Extraordinary Ministers giving blessings

[zab]

Perhaps that is true. The question should be “why do they even need them?” They are only approved in extraordinary situations. Many “good” pastors have, IMHO, confused the approval of EMHC with the need to appease some parishioners who frankly don’t understand how great their involvement in the Mass already is.

.

You misunderstood the meaning of “good” as used in my post. And frankly your accusations are off topic. What is more important- to listen to what a person is trying to say or to pick apart every word? At what price is it to be right?

 

[FrDavid96]

FrDavid96,
I truly hope I misunderstand your post. The catchism calls catholic to the truth and speaks rather explicitly on that subject to accept your postion seems to me to accept the CDW denied all the church’s teachs about a call to truth, but further refused all responsibilities of their assigned duties and failed all catholics and the church to “for the present, **this dicastery wishes to limit itself **to the following observations”. To hold a position that the CDW looked at illicit practices and/or liturgical abuse and specifically chose to hide that through limiting itself is far, far, far further that I will ever go on this subject. I would encourage you to correct them if you believe as little as half of that. Further to hold this crazy conspiracy theory that Priests, Bishops, and the CDW are conspiring to hide illicit actions or liturgical abuse is in my personal opinion over the top. I hope I have been clear.

I will take this opportunity to point-out to you in fraternal charity that I am not the one denying anything that was said by the CDWDS. I am not accusing anyone of “hiding” anything. The official “response to a question” is public knowlege.

The CDWDS did indeed fulfill their obligation of interpreting Liturgical norms. That is plain for anyone to read. The fact that you choose to dismiss the conclusion does not mean that it does not exist.

Again, you keep saying that “this dicastery wishes to limit itself to the following observations” yet you consistently deny that those very observations articulated in that same letter have any binding force. This is objectively untrue. I also take note of the fact that you have consistently avoided addressing that very issue, and instead have limited yourself to absurd and irrelevant applications of those observations (one can see that quite clearly by re-reading your own posts where you do speak about the observations).

**Whenever any governing body studdies an issue **(be that in civil government or the Church), in no way shape or form does that alter or abrogate the current legislation, (ie the liturgical laws & norms of the Church). Yet that is precisely the false-claim that you keep attempting to make by your tedious and pointless repetition.

It is objectively untrue, and (at this point) objectively deceptive to claim that because a matter is under study, that the present conclusions do not have the force-of-law which they clearly do have. No matter how many times you repeat that sentence from the letter, you cannot change what is objectively true, and what is available for anyone on these threads (and anyone who cares to make inquiry of the CDWDS) to read for himself: The Sacred Congregation has said that these blessings are not to be done. That is a fact.

 

[diana20099]

As far as I have been able to ascertain, this practice arose over the last two decades or so, above all in English-speaking countries, such as Australia and the United States, where Catholics form a significant minority amid a basically Christian population.

Because of this, it is relatively common to have non-Catholics present at Mass, for example, Protestant spouses of Catholics, catechumens, and other visitors. This is especially true of weddings and funerals when the number of non-Catholics is even larger.

Another common situation, which apparently gave rise to this practice, is the increase in non-Catholic students at Catholic schools and colleges. At times, about half the student body is unable to participate in Communion.

Situations such as these probably inspired the practice of inviting those unable to receive Communion to approach the altar to receive a blessing so as not to feel excluded.

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.

As far as I know, no bishop has issued specific directives on this issue, nor has the Holy See intervened although it is certainly aware of its existence.

The decision as to whether to adopt such a practice depends on the concrete pastoral circumstances involved. As in all similar initiatives, due reflection is required regarding the custom’s pastoral utility and as to any possible consequences that it may provoke in the short or long term.​

sportsbooks
Mauritius Holiday Packages

 

[Layman]

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.

Errrr… actually it has been stated authoritatively in this thread that these blessings are officially prohibited by the Church.

Bishops and priests can make mistakes or be disobedient to the Church. That doesn’t change the official teaching.

I don’t want to derail this thread, but I wonder if we’re seeing in this thread a phenomenon like how other abuses or novelties got started?: “It’s not normally done, there are good reasons for not doing it, it may even be officially prohibited, but we’re going to do it anyway (for sentimental reasons)”.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Do you believe in signs? I do. Today in Mass someone sneezed, and sneezed, and sneezed again. I thought of them, then I thought of you, then I thought of them, and said*** “God bless you”. ***

(Ah, I hear the distant pens writing “ Dear CDW………”)

Then I had a good laugh, and enjoyed the rest of Mass… a true story from Texas

 

[japhy]

Today in Mass someone sneezed, and sneezed, and sneezed again. … *** “God bless you”. ***

Are you trying to equate a blessing given in lieu of Communion by a minister of Communion with “God bless you” said by someone at Mass in response to someone else sneezing?

This has just gotten silly.

 

[Tetiaroa]

It is not holy water. Regular water is used.

No it is not holy water. The water is there to purify your fingers or hands. Especially after giving holy communion. Sometimes, there is small particles of the consecrated host still stuck to your fingers and which cannot be seen clearly by your eyes. The water is there to take care of that. Just dip your fingers in the water wipe it with a purificator provided.

The reason is because the consecrated host if turned into water or dissolves ceases to be the Body of Christ. This is the whole point for the water to be there and sometimes it makes me angry seeing Priests not doing this after giving holy communion. Instead, they just went back to their seats, plucking their hands in their pockets reaching for hankerchief to wipe their sweaty foreheads.

 

[Phemie]

No it is not holy water. The water is there to purify your fingers or hands. Especially after giving holy communion. Sometimes, there is small particles of the consecrated host still stuck to your fingers and which cannot be seen clearly by your eyes. The water is there to take care of that. Just dip your fingers in the water wipe it with a purificator provided.

The reason is because the consecrated host if turned into water or dissolves ceases to be the Body of Christ. This is the whole point for the water to be there and sometimes it makes me angry seeing Priests not doing this after giving holy communion. Instead, they just went back to their seats, plucking their hands in their pockets reaching for hankerchief to wipe their sweaty foreheads.

I’ve never been in a parish where the EMHC purify their fingers after Communion and I’ve never seen the priest do that either in all the times I’ve noticed these things.

 

[JimG]

I’ve never been in a parish where the EMHC purify their fingers after Communion and I’ve never seen the priest do that either in all the times I’ve noticed these things.

Normally, the priest purifies his fingers at the altar during the post-communion liturgy. One of the altar servers pours water over his fingers and into the chalice. In every parish I’ve seen around here, the EMHC’s also purify their fingers before going back to the pews.

 

[Phemie]

Normally, the priest purifies his fingers at the altar during the post-communion liturgy. One of the altar servers pours water over his fingers and into the chalice. In every parish I’ve seen around here, the EMHC’s also purify their fingers before going back to the pews.

Our priests never see the chalices after Communion, they go right to the chair and leave the purifying of the chalices to the EMHCs. Yes, I’m very much aware that they are supposed to be doing the purifying but they categorically refuse to do so.

 

[MrS]

Normally, the priest purifies his fingers at the altar during the post-communion liturgy. One of the altar servers pours water over his fingers and into the chalice. In every parish I’ve seen around here, the EMHC’s also purify their fingers before going back to the pews.

In perhaps the last ten years, I only remember one parish supplying the water for the EMHC. And a few years back, they removed it.

.

 

[MrS]

Are you trying to equate a blessing given in lieu of Communion by a minister of Communion with “God bless you” said by someone at Mass in response to someone else sneezing?

This has just gotten silly.

Most stubbornness does often revert to silliness.

.

 

[JimG]

Our priests never see the chalices after Communion, they go right to the chair and leave the purifying of the chalices to the EMHCs. Yes, I’m very much aware that they are supposed to be doing the purifying but they categorically refuse to do so.

I was referring to the chalice in which the precious blood is consecrated, not the ciboriums used to carry the communion hosts. It is already empty after communion; if not, the priest consumes what is left. I may be mistaken, but I believe that at this point, the altar server returns to the altar with a cruet of water, pours it over the priest’s fingers which he holds over the chalice. He then again consumes the contents of the chalice. In our parish, he then covers the chalice with a chalice veil. I think that the ciboria are also purified by the priest, but just wasn’t paying that close attention.

 

[zab]

Most stubbornness does often revert to silliness.

.

Yeah, we can see that started several pages back.

 

[MrS]

You misunderstood the meaning of “good” as used in my post. And frankly your accusations are off topic. What is more important- to listen to what a person is trying to say or to pick apart every word? At what price is it to be right?

Off topic??? You are still showing some sensitivity to this subject.

The topic is about an unnecessary overuse of laity,

in a function that is in reality an abuse,

who have now “advanced” to usurping another priestly function

during a liturgy that forbids that EMHC action.

I agree… at what price(length/stretch) will those who condone the blessings go to??

.

 

[Phemie]

I was referring to the chalice in which the precious blood is consecrated, not the ciboriums used to carry the communion hosts. It is already empty after communion; if not, the priest consumes what is left. I may be mistaken, but I believe that at this point, the altar server returns to the altar with a cruet of water, pours it over the priest’s fingers which he holds over the chalice. He then again consumes the contents of the chalice. In our parish, he then covers the chalice with a chalice veil. I think that the ciboria are also purified by the priest, but just wasn’t paying that close attention.

I was also referring to the chalices containing the Precious Blood not the ciboria. When it comes to the ciboria, one ciborium is returned to the tabernacle by the EMHC after he/she has given Communion to the choir and the other, now empty, is handed by the priest to the other EMCHs to purify.

 

[zab]

Off topic??? You are still showing some sensitivity to this subject.

The topic is about an unnecessary overuse of laity,

in a function that is in reality an abuse,

who have now “advanced” to usurping another priestly function

during a liturgy that forbids that EMHC action.

I agree… at what price(length/stretch) will those who condone the blessings go to??

.

Wrong.

 

[ac_claire]

Wrong.

Thanks John Wayne lol. What’s “wrong” exactly about what Mr. S wrote…?

I haven’t replied to this thread in a long time, so sorry I haven’t read the last 2 or 3 thousand posts. Are EMHC allowed to give blessings in the Communion line or no?

 

[benedictgal]

Thanks John Wayne lol. What’s “wrong” exactly about what Mr. S wrote…?

I haven’t replied to this thread in a long time, so sorry I haven’t read the last 2 or 3 thousand posts. Are EMHC allowed to give blessings in the Communion line or no?

The answer is “no”. There are those on this thread who will refuse to acknowledge that this is the answer that the CDWDS gave, even when the CDWDS has already acknowledged the other authoritative documents of the Holy See when making its observations.

1. The liturgical blessing of the Holy Mass is properly given to each and to all at the conclusion of the Mass, just a few moments subsequent to the distribution of Holy Communion.

**2. Lay people, within the context of Holy Mass, are unable to confer blessings. These blessings, rather, are the competence of the priest (cf. Ecclesia de Mysterio, Notitiae 34 (15 Aug. 1997), art. 6, § 2; Canon 1169, § 2; and Roman Ritual De Benedictionibus (1985), n. 18). **

1. Furthermore, the laying on of a hand or hands — which has its own sacramental significance, inappropriate here — by those distributing Holy Communion, in substitution for its reception, is to be explicitly discouraged.

1. The Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio n. 84, “forbids any pastor, for whatever reason to pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry”. To be feared is that any form of blessing in substitution for communion would give the impression that the divorced and remarried have been returned, in some sense, to the status of Catholics in good standing.

1. 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 Communion nor receive a blessing. This would include non-Catholics and those envisaged in can. 915 (i.e., those under the penalty of excommunication or interdict, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin).

I don’t know how much more direct an answer the CDWDS can give than observation #2.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

… yet **you consistently deny **that those very observations articulated in that same letter have any binding force…

And there you go …that is why it is an inference and should not be confused with fact. This is your inference, let me try to explain it again:* this is your opinion via your interpretation of my posts*. It misrepresents the truth to those who read it. If you wish to go back through my post look for the words “pretext” and “context” within the post. Those reads show what I have said is the observations must be understood in the pretext and context which they exist as opposed to inferring they can be used to conclude the current issue. If the observations were capable of concluding this current issue the CDWs could not “limit itself” and the Priests, and Bishops would have to stop the practice. Similarly the CDW would not have replied in a private letter to laity without so much as informing the Bishops.

The relevent facts are :

CDW limited itself

Bishops some of who have spoken in support of the practice, and others who have taken various other positions as it being under local authority, or under local authority until a further ruling or acceptable if certain words are omitted have not been told to stop.