M
Mysty101
Guest
Redemptionis Sacramentum–
usccb.org/liturgy/documents/instructioneng.shtml
The Vatican instructions on the Eucharist–restating many of the norms in the GIRM
General Instruction of the Roman Missal
- Status
usccb.org/liturgy/documents/instructioneng.shtml
The Vatican instructions on the Eucharist–restating many of the norms in the GIRM
General Instruction of the Roman Missal
M
Mysty101
Guest
Most of us are in the US, and the norm here is standing with a bow as a sign of reverence.Ok. Let me think this through.
Not me friends. I genuflect. I will continue to genuflect. Nothing has been prescribed here in Ireland by our Bishops, but I think we need to be bold recognise him and confess that He is Lord.
- We genuflect once when we pass the tabernacle.
- We perform a double genuflection before the Blessed Sacrament when Jesus is exposed on the Altar.
- We do nothing when he is held up before our faces?
Some people will never understand wy we do it.
Some people will not like that we do it.
They are no reason to stop doing it.
T
tcraig
Guest
Actually, I think the norm is now nothing more than a nod of the head. Remember when the bishops instituted this? Right in the middle of the worst scandal American Catholics had ever known … the homosexual abuse by priests of young boys. I can remember seeing the instructions come out and thinking “Huh? Do they not have bigger fish to fry?”
While I can appreciate one’s desire to be obedient to his bishop, I think obedience is also a two-way street. Bishops must also be obedient to the teachings and norms of the church. It is not enough that only the laity exercise obedience. First, they must have good, solid examples from those whose job it is to “shepherd” their flock.
Interestingly enough, the bishops that are most obedient to Rome are also those where genuflecting/kneeling/altar rails are abundant in their dioceses. The dioceses where the most abuses occurs are also those where genuflecting/kneeling are actively discouraged, and altar rails are nonexistent. It appears that in many parishes, the norms are only enforced when they serve to lessen any outward signs of devotion.
M
Mysty101
Guest
PS
CatholicCid:
opWin(’/cgi-bin/audio.pl?norm0001.wav=norm’))
Pronunciation: 'norm
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin *norma, *literally, carpenter’s square
1 : an authoritative standard : MODEL
2 : a principle of right action binding upon the members of a group and serving to guide, control, or regulate proper and acceptable behavior
Main Entry: norm [m-w.com/images/audio.gif](javascript
opWin(’/cgi-bin/audio.pl?norm0001.wav=norm’))Pronunciation: 'norm
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin *norma, *literally, carpenter’s square
1 : an authoritative standard : MODEL
2 : a principle of right action binding upon the members of a group and serving to guide, control, or regulate proper and acceptable behavior
G
GodBlessJoanie
Guest
If you read the book GET US OUT OF HERE!!! by Maria Simma (it’s about Purgatory) you’ll never take the Holy Eucharist by the Hand again!
You can NEVER go wrong by showing MORE REVERENCE!
Bowing, genuflecting, receiving on the tongue, wearing a hat or head covering (for women) will always PLEASE THE LORD!
We Catholics needs to be more reverent!
Is the Mass Worship or entertainment?
Blessings,
Joanie
You can NEVER go wrong by showing MORE REVERENCE!
Bowing, genuflecting, receiving on the tongue, wearing a hat or head covering (for women) will always PLEASE THE LORD!
We Catholics needs to be more reverent!
Is the Mass Worship or entertainment?
Blessings,
Joanie
P
Purificator
Guest
The Catholic Church does not suggest that receiving on one’s tongue is “more reverent”, nor does the Church suggest that when women cover their heads they “please the Lord.”
P
Purificator
Guest
Any proof?
Interestingly enough, when a person kneels to receive Holy Communion at the Pauline Mass, they are place their own ideas of what is “best” ahead of what the Church actually directs. The GIRM is very clear on this.
R
rcn
Guest
The Church does not teach that any of these things are “more reverent”.
The large screaming red font doesn’t help your case either.
S
Sacramentalist
Guest
Ms.Simma was a crack-pot; her “revelations” were never approved by the Church.
O
otm
Guest
Only if you insist that words don’t mean what they say.**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.**
S
Sanctus
Guest
Steve Ray wrote a wonderful and well cited letter on the issue: I will post some of it here and link the letter in it’s entierety, I found it an intresting read
…it’s on his website and it comes up in the form of a word document…
Steve Ray’s Writings
that’s the link to all his writings—the letter is at the bottom titled “Genuflecting a No No?”
here’s the link to the document:
Genuflecting
…it’s on his website and it comes up in the form of a word document…
Steve Ray’s Writings
that’s the link to all his writings—the letter is at the bottom titled “Genuflecting a No No?”
here’s the link to the document:
Genuflecting
S
Sanctus
Guest
A
allhers
Guest
:bowdown: Make a profound bow, (from the waist) is what our Parish Priest told us, at the time, I was geneflecting. So, I obey. I make the sign of the Cross BEFORE I receive. (Sign of the Cross, Profound bow from the waist, Receive (with my eyes closed). I was raised to kneel, of course then we had Communion rails in all the Catholic Church’s. I quit kneeling when I almost fell over one time holding one of the grand-babies while receiving Holy Communion.
At first I felt like, oh great, here we go, eventually they will be saying, “move it along, or park it over there until we get to you, we are backed up.” Of course that was just my sarcastic thinking that got me thinking that.
Then, thanks to EWTN, I started watching the Masses in Rome, they usually only kneel or geneflect if they go up before the Holy Father and receive, I too, always knelt, geneflected or bowed to Jesus, not the person I was receiving from.(In other words, I would bow to Jesus even if I was receiving from an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.) I will see if I can find out if their is a difference in my thinking, but I serioulsy doubt it.
I also read on either the EWTN or the Vatican web site, when John Paul the great was the Pope that he, as the Bishop of Rome, wanted everyone in his diocese to receive on the tongue only, I already was, so that didn’t change for me.
At first I felt like, oh great, here we go, eventually they will be saying, “move it along, or park it over there until we get to you, we are backed up.” Of course that was just my sarcastic thinking that got me thinking that.
Then, thanks to EWTN, I started watching the Masses in Rome, they usually only kneel or geneflect if they go up before the Holy Father and receive, I too, always knelt, geneflected or bowed to Jesus, not the person I was receiving from.(In other words, I would bow to Jesus even if I was receiving from an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.) I will see if I can find out if their is a difference in my thinking, but I serioulsy doubt it.
I also read on either the EWTN or the Vatican web site, when John Paul the great was the Pope that he, as the Bishop of Rome, wanted everyone in his diocese to receive on the tongue only, I already was, so that didn’t change for me.
M
Mysty101
Guest
We’ve had so many discussions about this. As I said, I will follow the norm, because I do believe that the Bishops do have the “Common Spiritual good” at heart. If one’s personal idea of piety is not in the common good, is this really more reverent?
Most of these statements are private interpretations, and even the official statements were never challenged with regard to canon law. I certainly cannot understand a norm which cannot be instructed. Also, I have never heard a report of any consequences to a Priest for instructing a communicant to stand.
If the Bishop or Pastor has seen that the common Spiritual good would be served by offering provisions for communicants to kneel, this is fine, but to choose a different position does call attention to yourself, no matter what your intention. I personally cannot understand why a person would consider causing such a ruckus (by kneeliing or genuflecting in the middle of a standing procession) more reverent, but that is just me.
It is not always the best choice to demand a “right”.
Most of these statements are private interpretations, and even the official statements were never challenged with regard to canon law. I certainly cannot understand a norm which cannot be instructed. Also, I have never heard a report of any consequences to a Priest for instructing a communicant to stand.
If the Bishop or Pastor has seen that the common Spiritual good would be served by offering provisions for communicants to kneel, this is fine, but to choose a different position does call attention to yourself, no matter what your intention. I personally cannot understand why a person would consider causing such a ruckus (by kneeliing or genuflecting in the middle of a standing procession) more reverent, but that is just me.
It is not always the best choice to demand a “right”.
D
dumspirospero
Guest
I take it on the tongue while kneeling at the altar rail.
Gregory24:
O
otm
Guest
There is a consistent theme running through the forum, most notably in reference to hand holding or the orans postion during the Our Father, and that theme is that doing something different than a) what we are supposed to do (or not do), and b) that is it not called for, or allowed specifically in the GIRM is a clear sign of those who are obstinate in not following Rome.
And to my constant amazement, these same people feel that as long as they think it is more proper, or reverent, or holy, they are allowed to adjust the rubrics of receiving Communion, while calling the hand holders dissidents, liberals, Modernists, etc, and disparaging the hand holder as self centered, horizontal in worship, and most certainly not holy, reverent, or proper.
There is no liturgical procession I am aware of or have ever seen (and I go back well before Vatican 2) in which people while in procession stop and geneuflect. We never did that when there were altar rails; we simply went up and knelt down. And to any Masses I have been to of recent years in which there is still an altar rail in use, no one genuflects on the way up.
As there are only a few individuals in any church (if any) who do choose to genuflect, they are right; the GIRM doesn’t prohibit it. It does, however, contain the norm that we are to reverence the Eucharist with a bow.
Given that doing something as different as a genuflection during a procession catches attention, and the obvious desire of the Church for uniformity of act and posture, those who are genuflecting, whether or not they choose it, are drawing attention to themselves. Given the norm of bowing, and the fact that the vast majority are not genuflecting, one can reasonably ask why, if bowing is considered by Rome to be a proper reverence, all cannot manage to do that?
It is also a fact that a sudden, unexpected genuflection directly in front of someone who is not expecting it is not only disruptive of their medation of what they are about, but also an invitation to cause them to fall. If for no other reason than the physical safety of the person behind you, genuflecting should be avoided.
Further, the fact that there is no norm for the posture and/or act during the Our Father but there is for receiving communion should be a greater reason to follow the norm. This alone would make all the discussion about hand holding during the Our Father even more poignant concerning Communion; sadly, those who are most vehement about the Our Father turn out to be those promoting a difference from an explicit norm during Communion.
If nothing else, it shows some similarities between themselves and those they are most disdainful of - those they label as dissidents, liberals and Modernists.
And to my constant amazement, these same people feel that as long as they think it is more proper, or reverent, or holy, they are allowed to adjust the rubrics of receiving Communion, while calling the hand holders dissidents, liberals, Modernists, etc, and disparaging the hand holder as self centered, horizontal in worship, and most certainly not holy, reverent, or proper.
There is no liturgical procession I am aware of or have ever seen (and I go back well before Vatican 2) in which people while in procession stop and geneuflect. We never did that when there were altar rails; we simply went up and knelt down. And to any Masses I have been to of recent years in which there is still an altar rail in use, no one genuflects on the way up.
As there are only a few individuals in any church (if any) who do choose to genuflect, they are right; the GIRM doesn’t prohibit it. It does, however, contain the norm that we are to reverence the Eucharist with a bow.
Given that doing something as different as a genuflection during a procession catches attention, and the obvious desire of the Church for uniformity of act and posture, those who are genuflecting, whether or not they choose it, are drawing attention to themselves. Given the norm of bowing, and the fact that the vast majority are not genuflecting, one can reasonably ask why, if bowing is considered by Rome to be a proper reverence, all cannot manage to do that?
It is also a fact that a sudden, unexpected genuflection directly in front of someone who is not expecting it is not only disruptive of their medation of what they are about, but also an invitation to cause them to fall. If for no other reason than the physical safety of the person behind you, genuflecting should be avoided.
Further, the fact that there is no norm for the posture and/or act during the Our Father but there is for receiving communion should be a greater reason to follow the norm. This alone would make all the discussion about hand holding during the Our Father even more poignant concerning Communion; sadly, those who are most vehement about the Our Father turn out to be those promoting a difference from an explicit norm during Communion.
If nothing else, it shows some similarities between themselves and those they are most disdainful of - those they label as dissidents, liberals and Modernists.
D
dumspirospero
Guest
Sorry I don’t fit your stereotype…nice try, would you like to try again?
otm:
O
otm
Guest
There seems to be some confusion that Rome has abrogated the norm of receiving Communion and that kneeling is perfectly acceptable.
Those who take this position state the response by Rome that Communion cannot be refused to someone who kneels. they therefore assume that rome has now given its blessing to kneeling, language in the GIRM to the contrary.
Refusing someone Communion is a canoncialpenalty, and may only be imposed under certain conditions. When the GIRM came out with receiving standing as the norm, a few priests took it upon themselves to inflict a canonical penalty, and for that they were wrong and properly censured.
However, the language of the GIRM was not removed, changed, abrogated, doen away with, or anything else.
The norm was and is standing; and the GIRM specifically says that those who don’t are to be counseled. That in and of itself is a clear indication that the norm is just a nice idea, or a suggestion, or a wish for conformity. Those who kneel are in viloation of the norm, and while they feel that they can give themselves permission to do otherwise, they are doing the same exact thing that someone who stands during the Eucharistic prayer are doing; they are deciding for themselves what is proper and what is not.
Unlsee and until the GIRM is changed to remove the language (at the bare minimum) that one who kneels for Communion is to be counseled, the law is that one is to receive standing. those who insist to the contrary are just chhosing to ignore the plain language of the GIRM. And we could include the admonition about motes and splinters to those who choose to kneel.
Those who take this position state the response by Rome that Communion cannot be refused to someone who kneels. they therefore assume that rome has now given its blessing to kneeling, language in the GIRM to the contrary.
Refusing someone Communion is a canoncialpenalty, and may only be imposed under certain conditions. When the GIRM came out with receiving standing as the norm, a few priests took it upon themselves to inflict a canonical penalty, and for that they were wrong and properly censured.
However, the language of the GIRM was not removed, changed, abrogated, doen away with, or anything else.
The norm was and is standing; and the GIRM specifically says that those who don’t are to be counseled. That in and of itself is a clear indication that the norm is just a nice idea, or a suggestion, or a wish for conformity. Those who kneel are in viloation of the norm, and while they feel that they can give themselves permission to do otherwise, they are doing the same exact thing that someone who stands during the Eucharistic prayer are doing; they are deciding for themselves what is proper and what is not.
Unlsee and until the GIRM is changed to remove the language (at the bare minimum) that one who kneels for Communion is to be counseled, the law is that one is to receive standing. those who insist to the contrary are just chhosing to ignore the plain language of the GIRM. And we could include the admonition about motes and splinters to those who choose to kneel.
L
legeorge
Guest
I’m pretty sure someone will pound me with a barrage of liturgical norms and GIRM and all that fancy book-learnin’ stuff 
but this was an experience I had:
A couple of years ago, I was at a large celebration of the Mass for Divine Mercy Sunday at a local Shrine. For some reason, I was particularly moved during the Mass and was uncontrollably weeping all the way through the Eucharistic Prayer (I tried so hard not to be noticed!). On my way up to Communion, while the person directly in front of me was receiving Communion, I felt a tremendous force on my shoulders and had to go down on one knee. I got a strong feeling that I should always do this before receiving the Eucharist. Since then, I have always bowed my head and dropped to one knee before standing to receive. I almost always receive on the tongue. If, however, I happen to get an EMHC gravitate to my line, I will receive in the hand (only if I am not holding a child, which is a great way to avoid receiving in the hand BTW!). However, I only have to do this about once or twice a year. I try to avoid that situation because the last time it happened, the EMHC plopped the host into my hand like a necco wafer and I felt so offended by his nonchalance, that I practically cried for the rest of Mass. Usually I don’t even have to think about it, as 75% of the time we go to Mass at the Shrine, which is Maronite, and so everyone receives on the tongue since the Maronite Rite practices intinction, and the Priest is the only one to distribute Communion. Praise Be To God! (Sorry if I am offending anyone, but I’m not a really big fan of EMHC as you can probably tell.)
Take this as you will. It is only the experience of one lowly person trying to determine God’s will. This is what works for me and I hope it is pleasing to the Lord.
but this was an experience I had:A couple of years ago, I was at a large celebration of the Mass for Divine Mercy Sunday at a local Shrine. For some reason, I was particularly moved during the Mass and was uncontrollably weeping all the way through the Eucharistic Prayer (I tried so hard not to be noticed!). On my way up to Communion, while the person directly in front of me was receiving Communion, I felt a tremendous force on my shoulders and had to go down on one knee. I got a strong feeling that I should always do this before receiving the Eucharist. Since then, I have always bowed my head and dropped to one knee before standing to receive. I almost always receive on the tongue. If, however, I happen to get an EMHC gravitate to my line, I will receive in the hand (only if I am not holding a child, which is a great way to avoid receiving in the hand BTW!). However, I only have to do this about once or twice a year. I try to avoid that situation because the last time it happened, the EMHC plopped the host into my hand like a necco wafer and I felt so offended by his nonchalance, that I practically cried for the rest of Mass. Usually I don’t even have to think about it, as 75% of the time we go to Mass at the Shrine, which is Maronite, and so everyone receives on the tongue since the Maronite Rite practices intinction, and the Priest is the only one to distribute Communion. Praise Be To God! (Sorry if I am offending anyone, but I’m not a really big fan of EMHC as you can probably tell.)
Take this as you will. It is only the experience of one lowly person trying to determine God’s will. This is what works for me and I hope it is pleasing to the Lord.
Z
Zosimus
Guest
Perhaps because most think that vatican II gave a license to do what ever feels right for the same reasons people mimic the priest in the orans posture as if it adds some sort of “prayer power”, holding hands during the Our Father, sing top 40s Christian music etc…
We are a stuborn people we want things our way. Do you think God makes allowances for changes as he is never changing, all knowing the commandments that are made for mankind are never changing. Who are we to change the way things are done?
St Paul calls us to be seporate. John the Baptist has warned us reminding us HAVE YOU NOT HEARD? HAS IT NOT BEEN TOLD TO YOU SINCE THE BEGINING? GODS WAYS ARE NOT OUR WAYS!
JESUS IS TRULY PRESENT IN THE EUCHARIST I would say God Bless you!! God gave his ONLY SON for our sins and for those who grab at the Eucharist and take it less then being the TRUE PRESENCE OF CHRIST HIMSELF THEY SHALL HAVE A RUDE AWAKENING WHEN THE CHRIST COMES BACK TO JUDGE MANKIND.
- Status