Altar Rail Puts Communicants on Right Track

  • Thread starter Thread starter yankeesouth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Maximilian75 said:
But then you get the awkward “going through the pew while people are sitting down” thing, which is never fun… : /
Click to expand...
That’s what happened back in the day and nobody had a problem with it. The odds were good that there would almost always be someone in the pew who was kneeling and not going to Communion.
 
otjm said:
I don’t think any priest is going to refuse Communion in a parish where all receive standing, should the individual decide to kneel. That, however, has been a battle cry among some who put their own personal feelings of piety over what the bishop has requested, and it appears to speak for itself.
Click to expand...
Thankfully we’re past the day when those choosing to kneel were denied Communion, arrested, tried, convicted, and pushed the case to the Supreme Court of Canada where they were vindicated.
 
Are you seriously an ordained person? Your posts seem a little …off.
 
“ever” is a long time, of course. But it is sort of crazy to think that its imminent, since its currently only involves a tiny percentage of Catholics.

Do you know how many people attend Latin mass in your jurisdiction? Not many I’d bet.
 
I guess however it’s done, there are going to be logistical issues in parishes where some want to receive kneeling. A lot would depend on the presence or absence of altar rails, the organization of the communion lines, and I guess the layout of the nave too. But all things are possible with God, eh?
 
Yes, all things are possible with God, but apparently not all are possible with human beings. 😝
 
As I said, you need to learn how to read law.

And as I said, it is an exception to the norm.

Nice try. Effort: A.
 
Ah, but hope springs eternal… The thread might be a tad bit boring without such silliness.
 
Heavens, what was that aboot? Must be the winters are waaaaayy too long up there.
 
PJM said:
with the MANDATED [but not from Rome] removal of the Communion Rails
Click to expand...
Where do you get your information?

The second Vatican Council produced a constitution. The Pope then formed a commission to reform the liturgy. That commission reformed the liturgy and the Pope promulgated their work. Both came from Rome and both were wholly approved by the Church.

Removal of the communion rails was a decision by then competent local authority - the Bishop.

Are you saying that you don’t agree with the bishops choice and prefer a different style? If so, that is fine, but your hyperbole about the destruction of Catholicism based on a stylistic preference is kind of annoying
 
The Don - - spot on? Anyway, did you mean Deacon Jeff?

Chacun a son gout!
 
Last edited:
Silliness?
You know, respect for the liturgy, and for the Blessed Sacrament. Just silliness. Unlike things done after Vat II, which are Very Important.
 
otjm said:
As I said, you need to learn how to read law.

And as I said, it is an exception to the norm.

Nice try. Effort: A.
Click to expand...
Nope both clauses are part of the norm.

The kneeling is part of the Universal norm, and that is why the bishops changed the previous GIMR 160 to correspond to include the Universal norm.

I would agree that the previous GIRM provided an exception, but the current one is inclusive.
 
Wow! I have never heard of this before.
A Canadian court case (somewhat unclear when the original incident happened), wherein communicants who insisted on kneeling, not only were denied communion, but they were prosecuted under the law for disturbing a religious service. What a laugh riot - - considering that before Vatican II, communicants were expected to kneel. (Were they required? That I don’t know). Everything was turned upside down in a few short years!
"12. A motion for particulars was granted by Judge R. MacEwan of Provincial Magistrate’s Court on July 5, 1982. The Crown filed the following reply to this order:

…the defendants failed to take Communion in a manner that was directed and accepted by Our Lady of Lourdes Parish; in that the Defendants kneeled rather than stood for the purpose of receiving Communion, as is the accepted practice, and which kneeling did interfere, and or distract other parishioners who were taking Communion as was directed and accepted for the purpose of enabling said parishioners to celebrate the Mass.

"On August 18, 1982, Judge MacEwan convicted the appellants. Sentence was suspended and each of the appellants was placed upon six months probation.
  1. The trial judge was of the view that the appellants' refusal to take communion in the manner accepted in the parish amounted to a violation of s. 172(3) because it hampered the spirituality of this part of the service. He concluded that both the order and the solemnity of the meeting had been disturbed because the open defiance of the legitimate authority of the priests was a disruptive act. In his view, it created a degree of anxiety and tension which distracted the priests and the congregation from one of the holiest moments in the mass. In reaching this conclusion, he accepted and relied upon the uncontradicted evidence of the two priests administering mass and three parishioners present during the service as to their reaction to the appellants' attempts to receive communion while kneeling."
 
Loud-living-dogma said:
Wow! I have never heard of this before.

A Canadian court case (somewhat unclear when the original incident happened), wherein communicants who insisted on kneeling, not only were denied communion, but they were prosecuted under the law for disturbing a religious service. What a laugh riot - - considering that before Vatican II, communicants were expected to kneel. (Were they required? That I don’t know). Everything was turned upside down in a few short years!

"12. A motion for particulars was granted by Judge R. MacEwan of Provincial Magistrate’s Court on July 5, 1982. The Crown filed the following reply to this order:

…the defendants failed to take Communion in a manner that was directed and accepted by Our Lady of Lourdes Parish; in that the Defendants kneeled rather than stood for the purpose of receiving Communion, as is the accepted practice, and which kneeling did interfere, and or distract other parishioners who were taking Communion as was directed and accepted for the purpose of enabling said parishioners to celebrate the Mass.

"On August 18, 1982, Judge MacEwan convicted the appellants. Sentence was suspended and each of the appellants was placed upon six months probation.
Click to expand...
How did that ever go to a civil court? Talk about a pastoral failure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top