MERGED: Should I stay kneeling?/Parish practices

[otjm]

I go to Mass every day because I love Jesus , and I hope he shows mercy on me,my family,and the whole world.

Which is why all should go to Church every Sunday.

Sadly, many don’t; they go because the Church, within its authority and following along with the Ten Commandments, has imposed an obligation to attend each Sunday, under pain of mortal sin.

And because some (many) people are minimalistic, negativistic, legalistic and the net result is that they miss, pretty much, the point of wht Moral Theology should be pointing us to - union with Christ.

The bottom line, however, is that the Church has rules.

 

[otjm]

The argument he has for standing is actually the reasoning Eastern Churches use for standing during Sunday Liturgy. Most if not all Eastern Churches hardly kneel, if at all on Sundays. Its a good reason but one that is not consistent with the traditions of the Roman Church.

and that is a point that people who take the “other good reason” approach, and apply the “kneeling is for penance” (which is not entirely incorrect) end up causing some of us to grit our teeth…

Kneeling is also a sign of adoration, and has been, in the Roman Church for centuries.

 

[otjm]

So you say. I think we have come to a dead end here.

No, I think you picked up on it; look at Adoremus - there was discussion elsewhere previous to this issue, concerning the standard practice of kneeling during the Agnus Dei. #43 addresses the issue without setting out all the discussion, and specifically gives the bishop the authority to modify that.

And as I noted: carry your interpretation of Arinze’s comment to its logical conclusion, and you have the “do what you want” posture during the Eucharistic Prayer.

But let’s turn your challenge to me (provide some other source that says this answer was only to Communion posture) around: show me any written source that indicates that Arinze’s answer has been interpreted as meaning that posture during the Agnus Dei is optional - either optionally standing where the bishop has not requested it (and thus following the GIRM), or optional where the bishop has legislated.

 

[FNDRB58]

But let’s turn your challenge to me (provide some other source that says this answer was only to Communion posture) around: show me any written source that indicates that Arinze’s answer has been interpreted as meaning that posture during the Agnus Dei is optional - either optionally standing where the bishop has not requested it (and thus following the GIRM), or optional where the bishop has legislated.

GIRM #43 states that all must kneel during the Consecration. So the answer given to Cardinal George does not apply to the Eucharistic Prayer since there is no question that kneeling is mandated with no exceptions. The difference is that there is indeed an exception made for the Bishop regarding the Agnes Dei. According to the GIRM, kneeling after the Agnes Dei is the preferred posture “unless” the Bishop determines otherwise. So I would say that the “broad” answer given cannot apply to the Consecration.

 

[FNDRB58]

No, I think you picked up on it; look at Adoremus - there was discussion elsewhere previous to this issue, concerning the standard practice of kneeling during the Agnus Dei. #43 addresses the issue without setting out all the discussion, and specifically gives the bishop the authority to modify that.

And as I noted: carry your interpretation of Arinze’s comment to its logical conclusion, and you have the “do what you want” posture during the Eucharistic Prayer.

GIRM #43 states that all must kneel during the Consecration. So the answer given to Cardinal George does not apply to the Eucharistic Prayer since there is no question that kneeling is mandated with no exceptions. The difference is that there is indeed an exception made for the Bishop regarding the Agnes Dei. According to the GIRM, kneeling after the Agnes Dei is the preferred posture “unless” the Bishop determines otherwise. So I would say that the “broad” answer given cannot apply to the Consecration.

But let’s turn your challenge to me (provide some other source that says this answer was only to Communion posture) around: show me any written source that indicates that Arinze’s answer has been interpreted as meaning that posture during the Agnus Dei is optional - either optionally standing where the bishop has not requested it (and thus following the GIRM), or optional where the bishop has legislated.

I cannot but what I have going for me is the logical, literal reading of the answer to Cardinal George which I feel requires someone who says that it says other than what it says must show a credible reason why it says something other than what it says…similar to a Protestant having to explain to me why its “faith alone” when the bible clearly states that one cannot believe by faith alone.

 

[ConstantineTG]

and that is a point that people who take the “other good reason” approach, and apply the “kneeling is for penance” (which is not entirely incorrect) end up causing some of us to grit our teeth…

Kneeling is also a sign of adoration, and has been, in the Roman Church for centuries.

Yes, we should realize that the traditions each sui juris Church has is beautiful and we should preserve them. Eastern Churches has been fighting off Latinization for a while, why are we so eager to introduce their traditions into our Church? If these people dread kneeling so much then instead of changing the Church, they should change Churches. We are free to attend Liturgy in any Catholic Church anyways.

 

[Aramis]

It is called the General Intructions of the Roman Missal.It is a guide NOT a RULE book.We are talking about Worship,not a courtroom case.

It is the rubrics in detail, and has force of Canon Law. In a very literal sense, it is the law of how to say the Roman Missal’s Divine Worship Service (aka Mass).

Since it is localized to a particular nation’s episcopal conference, it’s a local law of the church, hence not in the body of the CIC. But it still is canon law.

 

[otjm]

I cannot but what I have going for me is the logical, literal reading of the answer to Cardinal George which I feel requires someone who says that it says other than what it says must show a credible reason why it says something other than what it says…similar to a Protestant having to explain to me why its “faith alone” when the bible clearly states that one cannot believe by faith alone.

A credible reason has been shown - no one else interprets it as you do. As I noted; show me someone who does, who is on the level of an official, trained and employed liturgist (which includes bishops and their staffing), or any liturgist not so employed but writing on a level beyond the local parish. I posit there are none, and I have given a reason.

I do not dispute that a lay person could read it as potentially wider than the issue of Communion; but if you wish to posit that the Eucharistic Prayer is not included because of a specific command, then I would respond that the Agnus Dei has only two options - the GIRM (kneeling), or a specific legislative change by the bishop (which has been done in some but not all dioceses) which is standing. I know of no bishop who says "do what ever - kneel or stand. Further, kneeling (as was the longer kneeling during the Eucharistic Prayer) has been the posture used since before the OF was promulgated. However, Rome saw fit to allow the bishop to legislate standing (which some have done).

Let’s go back to why we had the dubium: the traditional posture had been kneeling (with some few sitting) after reception. The implication was that all had to stand after receiving, until Communion was concluded. That was an implied change, and it appeared from the GIRM to be required (but was not explicit). They asked if it was explicit. Rome said “no”, under #43 the did not intend to be that rigid.

However, as you have noted, the Eucharistic prayer was rigid (with the exception of a few items and concluding with “other good reason” clearly not defined), and the Agnus Dei was even more clearly defined - kneeling, or bishop’s legislation.

Nothing in those last two sequences leave it up to the parishioner to choose their posture. Without specifically repealing that, the loose language (and we both agree it was loose and open to lay people interpreting it) therefore makes no sense.

And once the bishop says “stand” that has as much binding power as kneeling during the Eucharistic prayer - I would submit more simply because the Eucharistic prayer contains exceptions and the bishop doesn’t. And if he does, I would lay dollars to donuts he is more articulate than Arinze was.

Show me where anyone is interpreting it as applying to anything beyond posture at Communion: you can’t. Why? Because those who apply Rome’s answers - the professionals - know the answer only applies to Communion posture. The absolute deafening silence on the matter (re: your take on the answer) is your answer; you just don’t want to concede the point.

That’s fine. We both know that the answer sounds as if it could be applied to the
Agnus Dei. And I know (and I think you do too) that no one is applying it as such, with the exception of non-trained individuals who wish to disagree with a bishop who has legislated “standing” and want to defy his rule. They want to find loop holes where those in authority say none exist.\

I seriously doubt that I will go into any diocese where the bishop has followed the GIRM (kneel at Agnus Dei) and chosen not to legislate standing , and find any conservative standing. Almost all, if not all conservatives will follow the GIRM because it was prior practice.

And I seriously doubt that I can go into any diocese where the bishop has legislated “standing” and find any liberals kneeling. I do bet I could find conservatives kneeling, and among them people who did not know the bishop had so ruled (possible, but not likely); those who simply disagree with the bishop and think it (for lack of a better term) “holier” to kneel, and variations of the above. I doubt any of them at variance with the bishop’s directive are doing so on the interpretation you wish to take.

But if I get to the level of diocesan liturgists (which includes the bishop and his staff, I seriously doubt I will find one in the entire US who agrees with your position.

 

[Waiting]

MY brain is hurting from trying to follow this long drawn out debate.

I cannot figure out what you are actually debating now.

Is it Ok for someone to kneel when everyone else is standing after communion? Of course! I dont need a book to tell me that. No one cares what another parishioners personal devotion is.The unity is supposed to be in the heart,celebrating the Eucharistic mystery and God’s love for us.

Amen to your view on this subject. My diocese stands until all receive Communion. I kneel when I return from Communion. No one minds. In fact, often others in my pew also kneel when I put the kneeler down. One woman always sits. So what? How she chooses to hold a personal communication with the Lord is her business. When God visits you so personally as He does in receiving Communion, you are the host. Choose your own method of hospitality. I can tell you the Bishop would not object, since our priest has never spoken of this.

 

[FNDRB58]

Amen to your view on this subject. My diocese stands until all receive Communion. I kneel when I return from Communion. No one minds. In fact, often others in my pew also kneel when I put the kneeler down. One woman always sits. So what? How she chooses to hold a personal communication with the Lord is her business. When God visits you so personally as He does in receiving Communion, you are the host. Choose your own method of hospitality. I can tell you the Bishop would not object, since our priest has never spoken of this.

We are not debating what posture to assume after receiving communion. The GIRM states that we can take whichever posture we prefer. Otjm and I agree on that point. We are discussing kneeling after the Agnes Dei.

 

[FNDRB58]

A credible reason has been shown - no one else interprets it as you do. As I noted; show me someone who does, who is on the level of an official, trained and employed liturgist (which includes bishops and their staffing), or any liturgist not so employed but writing on a level beyond the local parish. I posit there are none, and I have given a reason.

I do not dispute that a lay person could read it as potentially wider than the issue of Communion; but if you wish to posit that the Eucharistic Prayer is not included because of a specific command, then I would respond that the Agnus Dei has only two options - the GIRM (kneeling), or a specific legislative change by the bishop (which has been done in some but not all dioceses) which is standing. I know of no bishop who says "do what ever - kneel or stand. Further, kneeling (as was the longer kneeling during the Eucharistic Prayer) has been the posture used since before the OF was promulgated. However, Rome saw fit to allow the bishop to legislate standing (which some have done).

Let’s go back to why we had the dubium: the traditional posture had been kneeling (with some few sitting) after reception. The implication was that all had to stand after receiving, until Communion was concluded. That was an implied change, and it appeared from the GIRM to be required (but was not explicit). They asked if it was explicit. Rome said “no”, under #43 the did not intend to be that rigid.

However, as you have noted, the Eucharistic prayer was rigid (with the exception of a few items and concluding with “other good reason” clearly not defined), and the Agnus Dei was even more clearly defined - kneeling, or bishop’s legislation.

Nothing in those last two sequences leave it up to the parishioner to choose their posture. Without specifically repealing that, the loose language (and we both agree it was loose and open to lay people interpreting it) therefore makes no sense.

And once the bishop says “stand” that has as much binding power as kneeling during the Eucharistic prayer - I would submit more simply because the Eucharistic prayer contains exceptions and the bishop doesn’t. And if he does, I would lay dollars to donuts he is more articulate than Arinze was.

Show me where anyone is interpreting it as applying to anything beyond posture at Communion: you can’t. Why? Because those who apply Rome’s answers - the professionals - know the answer only applies to Communion posture. The absolute deafening silence on the matter (re: your take on the answer) is your answer; you just don’t want to concede the point.

That’s fine. We both know that the answer sounds as if it could be applied to the
Agnus Dei. And I know (and I think you do too) that no one is applying it as such, with the exception of non-trained individuals who wish to disagree with a bishop who has legislated “standing” and want to defy his rule. They want to find loop holes where those in authority say none exist.\

I seriously doubt that I will go into any diocese where the bishop has followed the GIRM (kneel at Agnus Dei) and chosen not to legislate standing , and find any conservative standing. Almost all, if not all conservatives will follow the GIRM because it was prior practice.

And I seriously doubt that I can go into any diocese where the bishop has legislated “standing” and find any liberals kneeling. I do bet I could find conservatives kneeling, and among them people who did not know the bishop had so ruled (possible, but not likely); those who simply disagree with the bishop and think it (for lack of a better term) “holier” to kneel, and variations of the above. I doubt any of them at variance with the bishop’s directive are doing so on the interpretation you wish to take.

But if I get to the level of diocesan liturgists (which includes the bishop and his staff, I seriously doubt I will find one in the entire US who agrees with your position.

Though you may indeed be correct, you have not given me any evidence to prove your assertion. You have only talked about your schooling and what you understand to be the case and the fact that you haven’t heard of anyone raise the valid observation that I have. That is not evidence. You haven’t provided any written material that corroborates your assertion but instead you are asking me to just take your word for it. You do however speak as though you know what you are talking about so I will credit you with that and move a little closer to your position until I find out definitively.

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to mandate that we kneel during the Consecration, have the option to kneel after receiving the Consecration, but when the Real Presence is lifted high before us and the words are spoken, “BEHOLD, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world…” then we are WOULD NOT free to kneel (in a diocese that forbids it). Thank God I attend a traditional Catholic parish (Our Lady of Peace Shrine) that not only kneels after the Agnes Dei but also requires us to kneel at a communion rail upon reception of communion.

Seeing that different churches in my diocese all take on different postures, it appears that the Bishop hasn’t mandated anything but instead has left it up to the pastor of each church…not that it makes a difference. But if the Bishop doesn’t feel the need to mandate kneeling after the Agnes Dei then why would a pastor feel the need to mandate standing? Interesting question.

And in a parish that stands after the Agnes Dei, how is one supposed to know if the Bishop mandated it or left it up to the pastors to mandate or left it all up in the air?

 

[cjforJesus]

Which is why all should go to Church every Sunday.

Sadly, many don’t; they go because the Church, within its authority and following along with the Ten Commandments, has imposed an obligation to attend each Sunday, under pain of mortal sin.

And because some (many) people are minimalistic, negativistic, legalistic and the net result is that they miss, pretty much, the point of wht Moral Theology should be pointing us to - union with Christ.

The bottom line, however, is that the Church has rules.

EVERY aspect of life has rules,but if the bishops and priests who are supposed to be leading the flock send conflicting messages or do not follow the rubrics it is going to eventually lead to a weakening of the faith. It probably already has.

 

[FNDRB58]

EVERY aspect of life has rules,but if the bishops and priests who are supposed to be leading the flock send conflicting messages or do not follow the rubrics it is going to eventually lead to a weakening of the faith. It probably already has.

This I agree with you completely! In my diocese of San Jose every parish does something different. One church kneels at the Consecration, kneels after the Agnes Dei, and kneels or sits after receiving communion (this is the one I go to ). Another church kneels, stands, stands; another kneels, stands, whatever; another stands, stands, stands. Those that require us to stand during the Consecration are doing so illicitly according to the GIRM. One parish even took out the kneelers to prohibit kneeling which is an obvious violation of the GIRM!

Talk about uniformity and unity…we have neither in our diocese. It is pretty clear with the variances in posture thoughout my diocese confirm that the Bishop has left it up to the pastors.

I guess you find the parish that suits you and go with it…unfortunately many parishes are not in conformity with the rule of law.

GO GIANTS!

 

[otjm]

Though you may indeed be correct, you have not given me any evidence to prove your assertion. You have only talked about your schooling and what you understand to be the case and the fact that you haven’t heard of anyone raise the valid observation that I have. That is not evidence. You haven’t provided any written material that corroborates your assertion but instead you are asking me to just take your word for it. You do however speak as though you know what you are talking about so I will credit you with that and move a little closer to your position until I find out definitively.

Again, you are asking me to prove a negative. The dubium and the response were circulated to all the bishops (and obviously made available to the public). I don’t know of much of any discussion of the response, because everyone took it for what it was- and answer to the question. There was no discussion of what it wasn’t (that is, an answer that covered more areas than the question ) because no one took it to cover any more than the question asked.

That is the point I have been trying to make. There is no proof to give you that the answer only related to posture at Communion, because there was nothing to discuss. Your comment is the first I have ever heard that the answer applies to all of, or other parts of, #43. I can’t give you proof that doesn’t exist; but I can give you the evidence of what happened - people were told they could kneel or sit after receiving Communion.

No one came forth and said “Well, the answer to #43 means that people can elect between kneeling during the Agnus Dei and standing if the bishop requires it” - at least, no one with the authority to say so (which would be at the minimum on the level of a diocesan liturgical official - either one on a bishop’s staff, or a bishop).

I know you don’t want to consider that as proof. However, the people who interact with Rome - bishops and their staff, and liturgists who may be on the staff of the USCCB - none of them are taking the tack you suggest. That in itself may not be proof, but certainly is evidence, that a whole lot of people with a whole lot of training and a whole lot of interaction with Rome all treat the matter the same - that is, the answer only was addressed to the issue of posture at Communion.

As noted in the Adoremus Bulletins (there are several, and at lest one of them noted it), there were other discussions concerning posture during the Agnus Dei, and if I recall correctly, before this issue was addressed, Posture during the Agnus Dei being already discussed before this dubium, it would make no sense whatsoever if Arinze intended his answer to the dubium to be applied to an issue already settled, especially if he was intending a change to what had already been decided, that he would not make that specifically clear.

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to mandate that we kneel during the Consecration, have the option to kneel after receiving the Consecration, but when the Real Presence is lifted high before us and the words are spoken, “BEHOLD, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world…” then we are WOULD NOT free to kneel (in a diocese that forbids it). Thank God I attend a traditional Catholic parish (Our Lady of Peace Shrine) that not only kneels after the Agnes Dei but also requires us to kneel at a communion rail upon reception of communion.

Seeing that different churches in my diocese all take on different postures, it appears that the Bishop hasn’t mandated anything but instead has left it up to the pastor of each church…not that it makes a difference. But if the Bishop doesn’t feel the need to mandate kneeling after the Agnes Dei then why would a pastor feel the need to mandate standing? Interesting question.

And in a parish that stands after the Agnes Dei, how is one supposed to know if the Bishop mandated it or left it up to the pastors to mandate or left it all up in the air?

I will try to answer this separately.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

This I agree with you completely! In my diocese of San Jose every parish does something different. One church kneels at the Consecration, kneels after the Agnes Dei, and kneels or sits after receiving communion (this is the one I go to ). Another church kneels, stands, stands; another kneels, stands, whatever; another stands, stands, stands. Those that require us to stand during the Consecration are doing so illicitly according to the GIRM. One parish even took out the kneelers to prohibit kneeling which is an obvious violation of the GIRM!

Talk about uniformity and unity…we have neither in our diocese. It is pretty clear with the variances in posture thoughout my diocese confirm that the Bishop has left it up to the pastors.

I guess you find the parish that suits you and go with it…unfortunately many parishes are not in conformity with the rule of law.

GO GIANTS!

Is that a problem with the San Jose diocese? My aunt and uncle were up here recently and since they were the ones who dragged us to Catholic Mass for years until we became Catholic…we wanted them to go to Mass with us. I believe he said something about they stay standing…and that they don’t geneflect before receiving communion…not even a bow… Which I found odd…

 

[otjm]

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to mandate that we kneel during the Consecration, have the option to kneel after receiving the Consecration, but when the Real Presence is lifted high before us and the words are spoken, “BEHOLD, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world…” then we are WOULD NOT free to kneel (in a diocese that forbids it). Thank God I attend a traditional Catholic parish (Our Lady of Peace Shrine) that not only kneels after the Agnes Dei but also requires us to kneel at a communion rail upon reception of communion.

It would appear obvious at least to some, that there may be reasons for standing during the Agnus Dei and during Communion, given the fact that it is so wide spread.

I am not going to make a defense of the issue. Frankly, I don’t have a dog in the fight; either position is acceptable to me. I have been in parishes where all stood (for both) and in parishes where all knelt (for both).

Contrary to some people’s understanding (or more likely, feelings) standing is a sign of honor. And there is also an element of the flow of the Mass, which included movement or lack of movement. Kneeling for the Eucharistic Prayer ends and we stand. Some see that the standing is better as a continuous posture, rather than standing, kneeling, standing, kneeling and standing again (which is the series of postures between the end of the Eucharistic Prayer and the point of returning to one’s bench after receiving). In short, for a relatively short period of time, the more traditional series of postures results in a series of up and down movements; maintaining the posture of standing provides a more continuous posture and reduces movement.

Note: a) I am not a trained liturgist nor do I hold myself out as one; b) this does not necessarily entail the thinking of trained liturgists but is simply and observation; c) I don’t expect people to like it (and neither do trained liturgists) nor do I expect to defend it; it is simply an observation; and d) the trumping point is that it is satisfactory to Rome.

Rome has the authority to allow the posture of standing, and they have done so. They did not ask my opinion, nor anyone else’s of the laity. They have the authority, and we have the duty to follow lawfully constituted authority whether we particularly like it or whether it feels right. Where there are options legitimately, we are free to follow (go to the parish) the options we prefer. Where there are not options, then we have the duty to follow the Church’s direction.

Seeing that different churches in my diocese all take on different postures, it appears that the Bishop hasn’t mandated anything but instead has left it up to the pastor of each church…not that it makes a difference. But if the Bishop doesn’t feel the need to mandate kneeling after the Agnes Dei then why would a pastor feel the need to mandate standing? Interesting question./.QUOTE]Perhaps the better question is, what actually did the bishop decide? Bishops also do not micromanage parishes, just as Rome does not micromanage dioceses. We can all wish otherwise, but the history of 2000 years proves differently. It may well be that he made a decision, and he has a number of priests on his hands who do not follow his directions. What is he going to do - jerk a priest out of a parish? Where does he put him? And where does he get a replacement? It is easy to presume that there is a simple answer. The reality is otherwise.

Prior to Vatican 2, the whole country was far more compliant to authority - religious or secular - than the 60’s with it’s explosion of rejection of authority. The issues of authority and rejection are far, far more complex than most people (especially some in these forae) would ever admit. However, it is also true that the priests know widely as the John Paul 2 priests do not have the issue of trying to set themselves up as the experts; the tide is turning, slowly to be sure, but turning; we are getting better bishops and those from the past still in charge are gradually being replaced. And we will be eventually more uniform as that becomes more of an issue. However, Rome itself has seen fit to say that absolute uniformity is not necessary nor necessarily what they want.
FNDRB58;7158516:

And in a parish that stands after the Agnes Dei, how is one supposed to know if the Bishop mandated it or left it up to the pastors to mandate or left it all up in the air?

Try to get to meet someone - a priest - with whom you can speak, and ask in a non-defensive way. What do I mean? Don’t give any indication to what you might prefer, or even to any frustration as to what is occurring. Example: “Father, I am curious: in some parishes, everyone kneels for the Agnus Dei, and in others, they stand. Did the bishop ever make a decision that all should have one posture or the other, or did he grant that decision to the individual parishes?” And then don’t add to the issue. Just listen to the answer. And if you are not sure you are getting the straight truth, go somewhere else and ask. And keep a smile on your face when you do.

In other words, just get into curiosity.

It may well be that the bishop indicated that he preferred standing, but would accept kneeling, but that all should do one or the other. It may be that he indicated standing, not optional, but some take the option. And it may be that he has not said anything, and lets the parishes decide. Or it may be that he has granted individual parishes the option of not standing. That would appear to be within his authority as chief liturgist within his diocese and the rule granted by the GIRM (and Rome).

 

[FNDRB58]

Again, you are asking me to prove a negative. The dubium and the response were circulated to all the bishops (and obviously made available to the public). I don’t know of much of any discussion of the response, because everyone took it for what it was- and answer to the question. There was no discussion of what it wasn’t (that is, an answer that covered more areas than the question ) because no one took it to cover any more than the question asked.

That is the point I have been trying to make. There is no proof to give you that the answer only related to posture at Communion, because there was nothing to discuss. Your comment is the first I have ever heard that the answer applies to all of, or other parts of, #43. I can’t give you proof that doesn’t exist; but I can give you the evidence of what happened - people were told they could kneel or sit after receiving Communion.

No one came forth and said “Well, the answer to #43 means that people can elect between kneeling during the Agnus Dei and standing if the bishop requires it” - at least, no one with the authority to say so (which would be at the minimum on the level of a diocesan liturgical official - either one on a bishop’s staff, or a bishop).

I know you don’t want to consider that as proof. However, the people who interact with Rome - bishops and their staff, and liturgists who may be on the staff of the USCCB - none of them are taking the tack you suggest. That in itself may not be proof, but certainly is evidence, that a whole lot of people with a whole lot of training and a whole lot of interaction with Rome all treat the matter the same - that is, the answer only was addressed to the issue of posture at Communion.

As noted in the Adoremus Bulletins (there are several, and at lest one of them noted it), there were other discussions concerning posture during the Agnus Dei, and if I recall correctly, before this issue was addressed, Posture during the Agnus Dei being already discussed before this dubium, it would make no sense whatsoever if Arinze intended his answer to the dubium to be applied to an issue already settled, especially if he was intending a change to what had already been decided, that he would not make that specifically clear.

I will try to answer this separately.

I think we have gone around in circles and are getting a bit redundant. I appreciate all your answers though.

 

[FNDRB58]

Is that a problem with the San Jose diocese? My aunt and uncle were up here recently and since they were the ones who dragged us to Catholic Mass for years until we became Catholic…we wanted them to go to Mass with us. I believe he said something about they stay standing…and that they don’t geneflect before receiving communion…not even a bow… Which I found odd…

It sure is a problem. The GIRM also states that unless their is a communion rail we must bow our heads before receiving the Eucharist but of course very few do. It is partly the clergies fault for not telling their “children” what to do and it is partly the parishioners fault for not seeking out the answers.

 

[otjm]

Is that a problem with the San Jose diocese? My aunt and uncle were up here recently and since they were the ones who dragged us to Catholic Mass for years until we became Catholic…we wanted them to go to Mass with us. I believe he said something about they stay standing…and that they don’t genuflect before receiving communion…not even a bow… Which I found odd…

The bow is supposedly the preferred action when approaching the Eucharist. Many either were not well trained, or not trained at all, or are simply forgetful.

In addition, we have over the last 50 or so years lost our “manners”. Society as a whole is far less formal, and far less polite (or, if you will, far more rude) to one another. Our gestures used to be a lot more refined and over time they have become more coarse. It should not be surprising that people who never heard of Emily Post would not know, or care, what the proper thing is to do. And those attitudes of society spill over into the congregation. There is in general an attitude of “you can’t tell me what to do!”

Sadly, that infects those on the right, the left, and in the middle - in short, everyone.

 

[otjm]

It sure is a problem. The GIRM also states that unless their is a communion rail we must bow our heads before receiving the Eucharist but of course very few do. It is partly the clergies fault for not telling their “children” what to do and it is partly the parishioners fault for not seeking out the answers.

It is a problem. There are other problems too, some of them of far more significance than the issues of posture; if we could get some of those addressed, I would suspect that we would see different results in some of the issues at Mass.