I and my husband do it every Mass that we serve in. In fact I was a lecture at our Deacons funeral and the Bishop was there and yes we did give a blessing to those who wanted it in full view of the Bishop.Assume that you are an EMHC and someone comes up to you for a “blessing”.
You have read the Vatican document that prohibits this, yet there are witnesses all around, including the priest who is OK with this abuse.
What would you do, right then and there?
I am not saying it is or isn’t a rule, I am saying that in every Church that I have been to do it.No need for sarcasm. But, what you are doing is simply not allowed. I also seriously doubt that the entire state of Indiana is doing this. What should happen is that the observations from the Holy See need to be brought forward to the pastors. This is not something that I came up with; rather, this is straight from the Vatican. You can dismiss it all you want, but, it is the word of the Holy See and they are the final authority.
Nice try at wanting to derail me, but, it does not work that way, Newbie. If the priest does not comply, then, after explaining it to him, you go up the chain to the bishop and the CDWDS.And if the pastor(s) refuse to comply?
This may be a technicality, but I thought you or someone else in the past wrote that nobody except a priest or deacon could give a bona-fide blessing. If these aren’t really blessings (and you did seem to indicate this by using “blessing” in your posts), then a blessing is not being given, and it should be no big deal, no?
The letter is self-explantory, Texas Roofer. Unfortuntely, those who partake of the cafeteria too many times are the ones who are the first to ignore the directives of the Holy See and fail to see that. Too much cafeteria food is a dangerous thing, Texas Roofer.When the cafeteria is open one does not have to follow the Pope, Magisterium, Holy See, USCCB, Bishop or Priest. In the cafeteria one can interpret their own version of the Letter, Bible, Canon Law, Rites, Catechism, etc., etc. One can even interpret what is and is not in the cafeteria. For example one can install words like illicit, or abuse, but remember that only occurs in the cafeteria.
But, these blessings are not yours to give within the context of the Mass. Even what you did at the eulogy was wrong. The Mass is not anyone’s private property where we can do with it as we please. With all due respect, your post is a perfect example why this should not be done. Yo do not have the right to do this. You keep ignoring what the Holy See says and trying to justify yourself by mentioning that you did this in front of your bishop. That still does not make it right.I and my husband do it every Mass that we serve in. In fact I was a lecture at our Deacons funeral and the Bishop was there and yes we did give a blessing to those who wanted it in full view of the Bishop.
Perhaps you and your fellow EMHCs should carefully read this document along with your pastor. It would prove to be most enlightening and serve to correct many of the problems that I can perceive as happening in your parish because of this grave confusion.[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.
What would YOU do? Lepanto? benedictgal?**Assume that you are an EMHC and someone comes up to you for a “blessing”. **
You have read the Vatican document that prohibits this, yet there are witnesses all around, including the priest who is OK with this abuse.
What would you do, right then and there?
Our Bishop partook of Communion and it is done that way here. Sorry! I have every right to do what I am told to do in our Church,But, these blessings are not yours to give within the context of the Mass. Even what you did at the eulogy was wrong. The Mass is not anyone’s private property where we can do with it as we please. With all due respect, your post is a perfect example why this should not be done. Yo do not have the right to do this. You keep ignoring what the Holy See says and trying to justify yourself by mentioning that you did this in front of your bishop. That still does not make it right.
Of course it shouldn’t be happening in the first place. Ideally everyone not receiving communion would stay seated. But the rather straigthforward “Don’t do it” doesn’t work on the person who is determined to do it anyway. At that point you have to deal with a situation which has no script. Priests are going to come up with whatever they think is appropriate for how they wish their ministers to handle it.It’s not that the person who wrote this was viewing it in a negative light. This kind of thing should not be happening in the first place. We form a line to receive Someone, Jesus Christ, not something, a blessing which will be imparted at the proper time by the celebrant and he alone.
Just because someone is incorrect, even if he may be a prelate, that does not justify things and make them right. Incidentally, when I called the CDWDS on a related matter, I asked them about their five observations. The official I spoke to told me that they still stood. In fact, there was a poster who asked if this was an American thing. Unfortunately, it is. The official told me that not only had they heard concerns about this (including those aired by the two CAF members who wrote the initial letter), but, priests assisting in the distribution of Holy Communion also had issues with this, since the ones coming forward to receive these “blessings” were American. The priests were perplexed by this action and so noted to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.Our Bishop partook of Communion and it is done that way here. Sorry! I have every right to do what I am told to do in our Church,
Then you use catechesis. The priest and/or deacon mentions it in the homily. At my parish, our parochial vicar mentioned it in his homily and told the faithful at all of the Masses that he would not be engaged in these “blessings” in lieu of Holy Communion anymore. While there were some parents who may have been miffed, he explained that this comes from the Holy See and that we do not have the right to insert things into the Mass that do not belong there.Of course it shouldn’t be happening in the first place. Ideally everyone not receiving communion would stay seated. But the rather straigthforward “Don’t do it” doesn’t work on the person who is determined to do it anyway. At that point you have to deal with a situation which has no script. Priests are going to come up with whatever they think is appropriate for how they wish their ministers to handle it.
Look everytime our Bishop is at our Church it is done and do you think he is blind? I am not going to report something that is done in his eyesight.Just because someone is incorrect, even if he may be a prelate, that does not justify things and make them right. Incidentally, when I called the CDWDS on a related matter, I asked them about their five observations. The official I spoke to told me that they still stood. In fact, there was a poster who asked if this was an American thing. Unfortunately, it is. The official told me that not only had they heard concerns about this (including those aired by the two CAF members who wrote the initial letter), but, priests assisting in the distribution of Holy Communion also had issues with this, since the ones coming forward to receive these “blessings” were American. The priests were perplexed by this action and so noted to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.
Perhaps, in fairness, your bishop may not know that they exist. You, however, are now aware of them and, in prudence and in charity, you might actually consider dropping him a line and informing him of this situation (which is actually a year old). You might also want to share this with your pastor.
Tweetymom, this ilicit practice is not even in the GIRM, the Roman Missal nor in any authoritative document of the Holy See. This anamolie is an innovation that should never have been introduced into the Mass because no one has the right to do so. There is not even any mention of this in the American adaptations that the USCCB requested to be added into the GIRM.
Perhaps you did not read my entire post. I said that he may not know that the Holy See has made this statement (even if it is a year old). Charity and prudence would indicate that the person who now knows should make these observations known to those in authority. My parochial vicar and some of the priests in my diocese would not have known about this had I not told them and shown them the letter.Look everytime our Bishop is at our Church it is done and do you think he is blind? I am not going to report something that is done in his eyesight.
Look I am glad that you are proud of the fact that you corrected your Vicar and all concerned,however I do not intend to do so. Does it say in the Bible that it shouldn’t be done?Perhaps you did not read my entire post. I said that he may not know that the Holy See has made this statement (even if it is a year old). Charity and prudence would indicate that the person who now knows should make these observations known to those in authority. My parochial vicar and some of the priests in my diocese would not have known about this had I not told them and shown them the letter.
In fact, you have made the point that the official from the CDWDS told me. He said that, all too often, it’s the faithful who sometimes have to make these things known to their priests and bishops. On the flip side, it is also a sad fact that the faithful are also the ones letting the CDWDS know that there are some serious liturgical abuses happening in their own dioceses and parishes.
Now, you know how the Church stands on these issues. Persisting to go contrary to what the Church has indicated is a sad course of action to take, whether one is a layman or a bishop. I am not saying that your bishop is willfully doing this, but, seeing as now you are informed, it would be charitable and prudent to share this information with him and with your pastor.
…
Muddying the waters with these “blessings” during Holy Communion is causing a lot of confusion among the faithful, something that the CDWDS is trying to contain.
Actually, with all due respect, the insubordinate one would not be the EMHC who does not want to impart these ilicit blessings, but, the one directing him to do so because it is against what the Holy See has already indicated. Even the bishop does not have the authority to overrule what the CDWDS has stated. He does not have carte blanche authority over the Mass. While he may regulate if Holy Communion can be distributed under both Species, he cannot invent a new ritual, which this is.
The letter is self-explantory, Texas Roofer. Unfortuntely, those who partake of the cafeteria too many times are the ones who are the first to ignore the **directives of the Holy See **and fail to see that. Too much cafeteria food is a dangerous thing, Texas Roofer.
Texas Roofer:…
Tweetymom, this** ilicit** practice is not even in the GIRM, the Roman Missal nor in any authoritative document of the Holy See. This anamolie is an innovation that should never have been introduced into the Mass because no one has the right to do so. There is not even any mention of this in the American adaptations that the USCCB requested to be added into the GIRM.
They will come to know what the letter says. The CDWDS did not find the practice illicit that is the fact, and the CDWDS said more… but I will wait, I want you to tell them what you keep cutting out, what is it you do not want them to see?When the cafeteria is open one does not have to follow the Pope, Magisterium, Holy See, USCCB, Bishop or Priest. In the cafeteria one can interpret their own version of the Letter, Bible, Canon Law, Rites, Catechism, etc., etc. One can even interpret what is and is not in the cafeteria. For example one can install words like illicit, or abuse, but remember that only occurs in the cafeteria.
There is no pride here, just fraternal charity.Look I am glad that you are proud of the fact that you corrected your Vicar and all concerned,however I do not intend to do so. Does it say in the Bible that it shouldn’t be done?
- Complaints Regarding Abuses in Liturgical Matters
[183.] In an altogether particular manner, let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favoritism.
And, even in his epistles, St. Paul urges fraternal correction, something that he, himself, was not afraid in engaging in when he had his debate with St. Peter on the question of the Gentiles. So, yes, there is a biblical precedent. You just need to look for it.[184.] Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.290 It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.
I know where it is , but thank youThere is no pride here, just fraternal charity.
As for your question, we are not a Sola Scriptura Church. When Jesus told St. Peter that He would be the one binding and loosening, this meant that Jesus conferred His authority on St. Peter and his successors, as evidenced in Matthew 16. The authority of the Holy Father to bind and loose is exerted in everything, including the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
In fact, Redemptionis Sacramentum, the document that your posts seem to indicate you wish to ignore, gives the faithful the right to:
And, even in his epistles, St. Paul urges fraternal correction, something that he, himself, was not afraid in engaging in when he had his debate with St. Peter on the question of the Gentiles. So, yes, there is a biblical precedent. You just need to look for it.
These are ilicit practicies, Texas Roofer, whether you choose to see them or not. You and I have had this debate before and in both cases, with all due respect, you have been wrong.They will come to know what the letter says. The CDWDS did not find the practice illicit that is the fact, and the CDWDS said more… but I will wait, I want you to tell them what you keep cutting out, what is it you do not want them to see?
That is not what the CDWDS said. No matter how much you mislead the people of these threads by making such claims. Those claims are yours. CDWDS looked directly at this practice and you know what they said, so why hide it? The CDWDS did change the Bishop’s authority on this subject, again that is a claim you make, not a claim the CDWDS makesThese are ilicit practicies, …
The bishop’s authority has not changed. In fact, what you also ignore is something very important that both the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy and RS makes and it is, that no one has the right, on his own authority, to make any changes to the Mass. In fact, RS clearly states that:That is not what the CDWDS said. No matter how much you mislead the people of these threads by making such claims. Those claims are yours. CDWDS looked directly at this practice and you know what they said, so why hide it? The CDWDS did change the Bishop’s authority on this subject, again that is a claim you make, not a claim the CDWDS makes
For the Sacred Liturgy is quite intimately connected with principles of doctrine,25 so that the use of unapproved texts and rites necessarily leads either to the attenuation or to the disappearance of that necessary link between the lex orandi and the lex credendi.26
The bishop’s authority is very limited on what he can do. According to the GIRM, the bishop can only do the following:[11.] The Mystery of the Eucharist “is too great for anyone to permit himself to treat it according to his own whim, so that its sacredness and its universal ordering would be obscured”.27 On the contrary, anyone who acts thus by giving free rein to his own inclinations, even if he is a Priest, injures the substantial unity of the Roman Rite, which ought to be vigorously preserved,28 and becomes responsible for actions that are in no way consistent with the hunger and thirst for the living God that is experienced by the people today.
It does not state that he can introduce any new rite or ritual into the Mass. Should he wish too, that is beyond his competency. Only the national bishops’ conference can propose, but, even then, the proposal would have to carry a 2/3 vote of the Latin Rite bishops before it could even be sent to Rome. Even at that, Rome has the final voice on whether or not something could be added to the Mass.
- The Diocesan Bishop, who is to be regarded as the high priest of his flock, and from whom the life in Christ of the faithful under his care in a certain sense derives and upon whom it depends,148 must promote, regulate, and be vigilant over the liturgical life in his diocese. It is to him that in this Instruction is entrusted the regulating of the discipline of concelebration (cf. above, nos. 202, 374) and the establishing of norms regarding the function of serving the priest at the altar (cf. above, no. 107), the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds (cf. above, no. 283), and the construction and ordering of churches (cf. above, no. 291). With him lies responsibility above all for fostering the spirit of the Sacred Liturgy in the priests, deacons, and faithful.