Receiving Communion

[ConstantineTG]

The CDWDS did not insert that clause; the USCCB did. Here is the text of what the CDWDS told the USCCB when it granted the recognitio for the American adaptation:

The CDWDS said nothing about an “instruction” clause. The clause the CDWDS referenced was to protect those faithful who choose to kneel.

From the language of what you posted, there is no directive from the CDWDS. Urging means its an important request, but a request nonetheless. The authority of the USCCB on this matter is preserved.

 

[MarkThompson]

From the language of what you posted, there is no directive from the CDWDS. Urging means its an important request, but a request nonetheless. The authority of the USCCB on this matter is preserved.

Good call. It’s telling, isn’t it, that the CDWDS has never, not even a single time, called kneeling in violation of U.S. liturgical law “licit,” “legitimate,” “permitted,” “optional,” “acceptable,” or anything similar. Some people want to do the CDWDS’s job for them, though, and draw these conclusions when the Congregation itself has steadfastly (and, may I say, quite appropriately, given the canonical structure set up for making these determinations) refrained from ever doing so.

Needless to say, you’re right, and kneeling is most definitely not a legitimate option under the U.S. GIRM. The GIRM doesn’t give any option. It says, “stand.” It merely provides that you are not to be punished if you choose to disregard the GIRM and go your own way.

 

[benedictgal]

From the language of what you posted, there is no directive from the CDWDS. Urging means its an important request, but a request nonetheless. The authority of the USCCB on this matter is preserved.

Constantine, you are not looking at the entire dialogue between the CDWDS and the USCCB. Even after the statement appeared in the GIRM, the faithful were still writing letters to the Congregation regarding the issue of receiving Holy Communion while kneeling. The CDWDS used stronger language in 2002 and 2003 reaffirming the legitimacy of kneeling:

From 2002:

The Congregation in fact is concerned at the number of similar complaints that it has received in recent months from various places, and 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, namely that of being assisted by their Pastors by means of the Sacraments (Codex Iuris Canonici, canon 213). In view of the law that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who opportunely ask for them, are properly disposed and are not prohibited by law from receiving them” (canon 843 ¶ 1), there should be no such refusal to any Catholic who presents himself for Holy Communion at Mass, except in cases presenting a danger of grave scandal to other believers arising out of the person’s unrepented public sin or obstinate heresy or schism, publicly professed or declared. Even where the Congregation has approved of legislation denoting standing as the posture for Holy Communion, in accordance with the adaptations permitted to the Conferences of Bishops by the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani n. 160, paragraph 2, it has done so with the stipulation that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds.

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.

Given the importance of this matter, the Congregation would request that Your Excellency inquire specifically whether this priest in fact has a regular practice of refusing Holy Communion to any member of the faithful in the circumstances described above and – if the complaint is verified – that you also firmly instruct him and any other priests who may have had such a practice to refrain from acting thus in the future. Priests should understand that the Congregation will regard future complaints of this nature with great seriousness, and if they are verified, it intends to seek disciplinary action consonant with the gravity of the pastoral abuse.

From 2003:

As the authority by virtue of whose recognitio the norm in question has attained the force of law, this Dicastery is competent to specify the manner in which the norm is to be understood for the sake of a proper application. Having received more than a few letters regarding this matter from different locations in the United States of America, the Congregation wishes to ensure that its position on the matter is clear.

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”.

Throughout this thread, folks who choose to kneel when receiving Holy Communion have been mischaracterized as acting ilicitly. The Holy See has repeatedly stated that this is not the case at all. In fact, it used quite stronger language in its 2002 response.

The CDWDS, as the grantor of the recognitio to the American adaptation on standing, obviously recognizes that standing for Holy Communion is what the bishops have requested. No one is arguing that. However, the approval for the posture of standing was granted only on the condition that those who choose to kneel would be free to do so. As evidenced in the subsequent correspondence from the CDWDS, this is something that not even a bishop can change, let alone overrule.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Good, I’ll be interested to hear what they say!

LOL, I called our Office for Religious Education and the lady I spoke with said she’ll try to look for a copy of the GIRM for me. Then I asked her if I can bug the Liturgy Commission about it and she said, “we have a Liturgy Commission?” And this is a person working in the office building of the Archdiocese.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Good, I’ll be interested to hear what they say!

Okay, here’s what the nice lady from the diocese told me. They are still working on the adaptations for Canada for the GIRM and it will probably be out in the next couple of years. There is no intermediary provisions for our diocese (I asked about it).

So at this point I think we just follow the universal GIRM and if there is an “or” there like standing or kneeling, its up to the individual to choose. I don’t think the Diocesan Bishop or Parish Pastor can impose if the GIRM or RS itself doesn’t give them that authority since it specifies it is to be determined by the Bishops’ Conference.

So you kneelers out there, come to Canada!

 

[ConstantineTG]

Constantine, you are not looking at the entire dialogue between the CDWDS and the USCCB. Even after the statement appeared in the GIRM, the faithful were still writing letters to the Congregation regarding the issue of receiving Holy Communion while kneeling. The CDWDS used stronger language in 2002 and 2003 reaffirming the legitimacy of kneeling:

From 2002:

From 2003:

Throughout this thread, folks who choose to kneel when receiving Holy Communion have been mischaracterized as acting ilicitly. The Holy See has repeatedly stated that this is not the case at all. In fact, it used quite stronger language in its 2002 response.

The CDWDS, as the grantor of the recognitio to the American adaptation on standing, obviously recognizes that standing for Holy Communion is what the bishops have requested. No one is arguing that. However, the approval for the posture of standing was granted only on the condition that those who choose to kneel would be free to do so. As evidenced in the subsequent correspondence from the CDWDS, this is something that not even a bishop can change, let alone overrule.

Our servers here in the office are conking out, so a little more downtime for CAF

I’ve read what you’ve posted and its the same from what I’ve known all along. Sorry, I still side with Mark with this that there is nothing there that says kneeling is allowed or is a right of the laity. Its pretty clear that it just says that kneeling is not an offence that would warrant denial of Communion. It doesn’t say that the laity has the right to kneel. Althought the bottomline here is those who choose to kneel would still be able to receive, no question about that. The only problem is are they undermining the authority of their Bishop over them if they indeed have been addressed pastoraly?

 

[benedictgal]

Our servers here in the office are conking out, so a little more downtime for CAF

I’ve read what you’ve posted and its the same from what I’ve known all along. Sorry, I still side with Mark with this that there is nothing there that says kneeling is allowed or is a right of the laity. Its pretty clear that it just says that kneeling is not an offence that would warrant denial of Communion. It doesn’t say that the laity has the right to kneel. Althought the bottomline here is those who choose to kneel would still be able to receive, no question about that. The only problem is are they undermining the authority of their Bishop over them if they indeed have been addressed pastoraly?

Constantine, no one is undermining anyone. The fact that the Holy See has consistently defended kneeling should be a strong indication that this posture is licit and legitimate. Rome has had to intervene on many occasions to defend the faithful not only on kneeling, but also on other matters relevent to the reception of Holy Communion.

 

[MarkThompson]

Okay, here’s what the nice lady from the diocese told me. They are still working on the adaptations for Canada for the GIRM and it will probably be out in the next couple of years. There is no intermediary provisions for our diocese (I asked about it).

So at this point I think we just follow the universal GIRM and if there is an “or” there like standing or kneeling, its up to the individual to choose. I don’t think the Diocesan Bishop or Parish Pastor can impose if the GIRM or RS itself doesn’t give them that authority since it specifies it is to be determined by the Bishops’ Conference.

So you kneelers out there, come to Canada!

Just when you think Rome couldn’t possibly move any slower . . . another couple of years?!

 

[ConstantineTG]

Just when you think Rome couldn’t possibly move any slower . . . another couple of years?!

I don’t know if its Rome’s fault or the CCCB. I heard that the English and French Bishops can’t seem to agree on things. And I thought the English vs. French thing here in Canada is purely a political thing. Apprarently even the Bishops are a part of that mess.

I will ask our Pastor further information in our meeting next week.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Constantine, no one is undermining anyone. The fact that the Holy See has consistently defended kneeling should be a strong indication that this posture is licit and legitimate. Rome has had to intervene on many occasions to defend the faithful not only on kneeling, but also on other matters relevent to the reception of Holy Communion.

I really hate to drag this issue out because I know its been a few pages that you’ve been debating this with Mark. But thats really what I get from reading what you have posted. Unless there’s something more, the language only point to kneelers not being denied Communion and not legitimizing kneeling anyway over the decision of the Bishops. Its like saying on the highway that you can go 5 miles per hour above the speed limit and not be issued a ticket. But that still means you are speeding. It doesn’t change the speed limit to +5 miles per hour. It just means you don’t get penalized for it.

 

[benedictgal]

I really hate to drag this issue out because I know its been a few pages that you’ve been debating this with Mark. But thats really what I get from reading what you have posted. Unless there’s something more, the language only point to kneelers not being denied Communion and not legitimizing kneeling anyway over the decision of the Bishops. Its like saying on the highway that you can go 5 miles per hour above the speed limit and not be issued a ticket. But that still means you are speeding. It doesn’t change the speed limit to +5 miles per hour. It just means you don’t get penalized for it.

ConstantineTG, I am debating this issue with you and Vico, no one else. The reason why there is not to be a penalty imposed on those who kneel is because kneeling is a licit and legitimate posture for receiving Holy Communion. The Holy See specifically states that those who kneel should not be accused of acting ilicitly nor being disobedient. Thus, if the Holy See says that they should not be accused of these things, it’s because kneeling is not illegal.

The fact that the prefects (past and present) of the CDWDS have defended this practice means that it is just as licit and legitimate as standing.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Nevertheless, objectively I do not think it can fairly be said that kneeling is an option.

I watched a podcast of HE Francis Cardinal Arinze (Prefect Emeritus of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments). He said the universal norm for receiving Holy Communion in the Latin Catholic Church sui iuris is kneeling. In countries where the Holy See has granted the concession to receive communion standing any person had the right to receive communion kneeling and that no one must stop them from kneeling.

He then went on with a story of where a protestant had asked a catholic that if you believe in the real presence of Christ in the bread and wine why don’t you kneel in His presence, in fact if you believe Christ is present why aren’t you crawling on your hands and knees? The Cardinal said the protestant was correct!

 

[Vico]

The faithful obey the sacred Pastors (Canon 212) and have a rights to be assisted receiving the sacraments (Canon 213), not refused Holy Communion when properly disposed (Canon 843.1) and to worship according to the approved provisions (Canon 214). (See CIC canons below.)

Because of these rights they are not refused communion. Kneeling is not disobediance because they have a right to be assisted. There is also a standard which is standing communion, which purpose may be explained to those kneeling, is for uniformity which is a sign of unity of the assembly. Then if those kneeling for communion wish to continue to kneel for communion in the future, they make their decision with full knowledge that is it neither illicit nor disobedient, but nevertheless is not the norm which demonstrates unity.

From post 214, 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)."

Can. 212 §1 Christ’s faithful, conscious of their own responsibility, are bound to show christian obedience to what the sacred Pastors, who represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith and prescribe as rulers of the Church.
…
Can. 213 Christ’s faithful have the right to be assisted by their Pastors from the spiritual riches of the Church, especially by the word of God and the sacraments.
Can. 214 Christ’s faithful have the right to worship God according to the provisions of their own rite approved by the lawful Pastors of the Church; they also have the right to follow their own form of spiritual life, provided it is in accord with Church teaching
Can. 843 §1 Sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who opportunely ask for them, are properly disposed and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.

 

[ConstantineTG]

ConstantineTG, I am debating this issue with you and Vico, no one else. The reason why there is not to be a penalty imposed on those who kneel is because kneeling is a licit and legitimate posture for receiving Holy Communion. The Holy See specifically states that those who kneel should not be accused of acting ilicitly nor being disobedient. Thus, if the Holy See says that they should not be accused of these things, it’s because kneeling is not illegal.

The fact that the prefects (past and present) of the CDWDS have defended this practice means that it is just as licit and legitimate as standing.

I’m sorry but thats not implicitly expressed in the document and therefore just a personal interpretation on your part of the document.

 

[benedictgal]

I’m sorry but thats not implicitly expressed in the document and therefore just a personal interpretation on your part of the document.

Actually, it is implicitly expressed in the documents that I have quoted from the CDWDS, ConstantineTG. The mere fact that the CDWDS explicitly stated in its responses that the faithful should not be accused of acting ilicitly nor of being disobedient means that the faithful who choose to kneel are not being ilicit and are not being disobedient.

It is not a personal interpetation because three prefects of the CDWDS (past and present) have also come to the same confusion. You don’t have to take my word for it. But, it seems, with all due respect, that you are ignoring what the CDWDS has stated. Three prefects of the same Congregation saying the same thing can’t all be wrong.

Now, inasmuch as Fr. Z is not an agent of the CDWDS, this thread has even made it onto his blog:

wdtprs.com/blog/2010/08/quaeritur-in-the-usa-is-it-against-the-law-to-kneel-for-communion/

He offers the following observation:

A norm is not the same as a law.

The “norm” for the U.S., in accordance with GIRM 160, is that communicants stand when receiving Holy Communion.

One thing we have learned from post-modernists, is also to read a text for what it doesn’t say. GIRM 160 doesn’t say, “In the United States, Holy Communion must be received while standing.” That would be a disciplinary liturgical law. It would require a dispensation to do something different (i.e., to kneel).

Rather, GIRM 160 in the USA is a norm. That is to say it points to a normative thing, the usual practice, the custom. In 25 years we can have a discussion on what legal force this custom has, but now is not the time.

What the U.S. bishops did in including this norm, with the approval of the Holy See, is state that the normal manner of receiving Holy Communion, in the United States, is standing. The usual way… it is customary now.

The addition of the second statement (communicants “should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel”) shows that the norm is not some sort of enforceable law.

The situation is to be addressed “pastorally”, with explanations, catechesis, etc. Once people have been provided with this, if they chose to continue to kneel they are not being disobedient. They do not do something illicit. They have chosen to follow a practice that differs from the norm. That does not violate a law.

…It is not proper to accuse someone who kneels of being disobedient.

As I wrote, Fr. Z is not an agent of the CDWDS, but, even his explanation is consistent with what the Congregation has stated all along.

 

[MarkThompson]

Father Z’s view seems to be that the U.S. GIRM 160’s reference to a “norm” means that our bishops were just trying to explain what the custom is round these parts, as though it were nothing more than a helpful guide for foreigners. But the underlying GIRM passage on which our norms are based says, “Fideles communicant genuflexi vel stantes, prout Conferentia Episcoporum statuerit.”
Prout: According as, in proportion, accordingly, proportionately as, just as, as

Statuo: To establish, constitute; In gen., to establish by authority
The editio typica GIRM 160 says that the faithful communicate kneeling or standing, “just as,” “according as,” the Bishops’ Conference shall have “established,” “constituted.” It doesn’t say “genuflexi vel stantes, sicut mos sit, si velint.”

It’s a mistake to write off “norm” as meaning “just what most people do, but you don’t have to be very concerned about it.” For one thing, the editio typica GIRM gives the bishops authority to statere whether people will kneel or stand; it does not contain an invitation just to opine on what’s customary. Why would anyone think that a bishops’ conference would need the recognitio of the Holy See to issue a purely descriptive statement about what most people "norm"ally do? No, they need the approval to issue the legal norms which they are canonically entitled to constitute. These are the kinds of “norms” – i.e. things you actually have to pay attention to – of which Redemptionis Sacramentum 5 emphasizes, “The observance of the norms published by the authority of the Church requires conformity of thought and of word, of external action and of the application of the heart.”

Anyone who does not conform his (or her) thought, word, action, and heart to the norm in U.S. GIRM 160, publishes by authority of the Church and repeatedly affirmed to have the force of liturgical law, is pretty much just picking and choosing what they like out of Redemptionis Sacramentum and tossing the rest.

 

[georgewithfaith]

Fine, I get it that a change happened along the way and we started to stand at Communion. From reading some of the posts I also understand that their is nothing wrong with kneeling yet priests, deacons, and EMs seem to get startled or upset by it. Why make a change without considering the many faithful Catholics who wish to kneel?

The Bishops should take take a cue from the Pope when he allowed for wider use of the Tridentine Mass. The Bishops could simply make clear that anyone who receives Communion has the option to either stand or kneel and the both are valid. So when it is my turn to receive Communion allow me to kneel, and if the person behind me prefers to stand when it is their turn to receive Communion let them stand. This would close this issue and allow us all some peace on this issue.

 

[benedictgal]

Fine, I get it that a change happened along the way and we started to stand at Communion. From reading some of the posts I also understand that their is nothing wrong with kneeling yet priests, deacons, and EMs seem to get startled or upset by it. Why make a change without considering the many faithful Catholics who wish to kneel?

The Bishops should take take a cue from the Pope when he allowed for wider use of the Tridentine Mass. The Bishops could simply make clear that anyone who receives Communion has the option to either stand or kneel and the both are valid. So when it is my turn to receive Communion allow me to kneel, and if the person behind me prefers to stand when it is their turn to receive Communion let them stand. This would close this issue and allow us all some peace on this issue.

Actually, the CDWDS has stated that kneeling is neither ilicit nor disobedient. That is why it has consistently defended the faithful who have sent formal letters of complaint about priests who have denied them Holy Communion simply because they choose to kneel. As I have stated many times in this thread, standing was granted the recognitio from Rome on the condition that those who wanted to kneel continue to do so as well.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Fine, I get it that a change happened along the way and we started to stand at Communion. From reading some of the posts I also understand that their is nothing wrong with kneeling yet priests, deacons, and EMs seem to get startled or upset by it. Why make a change without considering the many faithful Catholics who wish to kneel?

Because the Catholic Church is not a democracy. Things are decided by the Pope and the Bishops, not what the laity wants.

Case in point, many laity want divorce to be allowed, should the Church give in to that too?

The Bishops should take take a cue from the Pope when he allowed for wider use of the Tridentine Mass. The Bishops could simply make clear that anyone who receives Communion has the option to either stand or kneel and the both are valid. So when it is my turn to receive Communion allow me to kneel, and if the person behind me prefers to stand when it is their turn to receive Communion let them stand. This would close this issue and allow us all some peace on this issue.

Right. But the what we’re debating is what the letter of the law says. Its not up to us to decide what should be, its up to the Pope, the CDWDS, and the local Bishop and/or Conference of Bishops. It doesn’t really matter what we think is right or wrong, what should be or shouldn’t be. They have the authority, they have the say. All we can do is follow the letter of the law. And this discussion is about what the letter of the law says.

 

[benedictgal]

Because the Catholic Church is not a democracy. Things are decided by the Pope and the Bishops, not what the laity wants.

Case in point, many laity want divorce to be allowed, should the Church give in to that too?

Right. But the what we’re debating is what the letter of the law says. Its not up to us to decide what should be, its up to the Pope, the CDWDS, and the local Bishop and/or Conference of Bishops. It doesn’t really matter what we think is right or wrong, what should be or shouldn’t be. They have the authority, they have the say. All we can do is follow the letter of the law. And this discussion is about what the letter of the law says.

The CDWDS, acting in and with the authority of the Holy Father, has pretty much the final say in this. They have ruled that kneeling is not ilicit and that the faithful who choose this legitimate option are not disobedient. They have pretty much settled the matter.