So what is the Catechesis for standing for Communion?

[VociMike]

Perhaps we should look to and draw upon the reasons the early Church stood.

It was a tradition before it was changed to what some think of now as ‘traditional’.

There was something very very right in how they handled it to allow the Church to survive and thrive to be with us now.

So you’re suggesting that the USCCB is “more Catholic” than Rome? For, as has been pointed out, standing is not the universal norm, but only the norm for certain areas, the USA being one of those areas.

Does anybody doubt that the real reason is that we started doing it here for whatever “spirit of Vatican II” reasons and the bishops took the easier path of modifying the GIRM rather than be in defiance of the GIRM? It’s odd, really, that the USCCB hasn’t released this catechesis that we’re all supposed to be getting.

 

[japhy]

It’s odd, really, that the USCCB hasn’t released this catechesis that we’re all supposed to be getting.

Yes, I would like to know how standing to receive Holy Communion came to be granted as an indult in the Roman Rite. See, I know how Communion in the hand became indult-ed… and it’s not a pleasant story.

 

[VociMike]

Yes, I would like to know how standing to receive Holy Communion came to be granted as an indult in the Roman Rite. See, I know how Communion in the hand became indult-ed… and it’s not a pleasant story.

The USCCB is really being derelict in its duties on this matter, to have language inserted into the GIRM about catechesis we’re supposed to be getting, while not actually making said catechesis available.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

So you’re suggesting that the USCCB is “more Catholic” than Rome? For, as has been pointed out, standing is not the universal norm, but only the norm for certain areas, the USA being one of those areas.

Does anybody doubt that the real reason is that we started doing it here for whatever “spirit of Vatican II” reasons and the bishops took the easier path of modifying the GIRM rather than be in defiance of the GIRM? It’s odd, really, that the USCCB hasn’t released this catechesis that we’re all supposed to be getting.

Please point out exactly where I stated that the USCCB is ‘more Cathlic’ than Rome.

TIA

 

[Eilish_Maura]

We see that standing is the norm in the Eastern Catholic rites, whereas kneeling is the norm in the Western Catholic rites. They still stand in the East, and until a few decades ago, we still knelt in the West.

Head-coverings are still traditional in some rites of the East. They were also traditional in the West as well (as well as Canon Law in 1917), until a few decades ago.

How do you suggest we determine which were “cultural” norms and which are not?

Headcovering for women is definitely from cutural norms.

Would standing to receive the Blessed Sacrament be the cultural norm for the early Church?

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Let me explain as there needs to be no official writings that speak of there not being altar rails when there are none, since they didn’t exist yet.
They reverenced the Body of Christ. This is expressed in our actions and posture. As time developed we started to kneel and receive kneeling to reflect the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
Of course they didn’t do that in the beginning, altar rails did not exist, they didn’t have missals either, does that mean we need to go back to scrolls?

We do what best expresses our faith, now can you please give a good reason what is the proper catechesis then which reflects this?

It is traditional Catholic understanding that we kneel in the presence of Jesus, to change that without a good reason is showing a rejection of that understanding by our actions.

This is why I am interested in an answer.

It seems this comes out of a rejection of tradition and a desire to restore early Church practices regardless of tradition and Catholic understanding of respect for Christ.

God Bless
Scylla

Doesn’t the idea of kneeling to show respect/reverence come from the same idea of posture shown to European royalty?

Does this ‘development’ owe its origin to cultural norms of the day and not to anything else?

 

[VociMike]

Please point out exactly where I stated that the USCCB is ‘more Cathlic’ than Rome.

TIA

Don’t get in a twist. You were arguing that standing goes back to the ancient Church, but the universal norm as established by Rome is not standing.

Anyway, it is useless for any of us to speculate on the nature of or reasoning behind the catechesis being discussed. What we need is for the legitimate authority, in this case the USCCB, to simply provide it to us, as they (implicitly) promised in the GIRM.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Don’t get in a twist. You were arguing that standing goes back to the ancient Church, but the universal norm as established by Rome is not standing.

Anyway, it is useless for any of us to speculate on the nature of or reasoning behind the catechesis being discussed. What we need is for the legitimate authority, in this case the USCCB, to simply provide it to us, as they (implicitly) promised in the GIRM.

Please go back and re read what I posted - you seem to have missed something from it.

 

[Brendan]

Doesn’t the idea of kneeling to show respect/reverence come from the same idea of posture shown to European royalty?

No, I came from St. Paul

Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

Phillipians 2

For this reason I kneel before the Father, from whom his whole family in heaven and on earth derives its name.

Eph 3

St. Paul did not have any contact with European Royalty, yet he was very comfortable with the concept of kneeling at the very name of God.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

St. Paul did not have any contact with European Royalty, yet he was very comfortable with the concept of kneeling at the very name of God.

So why did the early church stand?

 

[Brendan]

So why did the early church stand?

They also limited themselves to only one confession in a lifetime, and gave that confession to the entire congregation, with a penace that lasted years.

But we, over the course of time, learned more deeply what the Sacraments meant, and began to put into practice customs that were closer to what Sacred Tradition calls for.

In other words, we learned better practices.

So the question remains, the Early Church saw fit to vegin to kneel for Communion, are we now to say they were wrong?

Should we implement all of the Early Church’s Sacramental practices too? Such as giving your confession to everybody in the parish and wear sack cloth for years before you recieved absolution?

If you prefer what the Early Church did, why not be consistent about it?

 

[Eilish_Maura]

They also limited themselves to only one confession in a lifetime, and gave that confession to the entire congregation, with a penace that lasted years.

But we, over the course of time, learned more deeply what the Sacraments meant, and began to put into practice customs that were closer to what Sacred Tradition calls for.

In other words, we learned better practices.

So the question remains, the Early Church saw fit to vegin to kneel for Communion, are we now to say they were wrong?

Should we implement all of the Early Church’s Sacramental practices too? Such as giving your confession to everybody in the parish and wear sack cloth for years before you recieved absolution?

If you prefer what the Early Church did, why not be consistent about it?

It starts to look like it is OK to change some things and not others based on tradition only from a certain time period onward and anything outside of that is to be discounted.

Are we smarter than people of the early Church? More pious? Were they defaming the sacraments? We can draw and learn from all of our history and all of our traditions. Something was right with the way the early Church did things as seen in the growth of the Church - those are the things we need to seek.

 

[Brendan]

It starts to look like it is OK to change some things and not others based on tradition only from a certain time period onward and anything outside of that is to be discounted.

Are we smarter than people of the early Church? More pious? Were they defaming the sacraments?

Do you feel we have a better understanding of the Sacrament of Reconcilliation now, or back in the Early Church, with it’s year long penaces.

If so, are we smarter than they are? Or more pious?

Does mandating that a penitent proclaim their sins to the whole parish demean the Sacrament?

We can draw and learn from all of our history and all of our traditions. **Something was right with the way the early Church **did things as seen in the growth of the Church - those are the things we need to seek.

So should we wear hair shirts for years before absolution? That was happening at the same time as the Church was growing by leaps and bounds

Though the largest growth occured in the Counter-Reformation era (both in terms of sheer numbers and as a percentage of the worlds population), via the work of men like St. Peter Claver and St. Francis Xavier and all the missionaries to the New World.

If practices that promote large growth are your benchmark, would it not be better to use the same practices they did ( the Tridentine Mass, for example)

 

[scylla]

I agree that they were very pious in the early Church but that still does not answer the question.

Why? What is the Catechesis?

How does it reflect the truth of the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

Scylla

 

[VociMike]

They also limited themselves to only one confession in a lifetime, and gave that confession to the entire congregation, with a penace that lasted years.

And the adult converts tended to hold off on baptism until their deathbeds.

 

[VociMike]

I agree that they were very pious in the early Church but that still does not answer the question.

Why? What is the Catechesis?

How does it reflect the truth of the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

That is the issue. Where is the promised catechesis?

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Do you feel we have a better understanding of the Sacrament of Reconcilliation now, or back in the Early Church, with it’s year long penaces.

If so, are we smarter than they are? Or more pious?

Does mandating that a penitent proclaim their sins to the whole parish demean the Sacrament?

So should we wear hair shirts for years before absolution? That was happening at the same time as the Church was growing by leaps and bounds

Though the largest growth occured in the Counter-Reformation era (both in terms of sheer numbers and as a percentage of the worlds population), via the work of men like St. Peter Claver and St. Francis Xavier and all the missionaries to the New World.

If practices that promote large growth are your benchmark, would it not be better to use the same practices they did ( the Tridentine Mass, for example)

I do not believe anything you have mentioned speaks to the issue of standing.

Standing or kneeling is not the same as the Sacrament but discipline and procedure based. Both have been seen as reverent and appropriate - to seek what is the Catechesis for standing one needs to seek what was seen as reverent when it was done in the early Church.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

I do not believe anything you have mentioned speaks to the issue of standing.

Standing or kneeling is not the same as the Sacrament but discipline and procedure based. Both have been seen as reverent and appropriate - to seek what is the Catechesis for standing one needs to seek what was seen as reverent when it was done in the early Church.

So you think it’s impossible that people said “Hey, you know what would be even more reverent than what we’re doing now? Kneeling, since every knee should bow to our Lord!”

How insulting, to think that the Church can’t develop in reverence. And how contrary to the teachings of the Church.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

So you think it’s impossible that people said “Hey, you know what would be even more reverent than what we’re doing now? Kneeling, since every knee should bow to our Lord!”

How insulting, to think that the Church can’t develop in reverence. And how contrary to the teachings of the Church.

How much more insulting to play holier than thou with what we have from the early Church.

 

[japhy]

How much more insulting to play holier than thou with what we have from the early Church.

Is it impossible that the Church has grown in reverence since its earliest days? Or have we necessarily erred?

Remember, Jesus told us that the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth, not plop it down into our laps on Pentecost.