Altar Rail Puts Communicants on Right Track

  • Thread starter Thread starter yankeesouth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is copyright 2011. Although I applaud the sentiment, it really doesn’t apply to the court case from 1985.
 
PetraG said:
From the Canadian GIRM:
  1. The Priest then takes the paten or ciborium and approaches the communicants,
who usually come up in procession.

It is not permitted for the faithful to take the consecrated Bread or the sacred chalice

by themselves and, still less, to hand them on from one to another among themselves. In

the Dioceses of Canada, Holy Communion is to be received standing, though individual

members of the faithful may choose to receive Communion while kneeling. When standing

before the minister to receive Holy Communion, the faithful should make a simple bow

of the head. When receiving Holy Communion on the tongue, they reverently join their

hands; when receiving Holy Communion in the hand, they reverently open their hands

placing one beneath the other, and they consume the host immediately upon receiving it.
Click to expand...
And what is the date of the GIRM that you posted? It is from the third edition of the Roman Missal.

What is the date when these incidents were happening in the Diocese of Antigonish?

The GIRM you posted was not in effect in 1985.
 
Also, Communion while kneeling is aberrant? Unless I have misconstrued your opinion, that’s essentially what you’re saying…
 
Maximilian75 said:
There is a crying baby in the church. The religious service is disrupted. Should the baby and mother be arrested?
Click to expand...
People who make ridiculous arguments, the argument should be given precisely the merit it deserves.
 
you’re the person who brought up absolutes in this conversation, not me.
 
Maximilian75 said:
you’re the person who brought up absolutes in this conversation, not me.
Click to expand...
These people maliciously disregarded the explicit directive of their Bishop in the context of the liturgical assembly.

Theirs was an evil action.
 
Kneeling to receive Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the Eucharist is an evil action…

I think i’ve heard it all.
 
PetraG said:
READ THE WHOLE COURT ACCOUNT:

The appellants are Roman Catholics who were charged, pursuant to s. 172(3) of the Criminal Code , with wilfully disturbing the order or solemnity of an assemblage of persons met for religious worship. The appellants opposed a change in the liturgy, approved by the Bishop, requiring communion to be received by parishioners while standing rather than kneeling as had been the previous practice. As a result of this liturgical change, there had been an ongoing dispute between appellants and their parish priest and other members of the congregation. A diocesan directive, describing in particular the manner communion was to be administered and received, was regularly read at services and twice during mass on the day in question. However, appellants attempted to receive communion in a kneeling position. Each was told by the priest to stand if he wished to receive it. After a few seconds, each one stood and, without having received communion, returned to his seat in an orderly manner. The trial judge convicted the accused, finding their actions hampered the spirituality of this part of the service, held up the communion lines briefly and created a degree of anxiety and tension which distracted the priests and some members of the congregation. Both the County Court and the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Appellate Division, upheld the conviction.

There is no disruption described here that REMOTELY indicates the individuals were “disturbed” or caused anything like the kind of disruption that called for intervention by civil authorities. In light of what the GIRM of Canada says about this question, it is a scandal that this pointless power struggle ever got to civil court!
Click to expand...
Do you not understand that the provision you rely upon was a later insertion into the GIRM?

I agree completely with bringing charges against these people, in view of what is written in the documents.
 
Maximilian75 said:
Kneeling to receive Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the Eucharist is an evil action…

I think i’ve heard it all.
Click to expand...
Disobeying the explicit directive of their bishop, addressed to them, and making the liturgy the backdrop of their protest was a disgusting action that rendered what they were doing evil.
 
When they were refused Communion, they sat down. How that is making the liturgy the backdrop of their protest I do not know.
 
Teacher inservice day tomorrow.

And if defending one’s ability to reverence Christ the way the Church has for thousands of years is being snarky to some people, then so be it.
 
1Lord1Faith said:
Don’t you have school tomorrow? No snow day tomorrow. Shouldn’t you be in bed by now. Do your parents know you’re staying up late being snarky with a priest?
Click to expand...
I ask again: exactly how old is this person? Are you saying that this person is a CHILD?
 
Last edited:
Maximilian75 said:
Kneeling to receive Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the Eucharist is an evil action…

I think i’ve heard it all.
Click to expand...
If its very disruptive to the proceedings, to the liturgy, it isn’t good by any definition of the word.

In society, certain behaviors are expected in formal settings. If this was the first incident, they would have received instruction and that would be that.

It wasn’t apparently here, but an ongoing dispute.
 
PetraG said:
owever, appellants attempted to receive communion in a kneeling position. Each was told by the priest to stand if he wished to receive it. After a few seconds, each one stood and, without having received communion, returned to his seat in an orderly manner.
Click to expand...
I really don’t see how this can be seen as disruptive…
 
Maximilian75 said:
17 years old, Father.
Click to expand...
17 years old.

Well, when I was 17 years old, I had the privilege of speaking to a priest after he had first spoken to me, with utter deference. It was assuredly not contentious.

It would have been unthinkable to engage in an argument with the priest…even the newly ordained, let alone a senior priest.

I would have been shown the door of the sacristy and never allowed to serve Mass again for being contentious. It would also have been the end of any thought of vocation.

When the Bishop came, he would meet the servers selected before Mass…and he would decide if we would be allowed the privilege of serving His Excellency or not…to school us that our respect and our deference to his will was total– which is what the people we are discussing should have displayed to their Bishop and failed.

If you are someone who is interested in the ways and traditions of the past…you would do well to become conversant with what those of us who lived in those times actually lived rather than what young people today imagine in their minds.
 
Maximilian75 said:
I really don’t see how this can be seen as disruptive…
Click to expand...
People don’t want to see protests during mass, its upsetting to them. If these individuals disagreed with the rules, this was not the proper way to address it
 
Maximilian75 said:
I really don’t see how this can be seen as disruptive…
Click to expand...
If it were a one time occurrence it would not be. The document indicates that this was much more involved. Their Bishop had already weighed in.

They sound like little more than trouble-makers.
 
In my mind and heart, respect and adoration for the Blessed Sacrament are above respect for any temporal authority that can be flawed or misled.

I am sorry for making you think I have disrespected or slighted you, Father. Thank you for your service to our Church and to Christ.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top