What to do? Protestant at Mass

[In_His_Grace]

I will follow the guidance of the priest at my wife’s parish and continue going forward with my wife, she to receive the Eucharist, myself to receive a blessing, just like I’ve been doing in the nearly nine years of going to Mass with my Catholic wife.

A blessed and happy Easter to all.

In His Grace

 

[ProVobis]

I agree, Things get started by lay people and then they catch on like wildfire. Such as holding hands during the Lords Prayer, Not saying AMEN at the end of the Lords Prayer outside of Mass, (we say Amen at the end of every other prayer!) Holding arms up during the OF in Mass, Going up for a Blessing at Communion, especially to a lay person. Hugging and kissing during the Sign of Peace. All these are not part of the Rubrics.

Yes, it seems inevitable that some of the laity will take on some of the functions that are either not prescribed or have previously been solely performed by the ordained. After all they’re human and want to get involved, with good intentions I hope. The question I would have is of what theological value or implications do they or their actions possess and as determined by the Vatican.

 

[DAML72]

I converted 3 years ago. My children are not yet Catholic (prayers would be appreciated ) and my Protestant parents sometimes attend Mass with us. What works best for us is trying to get an end spot so that you only have to get up once to let others out or back in. This doesn’t always work out because latecomers will ask you to move in so they can sit, but it’s always worth a shot. Also, sometimes if you go to the back pews, the other people in the row leave right after receiving communion and you don’t have to worry about getting back up for them. Play around with it. One of my pet peeves about the American Mass is that it seems like 99.9% of the congregation gets up to receive communion these days, but that’s a topic for another post.

 

[peter26]

If someone wants to come up to receive a blessing, it is probably more practical that they go into the priest’s line, which avoids any doubt or confusion. Many EMHCs would not know how to handle such a situation. When I did my EMHC training recently, I was told that an EMHC may not confer a blessing, but may simply say something like “May God bless you”.

The wording quotes in LIBRERIA EDITRICE VATICANA (Article 6 (2)) is “Neither may deacons or non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions which are proper to the same priest celebrant.” Certainly then, an EMHC should not be using the Sign of the Cross to bless people and must never be blessing people using the Blessed Sacrament.

 

[ProVobis]

If someone wants to come up to receive a blessing, it is probably more practical that they go into the priest’s line, which avoids any doubt or confusion. Many EMHCs would not know how to handle such a situation. When I did my EMHC training recently, I was told that an EMHC may not confer a blessing, but may simply say something like “May God bless you”.

Theologically, would this be worth more than if I were to say the same to a sneezing person?

The wording quotes in LIBRERIA EDITRICE VATICANA (Article 6 (2)) is “Neither may deacons or non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions which are proper to the same priest celebrant.” Certainly then, an EMHC should not be using the Sign of the Cross to bless people and must never be blessing people using the Blessed Sacrament.

Thank you. While it doesn’t say a bishop can’t allow it, can one perhaps infer that its value diminishes if not exercised by the priest?

 

[FrDavid96]

Thank you but I am actually quite aware of how jurisdiction in the Church works…particularly among the dicasteries. I have been familiar with it for decades.

Which is why I said that if I am in a diocese where the bishop forbids it, then I don’t do it.

If I am in a diocese where the bishop commands it, then it is done.

Precisely because the jurisdiction of a diocesan bishop is coterminous with the boundary of his diocese, that works both ways…those who command to do it and those who forbid its being done extends the width and breadth of their diocese’s borders.

I can tell you, since you seem very interested in this subject, that a number of bishops petitioned for a resolution of this disputed question on the occasion of the Synod on the Eucharist in 2005, specifically asking the Pope to clarify the matter. It’s in the lineamenta. He chose not to favour their petition. In spite of the fact that he himself imparted these blessings and spoke about them actually, as did his predecessor before him.

I can also tell you that when the undersecretary wrote the oft-quoted letter, he limited his remarks in light of the fact that the matter was currently under review and the Congregation would soon be issuing a resolution. It’s only been some ten years – I am sure their resolution will someday appear, whenever the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments deems such resolution is opportune and the Holy Father approves it for publication.

In the absence of a definitive directive from the Holy See, personally I fully comply with the directive of the diocesan bishop, since it is his decision…and I really don’t give the matter that much thought beyond that since the decision does not rest with me – and far less does it rest with any member of any parish’s congregation, for that matter.

This is what I cannot understand. I would appreciate an explanation.

In the Church’s liturgical laws, we read over and over again that both the conferences of bishops and the individual bishops can only make decisions “within their own competence.”

The conference (any conference) can only propose changes to the Roman Missal, which must be approved by the Holy See before they can be implemented.

The individual bishops, likewise, can only act within their own competence.

I do not understand the logic or the reasoning that you’re employing here.

A prohibition against adding something to the Roman Missal, which has not been approved by Rome, requires a definitive act from the Holy See to be binding (as you stated in your last paragraph).

On the other hand, adding a ritual to the Mass requires only the approval of the local pastor, local bishop, or conference of bishops, without needing the approval of the Holy See.

I don’t understand the reasoning here.

I do not see how that can be possible given what the Church affirms (and has repeatedly re-affirmed) from Sacrosanctum Concilium

1. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.
2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.
3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.

I am merely asking for an explanation of the reasoning being employed because it confuses me.

Thanks.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

If someone wants to come up to receive a blessing, it is probably more practical that they go into the priest’s line, which avoids any doubt or confusion. Many EMHCs would not know how to handle such a situation. When I did my EMHC training recently, I was told that an EMHC may not confer a blessing, but may simply say something like “May God bless you”.

The wording quotes in LIBRERIA EDITRICE VATICANA (Article 6 (2)) is “Neither may deacons or non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions which are proper to the same priest celebrant.” Certainly then, an EMHC should not be using the Sign of the Cross to bless people and must never be blessing people using the Blessed Sacrament.

Libreria Editrice Vaticana is the publishing imprint of the Holy See…not the title of a publication. What exactly are you quoting from?

 

[peter26]

Libreria Editrice Vaticana is the publishing imprint of the Holy See…not the title of a publication. What exactly are you quoting from?

The document is called “Ecclesia de Mysterio”.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

This is what I cannot understand. I would appreciate an explanation.

In the Church’s liturgical laws, we read over and over again that both the conferences of bishops and the individual bishops can only make decisions “within their own competence.”

The conference (any conference) can only propose changes to the Roman Missal, which must be approved by the Holy See before they can be implemented.

The individual bishops, likewise, can only act within their own competence.

I do not understand the logic or the reasoning that you’re employing here.

A prohibition against adding something to the Roman Missal, which has not been approved by Rome, requires a definitive act from the Holy See to be binding (as you stated in your last paragraph).

On the other hand, adding a ritual to the Mass requires only the approval of the local pastor, local bishop, or conference of bishops, without needing the approval of the Holy See.

I don’t understand the reasoning here.

I do not see how that can be possible given what the Church affirms (and has repeatedly re-affirmed) from Sacrosanctum Concilium

1. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.
2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.
3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.

I am merely asking for an explanation of the reasoning being employed because it confuses me.

Thanks.

Father, since His Grace is now, by the gift of Pope Francis, the number two official at the CDW, rather than ask me, why don’t you submit a dubium to him? Both regarding the authority for the document from the Episcopal Conference and for the overarching issue that it addresses in paragraph 212. Perhaps you will occasion, at last, the definitive resolution to this matter.

If you cannot understand my logic or reasoning, I can only assure you that I understand yours no better. I have to presume, in good faith, that you are not asserted that whole lots of bishops do not understand what they are competent to decide on the one hand and what they must have a recognitio from the Holy See for on the other hand. I have always found bishops generally get that right, in my part of the world anyway.

Your question, frankly, makes no sense to me. In my day, I knew a number of elderly priests who, under the missal of Blessed Paul VI, continued to make the sign of the cross over the water in the cruet at the offertory, as they had in the vetus ordo. They blessed the water. Do you honestly see making the sign of the cross in blessing – whether it be over a cruet of water or the head of a person in the Communion line – as a gesture so significant that it rises to the level you are asserting from Sacrosanctum Concilium such that it alters the very celebration of the Mass itself and that it constitutes some sort of disruption to the rite?

Besides…why consult me? Consult your own bishop. The Cardinal of New York, for example, has a sound policy and that is what his clergy should do…they should comply with it. I presume the other American bishops have enacted a norm, like other bishops have. The American bishops seem to have an American efficiency about issuing norms and documents. Rare is the bishop who is undecided on any issue.

Frankly, in my visits to the United States, I have seen things – and had to do things – mandated by the diocesan bishop that caused me to raise more of an eyebrow as to liturgical propriety than my gesture of giving a blessing to non-communicants in the Communion line, which I have done for many decades – it was being done in the 60s relative to children who hadn’t made their first communion and now, in more recent decades, for adults. It causes me not the least qualm of conscience…not least because I saw both John Paul II and Benedict XVI do the exact same thing in response to the exact same gesture by which the person asks me for a blessing.

See question 12 on page 16.

nyliturgy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/EMHCGuidelines10.12.141.pdf

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The document is called “Ecclesia de Mysterio”.

Ah, the interdicasterial instruction.

 

[Brendan_64]

Frankly, in my visits to the United States, I have seen things – and had to do things – mandated by the diocesan bishop that caused me to raise more of an eyebrow as to liturgical propriety than my gesture of giving a blessing to non-communicants in the Communion line, which I have done for many decades – it was being done in the 60s relative to children who hadn’t made their first communion and now, in more recent decades, for adults. It causes me not the least qualm of conscience…not least because I saw both John Paul II and Benedict XVI do the exact same thing in response to the exact same gesture by which the person asks me for a blessing.

The difference Father, is that you are an ordained priest and an EMHC is a layperson with no ministerial status. You have the authority to give blessings to the congregation during Mass whereas Mrs Jones, the local shopkeeper, does not. Does a bishop have the authority to throw out liturgical regulations regarding this (Book of Blessings, Ecclesia Mysterio etc) simply because it is his diocese?

Can a document signed by no less than eight dicasteries of the Roman Curia, and approved by the Supreme Pontif in forma specifica be effectively over-ruled by a bishop simply because it is his diocese and he has authority over it? Can the authority of a bishop in his diocese over-rule a document that has the full weight and authority of a formal papal act within his diocese?

“The Supreme Pontiff, in Audience of the 13th of August 1997 approved in forma specifica this present Instruction and ordered its promulgation.”

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The difference Father, is that you are an ordained priest and an EMHC is a layperson with no ministerial status. You have the authority to give blessings to the congregation during Mass whereas Mrs Jones, the local shopkeeper, does not. Does a bishop have the authority to throw out liturgical regulations regarding this (Book of Blessings, Ecclesia Mysterio etc) simply because it is his diocese?

Can a document signed by no less than eight dicasteries of the Roman Curia, and approved by the Supreme Pontif in forma specifica be effectively over-ruled by a bishop simply because it is his diocese and he has authority over it? Can the authority of a bishop in his diocese over-rule a document that has the full weight and authority of a formal papal act within his diocese?

“The Supreme Pontiff, in Audience of the 13th of August 1997 approved in forma specifica this present Instruction and ordered its promulgation.”

I believe my response was transparently clear.

If your Mrs. Jones is standing next to me as the extraordinary minister and I am in a diocese where the bishop directs that extraordinary ministers handle this matter themselves, then that is exactly what I would tell her to do – and expect her to do. When I am in a diocese where the Cardinal says she is to make a sign to me and I am to give the blessing, that is what I would expect her to do and I, in turn, would do exactly what the Cardinal directs.

If a person does not like that response, that person then may take up the matter with the bishop whose directive I am carrying out and then with the CDW from whom we are still awaiting a final directive – but, once I have responded in any circumstance in which I have jurisdiction, there is absolutely no point in further trying to discuss the topic with me. The decision has been made and the topic is closed…until someone who is the diocesan bishop, or above, says otherwise.

 

[Brendan_64]

I believe my response was transparently clear.

If your Mrs. Jones is standing next to me as the extraordinary minister and I am in a diocese where the bishop directs that extraordinary ministers handle this matter themselves, then that is exactly what I would tell her to do – and expect her to do. When I am in a diocese where the Cardinal says she is to make a sign to me and I am to give the blessing, that is what I would expect her to do and I, in turn, would do exactly what the Cardinal directs.

If a person does not like that response, that person then may take up the matter with the bishop whose directive I am carrying out and then with the CDW from whom we are still awaiting a final directive – but, once I have responded in any circumstance in which I have jurisdiction, there is absolutely no point in further trying to discuss the topic with me. The decision has been made and the topic is closed…until someone who is the diocesan bishop, or above, says otherwise.

Father you ignore the issue of a document issued in forma specifica. Such a document carries the full weight and authority as a papal act. Eclessiae de Mysterio is not simply an “interdicasterial instruction” as you call it, it carries the full weight and authority as a papal act. Not even a cardinal has the authority to instruct or permit an action that is contrary to such a document.

Blessing the congregation during Mass is an action to be carried out by the clergy and Eclessiae de Mysterio makes it clear (with full weight of papal authority) that the laity should never say prayers or perform actions during the Mass which are proper to the priest.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Father you ignore the issue of a document issued in forma specifica. Such a document carries the full weight and authority as a papal act. Eclessiae de Mysterio is not simply an “interdicasterial instruction” as you call it, it carries the full weight and authority as a papal act. Not even a cardinal has the authority to instruct or permit an action that is contrary to such a document.

Blessing the congregation during Mass is an action to be carried out by the clergy and Eclessiae de Mysterio makes it clear (with full weight of papal authority) that the laity should never say prayers or perform actions during the Mass which are proper to the priest.

I find your tone and your allegations absurd…and very ill-considered in light of how little you actually know.

I ignore nothing. I am actually quite acquainted with the interdicasterial instruction, which has existed for just shy of 20 years.

The decisions concerning the pastoral care and governance of a diocese are not yours to take just as the applications you are voicing are not yours to make. That belongs to others…not to you. And, as I said, I have no interest in what you think on these issues…neither relative to my own actions nor the dispositions operative in my diocese.

And that concludes the matter as far as any further response from me to you.