Reverence vs Rights

[benedictgal]

Did I ever say that the communicant didn’t have the right? I stated that it can be dangerous if someone is kneeling without an altar rail or kneeler? In tiny churches like mine, it would present a hazard to others. If an elderly person tripped and fell over the communicant, it can seriously injure the elderly person. No one said a communicant didn’t have the right to kneel. That has been established. However, it is not the NORM here in the U.S. I know it is the norm in other places, but it is NOT the norm here. It can cause confusion and can be dangerous and that is a valid argument.

Repeat, I’ll say it again. I’m not against kneeling. If someone wishes to kneel, by all means go for it and I’m not going to judge them either way. However, I believe in obedience to my bishop and my pastor. If they requested that I follow the norms of the missal, then I would respect their wishes especially if it was a safety issue. Just because a person has a right to do something, it doesn’t always make it the best option. People have the right to not be charitable to others, but it wouldn’t be the best choice to make.

But, those who choose to kneel are not disobedient. Rome has clarified this on numerous occasions. Furthermore, “norm” is not a legal term in this case, as japhy clarified in a post either in this thread or something similar. Kneeling is universal. Furthermore, when it involves kneeling, Rome is, more than likely, going to be supportive of that posture.

 

[PKinsale]

OK newsflash–LuxT is female, and Miss Manners reminds us that it is rude to refrain from usung someone’s name.

And CP (current poster) may ignore this thread.

Lux

Lux: Sorry about that! I forgot Lux was a feminine noun!

 

[Lee_M]

Woa, lack of reverence for bishops and priests? You mean why do so many lack reverence for the authority of Rome to interpret the law?

Rome has said how the GIRM is to be interpreted.

Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.

So I guess this sentence above was just thrown in the GIRM for filler. Is your interpretation of this sentence that it doesn’t mean anything? The GIRM for the United States was written in English. How many interpretations can there be?

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Woa, lack of reverence for bishops and priests? You mean why do so many lack reverence for the authority of Rome to interpret the law?

Rome has said how the GIRM is to be interpreted.

Yes, but another point to consider is that the same Rome has also approved US adaptations “anything previous not withstanding” after said interpretations were sent.

Also, since the date of the last letter, there have been many reports of requests to stand, but no reports of any action taken.

Again, my question is what is the best course of action, once a kneeling communicant has been requested to stand?

Lux

 

[EasterJoy]

EasterJoy…just two little things:

Rome has said that the faithful have a right, and that document has been posted in full.

…the bishop (or the conference) does not have the authority to forbid that which a higher authority permits.

I totally agree with you. I just wasn’t sure on the point of what had and had not been declared a right of the faithful.

Yes, but another point to consider is that the same Rome has also approved US adaptations “anything previous not withstanding” after said interpretations were sent.

Also, since the date of the last letter, there have been many reports of requests to stand, but no reports of any action taken.

Again, my question is what is the best course of action, once a kneeling communicant has been requested to stand?

Lux

The “best” course of action is theirs to discern. They are within their rights to reply, as quietly as practically possible, “With all due respect, I am within my rights, Father. Please do not try to deny me this.” They might also decide to comply with his request and have a talk about it later. It is a pastoral moment between them and the priest, and how to handle it is up to them.

I would hope that in real time no one involved would make this a bigger problem than it needs to be, for surely continuing the conversation beyond that is far more awkward than if somebody, anybody, just decides to give in. Heaven forbid that either side or anyone standing by try to make this into a…oh, I can’t think of a nice way to put it. (Let’s say that the most ready metaphor involves the idea of a “contest”…Heaven FORBID!!)

 

[PKinsale]

So I guess this sentence above was just thrown in the GIRM for filler. Is your interpretation of this sentence that it doesn’t mean anything? The GIRM for the United States was written in English. How many interpretations can there be?

Lee, this is a very fair and legitimate question to ask. Unfortunately, the proper authorities to answer it do not read this forum.

 

[Walking_Home]

The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another. The norm for 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 proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.

Kinda puts the whole argument to bed, no? :coffeeread:

---

The section below puts the above to bed. The act of “providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm” — is in itself an imposition on a person. Furthermore – it interferes with a person’s full freedom to kneel.

As was stated prior by a canon lawyer-- when two authorities are at odds —We are obligated to follow the higher authority–this being Rome.

adoremus.org/0403HolySeeResponds.html

Prot. n. 47/03/L

Rome, February 26, 2003

This Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has received your letter dated December 1, 2002, related to the application of the norms approved by the Conference of Bishops of the United States of America, with the subsequent recognitio of this Congregation, as regards the question of the posture for receiving Holy Communion.

To this end, it is perhaps useful to respond to your inquiry by repeating the content of a letter that the Congregation recently addressed to a Bishop in the United States of America from whose Diocese a number of pertinent letters had been received. The letter states: “…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**”.

This Dicastery hopes that the citation given here will provide an adequate answer to your letter. At the same time, please be assured that the Congregation remains ready to be of assistance if you should need to contact it again.

With every prayerful good wish, I am

Sincerely yours in Christ,
[signed]
Mons. Mario Marini
Undersecretary

 

[ethelzguy]

But, those who choose to kneel are not disobedient. Rome has clarified this on numerous occasions. Furthermore, “norm” is not a legal term in this case, as japhy clarified in a post either in this thread or something similar. Kneeling is universal. Furthermore, when it involves kneeling, Rome is, more than likely, going to be supportive of that posture.

How do you reconcile your position with 160 of the GIRM?

 

[ethelzguy]

---

The section below puts the above to bed. The act of “providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm” — is in itself an imposition on a person.

So, the GIRM is to be ignored when it suits someone’s agenda?

Or, better…we can dispense with “proper catechesis” when it presents an imposition on a person?

Guess we don’t have to worry about “abuses” any more.

 

[Badaliyyah]

…The act of “providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm” — is in itself an imposition on a person…

that’s what you got out of that?!? catechesis is an imposition?? i find it hard to believe that that can possibly be a right understanding of catechesis.

salaam

 

[Aramis]

Has anyone ever witnessed or been personally involved in a situation where someone knelt in the Communion procession and someone else tripped over them?

Yes. Only once. OF mass. Most (almost all, in fact) stood to receive. One man knelt, and someone going past (there were 4 priests distributing) tripped over his toes.

No injuries.

 

[ethelzguy]

that’s what you got out of that?!? catechesis is an imposition?? i find it hard to believe that that can possibly be a right understanding of catechesis.

salaam

You gotta love these traditionalist arguments that chase themselves in circles.

 

[benedictgal]

You gotta love these traditionalist arguments that chase themselves in circles.

I wouldn’t call it that. In fact, it’s the other side that has been less than charitable in these threads. The main issue is that Rome has already given her ruling on the matter. The case should be closed, since we already have a letter from the CDWDS that resnoundlingly states that kneeling is a valid posture.

 

[Badaliyyah]

You gotta love these traditionalist arguments that chase themselves in circles.

I feel like the dinner guest sitting at the table during a family squabble. It is a little awkward, but I can’t get up and leave…it is too fascinating.

I still don’t get why, if everything is set up for standing, people don’t stand. And if everything is set up for kneeling, people don’t kneel. It seems so easy.

 

[Walking_Home]

So, the GIRM is to be ignored when it suits someone’s agenda?

Or, better…we can dispense with “proper catechesis” when it presents an imposition on a person?

Guess we don’t have to worry about “abuses” any more.

---

Roll your eyes as much as you want. Threads like this serve to show how much dissent is being promoted against the authority of the Pope and the Apostolic See. So keep going down the path you and others are on. For the more you speak – the more it will show how you undermine the hierarchical/authoritative nature of the Church.

 

[Brendan]

So, the GIRM is to be ignored when it suits someone’s agenda?

Of course, not, but, under Canon 16-2, the ONLY authority that can authentically interpret the GIRM is the legislator itself, in this case, the CDWDS.

So that means that you cannot officially interprete the GIRM, a pastor cannot, neither can the Bishop.

All of us, you, me , a priest or the bishop, must defer to the interpretations of the GIRM that are issued by the CDWDS.

So yes, a priest CAN give catechisis, but such catechesis cannot include any consideration of the person being disobedient, acting illicitly or impose on the person in any way.

Or, better…we can dispense with “proper catechesis” when it presents an imposition on a person?

If the priest does not feel able to deliver the catechesis in a way that does not impose on the person, they yes, they may dispense with it.

 

[ethelzguy]

Threads like this serve to show how much dissent is being promoted against the authority of the Pope and the Apostolic See.

So now, according to you, the GIRM “promotes dissent against the authority of the Pope and the Apostolic See”?

Oh my.

 

[ethelzguy]

So yes, a priest CAN give catechisis, but such catechesis cannot include any consideration of the person being disobedient, acting illicitly or impose on the person in any way.

The norm for 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 proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm. (I HATE cut-and-paste debate)

Looks to me like the priest is OBLIGATED to provide proper catechesis on the reasons for the norm.

So, if someone is provided “proper catechesis” after insisting on kneeling, and they continue to insist on kneeling…seems that they would be willfully rejecting said catechesis.

OR, you are saying that the GIRM is WRONG, which would be hilarious, as it is used on so many other posts and threads as an authoriative source…

 

[Walking_Home]

So now, according to you, the GIRM “promotes dissent against the authority of the Pope and the Apostolic See”?

Oh my.

---

The CDWDS has clarified as to how the GIRM is to be understood. It is those who take it upon themselves to continually ignore the statements from the CDWDS --that promote dissent against the hierarchial/authoritative nature of the Church. Again --as per a canonist --when two authorities disagree --We are obligated to follow the highest authority–being Rome.

So go ahead–continue down a path that promotes dissent from the Pope and the Apostolic See.

 

[ethelzguy]

So go ahead–continue down a path that promotes dissent from the Pope and the Apostolic See.

The GIRM says what it says. You claim the GIRM to be in conflict with the Pope.

We can do this dance all night.

Bottom line, (getting back to the thread topic) for whatever case you can make for your “right” to kneel, it is clearly “against the grain” in the US, per the GIRM…so what is the point, other than to make a scene and bring attention to ones self?

The wife and I could also come to Sunday Mass dressed in formal wear…tux, evening dress, the works…only the best for God, ya know…and be totally justified in doing so.

But the point would be what, other than to bring attention to the fact that I dressed better than you did for Mass?