Reason behind extension of r. Hand /blessing by laity?

[benedictgal]

You may be right, but I’m still wondering why we are doing it in the first pace, and what the reasoning is behind it. After all, it doesn’t change the nature of the blesing at all. …so why not just say “Amen”? Does anyone know what is behind it all? I’m not saying it’s bad, but there must be some pastoral or theological reason for it.

It is a misguided attempt at encouraging participation of the laity and a gross misunderstanding of the priesthood of the believers. It was a well-meaning gesture, but, one that fails to take into account who can do what and when during the Mass.

As I indicated in my original response, there is nothing in the De Benedictionibus that calls for this gesture to be employed by the laity during the course of the Mass. In fact, when I raised this question, it was explained to me at the conference by someone from the CDWDS who knows better than any of us, that this is not to be done. If you cannot trust someone from the Holy See, then, who can you trust? This individual is quite trustworthy and knows his material.

 

[FromTheAshes777]

excellent info and well written thoughts as always Benedictgal. Thank you!

 

[Sarika]

excellent info and well written thoughts as always Benedictgal. Thank you!

Yes, I thank you as well.

 

[EasterJoy]

Thanks for the clarification. If my priest invites me to raise my hand in a blessing then I will not hesitate, as I know and trust him, and nothing about any official with the CDWDS, whatever that is. All this second-guessing and back-talking about priests and wanting to vigilantly spring upon supposed liturgical abuses does is to confer doubts and tensions in the minds of the faithful; as an example we often see new threads alleging liturgical abuses when there is none happening at all.

I’ve made a post like this in my time. It is mistaken.

I don’t know about you, but if I ask a question and a definitive answer exists, I’m interested in knowing it. If so, don’t shoot the messenger. Benedictgal was only quoting what has been clearly stated by those in the Church who have the authority to state it, and she does know “whatever that is.”

If you’ve found a thread in which Benedictgal noted that something was against the rubrics and it was later proven that she had quoted her own opinion instead of what the Church actually requires, I’d like to see it. It would be a new one on me.

I’ve also realized that it isn’t quite fair to give the priests carte blanche “trust” on one hand and then blame the resulting “doubts and tensions” on those who don’t go along with the pretense that there is no rule covering the situation. There are rules, the priests know them, the Church has seen fit to see that the laity can know them, too, but unfortunately the priests aren’t always inclined to follow them. The resulting “doubt and tensions” we experience as a result has been earned by those few.

 

[Brendan]

I am grateful that others are vigilant, as I am in Mass for grace rather than to offer critiques and challenges to authority. .

The only one challenging authority are those priests who call for the faithful to do something that Rome has stated should not be done.

People like Benedictgal are the ones actually SUPPORTING the person in the Church who have been granted the authority to declare who can, and cannot offer blessings at Mass.

 

[FAB]

However, within the context of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the blessings are to be imparted by the celebrant (bishop/priest). Furthermore, Rome, specifically, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments said that:

Furthermore, Ecclesia de Mysterio notes the following:

Thus, these hand extensions are not licit and should not be done.

I do agree, but most often the blessing is performed after the communion prayer. From this point it is outside the context of the mass.

 

[benedictgal]

I do agree, but most often the blessing is performed after the communion prayer. From this point it is outside the context of the mass.

No. It is not. It is still within the Mass.

 

[FAB]

You may be right, but I’m still wondering why we are doing it in the first pace, and what the reasoning is behind it. After all, it doesn’t change the nature of the blesing at all. …so why not just say “Amen”? Does anyone know what is behind it all? I’m not saying it’s bad, but there must be some pastoral or theological reason for it.

The pastoral and theoligical reason is that anyone who has been baptised can offer a blessing. We do it all the time. mothers blessings their children, the old notion of a father giving his blessing for daughter to wed. There are blessing in the book of blessings which can be perform by the laity.
The catch is in the context of the mass.

 

[FAB]

No. It is not. It is still within the Mass.

I disagree, but any discussion would be fruitless.

 

[benedictgal]

The pastoral and theoligical reason is that anyone who has been baptised can offer a blessing. We do it all the time. mothers blessings their children, the old notion of a father giving his blessing for daughter to wed. There are blessing in the book of blessings which can be perform by the laity.
The catch is in the context of the mass.

However, having gone to a conference where the De Benedictionibus was presented, the presenters noted that the first order should be the ordained. There are blessings that are reserbed to the bishop, but, the rest are for the priest. A deacon can bless, but, if a priest is there, such blessings fall to him to do. The laity do not necessarily bless; rather, they pray.

Furthermore, if one wanted a blessing in the extraordinary form, there are no provisions for the laity to “bless”.

As I noted earlier, encouraging lay involvement during bleSsings within the Mass is not licit, since it winds up blurring the lines.

 

[jwinch2]

My understanding from the OP was that the blessing was done at the end of Mass as in, after Mass was over but before people had been dismissed. If it is happening during Mass it would of course be improper.

 

[adrift]

There are rules, the priests know them, the Church has seen fit to see that the laity can know them, too, but unfortunately the priests aren’t always inclined to follow them. The resulting “doubt and tensions” we experience as a result has been earned by those few.

Easterjoy you have written this very well.

I would change only one thing. There are rules, the priest should know them. I have pointed out to priest things not allowed that they were doing. Once documentation was given them they changed it. I have heard priest exclaim in discovery some law that I knew for a long time that they had just discovered.

One more thing, if you can’t trust someone in small matters how can you trust him in large?

 

[adrift]

I do agree, but most often the blessing is performed after the communion prayer. From this point it is outside the context of the mass.

Do you have a document for this. My understanding is that Mass ends at the conclusion Rite at the dimissal. The dismissl has three forms
A. Go in the peace of Christ
B. The Mass is ended go in peace.
C. Go in the peace to love and serve the Lord.

At this point the Mass is over. Is this what you meant by Communion Prayer?

 

[benedictgal]

My understanding from the OP was that the blessing was done at the end of Mass as in, after Mass was over but before people had been dismissed. If it is happening during Mass it would of course be improper.

However, there is nothing in the De Benedictionibus that calls for the laity to even engage in this sort of thing.

 

[FAB]

However, there is nothing in the De Benedictionibus that calls for the laity to even engage in this sort of thing.

Thus if it is not prohibited, it can be done. Having the congregation extend ands during the blessing by the priest engages them in the call of baptism, preist, prophet and servant king.

 

[EasterJoy]

Thus if it is not prohibited, it can be done. Having the congregation extend ands during the blessing by the priest engages them in the call of baptism, preist, prophet and servant king.

Find me where it is specifically prohibited for a priest to offer Mass from a trapeze, while the laity bounce in unison on trampolines. Assuming of course that the priests stands on the trapeze bar, is this prohibited?

When you have done that, please use Church teaching to compare and contrast the distinction between the ministerial and the baptismal priesthood.

 

[FAB]

Do you have a document for this. My understanding is that Mass ends at the conclusion Rite at the dimissal. The dismissl has three forms
A. Go in the peace of Christ
B. The Mass is ended go in peace.
C. Go in the peace to love and serve the Lord.

At this point the Mass is over. Is this what you meant by Communion Prayer?

I had done some reaserch on this before and had found that the main liturgical prayer of the people ends at the communion prayer, which occurs directly after the communion is over with a period of silence. I not certain now were I found the answer, it may have bee in the General instructions. This is why there are announcments after this point and why then there can be speakers such as missionary nuns.
It may be splitting hairs, but it is actually the preist is the one who is giving the blessing, the people are just asked to join him by extending hands. They are not actually saying the blessing , they are simply joining in prayer.

 

[FAB]

Find me where it is specifically prohibited for a priest to offer Mass from a trapeze, while the laity bounce in unison on trampolines. Assuming of course that the priests stands on the trapeze bar, is this prohibited?

When you have done that, please use Church teaching to compare and contrast the distinction between the ministerial and the baptismal priesthood.

Silly analogy, you loose your augument when you go to the absurd.
The laity shares in the mission of the Church through baptism.

 

[benedictgal]

Thus if it is not prohibited, it can be done. Having the congregation extend ands during the blessing by the priest engages them in the call of baptism, preist, prophet and servant king.

With all due respect, that is a misunderstanding and a misrepresentation of the De Benedictionibus. If the USCCB wants to make some sort of adaptation to it to allow for the laity to “join in”, then, it would have to go by the same process that is used for adaptations to the GIRM. Any adaptation would need the 2/3 affirmative vote of the Latin Rite bishops and recognitio by the Holy See.

This is also a misunderstanding of the priesthood of the believers. The priest, by virture of his sarcedotal ordination, is the ordinary minister of the blessings (unless there are those that are reserved expressly for the bishop and others that are allowed for the deacon to do). Such an interpretation, as it was explained in the conference, is an over-emphasis on the laity.

 

[benedictgal]

Silly analogy, you loose your augument when you go to the absurd.
The laity shares in the mission of the Church through baptism.

The mission of the Church is in evangelization; however, if we were to accept your interpretation, you seem to be assigning things to the laity that do not correspond to them, while diminshing the ministerial priesthood.