What may a person say when receiving Communion?

[Apryl]

The response is “Amen” in the ordinary usage. End of story. It’s a universal reply in the Roman Rite.
QUOTE]

Great.

Now, how to get this message out?

Sure, the priest could address it, but how many parish priests read these forums?

How does one approach another that they know has taken up the habit, something that is meaningful to them, that they, until approached (by some know-it-all) has had no reason to think or believe it was inappropriate.

How do you get to them? What do you say?

We can address one another, and I think that most of us that have posted on this thread have not said that we ourselves say anything other than ‘Amen’, but that they’ve heard others.

So, how do we, concerned Lay People, get this message out?

And quit beating up on each other

 

[LilyM]

There are limits on when we must obey civil authority.

Likewise, when we must obey religious authority.

Again, if a bishop tells you to do something that violates a rubric, in an area of the liturgy over which his authority does not extend to the level of lawful adaptation, you are NOT obliged to obey him.

If a bishop told a priest they may never use Latin, ever, without his written permission (it’s just happened in Michigan), a priest would not be bound by such an order.

It’s ultra vires.

Similarly, a bishop who told his priests never to use the Roman Canon.

Or a bishop who tells his people to answer “I believe” at Communion.

None of that is permitted by the liturgy.

I said nothing disrespectful. I stated liturgical realities. Nor are the laity dopes who need a bishop to explain every rule to them (or perhaps how secret rubrics allow them to commit apparent abuses).

Again, though, the correct procedure with a government action you don’t like is to still obey, at least at first (unless it’s sin) but fight to change it.

Likewise with your bishop - obey at first, unless it’s a sin, but take the issue up with them (and the Vatican if you must) afterwards.

Direct disobedience should only ever be a last resort in these sorts of matters, not the first.

 

[Walking_Home]

Again, though, the correct procedure with a government action you don’t like is to still obey, at least at first (unless it’s sin) but fight to change it.

Likewise with your bishop - obey at first, unless it’s a sin, but take the issue up with them (and the Vatican if you must) afterwards.

Direct disobedience should only ever be a last resort in these sorts of matters, not the first.

---

As per the Church LilyM–If there is no recognitio—a bishop cannot bind the laity. If he cannot bind the laity—it would not be an act of disobedience.

 

[AlexV]

I don’t have to “fight” to “change” something that’s already been decided.

The Church has a response for Communion (and it’s shocking it’s taken 4 pages to explain that).

That response is “Amen” in the ordinary usage of the Roman Rite.

Bishops have certain latitude in liturgy. This isn’t an example of that.

Obedience is not a virtue when the commander is acting ultra vires.

 

[LilyM]

I don’t have to “fight” to “change” something that’s already been decided.

The Church has a response for Communion (and it’s shocking it’s taken 4 pages to explain that).

That response is “Amen” in the ordinary usage of the Roman Rite.

Bishops have certain latitude in liturgy. This isn’t an example of that.

Obedience is not a virtue when the commander is acting ultra vires.

I’m not referring to changing the Church’s rule, Alex, which rule we all understand perfectly by the way, rather to getting the Bishop to change* his* position

And if you go against (which is the only sense in which I meant ‘disobey’, walkinghome) your Bishop, regardless of whether you’re right or wrong you’ll almost certainly have to fight!

Again, the analogy with civil authority stands. If the civil authority abuses its power in something that doesn’t bind you to sin or threaten life, limb, or livelihood, first you obey and then afterwards try to change what needs changing.

And as I said before, unless you have your GIRM handy in your pocket to show the Bishop or the priest, you really can’t and shouldn’t argue at the altar!

And if obedience isn’t a virtue then why were St Catherine of Siena and St Margaret Mary among others praised by Our Lord himself for their obedience, even when their superiors were being very unreasonable and probably acting ultra vires?

 

[AlexV]

Nobody said ANYTHING about arguing at the altar. What’s going to happen? If I go to Communion and answer AMEN, is the Bishop going to tell me to say “I believe”?

If so, he’s the problem. Not I.

As for civil authority, the parallel does not exist in liturgical or ecclestiastical law. NOWHERE does it say in Church law that you obey in all cases against sin, and question later. Nowhere.

Again, we owe respect and obedience to bishops. WHEN they act within their authority. Just as a priest is free to ignore his bishop if the bishop were to tell him he was never to use Eucharistic Prayer I or II or IV, so a layman owes no obedience to anyone who tells him to violate a rubric.

 

[LilyM]

Nobody said ANYTHING about arguing at the altar. What’s going to happen? If I go to Communion and answer AMEN, is the Bishop going to tell me to say “I believe”?

If so, he’s the problem. Not I.

As for civil authority, the parallel does not exist in liturgical or ecclestiastical law. NOWHERE does it say in Church law that you obey in all cases against sin, and question later. Nowhere.

Again, we owe respect and obedience to bishops. WHEN they act within their authority. Just as a priest is free to ignore his bishop if the bishop were to tell him he was never to use Eucharistic Prayer I or II or IV, so a layman owes no obedience to anyone who tells him to violate a rubric.

Again, Alex, if you are correct then why were the saints praised by Our Lord and Our Lady themselves for their obedience in precisely such type of situations?

St Padre Pio was restricted unreasonably in his exercise of his priestly duties, for example. Probably by people acting ultra vires when they did so. Yet he obeyed, and his obedience was part of his sanctity.

 

[AlexV]

Padre Pio was’t told to rewrite the liturgy according to the whim of unlawful authority (since the bishop has no authority in the issue of Communion responses).

The liturgy DOESN’T BELONG TO THE BISHOP. It belongs to the Church, and the bishop has a role to play, as does the priest, the people, the pope. And it’s not the bishops’ role to change that response.

Note also that people in religious orders take vows (unlike laity and secular priests) and have quite different issues with obedience. This thread is about Communion responses. Not people under vows in religious life.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Nobody said ANYTHING about arguing at the altar. What’s going to happen? If I go to Communion and answer AMEN, is the Bishop going to tell me to say “I believe”?

Did you even read the original post ?

Another response approved by our bishop is, “I believe!”

Nobody is telling anybody anything, but your language was indeed disrespectful. You have your options, and as was mentioned before, they do not include disrespectful language on a public forum.

Lux

 

[LilyM]

Padre Pio was’t told to rewrite the liturgy according to the whim of unlawful authority (since the bishop has no authority in the issue of Communion responses).

The liturgy DOESN’T BELONG TO THE BISHOP. It belongs to the Church, and the bishop has a role to play, as does the priest, the people, the pope. And it’s not the bishops’ role to change that response.

Note also that people in religious orders take vows (unlike laity and secular priests) and have quite different issues with obedience. This thread is about Communion responses. Not people under vows in religious life.

No - but then Padre Pio wasn’t even permitted to celebrate Mass for a time IIRC. For no good reason and probably ultra vires, hence his eventual resuming of it.

Which for someone who loved the Mass as much as he did was probably worse even than being made to celebrate a mangled liturgy.

 

[bilop]

Amen in the Ordinary Form, silence in the Extraordinary form.

That’s it. No exceptions.

God Bless

 

[Brendan]

Therefore, when the GIRM says we are to respond with ‘Amen’ a word that is not English, but Hebrew, in a document not written in English, but Latin. It seem the bishop, who has final authority over all the Liturgies in his Diocese, **can determine how to translate a foriegn word into English if no guidance has been offered from Rome. **.

WRONG!!!

First of all, Canon 838 clearly states the the Holy See is the final authority on the Liturgy, and bishops may only act in accordance with the

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

The Diocesan Bishop may only make changes to the liturgy when allowed to by Rome.

From Vatican II document Sacrosanctum Concillium, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.

1. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

1. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the Liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

1. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.

1. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the Liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.

1. In some places and circumstances, however, an even more radical adaptation of the Liturgy is needed, and this entails greater difficulties. Wherefore:

1. The competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, must, in this matter, carefully and prudently consider which elements from the traditions and culture of individual peoples might appropriately be admitted into Divine Worship. Adaptations which are judged to be useful or necessary should when be submitted to the Apostolic See, by whose consent they may be introduced.

Translastions into the vernacular in the US are the responsiblity of the USSCB, who must then seek a Recognito from Rome.

If this bishop desired to translate the word ‘Amen’ into the vernacular for liturgical use, he is required to follow the directives laid out by Vatican II.

If you have a citation from Canon Law ro a Vatican document to support your assertion that the bishop may make translatations independant from Rome, I would LOVE to see it.

 

[Evan]

First of all, Canon 838 clearly states the the Holy See is the final authority on the Liturgy.

Canon 838 - §1. The supervision of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church which resides in the Apostolic See and, in accord with the law, the diocesan bishop.

I would say that the responsibility is shared. If we remove spuroius language:

Canon 838 - §1. The supervision of the sacred liturgy depends on the authority of the Church which resides in the Apostolic See and the diocesan bishop.

Of course your including the word clearly indicates that there is no disagreement here, you must agree with me or it would not be clear, clearly.

 

[Walking_Home]

Canon 838 - §1. The supervision of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church which resides in the Apostolic See and, in accord with the law, the diocesan bishop.

I would say that the responsibility is shared. If we remove spuroius language:

Canon 838 - §1. The supervision of the sacred liturgy depends on the authority of the Church which resides in the Apostolic See and the diocesan bishop.

Of course your including the word clearly indicates that there is no disagreement here, you must agree with me or it would not be clear, clearly.

---

Can’t change Canon Law to fit your agenda. The “in accord with the Law” is the qualifier for the correct understanding of the type of authority the bishops have. The bishops authority needs to be in accord with what is regulated by Rome.

 

[Brendan]

Canon 838 - §1. The supervision of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church which resides in the Apostolic See and, in accord with the law, the diocesan bishop.

I would say that the responsibility is shared. If we remove spuroius language:

Canon 838 - §1. The supervision of the sacred liturgy depends on the authority of the Church which resides in the Apostolic See and the diocesan bishop.

Of course your including the word clearly indicates that there is no disagreement here, you must agree with me or it would not be clear, clearly.

The Authority the Holy See has over the liturgy is not restricted in any way. The Authority the diocesan bishop has IS; it is restricted by both Canon Law, Pontifically delagated Congregations ( CDWDS), other Vatican decrees, and of course, the Vatican II documents.

And those Vatican II documents clearly state that the responsibility for translations into the vernacular, or use of the vernacular, reside in the territorial episcopal conferences, subject to approval by the Holy See.

Has the bishop in question here submitted this use of the vernacular to a vote by the USCCB and recieved subsequent approval by the Vatican.

If, not, he has exceed his authority and violated the mandates of the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Liturgy.

If he has done so out of ignorance, the bishop is deserving of instruction in the matter.

If he has done so in knowledge of the Church’s teaching, he is deserving of correction.

 

[AlexV]

A good example of this was when I once resided in a territory where the bishop was vehemently opposed to the extraordinary liturgy. He told me that at his subject he did not wish me to participate in any extraordinary liturgies (I was regularly leaving diocesan borders to attend them). He said I would be “disobedient” if I continued to leave the diocese to attend them, and wouldn’t be fulfilling my obligation on Sundays and days of precept.

Classic ultra vires. I wrote to Rome. Rome assured me that what I was doing was quite acceptable.

Bishops aren’t unlimited in their power. The Holy See is. A bishop DOES have authority, within certain restricted areas. In liturgy, those responsibilities are rather clearly delineated in the liturgical books.

The subject of this thread isn’t one of them.

 

[Evan]

From a more theological point of view.

There is no ‘Vatican’ (it is a construct of man, liable to change. Maybe we should move it to France ).
There is no ‘Canon Law’ (it is a construct of man, liable to change, when was the last change, a couple years ago ).

There is a Bishop who has the fullness of Orders which gives him the authority to govern, teach, and something else.

There is the head of the college of bishops who has a certain authority between bishops, but not over the faithful (that would be us ). See SUBSIDIARITY acton.org/publicat/randl/article.php?id=200

The documents cited here have delt with opinions on how things could be done. Could is not the final word. nor is Should. They have much authority if your outlook is legal. In 500 years, there may be a big overhaul of all this stuff. Remember that the perfect liturgy will be done only in heaven when we all know EXACTLY how it IS done.

The only way your precious residents of Vatican Hill can do what they want with impunity, is to remove the bishop from his diocese and install a more pliable bishop. This has a long tradition (many of the Church Fathers were exiled).

Here is a document I’ll cite:

Acts 20:7 On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul [began] talking to them, intending to leave the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight.

I suspect, as a Bishop, Paul failed to get the proper translation from the Vatican but kind o’ worked out a liturgy on the spot.

I can see the smoke is starting to come out of your ears :banghead: , so I think I will leave it at that. It’s been fun.

 

[AlexV]

No smoke. Just laughter.

Rubrics, it seems, are mere opinions…EXCEPT when the diocesan bishop says something.

Then we must accept it as the closest thing to the Word of God, and obey without question.

More laughter.

The Vatican does indeed exist. I’ve been there, several times. And the pope…who manages his affairs through various curial officials…IS THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY.

The Holy See allows bishops some liturgical freedom. It is neatly noted in the introductions to the liturgical books, insofar as they indicate what a bishop can do, or a conference of bishops, on their own authority…often with the requirement that the Holy See approve it with their recognitio.

Your views on rubrics aren’t Catholic. The Holy See is the final authority on the liturgy. Not the diocesan bishop.

ALL CATHOLICS ARE SUBJECT TO THE POPE.

 

[Walking_Home]

From a more theological point of view.

There is no ‘Vatican’ (it is a construct of man, liable to change. Maybe we should move it to France ).
There is no ‘Canon Law’ (it is a construct of man, liable to change, when was the last change, a couple years ago ).

There is a Bishop who has the fullness of Orders which gives him the authority to govern, teach, and something else.

There is the head of the college of bishops who has a certain authority between bishops, but not over the faithful (that would be us ). See SUBSIDIARITY acton.org/publicat/randl/article.php?id=200

The documents cited here have delt with opinions on how things could be done. Could is not the final word. nor is Should. They have much authority if your outlook is legal. In 500 years, there may be a big overhaul of all this stuff. Remember that the perfect liturgy will be done only in heaven when we all know EXACTLY how it IS done.

The only way your precious residents of Vatican Hill can do what they want with impunity, is to remove the bishop from his diocese and install a more pliable bishop. This has a long tradition (many of the Church Fathers were exiled).

Here is a document I’ll cite:

Acts 20:7 On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul [began] talking to them, intending to leave the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight.

I suspect, as a Bishop, Paul failed to get the proper translation from the Vatican but kind o’ worked out a liturgy on the spot.

I can see the smoke is starting to come out of your ears :banghead: , so I think I will leave it at that. It’s been fun.

---

Evan ---- we are not protestant or Orthodox. The Catholic Church has a physical structure and hiearchy. The Pope/Apostolic See has authority over any bishop and/or conference of bishops.

 

[Brendan]

From a more theological point of view.

There is no ‘Vatican’ (it is a construct of man, liable to change. Maybe we should move it to France ).

Actually, God made Vatican hill, and send Peter to die upon it.

There is no ‘Canon Law’ (it is a construct of man, liable to change, when was the last change, a couple years ago ).

There is a Bishop who has the fullness of Orders which gives him the authority to govern, teach, and something else.

There is the head of the college of bishops who has a certain authority between bishops, but not over the faithful (that would be us ). See SUBSIDIARITY acton.org/publicat/randl/article.php?id=200

Are you saying that the Second Vatican Council erred when it taugth that the Pope has power of BOTH the bishops AND the faithful.

LG 22

The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head

The documents cited here have delt with opinions on how things could be done. Could is not the final word. nor is Should. They have much authority if your outlook is legal. In 500 years, there may be a big overhaul of all this stuff. Remember that the perfect liturgy will be done only in heaven when we all know EXACTLY how it IS done.

Correct, the perfect liturgy is in Heaven. We know that because errandt bishops won’t be able to change the liturgy on their own accord their either,.