Kneeling Prior to receiving the host

[zab]

zab;5674252:

Originally Posted by Walking_Home View Post
You know Cat—someone in your condition does not necessarily have to attend Mass—I mean if you can barely walk and all. If you notify your parish --someone can be sent to your home.​

If a person can “barely walk” —the Church does not require that they attend Mass. This goes for any other type of illness that would would be an impediment to the attendance at Mass.

Oh, and by the way --a person should not be using their own “limitations” to discourage others from kneeling.

So were you being charitable when you suggested that she didn’t have to attend Mass or were you being sarcastic?

 

[pickguard1]

Once again, I repeat, Rome has spoken and said that those who kneel for Communion in the OF are neither disobedient nor doing anything illicit but are upholding an ancient tradition.

I didn’t say that they’re doing anything illicit - but disobedience…possibly, if the local Bishop has made receiving communion standing the required posture in his diocese, then then yes - there is some disobedience there.

 

[Sancto_Spiritu]

edit* In the United States, that is.

Of course, the Pope can require anyone to receive communion however he likes - he does have universal jurisdiction and authority, after all. But everyone else is subject to their local ordinary (Bishop), who is, in turn subject to the Pope’s authority.

So really, until the Pope comes to town and gives communion to people on the tongue while kneeling, the norms established in the GIRM should be followed.

just my :twocents:

I disagree. I think you’re making a huge assumption here- that the GIRM says kneeling is incorrect.

The GIRM says that people who kneel should be “addressed pastorally.” Does that mean “it’s wrong and you should set them straight?” No. It likely means “remind them what the ‘norm’ is and have a conversation about why they do it.”

If it was incorrect or wrong, the GIRM would say so. But the GIRM doesn’t say so. Therefore, it is not incorrect.

 

[Sancto_Spiritu]

I didn’t say that they’re doing anything illicit - but disobedience…possibly, if the local Bishop has made receiving communion standing the required posture in his diocese, then then yes - there is some disobedience there.

Yes, there’s disobedience- on the part of the Bishop, to the GIRM.

 

[pickguard1]

I disagree. I think you’re making a huge assumption here- that the GIRM says kneeling is incorrect.

The GIRM says that people who kneel should be “addressed pastorally.” Does that mean “it’s wrong and you should set them straight?” No. It likely means “remind them what the ‘norm’ is and have a conversation about why they do it.”

If it was incorrect or wrong, the GIRM would say so. But the GIRM doesn’t say so. Therefore, it is not incorrect.

I’m not saying that the GIRM says kneeling is “incorrect” - I’m saying that it says that it’s not the norm in the U.S. That’s all.

 

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by Walking_Home View Post
You know Cat—someone in your condition does not necessarily have to attend Mass—I mean if you can barely walk and all. If you notify your parish --someone can be sent to your home.

---

There is nothing uncharitable about saying that a person with a physical limitation—where they can barely walk–is not bound to attend Mass.

 

[pickguard1]

I’m not saying that the GIRM says kneeling is “incorrect” - I’m saying that it says that it’s not the norm in the U.S. That’s all.

I think the reason for the desire to have the priest address the person in private “pastorally” is precisely due to the fact that the assumption has to be there that the person is, in fact, kneeling for the right reasons - namely to be reverent and humble before Our Lord. There shouldn’t be any admonishment of such devout intentions. Rather, the point would be to help the person understand why the norm is the way it is - that is, uniformity of posture among the laity, etc.

 

[OldRedleg]

I love this forum because it has made me really dig into the documents of the faith.

First, it is clear that the Church approves of receiving the Eucharist kneeling or standing.

[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”.[177] 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.

Redemptionis Sacramentum​

Note 177 in the above is a reference to the following two paragraphs from Canon Law:

Can. 843 Sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who opportunely ask for them, are properly disposed and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.

Code of Canon Law​

Can. 915 Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.

Code of Canon Law​

So the ruling that you can’t deny anyone communion based on posture is founded on Canon Law which states you can’t deny it to anyone who is properly disposed and not prohibited by law from receiving it.

The real issue in this debate is whether we should follow a uniform posture when receiving communion. The more people invoke postures and gestures of individual piety the more fragmented we are as a worshiping community.

In my travels I have the opportunity to attend Mass all over the United States and the World. As a rule of thumb I adapt the postures and gestures of the community that I am celebrating Mass with. The old, “when in Rome do as the Romans do”.

I concede that you can kneel to receive communion. But what would you think of a Catholic attending an EF Mass and insisting on standing and receiving communion in the hand? He has every right to do so and cannot be denied communion by the Priest. But think of the outrage that would cause among the devout adherents to the EF attending the Mass.

Frankly, you would cause less outrage kneeling at an OF Mass to receive communion. People would just think you are a Cooky/Kooky traditionalist.

The point is that we should seek expressions of Catholic unity…not divisiveness…in our postures and gestures at Mass.

 

[pickguard1]

However, kneeling just to buck the system, or to “show everyone else how it really should be done” is NOT the right reason to kneel for communion, and if this is the case, it should also be addressed privately.

 

[zab]

Once again, I repeat, Rome has spoken and said that those who kneel for Communion in the OF are neither disobedient nor doing anything illicit but are upholding an ancient tradition.

I believe that there is a misunderstanding that when one points out that there is reason to follow the bishop’s directive to stand as the norm to receive Communion that is not saying that one is being disobedient if they choose to kneel.

 

[Walking_Home]

I think the reason for the desire to have the priest address the person in private “pastorally” is precisely due to the fact that the assumption has to be there that the person is, in fact, kneeling for the right reasons - namely to be reverent and humble before Our Lord. There shouldn’t be any admonishment of such devout intentions. Rather, the point would be to help the person understand why the norm is the way it is - that is, uniformity of posture among the laity, etc.

---

Rome does not see it that way—for Rome has explicitly stated that a person who kneels is Not to be imposed upon. Any action taken by someone towards someone who kneels --is of itself an imposition on the person.

 

[Sancto_Spiritu]

I’m not saying that the GIRM says kneeling is “incorrect” - I’m saying that it says that it’s not the norm in the U.S. That’s all.

But if standing is the norm in the US and that norm should always be followed, then by definition, all other options (including kneeling) are incorrect.

You see how this logic doesn’t pan out?

“Norm” does not mean “rule.” “Norm” means things that are “normal,” “typical,” “average.” Are things that are atypical wrong or incorrect? Some are, but those aren’t mentioned in the GIRM. What is mentioned is the fact that those who kneel are not wrong.

Speaking of “norms” …

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0803381.htm

VATICAN CITY (CNS) – Receiving the Eucharist on the tongue while kneeling before the pope will become the norm at papal liturgies, said the Vatican’s liturgist.

While current norms allow the faithful to receive the Eucharist in the hand while standing, Pope Benedict XVI has indicated a preference for the more traditional practice, said Msgr. Guido Marini, master of papal liturgical ceremonies.

Kneeling and receiving Communion on the tongue highlights “the truth of the real presence (of Christ) in the Eucharist, helps the devotion of the faithful and introduces the sense of mystery more easily,” he said in a June 26 interview with the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano.

Pastorally speaking, he said “it is urgent to highlight and recover” these aspects of the sacredness and mystery of the Eucharist in modern times.

Generally at papal Masses, those receiving Communion from the pope stand and the majority choose to receive on the tongue.

But starting with a May 22 Mass outside the Basilica of St. John Lateran, two ushers placed a kneeler in front of the altar and the chosen communicants all knelt and received on the tongue.

At a June 15 Mass in the southern Italian port city of Brindisi, the pope again distributed Communion to the faithful on the tongue while they were kneeling.

In the Vatican newspaper interview, Msgr. Marini was asked if this practice was destined to become the norm in all papal celebrations, and he replied, “I really think so.”

He said “it is necessary not to forget that the distribution of Communion in the hand, from a juridical standpoint, remains up to now an indult,” which is an exemption from a general requirement that is granted by the Vatican to the bishops’ conferences which have requested it. He said the pope’s adoption of the traditional practice of distributing Communion “aims to highlight the force of the valid norm for the whole church.”

However, the pope’s preference for the traditional practice is not meant to “take anything away from the other” permissible form of standing or receiving the Eucharist in the hand, he said.

HMMMM… kneeling is the “norm” and standing is “permissible?” Interesting…

 

[Phemie]

However, kneeling just to buck the system, or to “show everyone else how it really should be done” is NOT the right reason to kneel for communion, and if this is the case, it should also be addressed privately.

But Rome has already said that it only approved standing as long as those who wanted to keep kneeling were free to do so and not imposed upon.

 

[Sancto_Spiritu]

I love this forum because it has made me really dig into the documents of the faith.

First, it is clear that the Church approves of receiving the Eucharist kneeling or standing.

Note 177 in the above is a reference to the following two paragraphs from Canon Law:

So the ruling that you can’t deny anyone communion based on posture is founded on Canon Law which states you can’t deny it to anyone who is properly disposed and not prohibited by law from receiving it.

The real issue in this debate is whether we should follow a uniform posture when receiving communion. The more people invoke postures and gestures of individual piety the more fragmented we are as a worshiping community.

In my travels I have the opportunity to attend Mass all over the United States and the World. As a rule of thumb I adapt the postures and gestures of the community that I am celebrating Mass with. The old, “when in Rome do as the Romans do”.

I concede that you can kneel to receive communion. But what would you think of a Catholic attending an EF Mass and insisting on standing and receiving communion in the hand? He has every right to do so and cannot be denied communion by the Priest. But think of the outrage that would cause among the devout adherents to the EF attending the Mass.

Frankly, you would cause less outrage kneeling at an OF Mass to receive communion. People would just think you are a Cooky/Kooky traditionalist.

The point is that we should seek expressions of Catholic unity…not divisiveness…in our postures and gestures at Mass.

At my old EF Mass, about half the people took Communion standing and in the hand. There was no uproar.

You like to make assumptions. It’s humorous.

 

[zab]

---

There is nothing uncharitable about saying that a person with a physical limitation—where they can barely walk–is not bound to attend Mass.

No but there was something uncharitable about the manner in which it was written.

 

[pickguard1]

But if standing is the norm in the US and that norm should always be followed, then by definition, all other options (including kneeling) are incorrect.

You see how this logic doesn’t pan out?

“Norm” does not mean “rule.” “Norm” means things that are “normal,” “typical,” “average.” Are things that are atypical wrong or incorrect? Some are, but those aren’t mentioned in the GIRM. What is mentioned is the fact that those who kneel are not wrong.

Speaking of “norms” …

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0803381.htm

HMMMM… kneeling is the “norm” and standing is “permissible?” Interesting…

Again, I didn’t say “rule” I said norm, and I agree with your understanding of it. What it really boils down to is the locality and the particular rite. I recently assisted at an OF Mass in Las Vegas where portions were said in Latin and everyone received communion kneeling on the tongue. Obviously, that was the norm for this parish in that diocese. The point is, that YES the GIRM is “general” - the assumption should be that it is the norm and one should follow it unless something else is specified by the competent authority.

 

[OldRedleg]

I’m glad that you find me humorous. At least you got something out of my posts.

To bad you can’t inch your intellect up to a mature/civilized debate on the topic.

 

[Sancto_Spiritu]

No but there was something uncharitable about the manner in which it was written.

I love these message boards, except that everyone is the “uncharitable police.”

What is perfectly fine to one is dangerously sinful and uncharitable to someone else.

Most every debate devolves into a :slapfight: over someone being uncharitable.

 

[Sancto_Spiritu]

I’m glad that you find me humorous. At least you got something out of my posts.

To bad you can’t inch your intellect up to a mature/civilized debate on the topic.

Hey, look, it’s a post that actually is uncharitable, (and was duly reported as such).

Apparently you’ve not read the majority of my posts in this thread, as they’ve not been immature or uncivilized.

 

[zab]

Hey, look, it’s a post that actually is uncharitable, (and was duly reported as such).

Apparently you’ve not read the majority of my posts in this thread, as they’ve not been immature or uncivilized.