Implied accusation of disobedience

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t know that he personally has clarified it. At the end of the post he wanted the person to reflect on our Lord’s passion.

Personally I think that he probably meant that the Church has encorporated the use of EMHC’s when needed. Now we all certainly have our “feelings” about that. But if we all let our “feelings” wonder into it and our personal theology…well to me…while that certainly is a much nobler thought…I fail to distinguish between that and my stepmother who says she doesn’t believe that the church should deny her communion because she is divorced. She doesn’t want to get an annullment…it’s just a man-made rule by the Church…so she receives anyway… While your feelings do not appear to be breaking any Church laws…I guess I would ask you to reconsider…or at least understand while your friend was concerned.

Peace,

I think what Fr. Serpa is saying is that the “who” in the Eucharist is Jesus Christ, not the minister (ordinary or extraordinary).

In your other part of the post, as far as divorcees the Church doesn’t exclude all divorcees. The Church realizes some people need to protect themselves through legal procedures such as divorce. As long as the intention is to protect yourself from say an abusive spouse, then divorce is acceptable. But if the intent is to break the marital bond or to disparage marriage, then it is a sin. A confession is warranted and as long as the person is not having marital relations with anyone else and lives a chaste life, then one is in a state of grace.

 

[Ockham]

It is one thing to lament the need for the use of EMHC. It is another thing to imply that the majority of those who serve are not worthy. And that seemed to be where that conversation was heading.

That certainly isn’t the path I was on nor I believe ProV. What I believe we were both getting at is if the three hour fast rule and sermons about preaching returned there would be fewer people in the Communion line.

 

[zab]

That certainly isn’t the path I was on nor I believe ProV. What I believe we were both getting at is if the three hour fast rule and sermons about preaching returned there would be fewer people in the Communion line.

You are mistaken. The conversation began with with post #63 and proceeded to your post #66

 

[pnewton]

If that were a conservative Catholic speaking, we might be accused of paying too much attention to other worshippers instead of our own prayer, etc.

Here too! I understand self-examination at communion, but have never understood the need to examine others and derive a judgment about them. She was out of line. It would be best with such a one to take an implication at face value and totally agree with any truth that she gave and blatantly ignore any inuendo. In other words, do not resspond to judgementalism by judging. If however someone point blank judges you, then there is nothing wrong with telling them the they are over the line in whatever way seems best at the time.

 

[ProVobis]

I can’t say I like the practice, but I don’t have any authority to make such decisions. It isn’t up to me to condone or not condone it or to try to get it changed.

You’re right but we don’t have control generally of what others do, whether they’re “allowed” to or not. If we don’t feel fully disposed to receive with full focus on Christ, then we have more than a right not to receive, I would think. This shouldn’t be a matter of being nice towards one’s fellow man. Some people feel offended if you nod your head instead of shaking their hands at the exchange of peace so I suppose a sensitive EMHC may feel offended if not everyone doesn’t receive from her/him. Shouldn’t be that way.

 

[Ockham]

You are mistaken. The conversation began with with post #63 and proceeded to your post #66

No, you are mistaken. The posts you listed refer to the number of people lining up for Holy Communion. It’s not my fault if you don’t understand that.

 

[jeanannemarie]

After reading this entire thread, I have determined that some people are offended by the fact that some people do not wish to receive the host from an Extraordinary Minister if they can receive from the priest. First of all it struck me that the woman who pointed out the situtation to the OP was quite bold in bringing it up. When I am at Mass I don’t look to see what others are doing. I lose my concentration if my eyes wander. It just seems in poor taste to me to point it out to the OP in the first place and let it be known she was taking a tally of the OP’s habit in receiving the host. To me it is petty. And so I will admit: every week I sit on the side of the church where I can receive from the priest and I am guilty, as charged.

 

[LatinJohn]

I think of this quite often when attending an OF mass. While I prefer to receive on the tongue from an ordained minister and kneeling, I think the greater problem is causing a distraction and possibly drawing others attention away from the holy sacrifice of the mass. So as they say “when in Rome”.

My wife has similar issues. Since attending the TLM she has really taken to wearing long skirts and a mantilla to mass. She feels that the mantilla would be a cause for gossip in the OF and thus does not wear it. That said, the more frequently she attends a TLM, the lees comfortable she is with the OF. Occasionally I can talk her into attending our local Eastern Rite parish (my preference) where she likes the formality, but does not care for the church Slavonic and the backward signs of the cross.

John

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

I think what Fr. Serpa is saying is that the “who” in the Eucharist is Jesus Christ, not the minister (ordinary or extraordinary).

I would agree. Sometimes challenging but worth thinking about.

In your other part of the post, as far as divorcees the Church doesn’t exclude all divorcees. The Church realizes some people need to protect themselves through legal procedures such as divorce. As long as the intention is to protect yourself from say an abusive spouse, then divorce is acceptable. But if the intent is to break the marital bond or to disparage marriage, then it is a sin. A confession is warranted and as long as the person is not having marital relations with anyone else and lives a chaste life, then one is in a state of grace.

I’m sorry…I should have clarified. You are correct. But in her case…she got divorced, married my dad, and says that they got it blessed…but I know she has had no annulment from her first marriage…because she keeps telling me that. My dad’s marriage to my mother was annulled. My stepmom picks and chooses what she believes…

 

[Robert_Burns]

This weekend I attended the local parish’s OF with my family. I was sitting next to a very sweet lady who has noticed that I only receive Communion from the priest and was clearly concerned about me. After Mass she asked me about why I do this. I told her both my practical reason and my theological one. I receive on the tongue and kneeling which few EMoCs have been trained to expect. It would be awkward at best and, at worst, the Blessed Sacrament might fall. My theological reason is a wish to acknowledge the special link between the Sacraments of Ordination and Eucharist.

The concerned lady did not respond directly to what I said but told me a story about a time she had been tempted to not receive Communion from an Extraordinary Minister (because she didn’t like him) but she knew that it was important to be obedient so she did it anyhow. Her point seemed to be that I should stop my “disobedience” and receive Communion from lay people. Since she was so clearly well-meaning, I just smiled and thanked her, but it is a bit depressing to know that people think of me as disobedient to the Church.

I think sometimes we worry too much about what others think. You know why you do what you do - and GOD Knows why you do what you do and who knows - maybe even you were inspired by GOD’s grace to do that which you do because he wants you to. So should someone be so bold as to attempt to come between what GOD has inspired you to do and your willingness to obey him? I think some people are well meaning - but IMO - they should worry more about themselves.

pax

 

[zab]

I think sometimes we worry too much about what others think. You know why you do what you do - and GOD Knows why you do what you do and who knows - maybe even you were inspired by GOD’s grace to do that which you do because he wants you to. So should someone be so bold as to attempt to come between what GOD has inspired you to do and your willingness to obey him? I think some people are well meaning - but IMO - they should worry more about themselves.

pax

God forbid that any of us be tested in virtue.

 

[Robert_Burns]

God forbid that any of us be tested in virtue.

Robert : Or led astray out of envy…

 

[zab]

Robert : Or led astray out of envy…

 

[Famule]

Notice he did not tell you the canon lawyer’s own opinion of the issue.

Personally, I think it’s a lame norm and that the reasons – which I assume are, mostly, to facilitate movement and to meet the parameters of a church without altar rails – are not very good ones. It needs to be said, though, that a norm promulgated for lame reasons is not somehow less valid thereby, as Father Z regrettably seems to suggest. The issues of (1) what are the reasons for the norm, (2) do I like the norm, and (3) what is the norm, and what is its authority, need to be kept conceptually separate.

The priests or bishops do not have the authority to withhold Communion as punishment for kneeling or as an enticement to stand up. The bishops’ conference does, however, have the authority to determine whether the posture for communicating will be kneeling or standing. Just because priests cannot enforce that posture by punishing you for going your own way does not take away from the fact that the normative posture was authoritatively determined.

Feel free to join the discussion in this thread about kneeling for Communion. I won’t drag ConserativeOne’s thread here farther away from his original topic.

Cardinal Arinze is quoted in saying that the approval for standing for Communion was granted on condition that those who want to receive Communion kneeling be left in peace.
youtube.com/watch?v=Ap1KL2D5ae4

 

[Matthew_Holford]

The universal norm in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite Holy Mass is to receive Holy Communion on the tongue and while kneeling. The Holy See allows individual episcopal conferences to decide that communicants can receive Holy Communion standing and they can receive it in the hand. If they decide this they have to have their decision ratified by the Holy See.

The USA and England & Wales, where I live, have Holy Communion standing and in the hand.

However, the Church has said that in countries where the bishops have decided to have Holy Communion standing and in the hand, individual communicants retain the right to kneel down and to receive the Holy Communion on the tongue.

H.E. Francis Cardinal Arinze (Prefect Emeritus of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments) has said on numerous occasions that NO ONE should be denied the right to receive Holy Communion kneeling down and on their tongue. He also says that they should not be corrected for doing this. He says they should be left in peace not in pieces.

 

[Famule]

The universal norm in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite Holy Mass is to receive Holy Communion on the tongue and while kneeling. The Holy See allows individual episcopal conferences to decide that communicants can receive Holy Communion standing and they can receive it in the hand. If they decide this they have to have their decision ratified by the Holy See.

The USA and England & Wales, where I live, have Holy Communion standing and in the hand.

However, the Church has said that in countries where the bishops have decided to have Holy Communion standing and in the hand, individual communicants retain the right to kneel down and to receive the Holy Communion on the tongue.

H.E. Francis Cardinal Arinze (Prefect Emeritus of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments) has said on numerous occasions that NO ONE should be denied the right to receive Holy Communion kneeling down and on their tongue. He also says that they should not be corrected for doing this. He says they should be left in peace not in pieces.

Thank you for stating it so clearly.

 

[ProVobis]

H.E. Francis Cardinal Arinze (Prefect Emeritus of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments) has said on numerous occasions that NO ONE should be denied the right to receive Holy Communion kneeling down and on their tongue. He also says that they should not be corrected for doing this. He says they should be left in peace not in pieces.

Yes, he’s a lot stronger here:

youtube.com/watch?v=EcZhjmYn1K8

Note, though, at the end, he is also harsh against those who kneel at the very last moment, such as those performing an exhibition or protesting. But that’s common sense, I think.

 

[MarkThompson]

The universal norm in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite Holy Mass is to receive Holy Communion on the tongue and while kneeling. The Holy See allows individual episcopal conferences to decide that communicants can receive Holy Communion standing and they can receive it in the hand. If they decide this they have to have their decision ratified by the Holy See.

That’s correct about COTT vs. CITH, but not about kneeling versus standing. In the OF, there is no universal norm on the question of kneeling versus standing. Kneeling is not the default; standing is not an indult. Bishops’ conferences are entitled, and in fact asked, to choose one or the other, and the resultant norms they promulgate must be ratified by the Holy See whether they’ve picked kneeling or standing.

 

[ProVobis]

H.E. Francis Cardinal Arinze (Prefect Emeritus of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments) has said on numerous occasions that NO ONE should be denied the right to receive Holy Communion kneeling down and on their tongue. He also says that they should not be corrected for doing this. He says they should be left in peace not in pieces.

Yes, he’s a lot stronger here about kneeling:

youtube.com/watch?v=EcZhjmYn1K8

Note, though, at the end, he is also harsh against those who kneel at the very last moment, such as those performing an exhibition or protesting. But that’s common sense, I think.

 

[floresco]

Personally I think that he probably meant that the Church has encorporated the use of EMHC’s when needed. Now we all certainly have our “feelings” about that. But if we all let our “feelings” wonder into it and our personal theology…well to me…while that certainly is a much nobler thought…**I fail to distinguish between that and my stepmother who says she doesn’t believe that the church should deny her communion because she is divorced. ** She doesn’t want to get an annullment…it’s just a man-made rule by the Church…so she receives anyway… While your feelings do not appear to be breaking any Church laws…I guess I would ask you to reconsider…or at least understand while your friend was concerned.

You fail to distinguish between a person who is disobeying and rejecting Church authority(your stepmother) and a person who is not disobeying and accepts Church authority(myself). That is a big distinction. If the Church made a rule that we had to receive from EMHCs, then I would do so. But the Church has not, so I am doing what I prefer. There is no reason to claim this is disobedience.

We also have to distinguish between “allowed” and “obliged”. For example, we are allowed to go to Mass on weekdays. We are not obliged to go to Mass on weekdays. It would be incorrect to say a person who did not attend Mass on weedays was disobeying The use of EMHCs is allowed when they are needed, but there is no obligation to receive from them. It is not disobeying for me to make up my own mind on this matter.

There may be good reasons why I should reconsider my practice, but obedience is not one of them.