Private Prayer after Communion Introverted?

[rosarywarrior]

Anticipatory redemption (the term used by Scotus and Ware) has nothing to do with her receiving our fallen nature. She was without sin, but she had a fallen nature. She simply was saved “in anticipation” of what she was to accomplish in salvation history through her fiat.

Deacon Ed

Mary is IMMACULATE I refer you to this excellent explanation…by the way, are you Catholic?

And so, the very Flesh that Redeems us – the Flesh of Christ – is truly and fully human. And where did Jesus receive that Flesh? He received it from His mother – Mary.

Therefore, if He inherited His flesh and human nature from a human mother and IF His nature is NOT fallen then it raises some considerations of its own.

How so? If we humans inherit the nature of our parents, and if Christ did not have a fallen nature, then one of two possible scenarios presents itself:

EITHER

Scenario #1 is that Christ – our Redeemer and Savior – inherited from His mother a pristine human nature which was not fallen. Her nature was “saved” from fallen-ness prior to Christ’s conception. In this scenario it is Mary who is the object of prior salvation. This is the Catholic view.

OR

Scenario #2 is that Mary was fallen at the time of Christ’s conception, but that Christ was prevented from (i.e., “saved” from) inheriting her fallen-ness through the intervention of the Holy Spirit. In this scenario it is Christ who is the object of the immediate saving work of the Spirit. This is the Protestant view even if few Protestants ever think of it in these terms.

In both scenarios we have the necessity of a “saving” intervention by the Holy Spirit.

But, in scenario #2 we can see a great difficulty arising. Why? Because for Jesus to have been “saved” from inheriting Original Sin that means that Our Savior would have needed a savior AND Our Redeemer would have needed a redeemer and THAT is something that Scripture never points to and that, in reality, is an utter impossibility. For Christ Himself is “THE SAVIOR” and He is “THE REDEEMER”. catholic-legate.com/articles/icbridge.html

 

[gelsbern]

Mary is IMMACULATE I refer you to this excellent explanation…by the way, are you Catholic?

And so, the very Flesh that Redeems us – the Flesh of Christ – is truly and fully human. And where did Jesus receive that Flesh? He received it from His mother – Mary.

Therefore, if He inherited His flesh and human nature from a human mother and IF His nature is NOT fallen then it raises some considerations of its own.

How so? If we humans inherit the nature of our parents, and if Christ did not have a fallen nature, then one of two possible scenarios presents itself:

EITHER

Scenario #1 is that Christ – our Redeemer and Savior – inherited from His mother a pristine human nature which was not fallen. Her nature was “saved” from fallen-ness prior to Christ’s conception. In this scenario it is Mary who is the object of prior salvation. This is the Catholic view.

OR

Scenario #2 is that Mary was fallen at the time of Christ’s conception, but that Christ was prevented from (i.e., “saved” from) inheriting her fallen-ness through the intervention of the Holy Spirit. In this scenario it is Christ who is the object of the immediate saving work of the Spirit. This is the Protestant view even if few Protestants ever think of it in these terms.

In both scenarios we have the necessity of a “saving” intervention by the Holy Spirit.

But, in scenario #2 we can see a great difficulty arising. Why? Because for Jesus to have been “saved” from inheriting Original Sin that means that Our Savior would have needed a savior AND Our Redeemer would have needed a redeemer and THAT is something that Scripture never points to and that, in reality, is an utter impossibility. For Christ Himself is “THE SAVIOR” and He is “THE REDEEMER”. catholic-legate.com/articles/icbridge.html

DISCLAIMER: I am not in union with Rome and I do not believe in the Immaculate Conception. I do believe that Mary never committed a sin. I believe that Mary was a Virgin before and after the Birth of Christ. And I believe she remained a Virgin until her dormition.

… Scenario #3: When Mary gave her fiat to do the will of God, she was cleansed and purified and became a worthy vessel for our Lord and Christ – our Redeemer and Savior – inherited from His mother a pristine human nature which was no longer fallen. Her nature was “saved” from fallen-ness prior to Christ’s conception but only after she submitted to the will of God which occurred when she said “Let it be done unto me according to thy word”.

Scenario 1 leaves out free will. She received the gift of salvation before she ever said yes. So that would mean she had no choice because she would not have said no because she was immaculately conceived, which opens a paradox which would be: Mary was immaculately conceived because she was going to say yes, and she said yes because she was immaculately conceived.

Scenario 2 cannot be possible because Christ did not need to be saved, but Mary did. Which leaves scenario 3.

 

[rosarywarrior]

DISCLAIMER: I am not in union with Rome and I do not believe in the Immaculate Conception. I do believe that Mary never committed a sin. I believe that Mary was a Virgin before and after the Birth of Christ. And I believe she remained a Virgin until her dormition.

… Scenario #3: When Mary gave her fiat to do the will of God, she was cleansed and purified and became a worthy vessel for our Lord and Christ – our Redeemer and Savior – inherited from His mother a pristine human nature which was no longer fallen. Her nature was “saved” from fallen-ness prior to Christ’s conception but only after she submitted to the will of God which occurred when she said “Let it be done unto me according to thy word”.

Scenario 1 leaves out free will. She received the gift of salvation before she ever said yes. So that would mean she had no choice because she would not have said no because she was immaculately conceived, which opens a paradox which would be: Mary was immaculately conceived because she was going to say yes, and she said yes because she was immaculately conceived.

Scenario 2 cannot be possible because Christ did not need to be saved, but Mary did. Which leaves scenario 3.

Where does it say she had no free will just because she was immaculately conceived? Being free from sin does not take away your free will…she still could have said no. As far as free will goes, look at the angels, how could they be in the presence of God in heaven and yet many fell with Lucifer? FREE WILL ! Scenario 1 is correct.

 

[ChemicalBean]

OK Deacon Ed. what you say is true BUT we are struggling sinners with many faults. I will not bow down to my neighbor and adore him or her as they too have sins and are not perfect either. It is only Jesus that I will adore and especially after I have received him. Walking_Home’s post makes point most clear.

Actually I would refer you to the practice of many monastic communities who “bow” (from the waist) in respect and adoration to the presence of Christ in their sisters and brothers in community, usually upon entering choir stalls in procession. I would imagine that it would be very humbling to end up lining up next to someone you just had a big argument with but had to bow to anyway. And to do this once, twice a day or more.

 

[rosarywarrior]

Actually I would refer you to the practice of many monastic communities who “bow” (from the waist) in respect and adoration to the presence of Christ in their sisters and brothers in community, usually upon entering choir stalls in procession. I would imagine that it would be very humbling to end up lining up next to someone you just had a big argument with but had to bow to anyway. And to do this once, twice a day or more.

You are right! That would be very humbling.

 

[mairegal]

Just to follow up on John’s post regarding the GIRM, here’s another:

We sing as we receive communion. After communion we may “sit or kneel” (GIRM 43). Note that this paragraph does suggest a period of “sacred silence” following communion.

If, however, there is a communion song, there is to be a period of sacred silence (GIRM 165) before the Prayer After Communion (which closes the communion rite). This is the time for individual prayer.

Deacon Ed/quote

There is NO sacred silence after Communion in our parish. There are 2 back-to-back hymns at Communion time. We are not provided with time for individual prayer.
mairegal

 

[gelsbern]

Where does it say she had no free will just because she was immaculately conceived? Being free from sin does not take away your free will…she still could have said no. As far as free will goes, look at the angels, how could they be in the presence of God in heaven and yet many fell with Lucifer? FREE WILL ! Scenario 1 is correct.

I do not want to hijack the topic, so I will just ask a two questions and perhaps we can pick up a discussion on this in a new thread.

If she had said no, would she have still remained immaculately conceived?

If she had said no, and she remained immaculately conceived and sinless, would she have needed Jesus for her salvation?

Please PM me your response if you wish to reply. Please do not post it in here.

 

[Marian_Carroll]

Please stay on topic…

 

[mairegal]

I guess I don’t know how to do the ‘Quote’ thing properly, and
Deacon Ed’s words which I was trying to quote in the last post, came out looking like mine…

Just to clarify:
We have no time in our parish for individual prayer after Holy Communion. NONE. We have 2 Communion hymns, back to back.
If I were to go into the cave at Bethlehem, and Mary put the Infant Jesus in my arms, would I take my eyes off Him, to chat to the people around me to prove to Him that I love everyone? NO, I would look at Him, admire Him, Love Him. If I were at Calvary, would I take my eyes off Jesus, to talk to everyone around me to prove to Him that I love all these people?
NO!
Look at and Love Jesus after receiving Him in Holy Communion.

 

[palmas85]

One point I should have made is that although you confess your sins – they are sins that affect the entire Body of Christ. No one can sin in isolation of the Body! St. Paul makes that very clear in his First Letter to the Corinthians where he offers a rather earthy example:

We have to understand that the use of the metaphor of “The Body” is not really a metaphor at all – it is reality. If one member of the Body of Christ has AIDS then the Body of Christ has AIDS. If one member sins we are all affected by that sin!

This is why we go to confession to a priest. He forgives, not only on behalf of God, but as a representative of the Body of Christ he forgives on our behalf as well.

Deacon Ed

So what exactly are you saying Deacon, we all go to Hell or we all go to Purgatory or we all go to Heaven? In your scenario it kind of looks like it is all or nothing.

That doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense. I know that my sins are an affront to God, but does my neighbor suffer because of them or because of his own? At my particular judgement am I judged on my life, my sins or the communities life and the communities sins? You seem to be wafling a bit on this one Deacon.

I know that the Church these days isn’t as strict on absolutes as it was, but surely my own sins that I freely commit, are not injurious to you, who I have never even met.

 

[palmas85]

I

BTW, Pope Paul VI explained why private devotion should never take place during Mass – so that issue is really moot in this discussion as well.

Deacon Ed

Where did he say it? I’ve been looking for a while and I can’t find it.

 

[palmas85]

Deacon Ed…

Are you talking about Pope Paul VI and Mysterium Fidei?

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_03091965_mysterium_en.html

God Bless
Scylla

I think he is referring to the following quote from a general audience,
HANGES IN MASS FOR GREATER APOSTOLATE
Pope Paul VI
Address to a General Audience, November 26, 1969

Our Dear Sons and Daughters:

1. We ask you to turn your minds once more to the liturgical innovation of the new rite of the Mass. This new rite will be introduced into our celebration of the holy Sacrifice starting from Sunday next which is the first of Advent, November 30 [in Italy].
2. A new rite of the Mass: a change in a venerable tradition that has gone on for centuries. This is something that affects our hereditary religious patrimony, which seemed to enjoy the privilege of being untouchable and settled. It seemed to bring the prayer of our forefathers and our saints to our lips and to give us the comfort of feeling faithful to our spiritual past, which we kept alive to pass it on to the generations ahead.
3. It is at such a moment as this that we get a better understanding of the value of historical tradition and the communion of the saints. This change will affect the ceremonies of the Mass. We shall become aware, perhaps with some feeling of annoyance, that the ceremonies at the altar are no longer being carried out with the same words and gestures to which we were accustomed—perhaps so much accustomed that we no longer took any notice of them. This change also touches the faithful. **It is intended to interest each one of those present, to draw them out of their customary personal devotions or their usual torpor. **

It’s all that I could find. Doesn’t say a whole lot, but he may be speaking about something else.

 

[decn2b]

Deacon ed,

I am convinced that I am not really at all off with you in understanding corporate sin and the sense of community. However, when I reread your points above I must admit that it comes across as desconstruction of the individaulity of us. We are individuals are we not? It the ONLY way we can talk to relate to Jesus when we are in community? What about devotions like ADORATION. If I am at adoration alone is Jesus NOT there?. I am sure you don’t mean that I have to confess someone elses sins or just say I am only sorry for the sins of society? That is what I am getting at. There has to be times at Mass where individual faults are addressed and to be brought to the altar for sacrifice? Don’t we all say "almight god I am sorry for MY faults in my thoughts in my words and what** I** have done and what **I **have failed to do…I ask the blessed virgin Mary etc. (yes it does say you my brothers and sisters etc.) Like the Curt jester mentions we strike our own breast…for the true communal experience shouldnt we be striking the person next to us on the breast? To me your comments come across as though individuaity is secondary and corporate sin trumps personal sin. Isn’t overemphasisng the corporate dangerous? It seems to me that it diminishes personal guilt and personal sin. I am going to ask my elderly mother about the old Mass and if she thought that it was a focus on the community or more of an introverted experience. Perhaps Deacon Ed (if you are old enough) if you could tell me if the community theology surrounding the Mass was as recognized so overtly in the TLM as it is in the Current Mass.

 

[AlexV]

The problem here really is an abandoning by some of the wisdom that accrued over the centuries in liturgical praxis.

The Church wisely refrained for centuries from hyperrubricizing the posture of the laity at Mass.

In other words, ample provision was made for the development…dare I say organic…of various modes of lay participation in the Mass…including the period immediately after Communion.

For centuries, this development worked just fine.

Now, in some quarters, there is a move to hyperrubricism. You’ve got to receive in exactly the way WE say, then stand and remain standing and singing what WE tell you to sing, until WE decide you may sit, and you may NOT kneel in prayer except when WE say…it’s hyperrubricism of a sort very foreign to the liturgical traditions of the Roman Rite.

Liturgy is about more than scanning the GIRM and related documents to parse out what people should or should not be doing.

Let the people kneel in prayer, or stand and sing, as they wish. If “unity” is so dependent on everyone doing exactly what everyone else is doing like robots…maybe the “unity” is pretty forced.

I remember well in a college chapel where the attendance was so low that the chaplains started roping off pews to force people to sit up front. Students would just lift the ropes and sit where they pleased. Some chaplains would harangue them to “join the community”. The students quickly learned that blank stares, followed by ignoring, worked wonders…

 

[Keith_Strohm]

I know that the Church these days isn’t as strict on absolutes as it was, but surely my own sins that I freely commit, are not injurious to you, who I have never even met.

I’m sure Deacon Ed can reply to this question better than I can, but I’ll give it a shot.

You sins (and mine)are injurious to other members of the Body, even though we have never met. Because each of us is united as the Body of Christ in Baptism, we are mystically connected to each other in Christ. This is more than poetic language; it expresses a real spiritual reality. There really is no such thing as purely private sin in the sense that all sin has a corporate dimension because of our incorporation into the Body of Christ. All sin hurts the entire body. It fractures communion and stains all of its members. That’s why the Scripture says that dishonor by one part of the body brings dishonor to the whole body.

The Catechism explains this clearly when it talks about the Sacrament of Reconciliation:

1469 This sacrament reconciles us with the Church. Sin damages or even breaks fraternal communion. The sacrament of Penance repairs or restores it. In this sense it does not simply heal the one restored to ecclesial communion, but has also a revitalizing effect on the life of the Church which suffered from the sin of one of her members.[76] Re-established or strengthened in the communion of saints, the sinner is made stronger by the exchange of spiritual goods among all the living members of the Body of Christ, whether still on pilgrimage or already in the heavenly homeland:[77] It must be recalled that . . . this reconciliation with God leads, as it were, to other reconciliations, which repair the other breaches caused by sin. The forgiven penitent is reconciled with himself in his inmost being, where he regains his innermost truth. He is reconciled with his brethren whom he has in some way offended and wounded. He is reconciled with the Church. He is reconciled with all creation.[78]

Now, the Church isn’t saying that there is no personal dimension to sin–only that sin is never exclusively personal.

Regarding praying privately, Deacon Ed has brought up the reality of the communal dimensions of Catholicism. St. Paul says that we “are the Body of Christ and individually members of it.” We are saved as a people first and then as individual members of that people.

Deacon Ed isn’t denying the vertical relationship we have with God. He is acknowledging that there is a very real horizontal relationship which is also intimately connected with God. The celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass should, according to the Church, hold both vertical and horizontal worship in harmony.

Keith

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Keith,

Thank you for understanding what I was saying and your responses were precisely on target.

I have nothing to add!

Deacon Ed

 

[decn2b]

I know that the Church these days isn’t as strict on absolutes as it was, but surely my own sins that I freely commit, are not injurious to you, who I have never even met.

I was told that our individual sins do affect the world and community in a supernatural way. Someone please correct me if I am wrong, is it OK to assume that our individual sins do in fact affect outside others in a supernatural way?

Please help

 

[Walking_Home]

The following concerns the posture when returning from receiving Holy Communion. Please note—that within this dubium is also included personal (private) prayer.

adoremus.org/Kneeling-after-Communion.html

Holy See Affirms Customary Kneeling During Communion Rite

Concerning the practice of kneeling after receiving Holy Communion, Cardinal Francis George, chairman of the Committee on the Liturgy, submitted a dubium [question] to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments [CDW] on May 26, 2003:

Dubium: In many places, the faithful are accustomed to kneeling or sitting in personal prayer upon returning to their places after having individually received Holy Communion during Mass. Is it the intention of the Missale Romanum, editio typical tertia, to forbid this practice?

Cardinal Francis Arinze, Prefect of the CDW, responded to the question on June 5, 2003 (Prot. N. 855/03/L):

Responsum: Negative, et ad mentem (No, for this reason). The mens [reason] is that the prescription of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, no. 43, is intended, on the one hand to ensure within broad limits a certain uniformity of posture within the congregation for the various parts of the celebration of Holy Mass, and on the other, not to regulate posture rigidly in such a way that those who wish to kneel or sit would no longer be free.

 

[SMHW]

Dubium: In many places, the faithful are accustomed to kneeling or sitting in personal prayer upon returning to their places after having individually received Holy Communion during Mass. Is it the intention of the Missale Romanum, editio typical tertia, to forbid this practice?
…]
Responsum: Negative, et ad mentem (No, for this reason). The mens [reason] is that the prescription of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, no. 43, is intended, on the one hand to ensure within broad limits a certain uniformity of posture within the congregation for the various parts of the celebration of Holy Mass, and on the other, not to regulate posture rigidly in such a way that those who wish to kneel or sit would no longer be free.

This has been discussed previously. To me it is clear that private prayer is permitted. BUT kneeling must be understood to be a deviation from the target, which is the communal posture of standing.

 

[Walking_Home]

This has been discussed previously. To me it is clear that private prayer is permitted. BUT kneeling must be understood to be a deviation from the target, which is the communal posture of standing.

---

Look----I posted the dubium in response to whether private prayer when we return to our seats is allowed.

Not to change the topic of this thread—but since the Church says that people can indeed kneel or sit or stand when they return from receiving Holy Communion—kneeling is in no way a deviation.