Receive Communion standing or kneeling?

[Panis_Angelicas]

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. It is true that “‘we’ are not free to change postures to suit our own individual piety,” but the same Church, which “makes it clear that our unity of posture and gesture is an expression of our participation in the One Body,” has also made it clear that in this instance,that kneeling is completely appropriate. The **Church **has spoken on this. Those who continue to make this a divisive issue are apparently not as much in unity with the Church as they might think.

When we stand, kneel, sit, bow and sign ourselves in common action, we give

an unambiguous witness that we are indeed the Body of Christ, united in heart, mind and spirit.
Some actions are not “in common,” such as presenting our tongue, or our hands, to receive the Body of Christ. Those who receive on the tongue are still united as are those who receive in the hand. (I know that you know this; I’m merely pointing out that some gestures do not suggest disunity.)

It is true that we cannot simply go about inventing, creating, or inserting new postures and gestures (such as hand-holding, for instance, which has no traditional nor liturgical purpose or reason, and is merely created to make oneself feel good) but one cannot claim that kneeling to receive Holy Communion is a nuance. It is steeped in tradition and lauded by the Church. It has been given a lot of attention by the Church hierarchy, and they have not condemned the practice, nor given the bishops even a glimmer of of a hint that those who kneel to receive Holy Communion should not do so. Indeed, the Church says that those who kneel “**should not be imposed upon” **and should be “protected.”

Now, if those who kneel insist upon doing all manner of other gestures throughout the Mass which are not in synchrony and harmony with the Community, you might have actually found one rebel in the assembly. The majority of them, I assure you, are there to worship as deeply as they possibly can. Who has a problem with that?

 

[Mysty101]

Panis Angelicas:

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?

Everything I have quoted IS from documents approved by Rome.

Many of your comments are your interpretation.

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Mysty101:

Everything I have quoted IS from documents approved by Rome.

Yes, but when you quoted the statement giving the local ordinary the authority to set norms within his diocese, you seemed to overlook the “within his limits of competence” phrase.

For example: Bishop Bruskewicz has granted that all in his diocese may kneel for Communion. That is within his competency, as he has the rightful authority to set such a norm.

Other bishops have acted on GIRM n. 160 in an inappropriate manner and have been called on the carpet by the Vatican. In such instances, be it the bishop himself or just an isolated priest, communicants have actually been denied the Sacrament of Holy Communion because of their posture while receiving. In one diocese, the bishop instructed all extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion to speak to the communicant these words, “The correct position is to stand, please.” That is not appropriate. The EMHC are instructed to only say, “The Body of Christ” or “The Blood of Christ,” and they are not to dictate postures to the faithful. That bishop, one might say, was setting a norm beyond the limits of his competency. imho.

Many of your comments are your interpretation.

Yes, they are. But they are based on a great deal of research, reading, and sound reason.

Sorry if I sounded judgemental in any of those posts. Just thought everyone here might want to step back and examine their own “problem” with those who kneel.

There seems to be a lot of bitterness and resentment toward them, judging why they assume this posture, opining about their motives, and mocking them in detail if they struggle to assume that posture.

I didn’t mean for that to sound personal toward you.

 

[bear06]

Thank you for coming to my assistance.

Don’t get used it, Panis!

Somehow I don’t think anyone is going to change their minds on this matter. I’ve got to say that I’d probably be on the side of the “no kneeling” crowd except for the letters from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. They trump the USCCB. The USCCB has to answer to them. They even say " this Dicastery is competent to specify the manner in which the norm is to be understood for the sake of a proper application." Guess what? This dicastry has not only said that it is not disobedient or illicit to receive kneeling (I know that otm has a problem with this) but they have also said that “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” and that “Indeed, the faithful should not be imposed upon”

Yes, I guess you could say the USCCB has written the “constitution” or “law” but the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments is the “supreme court” when it comes to the proper interpretation and application of the law. They have said this themselves.

I’m really not seeing why, other than people approaching with a “holier than thou” attitude which cannot necessarily be judged correctly, that people are having a problem with this. When Rome, who has the authority over the USCCB, has said that it’s “completely appropriate” to kneel, how can it be questioned no matter what the USCCB says. What exactly do people think the Congregations are for?

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

bear06:

What exactly do people think the Congregations are for?

ummmm…rubber stamping?

 

[Mysty101]

“The correct position is to stand, please.” That is not appropriate. The EMHC are instructed to only say, “The Body of Christ” or “The Blood of Christ,” and they are not to dictate postures to the faithful. That bishop, one might say, was setting a norm beyond the limits of his competency. imho.

See how you twist things?

When or where did I say this was correct? I quoted from approved documents about approved procedures.

Did you happen to read this post of mine?

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:

See how you twist things?

When or where did I say this was correct? I quoted from approved documents about approved procedures.

Did you happen to read this post of mine?

SuZ

SuZ,
You must have misunderstood. I never said you said anything of the kind.
In your post #118, you asked my thoughts on RS statement:
**
Quote:
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.”

**I replied with my post #120.
I answered rather rhetorically, more in the form of a question.
I highlighted the phrase “within the limits of his competence,” and posed a question indicating that the diocesan bishop has the authority to set forth liturgical norms only “within the limits of his competency,” according to that statement in RS.
Then, when you responded to my rhetorical reply, that all of your quotes “are” from the Vatican, I did not contest that. I simply attempted to explain what I meant in #120 (since I thought you must’ve misunderstood my meaning?) by offering two examples: one bishop who appears to be compliant (acting within the limits of his competency) and one who appeared to be issuing orders that exceeded the limits of his competency.

I at no time accused you of saying this was correct. I was just explaining my understanding of the quote you asked me to explain in your post #118. I am sorry if I was not clear about that and apologize for the confusion.

 

[Mysty101]

Yes, they are. But they are based on a great deal of research, reading, and sound reason.

They are still your interpretation—Sorry you do not have the authority to interpret these documents.

SuZ

 

[Mysty101]

Panis Angelicas:

SuZ,
You must have misunderstood. I never said you said anything of the kind.
I had responded to your post #118 with my post #120. I answered rather rhetorically.
Then, when you responded to my rhetorical reply, I attempted to explain it by offering two examples: one bishop who appears to be compliant (acting within the limits of his competency) and one who appeared to be issuing orders that exceeded the limits of his competency.

I at no time accused you of saying this was correct. I was just explaining my understanding of the quote you asked me to explain in your post #118. I am sorry if I was not clear about that and apologize for the confusion.

That is rediculous—you mentioned no other post than mine. I didn’t misunderstand, you were mistaken.

SuZ

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

SuZ,

Please take a look at your post #118.

You addressed it to me, and said that I hadn’t replied to 3 different quotes.

I went on to address those three quotes.

You are quite correct. I am only using my own reasoning after having read writings from the Vatican and explanations far more intellectual than my own. I certainly do not claim any “authority” or “power” within the Church.

The Magisterium has spoken. All we need to do is read carefully and study the words, instead of jumping to hastey conclusions. (Not saying that you’re doing that either.)
I don’t understand where your sudden angst has come from. Again, apologies for the confusion here.

I stand by my posts. They are my understanding of the quotes you asked me to explain. I explained them as I understand them. I never claimed to have any authority, I was merely responding to your request for an explanation. If I asked you to explain something about the Sacrament of Confession, and you did so to the best of your ability, wouldn’t you be a bit taken aback if I then responded that you had no authority to answer my question?
Why did you ask me in the first place???

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Mysty101:

They are still your interpretation—Sorry you do not have the authority to interpret these documents.

SuZ

After I responded to your question, I included “imho.” I assumed that everyone knew that means, “in my humble opinion.” I never claimed to be a Church authority.

If I have offered a misinterpretation, feel free to offer the correct interpretation.

As H. Ross Perot would say, “I’m all ears!”

 

[Mysty101]

You are quite correct. I am only using my own reasoning after having read writings from the Vatican and explanations far more intellectual than my own. I certainly do not claim any “authority” or “power” within the Church

Do I understand you correctly?----You reject the interpretation of the entire conference of Bishops, but expect me to accept your interpretation?. smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/10/10_3_1v.gif %between%

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Mysty101:

That is rediculous—you mentioned no other post than mine. I didn’t misunderstand, you were mistaken.

SuZ

I was directly replying to you in answer to a post you had directly asked me.
Please read back, from post#118 down, and see that you asked me to comment on three different quotes.
Due to character limits, I did so in two replies, #119 and #120.

See? No insult, no accusation intended.
Just answering questions you directed to me.

I have no idea where I’ve offended you personally here. It was not my intent.

 

[Mysty101]

Why did you ask me in the first place???

I asked you to validate your responses, and IMHO, you have not been able to do so.

SuZ

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Mysty101:

Do I understand you correctly?----You reject the interpretation of the entire conference of Bishops, but expect me to accept your interpretation?. smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/10/10_3_1v.gif

A. What do I reject from the entire conference of bishops?

B. You asked my opinion, I gave it. I’m not asking you to accept it. I don’t care what you do with it. If you so desire, live in utter irritation, aggravation, and resentment at every Mass you attend when pious people kneel before the Body and Blood of Christ, because Rome has protected them from being imposed upon and has stated that their posture is completely appropriate.

I’m done explaining and apologizing to you SuZ. You seem to have a huge chip on your shoulder.

The people who kneel aren’t going to go away just because you wish they would. You might try loving them.

 

[Mysty101]

A. What do I reject from the entire conference of bishops?

What is this whole discussion???

What has the conference of bishops said?

I did not ask your opinion, I contradicted what you said.

And for the third time

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.

If no accommodations can be made for kneeling without making a spectacle of yourself, it would be better to stand.

SuZ

 

[bear06]

Mysty101:

Do I understand you correctly?----You reject the interpretation of the entire conference of Bishops, but expect me to accept your interpretation?. smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/10/10_3_1v.gif %between%

These letters post date the USCCB! If the Congregation letters had never been written I’d be inclined to agree with you!

 

[bear06]

And for the third time

Quote:
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.

If no accommodations can be made for kneeling without making a spectacle of yourself, it would be better to stand.

This really kills me to no end because I feel like I know where you are coming from and on just about every other subject I would agree with you and disagree with Panis Angelicas but it would seem that this is your opinion and not the opinion of Rome. How is Panis Angelicas interpreting incorrectly “completely appropriate” and “should not be imposed upon”?

Do you believe the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments is the ultimate authority here? They have been approached on this matter and have answered AFTER the GIRM came out.

Look, I’ve really got no horse in this race. I pretty much go with the “when in Rome…” attitude. I kneel when I’m in at the Church that 50% use the kneeling rail and I stand when I’m at my Church where the old folks are likely to trip and break a hip!

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Mysty101:

I asked you to validate your responses, and IMHO, you have not been able to do so.

SuZ

I’ve scanned the entire thread. I must’ve missed where you asked me to validate my responses. Please give the post number.

On post number 29, you asked, “What are your feelings” on some quotes. Then, on post number 120, addressed to me, you stated that I “still” had “not addressed” several quotes. I do not believe I was ever asked to “validate,” but using letters from the CDW in chronological order, I do believe that I proved the case that the Vatican’s intent, even before approving the norm, was to permit those who wish to kneel to do so without negative repercussions.

As to the statement which you have posted three times and repeatedly asked for comment: (Remember, you asked for it) Had I written such tripe, I hope I would have had the good sense deleted it the first time it posted.
To repeat it thrice is inconceivably boorish.
I hadn’t wanted to respond to such condescending, uncharitable, remarks which are completely beyond true Catholic thought.
Those who kneel are every bit as much a part of the Community as those who stand. They are members of the Mystical Body of Christ by eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood, regardless of what posture they assume when so doing.
Those who kneel do not need to “seek the pastor for a solution,” as they do not have a problem. Perhaps you should seek the pastor.
They should not be treated as outcasts, nor sent off to the leper colonies of the “like-minded” so that you can have the Church all to yourself and you won’t have to see them kneel before the Most Blessed Sacrament.
You could try loving them. You could ask Father about giving them a secure place to kneel. But no, it’s all about SuZ and her distractions and how she regards fellow parishoners as not worthy members of her community.
Here’s a suggestion, if those who kneel bother you so much, fix your eyes upon Jesus, Who you have just consumed or are about to consume, or a crucifix, or close your eyes and pray.
**The Vatican says they can kneel without being imposed upon, so give it up and stop imposing upon them. **
You preach unity?!! smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/10/10_3_1v.gif

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

bear06,

Again I graciously thank you for your use of reason concerning this matter. :bowdown: < - me, kneeling in profound gratitude.