Posture for Holy Communion-Clarified

[Mysty101]

PS Interesting to note the Papal Funeral.

No provisions were made for even the front rows of the congregation to kneel for the consecration—never mind to receive Holy Communion. Obviously it is not a priority. If it is not a priority for a Papal Funeral, I really wouldn’t be too concerned at a regular Mass where the Pastor thought there was a good reason to stand for the Consecration, and it is the norm for reception of Holy Communion.

And I did watch the distribution of Communion—not one person kneeled, and I think I only saw one give the sign of reverence, which could easily have been done.

 

[fix]

Mysty101:

Who are the Americans you slur?

What are you tslking about?

For the thousandth time, I have acknowledged the document, and agreed that nobody should be denied or called disobedient. You are claiming the GIRM should be ignored.

I claim no such thing. You claim the GIRM is to be interpeted by you, alone.

You would imagine?

I am not in chrage, rome is.

Gee, according to you, the GIRM is just a “suggestion.” As I said (to which you noticably did not respond) Perhaps this instruction was issued with no INTENT to enforce it?

I never claimed anything is a suggestion. I did not respond to that point because it was absurd.

 

[fix]

Mysty101:

PS Interesting to note the Papal Funeral.

No provisions were made for even the front rows of the congregation to kneel for the consecration—never mind to receive Holy Communion. Obviously it is not a priority. If it is not a priority for a Papal Funeral, I really wouldn’t be too concerned at a regular Mass where the Pastor thought there was a good reason to stand for the Consecration, and it is the norm for reception of Holy Communion.

And I did watch the distribution of Communion—not one person kneeled, and I think I only saw one give the sign of reverence, which could easily have been done.

Papal masses do not have the small numbers or other provisions local parishes have. Let us not try to bend common sense to make our points.

 

[Mysty101]

fix:

Papal masses do not have the small numbers or other provisions local parishes have. Let us not try to bend common sense to make our points.

I did post this is another thread, but it is what I have been either saying or trying to say here

First of all, I would like to clear up one thing. I am absolutely not against kneeling. As I have said many times, I have knelt, and bowed from a kneeling position. I genuflect on both knees (when they are functioning enough for me to get up ) before the exposed Blessed Sacrament.

What I am for is common sense, acting in unity with the congregation, and respecting the authority and decision of our lawful Shepherds. The extreme is the Papal funeral. I don’t think anyone feels that it was blatant abuse to stand during the Mass. So obviously this is not a grave matter in liturgical norms.

If the Bishop or Pastor tells me to stand, I will stand (I believe the rule is obedience takes priority in matters other than faith or morals). You can kneel when the option is offered, or during private worship. Public worshap (liturgy & sacraments) are to be done as instructed.

Again this is not a sinful matter (unless it becomes a matter of pride). It would not be a helpful attitude to disregard the decision and authority of the Shepherd, even in small matters—it developes bad habits. I personally would discuss it with the Pastor, and if I could not trust his decision or explanatin, I would either take the matter higher or change Parishes. I would not disrespect or disobey.

And as far as diminishing belief in the Real Presence—a bow before receiving reminds me far more than the disscomfort of kneeling, and standing with a bow at consecration, keeps my mind from wandering during the Consecration–I like the reminder at the sacred moment, but of course I kneel unless my back (I had back surgery a while ago) tells me to do otherwise.

 

[Joseph_Bilodeau]

Mysty101:

…If there are provisions for kneeling, I have no objections.

Several times this writer has mentioned a presence or absence of provisions for kneeling, but I don’t think that term has been defined. What conditions, besides the presence of adequate floorspace, would be necessary for a provision for kneeling to exist, or what contitions would be necessary for a provision for kneeling to definitively not exist?

JB

 

[Mysty101]

Joseph Bilodeau:

Several times this writer has mentioned a presence or absence of provisions for kneeling, but I don’t think that term has been defined. What conditions, besides the presence of adequate floorspace, would be necessary for a provision for kneeling to exist,

Provisions could be anything from a Communion rail to an indication of some sort that kneeling is encouraged by the celebrant.

or what contitions would be necessary for a provision for kneeling to definitively not exist?
JB

Sombody trips over the kneeler in the middle of a standing procession.

Sincerely,
This writer

 

[chevalier]

I would like to know what the “pastoral reasons” are why people are to receive standing and not kneeling in the US, while the Church by default receives kneeling. I know that people are no longer denied Communion because of their preference to kneel, but if they are supposed to be “pastorally addressed” and told to receive standing in the future for “pastoral reasons”, this means that genuflection is intended to be rooted out. My question is, why would a conference of bishops want to root out genuflection? What sort of “pastoral reasons” are those?

 

[Mysty101]

Asked and answered many times.

 

[Mysty101]

OK Here’s one.

**

**The Communion **

**Procession

When we come forward to receive Holy Communion* at the Eucharist, we are not **lining up as isolated individuals, couples, families or groups to be nourished and **sustained for our Christian lives. We come forward together as the Body of Christ to **receive the Body of Christ. We receive the Body of Christ so that we may be more **truly together the Body of Christ in the world. As St Augustine of Hippo reminded us, **at the Eucharist we receive what we are, and we become what we receive: ‘You reply “Amen” to that which you are, and by your reply you consent. For you hear “the Body of Christ” and you reply “Amen”. Be a member of the Body of Christ so that *your “Amen” may be true.’

One Bread One Body 94

***The Communion **procession expresses the humble patience of the poor moving **forward to be fed, the alert expectancy of God’s people sharing the Paschal meal in **readiness for their journey, the joyful confidence of God’s people on the march *toward the Promised Land. In England and Wales it is through this action of walking solemnly in procession that the faithful make their sign of reverence in preparation for receiving Communion.

Celebrating the Mass 209

**The Communion **Procession is not simply about getting up out of one’s seat, walking to the minister, receiving communion and walking back to one’s seat and sitting down again.

The procession is

• a procession accompanied by song which is to express unity in spirit by means unity in song and to show joy of heart (cf. GIRM 86

**• a communal action and not simply a private, individual action (cf. **GIRM 86, OBOB 94)

**• not merely action but action as prayer, a visible sign of reverence **(cf. CTM, 210)
And
*

Movements and Posture

1. The gestures and posture of the priest, the deacon, and the ministers, as well as those of the people, ought to contribute to making the entire celebration resplendent with beauty and noble simplicity, so that the true and full meaning of the different parts of the celebration is evident and that the participation of all is fostered.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.

*The USCCB has decided that standing "serves the common spiritual good of the People of God, " *
Remember all who can kneel are able to stand, but all who stand are not able to kneel, and the average age in the congregation is much higher today then years ago—people are living longer, and many young people no longer attend Mass regularly.

 

[fix]

Mysty101:

What I am for is common sense, acting in unity with the congregation, and respecting the authority and decision of our lawful Shepherds. The extreme is the Papal funeral. I don’t think anyone feels that it was blatant abuse to stand during the Mass. So obviously this is not a grave matter in liturgical norms.

And it is not an abuse to kneel to receive our Lord.

If the Bishop or Pastor tells me to stand, I will stand (I believe the rule is obedience takes priority in matters other than faith or morals). You can kneel when the option is offered, or during private worship. Public worshap (liturgy & sacraments) are to be done as instructed.

Again, any priest who contradicts the intentions of Rome is not an authentic authority who needs to be “obeyed”. Do you have an example of a priest who is contradicting the authority of the dicastery who issues the interpretation of the GIRM?

Is this entire topic not completed? What else is there to say?

 

[Joseph_Bilodeau]

Thank you, but I am not sure I yet understand your position.

Mysty101:

Provisions could be anything from a Communion rail to an indication of some sort that kneeling is encouraged by the celebrant.

My impression was that you objected to kneeling because it was your opinion that kneeling is not permitted by the GIRM. You state here, however, that an indication of some sort that kneeling is encouraged by the celebrant would or could constitute a provision for kneeling. Is this only to be considered the case for the matter of kneeling, or are there other matters in which the preferences of the celebrant should constitute a provision for some other matter which may not be permitted by the GIRM?

Mysty101:

Sombody trips over the kneeler in the middle of a standing procession.

I have never seen a communicant trip over a kneeling communicant, but I have seen communicants trip over other standing communicants, or fall because of the actions of other standing communicants. I am sure you would not think that this would constitute a provision against standing as a posture for receiving Holy Communion, but there were two special cases I have seen concerning which I would be interested in hearing your opinion. In one, a mother was holding her baby. The baby jumped unexpectedly, bumping the person ahead, causing a stumble. In the other case a standing communicant had a siezure, causing himself and others nearby to fall or stumble. Should these cases constitute a provision that persons holding babies or persons with severe epilepsy or certain other medical conditions should not receive Holy Communion in a standing procession?

Mysty101:

Sincerely,
This writer

As a courtesy to correspondents with whom I am not personally acquainted, I often choose not to presume a personal familarity with those correspondents in discussions in which disagreement may be unintentionally perceived as a personal attack. As many prior dissenting posts by other writers in this thread seem to have been taken as flames, avoiding similar offense has been my intention here. I beg your pardon if my effort not to cause offense has been ineffective.

JB

 

[Mysty101]

Joseph Bilodeau:

My impression was that you objected to kneeling because it was your opinion that kneeling is not permitted by the GIRM. You state here, however, that an indication of some sort that kneeling is encouraged by the celebrant would or could constitute a provision for kneeling. Is this only to be considered the case for the matter of kneeling, or are there other matters in which the preferences of the celebrant should constitute a provision for some other matter which may not be permitted by the GIRM?

I really do not have time to repost everything I have posted in this thread, and the one before. To sum it up, I believe in following the GIRM (#42 is part of the section on posture) as interpreted by my Pastor or Shepherd.
*
*GIRM

1. The acclamations and the responses of the faithful to the priest’s greetings and prayers constitute that level of active participation that the gathered faithful are to contribute in every form of the Mass, so that the action of the entire community may be clearly expressed and fostered.47

**

---

Movements and Posture

1. The gestures and posture of the priest, the deacon, and the ministers, as well as those of the people, ought to contribute to making the entire celebration resplendent with beauty and noble simplicity, so that the true and full meaning of the different parts of the celebration is evident and that the participation of all is fostered.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.

A common posture, to be observed by all participants, is a sign of the unity of the members of the Christian community gathered for the Sacred Liturgy: it both expresses and fosters the intention and spiritual attitude of the participants.

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.

If the Pastor sees a common spiritual need in the congregation to encourage kneeling, I will respect his decision.
Joseph Bilodeau:

I have never seen a communicant trip over a kneeling communicant,

My 80+ year old mother once tripped over a person who genuflected unexpectedly in front of her.

but I have seen communicants trip over other standing communicants, or fall because of the actions of other standing communicants. I am sure you would not think that this would constitute a provision against standing as a posture for receiving Holy Communion, but there were two special cases I have seen concerning which I would be interested in hearing your opinion. In one, a mother was holding her baby. The baby jumped unexpectedly, bumping the person ahead, causing a stumble. In the other case a standing communicant had a siezure, causing himself and others nearby to fall or stumble. Should these cases constitute a provision that persons holding babies or persons with severe epilepsy or certain other medical conditions should not receive Holy Communion in a standing procession?

These actions were not deliberate knocking or obstructing someone, and were not in oposition with the norm.

As a courtesy to correspondents with whom I am not personally acquainted, I often choose not to presume a personal familarity with those correspondents in discussions in which disagreement may be unintentionally perceived as a personal attack. As many prior dissenting posts by other writers in this thread seem to have been taken as flames, avoiding similar offense has been my intention here. I beg your pardon if my effort not to cause offense has been ineffective.

JB

I was teasing–sorry it sounded sarcastic. I hope you understand, I have taken much verbal abuse in this thread,

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Mysty101:

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

What I am for is common sense, acting in unity with the congregation, and respecting the authority and decision of our lawful Shepherds.

And on Shepherd Cardinal Law…

Mysty101:

Personally, the monastary would be too good for him—sackcloth and ashes is too good for him.

To have him publically honored? … This is beyond stupid. The only negative thing I could even think of saying about our beloved Holy Father is that he protected Law. (Law’s crime was he protected abusers or even worse just shoved them under the rug–or maybe sent disability checks to nude gay resorts?)

And if he felt any remorse, wouldn’t he refuse the limelight? It the Church is stupid enough to allow this, shouldn’t he have had the decency to refuse the honor???

Is this the way one is to respect the authority and decision of our lawful Shepherds, and subject our will?

 

[pgoings]

Is this the way one is to respect the authority and decision of our lawful Shepherds, and subject our will?

Indeed. Should not** Mysty** be subjecting her will to the will of our late beloved John Paul, who had appointed H.E. Bernard Cardinal Law to his present position?

If not, what is the difference? Oh wait, it was ordered by Rome, and not by our local “shepherds,” who obviously know what is good for us far better than the Pope and his Curia.

“Americanism,” anyone?

 

[fix]

pgoings:

Indeed. Should not** Mysty** be subjecting her will to the will of our late beloved John Paul, who had appointed H.E. Bernard Cardinal Law to his present position?

If not, what is the difference? Oh wait, it was ordered by Rome, and not by our local “shepherds,” who obviously know what is good for us far better than the Pope and his Curia.

“Americanism,” anyone?

Where have I heard that before?

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

I feel that it is very correct to always defer to Rome.
Here in the US, often we find that, in our pride, we are “above” others, even the Vatican, it seems.
Yet, we know from painful personal experience that our American shepherds are human men with human failures.
They do deserve our respect, but they are certainly not infallible.
They mis-speak, as when they stated in a USCCB Bulletin that kneeling for Holy Communion was an “illicit” posture, and were later reprimanded by the Vatican’s CDW, telling them that no one who kneels is to be accused of disobedience or of acting illictly.
They’ve mishandled many sex scandals, to all of our shame and horror.
At times, it seems as though some of the American clergy are disrespectful, disobedient, or disloyal to Rome.
I guess that is what you mean by “Americanism,” putting the Church in America before the Church, whose head and ultimate authority rests in Rome.
It’s the old American Church vs. the Roman Catholic Church thing.

If one insists that loyalty to the American bishops supercedes directives from Rome, that seems to me to be the ultimate betrayal.

Rome has spoken on the subject of kneeling for Holy Communion.
And Rome has rendered decisions on the issue of Cardinal Law’s duties.

Who has the audacity to question the Church authorities in either of these cases?

Rome has stated that kneeling for Holy Communion is “completely appropriate,” and so be it.

Rome has placed Cardinal Law as pastor of a basilica in which a Mass is being offered for our deceased pontiff, and so be it.

Thank God that our Church is directed by the Holy Spirit, and not by the raw emotions or misguided judgement of men.

 

[pgoings]

Where have I heard that before?

Just so. Is not imitation the sincerest form of flattery?