Kneeling to Receive Communion

[palmas85]

You know we’ve been over and over this thread and similar ones a thousand times and I have a question?

Why does it bother the people who stand that many of us want to kneel? Does it hurt you? Does it make you angry? Do you think we are trying to be holier than you? What is it? Why is it so important to you guys that everybody stand?

I prefer to kneel, and in fact have only received standing once. I’ve had Priests “counsel” me, and do you know what they say? We would really prefer that you kneel. You don’t have to but we would prefer it. Thats it. I’ve never been refused, and I’ve never had a problem. If everybody else wants to stand that is certainly their business.

I understand the whole community angle that is preached, and I understand that the community worships togetherand that unity of posture, whatever that is, is often said to be desirable.

BUT!!!

We don’t die together, and we don’t face judgement together. And when I face judgement, I want to be able to say that I did what I did because I truly believed it. I don’t want to face Christ Jesus and be a hypocrite.

When the Vatican says that kneeling is NOT ALLOWED , I will stop immediately out of obedience to the Holy Father. Until then, I will kneel and be counselled.

 

[msproule]

In regard to unity of posture: Why “must” we all receive standing, yet are allowed (without threat of counseling) to receive either on the tongue or in the hand, and to stand, sit, or kneel after returning to the pews?

Furthermore, the “counseling” is supposed to include the reasons for the norm of standing to receive. What are these reasons? I have never seen any explanation from the USCCB of why they have established this norm.

 

[netmilsmom]

msproule:

In regard to unity of posture: Why “must” we all receive standing, yet are allowed (without threat of counseling) to receive either on the tongue or in the hand, and to stand, sit, or kneel after returning to the pews?

Furthermore, the “counseling” is supposed to include the reasons for the norm of standing to receive. What are these reasons? I have never seen any explanation from the USCCB of why they have established this norm.

Or counciling for holding hands, doing the Orans position, lifting up your heart, or the one I saw this weekend, a lady who had her elbows tucked unto her waist, fingers pointing up and palms toward her face.
Where is the councilling for that one?

 

[demy]

afvw:

I have this burning desire to kneel for receiving communion, but it isn’t an accepted practice here in Rochester NY. Should I do it anyway?? Why should anyone care if I do?? I know I will face some persecution for it.
Then what about receiving communion for a Eucharistic minister extraordinary?? I think I will try kneeling there too.
Any thoughts?? Encouragment?? Persecutions?? Discouragements??

Thanks
Arnold

ANOLD YOU WHEN IT COMES TO THE MATTER OF FAITH IT IS YOUR CONVICTION THAT MATTER.REMEMBER WE ALLWERE NOT BORN TOGETHER ,WE WILL NOT DIE TOGETHER AND SO WE WILL NOT BE JUDGED TOGETHER .SO IF U THINK KNEELING TO RECIEVE THE EUCHARIST SUITS U MOST .so be it

 

[ncjohn]

palmas85:

Why does it bother the people who stand that many of us want to kneel? Does it hurt you? Does it make you angry? Do you think we are trying to be holier than you? What is it? Why is it so important to you guys that everybody stand?

Hi Palmas,

I think you’ve hit on the very crux of the question, and I actually think that the answer has two parts that are interrelated.

The first part has to do with obedience. The USCCB has validly proclaimed it’s norms, approved by the Vatican. While I am fully aware of the letter from the Vatican about not denying communion to those who kneel, it still contradicts the approval and authority that had been extended to the USCCB. The USCCB rightly states in taking their position that both uniformity and setting aside of personal preferences of piety are high goals. Obedience to one’s pastor and Bishop is a requirement and quite frankly, Vatican letter or no, one is being disobedient in deciding to disregard the norms that have been validly established.

I think the real reason for the disagreement though is the lack of consistency. Also, quite frankly, I think this is the case because those on the more “traditional” side have decided to make major issues of “obedience” and “orthodoxy” over things like holding hands during the Our Father and the Orans position for example. By trying to make things like this–which are not at this time issues except of preference–into tests of orthodoxy and piety, they have opened themselves up to being accused of disobedience by virtue of disregarding the norm, and possibly worse, to being hypocrates by virtue of seeming to selectively decide that it is ok for them to violate clearly established norms, while trying to proclaim others as “abusers” for doing things that aren’t forbidden. I would turn your question around and ask: “Why does it bother you that people want to hold hands during the Our Father? Does it hurt you? Why is it so important to you that everyone do it your way?”

Those of us on the “looser” side of these things, in my experience, tend to take more of a “live and let live” position, and probably wouldn’t even enter this fray if it weren’t for constantly being on the receiving end of being told that WE are in error and being wrongly put on the defensive, while being told we’re “irreverent” and having our devotion questioned. It is quite frankly the position of the “traditional” in framing everything in terms of “orthodoxy” and “liturgical purity”–which always translates to “do things my way”–that then opens them to having to answer to those things that aren’t liturgically pure but which they happen to prefer.

I personally also prefer to kneel for communion, but will not do so because we have been instructed not to. Maybe this new synod will do something about that, or maybe the USCCB will modify their norm, but until then I will follow my bishop’s instructions. I will also accord you the “right” to make your own decision without judging your motivation for doing so. I will also continue to pray for an end to these disagreement between what should be Catholic brothers and sisters seeking unity in Christ rather than squabbling among each other over petty things that only help the Accuser. Without opening things up to true abuse, we need to lighten up in allowing people their preferences and act charitably in letting people express their devotion to God in different ways.

Peace to all,

 

[netmilsmom]

ncjohn:

Obedience to one’s pastor and Bishop is a requirement and quite frankly, Vatican letter or no, one is being disobedient in deciding to disregard the norms that have been validly established.

Hi John!
I agree with you. (except that the Vatican has stated that one cannot call a person who wants to kneel disobedient)

One of the reasons why I get so passionate about issues like handholding and Orans is because here, some people just don’t know the whole story. They see everyone doing them and uncomfortable or not, they go along. If the people who like a more modern mass were to enter a church and see everyone laying prostrate on the floor, would they be comfortable?

I don’t see handholding or orans as abuses, just innovations. A little cooperation goes a long way. Have a kneeler at the front of one line and everyone is happy. Have one mass with modern innovations and everyone is even happier. As you know, this was the problem in my old church. The Modernists didn’t care what people wanted and basically didn’t understand why people wanted the old ways, nor did they ask them. They insisted that this is how one should worship or they weren’t Christian enough. They bled parishioners until the church is being closed.

Maybe if we were offered one conserative mass to every modern mass, everyone could be happy.

 

[twiztedseraph]

afvw:

I have this burning desire to kneel for receiving communion, but it isn’t an accepted practice here in Rochester NY. Should I do it anyway?? Why should anyone care if I do?? I know I will face some persecution for it.
Then what about receiving communion for a Eucharistic minister extraordinary?? I think I will try kneeling there too.
Any thoughts?? Encouragment?? Persecutions?? Discouragements??

Thanks
Arnold

1. I do it at my heterodox school.
2. If your conscience (rightly informed) tells you that this is the best way to receive the Body, blood, soul and Divinity of God incarnate, no one can stop you.
3. If someone did try to stop you or humiliated you it is a great chance for some penance, to offer it up to God and unite it to His cross.
4. It’s what are Pope believed and wrote in the Spirit of the Liturgy, one would think he still believes this.
5. My favourite point. When the desert Fathers saw the devil, he was the usual picture if you will. Black (or wearing black, I can’t remember), ugly,but what shocked them the most was he had no knees. Thus to quote then Cardinal Ratzinger, if you can’t kneel to Christ, you’re sick.

Case and point, while standing may be easy on the knees, and perhaps more acceptable in this fallen world where infanticide is condoned, is it the proper way to receive the saviour of the human race into one’s body? It may be permissable to stand, however does it tie in with biblical postures as even Jesus fell flat on his face when praying in Ghetsemane, with the proper respect due to God…? We must respect the Church’s decision to allow standing reception, however we must acknowledge the fact that it may not be the best way to convey our love for the Lord.

Peace and God’s mercy.

 

[ncjohn]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

Hi John!
I agree with you. (except that the Vatican has stated that one cannot call a person who wants to kneel disobedient)

One of the reasons why I get so passionate about issues like handholding and Orans is because here, some people just don’t know the whole story. They see everyone doing them and uncomfortable or not, they go along. If the people who like a more modern mass were to enter a church and see everyone laying prostrate on the floor, would they be comfortable?

I don’t see handholding or orans as abuses, just innovations. A little cooperation goes a long way. Have a kneeler at the front of one line and everyone is happy. Have one mass with modern innovations and everyone is even happier. As you know, this was the problem in my old church. The Modernists didn’t care what people wanted and basically didn’t understand why people wanted the old ways, nor did they ask them. They insisted that this is how one should worship or they weren’t Christian enough. They bled parishioners until the church is being closed.

Maybe if we were offered one conserative mass to every modern mass, everyone could be happy.

Exactly!

If we can show some charity in not forcing our preferences on other people, and make alternatives available to accomodate people’s preferences, we would have most of the problem out of the way. Where necessary, the priests or bishops need to step up and make clear that nobody should be forced to participate in someone else’s preference.

The bigger part of course is for each of us to get out of our minds that our way is the “only way” or at least the only “correct” way. We have to be able to rise above our fallen human nature and realize that people are drawn to God in many different ways. As I’ve said before, God has lots of different lures in his tackle box. If we want to be “fishers of men” we need to recognize that and learn to use the proper lure for the right person in the right season.

Peace my friend,

 

[netmilsmom]

ncjohn:

God has lots of different lures in his tackle box. If we want to be “fishers of men” we need to recognize that and learn to use the proper lure for the right person in the right season.

The Devil has many lures as well. Pride being a big one.

When a DRE or liturgical committee see their way as the only way, it is a problem. Although I understand that our church is not a democracy, when one does not look at what the congregation needs, it is prideful. And causes that parish to close.

If a parish has enough people who want to kneel, why is it so hard to accomodate them?
And if you want to hold your children’s hands or hug your mom, go for it.
And all of us need to keep our looks of distain or clucks of the tongue to ourselves. If you don’t like it, find a parish that embraces your norms.

I did.

 

[Domine_Deus]

Why does it bother the people who stand that many of us want to kneel? Does it hurt you? Does it make you angry? Do you think we are trying to be holier than you? What is it? Why is it so important to you guys that everybody stand?

:tiphat:

 

[ncjohn]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

The Devil has many lures as well. Pride being a big one.

I fully agree with you, but I look at it as a “glass half full or half empty” kind of question. We can live in fear and look for evil everywhere, or we can live in hope and look for good everywhere. As a Christian, I choose to live in hope and look for the good. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not naive and am very willing to confront actual evil when I run up against it. I refuse however to find a devil behind every tree and make petty things into “evil.”

When a DRE or liturgical committee see their way as the only way, it is a problem. Although I understand that our church is not a democracy, when one does not look at what the congregation needs, it is prideful. And causes that parish to close.

I understand and agree with what you’re saying. As I’ve said, and I think we’ve agreed, there needs to be charity in accomodating people’s needs and preferences. DRE’s and liturgical committees should not be “setting” policy–the Pastor should–and it becomes his responsibility to make sure his flock is treated charitably. On the other side though, it is just as prideful to ignore that Pastor in favor of our own individual preferences.

If a parish has enough people who want to kneel, why is it so hard to accomodate them?

I agree and hope this will occur soon, but as of right now the US norms say no and people “wanting” to kneel (including me) need to be obedient until that changes. It’s hard to continually argue “Listen to what your Bishop or the USCCB says” but then say “but I disagree with them on this so I’m going to do what I want anyway.” There are certainly cases of course where the “civil disobedience” approach has its place, and if one’s conscience says this is one of them, that is up to the individual, and the Vatican will apparently back them up. I fear in many cases it is more of a pride issue though, having run into too many who, when asked, told me straight out “they can’t refuse me and I’m going to do what I want.”

Hopefully most of this will sort out in the not too distant future.

Peace,

 

[grotto]

I agree and hope this will occur soon, but as of right now the US norms say no and people “wanting” to kneel (including me) need to be obedient until that changes. It’s hard to continually argue “Listen to what your Bishop or the USCCB says” but then say “but I disagree with them on this so I’m going to do what I want anyway.” There are certainly cases of course where the “civil disobedience” approach has its place, and if one’s conscience says this is one of them, that is up to the individual, and the Vatican will apparently back them up. I fear in many cases it is more of a pride issue though, having run into too many who, when asked, told me straight out “they can’t refuse me and I’m going to do what I want.”

Please do not present your own opinion/understanding as factual requirements regarding kneeling at Mass. Rather than thinking that others who declare their intent to continue kneeling as a pride issue, imagine the effects of persecution on them. Faithful Catholics are quite correct to kneel and claim “the Holy Roman Catholic Church allows and my faith requires me to kneel”.

Peace,

 

[palmas85]

ncjohn:

Hi Palmas,

I think you’ve hit on the very crux of the question, and I actually think that the answer has two parts that are interrelated.

The first part has to do with obedience. The USCCB has validly proclaimed it’s norms, approved by the Vatican. While I am fully aware of the letter from the Vatican about not denying communion to those who kneel, it still contradicts the approval and authority that had been extended to the USCCB. The USCCB rightly states in taking their position that both uniformity and setting aside of personal preferences of piety are high goals. Obedience to one’s pastor and Bishop is a requirement and quite frankly, Vatican letter or no, one is being disobedient in deciding to disregard the norms that have been validly established.

I think the real reason for the disagreement though is the lack of consistency. Also, quite frankly, I think this is the case because those on the more “traditional” side have decided to make major issues of “obedience” and “orthodoxy” over things like holding hands during the Our Father and the Orans position for example. By trying to make things like this–which are not at this time issues except of preference–into tests of orthodoxy and piety, they have opened themselves up to being accused of disobedience by virtue of disregarding the norm, and possibly worse, to being hypocrates by virtue of seeming to selectively decide that it is ok for them to violate clearly established norms, while trying to proclaim others as “abusers” for doing things that aren’t forbidden. I would turn your question around and ask: “Why does it bother you that people want to hold hands during the Our Father? Does it hurt you? Why is it so important to you that everyone do it your way?”

Those of us on the “looser” side of these things, in my experience, tend to take more of a “live and let live” position, and probably wouldn’t even enter this fray if it weren’t for constantly being on the receiving end of being told that WE are in error and being wrongly put on the defensive, while being told we’re “irreverent” and having our devotion questioned. It is quite frankly the position of the “traditional” in framing everything in terms of “orthodoxy” and “liturgical purity”–which always translates to “do things my way”–that then opens them to having to answer to those things that aren’t liturgically pure but which they happen to prefer.

I personally also prefer to kneel for communion, but will not do so because we have been instructed not to. Maybe this new synod will do something about that, or maybe the USCCB will modify their norm, but until then I will follow my bishop’s instructions. I will also accord you the “right” to make your own decision without judging your motivation for doing so. I will also continue to pray for an end to these disagreement between what should be Catholic brothers and sisters seeking unity in Christ rather than squabbling among each other over petty things that only help the Accuser. Without opening things up to true abuse, we need to lighten up in allowing people their preferences and act charitably in letting people express their devotion to God in different ways.

Peace to all,

Hi John,
I quite agree on the lack of consistency. I have always felt that the leadership of the Church was aligned in a sort of military fashion, a chain of command so to speak. It is actually the only way a structure like the Church can effectively work, the same as the military. You cannot have two or three of four people in charge. All authority must flow from the top down and obedience from the bottom up in order to ensure unifomity. When you have a situation such as exists now in the Church you will always have inconsistency, disagreement and disunity.

I think Jesus himself said it best when he said no man can serve two masters. One of the posts on this thread alluded directly to that when the priest was quoted as saying he did not care what Rome said ashe took his orders from the Bishops. Paraphrased.

I think the Vatican needs to be a bit more firm in these issues and in effect reign the Bishops in. Otherwise, I fear the Church will fragment even further than it already has.

And in this instance I am not speaking solely of kneeling, but about the broader issue of the problems of collegiality and the subsequent dispersal of authority that results.

 

[ncjohn]

grotto:

ncjohn:

I agree and hope this will occur soon, but as of right now the US norms say no and people “wanting” to kneel (including me) need to be obedient until that changes. It’s hard to continually argue “Listen to what your Bishop or the USCCB says” but then say “but I disagree with them on this so I’m going to do what I want anyway.” There are certainly cases of course where the “civil disobedience” approach has its place, and if one’s conscience says this is one of them, that is up to the individual, and the Vatican will apparently back them up. I fear in many cases it is more of a pride issue though, having run into too many who, when asked, told me straight out “they can’t refuse me and I’m going to do what I want.”

Please do not present your own opinion/understanding as factual requirements regarding kneeling at Mass. Rather than thinking that others who declare their intent to continue kneeling as a pride issue, imagine the effects of persecution on them. Faithful Catholics are quite correct to kneel and claim “the Holy Roman Catholic Church allows and my faith requires me to kneel”.

Peace,

With all due respect grotto, I don’t think I’ve presented anything as fact except what is fact.

Fact: The USCCB has an established norm, approved by the Vatican, that says NO, with a list of reasons why.

Fact: There is a subsequent letter from the Vatican that says people kneeling should not be refused communion, which has introduced confusion into the system.

Fact: I have personally met people who have stated clearly that they don’t care what anyone says, they are going to kneel. I did not state or imply that ALL feel this way, as I know they don’t; I cited my own experience with people I have personally talked to. That is not opinion.

Quite frankly, to be fair, if there is an “opinion” being offered, it is in your final statement. Even in saying that, I do not mean any offense, only that you might want to consider whether what you said was actually what you meant.

“Faithful Catholics” are required to be obedient. If one feels they are being obedient in kneeling, ok. If they are doing it for other reasons, they are not being obedient or faithful.

“My faith requires me to kneel” is a totally subjective statement and I don’t think can be borne out by any Church teaching as there is nothing anywhere that objectively requires one to kneel. If nothing else, there are many people who are unable to kneel so that statement cannot be objectively true and factual. If you are meaning that your “personal” faith requires you to kneel, that would definitely be opinion as the Church could decide tomorrow that all are to stand, sit, or take any other position and your “faith” would be in disobedience.

I truly hope I’ve been charitable in recognizing why people wish to kneel (as I do) and have not in any way condemned them for doing so, even if my personal feeling calls me to obedience in the other direction. In confusing times, it is important *in my opinion * to error on the side of charity from all sides, and not be judging each other as being more or less devoted because of the way one finally chooses to reconcile the confusion.

Peace to you,

 

[drforjc]

Fact: There is a subsequent letter from the Vatican that says people kneeling should not be refused communion, which has introduced confusion into the system.

The problem is, it also says they are not to be accused of disobedience. How can someone accuse them of disobedience when the Vatican said they are not to be accused of disobedience?

BTW, I stand to receive communion unless I am at a TLM.

 

[ncjohn]

drforjc:

The problem is, it also says they are not to be accused of disobedience. How can someone accuse them of disobedience when the Vatican said they are not to be accused of disobedience?

BTW, I stand to receive communion unless I am at a TLM.

If you’re askiing me personally, I’m not directly accusing anyone of disobedience. I’m saying that people can look at obedience in two different ways because of the contradiction within the Vatican positions, and that the motivation that we do something with has something to do with whether we’re truly being obedient.

Each individual has to examine their own motivation and proceed according to their conscience. Under the circumstances it is obviously not a cut and dried issue, and as such I’m going to give someone the benefit of the doubt, and ask that they not judge me for the decision I have made.

Of course you might not have been implying that I was accusing anyone at all, and I may have to plead guilty to pride in thinking that you considered something I said important enough to question me.

 

[Brendan]

drforjc:

The problem is, it also says they are not to be accused of disobedience. How can someone accuse them of disobedience when the Vatican said they are not to be accused of disobedience?

BTW, I stand to receive communion unless I am at a TLM.

There really should not be any confusion.

The Vatican reply said that it was not the Vatican’s intention to prohibit kneeling when they approved the US norms.

So there is no mandate to stand for the Eucharist that has been approved by the Vatican.

Any Catholic who kneels for to recieve the Eucharist is not being disobedient precisely because their is no approved directive not to.

 

[msproule]

ncjohn:

Fact: The USCCB has an established norm, approved by the Vatican, that says NO, with a list of reasons why.

Really? In all seriousness, I have never seen the reasons for the norm, even though the USCCB hints at their existence:
GIRM 160…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.
Can you please point me to these reasons if there is a list?

Thanks!

 

[ncjohn]

Brendan:

There really should not be any confusion.

The Vatican reply said that it was not the Vatican’s intention to prohibit kneeling when they approved the US norms.

So there is no mandate to stand for the Eucharist that has been approved by the Vatican.

Any Catholic who kneels for to recieve the Eucharist is not being disobedient precisely because their is no approved directive not to.

Actually that’s not true. The Vatican did in fact approve the USCCB norm with the “stand only and counsel for kneeling” language. They only subsequently came back with the “we didn’t mean to” language, which is confusing at best since it doesn’t direct the USCCB to change their norm.

If it wasn’t for that confusion, none of this discussion would be taking place. I sure hope they resolve the confusion soon.

Peace,

 

[ncjohn]

msproule:

Really? In all seriousness, I have never seen the reasons for the norm, even though the USCCB hints at their existence:
GIRM 160…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.
Can you please point me to these reasons if there is a list?

Thanks!

The reasons are posted on the USCCB website in their actual wording, but OTM cited them in his post #3. The primary reasons given, from my recollection were unity of posture and that the communion “procession” (yes,I know this isn’t really the right term) was not the place to be showing individual piety since the Eucharist is the central point of “communion.”

I can try when I have a chance to get you a link if you need it.