F
fix
Guest
Actually I have not read that one must stand. There is a norm, but that is not stating one must stand.
There are greater problems with not following rubrics than kneeling.
- Status
There are greater problems with not following rubrics than kneeling.
M
msproule
Guest
I just searched through the USCCB website again and found these:
usccb.org/liturgy/girm/bul3.shtml
usccb.org/liturgy/girm/bul5.shtml
%between%
I assume this must be those reasons to which the USCCB refers in the GIRM adaptations. What I find interesting (saddening, really) is that they imply that kneeling is the wrong posture to assume for receiving Holy Communion, since it is one associated with penance!
Nevertheless, immediately after stressing unity over all things, they explain how we can receive in the hand or on the tongue at our own preference!
Apparently, bulletin inserts do not require the recognitio of the Holy See! If they did, I think Rome would have taken offense to the USCCB’s position on this matter since it directly contradicts the universal norm. Frankly, judging from the “after-the-fact” letter from the Congregation that was provided earlier in the thread, I wonder if the Holy See regrets granting authority in this matter to the USCCB…
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
I apologize for bumping my much earlier post back to the top. As so much of the discussion is about what is permitted or not according the GIRM or if the Pope will regret giving this authority to the American Bishops, I’d like have us think about if we are served by different people doing pious acts (as sincere as I’m sure they are) to the point of potentially being a distraction to others. Myself, I think we would all be better served if we spent more time in contemplative prayer about the great mystery of the Eucharist while still in the pew waiting to get in line and while in line. If we did this, posture would be minor “external.”
A
A.Pelliccio
Guest
Rubbish the fact by having Catholics who think they have better things to do on Sunday than other to come to mass or stay for the duration is in no way logic to define theological practice.
I would rather sit through the Holy Father distribute communion to the faithful in all of Rome than to receive communion in my hand as to not, ‘upset people because it takes too long.’
This brothers and sisters are the reasons Catholics get frustrated. This modern, hip, individual nonsense has impeded the way we practice our faith. We will just sacrifice and compromise the most scared tradition of our church, faith, and Lord for the simple pleasure of the human attention span.
Anthony
I would rather sit through the Holy Father distribute communion to the faithful in all of Rome than to receive communion in my hand as to not, ‘upset people because it takes too long.’
This brothers and sisters are the reasons Catholics get frustrated. This modern, hip, individual nonsense has impeded the way we practice our faith. We will just sacrifice and compromise the most scared tradition of our church, faith, and Lord for the simple pleasure of the human attention span.
Anthony
G
GoLatin
Guest
Just kneel anyway, and don’t receive from an EMHC.
O
otm
Guest
Your quote is a tad bit out of context, as I strongly suspect that he was talking about those who insisted in standing during the Consecration.
It is further bordering on irrelevant, as we kneel for a longer period according to the GIRM than the universal norm in the Church, which has everyone standing after the Consecration while we kneel. he was not directing the statement to the approved posture of standing to receive Communion, and implying that his statement has to do with that posture borders on dishonesty if it is, as I suspect, about the dissenters…
O
otm
Guest
netmil(name removed by moderator):
the Monsignior also did not revoke the GIRM or re-write it.
O
otm
Guest
Anna Elizabeth:
Well, neither Canon law, nor the USCCB gave him the poser to invoke a canonical penalty. He’s just plain wrong.Perhaps I’m repeating myself, but last year someone in our parish chose to kneel, and the pastor not only wouldn’t give him the Host, after Mass he said that Cardinal Arinze’s OK re kneeling didn’t mean anything to him as he took his directions from the USCCB!
Go figure,
Anna
O
otm
Guest
It doesn’t make me mad; it only proves to me that the conservatives are just as stubborn as the liberals about doing thier own thing when they think that their own thing is more pious than what Rome approved.
Rome said the norm is standing. the Girm also speaks to the need for and importance of unity of posture.
Rome has not forbidden you to stand during the reading of the Epistle, or during the reading of the Old Testament, or during the homily; however, you would obviously stand out, just as you stand out during Communion by doing contrary to the norm.
The liberals feel just as strongly about standing during the Consecration as you do about kneeling during Communion. the Pope has alread asked you to stand, by allowing the norm to be the norm. It is only your intransegence that insists that you will ignore his request until he makes a demand.
O
otm
Guest
A Monsignior at one of the dicasteries wrote a letter with those statements in it.
He is obviously trying to stop what was turning into an ugly situation, where Communion was being denied to communicants; denial of Communion is a serious Canonical penalty reserved, for example situations where an individual is a serious public sinner. these communicants in no way fit the definition of a serious public sinner, and the penalty was way excessive.
There is a term in law for a statement that is not pertinent to the issue at hand; that is, it is not a necessary part of the decision but it is taken, by non-lawyers (and some lawyers who are not paying attention) as the law of the case.
That is pretty much the case here, as the Monsignior, in answering that the penalty could not be imposed, went on to make a personal statement as to obedience or disobedience. Conservtives who do not like the norm or standing have seized on that aside about obedinece to say that Rome has stated they have a right to kneel.
No such right exists unless and unti the GIRM is amended to state that one has an option of other postures. the letter did not state that other postures were permitted, nor was that even the question that was proposed to Rome; the question was whether or not the Canonical punishment could be imposed.
The GIRM states that Communion is not to be refused. The conservatives who feel that theiown view of piety over-rides the GIRM and the norm issued from Rome use the whole fracas, and the letter as their authority. It shows not only an ignorance of how law works in the Church, and what weight letters have, particularly asides in letters, but also a strong tendency to legalism.
The point is that the statement is taken as if a legal action was taken by the Vatican overruling the norm. the Vatican was not asked to overrule it, and anyone knowledgable about Canon Law and the procedural issues surrounding changes, for example, to the GIRM would understand this immediately.
O
otm
Guest
The GIRM clearly and plainly states that the norm is standing. To state that there is no mandate is to state that a norm is a meaningless word and to insist that there is no mandate unless it is stated in absolutes.
If one were to take that position, then much of what the GIRM sets forth can be modified, as most of it is not stated in absolutes.
N
netmilsmom
Guest
No, my friend, he clarified it.
If the letter was written about holding hands at the Our Father, some modernists would be stamping on us and stating how RUDE we are for offering our view (oh wait, that’s happened)
The GIRM was approved with a certain specification. That kneeling not be called disobedient or illicit. The Bishops, had one intent, the Vatican had another. Not just skipping something but actually stating that one cannot call a kneeling person disobedient.
If my supervisor told me to fill out a form one way, which is different from the way it has always been done. Then owner of the company said that it is okay to continue to fill out the form in the same way while we try the other AND my boss cannot say that I am doing it wrong, I’m gonna listen to the owner.
The Boss can rant all he wants but he sounds pretty childish doesn’t he?
It’s not disobedience, and it’s certainly not an innovation like holding hands for the Our Father or the Orans position in the mass, so basically, there is nothing to be said.
Mountain = Molehill in this situation.
C
Consecrated
Guest
I receive kneeling when I can without causing too much of a disturbance. The pastor of our parish made his enforcement of the “norm” of standing clear when he took the kneeling pads away from the still existant communion rail, and stood down on floor level to distribute Communion. Previous to the GIRM, both standing and kneeling were common positions for receiving Communion at Mass at our parish.
The pastor has not asked me directly to discontinue my practice of kneeling when I can, and if he were to ask, I would obey.
otm:
I know the importance of obedience. If you look at the lives of the saints, God has always looked with great favor on their obedience to superiors, even when the superiors have restricted seemingly good things, like frequency of communion and confession. Obedience keeps people humble.
But what about matching our external position with our internal attitude towards the Son of God really and truly present in the Host before us?? It’s a real quandry the USCCB has forced on the lay faithful. Just because standing has slowly over the years replaced kneeling doesn’t make it proper. Because of our existance in Time, the Liturgy is always organically changing (except for the change to the NO, that was synthetic). Some things get introduced in the Liturgy of certain areas at certain times. Every so often the leaders of the Church should look at what things have been changed and either decide that it’s a good change or not, (i.e. that it adds to the faith of the people or detracts from it). Then should make the “good” change a norm, and the “not-so-good” change forbidden. Stated simply, I believe standing for Communion to be a “not-so-good” change because it allows those whose faith and belief in the Real Presence is not very strong to not have to think about Who is is they are receiving.
And lastly, whatever your position on this point, concern for what others are thinking about you as you stand or kneel SHOULD NEVER be a deciding factor. I know, this is easier said than done!
The pastor has not asked me directly to discontinue my practice of kneeling when I can, and if he were to ask, I would obey.
I can only speak for myself, but the reason I speak out about innovations in the Mass is not because I want things done “my own way” or according to “my” idea of piety, but because in this case, I believe that the bishops are sacrificing reverence towards the Body and Blood of our Redeemer and King for the unity of the people at Mass. I believe they are encouraging a false idea of unity in so doing. I mean, why could the bishops not make it the norm to kneel? Wouldn’t most people agree that kneeling is a more reverant posture? Wouldn’t it be better to be united in a deeper attitude of reverence? I know this seems to be all about externals, which are not as important as our inner dispostion, HOWEVER, since the very beginning of the Church (and really since the Garden of Eden), our external attitudes and positions have been intended to be a reflection of our inner attitude. Also, our external positions can even add to and influence our inner dispositon AND that of those around us. When inner and outer are not in sync, there is a form of hypocrisy. Our Creator intended our body and soul to be in harmony.
I know the importance of obedience. If you look at the lives of the saints, God has always looked with great favor on their obedience to superiors, even when the superiors have restricted seemingly good things, like frequency of communion and confession. Obedience keeps people humble.
But what about matching our external position with our internal attitude towards the Son of God really and truly present in the Host before us?? It’s a real quandry the USCCB has forced on the lay faithful. Just because standing has slowly over the years replaced kneeling doesn’t make it proper. Because of our existance in Time, the Liturgy is always organically changing (except for the change to the NO, that was synthetic). Some things get introduced in the Liturgy of certain areas at certain times. Every so often the leaders of the Church should look at what things have been changed and either decide that it’s a good change or not, (i.e. that it adds to the faith of the people or detracts from it). Then should make the “good” change a norm, and the “not-so-good” change forbidden. Stated simply, I believe standing for Communion to be a “not-so-good” change because it allows those whose faith and belief in the Real Presence is not very strong to not have to think about Who is is they are receiving.
And lastly, whatever your position on this point, concern for what others are thinking about you as you stand or kneel SHOULD NEVER be a deciding factor. I know, this is easier said than done!
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
Personally, I believe we need to approach the Eucharist more prayerfully beginnign while we are still in the pew. The new directive to bow is fantastic as concurrent with teh bow, we can say a prayer like “My God and Savior”.
I appreciate everyone’s desire to get down on our knees before our Lord. In so many ways, it seems to be the only proper thing when you consider the full majesty of Jesus coming to us Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. Ultimately, I’d like to return to the Communion Rails. But we must walk before we can run.
If we can get everyone to have good Catechesis regarding the Eucharist and bowing, the next step is returning to the Communion Rails. Until then, I think we need to be more patient by not getting ahead of some or less catechised breathren. Remember the woman at the well and how Jesus took her along slowly.
I appreciate everyone’s desire to get down on our knees before our Lord. In so many ways, it seems to be the only proper thing when you consider the full majesty of Jesus coming to us Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. Ultimately, I’d like to return to the Communion Rails. But we must walk before we can run.
If we can get everyone to have good Catechesis regarding the Eucharist and bowing, the next step is returning to the Communion Rails. Until then, I think we need to be more patient by not getting ahead of some or less catechised breathren. Remember the woman at the well and how Jesus took her along slowly.
H
Ham1
Guest
netmil(name removed by moderator):
Except that Boss fully acknowledges that the norm is the new way of filling out the form. So, he’s saying “The new way is the norm (as approved by me) however I’m not going to rip your head off for filling out the form the old way. But, please realize the norm IS the new way.”
D
drforjc
Guest
Interesting take from the Adoremus Bulletin:
N
netmilsmom
Guest
That only holds if the Boss can prove that the new way is the correct way. The owner trumps it all.
If any Bishop has gotten a letter from God saying that the Vatican is mistaken in going with the historically Catholic posture, I would be more than willing to stand. Even in my parish where kneeling is the norm.
H
Ham1
Guest
netmil(name removed by moderator):
Except that the OWNER (in the original analogy the Pope, I think) fully acknowledges that the norm is the new way of filling out the form. So, he’s saying “The new way is the norm (as approved by me) however I’m not going to rip your head off for filling out the form the old way. But, please realize the norm IS the new way.”
Sorry for the confusion.
I don’t think your argument of a Bishop needing a letter from God in order to prove authority is a good one. After all, the same argument could be used to discredit the Church’s position on contraception.
Sorry. I wrote my post in error. It should read like this:
Except that the OWNER (in the original analogy the Pope, I think) fully acknowledges that the norm is the new way of filling out the form. So, he’s saying “The new way is the norm (as approved by me) however I’m not going to rip your head off for filling out the form the old way. But, please realize the norm IS the new way.”
Sorry for the confusion.
I don’t think your argument of a Bishop needing a letter from God in order to prove authority is a good one. After all, the same argument could be used to discredit the Church’s position on contraception.
N
netmilsmom
Guest
I’ve was in major corporations long enough to know that when something new is tried and there is enough complaints from customers, they go back to the old way.
Classic Coke and New Coke come to mind.
The Vatican agreed with the Bishops that standing is the norm until they began to get too many complaints from their customer base. They then told their Bishops that they cannot deny, nor call a person wrong for doing it the old way.
The Vatican didn’t agree it was the right way, they agreed that the Bishops could set the norms, BUT could not deny communion nor call disobedient or illicit anyone who stayed with what was historically Catholic. (because they were finding that with the people, this was not the norm)
Note your comment about “After all, the same argument could be used to discredit the Church’s position on contraception”
This is the Bishops over the Vatican. In order to overrule the Vatican, I think they would need a letter from God!
H
Ham1
Guest
netmil(name removed by moderator):
That doesn’t make sense.
How exactly is this situation the Bishop’s over the Vatican???
That doesn’t make sense.
- Status