Blessing during communion

[zab]

When I cannot receive but I would block people, I step out of the seat and take a step or two backwards and gesture for others to go ahead as if I’m an usher. Afterwards I’ll walk back to my seat without interrupting the lines.

I think the OP explained very well why this was not possible. Like NewEnglandPries said, he could have gone up with his arms crossed and just kept walking, it would not have been rude.

 

[sablouwho]

Prior to the start of RCIA (in which we’re dismissed after the homily), when I went to mass I sometimes went up for blessings as I’d been told by a well-meaning parishioner that it was ok to do so.

However, I found that I didn’t actually LIKE going up for the blessing, so I stopped doing it. The reason I didn’t like it is that I felt as if I was “interrupting” the flow of what the priest was doing.

I am glad that I no longer go up for blessings. Will be even gladder when I can receive communion.b

 

[benedictgal]

The laws of the church including the ones you quote are subject to pastoral practices. That is part of Canon law.
The primary teacher for a diocese, as you know, is the ordinary, not Rome. He is the one to interpets the law and enforces it according to the needs of the people to whom he is responsible. He is our primary teacher, not Rome.
The last thing I think I will do is go to my ordinary before mass and quote those five sections of the law, and tell him he isn’t suppose to give blessings to those who come to him in the communion line.
I always find it ammusing that when you quote the law, you want to leave out the role of the ordinary.
Peace,
FAB

FAB, what part of “expressly discouraged” do you not understand? Neither you nor your ordinary have the right to overrule what is already in current, liturgical law.

Your ordinary’s authority flows from Rome. He gets his direction from Rome. Ultimately, Rome is the teacher.

In many of my other posts, I have quoted what the role of the ordinary is, and it is a very limited role:

1. The Diocesan Bishop, who is to be regarded as the high priest of his flock, and from whom the life in Christ of the faithful under his care in a certain sense derives and upon whom it depends,148 must promote, regulate, and be vigilant over the liturgical life in his diocese. It is to him that in this Instruction is entrusted the regulating of the discipline of concelebration (cf. above, nos. 202, 374) and the establishing of norms regarding the function of serving the priest at the altar (cf. above, no. 107), the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds (cf. above, no. 283), and the construction and ordering of churches (cf. above, no. 291). With him lies responsibility above all for fostering the spirit of the Sacred Liturgy in the priests, deacons, and faithful.

This is all he can do. If he wants to insert these blessings in lieu of Holy Communion, then, he needs to bring forth this idea to the USCCB and present it to a vote. Now, 2/3 ov the Latin-Rite bishops have to approve this proposed adaptation to the GIRM so that it can be sent to Rome for the necessary recognitio.

The blessing in lieu of distributing Holy Communion is not present in the GIRM. If the USCCB wants that, then, they would have to propose it as an adapatation. Your ordinary, on his own, does not have the authority to do that. That is what you fail to see.

 

[FAB]

FAB, what part of “expressly discouraged” do you not understand? Neither you nor your ordinary have the right to overrule what is already in current, liturgical law.

Your ordinary’s authority flows from Rome. He gets his direction from Rome. Ultimately, Rome is the teacher.

In many of my other posts, I have quoted what the role of the ordinary is, and it is a very limited role:

This is all he can do. If he wants to insert these blessings in lieu of Holy Communion, then, he needs to bring forth this idea to the USCCB and present it to a vote. Now, 2/3 ov the Latin-Rite bishops have to approve this proposed adaptation to the GIRM so that it can be sent to Rome for the necessary recognitio.

The blessing in lieu of distributing Holy Communion is not present in the GIRM. If the USCCB wants that, then, they would have to propose it as an adapatation. Your ordinary, on his own, does not have the authority to do that. That is what you fail to see.

What you quoted gives the ordinary vast authority. I don’t understand this insistance to limit the authority of the ordinary.
At a recent mass that I assisted was at a correctional facility to which the bishop specifically invited those who were not Catholic or could not recieve the Echarist fro a blessing in the commuion line. This was very pastoral and was very appropriate.
The law cannot and doesnot address all situations.
From the Canon

CHAPTER V.

DISPENSATIONS

Can. 85 A dispensation, or the relaxation of a merely ecclesiastical law in a particular case, can be granted by those who possess executive power within the limits of their competence, as well as by those who have the power to dispense explicitly or implicitly either by the law itself or by legitimate delegation

Peace,
FAB

 

[benedictgal]

What you quoted gives the ordinary vast authority. I don’t understand this insistance to limit the authority of the ordinary.
At a recent mass that I assisted was at a correctional facility to which the bishop specifically invited those who were not Catholic or could not recieve the Echarist fro a blessing in the commuion line. This was very pastoral and was very appropriate.
The law cannot and doesnot address all situations.
From the Canon

Peace,
FAB

But, that still does not give him the right to overrule what the competent authority over him (the CDWDS) has already stated. Dispensation does not mean that he can create his own liturgical norms, FAB. He cannot insert something into the GIRM because that is beyond the scope of his authority.

The only body that can make adaptations to the GIRM is the national episcopal conference, a point that you seem to be ingoring:

1. It is up to the Conferences of Bishops to decide on the adaptations indicated in this General Instruction and in the Order of Mass and, once their decisions have been accorded the recognitio of the Apostolic See, to introduce them into the Missal itself. These adaptations include

The gestures and posture of the faithful (cf. no. 43 above);

The gestures of veneration toward the altar and the Book of the Gospels (cf. no. 273 above);

The texts of the chants at the entrance, at the presentation of the gifts, and at Communion (cf. nos. 48, 74, 87 above);

The readings from Sacred Scripture to be used in special circumstances (cf. no. 362 above);

The form of the gesture of peace (cf. no. 82 above);

The manner of receiving Holy Communion (cf. nos. 160, 283 above);

The materials for the altar and sacred furnishings, especially the sacred vessels, and also the materials, form, and color of the liturgical vestments (cf. nos. 301, 326, 329, 339, 342-346 above).

Dispensation does not necessarily mean that he can add something where nothing exists, FAB.

 

[FAB]

But, that still does not give him the right to overrule what the competent authority over him (the CDWDS) has already stated. Dispensation does not mean that he can create his own liturgical norms, FAB. He cannot insert something into the GIRM because that is beyond the scope of his authority.

The only body that can make adaptations to the GIRM is the national episcopal conference, a point that you seem to be ingoring:

Dispensation does not necessarily mean that he can add something where nothing exists, FAB.

I always find it interesting that you will quote from things you agree with, but choose to ignor those things that don’t fit your augment, even when presented from the same documents that you quote. The Canon, as you know are the laws of the Church and govern the GIRM as well.
Peace,
FAB

 

[benedictgal]

I always find it interesting that you will quote from things you agree with, but choose to ignor those things that don’t fit your augment, even when presented from the same documents that you quote. The Canon, as you know are the laws of the Church and govern the GIRM as well.
Peace,
FAB

FAB, the fact remains that dispensation does not mean creating your own ritual and inserting it into the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. You seem to be grasping at straws to support a practice that Rome has already stated is expressly discouraged.

 

[FAB]

discouraged.

discouraged, not forbidden, still the option of the ordinary as pastor to the faithfull.

Peace,
FAB

 

[benedictgal]

discouraged, not forbidden, still the option of the ordinary as pastor to the faithfull.

Peace,
FAB

No, it is not, FAB. I have a suggestion for you. Since you remain obstinate in your position, why don’t you write the CDWDS and ask them? Better still, please find, in the GIRM and RS, where these blessings are permitted in the Mass? With all due respect, as I read your posts in this and in other threads, you seem to not want to take the Congregation at its word and you seem to be very dismissive of Rome’s authority in the matter.

Many well-meaning, but, bad things have been done in the name of pastoral purposes. What you are doing is perpetuating something that is not even in the authoritative documents of the Church.

 

[FAB]

No, it is not, FAB. I have a suggestion for you. Since you remain obstinate in your position, why don’t you write the CDWDS and ask them? Better still, please find, in the GIRM and RS, where these blessings are permitted in the Mass? With all due respect, as I read your posts in this and in other threads, you seem to not want to take the Congregation at its word and you seem to be very dismissive of Rome’s authority in the matter.

Many well-meaning, but, bad things have been done in the name of pastoral purposes. What you are doing is perpetuating something that is not even in the authoritative documents of the Church.

I’m not dismissive of Rome. The GIRM is a product of the Catholic Bishops approved by Rome. I trust that my ordinary knows in backward and forward and fully knows what his authority is. You seem to want to make the ordinary a yes man to Rome and dismiss his rightful authority. Ask any priest and he will tell you that he answers to his ordinary first not to Rome. From your post, you are a mister in your parish, as such you are also called to answer to your ordinary first. If you have a question of his teaching, then you would need to address him first.

Peace,
FAB

 

[benedictgal]

I’m not dismissive of Rome. The GIRM is a product of the Catholic Bishops approved by Rome. I trust that my ordinary knows in backward and forward and fully knows what his authority is. You seem to want to make the ordinary a yes man to Rome and dismiss his rightful authority. Ask any priest and he will tell you that he answers to his ordinary first not to Rome. From your post, you are a mister in your parish, as such you are also called to answer to your ordinary first. If you have a question of his teaching, then you would need to address him first.
Peace,
FAB

You have your sources wrong. The GIRM and the Roman Missal come directly from Rome. They are written originally in Latin. If a conference wants to make adaptations to the norms prescribed by Rome, then, the conference has to present their proposal to the Latin Rite bishops and receive a 2/3 affirmative vote from same. Then, these adaptations are submitted to Rome for the recognitio. With all due respect, you need to do your research a little better, FAB.

 

[FAB]

You have your sources wrong. The GIRM and the Roman Missal come directly from Rome. They are written originally in Latin. If a conference wants to make adaptations to the norms prescribed by Rome, then, the conference has to present their proposal to the Latin Rite bishops and receive a 2/3 affirmative vote from same. Then, these adaptations are submitted to Rome for the recognitio. With all due respect, you need to do your research a little better, FAB.

I won’t argue the process. Much of the holdup in releasing the new GIRM were negociations with the USCCB with many adaptations for the US church, Rome at this point, and we are talking only about a certain office, will sign off.
You skate around point. The Bishops are still very familiar with the document. You are still not recognizing thier individual authority.

Peace,
FAB

 

[benedictgal]

I won’t argue the process. Much of the holdup in releasing the new GIRM were negociations with the USCCB with many adaptations for the US church, Rome at this point, and we are talking only about a certain office, will sign off.
You skate around point. The Bishops are still very familiar with the document. You are still not recognizing thier individual authority.

Peace,
FAB

Actually, FAB, you are the one deflecting the issue here. The fact remains that dispensation does not mean creating a new rite and imbedding it into the Mass. There is a process involved here, something that, as I read your posts, you fail to understand.

The GIRM specifically states what the local ordinary can do and what he cannot do. What you advocate is something that is beyond the scope of his competency. Remember, too, that obedience flows both ways. Just as we are to be obedient to the local ordinary, he is also expected to be obedient to the Holy Father and his Curia, who act with and in his authority. Please read what Redemptionis Sacramentum says:

“The regulation of the Sacred Liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, which rests specifically with the Apostolic See and, according to the norms of law, with the Bishop”.34

[16.] “It pertains to the Apostolic See to regulate the Sacred Liturgy of the universal Church, to publish the liturgical books and to grant the recognitio for their translation into vernacular languages, as well as to ensure that the liturgical regulations, especially those governing the celebration of the most exalted celebration of the Sacrifice of the Mass, are everywhere faithfully observed”.36

[17.] “The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments attends to those matters that pertain to the Apostolic See as regards the regulation and promotion of the Sacred Liturgy, and especially the Sacraments, with due regard for the competence of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It fosters and enforces sacramental discipline, especially as regards their validity and their licit celebration”. Finally, it “carefully seeks to ensure that the liturgical regulations are observed with precision, and that abuses are prevented or eliminated whenever they are detected”.37 In this regard, according to the tradition of the universal Church, pre-eminent solicitude is accorded the celebration of Holy Mass, and also to the worship that is given to the Holy Eucharist even outside Mass

Thus, the Apostolic See (re: the Holy Father) is the first point of Authority. The secondary one is the bishop. The bishop acts within the norms of law and does not have universal authority over the liturgy. Furthermore, the document goes on to say that:

[21.] It pertains to the diocesan Bishop, then, “within the limits of his competence, to set forth liturgical norms in his Diocese, by which all are bound”.45 Still, the Bishop must take care not to allow the removal of that liberty foreseen by the norms of the liturgical books so that the celebration may be adapted in an intelligent manner to the Church building, or to the group of the faithful who are present, or to particular pastoral circumstances in such a way that the universal sacred rite is truly accommodated to human understanding.46

The key phrase is “within the limits of his competency”. That means his authority comes with limitations. He does not have the authority to create new rituals. His authority comes in the enforcing of liturgical law.

Again, I challenge you to find in the GIRM and in RS where it states that blessings in lieu of receiving Holy Communion are acceptable. I also challenge you to read what the CDWDS has already stated. They are quoting existing liturgical and canonical law, something that, as I read your posts, you refuse to acknowledge.

I wonder, if, after your ordination, you will engage in imparting these blessings, knowing what you know is the position of the CDWDS. I believe that this is a fair question to ask.

 

[zab]

Actually, FAB, …
I wonder, if, after your ordination, you will engage in imparting these blessings, knowing what you know is the position of the CDWDS. I believe that this is a fair question to ask.

That wasn’t called for. We should be praying for our seminarians, not treating them like trash and trying to trip them up.

 

[iBenedicta]

Is this a sin … ? Thanks

A sin? No. A mistake, maybe. Don’t worry about it.

You’re welcome!

 

[Cristiano]

Actually, FAB, you are the one deflecting the issue here. The fact remains that dispensation does not mean creating a new rite and imbedding it into the Mass. There is a process involved here, something that, as I read your posts, you fail to understand.

The GIRM specifically states what the local ordinary can do and what he cannot do. What you advocate is something that is beyond the scope of his competency. Remember, too, that obedience flows both ways. Just as we are to be obedient to the local ordinary, he is also expected to be obedient to the Holy Father and his Curia, who act with and in his authority. Please read what Redemptionis Sacramentum says:

Thus, the Apostolic See (re: the Holy Father) is the first point of Authority. The secondary one is the bishop. The bishop acts within the norms of law and does not have universal authority over the liturgy. Furthermore, the document goes on to say that:

The key phrase is “within the limits of his competency”. That means his authority comes with limitations. He does not have the authority to create new rituals. His authority comes in the enforcing of liturgical law.

Again, I challenge you to find in the GIRM and in RS where it states that blessings in lieu of receiving Holy Communion are acceptable. I also challenge you to read what the CDWDS has already stated. They are quoting existing liturgical and canonical law, something that, as I read your posts, you refuse to acknowledge.

I wonder, if, after your ordination, you will engage in imparting these blessings, knowing what you know is the position of the CDWDS. I believe that this is a fair question to ask.

I guess that the priest is not allowed to drop dead during mass, because it would be an addition to what the GIRM prescribes. We need a CDWDS letter to be sent to all seminarians.

While I agree with the concept of not having blessings for people in the communion line for the same reason that Benedictgal has eloquently described. I invite all the posters to consider that “… if I have the gift of prophecy, and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.” Pastoral care is about love and that is why dispensations are allowed by canon law.

We should also remember that Romano Guardini said that there is no purpose in the Mass, because it is not for us but it is for God. We should not change the liturgy for the benefit of man, however, we should accommodate man because God loves him so much.

 

[benedictgal]

The point that folks who support these blessings in lieu of receiving Holy Communion fail to realize is that there is no option for this in the GIRM. They also seem to disregard what the CDWDS has stated regarding this issue.

Furthermore, the key point that is completely ignored here is that Sacrosanctum Concilium stated that:

. Regulation of the Sacred Liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.

1. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the Liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.

1. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the Liturgy on his own authority.

This last line is important. This innovation cropped up under the misguided thought of inclusivity. While the diocesan bishop enjoys some regulation of the bishop, it is not a complete and total one. On his own, he cannot create and insert new rituals into the Mass. It is not within his duties. The GIRM spells out what he can and cannot do.

FAB cited canon law, but, dispensation does not mean creation. Furthermore, many abuses have cropped up and festered because of a misapplication of “pastoral purposes”.

The bottom line is that these blessings are expressly discouraged. Unfortunately, there are those who will not take that term for what it is worth and will try to find ways to skirt around the issue.

Those who are to be ordained, whether to the diaconate or to the presbyterate, need to take seriously directives issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. Bishops, too, need to heed what the CDWDS. Obedience is a two-way street. Bishops are just as much bound to obey the Holy Father and the Apostolic See as the faithful are to obeying their bishops in faith and morals. To suggest that one takes direction only from the bishop rather than from Rome is to tread on dangerous ground.

One note about charity: It is more charitable, as I see it, to refrain from imparting a blessing in lieu of distributing Holy Communion and then later on explain why the celebrant is not doing this. The blessing sends the wrong message. It means that this is a “consolation prize” until one can receive Holy Communion. It further confuses the faithful because it leads them to think that a blessing is almost as good. Sometimes, charity means withholding something that we know to be wrong so as to avoid misleading people. Sometimes, the most uncharitable thing that we can do to someone is to allow something that is expressly discouraged to continue rather than explaining why it should not be done.

 

[katrntogo]

That wasn’t called for. We should be praying for our seminarians, not treating them like trash and trying to trip them up.

I agree. Thank you to our seminarians, you are much appreciated.

As to Benedictgal’s almost Pharisaical bent on this same topic in countless threads, I agree (not that my opinion matters & nor should it) with the Bishops & Priests that do blessings (& I have traveled extensively all over the US on nursing contracts & see this practice in all places I have been except for one & I did not attend Mass there so cannot speak for it, preferring to drive to the next diocese, after a priest refused Viaticum to a patient who had requested confession, etc. on the answer given when the priest asked if the person had attended Mass every week - that was in Lincoln, NE) in that it brings people closer to the Lord (it’s not like they are receiving while under mortal sin). My own particular diocese is one of those like one of the other posters in that blessings are almost expected to be given.

 

[Heavens_Flowers]

How then does one going to receive a blessing know to cross there arms to receive the blessing unless, this was in fact an accepted practice. In my church in fact its an enjoyable time for the children of the parish to line up for there blessing, because they get to feel connected to Jesus through the Eucharist too. Is mass not to connect a community with like munds in the way of christ? Why would someone even try ands say that this is in any way wrong? I’m not understanding this one. You are using documents other than the ccc to defend your answers and frankly the ccc was made to tell the catholic people what exactly the church believes and doesn’t believe and we should fall back on this always thank!!! Also thanks to all religious life and clergy.

 

[Justin_Mee]

First of all, no one is forcing you. What you should have done, with all due respect, is to have remained in your pew. I do not want to be rude, but, what the priest did was wrong, regardless of whether or not a Cardinal is present.

While what you did is not a sin, it does beg the question as to why you did this in the first place. Irregardless of a person’s physical stature, this should not be done. Prudence on the part of all, including the ushers, should have been exercised. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has given five solid observations, based on current liturgical and canonical law as to why these should not be done in the first place:

The ushers (I am assuming that is who did this) had no right to get you in line since the line is only for those who are receiving Our Lord in Holy Communion and not a blessing. I realize that you mean well and have come here for an answer. I do not mean to pounce on you, but, it is somewhat frustrating that folks (not necessarily you) do not understand the purpose of the Communion line. When people take it upon themselves to add things to the Mass that they have no authority to add, it causes the kind of confusion that individuals such as yourself are experiencing. In the end, this sort of action does more harm than good.

This is not a settled question even on CA. One of my favorite apologists, Michelle Arnold, recently posted this in “Ask an Apologist.” This seems in a state of confusion among very knowledgeable apologists. I, for one, wish everyone was on the same page. I gave up my blessing because it was “wrong.” But it is very common in the U.S. and I even see it on EWTN Mass. Is it really wrong or do some just feel it’s wrong? I am thankful that I won’t have to guess anymore after Easter vigil.

Old Oct 16, '09, 2:42 pm
Michelle Arnold’s Avatar
Michelle Arnold Michelle Arnold is offline
Catholic Answers Apologist

Join Date: May 3, 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,789
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: What do I do when I go to Mass for the first time?
Welcome home! Here’s a brief rundown: Enter quietly, find a pew you like, and sit down. During the service, stand when the congregation stands, kneel when they kneel if you want to do so, and otherwise sit quietly. During Communion, keep an eye on those who approach the ministers. If blessings are given to some, then that means you may enter the Communion line for a blessing at the next Mass you attend. If you want a blessing, approach the minister (preferably a priest or deacon) with your arms crossed over your chest. That is the signal for a blessing. For more information, see the link below.

Recommended reading

What can Protestants do at Mass?

---

“If anyone comes to me, I want to lead them to Him.” --St. Edith Stein

Recent apologetics answers by Michelle Arnold