Receiving Communion

[ConstantineTG]

^^^^^

I don’t know where the disconnect is. Our point of contention is standing or kneeling for Communion and clearly the RS states that the authority to decide standing or kneeling rests upon the Conference of Bishops. Everything you posted coincides with that. The authority has been spelled out that it belong to the Diocesan Bishops, therefore Rome cannot supersede them in this decision. Basically, in plain english, Rome cannot say, “okay, you decide between kneeling and standing but I say you choose kneeling.” If Rome wanted to dictate the posture in the first place, they should have worded the law in such a way that it does not assign any authority to the Bishop. The fact that they assigned the authority to the Bishop means its not their call anymore until the law itself is changed.

 

[Walking_Home]

^^^^^

I don’t know where the disconnect is. Our point of contention is standing or kneeling for Communion and clearly the RS states that the authority to decide standing or kneeling rests upon the Conference of Bishops. Everything you posted coincides with that. The authority has been spelled out that it belong to the Diocesan Bishops, therefore Rome cannot supersede them in this decision. Basically, in plain english, Rome cannot say, “okay, you decide between kneeling and standing but I say you choose kneeling.” If Rome wanted to dictate the posture in the first place, they should have worded the law in such a way that it does not assign any authority to the Bishop. The fact that they assigned the authority to the Bishop means its not their call anymore until the law itself is changed.

---

You are mis-representing the documentation—and basicly you have made yourself the authority above the Church to the point of over-ruling the exact canon the Church Herself uses in matters pertaining to bishops and regulation of the liturgy---- and replacing it with yours—undermining the authority of the Holy See.

 

[Vico]

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.

The norm in the US GIRM is to make a standing bow. There is no prescription that says the bow is to be included of omitted if one kneels, as the US bishops are silent on that which is outside of the norm. The Latin version shows that the sign of reverence is for standing.

 

[Vico]

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.

My post is about receiving communion not the Eucharistic Prayer, which is before communion. The posture of unity is that which is the norm (including specific exceptions) for the different parts of the Mass.

Clarification on the Proper Posture and Sign of Veneration for Reception of Holy Communion is the title of that document under Sign of Veneration and* Uniformity in Posture* is given in explanation, which includes references to several GIRM norms: 42, 43, 95, 160. A particular example of this disunity was present in the Eucharistic Prayer, yet their remarks are for purpose of explaination for the proper posture and sign of veneration, as they state:

“Kneeling is not a licit posture for receiving Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States of America unless the bishop of a particular diocese has derogated from this norm in an individual and extraordinary circumstance. The provision which follows this section is provided for those extraordinary circumstances when a communicant acts in contradiction to the decision of the bishops.”

 

[MarkThompson]

^^^^^

I don’t know where the disconnect is. Our point of contention is standing or kneeling for Communion and clearly the RS states that the authority to decide standing or kneeling rests upon the Conference of Bishops. Everything you posted coincides with that. The authority has been spelled out that it belong to the Diocesan Bishops, therefore Rome cannot supersede them in this decision. Basically, in plain english, Rome cannot say, “okay, you decide between kneeling and standing but I say you choose kneeling.” If Rome wanted to dictate the posture in the first place, they should have worded the law in such a way that it does not assign any authority to the Bishop. The fact that they assigned the authority to the Bishop means its not their call anymore until the law itself is changed.

You’re completely right. True, Rome could overrule section 160 of the GIRM and prescribe a norm themselves. The fact is, though, they haven’t, and they’ve repeatedly stated that the norms prescribed by the U.S. bishops continue to have all the force of liturgical law. Nor has Rome ever stated that kneeling – in violation of the U.S. norms – is “permitted,” “licit,” “legitimate,” or any of the other terms that have been bandied about here. When Rome wants to say something is licit, they’ll say so. When they want to say merely that it shouldn’t be punished by withholding the Sacrament or accusations of unfaithfulness, they’ll continue saying what they’ve been saying.

As to your previous question about the situation in Canada . . . beats me! I’d need to know what norm the Canadian bishops had prescribed.

 

[ConstantineTG]

---

You are mis-representing the documentation—and basicly you have made yourself the authority above the Church to the point of over-ruling the exact canon the Church Herself uses in matters pertaining to bishops and regulation of the liturgy---- and replacing it with yours—undermining the authority of the Holy See.

Ad hominem
Can you disprove my logic with logic and not personal attacks?

 

[ConstantineTG]

As to your previous question about the situation in Canada . . . beats me! I’d need to know what norm the Canadian bishops had prescribed.

Well, analyzing the RS, it says that we should receive standing or kneeling depending on the Bishop’s Conference. Since the CCCB is silent on it for the current GIRM, I will assume that the norm is standing since all OF parishes I’ve been to have been receiving standing and no parish has provided kneelers.

The second portion of the decree says that an appropriate gesture of reverence is to be made when receiving standing. Since again there is no prescription and we assume that standing is the norm based on practice and observation, then people are free to make their gesture of reverence until the CCCB decrees otherwise. Correct? I just want to make sure I’m not making this conclusion just to satisfy my own desires, so I thought I’d run it by a neutral third party.

 

[OraLabora]

Well, analyzing the RS, it says that we should receive standing or kneeling depending on the Bishop’s Conference. Since the CCCB is silent on it for the current GIRM, I will assume that the norm is standing since all OF parishes I’ve been to have been receiving standing and no parish has provided kneelers.

The second portion of the decree says that an appropriate gesture of reverence is to be made when receiving standing. Since again there is no prescription and we assume that standing is the norm based on practice and observation, then people are free to make their gesture of reverence until the CCCB decrees otherwise. Correct? I just want to make sure I’m not making this conclusion just to satisfy my own desires, so I thought I’d run it by a neutral third party.

At St. Joseph’s Oratory in Montreal, at least in the crypt church, there is a communion rail and most folks seem to receive kneeling; some elderly and not-so-elderly do receive standing. One parish I sing in has a communion rail but it isn’t used as anything other than a divider between the nave and sanctuary.

 

[Walking_Home]

Ad hominem
Can you disprove my logic with logic and not personal attacks?

---

ConstantineTG—your posts speak for themselves. How documentation is misconstrued to fit what you – and I will say others—want the documentation to mean. If you want to make this observation into a “personal attack”—well—you are free to do that too.

 

[ConstantineTG]

To my earlier point, read again this Canon Law:

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.

Canon 381 is not a violation of the Pope’s supreme authority. It just reinforces the fact that Bishops have such authority in their diocese and are autonomous from the Pope in ruling the Diocese. Autonomous again is different from independent. Autonomous means they are subject to ecclesiastical law but they function under their own direction within these laws. The same way a US Governor cannot violate the US Constitution or Federal Law within his own state. Now, what does RS 90 say?

[90.] “The faithful should receive Communion kneeling or standing, as the Conference of Bishops will have determined”, with its acts having received the recognitio of the Apostolic See. “However, if they receive Communion standing, it is recommended that they give due reverence before the reception of the Sacrament, as set forth in the same norms”.

Clearly compared to Canon 381, the authority to decide on standing or kneeling has been given to the Bishops. The Pope could have reserved this right to himself as he very well can, BUT HE DID NOT. So the Pope cannot supersede the decision of the Bishops in this case because the authority has already been assigned to them. Recognitio also doesn’t mean the Pope will overturn the decision of the Bishops. Its just a check for the Vatican to ensure the Bishops themselves are not violating any other Church law and are in full compliance.

 

[ConstantineTG]

At St. Joseph’s Oratory in Montreal, at least in the crypt church, there is a communion rail and most folks seem to receive kneeling; some elderly and not-so-elderly do receive standing. One parish I sing in has a communion rail but it isn’t used as anything other than a divider between the nave and sanctuary.

Now that is starting to confuse me. So is this on the parish level only, or in the entire diocese?

I honestly want to know what the official word is because I’m teaching PREP and I want to teach the kids what is the right way taught by our Bishops, not the one I prefer. I can assume for my diocese that standing is the norm. I haven’t been to Quebec but I know that you have far older churches there than the ones we have here on the West Coast.

 

[ConstantineTG]

---

ConstantineTG—your posts speak for themselves. How documentation is misconstrued to fit what you – and I will say others—want the documentation to mean. If you want to make this observation into a “personal attack”—well—you are free to do that too.

I’ve given documentation and analysis of why it is interpreted that way. Calling someone as one who makes themself more authoritative than the Church is an ad hominem. If that is not a personal attack, I don’t know what is. You can debate the merits of my statements without having to degrade myself in an effort to discredit my statements. If my conclusion is false, then prove it with logic, not with calling me as one who elevates oneself to a higher authority. That has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

 

[MarkThompson]

Well, analyzing the RS, it says that we should receive standing or kneeling depending on the Bishop’s Conference. Since the CCCB is silent on it for the current GIRM, I will assume that the norm is standing since all OF parishes I’ve been to have been receiving standing and no parish has provided kneelers.

The second portion of the decree says that an appropriate gesture of reverence is to be made when receiving standing. Since again there is no prescription and we assume that standing is the norm based on practice and observation, then people are free to make their gesture of reverence until the CCCB decrees otherwise. Correct? I just want to make sure I’m not making this conclusion just to satisfy my own desires, so I thought I’d run it by a neutral third party.

Do you know that the CCCB is silent on the issue, or is it just that you haven’t been able to find what they’ve said? My own briefish checking turned up a few posts and articles from a couple of years ago indicating that the CCCB had submitted a raft of requested indults for approval and no action had yet been taken, so I don’t know what the canonical situation is up there.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Do you know that the CCCB is silent on the issue, or is it just that you haven’t been able to find what they’ve said? My own briefish checking turned up a few posts and articles from a couple of years ago indicating that the CCCB had submitted a raft of requested indults for approval and no action had yet been taken, so I don’t know what the canonical situation is up there.

Well, looking on their website they are looking for qualified people to translate the GIRM into english and french, and this was a while back. 2000? And thats the last I’ve seen of it. From asking around, other people seem to have found the same thing. I cannot find a copy of the GIRM on either the CCCB website, or the Archdiocese of Vancouver website. So right now I am assuming we’re just following the universal GIRM without any adaptations for Canada. But this puts into question those sections where a decision is to be made by local Bishops, like the decision on standing or kneeling.

 

[Walking_Home]

I**'ve given documentation and analysis of why it is interpreted that way. ** Calling someone as one who makes themself more authoritative than the Church is an ad hominem. If that is not a personal attack, I don’t know what is. You can debate the merits of my statements without having to degrade myself in an effort to discredit my statements. If my conclusion is false, then prove it with logic, not with calling me as one who elevates oneself to a higher authority. That has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

---

Give “Your analysis and interpretation” —their in lies the problem as evidenced by your posts. The “authority” of analysis and interpretation.

If the Church says this is the canon to use—and you say other—well–you know where that leads.

Now as I said prior—you are free to turn my observation–into “personal attack”.

 

[ConstantineTG]

---

Give “Your analysis and interpretation” —their in lies the problem as evidenced by your posts. The “authority” of analysis and interpretation.

If the Church says this is the canon to use—and you say other—well–you know where that leads.

Now as I said prior—you are free to turn my observation–into “personal attack”.

Like I said, you are free to disprove my logic with logic. If we’re going to have this back and forth about what you claim that I have made myself into, then we are done.

Besides, the letter of the law is so easy to understand. I’ve already made several outlines on it. If you wish to just dismiss that and make a blanket statement about my personality, then its no use debating you anymore.

 

[benedictgal]

My post is about receiving communion not the Eucharistic Prayer, which is before communion. The posture of unity is that which is the norm (including specific exceptions) for the different parts of the Mass.

Clarification on the Proper Posture and Sign of Veneration for Reception of Holy Communion is the title of that document under Sign of Veneration and* Uniformity in Posture* is given in explanation, which includes references to several GIRM norms: 42, 43, 95, 160. A particular example of this disunity was present in the Eucharistic Prayer, yet their remarks are for purpose of explaination for the proper posture and sign of veneration, as they state:

“Kneeling is not a licit posture for receiving Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States of America unless the bishop of a particular diocese has derogated from this norm in an individual and extraordinary circumstance. The provision which follows this section is provided for those extraordinary circumstances when a communicant acts in contradiction to the decision of the bishops.”

Actually, this statement runs contrary to what the CDWDS stated. With all due respect, Vico, every statement that you have culled from whatever sources you have used have contradicted what the CDWDS, which is the overruling and overriding principle, has ruled.

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”.**

Thus, with all due respect, the CDWDS has stated that those who choose to kneel in order to receive Holy Communion are not to be accused of acting ilicitly, let alone being disobedient.

 

[Walking_Home]

Like I said, you are free to disprove my logic with logic. If we’re going to have this back and forth about what you claim that I have made myself into, then we are done.

Besides, the letter of the law is so easy to understand. I’ve already made several outlines on it. If you wish to just dismiss that and make a blanket statement about my personality, then its no use debating you anymore.

ConstantineTG:

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.

Canon 381 is not a violation of the Pope’s supreme authority. It just reinforces the fact that Bishops have such authority in their diocese and are autonomous from the Pope in ruling the Diocese. Autonomous again is different from independent. Autonomous means they are subject to ecclesiastical law but they function under their own direction within these laws. The same way a US Governor cannot violate the US Constitution or Federal Law within his own state. Now, what does RS 90 say?

---

Let take canon 381— that you “analyze and interpret”. Your say—“it just reinforces the fact that Bishops have such authority in their diocese and are **autonomous **from the Pope in ruling the Diocese”.

It says no such thing–for the canon itself says–“except for cases which the law or a decree of the Supreme Pontiff reserves to the supreme authority or to another ecclesiastical authority.” This statement in of itself–removes the “autonomous” authority that you give to the bishops.

Guess what --the Holy See has decreed --that the regulation of the liturgy depends soley on the authority of the Church, specifically with the Apostolic See–and the CDWDS which operates with the Roman Pontiffs name and with his authority----as evidenced in RS–2004 no. 14-17. When speaking of the bishops authority in matters liturgical–the Holy See specifially uses canon 838 4 ---- Not 381.

So your own canon —shot your "analysis and interpretation.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

You used a valid comparison to a CEO. I suppose you could view dioceses as franchises of a corporation in that vein. They have to abide by certain rules, which Masses it could offer, rubrics, music, etc. However, since Vatican II the church is now supposed to operate by a certain amount of collegiality amongst the bishops. Exactly what that means is still being debated.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0505799.htm

 

[benedictgal]

You used a valid comparison to a CEO. I suppose you could view dioceses as franchises of a corporation in that vein. They have to abide by certain rules, which Masses it could offer, rubrics, music, etc. However, since Vatican II the church is now supposed to operate by a certain amount of collegiality amongst the bishops. Exactly what that means is still being debated.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0505799.htm

However, as you pointed out, even the franchises have to obey the rules. Granted, some franchises can have different sales promotions, they still have to have the same merchandise.

But, again, what we need to realize that, especially as far as the liturgy is concerned, the CDWDS acts in and with the authority of the Holy Father. If they rule that something is not ilicit, then, the lower authorities (in this case, the national episcopal conference the bishop) cannot trump what the CDWDS has already decreed.