What may a person say when receiving Communion?

[Evan]

OK, you guys. I cave.

I think I agree with everything you have been saying, you’re so serious. bee cool. I was trying to introduce the idea that the Local Church has it’s own identity and works in cooperation with the Vatican. The Local Church is under the apostolic authority of the Bishop.

AND HE is indeed under the authority of the Pope. But, I must be in obedience to my Bishop. Usually (I hope always) that coincides with obedience to my Pope. I also have to be in obedience to the pope, but I’ve never received any messages from him.

The Bishop has explained it this way.

When the Pope wants to make a change, he sends out a message to the bishops. (rarely do I get a copy).

The bishop meets with his priests in an annual gathering and all such changes are then communicated to the priests. (still I get nuthin’)

The priests go home, think about things, then slowly impliment the changes. (Arguing pastoral reasons when they decide not to). At this point, I could find a copy in the bulletin, but it never has happened yet.

So between the Pope and the home, there is a long time and distance. I never know when I’ll see changes and directives implimented in my parish or family. It’s like the telephone game.

Historically, so far as I know, my Bishop is always in agreement with my Pope. My priest is so busy, he has trouble finding time to implement changes. He would like to but, it takes time.

For example: we still have lay people purifying vessels after mass. Our bishop said, he will not tell the priests to stop the practice till he receives a note from the Pope. All that I have heard from the Vatican is that the permission to do so expired. So we will probably continue till somebody sends a note! It’s the old chain of command.

 

[jco2004]

It’s scary, really, how some people think bishops are little popes, or maybe even little gods, in their dioceses.

For your information, the bishop is the “pope” of his diocese. Joe

 

[Walking_Home]

For your information, the bishop is the “pope” of his diocese. Joe

---

That’s all we need “mini popes”—that does contribute to the current state of the Church.

 

[AlexV]

No, he’s not a pope.

The pope is the SUPREME LEGISLATOR.

The bishop isn’t.

Also, in this day and age, we don’t rely on bishops…or pastors…alone to tell us what the rules are.

The problem with the dream world Evan offers is it presumes a bishop or pastor will always be faithful to Rome.

They’re not.

And yes, the faithful can indeed make that judgment. When the pope says Latin is permitted, and a bishop says it’s banned, that’s disobedience.

 

[LilyM]

No, he’s not a pope.

The pope is the SUPREME LEGISLATOR.

The bishop isn’t.

Also, in this day and age, we don’t rely on bishops…or pastors…alone to tell us what the rules are.

The problem with the dream world Evan offers is it presumes a bishop or pastor will always be faithful to Rome.

They’re not.

And yes, the faithful can indeed make that judgment. When the pope says Latin is permitted, and a bishop says it’s banned, that’s disobedience.

I’m not denying that we need to educate ourselves and to look at our Bishops and pastors with a somewhat critical eye. It’s a question of the best way to deal with problems as they occur, and what method is most likely to be a productive and permanent solution rather than simply end in acrimony.

And simply going against your Bishop without so much as a please, thank you, or explanation, beforehand doesnt appear to me, in most cases, to be at all appropriate or well suited to making him a better shepherd. Which should be your primary concern in smaller matters.

By going against him you’re only helping yourself. By taking a more conciliatory approach you’re helping him to understand, and helping those parishioners who are suffering under the dreadful imposition of being asked to say ‘I believe’ or what have you.

Take your own example. You did what you wanted and Rome told you you were right. Bully for you and for Rome. Did this help the Bishop to be a better bishop though? Did it help anyone else upon whom he was imposing?

How hard did you try to explain your reasons to him beforehand and afterwards, for example? Did you wait until the advice from Rome before you acted aginst his wishes or did you shoot first and explain later? Did you send him a copy of what Rome told you, or ensure that Rome did?

There are productive and counter-productive ways of going about these things.

 

[Brendan]

. I also have to be in obedience to the pope, but I’ve never received any messages from him.
.

Really?

He just sent you a letter recently.

It was called Sacramenum Caritas

It was even addressed to you

POST-SYNODAL
APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION
SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS

OF THE HOLY FATHER
BENEDICT XVI
TO THE BISHOPS, CLERGY,
CONSECRATED PERSONS
AND THE LAY FAITHFUL
ON THE EUCHARIST
AS THE SOURCE AND SUMMIT
OF THE CHURCH’S LIFE AND MISSION

 

[MusicMan]

Of course, the local bishop is this ‘Magesterium’. He is the successor to the Apostle. He is the head of the local Church. He is a mini-pope (ie, father of the faithful within his diocese). The principal of subsidiarity applies in most matters like this.

He is not a mini-pope. He is the Chief Shepherd for the faithful in his diocese.

It is not a matter of obedience. Obedience only comes into play when one has authority over another. In this matter, does the Vatican have authority? It can claim such. That does not make it so.

The Vatican and its leadership has any all and authority over the Church as delegated it by the Holy Father.

No bishop in Rome, save the Pope, has any authority over another bishop, in Rome or out of Rome.

That’s incorrect. A bishop can be given authority over another bishop by the Holy Father. The heads of the different dicastries are an example of this.

The Pope has authority in some matters, but not in others. He does not have universal authority (ie over all things).

And here you are completely wrong. The Pope is the final authority. He is the Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church and has final and universal authority. To deny this places you out of Communion with Rome and the Holy Father.

Do not make the Pope into a mini-God.

The Pope is the Pope, and all of the authority I have “accorded” him in this thread is authority he posseses as the Pope.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I’m not denying that we need to educate ourselves and to look at our Bishops and pastors with a somewhat critical eye. It’s a question of the best way to deal with problems as they occur, and what method is most likely to be a productive and permanent solution rather than simply end in acrimony.

And simply going against your Bishop without so much as a please, thank you, or explanation, beforehand doesnt appear to me, in most cases, to be at all appropriate or well suited to making him a better shepherd. Which should be your primary concern in smaller matters.

By going against him you’re only helping yourself. By taking a more conciliatory approach you’re helping him to understand, and helping those parishioners who are suffering under the dreadful imposition of being asked to say ‘I believe’ or what have you.

Take your own example. You did what you wanted and Rome told you you were right. Bully for you and for Rome. Did this help the Bishop to be a better bishop though? Did it help anyone else upon whom he was imposing?

How hard did you try to explain your reasons to him beforehand and afterwards, for example? Did you wait until the advice from Rome before you acted aginst his wishes or did you shoot first and explain later? Did you send him a copy of what Rome told you, or ensure that Rome did?

There are productive and counter-productive ways of going about these things.

The problem with your line of reasoning is that you are presuming one is free to obey a bishop’s illicit command. You brought up the example of St. Pio, a heroically obedient friar, yet one who obeyed superiors who placed extra burdens upon him, not who ordered him to disobey the law of the Holy Catholic Church. If the bishop told me to wear a blue tie to each and every Mass (and only BLUE!), I would be free to disregard the order but it might be good of me to play along for the sake of training my will. The bishop is exceeding his authority, but doing so in things indifferent.

If, though, the bishop were to tell me come up around the altar during the consecration, I simply could not obey that order. It would not be meritorious to do something I know to be contrary to the law of the Church; quite the opposite, it would be positively vicious. If a police officer told me to vandalize a stranger’s car, I would not say “Well, he’s got a certain amount of authority, so even though this certainly exceeds it and would be breaking the law, I’ll go ahead and do what he says, then afterwards I’ll call up the mayor and ask him whether I should do it again.” That would be an extraordinarily silly course of action. Why, then, when confronted with a bishop telling me to do something I am sure contradicts the law of the universal Church - to which I am bound in conscience - would I ever say “I’ll just do what I know to be wrong and then try to get someone else to fix the problem later.”? The world has seen the “just following orders” defense - and hanged its proponents.

Incidentally, though I don’t pretend it will often achieve results I’ve seen how disobeying a priest’s illicit instruction has changed his conduct without anyone ever having to even confront him. A priest in the dorms always told the congregation to join him in saying the doxology at the end of the Eucharistic Prayer, a part reserved to the priest. I knew that wasn’t right, so I simply kept my mouth shut. Didn’t make a scene, just knelt silently. Others around me, over the course of weeks, starting catching on and slowly, one by one, stopped joining in. Once about half the regular crowd had stopped following the pied piper he quit playing his tune and he no longer tells people to join him. Problem solved. No ruckus.

 

[Petergee]

The fact that it’s instructed by the Bishops of itself means that it’s the only thing that should be said - we’re bound in obedience to our Bishops.

Although ‘Amen’ actually means ‘let it be so’ - so the person who said that was very close to the mark!

Actually the Amen at Communion means “I affirm that i belive it actually (already) is so”.
“Let it be so” sounds like the heretical idea that it doesn’t become the Body of Christ until I receive it, or unless I let it become the Body of Christ.

 

[Petergee]

. He would like to but, it takes time.

For example: we still have lay people purifying vessels after mass. Our bishop said, he will not tell the priests to stop the practice till he receives a note from the Pope. All that I have heard from the Vatican is that the permission to do so expired. So we will probably continue till somebody sends a note! It’s the old chain of command.

If your driver’s licence expired, would you just keep driving until somebody in authority gave you a written note telling you not to drive?

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Any human being deserves respect, and the disrespect shown here is very disheartening, especially from those who call themselves Christian.

And the manner of speaking about the successors of the Apostles is shameful. Do some of you really believe that your major wrong is justified by a something you have decided is a minor wrong?

From the GIRM

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,

You wish to hold the bishop (over whom you have no authority) to your interpretation of a document, but will not follow instructions to you.

Redemptionis Sacramentum

1. Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.290 It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity. (emphesis mine)

Lux

 

[Brendan]

Any human being deserves respect, and the disrespect shown here is very disheartening, especially from those who call themselves Christian.

Where is the lack of respect towards the bishop?

A recognition that they are not above error is not a sign of disrepect.

And the manner of speaking about the successors of the Apostles is shameful. Do some of you really believe that your major wrong is justified by a something you have decided is a minor wrong?

Again, where is the disrespect given?

[qutoe]
You wish to hold the bishop (over whom you have no authority) to your interpretation of a document, but will not follow instructions to you.

The faithful are given the right to a liturgy that is done in accord with the Law of the Church. We have the authority to demand that that be done.

You are correct, that it must be done in truth and Charity. Note the Truth part, we must recognize what the Vatican II documents Truthfully say, and even a bishop is not the final interpreter of those. The Holy See is. If the bishop has a question on that, or the faithful bring a question to him, he has the duty to seek the common understanding of the Church.

And in the area of transalting liturgical text to the vernacular, that resides not with the bishop, but rather with the USCCB subjec to Vatican Approval.

And as far as Charity, there has been no lack of Charity. Disagreement is not uncharitable.

In fact Charity REQUIRES that errors be correct. Instruction to the Mistaken is a Spiritual Work of Mercy and thus an act of Charity.

 

[Walking_Home]

You wish to hold the bishop (over whom you have no authority) to your interpretation of a document, but will not follow instructions to you.

Lux

---

I’ve seen that tactic used before—it doesn’t work.

 

[fix]

The Pope has authority in some matters, but not in others. He does not have universal authority (ie over all things).

Do not make the Pope into a mini-God.

Actually:

**882 **The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

To publicly criticize a bishop is not very respectful, but I was not speaking more of remarks like “screw around with the liturgy”

Has anyone written to Rome? I’d be very interested to learn the response if you would even get a response.

Lux

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

WH,

Tactic?

I’m speaking of respect and obedience. Do you honestly consider this a game?

Would Jesus be pleased with a liturgically perfect celebration at the expense of respect to a bishop?

Lux

 

[Walking_Home]

To publicly criticize a bishop is not very respectful, but I was not speaking more of remarks like “screw around with the liturgy”

Has anyone written to Rome? I’d be very interested to learn the response if you would even get a response.

Lux

---

We are following the response our late Pope and current Pope have towards the disfiguration of our Mass. It was JPII who mandated for RS-2004.

vatican.va/edocs/ENG0821/__P7.HTM

I consider it my duty, therefore to appeal urgently that the liturgical norms for the celebration of the Eucharist be observed with great fidelity. These norms are a concrete expression of the authentically ecclesial nature of the Eucharist; this is their deepest meaning. Liturgy is never anyone’s private property, be it of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated. The Apostle Paul had to address fiery words to the community of Corinth because of grave shortcomings in their celebration of the Eucharist resulting in divisions (schismata) and the emergence of factions (haireseis) (cf. 1 Cor 11:17-34). Our time, too, calls for a renewed awareness and appreciation of liturgical norms as a reflection of, and a witness to, the one universal Church made present in every celebration of the Eucharist. Priests who faithfully celebrate Mass according to the liturgical norms, and communities which conform to those norms, quietly but eloquently demonstrate their love for the Church. Precisely to bring out more clearly this deeper meaning of liturgical norms, I have asked the competent offices of the Roman Curia to prepare a more specific document, including prescriptions of a juridical nature, on this very important subject. **No one **is permitted to undervalue the mystery entrusted to our hands: it is too great for anyone to feel free to treat it lightly and with disregard for its sacredness and its universality.

 

[Walking_Home]

WH,

Tactic?

I’m speaking of respect and obedience. Do you honestly consider this a game?

Would Jesus be pleased with a liturgically perfect celebration at the expense of respect to a bishop?

Lux

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lux et Tenebrae
You wish to hold the bishop (over whom you have no authority) to your interpretation of a document, but will not follow instructions to you.

Lux​

What “tactic” you ask. The one you use in your statement – “to your interpretation of a document”. This is nothing other than a way to disparage what we have posted----that we are mis-interpreting. This tactic has been used before.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

When i said

Has anyone written to Rome? I’d be very interested to learn the response if you would even get a response.

I mean regarding this particular situation.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lux et Tenebrae
You wish to hold the bishop (over whom you have no authority) to your interpretation of a document, but will not follow instructions to you.

Lux​

What “tactic” you ask. The one you use in your statement – “to your interpretation of a document”. This is nothing other than a way to disparage what we have posted----that we are mis-interpreting. This tactic has been used before.

You are picking a detail, and ignoring the main point.

I’ll rephrase
You wish to correct the bishop (over whom you have no authority), but will not follow instructions to you.

Lux