I'm looking for information about blessings.

Specifically, who can do blessings on others, and why priests can only give certain blessings, not lay people.

I am looking for the theology of this.

Thanks

Here's my take on it.

By virtue of baptism, all Christians are joined to Christ. In the sacrament of Holy Orders, priests and bishops receive the grace whereby they act in the name of Christ beyond the extent to which all believers share in Christ's life and ministry by virtue of baptism.

Ryan

Christ is in our midst!!

I guess the short answer is that a priest or bishop gives blessings because the ability grows out of his ordination to the priesthood of Christ to Whom he is configured by that ordination. Lay people do not bless because we are part of the Body of Christ, that is, incorporated into the espoused portion of the Mystical Body of Christ. We are not ordained to the priestly office through which blessings flow.

But it is pious custom for parents to bless their children before bed or at other times. And we all bless others when they sneeze. That grows out of our Baptism.

But what is it you are really asking?

BOB

The reason I asked is because I was having a discussion with our director of religious education earlier this week, and the topic came up.

it is traditional in our parish (Latin rite)that a catechumen or candidate may come forward in the communion line with his arms crossed over his chest, and the priest will give him a blessing instead.
The problem comes in that the Latin Rite Church often uses extraordinary ministers of the Holy Eucharist, and they are not supposed to give blessings this way.

The practice of going up to receive a blessing is not universal. Some parishes practice it, others do not, so it is not really normal, and as far as I know, it's not really encouraged either.

But the discussion ensued as to why a lay person who is a baptized Catholic cannot bless like a priest can bless since we are all baptized into the priesthood of Christ.

It makes sense that lay people are incorporated into the body whereas the ordained are a physical sign of Christ.

So I was just looking to understand this better, because while I have no problems with blessings being reserved to priests and Bishops alone, I really didn't have an answer that satisfied either my DRE or myself.

Thanks

I have noticed that to when I go to Roman Litrugies that the Eucharistic minister blesses people like a priest does- making the sign of the cross on their foreheads. I think this may be a post-vactican II thing and I would love also to learn more about it.

I think that certian blessings and prayers should be reserved for the Bishops and Priests, espeically during Liturgical celebrations.

The Home is a domestic Church and the parents are the head of the home church, so I don't see that it is inaproprate for a parent to pray and say God bless you to a child or spouse but if they are readings the hours together the prayers that are reserved for priests should be omitted.

Being honest, as I understand things, this is not permitted.

blessings by lay people [adoremus.org]

I thought so but I wasn't sure. It did make me feel a little uncomfortable.

One small correction: Bishops and priests are ministers of the Holy Eucharist, while lay people who help distribute Holy Communion are extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion.

Roman Catholic canon lawyer Edward Peters has also addressed this topic on his blog: Lay ministers of holy Communion sho...sings-in-lieu-of-Communion" at Mass [canonlaw.info].

My great-grandmother used to bless us before bed with holy water, tracing a little cross on our foreheads and then sprinkling the bed.

Bet you slept well

It is common in the Greek Orthodox tradition for parent's to sign the cross and bless their children, just as Theophan/Bob mentioned his great grandmother doing. It is also common to say to your children 'with my blessing' when they are leaving or embarking upon something new. A mother's blessing is powerful.

Alice

It is also common in Catholicism - both Latin and Eastern - but these blessings are not the formal blessings that are being given at what is supposed to be a time for Communion.

It is not right that a lay person , who is holding the Body and Blood of Our Lord and Saviour in their hands at that time , and who , at that time is only permitted to help with the Distribution of Communion because the large numbers present [ ?? ] which would unduly prolong the length of the Mass , should be askeed to perform a blessing which should be given at another time.

Blessings in the domestic situation are different , and believe me I blessed Raymond every time I visited him during the last 2 weeks of his life .

Dear Anhelyna,

I wasn't actually commenting on an ecclesiastical situation but to Bob and Pani Rose's post...


Oh, I absolutely agree...so much, it seems, is sadly inappropriate at modern RC masses these days from all that I am reading.

Wishing you many years on this blessed Feast day of Our Lady.

In Christ,
Alice

Slava Isusu Khrestu

One scary thought.

I recently attended in June the year end mass at a Catholic school. Those youngsters who were not Catholic and those who were in Junior or Senior kindergarten all came up for a blessing at communion. The lay ministers one of which was the principal gave blessings by
1. placing her hand on the head of the youngster and saying a blessing.
2. traced the sign of the cross on the forehead of the child.and said some blessing.

What bothers me is the fact that she and the other lay ministers continued to dip their hands into the ciborium and distribute communion with out consindering what might be on those hands from the heads of some of the youngsters.( they have had many problems with head lice etc. )

From a purely sanitary point of view, I feel it is not a good habit!

Z Bohom

Unworthy
Kolya

Very true - and it's NOT supposed to happen anyway. But it's surprising just how many people think they know better than the Church.

May I bank that until the 28th please ?




us Julian Calendar folk have our simple bits of fun from time to time

I agree completely. But once a practice like this has become established, people have got used to it and have come to expect it. How, then, does one go about getting rid of the practice again? Certainly it is not something one individual extraordinary minister of holy communion can change on his own.

Oh it can be stopped .

There's plenty of documentation about it.

The snag is that there are many priests who decide on a practice like this and say they do so on grounds of 'pastoral sensitivity'

The younger priests don't do it , the older ones don't . The ones who do are those who were in Seminary in the 70s - the ' I'll do it my way ' ones.

It can be stopped quite easily - announcements in the Parish bulletins , on Parish Websites and from the pulpit. EHMCs can be instructed not to do anything that sounds like a blessing or looks like it.

Having said all that - will it ?

OOPS, I am sorry! I am not meaning to be insensitive--just forgot.

Now it occurs to me to wonder: what about deacons? They are ordained, but not presbyters.

And is the answer different for east and west?

hawk

Never better!! In fact, I think that's why I seem to be able to sleep through almost any kind of noise inside or outside the house.
BOB

Well, isn't there really a pastoral consideration to be given here under the idea of economy?

I think that the problem that I see is that the practice varies from parish to parish. I also think that the parishes that do this are well intentioned and are not meaning to do this in bad faith to the Church.

However, there is an issue of sensitivity involved in which a person may come up to receive a blessing and then be in the awkward situation of being turned away.

For those who are not Catholic, who don't understand this, it may be interpreted in a way that communicates an uninterested or uncaring Church. When considered in this way, I think that economy can be regarded in this situation so that the person approaching for a blessing feels welcomed, instead of the possibility of being turned away. I think that a blessing, even if not quite proper, would go farther to bring that person into the Church, than turning them away would.

Any thoughts?

I understand what you are getting at - but the fact remains that this practice should never have started , and of course now it has , it's even more difficult to deal with it.

I have more sympathy when it's the Priest who is conferring the blessing on someone , but a lay person who is an Extra Ordinary Minister of Holy Communion has no authority to bless anyone [ other than as we have mentioned earlier - their own children/family , and indeed that blessing is not a formal Blessing of the Church but an act of love ]

I really don't know the answer , but the longer the practice goes on the harder it is to put an end to it.

Hi,

Regarding blessings in general, the Latin rite does provide quasi-liturgical forms for blessings that may be "presided" by lay people, using the appropriate formulas. See the "Book of Blessings".

There are some blessings reseved to the ordained (deacons, presbyters and bishops), some reserved to the ordained to the priesthood (presbyters and bishops) and some reserved to the bishop.

Non-Liturgical blessings are part of the Catholic folklore of many cultures, not only within a family circle, but also in religious associations of every kind and, as was mentioned earlier, even when we sneeze.

And yes, these all stem from the Royal Prieshood shared by all the baptized.

Regarding the blessing given to those who are unable to receive Holy Communion, I suggest you consult with your local parish and diocese.

The language from the CDW that the practice "should be discouraged" means that the practice is frowned upon by Rome, but they would not get into a fight with the Local Ordinary, should he decide to allow it within his jurisdiction.

Here in L.A., these blessings are business as usual for both the ordained and the extraordinary lay ministers.

Shalom,
Memo

I don't know - I suspect we are not reading the same document , or alternatively I just don't understand what I read.

I quote from my original link

I was commenting on items 3 and 5 on your quote.

The practice of laying on of hands in substitution of Holy Communion is to be discouraged (but no more than that).

Those who are not to be admitted to Holy Communion should not approach (however, if they do.... then what?).

Considering that this is Roman-style law, this language is vague enough to consider it more a guideline than a hard norm.

That, of course, on top of the opening paragraph, which clearly states that Rome is still making up her mind about this whole thing (which almost guarantees they will not coax Local Ordinaries to stop the practice, since those jurisdictions will actually provide the pastoral feedback Rome needs to make up her mind about the issue).

So, again, for the best possible answer to the question about what to do when you are an EMHC, consult your parochial and diocesan guidelines. And let your diocesan authorities figure it out with Rome.

Shalom,
Memo

To which this latin Rite Catholic would say, why does Rome need to get involved with something that is well within the authority of the Bishop in his diocese?
I say this recognizing that the American latin Rite Bishops' aren't exactly known for holding the line on the tradition of the Church, but seem to be rather progressive about too many things.

I also agree that once the camel's nose is through the tent, it's hard to wade through all of this.

it's not an easy thing for those of us who are catechists in our parish b/c this is a real issue. The farther up the ladder toward Rome this gets, the more esoteric it seems to the vast majority of people.

That's why I was asking for some theology on this.

From WDTPRS Blog, Fr. Z



Traditionally Speaking by S. Casarotto 8/9/09

NO BLESSING

A growing phenomenon in the “liturgical renewal” is giving a blessing to the faithful who have joined the Communion procession at Mass with no intention of receiving the Eucharist. They ask for a blessing as they fold their arms across their chest to receive it. I do not give this blessing and for many reasons:

1) There is already a blessing to the whole congregation at the end of the mass and I am always available to give a special blessing to those who request it for some special reasons (before going to the hospital, for an anniversary, before taking a long trip, etc.);

2) A blessing at Communion time creates confusion and is a countersign about the purpose of the Communion procession;

3) It is disrespectful to turn the attention from the Eucharist to a person to be blessed. This innovation is nowhere to be found in the instructions for the celebration of the mass. In fact, the Holy See has said many times, “Enough with experimentation” and “Nothing is to be added or taken away from the liturgy” which is “the prayer of Christ and of the Church.” I suspect that this custom started when, as a reaction to a Jansenistic understanding of spiritual worthiness for the Sacraments, well intentioned priests and liturgical committee began to urge the faithful to receive the Eucharist. Everyone, Catholic and non-Catholic, whether in a state of grace or not, came to believe they must join the Communion line. This thinking has been introduced by the false interpretation of “active participation”....

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/08/why-a-priest-wont-give-communion-blessings/

Well,

Here are a few reasons why I like to have the blessings:

1. The main objection is alleged confusion among the people about what is going on. However, I think that the vast majority of people attending liturgies in which blessings are given during communion will be smart enough that this blessing is NOT in conflict with the blessing at the end of the liturgy.

2. Likewise, there is a visible substantial difference between receiving Holy Communion and receiving a blessing. No confusion here either.

3. It acknowledges that all people are ultimately called to the Table of the Lord. Not everyone is able to receive, but everybody is called to get there. Having everybody process is a good symbol for that. Wherever people are in their process of coming back to the Lord, they are actually also processing back to the Table of the Lord.

4. What lay people cannot do is to impart public solemn blessings, but this is an individual blessing, which is legitimate by virtue of our Baptism.

5. The Lord did not reject anyone from His Table. Judas himself was there. To ask people who are not able to receive Holy Communion not to even approach the Table is, in my opinion, contrary to The Lord's praxis.

So, again, do not go against your parochial and diocesan regulations. It is not worth it.

There are enough things that are truly wrong going on in many places. Pick your battles wisely. This one is not worth fighting, even if you're right.

God Bless! (even if you are not able to receive Holy Communion at this time)

Shalom,
Memo

The Fathers were very concerned that people were attending the Eucharistic Liturgy and not receiving the Body and Blood of Christ. They preached repeatedly against what they considered a serious abuse, and their message was consistent: if you cannot or will not receive, then you should leave the church after the Liturgy of the Word is completed. At the time, there were orders of penitents who, together with the catechumens, were sent out of the church at the beginning of the Liturgy of the Eucharist, and the doors closed. In the minds of the Fathers, the reason for attending the Liturgy of the Eucharist was to receive, not merely to watch or to receive a blessing, because the Eucharist was an ecclesial action, not a source of personal sanctification.

Stuart,

Ok, but that doesn't address the pastoral issue today. While it is still customry for the dismissal rite for the order of catechumens, others who are not to receice communion do not leave also. No Church of any Rite that I know of asks non-Catholics to leave, and I have never been asked to leave at an Orthodox liturgy.

There were reasons of persecution for removing people from the Church during those times. Those reasons don't exist anymore.

While this is interesting information, it does little for the present pastoral concern.

Just what is wrong with people who can't Receive staying in their place during Communion ?

In the Eastern Churches, where frequent communion has not yet become the universal rule, the distribution of the Antidoron accommodates those who cannot or do not wish to receive Communion. In the Western Church, I believe it would be best for those who do not receive simply to stay in their place. Of course, this then causes them to be noticed as not receiving, and I suspect the whole custom of giving a blessing to those who do not receive was essentially to avoid causing discomfort to them. In the preconciliar Church, it just wasn't done, but there was no real stigma attached to not receiving--it could mean anything from not having gone to confession to having broken the Eucharistic fast.

Actually, the dismissal of the Catechumens and penitents was retained well into the seventh century. It was not because of persecution, but because of the ecclesial understanding of the Eucharist that only those fully initiated and in good standing were allowed to remain.

As to "All Catechumens depart" being meaningless today, it's still the practice in my parish--an adult catechumen came forward at the Liturgy of the Catechumens, received the blessing, and was dismissed. He went out of the nave for the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

In strict Orthodox Monasteries non Orthodox are asked to stand in the nave outside the Church during Divine Services.

I think Stuart was just giving the patristic standard, which is what we should strive for.

From the standpoint of we are all entitled to come to the Lord table even if we are not receiving. I don't disagree but the actual sign of that is not processing to receive a blessing it is being at Mass/Divine Liturgy. Just being in Church gives you a blessing, the Priest blessing you at the start of the liturgy or at the end is proper.

Yes, but we do not live in those times any more. The Church is different and the World is different.

The idea behind that praxis is still valid: God gave us the Eucharist so we could receive Holy Communion (with all the dimissions of Holy Communion included).

Some jurisdictions are simply experimenting with different practical approaches to address their specific pastoral realities.

The idea is the same, though: All are called.

Shalom,
Memo

Some jurisdictions are simply experimenting with different practical approaches to address their specific pastoral realities.

That is the problem...

Our school children all come to Mass every Friday throughout the school year, thanks be to God, and fill up the pews in about 3/4 of the church. Not all the children are Catholic, and not all the Catholic children have had their first Holy Communion. The younger ones are assigned to sit with older ones as companions during the Mass. They all come up together when it's time to receive Holy Communion.

I don't envision how this blessing would change in my parish unless they have those children stop coming to Mass or segregate the ones who cannot receive Holy Communion into a separate seating for the entire Mass. The possability they might be dismissed after the Liturgy of the Word, as the Catechumens are on Sundays, would happen in this Mass when.... never gunna happen...

(I've never heard any "the doors, the doors" in a Roman rite, and except when we have Catechumens in a Sunday Mass during which they leave to break open the Word, the Catechumens are never discourage from staying for the Liturgy of the Eucharist at other Masses they attend, not in my experience, which I admit is limited to the US.)



In terms of the sanitation issue Father is touching the children and then next handing out the Precious Body with the same hand. I don't see why it matters whose hand does both these actions, an EMHC, a deacon, or a priest, in terms of sanitation, if any touching of the person happens during the blessing. Father did tell our EMHC not to touch the kids' heads, because of lice.

(I've not seen any distributing of the Precious Body directly from a ciborium in any Mass that I've been in. If it's brought out at all during the Liturgy of the Eucharist, after the consecration, it is returned to the Tabernacle before Holy Communion is distributed. I can't speak for what happens with the ciborium during the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, but for sure in that case there would be no EMHCs anyway.)

I think danman916 is right on regarding pastoral economia for where this practice comes from and what will keep it going.

When I'm a EMHC twice a month for the school Mass I try to be one who gives the Precious Blood instead so I'm not in that "blessing" position. It's one of many things that go on where I offer up my personal frustration and then try to let go of it. When I get put in the position of the EMHC giving the Precious Body/the blessing, I just imagine it's like any other time I'd say to a child, or an adult, "God bless you!". Like many other things, what is proper and what we have don't always match up. We serve humbly and as best we can when we are asked, and privileged, to serve.

The Church is not bound to time and space, the Fathers speak to us just as they did to the original audience. The world is the same fallen and in need of the Church. The Church is always the same with one mission to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and to save Souls. If the Church changes with the world then what is the point of having the Church? The world today clearly rejects the idea of Christianity anyways....

All are called, very true but only few accept this call.

The true solution would be the Roman Church restoring infant communion, which was its practice as much as ours right up to the 13th century. But that's another story.

My children attended an Episcopalian day school, at which close to half of the children were Catholic. Chapel services were mandatory, and communion was offered once a month. My children, and the rest of the Catholic kids, stayed in their seats while their Episcopalian friends went up for communion. They all understood, both the Catholic and the Episcopalian kids, that the Catholics could not receive communion from the Episcopalian chaplain. Nobody's feelings were bent because of it. No permanent psychological scars.

Nothing. But unless there is going to be a directive telling people to stay in their place, it is a situation that happens to occur.

I'm talking more about the rpactical aspects of pastoral ministry, which I am involved in, as a lay person, in my parish.

I never said nor inferred that the practice was meaningless. I was simply stating that this is not the 3rd century or the 7th century Church.

However, the distinction that I think you are missing is that the Fathers spoke to their original audience in a specific time with specific needs and circumstances.

I will grant that the Fathers speak to us as well, but the fact still remains that our universal Church for all times is on a pilgrim journey in which times, circumstances, and needs change. Vatican II was called to address the contemporary issues of our times to make an ancient faith applicable to modern man.

In the same way, we must read the Fathers to see how to apply their wisdom to a different set of times circumstances and needs. That is what development is all about.

Who can deny this? The ecclesiology of the Church is not what it was in the 3rd century, 7th century, or 14th century. Why should we expect that the pastoral concerns would be different as well.


Absolutely, which is why it is important to address these issues in the contemporary times.

It would be nice if these kinds of situations simply didn't exist. But that is simply not how things are, and when you couple this with those who want to come to Church but do not understand these ways, telling them to sit down or to leave is going to communicate a message to them.

It may be a well-intentioned message, but the reality is that people may well be perceiving that they are not welcome.

So if our mission is to bring people into the paschal mystery, then as Christians, we are called to be sensitive to those perceptions, even if they are wrong, and to act toward our brother in charity, going the extra mile for them with sensitivity. That is what pastoral ministry is all about, and I would think that this view would be shared by both Eastern and Western Catholics, no?

This is a side comment having to do (possibly) with making a point from a (poor, or non-literal) translation. It is a caution not a conclusion. The given translation is sometimes criticized for that "our" since the Latin differs, and has:

link [fordham.edu]

link1 [en.wikipedia.org]; link2 [newadvent.org]

The criticism I've heard is that the "our" was a device used by the translators to reinterpret the text to their own agenda of blurring the distinction between priest and people. And they also left off the word "holy', i.e. "holy church" for good measure (also, the "inclusivity" issue, fratres translated "my brothers and sisters"). [BTW, the RDL translators had trouble with the priest being addressed as "holy Master" so he became just "Reverend Father".]

The prayer Oratre Fratres was not directed by the celebrant to the people, but by the celebrant to his co-celebrants (originally, the Roman rite allowed for concelebration, a practice that fell into desuetude but was restored by Vatican II). A similar prayer is found in the Byzantine rite in slightly different form at the beginning of the Anaphora:

Celebrant: Remember me, brothers and fellow celebrants.

Concelebrants (and deacon): May the Lord God remember your priesthood in his kingdom.

Celebrant: Pray for me, my fellow celebrants.

Concelebrants (and deacon): The Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of the most high shall overshadow you.

Celebrant: May the Spirit Himself join with us in our celebrations, all the days of our lives.

Deacon: Remember me, Father.

Celebrant: May the Lord remember you in his kingdom, always, now and ever, and unto Ages of Ages.

Deacon: Amen

Celebrants (together): O Lord God Almighty, who alone are holy and receive the sacrifice of praise from those who call upon You with their whole heart, accept the prayer also of us sinners; bring us to Your holy altar, enable us to offer to You gifts and spiritual sacrifices for our sins and for the people's transgressions; deem us also worthy to find favor in Your sight, that our sacrifice may be pleasing to You, and that the good Spirit of Your grace may rest in us and upon these gifts here present, and upon all Your people. Through the mercies of Your only-begotten Son, with whom You are blessed, together with Your all-holy and life-creating Spirit, now and ever, and unto Ages of Ages. Amen.

There are a few examples of the Approved New Missal Translations, I forgot to include the celebrant's parts...mea culpa


http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/examples.shtml


Changes in the Assembly's Parts
PART OF MASS

Suscipiat Dominus

PRESENT TEXT - May the Lord accept the sacrifice
at your hands for the praise and glory of his name,
for our good, and the good of all his Church.

NEW TEXT - May the Lord accept the sacrifice
at your hands for the praise and glory of his name,
for our good and the good of all his holy Church.

Nice site. Needs to have the Latin text in a third column.

Indeed, "was" not "is". The rubric even in the Missal of Pius V (1924) directs the priest "versus ad populum" for "Orate, fratres.."; but the rubric that follows before the "Suscipiat..." is just "Minister ... respondent..."

This exchange in the Mass does then seem to correspond, as indicated in the links, to the given quoted exchange in the Byzantine rite. The given translation, however, also does not have the "holy" that is found in the Roman editions of the Greek p 43 [patronagechurch.com] and Slavonic p 235 [patronagechurch.com]. There it is clearly not "Remember me, Father" but "Remember me, holy Master."

Also (just to note), while other priests may be concelebrating, THE "fellow celebrant" / concelebrant (Gk: sulleittourge; Sl: soslužitelu)* of the indicated liturgicons is the Deacon, the standard concelebrant at a Byzantine liturgy.

----------------------------------
* It's too bad the tern "liturgist" has its present meaning, otherwise it would be a better rendering than fellow-celebrant or concelebrant: co-liturgist as one who so functions for a liturgy.

The problem for the Roman rite, of course, was the suppression of concelebration made the prayer redundant--yet there it was. The rubrics were altered to make some sense out of a prayer that, otherwise, the celebrant would be saying to and for himself.

You have underestimated the Tridentine ingenuity for the Priest doing it all. After the Orate, fratres ..., said it seems even if no one else is present, the Priest is explicitly directed by the rubrics to respond with the Suscipiat modified by replacing your (tuis) with my (meis): "May the Lord accept the sacrifice from my hands ..."

Says who?

This topic is way off from the original question of who could give blessings. Now we've wandered into areas of people coming forward during Holy Communion in the Latin Church and further into other liturgical questions and practices.

Let's return to the original question and, if that is exhausted, let's break these other areas into new threads.

Bob
Moderator

Administrator' Note:

I just spent almost a half hour this evening disentangling this thread and splitting it into two threads. Bob/Theophan's warning still applies, since for the most part even this reconstituted thread is off-topic. If it can not be put back on-topic within the next day in line with the original post, I ask the moderator's for this section to close the thread.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator

I am weary Fr. Anthony of discussing this topic and will do my best at one last point of info...

The Congregation for Divine Worship; Giving Blessings during the Communion Rite...

http://www.adoremus.org/0209CDW_Blessing.html

I'll back Jakub here .

Early on , on page 1 I had also posted the same link which Jakub has just reposted in answer to the the OP's question
Original link

I really think that it's time this thread got buried .

The question in post number 329977 has been answered definitively by Rome.