I am not catholic yet,

[Alindawyl]

Would ‘proper’ Catholics who had not been to Confession/ had eaten before Mass just have to sit still as well or is it just us poor Non/Almost-Catholics that aren’t allowed?

‘Proper’ Catholics should absolutely refrain from coming forward to receive the Eucharist if they are not properly disposed.

It’s rather embarassing to be scheduled as a lector, commit what you believe to be a mortal sin the previous afternoon, and confession ends up not being available before Mass because the priest is running late. It felt like all eyes were on me when I stayed in my seat during communion, but better to be embarassed than further offend our Lord. Shame can be an effective instructor

 

[benedictgal]

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.

I would not be too quick to dismiss these “supposed substantiating documents.” As much as I respect Jimmy Aikin, he does not represent what the CDWDS notes. Just for the record, here is the statement from the CDWDS:

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).

Let’s look at the first instance, taken from Ecclesia de Mysterio. This is taken from Article 6, Section 2:

1. To promote the proper identity (of various roles) in this area, those abuses which are contrary to the provisions of canon 907 are to be eradicated. In eucharistic celebrations deacons and non-ordained members of the faithful may not pronounce prayers – e.g. especially the eucharistic prayer, with its concluding doxology – or any other parts of the liturgy reserved to the celebrant priest. Neither may deacons or non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions which are proper to the same priest celebrant. It is a grave abuse for any member of the non-ordained faithful to “quasi preside” at the Mass while leaving only that minimal participation to the priest which is necessary to secure validity.

Here is the accompanying citation from Canon Law regarding just who can bless what:

Can. 1169 §1. Those marked with the episcopal character and presbyters permitted by law or legitimate grant can perform consecrations and dedications validly.

§2. Any presbyter can impart blessings except those reserved to the Roman Pontiff or bishops.

§3. A deacon can impart only those blessings expressly permitted by law.

However, once again, refer back to the first observation that notes that the blessing comes at the end of the Mass. There is no provision in the GIRM indicating that one can receive a blessing in lieu of Holy Communion.

Now, observation #4 already quotes the pertinent liturgical documentation regarding the matter. While the fifth observation clearly indicates that

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

(where the OP, non-Catholics, and those who have not yet received First Holy Communion fall under).

Furthermore, the document also cites this passage from Canon Law:

Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

I don’t think that you can get any clearer than that.

 

[passus]

benedictgal, you’ll notice in the blog post we’re discussing that Jimmy did not contradict any of the laws cited in the observations blog post. You’ll also note that the fifth observation, which merely regards “the Church’s discipline” is entirely unsubstantiated.

Regarding individuals under penalty of excommunication and interdict–those are special cases, which Jimmy was not referring to in his reply to a question regarding a child receiving a blessing.

 

[benedictgal]

benedictgal, you’ll notice in the blog post we’re discussing that Jimmy did not contradict any of the laws cited in the observations blog post. You’ll also note that the fifth observation, which merely regards “the Church’s discipline” is entirely unsubstantiated.

Regarding individuals under penalty of excommunication and interdict–those are special cases, which Jimmy was not referring to in his reply to a question regarding a child receiving a blessing.

So, now you are claiming that the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, the same Congregation charged with the regulaton of the Sacred Liturgy, including the Holy Sacrifice of the Masss, has to substantiate something just because there are some who apparently can’t accept the statement it has made on this matter? With all due respect, since when does the CDWDS have to substantiate any of the statements that it is making, especially since the document contains a protocol number and has already been printed in Notitae, the official publication of the CDWDS?

Why not take the CDWDS, which, after the Holy Father, is the highest rule-makng authority in the Church, at its word? The fifth observation does, indeed, cover small children because they are not yet able to present themselves for Holy Communion.

As much as I respect Jimmy Aikin, he is not the rule-making authority here; the CDWDS is. But, when people start doubting the CDWDS and making outlandish claims that even this Roman Curial office needs to substantiate its statements, then there is, as I see it, a huge problem. The observations are quite clear and direct.

 

[passus]

So, now you are claiming that the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, the same Congregation charged with the regulaton of the Sacred Liturgy, including the Holy Sacrifice of the Masss, has to substantiate something just because there are some who apparently can’t accept the statement it has made on this matter?

No, I’m simply pointing out that you who called this document “meaty” and self-substantiating would seem to be wrong in your observation when you have just now conceded that there are parts of the document not substantiated on the basis of the CDWDS’s legislative initiative.

Why not take the CDWDS, which, after the Holy Father, is the highest rule-makng authority in the Church, at its word? The fifth observation does, indeed, cover small children because they are not yet able to present themselves for Holy Communion.

No point in making invalid generalizations. I would consider a 7 year old to be a “small child.” But 7 year old 2nd graders are presenting themselves for their first Holy Communion all across the country.

But, when people start doubting the CDWDS and making outlandish claims that even this Roman Curial office needs to substantiate its statements, then there is, as I see it, a huge problem. The observations are quite clear and direct.

Where did I make such a claim?

 

[benedictgal]

No, I’m simply pointing out that you who called this document “meaty” and self-substantiating would seem to be wrong in your observation when you have just now conceded that there are parts of the document not substantiated on the basis of the CDWDS’s legislative initiative.

No point in making invalid generalizations. I would consider a 7 year old to be a “small child.” But 7 year old 2nd graders are presenting themselves for their first Holy Communion all across the country.

Where did I make such a claim?

You kept repeating that the fifth observation was unsubstantiated:

You’ll also note that the fifth observation, which merely regards “the Church’s discipline” is entirely unsubstantiated.

Again, since when does the CDWDS have substantiate its documents? I take the Congregation at its word. The fact that this Roman Curial office makes statements like this is substantial enough. While you may not consider this meaty, it does come straight from the CDWDS. We need to take the CDWDS at its word. Unfortunately, as I read some of the comments, there are those on this thread who don’t seem to want to do that.

As for your charge that I am making invalid generalizations, might I remind you that a great deal of small children (you are the one who brought up the age; I did not) are not yet old enough to receive Holy Communion. While they can certainly accompany their parent, if only one adult is present at the Mass wth them, that does not mean that they should be receiving a blessing. The fifth observatoin, which you seem to disregard as unsubstantiated, specifically states that those who cannot yet receive Holy Communion should not present themselves for a blessing in lieu of receiving Our Lord.

 

[passus]

You kept repeating that the fifth observation was unsubstantiated

I did, but only to demonstrate that the document is not self-substantiating. Can you show me where in my posts I “doubt the CDWDS” or make “outlandish claims that even [the CDWDS] needs to substantiate its statements?”

You’re the only one making outlandish claims.

The fifth observatoin, which you seem to disregard as unsubstantiated,

Where did I disregard it?

I pledge full allegiance to the CDWDS and it’s documents and I have no authority to change or disregard any of the dicastery’s legislation. The liturgy and its regulation is the Church’s prerogative and hers only.

At the same time, however, I freely admit my taking the CDWDS at its word rather than making intellectually dishonest claims that something they say is backed up by preexisting laws (thereby imparting some more credence, I suppose), which is what I think you did right here:

*…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.
*

 

[Karoline]

I think I’m more confused than I was before this question was asked…
I’ll just ask my Priest/s.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

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.

Well now you know that it is not permited and should not be encouraged.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

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

The practice will not stop as long as there are People, Priests and even Bishops who do not want ti to stop, and say that what Rome says is irrevelant. Catholics MUST INFORM THEMSELVES about what the Church teaches and practices.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

(I do actually spell my name with a K )

What is the blessing at the end of Mass? Sorry, I’ve only been to Church 6 times I think, not started the RCIA process for Candidates yet and I’m still trying to get used to everything. It certainly doesn’t breed confusion in our area as everyone knows what to do with regards to receiving a Blessing rather than Communion for whatever reason that may be. Would ‘proper’ Catholics who had not been to Confession/ had eaten before Mass just have to sit still as well or is it just us poor Non/Almost-Catholics that aren’t allowed? I must be honest and say that I am somewhat upset and disappointed to hear this as I rather enjoy going up to receive a Blessing from my Priest and everyone else has told me it’s perfectly acceptable as long as I don’t receive Communion. It feels slightly like Non/ Almost-Catholics still being ostracised whilst within the Church and I thought we’d moved past the time when Catechumens had to leave the Church after the Liturgy of the Word as it was all a ‘mystery of the Faith.’

No person who is not in the proper disposition to receive HOly Communion should approach Communion, they should remain in their place, Catholic and non-Catholic alike.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Karoline,

Please do not be upset. This is a very controversial situation, which requires much sensitivity from both sides.

Although the individual blessing is not part of liturgical norms, it has become very common place in many parishes. I have heard some bishops issuing instructions, but I’ve never heard of a bishop taking any action to stop it.

Please follow the custom of your parish, and the instructions of your Pastor, rather than be upset by internet forums.

God bless you. I say this now, and would also say it as an EMHC, if you approached me with your arms folded over your chest. I would just lay my hand on your shoulder, and never make a sign of the cross over you, since this is a priestly gesture which the laity should not use.

It is so difficult to explain why open communion is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. This custom has come into practice to help in relations with those not fully prepared to receive Holy Communion.

Lux

Since you know of no Bishop,
I assume you have not heard of the Cardinal Prefect who has taken action to stop it? (until this thread)

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Since you know of no Bishop,
I assume you have not heard of the Cardinal Prefect who has taken action to stop it? (until this thread)

Please believe me that I do respect Church authority and laws (liturgical, as well as doctrinal & disciplinary).

OP asked the question, and others have expressed concern over this popular practice. The letter from the cdw quoted states that the matter is under careful study, and states the current instructions.

Do you believe that under these circumstances a candidate would be wrong to follow the Pastors instructions? I certainly would not initiate the practice, but would definitely not ignore a person who approached me with arms crossed in a communion line, especially under the instructions of my pastor.

We are trying to help and encourage people. This is not a matter I would argue with my pastor. I would not encourage anyone to initiate this practice, but I would not advise them to confront their pastor, if he chose to observe this in his parish.

Lux

 

[benedictgal]

I think I’m more confused than I was before this question was asked…
I’ll just ask my Priest/s.

Actually, there is no reason to be confused. Just follow the observations given by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. This congregation is, aside from the Holy Father, the rule-making authority of the Church that governs the liturgy, including the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass:

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).

This is about as clear anyone can get, especially since these observations cite Canon Law and the other pertinent relevant documents of the same Congregation. You can never go wrong following the CDWDS.

 

[white_sheep]

I agree with BenedictGal and Br. Rich, good posts! What you are supposed to do is quite clear, how you handle it, as always, is your decision.

 

[benedictgal]

I did, but only to demonstrate that the document is not self-substantiating. Can you show me where in my posts I “doubt the CDWDS” or make “outlandish claims that even [the CDWDS] needs to substantiate its statements?”

You’re the only one making outlandish claims.

Where did I disregard it?

I pledge full allegiance to the CDWDS and it’s documents and I have no authority to change or disregard any of the dicastery’s legislation. The liturgy and its regulation is the Church’s prerogative and hers only.

At the same time, however, I freely admit my taking the CDWDS at its word rather than making intellectually dishonest claims that something they say is backed up by preexisting laws (thereby imparting some more credence, I suppose), which is what I think you did right here:

…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.

Well, for starters, I quoted your posting where you said the following:

You’ll also note that the fifth observation, which merely regards “the Church’s discipline” is entirely unsubstantiated.

You are the one who is making the claim that parts of the statement are unsubstantiated. The CDWDS does not have to explain itself to anyone. And, you should not be leveling charges accusing me of intellecutal dishonesty without backing your statements first. I stand by my statements.

 

[FrDavid96]

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.

The imperfection/flaw can be read right here on this thread. Mr Akin begins by saying, correctly, that a priest cannot add any ceremony to the Mass on his own authority. He is correct in this–and I think he should have left it at that, but he didn’t. He then proceeds to say that because a priest can “pause the Mass” because of a disturbance–in his example, a passing airplane, that means that a priest may add ceremonies to the Mass which the Church has not placed there. The flaw in that logic is unmistakeable. In fact, it’s downright silly to make such a comparison. Not even the most generous stretch of the imagination can compare waiting for a noise to cease with adding a new ceremony to the Mass.

He then proceeds to give his reasoning for this, and his reasoning (again anyone can read it in post 27) is that “the alternative is sending someone away disappointed and possibly angry and disaffected” That is not, repeat not, a value in Liturgy. He begins with an illicit act, and then says that the illicit act should be continued simply because people have come to expect it.

The liturgical law (see Vatican II, SC) which says that a priest cannot add, remove, or change anything on his own authority (ie w/o approval of the Holy See) is itself the pre-existing law which this “blessing” at Communion violates. That’s why it’s disengenuous to say that there is no prior prohibition against doing this.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Please believe me that I do respect Church authority and laws (liturgical, as well as doctrinal & disciplinary).

OP asked the question, and others have expressed concern over this popular practice. The letter from the cdw quoted states that the matter is under careful study, and states the current instructions.

Do you believe that under these circumstances a candidate would be wrong to follow the Pastors instructions? I certainly would not initiate the practice, but would definitely not ignore a person who approached me with arms crossed in a communion line, especially under the instructions of my pastor.

We are trying to help and encourage people. This is not a matter I would argue with my pastor. I would not encourage anyone to initiate this practice, but I would not advise them to confront their pastor, if he chose to observe this in his parish.

Lux

If I were an EMHC in a parish that practiced this. Upon learning that it is discouraged by Rome I would take up the matter with the pastor. I would say that I will not offer a blessing, since I am not permitted to do so within a liturgical setting. If he says then your assistance is no longer needed as an EMHC then so be it. Remembering the old elementary school slogan, “Just say NO” to Blessings at Communion time.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

If I were an EMHC in a parish that practiced this. Upon learning that it is discouraged by Rome I would take up the matter with the pastor. I would say that I will not offer a blessing, since I am not permitted to do so within a liturgical setting. If he says then your assistance is no longer needed as an EMHC then so be it. Remembering the old elementary school slogan, “Just say NO” to Blessings at Communion time.

I do agree in principle, but I wouldn’t refuse to say “God bless you”, if someone approached. What would you do if someone approached you with arms crossed?

I do understand the reason many pastors favor the practice, especially at funerals & weddings. It is far better than seeing people receive while unprepared, or finding hosts in the pew.

As I said, since the situation is under study, I will trust my pastor’s decision. I would not encourage the practice, but would not refuse a person who approached.

Lux

 

[Newbie2]

If I were an EMHC in a parish that practiced this. Upon learning that it is discouraged by Rome I would take up the matter with the pastor. I would say that I will not offer a blessing, since I am not permitted to do so within a liturgical setting. If he says then your assistance is no longer needed as an EMHC then so be it. Remembering the old elementary school slogan, “Just say NO” to Blessings at Communion time.

Sounds like a reasonable option.

I think the phrase, ***“This matter is presently under the attentive study of the Congregation.” *** is significant in causing some degree of confusion for some, and methinks problematic for those not familiar with the hierarchy of the Church. Seems to me that if the matter “is presently under…study”, then there are some doubts as to whether the practice should be “legitimized” as a liturgical option. Otherwise, the practice would be rejected outright.

Yes, it goes on to say that for the time being blessings shouldn’t be given, no need to rehash that. But it’s legitimate to ask, if such blessings are eventually approved, what all the fuss is about?