Posture for Holy Communion-Clarified

[Kelly]

Mysty101:

People who won’t accept the norm, when they were instructed on it and there are no provisions for kneeling.

Mysty,
I have been reading this thread and the others that are related to it for the past couple of weeks. I have always been under the impression that directives from Rome always supercede the bishop’s directives in any one particular country. No one who kneels to receive Holy Communion can in any way be considered disobedient, they are free to follow the higher directives of our Church, whether you agree or not.
I posted a question to Father Echert at EWTN, and this is the response that I got.
Please read the following link:

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?Pgnu=1&Pg=Forum7&recnu=5&number=428749

 

[Mysty101]

Two points;

First of all

Kelly:

Mysty,
No one who kneels to receive Holy Communion can in any way be considered disobedient, they are free to follow the higher directives of our Church, whether you agree or not.

I never said they were to be considered disobedient, since I was told not to use this term. Please respond to my last statement, we have been discussing this for a long time.

What bothers me?

People who won’t accept the norm, when they were instructed on it and there are no provisions for kneeling.

My original question was what do you choose?

As I said, I think you are incorrect in saying that a letter can supercede a law, but even if it can, I am just asking people to be reasonable when the norm is standing, and everyone else is following the norm

.

Be reasonable does not say they are disobedient any more than

GIRM 160-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.

says they are allowed to kneel. The wording was as it is for a reason.
from the response you received

To argue that the Vatican lacks authority over the Conference of Bishops in a particular country is absurd. In reality, the Conferences are limited in their authority and must submit to Rome, not vice-versa.

Again I never said this. What I said was a Vatican Law trumps a Vatican letter. The law cannot be reprobated by a letter, which it is not. The letter is saying that an exception should be made, not that the law is changed.

But the real problem I have is that a lay person puts his or preference over the decision of the Conference of Bishops regarding what is best for the WHOLE community. And the standing norm was approved by Rome–it is the law.

Girm 42
42. The gestures and posture of the priest, the deacon, and the ministers, as well as those of the people, ought to contribute to making the entire celebration resplendent with beauty and noble simplicity, so that the true and full meaning of the different parts of the celebration is evident and that the participation of all is fostered.52 Therefore, attention should be paid to what is determined by this General Instruction and the traditional practice of the Roman Rite and to what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God, rather than private inclination or arbitrary choice.

If this instrustion (law from the Vatican) were followed, there would never be a need for the letter.

 

[Mysty101]

Here’s a link to a searchable Canon Law, if anyone cares to look.

intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_PA.HTM

 

[mtr01]

Mysty101:

If this instrustion (law from the Vatican) were followed, there would never be a need for the letter.

Yes but I think the central question in this discussion is who is the ultimate interpreter of Vatican Law. This quote from Fr. Echert’s response to Kelly’s question seems to be pretty straightforward:

the letter from the Congregation which has authority in the Sacred Liturgy specifically addressed the matter and with a ruling which is binding upon the Catholic Church in the U.S.

 

[fix]

The point is the “letter” is not some mere opinion that can be disregarded as one sees fit. The document is an authoratative direction from the competent authority. That dicastery is the interpreter of the GIRM. Rome is in charge. Rome is the higher authority. Rome has spoken and we must obey. Rome does not need to “pass” any law on the matter.

 

[Mysty101]

This is an interpretation for a canon lawyer, and you still may get a difference.

As I said, RS instruction on pouring of the Precious Blood was questioned because it concerned the reprobation of an approved norm, which can only be done with a change in the law, not with a document.

But as I said, even if this is the higher authority, do you still feel it is a good choice to find a loophole and go against the decision of your Shepherd, especially when the Pastor and rest of the congregation are following the norm?

 

[mtr01]

Mysty101:

This is an interpretation for a canon lawyer, and you still may get a difference.

As I said, RS instruction on pouring of the Precious Blood was questioned because it concerned the reprobation of an approved norm, which can only be done with a change in the law, not with a document.

As per Cardinale Arinze’s comments in his recent interview on EWTN, RS did not introduce any new laws, just stressed ones that have always been in force.

Mysty101:

But as I said, even if this is the higher authority, do you still feel it is a good choice to find a loophole and go against the decision of your Shepherd, especially when the Pastor and rest of the congregation are following the norm?

To whom are you referring as Shepherd? How many Pastors have said “do not kneel to receive communion”? Further, you again are suggesting that those who do so are being disobedient, when it is clear that the Vatican says otherwise. Congregationalism is not necessarily Catholicism. It seems to me that you are saying "do whatever everyone else is doing, because that’s what’s best for everyone. I cannot accept that, especially in cases where there are legitimate options, such as this one.

 

[fix]

Mysty101:

This is an interpretation for a canon lawyer, and you still may get a difference.

As I said, RS instruction on pouring of the Precious Blood was questioned because it concerned the reprobation of an approved norm, which can only be done with a change in the law, not with a document.

But as I said, even if this is the higher authority, do you still feel it is a good choice to find a loophole and go against the decision of your Shepherd, especially when the Pastor and rest of the congregation are following the norm?

The Vatican has authority over any conference of bishops and may interpret the GIRM.

It is not a loophole to kneel for our Savior. It is a long established custom.

I cannot read people’s minds. I assume those who kneel are very pious and want to respect the Lord, we can all learn from such people.

 

[Mysty101]

I’m not sure you understand the point of law which I am making, or the point of respect for your shepherd, but in any case I guess we’ll just need to agree to disagree.

 

[fix]

Mysty101:

I’m not sure you understand the point of law which I am making, or the point of respect for your shepherd, but in any case I guess we’ll just need to agree to disagree.

I do get your point, I just disagree. The law is not self interpreting, The Vatican is the interpreter. The Vatican decides on what it was intended to mean and how it is to be applied.

Obedience is a good thing. If the bishop acts contrary to the intention of Rome, we are to obey Rome, not the bishop.

Are there bishops around claiming kneeling is forbidden and claiming their authority is greater than Rome’s?

 

[kmktexas]

This is an interpretation for a canon lawyer, and you still may get a difference.

As I said, RS instruction on pouring of the Precious Blood was questioned because it concerned the reprobation of an approved norm,

which can only be done with a change in the law, not with a document

.

I’m sorry Suz, are you now saying that you are a Canon Lawyer??? Your statement about the fractioning of the wine is pretty definative. You seem more sure about it than most canon lawyers who have ventured an interpretation on the issue. If we had known your credentials we might have responded differently.

 

[Mysty101]

Is the sarcasm necessary? I said, “RS was questioned”.

It is not easy to modify a law

But for the last time

even if this is the higher authority, do you still feel it is a good choice to find a loophole and go against the decision of your Shepherd, especially when the Pastor and rest of the congregation are following the norm?

My point is

Therefore, attention should be paid to what is determined by this General Instruction and the traditional practice of the Roman Rite and to what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God, rather than private inclination or arbitrary choice.

The Bishops do have the authority to make that decision, and it was approved by Rome, so do you really think your idea of “more reverent” is the best choice?

 

[pgoings]

The Bishops do have the authority to make that decision, and it was approved by Rome, so do you really think your idea of “more reverent” is the best choice?

It seems to be the position of Rome (the C.D.W.–the same Congregation which approved the American adaptations to the G.I.R.M.) that we may choose this option, and still be obedient to our bishops and pastors.** The “letter” is a decree of the C.D.W., and thus has the force of law under the canons.** [See especially Canon 16.2 “An authentic interpretation put forth in the form of law has the same force as the law itself and must be promulgated.” http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3.HTM”]http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3.HTM and also Canon 29 vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P5.HTM]

You seem to want to find fault with those who would kneel, even when Rome does not. Why? What justification do you have for saying that we are going against our bishops and pastors?

I believe that may kneel to receive Holy Communion at the normative Mass in the United States; Rome agrees. You say that we should follow the wishes of our local bishop and pastor instead. Great. That’s your opinion, and you are free to do so, and to encourage others to do so. However, you also seem to want to impute some level of moral guilt (“find a loophole and go against”) to those who would choose to kneel; by what right do you presume to do this? Are we not entitled to exercise our rights? [See Canons 208* et seq., and especially canon 212.2 vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PU.HTM]

By the way, you have said that the licitness of RS was questioned–by whom and when?

–Paul

 

[Mysty101]

usccb.org/liturgy/q&a/chalice.shtml

 

[Mysty101]

by what right do you presume to do this? Are we not entitled to exercise our rights? [See Canons 208 et seq., and especially canon

As I said, I think it would be better not to exercise your rights in this situation. Yes, that is my opinion, which was what this whole discussion was really about.

What right do I say this?

Girm 42
42. The gestures and posture of the priest, the deacon, and the ministers, as well as those of the people, ought to contribute to making the entire celebration resplendent with beauty and noble simplicity, so that the true and full meaning of the different parts of the celebration is evident and that the participation of all is fostered.52 Therefore, attention should be paid to what is determined by this General Instruction and the traditional practice of the Roman Rite and to what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God, rather than private inclination or arbitrary choice

.
[/quote]

 

[Mysty101]

ps

The “letter” is a decree of the C.D.W., and thus has the force of law under the canons.

But does it have this force if it contradicts another approved law? This is my point. I believe in a case of contradiction, the higher document stands ie law, which is higher than letter.

 

[pgoings]

The page “Preparation of Chalices for Holy Communion Under Both Kinds” on the web site of the USCCB Committee on Liturgy (which is the link you provided) demonstrates that the C.D.W. is within its competence to authoritatively instruct the Church on the implementation of liturgical laws. So I hope that this clears up any question about the relationship of the “letter” to the G.I.R.M.

I think it would be better not to exercise your rights in this situation

That’s fine; you’re certainly entitled to your opinion. But I can’t see why your need to impose your opinion on others is so important to you. And you’ll have to admit that you (and others) maintained that it was not licit to kneel, until it was conclusively proved otherwise.

Are there other situations where you think it would be better for us not to exercise our rights? Perhaps you could provide a list? I could come up with a list of things I don’t like about the way that liturgy is done (not actual abuses) in some places; I suppose that many of us could. What’s the point?

As a further example, when a bishop declines to institute a celebration of the 1962* Missale Romanum* in his diocese, can we tell him that it is wrong for him to “go against the decision of your Shepherd?” May he not exercise his right, or am I to arbitrate what he should or should not do? This is what I think many people find offensive about your postings on this subject: You are condemnatory and condescending on a matter which is no more than your personal opinion. Unless you think that it is up to you to determine what “serves the common spiritual good of the People of God?”

–Paul

 

[maryprayforme]

pgoings:

The page “Preparation of Chalices for Holy Communion Under Both Kinds” on the web site of the USCCB Committee on Liturgy (which is the link you provided) demonstrates that the C.D.W. is within its competence to authoritatively instruct the Church on the implementation of liturgical laws. So I hope that this clears up any question about the relationship of the “letter” to the G.I.R.M.

That’s fine; you’re certainly entitled to your opinion. But I can’t see why your need to impose your opinion on others is so important to you. And you’ll have to admit that you (and others) maintained that it was not licit to kneel, until it was conclusively proved otherwise.

Are there other situations where you think it would be better for us not to exercise our rights? Perhaps you could provide a list? I could come up with a list of things I don’t like about the way that liturgy is done (not actual abuses) in some places; I suppose that many of us could. What’s the point?

As a further example, when a bishop declines to institute a celebration of the 1962* Missale Romanum* in his diocese, can we tell him that it is wrong for him to “go against the decision of your Shepherd?” May he not exercise his right, or am I to arbitrate what he should or should not do? This is what I think many people find offensive about your postings on this subject: You are condemnatory and condescending on a matter which is no more than your personal opinion. Unless you think that it is up to you to determine what “serves the common spiritual good of the People of God?”

–Paul

+JMJ+

Very well said Paul! As for me, I think everything I could possibly say has been said on this matter. So I will be moving on. It is clear that Mysty is set in declaring kneeling communicants as disobedient.

 

[Mysty101]

+JMJ+
It is clear that Mysty is set in declaring kneeling communicants as disobedient.

You have made a statement which is not true. I never said that, any more than the Vatican said kneeling is allowed when the norm is standing. Words are chosed carefully, it is not right to twist them to suit yourself.

I am really tired of being misquoted and distained because I ask people to put the instructions of the Bishop and the common spiritual good of the People of God, ahead of their own preference.

 

[Mysty101]

pgoings:

The page “Preparation of Chalices for Holy Communion Under Both Kinds” on the web site of the USCCB Committee on Liturgy (which is the link you provided) demonstrates that the C.D.W. is within its competence to authoritatively instruct the Church on the implementation of liturgical laws. So I hope that this clears up any question about the relationship of the “letter” to the G.I.R.M.
–Paul

actually not.

Even if the USCCB wished to reassert the USCCB Norms to permit the use of flagons, the action must be confirmed by the Congregation, which is empowered to change any decision of a Conference of Bishops, even substantially, in order to bring it into conformity with Redemptionis Sacramentum.

It does not say anything about any other letter overriding the approved GIRM. Canon law also says something about notification. I don’t recall this letter being sent to all the diocese.

And you’ll have to admit that you (and others) maintained that it was not licit to kneel, until it was conclusively proved otherwise.

Again, I am not speaking more idealistically than legally.

Are there other situations where you think it would be better for us not to exercise our rights? Perhaps you could provide a list? I could come up with a list of things I don’t like about the way that liturgy is done (not actual abuses) in some places; I suppose that many of us could. What’s the point?

serves the common spiritual good of the People of God

Unless you think that it is up to you to determine what “serves the common spiritual good of the People of God?”

You left out the first part of that sentence from the GIRM

Therefore, attention should be paid to what is determined by this General Instruction and the traditional practice of the Roman Rite and to what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God, rather than private inclination or arbitrary choice.

Actually it is the Bishops, with the approval of Rome.