"Dear Fr Rutler: my priest criticized me for kneeling for Communion Was he right?" (from the Catholic newspaper, "Catholic Herald")

[mdgspencer]

My priest pulled me aside last week after Mass because I knelt on the floor to receive Communion. Father told me that it would be appropriate to kneel at an Extraordinary Form parish; but that, during a Mass in the Ordinary Form, I should observe the custom of standing. Is it disobedient or disrespectful if I choose to keep kneeling?
Alicia L from Fayetteville, NC

You might respectfully pull him aside and inform him that the General Instruction of the Roman Missal established standing for Communion as the norm in the Ordinary Form but allows kneeling. The Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum provides: “It is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of the Christian faithful on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.” Around 300 AD, Abba Apollo said that the Devil will not kneel because he has no knees. Altar rails would solve the problem, but many were destroyed by frenzied puritans and nothing is more contradictory than a Catholic puritan. There is a danger of “virtue signaling” by being conspicuous in kneeling, or causing delays. You might also remind the kindly priest that in lieu of kneeling, a communicant is supposed to bow the head in reverence before receiving. Since Transubstantiation is our daily Theophany, we should fall on our faces. This is common sense, but such sense is not common in liturgical matters. My late friend Dr Eric Mascall wrote:

There was an old priest of Dun Laoghaire,
Who stood on his head for the Kaoghaire.
When people asked why,
He explained it all by
The latest liturgical thaoghaire

(This is taken from an article in the “Catholic Herald” at Dear Fr Rutler: my priest criticized me for kneeling for Communion. Was he right? - Catholic Herald )

 

[twf]

Our cathedral only celebrates the Ordinary Form. There are 7 Masses every Sunday and 4 Masses every weekday. At every single Mass, there is the option to receive kneeing. You either process up the centre aisle and receiving standing, or along either side and receive kneeling at the altar rail. I would say at all Masses it is about 50 / 50.

It is simply a myth that kneeling = EF and standing = OF.

 

[tafan2]

There is no indication that the priest denied or threatened to deny communion due to kneeling. Fr. Rutler acknowledges standing is the norm. I do not see what the priest did wrong.

 

[LML]

This topic is well worn, and nearly always serves as a division between Catholics…why do we continue to do this to ourselves in this forum?

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

This topic is well worn, and nearly always serves as a division between Catholics…why do we continue to do this to ourselves in this forum?

Because priests continue to tell people that they cannot kneel?

 

[Kei]

Kneeling is allowed and you should never be denied for kneeling.
The question then becomes the level of obedience owed the priest when kneeling is clearly said to be allowed.

In this case I would think taking the advice literally of talking to the priest and presenting the facts is best.

 

[LML]

Because priests continue to tell people that they cannot kneel?

No, of course not. Because it always ends up in a big argument between CAF posters about kneeling is more reverent than standing, or receiving on the tongue is more reverent, etc., and instead of rejoicing in the Catholic commonality of the love of Christ, the conversation deteriorates into division.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

Loud-living-dogma:

Because priests continue to tell people that they cannot kneel?

No, of course not. Because it always ends up in a big argument between CAF posters about kneeling is more reverent than standing, or receiving on the tongue is more reverent, etc., and instead of rejoicing in the Catholic commonality of the love of Christ, the conversation deteriorates into division.

Hey - - lighten up. We come to Catholic Arguing Forum for a reason!
Why did the priest tell the person not to kneel, when it is clearly allowed?

 

[PeterT]

LML:

This topic is well worn, and nearly always serves as a division between Catholics…why do we continue to do this to ourselves in this forum?

Because priests continue to tell people that they cannot kneel?

Umm, not in this instance.

The priest advised Alicia that she should observe the custom of standing for Holy Communion at his parish. He didn’t state that kneeling wasn’t allowed.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

Well if he asks her not to kneel, that’s pretty similar to telling her that kneeling isn’t allowed, right?
Who is he to go against the GIRM?

 

[PeterT]

Well if he asks her not to kneel, that’s pretty similar to telling her that kneeling isn’t allowed, right?

No it isn’t, not at all.

He is asking her to stand, not ordering her to stand. There’s a difference, a big difference.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

I don’t know how they are that different. Either way you get one compliant parishioner who has been cowed by her parish priest against showing reverence for the Eucharist in a way that was required for centuries.

 

[tafan2]

No it is not. There is no evidence in the question to Fr Rutler that the priest in question ever threatened to take any action if she did not stand. He only said she “should” stand. I think this is within a parish priest’s prerogative. He is, after all saying the same thing that our bishops in the US say:

The General Instruction asks each country’s Conference of Bishops to determine the posture to be used for the reception of Communion and the act of reverence to be made by each person as he or she receives Communion. In the United States, the body of Bishops determined that Communion should be received standing, and that a bow is the act of reverence made by those receiving. These norms may require some adjustment on the part of those who have been used to other practices, however the significance of unity in posture and gesture as a symbol of our unity as members of the one body of Christ should be the governing factor in our own actions.

(from http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-wor...t/the-reception-of-holy-communion-at-mass.cfm)

They use the term “should” the priest in question used the word "should.

Everyone brings up Redemptionis Sacramentum , but it simply says that a person cannot be denied communion for kneeling, it is really not relevant in this case.

Note: I stand during when receiving. I have no problem with people who kneel, I would rather kneel. I wish the US Bishops had decided kneeling was the posture that should be used, but they did not. So I stand, and receive on the tongue. But that is just my decision.

 

[tafan2]

So the US Bishops as a whole are “cowing” us into standing. That is a strong word, it implies it is being done by intimidation.

 

[67RedSox]

I was an altar boy from 1977-1982. Our parish was a national parish; Polish, to be specific. Every fourth Sunday or so, I’d have to serve at the 8:30 AM Mass which was in Polish. Communion was received at the altar rail at that Mass. Other than that I’ve only seen someone receive while kneeling at on OF Mass once that I recall. (I’ve been to quite a few AngloCatholic and EF Masses in recent years.)

A couple of years ago I saw a man kneel to receive the host. I sought him out afterwards to tell him about an EF Mass the next town over, but I never saw him after Mass.

 

[InThePew]

I have a couple of people in my congregation who kneel; they’re about the only ones who do. In my diocese, standing is the norm but kneeling is permitted. That said, even if it weren’t I seriously have far better things to do than do get worked up about whether someone kneels or stands.

 

[dochawk]

He only said she “should” stand. I think this is within a parish priest’s prerogative.

“should” is too far, given canon law and other directives.

He might prefer it, but it has been absolutely clear that she has an absolute right to receive kneeling, and that this is not to be impaired.

For a person in authority (the priest) to state from that position that she has an obligation (which is what “should” suggests) to do something else is improper.

(of course, we stand in our Eastern parish, as standing is our position of respect, and kneeling [which is exclusively a position of penitence in the East] would indeed be inappropriate. Besides, standing on the ambon, the priest would have trouble reaching . . .)

 

[PeterT]

tafan2:

He only said she “should” stand. I think this is within a parish priest’s prerogative.

“should” is too far, given canon law and other directives.

He might prefer it, but it has been absolutely clear that she has an absolute right to receive kneeling, and that this is not to be impaired.

For a person in authority (the priest) to state from that position that she has an obligation (which is what “should” suggests) to do something else is improper.

(of course, we stand in our Eastern parish, as standing is our position of respect, and kneeling [which is exclusively a position of penitence in the East] would indeed be inappropriate. Besides, standing on the ambon, the priest would have trouble reaching . . .)

I don’t know if you’re a native English speaker or not, but using the word should DOES NOT in any way mean or even infer an obligation. The word should in this context implies a recommended way (but not the REQUIRED way) of receiving Holy Communion. And the American priest was only following the directive of the USCCB (the United States episcopal conference of bishops), so he didn’t do nothing improper in speaking to this parishioner in the manner that he did after the Mass.

 

[dochawk]

I don’t know if you’re a native English speaker or not,

Not only that, but a Jesuit educated sone of an English teacher and Grammar nazi, lawyer, SAT verbal scores off the current scale, and so forth and so forth . . .

The word should in this context implies a recommended way (but not the REQUIRED way) of receiving Holy Communion.

No. This is a “you keep using that word, but I don’t think it means what you think it means” situation.

“Should”, in English, indicates a level of obligation or correctness, not the preference of the speaker.

It does not distinguish between normative and permissive. Permissive is “may.”

A person should do what is proper, and may choose between alternatives.

There is a huge different should do something and it being the norm, and suggesting someone should adhere to the norm when an alternative is explicitly permissive is simply wrong.

hawk

 

[tafan2]

@dochawk, I agree with you with the definition of should, but the level of obligation is debatable. Again, that is the terminology of the US bishops on their website, that is why I do not think the priest was out of line with the wording. And, I will add, that definition of should, is why I choose to stand while receiving.