Oh, it is totally true.I’m not sure that is totally true. Perhaps it is a matter of what you mean by “dictate”. I believe that the Cardinal did affirm that the diocesan bishop could determine the posture at both times mentioned above…" the prescription of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, no. 43, is intended, on the one hand, to ensure within broad limits a certain uniformity of posture within the congregation for the various parts of the celebration of Holy Mass…" However, Cardinal Arinze added, "…*on the other hand, to not regulate posture rigidly in such a way that those who wish to kneel or sit would no longer be free. *
I agree, but likewise, one should not view the rubric as requiring anything more than the ‘broad limits’ that the CDWDS intended.The reality is, neither should they set aside the rubric lightly or merely due to personal whim.
FWIW in French Canada, it has always been, as far back as I can remember, that we knelt after communion after returning to our pew, with the usual exceptions for age and infirmity.I can’t speak for what anyone does in other countries, as I have not traveled to any since the edition came out. The question was asked by the US bishops, for the US.
It is written in the policies of the Archdiocese of Seattle, that the posture is to remain standing until the Communion Procession has ended, but that has never been enforced to my knowledge ever since the response from Cardinal Arinze. However, the policy for this archdiocese is still there. Since I have observed some people standing at funerals when outsiders are often present, I can only assume that it has been addressed or encouraged in some parishes (perhaps because of the size of their parish), but not in ours. Our Communion line is quite long.seattlearchdiocese.org/Archdiocese/Policies/Documents/Eucharist.pdf It states in the policies of the diocese of Seattle page SLEU 6 :I have yet to see or hear of any bishop stating what posture is to be after Communion. It may be that bishops have told their priests that they (the priests) may ignore the matter; or it may be that without any fanfare or rule making, everyone pretty much got the message of Cardinal Arinze’s answer, and chose not to tell their congregations about that specific part of the rule.
It helps to remember that the GIRM is the General Instruction - that is, it is universal, with possible exceptions for some countries. And in the US, the vast majority, prior to that GIRM edition, knelt after returning to their pew. I can’t speak for what anyone does in other countries, as I have not traveled to any since the edition came out. The question was asked by the US bishops, for the US.
Thanks.It is written in the policies of the Archdiocese of Seattle, that the posture is to remain standing until the Communion Procession has ended, but that has never been enforced to my knowledge ever since the response from Cardinal Arinze. However, the policy for this archdiocese is still there. Since I have observed some people standing at funerals when outsiders are often present, I can only assume that it has been addressed or encouraged in some parishes (perhaps because of the size of their parish), but not in ours. Our Communion line is quite long.seattlearchdiocese.org/Archdiocese/Policies/Documents/Eucharist.pdf It states in the policies of the diocese of Seattle page SLEU 6 :
1.c. In the dioceses of the United States of America the faithful “should kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer, except when prevented on occasion by reasons of health, lack of space, the large number of people present, or some other good reason.” (GIRM, 43) EU 2. The following adaptations to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) and as found in the Apostolic letter Redemptionis Sacramentum (117–119) are to be observed everywhere throughout the Archdiocese of Seattle:
2.a. The faithful remain standing after the “Lamb of God” until the end of the Communion Procession unless prevented by age, infirmity or some personal situation (e.g. small children, etc.).
2.b. In parishes or during Mass outside of parish churches where there are significant numbers of communicants, and the duration of the Communion Rite make standing a hardship for the people, the pastor may allow communicants to sit or kneel upon returning to their place in the assembly after receiving communion.
The first question in this report is what I was referring to. Granted, it doesn’t have the force of law but since he’s the one who responded to the dubium in the first place…I’m not sure that is totally true. Perhaps it is a matter of what you mean by “dictate”. I believe that the Cardinal did affirm that the diocesan bishop could determine the posture at both times mentioned above…" the prescription of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, no. 43, is intended, on the one hand, to ensure within broad limits a certain uniformity of posture within the congregation for the various parts of the celebration of Holy Mass…" However, Cardinal Arinze added, "…*on the other hand, to not regulate posture rigidly in such a way that those who wish to kneel or sit would no longer be free. *
Cardinal Arinze clarified in an interview that the diocesan bishop could dictate the posture between the Agnus Dei and Communion but not the posture of the faithful upon return from Communion.
**I just want to refer you to Don Ruggero’s post #37. I think he explains it very well. See below:The first question in this report is what I was referring to. Granted, it doesn’t have the force of law but since he’s the one who responded to the dubium in the first place…
adoremus.org/1003Arinze.html
This is, actually, the key point for this aspect of this discussion.
This needs to be clearly understood.
There is the norm. The norm is not a suggestion. It is a rubric.
The clarification that Cardinal Arinze provided was that the rubric concerning the posture after Communion was not to be so severely interpreted and enforced that it compelled a certain action by every member of the liturgical assembly. That would be simply wrong.
If a person does not comply with the rubric, then they are not in compliance. It is presumed that if they choose, for one reason or another, not to comply, that there is a legitimate reason provoking this.
The reality is, neither should they set aside the rubric lightly or merely due to personal whim. …
And as I pointed out, the rubric itself is to be taken in a very broad sense, “on the one hand, to ensure within broad limits”**I just want to refer you to Don Ruggero’s post #37. I think he explains it very well. See below:
**
I have to say that when our previous Archbishop set this posture, it was not easy for many of us, after decades of kneeling, to accept. It was awkward and I felt pretty much like you. I even wrote a letter to the Archbishop and addressed particularly the posture coming back from Communion. I understood his meaning of uniformity of posture. But I also knew that Communion was not only a sign of unity among all those receiving Communion but it was also a personal encounter with Jesus- Body Blood Soul and Divinity that would remain in us as long as the Sacred Species lasts- maybe 15 minutes. I pleaded my case hoping that he would reconsider, however, I stated that I would abide by whatever decision that he would make. I received a reply giving his reasons and sounding nearly chastising and hoping that I would follow the posture that he set. He did not seem to have heard the letter that I so carefully composed especially the part where I said that I would do whatever he asked us to do. So, I assumed that it was probably a standardized letter due to the large number of complaints. Anyway, after that came the response from the Sacred Congregation, and since we have a rather large parish and the Communion line is very long and would be a hardship for many to stand for a long period of time, the posture when returning from Communion was never encouraged in our parish. (And by the way, this example is mentioned in the policies of our Archdiocese.)My goodness, I had no idea this topic was so regulated and bordering on controversial.
Personally, I’m usually in the choir loft, so none of this really affects me – I’m sitting at the organ or standing to sing (a capella songs/chants) regardless of what the congregation is doing.
But I am seriously thankful that our Archbishops here in Denver have never required us to stand until everyone has received. I find the posture and the expected unity of posture at this most sacred moment – communing with Our Lord, body, blood, soul, and divinity! – to be bizarre at best!
My goodness, this is Holy Communion we’re talking about, the most personal and intimate of moments. Maybe we could just leave the posture of this moment alone, as something sacred between Our Lord and the communicant?
Otherwise it seems as though we as Catholics are more concerned with appearances than the spiritual reality of the moment.
And my thoughts are probably completely contrary to the obedience owed to the Magisterium, so I will cease my whining, resume my gratitude, and carry on with my day.
One thing about a monastery, it is the abbot who regulates the liturgy of the community, and not the bishop, as the abbot is the local ordinary in monasteries of pontifical right. The second thing is that the liturgical norms in a monastery may vary compared to nearby parishes, because the liturgy is regulated not for the laity at large, but for the community itself. It is their Mass, their Divine Office, and their liturgy, designed for their needs, and will take into account things like age of the community, etc.Since then, I have also learned from some members here on Catholic Answers who are in a monastery that it is their custom to remain standing during the Communion procession until everyone has received. So now it doesn’t sound as bad as it once felt for me. I know that the local bishop has the authority from Rome to set the posture to remain standing after the Agnus Dei. He also has the authority to “promote” remain standing until every one has received. We have some freedom to comply with part of that rubric or not.
The Canadian GIRM mandates kneeling only for the Consecration. From the Mysterium Fidei until the end of Mass the posture is standing, although it adds that in parishes where they have been kneeling from the Sanctus until the Amen and again from the Ecce Agnus Dei until Communion it is laudable to retain the practice. In my parish we kneel for the entire EP but we remain standing after the Lamb of God.FWIW in French Canada, it has always been, as far back as I can remember, that we knelt after communion after returning to our pew, with the usual exceptions for age and infirmity.
However the monks at the abbey I’m associated with stand, until the last repeat of the communion antiphon, at which point the presider sits as do the monks.
In my case since I’m usually in the first pew (with no kneeler), and since I usually chant the communion antiphon, I stand until the presider sits. I do kneel for the consecration even though there is no kneeler. In French Canada the practice is to kneel or the consecration only, not the entire EP like in the US. Since the abbey is so close to the border we often have large groups of Americans visiting. I can always tell when there’s a large number of American visitors, because as the EP starts their kneelers come crashing to the floor making quite a cacaphony!
On that, I am not so sure. Cardinal George was writing specifically about the US, if I recall, and that would seem to imply that it was intended as a question as to the application in the US.But as far as the dubium that was submitted and replied to, it applies to every nation, not just the US. It was a question about the universal GIRM.
If there were bishops that were in fact imposing the posture after Communion then we would all be in agreement that this is wrong. I do not know of any such case. I am concerned that the word “dictate” or “dictating” keeps coming up in reference to some bishops policy on posture during Communion. It is as if you are trying to say that the bishop does not have the authority to make the recommendation to stand when coming back from Communion. And that is not what Cardinal Arinze said. In fact, he said that the bishops **could recommend **standing. They **could propose **standing. But they could not impose it.As there is no direction given in the GIRM as to when one sits after returning to the pew, then I have to go with what Cardinal Arinze said once about how we should not regiment the people of God. If you need to sit, sit. **Dictating a common time or posture would actually be adding to the GIRM, which is a no-no. ** Sometimes the priest sits, sometimes not. I sit when the tabernacle is closed or the altar is cleared, whichever is latter, in deference to the presence of Christ on the altar, but that is just me. My wife sits when the priest sits.
I did use the word “dictating”. Cardinal Arinze, in the interview where he made the statement I referenced, used the word “prescribed.”(around 5:30)If there were bishops that were in fact imposing the posture after Communion then we would all be in agreement that this is wrong. I do not know of any such case. I am concerned that the word “dictate” or “dictating” keeps coming up in reference to some bishops policy on posture during Communion. It is as if you are trying to say that the bishop does not have the authority to make the recommendation to stand when coming back from Communion. And that is not what Cardinal Arinze said. In fact, he said that the bishops **could recommend **standing. They **could propose **standing. But they could not impose it.
The official 2002 text of the universal GIRM - that is, the one without adaptations - said that the posture from Consecration until the end of Mass was standing. The dubium, as posted earlier, doesn’t ask about the US, it asks “Does the official text forbid kneeling upon return from Communion?” If it did, it would apply to the entire world, not just the US. . The response to the dubium, NO.On that, I am not so sure. Cardinal George was writing specifically about the US, if I recall, and that would seem to imply that it was intended as a question as to the application in the US.
On the other hand, I also doubt that Cardinal Arinze would suggest rigor for those who did not ask, and something less than rigor for those who did…
And I don’t travel outside the US, so it really doesn’t matter to me. It is more a matter of how protocol works as to a dubium.
Well, ok. But quotes from Cardinal Arinze are usually shot down on this board when he speaks “off the cuff.” We all acknowledge here that the diocese cannot regulate the posture coming back from Communion too rigidly. I think the dioceses knows that too and have ensured that policy is not worded in a way that sounds demanding. Now our discussion seems to be whether or not the bishop has the authority at all to promote a posture when there is no specification one way or the other in the G.I.R.M. I believe that the local ordinary does have the authority to ensure unity within the local church in those things not specified by liturgical law.I did use the word “dictating”. Cardinal Arinze, in the interview where he made the statement I referenced, used the word “prescribed.”(around 5:30)
He actually addressed this very issue, saying (52:00 - 54:00):
When the diocese regiments too much, it becomes material for us to talk to the bishop privately. And our language would be, “Why do you regiment the people of God? Are they soldiers? Allow them some freedom. For example, When people receive Holy Communion, they return to their seats. There is no law from Rome whether they should kneel, or sit down, or stand up.” But in some diocese, they are rigid. They say, “If you receive communion, and come back to your seat, you must stand!” And when the last person has received, everybody must sit! Are they soldiers? Where is freedom? Why not let the people of God who have received Jesus, some of them want to kneel, another one wants to sit, another one wants to sit, it’s alright.
youtube.com/watch?v=r5DETgR8UxE
The whole Q and A is pretty cool, but this one section directly addressed the OP’s question. I particularly like his last quote about those that want to kneel instead of standing. He said “…leave them in peace instead of pieces.”