Extraordinary Ministers giving blessings

[Layman]

You do not obey an order which is against the teachings of the Church.

Understand: Priests can make mistakes. Bishops can make mistakes. Bishops conferences can make mistakes. They are not infallible and we are not bound to obey orders which contradict Church teaching. The Church is not the army.

Lay people or priests giving blessings during Communion should not be done. Full stop.

 

[Brendan]

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.

No kidding, here in Detroit, Cardinal Maida MANDATED that at least one parish in each Vicariate have a Sunday evening Mass. In that way, those who could not attend a morning Mass, could have an evening option within a reasonable distance.

Our parish is one of those, we have a 4:30 and 6:30 pm Sunday Masses.

 

[Tigg]

:banghead:

 

[MrS]

Maybe if we line up a bunch of those little guys… and kids

:slapfight::getholy:

one or more of them is bound to get some kind of blessing from a lay poster.

.

 

[ac_claire]

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.

I just wanted to echo benedictgal about the poor catechesis. It’s not inappropriate that the kids are feeling excluded from receiving communion, because they are not, in fact, receiving communion. It’s just normal. The only thing to fix that would be to let them receive, and we can’t do that before their FHC, so basically it’s just one of those things people have to deal with. But kids won’t even know to look at this as a cross they have to bear unless they instructed to do so.

Doing anything differently is poor catechesis because it’s teaching that a.) a blessing is an adequate “replacement” for receiving Communion, and b.) it’s teaching them that they have a right to get “something special”…something extra…at Mass. Just like all the others. This “everyone must get prizes!” mentality is extremely disordered and is not what Mass (or Christianity) is about.

The kids should be instructed in making a spiritual communion whenever they can’t receive sacramentally.

Personal note: I wasn’t baptized until I was a teenager so my period of being “excluded” from Communion was longer than most kids. Every week I watched my cousins go up, and sometimes it did hurt. But I was taught to pray and make a spiritual Communion in the pew. Although most kids do not have to wait nearly as long as I did, the short time they do have to wait is still valuable. I know it taught me patience and humility and gave me time to learn as much as could about our Lord and about the Sacrament.

 

[benedictgal]

… 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).

No. With all due respect, this is the wrong approach. You are not obliged to obey your pastor if he issues an edict that is contrary to what the Church has already stated. It’s like my dad telling me that I have to drive at 80MPH in a 65MPH zone because he wants to get home and watch Monday Night Raw or the Spurs game.

The Church, in several documents, has already indicated that imparting a blessing during the course of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not something that the laity can do. In fact, both Ecclesia de Mysterio and the CDWDS clearly state that. Furthermore, a lay person is temporarily commissioned only to assist the celebrant in distributing Holy Communion, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Tigg]

It is about the legalist trying to have the celebrant’s action deemed illict and abuse.

Legalism??? or a love of the Eucharist and Mass and desire that all honor and glory be given to the Body and Blood of our Lord within the proper context of the Liturgy as defined by the Church.

 

[Phemie]

No. With all due respect, this is the wrong approach. You are not obliged to obey your pastor if he issues an edict that is contrary to what the Church has already stated. It’s like my dad telling me that I have to drive at 80MPH in a 65MPH zone because he wants to get home and watch Monday Night Raw or the Spurs game.

The Church, in several documents, has already indicated that imparting a blessing during the course of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not something that the laity can do. In fact, both Ecclesia de Mysterio and the CDWDS clearly state that. Furthermore, a lay person is temporarily commissioned only to assist the celebrant in distributing Holy Communion, nothing more, nothing less.

Precisely! That’s why, when ordered by my pastor & assistant pastor (who flat out stated that they would not be paying attention to any Vatican document on the subject) to instruct EMHCs to come up and distribute Communion even if there were priests concelebrating who would then be forced to sit down and watch, I chose to resign from the Liturgy Committee. I had invested a lot of time & some money in training for the job I did on the committee but it wasn’t worth my while to stay and do things I knew were wrong.

 

[MrS]

Precisely! That’s why, when ordered by my pastor & assistant pastor (who flat out stated that they would not be paying attention to any Vatican document on the subject) to instruct EMHCs to come up and distribute Communion even if there were priests concelebrating who would then be forced to sit down and watch, I chose to resign from the Liturgy Committee. I had invested a lot of time & some money in training for the job I did on the committee but it wasn’t worth my while to stay and do things I knew were wrong.

I hope they took notice, and understood your position. Well done, good and faithful servant.

.

 

[Tigg]

**This “everyone must get prizes!” mentality is extremely disordered and is not what Mass (or Christianity) is about. **

The kids should be instructed in making a spiritual communion whenever they can’t receive sacramentally.

A very discerning comment. Society today has now been dubbed the “instant gratification generation.” What? We cannot yet receive communion and we cannot wait for the real event to happen, so we must substitute something else because we simply cannot be denied?

I would like to think that the anticipation of the big day when they would finally be able to receive our Jesus would be most beneficial in helping prepare them for a more fruitful first union by a greater desire to receive.

 

[KathyTX]

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”.

But see, you it isn’t supposed to be like a “love-in”, which is how you make it sound. Mass is not supposed to be all “happy clappy”. It is to be holy and reverent. The communion line is just that, the line to receive Holy Communion, nothing more. No one should be in it, except those that are able to receive Holy Communion. That is what bothers me the most, I guess. And yes, as others have said, I see a great deal of PRIDE showing in a lot of the EMHCs. They seem to feel they are elevated in position or something, over the rest of the laity. That is not how it is supposed to be.

 

[Victorious]

And yes, as others have said, I see a great deal of PRIDE showing in a lot of the EMHCs. They seem to feel they are elevated in position or something, over the rest of the laity. That is not how it is supposed to be.

Seems to me that if we want to test our motives for serving, a good way to do that is to ask ourselves whether we would willingly stand down if asked to do so. How many of us are not even willing to stop doing things we shouldn’t be doing?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

… those same observations, which state that such blessings are not to be done…

which is to imply the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments is greatly error to “to limit itself” rather than answer the question

 

[MrS]

:banghead:

 

[benedictgal]

which is to imply the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments is greatly error to “to limit itself” rather than answer the question

Again, you are choosing to confine yourself to only the first part of the letter while, as I see it, ignoring the meat of the letter, wherein the CDWDS firmly establishes why this practice should not be allowed. You concentrate on the first paragraph while, as I have read your posts, throwing out the central part of the message. The CDWDS has already answered the question in its five bullet points, which, with all due respect, you have apparently chosen to ignore and discount.

Fr. David has provided you with a solid explanation and interpretation. In addition, I have also posted the citations that the CDWDS uses in its bullet points, including the canonical references. None of these contradict each other; rather they act in harmony to reaffirm that this questionable practice should not be done. Thus, it stands to reason that while they are studying the issue, the CDWDS gave five very strong and legitimate reasons as to why this should not be done.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Again, you are choosing to confine yourself to only the first part of the letter while, as I see it, ignoring the meat of the letter, wherein the CDWDS firmly establishes why this practice should not be allowed. You concentrate on the first paragraph while, as I have read your posts, throwing out the central part of the message. The CDWDS has already answered the question in its five bullet points, which, with all due respect, you have apparently chosen to ignore and discount.

Fr. David has provided you with a solid explanation and interpretation. In addition, I have also posted the citations that the CDWDS uses in its bullet points, including the canonical references. None of these contradict each other; rather they act in harmony to reaffirm that this questionable practice should not be done. Thus, it stands to reason that while they are studying the issue, the CDWDS gave five very strong and legitimate reasons as to why this should not be done.

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 vatican.ca/), Those who persist 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

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 vatican.ca/), Those who persist 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

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

Actually, the five points that the CDWDS noted in its letter are the discipline to be followed. Thus, your re-post of a previous thread contradicts your whole argument.

What the CDWDS stated in the bullets is exactlly what should be done. Notice that nowhere do any of the points indicate that there is justification for this bad practice.

It is not a question of reading the catechism, since this document is a teaching instrument of the Church and is not a regulatory one. Rather, the question is reading the authoritative and regulatory documents of the Church and adhereing to them. The CDWDS has already made its point rather clear. Why do you not wish to accept that, rather than maintain that it has said nothing (which is not the case at all, and, in fact, quite the opposite)? This is a legitimate question.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Actually, the five points that the CDWDS noted in its letter are the discipline to be followed. Thus, your re-post of a previous thread contradicts your whole argument.

What the CDWDS stated in the bullets is exactlly what should be done. Notice that nowhere do any of the points indicate that there is justification for this bad practice.

It is not a question of reading the catechism, since this document is a teaching instrument of the Church and is not a regulatory one. Rather, the question is reading the authoritative and regulatory documents of the Church and adhereing to them. The CDWDS has already made its point rather clear. Why do you not wish to accept that, rather than maintain that it has said nothing (which is not the case at all, and, in fact, quite the opposite)? This is a legitimate question.

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 vatican.ca/), Those who persist 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

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 vatican.ca/), Those who persist 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

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

With all due respect, you can repost your response as many times as you please, but, it only serves to contradict your answer. Furthermore, the fact that the document has a protocol number, which you posted, makes it a legitimate and bona fide, binding and authoritative document of the Holy See.

Again, the catechism is a teaching document of the Church, while RS, the GIRM and the letter from the CDWDS are regulatory documents.

The link that you posted is merely an interpretation of the document. Fr. David, as a priest, has made valid points. Furthermore, all of the supporting documentation that we have used in this thread is further ratified and confirmed in the CDWDS letter, which, as I read your posts, you are quick to disregard and ignore.

 

[zab]

With all due respect, you can repost your response as many times as you please, but, it only serves to contradict your answer. Furthermore, the fact that the document has a protocol number, which you posted, makes it a legitimate and bona fide, binding and authoritative document of the Holy See.

Again, the catechism is a teaching document of the Church, while RS, the GIRM and the letter from the CDWDS are regulatory documents.

The link that you posted is merely an interpretation of the document. Fr. David, as a priest, has made valid points. Furthermore, all of the supporting documentation that we have used in this thread is further ratified and confirmed in the CDWDS letter, which, as I read your posts, you are quick to disregard and ignore.

With all due respect, the only information provided by the anonymous poster with the screen name, FrDavid96, is that he (?) is Catholic. You should not expect anyone to accept his posts as having any more weight that any other anonymous poster on this board.