Posture for Holy Communion-Clarified

[ToledoRosary]

Come to a parish in Suburban Columbus, Ohio where not only do the laity engage in “priest-envy”, the Orans at the Lord’s Prayer, you get told off by some self-righteous liberals that not to engage in this is going against the GIRM and god-forbid if you genuflect before receiving our Lord on your tongue… you might not receive Him at all!!

Rome has spoken- case closed! Since when does the laity choose what they will and will not do??

 

[ToledoRosary]

AMEN TO THIS POST!!! Remember, Rome sets the rules- the bishops must follow them- not their twisted whims. It’s because of them that the US Catholic Church is in shambles!!

---

fix:

I do get your point, I just disagree. The law is not self interpreting, The Vatican is the interpreter. The Vatican decides on what it was intended to mean and how it is to be applied.

Obedience is a good thing. If the bishop acts contrary to the intention of Rome, we are to obey Rome, not the bishop.

Are there bishops around claiming kneeling is forbidden and claiming their authority is greater than Rome’s?

 

[Mysty101]

Again I am talking about what is best for the community, as decided by the Bishops. You may agree or disagree, and if you really think imposing your will over the instruction of your shepherd is the right thing to do (with or without any outside (name removed by moderator)ut) then by all means do it.

what about this instruction?

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.

This is the law, no matter how you try to manipulate it.

 

[Mysty101]

AMEN TO THIS POST!!! Remember, Rome sets the rules- the bishops must follow them- not their twisted whims. It’s because of them that the US Catholic Church is in shambles!!

---

An approved norm is not a “twisted whim”

 

[D.O.M]

Mysty101:

Again I am talking about what is best for the community, as decided by the Bishops. You may agree or disagree, and if you really think imposing your will over the instruction of your shepherd is the right thing to do (with or without any outside (name removed by moderator)ut) then by all means do it.

what about this instruction?

This is the law, no matter how you try to manipulate it.

Just a thought Mysty,
What if you live in a diocese (and there are plenty of them unfortunately) where the directives of the so called “shephards” ARE twisted whims which go against the teachings of our one TRUE shephard in Rome, our Holy Father. Should these people blindly follow their bishop? Or should they follow the higher authority of the Vicar of Christ? I think you are mistaken when you refer to (name removed by moderator)ut from Rome as “outside (name removed by moderator)ut”. Rome has the ultimate authority to interpret norms for the faithful to follow, what you will not assent to is the fact that the bishops of the United States are under the authority of Rome and not the other way around.

 

[pgoings]

I can’t help myself…

This is the law, no matter how you try to manipulate it.

Right. The G.I.R.M. (from which you quote) is the law, and it says that attention should be paid to:

1. Itself (i.e. “what is determined by this General Instruction”);
2. “[T]he traditional practice of the Roman Rite;” and
3. “[W]hat serves the common spiritual good of the People of God.”

So, for the first point, the General Instruction (in its adapted form) specified standing as the norm for the U.S. The C.D.W. later issued an authentic interpretation of that part of the General Instruction, clearly indicating that kneeling is also permitted (specifically it says that those who persist in kneeling should not be “accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly;” however, if I am not acting illicitly, then I am acting licitly–in accordance with the law). To dismiss what the C.D.W. has said is to reject the authority of the C.D.W., and of the Vatican.

The second point entirely favors kneeling.

The third point is determined by our lawful ecclesiastical authorities: our own pastor, our bishop, the U.S.C.C.B., the Vatican discasteries, and the Holy Father himself.Just because our pastor and bishop may favor one option, it does not remove the freedom of choice which the C.D.W. has offered us (the same C.D.W. which granted the original* recognitio* to the American adaptations).

The Roman church is not a cult where I need to blindly follow the dictates of my pastor or bishop. When there’s a choice given, it’s a real choice. To say that it’s somehow morally wrong to choose one or the other is to take it upon yourself to remove the option to make that choice, which no one except the authentic legislator can do.

Mysty will ignore this because she has no use for Rome and the Vatican (“outside (name removed by moderator)ut”), and thinks that the decisions of the U.S.C.C.B. are as immutable as the laws of the Medes and the Persians; and that making a choice given to you by the C.D.W. is “imposing your will over the instruction of your shepherd.” She is, I hope, merely the victim of extremely poor catechesis.

–Paul

 

[Mysty101]

D.O.M.:

Just a thought Mysty,
What if you live in a diocese (and there are plenty of them unfortunately) where the directives of the so called “shephards” ARE twisted whims which go against the teachings of our one TRUE shephard in Rome, our Holy Father. Should these people blindly follow their bishop? Or should they follow the higher authority of the Vicar of Christ? I think you are mistaken when you refer to (name removed by moderator)ut from Rome as “outside (name removed by moderator)ut”. Rome has the ultimate authority to interpret norms for the faithful to follow, what you will not assent to is the fact that the bishops of the United States are under the authority of Rome and not the other way around.

This discussion is regarding an approved norm

 

[Mysty101]

To dismiss what the C.D.W. has said is to reject the authority of the C.D.W., and of the Vatican.

And what is it to dismiss an approved norm of the GIRM?

 

[Prester_John]

Mysty101:

I realized that my real question which should have been the third option is
Kneel, even if there are no provisions or I have been instructed to stand.

If you always kneel in a Parish where there are provisions, that would be the second option.

I also wanted to post here, that you understand, I believe that the most reverent way to receive Jesus into my heart, soul, mind, body, house or car is in the kneeling position.

But I think that a certain bit of flexibility has been allowed since the time of persecution from the apost---- …the Protestants.

Love, Hugs, and Kisses.
Prester John

 

[Mysty101]

Prester John:

I also wanted to post here, that you understand, I believe that the most reverent way to receive Jesus into my heart, soul, mind, body, house is in the kneeling position.

But I think that a certain bit of flexibility has been allowed since the time of persecution from the apost---- …the Protestants.

Love, Hugs, and Kisses.
Prester John

Well, my main point has always been my signature.

Love & Prayers,

 

[pgoings]

And what is it to dismiss an approved norm of the GIRM?

This would be a rejection of the authority of the C.D.W. as well, because it is their* recognitio* which gave this norm the force of law. However, they later clarified the manner in which this norm is to be understood, so that those who choose to kneel for Holy Communion cannot properly be accused of desiring to “dismiss an approved norm of the GIRM.”

You are entirely correct; the norm must be obeyed. It has the force of liturgical law. But you are incorrect about the way in which it should now be correctly understood, in view of the later instruction issued by the C.D.W. Every time that you say that people** should** stand, or that it** would be better** if they stood, you are undercutting the authority of the C.D.W. to authentically interpret its own legislation.

–Paul

 

[pgoings]

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

Is this explicitly stated someplace, or are we to infer it from the creation of the norm?

–Paul

 

[Mysty101]

pgoings:

Is this explicitly stated someplace, or are we to infer it from the creation of the norm?

–Paul

I can’t believe that you would ask this question

The Bishops drafted the norm–Are you suggesting they would draft a norm which they believed would not “serve the common spiritual good of the People of God”.

 

[Mysty101]

pgoings:

You are entirely correct; the norm must be obeyed. It has the force of liturgical law. But you are incorrect about the way in which it should now be correctly understood, in view of the later instruction issued by the C.D.W. Every time that you say that people** should** stand, or that it** would be better** if they stood, you are undercutting the authority of the C.D.W. to authentically interpret its own legislation.
–Paul

I feel that you are incorrect.
Again be reasonable. Some people complained. The instruction was given, so those who wished to kneel would be accommodated. I would hope the intention was not to undermine the authority of the USCCB. In essence, it was said that no punishment could be given, if someone chose to kneel, nothing about changing the norm, which was approved, and should be followed (if we take into consideration all the other instructions of the GIRM)

Now, again be reasonable. If there are accommodations for kneeling, it would not be unreasonable to relax the norm, but if there are no provisions, I would hope that the CDW would want the faithful to follow the norm.

And also, I still do not know the exact Canon ruling on a letter over a law, but as I said many times, I am talking about the Spirit of community, rather than the law.

 

[jimmy]

Mysty101:

I realized that my real question which should have been the third option is
Kneel, even if there are no provisions or I have been instructed to stand.

If you always kneel in a Parish where there are provisions, that would be the second option.

I stand

But what is with your obsession and dislike for those who hold to a traditional position or idea? It seems that you don’t like anything that holds to the old ways.

 

[pgoings]

The Bishops drafted the norm–Are you suggesting they would draft a norm which they believed would not “serve the common spiritual good of the People of God”.

No, not at all. I am merely suggesting that there is more than one approach to the question of the posture for receiving Holy Communion that would “serve the common spiritual good of the People of God,” and hoping that it was not the intent of the U.S.C.C.B. to restrict the application of that phrase to the norm which they had selected.

I feel that you are incorrect.

Then we are at an impasse. No matter; it has been a very fruitful discussion. I only hope that once I am received into the Catholic church, I may find a community as open to inquiry as I have found in these forums.

I would hope the intention was not to undermine the authority of the USCCB.

I have no perspective for judging the intentions of either the C.D.W. or the U.S.C.C.B. I have a question for you, though: If the C.D.W. had** not** originally granted the* recognitio* for the American adaptations to the G.I.R.M., would that have been an undermining of the authority of the U.S.C.C.B.?

If there are accommodations for kneeling

I would take this to mean “if the building has a floor,” which is the sense in which it is understood in the Roman basilicas, where people kneel to receive Holy Communion in line with the other communicants, as their devotion prompts. It is certainly considered “reasonable” there, and they have no shortage of people going to Holy Communion.

I still do not know the exact Canon ruling on a letter over a law

I am convinced (though I could be wrong) of my reading of the Canons in this matter, but it is certainly possible for a* dubia* to be submitted to the Pontifical Commission for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, which would provide an unambiguous answer.

I am talking about the Spirit of community, rather than the law

If this represents your own personal philosophy, well and good; but when you attempt to force it on others (by saying things like “be reasonable”) you are requiring something of them on your own accord, which the Faith doesn’t.

Again, it’s been a good discussion; though there might not be much new territory to go over at this point.

–Paul

 

[fix]

Mysty101:

I feel that you are incorrect.
Again be reasonable. Some people complained. The instruction was given, so those who wished to kneel would be accommodated. I would hope the intention was not to undermine the authority of the USCCB.

What? Rome is the judge. Rome decided what the situation was, what the GIRM was intended to mean and how we are to act. The only thing undercut would be the truth by those asserting Rome has no standing and the USCCB is supreme and the GIRM is to be self interpreted and worshipped as a god. You want to eliminate the authority of Rome.

 

[Mysty101]

jimmy:

I stand

But what is with your obsession and dislike for those who hold to a traditional position or idea? It seems that you don’t like anything that holds to the old ways.

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.

 

[Mysty101]

pgoings:

Then we are at an impasse. No matter; it has been a very fruitful discussion. I only hope that once I am received into the Catholic church, I may find a community as open to inquiry as I have found in these forums.

I believe I would have discussed differently, if I had known that you were not Catholic, and yet in another manner If I had known you were converting.

I have no perspective for judging the intentions of either the C.D.W. or the U.S.C.C.B. I have a question for you, though: If the C.D.W. had** not** originally granted the* recognitio* for the American adaptations to the G.I.R.M., would that have been an undermining of the authority of the U.S.C.C.B.?

No, I certainly would have preferred that to this confusion. Once it was approved, the CDW should never have allowed this mess. I still have my doubts as to the authority of the document in changing the norm. The new GIRM was released in 2000, but was nor promulgated until 2002. And there was even discussion back and forth aboout RS (especially the reprobation of the flagon and pouring of the Precious Blood) Once the USCCB issued the instructions for RS, then it was promulgated in the Parishes. The document was released in April, but didn’t take effect until the first Sunday in Advent in most Parishes. I heard nothing about the document everyone is claiming to be official.

I am convinced (though I could be wrong) of my reading of the Canons in this matter, but it is certainly possible for a* dubia* to be submitted to the Pontifical Commission for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, which would provide an unambiguous answer.

Don’t hold your breath—this is a very sensitive issue, and not a matter of Faith or morals, so it will deffinitely be on the back burner.

If this represents your own personal philosophy, well and good; but when you attempt to force it on others (by saying things like “be reasonable”) you are requiring something of them on your own accord, which the Faith doesn’t.

I am aking people to be reasonable, and follow a norm, if their Pastor has not authorized a relaxation of the norm.

 

[maryprayforme]

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.

One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church!

---

---

Listen!

---

---

**THE BISHOPS FALL UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF ROME! **

---

---

---

You just don’t get it!