Posture for Holy Communion-Clarified

[Mysty101]

Which post?

I think that was a response given in another thread, or at least very far back in this one.

If you want a response, give me the post # and in which thread, and maybe you’ll get a response.

 

[Mysty101]

Yep, Here it is post # 29, in response to

Originally Posted by fix
Hazard? The bigger hazard is not being in a state of grace. The rush to grab the Eucharist is a much bigger scandal than kneeling. How have we come to the point where kneeling is a bad thing?

So, what is your point?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=454737&highlight=postures#post454737

 

[Mysty101]

Do you want me to respond to this?

How have we come to the point where kneeling is a bad thing?

*Kneeling is not a bad thing—Kneeling when we are told to stand, is not entering into the Spirit of unity and community worship.

 

[Swiss_Guard]

Mysty101:

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.

So then you supported Archbishop Lefebvre when he consecrated bishops without approval from Rome. After all, he knows what best serves the community. This statement is dangerously close to material schism.

---

I’ve read much of what has been written in this thread by you and others. I support what you say about being obedient to our local bishop. We can’t ignore our local bishop if we disagree with him.

---

However, the same holds true of the local bishops being obedient to the Holy See. They cannot ignore Rome when they disagree with the Holy Father. They have to be obedient to the Holy Father as do the rest of us.

---

Kneeling for Holy Communion is approved of in the GIRM. There is nothing that says “unless provisions are provided.” One may kneel to receive Holy Communion whether or not there is a communion rail.

---

Your main point for denying people their GIRM-given right to kneel for reception of Holy Communion is to foster unity. You have stated many times that unity in worship is important. I agree with you, but it shouldn’t be taken to an extreme, which is what you are doing. I’ll explain why I believe you are taking the fostering of unity to an extreme.

---

Everyone receives Holy Communion standing in your parish. Does everyone receive Holy Communion on the tongue or in the hand? Does everyone receive Holy Communion from the priest/deacon or from a lay minister?

---

My point is some people receive Holy Communion on the tongue, some receive it in the hand. Some people receive it from the priest/deacon and some receive it from a lay minister. Where is the unity? Are we any less united because of how or from whom we receive Holy Communion?

---

Unity of worship is important, but reverence outweighs unity. Obedience to lawful authority fosters both unity and reverence.

---

Remember, as one person posted in very large letters, we are ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC CHURCH. The bishops are indeed under the authority of Rome. We are only to be obedient to those bishops who are obedient to the Holy Father. I can’t tell you how many times Fr. Hardon said that on his retreats. I can hear him say it right now and he passed away four years ago.

---

The only need is the salvation of souls. This is the same in every time and place. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.

 

[Mysty101]

So then you supported Archbishop Lefebvre when he consecrated bishops without approval from Rome. After all, he knows what best serves the community. This statement is dangerously close to material schism.

This really infurates me. How dare you twist my words in that manner???My Bishop and Pastor are in good standing with Rome. We are talking about following the GIRM. Others wish to put their preference over the norm.

**

**Your main point for denying people their GIRM-given right to kneel for reception of Holy Communion is to foster unity. **

**
The US norm is they are not to be denied, and to be instructed. This is not the same as "allowed"

**

**Does everyone receive Holy Communion on the tongue or in the hand? **

**
This is an option in the GIRM, and does not interfer with the Communion procession.

**
Does everyone receive Holy Communion from the priest/deacon or from a lay minister?

Same as above**

**

** Obedience to lawful authority fosters both unity and reverence**

.**

 

[Exporter]

Mysty101,

The questions are here in this post. Do not say you do not understand because the questions are on another post. I am calling this message a post. This one.

Will you satisfy my curiosity by telling me how many times you have “corrected”, “suggested a change” or “offered a different emphasis” in the Liturgy to a Priest or a Deacon? Have you discussed the G.I.R.M. with any Priest? If these are not understandable I can rephrase them.

 

[Mysty101]

Exporter:

Mysty101,

The questions are here in this post. Do not say you do not understand because the questions are on another post. I am calling this message a post. This one…

Spare the sarcasm—show me where I refused to answer a question.
I went back to the original post and responded to that—what do you want?

Will you satisfy my curiosity by telling me how many times you have “corrected”, “suggested a change” or “offered a different emphasis” in the Liturgy to a Priest or a Deacon? Have you discussed the G.I.R.M. with any Priest? If these are not understandable I can rephrase them

I’ve never corrected a Priest. I have asked questions, and discussed the GIRM, RS, Liturgiam authenticam as well as a few other documents which come up in the footnotes with 3 Priests, a Deacon and a Seminarian from my Parish, as well as a few Priests and deacons on line. I was never told I did not understand the documents correctly.
Anything else?

 

[Mysty101]

Mysty101:

Do you want me to respond to this?
*

How have we come to the point where kneeling is a bad thing?

Kneeling is not a bad thing—Kneeling when we are told to stand, is not entering into the Spirit of unity and community worship.

Was this the question to which you wanted a response?

Now you switched to something else–and you say I evade???

(I honestly do not know why I am even responding)

 

[Swiss_Guard]

Mysty101:

This really infurates me. How dare you twist my words in that manner???My Bishop and Pastor are in good standing with Rome. We are talking about following the GIRM. Others wish to put their preference over the norm.

I didn’t twist your words, I’m showing you the logical consequence of your statement:

Mysty101:

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.

When you say there are “different needs” here, you are opening the door to disobedience. Archbishop Lefebvre was in communion with Rome before he consecrated those priests bishops. He wanted Rome to agree to his demands for bishops rather than the priest Rome selected. According to your logic, Rome should have had no say in the matter since Archbishop Lefebvre, a bishop in FULL COMMUNION with the Holy See knew there were “different needs” in SSPX.

---

**Since you never clarified what you mean by your bishop and pastor know better than Rome, I can only take it to mean you are in material schism. Making a statement that Rome CANNOT INTERFERE with your bishop or pastor equals material schism.

---

Mysty101:

The US norm is they are not to be denied, and to be instructed. This is not the same as “allowed”.

This is what the GIRM says:

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 (emphasis mine). Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis for this norm (emphasis mine). usccb.org/liturgy/current/GIRM.pdf
I can be catechised on this until the day I die, it doesn’t prevent me from kneeling to receive Holy Communion. Not to be denied EQUALS allowed. You can try any Bill Clinton type interpretation of the GIRM you like, I still have the right to kneel for reception of Holy Communion, a right guaranteed by the GIRM!

Mysty101:

Originally Posted by Swiss Guard

**Does everyone receive Holy Communion on the tongue or in the hand? **

This is an option in the GIRM, and does not interfer with the Communion procession.
So is kneeling to receive Holy Communion an option in the GIRM. Saying it interferes with the Communion procession is stating a personal opinion as fact. I can show you at my parish that it doesn’t interfere with the procession.

If unity and serving the community were truly the reasons for everyone receiving Holy Communion in the same manner, then everyone would receive kneeling, on the tongue and from the priest. This truly fosters the greatest reverence for Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.

---

People standing and having the sacred host put in their hand by their next door neighbor and then pop in their mouths like a piece of candy does not foster reverence, nor does it foster unity. It fosters a 30% belief in the Real Presence among Catholics who regularly attend Mass.

---

As I said before, the only need for the community is salvation of souls. This comes before all else.

 

[Mysty101]

I didn’t twist your words, I’m showing you the logical consequence of your statement:

Absolutely not—you are comparing a schismatic Bishop with my Pastor and Archbishop—be careful of your accusations.

**
****Since you never clarified what you mean by your bishop and pastor know better than Rome, I can only take it to mean you are in material schism. Making a statement that Rome *CANNOT INTERFERE *****with your bishop or pastor equals material schism.
**

Wrong again and again be careful.
When I said

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.

we were speaking of standing, rather than kneeling, an approved norm in the US—you did twist my words.
Did you even read this?

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.

We are talking about approved US norms.

**

** Not to be denied EQUALS**

allowed. **
not true—the norm in the US is standing.

**

**So is kneeling to receive Holy Communion an option in the GIRM. **

**
you have now twisted the GIRM–
**
Saying it interferes with the Communion procession is stating a personal opinion as fact. I can show you at my parish that it doesn’t interfere with the procession.
**
You cannot—those who kneel do not participate in a flowing procession, but I am not speaking about where there is a viable procedure for kneeling. I am speaking of kneeling when there are no provisions.

**

If unity and serving the community were truly the reasons for everyone receiving Holy Communion in the same manner, then everyone would receive kneeling, on the tongue and from the priest.

This truly fosters the greatest reverence for Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. **
Your opinion—

**

**People standing and having the sacred host put in their hand by their next door neighbor and then pop in their mouths like a piece of candy **

**
Agreed, but now you are accusing everyone who does not use your preference of receiving in this manner–kinda judgemental
**
As I said before, the only need for the community is salvation of souls. This comes before all else

Judge not, least ye may be judged. You are judging others as less reverant than you, because they follow the US norms, rather than your preference. Sounds like pride to me.

Again, I have said many times that I agree there is an option, which is not encouraged by most US priests and bishops. If someone wishes to kneel, but can’t get to a kneeling Parish, it would be better if they stood, as the rest of the community.**

 

[Mysty101]

PS I repeat

But as I said, even if this is the higher authority, do you still feel it is a good choice to find a loophole and go against the decision of your Shepherd, especially when the Pastor and rest of the congregation are following the norm?

 

[Swiss_Guard]

Mysty101:

Absolutely not—you are comparing a schismatic Bishop with my Pastor and Archbishop—be careful of your accusations.

Let me repeat this again slowly so even you can understand:

ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE WAS IN FULL COMMUNION WITH ROME BEFORE HE CONSECRATED THOSE PRIESTS AS BISHOPS!!!

The problem Lefebvre had was that Rome would not approve the bishops he wanted. Now, let me repeat this again slowly so even you can understand:

ACCORDING TO YOUR LOGIC ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CONSECRATE THOSE PRIESTS AS BISHOPS WITH ROME’S APPROVAL SINCE HE KNEW THERE WERE “DIFFERENT NEEDS” IN THE COMMUNITY!!!

I am not making an apples and oranges comparison. What you say is a bishop in communion with Rome should be able to tell Rome what to do. Archbishop Lefebvre was in full communion with Rome when he made his request. My comparison is apt, you just don’t possess the necessary logic to see it. I’m not surprised.

Mysty101:

Wrong again and again be careful.
When I said
Quote:

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.

we were speaking of standing, rather than kneeling, an approved norm in the US—you did twist my words.

How am I twisting your words when you say your bishop knows better than Rome how to save souls, since that is the need of every community? That statement is material schism, as you are saying Rome cannot tell your bishop what to do since Rome doesn’t know the needs of your community. Funny, that’s exactly what SSPX believes.

Rome says I can kneel for communion. You, your pastor, your bishop or anyone else CANNOT deny me Holy Communion because I kneel. When you say your bishop and pastor CAN deny me Holy Communion despite what Rome says, that’s material schism. Again, you’re saying your bishop can ignore Rome. I’m still trying to figure out how I’m twisting your words when you state it plainly that your bishop can ignore Rome.

---

Continued in the next post…

 

[Swiss_Guard]

Mysty101:

Did you even read this?
Quote:

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.

We are talking about approved US norms.

I find it interesting that you underline paragraph 3 and ignore paragraph 4. Let me show you what it says:

§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 (emphais mine).

---

I am continually amazed that you will ignore anything that doesn’t support your position. Even Canon Law says the bishops HAVE LIMITS!!! You want to give your bishop unlimited authority and power like a federal judge.

Mysty101:

Quote:
Not to be denied EQUALS

allowed.
not true—the norm in the US is standing.
I feel like the person who keeps denying the request of a constant pest, “What part of NO don’t you understand.” Let me repeat this again slowly so even you can understand:

IF I AM NOT TO BE DENIED SOMETHING, IT MEANS I AM ALLOWED IT!!!

Mysty101:

Quote:
So is kneeling to receive Holy Communion an option in the GIRM.

you have now twisted the GIRM–

Here is what the GIRM says, and please pay close attention:

**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 (emphasis mine). **Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, **by providing the faithful with proper catechesis for this norm (emphasis mine). usccb.org/liturgy/current/GIRM.pdf

I feel like a broken record but let me repeat this again slowly so even you can understand:

I CAN BE CATECHISED ON THIS UNTIL THE DAY I DIE IT DOESN’T PREVENT ME FROM KNEELING TO RECEIVE HOLY COMMUNION!!!

Once again I’m amazed how you can ignore whatever goes against your personal agenda. Not only to you ignore the GIRM, you accuse me of twisting the GIRM. I can’t figure out how stating exactly what the GIRM says is twisting it but I haven’t been able to figure out your train of logic.

Mysty101:

Quote:
Saying it interferes with the Communion procession is stating a personal opinion as fact. I can show you at my parish that it doesn’t interfere with the procession.
You cannot—those who kneel do not participate in a flowing procession, but I am not speaking about where there is a viable procedure for kneeling. I am speaking of kneeling when there are no provisions.

My, aren’t we the know-it-all. Such humility. Next thing I know you’ll tell me I’ve never been to Chicago.

Tell you what sweetie, why don’t you stick your pretty little self on an airplane to Chicago and I will show you how kneeling for Holy Communion - provisions or no provisions - DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THE PROCESSION. Don’t let your mouth write a check that the rest of you can’t cash.

If you get the idea I’m tired of you acting like a know-it-all, you’re absolutely correct.

Continued in the next post…

 

[Swiss_Guard]

Mysty101:

Quote:
If unity and serving the community were truly the reasons for everyone receiving Holy Communion in the same manner, then everyone would receive kneeling, on the tongue and from the priest.

This truly fosters the greatest reverence for Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.
Your opinion—
Considering receiving on the tongue kneeling from the priest was the NORM for several hundreds of years and there was never a crisis of belief in the Real Presence as there is today (30% of US Catholics who regularly attend Mass believe in the Real Presence) I would say it’s more than just my opinion. This truly fosters the greatest reverence for Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. I guess you’re the only one who gets to state personal opinion as fact even though I can back up my opinion with facts.

My point, and I’m not surprised you missed it, is that all this emphasis on unity by the US bishops is a bunch of hogwash. They want to force people to stand for Holy Communion as a sign of unity yet don’t say anything of the fact people receive in the hand or on the tongue, from the priest of from a lay minister. Shouldn’t reception be EXACTLY the same by everyone if unity is the ultimate goal?

Mysty101:

Quote:
**People standing and having the sacred host put in their hand by their next door neighbor and then pop in their mouths like a piece of candy **

Agreed, but now you are accusing everyone who does not use your preference of receiving in this manner–kinda judgemental
I think it’s more than kinda disingenuous that you didn’t post my entire quote, but then it wouldn’t support your ideological position now would it?

Here is my entire quote and, once again, let me repeat this again slowly so even you can understand:

People standing and having the sacred host put in their hand by their next door neighbor and then pop in their mouths like a piece of candy does not foster reverence, nor does it foster unity. IT FOSTERS A 30% BELIEF IN THE REAL PRESENCE AMONG CATHOLICS WHO REGULARLY ATTEND MASS.
Since this is obviously the method you prefer to receive Holy Communion, or you wouldn’t have called me judgmental, let me ask you what do we receive when we receive Holy Communion? Yes, I am doubting your belief in the Real Presence.

---

Continued in the next post…

 

[Swiss_Guard]

Mysty101:

Quote:
As I said before, the only need for the community is salvation of souls. This comes before all else

Judge not, least ye may be judged. You are judging others as less reverant than you, because they follow the US norms, rather than your preference. Sounds like pride to me.
And you are once again taking my quote out of context. Sounds like someone who can’t intellectual defend her argument based on the facts to me. This is NOT in reference to the US norms (which allow kneeling no matter what Clintonesque interpretation you give it), it is in reference to BISHOPS BEING OBEDIENT TO ROME!

Let me repeat this again slowly so even you can understand:

If a person wants to exercise his/her GIRM-given right to kneel to receive Holy Communion, he/she may exercise it. DENYING SOMEONE HOLY COMMUNION BECAUSE HE/SHE KNEELS DOES NOT LEAD TO SALVATION OF SOULS!

The reasons are twofold: 1. Kneeling is a sign of adoration, which is more reverant than a bow of the head; 2. Kneeling is a right guaranteed in the GIRM by Rome and therefore, if denied, is in direct disobedience to Rome.

So tell me how adoring Our Lord and being obedient to Rome is pride? It’s thinking you, your pastor and your bishop know better than Rome how to save souls which is pride.

Mysty101:

Again, I have said many times that I agree there is an option, which is not encouraged by most US priests and bishops. If someone wishes to kneel, but can’t get to a kneeling Parish, it would be better if they stood, as the rest of the community.

This is your opinion which, quite frankly, is judgmental because you want everyone to do what you tell them to do. Sounds like pride to me.

Your lack of logic and reason on this matter is absolutely astounding. You follow what you like and ignore the rest. Your quote of Canon Law is the perfect example. While you emphasize one point, you completely ignore another point which overrules your point.

Who interprets the GIRM? Who interprets Canon Law? Is Rome the final authority or can the bishops tell Rome to get lost whenever they disagree with the Holy See? The answers to these questions determine who is a practicing Catholic and who isn’t. It’s not judgmental, it’s fact. It’s in Canon Law and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Look it up.

 

[Swiss_Guard]

Mysty101:

PS I repeat

Quote:
But as I said, even if this is the higher authority, do you still feel it is a good choice to find a loophole and go against the decision of your Shepherd, especially when the Pastor and rest of the congregation are following the norm?

I see your problem now. Do I still FEEL it is a good choice to find a LOOPHOLE.

---

I don’t FEEL, I BELIEVE!!! I THINK!!! You go with the ultra left-wing mode of feeling instead of believing and thinking.

---

Also, you call a direct statement in the GIRM a LOOPHOLE. You don’t even know the definition of a loophole. It’s not a loophole to kneel when it is EXPRESSLY STATED in the GIRM.

---

I know it is a good idea to obey the Holy Father. I know it is wrong to be disobedient to the Holy See. I know I do not have to obey bishops and priests who are disobedient to the Bishop of Rome. It’s called practicing your Catholic faith.

 

[Mysty101]

** I know it is wrong to be disobedient to the Holy See. I know I do not have to obey bishops and priests who are disobedient to the Bishop of Rome. It’s called practicing your Catholic faith.**

The Holy Father has stated that the Bishop is the Shepherd and to be obeyed. You are arguing against approved norms in the US.

 

[Mysty101]

Let me repeat this again slowly so even you can understand:

ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE WAS IN FULL COMMUNION WITH ROME BEFORE HE CONSECRATED THOSE PRIESTS AS BISHOPS!!!

**The problem Lefebvre had was that Rome would not approve the bishops he wanted. Now, **let me repeat this again slowly so even you can understand:

ACCORDING TO YOUR LOGIC ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CONSECRATE THOSE PRIESTS AS BISHOPS WITH ROME’S APPROVAL SINCE HE KNEW THERE WERE “DIFFERENT NEEDS” IN THE COMMUNITY!!!

I am not making an apples and oranges comparison. What you say is a bishop in communion with Rome should be able to tell Rome what to do. Archbishop Lefebvre was in full communion with Rome when he made his request. My comparison is apt, you just don’t possess the necessary logic to see it. I’m not surprised.
…

let me repeat this again slowly so even you can understand:
I am talking about approved norms. These decisions of the Bishop have been approved by Rome. I am speaking about the US norms in the GIRM.

 

[Mysty101]

**

Yes, I am doubting your belief in the Real Presence.

**And you call yourself a Christian?

 

[Kelly]

I know it is a good idea to obey the Holy Father. I know it is wrong to be disobedient to the Holy See. I know I do not have to obey bishops and priests who are disobedient to the Bishop of Rome. It’s called practicing your Catholic faith.

Swiss Guard,

I think that you will find no way to get your point across to the ultra left-wingers. Unfortunatley to them their bishops and"pastors" do have more credibility than the Holy See. These are the same type of people that would have told St. Thomas More that his duty was to follow the directions of the majority of English bishops during his time and ignore Rome, after all they were clearly only concerned with the needs of their own individual community.

I have lived in three archdioceses over the past 4 years. The only archbishops and priests that I know that have tried to thwart Rome on this issue have also been the ones who insist on disobeying Rome on many other issues such as kneeling during the consecration, the washing of women’s feet on Holy Thrusday, insisting that children wait to receive confession two years after first communion, and the like. Fortunately the vast majority of priests under the age of 45 are very orthodox and loyal to the Holy Father!

By the way I agree with your assessment that the loss of the belief in the True Presence in the Holy Eucharist is directly related to the lack of reverence (kneeling), the use of EMHC, and receiving on the tongue.