Reverence vs Rights

[Walking_Home]

this brings me back to the question I asked a few times earlier and which I can’t seem to get an answer to…

When did the Latins start kneeling to receive the Eucharist, and why?

salaam.

---

Pope Benedict XVI --then Card refered to kneeling as a centuries old tradition – “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.”

I do not know exactly the “when” but the tradition of kneeling is part of who we are as Latin rite Catholics. Now I will say this —just as you would wish respect to Eastern Catholics and your traditions --please respect us --who are trying to recover our own and refrain from stirring the pot —for this is an internal Latin rite matter.

 

[Badaliyyah]

---

Pope Benedict XVI --then Card refered to kneeling as a centuries old tradition – “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.”

I do not know exactly the “when” but the tradition of kneeling is part of who we are as Latin rite Catholics. Now I will say this —just as you would wish respect to Eastern Catholics and your traditions --please respect us --who are trying to recover our own and refrain from stirring the pot —for this is an internal Latin rite matter.

I completely agree, and I admit I am being a bit of a voyeur here. I find the conversation fascinating. At first I thought to myself, “why is this an issue”. I am not going to go back and find the post, but even earlier today I said something to the effect of, you stand when its clear they want you to stand and you kneel when its clear they want you to kneel. I have been to Latin parishes where both have been the case and I have done both. NO BIG DEAL…right?

But later I sorta realized that part of the reason it was no big deal was precisely the reason you just mentioned. It is a Latin thing and, to a certain degree, it is external to me. I am visiting, so I do what a polite guest does: stand when told to stand; kneel when told to kneel.

IF on the other hand, we suddenly got an instruction from Rome that we, the heirs of Byzantium, were all to kneel to receive the Eucharist…yes, I would be upset. And with that bit of self-awareness I am more sympathetic to where people are coming from.

This was part of why I reinterpreted the issue in terms of economia, i.e., terms that familiar and compelling to me. Economia suggests that there are strong reasons having to do with the interior disposition of the person involved to allow a certain behavior. Economia is also a means of encouraging the spiritual growth of persons and allowing a variety of practices even in the face of a stated norm (and is an important concept within Byzantine/Roman Law…as opposed to English Law which considers economia “unfair” because not everyone is expected to do exactly the same thing).

salaams.

 

[ethelzguy]

You really are frustrating.

OK What does the communicant do?

Welcome to life on the forums, where it is more important to be “correct” above all else.

Your question is quite clear. And in a sense, has been answered by the “it’s more important to be right, than to be charitable or ‘as one with the parish community’ crowd”.

I suspect, that someone who insisted on kneeling, even after being “properly catechised”, is clearly out to make a statement. Charity would dictate otherwise.

 

[Walking_Home]

It is disturbing to see-- the chipping away of the hierarchial/authoritative nature of the Church --turning the Papacy and the Apostolic See – into some type of figurehead.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

[15.] The Roman Pontiff, “the Vicar of Christ and the Pastor of the universal Church on earth, by virtue of his supreme office enjoys full, immediate and universal ordinary power, which he may always freely exercise”[35], also by means of communication with the pastors and with the members of the flock.

[16.] “It pertains to the Apostolic See to regulate the Sacred Liturgy of the universal Church, to publish the liturgical books and to grant the recognitio for their translation into vernacular languages, as well as to ensure that the liturgical regulations, especially those governing the celebration of the most exalted celebration of the Sacrifice of the Mass, are everywhere faithfully observed”.[36]

[17.] “The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments attends to those matters that pertain to the Apostolic See as regards the regulation and promotion of the Sacred Liturgy, and especially the Sacraments, with due regard for the competence of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It fosters and enforces sacramental discipline, especially as regards their validity and their licit celebration”. Finally, it “carefully seeks to ensure that the liturgical regulations are observed with precision, and that abuses are prevented or eliminated whenever they are detected”[37]. In this regard, according to the tradition of the universal Church, pre-eminent solicitude is accorded the celebration of Holy Mass, and also to the worship that is given to the Holy Eucharist even outside Mass.

 

[benedictgal]

You are going off topic again.

No, we are not, especially since you asked for an opinion. We not only gave you an opinion, but a bona fide source backing it up.

What you are doing goes squarely against what Rome has decreed. In the response to the kneeling ussue, Rome never stipulated numbres. You are the one who brought that up in your OP. It could be one or 1,000,001 who choose to kneel in order to receive Our Lord. The numbers don’t matter. The fact that one person wants to exercise that right is neough for Rome.

Furthermore, both you and Frosty evidently didn’t read what the Holy See had indicated in its explanation in granting the indult for standing:

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 Institution 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.

The bottom line is that if Rome is not making any restrictions or stipulations regarding those who kneel, why should you, or, anyone else, for that matter?

This reminds me of the situation in the Acts of the Apostles were the Gentile converts were told that they had to be circumcised in order to become Christians. There was a huge debate, until St. James suggested that they not obligate the Gentiles to do something that was only prescribed for Ancient Israel. He didn’t want to impose any undue restrictions on these converts. The only thing they had to do was live moral lives and not eat the flesh of strangled animals. Peter went along with that idea.

What you are trying to do, Lux, is pretty much the same thing: you are trying to pose an undue burden and restriction where one simply doesn’t exist. Furthermore, if the priest tries to restrict the communicant from kneeling to receive Our Lord, he, too, is going beyond the scope and placing a burden and an obstacle that Rome says shouldn’t be placed.

 

[ethelzguy]

The bottom line is that if Rome is not making any restrictions or stipulations regarding those who kneel, why should you, or, anyone else, for that matter?

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 Institution 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

The quote states that they may not be denied, but it does not elaborate further regarding restriction or stipulations.

You are avoiding the question.

 

[benedictgal]

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 Institution 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

The quote states that they may not be denied, but it does not elaborate further regarding restriction or stipulations.

You are avoiding the question.

No, both you and Lux are. RS doesn’t mandate that the communicant be taken aside for “catechesis” on the matter of standing.

The problem is that in Lux’s OP, she is trying to mandate something and prescribe something that the same documents that you are throwing around do not stipulate.

 

[Walking_Home]

No, we are not, especially since you asked for an opinion. We not only gave you an opinion, but a bona fide source backing it up.

What you are doing goes squarely against what Rome has decreed. In the response to the kneeling ussue, **Rome never stipulated numbres. **You are the one who brought that up in your OP. It could be one or 1,000,001 who choose to kneel in order to receive Our Lord. The numbers don’t matter. The fact that one person wants to exercise that right is neough for Rome.

Furthermore, both you and Frosty evidently didn’t read what the Holy See had indicated in its explanation in granting the indult for standing:

The bottom line is that if Rome is not making any restrictions or stipulations regarding those who kneel, why should you, or, anyone else, for that matter?

This reminds me of the situation in the Acts of the Apostles were the Gentile converts were told that they had to be circumcised in order to become Christians. There was a huge debate, until St. James suggested that they not obligate the Gentiles to do something that was only prescribed for Ancient Israel. He didn’t want to impose any undue restrictions on these converts. The only thing they had to do was live moral lives and not eat the flesh of strangled animals. Peter went along with that idea.

What you are trying to do, Lux, is pretty much the same thing: you are trying to pose an undue burden and restriction where one simply doesn’t exist. Furthermore, if the priest tries to restrict the communicant from kneeling to receive Our Lord, he, too, is going beyond the scope and placing a burden and an obstacle that Rome says shouldn’t be placed.

---

You are right again benedictgal. As can be seen below --Rome does not make restrictions/stipulations on numbers.—**Any **Catholic–can be 1 or any number. It quite sad to see --that some are making restrictions—which the Church Herself has not.

adoremus.org/Notitiae-kneeling.html

Congregation de Cultu Divino et Disciplina Sacramentorum

Prot. n. 1322/02/L

Rome, 1 July 2002

Your Excellency,

This Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has recently received reports of members of the faithful in your Diocese being refused Holy Communion unless while standing to receive, as opposed to kneeling. The reports state that such a policy has been announced to parishioners. There were possible indications that such a phenomenon might be somewhat more widespread in the Diocese, but the Congregation is unable to verify whether such is the case. This Dicastery is confident that Your Excellency will be in a position to make a more reliable determination of the matter, and these complaints in any event provide an occasion for the Congregation to communicate the manner in which it habitually addresses this matter, with a request that you make this position known to any priests who may be in need of being thus informed.

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)… there should be no such refusal to any Catholic who presents himself for Holy Communion at Mass,

 

[fix]

So I guess this sentence above was just thrown in the GIRM for filler. Is your interpretation of this sentence that it doesn’t mean anything? The GIRM for the United States was written in English. How many interpretations can there be?

The only one that counts is the one from Rome. I do not place myself above them. If they change their mind I will accept it. If they do not change it I will accept it.

Whose interpretation do you say I should accept?

I have asked many times the following question:

Why did the cardinal write to Rome for an explanation if Rome’s answer is not binding?

 

[fix]

Yes, but another point to consider is that the same Rome has also approved US adaptations “anything previous not withstanding” after said interpretations were sent.

Also, since the date of the last letter, there have been many reports of requests to stand, but no reports of any action taken.

Again, my question is what is the best course of action, once a kneeling communicant has been requested to stand?

Lux

Has Rome changed their position? Where is the proof?

If someone is asked to stand, imo, they should stand and go up the chain of command to resolve the issue. That does not mean I am correct. That is simply my opinion.

 

[fix]

That is not exactly what the Vatican said, and I think you know it. Rome gave permission to the conference of bishops to make a local norm of standing to receive, and the bishops have done so.

Rome said those who kneel are not disobedient and not acting illicitly. That is clear.

Rome also said that the canonical punishment of refusing Communion is not allowed for someone who does not follow the norm; they never said that the norm meant nothing and that each individual could decide for themselves what the norm was or was not.

Rome said the norm was approved with the understanding those who kneel could still kneel.

That is why, because the canonical penalty of refusing Communion was being used against those who knelt for Communion, Rome said, in addition to the fact that it could nto be imposed, that rather the person was to “be counseled”.

Where is that stated in the letters with protocol numbers?

So it is a norm, but it is a norm that does not carry the canonical penalty of being refused Communion if it is violated.

It never ceases to amaze me that people who are so quick to point out violations of the GIRM or other norms in other instances are so quick to say that this norm is meaningless.

It is either a norm or it isn’t. Last I checked, it was still a norm.

But then, of course, personal feelings of piety must take precedence over norms when desired by one group, but most definitely not when desired by another group.

Last I heard, what was sauce for the goose was supposed to be sauce for the gander, too.

You really need to offer proof for your position.

 

[benedictgal]

The only one that counts is the one from Rome. I do not place myself above them. If they change their mind I will accept it. If they do not change it I will accept it.

Whose interpretation do you say I should accept?

I have asked many times the following question:

Why did the cardinal write to Rome for an explanation if Rome’s answer is not binding?

The answer is simple: Rome is the final authority. Even the USCCB has to write to Rome to get the necessary recogitio and clarification on things.

 

[fix]

The answer is simple: Rome is the final authority. Even the USCCB has to write to Rome to get the necessary recogitio and clarification on things.

Yes, when will I get an answer? Why bother asking the dicastery for clarification if we simply refuse to accept their authority?

They could have said to the kneelers go back and accept what your bishop and pastor say to you. Or, they could have said the “norm” is the norm and kneeling is illicit.

Or, they could have said kneeling is dangerous stop doing it and obey your pastor and bishop.

But, I have not seen any of that.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is closed. Thank you all.