If I am unable to receive Communion, can I still go up and get a blessing?

[Don_Ruggero]

I’d ask this question. What is this practice hurting? If I, as a priest, with my bishop’s blessing, allow people to do this, what is the harm?

It is not even a question of harm…the provision of your bishop resolves the matter in your regard.

 

[Augustinian]

My advise on your situation is to follow the directions of your own parish (ie. go up for a blessing), and also feel comfortable that your parish is not doing anything “irregular”

Following the counsel of Ambrose of Milan, “when in rome do as the romans” is the best advice for avoiding a faux pas.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I’m confused. Is getting a blessing a problem in the Communion line?

 

[FrDavid96]

I’m confused. Is getting a blessing a problem in the Communion line?

Yes. It is the “Communion” line (actually moment would be a better word than line). It is the time for receiving Holy Communion. It’s not a time of receiving individual blessings.

 

[exnihilo]

I would disagree with this. That might be the ideal, but it’s not the reality. And even if it were true, which I dispute, to your average teenager, in their mind every eye in the church is on them at that particular moment. No 16 year old wants to have his dad ask him in the car home, “Why didn’t you receive communion today?”

I understand the subjective feelings of a teenager. But the father shouldn’t be asking this question, right? No one should be asking someone why he didn’t go up for communion. The proper response would be, ‘that is private’, right? Someone needs to correct such a father. Do we need to institute blessings to avoid correcting the father’s inappropriate question? Because that doesn’t really addrsss the problem.

 

[pnewton]

I understand the subjective feelings of a teenager. But the father shouldn’t be asking this question, right?

Right, but I tell you, it makes the wheels start to spin in one’s head. The parent should be more disciplined. It isn’t easy though.

 

[babochka]

exnihilo:

I understand the subjective feelings of a teenager. But the father shouldn’t be asking this question, right?

Right, but I tell you, it makes the wheels start to spin in one’s head. The parent should be more disciplined. It isn’t easy though.

Even if the parent never asks, he notices.

 

[casslean]

The whole issue is avoided if mom and dad set an example of regular Reconciliation, and make sure the kids go too.

I wasn’t receiving a blessing because I had failed to go to Confession. I was receiving a blessing because while I wholeheartedly wanted to be Catholic, I still had to go through the rites and teachings.

Sorry, but this is one instance where you have to read the spirit of the law as much as the letter, much like Jesus teaches in the gospel for today. It might not be written expressly into the liturgical rites that blessings are permitted, but do we really think that if Jesus appeared tomorrow, he is going to admonish people because they were doing what was possible and within their power to make sure everyone had the opportunity to draw closer to him in that moment?

 

[angell1]

sorry. Fr. i’ still confused
there are several priests on this forum, some are saying it’s fine, the bishops have that authority to allow these things.

others say that no, the vatican has never approved it and bishops don’t have the authority to let priests do it.

what’s the actual answer?

 

[casslean]

what’s the actual answer?

The one your priest gives you when you ask him.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

sorry. Fr. i’ still confused

there are several priests on this forum, some are saying it’s fine, the bishops have that authority to allow these things.

others say that no, the vatican has never approved it and bishops don’t have the authority to let priests do it.

what’s the actual answer?

If I remember, @angell1, you are in the Archdiocese of Vancouver. The Archdiocese states:

The liturgy does not call for a blessing to be given at Communion time, but where the custom has arisen of the priest offering a blessing to those who do not receive Holy Communion, the Extraordinary Minister may simply say: “May God bless you”

So that is the decision of your Archbishop – regarding Priests as well as Extraordinary Ministers and blessings in the Communion line – until such time, if ever, that the Holy See speaks to this matter.

And, to be quite clear, Archbishop J. Michael Miller knows perfectly well what is within his power and authority and what is not. I remember him when he was at the Vatican, at the Secretariat of State firstly and then as the number 2 official of Congregation for Education. He is more worthy of trust that any priest you encounter in any Internet forum.

 

[FrDavid96]

sorry. Fr. i’ still confused
there are several priests on this forum, some are saying it’s fine, the bishops have that authority to allow these things.

others say that no, the vatican has never approved it and bishops don’t have the authority to let priests do it.

what’s the actual answer?

I think you already know you’re going to get 2 different answers to that question.

 

[FrDavid96]

sorry. Fr. i’ still confused
there are several priests on this forum, some are saying it’s fine, the bishops have that authority to allow these things.

others say that no, the vatican has never approved it and bishops don’t have the authority to let priests do it.

what’s the actual answer?

I rather think that the Fathers of Vatican II already answered:

22 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.
2 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.
3 Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest [sacerdos], may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.

emphasis added, of course.

 

[casslean]

Father, aren’t you getting a bit… well, I’m not sure what the word is, but this whole argument reminds me of the Pharisees and others criticizing Jesus for healing on the Sabbath. Surely that’s not the example we want to follow.

This practice takes nothing away from the reception of the Eucharist and only adds to the experience of those not in full communion. This is a practice that does good, and harms no one and nothing. Why does it cause such controversy?

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

I would like to add another practical suggestion. In many countries it has become customary for persons who are not able to receive communion (for example, the members of other confessions) to approach the altar with their hands folded over their chests, making it clear that they are not receiving the sacrament but are asking for a blessing, which is given to them as a sign of the love of Christ and of the Church. This form could certainly be chosen also by persons who are living in a second marriage and therefore are not admitted to the Lord’s table. The fact that this would make possible an intense spiritual communion with the Lord, with his whole Body, with the Church, could be a spiritual experience that would strengthen and help them. – Pope Benedict/Josef Ratzinger [Source]

 

[twf]

At our cathedral, which is fairly on the traditional side liturgically speaking (lots of chant, incense, occasional use of Latin, option to receive kneeling at the altar rail), the clergy, from the Rector down, encourage those who cannot receive to come up for a blessing. This is the practice, also, when His Grace is celebrating… so who am I to complain about it?

 

[FrDavid96]

Father, aren’t you getting a bit… well, I’m not sure what the word is, but this whole argument reminds me of the Pharisees and others criticizing Jesus for healing on the Sabbath. Surely that’s not the example we want to follow.

This practice takes nothing away from the reception of the Eucharist and only adds to the experience of those not in full communion. This is a practice that does good, and harms no one and nothing. Why does it cause such controversy?

I just cannot express how tired I am of hearing people say that following the liturgical norms of the Church is to be like the pharisees. Truly, that’s not an honest or reasonable way to see things.

You imply that they are like the Pharisees. This is how St John Paul II described them

Priests who faithfully celebrate Mass according to the liturgical norms, and communities which conform to those norms, quietly but eloquently demonstrate their love for the Church.

He does not use those words for priests who make up their own practices and insert them into the Mass. He has very different words for them.

Go back a few posts and read what St John Paul II had to say about this.
https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-...ments/hf_jp-ii_enc_20030417_eccl-de-euch.html

Do you think he was calling them pharisees?

And let’s not forget, the very reason why Christ criticized the Pharisees was because they made up their own laws.

 

[exnihilo]

Sorry, but this is one instance where you have to read the spirit of the law as much as the letter, much like Jesus teaches in the gospel for today. It might not be written expressly into the liturgical rites that blessings are permitted, but do we really think that if Jesus appeared tomorrow, he is going to admonish people because they were doing what was possible and within their power to make sure everyone had the opportunity to draw closer to him in that moment?

There is a time and a place for everything. The communion line isn’t the place for all sorts of things. Someone who can’t receive communion may be in a state of mortal sin. But the communion line isn’t the place to draw closer to Jesus by confessing.

This practice takes nothing away from the reception of the Eucharist and only adds to the experience of those not in full communion. This is a practice that does good, and harms no one and nothing. Why does it cause such controversy?

One could argue it takes away from communion. Full communion means something, or should.

 

[casslean]

There is a difference between following liturgical norms and being so rigid that you condemn anything that is not specifically spelled out.

One of Jesus’s reasons for condemning the Pharisees, as it was explained to me during the homily tonight, was that they strictly adhered to all of their laws without considering the reason or motive behind that law, and whether or not their strict adherence was furthering the aim and intent of the law. And they were so steadfast in that adherence and in their unwillingness to consider anything except how they believed their laws would operate that when they were faced with the opportunity to see the Son of God perform a miracle, they were more concerned with catching him out at breaking the laws.

 

[FrDavid96]

There is a difference between following liturgical norms and being so rigid that you condemn anything that is not specifically spelled out.

One of Jesus’s reasons for condemning the Pharisees, as it was explained to me during the homily tonight, was that they strictly adhered to all of their laws without considering the reason or motive behind that law, and whether or not their strict adherence was furthering the aim and intent of the law. And they were so steadfast in that adherence and in their unwillingness to consider anything except how they believed their laws would operate that when they were faced with the opportunity to see the Son of God perform a miracle, they were more concerned with catching him out at breaking the laws.

Again with the Pharisees.

You do yourself no good here.

Compare to the Pharisees all you want, it won’t make it right.

Did you even bother to read what St John Paul II wrote, or are you so bent on calling people Pharisees that you can’t be bothered?