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

  • Thread starter Thread starter JMJ
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
OK let’s summarize:
Some say it can be used.
Others believe it is never to be done.
Many parishes encourage it, but priests here and elsewhere differ on yes or no.
People have spent posts discussing it.
If you priest allows it, fine,
If your priest does not allow it, obey.
The opinions vary wildly.
You milage may vary.
 
as I posted above…

Rule of thumb
  • if your pastor is fine with it, go ahead and do it.
  • if your pastor is not ok with it, don’t do it.
  • when visiting another parish, don’t do it unless you know for sure that the parish does it.
  • when you are not sure, stay in your pew.
God Bless
 
It seems my Archbishop would agree with Fr. McNamara. I would go with him too. Case closed.
 
Last edited:
pianistclare said:
OK let’s summarize:
Some say it can be used.
Others believe it is never to be done.
Many parishes encourage it, but priests here and elsewhere differ on yes or no.
People have spent posts discussing it.
If you priest allows it, fine,
If your priest does not allow it, obey.
The opinions vary wildly.
You milage may vary.
Click to expand...
Great summary! I would only add that Popes have encouraged its use and used it themselves.
 
FrDavid96 said:
40.png
Reuben_J:
Perhaps it then can fall under inculturation, where the discretion of the local Bishop is only required.

GIRM
398 Finally, the pursuit of inculturation does not have as its purpose in any way the creation of new families of rites, but aims rather at meeting the needs of a particular culture, though in such a way that adaptations introduced either into the Missal or coordinated with other liturgical books are not at variance with the proper character of the Roman Rite.
Click to expand...
The local bishop does not have that authority in the first place.

Any adaptations to the Roman Missal must be approved by Rome. A bishop can request an adaptation. A conference of bishops can request an adaptation. But no such adaptation is legitimate without Rome’s approval.
Click to expand...
I do not like to differ, make that argue, with a priest. I hate to use the word, disengenious, because it is a serious accusation especially for those in the clergy. I do not believe you are. OTOH, probably your expertise is not in the liturgy, Fr. That is better than if you purposely try to misintepret it to support your argument.

The GIRM speaks of incultaration not in the same category with what your are saying there, where any alteration has to be agreed by the Holy See.

It is a gray area, so the Bishop can decide on this thing where it does not change the liturgy itself.

Now you can use the clause as your argument but I think it does not apply.

I am not an expert in the liturgy but I am trained in GIRM, fortunately or unfortunately, by the same guy who was a liturgical expert. Three times did I attend his sessions, I would be able to repeat his every sentence, each on a different capacity, when the archdiocese wanted to introduce the GIRM.
 
Last edited:
babochka said:
40.png
pianistclare:
OK let’s summarize:
Some say it can be used.
Others believe it is never to be done.
Many parishes encourage it, but priests here and elsewhere differ on yes or no.
People have spent posts discussing it.
If you priest allows it, fine,
If your priest does not allow it, obey.
The opinions vary wildly.
You milage may vary.
Click to expand...
Great summary! I would only add that Popes have encouraged its use and used it themselves.
Click to expand...
I would go with the Popes too on this. wink wink
 
pnewton said:
I found this answer by Fr. McNamara at EWTN.
Click to expand...
Just to clarify, Father McNamara is much more than someone whose writings appear on EWTN because of his stature as Dean of Theology at the Pontifical Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum in Rome.
 
Reuben_J said:
The GIRM speaks of incultaration not in the same category with what your are saying there, where any alteration has to be agreed by the Holy See.
Click to expand...
Is that so? If that’s the case, then you should be able to show where the GIRM says that.

The GIRM you quoted speaks of introducing new rites (such as Byzantine, Coptic, Syriac, etc), which has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
  1. Finally, if the participation of the faithful and their spiritual welfare require variations and profounder adaptations in order for the sacred celebration to correspond with the culture and traditions of the different nations, then Conferences of Bishops may propose these to the Apostolic See in accordance with article 40 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy for introduction with the Apostolic See’s consent,
Nowhere is the local bishop given the authority to approve variations or profounder adaptations on his own authority.
It is a gray area, so the Bishop can decide on this thing where it does not change the liturgy itself.
Click to expand...
That contradicts GIRM 397

Really? Prove it. Show me what the Church says that.
Now you can use the clause as your argument but I think it does not apply.
Click to expand...
I am not trying to use the clause, I’m saying that the paragraph you quoted isn’t relevant to the discussion.
 
People can cherry-pick liturgical experts all day long, and write snippy comments all day long.

It doesn’t change this: nowhere does the Church say that adaptations can be made to the Mass without the approval of the Holy See.

Ever since Vatican II, SC #22 the Church has been absolutely clear and unambiguous that changes to the Mass must have the approval of the Holy See. Local bishops can propose. Conferences can propose. Without the approval of the Holy See, no change to the Mass is legitimate.

Time and time again, we have had the Church re-iterate this fact.

I cannot help but to point out the hypocrisy of those who will at one moment say that a letter from the Congregation of Divine Worship is not binding because it’s a private interpretation, yet will readily point to web pages and anecdotes to support what they claim.

Since when do internet articles carry more authority or level of trust than a letter from the very Congregation charged with regulating liturgical matters?
 
Last edited:
FrDavid96 said:
People can cherry-pick liturgical experts all day long, and write snippy comments all day long.
Click to expand...
For the record, I did not cherry pick him. I searched for an opinion on EWTN, which I have always found to be rather conservative and orthodox. Also, I may be mistaken, but I would imagine that Dean of Theology would be well aware of anything the CDW said on a subject he offered an opinion on. I would also think, though you would know better than I, that most bishop also have the resources to those learned and specializing in liturgy.

I do not know how whether words are electronic, written or spoken affects their veracity.

edit - I just thought of something else. I was thinking there might be some truth to the idea of being cherry-picked. What I said was true, but I ask myself if I would have linked the article if it read differently. I really don’t know. I know we all tend to have confirmation bias.
 
Last edited:
That’s ok,as far as it goes, but doesn’t specifically tell non-Christians they are not to receive.

A lot of people are not as familiar with catholicism as you might think.

Particularly folks who are not Christian at all.
 
I attended a funeral and received communion and later that day my wife and I attended mass. What is most appropriate action at communion time? For me to; Stay in pew, get a blessing or receive communion ? I thought that you may only receive communion once a day. Thank you for your thoughts
 
pnewton said:
For the record, I did not cherry pick him. I searched for an opinion on EWTN, which I have always found to be rather conservative and orthodox. Also, I may be mistaken, but I would imagine that Dean of Theology would be well aware of anything the CDW said on a subject he offered an opinion on. I would also think, though you would know better than I, that most bishop also have the resources to those learned and specializing in liturgy.

I do not know how whether words are electronic, written or spoken affects their veracity.

edit - I just thought of something else. I was thinking there might be some truth to the idea of being cherry-picked. What I said was true, but I ask myself if I would have linked the article if it read differently. I really don’t know. I know we all tend to have confirmation bias.
Click to expand...
The part you quoted was from 2005.

The link is here http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur81.htm

He did take a different approach later in 2009 after the “Japhy Letter” went public.

That is here https://www.ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur263.htm

The dates do matter.

One point he makes is that the Japhy letter states that lay persons are incapable of giving blessings during Mass. That’s not the sort of thing that’s open to any debate. It doesn’t matter who says it, it’s always going to be true.

He writes
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.
Click to expand...
Also, I wasn’t directing the cherry-pick comment at you. I was merely saying that anyone can cherry-pick a theologian or liturgist to support his own view on this.

What does bother me, though, is the trend I sometimes see exhibited by those who really should know better. That’s the practice of ignoring the sources with the most authority, like Vatican II, the GIRM (the very instructions for the Mass, of all things), papal documents, and even official Instructions or at best treating them as if they were meaningless while at the same time offering nothing more than their own opinions or sources that have no force-of-law to support their position. Such opinions might come from learned people, but lack any actual force.
 
gharris said:
I attended a funeral and received communion and later that day my wife and I attended mass. What is most appropriate action at communion time? For me to; Stay in pew, get a blessing or receive communion ? I thought that you may only receive communion once a day. Thank you for your thoughts
Click to expand...
Totally different subject.

And one that gets posted here at least monthly.

Short answer: you can receive Communion at both Masses.

Please let’s either leave it at that, or start a new thread. Better yet, pick up the discussion in one of the (probably hundreds) of existing threads on this question at CAF.

EDIT: I think we need a sub-forum in “Liturgy and Sacraments” entitled “How many times a day can I receive Communion?”
 
Last edited:
How much more explicit can you get?

I’m unsubscribing. I think this topic has been exhausted and is now, well, …
 
That, however, was in largest part due to the strictures of fasting before Communion.
 
And why would you presume that all Catholics going up to Communion had committed a mortal sin in the last week, and thus would have needed to go to confession?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top