Catholic Etiquette questions

[7_Sorrows]

When I converted from the episcopal/anglican church to the Catholic Church I really missed and still do the altar rails. If Rome did not instruct them to be removed - why were they removed? Was it mainly in the U.D. they were removed or everywhere? The Cardinal is a very wise man.

I thought I had corrected my typo! U.D. was supposed to be U.S.

 

[BartholomewB]

The pastors made the decision after the bishops allowed communion standing.

Eucharisticum mysterium, the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 1967, No. 34: 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.
Since Communion came to be distributed standing and by more than one minister, the rail could sometimes be an obstacle, also an obsticle because later the indult was granted to receive under both species, in the US, on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation (granted October 13, 1984).

**Vico, **I notice that in your post #37 you quote a few words from Eucharisticum mysterium, which at first sight would seem to suggest that I was mistaken in my two assertions on this thread to the effect that no priest has “the right to ban kneeling and to impose absolute uniformity” on communicants (#28) and that, in giving priests this alleged “right”, many U.S. bishops “have allowed themselves to be carried away by this unpleasant foolishness” (#35).

The full text of Eucharisticum mysterium is nowhere to be found on the Holy See website and, in fact, doesn’t seem to be available anywhere online at all. I have, however, found this, in Redemptionis Sacramentum, issued in 2004. I suppose this means that, in the event of any conflict between the two documents, the later one would supersede the earlier one.

                                                                   … ]

[90.] “The faithful should receive Communion kneeling or standing, as the Conference of Bishops will have determined”, with its acts having received the recognitio of the Apostolic See. “However, if they receive Communion standing, it is recommended that they give due reverence before the reception of the Sacrament, as set forth in the same norms”.

[91.] In distributing Holy Communion it is to be remembered that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who seek them in a reasonable manner, are rightly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them”. Hence any baptized Catholic who is not prevented by law must be admitted to Holy Communion. Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.

                                                                …]

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#Chapter IV

The opening words of #90 seem to confirm the brief extract you quoted from Eucharisticum Mysterium: “The faithful should receive Communion kneeling or standing, as the Conference of Bishops will have determined.” But this is qualified by the concluding sentence in #91, “Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.”

In conclusion, I’d say that from what I’ve read here, one or the other of the following assertions must certainly be true and the other false:

Either (a) Redemptionis Sacramentum has itself been superseded by some later instruction or encyclical;

***Or ***(b) any priest who tells a communicant that he or she may only receive standing, not kneeling, or in the hand only, not on the tongue, or vice versa, is in breach of the duly enacted rules and regulations. Furtthermore, in the event that the priest should go on to assert that, in imposing conditions of that kind, he is acting within his rights, he would further be guilty of repeating a demonstrable untruth.

 

[dreamer29]

Chapel veils. Be very careful on here.

My post asking about Chapel veils was deleted by admin. Don’t know why, I posted one day got a couple replies, no problems, came back two days later and it had been deleted. Things must have got rough in between.

You can wear a veil if you choose and yes you can wear one with pants to Mass.

I wear two medallions with my crucifix in a necklace.

It is a shame for people to get hot on Chapel veils. If a woman wants to wear one, why not. Oh, maybe they are afraid we will go back to the days when it was required! Hmm! Just saying.

 

[Vico]

**Vico, **I notice that in your post #37 you quote a few words from Eucharisticum mysterium, which at first sight would seem to suggest that I was mistaken in my two assertions on this thread to the effect that no priest has “the right to ban kneeling and to impose absolute uniformity” on communicants (#28) and that, in giving priests this alleged “right”, many U.S. bishops “have allowed themselves to be carried away by this unpleasant foolishness” (#35).

The full text of Eucharisticum mysterium is nowhere to be found on the Holy See website and, in fact, doesn’t seem to be available anywhere online at all. I have, however, found this, in Redemptionis Sacramentum, issued in 2004. I suppose this means that, in the event of any conflict between the two documents, the later one would supersede the earlier one.

… ]

[90.] “The faithful should receive Communion kneeling or standing, as the Conference of Bishops will have determined”, with its acts having received the recognitio of the Apostolic See. “However, if they receive Communion standing, it is recommended that they give due reverence before the reception of the Sacrament, as set forth in the same norms”.

[91.] In distributing Holy Communion it is to be remembered that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who seek them in a reasonable manner, are rightly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them”. Hence any baptized Catholic who is not prevented by law must be admitted to Holy Communion. Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.

…]

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#Chapter IV

The opening words of #90 seem to confirm the brief extract you quoted from Eucharisticum Mysterium: “The faithful should receive Communion kneeling or standing, as the Conference of Bishops will have determined.” But this is qualified by the concluding sentence in #91, “Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.”

In conclusion, I’d say that from what I’ve read here, one or the other of the following assertions must certainly be true and the other false:

Either (a) Redemptionis Sacramentum has itself been superseded by some later instruction or encyclical;

***Or ***(b) any priest who tells a communicant that he or she may only receive standing, not kneeling, or in the hand only, not on the tongue, or vice versa, is in breach of the duly enacted rules and regulations. Furtthermore, in the event that the priest should go on to assert that, in imposing conditions of that kind, he is acting within his rights, he would further be guilty of repeating a demonstrable untruth.

For Reference, Eucharisticum Mysterium:
catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/11/DocumentIndex/338

GIRM and Redemptionis Sacramentum will override Eucharisticum mysterium where there is a conflict. Redemptionis Sacramentum mentions “who seek them in a reasonable manner” referring to Canon law.
Can. 843 §1. Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.

Also read this protocol from Rome, from 2003:
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, 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.”
ewtn.com/expert/answers/kneeling_for_communion.htm

From Redemptionis Sacramentum

All things to the contrary notwithstanding.

This Instruction, prepared by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments by mandate of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II in collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was approved by the same Pontiff on the Solemnity of St. Joseph, 19 March 2004, and he ordered it to be published and to be observed immediately by all concerned.
From the offices of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Rome, on the Solemnity of the Annunciation of the Lord, 25 March 2004

 

[BartholomewB]

**Vico, **many thanks for taking the trouble to do so much research. I feel a bit guilty now for having imposed on your good will more than I realized at the time, when I asked my question.

Kind regards
Bart

 

[BartholomewB]

Vico

Thank you for the link to Eucharisticum mysterium. In the matter of kneeling/standing to receive the Eucharist, I notice there were not one but two significant changes from the 1967 Instruction to the one that followed in 2004.The two changes mutually reinforce each other:

***Dropped: **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 *(Eucharisticum mysterium, No. 34).

*Added: it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing *(Redemptionis Sacramentum, No. 91).

It is understandable that not all national bishops’ conferences should have responded to the change with the same alacrity. Some would naturally have been more willing, or found it easier, to make the change, while others would have been more reluctant or found it difficult. The USCCB has been very much on the slow side, but does anybody know why? Could it possibly be a fallout from the long drawn-out struggle for supremacy between Bishop Donald Trautman and Cardinal Francis Arinze? Trautman seems to have allowed his disagreement with Arinze over questions of translation to develop into personal animosity of a singularly virulent strain. Could this possibly be connected with the curious case of the failure to implement Redemptionis Sacramentum, No. 91?

 

[Vico]

Vico

Thank you for the link to Eucharisticum mysterium. In the matter of kneeling/standing to receive the Eucharist, I notice there were not one but two significant changes from the 1967 Instruction to the one that followed in 2004.The two changes mutually reinforce each other:

***Dropped: ***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 (Eucharisticum mysterium, No. 34).

Added: it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing (Redemptionis Sacramentum, No. 91).

It is understandable that not all national bishops’ conferences should have responded to the change with the same alacrity. Some would naturally have been more willing, or found it easier, to make the change, while others would have been more reluctant or found it difficult. The USCCB has been very much on the slow side, but does anybody know why? Could it possibly be a fallout from the long drawn-out struggle for supremacy between Bishop Donald Trautman and Cardinal Francis Arinze? Trautman seems to have allowed his disagreement with Arinze over questions of translation to develop into personal animosity of a singularly virulent strain. Could this possibly be connected with the curious case of the failure to implement Redemptionis Sacramentum, No. 91?

USCCB was corrected by CDW in 2003. This is known because the USCCB newsletter of July 2002 stated that “kneeling is not a licit posture.” and then in 2003 the congregation replied that GIRM 42 means to “ensure within broad limits a certain uniformity of posture” while not seeking to “regulate posture rigidly.” And also that “the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Communion.” Then the USCCB knew what to do.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

The pastors made the decision after the bishops allowed communion standing.

Eucharisticum mysterium, the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 1967, No. 34: 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.
Since Communion came to be distributed standing and by more than one minister, the rail could sometimes be an obstacle, also an obsticle because later the indult was granted to receive under both species, in the US, on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation (granted October 13, 1984).

Removed without Rome’s permission as stated by Cardinal Arinze.

 

[Vico]

Removed without Rome’s permission as stated by Cardinal Arinze.

I remember hearing that in one of the interview videos with Cardinal Arinze! He said the idea was spread by some “liturgy experts” after Vatican II.

 

[BartholomewB]

USCCB was corrected by CDW in 2003. This is known because the USCCB newsletter of July 2002 stated that “kneeling is not a licit posture.” and then in 2003 the congregation replied that GIRM 42 means to “ensure within broad limits a certain uniformity of posture” while not seeking to “regulate posture rigidly.” And also that “the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Communion.” Then the USCCB knew what to do.

Thank you, **Vico. **It occurs to me to wonder whether there may perhaps be some significance in the chronology. Francis Arinze took over as Prefect of CDW on Oct. 1, 2002, that is to say, after the July 2002 issue of the USCCB newsletter but before the CDW’s reply which you quote here. And, of course, by the time Pope St. John Paul II put his signature to Redemptionis Sacramentum on March 19, 2004, Arinze had been Prefect for over a year.

Nevertheless, that episode is now in the past. It is more than six years since Arinze resigned as Prefect of CDW, and it will soon be three years since Trautman’s resignation as Bishop of Erie was accepted on July 31, 2012. Trautman will be 79 next month and Arinze is 83. Is it really possible that Trautman’s old grudge against Arinze can still be the USCCB’s reason for its willful and persistent noncompliance with RD 91? Surely the U.S. bishops must have some more solid argument than that to justify their stubborn refusal to implement the changed ruling on posture sanctioned by St John Paul II eleven years ago.

Kind regards
Bart