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

[dhgray]

An EME cannot validly “bless” someone who does not receive. The EME can and should, however simply say God Bless You. The EME does not have a “loaded gun” as does the Priest.

Please qualify your statement. What reference are you using to ascertain your answer. Thank you

 

[zab]

Is it valid that an Extraordinary minister of the Eucharist blesses my child when I receive the host from them. While I try always to receive from a priest it is not possible sometimes. And a few the Extraordinary ministers male and female will bless my children. I’m really not comfortable with this because it seems to be another step in blurring the lines between priests and the laity but I wasn’t sure what the story is.

thanks
jbelokur

Lay persons cannot give a priestly blessing. Sometimes the Extraordinary Ministers receive improper instruction on what to do. They should not do or say anything that would give the impression that they have the power to give a priestly blessing. Sometimes people misunderstand what is really happening in regards to the EMHC and the “blessing”. Hopefully this practice will eventually be corrected. The Under-Secretary of the Congregation of Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments in Rome (through a private letter that has been shared on this discussion board) has said that the Extraordinary Minister should not put a hand or hands on the communicants. I see no reason not to trust this information. You may want to bring this topic and your concern up with your pastor.

Note: A word of caution- There are those who are quick to throw blame at the EMHC (and priests ) and falsely accuse them of doing their own thing and adding their own rituals. And this is just not usually the case. Many are just doing what they have been instructed to do and without any motive what-so-ever.

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

Is it valid that an Extraordinary minister of the Eucharist blesses my child when I receive the host from them. While I try always to receive from a priest it is not possible sometimes. And a few the Extraordinary ministers male and female will bless my children. I’m really not comfortable with this because it seems to be another step in blurring the lines between priests and the laity but I wasn’t sure what the story is.

thanks
jbelokur

You should mention this to your pastor.

EMHCs cannot give blessings (because they are not ordained).

 

[zab]

An EME cannot validly “bless” someone who does not receive. The EME can and should, however simply say God Bless You. The EME does not have a “loaded gun” as does the Priest.

What is an EME?

 

[jhust]

Sorry I did not explain, but EME is simply Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist. Acolytes do the distribution of Communion also.

 

[FrDavid96]

Is it valid that an Extraordinary minister of the Eucharist blesses my child when I receive the host from them. While I try always to receive from a priest it is not possible sometimes. And a few the Extraordinary ministers male and female will bless my children. I’m really not comfortable with this because it seems to be another step in blurring the lines between priests and the laity but I wasn’t sure what the story is.

thanks
jbelokur

You might be interrested to know that the Holy See has addressed this, and the response is that it is not to be done.
See this thread for more details
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=292341

Laypersons cannot impart blessings. Only bishops, priests, and sometimes deacons are able to impart blessings. See canon 1169 for reference.

The only reason for people to come forward in the Communion “line” is to receive the Eucharist. There is no other legitimate reason. That part of the Mass is the Communion Rite, it is not the “come forward to receive the Eucharist or a blessing rite”

This practice is an example of someone somewhere deciding to add a ritual to the Mass which the Church has not approved, and which is not in harmony with the liturgical praxis of the Church. It is an abuse that has become so commonplace that many people do not understand that is shouldn’t be done because they experience it so often–but an abuse it is.

 

[benedictgal]

Sorry I did not explain, but EME is simply Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist. Acolytes do the distribution of Communion also.

There is no such creature as an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist. The ordinary Ministers of the Eucharist ar the priest and bishop because only they can confect the Sacrament (consecrate). Therefore, this term is incorrect.

Laity can be extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion. The ordinary Ministers are the Deacon (he is one by virtue of Holy Orders, only, obviously, he cannot confect the Sacrament), the priest and the bishop.

Regarding the OP, this is not allowed. There is another thread where two forum members asked this question (didn’t specify children, but, once you read the response, it should be pretty self-explanatory):

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.

Perhaps the most telling statements in this letter, which was received from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (the department of the Holy See that oversees the liturgy) are these two sections:

The liturgical blessing of the Holy Mass is properly given to each and to all at the conclusion of the Mass, just a few moments subsequent to the distribution of Holy Communion.

…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).

In other words, you cannot impart what you are not allowed to impart. You can’t give what you don’t have the power to give.

 

[zab]

This practice is an example of someone somewhere deciding to add a ritual to the Mass which the Church has not approved, and which is not in harmony with the liturgical praxis of the Church. It is an abuse that has become so commonplace that many people do not understand that is shouldn’t be done because they experience it so often–but an abuse it is.

Once I went for an initial OB exam and I was question at the counter in the waiting room. With previous pregnancies I had to fill out a form giving a brief medical history. However, this time the cleric asked me questions out loud. " How many abortions have you had?", she asked me. I knew from having filled out the forms 10 previous times that they wanted me to include both direct and spontaneous abortions in my answer. But now I was supposed to answer that question out loud in front of the rest of the people in the waiting room. I responded that I had two miscarriages. She corrected me and said they were abortions. I responded again, “But just so there is no misunderstanding, they were miscarriages not direct abortions.” Again she corrected me saying that they are all considered abortions and that is what they have to write down. “You can write down whatever you want” I told her, but there is no need to misrepresent me to people who are listening.

I admit, I am a sensitive person. Perhaps this practice of going up for a blessing is an “abuse”. I like to think it is rather the result of ignorance rather than diliberate abuse.

 

[FrDavid96]

…
I admit, I am a sensitive person. Perhaps this practice of going up for a blessing is an “abuse”. I like to think it is rather the result of ignorance rather than diliberate abuse.

It is both. It began as an abuse. When people know that it isn’t to be done, it’s an abuse. Yes, it is often the result of ignorance, especially since we all hear it said so many times “this is what you do” but none of that releases us from the responsibility to correct the abuse, and at the very least not to perpetuate it.

 

[steboyz]

Just to change the subject slightly.A couple of Sundays ago my priest said that he was going to bless another priest who was going to the middle east to minister to our troops.I happened to look up and I noticed that several people in the pews had their arms extended forward and their hands were palms down like they were placing their hands on someones head,like a “group blessing”.Is that allowed?

STE

 

[FrDavid96]

Just to change the subject slightly.A couple of Sundays ago my priest said that he was going to bless another priest who was going to the middle east to minister to our troops.I happened to look up and I noticed that several people in the pews had their arms extended forward and their hands were palms down like they were placing their hands on someones head,like a “group blessing”.Is that allowed?

STE

Different topic for a different thread. But suffice to say no, that is absolutely not allowed. It’s fine for the other priest to impart a blessing, but as for the laity simulating a blessing over the priest, this is a very serious abuse.

(If anyone has any comments or questions about this, could we please start a new thread?)

 

[Elizabeth502]

Regarding Fr. David’s post #16, (&the post to which he responded), I could not agree more. In one parish I have attended, I feel very uncomfortable even with the “group-arm-extensions” pretended “blessing” over catechumens, etc. Hey, as a lay person I have no power to “bless” anyone. Why are priests anxious to give up or share this unique empowerment? They, not the laity, are supposed to be carriers of blessings.

When we say “bless” you or wish blessings on someone, we are calling upon God, not ourselves, to confer the blessing. Anything else is really arrogant, i.m.o.

 

[benedictgal]

Different topic for a different thread. But suffice to say no, that is absolutely not allowed. It’s fine for the other priest to impart a blessing, but as for the laity simulating a blessing over the priest, this is a very serious abuse.

(If anyone has any comments or questions about this, could we please start a new thread?)

Actually, I believe that this citation, taken from the 1997 document issued by the Congregation for Clergy, will sufficiently address both the OP and the question of people joining in on the blessing:

§ 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.

As I read it, this applies to both situations raised, the OP and the other question.

 

[stanthonyserver]

I recently became an EMHC for the Diocese of Hartford and the training was very thorough. We were told explicitly not to add ANYTHING to our duties. We are to simply say “The Body of Christ” or “The Blood of Christ” - no personal names, no blessings, no nothing. I have had EMHCs say to me “Body of Christ David” which is inappropriate.

Also, interestingly, about two weeks ago the Bishop changed our protocol. We used to approach the sanctuary during the Agnes Dei, no more - we now come up after the Priest, Deacon and Servers receive communion. This further deliniates our role and removes us one more step away from the consecration etc - a good thing in my opinion.

David

 

[benedictgal]

I recently became an EMHC for the Diocese of Hartford and the training was very thorough. We were told explicitly not to add ANYTHING to our duties. We are to simply say “The Body of Christ” or “The Blood of Christ” - no personal names, no blessings, no nothing. I have had EMHCs say to me “Body of Christ David” which is inappropriate.

Also, interestingly, about two weeks ago the Bishop changed our protocol. We used to approach the sanctuary during the Agnes Dei, no more - we now come up after the Priest, Deacon and Servers receive communion. This further deliniates our role and removes us one more step away from the consecration etc - a good thing in my opinion.

David

Good for your bishiop! Actually, the protocol has been in effect since the third typical edition of the USCCB-adapted General Instruction of the Roman Missal came into use in 2002. This provision is alluded to (though not as explicit as it is in the GIRM) in that same document that I quoted in my previous post:

To avoid creating confusion, certain practices are to be avoided and eliminated where such have emerged in particular Churches:

— extraordinary ministers receiving Holy Communion apart from the other faithful as though concelebrants;

This means that they shouldn’t come up at the Agnus Dei. Unfortunately, there are some parishes down here that are still doing that.

 

[Newbie2]

There is no such creature as an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist. The ordinary Ministers of the Eucharist ar the priest and bishop because only they can confect the Sacrament (consecrate). Therefore, this term is incorrect.

Laity can be extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion. The ordinary Ministers are the Deacon (he is one by virtue of Holy Orders, only, obviously, he cannot confect the Sacrament), the priest and the bishop.

.

“Eucharist” and “Holy Communion” in this context are the same thing. Let’s not get caught up in semantics. We have EMEs at our parish and no EMHCs. So far, nobody has complained, nobody has misunderstood.

The important thing here is the “Extrordinary” nature of lay ministers, as you said, not whether we use “Eucharist” or “Holy Communion”.

 

[benedictgal]

“Eucharist” and “Holy Communion” in this context are the same thing. Let’s not get caught up in semantics. We have EMEs at our parish and no EMHCs. So far, nobody has complained, nobody has misunderstood.

The important thing here is the “Extrordinary” nature of lay ministers, as you said, not whether we use “Eucharist” or “Holy Communion”.

No. The Holy See instructs us in using the correct terminology. There are difference between the two. Again, from the same document that the Congregation for Clergy issue, comes this explanation (which was repeated seven years later in Redemptionis Sacramentum):

1. The canonical discipline concerning extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion must be correctly applied so as to avoid generating confusion. The same discipline establishes that the ordinary minister of Holy Communion is the Bishop, the Priest and the the Deacon.(96) Extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion are those instituted as acolytes and the faithful so deputed in accordance with Canon 230, § 3.(97)

For more clarity, Redemptionis Sacramentum notes that:

1. The Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion
   [154.] As has already been recalled, “the only minister who can confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist in persona Christi is a validly ordained Priest”.254 Hence the name “minister of the Eucharist” belongs properly to the Priest alone. Moreover, also by reason of their sacred Ordination, the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are the Bishop, the Priest and the Deacon,255 to whom it belongs therefore to administer Holy Communion to the lay members of Christ’s faithful during the celebration of Mass. In this way their ministerial office in the Church is fully and accurately brought to light, and the sign value of the Sacrament is made complete.

155.] In addition to the ordinary ministers there is the formally instituted acolyte, who by virtue of his institution is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion even outside the celebration of Mass. If, moreover, reasons of real necessity prompt it, another lay member of Christ’s faithful may also be delegated by the diocesan Bishop, in accordance with the norm of law,256 for one occasion or for a specified time, and an appropriate formula of blessing may be used for the occasion. This act of appointment, however, does not necessarily take a liturgical form, nor, if it does take a liturgical form, should it resemble sacred Ordination in any way. Finally, in special cases of an unforeseen nature, permission can be given for a single occasion by the Priest who presides at the celebration of the Eucharist.257

[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.

You cannot have EMEs because such creatures do not xist. Therefore, it is not a question of semantics. It is a question of semantics; rather, it is a question of following the directives of the Church.

 

[zab]

I recently became an EMHC for the Diocese of Hartford and the training was very thorough. We were told explicitly not to add ANYTHING to our duties. We are to simply say “The Body of Christ” or “The Blood of Christ” - no personal names, no blessings, no nothing. I have had EMHCs say to me “Body of Christ David” which is inappropriate.

Also, interestingly, about two weeks ago the Bishop changed our protocol. We used to approach the sanctuary during the Agnes Dei, no more - we now come up after the Priest, Deacon and Servers receive communion. This further deliniates our role and removes us one more step away from the consecration etc - a good thing in my opinion.

David

Our protocal has also changed in the past 6 months. But I am not aware that it came from the bishop. Our pastor has now instructed the EMHC to come up to the steps at the bottom of the sanctuary after the priest has received Communion. The EMHC no longer go up into the sanctuary to receive Communion or to receive the cup or ciboria that they will be using. Father brings it to each of them. However they do take their sacred vessels into the sanctuary after Communion. The ciboria are given to the priest to put into repose any remaining Hosts in the tabernacle and then they go to purification table where they rinse their fingers in the special little bowl (not sure what it is called) The cups are taken to the purification table as well. For a time the pastor was purifying all of the sacred vessels at the altar after Communion. But he has since decided to do just his chalice and the patents and he purifies the remaining vessels after Mass. (or sometimes the deacon does it particularly when we have a visiting priest).

 

[benedictgal]

Our protocal has also changed in the past 6 months. But I am not aware that it came from the bishop. Our pastor has now instructed the EMHC to come up to the steps at the bottom of the sanctuary after the priest has received Communion. The EMHC no longer go up into the sanctuary to receive Communion or to receive the cup or ciboria that they will be using. Father brings it to each of them. However they do take their sacred vessels into the sanctuary after Communion. The ciboria are given to the priest to put into repose any remaining Hosts in the tabernacle and then they go to purification table where they rinse their fingers in the special little bowl (not sure what it is called) The cups are taken to the purification table as well. For a time the pastor was purifying all of the sacred vessels at the altar after Communion. But he has since decided to do just his chalice and the patents and he purifies the remaining vessels after Mass. (or sometimes the deacon does it particularly when we have a visiting priest).

It’s called a lavabo and we have just started using it for Mass. Some consistencies of the Sacred Host will, contrary to what some might think, leave residue on the fingers. We figured it was better to be safe.

 

[benedictgal]

Our protocal has also changed in the past 6 months. But I am not aware that it came from the bishop. Our pastor has now instructed the EMHC to come up to the steps at the bottom of the sanctuary after the priest has received Communion. The EMHC no longer go up into the sanctuary to receive Communion or to receive the cup or ciboria that they will be using. Father brings it to each of them. However they do take their sacred vessels into the sanctuary after Communion. The ciboria are given to the priest to put into repose any remaining Hosts in the tabernacle and then they go to purification table where they rinse their fingers in the special little bowl (not sure what it is called) The cups are taken to the purification table as well. For a time the pastor was purifying all of the sacred vessels at the altar after Communion. But he has since decided to do just his chalice and the patents and he purifies the remaining vessels after Mass. (or sometimes the deacon does it particularly when we have a visiting priest).

It’s called a lavabo and we have just started using it for Mass. Some consistencies of the Sacred Host will, contrary to what some might think, leave residue on the fingers. We figured it was better to be safe.

Of course, this is juat another reason, on top of what the Holy See has indicated, against this practice. Imagine the foreheads the priest would have to touch, especially if there is makeup or whatever, and then place his hand into the ciborrium to distribute Holy Communion.