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

[benedictgal]

benedictgal,

Just a quick question for my own edification, you say that a blessing by a priest (note: not a layperson) is not licit if someone approaches and indicates they do not wish to receive (note: assume they are otherwise permitted to receive). Where is it stated that it is not licit? I haven’t seen it (yet). Or maybe I have, and am just missing something!

Thanks!

Happy Easter!
VC

The letter from the CDWDS covers all of these situations. Also note the third statement:

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.

Here, the note is not making a differntiation between clergy and EMHCs. If something is explicitly discouraged, that means that it is not licit.

Furthermore, this does not give the celebrant the right to invent his own ritual. If you are a Catholic and cannot receive or do not wish to receive, then, you stay in your pew and make a Spiritual Communion.

It never ceases to amaze me how there are some who want to find loopholes in order to justify an ilicit practice.

 

[nsper7]

They typically don’t intend for it to be for people who forgot to go to Confession, or who didn’t observe the Communion fast, or who had an angry thought about a fellow parishioner during Mass, and thus, at that specific moment cannot receive Holy Communion, but ordinarily, they usually can - even these priests (and again, not commenting one way or the other on the issue of blessings in general) would tell the person to make a Spiritual Holy Communion in their pew, and then be properly disposed to receive the next time they come to Mass.

Would that be a mortal sin (the bolded part)?

 

[benedictgal]

All right. Well, then I guess if I am able to receive Communion, then I should do so. Now, did I sin in going up to receive a Blessing earlier?

I would not say that you did. But, now that you know better, I would not do it again.

 

[jmcrae]

Would that be a mortal sin (the bolded part)?

It’s probably not a mortal sin, but it’s definitely an interior distraction, so you would not be disposed to receive the Sacrament in a worthy manner (since you would have anger in your heart at that particular moment in time, which makes it extremely difficult to pray).

 

[Verbum_Caro]

If something is explicitly discouraged, that means that it is not licit.

I’m just careful by nature. My understanding was that this is a private letter and therefore did not have the binding force of law (as of yet), and that it was “under study” indicating no binding law has been promulgated.

Also, it seems to me that the blessing might be imparted without the “laying on of hands”.

benedictgal:

Furthermore, this does not give the celebrant the right to invent his own ritual. If you are a Catholic and cannot receive or do not wish to receive, then, you stay in your pew and make a Spiritual Communion.

It never ceases to amaze me how there are some who want to find loopholes in order to justify an ilicit practice.

Perhaps true. I was just wondering if there was an actual law against a priest giving a blessing to, say, a young child being held in the arms of a mother receiving communion. Perhaps, as you say, the priest is violating the principle you mention from *Redemptionis Sacramentum.

*It does seem to me that the letter from the CDW shows where the mind of the Church is tending towards on this issue. Still, the fact that the letter indicates the matter is “under study” makes me wonder if it is a bit premature for us to declare that it is illicit.

(Personally I think it will be explicitly declared illicit someday – but, as I said above, I am just being cautious).

VC

 

[benedictgal]

I’m just careful by nature. My understanding was that this is a private letter and therefore did not have the binding force of law (as of yet), and that it was “under study” indicating no binding law has been promulgated.

Also, it seems to me that the blessing might be imparted without the “laying on of hands”.

Perhaps true. I was just wondering if there was an actual law against a priest giving a blessing to, say, a young child being held in the arms of a mother receiving communion. Perhaps, as you say, the priest is violating the principle you mention from *Redemptionis Sacramentum.

*It does seem to me that the letter from the CDW shows where the mind of the Church is tending towards on this issue. Still, the fact that the letter indicates the matter is “under study” makes me wonder if it is a bit premature for us to declare that it is illicit.

(Personally I think it will be explicitly declared illicit someday – but, as I said above, I am just being cautious).

VC

Considering who the Holy Father appointed as the successor to Cardinal Arinze as the new Prefect for the CDWDS, I highly suspect that the statement made by the CDWDS will be upheld, affirmed and sustained. Cardinal Loera already is a staunch supporter of kneeling to receive Holy Communion and is considered by many folks to be a “little” Ratzinger, in complete conformity with where the Holy Father stands on liturgy.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Considering who the Holy Father appointed as the successor to Cardinal Arinze as the new Prefect for the CDWDS, I highly suspect that the statement made by the CDWDS will be upheld, affirmed and sustained. Cardinal Loera already is a staunch supporter of kneeling to receive Holy Communion and is considered by many folks to be a “little” Ratzinger, in complete conformity with where the Holy Father stands on liturgy.

I think it will outlawed too. I guess my point was that I didn’t think this private letter about things being under study was a statement by the CDW, if you see what I mean. That’s why I questioned whether or not one could say accurately that the matter is settled and illicit.

For instance see Fr. McNamara’s response regarding the letter: zenit.org/article-25463?l=english

VC

 

[jmcrae]

I think it will outlawed too. I guess my point was that I didn’t think this private letter about things being under study was a statement by the CDW, if you see what I mean. That’s why I questioned whether or not one could say accurately that the matter is settled and illicit.

For instance see Fr. McNamara’s response regarding the letter: zenit.org/article-25463?l=english

VC

It doesn’t have to “become outlawed” in order for people to “stop doing it” - it has to become lawful, first, before people can be allowed to start doing it.

It has never been declared lawful to give blessings in the Communion line; therefore, it should not be done. If it becomes lawful at some future time, then they can start doing it.

 

[Schluns]

But is wrong to receive such a Blessing? That thing benedictgal quoted seems to show that it is only wrong if you are either:

A) “Divorce” and “remarried”
B) Non-Catholic
C) Under excommunication/interdict
D) Those who obstinately persist in grave sin

It seems like it is the prerogative of the Priest. At my parish, Priests seem more than willing to give such blessings during Holy Communion.

You are skipping #3. The blessing at communion is to be discouraged, as there is a blessing given shortly after finishing communion. If you do not wish to receive communion, one should wait in the pew and receive the blessing at the end of mass.

Priests will give blessings to people coming up for one, all will “seem more than willing” as they will not turn you away.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

It doesn’t have to “become outlawed” in order for people to “stop doing it” - it has to become lawful, first, before people can be allowed to start doing it.

That’s a good point. I’d add that even if something is lawful, it doesn’t mean people should do it (in the sense that it might not be a good idea).

jmcrae:

It has never been declared lawful to give blessings in the Communion line; therefore, it should not be done. If it becomes lawful at some future time, then they can start doing it.

I’m not sure, however, if everything must be declared lawful before it can be done licitly, speaking in general terms. But speaking specifically, as it applies to the liturgy it does seem that nothing should be interjected that isn’t provided for beforehand. I think Benedictgal’s appeal to *Redemptionis Sacramentum *makes a lot of sense as an example of the guiding principle.

My question, though, was whether or not we can say categorically that it is illicit (assuming nothing else illicit is being done, such as a lay person giving a blessing, etc).

It seemed to me that Fr. Mcnamara expresses himself well here: that it looks like it the mind of the Church would forbid it; that there are good reasons to forbid it; that he personally questions it; but that, since it seems “under review” it is not yet legally prohibited; yet still, the prudent course would be to avoid it until the matter was clear.

VC

 

[top_cat]

nspr7

You are posting so many questions about the rights and wrongs of this , and are you comitting a sin if you do go forward for blessing , that’s it’s really time you sat down with your priest/confessor and talked about this.

You are newly in the Church and rightly so very enthusiastic about everything - but you need to be careful about being scrupulous.

Go and schedule a talk with your priest - it will help . Then LISTEN to him carefully and do as he suggests

 

[Newbie2]

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

Quote:

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.
2. 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).
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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).

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

It doesn’t say anywhere in here that the blessing is invalid…Illicit, yes, but not invalid.

I agree, though, that if a Catholic is able and willing to go up for reception of the Eucharist that they should do so, and not go up if just for a blessing.

 

[Lycoming]

I went to 3 Masses and 1 Divine Liturgy on Easter. Priests were bestowing blessings by the boatload. The practice isn’t going away anytime soon nor will we see any documentation (other than private letters perhaps) that prohibits the practice. Around here a great many flock to Catholic parishes on Easter be they C&E Catholics, friends of Catholics or just those who want to be at “ground zero” on this most special of days – the feast of feasts.

After seeing a few people teared-up after receiving a blessing I do realize the value of this de-facto standard practice at least here in the USA.

 

[benedictgal]

I went to 3 Masses and 1 Divine Liturgy on Easter. Priests were bestowing blessings by the boatload. The practice isn’t going away anytime soon nor will we see any documentation (other than private letters perhaps) that prohibits the practice. Around here a great many flock to Catholic parishes on Easter be they C&E Catholics, friends of Catholics or just those who want to be at “ground zero” on this most special of days – the feast of feasts.

After seeing a few people teared-up after receiving a blessing I do realize the value of this de-facto standard practice at least here in the USA.

However, this does not justify using an ilicit practice. Everyone will be receiving the blessing at the end of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Emotional responses do not jusity employing a practice that is ilicit. Remember that there is nothing in the rubrics that allows for this practice, nothing. In fact, the invitation that the celebrant issues, “Behold the Lamb of God. Happy are thlose who are called to His Supper”, is open only to those who are to receive the Body and Blood of Christ, not a blessing. RS makes it very clear that no one, not even the celebrant, is allowed to insert any sort of ritual into the Mass on his own authority.

The letter that I quoted ceased to be private the minute that it was assigned a protocol number from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. In addition, the letter appears in the latest issue of Notitae, the official publication of the same Congregation. In fact, the letter has also made its way to Adoremus and Zenit and it is also at the USCCB. I would not be too quick to discount something that is already official.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

It doesn’t say anywhere in here that the blessing is invalid…Illicit, yes, but not invalid.

I agree, though, that if a Catholic is able and willing to go up for reception of the Eucharist that they should do so, and not go up if just for a blessing.

However, this does not justify using an ilicit practice. Everyone will be receiving the blessing at the end of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Emotional responses do not jusity employing a practice that is ilicit. Remember that there is nothing in the rubrics that allows for this practice, nothing. In fact, the invitation that the celebrant issues, “Behold the Lamb of God. Happy are thlose who are called to His Supper”, is open only to those who are to receive the Body and Blood of Christ, not a blessing. RS makes it very clear that no one, not even the celebrant, is allowed to insert any sort of ritual into the Mass on his own authority.

The letter that I quoted ceased to be private the minute that it was assigned a protocol number from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. In addition, the letter appears in the latest issue of Notitae, the official publication of the same Congregation. In fact, the letter has also made its way to Adoremus and Zenit and it is also at the USCCB. I would not be too quick to discount something that is already official.

**
I see the practice is called illicit again why? Since the Congregation for Divine Worship seemed to take great pains to aviod any such judgement why is it being called illicit? **

FYI - " The letter said that “this matter is presently under the attentive study of the Congregation,” so “for the present, this **dicastery wishes to limit itself **to the following observations”:" - ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur263.htm

Also worth a look is "Because of this, some **dioceses have taken a prudent wait-and-see attitude **regarding these blessings. For example, the liturgy office of the Archdiocese of Atlanta, while reiterating that “the **Archdiocese has no policy prohibiting **the use of blessings at the time of Holy Communion,” prudently suggested to pastors that it "may be appropriate to avoid promoting the practice until a more definitive judgment regarding its value in the liturgical celebration can be obtained."ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur263.htm

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Here’s a good informative thread, the one that is the origin of the CDW’s response letter: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=292341&highlight=blessings

Benedictgal, just to clarify, lest anyone think that I approve of the practice: I don’t. I think it is misguided and an innovation. What I was trying to figure out was whether or not, if I was confronted on the issue, could I say, with certainty, that it is illicit. I don’t want to misstate something and then have to backtrack if confronted on it.

Maybe japhy can weigh in, since he wrote the original query letter?

Now that I think of it, my question above mentioned a blessing to a little child in mother’s arms. I should have realized that the child, in fact, can’t lawfully receive communion (at least not in the Latin Rite, don’t know about the others); so it is an inapplicable example, since I was operating on the idea of someone who otherwise can licitly receive communion receiving a blessing instead.

VC

 

[Lycoming]

“…As a private reply the letter is not yet a norm with legal force and, as it makes clear, is not a definitive reply. However, it provides some valuable pointers on the legitimacy of this practice and the mind of the Holy See regarding it…”

 

[Lycoming]

**
I see the practice is called illicit again why? Since the Congregation for Divine Worship seemed to take great pains to aviod any such judgement why is it being called illicit? **
FYI - " The letter said that “this matter is presently under the attentive study of the Congregation,” so “for the present, this **dicastery wishes to limit itself **to the following observations”:" - ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur263.htm

Also worth a look is "Because of this, some **dioceses have taken a prudent wait-and-see attitude **regarding these blessings. For example, the liturgy office of the Archdiocese of Atlanta, while reiterating that “the **Archdiocese has no policy prohibiting **the use of blessings at the time of Holy Communion,” prudently suggested to pastors that it "may be appropriate to avoid promoting the practice until a more definitive judgment regarding its value in the liturgical celebration can be obtained."ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur263.htm

Now there is some wisdom. The black/white, cut/dried mindsets don’t always provide an accurate picture…

 

[Lancer]

For me…I believe that ** *benedictgal ***has it right.

FYI…as a Marine serving in East Asia (NE & SE) on numerous tours…attending Holy Mass in a local Church…I experienced more than once a whole congregation receiving what is referred to as “ocular communion”…extended elevation of the Blessed Sacrament – The Sacred Host and the Sacred Cup of Salvation – after the priest receives…and then everyone looks intently at and prays for a spiritual communion with Our Lord Jesus in the most Blessed Sacrament for themselves…and for their brothers and sisters (see next para).

Why do this? Invariably I was told that it was done to be in “a sacrificial communion of love” with all their brothers and sisters around the world…who because of persecution, imprisonment or who suffer because they are without any possibility or means to receive Holy Eucharist…this congregation offered – with their bishops permission – to not receive physically…but only spiritually. One bishop told me that this was the “norm” in the years 1000 AD to 1100 AD.

Also, visitors like me, were not obliged to follow this sacrifice…but I always did to be in communion with the faithful in the particular Church celebrating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. I am not saying I liked the idea…but thinking of… and remembering those “without” the possibility of reception of the Blessed Sacrament…was a real eye opener experience for me. Sure made me reflect on the “catholicity” of our Creed.

Pax Christi

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Now there is some wisdom. The black/white, cut/dried mindsets don’t always provide an accurate picture…

Maybe you could elaborate?

I think an accurate picture is pretty easy to describe, and it seems quite cut and dried to me – I don’t think those who would propose the practice continue have much of a leg to stand on (especially since it seems the practice arose as an innovation in the first palce). The reasons given to discontinue the practice are cogent and explained well in the CDW letter.

It would seem unreasonable to me to either a)expect the practice to be approved or b)for anyone to encourage the practice currently.

VC