Kneeling before the Blessed Sacrament

  • Thread starter Thread starter kleine_katerine
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Point taken, but I think we can also agree that kneeling is more reverent than a nod. I am not saying that those who don’t kneel are somehow less reverent or whatever. I just prefer to kneel myself, and I would like to see the GIRM indicate a return to kneeling and recieving on the tongue.
Kneeling is a sign of reverence in the Roman rite; in at least some Eastern rites, kneeling is not a sign of reverence but rather a sign of penanace. It is a culturally conditioned response. It is understandable if one is culturally conditioned that kneeling is a sign of reverence, to want to do that. However, we also stand at the Gospel reading as a sign of reverence, so saying that kneeling is more reverent than standing makes no logical sense. It all gets down to feeling. And emotions are notorious for lacking consistency and logic.
 
Kneeling is a sign of reverence in the Roman rite; in at least some Eastern rites, kneeling is not a sign of reverence but rather a sign of penanace. It is a culturally conditioned response. It is understandable if one is culturally conditioned that kneeling is a sign of reverence, to want to do that. However, we also stand at the Gospel reading as a sign of reverence, so saying that kneeling is more reverent than standing makes no logical sense. It all gets down to feeling. And emotions are notorious for lacking consistency and logic.
I will grant you that.
 
If kneeling when one knows that the GIRM sets the norm of standing, then one is in open, albeit slight defiance to the bishops who have set the norm and to Rome which approved it. Subtle, slight cafeteria Catholicism; the world will not fall apart; no one will go into heresy. But given that some who will kneel when all others stand are the same group that criticizes the priests and laity for other failures to follow the GIRM, it is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black, no?
Absolutely not. Both kneeling or standing is permitted. Neither is discouraged. To say I am in open defiance of the Bishops and to Rome because I choose to kneel before receiving and to receive on the tongue is nothing short of ludicrous.
 
Absolutely not. Both kneeling or standing is permitted. Neither is discouraged. To say I am in open defiance of the Bishops and to Rome because I choose to kneel before receiving and to receive on the tongue is nothing short of ludicrous.
Try actually reading the GIRM before you speak. It is in there; along with the statement that one is not to be denied Communion if one kneels, but is to be counseled.

Others have been down this route before; one does not need to be a Canon lawyer to understand that there is nothing to be counseled about if it is perfectly permissible to kneel instead of stand. The issue was that refusing Communion is a Canonical penalty, and the priest does not have the right to impose a Canonical penalty. But the absence of a Canonical penalty is not the same thing as permission to kneel instead of stand; there is one norm, as stated, and that is standing.

Having said that, it is my understanding that the individual bishop may determine on a case by case basis that in a specific parish, they may use the altar rail and all kneel instead of standing. That would be a specific exception granted by the bishop.

However, for the US, it is clear in the GIRM that the norm is standing - that is the plain English. The confusion comes in those who ignore that those who kneel instead are to be counseled. There is nothing for which to counsel if kneeling has equal permnission. It doesn’t.

And as I noted, the world will not go off its orbit if someone does. Some people are not educated on the issue, and fault cannot be attributred to them; some are educated and are simply stubborn; and that does not rise to the level of a mortal sin. Those who think so are more than a tad anal.

As I said, read the GIRM.
 
Actually, you are only partly correct. The norm for the universal Roman rite is to receive on the tongue, and by indult we may receive in the hand.

However, Rome sepcifically granted the bishops of the United States the authority, which they have exercised, to make the norm for receiving standing. It is in the GIRM which ahs been approved by Rome.

Standing is not subject to your seven conditions. It is subject to the General Instructaions of the Roman Missal, and is not otherwise conditioned.

And while you may be of the opinion that the seven conditions are not met for Communion in the hand, that is your persoanl opinion, and people with far more knowledge, experience, and authority have decided otherwise. They are called priests and bishops.

And of course, you and anyone else is free to receive on the tongue; but you are not free to criticize those who recceive in the hand.

And your bit about the Methodists is an absolute hoot. They are no more reverent than Catholics are, nor less so; they are as subject to human foibles as anyone else.
(I apologise for my comment if it is a little tangential.)
Some years ago in Medjugorje we were asked by the celebrating / concelebrating priest at Holy Mass to receive the Host on the tongue because It was being smuggled out of the Church in the hand for Black Masses in the hills; the theory being once in the mouth it was harder to smuggle the Host.
 
You still haven’t answered the question that I asked. Are you really claiming that people that don’t kneel to receive don’t believe in the real presence?

Because now you have added that people that don’t kneel don’t believe God is worth it. :rolleyes:
No. I am not making that claim. However, consider that since the Communion rails were ripped out of the churches, use of the venacular, ad populus, Tabernacle shunted off to the side or out of the church entirely, EMHCs and Holy Communion in hand while standing, attendence is way down as is belief in the Real Presence even among the minority who attend weekly Mass.

Perhaps my question can now be answered: why don’t some people want to bend their knee before the Lord?
 
Age of Aquarius? No, the Age of Viet Nam. Aquarius had nothing to do with it.

The Pontiff is trying to steer? Sorry, it is the norm. As in the rule published under the authority of Rome.

Why do you have a problem following the lawful and licit directions of the bishops? Oh, that’s right, I forgot. You were anointed…

God has received a number of gestures through the ages. You just prefer to go by your feelings.
I have provided quotes from popes and saints and left my “feelings” out of my argument. All you have provided is Digger’s constant refrain:“it’s in the GIRM…it’s in the GIRM” What if the bishops are leading the flock astray? What about Cardinal Mahoney and what goes on in Austria? If your bishop led you off a cliff would you go along?

Vietnam has nothing to do with this topic (such a stereotypical myopic view). In my opinion, the “Age of Aquarius” refers to the philosophies of the sixties and the baby boomer’s selfish ideals of change. Never in the history of the Catholic Church has so much change been thrust upon us. The facts reveal our church has been severely weakened in the past forty years.

For the most part, today’s bishops were young priests in the sixties and seventies. During those years change was the maxim. The results speak for themselves. We’ve endured forty years of liturgical chaos and if you pay attention to what our Pontiff is doing, we are rebuilding Christ’s Church - brick by brick. It is harder to smarten up then dumb down so this process won’t be completed overnight.
 
Those who pray the Liturgy of the Hours will know this psalm. For the others I offer it as a sign of peace:

Psalms
Chapter 95
1
1 Come, let us sing joyfully to the LORD; cry out to the rock of our salvation.
2
Let us greet him with a song of praise, joyfully sing out our psalms.
3
For the LORD is the great God, the great king over all gods,
4
Whose hand holds the depths of the earth; who owns the tops of the mountains.
5
The sea and dry land belong to God, who made them, formed them by hand.
6
**Enter, let us bow down in worship; let us kneel before the LORD who made us. **
7
For this is our God, whose people we are, God’s well-tended flock. Oh, that today you would hear his voice:
8
2 Do not harden your hearts as at Meribah, as on the day of Massah in the desert.
9
There your ancestors tested me; they tried me though they had seen my works.
10
**Forty years I loathed that generation; I said: “This people’s heart goes astray; they do not know my ways.” **
11
3 Therefore I swore in my anger: “They shall never enter my rest.”
 
Try actually reading the GIRM before you speak. It is in there; along with the statement that one is not to be denied Communion if one kneels, but is to be counseled.

Others have been down this route before; one does not need to be a Canon lawyer to understand that there is nothing to be counseled about if it is perfectly permissible to kneel instead of stand. The issue was that refusing Communion is a Canonical penalty, and the priest does not have the right to impose a Canonical penalty. But the absence of a Canonical penalty is not the same thing as permission to kneel instead of stand; there is one norm, as stated, and that is standing.

Having said that, it is my understanding that the individual bishop may determine on a case by case basis that in a specific parish, they may use the altar rail and all kneel instead of standing. That would be a specific exception granted by the bishop.

However, for the US, it is clear in the GIRM that the norm is standing - that is the plain English. The confusion comes in those who ignore that those who kneel instead are to be counseled. There is nothing for which to counsel if kneeling has equal permnission. It doesn’t.

And as I noted, the world will not go off its orbit if someone does. Some people are not educated on the issue, and fault cannot be attributred to them; some are educated and are simply stubborn; and that does not rise to the level of a mortal sin. Those who think so are more than a tad anal.

As I said, read the GIRM.
So, if I am to understand you correctly, I am wrong in humbling myself before the Creator of the universe. I am wrong to bow down to my King instead of giving him a nod? I defer to the teachings of the Church. And I have discussed this with priests and others I trust, and not just some nameless poster on a message board who claims the GIRM says one thing, but does not provide the text. Unless you provide real proof, I will continue to kneel before my Lord, and receive on the tongue. I am not worthy to look at the Host, let alone touch Him with unconsecrated hands. What if a stray crumb remains on my hand–it is still the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord. Instead of scolding others for showing respect to the Lord, I suggest you reflect on the teachings of the Church on the Eucharist, and think about the marvelous gift we have in th Blessed Sacrament of the Altar.
 
No. I am not making that claim. However, consider that since the Communion rails were ripped out of the churches, use of the venacular, ad populus, Tabernacle shunted off to the side or out of the church entirely, EMHCs and Holy Communion in hand while standing, attendence is way down as is belief in the Real Presence even among the minority who attend weekly Mass.

Perhaps my question can now be answered: why don’t some people want to bend their knee before the Lord?
Attendance started down well before Vatican 2 was even conceived; it started down during the time of Pius 12th. And the attendance continued down in a gradual descent, with a couple of blips upward. If the attendance was actually decreasing due to your comments, then it should have shown a sharp drop off after they started; but there is no sharp drop off anywhere along the line. There is therefore no showing that the drop in attendance is due to your claims, because it started before those ever existed, and has continued with about the same rate of change all along until today.

And as to your answer; 1) they still do; the do when they enter the Church and leave (people still genuflect, even when the Eucharist is not present, simply because of automatic pilot); and they still do twice a year during the recitation of the Creed. They did not genuflect before the changes to receiving standing; and they don’t know because the bishops have directed that the appropriate reverence is a bow of the head. Of course, some decide that the bishop can’t tell them what to do, and so they genuflect just before receiving.
 
Are we ever going to see any proof from otjm? Or just claims? It seems he is trying to cause division, and using the Holy Eucharist as a weapon!!! I believe we are dealing with a self-proclaimed liturgist.
 
So, if I am to understand you correctly, I am wrong in humbling myself before the Creator of the universe. I am wrong to bow down to my King instead of giving him a nod? I defer to the teachings of the Church. And I have discussed this with priests and others I trust, and not just some nameless poster on a message board who claims the GIRM says one thing, but does not provide the text. Unless you provide real proof, I will continue to kneel before my Lord, and receive on the tongue. I am not worthy to look at the Host, let alone touch Him with unconsecrated hands. What if a stray crumb remains on my hand–it is still the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord. Instead of scolding others for showing respect to the Lord, I suggest you reflect on the teachings of the Church on the Eucharist, and think about the marvelous gift we have in th Blessed Sacrament of the Altar.
The following is from the GIRM, paragraph 160, copyright 2003 including adaptions for the United States. The underlining is mine.

"160. 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."

I did not say you were wrong in humbling yourself before the Creator of the universe. I simply said that the bishops of the United States, with the approval of Rome, have decided how that humbling is to be shown. And I would suggest that it is humbling to follow the bishops’ request when one may wish to do otherwise.

and the GIRM doesn’t say to nod; it says to bow the head; there is a difference and that is in the intent of the indivuidual. a nod of the head is usually a bit abrupt and less profound.

So now you are provided the text (it was available to you on the internet, but I would agree that finding things in it can be a bit of a search).

If a crumb remains in your hand, it isn’t rocket science. You consume it.

And I spend time in our chaple, which provides 24 hour Perpetual Adoration; I spend time teaching what the Church has always taught about the Eucharist in RCIA, and have contemplated what a gift we have received for decades.

I also don’t have my panties in a twist about the issue; no one has anointed me to be a member of the Liturgy Police. I did, however, as a part of our liturgy committee, attend the class when the last issue of the GIRM came out, and I try to teach people what the bishops of the United States, in union with Rome, have set out for the celebration of Mass, as I feel that reverence is due Our Lord, and one of the ways of showing that reverence is by following the rules Rome has approved; contrary to the liberals who feel they can play fast and loose with them, and contrary to those on the other end of the spectrum who feel they know better than the bishops and have been granted an indult by Rome based on their self-perceived holiness.

Some people mistake my following the rules for my opinion of what the rules should be. I grew up before Vatican 2, served Mass daily including during my vacations to my grandparents farm where I attended daily Mass and was the only server available; I have done everything in the Mass prior to Vatican 2 from candle bearer to server to thurifer to Master of Ceremonies and not only learned a lot but also enjoyed it very much. Whatever I say about following the GIRM does not mean that I think it is the best choice, nor does it mean that I am more comfortable doing that than what I did as a child, as the postures of the faithful hav changed somewhat. and since you don’t know me - your comment about an unnamed poster - I would suggest that you do not try to judge what I think or how I feel, unless perhaps you are a mindreader. And I suspect you are not.

If you want to genuflect, please, do so. I am not going to be there to stop you, and if I was there, I would not say anything to you unless you brought it up. There are about 2 or 3 individuals I see in my parish (over 1000 families) who do so and I have never said a word to them or to anyone else about it directly (and I say directly because I do teach those in RCIa, but not in reference to others).
 
How about that. Not a word about genuflecting (which is, actually, a form of a bow) and it is our choice to receive it on the tongue. I hate to smash your liberal dreams.
 
How about that. Not a word about genuflecting (which is, actually, a form of a bow) and it is our choice to receive it on the tongue. I hate to smash your liberal dreams.
How is genuflecting a form of a bow? That seems like saying kneeling is a form of standing. They are two distinct postures.

The norms for genuflecting are elsewhere in the GIRM.

Part of the point of noting the GIRM is to show what you just said: it is the communicant’s choice to receive on the tongue or in the hand. Many of us here have been pointing that out to some who seem to not know that’s what the Church teaches.
 
I am beginning to regret that I started this discussion with my observation that no one in the church I attend genuflects or bows upon approaching the the consecrated elements in Communion. Last year, when God tapped me on the shoulder and I started my journey to the Roman Catholic Church, I went to the bookstore and bought several books, including the U.S. Catholic Catechism for Adults. I read it front to back and agreed with everything written there. I looked back today to see where I got the idea that genuflecting is done in Catholic Churches, even though the two churches I have been attending had no one genuflecting at all when approachng Jesus, no one nodded, and I became confused. I genuflected, as I didn’t want to offend the Lord. I did get some looks, but I didn’t slow up anyone, just wanted to show total respect for Jesus in the Host. I am thinking as I approach, My Lord and My God. The genuflect is really the only thing I can do to show total respect (as when meeting the Queen of England, for example).
On page 223 of the USCCA: “As a sign of adoration, Latin Catholics genuflect to the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the tabernacle or genuflect or kneel when the Blessed Sacreament is exposed for prayer. Eastern Catholics show their reverence by a profound bow rather than a genuflection…” I realize that might refer to the Adoration of Jesus, and not necessarily when approaching Jesus during Communion.
Again, I am sorry to have started such a conversation, because it seems that many Catholics have differing opinions. For myself, and for what it’s worth from a former Protestant’s observation, genuflecting as approaching the Blessed Sacrament would seem to be a privilege, as we are approaching God Himself, who has chosen to be with us. I am in such awe of the entire Church, her teachings, her strong stand for morals, her benevolent attitude toward other Christians, and her staying power and long line of leadership, and most of all, the Eucharist given to us by Christ…I can barely contain myself when attending Mass. I get a little weepy when I consider what the priest is doing at the altar, and that angels are all around, worshipping with us. Catholics have such a gem!
 
How about that. Not a word about genuflecting (which is, actually, a form of a bow) and it is our choice to receive it on the tongue. I hate to smash your liberal dreams.
Your comment doesn’t make any sense, since I am not a liberal. As to receiveing on the tongue, that is what I have taught all along as the norm of the Roman rite; so, sorry, not a position I don’t hold. In the hand has been an indult all along.

As to being a self-proclaimed liturgist; I am nothing of the sort. I am not the one boing around saying that this rule or that has to be changed. those are the self-proclaimed liturgists; the ones who are oh, so much smarter than rome and the bishops.

But I can read, and I do bother myself to read what Rome requests, and then follow it, rather than trying to impose my feelings about what is correct.

Self proclaimed liturgist? What’s the matter, are you upset that I actully showed you what the GIRM said, when you were the one implying I was making it up?
 
Source? And please, not the GIRM.
CARA report of January 10, 2005 showing the Gallup poll harting Mass attendance, 1939 through 2003.

The heighth of attendance was 1957-1958 at 74%; the first blip upwards was in 1990 in the 52-54% range; the second one was in 2000, the Jubilee Year at 52%; it had been about 41% in '96-97.

While the question in the Gallup poll was “have you attended church or synagogue in the last 7 days” and CARA asks “do you attend Mass every week” (33% in 2003), the results of each tend to parallel one another.

There is simply no evidence produced by anyone of a fast, rapid drop off of attendance due to changes in the Mass. There are a lot of statements that it occured, but none of them offer any proof. The only proof anyone produces are the polls which show a gradual drop off, and that starting after WW2 and before V2.
 
The heighth of attendance was 1957-1958 at 74%; the first blip upwards was in 1990 in the 52-54% range; the second one was in 2000, the Jubilee Year at 52%; it had been about 41% in '96-97.
It seems the facts you state contradict your conclusion.
 
Here we go with polls and stats … again. :banghead: Somehow I doubt polls are all that reliable: I, for one, categorically refuse to participate in any telephone poll, regardless of the topic. They say the word “poll” or “opinion survey” or whatever, and simply tell them I’m not participating and I hang up. One thing is certain: I’m not the only one who does that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top