Argument with a priest / heresy / kneeling for Communion

[Charioteer]

I’m not quite sure what forum to put this in, it seems to fit into a few.

I believe my priest spoke heresy.

Last Sunday I had to go to my awfull local Novus Ordo parish (as opposed to the other, slightly better, Novus Ordo parish). I knelt for Holy Communion as I normally do (which is allowed). After Mass the priest told me in no uncertain terms to stop. I then tried to defend kneeling. I told him in the Latin Rite of the Church it is the norm to kneel and standing is a sort of indult granted to the Bishops’ Conferences…

Standing is not an “indult.”

He did the right thing (assuming he was tactful.) He is to give you communion and then counsel you outside of Mass on the need for uniformity in posture.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Standing is not an “indult.”

He did the right thing (assuming he was tactful.) He is to give you communion and then counsel you outside of Mass on the need for uniformity in posture.

That’s quite questionable, and you ignore the things the priest said that were plainly false. How convenient.

 

[AlanF]

Standing is not an “indult.”

He did the right thing (assuming he was tactful.) He is to give you communion and then counsel you outside of Mass on the need for uniformity in posture.

For the umpteenth time I’ll quote this letter from the CDW.
Congregartion for Divine Worship:

This Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has received your letter dated 1 December 2002, related to the application of the norms approved by the Conference of Bishops of the United States of America, with the subsequent recognitio of this Congegation, as regards the question of the posture for receiving Holy Communion.

As the authority by virtue of whose recognitio the norm in question has attained the force of law, this Dicastery is competent to specify the manner in which the norm is to be understood for the sake of a proper application. Having received more than a few letters regarding this matter from different locations in the United States of America, the Congregation wishes to ensure that its position on the matter is clear.

To this end, it is perhaps useful to respond to your inquiry by repeating the content of a letter that the Congregation recently addressed to a Bishop in the United States of America from whose Diocese a number of pertinent letters had been received. The letter states: “…while this Congregation gave the recognitio to the norm desired by the Bishops’ Conference of your country that people stand for Holy Communion [Basically it’s an indult granted to the Bishops’ Conference and it’s not the norm for the Latin Rite.] , this was done on the condition that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds. Indeed, the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion.”

This Dicastery hopes that the citation given here will provide an adequate answer to your letter. At the same time, please be assured that the Congregation remains ready to be of assistance if you should need to contact it again.

With every prayerful good wish, I am,

Sincerely yours in Christ,
Mons. Mario Marini
Undersecretary

 

[paperwight]

Because His Church teaches it (prohibition of contraception) and has since the begining.

/QUOTE]

Could you provide a link to a document please? Second century, or before, and not just quoting a saint, or referring to abortion or withdrawal, or simple misogyny?

 

[japhy]

For the umpteenth time I’ll quote this letter from the CDW.

That quote not-withstanding, the word “indult” has not been used for the posture, and the CDWDS has said that no person anywhere may be refused for asking to receive standing up or kneeling. That is NOT the case with the indult of Communion in the hand.

Furthermore, Eucharisticum Mysterium (1967) says the following:34. a. In accordance with the custom of the Church, the faithful may receive communion either kneeling or standing. One or the other practice is to be chosen according to the norms laid down by the conference of bishops and in view of the various circumstances, above all the arrangement of the churches and the number of the communicants. The faithful should willingly follow the manner of reception indicated by the pastors so that communion may truly be a sign of familial union among those who share in the same table of the Lord.

 

[shuzo1189]

AlanF;5154893:

Because His Church teaches it (prohibition of contraception) and has since the begining.

/QUOTE]

Could you provide a link to a document please? Second century, or before, and not just quoting a saint, or referring to abortion or withdrawal, or simple misogyny?

I am a bit confused by what you are asking, are you expecting say Clement in his writings say “Oh yes, No Condoms and watch out for the pill, trust me on this guys…”

The Church’s stance has always been all marital acts must be open to the possibility of life

“on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful [certain Christian women who had affairs with male servants] want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered” (Refutation of All Heresies 9:12). -Hippolytus of Rome 255 A.D.

“Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility , where there is murder before birth? You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well. . . . Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with his laws? . . . Yet such turpitude . . . the matter still seems indifferent to many men–even to many men having wives. In this indifference of the married men there is greater evil filth; for then poisons are prepared, not against the womb of a prostitute, but against your injured wife. Against her are these innumerable tricks” ~ John Chrysostom 391 A.D. (Homilies on the Romans)

 

[paperwight]

I am a bit confused by what you are asking, are you expecting say Clement in his writings say “Oh yes, No Condoms and watch out for the pill, trust me on this guys…”

The Church’s stance has always been all marital acts must be open to the possibility of life

“on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful [certain Christian women who had affairs with male servants] want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered” (Refutation of All Heresies 9:12). -Hippolytus of Rome 255 A.D.

"Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility , where there is murder before birth? You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well. . . . Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with his laws? . . . " ~ John Chrysostom 391 A.D. (Homilies on the Romans)

Your first quote is totally irrelevant, dealing, as it does, with high-status women not wanting pregnancies to result from dalliances with slaves and low-born. How is that relevant to marriage?

And both quotes are later than the beginning of the Church, i.e. neither is second century or before, as requested. So far, nobody has produced evidence to back up the claim that ‘no contraception’ was taught from the beginnings of the church. Simply repeating the claim does not make it true, any more than that quote about Mother Teresa which keeps re-surfacing.

And yes, if ‘no contraception’ is a vital part of orthodox faith, is the litmus paper test of the Catholic faithful as some on these forums seem to believe, then I would expect it to be taught about in the earliest days.

 

[shuzo1189]

Your first quote is totally irrelevant, dealing, as it does, with high-status women not wanting pregnancies to result from dalliances with slaves and low-born. How is that relevant to marriage?

And both quotes are later than the beginning of the Church, i.e. neither is second century or before, as requested. So far, nobody has produced evidence to back up the claim that ‘no contraception’ was taught from the beginnings of the church. Simply repeating the claim does not make it true, any more than that quote about Mother Teresa which keeps re-surfacing.

And yes, if ‘no contraception’ is a vital part of orthodox faith, is the litmus paper test of the Catholic faithful as some on these forums seem to believe, then I would expect it to be taught about in the earliest days.

Clement of Alexandria

“Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191])”

To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature (ibid. 2:10:95:3)

I sadly, can not find anything earlier than 191 A.D.

 

[paperwight]

Clement of Alexandria

“Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191])”

To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature (ibid. 2:10:95:3)

I sadly, can not find anything earlier than 191 A.D.

Thank you for those two quotes - very interesting.

However, they are both problematic.

The first (and others like it in the Old Testament) have to be evaluated in terms of the scientific knowledge of the time.
Until about 1832, incredibly, the function of the ovaries was not understood. Until then, it was believed that the male sperm was in effect babies-in-waiting, humunculi or ‘liitle men’. In other words, spilling the seed was in fact spilling, and thereby killing, potential little babies. Seen in this light, it is much easier to understand the horror felt at masturbation or withdrawal. Woman’s role in the conception of new life was just as a seedbed, and if the seed didn’t take, she was ‘barren’.
Now that scientific knowledge has moved on, it is difficult to relate to this mindset.

The second quote - well, where does that leave NFP? The church nowadays does not teach that sex should only be indulged in to make babies. Babies must be accepted if they come, but it is allowed to have sex deliberately when conception is not likely.

So if you are saying that the Early Church taught that sex was only allowable to make babies, you are saying in effect that the Church’s teaching has changed. Which makes a nonsense of claiming that the Church ‘has always taught such and such right from the beginning’. It clearly hasn’t. If that teaching has changed, then other teachings with no clear words from Jesus on the subject in the Scriptures can change, too…