Extraordinary Ministers giving blessings

[japhy]

Further the contridiction of “**this dicastery wishes to limit itself **” combined with the individuals teaching the practice is banded is being hidden from these catholics being taught. And a straight forward hypocrisy exists to teach bullet #2 is to be applied as written with out need of context or pretex, while bullet #5 must never be considered the same, in fact bullet #5 most be mostly ignored!

Could you clarify the point in blue? I don’t know if it’s a typo or just something I don’t understand.

Observation #2 reads:
2. 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; Canon 1169, § 2; and Roman Ritual De Benedictionibus (1985), n. 18).
Given the fact that the observation comes with plenty of context, it seems unnecessary to further contextualize it. It says what it says quite clearly, no?

Observation #5 reads:
5. 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).
This observation starts with a relational clause: “in a similar way”. Similar to what? To observation #4 which deals with “divorced people who remarry”. Observation #5 says that existing Church discipline says that others (that is, people other than those covered by #4) who are not permitted to receive Communion should not “approach Holy Communion” (which I think means “present themselves for Holy Communion”) nor receive a blessing in lieu of Communion for a similar reason (“in a similar way…”) as that given in observation #4: “that any form of blessing in substitution for communion would give the impression…”

What impression? The document does not say.

 

[Phemie]

1. 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).This observation starts with a relational clause: “in a similar way”. Similar to what? To observation #4 which deals with “divorced people who remarry”. Observation #5 says that existing Church discipline says that others (that is, people other than those covered by #4) who are not permitted to receive Communion should not “approach Holy Communion” (which I think means “present themselves for Holy Communion”) nor receive a blessing in lieu of Communion for a similar reason (“in a similar way…”) as that given in observation #4: “that any form of blessing in substitution for communion would give the impression…”

What impression? The document does not say.

It certainly does in number 4 “The impression that they are Catholics in good standing.”

 

[Phemie]

To keep pretending that the reply from the CDW is anything but straightforward is to be utterly disingenuous.

The document pretty much said “We’re studying the matter and until such time as we announce differently the following rules are in effect.” Then they proceeded to list all the rules that preclude giving/receiving a blessing instead of Communion. The rules exclude remarried divorced people, non-Catholics, excommunicated Catholics, those in grave sin, those in scandalous situations, those excluded from Communion by norm of law (that would include children who haven’t made their first Communion.) etc. There’s nothing obscure about the rules quoted.

 

[japhy]

It certainly does in number 4 “The impression that they are Catholics in good standing.”

That’s the impression in observation #4. It doesn’t necessarily apply to everyone referred to in observation #5 (such as children who have not yet made their First Holy Communion, or Catholics who have already received Holy Communion twice that day).

 

[zab]

That’s the impression in observation #4. It doesn’t necessarily apply to everyone referred to in observation #5 (such as children who have not yet made their First Holy Communion, or Catholics who have already received Holy Communion twice that day).

japhy,
When you first shared the reply to your letter here on CAF, you asked the question at the bottom of your post: “Is that sufficient to settle the matter until the Church makes a further statement on the matter.” Was the reply that you receives as clear as you had hoped it would be?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=292341

 

[japhy]

When you first shared the reply to your letter here on CAF, you asked the question at the bottom of your post: “Is that sufficient to settle the matter until the Church makes a further statement on the matter.” Was the reply that you receives as clear as you had hoped it would be?

The reply I received did not answer the questions I had posed. So in that regard, no, the reply was not as clear as I had hoped. But that does not mean the reply is not clear on its own merit.

Frankly, I’m surprised there’s been so much dissection of the response. It seemed straight-forward to me and I don’t understand the lengths people will go to to excuse or justify the practice. I think the response from the CDWDS is neither positive nor neutral (it is essentially negative), since it makes clear that lay people should not be attempting to bless people during the liturgy and that, generally speaking, those who are not permitted to receive Communion should not present themselves for either Communion or a blessing.

The document does not say how to pastorally handle the situation where someone does present themselves. Perhaps that is what the CDWDS is hashing out. But I do not envision the CDWDS making a response in favor of EMHCs giving blessings (which is an impossibility according to the response), and a response in favor of ordained ministers giving blessings would require a reversal (not just a change) in present Church liturgical discipline which does not allow for such blessings to be given to non-Communicants.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Could you clarify the point in blue? I don’t know if it’s a typo or just something I don’t understand.

Probably both it should have read “the practice is banned”. Some people are saying (using various words) that CDW ruled and the practice is “illicit”, “a liturgical abuse”, or other various but similar in meaning words. So a catholic new to the issue would believe the CDW’s comments were words as illicit, abuse, or banning the practice. That is very different from what was written by CDW.

Observation #2 reads:
2. 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; Canon 1169, § 2; and Roman Ritual De Benedictionibus (1985), n. 18).
Given the fact that the observation comes with plenty of context, it seems unnecessary to further contextualize it. It says what it says quite clearly, no?

Yes, lay people are not to give the Mass blessing. If you read the references and many other church documents it is clear that lay people are not to take over the mass vestments, gospels, homily, gestures, consecration, and the blessing are required to be done by the ordained. And yes there are endless discussions on what is a homily, gesture, and now blessing. I truly believe the reference is to the Mass blessing.

Observation #5 reads:
5. 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).
This observation starts with a relational clause: “in a similar way”. Similar to what? To observation #4 which deals with “divorced people who remarry”. Observation #5 says that existing Church discipline says that others (that is, people other than those covered by #4) who are not permitted to receive Communion should not “approach Holy Communion” (which I think means “present themselves for Holy Communion”) nor receive a blessing in lieu of Communion for a similar reason (“in a similar way…”) as that given in observation #4: “that any form of blessing in substitution for communion would give the impression…”

What impression? The document does not say.

Exactly, “Similar to what?” What does approach mean? (process or attempt to receive) and for others is that others in a similar state of sin? or others as all who do not receive? And not receive a blessing is that the mass blessing(?) or is the unofficial blessing being acknowledged?

Believe me I wish they had directly answered your question rather than “limit itself”. I think the decision to not simply answer in a more yes or no fashion is far and away a bigger statement than the “observations”. The observations deal with larger subject matters and certainly factor in but I do not believe they actually answer the questions, nor do I believe CDW attempted to hide the answer in observation #2. or #5

I certainly have no problem with people disagreeing with me about this issue however if one believes the answer is in the letter they have to revel the whole letter to the enquirer.

Hope that helps out

 

[zab]

The reply I received did not answer the questions I had posed. So in that regard, no, the reply was not as clear as I had hoped. But that does not mean the reply is not clear on its own merit.

Frankly, I’m surprised there’s been so much dissection of the response. It seemed straight-forward to me and I don’t understand the lengths people will go to to excuse or justify the practice. I think the response from the CDWDS is neither positive nor neutral (it is essentially negative), since it makes clear that lay people should not be attempting to bless people during the liturgy and that, generally speaking, those who are not permitted to receive Communion should not present themselves for either Communion or a blessing.

The document does not say how to pastorally handle the situation where someone does present themselves. Perhaps that is what the CDWDS is hashing out. But I do not envision the CDWDS making a response in favor of EMHCs giving blessings (which is an impossibility according to the response), and a response in favor of ordained ministers giving blessings would require a reversal (not just a change) in present Church liturgical discipline which does not allow for such blessings to be given to non-Communicants.

Thank you for your honest reply and thoughts on this matter. It does make sense. However, I have my own thoughts on why it may seem to some that others are excusing or justifying the practice. But like you mentioned, there is the issue of how to treat those individuals that do come up.

 

[japhy]

Some people are saying (using various words) that CDW ruled and the practice is “illicit”, “a liturgical abuse”, or other various but similar in meaning words.

If an EMHC is making a liturgical blessing, then it seems appropriate to call it a “liturgical abuse” based on prior documents (such as Ecclesia de Mysterio and Redemptionis Sacramentum). An ordained minister giving a blessing which is not found in the liturgical books (such as De Benedictionibus) seems to be along the lines of an (illicit) addition to the Mass.

Yes, lay people are not to give the Mass blessing. … I truly believe the reference is to the Mass blessing.

What is “the Mass blessing”? Do you mean the blessing at the end of Mass right before the dismissal? The text of observation #2 in the reply reads “Lay people, within the context of Holy Mass, are unable to confer blessings.” That is distinct from the language in observation #1, which says “The liturgical blessing of the Holy Mass…”

If observation #2 meant that blessing, I think it would have been more direct in its language. As it stands, it uses the plural: lay people are unable to confer blessings in the context of Mass. That sounds completely different from “a lay person cannot give the blessing at the end of Mass.”

Exactly, (1) “Similar to what?” (2) What does approach mean? (process or attempt to receive) and (3) for others is that others in a similar state of sin? or others as all who do not receive? (4) And not receive a blessing is that the mass blessing(?) or is the unofficial blessing being acknowledged?

(1) I addressed this. #5 follows #4. The “in a similar way” addresses the impression that “any form of blessing in substitution for communion” might cause.

(2) The phrase “approach the sacrament” (or, as here, “approach Holy Communion”) meant only one thing before people began approaching ministers of Holy Communion for a purpose other than receiving the sacrament! I would imagine it still officially means the same thing.

(3) The document says “others who are not to be admitted to Holy Communion in accord with the norm of law.” It gives examples (without limiting itself) of people numbered among these “others”: “non-Catholics” and people prohibited by Canon 915. It does not limit itself to people in a state of sin; there is more in the “norm of the law” than the few examples they provide. I mentioned youths who have not yet received their First Holy Communion and Catholics who have already received Communion twice that day.

(4) Nothing prohibits a person from receiving the blessing at the end of Mass! The language is, again, referring back to #4: “they should not approach Holy Communion nor receive a blessing [in substitution for communion].”

 

[japhy]

why it may seem to some that others are excusing or justifying the practice.

I think some people will only consider it off-limits when the Church says “this is not allowed”, and until then, any other instruction can’t possibly mean that.

 

[zab]

I think some people will only consider it off-limits when the Church says “this is not allowed”, and until then, any other instruction can’t possibly mean that.

In my opinion, that is a thought that you should have kept to yourself. If serves no purpose to imply that others are stubborn. Some want to pick apart everything another says even to the point of misrepresenting what they said. Bishop Sheen cautioned, “Win an argument, lose a soul.”

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Hi Japhy

I agree with most of your posts on the subject. It is important to note you have to infer on concerns about what instruction is here for children if any, which blessing is being referred to, and weather a blessing from an Extraordinary Ministers is liturgical in nature as opposed to a common blessing. As the Bishop has always been in charge of the diocese I see no reason to believe he lacks control over this until the CDW specifically instructs so. Again since you ask that question specifically and they chose not to definitively answer you, it seems reasonable to me the Bishop is still in control of the issue.

Btw- I also agree the CDW leans against the practice, but clearly chose not to stop the practice.

Hope that helps explain my position

 

[benedictgal]

Hi Japhy

I agree with most of your posts on the subject. It is important to note you have to infer on concerns about what instruction is here for children if any, which blessing is being referred to, and weather a blessing from an Extraordinary Ministers is liturgical in nature as opposed to a common blessing. As the Bishop has always been in charge of the diocese I see no reason to believe he lacks control over this until the CDW specifically instructs so. Again since you ask that question specifically and they chose not to definitively answer you, it seems reasonable to me the Bishop is still in control of the issue.

Btw- I also agree the CDW leans against the practice, but clearly chose not to stop the practice.

Hope that helps explain my position

But, nothing in the letter indicates that the practice should go on, either. The documents of the Church, which the CDWDS cites in its respoonse clearly indicate that this practice should not be done. In fact, if you read these documents that the CDWDS references, you will find that there are no provisions for this to even happen.

At least you are starting to seei that the CDWDS leans against the practice.

 

[zab]

Hi Japhy

I agree with most of your posts on the subject. It is important to note you have to infer on concerns about what instruction is here for children if any, which blessing is being referred to, and weather a blessing from an Extraordinary Ministers is liturgical in nature as opposed to a common blessing. As the Bishop has always been in charge of the diocese I see no reason to believe he lacks control over this until the CDW specifically instructs so. Again since you ask that question specifically and they chose not to definitively answer you, it seems reasonable to me the Bishop is still in control of the issue.

Btw- I also agree the CDW leans against the practice, but clearly chose not to stop the practice.

Hope that helps explain my position

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…At least you are starting to seei that the CDWDS leans against the practice.

I have always seen that, that is by no means a base to infer the bishop has lost control of the issue. The CDW specifically avoided answering that question; any such answer would have been definitive. To avoid the answer is to default the issue back to current status which still seems to me to be bishop in charge.

 

[benedictgal]

I have always seen that, that is by no means a base to infer the bishop has lost control of the issue. The CDW specifically avoided answering that question; any such answer would have been definitive. To avoid the answer is to default the issue back to current status which still seems to me to be bishop in charge.

Actually, the bishop does not have any control over this issue, as it would involve introducing something entirely new that is not found in the GIRM. In fact, the bishop’s authority over the liturgy is limited. This is what the GIRM says a bishop is empowered to do:

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.

He does not have the authority to create a new ritual and insert it into the Mass. Now, an national episcopal conference, like the USCCB, can request an adaptation to the GIRM, provided that it passes by a 2/3 vote of the Latin Rite bishops and receives the necessary recognitio from Rome.

That is what, as I read your posts, you do not seem to understand. The bishop does not have carte blanche authority. The only one who has complete authority is the Pope.

 

[zab]

I have always seen that, that is by no means a base to infer the bishop has lost control of the issue. The CDW specifically avoided answering that question; any such answer would have been definitive. To avoid the answer is to default the issue back to current status which still seems to me to be bishop in charge.

It seems that way to me, also. I believe that we should be respectful of the authority of our pastors and bishops particularly those who have demonstrated their faithfulness to the Magisterium.

 

[benedictgal]

For those who are, perhaps, unclear as to who can approve what. this is what the GIRM notes about adaptations:

1. It is up to the Conferences of Bishops to decide on the adaptations indicated in this General Instruction and in the Order of Mass and, once their decisions have been accorded the recognitio of the Apostolic See, to introduce them into the Missal itself. These adaptations include

The gestures and posture of the faithful (cf. no. 43 above);

The gestures of veneration toward the altar and the Book of the Gospels (cf. no. 273 above);

The texts of the chants at the entrance, at the presentation of the gifts, and at Communion (cf. nos. 48, 74, 87 above);

The readings from Sacred Scripture to be used in special circumstances (cf. no. 362 above);

The form of the gesture of peace (cf. no. 82 above);

The manner of receiving Holy Communion (cf. nos. 160, 283 above);

The materials for the altar and sacred furnishings, especially the sacred vessels, and also the materials, form, and color of the liturgical vestments (cf. nos. 301, 326, 329, 339, 342-346 above).
Directories or pastoral instructions that the Conferences of Bishops judge useful may, with the prior recognitio of the Apostolic See, be included in the Roman Missal at an appropriate place.

Thus, as japhy noted in one of his posts:

But I do not envision the CDWDS making a response in favor of EMHCs giving blessings (which is an impossibility according to the response), and a response in favor of ordained ministers giving blessings would require a reversal (not just a change) in present Church liturgical discipline which does not allow for such blessings to be given to non-Communicants.

But, such a reversal does not fall within the purview of an individual bishop to make. This would actually be the competency of the CDWDS, unless a national episcopal conference, like the USCCB, would petition Rome to do. Furthermore, because this practice is not even found in any of the authoritative liturgical books of the Holy See, the complex becomes further complicated because along with reversal, new norms would have to be made. And, a local bishop does not have the authority to invent new norms. He has the authority to use the legitimate options given to him under the GIRM, but, he cannot invent and insert things into the structure of the Mass on his own.

 

[japhy]

In my opinion, that is a thought that you should have kept to yourself. If serves no purpose to imply that others are stubborn.

Some people are stubborn. Sad fact of life. I’m stubborn about certain things too.

 

[japhy]

It is important to note you have to infer on concerns about what instruction is here for children if any

So you’re saying that because the response did not expressly list “Catholics who have not yet received their First Holy Communion” and “Catholics who have received Communion twice already that day” in the list of examples of “others who are not to be admitted to Holy Communion in accord with the norm of law”, there is an “inference” that must be made which leaves room for doubt?

which blessing is being referred to

I’m letting the document interpret itself on that one. It used “blessings” in the plural! It’s talking about various blessings that may be given in the context of the Mass!

whether a blessing from an Extraordinary Ministers is liturgical in nature as opposed to a common blessing.

I think you misunderstood my post:
If an EMHC is making a liturgical blessing, then it seems appropriate to call it a “liturgical abuse”…
I was justifying the use of the phrase “liturgical abuse”, not calling into question whether blessings from EMHCs are “liturgical in nature” or not. “Lay people, within the context of Holy Mass, are unable to confer blessings.” That means that EMHCs, within the context of Holy Mass, are unable to confer blessings. I don’t see how that could be more clear! Whatever the “nature” of the blessing is, an EMHC may not give a blessing during the Mass. (To go one step further, why should EMHCs be expected to asked to do something which they are unable to do?)

This seems to me to be an exercise in how far the observations can be restricted.