Our new priest makes everyone stand till after Communion is done

[zab]

It wasn’t a misunderstanding. The posture when coming back from Communion is entirely up to the Communicant (kneeling, standing or sitting). There is no “correct posture” at that time.

I was referring to myself and I know that I took advantage of the protocol coming back from the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments to choose to kneel knowing that the posture for our diocese is to remain standing. And it helped that no-one else followed the new instruction to stand either. The Following is a quote from the policies of the Archdiocese of Seattle:
The following adaptations to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) and as found in the Apostolic letter Redemptionis Sacramentum (117–119) are to be observed everywhere throughout the Archdiocese of Seattle:
2.a. The faithful remain standing after the “Lamb of God” until the end of the Communion Procession unless prevented by age, infirmity or some personal situation (e.g. small children, etc.). seattlearchdiocese.org/Archdiocese/Policies/Documents/Eucharist.pdf

The posture is to remain standing. However, as clarified by the Sacred Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in **Prot. n. 855/03/L
** the bishop, priests are “…to not regulate posture rigidly in such a way that those who wish to kneel or sit would no longer be free.”
%between%

 

[Brendan]

That’s simply not true.

The correct posture is the one determined by the diocesan bishop.

Read what Card. Arinze wrote:
Responsum: Negative, et ad mensum [No, for this reason]. The mens [reasoning] is that the prescription of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, no. 43, is intended, on the one hand, to ensure within broad limits a certain uniformity of posture within the congregation for the various parts of the celebration of Holy Mass, and on the other, to not regulate posture rigidly in such a way that those who wish to kneel or sit would no longer be free.

“Uniformity of posture” does not mean “entirely up to the Communicant” as you’ve just asserted. It means exactly what he wrote “uniformity.” This is with the understanding that it is not to be regulated too rigidly. There is a difference.

Not for returning back to the pew. The GIRM does give the bishop authority to regulate the posture from the Agnus Dei until the reception of Holy Communion. But that would have happened by the time that the faithful returns to the pew

Here is the specific Dubium

Dubium: In many places, the faithful are accustomed to kneeling or sitting in personal prayer upon returning to their places after having individually received Holy Communion during Mass. Is it the intention of the Missale Romanum, editio typical tertia, to forbid this practice?

Also note that the bishops discussed this very issue when reviewing the GIRM. Their conversation was recorded in the minutes

Archbishop Chaput: And what Bishop Clark is suggesting is that nobody sit or kneel until everybody receives; and then they can. So they’re not really the same issue it seems.

Archbishop Lipscomb: Well, again, if that was the bishop’s intention I don’t think we would accept that as practice for the United States - until everybody goes to Communion then you either sit or kneel, that everybody remains standing until then. I just don’t think that follows the practice of most of our churches in the United States.

Archbishop Chaput: See, I agree with you, but I thought this was confusing so I was just asking for a clarification. So the period of silence can begin as soon as you receive, if you want to go back and sit down, or kneel.

Archbishop Lipscomb: You can sit down, or you can kneel - or you can stand. That’s included previously.

Archbishop Chaput: Okay, thank you…

adoremus.org/KneelingafterCommunion.html

 

[Phemie]

What I find particularly interesting is that, with regards to posture, the 2002 universal GIRM remained the same as the 1975 GIRM which also had kneeling only at Consecration and standing from the AMEN until the end of Mass.

Now I know that various countries had different adaptations. In the US, until at least 2000, it was everyone kneel for the entire EP but around that year, IIRC, individual Bishops were given permission to decide for their dioceses. In Canada there were no adaptations to the 1975 article on posture yet I never attended a parish between 1975 and 2000 where we didn’t kneel for the Consecration, and in many parishes the entire EP, and after Communion. In most we also knelt after the Agnus Dei. Why it became such an issue with the latest GIRM is beyond me. Was it because more people like us were suddenly reading the GIRM and were questioning everything?

 

[Corki]

That’s simply not true.

The correct posture is the one determined by the diocesan bishop.

Read what Card. Arinze wrote:
Responsum: Negative, et ad mensum [No, for this reason]. The mens [reasoning] is that the prescription of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, no. 43, is intended, on the one hand, to ensure within broad limits a certain uniformity of posture within the congregation for the various parts of the celebration of Holy Mass, and on the other, to not regulate posture rigidly in such a way that those who wish to kneel or sit would no longer be free.

“Uniformity of posture” does not mean “entirely up to the Communicant” as you’ve just asserted. It means exactly what he wrote “uniformity.” This is with the understanding that it is not to be regulated too rigidly. There is a difference.

I guess I see it as a distinction without a difference. If it really different to say “those who wish to kneel or sit are free to” vs. “the posture is up to the Communicant”?

 

[ProVobis]

What I find particularly interesting is that, with regards to posture, the 2002 universal GIRM remained the same as the 1975 GIRM which also had kneeling only at Consecration and standing from the AMEN until the end of Mass.

Now I know that various countries had different adaptations. In the US, until at least 2000, it was everyone kneel for the entire EP but around that year, IIRC, individual Bishops were given permission to decide for their dioceses. In Canada there were no adaptations to the 1975 article on posture yet I never attended a parish between 1975 and 2000 where we didn’t kneel for the Consecration, and in many parishes the entire EP, and after Communion. In most we also knelt after the Agnus Dei. Why it became such an issue with the latest GIRM is beyond me. Was it because more people like us were suddenly reading the GIRM and were questioning everything?

I think so. Maybe people decided to look at everything else (ad orientem, etc.) in the universal (Latin IGMR) GIRM besides the translation of the Mass itself.

I only wish there was as much intensity in bringing in Jubilate Deo for the purposes of achieving unity (per Pope Paul’s request) as there is in clarifying the posture people are “supposed” to hold throughout Mass.

 

[Corki]

What I find particularly interesting is that, with regards to posture, the 2002 universal GIRM remained the same as the 1975 GIRM which also had kneeling only at Consecration and standing from the AMEN until the end of Mass.

Now I know that various countries had different adaptations. In the US, until at least 2000, it was everyone kneel for the entire EP but around that year, IIRC, individual Bishops were given permission to decide for their dioceses. In Canada there were no adaptations to the 1975 article on posture yet I never attended a parish between 1975 and 2000 where we didn’t kneel for the Consecration, and in many parishes the entire EP, and after Communion. In most we also knelt after the Agnus Dei. Why it became such an issue with the latest GIRM is beyond me. Was it because more people like us were suddenly reading the GIRM and were questioning everything?

You bring up a good point. I have lived in two countries where there was kneeling for the consecration (mostly people stood after or just before the Memorial acclamation) and not after the Agnus Dei. People still knelt after Communion, said their private prayers and then stood up again to rejoin the signing.

 

[FrDavid96]

Or maybe they did read it. I read the dubium and reply. Paradoxically, it still seems to leave room for doubt. The question posed was whether it was the intention of the Roman Missal to forbid the practice of kneeling or sitting after communion.

The reply said “no” that was not the intention, because while the intention was on the one hand to ensure uniformity of posture within broad limits, on the other hand, it should not be done so rigidly that persons would no longer be free to kneel or sit if they wish to do so.

In a previous post, you summarized it this way: “What Rome said is that even though the bishop decides (which is the rule in the U.S. but not necessarily elsewhere), it is not to be implemented in such as way as to compel individuals to follow the prescribed posture.”

So it would seem that any given individual is free to kneel or sit.

No. It would not “seem.”

Free to do as one pleases is not how Rome answered.

If the Congregation meant to say that, then they would have said it.

The posture is still to be determined by the diocesan bishop.

What you keep asserting simply makes no sense. If everyone were free to do as he pleases, then Rome would have eliminated the rubric/norm calling for a posture. In contrast, the norm from the GIRM was included as part of the response.

 

[FrDavid96]

I guess I see it as a distinction without a difference. If it really different to say “those who wish to kneel or sit are free to” vs. “the posture is up to the Communicant”?

Rome did not say “the posture is up to the Communicant.” What you wrote is simply not true.

You’re claiming that Rome said something which was never said.

Rome said that there is a policy, but that it is not to be enforced “too rigidly.”

It is not a distinction without a difference. It is a distinction with a very significant difference.

 

[christofirst]

I from Northern California. A few weeks ago while visiting my Dear Daughter in the Brentwood area of LA I attended a vigil mass at St. Paul the Apostle near UCLA. At my huge Jesuit parish, we always have kneeled, but in LA, they stood and a few of us kneeled. There were many elderly people in attendance, and they mostly sat instead of standing. BTW, St. Paul the Apostle Parish is awesome and I plan on attending mass there again when I’m in LALA Land.:

LALA Land?!? How long must we endure such disrespect?:dts: (as long as we deserve it, I guess…)

I live a few parishes south of St. Paul’s, but I know it well. Welcome back any time.

 

[Brendan]

No. It would not “seem.”

Free to do as one pleases is not how Rome answered.

If the Congregation meant to say that, then they would have said it…

What they DID say, however, was the uniformity of posture that the Congregation desires is sufficiently broad as to include those who stand, sit or kneel. And that those who attempt to regulate the posture to an extent that the communicant no longer feels free to sit, kneel or stand; such a person does so contrary to the desires of Congregation.

 

[ProVobis]

What I find particularly interesting is that, with regards to posture, the 2002 universal GIRM remained the same as the 1975 GIRM which also had kneeling only at Consecration and standing from the AMEN until the end of Mass.

Now I know that various countries had different adaptations. In the US, until at least 2000, it was everyone kneel for the entire EP but around that year, IIRC, individual Bishops were given permission to decide for their dioceses. In Canada there were no adaptations to the 1975 article on posture yet I never attended a parish between 1975 and 2000 where we didn’t kneel for the Consecration, and in many parishes the entire EP, and after Communion. In most we also knelt after the Agnus Dei. Why it became such an issue with the latest GIRM is beyond me. Was it because more people like us were suddenly reading the GIRM and were questioning everything?

I think so. How many people even knew of GIRM before the internet?

 

[Evan]

I too am in the archdiocese of Seattle, and when the bishop asked us to stand til the end of communion, we later received an additional update. After the body of Christ was reposed in the tabernacle, we should then sit or kneel during a period of silence after communion. At this time the priest(s) and/or deacon would purify the vessels, then sit for a period of 1 to 2 minutes in silent prayer.

Even after our priests left and new ones arrived, we still continue the process

stand together to receive communion til the hosts are reposed
kneel or sit while the vessels are purified
kneel or sit while the celebrant sits and prays
stand when the celebrant stands

We get both, uniformity for communion
Silent time of prayer afterward in the posture of our choice

AND we are in obedience to the archbishop who is the person in the diocese with the authority to regulate the sacraments.

 

[JimG]

I too am in the archdiocese of Seattle, and when the bishop asked us to stand til the end of communion, we later received an additional update. After the body of Christ was reposed in the tabernacle, we should then sit or kneel during a period of silence after communion. At this time the priest(s) and/or deacon would purify the vessels, then sit for a period of 1 to 2 minutes in silent prayer.

Even after our priests left and new ones arrived, we still continue the process

stand together to receive communion til the hosts are reposed
kneel or sit while the vessels are purified
kneel or sit while the celebrant sits and prays
stand when the celebrant stands

We get both, uniformity for communion
Silent time of prayer afterward in the posture of our choice

AND we are in obedience to the archbishop who is the person in the diocese with the authority to regulate the sacraments.

Do those not receiving communion also stand during communion?

 

[Phemie]

Do those not receiving communion also stand during communion?

I noticed that at the Cathedral where I attended Mass this morning almost everyone stood during Communion. They knelt when the priest sat down.

 

[Brendan]

I
AND we are in obedience to the archbishop who is the person in the diocese with the authority to regulate the sacraments.

To a certain exent. The bishop certainly has much authority in the regulation of the liturgy, but it is not complete authority. A bishop, for example, has no authority to allow someone other than a Deacon or a Priest to give the homily.

The reason being, is the GIRM is not a local document. It is a document that orginiates from the Congregation for Divine Worship, while HAS been delegated authority to regulate the liturgy around the world.

Even when the US Bishop vote for an variation from the GIRM, that must go to Rome for a ‘recognito’ before it takes effect. A bishop of any US diocese cannot implement a change on their own authority.

Likewise, since the CDWDS is the legislative authority, it retains control over definitive interpretations, even of any variations to the GIRM proposed by local bishops conferences.

That is why Cardinal George, on behalf of the US bishops, submitted the Dubium to Rome in the first place. They are all bishops and know the limits of their authority.

If they had the authority to regulate in the manner that you mention, they would have felt no need to even ask Rome what the intent of GIRM 43 even was.

But they did. Cardinal George, and the other bishops, recognized the need for a definitive resolution, and therefore, requested the actual legislator of the GIRM for clarification on how it should be implemented.

And, as an official interpretation of Liturgical Law, it then falls under Canon 16, specifically 16 2, as an explanation of doubtful law.

Can. 16 §1. The legislator authentically interprets laws as does the one to whom the same legislator has entrusted the power of authentically interpreting.

§2. An authentic interpretation put forth in the form of law has the same force as the law itself and must be promulgated. If it only declares the words of the law which are certain in themselves, it is retroactive; if it restricts or extends the law, or if it explains a doubtful law, it is not retroactive.

It is not retroactive, in that any bishop who attempted to restrict the faithful from kneeling upon return to their seat did not err. But it retains the force of law since it was promulgated to the US Bishops.

 

[ProVobis]

Do those not receiving communion also stand during communion?

Exactly. And If they’re going to demand standing after communion, why should they bother to return to the congested pews at all?. I’ve seen places where a line forms at the door practically, if they haven’t left altogether. When I used to attend Holy Name Cathedral, I noticed that about a third of the congregation had left before the last blessing.

 

[FrDavid96]

To a certain exent. The bishop certainly has much authority in the regulation of the liturgy, but it is not complete authority. A bishop, for example, has no authority to allow someone other than a Deacon or a Priest to give the homily.

The reason being, is the GIRM is not a local document. It is a document that orginiates from the Congregation for Divine Worship, while HAS been delegated authority to regulate the liturgy around the world.

Even when the US Bishop vote for an variation from the GIRM, that must go to Rome for a ‘recognito’ before it takes effect. A bishop of any US diocese cannot implement a change on their own authority.

Likewise, since the CDWDS is the legislative authority, it retains control over definitive interpretations, even of any variations to the GIRM proposed by local bishops conferences.

That is why Cardinal George, on behalf of the US bishops, submitted the Dubium to Rome in the first place. They are all bishops and know the limits of their authority.

If they had the authority to regulate in the manner that you mention, they would have felt no need to even ask Rome what the intent of GIRM 43 even was.

But they did. Cardinal George, and the other bishops, recognized the need for a definitive resolution, and therefore, requested the actual legislator of the GIRM for clarification on how it should be implemented.

And, as an official interpretation of Liturgical Law, it then falls under Canon 16, specifically 16 2, as an explanation of doubtful law.

It is not retroactive, in that any bishop who attempted to restrict the faithful from kneeling upon return to their seat did not err. But it retains the force of law since it was promulgated to the US Bishops.

This particular issue is one that the local bishop is competent to decide.

It is one of a very few examples where the local bishop has specific competence to decide on the posture. It does not apply to other examples of posture in other placed in the Mass.

The bishop can decide for his own diocese. He can likewise enforce it. However he cannot enforce it “too rigidly.”

 

[Brendan]

This particular issue is one that the local bishop is competent to decide.

It is one of a very few examples where the local bishop has specific competence to decide on the posture. It does not apply to other examples of posture in other placed in the Mass.

The bishop can decide for his own diocese. He can likewise enforce it. However he cannot enforce it “too rigidly.”

And ‘too rigidly’ is noted as being when the faithful do not feel free to kneel or sit.

 

[Brendan]

Our hosts also offer some clarification

catholic.com/quickquestions/can-the-bishop-require-the-congregation-to-stand-after-the-lamb-of-god

 

[zab]

And ‘too rigidly’ is noted as being when the faithful do not feel free to kneel or sit.

And sometimes they do not “feel free to kneel or sit” because they worry about what others think. And if someone says , “I stand out of obedience…” then another assumes that must mean that they think I’m being disobedient. But I don’t have to worry about it because my knees tell me I have to sit