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

[zab]

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.

I believe it is called the ablution cup. There has always been one next to the tabernacle and now there is a second one on the purification table.

 

[FrDavid96]

“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”.

Newbie,
To be frank about it, I’ve never quite understood the difference myself. What’s the difference between “Eucharist” and “Communion”? I’m not sure. But this part I am sure about, Pope John Paul II made it clear that the only term that is to be used is “Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion” and he specifically said that any form of minister of the Eucharist is to be applied only to a priest.

I’m only speculating here, but I suppose it means that “Eucharist” refers to the actual act of consecrating, while “Communion” refers to the rite of distribution. Admittedly, at least in English, we do tend to use the words interchangeably. Whether I understand it or not makes no difference, I still have to follow the explicit instructions of the Holy Father.

 

[Snowy]

During Carnival the Church could institute the “be a priest for a day” Day. On that day parishioners with priest envy could get together and “bless” each other, hold hands around the altar while singing the Kumbayah, “consecrate” playdoh hosts, give sermons, lay hands on whoever volunteers, speak in Maccaronic Latin, etc., and get it out of their systems.

Just a suggestion!

 

[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.

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.

How do you know that this practice began as an abuse- that someone somewhere decided to add a ritual to the Mass? How do you know there was any pre-meditated thought to it at all? Perhaps it came about as more of a spontaneous action by the priest to bless a small child standing next to his mother.

I certainly have not said anything regarding not having a responsibility to correct this or to perpetuate the practice. But I don’t know how you can rightly declare that this began as an abuse. What is abuse? Is every mistake or wrong action an abuse?

 

[Newbie2]

Newbie,
To be frank about it, I’ve never quite understood the difference myself. What’s the difference between “Eucharist” and “Communion”? I’m not sure. But this part I am sure about, Pope John Paul II made it clear that the only term that is to be used is “Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion” and he specifically said that any form of minister of the Eucharist is to be applied only to a priest.

I’m only speculating here, but I suppose it means that “Eucharist” refers to the actual act of consecrating, while “Communion” refers to the rite of distribution. Admittedly, at least in English, we do tend to use the words interchangeably. Whether I understand it or not makes no difference, I still have to follow the explicit instructions of the Holy Father.

Do you have a reference as to where EMHC is the only term to be used? I’m not questioning it, I just never heard of that directive.

It would be interesting to know the reasoning in the difference; I don’t understand the significance.

 

[Newbie2]

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):

For more clarity, Redemptionis Sacramentum notes that:

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.

Well, we have more than a hundred at our parish that do not exist.

 

[benedictgal]

How do you know that this practice began as an abuse- that someone somewhere decided to add a ritual to the Mass? How do you know there was any pre-meditated thought to it at all? Perhaps it came about as more of a spontaneous action by the priest to bless a small child standing next to his mother.

I certainly have not said anything regarding not having a responsibility to correct this or to perpetuate the practice. But I don’t know how you can rightly declare that this began as an abuse. What is abuse? Is every mistake or wrong action an abuse?

However, zab, there exists a strict prohibition that nothing should be added nor subtracted from the Mass. Even though Redemptionis Sacramentum came out in 2004, it reiterates what the Church has said on this particular issue:

16.] “It pertains to the Apostolic See to regulate the Sacred Liturgy of the universal Church, to publish the liturgical books and to grant the recognitio for their translation into vernacular languages, as well as to ensure that the liturgical regulations, especially those governing the celebration of the most exalted celebration of the Sacrifice of the Mass, are everywhere faithfully observed”.36

[17.] “The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments attends to those matters that pertain to the Apostolic See as regards the regulation and promotion of the Sacred Liturgy, and especially the Sacraments, with due regard for the competence of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It fosters and enforces sacramental discipline, especially as regards their validity and their licit celebration”. Finally, it “carefully seeks to ensure that the liturgical regulations are observed with precision, and that abuses are prevented or eliminated whenever they are detected”.37 In this regard, according to the tradition of the universal Church, pre-eminent solicitude is accorded the celebration of Holy Mass, and also to the worship that is given to the Holy Eucharist even outside Mass.

[18.] Christ’s faithful have the right that ecclesiastical authority should fully and efficaciously regulate the Sacred Liturgy lest it should ever seem to be "anyone’s private property, whether of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated".38

Furthermore, the document states that:

27.] As early as the year 1970, the Apostolic See announced the cessation of all experimentation as regards the celebration of Holy Mass62 and reiterated the same in 1988.63 Accordingly, individual Bishops and their Conferences do not have the faculty to permit experimentation with liturgical texts or the other matters that are prescribed in the liturgical books. In order to carry out experimentation of this kind in the future, the permission of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments is required. It must be in writing, and it is to be requested by the Conference of Bishops. In fact, it will not be granted without serious reason. As regards projects of inculturation in liturgical matters, the particular norms that have been established are strictly and comprehensively to be observed.64

In addition, the document also makes clear that:

[7.] Not infrequently, abuses are rooted in a false understanding of liberty. Yet God has not granted us in Christ an illusory liberty by which we may do what we wish, but a liberty by which we may do that which is fitting and right.18 This is true not only of precepts coming directly from God, but also of laws promulgated by the Church, with appropriate regard for the nature of each norm. For this reason, all should conform to the ordinances set forth by legitimate ecclesiastical authority

…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 rein 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

/QUOTE]

Any additions to the Mass must come from the national episcopal conference, in our case, the USCCB and must be granted recognitio, approval, from the Holy See (in this case, the Congregation for Divnie Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments). Such adaptations can be made to the GIRM, or even after, but, they should come from the natinoal episcopal cnoference and have the approval of the Holy See.

Just because the celebrant may have the best of intentions, it does not give him the right to invent new practices and attach them to the Mass.

 

[Mystic_Warrior]

Raqui,
The “dismissal of the catechumens” has a historical and spiritual significance. In the early Church, the catechumens stayed for the “teaching” part of the Mass–the Liturgy of the Word as we now call it. The Liturgy of the Eucharist (or Mass of the Faithful) was reserved exclusively to the initiated. Back then, the Mass was truly an unknown mystery to anyone who did not attend it. They didn’t have published books, videos, or Mass on TV, so only initiated Christians even knew what happened in the Eucharistic celebration. Part of their initiation was that at the Easter Vigil, they were introduced to this second half of the Mass–quite literally introduced to it for the first time.

Nowadays, things are different of course. The dismissal of the catechumens is still an option. The purpose is for the catechumens to take part in additional instruction about the faith at that time. While this isn’t an absolute, in general if a parish is large enough to have proper “classes” so that the catechumens are truly doing something meaningful by leaving, you are more likely to see it happen. Either way (dismissing or not) is proper. It’s at the pastor’s discretion, although the preference certainly is to do it if it can truly be something meaningful and constructive. Since your catechist is the deacon, it might not be practical in your own parish for the deacon to leave the Mass to conduct more teaching. You’re not doing it wrong by staying.

As to the other question, the only people who should be going forward in the Communion line are those who are actually receiving Communion (whether those not receiving are Catholics or not makes no difference). It’s not the time to do blessings, or any other ritual or prayers. The person who told you to do this was giving you wrong information.

When I stated my intention to go to RCIA class, the pastor and RCIA director told me that I couldn’t receive communion, but that I could receive a blessing. I did see people go through the communion line and receive a blessing by crossing their arms in front of them instead of receiving communion. I didn’t go up for the blessing because I felt so awkward to begin with. I stayed for the entire services also.

I guess I’m confused at this point. It’s wrong to receive the blessing?

Peace…

MW

 

[benedictgal]

When I stated my intention to go to RCIA class, the pastor and RCIA director told me that I couldn’t receive communion, but that I could receive a blessing. I did see people go through the communion line and receive a blessing by crossing their arms in front of them instead of receiving communion. I didn’t go up for the blessing because I felt so awkward to begin with. I stayed for the entire services also.

I guess I’m confused at this point. It’s wrong to receive the blessing?

Peace…

MW

It’s not your fault. The folks advocating this practice have the best intentions, but, they are misguided. The letter written by the Congregation for Divine Worship notes that:

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).

Part and parcel of being Catholic is that we need to obey the directives of the Holy See, in this case, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, the department, if you will, that regulates the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Priests and bishops are just as much under obligation (even more so) to follow the norms set forth by the Congregaton because they are the ones resonsible for the celebration of the Mass.

The practice of imparting a blessing in lieu of distributing Holy Communion is currently under review by the Vatican. However, at the present time, it should not be employed. The Vatican might say yay or nay to the issue at a later time, but, for now, it’s a nay.

Actually, I think that you already have quite a bit of the Sensus Fidei (sense of the Faith) about you. The fact that this practice bothered you means that you have a good notion about the liturgy, specifically the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, in that, during the time of the distribution of Holy Communion, we form a line to receive Someone (Jesus), not something (a blessing) which will be imparted to everyone at the end of the Mass.

 

[Mystic_Warrior]

It’s not your fault. The folks advocating this practice have the best intentions, but, they are misguided. The letter written by the Congregation for Divine Worship notes that:

Part and parcel of being Catholic is that we need to obey the directives of the Holy See, in this case, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, the department, if you will, that regulates the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Priests and bishops are just as much under obligation (even more so) to follow the norms set forth by the Congregaton because they are the ones resonsible for the celebration of the Mass.

The practice of imparting a blessing in lieu of distributing Holy Communion is currently under review by the Vatican. However, at the present time, it should not be employed. The Vatican might say yay or nay to the issue at a later time, but, for now, it’s a nay.

Actually, I think that you already have quite a bit of the Sensus Fidei (sense of the Faith) about you. The fact that this practice bothered you means that you have a good notion about the liturgy, specifically the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, in that, during the time of the distribution of Holy Communion, we form a line to receive Someone (Jesus), not something (a blessing) which will be imparted to everyone at the end of the Mass.

Thanks for the information. I’ve seen many of these kinds of things in threads where the liturgy isn’t followed. And, I listen to a lot of CA radio . I guess I’m just puzzled as to why.

Thanks again!

Dominus Vobiscum,

MW

 

[zab]

However, zab, there exists a strict prohibition that nothing should be added nor subtracted from the Mass. Even though Redemptionis Sacramentum came out in 2004, it reiterates what the Church has said on this particular issue:

Furthermore, the document states that:

In addition, the document also makes clear that:

[7.] Not infrequently, abuses are rooted in a false understanding of liberty. Yet God has not granted us in Christ an illusory liberty by which we may do what we wish, but a liberty by which we may do that which is fitting and right.18 This is true not only of precepts coming directly from God, but also of laws promulgated by the Church, with appropriate regard for the nature of each norm. For this reason, all should conform to the ordinances set forth by legitimate ecclesiastical authority

 

[FrDavid96]

Do you have a reference as to where EMHC is the only term to be used? I’m not questioning it, I just never heard of that directive.

It would be interesting to know the reasoning in the difference; I don’t understand the significance.

Newbie2,

Here’s the relevant quote from Redemptionis Sacramentum:

[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.

These aren’t my words, but those of Pope John Paul II (I believe they were lifted directly from his earlier letter). As I said before, I don’t quite understand the vocabulary myself (willing to), but nevertheless that’s what the Church says.

 

[benedictgal]

Newbie2,

Here’s the relevant quote from Redemptionis Sacramentum:

[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.

These aren’t my words, but those of Pope John Paul II (I believe they were lifted directly from his earlier letter). As I said before, I don’t quite understand the vocabulary myself (willing to), but nevertheless that’s what the Church says.

Fr. David, this is the best stab that I can take at the wording. I believe that the Church, based on the quote that I posted in RS, refers to you and the bishop as the ordinary ministers of the Eucharist because only you and he can celebrate Mass and thus consecrate the species so that it will become the Eucharist. Holy Communion is, as I see it, the state of the Sacred Species after transubstantiation. Since the deacon cannot confect the Eucharist, I am guessing that the Church uses this term to factor him into the exquation. I could be wrong, but, that is the best theory I can come up with regarding the terminology.

 

[FrDavid96]

Fr. David, this is the best stab that I can take at the wording. I believe that the Church, based on the quote that I posted in RS, refers to you and the bishop as the ordinary ministers of the Eucharist because only you and he can celebrate Mass and thus consecrate the species so that it will become the Eucharist. Holy Communion is, as I see it, the state of the Sacred Species after transubstantiation. Since the deacon cannot confect the Eucharist, I am guessing that the Church uses this term to factor him into the exquation. I could be wrong, but, that is the best theory I can come up with regarding the terminology.

Well, I agree I suppose. I realy mean it when I keep saying that I’m still confused by it. Perhaps it’s a language thing. In English, we are so accustomed to using the words “Eucharist” and “Communion” interchangeably that any distinction between the two words is confusing to us (at least that’s how I see it). Perhaps in other languages such a distinction does exist, or perhaps John Paul was trying to make that distinction clear for the first time. I don’t know. All I know is that he said it, and we’re all bound to follow it. He had his reasons, I’m sure.

 

[Newbie2]

Newbie2,

Here’s the relevant quote from Redemptionis Sacramentum:

[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.

These aren’t my words, but those of Pope John Paul II (I believe they were lifted directly from his earlier letter). As I said before, I don’t quite understand the vocabulary myself (willing to), but nevertheless that’s what the Church says.

Thanks, Fr. I wish he’d have been more clear on why that distinction is made. Methinks you’re correct in that it may be a language thing, as we in America tend to use these interchangably.

That’s, I guess, why I haven’t been so concerned about using either term. In our parish, the main goal has been to get the EMHC, or EMEs as they’re known there, to mass early so that we know everyone has bothered to show up when they’re scheduled! Perhaps someday we’ll concern ourselves with other things.

 

[jmcrae]

As I understand it, “Eucharist” refers to the entire Liturgy of the Eucharist, whereas “Holy Communion” is the small section of the Liturgy of the Eucharist in which the distribution takes place. Also, what is distributed is also referred to as “Holy Communion” - hence, “First Holy Communion.” But not “First Eucharist,” unless it is also the child’s very first time attending Mass.

 

[FrDavid96]

Thanks, Fr. I wish he’d have been more clear on why that distinction is made. Methinks you’re correct in that it may be a language thing, as we in America tend to use these interchangably.

That’s, I guess, why I haven’t been so concerned about using either term. In our parish, the main goal has been to get the EMHC, or EMEs as they’re known there, to mass early so that we know everyone has bothered to show up when they’re scheduled! Perhaps someday we’ll concern ourselves with other things.

Hold on a sec… I didn’t say that the two terms (EME and EMHC) were interchangeable. The Pope had his reasons for saying what he said, and the fact that we might not understand it, doesn’t mean that we’re given a license to use the term “extraordinary minister of the Eucharist” especially since the Pope very specifically forbade the use of this term. Whatever that reason might be, it is there, and we need to not only respect his decision about the terms, but we’re also bound by obedience to him (and his successors) not to use a term which he has specifically said can’t be used.

I said that in English “Eucharist” and “Communion” are often used interchangeably. Big difference here.

 

[ASD]

Here’s what I do at OF Mass: (1) As quietly and unobtrusively as possible, get into the line going up to receive from an ordained Priest. (2) Receive on tongue.

Hey, I know EMHC are allowed now, but:

All things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient. 1 Cor 6:12

Regards, ASD​

Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar

 

[Newbie2]

Hold on a sec… I didn’t say that the two terms (EME and EMHC) were interchangeable. The Pope had his reasons for saying what he said, and the fact that we might not understand it, doesn’t mean that we’re given a license to use the term “extraordinary minister of the Eucharist” especially since the Pope very specifically forbade the use of this term. Whatever that reason might be, it is there, and we need to not only respect his decision about the terms, but we’re also bound by obedience to him (and his successors) not to use a term which he has specifically said can’t be used.

I said that in English “Eucharist” and “Communion” are often used interchangeably. Big difference here.

That’s what I meant too; didn’t mean to suggest that you implied that EMHC and EME were interchangable.

I wonder if any theologian has commented on the Pope’s reasoning for the distinction.

 

[Brendan]

I wonder if any theologian has commented on the Pope’s reasoning for the distinction.

That one is easy.

Every Sacrament has a minister.

In Baptism, the minister is the one who is pouring the water using the Trinitarian form.

In Reconcilliation, the minister is the validly ordained priest with faculties.

In Marriage, the minsiters are the couple themselves.

In Ordination, the minster is the validly ordained bishop.

In each case, the minsiter of the Sacrament is the one who confects ( or brings into being) the Sacrament.

In the Eucharist, the only possible minister is a validly ordained priest. No one else may confect the Sacrament, so no one else is a Minister of the Eucharist.

However, the Eucharist is not just confected, but it is also Communicated ( brought to the community).

That is a different ministry from the confection. That is the role of the Minister of Holy Communion.

A bishop, priest or deacon does this as an Ordinary part of thier particular ministry. A layperson may do this in an Extraordinary fashion.

As a little tidbit of info, there IS such a person as an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist. That would be a laicized priest. They still retain valid orders, and thus may confect the Eucharist, but may do so only in grave (Extraordinary) circumstances.

So if someone claimes to be an EME, they are, in fact, claiming to be a laicized priest