Priest says no Kneeling, prefer no receiving Communion on tongue

[Neofight]

I did a search, but couldn’t find what I was looking for. The link provided in the second post gave me the information I needed.

I fear the reason we can’t find it is that it was deleted because of the volatile and sometimes uncharitable comments made by a few on both sides of this non-issue that seems to be so emotionally charged.

 

[Galnextdoor]

Incorrect. Vatican II said nothing about CITH. It was Pope Paul VI in 1969 (I think…) who was approached by some archbishops from Belgium and the Netherlands (again, I think) who wanted CITH to be an option. How it ended up in the States? Mostly Cardinal Bernardin. Here is one link that gives more info. PM me if you want more.

:curtsey:

Thank you for the link. I liked the explanation about how receiving on the tongue is a way to show a deep respect for the real presence. One thing I found discordant was the instructions for receiving in the hand. I believe it said the person could reach into the cyborium for the Eucharist.

The current rubrics for receiving in the hand say that the Eucharist must be administered. It can’t be taken from a paten etc. On Thursday of Holy Week this spring, the hosts were left on a paten and people took one. (I think this was an accident, but I cringed.)

 

[Galnextdoor]

This again.


Those who want to kneel should find a parish were they do this no problem.
Those who don’t can find a parish where this is the norm.
I receive on the tongue standing.
I guess that makes me irreverent and reverent at the same time.
Honestly.
Can we not be awestruck at receiving Eucharist…no matter what the local practice is and stop this debate once and for all?
People kneel in a lot of places. The Apostles didn’t.
Does it really matter if our hearts and souls are well disposed to receiving?
Don’t answer.
I don’t want to continue the arguments. Just putting in my 2 cents.

*If the priest has bothered to make such a statement, he must be wildly frustrated, and the debate must be causing great division in his parish. He wasn’t correct, as we know, but sounds like he was beyond frustrated with the people. I wouldn’t want to be in his shoes for anything. Juggling the “wants” of various parishioners is really hard on our priests. Let’s pray for them. *

This is not an issue in the parish. Most everyone receives in the hand. The priests prefer this and this is how the children are taught to receive.

As for finding another parish, there isn’t one that encourages people to kneel. I don’t kneel because when they ripped out the alter rail at the church when I was young, my father tried to kneel for communion, he was berated and demeaned by the priest in front of the whole church and was not allowed to receive. I never wanted to be humiliated like that so I always receive standing up.

My son and I are the only regular parishioners that I have seen who receive on the tongue.

I just think that people should not be singled out and made to feel bad because they wish to show reverence to God.

 

[GoGoDiego]

According to Eucharisticum Mysterium:

34. … In accordance with the custom of the Church, the faithful may receive communion either kneeling or standing. One or the other practice is to be chosen according to the norms laid down by the conference of bishops.

From the GIRM:

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

And from the USCCB:

1. 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.

You may either receive communion on the hand, as stated by the USCCB or on the tongue.

 

[Brendan]

And from the USCCB:

1. 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.

FYI, GIRM 160 was revised in 2012. The Vatican indicated that there was no need for proper catechesis on what is a traditional and normative practice of the Church.

So, in light of that, the USCCB revised GIRM 160 and it was subsequently approved by the Vatican.

The new GIRM 160 states

The norm established for the Dioceses of the United States of America is that Holy Communion is to be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Instruction, Redemptionis Sacramentum, March 25, 2004, no. 91).

Note the lack of any need to ‘address pastorally’ or to provide ‘proper catechesis’. Instead, the failthful may freely choose to kneel if the so desire.

As an additional FYI, there is the referenced section of Redeptionis Sacramentum

[91.] In distributing Holy Communion it is to be remembered that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who seek them in a reasonable manner, are rightly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them”.[177] Hence any baptized Catholic who is not prevented by law must be admitted to Holy Communion. Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.

The CDWDS ruled that kneeling for Holy Communion fell under approaching the Sacrament in a reasonable manner.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

According to Eucharisticum Mysterium:

34. … In accordance with the custom of the Church, the faithful may receive communion either kneeling or standing. One or the other practice is to be chosen according to the norms laid down by the conference of bishops.

From the GIRM:

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

And from the USCCB:

1. 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.

You may either receive communion on the hand, as stated by the USCCB or on the tongue.

You must have your hands on the old edition. In 2010 160 was changed as mandated by the Vatican. It now reads.

“The norm established for the Dioceses of the United States of America is that Holy Communion be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling.”

Jimmy Akin explains this well here.
catholic.com/video/can-you-kneel-for-communion

 

[Mary_Ellen]

They appear, at least to me, to want to be much more holy than the rest of us in line. If they were at a church that still had alter rails, then I would see no problem, if it was the cultural norm. If, however, receiving in the hand is the norm, then it is only appropriate to receive kn the hand. If one asks the priest ahead of time and gets permission, then GO FOR IT!

Maybe they do WANT to be more holy than they already are as the pursuit of holiness should be the most important concern of each and every person in the Communion line.

I receive on the tongue because it is a more humiliating, humbling posture. It is my choice. I don’t do it to stand out and, frankly, I couldn’t care less about what those around me are thinking about me. I do hope they are concentrating on the gift and mystery of the Mass and not about what others are doing around them.

The cultural norm is not the standard by which we should hold ourselves. The cultural norm is to go to Communion whether you’ve seen the inside of a confessional for 10/20/30/40+ years. The cultural norm for those who go to mass is to go maybe once a week and think that’s all we need to do to get to Heaven. The cultural norm tends to be the lowest common denominator which is hardly an effective standard for achieving Union with God.

 

[EasterJoy]

Galnextdoor

Your old priest is definitely wrong. No doubt about it. The Congregation for Divine Worship issues Instructions from time on time on the correct procedure for the celebration of mass, including the question of communicants receiving kneeling or standing and on the tongue or in the hand. The two most recent Instructions of this kind were Eucharisticum mysterium in 1967 and Redemptionis Sacramentum in 2004. In the matter of kneeling/standing to receive the Eucharist, there were not one but two significant changes from the 1967 Instruction to the one that followed in 2004.The two changes mutually reinforce each other:

***Dropped: ***The faithful should willingly follow the manner of reception indicated by the pastors so that communion may truly be a sign of familial union among those who share in the same table of the Lord (Eucharisticum mysterium, No. 34).

***Added: ***it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing (Redemptionis Sacramentum, No. 91).

You may point out to your priest, if you choose to, that he is eleven years behind the times. He is still following Eucharisticum mysterium, in which the priest’s decision overrode the individual communicant’s preference. Since 2004 it has been the other way around.

In case you’d like to print out the relevant bits of Redemptionis Sacramentum — or even the whole thing — here’s a link for you:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#Chapter

One last point. In the event that the priest should try and drag the USCCB into the argument, remind him that a national bishops’ conference, whether in the United States or anywhere else, is not empowered to rewrite an Instruction issued by the CDW.

Good luck!

Regards
Bart

Exactly. **More to the point, there is nothing holy about micromanaging others who are doing nothing illicit. **They don’t need a reason to see things differently than you do. They only need to do things in one of the ways that is allowed by the Church. If they are doing that, do everyone a favor and leave them alone.

 

[Duane1966]

Why do people want to kneel and receive on the tongue? I remember the old communion rail days as a kid. It was scary trying to stay with the family especially when you knelt down after father had passed and your parents received but you had to wait for the whole cycle to come around to you again. It was always a source of worry for us kids.

Loved the communion rail as a kid. Still do. I knew no kids that were scared of it.

 

[Duane1966]

Why would that be a bad thing?

AGREE:thumbsup:

 

[LongingSoul]

Loved the communion rail as a kid. Still do. I knew no kids that were scared of it.

Are you calling me a liar? How do you know that no kid had problems?

 

[johnnyc176]

Galnextdoor:
He says that receiving on the tongue was a new thing and that Vatican II returned it to the older more reverent practice of receiving it in the hand.

Here is a pretty good read on what transpired…

romancatholicman.com/truth-about-communion-in-the-hand-while-standing/

 

[Brendan]

Are you calling me a liar? How do you know that no kid had problems?

Here is Duane’s statement again

I knew no kids that were scared of it.

If you read the statement, Duane stated that he\she had no knowledge of such a person. Unless you two knew each other when you were a child, and that you made your concerns known to Duane, Duane could hardly be calling you a liar.

And Duane is not making a statement that no child had this, but rather he\she did not have knowledge of such a person.

 

[LongingSoul]

And Duane is not making a statement that no child had this, but rather he\she did not have knowledge of such a person.

To what end?

 

[corsair]

So to avoid all this debate, I just go to an EF Mass where I do not have to even worry about it. if it bothers you, just go to the Mass of your choice, both are valid.

 

[Brendan]

To what end?

I would not know. If you think that Duane actually DID have knowledge of such a child, what proof would you offer?

Otherwise, why would you not accept Duane’s statement as factual, that Duane does not have such knowledge.

 

[johnnyc176]

So to avoid all this debate, I just go to an EF Mass where I do not have to even worry about it. if it bothers you, just go to the Mass of your choice, both are valid.

That’s the whole point of this thread…one has a right to receive the Eucharist kneeling and on the tongue and it shouldn’t bother anyone.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

So to avoid all this debate, I just go to an EF Mass where I do not have to even worry about it. if it bothers you, just go to the Mass of your choice, both are valid.

That would be nice if everyone had access to that…

 

[ProVobis]

That would be nice if everyone had access to that…

Popes JPII and Benedict XVI tried to expand it but were met with much resistance.

 

[Duane1966]

Are you calling me a liar? How do you know that no kid had problems?

Reread what I posted. Never called you a liar, never said no kids. **I did say that I KNEW OF no kids **that had a problem. Notice what I said was only based on kids that I knew.