Striking one's Breast--part of the rubrics?

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Yes, I did mean promulgated—sorry about that.

I would never attempt to get into anyone’s head—I am just relating the conversations.

No one has explained why they feel it is ok to disregard rubrics in one situation, but not another. If I were so hung up on rigid enforcement of rubrics, I would not look for loopholes.

Lux

 

[Brendan]

Hi again,

You are not understanding my point. There was a letter quoted (sorry—I really didn’t keep the reference) which said the church does not want to be too rigid with the posture of the congregation.

You are correct, that is why the Church places certain elements are either personally optional or optional on a diocese wide basis.

Examples include posture recieving Holy Communion, posture taken when returning to the pew.

The Church specificially notes when such postures are open for personal choice.

I do strike my breast at the confedior and Agnus Dei, but I certainly do not feel it is required, or those who don’t are our of order.

Do your feelings cause reality? In otherwords, just because you ‘feel’ something, that makes it reality.

Do your feelings have a basis in reason, as it they can be supported by logical argument and appeal to known authority? Or are they simply irrational?

I try to follow the Spirit of community worship, and only use my preferences if it is not disruptive.

Lux

You seem to be contradicting yourself, first you say that the Church does not impose rigidity of posture, but this “Spirit of community worship” somehow does?

Interesting…

 

[Brendan]

And I too would like some more information on what is meant by ‘overload’

When the 2002 GIRM was issued, Cardinal Maida (here in Detroit) issued a Mass instructional booklet, describing the new ‘bow’ before the reception of Holy Communion, the bow of the head at each mention of Christ’s name, the Trinity, Mary etc…

He noted his decision that all should kneel from the Agnus Dei to personal reception of Holy Communion.

He also took the opportunity to reinforce all that existed prior but had fallen into disuse, namely the striking of the breast in the Confetior and the bow\genuflection during the Creed.

It is now common in every parish in the Archdiocese.

What specific circumstances exist at your parish that result in ‘overload’ that do not exist at other parishes?

 

[japhy]

I would never attempt to get into anyone’s head.

You say you would never attempt to get into anyone’s head, and then say:

No one has explained why they feel it is ok to disregard rubrics in one situation, but not another. If I were so hung up on rigid enforcement of rubrics, I would not look for loopholes.

Who said they “feel it is ok to disregard rubrics” in this situation, or that they are “look[ing] for loopholes”?

The rubrics regarding the posture for reception of Holy Communion as found in the Missal and/or GIRM do not exist in a vacuum. The Church has made this clear:
Prot. n. 1322/02/L

Rome, 1 July 2002

… Even where the Congregation has approved of legislation denoting standing as the posture for Holy Communion, in accordance with the adaptations permitted to the Conferences of Bishops by the *Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani *n. 160, paragraph 2, it has done so with the stipulation that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds.
And again in 2004 in Redemptionis Sacramentum: “it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.” (91)

It’s a matter of knowing what the Church has ruled concerning the rubrics. Why more bishops and priests don’t inform their faithful, I don’t know. Maybe the bishops and priests don’t know about these things themselves, which is a shame, considering there are a fair number of lay faithful who do!

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Do your feelings cause reality? In otherwords, just because you ‘feel’ something, that makes it reality.

OK We are discussing whether or not an action is required. Is it wrong to omit it? Is the person who does not strike the breast considered “bad”?

Do your feelings have a basis in reason, as it they can be supported by logical argument and appeal to known authority? Or are they simply irrational?

The general instruction on posture in the GIRM, and the emphesis (or lack thereof) of my pastor.

You seem to be contradicting yourself, first you say that the Church does not impose rigidity of posture, but this “Spirit of community worship” somehow does?

Interesting…

I will follow the spirit of community, rather than personal preference. For example, if the person next to me offers a hand for the Lord’s prayer, I will take it, even though this is not my personal preference. You certainly are free to do as you choose.

Lux

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Japhy,

When you quoted RS, you didn’t include

1. “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.”176

and also from the GIRM regarding the denial of Holy Communion–

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.

I do not want to get into this again, but my point is that if the norms can be set aside in one instance where it is specifically noted in the GIRM, why would an action not mentioned be required?

Lux

 

[Brendan]

OK We are discussing whether or not an action is required. Is it wrong to omit it? Is the person who does not strike the breast considered “bad”?

That is correct. The person who is physically capable of such performing the rubric, but who, by a conscience act, chooses to forgo it, is disobedient.

The general instruction on posture in the GIRM, and the emphesis (or lack thereof) of my pastor.

Where does the GIRM state that this rubric is not optional?

I will follow the spirit of community, rather than personal preference. For example, if the person next to me offers a hand for the Lord’s prayer, I will take it, even though this is not my personal preference. You certainly are free to do as you choose.

Lux

Fine, that is an area of personal choice that the Vatican has chosen to allow. Other rubrics do no have such ‘wiggle room’.

 

[Brendan]

I do not want to get into this again, but my point is that if the norms can be set aside in one instance where it is specifically noted in the GIRM, why would an action not mentioned be required?

Lux

Is the norm being ‘set aside’ or is the norm being acted on in a way approved by the Vatican?

 

[Corki]

Japhy,

When you quoted RS, you didn’t include

and also from the GIRM regarding the denial of Holy Communion–

I do not want to get into this again, but my point is that if the norms can be set aside in one instance where it is specifically noted in the GIRM, why would an action not mentioned be required?

Lux

Lux,

I think you are mixing up norms, rubrics, and direct instructions. Each has different applications and levels of authority.

First of all, most of the Rubrics aren’t in the GIRM. They are in the Missal and the Missal says to strike one’s breast at the words “mea culpa” in the Confetior. If the USCCB wanted to dispense with this rubric, it could have included a request when it presented the particular rubrics for the US. Then it would have been mentioned in the US version of the GIRM. (As they did with the kneeling after the Agnus Dei, for example) They didn’t ask for that, so the rubric in the Missal applies. There are some rubrics where there are options but no option is offered for this one, so the rubric in the Missal applies.

You mention that the norm for reception of Communion is being “set aside”. Although this thread has wandered, I think you mean some people receiving on the tongue and/or kneeling. That is a norm, not a rubric. The universal norm is to receive on the tongue. The only reason the norm is even possible to receive in the hand in the US is because of an indult. An individual can avail him/herself to the provisions of an indult in a diocese where it has been granted. “can” not “must” Any Catholic can still follow the universal norm which is to receive on the tongue. That’s not “setting aside” anything. It is still following the norm – the universal one.

As for kneeling, that falls into direct instuction. The CDW has seen fit to issue direct instruction that receiving while kneeling is a choice the communicant can make. Issuing such direct instructions in areas where questions arise is part of the CDW’s “job” so to speak. It is not my job, your job, even the Bishops job to issue specific instructions regarding how the Mass is said and how we participate. When the CDW issues an instruction, it is authoritative since this is part of its “job”. If anyone else issues this type of instruction, it would not be authoritative or at least less so.

An example would be receiving on the tongue during a flu outbreak. My own archbishop got it right, IMHO. His suggested that people may want to receive on the hand during the swine flu situation but he specifically noted that this wasn’t an order, just a suggestion. Had he issued an “order,” it would have been less authoritative until specific instruction came from the CDW.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

OK—Yes, according to the definition you use, striking the breast at the confedior is in the rubrics. Since the op was at Agnus Dei, and Lord’s prayer, it is neither in the rubrics nor required.

The Church is not rigid on the posture of the congregation, so I would really prefer the word “required” be softened for any action of the congregation. I wouldn’t want anyone to feel guilty, or think they had not attended Mass correctly, if they do not strike their breast.

Lux

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

re-

I think you mean some people receiving on the tongue and/or kneeling

Hand or tongue is always an option. The norm for receiving in the US is standing. The fact that Communion cannot be denied to a kneeling communicant does not change the norm.

 

[japhy]

The Church is not rigid on the posture of the congregation, so I would really prefer the word “required” be softened for any action of the congregation. I wouldn’t want anyone to feel guilty, or think they had not attended Mass correctly, if they do not strike their breast.

It’s one thing not to know about it, it’s another to refuse to do it. I’d bet most Catholics who don’t strike their breast during the Confiteor simply don’t know about it, because no one ever taught them. Liturgical catechesis was supposed to precede and follow the liturgical reforms following Vatican II. It’s supposed to continue to this day; it was called for repeatedly over the past decades, especially at anniversary years of the promulgation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.

The gestures, postures, responses, etc. are part of the people’s active participation in the Mass; specifically, they are the external manifestation of the internal participation which is their right and duty in virtue of their baptism. Why would any Catholic, knowing what that participation entails, willfully refuse to carry it out in the way established by the Church? And why would a Catholic who so refuses the participation called for by the Church seek to “enhance” or “bolster” their participation with gestures, postures, and liturgical roles either not proper to them or not envisioned by the Council or any documents since then?

 

[Emimashaina]

Dr. Kreiner in Long Island IVF has extensive and highly successful donor egg program to help women who need healthy donated eggs to become pregnant.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Hi again Japhy,

…and I really do appreciate your continuing this dialogue.

Why would any Catholic, knowing what that participation entails, willfully refuse to carry it out in the way established by the Church? And why would a Catholic who so refuses the participation called for by the Church seek to “enhance” or “bolster” their participation with gestures, postures, and liturgical roles either not proper to them or not envisioned by the Council or any documents since then?

We all know about guilt. There have been many jokes about this aspect of the Catholic faith, but we also know that much truth has been spoken in jest. There are so many things we need to feel guilty over, and we know how often people agonize over things they have done, not realizing it was wrong, why not soften this?

Lux

 

[japhy]

I really do appreciate your continuing this dialogue.

I am glad to continue it. (Please let me know if I cross the line into uncivility or testiness. I’m trying to develop calm and patience discussion/dialogue skills.)

There are so many things we need to feel guilty over, and we know how often people agonize over things they have done, not realizing it was wrong, why not soften this?

I don’t want to make anyone guilty over this. There’s no worse type of guilt (in my opinion) than guilt over something you did (or didn’t do) because you simply never knew better: guilt that you don’t deserve, guilt that you should not be burdened with. Culpability is proportional to knowledge, generally speaking.

If liturgical catechesis were delegated to me in a parish, I would certainly present these things “softly” to the people. It’s not their fault they were never taught to strike their breast (although I expect the older folks might expect to), or bow their head at the invocation of the Three Divine Persons or at the names of Jesus, Mary, or the saint(s) of the day, or to make a profound bow during the Creed. They’re not expected to have copies of the GIRM and Roman Missal (unlike myself…). They should have been taught either by their priests or by their religious education teachers or whoever.

If a person is willfully slacking in the participation expected of them at the Mass, that’s another matter.

I repeat my “thesis”, though: it is bad liturgy to promote a superficial (and often “busy”) external participation in the Mass by means of multiplying “lay ministers” and “ministries” while failing to cultivate and promote the most basic baptismal participation in the Mass, both external and internal.

 

[Bibbit]

I read through this thread and now I have a couple of issues. The first is that I cannot find the Roman Missal itself, in its original language, online anywhere. I only find the GIRM in the original Doing a search at the Vatican website gets lots of GIRM links, but I didn’t see the actual Missal. Does anybody have a link to the Missal? I did find a translation at this site, but it doesn’t have the original language for the breast striking, just English. So you can’t be 100% certain it’s there.

The second issue is I think we are only called to strike our breast once, but I’m not certain. I read this very good post on the subject at Zenit. I think it is worth reading since it’s more current and mentions the new translation and it’s triple form use of my fault. I should also say that the missals my parish uses only say “strike breast”, not “strike breast three times”. And, of all the parishes I’ve visited since the new translation, only one had cards that mentioned striking the breast. All the other parishes (including mine) used cards that don’t even mention it. So the folks I talk to about it have no idea they should strike their breast.