Extraordinary Ministers

[zab]

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?

It has not been proven that the pastor or the bishop instituted this practice but they are trying to deal with it and from what I have observed, they are trying to deal with it properly in instructing the EMHC that they are not to do anything to imitate a priestly blessing, such as, using their hand to make a sign of the cross in the air, etc. (I did have some reservations with a previous pastor’s seemingly invitation to come up. I believe his intent was to instruct who should not receive Communion. However, people were approaching even before he became pastor.)
Was it within the rights of Cardinal Arinze to instruct the people to listen to their bishop?

 

[benedictgal]

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?

Furthermore, because the document has a protocol number, chances are that it will show up in a subsequent issue of Notiate, the official publication of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

 

[benedictgal]

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 I am simultaneously administrating the sacred host on the tongue of the next person in line.

Howeer, the citation you linked to EWTN is now superceded by what the CDWDS wrote in their letter. Don’t get me wrong. I like Zenit and it is an excellent reference. But, now, for the time being, the Congregation has given its opinion while the matter is being attentively studied. For now, the answer is “no.”

 

[FrDavid96]

It has not been proven that the pastor or the bishop instituted this practice but they are trying to deal with it and from what I have observed, they are trying to deal with it properly in instructing the EMHC that they are not to do anything to imitate a priestly blessing, such as, using their hand to make a sign of the cross in the air, etc. (I did have some reservations with a previous pastor’s seemingly invitation to come up. I believe his intent was to instruct who should not receive Communion. However, people were approaching even before he became pastor.)
Was it within the rights of Cardinal Arinze to instruct the people to listen to their bishop?

Cardinal Arinze wasn’t “instructing” anyone. It was a casual remark that he made. There was no instruction, and no outright interpretation of the liturgical laws. Perhaps if he had more time to think on the matter, he might very well have said something different. We cannot say that a casual remark somehow supercedes an authoritative interpretation issued by the Holy See–the two are simply not the same thing, an nowhere near the same level of authority.

The problem here is that people keep repeating that one who isn’t receiving Communion “should go up for a blessing.” That’s the part which needs to stop. Once that stops, all the back-and-forth about who should or can do whatever will cease to be an issue.

The Congregation said quite clearly that Rome has made it known repeatedly that those who are not receiving Communion should not be going forward in the Communion line. Everything else follows from that.

 

[Rusty_Halo]

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

The laity doing the sign of the cross at any time has nothing to do with that.

 

[Rusty_Halo]

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.

That is what EOMC is an abbreviation for. But if you want to play who can pretend to be the most up to date with current trends at the Vatican, maybe I can spell it out in Latin so it is all technical and formal sounding?

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.

There is nothing that says they can not do it.

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.

If it were up to me we’d all be using rails, get rid of EOMCs and not have people go up unless they are receiving communion.

However, there is nothing illicit about a person offering a sign of the cross. Let me tell you… I am frequently put into that position (and I don’t even like being an EOMC), which I dislike, but I know it isn’t illicit.

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

This reminds me of the fundies that say that bible doesn’t say we can do this and this, so it’s wrong.

Did you think… maybe for a second… that the Church has done what is had for 2000 years. It doesn’t offer a “rubic-perfect” Mass for everyone to follow. Mass has evolved. That’s why there was a 1962 Missal, a 2003 GIRM, not a 33 AD version.

 

[japhy]

That is what EOMC is an abbreviation for. But if you want to play who can pretend to be the most up to date with current trends at the Vatican, maybe I can spell it out in Latin so it is all technical and formal sounding?

Getting the nomenclature right is what the Church has asked us to do. “Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion” is the proper title, because it describes the function and the circumstance of the minister, and because it addresses the Sacrament with due reverence: “Holy Communion”. There’s no decent reason I can think of not to use the term the Church tells us to use.

There is nothing that says they can not do it.

Since when has making the sign of the cross over/on a person been part of the distribution of Holy Communion? (A sign of the cross used to be made by the priest, with the Host, before he placed it on the tongue of the communicant, I receive; but that rubric went the way of the dodo in 1964 I believe.)

Did you think… maybe for a second… that the Church has done what is had for 2000 years. It doesn’t offer a “rubic-perfect” Mass for everyone to follow. Mass has evolved. That’s why there was a 1962 Missal, a 2003 GIRM, not a 33 AD version.

Yes, the liturgy has developed organically. Perhaps this will, in fact, be considered an organic addition to the liturgy, but perhaps not. The CDWDS will decide that.

As far as rubrics go, the Church does (or did) try to be thorough in the Missal and its instruction.

 

[Nancita2009]

What should you do if you have informed the trainer of EMOHC and he “brushes it off”? Would it be ok to email the other EMOHC to let them know what the GIRM (General Instruction of the Roman Missal) states and encourage them to politely remind the trainer? I am new as a EMOHC and AM so very uncomfortable going up on the altar before the priest consumes the host. I think I would be drawing attention to myself if I waited outside the sanctuary while everyone else went up, sanitized their hands, and greeted the other ministers ( yikes) while the Lamb of God is being professed. What is your opinion???
SOme feel this is “too picky”, but If we are going to be “picky” about any liturgical abuse, it would definitely be during the Liturgy of the Eucharist. I feel we should be on our knees (if able) . Where did the reverence go?
HELP:crying:

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

What should you do if you have informed the trainer of EMOHC and he “brushes it off”? Would it be ok to email the other EMOHC to let them know what the GIRM (General Instruction of the Roman Missal) states and encourage them to politely remind the trainer? I am new as a EMOHC and AM so very uncomfortable going up on the altar before the priest consumes the host. I think I would be drawing attention to myself if I waited outside the sanctuary while everyone else went up, sanitized their hands, and greeted the other ministers ( yikes) while the Lamb of God is being professed. What is your opinion???
SOme feel this is “too picky”, but If we are going to be “picky” about any liturgical abuse, it would definitely be during the Liturgy of the Eucharist. I feel we should be on our knees (if able) . Where did the reverence go?
HELP:crying:

Hmmm…that is interesting. We are instructed as EMHC’s to go behind the sanctuary…out of view…to sanitize our hands and then process to each side of the sanctuary. Maybe their should be a sanitizing station on each side of your sanctuary…then you could do the same. We wait by the side of the sanctuary until the priest has received. Kneeling would be tough…I would pick a battle that you might be able to win.

As far as blessing…if a child comes up to me in line and waits…what are you going to do?

 

[agnes_therese]

What should you do if you have informed the trainer of EMOHC and he “brushes it off”? Would it be ok to email the other EMOHC to let them know what the GIRM (General Instruction of the Roman Missal) states and encourage them to politely remind the trainer?

No, you should discuss it with the priest. For a new minister to take it upon themselves to tell everyone else what to do will cause more problems than it will solve. The pastor is ultimately responsible for the liturgy.