Implied accusation of disobedience

[ConstantineTG]

No one is questioning the force of law here. But does this force extend to suppressing an old established custom, which seems to have been protected by canon law?

My post #133 would address this issue.

 

[benedictgal]

And further, the RS has stated that the Conference of Bishops would decide on sitting and standing, not the Pope, not the CDWDS. Thats why I said, unless the Pope changes the law (the RS in this case) which he can, then what the law states is what will be followed. The law is approved by the Pope and the Pope cannot contradict himself.

ConstantineTG, with all due respect, this is misinformation. Please note what the CDWDS stated (the same Congregation that, as I have read your posts, you have chosen to repeatedly ignore) on the matter back in 2001:

This Dicastery agrees in principle to the insertion into n. 160 of a statement, as apparently desired by the Bishops, that Holy Communion in the United States of America is normally received standing. At the same time, the tenor of not a few letters received from the faithful in various Dioceses of that country leads the Congregation, even after a very careful consideration of such data, 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.

When the CDWDS received complaints from the faithful that this was not happening, this is what it said in 2002:

Canon 212 ¶2 of the Code of Canon Law states that “Christ’s faithful are totally free to make known their needs, especially their spiritual ones, and their desire: to the Pastor of the Church”. The canon then continues in ¶3: “According to their own knowledge competence and position, they have the right, and indeed sometimes the duty, to present to the sacred Pastor; their opinions regarding those things that pertain to the good of the Church”… Accordingly, in consideration of the nature of the problem and the relative likelihood that it might or might not be resolved on the local level, every member of the faithful has the right of recourse to the Roman Pontiff either personally or by means of the Dicasteries or Tribunals of the Roman Curia.

Another fundamental right of the faithful, as noted in canon 213, is “the right to receive assistance by the sacred Pastors from the spiritual goods of the Church, especially the word of God and the Sacraments”. 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 Institution 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 2003, the CDWDS issued yet another statement on the matter:

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”.

In another thread, you labeled those who choose to kneel when receiving Holy Communion as being rulebreakers. If the CDWDS does not use that language, neither should we.

Furthermore, if an national episcopal conference is going to make an adaptation to the GIRM, it needs to do so with the approval of 2/3 of the Latin Rite bishops so that the measure can be sent to Rome for the necessary recognitio. The USCCB cannot, on its own, change the GIRM. It needs the approval of the CDWDS. This is a huge fact that, with all due respect, I see that you omitted. On its own, a national episcopal conference can do nothing. It needs the approval of the CDWDS. The CDWDS granted the recognitio to the USCCB for standing, but, it did so on the condition that the faithful who choose to kneel in order to receive are not labeled as disobedient nor accused of acting ilicitly.

I noticed that you are from the Eparchy of New Westminster in British Columbia. Perhaps there might be some confusion because, as I understand it, Eparchies are for the Eastern Rites and their posture is standing while in the Latin Rite, both standing and kneeling are valid and licit.

 

[ProVobis]

Provided that your interpretation of the Canons is correct, are you suggesting that the CDWDS has displayed incompetence in the Canon Laws for approving something that is contrary to it?

Why do you jump to such conclusions and resort to such accusations? Again, I’m not a canon lawyer but I can read some English. I am not accusing anyone of incompetence. Not my call to make here but I’ll stick with what Cardinal Arinze offers in the meantime. I’ll let you have the last word on this as I feel I’ve had enough of this circular argument.

 

[ConstantineTG]

ConstantineTG, with all due respect, this is misinformation. Please note what the CDWDS stated (the same Congregation that, as I have read your posts, you have chosen to repeatedly ignore) on the matter back in 2001:

When the CDWDS received complaints from the faithful that this was not happening, this is what it said in 2002:

In 2003, the CDWDS issued yet another statement on the matter:

In another thread, you labeled those who choose to kneel when receiving Holy Communion as being rulebreakers. If the CDWDS does not use that language, neither should we.

Furthermore, if an national episcopal conference is going to make an adaptation to the GIRM, it needs to do so with the approval of 2/3 of the Latin Rite bishops so that the measure can be sent to Rome for the necessary recognitio. The USCCB cannot, on its own, change the GIRM. It needs the approval of the CDWDS. The CDWDS granted the recognitio to the USCCB for standing, but, it did so on the condition that the faithful who choose to kneel in order to receive are not labeled as disobedient nor accused of acting ilicitly.

With all due respect as well, we’ve debated this to the death in the Receiving Communion thead over at L&S. There is no misleading going on here. You have a different interpretation of the documents, one that I cannot agree with. What I present is my honest interpretation of the documents with the best of my abilities.

I noticed that you are from the Eparchy of New Westminster in British Columbia. Perhaps there might be some confusion because, as I understand it, Eparchies are for the Eastern Rites and their posture is standing while in the Latin Rite, both standing and kneeling are valid and licit.

Notice that the Eparchy is my location, not my religion
The Eparchy represents my actual location better than the Roman Archdiocese, thus I’ve chosent to place that as my location.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You sound so much like choy. Why do you jump to such conclusions and resort to such accusations? Again, I’m not a canon lawyer but I can read some English. I am not accusing anyone of incompetence. Not my call to make here but I’ll stick with what Cardinal Arinze offers in the meantime. I’ll let you have the last word on this as I feel I’ve had enough of this circular argument.

I’m not accusing, I fired of several questions which I left for you to answer. If I’m making an accusation I would have ended my sentences with a period rather than a question mark. My apologies if you think they were meant to be accusatory. They are not. I’m having that inclination though but I don’t want to create a conclution based on gut feel, that is why I asked you questions. I want to know exactly what your stance on the matter is, that is why I ask. But they are indeed questions and are not meant to make a conclusion on yourself.

 

[benedictgal]

With all due respect as well, we’ve debated this to the death in the Receiving Communion thead over at L&S. There is no misleading going on here. You have a different interpretation of the documents, one that I cannot agree with. What I present is my honest interpretation of the documents with the best of my abilities.

Notice that the Eparchy is my location, not my religion
The Eparchy represents my actual location better than the Roman Archdiocese, thus I’ve chosent to place that as my location.

Actually, with all due respect, there is a lot of misleading going on here, as I read your posts. My interpretation of the documents is consistent with what the CDWDS has stated time and time again.

When quoting RS, you neglected to include a very important part of the puzzle. The CDWDS, in the end, is the one who grants the recognitio. In the case of standing, this recognitio was granted, but, it was contingent on the fact that the faithful would not be denied Holy Communion if they chose to receive while kneeling. Kneeling is licit and it is not being disobedient in the least.

You have consistently accused people who make the licit choice of kneeling as being disobedient. The CDWDS has never made that accusation, and, in fact, explicitly stated that these faithful should not be accused of being disobedient simply because they choose to kneel.

 

[MarkThompson]

With all due respect as well, we’ve debated this to the death in the Receiving Communion thead over at L&S. There is no misleading going on here. You have a different interpretation of the documents, one that I cannot agree with. What I present is my honest interpretation of the documents with the best of my abilities.

Good call. Some people want to strip from the bishops’ conferences the authority to choose kneeling or standing as the posture for receiving communion, a right which is granted them under Eucharisticum Mysterium and the GIRM. Fortunately the only folks with the power to actually do that are the Holy See, and they’ve never done so – in fact, they repeatedly affirmed that the norms chosen by the bishops carry the force of liturgical law.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Actually, with all due respect, there is a lot of misleading going on here, as I read your posts. My interpretation of the documents is consistent with what the CDWDS has stated time and time again.

When quoting RS, you neglected to include a very important part of the puzzle. The CDWDS, in the end, is the one who grants the recognitio. In the case of standing, this recognitio was granted, but, it was contingent on the fact that the faithful would not be denied Holy Communion if they chose to receive while kneeling. Kneeling is licit and it is not being disobedient in the least.

You have consistently accused people who make the licit choice of kneeling as being disobedient. The CDWDS has never made that accusation, and, in fact, explicitly stated that these faithful should not be accused of being disobedient simply because they choose to kneel.

Neither have they called those who choose not to say “Amen” when receiving in the OF disobedient. But in fact they are violating the rubrics.

 

[Vico]

Reasons, not laws, are given below.

The faithful are not to be rigid in every liturgical matter (1), but can demonstrate their love for the Church by conforming to the norms (2). A lack of uniformity can serve as a sign of disunity or even a sense of individualism (3).

1. Pope John Paul VI (1963) Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 37:
   “37. Even in the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community; rather does she respect and foster the genius and talents of the various races and peoples. Anything in these peoples’ way of life which is not indissolubly bound up with superstition and error she studies with sympathy and, if possible, preserves intact. Sometimes in fact she admits such things into the liturgy itself, so long as they harmonize with its true and authentic spirit.”
   vatican.va/archive/hist_c…cilium_en.html
2. Ecclesia De Eucharistia of Bl. Pope John Paul II (2003):
   “priests who faithfully celebrate Mass according to the liturgical norms, and communities which conform to these norms, quietly but eloquently demonstrate their love for the Church”
   vatican.va/edocs/ENG0821/_INDEX.HTM
3. GIRM 42. “greater attention needs to be paid to what is laid down by liturgical law and by the traditional practice of the Roman Rite, for the sake of the common spiritual good of the people of God rather than to personal inclination arbitrary choice”
   nccbuscc.org/liturgy/innews/072002.shtml

 

[benedictgal]

Neither have they called those who choose not to say “Amen” when receiving in the OF disobedient. But in fact they are violating the rubrics.

You make some strong statements here, some that are unfounded and untrue, as I read them. While it is accurate to state that someone who does not say “Amen” (unless they are speech impaired) are acting ilicitly, it is a huge stretch to apply the same principle to those who are kneeling. Again, you are making a statement that goes 180-degrees to the opposite of what the CDWDS has stated.

 

[MarkThompson]

Reasons, not laws, are given below.

The faithful are not to be rigid in every liturgical matter (1), but can demonstrate their love for the Church by conforming to the norms (2). A lack of uniformity can serve as a sign of disunity or even a sense of individualism (3).

Right. As the Holy Father made clear in Redemptionis Sacramentum, “[t]he observance of the norms published by the authority of the Church requires conformity of thought and of word, of external action and of the application of the heart.” For better or worse (in my view worse, but I don’t change my conclusions to match my preferences), the norm in the U.S., published by Church authority, is to stand for Communion.

 

[benedictgal]

Reasons, not laws, are given below.

The faithful are not to be rigid in every liturgical matter (1), but can demonstrate their love for the Church by conforming to the norms (2). A lack of uniformity can serve as a sign of disunity or even a sense of individualism (3).

1. Pope John Paul VI (1963) Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 37:
   “37. Even in the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community; rather does she respect and foster the genius and talents of the various races and peoples. Anything in these peoples’ way of life which is not indissolubly bound up with superstition and error she studies with sympathy and, if possible, preserves intact. Sometimes in fact she admits such things into the liturgy itself, so long as they harmonize with its true and authentic spirit.”
   vatican.va/archive/hist_c…cilium_en.html
2. Ecclesia De Eucharistia of Bl. Pope John Paul II (2003):
   “priests who faithfully celebrate Mass according to the liturgical norms, and communities which conform to these norms, quietly but eloquently demonstrate their love for the Church”
   vatican.va/edocs/ENG0821/_INDEX.HTM
3. GIRM 42. “greater attention needs to be paid to what is laid down by liturgical law and by the traditional practice of the Roman Rite, for the sake of the common spiritual good of the people of God rather than to personal inclination arbitrary choice”
   nccbuscc.org/liturgy/innews/072002.shtml

However, the CDWDS has consistently defended those who make the legitimate choice to kneel. They do not even go so far as to accuse them of violating the norms as other posters in this thread have done.

Furthermore, if I may add, there are some solid reasons behind kneeling. Even the CDWDS went so far as to quote someone when it stated that:

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.

It is interesting that even the Holy Father himself, the same one who was referenced by no less than the CDWDS, has given his own reasons, in a homily, no less, justifying the act of kneeling:

At this point we cannot forget the beginning of the “Decalogue”, the Ten Commandments, where it is written: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me” (Ex 20: 2-3). Here we find the meaning of the third constitutive element of Corpus Christi: kneeling in adoration before the Lord. Adoring the God of Jesus Christ, who out of love made himself bread broken, is the most effective and radical remedy against the idolatry of the past and of the present. Kneeling before the Eucharist is a profession of freedom: those who bow to Jesus cannot and must not prostrate themselves before any earthly authority, however powerful. We Christians kneel only before God or before the Most Blessed Sacrament because we know and believe that the one true God is present in it, the God who created the world and so loved it that he gave his Only Begotten Son (cf. Jn 3: 16). We prostrate ourselves before a God who first bent over man like the Good Samaritan to assist him and restore his life, and who knelt before us to wash our dirty feet. Adoring the Body of Christ, means believing that there, in that piece of Bread, Christ is really there, and gives true sense to life, to the immense universe as to the smallest creature, to the whole of human history as to the most brief existence. Adoration is prayer that prolongs the celebration and Eucharistic communion and in which the soul continues to be nourished: it is nourished with love, truth, peace; it is nourished with hope, because the One before whom we prostrate ourselves does not judge us, does not crush us but liberates and transforms us.

This is from the homily he preached when he began the practice of having communicants receiving from him kneel.

 

[Vico]

However, the CDWDS has consistently defended those who make the legitimate choice to kneel. They do not even go so far as to accuse them of violating the norms as other posters in this thread have done.

Furthermore, if I may add, there are some solid reasons behind kneeling. Even the CDWDS went so far as to quote someone when it stated that:

It is interesting that even the Holy Father himself, the same one who was referenced by no less than the CDWDS, has given his own reasons, in a homily, no less, justifying the act of kneeling:

This is from the homily he preached when he began the practice of having communicants receiving from him kneel.

Very good quotes.

In Eucharisticum Mysterium, published 25 May 1967, direction was given for how to choose the standing or kneeling posture. The criteria to guide the decision that was given was practical, rather than spiritual, in other words there is equal spiritual value to both postures. It is not a command, but the faithful are urged (willingly) to adopt the chosen method.

**"**Eucharisticum Mysterium

34. The Way of Receiving Communion

a) In accordance with the custom of the Church, Communion may be received by the faithful either kneeling or standing. One or the other way is to be chosen, according to the decision of the episcopal conference, bearing in mind all the circumstances, above all the number of the faithful and the arrangement of the churches. The faithful should willingly adopt the method indicated by their pastors, so that Communion may truly be a sign of the brotherly union of all those who share in the same table of the Lord.

b) When the faithful communicate kneeling, no other sign of reverence toward the Blessed Sacrament is required, since kneeling is itself a sign of adoration.
When they receive Communion standing, it is strongly recommended that, coming up in procession, they should make a sign of reverence before receiving the Blessed Sacrament. This should be done at the right time and place, so that the order of people going to and from Communion may not be disrupted."

 

[zab]

However, the CDWDS has consistently defended those who make the legitimate choice to kneel. They do not even go so far as to accuse them of violating the norms as other posters in this thread have done.

The fact that our Holy Father is trying to bring back kneeling for the reception of Holy Communion does not change the fact that the norm for posture in the United States is to stand. You maintain that we have a legitimate choice to kneel. But the reality is that there is only one posture given to us as the norm for receiving Communion in this U.S. and that we have been asked by our bishops to maintain a unity of posture by following the norm. People may choose to disregard that request of the bishops without fear of retalliation, but that does not mean that we have been given an option to kneel or stand. Promoting humble obedience to the valid requests of the bishops is not the same thing as accusing those who kneel of being disobedient.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You make some strong statements here, some that are unfounded and untrue, as I read them. While it is accurate to state that someone who does not say “Amen” (unless they are speech impaired) are acting ilicitly, it is a huge stretch to apply the same principle to those who are kneeling. Again, you are making a statement that goes 180-degrees to the opposite of what the CDWDS has stated.

Apologies, but what you are saying is the one thats misleading. The CDWDS has not protected the right to kneel. They only and rightfully stated that not conforming to the norm by kneeling is not a grave enough offense to be punished with denial of Communion. Denial of Communion is a serious penalty reserved for serious offenders of the faith, such as those excommunicated. So not following the rubrics is rightfully not grounds of such punishment. But to claim that a right has been defended is wrong as I do not find such claim in any statements by the CDWDS.

 

[ProVobis]

People may choose to disregard that request of the bishops without fear of retalliation, but that does not mean that we have been given an option to kneel or stand. Promoting humble obedience to the valid requests of the bishops is not the same thing as accusing those who kneel of being disobedient.

No offense intended but it sounds more like a English semantics problem then. Without regard to whether we are properly disposed, the bottom line is either we are able to receive kneeling or we’re not.

 

[zab]

No offense intended but it sounds more like a English semantics problem then. Without regard to whether we are properly disposed, the bottom line is either we are able to receive kneeling or we’re not.

I think the problem is more of a perceived accusation of disobedience than an actual accusation of disobedience and a failure to understand what is being communicated.

 

[floresco]

I think the problem is more of a perceived accusation of disobedience than an actual accusation of disobedience and a failure to understand what is being communicated.

Statements which associate obedience with a specific practice imply that people who are not doing following the practice are disobedient. When someone says “obedient Catholics receive Communion from EMHCs” or “obedient Catholics (in the US) receive Communion standing” it sounds like a claim that the people who do not do these things are disobedient. I suppose there are other possible meanings, but it really is not a clear way to state a position which acknowledges that the people refraining from the practices are not disobedient.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Statements which associate obedience with a specific practice imply that people who are not doing following the practice are disobedient. When someone says “obedient Catholics receive Communion from EMHCs” or “obedient Catholics (in the US) receive Communion standing” it sounds like a claim that the people who do not do these things are disobedient. I suppose there are other possible meanings, but it really is not a clear way to state a position which acknowledges that the people refraining from the practices are not disobedient.

Its kinda like saying another woman is beautiful in front of your gf or wife. They would immediatley assume that you mean they are not pretty when you only want to say how beautiful that other woman is.

But in the case of obedience, isn’t it you either are obedient or are not? Is there a lot of grey areas in between?

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

I agree with you about picking and choosing. It is important to accept the authority of the Church. Sometimes this authority gives us rules we must obey and sometimes it gives us teachings we must accept. Sometimes the the rules concern disciplinary matters and can change. Sometimes the rules concern matters of faith and morals that are unchanging.

It is not good to reject the Church’s authority by picking and choosing, but there are different degrees of seriousness. A person who rejects the Church’s teaching on divorce (an unchangeable moral law) is doing something more serious than those people who say the Church should not have allowed EMHCs (a changeable rule).

For the record, I have not rejected the Church’s authority to permit EMHCs. I just prefer to not receive Communion from them myself.

I think maybe your friend just used an unfortunate choice of word with disobedience? But I would be concerned about a friend if they choose not to receive Jesus because of who delivered Him…I find that sad…

Off topic a bit…but wouldn’t chastity for a priest be a changeable rule?