Extraordinary Ministers giving blessings

[zab]

The answer is “no”. There are those on this thread who will refuse to acknowledge that this is the answer that the CDWDS gave, even when the CDWDS has already acknowledged the other authoritative documents of the Holy See when making its observations.

I don’t know how much more direct an answer the CDWDS can give than observation #2.

In fraternal charity, it would be better for you to state only what you believe and cease your misrepresentation of the opinions of others.

 

[benedictgal]

And there you go …that is why it is an inference and should not be confused with fact. This is your inference, let me try to explain it again:* this is your opinion via your interpretation of my posts*. It misrepresents the truth to those who read it. If you wish to go back through my post look for the words “pretext” and “context” within the post. Those reads show what I have said is the observations must be understood in the pretext and context which they exist as opposed to inferring they can be used to conclude the current issue. If the observations were capable of concluding this current issue the CDWs could not “limit itself” and the Priests, and Bishops would have to stop the practice. Similarly the CDW would not have replied in a private letter to laity without so much as informing the Bishops.

The relevent facts are :

CDW limited itself

Bishops some of who have spoken in support of the practice, and others who have taken various other positions as it being under local authority, or under local authority until a further ruling or acceptable if certain words are omitted have not been told to stop.

With all due respect, you are the one misinterpreting things and providing misleading information, as well as taking on an insulting tone towards Fr. David. He has patiently tried to explain to you what the letter says, as have some of us.

You are continuing to harp on the first statement and completely ignoring the five points of the CDWDS’s response, which constintutes the meat of the message. All five points pretty much say that it should not happen. Even the first point makes it perfectly clear that the blessing, which is applicable to all, is to come at the end of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. How much more clearer do you want than that?

Furthermore, it is no longer up to the bishop to decide since the GIRM notes specifically what he can and cannot do in his diocese. Establishing a new ritual and imbedding it into the Mass is not under his scope of authority. The only one that can petition for a new ritual and have it imbedded into the Mass is a national episcopal conference, and even this, this adaptation to the GIRM is not automatic.

That is what, as I read your posts, you are failing to see. The bishop’s authority is not absolute. Only the Holy Father has complete and absolute authority, exercising it either on his own or through his curial conregattion, of which the CDWDS is one of them. You do not seem to understand that and continue, as I see it, to make misleading and erroneous statements.

Unfortunately, there those who don’t even want to take the CDWDS at its word, especially when it observes in #2 that the laity, and this includes EMHCs (because they are not ordained ministers) cannot impart blessing in lieu of distributing Holy Communion. The CDWDS references Article 6, Secton 2 of Ecclesia de Mysterio, but, for these folks, not even that is proof enough. This cannot be a misleading interpretation. If that is the case, then those making the charge are accusing the CDWDS of doing the same thing.

As I see it, is a failure on the parts of those who do not take the CDWDS nor the authoritative documents of the Church to connect the dots. They want to believe their own misinterpretations and misreadings, as opposed to what the Church says.

 

[FrDavid96]

And there you go …that is why it is an inference and should not be confused with fact. This is your inference, let me try to explain it again:* this is your opinion via your interpretation of my posts*. It misrepresents the truth to those who read it. If you wish to go back through my post look for the words “pretext” and “context” within the post. Those reads show what I have said is the observations must be understood in the pretext and context which they exist as opposed to inferring they can be used to conclude the current issue. If the observations were capable of concluding this current issue the CDWs could not “limit itself” and the Priests, and Bishops would have to stop the practice. Similarly the CDW would not have replied in a private letter to laity without so much as informing the Bishops.

The relevent facts are :

CDW limited itself

Bishops some of who have spoken in support of the practice, and others who have taken various other positions as it being under local authority, or under local authority until a further ruling or acceptable if certain words are omitted have not been told to stop.

No, those are not “facts” those are a misrepresentation of what the CDWS said. The matter is not “under local authority.” The norms of the Church still apply. Those norms have been articulated by the CDWDS, and those norms make it clear that these blessings are not to be done.

 

[FrDavid96]

I believe in signs.

This afternoon, I was driving on the highway, and saw a sign that said “Speed Limit 55 MPH”. After a while, I saw flashing lights in my rear-view mirror. The state trooper said to me “do you know you were driving 90 in a 55?” I responded “But Trooper, the speed limit laws are currently under the attentive study of the state legislature.” The trooper said “well, in that case, the law doesn’t apply, sorry to bother you.” I laughed all the way home.

 

[zab]

Fr. Robert Fox, of the Fatima Family Apostolate once told this story. He was driving his old clunker down the hi-way when all of sudden he got a flat tire and he steered it off the road as best he could but it was sticking out just a bit. He pulled out an old pair of cover-alls that he kept the trunk for such an emergency, put them over his clerical clothes and began to change the tire. Shortly thereafter a patrolman pulled up and spoke to him in not so nice a tone telling him to move his car. Patiently, Father replied, “But Officer, you don’t understand, I’m Fr. Fox.” The officer replied, “I don’t care if you’re Mother Goose, get that piece of junk off the road!”

 

[ac_claire]

The relevent facts are :

CDW limited itself

Bishops some of who have spoken in support of the practice, and others who have taken various other positions as it being under local authority, or under local authority until a further ruling or acceptable if certain words are omitted have not been told to stop.

So is your position that you ackowledge the CDWDS has said it’s not allowed, but since some bishops still do allow it and haven’t been forced to stop, the practice is therefore ok?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I believe in signs.

This afternoon, I was driving on the highway, and saw a sign that said “Speed Limit 55 MPH”. After a while, I saw flashing lights in my rear-view mirror. The state trooper said to me “do you know you were driving 90 in a 55?” I responded “But Trooper, the speed limit laws are currently under the attentive study of the state legislature.” The trooper said “well, in that case, the law doesn’t apply, sorry to bother you.” I laughed all the way home.

So you got a sign, and ignored it. Then you got a second sign, flashing lights and all, so are your going to ignore that also? It is up to you, maybe god/angels will send you more signs. It is up to you when to listen, or act properly.

 

[japhy]

If the observations were capable of concluding this current issue the CDWs could not “limit itself” and the Priests, and Bishops would have to stop the practice. Similarly the CDW would not have replied in a private letter to laity without so much as informing the Bishops. … Bishops some of who have spoken in support of the practice, and others who have taken various other positions as it being under local authority, or under local authority until a further ruling or acceptable if certain words are omitted have not been told to stop.

But surely the Bishops should know about these observations! They aren’t observations that only apply to me or to laity… they’re observations that are universal in scope, no? And if a Bishop does not know about observation #2, for example, he should be made aware, no? Or does a Bishop have the authority in his diocese to allow a lay person to give blessings in the context of the Mass?

 

[zab]

But surely the Bishops should know about these observations! They aren’t observations that only apply to me or to laity… they’re observations that are universal in scope, no? And if a Bishop does not know about observation #2, for example, he should be made aware, no? Or does a Bishop have the authority in his diocese to allow a lay person to give blessings in the context of the Mass?

I don’t mean to be answering for Texas Roofer, but sometimes the CDW does provide for a bishop to make a pastoral descision. Here is an example: boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/03/19/omalley_to_wash_womens_feet_in_rite/

 

[Texas_Roofer]

But surely the Bishops should know about these observations! They aren’t observations that only apply to me or to laity… they’re observations that are universal in scope, no? And if a Bishop does not know about observation #2, for example, he should be made aware, no?

I and probably they do not see observing the observations as excluding the practice. Maybe they observe the observation in proper context which means the understand the pretext of the observation?

Or does a Bishop have the authority in his diocese to allow a lay person to give blessings in the context of the Mass?

Which Blessings? certainly not the official blessing at the end of Mass. Do you expect the Bishop to come find me for saying “God bless you” during Mass? Do you think Bishops practice tracking down people who do that, or say the wrong thing when ask to show a sign of peace to each other.

 

[benedictgal]

I and probably they do not see observing the observations as excluding the practice. Maybe they observe the observation in proper context which means the understand the pretext of the observation? Which Blessings? certainly not the official blessing at the end of Mass. Do you expect the Bishop to come find me for saying “God bless you” during Mass? Do you think Bishops practice tracking down people who do that, or say the wrong thing when ask to show a sign of peace to each other.

Once again, with all due respect, youi remain obstinate with your position. Laity do not have the faculty to impart any blessing whatsoever during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. As I read your posts, I believe that you are ignoring the very citation that the CDWDS references when it made its point known in observation #2.

1. 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).

Here is the citation from Ecclesia de Mysterio:

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

Now, here is the text from the references to Canon Law:

Can. 1169 §1. Those marked with the episcopal character and presbyters permitted by law or legitimate grant can perform consecrations and dedications validly.

§2. Any presbyter can impart blessings except those reserved to the Roman Pontiff or bishops.

§3. A deacon can impart only those blessings expressly permitted by law.

For those of you who still wish to justify the legitimacy of such a blessing, please note that in the preceding section of Canon Law, the Holy See notes that:

Can. 1167 §1. The Apostolic See alone can establish new sacramentals, authentically interpret those already received, or abolish or change any of them.

§2. In confecting or administering sacramentals, the rites and formulas approved by the authority of the Church are to be observed carefully.

Can. 1168 The minister of sacramentals is a cleric who has been provided with the requisite power. According to the norm of the liturgical books and to the judgment of the local ordinary lay persons who possess the appropriate qualities can also administer some sacramentals.

Thus, one can certainly cite excpetions, but, the exceptions cited are not germaine to the matter at hand, since they do not involve inventing a new ritual and imbedding it within the confines of the Mass.

 

[zab]

Thanks John Wayne lol. What’s “wrong” exactly about what Mr. S wrote…?

I haven’t replied to this thread in a long time, so sorry I haven’t read the last 2 or 3 thousand posts. Are EMHC allowed to give blessings in the Communion line or no?

EMHC do not have the power to impart blessings.

 

[japhy]

I don’t mean to be answering for Texas Roofer, but sometimes the CDW does provide for a bishop to make a pastoral descision. Here is an example: boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/03/19/omalley_to_wash_womens_feet_in_rite/

The permission to wash the feet of a woman on Holy Thursday is not comparable to permitting a layman to give a blessing during Mass (which is not capable of).

 

[japhy]

I and probably they do not see observing the observations as excluding the practice.

Blessings should not be given in lieu of Communion, not for divorced-and-remarried Catholics, and not other Catholics who are not permitted by law to receive Communion. The document says that.

Which Blessings? … Do you expect the Bishop to come find me for saying “God bless you” during Mass?

Since my question to the CDWDS was about blessings during the distribution of Holy Communion, I think that is contextually relevant.

I’m unsubscribing from this thread; I have no desire to continue this discussion.

 

[zab]

The permission to wash the feet of a woman on Holy Thursday is not comparable to permitting a layman to give a blessing during Mass (which is not capable of).

A priest can give a blessing and a layman can say, “God bless you”. The point of my post was to point out that the Congregation did provide for the Archbishop to make a pastoral decision even though they affirmed that the liturgical requirement was that only the feet of men could be washed on Holy Thursday.

 

[benedictgal]

The permission to wash the feet of a woman on Holy Thursday is not comparable to permitting a layman to give a blessing during Mass (which is not capable of).

And that distinction is what those supporting the practice, or at least finding reasons to justify it, are missing.

The letter that you wrote notes that such blessings are not to be imparted during the time reserved to distribute Holy Communion. The folks supporting this issue will try to find all sorts of things to justify this practice because they choose to ignore what the CDWDS has already stated, along with the supporting documentation given in its answer.

 

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by japhy View Post
The permission to wash the feet of a woman on Holy Thursday is not comparable to permitting a layman to give a blessing during Mass (which is not capable of).

---

I agree benedictgal. There all types/forms of contortions some people make—to try wiggle out from the CDWDS response.

 

[zab]

And that distinction is what those supporting the practice, or at least finding reasons to justify it, are missing.

The letter that you wrote notes that such blessings are not to be imparted during the time reserved to distribute Holy Communion. The folks supporting this issue will try to find all sorts of things to justify this practice because they choose to ignore what the CDWDS has already stated, along with the supporting documentation given in its answer.

Let’s get it straight. I’m not trying to justify the practice of blessings in the Communion line. I have stated on several occassions that EMHC do not have the power to impart blessings. And I have stated that I do not even like the practice particularly when it comes to the EMHC. But you just refuse to listen to what is being said. The Congregation does allow the local bishop to make pastoral decisions even on issues that have not been allowed. All that I have been saying is that I trust the authority of my bishop and pastor and for some reason that disturbs your peace.

 

[benedictgal]

---

I agree benedictgal. There all types/forms of contortions some people make—to try wiggle out from the CDWDS response.

True, and there are still those who claim that the letter states that it is up to the local bishop, when no where in the document does it say that.

Thus, as I read their responses, they are the ones who are in error. Furthermore, to say that the bishop has the say in this matter would pretty much be contradicting what the authoritative documents of the Holy See have to say.

 

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by Walking_Home
I agree benedictgal. There all types/forms of contortions some people make—to try wiggle out from the CDWDS response.

---

Again–benedictgal —I agree. It is sad really --the time and effort some people are willing to spend–to find ways to contradict the Holy See.