Is it permissible to receive communion from the cup kneeling?

[Brendan]

The “XX” make it difficult to verify this document. If it is a valid document it still does not give permisson to ignore a Bishop’s Conference norms, recognized by Rome.

Note that the CDWDS is, by virtue of granting the regocnito, the legisilative authority under Canon 16.

That means that

a.) it is the one that is actually responsible for issuing the GIRM, not the USCCB. The USCCB PROPOSES adaptations to the GIRM, that may be accepted or rejected by the CDWDS. The USCCB itself is not the legistlator.

and b.) it is the one that produces binding, authentic interpretation.

You yourself had the key phase “as recognized by Rome”, so we must view what the USCCB submitted in light of HOW and under what circumstances it was recognized by Rome.

It was published in Notatiae in 2003. My own personal subscription doesn’t go back that far, and I’m not taking a class at the Seminary this term. But the next time I am in the Seminary library, I’ll dig up the full reference without the 'xx’s

 

[Brendan]

If it means anything to you , the same document is up on the Diocese of Colorodo Springs’ website

diocs.org/Q&A/answers.cfm?question=12Reverence

And I also did find the Protocol reference number for this document.

it is Prot. n. 2390/02/L

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

---

One must keep in mind—it falls to Rome to declare how the norms that have been approved are to be applied. While Rome did approve the U.S. norm of standing —the condition was that the universal norm of kneeling not be abrogated. The document verifies that the universal norm of kneeling is not to be abrogated by priests and/or bishops.

First understand that I’m all for kneeling.

But, if we are to say that kneeling is an acceptable posture equal to standing then kneelers, altar rails, and possibly only one form needs to be re-instated. A person can stand at an altar rail to receive without any possible problems. People expect the person next to them might be kneeling, and they are next to each other instead of behind each other. However trying to kneel on the floor when the person behind you is not expecting it is asking for problems with dropped hosts, knocked over ministers, spilled chalices. I have seen one instance where someone tripped over someone else’s foot when they went to genuflect, knocked over the EMHC holding a full chalice standing next to the person distributing the Hosts, the Precious Blood went 30 feet in an arch splattering 10 people, pews, carpet, song books. Something I never want to see happen again.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

If it means anything to you , the same document is up on the Diocese of Colorodo Springs’ website

diocs.org/Q&A/answers.cfm?question=12Reverence

And I also did find the Protocol reference number for this document.

it is Prot. n. 2390/02/L

The three answers referenced again address being denied Holy Communion because they were kneeling. I agree, they should not be denied Holy Communion in public because they are kneeling. They should not be reprimanded or anything in public at the time.

It also quotes paragraph 160:

“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.”

If either posture was acceptable it would have said " The faithful may receive Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States either standing or kneeling."

 

[Phemie]

The three answers referenced again address being denied Holy Communion because they were kneeling. I agree, they should not be denied Holy Communion in public because they are kneeling. They should not be reprimanded or anything in public at the time.

It also quotes paragraph 160:

“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.”

If either posture was acceptable it would have said " The faithful may receive Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States either standing or kneeling."

But the clarification from the CDW states:

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.”

 

[Brendan]

The three answers referenced again address being denied Holy Communion because they were kneeling. I agree, they should not be denied Holy Communion in public because they are kneeling. They should not be reprimanded or anything in public at the time.

It also quotes paragraph 160:

“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.”

If either posture was acceptable it would have said " The faithful may receive Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States either standing or kneeling."

So what do you propose that the catechisis be, if what they are doing is neither disobedient or illict? You cannot counsel them to obey something when they are not being disobedient, that is a contradiction in terms .

At best, you can use the “common posture” argument, but that would fall flat as the CDWDS specifically allow for a difference of posture.

And how exactly would you define the posture’s legal status?

 

[Brendan]

First understand that I’m all for kneeling.
. However trying to kneel on the floor when the person behind you is not expecting it is asking for problems with dropped hosts, knocked over ministers, spilled chalices. I.

Those are vaild reasons for care if someone desire to kneel, certainly. And a priest or deacon may certainly counsel someone to excercise care, or even say that they would highly prefer that the person not kneel on those grounds.

But how would you address a wife, for example, who chooses to kneel while followed by her husband, who knows what she will do.

Or the person who will wait until the end of the line, so that no one is behind them?

All are quite reasonable, don’t you think?

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

All are quite reasonable, don’t you think?

Except that the individual makes him/herself stand out as an individual, not as part of the group. And that leads to asking why the person wants to be different and how much pride plays into it.

In talking with the pastor of my parish one day he mentioned that his preference was to kneel following communion. However, in this archdiocese we have been asked to stand until everyone receives. So, despite his preference, he asks everyone to stand because the archbishop is the chief liturgist of the diocese and deserves our obedience. I would say my pastor is following the path of humility – not his preference but the preference of his superior.

Humbling oneself is hard. And it’s easy to make one’s preferences seem quite reasonable.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Except that the individual makes him/herself stand out as an individual, not as part of the group. And that leads to asking why the person wants to be different and how much pride plays into it.

In talking with the pastor of my parish one day he mentioned that his preference was to kneel following communion. However, in this archdiocese we have been asked to stand until everyone receives. So, despite his preference, he asks everyone to stand because the archbishop is the chief liturgist of the diocese and deserves our obedience. I would say my pastor is following the path of humility – not his preference but the preference of his superior.

Humbling oneself is hard. And it’s easy to make one’s preferences seem quite reasonable.

This was also addressed by Rome and it was made clear that no one is to specify any posture upon returning to your pew after receiving Holy Communion. This is the opposite of the other issue.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

So what do you propose that the catechisis be, if what they are doing is neither disobedient or illict? You cannot counsel them to obey something when they are not being disobedient, that is a contradiction in terms .

At best, you can use the “common posture” argument, but that would fall flat as the CDWDS specifically allow for a difference of posture.

And how exactly would you define the posture’s legal status?

I would explain the Norm and why we have the Norm and ask that they follow he Norm so that no accidents or injuries happen.

 

[Walking_Home]

I would explain the Norm and why we have the Norm and ask that they follow he Norm so that no accidents or injuries happen.

---

If the person continues to kneel — would you then accuse the person of being dis-obedient and/or acting illicit.

 

[Brendan]

Except that the individual makes him/herself stand out as an individual, not as part of the group. And that leads to asking why the person wants to be different and how much pride plays into it.

Does the GIRM allow you to make assumptions about this?

And if the Vatican allows differing postures, as it does, who has the authority to ask for a more common posture than the Vatican has given a recognito for?

Humbling oneself is hard. And it’s easy to make one’s preferences seem quite reasonable.

Why would kneeling be unreasonable? Does Reason prevent kneeling?

 

[Brendan]

I would explain the Norm and why we have the Norm and ask that they follow he Norm so that no accidents or injuries happen.

So why do we have this particular Norm? What would you say?

And if they are kneeling in such a way as to cause no more likelyhood of accidents? What would you say then?