What we have here is falure to communicate.I would take issue with your final statement because, according to Redemptionis Sacramentum:
You are incorrect in your assertion regarding the blessing in lieu of receiving Holy Communion. We line up to receive Our Lord. That is why it the communion line and not the blessing line, as another poster either in this thread or another one noted.
Furthermore, there is no liturgical document that allows such a thing to be inserted into the Mass. This is not an EWTN issue. This is something that is far-reaching.
Regarding the other points you made in your posts, that is true. However, to introduce something into the Mass that has no organic precedent is wrong. That’s like letting the camel stick its nose into a tent when it doesn’t belong there.
Nope. It’s a non-issue…What we have here is falure to communicate.
If it is an issue for the faithful, it should be banned.
It is not.
Now, I personally do not like it, but for different reasons.
Anyway, if it is a local custom, which it seems to be, and the Cardinals and Bishops do not see it as an issue, is it one?
As soon as you provide documentation that your rejection of this idea is a valid rejection.HOWEVER I would like to know what those who believe in the unfounded notion of “If it’s not in the GIRM/RS it MUST be an ABUSE!” think about the items I mentioned given that EWTN enjoys a very orthodox reputation.
It is priceless because it has little to no value. First of all, regarding the issue of intinction (and the source for Cardinal Arinze’s comments), this is found in RS:Rickwood, I have to commend you on this. You did your homework and it has paid off. I’ve read on so many other threads that if the GIRM or RS does note specifically allow something, then it cannot be done. If it is done, then it is an abuse. Now that you have found an orthodox church who is doing things that are not in the GIRM, where are all of the people crying ABUSE??? I remember on another thread that a Q & A speech from Cardinal Arinze over receiving both forms of the Eucharist via intinction outranked the GIRM. But now an interview with Cdl. Arinze does not hold water on the blessing of people in the communion line. This thread is priceless. BRAVO
:clapping: :dancing: :extrahappy: :bounce: :bowdown2: :clapping:
That is spelled out in the document. The matter of offering a blessing in Holy Communion is not. That’s the big difference.[103.] The norms of the Roman Missal admit the principle that in cases where Communion is administered under both kinds, “the Blood of the Lord may be received either by drinking from the chalice directly, or by intinction, or by means of a tube or a spoon”.191 As regards the administering of Communion to lay members of Christ’s faithful, the Bishops may exclude Communion with the tube or the spoon where this is not the local custom, though the option of administering Communion by intinction always remains. If this modality is employed, however, hosts should be used which are neither too thin nor too small, and the communicant should receive the Sacrament from the Priest only on the tongue.192
Now, there is something big to consider here. It is true that Pope John Paul II blessed the faithful apart from the final blessing; howvever, these blessings were imparted to those who brought up the gifts during the offertory, not for those who approached him in the Communion line.well I just got home from Mass and I did get in the Communion line and I did cross my arms over the chest and receive a blessing.My parish is the cathedral and often times Mass is celebrated by the Bishop.I reckon he ought to know what’s what.Also FYI Pope John Paul II gave same such blessings.If it’s good enough for JP II then that’s all I need to know.
Don’t be silly – you’re missing the very point.As soon as you provide documentation that your rejection of this idea is a valid rejection.
Others have given you the answer you are looking for.
It would be nice if held up your end of quid pro quo.
You hit the nail on the head. Thank you.Rickwood, I have to commend you on this. You did your homework and it has paid off. I’ve read on so many other threads that if the GIRM or RS does note specifically allow something, then it cannot be done. If it is done, then it is an abuse. Now that you have found an orthodox church who is doing things that are not in the GIRM, where are all of the people crying ABUSE??? I remember on another thread that a Q & A speech from Cardinal Arinze over receiving both forms of the Eucharist via intinction outranked the GIRM. But now an interview with Cdl. Arinze does not hold water on the blessing of people in the communion line. This thread is priceless. BRAVO
:clapping: :dancing: :extrahappy: :bounce: :bowdown2: :clapping:
That’s true.I personally see the complaining about so called “abuses” as things like those seen on EWTN are the same as the Pharisees complaining to Jesus about his followers eating the wheat on a Sabbath.
If even Cardinal Arinze says that it is a matter of local custom, who are we to say different, let the people in charge deal with it. If you have a problem with the practice write the appropriate people.
It is one thing to complain about things that affect the validity of the Mass or things that are explicitly forbidden by RS or the GIRM, another to complain about things that even Cardinals differ on whether they should be allowed.
He certainly should know more than anyone here. He also has the authority to take the responsibility of allowing such blessings even if there was a real question of whether or not they are prohibited – a fact lost on the “if it’s not in the GIRM then it’s an abuse!” crowd.well I just got home from Mass and I did get in the Communion line and I did cross my arms over the chest and receive a blessing.My parish is the cathedral and often times Mass is celebrated by the Bishop.**I reckon he ought to know what’s what.**Also FYI Pope John Paul II gave same such blessings.If it’s good enough for JP II then that’s all I need to know.
You tried that before and you were wrong then. Pope JPII and the current Pope have both blessed people DURING communion.Now, there is something big to consider here. It is true that Pope John Paul II blessed the faithful apart from the final blessing; howvever, these blessings were imparted to those who brought up the gifts during the offertory, not for those who approached him in the Communion line.
Are you honestly suggesting your personal misinterpretation of the GIRM/RS carries more authority than her bishop? If you are then you do not understand where the authority rests in the Church - aside from your misunderstanding of the GIRM and RS.Second, a cathedral is not necessarily free from error. Some of the strangest things that have happened sometimes emit from the cathedral, or even from the priest in charge of liturgy for the diocese. I know. I’ve had to deal with a few messes, especially when the first director, a priest who was fond of showing off pictures of himself and Pope John Paul II and who loved to remind us that he would concelebrate with the Holy Father whenever he was in Rome, did things that were contrary to the documents.
The real problem is you misleading others with your personal opinions. You have provided nothing more than your own misinterpretation of the GIRM and RS.The problem is that these innovations are well-intentioned, but, misguided attempts at providing a replacement for receiving Our Lord. As I’ve said in previous posts, we have the mentaility that we have to receive somthing at Mass. That is not the case at all.
Actually, Rick, neither Pontiff blessed anyone during Communion. Furthermore, given the posture that Pope Benedict is using for communicants, this won’t happen, either. You form a line to receive Holy Communion, not a blessing.You tried that before and you were wrong then. Pope JPII and the current Pope have both blessed people DURING communion.
Are you honestly suggesting your personal misinterpretation of the GIRM/RS carries more authority than her bishop? If you are then you do not understand where the authority rests in the Church - aside from your misunderstanding of the GIRM and RS.
The real problem is you misleading others with your personal opinions. You have provided nothing more than your own misinterpretation of the GIRM and RS.
Thankfully you have completely backed-off on your “if it’s not in the GIRM or RS then it’s an abuse!” mantra for this thread.
Actually you are wrong – I saw it with my own two eyes. I wish I had a recording to play on Youtube.Actually, Rick, neither Pontiff blessed anyone during Communion. Furthermore, given the posture that Pope Benedict is using for communicants, this won’t happen, either. You form a line to receive Holy Communion, not a blessing.
I did not say that. Stop trying to spin what I actually said. What I actually said was that the Church does not prohibit one from processing up and receiving a blessing during communion.Furthermore, you say that the Church “teaches” that you can receive a blessing in lieu of Holy Communion. Please be so kind as to show us where that exists in the Catechism, the authoritative documents of the Second Vatican Council and even Trent.
Once again I did not say that. You and others have stridently maintained that “if it’s not in the GIRM/RS then it’s an abuse!” That’s wrong.Furthermore, what you are claiming to be “abuses” are nitpicking things. Abuses fall under the line of “innovations” that do not have the expressed approval of the Holy See, actions that are a complete and total disregard to the integrity of the Mass (having laity deliver a homily or read the Gospel), changing the words of the text around, invalid mater for Holy Communion and other atrocities.
I am not “harping” about anything. I just wanted to see if you and others who share the erroneous “if it’s not in the GIRM/RS then it’s an abuse!” mantra had the resolve to call them abuses when they were coming from an institution with a highly orthodox reputation like EWTN.What you are harping about is the same small stuff that the Pharisees tried to use to trap Jesus.
Well said.All I know is this…In 1989 JP II on a a visit to Sweden gave the blessing to Lutheran Archbishop Werkstrom and Bishop Svenungsson WHILE they were in the communion line.He even spoke about that event in his general audience address on Jan 23,1991.So that’s the end of the story for me.and apparently my priest and bishop agree.It’s the salvation of my soul here and their’s too.It’s not like I’m one of those pro-choice politicians who are actually getting in line and receiving the Host.
I said priceless. Not worthless. Big difference. If the thread has little to no value, why are you wasting your valuable time responding? Second, RS doesn’t state that Deacons are allowed to distribute via intinction either, but we know that to not be the case.It is priceless because it has little to no value. First of all, regarding the issue of intinction (and the source for Cardinal Arinze’s comments), this is found in RS: