Kneeling to receive the Eucharist

[misericordie]

TNT:

Do NOT get suspended again! The whole platoon was ousted and I was by myself !

ps your location is a little general. Are you wanted elsewhere for something?

Umm, I here am REPEATING WHAT ROME ALREADY HAS STATED.

 

[Mysty101]

TNT:

Fill in my ignorance. What were the reasons for this norm that were made known?
Were not all kneeling without disturbance before? Say for 800 years or so.

I’m not sure of the original reasons, but now it is certainly better for all concerned if people do not genuflect or kneel when there are no provisions for kneeling. We have 4000 families and 8 Masses on a weekend. Years ago there were four priests available to distribute communion. Today, we are lucky to have one, and it does take longer to kneel, than to stand, especially for older, or less agile people. One of those genuflectors would have tripped my 88 year old mother, if I didn’t grab her out of the way as he genuflected right in front of her.

Also, what if everyone decided to kneel?—it would be total choas, so the norm must be made which allows a uniform posture, but I still have no problem with someone kneeling, if there are provisions for kneeling. Throwing yourself on the floor, and then huffing and puffing to try and get up is really not a good posture.

As I said, a seminarian told me they used the term “overly pious” for someone who would not act in community— Anything which draws attention to oneself says, “Look at me”, and even if it is allowed, has no place in public community worship, especially in a crowded Sunday Mass.

 

[TNT]

Mysty101:

I’m not sure of the original reasons, but now it is certainly better for all concerned if people do not genuflect or kneel when there are no provisions for kneeling. .

Praise you for being honest.
There was no reason when it started because 99% of the churches had rails and kneelers.
Then came the commnion under both species. This caused a “double passing” for each communicant and thus nearly twice as long.
Then came the “rail removers” project.

Protestants vigorously deny the Real Presence as taught in the RCC.
They stand for communion, recieve in the hand - potato chip style, and receive both the bread and juice. They have been doing this for 300+ years. To this day they have not changed any of that tradition to become more “Roman”.
So:
The purpose was to more fully embrace the protestant worship service no matter what the cost to the beliefs of the Faithful and their children.
Lex Orandi Lex Credendi
Just one more act of many, against Charity to the Faithful.

It has not a thing to do with “overly pius”. That is just a pressure point of ridicule to force conformity.
From a Lutheran site:

Lutherans do not believe that one liturgy was handed to us by God. The Scriptures make no mention of such a rule. Therefore, the Liturgy changes from generation to generation.

 

[Mysty101]

TNT:

.

The purpose was to more fully embrace the protestant worship service no matter what the cost to the beliefs of the Faithful and their children.
Just one more act of many, against Charity to the Faithful.

.

Can you validate this statement? I guess the Holy Spirit was also on vacation that day. We really need to write God about this.

 

[TNT]

Mysty101:

Can you validate this statement? I guess the Holy Spirit was also on vacation that day. We really need to write God about this.

Yes. and after TLM Mass, I will do so.
Meanwhile, good or evil liturgical disciplines by the bishops’ conferences is not controlled by the HS any more than the level of homosexual practice of those same bishops.
Ripping out rails and and other practices are not infallible practices. Therefore they can be fully perverted by the hierarchy.

 

[Mysty101]

TNT:

Meanwhile, good or evil liturgical disciplines by the bishops’ conferences is not controlled by the HS any more than the level of homosexual practice of those same bishops.
.

So you don’t believe the USCCB or other conferences are guided by the Holy Spirit? I think I will be obedient to my Shepherd, just in case.

 

[TNT]

Mysty101:

So you don’t believe the USCCB or other conferences are guided by the Holy Spirit?.

Even if they were, there is no divine guarantee they would follow it.
Actually, this kind of belief borders on gnosticism, where one believes that a higher authority has divine revelation for knowledge and all decisions relating to anything church or God. It is a serious matter.
No Churcman is impeccible and the ONLY place the HS intervenes is prevention of the pope from universal proclamation thru Councils or on his own, of an error against Faith or Morals. Period.
The pope goes to confession every week. Do you think he cannot sin? Of course not.
Read the Oath against Modernism. It clearly allows that a hierarchy can stray from the truth, teach error and greviously so.

 

[TNT]

Can you validate this statement?

Ok, Here is my proof. It will be in 2 Posts:
**The Failure of Liturgical Reform
by ABBOT BONIFACE LUYKX
In this candid interview with Abbot Boniface Luykx, **one of the last surviving authors of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy at the Second Vatican Council, you’ll discover the inside story and how the Council’s noble ideals for Liturgical reform went astray during the following disasterous years of implementation.

The entire Taped series is available at St Joseph Communication:
http://www.saintjoe.com/p/prod_desc.pl?id=388
Now:
http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodi…5-96/abbot.html
And Here is a 2nd Site:
dotm.org/altar-may14.htm
These sites are an interview with** Abbot Boniface Luykx whose credentials are impeccible. **Here are some excerpts. I strongly suggest that all interested in the NOM or TLM’s future, take 15min to read the interview. Some od this is on the above tape series:

Paul VI was …a weak man. He had great difficulty in taking a decision. For example, he had the New Order of the Mass on his desk for three years - three years! - before promulgating it. And he took many unusual decisions to avoid that final decision. And one of his decisions was inviting in the six Protestant theologians to review the document before publication to ensure that Protestant sensibilities would not be offended. And it was this decision that caused the greatest problems.

Paul approved the new Mass because his advisors told him that the Protestants would come closer to the Catholic Church as a result.

That was his main reason, because it really did take on some of the aspects of a Protestant service; that is why the Anglican and Lutherans and others are so favorable to the New Mass. And that was the way Paul wanted it. He had a vision of the Church re-uniting after centuries of bloodshed and division.

**Regarding BUGNINI he says
**

Secularization was, for him (Bugnini), a necessary process, something the Church needed to accept and embrace.

He accepted and embraced secularism because he said it was reality, and it was necessary to accept reality. He held to the modern philosophical view that man is made without God, and does not need God…He never would have written anything like that. And even when he talked, he did not do so imprudently. He may never have spoken those words exactly, but that was his meaning, as his repeated answers to Bishop Malula revealed.
You know, he had a very high opinion of himself. He wanted to reach the very highest levels, to become a cardinal, to reach the higher levels of power.
So, one need not be a carded member of freemasonry, but only imbued with their philosophy.

** And concerning the present hierarchy:**

We lack spiritual leadership, which the bishops really should give. …So the Evil One, who is attacking the Church at all times, is powerful, and drawing away many to ruin, but then there is no leadership for the good ones.

Continued on next post ------------

 

[TNT]

Can you validate this statement?

Regarding:
Originally Posted by TNT

The purpose was to more fully embrace the protestant worship service

no matter what the cost to the beliefs of the Faithful and their children.
Just one more act of many, against Charity to the Faithful.Continued Proofs:
Further Support that the Prot theology was a part of the NOM:
#1:
In 1967, Cardinal W. W. Baum, who was executive director of the American Catholic Bishop’s Commission on Ecumenical Affairs, admitted in the June 27, issue of The Detroit News:

"They (the six Protestant ministers) are not simply there as observers, but as consultants as well

, and they participate fully in the discussions on Catholic liturgical renewal. It wouldn’t mean much if they just listened, but they contributed." #2:
December 22, 1972 issue of The London Catholic Herald quoted a prominent Anglican minister as stating:

“Today’s liturgical study has brought our respective liturgies to a remarkable similarity, so that there is very little difference in the sacrificial phrasing of the prayer of oblation in the Series Three (Anglican “Mass”) and that of Eucharistic Prayer II in the Missa Normativa (New “Mass”)”

#3:
M. G. Siegvalt, a professor of dogmatic theology in the Protestant faculty at Strasbourg:

"… nothing in the renewed Catholic Mass need really trouble the Evangelical Protestant "( Le Monde, 22 November, 1969).

#4:
Jean Guitton, a close friend of Pope Paul VI and a lay-observer at Vatican II, quoted a Protestant journal as praising the manner in which the new Eucharistic prayers had :

"dropped the false perspective

of a sacrifice being offered to God" (La Croix, 10 December, 1969). Ouch!!

#5:

"If one takes account of the decisive evolution of the Eucharistic liturgy of the Catholic Church, of the option of substituting other Eucharistic prayers for the Canon of the Mass, of expunging

(l’ effacement) of the idea that the Mass is a sacrifice, and of the possibility of receiving communion under both kinds, then there is no further justification for the Reformed Churches forbidding their members to assist at the Eucharist in a Catholic Church" (Le Monde, 10 September, 1970).
If it’s closer to Prot acceptance, then it is further from Roman Catholic. For the 2 are mutually exclusive regarding the SACRIFICE of the Mass.

 

[Mysty101]

Hi,

I finally made it back.

These are a few single persons who think this way. I would not take their intrpretation over the whole conference of bishops.

And as for Rome—that is a whole different world. I’m sure many Masses have almost as many priests in attendence as lay people. There are not the large numbers and traffic flow problems that we have in large parishes in the US.

Also kneeling is not the only reverent position, especially when the norm is standing. If it is difficult to kneel, it could be very distracting for the communicant as well as for those around. It is far less distracting to process to receive and process back and kneel in the pew, than to make the disruption of kneeling when there are no provisions.

SuZ

 

[JKirkLVNV]

TNT:

Protestants vigorously deny the Real Presence as taught in the RCC.
They stand for communion, recieve in the hand - potato chip style, and receive both the bread and juice. They have been doing this for 300+ years. To this day they have not changed any of that tradition to become more “Roman”.
:

Rad Trad misinformation: I was raised Southern Baptist, and spent 5 years as an Episcopalian in a variety of churches. The Baptists have it passed to them in their pews (which have the little drilled holes to put the juice cups in after they’ve rec. it). So they rec. sitting. The Episcopal churches I attended (even the low church ones) rec. kneeling at the altar rail. The only time we ever rec. standing was at an enormous service, like the diocesan convention. Even at a Methodist service I attended in Houston, we knelt at the rail to rec. The majority of Protestants rec. sitting, it being passed to them.

 

[TNT]

JKirkLVNV:

Rad Trad misinformation: …The majority of Protestants rec. sitting, it being passed to them.

Please don’t tell the USCCB! They’ll command that the donation baskets be used to pass communion down the isle!
Now, tell us about the Lutherans…?
Not sect by sect, but in the overall.
I’m willing to learn.
BTW:
It’s “flaming” trad, as in “on fire”. (That’s the far end of the bell curve.)
Thank you.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

TNT:

Please don’t tell the USCCB! They’ll command that the donation baskets be used to pass communion down the isle!
Now, tell us about the Lutherans…?
Not sect by sect, but in the overall.
I’m willing to learn.
BTW:
It’s “flaming” trad, as in “on fire”. (That’s the far end of the bell curve.)
Thank you.

You know, I’ve never been in a Lutheran church. I don’t know. I know that they don’t make up the majority of Protestants, so whatever they do should be taken as the rule.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I try always to put myself in someone else’s shoes. If I had a lifetime of kneeling to rec. my God, I think I would be, at the least, perplexed by suddenly being asked to stand to rec. Him (and in the timeline of the Church, 40 years is pretty sudden). All the same, I hope I would be obedient not only to the letter of what was being asked of me, but to the spirit of what was being asked of me. We’ve been asked not to kneel. If we kneel, we’re not supposed to be denied communion (if someone has been, they should get a canon lawyer and raise merry h-e-double candlesticks), but we can also be taken aside and told what’s what. After that, if you kneel, it seems like it has become a point of disobedience or rebellion or spiritual pride, even though they still can’t canonically deny you communion. I don’t pretend to know what is in anyone’s heart, but I think I’d start believing,“Ooooooo, look at the VHP (Very Holy Person)!” Didn’t Our Lord say that visible displays of piety would not gain us anything in the Kingdom, but the dispositions of our hearts was what was important? Shouldn’t we be disposed to obedience?

 

[TNT]

JKirkLVNV:

I try always to put myself in someone else’s shoes. If I had a lifetime of kneeling to rec. my God, I think I would be, at the least, perplexed by suddenly being asked to stand to rec. Him (and in the timeline of the Church, 40 years is pretty sudden). All the same, I hope I would be obedient not only to the letter of what was being asked of me, but to the spirit (which is?) of what was being asked of me. We’ve been asked not to kneel… Shouldn’t we be disposed to obedience?

More simply put, attend a TLM where tomorrow and tomorrow, one can rely on the liturgy, whether new priest, new bishop, new pope, new church, new choir, new members. Tha’t’s Catholic. God does not change, He does not embrace novelty, fashion, or personality.
There is either a best way to worship, or there is experimentation. The Church did not discover a better way in 1970. It well knew the proper position in worhiping one’s Creator. If in doubt, check the Scriptures. Kneeling is for adoration and humility. Standing is for judgement.
See POST 8

 

[RSiscoe]

misericordie:

Did you actually take the time to read the above letter?? The Bishops can say standing all they want, but as these letters clearly state, the bishops cardinals etc, can and at times are OVERRULED by the Holy See of ROME. No Bishop, Pastor, parish priest religious, nun, whoever inder the sun (BUT THE POPE) can tell catholics NOT to kneel, and worse yet, deny Communion on that basis. I have seen two priests: One a RELGIOUS ORDER and the other a diocesan priest deny communion on that basis and they were CANONICALLY stripped of their FACULTIES.

I have a friend who you do not want to mess with. We’ll call him “Mr. E”, instead of “Mr. T”. He is a true militant Catholic. He is a Marine who did several tours in Vietnam. I could tell you some very good stories about Mr. E, Here is just one.

Several years ago Mr. E attended a Novus Ordo Mass. He walked down the isle for communion, and, when it was his turn, knelt on both knees in front of the priest. He said he waited with his eyes closed for the priest to give him communion… waited a little longer… a little longer…, then finally opened his eyes. The priest refused him communion for commiting the “sin” of kneeling.

Well, after Mass, as the priest processed down the isle toward the back of the Church, Mr E was waiting for him. He absolutely tore into that priest for refusing him communion. He said the altar boys eyes “were about this big” - “and so were the priests”.

Say what you like about Mr. E, but that priest will think twice before he refusing someone communion for kneeling. In my opinion, the Church needs more people like Mr. E. These liberals have gotten away with way too much destruction. It’s about time people start standing up to the “wolves” who are destroying the faith.

 

[Mysty101]

The Priest was wrong to refuse to give him Communion—this has been acknowledged many times.

The man was wrong in what he did—2 wrongs don’t make a right anywhere.

It is also wrong to deny your pastor or bishop the support he deserves.

SuZ

 

[TNT]

Mysty101:

The Priest was wrong to refuse to give him Communion—this has been acknowledged many times.

The man was wrong in what he did—2 wrongs don’t make a right anywhere.

It is also wrong to deny your pastor or bishop the support he deserves.

SuZ

From many posts ago:
Did you ever find out the compeling reasons for all standing after 800 years of kneeling?

Has anyone been “pastorally” given those reasons?
Maybe after they did kneel, and later counseled?
Come now, we are not secret masons, surely someone was given the many reasons without being sworn to secrecy.

Do the Eastern Orthodox stand? I think they do.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

RSiscoe:

I have a friend who you do not want to mess with. We’ll call him “Mr. E”, instead of “Mr. T”. He is a true militant Catholic. He is a Marine who did several tours in Vietnam. I could tell you some very good stories about Mr. E, Here is just one.

Several years ago Mr. E attended a Novus Ordo Mass. He walked down the isle for communion, and, when it was his turn, knelt on both knees in front of the priest. He said he waited with his eyes closed for the priest to give him communion… waited a little longer… a little longer…, then finally opened his eyes. The priest refused him communion for commiting the “sin” of kneeling.

Well, after Mass, as the priest processed down the isle toward the back of the Church, Mr E was waiting for him. He absolutely tore into that priest for refusing him communion. He said the altar boys eyes “were about this big” - “and so were the priests”.

Say what you like about Mr. E, but that priest will think twice before he refusing someone communion for kneeling. In my opinion, the Church needs more people like Mr. E. These liberals have gotten away with way too much destruction. It’s about time people start standing up to the “wolves” who are destroying the faith.

Did this happen after we were asked to rec. standing? If so, I would say not a very good Marine, ie, unable to accept a directive from a superior. Of course, he shouldn’t have been denied Holy Communion, as that is also against the directive. But he should have taken the proper steps. I certainly hope he enjoyed the attention he got. I think that’s what most of this is about…stubborn pride “a lengthening of prayer tassels,” as Our Lord said (paraphrased). Did he yell at the priest in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament? Did he give scandal by doing it in front of the altar boys? How terribly humble and obedient.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

RSiscoe:

I have a friend who you do not want to mess with. We’ll call him “Mr. E”, instead of “Mr. T”. He is a true militant Catholic. He is a Marine who did several tours in Vietnam. I could tell you some very good stories about Mr. E, Here is just one.

Several years ago Mr. E attended a Novus Ordo Mass. He walked down the isle for communion, and, when it was his turn, knelt on both knees in front of the priest. He said he waited with his eyes closed for the priest to give him communion… waited a little longer… a little longer…, then finally opened his eyes. The priest refused him communion for commiting the “sin” of kneeling.

Well, after Mass, as the priest processed down the isle toward the back of the Church, Mr E was waiting for him. He absolutely tore into that priest for refusing him communion. He said the altar boys eyes “were about this big” - “and so were the priests”.

Say what you like about Mr. E, but that priest will think twice before he refusing someone communion for kneeling. In my opinion, the Church needs more people like Mr. E. These liberals have gotten away with way too much destruction. It’s about time people start standing up to the “wolves” who are destroying the faith.

Did this happen after we were asked to rec. standing? If so, I would say not a very good Marine, ie, unable to accept a directive from a superior. Of course, he shouldn’t have been denied Holy Communion, as that is also against the directive. But he should have taken the proper steps. I certainly hope he enjoyed the attention he got. I think that’s what most of this is about…stubborn pride “a lengthening of prayer tassels,” as Our Lord said (paraphrased). Did he yell at the priest in the Presence of the Blessed Sacrament? Did he give scandal by doing it in front of the altar boys? How terribly humble and obedient.