One of the most challenging, yet rewarding, parts of celebrating the Roman Rite today is the number of ministers who exercise a ministry at Mass.
The following ministers are called for at daily Mass here at the School of Theology·Seminary: a priest, acolyte, lector, accompanist, cantor, two Eucharistic ministers and two hospitality ministers. Many parishes and larger Catholic communities require many more ministers and additional ministries. Extensive training programs are required for larger Catholic communities.
Training liturgical ministers is never easy, and the larger the community the more difficult it becomes. Here at the School of Theology·Seminary we train our ministers during Orientation Week before classes begin. We start with an hour long talk on “Liturgy at Saint John’s” given by members of the school’s liturgy committee. This talk is designed to explain the heritage of Collegeville, outline community expectations, go over helpful resources, and briefly describe the ministries available throughout the year.
This talk is followed by 30 minute breakout sessions the next day. Each session is tailored to the ministry being discussed and is led by a returning minister. Each session consists of three parts: 1) the theology of the particular ministry, 2) practicalities surrounding the ministry, and 3) hands-on experience. We strongly encourage returning liturgical ministers to attend these sessions as well.
Having a yearly training session at the start of each school year is common among universities and schools where the turnover of volunteers is quite high and where new ministers arrive each year. However, I doubt it would work in a parish where the pool of liturgical ministers is relatively stable.
I am curious to hear how your parish, university, or school trains liturgical ministers.
How do you structure your training? What resources do you use? What challenges does your community face when training ministers? What tips can you offer? What should be avoided?
Please comment below.
Comments
47 responses to “Non Solum: Training Liturgical Ministers”
Like many parishes, we only have one priest assigned to the parish, so we only have one Eucharistic minister at basically all of our Masses, and he received his training in seminary (though he is still learning things, after having received a rather poor formation there).
Two stages are optimal. I think an orientation to procedures is important–and that’s what hangs up many people new to liturgical ministry. People want to know how to do a good job, and do the “right” things.
Later I think formation is better appreciated, once people see how their role fits in with others.
I would observe that seminaries are optimal for the training of presiders and preachers. Less so for the particular dynamics of ministries in individual parishes, where people need to know how the pieces fit.
“Having a yearly training session at the start of each school year is common among universities and schools where the turnover of volunteers is quite high and where new ministers arrive each year. However, I doubt it would work in a parish where the pool of liturgical ministers is relatively stable.”
I would challenge this statement. We know that the population in many parts of the country is in constant motion. People are coming and going all the time. When we don’t regularly invite and welcome new people into ministry with training and a warm smile, then we find ourselves in the situation of both seeming very closed off to new comers as well as wondering why all the same people always has to do everything and how will we ever replace them? There is a great deal of talk about how we get new people to step up and take on roles in the parish. Welcoming people into ministry on a very regular basis is key to this.
Many dioceses have policies about how long lay people can serve as lectors or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, before they have to go through training and commissioning again. I can’t speak for other dioceses, but I know in mine these rules are simply ignored. And yet they serve a purpose in helping us to regularly discern the call to ministry, to celebrate it, and to keep it fresh for those who are participating.
A stable pool of liturgical ministers is not a good unto itself. If we dig below the surface, many of our parishes are quite dynamic. This also means people have huge variations in their exposure to theology understanding of ministry.
Offering both training and reflection opportunities for ministers every year, that builds on the ministry, deepens the understanding, and helps new people come in is critical.
Hey, did you all notice Ben’s attempt at humor at #1? Those pesky folks who assist with the ministering of the Eucharist aren’t “Eucharistic Ministers” because they are not ordained. We must only refer to them, if at all, as extraordinary minister of Holy Communion. You all got that straight. Hmmm, what are we going to do when we run out of the real Eucharistic Ministers?
@Fr. Jack Feehily – comment #4:
I never said they are pesky, I just want people to stop calling them titles that can only refer to priests. Even deacons can not be ministers of the eucharist.
@Ben Yanke – comment #5:
Actually, Ben, your last statement is incorrect. Deacons are indeed ordinary ministers of the Eucharist.
Lay people serve in most places as Communion ministers. There’s nothing wrong with using the Greek word as an adjective “eucharistic,” careful to use a small “e” if that will soothe offended sensibilities. And people who serve the Lord in Communion are certainly ministering to others. “Eucharistic minister” is a fitting term. But I can live with “Communion minister” if that will go down easier. I just don’t see the point of using five words when two, succinct, will do.
@Todd Flowerday – comment #6:
Deacons are indeed ordinary ministers of the Eucharist.
Aren’t they technically — and I think this is Ben’s point — “ministers of Holy Communion”, rather than “ministers of the Eucharist”? The former designates the giving of Communion to recipients, the latter designates the “confection” of the Eucharist. At least, that’s what I’ve gleaned from the documents.
@Jeffrey Pinyan – comment #7:
I’m not totally sure what Ben’s point is, other than making distinctions. As for priests being able to “confect” the Eucharist, that’s why they are called priests. That distinction of ministry seems more than clear and adequate to me. Why would we call a priest a “Eucharistic minister,” when it is abundantly plain they serve in so many more ways?
This yet another example of the backward and stingy thinking involved with RS. When lay ministers serve, it is best to just say “thank you,” rather than make distinctions. Aside from a lack of joy the other serious moral shortcoming of RS is a lack of gratitude.
@Ben Yanke – comment #5:
Go wrestle with Fr Z on your last point:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/01/quaeritur-why-do-deacons-distribute-communion-are-they-glorified-just-emhcs/
@Karl Liam Saur – comment #10:
Karl, I think Fr. Z is making the same distinctions as Ben:
“That said, a deacon is an ordinary minister of Communion, not merely an Extraordinary Minister of Communion, because of their ordination. Diaconate, after all, is a step of Holy Orders, which conforms their souls for the tasks to which Holy Church sets them. We make a distinction between Ministers of the Eucharist and of Communion. The former confect the Eucharist. The latter distribute the Eucharist. Deacons don’t confect the Eucharist. Cf. Redemptionis Sacramentum 154.”
Ben, has it occurred to you that the seminary training you received may have been a bit restrictive in its understanding of all things liturgical. RS did not, for instance, say a word about the posture of the people during the Lord’s Prayer nor is there any rubric in the Missal. Whence comes the certainty, then, about what they should or should not do. For decades the generous men and women who assisted with HC were referred to as EM’s…..until some clerics came along to remind us of the ontological difference between priestly people and ordained priests. There is no way the people can be confused about the distinctive role of clergy. After all when there is no priest to send to a parish, it may be the end of Mass for that church.
@Fr. Jack Feehily – comment #8:
… the ontological difference between priestly people and ordained priests. There is no way the people can be confused about the distinctive role of clergy. After all when there is no priest to send to a parish, it may be the end of Mass for that church.
That depends who “the people” you’re referring to are. There are some Catholics who do not see why not having a priest should be the end of Mass, or the end of the Eucharist for them. They don’t see a priest is necessary for Mass.
Can’t believe this series of comments – what world do you live in? *Confect* *Ontological* *Ordinary vs. Extraordinary* Communion vs. Eucharist*
Comments: “As for priests being able to “confect” the Eucharist, that’s why they are called priests.” or “They don’t see a priest is necessary for Mass.” or “just want people to stop calling them titles that can only refer to priests”
Vatican II documents start with the reality that all are baptized; all celebrate eucharist. The priest does not *confect* the eucharist – the church and community of faith does that (that is why SC and VII shifted practice away from *private clerical masses* (and discouraged even with a server – it is not really the fullness of the eucharist because eucharist is not a *mechanical* or *magical* confection – it is an action of the faith community (it depends upon both community and priest in his role as servant/minister to the community). Check out VII document defining priesthood (granted, it is cursory given the council’s time and rush to finish) but nowhere does VII define *priest* as the *confector of eucharist* and thus called priest – rather it uses models and scriptural images such as servant, minister, etc. And the straw man that some don’t see the necessity of a priest – suggest that this is an exaggeration; a misinterpretation of what folks understand and mean by that simplistic sentence; it follows along with the use of the term *Temple Police*.
This series of comments turns our belief upside down – its starting point is incorrect. (back to the future; really? sacraments in our understanding – church, eucharist, baptism, etc. (ordination is NOT the first or most important sacrament – nor does eucharist rise or fall with clerical ordination) Talk about a defective sacramental theology.
RS – really need to move past this defective CDW penal document that came from Arinze (and led to his demotion (in the typical Roman fashion and his departure from the Vatican and the curia). As Todd said above, RS is not theological (almost the polar opposite from the way VII documents were theologically developed); it is a long list of penal codes. Suggest comparing RS to the VII documents – compare the tone, language used; style (VII never used anathemas but that is all RS is). Other secondary considerations – it is a curial pronouncement that was not also signed by the pope (thus, a lower level document in the overall scheme of things). Footnotes VII roughly 25 times but quotes Canon Law more than 40 times and even Trent. Many of its paragraphs directly contradict other pronouncements by curial dicasteries and by papal acts e.g. rescripts signed by the pope for laicized priests in terms of what they can and can’t do liturgically; its liturgical principles contradict SC – note that its opening paragraphs are all about clerical ordination (not the people of God, baptism, responsibilities of the Eucharistic community). Will end with what Francis said to his religious order leaders in South America about the CDW – they will publish and announce but you need to continue your ministry on the edges. (suggest that Arinze lives on in the likes of Matano, Paprocki, Morlino, Olmsted – not exactly bishops/priests that have the smell of the people).
@Bill deHaas – comment #13:
Have you actually read Redemptionis Sacramentum?
The reason that it doesn’t have much theological elaboration is because it presupposes the theology of the encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia :
“Those things found in this Instruction are therefore to be read in the continuity with the above-mentioned Encyclical Letter, Ecclesia de Eucharistia.”
In that encyclical JPII announces that “precisely to bring out more clearly [the] deeper meaning of liturgical norms, I have asked the competent offices of the Roman Curia to prepare a more specific document, including prescriptions of a juridical nature, on this very important subject.”
Finally, while RS is not signed by the pope it does have this behind it:
“This Instruction, prepared by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments by mandate of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II in collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was approved by the same Pontiff on the Solemnity of St. Joseph, 19 March 2004, and he ordered it to be published and to be observed immediately by all concerned.”
BTW, the Francis quote was about CDF not CDW, and despite that conversation Francis has still approved disciplinary acts made by CDF. (such as the excommunication of a priest who openly supported the ordination of women)
@Stanislaus Kosala – comment #14:
The problem with relying on the Roman instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum is this:
In the hierarchy of Church documents (there are 58 levels, starting with Decretal Letters in 1st place), instructions from Roman Congregations are only 41st in importance, well below Encyclicals in 10th place, Decrees and Declarations in 25th and 26th respectively, different kinds of Allocutions and Addresses (30th and 35th), etc., etc. Even Motu Proprios are only in 8th place, below Apostolic Constitutions in 2nd and Papal Bulls in 5th.
When Cardinal Arinze asked if the instructions given in Redemptionis Sacramentum could be changed, he retorted “Of course not. This is a Church document signed by the Pope himself.” He was wrong on several counts. First of all, the Congregation itself had written the document, so of course it could change it (as indeed the Congregation has done with other documents in recent times). Secondly, the Pope never signed it. By the time this document came across his desk, JPII was already unable to continue the functions of the papacy. Kept alive by monkey serum over a considerable period, in his final years he spent much of his time asleep, being occasionally woken for public appearances, for consultations, or to approve verbally or sign documents that were put in front of him, but mostly to meet bishops on ad limina visits. (Many of the latter will tell you that when they were ushered in to see him, they had to waken him, and that he immediately fell asleep again. The “jungle juice” was no longer sufficient to keep his system going.)
During these final years the Curia was completely out of control — some would say it ran riot. Redemptionis Sacramentum fits fair and square into this period, being promulgated just a year before John Paul’s death. I believe that Benedict’s resignation was a result of seeing what had happened with his predecessor. He did not want the same thing to be true of him.
Redemptionis Sacramentum, as we have discussed previously in this forum, is also notable for its internal contradictions, caused by the Congregation blatantly ignoring the representations of Bishops’ Conferences. (They said, on many different points, “You can’t say this, but instead should say that“. Instead of removing this and substituting that, the Congregation minions retained this, and followed it with that. Ridiculous.)
@Bill deHaas (#13): The priest does not *confect* the eucharist – the church and community of faith does that…
Canon 900.1, emphasis added: “The minister who is able to confect the sacrament of the Eucharist in the person of Christ is a validly ordained priest alone.”
BTW, there is nothing in Vatican II that forbids the Missa privata. SC 27 certainly prefers that, “so far as possible” (in quantum fieri potest), Mass (as well as every other liturgical celebration) be celebrated with the presence of the faithful, but it also reinforces that every Mass with or without a congregation “has of itself a public and social nature” (cf. Pres. Ord. 13; GIRM 19). And GIRM 252-272 also gives the norms for the celebration of Mass with one minister (and, for a “just and reasonable cause”, the priest alone; cf. para. 254).
[N]owhere does VII define *priest* as the *confector of eucharist*
But the Church does define the “confector of eucharist” as a priest (cf. CCC 1431, 1566; LG 28; Pres. Ord. 2; CIC 900.1).
@Matthew Hazell – comment #15:
I looked up your references to Lumen Gentium and Presbyterorum Ordinis but could not find anything that says a priest “confects” the Eucharist. LG says priests “unite the prayers of the faithful with the sacrifice of their Head and renew and apply in the sacrifice of the Mass until the coming of the Lord the only sacrifice of the New Testament namely that of Christ.” Similar language is found in PO 2. The language of “confect” implies something accomplished by the priest, while VII makes a point similar to Bill’s, that Christ effects the Eucharist while the priest joins us with Christ in that action.
A similar shift is behind your disagreement about “private masses.” There is no such thing, and never was. A priest alone, celebrating mass by himself, celebrates with all the angels and saints, with the whole Church. If he did not do that, there would be no mass, because it is Christ who sacrificed himself and the priest’s role is to join us with Christ in that action. “Private mass” and “confect” give a mistaken impression of what happens at a local celebration of the Eucharist, even if they are still used as a kind of shorthand in CIC and other documents.
On an earlier point, I noticed that LG 29 does not agree with a distinction made earlier in this discussion:
It is the duty of the deacon, according as it shall have been assigned to him by competent authority, to administer baptism solemnly, to be custodian and dispenser of the Eucharist…
Oh well. I liked that distinction.
@Jim McKay – comment #22:
Again, “dispenser of the Eucharist” is not the same as “minister of the Eucharist”. It’s one thing to do-whatever-it-is-the-ordained-priest-does at Mass, it’s another to distribute or dispense the Eucharist to communicants.
You will not find anyone other than a priest or bishop called a “minister of the Eucharist” in official Church texts. The expression “special minister of the Eucharist” popularized (as far as I know) by the English translation of Immensae Caritatis is a mistranslation of the Latin “ministris extraordinariis s. Communionis (distribuendae)”.
I suppose it’s silly to belabor this point, since we all know what we mean when we say “Eucharistic minister”, which is “a person who distributes Communion”.
@Jim McKay – comment #22:
Jim,
I agree that it is more proper and precise to speak of the priest as joining the assembly with the action of Christ than to say that the priest “confects” the sacrament. At the same time though, I find it interesting that Paul VI in the Credo of the People of God uses the following language:
“We believe that as the bread and wine consecrated by the Lord at the Last Supper were changed into His body and His blood which were to be offered for us on the cross, likewise the bread and wine consecrated by the priest are changed into the body and blood of Christ…”
It’s interesting that Pope Paul chose to speak of the actions of the priest as alone effecting the change of the bread and wine. He of course does also speak about the priest as acting in the name of the faithful as well as Christ thus joining the two, but this passage here does suggest that Pope Paul finds the two ways of speaking compatible.
@Stanislaus Kosala – comment #24:
Paul VI says the priest consecrates the bread and wine, ie dedicates them to God. This associate the bread with the bread Christ offered. This does not mean the priest effects the change called transubstantiation. The verb ‘change’ is expressed passively, presumably a divine passive that implies God changed the bread.
Transferring the agency to the priest instead of God muddies the picture of what happens. We associate ourselves with Christ through the work of the priest. It is not wrong to use confect or say the priest changes the bread, but it is better to express the broader horizons wherein we associate ourselves with Christ who gives us every good thing.
Matt, you are right. LG 10 would have been better. I probably wouldn’t even have gotten involved in this discussion if you had cited that.
@Jim McKay – comment #29:
I agree with you.. When I said that the priest effects the change, I did not mean that the priest is the one who changes the bread and wine, only that his actions are a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the change.
@Bill deHaas – comment #13:
Can’t believe this series of comments – what world do you live in?
Bill, do you take issue with the choice of terminology that is being used (e.g. “ontological”, “confect”, etc., old-fashioned, pre-VII words), or with the concepts those terms refer to? Is there different language you think we should be using to express the same concepts, such as the “making” of the Eucharist, and the particular character which differentiates an ordained priest from a lay member?
I do not think that “the necessity of a priest” is a straw-man, but I’m more than happy to drop that tangent. But I never said that sacramental theology should start with ordination. That being said, ordination and Eucharist are deeply and inextricably linked.
Finally: [RS] footnotes VII roughly 25 times but quotes Canon Law more than 40 times and even Trent
Is the Council of Trent anathema? Is referring to it — especially in an ecclesial document — a faux pas?
Jeffrey, Stanislaus, and Matthew – thanks to all three of you….IMO, you have only underlined exactly what I was reacting to.
Jeffrey – different language, IMO…….language used by VII council fathers that resourced both scripture and the early church understanding of church, eucharist, and priest. Let’s be fair here – I did not object (if you read what I typed) to that which differentiates a cleric from a lay member (I highlighted other things which I felt earlier comments ignored or bypassed)…in fact, used VII images of servant, minister. My straw man reference is that your repeating that phrase dismisses certain folks serious concerns and theological/ecclesiological discussions about the future of eucharist if totally dependent upon an ordained minister (yes, as currently intertwined) – basically, we agree on your last sentence of that paragraph. Didn’t say Trent was anathema – merely tried to make a point that in a document of this type, Trent is referenced almost as often as VII – does that really make sense?
Stanislaus – Yes, have read the document and, unfortunately, have had to deal with local decisions that acted, interpreted, and changed parish practice based upon a literal or black and white knee jerk reaction (which, btw, Arinze barely mentioned or started with the JPII eucharist document; never started with any type of education or listening to the current practice – rather, unilaterally enforced changes that, in some cases, did more harm than good) I notice you skip over my statement that canon law, liturgical directives are pastoral tools (not penal codes nor sledgehammers) – when clerics impose a list such as Arinze has devised, you are no longer acting as a pastoral shepherd but as a judge…my experience is that certain clerics picked and chose which Arinze prescriptions to impose (usually corresponding to their own desires, hangups, or liturgical nonsense of some sort)
You quote the separate preamble which is standard in curial documents – “have asked the competent offices of the Roman Curia to prepare a more specific document, including prescriptions of a juridical nature, on this very important subject.” Subsequent practice, episcopal feedback, and papal decisions tend to reinforce my comment above – a)*competent*….well, Arinze’s pronouncement created mostly negative feedback and he was booted; b) this intro is standard Vaticanese…do you think JPII wrote it or was even involved? Note – it states *specific document, inclu. juridical nature* but would suggest that Arinze focused only on the juridical nature; c) papal approval – again, standard language. If John Page or Paul Inwood is reading this, they can explain that when a dicastery document is not issued by the pope but merely approved, it is a lower level papal document.
CDW or CDF – sorry, for the typo. My point stands and doubt whether Francis was involved in the case example you give which has no connection to what this post is about?
Matthew – expected someone like you to quote a specific canon. Note what I wrote about private masses (did not say *forbid* – you over-react to make your point). My emphasis and point stands. Note, also, you quote from two canons – which I expected and again read what I wrote…..1983 canon law (esp. in terms of liturgy) does not reflect either the theology nor the intent of much of what the council fathers did. (why? because, unfortunately, Opus Dei and the conservative curial members controlled and influenced the outcome of the1983 canon law). You actually support exactly what I wrote via your canon quotes. (doubt we would agree on how to interpret those canon exceptions e.g. mass with one server)
Your last statement is semantics -my point was what you state – it is one component of what a presbyter does and is defined by….but, it is not the sole or core component.
Again, thanks to all three of you for your responses – it appears that you agree with my emphases, foci, and themes (you merely drilled down in typical, literal fashion while missing or failing to comment on the big picture)
@Bill deHaas – comment #17:
I did not object … to that which differentiates a cleric from a lay member … in fact, used VII images of servant, minister
Thank you; I didn’t think you object(ed) to that, which is why I asked if it was a question of language or of concepts. So can I suppose, then, that you are inclined against terminology like “ontological” because Vatican II avoided that sort of language? (That particular term, for example, is only used once in the VII documents, in the appendix to LG: “In his consecration a person is given an ontological participation in the sacred functions”.)
My straw man reference is that your repeating that phrase dismisses certain folks serious concerns and theological/ecclesiological discussions about the future of eucharist if totally dependent upon an ordained minister (yes, as currently intertwined) – basically, we agree on your last sentence of that paragraph.
I’m glad we agree on that sentence, although I admit we might differ on the nature of that link. That comes back to the theological and ecclesiological discussions about the “dependency” of the Eucharist on an ordained minister. I don’t think there can be a genuine Eucharist without an ordained minister (under the current “sacramental economy”), and I think I am supported in that belief by Vatican II.
in a document of this type, Trent is referenced almost as often as VII – does that really make sense?
I don’t know it wouldn’t make sense that the Council of Trent is referred to in RS, since — let’s be blunt — the tone of RS is considerably more pre-VII than post-VII: “On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist” sounds like an updating of whatever that document is that details what to do (or avoid doing) in all sorts of cases in the celebration of the older form of Mass.
I’d consider WHAT is being referred to in Trent before I considered it odd that Trent is being referred to at all.
@Bill deHaas – comment #17:
you merely drilled down in typical, literal fashion while missing or failing to comment on the big picture
I’m permitted as a reader and commenter on this blog to reply to a person and ask a question about what they’ve written, whether I’m focused on a detail or on the big picture. My focus on one area does not imply that I don’t see the big picture, and I’m not required to comment on the big picture — it’s not a “failure” on my part.* I was addressing, in my first two comments, a point of confusion in terminology, and I hoped that by participating in that way I could clear up the confusion. If this is all dreadfully tangential now, I’ll cheerfully disregard any potential follow-ups.
* I’m reminded of one of Msgr. Mannion’s essays a few weeks ago, around the Feast of the Body and Blood, where in your first comment you seemed generally displeased about his choice of topic and saw his essay as deficient because it didn’t address the things you wanted it to (“none of Mannion’s points are connected to the readings today”). But we don’t get to choose what people write about here.
** And now, having just said that no one gets to choose what people write about here, I feel I must reiterate a common sentiment of mine, which is that I perceive some of the language you use to be awfully dismissive of people: “expected someone like you to…”, “typical, literal fashion”. I can’t help but think of the way Republicans and Democrats in the US speak about the other side with disdain rather than with respect.
I also wish that we could all (me too) could all find a more tactful way to phrase things like “read what I wrote” or “did you even read …?” that don’t come off sounding so haughty. 🙁
@Bill deHaas – comment #17:
The letter that informs Father Reynolds of the excommunicatoin states the following:
“Pope Francis, Supreme Pontiff having heard the presentation of this Congregation concerning the grave reason for action … of [Fr. Greg Reynolds] of the Archdiocese of Melbourne, all the preceding actions to be taken having been followed, with a final and unappealable decision and subject to no recourse, has decreed dismissal from the clerical state is to be imposed on said priest for the good of the Church,”
If Francis was not involved in this case, then we’re all in a lot of trouble.
RS states EXPLICITLY that it is to be read with the encyclical letter and cannot be understood separately from that encyclical letter. You have no grounds for complaining that it doesn’t deal with theology or ecclesiology.
You mention the quote ” I have asked the competent offices of the Roman Curia to prepare a more specific document, including prescriptions of a juridical nature, on this very important subject.” this quote is NOT from RS but from the encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia, hence it is more than a standard curial preamble.
RS also states that JPII reviewed the document[RS] and ordered that it be published and followed. If that is not the case then [RS] has zero authority, but the burden of proof is on you if you want to make the case that JPII didn’t order its publication. (yes i realise that RS has less authority than a motu proprio or encyclical, but still it has the authority of the pope behind it, it isn’t just Arinze or his dicastry)
@Bill deHaas (#17): [I] expected someone like you to quote a specific canon
I’ll choose to take that as a compliment. 🙂
1983 canon law (esp. in terms of liturgy) does not reflect either the theology nor the intent of much of what the council fathers did.
In your opinion. The Code itself claims otherwise (cf. Introduction). But then, clearly the Code, being the product of those spooky Opus Dei and curial ‘conservative’ bogeymen, was written by the wrong people. ‘Progressives’ can obviously ignore that retrograde, anti-Vatican II (boo! hiss!) document. Or, just reinterpret it to mean the exact opposite of what it says. Am I getting the hang of this?
(BTW, I did cite other texts aside from the Code, but I suppose Lumen Gentium, Presbyterorum Ordinis and the Catechism were written by Opus Dei as well, and can thus be ignored?)
…that in a document of this type [i.e. Redemptionis Sacramentum], Trent is referenced almost as often as VII – does that really make sense?
In that both Trent and Vatican II are ecumenical councils of the Church, and that Trent made plenty of dogmatic statements about the sacraments, yes, it makes sense.
I suppose the question really is why do you seem to think that referencing Trent doesn’t make sense?
@Jim McKay (#22): CIC 900.1 references LG 10, 26 and 28.
Perhaps LG 10 would have been a better citation: acting in the person of Christ, [the priest] makes present [Lat. conficit] the Eucharistic sacrifice, and offers it to God in the name of all the people. In short, there is nothing in the council documents that warrants Mr DeHaas’s view that the priest does not confect the Eucharist – and, in fact, in the Latin LG 10 contradicts his assertion!
The issue is not whether conficere is applied to the eucharist in some scholastic and papal texts. It is – see, for example, the 3rd part of the Summa, question 82. My impression is that the use in Latin is fairly rare, and that is scholastic rather than ancient; Fritz might have more information here.
The bigger problem is with ‘confect’, which is a lazy and Liturgiam-Authenticam-ish mistranslation of conficere. ‘Confect’ in English means to mix, compound, combine different ingredients, as in making a cake or mixing a medicinal potion.
Conficere in Latin is closer to ‘bring to completion’ – in business language, to settle or close a bargain, or to finish a journey. It is not unlike the sense of ‘collect’, a prayer that brings together and completes the prayers of the people. It doesn’t imply that the priest casts a magic spell that, like pressing a switch, effects the eucharistic change.
So ‘makes present’ is a far better translation of conficit in LG 10. ‘Confects’ is a fudge, a lazy non-translation.
@Jonathan Day – comment #26:
Thank you for this clarification, Jonathan. I’ll happily retire my own use of the word “confect” in this context, and use a more appropriate translation.
Todd, comment 6:
RS 154:
“Hence the name ‘minister of the Eucharist’ belongs properly to the Priest alone.”
@Ben Yanke – comment #27:
Fine. But I think “Eucharistic minister” is a valid term for others. Five words fussy. Two words good.
To my knowledge, no one in common parlance ever refers to a priest as a Eucharistic minister. But countless Catholics regularly refer to the lay distributors of Holy Communion as EM’s. This doesn’t sit well with clergy who are concerned about the ontological difference between ministerial priests and priestly people. Apparently the chasubles, amices, seats of honor, the exclusive ability to preside at and “confect” the Eucharist, to preach, to hear confessions, to anoint the sick, and decision making authority in both the spiritual and temporal realms are insufficient to allay these anxieties.
Surely we can agree that the term “confecting the Eucharist” is an impoverished description of what takes place when the whole church is gathered to offer the sacrifice of praise with, in, and through Christ.
Here’s what happened at Mass yesterday:
We found out our 40-something weekend assistant has colon & liver cancer and has a few months to live.
One of our homeless parishioners in a wheelchair urinated all of himself twice: once before Mass, which our pastor had to clean up, wearing alb and stole; once during Mass, which a few parishioners got to clean up.
One of young families brought her newborn daughter to Mass for the first time.
Several our young adults left for a mission trip to New Orleans.
And you’re worried about using the word extraordinary or not? I was actually scanning the comments hoping to learn more about training ministers, because we have hundreds of volunteers who need training in some way, shape or form. All I can say is: GET A LIFE! I’m glad it’s important to you. But I’m with Fr. Jack Feehily here. There are 1 million things that are far more important than this!
Without holding anyone personally responsible, I’d like to “Amen” Chuck on the sentiment that we’ve really said almost nothing about training ministers.
I’ll just note that we seem to have great success training our lectors–they do an excellent job and get better all the time–but no matter how much we train our EMHC/EMs they still can’t seem to get their various duties right, much less find the right place to stand. I’m not sure what the difference is.
Humbly and respectfully, I’d like to propose that the EMHC/EM discussion be moved to a separate thread. While I feel that this is a worthy discussion in its own right (and one that our parish itself had), it has inadvertently veered the stated topic off-track.
Some things that I hear frequently from trainers and volunteer coordinators at various parishes:
1) Our parish has more than one priest, and each one wants the procedures done differently. It’s confusing our ministers.
2) The required training and commissioning events seem to be ignored by significant portions of the volunteers, but if we dismiss those who don’t attend, we are desperately short of help.
3) Some ministers who have been active in a ministry for longer periods are unwilling to implement changes in procedures even when a long-standing or significant problem needs to be addressed.
4) We constantly have issues with absences and with ministers not finding replacements. The roster is full, but on some Sundays or Holy Days, a good portion of ministers don’t show up for their assignment and the same people have to step up, thereby burning out the emergency replacements.
I would be interested in comments regarding these, as they span parish size, state / Diocese, and role of coordinator (meaning volunteer trainers vs. staff trainers vs. clergy trainers).
As far as our training schedule goes, we offer roughly one training per quarter (4-5 a year) with a couple additional options for Altar Servers (due to the school vacation/break schedule). Trainers are taken from our liturgy commission and from volunteers with long experience, as the clergy do not participate in the training sessions on a regular basis. Training content is largely procedure-based with more formation being included with the Altar Severs.
@Paul Fell – comment #35:
1) A problem in our parish, as well, a source of frequent complaint from our volunteer ministers. As director of liturgy the best I can do is try to frequently prompt our priests to agree on common practice.
2) I try to create as few “requirements” as reasonably possible, because the fact of the matter is that even the most dedicated and best-intentioned minister can be unavailable on training day. This means that I either have to multiply my training workload (offering several alternative sessions or doing one-on-one make-up) or become embroiled in the quagmire of determining who will be exempted.
Diocesan requirements, on the other hand, are the orders of legitimate authority which bind in conscience. I’m not free to dispense with them, so provided the requirements are not patently unjust (something I’ve never encountered and don’t seriously countenance occurring), if people won’t show up to mandatory training then the parish will have to go without. Hopefully this serves as a wake-up call for more folks to step up to ministry.
3) The ministers you describe are bad ministers – they are not serving well. The ministry exists for the people served, not the continuation of ministers’ positions within the assembly, so if they won’t enact changes to address pressing needs, allow them to formalize this choice not to serve. Should this cause a shortage, refer to #2.
4) We address this problem through the role of a “Mass coordinator,” a volunteer assigned to oversee pre-Mass sign-ins and, when necessary (which is almost always) to find replacements for the no-shows from among “off-duty” ministers. I believe that this solution is two-edged: we rarely have ministry positions go unfilled at Mass (great!), but ministers also feel quite free to bail on their assignments because they trust that someone will pick up their slack (shunting a burden with no regard for the poor Mass coordinator finding last-minute replacements).
@Aaron Sanders – comment #41:
Thanks for your feedback and thoughts!
Regarding Item #4, a solution was enacted before my tenure here, and it seems to handle some of the burden. On the Mass sign-in sheet, we have a section of blanks dedicated to “Ministers Present if Needed” and these allow off-duty volunteers to function if required. Those who fill these blanks know to watch for gentle signs or signals that they are requested. At that point, they step forward and fill the gaps in the ranks. While this solution alleviates some of the last-minute panic, it can sometimes confuse new/visiting priests who don’t understand the significance of these blanks. Therefore, some intervention is occasionally required. 🙂 It doesn’t solve the problem of overusing the same people, but they at least have the option of not signing these blanks if they start to feel put-upon.
As for #2 and #3, I think we are in the same ballpark. However, I have heard horror stories from colleagues about trying to gently but firmly dismiss tenaciously ensconced ministers from “their rightful positions”. Based on common diocesan policies, lay ministers serve at the direction or the pastor, but not all ministers understand and/or concede this point. This is definitely a situation where the pastor has to be involved and on-board, or any potential headway will be minimal at best.
Todd #31:
You go buzurk about people who you believe aren’t following authoritative church documents (ie, VII), yet you see no problem going against and ignoring an authoritative church document (RS).
Fascinating.
@Ben Yanke – comment #36:
Rather, Todd merely points out where the Do The Red, Say The Black hermeneutic’s practitioners tend to cherry-pick themselves, which can be annoying to people who’d rather rationalize that away. Todd’s got a very thick skin and won’t be phased that you accuse him of selective enforcement, as it were. He’s covered the liturgical docs of the reform more deeply and systematically over many years than any ROTF site has ever attempted, FWIW.
@Ben Yanke – comment #36:
There’s noting contradictory about Todd’s approach. Some texts are more authoritative than others. Conciliar teachings even though of different levels of authority themselves are vastly more authoritative than an Instruction from a Roman Dicastery.
Please bring a sense of proportion and some nuance to your musings!
Can we please tone down our rhetoric and stay on topic? This post is about much more than Eucharistic ministers and their titles. It is tiresome to hear people quibble about titles and continue to ignore the substance of this post (and any other for that matter). This post is not about Vatican II, liturgical reform, or titles of ministers. It is fundamentally about how best to train ministers in our parishes.
We train them to bypass the petty arguments: that might be vital.
We also utilize a Mass coordinator, and the flip-side of having college-age people new to liturgical roles is that they take service very seriously. From a roster of 70-80 weekend ministers, I average maybe 2 or 3 no-shows.
But I have been in a parish where absenteeism was worse. Am I prejudiced because it was a suburban parish?
I have a new hard-line approach from within the Liturgy commission these days–people who want to require training and updates. I think it better to offer 2-3 evenings of reflection per year. Bring in an outside speaker if possible. Maybe potluck the supper. Promise to get people out in 60-90 minutes. In one parish I served, I inherited an annual liturgy workshop. It had a credibility about it: quality time well-spent. Sometimes people don’t believe the church can offer them anything really good.
@Todd Flowerday – comment #43:
I’m not familiar with “evenings of reflection”. Topically, of what does that consist usually? How does it reinforce or enhance their ministry? What types of speakers do you obtain/book?
Wow, that’s an incredibly good attendance record with your college-aged people. I would purchase that kind of attendance if you could bottle it.
@Paul Fell – comment #44:
Thanks for asking, Paul. There has been little tradition of evenings of reflection in my current parish–I’ve done just a few. But in my previous parish, clergy and liturgists from neighboring parishes. I had the speaker prepare about 15 minutes as dinner was wrapping up, and then take questions. Topics like lectio divina for lectors, or the meaning of service/washing feet for communion ministers–things like that. I would bill it as spiritual formation, not note-taking stuff.
I’d like to steer my current parish to that, and away from a hard line on sign-ups and such.
But with students, I actually have two student “liturgists.” They do most of the orientation to procedures. And they do a great job lining up expectations. We encourage students to text us when they can’t show up as scheduled. And I do get texts an hour before Mass sometimes. But that alerts the coordinator to look for people.
The other thing I could mention that I really value: I make sure to say thank you to people when I serve as the coordinator. And I try to go out of my way to thank new ministers when I’m not. Gratitude seems to be key to motivating many people. That’s why I detest much of the language in RS (at the risk of veering off topic). I find it singularly ungrateful and immature as a reflection on a strain of thought on church ministry.
At the end of the day, our “worst” ministers are our ushers. Ours is a downtown parish, with lots of homeless parishioners and lots of tourists, lots of late arrivers, lots of “distractions”.
We also have greeters. And we have an army of volunteers who clean up the church after each Mass, organizing hymnals and envelopes. So those duties fall to other people.
But we really need ushers who can be bouncers at a bar, while we people who know the Mass perfectly and spotlessly. They need to be prepared for chaos 5 seconds before it happens. People who aren’t shy to walk people to a seat in the front of church at the right point (and knowing what the right point is), but also aggressive enough to stop wanderers with the bags of luggage (while remaining welcome).
And, oh, knowing how to deal with people with mental illnesses.
Advice on training these folks please!