I am not catholic yet,

[bazackward]

Hi B, and welcome

Thank you xD

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.

I agree with your point as most Catholics have never seen a document. I also understand that many people on the forums here were, therefore, trying to show people such a document in an effort to stop the behavior supposedly deemed inappropriate. That being said, I have never been to a church where this type of blessing was not given to those who approached the priest with their arms crossed.

I suppose my point is a little bit different in that I don’t understand why it is so vitally important that these people know that they are wrong and should feel bad for doing such a forbidden practice. Who are they hurting?? I’m pretty sure Jesus would never withhold His blessing from somebody, so regardless of how forbidden the practice may be, if someone approaches the priest for his blessing, do people really expect the priest to turn the person away because a committee at the Vatican says so (with all due respect to that committee)? I know, if I were a priest, I couldn’t do that. …maybe that’s why I’m not a priest hehe

 

[benedictgal]

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

Welcome to the forums.

The problem with the line of thinking in your second paragraph is that it does not take into account that Jesus, Himself, had an immense resepect for Jewish cultic temple worship. After all, it was His own Father, the First Person of the Trinity, who spent significant amounts of time dictating to Moses just how, when and in what form He would be worshipped. Jesus, as the fulfilllment of what the Jewish cultic sacrificial worship foreshadowed, actually used the forms called for when He celebrated the First Mass. The only thing that He changed was the fact that He was the True and Authentic Lamb of Sacrifice.

We assist at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to offer God true and authentic worship, in Spirit and in Truth. The Mass does not belong to us; it is the Church’s greatest treasure. Because of this, only She, through the Supreme Pontiff (who acts often through the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments), enjoys complete authority over the regulation of the liturgy. Inasmuch as the bishop and the national episcopal conferences enjoy some share, they do not have complete authority.

The reason why there is a great deal of concern here is that Jesus invites us to come and eat His Body and drink His Blood during Communion, not receive a blessing. There is no lturgical Tradition in the Church’s 2,000+ years on this earth justifying this ilicit practice. Some well-meaning but misguided person took it upon himself to make an innovation that he had no authority to do.

 

[FrDavid96]

Thank you xD

I agree with your point as most Catholics have never seen a document. I also understand that many people on the forums here were, therefore, trying to show people such a document in an effort to stop the behavior supposedly deemed inappropriate. That being said, I have never been to a church where this type of blessing was not given to those who approached the priest with their arms crossed.

I suppose my point is a little bit different in that I don’t understand why it is so vitally important that these people know that they are wrong and should feel bad for doing such a forbidden practice. Who are they hurting?? I’m pretty sure Jesus would never withhold His blessing from somebody, so regardless of how forbidden the practice may be, if someone approaches the priest for his blessing, do people really expect the priest to turn the person away because a committee at the Vatican says so (with all due respect to that committee)? I know, if I were a priest, I couldn’t do that. …maybe that’s why I’m not a priest hehe

Please remember to put the entire conversation into context. The very purpose of this Catholic Answers Forum is to give Catholics an oppotrunity to discuss our faith online. The purpose of this particular forum (Liturgy & Sacraments) is to narrow that down and give them a chance to discuss liturgical matters. There is nothing wrong with having such a discussion.

When Christ entered the temple (age 12) and found the scholars of the law discussing the law, he joined in the conversation. There is a time and place for everything. This forum is by it’s very nature one of the proper places to discuss such matters.

The words of Pope John Paul II, of happy memory, in Ecclesia de Eucharistia are worth repeating here:

1. All of this makes clear the great responsibility which belongs to priests in particular for the celebration of the Eucharist. It is their responsibility to preside at the Eucharist in persona Christi and to provide a witness to and a service of communion not only for the community directly taking part in the celebration, but also for the universal Church, which is a part of every Eucharist. It must be lamented that, especially in the years following the post-conciliar liturgical reform, as a result of a misguided sense of creativity and adaptation there have been a number of abuses which have been a source of suffering for many. A certain reaction against “formalism” has led some, especially in certain regions, to consider the “forms” chosen by the Church’s great liturgical tradition and her Magisterium as non-binding and to introduce unauthorized innovations which are often completely inappropriate.

I consider it my duty, therefore to appeal urgently that the liturgical norms for the celebration of the Eucharist be observed with great fidelity. These norms are a concrete expression of the authentically ecclesial nature of the Eucharist; this is their deepest meaning. Liturgy is never anyone’s private property, be it of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated. The Apostle Paul had to address fiery words to the community of Corinth because of grave shortcomings in their celebration of the Eucharist resulting in divisions (schismata) and the emergence of factions (haireseis) (cf. I Cor 11:17-34). Our time, too, calls for a renewed awareness and appreciation of liturgical norms as a reflection of, and a witness to, the one universal Church made present in every celebration of the Eucharist. Priests who faithfully celebrate Mass according to the liturgical norms, and communities which conform to those norms, quietly but eloquently demonstrate their love for the Church. Precisely to bring out more clearly this deeper meaning of liturgical norms, I have asked the competent offices of the Roman Curia to prepare a more specific document, including prescriptions of a juridical nature, on this very important subject. No one is permitted to undervalue the mystery entrusted to our hands: it is too great for anyone to feel free to treat it lightly and with disregard for its sacredness and its universality.

 

[grandfather]

It might be helpful to look at this issue or debate apart from the specific topic, or use the topic to be instructive on how to avoid confusion and controversy. It is obvious there is confusion and controversy. How or why did it start? I tihnk everyone would agree that it would be better if there were peace and harmony. We have well meaning people who are interested in becoming Catholic confused and concerned they are doing something wrong even when they were following the guidance of priests and sometimes bishops.

I remember when the practice got started. There was a time when the Liturgy or what went on at Mass in any given parish, local practices, was being created and experimented with on a local level.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we did this or that? Let’s try…

During the same time there was a major change in catechetical practices, the way the faith was taught. Some of the Liturgical experiments caught on even though they were illicit. I can think of several. Rome would occassionally make some pronouncement on one matter or another that would be immediately and completely ignored. Even bishops committees that did not like what they were being instructed to do went to scandalous lengths to stall and obfuscate and skirt around proper authority. The translation of the Mass into English is an example. They tell Rome they will study the matter and get back on it in a few years. Instructions from Rome are completely ignored more often that not. This is true regarding a number of issues, the use of extraordinary ministers is an example.

The situation is that Rome gives instructions and does not enforce them. Local churches look at Romes instructions and take them as suggestions. The flaunt authority and nothing is done to stop it. There is no discipline in most cases.

Confusion and controversy are inevitable.

Regarding the topic at hand it is good to be mindful that this is more than what rule should be applied and being overly worried about rules. There are theological reasons for liturgical practices. So in answer to the question about what harm does the “special” blessing do, the harm is to the faith of the people in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Suppose a catechumen or Catholic were walking down the street with his priest. They tuen the corner and find themselves standing in the presence of Jesus. What would they do?

Would the laymen cross his arms over his chest and turn to his priest and ask for a special blessing? I doubt it. The priest distributing Holy Communion is the altar christus. He is standing in the place of Christ who gave Himself to the apostles at the Last Supper. The people receiving are receiving Jesus from Jesus, just as when the priest gives absolution it is Christ forgiving.

Faith in the Real Presence has diminished. Why? What caused this? Could it be illicit liturgical experimentation? How we worship is important. It is an outward expression of the faith we hold.

To complicate this particular matter and cause more confusion, Eastern Catholics normally approach the priest to receive with their arms crossed over their chests. When they go to a Roman Mass if they want to receive and forget they should not cross their hands over their chests, they get their heads rubbed. I have seen this happen more than once. Or even worse, when a person who the priest does not know in an Eastern parish approaches the priest with his hands crossed over his chest the priest does not know if the person is an Eastern Catholic, or a non-Catholic who was told to do this by a Roman priest to receive a special blessing. He does not know whether to give ther person the Eucharist or not. He has to try to check out the look on the face and guess what to do.

This is a mess.

 

[FrDavid96]

It might be helpful to look at this issue or debate apart from the specific topic, or use the topic to be instructive on how to avoid confusion and controversy. It is obvious there is confusion and controversy. How or why did it start? I tihnk everyone would agree that it would be better if there were peace and harmony. We have well meaning people who are interested in becoming Catholic confused and concerned they are doing something wrong even when they were following the guidance of priests and sometimes bishops.

I remember when the practice got started. There was a time when the Liturgy or what went on at Mass in any given parish, local practices, was being created and experimented with on a local level.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we did this or that? Let’s try…

During the same time there was a major change in catechetical practices, the way the faith was taught. Some of the Liturgical experiments caught on even though they were illicit. I can think of several. Rome would occassionally make some pronouncement on one matter or another that would be immediately and completely ignored. Even bishops committees that did not like what they were being instructed to do went to scandalous lengths to stall and obfuscate and skirt around proper authority. The translation of the Mass into English is an example. They tell Rome they will study the matter and get back on it in a few years. Instructions from Rome are completely ignored more often that not. This is true regarding a number of issues, the use of extraordinary ministers is an example.

The situation is that Rome gives instructions and does not enforce them. Local churches look at Romes instructions and take them as suggestions. The flaunt authority and nothing is done to stop it. There is no discipline in most cases.

Confusion and controversy are inevitable.

Regarding the topic at hand it is good to be mindful that this is more than what rule should be applied and being overly worried about rules. There are theological reasons for liturgical practices. So in answer to the question about what harm does the “special” blessing do, the harm is to the faith of the people in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Suppose a catechumen or Catholic were walking down the street with his priest. They tuen the corner and find themselves standing in the presence of Jesus. What would they do?

Would the laymen cross his arms over his chest and turn to his priest and ask for a special blessing? I doubt it. The priest distributing Holy Communion is the altar christus. He is standing in the place of Christ who gave Himself to the apostles at the Last Supper. The people receiving are receiving Jesus from Jesus, just as when the priest gives absolution it is Christ forgiving.

Faith in the Real Presence has diminished. Why? What caused this? Could it be illicit liturgical experimentation? How we worship is important. It is an outward expression of the faith we hold.

To complicate this particular matter and cause more confusion, Eastern Catholics normally approach the priest to receive with their arms crossed over their chests. When they go to a Roman Mass if they want to receive and forget they should not cross their hands over their chests, they get their heads rubbed. I have seen this happen more than once. Or even worse, when a person who the priest does not know in an Eastern parish approaches the priest with his hands crossed over his chest the priest does not know if the person is an Eastern Catholic, or a non-Catholic who was told to do this by a Roman priest to receive a special blessing. He does not know whether to give ther person the Eucharist or not. He has to try to check out the look on the face and guess what to do.

This is a mess.

Excellent post, thank you for it.

It’s a good reminder to us that were it not for the fact that individuals and local communities have decided that they have the ability to “improve” the Mass, these discussions would not be happening.

Instead what we do see is a transfer of the blame away from those who advocate illicit practices onto those who encourage licit celebrations of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. In the mentality of some, the chaos is caused not by the illicit additions/changes but by the effort to preserve the integrity of the Liturgy. It’s an odd state of affairs.

 

[grandfather]

Excellent post, thank you for it.

It’s a good reminder to us that were it not for the fact that individuals and local communities have decided that they have the ability to “improve” the Mass, these discussions would not be happening.

Instead what we do see is a transfer of the blame away from those who advocate illicit practices onto those who encourage licit celebrations of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. In the mentality of some, the chaos is caused not by the illicit additions/changes but by the effort to preserve the integrity of the Liturgy. It’s an odd state of affairs.

The Church is universal. This same topic came up on another forum and the same arguments were made for and against. One of the posters lived in another country and was a catechumen and did not know what anyone was talking about having never seen anyone do this at Mass. She went to her priest and asked about it and he had no idea what she was talking about. This was in a European country. He said he never heard of it, but certainly is was a bizarre practice.

So what happens when a well meaning American non-Catholic who attends Mass in the U.S. where he is instructed to cross his arms over his chest and go forward for a “special blessing” goes to Mass in a country where this is unheard of? The priest in this other country would have no idea what to do.

I attend Divine Liturgy at an Eastern parish. When a confused person approaches in the Communion line to be blessed, the priest would not dare to give his priestly blessing with the Chalice in his hands. He touches the person’s forehead with the chalice. I can not think of a theological reason not to do this. As he reaches out the person instinctively bows, or it seems so. If I were the catechumen or non-Catholic with faith I think I would much prefer this over a head rub.

Nevertheless we need to follow the norms. They serve a purpose. They avoid confusion and controversy. They allow people to go to Mass anywhere in the world and be in sync. Well meaning catechumens on this forum are upset that they might be doing something illicit and they were instructed by a priest to do it. All of this is easily avoidable, but it is important to realize the cause of this is the person or persons who improperly instructed them.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Thank you xD

I agree with your point as most Catholics have never seen a document. I also understand that many people on the forums here were, therefore, trying to show people such a document in an effort to stop the behavior supposedly deemed inappropriate. That being said, I have never been to a church where this type of blessing was not given to those who approached the priest with their arms crossed.

I suppose my point is a little bit different in that I don’t understand why it is so vitally important that these people know that they are wrong and should feel bad for doing such a forbidden practice. Who are they hurting?? I’m pretty sure Jesus would never withhold His blessing from somebody, so regardless of how forbidden the practice may be, if someone approaches the priest for his blessing, do people really expect the priest to turn the person away because a committee at the Vatican says so (with all due respect to that committee)? I know, if I were a priest, I couldn’t do that. …maybe that’s why I’m not a priest hehe

There are actually two question here. One is should a Blessing be given instead of Holy Communion at Communion time? The second is when is a lay person permitted to give a blessing in a liturgical setting?

The answer to the first is no, and the second is never.

 

[bazackward]

There are actually two question here. One is should a Blessing be given instead of Holy Communion at Communion time? The second is when is a lay person permitted to give a blessing in a liturgical setting?

The answer to the first is no, and the second is never.

Actually I think there is a third question: What should the priest do while distributing communion and a person who is not well-read in matters covered in magisterial documents presents himself for a blessing? Or, the way I prefer to think about it: What would Jesus do if someone presented himself to Him for a blessing – even at an inopportune time?

 

[benedictgal]

Actually I think there is a third question: What should the priest do while distributing communion and a person who is not well-read in matters covered in magisterial documents presents himself for a blessing? Or, the way I prefer to think about it: What would Jesus do if someone presented himself to Him for a blessing – even at an inopportune time?

It never ceases to amaze me that those who support this ilicit practice would try to justify themselves by asking the “what would Jesus do” question. The answer is simple. Jesus, Himself, said that He did not come to abolish the law, but, to fulfill it. Jesus would never have done something against the cultic sacrificial worship that His Father set forth to Moses. Far from it, since the cultic norms dictated by God the Father anticipated the supreme sacrifice of His Son. Thus, Jesus would probably have not done anything contrary to the norms of sacrificial worship because then, that would mean going against what His Father had ordained.

Folks suppporting this ilicit practice will, no doubt, accuse me and those who are against it, of acting Pharisaical. However, if they read the New Testament carefully, Jesus never said anything critical about the sacrificial worship of Ancient Israel. That would be contradicting His own Father since the Sacrificial Worship was made in anticipation of the holocaust of the True Lamb of God, as I noted in the above paragraph. What Jesus condemned was the fact that the Pharisees were tryng to impose Levitical law on the rest of Ancient Israel, namely the purification ablutions and other things relating to the Sabbath, which really did not make any sense. In fact, many of the cultic worship practices of the Church, who is the New Israel, are taken directly from the sacrificial worship of Ancient Israel.

My parochial vicar (as well as another priest friend of mine, both of whom have read the document) simply does not impart a blessing when someone presents himself during the time of Communion. I have seen both of them do that. The final blessing, which is applicable to all, is to be given at the end of Mass. Furthermore, both realize that they do not have the authority to add or delete something from the norms and rubrics of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

The burden then falls on the priest. What they need to realize is that neither they nor the bishop have the right to add anything to the Mass on their own authority. Even though the bishop does have some authority granted to him, it is very limited and does not include inserting and imbedding new rites and rituals into the Mass.

 

[Newbie2]

Suppose a catechumen or Catholic were walking down the street with his priest. They tuen the corner and find themselves standing in the presence of Jesus. What would they do?

Would the laymen cross his arms over his chest and turn to his priest and ask for a special blessing? I doubt it.

I doubt it too, but we’ve been discussing this in the context of the inappropriateness of such a practice within the liturgical celebration of the Eucharist. I get your point, but it’s not really relevant. Persons not received into the Church are going up for such a blessing, in many cases because they cannot yet receive our Lord through the Sacament.

To complicate this particular matter and cause more confusion, Eastern Catholics normally approach the priest to receive with their arms crossed over their chests. When they go to a Roman Mass if they want to receive and forget they should not cross their hands over their chests, they get their heads rubbed. I have seen this happen more than once. Or even worse, when a person who the priest does not know in an Eastern parish approaches the priest with his hands crossed over his chest the priest does not know if the person is an Eastern Catholic, or a non-Catholic who was told to do this by a Roman priest to receive a special blessing. He does not know whether to give ther person the Eucharist or not. He has to try to check out the look on the face and guess what to do.

This is a mess.

I agree, and not to feed any blamestorming, but I put the onus on the Bishops and Priests, not the lay faithful.

Actually I think there is a third question: What should the priest do while distributing communion and a person who is not well-read in matters covered in magisterial documents presents himself for a blessing? Or, the way I prefer to think about it: What would Jesus do if someone presented himself to Him for a blessing – even at an inopportune time?

Good question. I’d say perhaps if it is a routine occurance at a parish, that he make an announcement at as many masses as it takes to get the message out. If it’s a routine occurance, perhaps give them a blessing but ask them to speak with him after mass and give them the proper catechesis.

Now some would say, DON’T give them a blessing and speak to them after mass. I think there has to be some…I’m looking for the right word here…“diplomacy” comes to mind, but it’s not the best word: Suppose a child comes up for a blessing and is rebuffed in an abrupt manner by a Deacon, Priest or EMHC. Anyone think a sensitive child would ever want to go up there again after their first communion?

I’m not saying bend the rules just because there will be a kid who may eventually leave the church for being emotionally scarred. My point is that if the Pastor of the parish manages the parish properly, these occurances won’t be problematic.

I don’t think we should be blaming the lay faithful for a lack of leadership, which in essense is what this boils down to.

 

[grandfather]

Actually I think there is a third question: What should the priest do while distributing communion and a person who is not well-read in matters covered in magisterial documents presents himself for a blessing? Or, the way I prefer to think about it: What would Jesus do if someone presented himself to Him for a blessing – even at an inopportune time?

This what would Jesus do is getting old. A much better question is what DID Jesus do? He founded a Church. He made promises to her. In His Church according to scripture His people would learn what He would have them know through men He appointed as guardians of the deposit of faith with Peter as their head. The pope is his successor and Catholics acknowledge his authority to govern the Church. Jesus told them whatever they bind on earth He would bind in heaven. The pope through his fellow bishops tell us how to behave during worship. There have been some renegades in the clergy who started illicit practices in defiance of the norms given through the authority of the Church. Nothing is new. Judas was an apostle. There are no heresies named after lay people. Jesus would honor the norms made by those He placed in authority over His Church.

 

[benedictgal]

This what would Jesus do is getting old. A much better question is what DID Jesus do? He founded a Church. He made promises to her. In His Church according to scripture His people would learn what He would have them know through men He appointed as guardians of the deposit of faith with Peter as their head. The pope is his successor and Catholics acknowledge his authority to govern the Church. Jesus told them whatever they bind on earth He would bind in heaven. The pope through his fellow bishops tell us how to behave during worship. There have been some renegades in the clergy who started illicit practices in defiance of the norms given through the authority of the Church. Nothing is new. Judas was an apostle. There are no heresies named after lay people. Jesus would honor the norms made by those He placed in authority over His Church.

Excellent post!

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Actually I think there is a third question: What should the priest do while distributing communion and a person who is not well-read in matters covered in magisterial documents presents himself for a blessing? Or, the way I prefer to think about it: What would Jesus do if someone presented himself to Him for a blessing – even at an inopportune time?

I think pastors should place announcements in the bulletin, newsletters, web-site, make announcements at RCIA, put a sticker on the back of the music book, clearly stating the position of the Church on these matters.

 

[benedictgal]

I think pastors should place announcements in the bulletin, newsletters, web-site, make announcements at RCIA, put a sticker on the back of the music book, clearly stating the position of the Church on these matters.

Of course, what they could also do is simply cut and paste the CDWDS letter. That should be proof enough.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Of course, what they could also do is simply cut and paste the CDWDS letter. That should be proof enough.

The practice simply spread by someone starting to do it, it can eventually stop by simply refusing to continue doing it.

 

[Newbie2]

I think pastors should place announcements in the bulletin, newsletters, web-site, make announcements at RCIA, put a sticker on the back of the music book, clearly stating the position of the Church on these matters.

Yes.

Of course, what they could also do is simply cut and paste the CDWDS letter. That should be proof enough.

No. How many folks do you think even have heard of the CDWDS? Or even care what they say? It needs to come directly from the Pastor of the Parish. They can quote the letter, but methinks Joe Average Catholic responds better to a personal message than a letter not addressed to them.

The practice simply spread by someone starting to do it, it can eventually stop by simply refusing to continue doing it.

Yep. Pastoral leadership. Yeah.

 

[grandfather]

No. How many folks do you think even have heard of the CDWDS? Or even care what they say? It needs to come directly from the Pastor of the Parish. They can quote the letter, but methinks Joe Average Catholic responds better to a personal message than a letter not addressed to them.

.

How many Joe Average Pastors do you think care about what CDWDS documents say?

 

[FrDavid96]

How many Joe Average Pastors do you think care about what CDWDS documents say?

Actually, quite a few. We see especially in our recently ordained priests and the current seminarians, a renewed sense of fidelity to the magisterium, and a renewal of pastoral care of the sacred liturgy.

The difficulty is in formation. Seminarians are exposed to too much laxity not only in academic classes about Liturgy but also in their experience of it at the seminary, and also in parish assignments.

One common assignment in “liturgy class” might be to compose one’s own Eucharistic Prayer–I’m not saying always only common. Seminarians are taught from the start that the texts of the Church are merely suggestions. Liturgy classes do an excellent job of explaining history, and theological principles, but they do very little to actually train seminarians in the proper way to say Mass. Seminaries used to expect students towards the end of their formation to “practice” the Mass, with a qualified instructor to provide constructive criticism. There is little (if any) of that today. When a seminarian, or deacon, or newly ordained priest, goes to a parish assignment and experiences the pastor (who is supposed to have a mentoring role) taking liberties with the Mass, their experience tells them that “this is the way it’s done.” It takes some extra effort on their part to study the rubrics of the Mass, and to learn for themselves what is and is not proper liturgy. The good news is that the majority of them today are indeed making that extra effort.

On the other hand, the more illicit practices occur, the more people become accustomed to them, and even come to expect them. That’s exactly what we see in the topic of this thread. People here can read for themselves how difficult it is to make the point that the Mass cannot be changed according to local preferences. And here, we’re dealing with a group of people who necessarily have an interest in the topic, and have more knowlege of it than the average Catholic–else they wouldn’t be participating in these threads in the first place. Imagine how difficult it can be sometimes to convince Catholics who do not have such an interest & knowlege that it’s simply not acceptable to add one’s own personal rituals to the Mass. The argument “but Father so-and-so in the next parish is doing it, so it must be all right” is a typical response.

We do see a lot of hope in our younger priests, and we do see some hope in the upcoming translation of the Mass–which will give priests an opportunity to say “this is how it’s going to be done from now on, regardless of what was done in the past.” These won’t solve all the problems, but they will go a long way in getting us back onto the right track.

 

[bazackward]

It never ceases to amaze me that those who support this ilicit practice would try to justify themselves by asking the “what would Jesus do” question. The answer is simple. Jesus, Himself, said that He did not come to abolish the law, but, to fulfill it. Jesus would never have done something against the cultic sacrificial worship that His Father set forth to Moses. Far from it, since the cultic norms dictated by God the Father anticipated the supreme sacrifice of His Son. Thus, Jesus would probably have not done anything contrary to the norms of sacrificial worship because then, that would mean going against what His Father had ordained.

I never said I was a supporter of this “illicit practice,” but to make sure I understand your position, you believe Jesus would deny someone who asked for His blessing on the grounds that it is not in the liturgical norms?

 

[bazackward]

This what would Jesus do is getting old.

Yes, let’s forget about what Jesus would do! Instead we should ask what would a canon lawyer do.