Receive Communion standing or kneeling?

[Panis_Angelicas]

Deacon Ed:

But your point was in error. If they had not granted the *recognitio *we couldn’t have done anything with it.

But that was my point exactly.

No, the bishops have interpreted the ruling from the CDW on how to interpret the law.

And apparently the bishops’ interpretation is incorrect, because the CDW keeps clarifying, doesn’t it? The US Bishops July 2002 newsletter declared the posture of kneeling for Holy Communion illicit, and the CDW wrote them the following February to admonish that no, those who kneel are not acting illicitly, nor are they to be accused of disobedience, nor are they to be imposed upon, and went so far as to declare that kneeling for Holy Communion is “completely appropriate.” (Don’t you think it is imposing to summon a parishoner to the rectory for a private counselling session for kneeling? The CDW seems to think so.)

The intent of the bishops is that all stand for communion.

I understand that. But the CDW stipulated that they would only give the recognitio for that norm if a clause was introduced to protect those who kneel.

Those who do not stand are not to be denied communion.

Not only are they to not be denied Communion, but they are to be protected from imprudent actions by priests, deacons, and lay ministers in particular.

The bishops have asked that they receive catechesis on the reason for the uniformity of posture.

No, the bishops inserted a clause saying that “the faithful” were to be “provided proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm” in “instances” where kneeling occurs.

This is consistent with the clarifications issued by the CDW.

Private pastoral counselling or correction to people who are acting completely appropriately? That sounds consistent to you?

That this is not consistent with your interpretation has been made abundantly clear.

On the contrary! I believe I have illustrated, just as the CDW keeps reiterating, that pastorally providing proper catechesis to the faithful is not a private counselling session!

Apparent you and the bishops are not in agreement.

The bishops need not worry whether I am in agreement with them or not. They need to be concerned with whether they are in agreement with Rome.

I am simply presenting what the Bishops have asked us to do.

And I am simply presenting what the Vatican has asked the bishops to do.

As far as I’m concerned, this conversation (or, at least, my part of it) is over.

You may pick up your marbles and go then. No hard feelings, I hope?

 

[bear06]

You did not respond to my last post

Sorry, it’s getting hard to keep up! Maybe this is will explain it better. To say that someone is making an active choice to not be part of the community is still a judgment call. While I’ve always maintained that I do believe some are actually doing this (although it’s still impossible for me to know for sure), I think it’s wrong to say that all “kneelers” are making a choice to do this. Some I know for a fact are simply choosing to humble themselves in front of Our Lord. The only imagery I can provide would be an election example and I can’t remember how Cardinal Ratzinger put the whole thing but essentially that you can vote for an evil candidate as long as you are not voting for them because of that evil. I’m sure that’s not exactly how it went but there are those who are not kneeling to separate themselves from the congregation even if that is the outcome, they are simply focusing on Our Lord and not the congregation. This probably makes it even more muddled. Ah, if you could only be in my head this would be much easier!

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Panis,

No hard feelings – I just didn’t think I had anything else to contribute to the conversation. BTW, I do agree that a summons to the rectory would be inappropriate. That’s why we do oit after Mass *if *we see the individual in question. Even then it’s done circumspectly.

BTW, this is less an issue for me because, as a bi-ritual deacon, I also serve an Eastern Catholic parish and we’ve *always *stood for communion. To not do so would be completely out of place.

Deacon Ed

 

[bear06]

Panis Angelicas:

I believe the BCL newsletter was dated July 2002. The CDW’s reprimand is dated February 26, 2003.

catholic.com/library/liturgy/kneeling_1.asp

No this isn’t the letter I’m talking about and I’ve done some big time searching and as far as I can tell the full text of the letter from which the “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.”

I’ve actually posed this question to a couple different canon lawyers and the AAA forum. It would seem that all of these parties would be able to answer this question for us. The funny thing is this is the only question I can recall posing that never gets answered. I’m starting to think that nobody really knows the true answer other than our speculations and what the respective sides think is correct!!!

 

[bear06]

Deacon Ed:

Here’s my thinking behind my statement. Denial of communion if a canonical penalty. It cannot be imposed without due process. The particular law that the United States has does not impose such a penalty (which would not stand up to a challenge anyway) so the CDW has the authority to issue the directive to not deny communion. Since particular law does require catechetical counseling the advice of the CDW is to not do that. That is, they are suggesting that a portion of the law not be acted on.

Deacon Ed

Thanks for letting me pick your brain! I really respect the fact that you don’t (haven’t read all of the posts today so I don’t know if you’ve actually changed ) take the “your a prideful, arrogant, etc.” tack! Mysty’s not usually so bad either!

OK, where in particular law does it state that there is a penalty of being said to be illicit, disobedient, etc. to kneel for Communion? See what I’m getting at here?. The CDW saying that when the USCCB applies the law they they should not say anyone is illicit, etc., etc., etc. doesn’t seem to go against anything in the law. This is my big hang up with your explanation. Nowhere in the GIRM does it say what proper catechesis is. Although I could probably agree that it’s to explain the reason the US has the norm.
Hmmmmmmmmmm…

 

[bear06]

from Postures and gestures from the USCCB

I’m really sorry to pile on the responses here but I’m probably 3 hrs. behind everyone but Deacon Ed and I’ve got 5 kids!

I don’t think the BCL newsletter carries any weight because I don’t think the USCCB has the power to interpret the application of the GIRM. This is the CDW’s job. In fact, somewhere in my readings I came across the letter from the CDW that said if it was not in the GIRM it didn’t carry the force of law under the famous recognitio.

 

[bear06]

I fail to see what all the uproar is about.

The whole uproar started with a “you’re prideful, arrogant, following your whims and not the Church, etc.”. I don’t think either Panis nor I kneel unless “we are in Rome” so to speak. I don’t think either one of us see what the uproar was about either! I think the whole debate simply lies in the understanding or misunderstanding of whether or not that paragraph I most recently quoted is part directive and part advice or all directive. It’s not like anyone here is not trying to follow Rome in the least despite what some may think. I think, even though you have a different take on it, you can see where we are coming from and likewise. I’ve seen this debated time and time again in circles of people I’d all consider to be good Catholics (not rad-Trad circles either) and there must be some reason we cannot all agree upon this one. It’s too bad charity sometimes flies out the window on such simple matters.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Bear,

I don’t think I’ve ever said anyone was “prideful” or “arrogant” for choosing to kneel. In fact, I think I’ve always qualified it with “for whatever reason.”

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).

Therefore, catechesis must always be directed toward the reason for the uniformity of posture, not toward what the individual did wrong.

In general, the term “illict” in canon law means something that is done contrary to law but which does not invalidate the action. For example, a Latin priest saying Mass using leavened bread from an Eastern Church would be illicit, but the Eucharist is still valid. In the instant case, the bishops had determined that kneeling violated the particular law and was, therefore, illicit. The CDW has, correctly, pointed out that this is not the case. Kneeling is to be permitted at the discrection of the individual because that custom was not abbrogated (nor, in fact, am I sure it can be without papal mandate!).

The big reason most canon lawyers won’t address this is that it crosses boundaries between canon law and liturgical law.

BTW, since the insertion of the protocols mentioned into the GIRM they acquired the same force as the GIRM, not withstanding the fact that they were also particular law.

Deacon Ed

 

[bear06]

I don’t think I’ve ever said anyone was “prideful” or “arrogant” for choosing to kneel. In fact, I think I’ve always qualified it with “for whatever reason.”

I know I sent a barrage of e-mails but I did actually thank you in an above e-mail for not approaching the subject like some did!

In general, the term “illict” in canon law means something that is done contrary to law but which does not invalidate the action.

This just goes back to the whole parsing of the paragraph I keep quoting and the CDW interpration of the application.

The big reason most canon lawyers won’t address this is that it crosses boundaries between canon law and liturgical law.

I don’t think the folks I know would hesitate. Even the apologists stay away from this one!

BTW, since the insertion of the protocols mentioned into the GIRM they acquired the same force as the GIRM, not withstanding the fact that they were also particular law.

Are we talking about the stuff on posture here from the BCL newsletter on kneeling being illicit?

 

[ICXCNIKA]

Mysty101:

PS You are working on a Theology Masters and you ask this question???

PS: It was a joke. Perhaps I should get a Master’s Degree in Humor.

 

[Mysty101]

bear06:

Thanks for letting me pick your brain! I really respect the fact that you don’t (haven’t read all of the posts today so I don’t know if you’ve actually changed ) take the “your a prideful, arrogant, etc.” tack! Mysty’s not usually so bad either!

OK, where in particular law does it state that there is a penalty of being said to be illicit, disobedient, etc. to kneel for Communion? See what I’m getting at here?. The CDW saying that when the USCCB applies the law they they should not say anyone is illicit, etc., etc., etc. doesn’t seem to go against anything in the law. This is my big hang up with your explanation. Nowhere in the GIRM does it say what proper catechesis is. Although I could probably agree that it’s to explain the reason the US has the norm.
Hmmmmmmmmmm…

I am really getting angry with these accusations. I did say that I was told not to call anyone disobedient, and I won’t. I also said, that although I do not agree with acting contrary to my Bishop or Pastor’s instructions (which are the authentic norm), I don’t really have a problem with kneeling, as long as proper and save arrangements can be made. (Remember my 88 year old mom with poor eyesight almost went flying because someone genuflected right in front of her, while someone else decided to return to their pew against the flow of traffic)

To say that someone is making an active choice to not be part of the community is still a judgment call.

The community is standing–I am kneeling I am not a part of the community in that respect. The direct result of my choice is that I am not in the community posture.—nothing about being a member of the Body of Christ–just not acting in the posture of the community, which the Bishops have instructed us to be (for the exact reason that if the norm were kneeling, many of the standers could not do—it would not be a choice) nothing about judgement—pure and simple facts.

I’m done

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

bear06:

No this isn’t the letter I’m talking about and I’ve done some big time searching and as far as I can tell the full text of the letter from which the “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.”

ohhhhhhhhhh, yes…that letter: Hope this helps some:
members.tripod.com/~catholic_homeschool/kneeling.html
catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/LawText/Index/6/LawIndex/47

 

[bear06]

I am really getting angry with these accusations. I did say that I was told not to call anyone disobedient, and I won’t

.

Holy cow, Mysty! You’ve misinterpreted what I said. I actually paid you and Deacon Ed a compliment!!! I told him that I respected that he didn’t take the “you’re prideful and arrogant” route and that you weren’t so bad at arguing nicely either! The reason I said “usually” concerning you is that you amen-ed the post that called people prideful and arrogant for kneeling.

Originally Posted by Crusader
1.) Prideful or arrogant Catholic is more like it.

2.) You should follow the Church and not your interpretation of the OT.

3.) Interesting how you can label the Church as “irrational.”

You are a perfect example of someone who follows their own whims/desires/ideas instead of the Church.

Mysty’s response.
Amen

Found on page one!

 

[Mysty101]

bear06:

.

Holy cow, Mysty! You’ve misinterpreted what I said. I actually paid you and Deacon Ed a compliment!!! I told him that I respected that he didn’t take the “you’re prideful and arrogant” route and that you weren’t so bad at arguing nicely either! The reason I said “usually” concerning you is that you amen-ed the post that called people prideful and arrogant for kneeling.

2.) You should follow the Church and not your interpretation of the OT.

3.) Interesting how you can label the Church as “irrational.”

You are a perfect example of someone who follows their own whims/desires/ideas instead of the Church.

Mysty’s response.
Amen

Found on page one!

I do apologize for not removing the first statement before I added the AMEN—I did it now.

I never made an original post saying anything like that, and I also apologize if anything I said was interpreted in a harsh manner–that is not my intention Now please answer the rest of that post

To say that someone is making an active choice to not be part of the community

is still a judgment call.
The community is standing–I am kneeling I am not a part of the community in that respect. The direct result of my choice is that I am not in the community posture.—nothing about being a member of the Body of Christ–just not acting in the posture of the community, which the Bishops have instructed us to be (for the exact reason that if the norm were kneeling, many of the standers could not do—it would not be a choice) nothing about judgement—pure and simple facts.

which is a repeat of

I am not talking about licit or illicit or who has authority over whom–I am speaking of choosing to act in community. It does not matter what they desire–they are choosing not to be part of the community. If they chose to stand, they chose to be part of the commmunity—I really don’t understand how you can argue with that. If they desired to be part of a standing community, they would stand.

I think this may boil down to the fact that you do not think the Bishops have the say here, but we have documented many times that the Bishop has authority in this situation. Rome never said that anyone is allowed to kneel. They just said that they are not to be denied communion or called disobedient. There is a big difference there.

The Bishops gave the norm. Some decided they didn’t want to follow the norm for whatever reasons, so they went to Rome. Rome said–OK don’t follow the norm, and they can’t call you disobedient. (Illicit is not disobedient–different aspect of the situation)

So now they go back to the Bishop with their letter. Do you honestly think Jesus is more pleased with this kneeling?

Search your heart–are you really kneeling for Jesus or for yourself?

Do you honestly think Jesus would want you to give your shepherds a hard time?

One of the reasons for the norm was compassion for those who couldn’t kneel. Many of those who physically can’t kneel suffer more when they see you kneel.

Why can’t you just make the sacrifice and stand?

(And if you think you are wronged in this situation, remember one of the Spiritual Works of Mercy is to Bear wrongs patiently.)
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/11/11_12_11.gif

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Mysty101:

One of the reasons for the norm was compassion for those who couldn’t kneel. Many of those who physically can’t kneel suffer more when they see you kneel.

The reason that the norm was changed to standing wasn’t out of sympathy for those who can’t kneel; it was because there are so few altar rails being used anyway, and with the advent of so many extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion being used habitually, it’s more expedient to have the faithful receive while standing in a line and returning immediately to their seats, than kneeling and waiting to receive while others stand and wait behind those who kneel.

(And if you think you are wronged in this situation, remember one of the Spiritual Works of Mercy is to Bear wrongs patiently.)

I don’t think that communicants who choose to kneel see themselves as being personally wronged. For them, it isn’t about “me and Jesus,” it’s about “Jesus.” Plain and simply, everyone should be coming to Mass for the same thing: for Jesus. They shouldn’t be coming for the music, (though it may be nice) for Father’s often comedic, animated homilies, or because they have some specific role in ministry, but rather, all are called to the Sacrifice of the Mass particularly because that is where they will find Jesus truly and substantially present. Should someone fall to his knees in the face of that Truth, why should that be anathema?

%between%
I must point out that Mysty’s concept of “community” doesn’t jive with the Church’s view of “community.” When I pointed this out by providing quotations from the Catechism of the Catholic Church in posts# 245, 246, and 247, she simply quipped,
Mysty:

The ignore button—what a wonderful feature

So, it becomes apparent that she will ignore the Church’s teachings when it doesn’t jive with her opinions.

Community is not defined by a lockstep, robotical posture. Yes, the Liturgy flows nicely when the community is all united symbolicly with the same gestures and postures. No one would argue that. But the postures are not what makes them a community. And those who assume a posture of extraordinary adoration which is completely appropriate in the mind of the Church are no less members of the community than those who follow the GIRM to the letter. Neither are those who kneel doing so to separate themselves from the community or making a decision to divide the assembly. These are false and calumnous accusations which should cease.

The Church defines the community as not only those in the assembly who are following norm 160 according to the GIRM, but all the faithful gathered there, and even those who are not there, such as the Holy Father and the bishop of the diocese, all the saints in heaven, and all the souls in purgatory. We are referred to as “the communion of saints.” (community is derived from “communion.”) Community is not derived from nor defined by posture alone. Such a notion is preposterous and indicates that Mysty is grasping at straws in order to prove a pointless point.

I have never encountered a person who cannot kneel who feels offended by those who kneel.

I have heard many, many comments from those who cannot kneel who’ve said that “It does (their) heart(s) good” to see that those who can, do, and that if their knees were still functioning properly, they, too, would kneel to receive. I have heard this with my own hears from more than a few elderly or disabled Catholic worshippers. The argument that those who kneel are showing a lack of sensitivity to the handicapped is, again, a desperate attempt to demonize those who are acting “completely appropriately.”

 

[Mysty101]

Panis,

Unfortunately I did read your post—again you twist my words

Originally Posted by Mysty

The ignore button—what a wonderful feature

So, it becomes apparent that she will ignore the Church’s teachings when it doesn’t jive with her opinions.

I meant you–not the Church. It is you who ignore your Bishop.

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Mysty101:

Panis,

Unfortunately I did read your post—again you twist my words

I meant you–not the Church. It is you who ignore your Bishop.

Mysty, I posted quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Copied and pasted, unaltered, except that I emboldened one paragraph.

Those quotes from the Catechism define and describe the Catholic “community.”

*Your *description of “community” is narrow, exclusive, and based - not on the Church’s teachings - but on your own prejudices.

You accused those who kneel of choosing to act in a way that makes them “not members of the community.”

That is an incorrect and calumnous accusation.

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Mysty101:

It is you who ignore your Bishop.

Where did you get an idea like that? :ehh:

 

[Mysty101]

"Those deceive themselves who believe that union with God consists in ecstasies or in enjoyment of Him. For it consists in nothing except the surrender and subjection of our will

." St Teresa
This isn’t saying something like “don’t call me disobedient, if I scream and kick until I get my way.”

Yes, you have a right to kneel, but should you force it on your Pastor and Bishop who wish you to stand?

There were many reasons for the standing norm—have you ever discussed this with anyone who actually knew first hand what went on? The concern for the many people who wished to kneel but were unable (kneeling would not be a good norm for that reason), but also those who really shouldn’t kneel, but were determined to do so. (they might either fall themselves or knock someone else over)

And remember I did say that I thought kneeling was fine, if there were provisions.

Subjection of our will----I will let go of my will in favor of my Pastor and/or Bishop, even though I do have a right to do as I wish.

 

[bear06]

I think this may boil down to the fact that you do not think the Bishops have the say here

,

I think this boils down to the fact that we believe that the CDW was giving direction in the whole first paragraph where they state they have the authority to interpret the application and that…(I think we can all remember what was said!)

but we have documented many times that the Bishop has authority in this situation.

You have documented your interpretation of who has authority. We have documented ours.

Rome never said that anyone is allowed to kneel. They just said that they are not to be denied communion or called disobedient.

They also said they weren’t supposed to be imposed upon and that kneeling was completely appropriate.

The Bishops gave the norm. Some decided they didn’t want to follow the norm for whatever reasons, so they went to Rome. Rome said–OK don’t follow the norm, and they can’t call you disobedient. (Illicit is not disobedient–different aspect of the situation)

I think it quite funny if you think about it. There are Bishops who even disagree with what the bishops supposedly are all in agreement about. If you look at the BCL newsletter again you’ll see that any bishop allowing kneeling is supposed to do so for individual or extraordinary circumstances. We all know there are bishops that freely allow kneeling not just for individual or extraordinary circumstances. It would seem to make the sweeping statements that the bishops understood the protections to mean this that or the other is not correct.

Do you honestly think Jesus is more pleased with this kneeling?
This, of course, can’t be answered in one sweeping statement. I’m sure with some he is pleased and others he is not pleased.

Search your heart–are you really kneeling for Jesus or for yourself?

I think Panis and I said that we are both “when in Rome” gals and of course I can’t speak for her but I know that when I kneel I am kneeling only for Our Lord.

Do you honestly think Jesus would want you to give your shepherds a hard time?

I don’t think I’ve ever given my shepherd a hard time about this. I have given our old bishop a very hard time over some horrible abuses that he’s allowed in our diocese. Of course, I followed the chain of command from the priest, to the pastor, to the bishop and did it in the most reverent manner possible as caon 212.3 states we should.

Many of those who physically can’t kneel suffer more when they see you kneel.

I still think this is silly. Why would they suffer when they see so many more stand. Do these people also suffer if we go to kneel if front of a statue during non-mass times?

Why can’t you just make the sacrifice and stand?

This is so silly again. We do stand unless we are in a Church that kneels and we’ve said it time and time and time again.