As parents (and godparents) are invited to make the sign of the cross on the forehead of their children who are being baptized, it is entirely appropriate for a mother to make the sign of the cross over her sons as they are ordained.
Did they teach logic in the sophisticated seminaries of the 1980s? I know "non sequitur" is Latin, which is soooo 1940s, but come on. By your reasoning, every layperson should just bless anyone, waving their hands around like a priest, because look--the Catechism says they're priests who should bless!
No, Ol' Nick, my logic doesn't lead to every layperson just blessing anyone, waving hands around like a priest. (BTW, we don't "wave our hands around" when we give blessings.) My comment very specifically - so specifically you probably missed it - was about parents blessing their children.
You may have wanted to be specific but your own source does not support such specificity. Without any limiting principle but your bootstrapping ipse dixit, which I take for what it's worth, your "logic" extends farther than you'd like. Oh, well.
My comment also specifically--so specifically you probably missed it--referred to laity doing a gesture "like a priest," because not being priests, they are waving their hands around, as I certainly hope laypeople would not in good faith appropriate gestures proper to a priest (nor am I so much a clericalist that I think the laity also need to be clericalized). Not, in fact, that priests are waving their hands around when offering a blessing.
12 comments:
Parents can bless their children, but the sign of the cross as if by a priest... that's a no from me, chief.
Nick
As parents (and godparents) are invited to make the sign of the cross on the forehead of their children who are being baptized, it is entirely appropriate for a mother to make the sign of the cross over her sons as they are ordained.
LOL
All Highest K, another cheesy post V II touch
That doesn't follow. The prescribed gesture for a Catholic rite versus... what Fr. MJK asserts.
Nick
Follow? If parents can bless their children at Baptism, why not at ordination?
Since, "Every blessing praises God and prays for his gifts” (CCC 1671) what's objectionable?
Further, “Sacramentals derive from the baptismal priesthood: every baptized person is called to be a ‘blessing’ and to bless” (CCC, 1669).
Did they teach logic in the sophisticated seminaries of the 1980s? I know "non sequitur" is Latin, which is soooo 1940s, but come on. By your reasoning, every layperson should just bless anyone, waving their hands around like a priest, because look--the Catechism says they're priests who should bless!
Right.
Nick
Nick,
The All Highest K obviously failed logic, he votes for "abortion as healthcare!"
No, Ol' Nick, my logic doesn't lead to every layperson just blessing anyone, waving hands around like a priest. (BTW, we don't "wave our hands around" when we give blessings.) My comment very specifically - so specifically you probably missed it - was about parents blessing their children.
Oh, Mick.
You may have wanted to be specific but your own source does not support such specificity. Without any limiting principle but your bootstrapping ipse dixit, which I take for what it's worth, your "logic" extends farther than you'd like. Oh, well.
My comment also specifically--so specifically you probably missed it--referred to laity doing a gesture "like a priest," because not being priests, they are waving their hands around, as I certainly hope laypeople would not in good faith appropriate gestures proper to a priest (nor am I so much a clericalist that I think the laity also need to be clericalized). Not, in fact, that priests are waving their hands around when offering a blessing.
Nick
See this phrase that comes BEFORE my sources: " If parents can bless their children at Baptism, why not at ordination?"
See this word in that phrase: "PARENTS"?
Yes. In response, I won’t be so glib as to point to specific contents of your very own comments.
Nick
Post a Comment