Receive Communion standing or kneeling?

[Panis_Angelicas]

bear06:

Hey Panis, it was you who limited your comment to those who kneel. I limited my response to your comment.

I think I said that those who kneel are as much a member of the Community as those who stand. Or, was it some other comment? Not sure what you mean.

I think one of the things that annoys me is that it seems that a lot of people think those who kneel and are in schism are somehow better than those who stand and are in schism.

How can that be? Schism is schism.

Schism is schism.

You took the words right out of my mouth!

I don’t have sympathy for schism no matter what the reason.

I feel bad in that they are potentially losing their eternal souls, journeying down a wrong path and away from the true Church which Christ established to show us the way.

I feel bad for them as far as they’ve cut themselves off for the Church.

Agreed.

They are just two sides of the same coin and, this should go without saying, none of them should receive Communion.

Absolutely. It isn’t about whether a person stands or kneels, so much as that he presents himself to God with a pure, contrite heart.

The “Novus Ordo” camp seems to rail far more against liberal schismatics than the “Tridentine” camp seems to rail against ultra-Conservative schismatics. The “Tridentine” camp, FOR THE MOST PART, seems to try and make excuses. Unfortunately, I think that really turns people off to just about anything “Tridentine”.

I’m not familiar with both “camps.” I attend the Novus Ordo.
I would love to experience the Tridentine Mass, personally, for the taste of a history and for the mystery and reverence to which those who’ve attended attest. From what I hear, it is comprised mostly of young people and young families, not the blue-haired old ladies one might expect. Someday I hope to find out, hopefully before I have blue hair.

Either way, whether one rejects the authority of the Holy Father, or Humane Vitae, for instance, liberal or conservative matters not. It’s still schism.

Since the sedes have already established their own church, I don’t know why any of them would come to the Novus Ordo and kneel to receive. I’ve read a sede ‘priest’s’ comment that Communion consecrated at the NO isn’t truly the Body and Blood. I guess, like anything else, there are degrees of schism, and we know not what is in the communicant’s heart. If kneeling to receive the Lord keeps a communicant in the True Church and not looking elsewhere for some perceived ‘reverence,’ then I doubt that Jesus would disapprove.

St. Paul warned us all well: Let a man examine himself, lest he partake unworthily and bring judgement upon himself. (paraphrased from 1 Corinthians) That said, it really isn’t up to any of us to pass judgement upon who is worthily receiving, unless the communicant is very open and persistent in his separation from the Church’s teachings.

 

[bear06]

Looks like we’re probably in agreement. I’m not just talking about sede vacantists though. There are those that can swear allegiance to the Pope but they have removed there submission but that’s a whole other argument.

As far as the camp argument goes, you are lucky you haven’t been exposed. It is still a great annoyance of mine!

unless the communicant is very open and persistent in his separation from the Church’s teachings.

’

These would be the only people I’d dare to judge and they’re found in both “camps”

 

[Mysty101]

ellent:

Since I have arthritis, I would say, standing.However I really do think standing is better because it would move things along. However, I guess it would be up to the priest.

From a religious point of view, I would say it does not matter, since Christ did not say either way.

EllenT

But the Church did, and as Catholics we must obey. We are trying to discuss this using the official position of the Church.

SuZ

 

[Mysty101]

Panis Angelicas:

The Vatican had said “completely appropriate,” not “acceptable.” If posing this question, I might say (instead of that area that I emboldened) how are we to regard kneeling?
!

and the GIRM says
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

Why would you need pastoral address if everything is OK?

SuZ

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Re-read that segment which you keep underlining, SuZ.

It doesn’t say that** the person who kneels** “needs pastoral counselling.”
It says that “such instances” do.
For all you or I know, such pastoral counselling could involve the entire congregation, and could mean that the priests read a letter to the faithful from the pastor, explaining the Vatican’s intent on preserving this posture of “profound adoration” and giving further instruction on doing so, so that those who kneel are “not imposed upon.” It is your own assumption that the “pastoral counselling” phrase automatically means that the people who kneel are doing something disobedient to the bishops (though “protected” by the Vatican) and therefore need to be corrected privately by their pastors. Somehow, that would defy the Vatican’s stipulation that a clause be inserted to “protect those who kneel from imprudent actions on the part of the priests, deacons, and those in lay ministry in particular,” which is how that clause about pastoral counselling got inserted in the first place.

If that clause meant as you seem to think, wouldn’t the bishops be disobedient, then, to the Vatican, by imposing upon those who kneel, by calling them in to the rectory for a little private tsk-tsk?

Either that clause is obedient to Rome and intended to “protect those who kneel,” (as the bishops were instructed when formulating this adaptation) or it is disobedient to Rome and means what you seem to think – that those who kneel are to be directly dealt with in a private session to discuss and “correct” their posture.

Since the Vatican has also put out a lot of letters and papers praising kneeling, what could a pastor say against it? It is more likely, then, that the Vatican gave this norm, with the clause about pastoral counselling, the force of law, expecting that the clause meant that the pastors would defend such instances, explaining the reasons for the norm and the reasons that kneeling is also “completely appropriate.”

 

[Mysty101]

Some of these documents are vague, and I believe it may be intentionally, to give the Bishops an option. Like it or not your Bishop is your immediate shepherd, and Rome will usually back him up if push comes to shove.

As I said, I personally have nothing against kneeling, if proper provisions can be made. Perhaps the reason not to kneel would be because it created an unsafe or obstacle condition—and in this case, the person should not kneel—safety or the needs of many people would take priority over the wants of a few.

Be reasonable. If many want to kneel, provisions should be made, but if they are not—throwing yourself on the floor is not a good solution.

Do you honestly believe that Jesus is more pleased with a showy demonstration of questionable reverence than respectfully standing?

As st Teresa said:

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

SuZ

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

If I might say a word about blindness and near blindness…

I grew up in a home where we were caretakers for my grandmother (and namesake) who had been completely blinded by diabetes and stroke. I used to walk her through the house to get to the dinner table, etc. She was, and remains, the most pious woman I ever met.
(I remember trying to walk around the house with my eyes closed to imagine what it must be like to be her.)
I would be legally blind, if not for corrective lenses, and since this affliction is on both sides of my family, I may one day have the same handicap as your mother.
In our parish there is a husband who is legally blind, whose wife accompanies him to Holy Communion. The sighted spouse leads, and the blind spouse follows, with his hand upon her shoulder. In this way, should a little child pop his body partially outside the pew to see if Mommy and Daddy are on their way back from Communion, or a person genuflect or kneel ahead of them, the sighted person is aware and can make the adjustments necessary. It works so harmoniously for this couple and speaks unspeakably about the bond they share in this life. It seems to me that having a sighted person lead a non-sighted person might work out with less chances of any mishaps.
I make this observation with all due respect to those whose sight is severly limited.

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Mysty101:

Some of these documents are vague,

They are as clear as a summer’s day. Not only that, the Vatican has repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated, so that there is no way one can say he/she didn’t get it, unless they really choose to disregard the Vatican’s intent.

and I believe it may be intentionally, to give the Bishops an option.

Now, that’s really ridiculous. I can hear the Vatican now, “Let’s be vague on this subject, so the bishops can have an option” an option to what?

Like it or not your Bishop is your immediate shepherd,

What makes you think I deny that, or don’t like it?

and Rome will usually back him up if push comes to shove.

Yes, usually, but not in this issue! In this issue, repeatedly, Rome has “stood” on the side of those who kneel.

As I said, I personally have nothing against kneeling, if proper provisions can be made. Perhaps the reason not to kneel would be because it created an unsafe or obstacle condition—and in this case, the person should not kneel—safety or the needs of many people would take priority over the wants of a few.

I’d venture to say that probably as many people trip over their own feet in the Communion line, or over little children in line who are not communicating, as they do over one who kneels.

throwing yourself on the floor

I love how you attempt to denigrate a posture the Vatican regards as an “expression of adoration.”

Do you honestly believe that Jesus is more pleased with a showy demonstration of questionable reverence than respectfully standing?

Take out the judgemental words “of questionable reverence” and “respectfully,” and that question is easier to answer. You are implying that anyone who kneels is demonstating “questionable reverence,” while anyone who stands is doing so “respectfully.”
Do I honestly believe that Jesus is more pleased with a showy demonstration than standing? Did you listen to the Gospel last Sunday? The fella in the back making a showy demonstration was more pleasing to God than the upfront guy who thought he was doing all the right stuff according to the laws. Hmmmmm. Read Luke 18:9-14.

That said, I do not consider kneeling for Holy Communion a “showy demonstration.” Liturgical dancers, yes. Kneeling for Communion, no.

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Here is something written by Cardinal Ratzinger that should clear up any “vagueness.”
(I have not altered the original text. Emboldened and italicized lines are copied and pasted directly as they appeared in the source of this writing.)

---

From Cardinal Ratzinger’s The Spirit of the Liturgy
There are groups, of no small influence, who are trying to talk us out of kneeling. “It doesn’t suit our culture”, they say (which culture?) “It’s not right for a grown man to do this – he should face God on his feet”. Or again: “It’s not appropriate for redeemed man – he has been set free by Christ and doesn’t need to kneel any more”…
Kneeling does not come from any culture – it comes from the Bible and its knowledge of God…

First there is the account of how, after the multiplication of the loaves, Jesus stays with the Father on the mountain, while the disciples struggle in vain on the lake with the wind and the waves. Jesus comes to them across the water. Peter hurries toward Him and is saved from sinking by the Lord. Then Jesus climbs into the boat, and the wind lets up. The text continues: “And the ship’s crew came and said, falling at His feet, ‘Thou art indeed the Son of God’” (Mt 14:33, Knox version). Other translations say: “[The disciples] in the boat worshiped [Jesus], saying …” (RSV). Both translations are correct. Each emphasizes one aspect of what is going on. The Knox version brings out the bodily expression, while the RSV shows what is happening interiorly. It is perfectly clear from the structure of the narrative that the gesture of acknowledging Jesus as the Son of God is an act of worship…
I have lingered over these texts, because they bring to light something important. In the two passages that we looked at most closely, the spiritual and bodily meanings of proskynein are really inseparable. The bodily gesture itself is the bearer of the spiritual meaning, which is precisely that of worship. Without the worship, the bodily gesture would be meaningless, while the spiritual act must of its very nature, because of the psychosomatic unity of man, express itself in the bodily gesture…

The two aspects are united in the one word, because in a very profound way they belong together. When kneeling becomes merely external, a merely physical act, it becomes meaningless. One the other hand, when someone tries to take worship back into the purely spiritual realm and refuses to give it embodied form, the act of worship evaporates, for what is purely spiritual is inappropriate to the nature of man. Worship is one of those fundamental acts that affect the whole man. That is why bending the knee before the presence of the living God is something we cannot abandon.
Continued
%between%

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Ratzinger continued…

The Hebrews regarded the knees as a symbol of strength, to bend the knee is, therefore, to bend our strength before the living God, an acknowledgment of the fact that all that we are we receive from Him. In important passages of the Old Testament, this gesture appears as an expression of worship…

There is much more that we might add. For example, there is the touching story told by Eusebius in his history of the Church as a tradition going back to Hegesippus in the second century. Apparently, Saint James, the “brother of the Lord”, the first bishop of Jerusalem and “head” of the Jewish Christian Church, had a kind of callous on his knees, because he was always on his knees worshipping God and begging forgiveness for his people (2, 23, 6).

Again, there is a story that comes from the sayings of the Desert Fathers, according to which the devil was compelled by God to show himself to a certain Abba Apollo. He looked black and ugly, with frighteningly thin limbs, but most strikingly, he had no knees.
The inability to kneel is seen as the very essence of the diabolical.

 

[Mysty101]

As usual you are taking things out of context, and putting words into my mouth

Take out the judgemental words “of questionable reverence” and “respectfully,” and that question is easier to answer. You are implying that anyone who kneels is demonstating “questionable reverence,” while anyone who stands is doing so “respectfully.”

Kneeling is, of course, reverent, but kneeling in the middle aisle when there are no provisions, and it is clearly indicated that the Bishop (to whom you profess to defer) prefers the standing posture, is definitely questionable. I never said that all kneeling was a showy demonstration.

What i did say is

Do you honestly believe that Jesus is more pleased with a showy demonstration of questionable reverence than respectfully standing?

The posture does not determine the respect, subjection of the will would definitely indicate respect whether it were to stand or kneel. I would definitely kneel if this was the norm of the community. I believe one of the reasons the norm was changed was that more people could stand than kneel, and the Bishops wanted a uniform posture to indicate unity of the community.

Do I honestly believe that Jesus is more pleased with a showy demonstration than standing? Did you listen to the Gospel last Sunday? The fella in the back making a showy demonstration was more pleasing to God than the upfront guy who thought he was doing all the right stuff according to the laws. Hmmmmm. Read Luke 18:9-14.

9To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: 10"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11The Pharisee stood up and prayed about1] himself: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men–robbers, evildoers, adulterers–or even like this tax collector. 12I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’
13"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

I was thinking of the same passage, but see the comparisen differently—they are both standing, but the guy in the back is not drawing attention to himself as in the fellow standing in the front row.

That said, I do not consider kneeling for Holy Communion a “showy demonstration.” Liturgical dancers, yes. Kneeling for Communion, no.

Liturgical dancers are all doing the same thing.

SuZ

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Ratzinger concludes, and please read and ponder well…

The expression used by Saint Luke to describe the kneeling of Christians (theis ta gonata) is unknown in classical Greek. We are dealing here with a specifically Christian word. With that remark, our reflections turn full circle to where they began. It may well be that kneeling is alien to modern culture – insofar as it is a culture, for this culture has turned away from the faith and no longer knows the one before whom kneeling is the right, indeed the intrinsically necessary gesture. The man who learns to believe learns also to kneel, and a faith or a liturgy no longer familiar with kneeling would be sick at the core. Where it has been lost, kneeling must be rediscovered, so that, in our prayer, we remain in fellowship with the apostles and martyrs, in fellowship with the whole cosmos, indeed in union with Jesus Christ Himself.

To read Ratzinger’s article in its entirety: adoremus.org/1102TheologyKneel.html

 

[Mysty101]

PS You can quote all the pro kneeling stuff in the world, but the botton line is --it is the USCCB that you must convince before this will happen. You cannot expect changes made for a few people who wish to rewrite the norms.

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Mysty101:

Liturgical dancers are all doing the same thing.

SuZ

I don’t understand this remark. Please elaborate.

Did you read the exerpts from Ratzinger’s article? Did it clear up any vagueness for you?

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Mysty101:

PS You can quote all the pro kneeling stuff in the world, but the botton line is --it is the USCCB that you must convince before this will happen.

What? Everything I have quoted was from Vatican officials. Does the Vatican bow down to the American bishops?

You cannot expect changes made for a few people who wish to rewrite the norms.

You seem to know their intentions, their attitudes, whether or not they acting out of sense of reverence, and now, even their wishes. Wow. I thought only God could do all that.

 

[otm]

Panis Angelicas:

It doesn’t say that** the person who kneels** “needs pastoral counselling.”
It says that “such instances” do.
For all you or I know, such pastoral counselling could involve the entire congregation, and could mean that the priests read a letter to the faithful from the pastor, explaining the Vatican’s intent on preserving this posture of “profound adoration” and giving further instruction on doing so, so that those who kneel are "not imposed upon."

One of the rules first year law students learn is that sentances are given their plain meaning. The word “rather” refers directly to the sentance preceeding it, which is “Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel.” To try and make the sentance starting with “rather” refer to something else is at best facetious. Even the rules of plain English require it to refer back to the communicants who kneel.
Panis Angelicus:

Somehow, that would defy the Vatican’s stipulation that a clause be inserted to “protect those who kneel from imprudent actions on the part of the priests, deacons, and those in lay ministry in particular,” which is how that clause about pastoral counselling got inserted in the first place.

No that is not how the sentance about counseling got stuck in, that is how the sentance “Communicants who kneel should not be denied Communion.” was inserted.
Panis Angelicus:

Either that clause is obedient to Rome and intended to “protect those who kneel,” (as the bishops were instructed when formulating this adaptation) or it is disobedient to Rome and means what you seem to think – that those who kneel are to be directly dealt with in a private session to discuss and “correct” their posture.

I tried to explain this before, but you have chosen to ignore my request. Show me where, in Canon Law, a letter has the force of law and rewrites an explicit Instruction. Further, show me where it says in them that the norm is changed, or that an alternative posture is specifically allowed, or that the GIRM is specifically revoked in part. The letters don’t state that. Nowhere in those letters does it state that people are not to be counseled when they kneel. Nowhere in those letters does it state that kneeling is an optional posture. Nowhere does it state in those letters that an indult has been granted.

Rome has not done so, and the GIRM rule stands. No one is being disobedient to Rome by counseling someone who kneels, as that is the specific rule and has not been abrogated, revised, repealed or otherwise modified by your letters.
Panis Angelicus:

Since the Vatican has also put out a lot of letters and papers praising kneeling, what could a pastor say against it?

How about “This is the rule that Rome has pubished in the GIRM. By kneeling you are drawing attention to yourself. By failing to follow the posture that Rome has promulgated in the GIRM, your actions could imply to others that following the law is not important. Given that there have been so many abuses of liturgical laws in the last 30 or more years, and given that you want to do what is best, please show by your obedience to this norm your willingness to follow the Church’s rules.”

It is obvious that some in Rome did not like the norm. It is also obvious that some in Rome would allow an option. However, Rome has the final say when the GIRM comes out, and they published it as it is. If they had wanted an option, they could have refused to publish it until the option was made part of the GIRM. They didn’t. All the talk about the letters is just that: talk. It is not law, it does not change the law.

Why can’t we follow it?

 

[Mysty101]

Amen----excellant post

%between%
Thank you smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/8/8_2_84.gif%between%

 

[bear06]

I’ll ask this again - Does the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments have authority over the USCCB?

 

[Mysty101]

I believe if they want to override the USCCB they must require modification of the adaptations as they did with RS --adaptations regarding Communion under both kinds.

 

[bear06]

Mysty101:

I believe if they want to override the USCCB they must require modification of the adaptations as they did with RS --adaptations regarding Communion under both kinds.

Where does your belief in this come from? Just curious. The very letters we pointed out, which some say hold no weight, specifically state that they have the authority:
**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. **

Hey, while I was doing some more reading on this subject I just came across this from Cardinal Medina Estevez.

“This Dicastery agrees in principle to the insertion into n. 160 of a statement, as apparently desired by the Bishops, that Holy Communion in the United States of America is normally received standing. At the same time, the tenor of not a few letters received from the faithful in various Dioceses of that country leads the Congregation, even after a very careful consideration of such data, 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.”

adoremus.org/1201-0102AmAdaptations.html

This actually clarifies, at least for me, one of the letters he (or the other guy) sent that says that they already told them that nobody was to be “imposed upon”, etc., etc., etc. I was wondering where it was that they had already addressed it.