Blessings during Mass

[Paul2274]

The bishop’s authority is somewhat limited. According to the General Instructin of the Roman Missal:

It is not carte blanche authority. Thus, he cannot invent and insert something new into the Mass.

Reading your response reminds me that I have a .pdf file of the GIRM and I didn’t even think to look in it… I better go get my glasses first though

Thanks,
Paul

 

[Paul2274]

BTW— I printed a copy of both letters and am going to put them in the mail today to our pastor.

Paul

 

[FrDavid96]

I am in the Dallas Diocese and in a very large parish (almost 8,000 families) and we have the Communion line Blessing. I thought it was a little strange at first but have come to accept it (please note that I didn’t say I agree with it).

What if the Bishop for the Diocese says the “Blessings” are ok and can continue?
I know that they can approve certain things… and is this ok?
I know that we have to adhere to what the Bishop says too.

Where can I find this letter so I could print it out? ( Found the .pdf is the other thread response that japhy posted… thankx)

Paul

Simply to answer the question, the bishop does not have the authority to over-turn a decision made by the Holy See.

 

[StillWondering]

The traditional thing to do is to remain in your pew and make a prayer of “spiritual Communion” (which you can find online). A priest or deacon certainly cannot require you to do this. Furthermore, unless you are already baptized, people going through RCIA are generally not present for the Liturgy of the Eucharist: you are dismissed after the homily and before the Creed.

[excerpt]

Hello, I would like to ask if this is canonically required or a expected norm. The reason I ask is because I bring friends to Mass to get them familiar with the Mass, the Church, and God. I believe they are welcome through the entire Mass, sitting when everyone is not standing, standing when everyone is, and no receiving Holy Communion. It would seem contradictory to allow those interested in the faith and not in RCIA to stay and experience the most important part of the Mass whereas those in RCIA are dismissed from Mass. Am I wrong and all non baptized are to be dismissed from Mass before the Liturgy of the Eucharist?

 

[StillWondering]

Simply to answer the question, the bishop does not have the authority to over-turn a decision made by the Holy See.

In the case of a bishop overstepping his authority, the laity and clergy under him that does what the bishop ask in cases where it is not serious are not culpable for the bishops misjudgment correct?

 

[japhy]

Am I wrong and all non baptized are to be dismissed from Mass before the Liturgy of the Eucharist?

The ancient tradition of the Church was that only the baptized remained for the second half of the Divine Liturgy. The Liturgy was split into the “Mass of the Catechumens” (i.e. Liturgy of the Word) and the “Mass of the Faithful” (i.e. Liturgy of the Eucharist). All who were not actually Catholic would be dismissed from the Church before the Mass of the Faithful began. This was done for several reasons, one of which was to protect the sacred mysteries from being profaned.

In the Roman liturgy, that fell out of practice for quite a while.

With the modern Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults, catechumens (non-baptized people seeking to enter the Church) are dismissed after the homily (once the Rite of Welcoming has taken place). But otherwise, no one expects non-Catholics or unbaptized people to leave after the homily.

 

[FrDavid96]

In the case of a bishop overstepping his authority, the laity and clergy under him that does what the bishop ask in cases where it is not serious are not culpable for the bishops misjudgment correct?

There’s just no simple answer to that one: it’s a very complicated issue in moral theology. It has to do with just how much knowlege one has of the Church’s laws. One who does not know that it contradicts the law is less culpable, but at the same time, everyone has an obligation to be familiar with the law so (as the saying goes) “ignorance of the law is no excuse” Bishops also have authority to dispense from the law (but even here, that authority is not absolute, but somewhat limited–the bishop can’t outright contradict Rome for example, and sometimes the bishop cannot dispense from the law).

The important thing to keep in mind is that it is the bishop’s responsibility to know the law and to “enforce” it within his own diocese. We shouldn’t be questioning the bishop’s interpretations of the law because we should be able to trust him to do this properly. Remember that the reason why the bishop is in office in the first place is because he was already found to be trustworthy and faithful in his ministry. That doesn’t mean that bishops are somehow exempt from being wrong–they’re human beings as well. Sometimes bishops are wrong, and Rome has to intervene. Questioning the bishops decisions should be done with extreme caution–I can’t stress that enough.

 

[StillWondering]

The ancient tradition of the Church was that only the baptized remained for the second half of the Divine Liturgy. The Liturgy was split into the “Mass of the Catechumens” (i.e. Liturgy of the Word) and the “Mass of the Faithful” (i.e. Liturgy of the Eucharist). All who were not actually Catholic would be dismissed from the Church before the Mass of the Faithful began. This was done for several reasons, one of which was to protect the sacred mysteries from being profaned.

In the Roman liturgy, that fell out of practice for quite a while.

With the modern Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults, catechumens (non-baptized people seeking to enter the Church) are dismissed after the homily (once the Rite of Welcoming has taken place). But otherwise, no one expects non-Catholics or unbaptized people to leave after the homily.

Okay, thank you Japhy. This makes sense. Question then, where are they dismissed to? Do they wait outside the Chuch walls or in the parking lot? What happens if they are with family members who stay inside the Church?

And I have an related topic question to "dismissal: that is going to be quite off topic but I wish to ask still. Kids in the morning Sunday Mass for families, which is not one I regularly attend but will be attending this coming Liturgical year, are dismissed to be catechized separately. Where are they dismissed to and is this a normative practice. Maybe it is my cultural background but this never existed in the Vietnamese parishes I attended as a youth. In fact I prefer as a child to be at the Mass in it’s entirety. It has been a great anchor for me in my life.

 

[StillWondering]

There’s just no simple answer to that one: it’s a very complicated issue in moral theology. It has to do with just how much knowlege one has of the Church’s laws. One who does not know that it contradicts the law is less culpable, but at the same time, everyone has an obligation to be familiar with the law so (as the saying goes) “ignorance of the law is no excuse” Bishops also have authority to dispense from the law (but even here, that authority is not absolute, but somewhat limited–the bishop can’t outright contradict Rome for example, and sometimes the bishop cannot dispense from the law).

The important thing to keep in mind is that it is the bishop’s responsibility to know the law and to “enforce” it within his own diocese. We shouldn’t be questioning the bishop’s interpretations of the law because we should be able to trust him to do this properly. Remember that the reason why the bishop is in office in the first place is because he was already found to be trustworthy and faithful in his ministry. That doesn’t mean that bishops are somehow exempt from being wrong–they’re human beings as well. Sometimes bishops are wrong, and Rome has to intervene. Questioning the bishops decisions should be done with extreme caution–I can’t stress that enough.

Thank you for clarifying this for me. This post is very informative based on my experiences and understanding.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

The bottom line is that the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (which is the Church’s final authority on interpreting liturgical norms, excepting only the Pope himself) has said that these blessings are not to be done. It’s that simple.

This Congregation for Divine Worship and the Disciple of the Sacraments acknowledges receipt of your kind letter of 13 August, 2008 and would like to thank you for your interest and suggestions. **This matter is presently under the attentive study of the Congregation.

For the present, therefore, this Dicastery wishes to limit itself **to the following observations: …

I suggest you print the letter from the CDWS and show the deacon where the CDWS clearly and unambiguously states that this practice is not to be done.

Print the letter excellent however remember tell them “practice is not to be done” is a personal intrepretation

Let me refresh your memory as to what the letter said:

The letter does not state that the practice is supposed to continue. In fact, it gives five very good reason why it should not be done.

Incidentally, there are some parishes down here that have stopped it altogether.

This Congregation for Divine Worship and the Disciple of the Sacraments acknowledges receipt of your kind letter of 13 August, 2008 and would like to thank you for your interest and suggestions. **This matter is presently under the attentive study of the Congregation.

For the present, therefore, this Dicastery wishes to limit itself …**

Just an FYI: both the deacon and the priest are under the authority of the bishop. The deacon is not under the authority of the priest.

Thank you

BTW— I printed a copy of both letters and am going to put them in the mail today to our pastor.

Paul

excellent

Simply to answer the question, the bishop does not have the authority to over-turn a decision made by the Holy See.

This Congregation for Divine Worship and the Disciple of the Sacraments acknowledges receipt of your kind letter of 13 August, 2008 and would like to thank you for your interest and suggestions. **This matter is presently under the attentive study of the Congregation.

For the present, therefore, this Dicastery wishes to limit itself… **

 

[Newbie2]

 

[Paul2274]

here’s some please pass the butter

Paul

 

[FrDavid96]

This Congregation for Divine Worship and the Disciple of the Sacraments acknowledges receipt of your kind letter of 13 August, 2008 and would like to thank you for your interest and suggestions. This matter is presently under the attentive study of the Congregation.

For the present, therefore, this Dicastery wishes to limit itself ]to the following observations: …

Print the letter excellent however remember tell them “practice is not to be done” is a personal intrepretation

This Congregation for Divine Worship and the Disciple of the Sacraments acknowledges receipt of your kind letter of 13 August, 2008 and would like to thank you for your interest and suggestions. This matter is presently under the attentive study of the Congregation.

For the present, therefore, this Dicastery wishes to limit itself …
Thank you

excellent

This Congregation for Divine Worship and the Disciple of the Sacraments acknowledges receipt of your kind letter of 13 August, 2008 and would like to thank you for your interest and suggestions. This matter is presently under the attentive study of the Congregation.

For the present, therefore, this Dicastery wishes to limit itself…

It doesn’t make any difference what size or color font you use, or how often you repeat it: it can’t take an untrue statement and make it true.

“Under the attentive study” means “under the attentive study.”

It does not, in any way, shape, or form, change the fact that the Church teaches through the authentic interpretation of liturgical norms that these blessings are forbidden by existing liturgical laws.

 

[benedictgal]

It doesn’t make any difference what size or color font you use, or how often you repeat it: it can’t take an untrue statement and make it true.

“Under the attentive study” means “under the attentive study.”

It does not, in any way, shape, or form, change the fact that the Church teaches through the authentic interpretation of liturgical norms that these blessings are forbidden by existing liturgical laws.

Excellent point!

 

[Texas_Roofer]

It doesn’t make any difference what size or color font you use, or how often you repeat it: it can’t take an untrue statement and make it true.

“Under the attentive study” means “under the attentive study.”

It does not, in any way, shape, or form, change the fact that the Church teaches through the authentic interpretation of liturgical norms that these blessings are forbidden by existing liturgical laws.

*"It doesn’t make any difference what size or color font you use, or how often you repeat it: it can’t take an untrue statement and make it true.

“Under the attentive study” means “under the attentive study.” "*

That is right now why to you insist “Under the attentive study” = not allowed?

What part of your words to you not understand?

 

[benedictgal]

*"It doesn’t make any difference what size or color font you use, or how often you repeat it: it can’t take an untrue statement and make it true.

“Under the attentive study” means “under the attentive study.” "*

That is right now why to you insist “Under the attentive study” = not allowed?

What part of your words to you not understand?

With all due respect, you keep harping on the “attentive study” and completely ignore the five excellent reasons the CDWDS gave as to why this should not be done. “Under the attentive study” does not mean that this stuff should continue happening.

 

[FrDavid96]

*"It doesn’t make any difference what size or color font you use, or how often you repeat it: it can’t take an untrue statement and make it true.

“Under the attentive study” means “under the attentive study.” "*

That is right now why to you insist “Under the attentive study” = not allowed?

What part of your words to you not understand?

I am not saying that the words “under attentive study” means it isn’t allowed.

I am saying that when Rome says it isn’t allowed, it isn’t allowed.

 

[ac_claire]

You are jumping to conclusions about why some priests give a blessing. I doubt it has anything to do with any attempt at being inclusive.

No, it absolutely has something to do with attempting to be “inclusive.” And a lot to do with a sense of entitlement some people have. It’s the everyone gets a prize! mentality. Take a look at the other threads about the practice and listen to the people who passionately defend it, including secondhand quotes from priests who have implemented the practice.

 

[japhy]

Where are they dismissed to? Do they wait outside the Chuch walls or in the parking lot? What happens if they are with family members who stay inside the Church?

At my parish (and I assume this is the universal practice) they go to another room in the church building with a catechist, and then spend the rest of the Mass discussing the readings from that day and how they relate to Christian faith and morals.

Kids in the morning Sunday Mass for families, which is not one I regularly attend but will be attending this coming Liturgical year, are dismissed to be catechized separately. Where are they dismissed to and is this a normative practice. Maybe it is my cultural background but this never existed in the Vietnamese parishes I attended as a youth. In fact I prefer as a child to be at the Mass in it’s entirety. It has been a great anchor for me in my life.

There is an allowance for children to have their own Liturgy of the Word and then be re-united with the rest of the congregation before the Offertory. (See nn. 16-19 of the linked document, especially n. 17.) I agree with you that it’s better for children to remain with the rest of the congregation, with their families.

 

[zab]

No, it absolutely has something to do with attempting to be “inclusive.” And a lot to do with a sense of entitlement some people have. It’s the everyone gets a prize! mentality. Take a look at the other threads about the practice and listen to the people who passionately defend it, including secondhand quotes from priests who have implemented the practice.

You are wrong in saying it “absolutely has something to do with attempting to be inclusive”. You do not know what every priest’s intensions were who has blessed someone in the communion line.