Communion Standing or Kneeling?

[Caesar517]

At my parish, we receive by intinction. Father has two small kneelers in front of the altar so that we may receive kneeling, if we wish.

I prefer not to receive communion while standing and I am generally unwilling to receive in the hand. I feel that kneeling and receiving on the tongue is much more reverent. When traveling, I typically receive on the tongue, standing. A few minutes ago, I was looking through the GIRM and found the following quote:

*“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.” * (#161)

This seems to very clearly discourage the practice of receiving while kneeling. Should I be standing when I receive? Can you guys shed some light on this?

(there is a link to the GIRM in my signature)

 

[iwillendure]

SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, AT CONSTANTINOPLE (680-681). Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening the transgressors with excommunication.
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-1274). "Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated;
COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1565). “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”
COUNCIL OF SARAGOSSA (380). It was decided to punish with EXCOMMUNICATION anyone who dared to continue the practice of Holy Communion in the hand. The Synod of Toledo confirmed this decree.

Kneeling and on tongue are the only way to go i dont care what anyone else says. It is the body of Christ and should be treated as such anything less is just wrong. we go from excommunication for touching the host to what we have now… something is not right there was a reason why the Host was treated like it was and there is no reason for that to change

 

[BrushedByAngels]

At my parish, we receive by intinction. Father has two small kneelers in front of the altar so that we may receive kneeling, if we wish.

I prefer not to receive communion while standing and I am generally unwilling to receive in the hand. I feel that kneeling and receiving on the tongue is much more reverent. When traveling, I typically receive on the tongue, standing. A few minutes ago, I was looking through the GIRM and found the following quote:

This seems to very clearly discourage the practice of receiving while kneeling. Should I be standing when I receive? Can you guys shed some light on this?

(there is a link to the GIRM in my signature)

I feel the same way you do. Kneeling while receiving communion on the tongue is more reverent in my opinion. I read that as well, and it does seem discourage the practice No one kneels in any of the RC churches that I have been to so I’d be the odd one out if I tried it

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

Here you go.

Cardinal Arinze speaks on kneeling.

He does mention communion in the hand (which I whole-heartedly disagree with), but the case for kneeling is certainly undeniable. The case for/against communion in the hand is for another discussion.

 

[Brendan]

This seems to very clearly discourage the practice of receiving while kneeling. Should I be standing when I receive? Can you guys shed some light on this?

(there is a link to the GIRM in my signature)

Be sure to read the Vatican’s take on what you read.

EWTN has complied all the relevant rulings from the Vatican.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/kneeling_for_communion.htm

Here are some highlights

In fact, as His Eminence, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has recently emphasized, the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition, and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration, completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species.

Since it not the US Bishops who actually gave legal force to the GIRM, but rather the CDWDS, it falls to the CDWDS to make definitive rulings.

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."

So anyone who kneels is neither disobedient or acting in an illicit manner.

 

[lizaanne]

SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, AT CONSTANTINOPLE (680-681). Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening the transgressors with excommunication.
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-1274). "Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated;
COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1565). “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”
COUNCIL OF SARAGOSSA (380). It was decided to punish with EXCOMMUNICATION anyone who dared to continue the practice of Holy Communion in the hand. The Synod of Toledo confirmed this decree.

Kneeling and on tongue are the only way to go i dont care what anyone else says. It is the body of Christ and should be treated as such anything less is just wrong. we go from excommunication for touching the host to what we have now… something is not right there was a reason why the Host was treated like it was and there is no reason for that to change

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

~Liza

 

[mattkubes]

I don’t understand how that became the norm. If Jesus walked up to me right now, I’d instantly fall on my knees. Well, I’d probably fall right on my face…but when I woke up, I might want to stay prostrate.

We receive Him in the Sacrament. Kneeling makes sense to me.

 

[wisdomseeker]

At my parish, we receive by intinction. Father has two small kneelers in front of the altar so that we may receive kneeling, if we wish.

I prefer not to receive communion while standing and I am generally unwilling to receive in the hand. I feel that kneeling and receiving on the tongue is much more reverent. When traveling, I typically receive on the tongue, standing. A few minutes ago, I was looking through the GIRM and found the following quote:

This seems to very clearly discourage the practice of receiving while kneeling. Should I be standing when I receive? Can you guys shed some light on this?

(there is a link to the GIRM in my signature)

I think when people realize who Jesus is, the King of all Kings, they will kneel and receive on teh tongue. If one tends to bow before an earthly king and Jesus is the King of all then people must understand they must kneel before Him.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I don’t understand how that became the norm. If Jesus walked up to me right now, I’d instantly fall on my knees. Well, I’d probably fall right on my face…but when I woke up, I might want to stay prostrate.

We receive Him in the Sacrament. Kneeling makes sense to me.

Thank you. that is beautifull. I hope more Catholics will do as you do.

 

[FCCopleston]

I could not agree more that kneeling before our Lord of hosts, and receiving Him by mouth is good, right, and salutary.

There is also a symbolic aspect to this. By taking Christ’s body with our hands, it seems to me that we imply by our gesture that the forgiveness received through Christ’s life-giving flesh is in some way our action and work, whereas receiving Christ’s body with our mouths seems to imply that such forgiveness has been won for us and is being given for us by God’s gracious initiative, in, by, and through the Church that has stood through the ages, hell never to prevail against it.

Our modern world–myself included–needs a lesson in reverence.

In Christ,
JCCopleston

 

[ConstantineTG]

Given that you mentioned that your parish gives the Eucharist in both forms via intinction, CITH is really not an option.

As for standing or kneeling, the norm is standing in the US. According to the Church you can’t be punished for kneeling, so its up to you. I would say its more unitive to do what everyone else is doing.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t understand how that became the norm. If Jesus walked up to me right now, I’d instantly fall on my knees. Well, I’d probably fall right on my face…but when I woke up, I might want to stay prostrate.

We receive Him in the Sacrament. Kneeling makes sense to me.

But you also wouldn’t take a bite out of Jesus if he walked up to you. So you can’t really compare that to receiving the Eucharist.

 

[mattkubes]

But you also wouldn’t take a bite out of Jesus if he walked up to you. So you can’t really compare that to receiving the Eucharist.

I wasn’t saying that I kneel simply because I am receiving Him. It’s still Jesus who approaches us in the hands of His priests when we receive the Eucharist. Whether He approaches me in person or hidden in the Sacrament, you’ll find me kneeling.

 

[FCCopleston]

I wasn’t saying that I kneel simply because I am receiving Him. It’s still Jesus who approaches us in the hands of His priests when we receive the Eucharist. Whether He approaches me in person or hidden in the Sacrament, you’ll find me kneeling.

AMEN

 

[JReducation]

SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, AT CONSTANTINOPLE (680-681). Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening the transgressors with excommunication.

It was forbidden because the faithful mixed superstition with pius practice.

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-1274). "Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated;

Aquinas was proven wrong by the Franciscans, just as his position against the Immaculate Conception was also proven wrong by them. Thise concept was not adopted by the Church. Francis of Assisi always distributed Holy Communion to the friars as did all of the Franciscan superiors. There is was no law that superiors had to be priests. Francis was a layman until 1224 when he was ordained a deacon; bu the was the superior general from 1209 to 1224. However, the rule of the Franciscan Order on this regard never changed. Superiors could be either cleric or non-cleric, priests, deacons or lay. In the houses where there was no priest or deacon, the Eucharist was distributed by the superior of the house, if they were men or by the abbess if they were nuns. This policy has never changed since 1209. Aquinas came later, but his idea never took root, not even among the Dominican Friars. The weakness in his thinking was that he did not factor in deacons, abbots, abbesses, and male religious superiors. They weer not always deacons or priests. Aquinas focussed on the consecration of the hands of the priest, which have always been part of the rite of the consecration of the hands during the ordination to the priesthood for the purpose of blessing and consecrating the Eucharist, not for distributing communion. That was not in the wording of the ritual, nor is it in it today.

COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1565). “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”

The Council was stating a fact, not making a law. The fact that Trent is stating is the consecrated hands, not trying to take away the distribution of Holy Communion by non-priests. That would have blown the ministry of the deacons out of the water.

COUNCIL OF SARAGOSSA (380). It was decided to punish with EXCOMMUNICATION anyone who dared to continue the practice of Holy Communion in the hand. The Synod of Toledo confirmed this decree.

This was a discipline was meant for a target population, because there was a defiance to the mandate of the bishops of the time and place. The Council of Saragossa never applied to the universal Church.

Kneeling and on tongue are the only way to go i dont care what anyone else says. It is the body of Christ and should be treated as such anything less is just wrong. we go from excommunication for touching the host to what we have now… something is not right there was a reason why the Host was treated like it was and there is no reason for that to change

That is a personal opinion that you are allowed to have. What we are not allowed to do is to say that something that the Church allows is wrong. If it’s permitted by the Church, whether as the ordinary manner of doing something or as an indult is not a sin, illegal or contrary to doctrine.

I hope this clarifies some misconceptions. Otherwise, we run of the risk of applying disciplines as if they were dogmas or theological positions that never became part of the formal teaching of the Church. That would be less than charitable to others who follow the disciplines and the indults as they stand. It would also be unfair to deacons in all 23 Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches.

The indult can be retracted at any time. What cannot be done is to impose that only priests can distribute Holy Communion, because that would change the ministry of the deacon for the universal Church, not just for the Roman Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[MarkThompson]

COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1565). “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”

An insightful post as always, Brother. I just wanted to make the point that these quotations look doctored up. For instance, this “quotation” actually says:
Now it hath been the custom of the church of God, that in receiving this sacrament, the laity should take the communion from the priests, and the officiating priests administer to themselves: which custom, transmitted by apostolic tradition, rightfully deserves to be retained. (Sess. 13, cap. 8.)
Does it make roughly the same point? Sure. Is there anything about “consecrated hands,” or that “only the priest” can do it, etc.? No, that’s been invented for rhetorical effect. It is a pretty fraudulent style of argumentation to take quotes that somewhat support a position, and skew, crop, and augment them in this fashion, and I’m always disappointed when people so triumphantly make these cut-and-paste posts from quotelists they find on Traditio or some other untrustworthy website. If you haven’t done the research, don’t post the quote.

 

[centurionguard]

SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, AT CONSTANTINOPLE (680-681). Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening the transgressors with excommunication.
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-1274). "Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated;
COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1565). “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”
COUNCIL OF SARAGOSSA (380). It was decided to punish with EXCOMMUNICATION anyone who dared to continue the practice of Holy Communion in the hand. The Synod of Toledo confirmed this decree.

Kneeling and on tongue are the only way to go i dont care what anyone else says. It is the body of Christ and should be treated as such anything less is just wrong. we go from excommunication for touching the host to what we have now… something is not right there was a reason why the Host was treated like it was and there is no reason for that to change

WOW !!! A lot of Laity and Clergy could learn something from these quotes.

Well yes; I know, its all seen as so archaic in modern times today
Sigh!

 

[laszlo]

SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, AT CONSTANTINOPLE (680-681). Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening the transgressors with excommunication.
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-1274). "Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated;
COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1565). “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”
COUNCIL OF SARAGOSSA (380). It was decided to punish with EXCOMMUNICATION anyone who dared to continue the practice of Holy Communion in the hand. The Synod of Toledo confirmed this decree.

I tried to check either my English (1942) and Latin (1956) Denzinger for the quoted passages, and did not found them. Would you so kind to enlighten us, what is your source about the explicit (forbidding communion in hand ) sources? (Constantinaple III, Saragossa)

If you took then from some contemporary solurce, what is the source of the book, website?

 

[TheMc]

Given that you mentioned that your parish gives the Eucharist in both forms via intinction, CITH is really not an option.

As for standing or kneeling, the norm is standing in the US. According to the Church you can’t be punished for kneeling, so its up to you. I would say its more unitive to do what everyone else is doing.

I think the unity argument actually makes much more sense when used from the kneeling side of the argument. You are unified with virtually all of the saints, who received kneeling, along with the rest of the church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think the unity argument actually makes much more sense when used from the kneeling side of the argument. You are unified with virtually all of the saints, who received kneeling, along with the rest of the church.

Are you sure ALL the saints received kneeling? Plus, 22 out of the 23 Churches that make up the Catholic Church receive standing. Put that in perspective of history when the population of the Churches aren’t as skewed to the West as it is today.