Receiving Communion

[Vico]

Vico, you keep citing the GIRM on the issue of unity in posture, but, even at that point, the CDWDS has repeatedly said that it should not be done to the point of rigidity insofar as kneeling is concerned. Even the prefects (past and present) have made this point. Rome has already stated time and time again that kneeling is a licit and legitimate posture. In fact, Rome made that very clear when granting the adaptation to the United States for standing, making it conditional and contingent on respecting the right of the faithful to kneel in order to receive.

I am happy that you agree with at least two points.

The CDWDS has said repeatedly that communion should not be denied to kneelers, and that kneelers should be pastorally corrected; they approved the norm of standing.

 

[ConstantineTG]

angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=33375

This is just a heads up.

You are being watched and critiqued!

Wow, I feel special
And they also make the same pressumption that they are smarter than Michelle

 

[ConstantineTG]

But, the CDWDS did not even go so far as to requiring that those faithful who chose to kneel have to be “forced” to “obey” their pastors in this regard. My pastor can explain to me the reasoning behind the standing posture, but, he cannot force the issue on me if the Holy See has already guaranteed my right to kneel. With all due respect, you were the one who said that you did not support disobedience. But, your line of thought still accuses people of being disobedient even when the Holy See itself does not use that language and is, in fact, telling the USCCB not to make that accusation either.

The highlight is mine. I think thats where the disconnect is. The Holy See did not guarantee any right to kneel. All they did was protect those who kneel from being denied Communion. There is a difference. Guaranteeing a right means you can do it as a right without penalty. What the Holy See has done is just protect you from penalty without guaranteeing it as a right. They did not overturn the USCCB. It would have been simple enough that they can just change the letter of the law in the RS and remove the clause that gives the Bishop’s Conference the authority to dictate posture. But since they didn’t it means that is not their intention to dictate what the Bishops’ Conference can or cannot impose.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Not so and we have a Cardinal Arinze video to clearly tell us that.

I think you’re missing the legalistic side of things. Since there are written laws in force, that takes presedence over any video. Just like Obama’s presidential speeches doesn’t and cannot replace any Federal Law. It has to be enacted and signed to carry a force. Same with our Church.

 

[MarkThompson]

angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=33375

This is just a heads up.

You are being watched and critiqued!

Thanks for the tip! I can’t imagine any better indication that I’m on the right path than drawing the ire of the remnanteers, geocentrists, and assorted Hutton Gibson types over there.

 

[MarkThompson]

I think you’re missing the legalistic side of things. Since there are written laws in force, that takes presedence over any video. Just like Obama’s presidential speeches doesn’t and cannot replace any Federal Law. It has to be enacted and signed to carry a force. Same with our Church.

You’re saying liturgical law is not trumped by off-the-cuff YouTube interviews?

 

[HCC]

Answer: Demand the Extraordinary Form of Holy Mass in your parish.

 

[MarkThompson]

Answer: Demand the Extraordinary Form of Holy Mass in your parish.

I think “request” would be a better way to put it, but by golly, you’re right.

 

[suko]

Since there are written laws in force, that takes presedence over any video.

I agree that this part is true. However, I think it’s important to remember that only the Holy See can properly interpret what they really mean in their own documents. In their 3 letters in regards to kneeling, (though I may not agree with her interpretation), I can see how one would come to the conclusion that Michelle Arnold came to.

In the Cardinal Arinze videos, I think he clarifies this issue to a certain extent, unfortunately, one in which not everyone is fully satisfied with. I do wish he would have mentioned about the “pastoral” part, though my interpretation of it is that he may have just ignored it or threw it aside because he wanted to make it clear to everyone that it was ok to kneel, and for us to stop being so “rigid” in our postures when we have licit options to choose according to our devotion.

This is like an argument over Bible verses, when in reality only the CDWDS can properly and competently interpret what they really mean in their documents.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I agree that this part is true. However, I think it’s important to remember that only the Holy See can properly interpret what they really mean in their own documents. In their 3 letters in regards to kneeling, (though I may not agree with her interpretation), I can see how one would come to the conclusion that Michelle Arnold came to.

In the Cardinal Arinze videos, I think he clarifies this issue to a certain extent, unfortunately, one in which not everyone is fully satisfied with. I do wish he would have mentioned about the “pastoral” part, though my interpretation of it is that he may have just ignored it or threw it aside because he wanted to make it clear to everyone that it was ok to kneel, and for us to stop being so “rigid” in our postures when we have licit options to choose according to our devotion.

This is like an argument over Bible verses, when in reality only the CDWDS can properly and competently interpret what they really mean in their documents.

True, Bro. JR said that in a statement in another thread. Let me quote it:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6994146&postcount=892

It is the bishop’s job to decide the proper level of catechesis or to whom he delegates. We must also remember that even when the bishop bishop delegates as he must, since he can’t do it all by himself, there is no guarrantee that the people who volunteer to help with catechesis have a strong command of every aspect of theology. They do the best they can.

I have seen people on these threads who have read every document out since the Letters of Paul comment incorrectly on these documents. Some people don’t understand the difference between the written word and the intent of the writer. Others don’t bother asking what the intent was. Many don’t want to know. They find a quote that they like and they flaunt it like a banner.

What I"m trying to say is that just because people read Church documents does not mean that they are trained to interpret them or apply them. I’m afraid that we have a large group of good people reading Church documents using the same mindset as the Protestants use with the Bible. They’ll hit you over the head with “It says in Chapter III, Article 4, parragraph 5 that A, B. C.” Well yeah, that’s what it says. But do you know why it says that or what it means or when it applies? I’m not speaking to you personally. I’m using the universal “you”. Other people who read documents do not know the difference between a commentary and a mandate. They’ll read that the pope likes the Steelers and interpret that as a mandate for all Catholics to like the Steelers.

Knowing how to read these documents is as important as reading them. The two go hand in hand.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Also, with all due respect to Cardinal Arinze and the Pope, they have the authority to make changes to the law if they so wish. So if their intention is to simply “protect the right of those who want to kneel,” they can simply change, rewrite or annotate the RS and remove that clause that gives the Bishops’ Conference the authority to choose the posture for receiving Communion. The fact that they didn’t, or haven’t so far, is because that is not their intention to supersede the authority of the local Bishops over this issue. They can’t tell the Bishops that they can choose between two postures, then after the Bishops have chosen they go back to the same Bishops and tell them that they also have to allow the other that they have not chosen. Doesn’t make sense.

 

[ConstantineTG]

@Mark

I found something from a blog post. Not sure how accurate this is but its dated somehwhat, regarding the Canadian GIRM. It writes:

paramedicgoldengirl.blogspot.com/2007/02/girm-what-girm.html

Tuesday, February 13, 2007
GIRM - What GIRM?

Canada doesn’t follow the GIRM. How is it that we have been allowed to skate along all these years with no official document to guide us in matters pertaining to the liturgy?

Today, I asked my priest that very question. He said the cultural differences between the French and English speaking bishops, as well as the differences of opinions between the liberal and traditional bishops have been a stumbling block to the acceptance of the GIRM.

Apparently, rather than just obeying Rome and abiding by the GIRM, the CCCB submitted a list of requested indults for liturgical approval. Some of the requests were for inclusive language (no surprise there), and others were for additional Eucharistic prayers. The list is long, and I will have a complete copy of it next week.

We all know the Vatican doesn’t move at lightening speed. The US is already on their second revision to the GIRM. Canada is still waiting for the Vatican to approve or reject the indults. In the meantime, says my priest, we are to follow what each Diocesan bishop lays down in matters of the Liturgy. Right or wrong, we are to follow his lead.

It gives an awful lot of leeway to the liberals, don’t you think?

Assuming that blog post is correct (granted that I cannot find a Canadian GIRM, I’m likely to believe the post), then it means we would have to default to the universal clauses of the GIRM. Which means that if I receive Communion standing (which I do), then I should show a gesture of reverence. Since there is no prescription in Canada, I’m free to genuflect as I wish!

:extrahappy: cartwheels :extrahappy:

clarification: the cartwheels are for now, not during Communion

edit: and given the above fact that there is currently no published prescription from the Bishops, then people are indeed free to stand or kneel in Canada.

 

[MarkThompson]

@Mark

I found something from a blog post. Not sure how accurate this is but its dated somehwhat, regarding the Canadian GIRM. It writes:

paramedicgoldengirl.blogspot.com/2007/02/girm-what-girm.html

Assuming that blog post is correct (granted that I cannot find a Canadian GIRM, I’m likely to believe the post), then it means we would have to default to the universal clauses of the GIRM. Which means that if I receive Communion standing (which I do), then I should show a gesture of reverence. Since there is no prescription in Canada, I’m free to genuflect as I wish!

:extrahappy: cartwheels :extrahappy:

clarification: the cartwheels are for now, not during Communion

edit: and given the above fact that there is currently no published prescription from the Bishops, then people are indeed free to stand or kneel in Canada.

Interesting. My knowledge of canon law is insufficient to judge (and, for all I know, possibly canon law itself does not cover the situation) whether in the absence of an approved conferencewide norm under GIRM 160 each bishop has the authority, as part of his ordinary and immediate power within his diocese, to decide whether the norm will be standing or kneeling, what the sign of reverence will be, etc.; and in the absence of a specific directive from the diocesan bishop, whether a pastor can make those determination within his parish. I would suspect so, if forced to guess. Like the blog you quoted says, I would have speculated that you “are to follow what each Diocesan bishop lays down in matters of the Liturgy.” So you might save the cartwheels until you know that your bishop hasn’t prescribed norms like America’s.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Interesting. My knowledge of canon law is insufficient to judge (and, for all I know, possibly canon law itself does not cover the situation) whether in the absence of an approved conferencewide norm under GIRM 160 each bishop has the authority, as part of his ordinary and immediate power within his diocese, to decide whether the norm will be standing or kneeling, what the sign of reverence will be, etc.; and in the absence of a specific directive from the diocesan bishop, whether a pastor can make those determination within his parish. I would suspect so, if forced to guess. Like the blog you quoted says, I would have speculated that you “are to follow what each Diocesan bishop lays down in matters of the Liturgy.” So you might save the cartwheels until you know that your bishop hasn’t prescribed norms like America’s.

I’ve emailed the Liturgical Commission of our Diocese and they still haven’t responded. I’m dropping by the Parish Office tomorrow and I’ll have them email them as well, perhaps a faster response from the Parish Office? We’ll see.

 

[MarkThompson]

I’ve emailed the Liturgical Commission of our Diocese and they still haven’t responded. I’m dropping by the Parish Office tomorrow and I’ll have them email them as well, perhaps a faster response from the Parish Office? We’ll see.

Good, I’ll be interested to hear what they say!

 

[ConstantineTG]

Good, I’ll be interested to hear what they say!

I’m attending Catechist’s training this Saturday, maybe the instructor would know. I’m going to ask as well

 

[ProVobis]

You are being watched and critiqued!

Thanks. It’s very noticeable when you google for something and you find the CA forum on the first page of hits.

 

[benedictgal]

The highlight is mine. I think thats where the disconnect is. The Holy See did not guarantee any right to kneel. All they did was protect those who kneel from being denied Communion. There is a difference. Guaranteeing a right means you can do it as a right without penalty. What the Holy See has done is just protect you from penalty without guaranteeing it as a right. They did not overturn the USCCB. It would have been simple enough that they can just change the letter of the law in the RS and remove the clause that gives the Bishop’s Conference the authority to dictate posture. But since they didn’t it means that is not their intention to dictate what the Bishops’ Conference can or cannot impose.

ConstantineTG, with all due respect, what you may not understand is the fact that while standing is the norm granted to the USCCB by the CDWDS, it was made on the condition that kneeling would also have to be accepted. The fact that the CDWDS was inundated (and is still inundated) with letters from the faithful themselves regarding this issue indicates that apparently, this legitimate option is still not being honored. The CDWDS, which is a higher authority than the national episcopal conference, has already stated and re-stated the legitimacy of kneeling to receive Holy Communion.

Even if you were to ask the chancery, the bishop cannot overturn nor overrule what the CDWDS has already stated is licit. If that were the case, then the faithful would have every right to appeal to the CDWDS if a bishop ruled that they could not receive Holy Communion kneeling.

 

[zab]

angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=33375

This is just a heads up.

You are being watched and critiqued!

Thanks for the heads up. It is one thing to disagree with Michelle Arnold or anyone here at Catholic Answers. It is another thing to accuse one of “thumbing their nose at Rome”. Anyone can be mistaken or not kept up or forgotten the latest response from Rome on a particular issue. But their inaccurate response does not mean that they are disregarding what the CDWDS has said.

 

[ConstantineTG]

ConstantineTG, with all due respect, what you may not understand is the fact that while standing is the norm granted to the USCCB by the CDWDS, it was made on the condition that kneeling would also have to be accepted. The fact that the CDWDS was inundated (and is still inundated) with letters from the faithful themselves regarding this issue indicates that apparently, this legitimate option is still not being honored. The CDWDS, which is a higher authority than the national episcopal conference, has already stated and re-stated the legitimacy of kneeling to receive Holy Communion.

Even if you were to ask the chancery, the bishop cannot overturn nor overrule what the CDWDS has already stated is licit. If that were the case, then the faithful would have every right to appeal to the CDWDS if a bishop ruled that they could not receive Holy Communion kneeling.

If the condition was for kneeling to be accepted, why the clause that says those who kneel would need to be addressed pastorally? If its to be accepted, why not just let them be?

 

[benedictgal]

If the condition was for kneeling to be accepted, why the clause that says those who kneel would need to be addressed pastorally? If its to be accepted, why not just let them be?

The CDWDS did not insert that clause; the USCCB did. Here is the text of what the CDWDS told the USCCB when it granted the recognitio for the American adaptation:

This Dicastery agrees in principle to the insertion into n. 160 of a statement, as apparently desired by the Bishops, that Holy Communion in the United States of America is normally received standing. At the same time, the tenor of not a few letters received from the faithful in various Dioceses of that country leads the Congregation, even after a very careful consideration of such data, to urge the Conference to introduce a clause that would protect those faithful who will inevitably be led by their own sensibilities to kneel from imprudent action by priests, deacons or lay ministers in particular, or from being refused Holy Communion for such a reason as happens on occasion.

The CDWDS said nothing about an “instruction” clause. The clause the CDWDS referenced was to protect those faithful who choose to kneel.