Kneeling Banned? Vatican II can be wrong?

[Mt19_26]

I just heard tonight from someone that was told by a priest that the Vatican approved a ban on kneeling for communion in the United States that was requested by the U.S. bishops. I have not heard of this. Is this true?

Also, this came out of a conversation that the person I was conversing with who insisted that the magisterium can error in things relating to the Liturgy. In otherwords, the magisterium can make errors dealing with the Sacrifice of the Mass. Thus, Vatican II can be wrong. My understanding is that magisterium can’t be wrong, however, the implementation of it’s “orders” or “directives” (for lack of a better word) can be wrong.

If anyone can explain this further I’d be greatly appreciative.

 

[mystified]

Not banned. A local bishop can discourage kneeling, but the GIRM still rules.

 

[SMHW]

Since I don’t know exactly what was said or the context I’m inclined to think that the ‘ban on kneeling’ is negative spin by someone unhappy that the US norm for receiving Communion is standing.

I’m not really sure what an ‘error dealing with the Sacrifice of the Mass’ even means. The only true error I could think of would be something that makes the consecration invalid. Liturgical directives could be silly, irreverent, and/or make little sense but that doesn’t really make them ‘wrong’.

 

[Caesar]

I just heard tonight from someone that was told by a priest that the Vatican approved a ban on kneeling for communion in the United States that was requested by the U.S. bishops. I have not heard of this. Is this true?

Also, this came out of a conversation that the person I was conversing with who insisted that the magisterium can error in things relating to the Liturgy. In otherwords, the magisterium can make errors dealing with the Sacrifice of the Mass. Thus, Vatican II can be wrong. My understanding is that magisterium can’t be wrong, however, the implementation of it’s “orders” or “directives” (for lack of a better word) can be wrong.

If anyone can explain this further I’d be greatly appreciative.

Only two of the three levels of the Magisterium are infallible, and the most of the current teachings on the Liturgy (most of which are not from Vatican II, as is commonly thought, but from several years after the Council) fall into the third, fallible, level of the Magisterium.

 

[Mt19_26]

I’m not really sure what an ‘error dealing with the Sacrifice of the Mass’

As an example, if we use the current approval for communion in the hand, can that be an error on the part of the magisterium?

 

[Caesar]

As an example, if we use the current approval for communion in the hand, can that be an error on the part of the magisterium?

Nor, the Mgaisterium cannot be in error, for to be in error it would have to be in heresy. But that is not to say that certain teachings have to be infallible either.

Wea re only bound by faith to hold the teachings of the Extraordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium as correct. The teachings of the Ordinary Fallible Magisterium cannot be in error, but we are not bound by faith to accept them either.

 

[Mt19_26]

Only two of the three levels of the Magisterium are infallible, and the most of the current teachings on the Liturgy (most of which are not from Vatican II, as is commonly thought, but from several years after the Council) fall into the third, fallible, level of the Magisterium.

It’s my belief/understandnig that Vatican II’s teachings on the Liturgy are infallible. However, it’s implementation afterwards are where problems have occurred. Much of what happened after the council is a result of misinterpretation of what the council really intended. If the council was implemented correctly we would not see much difference between the Tridentine Mass and the current Mass. Our “modern” churches would not be built the way then have been. We would have seen “organic” development rather than an sudden change.

Please correct me if any of what I stated is wrong.

 

[LittleRose]

Kneeling has not been banned in the US. In fact, there are parishes that still have people kneeling at the altar rail in the US. I have personally witnessed one of these, and there was an archbishop present.

Your friend needs to find more reliable sources of information.

 

[Mt19_26]

But that is not to say that certain teachings have to be infallible either.

So could the allowance of Communion in the hand by the Vatican be a mistake? Could the Vatican make a statement saying that Communion in the hand is okay be in error?

Thanks…

 

[Mt19_26]

Kneeling has not been banned in the US. In fact, there are parishes that still have people kneeling at the altar rail in the US. I have personally witnessed one of these, and there was an archbishop present.

Your friend needs to find more reliable sources of information.

Yes, I was surprised at his statement that came from a priest and haven’t been able to find any information to back it up. My family occasionally attends the TLM here in San Diego and kneeling (of course) is mandatory. However, what I was wondering is if kneeling could be “banned” by the bishop is he so pleases. An example that comes to mind is Bishop Brown up in Orange County, CA, that refused give communion to a communicant until she stood.

 

[Caesar]

It’s my belief/understandnig that Vatican II’s teachings on the Liturgy are infallible. However, it’s implementation afterwards are where problems have occurred. Much of what happened after the council is a result of misinterpretation of what the council really intended. If the council was implemented correctly we would not see much difference between the Tridentine Mass and the current Mass. Our “modern” churches would not be built the way then have been. We would have seen “organic” development rather than an sudden change.

Please correct me if any of what I stated is wrong.

Teachings on the Liturgy, with the exception of the Theology of the Mass itself, cannot be infallible. Only doctrines of Faith and Morals can be declared infallible, and Liturgical traditions (ie. communion in the hand or on the tongue; freestanding altar or ad orientem altar; Latin or vernacular; ect. ect.) are disciplines, not doctrines.

Secondly, nothing in Vatican II falls under the Extraordinary Infallible Magisterium (that is, when the Pope or an Ecumenical Council solemnly defines a Dogma) as Vatican II was not a Dogmatic Council (unlike every other Ecumenical Council), the theological teachings (not the teachings on disciplines) of Vatican II can either fall under the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium (that is, when a teaching is supported by a clear tradition in the Church throughout history) or the Ordinary Fallible Magisterium (that is, when a teaching is new). There is great controversy over what in V2 is infallible and what isnt- and even over whether anything from Vatican II can be considered infallible if the point of the Council was Pastoral.

 

[Caesar]

So could the allowance of Communion in the hand by the Vatican be a mistake? Could the Vatican make a statement saying that Communion in the hand is okay be in error?

Thanks…

It is a discipline, so as such this practice is completely at the discretion of the Holy See. If the Pope wishes to abolish communion in the hand he may do so at will.

 

[Caesar]

Yes, I was surprised at his statement that came from a priest and haven’t been able to find any information to back it up. My family occasionally attends the TLM here in San Diego and kneeling (of course) is mandatory. However, what I was wondering is if kneeling could be “banned” by the bishop is he so pleases. An example that comes to mind is Bishop Brown up in Orange County, CA, that refused give communion to a communicant until she stood.

I have never heard of a Bishop taking away the kneelers in an entire Diocese, altough I know of a few Bishops who would fit the profile for doing such a thing.

On a side note, I have been denied communion on the tongue. Since I started going to the TLM I have decided that I might as well recieve on the tongue, from a priest, at the New Mass as well. When I went to my regular parish (the Diocesan Cathedral) I opened my mouth, the priest put down the host and gave me a blessing. Since I knew him and went and inquired afterwards and he told me that he only gives communion on the tongue to the old folks. So now I only recieve at the TLM, which sadly is but once a month here.

 

[Mt19_26]

It is a discipline, so as such this practice is completely at the discretion of the Holy See. If the Pope wishes to abolish communion in the hand he may do so at will.

So would this imply that at the time the decision was made, for example the decision to allow Communion in the hand was made, was “correct”? Then in hindsight it has become “incorrect” and should be changed? What I am trying to figure out is whether or not the Vatican can make a mistake from the start or whether the decision was “right” at the time but later it was realized that is was a mistake.

 

[SMHW]

So would this imply that at the time the decision was made, for example the decision to allow Communion in the hand was made, was “correct”? Then in hindsight it has become “incorrect” and should be changed? What I am trying to figure out is whether or not the Vatican can make a mistake from the start or whether the decision was “right” at the time but later it was realized that is was a mistake.

I really think you need to be more clear on what you mean by ‘correct’, ‘right’, ‘mistake’, and other such words.

There are plenty of decisions that may turn out to be applicable to a certain time or group of people that might not make sense later or for a different group. The Vatican has the ‘right’ to make such decisions.

There are issues of right and wrong and then there are issues of wise and unwise. I hesitate to call a decision a mistake unless it is morally or theologically unsound. Unwise decisions are just that: unwise. You can call an unwise decision a mistake but it just isn’t in the same category as a moral or theological error.

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

There is a tendency among many people to blame “Vatican II” for whatever problems may be occurring in their local parish. The Council documents were never as specific as to say when to kneel or stand, nor did they mandate removal of rails and statues. What local pastors and bishops did following the council was their doing, not the Council’s. Also, there have been forty years of liturgical documents built upon the Council’s documents, some of which were **never binding **(Art & Environment in Catholic Worship) and some that are (GIRM). As far as kneeling after the Agnus Dei, only a handful of dioceses – Los Angeles, Portland (OR), Seattle, and Detroit are the ones I know about – mandate standing at this time.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

As far as kneeling after the Agnus Dei, only a handful of dioceses – Los Angeles, Portland (OR), Seattle, and Detroit are the ones I know about – mandate standing at this time.

I’m in Detroit and that’s news to me. . While I am at Assumption Grotto now, where we do use the Communion rail which was never jack-hammered out, I have assisted at Mass at over a dozen parishes in metro-Detroit and only one of those did not kneel following the Agnus Dei (and that was not the only odd thing that happened at that parish).

In general, whenever someone tells you the Vatican authorized something, ask for the name of the document or letter.

This is one of the last communications I recall - discussed in this Adoremus article.

 

[decn2b]

It is my understanding that the current Novus Ordo is not a product of Vatican II. I thought the pauline mass that we have today was developed and promulgated AFTER VII.

 

[estesbob]

So would this imply that at the time the decision was made, for example the decision to allow Communion in the hand was made, was “correct”? Then in hindsight it has become “incorrect” and should be changed? What I am trying to figure out is whether or not the Vatican can make a mistake from the start or whether the decision was “right” at the time but later it was realized that is was a mistake.

They can not make a mistake on matters of Faith and Morals. as far as how one should recive communion goes there is no “right” or “wrong”-just the norms of the time

 

[puzzleannie]

I just heard tonight from someone that was told by a priest that the Vatican approved a ban on kneeling for communion in the United States that was requested by the U.S. bishops. I have not heard of this. Is this true?

.

your informant did not provide any official church teaching and either heard wrong or reported wrong, so you can disregard what was said.

V2 never did make such a ban, the bishops never requested such a ban, and until your informant proves otherwise you can remind him to be more careful of his sources.

In general response to the title of this thread, to reject the dogmatic teaching of Vatican II, which is contained in the constitutions produced and published by the council (not in the various interpretations and opinions from other sources) is to reject the authority and magesterial teaching of the Catholic Church. For a Catholic to separate himself from that authority is to place himself in schism, risking excommunication and loss of his immortal soul.