Approaching the priest at Holy Communion for blessing

[Phemie]

could you point me to where,within these documents, it says that communicants are not to approach the priest, or EMHC for a blessing. Thanks in advance. I have printed out the letter, and would like to bring this to my pastors attention.

The letter refers to specific documents and specific areas of those documents. All but one are available online.

 

[Tigg]

Blessings have been entrusted to Priests by the Church.

BUT NOT within the context of the Sacred Liturgy except for the final blessing. The practice of blessing **in the communion line **was added in this country in violation to the norm that nothing may be added or deleted from the Mass.

 

[maryj]

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments is quite official and authoritative.

could you point me to where,within these documents, it says that communicants are not to approach the priest, or EMHC for a blessing. Thanks in advance. I have printed out the letter, and would like to bring this to my pastors attention.

The letter refers to specific documents and specific areas of those documents. All but one are available online.

I wasn’t asking about the letter, I have read that, I was speaking specifically about the link that 1ke posted. Where within that link (there’s lots of stuff in there) is it specifically stated that we are not to approach a priest or EMHC for a blessing within the context of Holy Mass? I was hoping 1ke could point me in that direction. Again thanks in advance.

 

[benedictgal]

I wasn’t asking about the letter, I have read that, I was speaking specifically about the link that 1ke posted. Where within that link (there’s lots of stuff in there) is it specifically stated that we are not to approach a priest or EMHC for a blessing within the context of Holy Mass? I was hoping 1ke could point me in that direction. Again thanks in advance.

Maryj, the answer is actually found within the Roman Missal. There is nothing in the rubrics that calls for the faithful to approach the priest or an EMHC for a blessing. When the priest says, “Behold the Lamb of God, happy are those who are called to his supper”, this is an invitation to receive Jesus in Holy Communion, not a blessing. Those who are properly disposed to receive Holy Communion do so at this time.

Here is a link to the blog post that I wrote about this particular matter which referernces the pertinent documentation from the Holy See:

benedictgal-lexorandilexcredendi.blogspot.com/2010/12/why-we-form-line.html

While blessings pertain solely to the priest, these occur at the proper time, which is at the end of the Mass.

As for the question of blessing in lieu of Holy Communion, the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy and Redemptionis Sacramentum are quite clear that no one, not even the celebrant, has the right to add anything to the Mass on his own authority.

 

[zab]

I wasn’t asking about the letter, I have read that, I was speaking specifically about the link that 1ke posted. Where within that link (there’s lots of stuff in there) is it specifically stated that we are not to approach a priest or EMHC for a blessing within the context of Holy Mass? I was hoping 1ke could point me in that direction. Again thanks in advance.

I don’t believe there is one, otherwise it would have been posted by now. The only document that has ever been referred to is the CDWDS’s response “japhy’s letter”.

 

[thomas_jd]

BUT NOT within the context of the Sacred Liturgy except for the final blessing. The practice of blessing **in the communion line **was added in this country in violation to the norm that nothing may be added or deleted from the Mass.

I repeat , R&S does not, address the topic.
While this has been cited , to the point of ad nauseum lets review this position .
The following things are not allowed according to your interpitation.
1: A priest sneezes and leaves the altar to wash his hands ( Not Permitted) He left the altar.
2: A woman , after the homily, stands up and attempts to verbally attack the priest. The priest restores order and leaves the altar. ( Not Permitted)
3: A fire break out and the priest evacuates the church. a few minutes later he returns to complete mass. (Not Permitted)
These are things I have witnessed that the priest added or deleted. We can go on and on.
Seems silly doesn’t it? That’s how i see your “nothing added or deleted” theory.
R&S = nothing liturgical can be added or deleted. The limiting of a priest blesssing is not addressed anywhere!
I gave no thought, one way or another to a priests Blessing until I have read the documents cited.
I see no limiting of the Priests Blessings, especially when he is :“Persona Christi”

Read #5 of the letter “Should Not” referring to a priest: #2 “Unable to” when referring to the
laity!

 

[benedictgal]

I repeat , R&S does not, address the topic.
While this has been cited , to the point of ad nauseum lets review this position .
The following things are not allowed according to your interpitation.
1: A priest sneezes and leaves the altar to wash his hands ( Not Permitted) He left the altar.
2: A woman , after the homily, stands up and attempts to verbally attack the priest. The priest restores order and leaves the altar. ( Not Permitted)
3: A fire break out and the priest evacuates the church. a few minutes later he returns to complete mass. (Not Permitted)
These are things I have witnessed that the priest added or deleted. We can go on and on.
Seems silly doesn’t it? That’s how i see your “nothing added or deleted” theory.
R&S = nothing liturgical can be added or deleted. The limiting of a priest blesssing is not addressed anywhere!
I gave no thought to a priests Blessing until I have read the documents cited.
I see no limiting of the Priests Blessings, especially when he is :“Personsa Christi”

Read #5 of the letter “Should Not” referring to a priest: #2 “Unable to” when referring to the
laity!

Thomas, RS does address this when it specifically states 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.

[8.] It is therefore to be noted with great sadness that “ecumenical initiatives which are well-intentioned, nevertheless indulge at times in Eucharistic practices contrary to the discipline by which the Church expresses her faith”. Yet the Eucharist “is too great a gift to tolerate ambiguity or depreciation”. It is therefore necessary that some things be corrected or more clearly delineated so that in this respect as well “the Eucharist will continue to shine forth in all its radiant mystery”.19

[9.] Finally, abuses are often based on ignorance, in that they involve a rejection of those elements whose deeper meaning is not understood and whose antiquity is not recognized. For “the liturgical prayers, orations and songs are pervaded by the inspiration and impulse” of the Sacred Scriptures themselves, “and it is from these that the actions and signs receive their meaning”.20 As for the visible signs “which the Sacred Liturgy uses in order to signify the invisible divine realities, they have been chosen by Christ or by the Church”.21 Finally, the structures and forms of the sacred celebrations according to each of the Rites of both East and West are in harmony with the practice of the universal Church also as regards practices received universally from apostolic and unbroken tradition,22 which it is the Church’s task to transmit faithfully and carefully to future generations. All these things are wisely safeguarded and protected by the liturgical norms.

[10.] The Church herself has no power over those things which were established by Christ Himself and which constitute an unchangeable part of the Liturgy.23 Indeed, if the bond were to be broken which the Sacraments have with Christ Himself who instituted them, and with the events of the Church’s founding,24 it would not be beneficial to the faithful but rather would do them grave harm. For the Sacred Liturgy is quite intimately connected with principles of doctrine,25 so that the use of unapproved texts and rites necessarily leads either to the attenuation or to the disappearance of that necessary link between the lex orandi and the lex credendi.26

[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

It just seems to me that those who support this ilicit practice will try to use any possible means to uphold it. The fact remains that there is nothing in the authoritative ritual books that allows for this. It also seems to me that there is also very little respect for the CDWDS.

With all due respect, you have not made your case, not in the least.

 

[thomas_jd]

Thomas, RS does address this when it specifically states that:

It just seems to me that those who support this ilicit practice will try to use any possible means to uphold it. The fact remains that there is nothing in the authoritative ritual books that allows for this. It also seems to me that there is also very little respect for the CDWDS.

With all due respect, you have not made your case, not in the least.

Benedictgal, be careful in labeling a “ilicit practice” without proof. Are you aware that you just labeled a priestly blessing a ilicit practice?
The fact remains that nothing in the authoritative ritual books disallows or disapproves this “Priestly Blessing”
I do not need to make a case allowing a Priest Blessing, the Church reserves blessings that confer grace to the priests! Those in opposition need to prove it prohibited! That cannot be done with the current data on this site.
I read every word of #7 thru #9. Nothing whatsoever is stated , even remotely, on the limiting of a priests time or place or circumstance of performing a blessing.Please enlighten us as to where you produced one item limiting a priests ability to Bless. I honestly see no reference to your copying of four paragraphs unrelated to the blessing issue.
R&s covers Liturgical prayers, orations,songs,Sacred Liturgy, the Eucharist.Reread #7 thru 9 for a clearer understanding of what you posted!
The Church has not limited this priestly function.
Canon Law is almost silent on the liturgy of mass.
The G.I.R.M. is viewed as a guideline by many priests.
R&S has been no help so far.
My personal opposition to a priestly Blessing at Communion are purely hygenic.
So please post anything to strengthen your position, you are doing the opposite.
My case is constantly being “made” in spite of me due to untendable statements and irresponsible citations.
I can not find anything to limit the Priests Blessing , inside or outside of mass.

One must always Prove Abuse or ilicit practise before accusing a Priest .
The laity are entitled to a Proper Liturgy, not one decided by popular opinion.
It matters little what we individually think, what does the Church think?
To imply, even remotely, that I show "little respect to the CDWDS is reprehensible!

 

[Phemie]

I wasn’t asking about the letter, I have read that, I was speaking specifically about the link that 1ke posted. Where within that link (there’s lots of stuff in there) is it specifically stated that we are not to approach a priest or EMHC for a blessing within the context of Holy Mass? I was hoping 1ke could point me in that direction. Again thanks in advance.

I don’t think 1ke was sending you to a specific document. You asked for something authoritative from the bishops and 1ke sent you to the website to show that the CDWDS is higher up on the food chain when it comes to authority and they are the ones who wrote the letter to Jaffy showing 5 reasons why blessings shouldn’t be imparted.

When you read reasons 4 & 5 you have to realize most of the people who come up for that blessing are the very people who shouldn’t be
a) given blessings like that lest people assume they are in good standing with the Church (the remarried divorced)
b) presenting themselves for blessings or in the Communion line at all, i.e. non-Catholics, those who are excommunicated or under some kind of interdict and those who persist in grave sin.

 

[benedictgal]

Benedictgal, be careful in labeling a “ilicit practice” without proof. Are you aware that you just labeled a priestly blessing a ilicit practice?
The fact remains that nothing in the authoritative ritual books disallows or disapproves this “Priestly Blessing”
I do not need to make a case allowing a Priest Blessing, the Church reserves blessings that confer grace to the priests! Those in opposition need to prove it prohibited! That cannot be done with the current data on this site.
I read every word of #7 thru #9. Nothing whatsoever is stated , even remotely, on the limiting of a priests time or place or circumstance of performing a blessing.Please enlighten us as to where you produced one item limiting a priests ability to Bless. I honestly see no reference to your copying of four paragraphs unrelated to the blessing issue.
R&s covers Liturgical prayers, orations,songs,Sacred Liturgy, the Eucharist.Reread #7 thru 9 for a clearer understanding of what you posted!
The Church has not limited this priestly function.
Canon Law is almost silent on the liturgy of mass.
The G.I.R.M. is viewed as a guideline by many priests.
R&S has been no help so far.
My personal opposition to a priestly Blessing at Communion are purely hygenic.
So please post anything to strengthen your position, you are doing the opposite.
My case is constantly being “made” in spite of me due to untendable statements and irresponsible citations.
I can not find anything to limit the Priests Blessing , inside or outside of mass.

One must always Prove Abuse or ilicit practise before accusing a Priest .
The laity are entitled to a Proper Liturgy, not one decided by popular opinion.
It matters little what we individually think, what does the Church think?
To imply, even remotely, that I show "little respect to the CDWDS is reprehensible!

However, with all due respect, your reasoning does not seem to work. Canon Law is “silent” because this is the purview of liturgical law. Furthermore, RS has been of help, whether you choose to see it or admit it.

The fact remains that this quasi-ritual appears nowhere in the authoritative liturgical books recognized by the Holy See. It was something invented and imbedded as well-meaning, but, misguided individual who seemed to think that there was no “inclusivity” for those who cannot receive Holy Communion.

Just because something is not found in the books, that does not give anyone, including the celebrant, the authority to add something into the Mass. RS makes that qjuite clear in the citations that I have provided. In fact,while RS does not make new pronouncements, it serves to clarify and explain what is already in the books. Sacrosanctum Concilium prohibits anyone, including the celebrant, from adding anything to the Mass on their own. The section on freedom in RS that I highlighted explains that point.

We form a line to receive Jesus. When the priest prays “Ecce Agnus Dei”, he is inviting the faithful to come and receive Holy Communion, not a blessing. We are invited to the Lamb’s supper to eat, that is to say, to receive Holy Communion, not a blessing. In ritual Masses, there are provisions for blessings to be imparted by the celebrant; however, these provisions do not extend to giving them during the time reserved to receive Holy Communion.

Time and time again, I have pointed out the citations from the CDWDS. When I have done so, you seem to disregard them and insist that this practice is licit, when, it is not. Furthermore, it is not up to the priest to decide to engage in this practice, since he does not have the authority to insert something into the Mass that was never there in the first place.

 

[Maureen1125]

In my Parish you have the option of either receiving communion or a blessing. For instance, if you feel that it is inappropriate to receive communion because you need to confess a mortal sin, then you may approach the Priest at communion with your arms crossed and that is a sign to the Priest that you would like to receive a blessing in place of the eucharist.

My son would routinely do this when he was too young for communion. My daughter, 3yrs old, generally receives a blessing at communion as well.

 

[zab]

The fact remains that this quasi-ritual appears nowhere in the authoritative liturgical books recognized by the Holy See.** It was something invented and imbedded as well-meaning, but, misguided individual who seemed to think that there was no “inclusivity” for those who cannot receive Holy Communion.**

Your assumption of the cause of this practice starting is pure speculation. Perhaps no thought at all was given to “inclusivity”, but was a natural reaction of the priest to bless someone.

 

[maryj]

I don’t think 1ke was sending you to a specific document. You asked for something authoritative from the bishops and 1ke sent you to the website to show that the CDWDS is higher up on the food chain when it comes to authority and they are the ones who wrote the letter to Jaffy showing 5 reasons why blessings shouldn’t be imparted.

When you read reasons 4 & 5 you have to realize most of the people who come up for that blessing are the very people who shouldn’t be
a) given blessings like that lest people assume they are in good standing with the Church (the remarried divorced)
b) presenting themselves for blessings or in the Communion line at all, i.e. non-Catholics, those who are excommunicated or under some kind of interdict and those who persist in grave sin.

No Phemie, I did not ask 1ke for something authoritative from the bishops, I am asking why did he post that link when the OP is quite obviously asking for information regarding this subject, is this information in that link? Nothing that I found concerning this matter. Here’s the interesting thing about forums, lots of people read into questions, things that are not necessarily “the way” a person believes. I would sit my butt down in the pew if I was not properly disposed to receive my Lord in the most Holy Eucharist. I am confused about this whole thing, I have talked to multiple learned priests about this subject. I actually printed up the letter from the CDW and brought it to my previous pastor, I have talked to my current associate pastor who was ordained in Rome, with a masters in theology. Both of them believe that it is perfectly fine for a non communicant to receive a blessing in the communion line. These are good and Holy priests, see where the confusion enters! I have searched to try and find the “authoritativeness” (is that a word?) of japhys letter. I have tried to use the protocol # but have not found it yet. Maybe someone could help with that.

 

[benedictgal]

In my Parish you have the option of either receiving communion or a blessing. For instance, if you feel that it is inappropriate to receive communion because you need to confess a mortal sin, then you may approach the Priest at communion with your arms crossed and that is a sign to the Priest that you would like to receive a blessing in place of the eucharist.

My son would routinely do this when he was too young for communion. My daughter, 3yrs old, generally receives a blessing at communion as well.

Without meaning to, you made my point about folks having the best of intentions, but, doing something ilicit.

The CDWDS made the following observations:

1. 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.

1. 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; Canon 1169, § 2; and Roman Ritual De Benedictionibus (1985), n. 18).

1. 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.

1. The Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio n. 84, “forbids any pastor, for whatever reason to pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry”. To be feared is that any form of blessing in substitution for communion would give the impression that the divorced and remarried have been returned, in some sense, to the status of Catholics in good standing.

1. 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).

Number 5 addresses the issue that you brought up in your post. Please know that I am not trying to be insenstive; however, the approach that the parish is taking is not necessarily the best one and certainly not one that the CDWDS recommends.

Some have accused me of beating people over the head with documents. That is not my intent at all. I do this the utmost charity because I believe that it is far more charitable to explain things (using the documents) rather than simply support something because everyone else is doing it, even though the documents state the contrary.

 

[benedictgal]

No Phemie, I did not ask 1ke for something authoritative from the bishops, I am asking why did he post that link when the OP is quite obviously asking for information regarding this subject, is this information in that link? Nothing that I found concerning this matter. Here’s the interesting thing about forums, lots of people read into questions, things that are not necessarily “the way” a person believes. I would sit my butt down in the pew if I was not properly disposed to receive my Lord in the most Holy Eucharist. I am confused about this whole thing, I have talked to multiple learned priests about this subject. I actually printed up the letter from the CDW and brought it to my previous pastor, I have talked to my current associate pastor who was ordained in Rome, with a masters in theology. Both of them believe that it is perfectly fine for a non communicant to receive a blessing in the communion line. These are good and Holy priests, see where the confusion enters! I have searched to try and find the “authoritativeness” (is that a word?) of japhys letter. I have tried to use the protocol # but have not found it yet. Maybe someone could help with that.

Mary, the authority in this letter comes by virtue of who issued it, namely the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. I am not sure if you read my blog, but, I quoted the pertinent sections of the existing law that the document quotes. The letter states nothing new; the CDWDS makes its observations based on what is already in liturgical and canonical law.

When I last spoke to the CDWDS three weeks ago, they affirmed that nothing has changed in its observations.

Unfortunately, I have found that even priests who have degrees from Rome sometimes make mistakes. Incidentally, I had lunch with a priest friend of mine who is from another town. He said that he and his brother priests are sometimes to blame when things like this happen because they have not been formed properly or have not read the documents.

 

[AdVitamParamus]

I’m so happy to have found this thread. I’m also glad to hear that the CDWDS finally weighed in on the issue. The practice of giving blessings in the communion line has always bothered me because it takes the focus off Christ. Those who can’t receive should remain in their pews and make an act of spiritual communion. The idea that everyone needs to get in the communion line so that no one feels “left out” is misguided and inappropriate. We should be focusing on Christ, not on ourselves.

 

[maryj]

Benedictgal, I had read your blog. I have no problems with all that it states. Here I guess is my issue…anonymous internet sites and blog sites are not always authoritative. I have seen the letter multiples of times…I still have not figured out how to check the legitimacy of that letter. I go to my pastor with it, he says anyone can print up a letter and post it on the internet. I would like to know how to check that protocol number to prove it is legit. I am not saying I don’t believe it is not legit, I am asking how do we find out it is legit. Maybe I’m just not seeing the forest for the trees…it’s happened before

 

[Seatuck]

Benedictgal, I had read your blog. I have no problems with all that it states. Here I guess is my issue…anonymous internet sites and blog sites are not always authoritative. I have seen the letter multiples of times…I still have not figured out how to check the legitimacy of that letter. I go to my pastor with it, he says anyone can print up a letter and post it on the internet. I would like to know how to check that protocol number to prove it is legit. I am not saying I don’t believe it is not legit, I am asking how do we find out it is legit. Maybe I’m just not seeing the forest for the trees…it’s happened before

Your pastor has the ability to look up that little number in that letter to see it’s legitimacy. Or you can call up the diocese yourself to ask them to look it up for you . They both have access to the CDWDS’s publications. Don’t know why he didn’t offer to do that.

 

[zab]

Your pastor has the ability to look up that little number in that letter to see it’s legitimacy. Or you can call up the diocese yourself to ask them to look it up for you . They both have access to the CDWDS’s publications. Don’t know why he didn’t offer to do that.

I have no question about the legitimacy of the CDWDS response to “japhy’s letter”
(Prot. N. 930/08/L). What seems to be the problem is the interpretation of that response. I believe that we are to defer to our bishops for that interpretation.

 

[benedictgal]

Benedictgal, I had read your blog. I have no problems with all that it states. Here I guess is my issue…anonymous internet sites and blog sites are not always authoritative. I have seen the letter multiples of times…I still have not figured out how to check the legitimacy of that letter. I go to my pastor with it, he says anyone can print up a letter and post it on the internet. I would like to know how to check that protocol number to prove it is legit. I am not saying I don’t believe it is not legit, I am asking how do we find out it is legit. Maybe I’m just not seeing the forest for the trees…it’s happened before

Maryj, this is a legitimate letter. Fr. Anthony Ward, the priest who signed off on it, is the undersecretary to the CDWDS. In fact, because it bears a protocol number, it has already been published in Notitae, the official journal of the Congregation.

I was at the Society for Catholic Liturgy conference in Houston. The letter was discussed during one of the breaks. I had discussed it with a seminary professor from St. Louis, MO. The priests at the conference were well aware of the letter. In fact, the letter has also appeared on the Adoremus website. When I last spoke to the Congregation (regarding another matter), I was told that the letter still holds).

Contrary to what many might think here on CAF, the CDWDS is the ultimate rule-making authority for the Church. What I posted on my blog gives you what the bishop can and cannot do in relation to the Mass. This “ritual” appears nowhere in the authoritative liturgical books recognized and permitted by the Holy See. If a bishop wants to use this “ritual”, he would have to propose it to the entire national conference (in our case, the USCCB) and then they would have to put it up for a vote. It takes a 2/3 affirmative vote of the Latin rite bishops in order for it to be sent to Rome where the CDWDS would have the final say on the matter.

Since the CDWDS has given its five observations, all based on current liturgical and canonical law, that is pretty much its interpretation. Furthermore, the fact that this interpretation is based on those same liturgical and canonical law citations should be a good indicator that it is legitimate.

With all due respect, I think that you might not be seeing the forest. I can understand your doubt, but, this is a legitimate letter from the CDWDS. Just a little fyi: when my father wrote to the CDWDS, he received a response with the same letterhead and the same format. It is legitimate.