Abuses and Irregularities in EWTN Masses?

[Rickwood]

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.

Actually you are quite mistaken. There is no prohibition from the Church that keeps bishops and priests from giving blessings to individuals during communion. Your personal misinterpretation/extrapolation of certain documents might suggest this to you, but that doesn’t make it so.

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.

Similarly there is no liturgical document(s) that prohibits blessings as discussed. Your lack of authority and expertise has clearly led you to not only misinterpret the contents of said documents, it has also kept you from realizing their ultimate authority and reach.

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.

“Organic” development needs to begin somewhere – it didn’t stop with the advent of Vatican Council II. Ringing sanctus bells as the celebrant consumes the Precious Blood has its roots in the Tridentine Mass, yet it would be an abuse by those who suggest “if it’s not in the GIRM it MUST be an abuse!” when rung at the OF.

 

[maurin]

There are some on this forum that suggest NOTHING may take place during the Mass that is not specifically spelled out in the official liturgical documents. While that’s obviously not true, .

May one ask you to specifically cite GIRM # ?__ that supports your statement, “While that’s obviously not true…” ?

LOL!!!

Good one!

so glad I was able to lighten your evening.

But may one ask you to specifically cite the GIRM # which supports your statement, “While obviously that isn’t true…”?

thanks. it’s a sincere question.

You were being serious?

Since Rickwood would rather mock me than answer my question, I was wondering if anyone else may be able to answer my question.

Rickwood says that “There are some on this forumthat suggest NOTHINGmay take place during the Massthat is not specifically spelled out in the Liturgical Documents. While that’s obviously not true…”

I am seeking to find out if in fact the GIRM states that it is “obvious” that other things “may take place during the Mass that is not specifically spelled out” in it or in other “Liturgical Documents.”

Can anyone help an old man find out?

 

[palmas85]

You clearly don’t comprehend what I typed even though it was quite clear. I don’t believe the daily EWTN Masses are “riddled with abuses,and/or irregularities.” I made that quite clear on a number of postings on this thread.

Their Masses include actions and materials that are not specified in the GIRM or RS. That does not make them abuses or irregularities EXCEPT in the eyes of those confused souls who believe “if it’s not in the GIRM it MUST be an abuse!”

Given that EWTN Masses are generally accepted as being quite orthodox, I wanted to see how the “if it’s not in the GIRM it MUST be an abuse!” would react. Atreyu clearly understood my posting – it’s quite clear.

Yes it’s clear. You do not grasp what I posted.

One wonders if these Masses are “reverent” to the “if it’s not in the GIRM it MUST be an abuse!” group?

Actually you do, but I’m not holding my breath.

**You are the one who brought these things up. **For example, I sincerely doubt anyone ever took note of the fact that two corporals were being being used. Not the type of thing most people would even be aware of. Your other examples are all practices that have been used in the past, in either the Traditional Mass or in the approved Masses for various religious orders which quite often have permission from Rome to deviate from the normal Roman Rite in certain areas.

Yes, I did grasp exactly what you posted and exactly what you were trying to accomplish. After looking back over your post and your curt responses to anyone who disagreed with you in the slightest, it was pretty obvious.,

And, no I don’t owe you anything at all.

 

[palmas85]

Trying to play the martyr is never productive in these discussions…

I never said the processional cross could not be left in the sanctuary. It must however be “put away” under some circumstances and that would strongly suggest “out of view.”

Where in the world did you get that from, strongly suggest out of view? Sounds suspiciously like a bit of self interpretatiion on that one old man.

As far as playing the martyr my friend, that was never my intent.

 

[GodsGadfly]

I think the original point was well-made. But I’m also one of those who feel EWTN has gone downhill since the tiff with Bishop Foley and since Mother’s retirement.

Perhaps the term “abuse” is overused, but I think it’s because people don’t know a better alternative. Kind of like when “possession” and “exorcism” are overused because people don’t know words like infestation or oppression or deliverance.

That said, the general rule of thumb, going back at least to Quo Primum is that you should normally do things the way the rubrics say they should be done. There is always a little room for flexibility, even in the Traditional Latin Mass. Even at a TLM, sometimes there’s a dialogue Mass, and sometimes the priest says most of it silently.

Many adaptations, such as pro populo posture, are officially optional. Any priest can face ad orientam at Mass if he so desires–I forget how the CDW ruled regarding EWTN & BIshop Foley. but part of the ad orientam argument was that the nuns’ chapel was behind the altar, and, since it was the nuns’ conventual Mass, the priest was facing both pro populo and ad orientam.

Also, as some have noted, religious orders do have their particular customs and adaptations, just as certain local customs have.

But I can speak to one point: I’ve often heard that you’re really not supposed to come up “for a blessing,” but Cardinal Arinze said this is defniitely a “Local custom” issue.

 

[benedictgal]

I think the original point was well-made. But I’m also one of those who feel EWTN has gone downhill since the tiff with Bishop Foley and since Mother’s retirement.

Perhaps the term “abuse” is overused, but I think it’s because people don’t know a better alternative. Kind of like when “possession” and “exorcism” are overused because people don’t know words like infestation or oppression or deliverance.

That said, the general rule of thumb, going back at least to Quo Primum is that you should normally do things the way the rubrics say they should be done. There is always a little room for flexibility, even in the Traditional Latin Mass. Even at a TLM, sometimes there’s a dialogue Mass, and sometimes the priest says most of it silently.

Many adaptations, such as pro populo posture, are officially optional. Any priest can face ad orientam at Mass if he so desires–I forget how the CDW ruled regarding EWTN & BIshop Foley. but part of the ad orientam argument was that the nuns’ chapel was behind the altar, and, since it was the nuns’ conventual Mass, the priest was facing both pro populo and ad orientam.

Also, as some have noted, religious orders do have their particular customs and adaptations, just as certain local customs have.

But I can speak to one point: I’ve often heard that you’re really not supposed to come up “for a blessing,” but Cardinal Arinze said this is defniitely a “Local custom” issue.

However, Bishop Foley found a loophole. It is the bishop’s duty to regulate the television and radio broadcasts of the Mass from his diocese. Therefore, this “loophole” was used to not allow the priests to celebrate ad orientsum.

Do you have any documentation regarding the matter of receiving a blessing in lieu of Holy Communion? This provision doesn’t come up in any of the authoritative and regulatory documents of the Holy See conerning the Mass.

 

[GodsGadfly]

If you search for Cardinal Arinze on Youtube, you will find a series of interviews. I forget which video it is, but he answers the question in one of those videos.
The questioner is a father whose priest will not allow the kids to come up to communion with their parents. While I agreed with the father’s position, Cdl. Arinze said that the church says nothing on such matters and leaves them up to local custom.

 

[mammallama]

I watch EWTN everyday including the Mass.I cannot even entertain the thought that anything irregular about it.Not with Fr Mitch Pacwa envolved…google him.And as far as receiving blessings…what are you thinking???I’m going thru a situation where I need an annulment from a previous civil marriage in order to have my current marriage recognized by the church.Until then I cannot fully participate in receiving communion.I am allowed to walk in the procession and receive the blessings of my priest.It’s a "spiritual communion"How on earth could that be a problem for anyone???Beats me,Look,I was born into this faith and took a couple of wrong turns here and there.now I’m trying to get my act together.Until then I’m getting in line with all the “good” people.And yes,perhaps I’m not the most eloquent writer on these pages,but I do know how to read my Catechism and pray he rosary.Out here in the sticks we don’t cotton much to all that fancy talk.

 

[benedictgal]

I watch EWTN everyday including the Mass.I cannot even entertain the thought that anything irregular about it.Not with Fr Mitch Pacwa envolved…google him.And as far as receiving blessings…what are you thinking???I’m going thru a situation where I need an annulment from a previous civil marriage in order to have my current marriage recognized by the church.Until then I cannot fully participate in receiving communion.I am allowed to walk in the procession and receive the blessings of my priest.It’s a "spiritual communion"How on earth could that be a problem for anyone???Beats me,Look,I was born into this faith and took a couple of wrong turns here and there.now I’m trying to get my act together.Until then I’m getting in line with all the “good” people.And yes,perhaps I’m not the most eloquent writer on these pages,but I do know how to read my Catechism and pray he rosary.Out here in the sticks we don’t cotton much to all that fancy talk.

Please do not take this as insensitivity. My grandmother was involved in an inavlid marriage for 40 years. She never approached the altar for a blessing. Instead, she remained in her pew and made a spiritual communion. It wasn’t until 1982 that she was finally able to receive Our Lord, both she and my step-grandfather (who never approached the altar for a blessing eithe).

A spiritual communion involves immersing yourself in prayer and asking the Lord to come into your heart. It’s not coming up to the priest for a blessing. It is a misguided and incorrect notion that unfortunately has arisen due to a well-intentioned move to introduce something into the Mass that has no place.

The problem is that we have this mentatlity that unless we “receive” Someone or something, we haven’t gotten anything out of the Mass. At the Mass, we participate in the worship of God as best we can under the circumstances that we face. Remember the invocation the priest recites: Behold the Lamb of Bod, behold He who takes away the sins of the world. Happy are those who are called to His supper.

When you are invited to a meal, you eat. You don’t just sit there and watch everyone else eat. You partake in what they are eating. It is the same with the Mass. The Church has paramters regarding the reception of Holy Communion. For those who cannot, she offers the opportunity for “spiritual communion”, but, that does not entail coming up for blessing.

I had lunch with a prelate and we discussed the matter because there are two threads in this forum on the same subject. He told me that initially he would impart a blessing, but, now, he does not think that it is a good practice. As he told me, it’s a communion line, not a blessing line. He’s the one who explained that we have a misguided notion that we have to receive something (or Someone) at Mass or else we got nothing out of it.

 

[Rickwood]

If you search for Cardinal Arinze on Youtube, you will find a series of interviews. I forget which video it is, but he answers the question in one of those videos.
The questioner is a father whose priest will not allow the kids to come up to communion with their parents. While I agreed with the father’s position, Cdl. Arinze said that the church says nothing on such matters and leaves them up to local custom.

Of course.

If coming up for a blessing was indeed an “abuse” (or even an irregularity) is it so widespread throughout the world that any prohibition would have been underscored in RS. That much is crystal-clear.

 

[Rickwood]

I watch EWTN everyday including the Mass.I cannot even entertain the thought that anything irregular about it.Not with Fr Mitch Pacwa envolved…google him.And as far as receiving blessings…what are you thinking???I’m going thru a situation where I need an annulment from a previous civil marriage in order to have my current marriage recognized by the church.Until then I cannot fully participate in receiving communion.I am allowed to walk in the procession and receive the blessings of my priest.It’s a "spiritual communion"How on earth could that be a problem for anyone???Beats me,Look,I was born into this faith and took a couple of wrong turns here and there.now I’m trying to get my act together.Until then I’m getting in line with all the “good” people.And yes,perhaps I’m not the most eloquent writer on these pages,but I do know how to read my Catechism and pray he rosary.Out here in the sticks we don’t cotton much to all that fancy talk.

May God bless you and your journey Home!

 

[benedictgal]

Of course.

If coming up for a blessing was indeed an “abuse” (or even an irregularity) is it so widespread throughout the world that any prohibition would have been underscored in RS. That much is crystal-clear.

But, RS does address it in terms of the innovation:

11.] The Mystery of the Eucharist “is too great for anyone to permit himself to treat it according to his own whim, so that its sacredness and its universal ordering would be obscured”.27 On the contrary, anyone who acts thus by giving free rein to his own inclinations, even if he is a Priest, injures the substantial unity of the Roman Rite, which ought to be vigorously preserved,28 and becomes responsible for actions that are in no way consistent with the hunger and thirst for the living God that is experienced by the people today. Nor do such actions serve authentic pastoral care or proper liturgical renewal; instead, they deprive Christ’s faithful of their patrimony and their heritage.*** For arbitrary actions are not conducive to true renewal,29 but are detrimental to the right of Christ’s faithful to a liturgical celebration that is an expression of the Church’s life in accordance with her tradition and discipline. In the end, they introduce elements of distortion and disharmony into the very celebration of the Eucharist, which is oriented in its own lofty way and by its very nature to signifying and wondrously bringing about the communion of divine life and the unity of the People of God.30 The result is uncertainty in matters of doctrine, perplexity and scandal on the part of the People of God, and, almost as a necessary consequence, vigorous opposition, all of which greatly confuse and sadden many of Christ’s faithful in this age of ours when Christian life is often particularly difficult on account of the inroads of “secularization” as well.31***

This practice of having people coming up for a blessing during Communion serves more to confuse the faithful into thinking that everyone needs to go up and receiving something in order to feel as though they are participating. That is poor theology and a deficient understanding of the Mass.

Rick, since you keep harping on alleged abuses at EWTN, why don’t you just call them yourselves? Ask for an assistant to a theologian and submit your queries. Rather than insist that you are right and that they are abusing, take the bull by the horns and be proactive. Instead of being part of the problem, try being part of the solution.

 

[mammallama]

Please do not take this as insensitivity.

I had lunch with a prelate and we discussed the matter because there are two threads in this forum on the same subject. He told me that initially he would impart a blessing, but, now, he does not think that it is a good practice. As he told me, it’s a communion line, not a blessing line. He’s the one who explained that we have a misguided notion that we have to receive something (or Someone) at Mass or else we got nothing out of it.

Thanks,and I appreciate your candor.Perhaps,it is I who thought this was a "spiritual communion"as the Priest simply called in a blessing.That said,my paperwork ought to be finalized any day now so my current hubby and I can marry.Hopefully I won’t be in this situation much longer.I so wish to receive Holy Communion,I’ll probably faint the first time!!! Gotta go to Mass now,and I’ll do my best to stay put.

 

[Lee_M]

Please do not take this as insensitivity. My grandmother was involved in an inavlid marriage for 40 years. She never approached the altar for a blessing. Instead, she remained in her pew and made a spiritual communion. It wasn’t until 1982 that she was finally able to receive Our Lord, both she and my step-grandfather (who never approached the altar for a blessing eithe).

A spiritual communion involves immersing yourself in prayer and asking the Lord to come into your heart. It’s not coming up to the priest for a blessing. It is a misguided and incorrect notion that unfortunately has arisen due to a well-intentioned move to introduce something into the Mass that has no place.

The problem is that we have this mentatlity that unless we “receive” Someone or something, we haven’t gotten anything out of the Mass. At the Mass, we participate in the worship of God as best we can under the circumstances that we face. Remember the invocation the priest recites: Behold the Lamb of Bod, behold He who takes away the sins of the world. Happy are those who are called to His supper.

When you are invited to a meal, you eat. You don’t just sit there and watch everyone else eat. You partake in what they are eating. It is the same with the Mass. The Church has paramters regarding the reception of Holy Communion. For those who cannot, she offers the opportunity for “spiritual communion”, but, that does not entail coming up for blessing.

I had lunch with a prelate and we discussed the matter because there are two threads in this forum on the same subject. He told me that initially he would impart a blessing, but, now, he does not think that it is a good practice. As he told me, it’s a communion line, not a blessing line. He’s the one who explained that we have a misguided notion that we have to receive something (or Someone) at Mass or else we got nothing out of it.

I understand your point of view, but if it is a local custom and even Cardinal Arinze says the church doesn’t say one way or the other on this, then I would believe it to be okay.

 

[Rickwood]

Please do not take this as insensitivity. My grandmother was involved in an inavlid marriage for 40 years. She never approached the altar for a blessing. Instead, she remained in her pew and made a spiritual communion. It wasn’t until 1982 that she was finally able to receive Our Lord, both she and my step-grandfather (who never approached the altar for a blessing eithe).

So? Your grandmother’s status has absolutely no bearing on this person’s situation. She is not prohibited from processing-up and receiving a blessing during communion. You are wrong to suggest she is.

A spiritual communion involves immersing yourself in prayer and asking the Lord to come into your heart. It’s not coming up to the priest for a blessing. It is a misguided and incorrect notion that unfortunately has arisen due to a well-intentioned move to introduce something into the Mass that has no place.

It’s a terribly misguided and incorrect notion to suggest you are able to counsel someone on this matter when you lack both the expertise and authority to do so. Going up for a blessing during communion in no way weaken one’s spiritual communion. The fact is depending on the person and their frame of mind, it could be a huge boost.

The problem is that we have this mentatlity that unless we “receive” Someone or something, we haven’t gotten anything out of the Mass. At the Mass, we participate in the worship of God as best we can under the circumstances that we face. Remember the invocation the priest recites: Behold the Lamb of Bod, behold He who takes away the sins of the world. Happy are those who are called to His supper.

The real problem here is that people read documents and then attempt to foist their personal misinterpretation of said documents on others – and that can cause real damage. Perhaps it’s because you don’t understand the reach or the authority of the documents you have quoted? You might well not understand how they work in conjunction with canon law or where actual authority rests in the Church? In any event you are given faulty advice when you suggest one is prohibited by the Church from processing-up and receiving a blessing during communion.

When you are invited to a meal, you eat. You don’t just sit there and watch everyone else eat. You partake in what they are eating. It is the same with the Mass. The Church has paramters regarding the reception of Holy Communion. For those who cannot, she offers the opportunity for “spiritual communion”, but, that does not entail coming up for blessing.

In no way, shape or form does the Church prohibit anyone (Catholic or not) from processing-up and receiving a blessing during communion.

I had lunch with a prelate and we discussed the matter because there are two threads in this forum on the same subject. He told me that initially he would impart a blessing, but, now, he does not think that it is a good practice. As he told me, it’s a communion line, not a blessing line. He’s the one who explained that we have a misguided notion that we have to receive something (or Someone) at Mass or else we got nothing out of it.

Yeah, you already told us this. So? Perhaps you would benefit if you want and found the video on Youtube where Cardinal Arinze addresses this matter?

 

[benedictgal]

So? Your grandmother’s status has absolutely no bearing on this person’s situation. She is not prohibited from processing-up and receiving a blessing during communion. You are wrong to suggest she is.

It’s a terribly misguided and incorrect notion to suggest you are able to counsel someone on this matter when you lack both the expertise and authority to do so. Going up for a blessing during communion in no way weaken one’s spiritual communion. The fact is depending on the person and their frame of mind, it could be a huge boost.

The real problem here is that people read documents and then attempt to foist their personal misinterpretation of said documents on others – and that can cause real damage. Perhaps it’s because you don’t understand the reach or the authority of the documents you have quoted? You might well not understand how they work in conjunction with canon law or where actual authority rests in the Church? In any event you are given faulty advice when you suggest one is prohibited by the Church from processing-up and receiving a blessing during communion.

In no way, shape or form does the Church prohibit anyone (Catholic or not) from processing-up and receiving a blessing during communion.

Yeah, you already told us this. So? Perhaps you would benefit if you want and found the video on Youtube where Cardinal Arinze addresses this matter?

But, YouTube is not an official document of the Church. There is no documentation from his Congregation. Perhaps this will happen with japhy’s letter.

My grandmother’s situation was similar to the person posting because both of them were in invalid marriages.

Furthermore, it is you who are offering incorrect counsel and advice. You contradict the very documents that you are posting.

In addition, you have yet to provide any authoritative documentation from the Holy See indicating that your position is correct. The fact remains that there is no documentation. It seems to me that you are granting youself an authority that doesn’t exist.

As I said before, if you think that EWTN is so problematic, then call them and challenge them.

 

[Rickwood]

But, RS does address it in terms of the innovation:

Actually it does not. You might interpret it as such, but that would be in error.

This practice of having people coming up for a blessing during Communion serves more to confuse the faithful into thinking that everyone needs to go up and receiving something in order to feel as though they are participating. That is poor theology and a deficient understanding of the Mass.

Thankfully the Church does not prohibit such blessings, therefore disagreeing with your personal viewpoint.

Rick, since you keep harping on alleged abuses at EWTN, why don’t you just call them yourselves? Ask for an assistant to a theologian and submit your queries. Rather than insist that you are right and that they are abusing, take the bull by the horns and be proactive. Instead of being part of the problem, try being part of the solution.

As I have stated MANY times in this thread, in no way do I believe them to be “abuses.” Read what I wrote.

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.

 

[benedictgal]

Actually it does not. You might interpret it as such, but that would be in error.

Thankfully the Church does not prohibit such blessings, therefore disagreeing with your personal viewpoint.

As I have stated MANY times in this thread, in no way do I believe them to be “abuses.” Read what I wrote.

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.

If anyone is stretching the documents, it is you. Since you are so sure of yourself, why are you reluctant to answer my challenge and contact EWTN and get it straight from the horse’s mouth?

As my friend the prelate told me, if you are going to wave the gun around, you’d better be ready to shoot. If not, then put the gun back in the holster.

 

[Rickwood]

But, YouTube is not an official document of the Church. There is no documentation from his Congregation. Perhaps this will happen with japhy’s letter.

So? You were the person offering a transcript of a informal Q&A session with the same Cardinal as a “proof” of some other point you were trying to make.

My grandmother’s situation was similar to the person posting because both of them were in invalid marriages.

So? Your grandmother’s actions/choices do not in any way control what this other person should/shout not be doing.

Furthermore, it is you who are offering incorrect counsel and advice. You contradict the very documents that you are posting.

You need to stop giving bad advice to others. The documents don’t prohibit people going up for for a blessing during communion. Your personal opinion says they do, but they do not.

In addition, you have yet to provide any authoritative documentation from the Holy See indicating that your position is correct. The fact remains that there is no documentation. It seems to me that you are granting youself an authority that doesn’t exist.

I can use logic. If indeed this was a prohibited activity it’s so widespread that it’s very clear the Church would have covered it with specific language. It never has.

As I said before, if you think that EWTN is so problematic, then call them and challenge them.

Please stop twisting what I posted. That is exceedingly disingenuous! I stated more than once that I did not feel any of the matters were “abuses.” I simply wanted to see the reaction of the “if it’s not in the GIRM/RS then it MUST be an ABUSE” people.

None have taken on the challenge head-on…

 

[Rickwood]

If anyone is stretching the documents, it is you. Since you are so sure of yourself, why are you reluctant to answer my challenge and contact EWTN and get it straight from the horse’s mouth?

I’m not misinterpreting the documents and then given faulty advice to others. Your challenges amount to nothing more than your misinterpretation of Church documents – asked and answered. (I’m also not being disingenuous as you have been in your last two posts suggesting I feel they are abuses. I do not and I have made that clear.)

For the last two days I have been keeping my eye on EWTN’s Q&A area for the liturgy but the question box has been filled. I will continue to monitor it.

As my friend the prelate told me, if you are going to wave the gun around, you’d better be ready to shoot. If not, then put the gun back in the holster.

Another attempt at misdirection/spin?