A
Allen537
Guest
I’d have to say that this letter settles it for me.
Good job!
In Carmel,
Br. Allen
Good job!
In Carmel,
Br. Allen
- Status
B
benedictgal
Guest
Japhy, for the time being, until this issue were to be resolved, would it not be prudent for the celebrants to not issue an invitation to those unable to receive Holy Communion to come forward?
I suspect that this is where the problem lies since many RCIA programs, as seen in these threads, have this practice.
Incidentally, I shared this with my parochial vicar and he was pleased. He said that it confirms what he had suspected all along.
I suspect that this is where the problem lies since many RCIA programs, as seen in these threads, have this practice.
Incidentally, I shared this with my parochial vicar and he was pleased. He said that it confirms what he had suspected all along.
J
japhy
Guest
That seems reasonable to me.
The response makes it clear that the proper time for the liturgical blessing is at the end of Mass (#1), that EMHCs are not to give blessings during Mass (#2), that “laying on of hand(s)” is explicitly discouraged in lieu of reception of Holy Communion (#3), and that there are several designations (if you will) of people who, because they may not receive Holy Communion, should not present themselves in the Communion line (#4, #5).
So it seems to me that the proper course of action is for priests and especially pastors to stop encouraging – and indeed, to explicitly discourage (by means of proper, pastoral catechesis) – non-communicants from coming up during the Communion procession. Until the Church tells us that the practice is permitted and how it is to be carried out, I see no reason to continue the practice. Bless everybody at the end of Mass, and bless people individually after Mass if they request it!
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
OK, the letter settles it for me.
However, what about the priests?
What are they to do, with people who are unable to receive, but approach at communion for a blessing. Wave them off, or just go ahead and give them the blessing?
My pastor would ignore this letter and would be irritated with me presenting it to him.
It would cause more harm than good, I’m sure of it.
Jim
However, what about the priests?
What are they to do, with people who are unable to receive, but approach at communion for a blessing. Wave them off, or just go ahead and give them the blessing?
My pastor would ignore this letter and would be irritated with me presenting it to him.
It would cause more harm than good, I’m sure of it.
Jim
J
japhy
Guest
My previous response offers a suggestion. Say “I will pray for you”. A priest that gives a hoot would then address the matter privately or, if it is a widespread problem, via a blurb in the bulletin, an announcement at the end of Mass, or a decent homily on Holy Communion!
Z
zab
Guest
Good points, Jim.
Perhaps the reason that the Congregation chose to remain silent about this matter is for the very reason you gave, that such a directive could cause more harm than good.
There will always be non-communicants approaching, even if a directive were to be made. But it is good to know what is acceptable to do when that happens.
B
benedictgal
Guest
However, the intial inception of the practice has done more harm than good. The problem, as I see it, is that priests have no right to insert something into the Mass that shouldn’t be there and that has no historical, traditional precedent. We line up to receive Someone, not something. As the letter states, the liturgical blessing of the Holy Mass “is properly given to each and to all at the conclusion of the Mass, just a few moments subsequent to the distribution of Holy Communion.” It’s not done during any part of the Mass other than its prescribed time.
Furthermore, you cannot give nor impart what you don’t have. Yes, the celebrant imparts blessings, but, at the appropriate time, not before.
This “practice” is what has caused more harm than good, not the letter.
Z
zab
Guest
I
ibkc
Guest
I wish I had the nerve to forward this PDF to my pastor. The whole thing with EMHCs conferring blessings is out of control in my parish.
Z
zab
Guest
D
Digitonomy
Guest
08 presumably refers to the year. Does 930 mean CDW has only sent out 930 letters this year? Or perhaps only 930 to the “L” laity?
Do you have any other CDW letters, either in your possession or linkable, for comparison?
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Somewhat.
What it says is that the matter is “under the attentive study of the Congregation” HOWEVER it does not end there. It continues on to say in #5 that “…for others who are not to be admitted to Holy Communion…the Church’s discipline has already been made clear that they should not approach Holy Communion nor receive a blessing.”
#5 makes it clear that this practice is not to be done. My concern here is that people will read the introductory paragraph and come to the conclusion that because it’s under study, they are free to do as they please in the meantime. That’s not at all what the letter says. It says essentially that in the meantime, this practice is NOT to be done. Another key phrase is “the Church’s discipline has already been made clear” That tells me that the Congregation has in fact addressed this issue in the past and said that it’s not to be done–in spite of that, it continues.
When Rome says “the Church’s discipline has already been made clear” that’s Rome’s polite way of saying “we’ve told you before to stop doing this, yet you continue to do so” Implicit in that is “we don’t want to have to say it yet again”
F
FrDavid96
Guest
I realy don’t know how protocol numbers work (i.e. how they assign them). My point was that we’re all reading something on the internet, and meaning absolutely no offense to the person who posted it, one can make an image of anything and post it. The question “is this real?” is natural and to be expected. The protocol number provides anyone with a means of verifying the letter’s authenticity.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
Nonetheless, I’m glad you brought up the point, because I have always read right by them, but now I may be able to use those code-breaking skills I learned from that Dan Brown book.
Seriously, though, I found this document (page 2) referencing 2 letters from the CDW in 1996, that were apparently written in April of that year: 760/96/L and 761/96/L, to the Bishop of Cleveland or the USCCB. So perhaps instead of laity, L refers simply to “letter,” except for the fact that in Italian the word probably begins with a “C”. In any case, it appears the CDF uses a different protocol system, as a letter cited from them dated May 12, 1997 carries protocol number 216/73-04256.
Update: I may have been wrong - from Google it seems that to mail a letter is “posta una lettera”. Unless it thinks I’m mailing say the letter “D”… It translates letters of the alphabet as “lettere dell’alfabeto”
N
Newbie2
Guest
Still, I wonder what they’re going to do when they’ve finished studying the situation. Although it may not be a correct practice, I’m not being flippant when I say that talk is cheap, and unless they do something to enforce the norms, nothing is going to change.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
That’s whay “attentive study” essentially means. They’ve already come to the conclusion that it’s not permitted. Now, they’re trying to decide what (if anything) to do about it.
In fairness, it also means that while it is forbidden currently, they may be considering changing the liturgical norms to make it allowed. However, that’s highly unlikely given the reasons stated by the Congregation for why it is not allowed.
J
japhy
Guest
Here’s a sampling:
467/05/L - July 9, 2005 (CDWDS)
2451/00/L - July 27, 2001 (CDW)
760/96/L & 761/96/L - 20 September 1997 (CDW)
1322/02/L - 1 July 2002 (CDWDS)
1091/84/8 - February 13, 1984 (Congregation for the Clergy)
The first number is the number of the response (sequential). The next number refers to the year of inquiry, I think, rather than the year of response. I would guess the “L” pertains to the department of the Curia: L = Liturgy (CDWDS).
P
puzzleannie
Guest
I am very happy OP got such a good solid response to his query. I would even be more thrilled if I knew the pastors and EMHCs where this practice is used received, read, and followed the letter.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
benedictgal
This would be good.
However, for a priest to refuse to give the blessing, the person, rather than resolving their situation, would feel snubbed and walk down the street to a protestant parish, where the welcome mat is thrown out to them.
So, which would cause more harm, giving the blessing, or refusing?
Jim
Maybe, but, maybe not. It could be that those who approach for a blessing and receive the grace from it, are inspired to correct their situation in order to come into full communion with the Church.
This would be good.
However, for a priest to refuse to give the blessing, the person, rather than resolving their situation, would feel snubbed and walk down the street to a protestant parish, where the welcome mat is thrown out to them.
So, which would cause more harm, giving the blessing, or refusing?
Jim
- Status