T
TheMc
Guest
My mistake. I meant to say many of the saints. On my part, when I say this, it wasn’t meant to be a factual article, just to get people to think.
Thanks for the correction.
- Status
Thanks for the correction.
C
corsair
Guest
I’ll just kneel, thank you. All these other arguments are just “flak” as far as I’m concerned.
J
JReducation
Guest
But they are not flak and we have to be kind to people who come from different traditions. Let’s look at it this way. Would you tell a Carthusian Monk, a Capuchin Franciscan, a Conventual Franciscan, or most of the Eastern Catholics that their reasons for standing are flak? They have very good reasons for standing rooted in solid Catholic spirituality and ecclesiology, not to mention local cutlure or the culture of their religious family. It would be highly disrespectful to Our Lord if we disrespected their custom by calling it “flak.”
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
C
corsair
Guest
BrotherJR,
If I were to go to a Byzantine church and want to receive communion I would receive as the Byzantines do. I prefer the EF Mass so I receive kneeling and on the tongue. Therefore if a Byzantine comes to the EF and wants to receive communion then he should receive the same as me.
I don’t believe a priest must accomodate every variety of communing there is within the Catholic church.
If I were to go to a Byzantine church and want to receive communion I would receive as the Byzantines do. I prefer the EF Mass so I receive kneeling and on the tongue. Therefore if a Byzantine comes to the EF and wants to receive communion then he should receive the same as me.
I don’t believe a priest must accomodate every variety of communing there is within the Catholic church.
J
JReducation
Guest
I do not disagree with this. What I am trying to do is to warn readers, especially those who may be lurking, that what some people are proposing is not accurate. The entire Catholic Church does not receive Holy Communion the same way. There are variations even within the Churches.
I can see by your statement that you are unaware that not all Eastern Catholics are Byzantine. Byzantine is one of the rites used by many of the Eastern Catholic Churches. They are not Byzantine Churches. They are Oriental Catholics or Eastern Catholic Churches. There are five rites in the East. Byzantine is the most commonly used, just as the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite is the most commonly used in the Latin Church to which you belong. There is the first clarification that must be made for the benefit of those who are coming to learn about our faith. We are one universal Church made up of 23 Catholic Churches with five Eastern Rites and five Western Rites and several forms of the Roman Rite. Each is grounded in a distinct culture and time.
By the same token as you would receive Holy Communion the way that the Chaldeans receive, if you were to attend a Divine Liturgy, you should also receive the way that Carmelites receive, if you were to attend the liturgy at a Carmelite chapel or church. Even though they are Roman Catholics, they have their way of doing things at mass. They have some practices that are unique to them.
That’s the point that we must bring to others. The Catholic Church, while it is one, is also very diverse; therefoere, the priest has to accommodate to his surroundings. I’ll give you a simple example. I’ll presume for a moment that most readers have seen the mass on EWTN. There are times when Fr. Mitch or Fr. Wade will preside at the mass. Fr. Mitch is a Jesuit and Fr. Wade is a Father of Mercy. However, Our Lady of the Angels is a Franciscan chapel. Therefore, the Jesuit and the Mercedarian must accommodate to the Franciscan form, the Franciscan liturgical calendar, the Franciscan rituals and customs, even the Franciscan holy days, because they are not in their chapel. They are guests of the Franciscans.
If a priest is a Franciscan and he is celebrating mass at a Dominican parish, he accommodates to the Dominican way of doing things, including Holy Communion.
The same rule that applies to priests, brothers and sisters also applies to the laity. When in Rome . . .
But what seems to be desired here is to have everyone accommodate to the rubrics for the diocesan clergy and for those members of the regular clergy who do not have their own customs. You, as a matter of fact, called all of this explanation, “flak”. These folks do not consider it flak. It’s their culture handed down to them either by their ancestors or by the founders of their religious orders. We must respect that and we have a moral duty to the Church to acknowledge the existence and the rightness of those customs as she acknowledges their existence and their rightness, even when it’s different from the norm.
I am reminded of a woman who attended mass at our house and was avery upset because we were celebrating All Souls Day on Nov 24 and All Saints Day on Nov 29. When it was explained to her the the Franciscan follow a different calendar and we celebrate All Souls and All Saints just for our own she thought it was a novelty, because she had believed that all Catholics do the same thing, celebrate the same holy days on the same days, read the same readings and use the same instructions for the missal. It confused her even more when she asked if we were Eastern Catholics and we explained that we are Roman Catholics, but we do not use the Roman Missal. Had this poor woman been taught that there is diversity even within the one Church and even within the one rite, she would have found it different, but would not have been confused.
It is confusion that we have to avoid. That’s why it’s important to explain that these rules apply to a specific target population: Roman Catholic and not all Roman Catholics either. As St. Francis used to say, “We must be gentle with others, especially in matters of discipline.” Discipline is necessary, but only as an aid to prayer and as the soil where charity is cultivated.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
C
centurionguard
Guest
I’ve have always wanted to know WHO IT WAS that was responsible for originally started this idea of receiving Holy Communion on the hand from the set go.
To the best of my recollection I never seen this practice start up in parishes until the late 1970’s, and it wasn’t until some time later the Bishop Conferences had it sanctioned by the Vatican.
So originally before this practice was approved, was it a liturgical abuse?
Just Asking!
Peace
Chris
D
desertPavel
Guest
When I returned to the Sacraments, I decided it was more reverent to receive on my knees and on the tongue but all hell broke loose in my parish. I was called “the kneeler”, an angry woman screamed out at me during Communion that I was a hypocrite and then the bishop wrote an article in the diocesan newspaper explaining that while Communion should never be denied to somebody kneeling in the Ordinary Rite he cautioned that kneeling draws attention to oneself. I examined my conscience and considered that maybe my kneeling was a form of liturgical exhibitionism and pride and confessed it in Confession. I am 6’4". I no longer kneel but receive on the tongue if the server is the same height as me or taller. I don’t feel comfortable receiving in the hand but what am I to do?
C
centurionguard
Guest
Great Catholic Philosopher Romano Guardini 1885-1968 wrote in a beautiful book entitled Sacred Signs and Kneeling and Gestures in the Church.
te-deum.blogspot.com/2007/01/sacred-signs-by-romano-guardini_25.html
I like what he says here:
te-deum.blogspot.com/2007/01/sacred-signs-by-romano-guardini_25.html
I like what he says here:
R
RyanBlack
Guest
Please just remember that his assumptions here are very culturally limited. For Eastern Christians both Catholic and Orthodox, standing is the posture of worship, and we stand as a sign of reverence for God.
J
JReducation
Guest
The rule for the USA is to receive standing. However, the rule does not say that anyone may abuse another, if he or she chooses to kneel or that communion can ever be denied to someone who kneels. That kind of behavior is abusive and no one has the right to abuse another person. It’s almost an oxymoron to abuse someone in the name of the Holy Eucharist. That certainly was not what the bishops had in mind when they wrote the directions for the USA.
Exhibitionism is a reality and some people love it. However, that’s not for another person to pass judgment on. That’s between you and your spiritual director or you and your confessor. Again, the person who labels is wrong.
We must be charitable and gentle in all things, even when teaching rules and disciplines. No one should be mean to you or single you out for kneeling for Holy Communion. That’s far from gentle and charitable. Even in chapels and churches where kneeling has never been the norm, polite people don’t treat others that way. I am saddened, because this is the other extreme of the same concept. It’s trying to make Rule X universal, when it was not meant to be universal.
People should leave people alone on this matter and let them worship and adore God in peace.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
C
centurionguard
Guest
Culturally limited perhaps given the human mindset in today’s ultra-modern age that adopts secularism and relativism into its philosophies.
There are however; no moral aberrations or deviancies from moral theology concerning the theme of humility which is first and foremost a serious requirement to any Catholic who approaches the Eucharistic presence of Christ.
I’d say Catholic Philosopher Romano Guardini could match and even surpass many Catholic Philosophers of today’s modern caliber.
Peace
Chris
J
JReducation
Guest
In cultures where kneeling is a sign of reverence, Dr. Guardini’s observations make perfect sense. In those cultures where kneeling is not a sign of reverence, his message is out of context.
I’ll give you a simple example. The Missionaries of Charity have a tradition of kneeling that is different from that with which we are familiar. The position is the same as that employed by Hindus and Muslims in India. Technically speaking, it’s neither a Hindu nor a Muslim posture. It’s an Indian posture that denotes humility and smallness. Because the culture of the Missionaries of Charity is Indian, this particular posture is much more appropriate to them than our form of kneeling. That’s why they use it around the world. The men and women who join the congregation, regardless of their country of origin, adopt the Indian posture which is on your knees with your bottom resting on your heels and sometimes you may lean forward so that your head practically touches the floor. To impose kneeling on them, as we know it, would be contrary to their spiritual context. The same is true for other communities in the East and West.
Another example is the Capuchin Franciscan custom of going down on one knee to kiss the floor, instead of a genuflection. From there they rise and sit. The reverence is in the whole ritual. It’s an an old custom that dates back to the 1200s. We’re not sure how it began, but we believe that Francis may have adopted it from the Camaldolese Monks who also have the same custom: down, kiss and sit.
Then you have the Benedictine custom of the venia. They don’t kneel. They bow and then sit or stand. Most choir stalls have little or no room for kneeling, because it’s not the usual practice in a choir. If I’m not mistaken, the Carmelites also use the choir stalls and they too bow, sit or stand. This dates back to the time of St. Benedict.
As you can see, none of these customs have anything to do with secularism or modernism. However, they are noble and reverent. Lay people who attend mass at these houses usually follow the local custom.
The problem here is the same problem that we had when we erroneously believed that the Catholic Church was the Roman Catholic Church and every other Catholic was a rite rather than an autonomous Church with its history, culture and signs of reverence. Such a belief was due to a lack of exposure and knowledge of the diversity in the Catholic Church, even within the Latin Church. I can understand the average Roman Catholic person in the pew not knowing any of this. I’m surprised to find it on CAF where people post about these customs and where there is the opportunity to learn about the beauty and diversity in Catholic tradition.
You see, what you know is what you have seen. That’s understandable. But we must also remember that there are rituals and customs that we have not seen, because we’re not part of that world, but they are no less reverent or less pleasing to God.
What is displeasing to God is to be dismissive of the the reverence of others. When we do that, no matter how long we kneel, our head is still above our brothers and sisters, because our mind tells us that we are better or doing things better in some way or another.
Our gestures have to reflect our humility before God and man. We must be humble in the presence of both, not just the presence of God. Francis of Assisi wrote for our friars that they were to be pleasing to God and men in all things, except sin. Such an effort is the sign of true humility and true detachment from self.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
C
Caesar517
Guest
Thank you everyone for the information. The link to the Cardinal Arinze video was particularly helpful.
Pax Christi,
Caesar
Pax Christi,
Caesar
C
centurionguard
Guest
Brother J.R.;In cultures where kneeling is a sign of reverence, Dr. Guardini’s observations make perfect sense. In those cultures where kneeling is not a sign of reverence, his message is out of context.
I’ll give you a simple example. The Missionaries of Charity have a tradition of kneeling that is different from that with which we are familiar. The position is the same as that employed by Hindus and Muslims in India. Technically speaking, it’s neither a Hindu nor a Muslim posture. It’s an Indian posture that denotes humility and smallness. Because the culture of the Missionaries of Charity is Indian, this particular posture is much more appropriate to them than our form of kneeling. That’s why they use it around the world. The men and women who join the congregation, regardless of their country of origin, adopt the Indian posture which is on your knees with your bottom resting on your heels and sometimes you may lean forward so that your head practically touches the floor. To impose kneeling on them, as we know it, would be contrary to their spiritual context. The same is true for other communities in the East and West.
Another example is the Capuchin Franciscan custom of going down on one knee to kiss the floor, instead of a genuflection. From there they rise and sit. The reverence is in the whole ritual. It’s an an old custom that dates back to the 1200s. We’re not sure how it began, but we believe that Francis may have adopted it from the Camaldolese Monks who also have the same custom: down, kiss and sit.
Then you have the Benedictine custom of the venia. They don’t kneel. They bow and then sit or stand. Most choir stalls have little or no room for kneeling, because it’s not the usual practice in a choir. If I’m not mistaken, the Carmelites also use the choir stalls and they too bow, sit or stand. This dates back to the time of St. Benedict.
As you can see, none of these customs have anything to do with secularism or modernism. However, they are noble and reverent. Lay people who attend mass at these houses usually follow the local custom.
The problem here is the same problem that we had when we erroneously believed that the Catholic Church was the Roman Catholic Church and every other Catholic was a rite rather than an autonomous Church with its history, culture and signs of reverence. Such a belief was due to a lack of exposure and knowledge of the diversity in the Catholic Church, even within the Latin Church. I can understand the average Roman Catholic person in the pew not knowing any of this. I’m surprised to find it on CAF where people post about these customs and where there is the opportunity to learn about the beauty and diversity in Catholic tradition.
You see, what you know is what you have seen. That’s understandable. But we must also remember that there are rituals and customs that we have not seen, because we’re not part of that world, but they are no less reverent or less pleasing to God.
What is displeasing to God is to be dismissive of the the reverence of others. When we do that, no matter how long we kneel, our head is still above our brothers and sisters, because our mind tells us that we are better or doing things better in some way or another.
Our gestures have to reflect our humility before God and man. We must be humble in the presence of both, not just the presence of God. Francis of Assisi wrote for our friars that they were to be pleasing to God and men in all things, except sin. Such an effort is the sign of true humility and true detachment from self.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Respectfully I appreciate everything you’ve written here in the context framewok of the title of this thread.
I feel as though caught off guard somewhat in your last paragraph where you stated:
No argument here; only to say true humility should be shown chiefly to God first before someone bows in conscious towards the respect shown to mere man.
One cannot put God and man on the same footing in respect due to all human cultures aside. In due respect I do not believe I’m undermining or taking out of context what you wrote above.
I’ve been in a number of parishes in my Archdiocese where standing before the consecration where for the most part it has become the liturgical norm of the bishop except in very few parishes where such allocated priest himself prefers his congregation the kneel during the consecration. Again; let me reiterate that this only happens in about 10% of the entire Archdiocese.
In most Western Catholic Churches, and I’m speaking here primarily (“United States and Canada”), I have never seen any priest give a thought provoking reason why congregations who had formerly always knelt during the consecration and are now told to stand. No equitable edifying reason with respect towards Jesus invisibly humbled upon our Altars has ever been given with respect towards great reverence.
I’m doubly sure Moses never stood before God in the Burning Bush. Who are we haughty people to stand before God.
I remember being beside an elderly women after a Mass one Sunday who confronted a priest asking why new liturgical directives where placed to force the congregation to stand at the consecration of our Lord and Savior? He answered; well you wouldn’t kneel before a President would you? What kind of comparison is that?
Too make a long writ short all I want to say is that once a strong sense of Reverence is removed and lost from any Catholic congregation the Faith and belief in the Holy Presence of the Eucharist also falls by the wayside.
Respectfully Yours fraternally In Christ
Chris
J
Judge_Mental
Guest
As far as I can see, there’s no benefit to Roman Catholics adopting this practice. Previously kneeling was the norm and it was forbidden to touch the Host. Now, in the glad summertime of the Reform, it is not.
This benefits the Faithful, how?
The Church has allowed it. I’m waiting to see a defence of why it should be done. Especially after hundreds of years of not doing it.
This benefits the Faithful, how?
The Church has allowed it. I’m waiting to see a defence of why it should be done. Especially after hundreds of years of not doing it.
A
At_Trent
Guest
R
RyanBlack
Guest
Please just clarify. Do you believe that those Eastern Christians whose liturgical tradition is to stand at celebrations of the Eucharist are being “haughty people” in following their liturgical tradition?
T
The_Curt_Jester
Guest
Saves time. That’s important you know.
Sarcasm I take it. Not that I mind. I prefer kneeling myself.
Also, it actually doesn’t take extra time when kneeling in a line (instead of at the rail) if one has good knees. I can drop down, receive, and stand back up as fast as other people can take the step forward and put out their hands.
Also, if they hadn’t removed the communion rails, there wouldn’t be any “inconvenience” from people those who kneel. Sheesh. Modernists cause the problem and then complain about it!
J
JReducation
Guest
Actually, I included this on purpose and you’re the only person to react to it.
That’s OK. I’m trying to make a point. You see how you feel uncomfortable with this statement? This is a perfect example of context. For you, this is very strange or even inappropriate. For me, to do otherwise would be a reason for automatic excommunication. Francis of Assisi set it up this way in our admonitions and if we violated this, we are to be excommunicated. He commanded that we try to please both, God and man by submitting to both, except when man commands sin. Even when man commands something that is wrong, as long as it is not a sin, we are to please. To deliberately decide not to do so, because it does not please you, it punishable by excommunication or at the very least a grave sin that has to be confessed.
The point that I’m trying to make is that context and culture help us define reverence and determine what actions are reverent. These contexts can be religious orders, nations, Churches: Chaldean, Roman, Greek, etc; rites: Roman, Ambrosian, Dominican, Syriac, Maronite, etc; form: EF or OF.
Reverence is not as simple as we would like to make it. We want to make it so that kneeling is reverent and standing is not. But that’s not so easy. Just look at how differently you and I respond to the idea of pleasing God and man. Why? Because we come from two different contexts. The same applies to the whole idea of kneeling or standing. I am part of a religious tradition where we have always knelt for Holy Communino, but we received on the hand to avoid semblances of clericalism. This dates back to 1209. The ordained are loved and respected becaues they consecrate the Eucharist and absolve sin, but they are not allowed to stand out in any way. From the day that they enter the postulancy they are told that they might be ordained, if their brothers and the superior feel they have a call to Holy Orders or they may be friars until death and never be ordained. In your context, you probably wonder, why bother entering a religious community where you may not be allowed to become a priest, but will be bound by solemn vows until death? In our context, the very reason to become a religious is to live as a brother with other brothers in the same manner as St. Francis.
In your context, kneeling is a sign of reverence,in an Eastern Catholic context, standing is the sign of reverence. In the Carthusian context, bowing is the sign of reverence.
We have to give context its place or we run the risk of imposing expectations on others that are inappropriate for them.
Do you see what I mean?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
I don’t think that you’re going to get a defense. One of the wonderful things about being the Vatican is that you don’t have to explain yourself if you don’t want to do so. We have to get away from the idea that the Vatican should explain something. In fact, Pope Benedict is the first pope in a long time who actually goes out of his way to explain why he does certain things. Sometimes I wonder if it would be better if he did as his predecessors did. Just do it or not do it and to heck with everyone else’s questions. It seems that the more he explains the more questions come up and the more criticism. Ven. John Paul II once said, “Catholics are always angry about something.” He turned and walked away from a group of officials who were trying to tell him that people were angry at some thing or another.
Once upon a time a friar asked St. Francis what the benefit was to a certain practice. St. Francis thought about it for a while and said, “None.” The friar then asked, “Why do we do it?” Francis responded quickly, “Because I said so.”
Sometimes, that’s the best answer that we will get from ecclesial authority. “We say so.”
As St. Francis expected from the friar in question, we are expected to obey as long as it’s not a sin. No one says that you have to commit a sin. You must have to accept the regulations.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- Status