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

[FrDavid96]

The practice of the ancient Church was that those who were not initiated (and sometimes those who were unworthy to receive) did not even take part in the Mass of the Faithful (what we now call the Liturgy of the Eucharist); they were dismissed before the Creed. Since they were not even there, it is quite obvious that they did not come forward to receive a blessing.
The idea of anyone coming forward during Communion for anything other than to receive is a very very recent innovation. That leads me to believe that the criteria of “organic development” is very difficult to justify here.
It’s roughly 20 years old. That means that for roughly every year it has been done, we have a century of years that it has not been done.

 

[Aramis]

The practice of the ancient Church was that those who were not initiated (and sometimes those who were unworthy to receive) did not even take part in the Mass of the Faithful (what we now call the Liturgy of the Eucharist); they were dismissed before the Creed. Since they were not even there, it is quite obvious that they did not come forward to receive a blessing.
The idea of anyone coming forward during Communion for anything other than to receive is a very very recent innovation. That leads me to believe that the criteria of “organic development” is very difficult to justify here.
It’s roughly 20 years old. That means that for roughly every year it has been done, we have a century of years that it has not been done.

In cases where the bishop has explicitly permitted it, it is permitted; othewise, it’s not appropriate.

The problem is that it’s not clear who has and has not, and further, it’s not readily justified outside the context of innovation.

 

[FrDavid96]

In cases where the bishop has explicitly permitted it, it is permitted; othewise, it’s not appropriate.

The problem is that it’s not clear who has and has not, and further, it’s not readily justified outside the context of innovation.

That’s not quite the case. The bishop can and does regulate the Liturgy within his own diocese, but that is not expanded to mean that the bishop can do, or approve, whatever he pleases in the Mass. Just because a bishop approves something, still doesn’t necessarily make it right.

 

[Aramis]

That’s not quite the case. The bishop can and does regulate the Liturgy within his own diocese, but that is not expanded to mean that the bishop can do, or approve, whatever he pleases in the Mass. Just because a bishop approves something, still doesn’t necessarily make it right.

It does, however, make it explicitly non-wrong for the faithful of his diocese, unless and until explicitly reversed by higher authority.

Now, when inconsistent with good faith, the people should complain about it to their bishop. And, since RS, to the SC on Liturgy.

I wonder how many bishops actually approve of it, how many actively disapprove, and how many just “inherited” it, and took no action.

 

[vocatio]

FrDavid96,
The practice of the ancient Church was that those who were not initiated (and sometimes those who were unworthy to receive) did not even take part in the Mass of the Faithful (what we now call the Liturgy of the Eucharist); they were dismissed before the Creed.
And you think you know the ancient church? Please believe me when I say this, there is no way you know what the ancient church practices are from what you’ve posted here. My perception even based on what you just stated. “WORTHY”??? No one is worthy to receive. Also the was referred to as the Divine Liturgy. The ancient church was much more different than event even the Triditine Latin Mass. However, the same necessary elements were present. If you visit an Eastern Church you wil find that they typically confess on the day of the Liturgy. That is why very few actually reaceive every Sunday. Go chat with the Eastern Orhtodox or the Eastern Catholics, especially fromother countries.

Changes in the mass have occurred over the centuries from the very beginning. But the essensials have always been present. According to your assumptions we should receive the precious blood as well, since that is the norm of the ancient church, however for centuries this was prohibited. St. John Chrysostom shortened the Liturgy …trimmed, modified, whatever term suits you. Anyhow it resulted in cutting off an hour to and hour and a half. Let’s be real, I’m no Liturgical expert, but then neither are any of us here from what I see. Humility should be used when approaching such things as Liturgical acts we believe we know better than the priest, bishop, deacons or laity. Charity is in order…always. Let’s be kind with each other. There were several revisions made here and there for various reasons. more] Yes. Some of what you said is true. But for someone with a microscope on the rest of us you really dropped the ball with the “WORTHY” comment in my opinion.

Since they were not even there, it is quite obvious that they did not come forward to receive a blessing. Again. Changes were made for various reasons. Specifically to shorten the very long Liturgy. Also, confessions were done prior to the Divine Liturgy. This was part of the ancient church.

The idea of anyone coming forward during Communion for anything other than to receive is a very very recent innovation. So is women not wearing mantillias, and even young children attending, so is CCD in some cases new, so is the way confessions are heard, so is the number of times in a life time one can confess sins, so is the singing, so is a lot of other things. Sure you can cognitively come up with some sort of dispute on some of the things I mentioned but you’ve missed the point it seems. I’m waiting for you to start arguing that we can only confess one time in our life time now, since that is the way it was for a very long time in the early church. Several hundred years from my reading.

That leads me to believe that the criteria of “organic development” is very difficult to justify here. See my comments above. “What ever you bound on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” The Orthodox Christians would argue that this also applied to the bishops. So would the Catholic Church to some degree. only with the Bishop of Rome having premacy.

It’s roughly 20 years old. That means that for roughly every year it has been done, we have a century of years that it has not been done.
And if you put you spend more time trying to understand this with a contrite heart then you might come to understand that this has a role in eccumenism. The Cardinal did mention protestants. That’s what I think it is. I said I’d prefer not to do it and for it not to be happening. But that’s just me. I don’t judge my bishop or pastor like some on here have. This is exactly why the Church is in such termoil…pride.

 

[benedictgal]

The problem is that even Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger has made a very strong case for the issue of organic development.

The fact of the matter remains that there is no historical nor traditional liturgical basis for this action. We have the accounts of St. Justin Martyr, St. Polycarp, Pope St. Clement and the Didaache as strong evidence that this practice never happened. Furthermore, the Church Fathers do not record such activity as having taken place during the Mass.

The binding and loosening is exclusive to the Petrine Ministry which is exercised by the Holy Father. While the bishops have a share in this ministry, it is limited. In other words, a bishop cannot bind what Peter has loosed and a bishop cannot loosen what Peter has bound. The Pope is not first among equals. Like one of our presidents once said, “the buck stops” with the Pope.

Something that has been around for 20 years is merely an innovation with no basis in the history or tradition of the liturgy.

A prudent bishop would examine all aspects of the situation instead of issuing a ruling with no basis in the liturgical tradition of the Church.

I also disagree that it is a matter of pride. The bishops are not infallible. Some, including whole episcopal conferences, have been known to be in error, as indicated when Pope John Paul II took the entire Australian Bishops Conference to task because the bishops were making wholesale use of general absolution. It got to the point that Pope John Paul had to direct the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments to make perfectly clear what can and cannot be done. Furthermore, even Popes were taken to task on certain things. Take St. Catherine of Sienna. She was a simple nun, but, she had the gumption to tell the Holy Father that he had to not be afraid and move back to Rome.

Again, I refer to St. Paul’s advice: “test all things.” No one is being in dissent here since this practice doesn’t even exist, as Cardinal Arinze pointed out, in any of the authoritative liturgical documents issued by the Holy See.

 

[FrDavid96]

And you think you know the ancient church? Please believe me when I say this, there is no way you know what the ancient church practices are from what you’ve posted here. My perception even based on what you just stated. “WORTHY”??? No one is worthy to receive. Also the was referred to as the Divine Liturgy. The ancient church was much more different than event even the Triditine Latin Mass. However, the same necessary elements were present. If you visit an Eastern Church you wil find that they typically confess on the day of the Liturgy. That is why very few actually reaceive every Sunday. Go chat with the Eastern Orhtodox or the Eastern Catholics, especially fromother countries.
Your Excellency,
There was such a thing as the “dismissal of the Catechumens.” It has been restored today in the RCIA. Perhaps the people who did that should have consulted you beforehand, as they are so obviously wrong. That’s why the Russian deacon proclaims “The doors, the doors, in Wisdom let us attend!” He’s calling for the doors to be shut to keep out the uninitiated before the Creed begins. Apparently, they are also wrong for doing this, since they are unaware that the early Church did not have this practice.

Given that you have shown such incredible wisdom and deep understanding of theology and Church history in your first paragraph, I see no point in addressing the rest of your comments.

 

[vocatio]

vocatio;4468856:

Your Excellency,
There was such a thing as the “dismissal of the Catechumens.” It has been restored today in the RCIA. Perhaps the people who did that should have consulted you beforehand, as they are so obviously wrong. That’s why the Russian deacon proclaims “The doors, the doors, in Wisdom let us attend!” He’s calling for the doors to be shut to keep out the uninitiated before the Creed begins. Apparently, they are also wrong for doing this, since they are unaware that the early Church did not have this practice.

Given that you have shown such incredible wisdom and deep understanding of theology and Church history in your first paragraph, I see no point in addressing the rest of your comments.

NOw now… no need for insults. I do well enough on my own making a fool out of myself. Don’t need your help in the matter.

I think I would know that catechumens were dismissed. However, Candidates are also dismissed and probably should not. Why, because candidates are validly baptised and according to my reading are supposed to be treated much more different - but typically they’re not from what I experience. I guess I should say that my family is the “Tiber Swim Team of 2007”. DON’t confuse me for a man of wisdom. But then, you already know that. So your sarcasm is just silly to me. I’m always learning, but I always get stuck when people use terms like “worthy”.

My wisom is only that I listen to those who exhibit wisdom in restraint. That is they show me much patience. My theology is tanted with solo scriptura, part of my family heritage. My goal to be a type “B” person in my type “A” body. I told you, I’m no expert. But you are so insistent on being over the bishops [which includes the Archbishops, Cardinals and Popes] by just ignoring what is revealed to you. It’s really funny to watch someone act like a soar looser when it is obvious they have no leg to stand on. I remember as a child arguing with my siblings “…am too…are not…am too… are not…” That’s what this reminds me of.

I told you it was my “perception”…I’ll avoid giving you a link this time to the definition. But you know what I mean. The typical tactic used by those that can’t defend their stance is to kill the messenger to silence the obvious. You…We’ve been trumped by someone who had the answer. Here’s a big Thanks to Imperator for the information.

Our Franciscan pastor tells my wife that there are fundamentalist / pharasees in the Catholic Church too and when you find them STAY AWAY FROM THEM. THEY’ll ROB YOU OF JOY.

Don’t be offended …please. I’m having my fun. Not at your expense either, but more at my own. I love to make fun of myself. Keeps me humble.

 

[zab]

The problem is that even Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger has made a very strong case for the issue of organic development.

The fact of the matter remains that there is no historical nor traditional liturgical basis for this action. We have the accounts of St. Justin Martyr, St. Polycarp, Pope St. Clement and the Didaache as strong evidence that this practice never happened. Furthermore, the Church Fathers do not record such activity as having taken place during the Mass.

The binding and loosening is exclusive to the Petrine Ministry which is exercised by the Holy Father. While the bishops have a share in this ministry, it is limited. In other words, a bishop cannot bind what Peter has loosed and a bishop cannot loosen what Peter has bound. The Pope is not first among equals. Like one of our presidents once said, “the buck stops” with the Pope.

Something that has been around for 20 years is merely an innovation with no basis in the history or tradition of the liturgy.

A prudent bishop would examine all aspects of the situation instead of issuing a ruling with no basis in the liturgical tradition of the Church.

I also disagree that it is a matter of pride. The bishops are not infallible. Some, including whole episcopal conferences, have been known to be in error, as indicated when Pope John Paul II took the entire Australian Bishops Conference to task because the bishops were making wholesale use of general absolution. It got to the point that Pope John Paul had to direct the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments to make perfectly clear what can and cannot be done. Furthermore, even Popes were taken to task on certain things. Take St. Catherine of Sienna. She was a simple nun, but, she had the gumption to tell the Holy Father that he had to not be afraid and move back to Rome.

Again, I refer to St. Paul’s advice: “test all things.” No one is being in dissent here since this practice doesn’t even exist, as Cardinal Arinze pointed out, in any of the authoritative liturgical documents issued by the Holy See.

Saints, like Catherine of Sienna respected the authority of the pope and were obedient to all of those in authority. Certainly we have the right to express our concerns to our pastor, our bishop, and even the pope. But the bishops and the popes do not have to follow our recommendations. We must not presume that they did not examine the case closely if they do not rule as we believe they should. Lack of respect for the authority of the bishop is not a good sign.

 

[chrisb]

Grace and Peace,

My daughter and I are converts to Catholicism. I entered when she was around 2-3 years old. Later when our family had settled down my daughter was Baptized Catholic, this was when she was 5 years of age. She was aware she had entered the Church and she was very happy to be a Christian. I remember the first time we took communion after she had been Baptized and how heart-broken she was that she wasn’t given the Most Blessed Sacrament. She didn’t understand. I was hurt for her because she just didn’t understand. Now she really looks forward to walking up with the family and crossing her arms and receiving a blessing from the Priest or Deacons. I do too we I am unable to receive.

I’ve been to other Rites of the Catholic Church and they allow children to receive communion as well as give Blessings with the Chalice. I don’t see anything wrong with it and in fact really like the practice.

 

[AnotherChance]

[Edited]

On another note, I am grateful for this thread. I asked this question over on the Ask an Apologist thread and never got an answer. I asked it on Yahoo Answers and was given what I now realize was misinformation.

I have been taking my Catholic daughter to Mass for a year without being able to myself receive. In the parish where we used to attend, it was always logistically very difficult to stay in the pews, so once I went up for the blessing, just because large people were surrounding me and I couldn’t easily get out of the stream. This may seem odd to people who have never had to deal with the logistics of not going up to receive in a church that is literally packed wall to wall with standing room only all along the walls and the narthex and spilling out into the street.

This was a large motivation for us to start attending a more spacious church about an hour away. Now it is not difficult at all for me to stay in the pew, as we always pick an empty pew. I am glad to be able to read all of the information about the blessing, as I had no idea it was controversial.

 

[waterbrook]

I’m going through RCIA but this thread has really put me off. I’m getting the impression the the church is full of insecure people who feel challenged when those on the outside are allowed to participate; it seems as if the specialness they feel at being on the inside while others are on the outside is challenged.

In my parish we have been told we may receive a blessing at communion time and go forward to an EM. I’ve sat for many years in the pew at communion time and prayed : it seems a natural thing to do and certainly not something anyone need be instructed how to do -especially if it is to come from the heart.

I do go forward for a blessing now at times: by going forward I feel I am performing an act of self offering, that I am doing this visibly and therefore public asserting faith. In receiving a blessing I receive a reassurance that my faith is not yet strong enough to bring me. I am always left feeling thankful that Christ could be interested in me despite the povery of the self that I can bring and offer him. I think in following rules the dynamic of relationship can sometimes be lost. Communion as the phrase suggests is not just about the relationship between the individual and God it is a communal action and whilst I am not a full member of my parish community I do believe that Christ builds community, he invites people to the heavenly banquet he does not turn them away. It seems to me wholly appropriate that those Journeying towards catholic faith should not be excluded. Christ did not establish an exclusive heirarchical organisation in the first century, his first disciples were followeres of The Way. As the church has grown it has changed visibly but Christ on whom it was founded does not.

Waterbrook

 

[zab]

I’m going through RCIA but this thread has really put me off. I’m getting the impression the the church is full of insecure people who feel challenged when those on the outside are allowed to participate; it seems as if the specialness they feel at being on the inside while others are on the outside is challenged.

In my parish we have been told we may receive a blessing at communion time and go forward to an EM. I’ve sat for many years in the pew at communion time and prayed : it seems a natural thing to do and certainly not something anyone need be instructed how to do -especially if it is to come from the heart.

I do go forward for a blessing now at times: by going forward I feel I am performing an act of self offering, that I am doing this visibly and therefore public asserting faith. In receiving a blessing I receive a reassurance that my faith is not yet strong enough to bring me. I am always left feeling thankful that Christ could be interested in me despite the povery of the self that I can bring and offer him. I think in following rules the dynamic of relationship can sometimes be lost. Communion as the phrase suggests is not just about the relationship between the individual and God it is a communal action and whilst I am not a full member of my parish community I do believe that Christ builds community, he invites people to the heavenly banquet he does not turn them away. It seems to me wholly appropriate that those Journeying towards catholic faith should not be excluded. Christ did not establish an exclusive heirarchical organisation in the first century, his first disciples were followeres of The Way. As the church has grown it has changed visibly but Christ on whom it was founded does not.

Waterbrook

Waterbrook,
Even saints had their faults. Yes, we seem to be at odds with each other over how things should be done. But it is not that some want to exclude others. They are just concerned that things be done the proper way.
Your post was beautifully written. It reminded me of the Canaanite Woman that Jesus praised in Matthew 15: 21-28.

 

[benedictgal]

Saints, like Catherine of Sienna respected the authority of the pope and were obedient to all of those in authority. Certainly we have the right to express our concerns to our pastor, our bishop, and even the pope. But the bishops and the popes do not have to follow our recommendations. We must not presume that they did not examine the case closely if they do not rule as we believe they should. Lack of respect for the authority of the bishop is not a good sign.

Zab, I do not believe that you are understanding what I am saying. Nowhere in any of my posts have I advocated dissidence. Nor have I encouraged disobedience.

First of all, as Cardinal Arinze, himself, noted, this issue appears nowhere in the authoritative lturgical documents of the Holy See. The issue here is a prudential application of the authority that is granted a bishop. Exercising authority entails doing so with prudence and examining all of the facts, including historical and liturgical Tradition (which doesn’t support this notion in fhe first place). Second, it also involves looking at the impact.

As I see it, there is already a misunderstanding, as expressed in this thread, as to why people go up in line.

Originally Posted by waterbrook
I’m going through RCIA but this thread has really put me off. I’m getting the impression the the church is full of insecure people who feel challenged when those on the outside are allowed to participate; it seems as if the specialness they feel at being on the inside while others are on the outside is challenged.

It is not that those like me who are not supportive of this innovation are being unwelcoming, not at all. The problem is that the proponents of this practice perhaps may not understand that we form a line to receive Someone, not something. The early Church certainly had no qualms about this. In fact, even those who were not yet initiated couldn’t remain for the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The Liturgy of the Eucharist was only for those who were fully initiated and properly disposed to receive Holy Communion.

The other problem is that Spiritual Communion is not even brought up, as evidenced in at a couple of posts in this thread. As late as the 1980s, we were taught that if we could not receive Our Lord, we shuold remain in our pews and make a spiritual communion, asking Jesus to come into our hearts spiritually.

Now, regaridng those who are unable to receive Our Lord for a variety of reasons, let me bring up the example of my grandmother, who could not receive for over 40 years because of her divorce and invalid re-marriage. Not once did she ever complain about feeling left out. She stayed in her pew and made a spiritual communion. By the way, she was very faithful in going to Mass, even to the point of assisting at First Fridays and Triduum. I learned to love and repsect the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass from her (as did my father). It wasn’t until 1982 that she could finally receive because her anulment came through. Nonetheless, she never felt excluded because she knew that she could not receive Our Lord at the time.

The other thing to remember is the invitation that is given just prior to the reception of Holy Communion: “…happy are they who are called to His Supper.” We are called to communion. We are called to receive and eat the Body of Christ and drink of His Blood. We are not called to come forward to receive a blessing. That part comes at the end of Mass and is applicable to all.

It is unfortunate that RCIA directors are advocating a practice that has no Traditional basis in the rite and are encouraging the catechumens to go to EMHCs to receive something that the EMHC has no authority to impart. I do not blame the catechumens and the candidates. They are not at fault. The ones handling the program are.

 

[waterbrook]

Bendictgal, I do not think you read all of my post. I am perfectly aware that it is a person that is being made welcome into people’s very selves at communion and as I said spiritual communion is something which many people will come to seek naturally.

As for the call to communion that you mention…there is also the response ‘Lord I am not worthy to receive you but only say the word and I shall be healed’ This applies to everyone present, no one is worhty by their own merit to receive but I find this particularly poiniant an act of hope and faith that one day I might be called to receive Christ but until that day the movement to receiving a blessing is like a symbolic movement along the path to Christ.

To me it does not matter one jot whether this action is approved or not, it is at times pastorally helpful. A blessing is of course not a sacrament but is never the less a very powerful witness to the love and acceptance that Christ offers to all.

Waterbrook

 

[benedictgal]

Bendictgal, I do not think you read all of my post. I am perfectly aware that it is a person that is being made welcome into people’s very selves at communion and as I said spiritual communion is something which many people will come to seek naturally.

As for the call to communion that you mention…there is also the response ‘Lord I am not worthy to receive you but only say the word and I shall be healed’ This applies to everyone present, no one is worhty by their own merit to receive but I find this particularly poiniant an act of hope and faith that one day I might be called to receive Christ but until that day the movement to receiving a blessing is like a symbolic movement along the path to Christ.

To me it does not matter one jot whether this action is approved or not, it is at times pastorally helpful. A blessing is of course not a sacrament but is never the less a very powerful witness to the love and acceptance that Christ offers to all.

Waterbrook

I never said that we were worthy to receive Our Lord, only that we have the proper disposition. I daresay that among the saints, not many considered themselves worthy.

However, the line is for the reception of Holy Communion, not for a blessing. We line up to receive Someone, not something. Again, we draw from the example of the nascent Church. In the early Church this kind of activity did not exist because only the fully initiated could participate in the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

Please don’t get me wrong. It is not that I am being unwelcoming when i say that the practice of imparting a blessing in lieu of receiving Holy Communion is not a good one. It’s just that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass isn’t an event where we all have to get something out of it or stand up becasue we may think that we are being left out. Remember, the invitation is to come and receive Our Lord (provided, of course, that the Catholic is properly disposed in order to do this), not to receive a blessing. That comes later.

What the saints have advocated, and this is part of our Traditional practrce, is the idea of making a spiritual communion. As I have said many times on this thread, this act is very simple. Those who cannot receive Our Lord yet (for whateer reason) simply remain in their pews and ask Jesus to enter their heart and to help them prepare for uuch time until they can receive Him. This practice should be promoted more in RCIA. Furthermore, properly hanadled RCIA programs dismiss the catechumens after the Liturgy of the Word, so even there, the issue of a blessing is not a problem becasue prior to their dismissal, the rite calls for the group to be blessed as they leave the church to further study the Word of God that they have just heard.

The blessing takes place at its proper time, at the end of Mass, prior to the dismissal. This blessing is applicable to all.

 

[LizzyH]

As a person attending RCIA, who is not so fortunate to receive the Eucurist, the blessing is an important part of Mass for me. The Deacons at the Cathedral were asked if it is okay to get a blessing, and they said yes it is fine. One thing I did notice is people in my RCIA class touch the holy baptismal water fonts, when they haven’t been baptized. I understand this is something for the baptized (not to start another issue). So I guess the summary to my response, is that I truly appreciate the blessing and I am in need of it! You can’t have too many blessings!

 

[benedictgal]

As a person attending RCIA, who is not so fortunate to receive the Eucurist, the blessing is an important part of Mass for me. The Deacons at the Cathedral were asked if it is okay to get a blessing, and they said yes it is fine. One thing I did notice is people in my RCIA class touch the holy baptismal water fonts, when they haven’t been baptized. I understand this is something for the baptized (not to start another issue). So I guess the summary to my response, is that I truly appreciate the blessing and I am in need of it! You can’t have too many blessings!

Lizzy, with all due respect, has anyone in your RCIA program ever mentioned to you anything about making a spiritual communion? For those who are unable to receive Holy Communion for whatever circumstance, the Church has always taught, for several centuries, that one can certainly make a spiritual communion. This means remaining at your pew, kneeling (or sitting down) and engaging in deep prayer, asking Jesus to come spiritually into your heart. This practice has been advocated and promoted by the saints throughout the history of the Church. In fact, there have been prayers composed for just this reason, although there is nothing wrong with simply speaking to Jesus from your heart. i would challenge you and the other catechumens (and candidates for full communion) to try this practice at the next Mass you attend. It may seem odd to you that you are not standing wiht everyone else, but, in time (and until the Easter Vigil when you will be able to receive), this could very well engender in you a genuine hunger for Holy Communion and a greater understanding of this Holy Sacrament because you will have allowed yourself time for prayer and contemplation.

Please don’t misunderstand me. You are not at fault here, not at all. The problem is that well-meaning folks seem to be of the mindset that everyone is entitled to something when they assist at the Mass. The fact remains that this line has always been meant for those who are receiving Holy Communion. If you read one of my previous posts, you will note that when the priest holds the Body of Christ, he says, “Happy are those who are called to His Supper.” We are called to consume, to eat the Body of Christ, not to come forward to receive a blessing. We approach to receive Someone, not something. That is a concrete reality that is missed when people are told to come up for a blessing so that they can “feel” like they are a part of what is happening. It is misguided and doesn’t really have any basis in the liturgical Tradition of the Church.

Catechumens were never allowed, in the early Church, to participate in the Liturgy of the Eucharist. These were “mysteries” that they could not partake in because they were not yet initiated into the Faith. They left after the scriptures were proclaimed and the homily was preached, but, they were sent forth with a blessing. Therefore, a blessing was not imparted during the reception of Holy Communion because these individuals were not even present at that point in the Mass. Thus, there is no historical, let alone Traditional, liturgical precedent for this.

RCIA programs handled properly should include the Rite of Dismissal. Now, at that moment, at the conclusion of the Liturgy of the Word, the catechumens are sent out, just as I explained in a previous post. Here, a blessing is certainly appropriate because the celebrant is blessing these catechumens, asking that the Holy Spirit enlighten them as they further explore and learn about the Word they have just heard.

Now, during Triduum, the ancient Church allowed the catechumens to remain for the Liturgy of the Eucharist, but, for obvious reasons, they could not receive Holy Communion. They observed and remained in prayer. Again, a properly administered RCIA program will also follow that same practice.

Yes, all of us need blessings, but these are imparted at the proper time. In the case of the Mass, the proper time for the blessing is at the end of the Holy Sacrifice. This blessing is for everyone, Catholic, catechumen, candidate and non-Catholic alike.

 

[benedictgal]

In researching my response for another thread, I came across this statement that the Holy Father made in Sacramentum Caritatis regarding non-Catholics who are present at Mass:

Participation by Christians who are not Catholic

1. The subject of participation in the Eucharist inevitably raises the question of Christians belonging to Churches or Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church. In this regard, it must be said that the intrinsic link between the Eucharist and the Church’s unity inspires us to long for the day when we will be able to celebrate the Holy Eucharist together with all believers in Christ, and in this way to express visibly the fullness of unity that Christ willed for his disciples (cf. Jn 17:21). On the other hand, the respect we owe to the sacrament of Christ’s Body and Blood prevents us from making it a mere “means” to be used indiscriminately in order to attain that unity. (172) The Eucharist in fact not only manifests our personal communion with Jesus Christ, but also implies full communio with the Church. This is the reason why, sadly albeit not without hope, we ask Christians who are not Catholic to understand and respect our conviction, which is grounded in the Bible and Tradition. We hold that eucharistic communion and ecclesial communion are so linked as to make it generally impossible for non-Catholic Christians to receive the former without enjoying the latter. There would be even less sense in actually concelebrating with ministers of Churches or ecclesial communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church. Yet it remains true that, for the sake of their eternal salvation, individual non-Catholic Christians can be admitted to the Eucharist, the sacrament of Reconciliation and the Anointing of the Sick. But this is possible only in specific, exceptional situations and requires that certain precisely defined conditions be met (173). These are clearly indicated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (174) and in its Compendium (175). Everyone is obliged to observe these norms faithfully.

Notice how he doesn’t even mention the notion of these individuals receiving a blessing in lieu of Holy Communion. Here he explains why it is not possible for non-Catholic Christians to receive Holy Communion (with certain exceptional circumstances). He is also not inviting folks who cannot receive to come forward for a blessing.

 

[Newbie2]

In researching my response for another thread, I came across this statement that the Holy Father made in Sacramentum Caritatis regarding non-Catholics who are present at Mass:

Notice how he doesn’t even mention the notion of these individuals receiving a blessing in lieu of Holy Communion. Here he explains why it is not possible for non-Catholic Christians to receive Holy Communion (with certain exceptional circumstances). He is also not inviting folks who cannot receive to come forward for a blessing.

Notice how he does not forbid it either.