The Most Reverend Mark Coleridge, Archbishop of the Diocese of Canberra and Goulburn in Australia has written a fascinating letter about the liturgy. The Archbishop is one of the people in charge of the new translations of the missal and he presents some interesting insight on what we can expect. You can read the entire letter here, however I wish to focus on one small area of the letter.
This pertains to a pet peeve of mine, but as I work in pet peeves as others might work in oils or clays, I am going to pick a nit.
In the letter the Archbishop writes about the proper reception of communion. In this section, he also details some of the responsibilities of the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion.
The celebrant is the first to receive Communion in order to complete the Eucharistic sacrifice. If there is a deacon, the celebrant offers the deacon the Body of Christ as soon as he himself has received and then the Blood of Christ as soon as he has drunk from the chalice. If there are concelebrants, they receive the Body of Christ with the celebrant and the Blood of Christ only after the celebrant and deacon have drunk from the chalice. The Acolytes and Extraordinary Ministers then receive Communion before going to distribute Communion to the assembly.
There should be no more Extraordinary Ministers than is necessary. If there are clergy enough to distribute Communion, then Extraordinary Ministers are not required. It should never happen that clergy are left seated during the distribution of Communion while Extraordinary Ministers attend to the distribution.
While I certainly concur with the Archbishop, I am unsure whether this language goes far enough. I have witnessed multiple incidents at my own parish in which the pastor gives the homily and then disappears, only to reappear in the narthex after mass to meet and greet. This drives me crazy. Moreover, since it is the responsibility of the priests, as ordinary ministers of the sacrament they should be there. Where are they?
I understand that often the duties of a priest can call them away from the parish on Sundays, but if they are within a five mile radius, they should be there distributing communion. Not just at the masses they celebrate, but at all the masses.
Prior to the imposition of ubiquitous extraordinary ministers, we would routinely witness the non celebrating priests of a parish make their way to the sacristy a few minutes before communion to vest and then appear in the sanctuary at communion time. What are they doing now?
Now before you start yelling at me about the shortage of priests and their other duties keeping them away from communion, listen. If a priest is out doing priestly duties elsewhere, so be it. No issue. But I have witnessed non celebrating priests in the vicinity before or after mass too many times to think that they are ALL otherwise occupied.
So, again, if these ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are within the zone, they should be distributing communion. Honestly, I cannot think of a good reason why they would not unless it is some false sense of empowerment the laity that leaves them at the rectory. Get off you priestly duffs and distribute Communion. Please.
Now as I know that we have a number of priests who read this site, I am particularly interested in your perspectives. If I am being to harsh or demanding, please correct me. If not, your thoughts (and everyone else’s) are most welcome. End of nit pick.
May 16, 2008 at 5:08 am
David Alexander,
Sitting over in the rectory doing what? On the phone with a crying parishioner whose daughter was in an auto accident 30 minutes ago? Trying to get together an appropriate response to the school principal for the 8AM Monday meeting about whether or not this kid needs to be kicked out of the parish school? Putting together the last thoughts for the homily at the funeral Mass this Tuesday for the guy who gave it all to the parish for 50 years?
I suppose it is easier to assume he’s sitting over in the rectory reading the sports page. Even though, honestly, I don’t really know that.
Okay. Fine. So he’s available, at least by your definition. So, such a horrible abuse should be addressed. Contact him. Let him know your concerns. See how he responds. In fact, I’m sure you already have. So, what did he say?
But, I’ll tell you what, when I’m at Mass and going up to communion, I’m not going to be driven nuts by the priest whose available sitting in the rectory doing nothing, like everybody knows they so often are. I’m going to be driven nuts with joy by Jesus, and preparing myself to receive the living God of the universe on my tongue for the grace of my eternal salvation, and being every so grateful for this gift, the greatest gift, of which I am so unworthy.
Bob
May 16, 2008 at 11:49 am
Bob:
I’m afraid Rome did not address the issue in that amount of detail. In another document ten years ago, however (this is in my blog post specifically), they called for the habitual use of EMs to be “eliminated.”
Eliminated. Wanna try and spin that one?
May 16, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Spin? Sorry, didn’t know I was doing that. I’ll try better next time. My cynicism and tendency to think the worst of others, especially priests, isn’t yet fully developed. My wife’s working on me, though.
So, I’m spinning and your avoiding questions. Why do we sound like a couple of politicians?
I would really like an answer to my question: how did your pastor respond? What did he say when you referred him to your blog and the document that calls for the habitual use of EMs to be eliminated? Or, if EMs are used sparingly at your parish, as you said, what did your bishop say when you brought the practice at your cathedral to his attention? You sound like a take-action kind of person, who wouldn’t waste his time simply venting and complaining via the blogosphere without bringing such a matter to the attention of those who can do something about it. What response did you get?
If something is a concern of yours regarding the appropriate celebration of the liturgy, you should do something about it. As I said, I’ve contacted my own pastor about concerns I’ve had, and he’s always responded quickly and well.
Bob
May 16, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Bob:
I was not among those wanting relief, simply explaining the way it is. But out of the courtesy you deserve, I will answer you.
I used to be the sort of fellow who would say something. I was tempted to do so while attending the Cathedral Parish. Alas, middle age has made me, if not wiser, one who would choose his battles more carefully. To wit, it is my experience (and I know this not to be the case everywhere), that those to whom I would bring this concern are well aware of the documentation I would cite, and are at the ready with the usual jesuitical sophistry. I find it tiresome just to listen to them.
They know they don’t fool me. They also know they’re the ones in charge. And yet, all of us will be called into account for our stewardship. If only in this instance, I’d rather be me than them.
That’s my answer.
May 16, 2008 at 7:47 pm
I am very blessed to belong to a parish where all the priests do show up to distribute communion. We do still use EMHCs at some Masses, but just a few (maybe 3 or 4 per Mass). It is a very large parish and Sunday Masses are packed.
May 16, 2008 at 11:46 pm
David,
I guess we’ve just had different experiences with priests, even into our middle age years.
If something inappropriate was going on at my parish, to the point of driving me nuts or, worse, if I actually thought the way we were celebrating the liturgy was insulting to Jesus, you can bet I would be saying something to my pastor. We all have to choose our battles. The use of EMs is not something I find intrinsically abusive or insulting, so it’s not a battle I choose to fight. I’ll trust my pastor and bishop to best choose how to apply the Church’s intent on that matter. But there are battles I do choose and, when I choose a battle, I make myself heard.
Bob