Do you have to stand in order to receive communion?

[fix]

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.

Again, does the law not need an interpreter? Does Rome lack the authority in these matters? Why do bishops ask these dicasteries questions?

 

[fix]

ncjohn:

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

Indeed, and I am sure the Pope and his cardinals did not approve of them thinking a priest would deny the Eucharist to one who was kneeling.

 

[fix]

ncjohn:

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,

Yes, in the current environment it is necessary to instruct certain folks that it is still reverent to kneel when receiving communion. As sad as that sounds.

 

[Turtledove]

ncjohn:

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.

There certainly is much confusion. I doubt it will ever get to Canon court. I am waiting to see what action, if any, will be taken against the Priests who refused Communion, after the Communicant had been instructed.

 

[ncjohn]

fix:

Indeed, and I am sure the Pope and his cardinals did not approve of them thinking a priest would deny the Eucharist to one who was kneeling.

It does seem strange though that they would have approved the US norm as it’s written and not have foreseen that since it clearly precludes kneeling and puts one who continues to kneel after instruction in disobedience, as sad as that is.

Hopefully something will be done soon to rectify this so we can stop having people fighting over it. I know within our parish it has been an ongoing problem for the one family who wants to kneel and the people who look at them as playing “holier than thou” games. Unfortunately, the family is known for being extremely judgmental and commenting on other people’s *lack * of piety for not following their lead, so that friction would probably continue regardless.

Oh the things we’re willing to go to war over!

 

[fix]

Turtledove:

I am waiting to see what action, if any, will be taken against the Priests who refused Communion, after the Communicant had been instructed.

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.

http://www.adoremus.org/Notitiae-kneeling.html

 

[ncjohn]

Turtledove:

There certainly is much confusion. I doubt it will ever get to Canon court. I am waiting to see what action, if any, will be taken against the Priests who refused Communion, after the Communicant had been instructed.

To be fair, the priest is in a lose-lose situation as it now stands. If he just acknowledges the practicality that the letter overrules the norm, he gets nailed for not instructing. If he instructs, knowing he has already been overruled and that the person can ignore him and continue doing what they want, he ends up feeling undermined and looking like an ignorant fool. You end up with a priest who does what he is supposed to do and then feels like he needs to do something to save face. Bad situation for everyone.

The USCCB just needs to fix the norm to match the realities and be done with it. To continue to put the priest out there like that as cannon fodder is bad for his morale and confuses everyone.

 

[Turtledove]

Unfortunately, the family is known for being extremely judgmental and commenting on other people’s *lack *of piety for not following their lead, so that friction would probably continue regardless.

This is another point to consider. Perhaps others would prefer to kneel, but do not, since they were asked to stand in order to have a unified posture in a Communion procession.

The Bishops did ask the Faithful to put aside their personal preferences, and the reason you cite is probably a factor.

 

[fix]

ncjohn:

It does seem strange though that they would have approved the US norm as it’s written and not have foreseen that since it clearly precludes kneeling and puts one who continues to kneel after instruction in disobedience, as sad as that is.

Hopefully something will be done soon to rectify this so we can stop having people fighting over it. I know within our parish it has been an ongoing problem for the one family who wants to kneel and the people who look at them as playing “holier than thou” games. Unfortunately, the family is known for being extremely judgmental and commenting on other people’s *lack * of piety for not following their lead, so that friction would probably continue regardless.

Oh the things we’re willing to go to war over!

**IGMR 160
Posture and gesture at Communion
** The faithful may communicate either standing or kneeling, as established by the Conference of Bishops. However, when they communicate standing, it is recommended that they make an appropriate gesture of reverence, to be laid down in the same norms, before receiving the Sacrament.

                      As adapted for the United States,   IGMR 160 now reads:

           
                **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 standing, 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. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.**

           **NOTE:** Before giving the required "recognitio" to this adaptation of the US bishops' conference, the Congregation of Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments required that "**communicants   who choose to kneel are not be denied Communion on these grounds"**.The same letter stated, **"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"**.   (see [CDW letter dated July 2002](http://www.adoremus.org/Notitiae-kneeling.html),   in AB Dec 02-Jan 03 - p 15

adoremus.org/0303IGMR_Adapt.html#anchor1614574

 

[fix]

ncjohn:

To be fair, the priest is in a lose-lose situation as it now stands. If he just acknowledges the practicality that the letter overrules the norm, he gets nailed for not instructing. If he instructs, knowing he has already been overruled and that the person can ignore him and continue doing what they want, he ends up feeling undermined and looking like an ignorant fool. You end up with a priest who does what he is supposed to do and then feels like he needs to do something to save face. Bad situation for everyone.

The USCCB just needs to fix the norm to match the realities and be done with it. To continue to put the priest out there like that as cannon fodder is bad for his morale and confuses everyone.

This is only an issue because some priests have chosen to make it an issue. The few folks who kneel should be left alone as Rome has pretty much said.

BTW, the GIRM specifically states those who kneel should not be denied, why would a priest be eager to instruct, yet also be eager to deny. That would mean he wants to follow part of the GIRM, but not all of it.

 

[fix]

Turtledove:

This is another point to consider. Perhaps others would prefer to kneel, but do not, since they were asked to stand in order to have a unified posture in a Communion procession.

The Bishops did ask the Faithful to put aside their personal preferences, and the reason you cite is probably a factor.

That is conjecture. One may also conclude that family is correct in their judgments and the other families are incorrect in other aspects of practice.

 

[ncjohn]

fix:

                **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.**

The problem is that as this reads, they should not be refused, but should be taken aside and catechized. That implies that the person approaching kneeling should be informed of the proper norm and the reasons–in this case, standing–and should be expected to follow that norm after that.

The problem comes because the letter then overrules that situation and says that even after they’ve been catechized they can decide they want to continue to kneel. As I said, that leads to confusion among those who aren’t aware of all the intricacies of the rule, and the priest ending up looking bad for doing what he was supposed to do.

I totally agree though that since the letter exists, no priest should ever be refusing someone on their knees communion and whatever sanctions are necessary to enforce that should be used.

 

[qmvsimp]

Yesterday the Pastor said the mass. He mentioned nothing about the controversy from two weeks prior.

As far as I’m concerned, the matter is closed. Unless it happens again.

 

[ncjohn]

qmvsimp:

Yesterday the Pastor said the mass. He mentioned nothing about the controversy from two weeks prior.

As far as I’m concerned, the matter is closed. Unless it happens again.

Did you have anyone attemting to receive kneeling? It might end up closed because they just gave in after his “explanation.”

 

[qmvsimp]

ncjohn:

Did you have anyone attemting to receive kneeling? It might end up closed because they just gave in after his “explanation.”

The two individuals who kneeled two weeks ago were from a different parish (city). I had never seen them there before. They were not there last week or yesterday.

I’ll keep an eye and ear out for the future. If it happens again, I’ll go to the Bishop. However, given the irrefutible proof I gave the Pastor, I’d be surprised if he refused communion again.

 

[qmvsimp]

I received a letter dated 8-31 from my pastor. Here is his response to my letter:

Thank you for your research. The workshop that I went to informed us that people could not kneel. I was misinformed.

I think that puts it to rest. This would not have happened without your help.

 

[ncjohn]

qmvsimp:

I received a letter dated 8-31 from my pastor. Here is his response to my letter:

Thank you for your research. The workshop that I went to informed us that people could not kneel. I was misinformed.

I think that puts it to rest. This would not have happened without your help.

Looks like the system worked for the right result.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

Indeed.

I have to say, our pastor followed procedure when a couple “veil ladies” tried to trip him up. Didn’t blink an eyelash.

 

[Allen537]

Br. Rich SFO:

The documents for the American Church ask that no one kneel because it may cause someone to trip since we no longer have an altar rail in most churches. However it was clearly stated by Rome I believe, that no one is to be refused Holy Communion because they kneel to receive.

very true!