What may a person say when receiving Communion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Apryl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you received Communion kneeling at the altar rail, you would turn up your head and have your mouth open to receive the Lord…no words are spoken, there is no need…you are communinng with God
 
Andreas_Hofer said:
False. It is not the bishop’s liturgy, but the Church’s. He is, as the most recent motu proprio stated, the “moderator” of the liturgy in his diocese, not the innovator or initiator of such. It is his job to oversee the faithful celebration of the two forms of the one Roman rite within his diocese in accord with the norms established by the Holy See. He has limited competence to set norms for his diocese, and those cases are all explicitly defined: changing the response of the communicant is not one of them.

As far as “translating” the “foreign word” of Amen into English, the bishop needs no guidance whatsoever from Rome on the matter - Amen does not get translated in English, just as it does not get translated in Latin (or German, or any other modern language, for that matter). If the bishop wants some guidance, he should consult the “translations” of Amen found elsewhere in the Mass, such as when Amen is translated “Amen” at the end of the Creed, or rendered as “Amen” after the doxology of the canon (which point is commonly referred to as the “great Amen”. Or perhaps when the Amen ending signs of the cross and blessings is translated as “Amen.” I’m sensing a pattern.
Click to expand...
Quoted for awesomeness.
 
LilyM said:
The bishops are the authority of the Church!!!
Click to expand...
Bishops are the Authority of the Church when ( and only when) they act in concert with Holy See.

When a bishop acts outside of the concert, they act outside of the Authority of the Church.
 
LilyM said:
Look, you want to be right that’s fine. You want to force your Bishop into a corner with your truth and turn him against both you and it? Keep on as you suggest. You’ll answer to God for the fact that your antagonistic attitude only drives him further away, as it surely will.

You want to help lead Him towards it instead? Which is kinda sorta your first duty being in possession of the truth yourself? Don’t make a scene in church, but approach the bishop quietly afterwards and explain yourself. You’ll fulfil your duty to him that way without antagonising anybody. If he still doesn’t listen, then all bets are off and you know at least you could’ve done no better or different.

And like it or not, you have a duty to catechise (not antagonise) your Bishop when he’s wrong.
Click to expand...
This is the Church’s truth—which the bishops must give their assent to. So please—don’t play your games by saying we are in the wrong. We are all responsible to God—moreso the bishops–who have the responsibility to safeguard the Mass—Not innovate it.

By the way—catechises is of no use—if the truth of the matter is swept under the rug.
 
It’s amazing how page after page of this absurd debate goes on…when the answer to the original question is so simple. We have people “answering to God” for simply stating facts.
 
Walking_Home said:
This is the Church’s truth—which the bishops must give their assent to. So please—don’t play your games by saying we are in the wrong. We are all responsible to God—moreso the bishops–who have the responsibility to safeguard the Mass—Not innovate it.

By the way—catechises is of no use—if the truth of the matter is swept under the rug.
Click to expand...
And antagonism is of no use at any time, no matter how right your views may be. And that’s what such a public point blank refusal is - antagonising the one you refuse.

And yes, we ARE answerable to God for how we treat all other people, even those who are wrong - they too are deserving of all the charity you’d want if you were the one being corrected. And we are all badly if not grievously wrong sometimes.

The need for charity and caution, as well as common sense, doubles when the one who is wrong is also those God is pleased to place in authority over you, because your actions impact his treatment of many many others as well.
 
**Folks:

Please edit your posts before hitting that send button and remove from them all personalization–just stay with the content! Your cooperation is appreciated.**
 
The answer is Amen. The poster’s original question has been answered…maybe 75-100 times?
 
LilyM said:
And antagonism is of no use at any time, no matter how right your views may be. And that’s what such a public point blank refusal is - antagonising the one you refuse.

And yes, we ARE answerable to God for how we treat all other people, even those who are wrong - they too are deserving of all the charity you’d want if you were the one being corrected. And we are all badly if not grievously wrong sometimes.

The need for charity and caution, as well as common sense, doubles when the one who is wrong is also those God is pleased to place in authority over you, because your actions impact his treatment of many many others as well.
Click to expand...
Enough LilyM. Enough with the twisting to place us in the wrong . What we have stated is what the Church expects from us. Charity without truth is void.
 
Lux_et_Tenebrae said:
As is truth without charity.

Lux
Click to expand...
When someone ---- whether layperson, priest, and/or bishop takes liberties with the Mass—they reflect no charity. They deny the faithfull a Mass as the Church intends. So enough with sweeping the uncharitable actions—which undermine the Mass —under the rug.
 
LilyM said:
Commanding you to sin mortally putting your soul in serious peril? As the theft or child abuse most likely would be grave or mortal sins? :hmmm: I think we need some perspective here.
Click to expand...
Well, stealing the lawnchair could be venial or mortal depending upon the cost of the chair and the financial situation of the person from whom it was stolen, but that’s beside the point. I chose two obvious evils that we all agree would entail no “disrespect” to a bishop if we were to disregard his order to perpetrate them as a sort of reductio ad absurdum - showing how following your argument to its extreme without qualification lands us in absurdity. You now seem to be offering some qualification of your argument to avoid that absurdity, but you don’t seem to have climbed fully out of the hole yet.

Why? Well, you ask if the command would be to sin mortally and say we need some perspective, as if you’re implying that so long as the bishop is only commanding us to sin venially we should go along with it and only change once we’ve managed to change his mind. The proper perspective for the matter is “If a bishop has commanded you to sin at all, you cannot obey that command.” Or, more precisely, “If a bishop has granted you the option to sin, you cannot and must not exercise that option.” Do you agree with that perspective, or do you hold that one is justified in sinning in order to obey a command that is illegitimate from the beginning?
Lux_et_Tenebrae said:
There are far greater sins (if indeed allowing this minor change is sinful)—pride is the most deadly of the capital sins, and than there is anger and also disrespecting a Bishop.

Lux
Click to expand...
Once again, two difficulties:
  1. if it is a sin, it doesn’t matter how grave, because we’re never justified in sinning
  2. it is far from established that simply disregarding an order to abuse the liturgy (especially if making no fuss whatsoever) is disrespecting a bishop
 
LilyM said:
Look, you want to be right that’s fine. You want to force your Bishop into a corner with your truth and turn him against both you and it? Keep on as you suggest. You’ll answer to God for the fact that your antagonistic attitude only drives him further away, as it surely will.

You want to help lead Him towards it instead? Which is kinda sorta your first duty being in possession of the truth yourself? Don’t make a scene in church, but approach the bishop quietly afterwards and explain yourself. You’ll fulfil your duty to him that way without antagonising anybody. If he still doesn’t listen, then all bets are off and you know at least you could’ve done no better or different.

And like it or not, you have a duty to catechise (not antagonise) your Bishop when he’s wrong.
Click to expand...
I decided to respond to this because I don’t think I remember anyone on this thread advocating making a scene during Mass over the response at communion. Rather, what I and I think some others have advocated is going up in line with everyone else, making the proper reverence, saying “Amen,” and receiving communion in the normal fashion.

The scenario imagined by those advocating abusing the liturgy along with the bishop, though, involves an “antagonistic attitude” that forces the bishop “into a corner.” Do you think simply responding “Amen” - as required by the legitimate law of the Church - creates some sort of scandalous firestorm around one’s reception of communion? I would never consider open confronting a bishop during the liturgy over a relatively minor abuse like this; rather, I would follow St. Thomas Aquinas’ advice (given below)about rebuking prelates when we have a duty in charity to do so. That doesn’t change the fact, though, that I simply do not have the option of saying something other than “Amen” at that point in the Mass. If the bishop tries to turn it into an issue then and there, then he is the one who has antagonistically forced a scene, not the person doing the only thing right conscience will allow.

From *Summa Theologica *II-II Q33 art.4:

I answer that, A subject is not competent to administer to his prelate the correction which is an act of justice through the coercive nature of punishment: but the fraternal correction which is an act of charity is within the competency of everyone in respect of any person towards whom he is bound by charity, provided there be something in that person which requires correction.
Now an act which proceeds from a habit or power extends to whatever is contained under the object of that power or habit: thus vision extends to all things comprised in the object of sight. Since, however, a virtuous act needs to be moderated by due circumstances, it follows that when a subject corrects his prelate, he ought to do so in a becoming manner, not with impudence and harshness, but with gentleness and respect. Hence the Apostle says (1 Tim. v. 1): An ancient man rebuke not, but entreat him as a father. Wherefore Dionysius finds fault with the monk Demophilus (Ep. viii), for rebuking a priest with insolence, by striking and turning him out of the church.

Reply Obj. 1. It would seem that a subject touches his prelate inordinately when he upbraids him with insolence, as also when he speaks ill of him: and this is signified by God’s condemnation of those who touched the mount and the ark.

Reply Obj. 2. To withstand anyone in public exceeds the mode of fraternal correction, and so Paul would not have withstood Peter then, unless he were in some way his equal as regards the defense of the faith. But one who is not an equal can reprove privately and respectfully. Hence the Apostle in writing to the Colossians (iv. 17) tells them to admonish their prelate: Say to Archippus: Fulfil thy ministry. (2 Tim. 4:5) It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter’s subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Gal. ii. 11, Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects.
Reply Obj. 3. To presume oneself to be simply better than one’s prelate, would seem to savor of presumptuous pride; but there is no presumption in thinking oneself better in some respect, because, in this life, no man is without some fault. We must also remember that when a man reproves his prelate charitably, it does not follow that he thinks himself any better, but merely that he offers his help to one who, being in the higher position among you, is therefore in greater danger, as Augustine observes in his Rule quoted above.

(I bolded the last response as it seemed especially applicable.)
 
I think that Charity must be brought back but I think its important to say how.

The original question here is: What may a person say when receiving Communion?

We have the answer:

Amen.

Its in the GIRM.

Now I think its insulting to say that we should educate, catechize a Catholic Bishop on that as if he didn’t know that already.

Of course they know that. Whether they want to enforce what they have sworn an oath to protect is up to them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top