Posture for Holy Communion-Clarified

[Mysty101]

fix:

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

If??? Just remember one thing —all of you “reverent” people, who know better than the USCCB. I just quoted the GIRM, I never badmouthed any of you, and certainly not my Shepherd.

First you say standing is not the norm. Then when I document it, you say “norms” are not the law, and when that is disproved, you and your reverent friends start with the sarcasm and name calling.

Speaking of “left”—don’t go patting yourself on the back for that left-handed apology, and remember another thing—Jesus will not ask if you knelt before Him, He will ask about the love you showed.

 

[Mysty101]

Fox:

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

“To avoid discord, never contradict anyone except in case of sin or some danger to a neighbour; and when necessary to contradict others, do it with tact and not with temper.”- King St. Louis IX

Nice signature—how does this reconcile with

1. The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.

The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another. The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.

When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.

Finally, with the new General Instruction, we are asked to make a sign of reverence, to be determined by the bishops of each country or region, before receiving Communion standing. The bishops of this country have determined that the sign which we will give before Communion is to be a bow, a gesture through which we express our reverence and give honor to Christ who comes to us as our spiritual food.

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.
Email us at bcl@usccb.org
Committee on the Liturgy | 3211 4th Street, N.E., Washington DC 20017-1194 | (202) 541-3000 © USCCB. All rights reserved.

 

[Fox]

Mysty,
I stand corrected and I thank you. Nobody in the parish has, and thank you for abiding by St Louis’ remarks!

 

[JNB]

fix:

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

Again Fix, go by the advice “Cast not ye Pearls before swine”. Mysty obviously has an unhealthy obsession with this topic, re hashes up the same documents again and again and again, and no more fruits are to be gained from this debate. To mysty, I am sorry that your mother almost tripped over a kneeling parishoer, but get over it and move on.Anyways, thats it for my imput on the thread before I violate the forums terms of service.

 

[Mysty101]

Fox:

Mysty,
I stand corrected and I thank you. Nobody in the parish has, and thank you for abiding by St Louis’ remarks!

Thank you!! !

 

[Mysty101]

JNB:

Again Fix, go by the advice “Cast not ye Pearls before swine”. Mysty obviously has an unhealthy obsession with this topic, re hashes up the same documents again and again and again, and no more fruits are to be gained from this debate. To mysty, I am sorry that your mother almost tripped over a kneeling parishoer, but get over it and move on.Anyways, thats it for my imput on the thread before I violate the forums terms of service.

I think you already have

Actually my “obsession” is with the Spirit of the Body of Christ, supporting my Shepherds, and subjection of the will, as my signature describes.

PS I rehash documents??? I have shown numerous different paragraphs in the GIRM, RS, and USCCB bulletins. All you have is one document, which I have acknowledged, and YOUR interpretation of what it means, but you are “casting pearls before swine”??? (I’m sure that remark to me is allowed in the terms of service)

 

[fix]

Mysty101:

If??? Just remember one thing —all of you “reverent” people, who know better than the USCCB. I just quoted the GIRM, I never badmouthed any of you, and certainly not my Shepherd.

You, apparently, know better than Rome.

First you say standing is not the norm. Then when I document it, you say “norms” are not the law, and when that is disproved, you and your reverent friends start with the sarcasm and name calling.

For the last time. Rome has said those who choose to kneel may kneel. Your understanding of the norms, canon law, or anything else, is not the issue. Rome has given us direction. Accept it or reject it. It is your conscience.

Speaking of “left”—don’t go patting yourself on the back for that left-handed apology, and remember another thing—Jesus will not ask if you knelt before Him, He will ask about the love you showed.

I gave a genuine apology and tried to repair our division. You remarks are for all to read.

 

[fix]

JNB:

Again Fix, go by the advice “Cast not ye Pearls before swine”. Mysty obviously has an unhealthy obsession with this topic, re hashes up the same documents again and again and again, and no more fruits are to be gained from this debate. To mysty, I am sorry that your mother almost tripped over a kneeling parishoer, but get over it and move on.Anyways, thats it for my imput on the thread before I violate the forums terms of service.

I know. Unhealthy would seem to be a reasonable characterization of this thread. Rome is now seen as little more than one more “opinion” by those who want to make their private interpretations binding on the faithful.

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Mysty101:

If??? Just remember one thing —all of you “reverent” people, who know better than the USCCB. I just quoted the GIRM, I never badmouthed any of you…

You just don’t notice it, Mysty, when you are the one doing it. For every time you point your finger at someone else, you are pointing three back at yourself.

…and when that is disproved, you and your reverent friends start with the sarcasm and name calling…

Who? Who is being sarcastic and name calling? Fix and his “reverent friends?!!!” Hmm!

Speaking of “left”—don’t go patting yourself on the back for that left-handed apology, and remember another thing—Jesus will not ask if you knelt before Him, He will ask about the love you showed.

Mysty, perhaps it is time for you to take your own advice. Stop posting opinion polls about Holy Communion posture just so you can pick an argument with those who kneel, and just LOVE the people who kneel. Do you think Jesus will ask you how many folks you convinced to obey the GIRM? Or will he ask you about the love you showed?

 

[Mysty101]

fix:

For the last time. Rome has said those who choose to kneel may kneel. Your understanding of the norms, canon law, or anything else, is not the issue. Rome has given us direction. Accept it or reject it. It is your conscience.

I still have never seen “May kneel” This is your interpretation of “Cannot be denied”, but still I have acknowledged they may not be denied, nor be called disobedient. Funny you interpret words, and say it is Rome. I quote the GIRM, and it is me—what is wrong with that picture?

Your attitude toward the GIRM and disrespect for the authority of your shepherd is on your conscience

I gave a genuine apology and tried to repair our division. You remarks are for all to read.

“If I feel badmouthed” ??? What would you call “cast pearls before swine” and your other remarks??? Sorry that is not a genuine apology.

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Mysty101:

I think you already have

Actually my “obsession” is with the Spirit of the Body of Christ, supporting my Shepherds, and subjection of the will, as my signature describes.

It is an unhealthy obsession, Mysty. You renounce the Spirit of the laws you quote, and insist upon following the letter of the laws. You insist upon following the shepherds, but renounce the Vatican’s pronouncements over these sheperds! And when all of these things have been pointed out to you time and again, you do not subject your will, not one little bit. You insist that you alone are right, and the rest of us must conform to your will!

I rehash documents??? I have shown numerous different paragraphs in the GIRM, RS, and USCCB bulletins.

As far back as November, 2004, all of those documents you presented were refuted through many Vatican letters, all of which you disregard.

All you have is one document…

Before approving the norm~
October 25, 2001

… the Congregation, even after a very careful consideration of such data, 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.

After approving the norm ~
July 1, 2002
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.

And again, more recently ~

February 26, 2003

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.

…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".

 

[fix]

Mysty101:

I still have never seen “May kneel” This is your interpretation of “Cannot be denied”, but still I have acknowledged they may not be denied, nor be called disobedient. Funny you interpret words, and say it is Rome. I quote the GIRM, and it is me—what is wrong with that picture?

Your attitude toward the GIRM and disrespect for the authority of your shepherd is on your conscience

The document, with a protocol number, said that the norm was approved with the understanding those who chose to kneel, could kneel.

I do respect The GIRM. I accept Rome’s directive as to how it should be understood and applied.

“If I feel badmouthed” ??? What would you call “cast pearls before swine” and your other remarks??? Sorry that is not a genuine apology.

I never mentioned pearls and swine. That was another poster. I apologize for anything that offended you. I disagree with your understanding of the standing/kneeling issue. I apologize for any words that were insensitive or misdirected.

 

[fix]

Panis Angelicas:

It is an unhealthy obsession, Mysty. You renounce the Spirit of the laws you quote, and insist upon following the letter of the laws. You insist upon following the shepherds, but renounce the Vatican’s pronouncements over these sheperds! And when all of these things have been pointed out to you time and again, you do not subject your will, not one little bit. You insist that you alone are right, and the rest of us must conform to your will!

Yes, that is how I view it. It seems to be a Rome versus America thing. Rome is in charge and has decided how the GIRM will be applied and understood.

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

History Lesson:

Originally (in our age), the norm said that Communion could be received either standing or kneeling, and on the tongue or in the hand.

Then, the US bishops proposed this:

Quote:
Proposed American Adaptation of IGMR §160

1. Distribution of Holy Communion

The faithful come forward in procession to receive Holy Communion. **The posture for the reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. **Each communicant bows his or her head before the sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives Holy Communion from the minister. The consecrated Host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is made before receiving both the Body and the Blood of Christ.

To this, the Vatican responded:

Quote:
“This dicastery 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 US Conference of bishops then met submitted the new adaptation.
Before giving the required “recognitio” to this adaptation of the US bishops’ conference, the Congregation of Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments required that

Quote:

"communicants who choose to kneel are not be denied Communion on these grounds…****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".

This was the Vatican’s intent, even before they granted the recognitio, which gave the norm the force of law.

Continued…

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

After the new adaptations were announced, the Vatican found it necessary to repeatedly clarify what their meaning of that norm in statements such as this:
Quote:

“…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”.

There seems to be a common thread here.
The Vatican had no intention of making kneeling for Communion illegal, illicit, or wrong in any way.
The US bishops may have desired that, (I don’t pretend to know what they desired) but the Vatican has repeatedly emphatically corrected this notion.

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Mysty, that “history lesson” was provided on October 26, 2004 on the now-archived thread, forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=19241&page=2&pp=100.

In that thread, even Deacon Ed, who certainly prefers that the faithful stand to receive, stated:

And, yes, I would disagree with anyone who said that a person who kneels should be denied communion. Aside from what the CDW has said, there is a 500 year custom of kneeling to receive communion in the Latin Church. That means this custom has acqured the force of law. That the United States has chosen to implement a different posture, and has done so as particular law, does not abbrogate the former law (now I’m speaking like a canon lawyer, sorry about that).

The fact that you “see” only the norm as law doesn’t make it the only law to be observed.

The fact that some of us observe the universal law and cannot be punished or accused of disobedience if we do not follow that particular American norm does not mean that we are acting out of pride, arrogance, defiance, disobedience, nor illicitness.

 

[Mysty101]

Originally Posted by JNB
Fix, these debates are never ending. Its time to stop casting off pearls before swine.

fix:

Yes, I agree. It has become pathological.

Oh excuse me. I guess in your world agreeing with someone who badmouths is different—I may not call you a “badmouther”

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Mysty, what goes around, comes around. You’ve been badmouthing people who kneel for as long as I have been on these forums. Then, you cry foul when you lose the debate.

Yawn It’s getting tired.

Time for “all of you reverent people” to back off from Mysty. Your Bible quote about casting pearls before swine has been literally and personally, and now she’s offended.

Mysty, “cast not pearls before swine” is a Biblical quote referring to offering something valuable to someone who refuses to acknowledge its value, Mysty. The poster was not calling you a pig, just saying that you refuse to accept the Vatican’s authority and intent on this matter.

And I quite agree with that poster in that regard. You will probably never accept that those who kneel have the Vatican’s approval. Nothing we can present, say, or nothing the Vatican has said will convince you.

Hence, the quote fits the situation.

 

[Mysty101]

I hope this will be my last post on this subject. I never said anyone should be denied Communion, called disobedient, nor made any slurs against conservative Bishops or Catholics.

I just asked a lone kneeler in a standing Parish to be reasonable, and rethink their forcing their personal piety on others.

Somewhere personal notion of reverence overtook charity—I do not think this is in keeping with the greatest commandments.

If you wish to kneel, you could go to a place where there are provisions, and if that is not possible maybe offer it up.

You speak of intent—I doubt the CDW intended for anyone to refuse to support their shepherd.

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Mysty101:

I hope this will be my last post on this subject. I never said anyone should be denied Communion, called disobedient, nor made any slurs against conservative Bishops or Catholics.

Here is one of your slurs, taken from a past post…

If many want to kneel, provisions should be made, but if they are not—throwing yourself on the floor is not a good solution.

Do you honestly believe that Jesus is more pleased with a showy demonstration of questionable reverence than respectfully standing?

I just asked a lone kneeler in a standing Parish to be reasonable, and rethink their forcing their personal piety on others.

Lone or not, that worshipper does have the right to kneel. How is that person "forcing his/her personal piety on others?!"

If you wish to kneel, you could go to a place where there are provisions, and if that is not possible maybe offer it up.

The faithful who kneel to receive Holy Communion have the full support of the Vatican. We are faithful members of the Body of Christ, and do not need to go in search of some other place where we can freely assume this posture. We may receive this posture in any parish, according to the Vatican letters. Perhaps ***you ***should “offer it up” when you see someone kneel for Holy Communion, since it so offends your senses.

You speak of intent—I doubt the CDW intended for anyone to refuse to support their shepherd.

And I doubt that those who kneel do so with the “intent” of refusing to support their shepherd. It is you who repeatedly make that accusation.

The intent of the Vatican is to permit those who observe the 500 year old tradition of kneeling for Holy Communion to continue to do so without “being imposed upon.”

So stop imposing already. Caspisce?