deacon/extraordinary ministers blessing children during communion

[WetCatechumen]

As a member of the Society of St. Pius I, I find these Gregorian innovations allowing the presence of the unbaptized, those in mortal sin, and visitors during the Liturgy of the Faithful to be offensive. You are all clearly heretics. Clearly, the logical solution is to do as the ancient church would, and expel all non-communicants. This removes the issues with blessings in the communion line.

 

[benedictgal]

While the queer little practise of blessing people during communion can be explained as a logical consequence of the liturgical reforms, and the ecumenical and interfaith realities of our times. The fact that it was not envisioned in the rubrics does immediately disqualify it as an illegitimate exercise of episcopal and pastoral prerogative and local customs.The fact that some bishops have taken it upon themselves to regulate the issue makes it particular law of in that diocese. The fact that the pope when confronted with the request for a blessing at mass does it himself sends a message loud and clear about the why prudence, wisdom, and generosity of spirit can not be simply dealt with in a regulation or two.

As for Ecclesia de Mysterio

Question does it say that deacons can not do blessings at communion time. Answer No

One interpretation is that it shouldn’t have to since only the priest does a blessing at the end of mass therefore priests should not bless at any other time during the mass unless specifically spelled out in the rubrics, and if priest should not bless at any other time then of course neither should deacons. However another interpretations is the fact that lack of regulation does not seem to impede the pope, or bishops, or priests all around the world from doing blessing at other times in the mass in addition to the final blessing. Further if it is an unregulated moment it is equally unregulated for the priest or a deacon. In no way can a deacon be accused of quasi presiding at mass when he offers a blessing to the one who asks. The blessing a deacon does is well within his spiritual nature and not illicit on the face of it the way it is for the laity.

It seems that the problem you have with me giving blessings is that I am not a priest. My nature allows me to bless people with the same fecundity as a priest ( leaving aside Confirmation deputation by the bishop to the priest). We are not talking about the Eucharistic prayers, we are not talking about quasi presiding and leaving the priest at the margins , we are not talking about mimicry or replacing a liturgical action reserved to the celebrant. These are the issues brought up in Ecclesia de Mysterio and if we are not talking about the issues cited in Ecclesia de Mysterio then Ecclesia de Mysterio does not apply.

Ecclesia de Mysterio cites Can 907 as the interpretive context and it reads ***Can. 907 In the celebration of the Eucharist, deacons and lay persons are not permitted to say the prayers, especially the Eucharistic prayer, nor to perform the actions which are proper to the celebrating priest. *** Since the actions of the communion rite, during the distribution, are not reserved to the celebrating priest and the topic at hand deals with an action not even mentioned in the rite then it is unreasonable to argue that a deacon is subverting a reserved action to the celebrant when the action is not even mentioned?

The only issue here is the blessing at communion time, whether by a priest or deacon, and should it be done at all.

The other document penned by the under secretary is a collection of observations, when read closely it admits to no liturgical weight beyond guidance and is offered as the private , albeit very considered opinion of the author. Father McNamara in Zenit recently explains that it is only a personal opinion and that it does not constitute new directives beyond those that are all ready in force such as the canons cited. Father also notes the tone of the note as being less than supportive of the practise and hopes bishops would take note of that concern. Whether you think it is more binding then he does is something should write to him about.

PAX

Again, I bet to differ with your interpretation. First of all, what you are stating in your first observation is something grounded in the Spirit of Vatican II, but, has no justification whatsoever in the authoritative documents of the Second Vatican Council nor in any of the other authoritative documents issued by the Holy See.

Second, deacons do not have unlimited faculties at the Mass. The only one who can confer blessings is the celebrant, not the deacon (unless you are the one officiating at a wedding imbedded within the Mass or at a celebration of Quince Anos). Your duties are limited to proclaiming the Gospel, assisting the priest in the preparation of the gifts, holding the chalice during the Doxology, inviting the faithful to exchange, distributing Holy Communion and dismissing the faithful. Thus, Ecclesia de Mysterio is not just pointing out quasi-presiding, but, gestures and words that are proper to the celebrant (priest or bishop) alone. This includes the blessing, which comes at its proper time, the end of Mass.

Your continued dismissal of the letter from the CDWDS is most troubling. Just because the author is the Undersecretary, that does not make him any less authorized to make that statement. You consistently quote Fr. McNamara, who, while he is highly respected, is not even a member of the CDWDS and states only opinion and interpretation, not fact.

Incidentally, the CDWDS letter gives all of the reaons why this blessing should not be happening in the first place.

There are some who suggest differing to the bishop. However, if the CDWDS has already issued a statement and has told us what we should be doing for the time being, the local Ordinary and the Metropolitan do not have the authority to overrule what the supreme law-making authority, in this case the CDWDS (which acts in the name of and with the authority of the Holy Father). Again, I respectfully repeat my suggestion that you print out the letter in its entirety and then show it to your priest and your bishop.

 

[zab]

What I find troubling is the persistent accusations that posters on this thread are disregarding what the CDWDS has said. That is not true. I have not read where anyone has disregarded that this practice should not be happening in the first place. Where we disagree is how to treat people when they do approach in the Communion line.

If the CDWDS has already issued a ruling on this matter then why is it still being reviewed?

In addition, I also find it troubling that the local bishops who are allowing this practice to continue while waiting for the conclusion of this study are being accused of “overruling” what the CDWDS has said. The ruling has yet to be made.

 

[Deacon2006]

I did not mention the ***spirit of Vatican II ***but I did invoke the logical result of the liturgical reforms of Vatican II. To reduce the restriction surrounding the mass was reasonably going to create situations at communion time with non communicants. The old practises developed to avoid the issues we are now having. Rules were created to preserve the Holy and it is polly annish to say that these issues were not anticipated with the elimination of the protective rules. The lack of regulation clearly makes the local ordinary responsible for the particular law in his diocese. This is the clear and unequivocal tradition of the church too.

A deacon never looses his faculties to bless because he is at mass. The fact that a deacon does not exercise all his faculties during the mass is proper, especially when those moments are clearly reserved to the priest. This deference to the higher rank of clergy in no way diminishes a deacons faculties. Remember the very act of blessing is not priestly, it is diaconal at its inception, it is a faculty granted to all clerics when they become deacons. The passage you refer to deals not with faculties conveyed by a sacrament but with appropriate protocol at the end of the mass. It is inappropriate for a deacon to provide the final blessing when a priest is the celebrant and it is equally inappropriate for a priest to bless when a bishop is the celebrant. That’s it, it is has nothing to do with the faculty to bless but it deals only with the good ordering of the mass that celebrates to the higher clerical rank.

The blessing of people who bring gifts up or at the communion line are not the liturgical blessing at the dismissal they are small acts of spiritual kindness not intended to alter the mass in anyway from the stated rubrics. To insist that the final blessing is diminished by these acts is ridiculous. Blessing one to one at the request of the lay person is not changing the eucharist prayer or a gesture is being replaced with a new gesture. It is simply not seen as a liturgical act at all but instead one not covered by the rubrics but even when it is done it is always intended to preserve the Eucharist to those who are disposed to recieve.

PAX

 

[FrDavid96]

I believe the clarification was
“this matter is presently under the attentive study of the Congregation”

No, that was not the clarification. To make a timely example, the swine flu is likewise “under the attentive study” of the Centers for Disease Control–that’s hardly saying that in-the-meantime they approve of it.

The “clarification” was in #5
In a similar way, for others who are not to be admitted to Holy Communion in accord with the norm of law, the Church’s discipline has already made clear that they should not approach Holy Communion nor receive a blessing.

 

[MrS]

No, that was not the clarification. To make a timely example, the swine flu is likewise “under the attentive study” of the Centers for Disease Control–that’s hardly saying that in-the-meantime they approve of it.

The “clarification” was in #5 In a similar way, for others who are not to be admitted to Holy Communion in accord with the norm of law, the Church’s discipline has already made clear that they should not approach Holy Communion nor receive a blessing.

:clapping:

 

[FrDavid96]

The larger problem I see here is that we don’t like seeing EMHC over stepping their nature to impart with gesture they would never do outside of the communion rite, they do not have any authority to do what some are clearly doing in any circumstance. But for a priest or a deacon to do a blessing that is by their nature something they were ordained to do, this is a different issue.

PAX

The “larger problem” lies in people making changes to the Mass on their own.

Since the Holy See has made it clear that these blessings are not to be done, it is not within the competence of any cleric to ignore the Holy See, make changes to the Mass, and improvise something which the Church not only does not permit, but which the CDWS has said the Church has already made clear that this is not to be done.

Canon 1169.3 states that “A deacon can impart only those blessings which are expressly permitted to him by law.” Unless one can cite a justification in canon law or liturgical law which says that a deacon is “expressly permitted” or bless someone who, for whatever reason, is not receiving Communion, the position in favor of this happening does not have a leg to stand on.

 

[benedictgal]

I did not mention the ***spirit of Vatican II ***but I did invoke the logical result of the liturgical reforms of Vatican II. To reduce the restriction surrounding the mass was reasonably going to create situations at communion time with non communicants. The old practises developed to avoid the issues we are now having. Rules were created to preserve the Holy and it is polly annish to say that these issues were not anticipated with the elimination of the protective rules. The lack of regulation clearly makes the local ordinary responsible for the particular law in his diocese. This is the clear and unequivocal tradition of the church too.

A deacon never looses his faculties to bless because he is at mass. The fact that a deacon does not exercise all his faculties during the mass is proper, especially when those moments are clearly reserved to the priest. This deference to the higher rank of clergy in no way diminishes a deacons faculties. Remember the very act of blessing is not priestly, it is diaconal at its inception, it is a faculty granted to all clerics when they become deacons. The passage you refer to deals not with faculties conveyed by a sacrament but with appropriate protocol at the end of the mass. It is inappropriate for a deacon to provide the final blessing when a priest is the celebrant and it is equally inappropriate for a priest to bless when a bishop is the celebrant. That’s it, it is has nothing to do with the faculty to bless but it deals only with the good ordering of the mass that celebrates to the higher clerical rank.

The blessing of people who bring gifts up or at the communion line are not the liturgical blessing at the dismissal they are small acts of spiritual kindness not intended to alter the mass in anyway from the stated rubrics. To insist that the final blessing is diminished by these acts is ridiculous. Blessing one to one at the request of the lay person is not changing the eucharist prayer or a gesture is being replaced with a new gesture. It is simply not seen as a liturgical act at all but instead one not covered by the rubrics but even when it is done it is always intended to preserve the Eucharist to those who are disposed to recieve.

PAX

While you may not have specifically mentioned the Spirit of Vatican II, your response, as I read it, was alluding to it.

Again, the deacon does not have the same faculties during the Mass as the celebrant does. In another thread, you expressed concern about the priest reading the part of Jesus in the Passion because you believed that only the deacon should do it. You also expressed your opinion that the deacon should be the one doing the Mandatum instead of the priest. By the nature of your diaconate ordination, you are a member of the clergy. No one is denying you that. However, just as a priest cannot ordain another priest (only the bishop can), there are things that you cannot do that only a priest/bishop can. Imparting blessings during the course of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is one of them. It does not fall to you to do. That is why Ecclesia de Mysterio is very clear about who can do what because even the roles of the deacons were becoming just as convoluted as those of the laity. Furthermore, a deacon, according to that same document, cannot be called a chaplain. That term is reserved only to the priest.

The observation that the CDWDS, whether you choose to dismiss it or not, clearly indicates that the blessing is to take place at the end of the Mass, not in lieu of distributing Holy Communion.

It falls on the bishop’s shoulders (and on prudent pastors) to keep abreast with what the Holy See says on these matters. While I am happy that you seem to agree that this should not have happened in the first place, just because everyone else is doing this, that does not mean that you have to engage in this practice as well. It has to stop at one point. Why not let it stop with you?

When the letter came out, I printed it and gave a copy to my parochial vicar, who was very pleased to see it. I also shared it with some priest friends of mine who also welcomed it. In fact one of them, who serves as a pastor, got after his deacon for blessing in lieu of distributing. Now, I am not advocating a priest “getting after” his deacon (he should have been a little calmer), but, the fact that they all were pleased with the CDWDS response indicates to me that this practice will soon become a thing of the past.

In the meantime, while it is still under study, it should not be done. The CDWDS has already given five good reasons why it should never have been done in the first place. Why are you so quick to doubt the author of the letter? Perhaps this letter went up the chain of command and was reviewed with a fine-toothed comb before it was sent out. The fact remains that this is an official document from the CDWDS, not the personal opinion of a cleric, albeit widely respected, but, not a curial official.

 

[FrDavid96]

What I find troubling is the persistent accusations that posters on this thread are disregarding what the CDWDS has said. That is not true. I have not read where anyone has disregarded that this practice should not be happening in the first place. Where we disagree is how to treat people when they do approach in the Communion line.

If the CDWDS has already issued a ruling on this matter then why is it still being reviewed?

In addition, I also find it troubling that the local bishops who are allowing this practice to continue while waiting for the conclusion of this study are being accused of “overruling” what the CDWDS has said. The ruling has yet to be made.

On the first part, I agree with you 100%.

On the other hand, the ruling has been made by the CDWS; that’s what these letters are all about–interpretations of liturgical law by competent authority. With regard to individual bishops, I will say in their “defense” (if I may use that word for the sake of discussion) that not every single letter from the CDWS is read by every individual bishop. Disseminating this information does take some time. What some of us are actually saying here is not an accusation of disobedience, but the objective statement that the policies of the diocesan bishop (which in most cases were made before this clarification by the CDWS) cannot overrule the Holy See.

 

[zab]

The “larger problem” lies in people making changes to the Mass on their own.

Since the Holy See has made it clear that these blessings are not to be done, it is not within the competence of any cleric to ignore the Holy See, make changes to the Mass, and improvise something which the Church not only does not permit, but which the CDWS has said the Church has already made clear that this is not to be done.

Canon 1169.3 states that “A deacon can impart only those blessings which are expressly permitted to him by law.” Unless one can cite a justification in canon law or liturgical law which says that a deacon is “expressly permitted” or bless someone who, for whatever reason, is not receiving Communion, the position in favor of this happening does not have a leg to stand on.

Would you have been aware of what the CDWS has said about this matter if you had not spent so much time on the internet?

 

[zab]

On the first part, I agree with you 100%.

On the other hand, the ruling has been made by the CDWS; that’s what these letters are all about–interpretations of liturgical law by competent authority. With regard to individual bishops, I will say in their “defense” (if I may use that word for the sake of discussion) that not every single letter from the CDWS is read by every individual bishop. Disseminating this information does take some time. What some of us are actually saying here is not an accusation of disobedience, but the objective statement that the policies of the diocesan bishop (which in most cases were made before this clarification by the CDWS) cannot overrule the Holy See.

Thank you. I appreciate this response.

 

[benedictgal]

On the first part, I agree with you 100%.

On the other hand, the ruling has been made by the CDWS; that’s what these letters are all about–interpretations of liturgical law by competent authority. With regard to individual bishops, I will say in their “defense” (if I may use that word for the sake of discussion) that not every single letter from the CDWS is read by every individual bishop. Disseminating this information does take some time. What some of us are actually saying here is not an accusation of disobedience, but the objective statement that the policies of the diocesan bishop (which in most cases were made before this clarification by the CDWS) cannot overrule the Holy See.

That is certainly true. While I do not and will not make the claim that there is anarchy in the hierarchy, it certainly does not hurt those who are in their diocesan office of Divine Worship to keep abreast of the rulings and statements that come down from the CDWDS. But, the lower authority cannot overrule what the supreme authority has already stated. That is when the problems begin.

I am reminded of the homily that my parochial vicar preached last Wednesday (feast of St. Catherine of Sienna). He told us that as laity, it is our duty and responsibility to charitably confront our priests and bishops when we see something amiss. No. We are not supposed to in there like Rambo and start shooting from the hip (and ask questions later). Rather, we calmly speak to our shepherds and tell them that there are issues with a particular practice (in this case, blessings in lieu of Holy Communion). We show them the authoritative documentation and then have a calm discussion about it (or at least, do so in writing).

For my part, I have distributed this letter to several priests. Since one of them sits on the presbyteral council, he will probably present this to them at their next meeting (the bishop sits in on these; we have no office of worship since the second director left). I have also forwarded it to the pertinent diocesan offices. From what I understand, the letter has also made its way to the USCCB. Furthermore, since the letter is now part of Notitiae, it is no longer a private matter. In fact, the mere fact that it was assigned a protocol number means that it is not a casual response.

 

[MrS]

Would you have been aware of what the CDWS has said about this matter if you had not spent so much time on the internet?

As a Catholic who loves good priests, I take offense… either to the actual words you use, and/or to the sarcastic implication.

How about: " Gee Father, as you priest we not only trust you to KNOW these things as part of your special vocation, but we also thank you for sharing them."

It is obvious that there are some priests and also some deacons who either

• have forgotten what they learned
• never learned it
• preferred to do things their own way.

.

 

[zab]

As a Catholic who loves good priests, I take offense… either to the actual words you use, and/or to the sarcastic implication.

How about: " Gee Father, as you priest we not only trust you to KNOW these things as part of your special vocation, but we also thank you for sharing them."

It is obvious that there are some priests and also some deacons who either

• have forgotten what they learned
• never learned it
• preferred to do things their own way.

.

It was a sincere and valid question, not meant to be sarcastic or demeaning.

May I add that many of the younger priests use the internet more than the older ones, although even some Cardinals have learned to blog!

 

[PacoG]

You are quoting something that is very outdated, about six years old. Furthermore, this is one Metropolitan’s opinion, not Church doctrine. Inasmuch as I respect the Metropolitan of Denver (especially for his stanuch pro-life stance), the prevailing authority comes from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, which has already stated its authoritative observations.

(In a charitable tone), please get the terminology correct. When Archbishop Chaput was addressing this, he was addressing it as archbishop of the Archdiocese of Denver, not as metropolitan of the Denver Province. A bishop/archbishop is the chief liturgist of his diocese/archdiocese. A metropolitan has little or no liturgical authority in his province. When an archbishop is addressing an archdiocesan issue, he is an archbishop not a metropolitan. They are two distinct titles that imply two different jurisdictions which a metropolitan archbishop holds. Referring to him as a metropolitan when he was exercising his episcopal authority as a bishop, muddies and confuses the issue.

 

[benedictgal]

It seems that every time this issue comes up, it turns into a rather cantakerous debate. I certainly do not want to offend anyone, clergy and laity alike.

This thread is also two years old.

It would seem to me that once the CDWDS issued its statement, it would have been taken for its merit by the proponents of this kind of blessing. But, unfortunately, that has not been the case, as post after post clearly indicates.

The diaconate plays an invaluable role in the Church. In fact, an important one, as the Apostles, themselves (see Acts) decreed that the assistance of the deacons was needed. However, just as the celebrant has a role to play in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, so, too, does the deacon and so, to, do the faithful. Now, if after preaching the deacon imparts a blessing, fine. He is doing that within the context of his duties as preacher. However, Ecclesia de Mysterio makes very clear that there are certain things that fall within the purview of the celebrant alone. Blessing individuals within the context of the Mass, though not explicitly mentioned, is implied when the document speaks of gestures and words that are reserved to the celebrant alone.

As far as the imparting of a blessing is concerned, the CDWDS, as Fr. David pointed out, makes perfectly clear that:

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

This is not being uncharitable. It is stating a fact. Furthermore, what would be uncharitable would be to continue to promote something (that has no liturgical Tradition behind it) and pass it off for something that it is not. It also serves to breed confusion as the genuine reason for the line starts to blur. We line up to receive Someone, Jesus, not something, a blessing, which will be given to all at the end of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

If those who desire a blessing, whether for themselves or for their children, wish to have one, apart from the one that everyone receives at the end of Mass, there is nothing stopping them from approaching the deacon, priest or bishop at the end of Mass and requesting it. That would be the appropriate time, but, not during the distribution of Holy Communion.

 

[Deacon2006]

The “larger problem” lies in people making changes to the Mass on their own. …

Canon 1169.3 states that “A deacon can impart only those blessings which are expressly permitted to him by law.” Unless one can cite a justification in canon law or liturgical law which says that a deacon is “expressly permitted” or bless someone who, for whatever reason, is not receiving Communion, the position in favor of this happening does not have a leg to stand on.

Father as you know it is expressly permitted by law for deacons to bless the faithful when they ask for it with the gesture of the cross and saying the Father Son and Holy Spirit. The context of the blessing is what is the issue and that is far less clear considering that the pope and almost everyone when faced with the situation of a blessing request has done it. That doesn’t make it right but it does make it unclear and as such the issue is being studied and some bishops are issuing directives.

PAX

 

[benedictgal]

Father as you know it is expressly permitted by law for deacons to bless the faithful when they ask for it with the gesture of the cross and saying the Father Son and Holy Spirit. The context of the blessing is what is the issue and that is far less clear considering that the pope and almost everyone when faced with the situation of a blessing request has done it. That doesn’t make it right but it does make it unclear and as such the issue is being studied and some bishops are issuing directives.

PAX

However, when it happens within the context of the Mass, that is a whole other issue altogether.

You have yet to find anything in the authoritative documents of the Holy See that legitimizes this practice. Even in one of your posts, you admitted that this should not have been done in the first place.

You bring in the Holy Father in an attempt to legitimize this. With all due respect, if you watch the recent telecasts of the Papal Masses, the faithful who line up to receive Holy Communion from the Pope do so kneeling and on the tongue. He hasn’t blessed anyone, except for those who present the gifts to him during the Mass. Furthermore, when he does bless chidren, it is while he is processing to the altar and away from it when this commonly happens. If the Holy Father chooses to do something, it falls under his purview to do, since he is the Supreme Authority. But, that is his privilege, not anyone else’s.

As I said in my previous response, I respect the diaconate. However, as St. Paul notes, each has his own ministry and his own duty.

 

[Deacon2006]

While you may not have specifically mentioned the Spirit of Vatican II, your response, as I read it, was alluding to it.

I have never made such an “allusion” just pointed out that we used to have an organized religion that was well regulated and now we do not.

In another thread, you expressed concern about the priest reading the part of Jesus in the Passion because you believed that only the deacon should do it. You also expressed your opinion that the deacon should be the one doing the Mandatum instead of the priest.

I don’t believe that a deacon should read the part of Jesus it is the fact that a deacon should read the part of Jesus which is the tradition of the church and mandated by liturgical law period. And if I ever posted that I think a deacon should wash the feet of the twelve and not the priest then is must be a typo because I have never knowingly typed such an absurd thing.

What I have said in another thread is

*** I agree the point is always a priestly function and isn’t it a good image to see that our priests are to be humble and a servant.***

and

*** I never like seeing deacons or anyone other than the celebrant or another priest being called to wash the feet of anything other than 12 men***

I am sure you didn’t mean to make stuff up about me but use the quote button in the future to better represent my words

PAX

 

[benedictgal]

I have never made such an “allusion” just pointed out that we used to have an organized religion that was well regulated and now we do not.

I don’t believe that a deacon should read the part of Jesus it is the fact that a deacon should read the part of Jesus which is the tradition of the church and mandated by liturgical law period. And if I ever posted that I think a deacon should wash the feet of the twelve and not the priest then is must be a typo because I have never knowingly typed such an absurd thing.

What I have said in another thread is

*** I agree the point is always a priestly function and isn’t it a good image to see that our priests are to be humble and a servant.***

and

*** I never like seeing deacons or anyone other than the celebrant or another priest being called to wash the feet of anything other than 12 men***

I am sure you didn’t mean to make stuff up about me but use the quote button in the future to better represent my words

PAX

If I have misunderstood what you have said regarding the other issues or confused you with someone else who posted on these matters, I apologize.

Nonetheless, you still have not addressed the question of further advocating something that the Church has clearly indicated should not be done, as the CDWDS made in its statement:

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

While we seem to agree that an EMHC should not be doing this in the first place, as their function only entails assisting in the Distribution of Holy Communion when there is a legitimate need, the impartation of a blessing within the context of the Mass is reserved to the celebrant, as the CDWDS statement clearly indicates:

1. Lay people, within the context of Holy Mass, are unable to confer blessings. **These blessings, rather, are the competence of the priest **(cf. Ecclesia de Mysterio, Notitiae 34 (15 Aug. 1997), art. 6, § 2; Canon 1169, § 2; and Roman Ritual De Benedictionibus (1985), n. 18).

Please note that the deacon is conspicuously absent from this reference. This is not a slight on the deacon; however, as I indicated in a previous post, each member of the clergy has his particular duty within the context of the Mass.

Sadly, as I noted in another post, this is a very contentious and cantankerous issue. It has a lot of emotional investment on both sides. Unfortunately, a lot of the debates within the Church down the centuries have turned into brawls that rival Wrestemania. History notes that one of the early Church councils had the makings of a slugfest that would have made Vince MacMahon proud, certainly not one of our better moments.

But, let us remember that the CDWDS has already issued its statement. Regardless of whether or not the author is the Undersecretary to the CDWDS, the Secretary or the Prefect, himself, this statement carries the authority of the Congregation and should not be taken lightly. The fact that this document has already appeared in Notitiae is also something to consider since it is a public document and not someone’s personal opinion.