Kneeling VS. Standing

[AlexV]

Are we Jews?

Are we from the Middle East?

Nope. We’re Roman Catholics in twenty-first century America, not Palestine, first century A.D.

Archaeologism rears its ugly head.

However, historically there is no definitive evidence that standing was considered “the proper posture for prayer” in the first century A.D. ANYWHERE. One passage from Justin (second century) about one part of the Mass does not evidence make about the first century.

You’d fail any history test with those sorts of assertions. We have zero evidence for liturgical posture in the first century Church.

We are allowed to kneel for Communion in the modern Roman Rite (again, I attend the Tridentine, so I don’t really care for myself per se). Rome has confirmed we are not “disobedient” if we kneel. Kneeling has a venerable heritage.

This wouldn’t be a problem if progressive liars hadn’t told fibs after the Council. This wouldn’t be a problem if the progressive pack of neo-Vandals hadn’t ripped out altar rails and claimed—lied–that Vatican II demanded it.

 

[Walking_Home]

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

---

The problem–which you and a few others—have swept under the rug—is that Rome has spoken on the matter. People can kneel–and Rome will back them up.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

---

The problem–which you and a few others—have swept under the rug—is that Rome has spoken on the matter. People can kneel–and Rome will back them up.

They can kneel during communion, but when receiving communion, they’re to follow the norms set forth by the Bishop.

Jim

 

[AlexV]

Wrong again, Jim.

Those who kneel to receive are not to be considered disobedient.

Kneeling is a venerable custom, and protected by Rome.

Some churches in the good old USA still retain altar rails that are still used for Communion, Novus Ordo Missae.

 

[Teeliumtrozzle]

I dont think it matters.Its whats in your mind and heart and soul that counts-not your posture.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Wrong again, Jim.

Those who kneel to receive are not to be considered disobedient.

Kneeling is a venerable custom, and protected by Rome.

Some churches in the good old USA still retain altar rails that are still used for Communion, Novus Ordo Missae.

Nope, it the Bishop says stand and you kneel, you’re in disobedience and can be refused the sacrament. It has happened.

Kneeling when everyone else stands as they approach the Eucharistic Minister, is not only disrupted, it can cause a hazard.

Jim

 

[AlexV]

Lies.

Get with the times.

Rome has made EXPLICIT that Communion cannot be refused to ANYONE who kneels, AND has made explicit that kneeling “cannot be considered disobedient”.

Stop the lies. Spread the truth. The only liturgical truth in your version of events is that indeed, people were refused the Sacrament. Rome said this was unacceptable and that they would take any further instances “very seriously indeed”.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Lies.

Get with the times.

Rome has made EXPLICIT that Communion cannot be refused to ANYONE who kneels, AND has made explicit that kneeling “cannot be considered disobedient”.

Stop the lies. Spread the truth. The only liturgical truth in your version of events is that indeed, people were refused the Sacrament. Rome said this was unacceptable and that they would take any further instances “very seriously indeed”.

Calling people liars in this forum us uncharitable. If I’m wrong, put up the proof. Otherwise please keep your rude comments to yourself.

Jim

 

[AlexV]

COUNTLESS times on these fora, it has been posted…including ON THIS VERY THREAD…that you cannot be denied Communion for kneeling, with the nice excerpts from Notitiae and the Vatican’s liturgy office.

Check the very nice quotes from the Sacred Congregation available earlier on this thread.

If you’re participating in this thread, either you’re ignorant of the facts from Rome or you’re lying.

That’s not uncharitable. It’s simply reality. You cannot be refused Communion for kneeling, or be considered “disobedient”.

Roma locuta est; causa finita est.

Also, learn how to read critically. I stated “Lies”, in reference to the matter of what you said. That’s not the same as saying “Liar”, since it’s possible you’re not a liar, but merely ignorant (Greek for “unknowing”)…

 

[Walking_Home]

Nope, it the Bishop says stand and you kneel, you’re in disobedience and can be refused the sacrament. It has happened.

Kneeling when everyone else stands as they approach the Eucharistic Minister, is not only disrupted, it can cause a hazard.

Jim

---

You know very well that is not correct—yet you continue to make such claims.

 

[AlexV]

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

 

[JimR-OCDS]

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

The faithful are not permitted to take up the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice themselves, and still less, hand them on to one another. The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, **by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm. **

In otherwords, when a communicant approaches for communion, if they kneel, they can not be denied the sacrament, but they should be provided with proper catechesis on the norm for standing.

Also, the issue really came to a head when some parishes in the US, began receiving communion at an altar rail while kneeling. The Holy See says this can not be prohibited, which I believe Bishop Mahony in LA tried to do to one parish. But this is different. The parish was using a posture accepted by the Holy See. In other words, everyone knelt. What if in this case a person chose to stand?

However, receiving in procession, where it is the norm to stand, a person after receiving proper catechesis on the issue, continues to kneel, it is my understanding, they can be denied the sacrament.

Jim

 

[AlexV]

Nope. And nope again. You CANNOT be denied Holy Communion for daring to kneel anywhere in the Roman Rite.

Rome has made this clear, for those who can read their very nice letters on the subject.

Amazingly, since those letters, the ugly incidents perpetrated by some clerical fascists came to a quick end. After all, Rome asked for quick information on any Communion denials. NO RESTRICTIONS such as you, Jim, have suddenly tacked on to Rome’s letter were added.

Rome has also never said that everybody has to do the same thing at Communion.

And believe me, I have happily discussed this matter in person with officials of the Congregation, who were…to use one’s adjective…“appalled” at how some people were denied the Sacrament for the “alleged crime” of kneeling.

Case closed. Any priest/bishop who denies the Sacrament to a kneeler is answerable to Rome…and Rome has asked for such reports. Also, Rome has said anyone who kneels “cannot be considered disobedient”.

 

[scylla]

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.

Ok, thank you for giving me a response that actually responds to my question.
I agree that standing is a sign of respect, and though I have not read Justin Martyr’s statement on this I will assume it is correct.
I might counter that I stand when a dignitary comes in the room, I would kneel or go to my face when God enters. (it is more practical to receive kneeling than lying on my face)

I am not sure if it is a good practice to seek to emulate the early Church as our understanding of the faith has progressed. Yet it is always good to seek historically what is the practice and see how it has developed and see if it is a good development.

Now can you answer why is standing better? We know it was a good thing to kneel at the communion rail, is standing better or is kneeling better? What justification is there to do one over the other?

God Bless
Scylla

Could you guys quit arguing over the norms, just try and address the question which form is better and why. Instead answer what type of catechesis the person would receive as that would be the point of this thread. Would the priest explain why it is better to stand. Unity doesn’t matter if everyone kneels or stands it is a moot point.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Nope. And nope again. You CANNOT be denied Holy Communion for daring to kneel anywhere in the Roman Rite.

Rome has made this clear, for those who can read their very nice letters on the subject.

Amazingly, since those letters, the ugly incidents perpetrated by some clerical fascists came to a quick end. After all, Rome asked for quick information on any Communion denials. NO RESTRICTIONS such as you, Jim, have suddenly tacked on to Rome’s letter were added.

Rome has also never said that everybody has to do the same thing at Communion.

And believe me, I have happily discussed this matter in person with officials of the Congregation, who were…to use one’s adjective…“appalled” at how some people were denied the Sacrament for the “alleged crime” of kneeling.

Case closed. Any priest/bishop who denies the Sacrament to a kneeler is answerable to Rome…and Rome has asked for such reports. Also, Rome has said anyone who kneels “cannot be considered disobedient”.

I humbly stand corrected.

Peace
Jim

 

[Brendan]

They can kneel during communion, but when receiving communion, they’re to follow the norms set forth by the Bishop.

Jim

They may also follow the Norms set forth by the Bishop of Rome, which include kneeling for reception.

Rome said so Jim, are you saying Rome is wrong?

 

[RobinTruett]

We should not disobey this norm which is approved by Rome, so I would say that standing is indeed “better” because to stand while receiving Holy Communion is to be obedient to our bishops.

It may be more common but to kneel is not disobedient both are allowed. When I went to the Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament in Al., It was awing to kneel before the Lord and then recieving Him.
I am in favor of kneeling for Holy Communion and the return of the communion rail. My friend who is Methodist and they kneel at the communion rail just to recieve a symbol of Christ. We have the real Presance And presum to be worthy to recieve our Lord standing? Something’s not right.

 

[Tom317]

To those who have so pridefully and arrogantly boasted and spoken of their various degrees and education, walk with a touch more humility…the apostles did not walk around carrying degrees, nor did our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Tom317]

I think so long as both kneeling and standing are approved by the Bishops, both are of equal value when receiving our Lord. All of this extra debate and hand wringing is for nothing–imo. Sadly, people on these threads often just want to show how smart they are–what a waste.

 

[otjm]

Ok, thank you for giving me a response that actually responds to my question./

You are welcome. :yup:

I have never seen an expanation as to why standing was introduced. However, just as a practical matter, it is easier both the receive the Host in the hand, and to receive the Cup while standing; with an altar rail both are awkward, and with the Cup, it is easy to bump your elbow or forearm into the Communion rail while either accepting the Cup or attempting to sip from it.

I do not believe that is either the necessary or sole reason, but practically it works better standing.

It is easy to argue that because we have done something a certain way for centuries, that for that reason it is better, or holier, or a proper developement; but I think that makes something too close to “it’s best because that’s the way we do it”, or a rather simplistic analysis. Posture and movement have meaning; but to judge one over another as best, or better (thereby making the other worst, or worse) is perhaps to put value not because of something intrinsic to the movement or posture, but to put value because that is our experience, and once it becomes ingrained, anything else seems discordant.

[/QUOTE]