Receiving Communion

[benedictgal]

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.

ConstantineTG, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, the CDWDS, the authoritative Curia Congregation that handles all liturgical matters, has already stated authoritatively that the faithful are not to be accused of acting in disobedience nor ilicitly. With all due respect, this does not seem to be enough for you, but, it is clearly stated. Thus, if the CDWDS is not labeling and libeling these faithful, nor persecuting them, neither should we.

I stand by what I have written because it is consistent with what the CDWDS has written. Three prefects and the Supreme Pontiff can’t be wrong.

 

[MarkThompson]

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

Those are reasonable points, Dan, although I was building on issues I’d discussed a couple of pages back. Specifically, if the letter is to be understood as making important changes to liturgical law, it needs to be read narrowly. I cannot believe that a letter intended to usurp the U.S. norm by making kneeling licit would somehow adopt the ungainly phrasing that people should not be accused of acting illicitly “when they kneel.” If and when the CDWDS wants to say that kneeling is licit, they may say that kneeling is licit. That would be a huge change, of course, since it would overthrow Eucharisticum mysterium, GIRM 160 (editio typica), and the recognitio granted to the norms promulgated by the U.S. bishops.

The letter simply cannot, in fairness, be read that way – it’s an insult to the CDWDS more than anyone, to suggest not only that they would usurp the function granted by liturgical law to the bishops (i.e., of determining the posture for receiving Communion), but that they would do so in such an inept, opaque, and backhanded fashion. Rather, what makes perfect sense is that the letter merely amplifies the provision that is already in the U.S. GIRM, namely, that people who do kneel should not be denied Communion, and that correction should be done pastorally: it clarifies that a person cannot be insulted, humiliated, or called names when he kneels to receive.

In other words, the letter can easily be read my way – as explaining and reinforcing the norms our bishops promulgated – or, by a massive stretch, it can be read Benedictgal’s way – as overthrowing those norms without saying saying so, as taking away the bishops’ legal authority to determine whether the faithful will communicate kneeling or standing, and doing it in a highly vague and confusing way and in completely the wrong context. I prefer kneeling for Communion, but I couldn’t possibly level that kind of insult at the CDWDS.

 

[ConstantineTG]

ConstantineTG, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, the CDWDS, the authoritative Curia Congregation that handles all liturgical matters, has already stated authoritatively that the faithful are not to be accused of acting in disobedience nor ilicitly. With all due respect, this does not seem to be enough for you, but, it is clearly stated. Thus, if the CDWDS is not labeling and libeling these faithful, nor persecuting them, neither should we.

I stand by what I have written because it is consistent with what the CDWDS has written. Three prefects and the Supreme Pontiff can’t be wrong.

The issue here is your interpretation of what they said is not correct. I’m not saying I don’t find them authoritative. I just cannot see in the letter of the law they have written where it is consistent with what you claim. So unless someone with authority would care to elaborate futher, then I would go with what I and a couple of other people have been saying the past dozen or so pages of this thread.

 

[benedictgal]

The issue here is your interpretation of what they said is not correct. I’m not saying I don’t find them authoritative. I just cannot see in the letter of the law they have written where it is consistent with what you claim. So unless someone with authority would care to elaborate futher, then I would go with what I and a couple of other people have been saying the past dozen or so pages of this thread.

Actually, with all due respect, the fact that you are labeling the folks who choose to kneel as being “rulebreakers” shows me that you don’t find the CDWDS statements authoritative. In fact, as I read your posts, you seem to be adding language and intepretation that does not even exist in the authoritative statements that they have made. In my opinion, the accusations that you have made are actually 180-degrees to the opposite of what the CDWDS has stated.

 

[jmcrae]

This thread is going in circles and making me dizzy. I am unsubscribing.

 

[benedictgal]

It’s interesting. On Fr. Z’s website, a poster indicated that:

One of the last questions before the bishops asked was whether the statement that standing is the norm was to be interpreted as prescriptive (i.e., what must be done) or merely descriptive (i.e, what is normally observed). The presiding officer replied that it was descriptive, not prescriptive.

Adoremus has the complete transcripts of the USCCB meetings. Thus, the issue of standing is “descriptive”, not “prescriptive.”

 

[ConstantineTG]

Actually, with all due respect, the fact that you are labeling the folks who choose to kneel as being “rulebreakers” shows me that you don’t find the CDWDS statements authoritative. In fact, as I read your posts, you seem to be adding language and intepretation that does not even exist in the authoritative statements that they have made. In my opinion, the accusations that you have made are actually 180-degrees to the opposite of what the CDWDS has stated.

I do find it authoritative, that is why I am following what it is exactly saying.

 

[benedictgal]

I do find it authoritative, that is why I am following what it is exactly saying.

But, you are still labeling the faithful who kneel as “rulebreakers.”

 

[zab]

This thread is going in circles and making me dizzy. I am unsubscribing.

It is too bad that the thread seems to be getting derailed with personal attacks. I believe there have been some good posts on this topic. But we have to be careful of what we believe as fact when reading the posts. For example: Do we in fact have an option to kneel or to stand when receiving Communion? Or is there only one posture (standing) but with the stipulation that Communion should not be denied to those who kneel? Sometimes these things need to be clarified by church officials rather than anonymous posters. In the end, it is really about our own disposition of the manner in which we receive Communion that matters, not about judging others by what they do.

 

[Vico]

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.

I believe it is better not to use an analogy.

“priests who faithfully celebrate Mass according to the liturgical norms, and communities which conform to these norms, quietly but eloquently demonstrate their love for the Church”

Ecclesia De Eucharistia of Bl. Pope John Paul II (2003)
vatican.va/edocs/ENG0821/_INDEX.HTM

There is no doubt that the US norm is binding. CIC canon 838 §4: “Within the limits of his competence, it pertains to the diocesan bishop in the Church entrusted to him to issue liturgical norms which bind everyone.”

There is also no doubt that the faithful are not to be rigid in every liturgical matter (see Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 37).

“37. Even in the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community; rather does she respect and foster the genius and talents of the various races and peoples. Anything in these peoples’ way of life which is not indissolubly bound up with superstition and error she studies with sympathy and, if possible, preserves intact. Sometimes in fact she admits such things into the liturgy itself, so long as they harmonize with its true and authentic spirit.”

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

So the norm is binding, meaning certain things are required or prohibited, however other matters are descriptive in the norm. That which is required is a command, however if this does not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community, then it is not rigid. See Sacrosanctum Concilium no. 37.

All are bound to promote the common good (canon 223, §1) so obedience in disciplinary matters is required, and CDWDS has competency in disciplinary matters.

Canon 212 §1: “The Christian faithful, conscious of their own responsibility, are bound by Christian obedience to follow what the sacred pastors, as representatives of Christ, declare as teachers of the faith, or determine as leaders of the Church.”

The faithful are bound to obedience to their sacred pastors, which means bishops, (canon 212 derived from Lumen Gentium 37). The sacred pastors are bound to assist them to receive the sacraments (SC 91, canon 843 §1) and have been given specific directions from CDWDS to pastorally explain the norm, specifically, not to impose* upon the kneelers or accuse** them of disobedience and that such kneeling is illicit. Therefore the faithful are not in violation of canon 212 by kneeling where standing is the norm. This also demonstrates that this is not a matter of rigidity discussed in SC 37.

• impose: to establish or apply by authority (Merriam Webster)
  ** accuse: to charge with a fault of offense (Merriam Webster)

Mons. Mario Marini, Undersecretary CDWDS (2003) Prot. n. 47 / 03 / L:
ourladyswarriors.org/liturgy/kneeling.htm

 

[ConstantineTG]

I believe it is better not to use an analogy.

“priests who faithfully celebrate Mass according to the liturgical norms, and communities which conform to these norms, quietly but eloquently demonstrate their love for the Church”

Ecclesia De Eucharistia of Bl. Pope John Paul II (2003)
vatican.va/edocs/ENG0821/_INDEX.HTM

There is no doubt that the US norm is binding. CIC canon 838 §4: “Within the limits of his competence, it pertains to the diocesan bishop in the Church entrusted to him to issue liturgical norms which bind everyone.”

There is also no doubt that the faithful are not to be rigid in every liturgical matter (see Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 37).

“37. Even in the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community; rather does she respect and foster the genius and talents of the various races and peoples. Anything in these peoples’ way of life which is not indissolubly bound up with superstition and error she studies with sympathy and, if possible, preserves intact. Sometimes in fact she admits such things into the liturgy itself, so long as they harmonize with its true and authentic spirit.”

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

So the norm is binding, meaning certain things are required or prohibited, however other matters are descriptive in the norm. That which is required is a command, however if this does not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community, then it is not rigid. See Sacrosanctum Concilium no. 37.

All are bound to promote the common good (canon 223, §1) so obedience in disciplinary matters is required, and CDWDS has competency in disciplinary matters.

Canon 212 §1: “The Christian faithful, conscious of their own responsibility, are bound by Christian obedience to follow what the sacred pastors, as representatives of Christ, declare as teachers of the faith, or determine as leaders of the Church.”

The faithful are bound to obedience to their sacred pastors, which means bishops, (canon 212 derived from Lumen Gentium 37). The sacred pastors are bound to assist them to receive the sacraments (SC 91, canon 843 §1) and have been given specific directions from CDWDS to pastorally explain the norm, specifically, not to impose* upon the kneelers or accuse** them of disobedience and that such kneeling is illicit. Therefore the faithful are not in violation of canon 212 by kneeling where standing is the norm. This also demonstrates that this is not a matter of rigidity discussed in SC 37.

• impose: to establish or apply by authority (Merriam Webster)
  ** accuse: to charge with a fault of offense (Merriam Webster)

Mons. Mario Marini, Undersecretary CDWDS (2003) Prot. n. 47 / 03 / L:
ourladyswarriors.org/liturgy/kneeling.htm

Thanks. I’m working with my limited knowledge in the hope that in these discussions, I gain more

 

[Shin]

Hi Mark Thompson,

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

A good link!

 

[zab]

Those are reasonable points, Dan, although I was building on issues I’d discussed a couple of pages back. Specifically, if the letter is to be understood as making important changes to liturgical law, it needs to be read narrowly. I cannot believe that a letter intended to usurp the U.S. norm by making kneeling licit would somehow adopt the ungainly phrasing that people should not be accused of acting illicitly “when they kneel.” If and when the CDWDS wants to say that kneeling is licit, they may say that kneeling is licit. That would be a huge change, of course, since it would overthrow Eucharisticum mysterium, GIRM 160 (editio typica), and the recognitio granted to the norms promulgated by the U.S. bishops.

The letter simply cannot, in fairness, be read that way – it’s an insult to the CDWDS more than anyone, to suggest not only that they would usurp the function granted by liturgical law to the bishops (i.e., of determining the posture for receiving Communion), but that they would do so in such an inept, opaque, and backhanded fashion. Rather, what makes perfect sense is that the letter merely amplifies the provision that is already in the U.S. GIRM, namely, that people who do kneel should not be denied Communion, and that correction should be done pastorally: it clarifies that a person cannot be insulted, humiliated, or called names when he kneels to receive.

In other words, the letter can easily be read my way – as explaining and reinforcing the norms our bishops promulgated – or, by a massive stretch, it can be read Benedictgal’s way – as overthrowing those norms without saying saying so, as taking away the bishops’ legal authority to determine whether the faithful will communicate kneeling or standing, and doing it in a highly vague and confusing way and in completely the wrong context. I prefer kneeling for Communion, but I couldn’t possibly level that kind of insult at the CDWDS.

A good response

 

[dans0622]

Those are reasonable points, Dan, although I was building on issues I’d discussed a couple of pages back. Specifically, if the letter is to be understood as making important changes to liturgical law, it needs to be read narrowly. I cannot believe that a letter intended to usurp the U.S. norm by making kneeling licit would somehow adopt the ungainly phrasing that people should not be accused of acting illicitly “when they kneel.” If and when the CDWDS wants to say that kneeling is licit, they may say that kneeling is licit. That would be a huge change, of course, since it would overthrow Eucharisticum mysterium, GIRM 160 (editio typica), and the recognitio granted to the norms promulgated by the U.S. bishops. … it clarifies that a person cannot be insulted, humiliated, or called names when he kneels to receive.

Hello again,

The question, then, is this: is the CDWDS trying to make changes? I would say no, they aren’t trying to change anything that has been lawfully approved. Their purpose seems to be to position this “norm” in a proper context concerning its binding or non-binding nature.

It is an interesting point made over at Fr. Z’s (by Father Z, and echoed by others there): this “norm” is apparently not a law since it does not bind the faithful to anything. It is a statement of the usual practice here in the USA but it is not imposing/mandating this to be the universal, American practice. That is why the CDWDS can say that a kneeler should not be accused of acting illicitly. (Not just that such a person shouldn’t be “insulted, humiliated, or called names.”) So, if a person kneels, is told by the priest “We stand here because of A B C and D” and replies “I would still like to kneel,” there is nothing else the priest can do to impose the “normative” posture, right?

I can’t say I have given this issue much thought, as of this time. I’m still mulling over the whole thing… At first, I thought Fr. Z was grasping at straws but his point makes some sense out of the responses that have come from the CDWDS.

Thanks for the response.

Dan

 

[MarkThompson]

Hello again,

The question, then, is this: is the CDWDS trying to make changes? I would say no, they aren’t trying to change anything that has been lawfully approved. Their purpose seems to be to position this “norm” in a proper context concerning its binding or non-binding nature.

It is an interesting point made over at Fr. Z’s (by Father Z, and echoed by others there): this “norm” is apparently not a law since it does not bind the faithful to anything. It is a statement of the usual practice here in the USA but it is not imposing/mandating this to be the universal, American practice. That is why the CDWDS can say that a kneeler should not be accused of acting illicitly. (Not just that such a person shouldn’t be “insulted, humiliated, or called names.”) So, if a person kneels, is told by the priest “We stand here because of A B C and D” and replies “I would still like to kneel,” there is nothing else the priest can do to impose the “normative” posture, right?

I can’t say I have given this issue much thought, as of this time. I’m still mulling over the whole thing… At first, I thought Fr. Z was grasping at straws but his point makes some sense out of the responses that have come from the CDWDS.

Thanks for the response.

Dan

My view is that it is not correct to read the word “norm” as implying only a description of general custom rather than, well, a norm in the first two dictionary senses I’ve linked. That’s so for several reasons:

1. Why would the recognitio of the Holy See be necessary for a descriptive statement about what most people generally do?
2. Eucharisticum mysterium and GIRM 160 (editio typica) call on the bishops’ conferences to determine whether people will receive standing or kneeling. Eucharisticum mysterium says “One or the other way is to be chosen, according to the decision of the episcopal conference.” GIRM 160 says that the faithful “communicate kneeling or standing, according as the Bishops’ Conference shall have determined” (the verb being consituere, meaning to establish by authority, determine, decree). So the bishops’ conference has the authority to pick one posture, and is in fact told to pick one posture. We should believe that they intended to pick one posture.
3. If “norm” just means a description of general custom, then the bishops (and the CDWDS) screwed up the U.S. adaptation to GIRM 160. The editio typica of the paragraph (which is the basis of, but ultimately superseded by, the American adaptation) says that, where people stand for Communion, they should make a due sign of reverence before receiving, and Eucharisticum Mysterium explains that the bishops ought to establish norms such that “[w]hen the faithful communicate kneeling, no other sign of reverence toward the Blessed Sacrament is required, since kneeling is itself a sign of adoration.” But the paragraph operative in the United States prescribes, without any qualification: “When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister.” It applies to everyone, no matter who.

If, then it were true that the bishops only intended to say that standing was customarily "norm"al, but that kneeling was a perfectly legitimate option, why did they fail to specify that the bow is required only when the option of standing is chosen? As written, the U.S. GIRM directs everyone to bow before receiving. But why? If the bishops intended to leave kneeling as an option, why did they fail to limit the instruction, “When receiving Communion standing, the communicant bows his or her head . . . .”

The fact is, if the U.S. “norm” were intended as a merely descriptive statement with kneeling still a perfectly legitimate option, then either the bishops and the CDWDS are improperly requiring people who kneel to bow, or else they wrote a blanket directive for everyone to bow but incompetently failed to point out that it only applies to people who stand.

For those three reasons, I cannot concur with Father Z’s point of view (and, apparently, the latest talking point) that the “norm” set forth in the U.S. GIRM 160 was merely intended to explain a custom.

 

[dans0622]

For those three reasons, I cannot concur with Father Z’s point of view (and, apparently, the latest talking point) that the “norm” set forth in the U.S. GIRM 160 was merely intended to explain a custom.

Hi Mark,

All fine points. My responses:

1. The entirety of the USCCB’s adaptations of the GIRM require the recognitio, not only this one related to # 160. It’s proper protocol. One could ask the same question based on what you said in your point #2: since the bishops were already told to pick one posture, and their options were limited to two, why would that choice need to be granted a recognitio?
2. Obviously, the USCCB chose a posture, as they were asked to do. Nobody can deny that. The important, and disputed, question is what is the precise nature of that choice on the laity, regarding its binding force?
3. What you say here is based on the premise that the bishops will consider every consequence of their decisions and are sure, beforehand, that there will be no lacunae, contradictions, etc. That’s a justified expectation. But, even something as well-prepared as the Code of Canon Law has inconsistencies, lacunae, etc. It happens, not necessarily because of the bishops “screwing up” or because of their “incompetence.”

All that being said, I might still agree with you…as I said, I’m still pondering. I will probably not have anything more to say on this topic. Thanks for the response.

Dan

 

[benedictgal]

Hello again,

The question, then, is this: is the CDWDS trying to make changes? I would say no, they aren’t trying to change anything that has been lawfully approved. Their purpose seems to be to position this “norm” in a proper context concerning its binding or non-binding nature.

It is an interesting point made over at Fr. Z’s (by Father Z, and echoed by others there): this “norm” is apparently not a law since it does not bind the faithful to anything. It is a statement of the usual practice here in the USA but it is not imposing/mandating this to be the universal, American practice. That is why the CDWDS can say that a kneeler should not be accused of acting illicitly. (Not just that such a person shouldn’t be “insulted, humiliated, or called names.”) So, if a person kneels, is told by the priest “We stand here because of A B C and D” and replies “I would still like to kneel,” there is nothing else the priest can do to impose the “normative” posture, right?

I can’t say I have given this issue much thought, as of this time. I’m still mulling over the whole thing… At first, I thought Fr. Z was grasping at straws but his point makes some sense out of the responses that have come from the CDWDS.

Thanks for the response.

Dan

You are correct. Again, I would refer you to the point about descriptive vs. prescriptive:

one of the last questions before the bishops asked was whether the statement that standing is the norm was to be interpreted as prescriptive (i.e., what must be done) or merely descriptive (i.e, what is normally observed). The presiding officer replied that it was descriptive, not prescriptive.

Thus, the language here for standing falls under “descriptive”, rather than “prescriptive”.

I read through a good chunk of the posts in Fr. Z’s thread. The one who makes the most sense (apart from Fr. Z) is Fr. John Trigilio of EWTN fame. His post reads, in part:

The revised GIRM for the USA has standing as the normative posture for receiving Holy Communion. Standing is not the MANDATORY position, however, as the Prefect for the Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship has unequivocally delineated. In fact, Catholics have a right to kneel or genuflect if they prefer. No priest or bishop can refuse them Holy Communion for not standing. The key here is that ‘normative’ means the bare minimum or the usual. Mandatory, on the other hand, means always required. A single genuflection is normative for the believer when the Blessed Sacrament is exposed in the Monstrance. The double-genuflection had been mandatory before V2. Now, it is optional. Yet, some liturgical … insist on terrorizing those who still double-genuflect (like those who still kneel or genuflect when receiving Holy Communion in the absence of an altar rail)

Uniformity does help promote unity but **it is not the essence of **it. Better that everyone BELIEVE the same thing (doctrine of Real Presence) and that everyone practice the same thing (be in the state of grace) than to only manifest the same posture.

Again, the USCCB had to walk a very fine line when making its adaptation to the GIRM because it had to do so within the parameters set forth by the CDWDS. But, once again, the CDWDS, as you stated in your posts and as I stated in mine, did not label those faithful who choose to kneel as disobedient. That is because they are not.

 

[zab]

You are correct. Again, I would refer you to the point about descriptive vs. prescriptive:

Thus, the language here for standing falls under “descriptive”, rather than “prescriptive”.

I read through a good chunk of the posts in Fr. Z’s thread. The one who makes the most sense (apart from Fr. Z) is Fr. John Trigilio of EWTN fame. His post reads, in part:

Again, the USCCB had to walk a very fine line when making its adaptation to the GIRM because it had to do so within the parameters set forth by the CDWDS. But, once again, the CDWDS, as you stated in your posts and as I stated in mine, did not label those faithful who choose to kneel as disobedient. That is because they are not.

The CDWDS has already made clear that those who kneel are not to be accused of being disobedient. The question that I have is why did the bishops need to set a norm at all? Is it really not important that we try to maintain any unity in posture? And if the church puts forth directives for us to follow as she did ( I believe this was included in the list of liturgical abuses that needed to be corrected) should we just pick and choose which ones we think are appropriate and which ones are just “norms” that we can ignore?

 

[zab]

The CDWDS has already made clear that those who kneel are not to be accused of being disobedient. The question that I have is why did the bishops need to set a norm at all? Is it really not important that we try to maintain any unity in posture? And if the church puts forth directives for us to follow as she did ( I believe this was included in the list of liturgical abuses that needed to be corrected) should we just pick and choose which ones we think are appropriate and which ones are just “norms” that we can ignore?

For clarification, I did not intend to say that kneeling to receive Communion is a liturgical abuse that needed to be corrected. What I meant to say was that instructing the people to stand when receiving Communion was one of the things/changes that was mentioned along with a list of corrections.

 

[At_Trent]

What would H.H. do ?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)