Can you name be said when you're given communion?

[AlexV]

“Baiting”, “Joysong”?

I don’t discuss moderator actions on public threads, as per policy. Why are you violating said policy?

I note that we have now moved from psychotic unworthy-to-receive inhumanity to lack of Christianity.

ALL because some people refuse to accept the lawful authority of the Holy See.

All because in, dare I say, Clintonesque fashion they wish to parse the meaning of every rubric and deconstruct it to nothing. “Rubrics come, rubrics go”, after all.

The US Bishops have said NOTHING, INCLUDING NAMES, can be added to that formula.

Do you dispute the reality of that statement?

Do you need a comprehension exercise to interpret it?

Do you feel said statement is an abuse of their authority, ultra vires, and therefore can be ignored?

 

[AlexV]

“Nothing is added to the formula. You’re adding the name of the person to the formula”

Self-contradictory double-speak.

In any case, the bishops specified NOT ADDING NAMES, just to avoid any sort of prevarication.

 

[AlexV]

I’d also like a detailed explanation of how I engaged in “slander”, “Joysong”. Just as you demand absolute proof, so do I. I doubt I committed slander. Therefore, I didn’t.

 

[Lepanto]

So, if it upsets you when the EMHC says your name, don’t say Amen and don’t take communion. Go sit in the pew and pout, for you’re probably not properly disposed to to receive communion.

Jim

It is inappropriate for the EMHC to put a communicant in such a position in the first place.

 

[DebChris]

I like it when my name is mentioned as I receive communion. What is often not understood is that when the EM says “The Body of Christ”, he/she is not only referring to the corporal body of Jesus. The Body of Christ refers to all of us. Each of us is a member of the Body of Christ. It is for this reason that the EM does not say, “This is the Body of Christ.”
God calls each of us by name to be a part of His Body and to receive His Body and Blood in the Eucharist. I do not expect my name to be mentioned when I receive Commuinion nor do I notice if anybody is being called by name. My focus is firmly on receiving this precious gift of my Saviour.

 

[paramedicgirl]

“Nothing is added to the formula. You’re adding the name of the person to the formula”

Self-contradictory double-speak.

In any case, the bishops specified NOT ADDING NAMES, just to avoid any sort of prevarication.

Just in case anyone missed the post that has the statement from the USCCB that says names cannot be added, here it is.

The proper and only permissible form for distributing Holy Communion is to offer the consecrated bread by saying, “The Body of Christ” and to offer the consecrated wine by saying, “The Blood of Christ.” **No other words or names should be added; and the formula should not be edited in any way. (**Cf. GIRM, 161; 284-287).

It seems to me this thread is about obedience, or lack of it.

 

[Joysong]

Here’s an example of how the GIRM and disciplines can be changed.

As noted in the Reply no. 2 of the comments in Not 14 (1978) 301, when the rubrics of the Missal of Paul VI say nothing, it is not to be thereby inferred that the former rubrics must be followed (see no. 51 above). The reformed Missal does not supplement but supplants the former Missal. The old Missal at the had the directive “striking his breast three times” and the same for the <Domine, non sum dignus>. But because the new Missal says nothing on this point (, nos. 131 and 133), there is no reason for requiring any gesture to be added to these invocations: Not 14 (1978) 534-535, no. 10.

This instruction was in a lengthly list of clarifications, since many of the GIRM’s regulations are not always easy to interpret. The example shows that disciplines are capable of being changed, and what was permitted at one time, may not be valid at another. However, this is the older version of 1975 and cited only to show some incredulous folks that “rubrics do come, and rubrics do go.” That statement is not arbitrary, but absolutely true.

Here’s another example:

QUERY: Before the biblical readings sometimes priests or lay readers announce subtitles for the selection or even the rubric: “The first reading,” “The second reading,” etc. Is it permissible to follow this practice?

REPLY: Clearly not. As with all rubrics, the titles, “The first reading,” “The second reading,” are guides for the convenience of the reader. … The sole title to be announced is the one indicating the book of the Bible or, where applicable, its author. For example: “A reading from the Letter of Paul to Timothy”; “A reading from the holy Gospel according to Mark”: Not 14 (1978) 303, no. 5.
christusrex.org/www1/mcitl/girmappx2.html

This is a widespread practice in many of our churches, yet how many lectors or priests know this rubric? People are well-intentioned in worshipping at Mass and are not expected to have a solid formation in the GIRM before accepting an approved ministry. It is just ludicrous to point a judgmental finger at anyone who falls short of the extremist’s criteria for good liturgy.

The cliché “Fath seeking understanding…” is applicable when a person asks for clarification and is ready to submit when it is obtained. Clarification is not always credible when furnished by an unknown poster on the internet, especially one who is known for rigorism. Common sense and faith would demand that it be checked out. And it certainly does not mean the person needs a “comprehension exercise.”

 

[AlexV]

Oh boy, this gets better by the minute.

This rubric can indeed be changed.

Guess what? It hasn’t been.

Unless, perchance, we want to imagine that the Church does change some rubrics secretly, and only lets a privileged few in on the secret.

False…and contrary to the public nature of the liturgy. There are n “secrets” in liturgy.

The rubric HAS received clarification, at least from the US Bishops. They have SPECIFICALLY prohibited adding names to the formula. How much more specific do they need to be?

Despite “Joysong”'s valiant efforts to the contrary, NOTHING anywhere says we are free to violate rubrics as we see fit, because, after all, someday they COULD change.

The rubric is clear. Secret voices and Gnostic permissions notwithstanding.

 

[Joysong]

Paramedicgirl,

Bravo, you should keep posting this a few more times. Maybe it will catch on.

Meanwhile, has anyone considered writing the USCCB for a valid interpretation? I did, and it has not come back yet, nor has the other correspondence. Once again, I’ll repeat that I will be prompt in informing all of us so this type of thread will never again be repeated. There will be a history or archive to refer to.

 

[AlexV]

Note, too, in the catalogue of insults and opprobrium heaped on those who simply want the liturgy as the Church has presented it,

“EXTREMIST” has now been added.

So much for charity and all this talk of Christian love.

 

[AlexV]

As for “clarification”, we have it. As posted, from the American bishops. Do they need to write it to every minister personally, registered mail, before it’s the truth?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

It is inappropriate for the EMHC to put a communicant in such a position in the first place.

But its not the EMHC that puts such a person in such a place, but the person taking the offense for no justifiable reason other than having their pride hurt.

Jim

 

[Joysong]

As posted, from the American bishops. Do they need to write it to every minister personally, registered mail, before it’s the truth?

Sarcasm aside, no, just to the diocesan bishop who then instructs his clergy. That’s the difficulty. Many clergy do this and have permitted the EMHC’s under their charge to also speak the person’s name. There arises a basis for not understanding how the rubric is to be followed when one is under obedience to the pastor who engages in the practice.

What are your recommendations? Write the bishop and demand that the clergy know the rubric and follow it? What if this has been done, and the bishop lawfully granted permission in his diocese? Do you know with certainty this was never done? The fact that is is being practiced suggests “something” may have been granted.

These are the unknown variables. That the rubric is black and white no one doubts, for they can read, and it has certainly been posted enough here.

 

[AJV]

Here’s an example of how the GIRM and disciplines can be changed.

This is a widespread practice in many of our churches, yet how many lectors or priests know this rubric? People are well-intentioned in worshipping at Mass and are not expected to have a solid formation in the GIRM before accepting an approved ministry.

Yes, but they should be made aware of it, don’t you think? so that the liturgy can be celebrated in obedience to the norm and mind of the Church.

This instruction was in a lengthly list of clarifications, since many of the GIRM’s regulations are not always easy to interpret. The example shows that disciplines are capable of being changed, and what was permitted at one time, may not be valid at another. However, this is the older version of 1975 and cited only to show some incredulous folks that “rubrics do come, and rubrics do go.”

Rubrics do come and go, but does it not belong to the proper authority (The Congregation for Divine Worship or to the persons/conference to whom such authority is delegated) to determine the change? Even a change in interpretation?

Sometimes it is the diocesan bishop but I think only for certain things which are under his purview, not everything.

 

[Joan_M]

Meanwhile, has anyone considered writing the USCCB for a valid interpretation? I did, and it has not come back yet, nor has the other correspondence. Once again, I’ll repeat that I will be prompt in informing all of us so this type of thread will never again be repeated. There will be a history or archive to refer to.

Why would anyone require an interpretation of something stated so clearly? Unless one is incapable of understanding the english language the Bishops’ statement is totally clear.

 

[AlexV]

Back to “secret rubrics”. Liturgy doesn’t work like that. Rubrics of the liturgy are matters of public record. Not little back room secrets that only the privileged few learn of.

But how convenient for you. You can do whatever you want, and always claim there might be “secret permission”…perhaps, based on your previous claims, God spoke to you and gave you the permission.

 

[Joysong]

Thanks, AJV,

Maybe that is the way to go for final disposition of this matter - to the CDW. I never thought of that.

 

[AlexV]

It’s already been to the CDW. This has been decided, both on the universal and the local level (in the USA, at least). There’s no “confusion” here. There’s disobedience, and the ongoing attempt to justify the disobedience to a rather clearly and explicitly worded rubric.

 

[Joysong]

Why would anyone require an interpretation of something stated so clearly? Unless one is incapable of understanding the english language the Bishops’ statement is totally clear.

We were posting simultaneously, I believe. See here.

 

[AlexV]

This thread reminds me of the priest I once knew who used to bow at the Consecration instead of genuflecting.

He was young, quite healthy…and before anyone starts jumping on me that I assumed all that…

…he did offer an explanation for his bowing. He said, with a smirk as I recall, “Vatican II got rid of all that bended knee stuff.”

Now perhaps his bishop had given him “secret permission” to bow…