kneeling for communion

  • Thread starter Thread starter lintpick1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Still, Rome says in the last letter that it is the norm in the U.S. to stand receiving communion. I wonder, what are the reasons the Church made it the norm?

The following are clarifications. You will notice Rome does not attach the stipulation (“Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm”) — to the peoples right to kneel.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/cdw2002.htm
 
Still, Rome says in the last letter that it is the norm in the U.S. to stand receiving communion. I wonder, what are the reasons the Church made it the norm?
I believe it is due to the large crowds that attend Mass in the US, and the need to keep the communion line moving quickly.
 
Still, Rome says in the last letter that it is the norm in the U.S. to stand receiving communion. I wonder, what are the reasons the Church made it the norm?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
The following are clarifications. You will notice Rome does not attach the stipulation (“Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm”) — to the peoples right to kneel.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/cdw2002.htm

Rome approved an exception to the universal norm of kneeling with the stipulation that those who choose to kneel are not to be denied. This still upholds the universal norm of kneeling. To be true to what Rome has allowed and clarified —there are two forms --kneeling and standing—Not just one (standing)

"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."
 
While there are two universal norms, the GIRM clearly states that “The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing.” Kneeling is not the norm in the US. In fact, the GIRM goes on to state, “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.”
 
While there are two universal norms, the GIRM clearly states that “The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing.” Kneeling is not the norm in the US. In fact, the GIRM goes on to state, “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.”

Correction — there is the universal norm (kneeling) and the exception to the universal norm (standing). Rome has clarified standing was allowed only with the stipulation that kneeling Not be denied. By denying kneeling — the bishops are in truth breaking the recognitio that allowed for them to have the norm for standing.
 
This is just the writings of one Aux Bishop in a former Russian Republic. He is entitled to his opinion but you can still show reverence by not kneeling. The only time I have seen this happen recently is on ETWN masses, and even that is not widespread in Alabama. You can still be reverent by receiving standing and in the hand. It is what is inside that counts, not what is outside.
 

Correction — there is the universal norm (kneeling) and the exception to the universal norm (standing). Rome has clarified standing was allowed only with the stipulation that kneeling Not be denied. By denying kneeling — the bishops are in truth breaking the recognitio that allowed for them to have the norm for standing.
Nowhere have I read that to kneel you would be deniened communion. You would have to be careful with the line behind you, but you would still receive.

It is the norm to receive on the hand when I am doing Eucharistic Minister duties, though those who show they want it on the tounge still receive it, I would do the same for kneeling.

There is no mass conspiracy (no pun intended) to get rid of it even if it is not widespread any more.
 
Wrong. It is not “the norm” to receive in the hand. The universal norm is on the tongue, and an indult exists for the hand. You’ve rather quixotically made the indult the norm. Nice try. Not surprising, though, given the bishop your diocese endured for so many years.
 
I am confused by your comment (I bolded it). I get what you are saying, but could you clarify it?
And I agree with you about the standing to receive comment. The Protestants did it to signify the fact that they see communion as a symbol. We took it on as an indult after V2, and now it is just out of hand. sigh
Evangelical Protestants and other non-mainline Protestants don’t stand to take Communion. They sit in pews.
 
Nowhere have I read that to kneel you would be deniened communion. You would have to be careful with the line behind you, but you would still receive.

It is the norm to receive on the hand when I am doing Eucharistic Minister duties, though those who show they want it on the tounge still receive it, I would do the same for kneeling.

There is no mass conspiracy (no pun intended) to get rid of it even if it is not widespread any more.

The universal norm is receiving on the tongue — the hand is the exception to the universal norm — just as standing is the exception to the universal norm of kneeling.

The clarifications from Rome are in response to actual cases of persons being denied communion for kneeling.
 

Correction — there is the universal norm (kneeling) and the exception to the universal norm (standing). Rome has clarified standing was allowed only with the stipulation that kneeling Not be denied. By denying kneeling — the bishops are in truth breaking the recognitio that allowed for them to have the norm for standing.
Do you have a document that contradicts the GIRM? If not, what I quoted from the GIRM is still the case.
 
Just because it is the “norm” doesn’t make it right.
I find comments like this very disturbing.

To be a Catholic is to give up our “right” to individually interpret the Bible and religion, and instead, submit to and obey the Christ-appointed authority of His Church.

I think that saying that the Church is “not right” is what is taking away true Catholicism.

I think we need to strive to not only submit, but we need to strive to stop gritting our teeth, rolling our eyes, and murmuring complaints (e.g., "it’s just not right).

I spent 47 years in the evangelical Protestant church making up my own mind about what is right and wrong. I am thrilled to hand all these decisions over to the Catholic Church. If the Church says that it’s OK for the Bishops in the U.S. to allow the faithful to receive Communion in the hand while standing, I am NOT going to accuse the Church of “not being right” and I am NOT going to sigh and long for better leadership in the Church. If this Church isn’t RIGHT at this very moment, then we may as well all be Protestants.
 
I find comments like this very disturbing.

To be a Catholic is to give up our “right” to individually interpret the Bible and religion, and instead, submit to and obey the Christ-appointed authority of His Church.

I think that saying that the Church is “not right” is what is taking away true Catholicism.

I think we need to strive to not only submit, but we need to strive to stop gritting our teeth, rolling our eyes, and murmuring complaints (e.g., "it’s just not right).

I spent 47 years in the evangelical Protestant church making up my own mind about what is right and wrong. I am thrilled to hand all these decisions over to the Catholic Church. If the Church says that it’s OK for the Bishops in the U.S. to allow the faithful to receive Communion in the hand while standing, I am NOT going to accuse the Church of “not being right” and I am NOT going to sigh and long for better leadership in the Church. If this Church isn’t RIGHT at this very moment, then we may as well all be Protestants.
:amen: :blessyou:
 
I find comments like this very disturbing.

To be a Catholic is to give up our “right” to individually interpret the Bible and religion, and instead, submit to and obey the Christ-appointed authority of His Church.

I think that saying that the Church is “not right” is what is taking away true Catholicism.

I think we need to strive to not only submit, but we need to strive to stop gritting our teeth, rolling our eyes, and murmuring complaints (e.g., "it’s just not right).
Actually, this is not what the Church wants. To do so would mean restricting our own gifts. The Church thrives on diversity of opinion, not uniformity. Uniformity of thought brings stagnation on the road to irrelevance. We all have our gifts to bring to the Church and that is one of the historical strengths of the Church. Throughout Church history, times of increased uniformity meant playing catchup at a later point in history.
 
No. What is the CDW?

The CDW stands for Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. It is the department of the Roman Curia in charge of affairs relating to the liturgy and the sacraments within the Latin rite. Card. Francis Arinze is Prefect, and Arch. Malcolm Ranjith is Secretary.

vatican.va/roman_curia/index.htm
THE ROMAN CURIA
In exercising supreme, full, and immediate power in the universal Church, the Roman pontiff makes use of the departments of the Roman Curia which, therefore, perform their duties in his name and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors.
CHRISTUS DOMINUS, 9
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top