Receiving Communion

[ConstantineTG]

I have no argument for what you say concerning six rites. Am speaking of - and the pope was speaking of - The Latin Mass of the Roman Rite. Each rite has its own traditional and historic significance and should be preserved. The Traditional Latin Mass of the Romal Rite, since Vatican II, is having a difficult time doing this. I think His Holiness is just trying to preserve another part of the rich liturgical history that composes this “Universal Church.” I have no qualms with the vernacular or various positions for receiving communion - Lord knows, one can hardly expect to kneel while receiving Extreme Eunction - Your metaphore comparing receiving communion to various styles of eating food is pushing the envelope a bit.

My point there was you’re dismissing standing as a wrong way to receive Communion. How can you say that and disregard the other Rites? Something cannot be bad in our Rite but good in another Rite. We are the same Church, what is good for one is good for all.

One must remember that, unlike the Novus Ordo format, the traditional Mass has very strict boundaries and is not subject to individual interpretation or innovations. The parameters are rigorous, accurate, precise, ascetic and astere, almost draconian in nature. There is little chance of any deviation from the norm . This promotes “Universality.”
Now, I do know from primary sources, that there are Novus Ordo ministers that will not administer communion to anyone kneeling and/or on the tongue.
22Aug.: The Immaculate Heart of the BVM
CallistusPM

The universality in the Church is about the oneness of faith, not posture, not form, not even minor traditions. If it were that important, the Apostles would have established one Rite. We would be celebrating Mass exactly the same way they did in the 1st century. But we aren’t.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Furthermore, if you receive kneeling, there is no need to bow your head because the posture of kneeling is already reverence enough.

Where does it say this?

 

[ConstantineTG]

---

As noted below by a canon lawyer --when Rome and a bishop disagree (are at odds) we are obligated to follow the higher authority–being Rome.

This is completely false. There are matters that is right to the Bishop and Rome cannot dictate unless it is proven that the Bishop has erred in his authority. Canon Law and other Church documents are very clear about who’s authority particular matters are and Rome will not supersede a local Bishop when the authority over something is rightfully the local Bishop’s.

 

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by Walking_Home View Post

---

Either you don’t understand the hierarchical/authoritative nature of the Church or have willfully set out to undermined the authority of the Holy See.

 

[ProVobis]

This is completely false. There are matters that is right to the Bishop and Rome cannot dictate unless it is proven that the Bishop has erred in his authority. Canon Law and other Church documents are very clear about who’s authority particular matters are and Rome will not supersede a local Bishop when the authority over something is rightfully the local Bishop’s.

There might be better words to express this in English but the Vatican can override an entire Synod of Bishops since that authority has to be in union with the Pope’s. Individual bishops have their own trials.

 

[benedictgal]

This is completely false. There are matters that is right to the Bishop and Rome cannot dictate unless it is proven that the Bishop has erred in his authority. Canon Law and other Church documents are very clear about who’s authority particular matters are and Rome will not supersede a local Bishop when the authority over something is rightfully the local Bishop’s.

Constantine, with all due respect, you seem to have either not carefully read the responses from the CDWDS to the local bishops and even the USCCB or have ignored them altogether. Rome has the final say on the matter. It does not grant the bishop complete and universal authority. Only Rome has that.

Regarding your other question, if one is kneeling, one does not have to bow his head because kneeling is a posture of reverence. Perhaps you might want to re-read the text of the Holy Father’s homily and the statements that the CDWDS quoted back in 2003 from the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.

 

[CallistusPM]

My point there was you’re dismissing standing as a wrong way to receive Communion. How can you say that and disregard the other Rites? Something cannot be bad in our Rite but good in another Rite. We are the same Church, what is good for one is good for all.

Pray tell, how did I say standing was wrong? It is simply not the norm for the Mass of All Ages - The Traditional Latin Mass of the Roman Rite. If I attended other rites and they stood for communion, so would I.
“When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” . . . no pun intended. I for the life of me do not understand where I conveyed the notion that standing for communion was wrong!!! If I did so, then I was wrong.

The universality in the Church is about the oneness of faith, not posture, not form, not even minor traditions. If it were that important, the Apostles would have established one Rite. We would be celebrating Mass exactly the same way they did in the 1st century. But we aren’t.

The universality of the church, as far as I am concerned, is about faith AND all other traditions that have been preserved and handed down by the Church Fathers. Obviously, Constantine, the polemics here are unresolved so lets move on.
23Aug.: St. Philip Benizi, C
CallistusPM

 

[MarkThompson]

Where does it say this?

You’re right. The bow is obligatory. This can be easily be seen from the GIRM approved with the force of liturgical law for the United States
160. . . .
The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another. 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.

When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.
The direction to bow the head is unequivocal and does not contain exceptions. The bishops obviously foresaw that some people might kneel, since they provided a special instruction that such people should not be denied the Sacrament. The fact that they did not provide an exception to the mandate to bow for such people speaks volumes. The bow is obligatory.

 

[SimonDodd]

You also have to distinguish a true abuse, and one because you just don’t agree. The EMHC thing is a tricky issue because priests are allowed to use them at their discretion.

I entirely agree with the first sentence. People are apt to cry abuse a little too easily. For an amusing example of someone complaining about a happening at Mass when it was actually their mistake, see this.

The second sentence, however, while not being incorrect so far as it goes, is infelicitously put. Priests have discretion to use EMHCs, yes, but within certain bounds. They may be used “out of true necessity” (Redemptionis Sacramentum 151) if “there is a very large number of communicants” (GIRM 162). Ecclesiae de Mysterio says that they cannot be used “habitual[ly]” (art. 8.2), and Redemptionis Sacramentum adds that EMHCs can be used “only when the Priest and Deacon are lacking, when the Priest is prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged,” with the understanding that “a brief prolongation … is not at all a sufficient reason” (no. 158). Yes, a priest has discretion to judge whether these circumstances obtain, and we are talking about a standard rather than a rule, with all the attendant gray area, but that standard is not without bite. If a physically fit priest was routinely using three EMHCs at a daily Mass that was routinely attended by a dozen people, it would take no subtlety at all to conclude that this was an abuse of discretion.

 

[jmcrae]

Did you read my post? There you will find how the USCCB has not gone against the instructions of the CDWDS.

What I posted there was the reason for the norm, which is to be explained to the communicant. Certainly, individuals are able to go against the norm any time they want to, at the expense of what the USCCB is trying to achieve: unity and common spiritual good (rather than disunity or individualism).

This seems needlessly legalistic. There is nothing disunifying or individualistic about having a legitimate variety of postures at Mass. We are not a nation’s army; we are a Church. Those who kneel remind us that we are sinners in need of mercy. Those who stand remind us that we are saved and forgiven. Both are important. Both are permitted.

What is disunifying is when those who stand criticize those who kneel as being “less obedient” than themselves, and when those who kneel criticize those who stand as being “less reverent” than themselves. But if each can respect and understand the motives of the other, then we have an even more profound unity than the merely outward unity of all looking exactly alike, with some just doing what everyone else is doing without considering any meaning at all behind the posture. (Because one thing a variety of postures does is, it gets people thinking about the meaning behind it.)

 

[Vico]

Where does it say this?

The modified GIRM explains the norm, but the Latin GIRM released in 2000 is significant:

"160. Sacerdos deinde accipit patenam vel pyxidem, et accedit ad communicandos, qui de more processionaliter appropinquant.

Non licet ipsis fidelibus panem consecratum neque calicem sacrum per semetipsos accipere eo minus de manu in manum inter se transmittere. Fideles communicant genuflexi vel stantes, prout Conferentia Episcoporum statuerit. Cum autem stantes communicant, commendatur ut debitam reverentiam, ab iisdem normis statuendam, ante susceptionem Sacramenti faciant."

US, UK Wales, and Australia have accepted the GIRM. Each has currently chosen standing communion. The UK Wales GIRM (2005) has a general statement that the bow is only for standing as in the Latin.

GIRM N. 160 “The faithful communicate either kneeling or standing, as determined by the Conference of Bishops. When they communicate standing, however, it is recommended that they make an appropriate sign of reverence, as determined in the same norms, before receiving the Sacrament.”

liturgyoffice.org.uk/Resources/GIRM/Documents/GIRM.pdf

 

[benedictgal]

The modified GIRM explains the norm, but the Latin GIRM released in 2000 is significant:

"160. Sacerdos deinde accipit patenam vel pyxidem, et accedit ad communicandos, qui de more processionaliter appropinquant.

Non licet ipsis fidelibus panem consecratum neque calicem sacrum per semetipsos accipere eo minus de manu in manum inter se transmittere. Fideles communicant genuflexi vel stantes, prout Conferentia Episcoporum statuerit. Cum autem stantes communicant, commendatur ut debitam reverentiam, ab iisdem normis statuendam, ante susceptionem Sacramenti faciant."

US, UK Wales, and Australia have accepted the GIRM. Each has currently chosen standing communion. The UK Wales GIRM (2005) has a general statement that the bow is only for standing as in the Latin.

GIRM N. 160 “The faithful communicate either kneeling or standing, as determined by the Conference of Bishops. When they communicate standing, however, it is recommended that they make an appropriate sign of reverence, as determined in the same norms, before receiving the Sacrament.”

liturgyoffice.org.uk/Resources/GIRM/Documents/GIRM.pdf

Thus, there is no need to bow if you are receiving Holy Communion while kneeling. The gesture of reverence only applies if the communicant is standing.

 

[MarkThompson]

The modified GIRM explains the norm, but the Latin GIRM released in 2000 is significant:

You’re right, but what is important is the difference between the editio typica and the GIRM approved for the United States. The Latin passage you quoted is not in force in the United States; it is superseded by the American adaptation which was granted recognitio by the Holy See. The Latin original specified that the sign of reverence was to be given when one receives standing, but in the version which has legal force for the United States that qualifier was removed. That by itself is about as instructive as anything could be about the intent of our bishops in promulgating our norms, and of the Holy See in approving them. The language restricting the sign of reverence to reception standing was deleted, and a mandatory bow – with no language of exception in the slightest – was inserted in its place.

One cannot appeal to the editio typica of the GIRM for justification not to bow, because that passage was superseded by the American adaptation. The portion superseded is of no force or effect whatsoever in the United States.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I entirely agree with the first sentence. People are apt to cry abuse a little too easily. For an amusing example of someone complaining about a happening at Mass when it was actually their mistake, see this.

The second sentence, however, while not being incorrect so far as it goes, is infelicitously put. Priests have discretion to use EMHCs, yes, but within certain bounds. They may be used “out of true necessity” (Redemptionis Sacramentum 151) if “there is a very large number of communicants” (GIRM 162). Ecclesiae de Mysterio says that they cannot be used “habitual[ly]” (art. 8.2), and Redemptionis Sacramentum adds that EMHCs can be used “only when the Priest and Deacon are lacking, when the Priest is prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged,” with the understanding that “a brief prolongation … is not at all a sufficient reason” (no. 158). Yes, a priest has discretion to judge whether these circumstances obtain, and we are talking about a standard rather than a rule, with all the attendant gray area, but that standard is not without bite. If a physically fit priest was routinely using three EMHCs at a daily Mass that was routinely attended by a dozen people, it would take no subtlety at all to conclude that this was an abuse of discretion.

The problem here is how do you reconcile your personal observation to that of the priest who has the authority over the parish, as well has a better viewpoint of the situation. An ordinary lay person cannot judge the necessity because we are not in-the-know of several situations the priest has to deal with. So the probability here is that you are going to make a complaint against something that has already been justified with the bishop.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Constantine, with all due respect, you seem to have either not carefully read the responses from the CDWDS to the local bishops and even the USCCB or have ignored them altogether. Rome has the final say on the matter. It does not grant the bishop complete and universal authority. Only Rome has that.

Regarding your other question, if one is kneeling, one does not have to bow his head because kneeling is a posture of reverence. Perhaps you might want to re-read the text of the Holy Father’s homily and the statements that the CDWDS quoted back in 2003 from the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.

No, I understand that part of the structure. As I mentioned, it has been spelled out which is the rightful authority of the local bishops, or a bishop’s conference maybe because the Vatican desires that a regional norm be established in a country rather than a diocese by diocese decision. But this still doesn’t mean that the Vatican would just step into one Bishop’s authority without good reason or due process. I have yet to see that happen. Even in cases where there are abuses (even the sexual abuses) you do not see the Vatican meddle into the affairs of the local Bishop just like that. There is a proper process for everything and they have to respect the local authority.

Comments and homilies have no force of law. Unless it is referenced by a legal document of the Church. That is why I am saying, the Pope and the other Cardinals can make all the comments and suggestions they want, but unless it is promulgated from the authority of the Pope or though his offices, they are just comments. There is a proper chain of command as well as autonomy of authority that just cannot be crossed.

 

[ConstantineTG]

---

Either you don’t understand the hierarchical/authoritative nature of the Church or have willfully set out to undermined the authority of the Holy See.

I understand it. Do you? The problem is a lot of people mistake what the Pope’s duty and authority over the individual dioceses are. These people are the one’s who’s suing the Pope for the sexual abuses, as if the Pope is micromanaging every Parish in the world. Sadly, a lot of Catholics themselves has this false assumption.

Dioceses are more like Corporations of a Conglomerate with their own CEOs who are under the parent company and its CEO. What a lot of people think is that the Vatican is a direct top-to-bottom type of management structure. That is not true. While the Pope is the Supreme Pontiff, it doesn’t mean he ordinarily controls every aspect of every single diocese out there. As I mentioned, everything is spelled out in the Church documents on who controls the authority over something.

 

[benedictgal]

I understand it. Do you? The problem is a lot of people mistake what the Pope’s duty and authority over the individual dioceses are. These people are the one’s who’s suing the Pope for the sexual abuses, as if the Pope is micromanaging every Parish in the world. Sadly, a lot of Catholics themselves has this false assumption.

Dioceses are more like Corporations of a Conglomerate with their own CEOs who are under the parent company and its CEO. What a lot of people think is that the Vatican is a direct top-to-bottom type of management structure. That is not true. While the Pope is the Supreme Pontiff, it doesn’t mean he ordinarily controls every aspect of every single diocese out there. As I mentioned, everything is spelled out in the Church documents on who controls the authority over something.

However, Constantine, with all due respect, your interpretation of the document would render the Holy Father as merely the first among equals and really does not take into account, as I read your statements, the universal authority of the Holy See. A diocese is not autonomous. Bishops, too, are bound by obedience to the Holy See, especially in matters of faith, morals and the liturgy. The bishop’s authority is limited. Please note what the GIRM states:

1. The Diocesan Bishop, who is to be regarded as the high priest of his flock, and from whom the life in Christ of the faithful under his care in a certain sense derives and upon whom it depends,148 must promote, regulate, and be vigilant over the liturgical life in his diocese. It is to him that in this Instruction is entrusted the regulating of the discipline of concelebration (cf. above, nos. 202, 374) and the establishing of norms regarding the function of serving the priest at the altar (cf. above, no. 107), the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds (cf. above, no. 283), and the construction and ordering of churches (cf. above, no. 291). With him lies responsibility above all for fostering the spirit of the Sacred Liturgy in the priests, deacons, and faithful.

He needs to exercise this authority in tandem with the laws of the Church. That is why Rome has had to intervene time and time again on many diocesan issues because this may not necessarily be happening. The bishops, whether you choose to believe this or not, are answerable to the Holy See. That is why RS even notes that the faithful have the right to recourse to the CDWDS if they are receiving no relief from their diocesan bishop.

 

[ConstantineTG]

However, Constantine, with all due respect, your interpretation of the document would render the Holy Father as merely the first among equals and really does not take into account, as I read your statements, the universal authority of the Holy See. A diocese is not autonomous. Bishops, too, are bound by obedience to the Holy See, especially in matters of faith, morals and the liturgy. The bishop’s authority is limited. Please note what the GIRM states:

I think you’re confusing autonomy with independence. Or maybe we just each have a different understanding of the degree of autonomy. To explain the entire thing would be like writing up a legal document, something that I’m not trying to accomplish here. I think I’ve covered that Bishops are subject to the Pope, but a lot of people mistake this as that the Pope micromanages each Bishop. Thats not the case of course.

He needs to exercise this authority in tandem with the laws of the Church. That is why Rome has had to intervene time and time again on many diocesan issues because this may not necessarily be happening. The bishops, whether you choose to believe this or not, are answerable to the Holy See. That is why RS even notes that the faithful have the right to recourse to the CDWDS if they are receiving no relief from their diocesan bishop.

That is what I am saying. Perhaps the language I used is not the one you are expecting and thus there is a misunderstanding. I’m not saying the Bishops are not subject to the Pope. I’m just saying they have a lot of autonomy that most people do not recognize. And Rome won’t step in if the authority is right to the Bishop unless the Bishop of course needs to be subjected to the authority of Rome, like in disciplinary issues. For the most part governing a diocese or a region in the case of a Conference is that the Bishop(s) exercise their authority within the laws. I never said they are not. Again, I think there is a misunderstanding of autonomy vs. independence. If they are not subject to a higher law, that is not autonomy anymore but independence. A US State is autonomous, its self governed but is still subject to the Federal Government. Mexico is independent from the US Government.

 

[benedictgal]

I think you’re confusing autonomy with independence. Or maybe we just each have a different understanding of the degree of autonomy. To explain the entire thing would be like writing up a legal document, something that I’m not trying to accomplish here. I think I’ve covered that Bishops are subject to the Pope, but a lot of people mistake this as that the Pope micromanages each Bishop. Thats not the case of course.

That is what I am saying. Perhaps the language I used is not the one you are expecting and thus there is a misunderstanding. I’m not saying the Bishops are not subject to the Pope. I’m just saying they have a lot of autonomy that most people do not recognize. And Rome won’t step in if the authority is right to the Bishop unless the Bishop of course needs to be subjected to the authority of Rome, like in disciplinary issues. For the most part governing a diocese or a region in the case of a Conference is that the Bishop(s) exercise their authority within the laws. I never said they are not. Again, I think there is a misunderstanding of autonomy vs. independence. If they are not subject to a higher law, that is not autonomy anymore but independence. A US State is autonomous, its self governed but is still subject to the Federal Government. Mexico is independent from the US Government.

But, a diocese, to a certain extent, is not similar to a state. That is where your analogy seems to fall apart, in my opinion. Now, obviously, the Holy See cannot tell a bishop what to do with his diocese’s finances and land holdings, unless there are bona fide complaints of mismanagement that require the direct intervention of the Congregation for Bishops. However, in liturgical matters, what we are limiting our discussion to in this thread, the bishop does not necessarily act autonomously. His authority is limited to that which I posted in the GIRM. Even at that, he is still bound by obedience to the Holy See. That is why, in the case of kneeling to receive Holy Communion, the Holy See has responded to a plethora of complaints on this issue and have pretty much bound the bishops to obedience.

 

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG View Post
I understand it. Do you? The problem is a lot of people mistake what the Pope’s duty and authority over the individual dioceses are. These people are the one’s who’s suing the Pope for the sexual abuses, as if the Pope is micromanaging every Parish in the world. Sadly, a lot of Catholics themselves has this false assumption.

---

Bingo.

Maybe ConstantineTG can provide an official Church document (Not his interpretation of documents)— that clearly gives the bishops absolute and/or autonomous authority of their diocese and clearly with such language —renders null the authority of the Holy See over the bishops/ liturgical matters/etc… within the universal Church,