K
kmktexas
Guest
As I read all the posts in this thread and the other two that are nearly identical, one thing strikes me.
The documents from the CDW are pretty clear that, if a person choses to kneel or genuflect, then they are not to be denied Communion or to be called disobient.
There is no such “protection” offered for those (who vastly out-number the kneelers) who are being disobedient by not making any sign of reverence before receiving Communion.
So, if there is any *genuine concern * that the GIRM is somehow being disobeyed (not that I agree with that position) shouldn’t Suz, Marie et al go after those people who **really are ** disobeying the GIRM outright by making no sign of reverence at all. This seems like a bigger issue than bickering over which sign of reverence has priority
The documents from the CDW are pretty clear that, if a person choses to kneel or genuflect, then they are not to be denied Communion or to be called disobient.
There is no such “protection” offered for those (who vastly out-number the kneelers) who are being disobedient by not making any sign of reverence before receiving Communion.
So, if there is any *genuine concern * that the GIRM is somehow being disobeyed (not that I agree with that position) shouldn’t Suz, Marie et al go after those people who **really are ** disobeying the GIRM outright by making no sign of reverence at all. This seems like a bigger issue than bickering over which sign of reverence has priority