Kneeling to receive still a choice?

[Walking_Home]

You may no consider a battle of wills a difficulty, but I do,

---

The only “battle of wills” being reflected and promoted involves an “anti-kneeling will” against the Church.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

anti kneeling?

no, pro US norms, and respect for the USCCB and priest/celebrants who are faithful to the instructions of their bishop to whom they pledged obedience at their ordination.

 

[Brendan]

ps

And I refer you to RS

Actually, I did not refer to RS

…not defying the priest/celebrant

Correct, a liturgical abuse would be a violation of the norm. Since my actions are within the bounds of the norm, the only possible abuse would be my denial of communion.

And I would report that with all truth and charity.

 

[Brendan]

ps

And I refer you to RS

Actually, I did not refer to RS in this thread. Others might have, but not I.

…not defying the priest/celebrant

Correct. A liturgical abuse, by definition, would be a violation of a liturgical norm. Since my actions are within the bounds of the norm, the primary abuse here would be my denial of communion.

The only other possible abuse would be for me to be considered disobedient by the priest or imposed upon.

And if such abuses happened to me, I certainly WOULD report that with all truth and charity, just as RS mandates.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Correct, a liturgical abuse would be a violation of the norm. Since my actions are within the bounds of the norm, the only possible abuse would be my denial of communion.

And I would report that with all truth and charity.

you may report anything you wish.

my point which has been disregarded, is
once a communicant has been instructed to stand, it is better to stand, and discuss or write later, rather than get into a battle of wills with the priest/celebrant

 

[Walking_Home]

anti kneeling?

no, pro US norms, and respect for the USCCB and priest/celebrants who are faithful to the instructions of their bishop to whom they pledged obedience at their ordination.

---

The US is not a stand alone entity. We are part of the larger Catholic community ---- the Church. Being “pro US norms” in such a way that makes such norms be in odds with the Church Herself – is putting ones will against the Church.

 

[Brendan]

Genuflecting is different from Kneeling, and also the genuflection is expected, where s kneeling in the middle of a procession is not.

They are actually the same verb ( genuflectere) in the authoritative Latin version of the GIRM.

perhaps you do not, but many do. This is the difficulty I am addressing. I have no problem with kneeling, if the celebrant is OK with it.

You put in a qualifier “if the celebrant is OK with it” that the Vatican did not add.

Where does the authority to add that qualifer come from?

Only if the priest/celebrnt does not object

Lux

Where exactly in the norm is the priest’s concent required? You yourself said that you are an advocate of the US Norm, but you put in a qualifer, why?

 

[Brendan]

you may report anything you wish.

my point which has been disregarded, is
once a communicant has been instructed to stand, it is better to stand, and discuss or write later, rather than get into a battle of wills with the priest/celebrant

And, as I mentioned, I engage in no battle, I simply kneel.

If someone wishes to attempt a battle, I will simply ignore them until after Mass.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

And, as I mentioned, I engage in no battle, I simply kneel.

If someone wishes to attempt a battle, I will simply ignore them until after Mass.

If someone wishes to attempt a battle???

Do you understand English?

If your priest instructed you to stand, (as I have mentioned many times that this is the situation of which I am speaking) what would you do???

 

[Brendan]

If someone wishes to attempt a battle???

Do you understand English?

If your priest instructed you to stand, (as I have mentioned many times that this is the situation of which I am speaking) what would you do???

\

An Instruction? In this matter, those can only come from the USCCB with a recognito from Rome.

The priest may issue a recommendation to me. In that case, I would either stand or knelt, depending on what was best for my spirituality at that moment.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

\

An Instruction? In this matter, those can only come from the USCCB with a recognito from Rome.

The priest may issue a recommendation to me. In that case, I would either stand or knelt, depending on what was best for my spirituality at that moment.

…And what about what WWJD?

oR what is the best manner to handle a difficult situation?

Mass is community worship–not about your personal piety. You are confusing moral obligations with disciplines.

Lux

 

[tcraig]

The US is not a stand alone entity. We are part of the larger Catholic community ---- the Church. Being “pro US norms” in such a way that makes such norms be in odds with the Church Herself – is putting ones will against the Church.

But Rome is the one who gave the U.S. Bishops the authority to make standing the norm in the United States and approved it, with the caveat that people could not be denied communion simply because of kneeling.

So how can the U.S. norm of standing to receive communion be at odds against the Church?

I personally don’t care whether someone kneels to receive communion (though I observe the norm when attending an OF mass), and have attended plenty of masses where some receive in that matter. I’ve never seen a priest make an issue of it.

But if a priest came up to me after mass, and “pastorally counseled” me to stand because a “*common posture, to be observed by all participants, is a sign of the unity of the members of the Christian community gathered for the Sacred Liturgy: it both expresses and fosters the intention and spiritual attitude of the participants” *(from the GIRM), then I’d stand.

 

[Brendan]

…And what about what WWJD?

Well, Jesus would be in the Host, which is something I cannot do no matter how hard I tried

oR what is the best manner to handle a difficult situation?

If I ever encounter any difficulty in the situation, I’ll be sure to let you know

Mass is community worship–not about your personal piety.

Correct, and why are you attempting to limit ‘community’ to only those who are currently present in the same room as you. The Community with with we worship is the entire Church, Militant, Suffering and Triumphant.

You are confusing moral obligations with disciplines.

Lux

Nope, I do understand the difference.

 

[Brendan]

But Rome is the one who gave the U.S. Bishops the authority to make standing the norm in the United States and approved it, with the caveat that people could not be denied communion simply because of kneeling.

It gave them the authority to vote on it and pass it as a measure.

The final approval, and it’s authority for regulation resides in Rome.

So how can the U.S. norm of standing to receive communion be at odds against the Church?

No one here has said that standing for communion is against the norm. And neither is kneeling.

I personally don’t care whether someone kneels to receive communion (though I observe the norm when attending an OF mass), and have attended plenty of masses where some receive in that matter. I’ve never seen a priest make an issue of it.

Smart you and smart priest

But if a priest came up to me after mass, and “pastorally counseled” me to stand because a “*common posture, to be observed by all participants, is a sign of the unity of the members of the Christian community gathered for the Sacred Liturgy: it both expresses and fosters the intention and spiritual attitude of the participants” *(from the GIRM), then I’d stand.

You do have that option, yes, I don’t think that anyone has said that you don’t.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

No one here has said that standing for communion is against the norm. And neither is kneeling.

For the upteenth time, the US norm is standing. Permission has been granted to ignore the norm, but this does not change the norm.

tcraig:

But if a priest came up to me after mass, and “pastorally counseled” me to stand because a “common posture, to be observed by all participants, is a sign of the unity of the members of the Christian community gathered for the Sacred Liturgy: it both expresses and fosters the intention and spiritual attitude of the participants” (from the GIRM), then I’d stand.

Brendan:

You do have that option, yes, I don’t think that anyone has said that you don’t.

…and my point has always been that it is better to choose that option than put a personal preference over the instructions of the celebrant and worse yet engage in a battle of wills at the altar.

Lux

 

[Walking_Home]

But Rome is the one who gave the U.S. Bishops the authority to make standing the norm in the United States and approved it, with the caveat that people could not be denied communion simply because of kneeling.

So how can the U.S. norm of standing to receive communion be at odds against the Church?

I personally don’t care whether someone kneels to receive communion (though I observe the norm when attending an OF mass), and have attended plenty of masses where some receive in that matter. I’ve never seen a priest make an issue of it.

**But if a priest came up to me after mass, and “pastorally counseled” me to stand because a “*common posture, to be observed by all participants, is a sign of the unity of the members of the Christian community gathered for the Sacred Liturgy: it both expresses and fosters the intention and spiritual attitude of the participants” ***(from the GIRM), then I’d stand.

---

You need to keep in mind --When Rome authorized the US norm --it was with the condition that kneeling was to be retained. In the mind of the Church --kneeling does not detract from the “unity/etc.” of the Christian community. Because clergy have tried to use the US norm to abolish kneeling --Rome as the highest authority —has clarified how the US norm is to be understood and applied. Not only are those who kneel --not to be denied communion --but are not to be imposed upon and/or accused of acting illicitly. If a priest “counsels” a person who kneels -this already falls under imposing on and/or of applying illicitness

 

[Brendan]

For the upteenth time, the US norm is standing. Permission has been granted to ignore the norm, but this does not change the norm.

And, for the upteeth time, the norm is standing with kneeling permitted. That is a completely different thing from ignoring the norm.

…and my point has always been that it is better to choose that option than put a personal preference over the instructions of the celebrant and worse yet engage in a battle of wills at the altar.

Lux

Yes, you have already stated your personal preference on this matter.

And, once again, the priest cannot issue “Instructions” in this matter, as Canon Law places that responsibilty on the USCCB with approval from Rome. And those instructions have already been issued and the definitive interpreation has been given. All the celebrant can do is recommend a certain course of action.

 

[Brendan]

And even then, the US Bishops themselves approved the norm strictly as a common practice, NOT as a legal norm.

In the United States, IGMR 160 now reads:

The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.

When receiving Holy Communion standing, the communicant bows his or her head before the sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.

Before the US bishops’ final vote on the American adaptations to the IGMR, the Congregation for Divine Worship had written to the Conference, noting that disturbing reports of people being denied Communion because they were kneeling had made this clarification necessary. The Holy See asked the bishops to make this explicit in their adaptation of IGMR §160.

Before the bishops voted on the proposed adaptation of §160, a bishop questioned the meaning of the term “norm”. The chairman of the Bishops Committee on the Liturgy (Archbishop Oscar Lipscomb) said that “norm” is a descriptive term meaning the usual or standard practice, not a legal term. With this clarification, the bishops voted to accept the BCL’s wording of the adaptation.

adoremus.org/0303Q%26A.html

So why don’t we all just look at this as the US Bishops and the Vatican do?

 

[benedictgal]

B
Did you even read all of my post?

I know the letters you quote, and we’ve had this discussion many times. You have always side stepped my point and just kept quoting the letters. It is defying a priest, if he instructs you to stand, and you refuse.

Lux

Lux, I am afraid that you are the one who is side-steppiing the issue. How can you say (or anyone else, for that matter) with a straight face that a communcant is defying the priest when he chooses to kneel to receive Holy Communion. This line of reasoning goes against what the documents from Rome have said.

Furthermore, the Holy See has been known for taken entire episcopal conferences to task for not obeying the norms. Take the Australians, for example, Pope John Paul II issued a strong reprimand because the bishiops were allowing the wholesale use of General Absolution. Thus, there have been times when conferences have had to be corrected.

 

[benedictgal]

And, for the upteeth time, the norm is standing with kneeling permitted. That is a completely different thing from ignoring the norm.

Yes, you have already stated your personal preference on this matter.

And, once again, the priest cannot issue “Instructions” in this matter, as Canon Law places that responsibilty on the USCCB with approval from Rome. And those instructions have already been issued and the definitive interpreation has been given. All the celebrant can do is recommend a certain course of action.

Brendan, and for the umpteenth time, standing was allowed only if kneeling was allowed as well. That is the one big detail that folks seem to be forgetting.