Receiving Communion

[5Loaves]

Let me preface by saying ConstantineTG I’m not annoyed with you.

Its actually in the rubrics. But you are right, its still not a big enough offense to withhold communion. The priest still gives communion but would say “Amen” for the communicant. He just wants us to realize that we have to respond with “Amen”.

My point was he may need to realize that there are a number of reasons why someone may not respond with “Amen”, of which I gave three legitimate ones. Not everyone who attends the OF of Roman Rite of the Latin Church is familiar with all the rubrics for that Mass. As is evident many of those who normally assist in the OF of Roman Rite are themselves not familiar with a number of the rubrics. If he knows for sure it’s his own sheep who don’t know the rubrics for their OF Roman Rite then that can and should be addressed in the bulletin and in direct instruction, not when distributing communion to an individual. The EMHC in the OP clearly didn’t know this person isn’t a member of that parish – OP is not.

(I’m talking about the “Amen” here, not about some other failure by the person receiving which might endanger the Holy Eucharist which must be dealt with at the moment of distribution/reception.)

We may be “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church” but there actually is not one set of rubrics because there is more than one rite among our 23 Catholic Churches and there are even two forms for the Roman Rite (maybe more if you include EF low and high Mass in which it is my understanding the responses for the faithful are somewhat different Low vs High.) Any Catholic who is properly disposed may licitly receive Eucharist in any Catholic Church. We’re not required to know the rubrics for every rite. We are required to present ourselves with dignity and respect for reception of His pure Body, and His own precious Blood, which doubtless OP did.

I love our priests … and they are not perfect. They can have as many assumptions, including wrong assumptions, as can the laity, myself included.

“May the communion of Thy Holy Mysteries be neither to my judgment, nor to my condemnation, O Lord, but to the healing of soul and body.”

P.S. My Byzantine parish is small enough that our priest does know who are his sheep and whenever we have visitors, which is often, he will give them a basic heads up about how to receive Eucharist, since it is quite different from the EF and OF Roman Rite. Usually by then one of the faithful has already given the visitors a basic demo or the posture for receiving, and to not say “Amen”, tho no one blinks when that is heard. We are all pretty hard wired about these things.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Here’s an interesting link for you, ConstantineTG as well as for others about Pope Benedicts trying to set the stage as the “worldwide norm” of kneeling for communion: newsblaze.com/story/20090801065749zzzz.nb/topstory.html

Of course, this doesn’t prove anything except that Pope Benedict wants the “norm” worldwide to change to his “norm”. I, for one, hope and pray that it does.

And yet you’d think he can establish this as the norm if he wants to. But fact is, the Bishops have the authority too and any Pope will not just make moves based on what they want, right or wrong. He has to put the influence out there first. The important thing is that we are obedient to those who are in charge of us, and directly its our Bishops who are our pastors. I’ve been reading Canon Law a lot lately and while I’m lightyears away from being an expert, I’ve come to understand enough how much authority the Bishops have in their diocese. Also, I’ve read a quote from a saint who says that we can never be in communion with the Pope if we are not in communion with our Bishop (who is in communion with the Pope). The hierarchy works that way

 

[suko]

ConstantineTG, so is it licit or not licit to receive while kneeling? If it is, then how can it be a sin? There are many parishes out there that have only kneeling as the way to receive communion. This would mean there are vast number of parishes in disobedience.
I think you need to remember that a “norm” does not necessarily mean there’s only one licit way to do something; it’s just that, the norm.

 

[ConstantineTG]

It’s the U.S. bishops that have chosen to go their own way. I think the question here is, is it, or is it not a sin to “disobey” our U.S. bishops in regards to this issue. To me, I don’t believe so for this particular case. The way I see it, the word (“norm”), in it of itself, means that there are other licit choices that we can make, wouldn’t you think so?

Sure, why not
I just hope you’re not one to complain about those who choose to receive CITH when its not the norm, but is allowed.
Actually, comparing it with CITH, the language in the documents say that CITH “is allowed” or specifically “where it is allowed”. Meaning both COTT and CITH can be allowed, or just COTT.
Now, how kneeling is worded in the RS and GIRM, it says posture for Communion is standing or kneeling. Its not and, its or. So only one is the correct posture. Which one? RS continues, its the one that is prescribed by the Bishops Conference of the territory. And in the case of the US Bishop’s Conference, they’ve prescribe standing.

Again, one should not blindly follow our bishops. Ideally we should. But again, it’s this particular one where we should do what our heart is telling us to do (and if it’s to stand, then by all means, that person should stand) since as far as I can tell, it’s not a sin of disobedience. If the pope or somewhere in canon law said it was, I would stop, and hope others would too - but thankfully, I don’t see that happening. We will also have to agree to disagree here at this issue. I already know how my pastor feels about this, but just for some fun, you could ask your pastor on his thoughts on this issue. But again, every pastor will probably have a different answer since there is nothing extremely definitive on this issue on whether it’s a sin of disobedience or not.

Canon Law does not deal with Mass postures, the GIRM does. In fact, you won’t even find what constitutes valid matter for the Eucharist in Canon Law. While being one of the more authoritative documents of the Church, Canon Law is not the be-all, end-all document of the Church. It just deals with legalistic issues, like what is the authority of the Bishops, what is the authority of the Pope. Canon Law would support the Bishop’s authority over their diocese and states that even the Pope under ordinary circumstances cannot just step in. Canon Law would also outline when the Pope or the Vatican can and cannot usurp a Bishop either in authority or remove him from his diocese.

So you’re like saying, unless you see in the US Constitution something that says you cannot speed beyond 75 miles per hour on any given highway, you will. No, its not the proper legal document on that. Redemptionis Sacramentum and the GIRM will be the proper documents to dictate on the specifics of the celebration of Mass. And RS says the Bishops dictate the posture, and the GIRM for the US says standing is the norm.

 

[Vico]

Not sure if anyone posted this link yet or not.

Instruction from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacrament: ***Redemptionis Sacramentum – ***On certain matters to be observed or to be avoidedregarding the Most Holy Eucharist

[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]

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

 

[5Loaves]

ConstantineTG;6974027:

So would you go into a Byzantine Divine Liturgy and kneel for Communion?

I’m afraid I’m not familiar with that particular liturgy, but so long as I am capable, I would. If they won’t allow it, I would just go to another Catholic parish, **preferably of the Roman rite of course. **

May you come to see the value in understanding and experiencing the rest of the Catholic Church…

Orientale Lumen, Apostolic Letter, Venerable John Paul II Since, in fact, we believe that the venerable and ancient tradition of the Eastern Churches is an integral part of the heritage of Christ’s Church,** the first need** for Catholics is to be familiar with that tradition, so as to be nourished by it and to encourage the process of unity in the best way possible for each.

 

[ProVobis]

Well, kneeling in most Eastern Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) are forbidden on Sundays because Sunday is the day of Resurrection. The faithful stand as it is the posture of the Resurrection.

So what do they say in Eastern Churches and how is the communicant supposed to respond? They have communion by intinction for the most part, no?

 

[ConstantineTG]

ConstantineTG, so is it licit or not licit to receive while kneeling? If it is, then how can it be a sin? There are many parishes out there that have only kneeling as the way to receive communion. This would mean there are vast number of parishes in disobedience.
I think you need to remember that a “norm” does not necessarily mean there’s only one licit way to do something; it’s just that, the norm.

Which parishes are these? If you’re talking about those that celebrate the Mass in the EF, then its proper that kneeling is the posture for the EF. We’re only discussing the OF here which the 2003 GIRM would apply to. The EF would have to follow the 1962 Missal.

You are right, not only because one is the norm it doesn’t mean its the only accepted practice. However how RS is worded is that the posture is one or the other, and the USCCB only prescribed one of the two possible postures. There is another thread that would fit this argument. Does the prescription of one means it is preferred while the other is allowed? Does the fact that the other is not explicitly forbidden means its acceptable?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Let me preface by saying ConstantineTG I’m not annoyed with you.

My point was he may need to realize that there are a number of reasons why someone may not respond with “Amen”, of which I gave three legitimate ones. Not everyone who attends the OF of Roman Rite of the Latin Church is familiar with all the rubrics for that Mass. As is evident many of those who normally assist in the OF of Roman Rite are themselves not familiar with a number of the rubrics. If he knows for sure it’s his own sheep who don’t know the rubrics for their OF Roman Rite then that can and should be addressed in the bulletin and in direct instruction, not when distributing communion to an individual. The EMHC in the OP clearly didn’t know this person isn’t a member of that parish – OP is not.

(I’m talking about the “Amen” here, not about some other failure by the person receiving which might endanger the Holy Eucharist which must be dealt with at the moment of distribution/reception.)

We may be “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church” but there actually is not one set of rubrics because there is more than one rite among our 23 Catholic Churches and there are even two forms for the Roman Rite (maybe more if you include EF low and high Mass in which it is my understanding the responses for the faithful are somewhat different Low vs High.) Any Catholic who is properly disposed may licitly receive Eucharist in any Catholic Church. We’re not required to know the rubrics for every rite. We are required to present ourselves with dignity and respect for reception of His pure Body, and His own precious Blood, which doubtless OP did.

I love our priests … and they are not perfect. They can have as many assumptions, including wrong assumptions, as can the laity, myself included.

“May the communion of Thy Holy Mysteries be neither to my judgment, nor to my condemnation, O Lord, but to the healing of soul and body.”

P.S. My Byzantine parish is small enough that our priest does know who are his sheep and whenever we have visitors, which is often, he will give them a basic heads up about how to receive Eucharist, since it is quite different from the EF and OF Roman Rite. Usually by then one of the faithful has already given the visitors a basic demo or the posture for receiving, and to not say “Amen”, tho no one blinks when that is heard. We are all pretty hard wired about these things.

My priest is very knowledgeable but also very strict. That is why I like him. Many don’t like this personality of his, but sometimes we need a disciplinarian to (not literally) beat us into shape. He was such priest. I enjoyed his homilies as they were filled with historical fact, in depth analysis of the readings, on top of the learning he imparts on us. The way he directed us in the proper reception of the Eucharist may not be the best way, but if you think about it how many priests make an effort to instruct his parishioners?

 

[suko]

May you come to see the value in understanding and experiencing the rest of the Catholic Church…

Don’t worry, I’m not against going to other licit Catholic liturgies, but if I have a choice, I would prefer prefer the Roman rite one since I am most familiar and thus comfortable with so it allows me to assist more fully.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Not sure if anyone posted this link yet or not.

Instruction from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacrament: ***Redemptionis Sacramentum – ***On certain matters to be observed or to be avoidedregarding the Most Holy Eucharist

[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]

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

There’s an in depth analysis of that 2 or 3 pages ago, by me and MarkThompson

 

[ConstantineTG]

So what do they say in Eastern Churches and how is the communicant supposed to respond? They have communion by intinction for the most part, no?

The Byzantine Rite would by intinction.
Or course they have different rubrics. That was my point, do we go against the rubrics just because we feel we had to do something? If the RS, GIRM and a Bishops’ Conference decree says we stand during Communion in the OF, why should we insist otherwise?

 

[ProVobis]

The Byzantine Rite would by intinction.
Or course they have different rubrics.

Do they then say “Body and Blood of Christ”?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Do they then say “Body and Blood of Christ”?

I don’t know. Point?

 

[5Loaves]

Do they then say “Body and Blood of Christ”?
ConstantineTG;6975405:

The Byzantine Rite would by intinction.
Or course they have different rubrics.

The Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom:

The servant of God (Name) receives the precious and all-holy body and blood of our Lord and God and savour Jesus Christ for forgiveness of sins and unto life everlasting.

When we have a deacon, which is usual, the priest will say "The servant of God (Name) receives the precious and all-holy body and blood of our Lord and God and savour Jesus Christ " and the deacon will say “for forgiveness of sins and unto life everlasting.”

We say nothing at that time, We merely kiss the chalice.

While others are communing we chant repeatedly “Receive the Body of Christ, taste the Fountain of immortality.”

After all have communed, the priest says :
“O God save thy people ad Bless thine inheritance.”
The we sing the hymn:
We have seen the true light;
We have received the heavenly spirit.
We have found the true faith,
Worshipping the undivided Trinity:
For He hath saved us.

Scanning very quickly this is a nice representation of the Communion portion of the Divine Liturgy. The photo of the person receiving Holy Eucharist is odd. It looks like her mouth is closing on the spoon – not. The mouth stays open so the Eucharist is dropped in.

Overall St Elias Ukrainian Catholic Church has a exceptional website for information including Church Etiquette. But it doesn’t give the text of the DL.

 

[ProVobis]

The Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom:

When we have a deacon, which is usual, the priest will say "The servant of God (Name) receives the precious and all-holy body and blood of our Lord and God and savour Jesus Christ " and the deacon will say “for forgiveness of sins and unto life everlasting.”

We say nothing at that time, We merely kiss the chalice.

While others are communing we chant repeatedly “Receive the Body of Christ, taste the Fountain of immortality.”

After all have communed, the priest says :
“O God save thy people ad Bless thine inheritance.”
The we sing the hymn:
We have seen the true light;
We have received the heavenly spirit.
We have found the true faith,
Worshipping the undivided Trinity:
For He hath saved us.

Scanning very quickly this is a nice representation of the Communion portion of the Divine Liturgy. The photo of the person receiving Holy Eucharist is odd. It looks like her mouth is closing on the spoon – not. The mouth stays open so the Eucharist is dropped in.

Overall St Elias Ukrainian Catholic Church has a exceptional website for information including Church Etiquette. But it doesn’t give the text of the DL.

Now that’s awesome and special. Thanks.

 

[CallistusPM]

I think the problem here is your understanding of the roles of the Bishops and the role of the Pope. Norms in each diocese are set forth by the Bishop, not the Pope. A Bishop’s Conference ensures that norms are uniform within territories where people can freely roam, namely within a country. However this does not take away the authority of one Bishop over his diocese. They can still opt not to conform with the decision of the Bishop’s Conference unless they have binded themselves to through a contract.

Canon Law and all other Church documents are pretty clear about the authority of Diocesan Bishops over their territory. Its false to think that the Pope would micromanage every diocese in the world.

Are matters pertaining to morals, the liturgy and the handling of the sacred host “micromanaging?”. . . . Or do we aim for a true One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that is universal in all major aspects? This is what in the past has made this church so unique among so many other churches, its universality. Sacred Mass in one part of the world was the same as in every other part of the world under the Traditional Latin Mass of the Roman Rite. No so today under the Novus Ordo. CallistusPM

 

[ConstantineTG]

Are matters pertaining to morals, the liturgy and the handling of the sacred host “micromanaging?”. . . . Or do we aim for a true One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that is universal in all major aspects?

Your argument already would fall short here knowing that there are 6 Rites, 5 of which receive standing exclusively. There is no kneeling at all especially in the Byzantine Rite. So universally, the Church already adheres to different traditions. The oneness of the Church is not dependent on minor traditions or practices. Just like eating is eating, universally people would eat everywhere. Minor details like using the fork and knife in North America, chopsticks in East Asia, bare hands in South East and South Asia, etc, doesn’t change the fact that everyone in the world eats. The same way that a person can be standing or kneeling to receive Communion doesn’t change the fact that universally Catholics receive the Eucharist. Don’t forget that the point of the Eucharist is receiving the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. Whether you are standing or kneeling is besides the point and dictated by norms and disciplines.

This is what in the past has made this church so unique among so many other churches, its universality. Sacred Mass in one part of the world was the same as in every other part of the world under the Traditional Latin Mass of the Roman Rite. No so today under the Novus Ordo. CallistusPM

So are you saying that the Byzantine Rite that is celebrated across 12 sui juris Churches is not as good because it was always celebrated in the vernacular since its beginnings? I think you are lacking a perspective of how it is in the entire Catholic Church.

 

[suko]

Don’t forget that the point of the Eucharist is receiving the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. Whether you are standing or kneeling is besides the point and dictated by norms and disciplines.

I agree with this, that’s why if someone feels in their heart to kneel for Communion, they should, as it is licit.

I found something interesting that may or may not have been mentioned about the appropriateness of “kneeling” during communion: catholic.com/library/liturgy/kneeling_1.asp

In particular, in the 2nd letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, there’s an interesting part that states “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 this was a sign of disobedience (even just a little bit), thus a sin, would it have been called completely appropriate, is the question? I think instead of jumping to our own conclusions about things, it would be better to seek advice from a canon lawyer. I actually did know of a pastor who was one but has unfortunately been shipped off to some other place and has become the head of a special project of some sort. If I can get a hold of him, I’d certainly like to hear his thoughts on this, and will post it here if this thread is still around.

 

[suko]

Also, just wanted to add, in the 3rd letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments where it states: “Indeed, the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion,” wouldn’t one come to the conclusion that it wasn’t a sin of disobedience? I mean, why even mention (in a firm manner too) that one should not be imposed or accused of being disobedient? I’d imagine if it was, there would have been added something along the lines to discourage those that choose to do so - but there isn’t. I don’t believe they would allow the faithful to continue to sin and act disobediently if it was.