Why is it that I seem to be the only one doing this...?

[Sacramentalist]

legeorge:

Well, we have had 2 very wonderful monsignors at the shrine since I have been going there. Many, many people pause to genuflect before approaching the priest. All receive standing. Neither one of these monsignors has ever said not to. And they are quite outspoken, so if so many people were doing something out of order, we would have heard about it.

Whether the Monsignors permit it is absolutely irrelevant.

It’s a question of whether or not it is proper to Maronite liturgical spirituality to genuflect at the Blessed Sacrament, or whether this is just another Latinization.

We laity need to stop taking our priests’ word for these things and do the research ourselves.

 

[otm]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

The problem with your response is three fold.

1. This posture IS actually addressed. Unlike holding hands at the Our Father or the Orans position at that time, (which is what conservatives have a problem with) which are NOT addressed in the GIRM but are in other Vatican documents. Liberals (your word) assume that because they don’t see it in the GIRM, they can disregard the other documents.
2. I gave and example where Arinze stated that the posture should not be assumed to be rigid. The issues that the Liberals (again your word) choose to ignore those documents that state what they are doing is, for example, “For the celebrant”. When putting in an innovation, one must check all the documents.
3. Each Bishop is to shepherd to his flock. We must do more than look at a general document if one needs to find out. Call the office because some Bishops see things differently from the group. Your Bishop is your last word. Either way.

In our parish, we are allowed to kneel. To say to me that I must stand is not what my Bishop has stated. Just because a person must be counciled does not mean counciled to stand. That is up to the Bishop as to what the counciling will resolve.

Your speaking of other documents shows the general lack of understanding of how the Church regulates things. There may be a whole series of documents (which could include letters), but letters do not overrule the ruling document; the ruling document is just that.

In addition, the fact that one of the Congregations may issue an opinion does not overrule the ruling document; the ruling document takes precedence until it is revoked or changed; in other words, the document is reissued.

Your comment directly contradicts a number of posters througout the form (an example would be Cardinal Mahoney, and comment about how he has followed, or not followed the GIRM and Redemptionis Sacramentum).

It seems to me that I am hearing that it is ok for one bishop to change a practice or a norm, but not ok for another.

Arinze’s comment was specific to a specific question on a specific part of the GIRM and is not applicable to other parts; and more particularly is not applicable because it answers specifically to a section of the GIRM that was not clear; the sections which people are trying to apply his response to are perfectly clear, just opposed.

And your comment that the statement in the GIRM about being counseled QUOTE=netmil(name removed by moderator)]Just because a person must be counciled does not mean counciled to stand. simply flies in the face of the only logical reading possible.

I understand that there are other letters, etc. from the Vatican concerning hand holding, the orans posture, etc. They are, however, not the rubrics; that is found in the GIRM; that is why we have the GIRM, so that there is one consistent document that covers whatever is necessary for the liturgy.

Let me give an example: the rubrics are analogus in terms of rulings and laws to the tax code. The code itself is the law; then come regulations to implement the law, then rulings, then opinion letters. All of the subsequent documents are subservient to code (or the GIRM). Some people have the attitutde that “If Rome said it, I believe it, and that ends it”. That gives equal weight to anything which Rome says; but the reality is that not everthing Rome says has equal weight. That attitude also leads to a game of “I trump you with this letter”, or a pick and choose approach to the issue. and by the way, the GIRM is not a general document, it is the ruling document.

 

[Mysty101]

&

Perhaps a repeat of what I have been saying all along might be understood.

I have been saying forever that a letter does not supercede a norm, but since the Bishops never challenged it, we will never know if it would stand.

Also let me clarify further the role of the Bishop—He has final say “within his competency” (another vague statement), and only if he has not violated a norm, which is the point we have been arguing.

Funny how some people have changed their tune on the orans position.

 

[netmilsmom]

otm:

Your speaking of other documents shows the general lack of understanding of how the Church regulates things. There may be a whole series of documents (which could include letters), but letters do not overrule the ruling document; the ruling document is just that.

.

I’m sorry but you do not understand that there are many directives to the Bishops. For example…
Acronym

Document Name (Latin)

Common Name

Date Issued

CIC/83

Codex Iuris Canonici

Code of Canon Law

1983

ICP
Instruction on Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of Priest
1997

ID

Inaestimabile Donum
1970

AGI
Appendix to the General Instruction for Dioceses in the United States
1970

PS

Paschales Solemnitatis
On the Preparation and Celebration of the Easter Feasts
1988

DC

Dominae Cenae
On the Mystery and Worship of the Eucharist
1980

MS

Misericordiam Suam
Introduction to the New Order of Penance
1974

HLS
“This Holy and Living Sacrifice: Directory for the Celebration and Reception of Communion under Both Kinds”
Issued by US Bishops and approved by Holy See
1984

             ***

*** When something is not mentioned in the GIRM but IS mentioned in one of these documents, it is liturgical law.
Because the Orans position is NOT mentioned in the GIRM does not negate the other documents in which it is forbidden to the laity.*
I do not have a general misunderstanding of how the church regulates things, In fact, because of relatives of mine I probably have a easier way to find out what is correct in a Bishop’s eyes.
And your reference?
*

---

• ---

 

[netmilsmom]

Mysty101:

Perhaps a repeat of what I have been saying all along might be understood.

I have been saying forever that a letter does not supercede a norm, but since the Bishops never challenged it, we will never know if it would stand.

Also let me clarify further the role of the Bishop—He has final say “within his competency” (another vague statement), and only if he has not violated a norm, which is the point we have been arguing.

Funny how some people have changed their tune on the orans position.

I’m sorry that you continue to close your eyes to what is being presented to you. Please see the liturgical documents above for the references…
"This (orans for the celebrant) is repeatedly made clear in the Church’s liturgical documents. For example, the Ceremonial of Bishops notes: “Customarily in the Church a bishop or presbyter addresses prayers to God while standing with hands slightly raised and outstretched” (CB 104).
Similarly, in the Book of Blessings, whenever there is a blessing which can be performed either by a member of the clergy or the laity, the rubrics invariably directs that “A minister who is a priest or deacon says the prayer of blessing with hands outstretched; a lay minister says the prayer with hands joined” (BB 1999). Over and over again, the rubrics direct clergy to pray with hands outstretched and laity with hands joined.

Fortunately, the recent Instruction on Collaboration (Nov. 13, 1997) drew the line on this issue and specifically mandated that “Neither may . . . non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions which are proper to the . . . priest celebrant” (ICP, Practical Provisions 6 §2)."

My position has never changed. Perhaps you can give me a citation where the Orans is permitted for the laity? Because it is NOT mentioned, these documents are correct.

 

[Mysty101]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

I’m sorry that you continue to close your eyes to what is being presented to you. Please see the liturgical documents above for the references…

Ditto
netmil(name removed by moderator):

My position has never changed. Perhaps you can give me a citation where the Orans is permitted for the laity? Because it is NOT mentioned, these documents are correct

Actually you have presented reasonable points, but I do take exception to this statement
Mysty:

And the fact that the bishop does have authority to regulate postures & gestures (and he probably does give at least implied approval to his pastors), wouldn’t it seem best to follow in the custom of the community?.

to which you responded
netmil(name removed by moderator):
No, and it’s not your call anyway.
In speaking with my Uncle this weekend, everything that I have been saying is correct. I am now going to research on those documents to read each one.
Also it was stated that YOUR use of the words uncharitable and other names that you called ME (even if MY words were wrong) was extremely unChristian of you.
I am to give you one chance for an apology.

then in another thread you said
netmil(name removed by moderator):
However, there is actually no need to do that. Only enforce the rules already in. Charlotte, NC and some other Diocese ARE discouraging the Orans position because of other liturgical documents. Cleveland and some other diocese are encouraging. One must see what the diocese one is living in is stating before encouraging or discouraging the Orans
I asked a question and you jump all over me and say it is not my call, yet you tell people it is up to them to encourage or discourage the orans position…How does this make sense, if the laity is forbidden to use the orans position? You are contradicting yourself.

GIRM

At the request of His Excellency, the Most Reverend Wilton D. Gregory, Bishop of Belleville, President of the Conference of Bishops of the United States of America, in a letter of November 13, 2002, and in virtue of the faculties granted to this Congregation by the Supreme Pontiff JOHN PAUL II, we gladly confirm and approve the English translation of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani

, excerpted from the third typical edition of the same Missal, as in the attached copy.

Two copies of the printed text should be forwarded to this Congregation.

All things to the contrary notwithstanding.

From the offices of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, March 17, 2003.

• Francis Cardinal Arinze
  Prefect
• Franciscus Pius Tamburrino
  Archbishop-Secretary
  Email us at bcl@usccb.org
  Committee on the Liturgy | 3211 4th Street, N.E., Washington DC 20017-1194 | (202) 541-3000 © USCCB. All rights reserved.

continued next post

 

[Mysty101]

I am only discussing US norms, since I am in the US.
Regarding the orans position, I have only found one statement by the USCCB.

(USCCB)
Many Catholics are in the habit of holding their hands in the “Orans” posture during the Lord’s prayer along with the celebrant. Some do this on their own as a private devotional posture while some congregations make it a general practice for their communities.

Is this practice permissible under the current rubrics, either as a private practice not something adopted by a particular parish as a communal gesture? No position is prescribed in the present Sacramentary for an assembly gesture during the Lord’s Prayer.

Email us at bcl@usccb.org
Committee on the Liturgy | 3211 4th Street, N.E., Washington DC 20017-1194 | (202) 541-3000 © USCCB. All rights reserved.

Now the local ordinary (Bishop) does have authority over posture (with approval) How would we know if he had implicit or explicit approval? So it is not up to us to tell anyone. The instructions regarding abuse are very clear.

Also, it has been mentioned many times that in 2 revisions or the GIRM, the Vatican has not chosen to get into this difference of interpretation. Perhaps it is because both sides have valid points, and Vatican will not override the authority of the Bishop in this matter?

If the Vatican will not step in, I really don’t think it is up to a lay person to make a call. I never said that anyone SHOULD use the orans position, just that it was not forbidden during the Lord’s Prayer, and that no one should be ridiculed at anytime for anything.

 

[InnocentIII]

Gregory24:

I always genuflect right before I receive holy communion, and I always take it on my tongue as a sign of respect. I am 24 and it seems that I am deffinetely the only one that genuflects at my church in florida… what do you guys do?

Regarding genuflection just prior to receiving communion, this was an issue I had for a long time. It is awkward and inconvenient for those behind but it was against all my upbringing to just walk up and receive the host. I think it has been adopted by many faithful as a substitute for kneeling at the altar rail - the best thing is as in our parish where we continue to kneel to receive communion.

As for reception on the toungue - you are not alone. About 70% of our parish do so and they are not all in their dotage.

 

[InnocentIII]

ridesawhitehors:

**Gregory24 !

Honey, I kneel! and recieve on the tongue. One of about 10 in my parish who do so. Totally acceptable in any cathlolic church - doesn’t matter what ANYONE says. **

AMEN to that. And don’t let the absence of altar rails deter you. Our church is a 70’s monstrosity with no rails at all but it doesn’t stop us from kneeling and Father encourages it … sainted priest that he is!!!

 

[InnocentIII]

Mysty101:

Most of us are in the US, and the norm here is standing with a bow as a sign of reverence.

OK I will risk seeming to pontificate on a fellow member of the Body of Christ. Here in Australia the norm is standing … but the bit about having a priest speak to me pastorally about kneeling strikes me as bizarre. Given some of the “reforms” pushed through by the USCCB I’m not sure I would give them all that much credence when it came to issuing a US version of the GIRM.

 

[Mysty101]

InnocentIII:

OK I will risk seeming to pontificate on a fellow member of the Body of Christ. Here in Australia the norm is standing … but the bit about having a priest speak to me pastorally about kneeling strikes me as bizarre. Given some of the “reforms” pushed through by the USCCB I’m not sure I would give them all that much credence when it came to issuing a US version of the GIRM.

Be careful what you say—these are Bishops, and the credence was given by the Vatican. You might want to show respect.

At the request of His Excellency, the Most Reverend Wilton D. Gregory, Bishop of Belleville, President of the Conference of Bishops of the United States of America, in a letter of November 13, 2002, and in virtue of the faculties granted to this Congregation by the Supreme Pontiff JOHN PAUL II, we gladly confirm and approve the English translation of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani

, excerpted from the third typical edition of the same Missal, as in the attached copy.

Two copies of the printed text should be forwarded to this Congregation.

All things to the contrary notwithstanding.

From the offices of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, March 17, 2003.

• Francis Cardinal Arinze
  Prefect
• Franciscus Pius Tamburrino
  Archbishop-Secretary
  Email us at bcl@usccb.org
  Committee on the Liturgy | 3211 4th Street, N.E., Washington DC 20017-1194 | (202) 541-3000 © USCCB. All rights reserved.

 

[netmilsmom]

Mysty101:

IRegarding the orans position, I have only found one statement by the USCCB.

And it states that no where in the GIRM is a posture stated. For that a Bishop must look at other liturgical documents.

Now the local ordinary (Bishop) does have authority over posture (with approval) .

My friend, I don’t think you get it. The local ordinary Bishop does NOT have authority to overrule those documents. While approval may have been given from the Vatican for a norm, that is standing for communion, that did NOT happen with the orans.

A Bishop could be just as easily replaced in a few years. The norm could change as well because approval could be revoked by a new Pope. That Bishop will find that things are not the way they were under JPII. If he is doing it, we are to obey. However, times are changing. If you are in Cleveland or LA, those times will be slow. Change will come.

Look at the Holy Masses that took place in the Vatican when B16 was made Pope, and those are the masses you will see in 20 years. The Charismatic masses will not be swept away, but the numbers of that movement in the US appear to be shrinking. Young people who raise their children in deep Catholic churches are growing, just in the number of offspring. They don’t want an innovative liturgy and the Vatican knows it. (and by the way, I got a laugh when comparing the orans to juggling. Perhaps you should learn from it)

However, just as you think that the people on this board cannot ridicule a prayer posture (and will not see that calling someone unchristian IS unchristian), you cannot enourage in a blanket statement that a person MAY use the orans posture (it’s against the Bishop in, say Charlotte) nor that a person may not kneel for communion. The Bishops themselves know the amount of council a person needs. They inform the priests.

To be frank, I believe that if everyone in a parish is standing, it MAY be better to stand as well. (I will not go and do a Spiritual Communion) Find another parish where people kneel and go there. But if you trip over someone who is kneeling, you have no clue whether that person has been councelled or not. You are in the wrong to presume that they have not been given permission individually.

One day, when the liturgical commitees are wondering what happened to their control, I will thank God for the conservative priests who recognize the problems those groups caused.

For the conservatives, your day will be here in good time. God Bless you Mysty and all like you. Those who fight the hardest are those who have the most to lose.

 

[InnocentIII]

Mysty101:

Be careful what you say—these are Bishops, and the credence was given by the Vatican. You might want to show respect.

I have shown respect to all my Bishop’s but I have also experienced here in Australia the pain of Bishop’s who flout the Magisterium when it suits them and the pain of a Magisterium that avoids disciplining them in the name of collegiality. I love God’s Holy Church and will obey it in all things but abuse of collegiality is precisely why the Church is in crisis here. Should I respect a bishop who has deliberately destroyed vocations in his diocese in order to introduce lay led congregations? or one who was forced to reinstate an orthodox priest he had sacked for insisting on traditions as they were laid down in the missal when Rome intervened? Give me a break. The Bishops have lost too much of their credibility to be simply taken at face value. I will obey a direct order of the Bishop if it does not conflict with Rome but I reserve the right to take it to Rome if my conscience is troubled.

 

[netmilsmom]

InnocentIII:

I have shown respect to all my Bishop’s but I have also experienced here in Australia the pain of Bishop’s who flout the Magisterium when it suits them and the pain of a Magisterium that avoids disciplining them in the name of collegiality. I love God’s Holy Church and will obey it in all things but abuse of collegiality is precisely why the Church is in crisis here. Should I respect a bishop who has deliberately destroyed vocations in his diocese in order to introduce lay led congregations? or one who was forced to reinstate an orthodox priest he had sacked for insisting on traditions as they were laid down in the missal when Rome intervened? Give me a break. The Bishops have lost too much of their credibility to be simply taken at face value. I will obey a direct order of the Bishop if it does not conflict with Rome but I reserve the right to take it to Rome if my conscience is troubled.

Are you in the Sydney Diocese?
Has your Bishop just been replaced?
(what are you doing up so late? )

 

[Mysty101]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

And it states that no where in the GIRM is a posture stated. For that a Bishop must look at other liturgical documents…

Where does it say that? What are your liturgical or canonical credentials?
netmil(name removed by moderator):

My friend, I don’t think you get it. The local ordinary Bishop does NOT have authority to overrule those documents. While approval may have been given from the Vatican for a norm, that is standing for communion, that did NOT happen with the orans.

Where did I say that–you really must read more carefully and respond to what is said, not what you think was said.
netmil(name removed by moderator):

However, just as you think that the people on this board cannot ridicule a prayer posture (and will not see that calling someone unchristian IS unchristian), you cannot enourage in a blanket statement that a person MAY use the orans posture (it’s against the Bishop in, say Charlotte) nor that a person may not kneel for communion. The Bishops themselves know the amount of council a person needs. They inform the priests.

Again you twist my words–what I said was
Mysty:

If the Vatican will not step in, I really don’t think it is up to a lay person to make a call. I never said that anyone SHOULD use the orans position, just that it was not forbidden during the Lord’s Prayer, and that no one should be ridiculed at anytime for anything

.
netmil(name removed by moderator):

To be frank, I believe that if everyone in a parish is standing, it MAY be better to stand as well. (I will not go and do a Spiritual Communion) Find another parish where people kneel and go there. But if you trip over someone who is kneeling, you have no clue whether that person has been councelled or not. You are in the wrong to presume that they have not been given permission individually.

I have not presumed or corrected anyone–I follow the instructions on abuse, and would not report a minor abuse—I just state my reasons for my understanding of the norm.
netmil(name removed by moderator):

For the conservatives, your day will be here in good time. God Bless you Mysty and all like you. Those who fight the hardest are those who have the most to lose

agreed and I repeat

If the Vatican will not step in, I really don’t think it is up to a lay person to make a call. I never said that anyone SHOULD use the orans position, just that it was not forbidden during the Lord’s Prayer, and that no one should be ridiculed at anytime for anything.

and you did not respond to this

Originally Posted by netmil(name removed by moderator)
However, there is actually no need to do that. Only enforce the rules already in. Charlotte, NC and some other Diocese ARE discouraging the Orans position because of other liturgical documents. Cleveland and some other diocese are encouraging. One must see what the diocese one is living in is stating before encouraging or discouraging the Orans

Mysty:

i asked a question and you jump all over me and say it is not my call, yet you tell people it is up to them to encourage or discourage the orans position…How does this make sense, if the laity is forbidden to use the orans position? You are contradicting yourself.

 

[Mysty101]

InnocentIII:

I have shown respect to all my Bishop’s but I have also experienced here in Australia the pain of Bishop’s who flout the Magisterium when it suits them and the pain of a Magisterium that avoids disciplining them in the name of collegiality. I love God’s Holy Church and will obey it in all things but abuse of collegiality is precisely why the Church is in crisis here. Should I respect a bishop who has deliberately destroyed vocations in his diocese in order to introduce lay led congregations? or one who was forced to reinstate an orthodox priest he had sacked for insisting on traditions as they were laid down in the missal when Rome intervened? Give me a break. The Bishops have lost too much of their credibility to be simply taken at face value. I will obey a direct order of the Bishop if it does not conflict with Rome but I reserve the right to take it to Rome if my conscience is troubled.

The key word is disrespect. You may disagree with the man, but not disrespect the office of Bishop, and more importantly the USCCB, or any congregation of Bishops.

 

[fix]

**Q We have been told that a “simple bow of the head”, amounting to a nod, is now the only gesture of reverence permitted before one receives Holy Communion. I am an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, and I can attest that no one has ever bowed their head before receiving, although some may genuflect briefly or make the sign of the cross. I have two questions.

1. Does the IGMR directive really mean that the only permissible gesture before receiving Communion is a simple bow?
2. Since most Catholics don’t have the habit of making any gesture of reverence at all before receiving, how do we persuade them to do so?**
   
   A First a clarification: This requirement for a gesture of reverence before receiving Communion is not new. This dates from the 1967 Instruction on the Eucharist (Eucharisticum Mysterium §34), and was repeated in Inaestimabile donum (1980). However, this rule has been honored in the breach when people stand to receive, thus it was repeated in the new IGMR.

If one receives kneeling, this is already a sign of adoration (Eucharisticum Mysterium §34), so no other sign is needed. But since most people receive standing and make no sign of reverence at all, the IGMR specified that the bishops’ conference decide on a gesture of reverence. So they decided on the bow, which would be simple enough that everyone could make it – in order to make it clear that a real sign of reverence is required of all Catholics just before they receive the Blessed Sacrament.

Apparently, most bishops saw specifying the bow as restoring people’s personal expression of reverence for the Sacrament they are about to receive, not to diminish it further.

A bow of the head is required; however, other traditional expressions of reverence (genuflection and sign of the cross) were not prohibited, and could be discreetly added. Indeed, the IGMR itself describes the meaning of various gestures (see sidebar page 5), and it prescribes that the priest is to genuflect before he receives Communion.

Genuflection – brief kneeling on one knee – is the traditional gesture of reverence to the Blessed Sacrament and also at the* Incarnatus* during the Creed, along with the sign of the cross. (Now we are to make a profound bow at the *Incarnatus *except on Christmas and the Annunciation, when we kneel.)

Generations of Catholics have genuflected and crossed themselves before entering and leaving their pews to reverence the Blessed Sacrament reserved in the tabernacle, and have made the sign of the Cross after receiving Communion. When people began receiving Communion standing in line rather than kneeling at the Communion rail, the gesture of reverence just before receiving was almost universally dropped.

Most bishops believe it is important that all Catholics express bodily their recognition of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The minimal gesture (simple bow) is one that everyone can make and that would not impede the distribution of Communion.

The bishop is responsible for restoring a gesture of reverence before Communion within his diocese, for both clergy and laity, as a pastor is in his own parish. Parents and teachers in Catholic schools can see to it that this is explained to youngsters – and all of us can teach by example.
adoremus.org/AdBull.html

 

[Mysty101]

Ps to Net,

If you wish to respond to me, please quote my post, so there is no confusion about what I said. Do not say “you said”, unless you quote my post—I am very tired of digging back to get what I said in responding to your inaccurate paraphrasing.

 

[Mysty101]

Fix, While Adoremus is a respected publication it is not official liturgical norms.

 

[netmilsmom]

Mysty101:

What are your liturgical or canonical credentials?

I personally have none, but I also know nothing about Linux either. Being married to a Linux expert gives weight to what I write because I ask him. lf you would like to see my Uncle’s liturgical or canonical qualifications, you could go to the Diocese of Steubenville website.

Again you twist my words–

If that’s what you see…