Receiving Communion

[itsaqt58]

I was brought up to only receive communion once in a 24 hour period unless given special dispensation by the priest. Ihave noticed that some members of our choir group receive communion more than once when we are required to sing at more than one Mass?

What is the rule on this.

Thanks:shrug:

 

[MarkThompson]

I was brought up to only receive communion once in a 24 hour period unless given special dispensation by the priest. Ihave noticed that some members of our choir group receive communion more than once when we are required to sing at more than one Mass?

What is the rule on this.

Thanks:shrug:

You may receive once in a day under any circumstances (e.g., you just pop into church for Communion and don’t stay for Mass). You may receive a second time if it is at a Mass you attend. Beyond the second time in a day, you may only receive if you are in danger of death.

Therefore if the choir members go to multiple Masses in a day, they may receive twice.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I was brought up to only receive communion once in a 24 hour period unless given special dispensation by the priest. Ihave noticed that some members of our choir group receive communion more than once when we are required to sing at more than one Mass?

What is the rule on this.

Thanks:shrug:

Yes, you can receive twice per day provided that you attend the full Mass on the second. You can receive more if you are in danger of death or dying, or if you are a priest celebrating the Mass more than 2 times in a given Sunday for the public.

 

[Vico]

…
Thus, it is important to stress that the adaptation approved on the condition that those who knelt would not be denied Holy Communion and not be accused of disobedience or acting ilicitly. Thus, kneeling is a licit posture to receive Holy Communion. Unfortunately, with all due respect, the fact that the CDWDS has repeatedly upheld this has been lost on not a few people here.
…

The CDWDS gave the recognito to norm 160 with added condition. The condition, shown in the instruction in the letter on the adaptation for GIRM US 160 *, tells how to provide the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm, which is without imposing upon nor accusing them of disobedience and of acting ilicitly. The norm indicates that such instances shouldbe addressed pastorally.

(Exerpt from GIRM US 160) “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.”

 

[ProVobis]

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (2002) states:

I think the Cardinal Arinze video is more recent than than 2002. In fact it appears to be a clarification in English. He does say that the Holy Father had made some corrections.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think the Cardinal Arinze video is more recent than than 2002. In fact it appears to be a clarification in English. He does say that the Holy Father had made some corrections.

Cardinal Arinze’s video doesn’t replace or invalidate the GIRM though.

 

[benedictgal]

But, Cardinal Arinze does clarify things. I wonder if the ones who oppose kneeling would accuse Pope Benedict of violating the norm in the event that he returns to the US and has communicants receiving from him kneel. I believe that this is a fair question. Please excuse my typos. It is hard to type on a Blackberry.

 

[ConstantineTG]

But, Cardinal Arinze does clarify things. I wonder if the ones who oppose kneeling would accuse Pope Benedict of violating the norm in the event that he returns to the US and has communicants receiving from him kneel. I believe that this is a fair question. Please excuse my typos. It is hard to type on a Blackberry.

I do not oppose kneeling. I oppose disobedience

 

[benedictgal]

Please do not mischaracterize those who kneel as disobedient. The CDWDS did not use that language and, in fact, stated that those who choose to kneel (a legitimate posture) are not to be accused of being disobedient. If the Holy See does not condemn it, neither should we. Labeling people as disobedient is, in my opinion, a very uncharitable statement that flies in the face of what the CDWDS has written.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Please do not mischaracterize those who kneel as disobedient. The CDWDS did not use that language and, in fact, stated that those who choose to kneel (a legitimate posture) are not to be accused of being disobedient. If the Holy See does not condemn it, neither should we. Labeling people as disobedient is, in my opinion, a very uncharitable statement that flies in the face of what the CDWDS has written.

Of course those who kneel are not disobedient. Those who have been addressed pastorally by their pastors and then chose not to obey their pastors are the ones who are disobedient.

 

[Vico]

But, Cardinal Arinze does clarify things. I wonder if the ones who oppose kneeling would accuse Pope Benedict of violating the norm in the event that he returns to the US and has communicants receiving from him kneel. I believe that this is a fair question. Please excuse my typos. It is hard to type on a Blackberry.

But, Cardinal Arinze does clarify things. I wonder if the ones who oppose kneeling would accuse Pope Benedict of violating the norm in the event that he returns to the US and has communicants receiving from him kneel. I believe that this is a fair question. Please excuse my typos. It is hard to type on a Blackberry.

The faithful are subject to territorial laws based upon domicile or quasi-domicile, when they are in that territory. If Pope Benedict XVI instructs to kneel, we kneel, because that is a dispensation for us.

Pope Benedict XVI himself is not subject to the US GIRM which is territorial law. See CIC 12-13.

Can. 12 §1. Universal laws bind everywhere all those for whom they were issued.
§2. All who are actually present in a certain territory, however, are exempted from universal laws which are not in force in that territory.
§3. Laws established for a particular territory bind those for whom they were issued as well as those who have a domicile or quasi-domicile there and who at the same time are actually residing there, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 13.
Can. 13 §1. Particular laws are not presumed to be personal but territorial unless it is otherwise evident.
§2. Travelers are not bound:
1/ by the particular laws of their own territory as long as they are absent from it unless either the transgression of those laws causes harm in their own territory or the laws are personal;
2/ by the laws of the territory in which they are present, with the exception of those laws which provide for public order, which determine the formalities of acts, or which regard immovable goods located in the territory.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3.HTM

 

[benedictgal]

Of course those who kneel are not disobedient. Those who have been addressed pastorally by their pastors and then chose not to obey their pastors are the ones who are disobedient.

But, the CDWDS did not even go so far as to requiring that those faithful who chose to kneel have to be “forced” to “obey” their pastors in this regard. My pastor can explain to me the reasoning behind the standing posture, but, he cannot force the issue on me if the Holy See has already guaranteed my right to kneel. With all due respect, you were the one who said that you did not support disobedience. But, your line of thought still accuses people of being disobedient even when the Holy See itself does not use that language and is, in fact, telling the USCCB not to make that accusation either.

 

[ProVobis]

Of course those who kneel are not disobedient. Those who have been addressed pastorally by their pastors and then chose not to obey their pastors are the ones who are disobedient.

Not so and we have a Cardinal Arinze video to clearly tell us that.

 

[benedictgal]

The faithful are subject to territorial laws based upon domicile or quasi-domicile, when they are in that territory. If Pope Benedict XVI instructs to kneel, we kneel, because that is a dispensation for us.

Pope Benedict XVI himself is not subject to the US GIRM which is territorial law. See CIC 12-13.

Can. 12 §1. Universal laws bind everywhere all those for whom they were issued.
§2. All who are actually present in a certain territory, however, are exempted from universal laws which are not in force in that territory.
§3. Laws established for a particular territory bind those for whom they were issued as well as those who have a domicile or quasi-domicile there and who at the same time are actually residing there, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 13.
Can. 13 §1. Particular laws are not presumed to be personal but territorial unless it is otherwise evident.
§2. Travelers are not bound:
1/ by the particular laws of their own territory as long as they are absent from it unless either the transgression of those laws causes harm in their own territory or the laws are personal;
2/ by the laws of the territory in which they are present, with the exception of those laws which provide for public order, which determine the formalities of acts, or which regard immovable goods located in the territory.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3.HTM

Vico, your line of reasoning is still placing an added burden on the faithful when the CDWDS does not even go that far. With all due respect, if the CDWDS has consistently ratified the faithful’s right to kneel, and has gone so far as to state that those who kneel are not being disobedient, then, we should not be sitting in judgment of these individuals.

I am glad, nonetheless, to see that you are not going so far as to accuse the Holy Father of disobedience and that you are recognizing his universal authority, which, he also extends to the Curial Congregations (including the CDWDS).

By the way, for whatever it’s worth, this was my 10,000th post.

 

[Vico]

Vico, your line of reasoning is still placing an added burden on the faithful when the CDWDS does not even go that far. With all due respect, if the CDWDS has consistently ratified the faithful’s right to kneel, and has gone so far as to state that those who kneel are not being disobedient, then, we should not be sitting in judgment of these individuals.

I am glad, nonetheless, to see that you are not going so far as to accuse the Holy Father of disobedience and that you are recognizing his universal authority, which, he also extends to the Curial Congregations (including the CDWDS).

By the way, for whatever it’s worth, this was my 10,000th post.

That is a lot of posts!

The clergy are bound to obedience, so they should follow the approved norms, but they may receive instructions, or a dispensation, or indult to proceed differently.

A norm is a standard, and the presbyter has approval to teach those reasons, in a certain way as specified by CDWDS. This is their responsibility.

There are reasons for the faithful to follow the norm other than fear of disobedience, which were stated earlied in this thread. I am not judging those that do not follow the norm.

 

[benedictgal]

That is a lot of posts!

The clergy are bound to obedience, so they should follow the approved norms, but they may receive instructions, or a dispensation, or indult to proceed differently.

A norm is a standard, and the presbyter has approval to teach those reasons, in a certain way as specified by CDWDS. This is their responsibility.

There are reasons for the faithful to follow the norm other than fear of disobedience, which were stated earlied in this thread. I am not judging those that do not follow the norm.

But, Vico, there is no disobedience here. We cannot call something disobedience if the Holy See has already stated that the folks who kneel are not disobeying. Furthermore, while the clergy are bound by obedience, this also holds true for the bishops. The fact that Holy Communion was denied to the communicants who chose to kneel indicates that there was actually disobedience on the part of the said clergy because they had no right to deny such to the faithful simply because they chose to exercise a legitimate option.

The Holy See made it very clear that the faithful had the right to kneel. Even though the pastors can explain the reasoning behind standing, they cannot compel nor force the faithful who legitimately chose to kneel in order to receive Holy Communion to refrain from doing so. The CDWDS was very clear about that. Furthermore, such “pastora” explanations have been anything but and, sadly, have been used as a means of intimidation on not a few occasions. Obviously, the pastor can explain, but, he cannot force.

For folks to consistently accuse the faithful of engaging in disobedience is to not completely understand what the CDWDS has said repeatedly on the matter. Furthermore, the fact that they are still receiving letters of complaint on the subject is indication that there are still problems and serious misconceptions and misperceptions.

Even the new prefect of the CDWDS, Antonio Cardinal Canizares Lloera has weighed in on the matter:

La Razón:] Nevertheless, Benedict XVI has reiterated in some instances the propriety of receiving communion kneeling and in the mouth. Is it something important, or is it a mere matter of form?

[Cañizares:] - No, it is not just a matter of form. What does it mean to receive communion in the mouth? What does it mean to kneel before the Most Holy Sacrament? What dies it mean to kneel during the consecration at Mass? It means adoration, it means recognizing the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist; it means respect and an attitude of faith of a man who prostrates before God because he knows that everything comes from Him, and we feel speechless, dumbfounded, before the wondrousness, his goodness, and his mercy. That is why it is not the same to place the hand, and to receive communion in any fashion, than doing it in a respectful way; it is not the same to receive communion kneeling or standing up, because all these signs indicate a profound meaning. What we have to grasp is that profound attitude of the man who prostrates himself before God, and that is what the Pope wants.

In another excerpt from the same interview, he notes that:

As is known, the current universal discipline of the Church requires that as a norm Communion is distributed into the mouth of the faithful. Then there is an indult that allows, at the request of episcopates, to distribute Communion on the palm of the hand also. This is worth remembering. The pope, then, to give greater prominence to the due reverence with which we must approach the Body of Christ, wished that the faithful who receive Communion from his hands do so on their knees. This seemed to me a beautiful and edifying initiative of the Bishop of Rome. The present norms do not require anyone to do the same. But neither do they prevent it.

This last statement is very important. Inasmuch as the prefect is addressing this issue by way of an interview, he states that the norms do not prevent the distribution of Holy Communion to those who kneel. It is also consistent with what the CDWDS ,through its previous prefects, has been saying all along.

 

[benedictgal]

Here is another statement made by Cardinal Canizares just last year:

If Communion in the mouth goes with the gesture of kneeling, it expresses in a stronger way, with stronger force, the real presence of Christ, the sense of adoration, the participation in the body of Christ that offers Himself for us.

If the papal liturgy is a sign, an indication for all the Church, we should promote Communion kneeling and in the mouth.

Now, he is not ruling out CITH; however, he has made an interesting observation about how it should be done:

But, this does not mean not permitting or forbidding Communion in the hand if it is done with due respect. With a previous gesture of adoration. This could be kneeling, or a genuflection or with a deep bow.

So, even at that point, he is not even ruling out kneeling to receive CITH. Now that is an interesting proposal.

 

[Vico]

But, Vico, there is no disobedience here. We cannot call something disobedience if the Holy See has already stated that the folks who kneel are not disobeying. Furthermore, while the clergy are bound by obedience, this also holds true for the bishops. The fact that Holy Communion was denied to the communicants who chose to kneel indicates that there was actually disobedience on the part of the said clergy because they had no right to deny such to the faithful simply because they chose to exercise a legitimate option.

The Holy See made it very clear that the faithful had the right to kneel. Even though the pastors can explain the reasoning behind standing, they cannot compel nor force the faithful who legitimately chose to kneel in order to receive Holy Communion to refrain from doing so. The CDWDS was very clear about that. Furthermore, such “pastora” explanations have been anything but and, sadly, have been used as a means of intimidation on not a few occasions. Obviously, the pastor can explain, but, he cannot force.

For folks to consistently accuse the faithful of engaging in disobedience is to not completely understand what the CDWDS has said repeatedly on the matter. Furthermore, the fact that they are still receiving letters of complaint on the subject is indication that there are still problems and serious misconceptions and misperceptions.

Even the new prefect of the CDWDS, Antonio Cardinal Canizares Lloera has weighed in on the matter:

In another excerpt from the same interview, he notes that:

This last statement is very important. Inasmuch as the prefect is addressing this issue by way of an interview, he states that the norms do not prevent the distribution of Holy Communion to those who kneel. It is also consistent with what the CDWDS ,through its previous prefects, has been saying all along.

I did not say that the faithful that did not follow the norm were disobedient, in fact this is what I said: “There are reasons for the faithful to follow the norm other than fear of disobedience”. Honestly, I think you are not reading what I write.

It is understood what the norm is for?

GIRM US 42: “The gestures and posture of the priest, the deacon, and the ministers, as well as those of the people, ought to contribute to making the entire celebration resplendent with beauty and noble simplicity, so that the true and full meaning of the different parts of the celebration is evident and that the participation of all is fostered. 52 Therefore, attention should be paid to what is determined by this General Instruction and the traditional practice of the Roman Rite and to what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God, rather than private inclination or arbitrary choice. A common posture, to be observed by all participants, is a sign of the unity of the members of the Christian community gathered for the Sacred Liturgy: it both expresses and fosters the intention and spiritual attitude of the participants.”

1. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, nos. 30, 34; cf. also Sacred Congregation of Rites, Instruction Musicam sacram, On music in the Liturgy, 5 March 1967, no. 21.

Now, some do not follow this instruction because they have health problems, and others because they do not know about it, still others because they do not think it important, etc. So this may undermine the unity of the members of the Christian community which, rather, is a goal in the GIRM to uphold.

You said: "The fact that Holy Communion was denied to the communicants who chose to kneel indicates that there was actually disobedience on the part of the said clergy… " – Yes!

And: “Obviously, the pastor can explain, but, he cannot force.” – Yes!

Still complaints about the priests? The logical thing to do, for Rome, is to reverse the norm regarding communion in the USA and make kneeling the norm with catechis for standers (standing may be better for those with health problems). Then they would *normally *kneel for COTT or CITH.

 

[benedictgal]

I did not say that the faithful that did not follow the norm were disobedient, in fact this is what I said: “There are reasons for the faithful to follow the norm other than fear of disobedience”. Honestly, I think you are not reading what I write.

It is understood what the norm is for?

GIRM US 42: “The gestures and posture of the priest, the deacon, and the ministers, as well as those of the people, ought to contribute to making the entire celebration resplendent with beauty and noble simplicity, so that the true and full meaning of the different parts of the celebration is evident and that the participation of all is fostered. 52 Therefore, attention should be paid to what is determined by this General Instruction and the traditional practice of the Roman Rite and to what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God, rather than private inclination or arbitrary choice. A common posture, to be observed by all participants, is a sign of the unity of the members of the Christian community gathered for the Sacred Liturgy: it both expresses and fosters the intention and spiritual attitude of the participants.”

1. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, nos. 30, 34; cf. also Sacred Congregation of Rites, Instruction Musicam sacram, On music in the Liturgy, 5 March 1967, no. 21.

Now, some do not follow this instruction because they have health problems, and others because they do not know about it, still others because they do not think it important, etc. So this may undermine the unity of the members of the Christian community which, rather, is a goal in the GIRM to uphold.

You said: "The fact that Holy Communion was denied to the communicants who chose to kneel indicates that there was actually disobedience on the part of the said clergy… " – Yes!

And: “Obviously, the pastor can explain, but, he cannot force.” – Yes!

Still complaints about the priests? The logical thing to do, for Rome, is to reverse the norm regarding communion in the USA and make kneeling the norm with catechis for standers (standing may be better for those with health problems). Then they would *normally *kneel for COTT or CITH.

Vico, you keep citing the GIRM on the issue of unity in posture, but, even at that point, the CDWDS has repeatedly said that it should not be done to the point of rigidity insofar as kneeling is concerned. Even the prefects (past and present) have made this point. Rome has already stated time and time again that kneeling is a licit and legitimate posture. In fact, Rome made that very clear when granting the adaptation to the United States for standing, making it conditional and contingent on respecting the right of the faithful to kneel in order to receive.

I am happy that you agree with at least two points.

 

[Tomster]

angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=33375

This is just a heads up.

You are being watched and critiqued!