The right (and duty) to kneel

[Myangel]

palmas85:

A good friend of mine and co worker is going through the RCIA process. I asked him about this and apparently that is what people are being taught these days. He was told that a bow was the only proper and accepted form of reverence permitted during reception of Holy Communion. Anything else was described as trying to be “holier than thou”. They were also told that receiving on the tongue is unsanitary due to the fact that the Priest could touch someones tongue with his fingers and then touch someones elses.

LOL! What about when everyone offers the sign of peace to eachother and shakes hands right before communion??? I refuse to receive Holy Communion in my hands, the priest washes his hands before consecration and distribution, we sure dont!

 

[Myangel]

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?

Well this is how I look at it. We all believe in the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist right? Now I know if Jesus came before me today, I would fall to me knees and kiss his feet. I feel the same way about kneeling when receiving the Eucharist, it is Jesus. So therefor its not the authority of the Bishop its the respect for our Lord Jesus. If he appeared to most of us, I am sure we would all fell to our knees, he deserves at least that much from us sinners!

 

[gusano]

JNB:

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.

Matt. 26: 27…**“Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them. “All of you must drink from it”, he said.” **
New American Bible

by “east,” do you mean Eastern USA ?
or Eastern Europe ?

Isuppose in some bible some where it may say;
“All of you must dip into it…”

Personally I think this whole subject is equivalent to Jesus’ words; “Straining the gnat…”

gusano

 

[gusano]

palmas85:

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!!!.

*Hi Palmas,
You come across as the…hyper-anxious “worm-watcher”

Be at peace (if you can)

You…are wrong again.
If you were to read your bible …
(and you already let me know how you hate scripture),
You would find that Jesus did say "All of you must drink from it…"
Matt. 26: 27.*

 

[thistle]

*Hi Palmas,
You come across as the…hyper-anxious “worm-watcher”

Be at peace (if you can)

You…are wrong again.
If you were to read your bible …
(and you already let me know how you hate scripture),
You would find that Jesus did say “All of you must drink from it…”*
Matt. 26: 27.

Jesus did not say must.

New American Bible:

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”.

 

[MariaG]

Myangel:

Well this is how I look at it. We all believe in the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist right? Now I know if Jesus came before me today, I would fall to me knees and kiss his feet. I feel the same way about kneeling when receiving the Eucharist, it is Jesus. So therefor its not the authority of the Bishop its the respect for our Lord Jesus. If he appeared to most of us, I am sure we would all fell to our knees, he deserves at least that much from us sinners!

Jesus also told His apostles to follow the directions of the pharisees since the held the seat of Moses. Do what they say, not what they do. Jesus believed in following those in authority over you.

How is failing to show respect for the directives of those Jesus placed in authority over us showing respect for Jesus?

 

[gusano]

thistle:

Jesus did not say must.

New American Bible:

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".

*Hi thistle,

My Bible was published with the Imprimatur of Patrich Cardinal O’Boyle, D.D. July 27 1970
Maybe yours was published more recently or before mine
but that is what mine says.

Yours says: "Drink from it, all of you…"
That is a Command isn’t it ?

His Command is good enough for me.

gusano

 

[thistle]

*Hi thistle,

My Bible was published with the Imprimatur of Patrich Cardinal O’Boyle, D.D. July 27 1970
Maybe yours was published more recently or before mine
but that is what mine says.

Yours says: “Drink from it, all of you…”*
That is a Command isn’t it ?

His Command is good enough for me.

gusano

I use the Catholic Study Bible (NAB) published 1990 with Imprimatur Rev James P. Roache, Vicar general, Archbishop of Chicago, and Nihil Obstat Rev. John G. Lodge and Rev. Robert L. Schoenstene with a statement that scripture texts are taken from the New American Bible which had Imprimatur of Patrich Cardinal O’Boyle, D.D. July 27 1970.
and says: "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”.

I think we have digressed anyway from the original thread which is about kneeling or not but are you saying that the body and blood of Christ is not present in both the host and wine so that we have to receive both to receive body and blood?
The "separation consecration"of the bread and wine serves as a reminder that once in history Christ’s blood was separated from his body when he died on the cross. When the Eucharist is celebrated today, however, Christ’s blood is not separated from his body. The Christ who becomes present at the words of consecration is the risen, glorified Christ. As Catholics we believe Christ is fully present in both the bread and the wine and that we receive Christ when we communictae under the form of bread or wine.

 

[thistle]

GIRM 160

"The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.

The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another. The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.

When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood".

My reading of this is that while Communion is not be refused to someone who kneels, such people are to be spoken to separately or the congregation addressed as a whole to explain why standing is the approved norm and therefore should be complied with. I would say after such a talk anyone who kneels would be defying authority.

 

[JNB]

Again, that adaptation for the GIRM in the US was amended by the 3 letters the CDW in Rome sent to the US Bishops. The CDW has the final say in how liturgical documents are to be interperted.

thistle:

GIRM 160

"The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.

The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another. The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.

When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood".

My reading of this is that while Communion is not be refused to someone who kneels, such people are to be spoken to separately or the congregation addressed as a whole to explain why standing is the approved norm and therefore should be complied with. I would say after such a talk anyone who kneels would be defying authority.

 

[thistle]

JNB:

Again, that adaptation for the GIRM in the US was amended by the 3 letters the CDW in Rome sent to the US Bishops. The CDW has the final say in how liturgical documents are to be interperted.

Sorry but I don’t understand your point. This thread has basically been about if kneeling is a right or a defiance of authority. I was expressing my opinion. What in your opinion does the GIRM 160 mean or what does CDW define it as meaning?

 

[MariaG]

Those who think they have the right to kneel These questions have yet to be answered from above:

Does your bishop have authority over you?

Does he have the authority to make more restrictive rules for you to follow, as long as those rules are approved by the vatican?

The vatican approved the rule change, with the exception that people cannot be denied if they still present themselves kneeling.

Are you respecting the authority of the bishop by jumping over his directives straight to the vatican exception?

How can you tell when you should follow your bishops more restrictive or less restrictive instuctions?

(For example: Holy days of Obligation Bishops in the US have less restrictive days than the Vatican. Do you follow vaticans rules or the bishops? Why? Do you go because you can and want to or because it is your obligation to do so?)

Truly, I do not understand. Help me to understand your thought process.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[grotto]

Okay - try this on for size: The Bishop of the Diocese has not made any ruling against kneeling or genuflecting.PERIOD

A very “in your face” rude and worse priest, in front of many, on more than one occasion, demanded standing - not when receiving Communion but during the Mass at the Consecration and after the Agnus Dei throughout Communion. Scandalizing the children in the company of their mother.

When offered written documents clarifying the Church’s position regarding kneeling, his outburst was to yell that the person bringing him the papers was to take them away, he knew all about it, and that the person’s attitude was such that another church should be sought to attend Mass.

The second incident involved his discussing the need to address “posture” with an elderly woman because he just couldn’t have half the people standing and half kneeling. She encouraged the conversation to include making a genuflection in the Communion line because someone might trip. Even though the simple genuflection is made prior to the person ahead receiving and in no way causes the possibility of tripping for anyone! This conversation continued to further expound on the “holier than thou attitude” of anyone kneeling. All of this conversation was clearly overheard by the “guilty” party and her children. How nice.

It seems clear to me that there is a lot of changing that needs to be done and it isn’t those who are kneeling in adoration and reverence for the Holy Eucharist!

Obedience? Certainly not contrary to the Bishop’s orders and if it was the Bishop’s orders and completely contrary to the rule from the Holy Father, would one go ahead and obey? Because…
that makes you more holy and pious? What kind of thinking is that? A good example of being “Stuck on Stupid”!

 

[Orionthehunter]

grotto:

Okay - try this on for size: The Bishop of the Diocese has not made any ruling against kneeling or genuflecting.PERIOD

A very “in your face” rude and worse priest, in front of many, on more than one occasion, demanded standing - not when receiving Communion but during the Mass at the Consecration and after the Agnus Dei throughout Communion. Scandalizing the children in the company of their mother.

When offered written documents clarifying the Church’s position regarding kneeling, his outburst was to yell that the person bringing him the papers was to take them away, he knew all about it, and that the person’s attitude was such that another church should be sought to attend Mass.

The second incident involved his discussing the need to address “posture” with an elderly woman because he just couldn’t have half the people standing and half kneeling. She encouraged the conversation to include making a genuflection in the Communion line because someone might trip. Even though the simple genuflection is made prior to the person ahead receiving and in no way causes the possibility of tripping for anyone! This conversation continued to further expound on the “holier than thou attitude” of anyone kneeling. All of this conversation was clearly overheard by the “guilty” party and her children. How nice.

It seems clear to me that there is a lot of changing that needs to be done and it isn’t those who are kneeling in adoration and reverence for the Holy Eucharist!

Obedience? Certainly not contrary to the Bishop’s orders and if it was the Bishop’s orders and completely contrary to the rule from the Holy Father, would one go ahead and obey? Because…
that makes you more holy and pious? What kind of thinking is that? A good example of being “Stuck on Stupid”!

Ouch. Girm 160 is quite clear and I suggest you read it and prayerfully discern its meaning. Specifically, this is to be the norm in the U.S., it has Vatican approval, the Vatican allows particular Conferences and areas to adopt Norm’s outside of the Norm practiced generally. There may be authority for a Bishop to allow one to recieve outside the Norm. However, unless the Bishop specifically declares an exception to the USCCB norm (assuming that such perogative for such an exception exists), we are expected to obey our Bishop when he is excercising his legitimate teaching authority. Unless you assert that GIRM 160 is outside the authority of the USCCB, and you have been properly instructed (assuming you have read this thread completely, it is probably a fair assumptin that you have been so instructed), you are obligated to follow it. If you assert that this outside the authority of the USCCB, this is a different subject matter for a different thread.

 

[mattrue]

this subject appeared on “Life on the Rock” on EWTN a couple of months ago. They basically said that we should focus more on the recieveing of Jesus not let this kind of stuff interfere with what is most important. They basically said you should not be denied communion if you kneel.

my take - if a principal in a school says that all students are allowed to chew gum but your biology teacher instructs you not to chew gum in his class, will you chew gum in his class? probably not unless you wanted a conflict. but truthfully, the matter of chewing gum is not as important as you recieving the work and doing it well.

 

[grotto]

Orion: Perfectly clear about this, the Bishop has not told the priests and people that they were not to kneel at Mass. It is one of the trained priests from the previous Bishops reign that is causing this conflict.

 

[Orionthehunter]

grotto:

Orion: Perfectly clear about this, the Bishop has not told the priests and people that they were not to kneel at Mass. It is one of the trained priests from the previous Bishops reign that is causing this conflict.

The following is from GIRM 160 from the USCCB. This means that it is the instruction from all Bishops. If there is authority for a Bishop to allow a difference, the Bishop must take specific action to for there to be a practice other than the following.

The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another. The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.

 

[JNB]

It is simple Maria, you just refus eto understand. The Bishops have authority over us, but the Vatican has authority over the Bishops. Someone in another thread gave the anology that an owner over rules a manager. If the manager said a process has to be done in a certain way that conflcits with the way a process has been done in the past,. and the owner states that the manager doesnt have a right to tell an employee that a process has to be done in a certain manner, then the manager may make a suggestion still a process has to be done in a certain manager, but can not force the employees to do so.

Maria, you make a horrible mistkae but equateing a bishops authority over Rome. Rome has spoken, we can kneel for communion if we like, if you do not like that, then send a letter to t he CDW.

MariaG:

Those who think they have the right to kneel These questions have yet to be answered from above:

Does your bishop have authority over you?

Does he have the authority to make more restrictive rules for you to follow, as long as those rules are approved by the vatican?

The vatican approved the rule change, with the exception that people cannot be denied if they still present themselves kneeling.

Are you respecting the authority of the bishop by jumping over his directives straight to the vatican exception?

How can you tell when you should follow your bishops more restrictive or less restrictive instuctions?

(For example: Holy days of Obligation Bishops in the US have less restrictive days than the Vatican. Do you follow vaticans rules or the bishops? Why? Do you go because you can and want to or because it is your obligation to do so?)

Truly, I do not understand. Help me to understand your thought process.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[JNB]

The CDW has in effect, over ruled the Bishops on GIRM 160 by their 3 letters to the bishops on how GIRM 160 is to be interperted and enforced. Bishops have no authority over the Vatican thankfully.

Orionthehunter:

Ouch. Girm 160 is quite clear and I suggest you read it and prayerfully discern its meaning. Specifically, this is to be the norm in the U.S., it has Vatican approval, the Vatican allows particular Conferences and areas to adopt Norm’s outside of the Norm practiced generally. There may be authority for a Bishop to allow one to recieve outside the Norm. However, unless the Bishop specifically declares an exception to the USCCB norm (assuming that such perogative for such an exception exists), we are expected to obey our Bishop when he is excercising his legitimate teaching authority. Unless you assert that GIRM 160 is outside the authority of the USCCB, and you have been properly instructed (assuming you have read this thread completely, it is probably a fair assumptin that you have been so instructed), you are obligated to follow it. If you assert that this outside the authority of the USCCB, this is a different subject matter for a different thread.

 

[MariaG]

The problem with your analogy JNB is that the vatican didn’t tell the faithful that the bishops have no right to tell them not to kneel. The bishops were told not to deny communion to those who present themselves kneeling. Big difference.

And once again, I never said the bishop has authority over Rome. But the bishops do have authority over us. Rome allowed the bishops to change the rules.

But it just seems to be you and me going back and forth on this. So I call this done. So far in my walk with Christ in the Catholic Church This Rock has never steered me wrong. I still find it ironic that those who are most likely to quote This Rock choose to completely ignore them on this subject.

From CA Library The Struggle for Uniformity in the Liturgy
**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.
**