Denying Communion to kneeling communicant.

[Mysty101]

PSyou never answered this
In:

It seems to me that all that is being said here is that we must obey the USCCB without question even when there are disagreements with the Vatican. The point you were making was that the woman should have obeyed the priest after he had counselled her and that he therefore had the right to withhold communion, a serious canonical penalty, and one that couild give rise to serious misunderstandings on the part of those who observed it, and one which it has been declared illicit by the GIRM.

This really makes me angry. Where did I say that??

 

[InnocentIII]

Mysty101:

Both

And probably will never be. But I am again very upset at the absolute misquoting of my words.

Frankly after reading through the threads you seem to be perpetually angry. Everyone misunderstands your words apparently. I agree you have never said she should have been denied communion but your assertion that she should obey the priest implies that the refusal was justified. She is the perpetrator and the priest is the victim.

Mysty101:

I gave links to the other threads where this was thoroughly discussed. I will not repeat myself again. In one post, I went through the threads and repeated all I had said before–I really don’t have the time to do it again.

Yes you did. And ignored or overrode any document which contradicted the power of the USCCB. The only document I could find that you quoted was one from England which argues for administrative convenience rather than sound theological or disciplinary reasons

Yet if the Communion Procession, and our reception of Holy Communion itself is to be carried out in a worthy fashion we need to overcome these common difficulties. We need to achieve a sense of order and rhythm in the procession, so that it can signify reverence and a communitarian corporate quality in what we do.

As I have said, there was order and rhythm in the existing system, in fact I would argue more as the rail would fill up as the priest went down the row. No worries about being held up by the person in front and plenty of time to say a little prayer before receiving. But that is only an opinion.

Mysty101:

This really makes me angry. Where did I say that??

You really do need an anger management course. Either that or be clearer in your meanings. Especially as so many people seem to be misquoting you. Also I find all these references to getting angry carry an implied threat against people disagreeing with you - which is most uncharitable. I haven’t threatened you.

Mysty101:

However the norm came to be, it is still the Liturgical Law. Did you ever read the article on the Communion Procession? That was in one of those threads, and another reason for the standing norm, but you have made your decision on the reason, albeit without any documentation.

See above. Also you seem to have intersting ideas on the law. Are you a canon lawyer? The GIRM is not issued by the USCCB but by the Vatican. It applies world-wide. However the Bishops of each country can establish norms with the permission of the Vatican. In this case

When the U.S. bishops proposed this adaptation, the Holy See insisted on the provision that the faithful who choose to kneel not be denied Communion. Following the release of the old GIRM, many faithful who chose to kneel were denied Communion or otherwise harassed regarding the practice, and Rome received numerous complaints.

In response the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments published in the November-December 2002 issue of its official journal, Notitiae, a notification that it “considers any refusal of Holy Communion to a member of the faithful on the basis of his or her kneeling posture to be a grave violation of one of the most basic rights of the Christian faithful, namely that of being assisted by their pastors by means of the Sacraments.”

The CDWDS further stipulated that “there should be no such refusal to any Catholic who presents himself for Holy Communion at Mass, except in cases presenting a danger of grave scandal to other believers arising out of the person’s unrepented public sin or obstinate heresy or schism, publicly professed or declared.”

and again

“…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”.

Are you not accusing people of disobedience to their pastors contrary to the clear directions of the Successors of the Apostles?

And it is a basic legal principle that delegated authority is always and everywhere subject to recall and oversight by the delegating power (as you keep trying to say with the higher law overrides the lower), that is the higher authority (the Holy See) can always override the lower (the local Bishops Conference).

Mysty101:

I still can’t believe that people think that Jesus would prefer them to kneel, rather than respect and support the Successors of the Apostles.

You seem to have a narrow view of who the Successors of the Apostles are!

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Innocent:

“…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”.

Innocent - where does this come from. Is it in one of the letters?

 

[InnocentIII]

Therefore, attention should be paid to what is determined by this General Instruction and the traditional practice of the Roman Rite and to what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God, rather than private inclination or arbitrary choice.

Please note the bold section. The traditional practices of the Roman Rite are not being paid attention to here, nor the common good of the people of God. Rather it is the arbitary choice of the USCCB.

The Church sees in these common postures and gestures both a symbol of the unity of those who have come together to worship and a means of fostering that unity. We are not free to change these postures to suit our own individual piety, for the Church makes it clear that our unity of posture and gesture is an expression of our participation in the one Body formed by the baptized with Christ, our head.

Yet the USCCB and other Western countries DO change postures to suit themselves. Is this not rejecting the very unity of posture called for, and establishing a separate expression for a local church??

Finally, as I have repeated ad infinitum, all these are simply justifications for the practice of the kind “this is the way we do it and in the name of unity everyone should follow”, it still does NOT explain WHY the practice needed to be introduced in the first place.

 

[InnocentIII]

Lux_et_veritas:

Innocent - where does this come from. Is it in one of the letters?

I have highlighted some salient points in red

Prot. n. 47/03/L Rome, February 26, 2003

This Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has received your letter dated December 1, 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 Congregation, 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, 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,
[signed]
Mons. Mario Marini
Undersecretary

 

[Mysty101]

InnocentIII:

Yet the USCCB and other Western countries DO change postures to suit themselves. Is this not rejecting the very unity of posture called for, and establishing a separate expression for a local church??
.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

In response to the request of His Excellency, the Most Reverend Wilton D. Gregory, Bishop of Belleville, President of the Conference of Bishops of the United States of America, made in a letter dated November 20, 2002, and by virtue of the faculties granted to this Congregation by the Supreme Pontiff JOHN PAUL II, we grant recognition of the text excerpted from the English language translation of parts of the *Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, *as found in the attached copy, and which shall be inserted into future editions of the Roman Missal published in English for use in the dioceses of the this same Conference.

Mention of the recognition granted by this Congregation must be included in the published text of these norms.

All things to the contrary notwithstanding.

From the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, April 17, 2002.

• Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Estevez
  Prefect
• Franciscus Pius Tamburrino
  Archbishop-Secretary

1. It is up to the Conferences of Bishops to decide on the adaptations indicated in this General Instruction and in the Order of Mass and, once their decisions have been accorded the recognitio of the Apostolic See, to introduce them into the Missal itself. These adaptations include

• The gestures and posture of the faithful (cf. no. 43 above);
• The gestures of veneration toward the altar and the Book of the Gospels (cf. no. 273 above);
• The texts of the chants at the entrance, at the presentation of the gifts, and at Communion (cf. nos. 48, 74, 87 above);
• The readings from Sacred Scripture to be used in special circumstances (cf. no. 362 above);
• The form of the gesture of peace (cf. no. 82 above);
• The manner of receiving Holy Communion (cf. nos. 160, 283 above);
• The materials for the altar and sacred furnishings, especially the sacred vessels, and also the materials, form, and color of the liturgical vestments (cf. nos. 301, 326, 329, 339, 342-346 above).

1. The Diocesan Bishop, who is to be regarded as the high priest of his flock, and from whom the life in Christ of the faithful under his care in a certain sense derives and upon whom it depends,148 must promote, regulate, and be vigilant over the liturgical life in his diocese. It is to him that in this Instruction is entrusted the regulating of the discipline of concelebration (cf. above, nos. 202, 374) and the establishing of norms regarding the function of serving the priest at the altar (cf. above, no. 107), the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds (cf. above, no. 283), and the construction and ordering of churches (cf. above, no. 291). With him lies responsibility above all for fostering the spirit of the Sacred Liturgy in the priests, deacons, and faithful.

Whether you like it or not, the Bishops do have much authority, and Rome does support that authority.

If I apear angry, it is because I am tired or repeating the same thing, and having my words twisted.

I repeat

me:

Again (for the gazillionth time)—any reports of this???(sanction to the priest)

Again, I am trying to give reasons why it is better to follow a norm than exercise a “right” in defiance of a Priest.

I have offered many reasons, many times. Unless something new comes up, please restrict your comments to the subject at hand, and do not speculate on my thoughts or motives, or especially do not ascribe your thoughts to me.

(I neither drool, nor advocate Holy Communion for non-Catholics)

 

[Mysty101]

I do see that we are at an impass.

Rant on as you wish. I see you have no respect for the authority of the USCCB. Why not write Rome and get an official answer?

This is a very difficult position, which I have said from the beginning was a very poor compromise, since it was doomed to failure, and there were no instructions as to the next step.

The wording was so precise, since you cannot legally override a norm without a revision of the GIRM The whole RS controversy over the reprobation of an approved norm for the use of the flagon illustrates this. This was challenged, but since the challenge was dropped it never got to canon court.

The reason for this is simple. What about those who were never made aware there was a change? They are still using flagons, and they have a current instruction allowing this.

We disagree, but do not misquote or interpret my words in your response. You paraphrase incorrectly, so just state your own opinion, and do not ascribe your meaning to my words.

 

[InnocentIII]

Mysty101:

Whether you like it or not, the Bishops do have much authority, and Rome does support that authority.

In response to the request of His Excellency, the Most Reverend Wilton D. Gregory, Bishop of Belleville, President of the Conference of Bishops of the United States of America, made in a letter dated November 20, 2002, and by virtue of the faculties granted to this Congregation by the Supreme Pontiff JOHN PAUL II, we grant recognition of the text excerpted from the English language translation of parts of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, as found in the attached copy, and which shall be inserted into future editions of the Roman Missal published in English for use in the dioceses of the this same Conference.

BUT

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.

It appears to be you that will not accept authority.You claim catholics should be obedient and resepectful to the USCCB but will not recognise the authority of the Holy See to specify the manner in which the norm is to be understood.

Mysty101:

If I apear angry, it is because I am tired or repeating the same thing, and having my words twisted.

I repeat, everyone seems to twist your words and you get angry, so maybe you need to choose your words more carefully. Just saying you are angry at being misquoted displays an immature approach to discussion. This is a serious matter on which there are differing opinions and for which people are therefore entitled to argue their points of view. If you are sick of repeating yourself then don’t. If you want to present your view do so without threatening people that they will make you angry.

 

[Mysty101]

InnocentIII:

I repeat, everyone seems to twist your words and you get angry, so maybe you need to choose your words more carefully. Just saying you are angry at being misquoted displays an immature approach to discussion. This is a serious matter on which there are differing opinions and for which people are therefore entitled to argue their points of view. If you are sick of repeating yourself then don’t. If you want to present your view do so without threatening people that they will make you angry.

No, it is misquoting and ascribing your thoughts and motives which creates an inauthentic discussion. Stick to the facts. You have no knowledge or right to question my submission to authority. I have not voilated a clear norm as this lady has.

Tht norm states she is to be instructed and cannot be denied Communion–period.

But the one thing I wish to say again for those who feel I am not clear in my words (even though they are stated --I said a gazillion times in a gazillion ways that I did agree that the Priest was wrong to deny Communion, yet it was not clear)

I also said I am not arguing that the Priest was wrong to deny Communion.

What I am saying is that once a person has been instructed and refuses to comply, what is the next step?

Again, I am trying to give reasons why it is better to follow a norm than exercise a “right” in defiance of a Priest.

 

[InnocentIII]

Mysty101:

No, it is misquoting and ascribing your thoughts and motives which creates an inauthentic discussion. Stick to the facts. You have no knowledge or right to question my submission to authority.

You have no knowledge of my thoughts and motives so how do you know I am ascribing them to you. And given that you reject the authority of Rome in this matter, as you state

Mysty101:

Yes, I am quite familiar with RS, but in the US we are under the authority of the USCCB, so the USCCB interpretation is what those in the US should follow.

I have every right to at least question your submission to the overriding authority of the Holy See. The US Catholic Bishops are under the authority of the Pope and the Congregations of the Church as has been clearly stated (Note: The Dicastery is competent not the USCCB)

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.

Mysty101:

I have not voilated a clear norm as this lady has.

So your own words are that this lady has violated a norm. Your words not mine. So how does this square with

Indeed, the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion."

Mysty101:

Tht norm states she is to be instructed and cannot be denied Communion–period.

If she did not act disobediently as specified above, then she has not violated a norm. The instruction therefore appears redundant.

Mysty101:

But the one thing I wish to say again for those who feel I am not clear in my words (even though they are stated --I said a gazillion times in a gazillion ways that I did agree that the Priest was wrong to deny Communion, yet it was not clear)

I did not say you did, but your implication, finally stated clearly above, is that the woman was guilty of “violating” the norm. Violating implies disobedience. These are your words not mine.

I would also be grateful if we could avoid all future threats, and put downs. The state of your emotions is immaterial to me. I am only concerned with the issue being discussed and obtaining some clarity about this matter which is clearly one of much interest to many posters in this forum.

 

[Mysty101]

I will defend my words only, not what you think they imply.

You can continue to argue with yourself as long as you wish

If you wish me to respond see if you can post without using words like “implied” or “seems to me”

The woman violated the norm. We are discussing what will be the results of this violation. The letter (and I do still question the authority of this letter) stated that she could not be called disobedient. It did not state that she had not violated the norm, just that she could not be denied Communion because of this violation.

I would also be grateful if we could avoid all future threats, and put downs. The state of your emotions is immaterial to me. I am only concerned with the issue being discussed and obtaining some clarity about this matter which is clearly one of much interest to many posters in this forum

Really?

You twist my words, and call me immature because I object to being misquoted and then make a statement like this???.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

InnocentIII:

I have highlighted some salient points in red

This is great, what you have cited from the letter from Mons Marini.

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, 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.
We have a letter here from the Holy See stating that it should not be looked upon as an act of disobedience to exercise one’s right to kneel.
Good grief, it could not get any plainer than what is stated in that February 2003 letter, and backed up in the 2004 Redemptionis Sacramentum.

This does not require a canon lawyer to decipher and by the sounds of it, the Holy See will never authorize anything the US Bishops submit that deals with kneeling as “disobedience” or “illicit act”. They pretty much closed the door with that letter for anyone hoping to stop the practice with some kind of punishment or sanction on people who don’t follow “instruction”. Of course, for those who believe our first allegiance is to the American Bishops, even at the expense of ignoring Rome, this letter is meaningless. However, I do believe the bulk of the US Bishops understand this now.



I also believe the US Bishops have more to worry about than one woman kneeling. They might want to spend more time pondering why so many Catholics believe in contraception and abortion, and why so many have fallen away from the church, or simply explore why Catholics no longer have time to Worship God one hour per week. Most that don’t go to church that I know, have no problem whatsoever finding 2 hours per night for precious prime-time TV watching the likes of Desperate Housewives.

These are heavy pastoral issues that need addressing. The kneeling versus standing issue won’t send a woman to hell. But engaging in sinful practice and thumbing one’s nose at church teachings which are very clear, such as abortion, premarital sex, extra-marital sex, etc are all potentially damning for those presumptious enough to think they don’t mean anything.

:banghead:

 

[Mysty101]

Of course, for those who believe our first allegiance is to the American Bishops, even at the expense of ignoring Rome, this letter is meaningless. However, I do believe the bulk of the US Bishops understand this now.

Our first allegence is to lawful authority, whatever that may be.

Why do you suppose the instruction to sanction was never carried out?

The norm does forbid the denial of Holy Communion, but does not go into the other areas which the letter touches.

As I said, this is not a matter of choosing the Bishops over Rome, it is a matter of priority of conflicting official documents.

Rs was issued after the letter, but still did not change the norm, but reiterated the instruction in the GIRM

**

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.”176
**

 

[Joe_Monahan]

This thread has deteriorated into circuitous and repetitive argumentation. Thank you to all who have participated.

The thread is closed.

Joe Monahan