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

[benedictgal]

Benedictgal, stop saying “with all due respect.” Simply using those words does not imbue your response with respect it did not already have.

SonofMonica asked where he could find the existing discipline of the Church that the CDWDS referred to. He has read the response already. In #5, there is a reference to existing Church discipline which is not given a source document. THAT is what he is curious about.

This thread cannot continue if all you do is repeat the same thing over and over again and just copy-and-paste the response or five paragraphs of Redemptionis Sacramentum.

Japhy, I quote RS because it indicates that no one has the authority to insert things into the Mass that simply do not belong there. In fact, I even quoted the original section from the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy that goes further. Since no one, on his own initiative, has the authority to insert things into or delete things from the liturgy, it would stand to reason that this is enough of a justification not to do the blessing. Is this not part of the Church’s discipline?

As you said, the CDWDS knows full well, more than anyone, what that discipline is. We need to take their word for it.

 

[japhy]

You seem to be very adamant that this practice is legitimage, even though the CDWDS clearly indicates that it is expressly discouraged.

The only thing the response said was to be explicitly discouraged is the use of laying on of hands for a blessing during Communion. That’s all.

 

[benedictgal]

I think you maybe misunderstanding SonofMonica. There is a difference between limiting the mass to what is written and inserting new items. There are many things not written as - walk in from behind the laity- that is not from the GIRM yet it is assumed. If you tried to limit to the actual text you probably could not do the mass.

btw- I notice you are young and I wonder if you realize this form of mass is young, mass has been celebrated for 2 centuries and in many forms. By no means would any Apostle recognize most of what we do in mass. And certainly he could not have complied with the physical requirements of the church as he often celebrated with no church, which again requires a dispensation today!!

Hope that helps

I would beg to differ with your last statement. Have you read the Mass of the Early Christians by Mike Aquila? The Mass is essentially the same. We have the liturgy of the Word and the liturgy of the Eucharist.

Your comments about the Apostles not celebrating inside a church have no bearing on this matter since the early Church had to pretty much go underground (literally). Sometimes, as St. Paul noted in his first letter to the Corinthians, the Mass was celebrated in homes. The persecutions made public worship next to impossible. It was not after Constantine recognized Christianity that churches could be built. In fact, he built the first St. Peter’s basilica.

Even in Mexico, during the early part of the 20th century, the Mass had to be celebrated clandestinely because of the severe persecutions. Blessed Miguel Pro had to celebrate Mass in homes, in basements, in forests and in other secret places.

So, your arguments in equating the ilicit practice of a blessing in lieu of Holy Communion with the way the Apostles celebrated Mass in the early Church really do not hold water.

 

[japhy]

There is a difference between limiting the mass to what is written and inserting new items. There are many things not written as - walk in from behind the laity- that is not from the GIRM yet it is assumed.

Some things are understood (implied). An entrance procession has to come from somewhere. This isn’t always from “behind the laity” though. But is giving a person a blessing during Communion “understood” or is it something additional?

By no means would any Apostle recognize most of what we do in mass. And certainly he could not have complied with the physical requirements of the church as he often celebrated with no church, which again requires a dispensation today! Hope that helps

No, it’s not very applicable. No one is denying the Mass has changed in format (although the 1962 Missal bears a striking resemblance to the Missal of Pope Gregory I). But we’re not trying to recapture the Apostles’ liturgy. This isn’t the focus of this thread, anyway.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

You seem to be very adamant that this practice is legitimage,

would you point to me posting this as a legitimate practice?

even though the CDWDS clearly indicates that it is expressly discouraged.

amazing simply amazing, how many times have you been asked to point that out in CDWDS writing?

Licit means that something is allowed. However, when something is expressly discouraged, it means that it is not allowed and, therefore, ilicit.

amazing simply amazing, how many times have you been asked to point that out in CDWDS writing?

The manner in which one receives Holy Communion is not the issue here. You are pretty much straying off course to try and cull every possible argument to justify something that should not be done. You have not been able to prove your point at all.

Not at all I and others are trying to show you the explicit printing is not the requirement. The requirement is to perform and limit to holy worship during the mass which is to contain certain functions, and decree of reverence. As people lack perfection they lack perfect mass however we as humans should do our best

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…The Mass is essentially the same… Mass in homes, in basements, in forests and in other secret places…

Would show the vatican rules for mass in forests? I for one would like to see the rules, as I have never seen the mass, nor mass is a basement.

Actually please show all the rules as one may show thing the others do not

 

[japhy]

Would show the vatican rules for mass in forests? I for one would like to see the rules, as I have never seen the mass, nor mass is a basement. Actually please show all the rules as one may show thing the others do not

Your typing is starting to get harder to understand.

Celebrating Mass in bizarre circumstances in ways not foreseen by the liturgical texts is completely different from incorporating a blessing for non-Communicants into the Communion Procession. You’re comparing two substantially different things.

Can we please keep this topic on track?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Some things are understood (implied). An entrance procession has to come from somewhere. This isn’t always from “behind the laity” though. But is giving a person a blessing during Communion “understood” or is it something additional?
.

And thus the problem, the church rules deal with receiving eucharist, so when one does not receive eucharist they are outside the rules. That is the problem I have with this thread the “rules” being applied are written for those receiving not for those who do not attempt to receive. There are no specific rules on what to do when you are not attempting to receive. That is exactly why the practice is under review. The people asked to not approach are catholics in sin who are not to challenge the Priest but are to self impose restraint.

 

[benedictgal]

And thus the problem, the church rules deal with receiving eucharist, so when one does not receive eucharist they are outside the rules. That is the problem I have with this thread the “rules” being applied are written for those receiving not for those who do not attempt to receive. There are no specific rules on what to do when you are not attempting to receive. That is exactly why the practice is under review. The people asked to not approach are catholics in sin who are not to challenge the Priest but are to self impose restraint.

But, the Church, in her 2,000-years on this earth, never envisioned that people would come forward during the reception of Holy Communion to receive a blessing instead of Our Lord. The line is only for those who are called to His Supper, not to receive a blessing.

Furthermore, the people who are asked not to approach for a blessing are those who are not Catholic and, even if they are Catholic, cannot receive because of some impediment (i.e. being in an invalid marriage).

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Your typing is starting to get harder to understand.

Celebrating Mass in bizarre circumstances in ways not foreseen by the liturgical texts is completely different from incorporating a blessing for non-Communicants into the Communion Procession. You’re comparing two substantially different things.

Can we please keep this topic on track?

How can one say this is about the rules of mass and most rules or lack of rules of mass cannot be discussed? This is to show a pattern of objectives not a pattern of rules. I think you can find the very people who are trying to extent some rules based on legality also completely deny other rules even when the other abuses of rules are presented. Or said another way it questions their intent (not directed at you). I hope that explains why the handling of other mass practices is relevent.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

No. These blessings are not licit. Please note that the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments noted that:

If you cannot receive Holy Communion for whatever reason, then, you should remain in your pew and make a Spiritual Communion instead.

Who IS allowed to receive the blessing?

 

[benedictgal]

How can one say this is about the rules of mass and most rules or lack of rules of mass cannot be discussed? This is to show a pattern of objectives not a pattern of rules. I think you can find the very people who are trying to extent some rules based on legality also completely deny other rules even when the other abuses of rules are presented. Or said another way it questions their intent (not directed at you). I hope that explains why the handling of other mass practices is relevent.

The problem is that you are not being consistent with your line of reasoning. The arguments that you are presenting really have nothing to do with the issue at hand. It is as though you are grasping at straws because you have not found anything in the authoritative documents of the Holy See that proves your point.

The Church makes allowances for extreme situations when it comes to where the Mass is celebrated. Extreme situations would mean circumstances dealing with persecutions, wars and natural disasters. When the Church is in an area where persecution runs rampant, she is not going to endanger her faithful by having an open celebration of the Mass. These will be done in secret to protect both the priest and the faithful. If a tornado blows a parish church down and the only facility that is available is the basement, then Mass is celebrated there. If the parish church is in an area that has been bombed, then you go to a safe place.

But, there is no liturgical Tradition that calls for receiving a blessing in lieu of Holy Communion.

 

[benedictgal]

Who IS allowed to receive the blessing?

The blessing will be imparted to everyone at the normal time, which is towards the end of Mass.

The folks who make the argument about being inclusive and wanting everyone to participate fail to take this very important fact into account. Everyone will receive a blessing at the normal time.

 

[SonofMonica]

But, the Church, in her 2,000-years on this earth, never envisioned that people would come forward during the reception of Holy Communion to receive a blessing instead of Our Lord. The line is only for those who are called to His Supper, not to receive a blessing.

Furthermore, the people who are asked not to approach for a blessing are those who are not Catholic and, even if they are Catholic, cannot receive because of some impediment (i.e. being in an invalid marriage).

Hilarious.

First of all, for considerable periods of the 2,000 years there was no line. Did you know that Anglicans invented pews, as well? Can you believe that?

Second, you’re trying to present arguments as to why it should be considered illicit. No one cares what you think about whether it should be, nor about what I think. The issue is whether it is or is not illicit right now according to the official teaching of the Church. As has been pointed out to you, I am looking for the source document for what is supposedly “existing Church discipline” in the letter you keep waving around. There are plenty of statements from bishops and doctors of the Church in support of the practice. If it has not been definitively ruled upon, then the best we can say is that some support it and some don’t. Hardly a reason to get your panties in a wad. Simply ante up and prove what you’re saying.

But, there is no liturgical Tradition that calls for receiving a blessing in lieu of Holy Communion.

Only 20 years worth. (I am old enough to remember). Oh you mean Tradition with a capital-T? Well then how could there be? You’re trying to cut it off before the study is complete. You’re acting like a little Inquisitor when you should be anxious for every blessing you can get, as should we all.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

The problem is that you are not being consistent with your line of reasoning. The arguments that you are presenting really have nothing to do with the issue at hand. It is as though you are grasping at straws because you have not found anything in the authoritative documents of the Holy See that proves your point.

The Church makes allowances for extreme situations when it comes to where the Mass is celebrated. Extreme situations would mean circumstances dealing with persecutions, wars and natural disasters. When the Church is in an area where persecution runs rampant, she is not going to endanger her faithful by having an open celebration of the Mass. These will be done in secret to protect both the priest and the faithful. If a tornado blows a parish church down and the only facility that is available is the basement, then Mass is celebrated there. If the parish church is in an area that has been bombed, then you go to a safe place.

But, there is no liturgical Tradition that calls for receiving a blessing in lieu of Holy Communion.

Could please show document? Not only is there no reason to consider the practices immoral or illicit, the very fact the CDWS passed on the opportunity to simply say it is illicit or immoral speaks more that words could.

 

[SonofMonica]

How can one say this is about the rules of mass and most rules or lack of rules of mass cannot be discussed? This is to show a pattern of objectives not a pattern of rules. I think you can find the very people who are trying to extent some rules based on legality also completely deny other rules even when the other abuses of rules are presented. Or said another way it questions their intent (not directed at you). I hope that explains why the handling of other mass practices is relevent.

Of course it’s relevant. Since there’s no official prohibition upon the blessing, she’s trying to waive around a general proposition that Mass is a lock step, mirror image thing. It’s as though she’s never attended more than one parish and seen the variety of how Catholics worship. When that method doesn’t work (like when you call her on it, above), she goes back to the letter that appears to reference an undefined “established Church discipline”. But of course, she has yet to explain what established Church discipline the letter could possibly be referring to. I’ve tried to explain that it certainly is not the official ruling of the whole Church, which is the only thing that matters. That is proved, as you have correctly surmised, by the fact that there is an ongoing study.

 

[benedictgal]

Of course it’s relevant. Since there’s no official prohibition upon the blessing, she’s trying to waive around a general proposition that Mass is a lock step, mirror image thing. It’s as though she’s never attended more than one parish and seen the variety of how Catholics worship. When that method doesn’t work (like when you call her on it, above), she goes back to the letter that appears to reference an undefined “established Church discipline”. But of course, she has yet to explain what established Church discipline the letter could possibly be referring to. I’ve tried to explain that it certainly is not the official ruling of the whole Church, which is the only thing that matters. That is proved, as you have correctly surmised, by the fact that there is an ongoing study.

Both you and Texas Roofer have yet to provide authoritative proof from the Holy See that this blessing is even legitimate, licit and allowed. But, there is none. The line is to receive Someone, not something.

Both of you can be dismissive and bring up arguments that are not even germaine to the discussion at hand, but, none of you, has yet, to provide any references from the GIRM, RS, and the Constitution of the Liturgy to back up your points.

Furthermore, just because something has been done for at least 20 years does not make it a legitimate practice.

Might I remind you that the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments speaks in the name of the whole Church. Furthermore, to my knowledge, no national episcopal conference has yet to petition the Holy See for an adaption to the GIRM allowing for a blessing to be imparted in lieu of Holy Communion.

To continously support the legitimacy of such a blessing is to have a poor understanding of what the Rite of Communion is all about and to want to add things to the Mass that simply do not belong there.

 

[SonofMonica]

Celebrating Mass in bizarre circumstances in ways not foreseen by the liturgical texts is completely different from incorporating a blessing for non-Communicants into the Communion Procession. You’re comparing two substantially different things.

Benedictgal is the one making that comparison… She is proposing that incorporating a blessing for non-Communicants into the Communion procession is considered celebrating Mass in bizarre circumstances in ways not foreseen by the liturgical texts. In fact that is one of the two primary bases she advances for the “illictness” and “immorality” of the blessing. The other being the fact that a letter has referred (rather ambiguously I might add, but quite beside the point) to the blessing as contrary to “existing Church discipline” but has not referred to any specific source of such discipline.

 

[Indyann]

ROME, MAY 10, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

Q: At many Masses these days, non-communicating participants approach the altar at Communion time and receive a blessing when they cannot communicate. However, some priests do not do this, saying it is not “in the rubrics.” Is it all right for priests to do this? – M.T., New South Wales, Australia

A: As far as I have been able to ascertain, this practice arose over the last two decades or so, above all in English-speaking countries, such as Australia and the United States, where Catholics form a significant minority amid a basically Christian population.

Because of this, it is relatively common to have non-Catholics present at Mass, for example, Protestant spouses of Catholics, catechumens, and other visitors. This is especially true of weddings and funerals when the number of non-Catholics is even larger.

Another common situation, which apparently gave rise to this practice, is the increase in non-Catholic students at Catholic schools and colleges. At times, about half the student body is unable to participate in Communion.

Situations such as these probably inspired the practice of inviting those unable to receive Communion to approach the altar to receive a blessing so as not to feel excluded.

Certainly this blessing is not in the rubrics and there is no obligation to make such an invitation. However, neither is there any prohibition and the practice seems to have been tacitly accepted by many bishops who are aware of this nascent custom and have even participated in giving such blessings.

As far as I know, no bishop has issued specific directives on this issue, nor has the Holy See intervened although it is certainly aware of its existence.

The decision as to whether to adopt such a practice depends on the concrete pastoral circumstances involved. As in all similar initiatives, due reflection is required regarding the custom’s pastoral utility and as to any possible consequences that it may provoke in the short or long term, for example, changing the way people perceive the act of receiving Communion.

---

 

[benedictgal]

ROME, MAY 10, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

Q: At many Masses these days, non-communicating participants approach the altar at Communion time and receive a blessing when they cannot communicate. However, some priests do not do this, saying it is not “in the rubrics.” Is it all right for priests to do this? – M.T., New South Wales, Australia

A: As far as I have been able to ascertain, this practice arose over the last two decades or so, above all in English-speaking countries, such as Australia and the United States, where Catholics form a significant minority amid a basically Christian population.

Because of this, it is relatively common to have non-Catholics present at Mass, for example, Protestant spouses of Catholics, catechumens, and other visitors. This is especially true of weddings and funerals when the number of non-Catholics is even larger.

Another common situation, which apparently gave rise to this practice, is the increase in non-Catholic students at Catholic schools and colleges. At times, about half the student body is unable to participate in Communion.

Situations such as these probably inspired the practice of inviting those unable to receive Communion to approach the altar to receive a blessing so as not to feel excluded.

Certainly this blessing is not in the rubrics and there is no obligation to make such an invitation. However, neither is there any prohibition and the practice seems to have been tacitly accepted by many bishops who are aware of this nascent custom and have even participated in giving such blessings.

As far as I know, no bishop has issued specific directives on this issue, nor has the Holy See intervened although it is certainly aware of its existence.

The decision as to whether to adopt such a practice depends on the concrete pastoral circumstances involved. As in all similar initiatives, due reflection is required regarding the custom’s pastoral utility and as to any possible consequences that it may provoke in the short or long term, for example, changing the way people perceive the act of receiving Communion.

---

This has been posted before in another thread. However, this is Fr. McNamara’s interpretation and not what the Holy See has said.