CDWDS response regarding blessings during Communion procession

[benedictgal]

benedictgal

Maybe, but, maybe not. It could be that those who approach for a blessing and receive the grace from it, are inspired to correct their situation in order to come into full communion with the Church.
This would be good.

However, for a priest to refuse to give the blessing, the person, rather than resolving their situation, would feel snubbed and walk down the street to a protestant parish, where the welcome mat is thrown out to them.

So, which would cause more harm, giving the blessing, or refusing?

Jim

Actually, it does cause harm because the people supporting this practice are going against the current. The letter states that, at the present, this practice should not be done and it gives several good reasons backing that statement.

I understand about the law of charity, but, what is more charitable: to keep a practice that is not allowed, thus, giving the false illusion of something that is not, or being honest and being faithful to what the Church has for the time being and stopping it? The ones, I believe, who are at fault are the ones who instituted this move and the ones who keep perpetuating it, not the ones who come forward because they do not understand.

This practice is poor catechesis. The blessing is imparted to all at the end of Mass, as the letter states. Evidently, folks prior to the start of this idiosyncratic practice never had an issue with being “left out” because it was understood and taught that only properly disopsed Catholics should approach the Communion line to receive Our Lord.

Once again, I draw your attention to the invitation that the priest makes as he says “Ecce Agnus Dei”. He says, “Happy are those who are called to His Supper,” not “Happy are those who are called for a blessing.” The invitation, for those who are properly disposed, is to receive Holy Communion, not a blessing.

 

[FrDavid96]

benedictgal

Maybe, but, maybe not. It could be that those who approach for a blessing and receive the grace from it, are inspired to correct their situation in order to come into full communion with the Church.
This would be good.

However, for a priest to refuse to give the blessing, the person, rather than resolving their situation, would feel snubbed and walk down the street to a protestant parish, where the welcome mat is thrown out to them.

So, which would cause more harm, giving the blessing, or refusing?

Jim

Jim,
The priest isn’t “refusing” the blessing because no blessing is called-for at that moment. Priests need to handle this situation pastorally. They need to explain to people that there is no “refusal” but instead the people who think they should be receiving a blessing have been deceived by those who told them that this is the “right” thing to do. This is done in all sensitivity, respect, and charity. But to continue to do the blessing is actually an offense against charity because it distorts the integrity of the Mass and perpetuates this distortion.

It’s not a simple matter of either blessing or refusing. It’s a matter of both not doing the blessing AND accompanying that with proper teaching on the Mass.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Jim,
The priest isn’t “refusing” the blessing because no blessing is called-for at that moment. Priests need to handle this situation pastorally. They need to explain to people that there is no “refusal” but instead the people who think they should be receiving a blessing have been deceived by those who told them that this is the “right” thing to do. This is done in all sensitivity, respect, and charity. But to continue to do the blessing is actually an offense against charity because it distorts the integrity of the Mass and perpetuates this distortion.

It’s not a simple matter of either blessing or refusing. It’s a matter of both not doing the blessing AND accompanying that with proper teaching on the Mass.

The point is, what do you do with the person who didn’t hear the message, that they are not to approach the priest for a blessing?

What do you do when they’re standing in front of you? Wave them off, then hope to catch them before they leave the church, in order to explain the Church’s teaching?

My opinion is, that it does more good than harm to just go ahead and bless the person, and pray for them to resolve their situation.

If the person returns to the Church as a result, we can all praise God.

I really don’t understand how this would be a bad thing.

Jim

 

[benedictgal]

The point is, what do you do with the person who didn’t hear the message, that they are not to approach the priest for a blessing?

What do you do when they’re standing in front of you? Wave them off, then hope to catch them before they leave the church, in order to explain the Church’s teaching?

My opinion is, that it does more good than harm to just go ahead and bless the person, and pray for them to resolve their situation.

If the person returns to the Church as a result, we can all praise God.

I really don’t understand how this would be a bad thing.

Jim

You politely tell them that this is not allowed. Better still, you place it in the bulletin or explain this before Mass begins.

As Fr. David noted, it is more charitable to stop a practice that is not allowed instead of disregarding it and perpetuating it. It is not charitable to continue to confuse people. Remember the admonishment that Jesus gave about confusing the little ones. Better to have a milestone tied around the neck of that person than for him to confuse any of the littlen ones.

 

[FrDavid96]

The point is, what do you do with the person who didn’t hear the message, that they are not to approach the priest for a blessing?

What do you do when they’re standing in front of you? Wave them off, then hope to catch them before they leave the church, in order to explain the Church’s teaching?

My opinion is, that it does more good than harm to just go ahead and bless the person, and pray for them to resolve their situation.

If the person returns to the Church as a result, we can all praise God.

I really don’t understand how this would be a bad thing.

Jim

A simple whispered “that’s not part of the Mass, see me after Mass and I’ll explain” will suffice. On the other hand doing the blessing does cause harm, because now what’s happened is that the priest has appeared to endorse the practice, and the person will simply continue to do it (after all, he did it last time, so it must be the right thing to do). The abuse has become worse now because the person’s misunderstanding has been reinforced.

 

[ajcoley1]

Maybe this is a bit off topic but here goes.

Monday night we all-my 2 DDs and myself-went to Mass because it was during their regular CCD time. Wonderful. (I’d only been back a year.)
Now, our church is a "modern"type church, at this Mass the priest went over to the side where he obviously knew the CCD classes were gathered.
Now, my 13 yr old is just beginning her religious ed, so she went to the priest for a blessing along with the entire 1st grade class & others who haven’t recieved the Sacrament of Communion yet.
After she asked “Why don’t we do this on Sundays?” we noremally just sit in the pew. I am convinced that only Priests can give blessings. I believe our parish does this for children it is to help them get used to following everyone for communion when they do recieve the Sacrament. SHould I take my child up for a blessing by the Priest at mass which would mean finding whatever line he happens to be in front of? Or just continue to sit? Thoughts?

 

[benedictgal]

Maybe this is a bit off topic but here goes.

Monday night we all-my 2 DDs and myself-went to Mass because it was during their regular CCD time. Wonderful. (I’d only been back a year.)
Now, our church is a "modern"type church, at this Mass the priest went over to the side where he obviously knew the CCD classes were gathered.
Now, my 13 yr old is just beginning her religious ed, so she went to the priest for a blessing along with the entire 1st grade class & others who haven’t recieved the Sacrament of Communion yet.
After she asked “Why don’t we do this on Sundays?” we noremally just sit in the pew. I am convinced that only Priests can give blessings. I believe our parish does this for children it is to help them get used to following everyone for communion when they do recieve the Sacrament. SHould I take my child up for a blessing by the Priest at mass which would mean finding whatever line he happens to be in front of? Or just continue to sit? Thoughts?

No. I would encourage you to read that letter. First of all, I believe that one shouldn’t use this practice of impoarting a blessing in lieu of Holy Communion as some sort of practice run for when the time comes that the affected faithful can receive.

Why not teach your chlid the importance or making a spiritual communion? There is already a thread in this forum concerning this practice.

 

[ajcoley1]

Thank you.

 

[vocatio]

[Edited]

From a treatise against Fustus by Saint Augustine, bishop.

“Yet the truths we teach are one, the abuses thrust upon us are another. There are commandments that we are bound to give; there are breaches of them that we are commanded to correct,** but until we correct them we must of necessity put up with them**”

Taken from the Office of Readings for December 11, Page 1239

This struck me as interesting and on topic.

 

[1ladybug]

JAPHY

Thank you for the work you did getting us an answer to these questions. It is greatly appreciated.

 

[Digitonomy]

I’m curious whether any of the apologists on CA Live mentioned the letter this week?

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

Whatever one may think about blessings in the communion line, the fact is that this is a letter to a private individual. It’s been posted in a public place but not by the people with the authority to issue the letter.

Has this same information appeared in public documents at the Vatican web site? If not, then you can’t really expect anyone to listen to what it says unless they’re already inclined to do what it says.

 

[Brendan]

Whatever one may think about blessings in the communion line, the fact is that this is a letter to a private individual. It’s been posted in a public place but not by the people with the authority to issue the letter.

Has this same information appeared in public documents at the Vatican web site? If not, then you can’t really expect anyone to listen to what it says unless they’re already inclined to do what it says.

SMD,

Things were promulgaed as official LOOOONG before the Vatican had a website.

The CDWDS promulgates a decision in the same way the Supreme Court promulgates a decision. By first issuing the decision as part of the ruling, and then publishing it, or at the very least, marking it for publication.

The CDWDS did that exact thing. Note the Protocol number on the document. That is a publication reference number.

In the same way a lawyer can look up case law based off of a case number, a Canon lawyer can now look up and reference this decision by protocol number.

The very fact that it HAS a protocol number indicates that it is promulgated via official channels.

That also means that it will show up in a future publication of the CDWDS Journal “Notitae” (in much the same way as court decisions are published in their particular journal.

So now, it is NOT just a private letter. If it was, it would not have been assigned a prototcol number.

I have personally recieved private letters from the CDWDS on a a question of liturgical law. The letter I recieved did NOT have a protocol number, rather, it referenced other letters on the topic that HAD protocol numbers.

Using that, I was able to look up the official response in the library at my local Seminary.

 

[BSHoop96]

benedictgal

Maybe, but, maybe not. It could be that those who approach for a blessing and receive the grace from it, are inspired to correct their situation in order to come into full communion with the Church.
This would be good.

However, for a priest to refuse to give the blessing, the person, rather than resolving their situation, would feel snubbed and walk down the street to a protestant parish, where the welcome mat is thrown out to them.

So, which would cause more harm, giving the blessing, or refusing?

Jim

They are given a blessing at the end of Mass. He could give them a blessing after Mass. If he declines to give them a blessing “during the Mass” the problem lies with them in asking for something from the priest which goes against the teaching of the Church. Let’s not hold that responsible for them getting upset and going down the street to the protestants. Shall we permit them to have anything they want so that we don’t offend them? Gosh, next we’ll be like those Catholic schools in Philadelphia that are making religion instructional “optional” so as not to offend their non-Catholic students. Geez…

 

[John_Lilburne]

Fr Ward wrote in his letter “2. Lay people, within the context of Holy Mass, are unable to confer blessings.”

But I find in the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults, in the Rite of Acceptance ceremony: “56. The signing is carried out by the catechists or the sponsors. (If required by special circumstances, this may be done by assisting priests or deacons.)”

It is clear that this signing is making small crosses on the person. For example 55B “Then the celebrant makes the sign of the cross over all together, as a cross is traced by a sponsor or catechist on the forehead of each candidate.” It is also clear that the Rite of Acceptance can take place in Mass, with n. 67 “If the eucharist is to be celebrated, the catechumens are normally dismissed at this point …”.

So I would have been happier with a simple “Nobody should give blessings during the Communion procession” response. Instead this letter creates the impression that that it is OK for the ordained, but not for the non-ordained ministers.

RCIA quotes from The Rites Volume One, Liturgical Press, 1990, ISBN: 0-8146-6015-0.

 

[Brendan]

Fr Ward wrote in his letter “2. Lay people, within the context of Holy Mass, are unable to confer blessings.”

But I find in the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults, in the Rite of Acceptance ceremony: “56. The signing is carried out by the catechists or the sponsors. (If required by special circumstances, this may be done by assisting priests or deacons.)”.

But where exactly does it specify that this signing is a blessing?

 

[FrDavid96]

Fr Ward wrote in his letter “2. Lay people, within the context of Holy Mass, are unable to confer blessings.”

But I find in the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults, in the Rite of Acceptance ceremony: “56. The signing is carried out by the catechists or the sponsors. (If required by special circumstances, this may be done by assisting priests or deacons.)”

It is clear that this signing is making small crosses on the person. For example 55B “Then the celebrant makes the sign of the cross over all together, as a cross is traced by a sponsor or catechist on the forehead of each candidate.” It is also clear that the Rite of Acceptance can take place in Mass, with n. 67 “If the eucharist is to be celebrated, the catechumens are normally dismissed at this point …”.

So I would have been happier with a simple “Nobody should give blessings during the Communion procession” response. Instead this letter creates the impression that that it is OK for the ordained, but not for the non-ordained ministers.

RCIA quotes from The Rites Volume One, Liturgical Press, 1990, ISBN: 0-8146-6015-0.

Tracing the cross on the forehead is not a blessing as such, so within the rite of acceptance, there’s no conflict.

Yes, I have to agree that saying the laity cannot bless at Communion is confusing because it does not address the fact that the clergy shouldn’t do it either. I suppose that we can look to the entire letter, and see that the point about the only blessing being the one at the dismissal at the end of Mass and conclude from that no one (cleric or lay) may “bless” during Communion.

 

[benedictgal]

The letter in the OP has made it onto Notitae. In fact, it was also published (not the letter, but, the gist of what the response was from the CDWDS) in the online edition of the Adoremus Bulletin:

Here is the link:

adoremus.org/0209CDW_Blessing.html

It also gives the protocol number, just as the letter that japhy received had.

 

[Corki]

The letter in the OP has made it onto Notitae. In fact, it was also published (not the letter, but, the gist of what the response was from the CDWDS) in the online edition of the Adoremus Bulletin:

Here is the link:

adoremus.org/0209CDW_Blessing.html

It also gives the protocol number, just as the letter that japhy received had.

Thanks for the update.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Japhy, for the time being, until this issue were to be resolved, would it not be prudent for the celebrants to not issue an invitation to those unable to receive Holy Communion to come forward?

I was surprised this had not been mentioned earlier in the discussion, because to my mind the letter drops a bombshell on current practice. That is, the current communion-line-blessings are frequently “marketed” not just to non-communicants but specifically to non-Catholics (I’ve never heard a specific invitation to the “remarried”). Since hardly any Catholic refrains from communion for reasons of the one-hour “fast,” most of those who are seeking blessings wind up being those who are not allowed to receive - and the letter says that it has already been established that they are not to receive a blessing!

However, the intial inception of the practice has done more harm than good.

This “practice” is what has caused more harm than good, not the letter.

Maybe, but, maybe not. It could be that those who approach for a blessing and receive the grace from it, are inspired to correct their situation in order to come into full communion with the Church.
This would be good.

However, for a priest to refuse to give the blessing, the person, rather than resolving their situation, would feel snubbed and walk down the street to a protestant parish, where the welcome mat is thrown out to them.

So, which would cause more harm, giving the blessing, or refusing?

Jim

I have to side firmly with benedictgal on this matter. Jim, you ask what sort of damage might be done to someone who has been refused the blessing they have come to expect, but shouldn’t the fault lie with the person who encouaraged that expectation when he had no authority to introduce the innovation? The innovators created an ureasonable expectation and infected liturgy throughout large areas of the world (even if only the US and Canada, that’s a lot) with a practice that the Holy See and plenty of sound-minded Catholics find problematic, but we’re supposed to say “Well, since people expect abuse we’ll be causing more damage by correcting the problem.” No-no. That’s not how it works. There will be damage, but we can’t just ignore the problem because someone else has already caused damage.