T
thistle
Guest
It’s a COMMUNION line. It’s not a Communion and Blessing line.
Everyone gets a blessing by the priest at the end of the Mass. Why do people feel they need two during Mass.
- Status
Everyone gets a blessing by the priest at the end of the Mass. Why do people feel they need two during Mass.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
I don’t know the answer. But then, since it’s none of my business, I’ve never inquired.
Last edited:
B
BartholomewB
Guest
When a priest has to decide whether to refuse a request for infant baptism, the criterion he is supposed to judge by is whether there is a fair prospect that the child will be brought up in the Catholic faith. In this case, since the mother and her fiancé are attending Mass regularly, it looks as if the priest is doing exactly what the rule book requires him to do.
Last edited:
T
thistle
Guest
They should not be in the Communion line then the question would not be asked. It is not their business to be there for a blessing which is not permitted despite many priests simply not caring and allowing it.
P
pnewton
Guest
The truth? I have seen no lies here. Yet opinion is often mistaken for truth. The truth is the bishop is responsible for implementing the liturgy in his diocese, according to canon law. Also, one’s own priest is a better source of information on what to do in that priest’s parish than anyone here.
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
This is pretty much the definition of begging the question.
S
Seagull
Guest
One of the Priest - tells everyone - in the congregation -
that if someone wants - a blessing -
to come up to him during communion - with arms crossed.
There were times - I’d glance over at the line -
It’s cute seeing kids do it - before their parents -
Some teenage girls too -
An older person, now and then…
I’d say a immediate prayer for them !
But now, I’ve been in the habit of going to the pew -
Kneel - and not looking at anyone - but to have my head bowed in prayer.
It’s too crucial of a time - for me - to be looking around.
that if someone wants - a blessing -
to come up to him during communion - with arms crossed.
There were times - I’d glance over at the line -
It’s cute seeing kids do it - before their parents -
Some teenage girls too -
An older person, now and then…
I’d say a immediate prayer for them !
But now, I’ve been in the habit of going to the pew -
Kneel - and not looking at anyone - but to have my head bowed in prayer.
It’s too crucial of a time - for me - to be looking around.
Last edited:
R
Reverent_Howler
Guest
This calls to mind a relative’s infant baptism–during a weekend Mass naturally. The priest gave a homily on the Real Presence. My brother’s Lutheran wife became rather upset. Oh well.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Agreed. But, in all this discussion, I haven’t seen one person assert that his bishop has ok’ed the process.
Generally speaking, sure. But, if one’s own priest is doing his own thing…
P
pnewton
Guest
I will do you one better. My bishop has done this blessing during communion.
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
Actually, that’s one worse, not better. The bishop has privileges that his priests do not. So, merely aping one’s bishop – without the permission to do so – isn’t something to be held up for praise.
(Maybe the right way to go about this is to request the bishop to make it something that’s explicitly ok in his diocese…
)
P
pnewton
Guest
This still begs the question. If this is not something wrong, then it is not worse. If it is wrong, then it is worse. You can’t have the point at issue as one of the suppositions.
I just can’t tell you how much I do not agree with your position on this subject.
Last edited:
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Mine too and in the many dioceses I visited.
Not sure in other places, but from where I come from and the many places I visited, blessing during Communion is so common that there is no question asked and considered as part of the mass practice.
This is really a non issue, to argue about it is an exercise in futility.
But then again, there are people who thrive in arguing.
S
stpurl
Guest
Not arguing here, but isn’t this exactly how all sorts of things start? And all, of course, such ‘little things’. Such petty things. Oh, the Church has so many more important things to worry about than rigid old rules. Haven’t you understood that we needed to change? That diversity is the way to go? But now we don’t take things that are dear to a group or community and show how they demonstrate some great Christian truth, as we once did –we take our Christian truth and either ignore it, hide it, or twist it round so that we can have things that are dear to the group or community.
For many, we don’t come as a community to worship God so much as we come to celebrate ‘the god within us, the wonderful holy community’.
It’s all about choice, you know? Choice is built into the liturgy, choice is built into the participant. If it isn’t written in, that doesn’t mean it can’t be done. If it IS written in, that doesn’t mean it mustbe done. You wear what you want, show up when you want, say what you want, provided it’s not "the old way/words/actions’. Those you can’t do.
Want to wear a suit (men) or dress/hat (ladies?) Oh no, that’s part of the snobbish, affected, rigid old ways. You can wear hoodies, profanity-laden sweats, crop tops, leggings, etc and people will fall over backward praising you for just showing up --but wear the ‘old style’ and the judgmental attitude will place you in the dock, sentenced as a rigid hypocrite and an elitist.
Want to sing or help start up a chant group or play the organ? Oh no, that’s again snobby, elitist, etc. Amp up the electric guitars, bring out the Hagen-Daas, mike everybody right up around the altar, but don’t even think about starting a fund to restore the beautiful organ in the choir loft, even though you’ve already found through the grapevine you have enough donors and to spare, even though there are half a dozen organists who would love to play and cost no more than the cantor or the LifeTeen musicians. Diversity rules. . .as long as it isn’t ‘that old stuff’.
Customs? Hey, we’ll hold hands at the Our Father or do a Church wide orans, Free for alls with the sign of peace, added in prayers scattered through (A prayer for Mother Earth, a prayer for the Parish phone ap program, a prayer for our brothers and sisters who are being hurt by unfair practices). . .
But if people want to fold their hands at the Our Father, or bow their heads and smile and say peace be with you at the sign of peace –all hell breaks loose as these unfriendly, rigid, hateful people are ‘disrespecting’ their fellow Catholics and hurting feelings left and right, acting as if they don’t want to TOUCH others. How hateful!
Yep, as long as it’s a new(ish) gesture, action, posture, etc., it’s a legitimate choice. But a person choosing an ‘older’ gesture, action, posture etc, is not permitted to exercise his or her choice, as it’s ‘hateful’ or ‘unwelcoming.’
For many, we don’t come as a community to worship God so much as we come to celebrate ‘the god within us, the wonderful holy community’.
It’s all about choice, you know? Choice is built into the liturgy, choice is built into the participant. If it isn’t written in, that doesn’t mean it can’t be done. If it IS written in, that doesn’t mean it mustbe done. You wear what you want, show up when you want, say what you want, provided it’s not "the old way/words/actions’. Those you can’t do.
Want to wear a suit (men) or dress/hat (ladies?) Oh no, that’s part of the snobbish, affected, rigid old ways. You can wear hoodies, profanity-laden sweats, crop tops, leggings, etc and people will fall over backward praising you for just showing up --but wear the ‘old style’ and the judgmental attitude will place you in the dock, sentenced as a rigid hypocrite and an elitist.
Want to sing or help start up a chant group or play the organ? Oh no, that’s again snobby, elitist, etc. Amp up the electric guitars, bring out the Hagen-Daas, mike everybody right up around the altar, but don’t even think about starting a fund to restore the beautiful organ in the choir loft, even though you’ve already found through the grapevine you have enough donors and to spare, even though there are half a dozen organists who would love to play and cost no more than the cantor or the LifeTeen musicians. Diversity rules. . .as long as it isn’t ‘that old stuff’.
Customs? Hey, we’ll hold hands at the Our Father or do a Church wide orans, Free for alls with the sign of peace, added in prayers scattered through (A prayer for Mother Earth, a prayer for the Parish phone ap program, a prayer for our brothers and sisters who are being hurt by unfair practices). . .
But if people want to fold their hands at the Our Father, or bow their heads and smile and say peace be with you at the sign of peace –all hell breaks loose as these unfriendly, rigid, hateful people are ‘disrespecting’ their fellow Catholics and hurting feelings left and right, acting as if they don’t want to TOUCH others. How hateful!
Yep, as long as it’s a new(ish) gesture, action, posture, etc., it’s a legitimate choice. But a person choosing an ‘older’ gesture, action, posture etc, is not permitted to exercise his or her choice, as it’s ‘hateful’ or ‘unwelcoming.’
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Wow, a long post. Not sure what it is about though other than making my point. Much ado about nothing. But you sure do thrive in this.
S
stpurl
Guest
I think you missed my point, and you’re right, I do tend to make longer posts (being of a generation which had a longer attention span than today’s, and that is NOT a dig but an observation. For many of today’s activities, a shorter attention span is a good thing).
But it comes down to this: Big changes often result from very small actions at first.
What might seem petty right now could cause results that are catastrophic (remember when Roe v Wade was supposed to only affect a handful of complicated cases? And the idea that euthanasia for people who didn’t sustain a certain ‘quality of life’ was seen as a 'slippery slope fallacy?")
It’s OK. I’m used to being seen as the Greek Cassandra, the one who was always prophesying, always right, but never believed (thanks, Apollo).
But it comes down to this: Big changes often result from very small actions at first.
What might seem petty right now could cause results that are catastrophic (remember when Roe v Wade was supposed to only affect a handful of complicated cases? And the idea that euthanasia for people who didn’t sustain a certain ‘quality of life’ was seen as a 'slippery slope fallacy?")
It’s OK. I’m used to being seen as the Greek Cassandra, the one who was always prophesying, always right, but never believed (thanks, Apollo).
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Nonsense. Nobody can change the mass in its main objective and goal. It has been the same since two thousand years ago.
That’s is why it is an exercise in futility to argue on something that is practiced and done within the discretion of the local Bishops.
What business is it to you, if any, if a person comes up in a Communion line to be blessed and if the Bishop himself allows it? Who are you?
That’s is why it is an exercise in futility to argue on something that is practiced and done within the discretion of the local Bishops.
What business is it to you, if any, if a person comes up in a Communion line to be blessed and if the Bishop himself allows it? Who are you?
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
Fair enough. So, let me ask you: is giving blessings at the time of the distribution of the Eucharist actually part of the rite of the Catholic liturgy? If it is, you’ll have no problem citing the relevant liturgical document or the Roman Missal, right? So… if it is right, then let’s see it!
If it’s not part of the rite, however, then we need to turn to the direction that we do actually have – and that direction tells us that individual priests do not have the authority to change the Mass. So, if you can’t show that it is proper… isn’t that sufficient to demonstrate that it’s wrong?
Oh, you’ve made that clear enough. I’m already aware that we disagree.
However… if your argument is proper, then you can show me that it is such, right? Not from priests (who don’t have the right to make up the rules), and not from bishops (unless you can show that they’ve given their priests that right)! No… you need to show it’s proper. And if you cannot do so… what does that say about your assertion, here?
Nice spin. Not what the Church teaches, however. It’s not just “main objective and goal” that cannot be changed – the documents of the Church (which have been quoted in this thread!) make it obvious that no one (besides the Pope!) has the right to alter the Mass! Not just its “main objective”, but the Mass in its parts!
So… spin it if you wish – but please realize that we recognize the sophistry in your assertions.
If the bishop allows it in his Mass, that’s one thing. No argument there. However, that doesn’t give his priests the right to copy him, unless he expressly allows it. (Your argument is as persuasive as the teen’s argument that goes “well… Mom and Dad drink alcohol – so I’m allowed, too!”
)
R
Reuben_J
Guest
The pertinent question would be: is Communion line a rubric?
Or is it where the parish can use its dicretion to decide to allow blessing for those who do not receive?
Why there are Communion given on the pews, at home, with rail and without rail?
Why is that instead of Communion line, at times the priest would go around to the communicants to distribute Communion?
Is not Communion line a traditional logistic rather than rubric?
What is more important, receiving worthily and unworthily, so that we would not miss the forest for the tree?
What is so wrong with receiving blessing?
Why do bishops allow this? If it is against the rubric, why does not the Vatican steps in and put a stop to it?
Or are you just thriving in arguing over this?
Some people like to argue, some would think this is a hill not worth dying for.
Take your pick.
Or is it where the parish can use its dicretion to decide to allow blessing for those who do not receive?
Why there are Communion given on the pews, at home, with rail and without rail?
Why is that instead of Communion line, at times the priest would go around to the communicants to distribute Communion?
Is not Communion line a traditional logistic rather than rubric?
What is more important, receiving worthily and unworthily, so that we would not miss the forest for the tree?
What is so wrong with receiving blessing?
Why do bishops allow this? If it is against the rubric, why does not the Vatican steps in and put a stop to it?
Or are you just thriving in arguing over this?
Some people like to argue, some would think this is a hill not worth dying for.
Take your pick.
Last edited:
S
sudy
Guest
@Gorgias
I haven’t read this whole thread so I may have the wrong end of the stick with what’s being discussed here. I’ve seen many priests give blessings during the distribution of Holy Communion over many years… and I’m in the UK. My question is, are you saying that this practice is wrong? Would Canon 1170 not cover it, or some other canon law? Just to be clear, I wouldn’t know one way or another so I’m asking because I’ve seen this practiced quite regularly. Also, I’m only asking about priests and deacons, not about EMs doing this as I know that would be wrong.
I haven’t read this whole thread so I may have the wrong end of the stick with what’s being discussed here. I’ve seen many priests give blessings during the distribution of Holy Communion over many years… and I’m in the UK. My question is, are you saying that this practice is wrong? Would Canon 1170 not cover it, or some other canon law? Just to be clear, I wouldn’t know one way or another so I’m asking because I’ve seen this practiced quite regularly. Also, I’m only asking about priests and deacons, not about EMs doing this as I know that would be wrong.
Last edited:
- Status