EMHC Blessings

[Joe_5859]

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.

I think that you made a good call on not including the references. They know what the documents say. In many cases, they wrote them! Oftentimes, including such references can give the impression that we think that we know better than they do.

 

[japhy]

I have received a response from the CDWDS. I am starting a new thread for it.

 

[Cristiano]

I have received a response from the CDWDS. I am starting a new thread for it.

You made this post 3 minutes ago and I still have to see the new thread. You better know that I am an impatient person.

 

[japhy]

You made this post 3 minutes ago and I still have to see the new thread. You better know that I am an impatient person.

I type fast, but not that fast. Nevertheless, this near occasion to sin for you is passed.

 

[jmm08]

At our parish the EMHC’s have just been allowed to ‘bless’ someone approaching them with folded arms by doing the sign of the cross on the forehead as is done for baptism.

I am not yet in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. So sometimes I might get in line with arms crossed, but only when I am in line for an ordained deacon or priest. I have observed that EHMCs may sometimes give a blessing – and that they may accidentally give a blessing with the host because one hand may be holding one host and their other hand holding the container that has many hosts. This is a violation of GIRM 91 and I do not want to be the cause for a brother or sister in the Lord to stumble. So I do not get in line for an EMHC to receive a blessing.

When I receive a blessing from an ordained deacon or a priest, I do not recall seeing anything I was uncomfortable with. Sometimes I am not given a blessing (it seems) but I do not recall being blessed with the host – they are undoubtedly more educated than the average EMHC.

From GIRM 91 “It is not lawful, however, for [non-ordained persons] to give the blessing with the sacrament”. (this quotation found on the Internet but not from an official source – I’d like to get an Internet link to the GIRM if there is one.)

In England or Europe, and sometimes in the United States, I have observed a Priest (or Bishop) blessing the congregation with a monstrance – generally in relation to observing a duration of worship in Eucharistic Adoration. Possibly this is the basis of the context for the GIRM 91 quote.

Once I observed a Mass on TV (EWTN). A minister probably with more European experience than American experience administered the host to somebody with crossed arms – despite their willingness to not receive. So those seeking only a blessing should take care that they are in a place where the practice of crossing arms is common and is understood by all the ministers.

jmm08

 

[japhy]

From GIRM 91 “It is not lawful, however, for [non-ordained persons] to give the blessing with the sacrament”. (this quotation found on the Internet but not from an official source – I’d like to get an Internet link to the GIRM if there is one.)

That is not from the GIRM, but from Eucharistiae Sacramentum, Promulgating the rites for Holy Communion and worship of the Eucharist outside Mass).

In England or Europe, and sometimes in the United States, I have observed a Priest (or Bishop) blessing the congregation with a monstrance – generally in relation to observing a duration of worship in Eucharistic Adoration. Possibly this is the basis of the context for the GIRM 91 quote.

Yes; E.S. 91 is referring to the minister of Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament, and stating that a non-ordained person may not give the benediction (blessing with the sacrament in the monstrance).

 

[vocatio]

To my knowledge, there is no “proper” form for such blessings, as EMHCs (EMEs at my parish) are not “officially” mandated (some would say allowed) to do so.

In our parish, we just sort of wing it, in terms of what words to use.

Newbie2, I’m surprised that nobody corrected this. It’s actualy EMHC, NOT EMEs. Only the bishop, priest and deacon are Eucharistic Ministers. We, EMHCs, are only acting as the pastors extended hands and thus are helping them/him distribute communion.

But my problem with this is that there is so much room here begging for more Permanent deacons since there is sucha shortage of clergy who are responsible or the ordinary ministers of the Eucharist. Has this ever been discussed in the Church? It makes a lot of since to me rather than having the laity Christ’s body all over the laity’s heads.

It’s not the blessing part that bothers me, it’s the time and place and the method. We were taught to say “we bless you in the name of the…” because it’s the wishes of the Church or parish or whatever. All I know is at the end of our training the instructor, a woman, insisted that we “receive a blessing from her hand”. For me, it was insulting. But with the clergy running amuck in some ways still I can bow out and allow more room for the “priestly woman” to get more control of the reigns or attempt to become one of the orthodox Catholics to help steer away from illicit acts in the long run. Kind of like St. Bosco in the movie we watched on EWTN last year. I tell people my feelings in groups and you ought to hear to shunning. I’m like their worst nightmare come true. I strongly suspect that is why they avoid allowing me to participate as a sponsor. The heresy runs deep in the parish life still. I just pray that this doesn’t chase my children away like it did me for a long while.

 

[jmm08]

Newbie2, I’m surprised that nobody corrected this. It’s actually EMHC, NOT EMEs. Only the bishop, priest and deacon are Eucharistic Ministers.

Ignorance of this seems quite prevalent (at least in my parish). EMHCs are often called Eucharistic Ministers – even in our church bulletins.

I do not desire to say anything bad about another Christian – especially a deacon or Priest. As a Protestant I learned that criticizing a minister before members of their flock can be an attack on the listener’s spirituality. Because that person is hearing from God through their minister and to attack that minister may impede whatever good they hear from their minister. I suppose this principle applies greatly in the Catholic faith even though I haven’t heard it taught from a Catholic.

Quite possibly some fault lies with the people who put together the church bulletin. It is a fact that our parish’s ordained staff are over-extended with many responsibilities and I guess one must simply choose important battles and not directly engage every minor error.

I suppose EMHCs are correctly trained (but may forget some of their training) and the laity are not greatly trained concerning EMHCs.

jmm08

 

[japhy]

Ignorance of this seems quite prevalent (at least in my parish). EMHCs are often called Eucharistic Ministers – even in our church bulletins.

You are exactly correct. Too many dioceses and parishes do not (or, for reasons of staffing, I suppose cannot) keep up with the latest missives from the Vatican. As of a 1997 document (Ecclesia de Mysterio) and reaffirmed in a 2004 document (Redemptionis Sacramentum), the only proper title for these people is “extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion”.

I suppose this principle applies greatly in the Catholic faith even though I haven’t heard it taught from a Catholic.

Attacking is not charitable, but we are called to correct one another charitably when we err. (We’d want the same kindness for ourselves, no?)

I suppose EMHCs are correctly trained (but may forget some of their training) and the laity are not greatly trained concerning EMHCs.

I would agree. Most of the faithful don’t know the proper term because their parish doesn’t use the term, and most of the EMHCs don’t know it either. And many parishes don’t explain what an EMHC (no matter what they call them) is and does. And many parishes over-use EMHCs to the point of abuse.

 

[vocatio]

Well, my parish is guilty of similar publishings. It is ignorance by most. I suspect there is an air of dissent though still behind some of it. This is a point or issue with me too. Other’s posting on here refuting, justly, just cause me doubt as to the legitimacy of the Catholic Church and increase my trust towards the Orhtodox Church. It has been a life long struggle of mine and more so recently since my reversion. I initially wanted to become Orhtodox, but my wife would have nothing to do with those “bearded men and strange customs” that I am so drawn to ever since I learned more about Judaism and Orthodoxy. Some of the dogmas of the Church seem pointless or to be a method to further the wedge between the East and the West. I am studying still. I do feel called to serve in the priesthood, but can not do such in the Latin rite. My hands are tied it seems. So I am discerning the diaconate. Currently I place my trust in the Catholic Church, hoping it is the right path even with all of the heresies and illicit acts that go uncorrected by the hierarchy. It is this lack of pastoral prudence that really bothers me the most. I have figured what to do with it yet except to attempt charitable patience and understanding. If anything ever causes me to fall it would be this last comment of mine. A child needs to know he can trust his parents.

 

[vocatio]

You are exactly correct. Too many dioceses and parishes do not (or, for reasons of staffing, I suppose cannot) keep up with the latest missives from the Vatican. As of a 1997 document (Ecclesia de Mysterio) and reaffirmed in a 2004 document (Redemptionis Sacramentum), the only proper title for these people is “extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion”.

Attacking is not charitable, but we are called to correct one another charitably when we err. (We’d want the same kindness for ourselves, no?)

I would agree. Most of the faithful don’t know the proper term because their parish doesn’t use the term, and most of the EMHCs don’t know it either. And many parishes don’t explain what an EMHC (no matter what they call them) is and does. And many parishes over-use EMHCs to the point of abuse.

I’d like to add to your statements that Catholic laity should always be most charitable towards clergy. They are our leaders. And if we point out a discrepancy or wrong we should do with with much prudence by not bringing it to everyone’s attention first but rather to ask or say something with a genuine concern, leavng out the harh disrespectful tone. If the priest or deacon does not respond then consult the bishop and so forth. But, you must be patient in doing this. Pride is a very difficult thing to fight once it starts to call into question all that you hold true because of a seemingly lack of concern from the hierarchy and laity. I know, I’ve been here. That is why I have so many issues and why I hang out on CAF to begin with. I’ve mistakenly said some disrespectful things to priests on here not realizing that they were really priests and not just labeled as such. I also give the same respect for other validly ordained clergy in the Eastern Orthodox Church, but have learned that they seemingly don’t tend to be so patient with me. I began communicating with Orhtodox priests over 2 years ago and have been studying the events leading up to the Great Schism. I still have issues with Rome’s actions or inactions as they may be. Sometimes it seems that Rome waits until several generations die before we do something about problems.

 

[benedictgal]

In another thread that japhy just began, he and the OP have received official word from the Holy See regarding the issue of the imparting a blessing in lieu of distributing Holy Communion.

The Congregation for Divine Worship has made its ruling. I am not sure if it was in this thread or a similar one, but someone referenced the commentary made by Francis Cardinal Arinze that was broadcast on YouTube.

The response that japhy and the OP received should finally put this matter to bed.

Here is the link:

forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4690&d=1228783198

Thanks, again, to japhy and the OP for following through on the issue.

 

[Phemie]

I would agree. Most of the faithful don’t know the proper term because their parish doesn’t use the term, and most of the EMHCs don’t know it either. And many parishes don’t explain what an EMHC (no matter what they call them) is and does. And many parishes over-use EMHCs to the point of abuse.

When I started using the term EMHC in the bulletin, the former pastor instructed me to use Eucharistic Minister and the assistant pastor told me that they are now the ordinary minister of Communion in many parishes. Considering that the assistant had once been the pastor’s professor in the seminary, is it any wonder that the average PIP is confused about terms? Even the ‘bosses’ can’t get it straight. Or I should say the bosses don’t want to obey the instructions from Rome: this same assistant, when I pointed out that having EMHCs distribute Communion while two priests sat down flies in the face of all the documents out of Rome, stood up, shook his finger in my face and yelled, “We’ve never paid attention to those and we’re not about to start now!”

It’s also important to explain the term ‘extraordinary’ to the laity. One particularly pious PIP was incensed at the implication that these ‘Eucharistic Ministers’ were so special as to be considered ‘extraordinary’. She calmed down once I explained the term.

 

[zab]

In another thread that japhy just began, he and the OP have received official word from the Holy See regarding the issue of the imparting a blessing in lieu of distributing Holy Communion.

The Congregation for Divine Worship has made its ruling. I am not sure if it was in this thread or a similar one, but someone referenced the commentary made by Francis Cardinal Arinze that was broadcast on YouTube.

The response that japhy and the OP received should finally put this matter to bed.

Here is the link:

forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4690&d=1228783198

Thanks, again, to japhy and the OP for following through on the issue.

**Wrong! **The Congregation has not made a ruling. In his letter, Under-secretary, Fr. Anthony Ward, states This matter is presently under the attentive study of the Congregation.

I will say that the letter was quite convincing in informing us that non-communicating people should not approach in the Communion line. That being said, it does not instruct us as what to do when non-communicating people do approach. I believe that most of those who do approach in this manner are doing this out of ignorance or because of misguided instruction and not because of any selfish reasons of their own. It does not necessarily come from the “trophy mentality” that everyone has to be recognized in order to feel “validated”. I have written my share of letters to the bishop regarding liturgical abuse (pertaining to prison ministry that I once was involved in). But in my opinion, this is more a matter of ignorance than abuse.

The question still left unanswered is: How do we treat the non-communicating who do approach and perhaps were just invited to approach by a well-meaning pastor who was trying to instruct guests on who was allowed to receive Holy Communion? Our pastor, and others who instruct the EMHC have correctly informed us that lay persons cannot give a priestly blessing and have told us to simply say, “God bless you.” Until direction comes from our pastor that non-communicating people should not come forward, we need to have proper instruction on how to treat these people in a charitable way.

The Under-Secretary, Fr. Ward. does say that the EMHC should never put a hand or hands on the person or trace the sign of the cross on the person. He does not address saying “God bless you”. The main point of his letter was that non-communicating people should not approach in the Communion line to begin with.

 

[benedictgal]

**Wrong! **The Congregation has not made a ruling. In his letter, Under-secretary, Fr. Anthony Ward, states This matter is presently under the attentive study of the Congregation.

I will say that the letter was quite convincing in informing us that non-communicating people should not approach in the Communion line. That being said, it does not instruct us as what to do when non-communicating people do approach. I believe that most of those who do approach in this manner are doing this out of ignorance or because of misguided instruction and not because of any selfish reasons of their own. It does not necessarily come from the “trophy mentality” that everyone has to be recognized in order to feel “validated”. I have written my share of letters to the bishop regarding liturgical abuse (pertaining to prison ministry that I once was involved in). But in my opinion, this is more a matter of ignorance than abuse.

The question still left unanswered is: How do we treat the non-communicating who do approach and perhaps were just invited to approach by a well-meaning pastor who was trying to instruct guests on who was allowed to receive Holy Communion? Our pastor, and others who instruct the EMHC have correctly informed us that lay persons cannot give a priestly blessing and have told us to simply say, “God bless you.” Until direction comes from our pastor that non-communicating people should not come forward, we need to have proper instruction on how to treat these people in a charitable way.

The Under-Secretary, Fr. Ward. does say that the EMHC should never put a hand or hands on the person or trace the sign of the cross on the person. He does not address saying “God bless you”. The main point of his letter was that non-communicating people should not approach in the Communion line to begin with.

No, Zab, I believe that the Congregation spoke very clearly on this. With all due respect, why are you so insistent that this be done? This letter carries more weight than a YouTube soundbite. Notice, too, that japhy and the OP clearly stated a “minister of Holy Communion”, not an extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. The ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are the deacon, prest and bishop, so, this primarily concerns them and, to a lesser degree, those of us who are EMHCs.

Furthermore, if you carefully read it, it is very clear that those who cannot receive Holy Communion should not even approach the communion line.

I believe that the response is perfectly clear.

 

[zab]

No, Zab, I believe that the Congregation spoke very clearly on this. With all due respect, why are you so insistent that this be done? This letter carries more weight than a YouTube soundbite. Furthermore, if you carefully read it, it is very clear that those who cannot receive Holy Communion should not even approach the communion line.

I believe that the response is perfectly clear.

benedictgal,
Please read my post before you reply.

 

[benedictgal]

benedictgal,
Please read my post before you reply.

Zab, I have re-read your post. I respectfully ask that you re-read what the CDWDS wrote. Imparting a blessing isn’t restricted to hand movements, as words are also involved (it can be either or, as was the case with Pope John Paul II when he could no longer speak but raised his hands in blessing, or, if a priest is unable to raise his arms but can still pronounce the words). That pretty much takes care of the scenario that you noted in your post.

The response specifically states that:

In a similar way, for others who are not to be admitted to Holy Communion in accord with the norm of law, the Church’s discipline has already made clear that they should not approach Holy Commuion nor receive a blessing.

A well-meaning pastor cannot make an invitation he has no authority to make.

 

[zab]

Zab, I have re-read your post. I respectfully ask that you re-read what the CDWDS wrote. Imparting a blessing isn’t restricted to hand movements, as words are also involved (it can be either or, as was the case with Pope John Paul II when he could no longer speak but raised his hands in blessing, or, if a priest is unable to raise his arms but can still pronounce the words). That pretty much takes care of the scenario that you noted in your post.

The response specifically states that:

A well-meaning pastor cannot make an invitation he has no authority to make.

benedictgal,
I respectfully ask that you take a good look at my screen name and address me as it is written without inserting your own punctuation. You can misread things just as you misread Fr. Ward’s letter when you said the Congregation has made it’s ruling. The truth is they are still studying the matter.

Now, as far as words being involved in a blessing, sure they are. But every word that is uttered is not a blessing nor is it intended to be a blessing. I am not the one who is pretending to impart a blessing. If you are interpreting it that way then you are wrong.

 

[benedictgal]

benedictgal,
I respectfully ask that you take a good look at my screen name and address me as it is written without inserting your own punctuation. You can misread things just as you misread Fr. Ward’s letter when you said the Congregation has made it’s ruling. The truth is they are still studying the matter.

Now, as far as words being involved in a blessing, sure they are. But every word that is uttered is not a blessing nor is it intended to be a blessing. I am not the one who is pretending to impart a blessing. If you are interpreting it that way then you are wrong.

If you re-read japhy’s original letter to the Congregation, he notes that one of the phrases used was “May God bless you” as wording for the “blessing.” The Discastery, for the present, said that such action should not be happening.

What I don’t understand is, and I ask this respectfully, why you are still holding on to your position? At the present, this kind of activity should not be happening. The letter is clear on that.

Were the answer contrary to the position I have been holding, I would have accepted it, not quite understanding the reasoning, but, I would have accepted it. Yet, I find it difficult to understand why one would maintain their position even though the Discastery has explained its reasons against it. Furthermore, Fr. Ward is the Under-secretary for the English-language section of the CDWDS, so, he’s pretty up there on the totem pole.

 

[zab]

If you re-read japhy’s original letter to the Congregation, he notes that one of the phrases used was “May God bless you” as wording for the “blessing.” The Discastery, for the present, said that such action should not be happening.

What I don’t understand is, and I ask this respectfully, why you are still holding on to your position? At the present, this kind of activity should not be happening. The letter is clear on that.

Were the answer contrary to the position I have been holding, I would have accepted it, not quite understanding the reasoning, but, I would have accepted it. Yet, I find it difficult to understand why one would maintain their position even though the Discastery has explained its reasons against it. Furthermore, Fr. Ward is the Under-secretary for the English-language section of the CDWDS, so, he’s pretty up there on the totem pole.

Let me make this clear to you. I have never been comfortable with people approaching for a blessing. I have even stated that the letter was quite convincing. I do accept what Fr. Ward wrote. And I would welcome a directive instructing people not to come foreword other than to receive Holy Communion. So I don’t know why you keep inserting that I persist in holding a different position. My only concern is how we should treat the people that do come forward.