Denying Communion to kneeling communicant.

[Lux_et_veritas]

Well, this was insightful reading from our very own library at Catholic.com. See what I have highlighted and underlined below.

They call out the GIRM norm just ahead of what I have in bold, then it is corrected by the Holy See with a threat of “disciplinary action” if further such incidents of denial are received and verified. This was in 2002 and people are still debating over it!

catholic.com/library/liturgy/cag_changes.asp
POSTURE AT COMMUNION

One of the most controversial American adaptations concerned the posture of the faithful when receiving Communion. Traditional practice allowed for communicants to receive either kneeling or standing. If they received Communion standing, they should show another sign of reverence for Christ in the Eucharist. The new GIRM specified the following:

“The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm. When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the body of the Lord from the minister” (160).

When the U.S. bishops proposed this adaptation, the Holy See insisted on the provision that the faithful who choose to kneel not be denied Communion. Following the release of the old GIRM, many faithful who chose to kneel were denied Communion or otherwise harassed regarding the practice, and Rome received numerous complaints.

In response the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments published in the November-December 2002 issue of its official journal, Notitiae, a notification that it “considers any refusal of Holy Communion to a member of the faithful on the basis of his or her kneeling posture to be a grave violation of one of the most basic rights of the Christian faithful, namely that of being assisted by their pastors by means of the Sacraments.”

The CDWDS further stipulated that “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.”

Finally, the notice declared that “priests should understand that the congregation will regard future complaints of this nature with great seriousness, and if they are verified, it intends to seek disciplinary action consonant with the gravity of the pastoral abuse” (letter of Jorge Cardinal Medina Estévez, July 1, 2002 [Prot. n. 1322/02/L]).

**HELLO??? That last statement sounds pretty clear that no group of Bishops, in any country, should try to trump the CDW with their local “norms”. **

 

[Mysty101]

We’ve been through all this a number of times. No Canon lawyer has come forward to interpret these documents, and declare which takes priority.

I know I never said a person should be denied Communion, and I don’t think anyone else did either.

My point in each one of these discussions has always been “What is the best choice?”

The wording of both the norm and the letter is very specific–It does not say kneeling is permitted, it says you cannot be punished if you violate the norm, but you are to be instructed. It never says what is the procedure if a person is instructed and refuses to comply.

Again-- when a Bishop see such stubbornness, I do not blame him for being reluctant to grant an indult.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Mysty101:

We’ve been through all this a number of times. No Canon lawyer has come forward to interpret these documents, and declare which takes priority.

Just based on the comment out of Cardinal Arinze in his letter, it just seems that it would be highly arrogant for anyone to deny any communicant the Eucharist regardless of kneeling or standing.

Didn’t many other “norms” become norms after so many people engaged in illicit practices that they (bishops) finally just caved in and made it so?

Lets do it in reverse and see if it works the same way.

When the priest says, “The Lord be with you”
Lets all respond, “Et Cum Spiritu Tuo”

When the priest says, “Lift your hearts up to the Lord”
Lets all respond, “Habemus ad Dominum”

And when it is time for Communion, lets all kneel.

If it was fair for one generatoin to shove changes down the throats of other Catholics in this manner, maybe the next generation will use the same technique to put some things back the way they were

 

[MikeWM]

Lux_et_veritas:

Just based on the comment out of Cardinal Arinze in his letter, it just seems that it would be highly arrogant for anyone to deny any communicant the Eucharist regardless of kneeling or standing.

Well, if the Priest has taken the lady to one side and asked her not to kneel, and backed it up with official documentation (which may or may not have been trumped, it seems we really don’t know), and she persists in doing so anyway, the Priest may well think she is being arrogant and/or disobedient.

It’s one of those scenarios where things degenerate into people getting annoyed with one another, and confusion reigns and tempers raise…

Mike

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

MikeWM:

Well, if the Priest has taken the lady to one side and asked her not to kneel, and backed it up with official documentation (which may or may not have been trumped, it seems we really don’t know), and she persists in doing so anyway, the Priest may well think she is being arrogant and/or disobedient.

It’s one of those scenarios where things degenerate into people getting annoyed with one another, and confusion reigns and tempers raise…

Mike

I guess I’m not understanding what part of Cardinal Arinze’s letter is not clear. He acknowledges many letters coming to the CDW for people being denied Holy Communion (read that, it doesn’t matter if they’ve been instructed otherwise or not, priests do not have the right to deny Communion on this basis, regardless of what the US Bishops have determined).

This 2002 letter makes it clear that any priest who denies communion on the basis of kneeling or standing will be disciplined upon verification. In March of 2004, this was backed up in Redemptionis Sacramentum shown below (cannot deny on the basis of kneeling or standing).

Cardinal Arinze does not state that people should undergo “catechesis” then be denied if they do not follow instructions. In fact, he goes so far as to state that there is a misunderstanding in this regard, goes on to acknowledge the disturbing letters his office had been getting about people being denied, then makes it clear that anyone who denies Holy Communion on the basis of the person standing or kneeling will be disciplined upon verification.

Granted, if someone really wants to take something that is black and white and twist it into shades of gray, I’m sure they could do it. That is all too typical today. Cardinal Arinze’s words are clear enough to a child, so I’m sure the US Bishops understand they cannot put something in their GIRM that runs contradictory to no denial of Holy Communion on the basis of standing or kneeling.

The US GIRM was written in 2003. The Redemptionis Sacramentum was written in 2004. Any US Bishop response AFTER March of 2004 would be interesting to read, if someone can post a link to it.

Here is what people are getting hung up on. I am putting up point 91 ahead of point 90 here:

91…Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.

People are confusing it with point 90 (below). While that which is underlined below does allow the US Bishops to establish a “norm”, such as standing, point 91 (above) states very clearly that denial of Holy Communion on the basis of not complying with a “norm” involving standing or kneeling, is unacceptable. This does not require a canon lawyer to interpret.

90. “The faithful should receive Communion kneeling or standing, as the Conference of Bishops will have determined,” with its acts having received the recognitio of the Apostolic See. “However, if they receive Communion standing, it is recommended that they give due reverence before the reception of the Sacrament, as set forth in the same norms.”176

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Ah, yes… and here is the only thing I can find from the US Bishops and it was written in 2001. Remember, Cardinal Arinze’s letter was written in 2002, Redemptionis Sacramentum was written in 2004.

So, what I have underlined below, cannot in anyway be used to deny someone Communion. It states they cannot be denied first, then it talks about instruction. But it doesn’t state that one can be denied after instruction has been given, but is disregarded. So, even the US Bishops documentation would not support a priest who denies communion on the basis of someone kneeling.

This is clearly an open and shut case on the 84 year old woman. The priest was wrong to deny her Holy Communion, no matter how many times he instructed her otherwise.

Distribution of Holy Communion
This adaptation will take the place of number 160, paragraph 2:

The faithful are not permitted to take up the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice themselves, and still less, hand them on to one another.** The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel.** Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.

 

[gelsbern]

Deus Vult:

Since you mentioned it…I have a question for you all. I have a friend that is a parish priest in an Archdiocese other than my own and he told me that a Methodist minister had been coming to him and talking to him about our faith. He said the man told him that after talking with him and bible study that he was convinced of the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist…he asked if my friend would alow him to partake in the Eucharist at Mass that Sunday. My friend said that Sunday the minister came and recieved the Eucharist in tears and stayed in the sanctuary for many hours praying after Mass. Was this wrong?

It would have to be weighed against canon law.

Canon 844-4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.

 

[Adonis33]

Mysty101:

Yes, and many agree with you. This is why many Bishops are not willing to grant the indult.

The Indult??? Why did you bring this up? This has absolutley nothing to do with the subject at hand.

You keep talking about “obedience” - however - if the local bishop tells me something that is in conflict with what the Pope has directed - I am obligated to follow the Pope.

 

[Mysty101]

Attitude is a very important part of support for our Priests and Bishops.

I do agree that denying Communion is wrong, However the situation which brought the Priest to that point is also wrong. If these people did not defy their Priest and Bishop waving a letter, which is vague and questionable in a canon court, the situation would not arise.

The words of the Pope are not an infallible pronouncement in this case, he was defining his Spirituality. I never agreed with approving a norm, with this stipulation. As you can see, it leaves room for much tension.

There are many instructions in the GIRM which are in conflict with this letter on kneeling: The call for unity, the affirmation of the Bishop as High Priest, and other instructions and definitions which have been posted many times.

If someone want to kneel, find a Parish where the Pastor allows it, and if they cannot do that, then submit to authority. There are times when the better choice is to refrain from exercising a right.

The Indult??? Why did you bring this up? This has absolutley nothing to do with the subject at hand.

It is a matter of following norms. If people continue continue to ignore norms at the Pauline Mass, the Bishop may conclude that exceptions must never be made, which would preclude an indult Mass.

 

[Mysty101]

MikeWM:

Well, if the Priest has taken the lady to one side and asked her not to kneel, and backed it up with official documentation (which may or may not have been trumped, it seems we really don’t know), and she persists in doing so anyway, the Priest may well think she is being arrogant and/or disobedient.

It’s one of those scenarios where things degenerate into people getting annoyed with one another, and confusion reigns and tempers raise…

Mike

Agreed

 

[InnocentIII]

Lux_et_veritas:

The faithful are not permitted to take up the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice themselves, and still less, hand them on to one another. The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.

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.

 

[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

 

[InnocentIII]

Mysty101:

waving a letter, which is vague and questionable in a canon court

Evidence???

Mysty101:

The words of the Pope are not an infallible pronouncement in this case, he was defining his Spirituality.

Wrong. He was defining a universal norm which was then allowed may be modified by local bishops according to local circumstances.

Mysty101:

There are many instructions in the GIRM which are in conflict with this letter on kneeling: The call for unity, the affirmation of the Bishop as High Priest, and other instructions and definitions which have been posted many times.

But 91 makes clear that regardless of the aforegoing norms " it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing."

Agreed, but that does not give anyone, including the priest the power to deny the right.

 

[Mysty101]

Further clarification

The Indult??? Why did you bring this up? This has absolutley nothing to do with the subject at hand.

It is a matter of compromise. The compromise made for the standing norm, led to more problems than solutions.

If someone wants something, they show that they are a respectful person, and worthy of consideration.

Which would bring better results?

The group is very respectful and follows all the norms at the NO Mass, and goes to the Bishop and asks for permission for the indult Mass.

or

A few of the group kneel and say they can’t be denied Communion, and create a rukus at Mass, and then go to ask permission for the indult.

 

[Mysty101]

InnocentIII:

But 91 makes clear that regardless of the aforegoing norms " it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing."
.

for the gazillionth time

I do agree that denying Communion is wrong, However the situation which brought the Priest to that point is also wrong. If these people did not defy their Priest and Bishop waving a letter, which is vague and questionable in a canon court, the situation would not arise.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Mysty101:

for the gazillionth time…
I do agree that denying Communion is wrong, However the situation which brought the Priest to that point is also wrong. If these people did not defy their Priest and Bishop waving a letter, which is vague and questionable in a canon court, the situation would not arise.

If anyone requires a canon court to understand that letter, then they are trying to bend the compass needle to suit a direction in which they wish to go, that is clearly not indicated.

The Holy See addressed an issue which they felt was uncharitable and, itself against canon law - refusing Holy Communion on such grounds, which you do agree with. Any priest or any bishop trying to write a rule that would force people to stop kneeling when they’ve been doing it for a lifetime, is highly uncharitable.

Just once, I’d like to see the bishops address the clown masses, and the people leaving early and coming late, and the many other things I’ve already mentioned. Those are highly disrespectful of God, but aren’t worthy of being addressed. But if an 84 year old woman wants to receive Holy Communion on her knees, some people are willing to go to great lengths to put an end to it because it is “disrespectful to a bishop”. Then to cloak such uncharitableness under the names of “instruction” or “teaching” or “catechizing” is absolutely incredulous.

The American Catholic Church has truly lost its sense of direction when the parish priests will not address contraception and abortion, but are willing to “educate” someone wanting to take Communion while kneeling. Contraception and abortion are salvation issues. What risk is the 84 year old woman at for doing with the Holy See says is rightfully hers to do? The CDW has not, in any letter, “instructed” or “catechized” any person writing to them about why they should not kneel. The CDW has not pointed out to anyone writing, that they should be “mindful” and not “defy” their Bishops by kneeling. **The only people doing that are other American Catholics. **

I only wonder what the motive is behind such strong sentiments to not defy the Bishops, while not considering that the Bishops and priests could be defying the spirit of “charity” upon which Redemptionis Sacramentum is based**.**

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

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.

When you can figure it out, please let me know. It counters the universal norm.

My personal belief is that it is much like the Holy Days of obligation. The Bishops have addressed the declining numbers of people on Holy Days by just reducing the Holy Days. This way, they don’t have to reprimand, reproach, admonish, educate, instruct, “catechize” on the fact that we should desire to worship God and have a responsibility to spend time with Him in the Mass. Rather than deal with the heart of the issue, which is too many people, making too many excuses simply not wanting to come to Church, they reduce the number of masses.

Likewise, we have far fewer people in every parish of the United States, and granted, we have fewer priests. However, the masses I’ve attended outside of the traditional parish I just joined, are less than one hour. So it befuddles me why standing HAS to be the norm. Once again, they want to coddle us and show empathy about our busy days, rather than challenge us to “unbusy” them.

People have no problem finding two hours per evening for prime-time TV. But do they spend even 30 minutes in prayer? How about 15 minutes? Do they go to church every Sunday? When they don’t make it to church because of work, is it because they need the money to make ends meet or because they are paying off the extra toys and 4000 sq ft house they don’t need?

Such issues are so displeasing to God and we worry about an 84 year old woman kneeling to take communion? People cannot make a simple sacrifice to make it to the greatest Sacrifice of all and this is never addressed. I would do cartwheels if the Bishops sent a letter out to every Catholic challenging them on the issue of not coming to church every week and on Holy Days. But then again, that would be a little too pastoral wouldn’t it?

 

[Mysty101]

Lux_et_veritas:

If anyone requires a canon court to understand that letter, then they are trying to bend the compass needle to suit a direction in which they wish to go, that is clearly not indicated. .

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.

I believe the term is sanction, but will this be enforced for a strong willed member of the congregation? Have you ever heard it done? Perhaps this letter was also a compromise to soothe some people who could not accept the norm, but it will not be enforced, just as the norm is not to be enforced.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Mysty101:

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

The GIRM is the last word on liturgical norms

My goodness - I wish there was a smiley with his head getting cut off.

First of all, you are in error when you say that the GIRM is the “last word”. This is like saying the US Bishops are a higher authority than the Holy See. Rather, it is the Bishops who are suppose to create norms that comprehend those set forth by the Holy See, no usurp them. They have not done this yet, imho, but if they try to justify denying someone Holy Communion after someone receives “instruction” they sure would.

Here is something written by Fr. J.T. Zuhsldorf (RS stands for Redemptionis Sacramentum)

Several guiding principles must be held in your mind as you read through the Instruction. First and foremost, *RS *in no uncertain terms identifies who is in charge and who is responsible for doing what. “The regulation of the Sacred Liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, which rests specifically with the Apostolic See and, according to the norms of law, with the Bishop” (14), and, reiterating the 1983 Code of Canon Law (CIC), that the Pope “enjoys full, immediate and universal ordinary power, which he may always freely exercise” (canon 331), adding an important specification not in the CIC: “also by means of communications with the pastors and with the members of the flock.” This means that the Pope has no need to communicate to the people through the local bishops. This obviously addresses a complaint that some bishops think everything from Rome should go through them. Going on, we find a seemingly obvious but nevertheless important point:
“It pertains to the Apostolic See to regulate the Sacred Liturgy of the universal Church, to publish the liturgical books and to grant the recognition for their translation into vernacular languages, as well as to ensure that the liturgical regulations, especially those governing the celebration of the most exalted celebration of the Sacrifice of the Mass, are everywhere faithfully observed” (16 — emphasis added).

So, the Apostolic See, and no one else, is the final authority in all matters liturgical. This will surely correct the upholders of models of the Church who demand greater “subsidiarity” and the near autonomy of local Churches, leading to the creation of local liturgies. The Instruction clarifies that the ability to exercise authority concerning any aspect of liturgy is given “from above,” by the Supreme Pontiff. The next liturgical authority after the Pope is the CDW itself: “The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments attends to those matters that pertain to the Apostolic See….” (17). The CDF handles doctrinal matters concerning sacraments. Thus, the CDW is the extension of the Holy Father’s will concerning worship and celebration of sacraments.

Here is the article in its entirety: thewandererpress.com/a4-29-2004.htm

I couldn’t agree more here. The Bishops cannot go off on their own to contradict the CDW. They have not contradicted them by creating a norm of “standing”. The intent behind the “cathechesis” could simply be to see if the person will go along, but in no way is the person bound by this “norm” of standing as has been clarified repeatedly by the CDW.

The Bishops have to work within the boundaries of what the Holy See sets forth - period.

 

[Mysty101]

My goodness - I wish there was a smiley with his head getting cut off.

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/11/11_12_11.gif
Sorry to raise my font, but this is so experating

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?

Here is something written by Fr. J.T. Zuhsldorf (RS stands for Redemptionis Sacramentum)

Yes, I am quite familiar with RS, but in the US we are under the authority of the USCCB, so the USCCB interpretation is what those in the US should follow. Isn’t Fr Z from Rome? Is he a documented liturgical authority?

His article is certainly a credible writing, but it is not an official document.