Posture for Holy Communion-Clarified

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mysty101
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Mysty101:
And you refuse to accept a valid law.
Click to expand...
Untrue, I accept all valid and just laws. I, also, accept the inerpretation by authentic authority. I do not make my reading of the law to be the final word.
 
girm 160…The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing.
 
40.png
fix:
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.
Click to expand...
Fix, these debates are never ending. Its time to stop casting off pearls before swine.
 
Actually it has become a disagreement in procedure, hiding under “intent”

Do you think the intent of the CDW was to undermine the USCCB?

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 can be reprobated at all or whether there must be new instructions issued.

Also show me anything which says the norm in the US is kneeling.

As I said, 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 and cannot easily be undone, so please do not punish anyone who kneels, try to get them to understand why you have made the standing norm”
 
“Those deceive themselves who believe that union with God consists in ecstasies or in enjoyment of Him. For it consists in nothing except the surrender and subjection of our will.” St Teresa
 
40.png
Mysty101:
Actually it has become a disagreement in procedure, hiding under “intent”

Do you think the intent of the CDW was to undermine the USCCB?

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 can be reprobated at all or whether there must be new instructions issued.

Also show me anything which says the norm in the US is kneeling.

As I said, 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 and cannot easily be undone, so please do not punish anyone who kneels, try to get them to understand why you have made the standing norm”
Click to expand...
Rome has answered this. You just won’t accept it.
 
Mysty101 said:
“Those deceive themselves who believe that union with God consists in ecstasies or in enjoyment of Him. For it consists in nothing except the surrender and subjection of our will.” St Teresa
Click to expand...

I agree. Rome’s will is that those who chose to kneel, may kneel. Rome’s will is that you obey Rome.
 
Rome also told you to obey your shepherd and observe Liturgical norms. I saw an article just last week regarding this.
 
40.png
Mysty101:
Rome also told you to obey your shepherd and observe Liturgical norms. I saw an article just last week regarding this.
Click to expand...
Following Rome’s instructions will not be disobeying any bishop.
 
40.png
fix:
Rome has answered this. You just won’t accept it.
Click to expand...
You say Rome has answered, I ask again,
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.

Also, I am asking you to be reasonable when there are no provisions, and you are the only one who wishes to kneel. I said many times I do not advocate denying anyone Communion or calling them disobedient, which is all the letter requires. I am merely trying to get you to understand the difference between a law and a letter.
 
40.png
Mysty101:
You say Rome has answered, I ask again,
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.

Also, I am asking you to be reasonable when there are no provisions, and you are the only one who wishes to kneel. I said many times I do not advocate denying anyone Communion or calling them disobedient, which is all the letter requires. I am merely trying to get you to understand the difference between a law and a letter.
Click to expand...
Your distinction is an attempt to minimize the authority of Rome. The “law” is only a law as Rome says it is. The “law” is not self interpreting. This is circular. You want the GIRM to be understood only as you say, but that is not authentically the way it is. The GIRM is to be understood and obeyed as Rome declares.

The “letter” was produced by the dicastery that governs these matters. That authority has spoken, be it a letter, a stone tablet, or anything else.

In fact, it is disturbing you so quickly dismiss such a Church office.
 
40.png
Mysty101:
And peace to you!

I do not agree with what was done re-standing/kneeling. If this was to be a true option, it should have been written that way, as was the hand/tongue option.

You are wrong on that one–The local conference of Bishops (not each individual bishop outside of his diocese, but the conference) does have authority within it’s competency (the norm of standing was approved) (RS was not implimented until the USCCB had sent the instructions)
Please follow my reasoning.

The norm is standing

People were told that if they choose to kneel, they are to be given Communion and not be considered disobedient, even though they are putting their preference over the decision of their shepherd as to what is best suited to the needs of the community.

But this certainly does not indicate that you have permission to kneel. The USCCB has told you to stand, but were told they could not force the issue, if you chose to disregard their instructions.

OK let me try this. The speed limit is 55. You drive at 60 miles an hour—the trooper will not give you a ticket (It is understood, you will not get a ticket unless you exceed 10 above the speed limit.) Does this indicate that you have permission to drive 60 miles an hour?

True permission would have either given the option or reprobated the norm of standing, as was the use of flagons. This is only a “look the other way” situation. The norm of standing was approved. The USCCB has decided that this suits the pastoral needs of most US Parishes. Some Parishes have been able to make provisions for those who wish to kneel, which is fine–this is for the common good of that Parish. One person wishes to kneel in a standing Parish, and forces their will on the minister, who is not allowed to deny Communion. Do you honestly think this is the best choice?
Click to expand...
Two points I would like to make in this my last post on this topic, since this discussion has been exhausted.
  1. Rome interprets every document of the Church including the GIRM. Any bishop is not free to interpret the GIRM the way he wants to interpret it. If bishops were free to interpret documents their own way, you would have many different churches spring up. The unity of the Roman Catholic Church requires everyone, including bishops in charge of dioceses, to submit to Rome’s interpretaion.
This doesn’t mean that the bishops do not have the authority to put the GIRM into practice the way it is written. They clearly have that authority. The GIRM states that the norm for receiving communion is standing and the bishops have it as their duty to see this norm is followed. However, at the same time, they cannot refuse communion to anyone who kneels, as is also stated in the GIRM. They are not free to interpret this as to say that since it isn’t the norm to kneel there are no circumstances when kneeling is permitted. Clearly, kneeling is permitted but discouraged. Something being discouraged is not the same as something not being allowed.
  1. The USCCB has no authority to bind anything on the conscience of any Catholic. This authority would have to be stated in Canon Law. Canon Law does not give authority to any bishop’s conference to bind anything on the conscience of Catholics. If I’m wrong, please post the canon and I will retract this statement.
The local bishop has authority to bind on the conscience of those Catholics who are part of his diocese. I don’t owe any obedience to the USCCB, only to my bishop. However, the GIRM states that in the dioceses of the United States standing for communion is the norm, I am bound by conscience to obey my local bishop on this matter. My local bishop says standing is the norm and I must obey. My local bishop doesn’t have the authority to prevent me from kneeling, only to discourage me from doing it.

In essence Mysty, you are correct that we have to obey our bishops when they say standing is the norm, but we are only obliged to obey our local bishop. Unless we reside in the same diocese, I am not bound to obey your bishop and you are not bound to obey mine. However, all bishops have said standing is the norm, so we are bound to obey. But kneeling is still permitted.

Peace
 
Stone Cold:
Two points I would like to make in this my last post on this topic, since this discussion has been exhausted.
  1. Rome interprets every document of the Church including the GIRM. Any bishop is not free to interpret the GIRM the way he wants to interpret it. If bishops were free to interpret documents their own way, you would have many different churches spring up. The unity of the Roman Catholic Church requires everyone, including bishops in charge of dioceses, to submit to Rome’s interpretaion.
This doesn’t mean that the bishops do not have the authority to put the GIRM into practice the way it is written. They clearly have that authority. The GIRM states that the norm for receiving communion is standing and the bishops have it as their duty to see this norm is followed. However, at the same time, they cannot refuse communion to anyone who kneels, as is also stated in the GIRM. They are not free to interpret this as to say that since it isn’t the norm to kneel there are no circumstances when kneeling is permitted. Clearly, kneeling is permitted but discouraged. Something being discouraged is not the same as something not being allowed.
  1. The USCCB has no authority to bind anything on the conscience of any Catholic. This authority would have to be stated in Canon Law. Canon Law does not give authority to any bishop’s conference to bind anything on the conscience of Catholics. If I’m wrong, please post the canon and I will retract this statement.
The local bishop has authority to bind on the conscience of those Catholics who are part of his diocese. I don’t owe any obedience to the USCCB, only to my bishop. However, the GIRM states that in the dioceses of the United States standing for communion is the norm, I am bound by conscience to obey my local bishop on this matter. My local bishop says standing is the norm and I must obey. My local bishop doesn’t have the authority to prevent me from kneeling, only to discourage me from doing it.

In essence Mysty, you are correct that we have to obey our bishops when they say standing is the norm, but we are only obliged to obey our local bishop. Unless we reside in the same diocese, I am not bound to obey your bishop and you are not bound to obey mine. However, all bishops have said standing is the norm, so we are bound to obey. But kneeling is still permitted.

Peace
Click to expand...
Rome has said that kneeling is permitted. If a bishop claims it is not permitted, their directives would conflict with what Rome has declared. The fact the the bishops, or a bishop, has declared people should stand cannot contradict the decalartion from Rome. Those who choose to kneel may kneel without being disobedient.
 
Stone Cold:
Clearly, kneeling is permitted but discouraged. Something being discouraged is not the same as something not being allowed.
I am bound by conscience to obey my local bishop on this matter. My local bishop says standing is the norm and I must obey. My local bishop doesn’t have the authority to prevent me from kneeling, only to discourage me from doing it.

In essence Mysty, you are correct that we have to obey our bishops when they say standing is the norm, but we are only obliged to obey our local bishop. Unless we reside in the same diocese, I am not bound to obey your bishop and you are not bound to obey mine. However, all bishops have said standing is the norm, so we are bound to obey. But kneeling is still permitted.
Click to expand...
…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".

How can this mean that one is not obeying their bishop when clearly one is not being disobedient? It even says it is not illicit to kneel. The point of this information from Rome is that kneeling may be done and it was never the intention to make standing the only way to receive.
 
40.png
fix:
Your distinction is an attempt to minimize the authority of Rome. The “law” is only a law as Rome says it is. The “law” is not self interpreting. This is circular. You want the GIRM to be understood only as you say, but that is not authentically the way it is. The GIRM is to be understood and obeyed as Rome declares.
.
Click to expand...
You obviously do not understand legal terminology, so you are right—there is no point in continuing.
 
40.png
Mysty101:
You obviously do not understand legal terminology, so you are right—there is no point in continuing.
Click to expand...
What I do not understand are legalistic mindsets that want to make the law their god and reject the authority of Rome for legalisms. The “letter” is from Rome. Rome is not bound by your understading of legal motions or gymnastics.
 
40.png
Mysty101:
And the USCCB and the Girm are not bound by you
Click to expand...
No, they are bound by Rome and Rome said kneeling is legitimate for those who choose to kneel.
 
40.png
Mysty101:
My agenda is to try to determine how many people kneel when there are no provisions or they are instructed to stand. I do not want to count those who kneel in a Parish which does not enforce the standing norm.
Click to expand...
fix, by now you know that Mysty101 has been riding this anti-kneeling pony even though every word from Rome has condoned and supported “those whose sensibilities” dictate that we assume “the highly appropriate, centuries-old tradition” of kneeling to receive Holy Communion.

We really don’t need SuZ’s blessing to assume this posture, and while humbly begging God’s forgiveness and mercy upon bended knee and receiving Him upon my tongue, I’ll try to remember the stiff-necked detractors who attempt to stir up discord among the faithful with such arguments and accusations…

SuZ, Do you honestly think your arguments are going to convince anyone who kneels that he/she should refrain from doing so?
Or is your real “agenda” to incite sentiments other than brotherly love for those who receive by a different posture than that which you approve? I think you should stop obsessing over the speck in your brother’s eye…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top