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.

Hogwash. The "garbage" I referred to are the liturgcal abuses of the unwarranted use of EEMs, altar girls, etc. "Garbage"is actually a much knder word than the one I had in mind. In a cruel twist of irony, many of the faithful probably went to the Indult in the first place to escape just that sort of nonsense. How charitable the Bishops to punish them with more of the same.

Oh, and I'm not striking a pose. I'm simply offering no resistance to permabanning should it be determined that I deserve it.

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

Sounds Protestant to me."

What? If something is Scriptural it is thereby Protestant???!!!

Most of the OT is the story of how the blessing passed down from father to first-born son, or usually another son because most of the first-borns were corrupt. From Adam to Seth, Noah to Shem (Melchizedek), Melchizedek to Abraham, Abraham to Isaac, Isaac to Jacob and so on. Just as with Holy Orders, the form of the blessing was laying on of hands. All the above were sacrificing priests and that priesthood passed down from fathers to sons.

The Levitical priesthood only came into existence because of the guilt of the first-born in worshipping the golden calf (cf Num 3). One of the reasons Christ came was to restore the priesthood of Melchizedek which is why He is often called "first-born" in the NT, and why after his coming the Levitical priesthood was obsolete. (cf. all of Hebrews)

The close identification of fatherhood and priesthood is one of the fundamental reasons why women cannot be priests. It is precisely in the rejection of this where the Protestants have departed from Scripture, so one can hardly call this a Protestant idea!!!

I don't recall seeing anything about deacons, sub-deacons or acolytes being permitted to do this.

The 1917 CIC says that deacons are extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion. This seems to be a matter covered in the CIC; hence, the new rules in the 1983 CIC might now be the applicable ones?

Can. 845. § l. Minister ordinarius sacrae communionis est solus sacerdos.
§ 2. Extraordinarius est diaconus, de Ordinarii loci vel parochi licentia, gravi de causa concedenda, quae in casu necessitatis legitime praesumitur.

The competent Vatican congregation for those who attend the 1962 Mass is the Ecclesia Dei Commission, therefore nothing from the Congregation of Divine Worship applies to the 1962 Mass.

There is to be no "mixing of rites" according to the Vatican.

Any of the novelties foisted on the laity after the Second Vatican Council have no place at the Traditional Latin Mass.

"Again, this isn't my fight. In fact, I appreciate any effort by the Novus Ordo to make people seek refuge with the SSPX or Independent chapels. If you can live with a Latin-ized Novus Ordo, that's your problem."

Exactly. Why are you broadcasting this? This is NOT the norm at any indult Mass I attend; in fact, many would stop attending if such novelties became the norm. Then the SSPX and independent chapels would be full.

I suspect as much will happen when things are regularized under this pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI with the SSPX.

There is no dichotomy there. Protestant is not the opposite of Catholic. If scripture is misunderstood in light of the teachings of Catholicism, it is not relevant.

I think the Catholic issue is holding firm with the teaching of the Church, that God instituted a Church, a living magistarium, that can lead the faithful into the future.

I do not prefer alter Girls, I much prefer the much older system that provided boys who are interested in the Priesthood serve as Alter Boys. With Alter Girls this is pointless, because they may never be ordained. We may have agreement with the cause, but what we can do, our reaction to this, we are markedly different.

The other changes that you refer to as garbage are much less important than breaking faith with the See, in calling the Novus Ordo garbage, or claiming the See is in apostasy, or even the claim you made about swallowing garbage in the Church. As offensive as it was, I ignored it in the interest of the discussion that was on topic.

The Indult Mass is under control of the Bishop. All Masses in the Diocese must conform to his norm. He makes the pastoral decisions, and he is charged with that by the See, and by God. If the Bishop deems that something must be done, that is not rubrics, but is a dispensation, then he is free to tell the presiding Priest that this is the way it is. The Indult is for the preference of the worshipers, and they have a right to worship in union with the See, as Rome will set it down for them.

This is the basis of Catholicism, that the See led by the Pope who holds the Keys of Peter, can make changes and adjustments to the Mass and to the Church, to continue the mission of Christ through the ages.

In the days of Old God made exceptions to the Jews, and today, the Church allows exceptions and allowances to the People of God.

Any of the novelties foisted on the laity after the Second Vatican Council have no place at the Traditional Latin Mass.

The ED Commission disagrees, and they have also declared that the prohibition against "mixing" is no longer in force ... See here.

The manner of the faithful's reception of Holy Communion is not prescribed by the 1962 Roman Missal. Hence, while we readily understand that the great majority of those who attend the celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Missal do not wish to avail themselves of the option of receiving Holy Communion in the hand, those who wish to do so may not be forbidden to do so.
In this regard I also wish to put an end to any further useless arguments based on Quattuor abhinc annos, Cardinal Mayer's Letter to Episcopal Conferences of 3 October 1984 when he was Pro-Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship. ...
It ought to be noted that the use of female servers is by no means obligatory. We can understand that the great majority of those who wish to participate in the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal would prefer that the traditional practice of having only male altar servers should be maintained at such Masses ...

The same argument would apply to the EMHC issue, it would seem... although their use at the TLM is hardly "pastoral"...

Thanks for your enlightening contributions. I must object however, that expecting a sole priest at a TLM to communicate several hundred people without recourse to EMHCs, and to have it all done in good time for the next mass of the day (which he also must celebrate) is not my idea of "pastoral". When a pastor commits to providing his parishioners with a beautiful and reverent TLM, I see no good reason to hamper him with scruples.

False, at least according to the law.

The law? You can't be serious.

In any event, the portion of law you quoted doesn't say anything about a prohibition on girl servers at the indult. Seems to me if a priest granted a girl's request to serve at an indult, the congregation would just have to accept it.

Look, I didn't present my last post as fact. I said I'd "heard" that priests must honor the request.

The "garbage" I referred to are the liturgcal abuses of the unwarranted use of EEMs, altar girls, etc.

I sincerely hope so. But when you proposed the imagery of people lining up and swallowing, and then insisted on that very imagery to ram your point home, you crossed the line. You made the equation of garbage with the Blessed Sacrament impossible to avoid, and you did so by intent.

Perhaps you consider the NO rite incapable of confecting a valid Sacrament. That's your misfortune. I don't think there's any point in continuing the discussion. In time I hope you'll learn that rage and indignation are not signs of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

I'm just saying that you've heard wrong. "if the indult is in a diocese whose bishop permits altar girls at the NO parishes, and a girl requests to serve at the indult, she must be permitted to do so" - a priest is not obligated to allow any girl servers, even if the bishop permits them. The congregation is a different issue; obviously they cannot order around their pastors.

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.