Receiving from the chalice while kneeling?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DeusLuxMea
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If your friend is coming from an Anglican Communion, it is normal for one to recieve both while kneeling at the altar rail. I have communioned thousands at hundreds of Anglican Mass. No one, laity or clergy has dropped the body of our Lord or split his precious blood.
So it can be done if properly taught. Use of patens and purificators etc.does help. Making sure the one who recieves is physically and mentally able also helps.

Mark+
Mark, thanks for the response. 😃 My friend was an evangelical. He has never received Communion before. I can see how at a rail this receiving from the chalice kneeling would be doable, but to kneel down in line in front of the priest/extraordinary minister seems like it might invite a spill/confusion. What do you think, in an absence of a rail?

I think my friend likes the act of kneeling to receive out of reverence but also wants the effect of receiving under both species. 🤷
 
I feel the same way you do. It is because he wants to receive under both forms (I think for effect) but wants to be traditional at the same time. :confused:
Maybe just help him understand that there would be nothing “traditional” about receiving from the Chalice while kneeling. Even if they do it in some places now (and I don’t think they do) it would be a total innovation from anything the Church has ever done before.

When the Chalice was offered, the people were always standing. During the period when it was not offered, the priest stood to receive it, and the people were kneeling to receive only the Host - never the Chalice. Now that the Chalice has been restored to the people in most places, it is again received while standing.
I am trying to respectfully explain that it is not really prudent (could just be my opinion though…what do you guys think?). I think the risk of spill alone is enough to not do it. Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut.
Has he suggested this idea to his priest yet, or was he planning on just springing it on him at the time? Things could go really sideways if he doesn’t mention to the priest that he is planning to do this.
 
Maybe just help him understand that there would be nothing “traditional” about receiving from the Chalice while kneeling. Even if they do it in some places now (and I don’t think they do) it would be a total innovation from anything the Church has ever done before.

When the Chalice was offered, the people were always standing. During the period when it was not offered, the priest stood to receive it, and the people were kneeling to receive only the Host - never the Chalice. Now that the Chalice has been restored to the people in most places, it is again received while standing.

Has he suggested this idea to his priest yet, or was he planning on just springing it on him at the time? Things could go really sideways if he doesn’t mention to the priest that he is planning to do this.
Thank you. This helps tremendously. Do you think it is also a disruption? Besides the fact that it is an ‘innovation’ and not traditional at all, is it also wrong, disrespectful, or dangerous…etc?

I guess I want to be able to give a concrete yes or no…not “whatever you feel like doing” unless it is not a big deal. IMO, it is kind of a big deal.

I do not think he spoke with the priest about this. I will ask him.
 
Receiving from the chalice kneeling at the rail as the Anglicans do is a whole different (and safer) thing. The chalicist who distributes from the cup has moved past the communicant before he begins to rise and leave the rail; also he has the rail to steady himself as he gets up. There is no danger of falling into the minister of the cup as there would be in a typical line in a Catholic church.
 
Thank you. This helps tremendously. Do you think it is also a disruption? Besides the fact that it is an ‘innovation’ and not traditional at all, is it also wrong, disrespectful, or dangerous…etc?
Because of the fact that nobody would be expecting it, there is a very high potential for a lot of disruption, and it would put the person behind him in an awkward and possibly dangerous position, especially if it’s an elderly person, or a parent carrying a small child.
I guess I want to be able to give a concrete yes or no…not “whatever you feel like doing” unless it is not a big deal. IMO, it is kind of a big deal.
Were I in your place, I would just very kindly say, No, and explain to him that while it’s clear that he means well, this is not a custom of the Church, and never has been, and there is no tradition that speaks to it, meaning, nothing to tell the priest or EMHC what they are supposed to do, if someone approaches the Chalice kneeling.
I do not think he spoke with the priest about this. I will ask him.
If he does speak to the priest, then hopefully the priest will be able to explain things to him, and he will change his mind.
 
Just my thoughts…

I kneel to receive the Body of Christ, and in our parish we always have the Precious Blood. At first I would pass by and genuflect, and not receive, but then I realized that I could genuflect, then stand, and receive. To me it is a way to both respect and worship Christ, and at the same time not have an internal hissy fit with my parish.

Just a thought, I dont think I see this offered as an option. I know it seems a little incongruent, but we sometimes have to adapt and overcome.
 
I receive the Lord in the consecrated host kneeling in the normal communion line. I do not receive the precious blood kneeling; I believe it introduces too many variables and “moving parts” and greatly increases the possibility of spillage during transfer of the chalice between the EMHC and I. I don’t want to risk that spillage. I think it is totally inconsistent (for me, my opinion) to receive one type kneeling and the other standing.

However, when I serve at the altar, I receive both forms kneeling. We altar servers kneel in front of our bench from the Agnus Dei onward, and the priest and EMHCs approach us with the host and chalice respectively. The difference here is that the EMHC is the one moving; they know what to expect, we are not kneeling then rising, and there are no moving people behind, beside, and in front of us. We are a “stable target.”

I receive kneeling out of reverence and love. Not because I think it is “traditional.”
 
Just my thoughts…

I kneel to receive the Body of Christ, and in our parish we always have the Precious Blood. At first I would pass by and genuflect, and not receive, but then I realized that I could genuflect, then stand, and receive. To me it is a way to both respect and worship Christ, and at the same time not have an internal hissy fit with my parish.

Just a thought, I dont think I see this offered as an option. .
It hasn’t been offered because it is not actually an option to do what you stated.

There are prescribed rubrics for the faithful. If you choose to recieve kneeling, the kneeling is the proscribed gesture of reverence in and of itself. If you choose to recieve standing, the proscribed genture of reverence is a bow of the head.

Those are the two licit ways of recieving Holy Communion,

Adding a genuflection on your own initiative would be illicit.
 
It hasn’t been offered because it is not actually an option to do what you stated.

There are prescribed rubrics for the faithful. If you choose to recieve kneeling, the kneeling is the proscribed gesture of reverence in and of itself. If you choose to recieve standing, the proscribed genture of reverence is a bow of the head.

Those are the two licit ways of recieving Holy Communion,

Adding a genuflection on your own initiative would be illicit.
If you recognize kneeling as a licit manner to receive Communion in the US, then genuflecting before receiving the Precious Blood would also be acceptable, based on the same interpretation. Let me explain:

From the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 3rd edition, March 2002.

The following norm is the universal norm found in the Roman Missal. Note that each Bishop Conference determines the particular norm for its own country. By the general law, each adaptation is then submitted to the Holy See for recognition.

160 The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.

The faithful are not permitted to take up the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice themselves, and still less hand them on to one another. The faithful may communicate either standing or kneeling, as established by the Conference of Bishops.** However, when they communicate standing, it is recommended that they make an appropriate gesture of reverence, to be laid down in the same norms, before receiving the Sacrament.**

**U.S. Norm

The following adaptation of GIRM 160 was approved by the Holy See for the United States.
**
160. The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.

The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another. The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.

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. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.

The following is from Karl Keating who is president of Catholic Answers and editor-at-large of This Rock.
To summarize: If you receive Communion standing, you should make a sign of reverence just before you receive. What should that sign be? Inestimabile Donum doesn’t specify, but one could argue that the priest and people should make the same sign, to show unity among themselves. What sign does the priest make? He genuflects. This suggests that genuflection, then, is the most proper sign for the people to make. But it is not the only sign they may give. They may give some other sign of reverence, such as a deep bow or even the sign of the cross. What is required is some sign of reverence, and the choice is up to the communicant.
 
If you recognize kneeling as a licit manner to receive Communion in the US, then genuflecting before receiving the Precious Blood would also be acceptable, based on the same interpretation. Let me explain:
The interpretation is not ours, but the Vaticans.
From the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 3rd edition, March 2002.

The following norm is the universal norm found in the Roman Missal. Note that each Bishop Conference determines the particular norm for its own country. By the general law, each adaptation is then submitted to the Holy See for recognition…
Under Canon 16, it is the legislator of a law who provides the authentic interpretation, and that interpretation has the force of law.
Can. 16 §1. The legislator authentically interprets laws as does the one to whom the same legislator has entrusted the power of authentically interpreting.
§2. An authentic interpretation put forth in the form of law has the same force as the law itself and must be promulgated. If it only declares the words of the law which are certain in themselves, it is retroactive; if it restricts or extends the law, or if it explains a doubtful law, it is not retroactive.
He correctly noted that Inestimabile Donum does not specify a particular posture of reverence, but the GIRM does.
GIRM 160: When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence
For the interpretation to be the same, as you proposed, the use of kneeling as posture specified under GIRM 160 would have to have been recognized by the CDWDS in an official capacity.

I am unaware of any similar Responsum issued by the CDWDS in regards to 160, could you provide the link?

Since the GIRM takes it’s authority not from the Bishops’ Conferences, but from the CDWDS, it is that Congregation that determines how the GIRM should be interpreted.

We see this in the Responsum issued by the Vatican
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
The Vatican goes on to state that when it provided the recognitio that gave the GIRM the force of law, it did so under the following provision
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."
Given that the interpretation that I used was not my own, but rather the authentic interpretation from the Vatican and therefore has the force of law ( Canon 16 -2), that places it in a difference category than the reference given by Mr. Keating.

Note that he appeals to​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top