Conference to Promote Communion Kneeling and on the Tongue

[Crusader13]

I do agree with you in that people cannot be forced into being reverent.

These talks/debates always seem to go off the rail when it turns from the question as to which posture is more reverent into arguing about who is more reverent. Which is never what the debate is about.

From my understanding, the form is the extension of the matter. They aren’t competing parts, but instead are two sides of the same coin.

The teaching and the substance hasn’t been revoked, it’s merely been ignored or explained away. So here we are nearly 60 years after all these changes to the liturgy and people are asking “why do we do ‘B’ when ‘A’ was the norm for so long?

You look into the past practices and the reasons for them and you cannot help but see the deeper meaning and reverence that they were meant to convey.

So now the common response is “well B, C & D are all allowed now. End of discussion.” But that doesn’t answer the question of whether or not they should be.

 

[Weserthy]

I think you put this very nicely.

To add to what you said, another argument that I often see on these forums with regards to postures, and options that are permissible, is that “Well the Church allows communion on the hand, so it is therefore just as reverent as receiving on the tongue or kneeling.” However, this argument is not convincing to me.

Just because the Church allows something as an option does not necessarily mean that it is equal to another option in value in reverence or prudence. Take marriage, for example. Catholics have the option of getting married to Muslims, or Jews, as opposed to other Catholics, but I think you would be hard pressed to find many priests that would say that this would be as good of an option as marrying another Catholic. What is technically allowed may not be the best option. It COULD be, but the fact that something is allowed by the Church does not automatically place it on equal footing with all other options or possibilities.

In terms of receiving the Eucharist, I find it difficult to go along with the notion that receiving on one’s knees is not more reverent than receiving standing up (physical difficulties notwithstanding). If someone wants to simply receive standing and on the hand, then fine, that’s an option, and they ought not to be criticized for doing what the Church allows, but that doesn’t mean the practice itself is above reproach.

 

[po18guy]

The Church, which I am not smarter than, noted a lack of reverence in the Latin Mass. That was part of the reasoning behind the Novus Ordo. The EF is not magic - culture is disintegrating and we laity are runnning around like chickens with our heads cut off looking for a solution. That solution is found within the Tabernacle - either reposed or exposed.

I remind myself of the words of the legendary Gamaliel, who cautioned the Sanhedrin that if this movement was of God, they could not stop it and might even be found opposing God. Has anyone ever considered that the Holy Spirit may have lead the council to initiate the Novus Ordo? I also remind myself that, when we oppose the Church or impress our personal desires upon her, we are, at some level, telling God what to do.

How much superior it is to pray before the Blessed Sacrament.

 

[Sundiver]

I used to go to a nearby church that had a communion rail, an alter boy with a paten, and kneeling for communion. Everyone had to kneel. I found it to be very satisfying and reverent. There is always a tension with standing and taking communion in the hand. Three times I have had the priest or extraordinary minister accidentally drop the consecrated host while I was receiving communion. This has made communion a source of tension that does not fit well with the spirit and we are moving away from the traditional reverence in the liturgy. The communion rail, kneeling, and paten are so much more consoling. It satisfies a thirsty soul.

 

[TheLittleLady]

However, the expense of remodels to install altar rails is beyond many parishes.

 

[CradleRC58]

An indult was not granted

Yes it was.

The True Story of Communion in the Hand Revealed

Don Federico Bortoli is presently the pastor of the parish of Sant’Andrea Apostolo in Acquaviva in the Diocese of San Marino Montefeltro. He is also diocesan chancellor, judicial vicar…

onepeterfive.com

“The majority of bishops expressed their opposition to the introduction of this practice. M.D. acknowledged the outcome of the consultation and confirmed that the universal norm for receiving Communion is precisely that of receiving it directly on the tongue, giving profound reasons for it. At the same time, it consented that the bishops’ conferences of those places in which the abuse was already occurring would be able to request an indult for Communion in the hand, if the bishops were able to achieve a vote of a two-thirds majority in favor of requesting it.”

The practice of COTT began in a few areas and soon spread. Pope Paul VI tried in vain to stop it and when asked, the majority of Bishops where against allowing it.

It began as a liturgical abuse and continued in disobedience of Pope Paul VI. It was finally determined that Bishop’s could request an indult to continue the practice.

https://sspx.org/en/memoriale-domini

 

[SeekSalvation]

I agree with kneeling and on the tongue, but everyone in my parish received standing in hand. I’d feel like I’m making a display of myself if I kneel. At the same time it seems more correct to reverence God than to protect the sensibilities of those who don’t want to be bothered by “excessive reverence”, if that would even be the case.

Do you go to Church for others sake? Or to show reverence, adoration, and honor to our Christ Presence? In my Parish we have people who take the host by the hand, tongue, and kneel/tongue.

 

[CilladeRoma]

I was not talking about CITH, the topic was standing or kneeling. The US Bishops decided, within their competence, that the normative posture for receiveing in the US would be standing. On the tongue or in the hand is up to the communicate.

 

[CradleRC58]

The US Bishops decided, within their competence, that the normative posture for receiveing in the US would be standing

Yes, after the indult was granted. Not before it was.

 

[CradleRC58]

Rather, I think we should work on the 69% of Catholics who do not believe in the True Presence

Doesn’t matter what you and I think but many in the hierarchy feel that the loss of faith in the real presence is, in some cases, connected to the practice of CITH along with the use of EMHC.

One of the priests at my Parish blames the problem on a lack of catechesis from the pulpit over the last 50 years.

It’s a problem either way.

 

[Brian_K]

Brian_K:

I agree with kneeling and on the tongue, but everyone in my parish received standing in hand. I’d feel like I’m making a display of myself if I kneel. At the same time it seems more correct to reverence God than to protect the sensibilities of those who don’t want to be bothered by “excessive reverence”, if that would even be the case.

Do you go to Church for others sake? Or to show reverence, adoration, and honor to our Christ Presence? In my Parish we have people who take the host by the hand, tongue, and kneel/tongue.

All of the above. “Others” are linked parts of the Body of Christ. But mostly the 2nd one

 

[Powdercoater]

Yes, it is.

One Church I attend has portable altar rails that they bring out for the TLM. That’s probably more doable for some parishes. And, maybe, too expensive for some others.

We do what we can.

 

[CRV]

I found this article to be an interesting read -

Documentation: Approval of Communion in the Hand under Pope Paul VI

• Dates of official approval for various countries & regions
• SACRED CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP, Letter “En reponse a la demande,” to presidents of those conferences of bishops petitioning the indult for communion in the hand, 29 May 1969: Acta Apostolicae Sedis 61 (1969) 546-547; Notitiae 5 (1969) 351-353.
• SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENTS, Instruction Immensae caritatis , on facilitating reception of Communion in certain circumstances, 29 January 1973: AAS 65 (1973) 264-271; Not 9 (1973) 157-164.

 

[Wesrock]

There is a parish downtown that offers masses in a variety of styles. The 11:30 am on Sunday is ordinary form but includes a schola, Latin mass settings (the Kyrie in Greek, of course), facing liturgically east, and so on. They also use kneeling at the altar rail as the norm for that mass. But the priests there made a big deal when introducing this norm that people who stood would not be turned away and that no one was to pass judgment on those who stood.

So it can be done.

 

[Peeps]

Well the Church allows communion on the hand, so it is therefore just as reverent as receiving on the tongue or kneeling.”

It’s not the action that’s reverent, it’s the person.

An irreverent person will not be made reverent by doing any specific action. OTOH, an irreverent person can appear reverent by doing an action that others have attached “reverence” to.

 

[jtwp5]

I just see it as oppressive and forceful. Trying to force someone to wear x,y,z and then if they’re not doing it they’re looked down upon and criticized.

 

[po18guy]

Latin is not a magic language. The EF is not a magic liturgy. Good catechesis, well, it can work like magic. Catechesis is the respiration of the faith. Reduce it or stop it and the faith begins to suffocate.

 

[Dovekin]

if we could once again bring back the understanding and teaching behind such traditional practices, I believe it could have a very positive impact.

At the Council of Nicea, one of the canons was:

Since there are some who kneel on Sunday and during the season of Pentecost, this holy synod decrees that, so that the same observances may be maintained in every diocese, one should offer one’s prayers to the Lord standing.

Standing was popular because it was the traditional posture for prayer. It probably helped that the Resurrection was called anastasis= to stand again. So communion with the Body of Christ was well represented by standing: it is a sign of sharing the resurrection, our redemption.

 

[Crusader13]

I just see it as oppressive and forceful. Trying to force someone to wear x,y,z and then if they’re not doing it they’re looked down upon and criticized.

Nobody is forced to do anything. I’ve yet to see any liturgical enforcers going around making sure people are standing, kneeling and genuflecting when directed to.

Your references to being looked down upon is your assumption based upon how you view the people at your parish. If you’ve encountered such mass scorn and condemnation from your fellow parishioners perhaps it’s something that needs to be addressed at your parish.

 

[Crusader13]

Of course not and the topic was primarily surrounding posture and reverence. Yet, since you mentioned the EF vs the NO, I find it quite telling that when those who attend the NO speak of how reverent their version of the NO is, they usually give examples such as: the use of Gregorian chant, the abundance of latin, the use of kneelers, maybe even the way the priest celebrates facing Ad orientem.

All of which are found at the EF as per the norm anyway. So if the NO is found to be reverent because of these examples, then it’s no wonder people are asking “why did we change it?”