Is it proper to go up for a blessing when not receiving Communion?

[benedictgal]

So, bottom line…(here we go again )

Bishop and Priest are OK with the practice; what are the EMHCs in that parish supposed to do?

I can think of three things:

1. Keep on doing it.
2. Quit being an EMHC
3. Start writing letters (and maybe 2) as well)

Newbie, the bishop doesn’t have the authority to override what the Holy See has stated because EMHCs do not have any authorization to impart blessings or anything remotely similar to the actions that the celebrant does during the Mass. The bishop has limited authority. He can only go so far. That authority doesn’t extend to overruling the dictates of the Holy See.

 

[MusicMan]

So, bottom line…(here we go again )

Bishop and Priest are OK with the practice; what are the EMHCs in that parish supposed to do?

I can think of three things:

1. Keep on doing it.
2. Quit being an EMHC
3. Start writing letters (and maybe 2) as well)

The other option is to continue serving as an emHC, but to discontinue any attempts to “bless.” Perhaps this will be witness to end the practice.

And that’s the crux of the question… what do you do when the Bishop and the Pastor are OK with, and/or promote the practice? Just because they don’t have the authority to allow the practice doesn’t mean they won’t continue to allow it. It does put the lay person who assists with distribution in awkward spot.

 

[zab]

In your public profile, you say that you are a bishop. Therefore you can impart a blessing. If you were not a bishop, then you would not be able to impart a blessing.

After reading his profile, I’m guessing that "bishop [domestic church] means bishop of his family

 

[zab]

The other option is to continue serving as an emHC, but to discontinue any attempts to “bless.” Perhaps this will be witness to end the practice.

And that’s the crux of the question… what do you do when the Bishop and the Pastor are OK with, and/or promote the practice? Just because they don’t have the authority to allow the practice doesn’t mean they won’t continue to allow it. It does put the lay person who assists with distribution in awkward spot.

In my opinion, greeting the person with a simple “God bless you” and no motion whatsoever with the hands is not a blessing nor has any resemblance of a blessing. It is just a greeting- and they are on their way. It is less disturbing and takes less time than to give a confusing explanation to each individual, most of whom are young children, that you do not have authority to do what they have come before you for The way to deal with this, in my opinion, is to instruct the parishioners and teachers (as well as the EMHC), put notices in the bulletin etc. and repeat it once in a while so new parishioners will have an understanding. Until it is understood by the parishioners that no-one should come forward in the Communion line except those who will be receiving Communion, a simple greeting like, “God bless you” should suffice. And of course small children may come with their parents but not for the purpose of receiving individual blessings.

 

[benedictgal]

In my opinion, greeting the person with a simple “God bless you” and no motion whatsoever with the hands is not a blessing nor has any resemblance of a blessing. It is just a greeting- and they are on their way. It is less disturbing and takes less time than to give a confusing explanation to each individual, most of whom are young children, that you do not have authority to do what they have come before you for The way to deal with this, in my opinion, is to instruct the parishioners and teachers (as well as the EMHC), put notices in the bulletin etc. and repeat it once in a while so new parishioners will have an understanding. Until it is understood by the parishioners that no-one should come forward in the Communion line except those who will be receiving Communion, a simple greeting like, “God bless you” should suffice. And of course small children may come with their parents but not for the purpose of receiving individual blessings.

But, even a “God bless you” is problematic. Poeple who are not going to receive Holy Communion should stay in their pews. There is no reason for them to come forward, none at all. The line is meant only for those who are properly disposed to receive Holy Communion.

The bulletin announcment would be a very good starting point. We need to go back to properly catechizing the faithful. As for the blessing, everyone, Catholic or not, who assists at Mass will receive it. There is no need to repeat the action during Communion.

 

[MusicMan]

There are a number of things that need to be stuffed back into Pandora’s Box. This is one of many.

Way OT …

My pastor called me the other day. The conductor of the choir for our community’s ecumenical Thanksgiving service asked me to accompany the choir for the Anthem. My parish is hosting, and usually the Contemporary Choir handles the “songs” and “hymns” for ecumenical services that the church hosts, but they can’t this year, so he asked me to since I’ll be there anyway. As we went through the list of songs from the last time we hosted, we both had an epiphany. Neither of us really care for the Contemporary group’s programming, because it’s typically music that only they know and can sing. We had a further epiphany that he and I are on the same page with wanting familiar, singable, traditional hymns.

So, we’re doing We Gather Together, For The Beauty of The Earth, and Now Thank We All Our God.

It seems that my assigned task in the effort to refill Pandora’s Box is to help restore traditional hymns and music to the churches I am tasked with doing music at.

I’ll let someone else handle the assignment of getting non-Communicant blessings back in the box.

 

[zab]

But, even a “God bless you” is problematic. Poeple who are not going to receive Holy Communion should stay in their pews. There is no reason for them to come forward, none at all. The line is meant only for those who are properly disposed to receive Holy Communion.

The bulletin announcment would be a very good starting point. We need to go back to properly catechizing the faithful. As for the blessing, everyone, Catholic or not, who assists at Mass will receive it. There is no need to repeat the action during Communion.

benedictgal,
I agree with you that people not going to receive Holy Communion should stay in their pews.
I disagree with you on how to greet those misguided individuals who come before us EMHC’s . Yes, even a “God bless you” is “problematic”. But I think it is the best way and the most charitable way to deal with the situation at the moment.

 

[benedictgal]

benedictgal,
I agree with you that people not going to receive Holy Communion should stay in their pews.
I disagree with you on how to greet those misguided individuals who come before us EMHC’s . Yes, even a “God bless you” is “problematic”. But I think it is the best way and the most charitable way to deal with the situation at the moment.

Charity also means being honest. So far, I haven’t had this situation come before me, but, when it does, I will tell the person that I am not authorized to give a blessing. I cannot give what I do not have.

 

[Aramis]

You’re saying that the Laity cannot confer a blessing (outside of the liturgy)?

Laity can ask the Lord to bless something, but do not “give” the blessing, they only ask God for it.

Clergy can impart the Lord’s blessing directly; this is the gift of the Holy Spirit as part of their ordination.

 

[grandfather]

So, bottom line…(here we go again )

Bishop and Priest are OK with the practice; what are the EMHCs in that parish supposed to do?

I can think of three things:

1. Keep on doing it.
2. Quit being an EMHC
3. Start writing letters (and maybe 2) as well)

The lines between ordained ministers and laity have been blurred. The Vatican issued a directive several years ago severely restricting the use of EMHCs. The title is “extraordinary”, meaning out of the ordinary. The directive gave clear defintion of when it was permissbable to use extraordinary ministers. The current practices do not conform. It was ignored everywhere, as usual, and Rome did nothing to enforce it.

When EMHCs were first implemented I lived in a small town with a small parish. It took the priest a few minutes to give Communion. He explained how the laity would be used to give Communion and asked for volunteers to be trained. There was absolutely no need in this parish. The idea was how to get the laity in the act. The next thing that happened was the priest went to sit down and the laity, EMHCs, were handling all the sacred vessels and doing the purification after Communion. At some point the bishop said this had to stop and the EMHCs were irate. They had always done this and it was their right to do it. How dare the bishop interfere with their customs.

But in answer to the question, what to do if the clergy or hierarchy requests that laity participate in liturgical abuse, the answer is simple. Don’t do it. If that means you stop being an EMHC, so what?

Years ago when the priest asked for volunteers I thought about it. It is difficult to say no to someone who is in authority over you in religion. I don’t know why, but something inside said this is not my job. I am glad that I never took that role, especially after seeing what the Vatican said years later.

 

[FrDavid96]

Part of the problem is that people should never be “asked to volunteer” for this position. The pastor should seek-out qualified individuals, and be very selective about it. Many well-intentioned persons will volunteer to be an EMHC simply because the pastor “asks for volunteers” and their genuine spirit of self-giving leads them to “sign up.” I remember when this thing first started. Only a very few select parishes in my diocese had EMHCs. They were the very large parishes and the priest(s) genuinely needed the help. For the most part, there were only 1 or maybe 2 for each parish. The EMHCs were appointed personally by the bishop and only after a period of proper formation. Sadly, those days are gone. Today, in many parishes, the only qualification for an EMHC seems to be putting one’s name on a sign-up sheet in the vestibule.

 

[grandfather]

Part of the problem is that people should never be “asked to volunteer” for this position. The pastor should seek-out qualified individuals, and be very selective about it. Many well-intentioned persons will volunteer to be an EMHC simply because the pastor “asks for volunteers” and their genuine spirit of self-giving leads them to “sign up.” I remember when this thing first started. Only a very few select parishes in my diocese had EMHCs. They were the very large parishes and the priest(s) genuinely needed the help. For the most part, there were only 1 or maybe 2 for each parish. The EMHCs were appointed personally by the bishop and only after a period of proper formation. Sadly, those days are gone. Today, in many parishes, the only qualification for an EMHC seems to be putting one’s name on a sign-up sheet in the vestibule.

Have you seen this? The 1997 document in particular is very clear.

ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/EXTRMIN.HTM

 

[Newbie2]

I found this kinda funny:

“If the entire pool of available ordained ministers at a parish, chaplaincy, monastery, or other location of Mass is insufficient for distributing communion to “particularly large numbers of the faithful,” then and only then is it possible that extraordinary ministers may have a legitimate role to play.”

As if there is always a “pool” of clergy sitting around every Saturday and Sunday with nothing else to do.

Perhaps this was written before the shortage of priests and deacons became apparent, but if a parish has a “pool” of one or two like ours, the whole statement seems…well…let’s say wishful thinking.

 

[benedictgal]

I found this kinda funny:

“If the entire pool of available ordained ministers at a parish, chaplaincy, monastery, or other location of Mass is insufficient for distributing communion to “particularly large numbers of the faithful,” then and only then is it possible that extraordinary ministers may have a legitimate role to play.”

As if there is always a “pool” of clergy sitting around every Saturday and Sunday with nothing else to do.

Perhaps this was written before the shortage of priests and deacons became apparent, but if a parish has a “pool” of one or two like ours, the whole statement seems…well…let’s say wishful thinking.

Au contraire. I witnessed this pool while I was at Mass at the New Cathedral Basilica of St. Louis the King in St. Louis. For the distribution of Holy Communion, the celebrant was assisted by two deacons and two priests who distributed the Body of Christ. Four EMHCs assisted with the chalice.

Of course at Papal Masses, the ones assisting the Holy Father in distributing Holy Communion are prests and deacons, and there are a plethora of them, given the fact that the communicants there number in the tens of thousands. Interestingly enough, communion time is maybe 10-15 minutes long. Rome, it seems, is very efficient, if not efficacious, in how she does things.

 

[Newbie2]

Au contraire. I witnessed this pool while I was at Mass at the New Cathedral Basilica of St. Louis the King in St. Louis. For the distribution of Holy Communion, the celebrant was assisted by two deacons and two priests who distributed the Body of Christ. Four EMHCs assisted with the chalice.
Of course at Papal Masses, the ones assisting the Holy Father in distributing Holy Communion are prests and deacons, and there are a plethora of them, given the fact that the communicants there number in the tens of thousands. Interestingly enough, communion time is maybe 10-15 minutes long. Rome, it seems, is very efficient, if not efficacious, in how she does things.

If there was a sufficient “pool”, then NO EMHCs should have been used.

 

[benedictgal]

If there was a sufficient “pool”, then NO EMHCs should have been used.

I was referring to the distribution of the Body of Christ. Of course, the pool is much wider when it comes to special diocesan liturgies like the Chrism Mass. No EMHCs are used because there are a lot of ordinary ministers of Holy Communion around. Priests and deacons assist the bishop with the distribution of Holy Communion under both species.

 

[Newbie2]

Au contraire. I witnessed this pool while I was at Mass at the New Cathedral Basilica of St. Louis the King in St. Louis. For the distribution of Holy Communion, the celebrant was assisted by two deacons and two priests who distributed the Body of Christ. Four EMHCs assisted with the chalice.

I was referring to the distribution of the Body of Christ. Of course, the pool is much wider when it comes to special diocesan liturgies like the Chrism Mass. No EMHCs are used because there are a lot of ordinary ministers of Holy Communion around. Priests and deacons assist the bishop with the distribution of Holy Communion under both species.

OK, but the author is referring to the use of EMHCs in general.

What I’m saying is that author of the document seems to assume that there’s this great “pool” of clergy available, when it’ not. Of course, in Rome, there’s clergy up the wazoo (no offense to the clergy), but in many areas of the US, there is no such pool, and the clergy need to use EMHCs.

 

[emeraldcoast]

I was referring to the distribution of the Body of Christ. Of course, the pool is much wider when it comes to special diocesan liturgies like the Chrism Mass. No EMHCs are used because there are a lot of ordinary ministers of Holy Communion around. Priests and deacons assist the bishop with the distribution of Holy Communion under both species.

A little off topic, but what is the difference between an EMHCs distribution of the body of Christ verses the blood of Christ? Why are not both species ALWAYS offered at a Catholic Mass? This would be following what Jesus did at the Last Supper offering both the body of Christ and the blood of Christ to the people.

God Bless!

 

[benedictgal]

A little off topic, but what is the difference between an EMHCs distribution of the body of Christ verses the blood of Christ? Why are not both species ALWAYS offered at a Catholic Mass? This would be following what Jesus did at the Last Supper offering both the body of Christ and the blood of Christ to the people.

God Bless!

For centuries, Catholics only received under one species. We believe that the entire and whole, living Jesus Christ is contained Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity under either form of the Sacred Species. You see, we receive the flesh of the living God. A living person does not exist with his blood separated from his body.

Furthermore, we believe as St. Thomas Aquinas taught that:

Here beneath these signs are hidden
priceless things, to sense forbidden;
signs, not things, are all we see.
Flesh from bread, and Blood from wine,
yet is Christ in either sign,
all entire confessed to be.

And whoe’er of Him partakes,
severs not, nor rends, nor breaks:
all entire, their Lord receive.
Whether one or thousand eat,
all receive the selfsame meat,
nor do less for others leave.

Furthermore, when communicants are great in number, the Church will not offer communion under both species because there exists the risk of the profanation of the Precious Blood, as noted in Redemptionis Sacramentum:

[101.] In order for Holy Communion under both kinds to be administered to the lay members of Christ’s faithful, due consideration should be given to the circumstances, as judged first of all by the diocesan Bishop. It is to be completely excluded where even a small danger exists of the sacred species being profaned.187 With a view to wider co-ordination, the Bishops’ Conferences should issue norms, once their decisions have received the recognitio of the Apostolic See through the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, especially as regards “the manner of distributing Holy Communion to the faithful under both kinds, and the faculty for its extension”.188

102.] The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants189 that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger that “more than a reasonable quantity of the Blood of Christ remain to be consumed at the end of the celebration”.190 The same is true wherever access to the chalice would be difficult to arrange, or where such a large amount of wine would be required that its certain provenance and quality could only be known with difficulty, or wherever there is not an adequate number of sacred ministers or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion with proper formation, or where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated.

Therefore, the Church takes safeguards to protect the Sacred Species because it is the Precious Blood of Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, because Jesus gave to St. Peter and his Successors the authority to bind and loosen, it is the sacred and solemn duty of the Pope to protect the integrity of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and to safeguard the Most Blessed Sacrament, that is to say, the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, from the danger of profanation.

When I receive Holy Communion, I know that I am receiving the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ as I consume the Host. I am not losing out on receiving the Precious Blood because it is already contained in His Body.

Furthermore, the Mass is not meant to be a historical “reenactment” of the Last Supper. That is what the Protestant Ecclesial Communities do. No. During the Mass, the veil betweeen heaven and earth, and time and space, is lifted. We are just as much there at the Last Supper as were the Apostles. We are just as much at Calvary as were the Blessed Mother and Sts. John and Mary Magdalene, and, we are also there at the Resurrection. The Last Supper doesn’t exist in a vaccuum. It anticipates and turns toward both the Crucifixion and the Resurrection. The seprate consecration of the body and blood indicates death because when one dies, the body and blood are separated. When the priest places a tiny piece of the consecrated host, that is meant to show forth the resurrection, when the body and blood of Jesus are reunited and he is in his glorified body. That is why when we receive Our Lord in Holy Communion, we receive His living flesh and blood, together.

 

[FrDavid96]

A little off topic, but what is the difference between an EMHCs distribution of the body of Christ verses the blood of Christ? Why are not both species ALWAYS offered at a Catholic Mass? This would be following what Jesus did at the Last Supper offering both the body of Christ and the blood of Christ to the people.

God Bless!

The reason is that at a Catholic Mass, the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Christ, all of Christ: Body Blood Soul Divinity substantially present as much in one species as in the other or both.