Kneeling to Receive Communion

[AlanFromWichita]

Brendan:

Does that include the priests?

Very well might!

You mean back in the days when a priest would follow directives from Rome without question, thus sparing his flock from having to double check his praxis?

Yes, presumably. You would never dare question your priest, no matter how wrong it seemed he was.

Dang Internet goofed it all up by letting people see Vatican stuff directly, didn’t it? We should shut it down so we don’t know our priests’ flaws and thereby lose faith.

Alan

[edit] cool word “praxis” incidentally. I had to look it up to make sure it wasn’t something medical.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Brendan:

It does.
And why exactly is that?? Are you saying that an individual should not be able to decide for themselves when\if to recieve Communion?

Where is the requirement that one has to recieve Communion at any given Mass anyway? I seemed to have missed that in my copy of the GIRM.

? This sounds almost flippant to me. I was under the impression that most Catholics went to Mass for the primary reason of receiving Communion, although of course they are not required to – except once a year, unless I’m mistaken.

That said, since we Catholics identify ourselves largely through the Eucharist, I think it is natural for a fellow Catholic to see another one miss out on it because of something that has no bearings at all on anything except their own personal feelings.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Andrew Markich:

I am having this same dilemma - I kneel to receive Communion and only from the priest and only on the tongue - If God appeared in Church would we kneel before Him . He is present in the Eucharist why would you not kneel. In America we have lost touch with reverence at Mass and Vatican II certainly did not help . I am seriously considering going to the Traditional Latin Mass .
If you can find one it is worth attending .They kneel at Communion and women even wear veils

God is present in each one of us – is that not Catholic teaching? We should kneel before each other, but then we wouldn’t get much done. Comparitively, how should we respect a fellow Catholic who has received the Eucharist, compared the Eucharist itself?

I agree that I want to attend a traditional Mass, and I just might if I can get someone else to play for me one week at the 8 AM.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

grotto:

“My FAITH requires it, the Holy Roman Catholic Church allows it”.

My question is what “faith” are you talking about? The Holy Roman Catholic Church does not require it, so what is the source of this “faith” that requires it?

By “faith” I guess that means anything you personally believe, not something the Church teaches?

My “faith” requires that you agree with me, and the Holy Roman Catholic Church allows it I’m pretty sure, so please cooperate and do not go against my faith.

Alan

 

[netmilsmom]

AlanFromWichita:

I have zero problem with your having that preference.

Yeah. All that stuff. Same kinda thing, I figure, just a different type of issue. One difference I can think of is that the handholding thing is cosmetic from the standpoint of the priest celebrating Mass, while the kneeling issue involves the priest physically as well as visually. I had a particularly embarrassing situation a few weeks ago about handholding during the Our Father, which I used to think was really stupid but I had to “eat some crow” as it were. Anyway I told the whole story about that last night on post #12 on this thread.

Well I cannot speak for the authenticity of that letter, but I’ll presume it is authentic. It does not have my name on it; as far as I can tell it’s an instruction to priests.

I can understand why the letter would state what it does. If someone’s faith is weak to the extent they feel they “must” kneel to receive Communion, then in their mind what they are doing is, in fact, faith, whether it is of questionable origin or not and if the priest were to refuse Communion, that would identify the kneeling (an act of faith afa the person doing it is concerned) as a sin, and could end up in the priest “causing one of these little ones to sin.” Apparently Rome doesn’t feel it’s the priest’s job to judge people’s faith and obedience when they’ve presented themselves for communion honestly – kneeling or standing. While I’m on that note, I’m a bit distressed about priests refusing Communion to people with certain political views, but that’s another discussion.

Now if you want to hold me to the standard of that letter, then I suppose I can offer some “other ways” of describing it. First, when I say “blatant disobedience” I might have overstepped a little bit – I will remove the word “blatant” from my charge. It was an emotional reaction that I used it, I confess here and now. The reason I remove the word is that it is that “blatant” connotates intentional of willful disobedience, which I do not claim. The disobedience could be out of fear and/or ignorance, rather than “blatant.” Could be blatant, but it is an unfortunate stereotype that I applied and I apologize for that.

That said, I would not call such a person disobedient, unless they are asking my opinion such as on an Internet forum. I might think it, but I wouldn’t say it. I don’t know whether that letter from Rome is supposed to be binding on the laity – I rather suspect it is not – but OK. I won’t say it. I’ll just think it.

If I must say anything at all, instead of “blatant disobedience” I should perhaps call them “pathetic creatures who need God as much as I do.”

I’ll be honest with you here, I tried to go line by line on this post. I couldn’t eliminate what, I feel, makes you look unbelievably self rightous.
Perhaps you should reread it with a little more charity.

What?

Flaunt their power?

Did you just change into a different poster? You’re trying to tell me that because liberals hold hands and have “anything goes” Masses, it makes it OK to flaunt power when it comes to Communion norms? Isn’t that what you’re suggesting others with similar preferences to yours “should” be able to do at churches where it is not the norm?

What am I missing here? Are you saying it’s good to have this debate? Are you saying it’s bad that people flaunt power in one way but good in another?

You are talking about the power to deny something historically Catholic while I am talking about adding gestures to the liturgy.
There is a big difference here, but yes, both are power grabs from modernist liturgical committees.

 

[Brendan]

AlanFromWichita:

That said, since we Catholics identify ourselves largely through the Eucharist, I think it is natural for a fellow Catholic to see another one miss out on it because of something that has no bearings at all on anything except their own personal feelings.

Alan

Catholics are defined by the existance of the Eucharist, the Resurrected Christ.

Catholics are defined by the Sacrifice of the Eucharist on the Altar.

But Catholics are NOT defined by the reception of the Eucharist.
Otherwise, all those pre-schoolers you see at Mass would not be Catholic, now would they?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

I’ll be honest with you here, I tried to go line by line on this post. I couldn’t eliminate what, I feel, makes you look unbelievably self rightous.
Perhaps you should reread it with a little more charity.

Thank you for the suggestion.

I just reread it, and yes it seemed even more charitable now than when I wrote it.

Sometimes I actually am pleased with my work, and I appreciate you building my self-esteem that way.

You are talking about the power to deny something historically Catholic while I am talking about adding gestures to the liturgy.
There is a big difference here, but yes, both are power grabs from modernist liturgical committees.

OK, it sounds like we’re making progress then. I’m with you on this part.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Brendan:

Catholics are defined by the existance of the Eucharist, the Resurrected Christ.

Catholics are defined by the Sacrifice of the Eucharist on the Altar.

But Catholics are NOT defined by the reception of the Eucharist.
Otherwise, all those pre-schoolers you see at Mass would not be Catholic, now would they?

True, but that wasn’t exactly what I was getting after.

What I was getting after is my surprise that you seemed to be “dissing” somebody for expressing chagrin over another Catholic’s choice to stay away from the table, when it isn’t required to stay away except for personal preferences which are seemingly arbitrary. If you invite people to a banquet and one doesn’t eat, wouldn’t the host want to know if something’s wrong?

Further, if the host found out the reason the person wasn’t eating was that the person had been taught, for example, that one should never eat at a table without a polka-dotted tablecloth, then would it not be natural for the host and even other guests to feel sad that the person is programmed such that they are going hungry over something that doesn’t seem to bother anyone else? Maybe they’ve never eaten at a table with little blue flowers before, but either way the food is just as good.

Taking it the next step, if a host found out that several people were refusing to eat because of the little blue flowers instead of polka dots, when that host may have even given his son’s very life to put that spread before them and they sit there saying, “sorry I can’t eat because the table isn’t set right” do you not think the host might feel a bit insulted – or even downright angry?

Alan

 

[Consecrated]

otm:

Not necessarily. We stand for the reading of the Gospel, and that, too, is a sign of reverence.

Standing is indeed a sign of reverence in some situations.

Kneeling, genuflection, and prostration are all positions of worship. And all also show even deeper reverence than the standing position. Although this is not a “timeless, eternal Truth,” since kneeling and prostration have been universal positions of worship since time immemorial, your opinion that it makes no difference whether we stand or kneel before the Blessed Sacrament has no leg to stand on. (get it? sorry, I know that was bad, but I couldn’t resist. Please forgive me. )

otm:

I will not disagree that posture can impact attitude, but posture is not attitude. I served as an altar boy pre-Vtican 2, and we all could spot who was reverent, and hwo was not at the Communion rail, and they all were kneeling. Some, however, did not have an attitude of reverence then.

Like I said, we have a responsibility to match our inward dispositon with our outward position. You have very rightly pointed out that kneeling is an empty and hollow show if the person kneeling has not the “right heart.” It goes both ways, too, though. If one is genuinely attempting to gain humility of spirit before the Real Presence, that attempt should manifest itself in an appropriate external manner. This does not add up to pietistic show.

otm:

While posture can have an impact on attitude, it is not determinative of it. I have no problem either standing or kneeling, in terms of reverence; my reverence is driven by my relationship with Christ, not my posture. Further, it is not only easier, but safer to receive from the Cup standing, as one does not have an altar rail to bang one’s elbows against.

I admit that kneeling is not practical when receiving the Precious Blood, but I also think that it is never “safe” to receive the Precious Blood, so I never do anymore. When I used to I was always in mortal fear of spilling, dripping, or dropping the cup. I don’t “need” to b/c the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord are all present in the Host.
Again, I’m trying to say that one’s reverence is indeed driven by one’s relationship with Christ, and it is a good, holy, and utterly natural thing when said reverence is reflected in one’s outward demeanor. E.g., modesty of spirit is reflected in modesty of dress, and modesty of dress can often lead to a deeper modesty of spirit. See?

otm:

I disagree that the USCCB has forced any quandry on anyone. It is the few who seem to feel that they cannot be reverent while standing who have the issue. It would seem that subliminally you are playing the “wasn’t it wonderful in the good old times” card. Some people were casual about Communion before Vatican 2. The biggest issue about Communion is the loss of catechesis for the last two generations. Standing or kneeling is a peripheral issue for most people.

I agree that the loss of catechesis over the last two generations is a huge issue. This loss is reflected in the outward demeanor of many Catholics, making the question of standing or kneeling before our Redeemer hardly “periferal”.

As to my playing the nostalgia card, that’s a tired old accusation, and it’s simply not true. Though I was not alive before Vatican II, I am well aware that there were people who were casual about the Blessed Sacrament then as now. HOWEVER, why should the Church change to a casual posture to match the casual interior? (And I know this question might be meaningless to you, OTM, and some others, b/c you don’t believe there is a difference between standing and kneeling as long as the heart is in the right place).

 

[Anna_Elizabeth]

Sorry if I’m coing in at the end of something that’s been talked to death already, but Brendan’s message (#86) just came up on my screen, and reminded me of something!

The reception of Holy Communion on a regular (weekly - much less daily), basis is a very new thing historically. While attendance at Mass was compulsory, the reception of the Host was only promoted fairly recently. I want to say toward the end of the 19th century - maybe 18th, but whenever it was, the majority of people did not receive except on the Big Days.

Ironically, it now seems to have gotten out of hand, with everyone and his brother (and HIS brother and sister and THEIR brothers and sisters of all persuasions), regarding it as only gross inhospitality to deny them a taste! :whacky:

It is, one must admit, easy to understand how this came about when every effort was made for forty years to push the concept of the communal meal and scrap the Sacrifice!

Again, sorry if you’ve all gone over this…Blessings,

Anna

 

[Consecrated]

grotto:

To Alan and anyone else who is confused about kneeling in prayer: its not new, its not done out of pride but humility and reverence derived from the soul’s desire to acknowledge its love, honor, glory and repentence before God. If you think it is prideful, immature, not in conformance with the posture of others who choose to stand, hold hands, or raise their arms, then you have a problem. Making the sign of the cross, genuflecting before the Holy Eucharist exposed for Adoration on BOTH knees, kneeling at Mass after the Sanctus thru the Doxology and again after the Agnus Dei through Holy Communion (if one is able) cannot be faulted. If you cannot understand the concept and decide the practice should be ridiculed, try to learn more about it. Kneeling is not “caused” by childhood abuse! Please! I say again, for me,
“My FAITH requires it, the Holy Roman Catholic Church allows it”.
Learn more about the practices of devotion. Maybe if you have the opportunity to attend the Latin Mass you will experience its beauty and awesomeness.

Yes, I pray for stronger faith as mine is so weak and I pray for humility, charity, forgiveness, enlightenment, and courage as often as I do but always inadequately!

I have been incorrect about many things in my life, am quite sure I will continue to be, but kneeling as I have explained above is not one of them!

I’m with you on this!

AlanFromWichita:

If someone’s faith is weak to the extent they feel they “must” kneel to receive Communion, then in their mind what they are doing is, in fact, faith

This statement makes no theological sense. The desire to kneel to receive the Blessed Sacrament does not come from a “weak faith”, but rather from a humble faith, and one that prays in humility to become ever stronger. It defies common sense to say that the desire to kneel comes from a weak faith.

 

[netmilsmom]

AlanFromWichita:

Thank you for the suggestion.

I just reread it, and yes it seemed even more charitable now than when I wrote it.

Sometimes I actually am pleased with my work, and I appreciate you building my self-esteem that way.

Sometimes one needs a stranger to point out what one is too close to.
From what I can see you must have missed some words you wrote.
Stating that someone’s faith is weak because he wants to kneel in reverence or stating that someone is pathetic is unkind.
You feel differently but if you think that either is charitable, maybe you haven’t been around those who strive for humility.
(And I’m the mean nasty one, oh my)

 

[AlanFromWichita]

OK, I’ll admit to a particular bias that I do have concerning posture and Communion that bugs me so other people can say that I’m being judgmental.

When I was little, we were taught very strictly that when we were lined up for our First Communion, first to enter our seats, and then to line up to go to the Communion rail, and in general when in any line in church, we were to walk in such a way that our heads all stayed lined up. Shortest to tallest, and when we were walking the heads should be seen as moving forward in unison, no left and right motion.

I still keep this practice, but I can’t help but notice when I’m in a Communion line that the people in front of me wobble back and forth like Weebles or something.

It’s insane, to me. Every time the line moves, there’s this back and forth motion of heads, as people waddle rather than walk The Way I Was Taught when going to receive the host. When I was little, if we walked that way up to the front, we’d incur the wrath of our teachers. It was cool, though, because we were together and it looked cool – you know, everybody going the same way and in the same manner and all.

Good thing I hardly ever stand in Communion lines. When I go to Communion at my home parish All Saints on Sunday or at St. Anthony’s on Saturdays, I get it before everybody else in the congregation so I don’t have to watch the crazy Weebles Wobble But They Don’t Fall Down show on the way there!

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

Sometimes one needs a stranger to point out what one is too close to.

True enough. That’s one reason we have each other, I figure.

From what I can see you must have missed some words you wrote.
Stating that someone’s faith is weak because he wants to kneel in reverence or stating that someone is pathetic is unkind.

Yes, I did miss those words. I didn’t say anyone’s faith is weak because they want to kneel in reverence. I said their faith was weak if they feel the MUST kneel in order to receive the Eucharist. That is against Church teachings; I don’t know how it can be a matter of faith – unless of course you’re a heterodox like I’m often accused of being.

As far as someone being pathetic, I’m trying to see here where I asserted that their Communion preference makes them pathetic. In fact, let’s see exactly what I called them:

AlanFromWichita:

“pathetic creatures who need God as much as I do.”

OK, so maybe I was wrong. Maybe I’m a pathetic creature who needs God but they aren’t. My bad. I assumed. I was just trying to strike a little “unity” into the conversation. If they’re pathetic, then I’m pathetic. One for all, and all that. Is this making sense to anyone but me?

You feel differently but if you think that either is charitable, maybe you haven’t been around those who strive for humility.
(And I’m the mean nasty one, oh my)

I agree with you, in that I don’t think either of the assertions you attributed to me are charitable. I have said some dumb things, and some recently even, but I’m glad I didn’t say those things.

The fact that you did attribute those things to me is a possible concern I have about you. I’m saying this in Christian charity, because you seem like someone who would rather be corrected than to persist in error – if that’s wrong I’m sorry as I’m just going by observation, and I can see this is very important and close to your heart.

As a very wise poster once pointed out:
A Very Wise Poster:

Sometimes one needs a stranger to point out what one is too close to.

Alan

 

[Brendan]

AlanFromWichita:

If someone’s faith is weak to the extent they feel they “must” kneel to receive Communion, then in their mind what they are doing is, in fact, faith

AlanFromWichita:

My question is what “faith” are you talking about? The Holy Roman Catholic Church does not require it, so what is the source of this “faith” that requires it?

By “faith” I guess that means anything you personally believe, not something the Church teaches?

Here is Aquinas’s definition of Faith

“Faith is the act of the intellect when it assents to divine truth under the influence of the will”

(Summa Theologica II.II.q2.a9).

First of all, everything that Netmil(name removed by moderator) and I have been articulating has been in full accordance with all Divine Truth that the Church has articulated. If you disagree, please put out exactly where you feel the differences lie.

And I have given full consent of both Intellect and Will to all such Divine Truth, and therefore have Faith. The strength of Faith is therefore determined by the consent of Will given to these Divine Truths. If you feel I have show weak consent to the Valididty of Divine Truths as articulated by the Church, again point out exactly where I gave this impression.

So yes, Faith IS, definition, what I believe (belief being defined as intellectually commited to the Truth of a proposition)

And unless you can demonstrate that the beliefs I hold are in confilct with Divine Truth as revealed by the Church, then your statement is meaningless

 

[otm]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

I’m one of those people. If I am at a mass in a different church than my own, I will skip communion until I can get back to my own parish.

Tell me you are kidding.

You have an opportunity to receive Christ in Communion and you turn Him down because you don’t like the way Communion is distributed?

Are you really saying that you would turn Christ down because the rubrics, as promulgated by Rome, didn’t suit you?

Or are you saying that you would turn Christ down only if the rubrics were not followed exactly?

That seems to me to be putting form over substance.
netmislmom:

And what are you doing? The Vatican has stated that these people cannot be called disobedient. And by doing so, aren’t you “just plain, yes, blatant” disobededient?

the Vatican has not made an official statement about the matter; the monsignior made a passing remark about an issue that was not even on the table.

There is a name for the attitude expressed; it is called Clericalism. The Church has suffered enough from it already; Clericalism was part of the cause of the sex abuse scandal reaching the proportions it has.

 

[otm]

Brendan:

It does.

The Holy Church said either can be done. The norm in the US was not approved as standing only (as the Vatican itself has stated); therefore the norm is standing as a preference, but optional.{/QUOTE]If standing is an option then one has to ask why the GIRM doesn’t state that it is an option, but rather states that standing is the norm and those who don’t stand are to be counseled.

There is no reason to counsle someone over an option. Receiving either in the hand or on the tongue is an option, and since it is stated as an option, Rome obviously knows how to make something optional: they say so.

However, they have not said so in the issue of posture to recveive; rather, they have said that standing is the norm and one who does not stand is to be counseled.

It is only instransegence on the part of those who insist that the plain wording of the GIRM doesn’t mean what it says.

Brendan:

And why exactly is that?? Are you saying that an individual should not be able to decide for themselves when\if to recieve Communion?

Where is the requirement that one has to recieve Communion at any given Mass anyway? I seemed to have missed that in my copy of the GIRM.

More to the point, you seem to have missed what Communion is about. The question asking where is there a requirement to receive Communion seems to be both legalistic and minimalistic; I would expect the next comment to be that Canon Law only requires one to receive once a year. If that is the position taken, there is really no need to discuss it further, as one who has that attitude towards Communion would seem to display little or no understanding whatever about what Christ really was about in His life on earth.

 

[pgoings]

There is a name for the attitude expressed; it is called Clericalism.

How on earth is this clericalism?

Also, I don’t understand the horror that some people are expressing about other people who choose to abstain from the reception of Holy Communion at times. It was once a quite common devotional practice, and to the best of my knowledge, has never been condemned.

 

[otm]

Anna Elizabeth:

Sorry if I’m coing in at the end of something that’s been talked to death already, but Brendan’s message (#86) just came up on my screen, and reminded me of something!

The reception of Holy Communion on a regular (weekly - much less daily), basis is a very new thing historically. While attendance at Mass was compulsory, the reception of the Host was only promoted fairly recently. I want to say toward the end of the 19th century - maybe 18th, but whenever it was, the majority of people did not receive except on the Big Days.

Ironically, it now seems to have gotten out of hand, with everyone and his brother (and HIS brother and sister and THEIR brothers and sisters of all persuasions), regarding it as only gross inhospitality to deny them a taste! :whacky:

It is, one must admit, easy to understand how this came about when every effort was made for forty years to push the concept of the communal meal and scrap the Sacrifice!

Again, sorry if you’ve all gone over this…Blessings,

Anna

The reason at the heart of not receiving was Jansenism, a heresy that raged for a good long time, one that Pius 10th was still fighting.

And lest anyone go off about not being worthy, anyone with two grey cells and even a smidgen of humility will admith that none of us are worthy; our worthiness, however, is not the deciding issue; the deciding issue is Christ’s sacrifice for us and God’s mercy as shown to us in Christ.

The Eucharist is said by the Church to be the sum and summit of the Faith. The Church does not, however, say that the Eucharist is to be only worshiped and not received; if anything, the Church teaches that we should receive (as opposed to Brendan’s “required”) as often as we are in a state of grace.

 

[netmilsmom]

AlanFromWichita:

True enough. That’s one reason we have each other, I figure.

Yes, I did miss those words. I didn’t say anyone’s faith is weak because they want to kneel in reverence. I said their faith was weak if they feel the MUST kneel in order to receive the Eucharist. That is against Church teachings; I don’t know how it can be a matter of faith – unless of course you’re a heterodox like I’m often accused of being.

I can understand why the letter would state what it does. If someone’s faith is weak to the extent they feel they “must” kneel to receive Communion, then in their mind what they are doing is, in fact, faith, whether it is of questionable origin or not and if the priest were to refuse Communion, that would identify the kneeling (an act of faith afa the person doing it is concerned) as a sin, and could end up in the priest “causing one of these little ones to sin.” Apparently Rome doesn’t feel it’s the priest’s job to judge people’s faith and obedience when they’ve presented themselves for communion honestly – kneeling or standing.

Reading their minds is amazing!

As far as someone being pathetic, I’m trying to see here where I asserted that their Communion preference makes them pathetic. In fact, let’s see exactly what I called them:

Context is very important.

If I must say anything at all, instead of “blatant disobedience” I should perhaps call them “pathetic creatures who need God as much as I do.”

It’s your right to think of yourself as pathetic. However, calling others such is not polite.

OK, so maybe I was wrong. Maybe I’m a pathetic creature who needs God but they aren’t. My bad. I assumed. I was just trying to strike a little “unity” into the conversation. If they’re pathetic, then I’m pathetic. One for all, and all that. Is this making sense to anyone but me?

Sugar coated pickles are still sour.

I agree with you, in that I don’t think either of the assertions you attributed to me are charitable. I have said some dumb things, and some recently even, but I’m glad I didn’t say those things.

The fact that you did attribute those things to me is a possible concern I have about you. I’m saying this in Christian charity, because you seem like someone who would rather be corrected than to persist in error – if that’s wrong I’m sorry as I’m just going by observation, and I can see this is very important and close to your heart.

Well I am the shark eater.