Blessing by the congregation during Mass

[blaskoman]

It happens every so often that the priest or lay minister requests that the congregation lift up their right hands to offer a blessing to the newly confirmed or baptized. I have always been uncomfortable doing so as I am of the belief that only the Priest’s blessing is of importance and holy. (A medjugorje visionary once stated that receiving a blessing from a priest is of great worth). When this request of the congregation is made, I simply observe. Am I wrong?

 

[benedictgal]

No. It is a misguided attempt at stressing the common priesthood of the faithful. This posture is not found in the GIRM and I believe that there is a Vatican document that stresses the fact that the gestures of the priest are greatly different from what the faithful do by virtue of his ordination.

An acquaintance of mine does that, too, especially during Quince Anos celebrations. My dad and I abstain. The priest’s blessing is effacacious enough. Besides, it looks plain silly.

 

[Malmarth]

“… and I ask you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me, to the Lord our God…”

Don’t we all say this at the beginning of mass? Isn’t this another example of the congregation praying for one of its members?

“(A medjugorje visionary once stated that receiving a blessing from a priest is of great worth).”

The priest’s blessing may be of great worth, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a richness in the blessing of the congregation. It isn’t an attempt at promoting lay priesthood, it is engaging the comunity to act as a community in praying for one of its members.

 

[benedictgal]

“… **and I ask you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me, to the Lord our God…”

Don’t we all say this at the beginning of mass? Isn’t this another example of the congregation praying for one of its members? **
“(A medjugorje visionary once stated that receiving a blessing from a priest is of great worth).”

The priest’s blessing may be of great worth, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a richness in the blessing of the congregation. It isn’t an attempt at promoting lay priesthood, it is engaging the comunity to act as a community in praying for one of its members.

Unfortunately, that, I respectfully submit, is a misreading of that particular prayer. It is the confiteor, where we are asking God’s mercy and forgivness. We are recognizing our condition as sinners.

The document, On Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of the Priest, which was released by the Congregation for Clergy in 1997, notes that:

The characteristics which differentiate the ministerial priesthood of Bishops and Priests from the common priesthood of the faithful and consequently delineate the extent to which other members of the faithful cooperate with this ministry, may be summarized in the following fashion:

a) the ministerial priesthood is rooted in the Apostolic Succession, and vested with “potestas sacra”(29) consisting of the faculty and the responsibility of acting in the person of Christ the Head and the Shepherd.(30)

b) it is a priesthood which renders its sacred ministers servants of Christ and of the Church by means of authoritative proclamation of the Word of God, the administration of the sacraments and the pastoral direction of the faithful.(31)

Regarding the liturgy, the documents notes that:

§ 2. To promote the proper identity (of various roles) in this area, those abuses which are contrary to the provisions of canon 907 are to be eradicated. In eucharistic celebrations deacons and non-ordained members of the faithful may not pronounce prayers — e.g. especially the eucharistic prayer, with its concluding doxology — or any other parts of the liturgy reserved to the celebrant priest. Neither may deacons or non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions which are proper to the same priest celebrant. It is a grave abuse for any member of the non-ordained faithful to “quasi preside” at the Mass while leaving only that minimal participation to the priest which is necessary to secure validity.

This little-referenced and, perhaps, little-known, document is full of do’s and do nots for the laity. The posture suggested by the OP does not jibe with what is written in the document.

 

[Malmarth]

First of all, are you saying that we never are allowed to intercede for the congregation of members of the congregation?

I am in no way saying that a blessing by the congregation is the equivalent, or should replace that of the priest.

“Neither may deacons or non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions which are proper to the same priest celebrant. It is a grave abuse for any member of the non-ordained faithful to “quasi preside” at the Mass while leaving only that minimal participation to the priest which is necessary to secure validity.”

Yes, agree with what that document states. The blessing of the congregation is not replacing the blessing of the priest. The priest asking the congregation to lift their hand and pray for person is not a part of the mass. Just because both lift up their hands and pray over something (the priest in mass, and the people during the blessing) doesn’t make the two activities the same or equal. I don’t think anyone would argue that point. The document is stating that it is the priests job to conduct the mass. If the priest were to ask the people to do the blessings that are part of the mass that would be the abuse. Otherwise, you could interpret that as saying any activity motion or gesture that the priest makes is reserved only for him. It says “gestures that are proper to the celebrant” putting the context in that of the mass.

Anyway, I have already wasted enought time at work writing this.

 

[benedictgal]

First of all, are you saying that we never are allowed to intercede for the congregation of members of the congregation?

I am in no way saying that a blessing by the congregation is the equivalent, or should replace that of the priest.

“Neither may deacons or non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions which are proper to the same priest celebrant. It is a grave abuse for any member of the non-ordained faithful to “quasi preside” at the Mass while leaving only that minimal participation to the priest which is necessary to secure validity.”

Yes, agree with what that document states. The blessing of the congregation is not replacing the blessing of the priest. The priest asking the congregation to lift their hand and pray for person is not a part of the mass. Just because both lift up their hands and pray over something (the priest in mass, and the people during the blessing) doesn’t make the two activities the same or equal. I don’t think anyone would argue that point. The document is stating that it is the priests job to conduct the mass. If the priest were to ask the people to do the blessings that are part of the mass that would be the abuse. Otherwise, you could interpret that as saying any activity motion or gesture that the priest makes is reserved only for him. It says “gestures that are proper to the celebrant” putting the context in that of the mass.

Anyway, I have already wasted enought time at work writing this.

Please do not take my words out of context. The example that you provided in your previous post is not germaine to the situation. The Confiteor expresses ouir sorrow for our sin and, as we pray (both the faithful and the priest) we implore God’s mercy and forgiveness. The same holds true for the General Intercessions.

What I am saying is that each person has their specific place. The faithful have their “role”, for lack of a better word. The priest, by virtue of his sacred ordination, has his. It is not right for the laity, especially during the Mass, to do something that pertains to the priest. The blessing is one such activity that corresponds to the priest. Now, the Book of Blessings does have something for the laity; however, this is done within a certain context and under specific conditions. What the OP described is not part of them.

 

[SacredHeartFan]

A blessing from the congregation is just a way of saying to the newly baptized or confirmed, “Hey we got your back! Come to us if you need anything we are your spiritual family.”

 

[benedictgal]

A blessing from the congregation is just a way of saying to the newly baptized or confirmed, “Hey we got your back! Come to us if you need anything we are your spiritual family.”

But, it is inappropriate. You can show support through other methods, but, not by toying around with the blessings.

 

[PatrickJT914]

Isn’t it sad that people are so stuck on legalism, they fail to see the beauty of the moment. The rich symbolism associated with a blessing. Another thing I find sad is that there are some who think we are the most stupidiest people. Not to know the difference between the ministry of the ordained priest/deacon and the ministry of the priesthood of the people. Besides it’s not just priests who make up the Church but you and I who been granted and encouraged to live out our calling in the Church (“The People of God”) Jesus and the Church leaders have said is was okay and expected of us.

 

[SacredHeartFan]

But, it is inappropriate. You can show support through other methods, but, not by toying around with the blessings.

So are you saying that it is also wrong for a Father to give his blessing to his son? Or a mother’s blessing to her daughter? Just asking.

 

[benedictgal]

So are you saying that it is also wrong for a Father to give his blessing to his son? Or a mother’s blessing to her daughter? Just asking.

Please read the OP. What was described was in the context of the Mass. There is no official norm indicating that this is even permissible. Look at the GIRM. It makes no provisions for this to even take place.

In the Mexican culture, there is a tradition for parents to give their blessing to their children when the kids leave home (go back to college, etc). My grandmother would do that for me, even up to my late 30s. This was not done in the context of the Mass nor was it attached to a Sacrament. This was something private.

What I am addressing is something that is more of an innovation and an idiosyncracy than anything else.

As far as Patrick’s assertion of legalism, that criticism is unfounded. As far as that argument is concerned, Cardinal Arinze addresses this issue when he notes that:

Moreover, liturgical norms are not arbitrary laws or regulations put together to please some historian, or aesthetist, or archaeologist. They are manifestations of what we believe and what we have received from tradition, from the “norm of the holy Fathers” (cf SC 20, GIRM 6), from what generations of our predecessors in the faith have said, done, observed and celebrated. To know that we are doing, saying, hearing and seeing what millions of Christians have done throughout the world for hundreds of years and are doing today, should help us enter better into a committed and prayerful participation. Moreover, by conforming our entire person to all that the liturgy represents, we undergo a transformation and become ever closer to God.

Interior prayer and sacrifice have priority. Hence the importance in liturgical celebrations of quiet preparation, silence, reflection, listening and personal prayer. “A merely external observation of norms would obviously be contrary to the nature of the sacred liturgy, in which Christ Himself wishes to gather His Church, so that together with Himself she will be ‘one body and one spirit’”. (RS 5)

At the same time it needs to be repeated that the spirit of rejection of rules and regulations which would then be regarded as a violation of one’s autonomy, needs to be corrected. It is wrong and unreasonable to maintain a spirit of “Nobody is going to tell me what to do”. This would be a false understanding of liberty. “God has not granted us in Christ an illusory liberty by which we may do what we wish, but a liberty by which we may do what is fitting and right”. (RS 7)

Furthermore, I never implied nor did I state that people were “stupid.” Please, Patrick, re-read my post along with the citations from the document from the Congregation for Clergy.

Yes, we are the People of God, but, our roles are very different. There is a marked difference between clergy and the laity. Actions such as what was described in the OP blur lines that should not be blurred.

 

[SacredHeartFan]

Please read the OP. What was described was in the context of the Mass. There is no official norm indicating that this is even permissible. Look at the GIRM. It makes no provisions for this to even take place.

In the Mexican culture, there is a tradition for parents to give their blessing to their children when the kids leave home (go back to college, etc). My grandmother would do that for me, even up to my late 30s. This was not done in the context of the Mass nor was it attached to a Sacrament. This was something private.

What I am addressing is something that is more of an innovation and an idiosyncracy than anything else.

As far as Patrick’s assertion of legalism, that criticism is unfounded. As far as that argument is concerned, Cardinal Arinze addresses this issue when he notes that:

Furthermore, I never implied nor did I state that people were “stupid.” Please, Patrick, re-read my post along with the citations from the document from the Congregation for Clergy.

Yes, we are the People of God, but, our roles are very different. There is a marked difference between clergy and the laity. Actions such as what was described in the OP blur lines that should not be blurred.

Cannot the faithful call upon God’s help for those who need a little boost? Why not put it into the mass? There is no rule aginst it nor for it. So why not?

P.S. I ask these questions not out of doubt of the Church but to challenge you in your faith and maybe crack and small hole in that little religious box you are looking through.

 

[Servulus]

Why not put it into the mass? There is no rule aginst it nor for it. So why not?

Liturgical law is “positive law”, which is to say that it specifies what is permitted. This practice seems to fall outside that scope.

 

[benedictgal]

Cannot the faithful call upon God’s help for those who need a little boost? Why not put it into the mass? There is no rule aginst it nor for it. So why not?

P.S. I ask these questions not out of doubt of the Church but to challenge you in your faith and maybe crack and small hole in that little religious box you are looking through.

First of all, if you are going to be a priest, the first thing you need to learn is that you don’t tinker with the Mass.

[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

[12.] On the contrary, it is the right of all of Christ’s faithful that the Liturgy, and in particular the celebration of Holy Mass, should truly be as the Church wishes, according to her stipulations as prescribed in the liturgical books and in the other laws and norms. Likewise, the Catholic people have the right that the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass should be celebrated for them in an integral manner, according to the entire doctrine of the Church’s Magisterium. Finally, it is the Catholic community’s right that the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharist should be carried out for it in such a manner that it truly stands out as a sacrament of unity, to the exclusion of all blemishes and actions that might engender divisions and factions in the Church.32

You don’t have the right to add to or subtract from the Mass. The problem is that when you insert things into the Mass for the sake of creativity and novelty, and, under a misguided notion of giving someone a boost, you are taking it upon yourself to do something that you are not authorized to do.

As far as your accusation of my being narrow-minded, it is unfounded. I challenge you to read the documents and not make carte blanche statements. Part and parcel of being a priest is to be faithful to what the Church prescribes and mandates. Challenging people because they hold fast to what the Church teaches isn’t going to help matters, especially if you are wrong.

The fact of the matter remains is that the ordained clergy have their specific duties. The laity have their own roles. You don’t put something in a blender and come up with what the OP reported. That is wrong.

St. Paul notes that the body has different parts and each part has its particular funciton. The tongue is not meant to do what the heart does. The foot isn’t meant to function like the brain. The finger is not used for smelling. The nose is. The same principle applies to the ordained priesthood and the common priesthood of the faithful.

The problem is that people are still infected by the virus of the alleged spirit of Vatican II that they don’t even know what the Council documents actually say. Abuses like this are the main reason why the Church has had to state and re-state what you can and cannot do during the Mass.

 

[SacredHeartFan]

First of all, if you are going to be a priest, the first thing you need to learn is that you don’t tinker with the Mass.

You don’t have the right to add to or subtract from the Mass. The problem is that when you insert things into the Mass for the sake of creativity and novelty, and, under a misguided notion of giving someone a boost, you are taking it upon yourself to do something that you are not authorized to do.

As far as your accusation of my being narrow-minded, it is unfounded. I challenge you to read the documents and not make carte blanche statements. Part and parcel of being a priest is to be faithful to what the Church prescribes and mandates. Challenging people because they hold fast to what the Church teaches isn’t going to help matters, especially if you are wrong.

The fact of the matter remains is that the ordained clergy have their specific duties. The laity have their own roles. You don’t put something in a blender and come up with what the OP reported. That is wrong.

St. Paul notes that the body has different parts and each part has its particular funciton. The tongue is not meant to do what the heart does. The foot isn’t meant to function like the brain. The finger is not used for smelling. The nose is. The same principle applies to the ordained priesthood and the common priesthood of the faithful.

The problem is that people are still infected by the virus of the alleged spirit of Vatican II that they don’t even know what the Council documents actually say. Abuses like this are the main reason why the Church has had to state and re-state what you can and cannot do during the Mass.

As a priest you also have to be open to your flock. You need to be one with them like anyother normal person. as far as you knwing anything about what it is to be a priest I suggest you read Archbishop Fulton Sheen’s book “A Priest is Not His Own”.

 

[SacredHeartFan]

Back to the OP’s question. No problem with it.

 

[benedictgal]

Back to the OP’s question. No problem with it.

Maybe not for you, but the Church would question that practice, especially since it is not found in the Sacramentary (since, from what the OP noted), it was doine within the Mass.

You have to be very careful about inserting things into the Mass that have no basis in the Church’s liturgical tradition.

 

[SacredHeartFan]

Maybe not for you, but the Church would question that practice, especially since it is not found in the Sacramentary (since, from what the OP noted), it was doine within the Mass.

You have to be very careful about inserting things into the Mass that have no basis in the Church’s liturgical tradition.

Fine go ask you bishop if it is permissable! :banghead:

 

[benedictgal]

As a priest you also have to be open to your flock. You need to be one with them like anyother normal person. as far as you knwing anything about what it is to be a priest I suggest you read Archbishop Fulton Sheen’s book “A Priest is Not His Own”.

But, the great Archbishop Sheen would never advocate adding things into the Mass just to be “one” with his flock. There is a fine line that people seem to enjoy dancing around when it comes to the Mass. I would encourage you to read the documents and study them. You will need to familiarize yourself with them if you are to become a priest.

Remember to, the prayer of Jesus, “not my will, but yours be done.” It is not what you want to do in the Mass. It is what the Church requires you to do.

 

[benedictgal]

Fine go ask you bishop if it is permissable! :banghead:

There is no need to bank your head against the wall. The problem lies in the insistence in incorporating something into the Mass that shouldn’t happen. Rather than banging your head against the wall, read the liturgical documents of the Holy See.