Eucharistic Minister and blessing

[LeahInancsi]

When an EMHC holds the Precious Blood in his hand, they need to know what that means. Often it is not just the cup they are holding in their hand but the entire future of the next person coming up the line. Their soul, their faith, their emotions everything. As in my post above.
And if the EMHC’s really really understood this, this thread wouldn’t even exist.

If you are referring to the EMHC in the statements I highlighted, I’m not sure I agree. When I was serving the Eucharist last week, I very intently looked at posture of the people who approached me. There were those who just bounded up to me with their hand out, took the Body of Christ, stuck Him in their mouth and walked away. Then, there were those who were very reflective and reverent. They approached me slowly and deliberately with their head bowed. They were approaching Jesus Christ. It’s as if I were not there, they were oblivous to me. This is how it should be. It is all between the recipient and Jesus Christ. If I do my job properly and show proper respect for the sacrament that is taking place, how can I, a mere mortal, have such an impact on their future?

 

[tequilamac]

If you are referring to the EMHC in the statements I highlighted, I’m not sure I agree. When I was serving the Eucharist last week, I very intently looked at posture of the people who approached me. There were those who just bounded up to me with their hand out, took the Body of Christ, stuck Him in their mouth and walked away. Then, there were those who were very reflective and reverent. They approached me slowly and deliberately with their head bowed. They were approaching Jesus Christ. It’s as if I were not there, they were oblivous to me. This is how it should be. It is all between the recipient and Jesus Christ. If I do my job properly and show proper respect for the sacrament that is taking place, how can I, a mere mortal, have such an impact on their future?

You can’t. That is my point.

But those who do not do their job properly and show/have respect for the Sacrament can put a real dent in someone else’s life.

 

[MariaG]

If you are referring to the EMHC in the statements I highlighted, I’m not sure I agree. When I was serving the Eucharist last week, I very intently looked at posture of the people who approached me. There were those who just bounded up to me with their hand out, took the Body of Christ, stuck Him in their mouth and walked away. Then, there were those who were very reflective and reverent. They approached me slowly and deliberately with their head bowed. They were approaching Jesus Christ. It’s as if I were not there, they were oblivous to me. This is how it should be. It is all between the recipient and Jesus Christ. If I do my job properly and show proper respect for the sacrament that is taking place, how can I, a mere mortal, have such an impact on their future?

That is the point. There were some EMHC’s who were not doing their job properly and as a result caused great spiritual harm to someone through their spiteful ignorance in denying a person the blood of Christ.

There is great responsibility in serving as a EMHC, if done improperly, it can cause great harm to others.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[CRW]

I was at Notre Dame this weekend, (awesome place by the way) and went to mass at the basillica. The gentleman in charge of the lectors said the if you were not receiving communion that you could still come forward and a communuion minister would give you a blessing. There were 3 priests at the Mass so I thought that they would give the blessing, however, the place was packed and they had several extra ordinary distributors and I saw them place there hands on peoples heads. This doesn’t seem right to me? Am I being petty or should only a priest give a blessing/ Also is there any back up for either way in the Catechism? Thanks

ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur81.htm

 

[LeahInancsi]

ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur81.htm

So what say you, CRW?

"Certainly this blessing is not in the rubrics and there is no obligation to make such an invitation. However, neither is there any prohibition and the practice seems to have been tacitly accepted by many bishops who are aware of this nascent custom and have even participated in giving such blessings. " - EWTN

It doesn’t say you can, but it does say you can’t?

 

[CRW]

So what say you, CRW?

"Certainly this blessing is not in the rubrics and there is no obligation to make such an invitation. However, neither is there any prohibition and the practice seems to have been tacitly accepted by many bishops who are aware of this nascent custom and have even participated in giving such blessings. " - EWTN

It doesn’t say you can, but it does say you can’t?

This is just another custom that has allowed to be added to the rubrics without authority or modification to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal. Once allowed, it offends those who do not appreciate the practice and also those that have become accustomed to the practice, if removed.

My personal opinion is that 1) it does allow parents of young children to participate, with their parents, in the reception of Holy Communion process, 2) allows parents to teach their children proper respect, manners, etc. (training at an early age), and 3) although if may not add or confer any special sacramental blessings on the children, I do not believe that our most merciful Lord would not receive the request for blessings. We do pray and offer our prayers and blessings on our children and each other.

This has been a self-conscious position for me as an EMHC, especially for adults, which are not in full communion with the Church for various reasons. I always silently ask God to confer his blessings and graces on them and to strengthen them in their belief and state in life.

What concern me most are those that touch the non-communicant without first purifying their fingers. There is always the possibility of particles of the Blessed Sacrament being attached to the fingers.

Will it ever change, I doubt it. The priest, and I see their point, are placed in a difficult position concerning deleting “acquired” customs. This is one of those battles that will not win the war or result in defeat.

“Continuous improvement is better then delayed perfection?”

 

[palmas85]

The universal priesthood and the ministerial priesthood are equal in dignity. One is not set above the other. They both share in the priesthood of Christ, but are configured for different areas of service.

When it comes to fulfilling the Church’s mission to the world, laity have an authority, jurisdiction, and power that is unique to the secular character of their office–and equal to that of the ministerial priesthood.

It is not a case of one being better than the other.

Keith

Well that statement is all very nebulous and non specific,and while sounding meaningful it actually says nothing.

So what exactly does it mean? Exactly what authority, jurisdiction and power does the laity have that is equal to the ordained Priesthood? And in what way, theologically and ecclesiastically are the two groups equal?

 

[az_4_faith]

With regards to children approaching the Blessed Sacrament at Holy Communion with their parents, why don’t we just forget the whole notion of a “special blessing” and simply welcome the children (and other adults not receiving as well) as they come forward with their parents and instruct them to bow before the Blessed Sacrament or show some other sign of reverance with their parents. (Our Bishops in the US have instructed the faithful to bow.) That way they are learning how to give Jesus proper respect and once they make their First Communion, they’ll know exactly what to do. Imagine how wonderful they’ll feel when they are allowed to receive Jesus in First Communion eventually. This may help them to become more aware of the Real Presence rather than simply looking for a “special blessing”.

Again, we need to remember that all people present, children and adults, Catholic and non-Catholic, receive a blessing at the end of Mass. There has never been a need for an additional blessing.

 

[LeahInancsi]

This has been a self-conscious position for me as an EMHC, especially for adults, which are not in full communion with the Church for various reasons. I always silently ask God to confer his blessings and graces on them and to strengthen them in their belief and state in life.

What concern me most are those that touch the non-communicant without first purifying their fingers. There is always the possibility of particles of the Blessed Sacrament being attached to the fingers.

Will it ever change, I doubt it. The priest, and I see their point, are placed in a difficult position concerning deleting “acquired” customs. This is one of those battles that will not win the war or result in defeat.

“Continuous improvement is better then delayed perfection?”

As a relatively new Catholic, I have yet to endure changes in the Mass. I appreciate why many people find it hard to accept many of the changes in the Mass. One of the reasons I became Catholic was because the Church teachings never change. Since reading many of the threads on this issue, I have become weary of giving blessings when I perform my duties as an EMHC.

 

[LeahInancsi]

Since the non-communicants should not receive blessings, then there is no reason for them to go forward in the communion line, therefore they should stay in the pew. How do those of you opposed to blessings envision the flow of Mass to go? Do I and everyone else behind me climb over the person in front of me who is a non-communicant and stays in the pews?

I think there is a practical matter at hand and pastors have to address these matters as benignly as possible.

 

[palmas85]

Since the non-communicants should not receive blessings, then there is no reason for them to go forward in the communion line, therefore they should stay in the pew. How do those of you opposed to blessings envision the flow of Mass to go? Do I and everyone else behind me climb over the person in front of me who is a non-communicant and stays in the pews?

I think there is a practical matter at hand and pastors have to address these matters as benignly as possible.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with staying in the pews and asking for spiritual comunion. I think one of the reasons that so many receive communion unworthily these days is that they are ashamed to sit in the pews while others go forward to receive. Unless your pews are extremely tight you should have no real problem getting around those who remain in the pews. Receiving Holy Communion is not and should not be about expediency and how easy it should be to approach the Altar.

Receiving a blessing should not be the reason to approach the Altar. You can always ask the Priest for a blessing after Mass. They are almost always glad to oblige.

 

[Keith_Strohm]

Well that statement is all very nebulous and non specific,and while sounding meaningful it actually says nothing.

So what exactly does it mean? Exactly what authority, jurisdiction and power does the laity have that is equal to the ordained Priesthood? And in what way, theologically and ecclesiastically are the two groups equal?

Palmas85,

Those are good questions, and I’ll do my best to answer them as concretely as I can. Before I start, I feel the need to say this: The development of the theology of the laity continues even to the present day. Previous to the 2nd Vatican Council, the laity were defined in the negative. We were the “non-ordained.” The Council, mining the Tradition and utilizing the work of theologians such as Yves Congar, offered for the first time a positive definition of the laity. You can see it in Lumen Gentium and Apostolicam Actuositatem.

That being said, an authentic theology of the laity does not contradict the fulness of the Church’s Teaching and seeks to place the reality of the laity within the Tradition of the Church, consonant with the Magisterium. By exploring and promoting the characteristics of the laity, I am by no means attempting to reduce the role of the ordained or erase/minimize the differences between the lay and ordained. I am not advocating more lay roles within the Church. In fact, the authentic living out of the Lay Office occurs outside the community in the world.

So, to start answering your question, the common and ordained priesthoods are, from the very start, equal in dignity–because that dignity has its roots in Baptism:

In the fullness of this title and on equal par with all other members of the Church, the lay faithful are called to holiness: “All the faithful of Christ of whatever rank or status are called to the fullness of Christian life and to the perfection of charity”(43). (Christifidelis Laici)

It is because of our baptism that we, as laypeople, share in the priestly, prophetic, and royal mission of Christ. So, we share in the priesthood of Christ in a very real sense. Now, it has been said (and taught) that the way the ordained share in the priesthood is different not only in degree but in essence. This is true. However, this does not make one better than the other.

In fact, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had this to say regarding the common and ordained priesthoods:

Thus the essential difference between the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial priesthood is not found in the priesthood of Christ, which remains forever one and indivisible, nor in the sanctity to which all of the faithful are called: “Indeed the ministerial priesthood does not of itself signify a greater degree of holiness with regard to the common priesthood of the faithful; through it, Christ gives to priests, in the Spirit, a particular gift so that they can help the People of God to exercise faithfully and fully the common priesthood which it has received”.(On Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of Priests)

The essential difference between the common and ministerial priesthoods is in the mode of service. The ordained priesthood is configured to the service of the common priesthood so that the lay faithful can accomplish the mission of the Church in the world.

The two priesthoods are complimentary but essentially different. Equal in dignity, yet configured for different purposes. The ordained teach, sanctify, and govern the community of the faithful, and the laity participate in the priestly, prophetic, and royal offices of Christ for the sake of the world.

In fact, the laity are called to “consecrate the world to God . . .and restore to creation all of its original dignity” (Christifidelis Laici). The mission of the common priesthood is particular to the world and because of it, the Church teaches that there is a particular character to the common priesthood:

In particular the sharing of the *lay faithful *has its own manner of realization and function, which, according to the Council, is “properly and particularly” theirs. Such a manner is designated with the expression “secular character”(Christifidelis Laici).

The secular world is, therefore, the particular jurisdiction of the laity (the common priesthood) living as the Church in the midst of the world.

More continued next post

 

[CRW]

Since the non-communicants should not receive blessings, then there is no reason for them to go forward in the communion line, therefore they should stay in the pew. How do those of you opposed to blessings envision the flow of Mass to go? Do I and everyone else behind me climb over the person in front of me who is a non-communicant and stays in the pews?

I think there is a practical matter at hand and pastors have to address these matters as benignly as possible.

Leahlnancsi,

Interesting point, which may be contributed to instituted customs or habits performed by the lay ministry. According to the Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite, by Peter J. Elliott: The ushers or doorkeepers should carry out their duties among the people with good manners and discretion. While these men and woman have the role of maintaining order as well as welcoming and assisting people, they must never “organize” Holy Communion in such a way as to oblige people to approach the altar row by row.

My assumption is all who attend Mass today are saints, especially when the confessional is empty prior to the Mass. Have we grown accustomed by current tradition that receiving Holy Communion is mandatory if you attend Mass, or is it still required to be in a state of grace; without grave or serious sin? No ABC, no porno, no drunkenness, fornication, adultery, etc.

We should never be opposed to stepping over those remaining behind or judge their reason for not receiving. I am not stating that your post does, it just rang a door bell in my brain concerning ushers responsibilities not to enforce row by row communion. I have not attend a Church that follows the above guidelines.

 

[Keith_Strohm]

Common and Ministerial Priesthoods continued:

Regarding the authority of the common priesthood, it is equal to that of the ministerial priesthood because it comes from Christ Himself in the sacrament of baptism:

The laity derive the right and duty to the apostolate from their union with Christ the head; incorporated into Christ’s Mystical Body through Baptism and strengthened by the power of the Holy Spirit through Confirmation, they are assigned to the apostolate by the Lord Himself. They are consecrated for the royal priesthood and the holy people (cf. 1 Peter 2:4-10) not only that they may offer spiritual sacrifices in everything they do but also that they may witness to Christ throughout the world.(Apostolicam Actuositatem)

We have an authority equal to that of the ordained priesthood because the source of that authority is identical, Christ Himself. However, that authority is exercised in a different arena than that of the ordained. I am not suggesting that within the community, lay people have an authority to govern equal to that of the ordained.

Rather, Christ Himself has given us authority to excercise His priestly, prophetic, and royal office–to be His hands and feet, to stand in His place, for the sake of the world.

In addition to giving us His authority, Christ has also given the laity the power to accomplish what He has asked of us. Nourished and strengthened by the sacraments and the Christian community, we are also given charisms, spiritual gifts through which God’s love, providence, grace, and power are communicated for the sake of others:

In referring to the apostolate of the lay faithful the Second Vatican Council writes: “For the exercise of the apostolate the Holy Spirit who sanctifies the People of God through the ministry and the sacraments gives the faithful special gifts as well (cf. 1 *Cor *12:7), ‘allotting them to each one as he wills’ (cf. 1 *Cor *12:11), so that each might place ‘at the service of others the grace received’ and become ‘good stewards of God’s varied grace’ (1 *Pt *4:10), and build up thereby the whole body in charity (cf. *Eph *4:16)”(Christifidelic Laici)

When someone with the charism of healing prays with someone, it is Christ himself who heals. When a person with the charism of encouragement sits with someone, it is Christ Himself who en-heartens and encolurages that person to become truly who He made them to be.

So, in a very real sense, our identity as laypeople is intimately that of an apostle–sent out in to the world with a particular mission and the authority and power to accomplish that task–all of which relates equally and complementary with that of the ordained.

One is not better than the other. Christ calls the whole body, and the whole body responds.

Again, I am not advocating some sort of false theology or sociology within the Church. There are differences between the lay and ordained, but these are not differences in quality, they are differences in service. The authentic place of the laity is in the world. Any push to make the laity like ordained priests is tragically misdirected. It is like trying to make a woman a man or vice versa. However, attempting to downplay the dignity and role of the laity within the mission of the Church is also misdirected and harmful to how God has ordained (pun intended) the Body to function.

I hope that helps answer your questions a little bit more thoroughly. You can check out any of the documents I quoted, as well as the work of the Catherine of Siena Institute (www.siena.org) for more information.

In Christ,

Keith

 

[az_4_faith]

If, after examining one’s conscience, one comes to the conclusion that for whatever reason, it would not be wise to receive Holy Communion (serious sin) until Confession/ Reconciliation, remaining in the pew during Holy Communion would be an important Act of Humility. (It also shows that we’re all human and fallible!)

So leave those who feel the need to gawk and stare at those remaining in the pew, oh well . . . Our Lord is moved by our Acts of Humility.

He misses you at Holy Communion as much as you miss Him (probably moreso!)

 

[tequilamac]

Since the non-communicants should not receive blessings, then there is no reason for them to go forward in the communion line, therefore they should stay in the pew. How do those of you opposed to blessings envision the flow of Mass to go? Do I and everyone else behind me climb over the person in front of me who is a non-communicant and stays in the pews?

I think there is a practical matter at hand and pastors have to address these matters as benignly as possible.

Is this a joke?

I guess I may be the only one here who is old enough to remember that one did not go to Communion without Confession if in sin.

30 years ago or so it was not uncommon to see up to ten percent of the congregation not receiving. Yes, I said ten percent. Never caused a pew jam.

But at the same time we did have the kind of traffic jam you are talking about at the Confessional line. But the priest was able to handle “the flow benignly”.

Or else maybe people sinned more back then when abortion was illegal and birth control harder to get and no one discussed homosexuality. but when people opted to not receive Communion because they were in sin, we had not trouble with “the flow of Mass.”

What are you suggesting here?

That people who do not receive Communion due to sin should get up and go to Communion anyway so as not to cause a traffic jam in your pew?

 

[CRW]

If, after examining one’s conscience, one comes to the conclusion that for whatever reason, it would not be wise to receive Holy Communion (serious sin) until Confession/ Reconciliation, remaining in the pew during Holy Communion would be an important Act of Humility. (It also shows that we’re all human and fallible!)

So leave those who feel the need to gawk and stare at those remaining in the pew, oh well . . . Our Lord is moved by our Acts of Humility.

He misses you at Holy Communion as much as you miss Him (probably moreso!)

It would not only be an act of humility, it would be an act to avoid a more grievous sin, receiving the sacrament in mortal sin; if that be the case.

 

[Damascus]

I for one did not think it was funny atALL…

And it made me even more upset than I was before about EMHC’s than I ever have been before!!!

How bold to sit in judgement simply because one is an EMHC.

How dare you put yourself above the sinner when you are one yourself?

Would you prefer a sinners only side??? Sinners who VALUE the SACRAMENT enough to abstain AS THEY SHOULD?

You are more worried about getting the Mass to FLOW???

URRRGHHH…

I am really Thanks OP! YOu cinched it up nicely!

Is this a joke?

I guess I may be the only one here who is old enough to remember that one did not go to Communion without Confession if in sin.

30 years ago or so it was not uncommon to see up to ten percent of the congregation not receiving. Yes, I said ten percent. Never caused a pew jam.

But at the same time we did have the kind of traffic jam you are talking about at the Confessional line. But the priest was able to handle “the flow benignly”.

Or else maybe people sinned more back then when abortion was illegal and birth control harder to get and no one discussed homosexuality. but when people opted to not receive Communion because they were in sin, we had not trouble with “the flow of Mass.”

What are you suggesting here?

That people who do not receive Communion due to sin should get up and go to Communion anyway so as not to cause a traffic jam in your pew?

 

[LeahInancsi]

My points have nothing to do with who has sinned and who hasn’t. I’m not here to judge whether or not one is in a mortal state to receive the Eucharist. I assume that who approach me with hands extended or mouths opened have confessed all mortal sin. It’s as simple as that in my mind. I don’t watch the line to the confessional and keep score of those who confess and those who don’t. There are many times and places for confessing that YOU cannot monitor.

Whether any of you like it or not, there are logistical uses in coordination the flow of people through Mass. It is difficult for people to move through between pews with others sitting in them. I experienced it last Sunday and my Protestant mother experienced much embarrassment when she stayed in the pew at communion time. Those sitting around her got very upset with her because she made it difficult to receive the communion. Next week at my parish, the placement of EMHCs will be changed to improve the flow. I will call foul when arrows are drawn on the carpet to direct flow.

No, it’s not required to recieve the Eucharist every Sunday, but we are called to receive as often as possible.

 

[Sir_Knight]

" … the blessing of anyone by an EME at Communion time is a VAIN gesture, which does NOTHING for the recipient …" – Source.

Since the non-communicants should not receive blessings, then there is no reason for them to go forward in the communion line, therefore they should stay in the pew. How do those of you opposed to blessings envision the flow of Mass to go? Do I and everyone else behind me climb over the person in front of me who is a non-communicant and stays in the pews?

Yes, you “climb over the person in front of you who is a non-communicant”.

Decades ago when the majority of folks did not receive communion climbing over the person in front of you who was a non-communicant was not a problem. I don’t understand why it would be a problem today when only a minority of folks do not receive – much less people to climb over than before.