Just because hundreds of people do it and some Bishops are negligent in their duties, doesn’t make it right. If you go on YouTube, you’ll see puppet Masses and clown Masses. The Vatican has written the The General Instruction of the Roman Missal for the churches to follow. In some cases, if asked, it will send out corrections when requested, but even these, unfortunately are ignored and not enforced by priests and bishops. For example, the wide practice of holding hands during the “Our Father” has been prohibited by the Vatican, but you wouldn’t know it by walking in some churches (http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/holding_hands_at_mass.htm).
Seriously, now you’re citing a TV network website as the last word on Canon Law? Anyway, did you even read what had been written? It says that you shouldn’t substitute the hand holding for the sign of peace.* This doesn’t mean that the Vatican has prohibited holding hands. The part you’ve linked to is an extract from “Notitiae”, which announces itself as “the journal of the Congregation (no word on which congregation - always inspires confidence when people don’t even say who they are) in which its official *interpretations *of the rubrics are published” (my italics). The second part, which is even further and more convoluted interpretation of the article which was interpreting the rubric, was written by one Colin B. Donovan. Not really a Papal Bull, then… You’ll note that the only bit of Canon Law he managed to get in there, just to give himself some semblance of credibility by having a reference, is the bit that says that the Holy See is in charge of the Liturgy. Well, no shit. The original article from which Donovan is extrapolating wildly, by the way, was written in 1975, from what I can see. Canon Law changes, you know. Most recently on 15 December 2009. Now find me something up to date, or at least, you know, serious. Not a TV website.
If you have a reference for either of these things from the GIRM, let’s see it. Otherwise, I think I’ll keep thinking that the bishops and archbishops - fuck, even cardinals, though they do tend to have more priests at hand, so to speak - in whose churches and cathedrals I have witnessed blessings, are probably righter than you. As for holding hands during the Our Father, it’s an affectation and not the way we mostly do things here, but I don’t think they’ll be excommunicating anyone soon, no matter how much you might want them to. Let me guess, you’re dead against women priests, gays in the clergy and the Mass in the vernacular. How do you feel about the priest facing the congregation?
*By the way, ScareyFaerie, at some point the priest/bishop will say something like “Let us offer each other a sign of peace” and all of a sudden everyone around you will offer to shake your hand. As they do so, they’ll say “Peace be with you”. It would be polite, but is not essential, to shake, and say the same back. It’s the only response you may want to bother with, being as it is face-to-face with the people near you.
Agreed.
Taking Communion is a big, monumental no-no if you’re not prepared/on-board with The Church. The way I understand it is that the Eucharist doesn’t symbolize the body of Christ. It IS the body of Christ. I’m not the best Catholic out here, but the gist of it is this: You have to be reconciled (i.e., confessed & repented) and believe in what it is you are about to do - eat & drink God. If you don’t meet these conditions, you’re not fit to receive Communion. Don’t be jealous… I’ve never tasted a host that I’ve liked.
Other than that, just sit there and/or play follow-the-leader when it comes to sit/stand/kneel and repeat-after-me stuff.
They run a Q&A with individual who have knowledge of this subject. You can check the background of the individuals who answer the questions if you like(http://www.ewtn.com/faith/QA/expertslist.htm). EWTN merely provides the means of bringing them together. The Congregation in question is the Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship. The Notitiae is their monthly publication. Their rulings have papal support and enforcement unless overruled or changed by the Pope as he did with the diaconate in your example. However, I haven’t found anything saying a priest, etc can make changes to the Mass as they wish.
Actually, the burden would be for them to show where in the GIRM that their activities are allowed. If it’s not in there, it’s not allowed. Just because one is a priest or cardinal, doesn’t make them right in all matters. I realize I should have said discouraged, not prohibited in my previous post. Now, if they do want to make holding hands or blessing people parts of the Liturgy, they can ask the Congregation for a dispensation. This was done for receiving the Eucharist in hand when by tongue was the norm. It started as a personal practice, grew and the Bishops asked permission to have it allowed. Although, I know some priests who still refuse to honor it. “Cafeteria” Catholicism isn’t just for liberals. As for the other issues, the Church has already spoken on those matters.
Backing this. As Anglicans, mw wife and I received Communion once in a Catholic church validly and licitly by their terms (by our own, any communion offered would have been valid and licit). On the occasion in question, Barb and I were invited guests at the profession of a Catholic friend of hers in the Franciscans (as background, Barb is life professed in the ANglicn Franciscan order). A bishop was present and presided at Mass, and had occasion to speak politely with Barb before service. When Communion was being administered, we went forward for the blessing, as was appropriate for us; the bishop nodded to the priest, who proceeded to commune us. I’m assuming that the bishop’s conversation with Barb had satisfied him that our beliefs were sufficiently in accord with Catholicism for us to justify offering us communion. But it was a monumental gesture on his part.
So you reject Vatican II, then? Because it explicitly stated that Bishops are collegially, in communion with the Pope, in authority over the worldwide liturgy, and the authorities, insofar as they do not contravene mandated norms, over how the liturgy is to be conducted in their dioceses. If one bishop forbids any celebration of the Tridentine Mass in parishes under his authority, while another permits its common use, both are acting with the authority and discretion they hold. And the same would hold true for whether, and under what limits, an EMHC may pronounce a blessing. (FWIW, Canon Law restricts deacons and laymen from pronouncing blessings except as specifically authorized by proper authority, so it would require authorization or consent from bishop or pastor to do so.)
I think you’re regarding Vatican authority as far more pervasive than believing Catholics acting in accordance with canon law actually apply it.
No, as I said, the Church has spoken on those matters. Thus, I accept Vatican II. Using the Tridentine Mass example, previously, it could only be celebrated by elderly priests. It wasn’t until 1984 that the Congregation gave an indult to allow its use by priest and people who requested it. The authority was given to the Bishops to do this, as you stated. That’s the issue here. EMHCs don’t have authority to give blessings and the Bishops don’t have authority to grant it. By allowing them to do blessings, they are contravening the norms.
Another one weighing in here on the “this is a complete contradiction of Roman Catholic beliefs and practices” side of things. Perhaps you’re confusing it with another Christian denomination?
The Roman Catholic Church teaches a doctrine referred to as transubstantiation: the consecrated Eucharistic bread and wine has been transformed into the *literal *body and blood of Jesus Christ. For anyone who does not also believe in this literal transformation to also partake in Communion is incredibly disrespectful. For example, although I was *raised *Catholic (even Confirmed, heh), since I am now an atheist, on any occasion where I attend a Mass (pretty much just weddings or funerals these days), I stay at my pew during Communion.
Sometimes, either the speaker or the responder may simply shorten it to, “Peace.” Or it could come out as one long, mumbled-together string of “Peabewiyou.” 
Pretty much any expression of the same sentiment is acceptable. Some folks expand it out further to “May the peace of Jesus be with you”, and I’ve occasionally even heard a “Shalom” or “Salaam”.
Nitpick to Shot from Guns’s otherwise excellent post: *As a matter of practice, *Catholic authorities do not require belief in specifically Thomistic transubstantiation of non-Catholic communicants – but absolute belief in some form of the Real Presence is. That’s not to say some priest or bishop might not require adherence to transubstantiation, and I don’t know what the official instructions say – I’m speaking of how it’s practically applied.
Grew up Roman Catholic, and I see it this way as well. Communion is a sacred rite for only those who subscribe to the belief the rite entails.
Jormungandr, keep in mind that EWTN tends toward the very conservative side of Catholicism.
That’s true. However, I across a book on Amazon’s (rather screwy at times) recommendations that apparently didn’t think they were conservative enough.
Regardless, your sources are definitely taking a very… specific view of things. The local parishes are not exactly liberal Catholics here, but the practice is widespread across the United States and approved by multiple past and present Bishops, as well as every single Catholic church I’ve ever visited in my entire life.