Receive Communion standing or kneeling?

[Mysty101]

This is so silly again. We do stand unless we are in a Church that kneels and we’ve said it time and time and time again.

Well, no need to continue, since we agree. smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_11.gif

I said

And remember I did say that I thought kneeling was fine, if there were provisions

.

%between%

 

[bear06]

Mysty101:

Well, no need to continue, since we agree. smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_11.gif

I said .

%between%

Well, we don’t agree on everything but I do agree that we probably don’t need to continue since I don’t think much convincing is going to be done! I’ll join you all in some other debate where we’re on the same side. It’s more fun!

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

bear06:

The Bishops gave the norm. Some decided they didn’t want to follow the norm for whatever reasons, so they went to Rome. Rome said–OK don’t follow the norm, and they can’t call you disobedient. (Illicit is not disobedient–different aspect of the situation)

Well, I was kinda looking forward to the end of this thread…phew!
But I would just like to point out what I think may be an error in the chronology of events as posted above and previously by Mysty.

Firstly, I believe a number of the faithful, anticipating sweeping changes in the new GIRM, wrote to Rome about their concerns. Their altar rails had been removed, some of the parish’s kneelers had been taken out, and they desired to preserve the posture of kneeling in the Liturgy, both at communion time and other times.

The US bishops proposed the norm for standing to the CDW, and the CDW responded that they agreed with the norm in principle, but wanted a clause to protect those who kneel, since they’d already heard from “more than a few.”

Hence the US bishops inserted the clause about not denying Holy Communion and pastorally addressing with proper catechesis in instances where kneeling occurred.

The norm was then given the recognitio by the CDW and received the force of law.

However, some either didn’t understand the stipulations associated with the norm, or deliberately chose to defy it, refused Holy Communion to kneeling communicants or otherwise imposed upon them, referred to their actions as disobedient or illicit, and brought the wrath of Rome in rather strong, stern words of clarification and citation.

Ever since, those who feel compelled to kneel have felt free to kneel, while some have regarded them as some sort of liturgical rebels.

(It was not as though the norm had already been established and the faithful revolted, in other words.)

 

[Peter_Russell]

Ditto!

In my experience of attending mass at different R.C.C’s I have found some do and some don’t kneel to the Blessed Host. It is not showing irreverence not to kneel if the particular church does not practice this form of reverence, however, I would like to suggest a ‘pre-genuflection’ prior to making the head of the queue. This does not interupt the line and shows reverence…

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

Hi,
This is from a very high authority in Rome as you will see. It clearly states you may kneel and receive Holy Communion on the tongue. And noone has the right to deny you Holy Communion. There is noone in my country with more authority. I suspect it’s the same in your country. Read on to find out for yourself.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon14.gif

Yours in Jesus, Mary and Joseph

John

P.S. I have had to shorten this article to post it.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif

The recent Instruction from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments “on certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist” vindicates the right of the laity to complain about liturgical abuses.
***Redemptionis Sacramentum ***states that any Catholic has the right to lodge a complaint to the diocesan Bishop or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. However it is fitting that the report or complaint should go first to the diocesan Bishop and it is to be made in truth and charity.

The Instruction is a sequel to the Holy Father’s Encyclical letter Ecclesia de Eucharistia, and is to be read in continuity with the letter. It is not primarily about regulations and rubrics, as critics might claim, but about the Eucharist, central to Catholic life and faith, hence protected by official practices and laws that affirm the Church’s teaching on the Eucharist.

Signed by Cardinal Francis Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation, the document has been mandated by Pope John Paul II. It was prepared in consultation with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Liturgical abuses often compromise Catholic faith in the Real Presence and the Sacrifice of the Mass, doctrines reaffirmed in the introductory sections.

The rights of the faithful, and reverence during Holy Communion, are emphasised:

• Communicants are free to choose whether to receive on the tongue or in the hand, but if they receive in the hand they must consume the Host in the presence of the minister of Communion.
• People cannot be denied Communion because they choose to kneel or stand.
• The priest must receive Communion before the faithful receive Communion.
• The practice of “self-intinction” (communicants dipping the Host in the chalice) is forbidden.
• The Communion plate should be retained so as to avoid the danger of the sacred Host or some fragment of it falling.
• The vessels are to be cleansed at the altar or credence table after Communion or after Mass (i.e., they are not taken to the sacristy to be cleansed).

The Instruction also repeats the rule that children are to make their first Confession before first Communion.

It remains to be seen to what extent the norms and provisions of Redemptionis Sacramentum will be enforced. But the laity now know that they can appeal to Rome. This is why the Instruction should be circulated everywhere so that Catholics can enjoy the right to the Liturgy of the Church - and the right to be informed.

Reprinted from AD2000 Vol 17 No 4 (May 2004), p. 3

AD2000 Home | Article Index | Bookstore | About Us | Subscribe Online | Contact Us | LinksPage design and automation by
Umbria Associates Pty Ltd © 2001-2004

 

[bear06]

Before another tangent is started, I would refer to ALL of the posts because the little debate we’ve had goes far beyond RS. I actually agree with Deacon Ed and his canon law knowledge regarding RS (found in the RS and canon law thread). In fact there’s very little I disagree with on this thread. It all comes down to one paragraph and whether or not it can be separated into direction and advice or not.

Thanks to all who’ve participated but I think this one has been exhausted!

 

[Mysty101]

Hi and welcome to you Russels,

I think we’ve covered most of the points you are making. Perhaps you might want to read the more recent of the old posts before posting to avoid redundancy.

 

[pax_christi]

Here is a USCCB website address that might shed some light in this matter:

nccbuscc.org/liturgy/documents/thirtyquestions.shtml

Refer to question #28. It is within the USCCB’s own website that this question is addressed and answered “no person should ever be denied Holy Communion because they have made a different gesture.”

It seems that the USCCB has set the norms, but with the understanding that those wishing to genuflect before receiving Holy Communion are permitted. The “norm” , RS or GIRM, never said we should start “labelling” each other.

The US norm is clear. Rome is clear. We can still genuflect before we receive Holy Communion. Can we stop disagreeing/arguing about this matter? Can we stop focusing on who’s right or who’s wrong and reverence our Lord according to His Will, not ours? Are we so deaf already that we no longer hear the voice of God in our hearts? Isn’t this exactly what Satan wants God’s children to be doing–arguing, disagreeing, getting angry because we don’t see eye to eye?

Isn’t internal unity more important than external unity? Surely, there are more important matters in life that require our attention and energy than to be overly concerned with “crossing every ‘t’ and dotting every ‘i’”

If all your comments in your posts expresses your faith, than are you no longer “living” the life that God has given you?

Pax tecum

 

[albert_cipriani]

pax christi:

The US norm is clear. Rome is clear. We can still genuflect before we receive Holy Communion.

Clarity is not the be-all and end-all of morality, it’s only the first step in the formation of our moral will. The fact that some bureaucrat or the pope himself makes it perfectly clear that he wants us to receive communion standing up with our own hands just like how we stuff a hamburger into our face is just the beginning, not the end, of our moral dilemma.

Can we stop disagreeing/arguing about this matter?

Sure, when we’re spiritually or physically dead. Until that time, you should expect all pious Catholics to receive our Lord in a manner different than at a drive-through burger stand.

Isn’t internal unity more important than external unity?

That’s like saying, isn’t our stomach more important than our eyes. No. They are both important and to insist otherwise is to push a false dichotomy.

Surely, there are more important matters in life that require our attention and energy…

Right. For example, do you want a malt with your fries?! To disparage the importance of sacramental reverence seems positively sinful to me. If you really don’t think that the comportment of your body is important when receiving the body of Christ, you are in danger of receiving Him unworthily. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
http://www.geocities.com/albert_cipriani/index.html
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ReligiousPhilosophy/

 

[Mysty101]

pax christi:

Here is a USCCB website address that might shed some light in this matter:

nccbuscc.org/liturgy/documents/thirtyquestions.shtml

Refer to question #28. It is within the USCCB’s own website that this question is addressed and answered “no person should ever be denied Holy Communion because they have made a different gesture.”

I can’t understand this argument-why someone thinks that putting their will over that of an entire conference of Bishops is the best approach, even if it is allowed. Where is the supportive attitude toward the authority of the USCCB?
**

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.
**When receiving Holy Communion, 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. **
Does "Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm " sound like this is encouraged, or even thought a practical option?
If you are in a Church where many people are kneeling or genuflecting, then it is really more of a personal decision, but if everyone else is standing and bowing, it is better to do the same.

 

[misericordie]

Minerva:

I would imagine the reasons for the norm are that kneeling disrupts the flow of the communion line. If churches still had altar rails, kneeling wouldn’t be as much of a problem. Frankly I wish they’d bring back altar rails and make kneeling the norm again. There’s too little reverence for the Eucharist among Catholics these days.

Thank God here in the Archdiocese of NEW YORK the two parishes I do attend, have the altar rails, and they will not be removed thank GOD!!! The pastors always have been young and very orthodox:tiphat: .

 

[misericordie]

Mysty101:

Well, no need to continue, since we agree. smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_11.gif

I said .

I wonder if there is a HIGHER authority above the USCCB? Well lo and behold, there is: THE VATICAN=and it has said that we have a right to kneel IF THE COMMUNICANT so chooses!! WOE according to the Vatican and recently Cardinal Ratzinger, to a priest who screams as one Augustinian did in the Bronx to someone: "GET UP!!! NOW!!! In frot of the whole gathering of the faithful at a Sunday Mass. According to Rome, he can suffer severe penalties. I know one too who had to PUBLICALLY apologize to his parish for his arrogant similar behavior here.

 

[Mysty101]

misericordie:

Thank God here in the Archdiocese of NEW YORK the two parishes I do attend, have the altar rails, and they will not be removed thank GOD!!! The pastors always have been young and very orthodox:tiphat: .

Do they celebrate any NO Masses, of just the Traditional Latin? I do appreciate some Latin, especially the chants in the ordinary. I don’t understand Latin well enough to appreciate the readings or even the Eucharistic Prayer in Latin.

 

[Mysty101]

misericordie:

I wonder if there is a HIGHER authority above the USCCB? Well lo and behold, there is: THE VATICAN=and it has said that we have a right to kneel IF THE COMMUNICANT so chooses!! WOE according to the Vatican and recently Cardinal Ratzinger, to a priest who screams as one Augustinian did in the Bronx to someone: "GET UP!!! NOW!!! In frot of the whole gathering of the faithful at a Sunday Mass. According to Rome, he can suffer severe penalties. I know one too who had to PUBLICALLY apologize to his parish for his arrogant similar behavior here.

I agree no one should embarrass anyone, but I personally wouldn’t kneel if there were no provisions. I don’t know if I would kneel even if I had a choice (tempramental back and knees), but If everyone were kneeling, I would kneel, and I feel that if everyone is standing, everyone should stand, not stand out by kneeling.

 

[Mysty101]

PS

misericordie:

I wonder if there is a HIGHER authority above the USCCB? Well lo and behold, there is: THE VATICAN=and it has said that we have a right to kneel IF THE COMMUNICANT so chooses!!

I don’t think “cannot be denied Communion and is to be instructed as to the reasons for the norm” is the same meaning as “has a right”.

 

[misericordie]

Mysty101:

I agree no one should embarrass anyone, but I personally wouldn’t kneel if there were no provisions. I don’t know if I would kneel even if I had a choice (tempramental back and knees), but If everyone were kneeling, I would kneel, and I feel that if everyone is standing, everyone should stand, not stand out by kneeling.

I wonder why I am not surprised? Of course, some people care of what OTHERS may be doing or what they think, rather than pure and HOLY INTENTIONS OF adoration to God as Cardinal Ratzinger has said: “Kneeling in Mass is a pious and traditional way adoration to God, and to deny a person Communion on that ground is reprehensable.”

 

[misericordie]

Mysty101:

Do they celebrate any NO Masses, of just the Traditional Latin? I do appreciate some Latin, especially the chants in the ordinary. I don’t understand Latin well enough to appreciate the readings or even the Eucharistic Prayer in Latin.

Actaully Saint Agnes Church (the Church here in Manhattan where the famous Bishop Fulton Sheen once was) has ONE Tridentine Latin Indult Mass EVERY Sunday well attended, young couples etc, standing room only. The other is Saint Paul’s Church on East 117th Street in Manhattan, and they ONLY offer the NO MASS: but the rubrics are followed to the FOOT OF THE LETTER. There are too NO altar girls, no “Extraordinary minister of communion”, No liturgical dancers, not even deacons: ONLY THE PRIESTS!!! DISTRIBUTE COMMUNION!!

 

[Mysty101]

misericordie:

I wonder why I am not surprised? Of course, some people care of what OTHERS may be doing or what they think, rather than pure and HOLY INTENTIONS OF adoration to God as Cardinal Ratzinger has said: “Kneeling in Mass is a pious and traditional way adoration to God, and to deny a person Communion on that ground is reprehensable.”

No one is against kneeling at Mass, and certainly no one is saying anyone should be denied Communion. We are suggesting that people put aside their personal preferences for the sake of unity (and safety, if there are no provisions for kneeling)

And the sign of reverence? We are instructed to bow while the person in front of us is receiving. If everyone decided they wanted to genuflect, aside from chios, the Mass would run into the next scheduled Mass. We must put aside our personal preferences for the good of the Community. If our Bishops decided this is best (and it was approved by the Vatican), this is what we should voluntarily do, regardless of our preference or “right”

 

[misericordie]

Mysty101:

No one is against kneeling at Mass, and certainly no one is saying anyone should be denied Communion. We are suggesting that people put aside their personal preferences for the sake of unity (and safety, if there are no provisions for kneeling)

And the sign of reverence? We are instructed to bow while the person in front of us is receiving. If everyone decided they wanted to genuflect, aside from chios, the Mass would run into the next scheduled Mass. We must put aside our personal preferences for the good of the Community. If our Bishops decided this is best (and it was approved by the Vatican), this is what we should voluntarily do, regardless of our preference or “right”

well, one solution TO ALL: THE LATIN TRIDENTINE MASS: THIS ONE HAS NOT YET BEEN HIJACKED.

 

[katherine2]

misericordie:

well, one solution TO ALL: THE LATIN TRIDENTINE MASS: THIS ONE HAS NOT YET BEEN HIJACKED.

Oh, yes it has.