Extraordinary Ministers giving blessings

[ohioszo]

First of all, the correct and proper term is not EEM. It is Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. This is the citation from Redemptionis Sacramentum:

Please forgive me for not checking: It is EMHC. More accurate representation, not necessarily meant to change anything. Still “extraordinary” though!

Unfortunately, you were given wrong advice from the start. The priest in question (and I graduated from a Salesian school, which, unfortunately, would have acquired the ire of Don Bosco because he never would have advocated what is going on right now in his some regions where his order exists–I have seen this and felt it first-hand) does not have the authority to tell you to “impart blessings” on anyone in lieu of distributing Holy Communion. The documents that I have quoted in previous posts indicate that this should not be done. In fact, they are also cited by the CDWDS in its letter.
**
He did not tell me to bless, he told me about the speed. Sorry again.**

Please know that this has nothing to do about status. In fact, to assume that “blessing someone” makes one feel something more is, as I see it, the wrong approach to take. In fact, it is an inaccurate understanding of what an EMHC is supposed to do. How can you say that it weakens your “ministry”? How can you say that these "complaints aren’t good enough when even Rome, in the document Ecclesia de Mysterio, notes that:

**Taking your argument about *not ***- blessing … I say that it would be quicker to not bless, so with the blessing opportunities coming up every Sunday … it is slower going, plus, if one also worries about it, etc. Another poster is the one who said that the blessings of people kept her out of volunteering.

This is the same section that the CDWDS, the authoritative Congregation that oversees all matters liturgical for the Universal Church, cited in its letter concerning blessings in lieu of distributing Holy Communion. If this is a legitimate concern of the Church, then, why do you have a problem with that?

**I was responding to the posts to my first post. I *love ***the Church.

Please, please re-read what Redemptionis Sacramentum has to say on what an EMHC is supposed to do:

I haven’t read it yet.

Nowhere in this section does is indicate that an EMHC can impart a blessing. Nor do any of the documents grant the priest such authority. In fact, they indicate the contrary.

I didn’t say that, I said that the women with children wanted to bless the children, at a meeting of what was then EEMs. I was new with the group and waited to hear from the ones who had been there since the 1970s I guess. Noone said not to. So, I say, I wish that I had bought that book of liturgy, that God pointed out to me … rather personal comment.

Discuss it all we want, the Priest has even given us directions on how-to bless …

So, does “mea culpa” mean I’m sorry, or does it mean beat me up, please!

 

[ohioszo]

This illustrates another reason EMHC’s should not be giving blessings (as if the lack of power to do so were not reason enough): it tends to feed people’s pride.

I don’t think that it does that! I meant, how other people perceive them. One reader in our Parish is also the mayor. We have a lot of community leaders serving in our Parish Ministries. The mayor, he can, accd’g to civil law, marry people. And, there is good reason to respect those EMHC’s, who actually do fill the requirement to live good Christian lives.

 

[Layman]

Why the heck would you want a ‘blessing’ from Mrs. GoodBody, anyway, when you can meet the priest, acting in persona Christi, after Mass and get one from the source, so to speak? She’s just an ordinary sinner like the rest of us, whereas he has the Apostolic succession.

It looks to me like a combination of sentiment and a buffet-queue mentality at work here. Everyone wants to ‘get something’. Or, more sinister, it’s one more thrust at proclaiming EMHCs are of the same dignity as the priest.

The communion queue is for Communion. Blessings are one more disruptive element shoe-horned into the new rite for crowd-pleasing reasons.

 

[ohioszo]

Why the heck would you want a ‘blessing’ from Mrs. GoodBody, anyway, when you can meet the priest, acting in persona Christi, after Mass and get one from the source, so to speak? She’s just an ordinary sinner like the rest of us, whereas he has the Apostolic succession.

It looks to me like a combination of sentiment and a buffet-queue mentality at work here. Everyone wants to ‘get something’. Or, more sinister, it’s one more thrust at proclaiming EMHCs are of the same dignity as the priest.

The communion queue is for Communion. Blessings are one more disruptive element shoe-horned into the new rite for crowd-pleasing reasons.

Mrs. GoodBody? Do you have a reference for that metaphor?

 

[Layman]

Yes, I do. And it’s unimpeccable:

wiki.lspace.org/wiki/Mrs._Goodbody

 

[MrS]

Why the heck would you want a ‘blessing’ from Mrs. GoodBody, anyway, when you can meet the priest, acting in persona Christi, after Mass and get one from the source, so to speak? She’s just an ordinary sinner like the rest of us, whereas he has the Apostolic succession.

It looks to me like a combination of sentiment and a buffet-queue mentality at work here. Everyone wants to ‘get something’. Or, more sinister, it’s one more thrust at proclaiming EMHCs are of the same dignity as the priest.

The communion queue is for Communion. Blessings are one more disruptive element shoe-horned into the new rite for crowd-pleasing reasons.

Hahahaha

Finally, a good question. How true.

The answer is not so much in the receiver… it is in the giver, the EMHC.

IMHO, too many EMHCs think they have become a minister of sorts. This has been an unnecessary abuse from the get-go.

Extraordinary does not mean… “you in the pews are all ordinary, and I, the EMHC am something extra.”

JPII is probably rolling over in his grave at what many have done with his limited permission.

.

 

[benedictgal]

I didn’t say that, I said that the women with children wanted to bless the children, at a meeting of what was then EEMs. I was new with the group and waited to hear from the ones who had been there since the 1970s I guess. Noone said not to. So, I say, I wish that I had bought that book of liturgy, that God pointed out to me … rather personal comment.

Discuss it all we want, the Priest has even given us directions on how-to bless …

So, does “mea culpa” mean I’m sorry, or does it mean beat me up, please!

No one is beating you up. I am simply trying to provide you with the correct information. It is not up to the priest to permit you to bless. This action goes squarely against the norms established in the authoritative documents of the Holy See.

Even within the context of the Mass, the only one who can bless is the celebrant, be he a priest or bishop. And the blessing is imparted at the proper time, which means, at the end of the Holy Sacrifice. Granted, there are ritual blessings that are imparted at different times, such as Baptism, Holy Orders, the Annointing of the Sick and Matrimony, but, these have a rite attached to them. What you are describing should not be done. You are under no obligation to obey a priest if he is telling you to do something that is contrary to the norms of the Church.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

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?

Not really, it was more concerning a series of comments as “(which I think means “present themselves for Holy Communion”)” so the underscore is an inference. Also it is possible I misunderstood your post 203, accidentally switching the 4 and 5. If you believe there is a single definitive answer for infants & children in the CDW please highlight it for me, but I do ask no inference just the actually letter

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!

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.

again this is based on an inference you can determine what is liturgical, I do not believe you nor I am allowed that decision

“Lay people, within the context of Holy Mass, are unable to confer blessings.”

I agree the liturgy is off limits to the laity

That means that EMHCs, within the context of Holy Mass, are unable to confer blessings.

(It seems like a dog chasing its tail) As I do not believe the laity can confer the Mass blessing which occurs in the Liturgy I agree with the CDW’s writing. The "that means" infers the EMHC did act within the liturgy I reject that position. So this is one of the difference between my understanding verses your understanding

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.

Japhy my desire is not to argue despite the content of the thread. If you have read the instructions both Church and local for Extraordinary Ministers it is clear this is not an issue of church instruction and it is not unique however the fact is the CDW chose not to give a difinitive answer. Certainly they could easily have given a direct answer, after all they were asked to. Instead they chose to “to limit itself”.

Just trying to help; Have you considered the possibility of a blessing from EMHC to non recipient as a personal blessing between two individuals and outside of the liturgy, same possibility for the celebrant in a similar situation after all as the blessing occurs individually and is direct toward one not all could the CDW rule such?

Lets not be confused by my answers to question you ask of me, my issue is the CDW chose not to answer definitively.

 

[benedictgal]

Not really, it was more concerning a series of comments as “(which I think means “present themselves for Holy Communion”)” so the underscore is an inference. Also it is possible I misunderstood your post 203, accidentally switching the 4 and 5. If you believe there is a single definitive answer for infants & children in the CDW please highlight it for me, but I do ask no inference just the actually letter again this is based on an inference you can determine what is liturgical, I do not believe you nor I am allowed that decision I agree the liturgy is off limits to the laity (It seems like a dog chasing its tail) As I do not believe the laity can confer the Mass blessing which occurs in the Liturgy I agree with the CDW’s writing. The "that means" infers the EMHC did act within the liturgy I reject that position. So this is one of the difference between my understanding verses your understanding Japhy my desire is not to argue despite the content of the thread. If you have read the instructions both Church and local for Extraordinary Ministers it is clear this is not an issue of church instruction and it is not unique however the fact is the CDW chose not to give a difinitive answer. Certainly they could easily have given a direct answer, after all they were asked to. Instead they chose to “to limit itself”.

Just trying to help; Have you considered the possibility of a blessing from EMHC to non recipient as a personal blessing between two individuals and outside of the liturgy, same possibility for the celebrant in a similar situation after all as the blessing occurs individually and is direct toward one not all could the CDW rule such?

Lets not be confused by my answers to question you ask of me, my issue is the CDW chose not to answer definitively.

Actually statement 5 takes in those who are not eligible to receive Holy Communion, meaning children who have not yet received, non-Catholics and others. The CDWDS does not have to spell out the obvious. It takes common sense and a solid understanding of the norms of the Church.

While the CDWDS did not give an answer that meets your satification, it did outline five solid reasons why this should not be done. Again, it takes common sense to connect the dots and realize that we should not be engaging in practices that run contrary to the norms of the Church. This one certainly does.

Your suggestion that an EMHC impart a blessing outside of the context of the Mass really does not make any sense either. EMHCs do not have any sarcedotal faculties and should not be engaging in activities that further blurs the lines. The Church made it very clear in Ecclesia de Mysterio, a document that, incidentally, the CDWDS references in its reply to japhy.

 

[zab]

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.****

There is some wisdom in that remark.

 

[jmcrae]

I agree the liturgy is off limits to the laity.

You seem to be twisting and turning, here - the context of the statement “in the Mass” would generally refer to any action going on in the Church during the period of time when the Mass is taking place, and not necessarily specifically a liturgical action. Although, come to that, every action that takes place during Mass, or in the Church while the Mass is going on, should in some way at least support the liturgy, rather than detract from it, as the blessings in the communion line-up do.

How that translates into real life is hard to say - the CDWDS doesn’t offer any suggestions of how a lay person serving can overturn this trend. I was recently asked to consider becoming an EMHC for our school Masses, and I am hesitating to respond to the request, because I would be expected to at least appear to be giving blessings to non-Catholic children, and children who have not yet received First Holy Communion. This is just the custom here; they have been doing it for years and years, and it’s difficult to buck against it - I would just rather not be put into that situation at all.

 

[japhy]

I’m trying to figure out what’s still “unresolved” as far as you’re concerned.

“(which I think means “present themselves for Holy Communion”)” so the underscore is an inference.

So you’re still asking “What does it mean to ‘approach Holy Communion’?” as found in observation #5. I would refer you to the Code of Canon Law, specifically #528.2 and #1055.2, which use the expression “approach the sacraments of the blessed Eucharist and penance”. I think it the Church’s language is clear here: to “approach” a sacrament seems to me to mean to present one’s self to receive it.

If you believe there is a single definitive answer for infants & children in the CDW please highlight it for me, but I do ask no inference just the actually letter

So you’re still asking “Just who is ‘not to be admitted to Holy Communion in accord with the norm of law’?” as found in observation #5. I would again refer you to the , Book IV, Part I, Title III, Chapter I, Article 2Code of Canon Law. Canon #912 says, simply: “Any baptised person who is not forbidden by law may and must be admitted to holy communion.” Canons 913, 915, 916, and 917 are “the norm of law” which says who is “forbidden by law” to receive Holy Communion in a given situation.

Your request that I address your questions solely from the response I received is unfair, since the response is not an exhaustive self-containing compendium of answers. It refers to other documents.

The "that means" infers the EMHC did act within the liturgy I reject that position.

We’re talking about the Mass! EMHCs can’t give a blessing to a non-Communicant during the Mass. We are not addressing blessings outside of the liturgy.

Lets not be confused by my answers to question you ask of me, my issue is the CDW chose not to answer definitively.

Just try to answer them in an un-confusing fashion, then.

Yes, the CDWDS limited itself and did not “answer definitively”. But they gave answers – observations of existing Church discipline – which should be accepted and followed.

 

[FrDavid96]

…
Lets not be confused by my answers to question you ask of me, my issue is the CDW chose not to answer definitively.

Let’s look at some of the phrases used in what you say is “not definitive”:

• Lay people, within the context of Holy Mass, are unable to confer blessings
• explicitly discouraged
• forbids
• To be feared
• the Church’s discipline has already made clear
• nor receive a blessing

The statemtents made by the CDWDS are quite clear and very definitive.

It is objectively false to claim otherwise.

 

[benedictgal]

Let’s look at some of the phrases used in what you say is “not definitive”:

• Lay people, within the context of Holy Mass, are unable to confer blessings
• explicitly discouraged
• forbids
• To be feared
• the Church’s discipline has already made clear
• nor receive a blessing

The statemtents made by the CDWDS are quite clear and very definitive.

It is objectively false to claim otherwise.

I’d say that the CDWDS is pretty clear, no ambiguities here.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Japhy I am not really following your post.

I’m trying to figure out what’s still “unresolved” as far as you’re concerned.

since they approach in a posture clearly not to recieve and you seem to agree the reference is to those who approach to recieve we clearly have two different groups canon law advises on one but not the other.

So you’re still asking “What does it mean to ‘approach Holy Communion’?” as found in observation #5. I would refer you to the Code of Canon Law, specifically #528.2 and #1055.2, which use the expression “approach the sacraments of the blessed Eucharist and penance”. I think it the Church’s language is clear here: to “approach” a sacrament seems to me to mean to present one’s self to receive it.

I agree, canon laws spells out what to do with those who want to recieve but it is silent on those who process but make no attempt to recieve.

So you’re still asking “Just who is ‘not to be admitted to Holy Communion in accord with the norm of law’?” as found in observation #5. I would again refer you to the Code of Canon Law, Book IV, Part I, Title III, Chapter I, Article 2. Canon #912 says, simply: “Any baptised person who is not forbidden by law may and must be admitted to holy communion.” Canons 913, 915, 916, and 917 are “the norm of law” which says who is “forbidden by law” to receive Holy Communion in a given situation.

Your request that I address your questions solely from the response I received is unfair, since the response is not an exhaustive self-containing compendium of answers. It refers to other documents.

I ask you to read the response below to FrDavid96 concerning what seems to me to be the same issue

We’re talking about the Mass! EMHCs can’t give a blessing to a non-Communicant during the Mass. We are not addressing blessings outside of the liturgy.

I have yet to see a catholic rule on that, and point again to the Congregation’s failure be acknowledge such, it would seem to me they would be the proper authority, and responsible to correct such

Just try to answer them in an un-confusing fashion, then.

Yes, the CDWDS limited itself and did not “answer definitively”. But they gave answers – observations of existing Church discipline – which should be accepted and followed.

I do believe many parishs do both, follow those observations and practice blessing, I understand we differ on that opinion. But I ask you to remember several bishops and priests hold the same view, it is not a personal issue again please read the response below

Let’s look at some of the phrases used in what you say is “not definitive”:

• Lay people, within the context of Holy Mass, are unable to confer blessings
• explicitly discouraged
• forbids
• To be feared
• the Church’s discipline has already made clear
• nor receive a blessing

The statemtents made by the CDWDS are quite clear and very definitive.

It is objectively false to claim otherwise.

FrDavid96,
I truly hope I misunderstand your post. The catchism calls catholic to the truth and speaks rather explicitly on that subject to accept your postion seems to me to accept the CDW denied all the church’s teachs about a call to truth, but further refused all responsibilities of their assigned duties and failed all catholics and the church to “for the present, **this dicastery wishes to limit itself **to the following observations”. To hold a position that the CDW looked at illicit practices and/or liturgical abuse and specifically chose to hide that through limiting itself is far, far, far further that I will ever go on this subject. I would encourage you to correct them if you believe as little as half of that. Further to hold this crazy conspiracy theory that Priests, Bishops, and the CDW are conspiring to hide illicit actions or liturgical abuse is in my personal opinion over the top. I hope I have been clear.

As has been written :

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”:”

 

[benedictgal]

Japhy I am not really following your post.
since they approach in a posture clearly not to recieve and you seem to agree the reference is to those who approach to recieve we clearly have two different groups canon law advises on one but not the other. I agree, canon laws spells out what to do with those who want to recieve but it is silent on those who process but make no attempt to recieve. I ask you to read the response below to FrDavid96 concerning what seems to me to be the same issue I have yet to see a catholic rule on that, and point again to the Congregation’s failure be acknowledge such, it would seem to me they would be the proper authority, and responsible to correct such I do believe many parishs do both, follow those observations and practice blessing, I understand we differ on that opinion. But I ask you to remember several bishops and priests hold the same view, it is not a personal issue again please read the response below

FrDavid96,
I truly hope I misunderstand your post. The catchism calls catholic to the truth and speaks rather explicitly on that subject to accept your postion seems to me to accept the CDW denied all the church’s teachs about a call to truth, but further refused all responsibilities of their assigned duties and failed all catholics and the church to “for the present, **this dicastery wishes to limit itself **to the following observations”. To hold a position that the CDW looked at illicit practices and/or liturgical abuse and specifically chose to hide that through limiting itself is far, far, far further that I will ever go on this subject. I would encourage you to correct them if you believe as little as half of that. Further to hold this crazy conspiracy theory that Priests, Bishops, and the CDW are conspiring to hide illicit actions or liturgical abuse is in my personal opinion over the top. I hope I have been clear.

As has been written :

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”:”

Again, you are choosing to harp on the introduction rather than focusing on the meat of the letter. Furthermore, Ecclesia de Mysterio makes it quite clear that EMHCs are not supposed to be doing anything that is restricted to the celebrant, as it notes (and this section is referenced in the same document you continue to discount):

1. To promote the proper identity (of various roles) in this area, those abuses which are contrary to the provisions of canon 907 are to be eradicated. In eucharistic celebrations deacons and non-ordained members of the faithful may not pronounce prayers – e.g. especially the eucharistic prayer, with its concluding doxology – or any other parts of the liturgy reserved to the celebrant priest. Neither may deacons or non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions which are proper to the same priest celebrant. It is a grave abuse for any member of the non-ordained faithful to “quasi preside” at the Mass while leaving only that minimal participation to the priest which is necessary to secure validity.

In the same way, the use of sacred vestments which are reserved to priests or deacons (stoles, chasubles or dalmatics) at liturgical ceremonies by non-ordained members of the faithful is clearly unlawful.

Every effort must be made to avoid even the appearance of confusion which can spring from anomalous liturgical practices.

The section that I quoted, Article 6, Section 2, is the same one referenced by the CDWDS. In fact, even the deacon could not impart such a blessing since the blessing is a gesture and word that is proper to the celebrant alone, be he a bishop or a priest.

Thus, with all due respect, the documents are pretty much imploding your own argument. Yet, you choose, as I read your posts, to ignore what they say and merely confine yourself to the introductory paragraph.

You also keep dragging the Catechism into this discussion. The Catechism, while certainly an important document, is not a regulatory one. It is a teaching document and not meant to denote rubrics. That is why when discussing norms and rubrics, the authoritative documents, the CDWDS does not refer to the Catechism, but, to Canon Law and the other regulatory documents the Holy See issues.

 

[zab]

The real disagreement here, as I see it, is not that the custom of blessings in the Communion should never have started to begin with. Most, if not all of us on this discussion thread have agreed that the CDWDS was very clear that it should not be happening. The problem is how to go about correcting this wide spread practice that has been in place for about 20 years (to my knowledge). I do not believe that it is a cause to question the authority of our good pastors and bishops because blessings in the Communion line are going on in a particular parish. Many good pastors have taken steps to insure that the EMHC are properly trained to not give the impression that they are imparting a blessing that can only be given by a priest or deacon.

 

[JimG]

In some places the practice started when we began having communion lines instead of kneeling at the communion rail. Mothers brought small children up in the communion line rather than leave them in the pew. It was not customary to give them blessings. Then, some priests, in an innocuous pastoral gesture, patted the child on the head after communicating the mother. Then came blessings.

Then, for some reason, RCIA directors started encouraging candidates and catechumens to come forward in the communion line with arms crossed even though they could not receive communion. Bottom line–the communion line is for receiving communion. If moms or dads want to have small kids tag along, fine, but no blessings. It gives the wrong liturgical teaching.

 

[japhy]

(I’m quoting you and then putting my response below it. You seem to be doing the opposite. Maybe that’s part of the confusion?!)​

since they approach in a posture clearly not to recieve and you seem to agree the reference is to those who approach to recieve we clearly have two different groups canon law advises on one but not the other. I agree, canon laws spells out what to do with those who want to recieve but it is silent on those who process but make no attempt to recieve.

Canon Law does not envisage people coming forward in the Communion procession to request or otherwise receive a blessing. But the response from the CDWDS is clear in this matter. “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.” (#5)

A person who is “not to be admitted to Holy Communion” should not “receive a blessing”. Can the document be any more clear about that?!​

I have yet to see a catholic rule on that, and point again to the Congregation’s failure {to} acknowledge such, it would seem to me they would be the proper authority, and responsible to correct such

Ah ha! We get to the crux of the matter. The response said “the Church’s discipline has already made clear that they should not approach Holy Communion nor receive a blessing.” (#5) But since the response did not give a reference for this, you take it upon yourself to call it a “failure” in need of “correct[ion]”. I am willing to take the CDWDS on its word. I, with you, would like to know where exactly the Church’s discipline has made this clear, but I believe the CDWDS when they say it has.

As I said before, this appears to be an attempt to limit the response even more than the CDWDS limited it.

Once more:

From observation #2, it is clear that EMHCs may not give blessings during Mass (and that includes during the Communion procession).

From observation #5, it is clear that those “who are not to be admitted to Holy Communion in accord with the norm of law … should not approach Holy Communion nor receive a blessing.”

I am not ignoring the limitations of this response. I am simply respecting the response itself, instead of searching for reasons to doubt it or restrict it even further.

 

[MrS]

The real disagreement here, as I see it, is not that the custom of blessings in the Communion should never have started to begin with. Most, if not all of us on this discussion thread have agreed that the CDWDS was very clear that it should not be happening. The problem is how to go about correcting this wide spread practice that has been in place for about 20 years (to my knowledge). I do not believe that it is a cause to question the authority of our good pastors and bishops because blessings in the Communion line are going on in a particular parish. Many good pastors have taken steps to insure that the EMHC are properly trained to not give the impression that they are imparting a blessing that can only be given by a priest or deacon.

Perhaps that is true. The question should be “why do they even need them?” They are only approved in extraordinary situations. Many “good” pastors have, IMHO, confused the approval of EMHC with the need to appease some parishioners who frankly don’t understand how great their involvement in the Mass already is.

.