Do you have to stand in order to receive communion?

[Lux_et_veritas]

Yes, the priest is disobedient, and maybe not fully understanding the Redemptionis Sacramentum (RS), written in 2004, which states very clearly that one cannot be denied Holy Communion on the basis of kneeling. While the norm for the US is to stand, and it certainly shows uniformity to do so, it is not a basis for denying Holy Communion and is defined as abuse in RS. Keep in mind that the US Bishops must submit their norms to the Holy See for approval while the Holy See is not required to submit it’s norms to us through the US Bishops. This is a very important point when trying to understand which to follow.

Not only does RS state that Holy Communion cannot be denied on the basis of standing or kneeling, but the letter I believe someone has posted above states that a priest will be disciplined if charges are verified to be true.

In a country where a politician can openly support and promote abortion and still receive Holy Communion, it is very sad to see anyone denied the Body of Christ for humbling themselves to receive Him.

While some may argue that it would have been more humble to submit to the preferences of the US Bishops it is the priests who must humble themselves and receive such people who kneel out of respect for the dignity of the individual, and out of obedience to the Holy See,

Keep in mind, the norm to stand was brought about through acts of disobedience to begin with. The norm became a norm because so many people started doing it against the prescribed norm of kneeling. And, in North America, we are quite alone in the world with regards to our standing norm.

Consider that we can change the rules as follows:

• Next time the priest says, “The Lord be with you”.
  We respond: “Et cum spiritu tuo”
• Next time we go to communion, we all start kneeling
• Next time the folk band begins playing the Sanctus, we chant it.

Afterall, that is how the standing norm came into existence. By just doing it - against the rules.

BTW - RS also has tells us we have a duty to report liturgical abuses. It recommends we first notify the local Bishop, but this is not required. If the matter is not resolved there, then submit it to the CDW. If at all possible, I would probably talk to the priest - either by phone or in person to see if he is fully aware of the letter from Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Estévez stating discipline is in store for those who deny the Eucharist on the basis of kneeling, as well as RS which states that it cannot be denied this way.

Some priests will say that they are following the Bishops directives. Remember, this is the Most Holy Catholic Church to whom we profess a belief in, not simply the bishops. There is a higher authority and that IS the Holy See. The Holy See will not authorize a norm that contradicts its wishes. That is why RS came about.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

MikeWM:

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

For those who understand that the Holy See has the final word, there is a final answer in the letter provided by Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Estévez, shown above, followed by the Redemptionis Sacramentum which states:

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]

[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.

Now, just to expand on this abit. In previous forums where people got hung up was that it states in the first paragraph: as the Conference of Bishops will have determined”, with its acts having received the *recognitio *of the Apostolic See.
Note how I have eliminated the underline in the last half of this sentence. People see the first part, but disregard the second part, and they believe that our norm must be followed. Note that it says that its acts have to receive recognition by the Apostolic See.

RS makes clear that Communion cannot be denied on the basis of kneeling or standing. Any norm that requires standing would be in violation of the higher document. In other words, the US Norms must comply with any Norms or directives set forth by the Holy See. This includes letters written, such as the one posted above. These letters set the rules as well as the documents do.

Furthermore, RS gives us this:

6. Complaints Regarding Abuses in Liturgical Matters

[183.] In an altogether particular manner, let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favouritism.

[184.] Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.[290] It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.

For the RS in full:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

MrS:

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:

I think I have this covered in what I have pasted about RS, along with those letters above from the CDW.

 

[Patchunky]

Lux_et_veritas:

Consider that we can change the rules as follows:

• Next time the priest says, “The Lord be with you”.
  We respond: “Et cum spiritu tuo”
• Next time we go to communion, we all start kneeling
• Next time the folk band begins playing the Sanctus, we chant it.

But also remember that for you **WILLFULLY **disrupt the Mass is not **ONLY A SIN BUT ALSO A FEDERAL CRIME!:banghead: **

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

ncjohn:

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.”

Not according to the Holy See (sorry if this one was already posted, I did not see it).

Congregation de Cultu Divino et Disciplina Sacramentorum

Prot. n. 47 / 03 / L

Rome, 26 February 2003

Dear [name deleted],

This Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has received through official channels your letter dated 1 December 2002, related to the application of the norms approved by the Conference of Bishops of the United States of America, with the subsequent recognitio of this Congregation, as regards the question of the posture for receiving Holy Communion.

As the authority by virtue of whose recognitio the norm in question has attained the force of law, this Dicastery is competent to specify the manner in which the norm is to be understood for the sake of a proper application. Having received more than a few letters regarding this matter from different locations in the United States of America, the Congregation wishes to ensure that its position on the matter is clear.

To this end, it is perhaps useful to respond to your inquiry by repeating the content of a letter that the Congregation recently addressed to a Bishop in the United States of America from whose Diocese a number of pertinent letters had been received. The letter states: “… while this Congregation gave the recognitio to the norm desired by the Bishops’ Conference of your country that people stand for Holy Communion, this was done on the condition that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds. Indeed, the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion”.

This Dicastery hopes that the citation given here will provide an adequate answer to your letter. At the same time, please be assured that the Congregation remains ready to be of assistance if you should need to contact it again.

With every prayerful good wish, I am

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Mons. Mario Marini
Undersecretary

 

[qmvsimp]

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,

Are you kidding me? I’ve been eating this stuff up. Today I left off my letter to the Pastor. I referenced the material that everyone here has helped me with. How did we ever survive without the internet?

I’ll post here about what happens this weekend or if he calls me.

Again thanks to all for your help.

 

[ncjohn]

Lux_et_veritas:

Not according to the Holy See (sorry if this one was already posted, I did not see it

Thanks Lux. All of this was straightened out when fix posted the documents that override the US norms. I was right as far as it went, but wrong (as I originally stated I might be) about whether there might be something that overrode the norms.

The only question that was left hanging goes in the other direction. Given that the US norms do exist, and they require that the priest give instruction to those who kneel, but that they not refuse communion to anyone for kneeling…

Is the priest in disobedience for ignoring that requirement for instructing, and even further for *encouraging * other people to ignore the norm? The local priest here goes beyond even that and requires his altar servers to kneel. I know he has no control over anyone who does want to kneel even after instruction, but he does have control over his altar servers.

I hate to even bring up questions like this as I consider them nitpicking and actually prefer kneeling myself. For a priest however to pride himself on proclaiming “orthodoxy” and obedience and then openly encourage people to violate the norms seems to me to be hypocritical and to undermine his credibility at the least. Maybe I’m just being petty and there is no disobedience at all, but is sure seems like there is.

Thanks for all your effort.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

ncjohn:

Thanks Lux. All of this was straightened out when fix posted the documents that override the US norms. I was right as far as it went, but wrong (as I originally stated I might be) about whether there might be something that overrode the norms.

The only question that was left hanging goes in the other direction. Given that the US norms do exist, and they require that the priest give instruction to those who kneel, but that they not refuse communion to anyone for kneeling…

Is the priest in disobedience for ignoring that requirement for instructing, and even further for *encouraging *other people to ignore the norm? The local priest here goes beyond even that and requires his altar servers to kneel. I know he has no control over anyone who does want to kneel even after instruction, but he does have control over his altar servers.

I hate to even bring up questions like this as I consider them nitpicking and actually prefer kneeling myself. For a priest however to pride himself on proclaiming “orthodoxy” and obedience and then openly encourage people to violate the norms seems to me to be hypocritical and to undermine his credibility at the least. Maybe I’m just being petty and there is no disobedience at all, but is sure seems like there is.

Thanks for all your effort.

The way I see the “instruction” may go along the lines of simply letting someone know, in a charitable manner, that the US norm is to stand during reception of Holy Communion. The priest can certainly talk about uniformity, potential for others to trip or whatever else he may choose to bring up as valid points. However, it is up to the communicant to decide after that. I don’t think there is anything further to come out of the “instruction” and it would end, in my opinion, after the person has been informed once. To “catechize” someone on the merits of a norm basically limited to North America just seems strange to me. How many come here from Europe, Asia, and Africa, who know nothing but kneeling and feel uncomfortable otherwise? It is uncharitable to them to insist that they stand when they’ve only known kneeling. So, this is not a practice limited to the elderly.

In my parish, it is traditional, it is orthodox and there is a communion rail. The priest intincts the Host in the consecrated wine and this means, only the priest can administer it and it must be administered on the tongue by the priest (in the norms for intincted Hosts). However, if you were to come to my parish and stand in front of the rail, and stick your hands out, the priests would oblige and only give you the non-intincted Host. You would not get a dirty look either - they know they must honor this. But, you would need to extend your hands a little sooner before it gets dipped. They would not refuse Holy Communion and would be equally as guilty as those who deny Holy Communion to a kneeling communicant.

We are also beginning to see a surge in young Americans who are being drawn to more traditional forms of worship. There is a thread here somewhere with an extensive article on the young, large families beginning to appear in parishes where traditional worship and orthodoxy flourishes. Orthodox seminaries and religious institutions actually have an increase in vocations, whereas diocesan seminaries that are progressive and pushed women’s agendas and “openness” are barely getting by with a seminarian here and there.

Give it 10 years and you will see more parishes offering traditional formatted Masses for those who want them, including kneeling for communion, ad orientem celebration, among other things. Maybe one Mass each weekend will be offered in many parishes and I can almost guarantee you, interest will boom, especially among the teens and twenty-somethings. They will be drawn to Latin and Gregorian Chant.

Sorry, a little off topic, but that is a sense I have from what I am seeing and reading. Up until May, I was in one of the more progressive parishes in my neck of the woods. Now, I am in THE most traditional, orthodox parish in my diocese and loving it. Never previously exposed to any of it before. I like the communion rail, the latin, the chant, the priest leading us in worship (back to us facing east with us), and all those things I never experienced since having been born in 1962. My parish may be offering Latin classes this fall and I’ll be the first one there. I love it!

 

[palmas85]

No you do not have to stand to receive Holy Communion, and you cannot be refused, legally, if you wish to receive in another fashion.

 

[msproule]

ncjohn:

I don’t find it distracting personally having people receive in the hand or on the tongue, but that might just be me.

Unfortuntely, at many of the parishes I attend I get a lot of surprised looks from EMHC when I approach without hands outstretched!

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.

Yes, a bow of the head is the USCCB norm. Again illogical, since we genuflect to the tabernacle when Our Lord is present within it. Why should we not show Him the same respect when we are about to receive Him? Nevertheless, genuflecting is still allowed although discouraged by the USCCB, just like outright kneeling.

I’ll have to dig up the link again when I have a chance…If it takes me too long and the thread dies, I’ll PM it to you when I find it.

Thank you very much!

In Christ,
Michael

 

[msproule]

For reference, this topic was addressed before in another thread. Although the level of charity quickly diminished and the thread was ultimately closed.

 

[msproule]

ncjohn:

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.

To further complicate this discussion, the altar rails were never supposed to be removed. That was apparently a misinterpretation gone terribly awry. That said, there is no reason why they cannot be added back in.

According to Francis Cardinal Arinze in a 2003 address to the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions:Some people think that liturgical renewal means the removal of kneelers from church pews, the knocking down of altar rails or the positioning of the altar in the middle of the sitting area of the people. The Church has never said any such thing.

Earlier in the same address he stated:Bishops’ Conferences can and do make some specifications. Care should be taken not to appear like regimenting the congregation, as if it were an army. Some flexibility should be allowed, more so as it is easy to hurt people’s Eucharistic sensitivity with reference, for example, to kneeling or standing.

Peace,

Michael

 

[ncjohn]

msproule:

To further complicate this discussion, the altar rails were never supposed to be removed. That was apparently a misinterpretation gone terribly awry. That said, there is no reason why they cannot be added back in.

I think you’re right if the church had them to begin with, but my recollection, which I will again admit could be faulty, is that you cannot add altar rails to a church that did not originally have them. If I’m wrong on that, please let me know, although it’s not an important point to me personally one way or another.

Peace,

 

[ncjohn]

msproule:

I’ll have to dig up the link again when I have a chance…If it takes me too long and the thread dies, I’ll PM it to you when I find it.

Thank you very much!

In Christ,
Michael

Hi Michael,

As it turns out, the post from fix a few posts down makes it definitive that, even though the norm exists, communion is not to be refused to someone kneeling even if they’ve been instructed, so the original document essentially becomes moot to the original question. I was very happy to see something definitive so the “gray area” got removed and we can know how to handle the issue.

What I still haven’t seen anybody address though is whether a priest is in disobedience when he encourages or *requires * kneeling, given that the norm calls for standing and instruction for those who kneel. While he can’t refuse communion to those who decide to kneel, requiring altar servers to kneel seems to me to totally violate the norm. Have you run into anything that addresses that issue, or have you run into it?

Peace,

 

[Turtledove]

ncjohn:

Thanks Lux. All of this was straightened out when fix posted the documents that override the US norms.

Hi John,

The US norm does forbid denying the Eucharist for standing, but as to the documentation provided, look as this response by Deacon Ed regarding documents in another thread on Liturgical abuses
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=849139&highlight=document#post849139

Your first reference should be the General Instruction of the Roman Missaland you can also look at Redemptionis Sacramentumthere are other documents, but these are the major ones currently in use. Note that in the United States some aspects of Redemptionis Sacramentum are not in force because that document is an “instruction” and instructions do not override “particular law.” Because of the seriousness of this, there is a dubium (the Latin means “a doubt” – but it’s really a question) regarding the weight of this instruction. The death of Pope John Paul II has slowed the response to this, but I would expect a response in the next six months or so.

Deacon Ed

Brother Rich said

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.

in response to

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

Has anyone heard any report of a Pastor or any Priest being sanctioned for refusing Communion to a kneeling Communicant?

 

[Turtledove]

Br. Rich SFO:

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.

Bro Rich,

Exactly what does Canon law say regarding this matter?

 

[ncjohn]

Turtledove:

Hi John,

The US norm does forbid denying the Eucharist for standing, but as to the documentation provided, look as this response by Deacon Ed regarding documents in another thread on Liturgical abuses

Thanks Dove, but my question is in the reverse direction at this point as the question about denying communion has been definitively answered now. Since it is off-thread at this point however I’m checking into it with the Apologists. If I get a definitive answer I’ll post it back here.

Peace,

 

[fix]

Turtledove:

Hi John,

The US norm does forbid denying the Eucharist for standing, but as to the documentation provided, look as this response by Deacon Ed regarding documents in another thread on Liturgical abuses
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=849139&highlight=document#post849139

Brother Rich said

in response to

Has anyone heard any report of a Pastor or any Priest being sanctioned for refusing Communion to a kneeling Communicant?

The “law” in question was submitted to Rome for clarification and Rome gave their interpretation of what the “law” was to intend.

Has a priest been sanctioned? I do not know. Has a priest attempted to deny communion after he was told he was in grave error?

 

[Turtledove]

fix:

The “law” in question was submitted to Rome for clarification and Rome gave their interpretation of what the “law” was to intend.

It seems that there are different opinions on the validity of the interpretations.

I would like to see this situation, and also the flagon addressed by canon law.

 

[Turtledove]

fix:

The “law” in question was submitted to Rome for clarification and Rome gave their interpretation of what the “law” was to intend.

Has a priest been sanctioned? I do not know. Has a priest attempted to deny communion after he was told he was in grave error?

I see you edited your post.

This is my point. There are definitely conflicting instructions, which does make it very difficult for both the Pastor and the Faithful. I would like to see something more fiirm.

If kneeling is encouraged by the Vatican, at least rewrite the part about instructing the Communicant.

The instruction on the flagon was rewritten after the kneeling/standing controversary was going on for a while, but kneeling was not addressed.