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

[jmcrae]

But quite honestly whether we file in for a blessing depends most of the time upon which side of the pew we’re able to sit. In a packed church, sometimes you have to sit in the middle or even on the isle. Since pews have kneelers, it’s almost an absolute necessity to get out of the pew if you have to sit in one of those locations instead of a “window” seat. As such, you are left with a very real traffic problem as you block everything and disrupt traffic flow. I’ve seen it happen many times and it’s happened to me.

What I’m understanding from this is that, when you are in the middle of the pew, it seems to you as if you have only two choices - either follow the crowd up to the front and get a blessing, or remain seated in the pew and block traffic.

There is, in fact a third option, which is to exit the pew with the people in your pew, stand back out of the way (in the aisle) while they get by you, and then re-enter the pew, and sit. When you see them returning, go out the other end (the end where they are returning from) until everyone who needs to get by you has gone in, and then retake your place in the centre of the pew. At this point, you can kneel down to pray along with everyone else in your pew. Most people won’t even realize that you didn’t go forward with them in the Communion line.

 

[SonofMonica]

What I’m understanding from this is that, when you are in the middle of the pew, it seems to you as if you have only two choices - either follow the crowd up to the front and get a blessing, or remain seated in the pew and block traffic.

There is, in fact a third option, which is to exit the pew with the people in your pew, stand back out of the way (in the aisle) while they get by you, and then re-enter the pew, and sit. When you see them returning, go out the other end (the end where they are returning from) until everyone who needs to get by you has gone in, and then retake your place in the centre of the pew. At this point, you can kneel down to pray along with everyone else in your pew. Most people won’t even realize that you didn’t go forward with them in the Communion line.

We’ve also done that. That’s what we try to do when we sit on the isle side. But if you’re sitting in the middle, then by the time you make it to the isle, there are people piled up in front of you and behind you and to the side of you, and a half a row of people trying to get out. That’s not even taking into account it happens on the other side too so the problem can be doubled.

However, I’m simply saying that’s what we do because we have no explicit desire to receive a blessing all the time. I just can’t see anything wrong with it.

A priest giving a blessing is not being “inserted into” the Mass any more a priest pausing to give the cup an extra wipe with a cloth is. It is no more inserted into the Mass than is the action of me leaving my pew and standing in the aisle and letting people pass. The rubrics and CIRM certainly don’t mention that! OH NO!

In any event, I am certainly grateful that I don’t attend church at catholic.com. My local parish is full of the love of Christ. Some of the attitudes here would certainly prevent me from seeing Christ or entering into full communion with the Church. Some of you think you’re wiser than the Vatican on these things, and it’s sort of a hilarious bit of irony when the entire belief system of the Catholic Church requires trusting and following the Magisterium.

By the way, the Pope did this blessing thing on national TV. Look it up. He obviously doesn’t think it’s wrong in the absence of a binding rule against it. And I remind you there is an absence of a binding rule against it.

 

[benedictgal]

I just can’t see anything wrong with it.

A priest giving a blessing is not being “inserted into” the Mass any more a priest pausing to give the cup an extra wipe with a cloth is. It is no more inserted into the Mass than is the action of me leaving my pew and standing in the aisle and letting people pass. The rubrics and CIRM certainly don’t mention that! OH NO!

In any event, I am certainly grateful that I don’t attend church at catholic.com. My local parish is full of the love of Christ. Some of the attitudes here would certainly prevent me from seeing Christ or entering into full communion with the Church. Some of you think you’re wiser than the Vatican on these things, and it’s sort of a hilarious bit of irony when the entire belief system of the Catholic Church requires trusting and following the Magisterium.

By the way, the Pope did this blessing thing on national TV. Look it up. He obviously doesn’t think it’s wrong in the absence of a binding rule against it. And I remind you there is an absence of a binding rule against it.

However, no one has any authority to insert anything into the Mass. It is not a matter similar to wiping the chalice with an extra purificator. Might I remind you what the observations noted by the CDWDS say:

13. 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.

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 are, in essence, companing apples to watermelons here. And, brining in the Holy Father to justify the practice does not really hold water. He was blessing infants, not adults. If you also observe, the only ones who come to him approach him to receive Holy Communion only. The communicants do so kneeling and on the tongue.

It is not about being wiser than the Vatican, since the letter in question comes directly from the Vatican, itself. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments is a Curial office of the Holy See and exercises its authority, in the name of the Pope, on all matters liturgical.

It is interesting that people will bring up the notion of parishes who do this sort of thing as being loving and full of the spirit of Christ. Loving, however, also means being obedient to the laws of Christ and his Church. Again, Redepemptionis Sacramentum makes note of what should and should not happen during the course of the Mass:

[7.] Not infrequently, abuses are rooted in a false understanding of liberty. Yet God has not granted us in Christ an illusory liberty by which we may do what we wish, but a liberty by which we may do that which is fitting and right.18 This is true not only of precepts coming directly from God, but also of laws promulgated by the Church, with appropriate regard for the nature of each norm. For this reason, all should conform to the ordinances set forth by legitimate ecclesiastical authority.

[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. … 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.

[10.] The Church herself has no power over those things which were established by Christ Himself and which constitute an unchangeable part of the Liturgy.23 Indeed, if the bond were to be broken which the Sacraments have with Christ Himself who instituted them, and with the events of the Church’s founding,24 it would not be beneficial to the faithful but rather would do them grave harm. For the Sacred Liturgy is quite intimately connected with principles of doctrine,25 so that the use of unapproved texts and rites necessarily leads either to the attenuation or to the disappearance of that necessary link between the lex orandi and the lex credendi.26

[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, it is more uncharitable to introduce an innovation and insert into the Mass and masquerade it as something done to be welcoming and loving when, in fact, it has no right being there.

 

[jmcrae]

We’ve also done that. That’s what we try to do when we sit on the isle side. But if you’re sitting in the middle, then by the time you make it to the isle, there are people piled up in front of you and behind you and to the side of you, and a half a row of people trying to get out. That’s not even taking into account it happens on the other side too so the problem can be doubled.

I am saying, step back - not forward, or to the side. Then, when the row behind is getting ready to go, your row has already gone, and you can step back into your pew.

A priest giving a blessing is not being “inserted into” the Mass any more a priest pausing to give the cup an extra wipe with a cloth is.

There is an instruction to purify the vessels used at the Mass. There is no instruction to give blessings in the Communion line (a blessing is a specific ritual of the Church that has its own guidelines and procedures. There is nothing in the Book of Blessings that visualizes blessings happening in the Communion line.)

It is no more inserted into the Mass than is the action of me leaving my pew and standing in the aisle and letting people pass. The rubrics and CIRM certainly don’t mention that! OH NO!

Facilitating people’s ability to get out of the pew is not a liturgical action of the Church, so it doesn’t need any regulations, other than those of common sense.

In any event, I am certainly grateful that I don’t attend church at catholic.com. My local parish is full of the love of Christ. Some of the attitudes here would certainly prevent me from seeing Christ or entering into full communion with the Church. Some of you think you’re wiser than the Vatican on these things,

Who do you think the CDWDS is?

 

[mullenpm]

paperwight,

I don’t think any of the responses on this thread have been harsh.

I do think that people who are absolutely INSISTING they have a right to get into the HOLY COMMUNION line for some self-serving reason (and it is always self-serving) are the wrong doers.

I am older than you and remember the church before V2. I cannot even imagine someone presenting themselves at the altar rail and expecting the Priest to bless them.

In fact, this is relatively new in our church (and don’t say it isn’t) I don’t know where the practice came from or why it was started. People who say they have been told for years that it is ok - how many years? As I previously mentioned. The first time I ever saw it was a few years ago on a nationally broadcast Mass, when a Knight of Columbus presented himself to the priest for a blessing while in the Communion line. Whatever his reason was, of course, I do not know, but I do wish he had either gone to Confession and/or not eaten breakfast that day. Being non-Catholic would not have been an option in his case.

 

[EvelynEVF]

------So in your way of thinking getting a personal blessing, when the person bestowing it probably didn’t even know who you were, was somehow better than the general blessing for all at the end of Mass. --------

I’m having trouble with the formatting of embedding, so I’ll just have to use paragraphs. You assume to much Both priest and deacon, who were the only ones distributing the Body of Christ, knew me well and vice versa. So it was indeed a personal blessing, though sometimes a bit hurried.

---------As far as being able to reverence Jesus in the Eucharist, how could you?. The Priest, at least I hope it wa a Priest, would be holding the Ciborum in one hand and either touching you or making the sign of the Cross over you with the other. I do hope that he wasn’t holding the Eucharist while doing either one of these.---------

They didn’t have to hold Him up; I could see Him right there, and bow or genuflect.

------- I mean I am glad to hear that you don’t do this now can’t you see just how lame your reasons were? I don’t say that in a bad way and don’t mean to be offensive, but it looks as if you are trying to pull out something when there is nothing there.---------

Look, you might not see it or understand my reasons, but they most certainly were NOT lame, and it is offensive for you to say so, even with a disclaimer.

--------I really didn’t expect many if any answers to the question because quite honestly there is no answer that will really work. People do this thing because it has become almost customary for them to do it. They don’t have a reason for it, they really can’t explain it and don’t understand themselves why they do it.------

Kindly stop telling me that I did this without a reason, when I just told you my reasons. I understand exactly why I did it, and my answer WORKS within the framework of MY life and my particular situation. My confirmation was delayed for several months for reasons beyond my control, and it was like torture to go to Mass, including daily Mass, and not be able to receive. My going forward was like a prayer of longing, getting as close as I could, reverencing the Lord, and turning away after a blessing by someone who waited with me. Not Liturgically Okay, I know that now, but well thought out on my part, not some automatic go with the flow thing.

I expect you’re right that most people just do it because that is what’s done, but that wasn’t me.

 

[SonofMonica]

I still posit this is a ridiculous thread. If it were injurious to receive a blessing from a priest, it would be outlawed. Likewise, if it were injurious to hold another’s hand while praying or lift one’s hands into the air, it would be outlawed, I’m quite sure.

It’s not as though these things are that new, as by your own admissions they’ve been going on for quite some time now. I would think the entire reason that blessings require a “study” is precisely because the whole “insertion of a novelty into the Mass rubrics” is not the applicable rule here. Else there would be no reason for a study–the rule would simply apply. It clearly doesn’t apply, ellse there would be a prohibition sometime in the last 20 years. Some other considerations must be being taken into account by those studying it.

No one ever prayed Mass in the vernacular in this country until folks studied it apart from the rule you’re talking about. We know that “you can’t change any part of the Mass” wasn’t the rule, else you would speaking Latin in every Mass. Sorry, but your logic is wholly inconsistent.

By your same train of thought, some of the Marian dogmas would ever come into existence, since everyone knows they were of folk origin first, they became later to be widely adopted enough so as to, in the Church’s eyes, warrant definition and adoption as dogma. That could never happen under such a rigid view of Church as you hold.

 

[benedictgal]

I still posit this is a ridiculous thread. If it were injurious to receive a blessing from a priest, it would be outlawed. Likewise, if it were injurious to hold another’s hand while praying or lift one’s hands into the air, it would be outlawed, I’m quite sure.

It’s not as though these things are that new, as by your own admissions they’ve been going on for quite some time now. I would think the entire reason that blessings require a “study” is precisely because the whole “insertion of a novelty into the Mass rubrics” is not the applicable rule here. Else there would be no reason for a study–the rule would simply apply. It clearly doesn’t apply, ellse there would be a prohibition sometime in the last 20 years. Some other considerations must be being taken into account by those studying it.

No one ever prayed Mass in the vernacular in this country until folks studied it apart from the rule you’re talking about. We know that “you can’t change any part of the Mass” wasn’t the rule, else you would speaking Latin in every Mass. Sorry, but your logic is wholly inconsistent.

By your same train of thought, some of the Marian dogmas would ever come into existence, since everyone knows they were of folk origin first, they became later to be widely adopted enough so as to, in the Church’s eyes, warrant definition and adoption as dogma. That could never happen under such a rigid view of Church as you hold.

Actually, with all due respect, I do not believe that you understand the rammifications of what is happening. Novelties spread like wildfire. Such is the case with this liturgical aberration.

You have yet to justify why you think this practice is legitimate. Your mentioning of Marian Dogmas and the like is, with all due respect, tantamount to grasping at straws.

Just because someone somewhere is doing something that is wrong, that does not make the practice legitimate, not in the least. The fact that someone brought this matter up to the attention of the Vatican and the fact that they are seriously looking at this matter and have even made note that there are serious issues with this ilicit practice (to the point that the CDWDS noted that it should be expressly discouraged) should shine a bright red light indicating that it is indeed problematic.

We do not have the right to insert and imbed things into the Mass simply on our own initiative, especially since there is no legitimate liturgical Tradition to support this. Nowhere in the rubrics of the Mass, nowhere in the authoritative documents of the Holy See, is this practice found. In fact, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy notes the following:

1. 1. Regulation of the Sacred Liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.

1. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the Liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.

3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the Liturgy on his own authority.

1. That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress, careful investigation is always to be made into each part of the Liturgy which is to be revised. This investigation should be theological, historical, and pastoral. Also the general laws governing the structure and meaning of the Liturgy must be studied in conjunction with the experience derived from recent liturgical reforms and from the indults conceded to various places. Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.

Your downplaying of the logic that I and others have used really has no merit, given the fact that I have just quoted the document from the Second Vatican Council concerning the ltiurgy. You also do not take into account that any changes to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass must go through Rome. Rome obviously has the right to dictate whatever changes she dictates for the Church. If a particular national episcopal conference wants to make an adaptation to the norms and rubrics of the Mass, it must put it to a vote and receive the approval of 2/3 of the Latin Rite bishops. Then the proposal goes before the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments for the necessary recognito (recognition and approval). You cannot do things willy nilly. Rome certainly does not operate that way.

 

[japhy]

If it were injurious to receive a blessing from a priest, it would be outlawed.

No one here has said such a blessing is injurious.

It’s not as though these things are that new, as by your own admissions they’ve been going on for quite some time now.

We don’t know the actual timespan. 10 years? 20 years? I don’t know; I haven’t seen it documented anywhere. It’s widespread but not universal – I don’t remember it happening at my parish 20 years ago.

Some other considerations must be being taken into account by those studying it.

I assume, if the CDWDS is going to explicitly permit the practice, that they are debating WHO can give the blessing and HOW it should be done. But the CDWDS also pointed out that the present Church discipline already says that a person who is not permitted to receive Holy Communion should not present themselves for it or receive a blessing instead: “the Church’s discipline has already made clear that they should not approach Holy Communion nor receive a blessing.” (#5)

No one ever prayed Mass in the vernacular in this country until folks studied it apart from the rule you’re talking about.

“Study” does not necessarily mean “experimentation”. After Vatican II, laws were changed concerning the use of the vernacular in the Mass. There has been no change of laws concerning this “Communion blessing” thing.

By your same train of thought, some of the Marian dogmas would ever come into existence, since everyone knows they were of folk origin first, they became later to be widely adopted enough so as to, in the Church’s eyes, warrant definition and adoption as dogma. That could never happen under such a rigid view of Church as you hold.

Don’t put words in our mouths or thoughts in our heads, please. Make your own argument.

The Marian dogmas are not “of folk origin”, unless by that phrase you mean “from oral Tradition”. The Church didn’t make those Marian dogmas up, but she was able to define them based on what the faithful actually believed about Mary. Dogmas may not pop into existence; they may be defined and clarified, but not created. Liturgical disciplines and practices are a whole different matter. They can simply pop up, some without permission and some with.

 

[SonofMonica]

Liturgical disciplines and practices are a whole different matter. They can simply pop up, some without permission and some with.

Nonsense. It is the complete opposite for something to just “simply pop up” rather than something to happen with permission. What you guys are saying is that nothing may be done without permission. What you are saying is that nothing can happen that has not already happened, unless it is granted specific permission or ordered to be done before it happens. The Holy Spirit can never be experienced, only commanded by 2/3 vote. I still await your exposition of such a rule. Regardless of whether you want to nuance the definition of “study” it is being studied, and it has not been outlawed. The study might well conclude that it is meet and right so to do, else the results would have preceded the necessity for a study. To deny that is a logical non-starter.

 

[SonofMonica]

And for the umpteenth time, where is this referred to “the present Church discipline”? It’s one thing to say the letter refers to the present Church discipline. It’s another thing to show WHAT it is referring to? Where is the LAW that is being studied in order to determine whether it should be overturned? There isn’t one. The only logical conclusion is that it is being studied in order to determine its value in the first instance. There have indeed been many positive statements by church leadership concerning the blessing, including the entire body of English and Welsh bishops, if I’m not mistaken.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Actually, with all due respect, I do not believe that you understand the rammifications of what is happening.

Based on what authority can you assess that?

Novelties

an how do you know it is a “novelties” for many mass is not a series of “novelties”

spread like wildfire. Such is the case with this liturgical aberration.

You have yet to justify why you think this practice is legitimate. Your mentioning of Marian Dogmas and the like is, with all due respect, tantamount to grasping at straws.

Just because someone somewhere is doing something that is wrong,

Please be specific on who is doing what that qualifies as wrong. I would waste even more time pointing out that the CDWDS do not say this is “wrong” nor did they say it is “illicit”

that does not make the practice legitimate, not in the least. The fact that someone brought this matter up to the attention of the Vatican and the fact that they are seriously looking at this matter

some progress :clapping:

and have even made note that there are serious issues with this **ilicit practice **

ACTUALLY THE CDWDS NEVER SAID IT WAS AN ILLICIT PRACTICE

(to the point that the CDWDS noted that it should be expressly discouraged) should shine a bright red light indicating that it is indeed problematic.

AND WHERE IS THAT STATED IN THE DOCUMENT?

We do not have the right to insert and imbed things into the Mass simply on our own initiative, especially since there is no legitimate liturgical Tradition to support this. Nowhere in the rubrics of the Mass, nowhere in the authoritative documents of the Holy See, is this practice found. In fact, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy notes the following:

As posted eariler the practice of receiving communion in a wheelchair is contradiction to the writings which say to stand or kneel

Your downplaying of the logic

Based on what authority can you assess that? I would say these people show more respect, as many simply receive regardless of rules

that I and others have used really has no merit, given the fact that I have just quoted the document from the Second Vatican Council concerning the ltiurgy. **You also do not take into account **that any changes to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass must go through Rome. Rome obviously has the right to dictate whatever changes she dictates for the Church. If a particular national episcopal conference wants to make an adaptation to the norms and rubrics of the Mass, it must put it to a vote and receive the approval of 2/3 of the Latin Rite bishops. Then the proposal goes before the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments for the necessary recognito (recognition and approval). You cannot do things willy nilly. Rome certainly does not operate that way.

Based on what authority can you assess that this person or any other " do not take into account " ?

btw - if you would like to review the letter

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]

 

[japhy]

And for the umpteenth time, where is this referred to “the present Church discipline”? It’s one thing to say the letter refers to the present Church discipline. It’s another thing to show WHAT it is referring to?

The CDWDS response did not spell it out, so I can’t produce it for you. I didn’t know about it until I read about it in their response to me. I assume the CDWDS knows what they’re talking about.

 

[benedictgal]

And for the umpteenth time, where is this referred to “the present Church discipline”? It’s one thing to say the letter refers to the present Church discipline. It’s another thing to show WHAT it is referring to? Where is the LAW that is being studied in order to determine whether it should be overturned? There isn’t one. The only logical conclusion is that it is being studied in order to determine its value in the first instance. There have indeed been many positive statements by church leadership concerning the blessing, including the entire body of English and Welsh bishops, if I’m not mistaken.

Have you read the letter or, with all due respect, are you merely picking only the parts that are in agreement with you.

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).

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.

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.

1. 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).

The mere fact that this innovation does not appear in any of the authoritative documents of the Holy See (the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, in this case, since this is the Curial department charged by the Holy Father to oversee all of the Church’s liturgy) should give you a huge signal that this practice is not allowed.

Even the words of the priest, “Behold the Lamb of God; happy are those who are called to his supper” should also give you a clear indication that we are invited to receive Someone, not something.

Part and parcel of being in the Tiber is to accept what the Church disciplines are, especially those regarding the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

 

[japhy]

Nonsense. It is the complete opposite for something to just “simply pop up” rather than something to happen with permission.

Ok, that was a bad choice of words, I admit. Allow me to rephrase:

New liturgical disciplines and practices can begin (instead of “pop up”) with our without permission. When it is with permission, sometimes it is because someone has specifically requested it, but sometimes not.

What you guys are saying is that nothing may be done without permission.

Nothing should be added to the liturgy without permission. The liturgy is not mine or yours to do with as we please.

The Holy Spirit can never be experienced, only commanded by 2/3 vote.

Cute. While the Holy Spirit may have inspired people who can’t receive Communion to approach a priest for a blessing, He has not necessarily inspired them to do it during Mass during the Communion procession. There are arguably better times for it to happen. And I don’t think the Holy Spirit is prone to instilling disobedience to the lawful liturgy of the Church, but I guess I could be wrong there.

The study might well conclude that it is meet and right so to do, else the results would have preceded the necessity for a study. To deny that is a logical non-starter.

I already admitted as much.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

**Have you read the letter **or, with all due respect, are you merely picking only the parts that are in agreement with you.

The mere fact that this innovation does not appear in any of the authoritative documents of the Holy See (the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, in this case, since this is the Curial department charged by the Holy Father to oversee all of the Church’s liturgy) should give you a huge signal that this practice is not allowed.

Even the words of the priest, “Behold the Lamb of God; happy are those who are called to his supper” should also give you a clear indication that we are invited to receive Someone, not something.

Part and parcel of being in the Tiber is to accept what the Church disciplines are, especially those regarding the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

It can not be read in your post as the most important section is missing

 

[jmcrae]

We don’t know the actual timespan. 10 years? 20 years? I don’t know; I haven’t seen it documented anywhere. It’s widespread but not universal – I don’t remember it happening at my parish 20 years ago.

It has been around in Calgary since the early 1980s, which puts it back to about 30 years. It may have had some connection to the Charismatic movement, which had a lot of Protestants in it, back in those days.

 

[benedictgal]

Based on what authority can you assess that? an how do you know it is a “novelties” for many mass is not a series of “novelties” Please be specific on who is doing what that qualifies as wrong. I would waste even more time pointing out that the CDWDS do not say this is “wrong” nor did they say it is “illicit” some progress :clapping: ACTUALLY THE CDWDS NEVER SAID IT WAS AN ILLICIT PRACTICE AND WHERE IS THAT STATED IN THE DOCUMENT? As posted eariler the practice of receiving communion in a wheelchair is contradiction to the writings which say to stand or kneel Based on what authority can you assess that? I would say these people show more respect, as many simply receive regardless of rulesBased on what authority can you assess that this person or any other " do not take into account " ?

btw - if you would like to review the letter

You seem to be very adamant that this practice is legitimage, even though the CDWDS clearly indicates that it is expressly discouraged. Licit means that something is allowed. However, when something is expressly discouraged, it means that it is not allowed and, therefore, ilicit.

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

 

[japhy]

Have you read the letter or, with all due respect, are you merely picking only the parts that are in agreement with you.

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

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

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

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Ok, that was a bad choice of words, I admit. Allow me to rephrase:

New liturgical disciplines and practices can begin (instead of “pop up”) with our without permission. When it is with permission, sometimes it is because someone has specifically requested it, but sometimes not.

Nothing should be added to the liturgy without permission. The liturgy is not mine or yours to do with as we please.

Cute. While the Holy Spirit may have inspired people who can’t receive Communion to approach a priest for a blessing, He has not necessarily inspired them to do it during Mass during the Communion procession. There are arguably better times for it to happen. And I don’t think the Holy Spirit is prone to instilling disobedience to the lawful liturgy of the Church, but I guess I could be wrong there.

I already admitted as much.

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

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

Hope that helps