Liberal Liturgist\Proper terms

[Yes]

Well … not really.

I suppose it IS 100% up to the comminicant in as much as we can’t really go up to people, pull them up and yell “On your feet!” during mass.

But the Church is pretty clear that, at least here in the United States, it is definately not preferrable to be kneeling during the Communion rite.

"The posture after the Agnus Dei and while we await Communion is set by the local ordinary.

An altar railing has nothing to do with receiving Holy Communion. People who kneel will not be denied Holy Communion – but it is hardly approved or “permissable.”

One can stand, kneel or sit after receiving Holy Communion. It’s 100% up to the communicant."

Yes, really. I’ll stand by my posting. The local ordinary has the authority to regulate the Agnus Dei/Communion posture. He does not have the authority to regulate the posture after Communion.

The railing was a red herring.

 

[Yes]

I started to respond to this using my memory as a guide. However, I realized that may not be a good idea. I did a little poking around and came across these nice summaries that quote sections from the GIRM, clarifications from the Congregation of Divine Worship and even Cardinal Arinze himself.

adoremus.org/0703Kneel.html
adoremus.org/Kneeling-CDW-response03.html

Letters from discussing kneeling during reception. Kneeling is permissible.
ewtn.com/expert/answers/kneeling_for_communion.htm

And this from the CA library. Note that the indult regarding lay purification of vessels has expired and the laity are no longer permitted to do this.
catholic.com/library/liturgy/cag_changes.asp

Finally, this is what ZENIT has to say.
ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur103.htm

I will conform my behavior and posture to whatever the Church and my Ordinary require and recommend.

We can get tied-up in semantics, but kneeling is not “permissable.” You won’t be denied Communion but it’s hardly permissable. In fact, the GIRM directs your pastor to counsel those who do kneel on the reason for the standing norm. (How come “kneelers” never discuss the conversations they have had with their pastors after they disregarded the Church’s instructions and insisted upon kneeling?)

GIRM 160. The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another. 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.

 

[otjm]

Standing after one has returned to their pew after receiving Holy Communion is not the norm and, while I am not certain about this, I not believe it is permissible either. One is to kneel after receiving Holy Communion.

Actually, a reading of the GIRM would indicate that standing after receiving Communion untill all have received is the norm. This is what prompted the dubium, by, I beleive, Cardinal George; the response from Cardinal Arinze was that the Vatican did not intend to so tightly or strictly regulate posture. The normal practice previously had been to kneel, but saying that one is to kneel seems to be as strict as those who insist that one stand.

As for the second bolded section, what are you referring to? Can you give some examples of abuse in this area? (Holding hands during the Our Father is not permissible, by the way, despite how common it is.

There have been numerous other threads on this issue. In short, there is no comment in the GIRM concerning the posture of one’s hands - during the Our Father or at any other time. The issue has been around for over 40 years, during which the GIRM has been re-written twice, and at least one other specific document (RS) has been issued, all of them ignoring the very prevalent hand-holding during the Our Father. As Archbishop Chaput has said, it is not regulated, so it is not correct to say that it is not permitted; neither is it required. Those who wish to hold hands may, and should not be criticized by those who don’t; those who wish to not hold hands should not be required to do so as it is not mandatory, and should not be criticized for not doing so.

Holding hands during the Our Father is a sign of unity (and if you care to recite the Our Father slowly, you will note that all through it the words “we”, “our”, and “us” are used, all of which relate to a communal prayer). It has been argued that it is not the proper place to show unity, being just before the kiss of peace, and that arguement is well made. But to say that it is not permitted is flat out wrong. If holding hands is not permitted, because it is not mandated, then by the same reason, neither is it permitted to hold your hands in a traditional prayer posture - fingers interlaced or pointing upward. And we can both agree that postion is not tenable.

 

[rpp]

We can get tied-up in semantics, but kneeling is not “permissable.” You won’t be denied Communion but it’s hardly permissable. In fact, the GIRM directs your pastor to counsel those who do kneel on the reason for the standing norm. (How come “kneelers” never discuss the conversations they have had with their pastors after they disregarded the Church’s instructions and insisted upon kneeling?)

GIRM 160. The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another. 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.

Actually, a reading of the GIRM would indicate that standing after receiving Communion untill all have received is the norm. This is what prompted the dubium, by, I beleive, Cardinal George; the response from Cardinal Arinze was that the Vatican did not intend to so tightly or strictly regulate posture. The normal practice previously had been to kneel, but saying that one is to kneel seems to be as strict as those who insist that one stand.

There have been numerous other threads on this issue. In short, there is no comment in the GIRM concerning the posture of one’s hands - during the Our Father or at any other time. The issue has been around for over 40 years, during which the GIRM has been re-written twice, and at least one other specific document (RS) has been issued, all of them ignoring the very prevalent hand-holding during the Our Father. As Archbishop Chaput has said, it is not regulated, so it is not correct to say that it is not permitted; neither is it required. Those who wish to hold hands may, and should not be criticized by those who don’t; those who wish to not hold hands should not be required to do so as it is not mandatory, and should not be criticized for not doing so.

Holding hands during the Our Father is a sign of unity (and if you care to recite the Our Father slowly, you will note that all through it the words “we”, “our”, and “us” are used, all of which relate to a communal prayer). It has been argued that it is not the proper place to show unity, being just before the kiss of peace, and that arguement is well made. But to say that it is not permitted is flat out wrong. If holding hands is not permitted, because it is not mandated, then by the same reason, neither is it permitted to hold your hands in a traditional prayer posture - fingers interlaced or pointing upward. And we can both agree that postion is not tenable.

I stand corrected and humbly submit to the norms of the Church.

Thank you both for your patient and charitable correction of my error.

 

[fix]

We can get tied-up in semantics, but kneeling is not “permissable.” You won’t be denied Communion but it’s hardly permissable. In fact, the GIRM directs your pastor to counsel those who do kneel on the reason for the standing norm. (How come “kneelers” never discuss the conversations they have had with their pastors after they disregarded the Church’s instructions and insisted upon kneeling?)

GIRM 160. The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another. 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.

Just for clarification:

…To this end, it is perhaps useful to respond to your inquiry by repeating the content of a letter that the Congregation recently addressed to a Bishop in the United States of America from whose Diocese a number of pertinent letters had been received. The letter states: “…while this Congregation gave the recognitio to the norm desired by the Bishops’ Conference of your country that people stand for Holy Communion, this was done on the condition that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds. Indeed, the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion”…

adoremus.org/0403HolySeeResponds.html

Those charged with interpreting the law have said it is permissable.

 

[PaixGioiaAmor]

Just for clarification:

Those charged with interpreting the law have said it is permissable.

Nothing from “Adoramus” is credible in dealing with liturgical matters.

 

[fix]

Nothing from “Adoramus” is credible in dealing with liturgical matters.

Really? The letter with protocol number is a fabrication?

 

[PaixGioiaAmor]

Really? The letter with protocol number is a fabrication?

If there is said to exist “far left” publications (Think “Call to Action”, etc), then Adoramus is FAR FAR FAR FRINGE Right. To the Right of the Vatican. That’s how “right”.

Sure, they quote real documents. Then add their fringe spin on them.

 

[rpp]

Nothing from “Adoramus” is credible in dealing with liturgical matters.

While I will admit I have not spent much time at their site, I have always found them to be most credible. Can you give examples of where they have or continue to promote incorrect information? Please include links. Thank you.

 

[fix]

If there is said to exist “far left” publications (Think “Call to Action”, etc), then Adoramus is FAR FAR FAR FRINGE Right. To the Right of the Vatican. That’s how “right”.

Sure, they quote real documents. Then add their fringe spin on them.

Show something heterodox from them.

 

[rpp]

If there is said to exist “far left” publications (Think “Call to Action”, etc), then Adoramus is FAR FAR FAR FRINGE Right. To the Right of the Vatican. That’s how “right”.

Sure, they quote real documents. Then add their fringe spin on them.

“The Angelus” is far right. “The Wanderer” and “The Remnant” are far right.

By “far right” I mean Latin traditionalist / SSPX.

Adoremus is not Latin traditionalist nor quasi schismatic.

 

[fix]

“The Angelus” is far right. “The Wanderer” and “The Remnant” are far right.

By “far right” I mean Latin traditionalist / SSPX.

Adoremus is not Latin traditionalist nor quasi schismatic.

I would not include the Wanderer. I have never seen anything in their publication that contradicts Church teaching. They are loyal as far as I know.

 

[rpp]

I would not include the Wanderer. I have never seen anything in their publication that contradicts Church teaching. They are loyal as far as I know.

Sorry, I did not mean to imply any of these publication contradict Church teaching. To my knowledge they do not, but then I only look at them very occasionally.

 

[rpp]

Nothing from “Adoramus” is credible in dealing with liturgical matters.

By the way, fix quoted the parts from the letter, not any editorial comments from Adoremus. If you were to even look at the page, you would see that all it does is reproduce the letter, with only the briefest of introductions, setting the context in which the letters were written.

If you hate “Adoremus”, do you also hate EWTN? Here is the same set of letters from their web site. ewtn.com/expert/answers/kneeling_for_communion.htm

 

[PaixGioiaAmor]

By the way, fix quoted the parts from the letter, not any editorial comments from Adoremus. If you were to even look at the page, you would see that all it does is reproduce the letter, with only the briefest of introductions, setting the context in which the letters were written.

If you hate “Adoremus”, do you also hate EWTN? Here is the same set of letters from their web site. ewtn.com/expert/answers/kneeling_for_communion.htm

I don’t “hate” Adoremus not do I “hate” EWTN. I have some serious issues with them - and frankly, you want to talk about twisting documents and finding whatever you want to in them, Adoremus is the worst offender.

I also love how they go after non-issues. One article I read was about the need to go to great lengths to sing only non-inclusive language in all hymns. Mind you, we are not talking about Sacramentary or Lectionary texts. Pure far right political posturing.

 

[PaixGioiaAmor]

While I will admit I have not spent much time at their site, I have always found them to be most credible. Can you give examples of where they have or continue to promote incorrect information? Please include links. Thank you.

Do your own research.

I have read their paper newsletter. My former pastor was quite a fan. I read some amazing things in it. See previous post.

 

[rpp]

I don’t “hate” Adoremus not do I “hate” EWTN. I have some serious issues with them - and frankly, you want to talk about twisting documents and finding whatever you want to in them, Adoremus is the worst offender.

I also love how they go after non-issues. One article I read was about the need to go to great lengths to sing only non-inclusive language in all hymns. Mind you, we are not talking about Sacramentary or Lectionary texts. Pure far right political posturing.

Taking pot shots at this reliable and credible source of theological and liturgical information is way off topic.

When it comes to liturgy, we have more to fear from “The National Catholic Reporter” than “Adoremus”

But let’s get back to the topic. If you want to discuss the pros and cons of various publications which call themselves Catholic, start another thread. Actually, I think that would be a very good topic. Fun too. But not on this thread.

 

[PaixGioiaAmor]

Taking pot shots at this reliable and credible source of theological and liturgical information is way off topic.

When it comes to liturgy, we have more to fear from “The National Catholic Reporter” than “Adoremus”

But let’s get back to the topic. If you want to discuss the pros and cons of various publications which call themselves Catholic, start another thread. Actually, I think that would be a very good topic. Fun too. But not on this thread.

I was responding to another poster’s question. And my original reference to this was when SOMEONE ELSE BROUGHT UP Adoremus.

I did not take this post off topic, but as far as I’m concerned I’m done discussing publications.

 

[rpp]

Just for clarification:

…To this end, it is perhaps useful to respond to your inquiry by repeating the content of a letter that the Congregation recently addressed to a Bishop in the United States of America from whose Diocese a number of pertinent letters had been received. The letter states: "…while this Congregation gave the recognitio

I was responding to another poster’s question. And my original reference to this was when SOMEONE ELSE BROUGHT UP Adoremus.

I did not take this post off topic, but as far as I’m concerned I’m done discussing publications.

As you can see, events did not unfold quite the way you described. You were the first to mention the magazine. Fix was merely link to one of several sites that have those letters.

And I am happy that you are done with discussing magazines.

 

[Marian_Carroll]

The thread is now closed. Thanks to those who participated.