I got in trouble for kneeling to receive Communion

[Lee_M]

You are mixing power and authority. Authority is witness to the truth.

Authority is synomynous with power.

 

[Lee_M]

Perhaps I wasn’t clear. I am in no way saying that the OP owes undying obedience to the Youth Minister, though if the OP accepted a position working for a Youth Minister, she certainly does owe the Youth Minister some degree of obedience (as anyone owes to their boss). The statements of the Youth Minister do not carry weight because they come from the Youth Minister. They carry weight because they come from the GIRM, and the GIRM carries weight because it was approved by the Holy See (along with all adaptations that are unique to the United States).

The obedience I was speaking of, primarily, is obedience to the Church. We owe obedience to the Pope and our local bishops in union with him. If our local bishops ask us to do something that is not prohibited by the Holy See (and in fact, was at some time approved by the Holy See else it never would have been included in the GIRM to begin with), then we should obey them.

I’m not sure how anyone could rationalize doing anything less. How can we shirk our obedience to our local bishops and claim it is due to our obedience to the pope? The pope would never ask us to disobey our local bishop (unless our local bishop broke union with him or was asking us to do something contrary to the faith, which is obviously not the case here, else the adaptations in the GIRM would never have been approved).

+2

 

[Phemie]

Perhaps I wasn’t clear. I am in no way saying that the OP owes undying obedience to the Youth Minister, though if the OP accepted a position working for a Youth Minister, she certainly does owe the Youth Minister some degree of obedience (as anyone owes to their boss). The statements of the Youth Minister do not carry weight because they come from the Youth Minister. They carry weight because they come from the GIRM, and the GIRM carries weight because it was approved by the Holy See (along with all adaptations that are unique to the United States).

The obedience I was speaking of, primarily, is obedience to the Church. We owe obedience to the Pope and our local bishops in union with him. If our local bishops ask us to do something that is not prohibited by the Holy See (and in fact, was at some time approved by the Holy See else it never would have been included in the GIRM to begin with), then we should obey them.

I’m not sure how anyone could rationalize doing anything less. How can we shirk our obedience to our local bishops and claim it is due to our obedience to the pope? The pope would never ask us to disobey our local bishop (unless our local bishop broke union with him or was asking us to do something contrary to the faith, which is obviously not the case here, else the adaptations in the GIRM would never have been approved).

But Rome has already spoken and said that someone in the US who wishes to kneel for Communion IS NOT to be considered disobedient and is not to be reprimanded, corrected or any other thing since there is nothing to correct. In the OP’s case his pastor had obviously no problem with him kneeling. It speaks to me of a Youth Minister who overstepped his boundaries.

 

[Lee_M]

However, what you are forgetting to note is that while the norm in the United States calls for standing, kneeling is universal, and it is a perfectly legitimate posture. The Vatican will always rule on the side of kneeling, as has been evidenced before. Therefore, you need to have both sides of the coin and it is also good for the youth to know that it is also within their right to receive Holy Communion kneeling.

It’s funny. Rome has spoken definitively on this isuse, but, there are those who will ignore what the Holy See has said and circumvent the authority of the CDWDS.

So are you saying we shouldn’t follow the GIRM?

 

[agapewolf]

But Rome has already spoken and said that someone in the US who wishes to kneel for Communion IS NOT to be considered disobedient and is not to be reprimanded, corrected or any other thing since there is nothing to correct. In the OP’s case his pastor had obviously no problem with him kneeling. It speaks to me of a Youth Minister who overstepped his boundaries.

how can you say this when the GIRM says this: ?

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.

 

[Cristiano]

Authority is synomynous with power.

No it is not. Father (Prof.) Joseph Koterski S.J. with his lessons on natural law at Fordham University can be a good reference to understand the difference.

 

[aimee]

I remember kneeling and would like to but since I am disabled I could not do it now…

 

[Joe_5859]

But Rome has already spoken and said that someone in the US who wishes to kneel for Communion IS NOT to be considered disobedient and is not to be reprimanded, corrected or any other thing since there is nothing to correct. In the OP’s case his pastor had obviously no problem with him kneeling. It speaks to me of a Youth Minister who overstepped his boundaries.

Would you mind providing a citation (a link would be even better)? I would like to read that statement. Does it contradict GIRM 160 that asks that catechesis be provided when such instances occur?

 

[benedictgal]

So are you saying we shouldn’t follow the GIRM?

What I am saying is the exact same thing that Rome has repeatedly said:

This Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has recently received reports of members of the faithful in your Diocese being refused Holy Communion unless while standing to receive, as opposed to kneeling. The reports state that such a policy has been announced to parishioners. There were possible indications that such a phenomenon might be somewhat more widespread in the Diocese, but the Congregation is unable to verify whether such is the case. This Dicastery is confident that Your Excellency will be in a position to make a more reliable determination of the matter, and these complaints in any event provide an occasion for the Congregation to communicate the manner in which it habitually addresses this matter, with a request that you make this position known to any priests who may be in need of being thus informed.

The Congregation in fact is concerned at the number of similar complaints that it has received in recent months from various places, and 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 (Codex Iuris Canonici, canon 213). In view of the law that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who opportunely ask for them, are properly disposed and are not prohibited by law from receiving them” (canon 843 ¶ 1), 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. Even where the Congregation has approved of legislation denoting standing as the posture for Holy Communion, in accordance with the adaptations permitted to the Conferences of Bishops by the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani n. 160, paragraph 2, it has done so with the stipulation that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds.

In fact, as His Eminence, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has recently emphasized, the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition, and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration, completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species.

Given the importance of this matter, the Congregation would request that Your Excellency inquire specifically whether this priest in fact has a regular practice of refusing Holy Communion to any member of the faithful in the circumstances described above and – if the complaint is verified – that you also firmly instruct him and any other priests who may have had such a practice to refrain from acting thus in the future. Priests should understand that the Congregation will regard future complaints of this nature with great seriousness, and if they are verified, it intends to seek disciplinary action consonant with the gravity of the pastoral abuse.

The posture of standing requires permission of the Apostolic See. Granted, such permission has been given to the USCCB; however, to deny that kneeling when one receives Holy Communion is a very bad misunderstanding of what the norm indicates.

Incidentally, that phrase that I highlighted from the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger indicates that the Holy Father is putting his money where his mouth is.

The Youth Minister needs a serious lesson on catechesis as far as the reception of Holy Communion is concerned.

 

[Phemie]

Frankly, I cannot see how knowingly failing to stand for Communion is not an act of disobedience to our bishops, and ultimately the pope. The GIRM was published by the Holy See and all the adaptations for use in the U.S. were approved by the Holy See. If the Pope had a problem with it, he would issue a statement making a change that is binding on the whole Latin Rite. If he has not done that, I can only assume that he would ask us to be obedient to the bishops in union with him that are our local ordinaries.

It’s not disobedience because Rome has said that it’s not disobedience:

“…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”.

 

[benedictgal]

It’s not disobedience because Rome has said that it’s not disobedience:

“…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”.

An adapttion and/or indult can also be rescinded. Take the indult allowing the EMHCs to purify the sacred vessels. A short time after he assume the Chair of Peter, Pope Benedict nipped that one in the bud.

The bottom line is that if Rome has effectively stated that the faithful are not being disobedient because they chose to reeive Holy Communion kneeling, then that is the final word. We tend to take a narrow-minded approach because we only look at the GIRM approved for use in the United States and not dig deeper to see what the Latin version actually says. The Latin version affirms the legitimacy of kneeling.

 

[childofmary1143]

Perhaps a refresher in English for those who are English challenged:

dictionary.reference.com/browse/Permitted

*per·mit1 /v. pərˈmɪt; n. ˈpɜrmɪt, pərˈmɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[v. per-mit; n. pur-mit, per-mit] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -mit·ted, -mit·ting, noun
–verb (used with object)

1. to allow to do something: Permit me to explain.
2. to allow to be done or occur: The law does not permit the sale of such drugs.
3. to tolerate; agree to: a law permitting Roman Catholicism in England.
4. to afford opportunity for, or admit of: vents to permit the escape of gases.
   –verb (used without object)
5. to grant permission; allow liberty to do something.
6. to afford opportunity or possibility: Write when time permits.
7. to allow or admit (usually fol. by of): statements that permit of no denial.*

Now lets examine the facts:

1. OP goes up to kneel to receive Communion and receives Communion.
2. Youth Minister admonishes her for doing that.

The whole purpose of the admonishment is to change the behaviour.

But the behaviour is permitted by the HIGHEST authority of the Church. Regardless of whether standing is the norm, kneeling is permitted.

Nobody has the right to refuse her what she is permitted to do by the HIGHEST authority.

Everything else is useless.

 

[Phemie]

Would you mind providing a citation (a link would be even better)? I would like to read that statement. Does it contradict GIRM 160 that asks that catechesis be provided when such instances occur?

The document is quoted in post #17. It’s the second letter sent to the US by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments on this subject in response to inquiries by the faithful.

 

[Cristiano]

how can you say this when the GIRM says this: ?

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.

That is a priest’s job, not the responsibility of the lay supervisor. It looks like the priest did not show any issue with the behavior. I think that the supervisor overstepped the boundaries in a gross manner. He could have brought up the issue with the pastor, especially given consideration to the fact that the individual is a parish employee.

 

[Lee_M]

What I am saying is the exact same thing that Rome has repeatedly said:

The posture of standing requires permission of the Apostolic See. Granted, such permission has been given to the USCCB; however, to deny that kneeling when one receives Holy Communion is a very bad misunderstanding of what the norm indicates.

Incidentally, that phrase that I highlighted from the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger indicates that the Holy Father is putting his money where his mouth is.

The Youth Minister needs a serious lesson on catechesis as far as the reception of Holy Communion is concerned.

Yes, but in your quote, it said communion cannot be denied. Hamburgler was not denied, but the GIRM specifically states that the person should be catechised on why standing is the norm.

 

[agapewolf]

That it is a priest’s job, not the responsibility of the lay supervisor. It looks like the priest did not show any issue with the behavior. I think that the supervisor overstepped the boundaries in a gross manner. He could have brought up the issue with the pastor, especially given consideration to the fact that the individual is a parish employee.

I’m not arguing about that, I was refuting another point made by someone.

I would agree that the pastor would have been better, hoewver, maybe he delegated it to the youth minister…we dont’ know that, therefore, the YM should not be fired as suggested earlier…

But anyway, I wasn’t talking about that anyway…

 

[Lee_M]

That it is a priest’s job, not the responsibility of the lay supervisor. It looks like the priest did not show any issue with the behavior. I think that the supervisor overstepped the boundaries in a gross manner. He could have brought up the issue with the pastor, especially given consideration to the fact that the individual is a parish employee.

I agree, this is the priest’s job. The priest should have said something. It could have been handled better.

 

[childofmary1143]

Yes, but in your quote, it said communion cannot be denied. Hamburgler was not denied, but the GIRM specifically states that the person should be catechised on why standing is the norm.

Well of course she wasn’t denied as the Priest had no problem with it. But when the Youth Minister tells her that “we don’t do that here” he is trying to deny her Communion by misrepresenting what is Catholic teaching on reception of Communion.

 

[benedictgal]

Yes, but in your quote, it said communion cannot be denied. Hamburgler was not denied, but the GIRM specifically states that the person should be catechised on why standing is the norm.

But, in that same quote, it also notes that the communicant is not being disobedient if he chooses to receive while kneeling. You can catechize all you want as to why standing is the norm in the US; however, the communicant is guaranteed the right to use the universal norm of kneeling. That guarantee comes from no less than the Apostolic See and has been ratified by Pope Benedict XVI.

 

[Brendan]

Would you mind providing a citation (a link would be even better)? I would like to read that statement. Does it contradict GIRM 160 that asks that catechesis be provided when such instances occur?

The GIRM, as mentioned above, is a legistlative document issued by Rome, with adaptions also approved by Rome, specifically the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments.

As the legislative authority, under Canon 16-2, the CDWDS is the body that may authentically interperete what the GIRM states, and it’s promulgated interpretations have the force of law ( rather similar to a Supreme Court decision)

The CDWDS has issues several such interpretations on GIRM 160, some of which have been quoted here.

The full list can be found here ( adoremus.org/0403HolySeeResponds.html)), which was actually provided on the very first page of this thread.

It does not remove any catechsis, but it DOES state that the persons are free to kneel, and cannot be accused of acting against Church law ( illict) or of being disobedient.

That is where the this youth minister failed. The minister said “we don’t do that here”, which is rather not true. The right to kneel is Univeral in scope, so to claim that it cannot occur at their event is incorrect.

Secondly, any claims of this person being disobedient would also fall flat, as the youth minister, or any other person, cannot contradict the CDWDS in this matter, as the CDWDS is the authentic interpreters of what GIRM 160 means, and no one else.

And any adaptations, such as kneeling being prohibitied at a particular event, parish or diocese would require a recognitio from the CDWDS.