Is it okay to receive a Blessing instead of Communion even if you are allowed to receive?

[Newbie2]

Instead of the CDWDS telling someone “don’t do this”, the CDWDS is putting the onus on a pastor or a bishop. The CDWDS is saying “you, guy in authority, are to explicitly discourage this act.” Again, the document does not say what to do if the blessings continue; it does not provide a disciplinary or punitive dimension.

I really can’t believe we’re parsing words like this. The laying on of hands as a substitute-blessing for Communion is inappropriate and is to be explicitly discouraged. But, hey, if a priest or bishop wants to CONTINUE doing something INAPPROPRIATE and sending the wrong message, who can complain?

That’s an excellent point! If the bishops continue to be OK with this practice as well as the priest in the parish, that’s the bottom line. If someone decides not to go up for a blessing, that’s great, they’re not doing what they’re not supposed to do, but at the same time them not going up isn’t going to affect one way or the other whether or not the practice continues in their parish.

I climbed out my window - a lot …

The practical upshot is still the same, though. You won’t be excommunicated for doing it (since presumably you are already under some form of excommunication; it would be redundant to forbid you from Holy Communion, if you are already forbidden from it) but they ask nicely that you please not do it.

In the case of my own father, the difference was that in the first case, he would paddle my bum, and in the second, he would quit speaking to me for a month, since I should have had the courtesy to respect his wishes without needing to be threatened with a paddling.

I was always afraid of what my dad would do, if I messed up, not that he ever had to live up to my expectations.

 

[palmas85]

I will again pose the question that I posed about 8 pages ago. Why would anyone who understands what Holy Communion is and what we receive from it, be inclined to go forward and receive a blessing? The blessing would impart nothing to the individual even remotely akin to Communion. And sine a blessing will be received by everyone in another 10-15 minutes or so why even do it?

Do you think the double blessing adds up to something special?

I just don’t get it.

 

[EvelynEVF]

I know better now, but before I was received into the Church, I always went forward for a blessing, as it is the custom in my parish (which otherwise tends to be pretty by-the-book).

For me it was a)being able to reverence Jesus in the Eucharist, and b)the blessing, though a quickie, was personal.

I am fortunate that my parish has weekly Adoration, which would cover point a if I were not able to receive, and I do not hesitate to ask my spiritual director for a personal blessing, so that takes care of b

 

[palmas85]

I know better now, but before I was received into the Church, I always went forward for a blessing, as it is the custom in my parish (which otherwise tends to be pretty by-the-book).

For me it was a)being able to reverence Jesus in the Eucharist, and b)the blessing, though a quickie, was personal.

I am fortunate that my parish has weekly Adoration, which would cover point a if I were not able to receive, and I do not hesitate to ask my spiritual director for a personal blessing, so that takes care of b

So in your way of thinking getting a personal blessing, when the person bestowing it probably didn’t even know who you were, was somehow better than the general blessing for all at the end of Mass. As far as being able to reverence Jesus in the Eucharist, how could you?. The Priest, at least I hope it wa a Priest, would be holding the Ciborum in one hand and either touching you or making the sign of the Cross over you with the other. I do hope that he wasn’t holding the Eucharist while doing either one of these.

It seems to me that you could do a better job of giving reverence to Christ by kneeling in one of the front rows if possible and observing. I mean I am glad to hear that you don’t do this now can’t you see just how lame your reasons were? I don’t say that in a bad way and don’t mean to be offensive, but it looks as if you are trying to pull out something when there is nothing there.

I really didn’t expect many if any answers to the question because quite honestly there is no answer that will really work. People do this thing because it has become almost customary for them to do it. They don’t have a reason for it, they really can’t explain it and don’t understand themselves why they do it.

 

[SonofMonica]

This whole argument is insane. And I’m speaking as a person who will be swimming the Tiber in the fall. Those of us who are preparing to enter the church do NOT view a blessing from a priest as a “substitute” for Communion; nor are we engaging in any illicit practice. We do not approach for Communion, but for a blessing while others are approaching for Communion. As far as I’m aware, the Church does not mandate any specific behavior for those not able to receive Communion, including what has been suggested here (i.e., praying in your seat). Nevertheless we have to do SOMETHING, don’t we? By gal’s standard, anything we possibly do would be adding to the Mass illicitly. What the priest is doing by blessing me (and Catholic’s kids) is not performing a rite so much as keeping the traffic flowing while being charitable.

As for my wife and I, we prefer to stay in the pew, as we certainly don’t wish to draw attention to the fact that we cannot take communion. (I suspect this is the feeling of most people who are on their way into the Church; as such I think you’ve invented your “people substituting a blessing for communion problem” unnecessarily. It just simply isn’t a problem, as far as I can tell). But quite honestly whether we file in for a blessing depends most of the time upon which side of the pew we’re able to sit. In a packed church, sometimes you have to sit in the middle or even on the isle. Since pews have kneelers, it’s almost an absolute necessity to get out of the pew if you have to sit in one of those locations instead of a “window” seat. As such, you are left with a very real traffic problem as you block everything and disrupt traffic flow. I’ve seen it happen many times and it’s happened to me.

Growing up attending Mass with family and friends I’ve always, without exception, been told that I could go up and receive a blessing by crossing my arms over my chest and/or asking for one; or I could choose to stay in my pew. No one (that I can imagine) wants to mark themselves as separate and call themselves out with an “X” of arms. Likewise, no one who is faithfully attending Mass in earnest of joining in full communion with the Church is there thinking that a blessing is a substitute for the Mass. We can get imperfect substitutes for Mass by going to a protestant singalong. We are there for the real thing and long for when we can receive it. In the meantime, I’d dare say most of us are simply trying to worship God while we’re there and not get in the way–which we certainly would be doing by remaining on the kneeler while others are trying to file out.

 

[palmas85]

This whole argument is insane. And I’m speaking as a person who will be swimming the Tiber in the fall. Those of us who are preparing to enter the church do NOT view a blessing from a priest as a “substitute” for Communion; nor are we engaging in any illicit practice. We do not approach for Communion, but for a blessing while others are approaching for Communion. As far as I’m aware, the Church does not mandate any specific behavior for those not able to receive Communion, including what has been suggested here (i.e., praying in your seat). Nevertheless we have to do SOMETHING, don’t we? By gal’s standard, anything we possibly do would be adding to the Mass illicitly. What the priest is doing by blessing me (and Catholic’s kids) is not performing a rite so much as keeping the traffic flowing while being charitable.

As for my wife and I, we prefer to stay in the pew, as we certainly don’t wish to draw attention to the fact that we cannot take communion. (I suspect this is the feeling of most people who are on their way into the Church; as such I think you’ve invented your “people substituting a blessing for communion problem” unnecessarily. It just simply isn’t a problem, as far as I can tell). But quite honestly whether we file in for a blessing depends most of the time upon which side of the pew we’re able to sit. In a packed church, sometimes you have to sit in the middle or even on the isle. Since pews have kneelers, it’s almost an absolute necessity to get out of the pew if you have to sit in one of those locations instead of a “window” seat. As such, you are left with a very real traffic problem as you block everything and disrupt traffic flow. I’ve seen it happen many times and it’s happened to me.

Growing up attending Mass with family and friends I’ve always, without exception, been told that I could go up and receive a blessing by crossing my arms over my chest and/or asking for one; or I could choose to stay in my pew. No one (that I can imagine) wants to mark themselves as separate and call themselves out with an “X” of arms. Likewise, no one who is faithfully attending Mass in earnest of joining in full communion with the Church is there thinking that a blessing is a substitute for the Mass. We can get imperfect substitutes for Mass by going to a protestant singalong. We are there for the real thing and long for when we can receive it. In the meantime, I’d dare say most of us are simply trying to worship God while we’re there and not get in the way–which we certainly would be doing by remaining on the kneeler while others are trying to file out.

Actually, the fact that so many people do go up for a blessing is what is insane. And I ask again, do you or any of the others who avail themselves of this practice actually understand what is happening during Holy Communion? And yes it is a problem if you have so many people doing this who have no real understanding of what is actually going on.

The argument that by staying in the seat you create problems and so going to receive a blessing is a charitable thing to do is non sensical at best and totally self serving at worst.

As to being told for years that it is OK to do this thing, I think that you really have proven my point. You have no real reason to do it except that you have been told it’s OK to do so. Evidence has been presented on this thread by Benedictgirl and others that in the eyes of the Church it is definitely NOT OK to do it.

 

[paperwight]

Actually, the fact that so many people do go up for a blessing is what is insane. And I ask again, do you or any of the others who avail themselves of this practice actually understand what is happening during Holy Communion? And yes it is a problem if you have so many people doing this who have no real understanding of what is actually going on.

The argument that by staying in the seat you create problems and so going to receive a blessing is a charitable thing to do is non sensical at best and totally self serving at worst.

As to being told for years that it is OK to do this thing, I think that you really have proven my point. You have no real reason to do it except that you have been told it’s OK to do so. Evidence has been presented on this thread by Benedictgirl and others that in the eyes of the Church it is definitely NOT OK to do it.

That is so so harsh that it takes my breath away.

If it’s done in his local church, then it is O.K. What harm does it do after all, particularly given the very real point about ‘traffic control’?

OP. don’t be put off by the lack of charity, pharaseeism, and rule-book mentality shown in these posts.

I am truly shocked at the lack of love shown by some people. To borrow a phrase from our Protestant brethren, what would Jesus do? Bless all who came to Him, that’s what.

 

[japhy]

As far as I’m aware, the Church does not mandate any specific behavior for those not able to receive Communion, including what has been suggested here (i.e., praying in your seat).

While the Church does not mandate what to do if you’re not receiving Communion, it appears the Church’s discipline prohibits non-Catholics from approaching for a blessing during Communion; that’s what “observation #5” from the CDWDS said: “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…”

 

[palmas85]

That is so so harsh that it takes my breath away.

If it’s done in his local church, then it is O.K. What harm does it do after all, particularly given the very real point about ‘traffic control’?

OP. don’t be put off by the lack of charity, pharaseeism, and rule-book mentality shown in these posts.

I am truly shocked at the lack of love shown by some people. To borrow a phrase from our Protestant brethren, what would Jesus do? Bless all who came to Him, that’s what.

The truth is often harsh. By masking the truth and by being afraid to stand up for what is right in the supposed exercise of charity, we do ourselves and the faith a tremendous disservice and can actually give scandal to the faith. Or do you adhere to the philosophy that it is better to tell a lie then to tell the truth and possibly offend someone? Ort to admit into the Mass certain actions which although expressly not allowed by the Church might seem harsh and hence, unreasonable?

Something for you to ponder my young friend, What did Jesus do in the Temple when confronted with those who were not in full compliance with the rules and took it upon themselves to do as they wished?

I will give you a hint. He did not bless them. Righteous anger is not a bad thing and never has been.

As far as traffic control we made out just fine before everyone started parading up for a blessing in lieu of receiving Holy Communion.

Believe it or not.

 

[paperwight]

Something for you to ponder my young friend,
I
.

Thanks for the best laugh of the week. I’m 65.

 

[paperwight]

Something for you to ponder my young friend, What did Jesus do in the Temple when confronted with those who were not in full compliance with the rules and took it upon themselves to do as they wished?

.

And now to be serious. Our Lord’s anger in the Temple was not against those who were worshipping. It was towards those who were exploiting the poor by charging high prices for what the ordinary peeple needed to have for their religious duties.

Not comparable in the slightest.

 

[paperwight]

Thanks for the best laugh of the week. I’m 65.

Ah, I’ve just realised. You interpreted ‘junior member’ to mean just that. No, I think it means that I haven’t posted the required number of posts to be a full member, but I could be wrong…

 

[benedictgal]

And now to be serious. Our Lord’s anger in the Temple was not against those who were worshipping. It was towards those who were exploiting the poor by charging high prices for what the ordinary peeple needed to have for their religious duties.

Not comparable in the slightest.

Actually, it did have a lot to do with worshipping. The money changers and the animal merchants were setting up shop in the court of the Gentiles, the place where non-Jews and prolestytes could worship the Lord. So, it was sacred space.

And, it was not about exploiting the poor. We need to be familiar with what Scripture says before we start rushing into things. Many, many of the Jews coming to Jerusalem came from significant distances making it virtually impossitlbe for them to bring in their own animals to offer the required sacrifice at the Temple. These animals would have probably died on the way to Jerusalem. Thus, the animal vendors were providing a service. Furthermore, because the Jews came from all over the region, including Greece and Egypt, they had different forms of currency. Temple statutes prohibited the use of secular money at the Temple so the Jews had to exchange their Roman, Greek and other coinage for the Jewish form of currency, especially if they had to also offer a monetary sacrifice. Pagan coinage was akin to impurity so Jewish currency was needed for any transaction in the Temple.

Thus, it was about worship.

 

[japhy]

And, it was not about exploiting the poor. … Temple statutes prohibited the use of secular money at the Temple so the Jews had to exchange their Roman, Greek and other coinage for the Jewish form of currency

But the general consensus is that the temple money-changers used a very bad exchange rate, thus financially exploiting the pilgrims; thus, the Lord calling it a “den of thieves”.

 

[benedictgal]

But the general consensus is that the temple money-changers used a very bad exchange rate, thus financially exploiting the pilgrims; thus, the Lord calling it a “den of thieves”.

I can understand that, however, the tax collectors in league with Rome (of which St. Matthew was formerly a member) did the same thing and worse. Thus, the anger wasn’t just about what they were doing, but where they were doing this. The bottom line is that, ultimately, it was about worship and about the ilicit and immoral acts that were happening that prevented the faithful from authentic worship. In this case, it was the Gentiles whose space was being violated by the animal vendors and the other den of thieves.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…The bottom line is that, ultimately, it was about worship and about the ilicit and immoral acts that were happening that prevented the faithful from authentic worship. …

And for the umpteenth time where do you document their action was illicit?

Irony no, the gentiles come to worship and some say “you are unworthy to approach”

 

[palmas85]

And now to be serious. Our Lord’s anger in the Temple was not against those who were worshipping. It was towards those who were exploiting the poor by charging high prices for what the ordinary peeple needed to have for their religious duties.

Not comparable in the slightest.

No not in the slightest, in the highest. The Temple had rules that had to be followed. The vendors and money exchangers apparently violated those rules thus enraging Jesus as the offenses occured on sacred ground. So, what did Jesus do? Did He go up to them politely and tell them that while they were doing a great thing and providing a needed service, they were doing it badly and actually violating the rules of the Temple and God and would they please leave?. No, He drove them out forcefully with righteous anger and indignation. Just as He should have.

He did not bless them. He did not turn the other cheek. He did not accept disrespect in the Temple AT ALL

Just as He should have:thumbsup:

AND SO SHOULD WE

By ignoring and spurning the rules and regulations as laid down by the Church, we in effect create our own churches by following only the rules that we agree with. Just as our separated brethren did and continue to do.

You are right about the young friend part. It had to do with your time on the board. We are actually close to the same age.

 

[mouseangel]

For me receiving Eucharist never becomes routine! I don’t even understand why anyone would be at Mass and not desire deeply that union with our Lord.

I happen to be in a church and diocese where this “blessing” is a pracice for children and those going through RCIA preparing to be received into the church. I see it as a welcoming gesture and only that. Why is this considered wrong? People are instructed to cross their arms so that the priest or minister may know not to give them Eucharist.

I had never heard all of the above discussion before. Please let me know where to read more on this?

 

[benedictgal]

For me receiving Eucharist never becomes routine! I don’t even understand why anyone would be at Mass and not desire deeply that union with our Lord.

I happen to be in a church and diocese where this “blessing” is a pracice for children and those going through RCIA preparing to be received into the church. I see it as a welcoming gesture and only that. Why is this considered wrong? People are instructed to cross their arms so that the priest or minister may know not to give them Eucharist.

I had never heard all of the above discussion before. Please let me know where to read more on this?

This is an innovation that was inserted into the Mass. It has no basis in the liturgical Tradition of the Church. When we begin to insert things into the Mass, especially during Holy Communion, such actions only cause confusion. We cannot invent our own rites and rituals and imbed them the Mass for the sake of inclusivity. We have no right to do that. No one does. The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy makes that perfectly clear. The letter that japhy received from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments makes that perfectly clear.

While I am all for welcoming people into the Church, the time for the reception of Holy Communion is not the right venue. We need to remember what the invitation the celebrant recites prior to the distribution of Holy Communion is: “Behold the Lamb of God. Happy are **those who are called to His Supper. **”

We are not called to receive something (a blessing). Rather, we are called to receive Someone, Jesus Christ, in his glorified and risen Body and Blood.

 

[japhy]

I happen to be in a church and diocese where this “blessing” is a pracice for children and those going through RCIA preparing to be received into the church.

People in RCIA are not even supposed to be present for the Liturgy of the Eucharist; they are supposed to be dismissed after homily and before the Creed and Prayer of the Faithful, according to the ancient tradition of the Church (and the modern guidelines, if I’m not mistaken).

Please let me know where to read more on this?

There’s not a lot written (authoritatively) on this practice, because it’s not “official”. I’m sure some dioceses have instructions for how to do it and who may do it, but I don’t know any offhand.