Pastoral Reasons for not kneeling in the GIRM

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

"There has never been a recorded case of disease transmission through the practice of Communion on the tongue."

no need to shout----

How would you know that there are not unrecorded cases? I know saliva has gotten on my fingers giving Holy Communion on the tongue, but I would never refuse anyone this preference even in the hospital. We are discussing reasons.

Lux

 

[Brendan]

no need to shout----

How would you know that there are not unrecorded cases? I know saliva has gotten on my fingers giving Holy Communion on the tongue,
Lux

Then you are doing it incorrectly. I was an EMHC for 2 years while in Diaconate formation. I had no problems what-so-ever keeping my fingers dry.

 

[Walking_Home]

You seem to forget the rest of this instruction “as determined by the conference of bishops”.

Kneelers have permission to ignore the US norm. I know this. I am saying that this is not a good situation. If you give permission to ignore one norm, don’t be surprised when others are ignored, but this is off topic anyway

Lux

---

Your fallacy is in — that those who kneel are “ignoring” the US norm. The truth of the matter is those who have in the past and continue to deny kneeling are ignoring the Church’s norms. So no --your idea that kneeling opens the door to ignoring other norms does not wash. Actually ignoring Rome’s supreme authority in the matter of kneeling is conducive to ignoring other Church directives.

 

[Brendan]

You seem to forget the rest of this instruction “as determined by the conference of bishops”.
Lux

…With the approval from Rome.

You are missing some of the history of the instruction. The US bishops submitted a norm of standing without the addition of “those who kneel are not to be refused”. Rome rejected it and provided additional guidance on the matter.

The US Bishops approved a norm that was then in compliance with Rome’s directives, abiet with a very ‘suscinct’ condensation (to put it mildly) of Rome’s more detailed instructions on the matter.

Rome clarified, via additional responsoria, how the norm is to be understood and applied.

 

[benedictgal]

---

Your fallacy is in — that those who kneel are “ignoring” the US norm. The truth of the matter is those who have in the past and continue to deny kneeling are ignoring the Church’s norms. So no --your idea that kneeling opens the door to ignoring other norms does not wash. Actually ignoring Rome’s supreme authority in the matter of kneeling is conducive to ignoring other Church directives.

I think what many seem to forget is that standing was permitted only if kneeling is also retained. That was the huge string that Rome attached before approving the posture of standing.

In the respnses that the Holy See has sent regarding the issue of kneeling, that statement has been a part of the answer. In a letter dated February 26, 2003, the Holy See wrote that:

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.

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”.

From 2002, the Holy See wrote that:

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.

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.

Thus, no one is violating any part of the GIRM if they choose to kneel. Even if my pastor or my PV tried to “catechize” me as to why I should stand, they, too, need to be made aware of the various statements issued by the Holy See on the subject.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Then you are doing it incorrectly. I was an EMHC for 2 years while in Diaconate formation. I had no problems what-so-ever keeping my fingers dry.

I have been an EMHC for over 10 years, at Mass, at home, as well as the hospital & nursing home. My fingers have been bit, licked and smudged with lipstick, as were the fingers of other EMHC, priests & deacons I know. Just because it never happened to you, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. If a person closes his/her lips too quickly, it happens.

We are discussing reasons, and experiences—not only your views and experiences. After participating in this thread, I do understand why so many traditionalists have a bad name.

Lux

 

[Brendan]

I have been an EMHC for over 10 years, at Mass, at home, as well as the hospital & nursing home. My fingers have been bit, licked and smudged with lipstick, as were the fingers of other EMHC, priests & deacons I know. Just because it never happened to you, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. If a person closes his/her lips too quickly, it happens.

And, as I mentioned, all that means is that you are doing it incorrectly.

In our parish, reception on the tounge is by far the largest means ( actually to recieve in the hand requires special arrangement, as the Eucharist is normally offered intincted, so you’ll have to let the pastor know ahead of time if you only desire one species).

The pastor has been distributing that way at every Mass for 9 years, and the deacon for even longer ( but not every Mass)

They went over the proper procedure with me, and I can let you know the details if you desire.

And yes, it works at places like nursing homes and home visits to the sick, as that is where I ministered as an EMHC ( we don’t use EMHC’s at our parish)

We are discussing reasons, and experiences—not only your views and experiences. After participating in this thread, I do understand why so many traditionalists have a bad name.

Lux

Yes, we are discussing experiences, and not just yours.
You provided your opinion on the matter, I provided Rome’s,

You provided your experiences, I provided mine.

As far a being a ‘traditionalist’, I merely follow what Rome teaches and how it teaches that. If you feel that that gives me a ‘bad name’ I’ll consider myself in good company.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

And, as I mentioned, all that means is that you are doing it incorrectly.

Yes, all of us are doing it incorrectly, and you are doing it correctly (or maybe your communicants do not close their mouth on your fingers) very possible, since this is more the norm in your parish.

But back to topic, please

Lux

 

[Walking_Home]

Yes, all of us are doing it incorrectly, and you are doing it correctly (or maybe your communicants do not close their mouth on your fingers) very possible, since this is more the norm in your parish.

But back to topic, please

Lux

Originally Posted by Lux et Tenebrae View Post
And from the USCCB bulletin

In addition to serving as a vehicle for the prayer of beings composed of body and spirit, the postures and gestures in which we engage at Mass have another very important function. **The Church **sees in these common postures and gestures both a symbol of the unity of those who have come together to worship and a means of fostering that unity. We are not free to change these postures to suit our own individual piety, for the Church makes it clear that our unity of posture and gesture is an expression of our participation in the one Body formed by the baptized with Christ, our head. When we stand, kneel, sit, bow and sign ourselves in common action, we given unambiguous witness that we are indeed the Body of Christ, united in heart, mind and spirit.

---

Lux et Tenebrae – I asked you before, and I will ask you again. Since the above section you quoted speaks of the Church —What has the Church stated about kneeling for communion.

 

[Walking_Home]

And, as I mentioned, all that means is that you are doing it incorrectly.

In our parish, reception on the tounge is by far the largest means ( actually to recieve in the hand requires special arrangement, as the Eucharist is normally offered intincted, so you’ll have to let the pastor know ahead of time if you only desire one species).

The pastor has been distributing that way at every Mass for 9 years, and the deacon for even longer ( but not every Mass)

They went over the proper procedure with me, and I can let you know the details if you desire.

And yes, it works at places like nursing homes and home visits to the sick, as that is where I ministered as an EMHC ( we don’t use EMHC’s at our parish)

Yes, we are discussing experiences, and not just yours.
You provided your opinion on the matter, I provided Rome’s,

You provided your experiences, I provided mine.

As far a being a ‘traditionalist’, I merely follow what Rome teaches and how it teaches that. If you feel that that gives me a ‘bad name’ I’ll consider myself in good company.

---

Now – that would place you in company with the Pope-wouldn’t it.