I am not catholic yet,

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Sounds like a reasonable option.

I think the phrase, ***“This matter is presently under the attentive study of the Congregation.” *** is significant in causing some degree of confusion for some, and methinks problematic for those not familiar with the hierarchy of the Church. Seems to me that if the matter “is presently under…study”, then there are some doubts as to whether the practice should be “legitimized” as a liturgical option. Otherwise, the practice would be rejected outright.

Yes, it goes on to say that for the time being blessings shouldn’t be given, no need to rehash that. But it’s legitimate to ask, if such blessings are eventually approved, what all the fuss is about?

Yes, and if the matter is under study, and wasn’t outright condemned, it can’t be a serious irregularity.

Lux

 

[Alindawyl]

Yes, it goes on to say that for the time being blessings shouldn’t be given, no need to rehash that. But it’s legitimate to ask, if such blessings are eventually approved, what all the fuss is about?

The fuss is because they are not currently approved. We can’t jump the gun and approve them on our own authority. They may not end up being approved. The outcome is not known until the outcome is known

We must follow the rules. The new English translation of the liturgy is approved but can’t be used until a timeline is set to transition us from the current translation. That could happen next year, or it could be another several years from now. Just because we know the new translation will eventually be put into use doesn’t permit us to start using it on our own authority.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

What of our obligation to respect and obey our Pastor?

A very conservative priest told me that if it is not faith or morals, I should obey my pastor. If there is any wrong, it will be his. I did have a difficult time when the pastor told me to allow self-intinction, and rarely serve as EMHC for that reason, but I do not have a problem obeying him in the matter of saying “God bless you” if a person approaches with arms crossed.

Lux

 

[FrDavid96]

Sounds like a reasonable option.

I think the phrase, ***“This matter is presently under the attentive study of the Congregation.” *** is significant in causing some degree of confusion for some, and methinks problematic for those not familiar with the hierarchy of the Church. Seems to me that if the matter “is presently under…study”, then there are some doubts as to whether the practice should be “legitimized” as a liturgical option. Otherwise, the practice would be rejected outright.

Yes, it goes on to say that for the time being blessings shouldn’t be given, no need to rehash that. But it’s legitimate to ask, if such blessings are eventually approved, what all the fuss is about?

Actually, it isn’t the phrase “under the attentive study” which is causing the confusion. The confusion arises because some people insist on applying a meaning to that phrase which it does not have. The fact that a matter is under study does not mean that the current liturgical norms of the Church no longer apply. Governments study legal situations all the time. Just because a law is being studdied does not mean that the current law lacks force. “Under the attentive study” means just that, and nothing more.

Allow me to give an example. Let’s say that my city is considering removing a traffic light at the corner of Main and Elm streets. We could certainly say that that particular traffic light is “currently under the attentive study of the city council.” Does that mean that if I come upon that traffic light and it’s red, I can therefore drive through the intersection as if the red-light were not there? Of course not! No reasonable person would attempt to make such an argument. If I do it and get caught, the judge would laugh me out of court if I tried to use as my defense “the matter is currently under the attentive study of the city council.” If he’s in a bad mood, he might even tack on a “contempt of court” charge for making a mockery of the court by presenting such a farcical defense (or at least wish that the laws would allow that!)

When we look at an example of this under civil law, it becomes painfully obvious what “under the attentive study” means and does not mean–nothing more than the plain meaning of the words, that someone in authority is looking at the issue. In contrast to that, there are some who attempt to use these words in a matter of liturgical law, and expect us to believe that “under the attentive study” means that the current liturgical law (which the Holy See has said does not allow these blessings) does not have any force-of-law. That reasoning makes no sense; none whatsoever. In fact, it defies common sense.

Now, please understand that I’m not saying that *you *are attempting to make that argument, only that some are.

The othe problem is that there seems to be an assumption floating around that this practice will be approved by the Holy See at some point. In fact, the blog posting by JA comes dangerously close to saying that it’s a given (with a little disclaimer at the bottom that it could go either way). I’m of the exact opposite opinion because given the fact that the Holy See has already articulated the reasons for why these blessings aren’t appropriate, it seems very unlikely that a change in the liturgical law will be made to accomodate this practice. In other words, it makes very little sense to say “the Holy See says that this isn’t appropriate, but the Holy See is going to change liturgical law to legitimize what is already seen as inappropriate.” I can’t see that happening, and I especially can’t see it happening under the current Holy Father. He doesn’t strike me as the kind of pope who would make a change to the Mass to add something which contradicts some basic liturgical principles, like giving a special blessing to people in irregular marriages. Children who haven’t yet made first Communion? That wouldn’t surprise me, and I would welcome such a change if it were to happen–but then again, we would have a serious problem of two different practices; one if a priest or deacon (who can impart a blessing) is distributing, and another if a layperson (who cannot impart a blessing) is assisting. The practice of giving blessings (or pseudo-blessings) simply causes many more problems than it solves.

And finally, we really must keep in mind that the true source of this problem is the fact that people have already taken it upon themselves to make changes to the Mass without the requisite approval of the Holy See. It’s a dangerous precedent to set if Rome were to allow this practice to continue based on the criteria that it’s already happening, and people would feel “left out” by a licit celebration of the Masss. We see the results of that with other matters, but those belong in different threads.

 

[FrDavid96]

With regard to obeying the pastor:

We only have an obligation to obey those in authority when they exercise their authority legitimately.

If a parish priest is being disobedient to the directives of the Holy See, no one in the parish has any obligation to obey him, and in fact, an informed person who is aware of the liturgical law as the Holy See presents that law in an official, authoritative and public interpretation of it has the moral obligation to disobey the pastor in favor of obedience to the Successor of Peter and his legitimately appointed representatives.

 

[Alindawyl]

What of our obligation to respect and obey our Pastor?

A very conservative priest told me that if it is not faith or morals, I should obey my pastor. If there is any wrong, it will be his. I did have a difficult time when the pastor told me to allow self-intinction, and rarely serve as EMHC for that reason, but I do not have a problem obeying him in the matter of saying “God bless you” if a person approaches with arms crossed.

Lux

It’s a matter of faith and morals when an authority figure in the Church is not simply permitting us to be disobedient but ordering us to do so.

If my priest ordered EMHCs to allow self-intinction or give blessings, I would refuse to serve as an EMHC. I would be very clear in my refusal, letting him know it’s because the practice is explicitly prohibited. I would be very charitable as well because he may simply be unaware of that fact. And if he persisted in disobedience after being made aware of the practices being prohibited, I would pray for him.

 

[Newbie2]

Actually, it isn’t the phrase “under the attentive study” which is causing the confusion. The confusion arises because some people insist on applying a meaning to that phrase which it does not have. The fact that a matter is under study does not mean that the current liturgical norms of the Church no longer apply. Governments study legal situations all the time. Just because a law is being studdied does not mean that the current law lacks force. “Under the attentive study” means just that, and nothing more.

We’re splitting hairs here, Fr.D. OK, let me “rephrase ” what I mean: the wording of the phrase itself is not the problem, but rather than saying the practice is forbidden, it implies that there is some hope that the practice will become acceptable (in the mind of some). I guess I agree with you that an unintended meaning of the phrase is the problem, but we could equally say that since people are misunderstanding its meaning that it should have been stated differently in order so that there was to be no misunderstanding. I guess it depends on which is the cart and which is the horse.

Allow me to give an example. Let’s say that my city is considering removing a traffic light at the corner of Main and Elm streets. We could certainly say that that particular traffic light is “currently under the attentive study of the city council.” Does that mean that if I come upon that traffic light and it’s red, I can therefore drive through the intersection as if the red-light were not there? Of course not! No reasonable person would attempt to make such an argument. If I do it and get caught, the judge would laugh me out of court if I tried to use as my defense “the matter is currently under the attentive study of the city council.” If he’s in a bad mood, he might even tack on a “contempt of court” charge for making a mockery of the court by presenting such a farcical defense (or at least wish that the laws would allow that!)

When we look at an example of this under civil law, it becomes painfully obvious what “under the attentive study” means and does not mean–nothing more than the plain meaning of the words, that someone in authority is looking at the issue. In contrast to that, there are some who attempt to use these words in a matter of liturgical law, and expect us to believe that “under the attentive study” means that the current liturgical law (which the Holy See has said does not allow these blessings) does not have any force-of-law. That reasoning makes no sense; none whatsoever. In fact, it defies common sense.

You’ve just given plenty of ammunition to those who would say that you and others are being overly legalistic about the liturgy, no?

Now, please understand that I’m not saying that *you *are attempting to make that argument, only that some are.

Thank you, I appreciate that.

The othe problem is that there seems to be an assumption floating around that this practice will be approved by the Holy See at some point. In fact, the blog posting by JA comes dangerously close to saying that it’s a given (with a little disclaimer at the bottom that it could go either way). I’m of the exact opposite opinion because given the fact that the Holy See has already articulated the reasons for why these blessings aren’t appropriate, it seems very unlikely that a change in the liturgical law will be made to accomodate this practice. In other words, it makes very little sense to say “the Holy See says that this isn’t appropriate, but the Holy See is going to change liturgical law to legitimize what is already seen as inappropriate.” I can’t see that happening, and I especially can’t see it happening under the current Holy Father. He doesn’t strike me as the kind of pope who would make a change to the Mass to add something which contradicts some basic liturgical principles, like giving a special blessing to people in irregular marriages. Children who haven’t yet made first Communion? That wouldn’t surprise me, and I would welcome such a change if it were to happen–but then again, we would have a serious problem of two different practices; one if a priest or deacon (who can impart a blessing) is distributing, and another if a layperson (who cannot impart a blessing) is assisting. The practice of giving blessings (or pseudo-blessings) simply causes many more problems than it solves.

I agree. What we really need is continuity of the Bishops and Priests and the lay people will follow. We cannot have a properly functioning Magesterial hierarchy if the lay people are the ones interpreting whether or not to follow or not follow a certain questionable practice, regardless of how well-informed the laypeople are.

And finally, we really must keep in mind that the true source of this problem is the fact that people have already taken it upon themselves to make changes to the Mass without the requisite approval of the Holy See. It’s a dangerous precedent to set if Rome were to allow this practice to continue based on the criteria that it’s already happening, and people would feel “left out” by a licit celebration of the Masss. We see the results of that with other matters, but those belong in different threads.

Perhaps…I agree for the most part. But how then do we arrange to have cultural diversity expressed within the mass…clearly that is a goal of the worldwide Church, to allow for some degree of cultural expression in worship?

 

[FrDavid96]

We’re splitting hairs here, Fr.D. OK, let me "rephrase " what I mean: the wording of the phrase itself is not the problem, but rather than saying the practice is forbidden, it implies that there is some hope that the practice will become acceptable (in the mind of some). I guess I agree with you that an unintended meaning of the phrase is the problem, but we could equally say that since people are misunderstanding its meaning that it should have been stated differently in order so that there was to be no misunderstanding. I guess it depends on which is the cart and which is the horse.

Not at all. There is no splitting of hairs. There’s no implied meaning that the liturgical laws will be changed just because a matter is being studied. The only reason why people are misunderstanding the meaning is because, as I said originally, there are people who are trying to apply a meaning to the words which simply is not there. The Congregation did state the position in such a way that there should be no misunderstanding. But when someone else comes along and says “they didn’t mean what they said, they meant something else” that is where the confusion begins. The individual numbered paragraphs of the letter each give a reason why this is not to be done. If the Holy See simply responded with nothing more than a “Response in the negative” (which happens sometimes) no doubt there would be some who would decry this as being insensitive, and would say that because Rome answered so curtly, they’re free to ignore it. The bottom line is that sometimes people get it into their heads that a change to the Mass is fine merely because they personally feel that it’s fine, and it makes no difference how little, how much, or how often Rome tries to clarify the matter–they will do what they want to do anyway.

You’ve just given plenty of ammunition to those who would say that you and others are being overly legalistic about the liturgy, no?

Here, I have to disagree completely. It’s not legalistic to give an example from civil law when we’re talking about a similar thing happening in church law. After all, “what does the law say” is the very starting-point of the whole conversation. If the topic is the liturgical law of the Church, then it’s only natural that one would make a legal-sounding argument (or a similarity to civil law) as part of the discussion.

The other part of that is that the response “you’re being legalistic” has become merely a post Vatican II euphemism for “I have no reasonable response to that.” It’s become the equivalent of a child loosing at checkers who knocks over the board–it might prevent the game from being played, but it doesn’t make him a winner. In fact, if anything it makes him a sore loser. And here also, I know that’s not you saying it, you’re just making conversation. That comparison is not addressed to or about anyone.

Perhaps…I agree for the most part. But how then do we arrange to have cultural diversity expressed within the mass…clearly that is a goal of the worldwide Church, to allow for some degree of cultural expression in worship?

Of course.
That’s the role of the bishop’s confereneces worldwide; to examine cultural adaptations, propose them to the Holy See and request recognition. But it’s not the role of local pastors to take upon themselves the authority to change the Mass based on their own whims, nor even based on solid liturgical principles. There is a right way and a wrong way to go about introducing cultural adaptations. And introducing them into the Mass without waiting for Rome to approve them is quite simply the wrong way.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Certainly I agree that the practice is not to be used as the current norms are written.

But I do see a problem with a candidate confronting or disobeying a pastor. Obviously my spiritual director has a different understanding of moral theology on obedience as to whether or not liturgical norms fall under the exception.

Lux

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Certainly I agree that the practice is not to be used as the current norms are written.

But I do see a problem with a candidate confronting or disobeying a pastor. Obviously my spiritual director has a different understanding of moral theology on obedience as to whether or not liturgical norms fall under the exception.

Lux

I think this is out of proportion. A candidate is not “confronting or disobeying a pastor” by simply remaining in their pew during Holy Communion, and making a Spiritual Communion instead. Since they cannot be “ordered” to go up and approach Holy Communion with their arms crossed. Generally the Candidate asks if they can and the pastor or RCIA leader not wanting sound insensitive tells them they can, instead of explaining the Liturgical rules to them.

 

[Newbie2]

Not at all. There is no splitting of hairs. There’s no implied meaning that the liturgical laws will be changed just because a matter is being studied. The only reason why people are misunderstanding the meaning is because, as I said originally, there are people who are trying to apply a meaning to the words which simply is not there. The Congregation did state the position in such a way that there should be no misunderstanding. But when someone else comes along and says “they didn’t mean what they said, they meant something else” that is where the confusion begins. The individual numbered paragraphs of the letter each give a reason why this is not to be done. If the Holy See simply responded with nothing more than a “Response in the negative” (which happens sometimes) no doubt there would be some who would decry this as being insensitive, and would say that because Rome answered so curtly, they’re free to ignore it. The bottom line is that sometimes people get it into their heads that a change to the Mass is fine merely because they personally feel that it’s fine, and it makes no difference how little, how much, or how often Rome tries to clarify the matter–they will do what they want to do anyway.

Here, I have to disagree completely. It’s not legalistic to give an example from civil law when we’re talking about a similar thing happening in church law. After all, “what does the law say” is the very starting-point of the whole conversation. If the topic is the liturgical law of the Church, then it’s only natural that one would make a legal-sounding argument (or a similarity to civil law) as part of the discussion.

The other part of that is that the response “you’re being legalistic” has become merely a post Vatican II euphemism for “I have no reasonable response to that.” It’s become the equivalent of a child loosing at checkers who knocks over the board–it might prevent the game from being played, but it doesn’t make him a winner. In fact, if anything it makes him a sore loser. And here also, I know that’s not you saying it, you’re just making conversation. That comparison is not addressed to or about anyone.

That’s one way of interpreting it…but it begs the question, does it not, as to ***why ***the matter is being studied? While there may not be legitimate confusion over what they’re saying, (and I agree that they’ve stated that the practice for the time being is not approved), methinks that the implication is that “the matter is being studied…to see if it’s a practice that we should or should not be endorsing”. It’s what’s left unsaid that’s open in the minds of those who like the blessings, I guess, that’s problematic.

That being said, I’m sure very few people are aware of or have read up on the Congregations writings, and only have to go by what the bishops and pastors allow in their parishes. The conclusion is “well, we’re doing it so it must be OK”, and that’s a reasonable conclusion for (no slight intended) Joe Average Catholic.

So I guess the question still remains for Joe Average Catholic, who’s not on this forum and is not privy to our discussions, is if their parish participates in such blessings, what’s there to make them aware of what is amiss with the practice? Perhaps it’s a moot point, since we do have an OP who did ask the question and got an answer.

 

[FrDavid96]

I think this is out of proportion. A candidate is not “confronting or disobeying a pastor” by simply remaining in their pew during Holy Communion, and making a Spiritual Communion instead. Since they cannot be “ordered” to go up and approach Holy Communion with their arms crossed. Generally the Candidate asks if they can and the pastor or RCIA leader not wanting sound insensitive tells them they can, instead of explaining the Liturgical rules to them.

Yes, and the Pope is also one’s pastor, in his role as universal shepherd. So if there’s a conflict between what the local pastor says and what the universal pastor says, one is not at liberty to be disobedient to the universal pastor out of obedience to a local pastor. I cannot imagine a spiritual director counselling someone to be disobedient to the pope–at least not one worth going back to.

 

[FrDavid96]

That’s one way of interpreting it…but it begs the question, does it not, as to ***why ***the matter is being studied? While there may not be legitimate confusion over what they’re saying, (and I agree that they’ve stated that the practice for the time being is not approved), methinks that the implication is that “the matter is being studied…to see if it’s a practice that we should or should not be endorsing”. It’s what’s left unsaid that’s open in the minds of those who like the blessings, I guess, that’s problematic.

That’s the thing. It’s not just “one way of interpreting it” it’s rather the plain meaning of the words. “Under study” means “under study” it does not mean anything else. And when someone attempts to attach additional meaning to that phrase, such a person is being disingenuous. We cannot go around changing the definition of words simply because we don’t like what someone is saying. And yet, that’s what some are attempting to do. Yes, one can speculate that “under study” might result in eventually changing the law. But at the same time, it is equally true to say that the end result might be revising canon law itself to say that such a thing is expressly forbidden and should be punished with a just penalty. Neither of those conclusions has any merit because in either case, it’s a matter of trying to predict the future. Again, it’s not problematic that Rome said this. What’s problematic is someone reading the text and attempting to alter the definition of the words used. I will admit that if the phrase “this matter is under the attentive study” had not been written in the letter, then those who try to change the meaning would not have that opportunity. But in fairness to the Congregation, how can someone writing a letter anticipate that someone else will be changing the definition of the words used? They would have to attach an appendix to every letter defining every word used in it.

That being said, I’m sure very few people are aware of or have read up on the Congregations writings, and only have to go by what the bishops and pastors allow in their parishes. The conclusion is “well, we’re doing it so it must be OK”, and that’s a reasonable conclusion for (no slight intended) Joe Average Catholic.

So I guess the question still remains for Joe Average Catholic, who’s not on this forum and is not privy to our discussions, is if their parish participates in such blessings, what’s there to make them aware of what is amiss with the practice? Perhaps it’s a moot point, since we do have an OP who did ask the question and got an answer.

The pastor should be “making them aware” That’s his responsibility.

On the one hand “ignorance of the law is no excuse” but I do not feel that this principle applies in this situation. After all, I do agree that local pastors should be explaining the liturgical norms and I don’t fault any individual Catholics (even priests) for not reading the Notices from the Vatican. But I do fault the local pastors. There’s no excuse for a priest not knowing that nothing can be added/removed/changed in the Mass without the recognition of Rome. If it’s not in the Sacramentary (including the GIRM, Lectionary, and other supplemental documents) then it simply should not be done during the Mass. A pastor who follows that simply principle can always rest easy that he is doing what is right. In the seminary, we were told “remember this, no one can say you’re doing something wrong if you’re doing exactly what’s in the book” Good advice. If a pastor says that this should, or can be done, ask him to show it to you in the Sacramentary. I often have parishioners return from vacations, or visiting other parishes and they come back will all kinds of “suggestions” to “improve the Mass” like they do at such-and-such. My response is to hand that person the Sacramentary, go to the relevant page, and say “show me where it says that here, and I’ll give it serious consideration.”

In other words, yes, one cannot fault a parish priest for not reading the Notices from the Vatican. But on the other hand, there is no excuse (none whatsoever) for a priest who does something which is not in the Sacramentary because he most certainly does have access to that.

 

[Newbie2]

That’s the thing. It’s not just “one way of interpreting it” it’s rather the plain meaning of the words. “Under study” means “under study” it does not mean anything else. And when someone attempts to attach additional meaning to that phrase, such a person is being disingenuous. We cannot go around changing the definition of words simply because we don’t like what someone is saying. And yet, that’s what some are attempting to do. Yes, one can speculate that “under study” might result in eventually changing the law. But at the same time, it is equally true to say that the end result might be revising canon law itself to say that such a thing is expressly forbidden and should be punished with a just penalty. Neither of those conclusions has any merit because in either case, it’s a matter of trying to predict the future. Again, it’s not problematic that Rome said this. What’s problematic is someone reading the text and attempting to alter the definition of the words used. I will admit that if the phrase “this matter is under the attentive study” had not been written in the letter, then those who try to change the meaning would not have that opportunity. But in fairness to the Congregation, how can someone writing a letter anticipate that someone else will be changing the definition of the words used? They would have to attach an appendix to every letter defining every word used in it.

The pastor should be “making them aware” That’s his responsibility.

On the one hand “ignorance of the law is no excuse” but I do not feel that this principle applies in this situation. After all, I do agree that local pastors should be explaining the liturgical norms and I don’t fault any individual Catholics (even priests) for not reading the Notices from the Vatican. But I do fault the local pastors. There’s no excuse for a priest not knowing that nothing can be added/removed/changed in the Mass without the recognition of Rome. If it’s not in the Sacramentary (including the GIRM, Lectionary, and other supplemental documents) then it simply should not be done during the Mass. A pastor who follows that simply principle can always rest easy that he is doing what is right. In the seminary, we were told “remember this, no one can say you’re doing something wrong if you’re doing exactly what’s in the book” Good advice. If a pastor says that this should, or can be done, ask him to show it to you in the Sacramentary. I often have parishioners return from vacations, or visiting other parishes and they come back will all kinds of “suggestions” to “improve the Mass” like they do at such-and-such. My response is to hand that person the Sacramentary, go to the relevant page, and say “show me where it says that here, and I’ll give it serious consideration.”

In other words, yes, one cannot fault a parish priest for not reading the Notices from the Vatican. But on the other hand, there is no excuse (none whatsoever) for a priest who does something which is not in the Sacramentary because he most certainly does have access to that.

I was thinking along the same lines…how could it possibly be phrased that something is under examination without the implication that things might change depending on what is decided? Can’t be done. Otherwise, the thing in question isn’t really in question.

 

[FrDavid96]

I was thinking along the same lines…how could it possibly be phrased that something is under examination without the implication that things might change depending on what is decided? Can’t be done. Otherwise, the thing in question isn’t really in question.

And yet, that’s precisely what I keep saying. There is nothing in the words “presently under the attentive study” that does imply that things might change.

I submit to you, and other readers here, that were it not for the unfortunate fact that someone on these threads decided to say “under study means that the current law does not apply” and then this false-notion kept being repeated, the idea would never have taken root.

Also, the CDWDS never said or implied that the matter is “in question.” In contrast, they said the exact opposite of that by giving 5 reasons why these blessings are not in harmony with the current liturgical laws and norms of the Church. At this point, given the fact that we’ve all read those points, there is no question that this practice is illicit. The Holy See never said that the matter is undecided, or the law is ambiguous, or the issue is an open-question, or that the matter should be decided by the local pastor; and yet, in spite of that, there are some who claim that the letter did say so, or at least implied that.

The words “presently under the attentive study” might be used if the Holy See is looking at the matter, and deciding the appropriate measures, to put a stop to the practice. That’s likewise not to say that’s what the words mean, only that it could also be the end result. Indeed, given the reasons why this practice is illicit (as articulated by the CDWDS), the possibility that the final result will be a strong condemnation of the practice is actually the more likely outcome of the “attentive study.”

The swine flu is “presently under the attentive study” of the Centers for Disease Control. Why is it being studied? To encourage swine flu? Of course not, they’re studying it because they want to put a stop to it. And yet, if someone on an internet post said “the swine flu is presently under the attentive study of the CDC, and therefore the question of whether or not it should be spread is open to individual interpretation” what would we say to that type of reasoning? Why then are some posting here so adamant about applying the same line of reasoning to the CDWDS letter?

 

[benedictgal]

And yet, that’s precisely what I keep saying. There is nothing in the words “presently under the attentive study” that does imply that things might change.

I submit to you, and other readers here, that were it not for the unfortunate fact that someone on these threads decided to say “under study means that the current law does not apply” and then this false-notion kept being repeated, the idea would never have taken root.

Also, the CDWDS never said or implied that the matter is “in question.” In contrast, they said the exact opposite of that by giving 5 reasons why these blessings are not in harmony with the current liturgical laws and norms of the Church. At this point, given the fact that we’ve all read those points, there is no question that this practice is illicit. The Holy See never said that the matter is undecided, or the law is ambiguous, or the issue is an open-question, or that the matter should be decided by the local pastor; and yet, in spite of that, there are some who claim that the letter did say so, or at least implied that.

The words “presently under the attentive study” might be used if the Holy See is looking at the matter, and deciding the appropriate measures, to put a stop to the practice. That’s likewise not to say that’s what the words mean, only that it could also be the end result. Indeed, given the reasons why this practice is illicit (as articulated by the CDWDS), the possibility that the final result will be a strong condemnation of the practice is actually the more likely outcome of the “attentive study.”

The swine flu is “presently under the attentive study” of the Centers for Disease Control. Why is it being studied? To encourage swine flu? Of course not, they’re studying it because they want to put a stop to it. And yet, if someone on an internet post said “the swine flu is presently under the attentive study of the CDC, and therefore the question of whether or not it should be spread is open to individual interpretation” what would we say to that type of reasoning? Why then are some posting here so adamant about applying the same line of reasoning to the CDWDS letter?

My thoughts exactly! Besides, the CDWDS already gave five compelling reasons, backed by additional documentation, as to why this should not be done. Furthermore, as you clearly stated in one of your earlier posts, this particular practice really should not have been initiated in the first place because, as both the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy and RS note, no one, not even the priest, has the right to add anything to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The sad reality is that this has spread like wildfire.

For me, the frustrating part of all of this is that none of this has any basis in the Liturgical Tradition of the Church. Even in the early days of the Church, there was no such provision for a blessing in lieu of Holy Communion because catechumens were not admitted into the Liturgy of the Eucharist until after they were baptized. This practice, thus, is an innovation that someone came up with on their own as a result of a misguided understanding of what Communion really means.

 

[bazackward]

I have read these forums for months, but this thread has finally pushed me to register and post.

Maybe it’s just me, but do you think when there is a huge debate about whether or not somebody can receive a blessing from the priest during mass (that takes all of about 3-5 seconds), we’ve maybe lost sight of why people are at mass in the first place? Feel free to not limit that question to a blessing at mass, but the fact that we have to have a special kind of lawyer to answer questions about what is and is not ok to do.

I dunno, things just appear to be a little too corporate to me and maybe it would be better to just understand that people are doing something they aren’t “supposed” to do but that really isn’t hurting anyone. In fact, in many cases, I’d wager it’s helping people. Just imagine if Jesus were presiding …do you think He would tell somebody to remain seated in their pew during communion because that is not the proper time to come up and receive a blessing? Or do you think He would give them His blessing?

I guess I’ve said my piece …now it’s time to “welcome” me to the forums lol

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I have read these forums for months, but this thread has finally pushed me to register and post.

Maybe it’s just me, but do you think when there is a huge debate about whether or not somebody can receive a blessing from the priest during mass (that takes all of about 3-5 seconds), we’ve maybe lost sight of why people are at mass in the first place? Feel free to not limit that question to a blessing at mass, but the fact that we have to have a special kind of lawyer to answer questions about what is and is not ok to do.

I dunno, things just appear to be a little too corporate to me and maybe it would be better to just understand that people are doing something they aren’t “supposed” to do but that really isn’t hurting anyone. In fact, in many cases, I’d wager it’s helping people. Just imagine if Jesus were presiding …do you think He would tell somebody to remain seated in their pew during communion because that is not the proper time to come up and receive a blessing? Or do you think He would give them His blessing?

I guess I’ve said my piece …now it’s time to “welcome” me to the forums lol

Remember the Scripture says he who cannot be trusted in little things, cannot be trusted in big things.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

I have read these forums for months, but this thread has finally pushed me to register and post.

Maybe it’s just me, but do you think when there is a huge debate about whether or not somebody can receive a blessing from the priest during mass (that takes all of about 3-5 seconds), we’ve maybe lost sight of why people are at mass in the first place? Feel free to not limit that question to a blessing at mass, but the fact that we have to have a special kind of lawyer to answer questions about what is and is not ok to do.

I dunno, things just appear to be a little too corporate to me and maybe it would be better to just understand that people are doing something they aren’t “supposed” to do but that really isn’t hurting anyone. In fact, in many cases, I’d wager it’s helping people. Just imagine if Jesus were presiding …do you think He would tell somebody to remain seated in their pew during communion because that is not the proper time to come up and receive a blessing? Or do you think He would give them His blessing?

I guess I’ve said my piece …now it’s time to “welcome” me to the forums lol

Hi B, and welcome,

As was said, it is important to respect legitimate authority, and I do believe and accept this.

The dilema here is if this is a matter which would exempt the person from obedience or not.

Since there will be conflicting responses, it is probably best just to agree to disagree. Moral ethics professors and canon lawyers do, as was evidenced by my spiritual director and the religious here.

My point is that since the average person does not have the knowledge or authority to interpret or enforce documents, the pastor is their authority. If they do have a problem, it is best to ask him about it, and if they are uncomfortable with his response, contact the bishop.

Lux

 

[bazackward]

Remember the Scripture says he who cannot be trusted in little things, cannot be trusted in big things.

This doesn’t seem like a matter of trust to me, but rather a matter of whether or not many Catholics are committing some kind of dramatic sacrilege by receiving a five second blessing from the priest during communion when they are not properly disposed for normal reception. …and, I guess to coin a phrase, “What would Jesus do?”