Pope's Mass/kneeling and receiving communion on the tongue?

[JMMK]

The communion rail serves two purposes. The first is legislative. There is a requirement that there be a definite border or demarcation between the sanctuary and the rest of the Church. There are many theological reasons for this. The other is utilitarian. It makes it easy for people to kneel for communion en masse. This, when done with intinction, is just as fast, if not faster by some reports, than standing and receiving in the hand. Of course this is assuming that distribution while standing is done reverently and not like a lunch line where they don’t even wait for the “amen” response.

As far as EMHC are concerned. The less they are used, the better. That is not a slight against them, but the way it is prescribed.

Lastly, communion on the tongue, which is greatly facilitated by kneeling (I’m taller than all the priests and all but one deacon in my parish), also has two aspects to it. There are many theological and catechetical benefits to both methods and there is plenty of room for argument. However, the reception on the tongue protects the Host from profanation much better. The norm does state that the minister is supposed to make sure that they consume it, but this is not always the case (See Here)

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Actually, one kneels from at the epiclesis to the Memorial Acclamation. Then, at the Memorial Acclamation, they stand. So, to say that they kneel at the EP without making a distinction is erroneous.

There are those, unfortunately, who may not be able to tell the difference between what a universal norm is as opposed to an adaptation.

from the GIRM on the Vatican website
I don’ t know where you get your info, perhaps you could give a reference.

1. The faithful should stand from the beginning of the Entrance chant, or while the priest approaches the altar, until the end of the collect; for the Alleluia chant before the Gospel; while the Gospel itself is proclaimed; during the Profession of Faith and the Prayer of the Faithful; from the invitation, Orate, fratres (Pray, brethren), before the prayer over the offerings until the end of Mass, except at the places indicated below.

They should, however, sit while the readings before the Gospel and the responsorial Psalm are proclaimed and for the homily and while the Preparation of the Gifts at the Offertory is taking place; and, as circumstances allow, they may sit or kneel while the period of sacred silence after Communion is observed.

In the dioceses of the United States of America, they should kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer, except when prevented on occasion by reasons of health, lack of space, the large number of people present, or some other good reason. Those who do not kneel ought to make a profound bow when the priest genuflects after the consecration. The faithful kneel after the Agnus Dei unless the diocesan Bishop determines otherwise.[53]

With a view to a uniformity in gestures and postures during one and the same celebration, the faithful should follow the directions which the deacon, lay minister, or priest gives according to whatever is indicated in the Missal.

Lux

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

ps re more speculation

There are those, unfortunately, who may not be able to tell the difference between what a universal norm is as opposed to an adaptation.

Yes, and you are one of them, but in your heart, you must know that you consider your opinion over the GIRM
re adaptations

CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP
AND THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENTS

Prot. 1381/01/L

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

In response to the request of His Excellency, the Most Reverend Wilton D. Gregory, Bishop of Belleville, President of the Conference of Bishops of the United States of America, made in a letter dated November 20, 2002, and by virtue of the faculties granted to this Congregation by the Supreme Pontiff JOHN PAUL II, we grant recognition of the text excerpted from the English language translation of parts of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, as found in the attached copy, and which shall be inserted into future editions of the Roman Missal published in English for use in the dioceses of the this same Conference.

Mention of the recognition granted by this Congregation must be included in the published text of these norms.

All things to the contrary notwithstanding.

From the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, April 17, 2002.

• Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Estevez
  Prefect
• Franciscus Pius Tamburrino
  Archbishop-Secretary

 

[benedictgal]

ps re more speculation

Yes, and you are one of them, but in your heart, you must know that you consider your opinion over the GIRM
re adaptations

CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP
AND THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENTS

Prot. 1381/01/L

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

In response to the request of His Excellency, the Most Reverend Wilton D. Gregory, Bishop of Belleville, President of the Conference of Bishops of the United States of America, made in a letter dated November 20, 2002, and by virtue of the faculties granted to this Congregation by the Supreme Pontiff JOHN PAUL II, we grant recognition of the text excerpted from the English language translation of parts of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, as found in the attached copy, and which shall be inserted into future editions of the Roman Missal published in English for use in the dioceses of the this same Conference.

Mention of the recognition granted by this Congregation must be included in the published text of these norms.

All things to the contrary notwithstanding.

From the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, April 17, 2002.

• Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Estevez
  Prefect
• Franciscus Pius Tamburrino
  Archbishop-Secretary

But, again, this is an exception granted to the general norm. We’ve been through this before with you and Joysong. Furthermore, have you ever seen someone stand up for the entire Eucharistic Prayer?

This is how Francis Cardinal Arinze explained it:

Is that the same thing with the consecration? Can they kneel during the consecration?

A bit different there. The rule from Rome would sanction where the bishops said, “in our country we want people to kneel throughout the consecration”. From our office in Rome we will support that. So it is a bit different. But sometimes during the consecration – suppose it is open-air or it rained and it is muddy – you could not kneel there. But in the normal church it is possible to kneel.

***And that’s the normal thing: to kneel during the consecration ***-- and even, as in this country, to kneel from the beginning – just before consecration – right down to just before the Our Father. And that is okay.

This is what the Spanish translation of the Roman Missal says regarding the issue of kneeling during the Consecration. This comes from the Vatican’s website (it is found in the gestures and posture section):

Por otra parte, estarán de rodillas, a no ser por causa de salud, por la estrechez del lugar, por el gran número de asistentes o que otras causas razonables lo impidan, durante la consagración.

Translation:

In another place, the faithful will kneel, notwithstanding reasons of health, lack of space or because of a great number of the faithful, during the consecration.

Here is the adaptation regarding the issue of kneeling for the entire Eucharistic Prayer, as noted in the Spanish GIRM (again, as posted on the Vatican’s website:

Sin embargo, pertenece a la Conferencia Episcopal adaptar los gestos y las posturas descritos en el Ordinario de la Misa a la índole y a las tradiciones razonables de los pueblos, según la norma del derecho.[53] Pero préstese atención a que respondan al sentido y la índole de cada una de las partes de la celebración. Donde existe la costumbre de que el pueblo permanezca de rodillas desde cuando termina la aclamación del “Santo” hasta el final de la Plegaria Eucarística y antes de la Comunión cuando el sacerdote dice “Éste es el Cordero de Dios”, es laudable que se conserve.

Translation:

Nonetheless, it pertains to the Episcopal Conferences to adapt those postures and gestures for the Ordinary of the Mass according to the indult and traditions of the peoples according to their right. But, attention should be paid to the response of the understanding of each part of the celebration. Where it is the custom of the faithful to kneel after the Sanctus to the end of the Eucharisitc Prayer and from the Ecce Agnus Dei, right before Communion, it is laudable to conserve this practice.

I can also quote this same passage from the Italian GIRM as well.

S’inginocchino poi alla consacrazione, a meno che lo impediscano lo stato di salute, la ristrettezza del luogo, o il gran numero dei presenti, o altri ragionevoli motivi. Quelli che non si inginocchiano alla consacrazione, facciano un profondo inchino mentre il sacerdote genuflette dopo la consacrazione.

Spetta però alle Conferenze Episcopali adattare i gesti e gli atteggiamenti del corpo, descritti nel Rito della Messa, alla cultura e alle ragionevoli tradizioni dei vari popoli secondo le norme del diritto[53]. Nondimeno si faccia in modo che tali adattamenti corrispondano al senso e al carattere di ciascuna parte della celebrazione. Dove vi è la consuetudine che il popolo rimanga in ginocchio dall’acclamazione del Santo fino alla conclusione della Preghiera eucaristica e prima della Comunione, quando il sacerdote dice Ecco l’Agnello di Dio, tale uso può essere lodevolmente conservato.

Iginocchino means “to kneel” in Italian. It is similar to “incar” in Spanish, which also means “to kneel”. “De rodillas” is the more proper term, as used in the Spanish translation of the GIRM.

Just because you can’t find it in English that doesn’t mean that the norm is non-existent.

Thus, three different languages pretty much saying the same thing. You kneel during the consecration. What is done afterwords is optional, but, as the Holy See indicated, to kneel throughout the entire Eucharistic Prayer and after the priest says "Ecce Agnus Dei (Behold, the Lamb of God) is certainly laudable and should be conserved.

 

[benedictgal]

It pays to be trilingual. I work for a federally-funded program down here in the hinterland that offers vocational and educational training to kids. We have a lot of kids who only speak Spanish. I’ve encouraged them to make an effort at learning English so that they can get better jobs. One such means is to listen to English-language radio and watch English-language programming (appropriate, though). I speak from experience because I’ve augmented my two years of HS Italian by regularly listening to Vatican Radio (which is broadcast mostly in Italian).

In another thread, a couple of folks posted exerpts from the English version of the GIRM, as if this is the only one available. Looking at the Vatican website, I have found this in the Spanish translation of the GIRM:

Los fieles comulgan estando de rodillas, o de pie, según lo haya determinado la Conferencia de Obispos.

Translation:

The faithful receive Holy Communion kneeling, or standing, as determined by the Conference of Bishops.

In Spanish, the word “incar” means “to kneel”. The phrase “de rodillas” describes the action. This is the open door to the adaptation for standing.

Let’s see what it says in Italian:

I fedeli si comunicano in ginocchio o in piedi, come stabilito dalla Conferenza Episcopale.

Translation:

The faithful receive Communion kneeling, or standing, as established by the Episcopal Conference.

In Italian, the word “ginocchio” means to kneel. Again, the option to stand is established by the Episcopal Conference.

The bottom line is that if we just look at the English GIRM without studying what the document says in other languages, then, we think that it’s just about our little corner of the world. Remember, the Church is universal, that is what the word “Catholic” means.

I highlighted the portions that refer to kneeling because that is the topic at hand.

 

[japhy]

from the GIRM on the Vatican website
I don’ t know where you get your info, perhaps you could give a reference.

The GIRM for the USA is not the universal GIRM. It’s the universal GIRM adapted for the US. In the US, we kneel from after the “Holy, Holy, Holy” until after the “Amen”.

The universal GIRM, however, says that kneeling is only required at the Consecration (i.e. the Institution Narrative); from the IGMR, n. 43: “Genuflectant vero, nisi valetudinis causa, vel ob angustiam loci vel frequentiorem numerum adstantium aliasve rationabiles causas impediantur, ad consecrationem.”

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

But, again, this is an exception granted to the general norm. We’ve been through this before with you and Joysong. Furthermore, have you ever seen someone stand up for the entire Eucharistic Prayer?

I told you I have. This is not an exception. It is from the approved translation on the Vatican website

Thus, three different languages pretty much saying the same thing. You kneel during the consecration. What is done afterwords is optional, but, as the Holy See indicated, to kneel throughout the entire Eucharistic Prayer and after the priest says "Ecce Agnus Dei (Behold, the Lamb of God) is certainly laudable and should be conserved.

But I do have a problem with you constantly ignoring this which I posted in #23

CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP
AND THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENTS

Prot. 1381/01/L

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

In response to the request of His Excellency, the Most Reverend Wilton D. Gregory, Bishop of Belleville, President of the Conference of Bishops of the United States of America, made in a letter dated November 20, 2002, and by virtue of the faculties granted to this Congregation by the Supreme Pontiff JOHN PAUL II, we grant recognition of the text excerpted from the English language translation of parts of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, as found in the attached copy, and which shall be inserted into future editions of the Roman Missal published in English for use in the dioceses of the this same Conference.

Mention of the recognition granted by this Congregation must be included in the published text of these norms.

All things to the contrary notwithstanding.

From the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, April 17, 2002.

• Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Estevez
  Prefect

• Franciscus Pius Tamburrino
  Archbishop-Secretary

It may pay to be trilingual, but it is more beneficial to understand English, when you are under the authority of the USCCB. It is not within your authority to you to interpret or correct the official document.

Lux

 

[Brendan]

It may pay to be trilingual, but it is more beneficial to understand English, when you are under the authority of the USCCB. It is not within your authority to you to interpret or correct the official document.

Lux

That is correct. It is not even with the authority of the local bishop to authentically interprete the GIRM. That belongs to the CDWDS

per Canon 16 -2

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.

Note that the authentic interpretation has the force of law when it is put forward as such ( as in the response to an official question, a dubium)

The CDWDS did, most certainly, give a recogito to the American adapations, but it did so with certain caveats that have to be obeyed.

Here are some of the interpretations that the CDWDS has issued on kneeling. Since they are in response to official questions, they maintain the force of law ( these are effectively Supreme Court decisions on how the law (GIRM) is to be applied)

ewtn.com/expert/answers/kneeling_for_communion.htm

First, you will see that the CDWDS correctly claims that it is the legisilative authority ( see Canon 16 above). This is also confirmed by the very fact that this is where the bishops issued the request for claificiation to.

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.

Then, the dubium follows with the correct interpreation of the GIRM in matters of kneeling for communion.

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.”

Note that the CDWDS said that it approved the norm of standing with particular qualifications. And those that do choose to do so most not be imposed upon, and are not to be considered either disobedient or acting illicitly.

The ‘acting illicity’ is important, in that an illict action is one that is done without law, that the person is acting againg the law by doing so. But this is not the case with someone kneeling. Even if a bishop creates particular law for standing, the kneeling person is neither disobedient or acting against the particular law (being illicit).

And anyone who makes the claim that they are, that person is actually the one being disobedient and acting illicitly.

FYI, EWTN doesn’t list the Protocol numbers out of privacy reasons,

But the Protocol numbers are (in order listed)

1322/02/L
1322/02/L
2390/02/L

Just in case you want to look them up yourself.

So yes, we cannot authoritatively interperet the GIRM, only the Vatican can do that.So check into what the Vatican says.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

I guess we will need to agree to disagree.

I think “All things to the contrary notwithstanding.” is pretty explicit. Obviously many of you do not.

And I also do not know if the documents you cite would stand up in canon court. I really don’t think so. But that is not my point.

The norm is the norm. Those wishing to kneel for HC were given a dispensation from the norm, the norm was not changed.

When the USCCB included consecration in a flagon in their adaptations for RS, it was not approved. Standing was, and also kneeling for the EP.

Now, if push comes to shove, and a priest decides not to honor the dispensation, I never heard of any disciplinary action, or any official canon ruling, so I really don’t know what would happen.

Peace

Lux

 

[Joysong]

B'gal:

The bottom line is that if we just look at the English GIRM without studying what the document says in other languages, then, we think that it’s just about our little corner of the world. Remember, the Church is universal, that is what the word “Catholic” means.

At least we are making progress, B’gal, for now you will concede that I spoke correctly, that the universal norm is not simply kneeling as you formerly alleged. However, in order to be ‘right’, you are now spinning the commas in the translations for other countries, while conveniently omitting the MAIN translation in latin, which is universal for the church, and has no commas.

1. Sacerdos deinde accipit patenam vel pyxidem, et accedit ad communicandos, qui de more processionaliter approprinquant.

160 … The faithful may communicate either standing or kneeling, as established by the Conference of Bishops.

Your private interpretation:

I fedeli si comunicano in ginocchio o in piedi, come stabilito dalla Conferenza Episcopale. [note the position of the comma, please]

Translation:

The faithful receive Communion kneeling, or standing, as established by the Episcopal Conference. [Note how you moved the comma to make it mean what you want it to say below.]

In Italian, the word “ginocchio” means to kneel. Again, the option to stand is established by the Episcopal Conference.

The correct translation means to kneel OR stand both options] are established by the E.C. and not as you have wrongly implied, only for standing. The same may be said of the spanish translation - NO commas in the original, except where you added them in your translation to change the meaning.

[Edited]

 

[japhy]

I guess we will need to agree to disagree.

Perhaps I’m missing what’s exactly the cause of the disagreement.

The Latin “standard” GIRM says that kneeling is the posture during the Consecration. The American adaptations to the GIRM extend that kneeling throughout the entire Eucharistic Prayer. Standing is permitted if kneeling is not possible for some good reason.

What’s the disagreement?

When it comes to the posture for receiving Holy Communion, the posture decided on by the US Conference of Bishops is standing. However, since the 2000 GIRM was published, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has said that, over and above what is dictated by the GIRM, even where standing has been settled on as the posture for receiving, people may continue to receive kneeling and should not be denied Communion because of it. See here and here.

These decisions by the CDWDS are not “indults”, but authoritative statements clarifying the GIRM. It would appear from these responses of the CDWDS that kneeling for receiving Holy Communion is always permitted; they do not speak about whether standing is also an acceptable position universally. They do not necessarily say it is not, but the language implies that, since kneeling was the custom in the Roman Rite up until 1967’s Eucharisticum Mysterium, it is universally permitted, whereas standing is only an option where the Bishops’ Conference has decided upon it (excluding cases of necessity, of course).

Or is this conclusion what you disagree with?

 

[Joysong]

Lux is correctly speaking about the custom of standing OUTSIDE of the USA, where the adaptation was permitted to kneel, since it was “such an ingrained practice.”

A common early posture for Christian prayer was standing. The Council of Nicea (c.325) prescribed that, on Sundays and during the Easter Season, prayers should always be standing, rather than while kneeling (canon 20), a custom also mentioned by the early Christian author Tertullian (2nd-3rd Centuries). It is still customary for many Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox communities to stand rather than kneel during the Eucharist on Sundays and especially during the Easter Season.

This custom of standing is also followed in the Roman Rite when the Litany of the Saints is sung during the Easter Season. Although bowing and kneeling also are traditional postures during prayer, in earlier centuries kneeling was considered more as a symbol of penance for sin rather than a sign of respect during prayer. Thus, in early Christianity, kneeling was appropriate during Lent or at other times of penance, but not on days of joy. Nevertheless, prior to the Second Vatican Council, kneeling (rather than standing) was usually considered the most appropriate gesture for prayer no matter what the occasion.

The GIRM includes explicit general norms for posture during the revised Mass. Thus, as a general rule, ministers and people stand throughout the liturgy, particularly during the presidential prayers including the Eucharistic Prayer, following the ancient tradition.

When the 1969 Order of Mass became commonly used in the early 1970s, many countries of the world adopted these general norms of the GIRM without any adaptations. Thus, in many European countries, it is common for people to stand through most of the Eucharistic Prayer and only kneel for the institution narrative (if kneelers are available in the church), standing immediately afterwards to sing the memorial acclamation.

The U.S. Bishops, however, adapted the general norm to permit people to remain kneeling from the Sanctus to the concluding Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer, since the posture of kneeling was such an ingrained practice in the U.S. at that time.

It has been said that “some” [note the word is not “all”] people who prefer the US adaptation to kneel during communion, as lawfully permitted, would raise a fuss if the universal norm of standing were to be imposed during the E.P. Therefore, they receive this adaptation to kneel during the E.P. very readily, but refuse the other adaptation of “standing” during the communion procession. I guess the attitude is to pick and choose which adaptation suits them. The mind of the Church is clear in intent, however, even though She permits a conscientious decision to avoid the adaptations.

The GIRM sees external posture as a “sign of unity” and thus posture is related to the “common spiritual good of the people of God.” It also states that postures should not be based on “private inclination or arbitrary choice.”

 

[Brendan]

I
And I also do not know if the documents you cite would stand up in canon court. I really don’t think so. But that is not my point.

Lux, those ARE the pronouncement of the appropriate Court. In the Catholic Church, the one who creates the law is the one who interpretes the Law.

When the USCCB included consecration in a flagon in their adaptations for RS, it was not approved. Standing was, and also kneeling for the EP.

Correct, and the CDWDS issued the ruling on exactly how the GIRM was to be interpreted in respect to kneeling and under what circumstances and conditions the particular norm of stading was approved.

Now, if push comes to shove, and a priest decides not to honor the dispensation, I never heard of any disciplinary action, or any official canon ruling, so I really don’t know what would happen.

Peace

Lux

The documents I posted ARE the officical canonical ruling and have the force of law under Canon 16.

 

[Brendan]

It has been said that “some” [note the word is not “all”] people who prefer the US adaptation to kneel during communion, as lawfully permitted, would raise a fuss if the universal norm of standing were to be imposed during the E.P. .

I noticed that you forgot to highlight THIS part

When the 1969 Order of Mass became commonly
used in the early 1970s, many countries of the world adopted these general norms of the GIRM without any adaptations. Thus, in many European countries, it is common for people to stand through most of the Eucharistic Prayer and only kneel for the institution narrative (if kneelers are available in the church), standing immediately afterwards to sing the memorial acclamation.

That is exactly what we have been saying, that the Universal norm was to kneel from the Epiclesis ( the start of the Institutional Narritive) to the Memorial Acclimation.

This is NOT what you have been saying about people standing for the EP.

If the US Bishops decided to follow that norm, I would have no objections.

 

[Joysong]

Brendan:

I noticed that you forgot to highlight THIS part

When the 1969 Order of Mass became commonly used in the early 1970s, many countries of the world adopted these general norms of the GIRM without any adaptations

. Thus, in many European countries, it is common for people to stand through most of the Eucharistic Prayer and only kneel for the institution narrative (if kneelers are available in the church), standing immediately afterwards to sing the memorial acclamation.

No, I did not forget, Brendan, because it is well-known and understood that we kneel for the institution narrative. How does that negate the first portion, which is NOT understood and being debated here, as though Lux was in error. In fact, outside the US, people will stand as a norm until mass ends.

There is a church in Florida that I attended while vacationing [if you need the name send me a PM] that has no kneelers. The congregation stands from the sanctus till the end of the mass, EVEN during the consecration, except for a small handful of people who kneel on the hard floor out of respect. I believe this is directly contrary to the adaptation for the US, but not being a parishioner, I did not report it. The bishop apparently approved the construction of this new church to eliminate kneelers.

 

[Brendan]

The congregation stands from the sanctus till the end of the mass, EVEN during the consecration, except for a small handful of people who kneel on the hard floor out of respect. I believe this is directly contrary to the adaptation for the US, but not being a parishioner, I did not report it. The bishop apparently approved the construction of this new church to eliminate kneelers.

Kneelers are not required to kneel. For centuries, people knelt without the benefit of kneelers.

Yes, if a person cannot physically kneel with the benefit of kneelers, or if it causes an undue amount of discomfort, then, fine stand or kneel.

But if you can kneel, you should. It says so in the GIRM

 

[Joysong]

Yes, if a person cannot physically kneel with the benefit of kneelers, or if it causes an undue amount of discomfort, then, fine stand or kneel.

Maybe the majority stand because the people in Fla. are primarily retirees and kneeling could present a challenge for them. I would think standing is also a hardship for many elderly, particularly because they cannot lean or hold on to a pew in front of them for support. They use chairs! I am puzzled by the lack of consideration of the part of those approving this structure, as well as the pastor who apparently expects the congregation to stand. I would love to have been there when the catechesis was presented.

Leaving that aside, how does this excuse those who are not elderly? But I digress.

 

[japhy]

Maybe the majority stand because the people in Fla. are primarily retirees and kneeling could present a challenge for them. I would think standing is also a hardship for many elderly, particularly because they cannot lean or hold on to a pew in front of them for support. They use chairs! I am puzzled by the lack of consideration of the part of those approving this structure, as well as the pastor who apparently expects the congregation to stand.

Well, here’s what puzzles me: The presence of a kneeler is not an obstacle to standing. The absence of a kneeler is an obstacle to kneeling. If the parish was allowed to remove kneelers because the parish is primarily (or even entirely!) a community of people who really wouldn’t be able to kneel without great difficulty, then the parish is less catholic (i.e. universal) because the building is catering specifically to those who are members of the parish, and not to that population of the Catholic Church which can kneel and desires to kneel.

 

[Brendan]

They use chairs! I am puzzled by the lack of consideration of the part of those approving this structure,

Fine, so the bishop approved a parish without kneelers, that is not the same thing as requiring everyone to stand.

as well as the pastor who apparently expects the congregation to stand.

The pastor can ‘expect’ that all he wants, a particular pastor’s expecations do not constitute an approved adaption to the GIRM.

 

[Joysong]

The pastor can ‘expect’ that all he wants, a particular pastor’s expecations do not constitute an approved adaption to the GIRM.

Exactly, my sentiments as well. However, in fairness to the pastor, for whom I said “apparently” expects, it may be his obedience to the directive of the bishop who approved that structure. I don’t know. There is ‘kneeling’ parish that I switched to on account of this, and I have the feeling it is the same bishop for both churches. This latter one has 24-hour adoration, 7 days a week.