Receiving Communion

[ConstantineTG]

With due respect Mark, I will take the guidance of a prominent priest over an annonymous chatroom poster. It’s a nice thread you have going here (so far free of “it’s approved!”) so I won’t interfere anymore. I’ve said my peace, peace to you.

Ockham, you should be taking the guidance of your Bishop, not some priest somewhere else in the world who has nothing to do with your diocese.

By the way, the standing or kneeling thing does not apply to Canada. There is no prescription by the CCCB on what the norm is. I asked a knowledgeable priest yesterday and he says it depends on the parish. If there are Communion rails then you kneel. If there are none, then you stand.

Again, this is in Canada only. In the US the Bishops took what RS gave them and issued a norm, which is standing. They even prescribed the proper gesture of reverence which is bowing.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Pope Benedict has requested, among other things, that kneelers be provided for the receiving of Holy Communion. This is still the universal norm [edited]
29Aug.: Beheading of John the Baptist; St. Sabina, M
CallistusPM

For the US? Statements like this should be supported with evidence.

 

[Vico]

Don’t get confused, They are not saying that. Denying Communion is a serious matter, so they want to clear that up that not following the prescription of the Bishops for proper posture is not a serious enough matter that people should be denied Communion. My former pastor even once stated that he cannot give Communion to someone who doesn’t say Amen before receiving. While what he said made sense, its still not proper for him or his EMHCs to deny anyone Communion as Canon Law is very clear on who are those to be denied Communion.

Its like jaywalking. You see many people jaywalk, do they go to jail? No. Perhaps there is a directive from the mayor or chief of police, its not worth their time going after jaywalkers. But that doesn’t mean jaywalking is legal. Its just not a serious enough matter for police to be wasting their time on.

That analogy of jaywalking is incorrect, because there are canon laws that prevent the clergy from denying communion. So for the analogy to be correct it would have to be that the mayor or chief of police says you must obey the law and not give a citation to jaywalkers that you help to cross, since they have a right for you to help them across the street midway.

 

[ConstantineTG]

That analogy of jaywalking is incorrect, because there are canon laws that prevent the clergy from denying communion. So for the analogy to be correct it would have to be that the mayor or chief of police says you must obey the law and not give a citation to jaywalkers that you help to cross, since they have a right for you to help them across the street midway.

Okay then:

During the 2010 Winter Olympics here in Vancouver, the Mayor and the RCMP explicitly said that they will station cops on every SkyTrain (mass transit rail) station for protecting the peace. They also said publicly that they will not be checking tickets to enforce payment of fares. Now, I didn’t choose this analogy earlier because this carries a longer explanation. The SkyTrain is unlike your average mass transit railway in North America. There are no turnstiles or any barrier preventing anyone from casually walking in from the street into the station onto the platform and into the trains even if they don’t pay any fare. Usually the Transit Police will randomly station themselves at stations or go onboard trains and check people’s tickets, if they have one and if its valid. Offenders naturally will get a ticket and a fine, plus kicked off the train.

Good enough? It wasn’t an endorsement saying the SkyTrain was a free service during the Olympics. But if you don’t pay your fare, you won’t be caught and they publicly admitted that.

 

[Vico]

Okay then:

During the 2010 Winter Olympics here in Vancouver, the Mayor and the RCMP explicitly said that they will station cops on every SkyTrain (mass transit rail) station for protecting the peace. They also said publicly that they will not be checking tickets to enforce payment of fares. Now, I didn’t choose this analogy earlier because this carries a longer explanation. The SkyTrain is unlike your average mass transit railway in North America. There are no turnstiles or any barrier preventing anyone from casually walking in from the street into the station onto the platform and into the trains even if they don’t pay any fare. Usually the Transit Police will randomly station themselves at stations or go onboard trains and check people’s tickets, if they have one and if its valid. Offenders naturally will get a ticket and a fine, plus kicked off the train.

Good enough? It wasn’t an endorsement saying the SkyTrain was a free service during the Olympics. But if you don’t pay your fare, you won’t be caught and they publicly admitted that.

No. With communion there is never a ticket given, ever, because it is prohibited to give a ticket. Any analogy must include a norm for a service plus the right to receive that service, plus the duty to provide that service with only instruction of the norm.

 

[benedictgal]

Ockham, you should be taking the guidance of your Bishop, not some priest somewhere else in the world who has nothing to do with your diocese.

By the way, the standing or kneeling thing does not apply to Canada. There is no prescription by the CCCB on what the norm is. I asked a knowledgeable priest yesterday and he says it depends on the parish. If there are Communion rails then you kneel. If there are none, then you stand.

Again, this is in Canada only. In the US the Bishops took what RS gave them and issued a norm, which is standing. They even prescribed the proper gesture of reverence which is bowing.

With all due respect, you are once again not mentioning the fact that the “standing” provision was contingent on retaining kneeling and not prohibiting people from doing so. In fact, as has been repeated many times in this thread, the CDWDS has stated that this posture is not ilicit nor are the faithful to be accused of acting disobediently.

The fact that complaints have arisen from many dioceses in the United States about the faithful being denied Holy Communion (and said fact acknowledged by officials in the CDWDS) should be a clear indication that this has gone even beyond the point of the local bishop.

 

[zab]

With all due respect, you are once again not mentioning the fact that the “standing” provision was contingent on retaining kneeling and not prohibiting people from doing so. In fact, as has been repeated many times in this thread, the CDWDS has stated that this posture is not ilicit nor are the faithful to be accused of acting disobediently.

The fact that complaints have arisen from many dioceses in the United States about the faithful being denied Holy Communion (and said fact acknowledged by officials in the CDWDS) should be a clear indication that this has gone even beyond the point of the local bishop.

In reading the history and interpretaiton of the norm, I did not get the impression that any “standing” provision was contingent on retaining kneeling. The 1967 document, Eucharisticum mysterium as well as the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (third edition) established that the conference of bishops was to choose one posture or the other. There was no choice mentioned for the norm.
In 2002, when the conference finally chose standing as the norm after 35 years of allowing people to make their own choice, then the CDWDS came out with the clarification that people should not be denied Communion nor should they be accused of being disobedient because they knelt. In making this clarification, I do not believe that the CDWDS intended to somehow belittle those who follow the directive of the bishops by uplifting those who deliberately neglect to follow the norm set. I believe that those who choose to kneel are showing no greater reverance (in this situation) than those who rightfully follow the norm set by the bishops.

 

[MarkThompson]

In fact, as has been repeated many times in this thread, the CDWDS has stated that this posture is not illicit nor are the faithful to be accused of acting disobediently.

No. This is false. I beg you, stop repeating this misinformation.

 

[benedictgal]

For the benefit of those who may not have read through several pages of this thread, this is what the CDWDS specifically stated back in 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.

Here is their response in 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".

The fact that the CDWDS specifically stated that the faithful should not be accused of disobedience nor of acting ilicitly" is a clear indicator that the posture of kneeling is not ilicit. If the Holy See did not impose this accusation on the faithful (and, the CDWDS is the highest authority on this aside from the Holy Father), then, who are we to make that accusation? Who are we to impose something that the CDWDS has not imposed?

The fact that the last three prefects of the CDWDS (including the present one) and the Holy Father, himself, also endorse this practice (in fact the CDWDS even went so far as to cite the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger in its 2002 response) should also give us a strong indication that this practice is neither disobedient nor ilicit. The fact that the CDWDS has also defended the faithful in this practice should also not be lost on us.

 

[zab]

For the benefit of those who may not have read through several pages of this thread, this is what the CDWDS specifically stated back in 2002:

Here is their response in 2003:

The fact that the CDWDS specifically stated that the faithful should not be accused of disobedience nor of acting ilicitly" is a clear indicator that the posture of kneeling is not ilicit. If the Holy See did not impose this accusation on the faithful (and, the CDWDS is the highest authority on this aside from the Holy Father), then, who are we to make that accusation? Who are we to impose something that the CDWDS has not imposed?

The fact that the last three prefects of the CDWDS (including the present one) and the Holy Father, himself, also endorse this practice (in fact the CDWDS even went so far as to cite the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger in its 2002 response) should also give us a strong indication that this practice is neither disobedient nor ilicit.

All of these terms and explantions and defense of those who choose not to follow the norm are somewhat confusing to the faithful who want to do what is best and what is right. Maybe some day we will return to kneeling to receive Communion as our Holy Father and many of us may prefer. At least at the Vatican they put out a prie dieus for the people to kneel when they receive Communion from our Holy Father. But as it is, many if not most churches today in the United States do not have a helping aid for the many who need it. So while it may not be “illicit” for those who choose to kneel, the norm in this country is to stand, and no-one should be made to feel that they are being any less reverent for following the norm validly set by the bishops.

 

[MarkThompson]

The fact that the CDWDS specifically stated that the faithful should not be accused of disobedience nor of acting ilicitly" is a clear indicator that the posture of kneeling is not ilicit. If the Holy See did not impose this accusation on the faithful (and, the CDWDS is the highest authority on this aside from the Holy Father), then, who are we to make that accusation? Who are we to impose something that the CDWDS has not imposed?

You’ve now retreated from “So-and-so said X” to “The fact that So-and-so said Y is an indicator of X.” That’s why I asked you to stop repeating the first claim, since it’s simply not true, and one could pore over the CDWDS archives for a year and a day and still not turn up anyplace where they have said what you have repeatedly claimed, which is that kneeling in the OF in the United States is licit.

Please note what the CDWDS actually said: that, when a person is kneeling to receive Communion, the priest should not accuse him of acting illicitly or disobediently. That does not make kneeling licit, it makes people who do kneel in spite of the norm able to receive Communion without getting a tongue-lashing.

 

[benedictgal]

Yes, I see. They were to decide on one or the other, and finally did, and both were valid options. They were informed that the most important criterea in making the decison was “above all the number of the faithful and the arrangement of the churches”.

If the priests had not prohibited the kneelers from receiving, I think there would have been less complaining. But, I am unsuprised that, for personal reasons, some oppose norms.

The key point here is that both options are valid. There are still lots of misconceptions, misperceptions and misunderstandings about the validity of kneeling. It’s interesting that even the CDWDS quoted the statements of the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger to support the posture of kneeling to receive Holy Communion. Bear in mind, too, that the statements quoted from the CDWDS carry protocol numbers. These are official statements, not mere opinions. In fact, these statements appear in the official publication of the CDWDS, Notitiae (similar to the Congressional Record).

It just seems that the fact is lost on us that three prefects of the same Congregation that oversees liturgy and the current Supreme Pontiff (who also employs this practice for communicants receiving from him) all support the validity of kneeling. When we start labeling those who choose to kneel as being disobedient and acting ilicitly because they are exercising a valid option, then, we would appear to be making ourselves greater than the Congregation that has consistently defended this practice in the first place.

 

[dans0622]

Please note what the CDWDS actually said: that, when a person is kneeling to receive Communion, the priest should not accuse him of acting illicitly or disobediently. That does not make kneeling licit, it makes people who do kneel in spite of the norm able to receive Communion without getting a tongue-lashing.

Hi Mark Thompson,

I’ll just jump in and say that, in my opinion, you are stretching things here with your re-phrasing of the response. First of all, I see no reason to limit the CDWDS response and its application to only the precise time when a person is kneeling to receive Communion. Second, no mention is made of this “accusation” being limited to “the priest.” Did “Benedictgal” overstate her case? Maybe. But her reasoning is clearly sound and her application of the responses seem to be in accord with the spirit of the statements coming from the CDWDS.

Admittedly, I have not read all the posts here. In case it wasn’t referenced before, here is a pertinent discussion over at Fr. Zuhlsdorf’s: wdtprs.com/blog/2010/08/quaeritur-in-the-usa-is-it-against-the-law-to-kneel-for-communion/

Dan

 

[ConstantineTG]

No. With communion there is never a ticket given, ever, because it is prohibited to give a ticket. Any analogy must include a norm for a service plus the right to receive that service, plus the duty to provide that service with only instruction of the norm.

You are taking things too literally.

The entire point is that there was a directive from the authorities that rule breakers are not going to get penalized. But that doesn’t make what is illegal into something that is legal.

I can’t believe that an analogy warrants an in-depth analysis. It just helps explain the point in another way. And I’ve delivered on the point.

 

[ConstantineTG]

With all due respect, you are once again not mentioning the fact that the “standing” provision was contingent on retaining kneeling and not prohibiting people from doing so. In fact, as has been repeated many times in this thread, the CDWDS has stated that this posture is not ilicit nor are the faithful to be accused of acting disobediently.

The fact that complaints have arisen from many dioceses in the United States about the faithful being denied Holy Communion (and said fact acknowledged by officials in the CDWDS) should be a clear indication that this has gone even beyond the point of the local bishop.

No, there is no such contingent. Sorry, I just don’t see what you are seeing in the letter of the law.

 

[benedictgal]

You are taking things too literally.

The entire point is that there was a directive from the authorities that rule breakers are not going to get penalized. But that doesn’t make what is illegal into something that is legal.

I can’t believe that an analogy warrants an in-depth analysis. It just helps explain the point in another way. And I’ve delivered on the point.

ConstantineTG, with all due respect, you have really not proven anything. If the Holy See does not call these members of the faithful who are using a legitimate posture “rulebreakers”, it seems to me that it is most uncharitable for us to do so. The CDWDS further stated that this posture is not ilicit. This means that it is legal, licit.

 

[ConstantineTG]

ConstantineTG, with all due respect, you have really not proven anything. If the Holy See does not call these members of the faithful who are using a legitimate posture “rulebreakers”, it seems to me that it is most uncharitable for us to do so. The CDWDS further stated that this posture is not ilicit. This means that it is legal, licit.

The issue isn’t about calling them rulebreakers. Its about calling it what it is when some, like yourself, would claim that people have a right to do something when your bishops ask you to do something else. What else would you call that?

 

[benedictgal]

The issue isn’t about calling them rulebreakers. Its about calling it what it is when some, like yourself, would claim that people have a right to do something when your bishops ask you to do something else. What else would you call that?

But, if the Holy See has already stated that the faithful who kneel are not being disobedient nor acting ilicitly, then, we need to take the Congregation at its word and not make accusatory, uncharitable statements. The bishop can ask, but, he cannot mandate, in this case. If he were to do so, then the faithful have the right of recourse to Rome. Rome has consistently ruled on the side of those who kneel. Resorting to namecalling, in my opinion, is uncharitable and goes against what the CDWDS has already stated.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You know what, I’ve said what I have said. I know there’s no convincing you and you know there’s no convincing me. I’m not going to tell you the same things I have told you the last X pages. No use adding more pages to this thread with the same discussion in the past few pages.

I stand by what I have said. Unless someone authoritative would tell me otherwise.

 

[zab]

The key point here is that both options are valid. There are still lots of misconceptions, misperceptions and misunderstandings about the validity of kneeling. It’s interesting that even the CDWDS quoted the statements of the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger to support the posture of kneeling to receive Holy Communion. Bear in mind, too, that the statements quoted from the CDWDS carry protocol numbers. These are official statements, not mere opinions. In fact, these statements appear in the official publication of the CDWDS, Notitiae (similar to the Congressional Record).

It just seems that the fact is lost on us that three prefects of the same Congregation that oversees liturgy and the current Supreme Pontiff (who also employs this practice for communicants receiving from him) all support the validity of kneeling. When we start labeling those who choose to kneel as being disobedient and acting ilicitly because they are exercising a valid option, then, we would appear to be making ourselves greater than the Congregation that has consistently defended this practice in the first place.

I question your statement that both kneeling and standing are valid options. I don’t believe that it has ever been made clear that we have an option to stand or kneel. The norm calls for a single posture among communicants.
“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.” G.I.R.M. (3rd edition)
The CDWDS did not dispute the desirability for a common posture when it made the clarification that communicants who kneel should not be denied.