L
- Status
B
benedictgal
Guest
No, Lux. This is actually germaine to the discussion. Your OP puts limits and stipulations, something that Rome doesn’t do. As I said, you could have 1 or 1,000,001. The numbers don’t matter. To even suggest that this should be done if the number of communicants who want to use this posture is preposterous, especially since Rome doesn’t even make that statement.
Just because you don’t agree with it that is not to say that the Church agrree with you. She doesn’t stipulate that it has to be a lot of communicants. One is sufficient. She will defend that posture for one as she will 1,000,001. Re-read the letters from Rome and RS. The number of communicants is not even a point in that discussion. The fact that one person would be denied communion if he chooses to kneel is enough grounds for Rome to intervene. Your statement squarely goes against what Rome has said and continues to say.
Furthermore, regarding the universality of the norm for kneeling, in order to change the norm for your ecclesial territory, you need to get the necessary recognitio from Rome. Because kneeling is universal, you don’t need to have the recognitio. That is the part that you do not understand.
The question I asked you regarding a deeper issue is also relevent. You say on on the one hand that you aren’t against kneeling. However, the tenor of your posts and your suggestion to make kneeling contingent on the number of communicants who wish to do so goes squarely against what Rome has declared.
Furthermore, something that you seem to forget is that with standing comes the added stipuation that the communicant needs to show reverence before receiving Our Lord. No such stipulation exists for the communicant who kneels because kneeling is the posture for reverence.
The fact of the matter is that Rome has declared the point moot. Kneeling is legitimate and the priest cannot deny a person communion simply because he chooses that posture. That is not even his call to make. If he denies the communicant Holy Communion, then, there are stiff sanctions.
L
Lux_et_Tenebrae
Guest
Please try to get back to topic
I never denied the right.
Lux
I never denied the right.
For those of you who have trouble understanding the topic, I am asking what is to be done in a difficult situation, after the communicant has been counseled, kneels again, and is instructed by the priest to stand.
Lux
B
benedictgal
Guest
This is your OP, is it not? You are the one putting numerical stipulations on the communicant, are you not?
In this instance, the priest doesn’t have the right to deny someone Holy Communion or mandate that they stand if Rome has ratified and re-affirmed this very important principle.
Please read, once again, what the CDWDS has said on the subject:
That is what you are proposing that the priest do, impose upon the faithful. Furthermore, the fact that people have been complaining about this warranted Rome’s intervention.
I dare say that if you wrote to the CDWDS with your proposal, they would refere once again to the previous letters and explain to you that your line of thinking goes against what the Congregation has ruled. Considering the fact that Fransic Cardinal Arinze is the current Prefect of said congregation, and his secretary is a very astute and solid archbishop, the answer will be to re-affirm the posture of kneeling.
L
Lux_et_Tenebrae
Guest
B
benedictgal
Guest
But, you are the one imposing numerical restrictions, are you not?
Furthermore, just because the priest has explained the reasons for the norm, that does not bind the communicant from not kneeling to receive Holy Communion. Just as the priest has explained the reasons for standing, the communicant is well within his right to explain his reasons for kneeling.
Furthermore, RS, which came after the GIRM for the US received its canonical approval, does not carry any stipulations for catechesis regarding standing. It simply says that one cannot be denied Holy Communion simply because he kneels (or stands).
I would also submit to you that the other comments were very much on topic. Again, you are the one making a stipulation that not even Rome will make.
There is no need for further soul-searching. Rome has spoken quite clearly on the matter. In fact, if the priest does deny Holy Communion to a communicant who chooses to receive Our Lord kneeling, there will be some stiff penalties.
That is why I ask you, and, this is a legitimate question, is there some underlying issue at work here? In every thread regarding the issue of kneeling, you say, on the one hand, that you aren’t against it, but, on the other hand, in your other comments, you seem to come down on the folks who do choose to kneel to the point that you want to impose numerical restrictions. That is, after all, what your OP says.
In addition, according to your OP, the priest would make provisions. What provisions? It doesn’t take someone with a doctorate in theology to figure out that Rome has already laid out the provisions. The priest needs to administer Holy Communion to the communicant whether or not he is kneeling or standing. End of story. What is there to figure out about that? Nothing.
L
Lux_et_Tenebrae
Guest
You really are frustrating.
OK What does the communicant do?
OK What does the communicant do?
B
benedictgal
Guest
The communicant has the right to receive Holy Communion either kneeling or standing. Given the fact that this issue was also addressed to the president of the USCCB, the bishops already know what the answer from Rome will be if a communicant in their diocese is denied Holy Communion simply because he chooses to kneel (or stand). In fact, each bishop should have a copy of RS where that is noted.
Furthermore, Rome indicated that she will be monitoring the situation very carefully.
If the priest tells the communicant the reasoning behind the standing posture, the communicant has the right to explain his reasonings as to why he is kneeling. But, the priest cannot deny Holy Communion to the communicant if he continues to kneel.
As I said, if Rome hasn’t placed a stipulation on the numbers, why should you, or, anyone else, for that matter?
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Just to add to what you have stated — for those who may not be aware —RS-2004 was specifically mandated by our late Pope John Paul II.
RS-2004
In order that especially in the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy the Church might duly safeguard so great a mystery in our own time as well, the Supreme Pontiff has mandated that this Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments,[8] in collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, should prepare this Instruction treating of certain matters pertaining to the discipline of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Those things found in this Instruction are therefore to be read in the continuity with the above-mentioned Encyclical Letter, Ecclesia de Eucharistia.
B
Badaliyyah
Guest
It seems pretty clear that it is desirable for the communicant to stand. If they don’t stand, the priest is instructed to provide them catechesis on the importance of the norm. It also seems pretty clear that Rome is saying that if the communicant does not stand, the priest must provide communion and cannot discipline the person. Someone who stubbornly refuses instruction must still be communed. At that point the priest has no choice but to let them go their own individual way, and certainly has no way of compelling them to stand when they are kneeling there in front of him while others are waiting in line. Commune the person and move on.
This is a classic situation of economia (at least from the stand point of this easterner). You are allowing someone to adopt an idiosyncratic posture because they are clearly extremely convinced that it is more reverent and very important and cannot be convinced otherwise. As a matter of economia, one grants them communion. There is nothing wrong with their action (there is not an issue of morality at stake here), even if they are not practicing what is considered the norm. One allows the practice so that they might avoid greater spiritual harm (i.e., not receiving the Eucharist).
(I find the language of rights that is being invoked in the conversation a little…misguided, but clearly what is at stake here is a recognition on the part of the Church that certain individuals are demonstrating a great spiritual need, that denying them this might cause them harm. This recognition of possible harm is where the language of rights is being invoked I believe. The idea of economia and the needs and desires of the individuals involved actually seems to provide a better category. Rights, by their nature, suggest a conflictual relationship between the parties. Economia places it within a relationship of charity and pastoral concern.)
salaam.
This is a classic situation of economia (at least from the stand point of this easterner). You are allowing someone to adopt an idiosyncratic posture because they are clearly extremely convinced that it is more reverent and very important and cannot be convinced otherwise. As a matter of economia, one grants them communion. There is nothing wrong with their action (there is not an issue of morality at stake here), even if they are not practicing what is considered the norm. One allows the practice so that they might avoid greater spiritual harm (i.e., not receiving the Eucharist).
(I find the language of rights that is being invoked in the conversation a little…misguided, but clearly what is at stake here is a recognition on the part of the Church that certain individuals are demonstrating a great spiritual need, that denying them this might cause them harm. This recognition of possible harm is where the language of rights is being invoked I believe. The idea of economia and the needs and desires of the individuals involved actually seems to provide a better category. Rights, by their nature, suggest a conflictual relationship between the parties. Economia places it within a relationship of charity and pastoral concern.)
salaam.
F
Frosty
Guest
What you do not seem to understand is that kneeling is not considered the universal norm, as you keep insisting. It is up to the individual Conferences of Bishops to determine which posture is to be adopted for their country. Once the decision has been reached, the Conference submits its desire to Rome who then issues the recognito for that particular country, If the USCCB decided next week that it wanted the norm for receiving Communion to be kneeling, they still would have to apply to Rome again for a recognito. In other words, an official statement from Rome recognizing the norms decided upon by the Conference of Bishops. You make it sound like a recognito and an indult are the same thing.
Also, just as Rome has said that a priest cannot deny the Eucharist to someone who presents him or herself kneeling, it has also said that the same is true for someone who wishes to stand.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html
Therefore, if someone went to an EF Mass and wished to stand to receive Communion, he or she has every right to do so. Traditionalists would no doubt get their knickers tied up in every sort of twist about it, but they would have no right to since Rome says it is okay.
The norm of a common posture is established as a sign of the unity of the faithful gathered together for the liturgy.
LECTURE BY H.E. CARDINAL RATZINGER
AT THE BISHOPS’ CONFERENCE OF THE REGION OF CAMPANIA
IN BENEVENTO (ITALY) ON THE TOPIC:
“EUCHARIST, COMMUNION AND SOLIDARITY”
Sunday 2 June 2002
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020602_ratzinger-eucharistic-congress_en.html
L
Lux_et_Tenebrae
Guest
The stipulation on numbers as I stated is my opinion.
I acknowledged the right from post # 1.
Do you understand English?
What does the communicant do at the moment the priest tells him/her to stand?
(and please do not repeat what you have said so many times, which was acknowledged from post #1)
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Really–according to who. It is obvious that the Church does not see it that way. Anyone who places any type and/or form of obstacle to kneeling ----from what can be seen below --is not allowing a person the full freedom–which the Church has upheld.
Card. Arinze – Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.
“But even if the Bishops decide that the people will receive in the hand standing as in the United States, **our Congregation in Rome has said yes, provided that those who want to receive kneeling you leave them full freedom **and those who want ot receive on the tongue you leave them in peace not pieces.”
the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2008/06/classic-arinze.html
L
Lux_et_Tenebrae
Guest
You are going off topic again.
L
Lux_et_Tenebrae
Guest
Frosty & Badaliyyah,
Thank you for your posts.
Lux
Thank you for your posts.
Lux
B
Badaliyyah
Guest
Did you read past the opening phrase? I don’t know what it is that you think I said that disagrees with that? In fact, I think that is exactly what I said.
salaam.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
The theology of kneeling is explained by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in the following excerpt from a chapter, “The Body and the Liturgy”, in The Spirit of the Liturgy.
adoremus.org/1102TheologyKneel.html
"There are groups, of no small influence, who are trying to talk us out of kneeling. “It doesn’t suit our culture”, they say (which culture?) “It’s not right for a grown man to do this – he should face God on his feet”. Or again: “It’s not appropriate for redeemed man – he has been set free by Christ and doesn’t need to kneel any more”.
If we look at history, we can see that the Greeks and Romans rejected kneeling…
Aristotle called it a barbaric form of behavior (cf. Rhetoric 1361 a 36). Saint Augustine agreed with him in a certain respect: the false gods were only the masks of demons, who subjected men to the worship of money and to self-seeking, thus making them “servile” and superstitious. He said that the humility of Christ and His love, which went as far as the Cross, have freed us from these powers. We now kneel before that humility. The kneeling of Christians is not a form of inculturation into existing customs. It is quite the opposite, an expression of Christian culture, which transforms the existing culture through a new and deeper knowledge and experience of God.
**Kneeling does not come from any culture – it comes from the Bible and its knowledge of God. **The central importance of kneeling in the Bible can be seen in a very concrete way. The word proskynein alone occurs fifty-nine times in the New Testament, twenty-four of which are in the Apocalypse, the book of the heavenly Liturgy, which is presented to the Church as the standard for her own Liturgy.
adoremus.org/1102TheologyKneel.html
"There are groups, of no small influence, who are trying to talk us out of kneeling. “It doesn’t suit our culture”, they say (which culture?) “It’s not right for a grown man to do this – he should face God on his feet”. Or again: “It’s not appropriate for redeemed man – he has been set free by Christ and doesn’t need to kneel any more”.
If we look at history, we can see that the Greeks and Romans rejected kneeling…
Aristotle called it a barbaric form of behavior (cf. Rhetoric 1361 a 36). Saint Augustine agreed with him in a certain respect: the false gods were only the masks of demons, who subjected men to the worship of money and to self-seeking, thus making them “servile” and superstitious. He said that the humility of Christ and His love, which went as far as the Cross, have freed us from these powers. We now kneel before that humility. The kneeling of Christians is not a form of inculturation into existing customs. It is quite the opposite, an expression of Christian culture, which transforms the existing culture through a new and deeper knowledge and experience of God.
**Kneeling does not come from any culture – it comes from the Bible and its knowledge of God. **The central importance of kneeling in the Bible can be seen in a very concrete way. The word proskynein alone occurs fifty-nine times in the New Testament, twenty-four of which are in the Apocalypse, the book of the heavenly Liturgy, which is presented to the Church as the standard for her own Liturgy.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Quote=BadaliyyahQuote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home View Post
Card. Arinze – Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.
“But even if the Bishops decide that the people will receive in the hand standing as in the United States, our Congregation in Rome has said yes, provided that those who want to receive kneeling you leave them full freedom and those who want ot receive on the tongue you leave them in peace not pieces.”
Did you read past the opening phrase? I don’t know what it is that you think I said that disagrees with that? In fact, I think that is exactly what I said.
salaam.
**Someone who stubbornly refuses instruction must still be communed. **At that point the priest has no choice but to let them go their own individual way, and certainly has no way of compelling them to stand when they are kneeling there in front of him while others are waiting in line. Commune the person and move on.
This is a classic situation of economia (at least from the stand point of this easterner). ** You are allowing someone to adopt an idiosyncratic posture **because they are clearly extremely convinced that it is more reverent and very important and cannot be convinced otherwise.
Yes I did and frankly --it takes some twisting to make your statements of “someone stubbornly refusing instruction” etc.–as being in agreement with the Church.
B
Badaliyyah
Guest
this brings me back to the question I asked a few times earlier and which I can’t seem to get an answer to…
When did the Latins start kneeling to receive the Eucharist, and why?
salaam.
B
Badaliyyah
Guest
If the person is catechised by the priest and they still don’t stand, I don’t know what else you call it. If you would like to call it something else, you should feel free. They are instructed in the norm and are still unable to comply, internally prevented from complying…I am open to other suggestions.
salaam.
- Status