The right (and duty) to kneel

[MariaG]

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?

Exactly.

 

[MariaG]

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".

Maybe if the letter were linked here I could actually read it. The only letter I found online was not the one you quote. But no one who keeps talking about these letters seems to think linking to the letters online is important. In the other letters that I found since no link was provided, it was quite clear in context that the priests were being reprimanded for refusing to give a kneeling communicant communion. It addressed whether or not they had the right to deny communion to someone, who in time honored tradition kneeled before our Lord. It was clear they had no right to do so.

However, my repeated point is not that they are being disobedient for kneeling to receive communion. My point is they are being defiant of their bishops authority who instructs them. They are being defiant of the priests who instructs them. To repeat CharlesT

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**?

 

[LSK]

I cannot receive via intinction…and I think we have all ignored the OP’s original intent. The priest verbally abused his mother. That should NEVER be tolerated and this man should be reported to his Bishop immediately - it is this type of abuse of power that can lead to Satan’s Smoke creeping back into our Holy Mother Church.

 

[MariaG]

posted by 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.

I missed this post with the link finally posted.

I read the letters, and to beat the dead horse once last time, they specifically address the actions of the priests publically reprimanding and denying communion to those who present themselves kneeling.

It does not specifically address those who continue to present themselves kneeling in defiance of their bishops instructions, except that they should not be considered disobeidient for kneeling.

" 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".

Notice it says they are not to be considered disobedient for the act of kneeling to receive communion.

But they are being defiant of the US bishop authority over them.

Can a person receive kneeling? Yes

Should a pastor deny communion to someone kneeling even after given instructions to the contrary? No.

Is a person defying the authority of the priests and bishops of the US by choosing to continue receiving kneeling instead of following the instructions of those placed in authority over them? Yes.

But this horse has been beat. At least one person here (thank you Charles T) sees the distinction being made. A distinction that should matter. A distinction that those who feel such piety to kneel should be able to see and see the importance of respecting the authority of those over them.

Otherwise, it becomes much like the protestants who say, “I only answer to Jesus” or the Sedevacants who say the seat of Peter is vacant because I don’t agree with the change in rules.

Jesus set up a Church and authority in the Church. Authority that we may disagree with, authority in this case which we can try to get to change the rules, but authority we should respect even if it means putting aside personal choices of piety to do so.

Respecting those placed in authority over us is a greater act of piety especially when our personal desires are put on the back burner to do so.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Orionthehunter]

MariaG:

I missed this post with the link finally posted.

I read the letters, and to beat the dead horse once last time, they specifically address the actions of the priests publically reprimanding and denying communion to those who present themselves kneeling.

It does not specifically address those who continue to present themselves kneeling in defiance of their bishops instructions, except that they should not be considered disobeidient for kneeling.

Notice it says they are not to be considered disobedient for the act of kneeling to receive communion.

But they are being defiant of the US bishop authority over them.

Can a person receive kneeling? Yes

Should a pastor deny communion to someone kneeling even after given instructions to the contrary? No.

Is a person defying the authority of the priests and bishops of the US by choosing to continue receiving kneeling instead of following the instructions of those placed in authority over them? Yes.

But this horse has been beat. At least one person here (thank you Charles T) sees the distinction being made. A distinction that should matter. A distinction that those who feel such piety to kneel should be able to see and see the importance of respecting the authority of those over them.

Otherwise, it becomes much like the protestants who say, “I only answer to Jesus” or the Sedevacants who say the seat of Peter is vacant because I don’t agree with the change in rules.

Jesus set up a Church and authority in the Church. Authority that we may disagree with, authority in this case which we can try to get to change the rules, but authority we should respect even if it means putting aside personal choices of piety to do so.

Respecting those placed in authority over us is a greater act of piety especially when our personal desires are put on the back burner to do so.

God Bless,
Maria

I’ve tried to say the same thing Maria, especially agree with your quote:

Respecting those placed in authority over us is a greater act of piety especially when our personal desires are put on the back burner to do so.

Furthermore, while some might be uncomfortable being compared to “sash-wearers”, there is a legitimate comparison. If you insist on defying your Bishop’s instruction while recieving Communion (whether by kneeling or wearing a sash), whether this is your intention or not, you are making a statement about your respect for the Bishop and your views on his authority. In my mind, Communion is the wrong time to make any statement. If your mind and heart are properly disposed to receiving the Body of Christ, receiving while standing on your head would be irrelevant.

Standing or kneeling is an external. Respect and submission to the authority of the Church (and by legitimate extention her Bishops) is more than an external but part and parcel to being Catholic.

 

[MariaG]

Sorry Orionthehunter,

I forgot to mention you also as someone who seems to understand the distinction being made.

posted by** Orionthehunter**

Furthermore, while some might be uncomfortable being compared to “sash-wearers”, there is a legitimate comparison. If you insist on defying your Bishop’s instruction while recieving Communion (whether by kneeling or wearing a sash), whether this is your intention or not, you are making a statement about your respect for the Bishop and your views on his authority. In my mind, Communion is the wrong time to make any statement. If your mind and heart are properly disposed to receiving the Body of Christ, receiving while standing on your head would be irrelevant.

Standing or kneeling is an external. Respect and submission to the authority of the Church (and by legitimate extention her Bishops) is more than an external but part and parcel to being Catholic.

 

[gusano]

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 think because Jesus said;“All of you must drink from it.” *

 

[JNB]

The Vatican said those who kneel for communion are not to be considered dis obidient, end of discussion, period. The CDW has the final say on how liturgical documents are to be interperted, period.

MariaG:

I missed this post with the link finally posted.

I read the letters, and to beat the dead horse once last time, they specifically address the actions of the priests publically reprimanding and denying communion to those who present themselves kneeling.

It does not specifically address those who continue to present themselves kneeling in defiance of their bishops instructions, except that they should not be considered disobeidient for kneeling.

Notice it says they are not to be considered disobedient for the act of kneeling to receive communion.

But they are being defiant of the US bishop authority over them.

Can a person receive kneeling? Yes

Should a pastor deny communion to someone kneeling even after given instructions to the contrary? No.

Is a person defying the authority of the priests and bishops of the US by choosing to continue receiving kneeling instead of following the instructions of those placed in authority over them? Yes.

But this horse has been beat. At least one person here (thank you Charles T) sees the distinction being made. A distinction that should matter. A distinction that those who feel such piety to kneel should be able to see and see the importance of respecting the authority of those over them.

Otherwise, it becomes much like the protestants who say, “I only answer to Jesus” or the Sedevacants who say the seat of Peter is vacant because I don’t agree with the change in rules.

Jesus set up a Church and authority in the Church. Authority that we may disagree with, authority in this case which we can try to get to change the rules, but authority we should respect even if it means putting aside personal choices of piety to do so.

Respecting those placed in authority over us is a greater act of piety especially when our personal desires are put on the back burner to do so.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[JNB]

Well Orion, you do not get it at all. The Vatican has allowed people who want to kneel for communion to do so, period. The Vatican on the other hand said that those who wear the sash should be dined communion, as Abp. Flynn did this year on the suggestion of Cdl. Arinze. The only real comparison is in your own head.

Orionthehunter:

I’ve tried to say the same thing Maria, especially agree with your quote:

Furthermore, while some might be uncomfortable being compared to “sash-wearers”, there is a legitimate comparison. If you insist on defying your Bishop’s instruction while recieving Communion (whether by kneeling or wearing a sash), whether this is your intention or not, you are making a statement about your respect for the Bishop and your views on his authority. In my mind, Communion is the wrong time to make any statement. If your mind and heart are properly disposed to receiving the Body of Christ, receiving while standing on your head would be irrelevant.

Standing or kneeling is an external. Respect and submission to the authority of the Church (and by legitimate extention her Bishops) is more than an external but part and parcel to being Catholic.

 

[JNB]

I think because Jesus said;"All of you must drink from it."

Can you post the exact verse this is from? The truth is that a very large majority of the Catholic world only recieve the host alone, and none of the churches in the East recieve the cup, its all done via intinction in the East.

 

[thistle]

*I think because Jesus said;"All of you must* drink from it."

Jesus didn’t actually say that.
Matthew 26:27-28
Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins”.

 

[palmas85]

I think because Jesus said;"All of you must drink from it."

Ah my old friend Worm again. Sorry Worm, wrong, Jesus did not say that.

Cheers, or as they say in Mejico,
Que viva el Gusano!!!.

 

[spiritblows]

Br. Rich SFO:

This issue is also about following legitimate instructions from the Church (Bishop). The Bishops have full authority to determine the gesture required before receiving Holy Communion and they have determined that a head-bow along with Amen is the norm. They have also specifically instructed the Faithful in the US not to genuflect, curtsey or attempt to kneel.** Why do people feel that they can do as they please and ignore the legitimate instructions of the Bishops? Then complain when other people won’t follow other instructions of the Bishops. **We ALL either follow the instructions of the Bishops where the Bishops have the authority to issue instructions or we are adding to the overall problem of ignoring the authority of the Church!

I totally agree with the pastor except the part about finding another church.

By the way the word “Norm” does not refer to how things are normally done. It has a specific meaning in Canon Law.

LOL, well maybe because human nature sort of compels them to? It IS ironic sounding, I have to say. Maybe part of it is a cultural problem with living in such an individualistic society?

 

[MariaG]

spiritblows:

LOL, well maybe because human nature sort of compels them to? It IS ironic sounding, I have to say. Maybe part of it is a cultural problem with living in such an individualistic society?

Could be. As this thread so obviously shows, people here do not have a problem being DEFIANT of their bishops instructions. Just because the vatican has said they are not **disobedeint for kneeling, somehow that makes defiance of the directions of the bishops in authority over them okay.

And no comprehension of this even being a problem. Too much “I want” and not enough humbling of themselves and their personal desires to the authority placed over them.

from CA library (bold and emphasis added by me.) catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0312fea1.asp
So what should be our reaction to all of this? We should receive Communion standing, having reverently bowed our heads beforehand as a sign of reverence to the Body of Christ. This is now the established norm for the United States, formally approved both by our bishops and by the Roman authority in the matter, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

But, some may protest, the new GIRM rule on the reception of Communion also provides that no one can be refused Communion who genuflects or kneels, nor should anyone be harassed or chastised for this. Both the prefect and the undersecretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship have made this unmistakably clear. **Surely the faithful have every right to go on kneeling or genuflecting, if that is their preference.
**
Not quite. The pastoral exception that those who kneel are not to be refused Communion is precisely that—an exception. The rule remains in force that standing (with a preceding reverent bow) is now the proper way to receive Communion in the United States. The exception does not constitute a general permission for Catholics who know and understand what their bishops have decreed and what Rome has approved in the matter simply to disregard the rule. Declining to follow a rule that one knows is a rule, even if it is not exactly disobedience in this case because Church authority allows for an exception, nevertheless bespeaks a defective attitude toward legitimate Church authority. This is particularly true when it comes from those who have perhaps been critical of liturgical abuses by others.

That is and has been my point. Those who choose to kneel even after receiving proper instructions shows “a defective attitude toward legitimate Church authority”.

 

[palmas85]

MariaG:

Could be. As this thread so obviously shows, people here do not have a problem being DEFIANT of their bishops instructions. Just because the vatican has said they are not ***disobedeint ***for kneeling, somehow that makes defiance of the directions of the bishops in authority over them okay.

And no comprehension of this even being a problem. Too much “I want” and not enough humbling of themselves and their personal desires to the authority placed over them.

That is and has been my point. Those who choose to kneel even after receiving proper instructions shows “a defective attitude toward legitimate Church authority”.

I still think that if the church came out with a clear concreter rule, yes you can kneel, no you cannot, yes genuflect, no you cannot, receive on the tongue, receive in the hand, .whatever the case is, and stick to and enforce those rules, the overwhelming majority of True Catholics would comply. All of this wishy washy nonsense creates many more problems than it solves and just breeds bad feelings. No matter how hard the Church tries to be accomodating there will always be those who are unhappy. Accept that fact and MOVE ON.

 

[MariaG]

palmas85:

I still think that if the church came out with a clear concreter rule, yes you can kneel, no you cannot, yes genuflect, no you cannot, receive on the tongue, receive in the hand, .whatever the case is, and stick to and enforce those rules, the overwhelming majority of True Catholics would comply. All of this wishy washy nonsense creates many more problems than it solves and just breeds bad feelings. No matter how hard the Church tries to be accomodating there will always be those who are unhappy. Accept that fact and MOVE ON.

Move on? Not sure what you mean by that.

As for whether or not the Church has a clear cut rule, it does. Those who place personal desires above Church Authority just fail to recognize this.

 

[JNB]

I guess you know more than Rome does. Again, Rome with the conregation of devine worship ruled on this issue, much like the supreme court rules on a law a state may have that may contradict federal law, and guess what, Rome said we can kneel, end of discussion.

MariaG:

Move on? Not sure what you mean by that.

As for whether or not the Church has a clear cut rule, it does. Those who place personal desires above Church Authority just fail to recognize this.

 

[MariaG]

From CA Library catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0312fea1.asp

But, some may protest, the new GIRM rule on the reception of Communion also provides that no one can be refused Communion who genuflects or kneels, nor should anyone be harassed or chastised for this. Both the prefect and the undersecretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship have made this unmistakably clear. Surely the faithful have every right to go on kneeling or genuflecting, if that is their preference.

Not quite. The pastoral exception that those who kneel are not to be refused Communion is precisely that—an exception. The rule remains in force that standing (with a preceding reverent bow) is now the proper way to receive Communion in the United States. The exception does not constitute a general permission for Catholics who know and understand what their bishops have decreed and what Rome has approved in the matter simply to disregard the rule. Declining to follow a rule that one knows is a rule, even if it is not exactly disobedience in this case because Church authority allows for an exception, nevertheless bespeaks a defective attitude toward legitimate Church authority. **This is particularly true when it comes from those who have perhaps been critical of liturgical abuses by others.
**

You are right. It certainly is settled. A person can choose to kneel. Their choice to do so however “bespeakes a defective attitude toward legitimate Church authority.”

I find it ironic on other threads you espouse the the “only correct position” during the Our Father, yet see no problem in continuing to kneel in direct conflict with your bishops instructions.

Truly, I do not understand this attitude.

Do you deny that your bishop has authority over you?

Does he not have the authority to make more restrictive rules for you to follow, as long as those rules are approved by the vatican? Jesus gave the bishops, through the apostles, the authority to bind and loose.

The vatican approved the rule change, with the exception that people cannot be denied if they still present themselves kneeling. Why does this mean you can ignore the Bishops directive and jump straight to the Vatican’s exception?

Truly, I do not understand how a person who feels the personal piety, the need to kneel, can then have such a defective attitude to the authority of their bishops.

How can you tell when you should follow your bishops instuctions? Are your bishops instructions not important?

This attitude is the same attitude of the Bible alone crowd I used to run with. “My pastor thinks drinking is wrong, but I don’t see any harm in it. But I do agree with him on abortion.” Pick and choose what you want to follow from those who supposed to be in authority over you. I truly don’t understand a Catholic who espouses this postition.

 

[JNB]

If someone chooses to hold hands during the Our Father, I dont like it, its not in the GIRM and has no basis in tradition, but I would be the first one to say they should not be refused communion on the basis of that. If someone stands during the Eucharistic Prayer, they should not be denied communion either.

To be blunt, while you are a faithful Catholic, your attitude is one reason why clergy and bishops, and yes I said bishops, have gotten away with so munch, thumbingtheir nose at the Vatican in terms of liturgy, or worse, in terms of dogma and doctrine itself. Yes bishops have authority, but that authority comes with limits imposed by the Vatican. The Vatican said that people who kneel for communion can continue to do so, that is all you need to understand, if you do not understand that, than your understanding of the authority bishops have is defective. The bishops have their authority from being in union with the Vatican, and it is in the end the Vatican that makes the liturgical decsions, not the bishops themselves.

With your defective understanding of bishops, we would have in effect, thousands of mini popes, who only give lip service to the Vatican, each mini pope free to do what he wants, and to be truthful, in the last 40 years, bishops being dis obidient to the Vatican along with clergy is the prime source of the problems the church faces today. If a bishop is an authority on to himself, to me, that becomes more and more like Protestism, not even the Eastern church bishops act in sole authroity on to themselves.

MariaG:

You are right. It certainly is settled. A person can choose to kneel. Their choice to do so however “bespeakes a defective attitude toward legitimate Church authority.”

I find it ironic on other threads you espouse the the “only correct position” during the Our Father, yet see no problem in continuing to kneel in direct conflict with your bishops instructions.

Truly, I do not understand this attitude.

Do you deny that your bishop has authority over you?

Does he not have the authority to make more restrictive rules for you to follow, as long as those rules are approved by the vatican? Jesus gave the bishops, through the apostles, the authority to bind and loose.

The vatican approved the rule change, with the exception that people cannot be denied if they still present themselves kneeling. Why does this mean you can ignore the Bishops directive and jump straight to the Vatican’s exception?

Truly, I do not understand how a person who feels the personal piety, the need to kneel, can then have such a defective attitude to the authority of their bishops.

How can you tell when you should follow your bishops instuctions? Are your bishops instructions not important?

This attitude is the same attitude of the Bible alone crowd I used to run with. “My pastor thinks drinking is wrong, but I don’t see any harm in it. But I do agree with him on abortion.” Pick and choose what you want to follow from those who supposed to be in authority over you. I truly don’t understand a Catholic who espouses this postition.

 

[MariaG]

JNB:

If someone chooses to hold hands during the Our Father, I dont like it, its not in the GIRM and has no basis in tradition, but I would be the first one to say they should not be refused communion on the basis of that. If someone stands during the Eucharistic Prayer, they should not be denied communion either.

To be blunt, while you are a faithful Catholic, your attitude is one reason why clergy and bishops, and yes I said bishops, have gotten away with so munch, thumbingtheir nose at the Vatican in terms of liturgy, or worse, in terms of dogma and doctrine itself. Yes bishops have authority, but that authority comes with limits imposed by the Vatican. The Vatican said that people who kneel for communion can continue to do so, that is all you need to understand, if you do not understand that, than your understanding of the authority bishops have is defective. The bishops have their authority from being in union with the Vatican, and it is in the end the Vatican that makes the liturgical decsions, not the bishops themselves.

With your defective understanding of bishops, we would have in effect, thousands of mini popes, who only give lip service to the Vatican, each mini pope free to do what he wants, and to be truthful, in the last 40 years, bishops being dis obidient to the Vatican along with clergy is the prime source of the problems the church faces today. If a bishop is an authority on to himself, to me, that becomes more and more like Protestism, not even the Eastern church bishops act in sole authroity on to themselves.

The Bishop isn’t an authority unto himself and I did not say that is what I thought. The Bishops of the US, with Vatican approval, changed the rules for the faithful of the US.

The Vatican did not say the people who kneel can continue to so. They said those who kneel should not be denied communion.

You are reading into the documents chastizing clergy for denying those who kneel communion. Permission was not given for communicants to ignore their bishops instructions and continue to receive kneeling. **Telling clergy they may not withhold communion from those who kneel is not the same as saying “The Vatican said that people who kneel for communion can continue to do so”. **

I truly do not see how following the directives of those who are in authority over me in any way “contributes to the problem”. My job is to follow. The shepards will certainly have to answer for not doing their job. But then so will I. So I will continue to follow. And pray for change.

This Rock article and I both see this the same way. To ignore my bishop’s directives is to defy the authority directly over me, which ultimately is defying Christ. For me, then to continue to receive kneeling, would not be an act of piety but an act of defiance.

I think you see the directives from the bishops as more of an act of defiance towards the Vatican, that they got away with? Is this correct? And your job is to support what you feel the vatican really wants?

If this is so, I don’t agree, but at least I could finally understand.