Receiving Communion

[suko]

I honestly want to know what the official word is because I’m teaching PREP and I want to teach the kids what is the right way taught by our Bishops, not the one I prefer. I can assume for my diocese that standing is the norm. I haven’t been to Quebec but I know that you have far older churches there than the ones we have here on the West Coast.

I found this interesting: youtube.com/watch?v=EcZhjmYn1K8
Cardinal Arinze says anyone from anywhere in the world can receive kneeling. And that those that do are “free” and are to be left in “peace.” To me, this trumps everything that the U.S. norm says including the “pastoral” part, as Cardinal Arinze doesn’t even bother to mention it, he just says to leave them in “peace.”

Cardinal Arinze says here that in the Latin rite, communion on the tongue is the norm (universal norm): youtube.com/watch?v=EcZhjmYn1K8

L’Osservatore Romano noted in an interview with Monsignor Guido Marini, that “It is necessary not to forget,” he added, “that the distribution of Communion on the hand continues to remain, from the juridical standpoint, an exception (indult) to the universal law, conceded by the Holy See to those bishops’ conferences who have requested it.”
zenit.org/article-23028?l=english

So there is a universal norm already in regards to communion in the hand or on the tongue. I would think that the universal norm between kneeling and standing is probably kneeling too.

 

[Vico]

Originally Posted by Vico forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
My post is about receiving communion not the Eucharistic Prayer, which is before communion. The posture of unity is that which is the norm (including specific exceptions) for the different parts of the Mass.

Clarification on the Proper Posture and Sign of Veneration for Reception of Holy Communion is the title of that document under Sign of Veneration and* Uniformity in Posture* is given in explanation, which includes references to several GIRM norms: 42, 43, 95, 160. A particular example of this disunity was present in the Eucharistic Prayer, yet their remarks are for purpose of explaination for the proper posture and sign of veneration, as they state:

“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.”

Actually, this statement runs contrary to what the CDWDS stated. With all due respect, Vico, every statement that you have culled from whatever sources you have used have contradicted what the CDWDS, which is the overruling and overriding principle, has ruled.

“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”.**”

Thus, with all due respect, the CDWDS has stated that those who choose to kneel in order to receive Holy Communion are not to be accused of acting ilicitly, let alone being disobedient.

I made 14 posts, 4 directed to you. The sources that I have used are listed below and none of them has indicated anything contrary to Confraternity of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. None of the statements from those sources say that the faithful should be imposed upon or accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion. As I quoted previously the USCCB has said:

“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.”
It may not be communicated that it is illicit for the faithful, however the presbyter based upon the decision of his bishop, may need to provide catechesis on the norm. I have been showing the USCCB catechesis on the issue from their documents.

For reference the CDWDS recognito is Prot. n. 47/03/L (2003) “…this Congregation gave the recognitio to the norm … this was done on the condition that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds”]

Communion Norms:

1. Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America (includes CDWDS Prots. 1383/01/L, Prot. 1382/01/L ) (June 2001):
   nccbuscc.org/liturgy/current/norms.shtml
2. Clarification on the Proper Posture and Sign of Veneration for Reception of Holy Communion (July 2002):
   nccbuscc.org/liturgy/innews/072002.shtml

Posture at other times:

1. Clarification on the Proper Posture During the Eucharistic Prayer (Sept 2002):
   usccb.org/liturgy/innews/092002.shtml
2. Clarification on Posture of the Faithful Following Individual Reception of Holy Communion (including CDWDS Prot. n. 855/03/L) (July 2003)
   usccb.org/liturgy/innews/703.shtml

On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist:

1. Redemptionis Sacramentum (2004):
   vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

Other GIRM:

1. UK Wales GIRM (2005):
   liturgyoffice.org.uk/Resources/GIRM/Documents/GIRM.pdf
2. Latin GIRM:
   salesianer.de/liturgie/igmr2002.htm

 

[suko]

Cardinal Arinze says here that in the Latin rite, communion on the tongue is the norm (universal norm): youtube.com/watch?v=EcZhjmYn1K8

My fault, I posted the wrong link, the correct one is:
youtube.com/watch?v=Ap1KL2D5ae4&feature=related

“Are they soldiers” says Cardinal Arinze in this one in regards to some parishes that are “rigid” in following postures: youtube.com/watch?v=Cc0g3UMRtMM&feature=related

I honestly want to know what the official word is because I’m teaching PREP and I want to teach the kids what is the right way taught by our Bishops, not the one I prefer

If you teach them the “official” word, you should teach them the whole truth. You should teach them the reasoning why the universal norm is on the tongue (and I could almost bet you kneeling too), but the U.S. bishops were granted an indult by the Holy See which allowed them to receive in the hand and standing.

 

[MarkThompson]

If you teach them the “official” word, you should teach them the whole truth. You should teach them the reasoning why the universal norm is on the tongue (and I could almost bet you kneeling too), but the U.S. bishops were granted an indult by the Holy See which allowed them to receive in the hand and standing.

There is no universal norm with respect to kneeling/standing in the OF. None. Standing is not an indult. It was not “granted” to the bishops. Standing is the directive for the United States; there is none other.

 

[suko]

There is no universal norm with respect to kneeling/standing in the OF. None. Standing is not an indult. It was not “granted” to the bishops. Standing is the directive for the United States; there is none other.

That is completely opposite to what Cardinal Arinze had said in regards to the U.S.

 

[ConstantineTG]

My fault, I posted the wrong link, the correct one is:
youtube.com/watch?v=Ap1KL2D5ae4&feature=related

“Are they soldiers” says Cardinal Arinze in this one in regards to some parishes that are “rigid” in following postures: youtube.com/watch?v=Cc0g3UMRtMM&feature=related

The thing I have been arguing earlier is the law would trump even the Pope’s “opinion”. Simply put, if they have the position to impose and they want something done, they can enforce it by law. If they’re not doing it, then it means there’s a bigger reason why the current situation stays at it is. Cardinal Arinze is the head of the Congregation of Divine Worship. If he and the Pope agree on this, then why not change RS? Maybe the will, but until RS changes, whats in the document is what is the law of the Church.

If you teach them the “official” word, you should teach them the whole truth. You should teach them the reasoning why the universal norm is on the tongue (and I could almost bet you kneeling too), but the U.S. bishops were granted an indult by the Holy See which allowed them to receive in the hand and standing.

I will teach everything what is allowed by the Church. This includes COTT and CITH, both which are allowed in Canada. If kneeling is not in the GIRM of Canada, then I will not tell them to kneel. If it is, then I will tell them to.

As a Catechist of our parish, I should be in communion with the Bishop of our Archdiocese. I should not teach anything that is against what he is teaching. In fact, every person should be in communion with their local Bishop, only through whom they can be in communion with Rome.

 

[ConstantineTG]

---

Let take canon 381— that you “analyze and interpret”. Your say—“it just reinforces the fact that Bishops have such authority in their diocese and are **autonomous **from the Pope in ruling the Diocese”.

It says no such thing–for the canon itself says–“except for cases which the law or a decree of the Supreme Pontiff reserves to the supreme authority or to another ecclesiastical authority.” This statement in of itself–removes the “autonomous” authority that you give to the bishops.

Guess what --the Holy See has decreed --that the regulation of the liturgy depends soley on the authority of the Church, specifically with the Apostolic See–and the CDWDS which operates with the Roman Pontiffs name and with his authority----as evidenced in RS–2004 no. 14-17. When speaking of the bishops authority in matters liturgical–the Holy See specifially uses canon 838 4 ---- Not 381.

So your own canon —shot your "analysis and interpretation.

As I have said, autonomy doesn’t mean independence. A US governor is autonomous, it doesn’t mean they can go against the Federal Government or the US Constitution. A Bishop is autonomous, it doesn’t mean that they can violate Canon or Ecclesiastical Laws.

Autonomy in governance means you are still part of a bigger organization and still have to play by the rules. Although you yourself have enough freedom within the rules provided to you. This is opposed to independence, which means you totally are not subject to anyone else’s authority. Or a strict hierarchy, where you are always subjected to the one above you. For example, the Junior Manager in a company would have a weekly report to the Senior Manager. The VP can jump in any time and meddle with the Junior Manager, his tasks, his responsibilities. The Church doesn’t work that way. The Pope will not jump into a diocese for whatever reason. As mentioned in the Canon Law, what responsibility reserved by the Pope stays with the Pope. Its an exception to the rule. Normally all authority in a Diocese belongs to the Bishop.

 

[ConstantineTG]

However, as you pointed out, even the franchises have to obey the rules. Granted, some franchises can have different sales promotions, they still have to have the same merchandise.

But, again, what we need to realize that, especially as far as the liturgy is concerned, the CDWDS acts in and with the authority of the Holy Father. If they rule that something is not ilicit, then, the lower authorities (in this case, the national episcopal conference the bishop) cannot trump what the CDWDS has already decreed.

Only in this case, the RS specifically says that the decision whether to stand or kneel for Communion rests with the Bishop’s Conference. The force of law is with the Bishops, not the Pope or CDWDS. They cannot just give the Bishops the authority and then take it back just like that, unless of course it is specifically stated in the letter of the law. It is not. The Pope cannot say, “hey, you decide on this. But I’ll change it later if I want to.” That’s not how it works. Of course, the Pope can also just change the law itself. But unless he does, the law favors the Bishops in this case.

 

[ConstantineTG]

That is completely opposite to what Cardinal Arinze had said in regards to the U.S.

No, I believe what he said is that those who kneel should not be denied Communion. It doesn’t establish the fact that kneeling is the norm, it doesn’t even say kneeling is allowed. Its like the Mayor saying, “okay, don’t issue tickets to jaywalkers.” That doesn’t mean jaywalking is suddenly legal. It just means they won’t be punished. There is a difference. Cardinal Arinze cannot usurp the authority that is already relegated to the Bishops.

 

[Vico]

The GIRM USA norms were approved by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments on April 17, 2002 (Prot. 1381/01/L), and were then published as particular law for all Latin celebrations of the Sacred Liturgy in the dioceses of the United States of America. Thre is a difference between an adaptation and an indult.

The bishops asked for an exception to the law, an indult, rather than formal adaptation of the GIRM to allow an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion purify the vessels. It was granted in 2002 for a period of three years that with the permission of the
local ordinary, extraordinary ministers could purify the vessels. It expired and was not renewed.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The GIRM USA norms were approved by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments on April 17, 2002 (Prot. 1381/01/L), and were then published as particular law for all Latin celebrations of the Sacred Liturgy in the dioceses of the United States of America. Thre is a difference between an adaptation and an indult.

The bishops asked for an exception to the law, an indult, rather than formal adaptation of the GIRM to allow an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion purify the vessels. It was granted in 2002 for a period of three years that with the permission of the
local ordinary, extraordinary ministers could purify the vessels. It expired and was not renewed.

Nice explanation
This made me curious though, does CITH have an expiration on the indult? Or does it depend on the indult if it has an expiration?

 

[Vico]

Nice explanation
This made me curious though, does CITH have an expiration on the indult? Or does it depend on the indult if it has an expiration?

The communion in the hand indult was the 1969 Memoriale Domini of Holy Father Paul VI. It had some revision to it’s cover letter in 1985. When I read it, I saw no time period on the indult.

An indult ceases if the authority that granted the indult revokes it by directly revoking the particular indult or indirectly by promulgating a new law covering the same subject matter whose effect supersedes or revokes the indult. This happened when the 1962 Roman Missal was made the extrordinary form in universal liturgical law rather than an exception, July 7, 2007 with Summorum Pontificum. The indult was Quattuor abhinc annos of 1984.

 

[ProVobis]

Cardinal Arinze cannot usurp the authority that is already relegated to the Bishops.

I don’t see this happening. Standing and CITH were selectively and conditionally granted by the Magisterium of the Church. Don’t forget the bishops themselves are appointed by the Vatican and only until they are 75. That’s not usurping authority.

 

[benedictgal]

I made 14 posts, 4 directed to you. The sources that I have used are listed below and none of them has indicated anything contrary to Confraternity of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. None of the statements from those sources say that the faithful should be imposed upon or accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion. As I quoted previously the USCCB has said:

“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.”
It may not be communicated that it is illicit for the faithful, however the presbyter based upon the decision of his bishop, may need to provide catechesis on the norm. I have been showing the USCCB catechesis on the issue from their documents.

For reference the CDWDS recognito is Prot. n. 47/03/L (2003) “…this Congregation gave the recognitio to the norm … this was done on the condition that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds”]

Communion Norms:

1. Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America (includes CDWDS Prots. 1383/01/L, Prot. 1382/01/L ) (June 2001):
   nccbuscc.org/liturgy/current/norms.shtml
2. Clarification on the Proper Posture and Sign of Veneration for Reception of Holy Communion (July 2002):
   nccbuscc.org/liturgy/innews/072002.shtml

Posture at other times:

1. Clarification on the Proper Posture During the Eucharistic Prayer (Sept 2002):
   usccb.org/liturgy/innews/092002.shtml
2. Clarification on Posture of the Faithful Following Individual Reception of Holy Communion (including CDWDS Prot. n. 855/03/L) (July 2003)
   usccb.org/liturgy/innews/703.shtml

On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist:

1. Redemptionis Sacramentum (2004):
   vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

Other GIRM:

1. UK Wales GIRM (2005):
   liturgyoffice.org.uk/Resources/GIRM/Documents/GIRM.pdf
2. Latin GIRM:
   salesianer.de/liturgie/igmr2002.htm

Vico, with all due respect, some of your own citations even disprove the points that you were making. You have consistently labled kneeling in order to receive Holy Communion as ilicit, something that the CDWDS said is not to be the case. Furthermore, you keep ignoring that the CDWDS only granted the adaptation to the GIRM for the United States on the condition that the faithful were to be allowed to kneel (their legitimate option) and not be denied Holy Communion. A further statement from the CDWDS cautioned the bishops against calling the posture ilicit and disobedient. RS further protects the communicant.

 

[benedictgal]

Only in this case, the RS specifically says that the decision whether to stand or kneel for Communion rests with the Bishop’s Conference. The force of law is with the Bishops, not the Pope or CDWDS. They cannot just give the Bishops the authority and then take it back just like that, unless of course it is specifically stated in the letter of the law. It is not. The Pope cannot say, “hey, you decide on this. But I’ll change it later if I want to.” That’s not how it works. Of course, the Pope can also just change the law itself. But unless he does, the law favors the Bishops in this case.

Constantine, with all due respect, you still do not understand the chain of command here. The law does not necessarily rest on the side of the bishop, here, as has been pointed out consistently by the CDWDS statements on this matter (which you and other posters supporting your viewpoint tend to ignore and, to a certain respect, downright disregard).

The CDWDS is the ultimate authority here. Who do you think the bishops needed to get the recognitio from in order to secure this adaptation? Themselves? No. It was from the Holy See. But, the Holy See, whether you choose to admit this or believe this, stipuated that standing would be allowed on the condition that kneeling was also to be respected as a proper posture for receiving Holy Communion. This stipulation appears in just about every letter concerning the posture of kneeling to receive Holy Communion. These letters also bear a protocol number meaning that they are official rulings from the CDWDS.

And yes, the CDWDS has the authority over the bishops and, as in the case of the issue of kneeling to receive Holy Communion, they have overruled said bishops, regardless of who the prefect is.

 

[Vico]

Vico, with all due respect, some of your own citations even disprove the points that you were making. You have consistently labled kneeling in order to receive Holy Communion as ilicit, something that the CDWDS said is not to be the case. Furthermore, you keep ignoring that the CDWDS only granted the adaptation to the GIRM for the United States on the condition that the faithful were to be allowed to kneel (their legitimate option) and not be denied Holy Communion. A further statement from the CDWDS cautioned the bishops against calling the posture ilicit and disobedient. RS further protects the communicant.

You wrote: “You have consistently labled kneeling in order to receive Holy Communion as ilicit”

Not so, the norm is a standard, kneeling is not prohibited.

You will have to provide examples, because I believe they are all logical. I have been revealing the norm and the purpose of the norm, without asserting anything against kneelers receiving.

As mentioned in my last post and previously acknowledge that the CDWDS only granted the adaptation to the GIRM for the United States on the condition that the faithful were to be allowed to kneel and not be denied Holy Comm.

You wrote: “…the CDWDS cautioned the bishops against calling the posture ilicit and disobedient…”.

There is one statement that includes the word illicit, but it is not directed to the communicants, in the July 2002 BCL Newsletter. The Bishops’ Commission on the Liturgical (BCL) Apostolate newsletter is intended primarily for the Bishops of the United States and for their diocesan liturgical commissions. Any actual mention of kneeling being illicit to a kneeling communicant would be a violation of the direction from CDWDS.

Actually what the CDWDS said, shown below, states that they not to be **denied, **not be imposed upon, nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly, when they kneel for Holy Communion.

“…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.”

The legality of kneeling it is not an issue in my statements, rather that the GIRM US only indicates giving catechesis on the norm, not refusal.

The CDWDS has mentioned two canons regarding refusal of communion:

“The Congregation … considers any refusal of Holy Communion to a member of the faithful on the basis of his or her kneeling posture to be a grave violation of one of the most basic rights of the Christian faithful” and mentions Canon 213 (must be Assisted by pastors to receive the sacraments) and Canon 843.1 (no refusal for properly disposed to receive Holy Communion).

There is no statement by me or in my sources that I have given that has supported denial of Holy Communion to kneelers, nor to tell them it is illegal or prohibited. That has not been the point, rather understanding the norm and it’s rationale.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t see this happening. Standing and CITH were selectively and conditionally granted by the Magisterium of the Church. Don’t forget the bishops themselves are appointed by the Vatican and only until they are 75. That’s not usurping authority.

Still, that doesn’t mean he can change regulations on a whim. That is why I mean by usurping authority. If the Bishops are given authority to do something, no one else can make them do something otherwise. If the Pope wants to change the universal practice, then he’ll have to change the law itself, not start suspending indults without good reason (ie, “I change my mind” is not a good reason).

 

[ConstantineTG]

Constantine, with all due respect, you still do not understand the chain of command here. The law does not necessarily rest on the side of the bishop, here, as has been pointed out consistently by the CDWDS statements on this matter (which you and other posters supporting your viewpoint tend to ignore and, to a certain respect, downright disregard).

The CDWDS is the ultimate authority here. Who do you think the bishops needed to get the recognitio from in order to secure this adaptation? Themselves? No. It was from the Holy See. But, the Holy See, whether you choose to admit this or believe this, stipuated that standing would be allowed on the condition that kneeling was also to be respected as a proper posture for receiving Holy Communion. This stipulation appears in just about every letter concerning the posture of kneeling to receive Holy Communion. These letters also bear a protocol number meaning that they are official rulings from the CDWDS.

And yes, the CDWDS has the authority over the bishops and, as in the case of the issue of kneeling to receive Holy Communion, they have overruled said bishops, regardless of who the prefect is.

We are not ignoring the chain of command. But the Church doesn’t work that way. The Pope just cannot make changes on a whim. As I said before, he is the Supreme Pontiff, not a dictatorial overlord. The rule of law must be followed. He cannot make hasty changes to something that is specified in law, this case RS. The RS specifically states that the decision to choose standing or kneeling for Communion is up to the Bishops, not the Pope nor the CDWDS. So unless the Pope changes the law itself, the Pope cannot go against the very law he enacted. It just doesn’t work that way.

Also, you are disregarding the language of the directive. The CDWDS did NOT overrule the Bishops. They simply sent out a directive saying those who chose to kneel should not be denied Communion. They did not say that kneeling is part of the norm that the Bishops have chosen. What the Bishops have chosen still remains in effect.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t see this happening. Standing and CITH were selectively and conditionally granted by the Magisterium of the Church. Don’t forget the bishops themselves are appointed by the Vatican and only until they are 75. That’s not usurping authority.

No, standing is a choice that rests upon the Bishops. The choice have been given to them through the text of the RS. There is no condition on it. Read RS 90, there is not condition for choosing standing to be the norm. It is not an indult. CITH yes. Standing, no.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Quoting Michelle Arnold from this thread → forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6973116#post6973116

Kneeling for Communion is not a standard posture for reception of Communion, except at those liturgies at which it is expected for all communicants (such as the extraordinary form of the Roman liturgy). The standard posture for the ordinary form of the Roman liturgy is to stand. While a priest should not embarrass someone who inappropriately kneels for Communion by refusing him Communion, he should privately counsel that individual to stand for Communion in the future. If the communicant knowingly and deliberately refuses to follow the priest’s counsel, he is not doing so out of piety but out of willful disobedience to the just direction of his spiritual father in Christ.