How extraordinary is extraordinary? And, how much can be reasonable considered to be enough? We ask these questions in the light of recent Vatican restrictions on the role of extraordinary Eucharistic ministers in the United States. The Vatican, some years back, had allowed US bishops to let these ministers assist with the purification of chalices after Holy Communion. Now the Vatican has instructed the Catholic bishops of the US to discontinue this practice.

In a letter to Bishop William Skylstad, president of the US bishops' conference, an October 12, the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship reported that Pope Benedict XVI ordered an end to the American practice. Cardinal Francis Arinze was responding to a request from the US bishops' conference, asking for approval to continue the policy.

Bishop Skylstad, in turn, wrote to all American bishops on October 23, informing them that "it will be necessary to inform all pastors that extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may no longer assist with the purification of sacred vessels at Mass."

The American bishops had obtained permission to allow extraordinary ministers to assist in that role to encourage more people to receive Communion under both kinds.

Bishop Skylstad, in conveying news of the Vatican decision to the American hierarchy, reminded his fellow bishops that the use of extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist is intended "exclusively for those instances where there are not enough ordinary ministers to distribute Holy Communion."

In Malta, as far as we know, the practice of layman helping in the purification of the chalices was practiced by Neo-Catechumenal communities. It was not a general practice in parishes. Our question is: if the US bishops felt that the continuation of the practice made good pastoral sense in their myriad dioceses why did not the Vatican grant that request? Are not the US bishops mature enough to take such a minor practical decision about the liturgy? Is such a decision a sign of things to come, i.e. more centralisation even of secondary, not to say minor, details?

What is the exact implication of the statement that extraordinary ministers should give their service only where there are not enough ordinary ministers to distribute Communion? What should be considered to be enough?

The practice that developed in Malta during the last years is that extraordinary ministers distribute Communion almost ordinarily. We grant that this is not exactly according to the rubrics, but is such a practice wrong? Congregations have grown accustomed to this practice and accept it. Sick people today can receive communion more frequently than ever before thanks to lay people distributing communion.

Shouldn't the Vatican, in such questions as the actual role of extraordinarily ministers, let the local churches decide on how extraordinary is extraordinary and how much is enough? After Vatican II we rediscovered the beauty of the contribution that the local churches can give to the universal Church. One hopes that the trend will continue to be in the direction of the enhancement of the autonomy of the local church.