Why Is Communion In The Hand Still Allowed?

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1343869070' post='2461367']
[img]http://scides.ca/courses/calculus_12/course/unit2/U02L01/graph_01.png[/img]
[/quote]
Knights a mathematical genius!

[Papist]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1343870696' post='2461377']
Knights a mathematical genius!
[/quote]

Not him.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1343862531' post='2461323']
But maybe he needs a tinfoil hat to prevent people from reading his mind.
[/quote]

Tinfoil hats make all the difference. Kitty needs hers too!

[img]http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/Senten/tin-foil-hat.jpg[/img]

[Papist]

I remember the tinfoil hat craze back in 1979 when Skylab was expected to crash to Earth. I believe it ended up crashing in Western Australia.

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1343855619' post='2461248']
I don't understand why you seem offended. I posted it for the record it wasn't directed towards you. It was somewhat directed to Fides, because it goes to the earlier issue he repeatedly asked me to prove, wether the faithful are disobedient if they do not [i]obey[/i] a request that denies them the use of their universal rights under Church law. The letter is proof positive such persons are not to be thought as disobedient or accused of it.

That said I do not believe you or he are idiots, you are both intelligent persons, who I do have respect for and pray for.
[/quote]

Thank you for your prayers. I do appreciate it!

I am just as aware of the teachings of the Church on the matter as anyone else. I've read the above letter previously. I think it even states the same in the current GIRM, correct?

You still don't understand that my qualm is not with the teaching of the Church on whether it's permissible to stand or kneel - I understand that completely. That doesn't prove anything regarding my question.

[beatitude]

This thread makes me think of something that happened to me when I was seven, not long after my First Holy Communion. I didn't have a great knowledge of the faith. I didn't fully understand the Real Presence at this point, although we had been taught about it - it was a little beyond my mind. But as I received Communion (in the hand) and walked back to my pew, I felt as though I had been filled with sunlight. I had a very simple and warm recognition of the love of God for me, and I was so grateful. It didn't even occur to me to name the gratitude as prayer, but that is what it was. Next thing I knew, my mum was tapping me sternly on the shoulder, and saying quite crossly, "Show respect when you come back from Communion! You didn't even clasp your hands."

I felt as if someone had just chucked a bucket of cold and dirty water all over me. I hadn't meant to be disrespectful. I had forgotten all about clasping my hands, I had only been thinking of God. That incident has stuck with me, and it affects how I view outward signs of reverence like kneeling or receiving on the tongue. Their absence does not necessarily mean that a person is not respectful of Christ in the Eucharist, and their presence does not always mean that respect is there.

Edited August 2, 2012 by beatitude

[Noel's angel]

1. I look at the title of the thread - "Why Is Communion In The Hand Still Allowed'?
2. I see the question was answered in the third post of the thread.
3. I look at the fact there are 9 pages of discussion on the topic.
4.

[Papist]

Welcome to the debate board.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1343913278' post='2461538']


Thank you for your prayers. I do appreciate it!

I am just as aware of the teachings of the Church on the matter as anyone else. I've read the above letter previously. I think it even states the same in the current GIRM, correct?

You still don't understand that my qualm is not with the teaching of the Church on whether it's permissible to stand or kneel - I understand that completely. That doesn't prove anything regarding my question.
[/quote]

I understood your main points to be...

Can some disobey a non-sinful demand of a priest? To which you seemed to answer no they cannot. Because that would be disobedience.
You also asked can someone ask others to disobey a non-sinful demand of a priest? To which you seemed to answer no they cannot. Because that would also be disobedience.

The letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship posted earlier in the thread (post 147) makes clear the answer to the above questions of disobedience is no such persons are to be thought as disobedient. In regard to the topic of receiving communion on the tongue while kneeling.

Here is the important part of the letter again.

"...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 part of the letter was written to a American bishop, who was requiring his flock to stand while receiving communion. Then accusing those who would kneel of disobedience. The CDW answered that not only is not in this bishop's authority to force his flock but it is also wrong to call members of his flock disobedient if the do not obey that command of the bishop. This answers the question whether some can disobey a non-sinful demand of a priest and if the person who does is guilty of disobedience. Yes they can and no they are not.

This letter as well as the other posted in post 125 we have the Holy See itself telling us we do not have to obey a priest or bishop that denies the faithful their universal rights.

How do these points not directly answer your questions, assuming I've correctly understood your points. If I have not would you make it clearer to me please.

Edited August 2, 2012 by KnightofChrist

[Noel's angel]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1343928595' post='2461604']
Welcome to the debate board.
[/quote]

Always good to come back and see nothing has changed...

[Papist]

[quote name='Noel's angel' timestamp='1343932203' post='2461632']
Always good to come back and see nothing has changed...
[/quote]

November 2008 change was voted in. It did not go over very well. [img]http://fun.resplace.net/Emoticons/Unhappy/Disappointed.gif[/img]

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1343928633' post='2461605']
How do these points not directly answer your questions, assuming I've correctly understood your points. If I have not would you make it clearer to me please.
[/quote]

You're pretty close on my questions:[list=1]
[*]Can someone morally disobey their priest if what their priest is asking them to do is not sinful?
[*]Is it morally licit for one lay person to command (or even suggest) another lay person to disobey a priest if that priest is asking them to do something not sinful?
[/list]
I believe the answer to 1 is no - because I think we are required to obey those who have charge over us in everything that is not sinful.
I believe the answer to 2 is also no - [b]because[/b] we cannot possibly know [i]why[/i] the priest gave any command, and in doing so we are placing ourselves in a position higher than the priest (hence my comments on pride). The priest is given certain authority for a reason; we are not. We [i]must[/i] not presume to dictate to others whether they should be obeying their priest or not. That is none of our business. I won't address this (#2) issue further in this post.

The letter doesn't prove an answer to either question.

First of all, we must consider who the letter was sent to. As you pointed out, it was a corrective letter, meaning that it was an answer to a specific bishop doing something incorrectly. Therefore, we can't assume that any directions given in the letter apply to anyone except the bishop to whom it was addressed. Therefore, even if it was worded in a way that applied to us, it still wouldn't apply to us.

Furthermore, the exact words are "[Communicants] 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 doesn't say [b]anything[/b] about the morality of the actions of the communicants themselves, but only about the actions of the bishop - and if you REALLY want to apply the letter outside of the intended recipient - to priests and EMHCs giving Holy Communion.

My point here is - it says that the bishop should not be withholding Communion on whatever grounds he had, and the bishop should not be accusing communicants of disobedience. Apparently he was doing both. It does not say that it [b]isn't[/b][i] [/i]disobedient for the communicant if the priest tells him directly to stand up - it just says that the bishop shouldn't tell him he's disobedient.

I've spent hours and hours looking over that letter, trying to find my own justification for kneeling. [b]I realize that this argument isn't the best - it's picking apart probably unintended nuances and almost playing semantics.[/b] But it's enough to show that it's not actually proof. I wanted to be absolutely sure, above all else, that I wouldn't be committing a sin by kneeling to receive. I wrote to my priest. I wrote to my bishop. Neither would give me the yes or no answer I was looking for. Then I saw that the GIRM changed to include:

"The norm established for the Dioceses of the United States of America is that Holy Communion is to be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Instruction, Redemptionis Sacramentum, March 25, 2004, no. 91)."

So now the norm appears to be whatever the communicant decides to do. I'm happy with that. That's the final permission I needed to kneel myself. I'm fortunate that I live in a place where the EMHCs aren't so far left that they deny Holy Communion to those who kneel.

[i]However[/i], there's still the issue of obedience. That's the norm - it doesn't cover situations outside the allowed norm. If I am in line to receive Communion, and I choose to kneel, as is my right, and the priest refuses to give me Communion (even though it's unjust to me, because it's my right, and even though [i]he's[/i] being disobedient), and actually orders me to stand up, as in, "Stand up right now!", should I refuse to obey him? If you think there's [i]unequivocal [/i]proof out there, it needs to follow [b]all [/b]the following criteria:[list=1]
[*]It should be addressed directly to the laity
[*]It should enumerate this exact predicament, something like: "If the person kneels to receive Communion and if the priest orders him to stand to receive at that moment, the person may disobey the priest without worry of harming his soul..."
[*]It should address the action that we're discussing, and not the actions of the priest/bishop. Not "The priest must give" or "The priest cannot accuse", but "the communicant may [b][i]disobey the priest[/i][/b]"
[/list]

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1343871719' post='2461387']
Not him.
[/quote]
While we're off topic!
I'm prolly about due for an apology to knight.. again!!! I often take pot shots at him and he never retaliates. Prolly 'cause he knows I'll pwn him if he does (LOL) You know how two mates often spar and get a bit rough with each other? Well that's how I see it with Knight and myself. In truth although I agree with him on very little I still love him. He's very dedicated to the faith, obviously reads all those docs he dumps and thus is an inspiration to us.
Apparently we don't get notification anymore when someone adds us to their friend list and I have noticed that a few people here have added me at some stage. I just wanted to say that I feel honoured and humbled that such well thought of and obviously highly learned people would consider me worthy of being added to their friends list.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Mark of the Cross

[Slappo]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1343941686' post='2461697']
You're pretty close on my questions:[list=1]
[*]Can someone morally disobey their priest if what their priest is asking them to do is not sinful?

[*]Is it morally licit for one lay person to command (or even suggest) another lay person to disobey a priest if that priest is asking them to do something not sinful?
[/list]
I believe the answer to 1 is no - because I think we are required to obey those who have charge over us in everything that is not sinful.
I believe the answer to 2 is also no - [b]because[/b] we cannot possibly know [i]why[/i] the priest gave any command, and in doing so we are placing ourselves in a position higher than the priest (hence my comments on pride). The priest is given certain authority for a reason; we are not. We [i]must[/i] not presume to dictate to others whether they should be obeying their priest or not. That is none of our business. I won't address this (#2) issue further in this post.
[/quote]

So... you believe we are morally obligated to follow unjust authority when that authority figure is not commanding us to do something sinful?

If the United States Government makes it a law that listening to music is illegal, do you believe we are required to comply with that law? Why or why not?

On a religious point: If a priest tells us that men must wear t-shirts and shorts to masses where he is the celebrant as he views those clothes to best depict the proper reverence we should show at mass do you believe we are morally obligated to wear t-shirts and shorts? Why or why not? (assume that you don't view t-shirts and shorts at mass as sinful)

Edited August 2, 2012 by Slappo

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1343941686' post='2461697']
You're pretty close on my questions:

1 Can someone morally disobey their priest if what their priest is asking them to do is not sinful?

2 Is it morally licit for one lay person to command (or even suggest) another lay person to disobey a priest if that priest is asking them to do something not sinful?[/quote]

In the context of receiving communion on the tongue while kneeling the answer to both questions is in fact, yes. But not command, rather suggest and btw the guy in the video didn't command anyone to receive communion on the tongue while kneeling, he suggested and referenced a Church document that now escapes my memory. I suppose I'll have to watch that part again later.


[quote]I believe the answer to 1 is no - because I think we are required to obey those who have charge over us in everything that is not sinful.
I believe the answer to 2 is also no - because we cannot possibly know why the priest gave any command, and in doing so we are placing ourselves in a position higher than the priest (hence my comments on pride). The priest is given certain authority for a reason; we are not. We must not presume to dictate to others whether they should be obeying their priest or not. That is none of our business. I won't address this (#2) issue further in this post.

The letter doesn't prove an answer to either question. First of all, we must consider who the letter was sent to. As you pointed out, it was a corrective letter, meaning that it was an answer to a specific bishop doing something incorrectly. Therefore, we can't assume that any directions given in the letter apply to anyone except the bishop to whom it was addressed. Therefore, even if it was worded in a way that applied to us, it still wouldn't apply to us.[/quote]

Yes it in fact does address both questions, with respect, I don't believe you wish to see that reality because you don't yet want to see the error of your stance.

No it wasn't just to the bishop, it was repeated to someone else inquiring if they may receive communion while kneeling even if the priest/bishop told them they could not. And the letter was addressing the universal rights of the laity so it does apply to all of us. Also if it was worded in a way that applied to us it would apply to us.

[quote]Furthermore, the exact words are "[Communicants] 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 doesn't say anything about the morality of the actions of the communicants themselves, but only about the actions of the bishop - and if you REALLY want to apply the letter outside of the intended recipient - to priests and EMHCs giving Holy Communion.[/quote]

Yes it does address the morality of the actions of the communicants, it states clear they are not guilty of disobedience or of acting illicitly when despite a order not to they kneel to receive Holy Communion.

[quote]My point here is - it says that the bishop should not be withholding Communion on whatever grounds he had, and the bishop should not be accusing communicants of disobedience. Apparently he was doing both. It does not say that it isn't disobedient for the communicant if the priest tells him directly to stand up - it just says that the bishop shouldn't tell him he's disobedient.[/quote]

Again it wasn't just written to the bishop and the letter was made public, by or with permission of the CDW. That is more proof it was to be applied for us all.

[quote]I've spent hours and hours looking over that letter, trying to find my own justification for kneeling. I realize that this argument isn't the best - it's picking apart probably unintended nuances and almost playing semantics. But it's enough to show that it's not actually proof. I wanted to be absolutely sure, above all else, that I wouldn't be committing a sin by kneeling to receive. I wrote to my priest. I wrote to my bishop. Neither would give me the yes or no answer I was looking for. Then I saw that the GIRM changed to include:

"The norm established for the Dioceses of the United States of America is that Holy Communion is to be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Instruction, Redemptionis Sacramentum, March 25, 2004, no. 91)."

So now the norm appears to be whatever the communicant decides to do. I'm happy with that. That's the final permission I needed to kneel myself. I'm fortunate that I live in a place where the EMHCs aren't so far left that they deny Holy Communion to those who kneel.[/quote]

I see nothing wrong with how you went about it. I simply don't believe you needed to go to such great lengths.

[quote]However, there's still the issue of obedience.[/quote]

No I'm afraid there isn't. I've offered numerous documents from the Holy See that give clear evidence that it is not a matter of disobedience to kneel and receive communion on the tongue while kneeling. While you've thus far have been unable to give evidence that those that choose to kneel while receiving communion on the tongue even when their priest or bishop says they cannot are disobedient.

[quote]That's the norm - it doesn't cover situations outside the allowed norm. If I am in line to receive Communion, and I choose to kneel, as is my right, and the priest refuses to give me Communion (even though it's unjust to me, because it's my right, and even though he's being disobedient), and actually orders me to stand up, as in, "Stand up right now!", should I refuse to obey him?[/quote]

You can choose to remain kneeling or walk away but I'll not command you too, you could also do one of many other things suggested by others and myself earlier.

[quote]If you think there's unequivocal proof out there, it needs to follow all the following criteria:
1 It should be addressed directly to the laity[/quote]

It has been.

[quote] 2 It should enumerate this exact predicament, something like: "If the person kneels to receive Communion and if the priest orders him to stand to receive at that moment, the person may disobey the priest without worry of harming his soul…"[/quote]

Both letters do address this exact predicament, that the faithful were being denied the right to kneel while receiving on the tongue. The Church says bishops and priests don't have the authority to do that and those that still present themselves for communion that way after the order of the priest or bishop are not to be accused of disobedience or acting illicitly. 

[quote] 3 It should address the action that we're discussing, and not the actions of the priest/bishop. Not "The priest must give" or "The priest cannot accuse", but "the communicant may disobey the priest"
[/quote]

It addressees both the actions of the bishops/priest who've denied the faithful their universal rights and the faithful who still present themselves for communion by kneeling and receiving on the tongue.

Again, I believe it's time for you to offer your own evidence for your stance in the context of receiving communion on the tongue while kneeling. I do not wish to offend you but I don't like being the only one to do the heavy lifting. It's easier to attempt to pick apart evidence provided than it is to offer ones own. The evidence against your stance has already been offered and it is despite your statements to the contrary, clear and it does apply to the whole of the faithful.

Edited August 3, 2012 by KnightofChrist