Approaching the priest at Holy Communion for blessing

[zab]

Contrary to what many might think here on CAF, the CDWDS is the ultimate rule-making authority for the Church.

This statement presupposes that there are members on CAF who have little regard for the authority of the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacramens. There is no basis for such a statement. Former Prefect of this Congregation, when asked by concerned parishioners about this practice, said that the Congregation had been studying this issue and after expressing some reservation about this practice he said that they decided to leave the decision to the local ordinary to decide. Since that time, the Congregation responded to a letter of inquiry from a lay person stating several points as to why the practice should never have started. Yet the practice is so widespread and the Congregation has not as of yet issued any clarification on the matter of “leaving it to the local ordinary to decide” nor have they made any clarification in order for this practice to cease. They had the opportunity to include this matter when Redemptionis Sacramentum was released, but did not mention it. I do not feel qualified to interpret the protocol that was issued. And I am not rejecting anything the CDWDS has said on this issue. I am just stating my observations.

 

[benedictgal]

Something that perhaps we are not doing here is looking at the timeline. Redemptionis Sacramentum came out in 2004. The letter from the CDWDS came out four years later, on November 22, 2008.

The letter also bears a protocol number, thus, making it an official document of the CDWDS.

 

[Deckie]

My father passed away several years ago.As a Catholic family we had many friends,both Catholic and Protestant.At the funeral many of our family Protestant friends attended,and to make them included the Priest said that they could approach the altar at Communion and he would confer a blessing on them.I thought that this was a wonderful thing to do.

 

[TheMc]

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.

This is beside the point. It still shouldn’t be done.

 

[maryj]

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.

And there it is, thank you for the response. I shall do just that. Amen!!! whew glad that was finally answered!!

 

[TheMc]

Benedictgal, be careful in labeling a “ilicit practice” without proof. Are you aware that you just labeled a priestly blessing a ilicit practice?

Thomas,

I believe she is well aware that she is labeling a priestly blessing illicit practice. It is only illicit because it is out of context. I can think of many good and even praiseworthy things that when done in the wrong context can have a negative and harmful effect. It’s all in the context.

Canon Law is almost silent on the liturgy of mass.

Because it is not the role of Canon Law to regulate liturgy.

The G.I.R.M. is viewed as a guideline by many priests.

Are you encouraging them?

R&S has been no help so far.

Where has Redemptionis Sacramentum not been helpful? I would say it has been very helpful. It’s very simple. RS says not to add anything to the Mass. Blessings during communion is not in the Missal, or the GIRM. Try and find it in any authoritative liturgical document.

So… blessings should not be given during communion to those not receiving.

On the other hand, the CDWDS has been charged by the holy father to regulate the liturgy, and carries his authority.
They have said that priests are not to do this. How complicated do we need to make it?

Is this a big joke for some people?

Is is possible for you and your side to see this? It is an official church document, and deserves our obedience. It is not the priest’s Mass. He is not to do as he wishes during the Mass. He is to say what is printed in black in the altar Missal, and when he reaches instructions printed in red, he is to do them. If it is not there printed in black, it shouldn’t be said. If it’s not there (or in another authoritative document, such as the GIRM, or a “rite book”, when other sacraments are celebrated in the context of Mass.) printed in red, it shouldn’t be done. It’s not hard.

I am not blaming any priest for unknowingly making a mistake. Even my bishop, who takes great pride in good liturgy, makes mistakes occasionally. Everyone does.

I’m frustrated with the priests who see this, and turn the other way, and pretend not to see it, or make up complicated reasons why they disobey.

I am trying to remain charitable, but it seems that some of the posters here are trying not to see some of this.

Ok, ok. I’m done with my rant.

 

[Seatuck]

And there it is, thank you for the response. I shall do just that. Amen!!! whew glad that was finally answered!!

You’re welcome.

 

[Tigg]

My father passed away several years ago.As a Catholic family we had many friends,both Catholic and Protestant.At the funeral many of our family Protestant friends attended,and to make them included the Priest said that they could approach the altar at Communion and he would confer a blessing on them.I thought that this was a wonderful thing to do.

We must in humility and obedience subscribe to the magisterium in such matters. Ours is not a “feel-good, you’re okay, I’m okay,” kind of theology. I’ve often been frustrated at the strict observance of the “law” and understanding it; in fact, at times it seems everything is so complicated. But even though I don’t have the level of understanding that theologians have, I know one thing alone! God is Sacred, His Liturgy is Sacred and it must be protected from anything that would diminish His Truth or deflect from the pure Worship of our King.

 

[MarkThompson]

On the other hand, the CDWDS has been charged by the holy father to regulate the liturgy, and carries his authority.
They have said that priests are not to do this. How complicated do we need to make it?

Check again, actually. When asked point blank whether the practice should be allowed to continue, they steadfastly did not say that priests are not to do this. Nor did they say “Duh, the documents are crystal clear.” To the contrary, they said that the question will require “attentive study.”

 

[thomas_jd]

Thomas,

I believe she is well aware that she is labeling a priestly blessing illicit practice. It is only illicit because it is out of context. I can think of many good and even praiseworthy things that when done in the wrong context can have a negative and harmful effect. It’s all in the context.

Because it is not the role of Canon Law to regulate liturgy.

Are you encouraging them?

Where has Redemptionis Sacramentum not been helpful? I would say it has been very helpful. It’s very simple. RS says not to add anything to the Mass. Blessings during communion is not in the Missal, or the GIRM. Try and find it in any authoritative liturgical document.

So… blessings should not be given during communion to those not receiving.

On the other hand, the CDWDS has been charged by the holy father to regulate the liturgy, and carries his authority.
They have said that priests are not to do this. How complicated do we need to make it?

Is this a big joke for some people?

Is is possible for you and your side to see this? It is an official church document, and deserves our obedience. It is not the priest’s Mass. He is not to do as he wishes during the Mass. He is to say what is printed in black in the altar Missal, and when he reaches instructions printed in red, he is to do them. If it is not there printed in black, it shouldn’t be said. If it’s not there (or in another authoritative document, such as the GIRM, or a “rite book”, when other sacraments are celebrated in the context of Mass.) printed in red, it shouldn’t be done. It’s not hard.

I am not blaming any priest for unknowingly making a mistake. Even my bishop, who takes great pride in good liturgy, makes mistakes occasionally. Everyone does.

I’m frustrated with the priests who see this, and turn the other way, and pretend not to see it, or make up complicated reasons why they disobey.

I am trying to remain charitable, but it seems that some of the posters here are trying not to see some of this.

Ok, ok. I’m done with my rant.

You may rant all you want. Emotions get heated on different issues!
This is my position. No offical document has been produced or will be produced limiting the
“PRIESTS ABILITY TO BLESS AT MASS”!
Neither Canon Law, I said it is quiet on the liturgy. It is. that is a statement!
Neither R&S , " Nothing to be added or deleted "is the weakest imaginable argument to restrict when a priest can bless! The prohibition pertains to the Liturgical words, songs ,etc…reread the past post by BG and it explains what those paragraphs entail! No mention on restricting a priest from blessings.
Finally the letter of the CDWDS states two important items
one > the laity are not to bless.
two> “those who are not to be admitted to Holy Communion SHOULD not approach
nor receive a blessing this includes non-catholics and others…”
one prohibites the laity from blessing
two directs those non- catholics and other from a receiving a blessing.

Four years ago, the CDWDS stated in the now famous letter that the determinization will be made at a later date. Read Zabs post for a better understanding.

One must always give the priest the benefit of the doubt over any and all that cannot understand the documents and try to manuplate them to thier personal agenda!
Trust the Church. She hasn’t stopped this Priestly Blessing so far.

 

[FrDavid96]

Check again, actually. When asked point blank whether the practice should be allowed to continue, they steadfastly did not say that priests are not to do this. Nor did they say “Duh, the documents are crystal clear.” To the contrary, they said that the question will require “attentive study.”

Mark,
That argument surfaces around here quite a bit. However, it doesn’t hold water. The CDWDS did say that these blessings (or pseudo-blessings) are not to be done. Just because the CDWDS is studying the matter, that does not at all mean that the practice may continue in the meantime. Can we safely say that trafficking in cocaine is “under the attentive study” of the fed. government? Yes, of course it is. But that doesn’t mean that cocaine trafficking is legal until they complete the study. Or is it? Same thing here. Just because the Congregation is looking into the matter, is not reason to draw the conclusion that the practice is legitimate.

Further,
They did in fact say that priests are not to do this. Check the letter
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).

The words “Church’s discipline has already made clear” is Vatican-speak for “duh, the documents are crystal clear.”

 

[Newbie2]

However, there will always be occassions, when a non-communicant, possibly an uninformed individual, will approach the Priest, Deacon or Extraordinary minister of Holy Communion. In my opinion, it is those occassions that require special consideration and should not be judged as “abuse” if they should receive a blessing from an ordained Minister or a charitable greeting, such as, “God bless you” from the EMHC. I suppose that we will eventually have the answer when the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of Sacraments finishes their study or issues a clarification on the matter.

Another important thing to note is that this can actually be confusing to kids preparing for First Communion. We catechists are trying to instill belief in the Real Presence in them. We would rather they not be allowed to have a blessing because it helps build the anticipation and yearning for that very special day when they will get into that line for the sole purpose of receiving Jesus, their Lord!

On the flip side, it could be argued that as a pastoral concern, with kids, that they be allowed to be made more comfortable in coming up in the line, perhaps instead of being uncomfortable in an unfamiliar situation.

Time and time again, I have pointed out the citations from the CDWDS.

Some have accused me of beating people over the head with documents. .

If the shoe fits…

Perhaps if you just quoted it once in supporting your point would be sufficient.

This statement presupposes that there are members on CAF who have little regard for the authority of the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacramens. There is no basis for such a statement. Former Prefect of this Congregation, when asked by concerned parishioners about this practice, said that the Congregation had been studying this issue and after expressing some reservation about this practice he said that they decided to leave the decision to the local ordinary to decide. Since that time, the Congregation responded to a letter of inquiry from a lay person stating several points as to why the practice should never have started. Yet the practice is so widespread and the Congregation has not as of yet issued any clarification on the matter of “leaving it to the local ordinary to decide” nor have they made any clarification in order for this practice to cease. They had the opportunity to include this matter when Redemptionis Sacramentum was released, but did not mention it. I do not feel qualified to interpret the protocol that was issued. And I am not rejecting anything the CDWDS has said on this issue. I am just stating my observations.

 

[Elizium23]

Check again, actually. When asked point blank whether the practice should be allowed to continue, they steadfastly did not say that priests are not to do this. Nor did they say “Duh, the documents are crystal clear.” To the contrary, they said that the question will require “attentive study.”

They did say quite a bit, and shed light on which direction they are headed.

• They said a liturgical blessing is already given to all, at the dismissal.
• They said lay people are unable to confer blessings in the Mass.
• They said laying on of hands is explicitly discouraged.
• They said that pastors should not perform a “ceremony” for divorced and remarried people.
• They said that those who should not approach Holy Communion should also not receive a blessing at all.

This severely limits not only the people who can confer a blessing, but also the people who can legitimately receive a blessing, and not to mention the situations in which a blessing can be offered. They did not explicitly say that priests cannot give blessings, but they have made it abundantly clear that blessings in the Communion line should not be happening.

The only situation I can think of that meets the above guidelines is if a person who is otherwise worthy of the Eucharist but, for a grave reason, cannot stay five minutes longer for the liturgical blessing, and for some unfathomable reason, decides not to actually receive communion, but instead approaches a priest in the Communion line and requests a blessing of him. Clearly, it is not the intent of the CDWDS to tie a priest’s hands if that situation should arise.

But in the ordinary situation when those unworthy of Communion wish to be blessed, they all receive a blessing before the dismissal, from the priest, as prescribed, perfectly legitimately. No, there is no rule that says “priests may not give blessings to communicants” because there is no need for such a rule. The conditions laid out in the letter provide five strictures which obviate the need to answer directly on the subject.

 

[Newbie2]

They have said that priests are not to do this. How complicated do we need to make it?

Doesn’t it say that the practice “is to be discouraged”?
Is this a big joke for some people?

Apparently not.
Is is possible for you and your side to see this? It is an official church document, and deserves our obedience. It is not the priest’s Mass. He is not to do as he wishes during the Mass. He is to say what is printed in black in the altar Missal, and when he reaches instructions printed in red, he is to do them. If it is not there printed in black, it shouldn’t be said. If it’s not there (or in another authoritative document, such as the GIRM, or a “rite book”, when other sacraments are celebrated in the context of Mass.) printed in red, it shouldn’t be done. It’s not hard.

I am not blaming any priest for unknowingly making a mistake. Even my bishop, who takes great pride in good liturgy, makes mistakes occasionally. Everyone does.

I’m frustrated with the priests who see this, and turn the other way, and pretend not to see it, or make up complicated reasons why they disobey.

What about when the bishops permit (or maybe even encourage) the practice? Yes, I understand the practice is to be discouraged. But if it is such a big deal, why are there not ongoing efforts to halt it?

I am trying to remain charitable, but it seems that some of the posters here are trying not to see some of this.

Ok, ok. I’m done with my rant.

 

[MarkThompson]

Mark,
That argument surfaces around here quite a bit. However, it doesn’t hold water. The CDWDS did say that these blessings (or pseudo-blessings) are not to be done.

I’ve never been shown anything where the Congregation said that.

Just because the CDWDS is studying the matter, that does not at all mean that the practice may continue in the meantime. Can we safely say that trafficking in cocaine is “under the attentive study” of the fed. government? Yes, of course it is. But that doesn’t mean that cocaine trafficking is legal until they complete the study. Or is it? Same thing here. Just because the Congregation is looking into the matter, is not reason to draw the conclusion that the practice is legitimate.

I recognize it must be very frustrating to certain people that the Congregation did not adopt their view of the documents and simply say, “Obviously, this practice is forbidden because it is not in the rubrics of the Mass.” Nor did they say that it’s forbidden, but that they will study whether it should be allowed. They said, “We’ll study it. For now, it’s not to be done by laypeople, by laying on hands, for obstinate sinners, etc.”

Further,
They did in fact say that priests are not to do this. Check the letter
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).

The words “Church’s discipline has already made clear” is Vatican-speak for “duh, the documents are crystal clear.”

Please read it again; that doesn’t say a single word about what priests should or shouldn’t do. It says, of certain people, that they should not approach for Communion or receive a blessing. I can understand why there is a great desire to present this as though the CDWDS had said that priests are forbidden to give this sort of blessing, but that is just manifestly not what it says.

 

[TheMc]

You may rant all you want. Emotions get heated on different issues!
This is my position. No offical document has been produced or will be produced limiting the
“PRIESTS ABILITY TO BLESS AT MASS”!

You are absolutely correct. Nothing can restrict a priest’s ability to “validly” bless. But during Mass, the church has asked that they only bless things at the prescribed times, the major one being at the end. Do you have a problem with that? It appears you do.

Neither Canon Law, I said it is quiet on the liturgy. It is. that is a statement!

How is that a statement? Canon Law (in general) does not deal with liturgical matters. One would expect it to be silent on these matters. That is no surprise.

Neither R&S , " Nothing to be added or deleted" is the weakest imaginable argument to restrict when a priest can bless! The prohibition pertains to the Liturgical words, songs ,etc…reread the past post by BG and it explains what those paragraphs entail! No mention on restricting a priest from blessings.

No mention of liturgical homicide either. Who defines what the prohibition applies to? It does not say “One may not add other words or songs”. It says what it says: Nothing may be added or taken out. N O T H I N G.

When it says:
“No … person… may… change anything in in the Liturgy on his own authority”(Sacrosanctum Concilium) it means anything. Please simply read the document, and not change add things to suit your agenda. (If you’re doubting that I’m using my quote in context, go here, and see par 22.3. I’ve abbreviated it only to make my point crystal clear.)

Finally the letter of the CDWDS states two important items
one > the laity are not to bless.
two> “those who are not to be admitted to Holy Communion SHOULD not approach
nor receive a blessing this includes non-catholics and others…”
one prohibites the laity from blessing
two directs those non- catholics and other from a receiving a blessing.

What about #5 in the letter? It says:
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.
Again, please read what it says. Others who can’t receive communion should’t get a blessing. This isn’t rocket science. It’s right there, in an offical letter from Rome, as well as being in RS, and SC. The church has made this issue very clear, so we can avoid this confusion and these discussions.

 

[Phemie]

I’ve never been shown anything where the Congregation said that.

I recognize it must be very frustrating to certain people that the Congregation did not adopt their view of the documents and simply say, “Obviously, this practice is forbidden because it is not in the rubrics of the Mass.” Nor did they say that it’s forbidden, but that they will study whether it should be allowed. They said, “We’ll study it. For now, it’s not to be done by laypeople, by laying on hands, for obstinate sinners, etc.”

Please read it again; that doesn’t say a single word about what priests should or shouldn’t do. It says, of certain people, that they should not approach for Communion or receive a blessing. I can understand why there is a great desire to present this as though the CDWDS had said that priests are forbidden to give this sort of blessing, but that is just manifestly not what it says.

You admit that the document lists people who are not to receive blessings.

OK, then, who is usually invited to present themselves for these ‘Communion line blessings’? Non-Catholics, those who are divorced and remarried and can’t receive Communion and those who are in mortal sin. All the people that the document says are not to receive blessings.

Who’s left?

 

[maryjk]

OK, then, who is usually invited to present themselves for these ‘Communion line blessings’? Non-Catholics, those who are divorced and remarried and can’t receive Communion and those who are in mortal sin. All the people that the document says are not to receive blessings.

Who’s left?

Children.

I don’t have a dog in this race. When I don’t receive communion, I don’t go up for a blessing.

 

[stephraim]

I don’t know if this has any bearing or not, but the Book of Blessings, no. 28 does specify which blessings may be used within Mass. It also says that no other blessing may be used in Mass besides those specified therein.

 

[benedictgal]

And there it is, thank you for the response. I shall do just that. Amen!!! whew glad that was finally answered!!

Somehow, I do not know if I was unsubscribed to this thread or if I did this by mistake (that is what I get for trying to log on using my blackberry).

The big problem is that not very many diocesan liturgical officess, let alone, parish priests, know that Notitae even exists.

The Adoremus Bulletin, a highly reputable print and online magazine, published the document on its website. Adoremus is not likely to publish something unless it verifies the source. The CDWDS does not exactly have the entire Notitae volumes available on its website. I will contact the CDWDS to see what the possibility of allowing the laity to subscribe to these bulletins.

Please, though, rest assured that this is a legitimate document. The fact that the CDWDS still maintains its position even after over two years is still indicative that it is their document.