Extraordinary Ministers giving blessings

[benedictgal]

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

Thank you for being the voice of reason, Fr. David. There are many who will cite a broadcast from YouTube to justify the practice. However, Cardinal Arinze was making his statements as opinion. The letter, to my knowledge, is the first concrete documentation from the CDWDS on the subject. The fact that the letter went point by point should be an important indicator that this should not have been done in the first place. Furthermore, a bishop cannot supercede the Holy See nor can he, on his own initiative, insert something into the GIRM. The only ones who can seek permission to add something to the GIRM by means of an adaptation are the national episcopal conferences, and even then, there are some stringent procedures that must be followed in order to gain Rome’s recognitio.

 

[zab]

Thank you for being the voice of reason, Fr. David. There are many who will cite a broadcast from YouTube to justify the practice. However, Cardinal Arinze was making his statements as opinion. The letter, to my knowledge, is the first concrete documentation from the CDWDS on the subject. The fact that the letter went point by point should be an important indicator that this should not have been done in the first place. Furthermore, a bishop cannot supercede the Holy See nor can he, on his own initiative, insert something into the GIRM. The only ones who can seek permission to add something to the GIRM by means of an adaptation are the national episcopal conferences, and even then, there are some stringent procedures that must be followed in order to gain Rome’s recognitio.

Since I am the only one on this thread who has mentioned the statement from Cardinal Arinze, I take it that you were referring to me. Even though time and time again I have said that I do not justify this practice. By the way, I don’t like it and never have. What I object to is the continuing blasts against our bishops and pastors as if they are trying to “supercede the Holy See”. What evidence or knowledge do you have that the bishops and pastors are aware of the response to Japhy’s letter? Do you think all of our bishops and pastors read these forums everyday? Do you really believe that Cardinal Arinze’s counsel to “Listen to your bishop” no longer applies while this matter is under attentive study?

 

[benedictgal]

The letter from the CDWDS makes it clear that blessings in lieu of Holy Communion should not be happening. The letter has already been included in Notitae, the official publication for the CDWDS. Furthermore, Adoremus Magazine wrote an article about the letter. The USCCB already has a copy of the letter. I have taken it upon myself to send it to my PV and several priest friends, including the administrator of the Cathedral, so that they can discuss enforcement at the next presbyteral council meeting.

This is a legitimate statement from the CDWDS and not a YouTube comment. The diocesan bishop does not have carte blanche authority to insert things on his own initiative into the Mass, as the section from the GIRM that I quoted some posts ago, indicates. He cannot supercede what Rome has stated.

Furthermore, just as we are expected to obey the bishops, they, too, are under obedience to adhere to the Holy See. The only one who enjoys absolute authority in the regulation of the liturgy is the Holy Father, through the Holy See.

The letter from the CDWDS clearly defined some serious problems with the practice, even quoting authoritative Church documents and Canon Law to indicate that there were some huge red flags.

Fr. David made some very valid points and sound statements. We are called to obey the directives of the Holy See and adopt the course of action that the CDWDS has noted while that congregation studies the matter further. As I stated earlier, it has already defined the parameters and has given some solid points as to why this should not be done. It is up to the bishops and priests to obey these statements.

 

[Dicerning]

Don’t take it out on the EMHC because most likely this is how they were trained.

I was trained to do this as well. HOWEVER we are all responsible for our own knowledge of the faith. With this in mind it is the EMHC’s fault that they don’t know better. The practices of the faith are up to US to learn. Now someone else educate themselves and just spoon feed us what they want us to hear.

Also RS clearly states that EMHCs should be called exactly that. Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.

 

[Dicerning]

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

So then what is the point of letter when it is addressed to the FAITHFUL? Seriously the point of the letter is to clear up the matter. I find it amazing that people see some things as matters to “clear up” but if something like ordained women came across the pike…there would be priestesses in some dioceses the next day.

 

[zab]

So then what is the point of letter when it is addressed to the FAITHFUL? Seriously the point of the letter is to clear up the matter. I find it amazing that people see some things as matters to “clear up” but if something like ordained women came across the pike…there would be priestesses in some dioceses the next day.

Please clarify your last sentence. What exactly are you saying? Are you trying to make some connection between those who say that we should listen to our pastor and bishops with those who support the ordination of women?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Pastors need to take a closer look at who is teaching RCIA, and what is being taught.

I would love to see these extreme legalist stand up and take these responsibilities but that will not happen. These complaints typically come from the last pew.

I’ve had THREE separate priests tell us in meetings that they agreed that blessings should not be given but this was what the Pastor wants and it is what we should do. Interestingly, two of those priests are gone (one left and then we got the second one and then he got transferred and we are now on the third – all within the space of about a year and a half) … wonder if there is a connection.

Having experienced a parish which does not want to follow the priest but would rather instruct him, I can tell you it is far better to assist the priest. Extraordinary Ministers only exist to assist the Priest.

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.

The Bishop is in charge, always has been. No one in the pew has authority over the Bishop. The Bishop has control of the Priest (not the laity).

The blessing itself is not a violation, the Extraordinary Ministers is outside their “minister duties” to assume such a duty as a standalone decision. I hope the CDWDS officially leaves the practice to the local diocese.

btw did you know it is a violation to give communion to one in a wheel chair! Yes it is, yet the legalist look the other on that one, funny how the like authority to apply the law at their discretion.

 

[Tigg]

HOWEVER we are all responsible for our own knowledge of the faith… The practices of the faith are up to US to learn.

This is an excellent point!

With our faith in shambles in so many areas and the bishops now being silent on many huge issues; with little or no catechesis coming from the pulpit, our responsibility to know the truth does not diminish. CAF is one way for us to learn about those things we would never otherwise know, and I, for one, am grateful for the many references to documents, encyclicals and the like that continue to educate me. Rather than dispute what we see before our eyes, let’s take it in and file it for future reference.

And from the Code of Canon Law:

212 &3: According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which [the laity] possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.

 

[zab]

This is an excellent point!

With our faith in shambles in so many areas and the bishops now being silent on many huge issues; with little or no catechesis coming from the pulpit, our responsibility to know the truth does not diminish. CAF is one way for us to learn about those things we would never otherwise know, and I, for one, am grateful for the many references to documents, encyclicals and the like that continue to educate me. Rather than dispute what we see before our eyes, let’s take it in and file it for future reference.

And from the Code of Canon Law:

And from the Code of Canon Law:

Quote:
212 &3: According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which [the laity] possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.
It is important that one approach their pastor on matters that pertain to the good of the Church, “with reverence toward their pastor”.

 

[Victorious]

btw did you know it is a violation to give communion to one in a wheel chair! Yes it is, yet the legalist look the other on that one, funny how the like authority to apply the law at their discretion.

Please name your source for this.

Also, are you saying pastors should NOT look at what’s being taught in RCIA? Isn’t it part of their job to keep tabs on the formation of catechumens? Or are you saying there is nothing but sound, orthodox teaching in RCIA? If you are fortunate enough to attend a parish with a nut-free RCIA program, that’s wonderful. But it’s not the case everywhere.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Please name your source for this.

General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM)

Also, are you saying pastors should NOT look at what’s being taught in RCIA?..

not in the least, what I said is I would love to see the legalist assume their fair share of duties, complaining is no duty no duty at all, let them show up and teach, let them organize the retreats, the classes, let them make the trip to the diocese. I say if their hands and feet worked more the butts and mouths would get a rest.

 

[Victorious]

btw did you know it is a violation to give communion to one in a wheel chair! Yes it is, yet the legalist look the other on that one, funny how the like authority to apply the law at their discretion.

Please name your source for this.

General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM)

Neither “wheelchair” nor “wheel chair” appear anywhere in the GIRM.

 

[North_Coast]

I don’t have time to read all the posts on this thread, but I wanted to share my experiences. I’ve been an EMHC for several years now–about a year, or so, longer than we’ve been Catholic. I have always been very conscious of what’s proper and what is not, in regards to my responsibilities in this area. As to the particular area of blessings, I have repeatedly brought the issue up with our priest over the last couple years. At first, he just didn’t respond to the concern. More recently, after I observed a well-meaning EMHC making the sign of the cross in the air as a blessing over someone, I raised the issue again, and he acknowledged that I had a point. While I still have’t heard of a particular change instituted with regards to this process, I do believe it is going to be addressed shortly in EMHC training.

What I have begun doing in the meantime as a sort of compromise is to ensure that my “blessings” are given on the person’s shoulder whenever possible, and that I don’t make the sign of the cross–even on the person’s forehead. As a person who I believe is called to this ministry, I believe that the appropriate thing is to make my concerns known, then ultimately follow the guidance of my priest and bishop. For me, it boils down to an issue of authority. In matters of this nature, I believe it is the EHMC’s responsibility to follow the instructions and guidance of his priest.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Neither “wheelchair” nor “wheel chair” appear anywhere in the GIRM.

Acceptable posture of receiving does - standing or kneeling - that is what is written in black and white. So where are the enforcement police? Well it seems they like to insert their discretion at their will, which makes them their personal authority.

 

[Victorious]

Acceptable posture of receiving does - standing or kneeling - that is what is written in black and white. So where are the enforcement police? Well it seems they like to insert their discretion at their will, which makes them their personal authority.

But there are other principles that apply. One, the law does not intend absurd results. Two, the law does not require us to do the impossible. Three, physical infirmity is not grounds to bar someone from Holy Communion. Ergo, people in wheelchairs are not barred from Holy Communion.

Besides, we are talking about apples and oranges. Whereas there is no basis for assuming there are grounds to bar the wheelchair-bound from Communion, there are grounds to suppose that blessings in the Communion line are an abuse. See, for instance, the opinion on the subject of Ed Peters, who is an actual canon lawyer. I detect an emotional, knee-jerk response to the proposition that blessings (especially by lay extraordinary ministers) are forbidden, rather than a reasoned argument.

 

[FrDavid96]

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.

Card. Arinze was merely making a casual comment. This is quite different from an official response to a question addressed to the Congregation. If you can quote a source where the good Cardinal is saying that the current interpretation from the Congregation is incorrect, please share it with us.

What I am saying is that the Congregation for Divine Worship is the final authority on interpreting the liturgical laws and norms. The role of the bishop is likewise to interpret and apply them within his own diocese, but that role also includes obedience to the Congregation’s decisions. If one actually reads the text of the reply, it becomes clear that this decision is nothing new–the fact that blessings should not be done in the Communion line is already clear from the existing norms of the Church. The response says precisely that when it reads “the Church’s discipline has already made clear that they should not approach Holy Communion nor receive a blessing.”

 

[zab]

Card. Arinze was merely making a casual comment. This is quite different from an official response to a question addressed to the Congregation. If you can quote a source where the good Cardinal is saying that the current interpretation from the Congregation is incorrect, please share it with us.

What I am saying is that the Congregation for Divine Worship is the final authority on interpreting the liturgical laws and norms. The role of the bishop is likewise to interpret and apply them within his own diocese, but that role also includes obedience to the Congregation’s decisions. If one actually reads the text of the reply, it becomes clear that this decision is nothing new–the fact that blessings should not be done in the Communion line is already clear from the existing norms of the Church. The response says precisely that when it reads “the Church’s discipline has already made clear that they should not approach Holy Communion nor receive a blessing.”

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

 

[Texas_Roofer]

But there are other principles that apply. One, the law does not intend absurd results. Two, the law does not require us to do the impossible. Three, physical infirmity is not grounds to bar someone from Holy Communion. Ergo, people in wheelchairs are not barred from Holy Communion.

Says who - you? see that is the problem the people who preach on this subject, dismiss actual writing at their discretion, then imply new disciplines at their own discretion

Besides, we are talking about apples and oranges.

Says who - you? see that is the problem the people who preach on this subject, dismiss actual writing at their discretion, then imply new disciplins at their own discreation

Whereas there is no basis for assuming there are grounds to bar the wheelchair-bound from Communion, there are grounds to suppose that blessings in the Communion line are an abuse.

Says who - not the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Disciple of the Sacraments they should know abuse yet they clearly are a long way from abuse, placing the matter under study rather than citing abuse. So who are these authorities whom over rule the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Disciple of the Sacraments and post on this thread?

See, for instance, the opinion on the subject of Ed Peters, who is an actual canon lawyer. I detect an emotional, knee-jerk response to the proposition that blessings (especially by lay extraordinary ministers) are forbidden, rather than a reasoned argument.

Well I cannot answer for any “emotional, knee-jerk response” you may be having but let me explain something rather important to you. An Extraordinary Minister is trained for a specific duty and that is all, however that training does not preclude them from ALL OTHER DUTIES, it turns out they still breath and put their pants on one leg at a time, and more specifically they do that without advanced written permission from the office of Congregation for Divine Worship and the Disciple of the Sacraments. That is the problem as a legalist one has to believe all not specifically stated is automatically excluded, that is incorrect. Now the second problem is much worse that is allowing communion to the non standing/kneeling crowd see when you combine that with legalism you get hypocrisy.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Card. Arinze was merely making a casual comment. This is quite different from an official response to a question addressed to the Congregation. If you can quote a source where the good Cardinal is saying that the current interpretation from the Congregation is incorrect, please share it with us.

What I am saying is that the Congregation for Divine Worship is the final authority on interpreting the liturgical laws and norms. The role of the bishop is likewise to interpret and apply them within his own diocese, but that role also includes obedience to the Congregation’s decisions. If one actually reads the text of the reply, it becomes clear that this decision is nothing new–the fact that blessings should not be done in the Communion line is already clear from the existing norms of the Church. The response says precisely that when it reads “the Church’s discipline has **already made clear **that they should not approach Holy Communion nor receive a blessing.”

So who are “they” is there a long history of infants and small children being left in the pew? Infants and small children are not allowed communion. Or is “they” in reference to the catholic who is choosing not to live in communion? And (again, and again) who decides who “they” are?

 

[Victorious]

That is the problem as a legalist one has to believe all not specifically stated is automatically excluded, that is incorrect. Now the second problem is much worse that is allowing communion to the non standing/kneeling crowd see when you combine that with legalism you get hypocrisy.

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.