Receive Communion standing or kneeling?

[Detroit_Sue]

I haven’t read all of the posts above mine, but I would like to say, we have a communion rail in my parish. Prior to the new GIRM, it was utilized by about 50% of the people attending each Mass (myself included). Since the GIRM was put into effect, there are still a few people who receive at the rail, but most now follow the new ruling (myself included).

First Communicants usually kneel to receive, and they receive by intinction.

Are there abuses in my parish? Yes, but it’s on the part of the parishioners who put their pride first. I guess I should be glad that the abuses are on the side of tradition, like kneeling during the Agnus Dei, refusing Communion from anyone but a priest, stuff like that.

However, the norms are the norms. What has been prescribed for the US is to bow your head before receiving. If this simple instruction cannot be followed, why would we expect parishes like St. Joan of Arc in Minneapolis to comply?

 

[JNB]

Detroit Sue:

I haven’t read all of the posts above mine, but I would like to say, we have a communion rail in my parish. Prior to the new GIRM, it was utilized by about 50% of the people attending each Mass (myself included). Since the GIRM was put into effect, there are still a few people who receive at the rail, but most now follow the new ruling (myself included).

First Communicants usually kneel to receive, and they receive by intinction.

Are there abuses in my parish? Yes, but it’s on the part of the parishioners who put their pride first. I guess I should be glad that the abuses are on the side of tradition, like kneeling during the Agnus Dei, refusing Communion from anyone but a priest, stuff like that.

However, the norms are the norms. What has been prescribed for the US is to bow your head before receiving. If this simple instruction cannot be followed, why would we expect parishes like St. Joan of Arc in Minneapolis to comply?

As I said before, norms do not equal canon law, again this means both conregations who stand for the eucharistic prayer and conregations who kneel for communion are still not to be denied communion.

In any event, Detroit seems to have a few parishes that kneel for communion such as St. Joeseph in downtown Detroit, the Assumption Grotto and SS Cyrill & Metodius .

 

[JNB]

By the way, St Joan of Arc is not being reigned in for not being having a minor difference in the “norm” such as posture during the Eucharistic prayer or posture during communion(many parishes in the St. Paul archdiocese have no kneelers), they are being reigned in for major violations in liturgy such as replacing the first readings with social justice readings with a “spritual” bent, lay sermons and a severe deviation against church dogmas and doctrines. What St Joan of Arc is doing would be the equivlent of a Roman Catholic parish doing the Tridentine mass without an indult and the Pastor there saying the Pope is not the Pope, in essence a Sede parish technically in union with Rome. At least the Sedes have the intellectual honesty to see they are not in union with Rome, SJA doesnt.

 

[robertaf]

Greetings,

We just moved to a new parish. This past Sunday, the Bishop was at Mass to install the new Pastor.

I recently came from a Parish where folks walked up and received Communion standing. We were EMEs and everything just flowed easily.

WELL!!! This past Sunday was an experience and it wouldn’t surprise me if the Bishop doesn’t have something to say. Yes, I have read a few of the posts and no one was refused Communion.

While most folks walked up and quietly received Communion standing, quite a few chose to kneel. This was quite a sight, sitting where I was up front. Some folks huffed and puffed as they lowered themselves with nothing to hold on to. A few could barely get their balance and then rising was more huffing and puffing and wobbling. All the time, appearing to be showing the Bishop how holy they were. Forgive my lack of charity. It was distracting and disrupting. Holier than the ones standing? I don’t think so. Then there were the ones who had to genuflect before receiving Our Lord. We also had some who had to genuflect and then kneel.

It would be much better if we had one Church in our town with rails. It would be much better for everyone concerned if those folks who think it is better to kneel to do it all in one place. It use to be that the only ones who insisted on this stuff were Baysiders. Not anymore. Now we have a good sized handful of folks who stick out like a sore thumb and I am starting to think that is exactly what they want to do.

 

[bear06]

Just a thought…I stand at my Church because of the logistical situation with the elderly but I love to attend the Church I was married in where they still have 50% that use the Communion rail. It’s not that I don’t feel standing is right or that it shouldn’t be allowed. It’s simply because I love to kneel before Our Lord in the Eucharist. While I’m sure that people who receive either way might not have the proper intentions (batting 1000 is a lot to ask for), some people do what they do because they believe that’s what God calls THEM to do. I try not to think or watch what others do. I actually look down. The only time I even question someone’s intention is when I hear how wonderful they are for doing whatever they do. Then I start to wonder.

 

[Crusader]

JNB:

As I said before, norms do not equal canon law, again this means both conregations who stand for the eucharistic prayer and conregations who kneel for communion are still not to be denied communion.

In any event, Detroit seems to have a few parishes that kneel for communion such as St. Joeseph in downtown Detroit, the Assumption Grotto and SS Cyrill & Metodius .

It’s sad to see people like you who place their own whims and desires ahead of the Church.

Disregarding the Church’s instruction on how to receive communion is much like being dressed inappropriately for the Mass. It may not be grounds to refuse you communion, but it certainly is groups for some counseling from your pastor…

 

[Mysty101]

robertaf:

, quite a few chose to kneel. This was quite a sight, sitting where I was up front. Some folks huffed and puffed as they lowered themselves with nothing to hold on to. A few could barely get their balance and then rising was more huffing and puffing and wobbling. All the time, appearing to be showing the Bishop how holy they were. Forgive my lack of charity. It was distracting and disrupting. Holier than the ones standing? I don’t think so. Then there were the ones who had to genuflect before receiving Our Lord. We also had some who had to genuflect and then kneel.

The GIRM contains an approved adaptation on this point for the United States:

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.
I think Roberta has given some of the good reasons. The bishops are the Shepherds of their flock, and do have not only the authority, but the obligation to see that the needs of the congregation are met. They trust their Pastors to address these needs, and report any issues. Kneeling or genuflecting is not only often distracting, but also often a tripping or obstacle problem.
From RS**

21.

It pertains to the diocesan Bishop, then, “within the limits of his competence, to set forth liturgical norms in his Diocese, by which all are bound.”

**from Postures and Gestures at Mass
http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/girm/bul3.shtml

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.
But I do still agree that since is is allowed, people who wish to kneel should get together and speak to their Pastor about a solution—if there are enough of them, something will be done to accommodate them. If there are not that many, I feel they should look elsewhere, where there are more like minds, or just follow the posture of the Community, since this is what we are told to do. Genuflecting should be left to the very agile.

SuZ

 

[bear06]

Crusader:

It’s sad to see people like you who place their own whims and desires ahead of the Church.

Disregarding the Church’s instruction on how to receive communion is much like being dressed inappropriately for the Mass. It may not be grounds to refuse you communion, but it certainly is groups for some counseling from your pastor…

OK Crusader, while I usually agree with you, I don’t think you are completely correct here. The point is that while there is a written “norm” there is not a “norm” in the U.S. since the bishops are all allowing various things on this issue and the Vatican, who is above our bishops, have said that kneeling for communion is “completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species.” See the link below. ourladyswarriors.org/liturgy/kneeling.htm The first and third letters are most pertinent to this discussion.

As far as the counseling part, they’ve never said what proper catechisis is. I’m pretty sure this is the Vatican’s way of saying “You’d better be able to explain it to them if you are going to try and hold them to it.”

Remember, the U.S. bishops decrees only hold weight if they are in union with Rome. Rome has attached stipulations to their permission.

 

[otm]

Panis Angelicas:

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.

The rest of his statement is

Voice_Of_Reason:

while others act as if they are a line at Disney getting ready to ride Space Mountain.

Since he was commenting on how they act, it appeared that he was commenting on their reverence (as opposed to their perceived reverence). I agree that they were not following the GIRM, but I will not take that to mean that they are not reverent but rather not well catechise as to the rubrics. If I misjudged him, I apologize.
Panis Angelicus:

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.

I agree; see above.
Panis Angelicus:

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.

Great. I have read the letters several times, as well as the GIRM. Show me, specifically, where in those letters that Rome says that the norm is standing as long as kneeling is permitted. The letters have no such statement. The GIRM has no such statement. Nowhere is it said that kneeling is optional. The only comment you can focus on is the comment in the third letter about “disobedience”.

There is no reason to have a norm if each individual is authorized to determine on their own what is a proper posture or action at that point in the Liturgy.

There is no logical reason to have a statement which says that one is to be counseled if there is nothing to counsel.
Panis Angelicus:

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?

I am all for obeying Rome, but I am not the one who is insisting that individuals have the right or the option to determine their posture.

The biggest difficulty is that there are intense feelings associated with this issue by a group of individuals who feel that it is more pious to kneel than to stand. They are grasping at any straw they can find to justify their own personal preference in the liturgy. The arguments put forth fly in the face of logic and the process used in determining whether or not a law or ruling has been abrogated.

To begin with, the letters do not state what you say they state. You appear to be saying that there is an implication that kneeling has been made optional to the norm of standing, but that implication presumes that dicta is something more than just that. Your reliance on the dicta goes well beyond either the question asked or the answer given. You are attempting to say that the fact that one cannot be refused Communion means that one has permission to kneel. It just flat doesn’t mean that.

 

[Crusader]

otm:

…The biggest difficulty is that there are intense feelings associated with this issue by a group of individuals who feel that it is more pious to kneel than to stand. They are grasping at any straw they can find to justify their own personal preference in the liturgy. The arguments put forth fly in the face of logic and the process used in determining whether or not a law or ruling has been abrogated…

Indeed. What’s so ironic is that it is this very type of who goes bonkers when others in the more progressive camp make thier own choices about what is “best.” Talk about hypocritical behavior…

 

[bear06]

. Show me, specifically, where in those letters that Rome says that the norm is standing as long as kneeling is permitted. The letters have no such statement. The GIRM has no such statement. Nowhere is it said that kneeling is optional. The only comment you can focus on is the comment in the third letter about “disobedience”.

Here’s the quote and a little more I already gave "Even where the Congregation has approved of legislation denoting standing as the posture for Holy Communion, in accordance with the adaptations permitted to the Conferences of Bishops by the Institution Generalis Missalis Romani n. 160, paragraph 2, it has done so with the stipulation that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds.

In fact, as His Eminence, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has recently emphasized, the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition, and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration, completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species.

Here’s another quote from the letters from the link above:
“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”

The biggest difficulty is that there are intense feelings associated with this issue by a group of individuals who feel that it is more pious to kneel than to stand.

They are grasping at any straw they can find to justify their own personal preference in the liturgy. The arguments put forth fly in the face of logic and the process used in determining whether or not a law or ruling has been abrogated.

Please don’t lump me in with this group!!! My Church receives standing and I’m fine with that. I am purely looking at what Rome has said and they have said that it’s “completely appropriate”. While I think you are right in many respects to people justifying “their own personal preference in the liturgy. The arguments put forth fly in the face of logic and the process used in determining whether or not a law or ruling has been abrogated.” I think Rome has said that it’s fine to receive kneeling and even "completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species
To begin with, the letters do not state what you say they state. You appear to be saying that there is an implication that kneeling has been made optional to the norm of standing, but that implication presumes that dicta is something more than just that. Your reliance on the dicta goes well beyond either the question asked or the answer given. You are attempting to say that the fact that one cannot be refused Communion means that one has permission to kneel. It just flat doesn’t mean that.

Here’s the quote once again: In fact, as His Eminence, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has recently emphasized, the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition, and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration, completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species.

If Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Medina Estevez are saying that it’s completely appropriate, how can you be saying that it’s not? You’ll rarely find me agreeing with cipriani, katolik, etc. but even a blind squirrel can find a nut once in awhile.

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

bear,

Thank you for coming to my assistance. I’ve been trying for what seems like hours now to locate and post all of those same quotes! I got them onto a single word document and wanted to present them in chronological order, with an explanation, (which I will still do) but the gremlins in my computer decided otherwise!

I had to download the newest version of AdAware and run a scan. By the time I’d returned, you had provided the self same quotes from the Vatican that I had intended to post!

Thank you again.

 

[otm]

bear06:

.

In fact, as His Eminence, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has recently emphasized, the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition, and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration, completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species.

Here’s another quote from the letters from the link above:
“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”

While I think you are right in many respects to people justifying “their own personal preference in the liturgy. The arguments put forth fly in the face of logic and the process used in determining whether or not a law or ruling has been abrogated.” I think Rome has said that it’s fine to receive kneeling and even "completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species
.

Here’s the quote once again: In fact, as His Eminence, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has recently emphasized, the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition, and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration, completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species.

If Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Medina Estevez are saying that it’s completely appropriate, how can you be saying that it’s not? You’ll rarely find me agreeing with cipriani, katolik, etc. but even a blind squirrel can find a nut once in awhile.

And so can a blind pig. Neither Ratzinger nor Estevez have abrogated the norm. They both have made very pious statements. Pious statements don’t make law.

It is very clear that the universal norm is to receive on the tongue. It is also crystal clear that it is specifically allowed to receive in the hand. There is legislation to that effect.

Try as you might, all of the statements about not being called disobedient, or illicit, or any other terms they wish to use in a letter are in law what is called “dicta”, Literally "he said’ or “they said”. The meaning of dicta is that it is a) not an answer (legal answer, i.e. the law) to the question, and it is therefore b) not binding as law. Try as you, or anyone else who wants to kneel might try, there is a norm in the United States that the psoture for receiving is standing, and there has been no legislation to provide an alternative or optional posture other than that.

Those who insist that it is “legal”, or a “right” are practicing law without a license. I’ve read what Rome has said. Rome is not stupid; they are eminently capable of being specific. If they wanted to grant an option, they certainly have the power to do sol they also have the capability and capacity to say so clearly. They did with reception in the hand. They have not done so in this instance.

Why is it that the liberals are castigated for not foillowing the norms (many of them with misguided, but no less honest and heartfelt feelings of piety), and yet such a clear norm can’t be followed by the conservatives? Is submission to the liturgical rules of the Church really so hard that neither the conservatives nor the liberals can follow it?

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Crusader:

Indeed. What’s so ironic is that it is this very type of who goes bonkers when others in the more progressive camp make thier own choices about what is “best.” Talk about hypocritical behavior…

Vatican "…the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition

, and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration, completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species."
Yeah, who are these arrogant people, making up postures of their own desires and whims because they think it is more pious, anyway?

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

bear06:

Here’s the quote once again: In fact, as His Eminence, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has recently emphasized, the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition, and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration, completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species.

otm:

… Neither Ratzinger nor Estevez have abrogated the norm. They both have made very pious statements. Pious statements don’t make law.

These were not merely some pious, off-the-cuff remark. These were letters directly addressing the issue at hand: kneeling for Holy Communion in the US.

Try as you might, all of the statements about not being called disobedient, or illicit, or any other terms they wish to use in a letter are in law what is called “dicta”, Literally "he said’ or “they said”. The meaning of dicta is that it is a) not an answer (legal answer, i.e. the law) to the question, and it is therefore b) not binding as law.

I already provided you with their quote, which was a clarification, which they prefaced by saying that they were the very people who gave the law the force of law, so they knew what they meant, and they meant that communicants who desired to kneel should not be imposed upon or penalized in any way.

Try as you, or anyone else who wants to kneel might try, there is a norm in the United States that the psoture for receiving is standing, and there has been no legislation to provide an alternative or optional posture other than that.

Well, there is the letter of the law, and there is the spirit of the law, and the Congregation has clarified the spirit of the law now sooooooooo many times that it’s unbelievable that some folks still try to refute it. And call the kneelers arrogant and obstinant.

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Originally, the norm said that Communion could be received either standing or kneeling, and on the tongue or in the hand.

Then, the US bishops proposed this:

Proposed American Adaptation of IGMR §160

1. Distribution of Holy Communion

The faithful come forward in procession to receive Holy Communion. **The posture for the reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. **Each communicant bows his or her head before the sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives Holy Communion from the minister. The consecrated Host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is made before receiving both the Body and the Blood of Christ.

To this, the Vatican responded:

"This dicastery agrees in principle

to the insertion [of the standing adaptation]. At the same time, the tenor of not a few letters received from the faithful in various dioceses of [the United States] leads the congregation to urge the conference to introduce a clause that would protect those faithful who will inevitably be led by their own sensibilities to kneel, from imprudent action by priests, deacons or lay ministers in particular, or from being refused Holy Communion for such a reason as happens on occasion".

The US Conference of bishops then met submitted the new adaptation.
Before giving the required “recognitio” to this adaptation of the US bishops’ conference, the Congregation of Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments required that

"communicants who choose to kneel are not be denied Communion on these grounds…

the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition, and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration, completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species".
This was the Vatican’s intent, even before they granted the recognitio, which gave the norm the force of law.

Continued…

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

After the new adaptations were announced, the Vatican found it necessary to repeatedly clarify what their meaning of that norm in statements such as this:

“…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”.

There seems to be a common thread here.
The Vatican had no intention of making kneeling for Communion illegal, illicit, or wrong in any way.
The US bishops may have desired that, (I don’t pretend to know what they desired) but the Vatican has repeatedly emphatically corrected this notion.

 

[Mysty101]

Panis,

Indeed, the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience

and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion". I know I am repeating, but you never addrssed this one. The GIRM contains an approved adaptation on this point for the United States:

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.

Although I would not accuse them of disobedience, I would suggest that they seek a better solution than kneeling when there are no provisions to kneel without distracting or disturbing the community. It does contradict the theme of unity.

You didn’t address the rest of my post either
From RS**
**

21.

** It pertains to the diocesan Bishop, then, “within the limits of his competence, to set forth liturgical norms in his Diocese, by which all are bound.”
**from Postures and Gestures at Mass
http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/girm/bul3.shtml

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.
But I do still agree that since is is allowed, people who wish to kneel should get together and speak to their Pastor about a solution—if there are enough of them, something will be done to accommodate them. If there are not that many, I feel they should look elsewhere, where there are more like minds, or just follow the posture of the Community, since this is what we are told to do. Genuflecting should be left to the very agile.

SuZ

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Mysty101,
I hope that you followed the chronology of the development of the new norm.
First, the US bishops requested a deviation from the universal norm for dioceses in the US.
The Vatican replied that they could go along with this, in principle, but wanted assurances that those “whose sensibilities” instructed them to kneel not be treated imprudently, by the ordained and those in ministry “in particular.” To that end, they “urged” the bishops to “insert a clause protecting” those who kneel from such.
So, it was back to the drawing board for the bishops. They came up with, what might appear to be the exact opposite of what the Vatican had urged, as the adaptation reads that those who kneel should be pastorally counselled.
The Vatican approved the adaptation (one wonders if they felt like parents of rebellious teens, banging their heads against the wall, or if they understood this to mean that the bishops intended this as a “protective” clause) giving it the force of law.

The Vatican then continued to follow this through by reminding them that this norm was only given the force of law upon the stipulation that those who kneel not be considered disobedient, not be imposed upon, not be accused of acting illicity, etc., etc., etc.

Chronologically speaking, one can easily determine the Vatican’s intent to appease the bishops’ persistent desire to deviate from the universal norm, while at the same time, the Vatican’s intent to protect those whose sensibilities dictate a posture regarded by the Magisterium of the Church as being of “extraordinary adoration” and “completely appropriate.”

Mysty101:

Panis,

I know I am repeating, but you never addrssed this one. The GIRM contains an approved adaptation on this point for the United States: Although I would not accuse them of disobedience, I would suggest that they seek a better solution than kneeling when there are no provisions to kneel without distracting or disturbing the community. It does contradict the theme of unity.

First, let me address the “theme of unity.”
When we receive the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we do not receive a symbol, or a theme. We receive Him substantially present. *
While themes are nice, substance is what really matters.
Receiving the Body and Blood of Christ substantially unites us all in the Body of Christ. Therefore, those who kneel are just as united to Christ as you are, and are just as much members of the Body of Christ as you are.
So, it isn’t about true unity. It appears more to be about “me,”* I’m** being “disturbed and distracted.”
If you cannot focus upon the Blessed Sacrament, Who you are about to receive, or Who you have just received, what can I say to you? Focus on Jesus, not those who are making an extraordinary act of adoration which is completely appropriate in the eyes and mind of the Church. (Why does something completely appropriate distract you so much? Why are you so judgemental and bitter? Maybe examine your own conscience a little more deeply. There could be a plank in your own eye.~And I am not just saying this to “you” personally.)

Continued…

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

**

1. It pertains to the diocesan Bishop, then, “within the limits of his competence, to set forth liturgical norms in his Diocese, by which all are bound.”**** **
   I would pose to you, if a bishop of the US rejects the instruction given by the Vatican, is he acting within the limits of his competence? Does he have the capacity and faculties to defy Rome in this regard?