Catholic Liturgy - More on Blessings for Non-communicants

Regarding our comments on blessings for non-communicants (see May 10), a reader asked if my opinion contradicted the following observations made by Archbishop Chaput of Denver, Colorado, in an article from 2003:

"As members of the community move forward to receive holy Communion during Mass, parents will often bring their small children along. Over the years, it has become a custom in many parishes for these children to receive a blessing. I don't really know where this practice began, but it's worth some reflection.

"Usually the children in line will look up expectantly at the person distributing holy Communion. The minister then responds by doing one of several things: He or she may pat the child's head, or touch the head in a sign of blessing, or mark the child's forehead with a sign of the cross. As warm and well intentioned as the gesture may be, in the context of the liturgy, the Communion procession really isn't the time for a blessing of children or adults who are unable to receive Communion.

"There are times in the liturgical year when the laity assist in specific acts of blessing, such as the blessing of throats or the distribution of ashes. These are clearly indicated in the Book of Blessings. But extraordinary ministers of holy Communion do not ordinarily have a commission to bless in the name of the Church, as priests and deacons do. At this point in the liturgy, they have a very specific function: to collaborate with the clergy in the distribution of holy Communion.

"As we'll explore in a later column, the blessing of the assembly properly occurs at the end of the Mass. As the body of Christ, the assembly is blessed together before we depart to live the fruits of the liturgy.

"What would be appropriate for children to do who accompany their parents in the Communion procession, and adults who do not receive Communion?

"The Communion procession is an opportunity for parents to begin to teach their children about the great gift of the Eucharist. First of all, children could learn to give reverence to the Lord hidden under the forms of bread and wine. Children can already learn from their parents, and others receiving holy Communion, to give honor to the Lord by bowing reverently.

"Parents and catechists should start teaching the mystery of the Eucharist at an early age. Children will soon begin to desire to receive holy Communion. This earnest desire to receive our Lord sacramentally is traditionally called a 'spiritual communion.' Regrettably, we don't talk about spiritual communion as we once did. But Thomas Aquinas, Alphonsus Liguori and many other great saints strongly encouraged spiritual communion as a practice.

"Both children and adults can make a spiritual communion. They may come forward with their arms crossed and bow before the Eucharist. Then the priest, deacon or extraordinary minister could say to them kindly, 'Receive the Lord Jesus in your heart.' This is not a blessing, but an invitation to worship, so no gestures are made.

"This spiritual communion would more authentically carry out the spirit of the liturgy. Being faithful to the truths of the sacramental celebration allows all of us, young and old, to enter more deeply into worship."

Does it contradict my previous article? All I can say, in typical Irish fashion is, well, yes and no.

The previous question did not refer to my personal opinion regarding the appropriateness of these blessings, but to whether they were permitted or not. The essence of my answer to that question was that the issue was not clear from a legal point of view and, barring an authoritative statement from the Holy See, it depended on the local authorities to judge the opportunity of accepting or rejecting this practice.

The admirable Archbishop Chaput has taken a characteristically lucid position on the issue, and, while his article is not a formal liturgical norm, it both clarifies the question for his archdiocese, and provides guidance to other pastors weighing the pros and cons of this still nascent custom.

However, the fact remains that many bishops have made approving comments regarding it and some have actually participated in such blessings. Thus the legal issue at the heart of the original question remains doubtful. Indeed, as one reader has helpfully informed me, the bishops' conference of England and Wales has published a fairly authoritative statement on this issue, to wit:

"Even though some in the assembly may not receive 'sacramental' Communion, all are united in some way by the Holy Spirit. The Traditional idea of spiritual communion is an important one to remember and re-affirm. The invitation often given at Mass to those who may not receive sacramental communion -- for example, children before their first communion and adults who are not Catholics -- to receive a 'blessing' at the moment of Communion emphasizes that a deep spiritual communion is possible even when we do not share together the Sacrament of the Body and blood of Christ" (the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales, "Celebrating the Mass: A Pastoral Introduction," (Catholic Truth Society, April 2005, In number 212, pg 95)."

I would note that the bishops here interpret the blessing itself as a kind of spiritual communion and so the basic thrust of their thinking is the same as that of Archbishop Chaput.

As the gauntlet has been hurled, so to speak, regarding my personal view, I admit to sharing Archbishop Chaput's misgivings as to the appropriateness of some practical aspects of imparting these blessings.

For example, since lay extraordinary ministers of Communion are not authorized to give liturgical blessings, in situations where there are numerous non-communicants the practice could result in a seeming paradox in which they receive blessings from the ordinary ministers of Communion while the Catholic faithful receive the sacred host from extraordinary ministers. Perhaps a lay minister could pronounce a generic formula calling down God's blessing, but it is rather short shrift compared to Communion.

I am also rather queasy about touching people on the head, while simultaneously administrating the sacred host on the tongue of the next person in line.

My most serious hesitations, however, stem from a fear that, over time, the practice of giving blessings to non-communicants could create a new perception or mentality regarding Communion itself that makes it somehow equivalent to a blessing, thus weakening the special value that Communion should have for Catholics. This danger could be especially present in a school environment with a high proportion of non-Catholics who receive only a blessing. On the other hand, some priests have mentioned that it can lower the danger of sacrilegious communions in predominantly Catholic schools as children and adolescents find it easier to ask for a blessing than to stay (alone) in their pews.

Likewise, other priests have written to comment on the pastoral effectiveness of being able to offer Catholics in irregular situations an alternative to not approaching the Communion rail. One commented that one couple's receiving the blessing awoke a hunger for the Eucharist which spurred them to regularize their situation with the Church.

For the above situations I believe the archbishop's suggestion regarding formation in spiritual communion, or that of the British bishops in interpreting the invitation to receive a blessing as spiritual communion, are invaluable and may be even more pastorally effective than a simple blessing per se. It may be harder to apply, however, to non-Catholics.

This brings us to a related question of some members of the Legion of Mary in California who generously offer their services as extraordinary ministers of Communion in an assisted-living facility with a large proportion of non-Catholics.

They ask: "We also know that, as extraordinary ministers of Communion, we cannot bless anyone, but we do ask Jesus or God to bless them. What is the proper form of blessing that we can offer our Protestant brethren? We customarily offer this type of blessing in lieu of sharing Communion: 'May God Bless you and keep you close to him.'

"Is it proper for extraordinary ministers to lay on hands or to make the sign of the cross on the head, or over the head, of the person receiving the blessing? Is it proper to anoint the head of the person receiving the blessing with holy water?

"We want to act properly in the full spirit of the Holy Father's call for evangelization by the lay apostolates, without overstepping into ritual behavior that is the proper domain of the consecrated priesthood."

From what has been said above I would suggest that you avoid ritual gestures that might cause confusion, especially to the Catholics present. However, the formulas provided for the extraordinary ministers of Communion in the ritual for Communion outside of Mass could also be used in the presence of non-Catholics. They usually have a third person plural formula such as "May the Lord bless us, keep us from all evil and bring us to everlasting life."

If you wish to offer some spiritual activity to all present beyond the Communion service, then, with the permission of the parish priest, you could offer some acceptable common prayer once the Communion service has been finished -- for example, praying an hour of the Divine Office, which is almost totally scriptural, would be one possibility.

While liturgical law restricts to ordained ministers the imparting of liturgical blessings, lay people are not forbidden from using similar gestures in non-liturgical settings. For example, in some counties parents commonly make the sign of the cross over and bless their children as they leave for school.

While on the subject of blessings, a deacon requested if "the deacon may use the same formula as the presbyter and perform the same action of making the sign of the cross over the person(s) to be blessed?"

The short answer is yes. The deacon may impart most of the same blessings as a priest and uses the same liturgical gestures. If a priest is present however, he should defer to him.

Finally, a lay woman from Canada asks: "At the opening of the Mass and its closing we are blessed by the priest. I have traditionally blessed myself following reception of the Eucharistic species. However, I recently read that this is inappropriate in that it interferes with the unifying theme of the initial and closing blessings by the priest. What is the meaning of blessing oneself after reception of Eucharist? And, what is considered appropriate at this time in our Church's history?"

Strictly speaking, the priest does not bless us at the beginning of Mass; rather, we all make the sign of the cross together as a sign of faith. The only proper blessing is that at the end of Mass which is a concluding blessing before the faithful are sent forth to continue their Christian mission in the world.

Your custom of crossing yourself (also sometimes called blessing oneself) after receiving Communion is simply an act of private devotion and an expression of faith in what one has received. It does no harm whatsoever to the symbolism of the Mass and probably does you a lot of spiritual good.

"In distributing Holy Communion to Catholics at trad Masses of course I use the trad formula ("Corpus Domini nostri..."). This strikes me as intercessory prayer rather than a blessing, and thus not inappropriate for me as a lay man to pronounce."

Are you a priest? If not, then you are abusing the rubrics by even distributing Holy Communion if indeed it is a Traditional Latin Mass? There is supposed to be no intermixing of rites. NONE. You shouldn't even be distributing Holy Communion as a layman anyway.

NO UNCONSECRATED HANDS - St. Thomas Aquinas

Tell us exactly which parish in what city so us Trads know what "Trad" Mass that is not "Trad" NOT to attend if we are visiting.

An extraordinary minister of Holy Communion is not a "minister of the Eucharist."

I'm interested in the circumstances whereby a layman distributes Communion at a Traditional Latin Mass. Perhaps you could address that, and then explain the difference between an "extraordinary minister of Holy Communion" and a "minister of the Eucharist."

Perhaps you could address that

Address what? Are you implying that it's forbidden?

then explain the difference between an "extraordinary minister of Holy Communion" and a "minister of the Eucharist."

Easy. "Eucharist" means thanksgiving, and in the liturgical sense implies the sacrificial totality of what happens at the altar. A "minister of the Eucharist" is a priest. Only a priest can offer the sacrifice or confect the Sacrament. A "minister of Holy Communion" is merely one who assists in the distribution of the Blessed Sacrament -- something that can happen even outside of Mass, as you know.

"In distributing Holy Communion to Catholics at trad Masses

What Trad Mass uses EEM's?"

Ouch!!! I fear that could be a violation of the rubrics. Even as a deacon, I don't think I am permitted to touch the Body of our Lord with my hands at a TLM!

I sometimes have reason to attend a Roman Catholic mass and I have no problem remaining behind while others line up. I have even been urged to go up for the blessing so I wouldn't feel "funny". Guess what? I don't.

There are plenty of prayerful, respectful, and spiritually productive things to do while waiting for friends or family to return to the pew. People worry about appearances too much. Actually, I would be mightily amused if some poor Catholic thought I remained behind because I was such a flagrant sinner. LOL!

Address what? Are you implying that it's forbidden?

All I want to know is whether you, as a layan, distribute Communion at a Traditional Latin Mass. As to whether it's forbidden, I can't say with any authority. My Catholic sense sends up big red flags, however. You'd have to concede that it's unusual, if not explicitly forbidden.

Only a priest can offer the sacrifice or confect the Sacrament. A "minister of Holy Communion" is merely one who assists in the distribution of the Blessed Sacrament -- something that can happen even outside of Mass, as you know.

Right. You're an EEM.

All I want to know is...

Already answered.

You're an EEM

Excuse me; I'm not. There's no such thing as an EEM. Only a priest is a minister of the Eucharist, and he's not "extraordinary".

"I do this too, but the priest's blessing carries the blessing of the Church with it"

Bishops, priests and deacons are all given the "power" to bless in the name of the Church on entering Holy Orders. I don't know much about all the background theology to this, but I do know there is a huge list in the presbytery which says who can bless what and when! I know I can bless water, people, homes, tractors and lawnmowers, but only a priest or above can bless vestments, and only a bishop or above can consecrate a Church for instance!

However, any baptised Catholic can ask for God to bless someone, and particularly parents should bless and make the sign of the cross on/over their children. The father particularly is head of the domestic church and it is therefore his right and duty to bless his wife and his children, but one must be ordained to bless the wider body of the Church.

Paternal blessings are very Scriptural of course, and Patriarchy is itself the biblical root of priesthood.

Already answered.

You sure did. In fact, I know more than I wanted to, namely that Indult people actually present themselves before EEM's at what they think are Traditional Latin Masses to receive not only Communion, but some sort of "blessing" concocted on the fly by a layman.

I'll just adhere more formally to my "schism," thanks.

Years ago, in many parishes, many parents did NOT bring young children to Mass and churches had NO cry rooms since there were no children crying during mass because they weren't there.

Also, years ago, people brought young children to Mass and they behaved!

They also did not bring food, drinks, (non-Catholic) books, etc., to keep their little ones quiet.

"Can you point to a specific prohibition?"

I'm afraid I don't have an Altar Missal of the old rite handy to consult the rubrics.

Obviously, non-celebrating priests can be called in to help with the distribution of Holy Communion at the old Mass, but I don't recall seeing anything about deacons, sub-deacons or acolytes being permitted to do this.

Perhaps someone reading the thread might have a copy of Fortescue which they can consult?

To be honest, even in the N.O. I always receive our Lord on the tongue and try to avoid handling the Sacrament as much as possible, so maybe I am being over-cautious in my assumptions.

The father particularly is head of the domestic church and it is therefore his right and duty to bless his wife and his children, but one must be ordained to bless the wider body of the Church.

I'll ask a priest when I get a chance & get back to you.

Paternal blessings are very Scriptural of course, and Patriarchy is itself the biblical root of priesthood.

Sounds Protestant to me. I've seen some vague quotes from the CCC, and a couple of opinions, but I remain unconvinced.

There's a difference between asking God to bless someone, and imparting a blessing in the name of God

Absolutely. I think in the case of a Parental Blessing, I am calling on God, as the Child's parent to Bless them. I feel as a parent it is my duty to help my children in this way.

It is distinctly different from the theory that "anyone can bless anyone", I am not anyone, I have been called on by God to raise and nurture my Children, and I answer to Him.

It is traditional, from the Old Testament, through the ages, where my parents and grandparents did it, and I do it too. I never thought about it as respect to Catholicism.

For once, I am at a loss for a CCL, CCC or GIRM reference telling me that this practice is proper or that I am to do this.

Fortescue is silent on the question, as I recall. In any case, he's advisory, not authoritative.

I'm afraid I don't have an Altar Missal of the old rite handy

Sure you do. Just go to Google and type in "Ritus Servandus". You'll find that the rubric mentions only the "sacerdos" in the distribution of Holy Communion. It does not forbid the substitution of a deacon or instituted acolyte. If that prohibition exists elsewhere, I'm willing to be informed. I'm thoroughly aware of the iconic significance of receiving the Sacrament from a priest, and would cheerfully agree that this is to be preferred. The exigencies of parochial life make this difficult, however. When several hundred persons present themselves at the altar rail, it puts quite a strain on a lone man who's not in ideal health. Then there's the purely practical matter of the time it would take for one man to communicate the whole congregation. Spare priests are scarce these days.

even in the N.O. I always receive our Lord on the tongue

As do I, and always have. I do not believe I've ever received in my hand in my life.

Are you a permanent deacon?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.