Do you have to stand in order to receive communion?

[Turtledove]

PS I do see that you feel very strongly about this issue, and I sincerely hope you are able to attend a Mass where your needs are met.

However, I do wish to present the oposing arguments, especially in support of Pastors, since there is a severe shortage of Priests. I do not feel any solution which encourages a parishioner to ignore the instructions of his Pastor is a good one. This may lead to a bad habit of ignoring instructions.

 

[fix]

Turtledove:

Obviously we disagree, but you also disagree with the Priest I asked regarding this issue. He stressed obedience to the Pastor, unless it is a matter of Faith or Morals.

If the priest disgrees with the authority of Rome to regulate the liturgy, and decide how the norms should be understood, then the problem is with that particular priest.

I think one of the questions sent to the dicastery in charge was sent by a bishop, or at least one of the responses from Rome was sent to a bishop. Why do you think Bishops and Cardinals write to Rome with these issues? Do you not think it is because these bishops and cardinals understand the proper chain of command and the authority of Rome?

It seems you want to place Rome, and Her authority, at odds with a priest? Why not accept that the proper authority has spoken and leave the issue alone?

**

This instruction does not even recognize that the norm may be ignored.

You are focusing soly on individual expressions of reverence, and totally ignoring all the other instructions, mainly respect for the Pastor or Bishop.

There are many Parishes who do agree with kneeling for Communion and have made provisions for these Communicants. I do feel it is wrong to defy your Pastor if he does not see the need to do this.

**

Rome has said the norms were allowed with the understanding kneeling would still be allowed for those who chose to kneel.

 

[fix]

Turtledove:

PS I do see that you feel very strongly about this issue, and I sincerely hope you are able to attend a Mass where your needs are met.

It seems it is you who “feel” strongly about this issue. I am defending the right of those who choose to kneel. Rome has spoken on the issue and I fail to see why you want to make it a bigger issue than it authentically is.

However, I do wish to present the oposing arguments, especially in support of Pastors, since there is a severe shortage of Priests. I do not feel any solution which encourages a parishioner to ignore the instructions of his Pastor is a good one. This may lead to a bad habit of ignoring instructions.

This is a false charge. Priest shortages have nothing to do with denying the authority of Rome. No one is encouraging any disobedience, but we ought not encouarge hyper clericalism or minimize the proper authority of the Vatican.

 

[Turtledove]

fix:

If the priest disgrees with the authority of Rome to regulate the liturgy, and decide how the norms should be understood, then the problem is with that particular priest.

He does not disagree with the authority of Rome. We are talking about what is to be done in the situation, when an instruction seems to conflict with the authority of the Pastor. I am not saying the Pastor is right or wrong in this Liturgical matter, just that once the situation has occurred, the Pastor should be obeyed, and the complaint registered outside of the Mass setting.

It seems it is you who “feel” strongly about this issue. I am defending the right of those who choose to kneel. Rome has spoken on the issue and I fail to see why you want to make it a bigger issue than it authentically is.

This is a very sad situation when we have such a confrontation during Mass. It is certainly quite an issue, which needs better resolution that what has been done.

I will wait to see what will be the official resolution.

 

[fix]

Turtledove:

He does not disagree with the authority of Rome. We are talking about what is to be done in the situation, when an instruction seems to conflict with the authority of the Pastor.

There is only a conflict if the pastor rejects the authority from Rome.

I am not saying the Pastor is right or wrong in this Liturgical matter, just that once the situation has occurred, the Pastor should be obeyed, and the complaint registered outside of the Mass setting.

If the person has written to Rome, or knows of Rome’s decision, then that person should in charity give the info to the priest. If the priest still refues to obey, then I guess the person should write to the bishop.

Are there some priests who are very agitated about a person kneeling to receive our Lord? With all the problems going on today I hardly think the piety of one person should be an issue we are concerned with.

This is a very sad situation when we have such a confrontation during Mass. It is certainly quite an issue, which needs better resolution that what has been done.

I will wait to see what will be the official resolution.

There would only be a confrontation if a particular priest made it one.

 

[Turtledove]

fix:

If the person has written to Rome, or knows of Rome’s decision, then that person should in charity give the info to the priest. If the priest still refues to obey, then I guess the person should write to the bishop.

Yes, this is the procedure outlined in RS

Are there some priests who are very agitated about a person kneeling to receive our Lord? With all the problems going on today I hardly think the piety of one person should be an issue we are concerned with.

It is not the kneeling which upsets them, I’m sure no one would object to them kneeling as long as they wished outside of the Communion procession. The Mass is public worship, and many Pastors expect their parishoners to follow the norms, rather than personal preference.

 

[ncjohn]

I can see why this is still an issue, even though the question has actually been “settled.”

On the one hand you have the bishop’s conferences being given the authority to decide their norms. In the US, this was decided to be standing, with instruction to that effect if the person kneels, with the intent to get uniformity.

Then however, you have a subsequent ruling out of Rome that basically overrules the norm, which they gave the bishops the authority to establish, by allowing kneeling regardless. Additionally, since the US norm requires “instruction” if the person kneels, you put the priest into a postion of trying to enforce something that is contradictory and can be disregarded by the communicant, with or without good conscience, and make it worse by the priest following the directive to instruct, only to have it seemingly ignored, thus confusing people as to what the priest’s actual authority is on the issue.

At the very least this is bad management on somebody’s part. Quite frankly, given that the decision was made however that you cannot refuse communion to someone for kneeling, it would behoove the USCCB to modify the wording of their norm to reflect the decision made in Rome, or just to make either posture acceptable, just as receiving in the hand or on the tongue is acceptable. Until then you will have these kinds of debates causing unnecessary acrimony because of the confusion, as well as the one-upsmanship that can occur because of the lesser known document from Rome.

Peace,

 

[A.Pelliccio]

Id rather display private piety then public disgrace! Rub my nose with the body of Christ, not saying Amen, walking away with the host, not showing proper adoration, ect! These abuses run rampant through our pews and for a man to kneel because he knows he is not worth to recieve the Body of Christ is being made out to be some radical thing. We have modernists looking down their noses because some Catholics will not touch the Host, or dont want to hold hands during the Pater Noster or immpersonate the Priest. But when some twit who is taking Jesus like hes a cracker and then moves out to ‘wash it down’, thats seen as ‘inclusive liturgy’.

 

[MikeWM]

A.Pelliccio:

Id rather display private piety then public disgrace!

Perhaps, but the communion line isn’t really private, is it?

We have modernists looking down their noses because some Catholics will not touch the Host

I don’t believe I’ve ever seen anyone who wants to discourage or ban communion on the tongue if the communicant desires it.

But when some twit who is taking Jesus like hes a cracker and then moves out to ‘wash it down’

Communion in the hand is allowed by the Church. Communion under both species is commended.

Mike

 

[A.Pelliccio]

I have no problem with communion in the hands, it is the way its done. The GIRM is not enforced and the lay therefore receive the Body and Blood of our redeemer as if it were just a cracker and a beer to wash it down.

Communion is a very private and intimate moment with the Lord. Obviously were are in union at that moment with all our brethren, the Bishop of Rome, all the masses of the world etc. but that point was I favor someone on their knees then some one abusing the sacrament. To clarify it’s a matter of if were going to do extremes, I would much prefer being too “solemn” then the nonchalant attitude that is a part of the congregations across the US.

And No I have had some on this board explain that " How can you have a personal relationship with Jesus if your afraid to touch him?"

 

[fix]

ncjohn:

I can see why this is still an issue, even though the question has actually been “settled.”

On the one hand you have the bishop’s conferences being given the authority to decide their norms. In the US, this was decided to be standing, with instruction to that effect if the person kneels, with the intent to get uniformity.

Then however, you have a subsequent ruling out of Rome that basically overrules the norm, which they gave the bishops the authority to establish, by allowing kneeling regardless. Additionally, since the US norm requires “instruction” if the person kneels, you put the priest into a postion of trying to enforce something that is contradictory and can be disregarded by the communicant, with or without good conscience, and make it worse by the priest following the directive to instruct, only to have it seemingly ignored, thus confusing people as to what the priest’s actual authority is on the issue.

At the very least this is bad management on somebody’s part. Quite frankly, given that the decision was made however that you cannot refuse communion to someone for kneeling, it would behoove the USCCB to modify the wording of their norm to reflect the decision made in Rome, or just to make either posture acceptable, just as receiving in the hand or on the tongue is acceptable. Until then you will have these kinds of debates causing unnecessary acrimony because of the confusion, as well as the one-upsmanship that can occur because of the lesser known document from Rome.

Peace,

Fair points, but from my reading of these instances this all started when a priest decided to refuse communion to one who was kneeling. Now, was that really necessary? As I said before, with all the issues that are facing the Church it really smacks of legalism to worry about a few souls who choose to kneel.

 

[fix]

A.Pelliccio:

To clarify it’s a matter of if were going to do extremes, I would much prefer being too “solemn” then the nonchalant attitude that is a part of the congregations across the US.

Thank you for making this point. Kneeling to receive the host is hardly an abuse, particularly when so many other authentic abuses are present.

 

[fix]

ncjohn:

I
On the one hand you have the bishop’s conferences being given the authority to decide their norms. ,

Only with the approval of Rome.

 

[fix]

Turtledove:

Yes, this is the procedure outlined in RS

It is not the kneeling which upsets them, I’m sure no one would object to them kneeling as long as they wished outside of the Communion procession. The Mass is public worship, and many Pastors expect their parishoners to follow the norms, rather than personal preference.

We can go round and round if you desire? Why do claim the norm is being disobeyed when Rome has said the norm was allowed with the intention those who wanted to kneel could still kneel? Now, we have to argue who is the final interpreter of the norms? Is each pastor the interpreter even when Rome has spoken to a specific question?

So now we come to a question of authority. If Rome says it is not an abuse is it fair and just for one to claim the one who kneels is an abuser when a higher authority has said they are not?

 

[Turtledove]

fix:

We can go round and round if you desire? Why do claim the norm is being disobeyed when Rome has said the norm was allowed with the intention those who wanted to kneel could still kneel? Now, we have to argue who is the final interpreter of the norms? Is each pastor the interpreter even when Rome has spoken to a specific question?

So now we come to a question of authority. If Rome says it is not an abuse is it fair and just for one to claim the one who kneels is an abuser when a higher authority has said they are not?

I think I see the confusion here. I am not speaking of abuse, but how differences in interpretation or priority should be addressed.

I am not saying who is right or who is wrong, but the best way to handle a situation, once we are at this point.

I say obey your Pastor and register a complaint. I personally would find a different Parish, if I could not follow the instructions of my Pastor, but if that were not possible, I would obey and address the situation outside of the Mass setting.

 

[Turtledove]

ncjohn:

Then however, you have a subsequent ruling out of Rome that basically overrules the norm, which they gave the bishops the authority to establish, by allowing kneeling regardless.

This is another point of discussion. Can a letter or instruction overule the law?? This has been a point of contention regarding the flagon issue, and I do not think there has been a final outcome as yet.

I am also waiting to see if any action will be taken against these priests.

 

[ncjohn]

fix:

Fair points, but from my reading of these instances this all started when a priest decided to refuse communion to one who was kneeling. Now, was that really necessary? As I said before, with all the issues that are facing the Church it really smacks of legalism to worry about a few souls who choose to kneel.

I absolutely agree. I was torn in the beginning because I was one of the ones who was not aware of the document you later posted and wondered what to do when a “kneeler” was instructed as the norm dictated and decided to just continue to disobey that instruction. The document you posted clarified that the question was resolved.

Now the key is to amend the norm so it is clear and people don’t feel confused and the priest undermined for doing what he was instructed.

Peace,

 

[ncjohn]

Turtledove:

This is another point of discussion. Can a letter or instruction overule the law?? This has been a point of contention regarding the flagon issue, and I do not think there has been a final outcome as yet.

I am also waiting to see if any action will be taken against these priests.

I am pretty darn sure that that document, coming from the Vatican Congregation with the appropriate jurisdiction, and addressing the specific situation at issue, does in fact supercede the US norm. I can’t imagine that they would issue such a thing and expose themselves to something they couldn’t enforce, knowing the confusion it would cause.

 

[ncjohn]

fix:

Only with the approval of Rome.

Which I’m pretty sure we agree was granted in this case.

 

[fix]

Turtledove:

I think I see the confusion here. I am not speaking of abuse, but how differences in interpretation or priority should be addressed.

I am not saying who is right or who is wrong, but the best way to handle a situation, once we are at this point.

I say obey your Pastor and register a complaint. I personally would find a different Parish, if I could not follow the instructions of my Pastor, but if that were not possible, I would obey and address the situation outside of the Mass setting.

I agree that in most cases such things should be done in charity an outside of the mass. The initial circumstance, that I am aware of, was a priest denying one of the faithful communion for kneeling. That should never have happended during the mass.