May I recieve the Eucharist tomorrow?

[benedictgal]

Again, my bishop is the law here. If I’m not mistaken he reports directly to the Pope not the CDWDS. It’s his call here locally.

The bishop’s authority is limited. He is, first and foremost, in charge of defending the integrity of the liturgy within his territorial jurisdiction. However, the only thing that he can determine is the posture after the Agnus Dei and to set norms that are in synch with the GIRM and Redemptionis Sacramentum. He does not have the authority to add something to the Mass, which is what this blessing is. If he, or any other bishop, wants to add something to the Mass, they submit this proposal to the USCCB and then, this has to receive a 2/3 majority vote of the Latin-Rite bishops in order for it to be sent to the CDWDS for the recognitio. The CDWDS can either grant it or outright reject it. Ultimately, the CDWDS makes the final call, not the bishop.

Perhaps you may not understand this, but, the CDWDS acts with the authority of the Holy Father. This is the Congregation, curial deparatment, if you will, that is charged with overseeing all liturgical matters for the Universal Church. According to Redemptionis Sacramentum:

[17.] “The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments attends to those matters that pertain to the Apostolic See as regards the regulation and promotion of the Sacred Liturgy, and especially the Sacraments, with due regard for the competence of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It fosters and enforces sacramental discipline, especially as regards their validity and their licit celebration”. Finally, it “carefully seeks to ensure that the liturgical regulations are observed with precision, and that abuses are prevented or eliminated whenever they are detected”.37 In this regard, according to the tradition of the universal Church, pre-eminent solicitude is accorded the celebration of Holy Mass, and also to the worship that is given to the Holy Eucharist even outside Mass.

In fact, this same document, the authoritative document of the Church that deals with liturgical abuse, specifically states that such matters can be addressed to the CDWDS, as an agent of the Holy See. The bishop certainly has to stand up and take notice when the CDWDS issues something because the Congregation does this in the name of and with the authority of the Holy Father. So, yes, your bishop, and all bishops, need to answer to the CDWDS.

The advice that you gave to the OP goes contrary to what the CDWDS said. We cannot be misleading people based on the fact that something incorrect is happening in our neck of the woods. Rome has given five very good examples as to why this should not be happening.

 

[bmadamsberry]

I fear this is a statement in denial of the sad facts: there are many parishes throughout the Church with priests who are not in fact, performing their duties in the fullest unity with the Church, but nevertheless are not disciplined, for various reasons.

We have to embrace the Church upon entering her with all her goods and all her imperfect members. And lest you do not believe this is the case, pick up a newspaper and read it.

It is also a simple matter of fact, that a more traditional parish is less likely to embrace changes to doctrine all that of which are not acceptable, but a ‘progressive’ would view as acceptable. Traditionalists are less susceptible to bad change.

Don’t forget, though, about Sedevacantism, who broke away from the Catholic Church because of Vatican II. People can take anything to an extreme, traditionalism or liberalism.

 

[Hotchkiss]

Don’t forget, though, about Sedevacantism, who broke away from the Catholic Church because of Vatican II. People can take anything to an extreme, traditionalism or liberalism.

That is true. They don’t exactly have to be sedevacantists to be heterodox in what they would consider to be very traditional ways.

And when it comes down to it, extreme liberalism is pretty much the same as extreme conservatism. I think adherents to both would like to believe they are polar opposites but in reality they are just both very extreme, the furthermost distances from moderation.

 

[FrDavid96]

Again, my bishop is the law here. If I’m not mistaken he reports directly to the Pope not the CDWDS. It’s his call here locally.

Unfortunately, you are mistaken. Please understand that the bishop cannot over-rule the pope or the pope’s representative. The pope himself doesn’t have time to answer every question or deal with every issue. That’s why he has duly appointed representatives to act on his behalf. In liturgical matters, the body which interprets and enforces liturgical laws in the name of the pope is the CDWDS. The bishop (and indeed all bishops) do indeed “report to” the CDWDS on liturgical matters.

 

[Hotchkiss]

Unfortunately, you are mistaken. Please understand that the bishop cannot over-rule the pope or the pope’s representative. The pope himself doesn’t have time to answer every question or deal with every issue. That’s why he has duly appointed representatives to act on his behalf. In liturgical matters, the body which interprets and enforces liturgical laws in the name of the pope is the CDWDS. The bishop (and indeed all bishops) do indeed “report to” the CDWDS on liturgical matters.

Actually I’m not mistaken. Fortunately I take my direction from my Bishop via my pastor (as the Church intends) and not from on-line forums.

Interestedly enough I recently asked my pastor about this sort of thing. It was not about this specific issue but it had to do with authority. He said the authority rests with the local bishop unless of course we venture into the world of outright heresy and we are not in this case. In practical terms it means me placing my trust in my pastor and bishop (who are both extremely erudite and faithful men) and their understanding of the Church over your own.

In a somewhat related story, very recently I was standing next to my bishop while he was vesting for Mass. I was admiring his gorgeous chasuble and stole, really nice stuff. I took them off the hanger for him and handed him the stole first. He asked for the chasuble first. I probably had a weird look on my face so he grinned and said he appreciated the symbolism of the faithful being able to see the stole, the very sign of a priest’s authority.

That’s the very sort of thing that would inflame some people because by golly they have read the Church documents on that matter! I have absolutely no doubt he has the ability to dispense that rule as well within his archdiocese. He simply wouldn’t otherwise. The discussion of whether it’s wise to deviate is entirely different but again, I have no doubt he has the authority to do so.

It also explains why my pastor wears his stole outside of his chasuble too.

 

[benedictgal]

Actually I’m not mistaken. Fortunately I take my direction from my Bishop via my pastor (as the Church intends) and not from on-line forums.

Interestedly enough I recently asked my pastor about this sort of thing. It was not about this specific issue but it had to do with authority. He said the authority rests with the local bishop unless of course we venture into the world of outright heresy and we are not in this case. In practical terms it means me placing my trust in my pastor and bishop (who are both extremely erudite and faithful men) and their understanding of the Church over your own.

In a somewhat related story, very recently I was standing next to my bishop while he was vesting for Mass. I was admiring his gorgeous chasuble and stole, really nice stuff. I took them off the hanger for him and handed him the stole first. He asked for the chasuble first. I probably had a weird look on my face so he grinned and said he appreciated the symbolism of the faithful being able to see the stole, the very sign of a priest’s authority.

That’s the very sort of thing that would inflame some people because by golly they have read the Church documents on that matter! I have absolutely no doubt he has the ability to dispense that rule as well within his archdiocese. He simply wouldn’t otherwise. The discussion of whether it’s wise to deviate is entirely different but again, I have no doubt he has the authority to do so.

It also explains why my pastor wears his stole outside of his chasuble too.

The bishop does not have carte blanche over the liturgy. In fact, Redemptionis Sacramentum notes that:

[19.] The diocesan Bishop, the first steward of the mysteries of God in the particular Church entrusted to him, is the moderator, promoter and guardian of her whole liturgical life.39 For “the Bishop, endowed with the fullness of the Sacrament of Order, is ‘the steward of the grace of the high Priesthood’,40 especially in the Eucharist which he either himself offers or causes to be offered,41 by which the Church continually lives and grows”.42

[21.] It pertains to the diocesan Bishop, then, “within the limits of his competence, to set forth liturgical norms in his Diocese, by which all are bound”.45 Still, the Bishop must take care not to allow the removal of that liberty foreseen by the norms of the liturgical books so that the celebration may be adapted in an intelligent manner to the Church building, or to the group of the faithful who are present, or to particular pastoral circumstances in such a way that the universal sacred rite is truly accommodated to human understanding.46

[22.] The Bishop governs the particular Church entrusted to him,47 and it is his task to regulate, to direct, to encourage, and sometimes also to reprove;48 this is a sacred task that he has received through episcopal Ordination,49 which he fulfills in order to build up his flock in truth and holiness.50 He should elucidate the inherent meaning of the rites and the liturgical texts, and nourish the spirit of the Liturgy in the Priests, Deacons and lay faithful51 so that they are all led to the active and fruitful celebration of the Eucharist,52 and in like manner he should take care to ensure that the whole body of the Church is able to grow in the same understanding, in the unity of charity, in the diocese, in the nation and in the world. 53

The key phrase here is “within the limits of his competence”. This means that he cannot add or remove parts of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass at will. The liberty spoken of in #21 is not the kind that allows you to do what you want, but, what is within the prescriptions of the authoritative liturgical documents of the Church. This means that there is flexibility in the propers of the Mass and in the readings. That is where “liberty” is licitly exercised.

Funny you should mention the vesture, since RS also covers this:

123.] “The vestment proper to the Priest celebrant at Mass, and in other sacred actions directly connected with Mass unless otherwise indicated, is **the chasuble, worn over the alb and stole”.213 **Likewise the Priest, in putting on the chasuble according to the rubrics, is not to omit the stole. All Ordinaries should be vigilant in order that all usage to the contrary be eradicated.

Thus, the onus falls on the Ordinary (bishop) to ensure that the rubrics and norms are followed and not deviate from them. In fact, he needs to set the example, as the documents indicate.

The bottom line is that the advice that you gave the OP goes squarely against what Rome has already said. Just because one is experiencing a bad liturgical practice, that does not mean that it is acceptable, let alone, allowed.

 

[Hotchkiss]

The bishop does not have carte blanche over the liturgy. In fact, Redemptionis Sacramentum notes that:
The key phrase here is “within the limits of his competence”. This means that he cannot add or remove parts of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass at will. The liberty spoken of in #21 is not the kind that allows you to do what you want, but, what is within the prescriptions of the authoritative liturgical documents of the Church. This means that there is flexibility in the propers of the Mass and in the readings. That is where “liberty” is licitly exercised.
Funny you should mention the vesture, since RS also covers this:
Thus, the onus falls on the Ordinary (bishop) to ensure that the rubrics and norms are followed and not deviate from them. In fact, he needs to set the example, as the documents indicate.
The bottom line is that the advice that you gave the OP goes squarely against what Rome has already said. Just because one is experiencing a bad liturgical practice, that does not mean that it is acceptable, let alone, allowed.

Your opinion of what the documents say and far more important, your opinion of what authority a bishop has or does not have is just that, your opinion. They hold no authority over me or anyone else. I hope you understand that.

I am absolutely certain my bishop has the authority to welcome people for blessings during communion or to wear his stole outside of his chasuble. I am also certain that he has the authority to allow both within his diocese. Why am I certain? Because he does both. That may seem overly simplistic but it’s not. He clearly understands the documents (at least as well as us) and the extent of his authority within the Church (far better than any of us) and both qualities played a part in his decision.

NOW, we can discuss whether or not it’s wise for him to make such decisions. That’s an entirely different discussion. But does he have the authority to make such decisions? I have no question he does.

Further when he makes such a decision, the responsibility rests with him. If he welcomes people to receive a blessing then any possible negative ramifications land on his shoulders and not on those taking advantage of the blessings. Same with the exterior stoles. If he gives his brother priests permission do wear their stoles outside of their chasubles then the responsibility for that decision rests with him.

That reality ends-up infuriating some people within the Church so ultimately improved catechesis is key.

 

[benedictgal]

Your opinion of what the documents say and far more important, your opinion of what authority a bishop has or does not have is just that, your opinion. They hold no authority over me or anyone else. I hope you understand that.

I am absolutely certain my bishop has the authority to welcome people for blessings during communion or to wear his stole outside of his chasuble. I am also certain that he has the authority to allow both within his diocese. Why am I certain? Because he does both. That may seem overly simplistic but it’s not. He clearly understands the documents (at least as well as us) and the extent of his authority within the Church (far better than any of us) and both qualities played a part in his decision.

NOW, we can discuss whether or not it’s wise for him to make such decisions. That’s an entirely different discussion. But does he have the authority to make such decisions? I have no question he does.

Further when he makes such a decision, the responsibility rests with him. If he welcomes people to receive a blessing then any possible negative ramifications land on his shoulders and not on those taking advantage of the blessings. Same with the exterior stoles. If he gives his brother priests permission do wear their stoles outside of their chasubles then the responsibility for that decision rests with him.

That reality ends-up infuriating some people within the Church so ultimately improved catechesis is key.

I also hope that you understand that the bishop, any bishop, does not have the right to overrule and set-aside what Rome has already stated. The Holy See has already made five very valid observations as to why this blessing should not even be happening:

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.

1. 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).

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. **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 language that the CDWDS uses, the Congregation that you, as I read your posts, would dismiss, is very clear and straight-forward. Furthermore, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, which all bishops and all faithful, for that matter, are bound to obey, specifically states that no one has the right, on his own authority, to add anything to the Mass. These blessings in lieu of receiving Holy Communion, while well-meaning, are an addition to the Mass that no one has the authority to make on their own.

Your insistence that the OP should go and get one, as I see it, only adds to the confusion and further muddies the waters.

 

[Hotchkiss]

I also hope that you understand that the bishop, any bishop, does not have the right to overrule and set-aside what Rome has already stated. The Holy See has already made five very valid observations as to why this blessing should not even be happening:

The language that the CDWDS uses, the Congregation that you, as I read your posts, would dismiss, is very clear and straight-forward. Furthermore, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, which all bishops and all faithful, for that matter, are bound to obey, specifically states that no one has the right, on his own authority, to add anything to the Mass. These blessings in lieu of receiving Holy Communion, while well-meaning, are an addition to the Mass that no one has the authority to make on their own.

Your insistence that the OP should go and get one, as I see it, only adds to the confusion and further muddies the waters.

Again, I’m going to follow my bishop through my pastor and not your (or my own personal) interpretations of Church documents. The authority rests with my bishop here locally and not with your or me. That fact is very difficult for some to accept.

I also made the distinction between a bishop having the authority to direct or allow something and if it’s wise for them to direct or allow something, particularly if it seemingly deviates from published instructions. More people need to make that distinction.

I suggest the OP follow what is allowed by the local bishop. If receiving a blessing during communion is not offered then don’t process up, no matter what their personal preference might be. If they announce (as they do at parishes around here) that those unable to receive communion are welcomed to receive a blessing then I would most certainly encourage them to take advantage of such a generous offer.

 

[benedictgal]

Again, I’m going to follow my bishop through my pastor and not your (or my own personal) interpretations of Church documents. The authority rests with my bishop here locally and not with your or me. That fact is very difficult for some to accept.

I also made the distinction between a bishop having the authority to direct or allow something and if it’s wise for them to direct or allow something, particularly if it seemingly deviates from published instructions. More people need to make that distinction.

I suggest the OP follow what is allowed by the local bishop. If receiving a blessing during communion is not offered then don’t process up, no matter what their personal preference might be. If they announce (as they do at parishes around here) that those unable to receive communion are welcomed to receive a blessing then I would most certainly encourage them to take advantage of such a generous offer.

And, I would respectfully suggest that the OP follow what the Holy See has already stated. It cannot be a generous offer if the person making it is not allowed to do so. You cannot give what you are not allowed to give. One cannot set aside what Rome has indicated based on some misguided notion. Your distinction does not work. This deviation, let alone any deviation, should not be happening especially if the one making it is the bishop. Redemptionis Sacramentum charges him to safeguard the Mass, not allow its integrity to be impuned. He cannot do something that he has no right to do. That is what you seem to not understand, as I read your responses. You have yet to produce anything, any authoritative documentation from the Church that supports your claim.

The blessing comes at the end of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and is applicable to everyone. What the OP should do is to remain in his pew and make a spiritual act of Communion. The line is only for those who are receiving Someone, the Lord, and not something, a blessing, which will come at the end of Mass.

Why are you so adamant about dismissing what the Holy See says? The CDWDS is the ultimate authority here, not the bishop.

 

[DJgang]

Hi!

I am an Anglican convert to Roman Catholicism. I have NOT been confirmed or officially “welcomed” into the church. In all humility, I am very aware of the Catholic teachings about what the Eucharist is and accept them all fully. I have had a valid baptism and intend to get confirmed as a catholic ASAP. May I recieve the Eucharist at tomorrow’s mass?

Just how aware are you of Catholics teachings now?

 

[NPC]

Why are you so adamant about dismissing what the Holy See says? The CDWDS is the ultimate authority here, not the bishop.

Having followed this thread over the last day or so, I’m wondering the same thing. The documents which Benedictgal has quoted are in no way open to interpretation - it is stated clearly that those who cannot be admitted to Holy Communion are not to be given a blessing at Communion-time. There are no two ways about it. Just because the practice continues in your diocese - indeed, I’ve seen it happen in mine - does not mean that the bishop or the priest is right. My own feeling is that priests or bishops who permit this practice to continue are being (i)plainly disobedient to the Holy See, (ii)ignorant of the directives from the CDWDS, (iii)afraid to put their foot down/change the status quo lest they displease some of their flock.

Also, I must ask, Hotchkiss, if you don’t think the documents that the CDWDS (and presumably other congregations) publishes are binding on all bishops, who are they aimed at? They are authoritative - of that there’s no doubt - they are clearly there to instruct and correct. But if your bishop need not obey them, then by that reasoning no other bishop in the world need obey, and they can all just do as they please. So, if the CDWDS is not issuing these things for the good of the universal Church, why are they issuing them? I can tell you, they’re not doing it all for the good of their health.

 

[Hotchkiss]

Having followed this thread over the last day or so, I’m wondering the same thing. The documents which Benedictgal has quoted are in no way open to interpretation - it is stated clearly that those who cannot be admitted to Holy Communion are not to be given a blessing at Communion-time. There are no two ways about it. Just because the practice continues in your diocese - indeed, I’ve seen it happen in mine - does not mean that the bishop or the priest is right. My own feeling is that priests or bishops who permit this practice to continue are being (i)plainly disobedient to the Holy See, (ii)ignorant of the directives from the CDWDS, (iii)afraid to put their foot down/change the status quo lest they displease some of their flock.

How do you know this for certain? You are making that statement as if you’ve proven it to be true and you have not.

Anything we read we interpret based on whatever we bring (education, training, experience, guidance from God, etc.) to that reading process. Your comment is akin to some of our Protestant brethren who vehemently deny that Sacred Scripture must be interpreted.

Further, it’s not always a matter of interpretation. It also can be a matter of a bishop licitly allowing an exemption to something within his area of authority. No one here can concretely define the specific limits of authority of every bishop under every circumstance.

Also, I must ask, Hotchkiss, if you don’t think the documents that the CDWDS (and presumably other congregations) publishes are binding on all bishops, who are they aimed at? They are authoritative - of that there’s no doubt - they are clearly there to instruct and correct. But if your bishop need not obey them, then by that reasoning no other bishop in the world need obey, and they can all just do as they please. So, if the CDWDS is not issuing these things for the good of the universal Church, why are they issuing them? I can tell you, they’re not doing it all for the good of their health.

I think the norms we speak of are most certainly “binding” until a bishop grants a licit exception to one within his sphere of authority. Does that mean a bishop may allow heresy? Of course not. Does that mean that he can allow something that will profane the Blessed Sacrament? Of course not. Does that mean that he has the authority to grant permission for priests in his diocese to wear their stoles on the outside of their chasubles based on his own reasoning? Absolutely. Whether you (or I) think he should or not is something altogether different.

Obviously no gigantic catalog exists which lists every situation in which a bishop might grant an exemption. That makes some believe that there cannot be any licit exemptions of anything by anyone save the Archbishop of Rome. That’s simply not true. The authority and discretion to allow an exemption from the rules comes from the Church not in the form of a big manual, but in the form of Her bishops. :yup:

 

[NPC]

No gigantic catalog exists which lists every situation in which a bishop might grant an exemption. That makes some believe that there cannot be any licit exemptions of anything by anyone save the Archbishop of Rome. That’s simply not true. The authority and discretion to allow an exemption from the rules comes not from the Church in the form of a big manual, but from Her bishops. :yup:

Yes, but silence on a matter is not a license for people to do or believe what they want. The CDWDS does not come out with new directives because they are bored & think “we need to make up some more rules to keep those bishops in their place”. Directives, such as the ones which have been quoted, have been issued precisely because there has been significant deviation among clergy from previously established norms.

St Paul didn’t write his letters to the Hebrews, Corinthians, Romans etc. just to say “hello”. He was reaffirming what had already been taught by himself and the other Apostles - if people had not forgotten or disobeyed what had been preached to them, Paul probably wouldn’t have had to write all the letters he did. I think rather the same thing applies to dogmatic definitions made by the Church - the ones we are most familiar with are the Immaculate Conception (1854) and the Assumption of Mary (1950). Now, we all know that these things were all taught in the early Church, but the infallible dogmatic definitions solidify and reaffirm to the faithful teachings which were already held and passed on since the time of the Apostles.

Of course, one cannot put a document from the CDWDS in the same class as the letters of St Paul, or dogmatic definitions, but the point is the same: silence on a matter does not mean that one is free to take whatever position one desires. Perhaps it’s somewhat paradoxical, but silence on various matters is actually an indication that there has been no significant dissent from teachings or norms which have been already established.

 

[Hotchkiss]

Yes, but silence on a matter is not a license for people to do or believe what they want. The CDWDS does not come out with new directives because they are bored & think “we need to make up some more rules to keep those bishops in their place”. Directives, such as the ones which have been quoted, have been issued precisely because there has been significant deviation among clergy from previously established norms.

A priest taking it upon himself to wear his stole outside of his chasuble is different than his bishop allowing him to. A bishop granting an exception to a rule does not equate to “a license for people to do or believe what they want.”

St Paul didn’t write his letters to the Hebrews, Corinthians, Romans etc. just to say “hello”. He was reaffirming what had already been taught by himself and the other Apostles - if people had not forgotten or disobeyed what had been preached to them, Paul probably wouldn’t have had to write all the letters he did. I think rather the same thing applies to dogmatic definitions made by the Church - the ones we are most familiar with are the Immaculate Conception (1854) and the Assumption of Mary (1950). Now, we all know that these things were all taught in the early Church, but the infallible dogmatic definitions solidify and reaffirm to the faithful teachings which were already held and passed on since the time of the Apostles.

OK…

But there is a world of difference between allowing priests to wear their stoles on the outside of their chasubles versus the bishop who chooses to use the Waterford Chrystal Chalice of of great-great-uncle versus the bishop who (would try to) approve the use of Diet Dr. Pepper and Oreos in place of approved hosts and wine. Understanding the differences (except in the case of heresy) giving the specific situation under local conditions is the job of the bishop.

Of course, one cannot put a document from the CDWDS in the same class as the letters of St Paul, or dogmatic definitions, but the point is the same: silence on a matter does not mean that one is free to take whatever position one desires. Perhaps it’s somewhat paradoxical, but silence on various matters is actually an indication that there has been no significant dissent from teachings or norms which have been already established.

The CDWDS was not silent. They created a document. Local bishops are not silent when they grant exceptions. Again, a bishop allowing an exception does not equate to “one is free to take whatever position one desires.”

Silence on matters (from the Holy See) is also an indication that nothing is wrong.

 

[benedictgal]

A priest taking it upon himself to wear his stole outside of his chasuble is different than his bishop allowing him to. A bishop granting an exception to a rule does not equate to “a license for people to do or believe what they want.”

OK…

But there is a world of difference between allowing priests to wear their stoles on the outside of their chasubles versus the bishop who chooses to use the Waterford Chrystal Chalice of of great-great-uncle versus the bishop who (would try to) approve the use of Diet Dr. Pepper and Oreos in place of approved hosts and wine. Understanding the differences (except in the case of heresy) giving the specific situation under local conditions is the job of the bishop.

The CDWDS was not silent. They created a document. Local bishops are not silent when they grant exceptions. Again, a bishop allowing an exception does not equate to “one is free to take whatever position one desires.”

Silence on matters (from the Holy See) is also an indication that nothing is wrong.

But, what you forget is that these type of exceptions are not within the authority of the bishop, any bishop, to give. What you seem to disregard is the fact that the CDWDS in Redmptionis Sacramentum, states that bishops have a limited competency in things.

The very fact that RS specifically states, in the manner of the vestments, for example, is that the bishop needs to be vigilent in enforcing the norms of his diocese, even where matters of where the stole should go. The documents are very clear about that. There is no wiggle room here. To even think that there is would be, as I read it, resorting to Protestantism.

If you choose to ignore, disregard and give little consideration to the strong statement that the CDWDS made regarding the issue of blessings in lieu of Holy Communion, that is your choice. But, when you actively solicit something that Rome has given five reasons against doing, solid reasons, I might add, then, with all due respect, you are causing confusion.

St. Paul documents the first case of liturgical abuse in his First letter to the Conrinthians. The bishops are successors to the Apostles. Like St. Paul, they need to be digilent against allowing abuses to come into the Mass and, likewise, they need to not promote such infractions.

 

[Hotchkiss]

But, what you forget is that these type of exceptions are not within the authority of the bishop, any bishop, to give. What you seem to disregard is the fact that the CDWDS in Redmptionis Sacramentum, states that bishops have a limited competency in things.

The very fact that RS specifically states, in the manner of the vestments, for example, is that the bishop needs to be vigilent in enforcing the norms of his diocese, even where matters of where the stole should go. The documents are very clear about that. There is no wiggle room here. To even think that there is would be, as I read it, resorting to Protestantism.

If you choose to ignore, disregard and give little consideration to the strong statement that the CDWDS made regarding the issue of blessings in lieu of Holy Communion, that is your choice. But, when you actively solicit something that Rome has given five reasons against doing, solid reasons, I might add, then, with all due respect, you are causing confusion.

St. Paul documents the first case of liturgical abuse in his First letter to the Conrinthians. The bishops are successors to the Apostles. Like St. Paul, they need to be digilent against allowing abuses to come into the Mass and, likewise, they need to not promote such infractions.

How do you know this for certain? Simply put you don’t. You are making that statement as if you’ve proven it to be true and you have not.

It’s remarkable how people throw out their erroneous opinions as proven fact and then try to “build” from there. One cannot build anything worthwhile on a foundation full of holes.

Individual bishop have a tremendous amount of authority within the Church. Sadly some are not aware of that fact because the depth and breadth of a bishop’s authority cannot simply be boiled down to a downloadable PDF file. Because such a PDF file does not exist let me say it again - it makes some believe that there cannot be any licit exemptions of anything by anyone save the Archbishop of Rome. That’s simply not true. The authority and discretion to allow an exemption from the rules comes from the Church not in the form of a big PDF, but in the form of Her bishops. :yup:

 

[benedictgal]

How do you know this for certain? Simply put you don’t. You are making that statement as if you’ve proven it to be true and you have not.

It’s remarkable how people throw out their erroneous opinions as proven fact and then try to “build” from there. One cannot build anything worthwhile on a foundation full of holes.

Individual bishop have a tremendous amount of authority within the Church. Sadly some are not aware of that fact because the depth and breadth of a bishop’s authority cannot simply be boiled down to a downloadable PDF file. Because such a PDF file does not exist let me say it again - it makes some believe that there cannot be any licit exemptions of anything by anyone save the Archbishop of Rome. That’s simply not true. The authority and discretion to allow an exemption from the rules comes from the Church not in the form of a big PDF, but in the form of Her bishops. :yup:

Hotchkiss, individual bishops do not have as much authority as you would think. Their authority, as far as the liturgy is concerned, is spelled out in the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal and Redemptionis Sacramentum.

Let’s examine what the GIRM states:

1. The Diocesan Bishop, who is to be regarded as the high priest of his flock, and from whom the life in Christ of the faithful under his care in a certain sense derives and upon whom it depends,148 must promote, regulate, and be vigilant over the liturgical life in his diocese. It is to him that in this Instruction is entrusted the regulating of the discipline of concelebration (cf. above, nos. 202, 374) and the establishing of norms regarding the function of serving the priest at the altar (cf. above, no. 107), the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds (cf. above, no. 283), and the construction and ordering of churches (cf. above, no. 291). With him lies responsibility above all for fostering the spirit of the Sacred Liturgy in the priests, deacons, and faithful.

This is the only thing that a bishop can regulate. It specifically states that the bishop must be vigilent over the liturgical life of his diocese. Nowhere in this section, or in any other document, does it state that he has the right to add anything like a blessing in lieu of Holy Communion to the Mass.

Now, should the USCCB want to do this, they would need to have a proposal set forth before them. A 2/3 vote of the Latin-Rite bishops need to approve this change and send it to the CDWDS for the necessary recognitio (permission). Rome can either approve or disapprove. To my knowledge, no such move on the USCCB has been made for this and, as indicated in the CDWDS statement, such a request would not receive the recognitio.

The chief regulator of the liturgy remains the Holy See, whether you like it or not. For you to condescendingly refer to the Holy Father as merely the Archbishop of Rome leads me to believe that perhaps you may not be aware of what is and is not allowed.

Again, in the case of imparting a blessing in lieu of distributing Holy Communion, it is not the bishop’s call to make. Rome has spoken clearly on the matter. This is not something that the bishop can override. If he wants to do this, then, he would have to bring up his proposal before the USCCB, take a vote and then send it to Rome. The bishop does not act in a vaccuum.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

If receiving a blessing during communion is not offered then don’t process up, no matter what their personal preference might be. If they announce (as they do at parishes around here) that those unable to receive communion are welcomed to receive a blessing then I would most certainly encourage them to take advantage of such a generous offer.

Although I am a latecomer to this discussion, I just want to point out it even if a) a Bishop allows it, and b) we accept, for the sake of the argument, that the Bishop has the authority to allow it, it does not follow that one should take advantage of the offer (or that they should be encouraged to).

On the one hand you have a Bishop who merely permits it. On the other hand you have the CDWDS which elucidates cogent reasons why it should be avoided. From where I stand (assuming again for the sake of argument that a Bishop has the authority to permit it)I don’t see any reason to take the parish up on it’s invitation.

Anyone want share what the reason for going up for a blessing would be? And is the reason more cogent, and more weighty, than the reasons the CDWDS gives for not going up for blessing?

Thanks,
VC

 

[mullenpm]

“… but you can engage in a spiritual communion with Jesus and you are welcome at the great majority of Catholic parishes to process up for a blessing from a priest or deacon during communion.”

Hotchkiss, please let us not start again this business of joining the Communion line just to get a blessing from the Priest. After all the discussion on this forum about this practice I thought it was understood that one does not enter the Communion line unless one is going to receive the Holy Eucharist.

Everyone receives a blessing from the Priest at the end of the Mass. If the OP wishes to have an individual blessing then he should approach the Priest after Mass.

I recommend that the OP search out some prayers for a Spiritual Communion and pray one of those while remaining in his pew during the period when Communion is being distributed.