Bumping. Let me know if you want on or off the list. Click my screen name for a description.
patent
Posted on 05/03/2002 10:46:17 AM PDT by patent
VATICAN CITY, MAY 2, 2002 (VIS) - Today in the Holy See Press Office, Cardinals Joseph Ratzinger and Jorge Arturo Medina Estevez and Archbishop Julian Herranz presented the Apostolic Letter In The Form Of Motu Proprio "Misericordia Dei" On Certain Aspects of the Celebration of the Sacrament of Penance.
Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, highlighted the personal nature of the Sacrament of Penance as underlined in the document. This means that both guilt and pardon "must be entirely personal." This aspect has become confused over the last few decades as recourse to collective absolution "came ever more frequently to be considered as a normal form of the Sacrament of Penance: an abuse that has contributed to the progressive disappearance of this Sacrament in some parts of the Church."
The cardinal said that "the obligation of confession is instituted - as the Council of Trent says - by the Lord Himself and is constituted by the Sacrament, thus it is not left to the disposition of the Church. It is not, then, in the Church's power to substitute personal confession with general absolution."
Cardinal Medina, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of Sacraments, stressed that "the ministry of reconciliation is not a privilege or exercise of power, it is the expression of the pastoral responsibility that each bishop and priest assumed before God the day they were ordained. It is their dutiful service to their brothers and sisters."
"The Motu Proprio 'Misericordia Dei' underlines the traditional teaching of Church doctrine according to which the only ordinary way to celebrate the Sacrament of Penance is that of a full confession of sins to a priest, followed by personal absolution. So-called 'collective' or 'general' absolutions are to be considered as extraordinary and exceptional, to be used only and exclusively when threatened by death or when it is physically or morally impossible to celebrate the Sacrament in the ordinary way."
Archbishop Herranz, president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, indicated that this legislative document represents "an act of ecclesial governance that is not only judicious and timely but also fully responsive to John Paul II's Magisterium on the value of justice as a primary requirement of charity and, at the same time, as inseparable from mercy in the Church's legal code."
Two dimensions are highlighted in the Motu Proprio: "The fundamental right of the faithful to receive from their pastors the Sacraments instituted by Christ," and the duty of the latter to "establish and secure the unfailing application of canonical and liturgical laws that ensure the valid and legal celebration of the Sacraments."
Archbishop Herranz affirmed that the norms of this document concern "the only ordinary way" to receive divine forgiveness for grave sins, in other words "individual confession," and, secondly, the "extraordinary way to administer the Sacrament, in other words the absolution of a number of penitents together without prior individual confession," which must happen in only two cases: "imminent danger of death and cases of dire necessity."
Finally, the archbishop recalled, the affirmation of the Pope that "what is written in the Motu Proprio is, by its nature, valid for the venerable Oriental Catholic Churches, in conformity with the respective Canons of their own Code."
VATICAN CITY, MAY 2, 2002 (VIS) - Made public today was Pope John Paul II's Apostolic Letter in the Form of Motu Proprio 'Misericordia Dei' on Certain Aspects of the Celebration of the Sacrament of Penance. In the Letter, dated April 7, Divine Mercy Sunday, the Pope affirmed: "I decree that everything I have set down in this Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio shall have full and lasting force and be observed from this day forth, notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary. All that I have decreed in this Letter is, by its nature, valid for the venerable Oriental Catholic Churches in conformity with the respective Canons of their own Code."
Following are excerpts:
"Through the centuries, the celebration of the Sacrament of Penance has developed in different forms, but it has always kept the same basic structure: it necessarily entails not only the action of the minister - only a Bishop or priest, who judges and absolves, tends and heals in the name of Christ - but also the actions of the penitent: contrition, confession and satisfaction."
"In order that the minister of the Sacrament may know the dispositions of penitents with a view to granting or withholding absolution and imposing a suitable penance, it is necessary that the faithful, as well as being aware of the sins they have committed, of being sorry for them and resolved not to fall into them again, should also confess their sins. In this sense, the Council of Trent declared that it is necessary 'by divine decree to confess each and every mortal sin'. ... Since, therefore, the integral confession of serious sins is by divine decree a constitutive part of the Sacrament, it is in no way subject to the discretion of pastors (dispensation, interpretation, local customs, etc.)."
"In the present circumstances of the care of souls and responding to the concerned requests of many Brothers in the Episcopate, I consider it useful to recall some of the canonical laws in force regarding the celebration of this Sacrament and clarify certain aspects of them. ... This seems especially necessary, given that in some places there has been a tendency to abandon individual confession and wrongly to resort to 'general' or 'communal' absolution. In this case general absolution is no longer seen as an extraordinary means to be used in wholly exceptional situations."
"Thus, after consultation with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, and the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, and after hearing the views of venerable Brother Cardinals in charge of the dicasteries of the Roman Curia, ... I decree the following:
"1. Ordinaries are to remind all the ministers of the Sacrament of Penance that the universal law of the Church, applying Catholic doctrine in this area, has established that:
"a) 'Individual and integral confession and absolution are the sole ordinary means by which the faithful, conscious of grave sin, are reconciled with God and the Church; only physical or moral impossibility excuses from such confession, in which case reconciliation can be obtained in other ways' (Can. 960).
"b) Therefore, 'all those of whom it is required by virtue of their ministry in the care of souls are obliged to ensure that the confessions of the faithful entrusted to them are heard when they reasonably ask, and that they are given the opportunity to approach individual confession, on days and at times set down for their convenience'. (Can. 986, §1.)"
"2. Local Ordinaries, and parish priests and rectors of churches and shrines, should periodically verify that the greatest possible provision is in fact being made for the faithful to confess their sins."
"3. Since 'the faithful are obliged to confess, according to kind and number, all grave sins committed after Baptism of which they are conscious after careful examination and which have not yet been directly remitted by the Church's power of the keys, nor acknowledged in individual confession' (Can. 988, §1), any practice which restricts confession to a generic accusation of sin or of only one or two sins judged to be more important is to be reproved."
"4. In the light of and within the framework of the above norms, the absolution of a number of penitents at once without previous confession, as envisaged by Can. 961 of the Code of Canon Law, is to be correctly understood and administered. Such absolution is in fact 'exceptional in character' and 'cannot be imparted in a general manner unless:
"1. the danger of death is imminent and there is not time for the priest or priests to hear the confessions of the individual penitents;
"2. a grave necessity exists, that is, when in light of the number of penitents a supply of confessors is not readily available to hear the confessions of individuals in an appropriate way within an appropriate time, so that the penitents would be deprived of sacramental grace or Holy Communion for a long time through no fault of their own; it is not considered sufficient necessity if confessors cannot be readily available only because of the great number of penitents, as can occur on the occasion of some great feast or pilgrimage'.
"With reference to the case of grave necessity, the following clarification is made:
"a) It refers to situations which are objectively exceptional, such as can occur in mission territories or in isolated communities of the faithful, where the priest can visit only once or very few times a year, or when war or weather conditions or similar factors permit.
"b) The two conditions set down in the Canon to determine grave necessity are inseparable."
"c) The first condition, the impossibility of hearing confessions 'in an appropriate way' 'within an appropriate time', refers only to the time reasonably required for the elements of a valid and worthy celebration of the Sacrament."
"d) The second condition calls for a prudential judgement in order to assess how long penitents can be deprived of sacramental grace for there to be a true impossibility as described in Can. 960, presuming that there is no imminent danger of death."
"e) It is not acceptable to contrive or to allow the contrivance of situations of apparent grave necessity, ... still less because of penitents' preference for general absolution, as if this were a normal option equivalent to the two ordinary forms set out in the Ritual.
"f) The large number of penitents gathered on the occasion of a great feast or pilgrimage, or for reasons of tourism or because of today's increased mobility of people, does not in itself constitute sufficient necessity.
"5. Judgement as to whether there exist the conditions required by Can. 961 §1, 2 is not a matter for the confessor but for 'the diocesan Bishop who can determine cases of such necessity in the light of criteria agreed upon with other members of the Episcopal Conference' (Can.961, §2).
"6. Given the fundamental importance of full harmony among the Bishops' Conferences of the world in a matter so essential to the life of the Church, the various Conferences, observing Can. 455 § 2 of the Code of Canon Law, shall send as soon as possible to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments the text of the norms which they intend to issue or update in the light of this Motu Proprio on the application of Can. 961."
"7. As regards the personal disposition of penitents, it should be reiterated that:
"a) 'For the faithful to avail themselves validly of sacramental absolution given to many at one time, it is required that they not only be suitably disposed but also at the same time intend to confess individually the serious sins which at present cannot be so confessed' (Can. 962, §1).
"b) As far as possible, including cases of imminent danger of death, there should be a preliminary exhortation to the faithful 'that each person take care to make an act of contrition' (Can.962, §2).
"c) It is clear that penitents living in a habitual state of serious sin and who do not intend to change their situation cannot validly receive absolution.
"8. The obligation 'to confess serious sins at least once a year' (Can. 989) remains, and therefore 'a person who has had serious sins remitted by general absolution is to approach individual confession as soon as there is an opportunity to do so before receiving another general absolution, unless a just cause intervenes' (Can. 963).
"9. Concerning the place and confessional for the celebration of the Sacrament, it should be remembered that:
"a) 'the proper place to hear sacramental confessions is a church or an oratory' (Can. 964 §1) though it remains clear that pastoral reasons can justify celebrating the Sacrament in other places (Cf. Can. 964, §3).
"b) confessionals are regulated by the norms issued by the respective Episcopal Conferences, who shall ensure that confessionals are located 'in an open area' and have 'a fixed grille', so as to permit the faithful and confessors themselves who may wish to make use of them to do so freely."
Bumping. Let me know if you want on or off the list. Click my screen name for a description.
patent
General absolution should only be used under the rare circumstances listed. My question is; if a bishop or cardinal allows general absolution to occur in their jurisdiction, who corrects them and prevails on them to "get it right"?
§ 2. Extraordinary ministers may distribute Holy Communion at eucharistic celebrations only when there are no ordained ministers present or when those ordained ministers present at a liturgical celebration are truly unable to distribute Holy Communion.(99) They may also exercise this function at eucharistic celebrations where there are particularly large numbers of the faithful and which would be excessively prolonged because of an insufficient number of ordained ministers to distribute Holy Communion. (100)
This is an important and timely post. My priest performs general-absolution penance services and uses this last phrase as an out. His rationale is that they ain't gonna come if we do it the old-fashioned way.
Then again, they might come if a sermon regarding penance was offered, or if there were more opportunities to receive the sacrament rather than 3:30-4:00 PM on Saturday, just before the 4 o'clock Mass.
********
The latest abuse in my parish is doctored hosts. On "special occasions," one of the liberal lay people bakes the hosts, and my wife told me that this woman adds honey to the mix in a great enough proportion to render the sacrament invalid. I've tasted them and the sweetness is noticeable.
My daughter's first Communion is coming up next weekend and I've heard through the grapevine that this woman will be passing her recipe on to the first Eucharist class that will bake the bread. My phone calls to her have not been returned. Tonight I'm going to call our priest to make sure that we don't have invalid matter. Oh, what fun times we live in.
Unfortunately, pennance was miserably underemphasized in my Catholic upbringing. (As I heard Fr. Larry Richards say, "If you meet the Lord today and went through Catholic religious education in the last 30 years -- DENY IT!")
I'm embarrassed to even think about how many times I've accepted the Eucharist in the last ten years while in a state of mortal sin -- praise God for the grace communicated through this site!
Confession Bump!
The latest abuse in my parish is doctored hosts. On "special occasions," one of the liberal lay people bakes the hosts, and my wife told me that this woman adds honey to the mix in a great enough proportion to render the sacrament invalid. I've tasted them and the sweetness is noticeable.Do you have other parish options? My word that is bad. Why on earth does she feel the need to do this? Even if she doens't believe in the Real Presence (which seems obvious), what can it possibly matter to her to do this and offend people?
If I knew this, the first time I took a host that tasted sweet enough or that I would spit it out and hand it back to the minister, explaining why. I would then call my bank and cancel the check put in the collection basket, and send the parish a letter explaining why, copying the Bishop.
I would then get in my car and drive somewhere else that next Sunday, there is no way I would bother with a parish that doesn't bother to give you the Sacraments.
patent
AMEN! Spend a little more time writing and giving a good orthodox teaching on the sacrament; and get the heck off the golf course and into the confessional earlier and more often.
My cousin is a newly ordained priest(2 years). He hears confessions twice a day, every day; before Mass in the morning and after vespers in the evening!
We need to pray for St. John Vianney's intercession.
To the priest; next the bishop and last, the papal nuncio. let's hope it stops at one! Isn't it fun?!!!
patent
What Diocese and/or Order?
Sheesh. Sometimes it appears we have become Sola Documenta. I want ACTION. Please, I'm BEGGIN' YA...If some Bishop insists on being disobedient CAN HIS BUTT and put another in his place. And DO IT PUBLICLY, NOW....ENOUGH ALREADY WITH THE PAPERWORK...THE DOCUMENTS....THE SYNODS
BASTA
This is just so outrageous! It is a sacrilege!
My second thought is that I think it is pretty dodgy to have someone baking the Eucharist - if the woman is nuts enough to make it the way she does (rendering it invalid), she might be living with 100 cats or something like that. Yick!
And I thought I had problems with the nazi CCD nun forbidding my son to take his First Communion orally tomorrow. (he can do it like that for the rest of his life, but his first time HAS to be in his hands).
And I thought I had problems with the nazi CCD nun forbidding my son to take his First Communion orally tomorrow. (he can do it like that for the rest of his life, but his first time HAS to be in his hands).The CCD nun is dead wrong. These are the norms for reception of communion as found in The General Instruction of the Roman Missal, Appendix to the General Instruction for the Dioceses of the United States:
240. DISTRIBUTION OF COMMUNIONOn June 17, 1977, the Congregation of Sacraments and Divine Worship approved the request of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops to permit the optional practice of Communion in the hand. The Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy, in its catechesis about this optional practice, drew attention to these considerations:
a. Proper catechesis must be provided to assure the proper and reverent reception of Communion without any suggestion of wavering on the part of the Church in its faith in the Eucharistic presence.
b. The practice must remain the option of the communicant. The priest or minister of Communion does not make the decision as to the manner of reception of Communion. It is the communicant's personal choice.
c. When Communion is distributed under both kinds by intinction, the host is not placed in the hands of the communicants, nor may the communicants receive the host and dip it into the chalice. Intinction should not be introduced as a means of circumventing the practice of Communion in the hand.
d. Children have the option to receive Communion in the hand or on the tongue. No limitations because of age have been established. Careful preparation for first reception of the Eucharist will provide the necessary instruction. (See also the Roman Ritual, , no. 21.)
What a wonderful story. Congratulations!
This is a topic that gets my attention. About three years ago my Mother returned to the faith after a 40 year absence. I called her Parish priest to explain her situation and get some info. In his zeal to welcome a lost sheep back to the flock, the Priest offered to hear her confession over the phone! I told him that wouldn’t be necessary, I just need to know the schedule for hearing confessions. This Priest is now on a Sabbatical somewhere to re-evaluate his vocation. He was a very personable man , but very unorthodox
Anyway, I posted my problem in detail here on FR and several people gave me advice on it. (history_matters offered to call the nun! Let's say a prayer for him, btw) Anyway, my parish priest told me that my son could/would receive orally if he chose to do that (which he does).
Well, I just got off the phone with our priest. I said, "I'm a little concerned that the bread they're baking for first Communion might have honey in it."
"I know. I gave her the recipe. Can I ask why this would be a problem for you?"
"Well, the host is supposed to be made of bread and water."
"Well, I got this recipe a long time ago from an expert who wrote a book on the Eucharist..."
"I looked it up on line..."
"I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll put aside a host for your daughter if you want me to."
"Yes I do."
So the entire First Communion will be invalid!
I'm sick. And to think that for many this will be their last time in a long time before they receive this grace again, as their parents won't bring them back until Confirmation.
I'm ready to leave this parish now AC. Know of any good Churches in the Upton area?
Unless the nazi CCD nun is going to be the one giving your son Holy Eucharist, she won't be the one to have the say. If your Pastor or Assistant will be the one giving Communion, tell them what YOU want! If Extraordinary Ministers will be helping, talk to them before Mass. Or just have your son go to Communion with his hands firmly folded in prayer and his tongue sticking out. I doubt very seriously they'll refuse to give him Communion! When I'm helping give Communion, I have mostly people receiving in the hand, but Sir SuziQ always receives on the tongue.
This is YOUR son's First Communion, don't even discuss it with the nun anymore, go to the Pastor and tell HIM what you expect.
I decided to prepare our daughter for her First communion because I was disgusted with the quality of the teaching. When I told the Pastor what I planned to do, he asked me "Did you ask Sister Jane?" I said "No, I'm TELLING you what I'm going to do." He just laughed and said ok. But Sister Jane would not let my daughter make her Communion with the group during the special First Communion Mass; fair enough, she made it with us on Easter Sunday without all the silly songs, etc.!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.