kneeling for communion

  • Thread starter Thread starter lintpick1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
AlexV said:
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.
Click to expand...
It is this way in every United States Diocese I have been to or heard of. This is not a controversial subject, 🤷 it is just how it is done. The “norm” for most people is their local parish or region. What happens in other countries does not directly effect them.

I see no benefit in forcing everyone to kneel when receiving, they should be given the option if they want to. Kneeling or not kneeling does not effect your worthiness to receive.
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
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.

Oh man, you had to be living in Nova Scotia in the 1980s when a family that wanted to receive kneeling were not only denied communion but were arrested & charged with disrupting a religious service. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court.

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.

In our parish there are still a few people who receive on the tongue and who kneel to receive. We know who they are so we’re ready when they go down.

There is no mass conspiracy (no pun intended) to get rid of it even if it is not widespread any more.
Click to expand...
 
You spoke of reception on the tongue. In many parishes in many dioceses, you will see a mix of the norm and the indult. That’s life.

You will also find little petty tyrants who tell First Communion children they must receive in the hands, which is a violation of their rights to receive according to the universal norm.

As for the specifics of your diocese, it is hardly free of a rather notorious history.
 
Michael_Welter said:
No. What is the CDW?
Click to expand...
The Congregation for Divine Worship. They make the rules. The CDW has not only stated that those who kneel must not be denied Communion but has also said “the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion.”
 
Cat said:
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).
Click to expand...
It seems the confusion here is what you mean when you say the Church. Who has the authority over all. Rome (the Church) or the bishops. Below is the Church (Rome) speaking. True Catholicism is knowing who is really in the position of authority --and that position is held by Rome.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/cdw2002.htm
 
There seems to be confusion between the words “norm” and “normal”. While it is certainly normal in some parishes to recieve in the hands, it is the norm of the Church to recieve on the tongue.
 
Michael_Welter said:
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.”
Click to expand...
What is the proper catechesis for this “norm”?
 
PatienceAndLove said:
What is the proper catechesis for this “norm”?
Click to expand...
The proper catechesis is that there are two approved postures in the United States: standing and kneeling - the communicant is free to choose either. The communicant is also free to receive in the hand (indult) or on the tongue. So, basically you have 4 possible ways (in the US):
  1. Standing and on-the-tongue
  2. Standing and in-the-hand
  3. Kneeling and on-the-tongue
  4. Kneeling and in-the-hand
It is not up to the priest or anyone else to try and force one posture or manner of reception over another. The Church has left this decision up to the communicant.

It would seem from recognitio’s after the GIRM was published that communicant’s are not to be “counseled” to accept the norm of standing. But if they were, in answer to your original question: the catechesis is that sharing one common posture is a sign of unity - or our “communion” - and that it was decided that the posture should be standing.
 
Sure said:
The proper catechesis is

, in answer to your original question: the catechesis is that sharing one common posture is a sign of unity - or our “communion” - and that it was decided that the posture should be standing.
Click to expand...
If it were me providing the “proper catechesis”, I would have to reword thus:

“… it was decided that the the posture should no longer be kneeling in front of the Lord…”

.
 
MrS said:
If it were me providing the “proper catechesis”, I would have to reword thus:

“… it was decided that the the posture should no longer be kneeling in front of the Lord…”

.
Click to expand...
Why inject the decision with negative meaning when there is no reason to suspect that it is there?
 
Sure said:
The proper catechesis is that there are two approved postures in the United States: standing and kneeling - the communicant is free to choose either. The communicant is also free to receive in the hand (indult) or on the tongue. So, basically you have 4 possible ways (in the US):
  1. Standing and on-the-tongue
  2. Standing and in-the-hand
  3. Kneeling and on-the-tongue
  4. Kneeling and in-the-hand
It is not up to the priest or anyone else to try and force one posture or manner of reception over another. The Church has left this decision up to the communicant.

It would seem from recognitio’s after the GIRM was published that communicant’s are not to be “counseled” to accept the norm of standing. But if they were, in answer to your original question: the catechesis is that sharing one common posture is a sign of unity - or our “communion” - and that it was decided that the posture should be standing.
Click to expand...
Seems that receiving the “catechesis” would place the person who kneeled in a position that could then be viewed as disobedience to the bishops “sign of unity”. They may not be refused communion for kneeling the first time — but if after the “catechesis” they kneel again — would a bishop and/or priest deny them communion on the grounds the person was “catechesised” therefore in “disobedience”.
 
Walking_Home said:
Seems that receiving the “catechesis” would place the person who kneeled in a position that could then be viewed as disobedience to the bishops “sign of unity”. They may not be refused communion for kneeling the first time — but if after the “catechesis” they kneel again — would a bishop and/or priest deny them communion on the grounds the person was “catechesised” therefore in “disobedience”.
Click to expand...
I believe the latest from the Vatican on kneeling is that communicants are not to be accused of disobedience and not even to be counseled. These responses from CDW seem to be of that mindset…

adoremus.org/Notitiae-kneeling.html
 
But why the uproar regarding kneeling? What’s the big stinkin deal? I don’t get it.
 
Sure said:
I believe the latest from the Vatican on kneeling is that communicants are not to be accused of disobedience and not even to be counseled. These responses from CDW seem to be of that mindset…

adoremus.org/Notitiae-kneeling.html
Click to expand...
From that letter specifically:
“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.”
 
PatienceAndLove said:
From that letter specifically:
“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.”
Click to expand...
Are you agreeing with me, or diagreeing? I can’t tell.🙂
 
MrS said:
If it were me providing the “proper catechesis”, I would have to reword thus:

“… it was decided that the the posture should no longer be kneeling in front of the Lord…”

.
Click to expand...
But that statement would be false, as the Dicastery which has been charged with making that decision determined that the faithful may kneel if they so desire.

So you, in effect, would be lying to the person. Falsehood is hardly catechesis.
 
Sure said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home​

Seems that receiving the “catechesis” would place the person who kneeled in a position that could then be viewed as disobedience to the bishops “sign of unity”. They may not be refused communion for kneeling the first time — but if after the “catechesis” they kneel again — would a bishop and/or priest deny them communion on the grounds the person was “catechesised” therefore in “disobedience”.

I believe the latest from the Vatican on kneeling is that communicants are not to be accused of disobedience and not even to be counseled. These responses from CDW seem to be of that mindset…
adoremus.org/Notitiae-kneeling.html
Click to expand...
I agree — especially in light of the following from one of the letters.
By imposing the “catechesis” on one who kneels – a bishop and/or priest is already imposing on the person.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/cdw2002.htm

“Indeed, the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion.”
 
That isn’t catechesis that is a just a restatement of the suggestion.

Example we are supposed to stand because that is what we do.
If you prefer to kneel you are to be taught why we stand.

So why do we stand.

Because that is what we do.

That is not catechesis that is just a rewording of the statement which is the problem in the first place.
Can anyone provide a good reason for standing other than that is what we are getting used to and to keep everyone together. So if they decide to kneel should the reason be given because everyone else does it?
That is a not a reason that is just an expression of unity which we can equally do kneeling, standing or sitting. A reason explains the action and then we in unity express the action.

So what is the proper catechesis to explain that we should stand?
(please use a Catholic answer and do not deny the Real Presence of Christ) I have never heard a reason that doesn’t deny the Presence of Christ, but I still hold out hope.

Please prove me wrong that our Church not in that bad shape, is there any good reason?

God Bless
Scylla
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top