Can I recieve a blessing.

[benedictgal]

The question has been raised time and time again when this issue is discussed as to the authority of the CDWDS. Here it is, straight from the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus:

Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments

Art. 62 — The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments does whatever pertains to the Apostolic See concerning the regulation and promotion of the sacred liturgy, primarily of the sacraments, without prejudice to the competence of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Art. 63 — It fosters and safeguards the regulation of the administration of the sacraments, especially regarding their valid and licit celebration. It grants favours and dispensations not contained in the faculties of diocesan bishops in this matter.

Art. 64 — § 1. By effective and suitable means, the Congregation promotes liturgical pastoral activity, especially regarding the celebration of the Eucharist; it gives support to the diocesan bishops so that the Christian faithful may share more and more actively in the sacred liturgy.

§ 2. It sees to the drawing up and revision of liturgical texts. It reviews particular calendars and proper texts for the Mass and the Divine Office for particular Churches and institutes which enjoy that right.

§ 3. It grants the recognitio to translations of liturgical books and their adaptations that have been lawfully prepared by conferences of bishops.

Art. 65 — The Congregation fosters commissions or institutes for promoting the liturgical apostolate or sacred music, song or art, and it maintains relations with them. In accordance with the law, it erects associations which have an international character or approves or grants the recognitio to their statutes. Finally, it contributes to the progress of liturgical life by encouraging meetings from various regions.

Art. 66 — The Congregation provides attentive supervision to ensure that liturgical norms are accurately observed, and that abuses are avoided and eliminated where they are found to exist.

It gives support to the bishops in order to maintain the integrity of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The CDWDS acts in and with the authority of the Holy See.

 

[FAB]

Th recent pratice is: every liturgical committee or priest starts whatever the want, without any permission, and claim that if the rejection (of the pastor, of the diocese, of the Apostolic See) was not effective, than this is their God given democratic right, to form the liturgy to their image. This is wrong, the ‘You will be like God, know good and evil’ principle. .

Although I don’t believe what you are saying is the case, I do believe they start with the Rites, but what always seems to be ignored is the authority of the ordinary to adapt the liturgy for local customs and practices. There is also the practice in the church is that if a local custom continues over a certain number of years, I don’t have the number, it can become part of the rite.

The Rites are not as legalistic as posters want to make them. Even a historical account of the TLM which so many site, was changed almost immediately after it was issued.

 

[laszlo]

Although I don’t believe what you are saying is the case, I do believe they start with the Rites, but what always seems to be ignored is the authority of the ordinary to adapt the liturgy for local customs and practices.

Wuth the approval of the Apostolic See, except for the cases where the law admits their independence

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.

The Church is not democracy. Everything is forbidden which is not explicitly permitted. Jesus Christ gave the binding and loosing power to the hierarchy, not to the laity, lower clergy or even individual bishops. The hierarchy can sahre this power, but had to do so explicitly. There is not even resemblance of the democracy: do whatever I want unless it is forbidden.

NB. The control over the Liturgy was in the hand of the Ordinary until St Pius V. He abolished this right (except for the local calendars) , and it was not brought back. Only the Hierarchy (Pope and the Council) could change it back.

 

[FAB]

Yes, Christ was pastoral, and being pastoral is good, but using the excuse of being “pastoral” to be disobedient is bad. That happens a lot today. That’s all I’m saying.

It did say it was under study. But it didn’t stop there. It still said that according to the church’s past teaching, this is not to be done. That means that it is being studied, but unless we hear otherwise, we still shouldn’t do it.

I believe you are failing to understand how the CDWDS works. This is not simply an opinion.

When the CDWDS replies to letters, they are binding, and are published in a publication called the noterae (spelling?). Yes, it came from an individual, Fr. Anthony Ward, to be specific, but this letter carries the weight of the holy father’s authority in the area of liturgy.

Why do you think this is simply an opinion? If all it does is offer opinions, what is the point of having a CDWDS?

The letter came from a lay person and was replied to that same individual. For Ward offered his observation, taken from documents, the letter does say in anyway therefor I rule or it is the ruling of… . the fact that once again Fr. Ward indicates that the matter is being studied indicates exactly that under study. Rulings from the Church as a matter of course when giving a specific directive, contain specific wording to the effect.
As examples, the directive that only ordinary ministers or acolytes could purify sacred vessels, or that the vessels themselves were to be made out of precious metals or materials. the wording in those documents are considerably different, they also followed a format of publicly being published through recognized channels. This letter does not meet those criteria.

 

[Cristiano]

The Church is not democracy. Everything is forbidden which is not explicitly permitted. …

Where do you come with this kind of statement? Can you please show how your understanding of ecclesiastical law allows you to reach that conclusion?

Ecclesiastical law in particular for the Latin Rite is based on the Roman law. Roman law is mainly based on an assumption that is opposite to yours. It can be briefly summarized with “anything that is not forbidden is then allowed”.

 

[FAB]

Wuth the approval of the Apostolic See, except for the cases where the law admits their independence

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.

The Church is not democracy. Everything is forbidden which is not explicitly permitted. Jesus Christ gave the binding and loosing power to the hierarchy, not to the laity, lower clergy or even individual bishops. The hierarchy can sahre this power, but had to do so explicitly. There is not even resemblance of the democracy: do whatever I want unless it is forbidden.

NB. The control over the Liturgy was in the hand of the Ordinary until St Pius V. He abolished this right (except for the local calendars) , and it was not brought back. Only the Hierarchy (Pope and the Council) could change it back.

Lazlo, there needs to be a distinction between what we are discussing. I am speaking, with the issue of the laity, that from the second Vatican Council, have been given a specific and required voice in the church. It is the responsibility of the ordained to take that voice in consideration when making decisions. Those voices are to give direction to a parish and even a diocese. To determine how best to serve the faithful if a particular area.
The needs in suburban Chicago are far different for the poverty in South America
This is different from saying that that they have power to change a specific part of any rite.
The Second Vatican Council also recognized that a single, cooky cutter, legalistic form of the liturgy would not work in all places for all times. We thus have, as mandated by the council, bishops councils for each country or region. Yes they have to have approval from Rome i.e communion in the hand, and these approvals are given all the time.
It is also true that the local ordinary, within the Authority granted to him will allow certain actions and dispensations.

 

[benedictgal]

The letter came from a lay person and was replied to that same individual. For Ward offered his observation, taken from documents, the letter does say in anyway therefor I rule or it is the ruling of… . the fact that once again Fr. Ward indicates that the matter is being studied indicates exactly that under study. Rulings from the Church as a matter of course when giving a specific directive, contain specific wording to the effect.

As examples, the directive that only ordinary ministers or acolytes could purify sacred vessels, or that the vessels themselves were to be made out of precious metals or materials. the wording in those documents are considerably different, they also followed a format of publicly being published through recognized channels. This letter does not meet those criteria.

However, one point that proponents of this ilicit practice seem to miss is that Fr. Ward’s letter (and, he is a ranking authority within the CDWDS), quotes what is already existing canonical and liturgical law.

 

[benedictgal]

It is also true that the local ordinary, within the Authority granted to him will allow certain actions and dispensations.

However, the local ordinary does not have the authority to invent a ritual and insert it into the Mass. This goes beyond what he can do. That seems to me to be the point that everyone is missing.

 

[FAB]

However, the local ordinary does not have the authority to invent a ritual and insert it into the Mass. This goes beyond what he can do. That seems to me to be the point that everyone is missing.

The blessing of children coming up in the commuion line has been going on for at least 30 years or more. I’m not certain were the practice began, nor do I think anyone else could trace it’s beginings. I suspect not no long after we started recieving in procession and a mother or father carried a child forward and it was blessed by the priest. THe practice grew from there.
Except on this and similar sites, I have never seen the issue addressed. Because of the lenght of time it has been practiced, it falls under the category of local custom I spoke about and how such a practice, performed over a period of time, becomes the accepted norm. Until that definitive answercome from rome, if ever, the practice will continue.

 

[benedictgal]

The blessing of children coming up in the commuion line has been going on for at least 30 years or more. I’m not certain were the practice began, nor do I think anyone else could trace it’s beginings. I suspect not no long after we started recieving in procession and a mother or father carried a child forward and it was blessed by the priest. THe practice grew from there.
Except on this and similar sites, I have never seen the issue addressed. Because of the lenght of time it has been practiced, it falls under the category of local custom I spoke about and how such a practice, performed over a period of time, becomes the accepted norm. Until that definitive answercome from rome, if ever, the practice will continue.

However, there is a precedent in not admitting ilicit things due to “custom”. That was certainly the case with “lay preaching”. Furthermore, because this constitutes adding something to the Mass that is not in either the Roman Missal nor in the GIRM, this is something that would have to be submitted by the national episcopal conference and then, after it receives the affirmative vote of 2/3 of the Latin-rite bishops, await the approval or the denial from Rome.

 

[asd72]

I am in the same situation as you. I was baptized as a baby in the Anglican church, and I want to be confirmed in the Catholic church. It seems from my enquiries that I won’t be starting RCIA until September and won’t be confirmed until next Easter. I am choosing not to go up for blessings.

I have found prayers I am going to use while others go up for communion until I can receive. I thought I would share them with you.

Oh Jesus, I turn toward the holy tabernacle where you live hidden for love of me.
I love you, Oh my God. I cannot receive you in holy communion, come nevertheless and visit me with your grace.
Come spiritually into my heart. Purify it. Sanctify it. Render like unto your own.
Amen

Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

 

[FAB]

However, one point that proponents of this ilicit practice seem to miss is that Fr. Ward’s letter (and, he is a ranking authority within the CDWDS), quotes what is already existing canonical and liturgical law.

benedictgal, you know the format of church documents, this letter doesn’t follow those formats. I don’t doubt the authorty of Fr. Ward, but he seemed to give himself some wiggle room. “Under study” being the biggest one. I understand he uses several point to indicate a question about the practice. The biggest point made was that the blessing could not come from an EMHC. There is also a concern that certain acts are not being condoned by giving a blessing.

 

[FAB]

However, there is a precedent in not admitting ilicit things due to “custom”. That was certainly the case with “lay preaching”. Furthermore, because this constitutes adding something to the Mass that is not in either the Roman Missal nor in the GIRM, this is something that would have to be submitted by the national episcopal conference and then, after it receives the affirmative vote of 2/3 of the Latin-rite bishops, await the approval or the denial from Rome.

Lay preaching was specifically prohibited in the rite.
I am afraid that I have to split hairs with here on if asking for and recieving a blessing in the communion line is adding anything to the rite. It might be considered a form of personal devotion, with is not prohibited.
When someone comes to me for a blessing at any time, my mind does not go back to some letter to tell that person no I can’t, I give them my blessing. If I were not to do so I would be doing them harm, in thier faith and in their spirit.

I await the 2/3 vote to tell me to do otherwise.

 

[benedictgal]

Lay preaching was specifically prohibited in the rite.
I am afraid that I have to split hairs with here on if asking for and recieving a blessing in the communion line is adding anything to the rite. It might be considered a form of personal devotion, with is not prohibited.
When someone comes to me for a blessing at any time, my mind does not go back to some letter to tell that person no I can’t, I give them my blessing. If I were not to do so I would be doing them harm, in thier faith and in their spirit.

I await the 2/3 vote to tell me to do otherwise.

Actually, it is not a matter of “splitting hairs”. When the celebrant issues the invitation “Ecce Agnus Dei”, he is inviting those faithful who are properly disposed to receive Jesus in Holy Communion, not a blessing. There is nothing in the Rite that explicitly, nor implicitly states that those who cannot receive are to come forward for a blessing. It is not in the rubrics, therefore, it is not permitted.

What this boils down to here is obedience to what the Holy See, through the CDWDS, has already stated. Fr. Ward actually writes nothing new. He merely restates what is already in the books. What is in the books needs to be obeyed, by both clergy (including bishops) and laity.

 

[happymommy]

A priest in our parish told us not to approach during communion for a blessing. He explained everyone will receive a blessing at the end of mass.

If many in a particular parish are doing so, you could consider it, but as someone earlier stated, only approach the priest for a blessing.

Ours told people to do it

 

[FAB]

Actually, it is not a matter of “splitting hairs”. When the celebrant issues the invitation “Ecce Agnus Dei”, he is inviting those faithful who are properly disposed to receive Jesus in Holy Communion, not a blessing. There is nothing in the Rite that explicitly, nor implicitly states that those who cannot receive are to come forward for a blessing. It is not in the rubrics, therefore, it is not permitted.

What this boils down to here is obedience to what the Holy See, through the CDWDS, has already stated. Fr. Ward actually writes nothing new. He merely restates what is already in the books. What is in the books needs to be obeyed, by both clergy (including bishops) and laity.

My ordinary is a stickley for following the canon and the rites, but yet he has never addressed this practice, in fact I have witnessed him on more than one occation bless people in line. There is a real disconnect here. Since I answer directly to my ordinary it is his direction I follow, the CDWDS then needs to direct their concerns to the shepherds and not the sheep.

 

[benedictgal]

My ordinary is a stickley for following the canon and the rites, but yet he has never addressed this practice, in fact I have witnessed him on more than one occation bless people in line. There is a real disconnect here. Since I answer directly to my ordinary it is his direction I follow, the CDWDS then needs to direct their concerns to the shepherds and not the sheep.

Actually, it does not necessarily matter who the CDWDS directs it to as it must be obeyed. The disconnect here, sadly, is that there are those who, despite reading it from the CDWDS, will still choose to ignore what the Holy See has said. There is already existing Canon law and liturgical law that has already been quoted. The Holy See is the prevailing authority here, not the local bishop.

 

[cradlecatholic5]

GO FOR THE BLESSING!!!


LOVE IT!! and I agree!

 

[benedictgal]

GO FOR THE BLESSING!!!


LOVE IT!! and I agree!

Actually, with all due respect, it would be uncharitable for us to recommend that the OP do something that the Holy See has already stated is “explicitly discouraged.” We form a line to receive Someone, Jesus in Holy Communion, not something, a blessing that will be imparted on everyone, Catholic or not, at the end of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

However, the local ordinary does not have the authority to invent a ritual and insert it into the Mass. This goes beyond what he can do. That seems to me to be the point that everyone is missing.

I don’t think anyone is missing the point. I think most just don’t care. I’ve seen Bishops with canon law degrees give blessings to people in the communion line. Everyone seems to be aware of the CDWDS’s position, they just choose to ignore it.