I am not catholic yet,

[budgie2]

This makes me sad to hear, as I feel very, very blessed when my Priest lays his hand on my forehead and gives me a personal blessing each week. I have been told that it is entirely normal not only for my Parish and Diocese but that of the surrounding area and most of Britain as well. Our Priest himself encouraged me to do this.



To be told that my Church and my Priest are promoting bad practise and I shouldn’t be allowed to do this is somewhat upsetting.

I think it’s common for non-Catholics or candidates entering the Church to receive a blessing through their own choice and they have to cross their hands over their chest. My husband is not in communion with the Church and receives a blessing every week. So don’t worry about that. Children from Catholic homes receive a blessing before they have their First Holy Communion. My son also receives a blessing and my husband carries him up. But it’s nice to receive Communion when you’re ready.

 

[AJTheMan]

But, the problem is that it was not up to the “officials” to grant permission to do this. We form a line to receive Holy Communion, Someone, not a blessing, something. The blessing, which comes at the end of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, will be given to everyone at the end of the liturgy. Actions such as what you and previous posters have described lead only to confusion and do more harm than good.

You can’t blame me. I was directed that this was acceptable. Blame the church for being unclear about who can go up and who can’t.

Edit: Also, this post may have come off as defensive. I do not mean to be antagonistic or anything. Just trying to clarify.

 

[benedictgal]

I think it’s common for non-Catholics or candidates entering the Church to receive a blessing through their own choice and they have to cross their hands over their chest. My husband is not in communion with the Church and receives a blessing every week. So don’t worry about that. Children from Catholic homes receive a blessing before they have their First Holy Communion. My son also receives a blessing and my husband carries him up. But it’s nice to receive Communion when you’re ready.

But, this does not give anyone the right to invent their own ritual. There has never been a Tradition within the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to impart a blessing in lieu of receiving Holy Communion. That is why the Holy See, through the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, listed its five very important observations.

The person coming up for a blessing and the one imparting it do not have the choice because it is not their “right” to engage in an ilicit practice. No one has the authority, not even the bishop nor the priest, to add something like this “quasi-ritual” to the norms of the Mass.

To Katherine, I am sorry that well-meaning folks in this thread have given you misinformation. Just because something may seem like a “custom” that does not make it alright. Those who support this kind of practice, as I see it, are ignoring the very important statements that the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has made on the issue, specifically observation #5 which applies to folks in your circumstance:

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).

In the Mass, just before the dismissal, the celebrant confers a blessing on all of the Faithful; regardless of whether or not they are Catholic. In fact, it is the most inclusive part of the Holy Sacrifice because everyone gets to share in this.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

You can’t blame me. I was directed that this was acceptable. Blame the church for being unclear about who can go up and who can’t.

Edit: Also, this post may have come off as defensive. I do not mean to be antagonistic or anything. Just trying to clarify.

Hi,

I agree, the instruction was not given to all the congregation, as was RS, so perhaps it will not be enforced. As I said I have never heard any direct prohibition from the diocesean level. Perhaps there will be a stronger instruction in the future, but if this does not come, I doubt the practice will stop.

Lux

 

[benedictgal]

You can’t blame me. I was directed that this was acceptable. Blame the church for being unclear about who can go up and who can’t.

Edit: Also, this post may have come off as defensive. I do not mean to be antagonistic or anything. Just trying to clarify.

I don’t think you were defensive, at all. My concern is that there are well-meaning, but, misguided folks who are encouraging and supporting this practice, even when the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has given five very strong reasons why this should not be done. This is not some ordinary group. This is the official Roman Curial office that acts in the name of and with the authority of no less than the Supreme Pontiff, himself.

What you may not realize, and what the supporters of ths bad practice do not mention, is that these observations have been made public. The letter from the CDWDS that I quoted bears a protocol number, Protocol No. 930/08/L. This means that it is an official statement and not some private document. Furthermore, this statement has since been published in Notitae, the official publication for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discpline of the Sacraments. The USCCB has a copy of this statement, as do publiications like the Adoremus Bulletin and Zenit, both highly reputable Catholic news organizations.

The document also quotes pertinent Liturgical and Canonical Law, clearly defining that this should not be happening in the first place. The folks who support this practice, at least the ones on this thread and similar, cannot quote liturgical law, let alone, Canon law, to support their notion because none exists. In fact, even the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy makes this very important statement:

1. 1. 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.

Now, the only authority, as determined by the General Instruction for the Roman Missal, that the diocesan bishop has is:

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.

He does not have the right to introduce and imbed any new rite to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. If some sort of adaptation resembling what is being discussed here where to happen, it should come from the national conference of bishops, in this case, the USCCB. This body must approve with a 2/3 majority vote of the Latin-Rite bishops so that it can be sent to Rome where the CDWDS will choose whether or not to give the proposal the necessary recognitio (approval).

Thus, it is not about whether or not something feels good. It is about following the Tradition and the norms established by the Church.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Confusion doesn’t really have a lot to do with it. Distribution of the Eucharist is for distribution of the Eucharist, and is not intended for blessings, even though it happens in many parishes. I think that those who think it leads to confusion don’t give many parishioners much credit for being able to figure things out.

Personally, I think if one’s parish is handing out blessings during the distribution of the Eucharist, and the priest and bishop are OK with it, and it’s a child who’s looking forward to their first communion or an RCIA candidate, why not participate? On the other hand, one going up for a blessing week after week with no intention of ever receiving the Eucharist…what’s the point?

No need for those who disagree to tell me why this is wrong; it’s been documented ad nauseum. It’s merely my opinion, not “official” teaching.

Hi,

Yes, but I guess a problem surfacing here is what to do if you do feel this is wrong. If this is a custom of the parish, is it a good idea for a candidate to register a complaint?

Lux

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

From adoremus:

The letter said that **“this matter is presently under the attentive study of the Congregation”, **so “for the present, this dicastery wishes to limit itself to the following observations”:

If it the practice “presently under study” it is not officially forbidden. I certainly would be very careful about registering a complaint about something which is “under study”.

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).

Adoremus goes on to add

The Congregation’s clarification that extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion (always laity), cannot give **sacramental blessings **within Mass is very helpful; and could be especially useful to pastors in parishes where inappropriate blessings during Communion have become common.

I don’t see that saying “God bless you” is an attempt to confer a sacramental blessing.

This is from Jimmy Akin

The giving of blessings during Communion time is a sticky subject. There are several principles to keep in mind:

Since giving a blessing is not the same thing as giving Communion, this represents an interruption of the distribution of Communion.
It is not provided for in the liturgical books, and canon and liturgical law prohibit introducing new elements into the liturgy.
That being said, a priest is empowered to interrupt the liturgy for an adequate cause. For example, if a plane flies over during a prayer or his homily, he can pause for a moment until the plane is past.
It strikes me as reasonable–and it’s certainly within the realm of legitimate liturgical opinion to hold that it is reasonable–for a priest to pause the distribution of Communion in order to administer a blessing if the alternative is sending someone away disappointed and possibly angry and disaffected.
That being said, I would not be encouraging people to go up for such a blessing since it is not provided for in the liturgical books–yet. (See below on this.)
What I have said applies to priests and deacons. It does not necessarily apply to laity who are giving Communion and who are empowered to give blessings in many fewer circumstances than members of the clergy.
Having said that, I suspect that the giving of blessings during Communion time is may receive authorization at some point.

At the recent Synod of Bishops meeting on the Eucharist, the bishops talked about this practice as a way of giving people (including non-Catholics) a way to participate so that they don’t feel pressure to receive Communion if they aren’t able to receive it. We know that because the topic showd up in the Instrumentum laboris for the Synod, which stated:

Some responses [by bishops to a questionnaire sent out to prepare the groundwork for the Synod] mention that priests, while distributing Holy Communion, give a blessing to children or catechumens—both duly pointed out—who approach the altar and have not made their First Communion. In some Churches, a blessing is imparted to non-Catholics who approach the altar at Communion time. In this regard, some responses from Asia suggest finding some gesture at Communion time towards non-Christians to make them feel more a part of the liturgical community.

It is possible that Pope Benedict will take up the subject in his Post-Synodal Exhortation, which should be released within a year or so. If he does take it up (and I’m not saying that he will) then my guess is that he will approve the practice for precisely the reasons that the bishops’ responses spoke positively of it–that it will relieve social pressure to receive Communion for those who are not able to receive, thus resulting in fewer sacrilegious receptions of Communion (something that the synod fathers were very concerned about).

It is also possible, giving how widespread this practice is, that the Congregation for Divine Worship may weigh in on it. If that happens, it could either approve or disapprove of it.
All this is just speculation, though. The issue at hand is what does liturgical law provide now (covered in the bullet points above).

Lux

 

[Newbie2]

Hi,

Yes, but I guess a problem surfacing here is what to do if you do feel this is wrong. If this is a custom of the parish, is it a good idea for a candidate to register a complaint?

Lux

The liklihood that such a complaint will resonate is remote, I’d guess. Better to pose it as a question. If the explanation in unsatisfactory, I’d say look for another parish that does not do such blessings.

 

[benedictgal]

The problem, as I see it, is that we have a lot of folks weighing in, some of them from online sources, who, while reputable, do not necessarily speak for the Church. Now, I admit, I use these a lot when I am making a post. Howvever, the statements and observations made by the CDWDS clearly speak for themselves. Furthermore, as I have stated in previous responses in this thread, imbedded within the CDWDS statement are references to the various liturgical and canonical law sections that are pertinent to each observation.

It is not, therefore, a matter of “custom”; rather, it is a matter of obedience and adherence to those sections of liturgical and canonical law that are already in place.

Anyone has a right to question a fuzzy liturgical practice. The individual does not necessarily have to be Catholic to raise the point.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

From the letter from Congregation for Divine Worship

Dear [names omitted],

This Congregation for Divine Worship and the Disciple of the Sacraments acknowledges receipt of your kind letter of 13 August, 2008 and would like to thank you for your interest and suggestions. This matter is presently under the attentive study of the Congregation.

I personally would follow the instruction of my pastor, rather than some anonymous internet poster.

Lux

 

[DHC1Chipmunk]

I am in RCIA and confused by this, too. I chose to stay in the pew, but was instructed to leave the pew long enough to let anyone pass who was going up for Communion, and then return to my seat in the pew after all had passed. I was to wait at the end of the pew, out of the way of the exiting parishioners. Problem is, if I kneel to pray a spiritual communion, I have to pay attention to where my fellow pew-sitters are and how long it might take them to get back to the pew, so I can be done kneeling and back up and out of the way before they return.

This hassle makes me want to just go with the flow and follow everybody up front and get a blessing during Communion!

 

[benedictgal]

I am in RCIA and confused by this, too. I chose to stay in the pew, but was instructed to leave the pew long enough to let anyone pass who was going up for Communion, and then return to my seat in the pew after all had passed. I was to wait at the end of the pew, out of the way of the exiting parishioners. Problem is, if I kneel to pray a spiritual communion, I have to pay attention to where my fellow pew-sitters are and how long it might take them to get back to the pew, so I can be done kneeling and back up and out of the way before they return.

This hassle makes me want to just go with the flow and follow everybody up front and get a blessing during Communion!

Don’t be confused. It is better to stay and make a spiritual communion since the line is not supposed to be to receive something (a blessing); rather, it is to receive Someone, namely Jesus. As far as your postion in the pews is concerned, stay seated, just move your legs either to the left or to the right. There is nothing wrong with praying seated. Now, once your pewmates get back, then go ahead and kneel.

As I said, there are well-meaning, but misinformed folks who will try to cite whatever blogger or online source they can find to justify their support for this bad practice. However, as I noted in my previous posts, the CDWDS, which is the highest rule-making authority, has made its observations and has quoted the already standing authoritative documents and citations from Canon Law to note that this practice should not be done.

 

[DHC1Chipmunk]

Don’t be confused. It is better to stay and make a spiritual communion since the line is not supposed to be to receive something (a blessing); rather, it is to receive Someone, namely Jesus. As far as your postion in the pews is concerned, stay seated, just move your legs either to the left or to the right. There is nothing wrong with praying seated. Now, once your pewmates get back, then go ahead and kneel.

As I said, there are well-meaning, but misinformed folks who will try to cite whatever blogger or online source they can find to justify their support for this bad practice. However, as I noted in my previous posts, the CDWDS, which is the highest rule-making authority, has made its observations and has quoted the already standing authoritative documents and citations from Canon Law to note that this practice should not be done.

Thank you!

 

[FrDavid96]

From adoremus:

If it the practice “presently under study” it is not officially forbidden. I certainly would be very careful about registering a complaint about something which is “under study”.

Adoremus goes on to add

I don’t see that saying “God bless you” is an attempt to confer a sacramental blessing.

This is from Jimmy Akin

Lux

Please explain how Jimmy Akin has the authority to over-turn the Holy See.

In fairness to Mr. Akin, it seems that at the time he wrote that, the Holy See had not yet issued the notification that this isn’t to be done.

 

[passus]

Please explain how Jimmy Akin has the authority to over-turn the Holy See.

He hasn’t…

In fairness to Mr. Akin, it seems that at the time he wrote that, the Holy See had not yet issued the notification that this isn’t to be done.

I think this is clear from Jimmy Akin’s multiple reiterations of the fact that (at the time the post was written) there was no legislation on the practice of conferring blessings during Communion.

 

[FrDavid96]

From the letter from Congregation for Divine Worship

I personally would follow the instruction of my pastor, rather than some anonymous internet poster.

Lux

A local pastor does not have any authority to overturn a decision made by the Holy See.

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments is hardly an “anonymous internet poster.” Even though the letter itself was first posted by an anonymous poster, the letter has been so well publicized, including a protocol number to verify its authenticity, that it’s simply beyond reason to question that it is what it appears to be.

An authentic interpretation of liturgical law by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has the force of law.

 

[FrDavid96]

He hasn’t…

I think this is clear from Jimmy Akin’s multiple reiterations of the fact that (at the time the post was written) there was no legislation on the practice of conferring blessings during Communion.

And just for clarity, I was not trying to imply that Jimmy Akin thought he could overturn the Holy See, I was addressing the notion that readers here should accept his interpretation, while disregarding the authentic and authoritative interpretation of the CDWS.

I attempted to say in my first post that I do not think that JA is trying to overturn the Holy See, but after re-reading it, I should have made that point more clearly.

Yet, that still doesn’t change the fact that his interpretation is still flawed.

 

[passus]

Yet, that still doesn’t change the fact that his interpretation is still flawed.

Something that is flawed has some kind of imperfection to it. It is not only unfair to the author, but also unsound to re-read what was once written through an abrogating lens and then proceed to call it flawed; at the time it was written there was no definitive perfection, if you will, whence to deviate.

I’m pretty sure Jimmy Akin, while he reserves the right to his own opinions, has no intention of subverting the law.

 

[benedictgal]

Something that is flawed has some kind of imperfection to it. It is not only unfair to the author, but also unsound to re-read what was once written through an abrogating lens and then proceed to call it flawed; at the time it was written there was no definitive perfection, if you will, whence to deviate.

I’m pretty sure Jimmy Akin, while he reserves the right to his own opinions, has no intention of subverting the law.

True, but the statement from the CDWDS, which carries more weight than Jimmy Aikin, whom I respect, but, is not speaking for the Roman Curia, is quite meaty because it substantiates itself, taking its basis from what is already standing in the authoritative documents of the Holy See and Canon Law. All one needs to do is look up the citations to the pertinent documents as contained in the observations made by the Holy See. They pretty much speak for themselves.

 

[passus]

True, but the statement from the CDWDS, which carries more weight than Jimmy Aikin, whom I respect, but, is not speaking for the Roman Curia, is quite meaty because it substantiates itself, taking its basis from what is already standing in the authoritative documents of the Holy See and Canon Law. All one needs to do is look up the citations to the pertinent documents as contained in the observations made by the Holy See. They pretty much speak for themselves.

Are you talking about the supposed substantiation provided for in what you quoted here?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5491847&postcount=10

As far as I can tell, nothing Jimmy said contradicts any of those preexisting sources, which I should mention are provided for only two of the five points in what you quoted.

I’d call it a stretch to say that the decision of the dicastery is remotely substantiated by those sources, much less self-substantiating, as you say. If the CDWDS wants to make a decision, they should make a decision. And that’s what they did. Saying that their decision is self-substantiating because of sources A, B, and C merely makes it look like they stitched together various pieces of obscure sources into some kind of pseudo-law so as to give the illusion that they didn’t really have to definitively decide anything. That’s giving them less credit than they deserve.