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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gregory24
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Mysty101:
Fix, While Adoremus is a respected publication it is not official liturgical norms.
Click to expand...
What do you disagree with and whose authority are you claiming to accept that contradicts what I posted?
 
netmil(name removed by moderator) said:
😃 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…
Click to expand...

I am not responding to your uncle, I am responding to you.
mysty:
Again you twist my words–what I said was
Click to expand...
netmil(name removed by moderator):
:confused:
If that’s what you see…
Click to expand...
No, that is the way it is—Just look at what you claim I said, and look at the actural quote

This is what you always say, instead of responding to a challenge.

You made the statements, but you cannot defend them— 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
Click to expand...
Originally Posted by 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.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
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.

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.
Click to expand...
Who interprets the norms? Does the dicastery in Rome not have the authority to interpet the GIRM?
 
I do not genuflect at all, not even before entering the pew. I bow toward the altar before entering the pew. I also receive Holy Communion in the hand and I take the wine whenever the wine is offered because the Bible states Holy Communion is supposed to be administered under both the bread and the wine and not just the bread.
 
Louis Mazar:
I do not genuflect at all, not even before entering the pew. I bow toward the altar before entering the pew. I also receive Holy Communion in the hand and I take the wine whenever the wine is offered because the Bible states Holy Communion is supposed to be administered under both the bread and the wine and not just the bread.
Click to expand...
Where does the Bible command we receive Holy Communion under both species?
If this is so, then the Church was in error when it limited Holy Communion to be received by the laity only under the form of bread. Are you saying the Church taught error?
 
40.png
fix:
Who interprets the norms? Does the dicastery in Rome not have the authority to interpet the GIRM?
Click to expand...
This is very tricky—The norms are the rule. The norm must be reprobated or changed officially for it to be a valid interpretation that goes against the norm.

This is the reason for so much discussion of the standing/kneeling/genuflecting issue, and the reason for the "may not be denied " wording, rather than kneeling is permitted. And I have never heard of any consequence for a Priest who directed a communicant to stand.

There was much discussion about the reprobation of consecration in the flagon because it was an approved US adaptation. The USCCB did challenge it, but dropped the challenge. Who know what would have happened it it did go to canonical court.
 
40.png
Mysty101:
This is very tricky—The norms are the rule. The norm must be reprobated or changed officially for it to be a valid interpretation that goes against the norm.

This is the reason for so much discussion of the standing/kneeling/genuflecting issue, and the reason for the "may not be denied " wording, rather than kneeling is permitted. And I have never heard of any consequence for a Priest who directed a communicant to stand.

There was much discussion about the reprobation of consecration in the flagon because it was an approved US adaptation. The USCCB did challenge it, but dropped the challenge. Who know what would have happened it it did go to canonical court.
Click to expand...
The issue is interpretation. Rome is the interpreter. Do you have a citation that contradicts this assertion?
 
40.png
fix:
The issue is interpretation. Rome is the interpreter. Do you have a citation that contradicts this assertion?
Click to expand...
I have had this discussion a few times. I believe it is canon law, which is why it would need to be legitimately decided in canonical court.

I believe it is the priority of documents—a letter cannot supercede the GIRM.

But in reality I doubt anyone would challenge a letter from high sources, but if it were challenged, would it stand? That is the question.
 
40.png
Mysty101:
I have had this discussion a few times. I believe it is canon law, which is why it would need to be legitimately decided in canonical court.

I believe it is the priority of documents—a letter cannot supercede the GIRM.

But in reality I doubt anyone would challenge a letter from high sources, but if it were challenged, would it stand? That is the question.
Click to expand...
I would like to see the canon law? Does anyone have a source to show us?
 
40.png
Mysty101:
Here is a searchable version
intratext.com/X/ENG0017.htm
Click to expand...
So far I have found this

Can. 16 §1 Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator and by that person to whom the legislator entrusts the power of authentic interpretation. §2 An authentic interpretation which is presented by way of a law has the same force as the law itself, and must be promulgated. If it simply declares the sense of words which are certain in themselves, it has retroactive force. If it restricts or extends the law or resolves a doubt, it is not retroactive.

§3 On the other hand, an interpretation by way of a court judgement or of an administrative act in a particular case, does not have the force of law. It binds only those persons and affects only those matters for which it was given.

Can. 17 Ecclesiastical laws are to be understood according to the proper meaning of the words considered in their text and context. If the meaning remains doubtful or obscure, there must be recourse to parallel places, if there be any, to the purpose and circumstances of the law, and to the mind of the legislator.
 
Just be careful—remember you need a canon lawyer to interpret Canon Law 😉

It may have been under norms or documents.
 
40.png
Mysty101:
Just be careful—remember you need a canon lawyer to interpret Canon Law 😉 .
Click to expand...
I agree and even then not all interpretations are sound, that is why Rome has the final answer.
 
40.png
Mysty101:
I am not responding to your uncle, I am responding to you.
Click to expand...
Just as writing what my husband said about Linux makes the words credible, writing what my Uncle guides me to makes it credible as well.

I have no clue how to overcome the problem we have with your comprehension of what I write. Understanding that we are truly at an impass, I say God Bless you and keep you.
 
netmil(name removed by moderator):
Just as writing what my husband said about Linux makes the words credible, writing what my Uncle guides me to makes it credible as well…
Click to expand...
Your uncle guided 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
Click to expand...
I can’t imagine any Bishop telling any lay person to encourage or discourage anything.
I have no clue how to overcome the problem we have with your comprehension of what I write. Understanding that we are truly at an impass, I say God Bless you and keep you
Click to expand...
I understand very welll what you say—it is just in error
You still haven’t explained this contradiction
Originally Posted by 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.
Click to expand...
God bless you, too, and may the Holy Spirit Guide you
 
40.png
CatholicCid:
though, on another note, which is More correct… Recieving in the hand, or the tongue? Which one is more respectful?
Click to expand...
I’ve read many posts about this controversy in these forums and as a new Catholic who was just received into the Church last Easter, I have finally decided to contribute my two cents.

I apologise in advance to all those cradle Catholics who were raised to believe that receiving on the tongue is more respectful. Frankly, as one who was not taught to believe that from childhood, I have never been able to understand why “sticking my tongue out” to receive Communion is considered more “respectful”, especially in our culture. And yes, I’ve read all the arguments about not being worthy to touch the Body of Christ but, once again, I fail to see why my tongue (or stomach lining) is more “worthy” than my hand. Either way the Body of Christ touches a part of my body.

My point is that unless you have been indoctrinated to believe otherwise, it is not at all obvious that one method of receiving is more respectful than the other.
In His love,
Rhonda
 
I am so glad to hear someone else does this, I dont really see others doing this at my parish. I am a Convert of 12 years and ever since I returned from Medjugorje( 7 years ago, and most recently last year ) I have done this, as alot of people do this there. From time to time I will see someone genuflect before they recieve Jesus on their tongue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top