B
Brendan
Guest
C. Pick the one preferred by the Pope?
- Status
T
totustuusmaria
Guest
That’s totally circular reasoning.
Why did they approve it? because it’s the norm. Why is it the norm? because they approved it. Why did they not revoke it? because it’s the norm. Why is it the norm? because they didn’t revoke it. Why did they change the previous norm? because it’s the norm. Why is it the norm? because they changed it.
It is the norm, but it was approved not because it is the norm but because the USCCB requested it. The Congregation for Divine Worship seems to have thought that this request was strange, but granted it with the caviat that people can choose to still receive kneeling.
T
totustuusmaria
Guest
AltarMan, I have a question for you:
The Society of Saint John Cantius uses an altar rail. Are you opposed to that?
The Society of Saint John Cantius uses an altar rail. Are you opposed to that?
H
Ham1
Guest
Well in fairness, the Pope lives in an area where kneeling is the norm.
A
AltarMan
Guest
I think Michelle Arnold hit the nail on the head with:
“…For a communicant at a standard Roman-rite liturgy to deliberately ignore the just instruction from a priest to receive Communion while standing, instruction given in accord with the liturgical rubrics approved by the Vatican for use in the United States, would be problematic indeed. We are called to be faithful to all just instruction given by the Church through its ordained ministers, not only to those instructions we like or understand…”
Available here in its entirety.
“…For a communicant at a standard Roman-rite liturgy to deliberately ignore the just instruction from a priest to receive Communion while standing, instruction given in accord with the liturgical rubrics approved by the Vatican for use in the United States, would be problematic indeed. We are called to be faithful to all just instruction given by the Church through its ordained ministers, not only to those instructions we like or understand…”
Available here in its entirety.
M
msproule
Guest
Precisely.
The Vatican has allowed the Diocesan Bishops to establish norms for Communion under both kinds. The subsequent USCCB document states:The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.
Neither this wording, nor that of the GIRM, allows the abolition of kneeling. While (some) Bishops considered kneeling Communicants to be disobedient, the Vatican clarification of their original intent settled that debate and proved those Bishops wrong.
Nevertheless, if the norms themselves are to be modified, the burden lies on the USCCB to do so. The GIRM gives them that responsibility. For the Vatican to revise the norm directly would require that they rescind the original permissions.
A
AltarMan
Guest
That’s axiomatic. Of course they are. Refer to the GIRM.
A
AltarMan
Guest
"The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm."
And it would be horribly wrong for someone to continue kneeling once they had received said catechesis. One has to wonder what the next level of excuse is after one’s pastor has shown them the GIRM and provided counseling on the matter?
Do we then regress to the “conscience” argument - the very one invoked by those who demand to hold hands during the Lord’s Prayer, stand during the consecation or assume the orans position?
B
Brendan
Guest
Really?? the Vatican say they are not being disobedient.
B
Brendan
Guest
What wrong is being committed?
F
fix
Guest
Yes, and why should there even by a Curia if everyone is free to disregard their authority?
M
msproule
Guest
Read the actual instructions in the Bishops’ document. I already placed it in my previous post, but here it is again:
The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.
This directs the priest to take the following actions should a Communicant choose to kneel:
- Offer the Sacrament to the Communicant
- Explain why the USCCB has chosen standing as the
norm
Nowhere does it provide for the priest to demand a particular posture. Should he do so, this instruction should (at first) be heeded. Nevertheless, the Communicant does have recourse with the Diocesan Bishop and then with the Vatican. I believe that is what has occurred here. The Vatican has responded with a clarification of how the law may be applied, and as a result Communicants may kneel without fear of being denied the Sacrament nor of being treated as disobedient.
A
AltarMan
Guest
You have underscored my thesis perfectly. Just read posting #25. It’s not always easy to follow the Church in place of one’s ego but it’s certainly possible.
M
mosher
Guest
Correction, it is up to the Church in its competant authority. Some issues are not within the authority of the Church to modify or change. Matters that apply to the Sacra Doctrina or the Sensus Fidei cannot be changed by any Ecclisiastical authority including the Holy Father or the Bishops is Solemn Council.
M
mosher
Guest
No, but the pastor of souls could opt to use the official Latin of the Novus Ordo which is the norm of the Church as opposed to the permitted vernacular.
M
mosher
Guest
The USCCB is not a competant authority. Rather it has a purpose of collegiality among the local bishops. No bishop is bound by a statement of the local conference unless Rome dicates otherwise by making particular law. Yet, even in the case of particular law a Bishop can exempt his See from the particular law by appeal to the Holy See.
A
AltarMan
Guest
So the Catholic Church (AKA The Holy See) is not competant to define liturgical postures for the laity? Further, the Catholic Church does not have the authority to modify said postures? In a word you gotta be kidding…
T
totustuusmaria
Guest
Once again, I ask the question:
What about altar rails? Has the use of them in the United States been forbidden? How does this fit in with the norms?
What about altar rails? Has the use of them in the United States been forbidden? How does this fit in with the norms?
M
mosher
Guest
Not is some instances. One point is that the Church does not have the right to mandate standing in the latin rite for the consecration just as She cannot mandate kneeling during the consecration duing the Byzantine Liturgy at the consecration because of the Apostolic nature of the liturgies. However, she does have the right to mandate standing during the Eucharistic Prayer which was done in the revison of the GIRM. However, US particular law was made to retain the kneeling during the Eucharistic Prayer and after the Angus Dei. The Church herself determines what is movable and what is immovable. This is the reason for the dubiums which are a necessary method of formal clarification on what is movable and what is immovable.
M
msproule
Guest
I am quite familiar with Michelle Arnold’s response. That is why I stated that the priest’s instructions should be followed until proper recourse is taken and affirmed. That has happened already. See post #12.
I would not be so quick to discount proper legal procedure as “slithering”.
- Status