Kneeling before the Blessed Sacrament

[diggerdomer]

As a Traditionalist I believe all should kneel when rceiveing the Eucharist. Kneeling shows
love and respect for our Lord and Saviour. I do attend the Novus Ordo mass, but I notice that, other than some of the older Traditionalists, there does not seem to be that respect
or awe that should be present when one receives the Eucharist. It always seems like the
reception is done as a chore or a matter of fact thing. Although the requirement is to bow at the waist before accepting the Eucharist, Our Lord is lucky if He gets a quick nod of the head!

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

In the United States, the proper posture norms (standing vs. kneeling, bow of the head not from the waist) are indicated in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal:

1. The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.

The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another. 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, 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.

 

[otjm]

As a Traditionalist I believe all should kneel when rceiveing the Eucharist.

And the bishops appear to believe differently. Because they are set up as our shephards, why is it that the sheep are determined to set the direction?

Kneeling shows
love and respect for our Lord and Saviour.

And as a young child, I was taught that when someone entered the room, I was to stand as a sign of respect. So standing, as well as kneeling, is a sign of respect. Further, in the Roman rite, kneeling is a sign of adoration; but when we are receiving, we are not adoring per se, but following Christ’s command - “Take and eat”. and as an aside, in at least some of theEastern rites, kneeling is not a sign or adoration or respect, but rather a sign of repentance, and standing is their sign of respect.

I do attend the Novus Ordo mass, but I notice that, other than some of the older Traditionalists, there does not seem to be that respect
or awe that should be present when one receives the Eucharist. It always seems like the
reception is done as a chore or a matter of fact thing. Although the requirement is to bow at the waist before accepting the Eucharist, Our Lord is lucky if He gets a quick nod of the head!

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

It has been said, not without some truth, that we walk a dangerous line when we make judgements on others as to their level of respect. Having said that, I was an altar boy for a good length of time before Vatican 2; and was in a position to observe people as they recieved. It is a myth that everyone was much more reverent in their reception of Communion; some were, some were about as vacant appearing then as some are now.

I happen to belong to a parish that has 24 hour Perpetual Adoration, so my experience may be different that others whose parish doesn’t. But I see people equally reverant in our OF parish as I saw prior to Vatican 2.

 

[AllForYou]

I don’t kneel whilst receiving Jesus, but i always genuflect before i receive. Having said that, when i’ve knelt whilst receiving at Churches that still have the altar rails, i always feel very reverent. I think it’s good to show some form of respect when going up.

 

[kleine_katerine]

Our Church doesn’t have a rail, probably why no one kneels to receive (at least no one that I’ve seen.) It’s curious I’ve never noticed anyone genuflect whilst filing up, that could be more common with people at a different Mass time though.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Pre-Vatican 2 life in the Church was a lot easier, people knew what was expected, people knew what the other person was going to do…it was predictable. With the modern changes life seems to be ‘everyone for themselves’. If a person acted one way one day, he/she may have seen something being done by someone else and start doing that. Behaviour becomes unpredictable. Will the person in front kneel on receiving? Bow on the way to the sanctuary? Do people talk in Church or remain silent? Chaos. So we start shopping around, different churches, different denominations and different religions. Is it feeding the ego or looking for strong leadership, srong direction in our (already chaotic) world?

 

[otjm]

Pre-Vatican 2 life in the Church was a lot easier, people knew what was expected, people knew what the other person was going to do…it was predictable. With the modern changes life seems to be ‘everyone for themselves’. If a person acted one way one day, he/she may have seen something being done by someone else and start doing that. Behaviour becomes unpredictable. Will the person in front kneel on receiving? Bow on the way to the sanctuary? Do people talk in Church or remain silent? Chaos. So we start shopping around, different churches, different denominations and different religions. Is it feeding the ego or looking for strong leadership, srong direction in our (already chaotic) world?

That seems to be a little bit of hyperbole. Having seen the Mass in the OF for 40+ years, and numerous parishes this side of Chicago (west), I have found that the variations are nowhere near as many nor as obnoxious (a few rose to that level 20 years or so ago, but that was then; this is now) as your thread would imply.

And while I have seen people going from the Catholic Church to other Protestant denominations, etc., I have yet to meet one who left because of the rubrics, or talking/not talking in church, kneeling, standing, bowing or anything else having to do with how the Mass is said. They leave because of lack of foundation in the faith, life crises, stronger faith in a Protestant spouse, being told what to do in terms of morals and then rebelling, a divorce and feeling rejected by the Church; a divorce and remarriage without the benefit of a decree of nullity; abortions, and a whole host of other issues.

And I work with Returning Catholics program, and work with others in similar programs and none of us are finding Catholics leaving the Church over the items you posit.

The OF well and reverently said provides much. The OF not as reverently said, and with Father Knowsitall and Sister I Wannabeapriest screwing up the rubrics, it is still the Mass and we still have the Eucharist and the graces available through it. Makes life difficult; but people are not leaving over that for the Protestants.

And life for many people pre-Vatican 2 had its own set of problems. Lets not play The Good Ol’ Days game.

 

[thaddeusbr]

I think it was taken away as Vatican ll was taking its place. Pre Vatican ll people would kneel and one person, the priest, would distribute communion, imagine that!! and I think it takes just as long for one priest to distribute communion as it does the 4 or so people it does now. I also think that many people have no real idea about what they are doing for communion, I think they go to communion because thats what you do. Then are they in the state of grace? (that is a whole other thread) I know reverance for not just the Blessed Sacrament but being in church in general has gone by the wayside. Many have posted on this site about the noise (talking) that goes on in church. It is as if church has become more of a gathering, social event than the solem obligation we have to spend an hour with Our Lord. When I go to a modern church, I don’t go to communion, for a number of reasons including communion in the hand/tongue while standing. I attend the traditional Latin Mass and kneeling is the only way to receive it. (unless you have physical limitations, elderly, broken leg, etc, that prevent you from kneeling, then standing is accepted). I really think people need to go back to the reason why they go to church. Of course you are going to see friends and want to chat, but there is a time and place for that outside the church or in the basement. Not in the church. Remember you are in the presence of God and there is a degree of respect and reverence that should be given to Him, in His house.

:manvspc:

 

[otjm]

I think it was taken away as Vatican ll was taking its place. Pre Vatican ll people would kneel and one person, the priest, would distribute communion, imagine that!! and I think it takes just as long for one priest to distribute communion as it does the 4 or so people it does now.

You make an excellent observation, although I don’t think you are aware of how excellent it is.

Let’s look at what you said.

One priest could distribute Communion to as many people before as it now takes 4 people to do.

Why is that?

I would submit that there is a reason, perhaps a bit more profound than you think.

It takes longer, because the process itself takes longer. One person receives. Then, if the next person does it correctly (and all too often they don’t), the next person steps up, and makes a slight bow to the Eucharist. This is specifically called for by the rubrics (they are in the GIRM, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal).

Why do they make a bow? Because they are reverencing Our Lord.

They then step slightly closer, and the priest (or EMHC) holding up the Eucharist says “The Body of Christ” (or if it is the Cup, The Blood of Christ). The person then says “Amen” (which means, “I believe”. They then receive, either in the hand or on the tongue. If in the hand, they normally take a step to the side, and place the Eucharist in their mouth. Then the next person steps forward and repeats the process.

What is the net result, compared to the way we did it before?

Well, before, people would stick out their tongue as the priest came in front of them, he would say in Latin, "The Body of Christ, stick the host on their tongue, and move to the next person.

Is the bottom line how fast Communion can be distributed? Is there any reason for going slower rather than faster? Is there a possiblity of more reverence, because of the bow, the response, and the consumption of the Eucharist in the “newer” way?

As one person put it effectively in another thread (again, I think without hearing what they were saying), previously the priest could whip down the line distributing Communion.

Is that what we want, for the priest to “whip down the line”?

One of the constant complaints I hear, and one with which I agree, has been the perceived loss of reverence with people attending the OF.

Then why, if receiving Communion this way (hand or tongue; I am not pushing one over the other) results in a slower process, and a slower process lends itself to more reverence, do people complain about it?

Is it just because they were so used to doing it the other way, that the other way wins over? Never mind that the other way all too often lent itself to the priest “whipping through Communion”?

Isn’t that really and truly putting form over substance?

NOTE: I am not proposing for EMHCs. That is not the question at hand; it is rather the very real observation that receiving this way is slower.

If going slower in and of itself gets us past the issue of the potential for the priest to “whip through Communion”, what is the complaint? It (the current process) is too slow?

As to my earlier comment about not doing it right, too often the person next in line makes the bow of the head before the person in front of them has stepped aside. The bow of the head is to be to the Eucharist, not to the back of the person in front of you.

But of course, bowing while the person receiving is still in front of you speeds up the process, doesn’t it? And isn’t that what its all about -speeding it up?

Or is it?

 

[Dtmccameron]

All of which brings us to an interesting observation: some, but not all of those who kneel to receive when the bishop has set the norm of standing are some of the same people who are among the first to complain when the priest or someone else violates a norm of one of the rubrics of the OF. Which essentially says that “You, Father, have to follow the rules in spite of the fact that you may think something else is better; but I don’t have to follow the rules when I think something is better.”

'Cept that “the norm” is not “the rules”. The norm could very well be to show up half naked, that doesn’t make it right, that just makes it what happens “normally”. *(I doubt such an occurance would remain the “norm” for long, though. That one is rather easy to combat, and thereby establish the ideal.) *

 

[diggerdomer]

'Cept that “the norm” is not “the rules”. The norm could very well be to show up half naked, that doesn’t make it right, that just makes it what happens “normally”. (I doubt such an occurance would remain the “norm” for long, though. That one is rather easy to combat, and thereby establish the ideal.)

If the norm is not the rule, than what is it? What’s the purpose of norms? Is it just a suggestion from the Bishops (Magisterium), a good idea that we’re free to consider or not? Thanks for any clarification.

 

[otjm]

'Cept that “the norm” is not “the rules”. The norm could very well be to show up half naked, that doesn’t make it right, that just makes it what happens “normally”. (I doubt such an occurance would remain the “norm” for long, though. That one is rather easy to combat, and thereby establish the ideal.)

Since the norm is in the General Instructions for the Roman Missal, approved for the US, I think you might find that the norm is most certainly the rule. What else do you call the “norms” that Rome puts out?

 

[StillWondering]

'Cept that “the norm” is not “the rules”. The norm could very well be to show up half naked, that doesn’t make it right, that just makes it what happens “normally”. (I doubt such an occurance would remain the “norm” for long, though. That one is rather easy to combat, and thereby establish the ideal.)

“Norm” from what I can gather in Catholic canon talk is the rules. There is norm, indults, and other terms. The terms ordinary and norm, for different things, are used for the proper method, person, or place. This is how I understand from seeing the terms show up so often and I know very little about canon law except what I hear on the radio. The language can get confused with casual and changing secular usage of the terms if you are not familiar, but if it’s used in a Catholic context, then the terms are always used the same way.

 

[Javl]

In the United States, the proper posture norms (standing vs. kneeling, bow of the head not from the waist) are indicated in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal:

OK. Then I guess that the command that “every knee shall bend at His name” doesn’t mean anything anymore?

And another question. How come more and more of our youth are attending the EF mass
rather than the OF mass?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[paperwight]

You make an excellent observation, although I don’t think you are aware of how excellent it is.

Let’s look at what you said.

One priest could distribute Communion to as many people before as it now takes 4 people to do.

Why is that?

I would submit that there is a reason, perhaps a bit more profound than you think.

Well, before, people would stick out their tongue as the priest came in front of them, he would say in Latin, "The Body of Christ, stick the host on their tongue, and move to the next person.

Is the bottom line how fast Communion can be distributed? Is there any reason for going slower rather than faster? Is there a possiblity of more reverence, because of the bow, the response, and the consumption of the Eucharist in the “newer” way?

As one person put it effectively in another thread (again, I think without hearing what they were saying), previously the priest could whip down the line distributing Communion.

Is that what we want, for the priest to “whip down the line”?

One of the constant complaints I hear, and one with which I agree, has been the perceived loss of reverence with people attending the OF.

Then why, if receiving Communion this way (hand or tongue; I am not pushing one over the other) results in a slower process, and a slower process lends itself to more reverence, do people complain about it? /QUOTE]

My most enduring memory of receiving Holy Communion kneeling at the rail before the change is of the priest’s chasuble swishing past as he almost galloped up and down, then having to leap up to make room for the next batch as soon as the Host was in the mouth. There was no time to linger, as people were all but breathing down your neck as they were in so much hurry to get kneeling before the priest came back along the rail.

Reverent? I don’t think so. Certainly not in comparison with the stately pace of receiving standing.

As you say, a few seconds while the minister holds up the Host or Chalice and says the words, another second or two while the communicant bows/nods and says ‘Amen’., another second or two while the Host is placed in the hand/on the tongue. It all makes for a far more personal and thoughtful reception of the Eucharist.

 

[otjm]

OK. Then I guess that the command that “every knee shall bend at His name” doesn’t mean anything anymore?

Well, if you read the comment from St Paul that you made, in the context in which he made it, I suspect you will find that St Paul was not addressing how people should come up to Communion. so, no, the Command, which was not relevant to Communion, has not changed, and still has meaning; but it has meaning within the text of St. Paul’s message, not as an issue concerning what the bishops have requested in a specific instance within the rubrics of the Mass.

And as an aside, being old enough to have received Communion prior to the change to the OF, we didn’t genuflect then, either.

And another question. How come more and more of our youth are attending the EF mass
rather than the OF mass?
Shalom Aleichem

They are not; you are confusing your statistics. Given, for example, about 3.5% of all the Masses said on a weekend in the Chicago Archdiocese are the EF, you and I both can agree that there are not more youth attending those 12 Masses than there are in the other 96.5% (or approximately 350) parishes with OF Masses said that weekend. That is particularly true, or perhaps I should say, an even larger discrepancy, when you consider that at least some if not all of the parishes with the EF have only one in that form on the weekend, but may well have other Masses in that weekend in the OF form.

I think what you are trying to say is that the attendance at EF Masses is more strongly attended by youth than it is older people. Anecdotal evidence seems to indicate that is true at least in some places. However, that goes contrary to what CARA found in their survey concerning the EF; their statistics showed that almost twice as many born before 1943 favored the EF as those born since 1982, and twices as many born 1943 to 1960 as those born since 1982. For those 1961 to 1981, it was 30% pre V2 ot 21% '61 - '81, and 32% '43 - '60 to 21% '61 - 81. So as far as interest (as opposed to actual attendance), the older crowd favors the EF about 2 to one youth or better.

So it cannot be shown that more youth are attending the EF than the OF, and it cannot be shown that youth favors it more than those older; but it may be that at least in some circumstances at an EF, there are more youth attending than those older.

And it should be noted that favoring the EF does not equate necessarily with attendance at the EF.

It is great to be enthusiastic about the EF. It also helps to be clear about what we are actually saying about it, and to accurately convey what is happening.

 

[Javl]

otjm
Well, if you read the comment from St Paul that you made, in the context in which he made it, I suspect you will find that St Paul was not addressing how people should come up to Communion. so, no, the Command, which was not relevant to Communion, has not changed, and still has meaning; but it has meaning within the text of St. Paul’s message, not as an issue concerning what the bishops have requested in a specific instance within the rubrics of the Mass.

And as an aside, being old enough to have received Communion prior to the change to the OF, we didn’t genuflect then, either.

A command of the Lord is a command and cannot be changed, regardless of circumstance.

I also am old enough to have received prior to the change. We did not genuflect because we knelt. In passing the tabernacle, we always genuflected. Today even a nod of the head
is missing most of the time. But then, besides the times, I guess it is according to the parish or the diocesan norms.

As for the rest of your answer, I will go according to the statistics provided by the FSSP.
I am sure that they don’t lie, inflate, or make things up.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[otjm]

A command of the Lord is a command and cannot be changed, regardless of circumstance.

It was non-specific command, and don’t play games with it. No one genuflects “at the name” in all circumstances or even in most; it was not a command that was meant to be a rubric in the Mass.

As for the rest of your answer, I will go according to the statistics provided by the FSSP.
I am sure that they don’t lie, inflate, or make things up.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

I have not seen any statistics out of the FSSP; in addition, they are not the only ones by any stretch of the imagination who are saying the EF. You are most welcome to put their statistics up; if you do, it would be helpful if others could also find the source.

And if you read carefully what I said, I simply said that the statistic that more and more youth are attending the EF than are attending the OF flies in the face of reality. The reality is that there are tremendously more Mass said in the OF form than there are in the EF form. I think you have misstated the statistic, but unless and until you post it, no one else will know, will they?

 

[beachfront]

I am not a Catholic yet, am waiting for an annulment to (hopefully) be granted. I attend Mass every Sunday. I have watched Mass on EWTN for over a year, and there are folks attending that service who stand, kneel, receive in the hand, on the tongue, etc. I go up to the priest for a blessing during Communion and as I approach the body of Jesus, I kneel at the 1st pew as the person in front of me is receiving. I am the only person doing that, but I cannot imagine anyone not kneeling when approaching the Lord during Mass. I am a longtime Protestant, and I am so grateful to just be close to the Lord in Communion, even though I cannot receive Him yet.
Am I wrong to kneel? No one has said anything to me yet after Mass about it.

 

[otjm]

I am not a Catholic yet, am waiting for an annulment to (hopefully) be granted. I attend Mass every Sunday. I have watched Mass on EWTN for over a year, and there are folks attending that service who stand, kneel, receive in the hand, on the tongue, etc. I go up to the priest for a blessing during Communion and as I approach the body of Jesus, I kneel at the 1st pew as the person in front of me is receiving. I am the only person doing that, but I cannot imagine anyone not kneeling when approaching the Lord during Mass. I am a longtime Protestant, and I am so grateful to just be close to the Lord in Communion, even though I cannot receive Him yet.
Am I wrong to kneel? No one has said anything to me yet after Mass about it.

I am thinking what you are saying is that you genuflect at the first pew? If you were to kneel (go down on both kness and stay there), there would be a gap between you and whomever was distributing Communion.

The norm - the general rule - is that you bow your head as you are facing the Eucahrist (that is, after the person in front of you has received and stepped aside).

The world will not fall apart if you genuflect. However, it can (and not necessarily will ) possibly cause two things: 1) there is always the potential that the person behind you may not be paying enough attention to what you do and move into you, stepping on you or bumping into you (may, not will); and secondly, because it is otherwise than how most people do (they bow their heads) it can result in attention being drawn to you.

Welcome on your “trip across the Tiber”. You may get all sorts of opinions on the issue. The term “wrong” is a curious one, in that it can carry many different shades. I would hope that the issue would not become a stumbling block for you.

 

[beachfront]

Actually, I genuflect (sorry for the confusion in terms) at the first pew. My husband is always behind me, so no worry about being run over. Not sure why everyone is in such a rush to get through with Communion. It is a beautiful time to reflect on just what everyone is receiving. In the Methodist church, we have Communion once a month. We kneel at the communion rail to receive, and spend time there afterward to reflect. Each group is encouraged to spend a little time after ‘receiving’ and the pastor gives us sort of a ‘blessing’ and a send off. Too bad, the actual body and blood are in the Catholic church. Also, though, I understand that Catholics have Communion at every Mass, so maybe they tire of it. Just an observation.