Can I recieve a blessing.

[FAB]

[A private letter that happens to be binding for the whole church],QUOTE]

say those on CA

 

[benedictgal]

[A private letter that happens to be binding for the whole church]
,QUOTE]

say those on CA

What folks do not understand is that the letter quotes material that is already binding on the Church. The matter is beyond the competency of the local ordinary.

 

[TheMc]

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.

You mention exceptions for physical infirmity. Those exceptions are quite obvious. Of course someone may always stand if they can’t kneel. But adding things to the Mass such as this is a whole different ball game.

You state that 100s of bishops can’t be wrong. You also say you understand the authority of the CDWDS. But you don’t accept it. They have said it should not be done. Being disobidient is never pastoral, unless the authority you are disobeying is saying something that is wong.

 

[jmcrae]

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.

Yes, since it’s a distinct action that has no relationship to anything else around it - it’s not being made necessary by something else that is necessary. (It is not necessary for adult non-Catholics to join the Communion procession.)

It then leads me back to the practice that is occuring in thousand of churchs.

Many, but probably not “thousands.”

It would be a bad idea for the casual reader to go along and request a blessing in the Communion Procession, because 9 times out of 10, the priest will not have ever heard of this custom, before. It exists only in certain parts of the United States and Canada, and not even in every parish of every Diocese where it appears. If the priest is new to Canada or new to the United States, he will have never heard of it before. If he happens never to have come across it, even if he has lived in the same Diocese for several decades, he will have never heard of it. It’s not something that would ever come up in his training or in his regular reading - there is nobody going around telling priests about this custom, or telling them to give blessings in the Communion procession. It only comes about if he sees someone else doing it, and decides to take up the practice, for whatever reason.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

As I indicated in my other post, 100’s of bishops can’t all be wrong.

Yes they can. The simple fact is that a blessing in lieu of communion is not to happen. There is nothing that can liturgically or canonically justify it. Now, that being said, is it the end of the world that it happens? I don’t think so. Apparently many bishops don’t think so. I doubt the CDWDS loses any sleep over it since they could issue stronger prohibition language and they have not. Obviously when push comes to shove, the CDWDS has to stand by the documents, but it doesn’t appear overly worried about it. But that’s quite a different situation than saying it’s actually legitimately allowed.

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.

Physical reasons have always been accepted as a legitimate reason to not kneel or genuflect or even stand. This blessing issue however is rather new and has never received any kind of official approval.

 

[FAB]

You mention exceptions for physical infirmity. Those exceptions are quite obvious. Of course someone may always stand if they can’t kneel. But adding things to the Mass such as this is a whole different ball game.

 

[benedictgal]

TheMc;7807574:

Don’t discount spirtual infirmities.

So it comes down to calling the shepherds of the Church, entrusted with giving the teachings of the Church to the faithfull as being disobediant? It’s not that I don’t accept the authority of the CDWDS, I am following the example of my ordinary as I and all Catholics are called to do first.

FAB, you talk about following the local ordinary, but, you completely dismiss what the CDWDS has to say on the matter. When the local ordinary and the CDWDS are in conflict, the CDWDS is the overriding principle.

This is something that goes beyond what the local ordinary can do, yet, your posts appear to give the bishop carte blanche on all liturgical matters when that is clearly not the case.

 

[FAB]

FAB;7807797:

FAB, you talk about following the local ordinary, but, you completely dismiss what the CDWDS has to say on the matter. When the local ordinary and the CDWDS are in conflict, the CDWDS is the overriding principle.

This is something that goes beyond what the local ordinary can do, yet, your posts appear to give the bishop carte blanche on all liturgical matters when that is clearly not the case.

there comes a time when one has to look at on the ground facts. The practice contiunes daily, the bishops know and do the practice and know the doctrine of the Church, yet it is allowed to continue. Now if the letter is binding , the practice would be stopped, if there was a concern about the points in the letter, the practice would be stopped.
The only concern seems to be on CA who want to imply that our bishops are in error and being disobediant. You may be willing to go there, but I am not.

 

[TheMc]

Don’t discount spirtual infirmities.

Your point is…

So it comes down to calling the shepherds of the Church, entrusted with giving the teachings of the Church to the faithfull as being disobediant?

Yes, it does, unless you believe that the bishops are the highest authority in the church. Don’t forget that they are also obligated to submit themselves to Rome’s authority.

It’s not that I don’t accept the authority of the CDWDS, I am following the example of my ordinary as I and all Catholics are called to do first.

Aren’t they also called to follow the authority of the holy father?

 

[TheMc]

Don’t discount spirtual infirmities.

Your point is…

So it comes down to calling the shepherds of the Church, entrusted with giving the teachings of the Church to the faithfull as being disobediant?

Yes, it does, unless you believe that the bishops are the highest authority in the church. Don’t forget that they are also obligated to submit themselves to Rome’s authority.

It’s not that I don’t accept the authority of the CDWDS, I am following the example of my ordinary as I and all Catholics are called to do first.

Aren’t they also called to follow the authority of the holy father?

 

[zab]

benedictgal;7807835:

there comes a time when one has to look at on the ground facts. The practice contiunes daily, the bishops know and do the practice and know the doctrine of the Church, yet it is allowed to continue. Now if the letter is binding , the practice would be stopped, if there was a concern about the points in the letter, the practice would be stopped.
The only concern seems to be on CA who want to imply that our bishops are in error and being disobediant. You may be willing to go there, but I am not

.

Yes, it does, unless you believe that the bishops are the highest authority in the church. Don’t forget that they are also obligated to submit themselves to Rome’s authority.

In my opinion, it is a far stretch to say our bishops are being “disobedient” for ignoring a practice that has been “heavily discouraged” by the CDWDS. It seems to me that the Congregation is ignoring it as well by not being more aggressive in putting an end to this practice.

 

[TheMc]

In my opinion, it is a far stretch to say our bishops are being “disobedient” for ignoring a practice that has been “heavily discouraged” by the CDWDS. It seems to me that the Congregation is ignoring it as well by not being more aggressive in putting an end to this practice.

Where did anything say “heavily discouraged”?

What I see is “they should not receive a blessing”. That is even more that discouraging communion-time-blessings. It out right forbids them, both by the authority of the Holy See, and also through a reiteration of the church’s past teaching.

I don’t care who is doing it. It should not be done, and anyone who do are either in ignorance or disobedience, even if that person happens to be a bishop.

 

[FAB]

…

Yes, it does, unless you believe that the bishops are the highest authority in the church. Don’t forget that they are also obligated to submit themselves to Rome’s authority.

The highest authority is the pope and the college of bishops, it is a shared authority with the pope having the final word, but not without extensive consultation with his bishops and from the bishops council. The CDWDS is an arm of this body, it does not work independently with some type of omnipotent power.

I would be careful in calling bishops disobedient. It is extremely disrespectful, and more of a violation of the canon, that giving a simple blessing at communion.

 

[benedictgal]

…

The highest authority is the pope and the college of bishops, it is a shared authority with the pope having the final word, but not without extensive consultation with his bishops and from the bishops council. The CDWDS is an arm of this body, it does not work independently with some type of omnipotent power.

I would be careful in calling bishops disobedient. It is extremely disrespectful, and more of a violation of the canon, that giving a simple blessing at communion.

FAB, the Holy Father is the highest authority. Have you not read the sections of Pastor Bonus that I posted? You seem to completely disregard the authority of the CDWDS. The CDWDS is the body that acts with the authority and in the name of the Holy Father in much the same manner as the CDF.

When a bishop is ordained, he pledges obedience to the Holy Father. Just as the Apostolic college was submissive to the authority of Peter so, too, are the bishops.

 

[FAB]

FAB, the Holy Father is the highest authority. Have you not read the sections of Pastor Bonus that I posted? You seem to completely disregard the authority of the CDWDS. The CDWDS is the body that acts with the authority and in the name of the Holy Father in much the same manner as the CDF.

When a bishop is ordained, he pledges obedience to the Holy Father. Just as the Apostolic college was submissive to the authority of Peter so, too, are the bishops.

Benedictgal, certainly you have read the Second Vatican Council Documents which set a colligentent relationtionship between the pope and the bishops. I have never denied that the pope is untimatly the highest authority of the pope.
I also know know that there are levels of doctrine, from infalable to displinary, the later which can be changed.
I am certain that there are levels of commentary from th CDWDS, form this it what you must do to this is our observations for your consideration.
Yes the bishop pledges his obedience to the Holy Father, that doesn’t make him some type of zombie following orders. He is charged with the ultimate teaching authority and interperting as well as following doctrine in his diocese. The canon as the ulimate law of the church, from which all other doctrine flows, as stated before gives him authority, for pastoral reasons, to give dispensations to any part of of the canon based on local customs and practices for the faith and wellfair of the faithful, with exception of course to those items that are infalable or bedrock doctrine.
This is what every single one of them does. To denegrate the authorty they posses is misleading, to question their loyality by implying or saying that they are disobedant, as others have done is wrong.
This discussion give a skewed (name removed by moderator)ression that we are only to listen and obey Rome, this is not Church teaching, as the first teacher is our local ordinary.

 

[benedictgal]

Benedictgal, certainly you have read the Second Vatican Council Documents which set a colligentent relationtionship between the pope and the bishops. I have never denied that the pope is untimatly the highest authority of the pope.
I also know know that there are levels of doctrine, from infalable to displinary, the later which can be changed.
I am certain that there are levels of commentary from th CDWDS, form this it what you must do to this is our observations for your consideration.
Yes the bishop pledges his obedience to the Holy Father, that doesn’t make him some type of zombie following orders. He is charged with the ultimate teaching authority and interperting as well as following doctrine in his diocese. The canon as the ulimate law of the church, from which all other doctrine flows, as stated before gives him authority, for pastoral reasons, to give dispensations to any part of of the canon based on local customs and practices for the faith and wellfair of the faithful, with exception of course to those items that are infalable or bedrock doctrine.
This is what every single one of them does. To denegrate the authorty they posses is misleading, to question their loyality by implying or saying that they are disobedant, as others have done is wrong.
This discussion give a skewed (name removed by moderator)ression that we are only to listen and obey Rome, this is not Church teaching, as the first teacher is our local ordinary.

I quoted sections from Pastor Bonus and other information about the authority of the CDWDS, information that, with all due respect, you have chosen to disregard. The Holy See enjoys universal authority. When bishops are ordained, they pledge obedience to the Holy Father.

When issues have come up in the past where bishops and/or national episcopal conferences have made mistakes (as was the case with the Australian Bishops Conference and the issue of General Absolution and, in another previously discussed issue, the matter of an American diocesan bishop denying confirmation to an 11-year-old girl), the Holy See (and in the first case, the Holy Father, himself) intervened and told both the conference and the bishop that the course of action they were taken was wrong. The proverbial buck does not stop with the local ordinary, nor the national episcopal conference. It stops with the Holy See.

FAB, perhaps you should address a letter to the CDWDS and ask them yourself about the issue of authority since your line of reasoning seems to disregard and ignore what others and myself have been telling you (quoting sources).

 

[zab]

I brought this topic up to my pastor about a year ago. At the time he had recently heard about the letter from the CDWDS on this issue and he expressed gratitude for the people who are trying to get the information out about this. But he also said that without some instruction coming from the top to correct this, it would be difficult to put an end to it. For one thing, we are a transitional parish due to military families that come and go. As far as he was concerned, “there are bigger fish to fry.” There are those on this board who are labeling people like my good pastor and bishop as being “disobedient” and that couldn’t be further from the truth. Say what you want to instruct people of what should and should not happen but it is misleading, insulting and wrong to call our good priests and bishops “disobedient” concerning this issue.

 

[FAB]

I quoted sections from Pastor Bonus and other information about the authority of the CDWDS, information that, with all due respect, you have chosen to disregard. The Holy See enjoys universal authority. When bishops are ordained, they pledge obedience to the Holy Father.

When issues have come up in the past where bishops and/or national episcopal conferences have made mistakes (as was the case with the Australian Bishops Conference and the issue of General Absolution and, in another previously discussed issue, the matter of an American diocesan bishop denying confirmation to an 11-year-old girl), the Holy See (and in the first case, the Holy Father, himself) intervened and told both the conference and the bishop that the course of action they were taken was wrong. The proverbial buck does not stop with the local ordinary, nor the national episcopal conference. It stops with the Holy See.

FAB, perhaps you should address a letter to the CDWDS and ask them yourself about the issue of authority since your line of reasoning seems to disregard and ignore what others and myself have been telling you (quoting sources).

I have recongized the sources and that that the pope has ultimate authority. Yet you seem not to want to recognize the information I have stated as to local authority.
The question has been to the enforcement of this particular letter on this one issue. It’s wording and it’s presentation as well as it’s effect, since the practice of giving blessings continues.
You can scream all day long that the CDWDS has the ultimate authority, but yet in this situatuion, that doesn’t seem to be the case. You have not addressed that reason.

 

[TheMc]

I have recongized the sources and that that the pope has ultimate authority. Yet you seem not to want to recognize the information I have stated as to local authority.
The question has been to the enforcement of this particular letter on this one issue. It’s wording and it’s presentation as well as it’s effect, since the practice of giving blessings continues.
You can scream all day long that the CDWDS has the ultimate authority, but yet in this situatuion, that doesn’t seem to be the case. You have not addressed that reason.

Just because no body listens does not mean that they don’t have the authority, it just means that: no body is listening to the authority, in this case, the CDWDS.

 

[FAB]

Just because no body listens does not mean that they don’t have the authority, it just means that: no body is listening to the authority, in this case, the CDWDS.

I doubt seriouosly if not listening in the case.