Reverence vs Rights

[Walking_Home]

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…

---

Yet Rome has stated --full freedom to kneel, are not to be imposed upon, charged with disobedience and/or of acting illicitly. **You **have done just that.

 

[Walking_Home]

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

Oh my.

---

You are — For Rome has more than once clarified the matter. We as
Catholics are to abide by the higher authority (Rome).

 

[ethelzguy]

---

Yet Rome has stated --full freedom to kneel, are not to be imposed upon, charged with disobedience and/or of acting illicitly. **You **have done just that.

Sorry, pal. I didn’t do anything disobedient. I merely pointed out what the GIRM states. You continue to insist that the GIRM is in conflict with Rome.

Funny thing is, it doesn’t matter a flip what you think, does it?..it’s up to the parish priest and the bishop.

cheers

 

[ethelzguy]

---

You are — For Rome has more than once clarified the matter. We as
Catholics are to abide by the higher authority (Rome).

Then why does the GIRM stand, unchanged?

 

[Walking_Home]

Sorry, pal. I didn’t do anything disobedient. I merely pointed out what the GIRM states. You continue to insist that the GIRM is in conflict with Rome.

Funny thing is, it doesn’t matter a flip what you think, does it?..it’s up to the parish priest and the bishop.

cheers

---

It would not matter to one that undermines the hierarchial/authoritative nature of the Church —turning the papacy and the Apostolic See into nothing more than figureheads.

 

[nightwalker]

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.

And this is not to mean that the faithful cannot kneel, are not to be imposed upon, or be told that they are being disobedient or illicit. (per CDW&DS).

So lets all drop the pretenses and see what would this catechesis consist of:

It would contain, obviously, the reasons for the US norm (the dangers of kneeling, the need for unity, the emphasis on procession, logistical concerns). Full catechesis, though would include the fact that the laity are not disobedient to anyone by choosing to kneel, but that also a reminder that it is the internal disposition that matters.

Thus catechized the laity can again, with full knowledge decide whether to continue to kneel.

Of course, if the priest are aware that there are faithful who prefer to kneel (or stand, where kneeling is the norm), this catechesis perhaps should be given to the whole parish. A column in the bulletin or a single paged flyer would suffice.

 

[ethelzguy]

---

It would not matter to one that undermines the hierarchial/authoritative nature of the Church —turning the papacy and the Apostolic See into nothing more than figureheads.

This is starting to sound like SSPX propaganda.

So, now the priests and bishops undermine the nature of the Church, turning the papacy into nothing more than a figurehead, eh?

Pontificate all you like. I’ll hang with the priests and bishops…and their knowledge of the Catholic Church, over yours.

 

[Walking_Home]

This is starting to sound like SSPX propaganda.

So, now the priests and bishops undermine the nature of the Church, turning the papacy into nothing more than a figurehead, eh?

Pontificate all you like. I’ll hang with the priests and bishops…and their knowledge of the Catholic Church, over yours.

---

Well now —seems when you have nothing to offer --you try to turn the tide by bringing in the SSPX. Hey --hang out with who you want —dissent is still dissent – Rome has spoken.

 

[Lee_M]

---

You are — For Rome has more than once clarified the matter. We as
Catholics are to abide by the higher authority (Rome).

Can we please try to debate in a charitable manner before this thread gets closed too. From what I’ve read, there isn’t anyone undermining the Pope. We are just agreeing to disagree.

 

[otjm]

I am not going to blame Ethylz or anyone else, but in general I think it is a gotcha game. People see others define themselves as traditional and then use the GIRM to yell gotcha you are being a cafeteria Catholic and so on.

The problem is kneeling is not prohibited and the Vatican has said so. What else can they use now?

That is not exactly what the Vatican said, and I think you know it. Rome gave permission to the conference of bishops to make a local norm of standing to receive, and the bishops have done so.

Rome also said that the canonical punishment of refusing Communion is not allowed for someone who does not follow the norm; they never said that the norm meant nothing and that each individual could decide for themselves what the norm was or was not. That is why, because the canonical penalty of refusing Communion was being used against those who knelt for Communion, Rome said, in addition to the fact that it could nto be imposed, that rather the person was to “be counseled”.

So it is a norm, but it is a norm that does not carry the canonical penalty of being refused Communion if it is violated.

It never ceases to amaze me that people who are so quick to point out violations of the GIRM or other norms in other instances are so quick to say that this norm is meaningless.

It is either a norm or it isn’t. Last I checked, it was still a norm.

But then, of course, personal feelings of piety must take precedence over norms when desired by one group, but most definitely not when desired by another group.

Last I heard, what was sauce for the goose was supposed to be sauce for the gander, too.

 

[Walking_Home]

Can we please try to debate in a charitable manner before this thread gets closed too. From what I’ve read, there isn’t anyone undermining the Pope. We are just agreeing to disagree.

---

When one ignores the statements from Rome and/or finds ways to argue against Rome’s mind—Yes that is dissent from the highest authority.

 

[Lee_M]

---

When one ignores the statements from Rome and/or finds ways to argue against Rome’s mind—Yes that is dissent from the highest authority.

Then why hasn’t the GIRM been updated? There would be no use of establishing a norm if the norm shouldn’t be followed. I don’t think anyone is arguing against Rome. We’re arguing against your interpretation of Rome. Your accusatory tones of others being heretics is a little far fetched. I believe otjm said it perfectly in post #129.

 

[Walking_Home]

Then why hasn’t the GIRM been updated? There would be no use of establishing a norm if the norm shouldn’t be followed. I don’t think anyone is arguing against Rome. We’re arguing against your interpretation of Rome. Your accusatory tones of others being heretics is a little far fetched. I believe otjm said it perfectly in post #129.

---

Have you not read the letters issued by Rome. Have you not read the explanation by the canon lawyer as to our obligation to follow the higher authority. Rome has the authority to take any section of the GIRM and issue a clarification as to how it is to be applied.

By the way — the Church over-rides otjm.

 

[Walking_Home]

That is not exactly what the Vatican said, and I think you know it. Rome gave permission to the conference of bishops to make a local norm of standing to receive, and the bishops have done so.

**Rome also said that the canonical punishment of refusing Communion is not allowed for someone who does not follow the norm; they never said that the norm meant nothing and that each individual could decide for themselves what the norm was or was not. That is why, because the canonical penalty of refusing Communion was being used against those who knelt for Communion, Rome said, in addition to the fact that it could nto be imposed, that rather the person was to “be counseled”. **

So it is a norm, but it is a norm that does not carry the canonical penalty of being refused Communion if it is violated.

It never ceases to amaze me that people who are so quick to point out violations of the GIRM or other norms in other instances are so quick to say that this norm is meaningless.

It is either a norm or it isn’t. Last I checked, it was still a norm.

But then, of course, personal feelings of piety must take precedence over norms when desired by one group, but most definitely not when desired by another group.

Last I heard, what was sauce for the goose was supposed to be sauce for the gander, too.

---

Please produce an authoritative document where “Rome said” what you are now putting in Rome’s mouth. And no --this does not mean you as your own authority.

 

[otjm]

---

Have you not read the letters issued by Rome. Have you not read the explanation by the canon lawyer as to our obligation to follow the higher authority. Rome has the authority to take any section of the GIRM and issue a clarification as to how it is to be applied.

By the way — the Church over-rides otjm.

No, the Church did not overrule me; I simply stated what the Church said. I have gone round and round on this issue; my statement is directly from the letter. It is the part of the letter everyone ignores, who also chooses to ignore the norm.

Nothing in the letter said there was no norm; nothing in the letter said that an individual has the right to dtermine if the norm is a norm or not; it onloy says that 1) the cononical peanlty of refusing Communion cannot be applied to individuals who do not follow the norm and 2) they are to be counseled.

Anyone who knows anything about law would understand that the letter did not revoke the norm. Anyone who knows anyting about law would understand that the norm is still in place. You might want to actually read the letter; I have numerous times.

 

[otjm]

---

Please produce an authoritative document where “Rome said” what you are now putting in Romes mouth.

You know darn tootin well what I am referring to. I am referring to the letter from the dicastery which put an end to priests refusing Communion to those who chose to ignore the norm of standing, and knelt before the priest for Communion. Don’t get cute.

 

[Walking_Home]

You know darn tootin well what I am referring to. I am referring to the letter from the dicastery which put an end to priests refusing Communion to those who chose to ignore the norm of standing, and knelt before the priest for Communion. Don’t get cute.

Quote=otjm
Rome also said that the canonical punishment of refusing Communion is not allowed for someone who does not follow the norm; they never said that the norm meant nothing and that each individual could decide for themselves what the norm was or was not. That is why, because the canonical penalty of refusing Communion was being used against those who knelt for Communion, Rome said, in addition to the fact that it could nto be imposed, that rather the person was to “be counseled”.

---

Show the letter that has the language you attribute to Rome.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

---

Well now —seems when you have nothing to offer --you try to turn the tide by bringing in the SSPX. Hey --hang out with who you want —dissent is still dissent – Rome has spoken.

I repeat
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 provided proper catechesis, kneels again and has been requested to stand?

(please do not repeat your previous response again)

Lux

 

[nightwalker]

I repeat
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 provided proper catechesis, kneels again and has been requested to stand?

(please do not repeat your previous response again)

Lux

I’ll repeat my original response: While the priest has a right to request that communicants stand, that is the extent. There is no “course of action” to be taken. The communicant is not obliged by law or obedience to stand. The priest is required by law to give communion.

Of course your question assumes that the catechesis spoken of in the GIRM has happened, which is rarely the case.

The GIRM must be understood in light of the clarification by the competent authority (together, not in opposition).

 

[benedictgal]

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

If you were to re-read post #107, you would have your answer. According to the letter, Rome granted the various national episcopal conferences permission to have communicants stand in order to receive Holy Communion so long as those communicants who chose to kneel while they receive Our Lord wouldn’t be denied simply because they were going along with the universal norm.

Even where the Congregation has approved of legislation denoting standing as the posture for Holy Communion, in accordance with the adaptations permitted to the Conferences of Bishops by the Institution Generalis Missalis Romani n. 160, paragraph 2, it has done so with the stipulation that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds.

So, there was a catch to the matter of “standing”, and, that catch was defined by Msgr. Mario Marini in his letter.

Now, just to be clear, from what I can tell, this only speaks to Latin Rite Catholics. This doesn’ t change whatever posture the Easter Rites have for receiving Holy Communion. We have some great folks from the Eastern Rite who post and make valuable contributions, but, becaues the Latin Rite differs from the Eastern Rites, it cannot be a one-size fits all.

As I said, Rome will almost always err on the side of kneeling, not the other way around. That is why, when standing was approved, it had a major string attached to it: kneeling was still a valid posture. Why? It’s universal.