Receiving Communion

[ConstantineTG]

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.

US States still has to conform to the US Constitution and Federal Laws. Very similar on how dioceses are. The Bishop cannot do something that would violate Canon Law or any Church-wide document. So I do not know that fails as an analogy. There are nation-wide laws enacted by the US Congress, and there are state laws enacted by the state congress. The state cannot go against the nationwide policies. The same way a Bishop may allow CITH and Altar Girls in his diocese, but the next one will not. But definitely a Bishop cannot enact something against Canon Law, which would be an analogy to the US Constitution.

 

[Walking_Home]

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,

---

Official** Church **document—not his interpretations of Church documents and/or forays into interpretaions of civil/Corporate/etc. law structures.

 

[ConstantineTG]

---

Official** Church **document—not his interpretations of Church documents and/or forays into interpretaions of civil/Corporate/etc. law structures.

Can. 381 §1. A diocesan bishop in the diocese entrusted to him has all ordinary, proper, and immediate power which is required for the exercise of his pastoral function except for cases which the law or a decree of the Supreme Pontiff reserves to the supreme authority or to another ecclesiastical authority.

 

[Walking_Home]

Can. 381 §1. A diocesan bishop in the diocese entrusted to him has all ordinary, proper, and immediate power which is required for the exercise of his pastoral function except for cases which the law or a decree of the Supreme Pontiff reserves to the supreme authority or to another ecclesiastical authority.

---

Code of Canon Law.
The Supreme Authority of the Church

Art. 1.

THE ROMAN PONTIFF

Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

Can. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.

§2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.

Can. 333 §1. **By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them. **Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

 

[benedictgal]

Can. 381 §1. A diocesan bishop in the diocese entrusted to him has all ordinary, proper, and immediate power which is required for the exercise of his pastoral function except for cases which the law or a decree of the Supreme Pontiff reserves to the supreme authority or to another ecclesiastical authority.

Yes; however, you also need to take into account the liturgical aspects. With authority also comes repsonsibility, ConstantineTG. Just as the bishop is entrusted with authority, he must do so in keeping with the laws and decrees of the Church. This includes the liturgy. Again, this is going beyond the scope of this thread, as I see it.

Since this is a liturgical matter, the bishop is bound by both the GIRM and the rulings of the CDWDS.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The problem of your interpretation is you do not combine the two laws together. Unless your thinking Canon Law will contradict itself. Read what you quoted, read what I quoted, and read what I posted in the past. You’ll find out I was right all along.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yes; however, you also need to take into account the liturgical aspects. With authority also comes repsonsibility, ConstantineTG. Just as the bishop is entrusted with authority, he must do so in keeping with the laws and decrees of the Church. This includes the liturgy. Again, this is going beyond the scope of this thread, as I see it.

Since this is a liturgical matter, the bishop is bound by both the GIRM and the rulings of the CDWDS.

Again, I’m not saying I’m denying that. But when the law says a Bishop can decide on something for his diocese, its his authority to do so. The Pope can change the entire law if he chooses, but he cannot supersede the Bishop in something the law granted him as his.

I’m not suggesting that a Bishop can go beyond the law in his authority, or basically do whatever he wants regardless of the law. The law is put out by the Church and the Bishop functions within that. But his right within the law is outlined in the law and unless he abuses his authority or the law itself is changed, he cannot be superseded by the Pope.

For example, the standing or kneeling for Communion. RS states that this is decided by the conference of Bishops. Since the right to decide has been given to the Bishops, it is the Bishops sole authority to do so. The Pope cannot step in and tell the Bishops what to decide on. If the Pope wants to change the law, then he should issue a RS2010 and say the previous RS is now invalid. Then say the universal norm, without questions, is kneeling. But by force of law of the current RS, the Pope cannot meddle with the decision of the Bishops if the Bishops were given that right and authority to make the decision. Its not a knock on the authority of the Pope, but as the supreme authority of the Church, the Pope also shouldn’t be violating the laws. Granted he can create new laws and cancel old ones. But thats is his course of actions, not violating his own laws. The Pope is the Supreme Pontiff, not a corrupt dictator.

 

[benedictgal]

The problem of your interpretation is you do not combine the two laws together. Unless your thinking Canon Law will contradict itself. Read what you quoted, read what I quoted, and read what I posted in the past. You’ll find out I was right all along.

Actually, with all due respect, I think that your interpretation is still off. Maybe the moderator can split this off into another thread. I say this out of respect to the OP. I would love to take this discussion further, but, not at the expense of someone else’s thread.

 

[Vico]

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.

That is correct. The sign of reverence for kneeling is not addressed being outside of the US norm, so a head bow for those that decide to go against the norm by kneeling is irrelevant.

 

[Vico]

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.

In places where the norm is kneeling they do not use the standing sign of reverence.

It is interesting because communion could be received several ways, in various countries, standing or bent-knee:

Body of Christ by mouth.
Body of Christ by hand.
Blood of Christ by chalice.
Blood of Christ by spoon or straw by mouth (not customary in the US).
Body and Blood of Christ by intinction by mouth.

 

[benedictgal]

In places where the norm is kneeling they do not use the standing sign of reverence.

It is interesting because communion could be received several ways, in various countries, standing or bent-knee:

Body of Christ by mouth.
Body of Christ by hand.
Blood of Christ by chalice.
Blood of Christ by spoon or straw by mouth (not customary in the US).
Body and Blood of Christ by intinction by mouth.

Vico, again, you are choosing to ignore the rulings issued by the CDWDS. It only stands to reason that if one is kneeling to receive Holy Communion, even if that is in the United States, one does not need to bow. Kneeling is already the posture for reverence. It would actually be strange to bow one’s head if he is already kneeling.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Actually, with all due respect, I think that your interpretation is still off. Maybe the moderator can split this off into another thread. I say this out of respect to the OP. I would love to take this discussion further, but, not at the expense of someone else’s thread.

I actually find this discussion relevant. Because people say they follow the Pope’s prescriptions in regards to receiving Communion, while in the documents its clear that the Bishops have been given a lot of authority. Of course this is not a free-for-all authority but it is spelled out in the RS where the Bishops have the authority to make a decision on the norm in their region.

If we resolve this issue in this thread, then it will bring a better answer to the standing or kneeling issue which is related to Receiving Communion.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Vico, again, you are choosing to ignore the rulings issued by the CDWDS. It only stands to reason that if one is kneeling to receive Holy Communion, even if that is in the United States, one does not need to bow. Kneeling is already the posture for reverence. It would actually be strange to bow one’s head if he is already kneeling.

I do that during Consecration.

The prescription in the US GIRM is to make a bow. There is no prescription that says the bow is to be omitted if one kneels. There is no provision for “other signs of reverence” in the US GIRM because the Bishops has already prescribed a gesture of reverence, which is bowing.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

The problem I see here is that the letter of law is clear on matters that belong to the Bishops. Granted the Pope has universal authority over the Church, would he break his own laws? That is what I am saying, if a document says the decision is to be made by Bishops, then it is the right of the Bishops to make that decision. And by law the Pope cannot override them, lest he is breaking his own laws. The Pope of course can change the law, which I would think be the course of action. But overriding Bishops without just cause would change the Pope from a Supreme Pontiff to a dictator, which I don’t think is compatible with what and who the Pope is.

 

[Vico]

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.)

I agree with you about being critical of others can be uncharitible. What the USCCB has decided to do is to instruct the kneelers about the norm. It is, as always, the decision of the faithful to comply with the norms.

But, I acknowledge that you do not agree with the decison of the USCCB; you wrote: “There is nothing disunifying or individualistic about having a legitimate variety of postures at Mass.”

Read Uniformity in Posture to understand the reasons for it:

nccbuscc.org/liturgy/innews/072002.shtml

 

[benedictgal]

I do that during Consecration.

The prescription in the US GIRM is to make a bow. There is no prescription that says the bow is to be omitted if one kneels. There is no provision for “other signs of reverence” in the US GIRM because the Bishops has already prescribed a gesture of reverence, which is bowing.

But, universally, if one kneels, one is already making the most appropriate form of reverence. You bow, if you are standing.

 

[ConstantineTG]

With all due respect, this is misinformation. There is no universal norm in the Mass of Paul VI. The editio typica of the GIRM leaves the determination of posture up to the individual conferences of bishops; it does not provide a default, a preference, or anything else that could be construed as a “universal norm.” There is no universal norm.

Within the Ordinary Form in the United States, kneeling is illegitimate and illicit. The GIRM is 100% clear about what you are to do: stand. The Vatican has repeatedly affirmed that this posture directed by our bishops has the force of law. No priest or even individual bishop may derogate from that prescription.

Mark, I just realized that bowing is prescribed in the US GIRM. Since a Canadian GIRM seems to be as real as the Easter Bunny, does this mean I (in Canada) am free to choose the sign of reverence if there is none specified? I can assume that the norm for receiving Communion in Canada is standing because there are no kneelers. So the question now is about the gestures of reverence, can I genuflect as I do before?

 

[ConstantineTG]

But, universally, if one kneels, one is already making the most appropriate form of reverence. You bow, if you are standing.

The prescription in the GIRM is a bow of the head, not a full bow of the body. Bowing of the head is not hard from a kneeling position.

In fact, I saw a lady once genuflect, approach, then kneel for Communion.

 

[jmcrae]

I agree with you about being critical of others can be uncharitible. What the USCCB has decided to do is to instruct the kneelers about the norm. It is, as always, the decision of the faithful to comply with the norms.

But, I acknowledge that you do not agree with the decison of the USCCB; you wrote: “There is nothing disunifying or individualistic about having a legitimate variety of postures at Mass.”

Read Uniformity in Posture to understand the reasons for it:

nccbuscc.org/liturgy/innews/072002.shtml

This is referring to the posture during the Eucharistic Prayer; not while receiving Holy Communion (which is dealt with in the previous paragraph; not in this one). It further emphasizes that “Thus, the variation from kneeling as the uniform posture during the Eucharistic Prayer is permitted only “on occasion” and when the circumstances found by GIRM (no. 43) are clearly present.”

Thus, we see that the American Bishops are not visualizing standing as a normative posture of unity; they see kneeling as the posture of unity.

 

[Walking_Home]

The problem with ConstantineTG “canon” is that it is not the one the Church Herself uses as authoritative for the regulation of the Liturgy. The Church places limits on the authority of the bishops.

RS–2004

THE REGULATION OF THE SACRED LITURGY

[14.] “The regulation of the Sacred Liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, which rests specifically with the Apostolic See and, according to the norms of law, with the Bishop.[34]

[15.] The Roman Pontiff, “the Vicar of Christ and the Pastor of the universal Church on earth, by virtue of his supreme office enjoys full, immediate and universal ordinary power, which he may always freely exercise”[35], also by means of communication with the pastors and with the members of the flock.

[16.] “It pertains to the Apostolic See to regulate the Sacred Liturgy of the universal Church, to publish the liturgical books and to grant the recognitio for their translation into vernacular languages, as well as to ensure that the liturgical regulations, especially those governing the celebration of the most exalted celebration of the Sacrifice of the Mass, are everywhere faithfully observed”.[36]

[17.] “The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments attends to those matters that pertain to the Apostolic See as regards the regulation and promotion of the Sacred Liturgy, and especially the Sacraments, with due regard for the competence of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It fosters and enforces sacramental discipline, especially as regards their validity and their licit celebration”. Finally, it “carefully seeks to ensure that the liturgical regulations are observed with precision, and that abuses are prevented or eliminated whenever they are detected”[37]. In this regard, according to the tradition of the universal Church, pre-eminent solicitude is accorded the celebration of Holy Mass, and also to the worship that is given to the Holy Eucharist even outside Mass.

[21.] It pertains to the diocesan Bishop, then, “within the limits of his competence, to set forth liturgical norms in his Diocese, by which all are bound”.[45] Still, the Bishop must take care not to allow the removal of that liberty foreseen by the norms of the liturgical books so that the celebration may be adapted in an intelligent manner to the Church building, or to the group of the faithful who are present, or to particular pastoral circumstances in such a way that the universal sacred rite is truly accommodated to human understanding.[46]

[45] Code of Canon Law can. 838 4**

Code of Canon Law

Can. 838 §1. The direction of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church which resides in the Apostolic See and, according to the norm of law, the diocesan bishop.

§2. It is for the Apostolic See to order the sacred liturgy of the universal Church

, publish liturgical books and review their translations in vernacular languages,** and exercise vigilance that liturgical regulations are observed faithfully everywhere.**

§3. It pertains to the conferences of bishops to prepare and publish, after the prior review of the Holy See, translations of liturgical books in vernacular languages, adapted appropriately within the limits defined in the liturgical books themselves.

§4. Within the limits of his competence, it pertains to the diocesan bishop in the Church entrusted to him to issue liturgical norms which bind everyone.