Receive Communion standing or kneeling?

[katherine2]

they have said, once again, that nobody is to be imposed upon to stand, nobody should be called illicit for doing so, kneeling is completely appropriate

Nobody is to be denied communion because they kneel. This is not because standing is not the norm, it is because we do not deny communion to someone for the mere act of failing to follow a norm. If you fail to mak the sign of the cross at Mass, or say “amen” or kneel during the canon or bow your head during the Creed, you also are not to be denied communion.

Nobody should be called illicit because it is uncharitable. They should be educated and counseled.

Kneeling is an appropriate acts because it is permited in some countries. It is not he norm in this country. Standing for most of the canon is the norm in some countries, so that also is not inappropriate, simply not the norm.

 

[otm]

bear06:

Once again, you’re completely ignoring what I have said. Do you believe the quote from the CDW? that they decide the manner in which the norm is to be understood? Do you deny that the CDW who has this power has said that kneeling is completely appropriate? Please just answer this for once.

I read the quotes, and have answered you. You are trying to take a remark that is “mere dicta” and turn it into legislation. That is not how Rome abrogates law or modifies it. It is not “completely appropriate”, as there is specific language in the GIRM to the contrary. Without a specific indult or specific permission, neither of which are granted in the letters (and letters are not how those are promulgated), the instruction in the GIRM must have its ordinary meaning, that people are to be counseled because they are not doing what they are supposed to be doing (or, if you will, doing what they are not supposed to be doing).

Well, we agree somewhat until you get to the part about “completely appropriate”. Essentially, what you are saying is that Rome is not smart enough to either say “Communicants may receive either standing or kneeling”, or to withdraw the specific comment explicitly from the GIRM that those who kneel are to be counseled.

bear06:

By the way, I don’t think you know what the letters to Rome were about. If they were just about being denied Communion, they sure added a lot of unnecessary stuff into their responses.

There was plenty of heat in the press when this fracas started. Nothing has been mentioned anywhere about people complaining about being counseled. There was a lot of screaming about being denied Communion (as there should have been). And your last sentance above leaves me to hope that you are starting to see the light. It is not unusual for “unnecessary stuff” to get included in letters. Obviously someone in Rome was P O’ed about it, and they blew off some steam. They said what they had to say, and then they said “some unnecessary stuff” (also known as “dicta”). Rome doesn’t do that when they promulgate a law or instruction; they are precise and articulate, and stick to the subject. They do make statements in letters that would imply the law has been modiifed or changed; but again, that is not how the change is made.

bear06:

I’d actually be agreeing with you until I saw the letters from the CDW saying they had the authority over the application of the norm

. You might want to take a look into the mirror when you throw out that statement. You seem to be the arbiter of the interior from exterior acts of piety.

I wouldn’t say that I am an arbiter; but I am a very good observer of human nature, and I can see a stiff neck, whether the head on it is liberal, or conservative, or moderate. I am tired ot the “holier than thou” attitude I see on both ends of the spectrum. More than a few people would do well to read the Gospel story of the Pharisee and the tax collector, including those who insist on kneeling.

Note: nothing in my comments here or above imply, nor are they meant to imply, the the CDW does not have the power to alter the GIRM. They promulgated it; they certainly can change it. My comments are directed to the fact that they have not done so.

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

katherine2:

Nobody is to be denied communion because they kneel. This is not because standing is not the norm, it is because we do not deny communion to someone for the mere act of failing to follow a norm. If you fail to mak the sign of the cross at Mass, or say “amen” or kneel during the canon or bow your head during the Creed, you also are not to be denied communion.

I can agree with this.

Nobody should be called illicit because it is uncharitable. They should be educated and counseled.

No, this isn’t what the Vatican said or meant at all. They never mentioned charity, nor it being uncharitable. They specifically instructed the bishops to insert a clause to protect those who kneel, and later said that the act of kneeling cannot be referred to as illicit.
That doesn’t mean, “hey don’t call those people illicit, it isn’t nice.” It means, “don’t go calling kneeling ‘acting illicitly.’”

“…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”.

Kneeling is an appropriate acts because it is permited in some countries.

No again. Kneeling is appropriate because:In fact, as His Eminence, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has recently emphasized, the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition, and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration, completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species.

It’s appropriate specifically because it is Jesus Christ, Our Lord, before Whom they are kneeling.

otm:

Note: nothing in my comments here or above imply, nor are they meant to imply, the the CDW does not have the power to alter the GIRM. They promulgated it; they certainly can change it. My comments are directed to the fact that they have not done so.

Otm, the CDW doesn’t need to alter the GIRM, nor abbrogate norm 160. They have clearly pointed out the spirit in which the norm was to be understood and implemented. There is such thing as the spirit of the law, and the letter of the law.
As a billing and budgeting director, I am sure you’re very attentive to the letter of the law, but in matters of the Faith, the CDW is speaking in terms of the spirit of the law, and is being very specific about its authority to do so. The law doesn’t have to be changed; it simply has to be properly understood! The letters are clarifications, not changes.

I wouldn’t say that I am an arbiter; but I am a very good observer of human nature, and I can see a stiff neck, whether the head on it is liberal, or conservative, or moderate

I would say that it takes one with a stiff neck to repeatedly refuse to acknowledge that the CDW has the authority to specify the manner in which the norm is to be understood for the sake of proper application. How many times must one repeat…?

As the authority by virtue of whose recognitio the norm in question has attained the force of law, this Dicastery is competent to specify the manner in which the norm is to be understood for the sake of a proper application.

---

 

[otm]

bear06: let me try this again, but from a different point.

Most people are not aware of much of the law (either civil or Canon law), and they are generally ignorant of how law is created and changed. It is a complex process, and technical. It has to be followed in its pattern. It is not willy-nilly, with edicts coming down from above with abandon.

Most people are also unaware of the interconnectedness of law; how one part can and will impact another. It frustrates people because to them, some things seem so simple. There’s the law, what’s the fuss about?

The answer is usually, “that is not all of the law”, and it is modified and given meaning by other related laws.

It is like RS; there are some extremely legitimate questions concerning one or two areas of RS; people who don’'t understand law or its application or its hierarchy of structure get really frustrated because there is RS; why isn’t it implemented? And there has been a marked lack of charity about it; questioning of the character and loyalty of bishops, etc.

People want simple answers to complex questions (and always have); but often the answers are complex, and take time to resolve. This leads to tremendous frustration.

There are also cultural issues. In (Western) law there are two general philosophies: the “Northern Europe” or “Germanic” philosophy, of “what is not allowed is forbidden”, and the “Mediteranian”, or “Italian” philosophy of “what is not prohibited is allowed”. These are very different approaches, and much conflict comes when someone of one philosophical approach discusses a law with someone of the opposite approach, neither understanding that the other approaches the law so differently.

The general U.S.attitude/approach is much more Germanic. Rome’s approach is much more Italian. Thus, when we get into what the law says, we approach from a more difinitive, specific attitude; black and white, if you will. Rome’s approach of “that’s fine, that’s fine” runs contrary to our way of dealing with the law, and while Rome promulgates it, the actual implementation is done here, in the U.S. by the Church (the people, with the bishops as our legitimate superiors). The law is arrived at by a back and forth process between the bishops and the CDW. Any attempt by Catholics here to play the “Italian” card is going to run into the fact that culturally, that is not how we play. And any attempt to do so is going to play right into the hands of the liberals, who would remove any authority from Rome and place it here.

The letters you refer to are written from an “Italian” perspective, and not the least helpul as they are being interpreted by some in the U.S. to be a Germanic statement. They aren’t.

For all of the desire to have the CDW’s “interpretation” of what the norm of standing means, the law is specific. The norm in the U.S. is standing; it was arrived at by a long process between the bishops and Rome; it is clear from the plain reading that kneeling is not permitted; Rome clearly understand the process of abrogating or modifying the GIRM; Rome has not done so, and all comments to the contrary are just that. If Rome wanted to make kneeling an option, they would have done so. They didn’t, and the letters are not how law is modified.

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

otm:

The letters you refer to are written from an “Italian” perspective, and not the least helpul as they are being interpreted by some in the U.S. to be a Germanic statement. They aren’t.
.

"…this Dicastery is competent to specify the manner in which the norm is to be understood for the sake of a proper application." ~Capisce?

---

So, what do you think this means, in an “Italian perspective?”

 

[otm]

Panis Angelicas:

Otm, the CDW doesn’t need to alter the GIRM, nor abbrogate norm 160. They have clearly pointed out the spirit in which the norm was to be understood and implemented. There is such thing as the spirit of the law, and the letter of the law.
As a billing and budgeting director, I am sure you’re very attentive to the letter of the law, but in matters of the Faith, the CDW is speaking in terms of the spirit of the law, and is being very specific about its authority to do so. The law doesn’t have to be changed; it simply has to be properly understood! The letters are clarifications, not changes.

I would say that it takes one with a stiff neck to repeatedly refuse to acknowledge that the CDW has the authority to specify the manner in which the norm is to be understood for the sake of proper application. How many times must one repeat…?

As the authority by virtue of whose recognitio the norm in question has attained the force of law, this Dicastery is competent to specify the manner in which the norm is to be understood for the sake of a proper application.

---

Nice try. Sounds like the liberals in “spirit of Vatican 2”. Rome promulgated the GIRM. The essence of what you are saying is that Rome is not smart enough to say that kneeling is an alternative. I think they are a good bit smarter than that. Calling the bishops (and priests) who counsel people who kneel not to kneel as disobedient to Rome (as was suggested in prior posts) is absolute ignorance of the law.

Talking about how the law is to be “understood” is playing the “Mediteranian” card in a “Germanic” world. Open that door and you have just opened the door to every abuse in the Mass by someone who wants to play a game of “interpretation” of the GIRM. Rome can talk all it wants to about its authority to specify the manner in which the GIRM is to be understood, until it trys to talk about “understanding” which flies in the face of the law as it is written. “Understanding” doesn’t include a rewrite of the law. There is a process for that. I have no problem with the “understanding” that it was not an offense punishable by refusal to distribute Communion. I have some serious problems with people who insist that the plain meaning of the GIRM means that the norm is not the norm, or that there is either an indult or option, neither of which have been stated in an official process to modify the GIRM. The letters simply don’t do that, and those who insist that they have a “right” to kneel" are practicing law without a license.

I have no question that the CDW has the authority to change, modify or remove the GIRM. There is, however, a process for that which has not taken place.

A “right to kneel” means that one cannot be counseled. But don’t take may opinion; go ask a Canon lawyer.

 

[Greenscapular]

(Stupid question warning)
Two people at my parish genuflect to receive, on the right knee. Is this what “Kneeling to receive” means? Or are you supposed to actually kneel, on two knees?

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Have you looked at your own neck in a mirror lately?

I’m sorry, but the Vatican has stressed this particular subject too many times, and very, very promptly, to be simply blowing smoke. Are you trying to say that they gave the GIRM the force of law and now want everyone to stand? Or that they gave the GIRM the force of law but wanted ~ even prior to giving it the force of law ~ those who kneel to be protected, and still want them to be protected?

I think that they have been very consistent. Prior to giving the norm the force of law, and afterward, they have been saying the very same thing. Those who kneel are to be protected.

 

[otm]

Panis Angelicas:

I would say that it takes one with a stiff neck to repeatedly refuse to acknowledge that the CDW has the authority to specify the manner in which the norm is to be understood for the sake of proper application. How many times must one repeat…?

As the authority by virtue of whose recognitio the norm in question has attained the force of law, this Dicastery is competent to specify the manner in which the norm is to be understood for the sake of a proper application.

---

I do not refuse to acknowledge that the CDW has the authority to specify in what manner the norm is to be understood, until one insists that the CDW, in an off-hand remark, is making a statement that contradicts the plain meaning of the GIRM. The CDW does not have the authority to abrogate the law by speaking of the “spirit” of the law". There is a process they have to follow, jsut as everyone else has a process they have to follow in implementing it or moving to change it. The inisitence in this thread that kneeling is a right, or is permitted, is simply contradictory to the plain meaning of the GIRM. If the GIRM is wrong, and Rome didn’t mean what they said when they promulgated it, then it should be repealled or moidified in the normal proceedure.

Take a look at the thread about the RS and fractioning. The CDW has authority, but that authority is limited in practice by Canon law and proceedure. It is not unlimited authority. It may well be that the CDW doesn’t like the law. But they promulgated it; and there are proceedures to modify it, should it need modifying. The letters are not that proceedure. What is being insisted upon in this thread, that there is a “right” to kneel in contravention to the plain meaning of the GIRM, is not there in the plain meaning of the norm.

I am not tying to be stiff necked; I am trying to explain how law is created and modified to people who seem to know little of proceedure, and attach to off-handed statements more authority than the statments have. I do find it very frustrating.

 

[otm]

Panis Angelicas:

Have you looked at your own neck in a mirror lately?

I’m sorry, but the Vatican has stressed this particular subject too many times, and very, very promptly, to be simply blowing smoke. Are you trying to say that they gave the GIRM the force of law and now want everyone to stand? Or that they gave the GIRM the force of law but wanted ~ even prior to giving it the force of law ~ those who kneel to be protected, and still want them to be protected?

I think that they have been very consistent. Prior to giving the norm the force of law, and afterward, they have been saying the very same thing. Those who kneel are to be protected.

They are to be protected from priests deciding that a proper sanctions should be refusing them Communion. But those who, in this thread or elsewhere, take that to be a permission to kneel, or an indult, are simply worng. The norm is standing; the GIRM speaks of unity of posture; the GIRM specifically speaks that they are to be “counseled”, and the plain meaning of that is that they are not doing what they should. Being protected from an improper sanction does not equate with permission to do the act.

Let’s try another approach. You were speeding at 24 mph through a school zone marked 20mph. You went to court and the judge took away your license and fined you. You appealed the case, and the Court of Appeals said that the judge could not take away your license for that. Then in the same decision, the Court of Appeals says that they think that 4 miles over the speed limit is within the error factor of the radar, and you should not be fined for driving over the limit and that no one should be fined for driving over the limit by 4 mph.

The Court of Appeals is welcome to have an opinion about the matter, but that does not stop the judge from fining you for being over the speed limit by 4 mph. Their opinion does not change the law, nor does it prove that there was an error factor in the radar; it is up to the legislature to change the law, or you to prove that there was an error factor in the radar. You are still liable for the fine. The Court of Appeals does have authority to say that you cannot lose your license over this; That is an improper sanction. But their opinion that 4 mph is ok flies in the face of the law as it is written; 20 mph.

Yes, I have looked at my neck. It isn’t stiff. I follow the GIRM. It would be nice if everyone else would, too.

 

[otm]

(Stupid question warning)
Two people at my parish genuflect to receive, on the right knee. Is this what “Kneeling to receive” means? Or are you supposed to actually kneel, on two knees?

The GIRM states that the norm for receiving Communion is standing. Not kneeling on one knee. Not kneeling on two knees.

 

[bear06]

I do not refuse to acknowledge that the CDW has the authority to specify in what manner the norm is to be understood, until one insists that the CDW, in an off-hand remark, is making a statement that contradicts the plain meaning of the GIRM.

Off-hand remark? One of these letters is a letter of reprimand from the CDW to a bishop! How do the CDW’s letter in anyway contradict the meaning of the GIRM? The norm is standing. Got that. The CDW doesn’t say that it’s not.

By the way, you keep mentioning the CDW abrogating the law of standing. I don’t believe we said that. They are simply interpreting the the manner in which the norm is to be understood which is well withing their jurisdiction. Sorry it’s not your interpretation.

The CDW’s decision on the manner with which the norm is to be understood is that kneeling is not disobedient, not illicit, completely appropriate. You are simply left with the should be counseled statement which has NEVER been defined. It’s just so funny that you get to make assumptions about the undefined but we see a congregation who gets to make the interpretations clear statements on their belief in the manner and you fault us for it.

I think we can agree that we will not agree on this one. We’re dead horse beating again! I think you fail to see that I agree with you on most points of your argument except the fact that I believe that the letters from the CDW are doing what they say they have a right to do which is to interpret the manner of the application of the law.

 

[Mysty101]

(Stupid question warning)
Two people at my parish genuflect to receive, on the right knee. Is this what “Kneeling to receive” means? Or are you supposed to actually kneel, on two knees?

If you have a strong stomach and lots of time read through this thread. In a nutshell from USCCB site

Clarification on the Proper Posture and Sign of Veneration for Reception of Holy Communion

In recent weeks, the Secretariat for the Liturgy has received several inquiries concerning both the proper posture for and the form of veneration to be made prior to receiving Holy Communion. This issue is directly addressed by the adaptation of number 160 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) approved by the USCCB and confirmed by the Holy
See. That adaptation reads as follows:

The norm for the 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
the proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.

When receiving Holy Communion standing, the communicant bows
his or her head before the sacrament as a gesture of reverence and
receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated
host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand at the
discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received
under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the
Precious Blood.
Posture

It should be noted that the General Instruction o the Roman Missal assigns to Conferences of Bishops the decision as to whether the faithful should stand or kneel at the time of reception of Holy Communion. (no. 43 §2) The Bishops of the United States have decided that the normative posture for receiving Holy Communion should be standing.

Kneeling is not a licit posture for receiving Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States of America unless the bishop of a particular diocese has derogated from this norm in an individual and extraordinary circumstance.

The provision which follows this section is provided for those extraordinary circumstances when a communicant acts in contradiction to the decision of the bishops. Under no circumstances may a person be denied Holy Communion merely because he or she has refused to stand to receive Holy Communion. Rather, in such instances, the priest is obliged to provide additional catechesis so that the communicant might better understand the reason for the Bishops’ decision to choose standing as the normative posture for receiving Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States of America.

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

GreenScapular,

The quote SuZ is using was issued in July of 2002. The Vatican has since admonished the American bishops that those who kneel (or genuflect, for that matter) are not to be accused of being disobedient or of acting illicitly when they bend the knee before their Lord and Savior in the Most Blessed Sacrament.

You see the abbreviation “CDW” which stands for the Vatican’s Congregation of Divine Worship and Discipline in the Sacraments. The “USCCB” stands for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. “GIRM” stands for the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, which is the rule book for the Liturgy.

The bishops asked the Vatican to grant the Church in America a different norm for receiving Holy Communion. The Vatican granted it with the stipulation that those members of the faithful who still choose to kneel to receive Holy Communion are to be “protected from imprudent actions,” then later letters had to be sent reprimanding and reminding and clarifying that the Vatican is still in charge and the Vatican says that those who bend the knee at Communion time are not disobedient nor acting illicitly.

Some folks here refuse to accept that. It isn’t going to change anything. People will still kneel before Jesus when they feel compelled to do so, and the Vatican keeps telling the American bishops that that is completely appropriate.

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

otm:

You appealed the case, and the Court of Appeals said that the judge could not take away your license for that. Then in the same decision, the Court of Appeals says that they think that 4 miles over the speed limit is within the error factor of the radar, and you should not be fined for driving over the limit and that no one should be fined for driving over the limit by 4 mph.

The Court of Appeals is welcome to have an opinion about the matter, but that does not stop the judge from fining you for being over the speed limit by 4 mph. Their opinion does not change the law, nor does it prove that there was an error factor in the radar; it is up to the legislature to change the law, or you to prove that there was an error factor in the radar. You are still liable for the fine. The Court of Appeals does have authority to say that you cannot lose your license over this; That is an improper sanction.

Here is the flaw in your analogy: the Court of Appeals doesn’t give legislation the force of law. The CDW does.
It would be more like taking the case to the Supreme Court, which has the authority to interpret the Constitution…but wait! Even the Supreme Court cannot (or at least should not) legislate. They do, however, have the authority to interpret the Constitution and declare whether or not the law challenged is valid.
Consider the CDW more like the Supreme Court, interpreting it’s own decision and reminding the trial lawyers or politicians that the law that stands is being misinterpreted and applied incorrectly.

 

[Mysty101]

Panis Angelicas:

GreenScapular,

The quote SuZ is using was issued in July of 2002. The Vatican has since admonished the American bishops that those who kneel (or genuflect, for that matter) are not to be accused of being disobedient or of acting illicitly when they bend the knee before their Lord and Savior in the Most Blessed Sacrament.

You see the abbreviation “CDW” which stands for the Vatican’s Congregation of Divine Worship and Discipline in the Sacraments. The “USCCB” stands for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. “GIRM” stands for the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, which is the rule book for the Liturgy.
.

Again we are not certain that the qualification of the GIRM (which is the law) is valid. I am hoping Deacon Ed can help us here.

This is from RS which is the most recent document
**
90. “The faithful should receive Communion kneeling or standing, as the Conference of Bishops will have determined,” with its acts having received the recognitio of the Apostolic See. “However, if they receive Communion standing, it is recommended that they give due reverence before the reception of the Sacrament, as set forth in the same norms.”176

BTW I have always agreed with the compromise situation where the kneeling is allowed if safe provisions can be arranged, but that is really not in the Spirit of cooperation with the Bishops direction. You kneelers do not understand the feelings of those who wish to kneel, but are unable. This is one of the main reasons for the Bishops changing the posture. **

 

[Greenscapular]

I see, but erm–
What I meant, for clarification, was that if one were to kneel to receive, is the proper way on two knees or one, rather?
Thanks,

 

[bear06]

Mysty101:

Again we are not certain that the qualification of the GIRM (which is the law) is valid. I am hoping Deacon Ed can help us here.

This is from RS which is the most recent document
**
BTW I have always agreed with the compromise situation where the kneeling is allowed if safe provisions can be arranged, but that is really not in the Spirit of cooperation with the Bishops direction. You kneelers do not understand the feelings of those who wish to kneel, but are unable. This is one of the main reasons for the Bishops changing the posture. **

I asked Deacon Ed to weigh in here too. I don’t think we are questioning the validity of the law in the GIRM. At least I’m not. I think what we are disagreeing upon is the CDW’s jurisdiction on interpreting the application of the law.

I don’t consider myself a true “kneeler” as you put it but I don’t know of one “kneeler” who has a problem with somebody who can’t kneel. This is silly. This would be like a “stander” having problems with somebody that can’t stand. Where does it say that this is one of the main reasons for the Bishops changing the posture.

 

[Mysty101]

Greenscapular:

I see, but erm–
What I meant, for clarification, was that if one were to kneel to receive, is the proper way on two knees or one, rather?
Thanks,

Talk about too much info

I understood kneeling was by definition both knees, but look at this
**
kneel
verb intr
knelt, kneeled, kneeling

1. To support one’s weight on, or lower oneself onto, one’s knees.
   Thesaurus: genuflect, bend, stoop, curtsy, bow down, fall to one’s knees, bend the knee, do obeisance.
   definition says knees, but genuflect is a synonym

---

genuflect

verb intr
genuflected, genuflecting

1. To bend one’s knee in worship or as a sign of respect. **
   I suppose if you did genuflect and remain on one kneee to receive, that may also be considered kneeling.

PS the catholic encyclopedia opens up the topic of kneeling

**

Genuflection

To genuflect [Lat. *genu flectere, geniculare (post-classic), to bend the knee; Gr. gonu klinein or kamptein expresses:

• an attitude
• a gesture: involving, like prostration, a profession of dependence or helplessness, and therefore very naturally adopted for praying and for worship in general.

“The knee is made flexible by which the offence of the Lord is mitigated, wrath appeased, grace called forth” (St. Ambrose, Hexaem., VI, ix). “By such posture of the body we show forth our humbleness of heart” (Alcuin, De Parasceve). “The bending of the knee is an expression of penitence and sorrow for sins committed” (Rabanus Maurus, De Instit. Cler., II, xli).

**

 

[Mysty101]

bear06:

I asked Deacon Ed to weigh in here too. I don’t think we are questioning the validity of the law in the GIRM. At least I’m not. I think what we are disagreeing upon is the CDW’s jurisdiction on interpreting the application of the law.

I don’t consider myself a true “kneeler” as you put it but I don’t know of one “kneeler” who has a problem with somebody who can’t kneel. This is silly. This would be like a “stander” having problems with somebody that can’t stand. Where does it say that this is one of the main reasons for the Bishops changing the posture.

You totally missed my point. I am talking about how the person who is unable to kneel (but wishes he could) feels when he sees others kneeling.