Extraordinary Ministers giving blessings

[zab]

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.
   I see that you have posted your correction to this error and that it was announced that Cardinal Arinze retired on December 9, 2008.
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.
   I have quoted Cardinal Arinze as saying, " There is no liturgical directive against it. And there is no liturgical directive in favor of it. Therefore we at the Congregation have left it to local practice." I have also replied to your post in reference to the response to Japhy’s letter asking you if you had reference to a Liturgical Directive to put an end to this practice to please share it with us. It is my understanding that a reply to an individual stating that the matter was still under attentive study but giving reasons why it should not be done is not the same as a Liturgical Direction mandating that the practice be stopped immediately.
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.What Cardinal Arinze said is what he said. They did leave it to the local bishop to decide. Whether they took away that decision, I do not know. You seem to know but what authority do you have to interpret documents coming from the CDWDS? .

 

[benedictgal]

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.”

Fr. David, you aren’t misunderstanding what the CDWDS wrote. “Nor receive a blessing” means just that. “Nor” is in the negative and that means “no.” The CDWDS made its point very clear. There is no fuzzy math to it.

The YouTube broadcast that those supporting this practice seem to hold as the final word came out, at the most, a couple of years ago. Furthermore, what is posted on YouTube is not a directive from the Holy See. It is simply an opinion, and, that opinion has been superceded by something concrete, something in writing that has, as you have pointed out in your posts, a protocol number, thus making it an official document.

The CDWDS is the final authority on the liturgical matters of the Church. Nothing in the document that it released back in 2008 gives bishops wiggle room. The local bishop does not have the authority to insert and imbed rituals into the Mass. What folks tend to forget is that any amendment to the GIRM must come from the national episcopal conference, and, even if it were to receive the necessary 2/3 affirmative vote of the Latin-Rite bishops, Rome would still have the final answer because only the Holy See can grant the recognitio. A bishop, on his own, cannot.

Incidentally, when the CDWDS made its statement, it did not pull stuff out of the air. It cited canon law and the relevent authoritative documents of the Holy See. Before anything is released, it certainly has to cross the Prefect’s desk. In this case, it was issued from the Congregation headed by the same Prefect (now retired) who made the YouTube statements. And, this document actually runs contrary to what he opined. Now that the CDWDS spoke in its official capacity, the YouTube statement is a moot point.

 

[FrDavid96]

I have quoted Cardinal Arinze as saying, " There is no liturgical directive against it. And there is no liturgical directive in favor of it. Therefore we at the Congregation have left it to local practice." I have also replied to your post in reference to the response to Japhy’s letter asking you if you had reference to a Liturgical Directive to put an end to this practice to please share it with us. It is my understanding that a reply to an individual stating that the matter was still under attentive study but giving reasons why it should not be done is not the same as a Liturgical Direction mandating that the practice be stopped immediately.

Saying that matter is under attentive study means that in the meantime, current directives can be ignored is false. There is simply no other way of putting it. You are making an absurd claim there, which defies common sense.

Likewise, your “understanding” that an official reply from the CDWS which states that something should not be done is an indication that it may be done is false. A liturgical directive saying that something should not be done is a liturgical directive saying that something should not be done. It’s quite simple. If the CDWS says to stop doing something, that means to stop doing it. What part of that do you not understand?

What Cardinal Arinze said is what he said. They did leave it to the local bishop to decide. Whether they took away that decision, I do not know. You seem to know but what authority do you have to interpret documents coming from the CDWDS? .

First, there was no “decision” made by Card. Arinze, it was a simple casual comment.
In point of fact, you do know that the Congregation “took away that decision” The reality is that you refuse to admit that fact. It has been proven over and over again by the letter posted by Japhy. I claim no authority in interpreting CDWS documents, I am simply reading the document and understanding the plain, clear, unambiguous meaning of the words. No matter how you may try to argue the opposite, “should not approach Holy Communion nor receive a blessing.” means that such blessings are not to be done. This is a very simple concept, and I cannot see any reason why you refuse to understand the plain meaning of the words.

 

[zab]

Saying that matter is under attentive study means that in the meantime, current directives can be ignored is false. There is simply no other way of putting it. You are making an absurd claim there, which defies common sense.

Likewise, your “understanding” that an official reply from the CDWS which states that something should not be done is an indication that it may be done is false. A liturgical directive saying that something should not be done is a liturgical directive saying that something should not be done. It’s quite simple. If the CDWS says to stop doing something, that means to stop doing it. What part of that do you not understand?

First, there was no “decision” made by Card. Arinze, it was a simple casual comment.
In point of fact, you do know that the Congregation “took away that decision” The reality is that you refuse to admit that fact. It has been proven over and over again by the letter posted by Japhy. I claim no authority in interpreting CDWS documents, I am simply reading the document and understanding the plain, clear, unambiguous meaning of the words. No matter how you may try to argue the opposite, “should not approach Holy Communion nor receive a blessing.” means that such blessings are not to be done. This is a very simple concept, and I cannot see any reason why you refuse to understand the plain meaning of the words.

What I know, what I sincerely believe, is that my good bishop and my good pastor would not delay in implementing a Liturgical directive to correct an abuse. I am puzzled, troubled and offended by your persitent attitude towards my comments. It is one thing to post documents, and your opinions but it is entirely another thing to write uncharitably about others and their opinions. I have not written uncharitably about what you. Please do not claim what you think I know.

 

[MrS]

What I know, what I sincerely believe, is that my good bishop and my good pastor would not delay in implementing a Liturgical directive to correct an abuse. I am puzzled, troubled and offended by your persitent attitude towards my comments. It is one thing to post documents, and your opinions but it is entirely another thing to write uncharitably about others and their opinions. I have not written uncharitably about what you. Please do not claim what you think I know.

You have, IMHO, belabored the point of respect/obedience due to a pastor or bishop. And perhaps that is meant to convince me or others to agree with you. But I question, in all charity, who you are to then show disrespect to a priest who has cited Church authority and directive over personal opinion and desires.

The “persistence” of **FrDavid96 **and benedictgal truly comes from the charity of sharing with you what is and what is not. Please do find that offensive. There are many threads where posters appear, present what they know and are shown to either be wrong, have a misunderstanding, or are simply stubborn and set in their preference. I can only hope the first two, and not the last, apply on this topic.

EMHC, are in my opinion, more a problem than an answer. I refer specifically to their abuse in the liturgy, not their home visits to the shut-ins. Numbers and Jude give us warning about the laity who attempt to usurp the responsibilites of the ministerial priesthood.

On a lighter note, re:Mary, “all generations shall call me blessed…” is Scripture and Truth. But “all generations shall give a blessing” was not included in the Last Supper discourse.

 

[jmcrae]

It is my understanding that a reply to an individual stating that the matter was still under attentive study but giving reasons why it should not be done is not the same as a Liturgical Direction mandating that the practice be stopped immediately.

Okay, I think I see the source of the misunderstanding. You are thinking that, while they are studying the issue, the current status-quo may remain in place, where people are giving blessings in the Communion line-up, despite this practice being totally against current Church law.

No.

Rather, we have to continue to obey the current law (that no blessings are permitted in the Communion line-up at all) until such time as they have studied the issue, and then, if they change the law to say that blessings may be given, then at that time, people will follow whatever law they enact on the issue.

But for the time being, it continues to be forbidden to give blessings in the Communion line, which means that it cannot be done at all right now. This may or may not change at some point in the future, after they’ve had a chance to study the issue.

Meanwhile, do everything possible to avoid the issue in your parish.

 

[zab]

You have, IMHO, belabored the point of respect/obedience due to a pastor or bishop. And perhaps that is meant to convince me or others to agree with you. But I question, in all charity, who you are to then show disrespect to a priest who has cited Church authority and directive over personal opinion and desires.

The “persistence” of **FrDavid96 **and benedictgal truly comes from the charity of sharing with you what is and what is not. Please do find that offensive. There are many threads where posters appear, present what they know and are shown to either be wrong, have a misunderstanding, or are simply stubborn and set in their preference. I can only hope the first two, and not the last, apply on this topic.

EMHC, are in my opinion, more a problem than an answer. I refer specifically to their abuse in the liturgy, not their home visits to the shut-ins. Numbers and Jude give us warning about the laity who attempt to usurp the responsibilites of the ministerial priesthood.

On a lighter note, re:Mary, “all generations shall call me blessed…” is Scripture and Truth. But “all generations shall give a blessing” was not included in the Last Supper discourse.

I object to your claim that I have shown disrespect toward a priest or anyone on this thread.

 

[MrS]

I object to your claim that I have shown disrespect toward a priest or anyone on this thread.

I apologize if you misunderstood what I said, or what I meant by what I said.

But you did post the following in response to Fr David

What I know, what I sincerely believe, is that my good bishop and my good pastor would not delay in implementing a Liturgical directive to correct an abuse. I am puzzled, troubled and offended by your persitent attitude towards my comments. It is one thing to post documents, and your opinions but it is entirely another thing to write uncharitably about others and their opinions. I have not written uncharitably about what you. Please do not claim what you think I know.

 

[Agatina]

The “Euchristic Ministers” at our parish give blessings to all who come up with arms crossed and it really seems like a very holy moment. The music, the communion, everyone processing up. It is inclusive & loving.
It may not be technicallly correct according to the Catechism I’m realizing now by reading these posts but it is respectful & holy at our parish.
I would accept it anyway. I love the moment. I’m just saying how it “feels”.

 

[MrS]

The “Euchristic Ministers” at our parish give blessings to all who come up with arms crossed and it really seems like a very holy moment. The music, the communion, everyone processing up. It is inclusive & loving.
It may not be technicallly correct according to the Catechism I’m realizing now by reading these posts but it is respectful & holy at our parish.
I would accept it anyway. I love the moment. I’m just saying how it “feels”.

Please consider the following…

An Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion has NO authority, given or implied or condoned, to give a blessing at ANY time during the Liturgy of the Mass. Period.

An Euchristic (sic) Minister is one who is ordained… a priest or deacon.

A very holy moment is the reception of the Real Presence. There is NO comparison with an improper and illicit gesture by a lay person performing what is most often an unnecessary and overused function.

Approaching the altar to receive communion is NOT a procession in any understanding of the liturgy.

Yes it is NOT correct… “technical” or otherwise.

The Eucharist is the source and summit of the faith, The Mass is the timeless presentation of the Eucharist. Everything that is respective and holy in the Liturgy is reserved for God alone.

Let the EMHC respect the parishioners in the coffee and donuts line afterward.

How it “feels”?? wow… I won’t even go there.

.

 

[zab]

Okay, I think I see the source of the misunderstanding. You are thinking that, while they are studying the issue, the current status-quo may remain in place, where people are giving blessings in the Communion line-up, despite this practice being totally against current Church law.

No.

Rather, we have to continue to obey the current law (that no blessings are permitted in the Communion line-up at all) until such time as they have studied the issue, and then, if they change the law to say that blessings may be given, then at that time, people will follow whatever law they enact on the issue.

But for the time being, it continues to be forbidden to give blessings in the Communion line, which means that it cannot be done at all right now. This may or may not change at some point in the future, after they’ve had a chance to study the issue.

Meanwhile, do everything possible to avoid the issue in your parish.

Where do you get the idea that I think that “people” can give blessings?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Originally Posted by Texas Roofer
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.”

Maybe the easy way is to look at it literally. If they are not to receive a blessing and the letter states that a blessing is given to all at the end of Mass…well they cannot be present, it is that simple. That is the only way to literally be legal. Any blessing to one outside communion with the church violates the written phrase in the letter(bullet 5). Anyone who restricts their personal interpretation to a claim the church is using the term blessing improperly in bullet 5 by referring to an illicit attempt to bless by a Extraordinary Ministers is again abandoning the legal argument to insert their opinion and going in conflict with CDWDS’s "This matter is presently under the attentive study " as should such an interpretation if correct would render the actually issue of study, worthless.

hope that helps

Btw it may be helpful to review post #78

 

[Tigg]

The “Euchristic Ministers” at our parish give blessings to all who come up with arms crossed and it really seems like a very holy moment. The music, the communion, everyone processing up. It is inclusive & loving.
It may not be technicallly correct according to the Catechism I’m realizing now by reading these posts but it is respectful & holy at our parish.
I would accept it anyway. I love the moment. I’m just saying how it “feels”.

Are we to base our faith and love of Christ on emotions? If so, then things are much worse than I thought.

 

[MrS]

Maybe the easy way is to look at it literally. If they are not to receive a blessing and the letter states that a blessing is given to all at the end of Mass…well they cannot be present, it is that simple. That is the only way to literally be legal. Any blessing to one outside communion with the church violates the written phrase in the letter(bullet 5). Anyone who restricts their personal interpretation to a claim the church is using the term blessing improperly in bullet 5 by referring to an illicit attempt to bless by a Extraordinary Ministers is again abandoning the legal argument to insert their opinion and going in conflict with CDWDS’s "This matter is presently under the attentive study " as should such an interpretation if correct would render the actually issue of study, worthless.

hope that helps

Btw it may be helpful to review post #78

An electrician friend of mine would say… hire that man and pay him in pennies. With his ability to stretch, those pennies would provide enough romex to wire a house.

.

 

[benedictgal]

The “Euchristic Ministers” at our parish give blessings to all who come up with arms crossed and it really seems like a very holy moment. The music, the communion, everyone processing up. It is inclusive & loving.
It may not be technicallly correct according to the Catechism I’m realizing now by reading these posts but it is respectful & holy at our parish.
I would accept it anyway. I love the moment. I’m just saying how it “feels”.

The only one who is a “Eucharistic Minister” is the priest/bishop because only he can confect, that is to say, cause to happen, the Sacrament. Laity who assist in the distribution of Holy Communion are Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.

Please do not take this personally, but, your post is a pefect example of an innovation that causes genuine confusion among the faithful. As Redemptionis Sacramentum notes:

[11.] The Mystery of the Eucharist “is too great for anyone to permit himself to treat it according to his own whim, so that its sacredness and its universal ordering would be obscured”.27 On the contrary, anyone who acts thus by giving free rein to his own inclinations, even if he is a Priest, injures the substantial unity of the Roman Rite, which ought to be vigorously preserved,28 and becomes responsible for actions that are in no way consistent with the hunger and thirst for the living God that is experienced by the people today. Nor do such actions serve authentic pastoral care or proper liturgical renewal; instead, they deprive Christ’s faithful of their patrimony and their heritage. For arbitrary actions are not conducive to true renewal,29 but are detrimental to the right of Christ’s faithful to a liturgical celebration that is an expression of the Church’s life in accordance with her tradition and discipline. In the end, they introduce elements of distortion and disharmony into the very celebration of the Eucharist, which is oriented in its own lofty way and by its very nature to signifying and wondrously bringing about the communion of divine life and the unity of the People of God.30 The result is uncertainty in matters of doctrine, perplexity and scandal on the part of the People of God, and, almost as a necessary consequence, vigorous opposition, all of which greatly confuse and sadden many of Christ’s faithful in this age of ours when Christian life is often particularly difficult on account of the inroads of “secularization” as well.31

Something that goes squarely against the liturgical norms of the Church is not a good thing. It is not about how we “feel”. It is about what the Church requires. If the faithful want a blessing, they will receive it at the appropriate time, the end of the Mass. As the document from the CWDS notes, it is applicable to everyone, and thus, it is the most inclusive part of the entire Mass. Everyone will receive the blessing at that time, Catholic and non-Catholic alike.

 

[benedictgal]

Maybe the easy way is to look at it literally. If they are not to receive a blessing and the letter states that a blessing is given to all at the end of Mass…well they cannot be present, it is that simple. That is the only way to literally be legal. Any blessing to one outside communion with the church violates the written phrase in the letter(bullet 5). Anyone who restricts their personal interpretation to a claim the church is using the term blessing improperly in bullet 5 by referring to an illicit attempt to bless by a Extraordinary Ministers is again abandoning the legal argument to insert their opinion and going in conflict with CDWDS’s "This matter is presently under the attentive study " as should such an interpretation if correct would render the actually issue of study, worthless.

hope that helps

Btw it may be helpful to review post #78

Bullet #5 is not speaking to merely EMHCs, but, to the Sacred Ministers as well. Bullet #2 refers specifically to EMHCs. The rest of the bullets refer to Sacred Ministers as even the word “pastor” appears in Bullet 4. Pastor applies to priests and bishops.

 

[Layman]

There’s a solution to this:

Fire the EMHCs.

If people want blessings, they can have them after Mass. If they’re not Catholics, then they should be politely told to join up. Priests only should distribute Communion, and if that means the shut-ins only get it once a month, fine. Because …

EMHCs, along with other post-Vat. II novelties, like lay lectors, have de-graded the role of the priest and respect for the Real Presence. If Joe Soap is in the sanctuary, how sacred is this rite? If Joan GoodLady is handling the Host, how holy is it, especially if she can dole it out easily, while the priest has to make a show of holding his hands just-so and purifiying the sacred vessels?

Soon, a priest-less ‘Communion service’ won’t seem a sorrowful thing at all. It’ll be normal. Why make sacrifices to become a priest when the laity can enter the sanctuary and do things previously reserved to priests?

 

[SonofMonica]

I witnessed EMHC’s giving full-blown blessings in communion line this past Sunday at a parish I was visiting out of town on vacation. It made me sad. Folks approaching with their arms crossed, or infants, receiving blessings from Joe Schmoe with his name tag on, making the sign of the cross on forehead, blessing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the whole deal. I have no doubt the priest was to blame. While I certainly wish my parish priest was half the preacher this guy was, this priest was talking about fun stuff in between the various prayers and rites of the mass, asking for money, allowing all sorts of people into the sanctuary, etc. Very different than my hometown parish. No one genuflected when passing the altar or tabernacle. Seemed very disrespectful.

 

[MrS]

There’s a solution to this:

Fire the EMHCs.

If people want blessings, they can have them after Mass. If they’re not Catholics, then they should be politely told to join up. Priests only should distribute Communion, and if that means the shut-ins only get it once a month, fine. Because …

EMHCs, along with other post-Vat. II novelties, like lay lectors, have de-graded the role of the priest and respect for the Real Presence. If Joe Soap is in the sanctuary, how sacred is this rite? If Joan GoodLady is handling the Host, how holy is it, especially if she can dole it out easily, while the priest has to make a show of holding his hands just-so and purifiying the sacred vessels?

Soon, a priest-less ‘Communion service’ won’t seem a sorrowful thing at all. It’ll be normal. Why make sacrifices to become a priest when the laity can enter the sanctuary and do things previously reserved to priests?

A bit blunt I would say… but then, I kinda like blunt sometimes…

.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Bullet #5 is not speaking to merely EMHCs, but, to the Sacred Ministers as well. Bullet #2 refers specifically to EMHCs.

Says who? The written word is “lay people” which includes far more than Extraordinary Ministers where do you find the restriction from all lay people to EMHCs?

The rest of the bullets refer to Sacred Ministers as even the word “pastor” appears in Bullet 4. Pastor applies to priests and bishops.

basically it is all about ordained celebrants, always has been it is not the celebrants up in arms about authority. It is about the legalist trying to have the celebrant’s action deemed illict and abuse. They also refuse to acknowledge the CWDS refusal to do that. The Priests do not see a problem, nor do the Bishops, or the Congregation for Divine Worship, any of whom can stop the practice.