Is kneeling for Communion at an OF allowed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Student09
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Student09

Guest
I seem to be reading contradictory things. For instance, there are videos of Cardinal Arinze saying that the faithful in the US have the freedom to receive kneeling if they choose. youtube.com/watch?v=Ap1KL2D5ae4 youtube.com/watch?v=EcZhjmYn1K8&feature=related

But when the question has come up on CAF Apologist forums, this passage from the GIRM is quoted:
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 (GIRM 160).
And Michelle Arnold interprets this as meaning, “The GIRM, however, presumes that at a standard Roman-rite liturgy in the United States the communicants will ordinarily stand, and should be privately corrected if they do not.”

???
 
Kneeling is discouraged at both churches I frequent for two reasons:
Kneeling causes a significant disruption in the flow of communicants and can even cause the next in line to stumble over the kneeler,
Kneeling places the communicant in an awkward position for the administration of the host.

I can understand the first reason since I walk with a cane and it would startle me if the person ahead suddenly knelt, not so sure about reason two. Our recommended practice has been to genuflect in or at one’s pew before proceeding up the aisle.
 
Ok, but I am not asking whether or not it is discouraged at your parish. I am asking if the Holy See is actually saying that people who kneel for Communion in places where standing is the norm should be privately corrected. That’s a question that should have a totally objective answer.
 
That’s a good question, the only thing is that I spoke to my pastor of the OF mass I attend to (sometimes) to request if I could kneel for communion even if it meant being the last person in line. He gave me the standard answer, but he never told me WHY is that standard norm to be standing. I can see it being awkward, or even distracting, but I was never really given the answer as to why is it the norm.
 
I seem to be reading contradictory things. For instance, there are videos of Cardinal Arinze saying that the faithful in the US have the freedom to receive kneeling if they choose. youtube.com/watch?v=Ap1KL2D5ae4 youtube.com/watch?v=EcZhjmYn1K8&feature=related

But when the question has come up on CAF Apologist forums, this passage from the GIRM is quoted:

And Michelle Arnold interprets this as meaning, “The GIRM, however, presumes that at a standard Roman-rite liturgy in the United States the communicants will ordinarily stand, and should be privately corrected if they do not.”

???
The GIRM does not use the word “corrected”. It could at least as easily be understood to mean persuaded. After all, it does not say to tell the faithful that they should not kneel. Rather it says to tell the faithful the reasons for this being the norm. That implies that the final decision is up to them. It seems to me that the Cardinal’s interpretation better fits the wording of the GIRM.

It also better follows the principle in CCC Canon 18 which says, “Laws which prescribe a penalty or restrict free exercise of rights or contain an exception to the law are to be interpreted strictly.” According to this principle, the GIRM would need to explicitly say that kneeling were not allowed for it to be not allowed.

There are other cases in which a practice is identified as a norm but other practices are allowed, even explicitly allowed. The use of the word “norm” does not necessarily mean that something is the only allowed practice. Everything I know of seems to point to the Cardinal’s interpretation being correct.
 
Ok, but I am not asking whether or not it is discouraged at your parish. I am asking if the Holy See is actually saying that people who kneel for Communion in places where standing is the norm should be privately corrected. That’s a question that should have a totally objective answer.
Here is the Answer.

A person IS ALLOWED to recieve the Eucharist KNEELING AND ON THE TONGUE. Or, just kneeling, or just on the tongue. A Priest can NOT deny someone the Holy Eucharist for kneeling, recieveing on the tongue, or whatsoever. 🙂 To put it in a nutshell.
 
It is the universal norm of the Church and is allowed in every Catholic Chruch throughout the world, it is against canon law to not allow it if a priest tries to prevent you from receiving in this way immediately contact the Bishop.
 
Just one more example of a post-1970 change that instead of making things better actually made them worse. I suspect that no one 50+ years ago would have thought that how we receive the Eucharist would become a contentious issue 😦
 
Oh, Student09, I’ve wrestled with this question and asked and searched for an exact answer myself and have been unsuccessful. I finally found this on the vatican website and it was enough for me:

Communion received on the tongue and while kneeling

The most ancient practice of distributing Holy Communion was, with all probability, to give Communion to the faithful in the palm of the hand. The history of the liturgy, however, makes clear that rather early on a process took place to change this practice.

From the time of the Fathers of the Church, a tendency was born and consolidated whereby distribution of Holy Communion in the hand became more and more restricted in favor of distributing Holy Communion on the tongue. The motivation for this practice is two-fold: a) first, to avoid, as much as possible, the dropping of Eucharistic particles; b) second, to increase among the faithful devotion to the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

Saint Thomas Aquinas also refers to the practice of receiving Holy Communion only on the tongue. He affirms that touching the Body of the Lord is proper only to the ordained priest.

Therefore, for various reasons, among which the Angelic Doctor cites respect for the Sacrament, he writes: “. . . out of reverence towards this Sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this Sacrament. Hence, it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it except from necessity, for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency” (Summa Theologiae, III, 82, 3).

Over the centuries the Church has always characterized the moment of Holy Communion with sacredness and the greatest respect, forcing herself constantly to develop to the best of her ability external signs that would promote understanding of this great sacramental mystery. In her loving and pastoral solicitude the Church has made sure that the faithful receive Holy Communion having the right interior dispositions, among which dispositions stands out the need for the Faithful to comprehend and consider interiorly the Real Presence of Him Whom they are to receive. (See The Catechism of Pope Pius X, nn. 628 & 636). The Western Church has established kneeling as one of the signs of devotion appropriate to communicants. A celebrated saying of Saint Augustine, cited by Pope Benedict XVI in n. 66 of his Encyclical Sacramentum Caritatis, (“Sacrament of Love”), teaches: “No one eats that flesh without first adoring it; we should sin were we not to adore it” (Enarrationes in Psalmos 98, 9). Kneeling indicates and promotes the adoration necessary before receiving the Eucharistic Christ.

From this perspective, the then-Cardinal Ratzinger assured that: “Communion only reaches its true depth when it is supported and surrounded by adoration” [The Spirit of the Liturgy (Ignatius Press, 2000), p. 90]. For this reason, Cardinal Ratzinger maintained that “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” [cited in the Letter “This Congregation” of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 1 July 1, 2002].

John Paul II, in his last Encyclical, Ecclesia de Eucharistia (“The Church comes from the Eucharist”), wrote in n. 61: “By giving the Eucharist the prominence it deserves, and by being careful not to diminish any of its dimensions or demands, we show that we are truly conscious of the greatness of this gift. We are urged to do so by an uninterrupted tradition, which from the first centuries on has found the Christian community ever vigilant in guarding this ‘treasure.’ Inspired by love, the Church is anxious to hand on to future generations of Christians, without loss, her faith and teaching with regard to the mystery of the Eucharist. There can be no danger of excess in our care for this mystery, for ‘in this sacrament is recapitulated the whole mystery of our salvation.’”

In continuity with the teaching of his Predecessor, starting with the Solemnity of Corpus Christi in the year 2008, the Holy Father, Benedict XVI, began to distribute to the faithful the Body of the Lord, by placing it directly on the tongue of the faithful as they remain kneeling.

…"guarding this “treasure.” stole my heart!
 
The GIRM does not use the word “corrected”. It could at least as easily be understood to mean persuaded. After all, it does not say to tell the faithful that they should not kneel. Rather it says to tell the faithful the reasons for this being the norm. That implies that the final decision is up to them. It seems to me that the Cardinal’s interpretation better fits the wording of the GIRM.

It also better follows the principle in CCC Canon 18 which says, “Laws which prescribe a penalty or restrict free exercise of rights or contain an exception to the law are to be interpreted strictly.” According to this principle, the GIRM would need to explicitly say that kneeling were not allowed for it to be not allowed.

There are other cases in which a practice is identified as a norm but other practices are allowed, even explicitly allowed. The use of the word “norm” does not necessarily mean that something is the only allowed practice. Everything I know of seems to point to the Cardinal’s interpretation being correct.
This is clear and helpful, thank you. 🙂

Archangel04, I too am curious as to why the bishops decided standing should be the norm for this country. In fact I just realized I have never heard a single argument for it except maybe that things move faster? At a parish I visited recently, I read a message in the bulletin saying that communicants who kneel are well-intentioned but misunderstanding what it means to be reverent. It also said it should not be done because it was not the norm. Kind of funny when you consider that receiving on the tongue is also the norm …
 
Cardinal Arinze says anyone can do it provided he (or she) doesn’t make a nuisance of himself. It is hard not to be a nuisance when there is the forced congestion around the receiving area. This problem can be resolved by installing communion rails or putting a few kneelers out for anyone to receive there. The GIRM could easily be revised to recommend this more traditional and preferred practice, no?
 
It is hard not to be a nuisance when there is the forced congestion around the receiving area.
Indeed. At my parish the lines move surprisingly fast. But, I always stop and make a bow from the waist while the person in front of me is receiving Communion. A couple of Sundays ago, I paused and bowed as usual, but the woman behind me must have just kept walking, because she walked right into my rear end. :eek: 😊
 
For instance, there are videos of Cardinal Arinze saying that the faithful in the US have the freedom to receive kneeling if they choose. youtube.com/watch?v=Ap1KL2D5ae4 youtube.com/watch?v=EcZhjmYn1K8&feature=related
From the video, I learned of a behind-the-scenes piece of information of which I had not previously been aware. The US bishops were given permission to make standing the norm on the condition that the faithful who so wished could still receive kneeling. This, in itself, shows that any interpretation of the GIRM as saying that kneeling is not allowed must be incorrect.
 
From the video, I learned of a behind-the-scenes piece of information of which I had not previously been aware. The US bishops were given permission to make standing the norm on the condition that the faithful who so wished could still receive kneeling. This, in itself, shows that any interpretation of the GIRM as saying that kneeling is not allowed must be incorrect.
Thanks for this floresco. Was this said in the video…I must have missed it and will need to go back to it again.
 
Kneeling is discouraged at both churches I frequent for two reasons:
Kneeling causes a significant disruption in the flow of communicants and can even cause the next in line to stumble over the kneeler,
Kneeling places the communicant in an awkward position for the administration of the host.

I can understand the first reason since I walk with a cane and it would startle me if the person ahead suddenly knelt, not so sure about reason two. Our recommended practice has been to genuflect in or at one’s pew before proceeding up the aisle.
I think that your reasoning is faulty on both arguments. I kneel for communion every single day at my OF Mass.

Kneeling causes no disruption if people use normal consideration of others. If you are so close to me to stumble when I kneel, you are way too close. I do, however, adapt for the possibility that people might be following me too close. For daily Mass, when we form two lines that converge on one priest, I go to the back of the line. For Sunday Mass, when we form one line, I say to the person behind me “I kneel to receive, please don’t trip.” I also lag a bit on the person in front of me, and when it’s my turn I rapidly walk ahead and kneel. This creates a bit of a gap behind me. You’d have to speed up with me to stumble.

Kneeling places me in the absolutely perfect position for communication. Even our tallest priest doesn’t have to make any unusual adjustments. Catholics received kneeling for centuries and I don’t think anyone thought it an unusual or awkward position, and I’d sure like to see the writings from centuries of priests about how difficult is was to administer communion to a kneeling person.

Receiving standing is the norm in the U.S., but kneeling is always allowed. There is a parallel: receiving on the tongue is the norm in the U.S. (and everywhere) but in the hand is allowed in the U.S.

My bottom line: When the Lord of the universe is calling me to communion with Him, I can imagine no better posture than to receive Him kneeling and on the tongue.
 
There were links to two videos. I noticed this comment about the condition on the first one: youtube.com/watch?v=Ap1KL2D5ae4

I’m glad to see that you seem to have resolved this in your own mind and are finding some peace on the question.
Very informative. Again, thanks floresco and yes I am finally at peace with this. What better way to show due reverence to Our Lord than to receive Him kneeling and on the tongue and to finally know (from the vatican) that it is NOT disobedience to do so.
 
This is clear and helpful, thank you. 🙂

Archangel04, I too am curious as to why the bishops decided standing should be the norm for this country.
Perhaps because most people seem to receive God in their hand so it may be convenient to stand, or perhaps new churches didn’t install altar rails or older ones removed them (never called for by Vatican II, Rome or US Bishops btw).
In fact I just realized I have never heard a single argument for it except maybe that things move faster?
Some here have said that on the tongue at altar rail is actually faster. The US GIRM says those who kneel should be catechised as to why it is better to stand for God. Yet I have never heard of any such catechesis.
At a parish I visited recently, I read a message in the bulletin saying that communicants who kneel are well-intentioned but misunderstanding what it means to be reverent.
The Latin Rite tradtion is to kneel and in the Scriptures we see…

Philipians 2:10 That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth:

Romans 14:11 For it is written: As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me and every tongue shall confess to God.
It also said it should not be done because it was not the norm. Kind of funny when you consider that receiving on the tongue is also the norm …
👍 Well said.

Redemptionis Sacramentum #91 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.

Congregation de Cultu Divino et Disciplina Sacramentorum
Prot. n. 47 / 03 / L
Rome, 26 February 2003

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”.
 
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 ß 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.

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

+Francesco Pio Tamburrino
Archbishop Secretary
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top