The proliferation of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion (which is the proper name for them btw, not "Eucharistic ministers") probably has generated more confusion and questions than any other Mass-related issue I've encountered in recent decades.

I devoted a chapter of my 2004 book Faith Facts II: Answers to Catholic Questions, entitled "A Matter of Distribution" to this controversial topic, and surely the discussion found there is just as vaiid now as it was when the book was published.

Later in 2004, the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, the administrative body that oversees the sacred liturgy around the world, issued an instruction entitled Redemptionis Sacramentum ("Sacrament of Redemption") on certain matters to be observed or avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist. In layman's terms, this document was meant to end a lot of the problematic practices that had found their way into the celebrations of the Mass in some places, including here in the United States. (Some might say, especially here in the United States.)

Redemptionis Sacramentum provides a clear, authoritative instruction concerning the use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion in nos. 154-60. I can do no better than to provide that section here: 

1. The Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion

[154.] As has already been recalled, “the only minister who can confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist in persona Christi is a validly ordained Priest”. Hence the name “minister of the Eucharist” belongs properly to the Priest alone. Moreover, also by reason of their sacred Ordination, the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are the Bishop, the Priest and the Deacon, to whom it belongs therefore to administer Holy Communion to the lay members of Christ’s faithful during the celebration of Mass. In this way their ministerial office in the Church is fully and accurately brought to light, and the sign value of the Sacrament is made complete.

[155.] In addition to the ordinary ministers there is the formally instituted acolyte, who by virtue of his institution is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion even outside the celebration of Mass. If, moreover, reasons of real necessity prompt it, another lay member of Christ’s faithful may also be delegated by the diocesan Bishop, in accordance with the norm of law, for one occasion or for a specified time, and an appropriate formula of blessing may be used for the occasion. This act of appointment, however, does not necessarily take a liturgical form, nor, if it does take a liturgical form, should it resemble sacred Ordination in any way. Finally, in special cases of an unforeseen nature, permission can be given for a single occasion by the Priest who presides at the celebration of the Eucharist.

[156.] This function is to be understood strictly according to the name by which it is known, that is to say, that of extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, and not “special minister of Holy Communion” nor “extraordinary minister of the Eucharist” nor “special minister of the Eucharist”, by which names the meaning of this function is unnecessarily and improperly broadened.

[157.] If there is usually present a sufficient number of sacred ministers for the distribution of Holy Communion, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not be appointed. Indeed, in such circumstances, those who may have already been appointed to this ministry should not exercise it. The practice of those Priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distributing Communion and hand this function over to laypersons.

[158.] Indeed, the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may administer Communion only when the Priest and Deacon are lacking, when the Priest is prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged. This, however, is to be understood in such a way that a brief prolongation, considering the circumstances and culture of the place, is not at all a sufficient reason.

[159.] It is never allowed for the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion to delegate anyone else to administer the Eucharist, as for example a parent or spouse or child of the sick person who is the communicant.

[160.] Let the diocesan Bishop give renewed consideration to the practice in recent years regarding this matter, and if circumstances call for it, let him correct it or define it more precisely. Where such extraordinary ministers are appointed in a widespread manner out of true necessity, the diocesan Bishop should issue special norms by which he determines the manner in which this function is to be carried out in accordance with the law, bearing in mind the tradition of the Church. (Footnotes omitted.)

Further guidance may be found in this document of the U.S. Bishops' liturgy office, especially nos. 24, 28, which received formal Vatican approval shortly before the publication .

Clearly the practice and even more the mindset in certain parishes and dioceses is still not completely in step with Vatican directives or even with the U.S. Bishops as a whole. In the coming weeks we'll post some entries on how we as lay people can and should virtuously respond to aberrant liturgical practices. But for now, as I mentioned at the beginning of this mini-series, I think we need to redouble our efforts to resist the temptation to become the liturgical police or liturgical critics, and keep our focus on Our Eucharistic Lord, the source of our peace.