Blessings by Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist

[Katholikos]

debi:

I am an EME and unless and untill all the bishops and priests get on the same page I will continue to lay my hand upon anyone who comes up to the receive a “blessing” and say “May God be with you” as our priest has asked of us.
. . .
PS most people in this area think I am severly orthodox :yup: .

Debi, your priest should announce the rules before Mass begins –
who can receive Communion, and who cannot. And he should instruct those not receiving to stay in their pew and make a spiritual communion. You and other EMHCs should not have to deal with this problem. And it is a problem! You CANNOT bless anyone while you are represting the Church – you are not ordained. Nor should you give the impression that you have the power and authority of the ordained by any gestures that you make.

Bless your kids, family members, friends, the sky, the stars, your car, bless all you please OUTSIDE THE HOLY MASS. But you should not lay hands on anyone during the Mass while representing the Church, and your priest is wrong for instructing you do so do.

NOTHING SHOULD BE DONE AT THE MASS THAT IS NOT EXPRESSLY DIRECTED BY THE GIRM. SILENCE IS NOT PERMISSION!

Would you bless rosaries or other religious articles? I hope not!

These are not “small rules.” Every gesture, posture, movement, word of the Mass has meaning and teaches truth. When the rubrics are changed (i.e., when the directives of Rome are not followed), you change what the Church wishes to teach through the Mass. Lex orandi, Lex credendi.

It’s not the priest’s Mass. It’s not your Mass. The Mass belongs to the Universal Church, and she alone sets the rules for its celebration. If you don’t wish to follow Rome’s rules, you should not be on the altar. You shouldn’t be there anyway except in EXTRAORDINARY circumstances. An ordinary Sunday Mass is hardly “extraordinary.”

There are priests in this diocese who are very loyal to the Magisterium and to the Holy Father in matters of doctrine and morals. But when it comes to the Church’s liturgy, for which they were ordained as priests, their attitude is “I’ll do it my way.” That’s not the Church’s definition of orthodox – nor mine.

"Therefore no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority." Vatican II Sacrosanctum Concilium, 4 December 1963

**2004 – 41 years and counting . . . waiting for compliance with the laws of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church . . . **

 

[Katholikos]

Deacon2006:

When we look back to our roots in the first century even the hardest hearted historian will conclude there is substantial evidence that the lay would assist with the distribution of communion and that they would bless each other at eucharistic gatherings. The evidence is also clear that the lay never lost sight of the very central role reserved for the ordained and the blessings they conferred on behalf of the whole church.

It’s irrelevant to the instant issue, since the Documents of Vatican II, GIRM, Redemptionis Sacramentum, and others now call on us to comply with their provisions.

But I’d like to see these documents as a matter of historical interest. Could you give your sources, please?

Thanks, Jay

 

[Katholikos]

Melman:

But you do present the standard misleading TLM propaganda, and the TLM mantra (drama… ballet… most beautiful thing this side of heaven… blah, blah, blah). And it’s injected from out of nowhere into a completely unrelated thread, for no apparent reason.

Most of your “there are no” 's do NOT occur at most N.O. masses either, and most of your “there are” 's DO occur at most N.O. masses. In fact most N.O. masses also have “a sense of true WORSHIP of the transcendent God; and there is REVERENCE”. But that’s not what your post was about, was it - it was the standard TLM informercial.

TLM advocates demand respect for their preference, but never seem to offer it in return. Legitimate options in the NO are not abuses just because they’re not in the TLM.

And now, back to the thread.

You misunderstand me. I’m not a TLM advocate. I have attended the TLM exactly four times. It’s offered only on Sunday. It wasn’t available until June 6 in this diocese. But now that it is offered, I will never again subject myself to the abuses of the Novus Ordo Mass, which literally broke my heart.

I ardently wish and pray for an abuse-free Novus Ordo Mass. But there are none in this diocese. It’s hard to find an NO that is not abuse-ridden in the entire U.S. from what others tell me. That’s what Rome is trying to stamp out with these repeated explicit directives like Redemptionis Sacramentum, following upon publication of the GIRM. Rome is telling its bishops, priests, and deacons that their disobedient, “I’ll do it my way” attitude must change. Now. But I don’t see it changing.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has been out 10 years.

CCC 1074 “The liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; it is also the font from which all her power flows.” It is therefore the privileged place for catechizing the People of God.

CCC 1124 When the Church celebrates the sacraments, she confesses the faith received from the apostles – whence the ancient saying: lex orandi, lex credendi . . . The law of prayer is the law of faith: the Church believes as she prays. Liturgy is a constitutive element of the holy and living Tradition.

CCC 1125 For this reason no sacramental rite may be modified or manipulated at the will of the minister or the community. . .

---

The solution to the abuses is simple: obey the Church’s laws.

JMJ Jay

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Deacon2006:

I’m not prepared to call these bishops and pastors heretics but I am always amazed at how many are.

A heretic will disagree with Church Teaching and found a new church based upon his own man-made doctrines.

A dissident will attempt to deconstruct the Church, from within.

I consider dissidents far worse than mere heretics. If one cannot abide by the laws and teachings of the Church, better they leave than to misguide many souls.

Pax Christi. <><

 

[kevinfraser]

I was asked by my parish priest 18 months ago to be an EMHC. Because I wasn’t able to attend a training session, I had the grace of personal instruction in Father’s office at his desk. One of the things he impressed upon me and I have taken every opportunity to impress upon others is the ‘Extraordinary’ as in ‘not ordained’ and therefore ‘of no special status other than as a pair of hands requested by a priest to help him.’

I am very aware of and very insistent with others that this is a temporary situation, and that after the two years are over I will not expect some sort of ‘seniority’ or anything like that. It is a privilege to be asked to assist the priest in this way, but it does not in any way shape or form confer some kind of special status on me. As far as I’m concerned I’m a member of the parish that our priest asked a favor of. It just so happens that the favor includes the privilege of giving holy communion to others. It could have been to take out the garbage after the 10:30am Sunday Mass, and I should have felt the same sense of privilege because I was asked to do this by an ordained Roman Catholic Priest who is an alter christus.

We were taught by Father that if someone presented themselves for Holy Communion with crossed arms, we were to ask God for a simple blessing on this person and trace a small cross on their head with the little finger so as to avoid contact with any particles of the Blessed Sacrament. I felt a little funny about that, and still do, but I have obeyed the instruction of a priest while seeking to inform myself more deeply.

I prefer to say ‘May the Lord Bless you and Mary Keep you.’ I feel that the wording of this blessing is different enough from what a priest says that this makes it somehow clearer to one and all that I am in no way able to act in persona christi in that or any situation–as priests do–and that I am just another poor schlub like them asking God to bless them and Mary to keep close to them.

As Fr. Stravinskas has recently pointed out on EWTN, in most places Novus Ordo abuses have become the norm rather than the exception. Since beginning to learn about these kinds of abuses and how to recognize them, they upset me. When I am feeling a little fragile and don’t want to run the risk of getting mad, I’ll go to a local parish that offers the Ancient Sung Mass. It’s a half-hour drive each way but I know there won’t be any kind of liturgical abuse whatsoever.

Are there any priests–maybe a Bishop–reading this forum who could perhaps put the whole subject to bed definitively?

 

[system]

Katholikos:

You misunderstand me. I’m not a TLM advocate. I have attended the TLM exactly four times. It’s offered only on Sunday. It wasn’t available until June 6 in this diocese. But now that it is offered, I will never again subject myself to the abuses of the Novus Ordo Mass, which literally broke my heart.

I ardently wish and pray for an abuse-free Novus Ordo Mass. But there are none in this diocese.

I don’t think I misunderstand you at all. We’re in the same diocese, and there ARE abuse-free NO masses. Our pastor is as anti-abuse as you will ever find. (Unless you consider approved practices like lectors (“readers”, actually) and EMHC’s and standing-communion-in-hand to be abuses. And I am not saying you do; I just want to be clear.)

Your list of are’s and are not’s, is not fair to parishes that are doing things right. You list what TLM’s do and don’t - the implication being that NO’s do exactly opposite. That’s wrong and unfair. That the TLM is reverent, beautiful, heavenly… implying the NO (as it is normally celebrated) is not. Wrong again.

Therefore, you’ll only attend the TLM and never go back to the NO again (your exact words). That’s your right, but sassing the NO as you did is NOT.

And, I still don’t see where this has one whit to do with the discussion on EMHC’s giving blessings. You’ve been here long enough to know that. Threads on abuses are not an automatic platform for touting the TLM.

(And this is off-topic; start a new thread if you want. But there have been several already.)

 

[Deacon2006]

Panis Angelicas

Your rants always seem so close but miss the point everytime. If Rome gives the local bishop permission to set up local policies for EMHC then the bishop is not a dissident or a heretic but a faithful shepherd.

If you say the bishop has overstepped show the specific evidence. Show me in black and white were Rome has said to a bishops and or pastors do not locally legislate blessings from lay people in the mass.

Rome has already granted authority to the local bishop to set policies for EMHC’s, they have set up explicit boundaries for those policies and now it seems that a self appointed committee wants to impose more boundaries.

If Rome doesn’t ban it in law
If Rome delegates the authority to the local bishop
Then the local bishops ruling is the law.
Obey you bishop.

God Bless

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Deacon2006:

Panis Angelicas

Your rants always seem so close but miss the point everytime.

I’m sorry that you see my insistence on obedience to Rome as ranting.

If Rome gives the local bishop permission to set up local policies for EMHC then the bishop is not a dissident or a heretic but a faithful shepherd.

Please provide me with links for the documents that permit bishops to extend the role of Extraordinary Ministers for Holy Communion to give blessings to non-communicants during Mass, thank you.

If you say the bishop has overstepped show the specific evidence.

Show where I said a bishop has overstepped.

Show me in black and white were Rome has said to a bishops and or pastors do not locally legislate blessings from lay people in the mass.

Show where Rome has instructed or approved of the laity giving blessings in the Mass. The Catholic Faith is not such that “we” invent new or alter existing rubrics of the Mass in our separate dioceses, then wait for the Vatican to tell us it’s wrong (unless you’re a dissident). The Catholic Faith is observed strictly according to that which is specifically stated as approved by the Magisterium. Nothing should be added nor removed from the Mass. So the proof is not upon me, Deacon2006, to show that it is banned, but for **you **to show that such permission is granted.

Rome has already granted authority to the local bishop to set policies for EMHC’s, they have set up explicit boundaries for those policies and now it seems that a self appointed committee wants to impose more boundaries.

Please, please, pal-hee-hee-heese, already: provide the document which gives bishops in the US the authority to set policies extending the duties set forth by the Vatican for Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.

If Rome doesn’t ban it in law
If Rome delegates the authority to the local bishop

Two big “ifs.” If Rome doesn’t ban it, I’ve repeatedly explained, it does not mean that Rome consents to it. Silence does not mean permission. You keep inventing this “Silent Permission” theory based upon the absence of some document forbidding this abuse you refer to as a “pious practice.” I’m sorry, Deacon2006, I must disagree with you.

Then the local bishops ruling is the law.

The bishop’s ruling must always be in harmony with Magisterial teaching.

Obey you bishop.

I obey all the bishops, insofar as they are acting in accord with Rome. I do not knowingly participate in disobedience.

Pax Christi. <><

 

[Deacon2006]

Why do you think I have the burden of proof? You are the one attacking the church by attacking the local bishop.

All Catholics are obliged to obey the local bishop in areas entrusted to them by Rome. Rome has entrusted the policies of EMHC to the local bishop for how they will deal with people not properly disposed to receive communion. Period

If you have a specific EMHC statement from Rome that contradicts a specific EMHC policy from the local ordinary then lets hear it.

If not —stop impuning the integrity of the bishops who have created the policies which we are commanded by Rome to assume are done in good faith.

God Bless

PS As I have said many times here I don’t disagree with much of what you say but in my church the requirement for interpretation rests with my bishop.

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Deacon2006:

Why do you think I have the burden of proof?

I explained why you have the burden of proof, already. The bishop cannot claim to have permission to authorize anything that is not in harmony with the mandates handed down from Rome. I have, several times in this thread, asked you for the documentation that authorizes bishops in the United States to permit Extraordinary Ministers to give blessings to non communicants during the Mass, and you have not. And you will not. Because you cannot. Such a document, in all likelihood, does not exist.
I have explained that the Church doesn’t have a rule book of “thou shalt nots,” but a rule book of “thou shalts,” namely, a variety of “Instructions” on this and that and everything in between.
So, if laymen are permitted to give blessings during Mass, you show me the Instruction for it, please.

You are the one attacking the church by attacking the local bishop.

You are losing a debate and shooting the messenger.

All Catholics are obliged to obey the local bishop in areas entrusted to them by Rome.

In so far as the bishop is acting in accord with Rome, yes, that is true.

Rome has entrusted the policies of EMHC to the local bishop for how they will deal with people not properly disposed to receive communion. Period

You keep saying this, and saying this, but never present the document, a link, a date of this document, a title for it, or any specific reference or quotes from it. I guess you just think after you repeat your mantra a hundred times, I’ll believe you. But I don’t. If there is documentation out there, as you keep repeating, please share it with all of us. We want to be truly informed, loyal, devoted, obedient Catholics!!! Please, provide us with the document, so that we will better understand where these bishops are coming from when they permit laymen to render blessings in the Communion line during Mass.

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

If you have a specific EMHC statement from Rome that contradicts a specific EMHC policy from the local ordinary then lets hear it.

You don’t get it, do you? If a specific action is not specifically defined by the Vatican, then, it is not permitted. Silence on a subject does not mean permission. There are probably as many potential liturgical abuses as stars in the heavens. Should the Vatican try to think them all up before the abusers do, and then, with foresight, forbid them? Don’t be ridiculous! These lay blessings in the Communion line by EMHCs are a fairly new “fad,” an innovation, not found in the GIRM, nor in the rubrics of the Mass, and are therefore not authorized.

If not —stop impuning the integrity of the bishops who have created the policies which we are commanded by Rome to assume are done in good faith.

Hold the phone! Please provide me with the document from Rome that commands me to assume that a bishop is doing something in good faith!!!

in my church the requirement for interpretation rests with my bishop.

In my Church, the faithful have the right to be informed and instructed. If our priest doesn’t comply, we can write the bishop. If the bishop doesn’t comply, we can write to Rome. The final say rests with Rome, not the local ordinary. Though his office is to be respected.

I hope that as you continue your studies in the diaconate, you may grow ever richer in understanding, in filial devotion to the pontiff, and in profound obedience to the Magisterium.

Pax Christi. <><

 

[Deacon2006]

Panis Angelicas

CCC 896 (quoting Ignatius Of Antioch) Let all follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ follows his Father, and the college of presbyters as the apostles; respect the deacons as you do God’s law. Let no one do anything concerning the Church in separation from the bishop.

God Bless

PS I think your arguments have merit but the proper disposition of the laity is humility and every effort must be given to understand all the pastoral decisions of ones bishops and priests, especially when they cause us the most concern.

PPS I never really feel right saying the blessing anyway but this have been fun its been a long time since I have a chance to debate on the other side of an issue, it helps sharpen my thoughts :wave:I think you have earned some reputation points :clapping:

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

:tiphat:

Pax Christi. <><

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Deacon2006,

I appreciate the zeal with which you defend the bishops.  In the times of Ignatius of Antioch, I hope I would have had such zeal also.  

 Today is a bit different.  Scandals of some bishops have shaken men's faith.  The faithful simply cannot *blindly* follow when they perceive *wrongdoing*. 

Bishops are only sinful humans, not unlike you and I.  But they have a high calling from God, & are given great responsibility.  To whom much is given, much will be required.  In the US, they enjoy great influence, and affluence.  

 With so great a mission to instruct and lead the faithful of Christ's Church, we may easily assume that Satan desires their souls far more than the average laymen's.  Pray for all bishops and priests!

 St. John Chrysostom is often quoted saying, "the floors of hell are paved with the skulls of bishops." And the late Archbishop Fulton Sheen is quoted, "It is the laity who will save the Church!"  

 Well, I hardly think that the Church now needs, or will ever need "saving," but I think we can understand what the good Archbishop meant.  When men at the top become corrupt, it is sometimes the lowly who have to bring them around.  (Or sadly, even bring them to justice.)  

 Even though we must respect the office of bishop, we need not condone with silence or excuses, thereby enabling wrongdoing or abuses, under the umbrella of "obedience."  Not only because of our love for the Church, but also for the love of our shepherd's souls.  How much far greater must their temptations be, than that of a lowly housewife! (Or, "lowly acolyte";) ).  And how far greater will their punishments be?

I think your arguments have merit but the proper disposition of the laity is humility…

The proper disposition of the entire human race is humility. And Jesus called all priests to serve. Not to jump through hoops when the laity snaps its fingers, but Christ’s instructions to His Apostles were telling those first bishops that the greatest should be the least. Certainly our Holy Father speaks with all humility when he addresses his bishops, both those who are obedient, as well as the dissidents.

 I believe it is our obligation to learn our Faith, know what the Supreme Pontiff is saying, and abide by it.  The bishops may alter certain things to accomodate various cultures, but their alterations must always be in harmony with the mandates from the Holy See.  When we see outright conflict or contradiction, we must realize that this is disobedience, and it is not to be followed.  In fact, it is to be questioned, and, if necessary, rejected. 1Thessolonians 5:21, 22, "Test all things; retain what is good.  Refrain from every kind of evil."

 I pray that the bishops here in the US and throughout the world will humbly submit themselves obediently to the Vicar of Christ.  Then, gladly would I follow my bishop, even into the jaws of lions.

Pax Christi. <><

 

[beancounter]

First of all I would like to thank the people on this forum for their candour and honesty.

I know that the people at my church are trying to do their best, and are trying to be inclusive.

I came to the Catholic Church because it was able to take a stand, and it wasn’t afraid to be politically incorrect.

I am not offended by not receiving a blessing, but I am offended that the church would go against its Traditions and doctrines to give me an empty gesture.

I would prefer not to go up for a blessing administered by a person not qualified to administer it. I would prefer to wait until I am Catholic, and I would be able to accept communion with my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.

Having said that, I wonder if it would be more appropriate to quietly excuse myself after the offering is collected. The last 40% of the service is spent blessing and distributing the Eucharist, and it seems redundant that I stay there.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

When Bishop Michael Sheridan became the Diocesan bishop, the EMHCs were directed not to “bless” but instead to say, “receive the Lord in your heart” if one came up but did not intend to partake of the Holy Eucharist. I like this much better.

Yet, I don’t believe I’ve seen anything above the diocesan level which prevents lay blessings.

 

[Lapsed]

beancounter:

Having said that, I wonder if it would be more appropriate to quietly excuse myself after the offering is collected. The last 40% of the service is spent blessing and distributing the Eucharist, and it seems redundant that I stay there.

I’m coming late to this one and it seems to me the general issue of the thread has been well handled from a couple different perspectives, but I want to touch on this.

Two better options would be to either stay in your pew while the Eucharist is distributed, or (my personal preference) get in the line with the priest at the front. People may look at you a little odd if you switch lines, but you probably won’t be the only one who does.

It is far from redundant for you to stay there! To be in the sanctuary when the Lord is made visibly present upon the altar is an enormous blessing in itself, even if you cannot partake of the Eucharist.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

As for me, if I am not canonically permitted to partake of the Holy Eucharist, I simply stay on my knees and pray.

 

[irish1]

I am an EMHC. At my parish we are instructed to place our hand on the shoulder of the person wishing to receive a blessing (more sanitary) and offer something simple (I usually say “May the Lord bless you always”). We are prohibited from making the sign of the cross on them, as that is reserved for the priest.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Dear Panis
I have only today jumped into this thread. I don’t know if you know of our dear Archbishop Raymond Burke and how his has come under a lot of criticism for his actions in restoring orthodoxy in the Archdiocese of St. Louis. People in my own parish have the nerve to take scandal at the actions of our dear Archbishop Raymond Burke. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch puts his every action on the front page and in the editorial section, both as editorial and cartoon. Then they quote Catholics who disagree with the Archbishop, as if that proves their view that Archbishop Burke is “wrong” and is playing politics. What interest the St Louis Post-Dispatch has in the CC and why they have a right to criticize it is beyond me, and it shows their lack of understanding of the CC.

Deacon2006,

 Today is a bit different.  Scandals of some bishops have shaken men's faith.  The faithful simply cannot *blindly* follow when they perceive *wrongdoing*.

is often quoted saying, “the floors of hell are paved with the skulls of bishops.” And the late Archbishop Fulton Sheen is quoted, “It is the laity who will save the Church!”