www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Giving blessings?

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.