Blessing with the sign of the cross

[talitim]

As a Roman Catholic, am I permitted to bless my children with the sign of the cross as the priest does, or is that something that I should refrain from doing? I also would like to know why either way. I bless my children at night, and then before I leave for work.

Also when I recieve communion, I kiss my children afterward, is this acceptable, and also why either way?

 

[Eucharisted]

No one can give a blessing like a priest. I think the kissing is okay so long as it is a sign of affection. You can’t give them graces or Jesus by kissing; I believe that practice would fall under superstition. You can, however, pray for them. Prayer is good, very good.

 

[Seatuck]

As a Roman Catholic, am I permitted to bless my children with the sign of the cross as the priest does, or is that something that I should refrain from doing? I also would like to know why either way. I bless my children at night, and then before I leave for work.

Also when I recieve communion, I kiss my children afterward, is this acceptable, and also why either way?

You can’t give a blessing “as the priest does”. You are not a priest. You can give a parental blessing. You can trace a cross on their foreheads and pray for them. I used to do it with holy water. My husband will hold his hand on us and pray. That’s alright.Just don’t do any gestures that look like a priest like making a cross in the air over them.

Not sure what the point of kissing your children at that moment means to you . Perhaps you could elaborate. You probably should be being careful that the Eucharist is safely consumed first. Otherwise not really a problem. You should be mindful of your own spiritual role at that time. You need to be praying in thanksgiving and raising up yourself also.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

You are perfectly within your rights as a parent to give your children a parental blessing, and to kiss them after receiving Holy Communion.

If you were enrolled in one of the Eastern Churches, your children would receive along with you, as they would have already been baptized AND confirmed (chrismated). You are not being sacrilegious at all.

Parents are considered by the Church to be the primary educators of their children. Further, each family is a “domestic church” in that it is the place where children’s faith is nurtured. Parents are encouraged to pray with their children, to bless them, and to show them through example reverence for the Blessed Sacrament.

Please don’t become too scrupulous in examining your very charming and pious customs in your efforts to catechize your small children. Were that more parents would do so! For more help, please see

catholicculture.org/culture/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=1167&CFID=21259706&CFTOKEN=20020569

 

[FrDavid96]

As a Roman Catholic, am I permitted to bless my children with the sign of the cross as the priest does, or is that something that I should refrain from doing? I also would like to know why either way. I bless my children at night, and then before I leave for work.

Also when I recieve communion, I kiss my children afterward, is this acceptable, and also why either way?

talitim,

Only a bishop, priest, or deacon may bless in the proper sense of the word. Laypersons cannot ever impart blessings. What you describe is not a blessing per se, but a prayer for your child–and that’s perfectly fine, and even to be strongly encouraged. But to do so in a way that imitates an outright blessing would not be proper. The key words are “as the priest does” If you mean that you’re doing the same thing that the priest does at the end of Mass, then that shouldn’t be done, not ever.

If you say “I bless you…” or “May Almighty God bless you, in the name of the Father…” then that’s imitating a blessing and it cannot be done, and should not be attempted. Especially if you’re making the sign of the cross over someone.

On the other hand, look to the Liturgy of the Hours for a good example. When a non-cleric is leading this prayer, he ends it with “May the Lord bless us, protect us from evil…” and makes the sign of the cross on himself (not over anyone). Something like this is fine and again encouraged for parents to do.

As to the other part, kissing them after you receive Communion, this realy shouldn’t be done because it only causes confusion and adds a ritual to the Mass which isn’t there. Personal acts of affection realy have no place within the Mass. Taking care of a small child and showing affection if the situation calls for it within Mass is one thing (like to comfort a small child who is upset for example), and that’s fine, but if it becomes a ritual, it’s crossed the line.

 

[zab]

talitim,

Only a bishop, priest, or deacon may bless in the proper sense of the word. Laypersons cannot ever impart blessings. What you describe is not a blessing per se, but a prayer for your child–and that’s perfectly fine, and even to be strongly encouraged. But to do so in a way that imitates an outright blessing would not be proper. The key words are “as the priest does” If you mean that you’re doing the same thing that the priest does at the end of Mass, then that shouldn’t be done, not ever.

If you say “I bless you…” or “May Almighty God bless you, in the name of the Father…” then that’s imitating a blessing and it cannot be done, and should not be attempted. Especially if you’re making the sign of the cross over someone.

On the other hand, look to the Liturgy of the Hours for a good example. When a non-cleric is leading this prayer, he ends it with “May the Lord bless us, protect us from evil…” and makes the sign of the cross on himself (not over anyone). Something like this is fine and again encouraged for parents to do.

As to the other part, kissing them after you receive Communion, this realy shouldn’t be done because it only causes confusion and adds a ritual to the Mass which isn’t there. Personal acts of affection realy have no place within the Mass. Taking care of a small child and showing affection if the situation calls for it within Mass is one thing (like to comfort a small child who is upset for example), and that’s fine, but if it becomes a ritual, it’s crossed the line.

:knight2:

[SIGN]Bless us[/SIGN]

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/liturgicalyear/prayers/view.cfm?id=772

This is a writing from Catholiculture. org, which encourages the revival of parental blessings.

 

[DebChris]

I was never allowed to leave home in the morning with kissing my mother and receiving her blessing.
The parental blessing I received was made by her placing her hand on my head and using her thumb to bless. It was a daily part of the morning routine that protected my throughout the day.
The bedtime routine with my grandchildren included kisses, Eskinoses, and a blessing. My grandson returned the blessing I gave him.

What I would not do is bless with the whole hand in the air as you see a priest perform.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

If you say “I bless you…” or “May Almighty God bless you, in the name of the Father…” then that’s imitating a blessing and it cannot be done, and should not be attempted. Especially if you’re making the sign of the cross over someone.

Fr. David, what say you about this from the catholicculture.org link?

This consists of the parents individually blessing the infant three times with holy water as they say these words: “May the Almighty God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, bless you, my child, for time and eternity, and may this blessing remain forever with you. Amen.” Very properly is this blessing repeated by the parents after the child’s spiritual rebirth in baptism.
The inspiring practice should also be continued as they grow up under their care. Thus parents should bless their children when they retire in the evening. They should also bless them when they leave the home, particularly to go on a considerable journey.

VC

 

[FrDavid96]

Fr. David, what say you about this from the catholicculture.org link?

VC

It is a prayer offered for the child, not a blessing which is conferred. I don’t object to it, quite the contrary, I think it’s fine, and even to be encouraged. But we still have to make a distinction between a prayer and a proper blessing.

As I’ve said in other threads, we Catholics tend to use the word “blessing” when we realy mean “prayer.” The author should have used a different word other than the verb “bless” precisely because it causes the kind of confusion which we see on these posts.

The internet article itslef also proves nothing–the misuse of the verb “bless” does not mean that a blessing actually happens, because clearly in Catholic practice, only a cleric may impart a blessing. See canon 1169 for reference.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

It is a prayer offered for the child, not a blessing which is conferred. I don’t object to it, quite the contrary, I think it’s fine, and even to be encouraged. But we still have to make a distinction between a prayer and a proper blessing.

I’m following you Fr.

Thank you for the information and guidance. I’m still trying to understand the various distinctions. For instance you said:

clearly in Catholic practice, only a cleric may impart a blessing. See canon 1169 for reference.

What do you make of Catechism** 1669** ?
CCC 1669:

Sacramentals derive from the baptismal priesthood: every baptized person is called to be a “blessing,” and to bless. Hence lay people may preside at certain blessings; the more a blessing concerns ecclesial and sacramental life, the more is its administration reserved to the ordained ministry (bishops, priests, or deacons).

Preside? Is that the distinction? Is it that they don’t administer the blessing?

Thanks,
VC

 

[FrDavid96]

I’m following you Fr.

Thank you for the information and guidance. I’m still trying to understand the various distinctions. For instance you said:

What do you make of Catechism** 1669** ?

Preside? Is that the distinction? Is it that they don’t administer the blessing?

Thanks,
VC

Same thing. What’s meant there is a “prayer of blessing” not actually “imparting a blessing” A layperson can certainly lead a prayer, but the person or thing is not said to “be blessed” since that can only be done by clergy.

The example I keep giving is “Bless us O Lord and these Thy gifts…” That’s the sort of thing to which the Catechism is referring. But of course, we don’t consider the food to be “blessed” as we would if it were a an actual blessing imparted by a cleric.

There’s a quote where Abraham is said to “bless God” (I don’t have the reference). That doesn’t mean that God is made more holy than He was beforehand. It doesn’t mean that we not have a “blessed God” rather than an “unblessed God” rather it means that Abraham is thanking God for the blessings which He has given. Likewise in the Mass “Blesséd are Lord God of all creation…” is not “blessing God” but stating that God is already blesséd.

The problem is that our language uses one word to describe two realities which are related, but not the same.

To be more concrete:

If a priest blesses a statue, it is a sacramental. It is now a holy thing. We treat it differently than we did before, even though before tha blessing, it was still a reminder of a saint (for example) If a layperson says a prayer over that image, it is no different than it was before–still an image of something holy, but not itself something holy.

If a priest imparts a blessing on a person, that person is said to actually be blessed, different than if he offered a prayer for that someone. In contrast, if a layperson says a “blessing” over a person, the effect is exactly the same as it would be if the verb “bless” were not used, but instead the verb “pray” were used–one has been prayed-for but not blessed. That’s why I prefer to avoid the word altogether in those scenarios–simply because it causes confusion, and we have to constantly qualify it by saying “blessing but not a real blessing.” After a while we forget to say that, and then we reach the point where we no longer understand what a real blessing is.

 

[zab]

So the Catechism of the Catholic Church says that every baptized person is called to bless. I won’t repeat CCC1669 but continuing down the page:

Various forms of sacramentals

1671 Among sacramentals blessings (of persons, meals, objects, and places) come first. Every blessing praises God and prays for his gifts. In Christ, Christians are blessed by God the Father “with every spiritual blessing” This is why the Church imparts blessings by invoking the name of Jesus, usually while making the holy sign of the cross of Christ.

 

[FrDavid96]

So the Catechism of the Catholic Church says that every baptized person is called to bless. I won’t repeat CCC1669 but continuing down the page:

No, that’s not what it says–not what people are trying to make it say. It’s using the word “bless” in a different way than that of imparting blessings, since it is clearly using the word in it’s most generic sense (which is made obvious by the context of the article). The catechism is a teaching document, not a legal one per se, so it’s use of language is more “fluid” or “loose.” Canon law however, is a legal document and it meant to be interpreted much more strictly. That’s why canon 1169 only allows for the possibility of clerics imparting blessings.

Catechism article 1671 does not say that laypersons impart blessings, so it does nothing to advance the notion that they do.

 

[FrDavid96]

The source of those articles from the Catechism is Sacrosanctum Concilium #60 (and following)
60. Holy Mother Church has, moreover, instituted sacramentals. These are sacred signs which bear a resemblance to the Sacraments: they signify effects, particularly of a spiritual kind, which are obtained through the Church’s intercession. By them men are disposed to receive the chief effect of the Sacraments, and various occasions in life are rendered holy.

1. Thus, for well-disposed members of the faithful, the Liturgy of the Sacraments and sacramentals sanctifies almost every event in their lives; they are given access to the stream of Divine Grace which flows from the Paschal Mystery of the passion, death, the resurrection of Christ, the font from which all Sacraments and sacramentals draw their power. There is hardly any proper use of material things which cannot thus be directed toward the sanctification of men and the praise of God

The Council was saying that everything that we do can, and should, be “a blessing” (although the word itself is not used). This is a very broad statement. That’s what the Catechism is likewise saying; all of the faithful are called to see everything that we do as a form of prayer. That means that we do not limit our orientation toward holiness to only those times when we are engaged in liturgical actions. The reference to S.C. is taken from the Catechism itself. That’s why if we want to understand what it means, we go to the source. The Catechism in 1669 is not at all speaking of liturgical blessings, or imparting blessings, or making something “blessed”. It is talking about ordering everything in our lives toward God. THAT is the definition of blessing that the Catechism is talking about.

 

[zab]

No, that’s not what it says**–not what people are trying to make it say. ** It’s using the word “bless” in a different way than that of imparting blessings, since it is clearly using the word in it’s most generic sense (which is made obvious by the context of the article). The catechism is a teaching document, not a legal one per se, so it’s use of language is more “fluid” or “loose.” Canon law however, is a legal document and it meant to be interpreted much more strictly. That’s why canon 1169 only allows for the possibility of clerics imparting blessings.

Catechism article 1671 does not say that laypersons impart blessings, so it does nothing to advance the notion that they do.

I am not trying to make the CCC say anything. I understand that lay persons do not have the power to give a priestly blessing. I am just trying to understand what the CCC is saying when it says, *“Sacramentals derive from the baptismal priesthood: every baptized person is called to be a “blessing” and to bless.” *And others are asking what you thought of this quote as well. I did not get the impression that they were trying to make the CCC say anything either. I thought the poster was very courteous.

Your answer sounds reasonable without the accusation.

 

[Simon_X]

I was never allowed to leave home in the morning with kissing my mother and receiving her blessing.
The parental blessing I received was made by her placing her hand on my head and using her thumb to bless. It was a daily part of the morning routine that protected my throughout the day.
The bedtime routine with my grandchildren included kisses, Eskinoses, and a blessing. My grandson returned the blessing I gave him.

What I would not do is bless with the whole hand in the air as you see a priest perform.

I have read (not sure where) that this was ok. I agree with Deb. When my kids were little, I would bless them in this way Deb describes, at night. I certainly didn’t do it thinking that I had the same power as a Priest, but did it as a Parent. This might be a good question for Ask the Apologist…

 

[FrDavid96]

I am not trying to make the CCC say anything. I understand that lay persons do not have the power to give a priestly blessing. I am just trying to understand what the CCC is saying when it says, *“Sacramentals derive from the baptismal priesthood: every baptized person is called to be a “blessing” and to bless.” *And others are asking what you thought of this quote as well. I did not get the impression that they were trying to make the CCC say anything either. I thought the poster was very courteous.

Your answer sounds reasonable without the accusation.

Fair enough. Sorry if that sounded accusatory toward anyone posting here (though it was meant to be accusatory to others, not necessarily posting here, but attempting to do blessings in “real life”).

So how about if we just look at the explanation itself. We can call almost anything a “blessing” but we are using the word in its most generic sense. It’s not the same thing when a parent says a prayer over a child, as it is when a cleric blesses.

Some people might use the word in a sort of colloquial sense, but we have to keep in mind the distinction.

The Catechism points to Sacrosanctum Concilium in the footnotes, in the articles that are relevant to this thread. So that’s why I posted the part from SC–so that people can go to the source for an explanation of what the Catechism actually means.

It’s also important to understand that the Catechism itself if a teaching document. It is neither a legal document, nor is it a liturgical one. To know the law, we look to the canons. To know the liturgical praxis, we look to the relevant approved liturgical books. But to use the Catechism as either a legal or liturgical source is to use it in a way which was never intended.

Canon law provides a framework or a foundation upon which the liturgical practice is based, but it is not (and specifically not intended to be) liturgical law as such. Canon 1169 provides for the possibility only for clerics to impart blessings. In fact, since it restricts deacons to only those blessings specifically provided-for in the law, and says nothing about laypersons imparting blessings, it stands to reason that laity cannot impart blessings–otherwise we are saying that laity can impart certain blessings but deacons cannot, and such a situation would make no sense. As a legal document it’s meant to be interpreted “legally” and not in some generic sense. The words were chosen to be clear and unambiguous as much as possible.

When we turn to the liturgical books, notably the new “Book of Blessings” we see a clear distinction between a blessing imparted by a cleric and a prayer (even though the word blessing might be used) offered by the laity. This distinction is found in the words and the actions of the person presiding/leading. Although since it’s not a legal document, its wording is not necessarily so precise, and that’s why we don’t see articulated in the rubrics a specific distinction between a proper blessing and a blessing-like-prayer; though again, the difference in ritual makes this point.

So, let’s see where that leads us…

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

I have read (not sure where) that this was ok. I agree with Deb. When my kids were little, I would bless them in this way Deb describes, at night. I certainly didn’t do it thinking that I had the same power as a Priest, but did it as a Parent. This might be a good question for Ask the Apologist…

I quite agree. Nobody ever said a priest’s blessing was somehow bestowed by a parent. Further, the definition of blessing includes “prayer said over something or someone.”

When a young man desires to marry a young woman, they frequently ask for their parents’ blessing, or approval. Work that has to be approved needs to be blessed by superiors, esp. in the Midwest. Receiving something good is a blessing. Sometimes joy and happiness are feeling blest.

babylon.com/definition/blessing/English

http://www.hydroponicsearch.com/spelling/simplesearch/query_term-blessing/database-*/strategy-exact

I asked my priest, a very orthodox Benedictine who is our pastor yet lives in the local abbey. He has no problems with parents blessing their children at night, in the morning, or any other time. He does not think people mean it as a way of usurping priest, which is the inference I read here, but exercising the role of parents in the domestic church. He has no problems with parents kissing their young children after receiving Communion, provided it is not obvious or ostentatious in display. He said he has enough problems with Our Father hand holders.

 

[Mattapoisett64]

OK, here’s a variation on this question: Can a deacon “bless” (in the strict liturgical sense) his own child, or does the blood relationship make that inappropriate, and should that child be sent to another cleric for a blessing? Just unsure if the family relationship makes such an action somehow inappropriate.