reception of communion

  • Thread starter Thread starter brgregmack
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

brgregmack

Guest
Today after the communion service, I was told by the deacon that I shouldn’t kneel because our bishop has directed us to stand for the reception of Holy Communion.

I was under the impression that there is now more room for those who choose to receive kneeling, as opposed to simply not being denied previously.

What’s the reality of this, and how and where does the local bishop’s authority play a role?
 
A clergyman cannot prevent anyone from kneeling, because the Holy See has already given its approval to the US adaption of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, which says that the posture for the US is standing to receive communion unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive communion kneeling. This matter has already been settled by the Holy See and no bishop can declare otherwise because he does not have authority to do so. Only the liturgical matters expressly delegated to bishops are allowed to be regulated by them. This matter has not been delegated to bishops, but rather has been settled by the Holy See itself. Bishops cannot go above the authority of the Holy See, and so no bishop can forbid people from kneeling to receive communion. If anyone has the relevant GIRM passage, please post, as I can’t find it.
 
Unless he denied to give you Communion or accused you of being disobedient, there is nothing wrong with what you have described being said by the Deacon to you.
 
zab said:
Unless he denied to give you Communion or accused you of being disobedient, there is nothing wrong with what you have described being said by the Deacon to you.
Click to expand...
… he did accuse me of being disobedient… and I told him pretty much what I’ve told you… however, he did tell me that he wouldn’t refuse me communion if I still chose to kneel…
 
zab said:
Unless he denied to give you Communion or accused you of being disobedient, there is nothing wrong with what you have described being said by the Deacon to you.
Click to expand...
I would argue that there is something wrong with what he said. The GIRM specifically allows individuals to kneel while also recognizing the practice desired by the bishops, which is to stand. Bishops cannot ignore or recommend to ignore the GIRM, because it is binding on the authority of the Congregation for Divine Worship, and thus, in turn, the authority of the Pope himself.

In the previous GIRM, the relevant passage said something about “pastorally correcting” people who kneel to receive communion. However, with the new GIRM, that clause was completely struck from the paragraph, which additionally allows individuals to kneel to receive communion. By the deacon telling the OP that he should not kneel because the bishop directs to stand, the GIRM is being ignored. However, I have a strong suspicion that neither the bishop or the deacon are explicitly at fault, as before the new GIRM was implemented, a comment such as the one given by the deacon would have been allowed. Now, no.
 
brgregmack said:
… he did accuse me of being disobedient… and I told him pretty much what I’ve told you… however, he did tell me that he wouldn’t refuse me communion if I still chose to kneel…
Click to expand...
Well that is a whole different story than your original post.
 
YoungTradCath said:
I would argue that there is something wrong with what he said. The GIRM specifically allows individuals to kneel while also recognizing the practice desired by the bishops, which is to stand. Bishops cannot ignore or recommend to ignore the GIRM, because it is binding on the authority of the Congregation for Divine Worship, and thus, in turn, the authority of the Pope himself.

In the previous GIRM, the relevant passage said something about “pastorally correcting” people who kneel to receive communion. However, with the new GIRM, that clause was completely struck from the paragraph, which additionally allows individuals to kneel to receive communion. By the deacon telling the OP that he should not kneel because the bishop directs to stand, the GIRM is being ignored. However, I have a strong suspicion that neither the bishop or the deacon are explicitly at fault, as before the new GIRM was implemented, a comment such as the one given by the deacon would have been allowed. Now, no.
Click to expand...
There is nothing wrong with what was said in the OP because the deacon said that the OP SHOULD kneel, not that he must.

The bishop is likewise within the GIRM to affirm that the stated norm is standing and therefore that according to his wishes all persons SHOULD receive standing, not that they must, and no one has declared that he cannot receive communion kneeling either.
 
promethius said:
There is nothing wrong with what was said in the OP because the deacon said that the OP SHOULD kneel, not that he must.

The bishop is likewise within the GIRM to affirm that the stated norm is standing and therefore that according to his wishes all persons SHOULD receive standing, not that they must, and no one has declared that he cannot receive communion kneeling either.
Click to expand...
This sounds accurate, unless the directive from the CDW does mandate that no bishop can recommend a layperson ignore the GIRM, and if telling a layperson he/she should stand is equivalent to recommending such. If both of these are true, then I would suppose the deacon would be in error. But then it becomes a confusing matter over how that is recognizing the desired practice of each bishop. So, I’m a bit :confused:
 
SteveGC said:
This sounds accurate, unless the directive from the CDW does mandate that no bishop can recommend a layperson ignore the GIRM, and if telling a layperson he/she should stand is equivalent to recommending such. If both of these are true, then I would suppose the deacon would be in error. But then it becomes a confusing matter over how that is recognizing the desired practice of each bishop. So, I’m a bit :confused:
Click to expand...
Except that a bishop stating he prefers that laity stand to receive is NOT instructing them to ignore the GIRM, but rather instructing them that it should be followed.

The GIRM does not state that both are equal. It states that the NORM is for reception standing up. This means that one SHOULD, if they can in good conscience, receive while standing. HOWEVER, the GIRM makes exception for those who wish to kneel to receive DESPITE this norm.

So the bishop is correct, one SHOULD stand for reception of communion according to the norm of the GIRM and (apparently) the Bishop, but one is not REQUIRED to do so if they find it unacceptable or personally irreverant.
 
Anna_Claire said:
First of all this was not the time to bring it up. He should have spoken to you later.
Are you from Oakland?
The following “Instructions on Receiving Communion Properly” by Oakland Bishop Salvatore Cordileone have been posed on the website of the diocesan Office of Worship.
This is surprising to me because this bishop is pretty conservative.

calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=ab483c14-1865-4b08-b6c4-2334d58af00d
Click to expand...
I disagree. After the Communion Service was a proper time to bring it up.
 
I respect those who believe that kneeling is the more pious posture or more reverential. I don’t believe they are right in their action,but I do respect it. It seems to me that those who kneel when most are standing for communion bring unwanted attention to themselves. I have seen this as more of a disruption than a pious act. I don’t attend EF liturgies, but if I did I would kneel because that is what should be done at this mass. Wouldn’t people frown if I decided to stand because it is up to my discretion and my feeling that standing is better and more respectful? I could do that…but I never would out of respect for the liturgy which is not my private devotion.
 
promethius said:
Except that a bishop stating he prefers that laity stand to receive is NOT instructing them to ignore the GIRM, but rather instructing them that it should be followed.

The GIRM does not state that both are equal. It states that the NORM is for reception standing up. This means that one SHOULD, if they can in good conscience, receive while standing. HOWEVER, the GIRM makes exception for those who wish to kneel to receive DESPITE this norm.

So the bishop is correct, one SHOULD stand for reception of communion according to the norm of the GIRM and (apparently) the Bishop, but one is not REQUIRED to do so if they find it unacceptable or personally irreverant.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification. I concur.
 
promethius said:
There is nothing wrong with what was said in the OP because the deacon said that the OP SHOULD kneel, not that he must.

The bishop is likewise within the GIRM to affirm that the stated norm is standing and therefore that according to his wishes all persons SHOULD receive standing, not that they must, and no one has declared that he cannot receive communion kneeling either.
Click to expand...
That is not what the OP said. He said that his deacon told him he “should” stand because his bishop has “directed” people to stand. That is a bit stronger than just saying that they “should” stand, no?
promethius said:
Except that a bishop stating he prefers that laity stand to receive is NOT instructing them to ignore the GIRM, but rather instructing them that it should be followed.

The GIRM does not state that both are equal. It states that the NORM is for reception standing up. This means that one SHOULD, if they can in good conscience, receive while standing. HOWEVER, the GIRM makes exception for those who wish to kneel to receive DESPITE this norm.

So the bishop is correct, one SHOULD stand for reception of communion according to the norm of the GIRM and (apparently) the Bishop, but one is not REQUIRED to do so if they find it unacceptable or personally irreverant.
Click to expand...
The GIRM does not give conditions as to what is required for a person to kneel; it does not say that one must find standing unacceptable or personally irreverent in order to kneel. It just says stand unless you, an individual, don’t want to stand. 🤷
 
Anna_Claire said:
I respect those who believe that kneeling is the more pious posture or more reverential. I don’t believe they are right in their action,but I do respect it. It seems to me that those who kneel when most are standing for communion bring unwanted attention to themselves. I have seen this as more of a disruption than a pious act. I don’t attend EF liturgies, but if I did I would kneel because that is what should be done at this mass. Wouldn’t people frown if I decided to stand because it is up to my discretion and my feeling that standing is better and more respectful? I could do that…but I never would out of respect for the liturgy which is not my private devotion.
Click to expand...
If there were a sufficient number of people saying that my kneeling is distracting then I would stop. I also don’t think standing is wrong or irreverent, for it IS the norm. I choose to kneel out of personal devotion.
 
I’d obey the bishop and petition him to change his mind while all the time obeying his wishes.
 
I’ve received COTT from my bishop numerous times and he always appeared more than happy to oblige.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top