Implied accusation of disobedience

floresco · #1 Aug 29, '10, 10:48 am

This weekend I attended the local parish's OF with my family. I was sitting next to a very sweet lady who has noticed that I only receive Communion from the priest and was clearly concerned about me. After Mass she asked me about why I do this. I told her both my practical reason and my theological one. I receive on the tongue and kneeling which few EMoCs have been trained to expect. It would be awkward at best and, at worst, the Blessed Sacrament might fall. My theological reason is a wish to acknowledge the special link between the Sacraments of Ordination and Eucharist.

The concerned lady did not respond directly to what I said but told me a story about a time she had been tempted to not receive Communion from an Extraordinary Minister (because she didn't like him) but she knew that it was important to be obedient so she did it anyhow. Her point seemed to be that I should stop my "disobedience" and receive Communion from lay people. Since she was so clearly well-meaning, I just smiled and thanked her, but it is a bit depressing to know that people think of me as disobedient to the Church.

HCC · #2 Aug 29, '10, 10:58 am

The situation you described is exactly why I stopped attending the occasional OF Mass. Even well intentioned, theologically orthodox people are confused. That is not an act of disobedience. You know that and any well informed Catholic knows that--that is what is important. I would have nicely mentioned that it was not disobedience to receive only from the priest and let it go. Don't let it bother you.

Victorious · #3 Aug 29, '10, 12:54 pm

Fr. Z. has a good post on this whole question of "obedience" with particular reference to whether we are being "disobedient" when we kneel for Holy Communion (answer: no). I think the reasoning behind this is helpful in general whenever one is hit with the "disobedience" canard.

ConservativeOne · #4 Aug 29, '10, 1:08 pm

Couldn't help but reply after re-reading your post...Your fellow-parishioner is concerned that you only want to receive from the priest?.

Gives me chills. If that were a conservative Catholic speaking, we might be accused of paying too much attention to other worshippers instead of our own prayer, etc. While we have to agree with Holy Mother the Church's decrees - and while there have become needs at times for ordinary ministers, I'd think Church attendance is so in decline in numbers that there almost wouldn't be a need. I say do as your conscience tells you - particularly, in cases of your Faith and Tradition. Don't worry or let others give you pause. God love you.

Victorious · #5 Aug 29, '10, 1:16 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConservativeOne

While we have to agree with Holy Mother the Church's decrees - and while there have become needs at times for ordinary ministers, I'd think Church attendance is so in decline in numbers that there almost wouldn't be a need.

And we need to keep in mind that there is a distinction between what is decreed and what is tolerated; and sometimes things are tolerated that should not be tolerated. The Church decrees that priests and deacons are ordinary ministers of Holy Communion; that they have a duty to exercise their office; that they should never give place to EMHCs; and that there should be a genuine need before deploying EMHCs.

Ockham · #6 Aug 29, '10, 2:44 pm

With the improvements to the OF and the gaining popularity of the EF there will be more challenges from the modernists. Traditional Catholics need to be prepared for those simply confused and curious to those harbouring ulterior motives. Patience, counsel, and fortitude from the Holy Spirit are required.

Corki · #7 Aug 29, '10, 6:23 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ockham

With the improvements to the OF and the gaining popularity of the EF there will be more challenges from the modernists. Traditional Catholics need to be prepared for those simply confused and curious to those harbouring ulterior motives. Patience, counsel, and fortitude from the Holy Spirit are required.

Do you know something we don't? I haven't heard of any improvements to the OF coming along.

floresco · #8 Aug 29, '10, 6:40 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corki

Do you know something we don't? I haven't heard of any improvements to the OF coming along.

I assumed he meant the new English translation. From what I have heard, it is an improvement over the current one.

Victorious · #9 Aug 29, '10, 6:49 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iron Donkey

I like Father Z and usually agree with what he has to say, but I think I have to disagree a little bit with him, and a little with you as well, on the standing/kneeling part.

He actually consulted a canon lawyer in answering the question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iron Donkey

"Communicants should not be denied holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm (GIRM 160)."

What are the reasons for this norm?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iron Donkey

To call kneeling at communion "disobedience" probably would depend on whether or not you have been instructed not to. If you've been convinced that the norms say not to (or even if you haven't but the local Bishop or presiding priest told you not to), then yes it is.

Not true. How am I guilty of disobedience if the priest or bishop attempts to issue an order that he has no authority to issue?

MarkThompson · #10 Aug 29, '10, 7:33 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Victorious

He actually consulted a canon lawyer in answering the question.

Notice he did not tell you the canon lawyer's own opinion of the issue.

Quote:

What are the reasons for this norm?

Personally, I think it's a lame norm and that the reasons -- which I assume are, mostly, to facilitate movement and to meet the parameters of a church without altar rails -- are not very good ones. It needs to be said, though, that a norm promulgated for lame reasons is not somehow less valid thereby, as Father Z regrettably seems to suggest. The issues of (1) what are the reasons for the norm, (2) do I like the norm, and (3) what is the norm, and what is its authority, need to be kept conceptually separate.

Quote:

Not true. How am I guilty of disobedience if the priest or bishop attempts to issue an order that he has no authority to issue?

The priests or bishops do not have the authority to withhold Communion as punishment for kneeling or as an enticement to stand up. The bishops' conference does, however, have the authority to determine whether the posture for communicating will be kneeling or standing. Just because priests cannot enforce that posture by punishing you for going your own way does not take away from the fact that the normative posture was authoritatively determined.

Feel free to join the discussion in this thread about kneeling for Communion. I won't drag ConserativeOne's thread here farther away from his original topic.

ConvertaKat · #11 Aug 29, '10, 8:00 pm

Floresco,

I think that the dear sister in Christ you sought to "correct" you is simply a busybody who would find fault in what you or anyone does just to have something to harp on...in a nice way of course!

I agree with some of the other posters, bless the old girl and let it go.

floresco · #12 Aug 30, '10, 11:45 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConvertaKat

Floresco,

I think that the dear sister in Christ you sought to "correct" you is simply a busybody who would find fault in what you or anyone does just to have something to harp on...in a nice way of course!

No, she isn't that sort of person. I'm sure she was speaking out of genuine concern for me.

ConstantineTG · #13 Aug 30, '10, 12:07 pm

Another way to look at obedience is, remember that we call priests and bishops "father" for a reason. We must compare them to the father we have in our home. Is our father always right? Does our father always have our best interests at heart? And shouldn't we follow our father no matter what?

I think American culture may be to blame here, partly at least. In the Philippines and I believe the same is true in most of Asia, you grow up taught to respect your parents. You cannot even talk back to them unless you are told you can. When father is angry, you just stand there and take his words. No talking back. Right or wrong, he is your father. And I know that many people from my home country are apalled that American kids grow up talking back to their parents. Especially in the 80s and even through the 90s, it was just too sad culturally for us to see kids talk back to their parents.

Now, we adapt that same attitude. We easily talk back to our Church fathers as we do to our fathers at home. I think that resepect due to a father is missing nowadays.

benedictgal · #14 Aug 30, '10, 12:21 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by floresco

No, she isn't that sort of person. I'm sure she was speaking out of genuine concern for me.

Floresco, there is no rule that requires you to receive from an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. Unfortunately, in these forums, it is a common misnomer to address EMHCs as Eucharistic Ministers. Only the priests and bishops are Eucharistic Ministers because they confect (cause to happen) the Sacrament, the Euchairst. The bishop, priest and deacon are ordinary ministers of Holy Communion. The lay faithful who have been deputized to assist them are called Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.

Bear in mind something else: only the bishop and the priest can administer Holy Communion via intinction. The reason that I bring this up is because there are places down here where the EMHCs intinct and this is not licit. I will not receive Holy Communion via intinction from an EMHC because it is ilicit.

It is your right to receive from whomever you wish. It is also your right to receive in your preferred manner (COTT/CITH, kneeling/standing).

Famule · #15 Aug 31, '10, 2:42 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkThompson

Notice he did not tell you the canon lawyer's own opinion of the issue.

Personally, I think it's a lame norm and that the reasons -- which I assume are, mostly, to facilitate movement and to meet the parameters of a church without altar rails -- are not very good ones. It needs to be said, though, that a norm promulgated for lame reasons is not somehow less valid thereby, as Father Z regrettably seems to suggest. The issues of (1) what are the reasons for the norm, (2) do I like the norm, and (3) what is the norm, and what is its authority, need to be kept conceptually separate.

The priests or bishops do not have the authority to withhold Communion as punishment for kneeling or as an enticement to stand up. The bishops' conference does, however, have the authority to determine whether the posture for communicating will be kneeling or standing. Just because priests cannot enforce that posture by punishing you for going your own way does not take away from the fact that the normative posture was authoritatively determined.

Feel free to join the discussion in this thread about kneeling for Communion. I won't drag ConserativeOne's thread here farther away from his original topic.

Cardinal Arinze is quoted in saying that the approval for standing for Communion was granted on condition that those who want to receive Communion kneeling be left in peace.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ap1KL2D5ae4