Denying Communion to kneeling communicant.

[palmas85]

I think that what is going on is a terrible commentary on the state of the Church today. We have an 84 year old woman, who has such respect and reverence for our Lord Jesus Christ that she chooses to kneel to receive the Eucharist, and feels it is proper to do so. I doubt this is easy for her to do, and is obviously an indication of her deep love and respect for Christ. We have a Priest, years her junior, who doesn’t want to give her communion in this fashion, apparently has “counseled” her, whatever that means on the practice, and refused to give her communion.

Maybe I am old fashioned, but I believe an 84 year old person DESERVES a little more respect than that. And to deny the Eucharist to someone, anyone, because the Priest personally doesn’t want her to receive while kneeling is incomprehnsible to me.

I mean we are talking about someone being denied a sacrament because of the Priests personal prejudice. What has the church turned into? Have we forgotten what the Eucharist is?? Has the style, the appearance and performance surpassed the reality of what is transpiring?? What in the world is going on??

Whats next? The Priest won’t baptize a baby because the parents rubbed him the wrong way? Maybe he won’t annoint the sick because he disapproves of their illness. Maybe he will refuse to conduct a mariage ceremony because he doesn’t like the brides dress. Where does it end??

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

I’ve got really nothing more to say on the issue other than what I’m going to say here, then … 'nuff said for me.
Mysty:

What I am saying is that once a person has been instructed and refuses to comply, what is the next step?

It’s simply not worth worrying about. We agree the priest was wrong, and I’m going to state once again that there is no way the Vatican would approve the US Bishops disciplining a communicant by denying Holy Communion even AFTER they have been counseled. It is contradictory to Canon Law so it cannot be done.

Furthermore, I just spoke with my co-pastor today and he explained to me that the norm is not a mandate, therefore people are not in defiance if they kneel when receiving Holy Communion. This explains why none of the letters from the CDW back to the complaintants “instructs” them to follow the orders of their Bishops conference. There simply are no orders or mandate, but simply guidelines.

**Here is the Canon Law explained again and note that it doesn’t make exceptions, even remotely, that not accepting counsel is grounds for further disciplinary action by denial of communion. The Canon Law is not going to be changed in order to satisfy some American Bishops or Priests who want to affect the spirit of Communion through uncharitableness. **

In view of the law that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who opportunely ask for them, are properly disposed and are not prohibited by law from receiving them” (canon 843 1ß), there should be no such refusal to any Catholic who presents himself for Holy Communion at Mass, except in cases presenting a danger of grave scandal to other believers arising out of the person’s unrepented public sin or obstinate heresy or schism, publicly professed or declared.** Even where the Congregation has approved of legislation denoting standing as the posture for Holy Communion, in accordance with the adaptations permitted to the Conferences of Bishops by the Institution Generalis Missalis Romani n. 160, paragraph 2, it has done so with the stipulation that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds.**

Quite frankly, I don’t care that Fr. John T. Zuhlsdorf is in Rome or not. The point is the Vatican is in charge. This is not a protestant church it is the Most Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and we answer to Rome first, then to the Bishops. Fr. J.T. is the moderator of another worldwide Catholic forum and I’ll accept his credentials over anyone else here (below) trying to state that the US Bishops can trump the Holy See. The US Bishops are to create norms within the framework of that issued by the Vatican. As far as I can see they have. There is NO WAY that the Vatican will permit denial of Holy Communion even for someone who was “counseled” to stand. It is not going to happen because this would be contradictory to Canon Law, as already cited.

If the priests and bishops need to discipline anybody, it is the average Catholic that won’t come to mass, but again - that would be too pastoral of them to deal with that head-on, now wouldn’t it?

Fr. J.T. Zuhlsdorf’s credentials: catholic.org/frz/

 

[athanasiusrc]

I will start taking priests who have issues with kneeling communicants seriously when they start telling everyone to stop holding hands during the Our Father and bring back chant to show unity with the Universal Church.

 

[Mysty101]

Lux_et_veritas:

Fr. J.T. Zuhlsdorf’s credentials: catholic.org/frz/

Again whatever Fr Z’s credentials, his writings are not official liturgical documentation. He just does not have that authority.

Also the official documentation does not give instructions for a procedure after catechesis has been ignored.

The norms are the liturgical laws. What is in dispute is how or more importantly IF thay can be overturned, and by whom. The US norm is to stand–what is in dispute is the manner in which this norm will be enforced.

As I said, I have heard of some instances of Priests denying Communion to a kneeling Communicant (I have even heard of one instance where two ushers raised a kneeling person to his feet), but I have never heard of a sanction being issued.

As I said, this may be another instruction, issued to pacify, which will not be enforced.

 

[Mysty101]

athanasiusrc:

I will start taking priests who have issues with kneeling communicants seriously when they start telling everyone to stop holding hands during the Our Father and bring back chant to show unity with the Universal Church.

There are no norms regarding a posture for the Lord’sPrayer or for chant.

 

[Mysty101]

palmas85:

Maybe I am old fashioned, but I believe an 84 year old person DESERVES a little more respect than that. And to deny the Eucharist to someone, anyone, because the Priest personally doesn’t want her to receive while kneeling is incomprehnsible to me.

Maybe I’m old fashion, but I believe an 84 year old woman should respect the authority of her Pastor and Bishop.

Defy a priest? and this is OK?

Ps40
7 3 sacrifice and offering you do not want; but ears open to obedience you gave me. Holocausts and sin-offerings you do not require; 8 so I said, “Here I am; your commands for me are written in the scroll. 9 To do your will is my delight; my God, your law is in my heart!”

 

[otm]

:yup: And the greater disobedience was that of Pope Paul’s since he caved.

And the same thing happened with “altar girls.”

When they write the final chapter of “What Happened to the Church after Vatican II” all of these oh-so-incidental, non-important little disciplinary abuses are going to be shown for what they really were. Chip, chip, chip at the foundation.

Pray unceasingly,

Anna

And, pray tell, who was Pope Paul disobedient to, since a) it is a rule and b) rules can be changed and c) he is the one who has the authority to change the rule.

 

[msproule]

Mysty101:

We disagree on the bottom line. She was instructed and defied her Pastor.

But as you have pointed out again and again, we must priorotize things based upon the official authoritative documentation that is provided to us. There is law preventing the denial of Holy Communion but there is no law indicating how many “strikes” one is allowed before being declared “out” by one’s pastor. Therefore, as frustrated as he may get, said pastor is bound to adhere to said law.

Your bottom line is one which should not be crossed, whereas my bottom line is one which cannot be crossed, according to offical sources.

I agree—where did I say anything different?

You did not write that it was OK to allow Protestants to receive Holy Communion, but in my opinion your reply had grave potential to mislead other readers into thinking it should be. Hopefully I am wrong.

This is why many Bishops are not willing to grant the indult.

Have they told you this? That is not why my Archbishop disallowed it for so many years, until recently. So to you (and these “many Bishops” you speak of) kneeling = Tridentine Mass? That is quite a stretch!

 

[msproule]

InnocentIII:

I am not in the US, but I would be interested in anyone who can provide a document or reference to the reasons for this norm other than that the US Bishops have declared it so.

I have often pondered this great mystery myself. I think Lux_et_Veritas is very close to the answer with her theory.

Perhaps I shall kneel to receive Holy Communion this Sunday in hopes of finding out!

 

[Mysty101]

Michael,

Please do not misinterpret my words–This makes me very angry, and I am sure you would not want to tempt me in this manner.

msproule:

But as you have pointed out again and again, we must priorotize things based upon the official authoritative documentation that is provided to us. There is law preventing the denial of Holy Communion but there is no law indicating how many “strikes” one is allowed before being declared “out” by one’s pastor. Therefore, as frustrated as he may get, said pastor is bound to adhere to said law.

How many timees must I say that I agree she should not be denied Communion? I’ll ask again—Have you ever heard of the threat to sanction being carried out?
*

Your

bottom line is one which should not be crossed, whereas my bottom line is one which cannot be crossed, according to offical sources. *
Mysty:

As I said, I totally disagree with the mannner in which the whole kneeling issue was handled in the GIRM, but I know this is not my call.

I also said I am not arguing that the Priest was wrong to deny Communion.

What I am saying is that once a person has been instructed and refuses to comply, what is the next step?

You did not write that it was OK to allow Protestants to receive Holy Communion, but in my opinion your reply had grave potential to mislead other readers into thinking it should be. Hopefully I am wrong.

That is solely your opinion and the only reason I am responding is because you did slander me with it. How did I give this impression? I thought we had respect for one another dispite some differences—I guess I was wrong.

Have they told you this? That is not why my Archbishop disallowed it for so many years, until recently. So to you (and these “many Bishops” you speak of) kneeling = Tridentine Mass? That is quite a stretch

In discussing the indult with some priests and seminarians, one of the reasons to refuse permission for the indult is because you are allowing people to deviate from the current norms, and as with children, you allow something once, the take it as universal permission.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Mysty101:

Maybe I’m old fashion, but I believe an 84 year old woman should respect the authority of her Pastor and Bishop.

Defy a priest? and this is OK?

Maybe I’m old fashioned, and a little too Catholic, to believe that a priest should obey the authority of the Holy See, which states without any doubt, that one cannot be denied Holy Communion on the basis of kneeling. How do you know that God wasn’t testing the obedience of the priest? His was the greater misdeed because he denied someone Holy Communion without having a good reason as stated in the Canon Law, and he did so against the explicit instructions of Cardinal Arinze and Redemptionis Sacramentum when he did so. **The only thing the Lady did was exercise her right - a right protected by the Holy See - to receive the Body of Christ on her knees. **

I see a theme that runs like a broken record and it is all too typical of the American attitude. That is, “who needs the Vatican when we have our own bishops”. In the Catholic Church, even the US Bishops are accountable to the Holy See, contrary to popular opinion. What the Bishops direct us to do in the form of “norms” must be approved by the Vatican. But what the CDW - an extension of the Holy Father - dictates, does NOT have to go through the US Bishops.

Jesus didn’t say Bishops you are rock, he said that Peter was Rock. The Bishops must submit any “norms” they write to the Holy See for approval. The Holy See follows Canon Law and there is no justifiable way to deny anyone Holy Communion on the grounds of “defying” (I call it exercising a right) a “norm” to stand, and equally, of ignoring “instruction” to stand.

**Once again, you fail to take notice Mysty that at no point did the Congregation for Divine Worship EVER admonish any one of the people writing to them for exercise their right to kneel or “defying” the US Bishops conference “norm” of standing. At no point were they counseled and at no point where they instructed to obey the “norm”. **
**Now why do you suppose that is?

**
**So who are you to admonish or reproach this woman for the “defying” the US Bishops, even if only in your heart? **

On the other hand,it is pretty much guaranteed in Cardinal Arinze’s 2002 letter, this priest who denied this woman Holy Communion will be disciplined because it states that there are consequences for any priest doing so once verified.

And you are drooling for a woman like this to be disciplined for something the Holy See protects as her right?

 

[Mysty101]

I thought you had said your final word?

And you are drooling for a woman like this to be disciplined for something the Holy See protects as her right?

Your choice of words leaves much to be desired.

On the other hand,it is pretty much guaranteed in Cardinal Arinze’s 2002 letter, this priest who denied this woman Holy Communion will be disciplined because it states that there are consequences for any priest doing so once verified

Again (for the gazillionth time)—any reports of this???

Again, I am trying to give reasons why it is better to follow a norm than exercise a “right” in defiance of a Priest.

I have offered many reasons, many times. Unless something new comes up, please restrict your comments to the subject at hand, and do not speculate on my thoughts or motives, or especially** do not** ascribe your thoughts to me.

(I neither drool, nor advocate Holy Communion for non-Catholics)

 

[InnocentIII]

Mysty101:

In discussing the indult with some priests and seminarians, one of the reasons to refuse permission for the indult is because you are allowing people to deviate from the current norms, and as with children, you allow something once, the take it as universal permission.

And there in a nutshell is the way the NO mass and all the rigmarole of standing and receiving in the hand was introduced in the first place. And now “in the name of unity” we must be prevented from disobeying what was intoduced by disobedience in the first place.

After I had read these threads and documents from local bishop’s conferences, I still cannot find a single justification for these norms other than that the bishops declared it so, and it seems to me that they only did it because they were afraid that they would lose what few parishioners they had left if they insisted on a rigorous Catholicism while hoping the remnant faithful would just accept the authority of their pastors. Perhaps now they are afraid that if too many persist in these open displays of piety the less pious will feel uncomfortable and flee to the Protestants.

At the time of Vatican II it was said that the Church was too much of a defensive fortress and that we needed to reach out to others. It seems to me that we are still defensive but no longer possess the fortress. We no longer defy the world we hide from it. We no longer man the walls we cringe in the corners. Above all we are no longer the Church Militant but the Church Humiliated. It is time to reman the barricades.

 

[Mysty101]

I read your response.

I have given many reasons many times, and none were what you report.

Believe what you choose. It is your decision, and someday you will have a real opportunity to defend it.

The disrespect shown in many of these threads is so disheartening.

If I felt as some of you feel about the USCCB, I would certainly leave the country.

 

[msproule]

Mysty101:

Please do not misinterpret my words–This makes me very angry, and I am sure you would not want to tempt me in this manner.

That is solely your opinion and the only reason I am responding is because you did slander me with it. How did I give this impression? I thought we had respect for one another dispite some differences—I guess I was wrong.

Suz,

You are not wrong. Honestly, I never attempted to misrepresent your statements and I hope I did not do that. I simply thought it was worthwhile to offer a clarification because *I *needed to read the sentence twice about Protestants and Holy Communion before I understood what you were trying to say. It was my opinion, and I did mention that in my reply. I hope there are no hard feelings.

Michael

 

[InnocentIII]

Mysty101:

I read your response.

I do not know if this refers to my post as it came immediately before this one, or if you were referring to Michael. However I still feel there are some issues here that have not been resolved.

Mysty101:

I have given many reasons many times, and none were what you report.

I asked you for evidence that the letter from Arinze was “vague and questionable” and none was given. I asked for documentary references to the reason for the norm other than the fact that the bishops declared it so and none were given.

Mysty101:

The disrespect shown in many of these threads is so disheartening.

It seems to me that all that is being said here is that we must obey the USCCB without question even when there are disagreements with the Vatican. The point you were making was that the woman should have obeyed the priest after he had counselled her and that he therefore had the right to withhold communion, a serious canonical penalty, and one that couild give rise to serious misunderstandings on the part of those who observed it, and one which it has been declared illicit by the GIRM.

I find it strange that we should be chastised for “disobeying” a norm that was only introduced through disobedience in the first place and later given grudging approval becaue it was so wide spread. If we all took to kneeling would the USCCB invoke sanctions or would it find that the sensus fidelium had remade the norm. The issue here is the pastoral insensitivity of the pastor towards an old woman who clearly wishes to receive the sacrament as she was always taught to. If it holds up the line, ask her to come last or kneel in the front seat (as they do for those who have difficulty coming to the front).

The reason for the norm appears to be that they know that the disobedient will continue to be disobedient no matter what the bishops decide so they are making a virtue of necessity and hoping that the more faithful will be coerced by loyalty to the Church into following the disobedient. As for the comment about the USCCB and leaving the country, it is clear from recent events that the USCCB has much to answer for in regard to their leadership of the US Church.

All that is being asked for here is sensitivity to the devotion of the faithful not a revolution against the Episcopate.

 

[Mysty101]

InnocentIII:

I do not know if this refers to my post as it came immediately before this one, or if you were referring to Michael.

Both

However I still feel there are some issues here that have not been resolved

And probably will never be. But I am again very upset at the absolute misquoting of my words.

I asked you for evidence that the letter from Arinze was “vague and questionable” and none was given. I asked for documentary references to the reason for the norm other than the fact that the bishops declared it so and none were given.

I gave links to the other threads where this was thoroughly discussed. I will not repeat myself again. In one post, I went through the threads and repeated all I had said before–I really don’t have the time to do it again.

It seems to me that all that is being said here is that we must obey the USCCB without question even when there are disagreements with the Vatican. The point you were making was that the woman should have obeyed the priest after he had counselled her and that he therefore had the right to withhold communion, a serious canonical penalty, and one that couild give rise to serious misunderstandings on the part of those who observed it, and one which it has been declared illicit by the GIRM.

This really makes me angry. Where did I say that??

When two documents conflict (especially in interpretation) the higher document takes precedence.

The GIRM is the last word on liturgical norms

This letter is worded very carefully. Permission to kneel is not given, plus the Communicant is to be Catechised if they kneel The Priest may not deny Communion, but that is as far as this incomplete instruction goes.

What happens if the Communicant still will not follow the norm after instruction? OK the Priest still may not deny Communion.

What I said was
I find it strange that we should be chastised for “disobeying” a norm that was only introduced through disobedience in the first place and later given grudging approval becaue it was so wide spread. If we all took to kneeling would the USCCB invoke sanctions or would it find that the sensus fidelium had remade the norm. The issue here is the pastoral insensitivity of the pastor towards an old woman who clearly wishes to receive the sacrament as she was always taught to. If it holds up the line, ask her to come last or kneel in the front seat (as they do for those who have difficulty coming to the front).

How do you know this? Do you have any background information?
It is not up to you to tell a Pastor how to distribute Holy Communion. You do not know what preceded his decision. I am still waiting for some report of any disciplinary action.

The reason for the norm appears to be that they know that the disobedient will continue to be disobedient no matter what the bishops decide so they are making a virtue of necessity and hoping that the more faithful will be coerced by loyalty to the Church into following the disobedient. As for the comment about the USCCB and leaving the country, it is clear from recent events that the USCCB has much to answer for in regard to their leadership of the US Church.

However the norm came to be, it is still the Liturgical Law. Did you ever read the article on the Communion Procession? That was in one of those threads, and another reason for the standing norm, but you have made your decision on the reason, albeit without any documentation.

All that is being asked for here is sensitivity to the devotion of the faithful not a revolution against the Episcopate

This was not directed toward you. First of all I see you are not from the US. Also you have not posted some of the totally disrespectful remarks against US Bishops that have been posted.

I still can’t believe that people think that Jesus would prefer them to kneel, rather than respect and support the Successors of the Apostles.

 

[Mysty101]

PS
Mysty:

Again, I am trying to give reasons why it is better to follow a norm than exercise a “right” in defiance of a Priest.

I will repeat again–I do not agree with denying Communion.

 

[InnocentIII]

Mysty101:

This was thoroughly discussed a few months ago.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=35710

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=38506

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=37442

I have checked out all these threads. They all provide personal opinions as to the reason for the norm. NONE provide documented reasons for it. When the Vatican issues a document on Church discipline it always includes a long spiel explaining its reasons. Why cannot the USCCB do the same in this case.

Also, I find that the “kneelers” are not opposed to the “standers”, merely asking to be allowed to kneel. It is among the “standers” (not all obviously) that the desire appears to be strongly evidenced to coerce unity.

And a last comment on the “smooth flow of the procession” argument. The church is not an assembly line, in most churches here people remain in their seats until it is convenient to join the queue rather than clog the aisles, and in our particular parish where we kneel (or stand) along the step, the procession flows very smoothly, and people even have time for a few minutes devotion before standing up and returning to their seats. this is a furphy.

 

[Mysty101]

So where is the documentation for your opinion?

I don’t like anyone calling attention to themselves by doing something different, but if there are a number who wish to kneel, and their Pastor sees a Pastoral need to accommodate them, I have no problem with that. But I feel that if only one or two people wish to do something different this does not serve the common spiritual good.

Movements and Posture

GIRM 42. The gestures and posture of the priest, the deacon, and the ministers, as well as those of the people, ought to contribute to making the entire celebration resplendent with beauty and noble simplicity, so that the true and full meaning of the different parts of the celebration is evident and that the participation of all is fostered.52 Therefore, attention should be paid to what is determined by this General Instruction and the traditional practice of the Roman Rite and to what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God, rather than private inclination or arbitrary choice.

A common posture, to be observed by all participants, is a sign of the unity of the members of the Christian community gathered for the Sacred Liturgy: it both expresses and fosters the intention and spiritual attitude of the participants.

From the Bulletin insert

In addition to serving as a vehicle for the prayer of beings composed of body and spirit, the postures and gestures in which we engage at Mass have another very important function. The Church sees in these common postures and gestures both a symbol of the unity of those who have come together to worship and a means of fostering that unity. We are not free to change these postures to suit our own individual piety,

for the Church makes it clear that our unity of posture and gesture is an expression of our participation in the one Body formed by the baptized with Christ, our head. When we stand, kneel, sit, bow and sign ourselves in common action, we given unambiguous witness that we are indeed the Body of Christ, united in heart, mind and spirit.
Email us at bcl@usccb.org
Committee on the Liturgy | 3211 4th Street, N.E., Washington DC 20017-1194 | (202) 541-3000 © USCCB. All rights reserved.