Catholic Liturgy - More on Blessings for Non-communicants

Zenit News Agency ^ | May 24, 2005 | Father Edward McNamara

[NYer]

Regarding our comments on blessings for non-communicants (see May 10), a reader asked if my opinion contradicted the following observations made by Archbishop Chaput of Denver, Colorado, in an article from 2003:

"As members of the community move forward to receive holy Communion during Mass, parents will often bring their small children along. Over the years, it has become a custom in many parishes for these children to receive a blessing. I don't really know where this practice began, but it's worth some reflection.

"Usually the children in line will look up expectantly at the person distributing holy Communion. The minister then responds by doing one of several things: He or she may pat the child's head, or touch the head in a sign of blessing, or mark the child's forehead with a sign of the cross. As warm and well intentioned as the gesture may be, in the context of the liturgy, the Communion procession really isn't the time for a blessing of children or adults who are unable to receive Communion.

"There are times in the liturgical year when the laity assist in specific acts of blessing, such as the blessing of throats or the distribution of ashes. These are clearly indicated in the Book of Blessings. But extraordinary ministers of holy Communion do not ordinarily have a commission to bless in the name of the Church, as priests and deacons do. At this point in the liturgy, they have a very specific function: to collaborate with the clergy in the distribution of holy Communion.

"As we'll explore in a later column, the blessing of the assembly properly occurs at the end of the Mass. As the body of Christ, the assembly is blessed together before we depart to live the fruits of the liturgy.

"What would be appropriate for children to do who accompany their parents in the Communion procession, and adults who do not receive Communion?

"The Communion procession is an opportunity for parents to begin to teach their children about the great gift of the Eucharist. First of all, children could learn to give reverence to the Lord hidden under the forms of bread and wine. Children can already learn from their parents, and others receiving holy Communion, to give honor to the Lord by bowing reverently.

"Parents and catechists should start teaching the mystery of the Eucharist at an early age. Children will soon begin to desire to receive holy Communion. This earnest desire to receive our Lord sacramentally is traditionally called a 'spiritual communion.' Regrettably, we don't talk about spiritual communion as we once did. But Thomas Aquinas, Alphonsus Liguori and many other great saints strongly encouraged spiritual communion as a practice.

"Both children and adults can make a spiritual communion. They may come forward with their arms crossed and bow before the Eucharist. Then the priest, deacon or extraordinary minister could say to them kindly, 'Receive the Lord Jesus in your heart.' This is not a blessing, but an invitation to worship, so no gestures are made.

"This spiritual communion would more authentically carry out the spirit of the liturgy. Being faithful to the truths of the sacramental celebration allows all of us, young and old, to enter more deeply into worship."

Does it contradict my previous article? All I can say, in typical Irish fashion is, well, yes and no.

The previous question did not refer to my personal opinion regarding the appropriateness of these blessings, but to whether they were permitted or not. The essence of my answer to that question was that the issue was not clear from a legal point of view and, barring an authoritative statement from the Holy See, it depended on the local authorities to judge the opportunity of accepting or rejecting this practice.

The admirable Archbishop Chaput has taken a characteristically lucid position on the issue, and, while his article is not a formal liturgical norm, it both clarifies the question for his archdiocese, and provides guidance to other pastors weighing the pros and cons of this still nascent custom.

However, the fact remains that many bishops have made approving comments regarding it and some have actually participated in such blessings. Thus the legal issue at the heart of the original question remains doubtful. Indeed, as one reader has helpfully informed me, the bishops' conference of England and Wales has published a fairly authoritative statement on this issue, to wit:

"Even though some in the assembly may not receive 'sacramental' Communion, all are united in some way by the Holy Spirit. The Traditional idea of spiritual communion is an important one to remember and re-affirm. The invitation often given at Mass to those who may not receive sacramental communion -- for example, children before their first communion and adults who are not Catholics -- to receive a 'blessing' at the moment of Communion emphasizes that a deep spiritual communion is possible even when we do not share together the Sacrament of the Body and blood of Christ" (the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales, "Celebrating the Mass: A Pastoral Introduction," (Catholic Truth Society, April 2005, In number 212, pg 95)."

I would note that the bishops here interpret the blessing itself as a kind of spiritual communion and so the basic thrust of their thinking is the same as that of Archbishop Chaput.

As the gauntlet has been hurled, so to speak, regarding my personal view, I admit to sharing Archbishop Chaput's misgivings as to the appropriateness of some practical aspects of imparting these blessings.

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.

My most serious hesitations, however, stem from a fear that, over time, the practice of giving blessings to non-communicants could create a new perception or mentality regarding Communion itself that makes it somehow equivalent to a blessing, thus weakening the special value that Communion should have for Catholics. This danger could be especially present in a school environment with a high proportion of non-Catholics who receive only a blessing. On the other hand, some priests have mentioned that it can lower the danger of sacrilegious communions in predominantly Catholic schools as children and adolescents find it easier to ask for a blessing than to stay (alone) in their pews.

Likewise, other priests have written to comment on the pastoral effectiveness of being able to offer Catholics in irregular situations an alternative to not approaching the Communion rail. One commented that one couple's receiving the blessing awoke a hunger for the Eucharist which spurred them to regularize their situation with the Church.

For the above situations I believe the archbishop's suggestion regarding formation in spiritual communion, or that of the British bishops in interpreting the invitation to receive a blessing as spiritual communion, are invaluable and may be even more pastorally effective than a simple blessing per se. It may be harder to apply, however, to non-Catholics.

This brings us to a related question of some members of the Legion of Mary in California who generously offer their services as extraordinary ministers of Communion in an assisted-living facility with a large proportion of non-Catholics.

They ask: "We also know that, as extraordinary ministers of Communion, we cannot bless anyone, but we do ask Jesus or God to bless them. What is the proper form of blessing that we can offer our Protestant brethren? We customarily offer this type of blessing in lieu of sharing Communion: 'May God Bless you and keep you close to him.'

"Is it proper for extraordinary ministers to lay on hands or to make the sign of the cross on the head, or over the head, of the person receiving the blessing? Is it proper to anoint the head of the person receiving the blessing with holy water?

"We want to act properly in the full spirit of the Holy Father's call for evangelization by the lay apostolates, without overstepping into ritual behavior that is the proper domain of the consecrated priesthood."

From what has been said above I would suggest that you avoid ritual gestures that might cause confusion, especially to the Catholics present. However, the formulas provided for the extraordinary ministers of Communion in the ritual for Communion outside of Mass could also be used in the presence of non-Catholics. They usually have a third person plural formula such as "May the Lord bless us, keep us from all evil and bring us to everlasting life."

If you wish to offer some spiritual activity to all present beyond the Communion service, then, with the permission of the parish priest, you could offer some acceptable common prayer once the Communion service has been finished -- for example, praying an hour of the Divine Office, which is almost totally scriptural, would be one possibility.

While liturgical law restricts to ordained ministers the imparting of liturgical blessings, lay people are not forbidden from using similar gestures in non-liturgical settings. For example, in some counties parents commonly make the sign of the cross over and bless their children as they leave for school.

While on the subject of blessings, a deacon requested if "the deacon may use the same formula as the presbyter and perform the same action of making the sign of the cross over the person(s) to be blessed?"

The short answer is yes. The deacon may impart most of the same blessings as a priest and uses the same liturgical gestures. If a priest is present however, he should defer to him.

Finally, a lay woman from Canada asks: "At the opening of the Mass and its closing we are blessed by the priest. I have traditionally blessed myself following reception of the Eucharistic species. However, I recently read that this is inappropriate in that it interferes with the unifying theme of the initial and closing blessings by the priest. What is the meaning of blessing oneself after reception of Eucharist? And, what is considered appropriate at this time in our Church's history?"

Strictly speaking, the priest does not bless us at the beginning of Mass; rather, we all make the sign of the cross together as a sign of faith. The only proper blessing is that at the end of Mass which is a concluding blessing before the faithful are sent forth to continue their Christian mission in the world.

Your custom of crossing yourself (also sometimes called blessing oneself) after receiving Communion is simply an act of private devotion and an expression of faith in what one has received. It does no harm whatsoever to the symbolism of the Mass and probably does you a lot of spiritual good.

[Romulus]

You persist in referring to EEMs, even though I've explained that the category does not exist. You cling to it, I suppose, because you imagine it bolsters your argument.

Your obstinacy disappoints me, but I can't complain that I'm surprised.

[te lucis]

You persist in referring to EEMs, even though I've explained that the category does not exist.

EMHC, then. Wrapping it up in different initials desn't make it any more appealing.

You cling to it, I suppose, because you imagine it bolsters your argument.

This isn't my fight, thank God. You poor folks in the Indult, though... Where do you draw the line? Do they use altar girls, too?

Your obstinacy disappoints me, but I can't complain that I'm surprised.

Nor can I. EEM's and God know what other kind of Novus Ordo garbage at the Indult. Nothing will surprise me again, except the numbers of people lining up to swallow it. Pun intended.

[annalex]

You may be talking past one another.

Novus Ordo churches routinely have what they call Eucharistic Ministers who help distribute Communion. Sometimes they are women. Sometimes there is no logistical need for them, as the congregation is small enough for the priest or the priest and the deacon to do the job in a timely manner. The Eucharistic Ministers often understand their position as a recognition of standing and therefore an entitlement, not conditional on the logistical need for help. It is nevertheless made clear that they merely distribute the sacrament consecrated by the priest.

The Vatican instructs that the above is liturgical abuse. Institutions such as EWTN feature speakers that insist on the term Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers, who should be men, and should be employed when and only when the priest needs logistical help.

[te lucis]

You may be talking past one another.

No, we understand each other perfectly.

[sempertrad]

Do they use altar girls, too?

I've heard about an indult in Florida that uses altar girls. I also heard that if the indult is in a diocese whose bishop permits altar girls at the NO parishes, and a girl requests to serve at the indult, she must be permitted to do so.

[annalex]

Romulus said that the Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers, also known as Extraordinary Ministers of the Holy Communion are category that does not exist, and I know it exists at least post-Vatican II, so I suspect a confusion. I don't know how the Indult treats the issue or how it was treated pre-Vatican II.

[Romulus]

No woman enters the sanctuary during Mass, except for rare charitable appeals, delivered from the lecturn (not pulpit) by religious sisters after Holy Communion. TL, I trust you find this additional matter for outrage.

[te lucis]

TL, I trust you find this additional matter for outrage.

Again, this isn't my fight. In fact, I appreciate any effort by the Novus Ordo to make people seek refuge with the SSPX or Independent chapels. If you can live with a Latin-ized Novus Ordo, that's your problem.

[Dominick]

In Redemptionis Sacramentum:
[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, for one occasion or for a specified time, and an appropriate formula of blessing may be used for the occasion.

So there is a job to do, and the Bishop may appoint laymen to the job. It isn't an Instituted Office, it is a job that is delegated from the Bishop, for a specific time frame.


The kicker:
[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.

So the Bishop may designate an EMHC, for a specific time frame, at a specific Parish. This permission needs to be renewed. I am not sure if this can be devolved to the Pastor, but I bet that it is that way, in practice.

Romulus is correct there is no such thing as a EEM, there can't be, there may only be an EMHC, for a specific time. It is analogous to the usher, an usher is the usher for only the time he is ushering. One is not ordained an usher, and one can't be ordained an EMHC.

[Romulus]

I repeat: there is no such thing as an Extraordinary Eucharistic Minister. Although this term is in widespread use, it's not licit. See below:

CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP AND THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENT INSTRUCTION
Redemptionis Sacramentum
On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist

[45.] To be avoided is the danger of obscuring the complementary relationship between the action of clerics and that of laypersons, in such a way that the ministry of laypersons undergoes what might be called a certain “clericalization”, while the sacred ministers inappropriately assume those things that are proper to the life and activity of the lay faithful.[116]

[146.] There can be no substitute whatsoever for the ministerial Priesthood. For if a Priest is lacking in the community, then the community lacks the exercise and sacramental function of Christ the Head and Shepherd, which belongs to the essence of its very life.[247] For “the only minister who can confect the sacrament of the Eucharist in persona Christi is a validly ordained Priest”.[248]

[147.] When the Church’s needs require it, however, if sacred ministers are lacking, lay members of Christ’s faithful may supply for certain liturgical offices according to the norm of law.[249] Such faithful are called and appointed to carry out certain functions, whether of greater or lesser weight, sustained by the Lord’s grace. Many of the lay Christian faithful have already contributed eagerly to this service and still do so, especially in missionary areas where the Church is still of small dimensions or is experiencing conditions of persecution,[250] but also in areas affected by a shortage of Priests and Deacons.

[149.] More recently, in some dioceses long since evangelized, members of Christ’s lay faithful have been appointed as “pastoral assistants”, and among them many have undoubtedly served the good of the Church by providing assistance to the Bishop, Priests and Deacons in the carrying out of their pastoral activity. Let care be taken, however, lest the delineation of this function be assimilated too closely to the form of pastoral ministry that belongs to clerics. That is to say, attention should be paid to ensuring that “pastoral assistants do not take upon themselves what is proper to the ministry of the sacred ministers.

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.

[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.

[116] Cf. Pope John Paul II, Allocution to the Conference of Bishops of the Antilles, 7 May 2002, n. 2: AAS 94 (2002) pp. 575-577; Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation, Christifideles laici, 30 December 1988, n. 23: AAS 81 (1989) pp. 393-521, here pp. 429-431; Congregation for the Clergy et al., Instruction, Ecclesiae de mysterio, 15 August 1997, Theological Principles, n. 4: AAS 89 (1997) pp. 860-861.

[247] Cf. Congregation for the Clergy, and others, Instruction, Ecclesiae de mysterio, Theological Principles, n. 3: AAS 89 (1997) p. 859.

[248] Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 900 § 1; cf. Fourth Lateran Ecumenical Council, 11-30 November 1215, Chapter 1: DS802; Pope Clement VI, Letter to Mekhitar, Catholicos of the Armenians, Super quibusdam, 29 September 1351: DS 1084; Ecumenical Council of Trent, Sessio XXIII, 15 July 1563, Doctrine and Canons on Sacred Orders., Chapter 4: DS 1767-1770; Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Letter, Mediator Dei: AAS 39 (1947) p. 553.

[249] Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 230 § 3; Pope John Paul II, Allocution during a Symposium concerning the collaboration of laypersons in the pastoral ministry of Priests, 22 April 1994, n. 2: L’Osservatore Romano, 23 April 1994; Congregation for the Clergy et al., Instruction, Ecclesiae de mysterio, Prooemium: AAS 89 (1997) pp. 852-856.

[250] Cf. Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter, Redemptoris missio, nn. 53-54: AAS 83 (1991) pp. 300-302; Congregation for the Clergy et al., Instruction, Ecclesiae de mysterio, Prooemium: AAS 89 (1997) pp. 852-856.

[254] Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 900 § 1.

[255] Cf. ibidem, can. 910 § 1; cf. also Pope John Paul II, Letter, Dominicae Cenae, n. 11: AAS 72 (1980) p. 142; Congregation for the Clergy et al., Instruction, Ecclesiae de mysterio, Practical Provisions, art. 8 § 1: AAS 89 (1997) pp. 870-871.

[256] Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 230 § 3.

[257] Cf. S. Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments, Instruction, Immensae caritatis, prooemium: AAS 65 (1973) p. 264; Pope Paul VI, Apostolic Letter (Motu Proprio), Ministeria quaedam, 15 August 1972: AAS 64 (1972) p. 532; Missale Romanum, Appendix III: Ritus ad deputandum ministrum sacrae Communionis ad actum distribuendae, p. 1253; Congregation for the Clergy et al., Instruction, Ecclesiae de mysterio, Practical Provisions, art. 8 § 1: AAS 89 (1997) p. 871.

[258] S. Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship, Instruction, Inaestimabile donum, n. 10: AAS 72 (1980) p. 336; Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of the Code of Canon Law, Response to dubium, 11 July 1984: AAS 76 (1984) p. 746.

[annalex]

Romulus is correct there is no such thing as a EEM, there can't be, there may only be an EMHC

That is what I was not aware of. I thought they were synonymous. Thank you.

[Romulus]

Again, this isn't my fight.

You are so right. It's a Catholic thing.

[te lucis]

lol!

[te lucis]

I repeat: there is no such thing as an Extraordinary Eucharistic Minister. Although this term is in widespread use, it's not licit.

For purposes of this thread, I think it's safe to say that no one cares.

[Romulus]

God know what other kind of Novus Ordo garbage at the Indult. Nothing will surprise me again, except the numbers of people lining up to swallow it. Pun intended.

In your reckless haste, you have inadvertently blasphemed the Blessed Sacrament as "garbage". If you'll petition the Religion Moderator to amend your post, I'll ask that he delete this reference to it as well.

[Dominick]

For purposes of this thread, I think it's safe to say that no one cares.

????????

[te lucis]

If you'll petition the Religion Moderator to amend your post, I'll ask that he delete this reference to it as well.

I'll do no such thing. You, however, may feel free to petition him/her for my permanent banning, and he/she may fire at will if he/she feels it's warranted.

[Romulus]

I have no wish to see you banned. Indeed, I regret the recent bannings of other trads. As a matter of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament, whose special feast we're about to celebrate, I thought you might want to remove something intemperate that might be misconstrued.

[gbcdoj]

if the indult is in a diocese whose bishop permits altar girls at the NO parishes, and a girl requests to serve at the indult, she must be permitted to do so.

False, at least according to the law.

In accord with the above cited instructions of the Holy See such an authorization may not, in any way, exclude men or, in particular, boys from service at the altar, nor require that priests of the diocese would make use of female altar servers, since "it will always be very appropriate to follow the noble tradition of having boys serve at the altar" (Circular Letter to the Presidents of Episcopal Conference, March 15, 1994, no. 2). (CDW / Cardinal Medina, Prot. N.2451/00/L, July 27, 2001)

[annalex]

Your #42 is blasphemous, and your attempt in #57 to use it to strike a pose of one on the verge of being banned, when no such call has been made, makes the blasphemy intentional.