O
otjm
Guest
General Instruction of the Roman Missal with adaptions for the US, note 160. The language that those who kneel are to be counseled came from the dicastery.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Quote=otjmGeneral Instruction of the Roman Missal with adaptions for the US, note 160. The language that those who kneel are to be counseled came from the dicastery.
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”.
riginally Posted by otjm View Post
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.
Again --post the letter with the language you are putting in Rome’s mouth. And again --you cannot be your own authority.
L
Lee_M
Guest
Yes, I’ve read the letters. Yes, I know that communicants cannot be denied communion. Yes, I read that if communicants decide to kneel, that they are not to be treated as being disobedient or illicit. However I’ve read canonists comment that if a priest who is in a small church request for communicants to stand for reasons of safety of parishoners, that communicants should oblige to the request of the priest. Will they be denied communion? No. But they are still going against the norm.
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.
By the way - I know the Church over-rides otjm. But I didn’t know that the Vatican made you their liason to us here on the forum.
L
Lux_et_Tenebrae
Guest
which is standing or kneeling as the boshop’s conference instructsIf 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.
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.
Lux
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Yes, I’ve read the letters. Yes, I know that communicants cannot be denied communion. Yes, I read that if communicants decide to kneel, that they are not to be treated as being disobedient or illicit. However I’ve read canonists comment that if a priest who is in a small church request for communicants to stand for reasons of safety of parishoners, that communicants should oblige to the request of the priest. Will they be denied communion? No. But they are still going against the norm.
By the way - I know the Church over-rides otjm. But I didn’t know that the Vatican made you their liason to us here on the forum.
As per the highest authority --one who kneels is not going against the norm --for Rome has clarified the GIRM.
As to me being a liason --I post documents/letters that the Church provides to keep her people informed. You and others may not be “happy” about it—but I am thankful to God and our Church that She is not keeping people in the dark.
L
Lee_M
Guest
They are still going against the norm in the United States. Rome has clarified that they are not to be treated as disobedient.
As per the highest authority --one who kneels is not going against the norm --for Rome has clarified the GIRM.
B
benedictgal
Guest
But, Lux, you miss that very crucial interpretation from the CDWDS that notes:which is standing or kneeling as the boshop’s conference instructs
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.
Lux
In your OP, you noted that you are not against kneeling. Yet, you keep bringing up the same arguments. You say that you aren’t against this posture, yet, you keep implying that there is something wrong with folks who exercise this legitimate 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.
With all due respect, there seems to be a deeper issue than just discussing this subject ad naseum, since the Holy See has emphatically addressed this issue and has clarified the point rather resoundingly. Why would you keep bringing up this argument otherwise?
The documents from the CDWDS, the Congregation that is the final (and higher) authority on the matter have addressed this matter clearly. What part of that do you not understand? What further light do you need on the subject?
No one has to interpret what the Holy See has said. It is pretty self-explanitory.
B
benedictgal
Guest
That is the biggest contradictory statement. These people are not disobedient. They are exercising their right to use a valid posture, one that is even in the Latin version of the GIRM, the version from which all others are translated.They are still going against the norm in the United States. Rome has clarified that they are not to be treated as disobedient.
Rome gave its recogitio allowing the individual national episcopal conferences to adopt standing as a posture for receiving Holy Communion so long as they don’t disallow kneeling. Now, why would Rome do that? It is because kneeling is universal. Standing is the one that requires recogntio. Msgr. Mario Marini clarified that in his letter to the person who filed the original complaint.
In fact, the Holy See told the local Ordinary of the affected diocese that he is to
How much more stronger language do you want than that? In fact, this was re-affirmed in Redemptionis Sacramentum, without the stipulation that the party kneeling had to be catechised. RS came out in 2004, two years after the English translation of the GIRM with the USCCB adaptations took effect.firmly instruct him and any other priests who may have had such a practice to refrain from acting thus in the future. 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.
Rome is very clear on the subject.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
They are still going against the norm in the United States. ** Rome has clarified that they are not to be treated as disobedient.**
Now why would that be–that one who kneels cannot be charged with disobedience, acting illicitly, or be imposed upon. Could it be–that Rome --the highest authority --does not consider the person to be “going against the norm” in the U.S. Now do you still want to charge them with “going against the norm” --when the Church Herself has not.
L
Lee_M
Guest
Why is it that the GIRM requests that the communicant be catechised on why standing is the norm? Why doesn’t the GIRM say, standing or kneeling is the norm? This will be my last post on this topic because I feel like everyone is repeating themselves including myself. Again, if kneeling to recieve the Blessed Sacrament became the “norm” for the U.S. tomorrow, I would welcome it wholeheartedly.
Now why would that be–that one who kneels cannot be charged with disobedience, acting illicitly, or be imposed upon. Could it be–that Rome --the highest authority --does not consider the person to be “going against the norm” in the U.S. Now do you still want to charge them with “going against the norm” --when the Church Herself has not.
B
benedictgal
Guest
Of course, you didn’t take into account RS, which came out in 2004, two years after the English version of the GIRM was released.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.
Lux
RS notes that:
There is no reference to “catechizing” the faithful if they choose one posture over the other.91.] In distributing Holy Communion it is to be remembered that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who seek them in a reasonable manner, are rightly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them”.177 Hence any baptized Catholic who is not prevented by law must be admitted to Holy Communion. Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.
Furthermore, in 2003, the same Msgr. Marini who wrote the 2002 letter concering the reception of Holy Communion while the communicant is kneeling wrote:
As the authority by virtue of whose recognitio the norm in question has attained the force of law, this Dicastery is competent to specify the manner in which the norm is to be understood for the sake of a proper application. Having received more than a few letters regarding this matter from different locations in the United States of America, the Congregation wishes to ensure that its position on the matter is clear.
Therefore, to say that the issue hadn’t been brought up since 2002 is a misstatement because it popped up a year later. And, this was after the GIRM took effect.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”.
Also note that the Congregation granted the recognitio to the norm to stand. Recognitio isn’t granted to something that is already in place; rather, it is granted to something new. Thus, kneeling is the universal norm, while standing is the one that requires the recognitio (permission).
L
Lux_et_Tenebrae
Guest
I didn’t miss anything, but you continue to ignore the fact thatBut, Lux, you miss that very crucial interpretation from the CDWDS that notes:
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.
Kneeling is NOT a legitimate norm in the US. Why can’t you understand this? Those who wish to kneel have been permitted to ignore the norm, but the norm is to stand.In your OP, you noted that you are not against kneeling. Yet, you keep bringing up the same arguments. You say that you aren’t against this posture, yet, you keep implying that there is something wrong with folks who exercise this legitimate norm.
Why don’t you check the posts before making uncharitable remarks? Read my OP, and note where the thread went off topic.With all due respect, there seems to be a deeper issue than just discussing this subject ad naseum, since the Holy See has emphatically addressed this issue and has clarified the point rather resoundingly. Why would you keep bringing up this argument otherwise?
US adaptations approved after the letter, and nothing about the letter qualifying the normsThe documents from the CDWDS, the Congregation that is the final (and higher) authority on the matter have addressed this matter clearly. What part of that do you not understand? What further light do you need on the subject?
Again, I’m waiting for something after the approved norms.No one has to interpret what the Holy See has said. It is pretty self-explanitory.
But again this is not my question—I am asking what is the best choice in a difficult situation.
Lux
S
Spirithound
Guest
I still don’t understand these logistics. In our Communion lines, one Minister of Communion, or EMHC, is in front of one line of people. Unless you’re taller than the person in front of you, you’re not looking at the Blessed Sacrament, because you can’t see Him. You see the back of someone’s head. Next, if someone is in front of your face, and then suddenly not, is the impulse really “Oh my gosh, I need to step forward, NOW” ? Finally, the cadence of our lines is really kind of “Step. Pause. Step. Pause.” There’s no continuous movement, you’re still for at least 5-7 sec at a time. How could you trip?No, it’s just unexpected. Have you ever had a child come to a dead halt in front of you when you’re moving forward in the communion line? I have, and were it not for being able to grab onto a pew I would have fallen on top of said child.
B
benedictgal
Guest
Lux, my asking if there was a deeper issue wasn’t uncharitable. It is my suspicion that there is becasue you keep bringing the subject up. With all due respect, Lux, it’s the same song, but a different verse.I didn’t miss anything, but you continue to ignore the fact 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.
Kneeling is NOT a legitimate norm in the US. Why can’t you understand this? Those who wish to kneel have been permitted to ignore the norm, but the norm is to stand.
Why don’t you check the posts before making uncharitable remarks? Read my OP, and note where the thread went off topic.
US adaptations approved after the letter, and nothing about the letter qualifying the norms
Again, I’m waiting for something after the approved norms.
But again this is not my question—I am asking what is the best choice in a difficult situation.
Lux
Please show me where kneeling is not legitimate, if it is, in fact, a universal norm. So, if the Holy Father returns to the United States, celebrates Mass and then ask that his communicants kneel to receive Holy Cmmunion, you are then claiming that he is breaking the norm when kneeling is universal.
Furthermore, look at the dates. The second letter from Msgr. Marini came in 2003, a year after the English version of the GIRM with the USCCB adaptaions received its canonical approval. The canonical approval came in November 2002.
The fact of the matter remains that if the communicant wishes to kneel, that is his right, guaranteed and affirmed by Rome. There are no ifs ands or buts about it. You are the one who keeps bringing up the issue, even though Rome has already addressed it, not once, but three times, twice in letters and once again, and definitively, in Redemptionis Sacramentum.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
That is the biggest contradictory statement. These people are not disobedient. They are exercising their right to use a valid posture, one that is even in the Latin version of the GIRM, the version from which all others are translated.
Rome gave its recogitio allowing the individual national episcopal conferences to adopt standing as a posture for receiving Holy Communion so long as they don’t disallow kneeling. Now, why would Rome do that? It is because kneeling is universal. Standing is the one that requires recogntio. Msgr. Mario Marini clarified that in his letter to the person who filed the original complaint.
In fact, the Holy See told the local Ordinary of the affected diocese that he is to
How much more stronger language do you want than that? In fact, this was re-affirmed in Redemptionis Sacramentum,** without the stipulation that the party kneeling had to be catechised. RS came out in 2004, two years after the English translation of the GIRM with the USCCB adaptations took effect**.
Rome is very clear on the subject.
Good catch benedictgal. RS–2004 carries the clarification without the stipulation to “catechised”. Omitting the stipulation is directly in line with the mind of the Church–allowing the full freedom the Church gives to kneel. And as is obvious --this authoritative document was issued 2 years after the GIRM.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Lux, my asking if there was a deeper issue wasn’t uncharitable. It is my suspicion that there is becasue you keep bringing the subject up.
Please show me where kneeling is not legitimate, if it is, in fact, a universal norm. So, if the Holy Father returns to the United States, celebrates Mass and then ask that his communicants kneel to receive Holy Cmmunion, you are then claiming that he is breaking the norm when kneeling is universal.
Furthermore, look at the dates. The second letter from Msgr. Marini came in 2003, a year after the English version of the GIRM with the USCCB adaptaions received its canonical approval. The canonical approval came in November 2002.
The fact of the matter remains that if the communicant wishes to kneel, that is his right, guaranteed and affirmed by Rome. There are no ifs ands or buts about it. You are the one who keeps bringing up the issue, even though Rome has already addressed it.
Yes–Rome issued that letter in 2003—after the GIRM.
L
Lux_et_Tenebrae
Guest
I neversaid it wasn’t legit—just that it is not the norm.Please show me where kneeling is not legitimate, if it is, in fact, a universal norm.
You were shown the UN is what the conference instructs, but you continue to ignore this with no documentation to the contrary.
And for the last time—check the posts to determine who went off topic.
Lux
B
benedictgal
Guest
Lux, that is what you said. Kneeling is not a legitimate norm in the U.S. That is not true. Kneeling is legitimate because it is a universal norm.Kneeling is NOT a legitimate norm in the US.
Lux
The fact of the matter remains that there is no need for soul-searching as to whether or not a person has the right to show reverence when receiving Holy Communion be that kneeling or bowing. The fact is that Rome has protected this right. Rome is the prevailing authority.
Yes, she granted the USCCB the necessary recognitio, but, with the stipulation that they must note that kneeling is still legitimate. Furthermore, the recogition came while the GIRM was being worked on, and, it came with that very large string attached.
B
benedictgal
Guest
I’ve re-read your OP. The problem with your premise is that you are making the issue contingent on how many communicants wish to receive Holy Communion while kneeling.
Sorry, Lux, but, Rome doesn’t even make that stipulation. It could be 1 or 1,000,001. The number doesn’t matter. The communicant has the right to receive Holy Communion while kneeling. It is not up to the priest to grant that provision. Rome has already indicated that this is legitimate and it is the communicant’s right.
Sorry, Lux, but, Rome doesn’t even make that stipulation. It could be 1 or 1,000,001. The number doesn’t matter. The communicant has the right to receive Holy Communion while kneeling. It is not up to the priest to grant that provision. Rome has already indicated that this is legitimate and it is the communicant’s right.
L
Lux_et_Tenebrae
Guest
Your are confused—wasn’t it you who gave all that double talk that norms were not “laws”? Kneelers were given permission to ignore the norm, but the norm is standing.Lux, that is what you said. Kneeling is not a legitimate norm in the U.S. That is not true. Kneeling is legitimate because it is a universal norm.
The fact of the matter remains that there is no need for soul-searching as to whether or not a person has the right to show reverence when receiving Holy Communion be that kneeling or bowing. The fact is that Rome has protected this right. Rome is the prevailing authority.
Yes, she granted the USCCB the necessary recognitio, but, with the stipulation that they must note that kneeling is still legitimate. Furthermore, the recogition came while the GIRM was being worked on, and, it came with that very large string attached.
And I checked, it was you who went off-topic.
And for the last time please document your claim for the Universal norm. You have been shown many times that you are wrong.
Lux
- Status
- Not open for further replies.