Receiving Communion

[suko]

and on the other, to not regulate posture rigidly in such a way that those who wish to kneel or sit would no longer be free.

Francis Cardinal Arinze
Prefect

As Cardinal Arinze has stated, we should not regulate posture so rigidly when one knows they have a choice. And there is a choice in regards for different postures for communion.

Also, it should be noted that the 3 letters from the CDWDS came after the norm was established. Therefore, whatever CDWDS states, trumps the “norm” (that includes the “pastoring part” that’s been previously established, and one needs to recall that it has already been called completely appropriate. To me, it doesn’t get clearer than that.

Also, I think it’s a good idea for us to remember that norms are guidelines. Generally, norms are not laws in the sense that if we break them, we automatically sin or are disobedient. They are there for good reason and are subject to sound judgment and exceptions will always be made as the CDWDS has made by their 3 letters.

 

[Walking_Home]

However, “tolerance”, isn’t exactly what the CDWDS was looking for when it gave the USCCB permission to insert this particular norm. This is not the language that the CDWDS has used in its correspondence to the USCCB and to the faithful regarding this matter.

Again, standing was made the norm under the condition that those who wish to kneel in order to receive would not have their right abrogated:

To this end, it is perhaps useful to respond to your inquiry by repeating the content of a letter that the Congregation recently addressed to a Bishop in the United States of America from whose Diocese a number of pertinent letters had been received. The letter states: "…while this Congregation gave the recognitio to the norm desired by the Bishops’ Conference of your country that people stand for Holy Communion, this was done on the condition that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds. Indeed,** the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly**

---

Again I agree —and stand with you.

I would just like to add—by the wording of CDWDS ----Not be imposed upon—the very act of taking a person aside to “council” --“give pastoral correction”—is an act of imposition upon the person. Now “pastoral correction” --implies that something illicit/incorrect has occured–in this case–kneeling for communion. The CDWDS has plainly, clearly, stated that a person is not to be accused of acting illicitly/incorrect or as can be seen – of disobedience.

 

[suko]

if your priest fails to address the issue and give you pastoral correction on the reasons for our norm. you really ought to complain to your bishop about the priest’s dereliction of duty. No priest has the right to pick and choose which parts of the GIRM he won’t obey, whether based on his own whims and predilections or on an attitude of disobedience to legal norms. If your priest is not addressing the issue and offering pastoral correction, make sure you report his disobedience to the bishop.

I hope you realize that if we were to do that, we’d probably have to complain about all the other abuses that take place too. There are so many that use “extraordinary ministers” when they obviously don’t need them. We can go on and on about the obvious abuses that take place at mass, which I’m sure we can both agree on is a shame.

I would just like to add—by the wording of CDWDS ----Not be imposed upon—the very act of taking a person aside to “council” --“give pastoral correction”—is an act of imposition upon the person.

Yes, that’s why to me, it makes sense to interpret it that way as you described it since the 3 letters from the CDWDS came after this particular norm (and where it states giving pastoral correction) was established. I think that pastoral correction should probably be removed since one should not be imposed by anyone as CDWDS states. And since it came after, if they saw this as a form of disobedience in any way, they would added something to that effect on one of their 3 letters and we see none of that.

 

[MarkThompson]

I hope you realize that if we were to do that, we’d probably have to complain about all the other abuses that take place too. There are so many that use “extraordinary ministers” when they obviously don’t need them. We can go on and on about the obvious abuses that take place at mass, which I’m sure we can both agree on is a shame.

LOL, I know, I was being somewhat hyperbolic for the benefit of one or two other participants on this thread.

Nevertheless, cases like this always call upon us to evaluate honestly and without any partiality what the church asks of us (and of our priests). It’s natural to complain when the priest (or your fellow parishioners) break the rules to do something you viscerally dislike (e.g., the orans posture, if that’s in fact against “the rules” at all, which has never been made clear), and to be secretly pleased when they break the rules to do something you do like – it’s natural, but nothing to be proud of. Rather, we should all strive to be faithful and obedient to what our bishops and our Pope ask of us, whether we like it or not. In this case, the Holy See has delegated to the bishops’ conference the determination of the correct posture, and the bishops have decreed that it is to be standing. It’s shameful that the mere fact that Rome has confirmed that you shouldn’t be punished for disregarding the rubric as set forth in the GIRM is being trumpeted as an invitation to “go your own way” with the sacred liturgy.

Would I prefer that our bishops had decided to make the posture for Communion kneeling? Why yes, as a matter of fact I wholeheartedly would. But they did not, and I’m not a bishop.

 

[Walking_Home]

I hope you realize that if we were to do that, we’d probably have to complain about all the other abuses that take place too. There are so many that use “extraordinary ministers” when they obviously don’t need them. We can go on and on about the obvious abuses that take place at mass, which I’m sure we can both agree on is a shame.

Yes, that’s why to me, it makes sense to interpret it that way as you described it since the 3 letters from the CDWDS came after this particular norm (and where it states giving pastoral correction) was established. I think that pastoral correction should probably be removed since one should not be imposed by anyone as CDWDS states. And since it came after, if they saw this as a form of disobedience in any way, they would added something to that effect on one of their 3 letters and we see none of that.

---

As was stated in the EWTN link you provide—the Holy See alone can authentically interpret legislation it has initiated or approved. When the Holy See clarifies and issues new directives on previous norms—the new directives take precedence. There is No language in the the letters–that lead in an way or form–that a person is to be taken aside to be “counseled” much less --“pastoral correction”.

 

[Vico]

However, “tolerance”, isn’t exactly what the CDWDS was looking for when it gave the USCCB permission to insert this particular norm. This is not the language that the CDWDS has used in its correspondence to the USCCB and to the faithful regarding this matter.

Again, standing was made the norm under the condition that those who wish to kneel in order to receive would not have their right abrogated:

"To this end, it is perhaps useful to respond to your inquiry by repeating the content of a letter that the Congregation recently addressed to a Bishop in the United States of America from whose Diocese a number of pertinent letters had been received. The letter states: "…while this Congregation gave the recognitio to the norm desired by the Bishops’ Conference of your country that people stand for Holy Communion, this was done on the condition that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds. Indeed, the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion"."

With all due respect, this is what I think you might not be taking into account. Therefore, if the CDWDS states that those who choose to receive Holy Communion kneeling are not acting ilicitly, then, we should accept the CDWDS interpretation since this Congregation acts with and in the name and authority of the Holy Father. Thus, I stand by my reply to your post.

There is a reason for following the norm that is not based upon lawfulness. That Congregation communication states that the communicant not be imposed upon or accused, and in accord the USCCB has established that the reason for the standing norm should be explained to the communicant that kneels at communion. Accordingly, for a communicant to receive a *reason for the *norm is “not being imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly”.

tolerate 2a: to allow to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction (Merrian Webster)

The reasons are these:

1. General Instruction (no. 160§2) makes it lawful for the bishops to determine the sign of veneration, which they have chosen to be the head bow.

1. “greater attention needs to be paid to what is laid down by liturgical law and by the traditional practice of the Roman Rite, for the sake of the common spiritual good of the people of God rather than to personal inclination arbitrary choice” (Girm, no.42). A lack of uniformity can serve as a sign of disunity or even a sense of individualism.

nccbuscc.org/liturgy/innews/072002.shtml

 

[benedictgal]

There is a reason for following the norm that is not based upon lawfulness. That Congregation communication states that the communicant not be imposed upon or accused, and in accord the USCCB has established that the reason for the standing norm should be explained to the communicant that kneels at communion. Accordingly, for a communicant to receive a *reason for the *norm is “not being imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly”.

tolerate 2a: to allow to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction (Merrian Webster)

The reasons are these:

1. General Instruction (no. 160§2) makes it lawful for the bishops to determine the sign of veneration, which they have chosen to be the head bow.

1. “greater attention needs to be paid to what is laid down by liturgical law and by the traditional practice of the Roman Rite, for the sake of the common spiritual good of the people of God rather than to personal inclination arbitrary choice” (Girm, no.42). A lack of uniformity can serve as a sign of disunity or even a sense of individualism.

nccbuscc.org/liturgy/innews/072002.shtml

Vico, you keep quoting a statement made by the conference’s liturgy committee, but, the one that has the force of law and is not merely a committee opinion is that from the CDWDS. The lower-ranking authority cannot overrule the higher-ranking authority. Again, just because a celebrant may explain the reasons behind the norm, he cannot compel the communicant to receive Holy Communion standing. Furthermore, not a few communicants are savvy and are able to charitably assert their rights. This is something that the CDWDS pointed out.

Furthermore, the statements made by the CDWDS indicate that the complaints from the faithful came before, during and after the new GIRM was promulgated. Incidentally, when the USCCB presented the adaptations to the GIRM, the CDWDS was quick to point out that it would grant recognitio to the “standing to receive” provision so long as it was clearly understood that the faithful could kneel to receive Holy Communion. One can certainly try to explain all of the reasons for standing to receive, but, the person must bear in mind that the communicant has the licit option to receive Holy Communion kneeling.

 

[MarkThompson]

There is a reason for following the norm that is not based upon lawfulness. That Congregation communication states that the communicant not be imposed upon or accused, and in accord the USCCB has established that the reason for the standing norm should be explained to the communicant that kneels at communion. Accordingly, for a communicant to receive a *reason for the *norm is “not being imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly”.

tolerate 2a: to allow to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction (Merrian Webster)

The reasons are these:

1. General Instruction (no. 160§2) makes it lawful for the bishops to determine the sign of veneration, which they have chosen to be the head bow.

1. “greater attention needs to be paid to what is laid down by liturgical law and by the traditional practice of the Roman Rite, for the sake of the common spiritual good of the people of God rather than to personal inclination arbitrary choice” (Girm, no.42). A lack of uniformity can serve as a sign of disunity or even a sense of individualism.

nccbuscc.org/liturgy/innews/072002.shtml

You’re completely right, Vico. What kind of person would consider it an “imposition” to be informed of the norms his or her bishop has prescribed and the reasons for them? The person ought to be thankful to be told which is the mandatory posture – standing.

 

[Vico]

Vico, you keep quoting a statement made by the conference’s liturgy committee, but, the one that has the force of law and is not merely a committee opinion is that from the CDWDS. The lower-ranking authority cannot overrule the higher-ranking authority. Again, just because a celebrant may explain the reasons behind the norm, he cannot compel the communicant to receive Holy Communion standing. Furthermore, not a few communicants are savvy and are able to charitably assert their rights. This is something that the CDWDS pointed out.

Furthermore, the statements made by the CDWDS indicate that the complaints from the faithful came before, during and after the new GIRM was promulgated. Incidentally, when the USCCB presented the adaptations to the GIRM, the CDWDS was quick to point out that it would grant recognitio to the “standing to receive” provision so long as it was clearly understood that the faithful could kneel to receive Holy Communion. One can certainly try to explain all of the reasons for standing to receive, but, the person must bear in mind that the communicant has the licit option to receive Holy Communion kneeling.

Did you read my post? There you will find how the USCCB has not gone against the instructions of the CDWDS.

What I posted there was the reason for the norm, which is to be explained to the communicant. Certainly, individuals are able to go against the norm any time they want to, at the expense of what the USCCB is trying to achieve: unity and common spiritual good (rather than disunity or individualism).

 

[benedictgal]

Did you read my post? There you will find how the USCCB has not gone against the instructions of the CDWDS.

What I posted there was the reason for the norm, which is to be explained to the communicant. Certainly, individuals are able to go against the norm any time they want to, at the expense of what the USCCB is trying to achieve: unity and common spiritual good (rather than disunity or individualism).

Vico, I read your post, but, I do not think that you read what I wrote nor what the CDWDS wrote. The reality of the situation is that there have been instances where the “pastoral” correction has been made to the extent of intimidation. Hence, that is why the CDWDS got flooded with letters from communicants from the United States. The universal norm is to kneel and receive on the tongue. Kneeling is just as licit and legitimate as standing is. One can use the argument of conformity, but, in the end, the communicant retains that right to receive in their preferred manner. The CDWDS has ratified this time and time again.

 

[ProVobis]

Vico, I read your post, but, I do not think that you read what I wrote nor what the CDWDS wrote. The reality of the situation is that there have been instances where the “pastoral” correction has been made to the extent of intimidation. Hence, that is why the CDWDS got flooded with letters from communicants from the United States. The universal norm is to kneel and receive on the tongue. Kneeling is just as licit and legitimate as standing is. One can use the argument of conformity, but, in the end, the communicant retains that right to receive in their preferred manner. The CDWDS has ratified this time and time again.

It would seem the Vatican can always revoke the “permission” to stand given to the bishops of that country in spite of those bishops’ 2/3 vote in asking for it. The Vatican still has the final say on the matter.

 

[MarkThompson]

The universal norm is to kneel and receive on the tongue. Kneeling is just as licit and legitimate as standing is.

With all due respect, this is misinformation. There is no universal norm in the Mass of Paul VI. The editio typica of the GIRM leaves the determination of posture up to the individual conferences of bishops; it does not provide a default, a preference, or anything else that could be construed as a “universal norm.” There is no universal norm.

Within the Ordinary Form in the United States, kneeling is illegitimate and illicit. The GIRM is 100% clear about what you are to do: stand. The Vatican has repeatedly affirmed that this posture directed by our bishops has the force of law. No priest or even individual bishop may derogate from that prescription.

 

[Vico]

Vico, I read your post, but, I do not think that you read what I wrote nor what the CDWDS wrote. The reality of the situation is that there have been instances where the “pastoral” correction has been made to the extent of intimidation. Hence, that is why the CDWDS got flooded with letters from communicants from the United States. The universal norm is to kneel and receive on the tongue. Kneeling is just as licit and legitimate as standing is. One can use the argument of conformity, but, in the end, the communicant retains that right to receive in their preferred manner. The CDWDS has ratified this time and time again.

I read those statements, and am aware that communion has been incorrectly refused. Those occurrances were not following the norm per the USCCB either. Since the Holy See approved the norm for the US, with full knowledge of the universal norm, it is correct to follow the approved norm. Certainly, one can continue to kneel at will, only the presbyter may need to give an explaination. (Also other postures or gestures at various times in the Mass may be used, in non-conformity to the norms.)

 

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by benedictgal View Post
Vico, I read your post, but, I do not think that you read what I wrote nor what the CDWDS wrote. The reality of the situation is that there have been instances where the “pastoral” correction has been made to the extent of intimidation. Hence, that is why the CDWDS got flooded with letters from communicants from the United States. The universal norm is to kneel and receive on the tongue. Kneeling is just as licit and legitimate as standing is. One can use the argument of conformity, but, in the end, the communicant retains that right to receive in their preferred manner. The CDWDS has ratified this time and time again.

---

That is correct — the Holy See has the authority to revoke not only the “permission” to stand but also to outright revoke the “permission” for CITH across the Latin right. And yes–the Holy See is the only one with the final say on the matter. The Pope is not an “ordinary” bishop.

 

[benedictgal]

I read those statements, and am aware that communion has been incorrectly refused. Those occurrances were not following the norm per the USCCB either. Since the Holy See approved the norm for the US, with full knowledge of the universal norm, it is correct to follow the approved norm. Certainly, one can continue to kneel at will, only the presbyter may need to give an explaination. (Also other postures or gestures at various times in the Mass may be used, in non-conformity to the norms.)

Vico, kneeling is also a legitimate posture. I cannot speak to the other gestures that are more than likely ilicit (and, bringing this up is, as I see it, more along the lines of a deflection-type tactic that really has nothing to do with the argument at hand), but, kneeling to receive Holy Communion is certainly licit. Furthermore, you can’t really accuse people who kneel as being non-conformists. The CDWDS did not use that language at all, and, in fact, defended the practice and those communicants who do this. Furthermore, the only way the Holy See conceded the adaption to the USCCB was because the conference had to accept those communicants who choose to kneel.

Vico, with all due respect, if we are blessed to have Pope Benedict XVI visit the US again, are you going to challenge his employment of having communicants receiving Holy Communion from him do so on the tongue while kneeling? If we hold true to your line of thinking, this would be wrong and you would hold the Holy Father in violation of the adaptation of the GIRM for the United States.

 

[MarkThompson]

That is correct — the Holy See has the authority to revoke not only the “permission” to stand but also to outright revoke the “permission” for CITH across the Latin right. And yes–the Holy See is the only one with the final say on the matter. The Pope is not an “ordinary” bishop.

There is no “permission” to stand. Standing is not an indult. Kneeling is not the default. Standing/kneeling and CITH/COTT are, canonically, utterly different issues. Again: standing is not an indult. Standing is the norm.

 

[Walking_Home]

Vico, kneeling is also a legitimate posture. I cannot speak to the other gestures that are more than likely ilicit (and, bringing this up is, as I see it, more along the lines of a deflection-type tactic that really has nothing to do with the argument at hand), but, kneeling to receive Holy Communion is certainly licit. Furthermore, you can’t really accuse people who kneel as being non-conformists. The CDWDS did not use that language at all, and, in fact, defended the practice and those communicants who do this. Furthermore, the only way the Holy See conceded the adaption to the USCCB was because the conference had to accept those communicants who choose to kneel.

Vico, with all due respect, if we are blessed to have Pope Benedict XVI visit the US again, are you going to challenge his employment of having communicants receiving Holy Communion from him do so on the tongue while kneeling? If we hold true to your line of thinking, this would be wrong and you would hold the Holy Father in violation of the adaptation of the GIRM for the United States.

---

Exactly—people should not be called non-conformists, or as in a prior post-- obstinate and pertinacious deviators for kneeling. As is stated the CDWDS–has in no way or form made such references and/or implications.

 

[Vico]

Vico, kneeling is also a legitimate posture. I cannot speak to the other gestures that are more than likely ilicit (and, bringing this up is, as I see it, more along the lines of a deflection-type tactic that really has nothing to do with the argument at hand), but, kneeling to receive Holy Communion is certainly licit. Furthermore, you can’t really accuse people who kneel as being non-conformists. The CDWDS did not use that language at all, and, in fact, defended the practice and those communicants who do this. Furthermore, the only way the Holy See conceded the adaption to the USCCB was because the conference had to accept those communicants who choose to kneel.

Vico, with all due respect, if we are blessed to have Pope Benedict XVI visit the US again, are you going to challenge his employment of having communicants receiving Holy Communion from him do so on the tongue while kneeling? If we hold true to your line of thinking, this would be wrong and you would hold the Holy Father in violation of the adaptation of the GIRM for the United States.

Those that do not receive standing are non-conformists to the US norm, by definition. The spirit of the norm is for unity and common spiritual good (rather than disunity or individualism) according to the USCCB. My remarks are not to contest licitness, only what the Holy See approved US norm is and the reasons for it.

If His Holiness appears and I can receive at that Mass, I will follow the practice adopted for unity and common spiritual good (rather than disunity or individualism) that is used on that day.

My personal practice is to receive standing, and on the tongue at Novus Ordo Mass and standing, and by mouth at the Divine Liturgy, and kneeling, and on the tongue at Mass when that was the US norm.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I hope you realize that if we were to do that, we’d probably have to complain about all the other abuses that take place too. There are so many that use “extraordinary ministers” when they obviously don’t need them. We can go on and on about the obvious abuses that take place at mass, which I’m sure we can both agree on is a shame.

We do have to complain about all abuses.

You also have to distinguish a true abuse, and one because you just don’t agree. The EMHC thing is a tricky issue because priests are allowed to use them at their discretion. There is no abuse there. Its your word vs. the priests in justifying whether there’s too much, or the right amount. Its not something as black and white as the one Mark pointed out to you.

Yes, that’s why to me, it makes sense to interpret it that way as you described it since the 3 letters from the CDWDS came after this particular norm (and where it states giving pastoral correction) was established. I think that pastoral correction should probably be removed since one should not be imposed by anyone as CDWDS states. And since it came after, if they saw this as a form of disobedience in any way, they would added something to that effect on one of their 3 letters and we see none of that.

The GIRM states that the authority to dictate the norm rests on the Bishop.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I do not think that the issue of “kneeling” is one where a loophole is involved. As the correspondence from the CDWDS indicates (and these bear protocol numbers), there have been lots of letters of complaint from the faithful in the United States about the issue of kneeling to receive Holy Communion. Please bear in mind that standing in the US was approved only on the condition that those who chose to use the universal norm of kneeling would not be prevented from doing so, nor denied Holy Communion because they chose that posture.

Universal norm? The RS has been very clear that Communion is to be received in a posture dictated by the Bishop’s Conference. So there is really no “universal” norm since each Conference is free to choose from standing or kneeling. The US has chosen kneeling.