Implied accusation of disobedience

[ConstantineTG]

Well, in Canada there are no approved adaptations to the GIRM, yet many people stand. I don’t know what “documentation” you could want; just ask someone from Canada. So, you’re either misinterpreting what Cardinal Arinze said, or he misspoke. Sorry, Famule.

The funny part here is I got as many different answers as the people I asked. When I asked one office, they said there’s no adaptatipons yet, so no prescriptions. I asked a priest and he says kneeling or standing is dictated if the parish has kneelers or a Communion rail. If there are none, then you stand. Then a third one told me to follow the US adaptations for now.

I guess the official word would have to come from asking a Bishop himself. I don’t think I’ll have that much luck with that one.

 

[Famule]

Well, in Canada there are no approved adaptations to the GIRM, yet many people stand. I don’t know what “documentation” you could want; just ask someone from Canada. So, you’re either misinterpreting what Cardinal Arinze said, or he misspoke. Sorry, Famule.

So you are taking what a group of people are doing over those in authority over the Church, especially a person who works with these types of things and speaks for the Holy Father? I didn’t know that “many people” in Canada are the Holy See. Interesting.

 

[ConstantineTG]

So you are taking what a group of people are doing over those in authority over the Church, especially a person who works with these types of things and speaks for the Holy Father? I didn’t know that “many people” in Canada are the Holy See. Interesting.

I think what you are missing is that in the RS it is clearly stated that the local Conference of Bishops choose the appropriate posture for receiving Communion. So the authority falls on the local Bishops, not the Pope or the CDWDS. You have to understand that roles and authorities in the Church are clearly defined by law and that where a decision rests upon a certain person, the Pope cannot just come in and take that authority away without good reason or changing the law itself.

 

[ProVobis]

Which canon law?

See post #102.

 

[Famule]

I think what you are missing is that in the RS it is clearly stated that the local Conference of Bishops choose the appropriate posture for receiving Communion. So the authority falls on the local Bishops, not the Pope or the CDWDS. You have to understand that roles and authorities in the Church are clearly defined by law and that where a decision rests upon a certain person, the Pope cannot just come in and take that authority away without good reason or changing the law itself.

So Cardinal Arinze is wrong? We are talking about a local conference that has not chosen in this case (Canada). And all of these choices have to be ratified by Rome.

 

[DavidPalm]

I think what you are missing is that in the RS it is clearly stated that the local Conference of Bishops choose the appropriate posture for receiving Communion. So the authority falls on the local Bishops, not the Pope or the CDWDS. You have to understand that roles and authorities in the Church are clearly defined by law and that where a decision rests upon a certain person, the Pope cannot just come in and take that authority away without good reason or changing the law itself.

I’m a little fuzzy on your position. At least in the U.S. the exception from the norm, the indult was given for standing only on the condition that nobody be denied for kneeling. I would be somewhat surprised if the same was not true in Canada, although I don’t have evidence one way or another. But are you saying that, at least in the U.S., there is still some taint of “disobedience” connected with kneeling for Holy Communion?

 

[ProVobis]

the Pope cannot just come in and take that authority away without good reason or changing the law itself.

He just doesn’t come in. The Pope is the final arbiter of canon law (at least six bishops paid a hefty price to find that out in 1988) and that seems to be the underlying issue regarding the long-established custom of kneeling for communion and from a priest.

 

[ConstantineTG]

He just doesn’t come in. The Pope is the final arbiter of canon law (at least six bishops paid a hefty price to find that out in 1988) and that seems to be the underlying issue regarding the long-established custom of kneeling for communion and from a priest.

But the law is explicit about EMHCs that they are allowed. 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]

So Cardinal Arinze is wrong? We are talking about a local conference that has not chosen in this case (Canada). And all of these choices have to be ratified by Rome.

If the local conference hasn’t chosen or their choice hasn’t received Recognitio, then there is nothing with the force of law that will compel anyone to follow one way or another. However, obedience goes far beyond the law. Would you follow your Bishop even if his desire isn’t enforced by Church Law? Mind you, I’m asking something thats a reasonable request from the Bishop, not something that goes against Church teachings and laws.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’m a little fuzzy on your position. At least in the U.S. the exception from the norm, the indult was given for standing only on the condition that nobody be denied for kneeling. I would be somewhat surprised if the same was not true in Canada, although I don’t have evidence one way or another. But are you saying that, at least in the U.S., there is still some taint of “disobedience” connected with kneeling for Holy Communion?

To clear things up, first standing is not an indult. An indult is an exception to the law. Standing is a valid and licit choice as stated by RS. Not an exception. Every Bishop’s Conference has been given two choices by the CDWDS, its standing or kneeling. So it is not an indult.

In Canada so far there is no Canadian adaptiation of the GIRM, which means there is nothing that carries the force of law from the Church. Both standing and kneeling are seen as valid options and from what I have uncovered, there seems to be differing opinions on how to go about with the lack of a local adaptation of the GIRM.

Obedience is a tough thing. To what extent are we willing to be obedient? Are we going to follow the letter of the law or are we going to follow whatever our Pastor or Bishop decrees, as long as it doesn’t violate any other Church teaching or law? In the US, standing has been chosen as the norm and this has received Recognitio by the Holy See. In fact, the GIRM on the Vatican website, at least in its english version, has the US adaptations. So is there a taint of disobedience for those who doesn’t follow what the Bishops require? Of course. There is a clear directive and it is in fact written out in Church law (GIRM) on what people should do during Communion. What the CDWDS did was ensure that kneeling isn’t viewed as a grave crime that people are denied Communion. Its as grave as someone not saying “Amen” when receiving during as an OF Mass. You cannot be denied Communion either way. CDWDS didn’t include kneeling into the US norm, they can’t. They have already relegated the authority to the Bishops. The only way to take it away is for the Pope to issue a revision ro the RS and remove that clause that the Bishop’s Conference will decide on that.

 

[ConstantineTG]

See post #102.

I think you are misled by the words. Customs are the best interpreter of the law. But the law already is clear on what to do. There is no ambigouity of the law, it clear on who has the authority, what are the choices, and in the GIRM the choice by the competent authority is given the force of law.

 

[ProVobis]

But the law is explicit about EMHCs that they are allowed.

We’re not talking about whether EMHC’s are allowed but what’s suppressed here.

 

[ProVobis]

Mind you, I’m asking something thats a reasonable request from the Bishop

Asking the bishop to suppress kneeling for communion is a reasonable request?

 

[floresco]

Those are my personal feelings about picking and choosing. I’m going into RCIA so I’m trying to pick things up…and I just see so many people say…“I feel this way”…we should not act like we are coodoning a legitimate church practice. Not you per se but others in this thread. How is this kind of picking and choosing different from other types who pick and choose amongst other church teachings?

I thought we are not supposed to go off our “feelings”

I’m talking about your post…not CITH or kneeling/standing that the post is getting off topic on…

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.

 

[ProVobis]

Obedience is a tough thing. To what extent are we willing to be obedient? Are we going to follow the letter of the law or are we going to follow whatever our Pastor or Bishop decrees, as long as it doesn’t violate any other Church teaching or law?

This seems to be a matter of interpretation, however. For example, Canon 249 states that priests be educated in Latin. Would you condone the behavior of your bishop, who oversees the seminaries, in violating this law simply because he’s your bishop and he has told you he didn’t violate Church teachings? I’ll agree with you that obedience is a tough thing.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Asking the bishop to suppress kneeling for communion is a reasonable request?

If its not, why are they given a choice between kneeling or standing? Why didn’t the law just say, “kneeling AND standing are both allowed everywhere”? Saved us many bytes of discussion on the CAF servers.

 

[ProVobis]

in the GIRM the choice by the competent authority is given the force of law.

Then I’d leave it to a much higher authority to decide if the new norms of the GIRM have a greater force of law than the long established custom of receiving from the priest, kneeling, and on the tongue. I believe canon law has already answered that but I’m not the final judge of that. In the meantime I’ll go with what Cardinal Arinze offers.

 

[ConstantineTG]

This seems to be a matter of interpretation, however. For example, Canon 249 states that priests be educated in Latin. Would you condone the behavior of your bishop, who oversees the seminaries, in violating this law simply because he’s your bishop and he has told you he didn’t violate Church teachings? I’ll agree with you that obedience is a tough thing.

Well, as Bro. JR posted somewhere, when our father asks us to do something we should follow. Right or wrong, he is our father. Now, there’s a reason we call our priests and bishops father. That is why I said if a request is reasonable, and reasonable being any request not against Church Law or teaching, shouldn’t we follow our Bishops whether we agree with them or not? In this case, the law itself gave the Bishops the authority to choose whether kneeling or standing. Moreover, the choice has been submitted to the Vatican and has received Recognitio. So this isn’t a mere request, it has the force of law. It is enforcable.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Then I’d leave it to a much higher authority to decide if the new norms of the GIRM have a greater force of law than the long established custom of receiving from the priest, kneeling, and on the tongue.

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?

I have faith in our Church leadership that before something is given Recognitio, it is thoroughly examined and made sure something as blatant as what you have claimed does not violate Canon Law. Also, if in fact the CDWDS didn’t realize that at first but realized it later on, this is enough to repeal said law. Because the US adaptation of the GIRM has not been repealed, are you suggesting that you have seen something the CDWDS has not?

 

[ProVobis]

Moreover, the choice has been submitted to the Vatican and has received Recognitio. So this isn’t a mere request, it has the force of law.

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?