Extraordinary Ministers giving blessings

[benedictgal]

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? 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.

Perhaps you believe that the CDWDS is being legalistic. Perhaps you are accusing them of being legalists. With all due respect, this has been the tone of just about all of your posts on the subject. You and otheres seem to not want to take the CDWDS, which is the final authority on liturgical matters affecting the Universal Church, at its word.

The letter notes that the practice should not be done. So, you are contradicting yourself right there. It is not up to the priest or the bishop to rule as he sees fit. The CDWDS has noted quite clearly in its five observations why this should not be done.

You also failed to see my point. The letter is not merely directed at EMHCs. It applies to both EMHCs and clergy. The folks who serve as EMHCs are laity. Thus, they are a target of this, along with the clergy. The observation lists one provision for the laity and four for the clergy.

 

[MrS]

:banghead:

 

[Phemie]

:banghead:

 

[Sir_Knight]

Layman;5413114:

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…

There’s a solution to this:

Fire the EMHCs.

Two problems with your “blunt” suggestion:

• 
  *]No EMHC would result in it taking the priests and the deacons longer to distribute Communion. Longer masses would translate into either either turning people away at the door or discouraging people from attending because they would not have a seat – neither of which I think is a good thing.
  
  *] What about the elderly, sick and home-bound? Instead of receiving our Lord weekly or monthly, they would be lucky if a priest was able to get out to them annually. Again, not a good thing.
  

  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.

  What you refer to as a “novelity”, is OFFICIALLY approved by the Vatican. Are you HINTING that the Church has errored in this post-Vat II decision?

 

[MrS]

What you refer to as a “novelity”, is OFFICIALLY approved by the Vatican. Are you HINTING that the Church has errored in this post-Vat II decision?

It is not the Church/Vatican which has erred . The Church has permitted the use of Extraordinary MHC. The key word is Extraordinary.

The error is allowing overuse, and since the priest is the principle liturgist… it is the priest who errs.

The novelty is this: EMHC are so common now and for the most part - unnecessary. Approval for extreme needs has become a norm for the laity.

Communion under only one species is perfectly acceptable. And if people are in a hurry to do other things… I say either try to instruct them on the Real Presence, or cut them loose.

Jesus let them walk away.

/

 

[benedictgal]

Two problems with your “blunt” suggestion:

• 
  *]No EMHC would result in it taking the priests and the deacons longer to distribute Communion. Longer masses would translate into either either turning people away at the door or discouraging people from attending because they would not have a seat – neither of which I think is a good thing.
  
  *] What about the elderly, sick and home-bound? Instead of receiving our Lord weekly or monthly, they would be lucky if a priest was able to get out to them annually. Again, not a good thing.
  
  What you refer to as a “novelity”, is OFFICIALLY approved by the Vatican. Are you HINTING that the Church has errored in this post-Vat II decision?

• 
  Even the Holy See has found some problems with the issue of EMHC, as what is currently seen right now is not necessarily what the Church envisioned when it allowed this to happen.
  
  I draw your attention to Redemptionis Sacramentum:
  

  [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.

  This last statement, Sir Knight, is the key to this whole problem and should answer the point that your raised. My pastor has had to distribute Holy Communion solo during Sunday Mass. The “delay” will sometimes be five minutes at the most. Interestingly enough, I never heard people who attend the EF complain about the distribution of Holy Communion being too long. In fact, I have not heard that complaint from people like my dad who were reared on the TLM.
  
  Now, my dad, a 4th Degree Knight, PGK, PDD, PFA and PFN, is an EMHC to the elderly and homebound. He visits about 30 people every Sunday morning, many of whom live in a federal senior housing project. He only does what the Church tells him to do as far as distributing Holy Communion is concerned. Not once has he ever imparted a blessing on anyone even when he has had to assist with the chalice. My father is a stickler for obeying what the Church says. So is his daughter.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Even the Holy See has found some problems with the issue of EMHC, as what is currently seen right now is not necessarily what the Church envisioned when it allowed this to happen.

I draw your attention to Redemptionis Sacramentum:

This last statement, Sir Knight, is the key to this whole problem and should answer the point that your raised. My pastor has had to distribute Holy Communion solo during Sunday Mass. The “delay” will sometimes be five minutes at the most. Interestingly enough, I never heard people who attend the EF complain about the distribution of Holy Communion being too long. In fact, I have not heard that complaint from people like my dad who were reared on the TLM.

I belong to what once was a small country parish. Over the years, as people have left the cities and moved in the surrounding areas, the parish has more than doubled in size and despite an expansion of the church building which increased capacity by nearly 50%, masses were still packed with standing room only.

To address this, two extra masses were added – one on Saturday and one on Sunday. In order to add the Sunday Mass, the Mass schedule had to be re-shuffled around and instead of there being a two-hour gap block between masses at 8, 10 & 12; there was now only and hour and a half block between masses as 7:30, 9, 10:30 & 12.

Problem was that even with three priests (the pastor, a retired Monsignor and a priest) and two deacons (one permanent and one week-end assistant), they could not distribute communion quickly enough to end one mass, get the folks out and get the next group in during the 90 minutes.

To address this, there are now six EMHC helping the three priests and two deacons distribute communion and even with the eleven of them, it still takes them around ten minutes to complete the task.

If EMHCs were “fired”, that would add at least another ten minutes to each mass. Which would mean that the second mass would be delayed by about 10-15 resulting in the third mass being delayed by about half an hour and so forth an so on.

This leads into another problem in that the local Bishop does not allow any Sunday Mass to begin after 12 Noon. As a result, the last Mass could not be said and we would be back to three Masses on Sunday instead of four resulting in them being packed with a standing room only situation as was the case before.

It is unrealistic to expect families with small children to stand for an hour plus. The children will get bored, restless, etc. Ditto for the elderly or those with physical limitations.

Some of these people will end up NOT going to mass!

 

[Sir_Knight]

It is not the Church/Vatican which has erred . The Church has permitted the use of Extraordinary MHC. The key word is Extraordinary.

The error is allowing overuse, and since the priest is the principle liturgist… it is the priest who errs.

According to who? Are you saying that someone in the pew, who has no formal training or experience in these matters is better qualified to determine what is right and what is wrong than the priest who DOES have formal training and experience in these matters?

The novelty is this: EMHC are so common now and for the most part - unnecessary. Approval for extreme needs has become a norm for the laity.

Communion under only one species is perfectly acceptable.

Our parish distributes only one species and if EMHCs were removed, we’d have a problem. See my post above.

And if people are in a hurry to do other things… I say either try to instruct them on the Real Presence, or cut them loose.

Jesus let them walk away.

Jesus ALSO said that when a sheperd looses ONE sheep, he leaves the other 99 behind and goes after that lost sheep.

 

[benedictgal]

I belong to what once was a small country parish. Over the years, as people have left the cities and moved in the surrounding areas, the parish has more than doubled in size and despite an expansion of the church building which increased capacity by nearly 50%, masses were still packed with standing room only.

To address this, two extra masses were added – one on Saturday and one on Sunday. In order to add the Sunday Mass, the Mass schedule had to be re-shuffled around and instead of there being a two-hour gap block between masses at 8, 10 & 12; there was now only and hour and a half block between masses as 7:30, 9, 10:30 & 12.

Problem was that even with three priests (the pastor, a retired Monsignor and a priest) and two deacons (one permanent and one week-end assistant), they could not distribute communion quickly enough to end one mass, get the folks out and get the next group in during the 90 minutes.

To address this, there are now six EMHC helping the three priests and two deacons distribute communion and even with the eleven of them, it still takes them around ten minutes to complete the task.

If EMHCs were “fired”, that would add at least another ten minutes to each mass. Which would mean that the second mass would be delayed by about 10-15 resulting in the third mass being delayed by about half an hour and so forth an so on.

This leads into another problem in that the local Bishop does not allow any Sunday Mass to begin after 12 Noon. As a result, the last Mass could not be said and we would be back to three Masses on Sunday instead of four resulting in them being packed with a standing room only situation as was the case before.

It is unrealistic to expect families with small children to stand for an hour plus. The children will get bored, restless, etc. Ditto for the elderly or those with physical limitations.

Some of these people will end up NOT going to mass!

I think, though, that, with all due respect, you are missing the point of this thread. The issue is not about whether EMHCs should be used; rather, it is what they can and cannot do. They cannot impart blessings in lieu of distributing Holy Communion (neither can clergy, for that matter, according to the CDWDS).

Regarding the time frame, perhaps the pastor and the parish council need to meet with the bishop to explain the complexties of the situation you are facing. If the bshop knew the situation, he may see things differently.

Furthermore, just how many people are you talkng about as far as Mass attendance goes? Of these, how many go to receive Holy Communion? Let me offer one local example from down here. At the Cathedral, the 11:30AM Mass draws about 700 people. The celebrant and deacon dstribute Holy Communion with an EMHC assistng them while six others distribute the Precious Blood. Now, when the bishop celebrates, the EMHC assisting with Holy Communon is dropped. This takes maybe 10 minutes.

Now, the distrbution of the Precious Blood is optional. Your pairsh could simply opt to minister the chalice on special occasions. Many, many parishes down here only distribute Holy Communion under one species.

 

[MrS]

Jesus ALSO said that when a sheperd looses ONE sheep, he leaves the other 99 behind and goes after that lost sheep.

Then I strongly suggest someone talk to the Shepherd… your bishop … about not having a Mass start after 12 noon.

What could that possibly mean? He should be THRILLED that so many want to attend, and he should want to pull out all the stops to encourage just that. You have 5 ordained men at your parish…wow, what a gift.

And one hour is too long? Perhaps they should start perpetual Adoration. That one hour of Adoration would make them want longer Masses, not short ones.

.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I think, though, that, with all due respect, you are missing the point of this thread. The issue is not about whether EMHCs should be used; rather, it is what they can and cannot do. They cannot impart blessings in lieu of distributing Holy Communion (neither can clergy, for that matter, according to the CDWDS).

I know. I was involved in the very early discussion (posts 1-50). I was merely replying to these comments.

Regarding the time frame, perhaps the pastor and the parish council need to meet with the bishop to explain the complexties of the situation you are facing. If the bshop knew the situation, he may see things differently.

The Bishop was informed and his reply was that we could have masses start earlier but not after 12 noon. Thus, our 7am which is not well attended.

Furthermore, just how many people are you talkng about as far as Mass attendance goes?

I have no clue but I do know that if you are not seated at the start of mass, you are not going to get a seat – standing room only.

Of these, how many go to receive Holy Communion?

A lot! Just about everybody.

Let me offer one local example from down here. At the Cathedral, the 11:30AM Mass draws about 700 people. The celebrant and deacon dstribute Holy Communion with an EMHC assistng them while six others distribute the Precious Blood. Now, when the bishop celebrates, the EMHC assisting with Holy Communon is dropped. This takes maybe 10 minutes.

Now, the distrbution of the Precious Blood is optional. Your pairsh could simply opt to minister the chalice on special occasions. Many, many parishes down here only distribute Holy Communion under one species.

As I said above, we only do one species.

 

[Phemie]

What’s the Bishop’s rationale for no Masses after 12 p.m.? I know lot’s of parishes have 4 pm, 5 pm and even 7 pm Masses on Sundays.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Then I strongly suggest someone talk to the Shepherd… your bishop … about not having a Mass start after 12 noon.

It’s been done and his decision stands – no Masses may begin after 12 noon. However, the Pope has accepted his retirement and we are scheduled to get a new bishop within the next several weeks so this MAY be addressed again.

What could that possibly mean? He should be THRILLED that so many want to attend, and he should want to pull out all the stops to encourage just that. You have 5 ordained men at your parish…wow, what a gift.

And one hour is too long? Perhaps they should start perpetual Adoration. That one hour of Adoration would make them want longer Masses, not short ones.

As I explained earlier, the one hour is due to the logistics of things. Getting people out of the church and parking lot and the next crowd into the parking lot and into the church. Extend the mass by even 5-10 minutes and we lose one mass because of the logistics.

 

[Sir_Knight]

What’s the Bishop’s rationale for no Masses after 12 p.m.?

Good question. Your guess is as good as mine.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Perhaps you believe that the CDWDS is being legalistic. Perhaps you are accusing them of being legalists. With all due respect, this has been the tone of just about all of your posts on the subject. You and otheres seem to not want to take the CDWDS, which is the final authority on liturgical matters affecting the Universal Church, at its word.

The letter notes that the practice should not be done. So, you are contradicting yourself right there. It is not up to the priest or the bishop to rule as he sees fit. The CDWDS has noted quite clearly in its five observations why this should not be done.

You also failed to see my point. The letter is not merely directed at EMHCs. It applies to both EMHCs and clergy. The folks who serve as EMHCs are laity. Thus, they are a target of this, along with the clergy. The observation lists one provision for the laity and four for the clergy.

:banghead:

Two people in a joint letter wrote the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments(an authority body) about this issue. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments replied and said “The letter said that “**this matter is presently under the attentive study **of the Congregation”, so “for the present, **this dicastery wishes to limit itself **to the following observations”:”(1) . To date we find a few individuals who openly choose to deny this actual response. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments also list 5 related statements from past teachings. These 5 statements relate to the issue and show known discipline rules which are to be followed. They are not an answer to the question, and this is made clear in the letter known as (Protocol No. 930/08/L).

However we find to date on the catholic forums a few individuals who openly attempt to mislead Catholics away from the actual writing and into false interpretations about the letter itself and the relationship between the practice and other church writings. This is not a small matter. Those individuals are strongly advised to seek appropriate church counsel and review the catechism (2482, 2483, 2508, 2512), Those who prosiest in a continuing pattern to misrepresent the actual letter need to further review catechism part 3, Life in Christ, section 1. Man’s vocation life in the spirit, chapter 3 God’s Salvation: Law and Grace (vatican.ca/)

In summary the authoritative Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments is studying the issue at this time and is currently limiting itself on a definitive finding and that must be conveyed to any Catholic asking about this issue.

(1) adoremus.org/0209CDW_Blessing.html

 

[benedictgal]

Two people in a joint letter wrote the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments(an authority body) about this issue. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments replied and said “*The letter said that “**this matter is presently under the attentive study ***of the Congregation”, so “for the present, **this dicastery wishes to limit itself **to the following observations”:”(1) . To date we find a few individuals who openly choose to deny this actual response. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments also list 5 related statements from past teachings. These 5 statements relate to the issue and show known discipline rules which are to be followed. They are not an answer to the question, and this is made clear in the letter known as (Protocol No. 930/08/L).

However we find to date on the catholic forums a few individuals who openly attempt to mislead Catholics away from the actual writing and into false interpretations about the letter itself and the relationship between the practice and other church writings. This is not a small matter. Those individuals are strongly advised to seek appropriate church counsel and review the catechism (2482, 2483, 2508, 2512), Those who prosiest in a continuing pattern to misrepresent the actual letter need to further review catechism part 3, Life in Christ, section 1. Man’s vocation life in the spirit, chapter 3 God’s Salvation: Law and Grace (vatican.ca/)

In summary the authoritative Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments is studying the issue at this time and is currently limiting itself on a definitive finding and that must be conveyed to any Catholic asking about this issue.

(1) adoremus.org/0209CDW_Blessing.html

First of all, you are making some serious charges. The letter clearly speaks for itself. No one is attempting to mislead anyone. On the contrary, you are the one making such statements. As I see it, you are leveling these charges because you have yet to find any authoritative documentation that asserts your point of view. It is the tactic that many take when they are losing their argument, as I have experienced it, both here and in face-to-face daily dealings.

The fact remains that the same letter that you seem to discount (and deem misleading) re-states all of the citations that I have made (Ecclesia de Mysterio and the Code of Canon Law). You can bring in the catechism and throw in other documents, but, that does not change things one iota. You also are, as I read your posts, hung up on the first line of the statement and not on the rest of the letter which carries the meat of the message.

Inasmuch as I have used Adoremus as a resource (quoting the Vatican documents housed in their online library) and know the editor, what is writing regardng the statement of the CDWDS is her opinion. The fact remains that the letter has indicated in its five observations that this practice should not be done. This letter not only speaks to the actions of EMHCs, but, it makes very specific references to Pastors (which includes both priests and bishops), as has been repeatedly pointed out to you. Furthermore, Redemptionis Sacramentum notes that:

[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

This means that pastors, let alone the laity, do not have any right to insert and imbed rituals and things into the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that do not belong there. Not even bishops have that right. I have already posted in this thread what falls under the competency of the local bishop. Inserting blessings and such into the Mass is not one of them. In fact, any changes to the GIRM must be submitted by the USCCB (or any other national episcopal conference) after receving the mandatory 2/3 vote of the Latin Rite Bishops to Rome for the necessary recognitio. Having kept up with the USCCB on liturgical matters, there is nothing on the table asking for an amendment to the GIRM to legitimize this bad practice.

It is up to us to receive what the CDWDS has noted with obedience. The “us” here includes the laity and clergy.

 

[DominicVobiscum]

Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers are commissioned through the Bishop, by the Pastor. When they serve Holy Communion, they are assisting the Priest Celebrant. We are encouraged to bless the children by making a cross on their forehead and saying “May the Lord bless you.” It may be that some EEMs are dismayed by other EEM who are rather joyful about this duty … but, it isn’t hard and it is sometimes infrequently needed. I would be happy to hear how others bless the children, and the adults who are not in Communion but come up with arms crossed.

When I was commissioned as a SMC, we we told that we could not bestow a blessing in the same manner as the priest or deacon. But, that we could do that as any person could wish a blessing on anyone. I think this practice is beneficial to youngsters who see Holy Communion as a time to receive something special, and they don’t want to be excluded by remaining in the pew.

 

[benedictgal]

When I was commissioned as a SMC, we we told that we could not bestow a blessing in the same manner as the priest or deacon. But, that we could do that as any person could wish a blessing on anyone. I think this practice is beneficial to youngsters who see Holy Communion as a time to receive something special, and they don’t want to be excluded by remaining in the pew.

With all due respect, you were given incorrect insstruction. We form a line to receive Someone, not something (a blessing). This creates a bad impression on children because they “feel” like they are excluded from something. That is poor catechesis, very poor. It makes children feel as though they are entitled to something. What should be taught to the children is the importance of making a Spiritual Communion, asking Jesus to enter into their hearts until such time when they can receive Him. The blessing should not be seen as some sort of consolation prize for not being able to receive Our Lord. The line is only for those who are properly disposed to receive Holy Communion. If parents are so inclined to have their children blessed, then they can ask the priest for a blessing after Mass.

The blessing, which is the most inclusive act of the Mass, is to be imparted at the end of the Holy Sacrifice and is applicable to everyone, Catholic, non-Catholic and those who can receive Holy Communion and not receive.

What is an SMC?

 

[FrDavid96]

Two people in a joint letter wrote the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments(an authority body) about this issue. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments replied and said “*The letter said that “**this matter is presently under the attentive study ***of the Congregation”, so “for the present, **this dicastery wishes to limit itself **to the following observations”:”(1) …

And yet, you very conveniently and repeatedly ignore those same observations, which state that such blessings are not to be done.

It’s getting a bit old.

I do not know how I can explain to you in terms you will understand that “under the attentive study” does not mean that the conclusions which follow, which are the authoritative interpretation of the Church’s liturgical law, can be ignored or dismissed.

The present discipline of the Church, as articulated by the CDWDS, is that these blessings are not to be done. What might or might not happen in the future is a matter of speculation, but does not change the present norms of the Church.

I suggest you read canon 16.

 

[Sir_Knight]

When I was commissioned as a SMC, we we told that we could not bestow a blessing in the same manner as the priest or deacon. But, that we could do that as any person could wish a blessing on anyone. I think this practice is beneficial to youngsters who see Holy Communion as a time to receive something special, and they don’t want to be excluded by remaining in the pew.

… but … But … BUT …

I agree with you that anybody CAN give a blessing BUT only someone who is ordained (priest, deacon, etc.) can give a Church blessing. I also believe that unless one is receiving Our Lord, one SHOULD remain kneeling in the pew BUT if the Pastor instructs the EMHC to give a blessing to those approaching who are not receiving, then they should do so – lay obey the priest, priest obeys the Pastor, Pastor obeys the Bishop, etc. According to scripture, the Church has a heiractocal structure to it. A private does not run to a general to verify the orders of his sergeant (maybe to the Captain or the lieutenant but not to the Colonel or the General).