Our parish introduced the use of portable kneelers for Holy Communion last year but it was announced this past Sunday that that per the Diocese we will no longer be allowed to use the kneelers. I don’t understand it. This seems out of keeping with our bishop to micromanage so I’m wondering if it’s some other power within the Chancery?
Our parish introduced the use of portable kneelers for Holy Communion last year but it was announced this past Sunday that that per the Diocese we will no longer be allowed to use the kneelers. I don’t understand it. This seems out of keeping with our bishop to micromanage so I’m wondering if it’s some other power within the Chancery?
As an EMHC I can tell you that the parishioners coming up the center aisle prefer the kneeler to coming to an EMHC who does not have a kneeler.
There is also no real obligation on parishioners to follow this norm. The only obligation the norm itself lays out, is the obligation for the pastor to explain to people who kneel why the norm is the norm.
Meanwhile the norm for the Latin Rite as a whole is to receive kneeling.
Clearly no one should be denied a sacrament because of non-observance of a norm. That would be a disproportionate punishment for a minor violation. I do find it odd that many neo-traditionalists stridently push laxity on this norm while get quite irate about non-observances of other norms. But I have my own oddities as well, so life goes on.
I'm currently travelling overseas and I find the local Mass norms to be quite interesting.
This particular norm is contrary to the Latin Rite norm, and also contrary to traditional practice for the last bunch of centuries. It's weird to be rigid about it.
As best I can tell, trads generally don't get their knickers in a knot about norms at all. It's about doctrine, the practices that come out of doctrine, reverence, and tradition. The norms published by bishops are probably not given a very high priority unless they also fall within one of those categories . The norms thereby become useful for talking to conservative Catholics who tend to put a relatively high priority on whatever the bishop says.
Part of this is simply a defense mechanism. The norms change when you move, or when the bishop/bishop's conference changes their mind, and they're published in innumerable different documents over many decades and coming from many different levels of Church governance. It's too much. I don't even know many norms, but I know I've never been in a parish that follows all the official ones. People have either selected or invented their own set of norms, possibly unwittingly, or gone back to the old ones.
I appreciate your flexibility on norms. Elsewhere, I have noticed some neo-traditionalists with their knickers high over various norms, particularly concerning women in the liturgy. But based on your example, I intend to be careful not to stereotype.
Again, that's not because it's a norm, it's because it is contrary to tradition and to some extent Scripture. I'm familiar with trads getting upset about various things, but the root cause is never because it violates a current norm, in my experience.
I have never heard of Byzantines (or any Oriental Rite) traditionally using women as lectors or acolytes. Cantors, yes, but that is generally considered acceptable in the Latin Rite as well.
Our parish introduced the use of portable kneelers for Holy Communion last year but it was announced this past Sunday that that per the Diocese we will no longer be allowed to use the kneelers. I don’t understand it. This seems out of keeping with our bishop to micromanage so I’m wondering if it’s some other power within the Chancery?
As an EMHC I can tell you that the parishioners coming up the center aisle prefer the kneeler to coming to an EMHC who does not have a kneeler.
The norm for the United States for both the Latin and Byzantine churches is to receive standing.
If norms could not change, the US Latin norm would be kneeling.
Of course, norms can change. I just noted the current norm.
There is also no real obligation on parishioners to follow this norm. The only obligation the norm itself lays out, is the obligation for the pastor to explain to people who kneel why the norm is the norm.
Meanwhile the norm for the Latin Rite as a whole is to receive kneeling.
Clearly no one should be denied a sacrament because of non-observance of a norm. That would be a disproportionate punishment for a minor violation. I do find it odd that many neo-traditionalists stridently push laxity on this norm while get quite irate about non-observances of other norms. But I have my own oddities as well, so life goes on.
I'm currently travelling overseas and I find the local Mass norms to be quite interesting.
This particular norm is contrary to the Latin Rite norm, and also contrary to traditional practice for the last bunch of centuries. It's weird to be rigid about it.
As best I can tell, trads generally don't get their knickers in a knot about norms at all. It's about doctrine, the practices that come out of doctrine, reverence, and tradition. The norms published by bishops are probably not given a very high priority unless they also fall within one of those categories . The norms thereby become useful for talking to conservative Catholics who tend to put a relatively high priority on whatever the bishop says.
Part of this is simply a defense mechanism. The norms change when you move, or when the bishop/bishop's conference changes their mind, and they're published in innumerable different documents over many decades and coming from many different levels of Church governance. It's too much. I don't even know many norms, but I know I've never been in a parish that follows all the official ones. People have either selected or invented their own set of norms, possibly unwittingly, or gone back to the old ones.
I appreciate your flexibility on norms. Elsewhere, I have noticed some neo-traditionalists with their knickers high over various norms, particularly concerning women in the liturgy. But based on your example, I intend to be careful not to stereotype.
Again, that's not because it's a norm, it's because it is contrary to tradition and to some extent Scripture. I'm familiar with trads getting upset about various things, but the root cause is never because it violates a current norm, in my experience.
Your suggesting the Byzantines are "to some extent " against Scripture?
I have never heard of Byzantines (or any Oriental Rite) traditionally using women as lectors or acolytes. Cantors, yes, but that is generally considered acceptable in the Latin Rite as well.