Receive Communion standing or kneeling?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cherub
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it is only the Priest who commits a liturgical abuse.
No, I don’'t think this is correct. Look at Redemptionis Sacramentum (I can’t say this enough!). There are plenty of ways the laity can participate in abuses or abuse all by themselves. One right off the bat would be not do kneel during the Consecration (without just cause of course). My husband and I just found a host of the vestibule floor this morning :eek: That’s a great abuse!!! Receiving Communion without proper disposition, etc., etc., etc. I’m sure I could come up with more but I’m sure you can find a number reading through RS. For the life of me, I can’t remember holding hands during the Our Father labeled as an abuse by Rome. It might have been but I just can’t remember. Heck, it might even be in RS. I don’t prefer is though because it is distracting. We don’t do this in my Church so I don’t give it much thought.
 
You’re right, many can and do commit abuses, but it is far different for the lay person, than for the Priest.

And if the lay person does not know, or is not corrected, I would think the abuse is also on the priest.
DuZ
 
There’s been much talk here about obedience and disobedience, about unity and disunity.

Are you aware that the universal norm is kneeling for Communion?
Does that make the Church in America disobedient to the universal Church, or in disunity with Her?
Many of the bishops who desired the different norm have since resigned in disgrace. In many instances in their office, they did not have the Church’s best interests at heart.
I wonder if the norms were being decided upon now, if there would be a different outcome. No matter. What has been decided has been decided. But from The Vatican’s response to the American bishops, one can almost feel that it is we here in America who are pushing the envelope and insisting on doing things according to our own whims and desires.

"…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."

I followed this issue very closely as it unfolded. The Vatican tried to steer the American bishops very prudently, but we were like rebellious adolescents, wanting it “our way.” The Vatican specifically said that Girm n. 160 needed to be modified so that no one who knelt to receive Holy Communion was treated with disrespect for doing so by priests, deacons, and lay ministers in particular, and was told to include something to that effect in their adaptation. So, the bishops adapted it to read that it would handled pastorally. We all know that the way it is phrased makes it sound as though those kneeling are doing something wrong, and the Vatican insists that that is not the case.

"Indeed, the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion".

One might be able to call hand-holding during the Lord’s prayer a whim, as there is no traditional basis for this posture. Not so with kneeling. Kneeling to receive Holy Communion is not a whim; it’s a universal norm, which cannot be made “illegal, illicit, or disobedient” just because we are attending Mass in different country. A whim might be to do a cartwheel before receiving Holy Communion. 😉

Stop and think a moment: Do you suppose when a person dies and his soul is judged by the Just Judge, that he will be punished for kneeling before the Body and Blood of their Lord? God knows our hearts. If we are kneeling in arrogance, pride, or vanity, He knows it. If one is kneeling in humble adoration and true contrition for his own unworthiness, God knows that to.

When one inisists upon this poorly-worded “law” in the US to the extent that the rest of the universal Church is discounted and the counsels from the Vatican in the aftermath are portrayed as having little authority here sounds legalistic, Pharisaical, and arrogantly American, as the Europeans so often charge. We’ll rule ourselves, no matter what the Vatican says, it seems to say. Those who do as the Vatican says, they’re wrong for following “whims.”
 
For those who think the Vatican’s letters can be discounted:

**Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments

Prot. n. 47/03/L

Rome, 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.**

The norm only has the force of law because the Vatican said so, so when the Vatican says it isn’t being applied properly here, perhaps the Vatican knows better than you guys who say kneeling is disobedient!
 
The Vatican said of the American priests who actually refused Communion to those who knelt:

the Congregation will regard future complaints of this nature with great seriousness, and if they are verified, it intends to seek disciplinary action consonant with the gravity of the pastoral abuse.


**So, what do you suppose they would say to you folks who insist upon imposing standing or deriding those who kneel?

**
 
I think I concur with this. It is not disobedient to kneel. I really don’t think anyone thinks it is. The theme that I’m getting is that people don’t want to here that the bishops are wrong for establishing the standing norm since the Vatican gave them permission to do so.

I also think most know that there is an underlying argument here and it doesn’t have to do with kneeling. 😉
 
40.png
katolik:
Kneeling is evil and so it is blotted out of Mass? That is the logic used for liturgical abuses to be ended. So how in itself would kneeling be evil, so that it would be considered disobiedient?
You are confusing issues. Kneeling in and of itself is not a moral issue.

The norm in the United States, established by Rome by the publication of the most recent General Instruction of the Roman Missal says that people are to receive standing. That is the law, in spite of the fact that JNB believes otherwise. If there is any evil (and I have not used that word; it is yours), then the evil would consist in setting your own personal preferences over the Church. The Church has the authority to revise liturgical rules, and has exercised it.
 
40.png
Voice_Of_Reason:
First off, I’m not blind. I respond by this; “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bend before me” (Rom. 14:11, Is 45:23). Now I want to know why the Bishops would want to put their own thoughts over that of which is Commanded?

I respect the Bishops, but there are far more problems in the Mass and diocese than hanging the folks who kneel.

Honestly, 98% of folks at the Mass I attend don’t do ANYTHING to acknowldge Christ other than Amen; be it bow, genuflect or kneel before receiving. They just stand, say Amen and open up their mouths or reach out their palms. Don’t hang me for showing revelance while others act as if they are a line at Disney getting ready to ride Space Mountain.
My, aren’t we judgemental today. It is ice to know we have mind readers in our presence, since you seem to “know” how these people are “acknowledging Christ”.
 
40.png
otm:
My, aren’t we judgemental today. It is ice to know we have mind readers in our presence, since you seem to “know” how these people are “acknowledging Christ”.
Voice of Reason stated that ''98% of folks at the Mass I attend don’t do ANYTHING to acknowldge Christ other than Amen; be it bow, genuflect or kneel before receiving. They just stand, say Amen and open up their mouths or reach out their palms."

He said nothing about what is on their minds. He stated that they do not adhere to the dictates of GIRM n.160, since they don’t “do ANYTHING…before receiving.” You know that GIRM n.160 calls for an ACT of reverence before receiving; namely a bow.

Further, Voice of Reason even specifies that in the rest of his statement. He says the neither bow, genuflect, nor kneel. They just stand, say “Amen” and receive. That is clearly against GIRM n. 160.

The argumentative one seems to be you, otm. You keep ignoring all the statements from the Vatican, and twisting Girm n. 160 to mean what “you” want it to mean, rather than what the Vatican says it means.
It doesn’t matter what you want it to mean. It doesn’t even matter what the bishops in America wanted it to mean; it can only mean what *they who gave it the force of law *meant for it to mean. They (the Vatican Congregation) approved standing as long as kneeling was still permitted. That was their intent, and they have clarified this now several times. The quotes are just a couple posts above. Talk about arrogance, obstinancy, disobedience, and disunity. Accept what the Vatican says, how about?
 
Well don’t hang me but I’d say the part about the instruction of the GIRM by Panis Angelicas is correct. HOWEVER, due to lack of cathechisis on the GIRM I don’t think you can say that nobody is acknowledging Christ. They might just not be doing it in a way compitable with the GIRM and visible to us. We are not mind readers.

While on vacation a few years ago in Arlington, VA we had a wonderful sermon on the instruction of making an act of reverence. I know my bishop has a plan for instructing people on the new GIRM. Can’t wait!!! The old bishop never even went over the old GIRM. I’m sure we’ll start seeing more of this around here! We bow as the GIRM states unless we are attending the Church we are married in which still allows us to use the communion rail.
 
40.png
otm:
You are confusing issues. Kneeling in and of itself is not a moral issue.

The norm in the United States, established by Rome by the publication of the most recent General Instruction of the Roman Missal says that people are to receive standing. That is the law, in spite of the fact that JNB believes otherwise. If there is any evil (and I have not used that word; it is yours), then the evil would consist in setting your own personal preferences over the Church. The Church has the authority to revise liturgical rules, and has exercised it.
My oh my, you call kneeling for communion EVIL, but again, you ignore 3 letters from the CDW on the subject after the new GIRM was adopated in late 2001. You are in quite a fragile glass house otm.
 
Panis Angelicas said:
The Vatican said of the American priests who actually refused Communion to those who knelt:

the Congregation will regard future complaints of this nature with great seriousness
, and if they are verified, it intends to seek disciplinary action consonant with the gravity of the pastoral abuse.

**So, what do you suppose they would say to you folks who insist upon imposing standing or deriding those who kneel?

**

The people who get most enaraged, for lack of a better term, over people who kneel for communion are either relics from the 60s filled with the “sprit pf Vatican II” and those who think they may be conservative, but take blind obidience to levels not even imagined during the time of Pope Pius IX.
 
40.png
JNB:
My oh my, you call kneeling for communion EVIL, but again, you ignore 3 letters from the CDW on the subject after the new GIRM was adopated in late 2001. You are in quite a fragile glass house otm.
Read it again. OTM didn’t say that. OTM said that if any evil exists it’s from those of you who think that the U.S. is going against Church teachings even though the Vatican has given them permission to stand. OTM is trying to point out that Vatican does have the authority, not you.

Let’s just have a show of hands. Does anyone here think kneeling for Communion, in and of itself, is evil?
 
40.png
bear06:
Let’s just have a show of hands. Does anyone here think kneeling for Communion, in and of itself, is evil?
Nope, not evil. It seems kind of obstinate, though, when we’ve been directed to do otherwise (by the legitimate authority). I always kind of wonder if some people do these things as a “OOOOO, look at me, aren’t I a good and pious Catholic? Is anyone looking? Wait, I’ll do it again.”
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
Nope, not evil. It seems kind of obstinate, though, when we’ve been directed to do otherwise (by the legitimate authority). I always kind of wonder if some people do these things as a “OOOOO, look at me, aren’t I a good and pious Catholic? Is anyone looking? Wait, I’ll do it again.”
This is why I specified “in and of itself”! 👍
 
Thanks for backing me up folks. We’re all judgmental in one way or the other and I think that as long as we have a dialogue about the issues, then we can arrive at certain truths. That’s one reason what these boards are for.

For the record, I did NOT say the communicants do not acknowledge Christ. I said they don’t acknowledge Him other than saying Amen. By this, I mean physically; be it a bow, genuflection, or kneeling for those able bodied persons.

It’s getting better though here as on Sunday we had two other folks (a couple) receiving kneeling, as well as a few genuflections and a number of bows.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
I always kind of wonder if some people do these things as a “OOOOO, look at me, aren’t I a good and pious Catholic? Is anyone looking? Wait, I’ll do it again.”
Judge not.
 
For the record, I did NOT say the communicants do not acknowledge Christ. I said they don’t acknowledge Him other than saying Amen. By this, I mean physically; be it a bow, genuflection, or kneeling for those able bodied persons.
Clarifications are good. Hopefully you can see where the confusion lay.

BTW, I vote NO, kneeling is not evil.
 
Panis Angelicas:
Judge not.
It’s kind of hard not to when you’ve heard repeatedly how pious, completely orthodox, etc. all of the people who are kneeling are. It does leave us to wonder, as JKirkLVNV did what’s really going on in their heads. Wonder being the key word.
 
And I’ve rethought that. It sounds judgemental, which is as bad as those who think I’m wrong to receive standing. BTW, I rec. on my knees as an Episcopalian, but their congregations are tiny compared to the RCC. I think we rec. standing because of time/ease of movement, etc. I could get down on my knees to rec., but getting back up would be a different story, with two car accidents!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top