Kneeling to Receive Communion

[kayla]

In Father Larry Richards CD…“Mass Explained” he said it quite well in reference to Communion…“If you really knew that Jesus was truely present in the Holy Eucharist and on the Alter during Communion…would you ever get off your knees”???
I have truely felt that I would like to receive this way, even tho I have so standing.
my :twocents:

 

[netmilsmom]

Ham1:

How exactly is this situation the Bishop’s over the Vatican???

That doesn’t make sense.

For a Bishop to overrule a Vatican directive. I’m not saying that they have but note your comment about “After all, the same argument could be used to discredit the Church’s position on contraception”

This is not about “the church”
You have given an example of Apples and Oranges.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Wow, this is amazing.

I remember back in the days I received first Communion. We did it kneeling. Everybody did it kneeling.

I also remember the first time when I was in kindergarten that the teacher changed seating arrangements, and I cried because I was so confused to be told to sit there when I said, “but I’m supposed to sit here.” I had nothing against the new place or the person I was next to or anything, I just became confused when what I “was taught to do” was changed. The teacher quietly counseled me, and I got over it. Eventually I grew out of it; two or three days of conformance to the new “norm” or “local authority preference” or whatever, and I simply went to the new place and forgot – unless reminded somehow – that I ever sat anywhere else.

People say their “faith” requires them to kneel. How is it that is true? As far as I know, Rome has not said they must kneel, so this “faith” must be coming from somewhere other than the Catholic Church – or what “faith” is it we’re talking about? Faith to our old habits? Faith to show everybody that I Do Not Agree with standing and therefore Will Show Everybody that I’m not going along with it? That would be pride, not faith.

Now why do they kneel? As a sign of piety, or because they believe that The Way They Learned It is the best way? If they are so uncomfortable in receiving standing that they are unable to accept the change in norms of the Holy Church, then I think they just might have the same problem I did in kindergarten. They need to learn that things that don’t matter, don’t.

Now does that mean we should, as one poster “cluck our tongues” at them? No, of course not. Should they be refused Communion? No, according to that Rome letter earlier in the post. Not whacking somebody up the side of the head when they do something outside the norms just means that we tolerate what they are doing – not that we endorse what they are doing. Refusing Communion is what I’m comparing to “whacking them up the side of the head” in this case. If their faith is weak to the point they feel they need to kneel, then let’s not add to the spectacle of the situation by also refusing them Communion.

What did St. Paul do? He followed the norms of whomever he was around, in order to win them. That’s the “fisher of men” issue I believe ncjohn was alluding to. He did not go around “acting Catholic” by behaving in ways that drew attention to himself by being different. He even “became like” people whose beliefs were clearly different than himself, in order to win them.

St. Paul also said that when they were spiritual beginners, they ate spiritual baby food and now that they are maturing they need more solid food. Well, if you wish to kneel, like doing it that way, feel more at ease, comfortable, whatever, then that’s fine. I’m all for the “live and let live” approach another poster mentioned. Don’t, however, try to make it into “my faith compels it” issue, or I challenge that faith is very weak indeed, and you have bound yourself to a practice to which the Church does not bind them.

Therein lies another problem. Catholics are so confused about what is faith and morals, compared to what is custom and norm or whatever, that they often don’t know what is what. When I was taught to receive Communion, it was unheard of to do anything except kneel. It would be very easy, being weak or uneducated on the norms, for me to feel like “from my very upbringing” this is what I’m “supposed” to do. It isn’t. It’s an illusion that I’m afraid many Catholocs share, but the reason I think they shared it is that – if they were like me – they were taught ONE WAY to do something by very stern nuns, and by golly years later that can still haunt me.

Summary: if you are asking what you should do to receive Communion, you go with local norms. That keeps you out of trouble with St. Paul’s teaching, the USCCB, Rome, and everybody. If you’re asking me, “what should we do when these five people insist on kneeling every week – should we deny them Communion?” Then my answer is “no,” but they should be counseled as to the norms and expectations, and we should pray for them that they get over their chains to the past.

Alan

 

[netmilsmom]

AlanFromWichita:

Wow, this is amazing.

I also remember the first time when I was in kindergarten that the teacher changed seating arrangements, and I cried because I was so confused to be told to sit there when I said, “but I’m supposed to sit here.” I had nothing against the new place or the person I was next to or anything, I just became confused when what I “was taught to do” was changed. The teacher quietly counseled me, and I got over it. Eventually I grew out of it; two or three days of conformance to the new “norm” or “local authority preference” or whatever, and I simply went to the new place and forgot – unless reminded somehow – that I ever sat anywhere else.

Alan

Wow Alan.
People who want to kneel for Communion = Kindergarteners?
Nice.

 

[otm]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

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.

The Monsignior offered a personal opinion about a matter that was not under discussion; his personal opinion is what you are giving weight of law to. It is not at all unusual for one writing a letter to include personal opinions but that does not give them the weight of law.

He didn’t change the GIRM; it still says the norm is standing; it still says that someone who kneels is to be counseled, and if they are to be counseled, then that must have some meaning.
Your attempts to remove any meaning from the GIRM are duly noted.

further, your comments about the innovation of holding hands shows a marked lack of understanding of hwo laws are formed; the hand holding started long ago, in the mid 60’s. Two - not one, but two - revisions of the GIRM have occured since that started. the bishops and Rome were well aware of the issue before the first revision and have notably decided not to address the issue. They did not allow it, they did not rule it out; they just let it continue. And Rome, which was apprised of the issue early on, likewise has not addressed the issue. After well more than 35 years, it is hardly an “innovation”.

To further your example, if the Boss issues a written policy that a form should be filled out a certain way, and someone’s pay is cut because they did it differently, and they appeal the issue of the pay cut and HR says that the pay can’t be cut, and it is not disobedient to fill it out differently, that does not mean that the Boss changed his mind. It just means that your pay can’t be cut. The Boss’s memo is still in place.

 

[netmilsmom]

otm:

The Monsignior offered a personal opinion about a matter that was not under discussion; his personal opinion is what you are giving weight of law to. It is not at all unusual for one writing a letter to include personal opinions but that does not give them the weight of law.

Just some guy from the Vatican. Shhhh, forget the fact that he is from the This Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. Okay.

He didn’t change the GIRM; it still says the norm is standing; it still says that someone who kneels is to be counseled, and if they are to be counseled, then that must have some meaning.
Your attempts to remove any meaning from the GIRM are duly noted.

Yes, you are right, he didn’t change the GIRM. He clarified the actions that may be taken by the faithful.

further, your comments about the innovation of holding hands shows a marked lack of understanding of hwo laws are formed; the hand holding started long ago, in the mid 60’s. Two - not one, but two - revisions of the GIRM have occured since that started. the bishops and Rome were well aware of the issue before the first revision and have notably decided not to address the issue. They did not allow it, they did not rule it out; they just let it continue. And Rome, which was apprised of the issue early on, likewise has not addressed the issue. After well more than 35 years, it is hardly an “innovation”.

It’s still an innovation as it has been addressed in other liturgical documents that I have pointed out to you, though you choose to ignore them. The Bishops have not addressed Handholding in the GIRM because it was addressed in other Vatican documents.
Silence in the GIRM does not override statements given in other Vatican documents.

To further your example, if the Boss issues a written policy that a form should be filled out a certain way, and someone’s pay is cut because they did it differently, and they appeal the issue of the pay cut and HR says that the pay can’t be cut, and it is not disobedient to fill it out differently, that does not mean that the Boss changed his mind. It just means that your pay can’t be cut. The Boss’s memo is still in place.

The Vatican stated that no one should be called disobedient or illicit for kneeling, therefore this analogy is, as Judge Judy would say, “A lot of Who shot John.”

 

[otm]

Consecrated:

Wouldn’t most people agree that kneeling is a more reverant posture?

Not necessarily. We stand for the reading of the Gospel, and that, too, is a sign of reverence.

I will not disagree that posture can impact attitude, but posture is not attitude. I served as an altar boy pre-Vtican 2, and we all could spot who was reverent, and hwo was not at the Communion rail, and they all were kneeling. Some, however, did not have an attitude of reverence then.

While posture can have an impact on attitude, it is not determinative of it. I have no problem either standing or kneeling, in terms of reverence; my reverence is driven by my relationship with Christ, not my posture. Further, it is not only easier, but safer to receive from the Cup standing, as one does not have an altar rail to bang one’s elbows against.

cONSECRATED:

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.

I disagree that the USCCB has forced any quandry on anyone. It is the few who seem to feel that they cannot be reverent while standing who have the issue.

Consecrated:

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.

It would seem that subliminally you are playing the “wasn’t it wonderful in the good old times” card. Some people were casual about Communion before Vatican 2. The biggest issue about Communion is the loss of catechesis for the last two generations. Standing or kneeling is a peripheral issue for most people.

 

[otm]

AlanFromWichita:

Wow, this is amazing.

I remember back in the days I received first Communion. We did it kneeling. Everybody did it kneeling.

I also remember the first time when I was in kindergarten that the teacher changed seating arrangements, and I cried because I was so confused to be told to sit there when I said, “but I’m supposed to sit here.” I had nothing against the new place or the person I was next to or anything, I just became confused when what I “was taught to do” was changed. The teacher quietly counseled me, and I got over it. Eventually I grew out of it; two or three days of conformance to the new “norm” or “local authority preference” or whatever, and I simply went to the new place and forgot – unless reminded somehow – that I ever sat anywhere else.

People say their “faith” requires them to kneel. How is it that is true? As far as I know, Rome has not said they must kneel, so this “faith” must be coming from somewhere other than the Catholic Church – or what “faith” is it we’re talking about? Faith to our old habits? Faith to show everybody that I Do Not Agree with standing and therefore Will Show Everybody that I’m not going along with it? That would be pride, not faith.

Now why do they kneel? As a sign of piety, or because they believe that The Way They Learned It is the best way? If they are so uncomfortable in receiving standing that they are unable to accept the change in norms of the Holy Church, then I think they just might have the same problem I did in kindergarten. They need to learn that things that don’t matter, don’t.

Now does that mean we should, as one poster “cluck our tongues” at them? No, of course not. Should they be refused Communion? No, according to that Rome letter earlier in the post. Not whacking somebody up the side of the head when they do something outside the norms just means that we tolerate what they are doing – not that we endorse what they are doing. Refusing Communion is what I’m comparing to “whacking them up the side of the head” in this case. If their faith is weak to the point they feel they need to kneel, then let’s not add to the spectacle of the situation by also refusing them Communion.

What did St. Paul do? He followed the norms of whomever he was around, in order to win them. That’s the “fisher of men” issue I believe ncjohn was alluding to. He did not go around “acting Catholic” by behaving in ways that drew attention to himself by being different. He even “became like” people whose beliefs were clearly different than himself, in order to win them.

St. Paul also said that when they were spiritual beginners, they ate spiritual baby food and now that they are maturing they need more solid food. Well, if you wish to kneel, like doing it that way, feel more at ease, comfortable, whatever, then that’s fine. I’m all for the “live and let live” approach another poster mentioned. Don’t, however, try to make it into “my faith compels it” issue, or I challenge that faith is very weak indeed, and you have bound yourself to a practice to which the Church does not bind them.

Therein lies another problem. Catholics are so confused about what is faith and morals, compared to what is custom and norm or whatever, that they often don’t know what is what. When I was taught to receive Communion, it was unheard of to do anything except kneel. It would be very easy, being weak or uneducated on the norms, for me to feel like “from my very upbringing” this is what I’m “supposed” to do. It isn’t. It’s an illusion that I’m afraid many Catholocs share, but the reason I think they shared it is that – if they were like me – they were taught ONE WAY to do something by very stern nuns, and by golly years later that can still haunt me.

Summary: if you are asking what you should do to receive Communion, you go with local norms. That keeps you out of trouble with St. Paul’s teaching, the USCCB, Rome, and everybody. If you’re asking me, “what should we do when these five people insist on kneeling every week – should we deny them Communion?” Then my answer is “no,” but they should be counseled as to the norms and expectations, and we should pray for them that they get over their chains to the past.

Alan

Very well said.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

Wow Alan.
People who want to kneel for Communion = Kindergarteners?
Nice.

I’m not sure whether you mean “nice” sarcastically or not, because I haven’t been discussing these issues enough I can tell where you stand and how my statements might have come across.

Anyway, yes. It isn’t about wanting to kneel, but when people “insist” on kneeling because their “faith” demands it, then yes. That faith is immature. I’m not blaming them; for all I know they got whacked on the knuckles with a ruler when they were in school and their posture while kneeling might be Very Important.

The trouble I have with your equation is people who “want” to kneel is not what I was addressing. Many people on this thread would prefer to kneel, but do not do so because that is not the prescribed norm, nor is it an article of faith, and by doing so they create a spectacle.

I’m addressing people who don’t just “want” to kneel, but either insist on it or fuss about having to stand as if it were less respectful, or who think it’s perfectly acceptable to make a big show of their alleged “faith” in front of everyone else. Again, I’m not saying these people are bad people – just that I suspect they have a flawed knowledge of the faith.

You know, I don’t care if somebody receives Communion standing, kneeling, sitting in a wheelchair or in the handicapped pew, lying in their hospital bed, or standing on their head for that matter. If someone insists on going against the norms, though, and further justifies it by vilifying those who ask that they do follow the norms by spouting a bunch of stuff about “my faith requires it” or “it’s more reverent” or “who are YOU, a mere priest, to tell me what to do when the VATICAN is on my side” or that sort of thing, then those people have a serious problem and need to figure out what’s real and what isn’t because that’s where they cross the lines between “having a preference to kneel” and just plain, yes, blatant disobedience.

It’s too bad that so many Catholics are more attached to behavior and posture than they are to arguably “more important” issues of obedience, but that’s how they have been trained for generations. Better catechesis these days should help with it, but as I’ve said before, all the attention the Church places on her dogmatic theology without a corresponding emphasis on mystical theology can be dangerous and misleading, and cause problems just such as this.

Back in days past, people just flat-out obeyed or they’d get whacked, literally. They didn’t have the Internet to go try to research whether they could usurp the priest in such matters.

For those who served as Altar Servers pre-Vatican II, can you just even imagine What Might Happen if you were to say to the priest, “I think I’ll do it this way because the Vatican says I can and you can’t do anything about it?” I’m pretty sure that wouldn’t have worked then. The fact that “conservative” Catholics even have the right to debate this fact is testimony that they are using tools that have been put into place by, yes, liberals – the ones who brought Questioning of Authority out of the closet.

That’s funny. If you’re defying your priest and not getting whacked on the knuckles for it, it’s because things are more liberal than they used to be – yet the reason we are defying the priest is precisely because we think things are too liberal. Gosh what a mess.

Alan

 

[findinghumility]

The answer to all this arguing and confusion is simple folks… go to a Traditional Latin Mass, kneel at the communion rail and recieve the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity or our saviour Jesus Christ from the consecrated hands of the Priest.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

findinghumility:

The answer to all this arguing and confusion is simple folks… go to a Traditional Latin Mass, kneel at the communion rail and recieve the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity or our saviour Jesus Christ from the consecrated hands of the Priest.

One historic church where I play organ for Saturday afternoon Mass has a traditional Latin Mass, but I think it’s only two Sundays per month.

I’ve wanted to go, but unfortunately it’s at the same time as I play music for my home parish Sunday 8 am.

Maybe I should see if someone else can play one week; I’d kind of like to see what this Mass is like. I was born in 1959, but my wife and I were just talking last night about remembering having hymnals with Latin on the left and English on the right, but neither of us remembers the priest facing away from the people. In a practical sense, neither of us remembers ever even seeing the traditional Mass.

Alan

 

[netmilsmom]

AlanFromWichita:

The trouble I have with your equation is people who “want” to kneel is not what I was addressing. Many people on this thread would prefer to kneel, but do not do so because that is not the prescribed norm, nor is it an article of faith, and by doing so they create a spectacle.

I’m one of those people. If I am at a mass in a different church than my own, I will skip communion until I can get back to my own parish.

I’m addressing people who don’t just “want” to kneel, but either insist on it or fuss about having to stand as if it were less respectful, or who think it’s perfectly acceptable to make a big show of their alleged “faith” in front of everyone else. Again, I’m not saying these people are bad people – just that I suspect they have a flawed knowledge of the faith.

Gee, kind of like the people who want to add innovations to the liturgy.
You know, liturgical gestures that don’t belong, handholding for the Our Father, the priestly gesture of the Orans by the laity, etc.

If someone insists on going against the norms, though, and further justifies it by vilifying those who ask that they do follow the norms by spouting a bunch of stuff about “my faith requires it” or “it’s more reverent” or “who are YOU, a mere priest, to tell me what to do when the VATICAN is on my side” or that sort of thing, then those people have a serious problem and need to figure out what’s real and what isn’t because that’s where they cross the lines between “having a preference to kneel” and just plain, yes, blatant disobedience.

And what are you doing? The Vatican has stated that these people cannot be called disobedient. And by doing so, aren’t you “just plain, yes, blatant” disobededient?

Back in days past, people just flat-out obeyed or they’d get whacked, literally. They didn’t have the Internet to go try to research whether they could usurp the priest in such matters.

For those who served as Altar Servers pre-Vatican II, can you just even imagine What Might Happen if you were to say to the priest, “I think I’ll do it this way because the Vatican says I can and you can’t do anything about it?” I’m pretty sure that wouldn’t have worked then. The fact that “conservative” Catholics even have the right to debate this fact is testimony that they are using tools that have been put into place by, yes, liberals – the ones who brought Questioning of Authority out of the closet.

And perhaps if they didn’t flaunt their power to bring us "Anything Goes’ masses, we wouldn’t even be debating this.

 

[Brendan]

AlanFromWichita:

It’s too bad that so many Catholics are more attached to behavior and posture than they are to arguably “more important” issues of obedience,

Does that include the priests?

Back in days past, people just flat-out obeyed or they’d get whacked, literally. They didn’t have the Internet to go try to research whether they could usurp the priest in such matters.

You mean back in the days when a priest would follow directives from Rome without question, thus sparing his flock from having to double check his praxis?

 

[Ham1]

I just went and checked and…Yep, standing is still the norm in the US.

I must say it is troubling to me that there are some people who will actually pass up receiving our Lord if they cannot do so in a kneeling position. It would seem that such a decision doesn’t put much faith in the decisions made by our Holy Church. It would also bring into question which is more important: the reception of our Lord or our action of kneeling.

 

[Brendan]

Ham1:

I just went and checked and…Yep, standing is still the norm in the US.

I It would seem that such a decision doesn’t put much faith in the decisions made by our Holy Church. .

It does.

The Holy Church said either can be done. The norm in the US was not approved as standing only (as the Vatican itself has stated); therefore the norm is standing as a preference, but optional.

I must say it is troubling to me that there are some people who will actually pass up receiving our Lord if they cannot do so in a kneeling position.

And why exactly is that?? Are you saying that an individual should not be able to decide for themselves when\if to recieve Communion?

Where is the requirement that one has to recieve Communion at any given Mass anyway? I seemed to have missed that in my copy of the GIRM.

 

[netmilsmom]

Ham1:

I just went and checked and…Yep, standing is still the norm in the US.

I must say it is troubling to me that there are some people who will actually pass up receiving our Lord if they cannot do so in a kneeling position. It would seem that such a decision doesn’t put much faith in the decisions made by our Holy Church. It would also bring into question which is more important: the reception of our Lord or our action of kneeling.

I, for one, do not pass up receiving but go back to my own parish.
We are blessed to have six Holy Masses on Sundays including an 8:30pm.
We can’t have it both ways. We cannot look down on people for kneeling and then say they are wrong for not wanting to seem Uber-pious.
The norm in my Slovak parish is kneeling. If I choose to skip receiving in a church I am visiting and make an effort to then go to my parish, what is the harm?

 

[Andrew_Markich]

I am having this same dilemma - I kneel to receive Communion and only from the priest and only on the tongue - If God appeared in Church would we kneel before Him . He is present in the Eucharist why would you not kneel. In America we have lost touch with reverence at Mass and Vatican II certainly did not help . I am seriously considering going to the Traditional Latin Mass .
If you can find one it is worth attending .They kneel at Communion and women even wear veils

 

[grotto]

To Alan and anyone else who is confused about kneeling in prayer: its not new, its not done out of pride but humility and reverence derived from the soul’s desire to acknowledge its love, honor, glory and repentence before God. If you think it is prideful, immature, not in conformance with the posture of others who choose to stand, hold hands, or raise their arms, then you have a problem. Making the sign of the cross, genuflecting before the Holy Eucharist exposed for Adoration on BOTH knees, kneeling at Mass after the Sanctus thru the Doxology and again after the Agnus Dei through Holy Communion (if one is able) cannot be faulted. If you cannot understand the concept and decide the practice should be ridiculed, try to learn more about it. Kneeling is not “caused” by childhood abuse! Please! I say again, for me,
“My FAITH requires it, the Holy Roman Catholic Church allows it”.
Learn more about the practices of devotion. Maybe if you have the opportunity to attend the Latin Mass you will experience its beauty and awesomeness.

Yes, I pray for stronger faith as mine is so weak and I pray for humility, charity, forgiveness, enlightenment, and courage as often as I do but always inadequately!

I have been incorrect about many things in my life, am quite sure I will continue to be, but kneeling as I have explained above is not one of them!

 

[MrS]

The Synod is at work on this issue: God Bless this Bishop, and pray that his suggestion is heeded … there is already much evidence in his writings that B16 is of like mind.

ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=61147

 

[AlanFromWichita]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

I’m one of those people. If I am at a mass in a different church than my own, I will skip communion until I can get back to my own parish.

I have zero problem with your having that preference.

Gee, kind of like the people who want to add innovations to the liturgy.
You know, liturgical gestures that don’t belong, handholding for the Our Father, the priestly gesture of the Orans by the laity, etc.

Yeah. All that stuff. Same kinda thing, I figure, just a different type of issue. One difference I can think of is that the handholding thing is cosmetic from the standpoint of the priest celebrating Mass, while the kneeling issue involves the priest physically as well as visually. I had a particularly embarrassing situation a few weeks ago about handholding during the Our Father, which I used to think was really stupid but I had to “eat some crow” as it were. Anyway I told the whole story about that last night on post #12 on this thread.

And what are you doing? The Vatican has stated that these people cannot be called disobedient. And by doing so, aren’t you “just plain, yes, blatant” disobededient?

Well I cannot speak for the authenticity of that letter, but I’ll presume it is authentic. It does not have my name on it; as far as I can tell it’s an instruction to priests.

I can understand why the letter would state what it does. If someone’s faith is weak to the extent they feel they “must” kneel to receive Communion, then in their mind what they are doing is, in fact, faith, whether it is of questionable origin or not and if the priest were to refuse Communion, that would identify the kneeling (an act of faith afa the person doing it is concerned) as a sin, and could end up in the priest “causing one of these little ones to sin.” Apparently Rome doesn’t feel it’s the priest’s job to judge people’s faith and obedience when they’ve presented themselves for communion honestly – kneeling or standing. While I’m on that note, I’m a bit distressed about priests refusing Communion to people with certain political views, but that’s another discussion.

Now if you want to hold me to the standard of that letter, then I suppose I can offer some “other ways” of describing it. First, when I say “blatant disobedience” I might have overstepped a little bit – I will remove the word “blatant” from my charge. It was an emotional reaction that I used it, I confess here and now. The reason I remove the word is that it is that “blatant” connotates intentional of willful disobedience, which I do not claim. The disobedience could be out of fear and/or ignorance, rather than “blatant.” Could be blatant, but it is an unfortunate stereotype that I applied and I apologize for that.

That said, I would not call such a person disobedient, unless they are asking my opinion such as on an Internet forum. I might think it, but I wouldn’t say it. I don’t know whether that letter from Rome is supposed to be binding on the laity – I rather suspect it is not – but OK. I won’t say it. I’ll just think it.

If I must say anything at all, instead of “blatant disobedience” I should perhaps call them “pathetic creatures who need God as much as I do.”

And perhaps if they didn’t flaunt their power to bring us "Anything Goes’ masses, we wouldn’t even be debating this.

What?

Flaunt their power?

Did you just change into a different poster? You’re trying to tell me that because liberals hold hands and have “anything goes” Masses, it makes it OK to flaunt power when it comes to Communion norms? Isn’t that what you’re suggesting others with similar preferences to yours “should” be able to do at churches where it is not the norm?

What am I missing here? Are you saying it’s good to have this debate? Are you saying it’s bad that people flaunt power in one way but good in another?

Alan