EMHC Blessings

[lmashburn]

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

Actually, half of our EMHCs and the chairperson of that ministry are female and cannot exercise that option. I originally just wanted to know if there was an instruction or guidance from the CDW about this practice so I could share it with the EMHC chairperson and let her take up the matter with the priest or bishop. It is probably too late now as it has been announced in the bulletin but if this is a questionable practice then at the very least they need to know. From the pew it simply looks like the EMHC is performing a similar role as that of the priest.

 

[Joe_5859]

Yes, the GIRM is available for all in electronic form here on the internet!

At the Vatican website: GIRM

And at the USCCB website: GIRM in pdf format

So we can all memorize it and fling paragraph numbers back an forth relentlessly! (Hopefully, you know that’s a joke…I do not advocate that!)

Would God, especially in the person of Jesus Christ, refuse a blessing to anybody who sought that blessing, regardless of place or time? Think about how many times Jesus admonished the Apostles for trying to keep an individual from coming to Him.

I think you make a valid point in one regard. It would seem to me quite inappropriate for a priest or an EMHC to “send away” someone who approaches them in the Communion line expecting a blessing. The time for catechesis on the subject should come prior to that. And no matter how much catechesis is done, there will always be someone who is visiting the parish who does not know.

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.

I think you make some good points. Those of us who have a working knowledge of liturgical documents sometimes hold the expectation that everyone has (or should have) that same level of familiarity. There is a very real sense where we do (and should) rely on our priests and our bishop to do their job. I think we need to be careful that our fervor for correctly celebrated liturgy does not lead us to view our priests and bishops unfavorably. Obedience is a virtue of which I think we all could do to have more.

 

[japhy]

For the record, lmashburn and myself have undertaken to write a letter to the CDWDS requesting clarification on this matter. Your Eminence:

Greetings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. I am writing to you on behalf of a layman of the diocese of Savannah, Georgia, as well as myself, a layman of the diocese of Metuchen, New Jersey. We have a question in two parts for the Congregation concerning a custom found in various Latin Rite parishes and dioceses throughout Canada and the United States of America: the blessing of non-communicants, by a minister of Holy Communion, during the Communion procession.

Briefly stated, this custom consists of a non-communicant presenting himself (often with his arms crossed over his chest, his hands placed on his shoulders, signifying his intent) before a minister of Holy Communion and receiving a blessing from the same, in the form of a short prayer (e.g. “May God bless you”) or a gesture (e.g. the Sign of the Cross traced on his forehead). In some places, the blessing varies depending on whether the minister of Holy Communion is an ordinary minister or an extraordinary minister.

1. Is this a custom that is within the faculty of a pastor, the local Ordinary, or a Bishops’ Conference to establish? That is, is this custom something that can be regulated without recourse to this Congregation?
2. Are there particular guidelines or restrictions from this Congregation concerning a) which ministers of Holy Communion may give these blessings and b) what forms these blessings may take?

We assure you of our prayers for you, thank you for whatever consideration you can give to this question, and remain

Faithfully yours in Christ,

 

[Rickwood]

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.

That’s simply not true. That mindset is what has 99.9% of everyone going up for communion. Even if we are not impeded from receiving, we are not required to receive every time – not by a long shot. So while the Church encourages us to receive communion if we are not impeded, there are other reasons we may well choose not to. The Church says nothing about “we should certainly receive Holy Communion.”

Also I believe if one is properly prepared to receive communion, they are not to be denied – they do have a “right” to the sacrament.

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.

If she would have wanted to receive a blessing from a priest or bishop during communion she should have – there was/is nothing to keep her from doing so.

 

[Rickwood]

For the record, lmashburn and myself have undertaken to write a letter to the CDWDS requesting clarification on this matter. Your Eminence:

Greetings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. I am writing to you on behalf of a layman of the diocese of Savannah, Georgia, as well as myself, a layman of the diocese of Metuchen, New Jersey. We have a question in two parts for the Congregation concerning a custom found in various Latin Rite parishes and dioceses throughout Canada and the United States of America: the blessing of non-communicants, by a minister of Holy Communion, during the Communion procession.

Briefly stated, this custom consists of a non-communicant presenting himself (often with his arms crossed over his chest, his hands placed on his shoulders, signifying his intent) before a minister of Holy Communion and receiving a blessing from the same, in the form of a short prayer (e.g. “May God bless you”) or a gesture (e.g. the Sign of the Cross traced on his forehead). In some places, the blessing varies depending on whether the minister of Holy Communion is an ordinary minister or an extraordinary minister.

1. Is this a custom that is within the faculty of a pastor, the local Ordinary, or a Bishops’ Conference to establish? That is, is this custom something that can be regulated without recourse to this Congregation?
2. Are there particular guidelines or restrictions from this Congregation concerning a) which ministers of Holy Communion may give these blessings and b) what forms these blessings may take?

We assure you of our prayers for you, thank you for whatever consideration you can give to this question, and remain

Faithfully yours in Christ,

That is fantastic. I hope you receive an answer.

Given the worldwide/widespread occurrence of this tradition, I cannot imagine it being an irregularity much less an abuse. I also cannot imagine the question hasn’t already been formulated and quietly dismissed more than once in the past.

I would venture to say if you received a response from an authoritative voice in the Church that said it was wrong, this would make headlines – at least in the Catholic world.

 

[Joe_5859]

For the record, lmashburn and myself have undertaken to write a letter to the CDWDS requesting clarification on this matter. Your Eminence:

Greetings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. I am writing to you on behalf of a layman of the diocese of Savannah, Georgia, as well as myself, a layman of the diocese of Metuchen, New Jersey. We have a question in two parts for the Congregation concerning a custom found in various Latin Rite parishes and dioceses throughout Canada and the United States of America: the blessing of non-communicants, by a minister of Holy Communion, during the Communion procession.

Briefly stated, this custom consists of a non-communicant presenting himself (often with his arms crossed over his chest, his hands placed on his shoulders, signifying his intent) before a minister of Holy Communion and receiving a blessing from the same, in the form of a short prayer (e.g. “May God bless you”) or a gesture (e.g. the Sign of the Cross traced on his forehead). In some places, the blessing varies depending on whether the minister of Holy Communion is an ordinary minister or an extraordinary minister.

1. Is this a custom that is within the faculty of a pastor, the local Ordinary, or a Bishops’ Conference to establish? That is, is this custom something that can be regulated without recourse to this Congregation?
2. Are there particular guidelines or restrictions from this Congregation concerning a) which ministers of Holy Communion may give these blessings and b) what forms these blessings may take?

We assure you of our prayers for you, thank you for whatever consideration you can give to this question, and remain

Faithfully yours in Christ,

Good job with the letter: short, to the point, easy to understand, and non-confrontational. Be sure to post back if you get a response!

 

[benedictgal]

That’s simply not true. That mindset is what has 99.9% of everyone going up for communion. Even if we are not impeded from receiving, we are not required to receive every time – not by a long shot. So while the Church encourages us to receive communion if we are not impeded, there are other reasons we may well choose not to. The Church says nothing about “we should certainly receive Holy Communion.”

If she would have wanted to receive a blessing from a priest or bishop during communion she should have – there was/is nothing to keep her from doing so.

Actually, “should” and “must” are two different things. If we are in the state of grace, or, at the very least, free of mortal sin, then, we may go up to receive Our Lord. Remember, “happy are those who are called to his supper” is not an open invitation to consume.

Now, to go up simply for a blessing is not right. There, you give the impression that everyone needs to stand up and, get in line and receive Someone, or, in the case of the blessing, something. It makes for bad theology and a poor understanding of what receiving Communion is. We are partaking of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. It is unfortunate that the reality is that there are those who are unable to receive Our Lord. However, nothing precludes them from spending time in prayer in the pews. That is what is called a spiritual communion.

And no, my grandmother would never have gone up to receive a blessing. She probably would have thought it was strange and inappropriate.

I had lunch with a friend of mine who is a prelate and we discussed the matter. He said that he used to impart a blessing, but, now, he believes that this is not correct. He said that the whole thing started with blessing infants and then it mushroomed. He said that it was simply an innovation that took on a life of its own, but, it has no basis in any of the liturgical documents. Furthermore, he noted that EMHCs shouldn’t even be doing that, since the only purview to their function is to assist the celebrant in distributing Holy Communion (within the parameters set forth by the norms).

 

[benedictgal]

For the record, lmashburn and myself have undertaken to write a letter to the CDWDS requesting clarification on this matter. Your Eminence:

Greetings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. I am writing to you on behalf of a layman of the diocese of Savannah, Georgia, as well as myself, a layman of the diocese of Metuchen, New Jersey. We have a question in two parts for the Congregation concerning a custom found in various Latin Rite parishes and dioceses throughout Canada and the United States of America: the blessing of non-communicants, by a minister of Holy Communion, during the Communion procession.

Briefly stated, this custom consists of a non-communicant presenting himself (often with his arms crossed over his chest, his hands placed on his shoulders, signifying his intent) before a minister of Holy Communion and receiving a blessing from the same, in the form of a short prayer (e.g. “May God bless you”) or a gesture (e.g. the Sign of the Cross traced on his forehead). In some places, the blessing varies depending on whether the minister of Holy Communion is an ordinary minister or an extraordinary minister.

1. Is this a custom that is within the faculty of a pastor, the local Ordinary, or a Bishops’ Conference to establish? That is, is this custom something that can be regulated without recourse to this Congregation?
2. Are there particular guidelines or restrictions from this Congregation concerning a) which ministers of Holy Communion may give these blessings and b) what forms these blessings may take?

We assure you of our prayers for you, thank you for whatever consideration you can give to this question, and remain

Faithfully yours in Christ,

Great letter, japhy!

 

[Rickwood]

Actually, “should” and “must” are two different things. If we are in the state of grace, or, at the very least, free of mortal sin, then, we may go up to receive Our Lord. Remember, “happy are those who are called to his supper” is not an open invitation to consume.

You simply misused the word “certainly.” That made your posting incorrect.

What you originally typed "Although, as Catholics, we should certainly receive Holy Communoin" does not equate to what you typed above.

**Now, to go up simply for a blessing is not right. ** There, you give the impression that everyone needs to stand up and, get in line and receive Someone, or, in the case of the blessing, something. It makes for bad theology and a poor understanding of what receiving Communion is. We are partaking of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. It is unfortunate that the reality is that there are those who are unable to receive Our Lord. However, nothing precludes them from spending time in prayer in the pews. That is what is called a spiritual communion.

Your personal opinion that one should not go up for a blessing holds no authority as the Church does not direct such behavior. Nothing from the Church precludes one from processing-up for a blessing.

And no, my grandmother would never have gone up to receive a blessing. She probably would have thought it was strange and inappropriate.

She chose not to. There is nothing from the Church that precludes one from processing-up for a blessing.

I had lunch with a friend of mine who is a prelate and we discussed the matter. He said that he used to impart a blessing, but, now, he believes that this is not correct. He said that the whole thing started with blessing infants and then it mushroomed. He said that it was simply an innovation that took on a life of its own, but, it has no basis in any of the liturgical documents. Furthermore, he noted that EMHCs shouldn’t even be doing that, since the only purview to their function is to assist the celebrant in distributing Holy Communion (within the parameters set forth by the norms).

So?

And why the EMHC red herring again?

 

[1ladybug]

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).

Thank you I have taken this to my local Priest.

 

[benedictgal]

You simply misused the word “certainly.” That made your posting incorrect.

What you originally typed "Although, as Catholics, we should certainly receive Holy Communoin" does not equate to what you typed above.

Your personal opinion that one should not go up for a blessing holds no authority as the Church does not direct such behavior. Nothing from the Church precludes one from processing-up for a blessing.

She chose not to. There is nothing from the Church that precludes one from processing-up for a blessing.

So?

And why the EMHC red herring again?

But, there is nothing in the documents that allows such a blessing to be imparted during the time marked for the reception of Holy Communion. As for the EMHC red-herring issue, I would remind you that this thread pertains to the matter of EMHCs imparting a blessing during Communion, something that is not within their scope to do.

Rick, you have not provided anything in your posts to support your interpretation allowing this innovation. Just because something isn’t there doesn’t make it right for us to insert things into the liturgy that just don’t belong. The Church does not grant us, let alone the priest, that kind of authority. As I read your posts defending this illicit practice, it seems to me that you are taking this upon yourself.

Furthermore, for whatever situation my grandmother had, she was not one to take upon herself the notion that she could do something simply because other people were doing it. I believe the line if for receiving Our Lord in Holy Communion, not a blessing. This blessing, which applies for everyone at the Mass, Catholic or non-Catholic, those who can communicate and those who cannot, comes towards the end of the Mass and it imparted by the celebrant, whether he be priest or bishop.

It’s almost as if you have the mentality that unless you are standing in line to receive something, you aren’t getting anything from the Mass. That is a sad way of looking at things and not in line with the Church’s teaching.

Japhy has made the effort to write to Rome to get clarification. I guess had it been me, I would have added the references to what is indicated both in the 1997 document issued by the Congregation for Clergy and Redemptionis Sacramentum, as well as the GIRM. But, that is just me. Japhy had the wherewithal to do it and should be commended.

 

[Rickwood]

But, there is nothing in the documents that allows such a blessing to be imparted during the time marked for the reception of Holy Communion. As for the EMHC red-herring issue, I would remind you that this thread pertains to the matter of EMHCs imparting a blessing during Communion, something that is not within their scope to do.

I’m sorry but you failed to show such blessings are an “abuse.” Provide all the interpretations of documents you want – it doesn’t mean your opinion is accurate, nor must be followed.

Rick, you have not provided anything in your posts to support your interpretation allowing this innovation. Just because something isn’t there doesn’t make it right for us to insert things into the liturgy that just don’t belong. The Church does not grant us, let alone the priest, that kind of authority. As I read your posts defending this illicit practice, it seems to me that you are taking this upon yourself.

Sure I have. This practice is widespread, worldwide and has been going on for some time. If it is an “abuse” as you suggest, it’s clear it would be one of the most common abuses in the Church throughout the world and it would not have only been included in RS, the Pope wouldn’t bless people during communion which he does.

Furthermore, for whatever situation my grandmother had, she was not one to take upon herself the notion that she could do something simply because other people were doing it. I believe the line if for receiving Our Lord in Holy Communion, not a blessing. This blessing, which applies for everyone at the Mass, Catholic or non-Catholic, those who can communicate and those who cannot, comes towards the end of the Mass and it imparted by the celebrant, whether he be priest or bishop.

There is nothing from the Church and precludes one from processing up for a blessing.

It’s almost as if you have the mentality that unless you are standing in line to receive something, you aren’t getting anything from the Mass. That is a sad way of looking at things and not in line with the Church’s teaching.

Please quit being so offensive. You’re projecting onto me right now and that’s not appropriate for this forum.

Japhy has made the effort to write to Rome to get clarification. I guess had it been me, I would have added the references to what is indicated both in the 1997 document issued by the Congregation for Clergy and Redemptionis Sacramentum, as well as the GIRM. But, that is just me. Japhy had the wherewithal to do it and should be commended.

It’s nice Japhy wrote.

You need to insert "what I personally believe " before “…is indicated”

 

[japhy]

That is fantastic. I hope you receive an answer.

Good job with the letter: short, to the point, easy to understand, and non-confrontational. Be sure to post back if you get a response!

Great letter, japhy!

It’s certainly better than the letter I sent last November.

 

[japhy]

Japhy has made the effort to write to Rome to get clarification. I guess had it been me, I would have added the references to what is indicated both in the 1997 document issued by the Congregation for Clergy and Redemptionis Sacramentum, as well as the GIRM.

I did not feel inclined or impelled to include the references to the 1997 document or RS (or any other document), because I did it was the CDWDS to whom I was writing. I have every reason to believe Cardinal Arinze and the rest of the Congregation know about the 1997 document, RS, and the Book of Blessings. Rather than include my interpretation (however correct I believe it to be), I will let them do the interpreting and render the judgment.

My tone in the letter was as neutral as I could be. I spoke neither for nor against the process, but asked specific questions intending to draw out specific answers. And, as is to be expected, I will align my interpretation of the documents in question with the one rendered by the Congregation. For all I know, my letter might spur them to actually draw up regulations for the custom if none yet exist. I would expect, though, that this custom (if permitted) should include some catechesis as to a) what people who receive Holy Communion are actually receiving, compared with b) what people who receive a blessing are actually receiving. I would also expect something to be mentioned regarding making a “spiritual communion”.

 

[1ladybug]

The rules for EMHC’s or blessings is not for me to decide. I remember prior to vatican 2 people who couldn’t receive communion for whatever reason stayed in their pew. They often felt singled out. After mass other parishoners would be heard speculating and gossiping as to why they didn’t receive. This led to many of those who couldn’t receive just staying away from church and if they had to attend at Christmas or Easter they went up and received even when they shouldn’t have. Today with everyone thinking that you only go to confession if you have a mortal Sin sometimes people are now speculating what SIN those going to confession may have committed. And so now people are not going to confession or if possible they go to a church where they are not known. Especially in small communities. Unfortunately sometimes some of us Christians leave our Christian attitudes and teachings at the church door.

 

[benedictgal]

The rules for EMHC’s or blessings is not for me to decide. I remember prior to vatican 2 people who couldn’t receive communion for whatever reason stayed in their pew. They often felt singled out. After mass other parishoners would be heard speculating and gossiping as to why they didn’t receive. This led to many of those who couldn’t receive just staying away from church and if they had to attend at Christmas or Easter they went up and received even when they shouldn’t have. Today with everyone thinking that you only go to confession if you have a mortal Sin sometimes people are now speculating what SIN those going to confession may have committed. And so now people are not going to confession or if possible they go to a church where they are not known. Especially in small communities. Unfortunately sometimes some of us Christians leave our Christian attitudes and teachings at the church door.

I think that you are misinterpreting things. First of all, the Church, in her documents, has already decided what is within the scope of the duties of an EMHC. These are simply to assist the celebrant, in a genuine necessity, in the distribution of Holy Communion, nothing more is added. These are the duties as spelled by the Church in at least three documents. There is no indult or approved adaptation permitting EMHCs to bless anyone.

Second, remember the invocation that the celebrant says prior to Communion, especially the words, “Happy are those who are called to the supper.” Now, remember the parable that Jesus told about the wedding guests who arrived at the banquet. One of them was not properly dressed and refused to give an answer to the host. He was promplty thrown out. Now, that is not to say that people should be thrown out, far from it. It wasn’t because the host was being a snob or uncharitable that caused him to act in the manner he acted. The guest brought it upon himself even after the host tried to graciously assist him.

However, there are situations that people place themselves in that prevent them from receiving Holy Communion (being in a state of mortal sin, being in an invalid marriage, etc). The Church did not put them there; they did it to themselves. Yes, I made the statement that the faithful should receive Holy Communion. They should if they are properly disposed to do it. However, if they cannot, then, they remain in their pews and make a spiritual communion, something that the more liberal folks in this thread don’t seem to advocate or quite understand.

It is not poor Christian attitude. It is actually a misunderstanding of what we are doing at the Mass and poor catechesis. You receive Holy Communion if you are properly disposed to do so. The idea of standing up to receive a blessing is actually pointless. It’s as though you are pretending to receive something in substitution for receiving Our Lord, as my friend the prelate told me during lunch. He questions the practice because he said that it creates the illusion that you have to go up and receive something.

This is what happens when innovations are added to the Mass that simply do not belong there. It is not about being unChristian or uncharitable. In fact, it is uncharitable to start up innovations like this because as well-intentioned as they are, they only serve to confuse people who may not understand what the Mass is about or why we form a line after the Agnus Dei.

 

[Rickwood]

I think that you are misinterpreting things. First of all, the Church, in her documents, has already decided what is within the scope of the duties of an EMHC. These are simply to assist the celebrant, in a genuine necessity, in the distribution of Holy Communion, nothing more is added. These are the duties as spelled by the Church in at least three documents. There is no indult or approved adaptation permitting EMHCs to bless anyone.

There is nothing in those documents that prohibit an EMHC from blessing anyone. The prohibition is for all laypersons inside and outside of the Mass – they may not bless anyone on behalf of the Church in the name of the Holy Trinity.

The documents also don’t mention anything about stopping to momentarily pray with some while distributing communion as a EMHC. That’s what my pastor has directed us to do and it’s quite licit.

Second, remember the invocation that the celebrant says prior to Communion, especially the words, “Happy are those who are called to the supper.” Now, remember the parable that Jesus told about the wedding guests who arrived at the banquet. One of them was not properly dressed and refused to give an answer to the host. He was promplty thrown out. Now, that is not to say that people should be thrown out, far from it. It wasn’t because the host was being a snob or uncharitable that caused him to act in the manner he acted. The guest brought it upon himself even after the host tried to graciously assist him.

We are not talking about receiving communion. We are talking about blessings during communion.

However, there are situations that people place themselves in that prevent them from receiving Holy Communion (being in a state of mortal sin, being in an invalid marriage, etc). The Church did not put them there; they did it to themselves. Yes, I made the statement that the faithful should receive Holy Communion. They should if they are properly disposed to do it. However, if they cannot, then, they remain in their pews and make a spiritual communion, something that the more liberal folks in this thread don’t seem to advocate or quite understand.

The misunderstanding is clearly on your end. Even those in a state of mortal sin may process-up and receive a blessing. Nothing in the liturgical docs prevent them from doing so.

It is not poor Christian attitude. It is actually a misunderstanding of what we are doing at the Mass and poor catechesis. You receive Holy Communion if you are properly disposed to do so. The idea of standing up to receive a blessing is actually pointless. It’s as though you are pretending to receive something in substitution for receiving Our Lord, as my friend the prelate told me during lunch. He questions the practice because he said that it creates the illusion that you have to go up and receive something.

Wow, now you are calling a blessing from a priest or bishop “pointless?” Remarkable.

This is what happens when innovations are added to the Mass that simply do not belong there. It is not about being unChristian or uncharitable. In fact, it is uncharitable to start up innovations like this because as well-intentioned as they are, they only serve to confuse people who may not understand what the Mass is about or why we form a line after the Agnus Dei.

Thankfully neither you nor your clear misinterpretation of documents is the arbiter of what is allowed and what is not allowed during the Mass.

 

[Walking_Home]

There is nothing in those documents that prohibit an EMHC from blessing anyone. The prohibition is for all laypersons inside and outside of the Mass – they may not bless anyone on behalf of the Church in the name of the Holy Trinity.

The documents also don’t mention anything about stopping to momentarily pray with some while distributing communion as a EMHC. That’s what my pastor has directed us to do and it’s quite licit.

We are not talking about receiving communion. We are talking about blessings during communion.

The misunderstanding is clearly on your end. Even those in a state of mortal sin may process-up and receive a blessing. Nothing in the liturgical docs prevent them from doing so.

Wow, now you are calling a blessing from a priest or bishop “pointless?” Remarkable.

Thankfully neither you nor your clear misinterpretation of documents is the arbiter of what is allowed and what is not allowed during the Mass.

---

Can you provide an authoritative document that prescribes blessings during communion —Yes or No.

 

[palmas85]

I’m sorry but you failed to show such blessings are an “abuse.” Provide all the interpretations of documents you want – it doesn’t mean your opinion is accurate, nor must be followed.

Sure I have. This practice is widespread, worldwide and has been going on for some time. If it is an “abuse” as you suggest, it’s clear it would be one of the most common abuses in the Church throughout the world and it would not have only been included in RS, the Pope wouldn’t bless people during communion which he does.

"

You do realize that by what you just said you completely destroyed your whole argument don’t you?

The Pope, or a Bishop, or a Priest can bless during the distribution of Holy Communion by virtue of their position within the Church. The Extraordinary Minister has are you ready for this

NO POSITION IN THE CHURCH OTHER THAN THAT OF A LAY PERSON

None, zip, he is merely entrusted to **ASSIST **the Priest in the distribution of Holy Communion, not to take any additional duties upon him or herself as many of them do. He is not there for any other reason, not to hear confessions, not to commiserate, not to kneel down in prayer, not to five theologocal advice, not to impart blessings, nothing at all…

He is there to help out distributing Holy Communion when the Priest and or other Ordinary Ministers are unable to adequitely perform the task.

I would have thought they got the idea that they were not particularly special or noteworthy when they were stopped from communing each other, gathering around the altar and taking Holy Communion for themselves prior to the Priest receiving, all issues that were addressed by the way.

Maybe it is just that since these blessings are to the best of my knowledge mainly a western thing. Rome is unaware as to just how widespread the problem is. Just ;look at how long it took Rome them to stop the EMHC’s from doing some of their other stuff.

 

[Rickwood]

You do realize that by what you just said you completely destroyed your whole argument don’t you?

The Pope, or a Bishop, or a Priest can bless during the distribution of Holy Communion by virtue of their position within the Church. The Extraordinary Minister has are you ready for this

NO POSITION IN THE CHURCH OTHER THAN THAT OF A LAY PERSON

None, zip, he is merely entrusted to **ASSIST **the Priest in the distribution of Holy Communion, not to take any additional duties upon him or herself as many of them do. He is not there for any other reason, not to hear confessions, not to commiserate, not to kneel down in prayer, not to five theologocal advice, not to impart blessings, nothing at all…

He is there to help out distributing Holy Communion when the Priest and or other Ordinary Ministers are unable to adequitely perform the task.

I would have thought they got the idea that they were not particularly special or noteworthy when they were stopped from communing each other, gathering around the altar and taking Holy Communion for themselves prior to the Priest receiving, all issues that were addressed by the way.

Maybe it is just that since these blessings are to the best of my knowledge mainly a western thing. Rome is unaware as to just how widespread the problem is. Just ;look at how long it took Rome them to stop the EMHC’s from doing some of their other stuff.

I never said an EMHC could bless anyone. Please don’t suggest that I did as that would not be telling the truth. Here is the quote, empahsis added:

"There is nothing in those documents that prohibit an EMHC from blessing anyone. The prohibition is for all laypersons inside and outside of the Mass – they may not bless anyone on behalf of the Church in the name of the Holy Trinity."

Interesting you say “The Pope, or a Bishop, or a Priest can bless during the distribution of Holy Communion by virtue of their position within the Church.” I agree. That is lost on some here.