Category: Liturgy

READER A writes:

The question is : as today, many thinks that we baptise babies too
easily (whereas parents life is completly out of the Church despite
their baptism), can’t we say we mary people in the Church too easily?

One can certainly argue this. I suspect it varies considrably from country to country as to what the rate of imprudent Chuch weddings is. However, couples have a right to Christian marriage as long as they fulfill the basic requirements, so we can’t simply leave the matter to the discretion of church staffers to impose all kinds of touchie-feelie requirements on the couple. They can be told what the Church teaches, asked to agree to at least this much, and encouraged to think through the prudence of a marriage in their individual case, but ultimately the faithful have a right to marry that cannot be unduly burdened, particularly by the whims of parish officials.

READER B writes:

Been there, done that, was issued the certificate…now I have to
decide whether to frame it as a reminder to remain celibate and single.

One linguistic quibble: "Celibate" and "single" mean the same thing. "Celibate" means "unmarried."  The state of not having conjugal relations is "continent" rather than "celibate" (continence being morally required of all who are celibate = unmarried).

READER C writes:

I wonder if priests get questions like, "My friend and I exchanged
vows when we were in kindergarten. Do I need an annulment?" 🙂

Actually, they do get questions like this. However, people in such a situation don’t need an annulment. Such "ceremonies" aren’t recognized by anybody as constituting a valid marriage. Children of this age do not understand what marriage is and are incapable of committing to it. For a ceremony to require investigation and annulment, it must have some pretense (in someone’s eyes) of having been valid.

READER D writes:

Help me out on a word play. Is it correct to say a marriage was
determined "invalid"? Or does the word "invalid" imply validity
orginally existed but now does not?

"Invalid" means "was never valid/did not come into existence/never existed."

READER E writes:

If a Catholic and a Baptist get married in a Baptist ceremony w/o
dispensation, they lack form and thus the marriage is canonically
invalid; but, had they married in a Catholic ceremony (or w/
dispensation), it would be valid?

Correct.

READER F writes:

But if the ministers of the sacrament are the man and woman, and not
the priest (at least in the Roman Rite), isn’t it possible to have
valid (though illict) marriages that occur outside the Catholic Church,
assuming both parties are baptized, and have the intent of a permanent,
exclusive, and fruitful union which they express in vows? I’m just
curious – but I don’t see, given the requirements for the sacrament,
how not being in a specifically Catholic Church would automatically
invalidate it.

The requirement for Catholics to observe the Catholic form of marriage (i.e., to "get married in the Church") does not arise from the nature of the sacrament itself. The sacrament can and is validly celebrated in non-Catholic services (e.g., by two Baptists getting married in a Baptist church or, for that matter, in front of a justice of the peace or a ship captain). The requirement to observe form is a positive law requirement that used to not be there. Originally, canon law did not require it, but in recent times, as society has changed, the Church has seen fit to introduce it for pastoral reasons. As society continues to change, the Church might see fit to abolish this requirement at some point in the future (and the reinstitute it again later, if needed).

READER F continues:

Are Protestant to Protestant marriages valid in the eyes of the Church?

And, what are the essential elements that constitute the requisite "form"?

Yes to the first question. As to the second, SEE HERE.

READER G writes:

If someone gets married with all the conditions present to make
theirs a valid marriage, but thinks during the ceremony that she will
leave (but not divorce) her husband if he cheats on her, will the
marriage be valid?

(I know there is a requirement that the spouses intend to stay together forever or else it’s not valid)

This marriage will be presumed valid. While there is an obligation to maintain domestic and conjugal life under ordinary circumstances, this obligation is overriden in grave situations, such as when one partner is unfaithful to the other. In such a circumstance, the offended party is within his or her rights to suspend domestic and/or conjugal life, even permanently. It may even be prudent in such situations to obtain a civil divorce (which has no bearing on Church law but may be useful for asset protection, child custody rights, etc.).

What is not entailed in this, however, is the right to remarry someone else. For that to happen, one needs an annulment proving that the first marriage was invalid so one is free to marry.

READER H writes:

Barb and Joe, both baptized Catholics, marry in a Catholic ceremony.
They get a divorce. Barb remarries Fred (both baptized Catholic) before
a jp court, and then divorces. Barb then wants to marry Jebediah, a
Jewish guy, in a civil ceremony.

For Barb’s marriage to Jeb to be recognized by the RCC (thus
allowing her to receive communion), she needs (aside from a little bit
of good spiritual counselling, it would seem):

1) to go to confession (as we all do) TECHNICALLY, NO. WHILE BY ENTERING INTO AN INVALID MARRIAGE WITH FRED, BARB HAS DONE SOMETHING OBJECTIVELY SINFUL, THE STATE OF GRACE IS NOT NECESSARY FOR A SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE TO BE VALID. IT IS REQUIRED FOR IT TO BE LICIT (LAWFUL), BUT NOT VALID. LOADS OF FOLKS ENTER VALID MARRIAGES IN A STATE OF MORTAL SIN.

2) an annulment from Joe (assuming it could be obtained); CORRECT.

3) an annulment from Fred, as the second marriage would not be
recognized (simply to show it was not recognized, and should be more
readily obtainable than #2); and CORRECT.

4) a dispensation from her bishop(?) to marry Jeb (different cult). CORRECT, BUT HOW MANY JEWISH GUYS ARE NAMED "JEB" THESE DAYS? THAT’S MORE A CHRISTIAN NAME TODAY.

READER I writes:

Note that a Catholic couple, or the Catholic in a mixed marriage, can apply for a dispensation after the wedding — even years after.  I believe this is called convalidation.

Yes, but it’s not quite that simple. If a Catholic failed to observe the Catholic form of marriage then technically what is done is to apply for an annulment and then have the marriage convalidated, typically by a renewal of vows in a simple marriage ceremony in front of a priest (though other arrangements are possible if one of the spouses objects to this). A dispensation from form is only typically needed in the latter case if a non-Catholic is involved. If two Catholics are involved then they simply have their marriage convalidated in front of a priest.

READER J writes:

If there are children involved, just getting an annulment and getting
married may not be fair or just to the children. Her best and most
loving course of action would be to regularize her marriage with the
father of her children. She also may not be capable of a sacramental
marriage and that should be investigated before any steps are taken.

While convalidating the marriage with the children’s father may be the best thing for the children, it also may not be. Some fathers (like some mothers) are more destructive influences than constructive and it may be better to marry someone else or stay single. That being said, the presumption would be for the children’s parents to be married to each other.

The only ways for a person not to be capable of a sacramental marriage (in general) are if the person is (a) unbaptized or (b) incapable of marriage. The former here is precluded by the fact the original correspondent is Catholic and if (b) is the case then she shouldn’t be trying to marry anyone. That, however, complicates the question beyond what the correspondent asked about.

READER J writes:

doesn’t this principle [requiring Catholics to observe form] essentially say that the Church (or any church)
can arbitrarily change what constitutes a valid sacrament based on
discipline? Suppose the Baptists make up a rule that Baptists can’t
marry Methodists, and a Baptist and a Methodist marry and later become
Catholic. They were not following the correct form for their state at
the time. Are they married now or not?

The difference is that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ and so has the power to bind and loose. Unlike other Churches (which may regard themselves as having this power), the Catholic Church genuinely does have the authority to, for pastoral reasons, establish impediments to the celebration of the sacraments.

READER J continues:

So the Church can add requirements as to what constitutes a valid
sacrament? I know that disciplinary changes can change licety, but
validity? And if they do, how are they not dogmatic if they have a
supernatural effect? YES.

This sound like a real theological mess just waiting to happen. MAYBE. What
is to stop someone from arguing that the Church can just as easily
retract requirements for validity (like, say, masculinity in the case
of holy orders)? THERE ARE LIMITS TO WHAT THE CHURCH CAN DO. IT CAN ESTABLISH AN IMPEDIMENT TO THE CELEBRATION OF A SACRAMENT (LIKE OBSERVING PROPER FORM), AND IT CAN REGULATE VARIABLE DIVINE REQUIREMENTS (LIKE WHETHER OR NOT YEAST CAN BE MIXED WITH THE WHEAT TO MAKE ALTAR BREAD), BUT IT CANNOT ABROGATE A FUNDAMENTAL DIVINE REQUIREMENT (LIKE MARRIAGE BEING BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN OR THE EUCHARIST REQUIRING WHEAT BREAD AND GRAPE WINE). THE LAST ARE MATTERS OF DIVINE LAW THAT ECCLESIASTICAL LAW CANNOT CHANGE.

And if the argument is that Catholics marrying in violation of
church disciplines are not married simply because they are being bad,
disobedient Catholics, does this contradict the doctrine that the
worthines of the minister does not affect the validity of the
sacraments? NO, BECAUSE THEY ARE PREVENTED FROM GETTING MARRIED BECAUSE THEY ARE BAD OR DISOBEDIENT. THEY ARE PREVENTED FROM GETTING MARRIED BECAUSE THERE IS AN IMPEDIMENT ESTABLISHED IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.

I hope the host addresses this in a little more depth in another
post. I’m afraid that this one is old enough that it will soon be
forgotten, and I really want to understand this.

Hope this helps!

READER A writes:

The question is : as today, many thinks that we baptise babies too

easily (whereas parents life is completly out of the Church despite

their baptism), can’t we say we mary people in the Church too easily?

One can certainly argue this. I suspect it varies considrably from country to country as to what the rate of imprudent Chuch weddings is. However, couples have a right to Christian marriage as long as they fulfill the basic requirements, so we can’t simply leave the matter to the discretion of church staffers to impose all kinds of touchie-feelie requirements on the couple. They can be told what the Church teaches, asked to agree to at least this much, and encouraged to think through the prudence of a marriage in their individual case, but ultimately the faithful have a right to marry that cannot be unduly burdened, particularly by the whims of parish officials.

READER B writes:

Been there, done that, was issued the certificate…now I have to

decide whether to frame it as a reminder to remain celibate and single.

One linguistic quibble: "Celibate" and "single" mean the same thing. "Celibate" means "unmarried."  The state of not having conjugal relations is "continent" rather than "celibate" (continence being morally required of all who are celibate = unmarried).

READER C writes:

I wonder if priests get questions like, "My friend and I exchanged

vows when we were in kindergarten. Do I need an annulment?" 🙂

Actually, they do get questions like this. However, people in such a situation don’t need an annulment. Such "ceremonies" aren’t recognized by anybody as constituting a valid marriage. Children of this age do not understand what marriage is and are incapable of committing to it. For a ceremony to require investigation and annulment, it must have some pretense (in someone’s eyes) of having been valid.

READER D writes:

Help me out on a word play. Is it correct to say a marriage was

determined "invalid"? Or does the word "invalid" imply validity

orginally existed but now does not?

"Invalid" means "was never valid/did not come into existence/never existed."

READER E writes:

If a Catholic and a Baptist get married in a Baptist ceremony w/o

dispensation, they lack form and thus the marriage is canonically

invalid; but, had they married in a Catholic ceremony (or w/

dispensation), it would be valid?

Correct.

READER F writes:

But if the ministers of the sacrament are the man and woman, and not

the priest (at least in the Roman Rite), isn’t it possible to have

valid (though illict) marriages that occur outside the Catholic Church,

assuming both parties are baptized, and have the intent of a permanent,

exclusive, and fruitful union which they express in vows? I’m just

curious – but I don’t see, given the requirements for the sacrament,

how not being in a specifically Catholic Church would automatically

invalidate it.

The requirement for Catholics to observe the Catholic form of marriage (i.e., to "get married in the Church") does not arise from the nature of the sacrament itself. The sacrament can and is validly celebrated in non-Catholic services (e.g., by two Baptists getting married in a Baptist church or, for that matter, in front of a justice of the peace or a ship captain). The requirement to observe form is a positive law requirement that used to not be there. Originally, canon law did not require it, but in recent times, as society has changed, the Church has seen fit to introduce it for pastoral reasons. As society continues to change, the Church might see fit to abolish this requirement at some point in the future (and the reinstitute it again later, if needed).

READER F continues:

Are Protestant to Protestant marriages valid in the eyes of the Church?

And, what are the essential elements that constitute the requisite "form"?

Yes to the first question. As to the second, SEE HERE.

READER G writes:

If someone gets married with all the conditions present to make

theirs a valid marriage, but thinks during the ceremony that she will

leave (but not divorce) her husband if he cheats on her, will the

marriage be valid?

(I know there is a requirement that the spouses intend to stay together forever or else it’s not valid)

This marriage will be presumed valid. While there is an obligation to maintain domestic and conjugal life under ordinary circumstances, this obligation is overriden in grave situations, such as when one partner is unfaithful to the other. In such a circumstance, the offended party is within his or her rights to suspend domestic and/or conjugal life, even permanently. It may even be prudent in such situations to obtain a civil divorce (which has no bearing on Church law but may be useful for asset protection, child custody rights, etc.).

What is not entailed in this, however, is the right to remarry someone else. For that to happen, one needs an annulment proving that the first marriage was invalid so one is free to marry.

READER H writes:

Barb and Joe, both baptized Catholics, marry in a Catholic ceremony.

They get a divorce. Barb remarries Fred (both baptized Catholic) before

a jp court, and then divorces. Barb then wants to marry Jebediah, a

Jewish guy, in a civil ceremony.

For Barb’s marriage to Jeb to be recognized by the RCC (thus

allowing her to receive communion), she needs (aside from a little bit

of good spiritual counselling, it would seem):

1) to go to confession (as we all do) TECHNICALLY, NO. WHILE BY ENTERING INTO AN INVALID MARRIAGE WITH FRED, BARB HAS DONE SOMETHING OBJECTIVELY SINFUL, THE STATE OF GRACE IS NOT NECESSARY FOR A SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE TO BE VALID. IT IS REQUIRED FOR IT TO BE LICIT (LAWFUL), BUT NOT VALID. LOADS OF FOLKS ENTER VALID MARRIAGES IN A STATE OF MORTAL SIN.

2) an annulment from Joe (assuming it could be obtained); CORRECT.

3) an annulment from Fred, as the second marriage would not be

recognized (simply to show it was not recognized, and should be more

readily obtainable than #2); and CORRECT.

4) a dispensation from her bishop(?) to marry Jeb (different cult). CORRECT, BUT HOW MANY JEWISH GUYS ARE NAMED "JEB" THESE DAYS? THAT’S MORE A CHRISTIAN NAME TODAY.

READER I writes:

Note that a Catholic couple, or the Catholic in a mixed marriage, can apply for a dispensation after the wedding — even years after.  I believe this is called convalidation.

Yes, but it’s not quite that simple. If a Catholic failed to observe the Catholic form of marriage then technically what is done is to apply for an annulment and then have the marriage convalidated, typically by a renewal of vows in a simple marriage ceremony in front of a priest (though other arrangements are possible if one of the spouses objects to this). A dispensation from form is only typically needed in the latter case if a non-Catholic is involved. If two Catholics are involved then they simply have their marriage convalidated in front of a priest.

READER J writes:

If there are children involved, just getting an annulment and getting

married may not be fair or just to the children. Her best and most

loving course of action would be to regularize her marriage with the

father of her children. She also may not be capable of a sacramental

marriage and that should be investigated before any steps are taken.

While convalidating the marriage with the children’s father may be the best thing for the children, it also may not be. Some fathers (like some mothers) are more destructive influences than constructive and it may be better to marry someone else or stay single. That being said, the presumption would be for the children’s parents to be married to each other.

The only ways for a person not to be capable of a sacramental marriage (in general) are if the person is (a) unbaptized or (b) incapable of marriage. The former here is precluded by the fact the original correspondent is Catholic and if (b) is the case then she shouldn’t be trying to marry anyone. That, however, complicates the question beyond what the correspondent asked about.

READER J writes:

doesn’t this principle [requiring Catholics to observe form] essentially say that the Church (or any church)

can arbitrarily change what constitutes a valid sacrament based on

discipline? Suppose the Baptists make up a rule that Baptists can’t

marry Methodists, and a Baptist and a Methodist marry and later become

Catholic. They were not following the correct form for their state at

the time. Are they married now or not?

The difference is that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ and so has the power to bind and loose. Unlike other Churches (which may regard themselves as having this power), the Catholic Church genuinely does have the authority to, for pastoral reasons, establish impediments to the celebration of the sacraments.

READER J continues:

So the Church can add requirements as to what constitutes a valid

sacrament? I know that disciplinary changes can change licety, but

validity? And if they do, how are they not dogmatic if they have a

supernatural effect? YES.

This sound like a real theological mess just waiting to happen. MAYBE. What

is to stop someone from arguing that the Church can just as easily

retract requirements for validity (like, say, masculinity in the case

of holy orders)? THERE ARE LIMITS TO WHAT THE CHURCH CAN DO. IT CAN ESTABLISH AN IMPEDIMENT TO THE CELEBRATION OF A SACRAMENT (LIKE OBSERVING PROPER FORM), AND IT CAN REGULATE VARIABLE DIVINE REQUIREMENTS (LIKE WHETHER OR NOT YEAST CAN BE MIXED WITH THE WHEAT TO MAKE ALTAR BREAD), BUT IT CANNOT ABROGATE A FUNDAMENTAL DIVINE REQUIREMENT (LIKE MARRIAGE BEING BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN OR THE EUCHARIST REQUIRING WHEAT BREAD AND GRAPE WINE). THE LAST ARE MATTERS OF DIVINE LAW THAT ECCLESIASTICAL LAW CANNOT CHANGE.

And if the argument is that Catholics marrying in violation of

church disciplines are not married simply because they are being bad,

disobedient Catholics, does this contradict the doctrine that the

worthines of the minister does not affect the validity of the

sacraments? NO, BECAUSE THEY ARE PREVENTED FROM GETTING MARRIED BECAUSE THEY ARE BAD OR DISOBEDIENT. THEY ARE PREVENTED FROM GETTING MARRIED BECAUSE THERE IS AN IMPEDIMENT ESTABLISHED IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.

I hope the host addresses this in a little more depth in another

post. I’m afraid that this one is old enough that it will soon be

forgotten, and I really want to understand this.

Hope this helps!

A reader writes:

Jimmy,

How could anyone catch a cold or the flu from the blood of Christ.

I have never had any fear of getting sick from the Precious Blood of Jesus.

You need not have any fear of getting sick from the Precious Blood. However, you do have reason to be feaful  of getting sick from the germs deposited on the chalices/fingers/etc. of those distributing Holy Communion.

The sacred species are not a threat, but any germs attached to them are threats.

A reader writes:

Jimmy,

How could anyone catch a cold or the flu from the blood of Christ.

I have never had any fear of getting sick from the Precious Blood of Jesus.

You need not have any fear of getting sick from the Precious Blood. However, you do have reason to be feaful  of getting sick from the germs deposited on the chalices/fingers/etc. of those distributing Holy Communion.

The sacred species are not a threat, but any germs attached to them are threats.

There’s something that the Church desperately needs you to do for it . . .

STAY HOME!!!

Having a contagious disease is a valid excuse for missing Mass.

Indeed, there seems to be something of a moral obligation not to infect other people so that they will suffer as you have been.

If you insist on showing up then be considerate of others by sitting at the front instead of the back so you won’t be coughing germs all over the people in front of you. (Preferably sit off to one side so you won’t be coughing directly at the priest.)

Also, when you do cough,  remember your mother’s instructions and cover your mouth.

And kindly content yourselves with receiving the fullness of our Lord’s Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity under the appearances of bread.

All this applies to sick kids, too. If your kids are sick, leave ’em at home. If you don’t have anyone to leave ’em with, stay with ’em. The care of children is also a valid reason to miss Mass.

Thanks much!

(Sorry. Needed to get that out of my system.)

There’s something that the Church desperately needs you to do for it . . .

STAY HOME!!!

Having a contagious disease is a valid excuse for missing Mass.

Indeed, there seems to be something of a moral obligation not to infect other people so that they will suffer as you have been.

If you insist on showing up then be considerate of others by sitting at the front instead of the back so you won’t be coughing germs all over the people in front of you. (Preferably sit off to one side so you won’t be coughing directly at the priest.)

Also, when you do cough,  remember your mother’s instructions and cover your mouth.

And kindly content yourselves with receiving the fullness of our Lord’s Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity under the appearances of bread.

All this applies to sick kids, too. If your kids are sick, leave ’em at home. If you don’t have anyone to leave ’em with, stay with ’em. The care of children is also a valid reason to miss Mass.

Thanks much!

(Sorry. Needed to get that out of my system.)

In fact, it’s the solemnity of the Immaculate Conception.

So make your plans to go to Mass.

DOCUMENTATION HERE.

In fact, it’s the solemnity of the Immaculate Conception.

So make your plans to go to Mass.

DOCUMENTATION HERE.

Today I was talking with one of the Catholic Answers apologists about a sacramental situation in a particular parish where a priest is performing a bizarre form of penance service. The apologist wanted to know if the absolutions the priest was performing on the laity were valid.

After carefully reviewing the facts of the case, I told the apologist that, although there was a manifest grave violation of Church law, the absolutions were nevertheless probably valid.

Elaborating, I went on to pose an analogy that I sometimes use. You know how kids have a tendency to break toys, especially boys? That’s why Tonka Trucks as made as tough as they are. They’re very hard for children to break accidentally, even when subjected to rough play. Something like that is the case with adults, too. God knows that if humans can foul something up, they will, and so in entrusting the sacraments to us as means of our salvation, he made the requirements for their valid celebration rather minimal.

Because of the importance of the sacraments, people often worry unnecessarily about whether minor defects in the celebration of the rites render them invalid, but the truth is that God made the sacraments hard to break. It takes something absolutely horrendous to truly invalidate a sacrament.

That’s not to say it can’t be done.

THIS PARISH IN AUSTRALIA HAS BEEN PERFORMING INVALID BAPTISM FOR YEARS.

Hundreds of them.

They’ve been baptizing people in the name of "the Creator, the Liberator, and the Sustainer," and that’s not a valid formula for baptism.

It is especially disastrous sacrament to get wrong, because baptism is the gateway to the remaining sacraments.

The criminal priests who were pastorally irresponsible enough to do a thing such as this, which is so abominable that it goes beyond the ability of polite language to adequately characterize, have created an enormous mess and deserve to be slapped with the most severe sanctions that canon law can provide. In fact, if I were one of the involved parties I would be inclined to slap them with more than ecclesiastical sanctions.

I would be inclined to slap them–repeatedly–with my hands and fists.

Moneychangers of this sort need to be driven from the Temple with whips. The desecration they have wrought on the sacraments and on hundreds of individuals is beyond belief.

CANONIST ED PETERS GIVES AN ANALYSIS OF JUST HOW HUGE A MESS THESE EXECRABLE VIPERS HAVE CREATED.

What amazes me is how the problem could go uncorrected for so long. It is hard to imagine that the Australian faithful are so abominably catechized that in all the years the desecration has been going on nobody would recognize such a grossly defective baptismal formula as problematic and report it.

No matter how bad things have been down there since Vatican II, I assume that at least some of the Australian faithful are old enough that they were learned on whatever their nation’s equivalent of the Baltimore Catechism was (perhaps the Penny Catechism) and thus knew enough to spot the problem at their grandchildren’s baptisms.

It seems that there are four options:

1) Australian Catholics really are such total ignoramuses that that nobody spotted the problem (and I don’t buy that for a second),

2) Australians Catholics are evil and like it when they knowingly witnessing sacrilege (that’s also a dog that won’t hunt),

3) Australian Catholics are so uncommonly pusillanimous that none of them had the chutzpah to report the problem (and I don’t buy that either, what with Australians being descended from folks courageous enough that they refused to stay within the bounds of the law), or

4) Some Australian Catholics did spot the problem and did disapprove of it and did report it and someone in a position of authority (possibly several someones) turned a deaf ear to their pleas.

My money is on option #4.

If that one’s the case, that person or those persons need to be outed for the pastoral good of the community and also slapped with severe ecclesiastical sanctions as willing co-conspirators covering up the canonical crimes of the abominable Judases who desecrated the sacrament of baptism hundreds of times and thus led to the other sacraments being desecrated thousands of times.

(There! And I managed to get through all that without using the word "b*st*rds.")

A reader writes:

I am trying to find the answers about having a Eucharistic service without a priest. Our local parish provides Eucharistic Adoration but lay people bring out the host and set it up in the Monstrance. Then they knee and go through the songs and prayers as if it were a Benediction. Then, they sit and pray. 12+ hours later the same is repeated to put the Eucharist back into the tabernacle for evenings when the church closes.

The second situation is for a lay person to take the large Eucharist (with priest permission again) from Mass to another church for a lay Adoration for the day during a silent retreat. Again the entire Benediction prayers are said at the beginning and again at the end of the afternoon.

I am very uncomfortable with this process as it seems that the lay ministers are going beyond the role of Eucharistic Minister. Isn’t that supposed to be Extraordinary Minister?

It doesn’t sound to me like there is an intrinsic problem here based on what you’ve said. I’ll explain why, but first a clarification: The practices you are describing are better described as Eucharistic exposition rather than only adoration. Adoration is something that individuals can do even if the Eucharist is reposed in the Tabernacle. It is simply the act of adoring Christ in the Eucharist. When the Eucharist is exposed for the adoration of the faithful (what you are talking about), it is Eucharistic exposition, and it is Eucharistic benediction when the priest or deacon blesses the people by making the sign of the Cross over them with the Eucharist.

Also, the term “Eucharistic Minister” without qualification does not exist in the Church’s documents. Lay persons distributing or exposing the Eucharist are always acting in an extraordinary capacity, though they may or may not be formally installed as extraordinary ministers.

Terminology quibbles aside, here is what the rite of Eucharistic Worship Outside Mass says about who can perform Eucharistic exposition:

The ordinary minister for exposition of the Eucharist is a priest or deacon. At the end of the period of adoration, before the reposition, he blesses the congregation with the sacrament.

In the absence of a priest or deacon or if they are lawfully impeded, an acolyte, another extraordinary minister of Communion, or another person appointed by the local Ordinary may publicly expose and later repose the Eucharist for the adoration of the faithful.

Such ministers may open the Tabernacle and also, as required, place the ciborium on the altar or place the host in the monstrance. At the end of the period of adoration, they replace the blessed Sacrament in the Tabernacle. It is not lawful, however, for them to give the blessing with the sacrament [no. 91].

I would assume that the people who are doing this in your parish, even if they are not extraordinary ministers, have been appointed to do this by one of the local ordinaries (each diocese usually has several) unless you have reason to think otherwise.

As the text indicates, such individuals are authorized to do everything provided in the rite of exposition aside from giving the blessing (benediction). Turning to the rite itself, one finds that in the section on adoration (preceding benediction), the rite provides:

During the exposition there should be prayers, songs, and readings to direct the attention of the faithful to the worship of Christ the Lord.

To encourage a prayerful spirit, there should be readings from Scripture with a homily or brief exhortations to develop a better understanding of the Eucharistic mystery. It is also desirable for the people to respond to the word of God by singing and to spend some periods of time in religious silence [no. 95].

It doesn’t sound to me that your parish is doing any activities during exposition that are prohibited, and by not having lay faithful perform benediction, they are thus in compliance with the law.

The only issue raised that goes beyond what is in the text of the rite is the transportation of a Host from one place to another for purposes of adoration. The relevant law on this point is found not in the rite of exposition but in the Code of Canon Law, which provides:

Canon 935

No one is permitted to keep the Eucharist on one’s person or to carry it around, unless pastoral necessity urges it and the prescripts of the diocesan bishop are observed.

If, therefore, the diocesan bishop has authorized the transportation of the Eucharist in the case you describe, it is permitted, the diocesan bishop being the arbiter of whether pastoral necessity urges its transportation in this case.