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

[japhy]

To understand the parish lives over the past 5-10 years of everyone who has posted on this thread.

Have they switched parishes in the past ten years? I moved to Princeton in 2005 (after college) and have been at the same parish for these past four years.

Did they ever feel the need to “go over the head” of their pastors? I have never addressed a liturgical matter at my parish with my Bishop, only with my pastor.

What has their relationship been like with their pastor(s) over the past decade? I’m on the parish pastoral council (2nd year of a 3-year term). We get along well, but not as well as I wish, though we’re not at odds with one another. (I had a list of reasons here, but I decided to remove them.)

Have they sat at table with him and discussed their dreams and concerns? No, I have not. I’m not sure how to do that in a way that wouldn’t end up being… weird.

Do they know there bishops? I have met my Bishop on a few occasions, and I am currently borrowing a book on the history of the Catholic liturgies from the Bishop emeritus’s personal library. I wrote a letter to my Bishop after having read Sacramentum Caritatis. I plan on corresponding with him again soon, after I have completed the first draft of a book on the new English translation of the Mass.

Just how much work do they put in on behalf of the parishes? I’m on the RCIA team (as an instructor and a sponsor for someone who just entered the Church), I am a reader, I am on the Parish Pastoral Council, I facilitate a weekly Bible Study, and I am a catechist for eighth grade Faith Formation.

Have they received any formal education and/or training in philosophy, theology or the liturgy? None of the above. Computer Science major. When I can find the time and funds for a masters in liturgical studies, I hope to go for it!

 

[japhy]

At the risk of being repetitive (too late, I know), I am going to throw my hat into the ring and provide my own interpretation of the reply I received.

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 CDWDS is studying the matter. How they are studying it was not divulged. The direction (pro or con) was not divulged. The intermediate findings were not divulged. Rather than make a new statement on the matter, the CDWDS limited itself to simply making the following already-existing observations. Again, points 1-5 are nothing (that should be) new.

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.
   The proper liturgical blessing in the Mass is received by all without discrimination at the end of the Mass. It is improper to move that blessing elsewhere. It also appears to me that it is improper to supplement the liturgical blessing of the Mass with another one which is not found in the liturgical books. (It is perfectly all right to bestow a nuptial blessing, or a blessing of the throats, etc., in the context of a Mass.)
2. ** Lay people, within the context of Holy Mass, are unable to confer blessings.** These blessings, rather, are the competence of the priest.
   For the matter at hand, this means that an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion has no faculties to give a “blessing” during the Communion procession. That is not what they have been appointed or deputed to do, and it is outside their ability.
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.
   The only thing being discouraged explicitly here is the laying on of hands by those distributing Communion as a substitution for its reception. This is not a blanket statement about ALL blessings during the Communion procession, only those which are 1) done by a minister of Holy Communion 2) in place of receiving the sacrament 3) by laying a hand or hands on the person.
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.
   The CDWDS seems to be saying that the application of FC 84 to this situation (blessings during Communion) means that, in particular, those who are divorced and remarried should not present themselves for a blessing during Communion because it could send the wrong message (to them or to others).
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).
   Those who are not able to receive the sacrament of Holy Communion should not present themselves as if to receive it, nor should they receive a blessing after having done so.

The response does not come right out and say “ordained ministers are not to bestow blessings during Communion” (although it says that people are not to receive such blessings) nor does it address what to do if a person does present himself for a blessing.

That’s why I got out of the document. I am open to hearing how my interpretations might not be accurate. It’s entirely possible, by the way, that the CDWDS will change liturgical law in this matter to permit such blessings (for some people, at least). I doubt it, but it is a possibility.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

japhy,

** spot on.**

VC

 

[Phemie]

I’m not kidding around when I say threads like this are slowly opening my eyes as to why self-described “orthodox Catholics” or “traditionalists” are often not taken seriously within their own parishes. I can see where such behavior would lead to frustration, anger and ultimately a move – either to a new parish, a new rite or out of the Church altogether.

You know what would be downright fascinating? To understand the parish lives over the past 5-10 years of everyone who has posted on this thread.

Have they switched parishes in the past ten years?
No, but that’s only because we’re the only parish within 300 miles. But before that I changed parishes almost every three years because we were a military family.

If so was it more than once?
Did they ever feel the need to “go over the head” of their pastors?
I’ve felt the need, but because the pastor is my boss I haven’t been brave enough to.

What has their relationship been like with their pastor(s) over the past decade?
I’ve had 5 since 1997.

First one had Alzhiemers and got progressively more disabled. But he was a sweetie. Not a great liturgist, though. Ordained in the 50s

Second couldn’t say no to anyone so parish was in turmoil all the time. Anyone could convince him to change anything one day and someone else could convince him to change it the next day. He was still a nice guy. Ordained in his 40s, in the 80s.

Third was a great administrator & liturgist with, unfortunately, no people skills. But I loved him and got along great with him. Too bad people only realized what a gem he was when he left due to health problems. Ordained in the 50s. Implemented Redemptionis Sacramentum within a week or so.

Fourth didn’t want to be our pastor and hated being here. He cared nothing about liturgy and he was another one for whom being liked was more important than doing the right thing. More turmoil. Ordained in the 70s. Wouldn’t read a document on liturgy if it came up to him and begged. Reversed most of the changes previous pastor had made based on R.S.

Fifth one wants the parishioners to do everything themselves. He’ll sit and let EMHCs distribute Communion because ‘it’s their ministry’. He listens to everything anyone has to say but he has his own ideas and nothing we say is going to change what he wants to do. He’s another one who thinks documents are only there for Rome “We’re not in Rome so who cares?”

Have they sat at table with him and discussed their dreams and concerns?

Yes. And been laughed at by the last 2. The third sent us to university to study liturgy.

Do they know there bishops?
Yes, better than any other bishop in any other diocese I’ve ever been in.

Just how much work do they put in on behalf of the parishes?
I’m the secretary – started as a volunteer in the job and after a year they hired me to keep me here. I’ve been here 11.5 years and work for minimum wage because I know the parish can’t afford more. I’m a reader. I was chair of the liturgy committee for about 7 years. Called it quits when the 4th pastor ordered me to train EMHCs to do things they weren’t supposed to do. My conscience wouldn’t let me do that.

Have they received any formal education and/or training in philosophy, theology or the liturgy?
Have a certificate in Pastoral Liturgy. 2 weeks of full time courses for 3 summers at St. Paul University. Implemented Evening Prayer in the parish.

This would be impossible of course but it would be very interesting to compare the individual postings with the parishes lives of the posters.

 

[Lycoming]

…My guess is that is why you need to spin every questions because the answers honest answers would reveal that which you choose to ignore

And it’s not going to stop either until the thread is ultimately closed or dies a natural death.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

At the risk of being repetitive (too late, I know), I am going to throw my hat into the ring and provide my own interpretation of the reply I received.
…

japhy,

** spot on.**

VC

I agree,

Since the GIRM does not contain the practice it cannot address the practice, so the guides are for Eucharistic Celebration. I do hope the CDWDS takes into account the opportunities provided. It is not just about climbing over pews, we need to reduce the exclusionary aspects of the Church, it was never intended as a exclusionary body. Celebrating the Eucharist, and excluding others do not have to be the same.

on another matter:
I would like to air a different concern, I question if the CDWDS intended this to be a public document? As I read it I seem to find a private response intent.

 

[Newbie2]

No, you are the one putting spins into things. With all due respect, what part of the phrase “expressly discouraged” do you not understand? “Expressly discouraged” means that it should not be done.

“Expressly discouraged” is not the same thing as “prohibited”, no?

 

[japhy]

we need to reduce the exclusionary aspects of the Church, it was never intended as a exclusionary body. Celebrating the Eucharist, and excluding others do not have to be the same.

People are not excluded from the Mass simply because they can’t receive Holy Communion. Nor does their non-exclusion require being manifested by getting to receive something or do something at the same that others who are properly disposed receive Holy Communion.

What should the rest of us who are “excluded” from the entrance procession do? Maybe we should all walk in when the priest does. What should the rest of us who are “excluded” from the offertory procession? Maybe instead of passing baskets around for the collection, we could all walk up to a basket in front of the altar and put our money in there. (I’ve heard of such a thing.) How about those of us who are not proclaiming the Scriptures? Perhaps we should whisper it softly to the person sitting next to us (as they whisper it softly to us). What do we do about the catechumens we’ve been dismissing from the Liturgy of the Eucharist? Maybe we should reform RCIA so as not to seem like we’re excluding them.

I don’t mean to be rude, but this “exclusion” perception quickly becomes absurd.

Perhaps I’ve misunderstood you. What do you mean by “the Church … was never intended as a exclusionary body”? Of course the Church is meant to be universal, but that doesn’t mean everybody is a de facto member just because the ideal is for everyone to belong to her.

I would like to air a different concern, I question if the CDWDS intended this to be a public document? As I read it I seem to find a private response intent.

I’m not sure that’s relevant. And it’s not like they would disavow what they’ve written now that it’s been seen by eyes other than mine. From the way my letter was addressed to them, I would expect they knew I was looking for some sort of “answer” to provide to another party.

I don’t think they were revealing anything “new” to me (although it might have “news” to me). They were not exercising a private magisterium to address my letter, they were making observations about something which they are currently studying.

 

[japhy]

“Expressly discouraged” is not the same thing as “prohibited”, no?

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.

I think the CDWDS reply means that the bishop of a diocese (or the pastor of a parish) is to explicitly discourage the act of giving a blessing to someone not receiving Communion by means of laying on of hands. The act must be discouraged and it must be done so explicitly.

 

[jmcrae]

“Expressly discouraged” is not the same thing as “prohibited”, no?

If your father “expressly discourages” you from seeing that boy, do you climb out the window to go see him, while telling yourself, “Well, he didn’t actually prohibit me from seeing him,” or do you invite the boy in for dinner on Sunday, and then act all surprised that your father is upset, while telling him, “Well, you didn’t actually prohibit me from seeing him!”

My guess is, the first.

 

[mullenpm]

I am failing to understand this thread. Why, would someone newly becoming a Catholic — with all that implies and all the benefits – would now resist, for whatever reason, to receive the Holy Eucharist.

Perhaps you were not ready to become a Catholic. I have never known any Catholic, who would have the opportunity, not want to receive the dear Lord in Holy Communion at every opportunity.

Another problem - the people who must insert themselves into the Communion line to receive a ‘blessing’. Whatever for?

There was another thread (in which I was the OP) that went on and on and on. Some people do not want to accept the fact that this is an improper reason for being in the Communion line and I have seen Priests pass these people by and not give a blessing.

Stay in your pew and offer a Spiritual Communion and then go to Confession - then you may legitimately appear in the Communion line.:knight2:

 

[EvelynEVF]

To the OP, I would suggest that while there are many things that we moderate in order to appreciate them, Jesus isn’t one of them We might get tired of steak if we had it every day, but the fact is that Jesus is so much bigger and more loving and a zillion other things that words can barely express, that we couldn’t come close to knowing Him well enough to get tired of Him if we received Him every day for 50 years! The Eucharist is an incredible gift, and it would be silly to reject it.

Now, if Mass starts to feel rote to you, and you want to shake things up, I suggest you read the readings ahead of time and meditate on them, and spend time in Eucharistic adoration. Follow the liturgical calendar, and learn about the saint of the day. If you pay better attention reading while listening, then use a missal at Mass and follow along. You might also look into the Liturgy of the Hours and other devotions you can do personally, as well as becoming involved in your parish.

 

[WetCatechumen]

Ouch.

I am currently undergoing personal catechesis with a retired theologian who worked in religious education for many years, and he’s a true blue conservative/orthodox/traditionalist, and so forth. Never once had he mentioned this. My parish priest is extremely conservative for my Archdiocese (Santa Fe), and has never mentioned this.

I was raised Protestant, and have been attending Mass since July. I plan to be received into the church at next Easter Vigil (I am not sure how my parish does it, but whenever they do). I have, since the fourth or third Mass I first went to, presented myself for a blessing, to Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist, Deacons, Priests, and alike, as well as the Archbishop.

No priest I have approached has ever refused me a blessing, neither did the Archbishop. At my Parish, one Eucharistic Minister looked extremely confused and did nothing, and so I left. I thought it was because she did not understand what I was indicating, but now I realize that she understood that it was liturgically inappropriate for her to simulate giving a blessing.

As a matter of fact, the way I first got to know my present parish priest is because he wanted to know the story of the “tall young fellow who comes up for the blessing”, because I’d always line up in his communion line. He’s devoted to proper liturgical practice; I think this must be one issue which is so hard for him to fight that he’s devoting his energies elsewhere.

I feel kind of sick, actually, for having tampered with the liturgy. I also feel tremendous sorrow, because approaching and adoring the Sacrament at each Mass was the only consolation I could receive for not being able to receive. However, I believe that the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments presents a definitive case.

Obviously, they have not reviewed it, but there are some things to be noted:

1. 
   *]It is not apostolic, but it is a recent innovation.
   *]The actual apostolic practice was to exclude catechumens (of which I am a kind, although I do not believe technically so because I have been baptized) from the entire Liturgy of the Eucharist.
   *]It encourages the use of the communion line for a redundant blessing, as, again, the Priest confers a subsequent blessing.
   *]It is an alteration to the liturgy not specifically prescribed by the GIRM, and such alterations are specifically prohibitied.
   *]It can become a substitute for actual reception of the Sacrament, as with young children, catechumens, and those in states of grave sin (the divorced, etc.)
   
   On the flip side, some positive aspects which I note:
   
   1. 
      *]It allows a sense of inclusivity, but in response, communion is about physical communion with God and his church, and those unworthy to receive are necessarily excluded and for good reason.
      *]It provides and opportunity for those preparing to receive to properly approach, understand, and adore the Sacrament.
      *]As someone had mentioned earlier, the consolation prize is comforting to those who cannot receive.
      
      It is funny. I merely wanted to understand the nature of a fist bump joke my Eastern Orthodox sympathizing friend and I had made, where we bumped fists and then made the Sign of the Cross with our fists, and he made it in the Latin fashion, presumably because it was inferred that the Sign he was making was a blessing to be conferred upon me. I just wanted to know about the nature of the blessings of laity, of which I was correct, that we can pray for a blessing (which I have done and will continue to do so for my friends), but that it cannot actually be conferred by laity.
      
      However, this absolutely rends my heart to say that I can no longer present myself for a blessing. It is an abuse of the liturgy and I cannot participate in it any longer, even though I love approaching and adoring the Sacrament, and I appreciate every single additional blessing which each deacon, priest, or bishop has conferred upon me, and each extraordinary minister has prayed for me.
      
      Honestly, I feel like I want to cry. This Saturday I’m celebrating Pascha at the local Orthodox Church in America Parish with my aforementioned friend, and neither of us will be receiving there. Last time we went to Divine Liturgy there, we were told that we could approach for a blessing, and the priest, a very gentle, Christ-loving, and friendly man of around 70 years, gave us both a blessing and let us kiss the chalice which contained the Body and Blood. Being that close to the Sacrament, even from schismatics, made me extraordinarily happy.
      
      As the liturgy which the Orthodox Church in America practices is different, I will guess that I am not violating any principles of theirs by approaching for a blessing, as I plan to this Saturday night at their Paschal Vigil. Obviously, they are schismatics, but as I count myself presently unbound by canon law, I will worship with them once more.
      
      But yes, not being able to approach the Sacrament rends my heart. I will probably spend more time in adoration chapel (my parish has perpetual adoration), but it’s not quite the same as proximity to the Sacrament in Mass.
      
      Short Version of my Post:
      
      

 

[Newbie2]

If your father “expressly discourages” you from seeing that boy, do you climb out the window to go see him, while telling yourself, “Well, he didn’t actually prohibit me from seeing him,” or do you invite the boy in for dinner on Sunday, and then act all surprised that your father is upset, while telling him, “Well, you didn’t actually prohibit me from seeing him!”

My guess is, the first.

You didn’t have much fun as a kid, did you?

But the language used is deliberately softened. Why not say “prohibited”? There’s a whale of a difference between saying “you should not do that” and “you must not do that”. The Church at her various levels of authority has always been extremely precise in her language.

It seems to me that while they don’t like the practice, they aren’t totally against it, otherwise they’d have clearly said so. The way it is worded, it reads, “You really shouldn’t be doing this” versus “Do NOT do this”.

Whenever my dad would say the latter, I knew there would be consequences…the former, well, I could tell it wasn’t really as big a deal to him.

 

[japhy]

But the language used is deliberately softened. Why not say “prohibited”? There’s a whale of a difference between saying “you should not do that” and “you must not do that”.

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

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

 

[EvelynEVF]

WetCatechumen–

If you can get to Benediction, GO! I think that will fill your need for adoration plus blessing. It’s the most amazing thing and I hate that it only happens in my parish during Lent.

Please do feel free to ask your priest for his blessing outside of Mass. I ask my spiritual director, who is a deacon, for a blessing when I am doing something important, or having a hideous day, or if I have something specific that needs to be prayed for. Outside of Mass, he won’t be in a hurry, either, and you may get a very thorough blessing, surprising in the accuracy of detail.

 

[mullenpm]

:banghead::banghead:Benedigal, it is like hitting your head against a brick wall to get some people to understand, isn’t it.

Why this obsession to go in the Communion line for a blessing?

The first time I ever saw this happen in the Catholic Church was at a broadcast of a Mass from the Cathedral in D.C. just a few years ago. I forget the occasion but one of the Knights of Columbus presented himself this way in the Communion line and I wondered why he did it. He called more attention to himself than if he had remained in his pew.

That is when I started asking around and learned that it originally was intended as practice for little children who had not yet received their First Holy Communion.

When I was a child and received my First Holy Communion I knelt at the altar rail and the Nuns had taught us how to receive.

It is not a practice in my church, thankfully, and I notice that Priests on EWTN do not even bless little children being carried by their parents in the Communion line.

I wish it would stop completely and I wish the Vatican would put a stop to it and Bishops would inform all their Priests to put a stop to it.

 

[benedictgal]

Ouch.

IOn the flip side, some positive aspects which I note:

1. 
   *]It allows a sense of inclusivity, but in response, communion is about physical communion with God and his church, and those unworthy to receive are necessarily excluded and for good reason.
   *]It provides and opportunity for those preparing to receive to properly approach, understand, and adore the Sacrament.
   *]As someone had mentioned earlier, the consolation prize is comforting to those who cannot receive.
   
   However, this absolutely rends my heart to say that I can no longer present myself for a blessing. It is an abuse of the liturgy and I cannot participate in it any longer, even though I love approaching and adoring the Sacrament, and I appreciate every single additional blessing which each deacon, priest, or bishop has conferred upon me, and each extraordinary minister has prayed for me.
   
   But yes, not being able to approach the Sacrament rends my heart. I will probably spend more time in adoration chapel (my parish has perpetual adoration), but it’s not quite the same as proximity to the Sacrament in Mass.
   
   Short Version of my Post:
   
   

1. 
   First of all, welcome home.
   
   I deleted much of your post because of the word limit here on CAF.
   
   What you described in the second half is precisely what Redemptionis Sacramentum was trying to avoid when the document notes that:
   

   [8.] It is therefore to be noted with great sadness that “ecumenical initiatives which are well-intentioned, nevertheless indulge at times in Eucharistic practices contrary to the discipline by which the Church expresses her faith”. Yet the Eucharist “is too great a gift to tolerate ambiguity or depreciation”. It is therefore necessary that some things be corrected or more clearly delineated so that in this respect as well “the Eucharist will continue to shine forth in all its radiant mystery”.19

   [9.] Finally, abuses are often based on ignorance, in that they involve a rejection of those elements whose deeper meaning is not understood and whose antiquity is not recognized. For “the liturgical prayers, orations and songs are pervaded by the inspiration and impulse” of the Sacred Scriptures themselves, “and it is from these that the actions and signs receive their meaning”.20 As for the visible signs “which the Sacred Liturgy uses in order to signify the invisible divine realities, they have been chosen by Christ or by the Church”.21 Finally, the structures and forms of the sacred celebrations according to each of the Rites of both East and West are in harmony with the practice of the universal Church also as regards practices received universally from apostolic and unbroken tradition,22 which it is the Church’s task to transmit faithfully and carefully to future generations. All these things are wisely safeguarded and protected by the liturgical norms.

   …[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

   I draw your attention to the part I highlighted in bold red text because, as I read your post, this is the unfortunate and sad end result of what you have experienced.
   
   The line is only for the reception of Holy Communion. When the priest recites the Ecce Agnus Dei, he prays, “Behold, the Lamb of God. Happy are those who are called to His Supper.” He is inviting those members of the faithful who are properly disposed to receive Someone, Jesus Christ in his glorified Body and Blood. He is not inviting the faithful to receive something, a blessing. The blessing will be given to everyone at the appropriate time, a few minutes later, at the end of Mass.
   
   It is not a matter of being inclusive. You are already part of the worshipping faithful, the seen and the unseen. The only act that you cannot participate in is the reception of Holy Communion. You do not need close proximity in order to pray. You can simply remain in your pew and make a spiritual act of Communion and ask Jesus to come into your heart.
   
   My paternal grandma was involved in an invalid second marriage for nearly 40 years until her annulment came through back in the 1980s. It never occurred to her nor the people in her generation to approach the communion rail and ask for a blessing. It pained her, yes, to not be able to receive; however, she knew full well that the line was to receive Someone, not something. She never felt left out because she knew that she was still fulfilling her obligation by assisting at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The inclusiveness comes when you will receive the final blessing like everyone else.

 

[WetCatechumen]

I draw your attention to the part I highlighted in bold red text because, as I read your post, this is the unfortunate and sad end result of what you have experienced.

The line is only for the reception of Holy Communion. When the priest recites the Ecce Agnus Dei, he prays, “Behold, the Lamb of God. Happy are those who are called to His Supper.” He is inviting those members of the faithful who are properly disposed to receive Someone, Jesus Christ in his glorified Body and Blood. He is not inviting the faithful to receive something, a blessing. The blessing will be given to everyone at the appropriate time, a few minutes later, at the end of Mass.

It is not a matter of being inclusive. You are already part of the worshipping faithful, the seen and the unseen. The only act that you cannot participate in is the reception of Holy Communion. You do not need close proximity in order to pray. You can simply remain in your pew and make a spiritual act of Communion and ask Jesus to come into your heart.

My paternal grandma was involved in an invalid second marriage for nearly 40 years until her annulment came through back in the 1980s. It never occurred to her nor the people in her generation to approach the communion rail and ask for a blessing. It pained her, yes, to not be able to receive; however, she knew full well that the line was to receive Someone, not something. She never felt left out because she knew that she was still fulfilling her obligation by assisting at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The inclusiveness comes when you will receive the final blessing like everyone else.

benedictgal;

Thank you for your kind response. You are, of course, absolutely right. For me, the ultimate fact is that the communion line is only for those who are presenting themselves for Holy Communion. What I realize is that it’s a very clear liturgical abuse.

Hence, I am saying I do not disagree with you in the least.

However, it still saddens me, but again, I will get over it.

 

[jmcrae]

You didn’t have much fun as a kid, did you?

I climbed out my window - a lot …

But the language used is deliberately softened. Why not say “prohibited”? There’s a whale of a difference between saying “you should not do that” and “you must not do that”. The Church at her various levels of authority has always been extremely precise in her language.

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

Whenever my dad would say the latter, I knew there would be consequences…the former, well, I could tell it wasn’t really as big a deal to him.

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