A reader writes:
Jimmy, over at Amy Welborne’s blog there is a discussion in the comments about the licit-ness of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion [EMHCs]giving those who can not receive Eucharist a blessing. This is a common practice in my parish and as an EMHC, I’ve frequently given these blessings. Is this acceptable?
I haven’t read what Amy or others have said on this subject, so I can’t comment on that directly, but I can give you my take on the question.
The problem is that the law is unclear in this area and seems to be in flux.
Here’s the starting point.
Canon law provides that:
Can. 846 §1. In celebrating the sacraments the
liturgical books approved by competent authority are to be observed faithfully;
accordingly, no one is to add, omit, or alter anything in them on one’s own
authority.
To create a new sub-ritual within the rite of Mass of going up in the Communion line to receive a blessing would seem to be adding something to what is provided for in the liturgical books. Therefore it would not ordinarily be permitted under canon 846 §1.
That being said, I think that a good case can be made that a priest can do it. Priests are clearly authorized to give blessings and they can, for an adequate reason, pause the celebration of Mass as it is prescribed in the liturgical books. For example, if a plane flies overhead, the priest can stop talking until he can again be heard. Similarly, if there is an earthquake, he can wait until it passes. If gunmen break into the church, he can duck under the altar (or push other ministers at the altar to safety, or give the congregation an emergency general absolution in case any of them are fatally shot, etc.).
Those two principles being established, it seems to me that if someone approaches a priest for a blessing then, rather than turning the person away (and possibly crushing them with embarrassment and maybe even alienating them from the Church, especially if they are a non-Catholic) that he would be within his rights to pause his distribution of Communion in order to give the person a blessing.
I would not, however, say that he is (yet) within his rights to encourage people to come up and do this, per canon 846. It’s one thing to respond to a pastoral situation that is forced on one; it is another thing to encourage that pastoral situation to arise.
The same reasoning likely applies to deacons.
The problem is that in this country EMHCs are massively over-used, and thus many laypeople find themselves in precisely the situation that you mention. Laity generally are not allowed to give blessings in church settings, but they are allowed to do so in some circumstances (the Book of Blessings indicates most of those). Laity are not expressly permitted to give blessings at Communion time, and so by the letter of the law they shouldn’t be doing it. The problem is that the way Italians write law, they frequently will countenance unwritten exceptions to the law for pastoral reasons, and a person serving as an EMHC who is approached by someone wanting a blessing is arguably in such a pastorally exceptional circumstance.
The phenomenon has become so widespread that we really need Rome to give us some guidance on it, and until then I can’t fault EMHCs who go ahead and give blessings unless the pastor of the parish has told them not to. (He presumably knows that they are doing this and if he says nothing to the contrary about it, it’s a form of tacit concent. As the man in charge of the liturgy in his parish, he’s the one who’s responsible for regulating situations in which the laity aren’t expressly forbidden by law to do something.)
If an EMHC does give such blessings, I would keep two things in mind:
- I would keep the blessing as simple as possible (e.g., just saying "God bless you" and not doing anything with my hands), and
- I would definitely refrain from making the sign of the cross over the person with the Eucharist (this would constitute Eucharistic benediction, which is expressly forbidden to the laity by law).
I suspect that we will be hearing from Rome on this subject before too long, and I suspect that the answer will be that the giving of blessings at Communion time is approved.
This is one of the topics that’s scheduled for discussion at the Synod on the Eucharist next month, and the vibe I’m getting is that the folks over in Rome (and elsewhere) are thinking of such blessings as a pretty good way of addressing the problem of people who are not qualified to receive Communion being able to participate without feeling like they need to receive when they shouldn’t be receiving.
This is not a case of liberals doing something until conservatives finally capitulate and allow it (as was the case with altar girls). It’s a case of the folks in Rome hearing about an unauthorized practice and going, "Hey! That sounds like a good idea!"
For Rome, it would be an attempt to find a solution to a real pastoral problem (people who aren’t qualified to receive Communion either feeling pressured to receive or feeling totally left out) and the folks in Rome seeing this as a potential way to cut the Gordian knot. They really want to cut down on the number of people making unworthy Communions (including non-Catholics who are in attendance), but they also want to make that as easy on the people as they can, and they’re seeing this as a promising possibility.
I therefore suspect that there will be some kind of general approval of the practice in the future.
This does not mean that they will say that it’s okay for laity to do. They may approve the action only for priests, or they may approve it without saying who can do it, or they may even expressly forbid the laity to do it, but if they approve it for priests then it will be inevitable that laity end up doing it, too, and eventually that’ll get approve just to end the confusion.
So, while the liturgical policeman in me wants to 846 this practice, I can see that the writing is probably on the wall.
I think the problem is the confusion between the Priest and the laity. Many people may think they are getting the Church’s blessing and not that person’s. I also thing it may encourage non Catholics to receive Communion. If it was up for a vote , I’ll say no. But hey, I’m not the Pope.
Jimmy,
Your informative explanation (on EMHC & priests giving blessings to people approaching for Communion) was a blessing to read, and I wanted to get your view of my experiences at a couple parishes in the Detroit area.
At an old, famous & well-attended suburban parish, w/a proliferation of EMHC at all Masses, I’ve seen EMHC blessings using word & hand together, though I’ve not seen them done with Eucharist in hand. I presume this practice has been explicitly OK’d by the pastor, though I’ve never checked. Often, these blessings are given to pre-First Communion children. Licit or not, as EMHC aren’t ordained, I didn’t think these blessings could mean anything spiritually, in conveying God’s grace.
Now, at my current home parish, a European-rooted, very orthodox missionary church growing rapidly with suburban migrant parishioners of various ethinicities like myself … I’ve only seen EMHC used less than half a dozen times over several years. We have 2 deacons, along with several retired and visiting priests, to give Communion. Now, at wedding Masses and other occasions, our pastor has encouraged non-Catholics (& those faithful not in state of grace) to approach for Communion with their arms folded across their chest,to signify their wish to receive a blessing, instead of the Eucharist. Our parish priests will also bless pre-First Communion children.
In canon law or not, I’m sure the Vatican will rule that there’s nothing amiss, and much spiritually good, with the faithful receiving graces from any priestly blessing during Mass. An example of different circumstance, I oce witnessed, was a visiting Italian cardinal blessing small children, as he walked in the closing procession of a Mass at a Catholic conference.
God Bless,
Tim Marino
Thank you Jimmy for your tireless work and your answer.
It’s funny how “cultural practices” can become so prevalent as to seem to be part of prescribed Liturgy. I’m a convert (6 years now) living in the same diocese all those years. In my diocese this is accepted practice (at least at every parish I’ve been to). We tell our EMHC’s of the practice and HOW to bless those who come up with their arms folded. We also ENCOURAGE all those in RCIA to come up with their arms folded for a blessing and have never differentiated between the Priest and the EMHCs. Since this was my experience as a Catholic, I had assumed it was part of the liturgical texts. It was shocking to me to find out that it isn’t.
I think there is a lesson for us all in my experience, to be careful as to what we assume is part of the prescribed liturgy and what is a “cultural practice”.
Thanks again.
Blessing from a priest on the communion line was always a delight to me as a child before making my First Communion. Since small children can’t be left alone at their seats while parents receive, it seems much better for them to at least be acknowledged in this manner than completely ignored. Baptism welcomes these children into the Church, and while not full members until Confirmation, participation at this most exciting point of the Mass goes a long way to making a child feel a part of the Body of Christ.
I do hope that EMH’s are soon approved for the practice of blessing during communion, since, like so many parishes in the U.S. today, my own does not have enough priests to administer the Eucharist to our packed-full church every Sunday.
Jimmy:
Could you post on the theology and logic of blessings, so we may undertand why lay people may not ordinarily bless each other, despite the fact that we all share in Christ’s priesthood? I never understood this.
It’s funny how “cultural practices” can become so prevalent as to seem to be part of prescribed Liturgy.
Local customs that are not contrary to the rubrics and do not violate the order of Mass arise from place to place, and they are usually considered legitimate unless supressed by a higher authority.
When considering customs as variations to the liturgy, one must keep in mind three points. First, customs arise from the spontaneous act of the people. They are not imposed as a required action by higher authority. Second, customs can be suppressed by higher authority. Finally, legitimate customs never violate the intended order of a liturgy or suggest a different interpretation of a liturgical act.
I think in many cases, EMHC blessings are arising from a spontaneous act of the people. Someone comes to the EM, but not to receive the Sacrament. Not knowing what to do, the EM extends a kind of blessing, like priests and deacons do.
The third point is where EMHC blessings will probably meet the most trouble, and they may be supressed for that reason.
A classic example of a legitimate local custom is kneeling after the Agnus Dei (Lamb of God) during the Ordo Missae. Kneeling at this time is not required in the rubrics, but it also does not suggest any different interpretation of the actions of the Mass, nor does it break the intended order of the liturgy. It may be legitimately supressed by a higher authority, but it usually isn’t.
At one parish where I served as parochial vicar, we resolved the issue by telling the EMHC that they could not give blessings – or even use the word. However, we encouraged them to say a short prayer when someone approached them, such as “May you always walk in the ways of the Lord!” or “Give thanks to the Lord always!” Some may see this as a distinction without a difference. But it did keep us within the letter of the law, and also to accommodate the heartfelt desire of non-communicants to participate and not to be left conspicuously alone in the pew.
Of course, every action may be misinterpreted. In one parish, where every week the pastor put his hand on the head of small children and blessed them in the communion line, one child was heard to say: “I hope that this week when Father measures me I’m big enough to get Communion.”
I hope this isn’t cold-hearted of me, but why can’t children remain in their seats? I did before my first Communion. It just seems to me that all of these kids going up to the altar creates unnecessary activity during what should be a solemn event. Children should be able to sit still long enough for parents to receive Communion.
Our pastor gave a very good explanation of this and also mentioned that blessings during communion seemed to overshadow the general blessing at the end of mass and thus discouraged people from coming up at communion and/or allowing children to come up. As an EMHC we were instructed NOT to give any kind of blessing, but a greeting would be fine if approached. Usually, I just touch the forehead with my 3 non-host fingers (middle, ring, pinky)and say “peace be with you.”
I hope this isn’t cold-hearted of me, but why can’t children remain in their seats?
Some children are too young to leave unattended.
I also think it’s likely that more people would be annoyed by unattended small children than they are by children being held or led by the hand in the communion line.
I did before my first Communion.
If I had my druthers, small children would receive the Sacrament like everyone else, as I did growing up.
People get attached to the way things were for them 🙂
Children should be able to sit still long enough for parents to receive Communion.
I don’t think you’re cold-hearted, Anon, so much as naive 🙂
Eric:Could you post on the theology and logic of blessings, so we may undertand why lay people may not ordinarily bless each other, despite the fact that we all share in Christ’s priesthood? I never understood this.
Laity ordinarily cannot bless someone in liturgical settings. In prayer groups, non-liturgical settings, and especially the home; laity can give blessings (I give them to my child every night – I see it as part of my duty as a Christian Father).
Anon:why can’t children remain in their seats?
You don’t have a 2-year old, do you 🙂 Or a 2-week old.
All it would take is one kid wandering off while his/her parents were receiving communion to invite disaster.
Sad, sad, sad. More blurring of the laity and priesthood. When we keep stealing the priestly identity from our fathers they are MUCH less motivated to be fathers.
My oldest 3 children all were kept in the pews once they were old enough to understand “stay” (4 years or so). We wanted to encourage them to “thirst” for Jesus.
It’s funny that the whole idea of EMHCs was that people shouldn’t have to wait so long in line. With all of this blessing going on, it seems like just having the priest distribute would be a sum game.
Just some thoughts from an old woman.
All it would take is one kid wandering off while his/her parents were receiving communion to invite disaster.
And that’s only one of the problems…
Reason #3429309 to bring back altar rails.
They allow quicker distribution of communion without the need for extraordinary ministers.
bring back altar rails. They allow quicker distribution of communion without the need for extraordinary ministers.
That’s my experience too.
as EMHC aren’t ordained, I didn’t think these blessings could mean anything spiritually, in conveying God’s grace.
Tim, I’m not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate a bit? I understand this in regard to sacraments, but to blessings, it’s more difficult.
Phil;
It’s fairly simple. Christ gave that ability / Authority to the Apostles. He gave them the Authority to bind and loose. So only the ordained have the Authority and ability to bestow the blessings of the Church, the laity (non-ordained) do not. The laity do have certain abilities to give blessings, as indicated above, such as a parent to their child and there are some others examples.
Similarly I do not have Authority to make Federal decisions and actions (despite my name). Any attempt for me to do so would be silly and possibly illegal.
Okay, maybe I should have been more clear. (Thanks for the ‘naive’ comment, by the way, pha)
My point is the same as momof5’s. If they’re too young to be kept alone, then yes, bring them up with you (with the understanding that you would receive on the tongue if your hands are otherwise busy holding a baby or your toddler’s hands).
No, I don’t have a two year old or a two week old (yet), and I don’t expect anybody to leave their two year old unattended. However, a 4 or 5 year old is more than capable of staying in his seat with the added benefit that they learn that something special is happening instead of just going up to say hi to Father.
a 4 or 5 year old is more than capable of staying in his seat
Correction: some 4 or 5 year olds are capable of staying in their seats unattended without disrupting other people. My rambunctious and clingy nephew, adopted into the family at age four, is probably not among them.
But some people wouldn’t want to leave even their best-behaved children unattended anywhere, and I understand their concern too. It only takes a couple of minutes for something irreversably disastrous or even fatal to occur, as some parents know all too well.
So if you want to leave your children in the pews, go ahead. But if other people don’t, they may have good reasons not to.
pha,
Fair enough. It was just a possible solution to the EMHC blessing question. There was a time when this wasn’t an issue and more children staying in their seats would lessen this issue.
My 3 and 4 year-olds (add one year come October) could generally handle staying in the pews.
Free advice: Do not let your children entertain themselves at mass. Leave the crayons, the books, and the cereal at home. After a month, the difference will shock you.
Finally, I’ve found that there are other factors involved in this. Some of the newer churches seem to be designed (not assigning fault) so that remaining in the pew would be difficult. It is one thing to step into the aisle, let 5 people pass, and go back to sitting or kneeling. It is quite another to have 15 or 20 people do so.
I haven’t read the “Instruction on Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of Priest” (Ecclesiae de Mysterio, 1997) in many years, but these passages looked like they might be relevant:
Article 1. Need for an Appropriate Terminology. ß 3. The non-ordained faithful may be generically designated “extraordinary ministers” when deputed by competent authority to discharge, solely by way of supply, those offices mentioned in Canon 230,ß3 and in Canons 943 and 1112. Naturally, the concrete term may be applied to those to whom functions are canonically entrusted e.g. catechists, acolytes, lectors etc.
Temporary deputation for liturgical purposes – mentioned in Canon 230, ß 2 – does not confer any special or permanent title on the non-ordained faithful.57
It is unlawful for the non-ordained faithful to assume titles such as “pastor”, “chaplain”, “coordinator”, ” moderator” or other such similar titles which can confuse their role and that of the Pastor, who is always a Bishop or Priest.
Article 6. Liturgical Celebrations. ß 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.
In the same way, the use of sacred vestments which are reserved to priests or deacons (stoles, chasubles or dalmatics) at liturgical ceremonies by non-ordained members of the faithful is clearly unlawful.
Every effort must be made to avoid even the appearance of confusion which can spring from anomalous liturgical practices. As the sacred ministers are obliged to wear all of the prescribed liturgical vestments so too the non-ordained faithful may not assume that which is not proper to them.
To avoid any confusion between sacramental liturgical acts presided over by a priest or deacon, and other acts which the non-ordained faithful may lead, it is always necessary to use clearly distinct ceremonials, especially for the latter.
Article 8. The Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. ß 2. Extraordinary ministers may distribute Holy Communion at eucharistic celebrations only when there are no ordained ministers present or when those ordained ministers present at a liturgical celebration are truly unable to distribute Holy Communion. They may also exercise this function at eucharistic celebrations where there are particularly large numbers of the faithful and which would be excessively prolonged because of an insufficient number of ordained ministers to distribute Holy Communion.
This function is supplementary and extraordinary and must be exercised in accordance with the norm of law. It is thus useful for the diocesan bishop to issue particular norms concerning extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion which, in complete harmony with the universal law of the Church, should regulate the exercise of this function in his diocese. Such norms should provide, amongst other things, for matters such as the instruction in eucharistic doctrine of those chosen to be extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, the meaning of the service they provide, the rubrics to be observed, the reverence to be shown for such an august Sacrament and instruction concerning the discipline on admission to Holy Communion.
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;
– association with the renewal of promises made by priests at the Chrism Mass on Holy Thursday, as well as other categories of faithful who renew religious vows or receive a mandate as extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion;
– the habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass thus arbitrarily extending the concept of “a great number of the faithful”.
Many churches are in neighborhoods where no child should be left behind in the pew.
From what I understand, the laity are not supposed to perform blessings liturgically because it is ordination that authorizes someone to bless in the name of the Church.
I think that the use of EMHC is well-intentioned, but I wish that more parishes would just obey the law of the Church (wouldn’t that solve a few problems? 🙂 ). These ministers are called “Extraordinary” intentionally – it is not required for the laity to receive the Eucharist under the species of wine to validly receive the sacrament, as any older Roman Catholic can attest from experience.
I have had the practice, when I’ve attended a Catholic mass, of going forward, crossing my hands over my chest, bowing my head, and receiving the priest’s blessing. I’m not allowed, as a member of an evangelical movement kicked out of the Church nearly 500 years ago, to receive the Body and the Blood, but I do believe that that is what Is, there, and I want to show my solidarity with the Blessed Sacrament there celebrated. And when last summer, a boyhood friend of mine, now a priest, laid his hands on me and blessed me, I felt that sensation of ‘flames of fire’ on my head such as I had not since I was in the Charismatic movement, long ago. No, I haven’t told him.
In my local congregation (of the evangelical movement of the Augsburg Confession of the (well, we think and believe) Catholic Church), our pastor does bless the children who come forward to the altar rail. They also get a ‘goldfish’, which I wonder at. An elder distributes the Host, after it is blessed by the pastor. Our pastor distributes the Cup himself. FWIW, for information purposes only.
I have had the practice, when I’ve attended a Catholic mass, of going forward, crossing my hands over my chest, bowing my head, and receiving the priest’s blessing.
Some priests actively encourage this. And personally, I don’t see anything wrong with priests inviting people who won’t be receiving the Sacrament to receive a blessing. Among Eastern Christians, reception of the antidoron sometimes serves this purpose.
I do have a problem with Western priests telling people to cross their hands over their chest as “the signal” that they will not be receiving the Sacrament. Why? Because Byzantine Rite Catholics, like many other Eastern Christians, cross their hands on their chest while receiving the Sacrament. That’s how it’s done.
So when an Eastern Catholic goes to receive Communion in a Western Catholic parish, confusion often ensues. The Eastern Catholic crosses his hands according to his habit. The Western priest blesses him and doesn’t give him the Sacrament, misinterpreting the normal Eastern pose for reception as “the signal.” Then the Communion line gets held up momentarily while they try to figure out between themselves what went wrong. You may think it doesn’t happen, but I’ve seen this happen many times.
So if Western priests are going to have a “signal,” I think it should be a gesture no Catholic Church uses with contrary meaning, like putting one’s fingers over his mouth.
I am all against the EMHC giving a blessing because it is one thing to distribute Communion which was consecrated by the Priest. It is another thing to give a blessing as though you were a Priest. Another thing: you would be better off going to the Holy Water font than going to an EMHC for a blessing, because at least that has the Priestly power invested in it.
Here’s a situation: Last Sunday I carried my 18 mo. old son up to communion with me. The EMCH quite surprised me by trying to bless my son after giving me communion, as I was preparing to move to the cup. Adding to the confusion was that she could not reach my son’s forehead! It was awkward and I was somewhat irritated. I came to recieve Christ in the eucharist, not to have my son blessed. Is it sinful of me to feel irritated at this or should I let it slide and, next time, allow the blessing to occur?????
“It was awkward and I was somewhat irritated.”
Norman,
I too, have felt irritated when EMCH try to bestow a blessing (with the sign of the cross) on the forehead of my children. I’ve even gone as far as to restrain/block their attempt – much to their surprise.
In order to avoid this, when possible, I will change lines to be sure to receive communion from a Priest or Deacon who is properly ordained to bestow a blessing.
Hi Jim,
regarding your comments in 2005:
This is one of the topics that’s scheduled for discussion at the Synod on the Eucharist next month, and the vibe I’m getting is that the folks over in Rome (and elsewhere) are thinking of such blessings as a pretty good way of addressing the problem of people who are not qualified to receive Communion being able to participate without feeling like they need to receive when they shouldn’t be receiving.
————–
did anything come out about this. I’m asking 3 years later if any updates have eventuated as we have the problem in our parish also.
many thanks for any feedback
marie