Pope Benedicts wishes for communicants

[curlycool89]

Originally Posted by TrueLight

Only if we can refrain from calling other people's opinions, "BS".

Sorry, I meant the part about both sides perpetually playing the victim card. We can't possibly have a conversation about something when either side just wants to wail about how they've been "mistreated" or "how bad they've had it" or how "life's not fair". It should be a conversation between adults, not children (and I want to emphasize that I've seen this on both sides).

[EcceAgnusDei]

Originally Posted by JReducation

Poppy songs, I agree. It's a wonderful name for them. I'll have to keep that in mind, if it's not copyrighted.

I'm reminded of "The Wizard of Oz": Poppies, poppies, poppies will put them to sleep! (hmmm, I wonder what Marx would have made of this... *laugh*)

What triggers a reaction from some Catholics is the generalization that what's good for many is good for all. We know that's not true.

I think this exact principle is what drives many traditionalists. They feel that "poppy songs" and everything else has been forced on the Church and decreed to be good for everyone. I can speak for my own diocese: there is no Mass where you can find Gregorian chant, Latin, sacred polyphonic hymns, the EF, or consistent traditional practices. What is a traditional-oriented Catholic to make of this, other than the fact that the Bishop thinks that this is good for his whole flock? (which wouldn't be far from the truth; he has announced at Mass that all should receive standing and then remain standing -- no returning to the pews and kneeling).

Just a thought to help those who don't identify with traditional Catholicism understand where some (but by no means all) of the trad's motivation may be coming from.

+ PAX

[JReducation]

Originally Posted by newyorkcatholic

You are probably right, I may be too harsh.

But my problem is questioning the charism itself. The charism of the Legionaries (not on the books, but in reality) *was* the 'charismatic personality' (sorry for the pun) of Maciel.

Renewing the Franciscans is fine, because we are all sinners, including Franciscans,

EXCUSE ME!!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by EcceAgnusDei

I'm reminded of "The Wizard of Oz": Poppies, poppies, poppies will put them to sleep! (hmmm, I wonder what Marx would have made of this... *laugh*)

You're right.

there is no Mass where you can find Gregorian chant, Latin, sacred polyphonic hymns,

I have to comment here that these are not easy to put together either. In the past, choirs and religious had this down to a fine science. They did not need a month of rehearsal to pull it off. Today, we're all out of tune.

What is a traditional-oriented Catholic to make of this, other than the fact that the Bishop thinks that this is good for his whole flock? (which wouldn't be far from the truth; he has announced at Mass that all should receive standing and then remain standing -- no returning to the pews and kneeling).

I'm not sure why His Excellency would want people to go back and stand. As for receiving standing, that comes from the GIRM. That's the norm for the USA, even though no one can be denied because he kneels. The norm in this country is to stand to receive. In that regard, we have to obey whatever the bishop says.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

[EcceAgnusDei]

Originally Posted by JReducation

As for receiving standing, that comes from the GIRM. That's the norm for the USA, even though no one can be denied because he kneels. The norm in this country is to stand to receive. In that regard, we have to obey whatever the bishop says.

But do we have to "obey" him in this regard? Yes, the norm is standing, but the rubrics and rules and statements from the Vatican have clearly said that the faithful may receive kneeling and cannot be denied if they do kneel. If the Bishop says we are to receive standing, but we kneel to receive because of what the Vatican has decreed, are we being disobedient?

As a side note, the rector at the Cathedral hunted me down after one Mass where I received from him kneeling and told me that I was not to kneel to receive because it wasn't safe (?) and it was a sign of spiritual pride. I was a very new Catholic at the time (2 months or so) so I just said, "yes, sir," but I felt something wasn't right about it. He knew my home parish and said, "I don't know what is going on at St. Genevieve's, but we don't do that here at the Cathedral."

I bring this up to point out that it is these kind of experiences that trouble Catholics who want to follow traditional practices. They happen and they happen all the time. There are many who don't have these experiences, but please realize that many of us do, which means that we end up having to pit our local priests/Bishop against the decrees of the Holy Father and the Curia. It is a sad and frustrating experience.

+ PAX

[JReducation]

Originally Posted by EcceAgnusDei

But do we have to "obey" him in this regard? Yes, the norm is standing, but the rubrics and rules and statements from the Vatican have clearly said that the faithful may receive kneeling and cannot be denied if they do kneel. If the Bishop says we are to receive standing, but we kneel to receive because of what the Vatican has decreed, are we being disobedient?

Here is my logic. If they approve that the norm for the US is to stand, then it is reasonable to assume that they would also want us to comply with the bishop when he calls us to stand. Why make it the norm for the USA and then tell American Catholics, "You don't have to comply with the bishop."

As a side note, the rector at the Cathedral hunted me down after one Mass where I received from him kneeling and told me that I was not to kneel to receive because it wasn't safe (?) and it was a sign of spiritual pride.

The GIRM requires that he explain the rule to you, as I mentioned above. It says nothing about making a person feel uncomfortable. That part he added.

I bring this up to point out that it is these kind of experiences that trouble Catholics who want to follow traditional practices. They happen and they happen all the time. There are many who don't have these experiences, but please realize that many of us do, which means that we end up having to pit our local priests/Bishop against the decrees of the Holy Father and the Curia. It is a sad and frustrating experience.

+ PAX

Unless the Holy See says that this is the law for the universal Church or at least for the Latin Church, your best bet is to go with what's in the GIRM or ask the pastor what is the expectation. I've always wished that Rome would end the answer to any question with, "Check out what is written for your diocese or your country." That would give people a reference point, which is what you're saying is missing.

When that is missing, it sounds as if the bishop and the Vatican are on two different planets. That's usually not the case. But the laity gets all confused and frustrated. Once that happens, it's like a snowball. It only gets bigger.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

[wasserfall]

Originally Posted by JReducation

Here is my logic. If they approve that the norm for the US is to stand, then it is reasonable to assume that they would also want us to comply with the bishop when he calls us to stand. Why make it the norm for the USA and then tell American Catholics, "You don't have to comply with the bishop."

The GIRM requires that he explain the rule to you, as I mentioned above.

Wait a minute. I thought it was 2012... The 2011 GIRM not only doesn't say that the norm is standing, it doesn't ask anyone to explain any rules:

The norm established for the Dioceses of the United States of America is that Holy Communion is to be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling

http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-wors...-chapter-4.cfm

[TrueLight]

Originally Posted by wasserfall

Wait a minute. I thought it was 2012... The 2011 GIRM not only doesn't say that the norm is standing, it doesn't ask anyone to explain any rules:

The norm established for the Dioceses of the United States of America is that Holy Communion is to be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling

http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-wors...-chapter-4.cfm

This is true, Bro. Jr. The admonition to counsel the faithful was removed in the newer GIRM. This was news all over the blogsphere, including Father Z's blog.

[JReducation]

Originally Posted by wasserfall

Wait a minute. I thought it was 2012... The 2011 GIRM not only doesn't say that the norm is standing, it doesn't ask anyone to explain any rules:

The norm established for the Dioceses of the United States of America is that Holy Communion is to be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling

http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-wors...-chapter-4.cfm

Originally Posted by TrueLight

This is true, Bro. Jr. The admonition to counsel the faithful was removed in the newer GIRM. This was news all over the blogsphere, including Father Z's blog.

You know what folks? That was probably edited when they came out with the revised missal this past Advent. I bet you that the bishop and rector to whom we're referring are in the same boat as I am. We were all directed to pay close attention to the new translations and no one ever mentioned that part or all of the instructions had changed. Fr. Z stays on top of that stuff. I don't know what kind of job the man has, but I wish I had it. He has time to read more stuff than any priest or religious that I know. I'm jealous.

I have to pull out my missal and read the instructions and see what else they added or deleted. Thanks for the heads up.

Fraternally.

Br. JR, FFV

[Christine85]

Hi ,I found this - http://www.vatican.va/news_services/...munion_en.html

It's from the Vatican website

[Christine85]

Please read the following- http://m.theaustralian.com.au/news/v...-1226107759452

"Vatican Cardinal In charge of the Mass makes statement about preference for receiving Holy Communion"

I have now been receiving Communion kneeling and on the tongue for over a month and there are so many benefits. I will never go back to handling the Sacred Body of Christ.
Amen

[Rocky24]

Originally Posted by Liquid47

In the Latin Rite, not only is kneeling and receiving on the tongue the preferred method to receive the Eucharist, it is the normal method. All other methods are exceptions that must be approved.

Through his actions, our Holy Father has admitted that it is the most reverent posture to kneel and receive Eucharist on the tongue. Cardinal Francis Arinze, who served as Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, who helped compile Redemptionis Sacramentum, has said this much as well. The current Prefect for the stated Congregation, Cardinal Antonio Canizares Llovera, has also stated that it is preferable to receive it on the tongue, while kneeling.

That being said, it is not bad to receive communion on the hand. In fact, it is perfectly acceptable to receive it on the hand, even from an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, provided the bishops have been given permission for their parishes to do so. What most lay people don't realize in regards to the Latin Rite, is that standing and receiving Eucharist in the hand has to be APPROVED by the Apostolic See. If not approved, or not yet taken to the Apostolic See, the faithful must kneel, and must receive on the tongue.

What most people in the English speaking world are use to is standing and receiving Holy Communion in the hand. It is the most common, but it is neither the normal nor the preferred method. In fact, a priest cannot refuse Holy Communion to the one person out of a thousand who chooses to kneel and receive Our Lord in his/her tongue, despite being use to the other forms of reception.

Here is Cardinal Arinze on the ways to receive Holy Communion.

And as ever, the wonderful Michael Voris on reception in the hand, and kneeling for Holy Communion.

God Bless!

The Communion in the Hand video just sums it all up. It's Jesus, truly present! The priest's hands are consecrated to touch the Body of Christ, not ours!
Blessed be Jesus in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar

[Mrs Sally]

Originally Posted by Rocky24

The Communion in the Hand video just sums it all up. It's Jesus, truly present! The priest's hands are consecrated to touch the Body of Christ, not ours!
Blessed be Jesus in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar

This needs to be corrected. The priest's hand are consecrated to confect the Eucharist. Simply touching a consecrated host has nothing to do with the reson for the consecration.

A deacon is an ordinary minister of the Eucharist and his hands are not consecrated.

[Friar David, O.Carm]

Originally Posted by Rocky24

The Communion in the Hand video just sums it all up. It's Jesus, truly present! The priest's hands are consecrated to touch the Body of Christ, not ours!
Blessed be Jesus in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar

Here we go again.

A priests hands are consecrated for the confection of the Eucharist. Not for touching it. As was pointed out the deacon is also an ordinary minister of Communion.

As for the video. Dust particles do not contain the real presence.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.

Notices the "as long as the Eucharistic species subsist".

The Eucharistic species are bread and wine. Dust is not bread so it does not contain the real presence of Christ.

[RogerDeCourcy]

What's funny is that pre-1960's people were going out of their way to reverence the host. Nowadays the attitude seems to be: "What can we get away with?"

"It's not forbidden" ... "It was done in such a place and time" .... Lots of clever legal arguments ....

Then you find out about 'Cranmer's Godly Mass' and such arguments don't look so clever.

Keep emphasising 'The Lord's Supper', 'Liturgy of Word and Eucharist', Community and Celebration and you have what you see in most Western parishes today.

[Friar David, O.Carm]

Originally Posted by RogerDeCourcy

What's funny is that pre-1960's people were going out of their way to reverence the host. Nowadays the attitude seems to be: "What can we get away with?"

Doing what the Church allows for is in no way an attitude of "What can we get away with".