Ship of Fools: Blessing non-communicants

Thread: Blessing non-communicants Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027862

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

Our vicar blesses children and non-commmunicants at the altar rail by makimg the sign of the cross over them with the host. It has been suggested he should place his hand on their heads instead, and that this is the more usual thing to do. Is it? And should he?

[ 16. February 2014, 17:43: Message edited by: Corvo ]

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

I was taught to make the sign of the cross on their foreheads with my thumb whilst saying the words of blessing.

Some clergy won't, now, make physical contact with a blessee and waving the host around is, presumably, a substitute for that. Personally I think that is excessive but, given the sensitivities around clerical abuse at the moment, if that is where your vicar is coming from you had best leave it alone. At the end of the day it is God's blessing and He will not withhold it from His children, however the priest bestows it.

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

I do a hand on the head. I am right handed, so I give bread to each communicant with my right, while holding the loaf (wrapped in a cloth) in my left. Since I don't want to put the hand that's distributing bread on someone's head, I switch the bread from left to right and put my left on their head.

The bit that I always manage to mess up is the blessing itself. I think I need to memorize one, but I don't know which one to memorize.

Still, like Gildas said, it's God's blessing, and God won't withhold it just because I say the wrong words or use the wrong hand or wrong gesture.

[ 16. February 2014, 18:13: Message edited by: Barefoot Friar ]

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Choose one and go for it! I was taught "the blessing of God Almighty, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit be upon you this day and forevermore" for my first Mass as a Deacon and could do it in my sleep. At an 8am Communion Service, I probably have done. The main thing is that the non-communicant person and, yet more importantly, their child understands that you are conveying God's love.

I think that getting the blessing right is missiologically more important, on some level, than communicating the faithful. Which, obviously, is hardly negligible!

Posted by Bene Gesserit (# 14718) on :

So, would one (i.e. a non-communicant) stand/kneel in the appropriate place and simply say "bless me please"? Or...?

Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on :

Individuals requesting a blessing tend to either keep their hands clasped below the altar rail or bring up a service book. In either case, their hands are not put forward to receive the host. We sometimes invite people to come for a blessing if they don't feel able to take communion (Church in Wales, if anyone's interested)

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

I was told that I should go forward with my arms across my chest. It worked at my brother's wedding when I went forward for a blessing instead of taking communion.

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

Since I'm Methodist, we allow everyone who wishes to receive. But I will bless small children, especially infants, when parents want me to or when they're unable to receive. On rare occasion I'll have an adult come forward for a blessing; they've invariably been people who are either Lutheran (LCMS) or another tradition that practices closed Communion. Most people around here, however, don't come forward at all if they don't wish to receive. Asking for a blessing isn't common at all, except in RC or possibly TEC circles.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Barefoot Friar - the opposite as well for those of us in a church which does have an open table. When we go to one we know is closed, we go up with arms crossed over our chests, unless we have had an opportunity to talk to the priest beforehand to clear the way. It saves both embarrassment and an abuse of hospitality.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Choose one and go for it! I was taught "the blessing of God Almighty, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit be upon you this day and forevermore" for my first Mass as a Deacon and could do it in my sleep. ...

I thought that unless a person is a priest, they aren't allowed to bless anyone apart from their own children.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Good call.

"May the blessing..." as a Deacon.

"The blessing of..." as a Priest.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Barefoot Friar - the opposite as well for those of us in a church which does have an open table. When we go to one we know is closed, we go up with arms crossed over our chests, unless we have had an opportunity to talk to the priest beforehand to clear the way. It saves both embarrassment and an abuse of hospitality.

Exactly what I do when I go to RC mass (fairly often). Even though I can happily accept transubstantiation, I would see receiving the host as a non-RC as very rude behaviour.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I thought that unless a person is a priest, they aren't allowed to bless anyone apart from their own children.

In the RCC, deacons can perform a number of "lower level," generic blessings, including of people.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

The crossed-hands-for-a-blessing approach is an anglophone one, and not much known elsewhere. My sources inform me that, at the Cathedral in Santiago de Compostela, they became aware that many of the non-RC pilgrims who felt unable to take communion still wanted some gesture at the end of their 700km, so the cathedral clergy were briefed on the anglophone custom, and over the past year it has become common at the pilgrims' mass for those who do not communicate.

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
Asking for a blessing isn't common at all, except in RC or possibly TEC circles.

In my TEC context, blessings are pretty common, to the point of probably averaging two blessings every three services, in a congregation of about 20 per Sunday. Of course, that's partly because, as a congregation of 20, we gather around the altar for the liturgy of the table, so there isn't really a "don't go up" option.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I thought that unless a person is a priest, they aren't allowed to bless anyone apart from their own children.

In the RCC, deacons can perform a number of "lower level," generic blessings, including of people.

Not quite accurate. Deacons give only those blessings expressly permitted by law. There is nothing "lower level" about such a blessing, it is simply more restricted. So, I blessed people today at the conclusion of the baptism I presided at (as the rite tells me to), but while administering communion at the Mass beforehand I simply prayed for those who came up 'for a blessing' in my line.

The US Catholic standard to signal this is to come up with your arms over your chest (opposite hand on opposite shoulder). We have one person I sometimes see at church who always approaches with her finger over her lips, as if she's about to "shush" me. The meaning is perfectly clear.

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :

What's the arrangement for travellers? In Rome in 1958 I went to an Anglican service and spoke beforehand to the priest, who said it was permitted to share communion with a communicant member of the Presbyterian (or presumably other) church who had no church of their own denomination in the vicinity.

Don't remember what happened on shipboard but I expect the Bishop on our trip had a similar dispensation. (I was roped in as pianist for the main services.)

GG

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
Our vicar blesses children and non-commmunicants at the altar rail by making the sign of the cross over them with the host.

It has been suggested he should place his hand on their heads instead, and that this is the more usual thing to do.

Is it? And should he?

Could I return to the original question which was about touching the non-communicant?

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Do you think it won't 'stick' unless the person is touched on the head? At a guess, the reason why the priest has the host is in his hand is symbolic of the blessings of the Eucharist. Seems a perfectly right way to do it in my opinion.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
What's the arrangement for travellers? In Rome in 1958 I went to an Anglican service and spoke beforehand to the priest, who said it was permitted to share communion with a communicant member of the Presbyterian (or presumably other) church who had no church of their own denomination in the vicinity.

Don't remember what happened on shipboard but I expect the Bishop on our trip had a similar dispensation. (I was roped in as pianist for the main services.)

GG

You'd be surprised how few Anglican services there are in the wilds of Provence or the Auvergne . Our practice is to have a chat to the priest before Mass, explain as best we can in our poor French, and his probably better English, our understanding of what happens at the consecration of the elements, and be told it's quite ok to take communion.

AFAIK Presbyterians practise a closed table here (the Uniting Church are different). But if you came to our Anglican church, the only requirement would be that you are a baptised member of another church. It would not matter if you had not attended church for the last 10 years, as long as you had been baptised. I think the same or similar would apply in al other Anglican churches in OZ.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

dj-ordinaire , I've just seen your post on the Bridges etc thread. I don't this transgresses your ruling, but if it does, I apologise.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
On rare occasion I'll have an adult come forward for a blessing; they've invariably been people who are either Lutheran (LCMS) or another tradition that practices closed Communion. Most people around here, however, don't come forward at all if they don't wish to receive. Asking for a blessing isn't common at all, except in RC or possibly TEC circles.

Interesting that you see it as an issue of open vs closed communion.

I thought it was common across most churches that the unbaptized, or those who feel they are in a state of sin or unrepentant should not take communion. I attended a Church of Scotland service once and was the priest asked each person (it was a small service) if we were baptized before he offered me the bread and wine.

So I generally assume that adults who ask for a blessing instead of Communion aren't Christians. Especially as our rector says "We invite all Christian believers to partake in the bread and wine, if you do not feel you can take Communion please do come forward anyway and we will say a blessing for you" which makes it fairly clear that it's open.

Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
Our vicar blesses children and non-commmunicants at the altar rail by making the sign of the cross over them with the host.

It has been suggested he should place his hand on their heads instead, and that this is the more usual thing to do.

Is it? And should he?
Could I return to the original question which was about touching the non-communicant?

May I combine the two slightly?

If someone who is not a priest (clearly not the case in your original question, but related) is doing the blessing, by using the MBS it could be considered, in the same manner as the blessing at Benediction, that it is the MBS giving the blessing, not the person. Following that line of thinking, during a service of Benediction, the priest does not bless anything (e.g. incense added to the thurible) in the presence of the exposed Sacrament. When distributing communion, the priest carries the Sacrament, and whilst it is not solemnly exposed at that point, the MBS is still exposed and present, and therefore we might argue the same principle applies.

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Interesting that you see it as an issue of open vs closed communion.

I thought it was common across most churches that the unbaptized, or those who feel they are in a state of sin or unrepentant should not take communion. I attended a Church of Scotland service once and was the priest asked each person (it was a small service) if we were baptized before he offered me the bread and wine.

So I generally assume that adults who ask for a blessing instead of Communion aren't Christians. Especially as our rector says "We invite all Christian believers to partake in the bread and wine, if you do not feel you can take Communion please do come forward anyway and we will say a blessing for you" which makes it fairly clear that it's open.

I've come across a few who were cradle Baptists and who over the years had heard someone preaching on 1 Corinthians 11 in such a way that the person in question never again felt they were worthy to receive.

One woman in particular was regularly attending my church, and she approached me to apologize that she wasn't coming forward for Communion. Even though I gently explained the passage, the prayer of confession and pardon, and the absolution, she was still worried that she wasn't worthy and wouldn't receive.

All of these have just stayed in their seats instead of coming for a blessing.

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

TomM

That's very interesting. There are occasions when the host is not given out by the vicar but by a layperson holding the bishop's licence to administer HC. The latter call themselves 'chalice bearers' because that is what they usually do although they are equally authorised to give out the host. It would seem odd for them to touch the non-communicant in blessing but natural to bless them with the host.

[ 17. February 2014, 11:12: Message edited by: Corvo ]

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
TomM

That's very interesting. There are occasions when the host is not given out by the vicar but by a layperson holding the bishop's licence to administer HC. The latter call themselves 'chalice bearers' because that is what they usually do although they are equally authorised to give out the host. It would seem odd for them to touch the non-communicant in blessing but natural to bless them with the host.

The technical term is Eucharistic ministers..
For the CofE any body is allowed to ask for God's blessing ie 'may the blessing' but only a priest is allowed to pronounce it.

Making a sign of the cross over somebodies head with the wafer might make liturgical sense, but if I came as somebody not used to Christianity then I think I would find it weird and maybe excluding. It would feel like – you can’t join in with us so I’ll just wave it over you to emphasise your exclusion.

In my corner of the CofE the crossing of arms to indicate wanting a blessing is what RCs do. CofEs leave their hands by their side.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
TomM

That's very interesting. There are occasions when the host is not given out by the vicar but by a layperson holding the bishop's licence to administer HC. The latter call themselves 'chalice bearers' because that is what they usually do although they are equally authorised to give out the host. It would seem odd for them to touch the non-communicant in blessing but natural to bless them with the host.

Except that "blessing" with the host would be analogous to benediction, which is reserved to those in holy orders, whereas the laying on of hands with prayer is regularly done by the laity.

As I understand it, though, the sign of the cross with the host is part of the pre-1970 rite for the distribution of communion, and as such was not intended to be a blessing. I'd be wary of re-appropriating it as a blessing.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
dj-ordinaire , I've just seen your post on the Bridges etc thread. I don't this transgresses your ruling, but if it does, I apologise.

No seems on topic and quite alright... although the same point about not getting too much into the question of open/closed Communion itself still stands! [Smile]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Hand on shoulder, never on head. the latter feels patronising and hair gel has made a comeback.

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
TomM
The technical term is Eucharistic ministers..

I don't think 'Eucharistic Minister' is a term officially used in the Church of England. 'Chalice bearers' are simply lay people 'authorized to distribute the Holy Sacrament'.

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
TomM

That's very interesting. There are occasions when the host is not given out by the vicar but by a layperson holding the bishop's licence to administer HC. The latter call themselves 'chalice bearers' because that is what they usually do although they are equally authorised to give out the host. It would seem odd for them to touch the non-communicant in blessing but natural to bless them with the host.
Except that "blessing" with the host would be analogous to benediction, which is reserved to those in holy orders, whereas the laying on of hands with prayer is regularly done by the laity.

As I understand it, though, the sign of the cross with the host is part of the pre-1970 rite for the distribution of communion, and as such was not intended to be a blessing. I'd be wary of re-appropriating it as a blessing.

Non-communicants who come to the altar 'for a blessing' are presumably somehow expecting something more than those who remain in their seats, and that 'something more' would seem to have something to do with the sacrament they are not receiving. Maybe (particularly in the case of a lay minister) showing them the host and using a 'May . . . ' form of blessing would be appropriate (though I have never seen this).

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

A prayer that ISTM works well when a lay Eucharistic assistant is charged with giving a "blessing" is: "Bless, O Lord, this thy child through all the days of her/his life, until at length s/he come to thine eternal joy." Although I'm used to this particular idiom, the language could obviously be conformed to the contemporary idiom.

Notice that this is a prayer to invoke God's blessing, rather than definitively declaring a blessing in the manner of an ordained minister.

Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
TomM

That's very interesting. There are occasions when the host is not given out by the vicar but by a layperson holding the bishop's licence to administer HC. The latter call themselves 'chalice bearers' because that is what they usually do although they are equally authorised to give out the host. It would seem odd for them to touch the non-communicant in blessing but natural to bless them with the host.
Except that "blessing" with the host would be analogous to benediction, which is reserved to those in holy orders, whereas the laying on of hands with prayer is regularly done by the laity.

As I understand it, though, the sign of the cross with the host is part of the pre-1970 rite for the distribution of communion, and as such was not intended to be a blessing. I'd be wary of re-appropriating it as a blessing.

I'd express similar reservations, but it seems an obvious (albeit probably improper) link.

I'm not sure I would have a problem with a priest signing with the cross before laying on hands though - though I would be hesitant to say at what exact point the blessing was given, and would avoid explaining it in the context of benediction! (And for the lay administrator or deacon - according to jurisdiction - then the blessing can still invoked, rather than the priestly explicit form).

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
TomM
The technical term is Eucharistic ministers..

I don't think 'Eucharistic Minister' is a term officially used in the Church of England.

Yes it is, although it's possible the description may vary between dioceses

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
TomM
The technical term is Eucharistic ministers..

I don't think 'Eucharistic Minister' is a term officially used in the Church of England.
Yes it is, although it's possible the description may vary between dioceses

It doesn't appear in the Canons where the term 'minister' always seems to refer to ordained ministry.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
TomM
The technical term is Eucharistic ministers..

I don't think 'Eucharistic Minister' is a term officially used in the Church of England.
Yes it is, although it's possible the description may vary between dioceses
It doesn't appear in the Canons where the term 'minister' always seems to refer to ordained ministry.

Indeed, the regulations that permit lay people to assist with the distribution (available here) don't specify a term. The General Synod paper from 2012 that proposed changes to the regulations (available here) uses the term "lay assistant".

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Hand on shoulder, never on head. the latter feels patronising and hair gel has made a comeback.

Instruction to Bishops for ordination rite?

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Those in church who don't wish to receive Communion are instructed to bring a hymn/prayer book up to the altar rail, to indicate that they wish to have a blessing. The method of blessing varies according to the priest - some still place hand on head, others make the sign of the cross in the air over their head or just hover their hand above the head. We are about to enter another interregnum, meaning there will be several different priests helping out. So I will be interested to note any new or different styles.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
TomM
The technical term is Eucharistic ministers..

I don't think 'Eucharistic Minister' is a term officially used in the Church of England. 'Chalice bearers' are simply lay people 'authorized to distribute the Holy Sacrament'.

Eucharistic minister, as a term has just been used by our diocesan bishop, in an official communique about getting permission for people to distrubute communion

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

Whereas our bishop only wants us to use that term for priests (and bishops, I guess). The minister of the sacrament of the Eucharist is the presider. The people who distribute communion are ministers of holy communion. It can seem linguistically pedantic, but the distinction is an important one.

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

I think most lay C of E people would think any kind of 'minister' was a 'vicar'. i am sure the commonest term for those authorized to distribute communion is 'chalice bearer' even though they are equally authorized to give out the host. I can remember hearing (when for some reason the latter happened in our church) some one say it was the first time they had 'received communion' from a lay person - even though the chalice bearer is always lay.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

It is perfectly proper to refer to a 'Lay Eucharistic Minister' but it does not follow that the term will be understood by the punters. I vividly remember a PCC discussion where we were supposedly nominating a LEM and half the PCC thought the lady in question would be training as a Reader.

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

Administrant is the term used chez nous.

Hand on head is probably what I experienced as a child, but have seen the host used. Both are fine IMO.

Carys

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

At our last church the custom was to make the sign of the cross on children's heads but to shake hands with the non-communicant adults...which always struck me as rather odd and inconsistent. At our new congregation, I can't recall seeing any adults requesting a blessing in lieu of participating in Communion, nor do I remember any guidance in the bulletins.

Re non-communicants: In my ELCA neighborhood, the adults who decline to participate in Communion tend to be visitors from Bapticostal-ish churches, who have issues with our sacramental theology even though we practice open Communion and explain that in the context of the service...RC and LCMS visitors don't seem to have much hesitation in joining us. (Shhhh!) This is in contrast to the church of my childhood, where members in good standing regularly sat out Communion for various personal reasons, and where in general anyone who availed themselves of the sacrament at every available opportunity (which was only twice a month plus holidays in that Pietist congregation) tended to be looked upon by other churchgoers with suspicion, either as someone engaged in an unseemly display of works-righteousness or else as someone who must be struggling with some particularly awful habitual sin so as to feel the need for forgiveness and strength so often. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

On the final day of my Personal Best of 17 straight days of Daily Mass last (Southern) winter I went up for a blessing. Since people received satnding at the head of a queue I did the arms crossed thing like the school kiddies.

I had met the priest on Day One and explained my Presbyterian origins and was left in no doubt that receiving was "not on" . I didn't mind especially, though I do come from a shack where "The Table is open to all who love the Lord". (This delivered in a Scots accent with appropriately welcoming smile and sparkling eyes before and after the actual statement).

Anyway I looked up to make eye contact and here is this host before me! Surprised, I automatically clicked my tongue twice (which means "No" in the Middle East), realised I was not understood and tried to shake my head unobtrusively.

I got a cross on my forehead and a "God be with you, Galilit"

What I thought was so nice about that was that Fr T would have given me, I refused, I got a blessing and that was the Best Possible Outcome: Fr T. offering despite what he had said 17 days before, me Doing the Right Thing by refusing and him
blessing me which was what we both wanted in the first place. Unforgettable moment!

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
I think most lay C of E people would think any kind of 'minister' was a 'vicar'. i am sure the commonest term for those authorized to distribute communion is 'chalice bearer' even though they are equally authorized to give out the host. I can remember hearing (when for some reason the latter happened in our church) some one say it was the first time they had 'received communion' from a lay person - even though the chalice bearer is always lay.

Weras in my neck of the woods cahlice bearer is completely unknown, chalice assistant is used sometimes.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

a paragraph form the service our diocese sends us to use for the

'Commissioning of Lay Persons to assist in the Administration of Holy Communion

N, have been chosen to serve this Church by ministering the sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, (and by taking the Holy Communion to the sick). This is an important duty, to be undertaken in prayer and humility, and with a deep desire to serve the Lord.

N, are you willing to be entrusted with this ministry?'

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
I think most lay C of E people would think any kind of 'minister' was a 'vicar'. i am sure the commonest term for those authorized to distribute communion is 'chalice bearer' even though they are equally authorized to give out the host. I can remember hearing (when for some reason the latter happened in our church) some one say it was the first time they had 'received communion' from a lay person - even though the chalice bearer is always lay.
Weras in my neck of the woods cahlice bearer is completely unknown, chalice assistant is used sometimes.

"Chalice bearer" and "chalice assistant" are both equally wrong, because a person is authorised to administer the sacrament, in either kind. In the case of the communion of the sick it usually includes the Host, as in church (especially with large congregations) it may well do. 'Eucharistic minister' is not (except maybe in some dioceses) the official title in the C of E, but it is accurate. There is no other commonly used phrase which is suitably concise.

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

So, to return to the original question, what does a lay eucharistic minister administering the host do when non-communicants present themselves for a blessing?

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
I think most lay C of E people would think any kind of 'minister' was a 'vicar'. i am sure the commonest term for those authorized to distribute communion is 'chalice bearer' even though they are equally authorized to give out the host. I can remember hearing (when for some reason the latter happened in our church) some one say it was the first time they had 'received communion' from a lay person - even though the chalice bearer is always lay.
Weras in my neck of the woods cahlice bearer is completely unknown, chalice assistant is used sometimes.
"Chalice bearer" and "chalice assistant" are both equally wrong, because a person is authorised to administer the sacrament, in either kind. In the case of the communion of the sick it usually includes the Host, as in church (especially with large congregations) it may well do. 'Eucharistic minister' is not (except maybe in some dioceses) the official title in the C of E, but it is accurate. There is no other commonly used phrase which is suitably concise.

Probably the bearer and assistant titles, are used for people who administer the chalice, as the word administrator sounds even more wrong...

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
So, to return to the original question, what does a lay eucharistic minister administering the host do when non-communicants present themselves for a blessing?

Hands on shoulder, holding host, 'May Almighty god bless you'.

If it is a child, kneel down to their level.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
So, to return to the original question, what does a lay eucharistic minister administering the host do when non-communicants present themselves for a blessing?

Nothing. The celebrant will already have given them a blessing in stead of the bread.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

In this diocese, to quote from our guidelines, they:

quote:

...should simply say, “May God bless you,” “May the peace of Christ be with you,” or “Receive Jesus in your heart” (none of which are prayers reserved to clergy). This should be said without any accompanying gesture or action with the hand or with the sacred host.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
So, to return to the original question, what does a lay eucharistic minister administering the host do when non-communicants present themselves for a blessing?
Nothing. The celebrant will already have given them a blessing in stead of the bread.

Did I misunderstand you, or the question, or did you misread the questions?

Posted by Gottschalk (# 13175) on :

How and when and why was this whole business of blessing non-communicants started?

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

As an aside, touching an Indigenous Australian or a Māori child on the head would be considered extremely offensive, and consequently I would never touch any child on the head.

Nor would I wave Jesus around.

quote:
May the Lord Bless you can keep you and make his face to shine upon you, and may Jesus ever be your friend

is my blessing to all who indicate they don't want communion ... usually three or four or so a week For children I often kneel to their level, yes

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
How and when and why was this whole business of blessing non-communicants started?

I read a Roman Catholic piece about this that IIRC said that territories were given the discretion to give blessings at Communion from 1969 onwards. England and Wales adopted the practice in the early 70s, as did many other European countries and some provinces in the US.

The English Bishops have produced a number of booklets about general Eucharistic theology which include a references to these blessings, talking of all being united in the Holy Sprit, and how the blessing - for those who can't receive sacramental communion - emphasises a deep spiritual communion.

It would be interesting to discover when blessings became adopted in other denominations.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:

It would be interesting to discover when blessings became adopted in other denominations.

In the C of E, I would date it to the late 50s or early 60s, when the Parish Communion had begun to take over the mid-morning slot formerly occupied by Sung Mattins. Previously the eucharist would be celebrated early on Sunday mornings and attended almost exclusively by intending communicants. A later Sung Eucharist would have been attended by a majority of non-communicants. Once it became the custom for the majority of the congregation to go up for communion, the rest (especially children, and particularly when confirmation was insisted on as a qualification) would feel 'left out' (or at least well-meaning adults would imagine that they did). Hence the blessings.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:

It would be interesting to discover when blessings became adopted in other denominations.
In the C of E, I would date it to the late 50s or early 60s, when the Parish Communion had begun to take over the mid-morning slot formerly occupied by Sung Mattins. Previously the eucharist would be celebrated early on Sunday mornings and attended almost exclusively by intending communicants. A later Sung Eucharist would have been attended by a majority of non-communicants. Once it became the custom for the majority of the congregation to go up for communion, the rest (especially children, and particularly when confirmation was insisted on as a qualification) would feel 'left out' (or at least well-meaning adults would imagine that they did). Hence the blessings.

I was confirmed in 1955 and at the church where my family was worshipping in the late '40s and early '50s (C of E), there was a 09.15 Parish Communion on a Sunday morning, which my parents had me attend. I was confirmed after the family had moved away and at our 'new' church. Thus, in my childhood, I had always missed out on childrens' blessing at the communion rail.

So if childrens' blessing started late '50s to early '60s, then to me, that makes sense.

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

I think that's what happened here when a non-communicating High Mass was replaced by Parish Communion in the late 1950s or early 60s.

To go back to the original question, I think sometimes the blessing of non-communicants - particularly children - can be a bit 'overdone' - so much so that it appears almost 'better' than actually receiving. I think this is particularly so when touch is involved rather than a blessing with (or showing) the host.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

That (and natural grumpiness) is the reason I don't waste lots of words. If we just say to communicants 'the Body of Christ' I don't see what's wrong with simply saying 'The blessing of Christ'. Getting down to the level of the little ones though, and smiling, is important.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
How and when and why was this whole business of blessing non-communicants started?

With one exception (and it was an exceptional situation) in a CoI university chapel, I only started seeing it in Canadian Anglican churches in the 1970s, and then for children accompanying their parents up to the communion rail. From the early 1980s, I began to see it at weddings and funerals for non-communicating adults. It might have been going on for some time without my having noticed it.

Posted by Gottschalk (# 13175) on :

Do the Orthodox have something similar? I have been to a number of Traditional Catholic chapels but have never seen it. Perhaps they do it in bigger churches?

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

It would not be done in Catholic churches which follow the Tridentine Roman rite.When this was mandatory over the Roman Catholic church there was no blessing of non communicants.Those,who for varied reasons did not communicate sacramentally(receiving the Host) were encouraged to make a 'spiritual' communion.This was often the majority of those assisting at the Mass.
It is the same now in the Orthodox church.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Do the Orthodox have something similar?

The Orthodox tend to be Chrismated as babies, so this doesn't really come up. I understand that non-consecrated bread is distributed to non Orthodox worshippers.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

It's also distributed amongst those members of the Orthodox community who have not received Communion (often the majority of the worshippers)

Well over 100 years ago this was a not too uncommon practice in certain Catholic churches to distribute blessed,but not consecrated , bread to the worshippers at the end of Mass.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

When I was a small child in the 1960's children were not allowed at the Communion rail. I always felt abandoned, sitting there alone in the pew while my parents went up to the altar. So I think the newer practice is a good thing.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:

It would be interesting to discover when blessings became adopted in other denominations.
In the C of E, I would date it to the late 50s or early 60s, when the Parish Communion had begun to take over the mid-morning slot formerly occupied by Sung Mattins. Previously the eucharist would be celebrated early on Sunday mornings and attended almost exclusively by intending communicants. A later Sung Eucharist would have been attended by a majority of non-communicants. Once it became the custom for the majority of the congregation to go up for communion, the rest (especially children, and particularly when confirmation was insisted on as a qualification) would feel 'left out' (or at least well-meaning adults would imagine that they did). Hence the blessings.
I was confirmed in 1955 and at the church where my family was worshipping in the late '40s and early '50s (C of E), there was a 09.15 Parish Communion on a Sunday morning, which my parents had me attend. I was confirmed after the family had moved away and at our 'new' church. Thus, in my childhood, I had always missed out on childrens' blessing at the communion rail.

So if childrens' blessing started late '50s to early '60s, then to me, that makes sense.

I'm a bit younger, but not that much. The standard CofE pattern when I was a child in the fifties was that Communion was at 8 am with Mattins in the morning and Evensong in the evening. So a child didn't really encounter Communion. In the later fifties, we went erratically to a church that had a Parish Communion. I can't remember whether this was every week or once a month. From recollection, I think non-communicating children stayed in the pews. Their going up for a blessing I think would have spread gradually from sometime in the late sixties.

I agree with LutheranChik that this has been a good thing, for the same reason as hers.

I don't recall having ever heard of, yet alone encountered, before it was mentioned on the Ship in recent months, any CofE church where it was normal, or even acceptable, practice to have as the main service on a Sunday morning a Communion Service at which communicating is not usual and is discouraged. I'd suspect that if this was so, it would have been a niche experience.

[ 21. February 2014, 09:12: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

Originally posted by Enoch:

I don't recall having ever heard of, yet alone encountered, before it was mentioned on the Ship in recent months, any CofE church where it was normal, or even acceptable, practice to have as the main service on a Sunday morning a Communion Service at which communicating is not usual and is discouraged. I'd suspect that if this was so, it would have been a niche experience.

------------------------------------------------------

I had a look at our old service registers once and saw that in the 1950s there might be 100+ communicants at early services on Sundays (7 and 8 am) and then just a handful at High Mass at 11. Even today there are one or two older people who make their communion at 8 and return for what is now the Parish Mass at 10. They remain in their seats at Communion.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

I don't recall having ever heard of, yet alone encountered, before it was mentioned on the Ship in recent months, any CofE church where it was normal, or even acceptable, practice to have as the main service on a Sunday morning a Communion Service at which communicating is not usual and is discouraged. I'd suspect that if this was so, it would have been a niche experience.

Obviously confined to the higher end of the candle. But although 'non-communicating High Masses' would be the preserve of full-on Anglo-catholics, the tradition was not unknown in more moderate places. The parish where I served my title, which then had weekly Parish Communion, and would have been seen as 'Prayer Book Catholic', until the very late 1950s used to alternate Mattins and Sung Eucharist as the main service. Communion at the latter was offered, but it wasn't expected that most people would receive.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Do the Orthodox have something similar?
The Orthodox tend to be Chrismated as babies, so this doesn't really come up. I understand that non-consecrated bread is distributed to non Orthodox worshippers.

Indeed. Since Orthodoxy traditionally has had a very high understanding of the need for preparation and confession before receiving communion, it is often babies who receive communion most often.

And yes, the antidoron (blessed but unconsecrated bread) is distributed after communion, often at the same time as the veneration of the cross. It is normally possible for people to receive it even if they are not communicants, including those from other Christian churches.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
given the sensitivities around clerical abuse at the moment, if that is where your vicar is coming from you had best leave it alone.

Pfah! Any touch = bad touch = abuse now? How much further is the church prepared to indulge this secular gnosticism?

We are physical creatures. This is elementary, my dear Watson. As physical creatures, we have five senses. Good liturgy involves all five.

No doubt, if that is where the vicar is coming from, then he is being only prudent, and should not be pressured to do otherwise. However, the congregation should commit themselves to stand by him if he should dare once again to stand by tradition. This reminds me of the sermon I mentioned a few hours ago in Purgatory. It was entitled, "Gospel trouble." Jesus didn't shy away from it, he walked right into it. The preacher mentioned an exemplary bishop (named Gene Robinson) who assured his priests that if they ever got into "gospel trouble," he would be right there beside them. The preacher in turn made the same promise to his parishioners. It should go both ways.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:

Weras in my neck of the woods cahlice bearer is completely unknown, chalice assistant is used sometimes.

We tend to call them "servers" informally.

The official term is probably something like "lay persons authorised to distribute Holy Communion".

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:

Weras in my neck of the woods cahlice bearer is completely unknown, chalice assistant is used sometimes.
We tend to call them "servers" informally.

The official term is probably something like "lay persons authorised to distribute Holy Communion".

I go for 'cupbearer', like Nehemiah.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Or Ganymede [Frown]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0