EME

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kathy_McManus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
benedictgal said:
The bishop’s authority has not changed. In fact, what you also ignore is something very important that both the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy and RS makes and it is, that no one has the right, on his own authority, to make any changes to the Mass. In fact, RS clearly states that:

The bishop’s authority is very limited on what he can do. According to the GIRM, the bishop can only do the following:

It does not state that he can introduce any new rite or ritual into the Mass. Should he wish too, that is beyond his competency. Only the national bishops’ conference can propose, but, even then, the proposal would have to carry a 2/3 vote of the Latin Rite bishops before it could even be sent to Rome. Even at that, Rome has the final voice on whether or not something could be added to the Mass.

That is what you fail to realize. With all due respect, you have not been able to grasp this point in all of the debates we have had. The fact remains that these “blessings” in lieu of Holy Communion are ilicit. The Holy See gave five solid observations why these should not be happening. You seem to ignore them now, as you did in the previous posts.
Click to expand...
And I too willl ignore then till my Priest tells me different.
 
tweetymom said:
And I too willl ignore then till my Priest tells me different.
Click to expand...
So then, you are choosing to ignore the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, which acts with and in the name of the Holy Father on all liturgical matters? That is what, as I read your response, you are doing. It is not up to the priest nor the bishop to make this call. The Holy See has already made it. One thing is to know and take charitable and prudent measures to correct the problem through the appropriate channel. Quite another, as I read your post, is to willfuilly ignore what the Holy See has said continue going your own way.
 
benedictgal said:
So then, you are choosing to ignore the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, which acts with and in the name of the Holy Father on all liturgical matters? That is what, as I read your response, you are doing. It is not up to the priest nor the bishop to make this call. The Holy See has already made it. One thing is to know and take charitable and prudent measures to correct the problem through the appropriate channel. Quite another, as I read your post, is to willfuilly ignore what the Holy See has said continue going your own way.
Click to expand...
I am not doing what I want only what our Priest wants. It doesn’t tell me in the Bible I can’t give blessings. But if you do it good for you.
 
benedictgal said:
The bishop’s authority has not changed. In fact, what you also ignore is something very important that both the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy and RS makes and it is, that no one has the right, on his own authority, to make any changes to the Mass. In fact, RS clearly states that:

The bishop’s authority is very limited on what he can do. According to the GIRM, the bishop can only do the following:

It does not state that he can introduce any new rite or ritual into the Mass. Should he wish too, that is beyond his competency. Only the national bishops’ conference can propose, but, even then, the proposal would have to carry a 2/3 vote of the Latin Rite bishops before it could even be sent to Rome. Even at that, Rome has the final voice on whether or not something could be added to the Mass.

That is what you fail to realize. With all due respect, you have not been able to grasp this point in all of the debates we have had. The fact remains that these “blessings” in lieu of Holy Communion are ilicit. The Holy See gave five solid observations why these should not be happening. You seem to ignore them now, as you did in the previous posts.
Click to expand...
Who is better to judge this you or the CDWDS? The CDWDS does not reach your conclusion, I am with them.
 
tweetymom said:
Contrayry to belief the Pope is not God.
Click to expand...
He acts with the authority of no less than Jesus Christ, himself, or are you also choosing to ignore what is found in the 16th chapter of St. Matthew?

The fact remains that the binding and loosening that Jesus conferred on St. Peter and his successors affects every aspect of the Church. The CDWDS, which you have chosen to ignore and disregard, acts as the official agent of the Holy Father and it functions under his direct authority. Furthermore, both your priest and bishop are bound by obedience to submit to this authority, just as the Apostles submitted themselves to the primacy of St. Peter. Even St. Paul deferred to St. Peter.

It is a sad shame that you refuse to see this.
 
Texas_Roofer said:
Who is better to judge this you or the CDWDS? The CDWDS does not reach your conclusion, I am with them.
Click to expand...
Actually, they do, Texas Roofer. You continue to refuse to see that. Too much cafeteria food can be very bad.
 
benedictgal said:
So then, you are choosing to ignore the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, which acts with and in the name of the Holy Father on all liturgical matters? That is what, as I read your response, you are doing. It is not up to the priest nor the bishop to make this call. The Holy See has already made it. One thing is to know and take charitable and prudent measures to correct the problem through the appropriate channel. Quite another, as I read your post, is to willfuilly ignore what the Holy See has said continue going your own way.
Click to expand...
tweetymom said:
I am not doing what I want only what our Priest wants. It doesn’t tell me in the Bible I can’t give blessings. But if you do it good for you.
Click to expand...
Tweetymom

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments did not ban this practice nor call it illicit, nor change the Bishop’s authority on this matter. Just bear that in mind and ignor those who claim otherwise. The difference between the actual comments originating in the CDWDS and the misrepresentations of these forms is why your Bishop actions are condemn on this forum, please do not sweet it, the Bishop has not errored.
 
benedictgal said:
He acts with the authority of no less than Jesus Christ, himself, or are you also choosing to ignore what is found in the 16th chapter of St. Matthew?

The fact remains that the binding and loosening that Jesus conferred on St. Peter and his successors affects every aspect of the Church. The CDWDS, which you have chosen to ignore and disregard, acts as the official agent of the Holy Father and it functions under his direct authority. Furthermore, both your priest and bishop are bound by obedience to submit to this authority, just as the Apostles submitted themselves to the primacy of St. Peter. Even St. Paul deferred to St. Peter.

It is a sad shame that you refuse to see this.
Click to expand...
It is also a sad shame that you do not see a lot of things. God Bless
 
Texas_Roofer said:
Tweetymom

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments did not ban this practice nor call it illicit, nor change the Bishop’s authority on this matter. Just bear that in mind and ignor those who claim otherwise. The difference between the actual comments originating in the CDWDS and the misrepresentations of these forms is why your Bishop actions are condemn on this forum, please do not sweet it, the Bishop has not errored.
Click to expand...
Thank you texas I do ignore people who always think they are right
 
benedictgal said:
Actually, they do, Texas Roofer. You continue to refuse to see that. Too much cafeteria food can be very bad.
Click to expand...
Actually they did not and that is why you cut up the letter. The cutting is the cafeteria part.
 
Texas_Roofer said:
Tweetymom

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments did not ban this practice nor call it illicit, nor change the Bishop’s authority on this matter. Just bear that in mind and ignor those who claim otherwise. The difference between the actual comments originating in the CDWDS and the misrepresentations of these forms is why your Bishop actions are condemn on this forum, please do not sweet it, the Bishop has not errored.
Click to expand...
Once again, you are misleading individuals. The fact that the CDWDS has made five observations clearly indicating that this should not be done is enough to warrant the practice ilicit. In fact, these five reasons are solid reasons and have their basis in canon law and other authoritative documents of the Church. That is what you are choosing to ignore.

The Bishop only errs if he is not aware of this letter. But, a lot of the times, it is the faithful who have to bring these items up to their priests and bishops. That is what the CDWDS is learning, at least here, in the United States. As I stated in this thread (before it got merged), the CDWDS is well aware of the resistance that their letter has ilicited. In fact, I have submitted another letter, at their request, for clarification (which will repeat what I have bene stating). This letter already treats another matter concerning Holy Communion which the CDWDS is clarifying.

So, before you start making claims that really do not hold water, I would suggest that you hold off misleading posters until the offiical response has arrived.
 
Texas_Roofer said:
Actually they did not and that is why you cut up the letter. The cutting is the cafeteria part.
Click to expand...
One does not have to say something outright for you to understand that it should not be done. Perhaps you would like to join me in my letter to the CDWDS for clarification and for a restatement of what the official told me over the phone.
 
benedictgal said:
Once again, you are misleading individuals. The fact that the CDWDS has made five observations clearly indicating that this should not be done is enough to warrant the practice ilicit. In fact, these five reasons are solid reasons and have their basis in canon law and other authoritative documents of the Church. That is what you are choosing to ignore.

The Bishop only errs if he is not aware of this letter. But, a lot of the times, it is the faithful who have to bring these items up to their priests and bishops. That is what the CDWDS is learning, at least here, in the United States. As I stated in this thread (before it got merged), the CDWDS is well aware of the resistance that their letter has ilicited. In fact, I have submitted another letter, at their request, for clarification (which will repeat what I have bene stating). This letter already treats another matter concerning Holy Communion which the CDWDS is clarifying.

So, before you start making claims that really do not hold water, I would suggest that you hold off misleading posters until the offiical response has arrived.
Click to expand...
Maybe you should read your last sentence.:eek:
 
tweetymom said:
It is also a sad shame that you do not see a lot of things. God Bless
Click to expand...
As a Catholic, you are bound to obey the Holy Father and those who act in his name. The bishop and the priest are also bound by that same obedience. Unfortunately, by choosing to ignore what the CDWDS has said, you are saying that the Holy See does not matter. That is the sign that you are giving in your posts.
 
Keep in mind that there are some participating in this thread who have explicitly stated in previous posts in other threads that they do not believe in the infallibility of the Magisterium.

Arguing with someone who doesn’t believe this core and basic Catholic teaching is going to be difficult when it comes to liturgical matters and who has the authority to decide them.
 
Texas_Roofer said:
Tweetymom

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments did not ban this practice nor call it illicit, nor change the Bishop’s authority on this matter. Just bear that in mind and ignor those who claim otherwise. The difference between the actual comments originating in the CDWDS and the misrepresentations of these forms is why your Bishop actions are condemn on this forum, please do not sweet it, the Bishop has not errored.
Click to expand...
Well TR, here is what the CDWDS DID say on the matter
Lay people, within the context of Holy Mass, are unable to confer blessings. These blessings, rather, are the competence of the priest (cf. Ecclesia de Mysterio, Notitiae 34 (15 Aug. 1997), art. 6, § 2; Canon 1169, § 2; and Roman Ritual De Benedictionibus (1985), n. 18).
Click to expand...
And
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.
Click to expand...
So where exactly do they say that a Bishop has the authority to allow either of the two items issued above?
 
This thread is quickly devolving. There’s a lot of near-name-calling, repetition, and general unpleasantness.

Here is the complete text of the response from the CDWDS when I wrote to them about this issue over a year ago:Congregatio de Cultu Divino et Disciplina Sacramentorum, Prot. N. 930/08/L

Dear [names omitted],

This Congregation for Divine Worship and the Disciple of the Sacraments acknowledges receipt of your kind letter of 13 August, 2008 and would like to thank you for your interest and suggestions. This matter is presently under the attentive study of the Congregation.

For the present, therefore, this Dicastery wishes to limit itself to the following observations:

  1. *]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.
    *]Lay people, within the context of Holy Mass, are unable to confer blessings. These blessings, rather, are the competence of the priest (cf. Ecclesia de Mysterio, Notitiae 34 (15 Aug. 1997), art. 6, § 2; can. 1169, § 2; and Roman Ritual De Benedictionibus (1985), n. 18).
    *]Furthermore, the laying on of a hand or hands—which has its own sacramental significance, inappropriate here—by those distributing Holy Communion, in substitution for its reception, is to be explicitly discouraged.
    *]The Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, n. 84, “forbids any pastor, for whatever reason to pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry.” To be feared is that any form of blessing in substitution for communion would give the impression that the divorced and remarried have been returned, in some sense, to the status of Catholics in good standing.
    *]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. This would include 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).

    Please continue to pray for the Church’s ministers that they ever become more worthy of the mystery they celebrate.

    With every good wish and kind regard, I am,

    Sincerely Yours in Christ,

    [signed]

    (Fr. Anthony Ward, S.M.)
    Under-Secretary
    This reply from the Under-Secretary of the CDWDS provided an interpretation or explanation of existing Church law and discipline. Any way you slice it, this response is quite clear on the following matters: 1) that there is a blessing given by a priest to all at the end of the Mass, 2) that lay-people cannot bestow blessings during Mass, 3) that the laying on of hands is inappropriate and explicitly discouraged during Communion, and 4) that those who are not permitted to receive Holy Communion should not present themselves for it or for a blessing in lieu of it. I will let you draw your own conclusions concerning the licit-ness of EMHC blessings during Communion.

    The response did not say anything about discouraging people from coming up for a blessing, simply that the Church’s discipline instructs them not to. The response also did not say what to do if a person does come up expecting a blessing.

    That is Lepanto’s question as well: knowing all this, what do you when a person comes up to receive a blessing during the Communion procession?
 
tweetymom said:
Maybe you should read your last sentence.:eek:
Click to expand...
I stand by what I wrote. You are the one being mislead, and this is most uncharitable.

I have posted the authoritative documents of the Church. Unfortunately, judging from your posts, you have chosen to ignore them. That is very sad, indeed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top