Extraordinary Ministers giving blessings

[Texas_Roofer]

Here is the instruction given by the CDWDS:

There is not even provisions for this in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) nor in any of the authoritative documents of the Holy See. Thus, those who site the GIRM as a means to legitimize this practice are simply barkng up the wrong tree since no justification exists under the document.

And who has done that? or is the game to give others false impressions?

We are not obliged to obey our pastors if they are doing something contrary to what the Church prescribes. Note in Redemptionis Sacramentum that:

And yet you never list the prohibition of the blessing… you imply it or personally interpret it but never list it

Thus no one, not even the priest, has the right to insert something into the Mass that does not belong there. That is something that those supporting this bad practice seem to forget.

Actually the Bishops insert many things in to Mass we do not like particularly asking for more money, more money, more money and it has never been held as an abuse. Again once we set aside the personal interpretation we are left with nothing. Please cite the restriction as I am sick of hearing about money during Mass

Infants and small children can certainly accompany their parents.

Please show the church writing on this, remember depending on WHO INTERPRETS “they” the kids maybe specifically be instructed to NOT APPOACH

    No one is saying that.  They just do not get a blessing.  Everyone is going to get the blessing after Mass.  What is so hard to understand about that? :shrug:

It is hard to understand how you know this better than the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments they did not write “They just do not get a blessing” that statement came from you

How can you have been an EMHC for several years, longer than you’ve been Catholic? Only Catholics can serve as EMHCs.

Even Ecclesia de Mysterio effectively said the same thing. EMHCs are commissioned only to assist in the distribution of Holy Communion, nothing more.

If you would show the prohibition rather than imply it I would be more than willing to look at that.

Per Redemptionis Sacramentum, these are the duties of an EMHC:

Note that it does not say anything about imparting blessings. Inasmuch as there are those who will cite YouTube broadcasts justfifying the practice, there was nothing in writing from the CDWDS until November 2008 when the letter came out. The letter is an official document of the CDWDS, not a YouTube broadcast. The Church works out of documents, not YouTube.

If you would show the prohibition rather than imply it I would be more than willing to look at that.

This is what Ecclesia de Mysterio says about the duties of an EMHC:

Nowhere is it indicated in this document, the precursor to RS, that EMHCs can impart blesings.

If you would show the prohibition rather than imply it I would be more than willing to look at that.

Ecclesia de Mystero makes this further observation:

While Ecclesia de Mysterio does not explicitly say anything about blessings in lieu of distributing Holy Communion, the fact that it speaks to “anomalous liturigical practices” should give us a huge red flag that the imparting of blessings in lieu of distributing Holy Communion should not be done. Even the letter from the CDWDS references Ecclesia de Mysterio in its observations. That should be enough proof for us that this is wrong.

Are you not over due to show an explicit document against blessing, PARTICULARLY AS YOU IMPLY WE SHOULD NOT FOLLOW THE CDWDS as they clearly did not call for any stop to the practice

btw - the youtube is actually very good. When one reads the CDWDS document and or listens to the youtube Bishop it is abundantly clear the practice of blessings in the communion line has not been opposed by the Church[note 1]. It is also abundantly clear the purpose of Extraordinary Ministers is unrelated to the blessings. To imply or state other is to misrepresent the church and that is dangerous ground.

Note 1 - We have to remember that the Priest(s) and Deacon(s) are typically present thus not all blessings have originated with Extraordinary Ministers so the issue of blessings is not limited to Extraordinary Ministers, additionally, not all words or actions in these situations are clearly blessings offical or unoffical.

 

[benedictgal]

The Blessed Sacrament is not crumbling on our hands. Sorry to have this disagreement, as I will do what I am told to, at our Parish. We are not told to mimic. We are given instructions, and, I will say that if there is such a person to correct all of the little things that Parishioners do, including the orans hands/arms position when praying the Our Father, as mentioned on these boards, which everyone does at our parish, when not holdng hands … well, they are welcome to come and correct our behavior!

These instructions that you have been given are wrong. It is not benedictgal saying this. It is what the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, the authoritative Congregation overseeing the liturgy of the Church that says this. Please read the statement that the CDWDS has made on this matter.

We are not talking about postures here. We are talking about what can and cannot be done. EMHCs are only commissioned ot distribute Holy Communion. That is all, nothing more, nothing less.

Furthermore, the letter does not say that priests and bishops have the option to perpetuate and continue this bad practice. Thus, even if the statement were made on YouTube, it certainly does not appear anywhere in this letter.

 

[Victorious]

If the Priest specifically tells us to bless the children, then, we are doing it for him.

Except that this isn’t something he can delegate to you. So in effect, you are doing nothing.

 

[zab]

Our Priest illustrated to us what to do, on the forehead. Previously, it was just words or, as someone said later, a shoulder touch. It bothered me when I heard the excitement of those who encouraged blessing, but, later, we were actually asked to bless. So, I say, we are commissioned to do what the Priest cannot due to the constraints that has EEMs in the first place.

The truth is the laity cannot give a priestly blessing. The problem with touching on the forehead or shoulder or using any gestures of the hand gives an impression that the EMHC are attempting to give a blessing. It confuses people. The laity can ask for a blessing, they can ask God to bless someone but they do not have the power to impart a priestly blessing and a priest cannot commission them to impart a blessing.

 

[ohioszo]

I understand what all of you are saying, and I do agree with it.

Here’s the problem. We are new members of a parish (I’m a cradle Catholic, my husband is going through RCIA and my children, 9 and 13, will be receiving instruction on the Sacraments in the fall with all the other children who are receiving it), and this seems to be a pretty standard practice, children going up the Communion line with, or without, a parent for a blessing. My husband does not go up, but I have seen other RCIA candidates (is that the right word) do this. If we happen to be able to attend the Mass that they prefer the RCIA candiates to attend (not very often, due to dh’s works schedule), the release the RCIA candidates after the homily, so that they can go and discuss the scripture readings and the homily.

My children go up for a blessing more so because everyone else is doing it, and they get the nastiest looks if they remain in the pew, like they have not gone to Confession or something, and cannot partake of the Eucharist (due to their age).

This is a huge parish and we have a Monsignor and a Parochial Vicar, in addition to 4 Deacons, none of which seem to ever be at the Sunday evening Mass, which we have been having to attend frequently, due to dh’s schedule. It happens on some Saturday Vigil Masses too. I don’t know if I should bring it up to the Monsignor, or if I’d be viewed as a new “troublemaker”, since everyone seems quite comfortable with these practices.

So, what should I do? Approach the Monsignor and give him a copy of what I got from the Adoremus link? Tell the children to stay in the pew while I go up to receive the Eucahrist? I will be so glad when all of this is a moot point for my family, once the children and husband receive the Sacraments. It will still disturb me, but won’t be such a problem for me. I wish a more conservative parish were accessible to us, but the nearest one is an hour away from my house.

Thanks! I’ve really appreciated all of the information.

I like the responses that encourage your to continue to take the children up with you, that is definitely not just your Parish, but the Faithful from around the world. It just makes sense. I cannot believe the comment about the nasty looks, I just cannot. I find nothing but gooonly elicited concern or silent amusement. Back and forth, fighting off his sister, etc., 'til his Dad finally got a hold of his child, held him kicking and screaming, and carried him out.dness, love, happiness, laughter, whatever, nothing nasty about chldren and families. We saw today a child being very ornery, wanting to take his place by the other child who was collecting offertory money from the other children. He was very belligerant, but, it is

 

[benedictgal]

And who has done that? or is the game to give others false impressions? And yet you never list the prohibition of the blessing… you imply it or personally interpret it but never list it Actually the Bishops insert many things in to Mass we do not like particularly asking for more money, more money, more money and it has never been held as an abuse. Again once we set aside the personal interpretation we are left with nothing. Please cite the restriction as I am sick of hearing about money during Mass

Please show the church writing on this, remember depending on WHO INTERPRETS “they” the kids maybe specifically be instructed to NOT APPOACH It is hard to understand how you know this better than the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments they did not write “They just do not get a blessing” that statement came from you

If you would show the prohibition rather than imply it I would be more than willing to look at that.

If you would show the prohibition rather than imply it I would be more than willing to look at that.

If you would show the prohibition rather than imply it I would be more than willing to look at that.

Are you not over due to show an explicit document against blessing, PARTICULARLY AS YOU IMPLY WE SHOULD NOT FOLLOW THE CDWDS as they clearly did not call for any stop to the practice

btw - the youtube is actually very good. When one reads the CDWDS document and or listens to the youtube Bishop it is abundantly clear the practice of blessings in the communion line has not been opposed by the Church[note 1]. It is also abundantly clear the purpose of Extraordinary Ministers is unrelated to the blessings. To imply or state other is to misrepresent the church and that is dangerous ground.

Note 1 - We have to remember that the Priest(s) and Deacon(s) are typically present thus not all blessings have originated with Extraordinary Ministers so the issue of blessings is not limited to Extraordinary Ministers, additionally, not all words or actions in these situations are clearly blessings offical or unoffical.

You seem to not be willing to read the authoritative documents of the Holy See. The Constitution on Sacred Liturgy, as reaffirmed in Redemptionis Sacramnetum, makes it explicitly clear that no one, not even the celebrant, has the authority, on his own inititiative, to add anything to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Statements made on YouTube carry no weight. On the other hand, a document issued by the CDWDS, which has already made it into that same Congregation’s official publication, carries significant weight.

Not even deacons have the faculty to grant blessings within the context of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

With all due respect, it is you who are treading on dangerous ground. The CDWDS letter makes it perfectly clear what is and what is not allowed. The first observation the letter makes is that blessings are to be imparted at the end of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the proper time. The second observation is that the laity should not be engaging in this kind of practice to begin with, and, it even cites Ecclesia de Mysterio, an authoritative document of the Holy See that you seem willing to discount. Third, the document notes that laying on of hands, which has its own ritual significance, should not even be happening here. It also notes in its fourth and fifth statements that pastors have no authority do invent rituals and that folks who are not able to receive Holy Communion should not even come up for a blessing.

Just because something is not outright stated in the GIRM, that does not give us the right to insert things at will. The YouTube comments do not carry any weight whatsoever. A written docment, on the other hand, does, especially since it has made its way into the offiical publication of the CDWDS.

By the way, the letter does not say that the priests and bishops have leeway in this matter. Even though the YouTube broadcast may have said it, this statement is absent from the letter. Thus, even the bishop does not have that say so since the letter does not grant him this authority. The bishop’s authority is limited. He cannot add anything new to the Mass. That is not under his purview. There are certain things that he is allowed to do. This is not one of them since the GIRM makes it clear what he can act on and what he can’t.

 

[benedictgal]

I like the responses that encourage your to continue to take the children up with you, that is definitely not just your Parish, but the Faithful from around the world. It just makes sense. I cannot believe the comment about the nasty looks, I just cannot. I find nothing but gooonly elicited concern or silent amusement. Back and forth, fighting off his sister, etc., 'til his Dad finally got a hold of his child, held him kicking and screaming, and carried him out.dness, love, happiness, laughter, whatever, nothing nasty about chldren and families. We saw today a child being very ornery, wanting to take his place by the other child who was collecting offertory money from the other children. He was very belligerant, but, it is

Taking up the children is one thing. They should not, however, be blessed. Everyone will receive the blessing at the end of the Mass. If parents are compelled to want their children blessed, there is nothing wrong with asking the priest after Mass to do so.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

You seem to not be willing to read the authoritative documents of the Holy See. … On the other hand, a document issued by the CDWDS, which has already made it into that same Congregation’s official publication, carries significant weight…

it says "This matter is presently under the attentive study " I am struggling how to further explain these words to you. I understand you have a personal bias on this issue but the fact is the church has spoken, and it did not say what is being repeatedly represented in these forms . The words Illicit and abuse did not come from the church it really is that simple.

 

[benedictgal]

it says "This matter is presently under the attentive study " I am struggling how to further explain these words to you. I understand you have a personal bias on this issue but the fact is the church has spoken, and it did not say what is being repeatedly represented in these forms . The words Illicit and abuse did not come from the church it really is that simple.

Actually, you are the one with the bias, not me. I have cited the relevent documents, which, you have, as I read your posts, have ignored or do not want to read them because they will prove your assertions wrong.

In fact, the statement from the CDWDS cites the documents that I have presented. Furthermore, I would direct you to re-read Fr. David’s post. Here is what he wrote:

But we also have to keep in mind that the Congregation also made it very clear that “for the present time” these blessings (or pseudo-blessings) are not to be done.

By saying that the matter is under study, that does not mean (as some try to imply) that in the meantime, the directives of the Congregation can be dismissed or ignored.

We don’t know what the final conclusion (if ever there is one) will be. What we do know is that until Rome says otherwise, the probibition against doing these blessings stands.

You seem to be hung up on the phrase “presently under the attentive study”, but you choose to ignore the five key observations made by this letter.

The CDWDS does not say that this activity should continue. In fact, it states it to the contrary. Rather than repost the entire list, I would direct you to re-read them carefully before making baseless accusations. Read them in the context of what the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy and RS say.

The bottom line is that this is an innovation that has no basis in the liturgical tradition of the Church. You will not find it in the GIRM because it does not exist. Someone inserted this on their own authority and now Rome has to clean this mess up. And, that is what the CDWDS is trying to do.

As for the YouTube citation, it carries no more weight than the posts here. Unless something comes from the CDWDS in writing, then a statement is just an opinion. Furthermore, the letter from the CDWDS came through the authority of the same Prefect Emeritus who made the statements that everyone seems to regard as the final word. So, even his staff, acting under his authority, have even found problems with the practice. Thus, the YouTube statements really don’t have any relevence anymore.

 

[Tigg]

This is why I do not want to be an EMHC (besides the fact that I think EMHC’s are grossly over-used): because I know I will be instructed to do things that are not kosher; and if something is not kosher, I don’t want to be doing it. It’s bad enough I do all sorts of un-kosher things in my life outside of Mass, without also doing them at Mass.

Besides which, there are things going on I know I don’t want to have to deal with, like people coming up to receive Communion chewing gum, or backwashing into the chalice.

You and I are in the very same boat. Sometimes it all seems so complicated, doesn’t it? And the entire matter can be summed up in one word - DISOBEDIENCE! Bishops are disobedient to Rome, priests are disobedient to the bishops and the faithful are disobedient to the priests. A sign of the times, I guess.

I have basically stopped all church ministry, except to help out with social activities and/or do clerical work. I used to love to teach religious ed until the program became so watered down, I would have had to be disobedient to the DRE to properly even teach the kids what a sacrament is. I’m just not into quasi-Catholicism. I have thrown up my hands and given up. Now I just pray!

I think the info on this thread so important! We have compromised our faith and liturgy. Despite all our other problems, the Mass is what still holds us together. Abuses need to be identified and stopped.

Since this is the Year of the Priest, let’s all encourage our pastors and pray for the spiritual perfection of which our Holy Father spoke. Perhaps in time, we will hear a strong, unified voice, truly being led by the Spirit to clear the confusion and instill love and humility in our arrogant hearts.

 

[ohioszo]

My Mea Culpa, is that the Latin word, I wasn’t taught enough Latin! … is that God suggested that I buy a Book from Ignatius Press, about Liturgy. I know now why. When I first became a EEM (I’ll check the latest for the right title,) I was great at it … one reason was that a Priest in Toledo, but from Nigeria orignally, a Salesian, told me in answer to my question, that he gave HC to thousands of people and the speed does not affect it. So, I speedily gave out HC, and, felt God’s light illuminate my effort. There was “married woman with children” of which I am not, and young, who were shouting out at one meeting of the EEM, to bless the children! Anything I said, would sound harsh, and, I did not have the book to refer them to. I’m not backing down on what the Priest then did say to us, a number of years later. Probably thinking that if the woman want it, they will have their blessing. I think that the complaints here against the blessings, which, I would prefer not to do really, are not good enough. With the blessings, one feels as if the EEM should have some status in the community, rather than just being a Catholic who feels called to serve HC. May be I will say something to Father about it, in that way. During HC, we are all one with Christ. I think that this cloud weakens my ministry, and, they really need more EEMs at our Parish as there are some holes in the schedule. That too, might help fill them, if there are others who feel as the one “not ever because of this issue” feels.

 

[benedictgal]

My Mea Culpa, is that the Latin word, I wasn’t taught enough Latin! … is that God suggested that I buy a Book from Ignatius Press, about Liturgy. I know now why. When I first became a EEM (I’ll check the latest for the right title,) I was great at it … one reason was that a Priest in Toledo, but from Nigeria orignally, a Salesian, told me in answer to my question, that he gave HC to thousands of people and the speed does not affect it. So, I speedily gave out HC, and, felt God’s light illuminate my effort. There was “married woman with children” of which I am not, and young, who were shouting out at one meeting of the EEM, to bless the children! Anything I said, would sound harsh, and, I did not have the book to refer them to. I’m not backing down on what the Priest then did say to us, a number of years later. Probably thinking that if the woman want it, they will have their blessing. I think that the complaints here against the blessings, which, I would prefer not to do really, are not good enough. With the blessings, one feels as if the EEM should have some status in the community, rather than just being a Catholic who feels called to serve HC. May be I will say something to Father about it, in that way. During HC, we are all one with Christ. I think that this cloud weakens my ministry, and, they really need more EEMs at our Parish as there are some holes in the schedule. That too, might help fill them, if there are others who feel as the one “not ever because of this issue” feels.

First of all, the correct and proper term is not EEM. It is Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. This is the citation from Redemptionis Sacramentum:

[156.] This function 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”, by which names the meaning of this function is unnecessarily and improperly broadened.

Unfortunately, you were given wrong advice from the start. The priest in question (and I graduated from a Salesian school, which, unfortunately, would have acquired the ire of Don Bosco because he never would have advocated what is going on right now in his some regions where his order exists–I have seen this and felt it first-hand) does not have the authority to tell you to “impart blessings” on anyone in lieu of distributing Holy Communion. The documents that I have quoted in previous posts indicate that this should not be done. In fact, they are also cited by the CDWDS in its letter.

Please know that this has nothing to do about status. In fact, to assume that “blessing someone” makes one feel something more is, as I see it, the wrong approach to take. In fact, it is an inaccurate understanding of what an EMHC is supposed to do. How can you say that it weakens your “ministry”? How can you say that these "complaints aren’t good enough when even Rome, in the document Ecclesia de Mysterio, notes that:

1. 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. It is a grave abuse for any member of the non-ordained faithful to “quasi preside” at the Mass while leaving only that minimal participation to the priest which is necessary to secure validity.

In the same way, the use of sacred vestments which are reserved to priests or deacons (stoles, chasubles or dalmatics) at liturgical ceremonies by non-ordained members of the faithful is clearly unlawful.

Every effort must be made to avoid even the appearance of confusion which can spring from anomalous liturgical practices.

This is the same section that the CDWDS, the authoritative Congregation that oversees all matters liturgical for the Universal Church, cited in its letter concerning blessings in lieu of distributing Holy Communion. If this is a legitimate concern of the Church, then, why do you have a problem with that?

Please, please re-read what Redemptionis Sacramentum has to say on what an EMHC is supposed to do:

[157.] 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.258

[158.] Indeed, the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may administer Communion only when the Priest and Deacon are lacking, when the Priest is prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged.259 This, however, is to be understood in such a way that a brief prolongation, considering the circumstances and culture of the place, is not at all a sufficient reason.

Nowhere in this section does is indicate that an EMHC can impart a blessing. Nor do any of the documents grant the priest such authority. In fact, they indicate the contrary.

 

[benedictgal]

As a further consideration to my last post, it bears repeating to once again quote from Ecclesia de Mysterieo since there continues to be confusion about what an EMHC is supposed to do:

Furthermore, I draw your attention to Ecclesia de Mysterio, which notes that:

1. The canonical discipline concerning extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion must be correctly applied so as to avoid generating confusion. The same discipline establishes that the ordinary minister of Holy Communion is the Bishop, the Priest and the the Deacon.(96) Extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion are those instituted as acolytes and the faithful so deputed in accordance with Canon 230, 3.(97)

A non-ordained member of the faithful, in cases of true necessity, may be deputed by the diocesan bishop, using the appropriate form of blessing for these situations, to act as an extraordinary minister to distribute Holy Communion outside of liturgical celebrations ad actum vel ad tempus (acting or temporarily appointed) or for a more stable period. In exceptional cases or in unforeseen circumstances, the priest presiding at the liturgy may authorize such ad actum.(98)

1. Extraordinary ministers may distribute Holy Communion at eucharistic celebrations only when there are no ordained ministers present or when those ordained ministers present at a liturgical celebration are truly unable to distribute Holy Communion.(99) They may also exercise this function at eucharistic celebrations where there are particularly large numbers of the faithful and which would be excessively prolonged because of an insufficient number of ordained ministers to distribute Holy Communion. (100)

This function is supplementary and extraordinary (101) and must be exercised in accordance with the norm of law. It is thus useful for the diocesan bishop to issue particular norms concerning extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion which, in complete harmony with the universal law of the Church, should regulate the exercise of this function in his diocese. Such norms should provide, amongst other things, for matters such as the instruction in eucharistic doctrine of those chosen to be extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, the meaning of the service they provide, the rubrics to be observed, the reverence to be shown for such an august Sacrament and instruction concerning the discipline on admission to Holy Communion.

To avoid creating confusion, certain practices are to be avoided and eliminated where such have emerged in particular Churches:

extraordinary ministers receiving Holy Communion apart from the other faithful as though concelebrants;
association with the renewal of promises made by priests at the Chrism Mass on Holy Thursday, as well as other categories of faithful who renew religious vows or receive a mandate as extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion;
the habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass thus arbitrarily extending the concept of “a great number of the faithful”.

Thus, even as late as 1997, when this document came out, there were already some serious issues concerning EMHCs.

 

[Victorious]

With the blessings, one feels as if the EEM should have some status in the community, rather than just being a Catholic who feels called to serve HC. May be I will say something to Father about it, in that way. During HC, we are all one with Christ. I think that this cloud weakens my ministry, and, they really need more EEMs at our Parish as there are some holes in the schedule. That too, might help fill them, if there are others who feel as the one “not ever because of this issue” feels.

This illustrates another reason EMHC’s should not be giving blessings (as if the lack of power to do so were not reason enough): it tends to feed people’s pride.

 

[FrDavid96]

Cardinal Arinze was the Prefect of the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments at the time Japhy’s letter was written to the CDWDS. Cardinal Arinze is an expert in that area and is capable of giving an accurate response to a question that was asked of him even if it was in a casual setting. Why should one doubt his expertise when he said, “There is no Liturgical Directive against that (presenting one’s child or children for a blessing in the Communion line) and there is no Liturgical Directive in favor of that, therefore, it is left to local practice.” Just because the CDWDS has written why the practice should not be happening does not mean that a Liturgical Directive has ever been written to prevent a priest from blessing a non-Communicant in the Communion line. Cardinal Arinze did not say anything to contradict what was written in response to Japhy’s letter. He gave the same reverence of the decision of the bishops who have disallowed this practice as to those who allow it. If you have reference to a Liturgical Directive preventing this practice please give the reference to the Liturgical Directive.
We had an instance this morning when a woman approached our pastor in the Communion line. She was a stranger who didn’t seem to know what to do. I couldn’t hear the conversation but Father spent a few moments speaking to her, then gave her a blessing. Cardinal Arinze had spoken of instances like this.

Here is the video with the Question about blessing beginning around 2:16 into the video: youtube.com/watch?v=-YorjE844mc&feature=related

1. Cardinal Arinze was not the Prefect for the CDWDS when the directive was issued–he had already retired. William Cardinal Levada was the prefect (and still is) in November 08 when the CDWDS issued the clarification.
2. You keep denying that a liturgical directive has been written on this subject. That is quite frankly an untruth. The directive has indeed been written. It is protocol number 930/08/L, and it quite clearly and unambiguously states that such blessings (or pseudo-blessings) are not to be done.
3. Saying that something is forbidden is hardly the same as saying that it is a matter for the local bishop to decide. If it were a matter for the local bishop, then the CDWDS would certainly have said as much in the letter. In reality, the Congregation said the exact opposite of that by clearly stating that these blessings are not to be done.

 

[MrS]

Look, you can’t make a plausible argument about a point of law without factoring in all applicable principles. If you can’t do that, then your point has no force.

That’s why I remain silent on the roofing industry: because I don’t know what I’m talking about.

Yeah, that industry has a different slant on things, as opposed to the flooring industry.

 

[FrDavid96]

1. Cardinal Arinze was not the Prefect for the CDWDS when the directive was issued–he had already retired. William Cardinal Levada was the prefect (and still is) in November 08 when the CDWDS issued the clarification.

CORRECTION:

Antonio Cardinal Llovera is the Prefect for the CDWDS.

Cardinal Arinze retired Dec. 08

My mistake.

 

[MrS]

it says "This matter is presently under the attentive study " I am struggling how to further explain these words to you. I understand you have a personal bias on this issue but the fact is the church has spoken, and it did not say what is being repeatedly represented in these forms . The words Illicit and abuse did not come from the church it really is that simple.

Perhaps this might help. If the state department which regulates speed on the highway says…

“It is not permitted to travel over 55mph. Some drivers have expressed a desire to do so however. Currently, we are studying the alternative speed limit.”

Does that mean that the local constable can look the other way if you travel at 70mph? Sure.
Does that mean that the local constable can declare a new limit of 70mph for all drivers in his district… Surely NOT.

The current law remains in force. The local guy’gal can have all the opinions he wants but he is wrong to suggest or allow anything different.

now…

having read the whole thread to this point, I am not surprised to see that much of the controversy ignores the whole importance of the Real Presence in our lives.

If we do away with the EMHCs (I pray that will happen sooner than later), I don’t think the faithful will mind one bit. Those with other agendas (the beach, getting a seat at the restaurant, football, or - most often - no real ideas of what is happening on the altar) will continue to seek lay involvement as the answer to all these perceived and created “problems” in the liturgy.

/

 

[Tigg]

now…

having read the whole thread to this point, I am not surprised to see that much of the controversy ignores the whole importance of the Real Presence in our lives.

:clapping::clapping:

AND the proper respect for HIM which is shown by adherence to church laws regarding the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

 

[FrDavid96]

it says "This matter is presently under the attentive study " I am struggling how to further explain these words to you. I understand you have a personal bias on this issue but the fact is the church has spoken, and it did not say what is being repeatedly represented in these forms . The words Illicit and abuse did not come from the church it really is that simple.

Apparently, we are also misunderstanding the words “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.”

Would you kindly explain the meaning of the words “nor receive a blessing?” because I’m obviously misinterpreting them as well. I didn’t realize that “nor receive a blessing” means “may receive a blessing.”