Receive Communion standing or kneeling?

[JNB]

Mysty101:

Are you in Rome? Rome has given authority to the USCCB, and has approved the modifications. You must accept this. Like it or not the bishops have the authority in their diocese in many instances. This may be a cultural thing also—Most Catholics are lifted up by the changes. Yes, you do have the option, if you can find a valid Mass celebrated in the way you prefer, but don’t criticize those who are following the norms in their diocese.

SuZ

Mysty, again read the latters.

The modifications aka norms, that do not have the weight of canon law, were approved with the following modifications, again here is the link.

catholic.com/library/liturgy/kneeling_1.asp

Read it, if you do not read these letters, you have no room to comment. The Bishop does not have the authority to force someone to stand for communion, and the fact that Rome had to say this in 3 different letters says quite a bit.

 

[Mysty101]

JNB:

Crusader, I decide to follow Rome, not you. The 3 letters from the CDW have made their position clear on the matter of kneeling for communion. What they say has weight, what you say Crusader has no weight what so ever. I really think you should consider your conduct on these boards Crusader, since you seem to get into these arguements quite often.

Are you in Rome? Rome has given authority to the USCCB, and has approved the modifications. You must accept this. Like it or not the bishops have the authority in their diocese in many instances. This may be a cultural thing also—Most Catholics are lifted up by the changes. Yes, you do have the option, if you can find a valid Mass celebrated in the way you prefer, but don’t criticize those who are following the norms in their diocese.

SuZ

 

[pprimeau1976]

I just posted about the topic of holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer. I am of the opinion that there are some practices that may differ from the norm a little, and should be left alone. Kneeling for communion is one of them…as is the hand holding.

People kneel not to show off, they kneel because of their faith that they are standing in front of the King of kings. The King of kings deserves a little bit more respect other than a profound bow. They should have encouraged all to kneel and have that be the norm if they wanted to do ANYTHING at all.

 

[Mysty101]

Sorry—I messed up again. I was trying to post something else, but somehow lost the new post and reposted the old–I must have had 2 windows open and went to check speeling and came back to the wrong one.
SuZ

PS You can say anything you want about letters and documents, and I definitely agree that the norms must be followed—RS in particular. (The bishops tried to get a modification to continue to consecrate in flagons, but this was not allowed.)

But if there is an approved modification, it supercedes the original document in the conference where the modifications are approved.

The Pope allows his bishops to make certain decisions, and you do not have the authority to question them. The Pope has approved the USCCB modifications regarding the norm for Communion posture Of course you may kneel if you wish, but you cannot expect a special accommodation for your preference, when it is neither the norm nor the popular choice.

I have quoted the USCCB statement on unity of posture—unless you are not in the US?

 

[Mysty101]

pprimeau1976:

I just posted about the topic of holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer. I am of the opinion that there are some practices that may differ from the norm a little, and should be left alone. Kneeling for communion is one of them…as is the hand holding.

People kneel not to show off, they kneel because of their faith that they are standing in front of the King of kings. The King of kings deserves a little bit more respect other than a profound bow. They should have encouraged all to kneel and have that be the norm if they wanted to do ANYTHING at all.

I believe the posture was changed to accommodate the large proportion of elderly and disabled, who have a difficulty kneeling. Rather than have them feel irreverant because they cannot kneel, they asked for the modification. That is the American way.

 

[Exalt]

Frankly I wish they’d bring back altar rails and make kneeling the norm again. There’s too little reverence for the Eucharist among Catholics these days.

Why do some people have the idea that kneeling at the altar rail is piety or is reverence? It may be an expression of reverence for some, but not all.

 

[Robin_L.in_TX]

Personally, I think that the horrible tone of these posts show that we are allowing Satan free reign here. I personally prefer to kneel, or at least genuflect. I am always struck by the 24 in the heavenly Jerusalen who throw off their crowns and prostrate themselves. That is wha I would like to do, but I can’t.

Being a prideful person who is always trying to cultivate humility, I use this as an area of Penance. I pray that our Lord accepts my standing and profound bow as a sign of my respect for His Church and total adoration and submission to Him.

I really hate what our Bishops are allowing and causing to happen, and only hope that we all begin to realize the reality of Him we come to worship. As long as the right words are spoken over the right gifts, to which I add myself, my intentions, and my submission to doing His will, I prefer to worship my God, my Creator, and my Savior.

Would I prefer to do so in Latin, receiving Him while kneeling? Absolutely. However, I pray that His graces flow upon each and every one of us at Mass, and that we may all become one in love and worship as He wants us to be, turning the other cheek, and granting everyone (those who kneel as well as those who stand and receive in the hand), the benefit of believing that their motivations spring from the Holy Spirit (as I hope they do as far as mine are concerned), and if they don’t, that they soon will.

In Christ’s peace and joy,

Robin L. in TX

 

[Voice_Of_Reason]

I used to stand for about 10 years or so (I’m 18 years old). But a while ago I decided to geneuflect, then receive communion.I did this for probably 6 months. However, last week I received kneeling as “Every knee should bend…” and no problems what so ever from the priest. Only problem though was that I’m a tall guy that could loose a pound or two (or 20, which is my goal) and getting up was a bit tough on the cold tile and no alter rail. I didn’t kneel to gain attention, rather to show that I’m not above Christ as the priest is a short and having Christ being raised to “my level” seemed that I was by actions saying that I was above Christ. Anyway, that’s my two cents.

 

[Mysty101]

Voice,
How do you feel about this instruction from the USCCB? (I know I am repeating, but perhaps Voice did not see it)

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.

I am trying to understand why someone would place their own thoughts over those of their Bishop, (remember the Pope did approve the Bishops’ decision)

SuZ

 

[otm]

JNB:

The 3 letters from the CDW in Rome have made this matter clear. THose who kneel for communion are not to be denied nor are they to be considered dis obidient.

A) Would you care to show us anything that indicates that a letter overrules the GIRM? There is nothing I know of in Canon Law which indicates that an advisory letter takes precedence over and Instruction (which is the law).

B) It flies in the face of logic that the GIRM says that those who kneel are “to be counseled”. If they are not disobeying the law, there is nothing for which to counsel them. The GIRM says that they are to be counseled because they are breaking the law, and that, in any language, is called disobdience.

JNB:

If anything, it is the liturgists and clergy in the US who are being dis obidient to Rome when they force conregations that still use the altar rail to stand for communion, not respecting the rights of the laity.

Given that Rome approved the GIRM (aw well as issued it) and the modification which makes standing for Communion the norm in the United States, liturgists are being obedient to the law and to Rome. The laity have the right to follow the law, something which perhaps you do not wish to do?

JNB:

I cant understand how a handful of conregants who kneel for communion withoput a rail at the head of a line can create logistics problems, but when a conregation kneels at the altar rail, or even if a handful of conregants still use the rail, the dangers of them creating a hazard of having others tripping over them is eliminated.

The issue is not any such thing as hazard. The issue is that certain individuals have determined that their own piety is more important that obeying Rome and the bishops; something that these same peop are so quick to condemn in the liberals who do the same things with parts of the Mass they don’t like.

It would be amusing, if it weren’t so sad.

 

[albert_cipriani]

Mysty101:

I believe the posture was changed to accommodate the large proportion of elderly and disabled, who have a difficulty kneeling. Rather than have them feel irreverant because they cannot kneel, they asked for the modification.

You’re making this up, right?

At our Tridentine Mass, the old that can’t kneel, stand. and everyone understands.

If someone didn’t understand something that obvious, wouldn’t it indicate prejudice? Why make it impossible for the pious to express their piety for the sake of the prejudiced? – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

 

[otm]

JNB:

I follow the Catholic church interperation, not Crusdaders. As I said, Rome has spoken in 3 different letters about kneeling for communion. Here is the link from this web site.

catholic.com/library/liturgy/kneeling_1.asp

So Mysty, who will you follow, Rome, or Crusader? Note these letters are not just interperations, these letters come from the Council of Divine Worship headed by Cardinal Arinze.

I am well aware of the letters. Perhaps a better understanding of Law would help.

Letters are advisory and can interpret passages which are vague. But a letter does not overrule a law. An ammendment to a law can overrule a law in part, but a letter is not an ammendment. The letter is mere dicta where it contradicts an obvious passage of law.

The passage of law states that those kneeling are “to be counseled”. There is no meaning to the term “to be counseled” if there is no violation of the law about which to counsel.

The letter stating that people kneeling in direct defiance of the norm of standing may be very nice; it may be very kind; it might even be pious. But it does not make the norm to not be the norm; it does not make the norm optional; it does not modify the norm.

The norm is standing. Kneeling is contrary to the norm, which is another way of saying “disobedient”.

 

[JNB]

Mysty101:

Sorry—I messed up again. I was trying to post something else, but somehow lost the new post and reposted the old–I must have had 2 windows open and went to check speeling and came back to the wrong one.
SuZ

PS You can say anything you want about letters and documents, and I definitely agree that the norms must be followed—RS in particular. (The bishops tried to get a modification to continue to consecrate in flagons, but this was not allowed.)

But if there is an approved modification, it supercedes the original document in the conference where the modifications are approved.

The Pope allows his bishops to make certain decisions, and you do not have the authority to question them. The Pope has approved the USCCB modifications regarding the norm for Communion posture Of course you may kneel if you wish, but you cannot expect a special accommodation for your preference, when it is neither the norm nor the popular choice.

I have quoted the USCCB statement on unity of posture—unless you are not in the US?

Yes I am in the US, and I have showed you, crusader and otm the 3 letters on the norm of standing for communion, do you deny these letters have authority? After all, they were issued by the CDW in Rome, the body that approved GIRM, and these 3 letters came out after GIRM was approved in 2001. Rome has spoken, I listen to Rome, not you not Crusader, not otm or various liturgists. Read the letters. These letters do not come from an indvidual bishop, these letters are not some interperation of a canon lawyer, these letters come from Rome, and Rome has clearly said those who kneel for communion are not to be imposed upon, nor be considered disobidient. Also, these letters were issued based on the stipulation Rome gave to the USCCB when the norm(again not canon law) of standing for communion was issued.

 

[otm]

Minerva:

our posture at the Eucharist does impact belief. In our society we stand for everything, even the most mundane, secular activities. But we only kneel for the sacred, for God. Someone who doesn’t have a strong belief in the Real Presence might be reminded and moved by the fact he or she has to kneel to receive it. They won’t help but notice that this is no ordinary event, this is sacred.

My recollection is that we stand for the Gospel reading.

Are you saying that the Gospels are not sacred?

 

[JNB]

otm:

I am well aware of the letters. Perhaps a better understanding of Law would help.

Letters are advisory and can interpret passages which are vague. But a letter does not overrule a law. An ammendment to a law can overrule a law in part, but a letter is not an ammendment. The letter is mere dicta where it contradicts an obvious passage of law.

The passage of law states that those kneeling are “to be counseled”. There is no meaning to the term “to be counseled” if there is no violation of the law about which to counsel.

The letter stating that people kneeling in direct defiance of the norm of standing may be very nice; it may be very kind; it might even be pious. But it does not make the norm to not be the norm; it does not make the norm optional; it does not modify the norm.

The norm is standing. Kneeling is contrary to the norm, which is another way of saying “disobedient”.

The letters came out after GIRM was approved by Rome in late 2001. These letters are not simpily nice, they are directives to the Bishops of the US, and again, they are quite clear in what they say. The laity who kneel for communion are not to be considered dis obidient nor imposed upon. I am close to no being chariatble any longer otm, but these letters have are the CDW interpertation of the GIRM in the US. They are clearly written, what patrt of these letters do you fail to understand?

 

[JNB]

This pasage in the most recent letter, from January 2003 is quite clear. There was a stipulation involved when the norm was recognised. So again, to the various posters here, do they follow what a liturgist or even many clergy says, or what Rome says?

** To this end, it is perhaps useful to respond to your inquiry by repeating the content of a letter that the Congregation recently addressed to a Bishop in the United States of America from whose Diocese a number of pertinent letters had been received. The letter states: “…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”.

**

 

[JNB]

SeekerJen:

I understand your dismay, as I am also upset that the option has all been taken away from us in the form of removing communion rails. However, that does not give any of us to judge the piety of a person who stands or kneels to receive the Eucharist. For all we know, the person kneeling may be kneeling just to draw attention to him or herself as a “pious” person (much like the Pharisees who would pray on street corners and moan and groan about fasting), while the person standing may be doing so only in obedience to their bishop. One cannot judge another person’s heart by their appearance.

I agree, and while this may surprise people, people who stand during the concecration of the mass/Eucharistic Prayer can not be denied communion either anymore than those who kneel for communion can be denied communion. Even before Vatican II, in some nations, the laity stood for most of the canon of the mass, though kneeling for communion was the universal norm untill the late 50s when liturgical experimentation started to take place.

 

[otm]

JNB:

Yes I am in the US, and I have showed you, crusader and otm the 3 letters on the norm of standing for communion, do you deny these letters have authority? After all, they were issued by the CDW in Rome, the body that approved GIRM, and these 3 letters came out after GIRM was approved in 2001. Rome has spoken, I listen to Rome, not you not Crusader, not otm or various liturgists. Read the letters. These letters do not come from an indvidual bishop, these letters are not some interperation of a canon lawyer, these letters come from Rome, and Rome has clearly said those who kneel for communion are not to be imposed upon, nor be considered disobidient. Also, these letters were issued based on the stipulation Rome gave to the USCCB when the norm(again not canon law) of standing for communion was issued.

The substance of all three letters is that Communion could not be denied to one who knelt. That was the issue at hand, and that was the issue which was addressed.

The GIRM did not say that some one could be denied Communion. That was a decision of the priest who was distributing it, and in denying Communion, he viloated other laws. The letters simply point out what the other laws are. The letters do not make law, they explain and/or interpret a part that was ambiguous. Nothing in the letters gives anyone the right to kneel. Nothing in the letters state that the GIRM is overruled in that part in which it states that standing is the norm.

What you are attempting to do is the equivalent of practicing law without a license. You are attempting to say that because the letters say you cannot be denied Communion, that therefore standing is only optional, or not the norm. The letters make no such statment. The comment about disobedience is dicta, an aside; and I await your evidence that a letter has priority over a law.

 

[Mysty101]

Thanks OTM

 

[Mysty101]

JNB:

Yes I am in the US, and I have showed you, crusader and otm the 3 letters on the norm of standing for communion, do you deny these letters have authority? .

Nobody denied anything about the letters. Will you respond about the authority given to the USCCB by the Pope?

SuZ