Do you have to stand in order to receive communion?

[qmvsimp]

The priest in question is a stickler for the rules. He did not give communion to the two people in question because he legitimately thought he couldn’t.

I think Redemptionis Sacramentum

Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments

see link: ewtn.com/library/curia/cdwrdsac.htm#Chapter%20IV

clearly puts the matter to rest. Paragraph 91:
91. In distributing Holy Communion it is to be remembered that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who seek them in a reasonable manner, are rightly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them”.177 Hence any baptized Catholic who is not prevented by law must be admitted to Holy Communion. 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.

I don’t think refusing the Pastor’s request to stand counts as an action that would prohibit receiving communion. The priest would be denying communion solely on the grounds that the person wishes to receive it kneeling.

I went by his office this morning, but they don’t open until later. I’ll let you know what the resolution is.

One other note. The Pastor announced to the congregation at the end of mass, what had happened. He claimed that he did not deny them communion, but they denied it themselves by refusing to stand.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Turtledove:

Agreed, but once a person has been instructed and still refuses to follow the norm, what next?

Then the pastor begins the process of formally explaining this in writing. Then a second letter with a cc to the Bishop. Then Canon Law takes over from there.

 

[MrS]

ncjohn:

Actually, while “tripping” might also be an issue, the primary reason for not allowing kneeling according to the USCCB** is that the norm in the US is standing and that the communion procession is not an appopriate place **for personal shows of piety.

That in effect means that yes, those who decide to continue kneeling after being instructed are in fact sinning in their disobedience to both their priest and their bishops. And with all of your liberal bashing, I find it ironic that this disobedience is usually confined to the very “Orthodox” who scream bloody murder about anybody else’s “liturgical abuses.”

While I agree that one cannot deny communion to someone who kneels, as Turtledove rightly asks, how do handle someone who continually and obstinately continues in their disobedience after being instructed? I’m not sure if that question has been answered or what the answer should be. As I said earlier, as an EMHC I tend to error on the side of charity. I do find it distracting though, no matter how hard I try not to, and no matter how hard I try to not be judgmental it is difficult when the people most defending “orthodoxy” openly flaunt things that they don’t like while condemning others for the same.

Peace,

That opens another door of discussion… going forward to receive communion is not a procession. The priests who wrongly think it is also use this “procession” as a time to bless children - also something that is not encouraged. Think of procession in the same vein as when the Monstrance is processed through a church during 40 Hours, or when children process around Mary’s statue in May.

As for the opportunity to kneel… we had at one time a deacon who attempted to supply two “half-circle” kneelers at communion time (center aisle only). These would have allowed communicants to kneel for communion if they choose to, and for others to remain standing if they chose to… no tripping, no confusion. Nothing ever came of it though…and he is gone now.

Further, which is it? can’t deny kneeling…it’s a sin,…priests permit the sin…

 

[ncjohn]

msproule:

Please provide a link/reference to a statement/publication by the USCCB that presents this reasoning. I have looked for it many times but alas I have never found it.

As an EMHC, is it also distracting to have communicants who receive on the tongue interspersed among those who receive in the hand? According to the norms, either manner of reception is equally reverent and acceptable. How then, can the USCCB justify allowing only one posture for reception? By the reasoning that was presented above, the USCCB admits that one posture is more pious than another. Once again I point out that there are serious flaws and contradictions in the USCCB “logic”.

I don’t disagree with you about some of the logical inconsistencies. I have no problem with reception going back to receiving communion kneeling and personally prefer that, although I do agree that a unified posture is preferable. I don’t find it distracting personally having people receive in the hand or on the tongue, but that might just be me. We also get great variation in the sign of reverence before receiving, anything from nothing to bowing to genuflecting. My understanding is that bowing the head is the approved norm, but I’ve not seen any priests address it one way or another.

I’ll have to dig up the link again when I have a chance. I’m not surprised you have trouble finding it as I recall it was not easy to find. I printed it out some time ago when our new priest was asking about it so he would have something in writing. Hopefully the link is printed at the bottom of the document to make it easy for me to find so I don’t have to go through the whole convoluted search again. If it takes me too long and the thread dies, I’ll PM it to you when I find it.

Peace,

 

[ncjohn]

qmvsimp:

One other note. The Pastor announced to the congregation at the end of mass, what had happened. He claimed that he did not deny them communion, but they denied it themselves by refusing to stand.

If he went through an instruction process and they still refused to be obedient to the norms, that might not be an unreasonable conclusion to come to. If it was a first time occurence, it would seem to be overzealous and not in accordance with the instructions you noted.

 

[MikeWM]

Turtledove:

I am sorry—I didn’t mean to infer that we should not do this—I was misunderstanding this reaching out to mean saying that their actions are OK.

That’s ok, it was a rhetorical question really. We had an excellent homily from one of our priests a few weeks ago about reaching out and who Jesus wants to invite to his table, and it was going around in my head. In any event, I’m getting off the subject of this thread, so I’ll stop here

Mike

 

[ncjohn]

MrS:

That opens another door of discussion… going forward to receive communion is not a procession. The priests who wrongly think it is also use this “procession” as a time to bless children - also something that is not encouraged. Think of procession in the same vein as when the Monstrance is processed through a church during 40 Hours, or when children process around Mary’s statue in May.

As for the opportunity to kneel… we had at one time a deacon who attempted to supply two “half-circle” kneelers at communion time (center aisle only). These would have allowed communicants to kneel for communion if they choose to, and for others to remain standing if they chose to… no tripping, no confusion. Nothing ever came of it though…and he is gone now.

Further, which is it? can’t deny kneeling…it’s a sin,…priests permit the sin…

I used “procession” in a loose, non-technical way, although my recollection is that that was the term used in the answer that I saw.

I don’t think the kneelers would be allowed as it in effect creates a new “altar rail” which is also outside the norms. I’m not a canon lawyer or even an apoligist though and I could be wrong about that.

I think the fact that the USCCB has established norms overrides the “can’t deny kneeling” clause as long as there is instruction provided as it is within their purview to declare norms. Again, not being fully qualified to express that opinion I will state that I may be 100% wrong.

If it is within their purview however, then the sin will obviously fall in the disobedience to the bishops and their priests, not because kneeling is inherently sinful, just as eating meat on Friday was sinful because the Church said not to.

Finally, I have to say that I hate seeing this kind of stuff even being debated. The fact that we have “camps” being set up to fight about what I think are totally peripheral issues, creating ever more division, is very disconcerting to me. We keep setting up these “orthodoxy” and “piety” tests to indulge our human needs to compare ourselves to each other and lose sight of what we’re there to do. While it is certainly important to preserve the message and sactity of the liturgical celebration, arguing about this, or hand holding, or cyrstal vs gold plated vessels is in my opinion right up there with the things Jesus blasted the Pharisees about and ends up being “straining at gnats.”

Sorry for the personal rant.

 

[MikeWM]

ncjohn:

If he went through an instruction process and they still refused to be obedient to the norms, that might not be an unreasonable conclusion to come to. If it was a first time occurence, it would seem to be overzealous and not in accordance with the instructions you noted.

This was my opinion too. If the people have been instructed continually, then I wonder at what point the priest is reasonably allowed to say ‘well, I’ve explained this to you again and again, and I’m no longer going to give you communion kneeling because by doing so you are ignoring the express wishes of a priest.’

On the one hand we have that a kneeling communicant may not be denied communion. On the other we have that this person is explicitly disobeying the expressed wishes of the priest (and possibly therefore getting dangerously close to sinning, imo).

This question has come up a few times in the limited time I’ve been here. I don’t think we’ve had the final answer yet. Maybe no-one actually knows the final answer

Mike

 

[qmvsimp]

MikeWM:

This was my opinion too. If the people have been instructed continually, then I wonder at what point the priest is reasonably allowed to say ‘well, I’ve explained this to you again and again, and I’m no longer going to give you communion kneeling because by doing so you are ignoring the express wishes of a priest.’

On the one hand we have that a kneeling communicant may not be denied communion. On the other we have that this person is explicitly disobeying the expressed wishes of the priest (and possibly therefore getting dangerously close to sinning, imo).

This question has come up a few times in the limited time I’ve been here. I don’t think we’ve had the final answer yet. Maybe no-one actually knows the final answer

Mike

You can’t deny someone communion merely because they are kneeling. For the priest to make standing a requirement is a mistake IMO. Therefore, the priest should have informed them of the norm, but not have mandated it. It is clearly not mandatory.

 

[fix]

MikeWM:

This was my opinion too. If the people have been instructed continually, then I wonder at what point the priest is reasonably allowed to say ‘well, I’ve explained this to you again and again, and I’m no longer going to give you communion kneeling because by doing so you are ignoring the express wishes of a priest.’

On the one hand we have that a kneeling communicant may not be denied communion. On the other we have that this person is explicitly disobeying the expressed wishes of the priest (and possibly therefore getting dangerously close to sinning, imo).

This question has come up a few times in the limited time I’ve been here. I don’t think we’ve had the final answer yet. Maybe no-one actually knows the final answer

Mike

Rome has stated that the norms were allowed in the USA with the understanding those who chose to kneel could still kneel.

 

[MrS]

fix:

Rome has stated that the norms were allowed in the USA with the understanding those who chose to kneel could still kneel.

Now certainly you know that someone is going to ask for the link to prove your (name removed by moderator)ut .

Fortunately, you or someone else can provide it from any position:whacky:

 

[ncjohn]

fix:

Rome has stated that the norms were allowed in the USA with the understanding those who chose to kneel could still kneel.

Yes, you’re right MrS, although I almost decided not to ask. But I’m not asking as a challenge to prove his (name removed by moderator)ut.

I had heard this before, but haven’t actually seen anything that backs it up. I would love to see it so I could put the question to bed in my own mind and help stop the needless debate when I run into it.

 

[fix]

ncjohn:

Yes, you’re right MrS, although I almost decided not to ask. But I’m not asking as a challenge to prove his (name removed by moderator)ut.

I had heard this before, but haven’t actually seen anything that backs it up. I would love to see it so I could put the question to bed in my own mind and help stop the needless debate when I run into it.

Congregation de Cultu Divino et Disciplina Sacramentorum

           Prot. n. 1322/02/L

 Rome, 1 July 2002

 Dear Sir,

 This Congregation for Divine Worship gratefully acknowledges receipt of your letter, regarding an announced policy of denial of Holy Communion to those who kneel to receive it at a certain church.

 It is troubling that you seem to express some reservations about both the propriety and the usefulness of addressing the Holy See regarding this matter. Canon 212 ¶2 of the Code of Canon Law states that "Christ's faithful are totally free to make known their needs, especially their spiritual ones, and their desire: to the Pastor of the Church". The canon then continues in ¶3: "According to their own knowledge competence and position, they have the right, and indeed sometimes the duty, to present to the sacred Pastor; their opinions regarding those things that pertain to the good of the Church".... Accordingly, in consideration of the nature of the problem and the relative likelihood that it might or might not be resolved on the local level, every member of the faithful has the right of recourse to the Roman Pontiff either personally or by means of the Dicasteries or Tribunals of the Roman Curia.

 Another fundamental right of the faithful, as noted in canon 213, is "the right to receive assistance by the sacred Pastors from the spiritual goods of the Church, especially the word of God and the Sacraments". 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 ¶ 1), 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.

 Please be assured that the Congregation takes this matter very seriously, and is making the necessary contacts in its regard. At the same time, this Dicastery continues to be ready to be of assistance if you should need to contact it again in the future.

 Thanking you for your interest,   and with every prayerful good wish, I am

 Sincerely yours in Christ,

Monsignor Mario Marini

Undersecretary
adoremus.org/Notitiae-kneeling.html

 

[fix]

Congregation de Cultu Divino et Disciplina Sacramentorum

           Prot. n. 1322/02/L

 Rome, 1 July 2002

 Your Excellency,

 This Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has recently received reports of members of the faithful in your Diocese being refused Holy Communion unless while standing to receive, as opposed to kneeling. The reports state that such a policy has been announced to parishioners. There were possible indications that such a phenomenon might be somewhat more widespread in the Diocese, but the Congregation is unable to verify whether such is the case. This Dicastery is confident that Your Excellency will be in a position to make a more reliable determination of the matter, and these complaints in any event provide an occasion for the Congregation to communicate the manner in which it habitually addresses this matter, with a request that you make this position known to any priests who may be in need of being thus informed.

 The Congregation in fact is concerned at the number of similar complaints that it has received in recent months from various places, and 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 (*Codex   Iuris Canonici*, canon 213). 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 ¶ 1), 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 *Institutio 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.

 In fact, as His Eminence, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has recently emphasized, the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition, and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration, completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species.

 Given the importance of this matter, the Congregation would request that Your Excellency inquire specifically whether this priest in fact has a regular practice of refusing Holy Communion to any member of the faithful in the circumstances described above and -- if the complaint is verified -- that you also firmly instruct him and any other priests who may have had such a practice to refrain from acting thus in the future. 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.

 Thanking Your Excellency for   your attention to this matter and relying on your kind collaboration   in its regard,

 Sincerely yours in Christ,

 Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Estévez

Prefect
adoremus.org/Notitiae-kneeling.html

 

[MikeWM]

Well, that seems clear enough

Mike

 

[ncjohn]

Thanks fix!

That clears up a lot. Just in case qmvsimp doesn’t respond to this you might want to PM it to him since this answers his original question definitively.

The other interesting question that arises as a result is whether a priest is allowed to encourage kneeling in defiance of the norm. The priest at our former parish not only did not instruct people as to the norm, but actively encouraged kneeling and trained the altar servers to only take communion kneeling. It does seem that since the norm has been established legitimately that the priest is under obligation to follow it while not refusing communion to someone who still decides to kneel.

At any rate, thanks for the info. As more of us are aware of it hopefully the misinformation will stop.

Peace,

 

[MrS]

fix:

Rome has stated that the norms were allowed in the USA with the understanding those who chose to kneel could still kneel.

I knew you could do it…thanks for the info

 

[netmilsmom]

Congregation de Cultu Divino et Disciplina Sacramentorum

You are GOOD!

 

[netmilsmom]

ncjohn:

Thanks fix!

That clears up a lot. Just in case qmvsimp doesn’t respond to this you might want to PM it to him since this answers his original question definitively.

The other interesting question that arises as a result is whether a priest is allowed to encourage kneeling in defiance of the norm. The priest at our former parish not only did not instruct people as to the norm, but actively encouraged kneeling and trained the altar servers to only take communion kneeling. It does seem that since the norm has been established legitimately that the priest is under obligation to follow it while not refusing communion to someone who still decides to kneel.

At any rate, thanks for the info. As more of us are aware of it hopefully the misinformation will stop.

Peace,

Reread this…

In fact, as His Eminence, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has recently emphasized, the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition, and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration, completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species.

Things may change quickly. “Happy Catholic” Bishops may find themselves wanting to go with the norms set by the Vatican.

 

[ncjohn]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

Reread this…

In fact, as His Eminence, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has recently emphasized, the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition, and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration, completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species.

Things may change quickly. “Happy Catholic” Bishops may find themselves wanting to go with the norms set by the Vatican.

That may very well be true, and I’ll certainly have no problem if it does. I kind of miss the old altar rail in many ways.

The point was though, that the norms are currently set and it seems that a priest is being disobedient if he ignores them and encourages others to do the same rather than instructing to stand as has been dictated. He may not be able to stop people who just want to kneel, but he does have control over the altar servers.