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

[Newbie2]

TR, I didn’t mean to imply that I’m convinced that the use of the term “illicit” is entirely correct, given that the practice seems to still be “under study”.

Personally, I have no problems with such blessings, as long as they are used for people on the road to coming into full communion and don’t become a regular “substitute” for the Eucharist for any particular individual.

But by the same token if the Church is going to be against the practice, it needs to be put forward in no uncertain terms; to me, anyway, if something is still being looked at, or examined, no permanent definitive conclusions have been made.

It’s sort of a circular argument, either way: If it’s a forbidden practice, then why is it being examined and if it’s an accepted practice, then why does the Church not say so. If I accept such a practice I’m a dissentor and if I condemn it, I’m a legalist.

Arrrrgggh. The joys of being Catholic.

 

[benedictgal]

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:

And you responded:

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

Exactly. My grandmother was in an invalid marriage. She never stopped going to Mass and she would never have dreamt of going to the line to receive a blessing. She remained in her pew and made a spiritual communion and taught me to do the same. My stepgrandfather followed her example. It was not until her first marriage was annuled and she was able to have her marriage blessed that both she and my stepgrandfather went to receive Holy Communion.

What TR does not seem to understand, with all due respect, is that we are not supposed to be inventing rituals for people who cannot receive Holy Communion for whatever reason. Canon law and liturgical law make it perfectly clear that there are parameters in order to receive Holy Communion. If these particular individuals go to receive Our Lord and they have not met these guidelines, then, as St. Paul notes, they are eating and drinking condemnation on themselves.

 

[benedictgal]

TR, I didn’t mean to imply that I’m convinced that the use of the term “illicit” is entirely correct, given that the practice seems to still be “under study”.

Personally, I have no problems with such blessings, as long as they are used for people on the road to coming into full communion and don’t become a regular “substitute” for the Eucharist for any particular individual.

But by the same token if the Church is going to be against the practice, it needs to be put forward in no uncertain terms; to me, anyway, if something is still being looked at, or examined, no permanent definitive conclusions have been made.

However, what I think we are not looking at is that for the time being, this should not be done. We cannot promote something that the Church is telling us should not be done for the time being.

What is wrong about this whole thing is that we are advocating for some false sense of inclusivity and using this blessing as some sort of consolation prize for those who cannot receive Holy Communion. And, that is wrong because, as Redemptionis Sacramentum notes, such innovations only cause confusion.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

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.

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.

While being careful to mine the pen, may I point out to you; you now argue through implication that canon and liturical law both cover and do not cover simuntulusly this issue of blessings during communion

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.

Rather accusatory? It would seem you have clearly judged myself and another? I would ask you again for the umpth time to show their use of the word illicit? I would ask you to address their stated findings " *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:"

It would seem ironic their work is so absent in your conclusions?

 

[benedictgal]

While being careful to mine the pen, may I point out to you; you now argue through implication that canon and liturical law both cover and do not cover simuntulusly this issue of blessings during communion

Rather accusatory? It would seem you have clearly judged myself and another? I would ask you again for the umpth time to show their use of the word illicit? I would ask you to address their stated findings " *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:"

It would seem ironic their work is so absent in your conclusions?

Read the entire letter and please, with all due respect, do not cherry pick. The rite of Communion within the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not an anything goes and do as you wish ritual.

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.

1. 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. **

1. 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). **

You do not have to outright use the word “ilicit” since “expressly discouraged” makes it quite obvious that this should not be happening in the first place. There really is no justification for this kind of improvisation, unless the proponents are using the alleged Spirit of Vatican II to validate this ilicit practice.

I also invite you to read this section from Redemptionis Sacramentum, which goes hand-in-hand with this issue:

[11.] The Mystery of the Eucharist “is too great for anyone to permit himself to treat it according to his own whim, so that its sacredness and its universal ordering would be obscured”.27 On the contrary, anyone who acts thus by giving free rein to his own inclinations, even if he is a Priest, injures the substantial unity of the Roman Rite, which ought to be vigorously preserved,28 and becomes responsible for actions that are in no way consistent with the hunger and thirst for the living God that is experienced by the people today. Nor do such actions serve authentic pastoral care or proper liturgical renewal; instead, they deprive Christ’s faithful of their patrimony and their heritage. For arbitrary actions are not conducive to true renewal,29 but are detrimental to the right of Christ’s faithful to a liturgical celebration that is an expression of the Church’s life in accordance with her tradition and discipline. In the end, they introduce elements of distortion and disharmony into the very celebration of the Eucharist, which is oriented in its own lofty way and by its very nature to signifying and wondrously bringing about the communion of divine life and the unity of the People of God.30 The result is uncertainty in matters of doctrine, perplexity and scandal on the part of the People of God, and, almost as a necessary consequence, vigorous opposition, all of which greatly confuse and sadden many of Christ’s faithful in this age of ours when Christian life is often particularly difficult on account of the inroads of “secularization” as well.31

Thus these kinds of improvisations introduce confusion, perplexity and distortion. What documents can you cite that validate this practice?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

• 90. “The faithful should receive Communion kneeling or standing, as the Conference of Bishops will have determined,” with its acts having received the recognitio of the Apostolic See. “However, if they receive Communion standing, it is recommended that they give due reverence before the reception of the Sacrament, as set forth in the same norms.”176*- usccb.org/liturgy/documents/instructioneng.shtml#6

Our priests give communion to the wheel chair bound every Sunday they neither kneel nor stand and yet the law is clear

 

[benedictgal]

• 90. “The faithful should receive Communion kneeling or standing*, as the Conference of Bishops will have determined,” with its acts having received the recognitio of the Apostolic See. “However, if they receive Communion standing, it is recommended that they give due reverence before the reception of the Sacrament, as set forth in the same norms.”176- usccb.org/liturgy/documents/instructioneng.shtml#6

Our priests give communion to the wheel chair bound every Sunday they neither kneel nor stand and yet the law is clear

We are addressing the issue of the ilicit practice of imparting a blessing in lieu of Holy Communion, not the manner in which Holy Communion is to be received. You have yet to cite anything authoritaitve specific to this practice.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Read the entire letter and please, with all due respect, do not cherry pick. The rite of Communion within the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not an anything goes and do as you wish ritual.

I have read the letter many times, why do you break his letter in pieces? Why is you cannot addres the questions? I hope you took time to read the post to Fr David96 it clearly addressed the implications of dismissing all but bullet #5. Concerning bullet #2 well this is strictly for you as I believe it is sketchy assumptions " LAYING ON OF HANDS
In both the Old and New Testaments a significant symbolic action denoting various meanings. Examples: Israel giving his parental blessing to Ephraim and Manasseh (Genesis 48:18); Moses passing his authority to his successor (Numbers 27:18); Joshua receiving the spirit of wisdom to lead his people (Deuteronomy 34:9); Aaron preparing the ram for sacrifice (Exodus 29:10). In the New Testament its symbolism took on a further and deeper meaning: Jesus blessing the children (Matthew 19:15); Jesus bringing the official’s daughter back to life (Matthew 9:18); Peter and John calling down the Holy Spirit on the Samaritans (Acts 8:17). After Pentecost the laying on of hands especially denoted the conferral of the powers and authority of the episcopacy, which Christ had given to the Apostles. In the Catholic Church the sacrament of orders: the diaconate, priesthood, and episcopate are administered by a bishop through the laying on of hands. " - catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=34525

You do not have to outright use the word “ilicit” since “expressly discouraged” makes it quite obvious that this should not be happening in the first place.

That is you my dear that continuely uses that word

There really is no justification for this kind of improvisation, unless the proponents are using the alleged Spirit of Vatican II to validate this ilicit practice.

wow it did not take long to see it again

I also invite you to read this section from Redemptionis Sacramentum, which goes hand-in-hand with this issue:

any chance, any chance at all, the subject here is willfully handing out and taking the Eucharist while openly in a state of sin? I would suggest that is disrespect, while others out of respect acknowledging when they cannot receive.

Thus these kinds of improvisations introduce confusion, perplexity and distortion. What documents can you cite that validate this practice?

My dear you have made the claim “Canon law and liturgical law make it perfectly clear” yet you never actually show such laws instead you ask we rely on your interpretation. Personally, I would rather see the law

 

[Texas_Roofer]

We are addressing the issue of the ilicit practice of imparting a blessing in lieu of Holy Communion, not the manner in which Holy Communion is to be received. You have yet to cite anything authoritaitve specific to this practice.

A complete dismissal of your statements? Is there a need to spin? I guess it is time to stop, all you have shown is personal interpretations. When I make such an Interpretation I recognize it. Living by the law is unwise, interpreting law is even more dangerous. Well, I hope you have a good night.

 

[benedictgal]

A complete dismissal of your statements? Is there a need to spin? I guess it is time to stop, all you have shown is personal interpretations. When I make such an Interpretation I recognize it. Living by the law is unwise, interpreting law is even more dangerous. Well, I hope you have a good night.

Even the section you quoted concerning the laying on of hands has been covered in the statement issued by the CDWDS:

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.

Therefore, this particular practice done in lieu of distributing Holy Communion is “expressly forbidden” and, as the CDWDS observes, is “inappropriate here.”

With all due respect, I submit to you that you have not really proven your case since what you have submitted has pretty much been refuted by this document. What is needed here is humble obedience to what the CDWDS has stated. The document is very clear that this practice should not be done, and, when something should not be done, that means that it is ilicit.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

As an aside, I wonder if this practice of going up for a blessing isn’t a result of the, in my opinion, unfortunate occurrence of ushers conducting the faithful up to Holy Communion in strict sequence.

My understanding is that before the “usher method” was in place, the faithful approached in an unstructured but nevertheless orderly manner (i.e. not a marching line but not a stampede). Who went when, and more importantly who didn’t go wasn’t as obvious.

Perhaps the use of ushers in the way they are currently used puts an undesirable pressure on individuals to get out of their seat and later helped create the development of “blessing in lieu of communion” phenomenon.

VC

 

[benedictgal]

As an aside, I wonder if this practice of going up for a blessing isn’t a result of the, in my opinion, unfortunate occurrence of ushers conducting the faithful up to Holy Communion in strict sequence.

My understanding is that before the “usher method” was in place, the faithful approached in an unstructured but nevertheless orderly manner (i.e. not a marching line but not a stampede). Who went when, and more importantly who didn’t go wasn’t as obvious.

Perhaps the use of ushers in the way they are currently used puts an undesirable pressure on individuals to get out of their seat and later helped create the development of “blessing in lieu of communion” phenomenon.

VC

I have seen ushers act more like traffic controllers. They stop at each pew and raise their hands and motion people to go forward. I would rather they not do this for the same reasons that you have mentioned.

 

[Pug]

My understanding is that before the “usher method” was in place, the faithful approached in an unstructured but nevertheless orderly manner (i.e. not a marching line but not a stampede). Who went when, and more importantly who didn’t go wasn’t as obvious.

There are still parishes (NO parishes, although I dislike that term, but CAF junkies will understand it ) that do not subscribe to the usher method. When I attend there, usually the people who sit in the back rows are the ones who don’t go up. You are free to sit anywhere, but if you don’t want to have to climb over the entire pew to go up to receive, sit in the front. People get up when they wish and go forward, so you are right that it could be* somewhat *less obvious. But to me, it is not the lack of obviousness that seems different there. Rather, it is the fact that half of them don’t receive. There is sort of a security in numbers factor that could be going on there. You could be part of either group and be rather comfortable with your lot, I imagine. But a person might still be constrained by the pressure of a super holy relative who will look upon you in a certain way if you don’t go up (real or imagined).

 

[blaskoman]

I believe that nsper7 is typical of some posters who are trying to find comic relief for themselves by getting others to go into great detailed responses to their assinine questions. imho.

 

[nsper7]

I believe that nsper7 is typical of some posters who are trying to find comic relief for themselves by getting others to go into great detailed responses to their assinine questions. imho.

No. I got my answer: don’t go up and receive a blessing in lieu of Holy Communion. If I can licitly receive, then I should. If I can’t, then I will stay in the pew and pray (i.e. Act of Spiritual Communion).

 

[Texas_Roofer]

… I submit to you that you have not really proven your case…

That is funny

since what you have submitted has pretty much been refuted by this document.

You cannot point out a single refference to the document that refutes, only your personal interpretations refute, I personally am not bound by your interpretations

What is needed here is humble obedience to what the CDWDS has stated. The document is very clear that this practice should not be done, and, when something should not be done, that means that it is** ilicit**.

So say you but not so say them, how many times were you asked to show them calling the practice illicit?

As always you actually ignore what they say which is "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:"

 

[Seatuck]

There is nothing that says you HAVE to receive Communion every time you got to Mass

True. If one wishes to abstain from receiving the Holy Eucharist one should remain in thier pew and adore Christ. Not get into the COMMUNION line. Make sense?

Although, I have read that Arch. Chaput says that one may go up and adore and revere Christ but just not receive the blessing.

 

[benedictgal]

True. If one wishes to abstain from receiving the Holy Eucharist one should remain in thier pew and adore Christ. Not get into the COMMUNION line. Make sense?

Although, I have read that Arch. Chaput says that one may go up and adore and revere Christ but just not receive the blessing.

However, his comments were made before the CDWDS issued that letter. Remember that the line is to receive Holy Communion, not a blessing and not for adoration.

Unfortunately, there are those who (and this is not in reference to the Metropolitan of Denver) who may not seem to understand that when the CDWDS says that something is “expressly discouraged” that means that it is not licit.

What folks miss is that inasmuch as this matter is under study, we are to adhere to the observations that the CDWDS has made.

 

[jmcrae]

As an aside, I wonder if this practice of going up for a blessing isn’t a result of the, in my opinion, unfortunate occurrence of ushers conducting the faithful up to Holy Communion in strict sequence.

I think it certainly might have something to do with it, since someone pondering whether he is fully disposed to receive Holy Communion might feel “bullied” or emotionally pressured into going forward when his seatmates rise and start pushing him from behind, and the usher starts to signal him to come out of the pew - and once having gone forward, realizing that he is not in a fit state to receive Holy Communion, what does he do? He has to do something, so he requests a blessing.

My understanding is that before the “usher method” was in place, the faithful approached in an unstructured but nevertheless orderly manner (i.e. not a marching line but not a stampede). Who went when, and more importantly who didn’t go wasn’t as obvious.

Right. Also, instead of joining a lineup, you simply approached the Communion rail at the place where there was most likely to be a space opening up, so people were more spread out and moving about more easily.

However, I am thinking that the innovation of pews is what has led to the innovation of ushers (because of the problem of getting back to your place after Holy Communion, stepping past or over those who are making their post-Communion prayers), and consequent line-ups.

I am thinking that if the whole congregation were standing/kneeling in an open space without furniture or with a limited amount of easily moved furniture (lightly structured kneeling benches and moveable chairs) that could be quietly pushed out of the way during the distribution of Holy Communion, the entire problem of who goes and at what moment they go to Holy Communion would not affect anyone else at all - there would be no chance of toes being stepped on, or being interrupted in one’s post-communion prayer by someone trying to get past you. The priest and his assistants would simply remain at the Altar rail until no one was coming forward any more.

 

[Lycoming]

I wish those that claim that it’s not OK to receive a blessing dosn communion would sound more like Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university:

*"…Recently, however, a document has appeared in several Internet sources which indicate that the Holy See is tending toward a negative view of the practice. The document is a letter (Protocol No. 930/08/L) dated Nov. 22, 2008, sent in response to a private query and signed by Father Anthony Ward, SM, undersecretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship.

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…"*

The absolutist “I know more than thou!” of some is getting to be rather ridiculous…

ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur263.htm