Vatican: Receiving Eucharist kneeling will be norm at papal liturgies

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

---

Lux et Tenebrae – When I started by debate with you I was going under the assumption that you were grossly misinformed as to the authoritative structure of the Church–but it has become quite obvious that you are ignoring the authoritative statements by the CDWDS.

Perhaps you may want to read the statements by Pope Benedict XVI when he was prefect of the CDF (which I quoted in reference to the quote from the USCCB) --and what he has said now as Pope.

And I give you another of the pope’s statements (from the original letter on the TLM)

**In conclusion, dear brothers, I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your faithful. Each bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own diocese (cf. “Sacrosanctum Concilium,” 22: “Sacrae Liturgiae moderatio ab Ecclesiae auctoritate unice pendet quae quidem est apud Apostolicam Sedem et, ad normam iuris, apud Episcopum”). **
Nothing is taken away, then, from the authority of the bishop, whose role remains that of being watchful that all is done in peace and serenity. Should some problem arise which the parish priest cannot resolve, the local ordinary will always be able to intervene, in full harmony, however, with all that has been laid down by the new norms of the “motu proprio.”

Furthermore, I invite you, dear brothers, to send to the Holy See an account of your experiences, three years after this “motu proprio” has taken effect. If truly serious difficulties come to light, ways to remedy them can be sought.

Spin your wheels all you want, but don’t disrespect the bishops. Pope Benedict does not.

Lux

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

---

Lux et Tenebrae – When I started by debate with you I was going under the assumption that you were grossly misinformed as to the authoritative structure of the Church–but it has become quite obvious that you are ignoring the authoritative statements by the CDWDS.

PS No, it is you who are grossly ignorant on the hierachy of documents. A “right” or “must be permitted” has nothing to do with a norm. And your rights are protected by a letter, but this does not change the norm, or the spirit of community worship. You do as you choose, and I will do the same, but we are instructed to adress all things in charity, which you and others have definitely not upheld.

Lux

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

I repeat, since you evaded my statement, as is your custom when you have no response.

Need I say more? I never disrespected nor disobeyed anyone, yet you accused me falsely. Perhaps you might want to re-read your comments about the USCCB.

Lux

 

[Walking_Home]

PS No, it is you who are grossly ignorant on the hierachy of documents. A “right” or “must be permitted” has nothing to do with a norm. And your rights are protected by a letter, but this does not change the norm, or the spirit of community worship. You do as you choose, and I will do the same, but we are instructed to adress all things in charity, which you and others have definitely not upheld.

Lux

---

The right of kneeling is permitted because it is the universal norm for the Church-- the particular norm of standing did not change that.

The spirit of worship is that which follows the mind of the Church.
Undermining the Church is not the spirit of worship.

Again go read what Pope Benedict XVI wrote as Card. and what he has stated now as Pope.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

We are speaking of apples and oranges here. I am speaking of the norms, and of the disrespect some have shown for the USCCB and standing communicants.

Why don’t you read the bible on charity, and the Catechism and canon law (and even the Pope’s own statement which I posted for you) on respect for a bishop?

Lux

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

We are speaking of apples and oranges here. I am speaking of the norms, and of the disrespect some have shown for the USCCB and standing communicants.

Why don’t you read the bible on charity, and the Catechism and canon law (and even the Pope’s own statement which I posted for you) on respect for a bishop?

Lux

 

[Walking_Home]

We are speaking of apples and oranges here. I am speaking of the norms, and of the disrespect some have shown for the USCCB and standing communicants.

Why don’t you read the bible on charity, and the Catechism and canon law (and even the Pope’s own statement which I posted for you) on respect for a bishop?

Lux

---

Lux et Tenebrae — Brendan explained particular norms and universal norms in post 72. It is disingenuous of you to continue to make believe the universal norms do not exist. You are blowing a smoke screen by trying to turn the tables in accusing me of disrespect.

 

[Brendan]

I really don’t know about the difference between a universal and a particular norm,

Then you might want to investigate the difference. It has a tremendous bearing on the issue.

but I really can’t see why anyone would think that kneeling is more pleasing to the Lord, than worshipping in community as the Pastor wishes.

Read what Pope Benedict has to say about kneeling, ( The Sprit of the Liturgy). He is our temporal pastor.

Just because you have the right to do something, it is not necesserily the best choice, or the most pleasing to the Lord. Sounds pretty “me” centered to me.

Personaly, if I couldn’t attend where my preference was the norm, I would do as the Pastor wishes, unless it was sometning actually wrong. Obviously others here disagree, and some are very rude in doing so.

Peace,

Lux

A Universal Norm is one that applies everywhere and always. A Particular Norm is one that applies only in certain locations or at certain times.

Those are defined by the Pope, our Universal Pastor. So yes, when someone kneels, they ARE following the Pastor, the Universal one.

And the Church teaches that one may stand, if a particular law for that area has been approved, but one may also kneel if one so chooses, as that Law is Universal in scope. It applies to every parish, every diocese.

 

[fix]

And your rights are protected by a letter, but this does not change the norm, or the spirit of community worship.

The “letter” is from the authentic authority in these matters. That is why the bishops write to him. If the bishops accept that is the authority who are we to disregard it as simply a “letter”?

 

[saylo]

The bishops are divided on the subject of Communion-in-the-hand. Kneeling is advocated by some bishops even in these “Modern Times.”

Any layperson is ALLOWED to be in disagreement with their bishop if their conscience dictates. Truth is, bishops can be in error like all the rest of us.

 

[MHalsey]

Then you might want to investigate the difference. It has a tremendous bearing on the issue.

Read what Pope Benedict has to say about kneeling, ( The Sprit of the Liturgy). He is our temporal pastor.

A Universal Norm is one that applies everywhere and always. A Particular Norm is one that applies only in certain locations or at certain times.

Those are defined by the Pope, our Universal Pastor. So yes, when someone kneels, they ARE following the Pastor, the Universal one.

And the Church teaches that one may stand, if a particular law for that area has been approved, but one may also kneel if one so chooses, as that Law is Universal in scope. It applies to every parish, every diocese.

I think the problem here is that Lux sees those who insist on kneeling when the whole congregation is standing is disruptive to the unifying aspect of worship. I agree to an extent, mainly because when someone does something out of the ordinary, that person’s motives are called into question. The person is most likely doing so because they believe (correctly) that it is a proper and reverent form of worship. However, the rest of the congregation may see it as a person trying to display a “holier than though” attitude. This, in my opinion, is what is disruptive.

To say that someone who stands to receive communion is less reverent than one who receives on their knees is uncharitable at best. We have to remember, most Catholics under 30 (guessing here) have never received communion while kneeling. The standing procession and communion in the hand is all they’ve ever known. When I received my 1st communion in 1975, we received standing, though receiving in the hand came a couple of years later. So the particular norm was already in place by then.

I have been to churches where kneeling was the norm, and it is a beautiful thing. But in a church where standing is the norm, to me it seems out of place. I’m not saying someone shouldn’t do it, especially if they feel this is the only way they can show proper reverence. Just don’t expect the rest of the congregation to follow suit.

 

[benedictgal]

The bishops are divided on the subject of Communion-in-the-hand. Kneeling is advocated by some bishops even in these “Modern Times.”

Any layperson is ALLOWED to be in disagreement with their bishop if their conscience dictates. Truth is, bishops can be in error like all the rest of us.

Furthermore, Redemptionis Sacramentum gives the faithful the right to petition to their bishop when liturgical abuse takes place. If the bishop remains unresponsive or is indifferent, then, the faithful have the right to appeal to Rome and ask for intervention from the Holy See.

Therefore, there is validity in your last statement.

Finally, the Holy See’s letter regarding kneeling for the reception of Communion reaffirms that it is the universal norm. Standing to receive Holy Communion is granted by means of recognitio from the Holy See. In other words, the Holy See grants special permission to amend the norm to a particular episcopal conference.

 

[Brendan]

I think the problem here is that Lux sees those who insist on kneeling when the whole congregation is standing is disruptive to the unifying aspect of worship. I agree to an extent, mainly because when someone does something out of the ordinary, that person’s motives are called into question. The person is most likely doing so because they believe (correctly) that it is a proper and reverent form of worship. However, the rest of the congregation may see it as a person trying to display a “holier than though” attitude. This, in my opinion, is what is disruptive.

One thing that I find discontigious about the “holier than thou” claim is that it’s rather hypocritical. The Church has allowed variation in posture at this point (and certain others). To claim that a person kneeling is exhibiting a “holier than thou” attitude, or is not conforming to demands for postural unity above what the Church Herself calls for, is illogical at best. It is a self defeating claim. To call for more than the Church does on posture, and then accuse those who do not follow to be 'holier than thou" is hypocratic at best.

Please note that I am NOT saying that you advocate this position, rather I am pointing out the logical flaws in the position itself.

. But in a church where standing is the norm, to me it seems out of place. I’m not saying someone shouldn’t do it, especially if they feel this is the only way they can show proper reverence. Just don’t expect the rest of the congregation to follow suit.

I don’t believe I have ever advocated that the rest of congregation follow. My main point is that the faithful in the US have a choice that they can make, to follow either of the postures approved for the Ordinary Form, as their personal spirituality calls for.

If it appears ‘out of place’ to some, that is irrelevant. That’s one of the cool things about being Catholic, we are called to be counter-cultural at times, we are to stand up ( or kneel ) for our beliefs. Some, like L&T, place an emphasis on doing whatever everyone else is doing. That’s fine. If that is what brings L&T closer to God, and it is within the approved Norms, I have no objection what so ever.

I hope the same is extended to me.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Anyone care to comment on Pope Benedict’s statement to his Bishops, which I quoted?

Especially those who disrespect the USCCB

Lux

 

[saylo]

I think the problem here is that Lux sees those who insist on kneeling when the whole congregation is standing is disruptive to the unifying aspect of worship. I agree to an extent, mainly because when someone does something out of the ordinary, that person’s motives are called into question. The person is most likely doing so because they believe (correctly) that it is a proper and reverent form of worship. However, the rest of the congregation may see it as a person trying to display a “holier than though” attitude. This, in my opinion, is what is disruptive.

“…the rest of the congregation is standing…may see it [kneelimg] as a prtson trying to display a “holier than [sic] though” attitude. …”

Wouldn’t those standing being judgmental?

Does standing give a communicant special insights to read a soul?

Whatever the case, a communicant has the privilege of kneeling; it has never been taken away from hi/her.FONT]

 

[benedictgal]

Anyone care to comment on Pope Benedict’s statement to his Bishops, which I quoted?

Especially those who disrespect the USCCB

Lux

I respectfuilly submit that you are missing the point of this whole post. In the first place, what many of us are affirming is that kneeling to receive Holy Communion is the universal norm. The matter of standing came about because a recognitio was granted by the Holy See to those episcopal conferences (USCCB) who wished to do so.

Furthermore, the USCCB is not the Magisterium; it is not free from errors. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discpline of the Sacraments pointed that out to the conference when it wrote to Cardinal George, the president, regarding the error in denying communicants the right to receive Holy Communion simply becuase they choose to kneel and receive on the tongue. Furthermore, Cardinal Arinze, the Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, called the USCCB to task for not working more diligently in approving the revised translations of the Roman Missal. The USCCB has also failed to meet the deadline to conform to the standards set by Liturgicam Authenticam, especially where sacred music is concerned.

The USCCB does not act in a vaccuum. Any major changes that the conference seeks to make must have the recognitio from the Holy See. If they want to have special permission to do something, they must petition the Holy See for an indult. In fact, one of the first things that Pope Benedict did was to rescind the indult allowing EMHCs to purify the sacred vessels. Now, only the ordained may do so. Not a few bishops expressed disappointment that this indult was lifted; however, Cardinal Arinze reminded them that this was the duty of the priest and/or deacon.

Furthermore, as I noted earlier, obedience is a two-way street. Just as I am bound to obey my bishop in matters of Faith and Morals, he is bound to a very stringent and total obedience to the Holy See. If he is doing something that is contrary to what the Holy See is ordering, or, if the episcopal conference is doing something that is not up to snuff with Rome, then, there are serious problems.

 

[Caveman]

I respectfuilly submit that you are missing the point of this whole post. In the first place, what many of us are affirming is that kneeling to receive Holy Communion is the universal norm. The matter of standing came about because a recognitio was granted by the Holy See to those episcopal conferences (USCCB) who wished to do so.

Furthermore, the USCCB is not the Magisterium; it is not free from errors. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discpline of the Sacraments pointed that out to the conference when it wrote to Cardinal George, the president, regarding the error in denying communicants the right to receive Holy Communion simply becuase they choose to kneel and receive on the tongue. Furthermore, Cardinal Arinze, the Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, called the USCCB to task for not working more diligently in approving the revised translations of the Roman Missal. The USCCB has also failed to meet the deadline to conform to the standards set by Liturgicam Authenticam, especially where sacred music is concerned.

The USCCB does not act in a vaccuum. Any major changes that the conference seeks to make must have the recognitio from the Holy See. If they want to have special permission to do something, they must petition the Holy See for an indult. In fact, one of the first things that Pope Benedict did was to rescind the indult allowing EMHCs to purify the sacred vessels. Now, only the ordained may do so. Not a few bishops expressed disappointment that this indult was lifted; however, Cardinal Arinze reminded them that this was the duty of the priest and/or deacon.

Furthermore, as I noted earlier, obedience is a two-way street. Just as I am bound to obey my bishop in matters of Faith and Morals, he is bound to a very stringent and total obedience to the Holy See. If he is doing something that is contrary to what the Holy See is ordering, or, if the episcopal conference is doing something that is not up to snuff with Rome, then, there are serious problems.

Well Said!! (standing and applauding!!)

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

I respectfuilly submit that you are missing the point of this whole post. In the first place, what many of us are affirming is that kneeling to receive Holy Communion is the universal norm. The matter of standing came about because a recognitio was granted by the Holy See to those episcopal conferences (USCCB) who wished to do so.

And you are missing my point. I never denied anyone’s right. I am speaking of things the way they are, and how best to go forward. Remember, we are Christians above all else. Snide innuendos, and disrespect for a Bishop is not what we are called to do.

Do you think that a person at a Papal Mass will be running up the aisle and throwing themself down in front of the Pope? Won’t there be respectful provisions made for kneeling? Certainly that one person at a NO Mass who wishes to kneel, has a “right” to kneel, but is it really best to demand that right? If a significant number of parishioners wish to kneel, then the Pastor should make provisions, but if he doesn’t we are told how to handle such matters, and it certainly is not to engage in a battle of wills. What about the Pastor’s right to a uninturrupted and reverent Communion procession?

Furthermore, the USCCB is not the Magisterium; it is not free from errors. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discpline of the Sacraments pointed that out to the conference when it wrote to Cardinal George, the president, regarding the error in denying communicants the right to receive Holy Communion simply becuase they choose to kneel and receive on the tongue.

They are not to be denied, but they are to be instructed in the reasons for the norm.

The USCCB does not act in a vaccuum. Any major changes that the conference seeks to make must have the recognitio from the Holy See. If they want to have special permission to do something, they must petition the Holy See for an indult. In fact, one of the first things that Pope Benedict did was to rescind the indult allowing EMHCs to purify the sacred vessels. Now, only the ordained may do so. Not a few bishops expressed disappointment that this indult was lifted; however, Cardinal Arinze reminded them that this was the duty of the priest and/or deacon.

Again, what do we do, if we are told to purify? I don’t know if I would refuse my Pastor. I will never be in that position because I resigned as an EMHC because I was told to allow self intinction. In hindsight, I think I would just have reminded the person that they are not allowed to do this, and offered a sip, without pressing the issue with my Pastor.

Furthermore, as I noted earlier, obedience is a two-way street. Just as I am bound to obey my bishop in matters of Faith and Morals, he is bound to a very stringent and total obedience to the Holy See. If he is doing something that is contrary to what the Holy See is ordering, or, if the episcopal conference is doing something that is not up to snuff with Rome, then, there are serious problems.

And we are told how to handle these problems. It is not by engaging in a battle of wills, or disrespecting the Bishop.

Lux

 

[Brendan]

Certainly that one person at a NO Mass who wishes to kneel, has a “right” to kneel, but is it really best to demand that right?

The determination of ‘if it’s really best’ is left, by the Church, to the individiual. Why try and claim more authority than the Church and try and tell someone it’s not best

Again, what do we do, if we are told to purify? I don’t know if I would refuse my Pastor.

What if you were told to flap your wings and fly. If you said “No, I can’t”, would that be disobedient

The Pastor simply cannot tell you to do something that you cannot do. You are not ‘engaging in a battle of wills’ if you don’t do something you cannot do .

And one of the things that most of us cannot do is purify vessels.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

The determination of ‘if it’s really best’ is left, by the Church, to the individiual. Why try and claim more authority than the Church and try and tell someone it’s not best
.

I am asking people to be objective and reasonable. If you think it is reasonable and “best” to engage in a battle of wills with a priest at communion time, or to disrespect a bishop, so be it.

What if you were told to flap your wings and fly. If you said “No, I can’t”, would that be disobedient

This is a silly comparison. I had this discussion with a very conservative priest, and he said that unless it was a matter against Faith (doctrine, not personal piety) or morals, we are to obey those in lawful authority. Again, you do as you choose.

Lux