Hypocrisy in the Pews

[mosher]

msproule:

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”.

This is an important point because the Church creates the legal process of questioning and answering for a reason. We as human persons are not perfect and at times our subjective interpretation of things (even Bishops) are not in accord with the intent of the competant authority - in this case the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. Hence it is not about doing back flips through legal manuvering but rather clarification for solidity with the Holy See.

 

[Brendan]

AltarMan:

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…

The Holy See is the ONLY Authority that can define liturgical postures. All others do so only with with Holy See’s recognito and under any conditions stated by the Holy See.

And we’ve already read what those conditions are.

 

[mosher]

Point of fact:

The dubium concerning the posture of reception of communion and post communion was asked by the USCCB itself so that it could understand more clearly what Rome desired. This is hardly manuvering by heterodox or orthodox groups as it was asked by Cardinals George and Mahoney.

 

[Ham1]

mosher:

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.

How does this relate to my post??? I’m aware of what the USCCB does. They asked that the norm be standing and the Congregation granted that. That norm is still in existence.

It seems that everyone here is pointing to the fact that one cannot be called disobediant to justify a variance of posture based on personal preference. I would say there is a difference in saying “one is not disobediant” and saying “this is a proper and acceptable posture.” It appears that the passages that are used to “justify” a variance of posture are directed toward the priests and how they are to treat communicants who decide to vary from the norm. Priests are not to call them disobediant and certainly not to refuse them communion. But just because the priests are instructed to respond in such a fashion does not mean that the Vatican has issued clear permission for people to deviate from the norm.

The two most well-reasoned arguments I have seen thus far have come from Whitehead and Arnold both of whom probably have a bit more credibility in this area than any of us.

Ultimately, isn’t the safest choice to submit to the norm of our Church? I once heard my pastor say that he would only go against his Bishop’s wishes if it would be morally wrong to obey him. Now, I know the priest takes an oath of fidelity and blah, blah, blah…so the situation isn’t identical. But isn’t his attitude the “safer” path? In my mind, you won’t go wrong if you follow the Church and her norm’s. Why go to such great lengths to justify something just because we “like” it better? Whoever said following the Church was easy?

 

[AltarMan]

Ham1:

How does this relate to my post??? I’m aware of what the USCCB does. They asked that the norm be standing and the Congregation granted that. That norm is still in existence.

It seems that everyone here is pointing to the fact that one cannot be called disobediant to justify a variance of posture based on personal preference. I would say there is a difference in saying “one is not disobediant” and saying “this is a proper and acceptable posture.” It appears that the passages that are used to “justify” a variance of posture are directed toward the priests and how they are to treat communicants who decide to vary from the norm. Priests are not to call them disobediant and certainly not to refuse them communion. But just because the priests are instructed to respond in such a fashion does not mean that the Vatican has issued clear permission for people to deviate from the norm.

The two most well-reasoned arguments I have seen thus far have come from Whitehead and Arnold both of whom probably have a bit more credibility in this area than any of us.

Ultimately, isn’t the safest choice to submit to the norm of our Church? I once heard my pastor say that he would only go against his Bishop’s wishes if it would be morally wrong to obey him. Now, I know the priest takes an oath of fidelity and blah, blah, blah…so the situation isn’t identical. But isn’t his attitude the “safer” path? In my mind, you won’t go wrong if you follow the Church and her norm’s. Why go to such great lengths to justify something just because we “like” it better? Whoever said following the Church was easy?

Well said. For many of us however, it would take checking our pride at the vestibule from time to time and for many people that’s only for others – perhaps only those with “liberal” mindsets…

 

[AltarMan]

mosher:

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.

You’re wrong again.

First the GIRM does not apply to the Divine Liturgies.

That said if the Catholic Church decided to mandate kneeling during the Anaphora it certainly wouldn’t be stopped by what you term the “Apostolic nature” of the Divine Liturgies.

(It actually sounds like you just made that up to be quite honest.)

Keep in mind that if such as change was ever instituted (which obviously has next to no chance of happening) it would originate and take place through the cognizant eastern church and rite – it would not simply flow from the western side of the Church.

 

[BillyT92679]

Brendan:

Exactly!

The CDW specifically said that it approved the norm only with the caveat that kneeling not be forbidden or considered disobedient.

And yet there are some bishops who say otherwise?

Which one should a faithful Catholic listen to, their bishop or Rome.

And why should faithful Catholics be placed in such a position

Technically, a faithful Catholic has to listen to both. The Bishop is a Succesor to the Apostles himself, not just a manager for the local facility of Catholic Church Corp. Even if we don’t like him, we’re bound to submit to his authority. And I say this living in one of the most frustratingly liberal dioceses in the country.

 

[JNB]

Crusader, how many IDs do you have to get banned for your behavior on this issue? Anyways, these threads go one and on. Rome has spoken, the CDW clearified on how the GIRM is to be interperted.

AltarMan:

I see the sordid stain of hypocrisy casting a pall over too many postings on liturgical delicts and abuses on this forum. Sadly all this does is empower those actively working today to inject delicts and abuses into the Mass – from both the “progressive” and “traditonal” fringes of the Church.

A couple of examples. First we have the issue of fractioning the Precious Blood into seperate containers once it has become the Precious Blood. The Holy See directed us to stop this practice in Redemptoris Sacramentum. Did we fully comply here in the USA? No way. We were met with a legalize response, one of dubiums and responsums, pushed largely by the “progressive” wing of the Church here in the USA. What was the result? In many cases RS was simply ignored on this matter through legal slithering. It also showed the effete and somewhat confused condition of the Church and the willingness by some US bishops to do as they please under the guise of following canon law.

Now we have the issue of kneeling while receiving Holy Communion. The GIRM is exceedingly clear on this matter. Rather than comply with the instructions of the Holy See we are met with resistance and a volley of paperwork created this time at the behest of the “traditional” wing of the Church in the USA. They seem to think they know better than the Church of what is best.

It would be wonderful if we just started following the Church and not what we personally feel is “best.” This hypocrisy has and is taking a toll on the Church.

 

[AltarMan]

JNB:

Crusader, how many IDs do you have to get banned for your behavior on this issue? Anyways, these threads go one and on. Rome has spoken, the CDW clearified on how the GIRM is to be interperted.

I am not “crusader.” I really have no idea why you visited this thread. You added nothing to the discussion, only your personal opinion and some sort of insult. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[msproule]

AltarMan:

…it would take checking our pride at the vestibule from time to time…

…or at the CA Forums login screen, no?

Anyway, I was listening to Karl Keating on “Catholic Answers Live” during the commute home today and coincidentally the very first question echoed the topic at hand!. That is, what is one to do when a Communicant wishes to kneel instead of stand.

Karl’s answer will sound vaguely familiar to those who thoroughly read and understood what I was trying to convey in posts 26 and 32 of this thread. While I may be lacking in my abilities to make a convincing argument, surely he is able to more aptly do so.

Here is a link to tonight’s radio show (in mp3 format). As I said, it is the very first question so you will not need to listen very long.

In the context of the “Ask an Apologist” link that was provided earlier, Michelle Arnold cautions the Communicant to above all obey the priest. But in the greater context found in Karl’s answer, the priest lacks the legal authority to impose a posture in this situation anyway.

In Christ,
Michael

 

[fix]

What am I to make of this?:

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.”
catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/LawText/LawIndex/47

 

[Brendan]

BillyT92679:

Technically, a faithful Catholic has to listen to both. The Bishop is a Succesor to the Apostles himself, not just a manager for the local facility of Catholic Church Corp. Even if we don’t like him, we’re bound to submit to his authority. And I say this living in one of the most frustratingly liberal dioceses in the country.

But when the Bishop attempts to do what the Vatican says he cannot, there is a conflict.

One must be listened to over the other, correct?

 

[AltarMan]

Brendan:

But when the Bishop attempts to do what the Vatican says he cannot, there is a conflict.

One must be listened to over the other, correct?

That would depend. If he for example he told you to stand during the consecration, he would be relieving you of the responsibility to assume the correct position (kneeling.) It would be praiseworthy to fight this, but he has taken responsibility for the order he has given. It’s on his head.

On the other hand, if he ordered you to flush consecrated Hosts down the commode, I would certainly hope you would not only turn a deaf ear to his demands, but you would also do everything (and I mean everything) to ensure no one else did either.

 

[mosher]

AltarMan:

You’re wrong again.

First the GIRM does not apply to the Divine Liturgies.

That said if the Catholic Church decided to mandate kneeling during the Anaphora it certainly wouldn’t be stopped by what you term the “Apostolic nature” of the Divine Liturgies.

(It actually sounds like you just made that up to be quite honest.)

Keep in mind that if such as change was ever instituted (which obviously has next to no chance of happening) it would originate and take place through the cognizant eastern church and rite – it would not simply flow from the western side of the Church.

I’m glad you think that but the reality is as such. The Church is limited in its authority as pertains to the Sacra Doctrina. She does not have the right to move what is immovable in the Sacra Doctrina. Only modernistic thinking would lead to belief that the Church is the source of novilty instead of the keeper of the Deposit of Faith. What most people miss (particularly in the US) is that the Liturgy is not an action that can be motified at will. Rather, the Liturgy is the primary means in which we encounter the Sacra Doctrina. When this most important fact about the Liturgy is missed then one can come to the conclusion that all things in the Liturgy are changable. However, the nature of the Rite in itself cannot be modified. The consistant traditions in the Rite from Apostolic times cannot be modified. The Church knows Her boundaries and has clearly stated them in their work on the Novus Ordo.

Further, pertaining to the norms one must realize that currently the Norm for posture during the Eucharistic Prayer (the Canon) is standing. The Norm is only to kneel from the epiklisis to the Great Amen. However the Bishops of the US decided to petition Rome to make particular law in the US to allow kneeling from the Sanctus to the Great Amen and post Angus Dei. These were accepted by Rome. All was done through official chanels similar to the dubium responsum process that was done to determine what the posture was to be post communion and for the reception of communion. The response from Rome about the posture of reception of communion was left to the conscious of the individual provided that some sign of reverence is made before reception and in the second place the positon post communion is at the discression of the individual. I don’t see how it is possible to see the positions of Rome as hyporcisy. Rather, what I see is a lack of informed understanding when it comes to the nature of the liturgy by those who would claim fowl.

 

[AltarMan]

mosher:

I’m glad you think that but the reality is as such. The Church is limited in its authority as pertains to the Sacra Doctrina. She does not have the right to move what is immovable in the Sacra Doctrina. Only modernistic thinking would lead to belief that the Church is the source of novilty instead of the keeper of the Deposit of Faith. What most people miss (particularly in the US) is that the Liturgy is not an action that can be motified at will. Rather, the Liturgy is the primary means in which we encounter the Sacra Doctrina. When this most important fact about the Liturgy is missed then one can come to the conclusion that all things in the Liturgy are changable. However, the nature of the Rite in itself cannot be modified. The consistant traditions in the Rite from Apostolic times cannot be modified. The Church knows Her boundaries and has clearly stated them in their work on the Novus Ordo.

Further, pertaining to the norms one must realize that currently the Norm for posture during the Eucharistic Prayer (the Canon) is standing. The Norm is only to kneel from the epiklisis to the Great Amen. However the Bishops of the US decided to petition Rome to make particular law in the US to allow kneeling from the Sanctus to the Great Amen and post Angus Dei. These were accepted by Rome. All was done through official chanels similar to the dubium responsum process that was done to determine what the posture was to be post communion and for the reception of communion. The response from Rome about the posture of reception of communion was left to the conscious of the individual provided that some sign of reverence is made before reception and in the second place the positon post communion is at the discression of the individual. I don’t see how it is possible to see the positions of Rome as hyporcisy. Rather, what I see is a lack of informed understanding when it comes to the nature of the liturgy by those who would claim fowl.

Actually the changes we talked about could indeed be made by the Church (not that they are probable of course.) You may believe otherwise, but that does not change things.

The “kneeling for communion issue” is perhaps the clearest illustration that I have seen that shows both extremes of the Church support liturgical delict and abuse. It’s also become quite clear that there is no greater seperation from orthodoxy than that from either of these extremes.

 

[Orionthehunter]

AltarMan:

Indeed it has. Let’s just check our egos in the vestibule ane follow what the Church instructs.

This is very good advice. The USCCB has stated that the approved norm in the US is to recieve the Eucharist standing. This has been approved by Rome. Additionally, the Vatican has said that one is not to refuse one Communion who presents themselves in the posture of kneeling. However, the USCCB (with Rome’s concurrence) has instructed Pastors to inform the Communicant that the Norm in the US is standing and request conformance. However, some believe that their own ego and personal piety require them to receive kneeling in defiance of their Pastor and Bishop’s instruction.

Sometimes it is so hard to see who the hypocrites are.

 

[fix]

Orionthehunter:

Sometimes it is so hard to see who the hypocrites are.

Rome has spoken. By what authority do you claim these folks are hypocrites? Is Rome to be pushed aside as we each decide what authority to follow?

If Rome has said they are not disobedient, how are they hypocrites?

 

[fix]

AltarMan:

Actually the changes we talked about could indeed be made by the Church (not that they are probable of course.) You may believe otherwise, but that does not change things.

The “kneeling for communion issue” is perhaps the clearest illustration that I have seen that shows both extremes of the Church support liturgical delict and abuse. It’s also become quite clear that there is no greater seperation from orthodoxy than that from either of these extremes.

Is kneeling to receive communion now an extreme?

 

[Orionthehunter]

fix:

Rome has spoken. By what authority do you claim these folks are hypocrites? Is Rome to be pushed aside as we each decide what authority to follow?

If Rome has said they are not disobedient, how are they hypocrites?

There is a norm in the US approved by the USCCB with the concurrence of Rome. They are instructed to cease by their Pastor and Bishop. They continue to do so and claim they are doing so in obediance. Give me a break.

Just because they are not to be denied Communion because of their stubbornness, ego, and intent to display their own personal piety doesn’t make it right.

Frankly, when I see a girl inappropriately dressed come to Communion, I pray for her. When I see a person receive the Eucharist irreverently, I pray for him. And when I see a person come to Communion and kneel after repeated pastoral requests from the Pastor to please honor the Norm in the U.S., I will pray for him.

 

[fix]

Orionthehunter:

There is a norm in the US approved by the USCCB with the concurrence of Rome. They are instructed to cease by their Pastor and Bishop. They continue to do so and claim they are doing so in obediance. Give me a break.

Just because they are not to be denied Communion because of their stubbornness, ego, and intent to display their own personal piety doesn’t make it right.

Frankly, when I see a girl inappropriately dressed come to Communion, I pray for her. When I see a person receive the Eucharist irreverently, I pray for him. And when I see a person come to Communion and kneel after repeated pastoral requests from the Pastor to please honor the Norm in the U.S., I will pray for him.

The GIRM was interpreted. That is how the Church works. Rome specifically said they are not disobedient. Should I now follow your interpretation over Rome?