Extraordinary Ministers giving blessings

[zab]

Cardinal Arinze has said that they at the Congregation For Divine Worship and the Disciple of the Sacraments have studied this matter and decided to leave it to the local ordinary to decide. He said that we are to listen to our bishop. Yes, since he has said this he has resigned as Prefect of the CDWDS and some letters have been recorded and distributed giving reasons why the practice should not be done. Until this study has been completed and a directive has been issued on this matter, I believe that it is wrong to chide people for listening to and following the direction of their pastors and bishops.

 

[benedictgal]

While there are some who will use the former Prefect’s comments on YouTube as justification, there is no indication in the letter from the CDWDS, which is also included in Notitiae, that the pastor, let alone, the Bishop has the authority to decide on the matter of imparting a blessing in lieu of receiving Holy Communion. The letter from the CDWDS makes no statement about that whatsoever.

The fact that the letter specifically stated that EMHCs are not supposed to be blessing anything in the first place is something that already appears as late as 1997 in the document Ecclesia de Mysterio. Furthermore, the line is to receive Someone, not something. Since such a “blessing” does not appear in any of the authoritative documents of the Holy See, the pastor does not have carte blanche to add anything to the Mass on his own authority.

 

[zab]

While there are some who will use the former Prefect’s comments on YouTube as justification, there is no indication in the letter from the CDWDS, which is also included in Notitiae, that the pastor, let alone, the Bishop has the authority to decide on the matter of imparting a blessing in lieu of receiving Holy Communion. The letter from the CDWDS makes no statement about that whatsoever.

The fact that the letter specifically stated that EMHCs are not supposed to be blessing anything in the first place is something that already appears as late as 1997 in the document Ecclesia de Mysterio. Furthermore, the line is to receive Someone, not something. Since such a “blessing” does not appear in any of the authoritative documents of the Holy See, the pastor does not have carte blanche to add anything to the Mass on his own authority.

Let it be known that I do not use Cardinal Arinze’s comments as justification for this practice to continue. I use his comments only for his instruction to listen to your bishop while this matter is still being studied by the CDWDS and until a formal direction is issued.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Cardinal Arinze has said that they at the Congregation For Divine Worship and the Disciple of the Sacraments have studied this matter and decided to leave it to the local ordinary to decide. He said that we are to listen to our bishop. Yes, since he has said this he has resigned as Prefect of the CDWDS and some letters have been recorded and distributed giving reasons why the practice should not be done. Until this study has been completed and a directive has been issued on this matter, I believe that it is wrong to chide people for listening to and following the direction of their pastors and bishops.

Well, that certainly casts a different light on the matter. Thank you.

 

[benedictgal]

Here is the text of the letter, in its entirety, that was sent to one of our forum members who brought this matter to the attention of the CDWDS:

Dear [names omitted],

This Congregation for Divine Worship and the Disciple of the Sacraments acknowledges receipt of your kind letter of 13 August, 2008 and would like to thank you for your interest and suggestions. This matter is presently under the attentive study of the Congregation.

For the present, therefore, this Dicastery wishes to limit itself to the following observations:
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.

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; can. 1169, § 2; and Roman Ritual De Benedictionibus (1985), n. 18).

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.

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.

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).

Please continue to pray for the Church’s ministers that they ever become more worthy of the mystery they celebrate.

With every good wish and kind regard, I am,

Sincerely Yours in Christ,

Nowhere does this letter mention that this is the bishop’s call to make, absolutely nowhere. Nor does it mention that the pastor has a right to make that call. In fact, the letter states to the contrary that these things should not be happening in the first place.

Furthermore, it gives citations from Canon Law and the authoritatve documents of the Holy See indicating why this practice is questionable.

In addition, this is the first statement that the CDWDS has officially made on the matter. What Cardinal Arinze said on YouTube is commentary, but, not a declaration. He was stating his opinion. The official letter, which appears in Notitae, the publication of the CDWDS, does not give the ordinary or the priest that option. Given the change in leadership at the CDWDS, this practice may very well be out for good.

 

[zab]

Here is the text of the letter, in its entirety, that was sent to one of our forum members who brought this matter to the attention of the CDWDS:

Nowhere does this letter mention that this is the bishop’s call to make, absolutely nowhere. Nor does it mention that the pastor has a right to make that call. In fact, the letter states to the contrary that these things should not be happening in the first place.

Furthermore, it gives citations from Canon Law and the authoritatve documents of the Holy See indicating why this practice is questionable.

Nowhere does this letter mention that one should not listen to the direction of their bishop until this matter has been cleared, absolutely nowhere.

 

[jmcrae]

However, it is not up to the Pastor to make this decison, as this is beyond his competency.

And yet, he is still able to fire his associate pastors over the issue.

In theory, it should be beyond his competency, but obviously, in practice, he has the authority to mandate this, and is using it.

 

[benedictgal]

The bishop’s authority in the liturgy is not carte blanche, nor is it universal. Were it that way, there would not be an uniformity in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and everyone would do as he pleased. That is why the ultimate authority lies with the Holy See.

As RS states:

[21.] It pertains to the diocesan Bishop, then, “within the limits of his competence, to set forth liturgical norms in his Diocese, by which all are bound”.

Furthermore, the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy notes that:

A) General norms

1. 1. Regulation of the Sacred Liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.

In the United States, the bishop may regulate the posture at certain parts of the Mass. According to the GIRM, these are his competencies:

1. The Diocesan Bishop, who is to be regarded as the high priest of his flock, and from whom the life in Christ of the faithful under his care in a certain sense derives and upon whom it depends,148 must promote, regulate, and be vigilant over the liturgical life in his diocese. It is to him that in this Instruction is entrusted the regulating of the discipline of concelebration (cf. above, nos. 202, 374) and the establishing of norms regarding the function of serving the priest at the altar (cf. above, no. 107), the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds (cf. above, no. 283), and the construction and ordering of churches (cf. above, no. 291). With him lies responsibility above all for fostering the spirit of the Sacred Liturgy in the priests, deacons, and faithful.

There is no indication that he is permitted to add anything to the GIRM. In fact, if he wants to add something to the GIRM, he can certainly petition the USCCB. Only the national conference of bishops can put adaptations to the GIRM up for a vote. For such an adaptation to pass, it needs to have the affirmative 2/3 vote of the Latin-rite members of the conference and then sent to Rome for the necessary recognitio.

Thus, it is not the bishop’s competency to be adding anything to the Rite.

 

[FrDavid96]

And yet, he is still able to fire his associate pastors over the issue.

In theory, it should be beyond his competency, but obviously, in practice, he has the authority to mandate this, and is using it.

Pastors don’t have any authority to “fire” associate pastors (or vicars parochial, or whatever other title they may have). This sort of thing is just a coincidence, or it may be indicative of a pastor who can’t get along with an assistant who follows Rome’s directives.

 

[FrDavid96]

Nowhere does this letter mention that one should not listen to the direction of their bishop until this matter has been cleared, absolutely nowhere.

The matter has been cleared. The Holy See has said that it’s not to be done.

 

[Sir_Knight]

it may be indicative of a pastor who can’t get along with an assistant who follows Rome’s directives.

but the pastor remains WITH his “instructions” but the priests who follow Rome’s directives have moved on to other flocks.

 

[jmcrae]

Pastors don’t have any authority to “fire” associate pastors (or vicars parochial, or whatever other title they may have). This sort of thing is just a coincidence, or it may be indicative of a pastor who can’t get along with an assistant who follows Rome’s directives.

The Pastor has had these Associate Pastors removed from the parish because of their adherence to the idea that no blessings should be given in the Communion line, with no apparent consequences to himself. Therefore, in practice, he does indeed have the power, and is using it. 'Power" is simply the ability to take a course of action without experiencing negative consequences.

 

[FrDavid96]

The Pastor has had these Associate Pastors removed from the parish because of their adherence to the idea that no blessings should be given in the Communion line, with no apparent consequences to himself. Therefore, in practice, he does indeed have the power, and is using it. 'Power" is simply the ability to take a course of action without experiencing negative consequences.

In that case, it’s indicative of much larger problems…

 

[jmcrae]

In that case, it’s indicative of much larger problems…

My point, exactly - a law without teeth is merely a suggestion.

 

[zab]

The matter has been cleared. The Holy See has said that it’s not to be done.

Can you give a reference for the conclusiveness of the study by the CDWDS on this issue? Or is the matter still being studied?

 

[Tracy24]

I am a brand new Catholic as of 9:45 this morning and I must admit the practice of giving blessings during Communion happens every week in my parish but I have yet to see an EMHC perform blessings.

Before my daughter made her first Communion, she and I would stay in our pew and make a spiritual communion. Since that time, however, I had to take her up to receive and I would end up getting a blessing from the Priest. When I attended weekday Masses by myself I would not go up for a blessing and remained in my pew. I am not disagreeing with any of the statements posted here just saying how it ended up working for us personally and since my daughter is extremely shy the option of having someone else take her up was not feasible, nor would she have gone up by herself for the same reason.

This is no longer an issue for us since I am now in full Communion with the Church, but it becomes confusing for some people when the Priest is encouraging people to come up for a blessing but in truth it is an unapproved practice…or so I understand it from what I have read.

 

[benedictgal]

I am a brand new Catholic as of 9:45 this morning and I must admit the practice of giving blessings during Communion happens every week in my parish but I have yet to see an EMHC perform blessings.

Before my daughter made her first Communion, she and I would stay in our pew and make a spiritual communion. Since that time, however, I had to take her up to receive and I would end up getting a blessing from the Priest. When I attended weekday Masses by myself I would not go up for a blessing and remained in my pew. I am not disagreeing with any of the statements posted here just saying how it ended up working for us personally and since my daughter is extremely shy the option of having someone else take her up was not feasible, nor would she have gone up by herself for the same reason.

This is no longer an issue for us since I am now in full Communion with the Church, but it becomes confusing for some people when the Priest is encouraging people to come up for a blessing but in truth it is an unapproved practice…or so I understand it from what I have read.

Welcome home to the Church!

Unfortunately, this very bad and ilicit practice sprang up like a weed because some misguided person had the mistaken notion that somehow those who were not able to receive Holy Communion needed to have some sort of consolation act. What they (and those who support the practice) do not realize is that when the celebrant issues the invitation, “Behold, the Lamb of God, happy are those who are called to His Supper”, this invitation is extended to those who are in the proper state to receive Our Lord.

The language of the Church is very specific. The invitation is made to the properly disposed faithful to approach the altar and receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. We are called to receive Someone, not something that will be imparted to everyone a few moments after Holy Communion. In fact, the blessing imparted at the end of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is perhaps the most universal part of the liturgy because everyone, Catholic or not, can receive this.

The CDWDS has been rather frank in its observations, noting that this practice should not be employed. They gave five very specific reasons why it should not be done. It is not within the competency of the Bishop, based on the authoritative documents of the Church, to insert something into the rubrics. Yes, he has regulatory authority over the liturgies in his diocese, but, this power only goes so far. The only way that any change to the GIRM can be made is through the national conference of bishops. Even then, such a change must receive 2/3 affirmative vote of the Latin-rite bishops in order for Rome to have the final say in the matter.

Fr. David made some very valid points. Rome was very clear in what it said through the CDWDS. This is not a YouTube statement; rather, it is official word from the Congregation that has a protocol number and already appears in Notitiae. Perhaps for some, it may not seem proof enough.

 

[zab]

The truth is we do not know for certain how or why this sprang up or what the intention was.

 

[FrDavid96]

Can you give a reference for the conclusiveness of the study by the CDWDS on this issue? Or is the matter still being studied?

Both…

“This matter is presently under the attentive study of the Congregation.” was how the CDWDS phrased it.

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.

The letter inquiring about this has become known as the “Japhy Letter” Here’s a link to it
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=292341

 

[zab]

Both…

“This matter is presently under the attentive study of the Congregation.” was how the CDWDS phrased it.

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.

The letter inquiring about this has become known as the “Japhy Letter” Here’s a link to it
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=292341

Was Cardinal Arinze in error when he said, Listen to your bishop?

Were you aware of what the CDWDS said on this matter before reading Japhy’s letter?

Have the bishops and pastors received a letter making them aware that blessings should not be given in the Communion line?

Why do you believe that people who say we should listen to our bishop and pastor are implying that what a representative of the Congregation has commented on should be dismissed or ignored? I find it puzzling that those who are trying to inform us of what is proper feel the need to belittle others in order to make a point.