Kneeling for Communion at OF Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter Monica4316
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
InquisitorMax said:
Ha ha ha, ya gotta wonder at people who profess to believe that their god is present in a wafer of bread and then decide that, hey, it’s a better idea to stand up and have him handed to you, in a queue, instead of kneeling and receiving him without touching him, like the forefathers did.

Are the times a-changin’? By golly, I hope so!
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/06/june-time-for-vienna-western-mass.html
Click to expand...
I understand the idea of someone being used to receiving in the hand because maybe it is the norm in their parish.

In parishes where parishioners can receive both, I am curious as to why anyone would choose to receive in the hand. Aside from just being used to receiving in the hand, why choose that over on the tongue? If one has health issues, and can’t kneel, one can certainly receive standing and on the tongue, no?

Is it because of germaphobia?
Is it because they don’t want anyone’s hand going near their mouths?

I don’t get it.
 
thistle said:
The norm at the OF is standing. Anyone who kneels should not be refused but later should be taken aside by the priest and the standing norm explained. Having explained, if the priest expects in future you will conform to the norm then that is where your obedience to the priest should kick in…
Click to expand...
There is no disobedience when kneeling, the Vatican has stated so.

Here are all the clarifications on GIRM 160 issue by the Vatican.

ourladyswarriors.org/liturgy/kneeling.htm

Note especially
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**”.
Click to expand...
So they are neither to be condiders to be acting in a disobedient manner, nor in a manner contrary to law ( illict). And they are not to be imposed upon in any way.

St, Thomas Aquinas noted that the Virtue of Obedence was the conformation of one’s will to the will of the one in authority.

Any person who is acting in a manner contrary to this instruction is the one who is not being obedient, not one who kneels.

The authority in this matter rests in Vatican, specifically with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Disciple of the Sacraments. They are the legislators under Canon 16, so their interpretation has the force of law.

Secondly,

The CDWDS is in the process of issuing a new update to the GIRM to correspoind with it’s various decisions over the years. It should be out along with the updated translation of the Roman Missal.

Here is some information on that
OLDER USA ADAPTATION VERSION:
… 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.

NEWER USA ADAPTATION VERSION:
… The norm established for the Dioceses of the United States of America is that Holy Communion is to be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Instruction, Redemptionis Sacramentum, March 25, 2004, no. 91).
Click to expand...
wdtprs.com/blog/2011/06/what-does-girm-160-for-the-usa-really-say/
 
Will_S said:
Redemptionis Sacramentum #91
In distributing Holy Communion it is to be remembered that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who seek them in a reasonable manner, are rightly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them”. Hence any baptized Catholic who is not prevented by law must be admitted to Holy Communion. 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.

A law that is not only unenforceable, but for which enforcement has been actively prohibited by the supreme lawgiver, is no law at all. The new text isn’t a new rule, but rather states accurately what the law currently is and has been since (at least) 2004. But still…
Click to expand...
You clearly have absolutely no idea how the Church works, but as a pointer I can assure you that the conceptions behind Roman law bear a lot less in common with Anglo-Saxon positive law than you seem to think. By the way, maybe you can tell us the big canonical penalties that were leveled against women who did not wear chapel veils in 1950? Or the penalties today for not genuflecting to the tabernacle? What’s that, there weren’t and aren’t any? Oh, I guess it’s no rule at all, then! Amazing how that works! The Church cannot simply declare a rule and ask for obedience out of humility and good will, since Will S refuses to take anything seriously on its own terms unless there is an “enforcement mechanism” lurking in the background waiting to hand out punishments. The Church, apparently, lacks even the very power to declare a rule and yet for pastoral reasons withhold punishment; its only choices are making no rule at all, or fully enforcing its rules with penal sanctions up to and including withholding of the sacraments.

Um, be careful what you wish for, dude. You just might get it. 😉
Do-on’t stop be-lee-eevin! Hold on to that fee-ee-ee-lin!
Click to expand...
Snide much?

Incidentally, you never got back to me on my utter demolition of your arguments over here. Maybe you just missed it, so I thought I’d call it to your attention.
 
MarkThompson said:
If the bishops have indeed proposed this new rule and it has been approved by Rome, then that will be true whenever it comes into force, which I assume will be with the rest of the Missal in November. At present, kneeling, although tolerated, is not a legitimate posture for reception in the Ordinary Form.
Click to expand...
YOu are incorrect.

A legitimate form ( by the definition, is one that is legal under the law)

The approval of the norm by Rome, as you well know, included that the faithful would be able to kneel. Therefore the law, as approved by Rome, allows for the kneeling posture as a legitimate form.

Once again
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”.
Click to expand...
Mark, I draw your attention to the last sentance.

How exactly to you consider an act to be illegitimate, when it is neither disobedient nor illict. If an act was illegitimate, it would be against the prevailing legislation on the matter (and thus also illicit). But that is clearly not so.

Could you explain in detail how you feel that it is illegitimate in light of the CDWDS recognitio, the very act by which it gains the force of law, and by which the CDWDS may issue interpretations under Canon 16 - that carry the force of law.
Can. 16 §1. The legislator authentically interprets laws as does the one to whom the same legislator has entrusted the power of authentically interpreting.
Click to expand...
§2. An authentic interpretation put forth in the form of law has the same force as the law itself and must be promulgated. If it only declares the words of the law which are certain in themselves, it is retroactive; if it restricts or extends the law, or if it explains a doubtful law, it is not retroactive.
Click to expand...
Who is the legislator of the GIRM? and who’s interpretation of that law carries the weight of law itself.

Is it the USCCB or the CDWDS?
 
I kneel at the altar rail and receive on the tongue at the OF. But that is the norm at my parish regardless if the EF or OF is being celebrated.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Thats right Mark. But not since it seems that there is really no preference on one posture over the other, why call it a “norm”?
Click to expand...
A norm clarifies who has the authority to determine the posture. In some cases, such as this one, the authority was granted to the bishops, but certain limits were placed on that authority.

An norm does not have to include absolute authority in the matter. The Vatican is under no obligation to delegate abosulte authority to anyone.
 
Brendan said:
A norm clarifies who has the authority to determine the posture. In some cases, such as this one, the authority was granted to the bishops, but certain limits were placed on that authority.

An norm does not have to include absolute authority in the matter. The Vatican is under no obligation to delegate abosulte authority to anyone.
Click to expand...
A norm isn’t the authority, a norm is what is prescribed as the usual way to do things. In this case the norm is standing. I think you’re confusing “norm” with “Ordinary” with a capital “O” which is the authority.
 
TrueLight said:
… I am curious as to why anyone would choose to receive in the hand. Aside from just being used to receiving in the hand, why choose that over on the tongue? If one has health issues, and can’t kneel, one can certainly receive standing and on the tongue, no?

Is it because of germaphobia?
Is it because they don’t want anyone’s hand going near their mouths?

I don’t get it.
Click to expand...
Personally, I think it started because it was seen as a wonderful return to a more authentic recreation of what the early Church did! If they early Church did it, it must be better that what the fusty later Church did.

And you kneeling to receive and opening your mouth: A bit … humiliating.

Also, perhaps, it was such an honour to now touch what was preciously taboo … we … as a People, had somehow … improved.
 
InquisitorMax said:
Personally, I think it started because it was seen as a wonderful return to a more authentic recreation of what the early Church did! If they early Church did it, it must be better that what the fusty later Church did.

And you kneeling to receive and opening your mouth: A bit … humiliating.

Also, perhaps, it was such an honour to now touch what was preciously taboo … we … as a People, had somehow … improved.
Click to expand...
I believe you are wrong. Most people who receive via CITH never thinks about all these accusations thought about by people who never even received CITH.

Most of it is just about convenience. The laity has had issues with hands touching their tongues, and the priests had issues of being bitten on the hand.
 
ConstantineTG said:
A norm isn’t the authority, a norm is what is prescribed as the usual way to do things. In this case the norm is standing. I think you’re confusing “norm” with “Ordinary” with a capital “O” which is the authority.
Click to expand...
No, a norm IS an authoritative declaration under Canon Law. Norm are either universal norms ( applying to the entire Church) or particular norms ( applying to a diocese).

Particlular Norms which extent on (or attempt to limit) Universal Norms require a Vatican recognito.

( and that is distinct from the Ordinary, which is the bishop of the diocese)
 
Brendan said:
No, a norm IS an authoritative declaration under Canon Law. Norm are either universal norms ( applying to the entire Church) or particular norms ( applying to a diocese).

Particlular Norms which extent on (or attempt to limit) Universal Norms require a Vatican recognito.

( and that is distinct from the Ordinary, which is the bishop of the diocese)
Click to expand...
This is a better explanation from your earlier statement where you seem to imply that “norm” refers to a person of authority.
Brendan said:
A norm clarifies who has the authority to determine the posture.
Click to expand...
 
Monica, I kneel for Communion in the Ordinary Form. I have never asked a priest’s permission, and he cannot refuse Holy Communion to someone who is kneeling as the General Instruction of the Roman Missal points out. I had a post on this just recently, which you can find here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=573860

I believe there is a difference in sticking out for the sake of sticking out and sticking out because of true piety. I hope you will kneel for Holy Communion!

Pax et bonum!
Joseph
 
Brendan said:
YOu are incorrect.

A legitimate form ( by the definition, is one that is legal under the law)

The approval of the norm by Rome, as you well know, included that the faithful would be able to kneel. Therefore the law, as approved by Rome, allows for the kneeling posture as a legitimate form.

Once again

Mark, I draw your attention to the last sentance.

How exactly to you consider an act to be illegitimate, when it is neither disobedient nor illict. If an act was illegitimate, it would be against the prevailing legislation on the matter (and thus also illicit). But that is clearly not so.

Could you explain in detail how you feel that it is illegitimate in light of the CDWDS recognitio, the very act by which it gains the force of law, and by which the CDWDS may issue interpretations under Canon 16 - that carry the force of law.

Who is the legislator of the GIRM? and who’s interpretation of that law carries the weight of law itself.

Is it the USCCB or the CDWDS?
Click to expand...
I have explained this repeatedly (including, I thought, to you); just start here.

Incidentally, I would love to see the contortions people would twist themselves into if the situation were reversed: if the documents said that the bishops must select one posture and that everyone should obey it, the bishops selected kneeling, and the Vatican instructed that although people who refused to do so and decided to stand shouldn’t be denied the Sacrament on the spot or verbally lambasted for disobedience while standing there waiting to communicate, they should at minimum be subjected to catechesis and correction about why the Church’s norm was to kneel. (Heck, I wouldn’t be surprised if that were already the rule in other countries – and it may well be the rule in the United States at some point in the future.) Something tells I wouldn’t hear very many of the same petulant voices arguing that standing was totally fine, the Vatican has made it a completely legit option, you can’t even say the Church has a preference for which posture you are to take, and it is up to every individual to do whatever they feel like because there is in fact no rule at all.
 
MarkThompson said:
I have explained this repeatedly (including, I thought, to you); just start here.

Incidentally, I would love to see the contortions people would twist themselves into if the situation were reversed: if the documents said that the bishops must select one posture and that everyone should obey it, the bishops selected kneeling, and the Vatican instructed that although people who refused to do so and decided to stand shouldn’t be denied the Sacrament on the spot or verbally lambasted for disobedience while standing there waiting to communicate, they should at minimum be subjected to catechesis and correction about why the Church’s norm was to kneel. (Heck, I wouldn’t be surprised if that were already the rule in other countries – and it may well be the rule in the United States at some point in the future.) Something tells I wouldn’t hear very many of the same petulant voices arguing that standing was totally fine, the Vatican has made it a completely legit option, you can’t even say the Church has a preference for which posture you are to take, and it is up to every individual to do whatever they feel like because there is in fact no rule at all.
Click to expand...
Actually we already have that exact situation. The Norm for reception of Holy Communion is directly on the tongue, but receiving it in the hand is also permitted.

There are no contortions. Clearly reception on the hand is permitted and licit, even though it shouldn’t be.
 
ConstantineTG said:
I believe you are wrong. Most people who receive via CITH never thinks about all these accusations thought about by people who never even received CITH.

Most of it is just about convenience. The laity has had issues with hands touching their tongues, and the priests had issues of being bitten on the hand.
Click to expand...
I would ask how you know how most people think. I was speculating about why the change was made and subsequently tolerated. It’s mighty odd if you think your god is present in this object.

I don’t think it was convenience. Hundreds of years of inconvenience and in the 70’s they decide they’ve had enough? That would be a trivial reason, in the context of a sacred rite.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top