EMHC Blessings

[DebChris]

It’s not a matter of disruption, it’s a matter of properness. Why should these blessings happen during Communion?

If the blessing of non-communicants is approved by the Church, it should happen in a manner identical to that of the blessing of the throats on the Feast of St. Blaise. The blessing of non-communicants is not a Eucharistic blessing, is it? It’s not an actual “act of spiritual communion” as far as I’ve heard.

Again, the training that is given to an EMHC is to bless the small child with his/her parent or any other person who approaches the altar with his/her hands crossed in a manner to receive a blessing rather than communion. Were it inappropriate, the bishop would send a letter to the pastors asking that the practice cease. That has not happened. A different poster even recounts how this practice occurred when he was a little child indicating that it predates the NO. Few of us have copies of the GRIM. We rely on the instruction of our priests and are called to that obedience. It is time to stop judging one another and looking for abuses where none exists.

 

[benedictgal]

Do we know that person has not made a spiritual communion? I don’t since that is made internally. We do not know that the person is not being led by God. We also know from Scripture that Jesus was criticized by the Pharisees for healing on the Sabbath within and without the Temple, a place of worship for the devout Jew. What I am saying is not to judge the devotion of others attending Mass…

Again, I thnk that before people start throwing scripture around to jusify their positions, they need to do so within the correct context. First of all, the healing that Jesus did was not done wtihin the context of liturgical worship. In fact, Jesus was faithful to keeping the cultic requirement for the Sabbath, which overruled the piddly stuff over which the Pharisees complained. The most important thing to do on the Sabbath was to worship God.

Second, you (nor any of the proponents) have addressed something very seriuos here: the function of an EMHC is restricted to only distributing Holy Communion. They are not to do anything that is remotely similar to what a priest does; this includes imparting anything that would resemble a blessing. This has been covered in the 1997 document from the Congregation for Clergy, which was also signed off on by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

You don’t need to stand in line to “receive” a blessing. You will receive the blesing at the end of the Mass, like everyone else. What part of that is so hard to understand?

 

[Walking_Home]

Again, the training that is given to an EMHC is to bless the small child with his/her parent or any other person who approaches the altar with his/her hands crossed in a manner to receive a blessing rather than communion. Were it inappropriate, the bishop would send a letter to the pastors asking that the practice cease. That has not happened.** A different poster even recounts how this practice occurred when he was a little child indicating that it predates the NO.** Few of us have copies of the GRIM. We rely on the instruction of our priests and are called to that obedience. It is time to stop judging one another and looking for abuses where none exists.

---

But we must not forget —that as early as 1970 the Apostolic See announced the cessation of all experimentation as regards the Mass and reiterated the cessation again in 1988 and again in 2004 via RS-2004. It was also made clear that bishops and their conferences do not have the faculty to permit experimentation with the liturgical texts and other matters that are prescribed in the liturgical books.

Ps. You do have access to a computer–by which you can access the GIRM and other Church documents.

 

[benedictgal]

Again, the training that is given to an EMHC is to bless the small child with his/her parent or any other person who approaches the altar with his/her hands crossed in a manner to receive a blessing rather than communion. Were it inappropriate, the bishop would send a letter to the pastors asking that the practice cease. That has not happened. A different poster even recounts how this practice occurred when he was a little child indicating that it predates the NO. Few of us have copies of the GRIM. We rely on the instruction of our priests and are called to that obedience. It is time to stop judging one another and looking for abuses where none exists.

But, this training is contrary to that which was indicated by the Congregation for Clergy. Every liturgical documents notes that the only function that pertains to an EMHC is to assist in the distribution of Holy Communion and nothing else. There are no provisions i the GIRM nor RS, for that matter, that allow this kind of thing to happen. What is happening, unfotunately, is that someone is inserting something into the Mass that has no business being there.

 

[1ladybug]

---

This is not as they say " rocket science". The documents are pretty well self explanatory. You know —usually I come across the statement like yours above—when someone is trying to find a way to silence the documents and those who read them.

I don’t have access to documents that the Canadian Catholics Bishops Conference may have recieved or your GRIM. What I do know it the practice has been approved by the Canadian Catholics Bishops Conference for Catholics in Canada and that we instruct our RCIA people to go up for a blessing at Communion time. I was instructed when trained to be an Extra Ordinary Eucharist Minister to give the blessing. Now I simply want to know something about those answering so I can judge for myself about the accuracy and completeness of their answers.

 

[benedictgal]

I don’t have access to documents that the Canadian Catholics Bishops Conference may have recieved or your GRIM. What I do know it the practice has been approved by the Canadian Catholics Bishops Conference for Catholics in Canada and that we instruct our RCIA people to go up for a blessing at Communion time. I was instructed when trained to be an Extra Ordinary Eucharist Minister to give the blessing. Now I simply want to know something about those answering so I can judge for myself about the accuracy and completeness of their answers.

First of all, you are not an extraordinary Eucharistic Minister. That term is incorrect. You are an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. The ordinary Ministers of the Eucharist are the Bishop and Priest because they alone can confect the sacrament.

The ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are the bishop, priest and deacon by virture of Holy Orders. We are called Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion and we are to be used only in extraordniary circumstances.

You say that this is allowed by the Canadians. If that is the case, I would ask our fellow Candian posters if they can verify this. So far, even though this practice is, unfortunately, widespread in the United States, no such indult from the Holy See exists for this, nor are there any adaptions allowing the USCCB to engage in this practice. Furthermore, if the Holy See were to have allowed this, it would be contradicting its own document which states that the laity are not to conduct themselves and assume gestures and prayers that are proper to the priest alone during the Mass.

 

[Rickwood]

---

But you see—it is not me. Can you produce an authoritative document --that prescribes the blessing of people at communion time.

RS–2004

[12.] On the contrary, it is the right of all of Christ’s faithful that the Liturgy, and in particular the celebration of Holy Mass, should truly be as the Church wishes, according to her stipulations as prescribed in the liturgical books and in the other laws and norms. Likewise, the Catholic people have the right that the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass should be celebrated for them in an integral manner, according to the entire doctrine of the Church’s Magisterium. Finally, it is the Catholic community’s right that the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharist should be carried out for it in such a manner that it truly stands out as a sacrament of unity, to the exclusion of all blemishes and actions that might engender divisions and factions in the Church.

Again you are not only trying to interpret the documents on your own, it also appears that you and others are trying to interpolate and extrapolate their meanings. You have neither the grace nor the authority from God to do any of those.

Have you ever come across Protestants who are CERTAIN their interpretations of Scripture are the correct one, yet they materially differ from other Protestant’s interpretations? How could that be as both claim to be understanding the “literal” meaning of the documents?

I think that same problem applies here when we rely on ourselves and not the teaching magisterium of the Church for our understanding of their contents.

 

[Walking_Home]

I don’t have access to documents that the Canadian Catholics Bishops Conference may have recieved or your GRIM. What I do know it the practice has been approved by the Canadian Catholics Bishops Conference for Catholics in Canada and that we instruct our RCIA people to go up for a blessing at Communion time. I was instructed when trained to be an Extra Ordinary Eucharist Minister to give the blessing. Now I simply want to know something about those answering so I can judge for myself about the accuracy and completeness of their answers.

---

Just to clarify – RS–2004 applies to all the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. In order for a Bishop’s conference to validly implement a practice —the conference would have had to submit it to Rome and receive the proper recognitio (approval).

RS-2004

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

[27.] As early as the year 1970, the Apostolic See announced the cessation of all experimentation as regards the celebration of Holy Mass[62] and reiterated the same in 1988.[63] Accordingly, individual Bishops and their Conferences do not have the faculty to permit experimentation with liturgical texts or the other matters that are prescribed in the liturgical books.** In order to carry out experimentation of this kind in the future, the permission of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments is required. It must be in writing, and it is to be requested by the Conference of Bishops**. In fact, it will not be granted without serious reason. As regards projects of inculturation in liturgical matters, the particular norms that have been established are strictly and comprehensively to be observed.[64]

[28.] All liturgical norms that a Conference of Bishops will have established for its territory in accordance with the law are to be submitted to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments for the recognitio, without which they lack any binding force.[65]

 

[DebChris]

But, this training is contrary to that which was indicated by the Congregation for Clergy. Every liturgical documents notes that the only function that pertains to an EMHC is to assist in the distribution of Holy Communion and nothing else. There are no provisions i the GIRM nor RS, for that matter, that allow this kind of thing to happen. What is happening, unfotunately, is that someone is inserting something into the Mass that has no business being there.

I don’t have access to documents that the Canadian Catholics Bishops Conference may have recieved or your GRIM. What I do know it the practice has been approved by the Canadian Catholics Bishops Conference for Catholics in Canada and that we instruct our RCIA people to go up for a blessing at Communion time. I was instructed when trained to be an Extra Ordinary Eucharist Minister to give the blessing. Now I simply want to know something about those answering so I can judge for myself about the accuracy and completeness of their answers.

Instruction for teaching RCIA comes from the magisterium. correct?
What I have noticed on the face of a priest, even the most conservative, is a slight smile as they give the blessing whether to a child or adult. As I had also mentioned is the instruction was given in different parishes in different states. The names of those acting as EMCH is sent to the bishop who is well aware of the practices within his diocese. The monsignor who was pastor when I first joined the parish to which I now belong is known for his being outspoken when it comes to anything that smacks of impiety or non-compliance to Catholic Tradition or teaching. He is definitely a stickler for adherence to the GRIM. He, likewise gives the blessing to those unable to receive the Eucharist, child or adult. It is he who would have trained those acting as EMCH before my coming to the parish and admonished me if my actions were contrary to proper procedure. Again, it is the priest to whom I am called to be obedient when acting as lector or EMCH.
Today’s reading was about having the faith of a child. A child receives the blessing, even if he/she cannot partake of the Eucharist.
I have always been taught we are to look at what is good in a person, and not that which is not. It is not for me to remove a speck in brother’s eye until I have removed the plank in my own. It is not for me to judge, especially as ladybug shares, a person who has been taught in a particular way. If I am to make any judgment, it is that the person is being led by God and is responding with the faith of a child. If it were contrary the magisterium, the bishop would send notice to the parishes in his jurisdiction. As it is the bishops in the various dioceses to which I have belonged have also given this blessing.
Perhaps, one reason this blessing is not saved for later is to avoid anything that would make a person, especially a non-Catholic, stand out any more than they already do.

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home View Post​

But you see—it is not me. Can you produce an authoritative document --that prescribes the blessing of people at communion time.

RS–2004

[12.] On the contrary, it is the right of all of Christ’s faithful that the Liturgy, and in particular the celebration of Holy Mass,** should truly be as the Church wishes, according to her stipulations as prescribed** in the liturgical books and in the other laws and norms. Likewise, the Catholic people have the right that the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass should be celebrated for them in an integral manner, according to the entire doctrine of the Church’s Magisterium. Finally, it is the Catholic community’s right that the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharist should be carried out for it in such a manner that it truly stands out as a sacrament of unity, to the exclusion of all blemishes and actions that might engender divisions and factions in the Church.

Again you are not only trying to interpret the documents on your own, it also appears that you and others are trying to interpolate and extrapolate their meanings. You have neither the grace nor the authority from God to do any of those.

Have you ever come across Protestants who are CERTAIN their interpretations of Scripture are the correct one, yet they materially differ from other Protestant’s interpretations? How could that be as both claim to be understanding the “literal” meaning of the documents?

I think that same problem applies here when we rely on ourselves and not the teaching magisterium of the Church for our understanding of their contents.

---

Rickwood–beating around the bush is of no help to you. Can you provide an authoritative Church document that prescribes blessings during communion —Yes or No.

 

[benedictgal]

Instruction for teaching RCIA comes from the magisterium. correct?
What I have noticed on the face of a priest, even the most conservative, is a slight smile as they give the blessing whether to a child or adult. As I had also mentioned is the instruction was given in different parishes in different states. The names of those acting as EMCH is sent to the bishop who is well aware of the practices within his diocese. The monsignor who was pastor when I first joined the parish to which I now belong is known for his being outspoken when it comes to anything that smacks of impiety or non-compliance to Catholic Tradition or teaching. He is definitely a stickler for adherence to the GRIM. He, likewise gives the blessing to those unable to receive the Eucharist, child or adult. It is he who would have trained those acting as EMCH before my coming to the parish and admonished me if my actions were contrary to proper procedure. Again, it is the priest to whom I am called to be obedient when acting as lector or EMCH.
Today’s reading was about having the faith of a child. A child receives the blessing, even if he/she cannot partake of the Eucharist.
I have always been taught we are to look at what is good in a person, and not that which is not. It is not for me to remove a speck in brother’s eye until I have removed the plank in my own. It is not for me to judge, especially as ladybug shares, a person has been taught in a particular way. If I am to make any judgment, it is that the person is being led by God and is responding with the faith of a child. If it were contrary the magisterium, the bishop would send notice to the parishes in his jurisdiction. As it is the bishops in the various dioceses to which I have belonged have also given this blessing.
Perhaps, one reason this blessing is not saved for later is to avoid anything that would make a person, especially a non-Catholic, stand out any more than they already do.

Again, be careful when quoting scripture, especially when it is not within the proper context. An EMHC is not authorized to do anything apart from assisting the celebrant in the distiribution of Holy Communion.

1. To promote the proper identity (of various roles) in this area, those abuses which are contrary to the provisions of canon 907 are to be eradicated. In eucharistic celebrations deacons and non-ordained members of the faithful may not pronounce prayers — e.g. especially the eucharistic prayer, with its concluding doxology — or any other parts of the liturgy reserved to the celebrant priest. Neither may deacons or non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions which are proper to the same priest celebrant. It is a grave abuse for any member of the non-ordained faithful to “quasi preside” at the Mass while leaving only that minimal participation to the priest which is necessary to secure validity

Gestures, such as making the sign of the cross over someone’s head during the Mass, are reserved for the celebrant alone because that is imparting a blessing. This is not something that an EMHC, as a layman, is authorized to do.

This document comes from the Holy See. It was issued in 1997 and signed off by several different congregations, including the originating congregation, the one for Clergy as well as the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (signed by the former Joseph Cardinal Ratinzger) and the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. Therefore, if all of these departments within the Roman Curia agreed to this document, it is not likely to be abrogated any time soon, especially not by the current Pointiff who signed off on the paper.

Furthermore, the document spells out that the only thing that an EMHC is authorized to do is to assist the celebrant in distributing Holy Communion and only when a geunine need arises. Blessings aren’t part of the deal. \

The Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion

The non-ordained faithful already collaborate with the sacred ministers in diverse pastoral situations since “This wonderful gift of the Eucharist, which is the greatest gift of all, demands that such an important mystery should be increasingly better known and its saving power more fully shared”.(95)

Such liturgical service is a response to the objective needs of the faithful especially those of the sick and to those liturgical assemblies in which there are particularly large numbers of the faithful who wish to receive Holy Communion.

§ 1. The canonical discipline concerning extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion must be correctly applied so as to avoid generating confusion. The same discipline establishes that the ordinary minister of Holy Communion is the Bishop, the Priest and the the Deacon.(96) Extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion are those instituted as acolytes and the faithful so deputed in accordance with Canon 230, § 3.(97)

A non-ordained member of the faithful, in cases of true necessity, may be deputed by the diocesan bishop, using the appropriate form of blessing for these situation, to act as an extraordinary minister to distribute Holy Communion outside of liturgical celebrations ad actum vel ad tempus or for a more stable period. In exceptional cases or in un foreseen circumstances, the priest presiding at the liturgy may authorize such ad actum.(98)

§ 2. Extraordinary ministers may distribute Holy Communion at eucharistic celebrations only when there are no ordained ministers present or when those ordained ministers present at a liturgical celebration are truly unable to distribute Holy Communion.(99) They may also exercise this function at eucharistic celebrations where there are particularly large numbers of the faithful and which would be excessively prolonged because of an insufficient number of ordained ministers to distribute Holy Communion. (100)

This function is supplementary and extraordinary (101) and must be exercised in accordance with the norm of law. It is thus useful for the diocesan bishop to issue particular norms concerning extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion which, in complete harmony with the universal law of the Church, should regulate the exercise of this function in his diocese. Such norms should provide, amongst other things, for matters such as the instruction in eucharistic doctrine of those chosen to be extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, the meaning of the service they provide, the rubrics to be observed, the reverence to be shown for such an august Sacrament and instruction concerning the discipline on admission to Holy Communion.

To avoid creating confusion, certain practices are to be avoided and eliminated where such have emerged in particular Churches:

— extraordinary ministers receiving Holy Communion apart from the other faithful as though concelebrants;

— association with the renewal of promises made by priests at the Chrism Mass on Holy Thursday, as well as other categories of faithful who renew religious vows or receive a mandate as extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion;

— the habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass thus arbitrarily extending the concept of “a great number of the faithful”.

Therefore, you cannot “empower” someone to do something that is expressly not allowed in the documents, especially if the Holy See has addressed this matter.

Furthermore, none of the documents regulating the liturgy have authorized EMHCs to impart a blessing, none of them.

 

[benedictgal]

---

Rickwood–beating around the bush is of no help to you. Can you provide an authoritative Church document that prescribes blessings during communion —Yes or No.

That is the same question I have been asking. The answer is that no such animal exists. Just because the documents don’t mention a blessing doesn’t mean that it gives the priest the authority to insert this on his own initiative.

[5.] The observance of the norms published by the authority of the Church requires conformity of thought and of word, of external action and of the application of the heart. A merely external observation of norms would obviously be contrary to the nature of the Sacred Liturgy, in which Christ Himself wishes to gather His Church, so that together with Himself she will be “one body and one spirit”.12 For this reason, external action must be illuminated by faith and charity, which unite us with Christ and with one another and engender love for the poor and the abandoned. The liturgical words and rites, moreover, are a faithful expression, matured over the centuries, of the understanding of Christ, and they teach us to think as He Himself does;13 by conforming our minds to these words, we raise our hearts to the Lord. All that is said in this Instruction is directed toward such a conformity of our own understanding with that of Christ, as expressed in the words and the rites of the Liturgy.

[6.] For abuses “contribute to the obscuring of the Catholic faith and doctrine concerning this wonderful sacrament”.14 Thus, they also hinder the faithful from “re-living in a certain way the experience of the two disciples of Emmaus: ‘and their eyes were opened, and they recognized Him’”.15 For in the presence of God’s power and divinity16 and the splendor of His goodness, made manifest especially in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, it is fitting that all the faithful should have and put into practice that power of acknowledging God’s majesty that they have received through the saving Passion of the Only-Begotten Son.17

[7.] Not infrequently, abuses are rooted in a false understanding of liberty. Yet God has not granted us in Christ an illusory liberty by which we may do what we wish, but a liberty by which we may do that which is fitting and right.18 This is true not only of precepts coming directly from God, but also of laws promulgated by the Church, with appropriate regard for the nature of each norm. For this reason, all should conform to the ordinances set forth by legitimate ecclesiastical authority.

[8.] It is therefore to be noted with great sadness that “ecumenical initiatives which are well-intentioned, nevertheless indulge at times in Eucharistic practices contrary to the discipline by which the Church expresses her faith”. Yet the Eucharist “is too great a gift to tolerate ambiguity or depreciation”. It is therefore necessary that some things be corrected or more clearly delineated so that in this respect as well “the Eucharist will continue to shine forth in all its radiant mystery”.19

This is the clincher right here:

[9.] Finally, abuses are often based on ignorance, in that they involve a rejection of those elements whose deeper meaning is not understood and whose antiquity is not recognized. For “the liturgical prayers, orations and songs are pervaded by the inspiration and impulse” of the Sacred Scriptures themselves, “and it is from these that the actions and signs receive their meaning”.20 As for the visible signs “which the Sacred Liturgy uses in order to signify the invisible divine realities, they have been chosen by Christ or by the Church”.21 Finally, the structures and forms of the sacred celebrations according to each of the Rites of both East and West are in harmony with the practice of the universal Church also as regards practices received universally from apostolic and unbroken tradition,22 which it is the Church’s task to transmit faithfully and carefully to future generations. All these things are wisely safeguarded and protected by the liturgical norms.

[10.] The Church herself has no power over those things which were established by Christ Himself and which constitute an unchangeable part of the Liturgy.23 Indeed, if the bond were to be broken which the Sacraments have with Christ Himself who instituted them, and with the events of the Church’s founding,24 it would not be beneficial to the faithful but rather would do them grave harm. 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

[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. Nor do such actions serve authentic pastoral care or proper liturgical renewal; instead, they deprive Christ’s faithful of their patrimony and their heritage. For arbitrary actions are not conducive to true renewal,29 but are detrimental to the right of Christ’s faithful to a liturgical celebration that is an expression of the Church’s life in accordance with her tradition and discipline. In the end, they introduce elements of distortion and disharmony into the very celebration of the Eucharist, which is oriented in its own lofty way and by its very nature to signifying and wondrously bringing about the communion of divine life and the unity of the People of God.30 ***The result is uncertainty in matters of doctrine, perplexity and scandal on the part of the People of God, and, almost as a necessary consequence, vigorous opposition, all of which greatly confuse and sadden many of Christ’s faithful in this age of ours when Christian life is often particularly difficult on account of the inroads of “secularization” as well.31

You don’t have the authority to allow someone to impart something that they cannot licitly give…

 

[Sir_Knight]

I’m going to argue BOTH sides of this …

people often say God bless you when someone sneezes, we sign cards asking God to Bless the recipient, we pray asking God to bless and bestow graces on family members, friends and people the world over, we ask God to bless our children as they leave for school or go to sleep at night. The extra ordinary Eucharistic Minister is not acting as the Priest or as God giving a blessing from themselves (which the Priest doesn’t do either) but is asking God to bless that child or adult that comes up in the processional line for a blessing. If the laity assisting the Priest doesn’t do this then you would have laity jumping lines so that they or their children could get the blessing from the Priest. This could create confusion and chaos. If the Extra Ordinary Minister can handle and give out the most Sacred Eucharist to the laity why would he/she not be able to ask God to bless children in line which is far less Sacred and a common lay practice outside of the mass. Even during the mass lay people shake hands and ask God’s blessing on their neighbors in the pews around them during the kiss. Here in Canada Extra Ordinary Eucharistic Ministers with the approval of our Bishops and Priests do ask God’s blessing on those who come up for it in the Eucharistic Procession. Often during mass where the priests incudes our lay peoples special intentions I pray asking God to Bless our parishes, parishoners, Priests, and religious as well as my family. I see nothing wrong with the laity doing the blessing during Communion.

The problem is that only somebody who is ordained can give a church blessing and by having EMHC giving out blessings at the same time that priests are giving out blessings, it gives the IMPRESSION that the blessings are the same when in reality they are not. That is misleading and should not be done for that reason alone.

No, it’s not right, that is why it does not seem right. You are correct that you will find within the infant Rite of Baptism the sign of the Cross traced on the forehead. You will also find within the Rite of Acceptance for RCIA a signing with the sign of the cross by the Sponsor. You will not find to my knowledge any Rite that gives EMHC’s this faculty.

What are we to do when the Monsignor specifically instructs us TO give a blessing when people come up for Communion with their arms crossed? DO we disobey him?

 

[benedictgal]

Perhaps, one reason this blessing is not saved for later is to avoid anything that would make a person, especially a non-Catholic, stand out any more than they already do.

Although, as Catholics, we should certainly receive Holy Communoin, it is not a right. We cannot receive Holy Communion if we are in the state of mortal sin (adultery, excommunicated, a host of other reasons). To do this would be to profane our Lord’s Body and Blood and suffer the condemnation that St. Paul wrote about in the First Letter to the Corinthians.

Therefore, that final statement in the quoted post, is, in my opinion, problematic because there are some Catholics who cannot receie Holy Communion. My late grandma couldnt’ receive Holy Communion for nearly 40 years because she was in an invalid marriage. Not once did she ever approach the priest, or anyone else for that matter, for a blessing. She stayed in her pew and made a spiritual communion. By the way, she never stopped going to Mass. It wasn’t until I graduated from Catholic school (8th grade) that she was finally able to receive Our Lord because her annulment came through and the marriage between her and my step-grandfather had been blessed. He never even approached the priest for a blessing during Communion.

 

[benedictgal]

I’m going to argue BOTH sides of this …

The problem is that only somebody who is ordained can give a church blessing and by having EMHC giving out blessings at the same time that priests are giving out blessings, it gives the IMPRESSION that the blessings are the same when in reality they are not. That is misleading and should not be done for that reason alone.

What are we to do when the Monsignor specifically instructs us TO give a blessing when people come up for Communion with their arms crossed? DO we disobey him?

If the Church says that it is not part of the duties of the EMHC, then, you don’t do it. The priest is wrong. You point out the documents that indicate the the only thing that an EMHC is supposed to do is distribute Holy Communion.

Here is the link to the document I have cited throughout these threads:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_interdic_doc_15081997_en.html

This is a fine line that shouldn’t be crossed. In fact, it was crossed too many times to the point that Pope John Paul II had to have this document promulgated. In fact, when RS came out seven years later, it did not contradict anything that was found in this document. It simply reinforced it.

 

[DebChris]

This thread is becoming argumentative which indicates it is time for me to step out. My assistance to the celebrant includes obedience not only to him but to the instruction that I have received and the pastoral decisions that have been made.

 

[palmas85]

I don’t have access to documents that the Canadian Catholics Bishops Conference may have recieved or your GRIM. **What I do know it the practice has been ]approved by the Canadian Catholics Bishops Conference for Catholics in Canada and that we instruct our RCIA people to go up for a blessing at Communion time. **********I was instructed when trained to be an Extra Ordinary Eucharist Minister to give the blessing. Now I simply want to know something about those answering so I can judge for myself about the accuracy and completeness of their answers.

The following is from the website of the CCCB. Nothing in it permits EMHC’s from doing any more than they can do anywhere else. It appears that you may have been trained incorrectly,evidenced in part from the fact that the name you gave to the position you trained for doesn’t even exist and is in fact prohibited. I certainly hope that you train the new ministers correctly and let them know exactly what they are, and more importantly what they are not. But don’t worry, many were also trained incorrectly in the zeal of the more progressive among us to further blur the line between the ordained and the clergy.

THE CCCB WEBSITE COMMENTS AS FOLLOWS:

1. Nature of the document

This is an instruction from a Roman Congregation, approved in ordinary form by the Supreme Pontiff. It resembles an act of administrative rather than legislative law. The subtitle clearly indicates its disciplinary nature: “On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist.”

1. Objective

The objective is clearly indicated in paragraph 2: the Instruction treats “of certain matters pertaining to the discipline of the Sacrament of the Eucharist” but is not “a compendium of norms” regarding the sacrament. At the same time, it also establishes further norms “by which those earlier ones are explained and complemented.” In this regard, the Instruction is intended to serve as a reminder of pre-existing norms and to clarify their implications.

I
The following are some of the more common practices highlighted by the Instruction as grave abuses:

• The use of Eucharistic Bread that is not unleavened or made purely of wheat (par. 48).
• The use of wine other than that which is natural and from the fruit of the grape, pure and incorrupt (par. 50).
• The use or composition of unauthorized Eucharistic Prayers (par. 51).
• Recitation of any part of the Eucharistic Prayer by anyone other than the priest–deacon, lay minister, an individual in the congregation, or the whole congregation. The Eucharistic Prayer “is to be recited by the priest alone in full.”
• The use of other music during the Eucharistic Prayer, apart from the duly approved acclamations (par. 53).
• The breaking of the host at the time of the consecration (par. 55).
• The omission of the name of the Supreme Pontiff or of the diocesan bishop in the Eucharistic Prayer (par. 56).
• Altering or varying the texts of the liturgy (par. 59).
• Separating the Liturgy of the Word from the Liturgy of the Eucharist by celebrating them at different times or places (par. 60).
• Entrusting the homily to a layperson (par. 64), seminarians, theological students, or “pastoral assistants” (par. 66).
• The insertion of the celebration of Mass into the setting of a common meal (par. 77).
• The faithful taking by themselves the sacred host or the sacred chalice chalice , or handing these from one to another, and the administration of Communion by one spouse to another at the Nuptial Mass (par. 94).
• The practice of the priest celebrant or a concelebrant waiting until after the Communion of the faithful before taking Communion himself is reprobated (par. 97).
• “The pouring of the blood of Christ after the consecration from one vessel to another is completely to be avoided, lest anything should happen that would be to the detriment of so great a mystery. Never to be used for containing the blood of the Lord are flagons, bowls, or other vessels” (par. 106).

This instruction prohibits the widespread Canadian and U.S. practice of placing one or more pitchers of wine on the altar before the consecration when Communion is to be distributed under both kinds, and then pouring that wine into chalices before Communion. A related instruction says there is no problem with placing multiple chalices filled with wine on the altar before the consecration, but for the sake of “sign value,” the main chalice should be larger than the others.

• Mass can never be celebrated “in a temple or sacred place of any non-Christian religion” (par. 109).
• Celebration of Mass by priests wearing “only a stole over the monastic cowl or the common habit of religious or ordinary clothes, contrary to the prescriptions of the liturgical books” is strictly prohibited and a “reprobrated” abuse (par. 126).

SOME OTHER INSTRUCTIONS OF IMMEDIATE NOTICE ARE:

• The First Communion of children must always be preceded by sacramental confession and absolution. Moreover, First Communion should always be administered by a priest and never outside the celebration of Mass (par. 87).

*** In distributing Holy Communion, it is to be remembered that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who seek them in a reasonable manner, are rightly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.” Hence any baptized Catholic who is not prevented by law must be admitted to Holy Communion. Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing (par. **91).

Editor’s Comment

This is of direct concern to a number of people in Canada who have been refused Communion, sometimes in an arrogant way, for wanting to receive the Eucharist kneeling.

*** Each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice. Communicants may receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister (par. 92).**

• The Communion plate for the Communion of the faithful should be retained, so as to avoid the danger of the sacred host or some fragment of it falling (par. 93).
• The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger that “more than a reasonable quantity of the Blood of Christ remains to be consumed at the end of the celebration” (Par. 102).
• In the practice of intinction (receiving Communion under both species by dipping a host into the Precious Blood, “the communicants are not permitted to intinct the host themselves nor to receive the intincted host in the hand. It is altogether forbidden to use nonconsecrated bread or other matter” (par. 104).
• Bishops must stop “any contrary practice” to church norms that require commendatory letters (Celebret) not more than a year old vouching for a visiting priest’s faculties to celebrate Mass, or a prudential judgment by local authorities that he has such faculties (par. 111).
• Sacred vessels for the Lord’s body and blood “must be made in strict conformity with the norms of tradition and the liturgical books,” assuring that people of the region consider them “truly noble.” Since all risk of diminishing the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist must be avoided, use of any more common vessels is “reprobated” (par. 117).
• “The vestment proper to the priest celebrant at Mass, and in other sacred actions directly connected with Mass unless otherwise indicated, is the chasuble, worn over the alb and stole.” Likewise the priest, in putting on the chasuble according to the rubrics, is not to omit the stole. All Ordinaries should be vigilant in order that all usage to the contrary be eradicated (par. 123).
• “It is never licit for laypersons to assume the role or the vesture of a priest or deacon or other clothing similar to such vesture” (par. 153).

*** 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, the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are the bishop, the priest and the deacon (par. 154).
**
*** This function a lay person distributing communion) 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” (par. 156).**

• 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 (par. 157).

 

[japhy]

Instruction for teaching RCIA comes from the magisterium. correct?

Not necessarily everything you hear in RCIA has the Catholic Church Seal of Approval on it. RCIA teachers do not have the charism of infallibility.

 

[Lepanto]

Of course they are ecstatic by having their role has expanded but something just does not seem right with this.

If they are so eager to have their role expanded they need to go to seminary to become priests.

 

[Kolbelover]

The answer is simple: no…EMHC should NOT be blessing at Communion

Now… we can debate HOW this abuse came into common practice. Recently, a woman who knows A LOT more than I do suggested that it came from parents having to bring their youngsters along with them when they went to receive Communion. I accept her reasoning, but do remember waiting in the pew when my mom received Communion when I was a child.

I think having so many EHMC’s (too many, in fact) has affected the reverence shown toward the Eucharist…we’ve become too familiar with the Blessed Sacrament…this assertion seems to be supported by the many polls quoted throughout this forum (and many others) about how many Catholics believe in the True Presence. SO… we lose reverence for the Eucharist, and as a result, EVERYONE receives Communion…regardless of whether they are in a state of mortal sin or not… This DAMAGES the Body of Christ! And practically speaking, it requires us to use even MORE EMHCs…

it is therefore, in my opinion, a symptom of a much greater and nefarious problem