I am not catholic yet,

[FrDavid96]

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

Please read the post to which you responded. Here is the text *which you removed *from that post one more time. I believe I have already answered your question:

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.

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

It’s not a matter of disagreeing “on this particular point” It’s a matter of disagreeing with the Holy See, which has already settled the matter. By definition, a “good and faithful priest” will defer to the Vatican’s decisions on liturgical matters. And the Vatican has not said that this is an option. When the Vatican says that something is not to be done, by definition, it is not an option.

 

[FrDavid96]

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 that’s why “what would Jesus do?” Just doesn’t work. We might ask how He would react, what sort of person was He? And the Christ in the Gospels gives us an example of humility and obedience to authority (even the Son obeyed the Father’s will and died on the cross–that’s the most “extreme” example of humility and obedience in all of human history. As I keep repeating, I think the priest should imitate Christ and defer to the legitimate authority of the Church to define what is/is not done in the Mass, rather than take it upon himself to disobey the Church’s authority in liturgical matters.

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.

Yes, there are plenty of priests who never advocated these blessings, and plenty who have done their best (“our” best) to put a stop to this illicit practice by not allowing it to be done in their own Masses/parishes.

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.

Actually, the contrast is not at all extreme. As I pointed out when I first gave the example, one typical application of these blessings/pseudo-blessings is how to deal with people in an invalid marriage. I’m giving an example of how Christ Himself dealt with someone in an invalid marriage–rather than ratify her situation with a blessing, He called attention to her sinful life in order to call her to conversion. That’s something I would recommend priests do not do within the context of the Mass–that’s not the appropriate time to address that matter.

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.

And yet again, the problem here is not priests who faithfully follow the Mass–the real problem is priests who take it upon themselves to say “I know better than the Church” and change the Mass. If people in such a situation were not told by someone else “do this illicit thing” then the faithful priest would not have to correct the problem. We need to fix the problem, not create more problems by giving people false information that they should “come forward for a blessing.”

We don’t engage in illicit changes to the Mass simply because someone who was first mis-informed might be offended upon hearing the truth–why would you think that to be the case, I wonder?. The Mass is not something that is subject to individual whims.

 

[benedictgal]

It’s not a matter of disagreeing “on this particular point” It’s a matter of disagreeing with the Holy See, which has already settled the matter. By definition, a “good and faithful priest” will defer to the Vatican’s decisions on liturgical matters. And the Vatican has not said that this is an option. When the Vatican says that something is not to be done, by definition, it is not an option.

Exactly, Fr. David!

I don’t know if you know my parochial vicar, but, he pretty much said the same thing at the tail end of his homily. He is about as faithful a prelate as you can get and he is definitely a stickler for followng the norms of the Church. He stated that the Holy See has already explained why this should not be done. This is sufficient enough for him and it should be sufficient enough for the rest of us. It never ceases to amaze me that people will start dragging everything, including the kitchen sink, to try to creatively justify this very bad practice.

 

[Newbie2]

Exactly, Fr. David!

I don’t know if you know my parochial vicar, but, he pretty much said the same thing at the tail end of his homily. He is about as faithful a prelate as you can get and he is definitely a stickler for followng the norms of the Church. He stated that the Holy See has already explained why this should not be done. This is sufficient enough for him and it should be sufficient enough for the rest of us. It never ceases to amaze me that people will start dragging everything, including the kitchen sink, to try to creatively justify this very bad practice.

How is it a “very bad” practice aside from not being an approved practice? Or is it “very bad” because it is not approved?

 

[FrDavid96]

How is it a “very bad” practice aside from not being an approved practice? Or is it “very bad” because it is not approved?

Not A. Not B (although B is true in itself, it is incomplete). C is the correct answer. It is “bad practice” therefore it is not an approved practice.

The answer to that lies in the reasons given by the CDWDS for why these blessings cannot be done. Because of those reasons (and I don’t see the point in quoting them yet again), it is a “bad practice” and therefore cannot be added to the Mass.

It also reinforces the likelihood that the final outcome of the study will be a stronger prohibition against adding these practices. The Church can change the rubrics of the Mass, but cannot change the reasons given by the CDWDS because for the most part, they are not the sort of thing subject to alteration.

 

[benedictgal]

How is it a “very bad” practice aside from not being an approved practice? Or is it “very bad” because it is not approved?

The Constitution on Sacred Liturgy has already answered that in that no one, not even the celebrant, has the right, on his own authority, to add anything to the Mass. Redemptionis Sacramentum reaffirms that. In fact, the CDWDS makes it perfectly clear, giving five reasons why this should not have been done in the first place, including references to pertinent Canon Law and the authoritative liturgical documents from that same Congregation.

Newbie, you are a veterinarian by profession right? You are expected to follow certain norms and guidelines established both by your training and by the appropriate state agency regulating veterinarians, right? My “human” doctor is also obliged to follow the guidlines as mandated by the Texas Department of Health and the Texas Board of Medical Examiners. I cannot go to you, with Baxter my dachshund in tow, and expect you to give me Zomig for my migraines when I’m taking him to you for a rabies shot. I cannot go to my doctor wth a migraine, again, with Baxter in tow, and have him perform a neuterng surgery on him.

It’s the same principle. When I go to Mass, I do not expect my parochial vicar to impart a blessing on me in lieu of giving me Holy Communion because it’s not in the norms and it’s ilicit. He should not expect me to join the Communion line and want a blessing from him instead of Our Lord. It does not work that way. That would be like my expecting you to give me a Zomig when Baxter needs his rabies shot.

My parochial vicar takes the CDWDS at its word. No means no.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Please read the post to which you responded. Here is the text *which you removed *from that post one more time. I believe I have already answered your question:

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.

It’s not a matter of disagreeing “on this particular point” It’s a matter of disagreeing with the Holy See, which has already settled the matter. By definition, a “good and faithful priest” will defer to the Vatican’s decisions on liturgical matters. And the Vatican has not said that this is an option. When the Vatican says that something is not to be done, by definition, it is not an option.

Yes, I do understand, but as I said earlier—

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

I am not saying the instructions do not exist, but I am giving the reasons for the dilema told to me by many good and faithful priests. Non-Catholics do not feel they need to follow Catholic instructions, and we know that most non-practicing do not believe in the authority of the Church, so many priests see that people may not receive unprepared if they are given an option. At my niece’s wedding, my daughter (who is non-practicing) came in my line for communion. She did not want to receive—she does respect the instructions, but is familiar with the blessing practice. You are saying that I should have refused to say, “God bless you”?

I will defend a priest who is choosing the less wrong (venial) in a difficult choice.

Lux

 

[Newbie2]

The Constitution on Sacred Liturgy has already answered that in that no one, not even the celebrant, has the right, on his own authority, to add anything to the Mass. Redemptionis Sacramentum reaffirms that. In fact, the CDWDS makes it perfectly clear, giving five reasons why this should not have been done in the first place, including references to pertinent Canon Law and the authoritative liturgical documents from that same Congregation.

Newbie, you are a veterinarian by profession right? You are expected to follow certain norms and guidelines established both by your training and by the appropriate state agency regulating veterinarians, right? My “human” doctor is also obliged to follow the guidlines as mandated by the Texas Department of Health and the Texas Board of Medical Examiners. I cannot go to you, with Baxter my dachshund in tow, and expect you to give me Zomig for my migraines when I’m taking him to you for a rabies shot. I cannot go to my doctor wth a migraine, again, with Baxter in tow, and have him perform a neuterng surgery on him.

It’s the same principle. When I go to Mass, I do not expect my parochial vicar to impart a blessing on me in lieu of giving me Holy Communion because it’s not in the norms and it’s ilicit. He should not expect me to join the Communion line and want a blessing from him instead of Our Lord. It does not work that way. That would be like my expecting you to give me a Zomig when Baxter needs his rabies shot.

My parochial vicar takes the CDWDS at its word. No means no.

No need to be patronizing. I get it. Do you get that I’m not arguing for the practice?

I was simply asking you whether your meaning is “very bad” was that it was against the rubrics or for some other reason you personally didn’t like it.

 

[FrDavid96]

Yes, I do understand, but as I said earlier—

I am not saying the instructions do not exist, but I am giving the reasons for the dilema told to me by many good and faithful priests. Non-Catholics do not feel they need to follow Catholic instructions, and we know that most non-practicing do not believe in the authority of the Church, so many priests see that people may not receive unprepared if they are given an option. At my niece’s wedding, my daughter (who is non-practicing) came in my line for communion. She did not want to receive—she does respect the instructions, but is familiar with the blessing practice. You are saying that I should have refused to say, “God bless you”?

I will defend a priest who is choosing the less wrong (venial) in a difficult choice.

Lux

But you see, we can never “choose” to do what we know to be wrong. Now I’m beginning to understand.

We must always choose to do that which is right.

If non-Catholics are going to ignore the priest who says “don’t come forward in the Communion line”, why would they then follow the priest who says “come up on the Communion line, but receive a blessing instead?” Because they’re “getting something?”

I’m not the one saying you should have refused to say “God Bless you,” (although that is certainly true in itself), rather what I am saying is that it was wrong for you to be in that position in the first place. A second wrong act does not cancel out the first wrong act. Priests have a responsibility, whether they want to admit it or not, and whether or not this makes them uncomfortable, to explain that only those who are receiving Communion, according to the norm of law, should present themselves in the Communion line.

In the case of your own daughter, given that you knew beforehand that she would be presenting herself in the Communion line, the right thing to do would have been to explain to her before the Mass that such a practice is illicit, and is not an option in the Mass.

Only the Holy See is permitted to define the rituals that may be added to the Mass. Something is not an “option” unless the Holy See says that it is an option. It is an option to add the solemn blessing, or to add a baptism, or even to add explanations at appropriate moments in the Mass, as well as other options defined by the Holy See, depending upon the circumstances. But unless one can show where the Supreme Authority of the Church has said “it is optional to add blessings to those who present themselves in the Communion line”, such a practice is not an option, but an illicit act.

Since a priest is not given the option of adding blessings to the Communion line, then there is no justification for respecting his decision to take it upon himself to disobey the Church and add ritual to the Mass which the Church has not only not-approved but specifically said cannot be done.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Fr David,

Thank you for taking the time to reply.

If non-Catholics are going to ignore the priest who says “don’t come forward in the Communion line”, why would they then follow the priest who says “come up on the Communion line, but receive a blessing instead?” Because they’re “getting something?”

No, because thay are participating in the Communion. You know many do not understand Catholic theology and closed Communion. They feel it is a snub. If they feel included, they are more likely to respect the teaching.

In the case of your own daughter, given that you knew beforehand that she would be presenting herself in the Communion line, the right thing to do would have been to explain to her before the Mass that such a practice is illicit, and is not an option in the Mass.

No, I did not know beforehand, but that is not my point. Sorry, I would not explain & refuse. She has abandoned the faith because she feels the Church is insensitive, but will respect the teaching on reception of the Eucharist. She does not believe, but wishes to present herself to her mother for a prayer (because she knows I believe.) I would not discourage this, especially since it is a common practice which is under study. If it were a serious abuse, the CDW would have condemned it outright as they did the distribution of any unconsecrated bread during Communion in RS. The blessing practice was not even mentioned as a minor abuse.

Lux

 

[FrDavid96]

Fr David,

Thank you for taking the time to reply.

No, because thay are participating in the Communion. You know many do not understand Catholic theology and closed Communion. They feel it is a snub. If they feel included, they are more likely to respect the teaching.

No, I did not know beforehand, but that is not my point. Sorry, I would not explain & refuse. She has abandoned the faith because she feels the Church is insensitive, but will respect the teaching on reception of the Eucharist. She does not believe, but wishes to present herself to her mother for a prayer (because she knows I believe.) I would not discourage this, especially since it is a common practice which is under study. If it were a serious abuse, the CDW would have condemned it outright as they did the distribution of any unconsecrated bread during Communion in RS. The blessing practice was not even mentioned as a minor abuse.

Lux

So then, how can you justify this practice in light of the following quote from RS???

1. Other Abuses
   [174.] Furthermore, those actions that are brought about which are contrary to the other matters treated elsewhere in this Instruction or in the norms established by law are not to be considered of little account, but are to be numbered among the other abuses to be carefully avoided and corrected.

[175.] The things set forth in this Instruction obviously do not encompass all the violations against the Church and its discipline that are defined in the canons, in the liturgical laws and in other norms of the Church for the sake of the teaching of the Magisterium or sound tradition. Where something wrong has been committed, it is to be corrected according to the norm of law.

As I read that text, it is clear that anything not “in the norms established by law” is not to be done, and even “not to be considered of little account.” Instead, RS says that such things “are to be numbered among the other abuses to be carefully avoided and corrected.” RS makes it clear that not every abuse of the Mass is mentioned in the present document. Such a thing would not even be possible.

If your daughter wants you to pray for her, and if you want to do this, by all means I commend you both for it–110%. Yet, at the same time, making a change to the Mass is not the appropriate way to go about this.

And the CDWDS did condemn it outright in the Japhy letter. To deny that they did is to deny the plain meaning of the words we can all read in the letter.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Thank you again,

So then, how can you justify this practice in light of the following quote from RS???

As you said, certainly ignoring an instruction is not justified, but I am giving reasons which may mitigate the wrong involved.

As I said

I am not saying the instructions do not exist, but I am giving the reasons for the dilema told to me by many good and faithful priests. Non-Catholics do not feel they need to follow Catholic instructions, and we know that most non-practicing do not believe in the authority of the Church, so many priests see that people may not receive unprepared if they are given an option.

And the CDWDS did condemn it outright in the Japhy letter. To deny that they did is to deny the plain meaning of the words we can all read in the letter.

If a matter is condemned, why is it under study? The distrubition of unconsecrated bread is not under study, nor the reception by non-Catholics or non- practicing Catholics. I trust those you counsel accept your interpretation and application, as well as the moral ethics of the situation. I will trust my Spiritual director.

Lux

 

[Newbie2]

If a matter is condemned, why is it under study?
Lux

I still think that’s a valid question. If the matter is so crystal clear, why bother to take the time to study it? While I agree that the conclusion will most likely be that the practice will not be accepted, I have to think the matter is not so cut and dried, crystal clear as one might assume.

Either that, or they were woefully inadequate in their wording. If they meant, "we’re studying the matter to see how we can quash it, why didn’t they just say so?

 

[FrDavid96]

Thank you again,

As you said, certainly ignoring an instruction is not justified, but I am giving reasons which may mitigate the wrong involved.

We can’t ignore instructions from the Church because those instructions are in conflict with our own personal opinions and interpretations. Our own opinions do not “mitigate” liturgical norms.

If a matter is condemned, why is it under study? The distrubition of unconsecrated bread is not under study, nor the reception by non-Catholics or non- practicing Catholics. I trust those you counsel accept your interpretation and application, as well as the moral ethics of the situation. I will trust my Spiritual director.

Lux

I think we’ve been over this already. The Holy See is studying the matter. We cannot say that because it’s being studied that the current norms of the Church do not apply. If that were the case, the Holy See would have given at least some indication of this. Someone once posted misleading information that “under study” means that the Church has not yet determined if this is right or wrong–such information is false, misleading, and even harmful. There is not a shred of truth to that. I wish I could get you to see this. In the recent past, the Holy See has indeed studied many matters in which there was no question that something could not be done (deacons administering Unction, women’s ordination, baptising in the name of the creator redeemer sanctifier, etc. etc.) All of these studies were done in order to find a way to explain why they can’t be done.

Since the reasons why blessings cannot be done in the Communion line are reasons that are not subject to change by a change in the rubrics, that indicates to us that this is likewise a similar example. The Holy See is most likely determining the appropriate way to put a stop to this practice with even more clarity than it has already been explained.

If your spiritual director is telling you to disobey the Holy See, that’s a different matter indeed. Have you actually asked your spititual director the direct question: If Rome says that a thing cannot be done, but the local pastor says it can, who do I obey? I don’t know if you’re comfortable answering that, so feel free to keep that to yourself. There is a huge difference between a spiritual advisor saying “obey your priest” on the one hand, and then on the other hand saying “disobey the pope, out of obedience to the priest.”

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

We can’t ignore instructions from the Church because those instructions are in conflict with our own personal opinions and interpretations. Our own opinions do not “mitigate” liturgical norms.

I did not say mitigate liturgical norms. I said

I am giving reasons which may mitigate the wrong involved.

Obviously your ehtics do not believe there is ever any situation where it would be morally correct to override a liturgical norm. Other priests feel differently.

Lux

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

re

If your spiritual director is telling you to disobey the Holy See, that’s a different matter indeed. Have you actually asked your spititual director the direct question: If Rome says that a thing cannot be done, but the local pastor says it can, who do I obey? I don’t know if you’re comfortable answering that, so feel free to keep that to yourself. There is a huge difference between a spiritual advisor saying “obey your priest” on the one hand, and then on the other hand saying “disobey the pope, out of obedience to the priest.”

I did already answer that one. If it is not a matter of faith or morals, I was told to obey my pastor.

Lux

 

[benedictgal]

So then, how can you justify this practice in light of the following quote from RS???

1. Other Abuses
   [174.] Furthermore, those actions that are brought about which are contrary to the other matters treated elsewhere in this Instruction or in the norms established by law are not to be considered of little account, but are to be numbered among the other abuses to be carefully avoided and corrected.

[175.] The things set forth in this Instruction obviously do not encompass all the violations against the Church and its discipline that are defined in the canons, in the liturgical laws and in other norms of the Church for the sake of the teaching of the Magisterium or sound tradition. Where something wrong has been committed, it is to be corrected according to the norm of law.

As I read that text, it is clear that anything not “in the norms established by law” is not to be done, and even “not to be considered of little account.” Instead, RS says that such things “are to be numbered among the other abuses to be carefully avoided and corrected.” RS makes it clear that not every abuse of the Mass is mentioned in the present document. Such a thing would not even be possible.

If your daughter wants you to pray for her, and if you want to do this, by all means I commend you both for it–110%. Yet, at the same time, making a change to the Mass is not the appropriate way to go about this.

And the CDWDS did condemn it outright in the Japhy letter. To deny that they did is to deny the plain meaning of the words we can all read in the letter.

That is so very true, Fr. David! Fr. Mitch Pacwa noted this evening that “stewards are not the owners”. Bishops and priests are the stewards of the Mysteries of the Faith, including the Sacraments. However, they are not the owners; thus, it is not their right to amend any portion of the Mysteries of our Faith, let alone the Sacraments. Only the Church, through the Supreme Pontiff (who, in turn, acts through the CDWDS) can do that.

Your comments regarding RS are certainly right on target. There are, sadly, way too many abuses that have gone on throughout the world, too great a number for the CDWDS to individually address. The CDWDS has already given five rock solid reasons (with Canonical references, to boot) as to why blessings in lieu of distributing Holy Communion should not happen. We cannot presume to know more than the CDWDS on this matter. We cannot presume to take it upon ourselves and say that the document really did not mean what it carefully and clearly stated in its five key observations. We need to take the CDWDS statement at its word and obey it, this includes pastors and the faithful. Pastors also includes the bishops.

 

[FrDavid96]

re

I did already answer that one. If it is not a matter of faith or morals, I was told to obey my pastor.

Lux

That’s not the same thing. Did your spiritual advisor actually tell you that you should disobey the Holy See?–because that’s what this amounts to. The pope is the pastor of all Christians, so when your spiritual advisor said “obey the pastor” does that not mean obey the pope? That’s what I have a difficult time understanding. How one can justify disregarding instructions from the Holy See in favor of obedience to someone who has no authority to tell anyone that a blessing in the Communion line is to be added to the Mass.

If the pastor had the authority to make his own changes to the Mass, this might be different. But when someone in authority uses that position to implement something that is well beyond his own competence, there is no obligation of obedience. In fact, quite the opposite is true. That becomes even more true when someone of lesser authority is encouraging disobedience to a higher authority, one which does have that competence. I’m afraid that I just can’t understand your logic here, because you’re saying that someone should disobey the pope because the local pastor tells you to. I don’t understand that.

 

[allhers]

I did not say mitigate liturgical norms. I said

Obviously your ehtics do not believe there is ever any situation where it would be morally correct to override a liturgical norm. Other priests feel differently.

Lux

This must be why the Holy See is investigating the matter. Far too many think that their are “special” exceptions, why can’t they just do like Fr. David and find out the truth and stick to it and announce it at all the Masses and point to it in the Missal until people get it through their heads to stop doing it?

If I were you I’d get a different spiritual advisor too.

 

[benedictgal]

This must be why the Holy See is investigating the matter. Far too many think that their are “special” exceptions, why can’t they just do like Fr. David and find out the truth and stick to it and announce it at all the Masses and point to it in the Missal until people get it through their heads to stop doing it?

If I were you I’d get a different spiritual advisor too.

Actually, my parochial vicar was the one who took that big, bold step, announcing at all of our Masses this past Sunday. I am very proud of him for having the courage to take that stand. Now, while I can’t speak for Fr. David, that is not to say that he did not, perhaps, make the same announcement at his Masses.