Hypocrisy in the Pews

[Lux_et_veritas]

Ham1:

Some very interesting debate here. One thing is curious to me and that is that no one who advocates kneeling for Communion has really addressed this statement by Michelle Arnold nor the statements made by Whitehead on the same subject.

I will address the opinion of Michelle Arnold by balancing it with the opinion of another apologist by the name of Michael Forrest who wrote on this topic in the May 2003 issue of New Oxford Review. The article was entitled: Stand up for the Church by Kneeling

I will paste just a little from the article at this time. In the article, he is analyzing a position someone else takes on the issue of obedience or following pastoral advice. Maybe it would be best if others highlighted areas from the article to introduce into this thread. But these three paragraphs sum up my position. Actually, the entire article sums up my position and I would ask people to read it through before commenting on just these paragraphs.

…Unfortunately, at this point in the article, Mr. Suprenant not only picks up the liberals’ mantle, but also their argumentation. He writes, “Doing one’s ‘own thing’ during Mass diverts attention away from Christ and instead focuses attention on oneself.” Lamentably, this reproof is directly out of the liberal, heterodox handbook, How to Stop Kneeling Communicants. This is the “nuke” that liberals have come to trust in order to make conservatives toe their line. It follows the sections entitled, “Some May Trip and Fall Over Those Who Kneel” and “Kneeling Causes Undue Communion Line Delays” and it is just as invalid.

I expect that Mr. Suprenant is unaware of it, but inextricably embedded within this argument is an emotionally manipulative psychological ploy to play on every committed Catholic’s deep desire to be humble and obedient. But the truth is, the argument is essentially a non sequitur. Kneeling does not equate with “doing one’s own thing.” Neither does it “focus attention on oneself.” In and of itself, the essence of kneeling is diametrically opposed to that mischaracterization. It is only the *abusive errors and excesses of liberal deacons, priests and bishops *against kneeling communicants that distort and mutate an objectively submissive, traditional and humble action into a disruptive and “attention getting” occasion. As such, I consider Mr. Suprenant’s assertion akin to blaming a rape victim for “drawing attention to herself.” …

…Returning to the issue at hand, although I concede that there may conceivably be some individuals who choose to kneel for selfish reasons, I have yet to actually meet one. I can at least testify that from the very first time I was led to kneel until the present, it has had nothing to do with exerting my personal will and individuality and everything to do with gratefully and submissively receiving the grace of a particularly poignant awareness of being in the presence of Almighty God, before whom all knees will bend (Rom 14:11, Isaiah 45:23). And if you bother speaking to almost any kneeling communicant, you are most unlikely to find a rebellious, prideful spirit, but rather one who esteems the fear of God more than the false traditions, machinations and respect of men (Mark 7:6-9)…

 

[fix]

Just before last November’s USCCB meeting, when the bishops considered the final version of the “adaptations” for the IGMR, the Congregation for Divine Worship, in an October 25 letter from Cardinal Medina Estévez

, stated: “This dicastery [Vatican department] agrees in principle to the insertion [of the standing adaptation]. At the same time, the tenor of not a few letters received from the faithful in various dioceses of [the United States] leads the congregation to urge the conference to introduce a clause that would protect those faithful who will inevitably be led by their own sensibilities to kneel, from imprudent action by priests, deacons or lay ministers in particular, or from being refused Holy Communion for such a reason as happens on occasion”.

The letter did not spell out what “imprudent action” means, though considering the present muddle, it might have been well if it had.adoremus.org/1002Kneeling.html

Why are we so concerned with the few folks who want to kneel for communion?

 

[netmilsmom]

Ham1:

Another point that I raised earlier in the thread (with apparently no response) is that the language of the CDW appears to be intended for the priests and not for the faithful. I think we make a mistake when we assume that because the CDW says that one who kneels is not to be “accused of disobediance” that therefore kneeling in the US is all good and fully approved posture. This woudl appear to be an instruction for priests not an official revision of the norm in the US.

If one takes the point that the CDW is given for a Priest, and said Priest remains disobedient himself to the Vatican by punishing in whatever way (denying Eucharist or forcing a communicant to stand before giving), then one should clearly talk with one’s feet.
No one is saying that we must stay in a parish where a Priest is disobedient. Maybe we cannot call him on it, but we do not have to support it.
With the fine network here of posters all around the world, one who chooses to kneel can find a parish where kneeling is accepted or the norm. That eliminates the disobedience to a Priest that chooses to be disobedient.
We have been silent for a long time. Now we know what we can and cannot do. In my area, these innovative parishes are draining while the parishes like mine are growing. Sooner or later, someone may listen to what the laity wants.
Some want a Holy Mass with innovations. Some want an Historically Catholic Mass. No reason at all why only one group should be supported in a Diocese.

 

[netmilsmom]

fix:

Why are we so concerned with the few folks who want to kneel for communion?

Cause we know what a “few” means.

 

[fix]

Lux_et_veritas:

I will address the opinion of Michelle Arnold by balancing it with the opinion of another apologist by the name of Michael Forrest who wrote on this topic in the May 2003 issue of New Oxford Review. The article was entitled: Stand up for the Church by Kneeling

I will paste just a little from the article at this time. In the article, he is analyzing a position someone else takes on the issue of obedience or following pastoral advice. Maybe it would be best if others highlighted areas from the article to introduce into this thread. But these three paragraphs sum up my position. Actually, the entire article sums up my position and I would ask people to read it through before commenting on just these paragraphs.

…Unfortunately, at this point in the article, Mr. Suprenant not only picks up the liberals’ mantle, but also their argumentation. He writes, “Doing one’s ‘own thing’ during Mass diverts attention away from Christ and instead focuses attention on oneself.” Lamentably, this reproof is directly out of the liberal, heterodox handbook, How to Stop Kneeling Communicants. This is the “nuke” that liberals have come to trust in order to make conservatives toe their line. It follows the sections entitled, “Some May Trip and Fall Over Those Who Kneel” and “Kneeling Causes Undue Communion Line Delays” and it is just as invalid.

I expect that Mr. Suprenant is unaware of it, but inextricably embedded within this argument is an emotionally manipulative psychological ploy to play on every committed Catholic’s deep desire to be humble and obedient. But the truth is, the argument is essentially a non sequitur. Kneeling does not equate with “doing one’s own thing.” Neither does it “focus attention on oneself.” In and of itself, the essence of kneeling is diametrically opposed to that mischaracterization. It is only the *abusive errors and excesses of liberal deacons, priests and bishops *against kneeling communicants that distort and mutate an objectively submissive, traditional and humble action into a disruptive and “attention getting” occasion. As such, I consider Mr. Suprenant’s assertion akin to blaming a rape victim for “drawing attention to herself.” …

…Returning to the issue at hand, although I concede that there may conceivably be some individuals who choose to kneel for selfish reasons, I have yet to actually meet one. I can at least testify that from the very first time I was led to kneel until the present, it has had nothing to do with exerting my personal will and individuality and everything to do with gratefully and submissively receiving the grace of a particularly poignant awareness of being in the presence of Almighty God, before whom all knees will bend (Rom 14:11, Isaiah 45:23). And if you bother speaking to almost any kneeling communicant, you are most unlikely to find a rebellious, prideful spirit, but rather one who esteems the fear of God more than the false traditions, machinations and respect of men (Mark 7:6-9)…

A thousand thanks. This is my position as well.

 

[fix]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

Cause we know what a “few” means.

I think **Lux_et_veritas **has gievn us a great essay that sums up the issue nicely.

 

[netmilsmom]

fix:

I think **Lux_et_veritas **has gievn us a great essay that sums up the issue nicely.

I love this…
And if you bother speaking to almost any kneeling communicant, you are most unlikely to find a rebellious, prideful spirit, but rather one who esteems the fear of God more than the false traditions, machinations and respect of men (Mark 7:6-9)…

Amen!

 

[Ham1]

msproule:

Indeed, their responses are to be received with the highest regard.

However, please take some time to listen to the link I provided in post #50 (and provide once again here) in which Karl Keating provides a response more in line with those of us who believe the priest is not acting within his competency to demand a particular posture for Holy Communion. I will try to transcribe the audio when I get time, if anybody is interested.

By the way, here is Jimmy Akin’s response to this matter.

This certainly creates a dilemma! I believe all responses from these trusted sources (Arnold, Whitehead, Keating, and Akin) are correct in and of themselves. However, only as a whole do they compose the full answer and should be considered as such. From there, I suppose one is to follow one’s own properly-formed conscience on the matter, without fear of prejudice.

Thanks for the links. This definitely helps. I think Akin makes a good point about the American way of understanding law and the Roman way of understanding law. Forrest also refers to this in his article.

This leads me to this question: Is there perhaps a bit of (I think, unintentional) hypocrisy in those who use a “Roman understanding of the law” when defending kneeling for Communion, but at the same time tend to use a more “American understanding of the law” when dealing with questions like hand-holding, Orans position etc?

Also, for the purposes of this debate, I’m not so sure that Forrest’s reasoning that those who kneel do so out of a good and holy intention is particularly relevant. After all, there are those of either posture that approach Communion with good intentions.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

Cause we know what a “few” means.

And the reality of the “few” is that there are probably a good number of those bearing the desire to kneel deeply in their heart and feel initimidated, or are wishing to be respectful.

My 15 y.o. niece accompanied me one day to Assumption Grotto where we use altar rails. The Body of Christ is intincted by the priest into the Precious Blood which requires us to receive on the tongue - a very long standing practice at Grotto.

Her response after Mass, without my even asking was, “Wow, that felt so right to kneel and receive Jesus on my tongue by a priest”.

Hey, you know, out of the mouths of babes.

My 35 y.o. cousin who returned to the Church from a state of agnosticism also held the same view. She was awestruck and her words were almost identical to that of my niece.

I just wonder how many people out there, especially the younger generation would actually appreciate the opportunity to receive this way. How unfortunate it is being squelched by the self-righteous who feel so determined to condemn under the guise of disobedience (but called something else, of course).

 

[fix]

Ham1:

This leads me to this question: Is there perhaps a bit of (I think, unintentional) hypocrisy in those who use a “Roman understanding of the law” when defending kneeling for Communion, but at the same time tend to use a more “American understanding of the law” when dealing with questions like hand-holding, Orans position etc?

IMO, you make a reasonable point here. I would think the difference is that things like hand holding are not a long standing part of the mass as kneeling for communion is. It really is a novelty. While it has not been explicitly forbidden, one is hard pressed to prove it is reasonable to do regardless of one’s leaning of the law. While, kneeling is customary and it is unassailably reverent.

Also, for the purposes of this debate, I’m not so sure that Forrest’s reasoning that those who kneel do so out of a good and holy intention is particularly relevant. After all, there are those of either posture that approach Communion with good intentions.

I have not heard anyone declare that those who fail to kneel are hypocrites?

 

[msproule]

Ham1:

Also, for the purposes of this debate, I’m not so sure that Forrest’s reasoning that those who kneel do so out of a good and holy intention is particularly relevant. After all, there are those of either posture that approach Communion with good intentions.

In the context of this thread, no proponent of standing is being accused of hypocrisy on account of their posture for Holy Communion. As shown, this posture is very much in accordance with the Church’s fullest understanding and should not be subject to attack as it has been. Therefore, I would say that the reasoning offered by Forrest is very relevant to the discussion, insofar as it thwarts attempts to label kneeling as a “delict” or an “abuse”, or to defame the characters of those faithful Catholics who choose to kneel.

If somebody wants to talk about actual abuses, believe me: I am all for it! When can we start?

 

[Ham1]

msproule:

In the context of this thread, no proponent of standing is being accused of hypocrisy on account of their posture for Holy Communion. As shown, this posture is very much in accordance with the Church’s fullest understanding and should not be subject to attack as it has been. Therefore, I would say that the reasoning offered by Forrest is very relevant to the discussion, insofar as it thwarts attempts to label kneeling as a “delict” or an “abuse”, or to defame the characters of those faithful Catholics who choose to kneel.

If somebody wants to talk about actual abuses, believe me: I am all for it! When can we start?

My point was that his inclusion of “good intention” as a reason to support the practice was not useful. The entire argument ought to be conducted without regard to intention. I’m sure that many abuses within the liturgy are done with good intentions. I’m just saying he would have been better off entirely leaving out this line of reasoning.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

fix:

Yes, and are we to believe that when the Vatican states one is not to be called disobedient, the Vatican is lying? Meaning such folks really are disobedient, we just can’t use that term?

Not only does the Vatican state that it may not be considered disobedient, it also states that the communicant may not be imposed upon:

This is from a letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments Prot. n. 47/03/L dated February 26, 2003: “… 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 be denied Holy Communion on thse grounds. Indeed, the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion.”

A priest or bishop aware of these letters from the CDW is himself being disobedient if he denies communion or attempts to impose upon the communicant the posture of standing.

All a priest may do is to provide an explanation, or instruction, as to why the US norm is what it is and he can hope that the person will respond. But, the person is not obligated to respond after listening to that priest. While some people may simply wanting to be making a point by kneeling, to prove they may kneel, I would think this to be a less than virtuous reason. However, most people I know who do this are hardly less than virtuous and simply want to assume a humble posture in receiving the Lord.

 

[netmilsmom]

Lux_et_veritas:

And the reality of the “few” is that there are probably a good number of those bearing the desire to kneel deeply in their heart and feel initimidated, or are wishing to be respectful.

.

Exactly what I was saying.

 

[TableServant]

I suppose that it comes down to attitude for me. I think that standing or kneeling, or genuflecting, or bowing with an attitude of defiance - “I’m kneeling no matter what you say and there is nothing you can do about it, so there!”, just to prove a point, is, indeed, disobedient. But, then, so is an attitude of “You have to stand because I say so!”, especially with any anger or maliciousness.

I don’t encounter people who kneel for communion very often, nor those who genuflect prior to receiving. I would hope, though, that I would not react negatively, that I would have and take the opportunity to discuss the reason for the norm with the person, though I would also hope that this would not be the first time they had heard it, and that we could do so as two (adult) children of God.

And, to the original topic of the thread, I would hope the same for any action or posture about which there is a question.

I know that it isn’t always so, on either side, and that saddens me.

All things in love of Him.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Ham1:

Thanks for the links. This definitely helps. I think Akin makes a good point about the American way of understanding law and the Roman way of understanding law. Forrest also refers to this in his article.

This leads me to this question: Is there perhaps a bit of (I think, unintentional) hypocrisy in those who use a “Roman understanding of the law” when defending kneeling for Communion, but at the same time tend to use a more “American understanding of the law” when dealing with questions like hand-holding, Orans position etc?

I think the characterizations of two different attitudes toward or understanding of law is helpful, but it seems to be too simplistic to be helpful in general. For instance, I’ve read commentators who compare liturgical laws with the Italian posture toward law in general which, having visited Rome, seems to often amount to ignoring the very existence of laws. This is obviously not the posture taken by the Vatican. Even a more limited approach, though, seems problematic to me. For instance, regarding the gesture, our norms say we are to bow our heads before reception. Now, I can see Rome not caring if we bow our heads in conjunction with a genuflection, or larger bow, etc.; but to say that bowing is just a suggestion to achieve uniformity seems to empty the norm of its purpose.

My posture toward the law is that the law must be followed, but one can’t be considered disobedient (and this unfortunately in many cases) for doing things not addressed in the law. I do not point to the GIRM and say, “See, it doesn’t say you can hold hands!” Now, I don’t think a priest can instruct the congregation to hold hands (based partly on a USCCB discouraging hand holding), but the people in the pews are free to do so. Of course, based on the GIRM they are also free to face backwards and touch their noses with alternating fingers during the consecration.

The basic point, according to me, what a law enjoins must be done; what a law forbids may not be done. The middle ground is open to interpetation and clarification.

 

[totustuusmaria]

I’m a little confused as to the selective complaints about the law. At my parish at home, to enforce the liturgical norms, we all stand from the end of the “ecce a"agnus dei” when the priest returns to his seat to be in conformity with liturgical law. Now, our pastor has informed us concerning the law of the norm of communion (he has hinted that he believes it was a mistake), he also has read to us the documents coming out of the Vatican which make it clear that no one can be refused for kneeling. He has also informed us that the Vatican has said that induviduals can kneel after receiving communion if it will better serve their spirituality but that the norm should be standing. About 90% of the people in my parish stand until after everyone has received communion. That’s what the GIRM demands? right?

For those of you complaining about kneeling to receive communion, do you remain standing until everyone has received communion?

 

[AltarMan]

totustuusmaria:

I’m a little confused as to the selective complaints about the law. At my parish at home, to enforce the liturgical norms, we all stand from the end of the “ecce a"agnus dei” when the priest returns to his seat to be in conformity with liturgical law. Now, our pastor has informed us concerning the law of the norm of communion (he has hinted that he believes it was a mistake), he also has read to us the documents coming out of the Vatican which make it clear that no one can be refused for kneeling. **He has also informed us that the Vatican has said that induviduals can kneel after receiving communion if it will better serve their spirituality but that the norm should be standing. About 90% of the people in my parish stand until after everyone has received communion. That’s what the GIRM demands? right? **

For those of you complaining about kneeling to receive communion, do you remain standing until everyone has received communion?

No.

Unlike when we receive Holy Communion, the posture we assume after receiving is strictly up to us – standing, kneeling or sitting. I guess one could even prostrate themselves if there was sufficient room.

Following is an excerpt from the bishops’ discussion of the “American adaptations” concerning the US adaptation of IGMR 43.2, which states: “they may kneel or sit during the period of religious silence after Communion”. (IGMR = Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, regulations for Mass for the new Roman Missal.) More here.

I stand to receive Holy Communion as instructed by the Church and I kneel after receiving (even if it’s in the sanctuary) as allowed by the Church.

 

[msproule]

totustuusmaria:

About 90% of the people in my parish stand until after everyone has received communion. That’s what the GIRM demands? right?

No, the GIRM does not specifically address the general posture for the period during the distribution of Holy Communion for the faithful in the pews. However, it does indicate, as AltarMan showed, that the individual may either sit or kneel during the period of sacred silence following Holy Communion.

For those of you complaining about kneeling to receive communion, do you remain standing until everyone has received communion?

I kneel as soon as I return to my pew. 95% of the faithful remain standing at the parish I have been attending recently. They then sit for the 5 second period of silence (that is not an exaggeration) and stand back up at the final invitation to prayer.

 

[msproule]

totustuusmaria,

I find it interesting that your pastor hints that the standing preference (for receiving Holy Communion) of the U.S. Bishops is a mistake, yet he feels that the norm following Holy Communion should be standing. I think the idea of standing before and after Holy Communion as a unified body is rooted in the very fact that the majority of people stand for Holy Communion.

But your pastor is correct in this: Nobody may deny Holy Communion to a kneeling communicant, nor may they be considered disobedient for kneeling. Like it or not, this reduces the U.S. “norm” to be effectively nothing more than a preference.