Revoke the U.S. Indult on Standing for Holy Communion

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Let’s not forget that kneeling is found in the Bible.

I am not against kneeling. It is penitential for me. But I do understand its use in the Western Church but as I said earlier I am concerned for this idea of “what everyone else is doing”.

Kneeling is no more reverential than Standing if the interior disposition is not there. It is only an appearance of such in the eyes of some.

Which is why I suggested that we read and reflect on the parable I gave.

 

[Canto]

There are so many rules for recieving communion (and rightfully so). How many of them are actually followed? Am I living in a daydream or would it be much simpler if we just kneeled at an altar rail and recieved on the tongue with an altar boy holding the communion plate.

GIRM The following are also to be prepared:…the Communion-plate for the Communion of the faithful;

RS 2 **Only when there is a necessity **may extraordinary ministers assist the Priest celebrant in accordance with the norm of law.

RS 91 Therefore, **it is not licit to deny **Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist **kneeling **or standing.

RS 92 Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue,… However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.

RS 93 The **Communion-plate for the Communion of the faithful should be retained, **so as to avoid the danger of the sacred host or some fragment of it falling.

RS 102 The** chalice should not be ministered **to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such **a large number **of communicants

RS 107 In accordance with what is laid down by the canons, “one who throws away the consecrated species or **takes them away **or keeps them for a sacrilegious purpose, incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See;

RS 151 **Only out of true necessity is there to be recourse to the assistance of extraordinary ministers **in the celebration of the Liturgy. Such recourse is not intended for the sake of a fuller participation of the laity but rather, by its very nature, is supplementary and provisional.

RS 154 As has already been recalled, “the only minister who can confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist in persona Christi is a validly ordained Priest”. Hence **the name “minister of the Eucharist” belongs properly to the Priest alone. **

This is just a few examples.

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

Exodus 4:31 And the people believed. And they heard that the Lord had visited the children of Israel, and that he had looked upon their affliction: and falling down they adored.

Matthew 2:11 And entering into the house, they found the child with Mary his mother, and falling down they adored him: and opening their treasures, they offered him gifts; gold, frankincense, and myrrh.

Mark 10:17 And when he was gone forth into the way, a certain man, running up and kneeling before him, asked him: Good Master, what shall I do that I may receive life everlasting?

Phillipians 2:10 That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth

 

[awatkins69]

Is there anyway we can petition the Holy Father in Rome to revoke the indult given to the Bishops of the Church in the U.S. making standing during Holy Communion the norm? I believe it is of grave importance to change this, as I think many Catholics have lost respect for the Eucharist— inbetween bad catechesis and standing for Communion (some don’t even bow, as is technically required) I think it’s just gone downhill from there.

Standing is the least of our problems. In the Eastern Churches they almost never kneel, and they are way more orthodox and reverent there than in most Latin churches. What really needs to go is the ***indult ***for Communion in the hand. That is the worst thing, and it is almost completely unnecessary. As well as EMHC being used as OMHC.

 

[Layman]

Ah, I think I’ve had a mini-epiphany.

The changes to the Mass since the 60’s make sense if you think of them as being for people who are already saved. Or who have suddenly increased in spiritual status.

We don’t need to kneel, we can stand at the pulpit and speak, there are no rails to exclude us from the sacred ground, we can hand out Communion, we have the Mass in our local dialect, banal hymns, statues removed as we don’t need them any more …

I suppose that’s why you don’t hear sermons on the Four Last Things and sin any more; it grates against the ‘Jesus Is Love’ ideology that seems to have gained ground since clergy sought to get in on 60’s pop culture.

There’s a chance you can go to Hell. That being so, I would say every chance to humble yourself before our King and cry ‘mercy!’ is precious, especially in His temple.

 

[CradleCath]

Ah, I think I’ve had a mini-epiphany.

The changes to the Mass since the 60’s make sense if you think of them as being for people who are already saved. Or who have suddenly increased in spiritual status.

We don’t need to kneel, we can stand at the pulpit and speak, there are no rails to exclude us from the sacred ground, we can hand out Communion, we have the Mass in our local dialect, banal hymns, statues removed as we don’t need them any more …

I suppose that’s why you don’t hear sermons on the Four Last Things and sin any more; it grates against the ‘Jesus Is Love’ ideology that seems to have gained ground since clergy sought to get in on 60’s pop culture.

There’s a chance you can go to Hell. That being so, I would say every chance to humble yourself before our King and cry ‘mercy!’ is precious, especially in His temple.

HELL??? What are you talking about? I haven’t heard that word used in ages. That word, & the concept it embraces are just so antiquated, I truly thought that the words Hell & Sin had been removed from the spoken language as they are just TOO obsolete. God is COMPASSIONATE & He UNDERSTANDS that we cannot really follow His Commandments & He is KIND & realizes that we have ISSUES.

He is like a Grandfatherly old man…who pats our heads when we do wrong…& says, “hey, no big deal that you committed adultery. I know that your wife just didn’t fit your ideal”. He is NOT JUDGMENTAL, for we all know that being JUDGMENTAL is the worst sin of all.

HEAVY sarcasm intended

 

[ProVobis]

, for we all know that being JUDGMENTAL is the worst sin of all.

Unless you’re judgemental against traditionalists.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Unless you’re judgemental against traditionalists.

But has not this whole thread been about the “judgement” of “Catholics” by other “Catholics” as to the brand of reverence and piety that is practiced by those who choose to receive Holy Communion standing and in the hand?!:sad_yes:

 

[CradleCath]

Unless you’re judgemental against traditionalists.

OOPS!! Your right. I forgot about that.

 

[ChurchTorch]

You are correct, that is the Western Custom taken from the Western Roman Empire whose capital was Rome.

T-he Eastern Custom taken from the Eastern Roman Empire whose capital was in Byzantium (which was renamed Constantinople, which was renamed Istanbul (why the name change? That’s nobody’s business but the Turks (all who get where this comes from know that I am impressed) is to Stand. Kneeling was penitential in nature.

I think kneeling would not be a bad idea but any outward sign that you see as reverence does not mean that it has an inner dimension. I am always worried when people want to force certain outward signs of things like reverence, poverty, and such. There needs to be a deeper catechisis on these things, a person who is kneeling and receiving on the tongue may have less reverence and belief in the Eucharist than the next person who stands and receives on the hand but I know that many here would view the first person as being more reverent (I might even do so) which is a flaw that all of us must look at within our selves and reflect upon.

I also believe that we need to look at incluturation, there are not many countries in the West that have Monarchies so is kneeling still appropriate? In the Untied States we stand when the President enters the room. We must look at what kneeling means to the people, for myself it is penitential but then as you know I am a Byzantine Catholic, but in a Latin Order so when I do attend the Mass I kneel when it is called for.

I suggest we all read the parable of the Publican and the Pharisee (Lk 18:9-14).

Your posting is beautiful and quite accurate. Sometimes we have to stop and really think about what we are doing, rather than just continue to do what we always have done.

Tomorrow I will attend Divine Liturgy and the same group of “traditionalists” will genuflect at the tetrapod and some of them will receive while kneeling. Both actions are forbidden in the Byzantine Rite. Though each of them have been members of the parish for years and have been counseled off-line by the pastor they are adamant in their disobedience because they simply cannot comprehend what you so eloquently outlined.

 

[CradleCath]

But has not this whole thread been about the “judgement” of “Catholics” by other “Catholics” as to the brand of reverence and piety that is practiced by those who choose to receive Holy Communion standing and in the hand?!:sad_yes:

Ahhhh…you might notice that this is the Traditional Catholic thread. & ,of course, since Communion on the tongue is a Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church…we naturally prefer that.

Pope St. Leo the Great
(440-461) is an early witness of the traditional practice. In his comments on the sixth chapter of St. John’s Gospel he speaks of Communion in the mouth as the current usage: “One receives in the mouth what one believes by faith.” Pope Leo does not speak as if he were introducing a novelty, but as if this were a well established thing.

A century and a half later Pope St. Gregory the Great (died in 604) is
another witness. In his dialogues he relates how Pope St. Agapitus performed a miracle during Mass, after having placed the Body of the Lord into someone’s mouth.

So, since this is the way of Tradition, most of us Trads prefer it.

Does this mean that we think that receiving in the hand denotes less love of Christ? I don’t. We have this choice by way of indult & I for one do not believe that receiving in the hand is in any way indicative of a “less Catholic” person.

I have noticed, however, 2 of my Grandchildren, who attend the Novus Ordo with their parents, were amazed & awed to see that in the Latin Mass, adults actually kneel to receive the Eucharist. When I explained to them (after Mass) that we received on the tongue to lessen the organs on our body that come into contact with the Body of Christ…it blew their mind. This is my main reason for hoping that someday…the indult will be revoked. I’m thinking of the next generation.

 

[ProVobis]

Kneeling was penitential in nature.

Nonsense.

 

[Layman]

But has not this whole thread been about the “judgement” of “Catholics” by other “Catholics” as to the brand of reverence and piety that is practiced by those who choose to receive Holy Communion standing and in the hand?!:sad_yes:

Hee hee, can you see that **changing, in the Roman Rite, from kneeling and receiving from the hand of a priest, to standing, into your hand, from a laywoman, is a strange way to express reverence and piety? **

I submit it expresses the opposite; **we’ve suddenly become more important or the Host, less so.
**
The ‘inner disposition’ argument doesn’t wash. It’s a public ritual composed of significant, symbolic acts. It’s an opportunity to express humility in the Presence of our King.

I read on here of people complaining about how casual some people are at Mass.I submit that it could be because they’re being cued that that’s Ok; **ritual acts and objects, like the altar rails, have been removed or changed. **

It’s in your local lingo, hymns are modern, Mrs. Goodlady is reading the epistle … not so removed from everyday life, not very intimidating; have a chat in Church before Mass starts, receive the Host standing like you would at a queue in a food line, wear the same clothes you go shopping in, etc…** It’s nice and you’re being told Jesus is nice. No mention of Sin, Death, Judgement or Hell.**

You can defend this or that change to our worship, but cumulatively? They make no sense if you’re trying to appease a wrathful deity. Which is what a sacrifice is for; appeasement (and thanksgiving).

I think it works like this: A priest or Bishop says: “Lets introduce this (mundane) novelty!”. This causes some excitement or interest, initially. Then the novelty wears off. Also, it doesn’t promote holiness, so people drift away.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Nonsense.

Study your history.

In the Eastern Empire one stood for the Emperor, only the prisoners knelt.

Kneeling has always been of a penitential nature in the East.

 

[Matariel]

But has not this whole thread been about the “judgement” of “Catholics” by other “Catholics” as to the brand of reverence and piety that is practiced by those who choose to receive Holy Communion standing and in the hand?!:sad_yes:

No? Where’d you get that mistaken notion?

 

[Ignatius]

Is there anyway we can petition the Holy Father in Rome to revoke the indult given to the Bishops of the Church in the U.S. making standing during Holy Communion the norm? I believe it is of grave importance to change this, as I think many Catholics have lost respect for the Eucharist

I agree and I hope that it will be done as soon as possible.

 

[Layman]

Study your history.

In the Eastern Empire one stood for the Emperor, only the prisoners knelt.

Kneeling has always been of a penitential nature in the East.

And currently, it would be an excellent way for Westerners to choke their pride by doing it in a public rite.

 

[otjm]

It never ceases to amaze me how uncritical thinking tends to multiply itself unto cast-in-stone “truth”.

The presumption is made that standing for Communion is a cause of a loss of reverence for the Eucharist. It also presumes that where people have lost reverence, that will somehow be instilled by making them kneel.

The issue of loss of reverence is not caused by whether one stands or kneels for reception of Communion; the very fact that for ages upon ages in one or more Eastern rite Churches people have stood and maintained reverence should be at least a minor clue, if not a glaring searchlight and siren that the issue of lack of reverence lies somewhere else.

And how can I speak thus? Because I attend Mass in a parish in which everyone stands for reception, where the vast majority receive in the hand, and where reverence is strong - why? Because of catechesis. And part of that catechesis is the fact that for something like 12 to 15 years we have had 24 hour Perpetual Adoration.

One does not need to go petitioning the Bishops or the Pope for a change. One needs to address what the real problem is. And the real problem has absolutely nothing to do with standing or kneeling, or reception in the hand or on the tongue. It has to do with what people are taught, plain and simple, and what is modeled by the pastor and the parishoners. When reverence is modeled - done - by the leader of the parish - the pastor, and when the lay leaders of the parish model - do - the same, others pick up on it and do likewise. When reverence is taught and done, reverence is learned. When sloppy practice is done, much is observed and learned - all to the detriment.

When the Baltimore Catechism got tossed out and what parishes got was a touchy-feely-Jesus-is-my-buddy-we-all-have-to-love-one-another excuse for teaching the faith, people were no longer taught what the Church believes about the Eucharist. They were given pablum in place of the reality of the Eucharist, doctrine was dumbed down, and we now have two generations whose belief is hazy because they simply were not taught.

When you teach them the truth, it is amazing to see the change that takes place.

My parish is a shining example of the fact that it really does not matter whether one stands or kneels or whether one receives in the hand or on the tongue in regards to reverence. Reverence comes when one is taught the doctrine and sees the reverence expressed by others who beleive the same.

Making people kneel does not teach the doctrinal issues.

Teaching the doctrinal issues does not require a change of posture.

Posture is not the issue. Understanding of doctrine is the issue, and as usual, we are all rallying around the rabbit hole, missing the essential issue entirely.

Reverence is as reverence does. One can be reverent standing just as one can be irreverant kneeling, and vice-versa.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

QUOTE=otjm;6403796]It never ceases to amaze me how uncritical thinking tends to multiply itself unto cast-in-stone “truth”.

The presumption is made that standing for Communion is a cause of a loss of reverence for the Eucharist. It also presumes that where people have lost reverence, that will somehow be instilled by making them kneel.

The issue of loss of reverence is not caused by whether one stands or kneels for reception of Communion; the very fact that for ages upon ages in one or more Eastern rite Churches people have stood and maintained reverence should be at least a minor clue, if not a glaring searchlight and siren that the issue of lack of reverence lies somewhere else.

And how can I speak thus? Because I attend Mass in a parish in which everyone stands for reception, where the vast majority receive in the hand, and where reverence is strong - why? Because of catechesis. And part of that catechesis is the fact that for something like 12 to 15 years we have had 24 hour Perpetual Adoration.

One does not need to go petitioning the Bishops or the Pope for a change. One needs to address what the real problem is. And the real problem has absolutely nothing to do with standing or kneeling, or reception in the hand or on the tongue. It has to do with what people are taught, plain and simple, and what is modeled by the pastor and the parishoners. When reverence is modeled - done - by the leader of the parish - the pastor, and when the lay leaders of the parish model - do - the same, others pick up on it and do likewise. When reverence is taught and done, reverence is learned. When sloppy practice is done, much is observed and learned - all to the detriment.

When the Baltimore Catechism got tossed out and what parishes got was a touchy-feely-Jesus-is-my-buddy-we-all-have-to-love-one-another excuse for teaching the faith, people were no longer taught what the Church believes about the Eucharist. They were given pablum in place of the reality of the Eucharist, doctrine was dumbed down, and we now have two generations whose belief is hazy because they simply were not taught.

When you teach them the truth, it is amazing to see the change that takes place.

My parish is a shining example of the fact that it really does not matter whether one stands or kneels or whether one receives in the hand or on the tongue in regards to reverence. Reverence comes when one is taught the doctrine and sees the reverence expressed by others who beleive the same.

Making people kneel does not teach the doctrinal issues.

Teaching the doctrinal issues does not require a change of posture.

Posture is not the issue. Understanding of doctrine is the issue, and as usual, we are all rallying around the rabbit hole, missing the essential issue entirely.

Reverence is as reverence does. One can be reverent standing just as one can be irreverant kneeling, and vice-versa.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

It never ceases to amaze me how uncritical thinking tends to multiply itself unto cast-in-stone “truth”.

The presumption is made that standing for Communion is a cause of a loss of reverence for the Eucharist. It also presumes that where people have lost reverence, that will somehow be instilled by making them kneel.

The issue of loss of reverence is not caused by whether one stands or kneels for reception of Communion; the very fact that for ages upon ages in one or more Eastern rite Churches people have stood and maintained reverence should be at least a minor clue, if not a glaring searchlight and siren that the issue of lack of reverence lies somewhere else.

And how can I speak thus? Because I attend Mass in a parish in which everyone stands for reception, where the vast majority receive in the hand, and where reverence is strong - why? Because of catechesis. And part of that catechesis is the fact that for something like 12 to 15 years we have had 24 hour Perpetual Adoration.

One does not need to go petitioning the Bishops or the Pope for a change. One needs to address what the real problem is. And the real problem has absolutely nothing to do with standing or kneeling, or reception in the hand or on the tongue. It has to do with what people are taught, plain and simple, and what is modeled by the pastor and the parishoners. When reverence is modeled - done - by the leader of the parish - the pastor, and when the lay leaders of the parish model - do - the same, others pick up on it and do likewise. When reverence is taught and done, reverence is learned. When sloppy practice is done, much is observed and learned - all to the detriment.

When the Baltimore Catechism got tossed out and what parishes got was a touchy-feely-Jesus-is-my-buddy-we-all-have-to-love-one-another excuse for teaching the faith, people were no longer taught what the Church believes about the Eucharist. They were given pablum in place of the reality of the Eucharist, doctrine was dumbed down, and we now have two generations whose belief is hazy because they simply were not taught.

When you teach them the truth, it is amazing to see the change that takes place.

My parish is a shining example of the fact that it really does not matter whether one stands or kneels or whether one receives in the hand or on the tongue in regards to reverence. Reverence comes when one is taught the doctrine and sees the reverence expressed by others who beleive the same.

Making people kneel does not teach the doctrinal issues.

Teaching the doctrinal issues does not require a change of posture.

Posture is not the issue. Understanding of doctrine is the issue, and as usual, we are all rallying around the rabbit hole, missing the essential issue entirely.

Reverence is as reverence does. One can be reverent standing just as one can be irreverant kneeling, and vice-versa.

 

[ProVobis]

Posture is not the issue.

You’re right. The issue is the defiance of local customs, and custom is the one thing the Church wants us to respect.