Crossing one's arms in lieu of receiving Holy Communion

[jwinch2]

I sent an e-mail earlier to the priest that is in charge of the liturgy and worship for our diocese. I will be curious to get his response on this topic.

 

[benedictgal]

I hear that Jesus would cure on the Sabbath, and there were those who took note and charitably went to the Sanhedrin over that as well.

One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. The charitable work on the Sabbath did not have anything to do with the cultic sacrificial worship of Ancient Israel.

 

[benedictgal]

Lately, there’s a been a practice at my parish where if one is non-Catholic, has not been practicing Catholicism for a while, or is otherwise not ready to receive Holy Communion for some reason, one is invited to walk up, cross one’s arms, and receive a blessing in lieu of Communion. Is this OK? I have a feeling this is done to minimize gossip, scandal, etc.

I have written extensively on this subject, including conducting my own research (which constituted contacting the CDWDS by telephone at 3AM). The issue of the local Ordinary is also addressed as well:

benedictgal-lexorandilexcredendi.blogspot.com/2010/12/why-we-form-line.html

I hope this helps.

 

[benedictgal]

All small children at every parish I’ve ever been to accompany their parents for communion and all receive a blessing. What other option does a parent have? I think it’s wonderful that they get a blessing. Yes everyone gets a blessing at the end but there is something special about the priest placing his hand on my child’s head in blessing.

However, the priest can certainly impart his blessing to individuals after Mass. We form a line to receive Someone, Jesus in Holy Communion, not something, a blessing that will be given to all at the appropriate time, the end of Mass.

 

[Stylites]

Apropos of young children getting individual blessings in the Holy Communion line, there are other blessings which occur in Mass which the GIRM and RS also do not address at all.

Consider the yearly Holy Ghost Festa which the Portuguese community celebrates. In the 13th Century, Queen Isabella of Portugal prayed to the Holy Spirit to end a famine in her country. She even sold her jewels to pay for relief of her people. In honor of her generosity and in thanksgiving to the Holy Spirit, the Portuguese community each year holds a Festa, and among a dance and a Mass, they cook a ton of food to be served usually for free to all-comers.

Part of the Festa is a Mass in Portuguese. Crowns are placed upon the altar and are kept there throughout the Mass. At the conclusion, the officiating priest holds the crowns above the heads of the various dignitaries of the Sociadade Do Espirito Santo and blessings are conferred.

Maybe I ought to call someone in the Vatican? Or just enjoy the Mass?

 

[benedictgal]

Apropos of young children getting individual blessings in the Holy Communion line, there are other blessings which occur in Mass which the GIRM and RS also do not address at all.

Consider the yearly Holy Ghost Festa which the Portuguese community celebrates. In the 13th Century, Queen Isabella of Portugal prayed to the Holy Spirit to end a famine in her country. She even sold her jewels to pay for relief of her people. In honor to her generosity and in thanksgiving to the Holy Spirit, the Portuguese community each year holds a Festa, and among a dance and a Mass, they cook a ton of food to be served usually for free to all-comers.

Part of the Festa is a Mass in Portuguese. Crowns are placed upon the altar and are kept there throughout the Mass. At the conclusion, the officiating priest holds the crowns above the heads of the various dignitaries of the Sociadade Do Espirito Santo and blessings are conferred.

However, what your post may not have taken into account is that there might be an adaptation that permits these “blessings”. No such adaptation exists in the Roman Missal, nor in the GIRM. In fact, the GIRM has been slightly revised for the new English translation; however, blessings in lieu of Holy Communion is not included in there.

 

[benedictgal]

Anyone in the world can pull up documents as it relates to the Church and tell you something is right or wrong as a result. More than likely however, they are not going to be familiar with what that law or document was designed to do, how it has been interpreted by the Church, and how it fits into the remainder of the entirety of Canon Law. In addition, they are not likely to be aware of any dispensations that the Diocesan Bishop may have given, either verbally or in writing to the priests he shepherds. There are Diocesan Statutes that carry the weight of Canon Law within the Diocese and those are quite often not published online. Furthermore, it is not uncommon for Bishops to issue directives on how certain Vatican Documents or even Canon Law is to be interpreted and implemented within the Diocese. Its also important to remember that not just any document written by someone in the Vatican carries the weight of a Papal Bull or represents Magesterial teaching on something. Separating those things for people who are not properly trained to do so can be difficult. Just think about how many times people who are trained in the law argue over the meaning of the statute or how it is supposed to be implemented. Canon Law is likely no different.

When in doubt, the answer to this is quite simple. Send a polite e-mail to your pastor inquiring about the situation. Cite the relevant statute, document, or law and ask him if this applies to the situation. Make it clear that you are simply confused and are not trying to second guess him but are requesting pastoral guidance on the matter. If you are not satisfied with his answer, approach the Bishop in the same manner or the liturgy director for the diocese and ask the same questions. The Bishop has Canon Lawyers who work for him as well as people specifically trained in the Liturgy.

When in doubt definitely ask the question but after that, trust your Bishop, trust your Priest, and let Chicken Little go by the wayside.

However, it does not work that way in all of the dioceses. Furthermore, nothing precludes the faithful from contacting the CDWDS directly. As for the authority of the bishop, he has limited authority, not carte blanche. The only one who has unlimited authority is the Holy See. Please note what the GIRM states on what the bishop can do:

1. The Diocesan Bishop, who is to be regarded as the high priest of his flock, and from whom the life in Christ of the faithful under his care in a certain sense derives and upon whom it depends,148 must promote, regulate, and be vigilant over the liturgical life in his diocese. It is to him that in this Instruction is entrusted the regulating of the discipline of concelebration (cf. above, nos. 202, 374) and the establishing of norms regarding the function of serving the priest at the altar (cf. above, no. 107), the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds (cf. above, no. 283), and the construction and ordering of churches (cf. above, no. 291). With him lies responsibility above all for fostering the spirit of the Sacred Liturgy in the priests, deacons, and faithful.

If the bishop wanted to introduce a new element, a new ritual, if you will, into the Mass, he cannot do this on his own. He would have to submit a proposal to adapt the Roman Missal and then receive a 2/3 affirimative vote of the Latin Rite bishops in his particular national episcopal conference. Should the proposal receive the affirmative vote, then it is submitted to the CDWDS who can either grant or deny the necessary recognitio for the adaptation to the GIRM to take effect.

 

[ElToro]

So you think Rome promulgates Redemptionis Sacramentum, tells the laity specifically that ignoring 106 is a grave abuse that should be reported and then tells the bishops ‘Boys, do what you want’?? You’ll convince yourself of anything.

REDEMTIONIS SACRAMENTUM
**CHAPTER VIII
**
REMEDIES
2. Grave Matters
[173.] Although the gravity of a matter is to be judged in accordance with the common teaching of the Church and the norms established by her, objectively to be considered among grave matters is anything that puts at risk the validity and dignity of the Most Holy Eucharist: namely, anything that contravenes what is set out above in nn. 48-52, 56, 76-77, 79, 91-92, 94, 96, 101-102, 104, 106, 109, 111, 115, 117, 126, 131-133, 138, 153 and 168.

You’re not listening. I am well aware the Church says not to pour the Precious Blood. I have never disputed that. I’m also aware that there are exceptions to -]many/-] most Church liturgical directives if one has the authority of a bishop.

RS says not to pour the Precious Blood yet Roger Cardinal Mahony published in 2004 (in the archdiocesan newspaper, The Tidings) that he will allow the practice in his archdiocese under certain conditions. How could that be? Didn’t anyone notice? Didn’t anyone follow the directive from RS you so graciously presented? Of course not. In his archdiocese of nearly 5M members I bet more than 1,000 letters were sent to the Papal Nuncio and “Rome” on this matter alone. Yet Cardinal Mahony was never publically (or practically) reversed by the Holy See on this matter – a matter that is defined as being “grave” by RS. How could that be?

I would like you to think a little bit deeper on this one. One of two things happened. First it’s possible the Church turned a blind eye to a grave liturgical abuse and was complicit in the grave abuse with Cardinal Mahony. Second (which will require you to realize that you don’t know for certain if Cardinal Mahony had the authority to give limited exception to this directive within the confines of his archdiocese) is that maybe it was Cardinal Mahony’s call.

Yes I know there are people screaming at the tops of their lungs that he did not have such authority. They will even cut-n-paste church documentation complete with their own commentaries that they believe “proves” he did not have the authority to allow what he did. Simply put they too don’t know for certain no matter how loudly they claim they do.

I do know for certain this happened: RS prohibited the action and gave it the status of a grave abuse. Cardinal Mahony wrote publically that he will allow exception to this prohibition under certain conditions within his archdiocese. No action was ever taken by the Holy See. The new Archbishop of LA (a canonist) has not publically rescinded the permission to my knowledge.

Now let me speculate (as others have) but this time in a logical manner. The Church released RS, RS included the prohibition and Cardinal Mahony gave his permission. The Church never took action while Cardinal Mahony was Archbishop of LA. I don’t think the Church would be complicit in the abuse by not taking action on a “grave” offense. That leads me to believe that Cardinal Mahony had the AUTHORITY to do what he did. I also don’t believe that ABp. Gomez would wait so much as a week to reverse a known, widespead grave abuse where special permission was not given yet he has taken no action to my knowledge.

I’m not talking about whether Cardinal Mahony should have given his permission, if it was a good idea or anything else. Clearly it was a horrible thing to do by any measure. I am talking only about his authority. Go ahead and take shots at Cardinal Mahony for what we all know was a terribly misguided (some would say defiant) mistake but have the intellectual honesty to at least consider he had the authority to make such a mistake.

What’s YOUR position? That the Holy See is complicit in this on-going grave abuse because Cardinal Mahony did not have the authority and they did not take action to eliminate the abuse? While the Holy See can’t get involved with everything but it certainly can get involved in a PUBLISHED, widespread GRAVE abuse in by far the largest archdiocese in the USA if indeed the local ordinary did something he did not have the authority to do.

 

[ElToro]

Apropos of young children getting individual blessings in the Holy Communion line, there are other blessings which occur in Mass which the GIRM and RS also do not address at all.

Consider the yearly Holy Ghost Festa which the Portuguese community celebrates. In the 13th Century, Queen Isabella of Portugal prayed to the Holy Spirit to end a famine in her country. She even sold her jewels to pay for relief of her people. In honor of her generosity and in thanksgiving to the Holy Spirit, the Portuguese community each year holds a Festa, and among a dance and a Mass, they cook a ton of food to be served usually for free to all-comers.

Part of the Festa is a Mass in Portuguese. Crowns are placed upon the altar and are kept there throughout the Mass. At the conclusion, the officiating priest holds the crowns above the heads of the various dignitaries of the Sociadade Do Espirito Santo and blessings are conferred.

Maybe I ought to call someone in the Vatican? Or just enjoy the Mass?

We have a yearly festa as well. Good stuff!

 

[ElToro]

I wonder why there was no reference in RS to correct the practice of blessings in the Communion line when so many other issues were addressed.

Salient question given how widespread the practice…

 

[ElToro]

What is wrong with these accusations, when they are actually true? The Church really does prohibit this practice, and it shouldn’t be done, no matter how “emotional” or “spiritual” it is…

Balderdash. You suggest it does but you have neither the authority nor the knowledge to say for sure.

You portray the message that God frowns upon caring for the liturgy. Guess what: That is the most important thing we can do. It merits our care. Again, guess what: The lord gave his authority to the church, and the church also greatly esteems the liturgy. Who are we to argue?

You need to seriously consider changing your attitude…

I think God frowns on people like you trying to act as if you were in charge. You aren’t. He is. And you’re not the arbiter of what He says – the Church is. If anyone here needs an attitude adjustment you can see his image by looking in a mirror.

I can: at the end of Mass, just before the dismissal. If you want an extra, you are always free to get one after Mass.

Bravo.

 

[laszlo]

One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. The charitable work on the Sabbath did not have anything to do with the cultic sacrificial worship of Ancient Israel.

I am sure that to eat with unwashed hand (e.g. Mk 2:23-28) or harvest in Sabbath for relief from hunger (Mark 7:1-13) is not charitable act. Both event are important, and reported by all three synoptic Gospels.

The Law was given by God, and it had its meaning: to keep the Jews as the witnesses for the Messias.

There were some over-interpretations, but the moral order that some self denial is necessary to keep the rules was not wrong.

Jesus almost certainly allowed this cases to tell as that no rule, regulation is absolute, and to prepare decision of Acts 15, that one can serve God truly outside of the law.

 

[benedictgal]

Balderdash. You suggest it does but you have neither the authority nor the knowledge to say for sure.

I think God frowns on people like you trying to act as if you were in charge. You aren’t. He is. And you’re not the arbiter of what He says – the Church is. If anyone here needs an attitude adjustment you can see his image by looking in a mirror.

Bravo.

There is no need to take an insulting tone here, El Toro. Norms do matter to God. A quick reading of the Old Testament, especially those passages that refer to the liturgial law, as dictated by God, Himself, should be indicative of that.

 

[benedictgal]

You’re not listening. I am well aware the Church says not to pour the Precious Blood. I have never disputed that. I’m also aware that there are exceptions to -]many/-] most Church liturgical directives if one has the authority of a bishop.

RS says not to pour the Precious Blood yet Roger Cardinal Mahony published in 2004 (in the archdiocesan newspaper, The Tidings) that he will allow the practice in his archdiocese under certain conditions. How could that be? Didn’t anyone notice? Didn’t anyone follow the directive from RS you so graciously presented? Of course not. In his archdiocese of nearly 5M members I bet more than 1,000 letters were sent to the Papal Nuncio and “Rome” on this matter alone. Yet Cardinal Mahony was never publically (or practically) reversed by the Holy See on this matter – a matter that is defined as being “grave” by RS. How could that be?

I would like you to think a little bit deeper on this one. One of two things happened. First it’s possible the Church turned a blind eye to a grave liturgical abuse and was complicit in the grave abuse with Cardinal Mahony. Second (which will require you to realize that you don’t know for certain if Cardinal Mahony had the authority to give limited exception to this directive within the confines of his archdiocese) is that maybe it was Cardinal Mahony’s call.

Yes I know there are people screaming at the tops of their lungs that he did not have such authority. They will even cut-n-paste church documentation complete with their own commentaries that they believe “proves” he did not have the authority to allow what he did. Simply put they too don’t know for certain no matter how loudly they claim they do.

I do know for certain this happened: RS prohibited the action and gave it the status of a grave abuse. Cardinal Mahony wrote publically that he will allow exception to this prohibition under certain conditions within his archdiocese. No action was ever taken by the Holy See. The new Archbishop of LA (a canonist) has not publically rescinded the permission to my knowledge.

Now let me speculate (as others have) but this time in a logical manner. The Church released RS, RS included the prohibition and Cardinal Mahony gave his permission. The Church never took action while Cardinal Mahony was Archbishop of LA. I don’t think the Church would be complicit in the abuse by not taking action on a “grave” offense. That leads me to believe that Cardinal Mahony had the AUTHORITY to do what he did. I also don’t believe that ABp. Gomez would wait so much as a week to reverse a known, widespead grave abuse where special permission was not given yet he has taken no action to my knowledge.

I’m not talking about whether Cardinal Mahony should have given his permission, if it was a good idea or anything else. Clearly it was a horrible thing to do by any measure. I am talking only about his authority. Go ahead and take shots at Cardinal Mahony for what we all know was a terribly misguided (some would say defiant) mistake but have the intellectual honesty to at least consider he had the authority to make such a mistake.

What’s YOUR position? That the Holy See is complicit in this on-going grave abuse because Cardinal Mahony did not have the authority and they did not take action to eliminate the abuse? While the Holy See can’t get involved with everything but it certainly can get involved in a PUBLISHED, widespread GRAVE abuse in by far the largest archdiocese in the USA if indeed the local ordinary did something he did not have the authority to do.

All of this is moot now, since Los Angeles has a new Metropolitan Archbishop who ran a very tight ship in San Antonio. The mistakes made in the past will be addressed and corrected.

 

[zab]

What is wrong with these accusations, when they are actually true? The Church really does prohibit this practice, and it shouldn’t be done, no matter how “emotional” or “spiritual” it is.
It doesn’t seem to me that it is clear that the church prohibits this practice even though the CDWDS did issue some observations as to why the practice should not have started. Their response prior to these observations was that the matter is under attentive study. The Congregation did not include the cessation of this practice when it issued Redemptionis Sacramentum, the purpose of which was to correct many liturgical abuses. Some claim that there was no need to include it because documentation already exists. I would think that the Congregation would want to make clear that point when so many are not clear about it.

You portray the message that God frowns upon caring for the liturgy. Guess what: That is the most important thing we can do. It merits our care. Again, guess what: The lord gave his authority to the church, and the church also greatly esteems the liturgy. Who are we to argue?
All of us here care about the proper way the liturgy is done. You portray those of us who have raised questions as if we do not care and that is wrong. This issue is not all that clear and we are not the experts- none of us here on this board. So while it is good to the documents showing why this practice should perhaps never have started, we should not shoot down those who raise questions about the clarity of a prohibition against this practice.

You need to seriously consider changing your attitude.
**I agree with ELToro- You need to look in the mirror. **

I can: at the end of Mass, just before the dismissal. If you want an extra, you are always free to get one after Mass.

My biggest concern, is that many are becoming doubtful about their good pastors who still allow this practice.

 

[TheMc]

[edited]

Actually, the language is quite clear.

In a similar way, for others who are not to be admitted to Holy Communion in accord with the norm of law, [ie, anyone who can not receive communion…] the Church’s discipline has already made clear that they should not approach Holy Communion nor receive a blessing…

What is unclear about this?