Kneeling VS. Standing

[Podo2005]

The Church also has a Universal Norm of kneeling. The US has adopted a Particular Norm of standing.

A Particular Norm does not override a Universal Norm unless the Vatican specifically says so.

The Vatican has said that the Universal Norm has not been overriden,** so a Catholic who chooses to follow the Universal Norm does not incur any disobedience./**quote]

lol excuses excuses to satisfy what we as individuals want…

And btw its not just the US because Canada has adopted the norm of standing

God Bless,
Podo

 

[otjm]

Just because you have never given citations for your claims in about 90% of your previous posts, I am still obligated to ask you to give me some documents from the Vatican that back up your statement. …again.

The citation needed is the GIRM; it says that standing for Communion is the norm, and says that while Communion cannot be denied to someone who kneels, theya re to be counseled.

And the GIRM is from Rome.

 

[scylla]

Please get back to the topic on hand this thread is not about what is the norm. We already know what it is in the United States.

I am asking for some thoughtful (name removed by moderator)ut on which is better kneeling or standing?

I see that standing at the end with everyone else does accomplish the same unitive action as does kneeling at the communion rail and kneeling afterward. I had never thought of it that way, even though it doesn’t do much for praying it does explain the trend for people trying to keep singing all through communion.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[andy120]

I understand we know what the norms are…my point was just that it is “better” to follow the norms rather than disobeying them.

If the norm changed, I would be more than happy to kneel while receiving Holy Communion. For me, it is not a matter of a personal preference but a matter of obedience.

 

[LilyM]

Actually, Rome says nothing about telling people they’re “wrong”. Rome DOES say people can’t be considered “disobedient” for kneeling. Interesting…and, I admit, a bit more subtle than the knee-jerk types who have helped harm Catholicism.

Kneeling is a perfectly legitimate posture for Communion. If you kneel, you’re not disobedient. Kneel in peace…joy…and love.

And why else, pray tell, would pastors be instructed in the GIRM to ‘take aside and catechize’ a person who kneels? It ain’t to pat them on the head and say ‘good job, keep on kneeling’, is it? It’s to tell them that Rome’s preference (for the US at least) is for EVERYONE to be standing.

 

[Podo2005]

Please get back to the topic on hand this thread is not about what is the norm. We already know what it is in the United States.

I am asking for some thoughtful (name removed by moderator)ut on which is better kneeling or standing?

I see that standing at the end with everyone else does accomplish the same unitive action as does kneeling at the communion rail and kneeling afterward. I had never thought of it that way, even though it doesn’t do much for praying it does explain the trend for people trying to keep singing all through communion.

God Bless
Scylla

Well i mean it is possible to pray while standing , just the action of standing together with the community symbolizes the communion.

God Bless,
Podo

 

[Brendan]

And why else, pray tell, would pastors be instructed in the GIRM to ‘take aside and catechize’ a person who kneels? It ain’t to pat them on the head and say ‘good job, keep on kneeling’, is it? It’s to tell them that Rome’s preference (for the US at least) is for EVERYONE to be standing.

That would be really interesting, because Rome itself has said that it’s fine for them to kneel, because that’s the Universal Norm that Rome has set out.

The US Bishops requested a normative posture of standing, which Rome granted, under the condition that such a requlation would not override Rome’s preference towards kneeling.

So it would be interesting to hear exactly what the priest would try and say that would not contradict Rome.

 

[LilyM]

That would be really interesting, because Rome itself has said that it’s fine for them to kneel, because that’s the Universal Norm that Rome has set out.

The US Bishops requested a normative posture of standing, which Rome granted, under the condition that such a requlation would not override Rome’s preference towards kneeling.

So it would be interesting to hear exactly what the priest would try and say that would not contradict Rome.

Have they really said it’s completely fine, or simply that communion can’t be refused to people who kneel - which isn’t precisely the same thing

 

[THurifer2]

The citation needed is the GIRM; it says that standing for Communion is the norm, and says that while Communion cannot be denied to someone who kneels, theya re to be counseled.

And the GIRM is from Rome.

The GIRM was approved by ROme on March 17 2003…However in August of that year (5 months later) Rome also said this----->adoremus.org/0703Kneel.html Romes final word on the issue indicates that requiring people to stand is an excercise in rigidity. So according to ROME…we may kneel.

 

[Brendan]

Have they really said it’s completely fine, or simply that communion can’t be refused to people who kneel - which isn’t precisely the same thing

They also said that the regulation was approved without the intent to conform everyone to a standing position, and that if a person chose to kneel, they are not being disobedient.

If a priest attempted to tell me that this Particular Norm somehow overrode the Universal Norm, I would need to make sure that he correctly understood the distinction, and would have to put in in contact with a good Canon Lawyer to explain it.

So what exactly do you think a priest could catecize a person on?

 

[LilyM]

They also said that the regulation was approved without the intent to conform everyone to a standing position, and that if a person chose to kneel, they are not being disobedient.

If a priest attempted to tell me that this Particular Norm somehow overrode the Universal Norm, I would need to make sure that he correctly understood the distinction, and would have to put in in contact with a good Canon Lawyer to explain it.

So what exactly do you think a priest could catecize a person on?

If they said that I believe you I’m not tiresome enough to demand documentation on the point :yawn:

Of course I had thought the reference to catechizing meant that they actually intended people in the US to conform to a standing posture, just not to outright refuse communion on the basis of kneeling.

In which case it would make sense for priests to take kneelers to one side after mass and tell them not to do it again.

 

[StephenB]

Hmmm - a bit of a to do over position of the body, when it is really about condition the heart.

A lot of great discussion here about the importance of unity within the Mass - Ultimately, the opening assertion aside, we will be one when we are all instructed by our clergy as one. We need faithful bishops and priests who will pay close attention to their vow of obedience and teach in accord with Rome.

The problem is that too many priests see their parishes as personal seats of power to exercise their fancies and whims. (And as long as the parish staff doesn’t get in the way of their personal goals, very little direction is provided to correct errant teaching.)

Well there is no emoticon for kicking the soapbox back under the table…so I’ll just stop. God bless…

 

[Brendan]

In which case it would make sense for priests to take kneelers to one side after mass and tell them not to do it again.

So Rome says the rule is not to be interpreted in such a way as to prohibit ineel9ng, but you wouod have the priest attempt to do just that. To tell a person NOT to do what Rome said they can.

Do you really want the priest to be disobedient to Rome?

 

[adrift]

Someone I know kneels, to receive communion. He wrote the Bishop saying he would kneel unless he was told not to by the bishop. The Bishop wrote back saying that it was his right to kneel even though he would prefer him not to. My friend has been pulled aside numerous times. He then presents his letter from the bishop which says it is right.
He really feels called to do this.

I would prefer to kneel but I don’t feel it right to do so.

 

[LilyM]

So Rome says the rule is not to be interpreted in such a way as to prohibit ineel9ng, but you wouod have the priest attempt to do just that. To tell a person NOT to do what Rome said they can.

Do you really want the priest to be disobedient to Rome?

:doh2: read my posts carefully. On the face of the GIRM it looked like Rome didn’t want to keep you poor Yanks kneeling. I take your word for it that they say (obviously elsewhere) that they ARE happy to keep it.

Putting two and two together, I do not now think that kneelers need too much catechising. Maybe just to tell 'em to be sure not to trip up anyone coming up behind them or something

 

[VociMike]

If you stand after recieving communion with everyone else you are also representing the same posture and therefore representing not a individual experience but a communal one also.

Well the same would apply to kneeling or even sitting, so that’s no argument for any particular posture. Besides, I thought the question was about the posture when receiving, not afterwards.

 

[andy120]

The GIRM was approved by ROme on March 17 2003…However in August of that year (5 months later) Rome also said this----->adoremus.org/0703Kneel.html Romes final word on the issue indicates that requiring people to stand is an excercise in rigidity. So according to ROME…we may kneel.

Perhaps I’m confused That document is on our posture after receiving Holy Communion…I had thought this was a debate on the posture while receiving Communion.

 

[StephenB]

I am not saying that standing is wrong or that kneeling is wrong. I am asking which is better and why.
VociMike gave an excellent post in regards to this, please continue in that fashion if you can.

I am not encouraging anyone to be disobedient or to rise up in arms against our Bishops I am just looking for a some good reasoning behind each practice as which is better.

In Christ
Scylla

Scylla - in asking what is better, doesn’t the question ultimately go to what does the GIRM say to do? Otherwise it seems you are asking for personal opinion, in which case the issue does get at least get “cloudy”. It is often the root of many issues - what do people prefer to do…Personally whichever position, kneeling or standing, that demonstrates the real appreciation of my action - that is, becoming part of the body of Christ through reception of His Body and Blood - that is the best position that makes sense.

 

[AlexV]

You know, there was a time…really until quite recently…when the Church did not highly regulate posture at Mass.

Customs and traditions developed…organically…not little slips of paper with rules from on high telling us how many inches apart we should hold our hands at a given moment.

What’s chilling is the history behind this whole tiresome issue. For decades, certain American prelates allowed standing during the entire Canon…a definite abuse. Some places even started having clerics say, “The posture in this community is to stand…” (I experienced that in more than one state/diocese).

After Rome tried to clamp down on that, some prelates decided to start retaliating in OTHER directions. So the bishop who told me over coffee that if they went after him for standing at the Consecration, he’d make sure the last of the altar rails were “ripped out of the floor”.

Bottom line: Rome said kneeling is not “disobedient”. Case closed.

 

[otjm]

That would be really interesting, because Rome itself has said that it’s fine for them to kneel, because that’s the Universal Norm that Rome has set out.

The US Bishops requested a normative posture of standing, which Rome granted, under the condition that such a requlation would not override Rome’s preference towards kneeling.

So it would be interesting to hear exactly what the priest would try and say that would not contradict Rome.

Rome most certainly did not say it was perfectly fine for them to kneel.

The issue came up when some few priests refused Communion to those who kneel. Refusing Communion is a Canonical punishment. It is the punishment that is suggested be imposed on politicians who support abortion, and is a very significant punishment, short of an excommunication but bery clearly a punishment according to Canon Law.

What Rome said was that priests could not impose a Canonical punishment for someone who did not follow the norm.

In their official pronouncement on the issue, Rome itself said that the individual was to be counseled. The language that rome used in responding to the issue was incorporated into the GIRM.

There has been a Cardinal in Rome who has said, inconversation with the press, that people who kneel are not disobedient; however, his comment in the press is contrary to the plain meaning of the language Rome used in the official response to the problem and the same language that Rome used in the official rules - the GIRM. And using a Cardinal’s comments during a press interview to interpret plain language of an official document is at best a combination of ignorance of how law is interpreted and facitious.

It is also the universal norm that people kneel for a shorter period around the Consecration, but if people were to stand during the time the universal norm indicates, people here woud be screaming “abuse” and “experimental liturgy” and all the other comments that occur when someone does not follow the norm here.