Translate

Saturday, December 23, 2023

BOMBSHELL GOOD NEWS! THE BOOK OF BLESSINGS OFFERS THE OFFICIAL WAY THAT A BISHOP, PRIEST OR DEACON COULD BLESS TWO PEOPLE TOGETHER WHO ASK FOR A BLESSING TOGETHER OR EVEN MORE THAN TWO PEOPLE!

 Many in the Church bitterly complained about how poor the prayers of blessing are in this official Book of Blessings. The wording is often horrid and for the most part, no blessing with the “Sign of the Cross” is indicated in the blessing. Usually there is a rubric of a cross in red (+) indicating where the cleric makes the Sign of the Cross over the person, animal or object being blessed. Some of the prayers have this + but the vast majority don’t. 

It turns out now that the perceived flaws in the Book of Blessings is a blessing for clerics blessing two or more people, who might be in sinful public unions, who ask for a “casual” “unofficial” blessing!


For example, this Blessing of Students and Teachers could be used easily to pray over two or more people in sinful unions simply by editing the last part of the prayer of blessing in an appropriate way. Please note, no “Sign of the Cross” is required by this official prayer of blessing:


The same is true of this Prayer of Blessing for a group of people at a religious meeting. This prayer blesses God! What a great solution! With some mild editing this could be used to blessing two or more people, even in sinful unions, without blessing them with the Sign of the Cross!

 FS requires that no liturgical gestures be used in blessing a couple in a sinful union. Isn’t the “Sign of the Cross” used as a blessing from a cleric a liturgical action?

Thus, it would be a prudent recommendation that bishops, priests and deacons be forbidden to used the Liturgical “Sign of the Cross” when unofficially blessing a couple in a sinful union! The Book of Blessings leads the way in the manner of “blessing”! Thank God for this Book of Blessings!!!!!

23 comments:

Mark Thomas said...

Father McDonald, your holy Bishops Stephen Parkes, as well as Jacques Fabre-Jeune, CS, have made it clear that the Declaration, Fiducia Supplicans, upholds Church teaching.

In regard to their respective positive declarations related to Fiducia Supplicans: I appreciate the following from Bishop Jacques Fabre-Jeune, CS:

"Secondly, this Declaration is an opportunity to reflect on our pastoral role to those in our congregations with same-sex attraction."

"More than ever, with the confusion of our modern world, they need encouragement to persevere and guidance to follow Christ in their call to holiness and bravely carrying this cross."

============

In line with Bishop Jacques Fabre-Jeune's above uplifting assessment, Fiducia Supplicans will contribute to the Church's pastoral care of Her children who deal with such things as same-sex attraction.

That, in turn, as Bishop Fabre-Jeune noted, will encourage such folks "to follow Christ in their call to holiness..."

Bishop Fabre-Jeune has recognized that Fiducia Supplicans is an important document that will promote holiness. The Declaration has demonstrated Holy Mother Church's tremendous interest in the pastoral care of Her Children.

The Declaration has demonstrated the Church's wonderful unrelenting determination to lead Her children down that path that leads to holiness.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I think that FS tells bishops not to interfere with what a priest or deacon is doing since it is unofficial. Thus no reprimand for Fr. James Martin, S.J. and FOF, who called the New York Times to make sure they took photos of him inviting two gay friends who are living in sin for his non Liturgical bless publicly done for the world! His bishop is Cardinal Dolan. Go do some research to quote Cardinal Dolan preventing this short of public blessing. My good bishop has stated that couples are not to call and arrange for a blessing and certainly the priest or deacon is not to call and invite a blessing by appointment, exactly what Fr. Martin did.

Thus you see the schism between priests, bishops and dioceses despite some good ones upholding liturgical law.

And MT, the debate is not about the fact that this document indeed upholds (for now) the unchangeable nature of Sacrament of Marriage. The problem is with blessing unions that are mortally sinful by doing gymnastics that the blessing is only for the good part of the couple living in sin. It also comes up with an entirely new “doctrine” of blessings that allows an official of the Church a priest to give a non-official blessing. That really isn’t possible, I act as a priest at all times in giving blessings, liturgical or not.

I wish I didn’t have to explain the obvious to you. And just as Pope Francis flip flopped on explicitly stating that no priest could bless sinful, illicit unions, he changed his mind within a two year period to allow it. He can change his mind about the nature of marriage too and come up with a novel new theology and doctrine. I am shocked you don’t understand and see the obvious right be fore you.

rcg said...

FrAJM, I respectfully disagree with the formula you suggested in your post. The prayers you cite are for people assembled for an acceptable joint purpose or venture. Rewording it would simply substitute an unacceptable purpose.

“Grant that this couple’s trip to Burning Man be filled with new knowledge and experiences they may share with others.” Not.

Mark Thomas said...

Father McDonald, your bishops, Stephen Parkes, as well as Jacques Fabre-Jeune, CS, are on board with Fiducia Supplicans. They will implement the Declaration within their respective dioceses.

As Bishop Fabre-Jeune noted, Fiducia Supplicans will contribute to the Church's pastoral care of Her children who deal, for example, same-sex attraction.

Father McDonald, I believe that should such persons turn to you, that you will prove of immense spiritual value to them. Your blessing will accomplish that. But beyond that, I am certain that you would keep said folks in your prayers. Perhaps they would call upon you for additional spiritual guidance.

As Bishop Fabre-Jeune, CS, noted, the "Declaration is an opportunity to reflect on our pastoral role to those in our congregations with same-sex attraction."

"More than ever, with the confusion of our modern world, they need encouragement to persevere and guidance to follow Christ in their call to holiness and bravely carrying this cross."

Father McDonald, I am certain that more than a few folks in irregular situations have, for years, kept their distance from Holy Mother Church. But the Declaration will move said folks to request blessings from such holy priests as you.

In turn, one may hope that the sincere among said folks will open their hearts and minds to the Declaration's call to convert to God's will...to embrace holiness.

Father McDonald, it is through you, God's holy priest, as well as additional holy priests, that the Holy Ghost will convert sinners into Saints.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark said...

“Father McDonald, I am certain that more than a few folks in irregular situations have, for years, kept their distance from Holy Mother Church. But the Declaration will move said folks to request blessings from such holy priests as you.”

Mark Thomas hits the nail on the head. Exactly! How many have felt judged, excluded, and alienated because of one aspect of their lives on which the Church has seemed fixated? Perhaps Pope Francis’s initiative will be the beginning of a journey back to the Church for them.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Mark, I hope and pray you are right, but nothing could be further from the truth if you look at liberal Protestantism, the Episcopal Church in particular as well as the United Methodist Church completely disunited over this issue. And they are not attracting gays or straights!

God bless you and a blessed Christmastide!

DJR said...

Bishop Martin Anwel Mtumbuka of Karonga Diocese, Malawi, commenting on Fiducia Supplicans:

“Nobody is obliged to listen to or obey.”

“We will fight heresies, regardless of whose mouth they come from," a statement clearly aimed at the pope.

“We will not follow our fellow pastors who, like Judas, are betraying Jesus today.” Ditto.

https://www.complicitclergy.com/2023/12/23/watch-the-homily-that-should-be-given-by-every-catholic-bishop-in-america


Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer:

"On the Declaration Fiducia Supplicans. The Congregation of the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer stands with Cardinal Müller, the bishops of Malawi, Kazakhstan, Zambia and Nigeria, with Archbishop Viganò, Bishop Strickland and all bishops, priests and faithful who recognise that the priestly blessing of couples in "irregular relationships" and the blessing of "homosexual couples" is opposed to Catholic Faith and Morals; opposed to the teaching of the Church for the last two thousand years; and must be opposed by us and by all Catholics."

Melkite Bishop of Newton Eparchy issues statement that any priest who blesses homosexual unions without first receiving his permission in writing will be met with canonical penalties.

White U.S. Catholic affiliated with "Where Peter Is" now attacking the holy and orthodox African bishops.

We have been told that "the Novus Ordo is booming in Asia and Africa." Well, at least one entire country in Asia is rejecting, and denouncing, Fiducia Supplicans in very strong terms and accusing the pope of not walking in the truth of the Gospel. And looks like the entire continent of Africa will reject it also.

That is several cardinals, dozens of bishops, thousands of priests, and over 150 million Catholics who are now poised to reject the pope's latest "Declaration."

Deo Gratias for the holy, orthodox, Catholic bishops of Africa who stand for the truth of the Gospel, and for all their fellow clergy from throughout the world!

Those who accuse said holy and orthodox people of God of misunderstanding Fiducia Supplicans are lying. On the contrary, said orthodox Catholics understand it completely... and reject it as heresy and abomination.

At least that's what many of them are saying.

DJR said...

Another holy and orthodox Catholic bishop, Bishop Hector Aguer: "Fiducia Supplicans should not be obeyed."

Bishop Aguer, like the African bishops, is in communion with Pope Francis. Therefore, according to some, such bishops are orthodox, and, thus, their teaching is orthodox.

Hence, every Catholic whose bishop rejects Fiducia Supplicans is bound to be in communion with his bishop, who has the right to teach, govern, and sanctify those in his diocese under his care, and said Catholics must also therefore reject Fiducia Supplicans.

That's what we have been told by some.

DJR said...

Cardinal Fernandez on FS: "Therefore, prudence and attention to local culture could admit different ways of application, but not a total denial of this step being asked of priests."

Another holy and orthodox African bishop rejects Fiducia Supplicans and directly contradicts Cardinal Fernandez.

Archbishop Anyolo of Nairobi, Kenya: “To make sure the fundamental doctrinal positions affirmed in the Declaration, and the perennial teachings of the Church on marriage, is upheld, all clergy residing and ministering in the Archdiocese of Nairobi are prohibited from blessing irregular relationships, unions, or same sex couples.

Any form of blessing of same sex unions and activities would go against God’s word, the teachings of the Church, the African cultural traditions, the laws of our nations, and would be scandalous to the faithful.”

Mark Thomas said...

Father McDonald, it may be that 99 percent of those who will request such blessings may do so insincerely. But Heaven would rejoice if, following a blessing, just one person in an irregular situation conformed himself/herself to God's ways eventually .

Again, Father McDonald, I would rather a sinner approach you, than not approach you, to request spiritual assistance from you. I believe that you are a solid man of God.

Father McDonald, I appreciate your concerns in regard to those who will misrepresent— not may misrepresent — but will misrepresent the Declaration. I pray that such cases will not prove many.

Father McDonald, thank you for your kind words and blessing. May you, as well, experience a blessed Christmastide!

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark said...

Father McDonald:

Thank you for your Christmas blessing and Christmas wishes, which are heartily reciprocated!

On the general point under discussion, I want to have faith that reassuring those Catholics in a same sex relationship of God’s unconditional love for them (as for each one of us, despite our sinfulness or whatever its nature) in the form of the envisaged heavily circumscribed blessings is something that our Church can weather even if other denominations cannot. The Church has weathered so much more and so much worse over two millennia.

I suspect that Pope Francis does not want to limit God, to condition His love on a person's moral uprightness, or what it can accomplish in a person’s life in the fullness of time, and that he wants to send that very clear message to those who have hitherto felt excluded and alienated by the Church and who arguably, at least in their own eyes, are harming no-one else (unlike the Mafia boss or the abortion clinic mentioned in some earlier threads). I can appreciate that there are risks of possible misunderstandings involved, but he seems to have made the judgment that they are worth taking. Time will tell whether he is right in that judgment.

Drew said...

So much discussion on this unfortunate document. At the end of the day, the Church can’t bless a same-sex couple.

https://twitter.com/FeserEdward/status/1738663514125017198

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

MT @ 7:48–hmm, you don’t feel that way about Summorum Pontificum, you bitterly condemn those who used it in the wrong way and could give a fip about those who didn’t and they are the majority. Oh, well.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Mark I have ministered to gay Catholics in the confessional, in meetings and at dinner. I have blessed individual Catholics of al kinds of orientations. I have never been asked by a gay couple for a blessing together. That’s not the issue and the Church should not micromanage how priests function in a pastoral situation. But this document is duplicitous. That is what troubles me as so much of Pope Francis’ papacy that relies upon psychological manipulation (calling people rigid, sick, mentally ill, backwards). A second grader could see that this is manipulation. What troubles me that this is just a stealthy was to change marriage and all the sacrament’s anthropology. It is deceitful and troubling, gay blessings not withstanding. But it makes clear that nothing has changed, but a footnote acts like a virus and before you know it, it is changed.

This happened with Communion in the hand becoming the norm, girls becoming altar servers, etc. It was all done illegally first and then it became the norm, comments from bishops to the contrary notwithstanding.

Mark Thomas said...

Father McDonald said..."MT @ 7:48–hmm, you don’t feel that way about Summorum Pontificum, you bitterly condemn those who used it in the wrong way and could give a fip about those who didn’t and they are the majority."

I care considerably about my brothers and sisters in TLM communities. I love the TLM. I go back decades in regard to my interest and attachment to the TLM Movement. I did not, however, share the anti-Vatican II/anti-reformed Mass/anti-Vatican II Era Popes rage that I had encountered for decades within the TLM Movement.

You and I differ as to the notion that radtrads constitute just a small portion of those within the TLM Movement. My experience is that within said movement, there is considerable anti-Vatican II/anti-reformed Mass/anti-Vatican II Era Popes sentiments.

In 1988 A.D., then-Cardinal Ratzinger declared: "We must reflect on this fact: that a large number of Catholics, far beyond the narrow circle of the Fraternity of Lefebvre, see this man as a guide, in some sense, or at least as a useful ally."

That continues today. More than a few "traditionalists" are on board with the "NewChurch, Modernist Rome, the reformed Mass is a bastard rite" nonsense that Archbishop Lefebvre espoused.

After eight years of his having tried to keep failed Summorum Pontificum afloat, Pope Francis was forced to rework SP.

We will see as to whether Fiducia supplicans suffers the fate of SP. That is, will radical forces within the Church hijack/misrepresent Pope Francis' pastoral outreach via Fiducia supplicans.

Should that prove true, then a future Pope will have to address that situation.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Father McDonald said..."MT @ 7:48–hmm, you don’t feel that way about Summorum Pontificum, you bitterly condemn those who used it in the wrong way and could give a fip about those who didn’t and they are the majority."

I have complained bitterly that radtrads have made life difficult for non-radicals within TLM communities. I support non-radicalized "traditionalists."

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Father McDonald said..."This happened with Communion in the hand becoming the norm, girls becoming altar servers, etc."

That, in major fashion, has been the way of the Church since at least the 20th Century.

Examples:

Pope Venerable Pius XII's 20th Century predecessors engaged in liturgical reform. Pope Venerable Pius XII, in considerable fashion, then opened the door to radical liturgical reforms when he authorized Monsignor Bugnini to accomplish that task.

Pope Venerable Pius XII opened the door to reforms related to the traditional Midnight Eucharist Fast. He opened the door to Catholic participation within the Ecumenical Movement.
the
Pope Venerable Pius XII tinkered with the ancient Good Friday Prayer for Jews. That tinkering reached its zenith when Pope Benedict XVI simply tossed aside the prayer in question.

Popes build upon their successors.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

MT your logic is laughable. You mix apples and oranges. I know of no priest who changed the Good Friday prayer on their own initiative and then the pope came and confirmed it. All the things you sight are papal initiatives as is FS. I am speaking of bishops, priests disobeying papal directives and then the pope comes along and confirms it. Clearly Fr. James Martin in contriving for the New York Times his first public blessing to be seen around the world by those who read the Times disobeyed Pope Francis’ letter of the law, but he followed its spirit. This was contrived to encourage similar disobedience by other priests and when enough of us are disobeying and the disobedience becomes the norm, then the Vatican will confirm it. That happened with Vigil Masses, Extraordinary Ministers of Communion becoming ordinary, altar girls, and Communion in the hand. The Vatican insisted that all of these were not allowed until the Vatican threw in the towel and said it is.

Make no mistake, this is the first step toward public blessings of sinful, immoral unions that will be allowed and eventually be seen as equal to the Sacrament of Marriage as these sinful unions are now virtuous.

Mark Thomas said...

Father McDonald said..."Make no mistake, this is the first step toward public blessings of sinful, immoral unions that will be allowed and eventually be seen as equal to the Sacrament of Marriage as these sinful unions are now virtuous."

Who will allow the above? Holy Mother Church?

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Who is allowing the liturgical blessing of sinful unions in Germany? And who is not stopping it?

rcg said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rcg said...

Mark makes some excellent points pursuant to Mark Thomas, concerning the estrangement of many Catholics for sins of the flesh, not limited to homosexual activity. The need for compassion by all of us for these people is vital for our own salvation. The problem is compounded by the way we handle tolerance and forgiveness as if they were acquiescence or concession. Pope Francis’ famous quip, “Who am I to judge?”, conveyed indifference if not actual support for homosexual activity. This impression is aggravated by the Pope’s indifference or ignorance of the carnal and even blasphemous activities of some of his high profile appointments.

If we assume the best of intentions of the Holy Father we then look for constructive changes in processes that add protections for his appointments and proclamations. Instead, he is further isolating himself in favor of the sources of his unforced errors.

Back to the point of Two Marks, I completely agree that the Church, meaning also and especially the people, must find ways of addressing behavioural disorders without usurping the role of the Almighty in judgment while also not bargaining away His authority and clear direction.. This is where the FS is missing a major piece - pointing out that the Church in Her mercy has already equipped us with plenty of prayers and blessings for everyone struggling in any human circumstance. The richness of available texts adds to the confusion with many people asking what, then, is new in FS and if nothing has changed then what took so many words to not change it? Meanwhile the very subject of the document are given false hope concerning the status of their relationships. It is difficult to say that the people in need of Mercy are better off.

TJM said...

Unlike PF, Jesus was straightforward: Go and Sin no More. PF and his ilk place themselves above God.