A Visitor to Mass

[Newbie2]

Take out document, roll up, and whack, whack, whack. Yes, I’m being abundantly sarcastic.

To the OP, if blessings are being done in your (visiting) parish, and you speak with the priest and he says it’s OK to get a blessing, don’t let the forum naysayers beat you over the head with documents. If getting a blessing leads you to full communion in the Catholic faith, where you can actively then participate in the wonderful sacrament of the Eucharist, then by all means go for it.

 

[benedictgal]

Take out document, roll up, and whack, whack, whack. Yes, I’m being abundantly sarcastic.

To the OP, if blessings are being done in your (visiting) parish, and you speak with the priest and he says it’s OK to get a blessing, don’t let the forum naysayers beat you over the head with documents. If getting a blessing leads you to full communion in the Catholic faith, where you can actively then participate in the wonderful sacrament of the Eucharist, then by all means go for it.

Actually, since Rome has already made a statement on this matter, we do not have the right to encourage people to go against what the Holy See has already stated.

This is not a document bashing issue, although some would make it out to be. The priest has no right to say that something is okay when Rome has said that, for the time being, the opposite holds true. That would be encouraging the OP to engage in a practice that is wrong and it would cause furrther confusion, which, in the end, does not help anyone, especially the OP.

 

[Newbie2]

If it leads the OP to full communion with the Church, I disagree.

 

[benedictgal]

If it leads the OP to full communion with the Church, I disagree.

But, that is the wrong approach to take. If Rome has already spoken out on the matter, going against what the Church says would already send the OP (and anyone else) the message that we can pick and choose what parts of the Holy See we can obey or disobey as long as we get the results we want. Then, it would not be a case of the means justifying the end.

Part and parcel of being a Catholic is obeying the directives of the Holy See. Just dismissing them (and those of us who hold to them) and calling it document bashing is never a good thing.

 

[Newbie2]

In this particular case, I disagree.

 

[benedictgal]

In this particular case, I disagree.

Then you are advocating to willfully ignore what the Holy See has already stated? At least that is who I read it. If that is the case then that, with all due respect, is the wrong approach to take.

This kind of attitude, sadly, causes confusion, because if we are supposed to be Catholics, then, we receive with obedience the guidelines that the Church has given us. In this case, for the time being, this practice is not to be employed, yet you advocate disobeying it, again, as I read your remarks. This is wrong.

The document clearly states that the line is for receiving Holy Communion, not a blessing and that the blessing, which is for everyone, will be imparted at the end of Mass. You cannot place yourself, nor can the priest or the bishop, above what the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has written.

 

[Newbie2]

As I said, if in this case it helps lead the OP to full communion with the Church, so be it.

Go ahead, repeat what you’ve written, you can have the last word. We clearly disagree.

 

[benedictgal]

As I said, if in this case it helps lead the OP to full communion with the Church, so be it.

Go ahead, repeat what you’ve written, you can have the last word. We clearly disagree.

It’s not that I want to have the last word. I just want you to think about what you have just written. Even though you may have the best intentions, ignoring what the Church has already said is never the best way to start things. What kind of message are we sending to the OP, that it is okay to ignore an authoritative document of the Holy See simply because we want him and others in his situation to feel included?

The line is not about being included or excluded. The celebrant, right before the distribution of Holy Communion, holds up the Body of Christ and says, “Behold, the Lamb of God, happy are those who are called to His supper.” The Roman Missal does not say “Happy are those who are called to a blessing.” Those who are called are called to communion, that is to say, to receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, and to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. The OP understands that. Those who cannot yet receive are not called to come forward for a blessing. The rite never envisioned that. It was an innovation of some well-meaning but misguided person. Rome has had to clean up a lot of the stuff that has come up as a result of the alleged Spirit of Vatican II.

Even Jesus said that acceptance of his teachings is never an easy thing. This can also be extended to acceptance of decisions handed down by his Vicar through his curial departments. Your advocating that he just ignore what Rome has already declared (at least for the time being) is already giving mixed signals that we don’t have to obey the Church when we disagree with one of her decisions.

 

[lizaanne]

Thanks,
At this point I"m just trying to understand the simple truths, like God’s mercy, I am not quite ready for the hard stuff like church law. I have not and will not take communion, just asking a question.
Baxter

If you are interested in God’s mercy, you may like this: ewtn.com/devotionals/mercy/index.htm

I pray this all the time and there are a great many Catholics who have a strong devotion to The Divine Mercy.

~Liza

 

[Newbie2]

It’s not that I want to have the last word. I just want you to think about what you have just written. Even though you may have the best intentions, ignoring what the Church has already said is never the best way to start things. What kind of message are we sending to the OP, that it is okay to ignore an authoritative document of the Holy See simply because we want him and others in his situation to feel included?

The line is not about being included or excluded. The celebrant, right before the distribution of Holy Communion, holds up the Body of Christ and says, “Behold, the Lamb of God, happy are those who are called to His supper.” The Roman Missal does not say “Happy are those who are called to a blessing.” Those who are called are called to communion, that is to say, to receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, and to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. The OP understands that. Those who cannot yet receive are not called to come forward for a blessing. The rite never envisioned that. It was an innovation of some well-meaning but misguided person. Rome has had to clean up a lot of the stuff that has come up as a result of the alleged Spirit of Vatican II.

Even Jesus said that acceptance of his teachings is never an easy thing. This can also be extended to acceptance of decisions handed down by his Vicar through his curial departments. Your advocating that he just ignore what Rome has already declared (at least for the time being) is already giving mixed signals that we don’t have to obey the Church when we disagree with one of her decisions.

I was going to let it go, but you’ve misstated what I wrote. The OP in not bound by Catholic practice; if they do something in that parish that is not correct, they are under no obligation to participate or not participate. If he or she were to become Catholic, then Catholic practice applies to him or her.

You must have missed my implication; if participating in a blessing helps bring them into the church, I (too subtly, I guess) implied that not participating might turn them off, i.e. feeling shunned. I can’t and don’t presume to speak for the OP, but hypothetically, if that were the situation, I would support them going up for a blessing. If it made no difference on their desire to join and come into full communion, then perhaps they should refrain.

In other words, it it means that much for a person to get a blessing that it leads them to the church in a way that nothing else might, I don’t see a problem with it. Only that person would know that. I’d rather see such a person come into full communion with the church and not have to settle for a blessing than to perhaps feel shunned and turn away.

Again, I’m not claiming this for the OP, merely in the hypothetical.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

A homily regarding money and the issue of blessings in lieu of receiving Holy Communion are two entirely different matters. On a few occasions, the Gospel reading will match up with that kind of a stewardship campaign (rendering to Caesar what is Caesar and to God what is God’s or the widow’s mite). The GIRM and RS state that the homily should tie into the Gosopel readings so your argument here would not apply.

Why are you discussing homilies?

Again, the document specifically states the following:.

It would seem reasonable to look only at “the Church’s discipline has already made clear that they should not approach Holy Communion nor receive a blessing” as an individual statement however there is a context problem. If the statement applies to all not in communion with church why would it be in contradiction with the very publication? For example the publications state “Although the CDW letter did not mention young children, we often see little children who have not yet received first Holy Communion accompanying their parents in the Communion line, with their arms crossed over their chests — both as a signal to the minister that they are not receiving Communion, and as an expression of the child’s reverence for the Blessed Sacrament. This reverent gesture of a young child is laudable and appropriate" So children are to go yet “they” cannot receive and are thus " they should not approach” wow hard to do both. I ask you to look at “The letter said that “this matter is presently under the attentive study of the Congregation” Also "5. In a similar way, " I think these are not contradictions but are intented to limit the “they” to people openly holding a contradiction with catholic teaching.

The OP is not Catholic and falls under #5. Furthermore, the blessings in lieu of receiving Holy Commnion is a practice that is not in any of the authoritative documents of the Church. Your claim that it would **harm children **is rather baseless, in my opinion, because the opposite would hold true. We would be teaching them that they have to expect to receive something in lieu of Someone in the Mass and that the Holy Sacrifice is all about receiving rather than giving God the worship, praise and honor due to him.

“harm”? who added that? Please explain the apparent contradiction. If children too young to receive should they violate and approach or stay in the pew in an inappropriate manner

Receiving Holy Communion is not necessarily a right; rather, it is a privilege and one that is restricted to those who are in Communion with the Church and free of the pains of mortal sin. If I am living in an invalid marriage, not Catholic nor have confessed and been absolved from a mortal sin then I do not have the right ot present myself for Holy Communion. I am to sit in my pew and make a spiritual communion. Once my situations have been resolved and I have been restored to full Communion with the Church, then can I present myself to worthily receive Our Lord.

was that not #4?

In the same manner, the only blessing imparted during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (unless a sacrament such as Baptism, Marriage, Holy Orders, or the Annointing of the Sick is embedded within the liturgy) is the one that occurs at the end. This blessing is applicable to everyone. The letter makes that perfectly clear.

this leaves a couple of issues 1) where does the Church state that? 2) what about the processing without a blessing?

You treat this matter as though it were legitimate, but, as the letter indicates, the opposite is true.

Regarding the person who posted prior to this response:

The pastor has no right to make that announcement since everyone will be receiving a blessing at the end of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

How about the money, school, etc.,etc announcements are they legal?

btw I cannot find an actual copy of the letter only publications which clearly add commentary.

 

[benedictgal]

I was going to let it go, but you’ve misstated what I wrote. The OP in not bound by Catholic practice; if they do something in that parish that is not correct, they are under no obligation to participate or not participate. If he or she were to become Catholic, then Catholic practice applies to him or her.

You must have missed my implication; if participating in a blessing helps bring them into the church, I (too subtly, I guess) implied that not participating might turn them off, i.e. feeling shunned. I can’t and don’t presume to speak for the OP, but hypothetically, if that were the situation, I would support them going up for a blessing. If it made no difference on their desire to join and come into full communion, then perhaps they should refrain.

In other words, it it means that much for a person to get a blessing that it leads them to the church in a way that nothing else might, I don’t see a problem with it. Only that person would know that. I’d rather see such a person come into full communion with the church and not have to settle for a blessing than to perhaps feel shunned and turn away.

Again, I’m not claiming this for the OP, merely in the hypothetical.

The OP may not be bound by what the Church teaches and prescribes; however, the celebrant is and so are we. For us to suggest to the OP that he do something that is not allowed by the Church is wrong.

The problem that abuses like the blessing issue create confusion and false understanding of what Communion is. We have grown accustomed to a society where we are to receive things. The Mass is not about receiving Our Lord or a blessing. Reception of Holy Communion is part and parcel for those who are in communion with the Church. The blessing is something that is going to be given to everyone at the end of Mass; thus, no one is excluded from that. The letter from the CDWDS makes that perfectly clear.

I could not support the OP nor the celebrant in going through with this blessing ritual since Rome has already spoken against it. If I recall, we sparred on this matter in many other posts. With all due respect, it is as though Rome’s word on this is not good enough for you.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

… The Mass is not about receiving Our Lord …

:bigyikes: now i know where we disagree

 

[BSHoop96]

Take out document, roll up, and whack, whack, whack. Yes, I’m being abundantly sarcastic.

To the OP, if blessings are being done in your (visiting) parish, and you speak with the priest and he says it’s OK to get a blessing, don’t let the forum naysayers beat you over the head with documents. If getting a blessing leads you to full communion in the Catholic faith, where you can actively then participate in the wonderful sacrament of the Eucharist, then by all means go for it.

You are doing a disservice by encouraging something that has been decided against by the Church. Catholics have enough problems with not knowing their faith. Perhaps it would be better if you prayed that the Church made sure that this knowledge is now known by its priests.

 

[benedictgal]

Why are you discussing homilies? It would seem reasonable to look only at “the Church’s discipline has already made clear that they should not approach Holy Communion nor receive a blessing” as an individual statement however there is a context problem. If the statement applies to all not in communion with church why would it be in contradiction with the very publication? For example the publications state “Although the CDW letter did not mention young children, we often see little children who have not yet received first Holy Communion accompanying their parents in the Communion line, with their arms crossed over their chests — both as a signal to the minister that they are not receiving Communion, and as an expression of the child’s reverence for the Blessed Sacrament. This reverent gesture of a young child is laudable and appropriate" So children are to go yet “they” cannot receive and are thus " they should not approach” wow hard to do both. I ask you to look at “The letter said that “this matter is presently under the attentive study of the Congregation” Also "5. In a similar way, " I think these are not contradictions but are intented to limit the “they” to people openly holding a contradiction with catholic teaching. “harm”? who added that? Please explain the apparent contradiction. If children too young to receive should they violate and approach or stay in the pew in an inappropriate manner was that not #4? this leaves a couple of issues 1) where does the Church state that? 2) what about the processing without a blessing? How about the money, school, etc.,etc announcements are they legal?

btw I cannot find an actual copy of the letter only publications which clearly add commentary.

You can find the actual copy by following this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=292341

You were the one who brought up the sermons on money and I was pointing out that this could be done since the topic will, at times, come up in the readings.

No one is saying that the kids should be left alone. That is your statement. They should not, however, approach with their arms crossed and expect to receive a blessing as this is wrong. If you note that the celebrant is not supposed to be creating some sort of ritual and embedding it within the Rite of Holy Communion. It is the fault of the folks in charge of religious education who are fostering a practice that has no basis in the Liturgical Tradition of the Church.

 

[BSHoop96]

:bigyikes: now i know where we disagree

In fairness, having read many of Benedictgal’s posts I really think she didn’t mean this in the context that you have taken it. Perhaps she will expand on this for clarification.

 

[benedictgal]

:bigyikes: now i know where we disagree

It is not. My parochial vicar and a mutual priest friend of ours got into a debate regarding this issue. The main reason we go to Mass is to give God the worship, praise and honor due to Him. We are also there to be present at the Sacrifice. The veil between heaven and earth, and time and space is lifted. We are just as much present at Calvary as were the Blessed Mother and Sts. John and Mary Magdalene. We unite our imperfect selves, our imperfect love and our imperfect sacrifice to the perfect one of Jesus Christ.

If the main thrust of the Mass was to simply show up and receive Our Lord, then, we have missed the boat entirely. The Mass is not about those who can receive Our Lord. First and foremost it is about worshipping the Triune God.

If that were the case, what about those who, like the OP (who are not Catholic, but exploring) or those in an invalid marriage or in some other situation, want to assist at Mass, but cannot, for whatever reason receive Holy Communion? Especially for those who are in mortal sin or in an invalid marriage, staying away from the Mass and failing to satisfy their Sunday obligation would put a further wedge between themselves and God because they would be heaping on the additional mortal sin against the Third Commandment. Mind you the precept of the Church clearly states that we are to assist at Sunday Mass. Assisting does not necessarily mean that we must receive Holy Communion at every Mass we attend.

Furthermore, why would the Church have as its precepts that you have to receive Holy Communion at least once a year during what is commonly called the “Easter Duty”, which runs from Ash Wednesday to Trinity Sunday?

 

[lizaanne]

If the main thrust of the Mass was to simply show up and receive Our Lord, then, we have missed the boat entirely. The Mass is not about those who can receive Our Lord. First and foremost it is about worshipping the Triune God.

WOW.

Texas Roofer - I’m with you. I get it now (where the disconnect lies).

~Liza

 

[LRThunder]

WOW.

Texas Roofer - I’m with you. I get it now (where the disconnect lies).

~Liza

What benedictgal says makes sense. That is why there is an obligation to attend Mass every Sunday and other Holy Days of Obligation, but there is only an obligation to receive communion once a year. If our only purpose of attending Mass was to receive communion, don’t you think the Church would mandate we receive every time we go to Mass?

 

[Newbie2]

What benedictgal says makes sense. That is why there is an obligation to attend Mass every Sunday and other Holy Days of Obligation, but there is only an obligation to receive communion once a year. If our only purpose of attending Mass was to receive communion, don’t you think the Church would mandate we receive every time we go to Mass?

Ah, but don’t forget that the Eucharist is the “source and summit” of our faith experience.

Mass is indeed about, in part, what we receive; grace, forgiveness and when receiving the Eucharist. It is also about receiving God’s word. Sure, the attitude shouldn’t be "what do I GET out of it, but methinks saying that “The Mass is not about receiving Our Lord or a blessing” is a gross misstatement.

In any case, I stand by my previous thoughts on blessings, in context of the hypothetical that I presented.

Grand discussion, though.