Posture for Holy Communion-Clarified

[Mysty101]

Did you even read the post on the Communion Procession? or any procession?

How about the call for Unity of Posture?
52 Therefore, attention should be paid to what is determined by this General Instruction and the traditional practice of the Roman Rite and to what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God, rather than private inclination or arbitrary choice.

I interpret? I defer to "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"

---

**You do not accept **girm 160…The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing.

which is quite clear, but
YOU interpret "are not to be denied Holy Communion " to mean “is allowed”. Rome never said this, You did.

---

**As I said, you have no knowledge of canon law, or any law. Your only basis is YOUR law. **

 

[BulldogCath]

This has been answered by the Holy see many times and posted on EWTN. You can not be denied and it is only after Vatican II that something like this would occur. With this being the Year of the Eucharist, I have read that the Vatican is fed up with complaints of over liberal Bishops trying to enforce the GIRM or whatever you want to call it in their agenda of denying the real presence, which is the Protestant agenda also

ewtn.com/expert/answers/kneeling_for_communion.htm

 

[Stone_Cold]

…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".

How can this mean that one is not obeying their bishop when clearly one is not being disobedient? It even says it is not illicit to kneel. The point of this information from Rome is that kneeling may be done and it was never the intention to make standing the only way to receive.

Did you read my last post? I said my local bishop doesn’t have the authority to prevent me from kneeling for communion. This means I am not disobedient for kneeling. I agree with you.

However, Mysty does have a point about obedience to our local bishop. We cannot disobey a bishop who is in union with the Holy See. If a bishop teaches differently than what the Holy Father teaches, we have an obligation not to obey that bishop. When Mystys says the norm for the United States is to stand to receive communion she is correct. She has even said that kneeling for communion does not constitute disobedience. The point I differ with her on is that she thinks bishops and pastors should be active in discouraging people to kneel. I, like others in this thread, disagree with this premise. The bishops and pastors can “catechize” us on this, but when it comes down to what a communicant wants to do when receiving communion, the communicant should not be discouraged from kneeling.

Mysty has taken her lumps on this topic. While I disagree with her, she still deserves our respect. I wanted to state some of my agreements with her and remind everyone we cannot ignore our pastors and bishops because we don’t like what they say. After all, that’s what the modernists do to the Holy Father.

 

[fix]

Stone Cold:

Did you read my last post? I said my local bishop doesn’t have the authority to prevent me from kneeling for communion. This means I am not disobedient for kneeling. I agree with you.

However, Mysty does have a point about obedience to our local bishop. We cannot disobey a bishop who is in union with the Holy See. If a bishop teaches differently than what the Holy Father teaches, we have an obligation not to obey that bishop. When Mystys says the norm for the United States is to stand to receive communion she is correct. She has even said that kneeling for communion does not constitute disobedience. The point I differ with her on is that she thinks bishops and pastors should be active in discouraging people to kneel. I, like others in this thread, disagree with this premise. The bishops and pastors can “catechize” us on this, but when it comes down to what a communicant wants to do when receiving communion, the communicant should not be discouraged from kneeling.

Mysty has taken her lumps on this topic. While I disagree with her, she still deserves our respect. I wanted to state some of my agreements with her and remind everyone we cannot ignore our pastors and bishops because we don’t like what they say. After all, that’s what the modernists do to the Holy Father.

Thanks for clarifying your postion. I, of course, agree. There is not much more to be said. No one is calling for disobedience, but Mysty is claiming that her interpretation of the GIRM is more accurate than Rome. This really smacks of Americanism.

She asserts that Rome’s directive is extralegal in some way and thus not binding. It all seems to be a case of wanting to follow the GIRM in a pendantic way while excluding Rome’s authority to regulate the liturgy.

 

[Mysty101]

fix:

Thanks for clarifying your postion. I, of course, agree. There is not much more to be said. No one is calling for disobedience, but Mysty is claiming that her interpretation of the GIRM is more accurate than Rome. This really smacks of Americanism.

She asserts that Rome’s directive is extralegal in some way and thus not binding. It all seems to be a case of wanting to follow the GIRM in a pendantic way while excluding Rome’s authority to regulate the liturgy.

And where is your authority to badmouth me in this way, and interpret my words in your pathetic manner?

As I said, you obviously have no knowledge of Canon law, and even less of the meaning of what I am saying. I did acknowledge the letter. What I have asked from the beginning is, “Do you really think it is best to be the only one kneeling in a standing Parish when it is the norm to stand, and there are no provisions for kneeling and your Pastor instructs you to stand?”

Go, put your will over the direction of your pastor and shepherd, and kneel on the floor in the middle of a standing procession because you have the “right” to do so. Don’t worry about unity or anybody else, after it is about your “right” to kneel, isn’t it?

Yep, great example of reverence.

 

[fix]

Mysty101:

And where is your authority to badmouth me in this way, and interpret my words in your pathetic manner?

Truth is hate, to those who hate the truth. You have been beating this dead horse for days and then you yell foul?

As I said, you obviously have no knowledge of Canon law, and even less of the meaning of what I am saying.

I could say the same of you. You can’t help yourself, can you? You want to be the authority over Rome.

I did acknowledge the letter. What I have asked from the beginning is, “Do you really think it is best to be the only one kneeling in a standing Parish when it is the norm to stand, and there are no provisions for kneeling and your Pastor instructs you to stand?”

It is not for me or you to answer that. It is for that person and for Rome. The answer from Rome was given. I can’t read anyone’s heart. I can read your words.

Go, put your will over the direction of your pastor and shepherd, and kneel on the floor in the middle of a standing procession because you have the “right” to do so. Don’t worry about unity or anybody else, after it is about your “right” to kneel, isn’t it?

I stand, unless I am at my boyhood parish where they have a communion rail. I defend those who choose to kneel. They are more faithful than I and I will support them. They do have an authentic right to kneel. As for unity, you seem to embrace congregationalism more than authentic unity. That you are so strident over this issue speaks of a pathology or clericalism.

Yep, great example of reverence.

Thanks. Great example of Americanism to you, maam.

Who left you in charge? Rome regulates the liturgy and Rome said one may kneel if they are so disposed. You reject Rome’s authority because, in your opinion, the legal protocol was not followed assiduously. You want everyone who desires to respect Christ by kneeling to follow your words over the words of the Holy See. Thanks, but I will follow Rome.

 

[Mysty101]

And I choose to defend obedience and subjection of the will.

 

[Mysty101]

fix:

Truth is hate, to those who hate the truth. You have been beating this dead horse for days and then you yell foul?

I have neither shouted (large letters), nor badmouthed you.

I have only asked that if people choose their personal expressions of peity they consider the instructions in the GIRM regarding posture. It is sometimes better to sacrifice a “right” for the common good of the community.

 

[fix]

Mysty101:

I have neither shouted (large letters), nor badmouthed you.

I have only asked that if people choose their personal expressions of peity they consider the instructions in the GIRM regarding posture. It is sometimes better to sacrifice a “right” for the common good of the community.

If more folks kneel, I would think more people would start to be more reverent and perhaps witness to the faithful and clergy. The “right” is not the issue. That some want to profoundly worship Christ and pay due respect is the issue.

Here is a piece to ponder:

Just before last November’s USCCB meeting, when the bishops considered the final version of the “adaptations” for the IGMR, the Congregation for Divine Worship, in an Cardinal Medina Estévez, stated: “This dicastery [Vatican department] agrees in principle to the insertion [of the standing adaptation]. At the same time, the tenor of not a few letters received from the faithful in various dioceses of [the United States] leads the congregation to urge the conference to introduce a clause that would protect those faithful who will inevitably be led by their own sensibilities to kneel, from imprudent action by priests, deacons or lay ministers in particular, or from being refused Holy Communion for such a reason as happens on occasion”.

The letter did not spell out what “imprudent action” means, though considering the present muddle, it might have been well if it had.

 **Reverence illicit? Dissenting?**

Considering the BCL’s unusually harsh “illicit” comment regarding the standing norm, and one bishop’s remarkable dictum that people who kneel are “dissenting” from the “law of the Church” – it is worth noting that bishops had asked specifically about the meaning of the word “norm” in the proposed adaptation during their discussion.

At that time, it was explained that the word simply reflected the usual practice in the United States; thus, implicitly, that to say that “standing is the norm in the United States” was a simple statement of fact. Since then, judging from the BCL’s and other interpretations, the word “norm” has assumed a juridical meaning far stronger than most bishops apparently understood when they voted for it.

adoremus.org/AdBull.html

 

[Mysty101]

Possibly this is one definition of the word norm, but if you apply this to one instruction in the GIRM, you must then apply it to all the instructions or “norms.” What is the point of Instructions, if they are to be ignored?

As I said, you know nothing about Canon law, and still less about respect for the USCCB, those who choose to obey the instruction, and sacrificing for the common spiritual good of the community.

Almost 100 posts ago I said

I have no problem with kneeling. I have knelt and kissed the bottom step of the sanctuary, before I vacumed it, if there was no one around. I have a problem with people thinking they know better than the entire USCCB as to what best suits the needs of the entire community, not them personally. As I said, I have no problem with kneeling when there are provisions, and if it is the norm at a Mass I attend, I kneel.

(This is the use of the word norm which means custom–A norm of the GIRM is an instruction)

If you had read this post and the many like it, most of your posts have no point at all, you are just restating what I have already acknowledged.

But I am the one beating a dead horse.

 

[fix]

Mysty101:

Possibly this is one definition of the word norm, but if you apply this to one instruction in the GIRM, you must then apply it to all the instructions or “norms.” What is the point of Instructions, if they are to be ignored?

That is why I leave it to Rome, and not folks like you.

As I said, you know nothing about Canon law, and still less about respect for the USCCB, those who choose to obey the instruction, and sacrificing for the common spiritual good of the community.

You sound arrogant and self righteous which would be typical of the left. The name for it is clericalism. You want to be the arbitar of the law. By your limited understanding the Pope should be ignored because your understanding of the law is superior to his position.

If you had read this post and the many like it, most of your posts have no point at all, you are just restating what I have already acknowledged.

But I am the one beating a dead horse.

You qualify and nuance your position. You will kneel, but only when there are “provisions”. You make yourself the authority. My position has been stated. Your position is that you are the final authority and you want others to bow to your interpretations of the GIRM, canon law and when to kneel.

When you are given a position of authority in the Vatican I will abide by your rulings. Until then, you are one more busybody looking to push your agenda which differs from what the Church asks of us.

 

[Mysty101]

As usual you are hurling false accusations, because you have skewed the facts.
Amen

 

[fix]

Mysty101:

As usual you are hurling false accusations, because you have skewed the facts.
Amen

I call them as I see them. You have some obsession with folks who kneel to receive our Lord. The facts are avaliable for all to read.

I have not made any false allegations. I have given my opinion about your motives and your agenda for debating this topic. If you disagree, that is your prerogative.

 

[Mysty101]

fix:

I call them as I see them. You have some obsession with folks who kneel to receive our Lord. The facts are avaliable for all to read.

I have not made any false allegations. I have given my opinion about your motives and your agenda for debating this topic. If you disagree, that is your prerogative.

You are not a mind-reader—only God knows the heart of man, and you have made some very rude and false comments about me. You have no right to badmouth me, especially when you have no way of knowing my motives or agenda.

 

[A.Pelliccio]

I kneel forever and it doesn’t matter if there are communion rails or not. I have never been instructed by a priest to stand for communion, but here a story.

Last year during Army basic training I kneeled to receive communion. It was a Eucharistic minister, a female ( I have issues right here). Anyway, she told me not to bow before her, I responded im not bowing but kneeling to receive the body of Christ. She said I couldn’t so I stood up and tried to receive it on my tongue. She then said for health issues I could not receive communion on my tonuge. I forget what I said next but she responded that she was “not Catholic”.

How is it possible the a non-catholic hand out the Eucharist?

 

[fix]

Mysty101:

You are not a mind-reader—only God knows the heart of man, and you have made some very rude and false comments about me. You have no right to badmouth me, especially when you have no way of knowing my motives or agenda.

If you feel “bad mouthed” by me I apologize. This issue is not worth getting over heated about. Let us be friends.

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

A.Pelliccio:

I kneel forever and it doesn’t matter if there are communion rails or not. I have never been instructed by a priest to stand for communion, but here a story.

Last year during Army basic training I kneeled to receive communion. It was a Eucharistic minister, a female ( I have issues right here). Anyway, she told me not to bow before her, I responded im not bowing but kneeling to receive the body of Christ. She said I couldn’t so I stood up and tried to receive it on my tongue. She then said for health issues I could not receive communion on my tonuge. I forget what I said next but she responded that she was “not Catholic”.

How is it possible the a non-catholic hand out the Eucharist?

Your story is AMAZING!!!
YOU were the one in the right, and this lady shouldn’t have been TOUCHING the Most Blessed Sacrament, much less distributing it.
Non-Catholics are not permitted to serve as Extra Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.
The faithful are permitted to kneel to receive and may not be denied Holy Communion for doing so.
It is up to the communicant to decide whether to receive in his hands or on his tongue. Period.

There are excellent writings from the Vatican to support kneeling to receive Holy Communion, receiving on the tongue, and setting forth rules for Extra Ordinary ministers! Try looking up Redemptionis Sacramentum, for starters, or Instruction on Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of Non Ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of Priest.

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Mysty101:

As usual you are hurling false accusations, because you have skewed the facts.
Amen

Unlike you, St. Mysty, who is so infatuated with every letter of the GIRM that you must run thread and after thread, several pages long, condemning and accusing those who kneel to receive Holy Communion, especially if their church doesn’t make special “provisions” for them doing so…
Goodness knows, they’re just making spectacles of themselves, trying to get attention for their false piety! Right???
Look back at some of your past posts, Mysty.
Your agenda is perfectly clear.
You deride people you do not even know, simply because they kneel before the Lord Jesus Christ.
It’s like an obsession with you.
fix has it right.
Then, you accuse him/her of badmouthing you…
Good heavens! The hypocracy!
You really should read back on some of your other posts about those who kneel to recieve and see how uncharitable your remarks have been, and how stiff-necked you are against Rome’s comments supporting those who kneel.

I suppose if I was to stay away from this forum for three months, then return, I’d find yet another thread on this topic, with you arguing the very same points.

Either you are right, Mysty, or the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline in the Sacraments is right…

I’ll trust the CDW.

 

[Fox]

I genuflect before I receive Him and I receive Him on my tongue.

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=19241&page=4

Here is another thread, four pages long, on kneeling for Holy Communion. The thread has been closed, so I can’t bump it up for you…but Mysty, your arguments are the same on this thread as on the many I have already bumped up for you.