I am not catholic yet,

[grandfather]

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.

[edited[/COLOR] The Catechism translation almost suffered the same fate as the Mass. When the Vatican rejected the Catechism translation it was a great surprise. No one could understand the objection, because ICEL used the same translation rules that they used to translate the Mass. Alarm bells! Sirens!

A bishop handed me a printout of the tranlation that was eventually rejected. He said the new catechism would have a major positive impact on the Church. He said it would be published soon and encouraged me to read it. He said he would be encouraging all Catholics to get a copy and study it. Rome stepped in, because then Apb Levada blew the whistle. When a good translation was finished and published the same bishop never mentioned that a new catechism even existed. It was like it did not exist.

 

[FrDavid96]

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

This question of “what would Jesus do?” in this particular context makes no sense at all.

Christ would not be disobedient to legitimate authority. Christ Himself established His Church with Peter and his successors as the head of the Church and the guarantor of stability and fidelity. To say that Christ would disobey the authority that He Himself established simply makes no sense at all.

It’s amazing that when I hear that question “what would Jesus do (in a liturgical matter)?” the question is almost always posed in a way to imply that He would do exactly what the person posing the question wants Him to do.

One of the most common applications of this practice is to give a blessing to those in irregular marriages, because they are unable to receive Communion. Now let us look at the Gospels and see what Christ actually did do when he was in a situation of a conversation with someone in an irregular marriage, like the woman at the well who was on her 6th “husband” (John 4). He said “…true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship Him. God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” The woman went away not with a liturgical blessing, but a message for her neighbors that she had found the Christ and she knew this not because he “blessed” her but because he was able to point-out to her her sinful ways and inspire her to conversion.

It seems to me that you think He should have blessed her and sent her on her merry way instead.

So therefore, if someone in an irregular marriage were to come up to a priest today at Communion time and ask for a blessing, the priest should look at that person and say “the person you are with right now is not your husband/wife.” That’s not just what Christ would do, it’s what He actually did. Would you like to see that happening? a priest calling attention to the fact that the person standing in front of him is divorced and now in an irregular marriage? I certainly wouldn’t do that.

So much for “What would Jesus do?”

 

[bazackward]

This question of “what would Jesus do?” in this particular context makes no sense at all.

Amazing, and I thought I was on the right track by examining every choice in an attempt to determine how Jesus would handle it.

If I was unclear on where I stand on the issue, I’m sorry. It is clear that this practice is not permitted. I’m not saying it should be done anyway as a standard practice. However, the reality is that this is a wide-spread practice throughout the country. Sure it’s not provided for in the rubrics and is, apparently, illicit. Fine.

What I am trying to picture is what one would expect a priest (or I guess even a layman in terms of EMHC) to do when confronted with a person with their arms humbly crossed in front of them in the communion line. This person is not trying to cause any affront or defy the rubrics. They are simply asking for a blessing in lieu of communion (something they’ve seen many times and have no idea is inappropriate).

So, I try to picture Jesus in that situation. He has just been approached by someone innocently asking for his blessing at, we’ll say …not the best time. Would He give it? I bet He would. I don’t think that has anything to do with Jesus upholding Jewish law or Roman dicasteries or anything else that has been brought into this discussion.

You can put notes in the bulletin and make announcements, but I’m sure priests are still going to be confronted with people who, for whatever reason, were not aware that the blessing is not approved. They’ll have a choice to make. And I’m sorry Fr David, but I think what Jesus would do makes sense in every context.

 

[Alindawyl]

I don’t presume to speak on behalf of Jesus. Only one organization on earth has the authority to do that - the Church. The Church explicitly says no blessings during distribution of the Eucharist. An exception permitting blessings in case someone might feel offended is nowhere to be found.

I don’t have to like it. I just have to obey.

 

[benedictgal]

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

With all due respect, as grandfather so eloquently noted, this is a tired argument. As I read your responses, you do give me the impression that you seem to favor it. You asked the question. I invite you to carefully read both the OT and the NT, especially where the cultic worship practices of both Ancient Israel and the New Israel are concerned. There, you will find your answer. Jesus knew full well the norms of the cultic worship of ancient Israel, since His own Father dictated them. Jesus would not contradict what His own Father set out. That is why He was never critical of the norms of cultic worship practiced by Ancient Israel. The Church is the New Israel and she has her own form of cultic worship, which she received from Jesus, Himself. Thus, Jesus would have adhered to the norms.

A lot of times, we tend to make a caricature of Jesus by watering him down to appear as some sort of flower child. But, that is not the Jesus of the Gospels. Jesus was very direct in a lot of what He had to say and in a lot of what He did. Just look at today’s Gospel.

This morning, at the tail end of his homily, my parochial vicar (who is a monsignor) caught the faithful by surprise when he noted that he does not and will not impart a blessing in lieu of distributing Holy Communion. He referenced the CDWDS statement. He said that the Communion line is so that the faithful will receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus, not a blessing. The blessing will come at the end of Mass and that it will be applicable to all. He noted that well-meaning, but, misguided folks were attempting, on their own, to “improve” the liturgy. He said that this is not what we are called to do. We are not to cobble up the rites for ourselves; rather, we need to accept what the Church gives us with love and obedience. So, yes, there is a prelate who is willing to step up to the plate!

 

[FrDavid96]

…
You can put notes in the bulletin and make announcements, but I’m sure priests are still going to be confronted with people who, for whatever reason, were not aware that the blessing is not approved. They’ll have a choice to make. And I’m sorry Fr David, but I think what Jesus would do makes sense in every context.

No, because you are setting up an impossible situation. There was and is only one Christ. There are millions of priests. Christ did not have some “other Christs” doing other things at the same time–whether good or bad, makes no difference, as He was the only One. Christ did/does not answer to the pope–but every priest does.

We cannot ask “what would Jesus do?” we might ask ourselves how he might approach a given situation, and certainly priests must be imitators of Christ. But to attempt to say “what if Christ were that priest” is simply nonsensical.

There were plenty of things that Christ did not do, even though we, 2000 years later, might think he “should” have done. People in Jerusalem still got sick and died, were still poor and still committed crimes. Whether we like to think about it or not, the unavoidable reality is that there were times when Christ choose not to do something that was completely within His power.

Recall that Christ chose not to save Lazarus from death. He knew that there was a time and place for everything. It was the unbelievers who tried to project their own ideas of what He should have done–the faithful ones accepted His decision not to prevent the death.

I’m afraid that no matter how you put it, you are still trying to transfer your own opinion of what may or may not be done onto Christ. You aren’t really asking “What would Jesus do?” You’re making the statement that Christ would do what you’ve already decided the priest should do in that situation.

And let’s not forget that Christ would not have encouraged illicit practices in the first place.
The Holy Spirit inspired the magisterium to provide liturgical norms for the Church–the Son doesn’t contradict the Spirit.

It’s the priests who started this sort of thing who should have asked themselves the question, and realized that they needed to be more Christ-like in their humility and accept the liturgical norms of the Church. Inventing one’s own ritual for the Mass is not humility at all, it is the precise opposite of that virtue, the deadly sin of arrogance/pride.

I also take note of the fact that you avoided addressing what Christ did do when talking to the woman with 6 husbands. Based on your logic, if a woman who has been married 3 times, the first 2 husbands still living, and no declaration of nullity, approaches a priest at Communion time, what the priest should do is to look her in the eye and say “the man you are with is not your husband.” After all, that’s precisely what Christ did do. To give her a blessing would be to not-do what Jesus did do. Of course, that would be inappropriate, unless the priest in question is another Padre Pio.

Human beings are not so fragile that a simple “that’s not done, see me after Mass and I will explain” when they come up for a blessing will cause such catastrophic harm which is claimed by some. In fact, a person who does want to be faithful to the Church would welcome such an explanation. And priests have an obligation to make that explanation in a pastoral and sensitive way. But to give a blessing in that situation sends the exact opposite message, it’s a priest saying “we know better than the Church, let’s ignore the Church together.” And that’s not “what Jesus would do.”

The blame is not on priests who follow the liturgy with fidelity. The blame lies squarely and solely with priests who feel that they know better than the Church what the ritual of the Mass should be.

 

[Newbie2]

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

As Fr. D wrote, at least some, but as evidenced by the widespread blessings practice, apparently not enough.

I wonder how long they intend to “study” the matter, what exactly they are “studying” about it, and when they’ll come down on either side of the matter in concluding the “study”.

 

[FrDavid96]

As Fr. D wrote, at least some, but as evidenced by the widespread blessings practice, apparently not enough.

I wonder how long they intend to “study” the matter, what exactly they are “studying” about it, and when they’ll come down on either side of the matter in concluding the “study”.

Given the reasons articulated by the CDWDS for why these blessing cannot be done, it is extremely unlikely that the final outcome wil be to approve this practice. The overwhelming odds are that the study will conclude not with changing current norms, but calling for a stronger fidelity to them.

If Rome were to approve these blessings, then all of the sources cited for why these blessing cannot be done would have to be changed–not only the paper documents themselves, but the theological principles underlying them. That’s not very likely. Pope Benedict would have to rescind Familiaris Consortio, Ecclesia de Mysterio, De Benedictionibus, or at least parts of them, as well as revise canon law. In my personal opinion, I rather doubt that he would do such a thing.

 

[Newbie2]

I’d agree that you’re probably right about the outcome. What exactly do you think they’re “studying” about the matter?

 

[FrDavid96]

I’d agree that you’re probably right about the outcome. What exactly do you think they’re “studying” about the matter?

Personally, I think they are studying how to put a stop to this in a way that would be both pastoral and firm.

Again, given the reasons why these blessings cannot be done, I find it unlikely that the purpose of the study would be anything other than that–determining the appropriate measures to take to put an end to it.

This sort of thing happens all the time. There’s nothing unusual about Rome studying an issue for quite some time before issuing stonger prohibitions than were in force earlier.

And yes, it is “studying” not “studdying” My “d” key seems to keep sticking!! Believe it or not, I’ve already corrected that several times in my typing.

 

[benedictgal]

Personally, I think they are studying how to put a stop to this in a way that would be both pastoral and firm.

Again, given the reasons why these blessings cannot be done, I find it unlikely that the purpose of the study would be anything other than that–determining the appropriate measures to take to put an end to it.

This sort of thing happens all the time. There’s nothing unusual about Rome studying an issue for quite some time before issuing stonger prohibitions than were in force earlier.

And yes, it is “studying” not “studdying” My “d” key seems to keep sticking!! Believe it or not, I’ve already corrected that several times in my typing.

When my parochial vicar made the announcement at the end of his homily regarding not imparting blessings in lieu of distributing Holy Communion, he specifically noted that no one has the right to add anything to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. He was very specific in his comments. As I sad earlier, he has taken a courageous stand!

 

[FrDavid96]

When my parochial vicar made the announcement at the end of his homily regarding not imparting blessings in lieu of distributing Holy Communion, he specifically noted that no one has the right to add anything to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. He was very specific in his comments. As I sad earlier, he has taken a courageous stand!

Now, if only the staff of the BCL newsletter would consider publishing it…hope springs eternal.

 

[benedictgal]

Now, if only the staff of the BCL newsletter would consider publishing it…hope springs eternal.

The BCW does have the CDWDS statement. But, I guess that the priests themselves need to become proactive and take a stand, just like you and my parochial vicar, and my other priest friend down here in Laredo.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

I’d agree that you’re probably right about the outcome. What exactly do you think they’re “studying” about the matter?

I think they’re studying the problems at nuptial and funeral Masses. Aside from non-Catholics and non-practicing Catholics receiving, hosts are left in the pews by people not wanting to remain in the pew at Communion time, but afraid to consume the host.

Many canservative and faithful priests feel the matter of trying to preserve the Eucharist far outweighs the matter of disregarding a liturgical norm.

Lux

 

[FrDavid96]

I think they’re studying the problems at nuptial and funeral Masses. Aside from non-Catholics and non-practicing Catholics receiving, hosts are left in the pews by people not wanting to remain in the pew at Communion time, but afraid to consume the host.

Many canservative and faithful priests feel the matter of trying to preserve the Eucharist far outweighs the matter of disregarding a liturgical norm.

Lux

Hmmm. Interresting. I too think the Church is studying this problem, and I’ll bet “extensively” at that. But the Church already has a solution to that problem. The Host must be immediately consumed–in any and all circumstances. Here again, that’s not a matter of changing the norms (although abrogating a certain indult would also solve the problem of unconsumed Hosts left in the pews quite easily). And that’s the responsibility of the priest saying the funeral/wedding Mass to somehow (and that would vary under the circumstances) very clearly and pastorally explaining that at Communion-time, only Catholics in good standing should come forward in the Communion-line. Explaining that only Catholics “come forward” means that the non-Catholics aren’t even put into a position where they’re standing in front of the priest wonderring what to do. Assuming that non-Catholics will read the inside back page of the missallette just isn’t sufficient.

And actually, “conservative and faithful priests” are, by the very definition of those words, not the kind of priests who disregard the rubrics of the Mass. It’s not a matter of deciding which liturgical norm to ignore. If all the norms are followed “faithfully” there is no danger of anything going wrong (excepting something happening entirely by accident). The problems arise only when the rubrics are not followed faithfully.

There is no conflict between fidelity to the rubrics and fidelity to safeguarding the Eucharist–they are 2 ways of saying the same thing.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Hmmm. Interresting. I too think the Church is studying this problem, and I’ll bet “extensively” at that. But the Church already has a solution to that problem. The Host must be immediately consumed–in any and all circumstances.

What of the non-Catholic, or non-practicing Catholic who receive? You feel this is a less serious abuse than offering them an option?

And actually, “conservative and faithful priests” are, by the very definition of those words, not the kind of priests who disregard the rubrics of the Mass. It’s not a matter of deciding which liturgical norm to ignore. If all the norms are followed “faithfully” there is no danger of anything going wrong (excepting something happening entirely by accident). The problems arise only when the rubrics are not followed faithfully.

There is no conflict between fidelity to the rubrics and fidelity to safeguarding the Eucharist–they are 2 ways of saying the same thing

There are many good & faithful priests who disagree on this particular point, as evidenced by the many who offer the option at funeral & nuptial Masses.

Lux

 

[benedictgal]

Hmmm. Interresting. I too think the Church is studying this problem, and I’ll bet “extensively” at that. But the Church already has a solution to that problem. The Host must be immediately consumed–in any and all circumstances. Here again, that’s not a matter of changing the norms (although abrogating a certain indult would also solve the problem of unconsumed Hosts left in the pews quite easily). And that’s the responsibility of the priest saying the funeral/wedding Mass to somehow (and that would vary under the circumstances) very clearly and pastorally explaining that at Communion-time, only Catholics in good standing should come forward in the Communion-line. Explaining that only Catholics “come forward” means that the non-Catholics aren’t even put into a position where they’re standing in front of the priest wonderring what to do. Assuming that non-Catholics will read the inside back page of the missallette just isn’t sufficient.

And actually, “conservative and faithful priests” are, by the very definition of those words, not the kind of priests who disregard the rubrics of the Mass. It’s not a matter of deciding which liturgical norm to ignore. If all the norms are followed “faithfully” there is no danger of anything going wrong (excepting something happening entirely by accident). The problems arise only when the rubrics are not followed faithfully.

There is no conflict between fidelity to the rubrics and fidelity to safeguarding the Eucharist–they are 2 ways of saying the same thing.

Exactly, Fr. David!

Actually, the CDWDS statement never said anything about weddings and funerals. [edited] Furthermore, Pope Benedict XVI had already addressed the issue in Sacramentum Caritatis when he noted that:

The distribution and reception of the Eucharist

1. Another moment of the celebration needing to be mentioned is the distribution and reception of Holy Communion. I ask everyone, especially ordained ministers and those who, after adequate preparation and in cases of genuine need, are authorized to exercise the ministry of distributing the Eucharist, to make every effort to ensure that this simple act preserves its importance as a personal encounter with the Lord Jesus in the sacrament. For the rules governing correct practice in this regard, I would refer to those documents recently issued on the subject. (151) All Christian communities are to observe the current norms faithfully, seeing in them an expression of the faith and love with which we all must regard this sublime sacrament. Furthermore, the precious time of thanksgiving after communion should not be neglected: besides the singing of an appropriate hymn, it can also be most helpful to remain recollected in silence. (152)

In this regard, I would like to call attention to a pastoral problem frequently encountered nowadays. I am referring to the fact that on certain occasions – for example, wedding Masses, funerals and the like – in addition to practicing Catholics there may be others present who have long since ceased to attend Mass or are living in a situation which does not permit them to receive the sacraments. At other times members of other Christian confessions and even other religions may be present. Similar situations can occur in churches that are frequently visited, especially in tourist areas. In these cases, there is a need to find a brief and clear way to remind those present of the meaning of sacramental communion and the conditions required for its reception. Wherever circumstances make it impossible to ensure that the meaning of the Eucharist is duly appreciated, the appropriateness of replacing the celebration of the Mass with a celebration of the word of God should be considered. (153)

He makes it very clear regarding what should be done in these circumstances. Thus, there are ways of handling this.

 

[bazackward]

No, because you are setting up an impossible situation. There was and is only one Christ. There are millions of priests. Christ did not have some “other Christs” doing other things at the same time–whether good or bad, makes no difference, as He was the only One. Christ did/does not answer to the pope–but every priest does.

We cannot ask “what would Jesus do?” we might ask ourselves how he might approach a given situation, and certainly priests must be imitators of Christ. But to attempt to say “what if Christ were that priest” is simply nonsensical.

There were plenty of things that Christ did not do, even though we, 2000 years later, might think he “should” have done. People in Jerusalem still got sick and died, were still poor and still committed crimes. Whether we like to think about it or not, the unavoidable reality is that there were times when Christ choose not to do something that was completely within His power.

Recall that Christ chose not to save Lazarus from death. He knew that there was a time and place for everything. It was the unbelievers who tried to project their own ideas of what He should have done–the faithful ones accepted His decision not to prevent the death.

I’m afraid that no matter how you put it, you are still trying to transfer your own opinion of what may or may not be done onto Christ. You aren’t really asking “What would Jesus do?” You’re making the statement that Christ would do what you’ve already decided the priest should do in that situation.

I’m not saying Jesus ever encountered the specific situation of having someone approach Him for a blessing not approved to be given at a particular time. Most situations I encounter in life are ones there is no record of Jesus ever encountering. That’s why I try to figure out what He would have done. Yes it’s my opinion, but it’s based on having read about the life of Jesus. If there is no specific example of Him encountering the specific situation I am in, I do my best to apply His way of life to my thought process in an attempt to do the right thing. Could I be wrong? Yes. Could another person come to a completely different conclusion as to what Jesus would have done? Yes. However, I don’t have much to go on other than my impression of how Jesus lived His life on Earth when applying Christ’s principles to everyday life.

And let’s not forget that Christ would not have encouraged illicit practices in the first place.
The Holy Spirit inspired the magisterium to provide liturgical norms for the Church–the Son doesn’t contradict the Spirit.

It’s the priests who started this sort of thing who should have asked themselves the question, and realized that they needed to be more Christ-like in their humility and accept the liturgical norms of the Church. Inventing one’s own ritual for the Mass is not humility at all, it is the precise opposite of that virtue, the deadly sin of arrogance/pride.

I’m sure there are priests who never advocated the blessing. It doesn’t remove the fact that they will likely have to deal with people appearing before them for a blessing because of a practice began by other priests. My question was: What do they do? It doesn’t hurt anybody for them to receive a blessing and probably takes less time to give than to explain why they will not give the blessing.

I also take note of the fact that you avoided addressing what Christ did do when talking to the woman with 6 husbands. Based on your logic, if a woman who has been married 3 times, the first 2 husbands still living, and no declaration of nullity, approaches a priest at Communion time, what the priest should do is to look her in the eye and say “the man you are with is not your husband.” After all, that’s precisely what Christ did do. To give her a blessing would be to not-do what Jesus did do. Of course, that would be inappropriate, unless the priest in question is another Padre Pio.

I am typically not one to “avoid” responding to something, so please don’t take that as an effort to dodge a question.

I think there is a pretty extreme contrast between a woman in the situation you mentioned above and a person asking a priest for a blessing during communion. I have intellectual difficulty equating that woman with a person asking for a blessing.

Human beings are not so fragile that a simple “that’s not done, see me after Mass and I will explain” when they come up for a blessing will cause such catastrophic harm which is claimed by some. In fact, a person who does want to be faithful to the Church would welcome such an explanation. And priests have an obligation to make that explanation in a pastoral and sensitive way. But to give a blessing in that situation sends the exact opposite message, it’s a priest saying “we know better than the Church, let’s ignore the Church together.” And that’s not “what Jesus would do.”

The blame is not on priests who follow the liturgy with fidelity. The blame lies squarely and solely with priests who feel that they know better than the Church what the ritual of the Mass should be.

I think many people, especially those not fully received into the church, may be more sensitive than most people at mass. Something like that to a sensitive person may be catastrophic.

 

[benedictgal]

I’m not saying Jesus ever encountered the specific situation of having someone approach Him for a blessing not approved to be given at a particular time. Most situations I encounter in life are ones there is no record of Jesus ever encountering. That’s why I try to figure out what He would have done. Yes it’s my opinion, but it’s based on having read about the life of Jesus. If there is no specific example of Him encountering the specific situation I am in, I do my best to apply His way of life to my thought process in an attempt to do the right thing. Could I be wrong? Yes. Could another person come to a completely different conclusion as to what Jesus would have done? Yes. However, I don’t have much to go on other than my impression of how Jesus lived His life on Earth when applying Christ’s principles to everyday life.

I’m sure there are priests who never advocated the blessing. It doesn’t remove the fact that they will likely have to deal with people appearing before them for a blessing because of a practice began by other priests. My question was: What do they do? It doesn’t hurt anybody for them to receive a blessing and probably takes less time to give than to explain why they will not give the blessing.

I am typically not one to “avoid” responding to something, so please don’t take that as an effort to dodge a question.

I think there is a pretty extreme contrast between a woman in the situation you mentioned above and a person asking a priest for a blessing during communion. I have intellectual difficulty equating that woman with a person asking for a blessing.

I think many people, especially those not fully received into the church, may be more sensitive than most people at mass. Something like that to a sensitive person may be catastrophic.

I might suggest that you read “Jesus of Nazareth” by Pope Benedict XVI. He gives a pretty accurate picture of Our Lord, based on the Gospels.

I do not know if you read my previous post, but, my parochial vicar, who also happens to be a prelate, noted in the homily that he preached yesterday (at all Masses) that he does not nor will be impart a blessing in lieu of distributing Holy Communion. He cited as his reference the statement made by the CDWDS. He noted that he has gently and charitably told folks who present themselves for a blessing that he cannot do that. He reminded us that the blessing comes at the end of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and is applicable to everyone.

He added that we should not, on our own initiative, do things and invent things to “improve” the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. We are called to receive, with humble obedience, what the Church has given us and not try to make things “better.”

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Hi,

I’m sure there are priests who never advocated the blessing. It doesn’t remove the fact that they will likely have to deal with people appearing before them for a blessing because of a practice began by other priests. My question was: What do they do? It doesn’t hurt anybody for them to receive a blessing and probably takes less time to give than to explain why they will not give the blessing.

This could be another point under study.

I think many people, especially those not fully received into the church, may be more sensitive than most people at mass. Something like that to a sensitive person may be catastrophic.

Yes, and also those attending weddings or funerals. Certainly most of the priests who offer this option would prefer it were not necessary, but believe it is because it is less wrong than receiving unprepared.

Lux