Is it proper to go up for a blessing when not receiving Communion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kristina_P
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PatienceAndLove said:
But if you read the whole account of the event, it was with great understanding on both sides as to the reasoning.
Click to expand...
PandL,

I know…I was just giving a reason “why” some may feel this (blessings @ communion) is acceptable practice.
 
RebeccaJ said:
For those unable to receive Communion, an increasingly common practice is to approach the minister with arms folded for a blessing. While that may reflect ecumenical sensitivities, it has not been proposed by Vatican liturgical officials and does not have their endorsement.

One official said that when people ask about this, the Vatican’s worship congregation tells them that the Communion line is not a place to give a blessing – and in any case a blessing is received by everyone at the end of the Mass. A blessing as a substitute for the Eucharist is viewed as liturgically confusing and seems to promote the idea that everyone should come forward to get something at Communion time, the official said.
Click to expand...
RebeccaJ said:
That is what it looks like, but I would have to ask the bishop to know for sure.
Click to expand...
Why ask the Bishop when as per your own post the Vatican has given their view on this already??
 
wifeandmomoftwo said:
Why ask the Bishop when as per your own post the Vatican has given their view on this already??
Click to expand...
Different subject I think, but one of my struggles is with religious authority. So, I had this conversation with our RCIA dcn about authoritative vs authoritarian.

In light of this he has been explaining to us RCIA’ers the roles of Pope and Bishop and what that all has to do with us, personally.

He tells us that the Bishop is the one who has canonical authority and is the representative of the Holy See, in our diocese. And that all clergy are accountable to him. So I’m thinking, that if blessings in the communion line are being given, in the Cathedral, that it is the Bishop who would know why it is accepted.
 
RebeccaJ said:
Different subject I think, but one of my struggles is with religious authority. So, I had this conversation with our RCIA dcn about authoritative vs authoritarian.

In light of this he has been explaining to us RCIA’ers the roles of Pope and Bishop and what that all has to do with us, personally.

He tells us that the Bishop is the one who has canonical authority and is the representative of the Holy See, in our diocese. And that all clergy are accountable to him. So I’m thinking, that if blessings in the communion line are being given, in the Cathedral, that it is the Bishop who would know why it is accepted.
Click to expand...
Please bear in mind that even bishops are relatively limited in what they can do to licitly alter the form of the Mass. As the “high priest” of a diocese, they are canonically bound with the grave responsibility of protecting and preserving the integrity of the Mass, and not allowing any adulterations.

Of course, illicit accretions such as communion-line blessings (or alterations or deletions) are nothing but liturgical abuses and they happen all the time, with or without the bishop’s knowledge or consent.

And remember, a liturgical abuse does not become licit just because a bishop tacitly or overtly permits it. A liturgical abuse is a liturgical abuse, and communion-line blessings are a defacto liturgical abuse.
 
This whole topic and discussion just proves the point of Benedict XVI when he used the words “smaller purer church” I say Bring it on PAPA BENNY …BRING IT ON!!! Its high time we become that smaller purer church he has mentioned so many times.
 
lepanto said:
Please bear in mind that even bishops are relatively limited in what they can do to licitly alter the form of the Mass. As the “high priest” of a diocese, they are canonically bound with the grave responsibility of protecting and preserving the integrity of the Mass, and not allowing any adulterations.

Of course, illicit accretions such as communion-line blessings (or alterations or deletions) are nothing but liturgical abuses and they happen all the time, with or without the bishop’s knowledge or consent.

And remember, a liturgical abuse does not become licit just because a bishop tacitly or overtly permits it. A liturgical abuse is a liturgical abuse, and communion-line blessings are a defacto liturgical abuse.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your fervor and I understand the defense you are making and why. But it seems a heavy charge to be making against what is obviously a very large group of Bishops. Not only saying they are canonical abusers but also shirking their responsibilities. Before I would agree to such charges, I would like to understand their reasoning and their position.
 
THurifer2 said:
This whole topic and discussion just proves the point of Benedict XVI when he used the words “smaller purer church” I say Bring it on PAPA BENNY …BRING IT ON!!! Its high time we become that smaller purer church he has mentioned so many times.
Click to expand...
What makes you so sure you’re one of the “we” rather than the “them” ? 🙂
 
RebeccaJ said:
Different subject I think, but one of my struggles is with religious authority. So, I had this conversation with our RCIA dcn about authoritative vs authoritarian.

In light of this he has been explaining to us RCIA’ers the roles of Pope and Bishop and what that all has to do with us, personally.

He tells us that the Bishop is the one who has canonical authority and is the representative of the Holy See, in our diocese. And that all clergy are accountable to him. So I’m thinking, that if blessings in the communion line are being given, in the Cathedral, that it is the Bishop who would know why it is accepted.
Click to expand...
So as per the article While that may reflect ecumenical sensitivities, it has not been proposed by Vatican liturgical officials and does not have their endorsement.
you would still do it becuase it is ok in your Bishops eyes?

I am rather confused:confused:
 
wifeandmomoftwo said:
So as per the article While that may reflect ecumenical sensitivities, it has not been proposed by Vatican liturgical officials and does not have their endorsement.
you would still do it becuase it is ok in your Bishops eyes?

I am rather confused:confused:
Click to expand...
Personally, no. As I have already said, I’m waiting until the Church receives me.
 
RebeccaJ said:
I appreciate your fervor and I understand the defense you are making and why. But it seems a heavy charge to be making against what is obviously a very large group of Bishops. Not only saying they are canonical abusers but also shirking their responsibilities. Before I would agree to such charges, I would like to understand their reasoning and their position.
Click to expand...
Unless a bishop talks about the matter in public, I have no idea what his reasoning is. In such a case, for me to suggest his possible reasoning would be speculation.

However, we’re not blind, and we don’t check our intelligence in the narthex. We can only judge by the actions which we observe.
 
ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur81.htm

In many parishes, like mine, EMHCs are instructed by their pastors to impart a blessing to non-communicants, because it is the local custom, with full awareness of the bishop. The EMHCs do not make the sign of the cross as do the priests and deacons. If there is any potential sin to this, it would belong to the pastor, not to the EMHCs.
 
In my Parrish, our Priest gives a blessing to children and RCIA people who come forward during Communion. I am not bothered by this.

In our Parrish it is explained to our people in RCIA that while our priest does this it is not done by all priests in every Parrish. However, if our Priest should leave and be replaced by one that did not offer blessing at Communion, I would follow the lead of my new Priest.

My own opinion is that it is a beautiful thing and I have noticed that it can be of immense benefit to the faith formation and faith journey of the Catechumen and the Candidate.
The people in our Parrish who I have spoken to about this practice feel they themselves are blessed to see the children and the RCIA people receive a blessing.
I have been unable to find anyone in our Parrish who begrudges or objects to the practice.

Having said this, I must admit I have been appalled by the exhibition the smug, glib, petulant, haughty, pugnacious, self righteous, mean and supercilious attitude of some of the participants in this discussion.
I am one of those who experiences great joy to notice those who seek a blessing with us when I am going to the front to receive Holy Communion. I would try to explain this to two or three of you, but I have noticed that you are as incapable of understanding as you are incapable of compassion.
Two or three of the people in this discussion seem to have been far more successful at emulating Dr. Laura or Bill O’Reilly than emulating Jesus Christ.
I am sorry, I missed that part of the Bible, or the GIRM or whatever it is you are reading that lead you to think that the mission to die to self and try to emulate Christ could be substituted for a cold blast of smug self righteous petulance.
When some thoughtful writers on this discussion tried to call for insight and kindness their attempt was responded to with the tired and juvenile resort to petulance : … " all I did was follow the RULES … are you against following the RULES ???" .
No thinking person could listen to this sop and not recall the similar line " I was only following orders … "
But, really, no one spoke against the rules, now did they?

There has been a quest for clarification and understanding on the part of some, and no champion of the rules has pointed to the one where the Holy Father or the Church has forbidden the practice. Clearly the practice is not a secret. I’m guessing the Vatican has the phone number of every Bishop in the country and could stop the practice if the thinking was that it was so “abusive” that it should cease.
As much as the mean spirited in this discussion would like to deny it, much of this discussion has been in regard to their nauseating attitude.
I began to experience revulsion when one of our writers as much as " high fived" the other for having fixed her stony stare on the hapless girl who came up for a blessing.
It was hard to avoid the impression that the one had been just waiting for the chance to deny, like waiting in ambush for the chance to say no with a silent stare. It was hard to avoid the impression that the denial gave the person a dizzying sense of
joy and deep personal satisfaction. It is nearly impossible to read the remarks of some of the writers and not get a perception that a spine tingling joy was obtained by both the one who committed this observance of the rules and those who enjoyed the act vicariously.
That display of disgusting mean self satisfaction, and not any
"rule " is what others have tried to disagree with.

The sense of depressing disgust only deepens upon contemplation of the significance of other remarks, like the one about a wanting smaller Church.
Yeah, go ahead and amuse yourself with the notion that it is the wish of our Pope to DECREASE the Church.
I must have missed that part of the Gospel where Christ enjoined us to diminish His church.
Of course, another peach was the posting which came awfully close to advising a catechumen to defy and or disobey her Bishop. Right, there’s good faith formation and reliable Catholic teaching.

I hope the gist of my response is discernible. The rules are the rules, but they are not to be used as a lash, they are not a rationalization for a mean spirit. For those of you who feel compelled never the less to put me in my place, who feel called to lash me with your ever so right self-righteousness and your GIRM, please so do by all means.

Meanwhile, I will follow the advice of my Priest and pray that our Lord will bless me and my Parrish as he has blessed yours and that he will bless you and your Parrish as He has blessed me and mine.
 
Solid_Catholic said:
The sense of depressing disgust only deepens upon contemplation of the significance of other remarks, like the one about a wanting smaller Church.
Yeah, go ahead and amuse yourself with the notion that it is the wish of our Pope to DECREASE the Church.

.
Click to expand...
So you are discusted by Pope Benedict XVI? He is the one who has more than once used the phrase “smaller purer, church”

I was simple repeating what he said.

People need to realize that prior to VII there was a Mass of the catechumens…which mandated that the catechumens leave prior to the second part of the Mass which was called the Mass of the Faithful.

based on some replies here I can only assume that many here would think that the Extraordinary Rite of the Mass (Tridentine) is a Horrible hateful and exclusive event. That is mean spirited towards those who cannot recieve.

I
 
I would like to applaud Solid Catholic for their post :clapping:

Some of us appreciate your thoughtful and well written response. You will notice that the substance of your post will be ignored (which it has) and immediately accused of hating anything pre-Vatican II (which you were) to try to prove something that you never said to begin with. But I’m sure you’re okay with that, because it only helps prove your point.

Solid Catholic wrote: As much as the mean spirited in this discussion would like to deny it, much of this discussion has been in regard to their nauseating attitude. BINGO! But it will be denied or ignored entirely and the the rest of us will be clubbed over the head for calling them out on their conduct towards their fellow Christians and they will immediately begin to “high five” each other for their “standing firm to the rules” bit. Nevertheless, before the chest beating begins I wanted to say “Thank You” once again for your post. There are a lot of people who simply read these forums and choose not to post. So, hopefully, they will see that not all Catholics behave this way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top