Posture for Holy Communion-Clarified

[pgoings]

actually not … It does not say anything about any other letter overriding the approved GIRM

His Eminence, Cardinal Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship (the C.D.W.) said in his letter to Cardinal George, “an Instruction may develop the manner in which a law is to be put into effect (cf. can. 34.1)…” (This is from the U.S.C.C.B. web site.) In the case of kneeling vs. standing, the instruction (Prot. n. 47/03/L Rome, February 26, 2003) clearly indicates that the Congregation understands kneeling to be an acceptable (“should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly”) practice, even if the U.S.C.C.B. has received a* recognitio* for its adaptation of standing as a norm for the U.S.

Canon law also says something about notification. I don’t recall this letter being sent to all the diocese.

You don’t recall? Do you receive copies of all letters from Rome sent to the bishops of the U.S.? In any event, the letter was published in the* Notitiae* (Notices) of the C.D.W., which is the normative manner for promulgating liturgical law in the Latin church? [Available for purchase here: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/institutions_connected/lev/documents/latino_7.html”]http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/institutions_connected/lev/documents/latino_7.html]

You left out the first part of that sentence from the GIRM

There are actually three non-dependent clauses in that sentence, joined by the conjunction “and.” The General Instruction here states, “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.” We are told to pay attention to three things:

The first point, “what is determined by this General Instruction,” does support (at the time of its publication) standing as the norm in the U.S., by virtue of the C.D.W.'s* recognitio.* However, in 2003 this was amended by the C.D.W. for the benefit of those who wish to continue kneeling.

The second point, “the traditional practice of the Roman Rite,” entirely supports kneeling.

The third point is “what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God” and is not dependent on “what is determined by this General Instruction.” Who determines this? Well, I would submit that the C.D.W., to whom the Holy Father has deputed his authority for ordering the liturgy of the Roman Rite, has this competence. The C.D.W. gave its* recognito* to the norms proposed by the U.S.C.C.B., and then, when the Christian faithful made known their wishes in the matter (in accordance with canon law), the C.D.W. amended its* recognitio.*

Is any of this disputed? You seem to be saying that the determination of “what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God” is up to you. I have not seen anything from the U.S.C.C.B. or from any bishop disputing this instruction; it is entirely your crusade.

–Paul

 

[Mysty101]

pgoings:

There are actually three non-dependent clauses in that sentence, joined by the conjunction “and.” The General Instruction here states, "
The second point, “the traditional practice of the Roman Rite,” entirely supports kneeling.

The third point is “what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God” and is not dependent on “what is determined by this General Instruction.” Who determines this? Well, I would submit that the C.D.W., to whom the Holy Father has deputed his authority for ordering the liturgy of the Roman Rite, has this competence. The C.D.W. gave its* recognito* to the norms proposed by the U.S.C.C.B., and then, when the Christian faithful made known their wishes in the matter (in accordance with canon law), the C.D.W. amended its* recognitio.*

Is any of this disputed? You seem to be saying that the determination of “what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God” is up to you. I have not seen anything from the U.S.C.C.B. or from any bishop disputing this instruction; it is entirely your crusade.

–Paul

No, it is up to the Bishops who decided on the standing norm. Maybe the letter has weight, but it cannot throw out the GIRM.

And means all. If there were 3 separate clauses with a choice, the conjunction would be “or”.

This is totally your interpretation of this sentence. The Bishops have determined that standing serves the common good of the people of God. Rome approved it. You cannot be called disobedient if you kneel, but it does not serve the interest of the majority, and if there are no provisions, it is contrary to the decision of your pastor as well as the Bishop.

 

[Mysty101]

Paul,
You are not Catholic?

Now I understand.

 

[pgoings]

Paul,
You are not Catholic?

Now I understand.

Huh?

 

[fix]

It seems Mysty does not grasp that the GIRM must have an interpreter. That would be Rome. Rome has stated what the interpretation is and how it should be applied.

 

[Mysty101]

No, it is you who do not understand the difference between “must not be punished” and “allowed”, or what is a better choice for the entire community, not just yourself.

 

[Mysty101]

Let me try this one more time.

The US Bishops decided that standing “serves the common spiritual good of the People of God”.

Some people did not agree and petitioned Rome, who said they may not be denied Communion or called disobedient.

Some Pastors agreed and set up provisions to receive kneeling, if this “serves the common spiritual good of the People of God”

Now if one or two people decide differently than their Bishop & Pastor, (who observe the standing norm) it would be better to either go to a place where there are provisions for kneeling, or defer to the instructions of their Pastor and Bishop. It is simply the better choice to strive for the unity of posture as requested, and not draw attention or distract.

 

[Mysty101]

Let me try this one more time.

The US Bishops decided that standing “serves the common spiritual good of the People of God”.

Some people did not agree and petitioned Rome, who said they may not be denied Communion or called disobedient.

Some Pastors agreed and set up provisions to receive kneeling, if this “serves the common spiritual good of the People of God”

Now if one or two people decide differently than their Bishop & Pastor, (who observe the standing norm) it would be better to either go to a place where there are provisions for kneeling, or defer to the instructions of their Pastor and Bishop. It is simply the better choice (serving the common spiritual good of the People of God") to strive for the unity of posture as requested, and not draw attention or distract.

 

[fix]

Mysty101:

Let me try this one more time.

The US Bishops decided that standing “serves the common spiritual good of the People of God”.

Some people did not agree and petitioned Rome, who said they may not be denied Communion or called disobedient.

Some Pastors agreed and set up provisions to receive kneeling, if this “serves the common spiritual good of the People of God”

Now if one or two people decide differently than their Bishop & Pastor, (who observe the standing norm) it would be better to either go to a place where there are provisions for kneeling, or defer to the instructions of their Pastor and Bishop. It is simply the better choice (serving the common spiritual good of the People of God") to strive for the unity of posture as requested, and not draw attention or distract.

Too bad you seem to reject the authority of Rome.

 

[Mysty101]

fix:

Too bad you seem to reject the authority of Rome.

No, I reject your interpretation. You are basing your position on one document which was misquoted many times (may not be denied=allowed), and which was to be used in conjunction with the GIRM, while rejecting many instructions in the GIRM, which is the law. You are rejecting the entire position of unity and observing the norms, in favor of your preference.

 

[fix]

Mysty101:

No, I reject your interpretation. You are basing your position on one document, which was to be used in conjunction with the GIRM, while rejecting many instructions in the GIRM, which is the law. You are rejecting the entire position of unity and observing the norms, in favor of your preference.

Accordingly, in consideration of the nature of the problem and the relative likelihood that it might or might not be resolved on the local level, every member of the faithful has the right of recourse to the Roman Pontiff either personally or by means of the Dicasteries or Tribunals of the Roman Curia.

 

[fix]

I am rejecting no law. I am abiding by the interpretation of such law by the legitimate authority.

 

[Mysty101]

…And even if it is allowed, I think the higher road would be to observe the norm, if there are no provisions for kneeling. This was my point from the beginning.

 

[pgoings]

Paul,
You are not Catholic?

Now I understand.

I repeat: Huh?

Fix, I think we’re wating our breath.** Mysty** is obviously an Americanist, who believes that Rome has no authority other than what the U.S.C.C.B. chooses to give it. Her error is obvious, but she refuses to admit it. She refuses the right of the Roman authorities to promulgate authentic interpretations of liturgical law, and thinks of her local bishop and pastor as “Our Shepherds” in a way that the Holy Father is not.

–Paul

 

[Leeta]

Dear Misty,

Why did you not make special provisions for your mother to receive Holy Communion in her pew, say by having her sit in the front? If she has trouble seeing, then pastoral provisions should be made. I,ve attended many Masses, both old and new, where the pastor did this. Why not install a communion rail? It would avoid the whole problem or have a step extending the whole length in front of the altar. Those who stand are not pushed from behind and those who kneel are’nt either. The priest walks along the step or altar rail with the altar boy. Communion distribution is much faster than with the line. Anyone who says otherwise has obviously never experienced receiving communion at an altar rail. The traditional ways are much more practical and reverent and consistent with our belief in the Eucharist than what has been shoved down people’s throats in the last 30 years.

I guess, it’s hard for some people to remember that they’re not at McDonald’s, lining up for their Big Mac. (I’m not saying your mother consciously did.). One’s body is also involved in worship. Standing in a line in our culture connates fast food and I’m afraid it’s carried over to the act of receiving Holy Communion. Why do the bishops want to make it more difficult for us to believe we’re receiving Jesus, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity?
Nowhere have I read or heard the pastoral reasons for standing. There is some weak reference made to Byzantine practice. So what? We’re Latin rite. What’s wrong with our Latin traditions? The Byzantine practice of standing originated with pagan worship. Whereas kneeling is mainly a Christian development. If we are to become Byzantine, let’s go the whole way, only males on the altar and, horor of horrors, Holy days of Obligation celebrated during the week!
Yes, like the Holy Father, my family and I attend Mass on Holy Days, even during the week, because we need that special reminder. I grew up in an anti-Catholic, ecclesial community which did not celebrate any special feasts. At home we did not celebrate Christmas or Easter as a religious holiday. It led to depression, spiritual as well as physical. I cannot and will not go back to such dreariness of life. It is definitely protestantizing the practice of the Church in the USA to celebrate fewer and fewer Holy days of Obligation during the week.
When I became Catholic, I was Catholic in name only. I still had all my Protestant reservations about the Pope, Mary, and the saints. I attended a Newman Center at the University I was attending, run by the Paulists. In every homily almost there was a snide reference to the veneration of Saints, traditional prayers, and pre-Vatican II practice and belief. It fit right in with my beliefs. The practice at this parish was not to kneel anytime during the Mass and to stand at the consecration. I received Holy Communion in the hand every Sunday and Holy Day since according to what I knew, I was receiving a symbol of Jesus. Then once, I think it was Corpus Christi, the priest mentioned in his homily, that at communion we receive Jesus’ Real Body, Soul, and Divinity and he somehow gave me the impression that this was Catholic belief. I was shocked and considered this and then decided to observe distribution of Holy Communion carefully to see if I had understood the priest correctly. While standing in line, I did, and I came to the conclusion that I had misunderstood the priest, since no one acted like they were receiving anything other than bread! In conclusion, your actions must be consistent with your words. So As a result, I always kneel, because my body needs to show what is taking place in my heart. It is a sign for my own body.

 

[Mysty101]

Why not install a communion rail?

This is not my decision.

So As a result, I always kneel, because my body needs to show what is taking place in my heart. It is a sign for my own body.

Are there provisions in your Parish for kneeling?

 

[fix]

I repeat: Huh?

Fix, I think we’re wating our breath.** Mysty** is obviously an Americanist, who believes that Rome has no authority other than what the U.S.C.C.B. chooses to give it. Her error is obvious, but she refuses to admit it. She refuses the right of the Roman authorities to promulgate authentic interpretations of liturgical law, and thinks of her local bishop and pastor as “Our Shepherds” in a way that the Holy Father is not.

–Paul

Yes, I agree.

 

[fix]

CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP AND THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENTS

Prot. n. 2372/00/L

Responses to Dubia

1. Is it the case that the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, by No. 43 of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, intends to prohibit the faithful from kneeling during any part of the Mass except during the Consecration, that is, to prohibit the faithful from kneeling after the Agnus Dei and following the reception of Holy Communion?

Resp.: Negative.

1. Does the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments intend by Nos. 160-162, 244, or elsewhere in the** Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, that the people may no longer genuflect or bow as a sign of reverence to the Blessed Sacrament immediately before they receive Holy Communion?

Resp.: Negative.

 

[Mysty101]

Question 1 refers to the time before & after Communion, not for the reception of Holy Communion.

Question 2
the people may no longer **genuflect or bow ** as a sign of reverence to the Blessed Sacrament immediately before they receive Holy Communion?

It says **genuflect or bow. ** In the US the norm is to bow, not genuflect.

 

[fix]

Mysty101:

Question 1 refers to the time before & after Communion, not for the reception of Holy Communion.

Question 2
the people may no longer genuflect or bow as a sign of reverence to the Blessed Sacrament immediately before they receive Holy Communion?

It says genuflect or bow. In the US the norm is to bow, not genuflect.

We have already shown kneeling for reception is licit. Genuflecting or bowing is licit. The point is the Vatican is the final authority in these matters.