Kneeling VS. Standing

  • Thread starter Thread starter scylla
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Excuse me. The comment about kneelers not being “disobedient” was made by Cardinal Arinze, the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, and was published in Notitiae, his congregation’s official journal.

He is the official papal representative for Novus Ordo liturgical matters. His opinions are not merely private when published in Notitiae, but represent official Roman thinking.

The logic behind his position…Rome’s position…is that kneeling could not be banned because it was a venerable custom, and a universal norm. Also, churches in the USA that still have rails needed to be protected. Some Vandal bishops were threatening to remove them…shades of the late 60s-early 70s “required” wreckovations.

There are better things to do in the liturgy than obsess over who’s kneeling for Communion.
 
AlexV said:
Excuse me. The comment about kneelers not being “disobedient” was made by Cardinal Arinze, the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, and was published in Notitiae, his congregation’s official journal.

He is the official papal representative for Novus Ordo liturgical matters. His opinions are not merely private when published in Notitiae, but represent official Roman thinking.

The logic behind his position…Rome’s position…is that kneeling could not be banned because it was a venerable custom, and a universal norm. Also, churches in the USA that still have rails needed to be protected. Some Vandal bishops were threatening to remove them…shades of the late 60s-early 70s “required” wreckovations.

There are better things to do in the liturgy than obsess over who’s kneeling for Communion.
Click to expand...
OK, I assume that you are not familiar with the term “dicta”.

The rule, published in the GIRM after the flap occured and Rome responded, is that the norm in the US is standing, and that those who kneel for Communion are not to be refused, but are to be counseled. If people are free to choose whatever they wish, Rome is eminently capable of saying so, as they did with Communion either in the hand or on the tongue. Rome did not do so in this circumstance; they specifically said the norm is to stand and those who do not are to be counseled. Any comments about disobedience, which has to do with Canon Law punishements, has been take to read that each individual has a license to determine whether or not to follow the norm in the US. But rome has chosen how they wish the subject treated, and Brnedan made the remark abvout wanting to hear what a priest would say in counseling (indicating that he believed that the comment about counseling was spurious and without meaning, and that everyone had a license to do whichever they pleased). My points address that.

If Rome wanted to make standing the norm with kneeling optional, they could have done so and chose to not do so; rather, they said one who knelt was to be counseled. The meaning is plain to anyone who does not want to be a Philedelphia Lawyer or a neo-Pharisee.

And to make a point, I don’t obsess about posture at Communion; I just follow the norm; and I don’t comment to anyone who does otherwise. I am just tired of the insistence by certain people that they have a right to do other than the norm because of how they feel, and thumb their nose at the written norm; they are so often the same people who play liturguical police with anything and everything else they don’t like. Amazing how much they resemble the other liturgical hacks who have to do it their own way also.
 
I am more than familiar with the word “dicta”, thank you. It has no relevance here. I happen to have advanced degrees in classical languages, and experience on the staff of an archdiocesan liturgy office.

Cardinal Arinze, prefect in charge of these matters, has stated more than once…including in the pages of Notitiae, the official journal of his Congregation…that kneeling in the USA cannot be considered “disobedient”.

That’s because kneeling is a venerable custom, protected by the usual protections afforded to such customs. And, indeed, the question is particularly relevant to those handul of churches that still have altar rails for Communion. Some fanatics decided they could no longer be used in 2002, and Rome corrected that neo-Vandalic interpretation.

The long and short of it is, the American bishops are allowed to vote for a “norm”, but that norm, according to Rome, does not exclude other postures, namely the venerable custom of kneeling. “Norma” in Latin (since you like to give Latin lessons to people with doctorates in it) does not mean “without exception”.

Kneeling is perfectly legitimate. Those who kneel cannot be considered disobedient.
 
AlexV said:
I am more than familiar with the word “dicta”, thank you. It has no relevance here. I happen to have advanced degrees in classical languages, and experience on the staff of an archdiocesan liturgy office.

Cardinal Arinze, prefect in charge of these matters, has stated more than once…including in the pages of Notitiae, the official journal of his Congregation…that kneeling in the USA cannot be considered “disobedient”.

That’s because kneeling is a venerable custom, protected by the usual protections afforded to such customs. And, indeed, the question is particularly relevant to those handul of churches that still have altar rails for Communion. Some fanatics decided they could no longer be used in 2002, and Rome corrected that neo-Vandalic interpretation.

The long and short of it is, the American bishops are allowed to vote for a “norm”, but that norm, according to Rome, does not exclude other postures, namely the venerable custom of kneeling. “Norma” in Latin (since you like to give Latin lessons to people with doctorates in it) does not mean “without exception”.

Kneeling is perfectly legitimate. Those who kneel cannot be considered disobedient.
Click to expand...
You want to play degrees, fine. I have a JD and more than passing fmailiarity with Canon Law.
and while you are at it, you might want to read what I actually wrote; I said that the term “disobedience” as he used it relates to Canon Law and punishments; and we have all agreed that within the confines of Canon Law they are not “disobedient” in terms of having a Canoniocal punishment. So get over the bit about “disobedient”, already.

As to the norm, it is not something that is nice to do, it is the direction we are to follow. Those who do not follow it, even by your beloved Cardinal Arinze’s promulgation of his notitiae and the GIRM are to be counseled. Since the use of terms in law is not without meaing, the term “counseled” must have a meaning; and to anyone who chooses not to attempt to go around the plain meaning of both the word “counseled” and the plain meaning of the GIRM statement that standing is the norm, coupled with the clear illustration of

Rome’s ability to state plainly when there are alternatives viz a viz Communion reception either in the hand or on the tongue, it is clear that there is not “permission” to kneel. There is a prohibition of punishment according to Canon Law by withholding Communion.

And according to the plain meaning of the GIRM, those who kneel are to be given Communion, and counseled. You and I both know we are not discussing a parish that has the Communion rail in and still has everyone kneel at it; we are discussing those which have people process up to Communion and receive individually while standing. Nice red herring, though.
 
Lawyers should read more closely.

The Notitiae article that mentions that kneelers cannot be considered “disobedient” does not ANYWHERE specify that this only applies to whether they can suffer canonical penalties.

Of course, only an idiot, in plain English, would think someone could be denied Communion for kneeling…so there never was any real question of canonical penalties, except in the warped minds of those few clergy who decided to start making political statements with the Holy Eucharist.

Posture in the Roman Rite has a long history of NOT being precisely regulated. No Communion posture norms even exist in print until the most modern of times (when, coincidentally, some Catholics think it’s necessary to spell out everything legalistically). Postures developed organically and out of the sensus devotionis, not mandates from on high.

Notitiae makes clear…and yes, it is the official liturgical journal for the modern Roman Rite…that kneeling for Communion cannot be considered disobedient. The “counseling sessions” mentioned (reeducation camps?) do not say that people are to be told why they shouldn’t kneel (a negative), but rather why the bishops voted for standing (a positive).

But, the key point…kneelers still, even after “counseling”, cannot be considered disobedient.

Again, a footnote in Notitiae mentions the case of churches in the USA with altar rails. In one case, the Congregation for Divine Worship interceded with a New England bishop who questioned whether he should remove rails from two churches. Rome said nope after receiving word of the planned wreckovation. The rails remain…and as of last May, so do the kneelers at Communion.

The church has always had “unity in diversity” in its liturgy. It’s a false sense of liturgy that argues that everyone must do exactly the same thing, especially where venerable customs are concerned.

I have purely academic interest (and a sense of justice for the persecuted)…I am not under the authority of an American ordinary, so I could care less, ultimately, what new “norms” are dreamed up and selectively enforced.
 
From the various responses issued by Rome—we can determine —the mind of the Church is to protect the right to kneel. From the following letter—we can see–that the faithful who kneel-- are not to be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience or of acting illicitly.
I have also included the link to the USCCB Nov/Dec 2002newsletter —where it it is verified—that priests who refuse communion for kneeling are subject to disciplinary action.

usccb.org/liturgy/innews/1102.shtml

ewtn.com/expert/answers/cdw2002.htm

Congregatio de Culto Divino et Disciplina Sacramentorum
Prot. N. xxxx/02/L
Rome, xx February, 2003

Dear _______:

To this end, it is perhaps useful to respond to your inquiry by repeating the content of a letter that the Congregation recently addressed to a Bishop in the United States of America from whose Diocese a number of pertinent letters had been received. The letter states: “… while this Congregation gave the recognitio to the norm desired by the Bishops’ Conference of your country that people stand for Holy Communion, this was done on the condition that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds. Indeed, the faithful should not be imposed upon ****nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion.”

This Dicastery hopes that the citation given here will provide an adequate answer to your letter. At the same time, please be assured that the Congregation remains ready to be of assistance if you should need to contact it again.

With every prayerful good wish, I am

Sincerely yours in Christ,
Mons. Mario Marini
Undersecretary
 
otjm said:
You want to play degrees, fine. I have a JD and more than passing fmailiarity with Canon Law. .
Click to expand...
Yipdeedo.

I’ve studied Canon Law, in fact, from some of the best there are.

And it was made pretty clear in our classes that the ‘disobedience’ is more than just Canonical penalties. I wrote a paper on that very issue.

The reason being is that this is a Liturgical document, which specifies Liturigal, not Canonical actions.

Those that choose to kneel are free of Liturgical disobedience.

And yes, there are certain Particular Norms that may take precidence over Universal Norms. The key is that they have to be approved by Rome as doing so.

The secular analogy is Federal vs. State law. State law cannot override Federal in the same matter, unless the Federal law permits the States to do so. This happen, liturgically speaking, with the duration for kneeling during the Eucharistic Prayer in the US. The ‘Federals’ (CDWDS) specifically permitted the ‘State’ (USCCB) law to take precidence.

But the ‘Federal’ Court ( the CDWDS) said that this was NOT the case for the Particular Norm for recieving Communion.

All the GIRM instruction means is that standing for Communion is not an Indult action in the US, requiring specific permission to do so.
 
and the plain meaning of the GIRM statement that standing is the norm, coupled with the clear illustration of
Click to expand...
Where in the GIRM is this stated and can you give a link?
 
Since no one has given a good reason for standing other than unity, I ask again why?

What is the reason behind standing?

I am not asking about it being a norm, I know that and I stand in obedience. We know what the Bishops desire and comply, so please stop discussing that, that is not the point of this thread.
But why do we stand now as opposed to receiving at a communion rail kneeling? What is the purpose and why is it better.

Does it put God and Man in the proper relationship, which is why we come to Church, or is there another reason? I am curious as I have never heard a good reason for this practice.

In Christ
Scylla
 
scylla said:
Since no one has given a good reason for standing other than unity, I ask again why?

What is the reason behind standing?

I am not asking about it being a norm, I know that and I stand in obedience. We know what the Bishops desire and comply, so please stop discussing that, that is not the point of this thread.
But why do we stand now as opposed to receiving at a communion rail kneeling? What is the purpose and why is it better.

Does it put God and Man in the proper relationship, which is why we come to Church, or is there another reason? I am curious as I have never heard a good reason for this practice.

In Christ
Scylla
Click to expand...
Standing is a sign of respect. That is why, when someone enters the room, you stand - in respect of them. It is why, when the Gospe3kl is read, we stand. Kneeling is a sign of submission, and of pentitence. Both have their place in the liturgy.

Part of the issue of standing vs. kneeling is due to “we always did it this way” reaction; whether that is correct or not may debatable, but it is a habit and when taught and ingrained very deeply, not one that is easily changed.
 
From Cardinal Ratzinger’s The Spirit of the Liturgy
The Christian Liturgy is a cosmic Liturgy precisely because it bends the knee before the crucified and exalted Lord. Here is the center of authentic culture - the culture of truth. The humble gesture by which we fall at the feet of the Lord inserts us into the true path of life of the cosmos…
It may well be that kneeling is alien to modern culture – insofar as it is a culture, for this culture has turned away from the faith and no longer knows the one before whom kneeling is the right, indeed the intrinsically necessary gesture. The man who learns to believe learns also to kneel, and a faith or a liturgy no longer familiar with kneeling would be sick at the core. Where it has been lost, kneeling must be rediscovered, so that, in our prayer, we remain in fellowship with the apostles and martyrs, in fellowship with the whole cosmos, indeed in union with Jesus Christ Himself.
Click to expand...
 
Kneel in peace.

In the late 60s-early 70s, more than a few clergy announced that altar rails in the USA had to be removed because “Vatican II” said so, and we had to stand because “Vatican II” said so.

That was mendacious. They lied, either deliberately or in deplorable ignorance of what Vatican II said.

Some claims were made that standing is a “Resurrection posture”, all because of the traditional rubric that during Easter there is no kneeling.

In any case, kneel in peace. You’re not being disobedient; you’re not “divisive” (let’s save that word for the liars and neo-Vandals); if you wish to kneel, go ahead.
 
otjm said:
Standing is a sign of respect. That is why, when someone enters the room, you stand - in respect of them. It is why, when the Gospe3kl is read, we stand. Kneeling is a sign of submission, and of pentitence. Both have their place in the liturgy.

Part of the issue of standing vs. kneeling is due to “we always did it this way” reaction; whether that is correct or not may debatable, but it is a habit and when taught and ingrained very deeply, not one that is easily changed.
Click to expand...
Yes standing may be a sign of respect—but we are to ADORE our Lord, God and savior. As Pope Benedict XVI then Card said–it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/cdw2002.htm

In fact, as His Eminence, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has recently emphasized, the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition, and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration, completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species.
 
The pre-conciliar Missal makes no mention of the posture for the faithful at Communion.

So, after the Council, those who suddenly lied and said Vatican II demanded a change in posture weren’t breaking a “rubric” per se…no rubric existed…they were simply taking advantage of the absence of a “law” to defend what had become the customary posture.

Only recently, in another of the legalistic trends of the modern period in liturgy, have so many clamored for a specific rubric. The Church managed fine without one for centuries.
 
scylla said:
Since no one has given a good reason for standing other than unity, I ask again why?

What is the reason behind standing?

I am not asking about it being a norm, I know that and I stand in obedience. We know what the Bishops desire and comply, so please stop discussing that, that is not the point of this thread.
But why do we stand now as opposed to receiving at a communion rail kneeling? What is the purpose and why is it better.

Does it put God and Man in the proper relationship, which is why we come to Church, or is there another reason? I am curious as I have never heard a good reason for this practice.

In Christ
Scylla
Click to expand...
Justin Martyr wrote that when the time came that the bread and wine were turned into that of our Lord Jesus Christ, the congregation rose up and stood in praise of Him.

Standing in the early Church as well as in Judaism, was the proper posture for prayer and worship.

Jim
 
Quite a big leap historically and critically to cite ONE passage from the 2nd century and then say something was “the proper posture for prayer and worship”.
 
scylla said:
Since no one has given a good reason for standing other than unity, I ask again why?

What is the reason behind standing?
Click to expand...
I often hear standing supporters say that it is because we are “a resurrection people”. That is obviously a catchy but meaningless phrase. I’m not resurrected, and nobody I know is either (at least, not on this earth). Also, since we never laid down to receive communion, the whole “resurrection” argument doesn’t really make sense to me. When Christ was resurrected he stood, but he also sat, and lay down, and he probably even knelt to pray.

I think the preference for standing without doubt is a modern aversion to kneeling, to submission, to “outmoded and undignified” forms of faith and posture.
 
AlexV said:
Quite a big leap historically and critically to cite ONE passage from the 2nd century and then say something was “the proper posture for prayer and worship”.
Click to expand...
Especially when Pope Benedict XVI then Card.—has stated otherwise.
 
Walking_Home said:
Especially when Pope Benedict XVI then Card.—has stated otherwise.
Click to expand...
Historically, it is fact that in the Middle East during the first century church and in Judaism, standing was the proper posture for prayer.

In the US, the Bishops have stated, that we are to stand when receiving communion.

Why there’s a problem with this is beyond me.

Jim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top