You see, there is this priest who considers someone "coming up to communion" and "kneeling, or sticking their tongue out at the Lord and at the priest," to be "making a prophetic and transgressive gesture in the name of ‘reverence." (And he is "tempted in my bad moments to regard this as exhibitionist, a manifestation of spiritual pride," but at least doesn't state positively that it is necessarily. )
He claims that "such behaviour [as] receiving holy communion kneeling and/or on the tongue
can easily be disruptive when only a minority do it."
Kneeling is a stretch, but I'll grant him that it is possible to disrupt a communion line designed for maximum speed and efficiency, but receiving on the tongue?
I might theorize on what is "disrupted" because this priest further believes that "the practice of communion on the tongue is distasteful, insanitary, and grounded in theological misunderstandings about the nature of grace and the Eucharist."
As I said, his opinion is making me rethink my practice.
The thread in question is mostly about whether a presider who does not respect the integrity of the text of the Roman Missal is pastoral or presumptuous.
One contributing liturgist uses GIRM 20. [Because, however, the celebration of the Eucharist, like the entire Liturgy, is carried out through perceptible signs that nourish, strengthen, and express faith,31 the utmost care must be taken to choose and to arrange those forms and elements set forth by the Church that, in view of the circumstances of the people and the place, will more effectively foster active and full participation and more properly respond to the spiritual needs of the faithful,] as a refutation of the claim that "improv is never required,"
He feels that GIRM 20 "requires the person reading this rubric to exercise a pastoral judgment, not to say 'It doesn’t tell me I must do such-and-such, so I won’t', which comes dangerously close to being childish."
He reminds his readers that "something more is required than the mere observation of the laws governing valid and licit celebration.”
(I have noticed that when anyone who has failed to do so is reminded that he ought to follow instructions, the defense is usually that following instructions is insufficient -- as if anyone ever claims that it is....
"GIRM 20 is saying that if you just stick to the book you are actually not doing your job properly: you have to select and arrange what the Church has proposed in order to facilitate the spiritual welfare of the faithful. ... It’s a totally different world from the rubricism of the preconciliar era, and many people including some posting here have not yet 'got it', alas."
That's it. Anyone who disagrees does so because he doesn't "get it." It couldn't be that he understands perfectly well but thinks you're , oh, I don't know.. wrong?
"I think GIRM 20 refers to a state of mind."
That's the ticket, the General Instruction tells us what our state of mind ought to be, it refers to something unquantifiable, and therefore beyond criticism, not subject to mundane considerations like "right," or "wrong," or "actually there in the GIRM."
To think otherwise "is a postconciliar vision of liturgy which rubricists, who feel safe within the confines of rules and regulations, have difficulty in understanding. The fact is that pastoral needs can be the guiding principle for much more than people realize. It is a liberation, not an abuse."
Simple soul that I am, what I have no difficulty in understanding, is something like this .
No comments:
Post a Comment