www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Lay eucharistic ministers

Here I go again , picking at nits, but this is one of the things that really gets to me at times.

It has to do with terms and their usage.

Can someone show me in an offical Church document where it speaks about LEM's, Lay Eurcharistic Ministers, or Communion Ministers?

The proper title is EEM or Extraordinary Eucharistic Minister. This title shows that it is not to be used all the time. To get around this they have tried to rename it to LEM or Communion Minister.

What Brendan had to say above is true, to keep to the schedule of Masses in the Latin Church it is necessary to make use of them.

Sorry once again for picking at those nits.... I promise that I will stop before they bleed.

Your brother in Christ,
David

Dear Friends,

Brendan makes an excellent point, as usual . . .

It seems as if the fact of multiple Masses is what is the cause of the problem, especially in larger parishes.

When you have one Divine Liturgy, as in an Orthodox Church or smaller, traditional Eastern Catholic Church, then you will have priests concelebrating who can assist in the distribution of Communion.

In my parish, we have a good number of Priests (knock on wood!) who are always concelebrating and there are therefore three or four Priests on hand to distribute the Holy Gifts.

Alex

On the Julian-date feast of the Entry of the Mother of God into the temple, "C nPA3DHUKOM!'

Oh, man, oh, man, where can I go with this without forgoing charity?

My suspicion is that the discomfort/disquiet about lay ministers has its roots in the complexly developed theology of the Eucharist.

Yes. Liturgies, rites, can and do change, but do so organically and at a glacial pace.

The Church has come a long way from the "passover meal/agape meal" to golden monstrances held in brocade with squadrons of acolytes with candles and incense.

But as I thought you knew, and as Orthodox and pre-Vatican II liturgical movement people knew and know, the two aren't mutually exclusive.

But transforming the understanding of Jesus' original mandate: "take and eat..." (given by a man who didn't wear gold or brocade) to the need to recreate the environment of an Imperial court for His 'True Presence' seems to have brought us down the wrong path.

So are all your nice words about "us Constantinopolitan Christians' nothing but condescension or a kind of sentimentality related to your ethnic Greek heritage? Really, if you think liturgically the apostolic Churches have gone down the wrong path as you describe, you sound more like a Protestant than an o/Orthodox.

Perhaps we should have developed a much greater theology of the Eucharist that emphasizes the fact that reception of Christ in the bread and wine is a communal action that gives grace? (Rather than on the 'Just Jesus and Me' outlook.) Perhaps there should be more emphasis on the 'sharing of one loaf' that is broken and divided to nourish the many?

Exactly what the Roman Catholic liturgical movement wanted, without any vandalism of the rite, and looking to the Orthodox as a model. Also what some Orthodox like the late Fr Alexander Schmemann were trying to say, also AFAIK without proposing any drastic change to his rite.

Thus, it would not be a question of 'profaning' the Eucharist by allowing a non-ordained person to participate in the distribution.

Look at the Novus Ordo — whose practice you seem to favor emulating — where such innovations happen. Thanks to it, only about 30% of Roman Catholics in the US know what the Eucharist is. (Impartial source: a Gallup poll.) Mass attendance has plummeted. Vocations dried up. Face it: the glorious renewal is a crock of der'mo: something no Orthodox Church wants anything to do with. Perhaps, just perhaps, Dr John, Rome was right to condemn the minimalism of the pseudo-synod of Pistoia of the French Revolutionary era and similar trends condemned by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei (1947).

While I prefer (personally) to be communicated by a priest or deacon, I don't think that we do any 'disservice' to Our Lord by allowing one of His servants to assist in the agape of the "Thanksgiving".

Lest I be accused of being a pharisee, I understand extreeeeeeeeme ekonomeia, like when that Russian Orthodox priest fell ill during Liturgy. Or a case described by a former forum regular where in Greece the village church was so mobbed at Pascha that the priest delegated some sticharion-wearing men (minor clergy?) to help with giving Communion. (It's true that in our churches this practice is very, very rare — practically unheard of.) Such extreme economy is what Roman canon law (and Eastern Catholic canon law) envisioned, and what the Roman Church imagined when it allowed extraordinary Eucharistic ministers. What is going on there today is an abuse.

(I find it interesting to note that the notion of Jesus being mandatorily present in the bread, also allows for abuses by those who think that they've got Jesus 'captured' in the bread. Thus, things like "Black Masses" etc. are possible. Were the emphasis on the fact that Christ is present in the bread and wine only for a believing congregation led by its bishop or priest, then all their thoughts about 'capturing Jesus' would vanish; i.e., "He's not there for you." Just a thought.)

Be careful here — while the context of the Church (yes, community) is essential to the Orthodox understanding of the sacraments (which is why we don't play the lines-of-succession game with "independent' bishops, etc. — no Church, no orders!), the above comes dangerously close to denying the objective Real Presence. This subjective view is that held by many Protestants — heresy.

Last month at our parish's anniversary celebration, none of my Roman rite guests were sorry to see a lack of LEM's. The feedback I received was quite the contrary. They didn't seem to miss "communion in the hand" either.

Perhaps this is because "the people of God' in the Roman Church don't really want the antics of liberal church workers, like unnecessary EEMs and Communion in the hand.

LEM's in an extreme situation is one thing; for expample, here at the Russian Orthodox Church about eight years ago the priest became extremely ill after before the distribution of Communion and ordered the Cantor to distribute it. The priest had triple bypass surgery a couple of days after this event. This was reasonable under the circumstances.

Agreed!

I apoligize for not liking the idea of LEM's in the Byzantine rite AT ALL.

I don't apologize for it and place it beyond the arena of mere opinion.

To me it's acquiescing to the Roman Church [again].

Yes.

Reading the quotations from Catholic canon law scared me — it seems the Orthodox way of following immemorial custom is better (and of longer standing historically) than the alteration of rites by fiat, which is how the NO was invented and how the Catholic authorities now are treating the Byzantine Rite in the Ruthenian Church.

What our Mother Churches do is our standard for fully restoring our liturgical life.

Speaking from one of your Mother Churches, chor poj�t, "Amin'!'

Brother Robert, I don't think we should be a "refuge" for Latiniaks fleeing the Novus Ordo.

COPOUT! It seems you're worried those pesky refugees won't let you proceed with your plans to undo 1,000+ years of what you think are wrongheaded liturgical practices so you can become LIKE the NO yourself.

One could rework the present arrangement by making the present "LEMs" subdeacons ... but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Yes, take the most pious men in the parish and tonsure them into minor orders! That's what they should do.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: Serge ]

As for the objections that in the early Church people took the Holy Gifts home and communed themselves, etc., context, context, context. Why not bring back the severe penances of the early Church, too?

http://oldworldrus.com

Dear Serge,

I agree with you and you state your case well.

My reference to the early Church practices surrounding the Eucharist was not to somehow bring forward support for their return, but to make the case about why they were later banned by the Church and especially by St John Chrysostom.

The fact is that we pick and choose which parts of the heritage of the early Church we would like to see brought back and which not.

Were the canons you mention brought back, well, that would certainly sober us up in the least . . .

And church "reform" seems to be going one way only, down the road of convenience and ease while a healthy self-discipline and asceticism keeps falling by the wayside.

But this seems to be lost on a number of ORDO-nary Catholics . . .

Love your website, Serge, just love it!

Alex

Maybe I should restrain myself from responding has I am just coming off being exposed to some of Richard John Neuhaus' drivel, but here it goes:


This question is simply a step child of the liberal Catholic liturgical innovation of frequent communion, which for our particular church was adopted at a rate that I am sure does not meet Serge's test of glacial.


Golden monstrances held in brocade with squadrons of acolytes with candles and incense should be excluded from our church. And it is too much a imitation of a secular court, to which we moderns have no relation too and we Byzantines have no tradition of.


Not pastorally beneficial for the times is not the same as the wrong path.


I would suggest it is you Serge, who lacks orthodoxy if you accept that understanding of the mystery of the Eucharist is legitimately determined by a monosyllablic response to a one sentence Gallup survey. I don't consider the Roman Mass a crock.


Nope. Wrong. Reactionary ideology trumping fact and truth once again. Nothing other than biased opinions of those who do don't accept the premise to begin with. EEM are extraordinary in the same sense as auxiliary bishops or national parishes, or religious priests outside the authority of the ruling bishop.


Well, if YOU are legitimatize "popular rule" here, the hard evidence is that the Roman laity are quite content.


Mimicking the Eastern Orthodox never saved a single soul.


Ahh! In one statement, the basis of all Sergeism!!!! You see, under Sergeism, despite what was once said by some obscure first century Rabbi, Man WAS made for the Sabbath rather than the Sabbath for Man. We have a set of rites and rituals and then must find men to follow them. If the past community does not appreciate them, then we bring in the 'Latiniaks', who hopefully will. After all, it is the rite that is important, not the people!


LEM are, for all essential purposes, subdeacons. I am for us spontaneously to start using the term; which is all it is, a change in terminology.

However, I also understand (and if Serge does, he obviously discounts it) that the history of the subdiaconate has abuses attached to it, and in this case, real abuses, not imagined one.

Hi,
I agree with Serge on his points regarding the Novus Ordo. I am not a Refugee Latiniak. I have changed Churches. I could have gone to a few other Latin Churches and had been satified but someone from the Byzantine Church invited me to Liturgy and by the 4th. Liturgy I attended I fell in love. It would take an atomic blast to get me to leave. I also have recently learned that on Dad's side the folks came from Galicia.I am still searching to find out if they were RC always or might have been BC before they came over.So maybe I just came home.As far as the canons read.How do they read? Female altar servers were a result of how canons read. It said altar servers blah blah blah. Since it didn't exclude females in the language or state only males that is how it came about. A loophole. Do our canons provide any loopholes?

Nicky's Baba

Thanks, friends, Alex and Nicky's Baba. I see a sort of inverse law at work here: the nastier Kurt gets, the closer I am to the truth.

http://oldworldrus.com

Sorry to have tossed so many burrs under so many saddles.

I think that my brother Serge has done a lot of extrapolating from my actual comments.

My sole point is this: Theology is like literature. It is written interpretations of what a theologian, bishop, patriarch understands. As theologies develop over time, the perspectives of the different churches tend to favor one or another theology. (Augustine, Basil, Greg the Great, Acquinas, etc.)

I was suggesting that the development in the past West of the "Royal/Imperial" theological model of understanding the "True Presence" has led to perspectives and practices that might not be beneficial for us today. In the East, the "True Presence" perspective never became "Royal-ized" -- all the royalty we experienced were pagans or Islamis, except for a relatively short period of Byzantine glory. We're more like the Jews in this respect: veneration, adoration, worship "fear of the Lord", and honor. But not really crowns.

This "Imperial Christ" has led the Western church to fear possible desecration of the Celestial Emperor -- so reception of communion became sparse because we are unworthy to approach Christ; there was fear that the wine might spill in passing the chalice, so that practice was stopped; the 'bread' stopped being bread (makes crumbs that might come loose and fall to the floor) so a wafer was developed; the symbolism of the breaking and sharing of the Consecrated Loaf among the priest/bishop and people also went away (crumbs, you know), so the priest broke the "agnus" over the paten and consumed it himself, including running a moistened finger over the surface of the paten to ensure that no particles would be missed.

The "Imperial Christ" theology of the "True Presence" that developed in the West has, in my opinion, led to a perspective that oftentimes flies in the face of what the Christians of the first centuries believed and understood. And a perspective that is alien to what has been legitimately practiced in the East over the centuries.

I'm not raising up a revolution against all that is "old", and therefore "sacrosanct". I'm asking a question about theology. The answer should be a theological one, based upon accepted beliefs and traditions; not a re-hashing of cherished pseudo-theological hobby-horses that we always try to integrate with each other, mostly unsuccessfully. And to introduce tangential elements, like the necessity of re-introducing penances and administrative disciplines from the first centuries, really begs the theological question and merely presents a red herring.

Is it THEOLOGICALLY permissible to divorce our understanding of Christ's "True Presence" among His people from the "Royal/Imperial" theological model and substitute, for example, the theological model of "Good Shepherd" who both feeds and chases after the sheep of His flock because He loves them? Or the theological model of "Christ the Teacher" who is the way, the truth and the life? Or another metaphor that He presented in the parables? [Not to be picky about this, but I can't recall any place in the Gospels where our Teacher referred to Himself in the "Imperial/Royal" model. What's our justification for doing so?]

Blessings!

Lance has quoted the canons from the Particular Law which authorize a very limited usage of LEMs. Here are a couple of paragraphs from the Liturgical Instruction for the Eastern Churches.

http://www.cin.org/docs/eastinst.html

21. The ecumenical value of the common liturgical heritage

Among the important missions entrusted especially to the Eastern Catholic Churches, Orientalium Ecclesiarum (n. 24) and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (can. 903), as well as the Ecumenical Directory (n. 39), underscore the need to promote union with the Eastern Churches that are not yet in full communion with the See of Peter, indicating the conditions: religious fidelity to the ancient traditions of the Eastern Churches, better knowledge of one another, and collaboration and fraternal respect of persons and things. These are important principles for the orientation of the ecclesiastical life of every single Eastern Catholic community and are of eminent value in the celebrations of divine worship, because it is precisely thus that the Eastern Catholic and the Orthodox Churches have more integrally maintained the same heritage. In every effort of liturgical renewal, therefore, the practice of the Orthodox brethren should be taken into account, knowing it, respecting it and distancing from it as little as possible so as not to increase the existing separation, but rather intensifying efforts in view of eventual adaptations, maturing and working together. Thus will be manifested the unity that already subsists in daily receiving the same spiritual nourishment from practicing the same common heritage.

58. Who should distribute the Eucharist

Can. 709 � 1 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches establishes that it is the responsibility of the priest to distribute the Eucharist, or also the deacon if the particular law of the Church sui iuris so disposes. The subsequent paragraph grants the right to the Synod of Bishops of the patriarchal Church, or to the Council of Hierarchs, to establish norms by which other Christian faithful can also distribute the Eucharist.

Therefore, assigning to the deacon or even to other faithful the task of distributing the Divine Eucharist depends on the instructions of the particular law. It is indispensable to remember, however, that these instructions must be coherent with the specific context of the liturgical tradition in which they are inserted. It should be remembered that all the Eastern traditions emphasize the greatness of the mystery of holy Communion. An ancient Syro-Chaldean commentator describes the presentation of the sacred gifts to the faithful with the following words: "The Holy One comes forth on the plate and in the cup, in glory and majesty, accompanied by the presbyters and deacons, in grand procession. Millions of angels and servants of the fire of the Spirit go before the Body of Our Lord, glorifying him. All the people and all the sons of the Church rejoice when they see the Body come from the altar." Therefore, reserving the distribution of the Eucharist normally to the priests has the scope of manifesting its highest sacredness. Even if this excludes enhancing the value of other criteria, also legitimate, and implies renouncing some convenience, a change of the traditional usage risks incurring a non-organic intrusion with respect to the spiritual framework to which it refers. Therefore, it is appropriate that the faculty of distributing the Eucharist by those other than the Bishop or the presbyter, or the deacon if so disposed by the particular law of each Church sui iuris, be exercised only in the case of true emergency.

*******

Just because something is licit does not mean it should be implemented. Those who feel that we should not "mimic" Eastern Orthodoxy may feel we should blaze a new trail for the Eastern Churches. I submit such is a mistaken route.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

I think we are already a refuge. The key phrase is "potentially bringing their battles into our communities".

More than once I have been irritated by traditionally minded Romans balking at efforts in the parish to de-latinize things, BUT at the same time I think it is our responsibility to show Roman Catholics that they have a definate alternative in the Byzantine Church if they so choose. The result can be truly serendipitous. These people might be seriously malnourished spiritually.

As for "fighting for an improvement" I wish it were that easy.

If someone comes to us for bread, we'd better seriously consider what our response will be.

My irritation with my fellow parishioners is mine to resolve; part of my personal development. Not always easy but I'd rather bite my tongue now and again than say "check another parish in your neighborhood" or "write to your bishop". I'd rather not bear the consequences of that.

With Best Wishes to all!!
Stefan-Ivan

I have read your point, David, but I always have to ask: who wrote this? and when was it written?

Again, it is a THEOLOGICAL perspective that has definite roots in a specific socio-cultural perspective. And in this case, it is a Western model of canon law and rule-writing. I'm not so sure that it is really that cogent.

I agree with Stefan-Ivan on our relationships with our Roman brethren. To be sure, there are many who come as true pilgrims and it is our blessing to have them come to experience our spiritual pathway. I also agree that we should not, willy-nilly, suggest to the refugees that they seek their salvation elsewhere.

The unfortunate aspect of this is the fact that since they are technically members of the 'majority community', they may not have the sensitivity to understand that their mere presence as refugees and their sense of 'safety' among what they consider to be "traditional" Church, can lead them to reassert their beliefs, sometimes (oftentimes?) to the detriment of their hosts. This is unfortunate. What's the solution? I'm not sure.

In terms of extraordinary eucharist ministers, it's an administrative issue for the bishops. While the Latins have been sluiced into this practice because of necessity, we don't have the mega-parishes that have led to it. (Would that we did!) If, at some time we are so short of clergy and so overwhelmed with parishoners, that we have to look to eucharistic ministers, then we should look at it to serve the needs of the people. In that case, the need to follow the patterns of our Orthodox brethren is certainly abrogated. (And I'm sure that if our Orthodox brethren find themselves in a similar situation, they too will respond in the best interests of the people.)

Blessings!

Blessings!

[ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: Dr John ]

I have to answer with a resounding no to E or LEMs, and this from an EO with an extremely charitable attitude towards the Catholic Church
(to put it lightly).

I think that one of the only ways for Orthodox to appreciate the Eastern Catholics is for them to resist Latinizations as much as possible. Inevitably if LEMS are adopted by Byzantine Catholics, then women will almost certainly get involved-women normally in the altar? I've seen it in Orthodox convents, of course, but many would have a problem with that in a regular parish setting.

Serge worried about sacrificing charity.

I'm not.

There is no charity in lies.

I think lay distribution of the Eucharist is a damn-fool idea - Latin, Byzantine, Copt, whatever.

(I think I've made my views clear)

Just a search for inforamtion at this point.

Before the question though, I do want to thank Kurt for his statement that the Latin Liturgy celebrated according to the Novus Ordo is not a crock. Like him, at this point, I bypass the implication that the Novus Ordo is the root of all the problems that the Latin Chruch experiences. I also bypass the implication that these problems are peculiar only to the Latin Church among the Apostolic Churches.

(By the way, this is not the information that I seek, but what exactly is der'mo anyhow for those of us who are not expert in slavic languages? Am I correct in assuming that it is not a theological term which is a respectful word used by one Christian about the liturgical practices of another Apostolic Church? In this I hope that I am incorrect.)

This thread contains, in my opinion, misunderstandings and misinformation about the Novus Ordo, its origin, the attitude of Ordo-nary Catholics about asceticism, the causitive effect of the Novus Ordo on decline in church attendance and so forth. But it's much too late to begin a posting for the second night in a row.

So, I'll content myself with a request for more information.

Am I understanding the discussion? Is it being stated here that the historical and current Eucharistic practices of the Byzantine Churches, Orthodox and Catholic, do not have roots within the Byzantine Imperial Court? It has been my understanding that they do, hence the Royal doors, for example.

It is late and I may have misunderstood or I may have been misinformed.

Have a peaceful rest!

Steve

JOY!

Please do not allow the written expression impede the meaning or the love!