Apotheoun Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 [quote name='argent_paladin' date='Feb 22 2005, 03:12 PM'] This reminds me of a controversy in moral theology. Apparently I am a probabiliorist, Appy and Cam are probablists. I'm just waiting for an aequiprobibalist to come around. "Probabilism is the moral system which holds that, when there is question solely of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of an action, it is permissible to follow a solidly probable opinion in favour of liberty even though the opposing view is more probable." Probabiliorism will take the more free option only if it is more probable than the less free option.[/quote] This thread isn't about moral theology; instead, it is simply about the liturgical rubrics that have been approved and authoritatively interpreted by the competent ecclesiastical authority. Thus, I stand by what the proper Congregation of the Roman Curia has said in reference to the posture for receiving communion in the Roman Rite: ". . . while this Congregation gave the [i]recognitio[/i] to the norm desired by the Bishops' Conference of your country [i.e., the United States] 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." If you have a problem with this ruling of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, I suggest that you take it up with them. God bless, Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 [quote]We, as people in the pews, will never be able to reach a final resolution on this debate.[/quote] Actually we in the pews already have the answer. We are simply discussing that answer. As far as your questions, they have all been answered. All you need to do is take the time to look back on this thread and see the answers. To rehash them, while great for my posting number, is not really all that necessary. Cam42 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JP2Iloveyou Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 No one has yet responded to this point and I would like for someone to respond to it. Thanks. [quote]Come to think of it, this gives me a parallel argument here. In the United States, there is an indult to kneel throughout the Eucharistic Prayer until the Great Amen. Everywhere else in the world, the rule is to stand following the words of Institution. Now, it seems to me that by your logic, we ought to stand following the Words of Institution, since that is what Rome wants and what the Tradition is. However, I would wager that you probably kneel for the duration of the EP, in accordance with liturgical norms for the United States. I'm curious what the difference is between this case and kneeling to receive Holy Communion.[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 (edited) [quote]I'm curious what the difference is between this case and kneeling to receive Holy Communion.[/quote] The difference is there is no differnce. There actually is no real difference. I kneel for the duration (including my time in Rome), out of respect for the Blessed Sacrament. I kneel to receive Holy Communion out of respect for the Blessed Sacrament. Yes, the indult is to receive standing, but that indult was granted by the CDW on the condition that those who wish to receive not be ridiculed for showing reverence for the Blessed Sacrament. [quote]No bodily posture so clearly expresses the soul's interior reverence before God as the act of kneeling. Reciprocally, the posture of kneeling reinforces and deepens the soul's attitude of reverence. (Bishop John Keating)[/quote] [quote] The general norm of the universal Church is that the congregation kneel at the consecration of the Mass (GIRM 21). Further, the long and venerable custom of United States Catholics of kneeling for the entire Eucharistic Prayer was reaffirmed by our episcopal conference in 1969 for the post-Vatican Council era. (Bishop John Keating)[/quote] The custom of kneeling for the entire Canon is a tradition within the United States. Standing for Holy Communion is not tradition within the United States. Francis Cardinal Arinze supports this: [quote]The rule from Rome would sanction where the bishops said, "in our country we want people to kneel throughout the consecration". From our office in Rome we will support that. So it is a bit different. But sometimes during the consecration -- suppose it is open-air or it rained and it is muddy -- you could not kneel there. But in the normal church it is possible to kneel. [b]And that's the normal thing: to kneel during the consecration -- and even, as in this country, to kneel from the beginning -- just before consecration -- right down to just before the Our Father. [u]And that is okay[/u].[/b] Where a particular person cannot kneel -- you have arthritis or you are a mother holding a baby -- that is understood.[/quote] So, actually Rome supports the position Appy and I have asserted and it also supports the position of kneeling. I am well in my rights to do both and they are harmonious with one another, for they convey the very same thing, adoration and due reverence for the Blessed Sacrament. Cam42 Edited February 24, 2005 by Cam42 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JP2Iloveyou Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 With all due respect though, you said it yourself that the tradition in the U.S. is not to stand following the EP and before the Great Amen. This is not the tradition in the rest of the world. The CDW has authorized this local change (in the Diocese of the United States of America). You have said yourself that you follow the U.S. bishops' request on this matter (kneeling for the duration of the E.P.) However, you claim the tradition when receiving is to kneel. I dispute this based solely on empirical evidence from every foreign country I've ever been to. Putting that aside for the moment though, the U.S. bishops have also asked the CDW for an indult making the norm in the U.S. to stand when receiving as opposed to kneeling. You have also stated that in this case, you do not follow the indult and instead do what you claim to be the universal norm. So, my question is why do you follow one indult but not the other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 [quote]Putting that aside for the moment though, the U.S. bishops have also asked the CDW for an indult making the norm in the U.S. to stand when receiving as opposed to kneeling.[/quote] The indult was granted on the condition that those who wish to kneel for Holy Communion may do so. That is not the case with kneeling for the Canon. [quote]So, my question is why do you follow one indult but not the other?[/quote] The answer is that I respect the indult of the bishops and I agree with their position. I do accept that standing acceptable. I think that kneeling is more proper. This indult was given on the sole basis that those who wish to kneel may do so, without being disobedient. Therefore, I am not being disobedient. On the otherhand, no such provision is granted for kneeling at the Canon. So I am obedient. And Rome accepts this provision. I kneel. I also happen to agree with Bishop Keating. I say earlier in this thread speaking of standing vs. kneeling to receive: [quote]Either way is acceptable.[/quote] I think that it is awfully convient that everyone here (with the exception of the obvious; Mikey, Appy, and me) seems to ignore the part about the recognitio. And the conditions set upon the reception standing. At what point do you simply realize that kneeling to receive the Blessed Sacrament is a licit action in the United States. Simply put: Kneeling for Holy Communion - Standing is the norm, but it is completely acceptable and obedient to kneel. [quote]The faithful may communicate either standing or kneeling, as established by the Conference of Bishops. However, when they communicate standing, it is recommended that they make an appropriate gesture of reverence, to be laid down in the same norms, before receiving the Sacrament. (GIRM no. 160) {and supporting texts}[/quote] Kneeling for the Canon - Kneeling is the norm, any other action is illicit. [quote]They should kneel at the consecration, except when prevented by reasons of health, lack of space, the number of people present, or some other good reason. However, those who do not kneel at the consecration ought to make a profound bow when the priest genuflects after the consecration. But it is up to the Conference of Bishops to adapt the gestures and posture in the Order of the Mass to the customs and reasonable traditions of the people according to the norm of law. The Conference, however, must make sure that such adaptations correspond to the meaning and character of each part of the celebration. Where it is the custom that the people remain kneeling from the end of the Sanctus until the end of the Eucharistic Prayer, this is laudably retained. (GIRM no.43)[/quote] I am being obedient in both actions. Where is the disconnect? Cam42 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 Also JP2, While no one here has made the vote, if you head over to St. Agnes for Sunday High Mass (10:00a) or actually daily Mass (6a, 8a or 5:15p), you'll see that the norm for receiving Holy Communion is kneeling at the rail. You'll also see that Mass is said ad orientam and it is totally Novus Ordo. They follow the rubrics to the letter and there are no deviations. I will even offer this, Fr. Ubel, the acting rector of SPS celebrated Midnight Mass there and he also celebrated St. Agnes day there (Solemn High Mass). I wonder if your major sem rector was being disobedient for celebrating Mass and having those Holy Communion kneelers receive that way. Cam42 P.S. Perhaps you already know all of that and if you do, disregard..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JP2Iloveyou Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 well, I must admit that you have more or less convinced me. I still have a few reservations about it, but I have no problem with people who choose to receive this way. If I'm ever ordained someday, I certainly wouldn't deny Communion to anyone who choose to receive this way. I'm also familiar with St. Agnes. We have quite a few seminarians from that parish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 [quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Feb 23 2005, 08:16 PM'] No one has yet responded to this point and I would like for someone to respond to it. Thanks. [/quote] I'm not getting involved in this argument (or any other for that matter) as I gave up phatmass for lent (except for the obvious case of prayer requests, etc.). However, I happened to see this thread while browsing through after having posted in my prayer request thread and I wanted to make one comment before I leave again. This is simply a matter correction on a point of history. The statement [quote]Now, it seems to me that by your logic, we ought to stand following the Words of Institution, since that is what Rome wants and what the Tradition is.[/quote] is not in fact correct. More specifically, standing following the words of Institution is not the traditional practice. The universal practice of the Church prior to 1970 was to kneel throughout the entire (or nearly the entire) Canon. The point at which the congregation stood differed depending on what level the Mass was (Solemn High, Low, etc.). In a Low Mass the congregation knelt (or kneels, as the situation remains in those Churches that use the Old Rite) from the end of the Preface (the beginning of the Sanctus) until Holy Communion. They then kneel again upon returning to the pew after Communion and remain in that posture until they stand for the Last Gospel. In a High Mass the congregation begins kneeling at the same time (after the Preface, before the Sanctus) and remains kneeling until the Pater Noster, at which point they stand until the completion of the Haec Commixtio and kneel again before the Agnus Dei. Just thought I would clarify that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 [quote]I'm also familiar with St. Agnes. We have quite a few seminarians from that parish.[/quote] It is quite possibly the best example of the true intention of the Vatican II reforms of the Liturgy. Msgr. Bandas, pastor at the time, instituted the change over to the Novus Ordo. Msgr. Schuler continued the changes in the true spirit of Vatican II. Now, it falls upon Fr. Welzbacher to continue the true spirit of Vatican II. It is called too conservative, but that simply isn't the case. St. Agnes is simply obedient. It is where I learned what I know about the Liturgy. [url="http://www.stagnes.net/church/History.do?displayPage=chapter9"]Article on Msgr. Bandas[/url] BTW, I know the Bauer brothers quite well. God Bless, Cam42 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argent_paladin Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 (edited) [deleted double post] Edited February 24, 2005 by argent_paladin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argent_paladin Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 I'm sorry, Cam and Appy, but I still disagree with you. I agree that it is not disobedient, nor illicit to choose to kneel. I definitely agree that it is very wrong to deny communion to someone simply for kneeling. But, you must agree that it is *contrary to the norm* as laid down by the legitimate authority. And that is not nothing. I see it as extremely dangerous to so clearly ignore the express and explicit norm as given by the bishops. Why do it? It is not disobedience, but less than full obedience. Again, why? Even the documents you cited says that "the Congregation has approved of legislation denoting standing as the posture for Holy Communion" and "this Congregation gave the recognitio to the norm desired by the Bishops' Conference of your country that people stand for Holy Communion." Basically, what is being said is "It is acceptable for you to kneel or to stand, but we prefer that you stand." Our bishops desire that we stand for Holy Communion. Therefore, I stand for Holy Communion, though I prefer to kneel. It is that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 [quote name='argent_paladin' date='Feb 23 2005, 10:13 PM'] I'm sorry, Cam and Appy, but I still disagree with you. I agree that it is not disobedient, nor illicit to choose to kneel. I definitely agree that it is very wrong to deny communion to someone simply for kneeling. But, you must agree that it is *contrary to the norm* as laid down by the legitimate authority. And that is not nothing. I see it as extremely dangerous to so clearly ignore the express and explicit norm as given by the bishops. Why do it? It is not disobedience, but less than full obedience. Again, why? Even the documents you cited says that "the Congregation has approved of legislation denoting standing as the posture for Holy Communion" and "this Congregation gave the recognitio to the norm desired by the Bishops' Conference of your country that people stand for Holy Communion." Our bishops desire taht we stand for Holy Communion. Therefore, I stand for Holy Communion. It is that simple. [/quote] I agree with the Supreme Magisterium of the Church, which has said: ". . . while this Congregation [i.e., the CDW] gave the [i]recognitio[/i] 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." God bless, Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 [quote]you must agree that it is *contrary to the norm* as laid down by the legitimate authority.[/quote] As it has been stated several times before, that is an incorrect assertion. The reason being that the [i]recognitio[/i] (recognition by the Holy See) was given with the explicit understanding that kneeling was a normative action and one that is in keeping with tradition and the reverence due the Blessed Sacrament. If this was not understood, then the [i]recognitio[/i] would not have been given for the indult. Therefore, argent_paladin it is not contrary to the norm, but a valid option in harmony with the norm as given. Cam42 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 [quote]It is not disobedience, but less than full obedience.[/quote] Rome has stated that this type of language is to be avoided. [quote]Indeed, the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion." (Mons. Mario Marini; Undersecretary Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments)[/quote] Why persist? Where is the disconnect? Cam42 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts