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

[ac_claire]

I am so thankful for this thread. On my journey home I have been attending Mass since Feb. 2008. I have been going up for blessing as suggested by one of the RCIA leaders. I have felt very very very blessed just being that close to Christ’s body and soul, blood and divinity as represented…

BUT since this is a practice that should not be done, I will discontinue doing so and will remain in my pew. It slows things up also, especially when also there IS a blessing by the priest at the end.

I am now teaching my sister, husband and son who are starting to attend Mass. Now I can teach them the right way. We will sit in our pews and pray. When we are confirmed, then we can go up to receive WHO, instead of WHAT.

And you are right, it isn’t what a person should be doing that feels what they want,. Receiving our Lord should not be based on feelings, but intellect and belief…as Michael Voris said last night in #56 on New Age and Spiritualism.

Great thread – thank you Benedictgal and FrDavid and others for enlightening me.

And as to the poster who said too many rules?:?? I thank God I belong to the One True Church (well almost belong – i’m swmming that rigver as fast as I can)that does have some rules…during my lifelong wandering through protestant churches I used to alw3ays think “Who’s in CHARGE HERE?” “Somone should be in CHARGE of this.”

sorry for typos – nails are too long

Don’t be sorry lol! Thanks for such an awesome post and testimony! I’m with ya, I don’t go up for the blessing either.

When I was a little kid and they started this practice, I went up and long story short, I accidentally received the Blessed Sacrament in the confusion. I was unbaptised at the time and no business going up there, period. Communicants go up for communion. Makes sense, right? Everyone else stays in the pew and makes a spiritual communion. What’s so complicated about this?

 

[vocatio]

Vocatio, early on in this thread, I posted something from the Congregration for the Clergy regarding the Collaboration of the Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of the Priest. The document, which was signed by two popes, the late Pope John Paul II, and the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, in his capacity as Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. This document definitively states that:

Your pastor and parochial vicar do not have the right to confer on anyone what the Holy See, itself, has not conferred. We are not allowed to use any gestures or actions which are proper to the celebrant. Even the deacons have this prohibition.

This comes directly from the Holy See. An EMHC would not be rebellious if he refused to obey his pastor, especially if the pastor or the associate is asking him to do something that is contrary to what the Church requires.

Regarding emeralcoast’s post, I would refer her to re-read my initial response. We consume the flesh and blood of the Living God. Someone who is alive has both flesh and blood. When someone dies, the two separate. Therefore, Christ is contained completly, Flesh, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Host.

That’s nice. But it doesn’t stop anything. So why not start an army and protest by pronouncing war. I’m mean come on, what are you really going to get done except exhiled from the parish if you don’t watch yourself. Pick your fights. There are many other things that must be dealt with. I see gradually several things changing over time to more orthodox practices. I really don’t know that there is anything to do or that in particular I could do. I’ve heard time and time again on both EWTN and CAF not to be disrespectful. I’ve also heard the priests talk about this as well. But I haven’t been to a mass yet where I didn’t see some similar or worst abuse. Our mass IS the most orthodox in the area we live. Like I’ve said before, if it were up to me I’d be Orthodox or Eastern Catholic. I prefer that rite even over the TLM. I want to go back to the way it was in the early church. So although I see the document I am not equiped to do anything real about it. I am placing this in God’s hands and I expect God to handle this until he gives me guidance. I’ve already been in one major scandal ultimately resulting in at least one priest being “laicized” so to speak. I don’t need more. I am minding my own business as I learn. As student doesn’t approach his master with all the answers. He humbly submits and gives proper respect to his master/teacher. When the student becomes the master he then can make corrections as seen. I’m no change agent. But thank you for the link. I will put it on my lengthy reading list and as I learn I wil attempt to apply that knowledge. But in the mean time I am submitting as I ought.

I’ve already fallen away from the Church ones over abuses. I don’t want to hurt my son’s vocation to the priesthood. I teach him correctly with patient endurance. Father is a very good priest. I don’t know if he’s submitting or if he’s just avoiding the title wave of abuse form the bishop or not if he disapproves. He doesn’t always seem to agree but like a good priest he submits to the ordinary since the ordinary can remove his faculties. And with a shortage of priests it may be more prudent to just continue to submit in perfect obedience. I know that he is by far the best priest I have ever known. Our pastors are out of their territory and on loan doing mission work in our parish. So many here on the forums seem to forget that bishops, priests, deacons, religious take vows of obedience. A decision must be made as to whether we need priests or none that will say masses. I choose this parish out of all of the others that are far worst in abuses. No one bows in the Nicene Creed as instructed which is even worst to me. This parish is the only one I see reverence. The others are almost clown masses in my opinion.

 

[I_Believe]

Hi Ed, Fr David has given a straight up answer. It’s not an approved practice. That’s the bottom line.

Besides, there is something we call Spiritual Communion, which is appropriate for times when we can’t receive Holy Communion.

Also, don’t forget, at the end of Mass, we receive a blessing from the priest. No one leaves Mass without receiving a blessing unless they leave early.

J+M+J

Yet it still happens, and apparently is very common.

Sure it does. It’s called cafeteria catholicism. It’s the old, " Fr., wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could start doing this or that at Mass ?"

I have no problem with the Ordinary Form of the Mass, nor it’s rubrics. But some do have a problem with it, and they want to tweak it, add rubrics, delete parts of it, whatever. They want to have their own little parish’s signature Mass.

The word Catholic does have a definition.
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/catholic

Go to the OF Mass at 10 different parishes. You’ll likely see 10 forms of what should be 1 form.

 

[Newbie2]

This is quite true. Also your associate has instructed you to ignore the norms established by Rome. You said Rome should give instructions. Rome has. They are being ignored. You are participating in the abuse by going along with it. You said that the chatter is more annoying than the blessing. They are both wrong. Which is more wrong or annoying is irrelevant.

Did I? Musta forgot what I said.

In any case, I see it more as an abberation than an abuse.

 

[Imperator]

The Catholic Church does not prohibit (or encourage) people who are unable to receive Holy Communion from processing up for a blessing during Holy Communion. The Church intentionally leaves this decision to the local ordinary:

youtube.com/watch?v=-YorjE844mc (Begin watching at 2:20)

 

[vocatio]

I think that settled it. Ask your Pastor and if worst comes to worst ask your bishop or representative. But a good pastor typically obeys the local ordinary. youtube.com/watch?v=-YorjE844mc
worth posting a second time.

Pax et bonum!

 

[zab]

The Catholic Church does not prohibit (or encourage) people who are unable to receive Holy Communion from processing up for a blessing during Holy Communion. The Church intentionally leaves this decision to the local ordinary:

youtube.com/watch?v=-YorjE844mc (Begin watching at 2:20)

Thank you for sharing this video.

 

[zab]

Sure it does. It’s called cafeteria catholicism. It’s the old, " Fr., wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could start doing this or that at Mass ?"

I have no problem with the Ordinary Form of the Mass, nor it’s rubrics. But some do have a problem with it, and they want to tweak it, add rubrics, delete parts of it, whatever. They want to have their own little parish’s signature Mass.

The word Catholic does have a definition.
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/catholic

Go to the OF Mass at 10 different parishes. You’ll likely see 10 forms of what should be 1 form.

One should be careful not to falsely judge those who go up for a blessing. Referring to these people as cafeteria catholics is wrong.

 

[vocatio]

Thank you for sharing this video.

Same here. I appreciate this too. It certainly explains a lot of things. It also points out that there are a lot of legalists that seem to know more than the bishops and priests everywhere.

 

[Aramis]

I think that settled it. Ask your Pastor and if worst comes to worst ask your bishop or representative. But a good pastor typically obeys the local ordinary. youtube.com/watch?v=-YorjE844mc
worth posting a second time.

Pax et bonum!

Transcript of it for those at work:

When asked about children going forward for a blessing:
Cardinal Arinze:

There is No liturgical directive against that, and there is no liturgical directive in favor of that. None.

Therefore, it is left to local practice. I would like you to know there are very few countries where that is done. United states is one… and perhaps Britain.

Most countries in the world don’t do it. In most parts of the world, when it is time for holy communion, only those who de facto are coming to receive communion come forward.

Never the less, there are some parts, where, a protestant, who knows he should not receive communion, comes and gets a blessing. Or even a Catholic who knows he should not receive communion, we are not to ask him why, we are not God, to judge the conscience, comes and gets a blessing. So, it is done in some countries.

We examined it, in Rome, when we wrote the document on the Holy Eucharist, RS, 3 or 4 years ago.

We decided to say nothing about it, you know that, in order to allow freedom to the diocese. Therefore a bishop has the right to say, “Please don’t do it this way,” or “do it the other way.” It is not a point worth fighting over. Therefore, follow the directive of the bishop on that point.

 

[benedictgal]

Thank you for the transcript, Aramis. It certainly helps, especially if you have dial-up and youtube keeps dying.

As Cardinal Arinze noted, the big problem is that none of this is codified in the GIRM nor even in the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy. People have tried to use the youtube video to justify the practice. It showed up in another thread.

Now, unlike other liturgical matters (that have been addressed in writing and within the documents), something in writing, other than an oral statement, would need to come out to clarify things. In the case of, let’s say, liturgical dancing, documentation as early as 1975 exists saying that this should not be done because it has no tradition in the Latin Rite liturgy. Notice that he said that this seems to be an American notion, and, perhaps something that is also done in the UK. The Cardinal Prefect is highly respected. It is his hand that wrote Redemptionis Sacramentum, with the collaboration of the former Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. I also believe that he knows how extensive this practrice has been and some of the pitfalls that are involved with this blessing in lieu of receiving Holy Communion. He has noted on numerous occasions that personal idiosyncracies should not be introduced into the Mass.

However, even at the local level, I believe that our bishops could at least, perhaps, also look at the historical and traditional aspect. That is something that needs to be examined. In fact, that is how the Church has looked at the entire liturgical picture, centering on organic development. If we were to somehow transport ourselves back to the days of the early Church, we would find that this “blessing” did not exist. People assembled for the Holy Sacrifice. The sacrifice was complete when the Victim, in our case, Jesus Christ, was consumed. People risked their lives to protect this sacrament. People attended and assisted at this Sacrifice at the cost of their lives. The Church took great safeguards to the point that only those who could communicate were admitted into the Liturgy of the Eucharist. There is no record of a blessing being imparted in lieu of receiving Holy Communion. If that were the case, this practice would have been codified into the Latin Rite. As it stands, there is no historical, let alone, Traditional record of this ever happening.

By the way, a letter has already been sent to Rome asking for clarification on this practice. I called the Congregation for Divine Worship on a more serious matter and towards the end of the conversation, I asked the cleric who assited me and my father (I stayed on for translational purposes) about EMHCs imparting a blessing. He said that this was certainly not allowed and he noted the same document that I have been quoting, the one from the Congregation for Clergy that was issued back in 1997. I should have asked him about the more broader question, but, when you are talking to the Holy See at 3AM the brain is not as sharp (even after downing three Dr. Pepper’s). He did ask me to reduce that question to writing. The letter has already arrived so we are now awaiting our response (the question was imbedded within a document that the Congregation requested from my father, but, they did say that we could include other pertinent matters).

As soon as this response comes back (maybe a month or two from now), I will share it with you.

 

[zab]

Like Archbishop Arinze said, “It is not a point worth fighting over.”. “Therefore, follow the directive of the local bishop.”

 

[benedictgal]

However, it wouldn’t hurt if the local Ordinary also looks at the lack of historical and Traditional precedence for this practice. Furthermore, one would also do well examining carefully what Pope Benedict notes in Sacramentum Caritatis, where he writes, in part:

The distribution and reception of the Eucharist

1. Another moment of the celebration needing to be mentioned is the distribution and reception of Holy Communion. I ask everyone, especially ordained ministers and those who, after adequate preparation and in cases of genuine need, are authorized to exercise the ministry of distributing the Eucharist, to make every effort to ensure that this simple act preserves its importance as a personal encounter with the Lord Jesus in the sacrament. For the rules governing correct practice in this regard, I would refer to those documents recently issued on the subject. (151) All Christian communities are to observe the current norms faithfully, seeing in them an expression of the faith and love with which we all must regard this sublime sacrament. Furthermore, the precious time of thanksgiving after communion should not be neglected: besides the singing of an appropriate hymn, it can also be most helpful to remain recollected in silence. (152)

In this regard, I would like to call attention to a pastoral problem frequently encountered nowadays. I am referring to the fact that on certain occasions – for example, wedding Masses, funerals and the like – in addition to practicing Catholics there may be others present who have long since ceased to attend Mass or are living in a situation which does not permit them to receive the sacraments. At other times members of other Christian confessions and even other religions may be present. Similar situations can occur in churches that are frequently visited, especially in tourist areas. In these cases, there is a need to find a brief and clear way to remind those present of the meaning of sacramental communion and the conditions required for its reception.

Notice that he doesn’t even mention the imparting of a blessing. In the case of many parishes, there are some weddings that occur during the parish’s Anticipated Sunday Mass (celebrated late afternoon or early evening on a Saturday). Notice the last line where he says that there is a need to briefly and cleearly remind those present what sacramental communion means and the disposition one must have in order to receive Our Lord. He makes no mention at all of receiving a blessing.

By the way, the Prefect is Francis Cardinal Arinze.

One question that I would ask those who support this blessing in lieu of communion: why not support making a spiritual communion? There is clearly a strong, centuries-old tradition for this practice and it has always been encouraged. A spritual communion entails remaining in your prew and being in silent prayer, inviting Jesus into your heart until such time as you can receive. This practice has been advocated by the saints down through the centuries. It is a part of the Tradition of the Church.

Something else to consider as well is the fact that the Church never made provisions for receiving a blessing in lieu of Holy Communion becasue it was always understood that communicants approached the altar already properly disposed, as Pope Benedict points out in Sacramentum Caritatis (where he notes that a brief statement be made regarding the conditions for Holy Communion). It was never mentioned because it was never an issue. You line up if you are going to receive Our Lord. The blessing comes at the end of Mass and is applicable to all present. It is something to think about, especially where a precedent already exists for making a spiritual communion.

 

[Imperator]

In no way did Cardinal Arinze suggest it was in any way problematic for this matter not to have been clearly defined/instructed in the GIRM.

Quite the contrary. During the crafting of RS he said the Church intentionally left this matter up to local ordinaries.

This matter is perfect example of a clear non-issue.

 

[zab]

However, it wouldn’t hurt if the local Ordinary also looks at the lack of historical and Traditional precedence for this practice. Furthermore, one would also do well examining carefully what Pope Benedict notes in Sacramentum Caritatis, where he writes, in part:

Notice that he doesn’t even mention the imparting of a blessing. In the case of many parishes, there are some weddings that occur during the parish’s Anticipated Sunday Mass (celebrated late afternoon or early evening on a Saturday). Notice the last line where he says that there is a need to briefly and cleearly remind those present what sacramental communion means and the disposition one must have in order to receive Our Lord. He makes no mention at all of receiving a blessing.

By the way, the Prefect is Francis Cardinal Arinze.

One question that I would ask those who support this blessing in lieu of communion: why not support making a spiritual communion? There is clearly a strong, centuries-old tradition for this practice and it has always been encouraged. A spritual communion entails remaining in your prew and being in silent prayer, inviting Jesus into your heart until such time as you can receive. This practice has been advocated by the saints down through the centuries.

Cardinal Arinze said they discussed this in Rome four years ago when they wrote “Redemptionis Sacramentum”, the Document on the Eucharist and **they decided to say nothing about it in order to allow freedom to the diocese. **
Why do you want to deny the bishop his authority?

 

[benedictgal]

In no way did Cardinal Arinze suggest it was in any way problematic for this matter not to have been clearly defined/instructed in the GIRM.

Quite the contrary. During the crafting of RS he said the Church intentionally left this matter up to local ordinaries.

This matter is a complete non-issue.

Let’s look at it from a different approach. A priest may impart such a blessing, but, not a layman serving as an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. That would violate both RS, the GIRM and the 1997 document from the Congregation for Clergy (On Certain Collaborations of the Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of the Clergy). EMHCs cannot impart a blessing because thst is reserved for the celebrant. All we can do is assist in the distribution of Holy Communion under specific parameters. We are not authorized to do anything else.

You may think that this is a non-issue as far as the priest/celebrant is concerned, but, it’s a whole different ballgame when you bring in the EMHCs.

Furthermore, what is wrong with suggesting that the bishop look at the lack of historical and traditional evidence when examining this practice? Part of exercising authority is to also do it responsibly. Responsibly would entail looking at all of the sides of an issue which would certainly include, in this case, historical and traditional precedence and the reasons why we line up in the first place. If the early Church had no record of this (and we have the Didache and the writings of the early Church Fathers as evidence) then it has no clear basis in tradition and is an innovation that causes a lot of confusion. Furthermore, it would behoove the local ordinary to further examine the point: why do we line up in the first place?

Given the fact that Cardinal Arinze mentioned that this was mostly an American issue, I would suspect that it is because of the mentality that we have that we have to all receive something, if we cannot receive Someone.

So, it’s more than just giving carte-blanche approval. The bishop should look at all sides. What is wrong with a careful examination before emabarking on a practice?

 

[zab]

Let’s look at it from a different approach. A priest may impart such a blessing, but, not a layman serving as an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. That would violate both RS, the GIRM and the 1997 document from the Congregation for Clergy (On Certain Collaborations of the Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of the Clergy). EMHCs cannot impart a blessing because thst is reserved for the celebrant. All we can do is assist in the distribution of Holy Communion under specific parameters. We are not authorized to do anything else.

You may think that this is a non-issue as far as the priest/celebrant is concerned, but, it’s a whole different ballgame when you bring in the EMHCs.

Furthermore, what is wrong with suggesting that the bishop look at the lack of historical and traditional evidence when examining this practice? Part of exercising authority is to also do it responsibly. Responsibly would entail looking at all of the sides of an issue which would certainly include, in this case, historical and traditional precedence and the reasons why we line up in the first place. If the early Church had no record of this (and we have the Didache and the writings of the early Church Fathers as evidence) then it has no clear basis in tradition and is an innovation that causes a lot of confusion. Furthermore, it would behoove the local ordinary to further examine the point: why do we line up in the first place?

Given the fact that Cardinal Arinze mentioned that this was mostly an American issue, I would suspect that it is because of the mentality that we have that we have to all receive something, if we cannot receive Someone.

So, it’s more than just giving carte-blanche approval. The bishop should look at all sides. What is wrong with a careful examination before emabarking on a practice?

Well just suppose that our bishop has examined this and decided that the practice should continue. He has the authority to do this. Who are we to tell the bishop that he is wrong? It is our duty to follow the direction of our bishop.

 

[Imperator]

Cardinal Arinze said they discussed this in Rome four years ago when they wrote “Redemptionis Sacramentum”, the Document on the Eucharist and **they decided to say nothing about it in order to allow freedom to the diocese. **
Why do you want to deny the bishop his authority?

There will always be people who disagree with the Church and work to place their opinions ahead of what the Church has actually instructed (or not instructed.)

Dissent comes from every different angle. From the most progressive to the most traditionalist. Some are just more honest about their intentions – with themselves and with others.

Pure orthodoxy is indeed a rare quality.

 

[Newbie2]

Well, this topic certainly has been beaten to death. LOL Until the next “blessing” thread comes up.

 

[benedictgal]

There will always be people who disagree with the Church and work to place their opinions ahead of what the Church has actually instructed (or not instructed.)

Dissent comes from every different angle. From the most progressive to the most traditionalist. Some are just more honest about their intentions – with themselves and with others.

Pure orthodoxy is indeed a rare quality.

One cannot characterize this as “dissent” if this issue is not a part of the GIRM nor has any basis in any of the authoritative liturgical documents of the Holy See.

Therefore, I pose the question once more: what is wrong with a bishop taking a careful look at all sides before issuing a directive? Yes, the Prefect has left it to the bishops to decide, but, that is with the understanding that all things and factors should be considered.

It’s interesting that one of the things that was discussed at the Second Vatican Council was the notion of “resourcement”, looking back at the sources as to why we have celebrated the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and how it has evolved down through the centuries. If we were to use the “resourcement” notion, that many have used to justify practices within the Holy Sacrifice, we would find that there is no basis in liturgical Tradition (nor in the organic development, for that matter) for a blessing to be imparted in lieu of receiving Holy Communion.

Wasn’t St. Paul the one who admonished the faithful to “test all things”? Why would it be dissent to explore the matter further, especially since this issue is not even codified in the books? If something is not codified, then there is no dissent involved, a difference of opinion, yes, but not dissent. Dissent factors in when someone challenges a legitimate, codified practice.