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

[benedictgal]

No, As the role of laity in the baptismal call of the priesthood.

But, the two are very different. While the laity have the priesthood of the believers, the ministerial priesthood is reserved to bishops and priests. With all due respect, your interpretation is causing a blurring of a line that the Holy See insists should be clear.

During the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the celebrant (priest or bishop) offers the sacrifice on our behalf. Through our prayers, we unite ourselves to the action of the celebrant who acts in Persona Christi. By virtue of his ordination, the celebrant intercedes for us. Thus, it is not licit for us to be doing things in the Mass that are reserved to the celebrant.

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

Not to mention that we look like nazis when doing so.

It doesn’t help when the Gospel book’s cover has a stylized swastika on it.
http://www.litpress.org/images/rites/rite_ritual_products.jpg

This issue of having people extending their hands comes from a basic misunderstanding of the Priesthood of the Laity by the priests who promote it.

 

[FAB]

I always find it interesting as to what so many are saying that the Laity can’t do, how about what they are encouraged to do, and their calling to particiapate in the same document.

Redemptionis Sacramentum
36. The celebration of the Mass, as the action of Christ and of the Church, is the center of the whole Christian life for the universal as well as the particular Church, and also for the individual faithful,87 who are involved “in differing ways according to the diversity of orders, ministries, and active participation.”88 “In this way the Christian people, ‘a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy people, a people God has made his own,’89 manifests its coherent and hierarchical ordering.”90 “For the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical Priesthood, though they differ in essence and not only in degree, are ordered to one another, for both partake, each in its own way, of the one Priesthood of Christ.”91

1. All of Christ’s faithful, freed from their sins and incorporated into the Church through Baptism, are deputed by means of a sacramental character for the worship of the Christian religion,92 so that by virtue of their royal priesthood,93 persevering in prayer and praising God,94 **they may offer themselves as a living and holy sacrifice **pleasing to God and attested to others by their works,95 giving witness to Christ throughout the earth and providing an answer to those who ask concerning their hope of eternal life that is in them.96 Thus the participation of the lay faithful too in the Eucharist and in the other celebrations of the Church’s Rites cannot be equated with mere presence, and still less with a passive one, but is rather to be regarded as a true exercise of faith and of the baptismal dignity.
2. The constant teaching of the Church on the nature of the Eucharist not only as a meal, but also and pre-eminently as a Sacrifice, is therefore rightly understood to be one of the principal keys to the full participation of all the faithful in so great a Sacrament.97 For when “stripped of its sacrificial meaning, the mystery is understood as if its meaning and importance were simply that of a fraternal banquet.”98

1. For promoting and elucidating active participation, the recent renewal of the liturgical books according to the mind of the Council fostered acclamations of the people, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and canticles, as well as actions or movements and gestures, and called for sacred silence to be maintained at the proper times, while providing rubrics for the parts of the faithful as well.99 In addition,** ample flexibility is given for appropriate creativity aimed at allowing each celebration to be adapted to the needs of the participants, to their comprehension, their interior preparation and their gifts, according to the established liturgical norms**. In the songs, the melodies, the choice of prayers and readings, the giving of the homily, the preparation of the prayer of the faithful, the occasional explanatory remarks, and the decoration of the church building according to the various seasons, there is ample possibility for introducing into each celebration a certain variety by which the riches of the liturgical tradition will also be more clearly evident, and so, in keeping with pastoral requirements, the celebration will be carefully imbued with those particular features that will foster the recollection of the participants. Still, it should be remembered that the power of the liturgical celebrations does not consist in frequently altering the Rites, but in probing more deeply the word of God and the mystery being celebrated.100

Now I didn’t see anything specifically prohibiting the practice of the faith extending hands while the priest gives a blessing, but there is this

ca

techetical instruction should strive diligently to correct those widespread superficial notions and practices often seen in recent years in this regard, and ever to instill anew in all of Christ’s faithful that sense of deep wonder before the greatness of the mystery of faith that is the Eucharist, in whose celebration the Church is forever passing from what is obsolete into newness of life:

Which seems rather open ended. Perhaps purposly.

 

[benedictgal]

I always find it interesting as to what so many are saying that the Laity can’t do, how about what they are encouraged to do, and their calling to particiapate in the same document.

Now I didn’t see anything specifically prohibiting the practice of the faith extending hands while the priest gives a blessing, but there is this

ca

Which seems rather open ended. Perhaps purposly.

FAB, it is not open-ended. You are the one making that determination, not the Church. Furthermore, you seem to be ignoring Ecclesia de Mysterio, which already covered what the laity can and cannot do. Incidentally, Ecclesia de Mysterio, although a product of the Congregation for Clergy, was written in collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the CDWDS. Ecclesia de Mysterio, which I quoted in my initial response, also includes a prohibition of the laity from employing gestures that are similar to what the celebrant uses.

You also seemed to conveniently omit the parts of RS that note the laity are not allowed to proclaim the Gospel, preach the homily, recite the Eucharistic prayer (including the doxology) and other parts reserved to the priest.

While you may not have seemingly found anything in RS, it is not the only document that treats the liturgy. Others have also pointed out the rest of the documents.

With all due respect, you have yet to produce anything authoritative that supports your line of thought.

 

[FAB]

FAB, it is not open-ended. You are the one making that determination, not the Church. Furthermore, you seem to be ignoring Ecclesia de Mysterio, which already covered what the laity can and cannot do. Incidentally, Ecclesia de Mysterio, although a product of the Congregation for Clergy, was written in collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the CDWDS. Ecclesia de Mysterio, which I quoted in my initial response, also includes a prohibition of the laity from employing gestures that are similar to what the celebrant uses.

You also seemed to conveniently omit the parts of RS that note the laity are not allowed to proclaim the Gospel, preach the homily, recite the Eucharistic prayer (including the doxology) and other parts reserved to the priest.

While you may not have seemingly found anything in RS, it is not the only document that treats the liturgy. Others have also pointed out the rest of the documents.

With all due respect, you have yet to produce anything authoritative that supports your line of thought.

I am assuming you are talking about

To promote the proper identity (of various roles) in this area, those abuses which are contrary to the provisions of canon 907 are to be eradicated. In eucharistic celebrations deacons and non-ordained members of the faithful may not pronounce prayers – e.g. especially the eucharistic prayer, with its concluding doxology – or any other parts of the liturgy reserved to the celebrant priest. Neither may deacons or non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions which are proper to the same priest celebrant. It is a grave abuse for any member of the non-ordained faithful to “quasi preside” at the Mass while leaving only that minimal participation to the priest which is necessary to secure validity

907 though addresses specifiacally actions at the Eucharistic prayer.

The different sections that have been quoted all contend within the liturgy of the mass.

In looking for any reason that the extention of hands is allowed, I looked to see what the beginings of the practice are. The best I can find s that it comes from the Chrismatic renewal as a sign of the laity sharing in the Royal preisthood which Redemptionis Sacramentum promotes.

It also leads me to ask, if it is such an abuse why is it not addressed by a church authority, in writing, other than just in articles, like CA, quoting sections of documents to make their point.

When and if the CDWDS gives it opinion that the practice is illicit through formal channels as it is requred to and not through a a CA blogger, with all due respect to your knowledge, the practice will be stopped if it is to be stopped.

 

[benedictgal]

I am assuming you are talking about

907 though addresses specifiacally actions at the Eucharistic prayer.

The different sections that have been quoted all contend within the liturgy of the mass.

In looking for any reason that the extention of hands is allowed, I looked to see what the beginings of the practice are. The best I can find s that it comes from the Chrismatic renewal as a sign of the laity sharing in the Royal preisthood which Redemptionis Sacramentum promotes.

It also leads me to ask, if it is such an abuse why is it not addressed by a church authority, in writing, other than just in articles, like CA, quoting sections of documents to make their point.

When and if the CDWDS gives it opinion that the practice is illicit through formal channels as it is requred to and not through a a CA blogger, with all due respect to your knowledge, the practice will be stopped if it is to be stopped.

FSB, rather than patronizing me and persisting with an opinion that runs contrary to what the Church has stated on many occasions, why not call the CDWDS yourself, since you seem to doubt what any of us have said? Each of us has a role at Mass; however, it is not the same as the ministerial priesthood, which your line of thought seems to diminish.

 

[FAB]

FSB, rather than patronizing me and persisting with an opinion that runs contrary to what the Church has stated on many occasions, why not call the CDWDS yourself, since you seem to doubt what any of us have said? Each of us has a role at Mass; however, it is not the same as the ministerial priesthood, which your line of thought seems to diminish.

Mainly because I don’t see it as a manner for concern. Even if I did contact the CDWDS it would make little differnce in the practice. They have the responsibilty, as I indicated to stop abuse through formal Church Channels, through the pope into the hands of the bishops.
I am not certain how I am dimishing the role of the priest, when the Church itself says that the laity shares in the royal preisthood. Perhaps exploring how the laity is to do do would be a more constructive discussion.

 

[rben20]

Thank you Benedictgal. Great information to know as we were asked to participate in a blessing at San Martin de Porres by the priest. It didn’t sit right with me but I did it anyway. I will know next time it is illicit. I will trust the Holy See over personal opinions and unknowing priests any day.

 

[stephraim]

The real question is whether or not the extending the hands over people/objects is proper to the priest. In the context of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, it is. The rubrics only speak of the priest/bishop making such gestures. Therefore, according to Ecclesiae de mysterio article 6, paragraph 2:

1. To promote the proper identity (of various roles) in this area, those abuses which are contrary to the provisions of canon 907 are to be eradicated. In eucharistic celebrations deacons and non-ordained members of the faithful may not pronounce prayers – e.g. especially the eucharistic prayer, with its concluding doxology – or any other parts of the liturgy reserved to the celebrant priest.** Neither may deacons or non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions which are proper to the same priest celebrant.** It is a grave abuse for any member of the non-ordained faithful to “quasi preside” at the Mass while leaving only that minimal participation to the priest which is necessary to secure validity

 

[EasterJoy]

Good heavens, FAB, you are beginning to sound as if you have the liturgical sense that “a yellow light means hit the gas”.

No, As the role of laity in the baptismal call of the priesthood.

You’re going to beg this question to thread-bare. Your last answer is so fuzzy that I don’t even know what it means. I asked whether you thought Bishop Vasa was writing in support of the laity assuming the physical postures of the clergy during public liturgies. How does your answer touch on that at all?

I’ll ask you again: Please use Church teaching to compare and contrast the distinction between the ministerial and the baptismal priesthood.

You do understand that there is a difference. Please articulate.

When and if the CDWDS gives it opinion that the practice is illicit through formal channels as it is requred to and not through a a CA blogger, with all due respect to your knowledge, the practice will be stopped if it is to be stopped.

Sigh. You are making this unnecessarily difficult.

As Stephraim noted, the Book of Blessings says, “A minister who is a priest or deacon says the prayer of blessing with hands outstretched; a lay minister says the prayer with hands joined”.

When the rule is so crystal clear, why on earth would the faithful or even the presiders presume that they can just try something new every once and awhile, and if Rome doesn’t put out a paper on it, they’re good to go? Why do that? Why wouldn’t you instead put the burden on the innovator to make certain that he is within the boundaries before inviting the faithful to do something not done in the past?

 

[EasterJoy]

Perhaps exploring how the laity is to do do would be a more constructive discussion.

Explore? What is to explore? We laity can’t “bow your heads and pray for God’s blessing” with our hands folded? Why has this form of liturgical participation been rejected as inadequate?

Besides, I have found that if you pray with your head bowed and hands folded, nobody whacks you or accuses you of abdicating the priesthood of the baptised…well, not at my parish, anyway. How could they? They don’t have a leg to stand on. The laity do not need to imitate the postures of the ordained in order to pray a blessing. We have our own postures. These work.

 

[rben20]

Innovators are what have made the OF deteriorate in reverence and solemn worship.

 

[rben20]

… We have our own postures. These work.

 

[FAB]

The real question is whether or not the extending the hands over people/objects is proper to the priest. In the context of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, it is. The rubrics only speak of the priest/bishop making such gestures. Therefore, according to Ecclesiae de mysterio article 6, paragraph 2:

1. To promote the proper identity (of various roles) in this area, those abuses which are contrary to the provisions of canon 907 are to be eradicated. In eucharistic celebrations deacons and non-ordained members of the faithful may not pronounce prayers – e.g. especially the eucharistic prayer, with its concluding doxology – or any other parts of the liturgy reserved to the celebrant priest.** Neither may deacons or non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions which are proper to the same priest celebrant.** It is a grave abuse for any member of the non-ordained faithful to “quasi preside” at the Mass while leaving only that minimal participation to the priest which is necessary to secure validity

This is being quoted out of context and applied beyond it’s intent . Canon 907 which this section is refering to specifically concerns only the Eucharistic prayer.

 

[EasterJoy]

This is being quoted out of context and applied beyond it’s intent . Canon 907 which this section is refering to specifically concerns only the Eucharistic prayer.

OK, but again: the Book of Blessings says, “A minister who is a priest or deacon says the prayer of blessing with hands outstretched; a lay minister says the prayer with hands joined”.

Even if someone were to concede the questionable idea that a Catholic church has, after the dismissal of the Mass, essentially two hundred lay ministers and no priest presider, in spite of the fact that the clergy are still present and fully vested for Mass–that is, even if the clergy were to retire to the sacristy before the blessing in question were conferred so that the context of the Mass was entirely removed in both their persons and their vestments!–we still know what the posture is for a lay minister.

This is not a mystery. We shouldn’t pretend that it is.

 

[benedictgal]

This is being quoted out of context and applied beyond it’s intent . Canon 907 which this section is refering to specifically concerns only the Eucharistic prayer.

With all due respect, you are cherry-picking at this document. Perhaps a little background information should be in order. The reason why three discasteries had to work on Ecclesia de Mysterio was because the Holy See received several legitimate complaints and concerns that the lines between the “common” priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial priesthood of the ordained were being blurred repeatedly.

Blessed Pope John Paul II, sharing this concern, asked that the Congregations for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Clergy and Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments formulate a document to delineate who does what, when and where. The final section, the practical provisions, gives us a good indication.

The former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger played a huge role in the writing of this document, as he was the prefect for the CDF. The document was promulgated in 1997 and was, for all practical purposes, the precursor to Redemptionis Sacramentum.

 

[wisdomseeker]

At the end of Mass, when the priest confers special blessings (such as on Father’s Day, etc.), what is the meaning behind the request that parishioners “raise their hand” and join him in the blessing? I thought our “Amen” was sufficient.

I think this comes with the idea that there is no diference between the priest and the people. they are all the same. very sad idea.

 

[CompSciGuy]

Last time I heard, this topic was banned on the Catholic Answers Forums.

 

[FAB]

With all due respect, you are cherry-picking at this document. Perhaps a little background information should be in order. The reason why three discasteries had to work on Ecclesia de Mysterio was because the Holy See received several legitimate complaints and concerns that the lines between the “common” priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial priesthood of the ordained were being blurred repeatedly.

Blessed Pope John Paul II, sharing this concern, asked that the Congregations for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Clergy and Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments formulate a document to delineate who does what, when and where. The final section, the practical provisions, gives us a good indication.

The former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger played a huge role in the writing of this document, as he was the prefect for the CDF. The document was promulgated in 1997 and was, for all practical purposes, the precursor to Redemptionis Sacramentum.

The OP asked were did the practice come from. I have speculated were and why the practice was started and attempted used and with the documents the reasons behind the fact that it has not been totally halted, quite the opposite, encoraged.

I find the question of why the practice is allowed to continue, if it is indeed illicit, a much more interesting question. Do a handful of bloggers on CA the only ones who have the true and only knowlegde of the documnets and their interpetation?

I don’t see it as “cherry picking” the document. That paragraph starts by pointing out a specific section of the cannon for a specific section of the liturgy to deal with liturgical abuses happening at that point. The mistake is to expand it beyond that point.
My reasoning is that it specifically included deacons, who are under most other circumtances are allowed to extend hands in blessing.

 

[benedictgal]

The OP asked were did the practice come from. I have speculated were and why the practice was started and attempted used and with the documents the reasons behind the fact that it has not been totally halted, quite the opposite, encoraged.

I find the question of why the practice is allowed to continue, if it is indeed illicit, a much more interesting question. Do a handful of bloggers on CA the only ones who have the true and only knowlegde of the documnets and their interpetation?

I don’t see it as “cherry picking” the document. That paragraph starts by pointing out a specific section of the cannon for a specific section of the liturgy to deal with liturgical abuses happening at that point. The mistake is to expand it beyond that point.
My reasoning is that it specifically included deacons, who are under most other circumtances are allowed to extend hands in blessing.

However, your tone regarding those of us who do the research and actually contact the CDWDS seems rather condescending.

The document not only treats the subject of liturgy, but, it also discusses just who can be referred to as Chaplain (restricting it only to priests) other matters. Furthermore, stephraim had posted directly from the De Benedictionibus that only the clergy can extend their hands in blessing, not the laity. Thus, even the De Benedictionibus refutes the points that you are making.