Receive Communion standing or kneeling?

[Mysty101]

OK, I’m not a Canon lawyer, but I’ll try to share what I can glean from this plethora of rules and procedures.

For all those who consider the CDW the last word, I believe RS would be the trump card, since it is not only written by CDW, but also approved by the Pope, and the most recent document.

**

19.

The diocesan Bishop, the first steward of the mysteries of God in the particular Church entrusted to him, is the moderator, promoter and guardian of her whole liturgical life.39 …

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.”45 Still, the Bishop must take care not to allow the removal of that liberty foreseen by the norms of the liturgical books so that the celebration may be adapted in an intelligent manner to the church building, or to the group of the faithful who are present, or to particular pastoral circumstances in such a way that the universal sacred Rite is truly accommodated to human understanding.46

Some may not agree with this and I’m sure “within the limits of his competence" can be interpreted many ways. Some people do not want to accept that the Bishop is in that position, and will be backed by Rome in many instances which may seem to be abusive by some of the faithful.

**

90.

** “The faithful should receive Communion kneeling or standing, as the Conference of Bishops will have determined,” with its acts having received the recognitio of the Apostolic See. “However, if they receive Communion standing, it is recommended that they give due reverence before the reception of the Sacrament, as set forth in the same norms.”176

91. In distributing Holy Communion it is to be remembered that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who seek them in a reasonable manner, are rightly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.”177 Hence any baptized Catholic who is not prevented by law must be admitted to Holy Communion. Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.

92. Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice,178 if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.179

93. The Communion-plate for the Communion of the faithful should be retained, so as to avoid the danger of the sacred host or some fragment of it falling.180

94. It is not licit for the faithful “to take . . . by themselves . . . and, still less, to hand . . . from one to another” the sacred host or the sacred chalice.181 Moreover, in this regard, the abuse is to be set aside whereby spouses administer Holy Communion to each other at a Nuptial Mass.

As you can see the instruction regarding kneeling is far less forceful than in the letters. I understand the US Bishops want a uniform posture, and all who can kneel are able to stand, but many who stand are not able to kneel. I believe this is one of the main reasons for the norm. The bishops do not want to encourage kneeling for those reasons.
**

 

[Mysty101]

Now let’s look at the US adaptions of the GIRM for further clarification
**
Distribution of Holy Communion
This adaptation will take the place of number 160, paragraph 2:
The faithful are not permitted to take up the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice themselves, and still less, hand them on to one another.** 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.In no way could this be interpreted as encouraging kneeling. It is clearly only a qualified allowance.

As can be seen below, if the norm needs to be changed there will be a modification. And as I said the norms for distribution under both kinds were changed after RS, since this was instructed, but I do believe there will be more communication on this, since the US Bishops do prefer consecration in one vessel.

On June 14, 2001, Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America

was approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and subsequently confirmed by the Holy See. Numbers 36 and 37 of these Norms address the procedures to be followed when Holy Communion under both kinds is celebrated. Read in tandem with the instruction Redemptionis sacramentum, these norms describe the following procedure for the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds: “The altar is prepared with corporal, purificator, Missal, and chalice (unless the chalice is prepared at a side table) by the deacon and servers. The gifts of bread and wine are brought forward by the faithful and received by the priest or deacon at a convenient place (Cf. GIRM, no. 333).” (Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds (NDHC), no. 36)

Because the instruction prohibits the consecration of wine in flagons, chalices for distribution to priests and to the faithful are prepared at this point. It should be noted that the principal chalice and the vessel containing the bread should be larger than the smaller vessels for distribution to the faithful. Smaller chalices of wine may be prepared at the altar or at a side table and are then suitably placed on the altar. “As the Agnus Dei or Lamb of God is begun, the Bishop or priest alone, or with the assistance of the deacon, and if necessary of concelebrating priests, breaks the eucharistic bread. Other empty…ciboria or patens are then brought to the altar if this is necessary. The deacon or priest places the consecrated bread in several ciboria or patens…, if necessary, …as required for the distribution of Holy Communion. If it is not possible to accomplish this distribution in a reasonable time, the celebrant may call upon the assistance of other deacons or concelebrating priests… (NDHC, no. 37)”
**

 

[katherine2]

bear06:

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

The Congregation has no original or divine authority of its own right. It only has what authority the Pope delegates it.

The Conference has no original or divine authority of its own right. It only has what authority the bishops or the Pope delegate it.

Sinec neither has any original authority, there is no issue of superior or inferior.

 

[Catholic2003]

The delegated authority of the CDWDS is described in articles 62-70 of Pastor Bonus.

The authority of Episcopal Conferences is described in canon law and Apostolos Suos.

 

[bear06]

Some may not agree with this and I’m sure “within the limits of his competence" can be interpreted many ways. Some people do not want to accept that the Bishop is in that position, and will be backed by Rome in many instances which may seem to be abusive by some of the faithful.

I accept the teachings of the bishops as long as they are in communion with Rome. I do think you’re right about the interpretation because obviously you and I are interpreting this differently.

Here’s my take on the directions of kneeling. The USCCB’s original draft did not contain the provision for people who were going to kneel. The CDW, before the GIRM came out told them that they needed to make a provision to protect those who wanted to kneel. The USCCB threw in the part about not denying and giving catechesis (which could have meant anything since they never really said what it was) the CDW probably felt this would suffice. GIRM came out, complaints came in, letters of correction went out to the bishops telling them they that they blew it and that nobody should be imposed upon to stand.

So, now we’re down to those who think the CDW has jurisdiction over the matter and those who don’t. Maybe this is an question for the AAA Forum. They never did answer the question I posed so I will try and pose it again.

Like I said, I stand at the Church we regularly go to and I kneel at the Church where 50% kneel at the rail. I agree with some that some people probably have an I’m more pious than you attitude but I’m also aware of some who kneel just because they love our Lord and feel unworthy to stand before him. They’re not trying to be in your face or pre-VII. In fact, they love VII. I’m of the mind that we can’t judge the interiors of others (unless they flat out tell us and then it’s not interior anymore!), that the CDW has actually said that kneeling is appropriate and that we really should be paying attention to what everyone else in the Church is doing anyway when we are approaching Our Lord.

I’m not for the rad-Trad platform, but I would at least hope that, even if you have a different interpretation, that you could at least see where those who kneel with proper intentions (the non-more-pious-than-thou-crowd) think they can kneel and still be following the will of the Magisterium.

 

[Mysty101]

bear06:

I’m not for the rad-Trad platform, but I would at least hope that, even if you have a different interpretation, that you could at least see where those who kneel with proper intentions (the non-more-pious-than-thou-crowd) think they can kneel and still be following the will of the Magisterium.

Yes, we are definitely splitting hairs here, but this is a discussion more in principle, than practice, since it was stated that kneeling is to be allowed.

My point is that although kneeling is allowed, many Pastors do not want it done for 3 reasons–
the unity of posture issue, (especially in parishes with a good percentage of people who are unable to kneel),
the fact that there are no provisions for kneeling and it could be an obstacle or safety situation,
whatever the intention, a side effect of kneeling when most people stand is calling attention to oneself.

If I wished to kneel, I would find a compromise. If many wished to kneel, I would get together with them and press the pastor to make provisions. If I were the only one, I think I would ask if I could get there early, and get in the end of the front pew and remain there for Communion.

I would not kneel on the floor in front of the priest—if I were more agile, perhaps genuflect and remain there to receive, but I would position myself at the end of the line. smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/17/17_1_22.gif

 

[bear06]

Those of us that kneel at the 50/50 parish wait until all of those who stand are done and then we get in line. Of course, that is in a Church with a kneeling rail which is used for the kneelers of the parish. Those that don’t wait simply kneel at the rail until everyone is done.

Most of the pastors in our diocese don’t even want us kneeling for the Consecration (our poor new bishop has his work cut out for him!). They really don’t want to ever let anyone kneel for communion and it’s not because of a safety issue.

Drawing attention to oneself, as long as one has proper intentions, is not always a bad thing. There were quite a few saints that drew attention to themselves while trying to love God as hard as they could. I don’t know why it would be so horrible to see somebody kneeling for Communion. I would, however, like I think everyone here, not like to see somebody trip and fall over somebody else. On this we can agree!

You may live in an orthodox diocese but I imagine that many of us live in radically liberal dioceses where the pastors pretty much take a “don’t get sanctimonious with me” attitude towards anyone on the more conservative side so compromises are not available. I think, in most cases, those with the proper intentions to kneel for Communion do try and be courteous to the other Communion goers. Like I said, I’m of the belief that there are those who are kneeling to “make a stand” rather than to just adore Our Lord but that’s not everyone and I’d just encourage the no kneelers to take this into account.

 

[Mysty101]

Of course, that is in a Church with a kneeling rail which is used for the kneelers of the parish. Those that don’t wait simply kneel at the rail until everyone is done.

This sounds like a very reasoable solution to the situation.

 

[Mysty101]

PS In perusing the USCCB site, I came across this document

usccb.org/liturgy/innews/072002.shtml

Clarification on the Proper Posture and Sign of Veneration for Reception of Holy Communion

In recent weeks, the Secretariat for the Liturgy has received several inquiries concerning both the proper posture for and the form of veneration to be made prior to receiving Holy Communion. This issue is directly addressed by the adaptation of number 160 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) approved by the USCCB and confirmed by the Holy
See. That adaptation reads as follows:

The norm for the 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
the proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.

When receiving Holy Communion standing, the communicant bows
his or her head before the sacrament as a gesture of reverence and
receives the Body of the Lord 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 also made before receiving the
Precious Blood.
Posture

It should be noted that the General Instruction o the Roman Missal assigns to Conferences of Bishops the decision as to whether the faithful should stand or kneel at the time of reception of Holy Communion. (no. 43 §2) The Bishops of the United States have decided that the normative posture for receiving Holy Communion should be standing.

Kneeling is not a licit posture for receiving Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States of America unless the bishop of a particular diocese has derogated from this norm in an individual and extraordinary circumstance.

The provision which follows this section is provided for those extraordinary circumstances when a communicant acts in contradiction to the decision of the bishops. Under no circumstances may a person be denied Holy Communion merely because he or she has refused to stand to receive Holy Communion. Rather, in such instances, the priest is obliged to provide additional catechesis so that the communicant might better understand the reason for the Bishops’ decision to choose standing as the normative posture for receiving Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States of America.

 

[bear06]

Well, we know what the USCCB says. I think the big difference still remains that some of us think the CDW’s letters trump the USCCB. I think that link Catholic2003 provided shows who’s got authority. So, I think the USCCB is being disobedient to Rome when they say it is not licit since CDW has said that nobody should be said to be acting illicitly by kneeling. Oh well. I doubt we’ll agree

 

[Joanne_ca]

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.

Bravo, couldn’t have said it better myself.

 

[otm]

katherine2:

The Congregation has no original or divine authority of its own right. It only has what authority the Pope delegates it.

The Conference has no original or divine authority of its own right. It only has what authority the bishops or the Pope delegate it.

Sinec neither has any original authority, there is no issue of superior or inferior.

Were that true, the Conference would not have to have changes in the GIRM approved by the Congregation.

 

[otm]

bear06:

Well, we know what the USCCB says. I think the big difference still remains that some of us think the CDW’s letters trump the USCCB. I think that link Catholic2003 provided shows who’s got authority. So, I think the USCCB is being disobedient to Rome when they say it is not licit since CDW has said that nobody should be said to be acting illicitly by kneeling. Oh well. I doubt we’ll agree

The CDW letter isn’t trumping the USCCB. The USCCB did not promulgate the GIRM, the CDW did.

You may choose to think anything you wish. Your thinking does not change the law, however, as much as you may think or wish it to. How can the USCCB be disobedient to the law Rome promulgated?

The only way that they could would be if the letters overruled the GIRM. There is nothing in the letters stating that they do. There is nothing in the letters stating that they grant an indult. The letters came about as a response to some priests who were attempting to enforce the posture of standing by refusing Communion. The letters made clear that refusing Communion was not a proper response to the incorrect posture, and they left standing the statement in the GIRM that one who knelt was to be counseled..

What part of that don’t you get?

Please, show me how you have decided that letters which do not specifically overrule a law, nor specifically provide an indult or option, overrule the law as written and approved by the CDW. Otherwise, please quit promoting that people decide for themselves what part is optional and what is not.

Your whole bit about the USCCB being disobedient if they correct someone flies in the face of plain sense, common sense reading of the GIRM and the historical cause of the statment being put into the GIRM.

I understand that some people don’t like the rule of standing. I understand that they feel that it is more pious to kneel than to stand. I am not attacking their piety. I do think that they are showing at least externally, an unwillingness to abide by the rules of the Church when those rules conflict with their own personal feelings and interpretations.

 

[bear06]

otm:

The CDW letter isn’t trumping the USCCB. The USCCB did not promulgate the GIRM, the CDW did.

You may choose to think anything you wish. Your thinking does not change the law, however, as much as you may think or wish it to. How can the USCCB be disobedient to the law Rome promulgated?

The only way that they could would be if the letters overruled the GIRM. There is nothing in the letters stating that they do. There is nothing in the letters stating that they grant an indult. The letters came about as a response to some priests who were attempting to enforce the posture of standing by refusing Communion. The letters made clear that refusing Communion was not a proper response to the incorrect posture, and they left standing the statement in the GIRM that one who knelt was to be counseled..

What part of that don’t you get?

Please, show me how you have decided that letters which do not specifically overrule a law, nor specifically provide an indult or option, overrule the law as written and approved by the CDW. Otherwise, please quit promoting that people decide for themselves what part is optional and what is not.

Your whole bit about the USCCB being disobedient if they correct someone flies in the face of plain sense, common sense reading of the GIRM and the historical cause of the statment being put into the GIRM.

I understand that some people don’t like the rule of standing. I understand that they feel that it is more pious to kneel than to stand. I am not attacking their piety. I do think that they are showing at least externally, an unwillingness to abide by the rules of the Church when those rules conflict with their own personal feelings and interpretations.

Argh! :banghead: What part of this don’t you get?

**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. **

This dicastery has specified that kneeling is “completely appropriate”!

 

[Mysty101]

I am quoting Deacon ED from the Canon Law thread regarding RS, but the principles could also apply here.

the instruction produced a conflict. The conflict needs to be resolved before we can proceed.

Is it bureaucratic? In part, yes! But it is also making sure that Rome understands that not all the complaints they have received are valid. Finally, it’s also about a different experience of liturgy than Rome is used to. We have to realize that most parish churches in Rome wouldn’t know what to do with a congregation of 500 people, most of whom go to communion. As a result, the American bishops spend a lot of time trying to educate Rome on what our experience is here – and that education never seems to stick.

This is why we frequently ask for indults that seem out of line with what Rome has specified. And, of course, our American tendency to follow rules often frustrates Rome. One simple example: we applied for an indult to allow the Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion to consume what was left in the cup after they had given communion. Rome’s response, which was very tactful, amounted to “You idiots, no indult is necessary for what should be obvious!” Ya’ can’t win 'em all!

The American Bishops saw a need for many in their congregations to stand (probably because many could not kneel–more older or less flexible coming to Church). Some people complained, so Rome said alright let them kneel, and be gracious about it, but gently instruct them regarding the norms. Does this really sound like kneeling is a good idea, especially when there are no provisions? Maybe kneelers can’t be called disobedient, but they sure can be called uncooperative, And do you really think this kneeling in more pleasing to Jesus, than cooperating with his Priests and Bishops?

 

[otm]

Mysty101:

I am quoting Deacon ED from the Canon Law thread regarding RS, but the principles could also apply here.

The American Bishops saw a need for many in their congregations to stand (probably because many could not kneel–more older or less flexible coming to Church). Some people complained, so Rome said alright let them kneel, and be gracious about it, but gently instruct them regarding the norms. Does this really sound like kneeling is a good idea, especially when there are no provisions? Maybe kneelers can’t be called disobedient, but they sure can be called uncooperative, And do you really think this kneeling in more pleasing to Jesus, than cooperating with his Priests and Bishops?

It should be obvious at this point that there are a number of individuals out there who see themselves as the final arbiter of what is right and holy, and will do any amount of mental gymnastics to justify their behavior when it is contrary to the written rule and they don’t agree with the written rule. They have little or no respect for bishops and cardinals with whom they disagree, labeling those authorities “disobedient”, “liberal”, “heretical” and on down the line, depending on their level of disagreement. They feel that they have an inside line to God and what is pleasing to Him based on the authorities with whom they agree. They attach to, or latch on to, anything which is said by the authority who sounds most like their own personal opinion, give statements by that individual the authority of law, and refuse to listen to anyone who may disagree. They fight at any liturgical change which they either don’t understand, or don’t like, based on the presumption that “the way we used to do it” was the only way we had ever done it, and the only way which was holy (both of which are just flat out wrong).

Although body postures can help to express piety, they are not a “sine qua non” for piety. Piety is an attitude; it borders on false piety when it heads toward a refusal to follow legitimate authority.

 

[Mysty101]

%between%We disagree. I do not see valid documentation for your claim.
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_2_204v.gif

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/11/11_12_11.gif

 

[otm]

bear06:

Argh! :banghead: What part of this don’t you get?

**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. **

This dicastery has specified that kneeling is “completely appropriate”!

Nice try. Doesn’t work. You have not explained the fact that the dicastery never made specific mention of either abrogating the law as expressed in the GIRM, or of granting a specific indult or permission.

The proper application they were referring to is that the communicant can not be punished by denying Communion, but is to be counseled. Nothing in the letters withdraws or changes that law.

The problem we have here is that you do not understand how laws are changed and/or abrogated. The letters which Rome received were not about being counseled; they were about being denied Communion. Your position simply devolves to “anything that Rome says is therefore equal to Law.”. And that simply isn’t so. Even Rome has a process by which they must comply in making or changing laws, and they are very specific and articulate when they do so. The fact that someone is not to be punished by being refused Communion does not thereby grant an indult or permission to do so, no matter how much you may want it to.

There is a very old phrase, “When in Rome, do what the Romans do”. You are in the United States. You might try doing what the GIRM for the United States requires; and if you choose not to, please do not complain when someone else decides to disobey some other aspect of the GIRM which you deem worthy of compliance; do not complain to the priest, or the bishop, or the papal nuncio, or the dicastery, as you have already shown that individual that it is not necessary to comply, as you know better.

 

[Mysty101]

OTM,
I apologize–I misread your post. It seems we are in agreement.

 

[bear06]

otm:

Nice try. Doesn’t work. You have not explained the fact that the dicastery never made specific mention of either abrogating the law as expressed in the GIRM, or of granting a specific indult or permission.

The proper application they were referring to is that the communicant can not be punished by denying Communion, but is to be counseled. Nothing in the letters withdraws or changes that law.

The problem we have here is that you do not understand how laws are changed and/or abrogated. The letters which Rome received were not about being counseled; they were about being denied Communion. Your position simply devolves to “anything that Rome says is therefore equal to Law.”. And that simply isn’t so. Even Rome has a process by which they must comply in making or changing laws, and they are very specific and articulate when they do so. The fact that someone is not to be punished by being refused Communion does not thereby grant an indult or permission to do so, no matter how much you may want it to.

There is a very old phrase, “When in Rome, do what the Romans do”. You are in the United States. You might try doing what the GIRM for the United States requires; and if you choose not to, please do not complain when someone else decides to disobey some other aspect of the GIRM which you deem worthy of compliance; do not complain to the priest, or the bishop, or the papal nuncio, or the dicastery, as you have already shown that individual that it is not necessary to comply, as you know better.

Once again, you’re completely ignoring what I have said. Do you believe the quote from the CDW? that they decide the manner in which the norm is to be understood? Do you deny that the CDW who has this power has said that kneeling is completely appropriate? Please just answer this for once.

Look again at my earlier posts. I am not denying the law as stated nor am I saying it’s been abrogated. From what I can tell it has been misinterpreted and the CDW has given clarification to the laity AND the USCCB on it’s application. I am simply taking the CDW at face value that they have the power to interpret how the norm is to be understood and they have said, once again, that nobody is to be imposed upon to stand, nobody should be called illicit for doing so, kneeling is completely appropriate, etc., etc., etc. For all you know, this maybe what it meant by proper catechesis since this has never been explained. Let them counsel away. I, personally, don’t think I’ve heard of anyone receiving counsel on this. By the way, I don’t think you know what the letters to Rome were about. If they were just about being denied Communion, they sure added a lot of unnecessary stuff into their responses.

Yikes! Please don’t continue to try and paint me into a rad-Trad corner. It couldn’t be farther from the truth. I don’t think you actually read the posts very well or you’d see that I actually practice the “when in Rome” mentality. I don’t see myself as final arbiter of anything. I leave that to Rome. In fact, I’ve stated time and time again that I’d actually be agreeing with you until I saw the letters from the CDW saying they had the authority over the application of the norm. You might want to take a look into the mirror when you throw out that statement. You seem to be the arbiter of the interior from exterior acts of piety.