Posture for Holy Communion-Clarified

[Andreas_Hofer]

Defensor Fidei:

Kneeling is allowed and cannot be refused.

So I can imply from this position that only laws entailing penalties are to be obeyed? Kneeling is *not *allowed. Particular law for the United States *forbids *kneeling to receive communion when using the Pauline Missal.

This is quite unfortunate. It’s as if the USCCB is looking for the most destructive rules it could possibly enforce. Don’t seek to implement Redemptionis Sacramentum, but make sure to forbid a practice that is licit for the universal Church. Go figure.

Were I allowed, I would kneel. I think it is a far superior posture for reception of the Eucharist. But there is no reward for disobeying legitimate directives from your bishops, who have been placed in authority over you by God. If you receive communion kneeling you seriously diminish your credibiltiy in criticizing liturgical abuse.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

fix:

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”.

What does Rome have to do to get you to accept their authority?

Well, I would suggest she does not attempt to issue interpretations of her laws that contradict the actual laws. The letter essentially says, “Although we approved outlawing reception while kneeling, it was not our intention to outlaw reception while kneeling.” How is that supposed to stand up if actually challenged according to the actual law they put in force? How is Church law supposed to function if we introduce the category of “Laws, disobedience of which does not constitute illicit behavior”? That’s about as dangerous as the penumbra of “privacy.”

 

[JNB]

Andreas Hofer:

Well, I would suggest she does not attempt to issue interpretations of her laws that contradict the actual laws. The letter essentially says, “Although we approved outlawing reception while kneeling, it was not our intention to outlaw reception while kneeling.” How is that supposed to stand up if actually challenged according to the actual law they put in force? How is Church law supposed to function if we introduce the category of “Laws, disobedience of which does not constitute illicit behavior”? That’s about as dangerous as the penumbra of “privacy.”

And as the saying goes “The use our obidience against us”

I myself attend a parish that uses the Pauline missal and it still uses altar rails for communion. The CDW at the Vatican published not one, not two but three letters on the subject saying it is not illicit to kneel for communion. Sorry Andreas, but your kind of obidience, while in some ways commendable,. is the MAIN reason why so much has been taken away from t he mass. I will be the first to say that Rome should not have approved the GIRM as submitted by the USCCB, but it did, but it seems in the 3 letters, possibly the USCCB omitted the provisons to protect those who choose to kneel for communion.

As I say, from reading the letter, we are allowed to kneel, Rome might o f contradicted herself, but the CDW letters came out after GIRM was put in force, and this may not sound pious, I see no reason why people who prefer more tradition in their liturgy can not resort to the tactics of the “progressive” set. I myself have had enough. Agressor sets the rules, and the “progressive” set in the last 40 years has been the agressors.

 

[JNB]

Andreas Hofer:

So I can imply from this position that only laws entailing penalties are to be obeyed? Kneeling is *not *allowed. Particular law for the United States *forbids *kneeling to receive communion when using the Pauline Missal.

This is quite unfortunate. It’s as if the USCCB is looking for the most destructive rules it could possibly enforce. Don’t seek to implement Redemptionis Sacramentum, but make sure to forbid a practice that is licit for the universal Church. Go figure.

Were I allowed, I would kneel. I think it is a far superior posture for reception of the Eucharist. But there is no reward for disobeying legitimate directives from your bishops, who have been placed in authority over you by God. If you receive communion kneeling you seriously diminish your credibiltiy in criticizing liturgical abuse.

As others have said, the CDW has the final say on the matter, not the USCCB. Again, the USCCB authority does not go beyond the Vatican in how liturgical norms(and by the way a “norm” does not have the same meaning as a law) is interperted.

I pray for the next Pope, and hopefully he will have the courage to have a firm hand dealing with out of control bishops conferences.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

JNB:

As others have said, the CDW has the final say on the matter, not the USCCB. Again, the USCCB authority does not go beyond the Vatican in how liturgical norms(and by the way a “norm” does not have the same meaning as a law) is interperted.

I pray for the next Pope, and hopefully he will have the courage to have a firm hand dealing with out of control bishops conferences.

First, I stand corrected for my imprecise use of juridical terminology.

Second, I realize where you’re coming from, but I question whether a letter from a Congregation (here, the CDW) which ‘interprets’ one of its promulgations in direct contradiction, can actually be considered higher than norm itself? Both exert the authority of the same congregation. But it makes more sense to me that a congregation must actual rescind a law if it is going to assert that it doesn’t exist. Can you honestly say that if the tables were turned and the CDW contradicted itself by defending a *less *pious practice you would be offering the same interpretation?

 

[JNB]

Andreas Hofer:

First, I stand corrected for my imprecise use of juridical terminology.

Second, I realize where you’re coming from, but I question whether a letter from a Congregation (here, the CDW) which ‘interprets’ one of its promulgations in direct contradiction, can actually be considered higher than norm itself? Both exert the authority of the same congregation. But it makes more sense to me that a congregation must actual rescind a law if it is going to assert that it doesn’t exist. Can you honestly say that if the tables were turned and the CDW contradicted itself by defending a *less *pious practice you would be offering the same interpretation?

The key here is that Rome defines laws differently than what those who have an English/Germanic legal tradition have.(and this has created other disputes in other liturgical and non liturgical areas as well), that there are degrees of what is law is, what constitutes of dis obidience and so on. One can go against a liturgical norm and still not be considered dis-obidient(look at the many parishes that continue and will continue to stand for the Eucharistic prayer for example).

If t he CDW was defending a less pious practice, to tell you the truth, I dont know what I would do, I pray the Holy Sprit will restore much of what has been taken away, and lead to a restoration.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

JNB:

And as the saying goes “The use our obidience against us”

I myself attend a parish that uses the Pauline missal and it still uses altar rails for communion. The CDW at the Vatican published not one, not two but three letters on the subject saying it is not illicit to kneel for communion. Sorry Andreas, but your kind of obidience, while in some ways commendable,. is the MAIN reason why so much has been taken away from t he mass. I will be the first to say that Rome should not have approved the GIRM as submitted by the USCCB, but it did, but it seems in the 3 letters, possibly the USCCB omitted the provisons to protect those who choose to kneel for communion.

As I say, from reading the letter, we are allowed to kneel, Rome might o f contradicted herself, but the CDW letters came out after GIRM was put in force, and this may not sound pious, I see no reason why people who prefer more tradition in their liturgy can not resort to the tactics of the “progressive” set. I myself have had enough. Agressor sets the rules, and the “progressive” set in the last 40 years has been the agressors.

But forbidding a practice doesn’t really contain room for “provisions to protect” its practitioners. Provisions are in order when a practice is elevated over others - by being made preferred or even normative with possibility of indult - without affecting the juridical status of the other practices; provisions might call for compassionate correction of offenders, as the current norm does, but not for the actual allowance of unallowed activities.

The “provisions” made by the CDW in their letters amount to a denial that their act was/is meant to have any force.

Their reasoning can be compared to this illustration:
I see Tom pull the last cookie out of the jar, put it in his mouth, and start chomping away. In somewhat selfish indignation I cry out, “You just ate the last cookie!” Tom, with crumbs falling out of his mouth mumbles, “No I didn’t.”

Even if we were to concede that the prohibition of kneeling is not actually binding (in effect, creating a new “spirit of the law”)your parish priest, if he were truly following the letter of the norm, would have to pull every “kneeler” aside after Mass and explain the injunction against kneeling. The congregation semi-officially negated everything in this norm that it previously fully officially declared. “This dicastery” has not informed us how to “understand” the norm because no one qualifies calling “yes” “no” as “understanding.” This is normally referred to as a “misunderstanding.”

 

[JNB]

Andreas Hofer:

But forbidding a practice doesn’t really contain room for “provisions to protect” its practitioners. Provisions are in order when a practice is elevated over others - by being made preferred or even normative with possibility of indult - without affecting the juridical status of the other practices; provisions might call for compassionate correction of offenders, as the current norm does, but not for the actual allowance of unallowed activities.

The “provisions” made by the CDW in their letters amount to a denial that their act was/is meant to have any force.

Their reasoning can be compared to this illustration:
I see Tom pull the last cookie out of the jar, put it in his mouth, and start chomping away. In somewhat selfish indignation I cry out, “You just ate the last cookie!” Tom, with crumbs falling out of his mouth mumbles, “No I didn’t.”

Even if we were to concede that the prohibition of kneeling is not actually binding (in effect, creating a new “spirit of the law”)your parish priest, if he were truly following the letter of the norm, would have to pull every “kneeler” aside after Mass and explain the injunction against kneeling. The congregation semi-officially negated everything in this norm that it previously fully officially declared. “This dicastery” has not informed us how to “understand” the norm because no one qualifies calling “yes” “no” as “understanding.” This is normally referred to as a “misunderstanding.”

This is how I see it. My guess is that in 2000-01, when the GIRM was submitted to Rome, the CDW signed off on it but as the letters indicate, there had to be a protection for those who kneel for communion, that they could not be denied communion. Again, there are also differences in how Rome and the Germanic/English world view rules as well, and that also played into the confusion. It may have been the intent of the CDW to have the various conferences establish a “norm”(though many other conferences have yet to adopt a “norm” for communion posture), but not their intent to bar communicants from kneeling for communion.

Now in this aftermath, should have the CDW signed off on the original language of the GIRM for the US in light of the recent letters? No, it sadly gave the modernists one more tool to rip apart tradition, and especially a tool to prevent the restoration of tradition, and to be blunt Andreas, people like you who are blindly obidient who just do not fight for rights that Catholics have protected under canon law. Again, unless the CDW says kneeling for communion in the Pauline rite is forbidden, then I will continue to kneel for communion in parishes that have provisons for kneeling for communion. I am not going to lay down and let more tradition be taken away Andreas, and Andreas, I am not going to in light of the liturgical rape that has gone on in the last 40 years be “blindly obident”. I know this sounds harsh, but parishoners with your blindly obidient attitude is what led to altars being turned around, standing for communion to become the de facto “norm”, communion in the hand, acceptance of EMHCs and then altar girls be rammed down the throat of the faithful without a fight, even before all of these now defacto “norms” were licit.

What blind obidience got the church in the US and most of the West is empty pews, empty liturgy and empty theology, since very few parishoners questioned the changes being imposed upon them. The same blind obidience by the way that allowedthe Arian heresy to spread so rapidly, the same blind obidience that led many in Northren Europe not to question why their Bishops went from being loyal to Rome to being loyal to their local Kings and princes.

 

[Mysty101]

Mysty:

The GIRM is a higher authority than a letter, and as I said it the letter may not stand up to a challenge by the USCCB as to Canon Law.

fix:

The “letter” is the rule from Rome. Your argument would make nothing binding because anything may be challenged.

Just want to clarify one thing before we continue. I meant the challenge may be valid under cannon law.

 

[Mysty101]

This is how I see it.

=YOUR interpretation

… It may have been the intent of the CDW to have the various conferences establish a “norm”(though many other conferences have yet to adopt a “norm” for communion posture), but not their intent to bar communicants from kneeling for communion.

Even if it was or was not the intent, it needed to be written to be the law. I’m sure many things were discussed, but could not get the support to be written into the law.

Again, unless the CDW says kneeling for communion in the Pauline rite is forbidden, then I will continue to kneel for communion in parishes that have provisons for kneeling for communion.

I believe this is a sensible compromise.
Let me try another example A principal in a Catholic school sets the norm for morning prayer as a procession. Little Piety decides she wants to kneel, so she kneels in the middle of the procession. Teacher tells her she cannot participate in prayer, if she kneels. Mommy runs to the assistant principal, who says Piety is allowed to participate, and not be considered disobedient for kneeling. Do you honestly think this is the best solution for the problem? And Jesus is pleased with the reverence?

Psalm 40:73 sacrifice and offering you do not want; but ears open to obedience you gave me. Holocausts and sin-offerings you do not require; 8 so I said, “Here I am; your commands for me are written in the scroll. 9 To do your will is my delight; my God, your law is in my heart!”

Mt 16:18And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Have you ever heard of Apostolic succession? One of the marks of the Church which separates us from the Protestent sects? The GIRM is the law, and cannot be overwritten with a letter. The promulgated norm of use of flagons and pouring of the precious Blood was reprobated (norm changed) and it was still challenged (the Bishops did not persue it further, so it did not get a legal decision) These are approved norms you are disobeying.

 

[fix]

The point is that Rome sets the law and interprets it. What some fail to grasp is that thier interpretation is at odds with Rome. That some interpret the law differently does not matter, their interpretation is not what binds.

 

[fix]

Andreas Hofer:

Well, I would suggest she does not attempt to issue interpretations of her laws that contradict the actual laws.

That logic is the probelm. It sets your private opinion as equal to Rome.

 

[fix]

Mysty101:

Have you ever heard of Apostolic succession? One of the marks of the Church which separates us from the Protestent sects? The GIRM is the law, and cannot be overwritten with a letter. The promulgated norm of use of flagons and pouring of the precious Blood was reprobated (norm changed) and it was still challenged (the Bishops did not persue it further, so it did not get a legal decision) These are approved norms you are disobeying.

Again, the law is at the service of the truth, not a god unto itself. Also, the “law” has an interpeter and that interpreter is not you or I, but Rome.

 

[Mysty101]

For the last time

Even if a letter is a valid qualification of a norm, (which I do not think it is) the letter is not attempting to change the norm. It reiterates the standing norm. It is merely confusing the issue, and the many Catholics who accept valid norms.
I repeat-- sorry, I did not express this in the best way (underlined in brackets added)

Let me try another example A (teacher-with the approval of the )principal in a Catholic school sets the norm for morning prayer as a procession. Little Piety decides she wants to kneel, so she kneels in the middle of the procession. Teacher tells her she cannot participate in prayer, if she kneels. Mommy runs to the assistant principal, who says Piety is allowed to participate, and not be considered disobedient for kneeling. Do you honestly think this is the best solution for the problem? And Jesus is pleased with that reverence?

The teacher is the USCCB, the principal is the GIRM, The asst principal is the CDW (since it cannot legally changing the GIRM in this manner)

Did you catch today’s readings?
[

Heb 10:5-10[

“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
in holocausts and sin offerings you took no delight.
Then I said, ‘As is written of me in the scroll,
behold, I come to do your will, O God.’”

First he says, “Sacrifices and offerings,
holocausts and sin offerings,
you neither desired nor delighted in.”
These are offered according to the law.
Then he says, “Behold, I come to do your will.”
He takes away the first to establish the second.
By this “will,” we have been consecrated
through the offering of the Body of Jesus Christ once for all.](http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/hebrews/hebrews10.htm#v4)](http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/hebrews/hebrews10.htm#v4)

This is an approved norm, by an authentic authority

I know what is right, it is you who are confused between laws, and the proper enforcement of them, and methods of change.

The absolvement of punishment for ignoring the law does not change the law.

 

[fix]

Mysty101:

For the last time

Even if a letter is a valid qualification of a norm, (which I do not think it is) the letter is not attempting to change the norm. It reiterates the standing norm. It is merely confusing the issue, and the many Catholics who accept valid norms.
I repeat

Did you catch today’s readings?

This is an approved norm, by an authentic authority

I know what is right, it is you who are confused between laws, and the proper enforcement of them, and methods of change.

The absolvement of punishment for ignoring the law does not change the law.

Let me try another example A principal in a Catholic school sets the norm for morning prayer as a procession. Little Piety decides she wants to kneel, so she kneels in the middle of the procession. Teacher tells her she cannot participate in prayer, if she kneels. Mommy runs to the assistant principal, who says Piety is allowed to participate, and not be considered disobedient for kneeling. Do you honestly think this is the best solution for the problem? And Jesus is pleased with that reverence?

All of the above says to me you reject the authority of Rome. Rome makes the law, approves the law and interprets the law.

 

[Mysty101]

fix:

All of the above says to me you reject the authority of Rome. Rome makes the law, approves the law and interprets the law.

Yes, but there is a process for change, which was not followed.

 

[fix]

Mysty101:

Yes, but there is a process for change, which was not followed.

What makes you think something was changed? Rome has said the “norm” was never intended to abolish kneeling. Hence, the need for an authentic interpreter.

 

[Mysty101]

fix:

What makes you think something was changed? Rome has said the “norm” was never intended to abolish kneeling. Hence, the need for an authentic interpreter.

Intent is not valid in a law. This cannot be, since then no law would be valid. It must be written. The Communion procession is a beautiful reverent prayer, and does not allow for people kneeling in the middle of it.
**
**

****The ******Communion **Procession

*When we come forward to receive Holy Communion at the Eucharist, we are not **lining up as isolated individuals, couples, families or groups to be nourished and **sustained for our Christian lives. We come forward together as the Body of Christ to **receive the Body of Christ. We receive the Body of Christ so that we may be more **truly together the Body of Christ in the world. As St Augustine of Hippo reminded us, **at the Eucharist we receive what we are, and we become what we receive: ‘You reply “Amen” to that which you are, and by your reply you consent. For you hear “the Body of Christ” and you reply “Amen”. Be a member of the Body of Christ so that *your “Amen” may be true.’

One Bread One Body 94

*The ****Communion **procession expresses the humble patience of the poor moving **forward to be fed, the alert expectancy of God’s people sharing the Paschal meal in **readiness for their journey, the joyful confidence of God’s people on the march **toward the Promised Land. In England and Wales it is through this action of walking *solemnly in procession that the faithful make their sign of reverence in preparation for receiving Communion.

Celebrating the Mass 209

The **Communion **Procession is not simply about getting up out of one’s seat, walking to the minister, receiving communion and walking back to one’s seat and sitting down again.

The procession is

• a procession accompanied by song which is to express unity in spirit by means unity in song and to show joy of heart (cf. GIRM 86

• a communal action and not simply a private, individual action (cf. GIRM 86, OBOB 94)

• not merely action but action as prayer, a visible sign of reverence (cf. CTM, 210)

If I didn’t respect the authority of Rome, I would not even accept kneeling it there are provisions. In essence, Rome is saying “We think we made a mistake in approving your norm, but what is done is done, so please do not punish anyone who kneels, try to get them to understand why you have made the standing norm”

 

[fix]

Mysty101:

Intent is not valid in a law. This cannot be, since then no law would be valid. It must be written. The Communion procession is a beautiful reverent prayer, and does not allow for people kneeling in the middle of it.

If I didn’t respect the authority of Rome, I would not even accept kneeling it there are provisions. In essence, Rome is saying “We think we made a mistake in approving your norm, but what is done is done, so please do not punish anyone who kneels, try to get them to understand why you have made the standing norm”

Again, all I see is that you refuse to accept the authority of Rome.

 

[Mysty101]

And you refuse to accept a valid law.

Show me any place that the GIRM was changed without a reprobation—it just cannot be done. As I said there is even question over whether a norm cann be reprobated at all or whether there must be new instructions issued.