Posture for Holy Communion-Clarified

[Mysty101]

…Who gave the authority to the Bishops for liturgical norms & approved them.

My, aren’t we polite?

What is the role of the Diocesan Bishop in relation to promotion of the Sacred Liturgy?
The instruction itself recalls how the Diocesan Bishop is “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.” (RS, no. 19) and quotes from the Code of Canon Law, which directs that it pertains to the Diocesan Bishop (CIC, no. 838 §4) “within the limits of his competence, to set forth liturgical norms in his Diocese, by which all are bound.” (RS, no. 21, citing CIC, no. 838 §4)

lest we get into “within the limits of his competence, to set forth liturgical norms in his Diocese, by which all are bound.” again

An approved norm is within his competence.

 

[Mysty101]

Here’s the Canon Law
Can. 838 §1 The ordering and guidance of the sacred liturgy depends solely upon the authority of the Church, namely, that of the Apostolic See and, as provided by law, that of the diocesan Bishop.

§2 It is the prerogative of the Apostolic See to regulate the sacred liturgy of the universal Church, to publish liturgical books and review their vernacular translations, and to be watchful that liturgical regulations are everywhere faithfully observed.

§3 It pertains to Episcopal Conferences to prepare vernacular translations of liturgical books, with appropriate adaptations as allowed by the books themselves and, with the prior review of the Holy See, to publish these translations.
§4 Within the limits of his competence, it belongs to the diocesan Bishop to lay down for the Church entrusted to his care, liturgical regulations which are binding on all.

 

[Mysty101]

Sorry, I had omitted the last sentence when I posted this norm

Movements and Posture

1. The gestures and posture of the priest, the deacon, and the ministers, as well as those of the people, ought to contribute to making the entire celebration resplendent with beauty and noble simplicity, so that the true and full meaning of the different parts of the celebration is evident and that the participation of all is fostered.52 Therefore, attention should be paid to what is determined by this General Instruction and the traditional practice of the Roman Rite and to what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God, rather than private inclination or arbitrary choice.

A common posture, to be observed by all participants, is a sign of the unity of the members of the Christian community gathered for the Sacred Liturgy: it both expresses and fosters the intention and spiritual attitude of the participants.

This is my whole point and was from the beginning (rather than law)—Attitude of unity and subjection of the will.

 

[jimmy]

Mysty101:

It is not I who changed the norm (I LOVE Gregorian Chant, and Latin Hymns)

I merely support my Bishop & Pastor, and defer to their decision as to what best serves the community, which is not Rome—there are different needs here.

And everyone else here supports there bishop, but they would rather stay humble to Christ, who is infinately above the bishop. If the bishop is making the people change what they have always done and thought humble to something they find less humble now, he is wrong. It starts to hit the peoples concience.

The preast is supposed to serve those who kneel.

 

[Mysty101]

I never said the person should be denied Communion. Again the adaptation of the norm was approved, so it is the law–it is Jesus speaking to you through His Church.

Mt 16:18And I tell you that you are Peter,[c] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d] will not overcome it.[e] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[f] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g] loosed in heaven.” 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

(Did you read the last 2 posts)

 

[Mysty101]

jimmy:

And everyone else here supports there bishop, but they would rather stay humble to Christ,

You support your Bishop when you decide that you know better than he “what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God”?

You honestly think this is humble?

I do not agree.

 

[jimmy]

Mysty101:

You support your Bishop when you decide that you know better than he “what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God”?

You honestly think this is humble?

I do not agree.

How does it affect the common good of the people if I decide to kneel for communion? All it affects is my conscience. The only way it affects the people is it makes there time at church about 10 seconds longer.

Someone humbling themself, by kneeling, before recieving communion is very humble. The Church has taught for at least 400 years that you should kneel before communion(I don’t know what the exact teaching was before that). That was how everyone did it. In about 1970 it changed to where everyone stands. It is part of peoples conscience that they humble themselves to recieve communion. The bishop is making them break there conscience for the sake of time.

 

[Mysty101]

Please read the entire thread before continuing—this was asked and answered many times.

 

[jimmy]

Mysty101:

Please read the entire thread before continuing—this was asked and answered many times.

I guess I won’t be posting on this thread again because I don’t feel like reading 160 posts.

 

[Mysty101]

Well here’s one for starters
Two points;

First of all

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelly
Mysty,
No one who kneels to receive Holy Communion can in any way be considered disobedient, they are free to follow the higher directives of our Church, whether you agree or not.

I never said they were to be considered disobedient, since I was told not to use this term. Please respond to my last statement, we have been discussing this for a long time.

What bothers me?

Quote:
People who won’t accept the norm, when they were instructed on it and there are no provisions for kneeling.

My original question was what do you choose?

Quote:
As I said, I think you are incorrect in saying that a letter can supercede a law, but even if it can, I am just asking people to be reasonable when the norm is standing, and everyone else is following the norm

Be reasonable does not say they are disobedient any more than

Quote:
GIRM 160-The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another. The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.

says they are allowed to kneel. The wording was as it is for a reason.
from the response you received

Quote:
To argue that the Vatican lacks authority over the Conference of Bishops in a particular country is absurd. In reality, the Conferences are limited in their authority and must submit to Rome, not vice-versa.

Again I never said this. What I said was a Vatican Law trumps a Vatican letter. The law cannot be reprobated by a letter, which it is not. The letter is saying that an exception should be made, not that the law is changed.

But the real problem I have is that a lay person puts his or preference over the decision of the Conference of Bishops regarding what is best for the WHOLE community. And the standing norm was approved by Rome–it is the law.

Quote:
Girm 42
42. The gestures and posture of the priest, the deacon, and the ministers, as well as those of the people, ought to contribute to making the entire celebration resplendent with beauty and noble simplicity, so that the true and full meaning of the different parts of the celebration is evident and that the participation of all is fostered.52 Therefore, attention should be paid to what is determined by this General Instruction and the traditional practice of the Roman Rite and to what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God, rather than private inclination or arbitrary choice.

If this instruction (law from the Vatican) were followed, there would never be a need for the letter.

---

 

[Mysty101]

Sorry the reasons were in a post from the other thread
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=469098#post469098 #252

many reasons were given–if you choose not to accept them, that’s fine.

#159
Mysty101
Senior Member

Join Date: October 20, 2004
Posts: 940 Re: Your opinion on Posture for Reception of Communion

---

Originally Posted by JakeWMysty101, otm gave it a shot at answering WHY… so why don’t you??

Originally Posted by MystyI did many times, did you bother to read my posts

#139

Did you even read any of my posts? I’ve answered you a few times.Practical, also reverent procession, as opposed to less agile people .(which do account for far more than 3%) struggling to kneel and get up.

#126

TNT—Your post #120 was by far the most nausiating of all. The slam against Italians was really a nice touch.

It was the arthritis epidemic in 1971. Wherein 1.7% (the crisis point) could not kneel.Did I get it right?

Considering the number of over 50 members of the congregation, I’m sure the percentage is much higher, especially for the daily Mass attendees. An orderly procession to receive, and then kneeling on return is far more reverent then someone disrupting the whole procession by kneeling when everyone else is standing.

#40

No, but for the unity of posture and the reverent procession, all must be standing, especially since the kneelers can stand, while all the standees cannot kneel. You keep denying this reason in order to hurl some accusations at the Shepherds of the US.

#36

Your response is quite prejudiced against those who are not able to kneel easily. They are definitely a notable minority, and cannot accommodate the kneelers wishes. I believe the number who choose to kneel in a standing Parish is even smaller, and they could easily stand.

---

 

[Prester_John]

mtr01:

Yes but I think the central question in this discussion is who is the ultimate interpreter of Vatican Law. This quote from Fr. Echert’s response to Kelly’s question seems to be pretty straightforward:

Dearest Mysty;

I just looked at the link you posted… good stuff! . And I think it should be put on a link of its own. Could you let me know when ( or, more politely, if ) you decide to post a new link.

Floweres, Chuckles, candies, chocolates, and some promise I don’t intend to keep(except this one),

Love, and respect,

Prester John

(* Twas Brillig, and the slithey toves,
Didst gyre and Gymble, in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogroves,
And the Mome-wraiths, outgrabe…)

 

[Mysty101]

John,
Ithe quotes quoted in mtr01’s post did not quote

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mysty101
If this instrustion (law from the Vatican) were followed, there would never be a need for the letter.

Yes but I think the central question in this discussion is who is the ultimate interpreter of Vatican Law. This quote from Fr. Echert’s response to Kelly’s question seems to be pretty straightforward:

Quote:
the letter from the Congregation which has authority in the Sacred Liturgy specifically addressed the matter and with a ruling which is binding upon the Catholic Church in the U.S.

I did respond to the use of Fr Echert’s response

 

[Prester_John]

Mysty101:

John,

Yes but I think the central question in this discussion is who is the ultimate interpreter of Vatican Law.

Ultimately, or as they, in theory, it is the Pope, the Supreme Metropolitan of the Uttermost West. His Holiness, however, is, currently, aged, hurting, and not capable of speaking, let alone addressing this question *ex cathedra. *

And so, the day-to-day of the the Church, is maintained by the beaurocracy. The decisions for the last 9 years have been, and come from, their Eminences, the Cardinal Archbishops of the Curia. And it is my opinion that these eminent persons couldn’t give a tinker’s damn about your, or my own, specificties. They only maintain the status quo, and for them it is enough.

I personally believe that it is Jesus who is the ultimate interpreter of Vatican Law, simply because, now that it is nearly tax-time, I am painfully reminded as to the lack of the presence of the spirit of the Law, for which and of which the Law was founded…

Hugs and kisses,

Prester John

 

[Mysty101]

John,

That quote was from mtr01, not me.

I do believe in the authority of the Diocean Bishops (especially approved norms), and even the Pastors in certain matters.
GIRM
387. 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.

 

[Exporter]

Mysty101:

And just exactly do you know that someone is not in the state of grace? Judging another’s soul is a very serious matter—far more serious than judging postures.

---

IMO this just another example of your using rhetoric in place of addressing the facts. I think you can do better.

You like to complain and give orders frequently for posters “to stay on topic”. Who appointed you as the director of CA Forums? Is it your job to admonish other posters? It IS NOT BECOMING to you.

 

[Mysty101]

*************************************************************************
IMO this just another example of your using rhetoric in place of addressing the facts. I think you can do better.
.

Judge not, least ye may be judged–I will not comment on the state of another’s soul, especially in a public forum. I will not get involved in any discussion about confession or the sins of another, definitely not on a public forum, and very rarely in private—My Pastor taught me that

You like to complain and give orders frequently for posters “to stay on topic”. Who appointed you as the director of CA Forums? Is it your job to admonish other posters? It IS NOT BECOMING to you

and what are you doing???

 

[Exporter]

Originally Posted by Exporter

---

IMO this just another example of your using rhetoric in place of addressing the facts. I think you can do better.*

Mysty101:

Judge not, least ye may be judged–I will not comment on the state of another’s soul, especially in a public forum. I will not get involved in any discussion about confession or the sins of another, definitely not on a public forum, and very rarely in private—My Pastor taught me that

and what are you doing???

---

Do you know the meaning of “rhetoric”? My comment had nothing to do with confession! My comment was directed directly to what you had written! I suppose I will have to forgive you. If I cannot make reference to one of your statements and get a direct responce then the conversation has ended.

 

[Mysty101]

Exporter:

Originally Posted by Exporter

---

IMO this just another example of your using rhetoric in place of addressing the facts. I think you can do better.

---

Do you know the meaning of “rhetoric”? My comment had nothing to do with confession! My comment was directed directly to what you had written! I suppose I will have to forgive you. If I cannot make reference to one of your statements and get a direct responce then the conversation has ended.

Whoa—that was in response to someone bringing up the state of someone’s soul, when we were discussing physical posture.

Don’t be so puffed up.

 

[Exporter]

Post by Mysty: “Whoa—that was in response to someone bringing up the state of someone’s soul, when we were discussing physical posture”

---

It is impossible for you to respond to the post that was made. It seems you cannot stay on track. I do not think I can help you.

Many times college Freshmen score poorly on tests because the give correct answers to the WRONG questions. I think that is what you are doing.