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.

One man's scruples are called another man's rubrics. But don't let that get in the way of your personal preference, which is what this all boils down to.

Personal preference over rubrics and pastoral solicitude.

"Perhaps you consider the NO rite incapable of confecting a valid Sacrament."

Your two feigned "holy than thou," "we are with the Church" attitude has crossed way over the lines of charity here. Te lucis told you what he meant, therefore you should accept it.

And I don't recall him every saying ANYTHING about the NO rite being incapable of confecting the sacrament. Those are words you put into his mouth. I hereby acknowledge and profess the Novus Ordo rite is capable, when certain proscribed conditions are followed, of confecting the sacrament. I would venture to guess that EVERY Novus Ordo rite Mass in the U.S. on a weekly basis does not ALWAYS confect the sacrament. In fact, my confirmation Mass and my wedding Mass were BOTH invalid in the early 1980s.

I wonder how many Traditional Latin Masses, even those said by priests of the SSPX, are INVALID? Hmmm????

Personal preference over rubrics and pastoral solicitude.

Hardly.

"As the dicastery charged by our Holy Father with carrying out the provisions of his Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei, this Pontifical Commission and only this Pontifical Commission has the right to make provisions regarding the use of the 1962 Roman Missal. No group outside of and independent of the Holy See has the authority to decide on what provisions of previous documents are binding or to rule on what constitutes an illegitimate "interchanging of texts and rites". Quattuor abhinc annos also prohibited the celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal in parish churches except in extraordinary cases which were to be determined by the diocesan bishop, but we note that no one is interested in insisting on that condition."

Te lucis told you what he meant, therefore you should accept it.

When Te Lucis explains to me how "swallow" and "pun intended" in #42 squares with the assertion that he was referring to "the unwarranted use of EEMs, altar girls, etc" and not to the Holy Communion itself in #62, I will take his #62 as truthful and retract my accusation in #68.

It refers to people lining up to swallow garbage, and concludes that the pun was intended.

"Garbage" refered to NO abuses. People "lining up to swallow it" - "swallowing" meaning accepting and "it" meaning abuses was the pun, since the specific abuse being discussed/debated was EEMs.

I saw no "posturing," either. Its no secret many on this forum want Trads banned, and they have been sucessful recently in getting rid of many of them in a short time span. The process for getting a trad banned begins with jumping on something which can be taken more than one way followed by a ping to RM.

You are a poseur and a liar.

You should "befriend" tl before pointing out his/her errors, dontcha think? :-D

Dittos here, I'm annulling, she's converting. Our parish is small enough though, that everyone knows each other, and Father remembers to bless us rather than offer a host.

While Cardinal Hoyos' private correspondence to Michael Davies may be true currently, I would posit that as a private correspondence, and not as a publicly promulgated document, its binding force and interpretation on all Catholics is questionable at best.

I hereby acknowledge and profess the Novus Ordo rite is capable, when certain proscribed conditions are followed, of confecting the sacrament.

Good. So you should join me in encouraging him to clean up the mess he made.

But it is possible that while the law might prohibit a priest from being forced to use altar girls, what I "heard" might not be "wrong" since we know that the law oftentimes does not reflect the reality.

You should "befriend" tl before pointing out his/her errors, dontcha think? :-D

You are a poseur and a liar.

That does sound a bit triumphalistic doesn't it? I guess it's OK to call names, it just depends who does it to whom.

The request was specifically to remove the blasphemous paragraph of the post, the only clean way out of this. It remains the only clean way, and the spin you put on it makes it worse.

I consider the bannings of traditionalists here completely unwarranted. I am generally sympathetic with Catholic traditionalism.

I consider every Freeper, including, of course, Te Lucis and other Catholics of every persuasion, my friend (*), and I continue to communicate with them.

(*) Semptertrad's oblique reference was to an unrelated thread where I defended the Church communicating in a friendly manner with non-Christians, while others advocated not communicating.

Like it or not, certain self-identified traditionalists on this forum have, in the past, blasphemed against the Blessed Sacrament, by referring to It as the "novus ordo cookie" and similar.

TL's comment in #42 (including the "pun intended" part) was, at best, intemperate and ill advised. The "preview" feature in the posting page is quite valuable, and for more than just making sure the HTML is correct. Similarly, the standard PS/2 keyboard has a Backspace key and two Delete keys. Sometimes it's best to use them, rather than post that oh-so-clever sarcastic remark.

A word (or two) to the wise.

as a private correspondence, and not as a publicly promulgated document, its binding force and interpretation on all Catholics is questionable at best.

LOL; you mean like this one?

You made the equation of garbage with the Blessed Sacrament impossible to avoid, and you did so by intent.

Apparently this equation was not impossible to avoid, because I completely missed it. I had no idea what you were going on about until I read this post, saying what you thought t.l. meant.

The request was specifically to remove the blasphemous paragraph of the post

There was no blasphemy. Just because you took it as such, doesn't mean that how it was meant. It was clear to me what tl meant by the pun. How? By taking into account tl's support for the SSPX (made evident by the tagline) the TLM, etc. Say whatever one will about "SSPXers", or "trads" such people generally don't intentionally spew blasphemies.

It remains the only clean way, and the spin you put on it makes it worse.

Spin? I my comments expressed how I viewed the comment. "Makes it worse?" It was made worse by an assumption of blasphemy and a ping to RM without even the courtesy of asking tl what he/she meant first.

"If the Scripture is not understood in light of the teaching of the Catholic Church, yes."

And why would I not understand Scripture in the light of the teaching of the Catholic Church?

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.