Posture for Holy Communion-Clarified

[Mysty101]

And I just copied the GIRM

girm 160…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.

If there were an option in the norm, why is it not stated? This is what I am asking you. I know the answer. The GIRM is very carefully worded. “not to be denied Holy Communion” is very precise wording. The approved norm is standing- period. The CDW is not allowed to override the GIRM without a reprobation. (There is even oposing authorative views if an approved norm can be reprobated at all-as in the case of the pouring of the Precious Blood)

You speak of Rome—Rome tells you to obey your shepherd, plus this is an apprroved norm.

 

[Mysty101]

PS But again, I am not against kneeling if there are provisions. People were told that if they choose to kneel, they are to be given Communion and not be considered disobedient, even though they are putting their preference over the decision of their shepherd as to what is best suited to the needs of the community.

But this certainly does not indicate that you have permission to kneel. The USCCB has told you to stand, but were told they could not force the issue, if you chose to disregard their instructions.

 

[fix]

Again, we see clericalism and Americanism. Very sad.

 

[Mysty101]

You still don’t get it. The Pope has spoken

GIRM22. The celebration of the Eucharist in a particular Church is of utmost importance.

For the diocesan Bishop, the chief steward of the mysteries of God in the particular Church entrusted to his care, is the moderator, promoter, and guardian of the whole of its liturgical life.33 In celebrations at which the Bishop presides, and especially in the celebration of the Eucharist led by the Bishop himself with the presbyterate, the deacons, and the people taking part, the mystery of the Church is revealed. For this reason, the solemn celebration of Masses of this sort must be an example for the entire diocese.

The Bishop should therefore be determined that the priests, the deacons, and the lay Christian faithful grasp ever more deeply the genuine meaning of the rites and liturgical texts and thereby be led to an active and fruitful celebration of the Eucharist. To the same end, he should also be vigilant that the dignity of these celebrations be enhanced. In promoting this dignity, the beauty of the sacred place, of music, and of art should contribute as greatly as possible.

Now for those of you who still keep going on about Rome, the Pope has approved the US norms, and told us to obey.

 

[fix]

This Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has received through official channels your letter dated 1 December 2002, related to the application of the norms approved by the Conference of Bishops of the United States of America, with the subsequent recognitio of this Congregation, as regards the question of the posture for receiving Holy Communion.

*** As the authority by virtue of whose recognitio the norm in question has attained the force of law, this Dicastery is competent to specify the manner in which the norm is to be understood for the sake of a proper application.*** Having received more than a few letters regarding this matter from different locations in the United States of America, the Congregation wishes to ensure that its position on the matter is clear.

To this end, it is perhaps useful to respond to your inquiry by repeating the content of a letter that the Congregation recently addressed to a Bishop in the United States of America from whose Diocese a number of pertinent letters had been received. The letter states: “… while this Congregation gave the recognitio to the norm desired by the Bishops’ Conference of your country that people stand for Holy Communion, this was done on the condition that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds. Indeed, the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion”.

This Dicastery hopes that the citation given here will provide an adequate answer to your letter. At the same time, please be assured that the Congregation remains ready to be of assistance if you should need to contact it again.

With every prayerful good wish, I am

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Mons. Mario Marini
Undersecretary

Rome has spoken. Please obey.

 

[Mysty101]

girm 160…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.

Rome has spoken Please obey.

 

[fix]

Mysty101:

Rome has spoken Please obey.

The GIRM has an authentic ineterpreter and that is Rome. Please obey what Rome has said, not your clericalistic mindset.

 

[Mysty101]

I will take my Bishop’s interpretation of the GIRM over your interpretation of a letter.

And again I never said anyone should be denied Communion or called disobedient, which is all that letter instructs. I am not against kneeling if there are provisions. People were told that if they choose to kneel, they are to be given Communion and not be considered disobedient, even though they are putting their preference over the decision of their shepherd as to what is best suited to the needs of the community.

But this certainly does not indicate that you have permission to kneel. The USCCB has told you to stand, but were told they could not force the issue, if you chose to disregard their instructions.

 

[Cherub]

Mysty101:

I will take my Bishop’s interpretation of the GIRM over your interpretation of a letter.

Who wrote the GIRM? Don’t you think the author of it knows better what it means and why it was written than some conference of bishops? They are the ones who interpreted the GIRM – and not very well in this case, hence, the correction from Rome.

 

[Stone_Cold]

Mysty101:

I will take my Bishop’s interpretation of the GIRM over your interpretation of a letter.

And again I never said anyone should be denied Communion or called disobedient, which is all that letter instructs. I am not against kneeling if there are provisions. People were told that if they choose to kneel, they are to be given Communion and not be considered disobedient, even though they are putting their preference over the decision of their shepherd as to what is best suited to the needs of the community.

But this certainly does not indicate that you have permission to kneel. The USCCB has told you to stand, but were told they could not force the issue, if you chose to disregard their instructions.

Now I’m confused about your position. You agree that people who kneel for communion are not disobedient but, at the same time, they don’t have permission to kneel. If one doesn’t have permission to do something, then one is disobedient if one does it. Please clarify because this doesn’t make sense to me.

The USCCB has no authority whatsoever. No document that comes from the USCCB is binding on the conscience of any Catholic. Individual bishops have authority over their dioceses. I do not have to obey anything Cardinal Mahony says because I am not in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. The only US bishop I have to obey is my local bishop.

You keep stating the needs of the community. Are we judged by Almighty God as individuals or as a community? If my neighbor practices contraception and receives communion without going to confession, do I incur the guilt of committing a sacrilege? No.

You are correct that the US bishops have approval from Rome to let the faithful receive communion standing. I don’t dispute this point and would not tell anyone they cannot stand when receiving communion. However, you also state we can kneel to receive communion yet want everyone to stand when it is permissable to kneel. You are not being charitable.

I understand you being upset that your mother almost tripped over someone receiving communion while kneeling. I would be just as upset if this happened to my mother. However, the solution is not to force others to obey your wishes when Rome says we may do otherwise.

If Rome says I can disregard the instructions of my local bishop to stand while receiving communion, then he has no power to enforce this rule. His power only comes from being in union with Rome.

Peace

 

[Mysty101]

Cherub:

Who wrote the GIRM? Don’t you think the author of it knows better what it means and why it was written than some conference of bishops? They are the ones who interpreted the GIRM – and not very well in this case, hence, the correction from Rome.

As I said, I never said anyone should be denied Communion or called disobedient, which is all that letter instructs. I am not against kneeling if there are provisions. People were told that if they choose to kneel, they are to be given Communion and not be considered disobedient, even though they are putting their preference over the decision of their shepherd as to what is best suited to the needs of the community.

But this certainly does not indicate that you have permission to kneel. The USCCB has told you to stand, but were told they could not force the issue, if you chose to disregard their instructions.

 

[Mysty101]

Stone Cold:

Peace

And peace to you!

I do not agree with what was done re-standing/kneeling. If this was to be a true option, it should have been written that way, as was the hand/tongue option.

The USCCB has no authority whatsoever. No document that comes from the USCCB is binding on the conscience of any Catholic. Individual bishops have authority over their dioceses. I do not have to obey anything Cardinal Mahony says because I am not in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. The only US bishop I have to obey is my local bishop

You are wrong on that one–The local conference of Bishops (not each individual bishop outside of his diocese, but the conference) does have authority within it’s competency (the norm of standing was approved) (RS was not implimented until the USCCB had sent the instructions)

GIRM 390. It is up to the Conferences of Bishops to decide on the adaptations indicated in this General Instruction and in the Order of Mass and, once their decisions have been accorded the recognitio of the Apostolic See, to introduce them into the Missal itself. These adaptations include

• The gestures and posture of the faithful (cf. no. 43 above);
• The gestures of veneration toward the altar and the Book of the Gospels (cf. no. 273 above);
• The texts of the chants at the entrance, at the presentation of the gifts, and at Communion (cf. nos. 48, 74, 87 above);
• The readings from Sacred Scripture to be used in special circumstances (cf. no. 362 above);
• The form of the gesture of peace (cf. no. 82 above);
• The manner of receiving Holy Communion (cf. nos. 160, 283 above);
• The materials for the altar and sacred furnishings, especially the sacred vessels, and also the materials, form, and color of the liturgical vestments (cf. nos. 301, 326, 329, 339, 342-346 above).

Please follow my reasoning.

The norm is standing

People were told that if they choose to kneel, they are to be given Communion and not be considered disobedient, even though they are putting their preference over the decision of their shepherd as to what is best suited to the needs of the community.

But this certainly does not indicate that you have permission to kneel. The USCCB has told you to stand, but were told they could not force the issue, if you chose to disregard their instructions.

OK let me try this. The speed limit is 55. You drive at 60 miles an hour—the trooper will not give you a ticket (It is understood, you will not get a ticket unless you exceed 10 above the speed limit.) Does this indicate that you have permission to drive 60 miles an hour?

True permission would have either given the option or reprobated the norm of standing, as was the use of flagons. This is only a “look the other way” situation. The norm of standing was approved. The USCCB has decided that this suits the pastoral needs of most US Parishes. Some Parishes have been able to make provisions for those who wish to kneel, which is fine–this is for the common good of that Parish. One person wishes to kneel in a standing Parish, and forces their will on the minister, who is not allowed to deny Communion. Do you honestly think this is the best choice?

 

[pgoings]

Mysty101:

OK let me try this. The speed limit is 55. You drive at 60 miles an hour—the trooper will not give you a ticket (It is understood, you will not get a ticket unless you exceed 10 above the speed limit.) Does this indicate that you have permission to drive 60 miles an hour?

This is a good analogy. However what we also have in this case is a clarification of the law which sets the speed limit from the “Department of Motor Vehicles” which says that people who “drive at 60 m.p.h.” are “not speeding.” That’s the big difference.

–Paul

 

[Mysty101]

This is a good analogy. However what we also have in this case is a clarification of the law which sets the speed limit from the “Department of Motor Vehicles” which says that people who “drive at 60 m.p.h.” are “not speeding.” That’s the big difference.

This is a conflict of terms, and no law could be written that way. This is my point.
The letter did not change the law.
As I said, this letter was a compromise, which gave conflicting instructions. If you do not obey the a law, you are disobedient. No letter can change that. Just because nobody is allowed to say it, does not change the fact.

If the norm was approved, it should be enforcable. If it is not to be obeyed, then it should be changed. The compromise just added more confusion.

I ask again --One person wishes to kneel in a standing Parish, and forces their will on the minister, who is not allowed to deny Communion. Do you honestly think this is the best choice, most reverent and pleasing to God?

 

[fix]

Mysty101:

This is a conflict of terms, and no law could be written that way. This is my point.
The letter did not change the law.
As I said, this letter was a compromise, which gave conflicting instructions. If you do not obey the a law, you are disobedient. No letter can change that. Just because nobody is allowed to say it, does not change the fact.

If the norm was approved, it should be enforcable. If it is not to be obeyed, then it should be changed. The compromise just added more confusion.

I ask again --One person wishes to kneel in a standing Parish, and forces their will on the minister, who is not allowed to deny Communion. Do you honestly think this is the best choice, most reverent and pleasing to God?

Rome interpreted the law. Your understanding seems to conflict with Rome’s desires. The law is not a god, but is at the service of truth. Every law must have an authentic interpreter.

 

[Mysty101]

fix:

Rome interpreted the law. Your understanding seems to conflict with Rome’s desires. The law is not a god, but is at the service of truth. Every law must have an authentic inteerpreter.

This is not an interpretation of the law, it is a contradiction. With the big emphesis on unity, and following rubrics, it could have been addressed in better manner.

And for the last time, I am not talking about right or wrong, I am speaking of the best solution for the whole commmunity, not one person’s personal piety in public worship.

 

[Cherub]

Mysty101:

This is not an interpretation of the law, it is a contradiction. With the big emphesis on unity, and following rubrics, it could have been addressed in better manner.

And for the last time, I am not talking about right or wrong, I am speaking of the best solution for the whole commmunity, not one person’s personal piety in public worship.

With all due respect to those members of the USCCB who actually do care about Catholic unity and preserving our liturgy and the sanctity of Holy Mother Church (because I feel certain there must be some such men in that organization) – it is the USCCB which is causing the contradictions you have noticed, not Rome.

The best solution for the whole community would be for the American bishops to follow the rules as set by Rome, and stop asking for special treatment for the American Church all the time. That is what derails unity.

 

[turboEDvo]

Well, I recently took up the habit of genuflecting before receiving Communion (never had the privilege of using a Communion rail or something). Then I just stand and receive.

Eamon

 

[Mysty101]

Cherub:

With all due respect to those members of the USCCB who actually do care about Catholic unity and preserving our liturgy and the sanctity of Holy Mother Church (because I feel certain there must be some such men in that organization) – it is the USCCB which is causing the contradictions you have noticed, not Rome.

The best solution for the whole community would be for the American bishops to follow the rules as set by Rome, and stop asking for special treatment for the American Church all the time. That is what derails unity.

There is no need to slam the American Bishops. If you are in America, they are your Shepherds. You are called to obey them, far more than to observe personal interpretations of piety.

Whether you like it or not, Rome has approved the US adaptations.

 

[Mysty101]

turboEDvo:

Well, I recently took up the habit of genuflecting before receiving Communion (never had the privilege of using a Communion rail or something). Then I just stand and receive.
Eamon

The sign of reverence decided by the USCCB is a bow.