How do I receive a blessing from the priest?

[thomas_jd]

It reads to me like thistle just quoted the letter from the CDW … so I don’t see how he is introducing his own interpretation vs. your bishop.

The letter itself does not claim any particular authority (being private), but instead cites other sources to back up its observations. If you want law, I would suggest following up the sources cited.

Reread Thistles underlined portion again.
There is no law against a priests ability to bless, either in or out of mass.
The letter needs to be understood as written :not as what many want to interpret for their position!

 

[Zundrah]

Okay I am nervous to the extreme about mass this morning. It is my second time attending. I dont want to make a fool out of myself again. I have been studying the Order of Mass (December 2011) but one thing I dont know is-since I cant take communion how do I get a blessing from the priest?

So how was Church?

 

[Zundrah]

How dare you imply that you know better than our Archbishop. Unless you can provide Canon Law prohibiting this? Can you? No. what a surprise. Please dont foist your errenonous interpretation on our Bishops and practice.

I’m sure that is it was a major enough issue it would have been addressed with much concern. The Church is letting this one slip.

 

[Vincent1984]

My apologies to thistle -my reply was a bit shrill. The sources only refer to Eucharistic mimisters AFAIR none cites any prohibition of blessings at communion.

#3 could be read to refer to all people distributing Holy Communion, even priests. #4 refers to all instances of divorced-remarried people approaching for communion, even if it is a priest wanting to give a blessing. #5 refers to all people who cannot receive communion, even if it is a priest wanting to give a blessing.

On the question of your bishop and how anyone might dare to suggest he might not be 110% correct in everything he says, thinks and breathes: his authority for interpreting this sort of thing does not extend beyond his own diocese. So I think there is no harm in us examining the stock letter sent to people all over the world from the CDW, even if your bishop is unaware, disagrees or does not care &c.

It would be interesting to know exactly what the bishop or his staff said. Was it “I decree that my EMHCs must bless anyone and everyone who lines up in front of them”, or was it more “I’m not intending to force parishes to change their current practice”

You say that “There is no law against a priests ability to bless, either in or out of mass.” There are, of course, several possibilities for blessings within Mass; the blessing and dismissal at the end; the nuptial blessing; various selections from the Book of Blessings which can be inserted into Mass. However, I’m not aware of any book or authority which prescribes a blessing to be given in place of Holy Communion. It’s not in the Missal. If you know where it is, please enlighten me.

Sacrosanctum concilium tells us that

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

, which is quoted by John Paul II in Inestimabile donum and probably other places too. Redemptionis sacramentum is thousands of words on the same theme, though I think SC summed it up most succinctly.

Therefore, you don’t need to look for something specifically prohibiting the exact action you are thinking of. The minds of liturgical abusers are more imaginative and fast-moving than the ability of the Holy See to respond in official documents to each wacky new idea. The law you seek is simple: If it isn’t in the books, it shouldn’t be in the Mass. “Say the black, do the red”

 

[Edmundus1581]

On the question of your bishop and how anyone might dare to suggest he might not be 110% correct in everything he says, thinks and breathes: his authority for interpreting this sort of thing does not extend beyond his own diocese.

No one said that a bishop’s authority extends beyond his own diocese. However, there are territorial bodies of bishops (eg. England, Australia) who have the authority to adjudicate some liturgical matters in the territory. The point of my and others’ observation on this is not that the bishops’ ruling in England applies to America, but to point out that if the English bishops have local authority (and they do) then so do the others - so, an individual seeking a blessing at communion should follow the norms of their own diocese (or territory). The parish priest is (in the first instance) the authentic interpreter of the norms prescribed for his diocese.

So I think there is no harm in us examining the stock letter sent to people all over the world from the CDW, even if your bishop is unaware, disagrees or does not care &c.

It is **not **a stock letter. It was **not **sent to people all over the world. It was not sent from the CDWDS (please note correct acronym). People here did **not **examine it - they cited it as an authoritative pronouncement from the Church, until it was pointed out to them that it isn’t. If it is to be examined then it MUST be examined along with the follow up, Blessings at Holy Communion[Zenit], which **was **sent to people all over the world. I admit, neither is an official document of the Church - the second however is public, and addresses the erroneous application of the first. The second (the follow up) can be found on Zenit, a semi-official organ of the Holy See, and it has been there since 2009, whereas the first (the letter) is not in any publication of the Holy See.

Sacrosanctum concilium tells us that

Therefore no other person

, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority., which is quoted by John Paul II in Inestimabile donum and probably other places too. Redemptionis sacramentum is thousands of words on the same theme, though I think SC summed it up most succinctly.

No “other person” than who? Possibly the Bishop?

The minds of liturgical abusers are more imaginative and fast-moving than the ability of the Holy See to respond in official documents to each wacky new idea.

That’s why some matters of liturgy are delegated to the bishops.

The **law **you seek is simple: If it isn’t in the books, it shouldn’t be in the Mass. “Say the black, do the red”

Which law? Which books?

I will add an overall observation on this. I have noticed from time to time in the Catholic Church that ordinary, faithful lay Catholics are not fully aware of the authority that bishops have in their own dioceses, and sometimes they become aggrieved with matters (especially liturgical matters) which are within the genuine jurisdiction of the bishop. While they have the right to disagree with the bishop’s decision, they are often incorrect in attempting to cite a higher “authority” proving that the bishop is “wrong”, and sometimes even become disobedient.

 

[Edmundus1581]

Thank you for doing this. I am really annoyed the way some people have seized on the letter and given it an authority it clearly doesn’t merit, and then got angry when I have pointed this out. I even checked the position with the Archbishops Office in England and they confirmed that what you said above AND that Rome is fully aware that this practice continues. Thanks again.

Thankyou, and I agree. The moderator of Liturgy and Sacraments has responded to my request, by adding the follow up response from Rome (2009) to the original letter (2008).

 

[paperwight66]

Thankyou, and I agree. The moderator of Liturgy and Sacraments has responded to my request, by adding the follow up response from Rome (2009) to the original letter (2008).

That’s excellent. Well done.

 

[Zundrah]

“5. 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).”

Although the letter as such is not legally binding, some of its points, such as No. 2 on the prohibition of lay ministers giving liturgical blessings, are merely restatements of existing law and as such are already obligatory.

Are we sure though that this finally is the latest info on the topic?

 

[Edmundus1581]

Are we sure though that this finally is the latest info on the topic?

99.999% sure.

I have responded to three threads on this the last few months, and done many google searches on “blessings holy communion”, etc. and, as far as I can tell, there has been nothing official since Blessings at Holy Communion[Zenit], of March 24 2009.

BTW, I’m not sure if you noticed in your extract that the statement re “existing laws” refers to “such as No. 2”, even though it appears beside no. 5, which you included.

Finally, just a personal note on why I bother. It’s not because I want to advocate any particular position on the matter. Each time it is has been because a non-Catholic has innocently asked whether they are permitted to (or, in this case), how to, and has been told definitely “No” on the basis of the private letter of 2009, thus giving it an authority which it does not claim . I simply wanted to set their mind at ease that they are permitted to, if the parish priest allows it.