So what is the Catechesis for standing for Communion?

[stmaria]

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

You seem to be of the mindset that Pope Pius XII warned us about.

*MEDIATOR DEI *
Encyclical of His Holiness Pope Pius XII On the Sacred Liturgy Mediator Dei
papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MEDIA.HTM

1. The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded. This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof. It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice; those who transfer certain feast-days – which have been appointed and established after mature deliberation – to other dates; those, finally, who delete from the prayerbooks approved for public use the sacred texts of the Old Testament, deeming them little suited and inopportune for modern times.
2. The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the** ancient rites **and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world. They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.
3. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, tocite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive table form; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; .

 

[VociMike]

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

j
So for a thousand years the entire Western Church has been playing holier than thou? It’s all that simple, eh? Wow, you’re sure quick to impugn the motives of countless Christians.

And, I need to point out, you have no basis for your low opinion of a thousand years of Western Christianity. Because the USCCB has not released the promised catechesis. Unless you speak with the authority of the USCCB, your particular theories have no relevance to the question asked in this thread.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

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

Right, just like it would be disrespectful for me to believe in relativity since it contradicts Newtonian physics.

The Faith does not change, but the Church can gain more understanding over time. The fact that you do not realize this possibility reveals a gaping hole in your catechesis.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Right, just like it would be disrespectful for me to believe in relativity since it contradicts Newtonian physics.

The Faith does not change, but the Church can gain more understanding over time. The fact that you do not realize this possibility reveals a gaping hole in your catechesis.

Standing or kneeling does not change the faith.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

j
So for a thousand years the entire Western Church has been playing holier than thou? It’s all that simple, eh? Wow, you’re sure quick to impugn the motives of countless Christians.

And, I need to point out, you have no basis for your low opinion of a thousand years of Western Christianity. Because the USCCB has not released the promised catechesis. Unless you speak with the authority of the USCCB, your particular theories have no relevance to the question asked in this thread.

Is anyone here associated with the USCCB and has the authority to say anything about the question in this thread?

 

[Eilish_Maura]

You seem to be of the mindset that Pope Pius XII warned us about.

*MEDIATOR DEI *
Encyclical of His Holiness Pope Pius XII On the Sacred Liturgy Mediator Dei
papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MEDIA.HTM

1. The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded. This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof. It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice; those who transfer certain feast-days – which have been appointed and established after mature deliberation – to other dates; those, finally, who delete from the prayerbooks approved for public use the sacred texts of the Old Testament, deeming them little suited and inopportune for modern times.
2. The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the** ancient rites **and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world. They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.
3. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, tocite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive table form; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; .

yeah sure right

What is next - I am some pagan or heathen?

 

[Miles_Mariae]

Standing or kneeling does not change the faith.

Precisely. That’s one area the Church can grow in understanding in, and therefore grow in reverence. Hence, it is fallacious to appeal to the Early Church as evidence that standing is the best way to go.

Thanks for proving my point!

 

[Eilish_Maura]

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.

I am not sure that meant postures.

Have we changed what is thought of as a display of reverence - yes but I do not believe the Church has grown in reverence.

 

[ElizabethPH]

I am not sure that meant postures.

Have we changed what is thought of as a display of reverence - yes but I do not believe the Church has grown in reverence.

That’s because folks stopped getting down on their knees!!!

 

[Eilish_Maura]

That’s because folks stopped getting down on their knees!!!

yeah right

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Precisely. That’s one area the Church can grow in understanding in, and therefore grow in reverence. Hence, it is fallacious to appeal to the Early Church as evidence that standing is the best way to go.

Thanks for proving my point!

Proved your point?

You seemed to equate standing vs kneeling as tampering with the faith and my pointing out that it does not proves YOUR point?

whatever

 

[japhy]

yeah sure right

It’d do you some good to read what Pope Pius XII had to say about the liturgy. Mediator Dei is a very eye-opening read. He talks about gasp active participation! BEFORE Vatican II, even! And yes, paragraphs 59-64 discuss the error of antiquarianism.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Precisely. That’s one area the Church can grow in understanding in, and therefore grow in reverence. Hence, it is fallacious to appeal to the Early Church as evidence that standing is the best way to go.

Thanks for proving my point!

BTW I never said it was the ‘best’ way.

 

[japhy]

I am not sure that meant postures.

Have we changed what is thought of as a display of reverence - yes but I do not believe the Church has grown in reverence.

If we look at practices of the early Church, we could also bring back the use of cloths draped over our hands (or at least the hands of women) when we are receiving Holy Communion. (Or was that just another cultural norm?)

But that’s besides the point. You don’t think the Church has grown in reverence at all? Since when? St. Paul seems to think the church in Corinth wasn’t being properly reverent.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

If we look at practices of the early Church, we could also bring back the use of cloths draped over our hands (or at least the hands of women) when we are receiving Holy Communion. (Or was that just another cultural norm?)

But that’s besides the point. You don’t think the Church has grown in reverence at all? Since when? St. Paul seems to think the church in Corinth wasn’t being properly reverent.

And what about the rest of the early Church? Damnable and disrespectful because of what was going on in Corinth?

 

[japhy]

And what about the rest of the early Church? Damnable and disrespectful because of what was going on in Corinth?

No, and I made no such insinuation. My point is, you said the Church has not increased in reverence. So it has either stayed the same or slipped. Which do you think it is?

 

[Miles_Mariae]

Proved your point?

You seemed to equate standing vs kneeling as tampering with the faith and my pointing out that it does not proves YOUR point?

whatever

Nope, I clearly stated that kneeling and standing merely represent the development of the Church’s understanding. You’re the one who accused us of being holier-than-thou to the Early Church for not standing.

Poor short term memory? Recall:

Are we smarter than people of the early Church? More pious?

No, the Church has simply gained a deeper understanding. What’s so hard about that?

 

[John_Lilburne]

I will attempt a “proper catechesis on the reasons” for the norm that in the USA the correct posture to receive Communion is standing.

In the 1967 Instruction Eucharisticum mysterium, the Sacred Congregation for Rites wrote:
“34. a. In accordance with the custom of the Church, the faithful may receive communion either kneeling or standing. One or the other practice is to be chosen according to the norms laid down by the conference of bishops and in view of the various circumstances, above all the arrangement of the churches and the number of the communicants. The faithful should willingly follow the manner of reception indicated by the pastors so that communion may truly be a sign of familial union among all those who share in the same table of the Lord.”
This Instruction was approved by Paul VI on 13 April 1967.

The 2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal also gives the authority in making this decision to the Conference of Bishops:
"390. It is up to the Conferences of Bishops to decide on the adaptations indicated in this General Instruction and in the Order of Mass and, once their decisions have been accorded the recognitio of the Apostolic See, to introduce them into the Missal itself. These adaptations include …
• The manner of receiving Holy Communion (cf. nos. 160, 283 above); "

The Latin edition of the 2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal has: “160. … Fideles communicant genuflexi vel stantes, prout Conferentia Episcoporum statuerit. …”. The GIRM approved for England and Wales translates this sentence directly: “The faithful communicate either kneeling or standing, as determined by the Conference of Bishops.”

So the catechesis is not about trying to list ten reasons why standing is more appropriate than kneeling. One posture or the other can be chosen by a Conference of Bishops. Rather it is about things like obedience, unity and respect for proper authority – such as liturgical books, Canon Law, and decisions of the Pope and Conference of Bishops.

 

[japhy]

In the 1967 Instruction Eucharisticum mysterium, the Sacred Congregation for Rites wrote:
“34. a. In accordance with the custom of the Church, the faithful may receive communion either kneeling or standing. One or the other practice is to be chosen according to the norms laid down by the conference of bishops and in view of the various circumstances, above all the arrangement of the churches and the number of the communicants. The faithful should willingly follow the manner of reception indicated by the pastors so that communion may truly be a sign of familial union among all those who share in the same table of the Lord.”

…

So the catechesis is not about trying to list ten reasons why standing is more appropriate than kneeling. One posture or the other can be chosen by a Conference of Bishops. Rather it is about things like obedience, unity and respect for proper authority – such as liturgical books, Canon Law, and decisions of the Pope and Conference of Bishops.

But the question is, where did Eucharisticum Mysterium get its “idea” for receiving Holy Communion “either kneeling or standing”? The posture is not mentioned in Sacrosanctum Concilium, nor any document between it and EM. When it says “the custom of the Church”, is it talking about the Latin Rite Church, or the entire Catholic Church? In other words, is it mixing Traditions, and if so, why?

 

[Eilish_Maura]

No, and I made no such insinuation. My point is, you said the Church has not increased in reverence. So it has either stayed the same or slipped. Which do you think it is?

Individuals may practice more or less reverence.

They may or may not show this reverence with things like body posture.

The Church has not increased in reverence, the Church has always understood the level and appropriateness of showing reverence.

It is the outward manifestations that have changed over time - not the Church.