Those who always kneel for Holy Communion

[Mysty101]

I am still wondering—so far 22% of those who voted, voted to kneel always—Do all of this number attend a Parish where there are no provisions to kneel, and they have been instructed to stand? This is what I really want to know? How many people put their “inclination or arbitrary choice” ahead of the instructions in the GIRM?

Movements and Posture

1. The gestures and posture of the priest, the deacon, and the ministers, as well as those of the people, ought to contribute to making the entire celebration resplendent with beauty and noble simplicity, so that the true and full meaning of the different parts of the celebration is evident and that the participation of all is fostered.52 Therefore, attention should be paid to what is determined by this General Instruction and the traditional practice of the Roman Rite and to what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God, rather than private inclination or arbitrary choice.

If Rome is is so adament about allowing kneeling, they should not have approved the US adaptations.

 

[netmilsmom]

Mysty101:

If Rome is is so adament about allowing kneeling, they should not have approved the US adaptations.

Some churches, like my own, have kneelers to receive the Body and Blood of Christ.

Perhaps, Rome didn’t APPROVE of the US adaptations, but just allowed. (Maybe they know something the US doesn’t.) If they approve kneeling, someone has to finance a place for them to kneel. Some churches can’t afford it.

Like the Orans Position during the Our Father. It was not approved and was going to be banned. The Bishops from the inner-cities stated that the African-American community has been doing this since early times in the US. So the Vatican left it alone. It is not mentioned in the GIRM.
Just because it is not mentioned, doesn’t quite mean that it is approved. Juggling is not mentioned. While some motions are mentioned, like crossing one’s head, lips and heart. One can be assured that this gesture is approved.

 

[pnewton]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

Perhaps, Rome didn’t APPROVE of the US adaptations, but just allowed.

There is no distinction between the two. Approval of an adaptation means it is allowed. An adaptation is allowed by being approved.

Just like in the first post where it states they were “adament” is inaccurate. I do not know of any document from Rome that claims to be adament. To the contrary, they are accommodating to the conscience of those who insist on kneeling.

No doubt financial considerations and expediency are an issue, as you suggested, in my parish. We have 1200 families, five masses and one priest. Rebuilding the altar area to accommadate a rail would be difficult and impractical. We have already squeezed in pews to the point we may have to suspend them from the ceiling next. I am sure the kids would love that.

 

[TNT]

Mysty101:

I am still wondering—so far 22% of those who voted, voted to kneel always—**Do all of this number attend a Parish where there are no provisions to kneel, and they have been instructed to stand? This is what I really want to know? **How many people put their “inclination or arbitrary choice” ahead of the instructions in the GIRM?

That 22% I will break down by educated guess:

1. There are about 15% on this forum who attend the TLM or Anglican Catholic Use most of the time. Kneeling is the norm. The number may seem high, but TLM’s have a greater presence on Catholic forums than in the general catholic population.
2. That leaves 7%.
3. The next point is that about 2% are from Kneeling faiths outside the Catholic Church. …Methodists, Anglicans. We saw their posts on the Poll Thread.
4. That leaves 5% who are likely to kneel in a standing norm parish.
   **So, my best guess is 5%
   **That would put it well into the quibble category.
   By the same token, those who always stand, about 8% of the voters were probably Eastern rite where standing is the traditon for many centuries.
   These folks often have a keener interest in promoting standing, since that is honored in their Rite.
   This should answer your 2 questions, post haste.

 

[Mysty101]

pnewton:

Just like in the first post where it states they were “adament” is inaccurate. I do not know of any document from Rome that claims to be adament. To the contrary, they are accommodating to the conscience of those who insist on kneeling.
.

I did not say they were adament, I said,** IF ** they were so adament…"

(Little word—big difference)

 

[jlw]

Our parish didn’t rip up the communion rail. We don’t have to finance putting one back in.

We have kneeled for years. Silly, don’'t you think, that with a beautiul oak altar rail and nice soft kneelers that we would process up to the altar and stand in front of it???

Some people, usually visitors, prefer to recieve in the hand, but everyone kneels, and 99% recieve on the tongue, regardless of what kind of mass–“fast break”, TLM, N.O., etc.

 

[Kielbasi]

Like the Orans Position during the Our Father. It was not approved and was going to be banned. The Bishops from the inner-cities stated that the African-American community has been doing this since early times in the US.

**Do you have a link on this one?**I’ve been around for a long time, I’ve known Catholics of all ethnic groups, including African Americans, and I don’t remember this practice in the period before liturgical reform in the 60s of the faithful adopting the orans position during the Pater Noster.

I could definitely be wrong, but before the English mass, such a practice I think I would have remembered even though I didn’t attend very many times at African American parishes, back in the day.

My personal guess, although like I said I could be wrong and will stand corrected, is that the orans position wasn’t “from the early times” but is of relatively recent vintage.

 

[TNT]

22%…

Holy spirit-Old is inspiring the TLM and Anglican Use.
Holy Spirit-New is inspiring the NOM.

Holy Spirit-Old is inspiring the Vatican instructions.
Holy Spirit-New is inspiring the USSBC.

So, no it does not appear that the “HS-N-O” can make up His mind at least through the manifestations in the VATII church.
I’d say that the Holy Spirit-New is an Ecumenist trying to please opposing forces…and pleasing neither.

ps. Before you go berserk, the HS-N and HS-O are fictitious characters, or pseudo-spirits…representing a dichotomy or confusion of spirits in the VATII church. This is the reason for the plethora of corrective, reversal documents since the NOM arrived, beginning with its very first year, and uninvited by the Faithful. (Kath2 and PODO2004 excepted, of course)

 

[netmilsmom]

**Do you have a link on this one?**I’ve been around for a long time, I’ve known Catholics of all ethnic groups, including African Americans, and I don’t remember this practice in the period before liturgical reform in the 60s of the faithful adopting the orans position during the Pater Noster.

I could definitely be wrong, but before the English mass, such a practice I think I would have remembered even though I didn’t attend very many times at African American parishes, back in the day.

My personal guess, although like I said I could be wrong and will stand corrected, is that the orans position wasn’t “from the early times” but is of relatively recent vintage.

Actually, I heard it from my Uncle, a retired Bishop, but here is the first link I came upon on a Google search.

adoremus.org/1103OransPosture.html

 

[fix]

Congregation de Cultu Divino et Disciplina Sacramentorum

Prot. n. 47 / 03 / L

Rome, 26 February 2003

Dear [name deleted],

This Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has received through official channels your letter dated 1 December 2002, related to the application of the norms approved by the Conference of Bishops of the United States of America, with the subsequent recognitio of this Congregation, as regards the question of the posture for receiving Holy Communion.

As the authority by virtue of whose recognitio the norm in question has attained the force of law, this Dicastery is competent to specify the manner in which the norm is to be understood for the sake of a proper application. Having received more than a few letters regarding this matter from different locations in the United States of America, the Congregation wishes to ensure that its position on the matter is clear.

To this end, it is perhaps useful to respond to your inquiry by repeating the content of a letter that the Congregation recently addressed to a Bishop in the United States of America from whose Diocese a number of pertinent letters had been received. 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”. ***

This Dicastery hopes that the citation given here will provide an adequate answer to your letter. At the same time, please be assured that the Congregation remains ready to be of assistance if you should need to contact it again.

With every prayerful good wish, I am

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Mons. Mario Marini
Undersecretary
ourladyswarriors.org/index.html

 

[Mysty101]

Yes, we have seen this many times. We are not talking about denying anyone Communion—We are speaking of putting personal preference over the instruction of your Bishop.

 

[fix]

Mysty101:

Yes, we have seen this many times. We are not talking about denying anyone Communion—We are speaking of putting personal preference over the instruction of your Bishop.

The bishop should want what the Church wants and She wants folks to stand or kneel as they desire.

 

[kmktexas]

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

This sounds to me like the Bishops were given the recognito only with certain provisions attached. When the US norms were published, these conditions were not published along with them. This could have been purposeful, accidental or just an attempt at being efficient - who knows? In any case, the CDW seems to have been left in the position of providing the “missing” information.

We are speaking of putting personal preference over the instruction of your Bishop

I can see how some people might see it this way. Others might say that we are speaking about implementing the full intent of the recognito above the abreviated version which was published in the US. If the instuctions of the Bishop limit personal freedom of posture or piety in an area where the Church has explictily approved the freedom of choi****ce, is it a valid instruction? Assuming of course that you have not taken a vow of obedience.

 

[Mysty101]

fix:

The bishop should want what the Church wants and She wants folks to stand or kneel as they desire.

Possibly in other places, but not in the US.

 

[fix]

Mysty101:

Possibly in other places, but not in the US.

Really? Is he Vatican lying?

 

[Mysty101]

fix:

The bishop should want what the Church wants and She wants folks to stand or kneel as they desire.

You are definitely over-stepping your authority in saying what the Bishops should do. They have decided that standing in the posture which is best suited to the needs of their flock

 

[fix]

*** Indeed, the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion". ***

 

[fix]

Mysty101:

You are definitely over-stepping your authority in saying what the Bishops should do. They have decided that standing in the posture which is best suited to the needs of their flock

Huh? I am quoting Vatican instruction. It is not my opinion, but the directive of the Vatican. You may be over-stepping your authority by calling into question the obedience of those who rightfully kneel to receive.

 

[Mysty101]

I am not talking about acusing anyone–I am speaking of subjecting your will to the will of your shepherd. If there are provisions for kneeling, and you are able to get down & up without creating a ruckus, I have no problem with kneeling, but if you are creating a show of piety, kneeling in the aisle, possibly tripping someone, and you were instructed, you SHOULD follow the instructions of your Bishop.

I will follow the instructions in the GIRM, which was approved by the Holy See.

 

[Mysty101]

fix:

Huh? I am quoting Vatican instruction. It is not my opinion, but the directive of the Vatican. You may be over-stepping your authority by calling into question the obedience of those who rightfully kneel to receive.

I am quoting the GIRM

Movements and Posture

1. The gestures and posture of the priest, the deacon, and the ministers, as well as those of the people, ought to contribute to making the entire celebration resplendent with beauty and noble simplicity, so that the true and full meaning of the different parts of the celebration is evident and that the participation of all is fostered.52 Therefore, attention should be paid to what is determined by this General Instruction and the traditional practice of the Roman Rite and to what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God, rather than private inclination or arbitrary choice.