argent_paladin Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 I persist because this approach completely destroys the idea of a norm. What is a norm if it can be interpreted out of existence? It is problematic to completly erase the definition of a norm as, well, a norm, that is, as declaring that something is more desirable than the alternative. Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be. Just because kneeling is licit, not disobedient, acceptable, etc doesn't mean that it is desirable. I accuse no one of disobedience or acting illicitly. I think that there is room between disobedience and full obedience. That is why I used the term "less than full obedience." I also think that there is a difference between saying that "standing and kneeling are bot the norm, equally desired by the Bishops" and "standing is the norm desired by the bishops, but kneeling is also acceptable." The first makes no statement regarding a norm, the second does. I think it is clear from the language that there is a norm, and it is standing (again, not saying that kneeling is illicit or disobedient or otherwise unacceptable). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tink Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 *waves hand at above posts* I won't bother to read the last several pages of posts, but rather, enforce the basic theme that has been maintained throughout this thread. It is not contrary to any 'norm' or precedent laid out to receive Eucharist while kneeling, as has been affirmed by the Magisterium. However, the Holy See also asks each individual to conform to the instruction of his or her own diocese on the manner in which to receive the holy Eucharist. The act of kneeling for the Body and Blood of our Lord is not any type of dangerous offense. However, if one does not abide by the guidelines set down by the diocese, they are detracting from the communal sense of the Mass. This act , I believe, while not punishable in any way, is merely something that should be looked down upon a bit out of concern for the Church, the whole and united Body of Christ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musturde Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 [quote name='Tink' date='Feb 24 2005, 12:49 AM'] *waves hand at above posts* I won't bother to read the last several pages of posts, but rather, enforce the basic theme that has been maintained throughout this thread. It is not contrary to any 'norm' or precedent laid out to receive Eucharist while kneeling, as has been affirmed by the Magisterium. However, the Holy See also asks each individual to conform to the instruction of his or her own diocese on the manner in which to receive the holy Eucharist. The act of kneeling for the Body and Blood of our Lord is not any type of dangerous offense. However, if one does not abide by the guidelines set down by the diocese, they are detracting from the communal sense of the Mass. This act , I believe, while not punishable in any way, is merely something that should be looked down upon a bit out of concern for the Church, the whole and united Body of Christ. [/quote] Why is everyone trying to go around the direct statement posted by the Church? The Church asked people not to look down upon people willing to recieve on their knees. If the Bishops of America don't follow, then they're going against the Church's will more than the people who recieve by kneeling. If the Vatican didn't care what the US Bishops said about this, why would they even post a concern. I'm sure the Pope has much better things to do than to worry about the Bishop's decisions on whether kneeling or standing is more appropriate. I'm not saying this isn't important but the Vatican does seem to have implied that they are against people closing this option. If you are against people kneeling, you might as well hold hands during the Our Father. There is no point in not following the American Bishops' view on that also if this is your set of mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagiDragon Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 hmmm . . . my option isn't on the list . . . i see one family do that, but rarely. I'd only do that if a someone encouraged me to kneel, or if more than 1 family did it. (And it would help if it were a family with some social graces . . . i don't normally count that stuff as important . . . but . . . this family has an *incredible* lack of social grace. It's impossible to concentrate when they're around. *sigh* i guess i should just pray for them.) Peace, Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 [quote]I persist because this approach completely destroys the idea of a norm. What is a norm if it can be interpreted out of existence?[/quote] The option to kneel doesn't do this though. It is an option that is also a norm. It is the universal norm. Insofar as this is a normative action, one cannot be denied from doing it. The US bishops have asked for the faithful to stand. The Vatican gave an indult for this to happen with the express condition that the universal norm not be eliminated. The norm that would be destroyed, argent_paladin, is the universal norm. Also it seems that what is attempted to be argued out of existence is the universal norm. This is directly contrary to the wishes of Rome. When Cardinal Medina Estevez made the statement that he did, he had the fullest support from the Holy Father, precisely because he was speaking as prefect of the CDW. The CDW is an extension of the office of the Holy Father. Therefore, the Holy Father is giving implicit consent to the statement that Cardinal Medina Estevez made on this matter. I also think that obedience is an all or nothing propostion. I don't think that one can be "less than fully obdedient." If that were the case, how would the vow of obedience have any credence within the Catholic Church. I can either accept that which the Church teaches or I cannot. By receiving Holy Communion, I am being obedient to the normative action. I am choosing not to participate in the indult granted. It would seem that when the destruction of a norm is when the indult becomes the norm. An indult by definition is an approved move away from the norm. Cam42 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mamalove Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 My option isn't up there either. I grew up kneeling. I live in the western part of my county, which is dotted with many gothic style, very orthodox churches, all of which have (or had) communion rails. We used ours until I was just about in high school. Another nearby parish only recently stopped using theirs. I miss it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StPiusVPrayForUs Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 Kneeling, standing...I prefer kneeling in the western church, but I do otherwise if I go to a Maronite Mass. However, you will never see me take Christ from a so called "extraordinary minister" or receive in the hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JP2Iloveyou Posted February 25, 2005 Share Posted February 25, 2005 [quote name='StPiusVPrayForUs' date='Feb 24 2005, 05:05 PM'] Kneeling, standing...I prefer kneeling in the western church, but I do otherwise if I go to a Maronite Mass. However, you will never see me take Christ from a so called "extraordinary minister" or receive in the hand. [/quote] That is your choice, but a "so called" extraordinary minister is "so called" that by the Church. (see Redemptionis Sacramentum) I also only receive on the tongue, but I don't have a problem with anyone receiving on the hand. The Church has said this is OK, so who are we to argue with the Church? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelFilo Posted February 25, 2005 Author Share Posted February 25, 2005 I don't really think thats what the discussion is about.... and EMs are validly avoided by the faithful... but you shouldn't bash them, and hand Communion is of lesser reverence, but still acceptable... if you say to the contrary you cut yourself off from the Church. God bless, Mikey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epiclesis Posted February 25, 2005 Share Posted February 25, 2005 [quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Feb 25 2005, 04:19 PM'] I don't really think thats what the discussion is about.... and EMs are validly avoided by the faithful... but you shouldn't bash them, and hand Communion is of lesser reverence, but still acceptable... if you say to the contrary you cut yourself off from the Church. God bless, Mikey [/quote] Reverence is in the heart of the believer. Hand Communion is no more or less of a reverent reception than Communion on the tongue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelFilo Posted February 25, 2005 Author Share Posted February 25, 2005 Reverence is in the heart of the believer, but is also shown externally through the actions of the believer. Hand Communion shows less reverence especially in how people receive by hand now-adays. I realize there are outwardly reverent ways to receive by hand, but outwardly, even those don't truely compare with the outward reverence of receiving on your tongue. Note, I don't value outward reverence as important as the reverence you describe, but I believe they are interconnected in some ways. God bless, Mikey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epiclesis Posted February 25, 2005 Share Posted February 25, 2005 [quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Feb 25 2005, 04:45 PM'] Hand Communion shows less reverence...[/quote] At best you may say that it feels less reverent to you. You are not able to say that it feels less reverent to another. As for outward signs, would it be fair for others to say that kneeling to receive is less reverent because it's really about calling attention to oneself? I think not, and I suspect that you think not also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelFilo Posted February 25, 2005 Author Share Posted February 25, 2005 Reverence isn't a feeling, and as such cannot be felt. Feelings are not important or integral to the Catholic Faith. Reverence isn't subjective, either. Reverence is an objective thing. Kneeling is more reverent, since it prostrates the receiver of Communion in a position that is lower than that of the Kings. It is more reverent. God bless, Mikey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epiclesis Posted February 25, 2005 Share Posted February 25, 2005 [quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Feb 25 2005, 05:13 PM']Reverence isn't a feeling, and as such cannot be felt. Feelings are not important or integral to the Catholic Faith. Reverence isn't subjective, either. Reverence is an objective thing. Kneeling is more reverent, since it prostrates the receiver of Communion in a position that is lower than that of the Kings. It is more reverent. God bless, Mikey[/quote] Which is the more reverent action? Communion on the tongue without even a fleeting thought as to the Presence of our Lord? Or Communion in the hand with deep reflection and awe of the Presence? And yes, reverence is a feeling and an expression of that feeling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JP2Iloveyou Posted February 25, 2005 Share Posted February 25, 2005 [quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Feb 25 2005, 05:13 PM'] Reverence isn't a feeling, and as such cannot be felt. Feelings are not important or integral to the Catholic Faith. Reverence isn't subjective, either. Reverence is an objective thing. Kneeling is more reverent, since it prostrates the receiver of Communion in a position that is lower than that of the Kings. It is more reverent. God bless, Mikey [/quote] That depends on where you are at. In the Eastern Churches, the most reverant posture is to stand. Here we go again though. I do not think that I am any less reverant for receiving standing up than you are for kneeling down. [quote]An argument arose among the disciples about which of them was the greatest. Jesus realized the intention of their hearts and took a child and placed it by his side and said to them, "Whoever receives this child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me. For the one who is least among all of you is the one who is the greatest."[/quote] This pointless bickering is doing nothing to further the kingdom of God. Instead of trying to exult ourselves by saying, "The way I do it is better," or "You're being disobedient," I propose we spend some time in prayer or examining our consciences today asking ourselves how we have ignored Christ, or have exalted ourselves, or anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts