standing before & after Communion

[Peter_Plato]

Oh my…

This is seemingly a refutation of the dogmatic teaching on the perpetual Real Presence of our Blessed Lord - Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity - in the Holy Eucharist and a grave misunderstanding of the mystical body of Christ and the actual Body of Christ in the most Holy Sacrament of the Altar along with a pile of other doctrinal and dogmatic errors. It is very troubling if this is what your Priest teaches the faithful entrusted to his care.

mda

I said, “The above is my clumsy understanding of what he detailed…”

Could you explain with greater clarity where the issues are? I am all ears.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Oh my…

This is seemingly a refutation of the dogmatic teaching on the perpetual Real Presence of our Blessed Lord - Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity - in the Holy Eucharist and a grave misunderstanding of the mystical body of Christ and the actual Body of Christ in the most Holy Sacrament of the Altar along with a pile of other doctrinal and dogmatic errors. It is very troubling if this is what your Priest teaches the faithful entrusted to his care.

mda

This comment of yours is very troubling to me and I would appreciate some clarity.

In support of my original post, this is from the Catholic Encyclopedia on the Mystical Body of the Church:
*
The members of the Church are bound together by a supernatural life communicated to them by Christ through the sacraments (John 15:5). Christ is the centre and source of life to Whom all are united, and Who endows each one with gifts fitting him for his position in the body (John 15:7-12).

These graces, through which each is equipped for his work, form it into an organized whole, whose parts are knit together as though by a system of ligaments and joints (John 15:16; Colossians 2:19).

Through them, too, the Church has its growth and increase, growing in extension as it spreads through the world, and intensively as **the individual Christian develops in himself the likeness of Christ **(John 15:13-15).

In virtue of this union the Church is the fulness or complement (pleroma) of Christ (Ephesians 1:23). It forms one whole with Him; and the Apostle even speaks of the Church as “Christ” (1 Corinthians 12:12).

This union between head and members is conserved and nourished by the Holy Eucharist. Through this sacrament our incorporation into the Body of Christ is alike outwardly symbolized and inwardly actualized; “We being many are one bread, one body; for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Corinthians 10:17).*

In light of the above, please explain where the grave misunderstanding and doctrinal errors lie. I am sincerely open to correction on this. I just don’t see where the problems actually exist.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Also:

*I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

Then* the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”*

Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” (John 6:43-60)*

This explanation by Fr. Barron also supports and clarifies the Church’s position:

wordonfire.org/WOF-TV/Commentaries-New/Fr-Barron-comments-on-the-Real-Presence-of-Christ.aspx

 

[dshix]

However, at the reception of the Eucharist, we demonstrate willingness to receive by moving forward and by standing as “one body” with each other we demonstrate solidarity with each other. Christ has become one with us in order to fulfill his mission of redeeming the world. Our standing shows solidarity and readiness to do our part together, to go to all corners of the globe to “carry” Christ there. It is a stance that shows our willingness to “do his will” because we are now enlivened by the Holy Spirit. Jesus is not only present in the Tabernacle, but in our very beings to move us by his Holy Spirit. Kneeling at this point would seem contrary to the progression of the narrative of the Mass.

Our local parish priest took great pains several weeks ago to explain the significance of the actions of participants in the Mass, in particular with the issue of standing during communion. The above is my clumsy understanding of what he detailed, but it makes sense to me and has resulted in much greater unanimity and community in the parish where I attend.

When this “new” protocol was initiated about a year ago, there was a lot of confusion about the point of this change.

This is actually a very interesting way to put it. However, I think that you are speaking on a different level than I have been, or most of the other people on this thread have been.

As you probably know the time just after communion, including the few minutes after mass, are some of the most precious moments to pray, because Christ is within you in the Eucharist. At this time, it is most appropriate for the faithful to pour out their adoration and thanksgiving for the mass, because He is within them.

If I am standing after communion, it is hard to just contemplate and pray. Standing is rather… a neutral position. When standing, I am inclined to fidget, look about, and think about other things.

The posture of kneeling is most prayerful than standing. If you and I disagree on that, I don’t think we can have a coherent discussion.

Therefore, I conclude, (and many parishes about me conclude) that the most appropriate posture after communion is kneeling, because it is the best praying position after receiving.

 

[Brendan]

Peter,

We have the Sacramental Grace of Holy Communion within us. We are fed spiritually and we become more Christ like.

But we do not become Christ. After we receive Holy Communion, no one is obligated to Adore and Worship us. Christ does remain within us, but present in His Divinity, as He is present in the whole of the Universe.

Rather, the focus of Adoration and Worship remains Christ Substantially and uniquely present in the Eucharist that on the altar, the is held by the minsters and that resides in the Tabernacle.

Such is the reason we genuflect upon leaving our pews at the end of Mass, and why it is entirely appropriate to kneel in Adoration and Thanksgiving upon returning to our pews upon the reception of Holy Communion.

And your comments in regards to standing are contrary to the instructions we have received from the Church.

After the new General Instruction was voted on by the Bishops, and sent to Rome for approval and adoption, there was a question on the very thing you mentioned, if the sign of uniformity desired by Rome meant that those who are receiving Holy Communion were required to stand, or was it a requirement that all adopt the same posture (standing) upon returning to their pew after receiving Holy Communion. Cardinal George of Chicago, acting as head of the USCCB, sent an official request for clarification on behalf of the US Bishops.

Dubium: In many places, the faithful are accustomed to kneeling or sitting in personal prayer upon returning to their places after having individually received Holy Communion during Mass. Is it the intention of the Missale Romanum, editio typica tertia, to forbid this practice?

Cardinal Francis Arinze, Prefect of the CDW, responded to the question on June 5, 2003 (Prot. N. 855/03/L):

Responsum: Negative, et ad mensum [No, for this reason]. The mens [reasoning] is that the prescription of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, no. 43, is intended, on the one hand, to ensure within broad limits a certain uniformity of posture within the congregation for the various parts of the celebration of Holy Mass, and on the other, to not regulate posture rigidly in such a way that those who wish to kneel or sit would no longer be free.

What your pastor seemed to imply, that the uniformity of posture should include all standing, runs contrary to Rome and the US Bishops. As such, teachings on that vein should be avoided. The desired uniformity is met when a person chooses to kneel or stand, or even sit. The congregation is sufficiently uniform in posture to satisfy the Church, and thus us as well.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Peter,

Rather, the focus of Adoration and Worship remains Christ Substantially and uniquely present in the Eucharist that on the altar, the is held by the minsters and that resides in the Tabernacle.

Such is the reason we genuflect upon leaving our pews at the end of Mass, and why it is entirely appropriate to kneel in Adoration and Thanksgiving upon returning to our pews upon the reception of Holy Communion.

Certainly this is true, but by highlighting only this aspect you seem to downplay the fact that Christ is also within us in order to bring about a transformation in us so that we become “one bread, one body” with him. We become one with the Bread which is his Body. The point is that Christ becomes “incarnate” in his Body, the Church and in each one of us through the Eucharist.

And your comments in regards to standing are contrary to the instructions we have received from the Church.

After the new General Instruction was voted on by the Bishops, and sent to Rome for approval and adoption, there was a question on the very thing you mentioned, if the sign of uniformity desired by Rome meant that those who are receiving Holy Communion were required to stand, or was it a requirement that all adopt the same posture (standing) upon returning to their pew after receiving Holy Communion. Cardinal George of Chicago, acting as head of the USCCB, sent an official request for clarification on behalf of the US Bishops.

What your pastor seemed to imply, that the uniformity of posture should include all standing, runs contrary to Rome and the US Bishops. As such, teachings on that vein should be avoided. The desired uniformity is met when a person chooses to kneel or stand, or even sit. The congregation is sufficiently uniform in posture to satisfy the Church, and thus us as well.

My suspicion is that this issue is far from being settled. At no other point in the Mass is there license for individuals to break from uniformity. This sets a precedent in terms of liturgical propriety, if it is going to be left to each congregant to do as they choose.

 

[centurionguard]

Certainly this is true, but by highlighting only this aspect you seem to downplay the fact that Christ is also within us in order to bring about a transformation in us so that we become “one bread, one body” with him. We become one with the Bread which is his Body. The point is that Christ becomes “incarnate” in his Body, the Church and in each one of us through the Eucharist.

My suspicion is that this issue is far from being settled. At no other point in the Mass is there license for individuals to break from uniformity. This sets a precedent in terms of liturgical propriety, if it is going to be left to each congregant to do as they choose.

If what you say is done by individuals in the congregation out of pure spite to be indifferent to liturgical propriety with ragards to posture, then yes I might see your point.

But who are we or anybody else to read the disposed intentions within the heart of one who choses to adore Jesus in the Eucharist kneeling, standing or sitting?

As Brendan quoted from Cardinal Francis Arinze;

Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, no. 43, is intended, on the one hand, to ensure within broad limits a certain uniformity of posture within the congregation for the various parts of the celebration of Holy Mass, and on the other, to (“not regulate posture rigidly in such a way that those who wish to kneel or sit would no longer be free”).

Here’s a video from Cardinal Francis Arinze about the topic of posture in question: And we must not forget here the Cardinal is speaking about the “Latin Rite”.
youtube.com/watch?v=mPnk9sbXCNE
youtube.com/watch?v=Ap1KL2D5ae4

 

[Corki]

My suspicion is that this issue is far from being settled. At no other point in the Mass is there license for individuals to break from uniformity. This sets a precedent in terms of liturgical propriety, if it is going to be left to each congregant to do as they choose.

That’s not exactly correct. For example, at the Sign of Peace, there is “license” for any number of personal choices in how to share a sign of peace with others.

However, at the reception of the Eucharist, we demonstrate willingness to receive by moving forward and by standing as “one body” with each other we demonstrate solidarity with each other. Christ has become one with us in order to fulfill his mission of redeeming the world. Our standing shows solidarity and readiness to do our part together, to go to all corners of the globe to “carry” Christ there. It is a stance that shows our willingness to “do his will” because we are now enlivened by the Holy Spirit. Jesus is not only present in the Tabernacle, but in our very beings to move us by his Holy Spirit. Kneeling at this point would seem contrary to the progression of the narrative of the Mass.

This line of reasoning is a bit troubling. It would seem that you are saying that those who are not “moving forward … as one body” are not part of the body of Christ or are imperfectly joined in the Church’s mission. That would not be consistent with Church teaching at all.

 

[Brendan]

Certainly this is true, but by highlighting only this aspect you seem to downplay the fact that Christ is also within us in order to bring about a transformation in us so that we become “one bread, one body” with him. We become one with the Bread which is his Body. The point is that Christ becomes “incarnate” in his Body, the Church and in each one of us through the Eucharist.

Yes, but there is not downplaying involved. We are certainly part of His Body, but we do not have, nor will we ever, have a Divine Nature. We will become more like Him with each reception of the Eucharist, but we will alway be Finite, while He is Infinite. No matter how much we progress in our Theosis, we will always have an infintie way to go.

No matter how much Christ lives within us, we will always be the one who Adore, never the ones who are Adored. The in living of Christ within us is what enables us to give Adoration at all.

My suspicion is that this issue is far from being settled. At no other point in the Mass is there license for individuals to break from uniformity. This sets a precedent in terms of liturgical propriety, if it is going to be left to each congregant to do as they choose.

Yes, it is possible that the Pope could overrule this Responsum, or the current Prefect of the CDWDS, +Llovera, could issue a contrary Responsum. But I doubt either will happen any time soon.

A Responum is an intrepretation of an aspect of Church law, and most Prefects, and the Holy Father, respect the concept of precidence, much like our civil Judges do.

As it stand now, this Responsum is part of Church Law under Canon 16 -2

Can. 16 §1. The legislator authentically interprets laws as does the one to whom the same legislator has entrusted the power of authentically interpreting.

§2. An authentic interpretation put forth in the form of law has the same force as the law itself and must be promulgated. If it only declares the words of the law which are certain in themselves, it is retroactive; if it restricts or extends the law, or if it explains a doubtful law, it is not retroactive

The point is the GIRM comes from the CDWDS, and they, under Canon Law, are the ones who have the final say in how it should be interpreted. Hence why the Bishop of the US requested such a Responsum.

Until such time as the Pope, or the Prefect of the CDWDS decide to change it, it is law. And the USCCB, any individual bishop, any clergy or any layperson are bound to obey it.

As such, any person is free to stand, sit or kneel and no one can make any attempt to have them feel unfree to adopt a position of within the broad limits set by Rome.

Those broad limits are how Rome defines ‘uniformity’, any other defintion in this case would be in error. There is no ‘license’ to break uniformity, because the desired level of uniformity is not broken when one person chooses to kneel and another stand.

 

[curlycool89]

My general rule is that if the Eucharist is outside of the tabernacle at any time, I’m kneeling (unless walking up to receive) and if the Host is inside, I stand/sit/kneel according to direction.

So are you kneeling after the Great Amen until the Communion Procession (which includes the Our Father)? Because you are suppose to stand with everyone else at that time.

Again… common sense… while the Blessed Sacrament is visible a posture of reverence is expected. That posture is determined by one’s physical capabilities.

sigh

People need to think before they speak. I don’t know about anyone else, but it’s pretty common practice everywhere I’ve seen that some people sit even during adoration/exposition sometimes. We have adoration at our seminary, and many people do sit some of the time (some people do some sort of spiritual or biblical reading, and sitting is simply a much better posture for reading then kneeling is ).

I can’t fathom the rational of the Canadian Bishop’s ruling on this. In a Catholic Church today all throughout North America and likely many places around the rest of the world where belief and faith in the Holy Presence of the Blessed Sacrament is diminished to far less than half of Catholics worldwide nothing makes sense.

Because this is how it’s down throughout the rest of the Church?

Kneeling until the Great Amen and after the Agnus Dei is an American adaptation of the universal rule (and Vancouver. But that’s Vancouver just for you).

 

[Peter_Plato]

This line of reasoning is a bit troubling. It would seem that you are saying that those who are not “moving forward … as one body” are not part of the body of Christ or are imperfectly joined in the Church’s mission. That would not be consistent with Church teaching at all.

There is a difference between solidarity and uniformity. The saints all show great solidarity with the teachings of the Church, but that does not imply cookie cutter similarity. You are “reading into” my words what was never intended.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yes, but there is not downplaying involved. We are certainly part of His Body, but we do not have, nor will we ever, have a Divine Nature. We will become more like Him with each reception of the Eucharist, but we will alway be Finite, while He is Infinite. No matter how much we progress in our Theosis, we will always have an infintie way to go.

No matter how much Christ lives within us, we will always be the one who Adore, never the ones who are Adored. The in living of Christ within us is what enables us to give Adoration at all.

The point I made was that Christ, through reception of the Eucharist, dwells within each member of Christ’s Body that makes up his Church. He is inside each member to the same extent that he is on the altar and in the Tabernacle because his Body and Blood are present in each person who has received the Eucharist. Focusing our adoration on the Tabernacle or the altar after the reception would seem to be missing the realization that Jesus is no longer just at the altar or in the tabernacle, but is now just as present within the body of believers.

It isn’t “about us,” it is about where Jesus is present, and after the reception of communion he is in the Body of believers as fully as in the Tabernacle. In the words of John the Baptist, “we must decrease and he must increase.”

Following the narrative of the Mass, if Christ is present within the members of the Body, then He is the one moving that Body to “carry out” the will of the Father, which is to “go out to the world.” The question to be asked at this time in the Mass is, “Are we doing the will of the Father in solidarity with his Church?” I am not clear that doing what we each want at this moment in the Mass is demonstrating solidarity with God’s will or with the other members of his Body.

Yes, there is some license for individual action during the greeting of peace, but that is not a part of the Mass where “standing together” is being portrayed as crucially important by the liturgical narrative. At no other point in the Mass is the full realization of “being one Body in Christ” as complete as when all have received the Body and Blood of our Lord. This is a strong reason why all should, at this time, be showing a “symbolic” unity of posture.

My point of bringing this up is not to cause discord but to explain another perspective; the one being promulgated in many parts of the world and in the diocese where I live. I do care that we fully understand what the significance of each part of the Mass truly is and that appropriate liturgical procedure is followed. I do not want this “discussion” to become contentious, but at the same time, there were important issues brought up in the opening and subsequent posts that need to be clearly and genuinely resolved.

 

[Corki]

There is a difference between solidarity and uniformity. The saints all show great solidarity with the teachings of the Church, but that does not imply cookie cutter similarity. You are “reading into” my words what was never intended.

I don’t think I am. You are explicitly saying that posture is what (your words) demonstrate(s) willingness to receive by moving forward and by standing as “one body” with each other we demonstrate solidarity with each other."

Solidarity is not diminished if some people are kneeling. The only thing accomplished by a mandate to stand is uniformity in posture.

But the bigger point is that the reception of Communion is not the part of Mass where we “demonstrate” solidarity with one another. It is one of the vertical portions of Mass where we focus on our own personal encounter with Christ. Which is why the Church has clearly stated that one’s posture after Communion is a personal choice.

 

[dshix]

So are you kneeling after the Great Amen until the Communion Procession (which includes the Our Father)? Because you are suppose to stand with everyone else at that time.

Yes, I am kneeling all that time. And no, everyone else is also kneeling.

Old Latin Mass is returning

When at a Novus Ordo mass, I stand when appropriate, including the Our Father, but I* will not* stand at the Consecration.

 

[waanju]

I kneel during the consecration, kneel while I pray after receiving, then stand and sing if I finish praying before everyone has received (I tend to be among the first in line because of where I usually sit, and my parish at home was rather large.

At masses now, since I’m at school, I stand, because there are no kneelers/space to kneel.

 

[TypesAndShadows]

I do enjoy it when Catholics insist that 400-year-old practices are the ancient tradition, and older practices used by the Catholic Church around the world for 1600 years are new innovations, less reverent, or simply unacceptable. The Tridentine Mass isn’t that old, and many features of the Ordinary Form are closer to ancient practice. Standing during the most reverent parts of the Mass is an ancient and acceptable way to show reverence, in a joyful way.

 

[dshix]

I do enjoy it when Catholics insist that 400-year-old practices are the ancient tradition, and older practices used by the Catholic Church around the world for 1600 years are new innovations, less reverent, or simply unacceptable. The Tridentine Mass isn’t that old, and many features of the Ordinary Form are closer to ancient practice. Standing during the most reverent parts of the Mass is an ancient and acceptable way to show reverence, in a joyful way.

In a “joyful” way? Does that also mean “painless” or “comfortable?”

Hehe, all facetiousness aside, what you say is true. But in my opinion, it does not take away from the reverence of kneeling, and the posture of standing isn’t really reverent in itself besides the person’s personal fervor.

 

[TypesAndShadows]

In a “joyful” way? Does that also mean “painless” or “comfortable?”

Hehe, all facetiousness aside, what you say is true. But in my opinion, it does not take away from the reverence of kneeling, and the posture of standing isn’t really reverent in itself besides the person’s personal fervor.

Certainly. Kneeling is a reverent attitude that emphasises our penance and contrition. Standing is a reverent attitude that emphasises our joyful hope. I hope that nobody would suggest we should kneel for the Gospel every week? We stand then as a sign of respect.

Of course nobody is saying that kneeling is not reverent (and, actually, I am more comfortable kneeling for long periods rather than standing, so I wouldn’t consider standing a cop out in any way), but standing is reverent too. And all gestures depend on the internal disposition of the person making them, for their significance.

 

[centurionguard]

I do enjoy it when Catholics insist that 400-year-old practices are the ancient tradition, and older practices used by the Catholic Church around the world for 1600 years are new innovations, less reverent, or simply unacceptable. The Tridentine Mass isn’t that old, and many features of the Ordinary Form are closer to ancient practice. Standing during the most reverent parts of the Mass is an ancient and acceptable way to show reverence, in a joyful way.

Perhaps; but few will look at long standing Church history why the Traditional posture of Kneeling was brought into the Tridentine Mass for over 500 years by a former Pope.
Obviously a weakening of Faith in the Eucharist with many attacks of heresies upon the Church through the ages. Obviously as seen within and outside the Catholic Church there are still huge vast numbers of Faithful who still don’t believe in the Holy Presence of the Euchrist.
IMHO there’s a far more rich humble symbolism in Kneeling before one’s God than standing even though the Church has accepted this custom.

When rich former Traditions and spiritual symbolism of the Church erode so does Faith.

 

[curlycool89]

Yes, I am kneeling all that time. And no, everyone else is also kneeling.

Old Latin Mass is returning

Ah, you should have specified that you were talking about the EF instead of the OF then. If someone doesn’t say anything and it’s not obvious, I assume they’re talking about the OF (since it is, as the name suggests, the Ordinary form, that which is ordinarily celebrated).

In a “joyful” way? Does that also mean “painless” or “comfortable?”

I don’t know, when you’re at Mass early in the morning kneeling sometimes seems more comfortable then standing when you’re still fairly tired (and sometimes leaning on the pew in front of you).

Obviously a weakening of Faith in the Eucharist with many attacks of heresies upon the Church through the ages. Obviously as seen within and outside the Catholic Church there are still huge vast numbers of Faithful who still don’t believe in the Holy Presence of the Euchrist.

Protip: the word obvious is a red-flag word that what you’re about to say may not in fact be obvious at all (in philosophy, it’s usually indicating that you’re about to pontificate some sort of dogmatic statement).

When rich former Traditions and spiritual symbolism of the Church erode so does Faith.

And the rest of the cultural changes we saw over the last 60 years have absolutely nothing to do with any of that, do they?