If a priest acts ‘in the person of Christ’ (in persona Christi) then what does an extraordinary minister do? Are they acting in the ‘person of the priest’ who is himself acting ‘in the person of Christ’; in other words, are they now to be viewed as acting in persona sacerdotis? And since this is the logical conclusion, I suppose we can now call these lay persons ‘alter sacerdotus’ or “other priests”; as the priest is also known to be an ‘alter Christus’ or another Christ. Therefore, a lay minister of the Eucharist is acting in the person of Christ, twice removed which is total lunacy.
All of this, of course, is preposterous. But even more preposterous is the role of an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion who is a woman; a woman who is pretending to be a priest (priestess) and carry out the ministry of the ordained priest. Talk about a confusing mess. Is there any wonder why women and men are confused about their genders, their roles in life or their limitations and their abilities? Everybody seems to think that they can be whatever that want to pretend to be and we encourage it. So no reason to shake your heads at those who want to be female priests, or those people who want to be married to their own gender or who are not even sure what gender they are. You can be whatever you want to be and people should treat you exactly like whatever you have decided that you are; though you really aren’t and it is nothing more than pretending and wishful fantasy. We are what we say we are is the new maxim.
So Eucharistic Ministers is a fabricated, non-entity, that priests and bishops even utter though the Church has expressly condemned that phrase and instructed them to be called ‘extraordinary’ for they are to be used only in the most extraordinary circumstances. And women in this role seem to be totally out of place; at least in my mind.
Here are a few examples of what has been previously taught concerning the laity receiving in the hand and the use of extraordinary ministers and such:
+++
To show that Communion in the hand was once a “universal practice”, a particular text of St. Cyril of Alexandria is habitually quoted, as to how we ought to make a throne of our hands to receive the King. What is not usually noted, though, is what any reliable patrologist could verify: THIS TEXT IS OF DUBIOUS ORIGIN. In fact, it is more likely from a Nestorian bishop. Further, we have VERIFIED texts of Leo the Great, and Gregory the great, and St. Basil, and many others, that prove the exact opposite.
– Pope St. Sixtus I (c. AD 115) “The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord.”
– Pope St. Eutychian (275-283) Forbade the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand.
– St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379) “The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution.” St. Basil considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.
– The Council of Saragossa (380) Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand. This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo.
– Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461) Energetically defended and required faithful obedience to the practice of administering Holy Communion on the tongue of the faithful.
– The Synod of Rouen (650) “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywomen, but ONLY in their mouths.” Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.
– The Sixth Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681) Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication.
– St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) “Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament.” (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)
– The Council of Trent (1545-1565) “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”
– Pope John Paul II, Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980, sec. 9 “It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another.”
The Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion
The non-ordained faithful already collaborate with the sacred ministers in diverse pastoral situations since “This wonderful gift of the Eucharist, which is the greatest gift of all, demands that such an important mystery should be increasingly better known and its saving power more fully shared”.(95)
Such liturgical service is a response to the objective needs of the faithful especially those of the sick and to those liturgical assemblies in which there are particularly large numbers of the faithful who wish to receive Holy Communion.
§ 1. The canonical discipline concerning extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion must be correctly applied so as to avoid generating confusion. The same discipline establishes that the ordinary minister of Holy Communion is the Bishop, the Priest and the Deacon.(96) Extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion are those instituted as acolytes and the faithful so deputed in accordance with Canon 230, § 3.(97)
A non-ordained member of the faithful, in cases of true necessity, may be deputed by the diocesan bishop, using the appropriate form of blessing for these situation, to act as an extraordinary minister to distribute Holy Communion outside of liturgical celebrations ad actum vel ad tempus or for a more stable period. In exceptional cases or in unforeseen circumstances, the priest presiding at the liturgy may authorize such ad actum.(98)
§ 2. Extraordinary ministers may distribute Holy Communion at eucharistic celebrations only when there are no ordained ministers present or when those ordained ministers present at a liturgical celebration are truly unable to distribute Holy Communion.(99) They may also exercise this function at eucharistic celebrations where there are particularly large numbers of the faithful and which would be excessively prolonged because of an insufficient number of ordained ministers to distribute Holy Communion. (100)
This function is supplementary and extraordinary (101) and must be exercised in accordance with the norm of law. It is thus useful for the diocesan bishop to issue particular norms concerning extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion which, in complete harmony with the universal law of the Church, should regulate the exercise of this function in his diocese. Such norms should provide, amongst other things, for matters such as the instruction in eucharistic doctrine of those chosen to be extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, the meaning of the service they provide, the rubrics to be observed, the reverence to be shown for such an august Sacrament and instruction concerning the discipline on admission to Holy Communion.
To avoid creating confusion, certain practices are to be avoided and eliminated where such have emerged in particular Churches:
— extraordinary ministers receiving Holy Communion apart from the other faithful as though concelebrants;
— association with the renewal of promises made by priests at the Chrism Mass on Holy Thursday, as well as other categories of faithful who renew religious vows or receive a mandate as extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion;
— the habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass thus arbitrarily extending the concept of “a great number of the faithful”. __ On Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of the Priest
+++
I don’t know about you but it all seems a bit silly to me and detrimental to our understanding of the Holy Eucharist and of the priesthood as well. I also feel complicit to this abuse by receiving Holy Communion from the hands of these individuals though I am sure that none of them (or few of them) understand how foolish their feigned priestly ministry appears and actually is. It is pure buffoonery and an abuse of the teachings of the Church. Where are the acolytes of old when such situations arose for ministerial help . . . all of which were men of course? This pretend ministry needs to come to an end as we are turning Mass into a not so well hidden version of a clown Mass. And this is why I will not receive Holy Communion from a lay person.
All Along the Watchtower 
I think Eucharistic ministers can be distracting. During the Agnus Dei, it’s as if they’re storming the breach, which use to have a “fence” around it. Anyway, the Cursilloites in our parish meetings seem to be of “the spirit of Vatican 2” type.
When a person mentioned their appeal toward the altar rail and kneeling, the RCIA director said, “Do you wish to put the veil in front of the alter as well?”
I was struck by his indignation toward someone who wanted to merely humble themselves before the Lord.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, the stupidity is beyond a point of discussion to discover the reasons why the Church did things differently for 2000 years before this change. My greatest fear is that when we soak in the phoniness and silliness that this kabuki theater has become, we may no longer believe in any of it. Do we still see the priest as an alter Christus and do we still believe the Eucharist to be so Holy that it is not to be touched by anything that is unconsecrated? If it is all simply play acting and make believe then what is there left to believe in? They have no idea how subtly this whole business is destroying our faith.
. . . or maybe they do and this is what they want; a Church without mystery, without holiness, without any difference between men and women, priest and laity, confessed sinners and those who are yet to ask for forgiveness for their sins. Like other faiths we are not going to believe that a priest can forgive sins anyway . . . you may as well confess in a closet or to another layman. It eats away at the beliefs that our faith was supposed to pass on to us; unaltered and unchanged.
LikeLike
Interesting enough, the Missouri Synod Lutheran does a communion line and some of their churches have rails. In fact, although they have those silly plastic cups, if one takes from the chalice, the pastor doesn’t hand it to the person, they give you a drink from it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know. I remember as a young protestant going to churches that looked more catholic and acted more reverent than what I witness today in the Catholic Church. It is a testament to the loss of faith that has been unleashed upon us.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s rather silly and alarming that these folks that are still alive Vatican 2 spirit Catholics are running out of town or silencing young priest who are attempting to celebrate the ordinary form reverently or add a little Latin when SC says it should be retained. It begs the question, are they afraid of something? What are they afraid of?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think they are afraid of their brother priests in their Deanery and more likely their bishop who is dead set against Traditional views of anything. So much for a springtime for the Church . . . these are hard times.
LikeLike
Scoop, have you received a response to your “what if everyone felt that way” letter?
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, and I am not expecting one either.
LikeLike
It is hard to know what to say, if anything, to this piece, as I am not a Catholic. But I share your outrage to the extent that these practices are a covert attempt to subvert age-old Catholic norms and to the extent that an actual clown Mass is an affront to the sanctity of the Eucharist.
As a Protestant, I believe that this verse is important for our gatherings: “O worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness: fear before him, all the earth.” Psalm 96:9. Many translations insert “His” next to holiness, making it the LORD’s holiness, rather than our own. Either way, though, holiness is to do with dedication or devotion and character.
While not identical with righteousness, there is definitely overlap judging by the way the Bible uses these terms (see the Epistle to the Hebrews). So impure motives will ruin true worship. Impure motives affect all of us (myself included) but they are particularly obvious in moves to subvert traditional Christianity across all the denominations. To the extent that a woman wants to play the part of a priest because traditional Christianity says she cannot, her motives are impure and the offering is tainted. Do all women have this motivation? I suspect not – or at least, not all the time. Are men free from impure motives? No, they are not. But this overall trend, seen, for example in Vatican II, shows a Church that is badly poisoned with the yeast of Herod. To the extent that it then seeks to enslave us all to manmade rules (think the LGBT- and eco-agendas) it is also poisoned with the leaven of the Pharisees.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The importance is not trivial to anyone for it casts a shadow of doubt over Christianity and its 2000 years of belief; from a “false” pope, to “false shepherds” to “false ministers of the Eucharist” everything in the Faith itself appears to be ‘pretend’ or kabuki theater. Who can believe it? And this is the work of Satan to confuse, abuse and doubt Truth itself which Christ. As Barnhardt recently wrote:
To love God is to love Truth. To love Truth is to love God.
Indifference to Truth is indifference to God.
Indifference to God is indifference to Truth.
And there is the foolish outcome of what they would have us believe is a ‘small’ or inconsequential thing which has now infiltrated the Mass along with so many other inconsequential things that the Church now holds or has dismissed. The City of God is under attack and have taken control of buildings and we are left to wander about in disbelief within a cloud of Satan’s smoke.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The question is whether such a perversion of Catholicism can be destroyed – or whether the true Church must go out from Babylon and leave it to its fiery death. It is not for me to advise you, but personally I do not like to give even tacit endorsement to things with which I strongly disagree, which is likely to affect how I shall vote in the political arena.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, there will be the Church (a remnant of the former) that will always survive and it will rise like the phoenix from the ashes. Sadly we live in the time of the fire, smoke and ash.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I suppose the difficulty will be in finding loyal priests to administer the sacraments if and when you go underground.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It will. Some will have to rely upon their own consciences during this perilous time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I suspect that time may be closer than many realise – when Francis signed the statement of religious compatibility in his Middle East trip, that signalled to me that the call to come out of corrupt Rome could not be far away.
LikeLiked by 1 person
He is only repeating what was not stated in public but only whispered in ears. Satan has become bold. Bergoglio crawls on his hands and knees to kiss the feet of the Communist leader of North Sudan but cannot genuflect before the Eucharist at Mass nor kneel before Christ on the altar during Benediction and exposition. How long O Lord, how long!
LikeLiked by 1 person
It seems to me that Catholicism, like other forms of Christianity, contains a number of groups, which explains (in part) the difficulties it currently faces. The traditionalist Catholics want Catholicism to be what it is supposed to be. The Protestant Catholics want Catholicism to adhere to the core of Christianity, while holding to the flexibility taught by some forms of Protestantism and certain other Protestant doctrines. The non-Christians (false prophets / wolves in sheep’s clothing) want Catholicism to serve their purposes. This kind of tension cannot endure the current crisis and needs must be resolved sooner or later by some form of actual schism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No doubt the schism already exists but is undeclared; the same is true in our national politics . . . some are adherents and believers in national sovereignty, some wish to bend certain rules only up to a point and still others would like to throw the past in the dumpster and replace it with a new ideology of the day. The last two categories destroy the first which is the legitimate sovereign.
LikeLiked by 1 person
yes, you cannot put god in the hand. you have to have a valid costume put it in your moutrh. you have to be on the left knee with you right arm in the air. you have to do this and you cant do that because if you do that you cant do this.
Haaahahahahahahahah. ive seen wacky religions befor, but this mary religion takes the cake. hands freakin down. Ahhhhhhahahahahahahah
LikeLike