M
MarkThompson
Guest
Great find, Constantine.
- Status
P
ProVobis
Guest
According to Cardinal Arinze, when the bishops wanted standing, Vatican responded “alright, approved on condition…” Also, standing and CITH fall into the same provisions.
youtube.com/watch?v=Ap1KL2D5ae4
P
ProVobis
Guest
Presuming she’s right when she says (and this does seem to be against what Cardinal Arinze says):
“Kneeling for Communion is not a standard posture for reception of Communion, except at those liturgies at which it is expected for all communicants (such as the extraordinary form of the Roman liturgy).”
can’t one claim that if a communion rail is present, then the standard at that particular parish should be kneeling, whether it’s OF or EF? Isn’t kneeling what’s expected at a communion rail?
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
The RS gave the Bishops that authority to choose a posture. It was not the Bishops who asked for it. It was their right by law.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Some Eastern Rites share a church building with a Latin Rite parish. If the parish have a communion rail, do we expect them to kneel?
The Liturgy would dictate the posture, not the architecture of the church.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I will take Cardinal Arinze’s word on the matter. Sorry.
S
SimonDodd
Guest
This is a matter within the Church’s disciplinary authority, is it not, rather than her teaching authority (i.e. magisterium)?
V
Vico
Guest
Regarding authority, there was a change to the norms in 2004 that was included in Redemptionis Sacramentum regarding the pouring the Precious Blood and the use of flagons, that illustrates how changes are made to a law.
Cardinal Arinze responded (Prot. n. 660/04/L) to Cardinal George that:
(1) “a provision of complementary legislation, once granted recognitio, may not simply be revised…,” yet
(2) “an Instruction may develop the manner in which a law is to be put into effect (cf. can. 34 §1)…,” and
(4) “the effect of Redemptionis Sacramentum, nos. 105-106 was to render inoperative certain elements contained in nos. 36-37 of the Norms since a presumption upon which the complementary norm has been based could no longer be maintained as being in accord with the ius commune.”
usccb.org/liturgy/q&a/chalice.shtml
Now on the issue of kneeling communion, there was no revising instruction for the US GIRM contained in the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, since the US GIRM 160 already contained the RS item 91 of not denying communion because a communicant kneels.
Cardinal Arinze responded (Prot. n. 660/04/L) to Cardinal George that:
(1) “a provision of complementary legislation, once granted recognitio, may not simply be revised…,” yet
(2) “an Instruction may develop the manner in which a law is to be put into effect (cf. can. 34 §1)…,” and
(4) “the effect of Redemptionis Sacramentum, nos. 105-106 was to render inoperative certain elements contained in nos. 36-37 of the Norms since a presumption upon which the complementary norm has been based could no longer be maintained as being in accord with the ius commune.”
usccb.org/liturgy/q&a/chalice.shtml
Now on the issue of kneeling communion, there was no revising instruction for the US GIRM contained in the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, since the US GIRM 160 already contained the RS item 91 of not denying communion because a communicant kneels.
P
ProVobis
Guest
And the Magisterium can’t discipline? I have no source for that.
S
suko
Guest
Looking at #3 of the above-mentioned link it says:
*Is the prohibition against pouring the Precious Blood likely to change?
No. 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.*
Unless I’m interpreting this wrong, it sounds like the Congregation is empowered to change any decision, if need be, substantially, from a bishops conference to conform with the RS, and as Vico pointed out, that’s probably why their was no revision, so-to-speak on GIRM 160 (since part of it was already contained within the RS), but more of a re-emphasis that “kneelers” are very much “free” to do so (without fear of accusation) as Cardinal Arinze explained, and anywhere in the world (though my guess is that he means Latin rite masses).
M
MarkThompson
Guest
Despite my normal deep respect for Cardinal Arinze’s views, what he says here is, indeed, at little strange. He remarks:
But it says, it continues, “If they receive Holy Communion standing, it is recommended that they give due reverence before the reception of the Sacrament, as set forth in the same norms.” So if they receive standing, they can make a goo… a deep bow, before receiving. Some can genuflect, it is really free, provided you don’t make yourself a nuisance for those near you.
But he is quoting a part of the editio typica (original Latin version) of GIRM 160 which was deleted and superseded within the United States by the paragraph proposed by our bishops and approved by the Holy See. More importantly, it is not “really free.” The GIRM paragraph he quoted says that you make a sign of reverence “as set forth in the same norms (from the Bishops’ Conference).” It does not say, “It is recommended that people do whatever they feel like.” Even so, that portion was deleted from the U.S. GIRM, which states in its place, “When receiving Holy Communion, 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.” What part of that could anyone understand to mean “you can bow, you can genuflect, it is really free, as long as you’re not a nuisance”?
I wonder how people would take it if the U.S. bishops proposed a specific instruction, which was granted recognitio by the Holy See, that said, “During the Our Father, each worshiper keeps his hands clasped in front of him in prayer.” Would anyone in a million years dream of saying, “What that means is, you keep your hands clasped in prayer, or in the orans position, or hold hands with your pals; it is really free, as long as you don’t make a nuisance of yourself”?
Obviously not, of course. Instead, we’d be reading from the same Catholics who today insist that “bow” means “bow, genuflect, or whatever,” book-length dissertations about the condemned orans and handholding postures and how our noble bishops had at last utterly anathematized them.
S
SimonDodd
Guest
Right. Obviously the Church has (and exercises) the power to teach and the power to discipline her members. But these functions are distinct. Ex vi termini, the magisterium is the term applied to the teaching authority of the Church. The church disciplines and sets rules of disciple in its capacity as the government based on what the Church qua governor receives from the Church qua teacher; thus, the magisterium tells us that abortion is wrong, but it is the office of the Church as governor to discipline her members who obtain one. That is why, for example, John Paul II’s Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is important: it situates the question of ordaining women in the unchanging magisterium rather than the changable disciplinary authority where questions like priestly celibacy reside. The Church has (and acts in) more than one capacity, and it seems to me that there is a tendency to collapse all it does officially into a single bundle and label it “magisterium,” something which sorts ill with both the history and etymology of the word.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Here’s an article on Tradition and the Living Magisterium if you’re interested:
newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm
C
CallistusPM
Guest
25Aug.:St.Louis IX, KC
With all due respect, this thread is bogged down and going nowhere. Everything has been said that needs to be said. It has now become moot.
For those who can remember, prior to the Vatican II Council, all RC churches of the Roman Rite had rails and everyone physically able knelt to receive . . . PERIOD! End of discussion!
CallistusPM
With all due respect, this thread is bogged down and going nowhere. Everything has been said that needs to be said. It has now become moot.
For those who can remember, prior to the Vatican II Council, all RC churches of the Roman Rite had rails and everyone physically able knelt to receive . . . PERIOD! End of discussion!
CallistusPM
P
ProVobis
Guest
Bring back the rails. Gives you time to reflect.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
More from Michelle Arnold → forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6991164#post6991164
(highlights in red are mine)
Thank you for phrasing your concern and question so kindly. Not everyone has. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify.
When there is a question that Catholic Answers’ staff apologists have fielded before in this forum (example), we don’t always include quotes and links to documentation, believing that if inquirers want more information that a search on our site will yield it. That is why this particular Q&A merely stated the Church’s discipline but did not include links. In retrospect, that was a mistake on my part.
The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (2002) states:
At no point though has the Vatican contradicted the GIRM it approved for use in the United States and stated that it is okay for communicants to kneel at ordinary form liturgies. All the Vatican has said is that Communion cannot be withheld from those who do kneel inappropriately. There is a difference between saying that a person who kneels inappropriately should not have Communion withheld from him and saying that it is okay for him to kneel in the first place. That is why I stated that:
Michelle Arnold:
(highlights in red are mine)
Thank you for phrasing your concern and question so kindly. Not everyone has. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify.
When there is a question that Catholic Answers’ staff apologists have fielded before in this forum (example), we don’t always include quotes and links to documentation, believing that if inquirers want more information that a search on our site will yield it. That is why this particular Q&A merely stated the Church’s discipline but did not include links. In retrospect, that was a mistake on my part.
The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (2002) states:
The clear instruction of this rubric is that the expected posture for communicants at ordinary form liturgies is to stand. It also states that Communion should not be denied to those who kneel. The CDW reiterated that in the documents you provided in your question.
At no point though has the Vatican contradicted the GIRM it approved for use in the United States and stated that it is okay for communicants to kneel at ordinary form liturgies. All the Vatican has said is that Communion cannot be withheld from those who do kneel inappropriately. There is a difference between saying that a person who kneels inappropriately should not have Communion withheld from him and saying that it is okay for him to kneel in the first place. That is why I stated that:
Michelle Arnold:
While I sympathize with those who want to kneel out of reverence for their Lord in the Eucharist, I can only explain what the Church instructs and not give personal opinion that contradicts Church discipline. Perhaps the Church eventually will allow communicants to choose whether or not to kneel to receive Communion, as it allows a choice for reception of Communion in those areas where there is a dispensation to receive it in the hand. **In the meantime though, true reverence for the Lord should include obedience to the authoritative discipline of the Church and the just direction of priests who act in persona Christi. **
B
benedictgal
Guest
However, inasmuch as I respect Ms. Arnold, her response is not consistent with the CDWDS in this case. We need to see what the highest authority states and, in this case, whether you chose to admit this or not, the CDWDS has already issued its ruling.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
She actually already explain there is no contradiction. Thats the first highlight in red that I made. And its what me, Mark and a few others have been saying all along.
B
benedictgal
Guest
But, with all due respect, what y’all are still not getting is this important fact:
Thus, it is important to stress that the adaptation approved on the condition that those who knelt would not be denied Holy Communion and not be accused of disobedience or acting ilicitly. Thus, kneeling is a licit posture to receive Holy Communion. Unfortunately, with all due respect, the fact that the CDWDS has repeatedly upheld this has been lost on not a few people here.
In the interest of fair and complete disclosure, I receive Holy Communion on the tongue while standing. However, when I go to Mass at the local monastery, I kneel to receive Holy Communion. I do make sure that I am the last one receiving.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
Thanks for posting that. The money quote is really:
There is a difference between saying that a person who kneels inappropriately should not have Communion withheld from him and saying that it is okay for him to kneel in the first place.
That’s a point some of us have been trying to make all along, to little avail. There are some people who want to believe that if your priest cannot withhold Communion and lambaste you for disobedience, it means you are not being disobedient and that the CDWDS has overruled the U.S. GIRM. To the contrary: the CDWDS has repeatedly stated that the U.S. GIRM has the force of law. The directives that Communion not be withheld and that correction be done pastorally rather than by accusations merely restate and in fact amplify what is already in our GIRM. There is no contradiction; rather, affirmation.
The whole rest of this discussion reminds me of a kid whose father tells her to be back home by 9 PM:
“Dad, if I come back later, are you gonna spank me or ground me?”
“I guess not; I’ll just be disappointed in you and we’ll have to have a talk about what kind of behavior is expected in this house.”
“So then you’re saying I can stay out past nine!”
:banghead:
- Status