Standing during Communion

[johnnykins]

How is it a tortured reading of the GIRM if Rome has already said that while GIRM 43 says that we stand during the distribution of Communion to show unity, it’s not meant to be so rigid as to forbid kneeling or sitting?

Nothing of the sort is said in the GIRM! The** communicant** stands to receive - not the entire congregation -That’s where it gets tortured. If it were so clear why do the vast majority of diocese NOT call for the congregation to stand? GIRM 43 and its references say:

usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter2.shtml#sect1
43. The faithful should stand from the beginning of the Entrance chant, or while the priest approaches the altar, until the end of the Collect; for the Alleluia chant before the Gospel; while the Gospel itself is proclaimed; during the Profession of Faith and the Prayer of the Faithful; from the invitation, Orate, fratres (Pray, brethren), before the prayer over the offerings until the end of Mass, except at the places indicated below.

They should, however, sit while the readings before the Gospel and the responsorial Psalm are proclaimed and for the homily and while the Preparation of the Gifts at the Offertory is taking place; and, as circumstances allow, they may sit or kneel while the period of sacred silence after Communion is observed.

In the dioceses of the United States of America, they should kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer, except when prevented on occasion by reasons of health, lack of space, the large number of people present, or some other good reason. Those who do not kneel ought to make a profound bow when the priest genuflects after the consecration. The faithful kneel after the Agnus Dei unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise.53

With a view to a uniformity in gestures and postures during one and the same celebration, the faithful should follow the directions which the deacon, lay minister, or priest gives according to whatever is indicated in the Missal.

1. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 40; Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Instruction Varietates legitimae, 25 January 1994, no. 41: AAS 87 (1995), p. 304.

1. In some places and circumstances, however, an even more radical adaptation of the liturgy is needed, and this entails greater difficulties. Wherefore:

1. The competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, must, in this matter, carefully and prudently consider which elements from the traditions and culture of individual peoples might appropriately be admitted into divine worship. Adaptations which are judged to be useful or necessary should when be submitted to the Apostolic See, by whose consent they may be introduced.
2. To ensure that adaptations may be made with all the circumspection which they demand, the Apostolic See will grant power to this same territorial ecclesiastical authority to permit and to direct, as the case requires, the necessary preliminary experiments over a determined period of time among certain groups suited for the purpose.
3. Because liturgical laws often involve special difficulties with respect to adaptation, particularly in mission lands, men who are experts in these matters must be employed to formulate them. vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

1. The liturgy is an action, and so gesture and posture are especially important. Those which belong to the essential rites of the sacraments and which are required for their validity must be preserved just as they have been approved or determined by the supreme authority of the Church.[87]
   The gestures and postures of the celebrating priest must express his special function: He presides over the assembly in the person of Christ.[88]
   The gestures and postures of the assembly are signs of its unity and express its active participation and foster the spiritual attitude of the participants.[89] Each culture will choose those gestures and bodily postures which express the attitude of humanity before God, giving them a Christian significance, having some relationship if possible, with the gestures and postures of the Bible. adoremus.org/doc_inculturation.html

 

[johnnykins]

I submit to your greater knowledge. Obviously, you must exist on a higher plane where you can read the intentions and thoughts of people you have never met. Poor son of God that I am, I have to rely on the writings and homilies of my bishop. From that I have to try to discern if what he says is a lie or if he, in fact, is telling me why he has asked us to adopt a common posture. My bad :doh2:

Glad you are slowly figuring out when to submit!

As for your Bishop - I’ve met more than a small number of Bishops who wouldn’t know up from down. Having heard several Bishops rant about the medieval practice of kneeling - as well as priests, brothers, and nuns - I have indeed come to the conclusion that that is the real sticking point. You Bishop may be sincere - he may not. But, I do find it telling that this practice has been imposed by “liberal” Bishops and not by the vast majority of Bishops.The drivel and dreck I’ve heard over the years to justify all manner of folly in the Church - as so many others here have heard - makes me skeptical about your Bishop at best. But he’s not my Bishop and I don’t know him.

So with that i will simply remind you that:The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
The road to hell is paved with the skulls of priests.

And also,as the Pope said to nappy, " the clergy have tried for centuries to destroy the Church, and you [Napoleon] shall not do it either."

 

[Canto]

The introduction of a common posture (standing while in line/while receiving/while others receive) is an attempt to make more visible the unity of the Body of Christ in the community.

In days gone by Latin Rite Catholics knelt for Communion and that was a common posture that made visible the unity of the Body of Christ in the community.

 

[Canto]

How is it a tortured reading of the GIRM if Rome has already said that while GIRM 43 says that we stand during the distribution of Communion to show unity, it’s not meant to be so rigid as to forbid kneeling or sitting?

Did Rome say that such a reading was correct? For they were speaking about #43 in general and noted that #43 is not so rigid.

If we were to stand til the last person recieves you’d think the GIRM would mention it specifically?

 

[Phemie]

Did Rome say that such a reading was correct? For they were speaking about #43 in general and noted that #43 is not so rigid as to forbid people from kneeling or sitting.

If we were to stand til the last person recieves you’d think the GIRM would mention it specifically?

Exactly, it doesn’t forbid kneeling or sitting but it calls for standing otherwise Rome would have said, “Bishop, you’re reading it incorrectly.” If the bishop thought that it might forbid kneeling or sitting until everyone had received, exactly what posture was being called for, lying down? He would have had no reason to even ask the question if the GIRM hadn’t called for standing.

 

[Canto]

Exactly, it doesn’t forbid kneeling or sitting but it calls for standing otherwise Rome would have said, “Bishop, you’re reading it incorrectly.” If the bishop thought that it might forbid kneeling or sitting until everyone had received, exactly what posture was being called for, lying down? He would have had no reason to even ask the question if the GIRM hadn’t called for standing.

It didn’t say either way, simply that #43 was not so rigid.

My reading of the the GIRM (in accord with the Australian Bishops) is that it does not call for standing.Some (in the US) were telling people to stand who traditionally knelt or sat. There was confusion.

Thus Cardinal George simply asked wether the GIRM forbid such practice. The answer was no. The Cardinal was not asking about wether standing was the correct reading. Notice the reply did not say the GIRM says stand but people can kneel or sit. It just said #43 in general was not so rigid in dictating posture that those who wish to kneel or sit would no longer be free.

As I posted earlier, Archbishop Chaput said “See, I agree with you, but I thought this was confusing so I was just asking for a clarification. So the period of silence can begin as soon as you receive, if you want to go back and sit down, or kneel.”

 

[Podo2005]

In days gone by Latin Rite Catholics knelt for Communion and that was a common posture that made visible the unity of the Body of Christ in the community.

Couldn’t agree more:thumbsup:

 

[Evan]

Couldn’t agree more:thumbsup:

True. But then somebody gave permission for communicant to receive from the cup. What can one do?

In the even older days… we all got to kneel and noone when to communion but once a year.

In the older older days… nobody kneeled and they received in the hand and drank from a VERY large common cup (needed two handles just to lift it)

Things change as does the church. Hence the difference between discipline and doctrine.

 

[Podo2005]

True. But then somebody gave permission for communicant to receive from the cup. What can one do?

In the even older days… we all got to kneel and noone when to communion but once a year.

In the older older days… nobody kneeled and they received in the hand and drank from a VERY large common cup (needed two handles just to lift it)

Things change as does the church. Hence the difference between discipline and doctrine.

Can you provide evidence that no one went to communion but once a year? Do you mean that you were only required to go once a year or that they weren’t allowed to go more than once a year?

 

[ProVobis]

Can you provide evidence that no one went to communion but once a year? Do you mean that you were only required to go once a year or that they weren’t allowed to go more than once a year?

Actually Evan is right except that many didn’t receive at all. That’s why the Church required you at some point to receive once a year. That for most meant going to confession once a year too.

 

[Podo2005]

The impression I get, upon reading this tread, is that the posture during communion is arbitrary and is up to the individual communicant (stand, sit or kneel)… now since this seems kinda funny I was wondering if anyone could provide the reasoning behind this…

 

[Podo2005]

Actually Evan is right except that many didn’t receive at all. That’s why the Church required you at some point to receive once a year. That for most meant going to confession once a year too.

Yes but did they recieve only once because they were only allowed once or was it a personal choice made by the individual?

 

[ProVobis]

Yes but did they recieve only once because they were only allowed once or was it a personal choice made by the individual?

You were and still are required to receive at least once a year. Fewer people used to receive probably because (1) they had not fasted since the previous midnight or (2) they were not in the state of sanctifying grace or (3) they felt they were not properly disposed otherwise. Don’t forget people used to be taught spiritual communion too, which carries graces of its own.

 

[Podo2005]

You were and still are required to receive at least once a year. Fewer people used to receive probably because (1) they had not fasted since the previous midnight or (2) they were not in the state of sanctifying grace or (3) they felt they were not properly disposed otherwise. Don’t forget people used to be taught spiritual communion too, which carries graces of its own.

Alright, thanks for clarifying

God Bless