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
fix:
The pope and those he delegates in his name such as the dicastery in charge.
Click to expand...
Yes, but they must be acting in official authentic capacity. Just as the Pope must be teaching ex cathedra to evoke infallibility.

Look at this senario, and this is a grave matter. (I cannot imagine Rome overriding the Bishop on such a minor matter as posture. (note the precise wording in the instructions for the standing norm)
(from questions on the USCCB site)
. Why did the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments revise the USCCB Norms
Click to expand...
in regard to the pouring of the Precious Blood at the time of the Lamb of God from a flagon into chalices for distribution (See BCL Newsletter, July, 2004)?

On March 22, 2002, the USCCB approved Norms which provided for the pouring of the Precious Blood during the singing of the Lamb of God into chalices for distribution to the faithful. These norms were confirmed by the Holy See on March 22, 2002. On March 25, 2004, the Congregation published an instruction under the title, Redemptionis Sacramentum [RS], which prescribed that “the pouring of the Blood of Christ after the consecration from one vessel to another is completely to be avoided, lest anything should happen that would be to the detriment of so great a mystery. Never to be used for containing the Blood of the Lord are flagons, bowls, or other vessels that are not fully in accord with the established norms” (RS, no. 106). On April 27, 2004 Cardinal Francis George, O.M.I., Chairman of the USCCB Committee on the Liturgy, wrote to Cardinal Francis Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation, noting the discrepancy between Redemptionis Sacramentum and the USCCB Norms in regard to pouring the Precious Blood and the use of flagons. Cardinal Arinze responded on May 6, 2004 (Prot n. 660/04/L) with a letter modifying the Congregation’s “original confirmation in regard to numbers 36 and 37 of these Norms” and including an emended text of the USCCB Norms which eliminates both the pouring of the Precious Blood and the use of flagons.

Does the Congregation have the authority to change particular law in this regard?

On August 2, 2004, Cardinal George wrote to Cardinal Arinze once again, noting that several Bishops “have questioned the competence of the Congregation to revise its
recognitio of norms approved and confirmed on a prior occasion.” On August 4, 2004, Cardinal Arinze responded (Prot. n. 660/04/L) to Cardinal George’s letter, observing that while “a provision of complementary legislation, once granted recognitio, may not simply be revised…,” it must be borne in mind that: (1) “an Instruction may develop the manner in which a law is to be put into effect (cf. can. 34 §1)…” and (2) “the effect of Redemptionis Sacramentum, nos.105-106 was to render inoperative certain elements contained in nos. 36-37 of the Norms since a presumption upon which the complementary norm has been based could no longer be maintained as being in accord with the ius commune.” Therefore, “the Congregation has attempted to supply a formulation according to which the existing legislation could be implemented in the light of the new Instruction, Redemptionis Sacramentum, maintaining insofar as possible the evident intentions of the Bishops in a way which would conform with the general norm of law.”
 
Originally Posted by 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…

Your uncle guided this?
Quote:

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

I can’t imagine any Bishop telling any lay person to encourage or discourage anything.
Click to expand...
Encouragement or discouragement is more than words. Continuing to do something or stopping is also a form of each. I was told to that checking with one’s own Bishop before doing an innovation is the best bet. A Bishop is a spiritual leader. When asked what should be done, what else do you want him to do?
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

I understand very welll what you say—it is just in error
You still haven’t explained this contradiction
Quote:
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...
I know this is hard so I try one more time…The laity is forbidden to use the Orans position by the Vatican however some Bishops have chosen to overlook it. Not all mind you, some are going with the documents that I have sited for you many times. We should be obedient to our Bishop. You need to check with your own Bishop before using such an innovation (and encouraging others by using it in the liturgy).
I hope this helps!
 
netmil(name removed by moderator):
I know this is hard so I try one more time…The laity is forbidden to use the Orans position by the Vatican however some Bishops have chosen to overlook it. Not all mind you, some are going with the documents that I have sited for you many times. We should be obedient to our Bishop. You need to check with your own Bishop before using such an innovation (and encouraging others by using it in the liturgy).
I hope this helps!
Click to expand...
You are so sarcastic–You know this is hard? Actually it isn’t. You are wrong yet again.

First it is OK to ridicule people, then something is forbidden, then it isn’t. Then it is forbidden, but the Bishop can ignore this.

If it is forbidden by the Vatican, then what you should is write to the Vatican if your Bishop is telling you to do it.

But actually it isn’t forbidden, if the Bishop can allow it. And this is what I said from the very beginning.
 
PS This orans position that is forbidden, but some Bishops may allow–did you ask your uncle if it is OK to ridicule people for using it?

As I said my whole purpose in entering this discussion was to try to stop the ridicule.
 
40.png
Mysty101:
You are so sarcastic–You know this is hard? Actually it isn’t. You are wrong yet again.

First it is OK to ridicule people, then something is forbidden, then it isn’t. Then it is forbidden, but the Bishop can ignore this.

If it is forbidden by the Vatican, then what you should is write to the Vatican if your Bishop is telling you to do it.

But actually it isn’t forbidden, if the Bishop can allow it. And this is what I said from the very beginning.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand how someone who continually states what is unchristian and what isn’t, can be so hard hearted and insulting when someone is trying to explain something. If Christ’s actions were ridiculed in the past, would He be rude now? You have told so many of the posters how unchristian they are. Please consider showing a good example.

(My Bishop is telling me that the Orans position is for the Priest in the liturgy. My heart goes out to those in Cleveland, LA and such.)

Christian charity goes both ways. Show a good example to those younger than you and perhaps you will be blessed in many ways.
I’ve done all the explaining to you that I can. I’m sorry you still don’t get it. Spin it, turn it around, break it to pieces and look at it again, it will still be the same concept. Maybe if you look at all of this again through open eyes without a closed mind, you might understand.

But for now I will lay no more Pearls before Swine…
 
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…
Click to expand...
I definitely don’t think that your public display of piety is really appropriate, unless you have a real reputation for holiness that is recognized by the other folks there. Maybe if you’re a member of a strict order, or something like that, but if you’re just an ordinary lay Joe Catholic sitting in the pews, I’d advise you against it.

It appears as if you’re just try to show up the others in the pews and trying to appear more catholic than the priest or even the bishop, even though I know you’re not.

Appearances are important, if you’ll remember the biblical story of the publican and pharisee in the temple praying.

You should really adopt the same common posture of the others there to avoid the appearance that you’re “putting down” the others or to call attention to yourself.
 
netmil(name removed by moderator):
But for now I will lay no more Pearls before Swine…
Click to expand...
As usual, when you can’t defend a statement, resort to ridicule. Did your uncle guide you on this post?
 
40.png
Kielbasi:
I definitely don’t think that your public display of piety is really appropriate, unless you have a real reputation for holiness that is recognized by the other folks there.

Are there any times when a public display of piety is appropriate? What could inspire piety more than recognizing the Real Presence?

Maybe if you’re a member of a strict order, or something like that, but if you’re just an ordinary lay Joe Catholic sitting in the pews, I’d advise you against it.

It appears as if you’re just try to show up the others in the pews and trying to appear more catholic than the priest or even the bishop, even though I know you’re not.

I suspect that there are some Catholics who are more Catholic than certain priests and certain bishops. But, perhaps a public display of piety, and humility for that matter, is not catholic.

Appearances are important, if you’ll remember the biblical story of the publican and pharisee in the temple praying.
  1. Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a Publican. 11. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank you, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this Publican.
  2. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
  3. And the Publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes to heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. 14. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalts himself shall be abased; and he that humbles himself shall be exalted.
AUGUSTINE: Since faith is not a gift of the proud but of the humble, our Lord proceeds to add a parable concerning humility and against pride. The Pharisee was condemned because he prayed heedlessly. As it follows, The Pharisee stood and prayed with himself. It is said “standing,” to denote his haughty temper. For his very posture betokens his extreme pride.

You should really adopt the same common posture of the others there to avoid the appearance that you’re “putting down” the others or to call attention to yourself.
Click to expand...
If we had the strength of conviction, we should lay prostrate.
 
40.png
Mysty101:
As usual, when you can’t defend a statement, resort to ridicule. Did your uncle guide you on this post?
Click to expand...
My Uncle encourages me to read the Bible quite a lot

“Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces” (Matt. 7:6).
 
40.png
MrS:
If we had the strength of conviction, we should lay prostrate.
Click to expand...
Actually using the idea that laying prostrate is not mentioned in the GIRM, we have perfect right to go for it.😃
 
It seems to me that this thread is getting bogged down in the “legalism” that we were supposed to have abandoned after Vatican II arguing over the minutae of Canon Law and the GIRM.

To me what is at stake here is the reverence we owe to Our Lord’s Body really present in the Blessed Sacrament. I take a point made earlier that the Bishops may have been trying to introduce a measure of respect that had disappeared in our modern times and in so doing may have chosen a form that could be considered acceptable to even the most superficial of Catholics.

The truth is that the first and greatest mistake was the introduction of the “communion queue”. Standing in line and receiving in the hand may not have been intended to demystify the Sacrament but that was certainly its effect. I have never seen anyone bow their head, and many just take the host and wander off chewing on it like a piece of gum. Some even carry on conversations as they process to the Sacrament. The lack of respect of many Catholics these days amounts to an outright denial of the Real Presence.

That being said the Bishops are to be commended for trying to restore some respect. What concerns me is the implied condemnation of those who wish to reverence the Sacrament by kneeling to receive it (by counselling them afterwards). This seems to indicate that the Sacrament should only be acknowledged not reverenced. The only real justification for not genuflecting (and I note even the US GIRM makes no comment about genuflecting before receiving) is the danger of those behind you tripping over you and in my experience the line moves slowly enough to enable a well timed genuflection to be made safely.

I have a similar experience with the Creed. In the Australian Missal it says that everyone should bow at the Incarnatus (not genuflect). In fact I have never in 20 years seen a single person, or priest bow at that point. I have thus returned to genuflecting at that point, not to show my own piety but in the hope that others will at least note the recognition of the awesome mystery of the Incarnation as prescribed by the Church. It has had some effect, I have noted a few of our parishioners now at least bow their head.

The strict rules of ritual are to be observed by the Priest and those actually involved in the rites of the Church. The faithful surely must be permitted some flexibility in expressing their devotion, especially as others exploit their flexibility to not express their devotion yet are not counselled for their failure to abide by the Bishops rulings.

The fact is that a number of priests and even Bishops seem determined to minimise the devotions of the individual faithful. To show adoration to the Blessed Sacrament is not divisive unless Christ is not really present, and I haven’t yet heard that the Church has abolished that dogma.

Re an earlier question: I am in the Diocese of Lismore in Northern NSW.
 
40.png
Mysty101:
Yes, but they must be acting in official authentic capacity. Just as the Pope must be teaching ex cathedra to evoke infallibility.

There is the ordinary magisterium and the extraordinary magisterium. The pope speaks infallibly through the ordinary magisterium often.

When a bishop, for example, submits a question to a dicastery about an issue do you suppose the answer is unofficial, unless the answerer specfically states it is his private opinion?

The example you posted seems to reflect my assertion. The congregation in Rome is the authority.

BTW, if Rome is not the final authority why did George write to them?
Click to expand...
 
I do agree with you for the most part.

My point is that every letter written from Rome does not have the authority to override an approved norm.

I am not making a call on anything, just bringing in a point for consideration.
 
Swiss Guard,

The Bible states that at the Last Supper that Christ offered both bread and wine to the Apostles and not just the bread. And yes the Catholic Church was in error when it only allowed the laity to receive only the bread and not the wine.
 
Quite frankly, until the USCCB starts listening to Rome a little more, I follow the norms of Rome rather than the norms of America. Though I believe both postures are acceptable, as long as it is done with reverence and humility. The whole point behind it all is to show an outward sign of respect to Our Lord. Yes, both postures may be distracting, they may be hazardous, and maybe some people won’t like it, but that does not make neither of them morally wrong, and if it’s not morally wrong, I don’t see what’s the reason for throwing punches at each other. There are more important things to argue about. Honestly people, in a society that lacks reverence and respect for Christ in the Eucharist, the fact that those doing some outward sign of respect is something to praise and be thankful for. We Americans tend to be so concerned about efficiency and time! So a few people kneel while receiving and the line becomes slower…SO WHAT?? What’s the hurry anyway? A few minutes more in Church on the Sabbath won’t hurt.
Remember, this is Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, and if one approaches him kneeling in awed reverence will not be turned away, and should not be turned away, for he has committed no crime. Nor should that person be judged or insulted for doing so.
 
snow white,

It is a fallacy to think that Sunday is the Sabbath. Sunday has never been the Sabbath. Saturday is the Sabbath. Sunday is the Lord’s Day.
 
Louis,
I apologize, you are correct, it is the Lord’s Day. It should have said, “A few more minutes on the Lord’s Day won’t hurt”.
 
Maybe I have a simplistic view of things. Maybe I’m just too dense to understand. The argument that has been raging in this forum over the proper posture to receive Holy Communion seems to me very strange almost incomprehensible. I was taught and believe that at the consecration, the bread and wine becomes the actual substantial body and blood of Jesus Christ. It is not symbolic, it is not a gesture nor a remembrance. The Lord Jesus Christ, GOD himself is present in the Eucharist. I mean think about it for a second. The Lord Jesus Christ, God himself physically present in the Eucharist, physically present among us, us, sinners that we are, imperfect that we are, weak as we are, Jesus is present. The miracle of that transformation is incomprehensible. Amazing simply amazing.

I once heard a well known anti-Catholic speaker remark that if Catholics “really believed” in the true presence, if they “actually believed” that the Lord Jesus Christ was in fact present among them, why didn’t they get on their knees and crawl to the Altar? It seemed to me to be a good probing question. Why would anyone, anywhere, who truly believed he was in the presence of God, not want to kneel or even prostrate himself, if not in adoration, at least as a form of the utmost respect? And why would anyone think a simple nod of the head was sufficient respect shown to God? It is really beyond my comprehension.

I remember from history, one of Martin Luthers main problems was accepting that the Eucharist was actually the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. In fact he railed against it, and preached that the Eucharist was nothing more than a “symbol” of Jesus. Just a symbol. That is actually what the Protestant sects that have Eucharistic assemblies believe. They are receiving a symbol" of Jesus Christ, nothing more than a symbol.

Based on that fact, and since it is well documented that one of the principal reasons for Vatican II reforms was to make Catholicism more acceptable to the Protestant Churches, with an eventual aim of re-unification under one belief system, doesn’t the possibility exist that receiving in the hand, while standing, with minimal respect shown to the Eucharist. is a nod to Protestant sensibilities? After all, they don’t believe in the real presence, and to them kneeling might seem silly. It might keep them from returning to the church. Such an outmoded and irrelevant action should be done away with.

And to take it a step further, doesn’t the possibility exist that based on everthing that has happened in the past forty years, the Church one day might say hey we were mistaken. The Eucharist isn’t really the body and blood of Jesus. That was an idea from the Middle Ages, before science and reason showed us the truth. The bread and wine really are just symbols. The Real Eucharist exists in the assembly of the people. In fact, you are the Eucharist and so is the person next to you.

I have read several articles, by Catholic theologins who argue just that point by the way. And from what I understand the concept of the congregation being the Eucharist is being taught in catechism and RCIA classes in some if not many places.

If statistics are correct, a majority of Catholics in the United States already believe the Eucharist is just a symbol. And why would you need to show respect, such as kneeling or genuflecting to a piece of bread? However… I believe in God the Father Almighty, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, in Jesus Christ his only begotten son, and in the Holy Ghost. Three distinct persons in one divine nature. And since I believe that, I think I will continue to kneel in his true presence. After all, Rome has been wrong in the past, heresies have existed, schisms have and continue to occur, and through it all the Holy Roman Catholic Church has survived.

MOST SACRED HEART OF JESUS PRAY FOR US
MOST SACRED HEART OF JESUS PRAY FOR US
MOST SACRED HEART OF JESUS PRAY FOR US
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top