Is it okay to receive a Blessing instead of Communion even if you are allowed to receive?

[Texas_Roofer]

Both you and Texas Roofer have yet to provide authoritative proof from the Holy See that this blessing is even legitimate, licit and allowed. But, there is none. The line is to receive Someone, not something.

Both of you can be dismissive and bring up arguments that are not even germaine to the discussion at hand, but, none of you, has yet, to provide any references from the GIRM, RS, and the Constitution of the Liturgy to back up your points.

Furthermore, just because something has been done for at least 20 years does not make it a legitimate practice.

Might I remind you that the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments speaks in the name of the whole Church. Furthermore, to my knowledge, no national episcopal conference has yet to petition the Holy See for an adaption to the GIRM allowing for a blessing to be imparted in lieu of Holy Communion.

To continously support the legitimacy of such a blessing is to have a poor understanding of what the Rite of Communion is all about and to want to add things to the Mass that simply do not belong there.

This condescending style is really old, if the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments chose not to ask us to stop why should we assume you’re a higher authority?

btw - it is not always “lieu of Holy Communion” which would imply some could pass, or be denied Eucharist, and accept “in lieu of” which is not always the case. Should one of the many groups pay homage by processing in orderly fashion, and worshipping, and processing back in orderly fashion, that is not in lieu of nor is it any indication of their grace state or life.

 

[japhy]

There are no specific rules on what to do when you are not attempting to receive.

There is no “specific” rule, but the CDWDS says there’s a general discipline concerning those who are not receiving Communion.

How can one say this is about the rules of mass and most rules or lack of rules of mass cannot be discussed?

Let me clarify myself. Celebrating Mass in concentration camps, “in the field” (military situations), etc., is a different situation altogether from celebrating Mass in a normal circumstance and including a blessing during the Communion procession for those who cannot receive. I think it’s clear that those are two entirely different discussions.

This thread is about blessings during the Communion procession. That’s all I’ll comment on in this thread.

 

[japhy]

Who IS allowed to receive the blessing?

We don’t know, because there’s no universal (i.e. from Rome concerning the whole Roman Rite) positive (i.e. permissive) liturgical text concerning the blessing from the CDWDS.

 

[japhy]

I am looking for the source document for what is supposedly “existing Church discipline” in the letter you keep waving around. There are plenty of statements from bishops and doctors of the Church in support of the practice.

Yes, we are all curious what the CDWDS had in mind when they mentioned the existing discipline of the Church in this matter.

Can you provide examples of doctors of the Church making statements of receiving blessings during Communion?

 

[japhy]

… an undefined “established Church discipline”. But of course, she has yet to explain what established Church discipline the letter could possibly be referring to. I’ve tried to explain that it certainly is not the official ruling of the whole Church, which is the only thing that matters.

We don’t know that for sure. The CDWDS spoke of the existing discipline, so I’m inclined to believe it exists. None of us knows where, but I think we should take the CDWDS at their word.

 

[japhy]

For clarity’s sake, here is “observation #5” from the response:
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).
I’ve given this reply a new title; perhaps the conversation discussing this particular subtopic could remain as replies to this sub-post (or its replies)?

Here is what I glean from this observation:

• There is an existing “discipline” in the Church concerning what those “who are not to be admitted to Holy Communion” may not do during the Communion Procession.
• Unfortunately, no one in this thread knows where this discipline is documented.
• This discipline includes (but is not exclusive to) non-Catholics, those who are under interdict, those who are excommunicated, and those who are obstinately persisting in manifest grave sin.
• This discipline could reasonably extend to children who have not yet made their First Communion, as well as those Catholics who are not properly disposed to receive Communion for some reason (fasting, grave sin, already having received twice that day, etc.).
• This discipline says they should not do either of these two things:
  1. “approach Holy Communion” (with intent to receive the sacrament), nor
  2. “receive a blessing” (in lieu of receiving the sacrament).
  Addition: There is also – to the best of my knowledge and research – NO universal and positive document concerning these Communion-procession blessings. There is a negative document (the response we’re discussing) which I would expect is universal in its scope: it makes five observations about the existing liturgical law of the Roman Rite.
  
  Would anyone like to discuss my interpretation of this observation?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

First let me say I believe you are completely sincere

There is no “specific” rule, but the CDWDS says there’s a general discipline concerning those who are not receiving Communion.

I think they said not to receive kind of like the incident which ignited the scheme. I suspect they mean catholics who are not in compliance are not to approcah in hopes of receiving and thus leave the Priest to turn them away. Similarly a protestant approaching would seem unusual at best in the past. I am not speaking for the CDWDS in any way however I believe the interpretation was not designed to extend to the issue at hand, if it was that single bullet would comprise a comprehensive letter, and thus why hide the answer?

Let me clarify myself. Celebrating Mass in concentration camps, “in the field” (military situations), etc., is a different situation altogether from celebrating Mass in a normal circumstance and including a blessing during the Communion procession for those who cannot receive. I think it’s clear that those are two entirely different discussions.

This thread is about blessings during the Communion procession. That’s all I’ll comment on in this thread.

i understand what you are writing however your idea is problematic in that if the rules are to be held in that high a regard then many, many, many, things must stop. Is it reasonable to clear every special circumstance through you (?) of course not. So either the rule must be without exception or with reasonable exception and so far it is with reasonable exceptions.

btw - as I do no knowing you, let me say again this practice is one of many warm hearted practices I hope the church continues to allow, I say that based on a lot of experience.

 

[Indyann]

This has been posted before in another thread. However, this is Fr. McNamara’s interpretation and not what the Holy See has said.

Well, I guess I (as well as others?) missed that thread. I will await to see a definitive judgement from the Holy See. In the meantime, I would rather consider the interpretation of a professor of Liturgy at Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University than an anonymous internet poster.

I have no dog in this fight at all, but I hate to see people being influenced by someone’s personal interpretation, who has no authority at all.

 

[SonofMonica]

First let me say I believe you are completely sincere
I think they said not to receive kind of like the incident which ignited the scheme. I suspect they mean catholics who are not in compliance are not to approcah in hopes of receiving and thus leave the Priest to turn them away. Similarly a protestant approaching would seem unusual at best in the past. I am not speaking for the CDWDS in any way however I believe the interpretation was not designed to extend to the issue at hand, if it was that single bullet would comprise a comprehensive letter, and thus why hide the answer? i understand what you are writing however your idea is problematic in that if the rules are to be held in that high a regard then many, many, many, things must stop. Is it reasonable to clear every special circumstance through you (?) of course not. So either the rule must be without exception or with reasonable exception and so far it is with reasonable exceptions.

btw - as I do no knowing you, let me say again this practice is one of many warm hearted practices I hope the church continues to allow, I say that based on a lot of experience.

Amen. I’ve often taken Father’s blessing while others are taking communion as a sign that “You’re doing the right thing, just being here.” I can’t say I get the same feeling of welcome from the ilk that want to do away with it. As Bishop Taylor of the Diocese of Little Rock spoke about during a Triduum homily last weekend (and I paraphrase), the Mass has two components, and each are important–the way in which it relates to God, and the way in which it relates to people. You can’t have one without the other. Thank God for holy leaders like him and those who follow his example in making us feel welcome in the Church. I can say for sure that without them, my wife would certainly not be joining me to Rome.

 

[japhy]

First let me say I believe you are completely sincere

Thank you. I’m trying to be sincere. (Or not trying… hoping it comes naturally, I guess? )

I believe the same of you.

I suspect they mean catholics who are not in compliance are not to approach…

Here is precisely what they said: “others who are not to be admitted to Holy Communion in accord with the norm of law.”

What is the “norm of law”? Let’s look at Canon Law:
Can. 844 §1 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments only to catholic members of Christ’s faithful, who equally may lawfully receive them only from catholic ministers, except as provided in §§2, 3 and 4 of this canon and in can. 861 §2.

…

Can. 912 Any baptised person who is not forbidden by law may and must be admitted to holy communion.

Can. 913 §1 For holy communion to be administered to children, it is required that they have sufficient knowledge and be accurately prepared…

§2 The blessed Eucharist may … be administered to children in danger of death if they can distinguish the Body of Christ from ordinary food and receive communion with reverence.

…

Can. 915 Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.

Can. 916 Anyone who is conscious of grave sin may not celebrate Mass or receive the Body of the Lord without previously having been to sacramental confession, unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess…

Can. 917 One who has received the blessed Eucharist may receive it again on the same day only within a eucharistic celebration in which that person participates, without prejudice to the provision of can. 921 §2.

Can. 919 §1 Whoever is to receive the blessed Eucharist is to abstain for at least one hour before holy communion from all food and drink, with the sole exception of water and medicine.

i understand what you are writing however your idea is problematic in that if the rules are to be held in that high a regard then many, many, many, things must stop.

Such as? I’m just curious; I know I’m only commenting on blessings during Communion, but I’m curious what other (common?) practices you are referring to which are against the rules.

this practice is one of many warm hearted practices I hope the church continues to allow, I say that based on a lot of experience.

If the Church decides to allow it, then so be it. But I think the Church could re-educate the faithful (and inquiring non-Catholics) about the practice of making a “spiritual Communion” instead of getting a Communion-processing blessing, and save the blessings for outside of Mass.

What’s to stop a person, today, from going up, receiving Communion, and then asking for a blessing as well? I don’t know of such a thing happening, but if the blessing really isn’t seen as being given “in lieu” of Communion, then why shouldn’t communicants receive the blessing too?

 

[SonofMonica]

Such as? I’m just curious; I know I’m only commenting on blessings during Communion, but I’m curious what other (common?) practices you are referring to which are against the rules.

You’re missing the point–he’s saying they’re not against the rules, but your logic would make them so, despite the absence of any binding prohibition. I’m sure one could think of many, one being holding hands during the Our Father, or extending our hands to the Priest as we say “and also with you” (or “and with thy spirit,” as it were).

If the Church decides to allow it, then so be it. But I think the Church could re-educate the faithful (and inquiring non-Catholics) about the practice of making a “spiritual Communion” instead of getting a Communion-processing blessing, and save the blessings for outside of Mass.

First, you tacitly acknowledge here that the Church has not made any decision one way or the other about the widespread and adored practice. Second, once again you and benedictgal are stating your personal preferences should be given weight as against the experience of the whole Church, including a group who has been left out of this discussion, the lay faithful who find great comfort in being able to bring their non-Catholic family to Mass without making them feel isolated, in hopes that they will feel at home and reconcile with the Church.

What’s to stop a person, today, from going up, receiving Communion, and then asking for a blessing as well? I don’t know of such a thing happening, but if the blessing really isn’t seen as being given “in lieu” of Communion, then why shouldn’t communicants receive the blessing too?

Maybe because they’re not stuck in silly hypothetical land, but instead just received the body blood soul and divinity of Christ? And maybe because the line is moving the other way, which is a large subconscious motivator, whether you want to recognize it or not.

 

[japhy]

I’m sure one could think of many, one being holding hands during the Our Father, or extending our hands to the Priest as we say “and also with you”…

While I don’t hold hands (other than my own!) during the Our Father, I don’t see any reason to stop other people from doing so. The posture is not regulated during that time; at the same time, the priest can’t require hand-holding, or the orans posture, or any other such posture.

Some postures aren’t appropriate for the laity to use during the Mass: “neither may deacons or non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions which are proper to the same priest celebrant.” (Ecclesiae de Mysterio, Art. 6, n. 2)

First, you tacitly acknowledge here that the Church has not made any decision one way or the other about the widespread and adored practice,

The Church has said that certain people should not approach for a blessing. I admit the Church doesn’t clearly say what to do if they approach and/or request one anyway.

Second, once again you and benedictgal are stating your personal preferences should be given weight as against the experience of the whole Church…

I was stating my personal preference about the traditional practice of making a “spiritual communion” instead of going up for a blessing. I did not say my preference “should be given weight” against the Church’s experience or decision.

Maybe because they’re not stuck in silly hypothetical land, but instead just received the body blood soul and divinity of Christ?

Sure, it’s hypothetical, but I think it’s also possible.

And maybe because the line is moving the other way, which is a large subconscious motivator…

I don’t quite understand this part.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…
Here is precisely what they said: “others who are not to be admitted to Holy Communion in accord with the norm of law.”

What is the “norm of law”? Let’s look at Canon Law:
Can. 844 §1 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments only to catholic members of Christ’s faithful, who equally may lawfully receive them only from catholic ministers, except as provided in §§2, 3 and 4 of this canon and in can. 861 §2.

…

Can. 912 Any baptised person who is not forbidden by law may and must be admitted to holy communion.

Can. 913 §1 For holy communion to be administered to children, it is required that they have sufficient knowledge and be accurately prepared…

§2 The blessed Eucharist may … be administered to children in danger of death if they can distinguish the Body of Christ from ordinary food and receive communion with reverence.

…

Can. 915 Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.

Can. 916 Anyone who is conscious of grave sin may not celebrate Mass or receive the Body of the Lord without previously having been to sacramental confession, unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess…

Can. 917 One who has received the blessed Eucharist may receive it again on the same day only within a eucharistic celebration in which that person participates, without prejudice to the provision of can. 921 §2.

Can. 919 §1 Whoever is to receive the blessed Eucharist is to abstain for at least one hour before holy communion from all food and drink, with the sole exception of water and medicine.

exactly this is all about receiving, which not being done in the practice at hand.

Such as? I’m just curious; I know I’m only commenting on blessings during Communion, but I’m curious what other (common?) practices you are referring to which are against the rules.

well it would depend on my personal observation and whether the ruling carves out a single practice. But some other examples as already list is no more receiving in wheel chairs, no children in tow, no clamping no matter what, no acknowledging anniverseries etc., etc.

If the Church decides to allow it, then so be it. But I think the Church could re-educate the faithful (and inquiring non-Catholics) about the practice of making a “spiritual Communion” instead of getting a Communion-processing blessing, and save the blessings for outside of Mass.

What’s to stop a person, today, from going up, receiving Communion, and then asking for a blessing as well? I don’t know of such a thing happening, but if the blessing really isn’t seen as being given “in lieu” of Communion, then why shouldn’t communicants receive the blessing too?

Well a couple of things, first no ruling at all is likely, second the Bishops and the ruling body of Bishops already have some authority (which may be allowed to cover this or denied to cover this), additionally being no expert on spiritual communion it may not be an answer at all. Please read link archden.org/archbishop/docs/2_12_03_liturgy_communion.htm so my adice is not to hold our breath for a clear ruling. Now concerning the both scenerio all I would tell you is the bishops can address that and probably would.

hope that helps

 

[japhy]

exactly this is all about receiving, which not being done in the practice at hand.

No, you’ve missed the point of why I quoted all that. Here is what observation #5 said:
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).
The quote from Canon Law helps us determine who is included in the list of “others who are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” Concerning this group of people, the CDWDS says that “the Church’s discipline has already made clear that they should not approach Holy Communion nor receive a blessing.”

I don’t know how to be clearer about this. This response from the CDWDS says what certain people (who may not receive Communion) should NOT do during Communion.

some other examples as already list is [1] no more receiving in wheel chairs, [2] no children in tow, [3] no clapping no matter what, [4] no acknowledging anniverseries etc., etc.

1. That is a preposterous example; it is absolutely understandable that a person who NEEDS a wheelchair to get around can use one at Mass.
2. There is nothing wrong with bringing a child up to Communion with you for the child’s well-being and safety. You wouldn’t leave an infant or small child alone in a pew. The “loop-hole”, if you want to call it that, is that the child is not approaching the sacrament to receive it, they are being brought along by their parents or guardians.
3. Clapping should be done very sparingly. It is welcomed in the Ordination Rite, I think, but don’t quote me on that.
4. There is a place in the Mass for announcements like that, right after the Post-Communion Prayer. The GIRM allows that.

the Bishops and the ruling body of Bishops already have some authority

Decisions of the USCCB aren’t liturgical law unless Rome approves them. Decisions of individual bishops cannot contradict universal law (without an indult).

Please read link archden.org/archbishop/docs/2_12_03_liturgy_communion.htm

Bishop Chaput says some very good things there. I agree with him. Concerning his proposal at the end: “They may come forward with their arms crossed and bow before the Eucharist. Then the priest, deacon or extraordinary minister could say to them kindly, ‘Receive the Lord Jesus in your heart.’ This is not a blessing, but an invitation to worship, so no gestures are made.” That sounds like a solution which the CDWDS might approve.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

No, you’ve missed the point of why I quoted all that. Here is what observation #5 said:
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).
The quote from Canon Law helps us determine who is included in the list of “others who are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” Concerning this group of people, the CDWDS says that “the Church’s discipline has already made clear that they should not approach Holy Communion nor receive a blessing.”

I don’t know how to be clearer about this. This response from the CDWDS says what certain people (who may not receive Communion) should NOT do during Communion.

There is some much here and it seems it has been reviewed a dozen times. What does Fr. Trilgilio say without a pretext you can have a context? This would seem to me to be a perfect case. If observation #5 is read as a free standing statement it would seem a complete answer to the question and only leave a few questions as *good where is the source document? * And we notice no source is given for such an important document. Nor can any of us who have read so much reference a source which contains this statement. So it leaves a big “why” only until we read the pretext. When we read the pretext it is clear the author clearly avoids this as an answer and calls it an “observations” without explanation of source. So we do know the author considered this as an observation not an answer.

Now not to switch gears but to try to explain this to you please recall I asked something about whether this letter intended for publishing and I can promise you misinterpreted that question. It would seem to be an extremely poor published document but a good private letter, so my suspicion is this was a private letter. I suspect the Monsignor wrote from the office not on behalf of the office. Not that it is a competence issue but would not need deep explanation or reference sources as a letter.

So many times we are asked to assume the “observation” is a complete answer in a poorly written church document. Now should we do that? my answer is no, because having read the letter it would seem to have a total different pretext and context. For example in this very post you will deny the answer you seem to propose. just watch

1. That is a preposterous example; it is absolutely understandable that a person who NEEDS a wheelchair to get around can use one at Mass.

so it is not the “rule” but the intent because the rule is clear

1. There is nothing wrong with bringing a child up to Communion with you for the child’s well-being and safety.

There you go so much for the Idea observation #5 is an answer. Small children are Catholics " are not to be admitted to Holy Communion in accord with the norm of law" Now if they have not been baptized then you could argue they are " non-Catholics " either way they are in observation #5

You wouldn’t leave an infant or small child alone in a pew. The “loop-hole”, if you want to call it that, is that the child is not approaching the sacrament to receive it, they are being brought along by their parents or guardians.

that does not separate the children from many of the others

1. Clapping should be done very sparingly. It is welcomed in the Ordination Rite, I think, but don’t quote me on that.

Well again follow the typed word or do not. many complain about the clapping it is not written in the mass

1. There is a place in the Mass for announcements like that, right after the Post-Communion Prayer. The GIRM allows that.

exactly, so we need to stop all that other celebration which certainly exceeds beyong an announcement right?

Decisions of the USCCB aren’t liturgical law unless Rome approves them. Decisions of individual bishops cannot contradict universal law (without an indult).

who says these discretions contradict law, and who has already decided whether the practice at hand is within or outside the discretion area?

Bishop Chaput says some very good things there. I agree with him. Concerning his proposal at the end: “They may come forward with their arms crossed and bow before the Eucharist. Then the priest, deacon or extraordinary minister could say to them kindly, ‘Receive the Lord Jesus in your heart.’ This is not a blessing, but an invitation to worship, so no gestures are made.” That sounds like a solution which the CDWDS might approve.

Well there you go again observation #5 fling out the window again, so now the children are to approach? Maybe Bishop Chaput should be chastised for not knowing they should stay in the pew? Or maybe that staying in the pew is not part of the law?

In summary I am not being a smartelic the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Disciple of the Sacraments has not offered a opinion thus the issue remains under review until an opinion we should follow those ordained to lead us, when they say approach we should approach when they say not to approach unless able and willing to receive the same should be done.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

TR,

Just for the sake of clarity and to further the discussion, would you accept that the phrase “approach communion” means receiving communion or ***attempting to receive communion **or presenting oneself with the hope of receiving communion?

*This is the meaning of the phrase in this letter and is the meaning of the phrase in other Church documents, and in other theological writings. It does not mean to simply move towards the consecrated Host.

VC

 

[japhy]

where is the source document?

Unless you can answer that question, there’s no sense in asking it over and over again.

And we notice no source is given for such an important document. Nor can any of us who have read so much reference a source which contains this statement. So it leaves a big “why” only until we read the pretext. When we read the pretext it is clear the author clearly avoids this as an answer and calls it an “observations” without explanation of source. So we do know the author considered this as an observation not an answer.

Are you suggesting he “observed” incorrectly? I’m not saying he’s infallible, of course, but it sounds to me like you’re saying Fr. Ward made this “observation” without the ability to back it up, which is why he didn’t call it an “answer”. I think you’re speculating as to his motive, and I don’t think that’s a legitimate move.

If someone is going to tell me I don’t have the authority to interpret the visible words of the document, I won’t be quick to accept their authority to interpret the unseen intent of its author.

I would guess these are “observations” simply because the deliberation on the matter is still ongoing and he doesn’t have a “final answer”, simply “observations” that the Congregation (rather than simply himself) has made.

It would seem to be an extremely poor published document but a good private letter, so my suspicion is this was a private letter. I suspect the Monsignor wrote from the office not on behalf of the office.

I disagree. The response reads “this Dicastery wishes to limit itself to the following observations.” He is not writing just “from” the office, he is listing observations made by the Dicastery.

I’m not going to argue about the quality of the response, because frankly, I think that’s an effort to avoid what it says, in favor of how (and how well) it says what it does.

Small children are Catholics " are not to be admitted to Holy Communion in accord with the norm of law" Now if they have not been baptized then you could argue they are " non-Catholics " either way they are in observation #5 that does not separate the children from many of the others.

There is a difference between being brought up in the Communion procession by someone you’re with and “approaching Holy Communion”. When you “approach” a sacrament, you expect to receive it.

Well again follow the typed word or do not. many complain about the clapping it is not written in the mass

I don’t have the “typed word” at my disposal, so I cannot make a comment on it. I think the congregation is asked to show their approval of the ordination of deacons, priests, and bishops by applause, but I don’t know for sure.

Clapping after a hymn is inappropriate. (I mean, if the choir did a good job and gets a round of applause, why not the people who read the Scriptures well?) I suppose there are reasons for applause during a homily or sermon – there certainly was in St. Augustine’s time! – but I am generally of the same mind as Pope Benedict when it comes to applause in the liturgy: it’s probably out of place and being done for the wrong reason.

exactly, so we need to stop all that other celebration which certainly exceeds beyong an announcement right?

Announcing birthdays and engagements and anniversaries during that time seems okay to me. Having special blessings for these occasions – as found in the Book of Blessings – is fine too. Making a production out of it, though, doesn’t seem right to me. Have a celebration in the parish hall after Mass.

Decisions of the USCCB aren’t liturgical law unless Rome approves them. Decisions of individual bishops cannot contradict universal law (without an indult).

I was speaking generally, not specifically. The USCCB doesn’t create law without the Vatican’s approval (like was necessary for the Norms for Communion under Both Kinds), and an individual bishop cannot deny something permitted universally (like receiving on the tongue) nor allow something denied (without an indult, which is why a bishop in some other country can’t decide to start Communion in the hand on his own initiative, he must request the indult from Rome).

Specifically, though, I have not seen a liturgical norm put forth by a bishop concerning these Communion blessings.

Well there you go again observation #5 fling out the window again, so now the children are to approach? Maybe Bishop Chaput should be chastised for not knowing they should stay in the pew? Or maybe that staying in the pew is not part of the law?

Maybe I’m just getting the wrong vibe, but it sounds to me like you’re over-reacting. Who said anything about chastising bishops?! First, about children approaching, I’ve covered that above. Verbum Caro did too.

And Bishop Chaput put forth a solution which avoids a Communion blessing; he did not decree a law, and if he over-stepped his bounds, perhaps it was brought to his attention. I don’t know. And this was six years ago; perhaps something has changed? There is clearly information available now that was not available then.

In summary I am not being a smartelic the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Disciple of the Sacraments has not offered a opinion thus the issue remains under review until an opinion we should follow those ordained to lead us, when they say approach we should approach when they say not to approach unless able and willing to receive the same should be done.

Is the CDWDS now dispensing “opinions”, rather than interpretations of the Church’s discipline and law?

And what is the reason to not provide these five “observations” to pastors? Is there something that makes these observations only applicable to my private non-ordained eyes and ears, or is it possible that a pastor would be able to understand them and apply them (pastorally!) in his parish or diocese?

Why not let others know about these observations?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

TR,

Just for the sake of clarity and to further the discussion, would you accept that the phrase “approach communion” means receiving communion or ***attempting to receive communion *or presenting oneself with the hope of receiving communion?

This is the meaning of the phrase in this letter and is the meaning of the phrase in other Church documents, and in other theological writings. It does not mean to simply move towards the consecrated Host.

VC

agreed

 

[Newbie2]

I guess one’s position on this issue depends on one’s leaning toward or away from a legalistic interpretation of what’s been officially handed down.

That’s the bottom line for me.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Unless you can answer that question, there’s no sense in asking it over and over again.
Are you suggesting he “observed” incorrectly? I’m not saying he’s infallible, of course, but it sounds to me like you’re saying Fr. Ward made this “observation” without the ability to back it up, which is why he didn’t call it an “answer”. I think you’re speculating as to his motive, and I don’t think that’s a legitimate move.
If someone is going to tell me I don’t have the authority to interpret the visible words of the document, I won’t be quick to accept their authority to interpret the unseen intent of its author.
I would guess these are “observations” simply because the deliberation on the matter is still ongoing and he doesn’t have a “final answer”, simply “observations” that the Congregation (rather than simply himself) has made.
I disagree. The response reads “this Dicastery wishes to limit itself to the following observations.” He is not writing just “from” the office, he is listing observations made by the Dicastery.
I’m not going to argue about the quality of the response, because frankly, I think that’s an effort to avoid what it says, in favor of how (and how well) it says what it does.

I am not asking you to produce a second source, nor to not interpret the letter, and I do not wish to imply the “observation” is incorrect. What I ask is the context be considered to prevent erroneous interpretation.

There is a difference between being brought up in the Communion procession by someone you’re with and “approaching Holy Communion”. When you “approach” a sacrament, you expect to receive it.

This is another example of context, normally church writing does not require such interpretation. Normally the writing comes with better explanations and direct references. Normally the new writing explains its continuity with related church teaching. It is possible the Church changed style, however it is also possible this was intended as a personal response.

I don’t have the “typed word” at my disposal, so I cannot make a comment on it. I think the congregation is asked to show their approval of the ordination of deacons, priests, and bishops by applause, but I don’t know for sure.
Clapping after a hymn is inappropriate. (I mean, if the choir did a good job and gets a round of applause, why not the people who read the Scriptures well?) I suppose there are reasons for applause during a homily or sermon – there certainly was in St. Augustine’s time! – but I am generally of the same mind as Pope Benedict when it comes to applause in the liturgy: it’s probably out of place and being done for the wrong reason.
Announcing birthdays and engagements and anniversaries during that time seems okay to me. Having special blessings for these occasions – as found in the Book of Blessings – is fine too. Making a production out of it, though, doesn’t seem right to me. Have a celebration in the parish hall after Mass.

all these things and many, many other things are not present in the GIRM, same as the issues at hand

I was speaking generally, not specifically. The USCCB doesn’t create law without the Vatican’s approval (like was necessary for the Norms for Communion under Both Kinds), and an individual bishop cannot deny something permitted universally (like receiving on the tongue) nor allow something denied (without an indult, which is why a bishop in some other country can’t decide to start Communion in the hand on his own initiative, he must request the indult from Rome).

correct, but the issue at hand is not a change to the GIRM nor universal law

Specifically, though, I have not seen a liturgical norm put forth by a bishop concerning these Communion blessings.
Maybe I’m just getting the wrong vibe, but it sounds to me like you’re over-reacting. Who said anything about chastising bishops?! First, about children approaching, I’ve covered that above. Verbum Caro did too.

Well I do not intend to over react, my question is this is it an issue for you, I, and Verbum Caro to decide? Or does the Bishop have authority over the matter? Or can only Rome decide? I have no problem with the Bishop’s decision, I recognize his authority.

And Bishop Chaput put forth a solution which avoids a Communion blessing; he did not decree a law, and if he over-stepped his bounds, perhaps it was brought to his attention. I don’t know. And this was six years ago; perhaps something has changed? There is clearly information available now that was not available then.

I have no problem with it or his authority, some seem to suggest he lacks this authority, while I think the issue is well inside his authority

Is the CDWDS now dispensing “opinions”, rather than interpretations of the Church’s discipline and law?

I am not aware one can exist without the other

And what is the reason to not provide these five “observations” to pastors? Is there something that makes these observations only applicable to my private non-ordained eyes and ears, or is it possible that a pastor would be able to understand them and apply them (pastorally!) in his parish or diocese?

Why not let others know about these observations?

Let them know but how can they apply “under the attentive study” ? In the thread both Atlanta and Denver advisories were shown. Neither states receive or stay in the pew. And others seem to imply neither office has authority to implement any advisory concerning the subject. I have no problem with their authority, remember my problem is watching others be told this is illicit, forbidden, liturgical abuse, or sacrilege or anything close to those statements

Hope that helps