Can I recieve a blessing.

[FAB]

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.

My objection is that the letter does not follow the proceedure as called for

Art. 52 — The Congregation examines offences against the faith and more serious ones both in behaviour or in the celebration of the sacraments which have been reported to it and, if need be, proceeds to the declaration or imposition of canonical sanctions in accordance with the norms of common or proper law.

I agreed that the letter quotes section of exisitng doctrine, but still in it’s form left the question open. Once again the practice is “under study” and is “discouraged” but the word prohibited or like word is missing. Letter is not a “declaration of impostion of canonical sanctions”. Perhaps it is best to wait for when and if that happens.

 

[BVM_1221]

As a baptised christian but not a confirmed Catholic yet can I recieve a blessing instead of communion? If I can do I need to cross my arms over my chest to let the priest know I cannot take communion?

That may depend on the Priest. One should ask beforehand.

Last year I was 6 weeks in Greece. No Catholic Churchs where I was staying. I attended a lot of Orthodox Churches, and politely informed the Priest that I was Catholic and thus unable to receive communion. Could I have a blessing instead? 100% smiles and yes.

 

[Godfollower]

{Snip}It clearly says that within the context of Mass, laypeople are unable to confer blessings, and should not attempt to. (bullet pt. #2)

It also says that blessings should never be given instead of communion (see attachment, bullet pt. #5)

How much clearer do you need? The CDWDS, who issued this letter, speaks with the authority of the holy father in the area of liturgy. What they have said is the final word on the matter, and every bishop and priest of the whole world is bound to obey them.

The CDWDS is much more than an opinion base. They act with the authority of the holy father in the area of liturgy, and are to be obeyed.

All priests have vowed obedience to their bishops, and in turn, all bishops (and cardinals, btw) have promised obedience to the holy father (and his agents, such as the CDWDS). This is not an optional thing. There is to be no blessings at communion.

The church has said this VERY clearly.

To those who think these blessings are ok:
Why do you not accept the church’s teaching on this matter?

The church is not a democracy.

**You are still missing the point. **
The Holy Father, through his office that handles liturgy and sacraments, has said that blessings should not be given during communion time. It may be approved in the future, but right now, it’s not, and should not be done.

In the original letter (from the american to Rome) it specifically asks:
Is this a custom that is within the faculty of a pastor, the local Ordinary, or a Bishops’ Conference to establish?

And they still answer that blessings should not be given. They also not that:

This matter is presently under the attentive study of the Congregation.

So while it may be approved in the future, it is still not approved at the current time, in fact, it is explicitly discouraged.

{Snip}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?

I wish someone would explain a couple of things to me.

1. When did the Church decide that a private letter from the CDWDS to a private citizen would have binding effect on the whole Church? Shouldn’t other interested parties be given the chance to comment on the issue?
2. For that matter, when did CAF decide to let users post those private letters? Isn’t there some sort of permission process required? If I were Fr. Ward, I’m not sure I’d appreciate my letters being posted on the internet without my knowing it (sure, it was originally posted without his name, but the poster later gave his name on this thread).
3. If the CDWDS letter is binding on the whole Church, is the inquirer’s letter published, too, for context?
4. Does the fact that a question in the inquirer’s letter (“Is this a custom that is within the faculty of a pastor, the local Ordinary, or a Bishops’ Conference to establish?”) was explicitly not answered mean that it’s an open question, and perhaps the pastor, or the ordinary, or the bishops’ conference does have that faculty? Or does that silence mean something else?
5. What is the significance of the CDWDS letter’s failure to cite authority in paragraphs 3 and 5 when it so easily did so in paragraphs 2 and 4? Wouldn’t citations have helped?
6. How is a pastor to interpret paragraph 3 in light of the inquirers’ letter’s reference to both ordinary and extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion? Is the “to be explicitly discouraged” language aimed at all ministers of Holy Communion generally, or only the extraordinary ones? On the other hand, is that merely a reference to the laying on of hands not being an acceptable substitution for reception of Holy Communion?
7. Paragraph 5 refers to some interesting sets of people not to be blessed: “others who are not to be admitted to Holy Communion in accord with the norm of law” – that is, “non-Catholics and those envisaged in can. 915 (i.e., those under the penalty of excommunication or interdict, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin).” Does that mean that others can go up for a blessing? I’m thinking here of Catholics who are not under penalty of excommunication or interdict and who do not obstinately persist in manifest grave sin. Clearly Fr. Ward was concerned about the divorced-and-remarried crowd. Was that perhaps the limit of his intent?
8. If the letter itself is merely declarative of “past teaching,” why isn’t the past teaching cited in the letter? For that matter, why do we need the letter to know the rule? Isn’t the “past teaching” enough?

 

[TheMc]

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.

Actually, the biggest point made was that the blessing should not come from anyone. His comment about not coming from an EMHC was another reason why they shouldn’t be done.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

1. When did the Church decide that a private letter from the CDWDS to a private citizen would have binding effect on the whole Church? Shouldn’t other interested parties be given the chance to comment on the issue?

The CDWDS is an official interpretive arm of the Church. Its “opinions” usually carry the weight of law. Sometimes what it issues is relevant only to a specific case, other times the specific case carries ramifactions for many other things.

1. For that matter, when did CAF decide to let users post those private letters? Isn’t there some sort of permission process required? If I were Fr. Ward, I’m not sure I’d appreciate my letters being posted on the internet without my knowing it (sure, it was originally posted without his name, but the poster later gave his name on this thread).

If the CDWDS is issuing an official intrepretation then it is a public matter.

1. If the CDWDS letter is binding on the whole Church, is the inquirer’s letter published, too, for context?

That I’m not too sure about. While the CDWDS is looking to put a stop to certain practices, its also not looking to “name and shame” the clergy.

1. What is the significance of the CDWDS letter’s failure to cite authority in paragraphs 3 and 5 when it so easily did so in paragraphs 2 and 4? Wouldn’t citations have helped?

Not much since the CDWDS is an authority itself.

As for the rest of your questions, I don’t have the letter in view of me at the moment so I can’t comment.

 

[TheMc]

I wish someone would explain a couple of things to me.

While I’m not an expert on the CDWDS (That’s BenedictGal), I’ll answer what I can.

Godfollower:

. Does the fact that a question in the inquirer’s letter (“Is this a custom that is within the faculty of a pastor, the local Ordinary, or a Bishops’ Conference to establish?”) was explicitly not answered mean that it’s an open question, and perhaps the pastor, or the ordinary, or the bishops’ conference does have that faculty? Or does that silence mean something else?

I can be fairly sure that the silence means that the priest does not have the faculty, because it was not given to him.

Godfollower:

. What is the significance of the CDWDS letter’s failure to cite authority in paragraphs 3 and 5 when it so easily did so in paragraphs 2 and 4? Wouldn’t citations have helped?

Yes it would have, but it does not mean that paragraphs 3 and 5 mean nothing.

Godfollower:

. Paragraph 5 refers to some interesting sets of people not to be blessed: “others who are not to be admitted to Holy Communion in accord with the norm of law” – that is, “non-Catholics and those envisaged in can. 915 (i.e., those under the penalty of excommunication or interdict, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin).” Does that mean that others can go up for a blessing? I’m thinking here of Catholics who are not under penalty of excommunication or interdict and who do not obstinately persist in manifest grave sin. Clearly Fr. Ward was concerned about the divorced-and-remarried crowd. Was that perhaps the limit of his intent?

I don’t think that was the limit of his intent. I will break down that paragraph below, with [my comments].

In a similar way, for others who are not to be admitted to Holy Communion in accord with the norm of law, the Church’s discipline has already made clear that they should not approach Holy Communion nor receive a blessing.
*[Note what it says: People who can’t receive communion should not come up or receive a blessing. That means everyone who can’t receive. It then goes on below to point out a few cases which would make someone unable to receive]

This would include**[It says “This would include.” That means Father Ward is pointing out a few cases where people can not receive communion, but he is not saying these are the only reasons:]* non-Catholics and those envisaged in can. 915 (i.e., those under the penalty of excommunication or interdict, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin).

Godfollower:

If the letter itself is merely declarative of “past teaching,” why isn’t the past teaching cited in the letter?

That is a very good question, one I can’t answer, but since it is coming from the CDWDS, we also need to learn to accept it because it comes from them. They have the authority in the area of liturgy, and if they say “it should be done this way”, then it should, even if they don’t tell us why.

Godfollower:

For that matter, why do we need the letter to know the rule? Isn’t the “past teaching” enough?

Here’s some past teaching I found on the matter. This should be enough to stop the practice, even without the letter. Argue all you want, but the plain truth is that it is not in the approved liturgical books, and it should not be done. If you don’t agree with me, take a look at this:

•Sacrosanctum Concilium art. 22.3 (1963)
o Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.

•Canon 846.1 (1983)
o The liturgical books approved by the competent authority are to be faithfully observed in the celebration of the sacraments; therefore no one on personal authority may add, remove or change anything in them.

•Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1125 (1992)
o For this reason no sacramental rite may be modified or manipulated at the will of the minister or the community. Even the supreme authority of the Church may not change the liturgy arbitrarily, but only in obedience of faith and with religious respect for the mystery of the liturgy.

•General Instruction of the Roman Missal, no. 24 (2003)
o Nevertheless, the priest must remember that he is the servant of the Sacred Liturgy and that he himself is not permitted, on his own initiative, to add, to remove, or to change anything in the celebration of Mass.

•Redemptionis Sacramentum, nos. 31, 59 (2004)
o They ought not to detract from the profound meaning of their own ministry by corrupting the liturgical celebration either through alteration or omission, or through arbitrary additions.
o The reprobated practice by which Priests, Deacons or the faithful here and there alter or vary at will the texts of the Sacred Liturgy that they are charged to pronounce, must cease. For in doing thus, they render the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy unstable, and not infrequently distort the authentic meaning of the Liturgy

 

[FAB]

I wish someone would explain a couple of things to me.

1. When did the Church decide that a private letter from the CDWDS to a private citizen would have binding effect on the whole Church? Shouldn’t other interested parties be given the chance to comment on the issue?
2. For that matter, when did CAF decide to let users post those private letters? Isn’t there some sort of permission process required? If I were Fr. Ward, I’m not sure I’d appreciate my letters being posted on the internet without my knowing it (sure, it was originally posted without his name, but the poster later gave his name on this thread).
3. If the CDWDS letter is binding on the whole Church, is the inquirer’s letter published, too, for context?
4. Does the fact that a question in the inquirer’s letter (“Is this a custom that is within the faculty of a pastor, the local Ordinary, or a Bishops’ Conference to establish?”) was explicitly not answered mean that it’s an open question, and perhaps the pastor, or the ordinary, or the bishops’ conference does have that faculty? Or does that silence mean something else?
5. What is the significance of the CDWDS letter’s failure to cite authority in paragraphs 3 and 5 when it so easily did so in paragraphs 2 and 4? Wouldn’t citations have helped?
6. How is a pastor to interpret paragraph 3 in light of the inquirers’ letter’s reference to both ordinary and extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion? Is the “to be explicitly discouraged” language aimed at all ministers of Holy Communion generally, or only the extraordinary ones? On the other hand, is that merely a reference to the laying on of hands not being an acceptable substitution for reception of Holy Communion?
7. Paragraph 5 refers to some interesting sets of people not to be blessed: “others who are not to be admitted to Holy Communion in accord with the norm of law” – that is, “non-Catholics and those envisaged in can. 915 (i.e., those under the penalty of excommunication or interdict, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin).” Does that mean that others can go up for a blessing? I’m thinking here of Catholics who are not under penalty of excommunication or interdict and who do not obstinately persist in manifest grave sin. Clearly Fr. Ward was concerned about the divorced-and-remarried crowd. Was that perhaps the limit of his intent?
8. If the letter itself is merely declarative of “past teaching,” why isn’t the past teaching cited in the letter? For that matter, why do we need the letter to know the rule? Isn’t the “past teaching” enough?

Your questions are very good and bring up valid questions about the purpose and application of the letter that I share with you. Since it is not in a form of a formal declaration of church practice, many of those who read it put it under the category of , I’ll take that under condsideration.
As I stated earlier, I believe the tone of the letter leaves the question open and the the CDWDS, as the letter states has the matter under study and then gave 5 points of consideration.
The reason the issue needs be studies is that the practice goes beyond just legalistic doctine. It brings into question of who we are as a Church. We have a closed table, but is there a way to welcome those who cannot recieve the Eucharist and is allowing them to recieve a blessing during the communion processesion part of that out reach. Theologically it could be augued that Jesus welcomed all to his table who wanted to listen and to believe and are we not to follow his example.
I understand the augument of wanting to preserve the sacredness of the sacrament, but I have of an issue blessing a person divorced and remairried, since it could be part of a process to make them whole with the Church, than giving the eucharist to those who have greater sin such as politicians who are pro abortion.
There are those who aurgue that the blessing is adding something to the rite. Not being a liturgical scholar, I’m not certain that is the case. By the way this is not one of the 5 reasons under consideration as pointed out in the letter.
There is a legalistic and doctrical points that can be made why the practice should not be done, There are also pastoral reasons, just as valid for the practice to continue. Despite others objections, such reason can and are made at the local level. The CDWDS shares authority witht the bishops, since it is an arm of the pontif who shares such authority.

 

[benedictgal]

I wish someone would explain a couple of things to me.

1. When did the Church decide that a private letter from the CDWDS to a private citizen would have binding effect on the whole Church? Shouldn’t other interested parties be given the chance to comment on the issue?
2. For that matter, when did CAF decide to let users post those private letters? Isn’t there some sort of permission process required? If I were Fr. Ward, I’m not sure I’d appreciate my letters being posted on the internet without my knowing it (sure, it was originally posted without his name, but the poster later gave his name on this thread).
3. If the CDWDS letter is binding on the whole Church, is the inquirer’s letter published, too, for context?
4. Does the fact that a question in the inquirer’s letter (“Is this a custom that is within the faculty of a pastor, the local Ordinary, or a Bishops’ Conference to establish?”) was explicitly not answered mean that it’s an open question, and perhaps the pastor, or the ordinary, or the bishops’ conference does have that faculty? Or does that silence mean something else?
5. What is the significance of the CDWDS letter’s failure to cite authority in paragraphs 3 and 5 when it so easily did so in paragraphs 2 and 4? Wouldn’t citations have helped?
6. How is a pastor to interpret paragraph 3 in light of the inquirers’ letter’s reference to both ordinary and extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion? Is the “to be explicitly discouraged” language aimed at all ministers of Holy Communion generally, or only the extraordinary ones? On the other hand, is that merely a reference to the laying on of hands not being an acceptable substitution for reception of Holy Communion?
7. Paragraph 5 refers to some interesting sets of people not to be blessed: “others who are not to be admitted to Holy Communion in accord with the norm of law” – that is, “non-Catholics and those envisaged in can. 915 (i.e., those under the penalty of excommunication or interdict, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin).” Does that mean that others can go up for a blessing? I’m thinking here of Catholics who are not under penalty of excommunication or interdict and who do not obstinately persist in manifest grave sin. Clearly Fr. Ward was concerned about the divorced-and-remarried crowd. Was that perhaps the limit of his intent?
8. If the letter itself is merely declarative of “past teaching,” why isn’t the past teaching cited in the letter? For that matter, why do we need the letter to know the rule? Isn’t the “past teaching” enough?

To the first question, the letter has been published by the official journal of the CDWDS Notitae. It bears a protocol number, meaning that it is not some mere private letter, but, an official response. Second, because the CDWDS acts in and with the authority of the Holy Father, there is no need for consultation with anyone else. The Church is not a democracy.

The CDWDS cites what is already current canonical and liturgical law, giving the citations. In previous threads, I have posted the actual citations. Because this citations are binding on the whole Church, the letter, too, is also applicable.

Fr. Ward did not merely limit his intent to just the divorced-remairred crowd. He also mentioned non-Catholics and people who are not yet eligible to receive Holy Communion (this would include children, the Elect and candidates for full communion).

I have spoken directly to the CDWDS in the past about this matter. I was told that these blessings should not be happening in the first place. Furthermore, what supporters of this ilicit act do not seem to understand is that it appears nowhere in the rubrics (the red-letter parts of the Roman Missal) nor in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal. Someone added this “ritual” into the Mass on his own authority, something prohibited by the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy and Redemptionis Sacramentum.

It is sad that there are those who still refuse to take the CDWDS at its word.

 

[benedictgal]

That may depend on the Priest. One should ask beforehand.

Last year I was 6 weeks in Greece. No Catholic Churchs where I was staying. I attended a lot of Orthodox Churches, and politely informed the Priest that I was Catholic and thus unable to receive communion. Could I have a blessing instead? 100% smiles and yes.

It does not depend on the priest because it is beyond his authority to do this. As for receiving Holy Communion in a Greek Orthodox Church, we are allowed, as are they. The Church considers the Orthodox “sister Churches”. Thus, no blessing would have been required.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

As for receiving Holy Communion in a Greek Orthodox Church, we are allowed, as are they.

The Greek Orthodox Church would disagree. Thus out of respect, a Catholic should not receive communion in their churches.

 

[cradlecatholic5]

oh, for the love of mike … :ehh:

 

[benedictgal]

The Greek Orthodox Church would disagree. Thus out of respect, a Catholic should not receive communion in their churches.

I was merely pointing out that, unlike issues of “communion” with Protestant ecclesial communities, the Church does allow for Catholics to receive when attending Orthodox liturgies.

 

[TheMc]

There are those who aurgue that the blessing is adding something to the rite. Not being a liturgical scholar, I’m not certain that is the case.

Yes, there are those who argue that it is not in the rite. How can you be not certain? Please show me where it is in the books! If it isn’t there, it is not to be done!

By the way this is not one of the 5 reasons under consideration as pointed out in the letter.

Maybe that’s because there is many reasons why it shouldn’t be done, and they simply picked 5.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I was merely pointing out that, unlike issues of “communion” with Protestant ecclesial communities, the Church does allow for Catholics to receive when attending Orthodox liturgies.

The example given by the BMV 1221 still stands. The poster is not permitted (by Greek Orthodox rules) to receive communion and the priest gave her a blessing at communion time instead.

On the one hand, the example is not all that relevant since it is not a Catholic church. On the other hand, our rules about reception do not matter to the Greek Orthodox and thus the poster was unable to receive communion and found themself in the same boat as many who cannot receive in the Catholic Church.

Though there might some relevance depending on if there exists a tradition in the Eastern Churches that predates the Great Schism of a blessing in lieu of communion.

 

[FAB]

Yes, there are those who argue that it is not in the rite. How can you be not certain? Please show me where it is in the books! If it isn’t there, it is not to be done!
.

There is not a mention of individaul blessing at the time of communion in the rite. The question goes to the point of is an individual blessing at communnion adding to the rite as defined by the Church.
It then leads me back to the practice that is occuring in thousand of churchs. There are those on this site who based on a letter of considerations say under no circumstances, but we know that all these bishops for these diocese allow the practice and do it them selves. I know that they are not ignorant of the rite. So when I weigh this number of ordinaries practical interpetation against that of a single letter, written in reply to a question of an individual, I will follow the cue of the bishops.

 

[PJM]

=Nelka;7799140]Of course, this is what many people do and children.

They (priests) will know.

While a common practice it is nevertheless an unapproved one. Some priest will and some will not.

A BETTER way is after Mass as nealy always the priest is at the entrance way to greet and meet. Just get in line and then ask Fathr for a Blessing. He’ll be delighted to accomidate you.

God Bless,

Pat

 

[benedictgal]

There is not a mention of individaul blessing at the time of communion in the rite. The question goes to the point of is an individual blessing at communnion adding to the rite as defined by the Church.
It then leads me back to the practice that is occuring in thousand of churchs. There are those on this site who based on a letter of considerations say under no circumstances, but we know that all these bishops for these diocese allow the practice and do it them selves. I know that they are not ignorant of the rite. So when I weigh this number of ordinaries practical interpetation against that of a single letter, written in reply to a question of an individual, I will follow the cue of the bishops.

Since there is not mention of a blessing within the Communion Rite, it stands to reason that it does not exist. The De Benedictionibus does not even mention this. The blessing occurs in its rightful place at the end of the Mass and everyone receives it. Just because thousands of churches are imparting blessings in lieu of distributing Holy Communion, that does not make it right.

FAB, the problem with your line of reasoning is that it consitently fails to take into account the authority of the Holy See as exercised by the CDWDS. The ordinary is bound by obedience to the Holy See, this includes its discateries, of which the CDWDS is one. The local ordinary is not the final authority in this mater; the CDWDS is.

 

[stephraim]

Book of Blessings, no. 28 directly forbids any blessing except those specified in the same book to be joined with Mass.

 

[TheMc]

There is not a mention of individaul blessing at the time of communion in the rite. The question goes to the point of is an individual blessing at communnion adding to the rite as defined by the Church.

What question is there whether it is adding to the rites? It is obviously adding to the rite, because it is not in the books?

It then leads me back to the practice that is occuring in thousand of churchs. There are those on this site who based on a letter of considerations say under no circumstances, but we know that all these bishops for these diocese allow the practice and do it them selves. I know that they are not ignorant of the rite.

Where it is occurring is beside the point. It is still unapproved and not to be done.

So when I weigh this number of ordinaries practical interpretation against that of a single letter, written in reply to a question of an individual [A private letter that happens to be binding for the whole church], I will follow the cue of the bishops.

 

[FAB]

Since there is not mention of a blessing within the Communion Rite, it stands to reason that it does not exist. The De Benedictionibus does not even mention this. The blessing occurs in its rightful place at the end of the Mass and everyone receives it. Just because thousands of churches are imparting blessings in lieu of distributing Holy Communion, that does not make it right.

FAB, the problem with your line of reasoning is that it consitently fails to take into account the authority of the Holy See as exercised by the CDWDS. The ordinary is bound by obedience to the Holy See, this includes its discateries, of which the CDWDS is one. The local ordinary is not the final authority in this mater; the CDWDS is.

benedical I understand the authority of the CDWDS. More particularly it opperates as part of the pontificate which works as part of the Magisteruim. As I indicated in my other post, 100’s of bishops can’t all be wrong.
I give a couple of examples of how the local ordianary can and does change the rite for pastoral reasons, which is in his authority.
The rite indicates that when a deacon is present and recieves the blessing from the preist he is to kneel. For pastoral reasons, due to the age of many deacons, my ordinary allows this to be a bow before the priest. Likewise, kneeling at the time of consecration is optional for physical reason.