Question about Genuflecting.

[theyoungmonk]

Immemorial custom also dictates a double genuflexion to a relic of the True Cross. And one genuflects when being blessed with a relic of any Saint.

Not quite accurate I am afraid.

One kneels to receive the blessing from a relic as is true of any blessing one receives (though in some cases one merely bows). The custom is to give a single genuflection to the True Cross, some argue on the left knee rather than the right, this same custom applies to the exposed cross from on Good Friday/Holy Saturday. This may also be done to one’s Ordinary, or to any other Ordinary when in his territory.

A double genuflection is reserved to the Blessed Sacrament exposed, for example during adoration/benediction, processions etc It would seem a bit strange to give a higher form of reverence to the true cross which is merely a relic and representation of Christ that one gives to His real presence.

Hence single genuflection to the cross and double to Our Lord exposed

 

[Papabile]

I’m a convert, with some background in conservative Lutheran and conservative Episcopalian (there were some, once upon a time) worship. I appreciate all of the clarification here about when, why, and how to genuflect. But there is another problem. I have a damaged big toe on my right foot, where I’ve had surgery. It hurts slightly all the time. It is almost impossible for me to kneel down on the right knee or to rise from that position without having some kind of support where I can put my hands to take most of the weight off that toe – so I don’t genuflect, but instead make the profound bow. I’m a musician and cantor, and there are quite a number of occasions when I must bow (or genuflect) and the people have the opportunity to see me doing so. I believe most of the people in the congregation are aware of my toe injury (it’s a small parish).

Is there some regulation which addresses my situation? Am I doing the right thing?

You are fine. God doesn’t ask the impossible.

If you are participating in a public role in the Ordinary Form, one only bows one’s head when carrying a liturgical instrument. Perhaps you could carry one of the liturgical books of sacred music if it plays a role in the liturgy you are participating in?

 

[Papabile]

Not quite accurate I am afraid.

One kneels to receive the blessing from a relic as is true of any blessing one receives (though in some cases one merely bows). The custom is to give a single genuflection to the True Cross, some argue on the left knee rather than the right, this same custom applies to the exposed cross from on Good Friday/Holy Saturday. This may also be done to one’s Ordinary, or to any other Ordinary when in his territory.

A double genuflection is reserved to the Blessed Sacrament exposed, for example during adoration/benediction, processions etc It would seem a bit strange to give a higher form of reverence to the true cross which is merely a relic and representation of Christ that one gives to His real presence.

Hence single genuflection to the cross and double to Our Lord exposed

Agree with you on genuflecting to receive a blessing. The issue of left vs. right knee for the True Cross is addressed extensively in various old SRC decisions. Generally the right knee is presumed for a relic of the true cross. The issue of the left knee is attached to the privileges of a prelate in his own diocese.

I agree with you that the minimum respect fora relic of the True Cross is a single genuflection. However, the double genuflection for a relic of the True Cross is certainly immemorial custom and is regularly seem at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, and Notre Dame in Paris, along with Santa Croce in Rome.

 

[superamazingman]

Additionally, for those who are convinced that only the Ordinary Form should influence your actions, I refer you to both #137 of the GIRM to genuflect during the “incarnatus est” during the Creed on the Annunciation and Christmas, and #274 of the GIRM which dictates genuflection to the exposed crucifix during the time from Good Friday to Easter.

attention must therefore be paid to what is determined by this General Instruction and by 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

GIRM n0. 42

 

[Actaeon]

I love this. People act like it is improper to genuflect in the absence of the Sacrament. However, it is entirely appropriate to genuflect to the altar cross as was common before the Council. This is particularly true since the Holy Father promulgated Summorum Pontificum and #28 of Universae Ecclesiae.

Appropriate? Yes. We are not restrained from continuing to use old gestures of personal piety, provided they remain appropriate to worship of God.

Required? No. Today this is a gesture of personal piety.

Additionally, for those who are convinced that only the Ordinary Form should influence your actions, I refer you to both #137 of the GIRM to genuflect during the “incarnatus est” during the Creed on the Annunciation and Christmas, and #274 of the GIRM which dictates genuflection to the exposed crucifix during the time from Good Friday to Easter.

I’m glad you said that the EF GIRM should “influence” actions in terms of gestures of personal piety, because in the appendix of the OF GIRM query and response section it states again and again that the “when the rubrics of the Missal of Paul VI say nothing, it is not to be thereby inferred that the former rubrics must be followed (see no. 51 above). The reformed Missal does not supplement but supplants the former Missal.” (Source: Not 14 (1978) 301)

In other words, in terms of the OF, the gestures given in the old GIRM are allowed as signs of personal piety, but in no way are they required or to be treated like they MUST be followed.

 

[O_Moriah]

Also keep in mind their are signs of reverence that one makes outside the liturgy of the Mass as a devotional practice and signs of reverence that one makes withing the liturgy of the Mass as part of communal worship.

The signs of reverence given in the GIRM and Roman Missal are technically supposed to be followed literally to the letter without adding anything or subtracting anything, not withstanding any necessary pastoral adaptions made by the appropriate authorities.

Signs of reverence made outside of the liturgy are supposed to be the normal basic and minimal signs asked by the church (e.g., genuflecting to the tabernacle when one enters a space containing the tabernacle, and while we’re on that subject, waiting until you’re about to be seated in a pew to genuflect is an odd custom – it’s not like you don’t notice the tabernacle is there until you’re about to be seated). Outside the liturgy, people may make other devotional gestures of reverence that are not regulated by church law or ritual as much as they like.

 

[Papabile]

attention must therefore be paid to what is determined by this General Instruction and by 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

GIRM n0. 42

Yes, and since then, Universae Ecclesiae was promulgated specifically derogating from the universal law (IGMR / GIRM).

In point of fact, Universae Ecclesiae was promulgate by the legislator himself, Benedict XVI, whereas the IGMR was only confirmed by the CDW (Prot. n. 1464/06/L).

The mind of the legislator holds preeminence.

 

[Papabile]

Appropriate? Yes. We are not restrained from continuing to use old gestures of personal piety, provided they remain appropriate to worship of God.

Required? No. Today this is a gesture of personal piety.

I’m glad you said that the EF GIRM should “influence” actions in terms of gestures of personal piety, because in the appendix of the OF GIRM query and response section it states again and again that the “when the rubrics of the Missal of Paul VI say nothing, it is not to be thereby inferred that the former rubrics must be followed (see no. 51 above). The reformed Missal does not supplement but supplants the former Missal.” (Source: Not 14 (1978) 301)

In other words, in terms of the OF, the gestures given in the old GIRM are allowed as signs of personal piety, but in no way are they required or to be treated like they MUST be followed.

Did I say they were required, NO I did NOT.

The reference to that old Dubium is clearly significantly modified by the mind of the legislator in Summorum Pontificum. The IGMR was published. The idea that the Ordinary Form “supplanted” the Extraordinary Reform was definitively settled when the Holy Father indicated in his Motu Proprio that in principle the old mass was never abrogated. In fact, while that dubiu is a nice reference, it was only addressed to one Bishop when one looks back to the original Notitiae, thus bearing little significance and is binding on no on besides that Bishop.

This is the reason PCILT specifically always refused to confirm the universality of dubia. They have done quite the opposite. Dubia are a nice way to understand the mind of the Congregation, but not much else.

BTW, I am NOT suggesting introducing any of the old rubrics into the new Mass, but since you mentioned a query which only applies to the Priest offering the Sacrifice.

 

[Papabile]

Also keep in mind their are signs of reverence that one makes outside the liturgy of the Mass as a devotional practice and signs of reverence that one makes withing the liturgy of the Mass as part of communal worship.

The signs of reverence given in the GIRM and Roman Missal are technically supposed to be followed literally to the letter without adding anything or subtracting anything, not withstanding any necessary pastoral adaptions made by the appropriate authorities.

Agree completely. However, one can personally follow the old or new customs in the Church and during Mass as there is a specific derogation to the law in Universae Ecclesiae. Just because one is there during a Mass does not mean one is participating or hearing that particular Mass.

Note, I am NOT calling for the admixture of rites.

 

[O_Moriah]

Agree completely. However, one can personally follow the old or new customs in the Church and during Mass as there is a specific derogation to the law in Universae Ecclesiae. Just because one is there during a Mass does not mean one is participating or hearing that particular Mass.

Note, I am NOT calling for the admixture of rites.

But, I’m afraid, you are. If you’re celebrating the Novus Ordo, then you do what the Novus Ordo says to do without adding anything new and without adding anything from the old way or from a different Missal. The Novus Ordo indeed supplant all previous traditions if you’re doing a Novus Ordo Mass. If you’re doing an Extraodrinary Form Mass, then you do what that ritual says without adding to it elements from the Novus Ordo. Each one has its own instructions and rituals.

I’d like to see a cite for that specific derogation if I’m wrong.

Outside the Novus Ordo liturgy, you’re free to do what you want as personal devotion (within reason… the pastor will take exception to starting a camp fire in the church).

 

[superamazingman]

But, I’m afraid, you are. If you’re celebrating the Novus Ordo, then you do what the Novus Ordo says to do without adding anything new and without adding anything from the old way or from a different Missal. The Novus Ordo indeed supplant all previous traditions if you’re doing a Novus Ordo Mass. If you’re doing an Extraodrinary Form Mass, then you do what that ritual says without adding to it elements from the Novus Ordo. Each one has its own instructions and rituals.

I’d like to see a cite for that specific derogation if I’m wrong.

Actually, GIRM no, 42. says that the “traditional practice of the Roman Rite” should be practiced, which in our case, is often what is codified in the 1962 Missal.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I’m glad you said that the EF GIRM should “influence” actions in terms of gestures of personal piety, because in the appendix of the OF GIRM query and response section it states again and again that the “when the rubrics of the Missal of Paul VI say nothing, it is not to be thereby inferred that the former rubrics must be followed (see no. 51 above). The reformed Missal does not supplement but supplants the former Missal.” (Source: Not 14 (1978) 301)

In other words, in terms of the OF, the gestures given in the old GIRM are allowed as signs of personal piety, but in no way are they required or to be treated like they MUST be followed.

No questioning your sources (I’ve seen them before), but the question then must be, if we are not to derogate to traditional Roman practice when the rubrics of the Missal of Paul VI say nothing, then what, pray tell, are we to do?

Indeed, there is no convenient answer to that question if we are (theoretically) not allowed to do what has been done for a very long time. I would say that Summorum Pontificum invalidates that little bit about “does not supplement but supplants the former Missal,” although I concede the rest of the argument as sound in principle.

So, if there is a situation in which the rubrics of the Missal of Paul VI are silent, and we are (supposedly) not allowed to use traditional practice, then are we just supposed to make something up? Yikes!

 

[O_Moriah]

Actually, GIRM no, 42. says that the “traditional practice of the Roman Rite” should be practiced, which in our case, is often what is codified in the 1962 Missal.

Let’s look at the whole section:*42 The gestures and posture of the priest, deacon and the ministers, as well as of the people should allow the whole celebration to shine with dignity and noble simplicity, demonstrating the full and true meaning of each of their diverse parts, while fostering the participation of all. Therefore, greater attention needs to be paid to what is laid down by liturgical law and by the traditional practice of the Roman Rite, for the sake of the common spiritual good of the people of God rather than to personal inclination or arbitrary choice.

The uniformity in posture to be observed by all taking part is a sign of the unity of the members of the Christian community gathered for the sacred Liturgy: it both expresses and fosters the spiritual attitude of those assisting. *The phrase “traditional practice of the Roman Rite” does not mean “stuff we used to do but isn’t mentioned in this instruction or in the Missal”, it means, “the traditions of the past that we will draw from and specifically lay out in this instruction and Missal.” Then it goes on to say what those gesture and postures are.

If it meant that one can willy-nilly pull up a practice from the past or another rite and do it as one pleases, then how could there be “uniformity in posture to be observed by all”? In fact #42 specifically prohibits choosing things out of “personal inclination or arbitrary choice.”

You’re quoting a section which specifically undermines your point.

 

[superamazingman]

Let’s look at the whole section:*42 The gestures and posture of the priest, deacon and the ministers, as well as of the people should allow the whole celebration to shine with dignity and noble simplicity, demonstrating the full and true meaning of each of their diverse parts, while fostering the participation of all. Therefore, greater attention needs to be paid to what is laid down by liturgical law and by the traditional practice of the Roman Rite, for the sake of the common spiritual good of the people of God rather than to personal inclination or arbitrary choice.

The uniformity in posture to be observed by all taking part is a sign of the unity of the members of the Christian community gathered for the sacred Liturgy: it both expresses and fosters the spiritual attitude of those assisting. *The phrase “traditional practice of the Roman Rite” does not mean “stuff we used to do but isn’t mentioned in this instruction or in the Missal”, it means, “the traditions of the past that we will draw from and specifically lay out in this instruction and Missal.” Then it goes on to say what those gesture and postures are.

If the “traditions” and the instructions in the missal were one in the same, then why in the world would it mention both separately? Of course there’s more traditions than laid out in the missal.

If it meant that one can willy-nilly pull up a practice from the past or another rite and do it as one pleases, then how could there be “uniformity in posture to be observed by all”? In fact #42 specifically prohibits choosing things out of “personal inclination or arbitrary choice.”

You’re quoting a section which specifically undermines your point.

When the Mass is celebrated with a sense of continuity, in no way are we “pulling up” practices “willy nilly.” It’s far from “personal inclination or arbitrary choice.” It’s the traditions of the roman rite. Like striking the breast three times, even though the missal simply says “they strike their breasts” (or something to that effect). That’s not at all willy nilly.

The liberal practices like holding hands or the and also with you hand gestures are the ones making things up willy nilly.