Children MUST receive in the hand at First Communion?

[Brendan]

OK, then go to the Bishop, but do not tell the child to disobey her teacher.

So your premise is that children should follow the appearance of authority, wether or not authority is actually there?

As I pointed out, someone teaching contrary to the Church has no authority in the matter.

They have the APPEARANCE of authority, yes. But why should one’s child simply follows what appears to have authority, when we know that they do not?

That is really, really dangerous to teach a child.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

So your premise is that children should follow the appearance of authority, wether or not authority is actually there?

The teacher is lawful authority

As I pointed out, someone teaching contrary to the Church has no authority in the matter

.

Liturgical norms are not a matter of faith or morals as defined by canon law

That is really, really dangerous to teach a child

I don’t wish to debate this. I feel it is wrong to tell a child to disobey a teacher. If it is a serious matter, I would remove my child from the program and work to have the teacher removed. I would obey in something not a matter of faith or morals. This is a fine point, which ehtics & morals professors have difficulty in determining, so it is not an easy decision. We disagree.

Lux

 

[mhazell]

The teacher is lawful authority

The bishop and the priest he delegates the parish to are the lawful authorities. As far as I am aware, no catechist or lay teacher is a lawful authority. You’ll have to provide some evidence to show otherwise.

I feel it is wrong to tell a child to disobey a teacher. If it is a serious matter, I would remove my child from the program and work to have the teacher removed. I would obey in something not a matter of faith or morals.

Yet according to Redemptionis Sacramentum, this is a serious (grave) matter (my emphasis and comments):

"Although the gravity of a matter is to be judged in accordance with the common teaching of the Church and the norms established by her, objectively to be considered among grave matters is anything that puts at risk the validity and dignity of the Most Holy Eucharist: namely, anything that contravenes what is set out above in nn. 48-52, 56, 76-77, 79, 91-92 [quoted by myself in http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5042042&postcount=2”]
post #2 of this thread], 94, 96, 101-102, 104, 106, 109, 111, 115, 117, 126, 131-133, 138, 153 and 168.Moreover, attention should be given to the other prescriptions of the Code of Canon Law, and especially what is laid down by canons 1364, 1369, 1373, 1376, 1380, 1384, 1385, 1386, and 1398.
"Furthermore, those actions that are brought about which are contrary to the other matters treated elsewhere in this Instruction or in the norms established by law are **not to be considered of little account, but are to be numbered among the other abuses to be carefully avoided and corrected. [So even if it is not grave matter, it is still to be corrected, not to be treated lightly, glossed over or ignored, and to be “carefully avoided”; if a catechist teaches contrary to the norms of law, they are to be ignored/disobeyed and corrected. The important thing here is not fidelity to an individual person, but to the Church.]
**
“The things set forth in this Instruction obviously do not encompass all the violations against the Church and its discipline that are defined in the canons, in the liturgical laws and in other norms of the Church for the sake of the teaching of the Magisterium or sound tradition. Where something wrong has been committed, it is to be corrected according to the norm of law. [And R.S. makes it quite clear that this is everyone’s responsibility; cf. 183]”(Redemptionis Sacramentum 173-175)

Whether it is to do with faith and morals is not really the issue here. The issue is whether what the catechist teaches (in this instance) is against the norms of law. It is–ergo, they are to be corrected, and not to be obeyed. (Even if they were a *lawful *authority, if they taught contrary to the norms of law, they would have to be corrected. Bishops, after all, are still human, and make mistakes just like the rest of us!)

 

[Brendan]

The teacher is lawful authority

Where exactly does a person recieve the authority to teach in opposition to the Church?

.

Liturgical norms are not a matter of faith or morals as defined by canon law

I never said it was. But if a teacher teaches that a person must recieve the Eucharist in a certain way, and the Church says otherwise, the teacher is teaching falsehood. No parent should willingly instruct their children to follow a false teaching.

I don’t wish to debate this. I feel it is wrong to tell a child to disobey a teacher. If it is a serious matter, I would remove my child from the program and work to have the teacher removed. I would obey in something not a matter of faith or morals. This is a fine point, which ehtics & morals professors have difficulty in determining, so it is not an easy decision. We disagree.

Lux

You would obey something that you know is false?

As to strictly matters of Faith and Morals, here is what Vatican I had to say

Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

• Pastor Aeternus

So if the Church declares something to be a matter of liturgical law, even if it not a matter of Faith or Morals, are we not obliged to follow, and for all to Teach it?

 

[Tsuwano]

Here we find parents frequently go into debt buying more and more elaborate outfits for their children Headresses have reached the dizzy heights of crowns with and I’m not joking ] statues of Mary with a crown made of wee flashing lights .

This particular episode so appalled the Parish priest that the next year all children - boys and girls were issued with Albs - with a blue cincture for girls and red for boys. No veils , crowns were permitted .

First Holy Communions have become for many a Rite of Passage and a Kodak opportunity - not the correct intention

Thank you for the background information on your previous post. Of course, parents should avoid debt in buying clothing for first communicants and statues of Mary with flashing lights strikes me as absurd. The action of your priest in issuing albs to the first communicants seems appropriate to me and possibly the best solution for parents who do not have the income to buy special clothing for first communicants. I certainly agree that first holy communion is not merely a “Kodak moment” and would hope that parents understand the significance of the event for their child.

 

[pnewton]

The teacher is lawful authority

In a classroom setting, yes. At Mass, not. There is no canonical authority given to the position of teacher.

This may not seem like that big of a deal to some. However, it is an important enough issue for the Church to intervene on local affairs, which it seldom does, and enumerate this a one of the rights of the faithful, no age limit given. If the teacher is not ignorant, and continue on this path, it is worth taking it all the way to the top to have her removed. If she spits in the Holy Father’s face and is defiant in this matter, how many other issues that the parents may not know about?

 

[Melissa]

I feel fortunate that in my parish it’s the opposite–our religious ed program only teaches children how to receive on the tongue (our pastor says that parents who want their children to know how to receive in the hand have the authority to teach their children that mode of reception but all the children must know how to receive on the tongue). So, I suppose I’d just imagine that the opposite had been said (after all, parents have the first responsibility for the education of their children) and prep the child to receive in the method not taught in the class.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

In a classroom setting, yes. At Mass, not. There is no canonical authority given to the position of teacher.

This may not seem like that big of a deal to some. However, it is an important enough issue for the Church to intervene on local affairs, which it seldom does, and enumerate this a one of the rights of the faithful, no age limit given. If the teacher is not ignorant, and continue on this path, it is worth taking it all the way to the top to have her removed. If she spits in the Holy Father’s face and is defiant in this matter, how many other issues that the parents may not know about?

As I said to Brendan, this is a matter which Catholic ethics professors debate. It is not an easy decision. I, personally would not tell my child to disobey the teacher in this matter. It is Brenden’s personal interpretation which applies **“but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.” ** to posture for Holy Communion. I do not agree, and neither do the other authorities in that diocese. I feel a better choice would be to receive elsewhere, and make the complaint. This is how RS tells us to address perceived liturgical abuse.
Lux

 

[pnewton]

I feel a better choice would be to receive elsewhere, and make the complaint. This is how RS tells us to address perceived liturgical abuse.
Lux

That would be one option.

Let us put this in a secular setting. What if a civics teacher told her eighteen year old students that because of her belief that eighteen year olds should not vote that they were forbidden from voting. Should they hve to obey her?

 

[FrDavid96]

As I said to Brendan, this is a matter which Catholic ethics professors debate. It is not an easy decision. I, personally would not tell my child to disobey the teacher in this matter. It is Brenden’s personal interpretation which applies **“but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.” ** to posture for Holy Communion. I do not agree, and neither do the other authorities in that diocese. I feel a better choice would be to receive elsewhere, and make the complaint. This is how RS tells us to address perceived liturgical abuse.
Lux

Now please Redemptionis Sacramentum hardly tells us to respond to liturgical abuses by finding another place to go to Mass!

 

[Brendan]

As I said to Brendan, this is a matter which Catholic ethics professors debate.

Lux, I have never hear of a Catholic Ethicist who advocated following the instructions of a layperson who taught contrary to the faith.

Which Professors are you referring to?

It is not an easy decision. I, personally would not tell my child to disobey the teacher in this matter.

So you would instruct your child to follow known falsehood? Is that what you are advocating

It is Brenden’s personal interpretation which applies **“but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.” ** to posture for Holy Communion. I do not agree, and neither do the other authorities in that diocese.

So it is your premise that posture for liturgy is neither a discipline or a matter of governence of the Church. What exactly is it then?

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Lux, I have never hear of a Catholic Ethicist who advocated following the instructions of a layperson who taught contrary to the faith.

Nor have I. Liturgical norms are not a doctrine or dogma, or a matter of morals as defined by canon law.

Which Professors are you referring to?

Seminary

So you would instruct your child to follow known falsehood? Is that what you are advocating

Again, we are speaking of liturgical norms. Also again, if I could not follow the instructions for posture from the person in charge of the ceremony, I would go elsewhere, especially if the Priest and/or Bishop backed them up. Also again, make the complaint, as we are instructed in RS. Disobeying an instruction for posture during a ceremony is not an option for me. Certainly you do what you feel is right, but you cannot convince me that it is right to disobey a teacher in this matter.

So it is your premise that posture for liturgy is neither a discipline or a matter of governence of the Church. What exactly is it then?

posture of the congregation for liturgy

Liturgical norms. The posture of the congregation can do nothing to change the liturgy.

Lux

 

[mhazell]

Also again, if I could not follow the instructions for posture from the person in charge of the ceremony, I would go elsewhere, especially if the Priest and/or Bishop backed them up.

Yet it is not just a matter of “follow[ing] instructions” in this case. You and the anonymous seminary professors you vaguely reference are, with all due respect, sadly misguided here in your appeals to “authority” that is not the authority of the Church.

The teacher is *denying members of the faithful of one of their fundamental rights *for reception of communion. *It is their right *to receive on the tongue–moreover, it is the norm.

Whether priests or bishops back up the lay teacher in this regard is also irrelevant. For this is a matter of basic rights, not local custom or a mere instruction for posture.

The girl originally mentioned in the thread’s question has every right to receive on the tongue. This is not a matter of following instructions, because no-one–bishop, priest or laity–can deny the faithful their basic rights.

 

[pnewton]

Nor have I. Liturgical norms are not a doctrine or dogma, or a matter of morals as defined by canon law.

This particular discipline has been spelled out point blank because of disobedient Catholics that have refused to heed the discipline of the Church. This teacher is not allowed to do what she is trying. Any authority she might have for a class comes through the Church. She has willful cut herself off from this by defying the will of the Church. Since she has no authority of her own, she is as meaningless as those who clamor for abortion rights and women priests. She has zero authority and zero right to dictate Mass posture. Receiving on the tongue would not be defying authority in this case as she is not an authority.

 

[Brendan]

Seminary

Which Seminary, or which Seminary professors. I have recieved Ethics instruction at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit. I would be very interested in talking to the professors that you are referring to.

And I’m sure my Ethics professors would be very interested in talking to them as well.

posture of the congregation for liturgy

Liturgical norms. The posture of the congregation can do nothing to change the liturgy.

Lux

So you are saying that the described postures for the laity are neither matters of Faith, Morals, Discipline or Governance of the Church, is that correct?

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Hi Brendan,

What I am saying is what I have always said. I personally would not put my personal preferences over the wishes of the celebrant, or his deputed administrator.

I do not feel that Jesus would want me to disrespect authority over my personal preference.

I believe that obedience and respect are a priority over personal preferences in 2 legitimate options. If I felt that strongly, I would take instructed actions and/or worship elsewhere.

Obviously you disagree with me and those who have instructed me. Let’s agree to disagree.

Peace & Happy Easter,

Lux

 

[LRThunder]

Hi Brendan,

What I am saying is what I have always said. I personally would not put my personal preferences over the wishes of the celebrant, or his deputed administrator.

I do not feel that Jesus would want me to disrespect authority over my personal preference.

I believe that obedience and respect are a priority over personal preferences in 2 legitimate options. If I felt that strongly, I would take instructed actions and/or worship elsewhere.

Obviously you disagree with me and those who have instructed me. Let’s agree to disagree.

Peace & Happy Easter,

Lux

Except that the celebrant or his “deputed administrator” have no authority to counter what the Church has said. If the Church said that receiving on the tongue is the norm, then no priest or EMHC or teacher can say otherwise.

 

[mhazell]

What I am saying is what I have always said. I personally would not put my personal preferences over the wishes of the celebrant, or his deputed administrator.

The mistake you continue to make is to say that this is about “personal preference”.

It is, as the documents of the Church make clear, about everyone’s basic rights.

And neither the priest celebrant nor his “deputed administrator” can put their own personal preferences (i.e. what you refer to as “wishes”) over the basic rights of the faithful.

 

[Pug]

Maybe Lux et Tenebrae here just feels that not all rights must be claimed in all circumstances. As a general idea, I agree with that.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Now please Redemptionis Sacramentum hardly tells us to respond to liturgical abuses by finding another place to go to Mass!

No it does not. But, sometimes we just get tired of fighting. Mass/Liturgy should not be something we tolerate or fight about. Sometimes a worshiper justs wants to worship and not fight the “secularized powers that be”.

My grandsons are given such a hard time by their DRE that the one just gave in and now receives in the hand. Why? He is 12 and wants to fit in with the other kids. The 10 year old received one time in the hand and said it made him feel “un-special” and not special like communion on the tongue makes him feel.

As for being forced it does happen. Infact it happened to me on Friday. The EM actually forced open my hands and pushed Our Lord into it. So it does happen and yes I told her after Mass to never do this again.