Kneeling to Receive Communion

[Consecrated]

otm:

Internally, some who go against the norm may not be acting in a pietistic manner, but it is easily perceived by others as being so, and that pushes a little too close to an issue of giving scandal.

It is my position that the attempt to gain humility of spirit includes forgoing personal preference when a different posture has been indicated. In fact, I see it as a greater sign of humility to follow the leads of one’s superiors (in order not to trip anyone’s trigger, I won’t use the word obedience, but rather “following the lead”; but you get the point) in an issue that has no moral content (that is, either posture is moral in and of itself; it is not as if one posture was moral and one immoral in and of themselves) rather than one’s own personal preference.

And to back that up, I would suggest reading, perhaps, the lives of either St Terese or Padre Pio, as both showed great humility in following the directions of their superiors, even though both felt the superiors had not made wise decisions.

Thank you for your reading suggestions. I completely agree with you about the importance of humility of spirit, and deferring to one’s superiors. So, you can maybe understand the reason why I think the Bishops have placed faithful Catholics in a quandry. On the one hand we understand the importance of deferring to them as our shepherds. But on the other, we know the importance of giving due and proper expression of worship (both internally and externally) to the Son of God, King of Kings, our Redeemer and Creator who deigns to be available to us sinful men in every Mass, and in all the tabernacles of the world.

otm:

I am sorry that you feel that way. some people are naturally clumsy and prone to dropping things. Unlsee you are, I would suggest that you have over-reacted to the issue. In all the years I have had the privilege of receiving under both species, I have never seen the Cup dropped, nor have I ever spoken to anyone who has. I fear that it has been made from a non-problem into a false major issue.

I am indeed one of those naturally clumsy people-- I drop every other thing I touch. It’s a minor miracle that I haven’t dropped my babies yet! Or wait… there was that one time… :whacky:

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Consecrated:

Yes, I think you do understand me correctly, and yes, I believe it is quite a problem. I know this will sound a trifle pessimistic, but at the moment I don’t believe emailing Pope Benedict my concern will change anything. I’m sure he is quite aware of both the new norm of standing and the fact that many people are saddend by it. Thanks for the link, though!

I know what you mean about emailing Pope Benedict.

I’ve already sent him two emails on very important issues such as how to address the heterodoxy problem the HE was concerned about, no less. That was back in June and July, and I have YET to receive any notification that the Vatican has implemented my changes.

They must move awfully slowly around there, unless there is another explanation… but what… Hmmm. Hey, I’m not stupid; I know what’s going on. This Pope evidently just Doesn’t Care About Me. http://bestsmileys.com/crying/13.gif

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Consecrated:

I am indeed one of those naturally clumsy people-- I drop every other thing I touch. It’s a minor miracle that I haven’t dropped my babies yet! Or wait… there was that one time… :whacky:

In that case, I advise you don’t dangle them over railings of high rise motel room balconies – especially if there are news cameras there.

Alan

 

[netmilsmom]

AlanFromWichita:

Why do you and Net insist on twisting my words?

I’m not talking about a desire to kneel.

I’m talking about the false belief that one MUST kneel.

I have been told that if more than one person on a thread misunderstands what you have said, perhaps you should explain it more clearly.
Here you have done this.
There is a difference between intentionally twisting words and misunderstanding what a person writes. Apparently, two of us misunderstood what you wrote.

 

[MrS]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

I have been told that if more than one person on a thread misunderstands what you have said, perhaps you should explain it more clearly.
Here you have done this.
There is a difference between intentionally twisting words and misunderstanding what a person writes. Apparently, two of us misunderstood what you wrote.

I might be the third… but then, I am sometimes easily confuuuused.http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_7.gif

 

[AlanFromWichita]

MrS:

I might be the third… but then, I am sometimes easily confuuuused.http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_7.gif

Wow.

Looks like I caused mass confusion.

And I thought I was fixing Mass confusion.

Alan

 

[ForeverAdam]

Kielbasi:

You’re probably right.

But receiving communion has definitely got the thumbs up from the Magesterium as a viable option, and if the priest and the other Catholics in the parish are all doing it, folks ought to be humble enough to conform, regardless of their own personal preferences to show unity with the others.

Well, a lot of things seem to have received the “thumbs up” from the Vatican in the recent years - like having girls dress up like mini-priests (“altar girls”), inviting pagans to pray to their demons (cf. Psalm 95:5) for some secular humanism “peace”, moving child-molesting priests from parish to parish, and giving the red-hat to heretics (e.g. Mahoney). If the Vatican is against these things, then they have a poor way of showing it. Are we to keep silent and “conform” in these areas?

Of course, we should hope and expect some changes with our new Holy Father, but that doesn’t change the fact that the “Communion in the hand, standing” received allowance around the same time the aforementioned assaults on our Faith did. And we have lost our backbone as Catholics if we change our views as often as a new Pope ascends the throne. If we do this we are merely confirming what the world already thinks viz. the Pope isn’t the steward of the Faith and her traditions, but the owner and definer of them.

~

Now onto “Communion in the hand, standing.” Of course, this was the ancient practice in the Church. No knowledgeable person disputes this. It worked well at one time. But, then again, so did the shoes I wore when I was a boy. Do I try to dig those shoes up and start wearing them again, thinking they are going to get me places like they used to? No. I’d be foolish to try such a thing. Sometimes we just “outgrow” certain things and need to move on to different things that are better suited for our new needs. Now apply this to Communion in the hand, standing. Have we as a Church and world outgrown it? Yep. Just like my childish shoes would give me blisters if I managed to get them on again, Communion in the hand, standing, is going to give you irreverence and unbelief if used now.

Does secular modern man (particularly in the West) need more standing or does he need less ? In a culture that has launched an all-out assault on the sacred does he need to be putting God in his own mouth or should he have the priest do it? Have Catholics grown more or less reverent since the traditional Communion practice was, de facto, replaced by the new? We all know the answers to these questions, so why are we defending the indefensible? Are we going to plead “unity” when the Church is all but going to hell? Let’s hope not.

I know that there are many devout Catholics who communicate in the hand. I’m not judging them nor saying that Communion in the hand is a sacrilege, because it’s not. But exceptions don’t make the rule. More people have lost faith and reverence as a result of this change than they have gained it. In today’s climate of heresy and people’s desire to find loopholes to push their agenda through, do we need to leave them a wide avenue in “Communion in the hand, standing”? No. Common sense and experience shows us that its more harder, nigh impossible, for people to see the Holy Eucharist as a symbol or real, but only as a sign of “community”, when people are kneeling at the altar rail waiting for an ordained priest of God to place the Corpus Christi in their mouth. Communion in the hand, standing, has been abused to further the aforementioned heretic beliefs, and will continue to be abused, unless it is buried like the “old shoe” it really is.

(I know that good priests can encourage the people to be reverent, but let’s really ask ourself if the priest’s homily has to act as an antidote to a practice that is a weak expression of the sacred, in the first place. Shouldn’t the ritual itself speak much more eloquently than any priest? Let’s face it, priests aren’t always going to care, but Mother Church should!)

Maybe in the perfect world, the two forms could exist side-by-side, but we aren’t in that world. Until we are we need to go back to the traditional practice. And, besides, St. Thomas Aquinas had some heavy warnings about “change for the sake of change” in his Summa Theologica. In Section I-II, question 97, article 2, he said that no positive law should be changed unless a greater good will result from it, because devotion is lost whenever previous discipline is mitigated. In humble respect for this great doctor of the Church, let’s heed his words and quit being so eager to change, or support changes, to the mitigation of previous liturgical traditions.

In Christ,

Adam

 

[otm]

msproule:

But who is truly to blame for such perceived pietism? Could it be those who judge?
Here is a question: Is not the USCCB being “pietistic” by discouraging the universal norm and insisting on its local adaptation, which it obviously thinks is superior and more appropriate (although many disagree)? I do respect my Bishop’s authority and therefore stand. But he, too, has a humble obligation. To me, this is a conflict between unity in the church and unity in the Church.

I would suggest that it is the one who chooses to do something that is guaranteed to draw a good deal of attention to themselves.

As to the UCCB, no, they are not being pietistic as they are basing it on a national basis; it is not as if there were a lot of others who would even see it. we don’t tend to get a hugh influx of Cathiolics visiting from other countries; further, your indication of a universl norm is not even universal; it is only universal within the Roman rite, and there are soem 22 other rites. There is nothing I can find anywhere that would lend any credence whatsoever to the UCCB changes being done to show to anyone else a “I’m more holy than thou” attitude, which is the essence of a pietistic motivation.

 

[otm]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

Yeah, just another guy from the Vatican.

(good catch)

I agree with you, it was a good catch, especially as how he said “it is done standing”, not, “it is done standing, but everyoine has the option to do their own thing”.

Great catch!

 

[otm]

Consecrated:

Thank you for your reading suggestions. I completely agree with you about the importance of humility of spirit, and deferring to one’s superiors. So, you can maybe understand the reason why I think the Bishops have placed faithful Catholics in a quandry. On the one hand we understand the importance of deferring to them as our shepherds. But on the other, we know the importance of giving due and proper expression of worship (both internally and externally) to the Son of God, King of Kings, our Redeemer and Creator who deigns to be available to us sinful men in every Mass, and in all the tabernacles of the world.

It is, however, within the competence of the bishops to decide how that due and proper expression of worship is conducted; it is not within the competence of the laity to do so.

The bishops have set the norm; Rome approved the norm, and Rome approved a General Instruction which set forth that norm and said that one not following it was to be counseled (which would at the bare minimum imply that the counseling was to achieve a unity of posture).

The personal perception as to what is pious or not pious, or what is more pious than something else is just that: a personal perception. If one reads carefully the posts by those promoting kneeling for Communion when the rest of the congregation is standing, one will find that most of it reduces to an emotional response. Emotional rsponses are not either bad or good; they are just the emotions we have. They are not, however, the most reliable bsis for making a decision.

Further, to make a decision contrary to the decision the bishops have made, to me, smacks of an element of pride - essentially, the individual is saying that their own emotional need or response to the situation is of greater value, of greater worth, or possibly of greater truth, than the decision of the bishops.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

I believe it is up to the priest to provide counsel to those who kneel to receive Communion. If the priest, for whatever reason, chooses not to provide that counsel and the person continues to receive kneeling, that’s the end of it.

No matter what one’s personal perception may be.

 

[netmilsmom]

otm:

Further, to make a decision contrary to the decision the bishops have made, to me, smacks of an element of pride - essentially, the individual is saying that their own emotional need or response to the situation is of greater value, of greater worth, or possibly of greater truth, than the decision of the bishops.

In my parish, kneeling is the norm.
I do not presume to judge the piety of those who choose to stand.

I would say that to do so, smacks of an element of pride.

 

[msproule]

otm:

I would suggest that it is the one who chooses to do something that is guaranteed to draw a good deal of attention to themselves.

I think the blame must be shared. That is what I was implying.

…your indication of a universl norm is not even universal; it is only universal within the Roman rite, and there are soem 22 other rites.

Understood. However, I think this thread has always been about the Latin Rite, which still composes the majority of Catholics. Furthermore, the GIRM only addresses the Latin Rite.

There is nothing I can find anywhere that would lend any credence whatsoever to the UCCB changes being done to show to anyone else a “I’m more holy than thou” attitude, which is the essence of a pietistic motivation.

I was basing my opinion on this document from the USCCB website explaining the theology behind the three main litugical postures (kneeling, standing, and sitting). Here it is stated that:By Baptism we have been given a share in the life of God, and the posture of standing is an acknowledgment of this wonderful gift…and the bishops of the United States have chosen standing as the posture to be observed in this country for the reception of Communion, the sacrament which unites us in the most profound way possible with Christ who, now gloriously risen from the dead, is the cause of our salvation.

And immediately following this glorious statement on standing is the following:The posture of kneeling signified penance in the early Church: the awareness of sin casts us to the ground!

It seems (to me) that, through the use of such tone, this particular USCCB document is casting a dark cloud above kneeling. For the sake of brevity, I excluded the rest of the kneeling passage but feel free to read it all. It does speak well of kneeling for some situations (i.e. Eucharistic Prayer, adoration). Although I am unclear why “thankfulness” should be shown before the Eucharist while receiving yet “penitence” should be shown before the Eucharist during adoration.


Pietism does not necessarily mean “holier than thou”, by the way.

 

[msproule]

otm:

I agree with you, it was a good catch, especially as how he said “it is done standing”, not, “it is done standing, but everyoine has the option to do their own thing”.

I think you are giving him too little credit. Let’s go through the passage again (with my envisioned Cardinal Ratzinger facial expressions):
*How should we actually receive Holy Communion?
*In a way that is appropriate for the presence of the Lord. The signs of reverence we use have changed in the course of time. But the essential point is that our behavior should give to inner recollection and reverence an outward bodily expression. Earlier, Communion used to be received kneeling, which made perfectly good sense ( or ). Nowadays it is done standing. ( or ). But this standing, too, should be standing in reverence before the Lord.
When you consider how he lauds kneeling throughout the entire passage and how little and in what tone he speaks on standing, it seems to be the polar opposite of what the USCCB states. When I read the words “nowadays it is done standing” I see it as the (now) Holy Father lamenting the fact that standing is so common today. If you read it such that he is applauding the standing posture, or indifferent to it, the surrounding text just does not seem to fit.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

In my parish, kneeling is the norm.
I do not presume to judge the piety of those who choose to stand.

I would say that to do so, smacks of an element of pride.

Dear Net,

I think we’re pretty much there, as far as you and I are concerned, if this is your summary at this point.

If you substitute “standing” for “kneeling” and “kneel” for “stand” in your post, then I might even want to claim it as my own.

Alan

 

[netmilsmom]

AlanFromWichita:

Dear Net,

I think we’re pretty much there, as far as you and I are concerned, if this is your summary at this point.

If you substitute “standing” for “kneeling” and “kneel” for “stand” in your post, then I might even want to claim it as my own.

Alan

Alan, I know that certain people make me out to be a beast because I am extremely passionate about innovations, but my stance has always been that if a Liturgical Director or DRE would look at the needs of the parish instead of what “they” think the parish needs we could all be happy.
I was clucked at in disgust for the historically Catholic things I did at my old parish, like striking my breast at the consecration. I actually never knelt for communion there, but it never felt right for me.
A friend of mine came into a Catechist meeting in one of the churches in the area. She genuflected to the tabernacle and the DRE yelled from the front, “You don’t have to do that. Jesus is everywhere.”
My friend walked out and never came back.

If each parish would have one historically Catholic mass and one modern mass, everyone could be happy. People would see the preference and do away with the other mass if need be. In my area the modernist rule the roost and the rest of us should get used to it or we are not being Christian. I was told this.

It’s a dirty pity.

 

[Elzee]

MrS:

The Synod is at work on this issue: God Bless this Bishop, and pray that his suggestion is heeded … there is already much evidence in his writings that B16 is of like mind.

ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=61147

I wish B16 would institute a ‘Bishop Exchange’ - I’d like to see a few of these very reverent Bishops pull some duty over here in he USA for a while to get us straightened out - - only problem is, their home diocese would have to put up with some of our Bishops for awhile…

 

[otm]

msproule:

[/indent]And immediately following this glorious statement on standing is the following:The posture of kneeling signified penance in the early Church: the awareness of sin casts us to the ground!

It seems (to me) that, through the use of such tone, this particular USCCB document is casting a dark cloud above kneeling. For the sake of brevity, I excluded the rest of the kneeling passage but feel free to read it all. It does speak well of kneeling for some situations (i.e. Eucharistic Prayer, adoration). Although I am unclear why “thankfulness” should be shown before the Eucharist while receiving yet “penitence” should be shown before the Eucharist during adoration.


Pietism does not necessarily mean “holier than thou”, by the way.

You are correct about pietism; I was referring to pietistic; if I did not make myself clear, sorry.

Kneeling is a posture of submission, which is closely associated with a psoture of penitence. Neither submission nor penitence is a wrong posture, but there may be times that another posture is more appropriate.

I think part of the porblem with standing is that people have for so long associated the posture of kneeling with reception of Communion, that even if it is explained why the bishops feel that standing is more appropriate, there will be a number of people who have the posture of kneeling so ingrained that the reason will not overcome the emotional response.

Then the question becomes, to what level is it acceptable to have individuals decide what they feel is right, or better, or wrong, or unacceptable to them? How much authority is actually invested in the individual to make that decision? And what are the consequences, not ony to that individual, but to those surrounding them, when they decide to do what they want, rather than what has been decided as the norm?

If the norm is being followed by almost all, and one or two, or a few people decide to not follow the norm, and kneel, it would seem some in this thread would say that they have permission to do so. Setting aside that question, it might be asked if it is wise to do so; St paul talks about eating meat sacrificed to idols; and my recollection is that he said there was no moral issue for the eater (as long as the eater rejected the idols), unless eating the meat would give scandal to others; then was not to eat it.

Applying that by analogy, the issue of giving scandal to others (putting them in the position of judging the kneeler as being pietistic, or hyper-pious), would seem to say that even if it were granted permission (and I do not concede that point), that one should not do it if it were to cause scandal to others. And yes, I know well the rule of not judging others; so did St. Paul, I would wager.

And to those who insist that the letter by the Monsignior gave them permission to kneel, I would ask how they define the term “norm”. What is the meaning of the content of that word?

 

[otm]

msproule:

I think you are giving him too little credit. Let’s go through the passage again (with my envisioned Cardinal Ratzinger facial expressions):
*How should we actually receive Holy Communion?
*In a way that is appropriate for the presence of the Lord. The signs of reverence we use have changed in the course of time. But the essential point is that our behavior should give to inner recollection and reverence an outward bodily expression. Earlier, Communion used to be received kneeling, which made perfectly good sense ( or ). Nowadays it is done standing. ( or ). But this standing, too, should be standing in reverence before the Lord.
When you consider how he lauds kneeling throughout the entire passage and how little and in what tone he speaks on standing, it seems to be the polar opposite of what the USCCB states. When I read the words “nowadays it is done standing” I see it as the (now) Holy Father lamenting the fact that standing is so common today. If you read it such that he is applauding the standing posture, or indifferent to it, the surrounding text just does not seem to fit.

Well, I certainly do not read it as condemning it. I agree that it needs to be done in reverence. I would disagree with those who would posit that it cannot be done in reverence, as I have seen plenty of reverence.

I don’t see it as a lament; as bright as he is, if he wanted to lament somethiing he would be eminently capable. He makes two statements: the very first, that it be done in reverence (what ever posture), and second, that the signs (posture) we use change over time.

Further, I would not quible with his statement that at the time, kneeling made perfect sense. That does not imply that another posture, at a time subsequent, cannot also makes sense.

 

[msproule]

otm:

You are correct about pietism; I was referring to pietistic; if I did not make myself clear, sorry.

The dictionary I was using did not offer that explanation (holier-than-thou). In my reference it was merely described as “of or relating to Pietism (capitalized)”. However, I have since found another one that matches your usage.

I think part of the problem with standing is that people have for so long associated the posture of kneeling with reception of Communion, that even if it is explained why the bishops feel that standing is more appropriate, there will be a number of people who have the posture of kneeling so ingrained that the reason will not overcome the emotional response.

I acknowledge that this may be true for some of those who grew up kneeling. Obviously, there are many (including most of our Bishops) who had no problem dissociating themselves from this so-called “emotional” inclination to kneel. However, as a fairly recent convert I have no historical reason to kneel. I am not living in the past, so to speak. But I still fail to understand the collective reasoning of the Bishops in this matter. Nevertheless, I kneel only when in a parish where this is typical.

And to those who insist that the letter by the Monsignior gave them permission to kneel, I would ask how they define the term “norm”. What is the meaning of the content of that word?

From the same website I used to acquire a thorough definition of “pietistic”, I got this for “norm” (excluding the mathematical definition):1. A standard, model, or pattern regarded as typical

This definition seems to be in accord with what Monsignor Marini wrote.