The right (and duty) to kneel

[Adam_S]

Hi,

Can i just say as an English Catholic, i feel so sorry for you guys in the US who want to kneel to receive Our Lord,

In England we have a pretty liberal set of Bishops, and im always worried theyll force through an exception, but theyre nothing like your lot.

Im not under the obedience of an American Bishop, so i can say this clearly - It is absolutely disgraceful that the norm in every other part of the world, and the norm in common sense, that one would kneel when receiving the Blessed Sacrament, would be seen as disobedience in America.

Shame on those bishops! In Britain, we also seem to have bishops who want exceptions made from the Girm to our country all the time, NO NO NO NO, we arent thick, we dont need exceptions and the barriers constantly lowered.

And as for this pathetic argument of people who kneel getting in the way, well we wouldnt get in the way if the same people who ban kneeling hadnt ripped out the altar rails as well!!!

We need to pray for the Church now more than ever, because that liberal agenda is being pushed through so forcefully, and they are just determined to remove any external sign of reverence whatsoever.

Keep going guys!!!

 

[MrS]

JNB:

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.

Just a thought…
1] we Catholics seem to have so much division on our postures when we pray… and the Mass is the greatest prayer.

2] we Catholics seem to have a number of issues with the faith of Islam… same God?, religion of violenced?, prophet of errors? etc

When they pray - many times a day - they are bowed, on the ground, and nearly prostrate… perhaps because they have no pews by choice.

The Catholic Catechism says prayer is a** vital** necessity… . and … “Those who pray are certainly saved; those who do not pray are certainly damned.” CC 2744

so… should we be praying weakly (standing, communion in the hand,expressions of horizontal fellowship, whenever we think we can or should, etc)
or
should we be praying strongly… daily Mass, limitless reverence, awe-and-fear before our God Who truely is the only God? The God we serve and the God from whom nothing is owed to us.
Thus:

“…we are unprofitable servants; we have done that which we ought to do…” Luke 17:10

KJV uses “duty” that which is our duty to do as does NIV and other versions use obligation

 

[palmas85]

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.

As I have said before, this whole problem exists because Rome doesn’t want to come down with a definite rule. I say, lets get serious. Have set rules and enforce them. Sure some would grumble, but if it were an enforced rule, most would obey. Those that choose not to probably don’t really believe in the faith anyway. Very simple.

One of the things that set us apart from the bewildering array of Protestant Churches in the past was our consistency in the faith and our rules. We are becoming more and more like them, what with everyone wanting to do his thing, worship God in his way, not accept obedience to the Church etc etc etc.

We need to stop this nonsense and get back to the faith. If we don’t, I don’t know what is going to happen to us.

 

[grotto]

Orionthehunter:

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.

Orion - I am not talking about kneeling to receive Holy Communion, although I am in favor of it - I refrain because of the logistics - and genuflect while the person ahead of me in line receives and I receive on the tongue.

What I need you to understand is the ill treatment by the priest towards a mother and her children because they kneel DURING the Mass. Are you trying to tell me that that is not allowed?
I don’t think so!

 

[thistle]

grotto:

Orion - I am not talking about kneeling to receive Holy Communion, although I am in favor of it - I refrain because of the logistics - and genuflect while the person ahead of me in line receives and I receive on the tongue.

What I need you to understand is the ill treatment by the priest towards a mother and her children because they kneel DURING the Mass. Are you trying to tell me that that is not allowed?
I don’t think so!

I don’t think anyone can condone the bad treatment of that family by the priest, whether they are in favour or kneeling or standing. Priests are supposed to be compassionate and merciful like our Lord.

He should have done what is required under GIRM 160.

QUOTE

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.
UNQOTE

In future Masses then the onus would on the family to obey the Authority that says to receive standing.

 

[gusano]

thistle:

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 areY\0\05{\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0w 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.

Hi Thistle,
NO, I am not saying that.
I believe The Fullness of Christ is offered to us in either form.
I prefer to receive both when they are offered.

If it ever comes to where I can receive neither,
I will at least know I have received both.
and He will carry me all the way Home, because He is in me.

God Bless

gusano

 

[thistle]

gusano:

Hi Thistle,
NO, I am not saying that.
I believe The Fullness of Christ is offered to us in either form.
I prefer to receive both when they are offered.

If it ever comes to where I can receive neither,
I will at least know I have received both.
and He will carry me all the way Home, because He is in me.

God Bless

gusano

Sorry, I misunderstood you before.
God Bless you too.

 

[jayelen]

This issue is cut and dried:

Standing to receive Holy Communion is not mandated in the documents of Vatican II. Standing became the “norm” in the United States not as a spontaneous or pious impulse by the faithful but because it was imposed by liturgical innovators in chancery offices.

When the faithful refused to stand, punitive measures were taken. These included making those kneeling at the communion rail wait until all those standing had received. In some parishes, those kneeling were refused Holy Communion. In certain instances, ushers forcibly pulled those kneeling away from the rails. In other parishes, those kneeling were subjected - even during Mass - to abusive tirades by angry priests.

When kneeling still persisted, particularly among older communicants, rails were removed to deprive the elderly of the support they needed, thus forcing them either to teeter unsafely on their knees or to join those standing.

After every measure was taken to make it almost impossible to kneel, the faithful finally were told grudgingly that they still had the “option” to kneel if they wished. This is now standing became the “norm” in the United States. It is not a pretty picture and certainly not a holy or edifying one.

 

[Ham1]

jayelen:

This issue is cut and dried:

Standing to receive Holy Communion is not mandated in the documents of Vatican II. Standing became the “norm” in the United States not as a spontaneous or pious impulse by the faithful but because it was imposed by liturgical innovators in chancery offices.

When the faithful refused to stand, punitive measures were taken. These included making those kneeling at the communion rail wait until all those standing had received. In some parishes, those kneeling were refused Holy Communion. In certain instances, ushers forcibly pulled those kneeling away from the rails. In other parishes, those kneeling were subjected - even during Mass - to abusive tirades by angry priests.

When kneeling still persisted, particularly among older communicants, rails were removed to deprive the elderly of the support they needed, thus forcing them either to teeter unsafely on their knees or to join those standing.

After every measure was taken to make it almost impossible to kneel, the faithful finally were told grudgingly that they still had the “option” to kneel if they wished. This is now standing became the “norm” in the United States. It is not a pretty picture and certainly not a holy or edifying one.

Your “history” may or may not be correct, but it has little bearing on what is the norm. The fact that the norm was issued in accordance with the Laws of the Church makes it legitimate.

Also, let’s not forget that the action which started this thread was a “curtsey.” Are those of you who advocate kneeling despite your Bishop’s direction also in favor of other postures (ie. curtseys, hand-claps, small jumps, salutes, etc.)???

I have to say this pretty well sums it up for me:

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.

Maybe we should all set aside our personal preferences and submit.

 

[MariaG]

jayelen:

This issue is cut and dried:

After every measure was taken to make it almost impossible to kneel, the faithful finally were told grudgingly that they still had the “option” to kneel if they wished. This is now standing became the “norm” in the United States. It is not a pretty picture and certainly not a holy or edifying one.

None of the documents posted have given permission for the faithful to kneel if they wished. All addressed the actions of priests and whether or not they may deny communion to those who present themselves kneeling.

It is not the same as giving permission to kneel. They just may not be denied communion for doing so.