Its not always the case. Its the law that would decide. Yes, the Pope can change the law but unless he does then the law that is currently in force is the one that is followed. The Pope cannot violate his own law. And the current law says that its the Conference of Bishops that decides if its kneeling or standing.The CDWDS, acting in and with the authority of the Holy Father, has pretty much the final say in this. They have ruled that kneeling is not ilicit and that the faithful who choose this legitimate option are not disobedient. They have pretty much settled the matter.
ConstantineTG, the CDWDS has already stated on several occasions that kneeling is licit. Remember, the recognitio was granted to the USCCB for standing, but, it was made contingent on the conference also recognizing the legitimacy of kneeling. With all due respect, that is the point that you are still not seeing. The USCCB is the lower authority; the CDWDS is the higher authority and the authority with the power to interpret the documents and statements that it issues. The CDWDS has consistently noted that kneeling is not ilicit nor are the faithful who do this acting in disobedience.Its not always the case. Its the law that would decide. Yes, the Pope can change the law but unless he does then the law that is currently in force is the one that is followed. The Pope cannot violate his own law. And the current law says that its the Conference of Bishops that decides if its kneeling or standing.
Personally, George, I agree with you. In fact, I’d be happy if our bishops determined that kneeling was to be the norm.The Bishops should take take a cue from the Pope when he allowed for wider use of the Tridentine Mass. The Bishops could simply make clear that anyone who receives Communion has the option to either stand or kneel and the both are valid. So when it is my turn to receive Communion allow me to kneel, and if the person behind me prefers to stand when it is their turn to receive Communion let them stand. This would close this issue and allow us all some peace on this issue.
However, in my opinion, there is a very important distinction that, as I read your last paragraph, is missing. The CDWDS has consistently stated that the faithful who choose to kneel are not to be called disobedient nor are they to be accused of acting ilicitly. Inasmuch as you recognize this in your first sentence, this also should apply to the last paragraph. Thus, if I kneel to receive Holy Communion, I am not disobeying the sacred Pastors, nor am I acting ilicitly. The CDWDS has made that quite clear. Should my pastor or my parochial vicar “catechize me”, neither of them could force me to receive standing.MarkThompson, you are saying that the presbyters are not to say to the kneelers that it is illicit or disobedient, but that it is illicit due to the norm being particular law.
It seems easy to know from the norm what the pastor should do. The norm seems to be written to them in particular, not to the faithful. The presbyters have the responsibility to accurately adhere to the liturgy and to provide pastoral care, and to make the declarations and prescriptions known.
As to the faithful, they are bound to obedience to the sacred Pastors declarations and prescriptions. And the Pastors instruction is: stand for communion, but should you kneel, you may only receive catechis on the norm and be unimpeded.
That is pretty strong language, in my opinion.Priests should understand that the Congregation will regard future complaints of this nature with great seriousness, and if they are verified, it intends to seek disciplinary action consonant with the gravity of the pastoral abuse.
That’s partly what I’m saying. In fact, though, we ought to look closely at what the CDWDS (you might call it, WTDCDWDSRS). Msgr. Perl explained that “the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion.” They should not be accused when they kneel. When should they not be accused? When they kneel. It is not a blanket statement that people should not be accused of disobedience if they kneel – rather, read narrowly as any document interpreting or modifying law ought to be, it is a statement that the moment when someone is kneeling to receive their Lord is not the right time to start leveling recriminations.MarkThompson, you are saying that the presbyters are not to say to the kneelers that it is illicit or disobedient, but that it is illicit due to the norm being particular law.
It seems easy to know from the norm what the pastor should do. The norm seems to be written to them in particular, not to the faithful. The presbyters have the responsibility to accurately adhere to the liturgy and to provide pastoral care, and to make the declarations and prescriptions known.
As to the faithful, they are bound to obedience to the sacred Pastors declarations and prescriptions. And the Pastors instruction is: stand for communion, but should you kneel, you may only receive catechis on the norm and be unimpeded.
There is no higher or lower authority if the law explicitly states who’s authority it is to declare something. Again, unless the law is change, the Bishops are the higher authority here unless they break the law and therefore subject to discipline by the Vatican. But the Pope or CDWDS cannot just impose on an authority that the Pope didn’t reserve to himself in the first place.ConstantineTG, the CDWDS has already stated on several occasions that kneeling is licit. Remember, the recognitio was granted to the USCCB for standing, but, it was made contingent on the conference also recognizing the legitimacy of kneeling. With all due respect, that is the point that you are still not seeing. The USCCB is the lower authority; the CDWDS is the higher authority and the authority with the power to interpret the documents and statements that it issues. The CDWDS has consistently noted that kneeling is not ilicit nor are the faithful who do this acting in disobedience.
If the CDWDS has not placed this burden/label on the faithful, who are we to do so? The USCCB does not have the authority to overrule and override what the CDWDS has written. A local bishop cannot overrule nor override an authoritative statement/document from the CDWDS.
It is strong language! The pastors have a restriction placed on them, but also a right to inform of the norm, which was the original understanding when the recognito of the standing norm was given. I believe that the USCCB hope that the faithful will adopt standing for the sake of uniformity, for they cannot be compelled to do so, because it would violate the rights of the faithful.However, in my opinion, there is a very important distinction that, as I read your last paragraph, is missing. The CDWDS has consistently stated that the faithful who choose to kneel are not to be called disobedient nor are they to be accused of acting ilicitly. Inasmuch as you recognize this in your first sentence, this also should apply to the last paragraph. Thus, if I kneel to receive Holy Communion, I am not disobeying the sacred Pastors, nor am I acting ilicitly. The CDWDS has made that quite clear. Should my pastor or my parochial vicar “catechize me”, neither of them could force me to receive standing.
As for the priests, the CDWDS did use quite strong language about their refusal to deny Holy Communion to those who kneel. In fact, the Congregation went to far as to say that:
“Priests should understand that the Congregation will regard future complaints of this nature with great seriousness, and if they are verified, it intends to seek disciplinary action consonant with the gravity of the pastoral abuse.”
That is pretty strong language, in my opinion.
Pope Benedict has requested, among other things, that kneelers be provided for the receiving of Holy Communion. This is still the universal norm [edited]Its not always the case. Its the law that would decide. Yes, the Pope can change the law but unless he does then the law that is currently in force is the one that is followed. The Pope cannot violate his own law. And the current law says that its the Conference of Bishops that decides if its kneeling or standing.
I discussed Father Z’s post a page or two back. In short: “norm” does not mean “a description of general custom,” as he takes it.Father Zuhlsdorf, after checking with a canon lawyer posts this on his blog:
The “novelty” is thinking that we have the right to disregard, of our own volition and purely because on our own motives, the liturgical norms established by competent canonical authorities. I’m sure that there were plenty of people who wanted to continue singing all the beautiful, theologically rich sequences that were stripped from the Mass at Trent after standing for 500 or 700 years, but the real novelty was not Trent’s changing of the Mass, it would have been people’s thinking they could disregard the Pian missal.Yet, the debate continues. This is the danger of breaking away from universal tradition to regional options. This is why there are thousands of Protestant denominations. The Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. We are suppose to be consistent in our beliefs and practices originating from the Chair of Peter, Christ’s representative on Earth. Deviating from that authority puts us into messes like this. The purpose of The Church is to get us to Heaven. The safe path is to follow The Church and not be tempted by whimsical novelties originating from dubious origins.
What is confusing to me is that in 1967, the (CDWDS) established that the posture of either kneeling or standing should be chosen as the norm by the conference of bishops. What seemed of importance was that a unified posture be chosen but apparently the Sacred Congregation of Rites (now the CDWDS) did not stress that the preferred posture should be kneeling rather than standing. So I don’t know how Fr. Z can blame the U.S. bishops for choosing the norm when that was the task that was given to them. Any “dubious origins” did not originate with the U.S. bishops.Father Zuhlsdorf, after checking with a canon lawyer posts this on his blog:
"What the U.S. bishops did in including this norm, with the approval of the Holy See, is state that the normal manner of receiving Holy Communion, in the United States, is standing. The usual way… it is customary now.
The addition of the second statement (communicants “should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel”) shows that the norm is not some sort of enforceable law.
The situation is to be addressed “pastorally”, with explanations, catechesis, etc. Once people have been provided with this, if they chose to continue to kneel they are not being disobedient. They do not do something illicit. They have chosen to follow a practice that differs from the norm. That does not violate a law.
…]
It is not proper to accuse someone who kneels of being disobedient. "
wdtprs.com/blog/
Yet, the debate continues. This is the danger of breaking away from universal tradition to regional options. This is why there are thousands of Protestant denominations. The Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. We are suppose to be consistent in our beliefs and practices originating from the Chair of Peter, Christ’s representative on Earth. Deviating from that authority puts us into messes like this. The purpose of The Church is to get us to Heaven. The safe path is to follow The Church and not be tempted by whimsical novelties originating from dubious origins.
They were clear about choosing one or the other posture, in Eucharisticum Mysterium, published 25 May 1967:What is confusing to me is that in 1967, the (CDWDS) established that the posture of either kneeling or standing should be chosen as the norm by the conference of bishops. What seemed of importance was that a unified posture be chosen but apparently the Sacred Congregation of Rites (now the CDWDS) did not stress that the preferred posture should be kneeling rather than standing. So I don’t know how Fr. Z can blame the U.S. bishops for choosing the norm when that was the task that was given to them. Any “dubious origins” did not originate with the U.S. bishops.
Now, regarding choosing the “customary norm”. Standing became customary when communion rails were removed thus making it difficult for many people, especially older people to get down and up and keep the line moveing. The fault of the U.S. bishops was that it took 35 years to choose a norm. But they did choose a norm in 2002. As I understand it, we should be using a unified posture. So while the CDWDS warns us that the norm should not be so rigidly held that Communion be denied to those who kneel or even to call them disobedient or as such, neither should anyone hold those who follow the norm in any less esteem because they are doing what the church directs them to do.
The point that I was trying to make was that the bishops were supposed to decide whether to stand or to kneel- one or the other- not an either or option. Why were they given a choice if one of those choices was not a valid choice? Were they told that one choice was preferred over the other? So now that they have made the choice that they were supposed to make decades ago, why is there rebellion about the choice that they made as if their choice was not a valid one? This is what is confusing to me.They were clear about choosing one or the other posture, in Eucharisticum Mysterium, published 25 May 1967:
"34. The Way of Receiving Communion
a) In accordance with the custom of the Church, Communion may be received by the faithful either kneeling or standing. One or the other way is to be chosen, according to the decision of the episcopal conference, bearing in mind all the circumstances, above all the number of the faithful and the arrangement of the churches. The faithful should willingly adopt the method indicated by their pastors, so that Communion may truly be a sign of the brotherly union of all those who share in the same table of the Lord.
b) When the faithful communicate kneeling, no other sign of reverence toward the Blessed Sacrament is required, since kneeling is itself a sign of adoration.
When they receive Communion standing, it is strongly recommended that, coming up in procession, they should make a sign of reverence before receiving the Blessed Sacrament. This should be done at the right time and place, so that the order of people going to and from Communion may not be disrupted."
Also the normal general posture in Mass is standing, just like the priest, although sitting during the preparation of the gifts (priest stands) and the homily (priest may sit also), and kneeling at the consecration. Notice that if the US had not adapted for the kneeling exception after the Agnus Dei (GIRM 2002), the assembly sould stand till the end of Mass, with an option to sit during the communion silence.
Yes, I see. They were to decide on one or the other, and finally did, and both were valid options. They were informed that the most important criterea in making the decison was “above all the number of the faithful and the arrangement of the churches”.The point that I was trying to make was that the bishops were supposed to decide whether to stand or to kneel- one or the other- not an either or option. Why were they given a choice if one of those choices was not a valid choice? Were they told that one choice was preferred over the other? So now that they have made the choice that they were supposed to make decades ago, why is there rebellion about the choice that they made as if their choice was not a valid one? This is what is confusing to me.
The CDWDS seems to be sending mixed messages to the people. They seem to be saying that it is OK to disregard the valid directives set by the bishop. I honestly don’t think that this is the message that they intend to send. I believe that the CDWDS wants people to follow the valid directives set by their bishop but understands that this directive rigidly set would do more harm than good.Yes, I see. They were to decide on one or the other, and finally did, and both were valid options. They were informed that the most important criterea in making the decison was “above all the number of the faithful and the arrangement of the churches”.
If the priests had not prohibited the kneelers from receiving, I think there would have been less complaining. But, I am unsuprised that, for personal reasons, some oppose norms.
Don’t get confused, They are not saying that. Denying Communion is a serious matter, so they want to clear that up that not following the prescription of the Bishops for proper posture is not a serious enough matter that people should be denied Communion. My former pastor even once stated that he cannot give Communion to someone who doesn’t say Amen before receiving. While what he said made sense, its still not proper for him or his EMHCs to deny anyone Communion as Canon Law is very clear on who are those to be denied Communion.The CDWDS seems to be sending mixed messages to the people. They seem to be saying that it is OK to disregard the valid directives set by the bishop. I honestly don’t think that this is the message that they intend to send. I believe that the CDWDS wants people to follow the valid directives set by their bishop but understands that this directive rigidly set would do more harm than good.