H
Hope1960
Guest
Me too.
…
…
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
MiserereMei25
Guest
It was the Monsignor there that acted that way.
Again it must have been an odd weekend it was a Saturday night and they did a wedding during the mass. Ok it was different. Though I did look up a recorded homily by Fr. Eric. It was good and edifying.
Again it must have been an odd weekend it was a Saturday night and they did a wedding during the mass. Ok it was different. Though I did look up a recorded homily by Fr. Eric. It was good and edifying.
Last edited:
G
giuseppe96
Guest
My parish thankfully still has its original rails. As a result of this, most parishioners receive kneeling unless they are physically unable. If we brought back altar rails, kneeling wouldn’t be so awkward for many.
P
PetraG
Guest
“The General Instruction asks each country’s Conference of Bishops to determine the posture to be used for the reception of Communion and the act of reverence to be made by each person as he or she receives Communion. In the United States, the body of Bishops determined that Communion should be received standing, and that a bow is the act of reverence made by those receiving. These norms may require some adjustment on the part of those who have been used to other practices, however the significance of unity in posture and gesture as a symbol of our unity as members of the one body of Christ should be the governing factor in our own actions.”
http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-wor...t/the-reception-of-holy-communion-at-mass.cfm
OK, so we have a norm, and it is explained above, but at the same time this is the bishops’ way to have some hope of putting everyone something like on the same page. The Vatican has said the norm established by a conference of bishops is not meant to forbid people from receiving while kneeling in places where standing is the norm.
I am (as is common) reminded of a passage from The Screwtape Letters (Letter 16) in which Screwtape explains to a young tempter that “high” church or “low” church doesn’t matter nearly so much in what use the tempter is allowed to make of which camp one happens to be in:
" But there is one good point which both these churches have in common—they are both party churches. I think I warned you before that if your patient can’t be kept out of the Church, he ought at least to be violently attached to some party within it. I don’t mean on really doctrinal issues; about those, the more lukewarm he is the better. And it isn’t the doctrines on which we chiefly depend for producing malice. The real fun is working up hatred between those who say “mass” and those who say “holy communion”; when neither party could possibly state the difference between, say, Hooker’s doctrine and Thomas Aquinas’, in any form which would hold water for five minutes. And all the purely indifferent things—candles and clothes and what not—are an admirable ground for our activities. We have quite removed from men’s minds what that pestilent fellow Paul used to teach about food and other unessentials—namely, that the human without scruples should always give in to the human with scruples. You would think they could not fail to see the application. You would expect to find the “low”; churchman genuflecting and crossing himself lest the weak conscience of his “high”; brother should be moved to irreverence, and the “high” one refraining from these exercises lest he should betray his “low”; brother into idolatry. And so it would have been but for our ceaseless labour. Without that the variety of usage within the Church of England might have become a positive hotbed of charity and humility
cont
http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-wor...t/the-reception-of-holy-communion-at-mass.cfm
OK, so we have a norm, and it is explained above, but at the same time this is the bishops’ way to have some hope of putting everyone something like on the same page. The Vatican has said the norm established by a conference of bishops is not meant to forbid people from receiving while kneeling in places where standing is the norm.
I am (as is common) reminded of a passage from The Screwtape Letters (Letter 16) in which Screwtape explains to a young tempter that “high” church or “low” church doesn’t matter nearly so much in what use the tempter is allowed to make of which camp one happens to be in:
" But there is one good point which both these churches have in common—they are both party churches. I think I warned you before that if your patient can’t be kept out of the Church, he ought at least to be violently attached to some party within it. I don’t mean on really doctrinal issues; about those, the more lukewarm he is the better. And it isn’t the doctrines on which we chiefly depend for producing malice. The real fun is working up hatred between those who say “mass” and those who say “holy communion”; when neither party could possibly state the difference between, say, Hooker’s doctrine and Thomas Aquinas’, in any form which would hold water for five minutes. And all the purely indifferent things—candles and clothes and what not—are an admirable ground for our activities. We have quite removed from men’s minds what that pestilent fellow Paul used to teach about food and other unessentials—namely, that the human without scruples should always give in to the human with scruples. You would think they could not fail to see the application. You would expect to find the “low”; churchman genuflecting and crossing himself lest the weak conscience of his “high”; brother should be moved to irreverence, and the “high” one refraining from these exercises lest he should betray his “low”; brother into idolatry. And so it would have been but for our ceaseless labour. Without that the variety of usage within the Church of England might have become a positive hotbed of charity and humility
cont
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
What I’m saying is, whether you receive on the knees because you think it is an appropriately humble thing to do (because the Eucharist deserves this age old posture of adoration) or you receive according to the norm because you judge that to be the appropriately humble thing to do (because it complies with what the bishops ask) of course what you would be too foolish to do would be to come out of the whole thing thinking you had bettered someone else with your expression of humility!
The ideal, rather, is this: “Do nothing out of selfishness or out of vainglory; rather, humbly regard others as more important than yourselves, each looking out not for his own interests, but everyone for those of others.” (Phil 2:3-4) Whatever you do, if you think that by doing it you are better than those who do otherwise, then you ought to do what they do, instead, because you are the same as them and shouldn’t want to lead anyone to believe you aren’t. Even if you have the right to do what you want, it is even better to try to help others around you feel more comfortable than doing what you want to. If on the other hand, you are just muddling along, doing your best and willing to live and let live, so much the better for charity.
That is the main way we are commanded to show we love the Lord: that is, to keep the commandment to love each other. As Steven Covey put it: The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. The main thing is to be patient and kind to those who do things differently than we do, as love demands we do. If we are lucky enough that correcting them is not in our jurisdiction, we ought to consider that cloistered saints have been thankful for avoiding that trial, and give thanks for it ourselves when the virtue of spiritual mercy doesn’t require us to correct anyone else.
The ideal, rather, is this: “Do nothing out of selfishness or out of vainglory; rather, humbly regard others as more important than yourselves, each looking out not for his own interests, but everyone for those of others.” (Phil 2:3-4) Whatever you do, if you think that by doing it you are better than those who do otherwise, then you ought to do what they do, instead, because you are the same as them and shouldn’t want to lead anyone to believe you aren’t. Even if you have the right to do what you want, it is even better to try to help others around you feel more comfortable than doing what you want to. If on the other hand, you are just muddling along, doing your best and willing to live and let live, so much the better for charity.
That is the main way we are commanded to show we love the Lord: that is, to keep the commandment to love each other. As Steven Covey put it: The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. The main thing is to be patient and kind to those who do things differently than we do, as love demands we do. If we are lucky enough that correcting them is not in our jurisdiction, we ought to consider that cloistered saints have been thankful for avoiding that trial, and give thanks for it ourselves when the virtue of spiritual mercy doesn’t require us to correct anyone else.
Last edited:
H
Hereiam
Guest
Taking a knee to receive the sacrament is a sign of reverence, just as, I suppose taking a knee at the playing of the National Anthem is…the bigger issue is the disposition of our hearts (whether for God or our Nation), than our physical posture. Kneel if you wish, stand if you rather, but be properly spiritually disposed to receive the true body and blood of our Lord.
A
Ardent_Fire
Guest
I think the problem with these debates are people’s inability to discuss the instructions and norms of the Church themselves without it becoming a discussion of someone’s character depending on how they receive. If someone says “I think what is allowed should be revised, and here’s why” – people need to find a way of discussing it without turning it into a judgment on someone’s character, and without people perceiving it that way.
With that in mind it’s times like this I can understand why the church used to be more strict about allowing public debate.
With that in mind it’s times like this I can understand why the church used to be more strict about allowing public debate.
Last edited:
M
Mary888
Guest
We (in the East) are forbidden to kneel or even cross ourselves (some feel like doing so) because it is possible to kick the priest’s hand as we move our hand or as we stand up and make the precious blood hit the floor. In that case both the person who produced the accident and the priest are guilty of blasphemy and have to do canon. So it is considered that balancing the gravity of sins produced by kneeling/non-kneeling while receiving the Eucharist, dropping the precious blood even as accident is a far greater evil than not kneeling while receiving it.
Edit: I am not saying these should be the rules for all, just explaining what the EO priests told us as reply to why not kneeling. The same explanation may apply in CC as to why kneeling is no longer encouraged.
Edit: I am not saying these should be the rules for all, just explaining what the EO priests told us as reply to why not kneeling. The same explanation may apply in CC as to why kneeling is no longer encouraged.
Last edited:
E
eagerbeaver
Guest
Also - in the East kneeling is regarded as penitential.
As for us Sunday is a Resurrection Day [ we use the Resurrectional Propers ] we should not be in a penitential mood then - we are rejoicing and so stand to Receive the Holy Gifts.
As for us Sunday is a Resurrection Day [ we use the Resurrectional Propers ] we should not be in a penitential mood then - we are rejoicing and so stand to Receive the Holy Gifts.
T
tafan2
Guest
Ok, you are more than a little out of line. First of all, you bring up the topic of withholding Holy Communion from one who is kneeling, which would indicate I said something, perhaps implying, that would be acceptable. I never said or implied any such thing, indeed I did not bring it up. More importantly, you say that “any accusation towards such a person would be itself an act of disobedience”. I specifically said that it was a matter of obedience “for me”. And I explicitly said “I am making no judgement against those who choose to kneel.”
I am well aware of what the Vatican has said on the matter. As I said, I considered starting to kneel myself, I did my homework when that is what I wanted to do. In the 2003 letter on the matter (http://www.ccwatershed.org/media/pdfs/14/09/10/11-23-03_0.pdf) I will quote the whole paragraph:
I repeat: I make NO judgements about those who come to a different conclusion. And I certainly would NEVER agree to withhold communion to anyone for kneeling.
I am well aware of what the Vatican has said on the matter. As I said, I considered starting to kneel myself, I did my homework when that is what I wanted to do. In the 2003 letter on the matter (http://www.ccwatershed.org/media/pdfs/14/09/10/11-23-03_0.pdf) I will quote the whole paragraph:
The Vatican made clear that Holy Communion can only be denied in very limited circumstances, and as you state, kneeling is not one of them. But it certainly states that the norms of the United States were approved, and those norms are clearly standing with a bow before receiving. That is my logic as to why I have decided FOR ME, it is a matter of obedience to our bishops.In view of the law that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who opportunely ask for them, are properly disposed and are not prohibited by law from receiving them” (Canon 843 s. 1), there should be no such refusal to any Catholic who presents himself for Holy Communion at Mass, except in cases presenting a danger of grave scandal to other believers arising out of the person’s unrepented public sin or obstinate heresy or schism, publicly professed or declared. Even where the Congregation has approved of legislation denoting standing as the posture for Holy Communion, in accordance with the adaptations permitted to the Conferences of Bishops by the Institution Generalis Missalis Romani n. 160, paragraph 2, it has done so with the stipulation that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds.
I repeat: I make NO judgements about those who come to a different conclusion. And I certainly would NEVER agree to withhold communion to anyone for kneeling.
B
Brendan
Guest
Nothing I said was “over the top”, but simply the teachings of the Church
One thing to keep in mind, a number of the bishops in the US had a misconception of the 2002 GIRM 160. The CDWDS ( the legislator of the GIRM, and thus the authentic interpreter under Canon 16) issued a number of corrections on how GIRM 160 was to be interpreted. The information was not as well known among the bishops, as questions ( dubia) were still being requested from the CDWDS.
The CDWDS then acted pretty much unilaterally in 2010, rewriting the US GIRM to correspond with the norm as the CDWDS understood it to be.
The clarified norm specifically INCLUDES an option for the person to receive kneeling.
The clarified Norm is
The clarified Norm is the ENTIRE sentence, inclusive of the conditional operand ‘unless’
The ‘unless’ does not define an EXCEPTION to the Norm, it is canoncally PART of the norm.
As this has been true since 2002, when the GIRM was issued.
A common misconception is that the US bishops define the Norm. They create one, but not unilaterally. The CDWDS must ratify it before it becomes a Norm. The CDWDS, being the Congregation that has authority over all liturgical rubrics, has the authority to accept, reject or modify any proposed Norms.
They did so in 2002. The approved the Norm proposed by the US Bishops, BUT WITH CONDITIONS.
Those conditions are PART of the Norm, not exception to it, and have been since 2002.
That is why the CDWDS stated in 2003
One thing to keep in mind, a number of the bishops in the US had a misconception of the 2002 GIRM 160. The CDWDS ( the legislator of the GIRM, and thus the authentic interpreter under Canon 16) issued a number of corrections on how GIRM 160 was to be interpreted. The information was not as well known among the bishops, as questions ( dubia) were still being requested from the CDWDS.
The CDWDS then acted pretty much unilaterally in 2010, rewriting the US GIRM to correspond with the norm as the CDWDS understood it to be.
The clarified norm specifically INCLUDES an option for the person to receive kneeling.
The clarified Norm is
(GIRM 160)Holy Communion is to be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling
The clarified Norm is the ENTIRE sentence, inclusive of the conditional operand ‘unless’
The ‘unless’ does not define an EXCEPTION to the Norm, it is canoncally PART of the norm.
As this has been true since 2002, when the GIRM was issued.
A common misconception is that the US bishops define the Norm. They create one, but not unilaterally. The CDWDS must ratify it before it becomes a Norm. The CDWDS, being the Congregation that has authority over all liturgical rubrics, has the authority to accept, reject or modify any proposed Norms.
They did so in 2002. The approved the Norm proposed by the US Bishops, BUT WITH CONDITIONS.
Those conditions are PART of the Norm, not exception to it, and have been since 2002.
That is why the CDWDS stated in 2003
Thus if there are two people in a parish, one of whom stands, and another kneels, neither are being disobedient. Neither are acting against the Norm. Any attempt to consider one of those to be disobedient is an act of Disobedience itself.Indeed, the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion"
T
tafan2
Guest
I didn’t say you were “over the top”. I said that you were out of line implying I was accusing anyone of being disobedient or that I was in anyway referring to denying people the sacrament. The first of which was implied quite strongly, the second would have been assumed if anyone had only read your post.
I then simply clarified my statements I had made earlier.
But you can go on misquoting me and misrepresenting my views if that is what you do.
I then simply clarified my statements I had made earlier.
But you can go on misquoting me and misrepresenting my views if that is what you do.
B
Brendan
Guest
I apologize for the misunderstanding.
My response was mostly geared towards this statement
Please re-read my second post with that view in mind.
My response was mostly geared towards this statement
You have a misunderstanding about what the Norm entails. It INCLUDES the option to kneel (and always has) A person who kneels is acting within the Norm.But it certainly states that the norms of the United States were approved, and those norms are clearly standing with a bow before receiving
Please re-read my second post with that view in mind.
F
Footprints
Guest
I’m sorry something like this happened to you. Our priest instituted kneelers at the door of the altar steps so that people could kneel for Communion around Lent and he’s kept them since. I actually never liked receiving on the tongue or kneeling but now I do and I honestly find it hard to receive on the hand now. Kneeling, I can do or not.
Now, I have to agree with some others who say do as the Romans do but it is sad that the priest wasn’t open to you kneeling. Then again, we have no idea what was going through his mind nor what past experiences he’s had with it so best not to judge. Hard, I know!
If you don’t see ANYONE kneeling, perhaps refrain. While it is completely allowed and a beautiful way of expressing honor to God, it can be a little odd in a place where it is never done. I know because someone knelt in front of me once at another church and it was a bit awkward because I had been so close to him in the line.
So maybe pray about it some and also take a look at the surroundings. It’s not your fault at all but it can help to be a little be adaptable in different places!
Now, I have to agree with some others who say do as the Romans do but it is sad that the priest wasn’t open to you kneeling. Then again, we have no idea what was going through his mind nor what past experiences he’s had with it so best not to judge. Hard, I know!
If you don’t see ANYONE kneeling, perhaps refrain. While it is completely allowed and a beautiful way of expressing honor to God, it can be a little odd in a place where it is never done. I know because someone knelt in front of me once at another church and it was a bit awkward because I had been so close to him in the line.
So maybe pray about it some and also take a look at the surroundings. It’s not your fault at all but it can help to be a little be adaptable in different places!
P
PetraG
Guest
At one time, yes, but we know now that Rome has literally been asked about this very situation and has responded that the faithful are not to be told that it is forbidden to elect to kneel while receiving Holy Communion. A bishop or pastor can explain the reasons that this is not the norm in a particular diocese–it is not forbidden to attempt to dissuade the faithful from kneeling, either–but to act in a way outside the norm simply is not grounds to withhold Holy Communion, no matter how many times the norms preferred by those with pastoral jurisdiction are explained. They must lead in that direction, if they desire it; they do not have authority to compel it nor to shame those whose lights lead them differently. Likewise, the faithful have no room to complain if a bishop makes standing the norm or does not make any particular accommodations for kneeling other than simply allowing it.I’m sorry something like this happened to you. Our priest instituted kneelers at the door of the altar steps so that people could kneel for Communion around Lent and he’s kept them since. I actually never liked receiving on the tongue or kneeling but now I do and I honestly find it hard to receive on the hand now. Kneeling, I can do or not.
Now, I have to agree with some others who say do as the Romans do but it is sad that the priest wasn’t open to you kneeling. Then again, we have no idea what was going through his mind nor what past experiences he’s had with it so best not to judge. Hard, I know!
If you don’t see ANYONE kneeling, perhaps refrain. While it is completely allowed and a beautiful way of expressing honor to God, it can be a little odd in a place where it is never done. I know because someone knelt in front of me once at another church and it was a bit awkward because I had been so close to him in the line.
So maybe pray about it some and also take a look at the surroundings. It’s not your fault at all but it can help to be a little be adaptable in different places!
Last edited:
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
In the Byzantine Tradition, we receive Holy Communion standing because we receive both Species at once. The Hosts are immersed in the Precious Blood and the priest/deacon places It
in the mouth of the communicant with a golden spoon.
in the mouth of the communicant with a golden spoon.
E
Entwhistler
Guest
I believe that is called Intinction?
From my understanding it is permitted for both the East and the West. Although I’ve only seen it done once in the Latin Rite.
From my understanding it is permitted for both the East and the West. Although I’ve only seen it done once in the Latin Rite.
M
Marysann
Guest
Come to the Diocese of Arlington where several parishes have recently installed altar rails. Since I found out about this by reading the diocesan newspaper, I don’t think that these altar rails were installed without the permission or at least knowledge of our bishop. Our pastor told the parish that he is looking into installing one in our church as well. A large number of people receive kneeing, and many others would like to if they had the rail to help them get up!
Last edited:
H
HeDa
Guest
GRIM makes a difference in receiving the Precious Blood by drinking from the chalice, by intinction, a tube or with a spoon.
Intinction is done by the priest alone by dipping the Body of Christ in the Precious Blood and the recipient receives the Blood and Blood of Christ on the tongue. No “self-intinction” is allowed by the communicant dipping the Body of Christ him/herself. Catholics receive from a minister and don’t take Holy Communion. A deacon in the Western Church may not intinct.
Intinction is done by the priest alone by dipping the Body of Christ in the Precious Blood and the recipient receives the Blood and Blood of Christ on the tongue. No “self-intinction” is allowed by the communicant dipping the Body of Christ him/herself. Catholics receive from a minister and don’t take Holy Communion. A deacon in the Western Church may not intinct.
A
Augustinian
Guest
I don’t think “because” is the right word here, is it? I did understand Greek Catholics receive standing, but I don’t think its “because” they receive in both kinds.In the Byzantine Tradition, we receive Holy Communion standing because we receive both Species at once
In fact, receiving while standing poses logistic problems if the communicant is significantly taller than the priest or extraordinary minister if the EM is supposed to put it in the communicant’s mouth.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.