The right (and duty) to kneel

[JNB]

MariaG:

I agree. This issue can change. Those who feel strongly about kneeling should pray for a change of instructions every time they receive, after a profound head bow, or if they feel the need, a bow from the waist. While a person is not to be denied communion for kneeling, they are supposed to be instructed. Hopefully, the instruction is in a Christian manner unlike the OP experience. To then defy the instruction just because you don’t like them or think kneeling is better is wrong. How does that make you different than Luther who felt he knew better than the Pope?

Like them or not, agree with them or not, the Bishops of the US have authority over the faithful in the US. Defiance of authority of the Church, under the guise of piety is hypocritical.

And like it or not, the Council of Devine Worship at the Vatican ruled that those who kneel for communion should not be accused of being disobideint or be imposed upon. You people should understand the situation a bit better.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

JNB:

Man, who is the pharisee here. Anyways, the Vaticans CDF stated in 3 letters to the US bishops that people who kneel for communion are not to be considered or disobideint, end of discussion. To compare those who kneel for communion to those who wear rainbow sashes shows me you have your priorities way out of wack. Also to Br. Rich SFO, read Aderomus bulliten, Norm means just that, the way somthing is NORMALLY done, not an equivlent to a Canon law that has to be 100% followed, hence the 3 letters from the CDF to the US bishops on the subject.

I never said that “Norm” was equal to Canon Law.

I’m unaware of a document by the name “Aderomus bulliten” from who or where does it originate?

 

[Orionthehunter]

JNB:

Man, who is the pharisee here. Anyways, the Vaticans CDF stated in 3 letters to the US bishops that people who kneel for communion are not to be considered or disobideint, end of discussion. To compare those who kneel for communion to those who wear rainbow sashes shows me you have your priorities way out of wack. Also to Br. Rich SFO, read Aderomus bulliten, Norm means just that, the way somthing is NORMALLY done, not an equivlent to a Canon law that has to be 100% followed, hence the 3 letters from the CDF to the US bishops on the subject.

I agree those who present themselves to communion kneeling are not to be considered disobedient. However, with the approval of the CDF, the Bishops have said they are to be instructed to present themselves standing (either in the hand or tongue. Personally, I’ve never rec’d in the hand). Those who present themselves kneeling are not to be denied communion but instructed privately (by implication as they are not to be considered disobedient) and pastorally to do present themselves standing. This was originally the position of the Archdiocese of St. Paul for those who wear sashes to Communion to express their opposition to the Church’s stand on the homosexual lifestyle. However, after years of continued “sash-wearing” despite instruction to cease, the Archbishop took the step to inform Priests to deny communion to those who insisted on “sash-wearing” contrary to instruction by the Church. If people continue to present themselves for communion contrary to instruction fully within the perogative of the Bishops as approved by the Vatican, they are choosing to make a statement just as the “sash-wearers” did.

I don’t doubt that the motives for the “kneelers” is different and well-intentioned. However, if they continue after having been instructed, it is an act of disobedience against instruction given to them by the Bishop/local Priest. If we who long for greater lay Catholic Identity and conformity, we need to confine our expression of disagreement to the big issues like teachings contrary to Papal Moral Teaching (ie fidelity, lifestyle choices, and matters of sin) and on other issues witness through acceptence to the norm of the Mass we are attending.

One of the great attributes of our worship at the Mass is the unity expressed by the congregation. Let me give you some examples.

My daughter is a very joyful expressive teen. She likes a contemporary Mass and music. Joy is a pleasure created by God and she worships joyfully. She isn’t a “hetordox” as she attends Mass a couple of times a week at her school and the Chaplain has told me that she stops in a couple of times a month for spontaneous confession. I should be as devout as her. Like today when I attend All Saint’s Mass at her high school, I will participate “as I’m in Rome, I will do as the Romans do”. At her school, you can expect to sing contempory songs wherever permitted including the Responsorial Psalm. Their flavor of worship is representative of the joy these really good kids have for Jesus Christ. On the other hand, when my mother visits, she likes our early Sunday a.m. Mass which is very traditional so we go as a family then. It is representative of the awe and reverence the she has for God the Creator. When at this traditional Mass, I expect my daughters to participate fully in this flavor of worship even though it isn’t their preference. Whether it be young people or those w/ a contemporary bias looking bored at a tradtional Mass or those w/ a traditional bias looking disgusted at a contempory Mass (assuming there are no conscious liturgical abuses being done), my heart breaks. Appropriate participation when in another’s cultural expression is a form of respect and understanding for where these worshipers are in their life.

Another example is that my sister has recently moved from a stoic midwestern city (Scandanavians are notoriously stoic ) to Nashville will require her to get used to the Amens and Alleluias commonly expressed during the Homily. Or when I attend the Sudanese immigrant parish in my city where the primary instrument is drums and the chants have a distinctive African flavor.

Finally, when I go to Adoration, the person who is there for the hour before me spends most of the time prostrate on the floor. I spend about half my time kneeling in prayer and the rest sitting reading the Word. Conversely, the lady who is there usually with me comes in, genuflects and then sits staring at the monstrance. In this setting, different private expressions are totally appropriate. However, whether one be a “traditional” or “contemporary” worshiper, one should be respectful of the “culture” at that Mass and defer making personal expressions of piety or disagreement. In this vein, since the Bishops have instructed us to recieve standing, IMHO, it is a sign of reverence, submission and obedience to follow this instruction.

 

[ncjohn]

JNB:

Norm means just that, the way somthing is NORMALLY done, not an equivlent to a Canon law that has to be 100% followed,

This is a very interesting argument considering the amount of emphasis the Traditionalists place on people following the GIRM and the amount of grief they give people by stating that “nothing can be done that isn’t specifically noted there.”

So which is it? We’re obligated to follow it or not? I’m sure it can’t be that some are allowed to decide which things to follow or not follow but others aren’t.

I’d also be interested in where the interpretation of “norm” that you use here comes from. I recognize that that is the way it is used in normal conversation, but I don’t believe that the Church defines it that way. I am pretty sure it is a norm in the way you describe only to the extent that the *Bishop’s themselves * can make exceptions where appropriate–as in local examptions for specific ethnic groups for example–not to the extent that the laity get to decide which things they want to obey and which ones they don’t. If that is not the case, then there is no purpose in giving the Bishops the authority to set the standards. If someone has some documentation that shows differently I’d be interested in seeing it so I can be better informed.

When it’s all said and done on this issue, although I’d like to be able to kneel, I’ll not do so for two reasons. First, as has been repeatedly stated, the Bishops who were authorized by the Church to set the standards have done so. More importantly to me though, I’ll follow St Paul’s advice that out of charity we not do things that cause difficulty for those around us even if we know in our hearts there is nothing wrong with what we do. For me to do so is going to cause others to lose their focus on the Eucharist by being a distraction, and more importantly put them in a potential position of being tempted to judge my motivation for kneeling. I personally do not want to become a stumbling block to my brother’s faith, but would rather carry my cross to prevent that from occuring.

That being said, I will question nobody’s motivation for doing so, nor will I judge myself more or less pious for my decision. I leave room for respectful disagreement while praying for unity.

Peace,

 

[MariaG]

Br. Rich SFO:

I never said that “Norm” was equal to Canon Law.

I’m unaware of a document by the name “Aderomus bulliten” from who or where does it originate?

After an extended search due to spelling errors of the poster,
I believe this is the document.

adoremus.org/Notitiae-kneeling.html

It appears to be a “Society for the Renewal of the Sacred Liturgy”.

It does not address whether or not they are to be considered “disobeident”. It simply states that the faithful may not be denied communion for presenting themselves kneeling.

But lets follow the lines.

Bishops in US declare the norm to be standing after a profound head bow.

Faithful presents themselves kneeling.

Faithful is instructed as to the directives of the Bishops as how a person should receive communion.

Faithful again presents themself for communion kneeling, ignoring the directive.

Telling priests that they may not deny communion to people who kneel does not mean that those people are not being disobedient to the directives of the Priests and Bishops who are in authority over them.

Maria

 

[cameron_lansing]

JNB:

. . . Norm means just that, the way somthing is NORMALLY done, not an equivlent to a Canon law that has to be 100% followed. . . .

Not exactly, but in this sense. Canon law uses the term “norm” differently than common usage and with some precise meanings. But I do think this sense of “normally done” might correspond to what the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani calls “tradita praxi Ritus romani” or “the traditional practice of the Roman Rite.”

But the word “norm” is used with ambigious or unclear meaning in some documents as written or translated into English. So I can understand a measure of confusion. Each document needs to be carefully read to distinguish among what must be done as a matter of obedience to the law, what should be done as a matter of prudence or “best practice,” and what may be done.

Yet, as the code of canon law and canonists use the term “norm,” it does not refer to the customary, usual or typical practice in a community. Generally, it is some law, rule, ordinance, decree, or other act of power, by which a competent legislator or administrator intends to bind the faithful so that they are obliged to obedience. It may also be a required method of acting or proceeding according to a law or laws.

The usual practice of a community is called a “custom.” Some customs are contrary to the law, and others, under certain circumstances, can attain the force of law (cc. 23 -28).

Frequently the code uses the terms, “according to the norm(s) of law” or “according to the norm of canon nnnn.” Canon 95 §1 also describes “Rules of order (Ordines) are rules ( regulae) or norms to be observed. . . .” ( sunt regulae seu normae quae servari debent . . . ) From this use of language, it should be concluded that the legislator has made norm equivalent with rule. It is not a discretionary observance but an obligatory observance.

The legislator makes it clear that the canons of the code have been promulgated so that they are to be followed as the law of the Church. Under certain circumstances, certain competent authority can dispense from certain laws.

Again, this is not always the case in documents outside the code.

JNB:

Anyways, the Vaticans CDF stated in 3 letters to the US bishops that people who kneel for communion are not to be considered or disobideint, end of discussion.

CDF is the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Perhaps you were you thinking of CDW? (A shorthand for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.) The alphabet soup of the Roman curia can throw us all for a loop sometimes. There are some councils at the curia but CDW is a congregation. There are some differences between the two.

ncjohn:

I personally do not want to become a stumbling block to my brother’s faith, but would rather carry my cross to prevent that from occuring. That being said, I will question nobody’s motivation for doing so, nor will I judge myself more or less pious for my decision. I leave room for respectful disagreement while praying for unity.

Thank you for stating this so eloquently, John. You certainly speak for me as well, and more importantly, I think you speak with the mind of the Lord for his Church.

 

[Joan_M]

As a person who does not reside in the United States, it never ceases to amaze me the rigor with which priests and bishops of the U.S. will insist on uniformity - standing, head bow, etc., - but will, willy nilly, change the words of the Liturgy, allow lay people to give a homily, and other such things.

It seems to me that ruling that the norm should be a bow of the head is going for the lowest common denominator! The least we should do is a head bow. There should be no problem, no criticism, in doing something more - such as a profound bow (this is not a head bow, but a bow from the waist, about 90 degrees), or a genuflection.

I suppose that so many people had been doing nothing - just walking forward to receive, that the Bishops decided that they would just try to get them to do a little head bow!

 

[AltarMan]

Br. Rich SFO:

I agree that intinction is a good way to distribute Holy Communion. However it is only practicable in a small church since only the priest may intinct the Host and it must be received in the mouth. I have been in small parishes where Holy Communion is only offered by intinction. This violates the rules the other way. Where in the US reception in the hand is supposed to always be an option. In this case the priest should wait to see which way the communicant wishes to receive. In larger parishes it’s not possible to offer intinction since usually only one priest is distributing Holy Communion anyone wishing to receive by intinction would have to switch lines.

That’s simply not true.

 

[cameron_lansing]

AltarMan:

That’s simply not true.

I don’t understand. Which part of that is not true and why?

Thanks.

 

[AltarMan]

cameron_lansing:

I don’t understand. Which part of that is not true and why?

Thanks.

The part I highlighted. As a child I recall clearly that communion was distributed by a single priest (assisted by an altar boy) via intinction in a church that holds 1000 people.

Today in that very same church, they use the priest, 2 “captains” and 7 EMsHC to distribute communion under both kinds. It’s an abomination.

Yes, communion took longer in the past, but not that much longer – perhaps 5-10 minutes?

 

[cameron_lansing]

The part I highlighted

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[JNB]

Ok, lets get to see the quotes, and again the Council of Devine Worship is who made the ruling.

The Congregation in fact is concerned at the number of similar complaints that it has received in recent months from various places, and considers any refusal of Holy Communion to a member of the faithful on the basis of his or her kneeling posture to be a grave violation of one of the most basic rights of the Christian faithful, namely that of being assisted by their Pastors by means of the Sacraments (Codex Iuris Canonici, canon 213). In view of the law that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who opportunely ask for them, are properly disposed and are not prohibited by law from receiving them” (canon 843 ¶ 1), there should be no such refusal to any Catholic who presents himself for Holy Communion at Mass, except in cases presenting a danger of grave scandal to other believers arising out of the person’s unrepented public sin or obstinate heresy or schism, publicly professed or declared. Even where the Congregation has approved of legislation denoting standing as the posture for Holy Communion, in accordance with the adaptations permitted to the Conferences of Bishops by the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani n. 160, paragraph 2, it has done so with the stipulation that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds.

In fact, as His Eminence, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has recently emphasized, the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition, and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration, completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species.

Given the importance of this matter, the Congregation would request that Your Excellency inquire specifically whether this priest in fact has a regular practice of refusing Holy Communion to any member of the faithful in the circumstances described above and – if the complaint is verified – that you also firmly instruct him and any other priests who may have had such a practice to refrain from acting thus in the future. Priests should understand that the Congregation will regard future complaints of this nature with great seriousness, and if they are verified, it intends to seek disciplinary action consonant with the gravity of the pastoral abuse.

Again the tone of the letter was firm. This is the Vatican conregation that has authority in such matters, and yes, it clearified that kneeling for communion was not illicit as the orginal language did for the US GIRM.

MariaG:

After an extended search due to spelling errors of the poster,
I believe this is the document.

adoremus.org/Notitiae-kneeling.html

It appears to be a “Society for the Renewal of the Sacred Liturgy”.

It does not address whether or not they are to be considered “disobeident”. It simply states that the faithful may not be denied communion for presenting themselves kneeling.

But lets follow the lines.

Bishops in US declare the norm to be standing after a profound head bow.

Faithful presents themselves kneeling.

Faithful is instructed as to the directives of the Bishops as how a person should receive communion.

Faithful again presents themself for communion kneeling, ignoring the directive.

Telling priests that they may not deny communion to people who kneel does not mean that those people are not being disobedient to the directives of the Priests and Bishops who are in authority over them.

Maria

 

[JNB]

Orion, the Vatican told Abp. Flynn to stop the distribution of communion to those who wear the rainbow sashe. On the other hand, there were 3 letters about kneeling for communion by the CDW.

Here is the link from this very website

catholic.com/library/liturgy/kneeling_1.asp

Again, these are official letters from the Vatican defending those who kneel for communion. To compare those who kneel for communion to those who wear the rainbow sash is like compareing apples to hamburgers.

 

[Orionthehunter]

JNB:

Ok, lets get to see the quotes, and again the Council of Devine Worship is who made the ruling.

The Congregation in fact is concerned at the number of similar complaints that it has received in recent months from various places, and considers any refusal of Holy Communion to a member of the faithful on the basis of his or her kneeling posture to be a grave violation of one of the most basic rights of the Christian faithful, namely that of being assisted by their Pastors by means of the Sacraments (Codex Iuris Canonici, canon 213). In view of the law that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who opportunely ask for them, are properly disposed and are not prohibited by law from receiving them” (canon 843 ¶ 1), there should be no such refusal to any Catholic who presents himself for Holy Communion at Mass, except in cases presenting a danger of grave scandal to other believers arising out of the person’s unrepented public sin or obstinate heresy or schism, publicly professed or declared. Even where the Congregation has approved of legislation denoting standing as the posture for Holy Communion, in accordance with the adaptations permitted to the Conferences of Bishops by the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani n. 160, paragraph 2, it has done so with the stipulation that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds.

In fact, as His Eminence, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has recently emphasized, the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition, and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration, completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species.

Given the importance of this matter, the Congregation would request that Your Excellency inquire specifically whether this priest in fact has a regular practice of refusing Holy Communion to any member of the faithful in the circumstances described above and – if the complaint is verified – that you also firmly instruct him and any other priests who may have had such a practice to refrain from acting thus in the future. Priests should understand that the Congregation will regard future complaints of this nature with great seriousness, and if they are verified, it intends to seek disciplinary action consonant with the gravity of the pastoral abuse.

Again the tone of the letter was firm. This is the Vatican conregation that has authority in such matters, and yes, it clearified that kneeling for communion was not illicit as the orginal language did for the US GIRM.

What if the basis for the withholding is that the person refuses proper instruction from the Priest that the Bishop has said that standing is to be the norm? Or in the instruction limited to a pastoral request that the person please refrain from kneeling but leaving the final decision to the communicant?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

The part I highlighted. As a child I recall clearly that communion was distributed by a single priest (assisted by an altar boy) via intinction in a church that holds 1000 people.

Today in that very same church, they use the priest, 2 “captains” and 7 EMsHC to distribute communion under both kinds. It’s an abomination.

Yes, communion took longer in the past, but not that much longer – perhaps 5-10 minutes?

I agree that any parish could offer Intinction and yes it would extend Holy Communion by 10 or 15 minutes. The layout of many modern parish churches creates another difficulty instead of the single main aisle like most older churches they are round or semi-round. We have five aisles with two ministers at each aisle including one priest. Holy Communion takes about 10 minutes.
If only the priest were to distribute Holy Communion. I would guess that Holy Communion would take maybe 40 to 50 minutes. Because he would need to move from aisle to aisle.

 

[JNB]

Form what the letters say, the communicant is not to be denied while kneeling for communion period. The communicant is also not to be considered disobident nor imposed upon, and these letters made that crystal clear.

The industrction part probably means the priest will say standing is the norm, but there is no penalty is the communicant contines to kneel for communion.

There are some parishes that still use the altar rail for communion, even in the ultra liberal LA Archdiocese there are about 4 parishes that still do this, to me, parishes that kneel for communion have simpily a variation of the GIRM, same as parishes that stand for the Eucharistic prayer, and parishes that stand for the Eucharistic Prayer in the US number in the hundreds, maybe over 1000, despite the fact the norm is to kneel for the Eucharistic Prayer.

One thing that digusts me is parishes that still had the partice of using the altar rail often in the last few years were harassed and picked upon by the liturgical establishment and chancery offices, while those who stood during the Eucharistic prayer were left alone. My opinion is that GIRM should be just canned alltogether, let the parishes that use altar rails continue to use them, and let parishes that stand during the Eucharistic Prayer continue to do so. I will say inm confidence what grouping of parishes will produce far more vocations.

Orionthehunter:

What if the basis for the withholding is that the person refuses proper instruction from the Priest that the Bishop has said that standing is to be the norm? Or in the instruction limited to a pastoral request that the person please refrain from kneeling but leaving the final decision to the communicant?

 

[LSK]

palmas85:

I still maintain that receiving under both species is best done by intinction and I really cannot understand for the life of me why the Latin Rite does not do it.

Oh I forgot, it gives something for all the extraordinary ministers to do. Sorry about that.

I cannot receive the species in the form of the Blood and cannot receive it by intinction. I am so very glad the Latin Rite does not do it.

I am so sorry that your mother was treated with such poor manners by the priest. I hope you informed your Bishop of this man’s obvious problems and inability to properly shepherd his flock. I could not imagine my wonderful Pastor speaking to a member of our community in that way. Your mother must have felt just awful.

I’ll keep that priest in my prayers. What a sad, sad man.

 

[MariaG]

JNB:

Ok, lets get to see the quotes, and again the Council of Devine Worship is who made the ruling.

The Congregation in fact is concerned at the number of similar complaints that it has received in recent months from various places, and considers any refusal of Holy Communion to a member of the faithful on the basis of his or her kneeling posture to be a grave violation of one of the most basic rights of the Christian faithful, namely that of being assisted by their Pastors by means of the Sacraments (Codex Iuris Canonici, canon 213). In view of the law that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who opportunely ask for them, are properly disposed and are not prohibited by law from receiving them” (canon 843 ¶ 1), there should be no such refusal to any Catholic who presents himself for Holy Communion at Mass, except in cases presenting a danger of grave scandal to other believers arising out of the person’s unrepented public sin or obstinate heresy or schism, publicly professed or declared. Even where the Congregation has approved of legislation denoting standing as the posture for Holy Communion, in accordance with the adaptations permitted to the Conferences of Bishops by the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani n. 160, paragraph 2, it has done so with the stipulation that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds.

In fact, as His Eminence, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has recently emphasized, the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition, and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration, completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species.

Given the importance of this matter, the Congregation would request that Your Excellency inquire specifically whether this priest in fact has a regular practice of refusing Holy Communion to any member of the faithful in the circumstances described above and – if the complaint is verified – that you also firmly instruct him and any other priests who may have had such a practice to refrain from acting thus in the future. Priests should understand that the Congregation will regard future complaints of this nature with great seriousness, and if they are verified, it intends to seek disciplinary action consonant with the gravity of the pastoral abuse.

Again the tone of the letter was firm. This is the Vatican conregation that has authority in such matters, and yes, it clearified that kneeling for communion was not illicit as the orginal language did for the US GIRM.

Once again. This letter specifically addresses the priests actions in denying communion. A person who kneels may not be denied communion. How does that then mean that the people who choose to disregard the instructions of the priest and bishops who are in authority over them are not being disobedient to those same bishops and priests.

While emphasis shows that kneeling is a time honored tradition, and therefore a communicant should not be denied communion, the person is still kneeling in direct opposition to the stated instructions of the US bishops if they continue to kneel after receiving instructions to the contrary.

While a person clearly has the right to receive communion while kneeling, it does not mean they are right to do so if they must ignore the directives of their priests and bishops to do so.

adoremus.org/Notitiae-kneeling.html

 

[JNB]

Maria, this is a part of the letter from the Vatican. What part of this do you not understand? It seems crystal clear to me. Untill the Vatican states clearly that it is illicit to kneel for communion, then I will continue to recieve communion kneeling in parishes that have an altar rail.

The letter states: "…while this Congregation gave the recognitio to the norm desired by the Bishops’ Conference of your country that people stand for Holy Communion, this was done on the condition that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds. Indeed, the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion".

MariaG:

Once again. This letter specifically addresses the priests actions in denying communion. A person who kneels may not be denied communion. How does that then mean that the people who choose to disregard the instructions of the priest and bishops who are in authority over them are not being disobedient to those same bishops and priests.

While emphasis shows that kneeling is a time honored tradition, and therefore a communicant should not be denied communion, the person is still kneeling in direct opposition to the stated instructions of the US bishops if they continue to kneel after receiving instructions to the contrary.

While a person clearly has the right to receive communion while kneeling, it does not mean they are right to do so if they must ignore the directives of their priests and bishops to do so.

adoremus.org/Notitiae-kneeling.html

 

[CharlesT]

JNB,

I have no dog in this fight, but I think you miss Maria’s point.

Yes, you are entitled to receive communion while kneeling.

But don’t you agree with her that you do so in defiance of your bishop’s instruction?