Extraordinary Ministers

[buffalo]

Please tell us what you are basing your opinion on?

It is not my opinion.

 

[Rusty_Halo]

No, it is not. There must be a distinction between the two. What you described is part of the ritual for Baptism; what the OP described is not licit at all. I think that we need to differentiate between the two. The section from the 1997 document issued by the Congregation for Clergy clearly states that laity cannot do something that is proper to the priest/celebrant during the Mass. This is one such occasion.

Priests don’t make a sign of the cross on a person’s head.

EOMC are not doing a “blessing”. They are doing something that is proper to a priest or deacon.

 

[Rusty_Halo]

It is not my opinion.

Yes, it is. There is nothing wrong in what they are doing.

 

[Rusty_Halo]

No, it is not. There must be a distinction between the two. What you described is part of the ritual for Baptism; what the OP described is not licit at all. I think that we need to differentiate between the two. The section from the 1997 document issued by the Congregation for Clergy clearly states that laity cannot do something that is proper to the priest/celebrant during the Mass. This is one such occasion.

Once again- the sign of the cross isn’t something that a priest does. They offer a blessing- laity are not doing that.

 

[Rusty_Halo]

I think it’s a stretch to say making a sing of the cross is perfectly licit at that time. The EMOHC should be keeping their hands to themselves. It drives me crazy as a bat trapped indoors to see an Ordinary Minister or an EMOHC touch another person with the hand that they are distributing communion with .

Godparents during baptism do not have fragments of the Eucharist on their fingers. Which they then may transfer to another person.

We are strictly talking about blessings during the distribution of the Eucharist and nothing else.

Yes we know lay people can give blessings at other times but that is not what this thread is about.

Laity can not offer a blessing at any point in the liturgy, that is reserved for priests and deacons. The laity are not giving a blessing during communion- they are only offering a sign of the cross with their thumb. They are doing the same thing which godparents do during a baptism.

There is nothing illicit about their actions.

I’m a seminarian… and trust me, I don’t like even distributing communion, much less doing a sign of the cross. But the laity ask for it and there is nothing wrong in that act.

 

[benedictgal]

Priests don’t make a sign of the cross on a person’s head.

EOMC are not doing a “blessing”. They are doing something that is proper to a priest or deacon.

Have you read the document that was posted from the CDWDS? Nothing remotely resembling a blessing is allowed. And, priests do make the sign of the cross on a person’s head, by the way.

Incidentally, the only duty that an EMHC is to exercise is to assist the celebrant in the distribution of Holy Communion should a genunine need arise. As Redemptionis Sacramentum notes:

[156.] This function is to be understood strictly according to the name by which it is known, that is to say, that of extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, and not “special minister of Holy Communion” nor “extraordinary minister of the Eucharist” nor “special minister of the Eucharist”, by which names the meaning of this function is unnecessarily and improperly broadened.

[157.] If there is usually present a sufficient number of sacred ministers for the distribution of Holy Communion, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not be appointed. Indeed, in such circumstances, those who may have already been appointed to this ministry should not exercise it. The practice of those Priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distributing Communion and hand this function over to laypersons.[258]

[158.] Indeed, the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may administer Communion only when the Priest and Deacon are lacking, when the Priest is prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged.[259] This, however, is to be understood in such a way that a brief prolongation, considering the circumstances and culture of the place, is not at all a sufficient reason.

Thus, the duties of an EMHC are specfically spelled out. Those of us who serve in this capacity can only do what the documentsn allowed, not more.

Furthermore, the term is Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. That is the term that the Holy See has mandated for use.

 

[benedictgal]

Laity can not offer a blessing at any point in the liturgy, that is reserved for priests and deacons. The laity are not giving a blessing during communion- they are only offering a sign of the cross with their thumb. They are doing the same thing which godparents do during a baptism.

There is nothing illicit about their actions.

I’m a seminarian… and trust me, I don’t like even distributing communion, much less doing a sign of the cross. But the laity ask for it and there is nothing wrong in that act.

Since you are a seminarian, then you will, no doubt, become familiar with the authoritative documents of the Holy See. You will also learn that there are specific things that an EMHC can do during the Mass.

I am happy that we agree that the laity cannot impart any blessings. However, even making the sign of the cross is ilicit. I reference RS:

[10.] The Church herself has no power over those things which were established by Christ himself and which constitute an unchangeable part of the Liturgy.[23] Indeed, if the bond were to be broken which the Sacraments have with Christ himself who instituted them, and with the events of the Church’s founding,[24] it would not be beneficial to the faithful but rather would do them grave harm. For the Sacred Liturgy is quite intimately connected with principles of doctrine,[25] so that the use of unapproved texts and rites necessarily leads either to the attenuation or to the disappearance of that necessary link between the lex orandi and the lex credendi.[26]

[11.] The Mystery of the Eucharist “is too great for anyone to permit himself to treat it according to his own whim, so that its sacredness and its universal ordering would be obscured”.[27] On the contrary, anyone who acts thus by giving free reign to his own inclinations, even if he is a Priest, injures the substantial unity of the Roman Rite, which ought to be vigorously preserved,[28] and becomes responsible for actions that are in no way consistent with the hunger and thirst for the living God that is experienced by the people today. Nor do such actions serve authentic pastoral care or proper liturgical renewal; instead, they deprive Christ’s faithful of their patrimony and their heritage. For arbitrary actions are not conducive to true renewal,[29] but are detrimental to the right of Christ’s faithful to a liturgical celebration that is an expression of the Church’s life in accordance with her tradition and discipline. In the end, they introduce elements of distortion and disharmony into the very celebration of the Eucharist, which is oriented in its own lofty way and by its very nature to signifying and wondrously bringing about the communion of divine life and the unity of the People of God.[30] The result is uncertainty in matters of doctrine, perplexity and scandal on the part of the People of God, and, almost as a necessary consequence, vigorous opposition, all of which greatly confuse and sadden many of Christ’s faithful in this age of ours when Christian life is often particularly difficult on account of the inroads of “secularization” as well.[31]

In other words, adding personal idiosyncracies into the Mass is not allowed. You do not have the authority to add the slightest thing to the Mass. That is not for an EMHC or anyone to decide. Just because something is not in the GIRM or in the authoritative documents of the Holy See that doesn’t give a person free reign to do as he pleases.

 

[Rusty_Halo]

Have you read the document that was posted from the CDWDS? Nothing remotely resembling a blessing is allowed.

That seems to be what people’s interpretation of it is. And no, they are not pretending to do a blessing.

Incidentally, the only duty that an EMHC is to exercise is to assist the celebrant in the distribution of Holy Communion should a genunine need arise. As Redemptionis Sacramentum notes:

Thus, the duties of an EMHC are specfically spelled out. Those of us who serve in this capacity can only do what the documentsn allowed, not more.

Furthermore, the term is Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. That is the term that the Holy See has mandated for use.

I wasn’t saying it was.

I’d prefer we get rid of them and go back to altar rails and communion on the tongue… but that doesn’t mean their actions are wrong or improper.

You guys are interpreting something into what the Church has said that simply isn’t there. It is perfectly fine for laity to do a sign of the cross at any time.

 

[benedictgal]

That seems to be what people’s interpretation of it is. And no, they are not pretending to do a blessing.

I wasn’t saying it was.

I’d prefer we get rid of them and go back to altar rails and communion on the tongue… but that doesn’t mean their actions are wrong or improper.

You guys are interpreting something into what the Church has said that simply isn’t there. It is perfectly fine for laity to do a sign of the cross at any time.

I challenge you then to find this in the authoritative documents issued by the Holy See. While laity might be able to do this at other times, this is not proper during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, especially if the person doing this is exercising some sort of liturgical ministry such as an EMHC. Anything that remotely resembles something that a priest does during the Mass is not allowed.

Allow me to cite a document from the Congregation for Clergy that was written in 1997, which remains in force today:

§ 2. 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

If you go back and re-read the letter from the CDWDS, you will note that such gestures are ilicit. Furthermore, for the time being, the CDWDS has stated that people should not be approaching the communion line for a blessing. The blessing is to be imparted at the proper time, at the end of Mass, and is applicable to everyone.

 

[benedictgal]

I am not sure if you have read the entire thread, but, this section comes from the letter sent by the CDWDS to one of our forum members.

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; can. 1169, § 2; and Roman Ritual De Benedictionibus (1985), n. 18).

Furthermore, the laying on of a hand or hands – which has its own sacramental significance, inappropriate here – by those distributing Holy Communion, in substitution for its reception, is to be explicitly discouraged.

…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).

Inasmuch as it doesn’t specifically spell out making a sign of the cross, the fact that the letter states that this activity shouldn’t be happening in the first place is a clear sign that it shouldn’t be done, period.

The OP mentioned that this was being done to children. Now, if you read the last paragraph of what I quoted, this instruction would also cover them, as well as those who cannot receive because they are not Catholic, are involved in an invalid marriage or some other situation mentioned in Canon Law. Granted, the children are not in a state of sin, but, because of their age,they cannot receive. If the celebrant is instructed not to conduct this kind of activity,what makes you think that an EMHC is exempt? Think about it.

Furthermore, the only one who can make any sort of sign or anything of that nature is the celebrant of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

You cannot equate what happens in the Rite of Baptism to an EMHC doing what was reported in the OP. That is like comparing apples to limes. The two scenarios are different and are not analagous.

 

[Rusty_Halo]

I challenge you then to find this in the authoritative documents issued by the Holy See. While laity might be able to do this at other times, this is not proper during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Anything that remotely resembles something that a priest does during the Mass is not allowed.

Allow me to cite a document from the Congregation for Clergy that was written in 1997, which remains in force today:

You are asking me to prove a negative, which isn’t going to happen. You are interpreting Church documents in a way that they aren’t meant to be. Laity may be not act as a priests within a Mass so that there is clear separation. Doing a sign of a cross on someone’s forehead is not forbid explicitly by any Church document- from Rome to the USCCB.

If you go back and re-read the letter from the CDWDS, you will note that such gestures are ilicit. Furthermore, for the time being, the CDWDS has stated that people should not be approaching the communion line for a blessing. The blessing is to be imparted at the proper time, at the end of Mass, and is applicable to everyone.

EOMCs are not giving a blessing, nor are priests really offering one. That is just what people commonly call it out of ignorance… and why people have such a problem with it.

 

[Lepanto]

It is perfectly fine for laity to do a sign of the cross at any time.

The most important document of Vatican II disagrees with you.

“22. 3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.”

Sacrosanctum Concilium (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy)

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

 

[benedictgal]

You are asking me to prove a negative, which isn’t going to happen. You are interpreting Church documents in a way that they aren’t meant to be. Laity may be not act as a priests within a Mass so that there is clear separation. Doing a sign of a cross on someone’s forehead is not forbid explicitly by any Church document- from Rome to the USCCB.

EOMCs are not giving a blessing, nor are priests really offering one. That is just what people commonly call it out of ignorance… and why people have such a problem with it.

First of all, might I remind you that the Church specifically mandates in RS and in her other authoritative documents that the term to be used is Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. There is no such creature as an EOMC or an EMOC.

Second, the only duty that an EMHC is supposed to perform is to assist the celebrant in the distribution of Holy Communion when there is a genuine need for this to happen. In all of the documents, the duties and the manner in which they are to be carried out are clearly expressed. Nowhere in the authoritative documents of the Holy See does it say that an EMHC is to make the sign of the cross over anyone’s forehead.

Furthermore, from the letter written by the CDWDS, it indicates that those who are not going to receive Holy Communion should be given any blessing whatsoever. I think that we agree on that. But, along the same lines, making the sign of the cross should not be happening either. I thnk that is the part with which you seem to have an issue.

When I reviewed this letter with a prelate, he told me that he had his suspicions that this kind of activity should not be happening. Furthermore, I have seen priests make the sign of the cross over the foreheads of children who cannot receive Holy Communion, thus imparting a blessing. This, in light of the document, is wrong.

As I said, you have yet to provide authoritative documentation from the Holy See that allows this practice.

 

[zab]

Just how “authoritative” is a letter written to an individual?

 

[palmas85]

Just how “authoritative” is a letter written to an individual?

I would think it depends entirely on what is being written, who it was written by and who it was directed at. Some could be quite authoritative and others not at all.

It really all depends

 

[zab]

I would think it depends entirely on what is being written, who it was written by and who it was directed at. Some could be quite authoritative and others not at all.

It really all depends

Do you think a private letter would be more authoritative than the words of Cardinal Arinze spoken to a crowd of people, when he was asked about this matter and he responded that they at the Congregation decided to keep silent on this matter and allow freedom to the diocese- listen to your bishop?

 

[FrDavid96]

Do you think a private letter would be more authoritative than the words of Cardinal Arinze spoken to a crowd of people, when he was asked about this matter and he responded that they at the Congregation decided to keep silent on this matter and allow freedom to the diocese- listen to your bishop?

Yes, it is. A formal written interpretation of liturgical law, issued by the Holy See (not the Pope personally, but his duly appointed representative for interpreting liturgical laws) has much more authority than a verbal comment given conversationally. The Congregation is charged with interpreting liturgical laws, and that’s what they did. They broke the silence and decided to issue an interpretation.

Why would a verbal comment mean more than a written authoritative interpretation?

 

[zab]

Yes, it is. A formal written interpretation of liturgical law, issued by the Holy See (not the Pope personally, but his duly appointed representative for interpreting liturgical laws) has much more authority than a verbal comment given conversationally. The Congregation is charged with interpreting liturgical laws, and that’s what they did. They broke the silence and decided to issue an interpretation.

Why would a verbal comment mean more than a written authoritative interpretation?

Not every bishop and pastor reads CAF. Is it wrong to listen to the directive of the bishop or pastor until this matter has been definitively decided?

 

[buffalo]

Read it all:

**** Blessings for Non-Communicants****

… For example, since lay extraordinary ministers of Communion are not authorized to give liturgical blessings, in situations where there are numerous non-communicants the practice could result in a seeming paradox in which they receive blessings from the ordinary ministers of Communion while the Catholic faithful receive the sacred host from extraordinary ministers. Perhaps a lay minister could pronounce a generic formula calling down God’s blessing, but it is rather short shrift compared to Communion.
I am also rather queasy about touching people on the head, while simultaneously administrating the sacred host on the tongue of the next person in line.

 

[japhy]

Not every bishop and pastor reads CAF. Is it wrong to listen to the directive of the bishop or pastor until this matter has been definitively decided?

The document I received says that, while the issue is “under the attentive study” of the CDWDS, there are certain observations which currently are in effect in the discipline of the Church, including: that lay people, within the context of the Mass, cannot give blessings; and that those “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”.

Is it within the purview of a priest or bishop to decide or act contrary to this established discipline of the Church?