Argument with a priest / heresy / kneeling for Communion

[AlanF]

I’m not quite sure what forum to put this in, it seems to fit into a few.

I believe my priest spoke heresy.

Last Sunday I had to go to my awfull local Novus Ordo parish (as opposed to the other, slightly better, Novus Ordo parish). I knelt for Holy Communion as I normally do (which is allowed). After Mass the priest told me in no uncertain terms to stop. I then tried to defend kneeling. I told him in the Latin Rite of the Church it is the norm to kneel and standing is a sort of indult granted to the Bishops’ Conferences; he interrupted with “no-no-no no-no-no, we don’t offer the latin rite” as if he thought I was talking about the TLM; this happend again after I tried to clarify. I then tried to explain what the Latin Rite is: the western rite with the Pope as Patriarch, so he said “We’re not under the Pope, we’re under the Bishop”.

What followed seemed to me to be an endless stream of errors and even a heresy.
Here is a summary.

• The Pope is merely “head of the conference of bishops” and does not have supreme authority over the other bishops. He seems to reduce the role of the Pope to more of a “first among equals” position.
• “Otherwise you get this idea that the mass media likes to portray that the Church is heirarchical, like a pyramid.” But the Church* is* heirarchical, especially in the relationship between the Pope / Holy See and the other bishops.
• In Europe they don’t kneel for the consecration, because they don’t have kneelers. From what I understand they kneel for the consecration but not the rest of the Canon (GIRM ¶43) Am I right? Still, this is not traditional sinse the TLM said people must kneel for the whole Canon; and it absolutely does not mean we should not kneel at all for the Sacrifice.
• (!!!) Lastly, and I believe this is the heresy. He said we stand for the Gospel reading and Christ is equally present in the Gospel reading as in the Eucharist! I may be relatively new back to the Faith but I cannot accept this! I don’t see how he can say this unless he denies the Real Presence. In the Most Holy Eucharist, there is physically present the Body and Blood, together with the Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, as truly present on the altar as he was to St. Thomas “the Twin” when He was showing him His Wounds (Jn XX, 26), the Gospel reading, in which the Spirit of God is of couse present, still does not even compare to this. This sounds like major heresy to me.

I am right about that last one being a heresy, aren’t I? His only defense of this was the phrase “Word and Sacrament”, as if this strange expression justifies this and makes them equal.

Then he told me he was telling me Catholic teaching, that I should stop pushing my “oppinion”, and goodbye.

About kneeling for communion in the NO, can anyone find something from the Congregation of Divine Worship about this. Preferably suited to the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales. I’ve found this one which says “Indeed, the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion,” which proves my point already, but he might say that’s only for America, although I believe we have the same rules on this.

God Bless.

P.S. I really tried to explain quite calmly, the priest was the one turning this into an argument.

 

[FAB]

• The Pope is merely “head of the conference of bishops” and does not have supreme authority over the other bishops. He seems to reduce the role of the Pope to more of a “first among equals” position.
• “Otherwise you get this idea that the mass media likes to portray that the Church is heirarchical, like a pyramid.” But the Church* is* heirarchical, especially in the relationship between the Pope / Holy See and the other bishops.
• In Europe they don’t kneel for the consecration, because they don’t have kneelers. From what I understand they kneel for the consecration but not the rest of the Canon (GIRM ¶43) Am I right? Still, this is not traditional sinse the TLM said people must kneel for the whole Canon; and it absolutely does not mean we should not kneel at all for the Sacrifice.
• (!!!) Lastly, and I believe this is the heresy. He said we stand for the Gospel reading and Christ is equally present in the Gospel reading as in the Eucharist! I may be relatively new back to the Faith but I cannot accept this! I don’t see how he can say this unless he denies the Real Presence. In the Most Holy Eucharist, there is physically present the Body and Blood, together with the Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, as truly present on the altar as he was to St. Thomas “the Twin” when He was showing him His Wounds (Jn XX, 26), the Gospel reading, in which the Spirit of God is of couse present, still does not even compare to this. This sounds like major heresy to me.

I am right about that last one being a heresy, aren’t I? His only defense of this was the phrase “Word and Sacrament”, as if this strange expression justifies this and makes them equal.

.

You need to listen to your priest, he is correct on all these issues.
On the last issue, the church ha equal imphasis on the Word of God and the Eucharist, and we are to recieve both at the mass.

Peace,
FAB

 

[Cluny]

As regards kneeling or standing for Communion, it might be well to follow whatever the local custom is.

As St. Ambrose said to St. Augustine, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.”

 

[Tony_Souza]

You need to listen to your priest, he is correct on all these issues.
On the last issue, the church ha equal imphasis on the Word of God and the Eucharist, and we are to recieve both at the mass.

I could not disagree more. The pope is, in fact the leader of the Church. The Eastern Orthodox churches call him the first among equals, not the Catholic Church.

Also, one of the precepts of the Church is to receive Holy Communion at least once a year. If The Eucharist and the Gospel were the same, why wouldn’t listening to the Gospel also be a precept? True, you can assume that one would listen at mass (one precept is to attend mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation), but you could also assume one would receive communion. The difference is that one is specifically called out, the other isn’t.

I don’t know if this is a case of heresy, or of unfortunate miscommunication between AlanF and his priest. I hope it is the latter, but fear it is the former. It is a sad fact that I have seen quite a bit of obstinate heretics wearing a roman collar. We all need to pray for them. If it is truly heresy, and it is being preached from the pulpit, contact the bishop. Scandal is serious.

 

[Dtmccameron]

I could not disagree more. The pope is, in fact the leader of the Church. The Eastern Orthodox churches call him the first among equals, not the Catholic Church.

That’s what I was thinking!

Have you been going to an Orthodox Church all these years?



Oh, and, wouldn’t this be more in line with apostasy?

Also, one of the precepts of the Church is to receive Holy Communion at least once a year. If The Eucharist and the Gospel were the same, why wouldn’t listening to the Gospel also be a precept? True, you can assume that one would listen at mass (one precept is to attend mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation), but you could also assume one would receive communion. The difference is that one is specifically called out, the other isn’t.

I think the Priest’s main error here was the adverb “equally”. As, are we not taught that God is present somewhat in the Word of God, and indeed, even in the poor?

I don’t know if this is a case of heresy, or of unfortunate miscommunication between AlanF and his priest. I hope it is the latter, but fear it is the former. It is a sad fact that I have seen quite a bit of obstinate heretics wearing a roman collar. We all need to pray for them. If it is truly heresy, and it is being preached from the pulpit, contact the bishop. Scandal is serious.

I still can’t see how the Priest didn’t know he was in the Latin Rite. Unless, again, you’ve actually been frequenting a Orthodox parish!

But they’d kneel wouldn’t they?

And didn’t Fr. Corapi say something about a Cardinal who went into a parish and remarked to the Pastor that there were no kneelers. The Pastor complained that they were too expensive, at which point the Cardinal (I think it was) interrupted and said, “No, I wan’t your people on their knees.”

 

[malphono]

Last Sunday I had to go to my awfull local Novus Ordo parish (as opposed to the other, slightly better, Novus Ordo parish). I knelt for Holy Communion as I normally do (which is allowed). After Mass the priest told me in no uncertain terms to stop.

In short, kneeling (and receiving orally) is the norm in the Latin Rite, and that irrespective of geography. There are oodles of threads in this forum regarding kneeling for communion. If the priest doesn’t understand that this is the norm, it’s no wonder you referred to the church as “my awfull local Novus Ordo parish (as opposed to the other, slightly better, Novus Ordo parish).” (I loved that descriptor, BTW. )

I’m not familiar with the particular diocese, but from what I understand, the UK bishops are not quite what one would call bastions of traditional practice (much less interested implementing Summorum Pontificum, but that is another matter entirely). Perhaps that understanding is incorrect, or perhaps at least the local bishop is sensible, in which case it might be worth your while to bring the matter to the attention of the Local Ordinary. It might do some good. But, even if otherwise, a complaint to the Local Ordinary might at least give you, the complainant, a certain amount of satisfaction.

 

[TMC]

You need to listen to your priest, he is correct on all these issues.
On the last issue, the church ha equal imphasis on the Word of God and the Eucharist, and we are to recieve both at the mass.

Peace,
FAB

I agree. The local bishop has broad authority to set the norms for Mass, it is simply disobedient to refuse to follow them. From the GIRM:

1. The Diocesan Bishop, who is to be regarded as the high priest of his flock, and from whom the life in Christ of the faithful under his care in a certain sense derives and upon whom it depends,148 must promote, regulate, and be vigilant over the liturgical life in his diocese. It is to him that in this Instruction is entrusted the regulating of the discipline of concelebration (cf. above, nos. 202, 374) and the establishing of norms regarding the function of serving the priest at the altar (cf. above, no. 107), the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds (cf. above, no. 283), and the construction and ordering of churches (cf. above, no. 291). With him lies responsibility above all for fostering the spirit of the Sacred Liturgy in the priests, deacons, and faithful.

In the US the rule is (from GIRM 160):

The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another. The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. 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.

This sounds like what happened. Holy Communion was not refused, but the priest communicated the local rule after Mass.

 

[Shin]

I’m not quite sure what forum to put this in, it seems to fit into a few.

I believe my priest spoke heresy.

Last Sunday I had to go to my awfull local Novus Ordo parish (as opposed to the other, slightly better, Novus Ordo parish). I knelt for Holy Communion as I normally do (which is allowed). After Mass the priest told me in no uncertain terms to stop. I then tried to defend kneeling. I told him in the Latin Rite of the Church it is the norm to kneel and standing is a sort of indult granted to the Bishops’ Conferences; he interrupted with “no-no-no no-no-no, we don’t offer the latin rite” as if he thought I was talking about the TLM; this happend again after I tried to clarify. I then tried to explain what the Latin Rite is: the western rite with the Pope as Patriarch, so he said “We’re not under the Pope, we’re under the Bishop”.

What followed seemed to me to be an endless stream of errors and even a heresy.
Here is a summary.

• The Pope is merely “head of the conference of bishops” and does not have supreme authority over the other bishops. He seems to reduce the role of the Pope to more of a “first among equals” position.
• “Otherwise you get this idea that the mass media likes to portray that the Church is heirarchical, like a pyramid.” But the Church* is* heirarchical, especially in the relationship between the Pope / Holy See and the other bishops.
• In Europe they don’t kneel for the consecration, because they don’t have kneelers. From what I understand they kneel for the consecration but not the rest of the Canon (GIRM ¶43) Am I right? Still, this is not traditional sinse the TLM said people must kneel for the whole Canon; and it absolutely does not mean we should not kneel at all for the Sacrifice.
• (!!!) Lastly, and I believe this is the heresy. He said we stand for the Gospel reading and Christ is equally present in the Gospel reading as in the Eucharist! I may be relatively new back to the Faith but I cannot accept this! I don’t see how he can say this unless he denies the Real Presence. In the Most Holy Eucharist, there is physically present the Body and Blood, together with the Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, as truly present on the altar as he was to St. Thomas “the Twin” when He was showing him His Wounds (Jn XX, 26), the Gospel reading, in which the Spirit of God is of couse present, still does not even compare to this. This sounds like major heresy to me.

.

You are correct on every major point you have made: Kneeling cannot be abrogated by the local bishop, it is allowed to all the Faithful and the Congregation has made this clear. Christ is not equally present in the Gospel and the Eucharist, this is a heresy, the Pope does have authority over the other bishops, and the Church is a hierarchy.

You should write up a summary of what you have stated clearly, document that these are errors, and first send the letter documenting it certified to the priest, then if he does not respond and change, the bishop, then if the bishop doesn’t deal with it, up the chain of the hierarchy. Nuncio and/or CDF.

If this is too much for you to handle, you should at least pray to be able to or that it be corrected – and certainly find a different priest, because since he has so many fundamental problems he doubtlessly has many others as well.

 

[Like]

I’m not quite sure what forum to put this in, it seems to fit into a few.

I believe my priest spoke heresy.

Last Sunday I had to go to my awfull local Novus Ordo parish (as opposed to the other, slightly better, Novus Ordo parish). I knelt for Holy Communion as I normally do (which is allowed). After Mass the priest told me in no uncertain terms to stop. I then tried to defend kneeling. I told him in the Latin Rite of the Church it is the norm to kneel and standing is a sort of indult granted to the Bishops’ Conferences; he interrupted with “no-no-no no-no-no, we don’t offer the latin rite” as if he thought I was talking about the TLM; this happend again after I tried to clarify. I then tried to explain what the Latin Rite is: the western rite with the Pope as Patriarch, so he said “We’re not under the Pope, we’re under the Bishop”.

What followed seemed to me to be an endless stream of errors and even a heresy.
Here is a summary.

• The Pope is merely “head of the conference of bishops” and does not have supreme authority over the other bishops. He seems to reduce the role of the Pope to more of a “first among equals” position.
• “Otherwise you get this idea that the mass media likes to portray that the Church is heirarchical, like a pyramid.” But the Church* is* heirarchical, especially in the relationship between the Pope / Holy See and the other bishops.
• In Europe they don’t kneel for the consecration, because they don’t have kneelers. From what I understand they kneel for the consecration but not the rest of the Canon (GIRM ¶43) Am I right? Still, this is not traditional sinse the TLM said people must kneel for the whole Canon; and it absolutely does not mean we should not kneel at all for the Sacrifice.
• (!!!) Lastly, and I believe this is the heresy. He said we stand for the Gospel reading and Christ is equally present in the Gospel reading as in the Eucharist! I may be relatively new back to the Faith but I cannot accept this! I don’t see how he can say this unless he denies the Real Presence. In the Most Holy Eucharist, there is physically present the Body and Blood, together with the Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, as truly present on the altar as he was to St. Thomas “the Twin” when He was showing him His Wounds (Jn XX, 26), the Gospel reading, in which the Spirit of God is of couse present, still does not even compare to this. This sounds like major heresy to me.

I am right about that last one being a heresy, aren’t I? His only defense of this was the phrase “Word and Sacrament”, as if this strange expression justifies this and makes them equal.

Then he told me he was telling me Catholic teaching, that I should stop pushing my “oppinion”, and goodbye.

About kneeling for communion in the NO, can anyone find something from the Congregation of Divine Worship about this. Preferably suited to the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales. I’ve found this one which says “Indeed, the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion,” which proves my point already, but he might say that’s only for America, although I believe we have the same rules on this.

God Bless.

P.S. I really tried to explain quite calmly, the priest was the one turning this into an argument.

Alan, See this video on Kneeling, Kneelers, Altar Rails, and Cardinal Arinze

[http:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cc0g3UMRtMM](

)

 

[puzzleannie]

of far more critical importance to our spiritual health is obedience, the mother of humility. we are to obey our pastors and bishops in all things that are not sinful. Standing to receive communion, receiving in the hand etc. are matters of discipline, not morality, and if they are permitted, they are not sinful. We do ourselves no spiritual service by cultivating disobedience, especially publicly, on these matters, and do great good by complying and offering up the offense to our personal sensibilities.

 

[turtle18]

Jesus is equally present in the Gospel reading as He is in the Eucharist. We consume the Eucharist but we are consuming the Word of God into our souls.

This is from Gospel of John…very first sentence:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
He was in the beginning with God.

The WORD was made flesh and dwelt among us.

I really hate when priests bring up, “they stand in Europe.” No offense, the Church is on life-support in Europe. They are not exactly who we want to take our direction from.

I would be willing to be this priest is in his fifties/sixties. There is a large group of priests out there (usually in this age range) who think the Council of Bishops run the Church, not the Pope/Vatican–that of course is the Eastern Orthodox Church, not the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[AlanF]

On the last issue, the church ha equal imphasis on the Word of God and the Eucharist, and we are to recieve both at the mass.

Peace,
FAB

When have you ever heard of Gospel Book Adoration?

As Dtmccameron pointed out, God is present in many things, but not at all like in the Most Holy Eucharist.

“Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.” (Jn VI, 54)
The same is not said of the Bible.

In short, kneeling (and receiving orally) is the norm in the Latin Rite, and that irrespective of geography. There are oodles of threads in this forum regarding kneeling for communion. If the priest doesn’t understand that this is the norm, it’s no wonder you referred to the church as “my awfull local Novus Ordo parish (as opposed to the other, slightly better, Novus Ordo parish).” (I loved that descriptor, BTW. ) [Thanks! ]

I’m not familiar with the particular diocese, but from what I understand, the UK bishops are not quite what one would call bastions of traditional practice (much less interested implementing Summorum Pontificum, but that is another matter entirely). Perhaps that understanding is incorrect, or perhaps at least the local bishop is sensible, in which case it might be worth your while to bring the matter to the attention of the Local Ordinary. It might do some good. But, even if otherwise, a complaint to the Local Ordinary might at least give you, the complainant, a certain amount of satisfaction.

I’m afraid not, unfortunately my bishop is this bishop, and this priest I know is very close to him.

I agree. The local bishop has broad authority to set the norms for Mass, it is simply disobedient to refuse to follow them. From the GIRM:

In the US the rule is (from GIRM 160):

This sounds like what happened. Holy Communion was not refused, but the priest communicated the local rule after Mass.

I’ll have to quote you this letter again (there are many more like it).

This Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has received your letter dated 1 December 2002, related to the application of the norms approved by the Conference of Bishops of the United States of America, with the subsequent recognitio of this Congegation, as regards the question of the posture for receiving Holy Communion.

As the authority by virtue of whose recognitio the norm in question has attained the force of law, this Dicastery is competent to specify the manner in which the norm is to be understood for the sake of a proper application. Having received more than a few letters regarding this matter from different locations in the United States of America, the Congregation wishes to ensure that its position on the matter is clear.

To this end, it is perhaps useful to respond to your inquiry by repeating the content of a letter that the Congregation recently addressed to a Bishop in the United States of America from whose Diocese a number of pertinent letters had been received. The letter states: “…while this Congregation gave the recognitio 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.”

This Dicastery hopes that the citation given here will provide an adequate answer to your letter. At the same time, please be assured that the Congregation remains ready to be of assistance if you should need to contact it again.

With every prayerful good wish, I am,

Sincerely yours in Christ,
Mons. Mario Marini
Undersecretary

“The faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion.”

Hmmm. I was told to “get into line.”

 

[AlanF]

Jesus is equally present in the Gospel reading as He is in the Eucharist. We consume the Eucharist but we are consuming the Word of God into our souls.

This is from Gospel of John…very first sentence:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
He was in the beginning with God.

The WORD was made flesh and dwelt among us.

I really hate when priests bring up, “they stand in Europe.” No offense, the Church is on life-support in Europe. They are not exactly who we want to take our direction from.

I would be willing to be this priest is in his fifties/sixties. There is a large group of priests out there (usually in this age range) who think the Council of Bishops run the Church, not the Pope/Vatican–that of course is the Eastern Orthodox Church, not the Roman Catholic Church.

The Word is Jesus Christ, not the written Gospels.
Surely you have heard of Christ referred to as the Word Incarnate before.

I agreed with the second half of your post though. He is indeed in his sixties and has desribed himself as “very much a Vatican II priest”.

 

[Malkin71]

You need to listen to your priest, he is correct on all these issues.
On the last issue, the church ha equal imphasis on the Word of God and the Eucharist, and we are to recieve both at the mass.

Peace,
FAB

The Bishop has to answer to the Pope. The Pope is the head of the church. We are One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic. You can go above the Bishop.

 

[Shin]

of far more critical importance to our spiritual health is obedience, the mother of humility. we are to obey our pastors and bishops in all things that are not sinful. Standing to receive communion, receiving in the hand etc. are matters of discipline, not morality, and if they are permitted, they are not sinful. We do ourselves no spiritual service by cultivating disobedience, especially publicly, on these matters, and do great good by complying and offering up the offense to our personal sensibilities.

You just ignored the heresy, and you also told a person to obey a person who is disobediently making orders beyond his authority.

You have totally misstated the virtue of obedience in a harmful way.

 

[Dempsey1919]

“very much a Vatican II priest”.

This statement explains a great deal.

Unfortunately, many people within the Church are ignorant of the teachings of Vatican II. The issue of collegiality is one of the most misinterpreted and misunderstood issues arising from Vatican II.

The problems you are having with your priest arise from his faulty interpretations of Lumen Gentium.

Here is a quote from Chapter 3 from the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (bold is mine):

But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. *The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(157) it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter,(158) was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.(159)(28) This college, insofar as it is composed of many, expresses the variety and universality of the People of God, but insofar as it is assembled under one head, it expresses the unity of the flock of Christ. In it, the bishops, faithfully recognizing the primacy and pre-eminence of their head, exercise their own authority for the good of their own faithful, and indeed of the whole Church, the Holy Spirit supporting its organic structure and harmony with moderation. The supreme power in the universal Church, which this college enjoys, is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council. A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them.(29) This same collegiate power can be exercised together with the pope by the bishops living in all parts of the world, provided that the head of the college calls them to collegiate action, or at least approves of or freely accepts the united action of the scattered bishops, so that it is thereby made a collegiate act.

I have highlighted certain sections in this paragraph to show that the Pope has “full, supreme and universal power over the Church.” Although Bishops have authority over their own individual flocks, “this power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff.” The Pope has primacy and pre-eminence over all the other Bishops, and every Bishop faithfully recognizes and accepts this primacy. The authority of the Bishops can never be exercised without the consent of the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI.

The Bishops all have legitimate authority over their particular flocks, and this must never be forgotten. At the same time, we must all recognize that the Pope has supreme power over all the Bishops. The authority of each Bishop can only be exercised with the consent of Benedict XVI.

The Pope is merely “head of the conference of bishops” and does not have supreme authority over the other bishops. He seems to reduce the role of the Pope to more of a “first among equals” position.

Now that you have read what Vatican II says, do you think that this priest is correct? This priest is clearly incorrect. The Pope does have “supreme authority over the other Bishops,” and the above quote from Lumen Gentium unquestionably proves this.

 

[BSHoop96]

I think the Priest’s main error here was the adverb “equally”. As, are we not taught that God is present somewhat in the Word of God, and indeed, even in the poor?

Actually Jesus is “the Word” and is referred to that way as in “and the Word became flesh.”

And didn’t Fr. Corapi say something about a Cardinal who went into a parish and remarked to the Pastor that there were no kneelers. The Pastor complained that they were too expensive, at which point the Cardinal (I think it was) interrupted and said, “No, I wan’t your people on their knees.”

Actually, I think the Bishop (or Cardinal) went in and asked why people were not kneeling. The reply was that kneelers were too expensive. The Bishop answered, “I didn’t ask why you didn’t have kneelers, I asked why you weren’t kneeling.” As in kneel anyway. HOWEVER, I thought the reference was not to a communion line, but rather the consecration I believe. The faithful are allowed to kneel or stand for communion. I would go with the norm for the parish.

 

[TMC]

When have you ever heard of Gospel Book Adoration?

As Dtmccameron pointed out, God is present in many things, but not at all like in the Most Holy Eucharist.

“Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.” (Jn VI, 54)
The same is not said of the Bible.

I’m afraid not, unfortunately my bishop is this bishop, and this priest I know is very close to him.

I’ll have to quote you this letter again (there are many more like it).

“The faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion.”

Hmmm. I was told to “get into line.”

Whatever. The GIRM says what it says, the Bishop is the Bishop or he is not. The fact that the faithful cannot be denied Holy Communion for kneeling does not mean that its OK to be disobedient.

Receiving standing is the norm, why insist on being different than the norm? In my experience those that insist on departing from the norms established by the local ordinary are doing so for one of two reasons–either they want to call attention to themselves, or they feel they are more devout and holier than “ordinary” parishoners and thus should act differently. Neither is a good reason to depart from the norms established by the bishop.

 

[malphono]

In my experience those that insist on departing from the norms established by the local ordinary are doing so for one of two reasons–either they want to call attention to themselves, or they feel they are more devout and holier than “ordinary” parishoners and thus should act differently. Neither is a good reason to depart from the norms established by the bishop.

Or perhaps the OP simply prefers the traditional Latin Rite posture of kneeling to receive communion.

It’s quite clear that PP Benedict XVI prefers the kneeling posture. In this he seems to lead by example. Should any member of the faithful be denied or derided for the same preference? Especially when it remains the universal norm? Seems to me the answer is a clear “no.” The local ordinary (or the “conference” or whatever) can set guidelines for local use but those do not override the universal norms.

 

[nmoerbeek]

In my experience those that insist on departing from the norms established by the local ordinary are doing so for one of two reasons–either they want to call attention to themselves, or they feel they are more devout and holier than “ordinary” parishoners and thus should act differently. Neither is a good reason to depart from the norms established by the bishop.

Or perhaps they are scared of offending God?
Or perhaps their conscience demands it?
Or perhaps they wish to emulate the Saints?
Or perhaps their greatest sign of outward love for the Eucharist and they must go down to their knees?
Or perhaps that is the way they were raised?

Are people who were suits to mass trying to act holier than everyone? Or maybe the women who wear veils? Or those people who have to show off by staying after mass to pray the rosary?

I would say that if they worship on their knees (IE behind close doors) when they say their prayers then it is in their heart their love of god manifests itself in humility when they are low to the ground.

Where we belong in the presence of God.