Kneeling to Receive Communion

[msproule]

pgoings:

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.

I was pondering these very things. I even looked up “clericalism” in the dictionary to see if there was some obscure definition of which I was unaware. (For those who are wondering, there was not!)

The topic of this thread is kneeling, but there may be *other *reasons one might/should/could abstain from receiving the Most Blessed Sacrament. While we may be allowed to receive twice per day (at most), but we are not necessarily encouraged to do so (Canons 917 & 921§2).

 

[otm]

Consecrated:

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.

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.

Consecrated:

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 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.

 

[otm]

pgoings:

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.

Clericalism is, in part, giving excessive power or deference to clergy by the fact that they are clergy.

A simple explanation might suffice: some are given to taking every personal opinion the Pope expresses as a matter of Faith and Morals simply because the Pope said it. Those who do fail to distinguish between an expression of personal opinion, and a teaching of the Church as an official expression of Faith or Morals.

The same applies to personal opinions expressed by Cardinals, bishops and priests, and applies to issues of discipline as well as Faith and Morals.

The issue most certainly applied to the methods with which the bishops in a number of dioceses handled the issues of sexually abusing priests; some of them gave more than a mere appearance of being above the law, and having to answer to no one concerning their choices. They are now answering to the courst of the various states, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

[netmilsmom]

otm:

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?

I go back to my home church for 8:30pm mass.
Wouldn’t want to be labelled Uber-pious and hold up the line, now would I?

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.

.

Just some guy from the Vatican. Shhhh, forget the fact that he is from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. Okay. Just had to say that again.

 

[msproule]

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.

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.

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.

Sadly, in 8 years I have seen this occur (at least) twice.

 

[msproule]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

Just some guy from the Vatican. Shhhh, forget the fact that he is from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

Monsignor Who? Anyway, I found a passage from a book, written by then Cardinal Ratzinger. I think he, too, is some high-ranking official at the Vatican, perhaps with more authority than the Monsignor. While he acknowledges that standing is a common posture nowadays for the reception of Holy Communion, he really seems to hold kneeling in very high regard:
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. Nowadays it is done standing. But this standing, too, should be standing in reverence before the Lord.

The attitude of kneeling ought never to be allowed to disappear from the Church. It is the most impressive physical expression of Christian piety, by which, on one hand, we remain upright, looking out, gazing upon Him, but, on the other, we nonetheless bow down.

“Man is never so great”, said John XXIII, “as when he is kneeling.”

And that is why I believe that this attitude, which was already one of the primitive forms of Old Testament prayer, is something essential for Christians.

 

[netmilsmom]

msproule:

Monsignor Who? Anyway, I found a passage from a book, written by then Cardinal Ratzinger. I think he, too, is some high-ranking official at the Vatican, perhaps with more authority than the Monsignor. While he acknowledges that standing is a common posture nowadays for the reception of Holy Communion, he really seems to hold kneeling in very high regard: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. Nowadays it is done standing. But this standing, too, should be standing in reverence before the Lord.

The attitude of kneeling ought never to be allowed to disappear from the Church. It is the most impressive physical expression of Christian piety, by which, on one hand, we remain upright, looking out, gazing upon Him, but, on the other, we nonetheless bow down.

“Man is never so great”, said John XXIII, “as when he is kneeling.”

And that is why I believe that this attitude, which was already one of the primitive forms of Old Testament prayer, is something essential for Christians.

Yeah, just another guy from the Vatican.

(good catch)

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Consecrated:

I’m with you on this!

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.

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.

Is the difference between “desire to” and “must” all that subtle, that they are interchangeable?

I desire that you (or someone else for that matter) give me $100,000 or more before the end of the month, because I’m in a very terrible financial situation and it would really help. I’m not sure I can get the gas turned back on at my house because it has gone to collections so next week when we hopefully move back into it, we may have no hot water or heat. Heats probably OK for another month, but cold showers? This desire is based on Real Needs for my Catholic family of eight.

Does that equate to “demanding” that you give me money?

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

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

I’m not getting this.

Are you saying it’s a bad thing that Communion is now more available?

Are you also saying that denying someone the Eucharist is NOT a big deal? I thought it was quite a significant sanction by the Church.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Consecrated:

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).

So the Church is wrong, then, to have allowed Communion standing in the first place? Has she erred on a matter of faith and morals?

If I understand you correctly, then that’s quite a problem. Perhaps we should email the Holy Father and ask him to put a stop to this disrespect. You can reach him here.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Brendan:

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.

The particular “divine truth” I’ve been talking about this whole time, is the assertion that kneeling is the only proper way to receive Holy Communion. I double-dog-dare you to show me where the Church has officially promulgated this “truth.”

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.

The particular “divine truth” I’ve been talking about this whole time, is the assertion that kneeling is the only proper way to receive Holy Communion. I double-dog-dare you to show me where the Church has officially promulgated this “truth.”

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

Wrong.

Whether I am right that kneeling is not the only posture that the Holy Catholic Church allows for Communion, is either right or wrong whether I prove it or not. You are the one who thinks it’s OK for people to use their “faith” to defy the counsel of bishops and priests.

Oh, very well. See what you make of this:
Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacrament:

[90.] “The faithful should receive Communion kneeling or standing, as the Conference of Bishops will have determined”, with its acts having received the *recognitio *of the Apostolic See. “However, if they receive Communion standing, it is recommended that they give due reverence before the reception of the Sacrament, as set forth in the same norms”.[176]

 [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]](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#_ftn177) 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.

It seems either you’re wrong, or I have quoted an inauthentic document, if you think Communion MUST be received. You may verify my assertions at this link on the Vatican web site.

Not only that, it goes one more step in saying the faithful “should” obey the bishops.

How do you like that? Two facts for the price of one.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

pgoings:

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.

This is absolutely fascinating!

Now we’ve escalated it to “horror” about others choosing to abstain.

You know, if you want abstain, that’s fine. Just don’t tell me it’s because the color of the carpet in the Church doesn’t suit you, whatever irrelevant excuse you have for not doing so. It’s not the Church’s Fault if you choose not to receive. In fact, with this much misunderstanding and oddball attitudes about the Eucharist and its proper reception, maybe it is well-advised that they abstain. I said “maybe” because I just don’t know.

Yes – if you want to abstain, by all means do so. I will not try to cram the Eucharist down anybody’s throat. Just abstain and keep quiet, lest you reveal that the reasons you are abstaining are divisive and petty. For all I know, you might be abstaining because you have an unconfessed mortal sin, or because you didn’t get a chance to eat until just before Mass. I could understand that; it’s hard for me to believe that anybody would even want to let on that the reason they are abstaining is there is no place to kneel, but unless all you folks are joking, there it is – truth can be stranger than fiction.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

Reading their minds is amazing!

Yes, to speculate that someone’s feelings could be in sync with their faith is a pretty astonishing achievement.

Context is very important.

Yes, which is why I will not buy into your assertions about my assertions when “someone” takes them out of context.

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

OK. I’m pathetic. Maybe you’re not. Is that OK now?

Sincerely, I don’t say that to put myself down, but to acknowledge that I have been born with original sin and continue to sin, despite my attempts (meager though they may be) not to.

Sugar coated pickles are still sour.

The rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain.

Well I am the shark eater.

I haven’t tried shark. I’ve been called a “mackerel snapper” before, but truth is, I’ve never tried mackerel either – to my knowledge. Might have been some in some “fish sticks” along the way – you can’t quite tell what’s in those. I have had some squid, in a stir fry dish at a Thai restaurant in Orange County; that was pretty interesting.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

otm:

in order not to trip anyone’s trigger

(deleted an attempt at humor that was possibly a bit too sarcastic)

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

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.

The Vatican says it’s up to the bishops to set the norms.

The bishop has a humble obligation to do what? To keep the norms the same as they always have been?

Sadly, in 8 years I have seen this occur (at least) twice.

Since they don’t give the Blood at the 8 am Mass I go to, I haven’t seen this, but I did watch once as the vessel was dropped as it was handed to the priest at offertory, shattered all over the place – just barely missed the carpet too and hit the edge of the hard floor. NOT a pretty sight, even though it had not yet been consecrated.

Alan

[edit] about who is truly to blame about perceived excess piety – one person behaves in an irregular or spectacular fashion and the other judges. They are both responsible in part. To say it’s completely on the shoulders of the one who judges would be to say that I may do as I very well please and if someone doesn’t like it, that’s their fault and not mine.

 

[msproule]

AlanFromWichita:

The bishop has a humble obligation to do what? To keep the norms the same as they always have been?

I would think so, unless there is a good reason not to.

…one person behaves in an irregular or spectacular fashion and the other judges. They are both responsible in part.

Agreed.

To say it’s completely on the shoulders of the one who judges…

…Which I did not do…

…would be to say that I may do as I very well please and if someone doesn’t like it, that’s their fault and not mine.

But in the case of kneeling for Holy Communion, it is the Vatican that says that we may do as it pleases, and if the U.S. Bishop’s do not like it, it is their fault, not the Vatican’s and not the Communicant’s. But this assertion assumes that the supporting documentation presented in this thread, from Monsignor Marini to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI himself, is authentic. Thankfully, it is.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

msproule:

…Which I did not do…

Agreed.

Thankfully, it is.

Maybe it’s partly an issue of kneeling for Communion, and partly and issue of control. Who has the ultimate say so whether a particular behavior is illicit; for example do we run a statistical test?

I had a strange thought last night. I get those, because I like to think of “what-ifs” and then imagine I’m carrying them to the extremes. I wondered, what would happen if, out of the blue, in a place where standing is the norm, and not often gone against, one Sunday every one of the just decided they wanted to kneel? I imagined that all of a sudden the faithful poured out of their pews, totally unexpected to the pastor (but most certainly orchestrated) and simple went around in rehearsed way, every last one, and lined up around Where The Communion Rail Was or at least Ought To Be, and knelt. Those who couldn’t kneel easily would stand, at the non-rail, between those kneeling.

I was thinking, there are some priest who would probably be overwhelmed with tears at this gesture. (Sure some might be incensed, especially if they personally felt strongly about the standing norm – but maybe the priest is like Father Busch and still says the Latin Mass from time to time, now retired. At least I see him Saturdays at St. Anthony; he still says quite a few Masses but is glad to not have to deal with administrative duties and personality clashes in the parish.

What if Father Busch hadn’t said the Latin Mass for years, and he was celebrant when this took place? I think he would be overwhelmed, but keep perfect but peaceful composure as dutifully hand out Communion the way they were asking.

I mean why not? If he didn’t like it, then don’t do it again I guess?

Now of course that’s very unlikely, but in a small cohesive parish perhaps, if you know the priest privately wishes more people would kneel (and why can’t we consider that equally as well as priests who are annoyed) why not? In fact, I plan to see Father Busch today as I play the music for the 4 PM Saturday Mass he says – maybe I’ll ask him what he would think of the people if they did that? Then again maybe not.

I mean, on another occasion, the lady that hired me set me up to play “Happy Birthday” to him on the pipe organ with congregation singing – of course after the Mass was officially dismissed (but before the closing hymn) – and he was overwhelmed. He even gave a brief but dignified response before we sang the exit. I don’t know. Maybe I have to lighten up.

Caution: thread diversion for rant about a particular priest and some things he did – hope no offense:

Maybe you can tell, I really like Father Busch. He married Julie and me, and gave me my first face-to-face confession, complete with “guided” inventory, beforehand.

He also said “yes” to a crazy idea to have somebody he’d never heard of, Rich Mullins, to come play a free concert for Marriage Encounter at their request when some rich fancy parish reneged at the last minute because it would “interfere with their Christmas decorations.” So on December 21, my crazy idea panned out that Rich Mullins played a concert on my personal 7 foot grand piano which I had moved to the Church, and a sound system set up by a friend of Father Gorges – our associate pastor who I guess founded Totus Tuusr. By the time of the concert he was fit to be tied, with speakers, wires, sound boars, my piano being moved and tuned.

He only did this because he likes us so much, and he regretted saying “yes” during the busy Christmas week.

Anyway, he loved Rich from the minute Rich walked in the door and I introduced them to each other. During the concert Father was hanging on every word between songs as well as during songs, as Rich rambled.

That was Rich’s last Christmas. A few months later, the very weekend he was scheduled to take Communion from Father Matt McGuinness (another ex-associate pastor of ours who had been working with Rich privately) Rich died in an auto accident on the way from Chicago working on a new album, to Wichita to play yet another some charity benefit concert.

My wife, who even made me wear a “Catholic” t-shirt to a concert full of Protestants among other measure to try to influence Rich to become Catholic, was assured by Father Busch that Rich was truly Catholic. I took this photo right after the concert, and Father Busch himself named it. These are a couple of my favorite priests, the only “CCM” musician I actually ever liked, with my son Chris – now in college – in the background. Sorry for those who’ve heard this before, but I really like these priests and I just am getting all weird or something. I can’t help but sing their praises… You know, I really don’t think I even have an opinion on this kneeling issue anymore. There is so much more in life to think about other than how someone else receives Communion.

 

[Brendan]

AlanFromWichita:

The Vatican says it’s up to the bishops to set the norms.

.

Which must be approved by the Vatican, under the terms the Vatican sets.

In the case of kneeling, the bishops of the US were NOT given the approval to exclude the Universal norm of kneeling.

 

[Consecrated]

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.

Is the difference between “desire to” and “must” all that subtle, that they are interchangeable?

I desire that you (or someone else for that matter) give me $100,000 or more before the end of the month, because I’m in a very terrible financial situation and it would really help. I’m not sure I can get the gas turned back on at my house because it has gone to collections so next week when we hopefully move back into it, we may have no hot water or heat. Heats probably OK for another month, but cold showers? This desire is based on Real Needs for my Catholic family of eight.

Does that equate to “demanding” that you give me money?

Alan

Please accept my apologies. I truly misunderstood you… I will read more carefully.

Blessings!

 

[Consecrated]

AlanFromWichita:

So the Church is wrong, then, to have allowed Communion standing in the first place? Has she erred on a matter of faith and morals?

No, she has not erred in a matter of faith and morals. Our Lord gave the Church the Holy Spirit to make that impossible. However, it is not impossible for the prelates of the Church to err in other matters which are related to liturgy, etc.

Kneeling for Communion would fall into that category. And yes, I do believe the prelates of the Church have been -irresponsible- (I can’t think of a better word at the moment), in officially stating that standing is the new norm for receiving the Precious Body.

AlanFromWichita:

If I understand you correctly, then that’s quite a problem. Perhaps we should email the Holy Father and ask him to put a stop to this disrespect. You can reach him here.

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!