faithful and for cases of genuine necessity.  These individuals should be properly instructed and should live an exemplary Christian life.  They must show great devotion to the Holy Eucharist and be an example of piety and reverence.  Except in rare occasions and for a particular circumstance, a lay person must first be appointed by the Bishop of the Diocese to act in this capacity.  The Instruction also cautions, “Let no one be chosen whose selection may cause scandal among the faithful.”  In a sense, Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers ought to have an extraordinary love for the Holy Eucharist and for the Church, the Body of Christ.
Each diocese sets its own regulations for the appointment of Extraordinary Ministers.  Usually, a person must be mature and at least 21 years of age.  The candidate must attend a workshop offered by the Office of Sacred Liturgy or be trained locally in the parish.  Upon recommendation of the Pastor, the Bishop appoints Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist to a term, which may be renewed.  The appointment, however, extends only to service within a particular parish.
A recent instruction entitled Some Questions Regarding Collaboration of Nonordained Faithful in Priests’ Sacred Ministry issued on November 13, 1997 by eight Vatican offices warns against abusing this privilege so as to dilute the role of the ministerial, sacrificial priest.  The instruction addressed the role of the faithful in the ministry of the Word, including preaching; in liturgical celebrations, including the distribution of Holy Communion and the conducting of a Communion Service when a priest is absent; and in caring for the sick.  Frankly, the motivation for releasing this instruction was to counteract certain abuses that had arisen in these areas.  Moreover, the Church wanted to present again the distinction between the roles of the ministerial, sacrificial priesthood of the ordained clergy and the roles of the common priesthood shared by all of the baptized faithful.  We must keep in mind that extraordinary ministers are truly “extra ordinary” not “ordinary.”  Extraordinary ministers may only distribute Holy Communion in accord with the guidelines as noted here.  Moreover, certain practices are to be curtailed:  Extraordinary ministers cannot give Holy Communion to themselves or apart from the faithful as though they were concelebrants at a Mass, and they cannot be used when there are sufficient ordained Ordinary Ministers for the distribution of Holy Communion.
In my own priestly ministry, I have seen the value of having laity as Extraordinary Ministers, especially in visiting the sick, the homebound, and those in institutions.  Because of their assistance, the faithful can receive Holy Communion with greater regularity.  However, the service of Extraordinary Ministers does not excuse the priest from visiting these people, especially to provide the Sacrament of Penance and Anointing of the Sick.  Moreover, I have been edified by the devotion and love of several Extraordinary Ministers for the Most Blessed Sacrament.  I have known several Eucharistic Ministers who at first refused when asked to perform this service because they felt “unworthy”– a sign of humility.  And, I have seen many faithfully venture out in all kinds of inclement weather to visit those parishioners in their care.
On the other hand, I have seen abuses.  Several years ago, I officiated at the wedding of my cousin, the groom.  A priest, who was from a northern diocese and was also a friend of the bride’s family, concelebrated.  The priest thought it would be “meaningful” if the bride and groom gave each other Holy Communion.  I refused.  He said, “All the popular liturgical magazines suggest this.”  I said, “Too bad the Church doesn’t.”  He wanted to abuse the privilege, and reduce a sacred privilege to something trite.
I was once assigned to a smaller parish that had three active priests and a deacon.  There was no need for other assistance in distributing Holy Communion at Mass.  Eucharistic Ministers did visit the local hospital and nursing home.  After Mass, a lady from Massachusetts asked, “Why were there no lay people helping with Communion?”  After I answered, she said, “Vatican II gave us that right,” and walked away.  Vatican II did not give anyone that right.  As an ordained priest, I have no right to distribute Holy Communion, but a privilege extended by the Bishop.
Therefore, while the laity may act as Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist and indeed provide valuable service to a parish, we must follow the norms of the Church.  The norms as stated are to insure that due reverence and protection are given to the Most Blessed Sacrament.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

De Veritate - St. Thomas Aquinas - What is necessary to believe explicitly?

I was recently introduced to a work of St. Thomas De Veritate ( Source ) in the course of an argument concerning the minimum content of explicit faith.  When I submitted the following quote as proof: Theological faith, that is, a supernatural faith in Revelation, is necessary, and this is an effect of grace (D 1789); nemini unquam sine ilIa contigit iustificatio (D 1793). As far as the content of this faith is concerned, according to Hebr. 11, 6, at least the existence of God and retribution in the other world must be firmly held, necessitate medii (by the necessity of means) with explicit faith. In regard to the Trinity and the Incarnation, implicit faith suffices. The supernatural faith necessary for justification is attained when God grants to the unbeliever by internal inspiration or external teaching a knowledge of the truths of Revelation, and actual grace to make the supernatural act of faith. Cf. De verite 14, I I.Ott - Fundamentals of Dogma p241 In response my opponent ...

Comparision of the Tridentine, Cranmer and Novus Ordo Masses

+ JMJ I downloaded the comparison that was linked in the previous article on the mass (here) . ... a very good reference! P^3 From: Whispers of Restoration (available at this link) . CHARTING LITURGICAL CHANGE Comparing the 1962 Ordinary of the Roman Mass to changes made during the Anglican Schism; Compared in turn to changes adopted in the creation of Pope Paul VI’s Mass in 1969 The chart on the reverse is a concise comparison of certain ritual differences between three historical rites for the celebration of the Catholic Mass Vetus Ordo: “Old Order,” the Roman Rite of Mass as contained in the 1962 Missal, often referred to as the “Traditional Latin Mass.”The Ordinary of this Mass is that of Pope St. Pius V (1570) following the Council of Trent (1545-63), hence the occasional moniker “Tridentine Mass.” However, Trent only consolidated and codified the Roman Rite already in use at that time; its essential form dates to Pope St. Gregory the Great (+604), in whose time the R...

Rome and the SSPX - Version 2026 Part 5b - How Did We Get Here??? ... A Continued Anlaysis using ChatGPT.

 + JMJ Part 5b How Did We Get Here??? So in the previous ChatGPT analysis the LLM ‘concluded’ that there was continuity in doctrine. So now we’re going to explore this element. There is some repetition but I don't have time right now to do a lot of editing.  I think instead we'll have a Part 5c where I try to pull it all together with some old fashioned human sense making. At the end point, I think the LLM collects an interesting if somewhat skewed perspective: The SSPX mapping hinges on this claim: That Vatican II affirms (at least implicitly) propositions that the Syllabus of Errors explicitly condemned. The broader Church response is: The same propositions are still rejected—but Vatican II is addressing different categories (political, pastoral, anthropological) rather than reversing doctrine. While the summary of the SSPX position seems close, that of the broader Church seems to be either an outright AI hallucination or a consensus point from the literature that it used...

News Roundup: April 30, 2026

 + JMJ I just realised that I haven't posted the latest Roundup ... and there is a lot in the roundup as the media storm around the SSPX continues! I also just noticed this article: European Conservative: Why the SSPX Bishop Decision Matters Far Beyond Church Politics (link) .  P^3 === Popes Past Present and Future Papal News and Views Cardinal Fernandez maintains that Francis is not dead- metaphorically Pope Leo XIV Reopens Amoris Laetitia File | FSSPX News Pope Leo: “We Do Not Agree with the Formalized Blessing of …Homosexual Couples” - OnePeterFive RORATE CÆLI: How Pope Leo is Reshuffling the Curia: Musical Chairs and Power Games RORATE CÆLI: A Giant Leap: The meaning of Cardinal Eijk’s Pontifical High Mass and the Rebirth of Dutch Catholicism RORATE CÆLI: A Sign of Continuity with the Pre-Francis Papacy: Pope to Wash Feet of Twelve Priests RORATE CÆLI: Vatican Blocks Continuity of Procedure of Beatification and Canonization of Argentine Bishop -- no new Satanellis Pope Leo...

Rome and the SSPX - Version 2026 Part 5 - How Did We Get Here???

 + JMJ This is the fifth in this series and I think it may require a part b to show the controversial documents and teachings of the Pope post V2. P^3 Part 5 How Did We Get Here??? Introduction My family became ‘Traditional’ in early 1980’s and I didn’t realise until years later how early we entered the Fray. So the SSPX was slightly over a decade old when we started going to Mass. That is a young organization, as someone said at the consecrations “Aren’t you a little young to be a bishop?”, the response was, “That is something that time will change.” 1970: SSPX founded with diocesan approval (Abp. Marcel Lefebvre) 1974–1976: Vatican II disputes escalate; Lefebvre suspended a divinis 1988: Illicit episcopal consecrations → excommunications declared 2000: SSPX Jubilee pilgrimage to Rome (signals openness to talks) 2009: Excommunications lifted by Pope Benedict XVI 2011–2012: Doctrinal talks with CDF collapse 2015–2017: SSPX granted faculties for confessi...