Blessing during communion

[zab]

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.

The Congregation for Divine Worship and The Discipline of the Sacraments studied this matter for years, yet they decided “not to do anything about it” and according to former prefect of the Congregation, Cardinal Arinze, they decided “to leave it to the local ordinary to decide.” As experts on these matters, the Congregation knew that this practice should not be happening but they allowed it to continue by not saying anything about it. Were they being “most uncharitable” ?

In response to “japhy’s letter”, the CDWDS referred to existing Church documents and gave several points of why blessings should not be given in the Communion line. This response to his letter has been THE DOCUMENT of reference to prove that the practice of going up for a blessing should not be happening. No one ever quotes from the “existing church documents”.

Like japhy said in post #19 It’s really quite possible that priests are unaware about whether the practice should or should not be done. Priests can’t be expected to know everything, and there has never been (to my knowledge) a document from Rome saying “do not give blessings during the Communion procession”, and even the letter that benedictgal posted doesn’t come straight out and say “do not give…”, but simply provides explanations from existing Church law and discipline for why they should not be given. (I was the original recipient of that letter, so I’m very familiar with this issue.) The letter also doesn’t say what should be done when someone presents himself for such a blessing, only what shouldn’t be done.

So with the response from the CDWDS, we who are not experts have a better understanding of what should and should not be done. And it is good to share that information but to do so in a charitable manner without belittleing those who do not respond to this problem in the way that we would have them respond.

 

[thistle]

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

Frankly, I think you should be talking to the priest about this. He does not have freedom to change the rules.
Our priest do NOT give blessings while distributing Communion. He waits until the Mass has ended and then will bless people who approach him for a blessing.

 

[benedictgal]

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.

First of all, you need not be insulting in your tone. With all due respect, I do not think that you understand the term Pharisaical The Pharisees were criticized by Jesus for imposing priestly rituals upon the people. They did not have anything to do with the cultic sacrificial form of worship practiced by Ancient Israel. It is sad that when people realize that their arguments are getting nowhere, they resort to insults.

The fact remains that the CDWDS statement restates what is the current liturgical and canonical law. What folks do not seem to get is that the CDWDS clearly stated that these “blessings” are expressly discouraged. The CDWDS is the liturgical rule-making authority of the Church.

 

[benedictgal]

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

Actually, what you quoted is outdated material. The statement from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments was issued on November 22, 2008. Furthermore, while I have the utmost respect for Ms. Arnold she is not an authority in the Church. She is not an official with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. We need to listen to and heed what the competent liturgical rule-making authority states.

It seems to me that those who are supportive of these “blessings” will try to find every single shred of something to prove their point instead of looking directly at the sources quoted by the CDWDS. The fact that they choose to ignore what the CDWDS has written indicates to me that they either do not understand the authority of the Congregation or they simply want to do their own thing and ignore what the Holy See has stated.

 

[benedictgal]

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.

Again, the Catechism is not a legislative document. It is a teaching document. Not everything about the Church is contained in the Catechism. The liturgical documents of the Church (the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, Redemptionis Sacramentum, Liturgiam Authenticam and Sacrosanctum Concilium) are what govern the liturgy, not the Catechism. The Supreme Pontiff (the Pope) and Apostolic See (another term for the Holy See, which means Rome) are the supreme rule-making authorities in the Church.

The Curial Congregation of the Apostolic See charged with determining the liturgical practices of the Church is the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. Therefore, when the CDWDS issues a statement (identified by a protocol number), it is something that we have to take notice, read and accept with humble obedience. The CDWDS acts with the authority and in the name of the Holy Father.

The Mass is not some communal good-feeling get-together. The Mass is the Holy Sacrifice. Those who are properly disposed are called to receive Holy Communion, not a blessing.

Your post clearly makes the point that Redemptionis Sacramentum made when it said that:

[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

These innovations only serve to confuse the faithful, as I have seen in these threads.

 

[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.

It took me a liitle bit of time to track down the letter your are quoting from CDWDS. As a commentary on the EWTN site put it "As a private reply the letter is not yet a norm with legal force "
I’m afraid you misrepresented this as official Church teaching. AS such Until either he or Rome issue a definitive response to the issue, I will go back to my point of following the instructions of my primary teacher, my ordinary.

Peace,
FAB

 

[benedictgal]

It took me a liitle bit of time to track down the letter your are quoting from CDWDS. As a commentary on the EWTN site put it "As a private reply the letter is not yet a norm with legal force "
I’m afraid you misrepresented this as official Church teaching. AS such Until either he or Rome issue a definitive response to the issue, I will go back to my point of following the instructions of my primary teacher, my ordinary.

Peace,
FAB

Nice try, FAB, but, you are still deflecting. The letter bears a protocol number and has already appeared in Notitae, the official publication of the CDWDS. Thus, it is no longer a private letter. Furthermore, you neglect to mention several things. The letter references what is already current liturgical and canonical law. Based on your interpretation, then, are we to completely disregard what is already in the books and ignore what the CDWDS has referenced?

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).

All of these are current liturgical and canonical regulations that the CDWDS is citing. Or, based on your line of thought, are these not good enough to follow? Is the Church’s discipline, as stated in observation 5 something that you would urge us to disregard?

Furthermore, what you are quoting from EWTN has already been used so many times to discount the letter. While I have the utmost respect for both EWTN and Fr. Edward McNamara from Zenit (the source that EWTN cites), neither are officials with the CDWDS.

Thus, your research is for naught. It is best to keep with what the Holy See has already stated and reaffirmed. Why you insist on disregarding the CDWDS is beyond me. With all due respect, you need to re-read the citations given by the CDWDS in its five observations rather than try to, as I see it, mislead people.

 

[FAB]

Nice try, FAB, but, you are still deflecting. The letter bears a protocol number and has already appeared in Notitae, the official publication of the CDWDS. Thus, it is no longer a private letter. Furthermore, you neglect to mention several things. The letter references what is already current liturgical and canonical law. Based on your interpretation, then, are we to completely disregard what is already in the books and ignore what the CDWDS has referenced?

Furthermore, what you are quoting from EWTN has already been used so many times to discount the letter. While I have the utmost respect for both EWTN and Fr. Edward McNamara from Zenit (the source that EWTN cites), neither are officials with the CDWDS.

Thus, your research is for naught. It is best to keep with what the Holy See has already stated and reaffirmed. Why you insist on disregarding the CDWDS is beyond me. With all due respect, you need to re-read the citations given by the CDWDS in its five observations rather than try to, as I see it, mislead people.

I researched the CDWDS and there are no specific official reference to these observations. There is also no official publication of the letter that I could find. It you have one then please provide the link. Waht I did find were comments from at least one bishop that supported the practice.
Peace,
FAB

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

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.

Completely uncalled for. And, more importantly, who cares? Its not the end of the world. There’s more to the Church than stacks of documents. That’s not to say that Mass should become a free for all, but lets keep things in perspective here. Yes, if the CDWDS receives a complaint they’ll fire off pro forma response letters, but do you really think that anyone in any Vatican office really cares all that much about this issue? Do you really think that as they fire off the perfunctory response that they’re not rolling their eyes that someone actually took the time to write to Rome over such a matter? Do you seriously think that a bishop who performs such liturgically incorrect blessings is going to be hauled in for a talking to? Or that a bishop would be denied a high profile diocese based on such actions?
Not gonna happen.
And, more importantly, why ask such an accusatory question to someone studying for ordination? Is he somehow unfit for ordination due to a minor liturgical matter that is essentially common practice?

 

[benedictgal]

I researched the CDWDS and there are no specific official reference to these observations. There is also no official publication of the letter that I could find. It you have one then please provide the link. Waht I did find were comments from at least one bishop that supported the practice.
Peace,
FAB

Notitiae is not an online publication. It is a book similar to the Congressional Record. In fact, the book, from what I understand, is not the easiest thing to acquire, although Adoremus told me that there is a publication clearinghouse where I could get access to a subscription. But, even then, it would be a matter of cost.

Now, not everything that the Holy See does is online. In fact, Adoremus has an extensive online library which is actually better organized than the Vatican’s. In fact, the CDWDS does not want email inquiries sent to them. They want something on paper with a signature. In other words, they deal with physical pen, ink and paper. They want a signature. That point was made quite clear to me when I spoke to them in December.

By the way, the official I spoke to told me that they were somewhat frustrated with the flow of information. They observed that sometimes, the information winds up filtering from the bottom up rather than from the top down. He credits the faithful (laity) for taking the initiative on informing the clergy about what is happening. He also added that the priests assisting at Papal Masses complained about people wanting a blessing in lieu of Holy Communion and how much confusion that caused. Thus, it was not just japhy’s initial inquiry, but other things that came into play.

What I think you still fail to understand is that Protocol No. 930/08/L contains in it the existing liturgical and canonical law. Go back and look at those citations. That should be sufficient evidence for you. I would go and post the whole thing, but, if you recall, I did that in another thread.

I have a PDF of the original letter that japhy received. I do not know how to post a PDF, but I do have it. In fact, I showed this to two priests, one of whom is a monsignor rather knowledgeable in liturgical law. He wholeheartedly supports the letter and was grateful that clarification finally came out. In fact, he addressed the matter at the tail end of his homily on Corpus Christi Sunday. He said that no one has the right, on their own authority, to add anything to the Mass and that, while this was a well-intended effort, it was still wrong. The faithful understood. The second priest put an immediate stop to the practice in his practice. Other priests down here have seen the letter and have also begun to stop the practice.

At least we are getting somewhere.

 

[Justin_Mee]

I researched the CDWDS and there are no specific official reference to these observations. There is also no official publication of the letter that I could find. It you have one then please provide the link. Waht I did find were comments from at least one bishop that supported the practice.
Peace,
FAB

In the spirit of Christian love, I don’t think this practice will change unless there is a directive that uses words stronger than “strongly discouraged.” These words leave a lawyer (like me) to run wild with possibilities. Why didn’t they use “expressly prohibited?” Now that clearly means what it means. No weazel words as we call them. I believe the wording may be the nail on which many Priests hang their blessings. The Priests are the ones that are face to face with their flock at least weekly. They love them and want them to stay committed and as close to God as possible. Ergo, the blessing.

 

[benedictgal]

Completely uncalled for. And, more importantly, who cares? Its not the end of the world. There’s more to the Church than stacks of documents. That’s not to say that Mass should become a free for all, but lets keep things in perspective here. Yes, if the CDWDS receives a complaint they’ll fire off pro forma response letters, but do you really think that anyone in any Vatican office really cares all that much about this issue? Do you really think that as they fire off the perfunctory response that they’re not rolling their eyes that someone actually took the time to write to Rome over such a matter? Do you seriously think that a bishop who performs such liturgically incorrect blessings is going to be hauled in for a talking to? Or that a bishop would be denied a high profile diocese based on such actions?
Not gonna happen.
And, more importantly, why ask such an accusatory question to someone studying for ordination? Is he somehow unfit for ordination due to a minor liturgical matter that is essentially common practice?

With all due respect, Father, Rome does care about these matters. If it did not, why would the Holy See have devoted a lot of space in Redemptionis Sacramentum regarding the matter of liturgical abuse? In fact, in many of its responses to lay faithful raising serious issues, the CDWDS has reiterated and reconfirmed the right of the faithful to have recourse to the Holy See.

The poster I was responding to and I have had some rather cantankerous debates on Church matters to the point that I saw a huge disconnect between his opinions and what the Church holds. I saw this same disconnect in this thread.

Perhaps there are those who do not find liturgical abuse serious, but, rest assured that Rome does care. I speak from personal experience. The CDWDS worked with my father to resolve a very serious issue in our diocese. Several elderly people were dying without having received the Sacraments at my dad’s former parish. He addressed this conern with the pastor (my dad is an EMHC to the homebound and the infirmed) and had repeatedly asked him to visit the elderly (housed just across the street from the parish). The pastor refused. Despite the fact that my father sent a certified, registered letter, the bishop never responded. After several exchanges and 3AM phone calls, the matter was finally resolved.

When I spoke to the CDWDS back in December over another matter, I asked the official about their statements concerning blessings in lieu of receiving Holy Communion. He told me that the CDWDS still held to what it wrote back in November 2008. Furthermore, he told me that priests who were assisting at Papal Masses were complaining about individuals seeking a blessing in lieu of receiving Holy Communion and how much confusion that was causing.

 

[benedictgal]

In the spirit of Christian love, I don’t think this practice will change unless there is a directive that uses words stronger than “strongly discouraged.” These words leave a lawyer (like me) to run wild with possibilities. Why didn’t they use “expressly prohibited?” Now that clearly means what it means. No weazel words as we call them. I believe the wording may be the nail on which many Priests hang their blessings. The Priests are the ones that are face to face with their flock at least weekly. They love them and want them to stay committed and as close to God as possible. Ergo, the blessing.

However, Justin, since you are a lawyer, I am sure that you have read case law. The CDWDS cites current liturgical and canonical law, something that both you and FAB fail to see, and, quite frankly, choose to ignore.

This is not a call for the priest to make. Please re-read these observations:

Protocol No. 930/08/L

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).

I draw your attention to observaton 5. It is already the Church’s discipline that these individuals “should not approach Holy Communion nor receive a blessing.” How much more clear do you want than that?

As I stated before, many, many abuses have come about under the guise of misapplied “pastoral reasons.”

Although I am not a lawyer, I have written legislation that has become law. I know what a statute looks like. The CDWDS is merely restating what is already in the books. What is so hard to understand about that?

 

[FAB]

The issue sounds as one that is under discussion, and one that does not seem to be a top prioity. I don’t disagree that the CDWDS has valid points, nor do I disput the norms already in place.
The information from the CDWDS filter from the bottom up, but also do real world needs and practices. I will submit that this is one of those issues. The CDWDS at the near top of the chain is looking down and saying no, but the preist and bishops are looking at the practice as one that leads people to Christ, a difference between lawyers and ministers.

Peace,
FAB

 

[benedictgal]

The issue sounds as one that is under discussion, and one that does not seem to be a top prioity. I don’t disagree that the CDWDS has valid points, nor do I disput the norms already in place.
The information from the CDWDS filter from the bottom up, but also do real world needs and practices. I will submit that this is one of those issues. The CDWDS at the near top of the chain is looking down and saying not, but the preist and bishops are looking at the practice as one that leads people to Christ, a difference between lawyers and ministers.

Peace,
FAB

However, the CDWDS is the ultimate rule-making authority here. It also realizes that these miguided practices have caused a lot of confusion, as they have heard, first-hand from those priests who assist at Papal Masses who routinely come across people wanting a blessing in lieu of receiving Holy Communion.

This well-meaning, but, misguided practice does no one any favors because it promotes the mentality that we have to “get something” at Mass. It promotes a false sense of inclusion. The blessing that comes at the end of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is applicable to everyone, Catholic, non-Catholic, Atheist, whoever happens to be at Mass. If people want a blessing, they can certainly approach the priest (or the deacon) after Mass. But, the time for the distribution of Holy Communion is precisely that.

I am sure that at some point, someone will, no doubt, approach you after Mass for a blessing (once you are ordained a deacon), either for themselves, their kids, their cars, or, in some creative cases, a pet. But, this is the proper time. At that point, you can be as lengthy as you want and exercise the appropriate pastoral judgment. But, the time for the distribution of Holy Communion is just that. It is the time for the properly disposed faithful to become one with Our Lord in the only possible manner, through the consumption of Holy Communion. Remember the words of the Ecce Agnus Dei:

Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Happy are those who are called to His Supper.

It is the invitation made to receive Our Lord, not a blessing. We respond by telling the Lord that we are not worthy that He should come under our roof, but, to only say the word and our souls will be healed. Then, those who are properly disposed come forward to receive Our Lord. Those who cannot should be encouraged to make a spiritual communion, praying that our Lord will come spiritually into their hearts.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

With all due respect, Father, Rome does care about these matters. If it did not, why would the Holy See have devoted a lot of space in Redemptionis Sacramentum regarding the matter of liturgical abuse? In fact, in many of its responses to lay faithful raising serious issues, the CDWDS has reiterated and reconfirmed the right of the faithful to have recourse to the Holy See.

Like I said, lots of stuff is pro forma. RS is indeed a document that tries to hit all matters at once. However, that doesn’t mean all matters are equal in importance.

And given how widespread this practice is, if Rome took it that seriously it would initiate a full court press on the matter. And yet all it seems to be doing is sending out form letters in response to complaints.

The poster I was responding to and I have had some rather cantankerous debates on Church matters to the point that I saw a huge disconnect between his opinions and what the Church holds.

This isn’t a matter of “what the Church holds”, its a matter of liturgical rules. “The Church holds” the Creeds and Councils and Dogmas, this is no such matter. This concerns a rule that could be technically changed at any time.

Perhaps there are those who do not find liturgical abuse serious, but, rest assured that Rome does care.

To call these blessings an “abuse” drains all weight out of the word abuse. They are incorrect and should not be done, but abuse is usually a word reserved for things of much more serious nature.

I speak from personal experience. The CDWDS worked with my father to resolve a very serious issue in our diocese. Several elderly people were dying without having received the Sacraments at my dad’s former parish. He addressed this conern with the pastor (my dad is an EMHC to the homebound and the infirmed) and had repeatedly asked him to visit the elderly (housed just across the street from the parish). The pastor refused. Despite the fact that my father sent a certified, registered letter, the bishop never responded. After several exchanges and 3AM phone calls, the matter was finally resolved.

Whoa! Apples and oranges here. Are you seriously comparing dying people’s wishes to receive the sacraments with a child receiving a blessing in a communion line???

When I spoke to the CDWDS back in December over another matter, I asked the official about their statements concerning blessings in lieu of receiving Holy Communion. He told me that the CDWDS still held to what it wrote back in November 2008. Furthermore, he told me that priests who were assisting at Papal Masses were complaining about individuals seeking a blessing in lieu of receiving Holy Communion and how much confusion that was causing.

Yes, its become problematic. But its a molehill not a mountain.

 

[Ed_Rand]

For what it’s worth, I would advise anyone who is still worried about this issue to follow the norms in your church (many priests encourage the practice) and also the dictates of your conscience and not to be frightened by benedictgal. I do not doubt that benedictgal is right in that it may be frowned upon “higher up”. And so, after reading this, if your conscience tells you not to, then don’t. On the other hand, the Church is careful not to step on people’s popular piety. Let’s just sit and think of how varied the mass must be throughout the world. Imagine the curious practices that must exist in all those far away places! Thank God that Rome has not tried to beat everyone into submission as it seems benedictgal would like.

In my Church, the Mexican-Americans are very fond of giving their children blessings. When the priests give a blessing, the mothers and fathers then turn to the children and perform the sign of the cross on their bodies and then the children kiss their parents hands. Sure, this blessing technically does not carry the same power as that of the priest. But I think it’s beautiful. It’s also kind of appropriate since my priest often tries to drive home the point that it is not his job to educate the children in the ways of the faith. He constantly stresses that the most important things are learned from the mother and father. Enjoy the mass and don’t get too caught up in the formalities. And always respect other people’s piety.

 

[benedictgal]

Like I said, lots of stuff is pro forma. RS is indeed a document that tries to hit all matters at once. However, that doesn’t mean all matters are equal in importance.

And given how widespread this practice is, if Rome took it that seriously it would initiate a full court press on the matter. And yet all it seems to be doing is sending out form letters in response to complaints.

This isn’t a matter of “what the Church holds”, its a matter of liturgical rules. “The Church holds” the Creeds and Councils and Dogmas, this is no such matter. This concerns a rule that could be technically changed at any time.

To call these blessings an “abuse” drains all weight out of the word abuse. They are incorrect and should not be done, but abuse is usually a word reserved for things of much more serious nature.

Whoa! Apples and oranges here. Are you seriously comparing dying people’s wishes to receive the sacraments with a child receiving a blessing in a communion line???

Yes, its become problematic. But its a molehill not a mountain.

Father, there is no need for sarcasm here. I have tried to be respectful of your position. No one has mentioned children in this discussion. The OP is an adult.

I stand by my statement that these blessings in lieu of receiving Holy Communion are an abuse. While we agree that these should not be done, there is a deeper issue here, Father. Both Sacrosanctum Concilium and Redemptionis Sacramentum clearly indicate that no one has the right, on their own authority, to add anything to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. This includes the celebrant. Molehills do snowball into avalanches. There is nothing in the GIRM nor in the authoritative documents of the Church that states that these blessings should be happening. To make light of this and not consider these blessings in lieu of distributing Holy Communion an abuse is to not see the deeper significance here.

 

[prodigalson12]

Well its not a liturgically correct thing to do but its not the end of the world.

As previously stated, its not liturgically correct to do so but given the circumstances you outlined I understand why you did it. You could have simply crossed your arms, briefly bowed your head, and kept walking past the priest. It wouldn’t have been considered rude. What you did wasn’t in any way sinful.

With the number of abuses that seem all together too trendy, this element in itself is absolutely nothing in comparison. When I returned, watching all of these crazy hand and body gestures people doing, trying to mimic the priest, which is so, so wrong, standing in line for a blessing is not the end of the world.

 

[benedictgal]

For what it’s worth, I would advise anyone who is still worried about this issue to follow the norms in your church (many priests encourage the practice) and also the dictates of your conscience and not to be frightened by benedictgal. I do not doubt that benedictgal is right in that it may be frowned upon “higher up”. And so, after reading this, if your conscience tells you not to, then don’t. On the other hand, the Church is careful not to step on people’s popular piety. Let’s just sit and think of how varied the mass must be throughout the world. Imagine the curious practices that must exist in all those far away places! Thank God that Rome has not tried to beat everyone into submission as it seems benedictgal would like.

In my Church, the Mexican-Americans are very fond of giving their children blessings. When the priests give a blessing, the mothers and fathers then turn to the children and perform the sign of the cross on their bodies and then the children kiss their parents hands. Sure, this blessing technically does not carry the same power as that of the priest. But I think it’s beautiful. It’s also kind of appropriate since my priest often tries to drive home the point that it is not his job to educate the children in the ways of the faith. He constantly stresses that the most important things are learned from the mother and father. Enjoy the mass and don’t get too caught up in the formalities. And always respect other people’s piety.

So then, Ed, you are advocating that we completely disregard what the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has reiterated and just enjoy the Mass? The Mass is not some free form exercise in creativity.

The parental blessing that you speak of is vastly different. I am from Laredo, just across the Rio Grande from Mexco and the parental blessings that I have seen do not occur within the context of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Rather than mimic the priest, the parents that you describe should use this as a teaching moment and instruct their children on how to do the sign of the Cross.

Furthermore, these blessings in lieu of receiving Holy Communion are not the call for the priest to make. What part of the CDWDS statement do you not understand:

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).

Rather than insult people and downplay the “formalities” of the Mass, I would, with all due respect, suggest that you read the aurhotitative documents of the Church and not encourage further confusion by supporting something that should not be happening in the first place.