New Vatican Prefect On Receiving Communion

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholicknight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
catholicknight said:
Here’s the story:
catholicknight.blogspot.com/2008/12/vatican-prefect-on-kneeling-for.html

A few years back the USCCB issued a statement declaring that it was the normative practice for US Catholics to receive communion in the hand while standing. Now every sign we’re getting from the Vatican suggests we should be receiving communion on the tongue while kneeling. Who should we obey?
Click to expand...
First of all, kneeling is the universal norm as is receiving on the tongue. Receiving in the hand requires an indult and standing was approved as the norm in the United States so long as the right of the faithful to receive while kneeling was retained.

In many statements, the Holy See has strongly reiterated the fact that those who choose to kneel in order to receive Holy Communion are not being disobedient. The new prefect is saying nothing new. In fact, he is repeating what the Holy Father said during his homily for the Solemnity of Corpus Christi, when, last June, he put into practice that the faithful who receive Holy Communion from him should do so kneeling and receive on the tongue.
 
benedictgal said:
First of all, kneeling is the universal norm as is receiving on the tongue. Receiving in the hand requires an indult and standing was approved as the norm in the United States so long as the right of the faithful to receive while kneeling was retained.
Click to expand...
But is that how the majority of Catholics understand it? I think most Catholics don’t even know they have the option. I dare say the majority of Catholics today (especially the youth) don’t even know there is an option. That seems like a problem.

In addition, there have been some rare cases where priests, and eucharistic ministers, have actually refused communion to Catholics while kneeling, insisting that they stand. This gives people the impression that something is wrong with kneeling.

On a personal note, I once knelt down to receive communion, and the priest gasped, gave me the strangest look, and on the way back to my pew I noticed a few scowls from other parishioners. Is this how it’s supposed to be? Am I supposed to feel embarrassed and confused after receiving the sacrament? Did I do something wrong? I don’t think I held up the line at all. I don’t get it. If Jesus is really present in the blessed sacrament, then why are Catholics made to feel ostracized when they act like he is?
 
I pray that one day the traditional norm for receiving Holy Communion will one day be restored in the parishes. We are fortunate here to have a Latin Mass community and several priests who celebrate the OF who would be more than happy to give communion to those who kneel. But I think the practice is still looked upon as being disruptive more than anything. I just don’t understand that. Why wouldn’t priests want to encourage such devotion to Our Eucharistic Lord, especially when it’s been the liturgical norm for centuries?
 
Could someone point me toward the document that specifies the right of the faithful to kneel must be retained? I know Communion cannot be denied to someone who is kneeling, but understood they were to be catechized regarding the norm in the United States.

**The norm for the reception of communion is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed by providing the communicant with a catechesis on the reason for the norm.

When receiving communion standing, the communicant is to bow his or her head before receiving the Body of the Lord. When receiving under both kinds, the communicant also bows his or her head before receiving the Precious Blood. Communion may be received on the tongue or in the hand at the discretion of the communicant.**
 
JulianN said:
Could someone point me toward the document that specifies the right of the faithful to kneel must be retained? I know Communion cannot be denied to someone who is kneeling, but understood they were to be catechized regarding the norm in the United States.

**The norm for the reception of communion is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed by providing the communicant with a catechesis on the reason for the norm.

When receiving communion standing, the communicant is to bow his or her head before receiving the Body of the Lord. When receiving under both kinds, the communicant also bows his or her head before receiving the Precious Blood. Communion may be received on the tongue or in the hand at the discretion of the communicant.**
Click to expand...
You’ll find the instruction from Rome on this topic here.

Take particular note of this:

“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.””
 
JulianN said:
Could someone point me toward the document that specifies the right of the faithful to kneel must be retained? I know Communion cannot be denied to someone who is kneeling, but understood they were to be catechized regarding the norm in the United States.

**The norm for the reception of communion is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed by providing the communicant with a catechesis on the reason for the norm.

When receiving communion standing, the communicant is to bow his or her head before receiving the Body of the Lord. When receiving under both kinds, the communicant also bows his or her head before receiving the Precious Blood. Communion may be received on the tongue or in the hand at the discretion of the communicant.**
Click to expand...
Well, then, ask and you shall receive. This is what the Congregtion for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments wrote regarding this matter:
As the authority by virtue of whose recognitio the norm in question has attained the force of law, this Dicastery is competent to specify the manner in which the norm is to be understood for the sake of a proper application. Having received more than a few letters regarding this matter from different locations in the United States of America, the Congregation wishes to ensure that its position on the matter is clear.
Click to expand...
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".
Click to expand...
This letter was issued in 2003. Here is another letter, written in 2002, that states, from the same Congregation, that:
The Congregation in fact is concerned at the number of similar complaints that it has received in recent months from various places, and considers any refusal of Holy Communion to a member of the faithful on the basis of his or her kneeling posture to be a grave violation of one of the most basic rights of the Christian faithful, namely that of being assisted by their Pastors by means of the Sacraments (Codex Iuris Canonici, canon 213). 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 ¶ 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 Institutio 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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
These letters are authoritative because they come from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. They bear protocal numbers and they also appear in Notiate, the bulletin of the same Congregation.
 
catholicknight said:
But is that how the majority of Catholics understand it? I think most Catholics don’t even know they have the option. I dare say the majority of Catholics today (especially the youth) don’t even know there is an option. That seems like a problem.

In addition, there have been some rare cases where priests, and eucharistic ministers, have actually refused communion to Catholics while kneeling, insisting that they stand. This gives people the impression that something is wrong with kneeling.

On a personal note, I once knelt down to receive communion, and the priest gasped, gave me the strangest look, and on the way back to my pew I noticed a few scowls from other parishioners. Is this how it’s supposed to be? Am I supposed to feel embarrassed and confused after receiving the sacrament? Did I do something wrong? I don’t think I held up the line at all. I don’t get it. If Jesus is really present in the blessed sacrament, then why are Catholics made to feel ostracized when they act like he is?
Click to expand...
Because kneeling is seen as old fashioned and out of touch with modern times. Unnecessary and probably a hinderance to ecumenism. I’ve seen the arguments on this forum for receiving standing and in the hand and none of them hold water in the slightest.

I think the article posted brings forth the real reason albeit in a roundabout way. Reception in the hand while standing was instituted so that ecumenically speaking our separated brethren would not feel uncomfortable if they attended Mass. They don’t believe in the Real Presence so why kneel in front of the Priest?

The supporters of receiving while standing have their own argument for it, But wait they cry, the eastern Churches have always received standing. With that they feel vindicated as after all, any effort that we make towards unification must be good.

And yes the Eastern Churches do receive standing, they really do, but not in the hand.👍

Perhaps in the beginning there were good and pure motives for the change, but now, I think it just needs to go away and be forgotten.
 
Thank you. I did understand that Communion was not to be denied to anyone who knelt to receive it. But I thought the US bishops had stated that, although that was the case, the normative posture in the U.S. is standing – and those who chose not to do so should be catechized. I just wondered if I had misunderstood the USCCB statement.
 
catholicknight said:
But is that how the majority of Catholics understand it? I think most Catholics don’t even know they have the option. I dare say the majority of Catholics today (especially the youth) don’t even know there is an option. That seems like a problem.
Click to expand...
The problem is that the norm in the US is still to stand and for all to do so rather than indulging in actions of individual piety. A priest is still supposed to counsel one who presents themselves kneeling even though they cannot be refused communion or considered disobedient and that counsel should be done later.

It unquestionably sends a double message when on the one hand we are told that one can’t be considered disobedient for doing it but on the other that the priest is supposed to counsel one not to do so. As such, it’s an option but it isn’t really an option. At some point the US norms really should be rewritten to remove the confusion. As it stands though I would have to disagree with the statement on your site that “… it finally turns out that they’ve been right all along…” since people are following the US norm. And quite frankly, it could actually be disobedience if one was to do it simply to thumb one’s nose at the norm rather than out of an interior call to kneel.

And while it’s off topic to some extent, kneeling at the consecration is not a univeral norm either. In fact in most of Europe standing is the norm throughout the Eucharistic prayer. I believe that is also true–and also for reception of communion–in the Eastern Liturgies, though I am ready to be corrected if I’m mistaken on that.

In the end, the sign of kneeling may indeed have importance but reverence is totally an internal matter regardless of the external sign. While I’m not going to judge any individual’s heart, I would bet the farm that kneeling becomes as automatic and habitual as standing for most and that it quickly loses any value of indicating an internal disposition. And quite frankly I’ve seen kneeling for communion pretty obviously used as a show of piety by some whose actions before and after don’t at all correspond to that particular moment. When I’m acting as an EM I can see much more in someone’s eyes than from whether they receive standing or kneeling, in the hand or on the tongue. It is hard to mask the joy of one who truly understands what is happening at that moment.

As of right now the statement reflects the personal feelings of the man making it but is not a directive of any type. It certainly gives food for thought but that’s about it.

Peace,
 
ncjohn said:
The problem is that the norm in the US is still to stand and for all to do so rather than indulging in actions of individual piety. A priest is still supposed to counsel one who presents themselves kneeling even though they cannot be refused communion or considered disobedient and that counsel should be done later.

It unquestionably sends a double message when on the one hand we are told that one can’t be considered disobedient for doing it but on the other that the priest is supposed to counsel one not to do so. As such, it’s an option but it isn’t really an option. At some point the US norms really should be rewritten to remove the confusion. As it stands though I would have to disagree with the statement on your site that “… it finally turns out that they’ve been right all along…” since people are following the US norm. And quite frankly, it could actually be disobedience if one was to do it simply to thumb one’s nose at the norm rather than out of an interior call to kneel.

And while it’s off topic to some extent, kneeling at the consecration is not a univeral norm either. In fact in most of Europe standing is the norm throughout the Eucharistic prayer. I believe that is also true–and also for reception of communion–in the Eastern Liturgies, though I am ready to be corrected if I’m mistaken on that.

In the end, the sign of kneeling may indeed have importance but reverence is totally an internal matter regardless of the external sign. While I’m not going to judge any individual’s heart, I would bet the farm that kneeling becomes as automatic and habitual as standing for most and that it quickly loses any value of indicating an internal disposition. And quite frankly I’ve seen kneeling for communion pretty obviously used as a show of piety by some whose actions before and after don’t at all correspond to that particular moment. When I’m acting as an EM I can see much more in someone’s eyes than from whether they receive standing or kneeling, in the hand or on the tongue. It is hard to mask the joy of one who truly understands what is happening at that moment.

As of right now the statement reflects the personal feelings of the man making it but is not a directive of any type. It certainly gives food for thought but that’s about it.

Peace,
Click to expand...
Actually, kneeling during the consecation is the universal nomr. The faithful stand at the Memorial Acclamation and thereafter. The United States was actually extolled for retaining the posture of kneeling throughout the entire EP.

I live across the border from Mexico. Having been to Mass a few times in Nuevo Laredo, I can tell you, from experience, that the faithful do kneel for the consecration, but, then, they will all stand from the Memorial Acclamation and thereafter. In fact, when faithful from the Mexican side come to Mass on the Texas side of the Rio Grande, they tend to throw us off (especially if they sit in the front row) because they will stand when we kneel. Thus, the celebrant has to use gentle hand signs to motion everyone to keep kneeling.
 
I thought we were supposed to do what the Vatican says, not the USCCB. I am not really certain what the USCCB function is, except to undermine the Vatican. Each individual bishop is supposed to be obedient to the Vatican, not the USCCB.
 
turtle18 said:
I thought we were supposed to do what the Vatican says, not the USCCB. I am not really certain what the USCCB function is, except to undermine the Vatican. Each individual bishop is supposed to be obedient to the Vatican, not the USCCB.
Click to expand...
I’ve been very disappointed in the USCCB on so many levels. Last I heard the USCCB was not a “real” governing body. It has no “real” authority. Everything it does must be approved by the Vatican before it can be considered binding on any bishop, so it’s the Vatican that gives the order, not the USCCB.

After everything we’ve been through over this last decade, I really don’t see how anybody can put any stock into the USCCB whatsoever. It really seems like a joke when you consider everything from the sex-abuse scandal, to stonewalling liturgical reforms, to this latest scandal regarding contributions to ACORN. Where does it end? Honestly, if a major corporation were involved in similar reckless and incompetent behavior, it would have been run out of business long ago. Now we have this whole confusion regarding kneeling for communion. Just one more tally to chalk on the board I guess. Enough already! I listen to my local bishop and the Vatican. That is all I need. The USCCB is little more than an obscure curiosity to me now – a strange and obsolete invention left over from the 1960s. It kind of reminds me of an electric typewriter. How often do you see those anymore?
 
turtle18 said:
I thought we were supposed to do what the Vatican says, not the USCCB. I am not really certain what the USCCB function is, except to undermine the Vatican. Each individual bishop is supposed to be obedient to the Vatican, not the USCCB.
Click to expand...
The National Conferences have been granted some authority by rome. The USCCB wields that authority for the US.

The national conferences also serve to fulfill the obligations under canon law for the eastern rite bishops to coordinate with their overlapping Roman bishops, and for bishops to collaborate on understanding Rome’s instructions, and to pre-screen indult requests.

Also, when one looks at the actual rates of sexual abuse by clerics, protestants have higher rates. The OCA have a similar rate to the Catholics, and have had FAR more coverup, due to being 1% of the population, rather than 20%; shallower pockets for the lawyers to pick, as well.
 
turtle18 said:
I thought we were supposed to do what the Vatican says, not the USCCB. I am not really certain what the USCCB function is, except to undermine the Vatican. Each individual bishop is supposed to be obedient to the Vatican, not the USCCB.
Click to expand...
When we follow a norm, we follow the Vatican. This is because the bishops, in a practical sense, only suggest norms. It is the Vatican that gives them the force of law.

As such, it is the Vatican’s interpretation of the norm that really counts, and, as posted above, the Vatican has provided information on how to enact the norms that it approved and insights into the conditions it placed when it approved it.

A pretty good analogy would be if the USCCB was Congress and the CDWDS was both the President AND the Supreme Court.

Congress\USCCB passed a law on the norm of Communion. The CDWDS signed it, but with stipulations, so it became law.

People had questions about it, so they asked the CDWDS in it’s role as ‘Supreme Court’ on the Sacraments. The CDWDS\Supreme Court issued it’s ruling that yes the faithful may kneel, and they do so licitly and without disobedience, as the CDWDS is the only authority that may issue law in this regard. Anything from anybody else is just a suggestion.
 
In answer to the OP, one should obey the instructions from the Vatican, as specified in the GIRM and other official documents, as opposed to signs, rumors and blogs about which way the Vatican is leaning.

As things stand now, one can receive kneeling, standing, on the tongue or in the hand, in the U.S. As to what the future holds, leave that to the providence of God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top