Approaching the priest at Holy Communion for blessing

[benedictgal]

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.

This issue was brought up after the talks on the De Benedictionibus (Book of Blessings) during the conference that I attended. These blessings in lieu of Holy Communion are not found anywhere in the De Benedictionibus (the one liturgical book mentioned in the CDWDS letter that is not available online).

 

[benedictgal]

Children.

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

Actually, children do fall under that category if they are not yet eligible to receive Holy Communion.

 

[maryj]

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.

I searched the Adoremus Bulletin…could not find the document…if you could post a link that would be wonderful!! I apologize for being such a stickler about verifying the source.

 

[Phemie]

I searched the Adoremus Bulletin…could not find the document…if you could post a link that would be wonderful!! I apologize for being such a stickler about verifying the source.

adoremus.org/0209CDW_Blessing.html

 

[benedictgal]

adoremus.org/0209CDW_Blessing.html

Thank you, Phemie. I have been having internet problems (plus, I was also anxiously awaiting the results of my first-ever rump roast–no one has died…yet) so I was unable to get the link posted.

You can’t really go wrong with Adoremus as this print and online magazine researches whatever they receive to verify authenticity. Furthermore, Adoremus enjoys a strong relationship with the CDWDS.

 

[roveau]

Strange that the Pope and the Magisterium haven’t made any attempt to publically address this so-called abuse that appears to have become a custom all over the entire Catholic world. There has been no mention of the topic publically even in passing. If it was such an abuse of the Mass, it would be a sin on their part not to correct it, surely.

Strange that our bishops and priests have made no attempt to eradicate this ‘evil’ of blessing during Holy Communion time… or even mention the topic in passing.

I have not been convinced by the use/interpretation of documents presented here or the arguments presented against the blessings.

I support my priest who devoutly and solemnly blesses young children (and perhaps some adults?) during Communion time. And I must add, he does not lay his hands on people’s heads or blesses remarried divorcees.

I feel it a special blessing myself when I hear the words of blessing said so now and then between the statements of, ‘The body of Christ’.

If ever the Church (Pope and the Magisterium) addresses the ‘problem’ and condemns the practice I am positive every parish will tow the line without hesitation.

 

[Phemie]

I have not been convinced by the use/interpretation of documents presented here or the arguments presented against the blessings.

If ever the Church (Pope and the Magisterium) addresses the ‘problem’ and condemns the practice I am positive every parish will tow the line without hesitation.

Thanks, it’s always good to start the day with a hearty laugh.

 

[stephraim]

Strange that our bishops and priests have made no attempt to eradicate this ‘evil’ of blessing during Holy Communion time… or even mention the topic in passing.

That’s not entirely true. In fact, our pastor just did away with them.

 

[maryj]

Thanks you to all for the help! It is much appreciated

 

[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?

Actually, children do fall under that category if they are not yet eligible to receive Holy Communion.

Actually, children do not fall under any of the categories that Phemie wrote. Young children are not yet to the age of reason, I can’t imagine that they have been married and divorced and they are Catholic.

Maybe Phemie missed a category?

 

[Phemie]

Actually, children do not fall under any of the categories that Phemie wrote. Young children are not yet to the age of reason, I can’t imagine that they have been married and divorced and they are Catholic.

Maybe Phemie missed a category?

Since children are not allowed to receive Communion unless they are old enough to recognize who they are receiving and are able to do so in a reverent manner, they would be covered by “others who are not to be admitted to Holy Communion in accord with the norm of law”.

 

[Tigg]

Tigg;7579294:

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.

This is a non-argument. The illicit practice of blessing in the communion line is relatively new compared to the age when it was never done. We catechists in sacramental prep know how much the kids look forward to their first communion; trust me on this one……they are not uncomfortable. How sad we have yet confused them by suggesting the communion line is for more than one purpose!

 

[Tigg]

Strange that the Pope and the Magisterium haven’t made any attempt to publically address this so-called abuse that appears to have become a custom all over the entire Catholic world.

It is simply untrue that it is a custom all over the world. Our pastor tells the story when he took students to Rome and forgot to tell them that if anyone was not going to receive Communion to stay in the pew. Wouldn’t you know, one student went forward with arms crossed in the communion line. Our pastor watched in embarrassment while an Italian priest was totally disconcerted at this gesture and still attempted to give him Communion.

 

[Brendan]

Strange that the Pope and the Magisterium haven’t made any attempt to publically address this so-called abuse that appears to have become a custom all over the entire Catholic world. There has been no mention of the topic publically even in passing. If it was such an abuse of the Mass, it would be a sin on their part not to correct it, surely…

Uh, it was publically addressed. Notatie is the promulgation mechanism of the CDWDS.

So it was promulgated to the world through the normal channels that Rome uses for such clarifications.

It is rather similar to the US Supreme Court issuing a ruling. It issues it’s ruling and it is published in legal journals. Sure, sometimes the media pick up the case and it gets splashed over CNN. But even that doesn’t happen, it doesn’t mean that the Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on the case.

What is happened is that it is being ignored, but the elements of the case have been ruled on.

 

[zab]

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

What is happened is that it is being ignored, but the elements of the case have been ruled on.

 

[nickybr38]

Thanks, it’s always good to start the day with a hearty laugh.

At our Parish our Bishop recently wrote a letter to the churches in our diocese. In the letter he discouraged certain practices and asked the laity to STOP DOING IT.

Within two weeks everyone was doing all the things he’d asked them not to do. :\ It’s silly to think people will actually do as they’re told, especially in today’s culture.

 

[FrDavid96]

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.

Now seriously here. Are you honestly trying to say that it matters that the CDWDS used the passive voice rather than the active voice and that somehow makes a difference?

“Should not…receive a blessing” compared to “the priest should not give a blessing.” In all honesty, are you actually trying to present that as a difference? Granted, it did not say “priest cannot give a blessing” (I admit that you have a point there) instead it said that people are not to “receive a blessing.” However, when it’s all said and done, what’s the difference?

If a person cannot receive a blessing, then it goes without saying that the priest cannot give such a blessing. If you do see some difference, by all means please explain it.

Those “certain people” is explained as anyone who is not to receive Communion. Well, of course it would say that, because those who are receiving Communion aren’t asking for a separate blessing.

Let’s face it, the words “for others who are not to be admitted to Holy Communion in accord with the norm of law” means just what it says. Such a phrase includes children who have not received 1st Communion, and even adult Catholics who haven’t kept the Communion fast. The natural presumption here is that if there is nothing preventing someone from receiving, then that person will in fact receive.

 

[LemonAndLime]

I’ve just had a quick read through this thread, and I’m very confused.

Why is it an “evil”? I’m at RCIA and I go to mass every Sunday, and have since September. While at my first mass (before RCIA started) I was encouraged by an elderly Irish nun who I always sit with, to approach the Priest for a blessing by putting my arm across my chest in the Communion line. At RCIA I was encouraged to continue to do this. It’s only since I’ve seen this thread that I even thought there might be a possibility for it to be inappropriate.

Is this a real issue or just the result of ultra-conservativism?

 

[benedictgal]

I’ve just had a quick read through this thread, and I’m very confused.

Why is it an “evil”? I’m at RCIA and I go to mass every Sunday, and have since September. While at my first mass (before RCIA started) I was encouraged by an elderly Irish nun who I always sit with, to approach the Priest for a blessing by putting my arm across my chest in the Communion line. At RCIA I was encouraged to continue to do this. It’s only since I’ve seen this thread that I even thought there might be a possibility for it to be inappropriate.

Is this a real issue or just the result of ultra-conservativism?

It’s not an issue of “ultra-conservatism”. It is an issue of doing what the Church asks us to do with respect to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

We do not have the right to add “extra” things to the Mass. This “quasi-ritual” appears nowhere in the Roman Missal, nor in any other authoritative document approved by the Holy See that governs the Mass.

Sadly, such practices only serve to confuse the faithful. According to Redemptionis Sacramentum:

[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

What I highlighted in bold seems to me to mirror what you have said. This practice causes confusion among the faithful.

I have said this before, but, I think it bears repeating: When the priest issues the invitation, “Behold the Lamb of God, happy are those who are called to His Supper”, he is inviting those faithful who are properly disposed to receive Jesus in Holy Communion. He is not inviting them to come forward to a receive a blessing. We form a line to receive Someone (Jesus), not something (a blessing). Everyone, regardless of his state, will receive a blessing at its appropriate time, the conclusion of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

 

[zab]

I’ve just had a quick read through this thread, and I’m very confused.

Why is it an “evil”? I’m at RCIA and I go to mass every Sunday, and have since September. While at my first mass (before RCIA started) I was encouraged by an elderly Irish nun who I always sit with, to approach the Priest for a blessing by putting my arm across my chest in the Communion line. At RCIA I was encouraged to continue to do this. It’s only since I’ve seen this thread that I even thought there might be a possibility for it to be inappropriate.

Is this a real issue or just the result of ultra-conservativism?

LemonAndLime,
I’m sorry that you have to witness such an ugly exchange on differences of opinion. There is some legitimacy in regards to not inviting non-communicants to go forward during the Communion line. There is a sad division in which non-Catholics (as well as Catholics who are not properly prepared in cases of being in the state of mortal sin) are non in Communion with the Church. Therefore, they are not admitted to Communion. It is not wrong or bad to have a feeling of having something missing when one cannot receive Communion in the Catholic Church. It should be something to long for. Some visiting non-Catholics would not go forward to receive Communion any more than they would kneel during the Eucharistic Prayer because they do not believe as we believe that the Eucharist is Jesus. And that is fine. The Church would not ask non-Catholics to say “yes” “Amen” to something that they do not believe. But there are other non-Catholics who mistakenly feel that they should not be left out of our Communion. There are occassions, particularly weddings, funerals, major feast days such as Christmas and Easter when there are non-Catholics who approach in the Communion line. The dispute that we have been having on these threads is whether or not these non-Communicants should be given a blessing when they approach in the Communion line. The dispute also concerns how this practice of “blessings in the Communion line” got started and how it is sometimes perpetuated when First Communicants, RCIA members are being told to go forward for a blessing. And there are priests who, on special occassions when there may be many non-Catholics in the congregation, try to inform the people of who is allowed to receive Communion and tell those who are not receiving Communion to cross their arms in front of their chests and they will receive a blessing. In my opinion, I think the priest is trying to avoid having to question many people about whether they should receive rather that trying to be all inclusive as some suggest. Anyway the matter is under attentive study by the Congregation For Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.