www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall eucharistic ministers

When I first read the approved Particular Law for the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church Suri Uris, I thought that for the most part it was a move in the direction the Church had directed us after Vatican II, namely to return to our roots. However, one of the more consternating elements of the law was an area that allowed the use of eucharistic ministers. At the time I guess I simply blew it off as a politcal issue that was stated but never be used. I was wrong it seems. I was shocked to find that in many of churches back east this practice has been going on for some time. I am not going to pass judgment as to why this is occuring as I do not believe that it is my place to do so. I only wish to pose the question to our forum here as to how this practice might impact our eccumenical dialogue with our sister churches, the Orthodox? Also, can anyone find justification for the use of lay ministers in the distribution of the Holy Mysteries in scripture, traditon, or patristic text? I was unable to do so. I was able to find inferential justification for sub-deacons to distribute the Holy Mysteries in extraordinary circumstances.

Sincerely,
Athanasius

You bring up some good points, Athanasius...the entire issue is somewhat superfluous if the full restoration of permanent ordained deacons and subdeacons occurs.

The particular law for the Ukrainian Catholic metropolia in the USA upholds the priest as the ordinary minister of the Divine Gifts and the Deacon as extraordinary minister by virtue of his office.

Diak, I guess an underlying concern is if the FULL restoration of the diaconate and subdeaconate will happen. It is sooooo slow. And by the way (ooh that sounds snotty, didn't mean it to) the permenant diaconate is a foreign concept to our church. All deacons are transitional in the eastern churches. They many never transition but they can (traditionally) and so are viewed as such. But yes, you see, the issue I have is that it would be FAR better IF subdeacons were ordained as extradonary ministers but their seems to be a reticense on the part of our hierarchs. This seems contrary to the Norms published by the Oriental College and other official publications. It seems the Orthodox often view the minor orders as almost frivilous but I guess because the restoration of these ministries in our churches is so new, it poses some problems particular to our churches.

As an Orthodox Christian, I can tell you that our clergy and laity are generally aware of the use of Eucharistic Ministers in the Catholic Church and it absolutely not a problem in ecumencial relations. It is not a practice I have known in the OCA, but no one raises it as an issue. (Though we don have a certain small element of the laity that looks for reasons to be against ecumenism -- their issue is anti-ecumenism, not anti-Eucharistic Ministers).

Axios

"Permanent" deacons and subdeacons are absolutely not foreign developments in our churches. This mind set only helps stifle the full restoration of the diaconate and subdiaconate. We have always had men who served as deacons and subdeacons and never approached the cheirotonia of higher orders. The undestanding that all are transitional and on their way to the priesthood via the priestly "production line" is much more of a Latin idea.

In fact, the Instruction on Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions for the Eastern Churches specifically calls for the restoration of minor orders and the restoration of the understanding of the charisma and service of each order. If we restored tonsured readers, subdeacons, etc. to a more full usage the need for many of these "extraordinary" functions that we see in the Latin church could be avoided.

I only meant "permanent" in this sense, not that they couldn't pursue higher orders but for whatever reason they don't.

Although really within the realm of semantics, we probably should look at the use of the term "permanent" as it is a canonical term derived from the Latin Church. Not the best term. There's nothing wrong with just calling them subdeacon and deacon, and leaving the "permanent" or "transitional" part to the candidate and his spiritual father and hierarchy.