Implied accusation of disobedience

[DavidPalm]

Yes, David,
unfortunately it does happen and has already been stated and not denied that the CDWDS has made that clarification. But than does not mean that those of us who do follow the norm are accusing everyone else of being disobedient.

I appreciate this comment and your own generosity on the matter. But there continue to be several here who stubbornly hold to the notion of disobedience, even when the competent authority in Rome has settled the matter in as clear a way as can be imagined, by me at least. Although the virtue of obedience is paramount, it can be twisted and turned toxic by individuals, especially in a time of great upheaval like ours. So it seems to me that, especially in our day, it needs to be matched with the virtue of prudence.

 

[ProVobis]

Who is it really that is raising all of the questions of disobedience? Not I, and not others who believe that we should maintain a posture of unity as our bishops have requested of us. If one feels uncomfortable wondering what everyone else is thinking because of their choice, that is their problem.

Thanks.

There’s one thing that seemed to have been overlooked here. It wasn’t so much asking those who were to receive to kneel but actually providing kneelers for them to receive. That to me is the difference between appropriate kneeling and kneeling on the floor causing a hazard to others. I can understand the norm that is set if you don’t have the kneelers.

However that begs the question, how did things come to this point? Once we were at the communion rail receiving in the traditional manner and next thing you know we have the bread lines. Were there any major directives from Rome to do this? Who started this practice? I can find a lot of things about CITH and its history but I can’t find too much on standing in the Latin Rite.

 

[Vico]

Thanks.

There’s one thing that seemed to have been overlooked here. It wasn’t so much asking those who were to receive to kneel but actually providing kneelers for them to receive. That to me is the difference between appropriate kneeling and kneeling on the floor causing a hazard to others. I can understand the norm that is set if you don’t have the kneelers.

However that begs the question, how did things come to this point? Once we were at the communion rail receiving in the traditional manner and next thing you know we have the bread lines. Were there any major directives from Rome to do this? Who started this practice? I can find a lot of things about CITH and its history but I can’t find too much on standing in the Latin Rite.

I understand that communion standing bowed, in the hand was original, then the change to kneeling occurred definitely by 880 A.D.
Vatican II spawned the revised liturgy, Pope Paul VI Mass, promulgated 1970 with approval of both species, and to choose standing or kneeling (see below).
The indult communion in the hand was granted 1970-1977.

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.”

May 25, 1967
adoremus.org/eucharisticummysterium.html

 

[ProVobis]

I understand that communion standing bowed, in the hand was original, then the change to kneeling occurred definitely by 880 A.D.
Vatican II spawned the revised liturgy, Pope Paul VI Mass, promulgated 1970 with approval of both species, and to choose standing or kneeling (see below).
The indult communion in the hand was granted 1970-1977.

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.”

May 25, 1967
adoremus.org/eucharisticummysterium.html

Thanks. That explains a lot.

Could it be then that the communion rails were destroyed to conform with the method of receiving desired by the conference of bishops? That seems to be not exactly with the spirit of the law, IMO. I don’t think you can force brotherly union this way, but I like to hear other opinions on this.

I also note the interesting use of the words “sharing in the same table of the Lord” here.

 

[DavidPalm]

Thanks. That explains a lot.

Could it be then that the communion rails were destroyed to conform with the method of receiving desired by the conference of bishops? That seems to be not exactly with the spirit of the law, IMO. I don’t think you can force brotherly union this way.

It’s an explanation for what happened. However, it still seems to me that the insistence at the parish level that the faithful stand and the attendant destruction of the rails was illicit, since the USCCB did not formally promulgate notice of the permission they received from Rome for standing until 2002: usccb.org/liturgy/innews/092002.shtml. It may be there there is earlier notice of this, but at the very least it seems that the widespread practice and wreckovation began long before there was any decision by the episcopal conference.

 

[zab]

It is easy to look back now and believe that removeing the Communion rails may not have been such a good idea after all. All I know it that I had a good pastor who was loyal to the church. When he was given instructions he obeyed. He was not one of those butterfly dressed, clown faced priests that you may have seen on YouTube or in magazines.
As far as the bishops conference goes, the bishops were instructed by the (CDWDS) in 1967 to choose either standing or kneeling. They could have chosen standing right off the bat if that is what they wanted. But they didn’t. Perhaps if enough devout Catholics would have continued to kneel when the Communion procession changed signaling to the bishops that this is the posture we want, then maybe the Communion rails would still be in most of our churches. But they did not. I don’t recall anyone kneeling when we made the change. Our Communion rails were not ripped out immediately. Now after all these years and looking back at all of the liturgical abuses that creeped into the Liturgy, we look for where we can throw the blame.

 

[ProVobis]

vico and David Palm,

I found something that sorts of expands on your points.

ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur67.htm

Of note is the following comment:

…no document explicitly mandates or even suggests that the removal of altar rails is required by the liturgical reform.
…
…the …guidelines, and documents on the preservation of sacred art published by the Holy See, do suggest that great care must be taken before altering churches of certain historical value or even particular elements of a church that may have particular artistic merit.

Even churches that are not, strictly speaking, “historical,” sometimes have altar rails and other elements that are fine examples of the artistry, such as stone carving and metalwork, of earlier epochs. If no other use can be found for them within a renovated church it is often better to do whatever is possible to preserve them.

The other reasons offered for the removal of the altar rails are really not pertinent.

The fact that no other church in the city has altar rails makes no difference if there were a good reason for preserving them in this particular church, or even if there were no good reason for removing them.

 

[Vico]

It’s an explanation for what happened. However, it still seems to me that the insistence at the parish level that the faithful stand and the attendant destruction of the rails was illicit, since the USCCB did not formally promulgate notice of the permission they received from Rome for standing until 2002: usccb.org/liturgy/innews/092002.shtml. It may be there there is earlier notice of this, but at the very least it seems that the widespread practice and wreckovation began long before there was any decision by the episcopal conference.

1967 Eucharisticum mysterium (15 August 1967*)*
1969 GIRM published with Order of Mass (18 November 1969)
1970 GIRM revised, published with Roman Missal (26 March 1970)
1973 GIRM emended in light of *Ministeria Quaedam *(15 August 1972)
1975 GIRM revised, 2nd edition of Roman Missal (27 March 1975)
1983 GIRM emended, Code of Canon Law (25 January 1983)
2000 Study edition released (July 2000)
2002 GIRM revised, 3rd edition of Roman Missal (March 2002)

It is true that the bishops of the USA did not make a unified choice to stand for communion till late. They were approved and confirmed to stand or kneel for communion (choose one) in 1967 by Eucharisticum mysterium.

“In the audience granted on the 13th of April, 1967, to His Eminence Arcadio M. Cardinal Larraona, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, His Holiness Pope Paul VI, by his authority approved and confirmed this instruction, ordered that it should be published, and established that it should come into effect on the feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 15 August 1967.”

May 25, 1967
adoremus.org/eucharisticummysterium.html

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Bishops recomend, but they do not demand
Their recomendation does not take away one’s right to kneel
Wanting to kneel for God does not mean jealousy, rivalry, flesh
I follow my Bishop, using my right to kneel doesn’t negate that

Not just because you say you’re doing something for God, doesn’t make it free from sin and error. Many people through their limited or even perverted perception of the world or scripture, would do horrible crimes “for God” or even in the “name of God”. Does doing something for God justify defying the authority that God himself placed on earth for His Church?

Why such fuss? St Paul did tell us to hold onto the tradtions handed down to us. He did say at the name of Christ every knee should bend - how much more in his real presence.

Then how come kneeling only exists in the Latin Church for Sunday Mass?

 

[DavidPalm]

It is easy to look back now and believe that removeing the Communion rails may not have been such a good idea after all. All I know it that I had a good pastor who was loyal to the church. When he was given instructions he obeyed. He was not one of those butterfly dressed, clown faced priests that you may have seen on YouTube or in magazines.
As far as the bishops conference goes, the bishops were instructed by the (CDWDS) in 1967 to choose either standing or kneeling. They could have chosen standing right off the bat if that is what they wanted. But they didn’t. Perhaps if enough devout Catholics would have continued to kneel when the Communion procession changed signaling to the bishops that this is the posture we want, then maybe the Communion rails would still be in most of our churches. But they did not. I don’t recall anyone kneeling when we made the change. Our Communion rails were not ripped out immediately. Now after all these years and looking back at all of the liturgical abuses that creeped into the Liturgy, we look for where we can throw the blame.

Yup. As I mentioned above, toxic obedience.

 

[ProVobis]

They could have chosen standing right off the bat if that is what they wanted. But they didn’t. Perhaps if enough devout Catholics would have continued to kneel when the Communion procession changed signaling to the bishops that this is the posture we want, then maybe the Communion rails would still be in most of our churches. But they did not. I don’t recall anyone kneeling when we made the change.

Fair point. But the progressives did seem to have the control in the 60’s and 70’s. ANY change seemed welcome to them.

 

[Layman]

This article makes the point that the changes post-Vat. II are perfectly in line both with the documents and what Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II wanted i.e. arguing over interpretations is a waste of time.

latin-mass-society.org/ferrara.htm

 

[ConstantineTG]

Perhaps if enough devout Catholics would have continued to kneel when the Communion procession changed signaling to the bishops that this is the posture we want, then maybe the Communion rails would still be in most of our churches.

I’d be very afraid for our Church if the laity would be allowed to steer the direction of our Church.

 

[zab]

Yup. As I mentioned above, toxic obedience.

Nope. Humble obedience, when referring to the pastor of my childhood. Just because there were those who took advantage of things does not mean that there is anything wrong with being obedient to ones superiors.

 

[zab]

I’d be very afraid for our Church if the laity would be allowed to steer the direction of our Church.

You do have a point.

 

[zab]

Fair point. But the progressives did seem to have the control in the 60’s and 70’s. ANY change seemed welcome to them.

And they ran with it. Yes, I know all to well what that was like and I did suffer persecution from it. Yes, I was called things like “ultra conservative” can you believe it?

 

[ProVobis]

This article makes the point that the changes post-Vat. II are perfectly in line both with the documents and what Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II wanted i.e. arguing over interpretations is a waste of time.

latin-mass-society.org/ferrara.htm

Not completely a waste of time. From a post above referencing the “brotherly union of all those who share in the same table of the Lord,” from Paul VI’s definition of the Mass where the sacrificial nature of the Mass was completely removed, and from HV to counter Paul VI’s own “conscience” clause in PP, it is clear that some non-progressive heads still managed to have their voices heard and have some of the confusion clarified.

Good article, though.

 

[DavidPalm]

Nope. Humble obedience, when referring to the pastor of my childhood. Just because there were those who took advantage of things does not mean that there is anything wrong with being obedient to ones superiors.

It is my opinion that orders that are contrary to the laws of the Church should not be followed especially when they touch on matters that would likely cause significant harm to the commonweal–like sudden, non-organic liturgical changes. I can understand following the first few illicit commands, even though they came totally ungrounded in Vatican II or even in post-V2 directives. But at some point it would seem to me that more priests should have realized that “the fix was in” and started refusing to obey illicit orders. Some did and certainly they were persecuted for it.

I wasn’t there, so I guess it’s easy for me to say. There was a revolution and the virtue of obedience was abused, with incredible effectiveness, to advance the revolution. This is where I think that more prudence needed to be wed with the virtue of obedience.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You do have a point.

Yep, the only democracy within our Church exists within those who has authority. That is why Jesus said to the disciples:

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 18:19[/BIBLEDRB]

But even so, Peter still is the one who has the keys in Heaven so he has above and beyond authority over the rest.

 

[ProVobis]

I wasn’t there, so I guess it’s easy for me to say. There was a revolution and the virtue of obedience was abused, with incredible effectiveness, to advance the revolution.

I was there and you could have easily called me a progressive then too. But all that came to a halt when Roe vs Wade (legalization of abortion) shockingly became the law of the U.S. There are times in your life when you realize that you’ve been had. That was one of them. The progressives back then were wrong in a lot of ways.

Although I still do not consider myself a traditionalist, I’m fully sympathetic with their positions in regards Latin, the old liturgy, the old customs, and sin. When you see things on the “other” side, you realize that your own side isn’t all that bad.