EMHC Blessings

  • Thread starter Thread starter lmashburn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Walking_Home said:
Can you provide an authoritative document that prescribes blessings during communion —Yes or No.
Click to expand...
Can you provide a document that specifically says a priest may not offer a blessing during communion? “Yes or No.”
 
Rickwood said:
Can you provide a document that specifically says a priest may not offer a blessing during communion? “Yes or No.”
Click to expand...
I can provide one that says the Mass should be as prescribed in the Liturgical books (no blessings prescribed in any). I believe someone else provided the book of blessing with no mention of blessings at communion. Now what do you have --besides smoke.
 
Walking_Home said:
I can provide one that says the Mass should be as prescribed in the Liturgical books (no blessings prescribed in any). I believe someone else provided the book of blessing with no mention of blessings at communion. Now what do you have --besides smoke.
Click to expand...
The BB is no proof. C’mon.
 
Rickwood said:
The BB is no proof. C’mon.
Click to expand...
…and that is no argument. If you wish to exclude the Book of Blessings, make a case for it. Otherwise, it is merely your opinion that we can (or should) ignore it.
 
nightwalker said:
…and that is no argument. If you wish to exclude the Book of Blessings, make a case for it. Otherwise, it is merely your opinion that we can (or should) ignore it.
Click to expand...
The BB does not control whether or not a priest may bestow a blessing on someone while he is distributing communion. The burden of proof is on you.
 
Actually, the 1997 document from the Congregation for Clergy clears this up:
Liturgical Celebrations
Click to expand...
§ 1. Liturgical actions must always clearly manifest the unity of the People of God as a structured communion.(89) Thus there exists a close link between the ordered exercise of liturgical action and the reflection in the liturgy of the Church’s structured nature.
Click to expand...
This happens when all participants, with faith and devotion, discharge those roles proper to them.
Click to expand...
§ 2. 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.
Click to expand...
Here is the clincher:
***Every effort must be made to avoid even the appearance of confusion which can spring from anomalous liturgical practices. ***As the sacred ministers are obliged to wear all of the prescribed liturgical vestments so too the non-ordained faithful may not assume that which is not proper to them.
Click to expand...
To avoid any confusion between sacramental liturgical acts presided over by a priest or deacon, and other acts which the non-ordained faithful may lead, it is always necessary to use clearly distinct ceremonials, especially for the latter.
Click to expand...
What I highlighted in red covers the issue of the EMHCs doing something that they are not meant to do. This document, issued in 1997 by the Congregation for Clergy, and signed by several Ruman Congregations, including the one formerly headed by Pope Benedict XVI, came about because of stuff like this.

The lines were blurred quite badly to the point that Rome had to step in and clean things up. Therefore, if you don’t find anything written in the documents regarding the EMHCs blessing during Communion it is because it is not something that we are supposed to do.

There are those who can argue till the proverbial cows come home but Rome has spelled out quite clearly that this is not our duty, especially during the Mass.
 
Rickwood said:
The BB does not control whether or not a priest may bestow a blessing on someone while he is distributing communion. The burden of proof is on you.
Click to expand...
Actually, the burden of proof is on you. The prelate I had lunch with told me that no such “ritual” exists for imparting a blessing in lieu of Holy Communion. It is not found in the GIRM, the Roman Missal, Redemptionis Sacramentum nor any other authoritative, legislative text overseeing the Liturgy. Therefore, unless you can pull this information from the Holy See, this is simply an innovation that has no organic development in the liturgy.

You can ignore the documents we’ve posted, but, the burden of proof is on you. You are merely rendering your opinion without providing any authoritative sources from the Holy See to back up your claims.
 
Rickwood said:
The BB does not control whether or not a priest may bestow a blessing on someone while he is distributing communion. The burden of proof is on you.
Click to expand...
But it states that no other blessings than those prescribed for use during the Mass are allowed. And this particular blessing is nowhere mentioned. QED
 
Rickwood said:
The BB is not the Sacramentary…
Click to expand...
Right, it’s a separate book. What does that have to do with anything? The “Roman Ritual” is a separate book from the “Roman Missal”, but that doesn’t affect their relationship. Why should the BB being a separate book prevent it from impacting the liturgy as defined in the Sacramentary?

Is your interpretation of “Because some blessings have a special relationship to the sacraments, they may sometimes be joined with the celebration of Mass. This book specifies what such blessings are and the part or rite with which they are to be joined; it also provides norms that may not be disregarded. No blessings except those so specified may be joined with the eucharistic celebration.” that the book is simply saying “No blessing listed in here that is not described as permissible within the celebration of Mass may be joined to the Mass.”?

I suppose that’s reasonable (so the blessing of, say, a car cannot be joined to the Mass, whereas the blessing of throats on the Feast of St. Blaise can). But then, the B.B. would have absolutely nothing to do with a priest who comes up with a blessing on his own, and chooses to impart it on non-communicants during Communion. That means the priest could join the blessing of a car to the Mass, simply by coming up with his own “rite” for it. That seems like abuse of a loop-hole to me.
 
japhy said:
Right, it’s a separate book. What does that have to do with anything? The “Roman Ritual” is a separate book from the “Roman Missal”, but that doesn’t affect their relationship. Why should the BB being a separate book prevent it from impacting the liturgy as defined in the Sacramentary?

Is your interpretation of “Because some blessings have a special relationship to the sacraments, they may sometimes be joined with the celebration of Mass. This book specifies what such blessings are and the part or rite with which they are to be joined; it also provides norms that may not be disregarded. No blessings except those so specified may be joined with the eucharistic celebration.” that the book is simply saying “No blessing listed in here that is not described as permissible within the celebration of Mass may be joined to the Mass.”?

I suppose that’s reasonable (so the blessing of, say, a car cannot be joined to the Mass, whereas the blessing of throats on the Feast of St. Blaise can). But then, the B.B. would have absolutely nothing to do with a priest who comes up with a blessing on his own, and chooses to impart it on non-communicants during Communion. That means the priest could join the blessing of a car to the Mass, simply by coming up with his own “rite” for it. That seems like abuse of a loop-hole to me.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry but you have failed to how the Church prohibits a priest or bishop from giving a blessing during communion. Spin it around as much as you like, you’re still wrong.
 
Rickwood said:
I’m sorry but you have failed to how the Church prohibits a priest or bishop from giving a blessing during communion. Spin it around as much as you like, you’re still wrong.
Click to expand...
It is not japhy who has failed, it is you. You have yet to provide any authoritative documentation that supports your notion. It seems that you are the one doing the spinning here, Rick.

The reason why you haven’t responded to any of my questions is because no such provision exists. None of the regulatory documents of the Holy See concerning liturgy have this innovation. It’s just that, an innovation, Rick. It’s not in the GIRM nor is it in Redemptionis Sacramentum. In fact, it has no place in the Mass.

It’s someone’s idea of creativity that went wild.
 
benedictgal said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rickwood View Post
I’m sorry but you have failed to how the Church prohibits a priest or bishop from giving a blessing during communion. Spin it around as much as you like, you’re still wrong.

It is not japhy who has failed, it is you. You have yet to provide any authoritative documentation that supports your notion. It seems that you are the one doing the spinning here, Rick.

The reason why you haven’t responded to any of my questions is because no such provision exists. None of the regulatory documents of the Holy See concerning liturgy have this innovation. It’s just that, an innovation, Rick. It’s not in the GIRM nor is it in Redemptionis Sacramentum. In fact, it has no place in the Mass.

It’s someone’s idea of creativity that went wild.
Click to expand...
Ditto.
 
Rickwood said:
I’m sorry but you have failed to how the Church prohibits a priest or bishop from giving a blessing during communion. Spin it around as much as you like, you’re still wrong.
Click to expand...
Could you address my questions from the post, though? How do you interpret the excerpt from the B.B.?

If the Book does not say that the blessing of a car (for example) can be united with the celebration of the Mass, then a priest cannot licitly join the blessing of a car to the Mass, right? Now, does that mean the priest can make up his own rite for blessing a car and unite it with the Mass?

Or is the Book only restricting its governance to those Blessings (or types of Blessings) found therein? Thus, since the Book probably doesn’t include a blessing of a non-communicant, the priest is free to incorporate such a blessing into the Mass (during Communion, let’s say) because such a blessing is outside the governance of the Book?

I’m just trying to understand your position.
 
japhy said:
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,
Click to expand...
I suggest that we end this discussion until Japhy gets a response to his letter and shares that response with us.
 
1ladybug said:
I suggest that we end this discussion until Japhy gets a response to his letter and shares that response with us.
Click to expand...
I’m fine with that. I didn’t start this thread, but I would approve of a moderator locking it until lmashburn or myself informs the moderator that we have received a response, at which point it can be re-opened. Or I suppose we could just start a new thread.

Or just shut up in this one until we hear from the CDWDS.
 
japhy said:
I’m fine with that. I didn’t start this thread, but I would approve of a moderator locking it until lmashburn or myself informs the moderator that we have received a response, at which point it can be re-opened. Or I suppose we could just start a new thread.

Or just shut up in this one until we hear from the CDWDS.
Click to expand...
I agree—let it go for now. This goes for the other thread also.
 
japhy said:
I’m fine with that. I didn’t start this thread, but I would approve of a moderator locking it until lmashburn or myself informs the moderator that we have received a response, at which point it can be re-opened. Or I suppose we could just start a new thread.

Or just shut up in this one until we hear from the CDWDS.
Click to expand...
I also agree with this suggestion.
 
benedictgal said:
Yes. How long do you think it will take? Several months or a year? I know that it took my dad about two months before he got his letter of acknowledgment.
Click to expand...
I sent it via standard post, so it should arrive by the end of next week. I don’t know how long it will be until I hear back… I would hope for a response in a few months, but I will not hold my breath. 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top