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

[Lycoming]

I think the Holy See will continue to leave the matter of processing-up during communion for a blessing to local bishops. If the Church ever did try to prohibit this practice I would be it would include language that said something like “…in those regions where this is a beloved and time-honored tradition the ultimate decision will continue to rest with the local ordinary” or something along those lines.

Like it or not, the process of processing up to the front of the church and receiving a blessing from a bishop, priest or deacon has a terrifically strong and positive impact on a great many people. The downside? Negligible.

 

[Lycoming]

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

There is no clear-cut prohibition that carries the weight of law from the Church on this matter – no matter what some here would like to suggest. Anticipating a decision at some point, that language I commented on explains that there is no local prohibition but also advises against promoting the practice.

That way when and if the Church gives a definitive ruling on the matter it will be that much easier to “change course” so to speak – no matter which course that might be.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

If the Church ever did try to prohibit this practice I would be it would include language that said something like “…in those regions where this is a beloved and time-honored tradition the ultimate decision will continue to rest with the local ordinary” or something along those lines.

Seriously? I have a hard time imagine anyone describing the practice as “time-honored tradition” unless I’m completely out of the loop on this one!

Lycoming:

Like it or not, the process of processing up to the front of the church and receiving a blessing from a bishop, priest or deacon has a terrifically strong and positive impact on a great many people. The downside? Negligible.

I strongly disagree. Almost everyone who would go up for a blessing would be doing it because they *can’t licitly *receive communion. And the CDW’s letter states that

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).

which indicates to me that one cannot legitimately regularly approach for blessing in lieu of receiving Holy Communion.

VC

 

[Texas_Roofer]

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

Really do you think it will be a sin for even infant children to leave the pew during communion? If not some form of the “they should not approach Holy Communion” would have to be modified (or ignored)

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Really do you think it will be a sin for even infant children to leave the pew during communion? If not some form of the “they should not approach Holy Communion” would have to be modified (or ignored)

Hi TR,

Could you clarify for me? The phrase “they should not approach Holy Communion” means, I think, that those who cannot licitly receive cannot licitly receive. Infant children can’t licitly receive (in the Latin Rite) and so they can’t “approach Holy Communion”. It’s not talking about physically approaching the communion rail (unless I am mistaken!).

Thanks,
VC

 

[FrDavid96]

What we need to look at here is the conclusion of the Sacred Congregation.

The conclusion (as espressed in the letter) is that this practice is not to be done for anyone who is not to be admitted to Communion (child/adult, Catholic/non-Catholic, etc. matters not).

The Church presumes that anyone who is eligible to receive and comes forward in a Communion line is going to receive Communion, so the absence of a prohibition against blessing eligible-Catholics would not mean that such persons could be blessed, while others cannot be blessed.

Yes, the Congregation did say that the matter is “under review” but that still doesn’t change the conclusion. “Under review” (or whatever the phrase was) means that at some point in the future, maybe something more definitive will be forthcoming. We don’t conduct liturgy based on hypothetical future laws. We do so according to the current legislation.

The CDWS is the final authority on interpreting liturgical laws (save the pope himself), so if they say it isn’t to be done, then it isn’t to be done–simple as that. It’s not something to be interpreted or ignored at the parish level, nor a matter of personal preference or opinion.

If the CDWS had felt that the lack of a specific prohibition against this practice meant that priests or parishes were free to apply their own preferences here, they would have said as much. They did not.

In fact, what was said is quite telling: “The Church’s discipline has already been made clear” that this is not to be done. So for whatever reason, the CDWS is of the opinion that somehow or another it is indeed prohibited by liturgical laws or authoritative interpretations. I don’t know what those might be, but that’s irrelevant. The CDWS does know what they are, and from our perspective, except for the sake of a discussion, we don’t need to know what they are.

The fact that it is happening is also irrelevant. Just because a law is being broken does not mean that the law may be broken.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Hi TR,

Could you clarify for me? The phrase “they should not approach Holy Communion” means, I think, that those who cannot licitly receive cannot licitly receive. Infant children can’t licitly receive (in the Latin Rite) and so they can’t “approach Holy Communion”. It’s not talking about physically approaching the communion rail (unless I am mistaken!).

Thanks,
VC

Oh legalism at it’s finest so what does “approach” mean? (You know we took the communion rail away in most parishes a long time ago.) Suppose the office bans these blessing and the people process in line and bow, make the sign of the cross on themself and process back. Is that better? ( it is not the priest blessing them)

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Oh legalism at it’s finest so what does “approach” mean?

I still don’t understand. What is “legalistic” about clarifying what the phrase “should not approach Holy Communion” means? It means, I would think, in the context of the CDW letter above, that someone should not present themselves for communion, i.e. receive Holy Communion. I must be missing something, because I don’t understand your charge of “legalism” at all.

My understanding of the word “approach” in the sentence of the CDW letter is “receive Holy Communion”. Do you understand it differently? You seem to be taking it as describing the physical act of drawing near to the Minister of Holy Communion. Are you? Is anyone else taking it in that sense?

The point is, as Fr. David said above, that the CDW references that the Church forbids anyone to go to communion who shouldn’t go and those same can’t ask for a blessing. Would you agree that is the right reading?

VC

 

[Texas_Roofer]

What we need to look at here is the conclusion of the Sacred Congregation.

The conclusion (as espressed in the letter) is that this practice is not to be done for anyone who is not to be admitted to Communion (child/adult, Catholic/non-Catholic, etc. matters not).

The Church presumes that anyone who is eligible to receive and comes forward in a Communion line is going to receive Communion, so the absence of a prohibition against blessing eligible-Catholics would not mean that such persons could be blessed, while others cannot be blessed.

Yes, the Congregation did say that the matter is “under review” but that still doesn’t change the conclusion. “Under review” (or whatever the phrase was) means that at some point in the future, maybe something more definitive will be forthcoming. We don’t conduct liturgy based on hypothetical future laws. We do so according to the current legislation.

The CDWS is the final authority on interpreting liturgical laws (save the pope himself), so if they say it isn’t to be done, then it isn’t to be done–simple as that. It’s not something to be interpreted or ignored at the parish level, nor a matter of personal preference or opinion.

If the CDWS had felt that the lack of a specific prohibition against this practice meant that priests or parishes were free to apply their own preferences here, they would have said as much. They did not.

In fact, what was said is quite telling: “The Church’s discipline has already been made clear” that this is not to be done. So for whatever reason, the CDWS is of the opinion that somehow or another it is indeed prohibited by liturgical laws or authoritative interpretations. I don’t know what those might be, but that’s irrelevant. The CDWS does know what they are, and from our perspective, except for the sake of a discussion, we don’t need to know what they are.

The fact that it is happening is also irrelevant. Just because a law is being broken does not mean that the law may be broken.

remember this forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=292341&highlight=blessings

Here is the response I received in the mail today (Prot. N. 930/08/L):
Dear [names omitted],

This Congregation for Divine Worship and the Disciple of the Sacraments acknowledges receipt of your kind letter of 13 August, 2008 and would like to thank you for your interest and suggestions. This matter is presently under the attentive study of the Congregation.

For the present, therefore, this Dicastery wishes to **limit itself **to the following observations:

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.

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; can. 1169, § 2; and Roman Ritual De Benedictionibus (1985), n. 18).

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.

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.

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).

Please continue to pray for the Church’s ministers* that they ever become more worthy of the mystery they celebrate.

With every good wish and kind regard, I am,

Sincerely Yours in Christ,

[name omitted]

Where did they draw a conclusion?

• the letter sent in referenced both “ordinary minister or an extraordinary minister”

 

[FrDavid96]

remember this forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=292341&highlight=blessings

Where did they draw a conclusion?

• the letter sent in referenced both “ordinary minister or an extraordinary minister”

The conclusion is right here:
“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”

They should not “receive” a blessing means that it matters not who is giving the blessing (or pseudo-blessing). There’s not a lot of room for interpretation there. What I cannot understand is why some readers here seem to feel that there is room for interpretation?

When the letter talks about “limiting itself to the following…” that simply means that at the present time, they have no intentions of going into further details. To put that another way, they are neither going to make a premature announcement about upcoming liturgical laws (which might or might not change) or other official statements (like an outright “Instruction”), nor speculate on what might be a future interpretation of the situation. It further means that they’re not going to expand any more on the topic. The interpretation given in the rest of that letter is sufficient as far as the CDWS is concerned.

PS
“under the attentive study of the Congregation” could also mean that they’re going to issue something more formal making it absolutely clear that this is forbidden. I said we can’t speculate on the future, but remember that whatever might happen might be in one direction or the other.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I still don’t understand. What is “legalistic” about clarifying what the phrase “should not approach Holy Communion” means? It means, I would think, in the context of the CDW letter above, that someone should not present themselves for communion, i.e. receive Holy Communion. I must be missing something, because I don’t understand your charge of “legalism” at all.

My understanding of the word “approach” in the sentence of the CDW letter is “receive Holy Communion”. Do you understand it differently? You seem to be taking it as describing the physical act of drawing near to the Minister of Holy Communion. Are you? Is anyone else taking it in that sense?.

Well we have many possiblities and that alone is a problem. Since the people in question clearly did not attempt to receive and even made a gesture which both prevent receiving and signal for a blessing, i do dnot think it would approprate to assume the issue is not attempting to recieve. So in that context what could approach mean? Now we could jump to the conclusion the issue is interruption of communion which may well be correct. However that again leaves us issues as is their presents in line and issue ( children issues highly in play)? Or only the request for the blessing? In the latter then they could bow, and bless themself. I do not know what the ruling will be however I suspect it must allow children into the line, and it will discourage the actual participation of any minster ordained or not, however my guess is it will remain gray on the approach and self blessing

The point is, as Fr. David said above, that the CDW references that the Church forbids anyone to go to communion who shouldn’t go and those same can’t ask for a blessing. Would you agree that is the right reading?

VC

No, I simply do not see that as a full communication I would hate to see Fr. David insist no child of any age approach. He may well refuse to acknowledge these children (which to me is terribly sad) as that is certainly legally an entitlement.

Legalism is to address the law as opposed to the issue.

btw - I pray the practice survives, at least in some form, not to argue but to increase love within our church

Hope that helps

 

[jmcrae]

Really do you think it will be a sin for even infant children to leave the pew during communion? If not some form of the “they should not approach Holy Communion” would have to be modified (or ignored)

I think there is a huge difference between accompanying one’s parents up to the front while they receive Holy Communion, and approaching for Holy Communion. The child is certainly “approaching,” but not for Holy Communion.

Obviously, parents cannot leave toddlers and infants in the pew by themselves, unless they have an older sibling with them to watch over them. But bringing the toddler or infant with them while they themselves approach for Holy Communion is not the same thing as the child herself approaching for Holy Communion.

 

[jmcrae]

Oh legalism at it’s finest so what does “approach” mean? (You know we took the communion rail away in most parishes a long time ago.) Suppose the office bans these blessing and the people process in line and bow, make the sign of the cross on themself and process back. Is that better? ( it is not the priest blessing them)

What would be the matter with remaining in the pew and making an Act of Spiritual Communion, for those old enough to walk by themselves, but who for whatever reason are not able to receive Holy Communion?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Well we have many possiblities and that alone is a problem. Since the people in question clearly did not attempt to receive and even made a gesture which both prevent receiving and signal for a blessing, i do dnot think it would approprate to assume the issue is not attempting to recieve. So in that context what could approach mean?

TR,

I sincerely am trying to understand, but I’m afraid I remain a bit lost. Who are the “people in question”? The CDW document is speaking of either people coming up for communion or people coming up for a blessing.

Are you wondering about people coming up neither for communion or a blessing? It seems to me that if it is an adult, they are bit confused, no? And if it is a child, they are either lost, or are coming up with a parent.

In either case this isn’t what the CDW letter is addressing. What it is addressing are people who come up for a blessing in lieu of communion, because they can’t licitly receive communion. And it seems pretty clear that this isn’t approved of.

Can you continue to clarify your objection/issue?

VC

 

[Texas_Roofer]

TR,

I sincerely am trying to understand, but I’m afraid I remain a bit lost. Who are the “people in question”?

That would be the people receiving the blessing They are a very diverse group

The CDW document is speaking of either people coming up for communion or people coming up for a blessing.

Are you wondering about people coming up neither for communion or a blessing?

Well, yes and no, this group certainly exists and may or may not be included, as they certainly “approach”

It seems to me that if it is an adult, they are bit confused, no?

No is correct they are not confused. Personally, I would reserve “confused” for the ones who receive every Sunday despite many impediments to receiving. Often the ones who do not receive are acting in accordance with the Church teaching.

And if it is a child, they are either lost, or are coming up with a parent.

Again legalism at it’s finest. Is it a matter of law or not? The law is the law. If I can digress at the risk of confusion, I think they (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Disciple of the Sacraments) are looking for a legal way to allow children to join the procession while barring adults. That rule is difficult because it clearly needs to prohibit adults not in proper communion from joining the procession, though it has no effect on those who simply receive while not in grace.

In either case this isn’t what the CDW letter is addressing. What it is addressing are people who come up for a blessing in lieu of communion, because they can’t licitly receive communion. And it seems pretty clear that this isn’t approved of.

Can you continue to clarify your objection/issue? VC

My objection is I do not believe the letter defined the blessings as illicit. I think it clearly points out known situations which will be illicit blessings.

My issue is those who process and don’t receive show a much greater respect for the Church, Eucharist, and God’s Covenant than most. I wish we would both recognized and encouraged their actions.

Hope that helps

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Well, yes and no, this group certainly exists and may or may not be included, as they certainly “approach”

My impression is that this use of the word “approach” to include those who physically come up to the front of the Church (whether to receive Holy Communion or receive a blessing or to do neither) is a tortuous use of the word given the context in which it appears in the following sentence:

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.

I fail to see it as legalistic to point out that (it seems to me) the CDW’s use of the phrase “approach Holy Communion” means “presenting oneself for reception of Holy Communion”. Maybe if the phrase used was “approach the Eucharist” you might have a point. . . but even then I would point out that the phrase would, in common usage, seem to mean “presenting oneself for the reception of Holy Communion.”

**Can someone else weigh in here and say they read the above quote the way Texas Roofer seems to me reading it? (**TR, if I mischaracterized the way you are reading it, please correct me)

Anyway, my “translation” would be “for those who aren’t supposed to receive Holy Communion, the Church discipline has already made it clear that they shouldn’t a)ask for Holy Communion or b)ask for a blessing instead.”

**Does anyone agree with my “translation”?

**
Texas Roofer:

Again legalism at it’s finest.

You keep on a’using that word. I donta think it means what you think it means.
Texas Roofer:

My objection is I do not believe the letter defined the blessings as illicit. I think it clearly points out known situations which will be illicit blessings.

But, aren’t we saying the same thing then? I’ve been saying (or attempting to say) that the CDW letter says that those who shouldn’t receive communion shouldn’t receive a blessing instead of communion.

VC

 

[benedictgal]

I think the Holy See will continue to leave the matter of processing-up during communion for a blessing to local bishops. If the Church ever did try to prohibit this practice I would be it would include language that said something like “…in those regions where this is a beloved and time-honored tradition the ultimate decision will continue to rest with the local ordinary” or something along those lines.

Like it or not, the process of processing up to the front of the church and receiving a blessing from a bishop, priest or deacon has a terrifically strong and positive impact on a great many people. The downside? Negligible.

With all due respect, you remind me of a former member of CAF who kept insisting that this practice was alright, down to the point of digging up an innocuous YouTube telecast that purported to say that the former prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Francis Cardinal Arinze, did not see a problem with it.

The irony is that this letter, which bears a protocol number and is published in the most recent issue of Notitiae, the official publication for the CDWDS and written before Cardinal Arinze retired, states the very opposite. The practice is ilicit, for the time being. Given the new administration heading up this particular curial office and the new prefect’s strong push towards maintaining tradition, this ruling will probably still stand.

No one, not the celebrant, not even a bishop, has the right to invent a ritual and insert it into the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The only way that any adaptation can be made to the GIRM is that a national episcopal conference petition the Holy See for the necessary recognitio. So far, the USCCB has not made such a petition. Had it done so, it would have appeared as part of the adaptations listed in the GIRM.

Furthermore, this kind of practice only yields confusion among the faithful because it creats a false illusion of inclusivity. The invitation that the celebrant makes to the faithful before the reception of Holy Communion clearly states that the faithful, worthily disposed, are invited to receive Our Lord, not a blessing. The letter from the CDWDS makes that clear.

There is no provision for this in any of the authoritative documents of the Holy See. In fact, the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy, which has not been abrogated, clearly states that no one, not even the celebrant, has the right to add anything to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. This includes imparting a blessing in lieu of distributing Holy Communion.

 

[benedictgal]

That would be the people receiving the blessing They are a very diverse group Well, yes and no, this group certainly exists and may or may not be included, as they certainly “approach” No is correct they are not confused. Personally, I would reserve “confused” for the ones who receive every Sunday despite many impediments to receiving. Often the ones who do not receive are acting in accordance with the Church teaching. Again legalism at it’s finest. Is it a matter of law or not? The law is the law. If I can digress at the risk of confusion, I think they (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Disciple of the Sacraments) are looking for a legal way to allow children to join the procession while barring adults. That rule is difficult because it clearly needs to prohibit adults not in proper communion from joining the procession, though it has no effect on those who simply receive while not in grace. My objection is I do not believe the letter defined the blessings as illicit. I think it clearly points out known situations which will be illicit blessings.

My issue is those who process and don’t receive show a much greater respect for the Church, Eucharist, and God’s Covenant than most. I wish we would both recognized and encouraged their actions.

Hope that helps

It is not legalism at its best. The first and foremost duty of the Holy See is to protect and safeguard the integrity of the Eucharist, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, if you will.

The Church already has both Canon law and liturgical law dictating just who should receive and who should not. Those who invented this practice, I suspect, while having good intentions, have blurred the line and turned this ilicit situation into some sort of “consolation prize” for those who cannot receive Holy Communion. The folks who support this practice, I believe, do not have a firm grasp on the meaning of receiving Holy Communion and would reduce the practice to mean that they can provide some sort of substitute for Our Lord.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

The conclusion is right here:
“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”

They should not “receive” a blessing means that it matters not who is giving the blessing (or pseudo-blessing). There’s not a lot of room for interpretation there. What I cannot understand is why some readers here seem to feel that there is room for interpretation?

When the letter talks about “limiting itself to the following…” that simply means that at the present time, they have no intentions of going into further details. To put that another way, they are neither going to make a premature announcement about upcoming liturgical laws (which might or might not change) or other official statements (like an outright “Instruction”), nor speculate on what might be a future interpretation of the situation. It further means that they’re not going to expand any more on the topic. The interpretation given in the rest of that letter is sufficient as far as the CDWS is concerned.

PS
“under the attentive study of the Congregation” could also mean that they’re going to issue something more formal making it absolutely clear that this is forbidden. I said we can’t speculate on the future, but remember that whatever might happen might be in one direction or the other.

It will be interesting to issue a statement more clear than “they should not approach” boggles the mind what that statement will look like. The letter uses that phrase in the fifth bullet (see image at forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=292341&highlight=blessings frankly if that is a correct interpetation I must be an English Major rotfl. If that is a correct interpretation the rest of the letter is what a diversion? The “under the attentive study” is I guess a conspiracy? It would seem clear that bullet 5 has in common with bullets 1-4 conditions which have rulings on recieving the Euchristic celebration.

(Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.)

Now it would certainly be remiss to not take a literal look at bullet #5 as a free standing statement, have you tried this yet? I hope you see the large clear problem (?) without a doubt it states “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).” Now remember what a blessing is “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” Live by the law die by the law, if you interpret this as a free standing statement it is clear only catholics in a state of grace can be present in the church in the closing minutes of Mass. Wow, we need to start asking children, non catholics, and catholics with unrepented sins to leave ! Unless of coarse we have taken the statement out of context.

Hope that helps

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Just want to return to this bit as well, because it has me scratching my head. I think I am misunderstanding something or miscommunicated.

I said:

Are you wondering about people coming up neither for communion or a blessing? It seems to me that if it is an adult, they are bit confused, no?

And you responded:

No is correct they are not confused.

You advocate a “third” way, as well? Coming up to the priest and not asking for Holy Communion and not seeking a blessing?

Is that something people do? I’ve never heard of it. I’ve never seen it mentioned anywhere. It seems like someone who would do this is confused. I would speculate that at least the priest would be confused, wouldn’t he?

I would think those who employ this “third option” would appreciate someone speaking to them about the concept of spiritual communion.

VC